If you were able to design your own version of D&D, how would you do it?

[Blue]

Hmm, so specifically focusing on something that would be recognizable as D&D, not some other fantasy heartbreaker.

There's a lot to take from 5e since it synthesizes both greatest-hits ideas from earlier editions as well as new options. Looking to other d20 games out there for solutions as well.

One important change I'd rebalance would be the class different resource recovery models. Probably go back to a 4e where options are at-will, per enoer, or daily. Balance around a shorter adventuring day, say 4 encounters, but with the specific idea that some days will be shorter than that (with tougher fights) and some days longer.

All spells would be able to be upcast. And change slots so you don't just accumulate lots of low-level slots - rather you have a decent number of slots but they are clustered around your highest level slots. So a 9th level caster would have a couple of 5th level slots, bunch of 4th level slots, and maybe a few 3rd level slots. No 1st or 2nd. This reduction in total number of slots plays into the encounters-per-day rebalancing.

I'd roll cantrips into spells - each spell is either at-will, per encounter, or daily. In increasing order of effect. So a 3rd level at-will spell might do a level-appropriate damage, while a 3rd level daily spell might do a nice area of effect that also knocks people prone, or applies some other condition.

Both of those ideas are stolen from the d20 13th Age. But they would have to be adapted to include sane use of non-combat spells.

Basic characters would start at 3rd level, and there would be the equivalent of "+ECL" races from 3.x, though taking out the monster HD = level. Actually, every race could be a short class, some only 1 level long, that grants HPs and stuff just like the other classes that are part of that 3rd level. This would also give design room for those who want to start pre-class that's currently playing "0th level" characters. It also allows classes centaurs, half-ogres, and others that take a while to get into their full growth and it's an opportunity cost of not getting levels of another class. (Or maybe you can, playing a runt half-ogre who's focusing on caster levels.)

It would also have robust rules for starting at higher levels.

Important in the book would be sidebars about why various design choices were made, and the effects of tweaking them. Make it hack friendly.

Not sure if I'd keep 5e subclasses or go for a more customizable but less thematic method where you pick you main features. If I do the second I'd like a couple of features that any class could pick up, like pets that level with you. So you could be a ranger or druid with an animal companion, or a necromancer with some skeletons, a paladin with a special steed, etc.

I wonder if the same concept could be used by other classes, like the unified framework of 4e. If all characters have a few slots of high levels, and they could also be full of features. So a ranger would have slots full of things like animal companion boosts, or archery boosts, or terrain boosts. A druid might split them between some of the same, wild shape, and some for actual spellcasting. A fighter would have martial buffs, while a gish would split between those martial boosts and spells. Paladin would be the same idea, but also some holy knight options and lesser spell options. That would also allow the 9th ranger with a beast using a 3rd level slot and one using a 5th level slot - where do they want to focus? Might be too fiddly and just to fill a meta-design.

While there was room for improvement with the minion implementation of 4e, I like the concept. Play around with something to allow a DM to throw hordes at the players without engendering a "popping" mechanic for large-scale do a small amount of damage and kill them all. Also would need a way for martial characters to kill many of them in a round instead of wasting it all on overkill. Get away from one round=one swing.

Skill challenges are another 4e concept I like while disliking the implementation. Opened it up to more than just skills. Add multiple tracks, at the least a separate success and failure track, but possibly many of each. Clocks from Blades in the Dark might be a good visual for player engagement. For example, a scene in a duke's court might have a two-way track for impressing the duke/angering him (so soft successes and hard failures), a success-only track for convincing the duchess to forgive her sister and send aid to her, another success track for finding out who planted false evidence for something else, and finally a last failure track for getting challenged by the baron the party had previously angered, which would end the scene immediately so nothing else could happen.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you had asked me this question, I would have designed something that looks a lot like 3.5, as it seemed the perfect D&D at the time to me.

Ditto. I was in the process of doing a D&D mishmash, with elements from 3.5Ed & my favorite 3rd party variants plus personal changes when 4Ed was announced. And while there are some things I liked in the more recent editions, I still generally prefer the path I was on to the one WotC followed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not sure if I'd keep 5e subclasses or go for a more customizable but less thematic method where you pick you main features. If I do the second I'd like a couple of features that any class could pick up, like pets that level with you. So you could be a ranger or druid with an animal companion, or a necromancer with some skeletons, a paladin with a special steed, etc.

An alternative that I've been kicking around is the concept of the universal subclass. If you unify the class structure so that all classes gain sub-class features at the same levels, then you could institute a sub-class that is available to any class. It would be a great place to stick a pet, or psychic wild talents.

