D&D-ism you would sacrifice?

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

There would have to be some limits on it, but I think it would be within the realms of reason to design a system that could switch between d20 and 2d10, more or less unchanged. You'd have to be really careful with modifiers, more so than in a d20 system alone. And of course, switching the dice would produce a somewhat different play experience. That would be the point. But it could be made so that those two different play experiences worked.

I vastly prefer 2d10 over 3d6 for such subsitutions. Not only does it come closer to matching the possible range, but the percentages are almost intuitive. Each result comes out on an even percentage, and the curve is very regular. You can show people a chart of the possibilities, and they can make informed decision using it. We ran a house-ruled Fantasy Hero for awhile, where we swapped 3d6 for 2d10, for just that reason.

Surprising, d8+d12 works pretty well too, if you want to really flatten out the center.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

You're not talking about a 1d20 roll with the Arcana thing, though. That's a 2d20 roll. The fact that the d20s happen to be split up between two people is immaterial. You're rolling 2d20 in a system designed for 1d20, so naturally it creates problems. 4E addressed this by having "passive skills," where one person rolls 1d20 + skill against a DC of 10 + the other's skill. (Technically it should be 11 + skill, but I guess they decided the difference wasn't enough to worry about.)

In any event, the size of the numbers doesn't really affect how the probabilities shake out. If the range of skill modifiers is +1 to +15 and you roll d20, it looks much the same as a range of +1 to +6 on a d8. If it's too small a range, you can just make it bigger. If you start using multiple dice, that moves you onto a bell curve and it does look different... but even though I share your intuitive sense that a bell curve is "better," I have never been able to come up with a convincing argument for it in practice. A plain old d20 does the job just as well, requires one less step in the game arithmetic, and is much easier to work with mathematically.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Eh... I still prefer the bell curves and having small increments in bonuses having more impact. Probability-wise, I'm sure you're probably closer on what's actually up than I am since I haven't done much math on the subject... I just know that it feels that having a +3 instead of a +1 doesn't seem to mean as much when you're adding 1 to 20 additional points to the roll. Now that could just be a matter of perspective, and when the math is actually borne out it might turn out that the d20 method runs on the same path as other RPGs when it comes to probability... it just doesn't feel that way to me. And as they say, at some point perception becomes reality.

I dunno any others dice methods that would necessarily be better for D&D... I just know that as a mechanic, I've grown to slowly dislike the d20 system from a matter of perspective.

 

[Gryph]

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 would eliminate feats.

 

[RedTonic]

I'd eliminate the sorcerer/wizard dichotomy. No more daily spell memorization. (Is this what people mean by 'Vancian'? Never read his work.) More long-term ritualistic casting and more time-resolved spells.

I would also ditch the bard, rogue, paladin, and ranger. Time to re-write classes. Ditch the 'Cleric' as written; no more Tank Priest class. (Of course, I'd still want it buildable, just no longer default.)

 

[Argyle King]

Levels...

...at least in the sense the term is used now. I'd still have character's 'level up' and improve their abilities, but I'd want to break from the status quo D&D way of doing so.

 

[The Human Target]

I'm going to go with something flavor texty.

The Planes.

Want to go to the City of Brass? Its in a volcano in the middle of a desert.

The Abyss? Its actually below the Underdark at the center of the world.

The Feywild? Pick any old growth forest.

The celestial realms? Cloud cities in the upper atmosphere or on the moon.

The Shadowfell? A giant plateau in the northern mountains.

The D&D world is already fantastic. No need to have other even more fantastical planes.

 

[Gargoyle]

Chaotic and Lawful alignments. I think a tangible Good and Evil serve many purposes, and that Unaligned is a great option, but Chaotic and Lawful alignments are an unnecessary complication and best replaced with personality traits.

 

[Rel]

I'm going to go with something flavor texty.

The Planes.

Want to go to the City of Brass? Its in a volcano in the middle of a desert.

The Abyss? Its actually below the Underdark at the center of the world.

The Feywild? Pick any old growth forest.

The celestial realms? Cloud cities in the upper atmosphere or on the moon.

The Shadowfell? A giant plateau in the northern mountains.

The D&D world is already fantastic. No need to have other even more fantastical planes.

Actually this has some cool implications for world building. What if you have a world where harsh terrain makes travel very difficult or impossible between certain regions? What people think is "planar travel" is actually just teleportation between different parts of the world.

 

[CotV]

I'd have to go with alignment as well.