D&D-ism you would sacrifice?

[UngainlyTitan]

Hit Points.

Anything that models real-world health and sickness and injury better would be a huge step forward for the game. The key is to keep it comprehensible for the average gamer, which is why it's been so hard to do.

I probably woulkd not play it and I suspect that many others would not either.

I spent many years in search of more realistic combat models and what experience, research, life and gaming has taught me about fighting is that it is too dangerous.

It does not make for good heroic fantasy, hit point mechanics make for more predictible mechanics. Now a good argument could be made that 4e could do with a little more swing in the combats.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

As for what D&'ism I would give up. I would be inclined to give up dailies and maybe introdiuce a recharge mechanic. May be burn healing surges for recharge of powers.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Clerics.

They hardwire too many things into the game's assumptions about the world, magic, and religion.

Yeah, I'd drop clerics. I'd go a bit further and drop the idea that divine magic is separate from arcane magic. A cleric would be basically a type of figher/magic-user.

 

[Shadeydm]

That PCs are statistically behind if they don't have a X amount of magic items at level Y.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I probably woulkd not play it and I suspect that many others would not either.

Not saying that there isn't some truth to that, but the thread is about "sacrificing D&D-isms" so the same is likely true of anyone's suggestion. However, I'd point to the relative business success of 4e (whether you like it or hate it) as a sign of the D&D brand's robustness and the willingness of some of its audience to accept radical changes.

My feeling is that there has been a recent movement towards naturalistic fiction (not necessarily realistic) in books, movies, and television, while D&D has moved in the opposite direction. What I am suggesting is a nod towards reality, a sense that characters can have lasting wounds, feel pain, and can die, not a system that tracks which bones you've broken or what your blood pressure is. I have yet to see a truly great health system but if they could do it, it's likely the only thing that would get me to buy a 5e. I'm about to be a graduate biomedical science student, so to me, health is the most important target for improvement in the D&D rules. I understand people of different backgrounds will feel differently. Hopefully it makes for an interesting thread.

For the record, I use a modified vp/wp system based on UA, which is I think is worlds better than the core system but still deeply flawed.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Not saying that there isn't some truth to that, but the thread is about "sacrificing D&D-isms" so the same is likely true of anyone's suggestion. However, I'd point to the relative business success of 4e (whether you like it or hate it) as a sign of the D&D brand's robustness and the willingness of some of its audience to accept radical changes.

My feeling is that there has been a recent movement towards naturalistic fiction (not necessarily realistic) in books, movies, and television, while D&D has moved in the opposite direction. What I am suggesting is a nod towards reality, a sense that characters can have lasting wounds, feel pain, and can die, not a system that tracks which bones you've broken or what your blood pressure is. I have yet to see a truly great health system but if they could do it, it's likely the only thing that would get me to buy a 5e. I'm about to be a graduate biomedical science student, so to me, health is the most important target for improvement in the D&D rules. I understand people of different backgrounds will feel differently. Hopefully it makes for an interesting thread.

For the record, I use a modified vp/wp system based on UA, which is I think is worlds better than the core system but still deeply flawed.

I think a lasting wound system could be easily added to 4e via the death save mechanics and the disease track
In that if a character is making death saves and they stabilise then they gain a would condition and now have a possiblity of being on the disease track (or something very like it).

Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan could probably win 999 out of 1000 barfights but it is possible that in fight number 5 some mook gets a lucky shot in with a pool cue or a bottle and kills him.

Now a gritty game or even one with low probability random death can be fun but frankly it is not D&D at least as far as I am concerned.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Let's say you get a major influence during the design phase of a version of D&D. What D&D-ism would you sacrifice?

For purposes of this answer, it isn't important that everyone agree that the thing you would sacrifice is critical to D&D. It only matters that you think it is, but you'd still be willing to cut it out--maybe even against your better judgment as to what the audience would expect.

Example to follow ...

I'd ditch the 4E alignment system and go back to the 9 alignments of earlier versions of D&D.

I'd also scale back on healing surges - don't really like the overall idea and it seems like the players have too many of them.

 

[howandwhy99]

Rogue skills
Assassins
Outer Planar adventures
"Good and Evil" as game mechanics / alignments
Ability Score rolls
Spell memorization
Psionics - for Olgar
Printed maps
Individual initiative as a rule

 

[the Jester]

Wealth by level guidelines of any sort.

 

[innerdude]

Vancian Magic, closely followed behind by a different hit point mechanic. Something that still provides "heroics," but also gives a liiiiiiitle bit more realistic take than "He's up and fighting, oh wait---now he's down."

Combination hitpoints / wound track.