Actually, my design goes a little bit further than that. In addition to universal sub-classes, each base class is implemented as a series of seven features. Normal class progression alternates between a base class feature, a sub-class feature, and then a feat. Since classes and sub-classes each grant features at seven levels, you can take a class and implement it as a sub-class, and that's how I do multi-classing. So your second-level rogue could sub-class into assassin, or multi-class into wizard, or pick up the universal pet sub-class.

It's a way to provide a lot of different options, without worrying about how they combine with each other.

 

[TarionzCousin]

If I had my druthers though, there’d be maybe 8-16 spells in total. Or perhaps manipulation of various energies and then spell forms. So 8-16 spell elements you could combine. Each spell form has a specific potency, shape, and duration. Each energy has a certain elemental affinity with specific damage dice and rider effects. Like fire would be d6s that continue to burn. Say you do 3d6 fire damage with a spell, then next round it does 2d6, then 1d6, then the burning effect ends. Something like that. While cold might inhibit movements or something. Haven’t put the whole idea together yet.

Have you ever seen the magic system in Ars Magica? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Magica

 

[Bawylie]

Have you ever seen the magic system in Ars Magica? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Magica

Huh - never have seen it. That’s kind of neat.

 

[Blue]

Actually, my design goes a little bit further than that. In addition to universal sub-classes, each base class is implemented as a series of seven features. Normal class progression alternates between a base class feature, a sub-class feature, and then a feat. Since classes and sub-classes each grant features at seven levels, you can take a class and implement it as a sub-class, and that's how I do multi-classing. So your second-level rogue could sub-class into assassin, or multi-class into wizard, or pick up the universal pet sub-class.

It's a way to provide a lot of different options, without worrying about how they combine with each other.

Yeah, I have some ideas for a Fantasy Heartbreaker that would be to far fromt he norm to be considered D&D for this post.

Of of the ideas I had along these lines was a large number of separate "tracks" of features like Sniper, Skirmish, Tank, Caster (various thematics subsets), Caster (raw power), Shapeshifter, Pet (solo), Pet (horde). Well, probably a little more general, since each would have features for various pillars of play in them.

You picked four of them and gave them an A-D priority a bit like Shadowrun (or what Shadowrun was, no idea if they still use that today). And as you level up it gives you features from those at different rates.

So a 1st level character had AABC - the first two features from whatever they picked as priority A, the first features from priorities B & C and nothing from priority D. Next level they got a second B and their first D, 3rd was another A and a 2nd C. So on and so forth:

1 AABC
2 AABBCD
3 AAABBCCD
4 AAAABBBCCD
5 AAAABBBCCCDD
6 AAAAABBBBCCCDD
7 AAAAAABBBBCCCDDD
8 AAAAAABBBBBCCCCDDD
9 AAAAAAABBBBBCCCCDDDD
10 AAAAAAAABBBBBCCCCCDDDD
11 AAAAAAAAABBBBBBCCCCCDDDD
12 AAAAAAAAABBBBBBBCCCCCDDDDD
13 AAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBCCCCCCDDDDD
14 AAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBCCCCCCDDDDD
15 AAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCDDDDDD

Later features can increase earlier ones instead of being something new, even just math or # of uses changes. Keep a lid on the number of options a player needs to evaluate.

So this way a player can customize on what they want and very few characters will be like each other, even ones with the same choices but in a different priority order.

A Sniper, Pet (Solo), Caster (Nature theme), Caster (Power) would be very different than if you reversed it to a Caster (Power), Caster(Nature theme), Pet (Solo), Sniper. The first might be an excellent archer with a strong per to keep the foes away, a moderate knowledge of nature magics but without a lot of power. The other focuses on strength of magic, with a wide breadth of nature magics, a pet that's competent but more for scouting then soloing, and has some archery to back it up (which is probably redundant to all that magic).

 

[Jacob Lewis]

The last thing any of us needs is another edition. 5e seems like the best answer for most people. Anything else would just end up alienating another portion of the customers, or just wouldn't change much to merit buying more products for what already works.

That said, there is room for an alternative version of the game. Something similar, but completely different than the current version. This is where a version of 4e could fully deviate from the expectations and deliver a signficantly different experience without fear of slaughtering those sacred cows.

For me, I would like to see 3 things in particular.

1) Replace the d20 mechanic with something else. Don't just replace it with another die, or set of dice. Figure out a mechanic that interacts with the system in a new way. Tear it all down if need be and build it into something else.

2) Pick a unique setting and stay there. No more all-worlds and every version of fantasy fits model. Personally, I want to see a revised Dark Sun for this version as it deserves a unique system of its own.

3) A single tier of play. Make the game complete and playable within a certain range. I suggest 10th level where things begin to get tricky. Anything above ten could be introduced in future supplements for advanced players, but otherwise focus on the most played range.

