D&D-ism you would sacrifice?

[Aberzanzorax]

Rounds.

One thing I like about the idea from Arcanis's new game (as presented in the thread on it, I've not played it, and it COULD be awful) is the idea of actions taking a certain amount of time.

I'd go with more of a "weapon speed" "tick" based system.

 

[Dausuul]

+X items. No question, hands down. +X items force adjustment of the system math to accommodate them; they necessitate "patching" to keep abilities that use them on a level with abilities that don't; they require the DM to follow a fixed model of when to hand out magical gear, and encourage an entitlement mentality among players ("we should have +3 weapons by this level!"); they drive level-based hyperinflation (high-level gear costs ludicrous amounts of money); and they are utterly boring.

Against all that, their only benefit is providing a way of saying, "This weapon is cooler than that weapon. See? See how much cooler it is? It has bigger numbers! Big numbers are cool!"

After that, I'd target ability scores having "knock-on" effects, like boosting your attack bonus and your damage. I'm not fond of Vancian casting either, but that's mostly a personal quirk.

 

[Bluenose]

Escalating hit points. Cut them, and you'll have a game which remains risky at high levels, and creatures which do have high hit points (dragons, giants, etc) will be properly scary.

 

[Rel]

I would cut out 4e and either revert to 3.5, 'buy' pathfinder (make it a setting atleast for a D&D world) and use rules accordingly

this will make some of you mad, as I know it has....good.

It didn't make me mad. It just made you look like a dick.

Avoid that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[drothgery]

Wealth by level guidelines of any sort.

And I'll still say that if you do this without ditching the 'common, powerful magic items' trope, it's insane (or at least an invitation for highly unbalanced games).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Greg K]

I would drop
1. Clerics as armored Priests: I would separate the class into Holy Warrior and Priest
2. Cleric as healer
3. Cleric tied to Turn Undead
4. Daily powers
5. Armor Class: I'd separate into Defense (dodge/evade) and damage reduction
6. Escalating Hit Points (or remove hp entirely for a True20/M&M Damage Save). With Defense based upon level, Feats and maneuvers that allow characters to sacrifice hit bonus for AC, and Action Points/Hero Points that allow rerolls or die roll modifications to simulate luck/heroism, I don't see a need for them to cover as much as they do nor to increase per level

 

[DEFCON 1]

The d20.

It just produces too wide of a span of randomization for my taste. The fact that a character with a +1 bonus to Arcana could beat someone with a +19 bonus to Arcana is something I just don't particularly like. Especially having played some many other games involving dice pools, or rolling rolling multiple dice of the same type to reach target numbers etc.

The variance between different skill/attack bonuses becomes lessened when you add such a large random element. Being +8 is much more important than being +5 when you're adding a d6 to both, than it is when you add a d20 to them.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

rolling multiple dice of the same type to reach target numbers etc.

The problem with this idea is that it makes eyeballing off-the-cuff modifiers much, much harder. E.g., a +1 bonus in a d20-based system is a +5% change in the rate of success (except in the very, very extreme cases).

In a 3d6 system it can vary wildly; if you need a 10 to start with, a +1 bonus is worth a +12% change in the rate of success; if you need a 5 to start with, a +1 bonus is only a 1% change in the rate of success.