Five things that would change the game forever

[Michael Tree]

3) All spells, songs, and psionics are simply arcane magic (i.e. god's do not grant spells, magic is just magic)

I'd rather go in the complete opposite direction. Rather than only two types of magic (or three, with psionics), I'd rather that each spellcaster type is its own form of magic. Wizards learn wizardry. Druids wield druidic magic. Clerics wield powers granted of their gods, as before. Each spellcaster class has its own style, flavor, and spell list, so trying to shoehorn everything into either divine and arcane is rather pointless IMO.

 

[ashockney]

Now that we're going on year 5, it's time to bring up the big pointless rules things that could change D&D forever. I consider these the largest and most pointless things about the game that D&D has faced since growing out of 1E:

1) Alignment is eliminated once and for all
2) Ability scores are no longer numbers but simply bonuses
3) All spells, songs, and psionics are simply arcane magic (i.e. god's do not grant spells, magic is just magic)
4) Skills fall into one of 12 categories instead of the oppressive number that's out there now
5) Every prestige class can also be a core class
jh

1) Yeah!!!! Already done in my campaigns.
2) Boo!!!! Bring back rolling for stats, BUT use a variant of the 32 point mechanic to ensure that stat bonuses are more evened out.
3) Take it or leave it. One thing I know: there are too many of them! You should have 5 - 8 spells you use over and over, and part of the fun should be choosing the right ones. (see the EQ game)
4) Yeah!!! I couldn't agree more. 2 per stat.
5) Boo!!! I love the added benefit of playing something more "prestigious".

Without being a house-rule's post, any other thoughts?

jh

1) Encumberance. Are you kidding me? How does this add value?
2) Components. There are some fun ways to make this cool. It can be so again, but currently is a nuissance.
3) Instant kill spells. All spells should be lvl vs. lvl dependent.
4) Sub rules mechanics. Find them. Destroy them. (ie, Grapple, Touch AC, Fear effects...)
5) Magic item simplification - books - do we need them? Amulet/Periapt/Brooch, etc.

 

[William Ronald]

Hi Dave,

FWIW I'm with you on this issue, and I thought I'd chime in so that you don't think you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness

The first game that I found with a solid mechanism for social conflict was the latest version of Heroquest, although I recently played a jedi game using the rules from "Dogs in the Vineyard" which puts a huge premium on social conflict rules. In both cases I noticed that the rules for the social conflict actually *increased* the amount of roleplaying going on - and quite apart from anything else, part of it was the way that the rules supported an extended social contest rather than the binary make/fail a DC which we see in bluff, diplomacy etc.

When the premise includes the rules for social conflict I find players pick it up and run with it just fine.

Cheers

I am not so much concerned about a social mechanic, per se, as allowing players to chose how their characters will respond to a given situation. If a social mechanic allows this and encourages roleplaying, it can work. However, having a die roll determine how a player character reacts or feels sounds perilously close to a DM dictating character action. I hate games where I feel that my characters have no choice in their actions or relevance. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I left a group that I had gamed with for many years.

In what ways does a social conflict system preserve the right of players to chose the actions of their characters? I do not want a rule that forces me to say to players that that their characters particularly feel something. A PC may sense that a given NPC is sincere in that a mission is important, but I believe it is ultimately up to players to decide how to play their characters.

 

[The_Gneech]

It stopped being D&D when they got rid of size-based weapon damage, proficiencies, and THAC0.

Heh ... I remember when "THAC0" was a newfangled idea, and D&D had been chugging along fine without it for years.

What makes D&D? Honestly, for me, it's:

*The Dungeon. Other games have adventure locations, some of them even have underground complexes from time to time. But D&D is the only game I've played where sooner or later, geometrically-shaped rooms on graph paper is always a major part of the gameplay.

*Iconic Monsters. Beholders, mind flayers, carrion crawlers, kobolds, drow, green rubbery trolls with broccoli for hair ... these things let you know you're playing D&D rather than, say, Tunnels and Trolls.

Anything else, as far as I'm concerned, is up for grabs. You could run a game using Fantasy HERO in which the characters go down into a Dungeon and fight beholders -- I'd think of that as D&D, and sign me up!

My own personal list of things I'd love to see gone from D&D forever is pretty straightforward:

*You Are What You Wear. D&D is way too gear-dependent for my tastes. I like class-based Defense Bonus; I like the Conan d20 method of having stats go up across the board instead of having to wear a headband of intellect and a periapt of wisdom and gauntlets of ogre power and a ring of dexterity and a belt of constitution and a cloak of charisma and half-a-dozen ioun stones whizzing around your head.

