If you were able to design your own version of D&D, how would you do it?

[Emerikol]

Here would be my guiding principles.

1. The game is a system and not an adhoc set of exceptions.
2. No dissociative/dissonant/metagamey mechanics
3. Simple small set of classes - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. Each would then shine in their arena.
4. Wizard would be vancian with a lot of versatility. Very vulnerable to attack and disruption.
5. Fighters would be strong on attack and defense but simple to play.
6. Clerics would be good defense, okay physical attack, with healing/restoration coverage
7. Rogues would be excellent scouts, sneakers, cutthroats, device disablers, etc.. They'd also be decent on attack.
8. I'd make spells that traditionally were really weak a single use be at-will or encounter to make them better.
9. Most spells over 3rd would be single use period. Just the lower level spells might be a bit more flexible.
10. Magic items would be totally different. Few would just grant spell powers. Wands would adjust spell effectiveness like a sword would affect a fighters. Scrolls would be expensive. Potions would be similar to 3e but maybe a bit more costly. No magic marts.
11. Healing would be constitution bonus plus level recovered with overnight rest. Healing spells would restore as in most older versions of D&D except I'd add the targets level as a bonus.
12. ...probably more I haven't thought of....

 

[Lanefan]

Here would be my guiding principles.

1. The game is a system and not an adhoc set of exceptions.
2. No dissociative/dissonant/metagamey mechanics
3. Simple small set of classes - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. Each would then shine in their arena.
4. Wizard would be vancian with a lot of versatility. Very vulnerable to attack and disruption.
5. Fighters would be strong on attack and defense but simple to play.
6. Clerics would be good defense, okay physical attack, with healing/restoration coverage
7. Rogues would be excellent scouts, sneakers, cutthroats, device disablers, etc.. They'd also be decent on attack.
8. I'd make spells that traditionally were really weak a single use be at-will or encounter to make them better.
9. Most spells over 3rd would be single use period. Just the lower level spells might be a bit more flexible.
10. Magic items would be totally different. Few would just grant spell powers. Wands would adjust spell effectiveness like a sword would affect a fighters. Scrolls would be expensive. Potions would be similar to 3e but maybe a bit more costly. No magic marts.
11. Healing would be constitution bonus plus level recovered with overnight rest. Healing spells would restore as in most older versions of D&D except I'd add the targets level as a bonus.
12. ...probably more I haven't thought of....

There's some great stuff in this list. That said, one or two things leap out...

#1 - one problem with trying to shoehorn everything into a unified system, as we've seen with 3e-4e-5e, is that there's simply too many times where a different system - an exception - would work much better for just that one application. Another problem is that for the kitbash-inclined DM an exception-based - a.k.a. modular - design is way easier to work with than a unified design in that there's far less potential for knock-on effects from changes to any one particular rule or system.

#8 - danger, Will Robinson! At-wills are very iffy and tough to get right. If thsee spells are that useless, better perhaps to just drop them entirely or find a way to beef them up somehow.

#10 - not entirely sure what you're thinking here; can you elaborate a bit?

#11 - your overnight-rest healing idea really plays hard against the fighters and other high-h.p. types because it's flat across classes - recovery of 10 h.p. for a Wizard is a much bigger deal than 10 h.p. for a Fighter, assuming same level and Con bonus. Better is to make it based on a character's total h.p., as a straight fraction (which as a handy side effect is then trivially easy to modify if a DM wants a faster or slower overnight heal rate). What I use is 1/10 of your total, rounding ALL fractions up - a character with max 30 h.p. rests back 3, at 31 it goes to 4. Easy to change this fraction to 1/8 or 1/5 or whatever if a DM so desires.

As for curing spells, I'd posit that the target's level shouldn't matter but the caster's maybe should, if level is to enter into it at all.

 

[5ekyu]

I suppose one core change i would definitely have liked to see is the following...

move every class archetype choice to 3rd level and let the first two levels be learning the core basics of the class - beginner at 1st, advanced at 2nd, while holding the major commitment to 3rd level for everybody.

Why?

So that for each class in play you have a few levels to see "how this works", "how this table is being run", "What my other partners bring in, etc and generally get a very fundamental idea of how things are playing out and which choices offer you which practical gains in the specific - for your table/GM/group.

These would also create in effect a mini-tier at 3rd where everybody makes their calls on where to commit - and likely as not in-character that can be a sort of group dialog if they want - after all, several levels worth of adventures in you have some practical team play.

For clerics, you study a pantheon at 1st and 2nd but then have to commit to a god and a domain at 3rd as a rite of devotion.
For sorcs, you start tapping that well off "odd" at first then more at second but when you hit third its a (perhaps literally) transformative awakening.
For warlocks, the first two levels are the hunt for the patron or "jpb interview" period, devloping basic arcane arts to get the attention of the patron (or other flavor) and the 3rd level choice is where your pact is signed and things really take off.
Wizards - early levels are basics but at third you have to knuckle down and specialize... choose a major as it were.
Similar for the martials and the others - I might even hold heavy armor off fighters until 2nd level. as part of the basic-advanced split.

personally i find the options to make the more restrictive choices and narrowing of focus type decisions to be better overall if they come *after* a bit of play with the table/gm/group, not before you even know your party.

But thats me.

 

[generic]

I suppose one core change i would definitely have liked to see is the following...

move every class archetype choice to 3rd level and let the first two levels be learning the core basics of the class - beginner at 1st, advanced at 2nd, while holding the major commitment to 3rd level for everybody.

