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

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd ditch the d20.

That sounds like fun. I found 4e very fast paced at low levels, but by paragon and definitely by epic it really could use what you are suggesting.

How would you speed it up?

Can't speak for them, but I'd take 4e's basic set up, and do a few key tweaks.

1. Where 4e gives a new power, you gain a new power slot of that type instead, and you can choose a new power as well, if you want to, or you can just have a couple encounter powers that you use over and over again.

2. You'd be able to choose Talents instead of powers, if you want. Execution would require a lot of playtest work, but the idea would be to be able to skip managing limited resources and just gain 1 or two daily and encounter powers, ever, and instead gain a mix of more uses and more passive features.

3. Replace the game math with 5e style bounded accuracy, and simpler bonuses. No more stacking static bonuses from 12 sources, especially to damage, but also situational bonuses would be replaced with Advantage/Disadvantage and a similar mechanic where you can reroll a check but must take the second result. Very very few static modifiers.

4. Simplifiy presentation of powers to "Make an attack, do XYZ" where powers are basically that already. Leave in the oddball stuff like walls of flame.

5. Expand access to powers by Power Source and other groupings, like having weapon powers, focus powers, etc.

6. Give every class a Basic Attack for powers to key off of. A Warlord can give a wizard a Basic Attack, which is determined by their choice of Basic Attack (At will powers just add to your Basic Attack, just like any "attack and then do XYZ" power), maybe works along the lines of weapons, but with focuses having different ranges, stats that they can used with, and damage dice?

7. Root out all fiddly bits that just complicate the game without really adding fun. Probably fewer, more meaningful feats. Less restrictive multiclassing power-swaps, etc.

FWIW 5e design agrees with you on removing the d20 odds of catastrophic failure since a 1 is only a miss not any crit fumble for attacks and is just normal for all other rolls.

Yep. My DM always gets a kick out of it when my rogue rolls a 1 on stealth but still beats the passive perception of an enemy creature with no Perception bonus.

For me, the issue with the d20 is the same thing is the strength of the d20: too much randomness.

Sure, it's cool and exciting that there is a 5% chance of virtually anything being possible. However, sometimes it's nice to have a little bit of a curve so as to make a character's skill and a player's choice a little bit more meaningful than flat random chance. (Yes, I'm aware that's a statistical oversimplification, but that's the core of the issue.)

It's also inaccurate to the actual rules. A natural 20 never makes impossible things possible, and a nat 1 is never a catastrophic failure. In attacks, they mean automatic success or failure, but that's it.
As for skill bonus and choices being meaningful, they are! Being proficient means more tasks are autosuccess (no roll required), while being Expert means even moreso. Same with having a higher stat bonus, and same for having a good plan, although DM can also just give Advantage to the roll for a good plan.

It really seems like you just aren't using 5e's rules as they're written.

I could go on all day about tweaks I'd make to particular classes and spells on the individual level, but let's focus on the system level.

Ability modifier = score - 10. Make smaller scores and smaller differences between scores matter more. This also lets you use your flat scores as a "defense" or "passive roll" and the math will be fair. For instance, your AC might just be your Dexterity score, before modifiers.

Scores above 15 are hard to obtain and less necessary. Not every fighter has to be at the absolute peak of human(oid) Strength potential. This is because...

I quite like this. I use the defenses option in my own game, after a fashion. You have a single digit score in each stat, and your defense is the stat being targeted plus 10, plus any modifiers from Traits, Gear, or an Advantage (numerical bonus gained from a stat or skill ranks, applied because someone is helping you, or you prepared for something, or circumstances are in your favor, etc)

Bring back MAD, or its benign cousin, Multiple Ability Potential. Reward a character in salient ways for having a high score, no matter which score, no matter which class. Let a fighter with 15 Str and 13 Int do cool stuff that a fighter with 18 Str and 10 Int can't.

I like this. One thing that might help is giving more concrete things that each stat can do, and including some useful downtime things that are easier, more fruitful, less time consuming, or otherwise more friendly if you have a higher score in X stat.

Advantage dice stack. I keep running into this when I design for 5e: advantage is a simple and elegant mechanic, but I have to find other ways for features to provide benefits because I don't want to obviate players getting advantage in the regular ways. For instance, no rogue feature should give advantage to attack rolls unless you want a rogue with it to no longer use stealth and cunning. So away with that system. Just let them stack.