That's my version.

 

[Tallifer]

I would remake 4th Edition using mostly on-line tools so that rules changes could be made easily. The Character Builder, Monster Builder and on-line Compendium were the best thing ever. I also loved the overall elegance of the system.

Books would be pdfs with updated versions for free.

 

[GMMichael]

If you were able to design your own version of D&D, how would you do it?

I'd like to see a rules-light D&D. Hide some of the (remaining) systems, so that the player's handbook leaves players in the dark a bit, thus creating an actual need for a DMG. Add another core book - the Adventurer's Gear Guide - so that the players can drool over that while the DM drools over the Monster Manual.

Keep the sacred cows - six attributes, AC, four (only) classes - but streamline characters so that it doesn't take an app to make a character in ten minutes or less. A little refocus would be nice, too: actually balancing the "three pillars." Removing Attacking as a required skill would go a long way toward this end...

 

[Lanefan]

Excluding what [MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION] wrote just above, there isn't anything here so far I'd have the least interest in even looking at, never mind playing.

Were the next D&D up to me I'd strip it down to the very basics - six attributes, 10-15 classes, 4-6 races - and not put all that much back. And what did get put back would be very modular - use the best system for the job at hand even if it's unique to that purpose, rather than trying to shoehorn everything into a unified mechanic - such that changes to one internal system don't affect much if anything else. (e.g. turn undead would probably work differently than anything else in the game...thus tweaking the turn-undead system would have limited if any effect elsewhere)

Abilities would be entirely class-based. Want an ability? Play the class that has it. Want two abilities that aren't shared by a class? Tough - pick one. Play the other one next time. Feats? Gone. Multiclassing? Gone or very close to gone. Skills, other than some basics like swimming or riding or boating? Gone. All classes have strengths, all classes have weaknesses; no single character can do everything - you need a party, preferably well-rounded.

And "next time" would come much sooner - I'd bring back a lot of the lethality lost over the previous editions. To counter, char-gen would be quick and simple (and rolled!) such that you could be back up and running within 15 minutes (well, maybe 20 at high level). Put another way, luck would return as a significant factor in both a character's generation and its career.

Minute-to-minute or encounter-to-encounter or even session-to-session balance would be downplayed in favour of focusing on adventure-to-adventure or even cross-campaign balance. Yes this'd mean there would be adventures where one particular class or another might not be much use, and advice on how to deal with this would be included in the DMG. Suggestion to players would be to have more than one character on the go, and to cycle them in and out when desired and-or required.

Casters and Monty Haulers reined in somewhat: magic - including enchanted items - would now have some risks attached if not used carefully.

Overarching design philosophy: no benefit without a corresponding penalty.

Overarching design philosophy: design for the long haul. Make the system able to handle ten or twenty years of play in the same campaign. level-up happens rarely as a side effect of play, rather than being the reason for play. It's far easier for an individual DM to shorten all this up should she so desire (and the DMG could give advice on this) than it is to stretch out a system designed for short campaigns.

Overarching play philosophy: the game and the overall campaign are bigger than any individual character or player.

Overarching philosophy in general: metagaming is eliminated where it can be and minimized where it can't.

It'd be a DM-centered system, and the DM would have charge of as many of the mechanics as she could handle. The players would then be free to think like their characters and forget about the mechanics. As most characters would be simple to play, the concept of playing more than one at a time for small groups becomes more viable. Henches and hirelings become not just viable but necessary.

And, above all, while called rules everything would in fact be guidelines, and stated as such; with each DM encouraged to tailor the system to suit herself and-or her table.

As for what books to print:

For DMs: DMG and probably a few MMs (all the monsters won't fit in one book any more), and adventure modules
For players: PH, Deities and Faiths (for all playable races), Gear Guide (as per DMMike), Survival Guide, accessories
For both: a new-from-scratch setting, generic enough to handle as many modes of play as reasonably possible but still with some quirks and character of its own

Buying a book gives a one-use code to access an individually watermarked editable .pdf of the same book (and to prevent someone just reading the code in the store, the code is on some sort of included media e.g. a sealed-in-a-sleeve CD that can't easily be poached); before you get your .pdf you have to tell the publishers who you are, and you then become legally responsible for the particular .pdf that you get in terms of ensuring it doesn't get copied or uploaded. Errata, amendments, and additions would be released as separate .pdfs once a year, with the code from any purchased book giving access; it would also include instructions on how-where to edit your original book .pdf(s) to put these new things in.

Yes you have to buy the book to be able to access the .pdf, that's intentional.

Lan-"I'll get off the soapbox now, it's seen enough of my feet for the moment"-efan