Five things that would change the game forever

[Silveras]

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

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

jh

Funny... those are probably the LAST things I'd like to see changed. Far from being pointless, I tend to use and emphasize most of those in my games. I emphasize alignment, I emphasize and look for ways to play up differences between Divine and Arcane magic, I like the list of skills as it is (maybe 1 or 2 could be adjusted, but I hardly find the present number "oppressive"), and I like the idea of Prestige Classes as something you have to earn your way into.

 

[Silveras]

Skills are very obviously not a 'core part' of D&D, the game went 2 decades or more without them! Class & Levels are pretty much central to D&D. Alignment much less so, many D&D settings have not used Alignment or used it differently from the 3e version which is derived from AD&D.

I have to disagree with that.
1st Edition had "Secondary Skills", which allowed a Player to specify that the character had been an Innkeeper, or a Cobbler, etc., prior to becoming an adventurer. Mechanically, the DM was largely on his/her own in making practical use of that during a game session, but the idea that PCs had some kind of skill set was there at least that early.

Thieves had "Thief Skills" in 1st Edition, which progresses as percentage chances of success.

1st Edition also added Non-Weapon Proficiencies in Oriental Adventures (1979 ?). This was the first official framework (IIRC) for mechanically adjudicating skills other than attacks. The Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides refined the notion, and brought the Non-Weapon Proficiency system to the core of AD&D.

2nd Edition had Proficiencies from the beginning, and adopted the point-based mechanic for "Thief Skills".

3rd Edition adopts the point-based growth method and applies it to all skills.

No, the inclusion of skills has been evolutionary over the life of D&D, but it is far from "new" with this version.

 

[Abstraction]

i would like a simplification of the skills list. A condensing a few skills into a single skill, most notably Climb, Jump, Swim. Then, to make character and especially NPC generation easier, a character has all the skills broken down to, say, 4 categories. Great, Good, Poor and Terrible. Great skills are at Level + Mod + 4. Good skills are at Level + Mod. Poor skills are at + Mod. Terrible skills can't be used, the equivalent of no ranks in a skill that cannot be used untrained. When you create a first level character, you get a basic list of all the skills for that class already separated into Good, Poor and Terrible. Then you have a certain number of "upgrades". As an example, let's say that you're a cleric and you want to be good at picking locks. You start play with, say, 4 upgrades. You upgrade lock picking from Terrible to Poor, Poor to Good, then Good to Great. You are now and will always be Great at picking locks. Unfortunately, you only have one upgrade left.

Thereafter, you will never have to worry about your character's skills if you don't want to. If you decide you want to be better at more skills, you can spend a feat which gives you 2 upgrades. You could also multiclass, which essentially gives you two base lists, use the better for each class, and also probably gives you a couple upgrades also.

THAT is the skill system I want to see. Man would I love that for creating NPCs! If fourth edition doesn't do something like this, I will have to tack it onto my game myself.

 

[Silveras]

Absolutely right. Make the most common skills used in adventuring (Spot, Listen, Move Silently, Hide, Search, Disable Device, and one or two others) into secondary character traits and ditch the rest. D&D is not about crafting, bluffing, diplomacy, or wilderness survival. It is about kicking in doors and taking the stuff of others.

Maybe the way you play.
Me, I like well-rounded characters. I add politics to the game, and being able to judge how honest another character is being with you is important. Likewise, being able to persuade a creature you CANNOT kill not to kill you instead is also a useful skill.

 

[Dave Turner]

True, but not having a well developed diplomacy system is not the tantamount to making a game about "killing things and taking their stuff." IMO, that's a hostile qualification that critics of the game use to try to generalize the behavior of some small portion of it's player to the game as a whole. Not all players are driven by treasure and only treasure, and the presence of the alignment system means that the characters cannot really escape being judged for their actions.

I can appreciate what you're saying. I know that comments like mine are used to fuel anti-D&D arguments. But the thread seems to be about what changes to the game would be most powerful and I'm suggesting that a frank embrace of the game's strengths in physical confict would be powerful. To tie into Mearls' Core Story idea, it would help strengthen the game by addressing the elephant in the room: D&D is not equipped to model situations in which social action is the primary approach to conflict resolution.

What are the rules of the game most concerned with? They are concerned with adjudicating physical action, whether it's combat or physical infiltration or athletic activity (Climbing, Jumping, Tumbling, etc.). There are rules for social action, but they are threadbare, vague, and simple. The DM is not given any help in crafting or, more importantly, referreeing social action. The DM is given plenty of help in crafting and referreeing physical action.

This suggests to me that the game is about kiling things or overcoming them with physical action. It would be disingenuous to suggest that the vast majority of opponents aren't killed. Magical items are needed to create competent characters that can defeat the opponents they are supposed to kill. DMs are told that the players should find this stuff in the lairs of the oppoents they kill. There are some simple rules for player-crafted magic items, but the characters must still sell the loot they find in the pockets of their dead opponents to fund the creation of these items. The game is about killing things and taking their stuff.

