D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[ezo]

The discussion of what the "sweet spot" of a skill list looks like is a tricky one.

I was browsing through my Survival Guides the other day, and I had almost forgotten how finicky the skill selections got. Which was REALLY finicky; like fire-building was distinct from herbalism, was distinct from set snares/traps, was distinct from predict weather, etc. level of finicky. 3e's list was a massive move in the right direction. The 5e list is better (although making the distinction re: tool proficiencies is flat-out "weird"), but I still think many low-level adventurers are a little short-handed skill-wise.

I'm still waiting for a great skill system that hits the right midpoint for me. I haven't seen it yet, but I keep hoping.

I think you might like one direction we're moving with skill "groups". It is, in many ways, similar to 5E but more distinctive in what you can do. For example: our Survival encompasses everything listed below. The idea is that you don't often learn a single skill (just as fire-building) without gaining exposure to other "related" or relavent skills. A PC with "Survival" would have a good chance of being familiar if not actually trained in everything in the list.

As far as low-level adventurers get in 5E, I think part of that is a carry over in "incorrect thinking" from prior adventures. I commonly like to use Athletics as an example. First, I'll begin by saying "Proficiency" is a HORRIBLE term for 5E!!! You are NOT proficient, you have additional/focus training in said skill.

As you can see, Strength already measures athletic training, so "proficiency" in Athletics is a focus on something that is already there.

We commonly don't think of the ability scores alread including training in the aspects of it, but they do.

So, low-level adventurers already having training in a lot of things. "Proficiency" is a greater focus on something they are already trained in. That training is represented by the corresponding ability score and is why (partially) you get to add your ability score to ability checks.

I'm not, personally, a fan of this aspect of 5E skills. Ability scores IMO should only encompass raw talent, etc. and not any part of training. That is what proficiency SHOULD Be---training.

It's weird.

 

[Reynard]

what gets in the way of that for Shadowdark?

Shadowdark just doesn't focus its tools in that way. Ot is built for longer delves and less interested in travel. That's not a knock on the system, it's just an analysis of its design.

 

[ezo]

Mostly yes, that works. Although it's a bit weird that a caster can be "too tired" to throw another 2nd level spell, but still have 3 1sts, a 3rd, 2 4ths, and a 5th. You can rationalize it, but it's awkward and weird.

Well, that is more the concept behind a "spell point" system, so if you have the points for a 5th-level spell, you obviously would have the points for a 2nd-level spell.

I also just really like roll to cast systems because it just makes magic feel less reliable and therefore more...magical. YMMV.

Agreed. At least when under pressure (like in combat), you should have to roll. They question becomes, are there any other consequences for failure besides the spell fizzles?

The rest of the magic issues are mostly flavor ones. I'd love a system that came with some "set as you like" dials on that stuff.

LOL man you would probably have LOVED a system I worked on about 20 years ago! Every spell was unique as casters had to design their spells. Once designed, a spell could be replicated or taught to another.

You chose every aspect of the spell:

• focus (combat, movement, transformation, etc.)
• source (fire, animal, darkness, etc.)
• range (in feet)
• area/targets
• etc.

Each choice would affect how easily the spell could be cast and how much drain it forced on the caster. The more powerful spell-builds could knock out a PC or even kill them if successfully cast!

I'll never forget one time when we had a player design a water/movement spell which had a large enough affect to capsize an enemy vessel in the ocean. The character ended up falling unconscious, but saved the day.

 

[DarkCrisis]

5. Surprised party just gets disadvantage on initiative now, meaning the surprised party could still go first.

Wait what?

Wow. All the other changes you mentioned I fully expect save points outside of boss rooms next and KO status instead of death in all situations.

 

[JohnSnow]

See, without knowing more, but at first glance this sort of stuff seems "fiddly" to me...

Like Advantage/Disadvantage, it’s one of those things that sounds fiddly, but is very simple in practice.

Switch out part of your bonus for a die that roughly hits that average, and if the die result is a 3 or higher (and the attack hits), the stunt works. Simple. Flexible.

 

[Aldarc]

Shadowdark (which is where I'm leaning at present, although my gaming group is currently on hiatus) stops at 10th, and I'd call it "Old-school D&D compatible." Kelsey took the streamlined design of modern games (Core check mechanic: "roll d20, high is good") and reworked everything around it with the deliberate intent to create a game with a solid old-school "feel."

I saw this post in the middle of the night, but I have more time this afternoon to respond.

While I agree that Shadowdark evidences modern design, I don't necessarily agree with your characterization here that "roll d20, high is good" is necessarily somehow more modern to the seeming exclusion of other design choices a game may make for its resolution system. I agree that it's more intuitive and (subjectively) better than THAC0 and more old school D&D games/clones that adhere to it.

Let's again take Dragonbane. It's roll under. However, its d20 roll under skill-rating system is indebted to the IP's origins in BRP/RuneQuest, which is also why it has ducks. In effect, this means that the GM is not establishing a DC beforehand, nor are the players are not looking at the GM to see if they succeed. IME, this roll under system tends to be much quicker in play than d20 vs. AC as players know as soon as they roll whether they succeed or fail. If you don't think that this streamlines and quickens things at the table, then I don't know what else to tell you.

I would also say that Dragonbane evidences more modern design elements than Shadowdark. After all, the term "Neo-Trad" was coined in 2015 by Tomas Härenstam to describe the sort of games that Free League were creating: “it’s got the production values, ease of use and plentiful campaign material of a traditional RPG, combined with the kind of clever and thematic rules design usually found in the indie games.” This originally applied to their Year Zero Engine system, but IMHO it definitely carries over into Dragonbane.