Why?

So that for each class in play you have a few levels to see "how this works", "how this table is being run", "What my other partners bring in, etc and generally get a very fundamental idea of how things are playing out and which choices offer you which practical gains in the specific - for your table/GM/group.

These would also create in effect a mini-tier at 3rd where everybody makes their calls on where to commit - and likely as not in-character that can be a sort of group dialog if they want - after all, several levels worth of adventures in you have some practical team play.

For clerics, you study a pantheon at 1st and 2nd but then have to commit to a god and a domain at 3rd as a rite of devotion.
For sorcs, you start tapping that well off "odd" at first then more at second but when you hit third its a (perhaps literally) transformative awakening.
For warlocks, the first two levels are the hunt for the patron or "jpb interview" period, devloping basic arcane arts to get the attention of the patron (or other flavor) and the 3rd level choice is where your pact is signed and things really take off.
Wizards - early levels are basics but at third you have to knuckle down and specialize... choose a major as it were.
Similar for the martials and the others - I might even hold heavy armor off fighters until 2nd level. as part of the basic-advanced split.

personally i find the options to make the more restrictive choices and narrowing of focus type decisions to be better overall if they come *after* a bit of play with the table/gm/group, not before you even know your party.

But thats me.

Hmm... maybe, but a few of the options you mentioned seem rather meta, with the Warlock suggestion having little justification. Warlocks have no arcane abilities (unless they're a member of another class that casts spells) before they forge their pact. Removing 1st level archetypes for the Warlock is (IMHO) pretty silly.

However, everyone's opinions differ, and mine are probably unpopular anyway!

 

[5ekyu]

Hmm... maybe, but a few of the options you mentioned seem rather meta, with the Warlock suggestion having little justification. Warlocks have no arcane abilities (unless they're a member of another class that casts spells) before they forge their pact. Removing 1st level archetypes for the Warlock is (IMHO) pretty silly.

However, everyone's opinions differ, and mine are probably unpopular anyway!

If you choose to limit your patrons do that none of them put their prospects thru paces and initiations before sealing the deal, that's cool.
If you choose to limit your patrons to be do vulnerable that not even minimal aptitude is required or sought, that's cool.
If all your patrons have to offer the house right away... that's cool.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you were able to design your own version of D&D, how would you do it?

5e, with Guidance being 1st level (perhaps with a small bonus bump) and removing the bogus text about the Druid's "won't".

 

[Piratecat]

If you had asked me this question, I would have designed something that looks a lot like 3.5, as it seemed the perfect D&D at the time to me.

If you ask me now, I'll probably redesign 5e, with only minor tweaks.

I know, right? I loved 3e (possibly inappropriately, if you know what I mean, and I think you do), and 5e is a joy. I'm seriously irked that I've really just run the game instead of played it. We just finished a 10 year campaign that had started in 4e.

That said, I had to dodge this question entirely when designing Swords of the Serpentine. It was definitely a process of "think of what you love about sword and sorcery heroes, and model that," instead of "recreate D&D with a different rules set" -- that latter would have been a disaster. So I asked myself "how can I hack TimeWatch or GUMSHOE in general into something that feels like epic fantasy?" Then I playtested the hell out of it - over 200 people over 2 years, which isn't so bad for basically one GM - and cut everything that didn't completely delight me.

 

[generic]

I've added a few new items to the list I posted previously:

If I were to design the next edition of D&D, then it would look somewhat like 5E, but would incorporate the changes enumerated below:

1. The collapse of saving throws back into will/reflex/fortitude.

2. The inclusion of the Mystic class (preferably renamed the Psion) in the standard class array.

3. The "propping up" of feats. This works in conjuction with a few of my proposals that lie immediately below.

4. The collapse of the Fighter and Barbarian into one class with subclasses and sub-subclasses.

5. The collapse of the Ranger and Rogue into one class with sub-classes and sub-subclasses.

6. The collapse of the Wizard and Sorcerer into one "arcanist" class with subclasses and sub-subclasses.

7. The inclusion of more detailed weather rules.

New items:

8. Collapse the Cleric and Paladin into a unified "Theurge" class with two subclasses and divine domain sub-subclasses.

9. Restore the "difficult" lighting rules of previous editions.

10. The retention of the Warlock class, but with significant changes, making them a true thirdcaster with a greater variety of non-spell abilities.

 

[Henry]

I know, right? I loved 3e (possibly inappropriately, if you know what I mean, and I think you do), and 5e is a joy.

Bad Kitty! (gets water bottle)

That said, I had to dodge this question entirely when designing Swords of the Serpentine. It was definitely a process of "think of what you love about sword and sorcery heroes, and model that," instead of "recreate D&D with a different rules set" -- that latter would have been a disaster. So I asked myself "how can I hack TimeWatch or GUMSHOE in general into something that feels like epic fantasy?" Then I playtested the hell out of it - over 200 people over 2 years, which isn't so bad for basically one GM - and cut everything that didn't completely delight me.

If it plays anything like the fantasy gumshoe I remember (the one with the beggar-kids) then it should be a lot of fun, can't wait.

 

[Piratecat]

If it plays anything like the fantasy gumshoe I remember (the one with the beggar-kids) then it should be a lot of fun, can't wait.

Same game, more refinement. You'll be happy.