This isn't to say that the game can't be used in other ways by some players. But I think this is akin to using a tool in a manner that it wasn't originally intended for. You might get along fine with the improvised tool, but it would be a mistake to suggest that the tool was originally designed for the improvised use.

 

[Dave Turner]

Maybe the way you play.
Me, I like well-rounded characters. I add politics to the game, and being able to judge how honest another character is being with you is important. Likewise, being able to persuade a creature you CANNOT kill not to kill you instead is also a useful skill.

You can certainly add politics to the game, but the rules supporting politics are virtually non-existent. Why is there no "social AC" or "social hit points"?

 

[Abstraction]

D&D is not equipped to model situations in which social action is the primary approach to conflict resolution.

What are the rules of the game most concerned with? They are concerned with adjudicating physical action, whether it's combat or physical infiltration or athletic activity (Climbing, Jumping, Tumbling, etc.). There are rules for social action, but they are threadbare, vague, and simple.

Gah! I am getting to tired of this argument. There are rules for mechanically-based things because they are mechanically-based. There are not rules for socially-based things because they are socially-based. Let us imagine a game where there are rules that tell you how you can roleplay:

DM: You meet with the city council. They are A, B, C and D.
Player 1: Hey, I think we met a guy named D in the gambling house. Is that him?
DM: Make a Memory check. [Dice rolled = failed]. Sorry, you're not sure.
Player 1: Does he look like the same guy/
DM: You failed your memory check. Okay, so the council is giving you ten minutes of their precious time.
Players explain situation.
DM: Make a Convincing roll. Player X has the best Convincing, two people can roll to assist. The head of the Council has Mental Resist score of 22, plus he can get an assist from two other council members if he needs it. [Dice rolled]. Okay, you convinced the council. Now the council wants you to take care of the problem. The head councilman makes a Convincing roll against your Mental Resist. [Dice rolled]. You are convinced. You have to do the mission, the council rolled way over all your Resist so all of you are utterly convinced.
Players: We don't want to do that mission!
DM: Sorry, sometimes the dice are in your favor, sometimes they aren't.

 

[wingsandsword]

No, the inclusion of skills has been evolutionary over the life of D&D, but it is far from "new" with this version.

They were optional rules in 2nd edition (commonly used, but still optional), and Oriental Adventures didn't come out until 1985, the Survival Guides game later). Secondary skills were also optional in 2nd Edition (as part of the entire chapter on "Proficiencies"). I don't have a 1e PHB around to look it up, but are you sure that Secondary Skills were not considered optional in 1e?

Thief skills were more of a fixed class ability that was called a "skill", you had a fixed chance to do a very specific act, it was just called a "skill", and 2e just put some flexibility into it. The rules for a non-thief trying to listen for a noise, climb a wall, or sneak around were clunky and cobbled-together at best as an afterthought.

What 3.x did was assume, as integral core rules, that all characters can perform tasks not directly related to their character class or any character class, provide a uniform method for determining skill with and success at those tasks, and provide a method for characters to pick up skills (without multiclassing or dual-classing) that would be normally outside the purview of their classes (Wizards who are skilled at climbing, Clerics who are pickpockets, thieves that are armorsmiths), as well as a game-mechanical way of determining, beyond raw Charisma, how socially skilled a character was and how skilled at lying, persuading, interpreting other's intentions and finding out information can be, allowing a socially unskilled player to play a highly skilled character and a uniform method for determining relative effectiveness of their efforts.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Gah! I am getting to tired of this argument. There are rules for mechanically-based things because they are mechanically-based. There are not rules for socially-based things because they are socially-based. Let us imagine a game where there are rules that tell you how you can roleplay. <snip amusing story>

There are rules for telling you generally how your character acts though. They're called Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, and Alignment. I do agree with you that there's a certain amount of play that needs to happen with regards to social interaction in game. However, I've found that often times these stats are completely ignored for the sake of mechanics vs. roleplay, rather than using both as tools to play your character. And that's really the point of roleplaying; using the tools and tips given to you by the mechanics to play a character convincingly.

 

[Psion]

What are the rules of the game most concerned with? They are concerned with adjudicating physical action, whether it's combat or physical infiltration or athletic activity (Climbing, Jumping, Tumbling, etc.).

This is besides the point I was making. Even if it is much more in physical in nature does not mean that D&D games can in bulk be fairly boiled down to "killing things and taking their stuff."

I also am of the opinion that role-playing and resolving things through interaction with NPCs is not well served by lots of rules (and in fact, is hindered by it), but again, I consider that an entirely different topic.