There's a bunch of other things I like about it, like Kelsey's approach to monster design (I'd call it "5e-Lite:" most monsters get A signature ability that lets them stand out from the rest, but they don't get a bunch of them).

When a GM attacks with a Monster, the GM rolls on the Monster's unique attack chart. IME, this also makes thing quick, interesting, and surprising for the GM, reducing the "what should I do?" mental workload for the GM with monster actions.

Check DCs range from 9 to 18.

There are no GM-designated DCs in Dragonbane as players are rolling under their PC's derived skill level. However, circumstances may confer Boons and Banes on those rolls.

And even a 10th-level fighter tops out at an average of 50 hit points.

By default a PC's total number of HP in Dragonbane equals their Con score. That's it. There are no levels in Dragonbane so HP remains consistent, though there is one heroic ability that can increase HP (i.e., Robust). So your Fighter's max HP is likely 18 HP at the beginning and end of the campaign.

Two of the big selling points for me were that one, I really like Kelsey's reworking of magic; not just that she made a non-Vancian system, but also that she totally condensed and rewrote the D&D spell list. I'm sure there are some spells that are "missing," but I couldn't offhand tell you what they are (with the exception of Raise Dead and its more potent brethren) in only 5 spell "Tiers."

Dragonbane uses a hybrid-Vancian magic system with both roll to cast and mana points.

A mage chooses their school (Animism, Elementalism, or Mentalism). There is no Wizard/Arcane vs. Cleric/Divine divide. Mages have a skill level in their school. A mage rolls against their skill level to succeed. They memorize and prepare spells equal to their base Int level. Spells also cost Willpower points, though if a Mage has no Willpower points, they can also fuel their spells with HP. Mages can also cast spells in their grimoire that they have unprepared but these take double the time. There are also possible bonus effects or mishaps when rolling a Dragon (Nat 1) or Demon (Nat 20).

And secondly, I really like that it still uses Advantage/Disadvantage, Death Saves and has a version of Inspiration (Luck Tokens). Those are all 5e innovations that I love. (Another 5e thing I adored was proficiency dice, but I think I was one of the only ones).

Advantage/Disadvantage is part of Dragonbane in the form of Boons and Banes. Banes and Boons cancel out. However, in contrast to 5e Adv/Dis, Boons and Banes can stack. So for example, you can have two Boons (roll 3d20, take the lowest) or two Banes (roll 3d20, take the highest). Players can optionally push their rolls to try again by voluntarily taking on a Condition after their roll, which confers a Bane on rolls associated with that attribute.

Death Saves are also part of Dragonbane. Three successful rolls against your Con results in recovering d6 HP. Three failed rolls against your Con results in Death. Additionally another PC within 10 meters can Persuade you to Rally, so you can keep fighting at 0 HP while also making death saves.

There is no Inspiration; however, the option for PC re-rolls are handled through the Push Your Roll mechanic, which I mentioned above. I tend to like this much better than Inspiration as this puts this in the players' hands and not fishing the GM for Inspiration with "good roleplay" while also having a cost (Bane on skills associated with attribute) and limit (one condition per attribute) associated with it.

However, it's also super-simple (if not always "easy") to create classes for.

Professions in Dragonbane amount to a heroic ability, skills, and a d6 roll for starting equipment.

 

[JohnSnow]

As I said, there’s a lot about Dragonbane I like. My point wasn’t that “d20, roll high” is the only acceptable “modern” mechanic, but the notion of a universal resolution mechanic, something older editions of D&D don’t have. Dragonbane is always “roll low,” which is fine, modern and streamlined.

I may swipe more than a few of those mechanics. I just can’t get past “rolling a 1 is good, rolling a 20 is bad.”

I’ve just never liked “roll under” mechanics. That’s a purely personal psychological thing.

 

[ezo]

Like Advantage/Disadvantage, it’s one of those things that sounds fiddly, but is very simple in practice.

Switch out part of your bonus for a die that roughly hits that average, and if the die result is a 3 or higher (and the attack hits), the stunt works. Simple. Flexible.

So the cost is, in theory, if you roll low enough on the die, not only does the special "thing" fail to trigger, but the attack/ check/ save or whatever could fail as well?

I suppose a lot would depend on what stunts you could do, what the number on the you have to roll to succeed is, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I said, there’s a lot about Dragonbane I like. My point wasn’t that “d20, roll high” is the only acceptable “modern” mechanic, but the notion of a universal resolution mechanic, something older editions of D&D don’t have. Dragonbane is always “roll low,” which is fine, modern and streamlined.

I may swipe more than a few of those mechanics. I just can’t get past “rolling a 1 is good, rolling a 20 is bad.”

I’ve just never liked “roll under” mechanics. That’s a purely personal psychological thing.

A lot of folks seem to have an issue with it, for similar reasons. Which to me is a shame, as it's a perfectly workable mechanic. My favorite RPG system uses it.

 

[ezo]

Roll "under" would work better IMO if rolling exactly what you needed was the best result, not a 1.

It is the sort of Price Is Right thinking, getting as close to the mark as possible "without going over".

For example, suppose in whatever rpg you need a 12 or lower on the d20 for success. Then a roll of 12 would be the best you can do, while a 1 would be the lowest level of success, and of course 13 or higher would be failure.