*Vancian Magic. I'd love to see that cow made into Sacred Hamburger.

One other thing I'd like to see is magic scaling better. Magic missile is a good example: it's a first level spell, but it's just as useful at 9th, as opposed to sleep or cure light wounds, which rapidly become useless just a few levels down the road. Who needs five versions of cure X wounds? Just make a single cure spell that levels up with the caster.

-The Gneech

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) Encumberance. Are you kidding me? How does this add value?

Its a great way to keep that 10 STR halfling from carrying 200lbs of gear, running 40', and jumping 20 feet, for instance.

 

[Chacal]

Its a great way to keep that 10 STR halfling from carrying 200lbs of gear, running 40', and jumping 20 feet, for instance.

Rules should be consistent with common sense, but is there a need of rules for everything that is covered by common sense ?


Chacal

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In this case, yes.

You've never seen a PC sheet with 3 pages of equipment? A PC with a Bastard sword, a Morningstar, a flail, a longbow, 40 arrows, a steel-shod quarterstaff, a large shield, 10 daggers, and 3 weeks of rations? Who is outrunning the nearly naked mage because he took the Run Feat (or its system equivalent)? Who then jumps the chasm leaving that mage behind to meet his doom?

In my experience, abuse of carrying capacity is one of the most common rules "bends" in D&D...right behind not tracking costs and use of spell components.

The encumberance rules are one arrow I want in my DM's quiver.

 

[William Ronald]

In this case, yes.

You've never seen a PC sheet with 3 pages of equipment? A PC with a Bastard sword, a Morningstar, a flail, a longbow, 40 arrows, a steel-shod quarterstaff, a large shield, 10 daggers, and 3 weeks of rations? Who is outrunning the nearly naked mage because he took the Run Feat (or its system equivalent)? Who then jumps the chasm leaving that mage behind to meet his doom?

In my experience, abuse of carrying capacity is one of the most common rules "bends" in D&D...right behind not tracking costs and use of spell components.

The encumberance rules are one arrow I want in my DM's quiver.

I consider encumbrance useful, as sometimes a character has to run, cross a robe bridge, or try to swim. So, I make a point to keep track of it -- as a player and a DM. If your character is burdened down with equipment, you may find that the nearly naked mage is running faster than you and can also swim.

On another issue, I think that more power should be put into characters than their equipment. Besides decreassing encumbrance, this also would reduce the reliance on magic items. (I like magic items as a reward, but sometimes it seems that a character's power is based on what he or she owns as opposed to their skills and other abilitiies.)

 

[jmucchiello]

However, having a die roll determine how a player character reacts or feels sounds perilously close to a DM dictating character action.

So you have no charms, illusions, compulsions or fear effects in your games? Confusion/Insanity is forbidden in your game. Paralysis cannot happen as it prevents you from moving as you choose. How is fear different from being outmaneuvered at the negotiating table?

 

[William Ronald]

So you have no charms, illusions, compulsions or fear effects in your games? Confusion/Insanity is forbidden in your game. Paralysis cannot happen as it prevents you from moving as you choose. How is fear different from being outmaneuvered at the negotiating table?

I have fear, charms, illusions, and similar magical effects. (That, by the way, answers the question that you posed. Fear is a magical effect. Someone trying to sell you a cheap watch on the bus is not a magical effect . )However, I am a bit wary of having all of a player's actions determined by die rolls. Don't players have the right to choose how their characters react to an NPC? A sense motive check may indicate that someone seems sincere, but shouldn't a player decide how his character reacts to someone. I am just reluctant to force a player to have a character react a certain way because of a die roll when that character is NOT under the impact of a magical effect or a poison. Paralysis is something that happens to a character, whereas I think people choose how to respond to other people. Indeed, social interactions are one of the areas where what happens to a PC is not determined strictly by die rolls.

Certainly a PC can be outmaneveured at the negotiating table in many ways. A PC may fail on a Diplomacy or bluff check. Or if you are using roleplaying as the only way to determine if a character is convincing, then a PC can be judged to have made an unconvincing argument. (Of course, then you must concern yourself with the fact that a character may be more or less convincing in the game world than the player is in the real world. )

Sorry if I seem to be harping on a point, but I find that most players I have known want to choose their characters actions as much as possible. How a PC reacts in social situations is one of the areas not necessarily determined by a die roll. I am worried that the effect of having rules saying that "Your PC is convinced by X's overwhelming diplomatic skills to the take the mission" will cut down on good roleplaying.