I think a less complex solution might be to have a different kind of benefit, like the Bless/Bane mechanic of +/-1d4 to the roll. They might not stack in the sense that you don't reroll the bonus die, but it is a bonus without being a static bonus.

Another thing I do in my game is that each Archetype and Ancestry has a couple skills called Inherent Skills, in which they gain Accurate Dice. AD can also be gained by a few traits, and some gear. What it does is, you cannot roll a 1. Since my gain uses dice pools, this is a fun thing that feels even cooler the better you are at the skill, since it saves you more often from low rolls, but it's very useful at any skill level. When you roll a 1, you reroll the die until it isn't a 1.

Steal the three-action system from Pathfinder 2. It's clean, it's easy to understand. And I can think of a lot of things to do with it that are probably beyond the scope of this thread. Stay heck away from most other things PF2 is doing, though.

I like it, but my problem with it is that I think it restricts actions a bit too much.

I went the other way, and have 2 Actions, movement (which can be used however you want like in 5e), and 2 Quick Actions per round. These are like Bonus Actions and Reactions, but interchangeable. If you want to take two off turn actions when circumstance allows, great, but you have used your Quick Actions for the round. Likewise, if you want to burn two Quick Actions on your turn doing cool stuff, sweet! But now you can't use a skill to add to your defense when you get attacked, because that is a Quick Action.

I don't remember though, if PF2 requires the use of an Action to move? If so, I'd make it 4 Actions, or keep the 5e movement rules. I do like reducing the number of types of actions, though.

 

[Lanefan]

- Use a different scheme for stat generation, so that you don't end up with cookie cutter builds

Anything specific in mind?

- Abolish rapiers

Fold them in with shortswords, maybe? But, there's space for a small handheld weapon that does piercing damage, a space that rapier currently fills. Maybe the answer is just to dial back what a rapier (and-or its wielder) can do when compared to other weapons.

- Give archers more penalties/risks for non-optimal situations

Nice. Do the same for casters while you're at it, and you're on to something!

- Back off from the "use your main ability score for everything" philosophy, with the goal of making everybody a bit more MAD. (E.g., a Dex melee build should still get some combat bonus from high Str.)

Lock the benefits into specific stats and leave them there: want a melee damage bonus? Strength is the only place you'll find it. Want stat-based AC improvement? That comes only from Dex. And so on. Put another way, putting a strength somewhere is going to leave you with a weakness somewhere else.

- Increase differentiation (abilities and tactics) between monsters.

Leave the written monsters as is, but make it abundantly clear that what's written is just guidelines; then put a bunch of suggestions into the DMG on how to modify monsters to make 'em unique and strongly encourage DMs to do just this.

 

[Lanefan]

The graph is "at least", not a distribution. So 100% of the time you have at least a 1.

And that should be the same up to and including 10; the results 01 to 09 are impossible using the system I proposed.

Thinking it through just a bit more, the idea I had seems to have some big holes in it anyway. I'd have to do some serious analysis before deciding whether it's the least bit viable or not.

 

[cbwjm]

I would probably simplify weapons. I'd include a table which has the die sizes with different properties and then just include next to them different examples of weapons. For example:

d8, versatile (d10). Warhammer, longsword, battleaxe.

Rapier I'd probably bust down to a d6 light finesse weapon so that dual wielders could use one right from the start.

Costs would also be simplified.

 

[Caliburn101]

1. Rework stat bonuses so they cap at +3
2. Make all bonuses derive from two stats (for attack, saves and skills etc.)
3. Start with 1/2 x STR score (+ 1 pnt. per lvl.) Wound Points (which if you have lost some, means disadvantage on everything) AND have HP above that.
4. Make HP progression on 1 'step' lower for all classes (so 1d6 -> 1d4, 1d8 -> 1d6 etc.)
5. Make healing Wound Points cost 5 HP of normal healing per point
7. Make HP healing only on SR, WPs possible on LR using HD at same rate of 5 heal = 1 WP back
8. Rebalance OP Moon Druids and Bards and upgrade Beastmaster Rangers
9. Ban Coffeelocks…
10. Add weapon abilities that proc on a critical like 'bleed' for arrows or 'knockdown' for hammers...
11. Reduce AC bonuses for armours to a max of +6, but add 1 to 3 Damage Resistance for them against weapons
12. Add half of Prof bonus (round down) to AC as bonus

 

[5ekyu]

Can't speak for them, but I'd take 4e's basic set up, and do a few key tweaks.

