D&D General What are the coolest/most innovative mechanics D&D could take from other games?

[DeviousQuail]

I'll have to try a 3 action mechanic game at some point. It sounds intriguing. Coriolis uses a 3 action point mechanic. It sounds similar, but I think it plays very different.

Each type of action uses X number of action points and your reactions are included in those 3 points. For example: a Normal attack is 2 AP, a Slow attack is 3 AP with a bonus to the roll, and a Fast attack is 1 AP with a penalty to the roll. Defending against an attack is 1 AP and is a reaction. You aren't automatically hit if you don't defend. Defending just gives you an additional chance to thwart your enemies by reducing damage, disarming them, making a counterattack, etc. Refreshing AP at the end of the turn like @FrozenNorth suggested sounds like a cool optional rule that I will need to try next time I play.

 

[Andvari]

It's interesting, but I think I prefer a more old-school approach. The 3 action system offers higher resolution, but it also makes turns take longer because they are more complex, require more die rolls and more planning.

On some occasions it also feels like Paizo made some things actions for no reason other than to get rid of one of the three actions.

For example, instead of just gaining an AC bonus from a shield, you have to spend an action to raise your shield every turn.

 

[Mannahnin]

It's interesting, but I think I prefer a more old-school approach. The 3 action system offers higher resolution, but it also makes turns take longer because they are more complex, require more die rolls and more planning.

On some occasions it also feels like Paizo made some things actions for no reason other than to get rid of one of the three actions.

For example, instead of just gaining an AC bonus from a shield, you have to spend an action to raise your shield every turn.

Every turn, really?

 

[FrozenNorth]

On some occasions it also feels like Paizo made some things actions for no reason other than to get rid of one of the three actions.

For example, instead of just gaining an AC bonus from a shield, you have to spend an action to raise your shield every turn.

Yup, people like the 3-action system until they need to move 10’ to open a door then move through the door and can’t do anything else because that took 3 actions.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Every turn, really?

Yup.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yup.

Shields must be badass, if you trade a potential third attack to defend with one.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Shields must be badass, if you trade a potential third attack to defend with one.

IIRC, it's more that iterative attacks are significantly penalized. So you're giving up an attack that will probably miss for some extra defense.

 

[billd91]

Shields must be badass, if you trade a potential third attack to defend with one.

Well, if you also have a shield block feat, you can also take a reaction to intercept incoming damage with it. So you may end up buying replacement shields a lot until you get one with higher hardness.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My contribution would be from various games in the OSR space: I want to get rid of skills.

In 2000, skills were hot stuff, but "roll a d20 to succeed at this narrow application of an ability score" is a snoozer. We also wind up with certain ultra-significant skills (PERCEPTION) and some fairly worthless skills that relies on a DM to make them useful (like most INT skills).

I'd rather replace them with traits that just....give you benefits. Rather than a Religion skill, your character is "Religious" and they can invoke it just to know things about religion instead of having to roll. Rather than a Perception skill, your character is "Perceptive" and immune to Surprise or something. Now, I don't need to pump my Dex just to have a good stealth roll; I can just be "Stealthy."

I was just writing in my game report on Five Torches Deep that this is basically how proficiencies work. There isn't a fixed list of them; they are descriptive and free-form and it's up to the player to come up with plans that take advantage of them, and then up to the GM to adjudicate. I really like it.

I mean, 5e skills are actually supposed to work that way, too, except that there's a fixed list of them shared by all classes, for reasons I don't understand.

 

[Andvari]

IIRC, it's more that iterative attacks are significantly penalized. So you're giving up an attack that will probably miss for some extra defense.

Yeah, second attack is at -5, third is at -10. So if you've spend 2 actions attack and have an action left, it's about figuring what to do with it that isn't attacking. Such as raising your shield. (+2 AC, which also reduces chance of you being critically hit)