D&D 5e/True20/GnG Mashup

[Morlock]

I'm thinking about writing up a houseruled d20 type system. Here's the basic outline:

Base Rules: D&D 5E Basic Set (or Pathfinder, or 3.5 D20, or 5E "advanced," won't decide until 5e stuff is out)

House Rules:

Magic: True20 or Blue Rose (still need to go over the finer points of each and see which I prefer).

Hit Points: Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty (either 3.3 or the later, revised edition)

Ex: I'm toying with the idea of using E10 (I like E6 but I think with GnG E6 would probably be too far in that direction).

Some kind of luck or fate point mechanic; I'm open to suggestions here.

Obviously there will be plenty of knock-on house rules as I integrate the True20 and GnG stuff and tweak to taste.

Motives: I really detest the stuff I'm replacing. I've never liked D&D's magic system, and I've always found the HP rules to be a bridge too far for my suspension of disbelief. I'm wondering just how much the GnG rules will change the CR landscape for critters.

On the plus side, I'm working this up for a setting that will be working with a much more limited critter palette than standard D&D (more like WFRP or MERP's), and is in some ways sort of low magic. Compared to standard D&D, anyway. So, I won't have to worry about converting the whole critter catalog. But I would still very much like to know if anyone has any constructive thoughts or rules of thumb for correcting the challenge ratings for GnG rules.

Actually, I'd like any constructive thoughts, but that's one of the particular issues that springs to mind.

Also, I'm toying with the idea of representing some of the D&D spell list as tasks available to characters with the appropriate powers. Any advice on this front would be welcome, too.

 

[Morlock]

Anyone know why vBulletin is editing out my line breaks? Edit: never mind, got it sorted.

 

[innerdude]

I'm thinking about writing up a houseruled d20 type system. Here's the basic outline:

Base Rules: D&D 5E Basic Set (or Pathfinder, or 3.5 D20, or 5E "advanced," won't decide until 5e stuff is out)

House Rules:

Magic: True20 or Blue Rose (still need to go over the finer points of each and see which I prefer).

Hit Points: Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty (either 3.3 or the later, revised edition)

Ex: I'm toying with the idea of using E10 (I like E6 but I think with GnG E6 would probably be too far in that direction).

Some kind of luck or fate point mechanic; I'm open to suggestions here.

Obviously there will be plenty of knock-on house rules as I integrate the True20 and GnG stuff and tweak to taste.

Motives: I really detest the stuff I'm replacing. I've never liked D&D's magic system, and I've always found the HP rules to be a bridge too far for my suspension of disbelief. I'm wondering just how much the GnG rules will change the CR landscape for critters.

On the plus side, I'm working this up for a setting that will be working with a much more limited critter palette than standard D&D (more like WFRP or MERP's), and is in some ways sort of low magic. Compared to standard D&D, anyway. So, I won't have to worry about converting the whole critter catalog. But I would still very much like to know if anyone has any constructive thoughts or rules of thumb for correcting the challenge ratings for GnG rules.

Actually, I'd like any constructive thoughts, but that's one of the particular issues that springs to mind.

Also, I'm toying with the idea of representing some of the D&D spell list as tasks available to characters with the appropriate powers. Any advice on this front would be welcome, too.

Seriously, this sounds like a TON of work. I know, because maybe 3 years ago, I was kind of in the same boat. I was in a "hardcore" search mode to find the "perfect" D&D, even if it meant doing a crapload of houseruling.

I purchased several ENPublishing spell casting variants on PDF, I toyed with wholesale replacing Vancian casting with a spell point system; I looked at using Wounds / Vitality instead of straight hit points, I looked at action points, I looked at Trailblazer, I bought a bunch of Pathfinder stuff . . . .

Until eventually, I just realized, I was wasting my time. Why was I trying to munch all this together? I didn't have the time, I really just wanted to game with my friends, and do so without fighting the system every step of the way, and surely wasn't there a better way of doing this than having to do it all myself?

I'm not saying you shouldn't TRY . . . okay, maybe I am a bit. But really I'm saying, is the reward really worth it? If you're doing it primarily for the enjoyment of the exercise itself -- trying to figure out rules synergies, using your mental acuity to establish balance with your changes, etc. -- then go for it. The game of "making a game" can be a fulfilling pursuit all to itself.

But if you're really doing it out of frustration, you really don't WANT to go through that effort but really don't see any other choice to get what you want but DREAD the idea of having to do it -- I wouldn't.

For me, I eventually just said, "What the heck? It's pretty clear I don't really WANT to play or GM a 'D&D game' at all, I want something else. So why don't I just go straight to the 'something else'?"