1. Where 4e gives a new power, you gain a new power slot of that type instead, and you can choose a new power as well, if you want to, or you can just have a couple encounter powers that you use over and over again.

2. You'd be able to choose Talents instead of powers, if you want. Execution would require a lot of playtest work, but the idea would be to be able to skip managing limited resources and just gain 1 or two daily and encounter powers, ever, and instead gain a mix of more uses and more passive features.

3. Replace the game math with 5e style bounded accuracy, and simpler bonuses. No more stacking static bonuses from 12 sources, especially to damage, but also situational bonuses would be replaced with Advantage/Disadvantage and a similar mechanic where you can reroll a check but must take the second result. Very very few static modifiers.

4. Simplifiy presentation of powers to "Make an attack, do XYZ" where powers are basically that already. Leave in the oddball stuff like walls of flame.

5. Expand access to powers by Power Source and other groupings, like having weapon powers, focus powers, etc.

6. Give every class a Basic Attack for powers to key off of. A Warlord can give a wizard a Basic Attack, which is determined by their choice of Basic Attack (At will powers just add to your Basic Attack, just like any "attack and then do XYZ" power), maybe works along the lines of weapons, but with focuses having different ranges, stats that they can used with, and damage dice?

7. Root out all fiddly bits that just complicate the game without really adding fun. Probably fewer, more meaningful feats. Less restrictive multiclassing power-swaps, etc.

Yep. My DM always gets a kick out of it when my rogue rolls a 1 on stealth but still beats the passive perception of an enemy creature with no Perception bonus.


It's also inaccurate to the actual rules. A natural 20 never makes impossible things possible, and a nat 1 is never a catastrophic failure. In attacks, they mean automatic success or failure, but that's it.
As for skill bonus and choices being meaningful, they are! Being proficient means more tasks are autosuccess (no roll required), while being Expert means even moreso. Same with having a higher stat bonus, and same for having a good plan, although DM can also just give Advantage to the roll for a good plan.

It really seems like you just aren't using 5e's rules as they're written.

I quite like this. I use the defenses option in my own game, after a fashion. You have a single digit score in each stat, and your defense is the stat being targeted plus 10, plus any modifiers from Traits, Gear, or an Advantage (numerical bonus gained from a stat or skill ranks, applied because someone is helping you, or you prepared for something, or circumstances are in your favor, etc)

I like this. One thing that might help is giving more concrete things that each stat can do, and including some useful downtime things that are easier, more fruitful, less time consuming, or otherwise more friendly if you have a higher score in X stat.


I think a less complex solution might be to have a different kind of benefit, like the Bless/Bane mechanic of +/-1d4 to the roll. They might not stack in the sense that you don't reroll the bonus die, but it is a bonus without being a static bonus.

Another thing I do in my game is that each Archetype and Ancestry has a couple skills called Inherent Skills, in which they gain Accurate Dice. AD can also be gained by a few traits, and some gear. What it does is, you cannot roll a 1. Since my gain uses dice pools, this is a fun thing that feels even cooler the better you are at the skill, since it saves you more often from low rolls, but it's very useful at any skill level. When you roll a 1, you reroll the die until it isn't a 1.



I like it, but my problem with it is that I think it restricts actions a bit too much.

I went the other way, and have 2 Actions, movement (which can be used however you want like in 5e), and 2 Quick Actions per round. These are like Bonus Actions and Reactions, but interchangeable. If you want to take two off turn actions when circumstance allows, great, but you have used your Quick Actions for the round. Likewise, if you want to burn two Quick Actions on your turn doing cool stuff, sweet! But now you can't use a skill to add to your defense when you get attacked, because that is a Quick Action.

I don't remember though, if PF2 requires the use of an Action to move? If so, I'd make it 4 Actions, or keep the 5e movement rules. I do like reducing the number of types of actions, though.

"I like it, but my problem with it is that I think it restricts actions a bit too much. "

I have played more than a few systems of different ills that use "simplified" action types like PF2 puts forth but I came to see them as not simplified at all but rather opposing.

They tended to be higher precision higher crunch systems that thrived on optimization and once that gets into full swing that leads to strategies that work to make combats more static so you dont have to "blow" the extra damage or effect by spending an action on movement.

Of course there will always be situations where moving is worth it, but the more "you lose" by moving the fewer those will be seen and the more tactics will be devised to make it not needed.

Net result for me is that in most cases I prefer a "free move" standard over both the 3.x move actions and the PF2 triple actions because it doesn't discourage mobility and mobile combats.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Anything specific in mind?

