D&D-ism you would sacrifice?

[Sunseeker]

The tiered power system 4e, probably give all spells an added diceroll in the way NPCs have to recharge it.

AC. It's redundant. After reading through the Star Wars RPG, there's really NO need for it at all. Everything that AC represents can be replicated with reflex.

Straight hit points. I like augmented systems, particularly wound systems, and while they're a pain to track sometimes, limb systems are fun too.

 

[Holy Bovine]

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

Of course a DM can fix that with ease regardless of system if he is willing to actually build encounters and challenges around the party's actual power level rather than what it says in the 'level' box of their character sheet.

Don't get me wrong - I agree 100% with you! I just think any D&D game has to rely more on the competency of the DM to adjudicate the strength of an encounter vs. the party's power level. I also don't think this is hard to do but 3E tried to codify it and people got a bit lazy in this regard.

As far as a 'D&Dism' to ditch how about XP for murdering things? I'd actually like to see a return to getting XP for treasure and challenges overcome rather than having every monster be worth points to increase your own power. Now that is video-gamey!

 

[OnlineDM]

I would cut the idea of the daily resource, and build a system where a day's adventures ended when it was time for the day's adventures to end, not when the party ran out of spells/surges/whathaveyous.

I'd give you more XP, but I can't right now. I completely agree on this one.

Granted, a DM can already run a game where this is de-facto the rule (you get to sleep when it's safe to do so, and right now it's not, so there!), but it would be lovely if this were the rule as written.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

As far as a 'D&Dism' to ditch how about XP for murdering things? I'd actually like to see a return to getting XP for treasure and challenges overcome rather than having every monster be worth points to increase your own power.

I agree with this although I think it would be interesting if they expanded the number of currencies of development - in terms of character skill, status and destiny rather than just having the single XP catchall. Following on from your point above, such rewards are best earned over the course of a story/quest arc. It does not matter if one or a hundred creatures are defeated (aside from the obvious risk of trying to defeat a hundred creatures instead of one); the same amount of story reward is earned.
Against this however is the pervasive kill them and take their stuff ethos which is hard-coded into the players minds as much as it is hard-coded into the rewards structure. In addition, I suppose it is commonsense that if you defeat a hundred creatures compared to just one, your character is going to get significantly better at fighting and surviving (as well as taking lots of treasure).
Balancing these two things is difficult. The underlying purpose is to de-emphasize combat and killing things (I mean when was the last time your group just knocked the bad guy out)? Perhaps by limiting what is earned for defeating most creatures in combat to a momentary reward such as a free surge or action point that is either used or lost is the way to go (with only significant challenges actually awarding XP). I think this is a case where 4e had the right direction and idea but failed to apply it to best effect.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As far as a 'D&Dism' to ditch how about XP for murdering things? I'd actually like to see a return to getting XP for treasure and challenges overcome rather than having every monster be worth points to increase your own power. Now that is video-gamey!

It wouldn't bother me if XP was formally separated from challenge altogether. Or rather, it wouldn't bother me if leveling was so separated. If you've done that, you don't need XP for leveling anymore, and thus might use it for something else--action points or some other mechanic not tied to leveling.

The leveling would be tied to whatever made sense for the style of game you are running. In more traditional style, get the treasure of the adventure, level. In a more story telling style, simply participate in the story, you level--even if you pull a Cugel the Clever kind of outcome where you lose the treasure at the very end. In a more explicity operational style--or narrative style with a very different focus--finishing the adventure is what gives you the in-game elements that let you level--the favor of the local lord who provides training or whatever.

Would actually be rather interesting in a 4E variant to have the raw power of leveling tied to one of those other things instead of XP, but have the acquisitiion of feats, powers, etc. be done via XP.

 

[Holy Bovine]

It wouldn't bother me if XP was formally separated from challenge altogether. Or rather, it wouldn't bother me if leveling was so separated. If you've done that, you don't need XP for leveling anymore, and thus might use it for something else--action points or some other mechanic not tied to leveling.

The leveling would be tied to whatever made sense for the style of game you are running. In more traditional style, get the treasure of the adventure, level. In a more story telling style, simply participate in the story, you level--even if you pull a Cugel the Clever kind of outcome where you lose the treasure at the very end. In a more explicity operational style--or narrative style with a very different focus--finishing the adventure is what gives you the in-game elements that let you level--the favor of the local lord who provides training or whatever.

Would actually be rather interesting in a 4E variant to have the raw power of leveling tied to one of those other things instead of XP, but have the acquisitiion of feats, powers, etc. be done via XP.

For the most part we have done away with XP in my games. Some players do like it as a 'way to keep score'. I'm really starting to think the old Warhammer FRPG had the right of it - small increases given out on a near constant basis. In that game you need 100XPs to gain a skill, ability increase, spell etc (some spells cost more). The rulebook flat out says every player at the table should get a certain amount of XPs every session just for being there then some players can get additional XPs for heroic deeds and what not. I always had the players vote for whom they thought did the best job at RPing, combat etc that session and then they got a +25-50% bonus over everyone else. That was a great time.

 

[Stormonu]

Drop levels for a pure skill-based system. Yes, it's a bit harder to gauge difficulty, but plenty of other systems have moved on from the level system.

Level systems just create problems where you have to fight kobolds and orcs at low levels and beholders, liches and dragons at another. In a leveled system at some point orcs just cease being a threat. Its like they suddenly vanish from the adventurer's world.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I wouldn't sacrifice any D&D-isms. I'd look for D&D-isms to reinstate. After all, it's the D&D-isms that make the game D&D and not just another generic fantasy RPG. In my opinion, we've already lost too many D&D-isms and need to work on putting the good ones back in the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Drop levels for a pure skill-based system. Yes, it's a bit harder to gauge difficulty, but plenty of other systems have moved on from the level system.

Level systems just create problems where you have to fight kobolds and orcs at low levels and beholders, liches and dragons at another. In a leveled system at some point orcs just cease being a threat. Its like they suddenly vanish from the adventurer's world.

Heh, this is a perfect response for this topic, but you also found my limit. Part of my purpose in starting it was to see how far people would push even though they knew they'd get push back from many fans. I'd so mess with character leveling and abilities, but going completely skills-based is where my fear of the lynch mob would set in. You are more daring than I!

And in fairness, while I rather prefer skill-based to level-based, part of the reason is that I know I'll always have D&D for my level-based fun.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd consider going one further, and removing the Cleric entirely.

There'd be some knock-on effects to consider if you did this.

You'd have to rethink how (or even if) the gods would play into the game. Right now, Clerics are a fine conduit to allow deities to mess with things if so desired. Remove Clerics and that goes away. Some might like this. Others might not. Either way, it's a significant change.

Also, at all levels Clerics do something else very well beside just healing, and that's divination: Portent, Augury, Divination, Commune, etc. Where does that go?

ALast but not least: who brings back the dead, or sends them on their way; and who deals with undead?

Lan-"the main problem with Clerics is they are like the bass: easy to play, but astonishingly difficult to play well"-efan