If for whatever reason you're still "wedded" to the d20 family tree of fantasy games (e.g., your players don't want to learn a new "style" of system, etc.), at the very least, start by checking out both Fantasy Craft and Radiance RPG.

Both are built on the basic D&D 3.x engine, but bring a host of unique and fresh mechanics to the system "core." For me in particular, Fantasy Craft brings an elegance, coherence, and flexibility to the "D&D Engine" that nothing else I've ever seen has come close to. Not that it's any more "rules lite" than D&D 3 or Pathfinder, it just works all of the "fiddly bits" into a dramatically more coherent whole.

Fantasy Craft you can pick up a used copy of pretty cheap on Amazon (less than $20, in most cases). Radiance RPG you can download the player's handbook for free direct from the creator's Web site.

If you're okay drifting a little farther from the D&D family, I can't recommend Savage Worlds enough. Seriously, in some ways, to me Savage Worlds is the game that BECMI always wished it could be, even though the "core engine" looks nothing like D&D. But it's a fantastic gaming experience for "classic" D&D-style fantasy, and it ditches spellcasting and hitpoints.

Anyway. Just my $.02.

 

[Morlock]

First and foremost, I'm just doing it to do it. I'd like to throw something together and see how it plays, and if it's worth refining.

Where are you seeing the biggest workload? Monsters?

Other than the critters and ironing out the kinks between the disparate borrowings, I'm not seeing a ton of work, at least, not relative to, say, writing a new RPG from scratch. Lots of cut-and-paste.

I am curious about your D20 suggestions, though; do they have good ways of using D&D material (bestiaries, adventures) and "translating" challenge ratings/balance to correct for their differing systems?

 

[GMMichael]

Base Rules: D&D 5E Basic Set (or Pathfinder, or 3.5 D20, or 5E "advanced," won't decide until 5e stuff is out)

I'd go with 3.5. It's pretty solid.

Some kind of luck or fate point mechanic; I'm open to suggestions here.

This is easy - give your PCs a d6-generic-bonus per level, each day. If they roleplay well, give them another one.

Motives: I really detest the stuff I'm replacing. I've never liked D&D's magic system, and I've always found the HP rules to be a bridge too far for my suspension of disbelief. I'm wondering just how much the GnG rules will change the CR landscape for critters.

D&D wrote three new magic systems in Tome of Magic (3.5). Have you checked those out?
HP: yup, a little weak. Before you mess with them, let your players know.

Also, I'm toying with the idea of representing some of the D&D spell list as tasks available to characters with the appropriate powers. Any advice on this front would be welcome, too.

Try making spells into skills. Worked for me!

 

[Morlock]

I'd go with 3.5. It's pretty solid.

Any reason you'd pick it over 5e? I like what I'm hearing/seeing so far.

D&D wrote three new magic systems in Tome of Magic (3.5). Have you checked those out?

I've looked at a few alternate systems but the changes are never radical enough. A book of spells just doesn't do it for me. I chose True20's powers after a lot of looking. I wanted something that was more free-form and skill-based (like Ars Magica or MtA) that would allow casters to make up their own "stunts" on the fly, but also tone down the power levels quite a bit. Incidentally, True20's system intersects with Ex in an interesting way. Normally, the True20 magic system is a serious step down for casters in terms of raw power, but since it's feat-based it means casters are able to go on broadening their power selection after hitting the level cap without missing a stride. On the other hand, without some way to increase their power rank (caster level + 3), they'd hit a wall on what they can do with those powers. One way to allow them to continue to grow might be to use their CR, which continues to go up indefinitely, but that would probably make casters way overpowered.

But I'll take a peek at ToM, thanks for the suggestion.

HP: yup, a little weak. Before you mess with them, let your players know.

This isn't the sort of thing I'd spring on players mid-campaign, lol. It would take buy-in and a fresh setting and campaign.

Try making spells into skills. Worked for me!

I was thinking that I should be able to make a pretty straightforward formula for converting D&D spells to True20 magic tasks on the fly. 1: DM decides which powers are involved. 2: if caster has them, DM sets a DC for the task based on the spell's level (e.g., [10 + (spell level x 2)]).

 

[DDNFan]

Any reason you'd pick it over 5e? I like what I'm hearing/seeing so far.

I wouldn't. 5th ed has a far more numerically sound base game engine, which is more compatible with your design goals, which I presume are realism or simulationism based.

I like the idea of your project, but the best use of your time would probably be to wait for the DMG to come out, see what variant rules there are for grittiness, and then when those things are out in the open, decide what still needs fixing or changing to suit a playstyle. Basic D&D is a much better starting place, given it's going to be free for anyone to refer to, and they can't stop you from making or possibly even publishing your own house rules which are compatible with it.