I've seen numerous proposals.

My own is: 3d6, applied in order, and then 12 points to spend using standard Point Buy (with one tweak: raising scores below 7 costs 1 for each two points). If you combine that with one of my other items, moving stat bonuses from race to class, it's extremely unlikely that you can't generate a viable build for a specific class. E.g., you can raise a 3 to a 15 for all 12 of your points, and then +2 for your class choice. And on average it's equivalent to standard array or point buy.

The downside, of course, is that it doesn't work for DDAL because it uses dice rolls. One (clunky) solution for that is to have a half-dozen or so "non-standard arrays" available by class, with pre-assigned values, which have some wonky, non-optimal options that overall have more points.

Fold them in with shortswords, maybe? But, there's space for a small handheld weapon that does piercing damage, a space that rapier currently fills. Maybe the answer is just to dial back what a rapier (and-or its wielder) can do when compared to other weapons.

Yeah. Just let shortsword users choose between slashing and piercing and you're good to go. If somebody wants to describe their shortsword as long and thin and flexible, good on 'em.

Nice. Do the same for casters while you're at it, and you're on to something!

I fully agree with this, although in some cases I think it should only apply if there's an attack roll.
Examples:
1) Making a ranged attack against a target engaged in melee combat from greater than 30' cannot have Advantage or use Sneak Attack. (This would not apply to spells with saving throws; only those with attack rolls.)
2) Making a ranged attack, or casting a spell with a range greater than Touch, within 5' of an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity. (This would apply to all ranged spells: you can't focus on something with range and also keep up your defenses)

 

[Lanefan]

3. Start with 1/2 x STR score (+ 1 pnt. per lvl.) Wound Points (which if you have lost some, means disadvantage on everything) AND have HP above that.

Cool! But why Strength? Isn't Con supposed to be the stat that reflects one's inherent toughness?

4. Make HP progression on 1 'step' lower for all classes (so 1d6 -> 1d4, 1d8 -> 1d6 etc.)

Ditto for monsters?

5. Make healing Wound Points cost 5 HP of normal healing per point

Love it! That's way more elegant that how we do it, where each cure spell has different rolls based on whether you're curing Wound (Body) Points or normal (Fatigue) Points. 5-to-1 is a bit harsh, though; I'd probably go 2-1, or maybe 3-1.

7. Make HP healing only on SR, WPs possible on LR using HD at same rate of 5 heal = 1 WP back

Or if you're into WPs, the first LR only gets you those back; you need a second LR to get back your full HP, and during the intervening time between those LRs you're pretty vulnerable...

9. Ban Coffeelocks…

Er...wha...? Never heard of this, whatever it is.

 

[Lanefan]

I've seen numerous proposals.

My own is: 3d6, applied in order, and then 12 points to spend using standard Point Buy (with one tweak: raising scores below 7 costs 1 for each two points). If you combine that with one of my other items, moving stat bonuses from race to class, it's extremely unlikely that you can't generate a viable build for a specific class. E.g., you can raise a 3 to a 15 for all 12 of your points, and then +2 for your class choice. And on average it's equivalent to standard array or point buy.

The downside, of course, is that it doesn't work for DDAL because it uses dice rolls. One (clunky) solution for that is to have a half-dozen or so "non-standard arrays" available by class, with pre-assigned values, which have some wonky, non-optimal options that overall have more points.

Let's pretend that DDAL concerns aren't driving design choices, shall we? We'll all be much happier designers...

I fully agree with this, although in some cases I think it should only apply if there's an attack roll.
Examples:
1) Making a ranged attack against a target engaged in melee combat from greater than 30' cannot have Advantage or use Sneak Attack. (This would not apply to spells with saving throws; only those with attack rolls.)

Were it me, there would be no such thing as a ranged sneak attack except in very specific circumstances e.g. a stationary and completely unaware target such as a bored guard standing by a door. Otherwise, sneak attack could only be done via melee, returning to the idea of the 1e backstrike.

2) Making a ranged attack, or casting a spell with a range greater than Touch, within 5' of an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity. (This would apply to all ranged spells: you can't focus on something with range and also keep up your defenses)

And the caster would lose Dex benefits to AC.

The "range greater than Touch" bit is irrelevant - it's casting a spell under duress at all that should provoke the attack - or preferably, in my view, just automatically fail.

 

[Sadras]

Let's pretend that DDAL concerns aren't driving design choices, shall we? We'll all be much happier designers...

I can die a happy man