But don't bother doing this until the final, full rules are out, you're likely going to be wasting a lot of time and still won't get all the offending bits removed or fixed (since at this point, nobody is aware).

To build on 5th edition, a "realistic meat HP module" that is based on Bounded HP, similar to Bounded Accuracy but for a character's physical toughness and health, would be ideal. It would have the side benefit for adding grittiness, but you would need lots of houserules like Cure Wounds would be overkill when cast at higher slots.

A good system would be that you gain only a point or two per level (depending on class) of HP beyond your Con score at first level, then your hit dice are damage mitigation instead, so you have a built in DR system. Then that leads you to think about DR systems, and then you have to alter ACs, and rebalance to-hit values, and then it rapidly becomes much more complex.

It is worth doing, if the community can validate the math basis of these tweaks which all have to work together. But wait for the DMG first. I would also, no matter what you do, keep the final math you come up with compatible with standard adventures and the Monster Manual, except with some large-scale adjustments like maybe -X to hit across the board if ACs go down by X due to the influence of the DR system. It won't be perfect, but it could result in a better game for those who like it, and then you could define HP as the amount of wounds that your character can withstand before they drop.

Most monsters would have BIG BAGS of HP compared to PCs. Small and medium humanoids could use the similar HP levels to PCs, while larger creatures have their normal values which would tend to be larger. But they wouldn't have HD to spend to act as DR either, to keep them easy to manage for the DM.

 

[Morlock]

I wouldn't. 5th ed has a far more numerically sound base game engine, which is more compatible with your design goals, which I presume are realism or simulationism based.

I like the idea of your project, but the best use of your time would probably be to wait for the DMG to come out, see what variant rules there are for grittiness, and then when those things are out in the open, decide what still needs fixing or changing to suit a playstyle. Basic D&D is a much better starting place, given it's going to be free for anyone to refer to, and they can't stop you from making or possibly even publishing your own house rules which are compatible with it.

Yeah that all sounds like good advice. It would be gold if 5e had a system to "bound" hp as you put it, but also keep balancing cues in place for the DM. Almost sounds like too much to ask, really.

I've been debating with myself over whether GnG is worth the trouble. E6 would keep hp fairly reasonable without all the complications of GnG, and leave challenge ratings intact to boot.

 

[DDNFan]

.

There's going to be a spell points or mana system in the DMG, that has been confirmed. So another thing I wouldn't bother with.

And if you wanted to accomplish a D&D Next / 5th ed "Bounded HP" module, I would gladly help and I'm sure many others would.

Here's my personal baseline :

HP at first level :

(Hp per level) * 1 + (Con score) * Size/toughness multiplier

This helps larger creatures have a good chunk more HP, where multiplier for medium+ creatures is:

1 + (Size - Medium) * 2

Small creatures have 0.75 con score for HP. Sorry halfling and gnome warriors, stick to the back for a while. A large creature would have 3x their con score in HP. See one, it's a good idea to run, or gang up on it. Expect some heavy hits and some casualties in face to face combat with such foes. A bear should have 26 Con or so since it's medium sized.

HP per level:
1 if you are any non-melee class, 2 if you are a melee class, maybe 3 for barbarians.

Then HP = meat / wounds / injuries. The biggest axe crit, 24 damage, is more than enough to kill any mortal in one shot, unless you are extremely tough and sufficiently high level. If you axe crit with a +5 to strength, that makes your max damage 12 + 5 *2 = 34, still more than enough to kill any human except extremely high level fighters in a single hit.

Barbarians would get lots of rage-based boosts, maybe their Temp HP is now enough to make them feel really tough. Or maybe they get 3 HP per level.

By default, use the HP as stated in the Monster Manual. Playtest it to see how badly it is broken, and which monsters need fixing, and how many need fixing. Do it with charts, graphs, and a comparison chart and graph for various "gritty" levels that you want.

Super large creatures should have several times the HP as humans, since HP is now meat. There would be no damage on a miss, but DR could allow hits to be achieved with lower D20 rolls while making plate armor feel tough and special. Only way to crit a guy with plate armor is with bludgeoning or a crit confirm with another weapon type. Fighting styles could allow auto-crit confirming vs plate armor or thick hides.

 

[Morlock]

There's going to be a spell points or mana system in the DMG, that has been confirmed. So another thing I wouldn't bother with.

Spell points are an improvement, but kinda like polishing a turd IMO. The problem is that list of spells just sitting there being the sum of a caster's range. True20 (and similar systems) let casters craft whatever effect they want out of their available powers. There's really no comparison with any spell list system.