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

[doctorbadwolf]

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

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.

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.

Casters and non casters are pretty balanced in combat in 5e. Such changes would make casters pretty bad compared to a straightforward damage dealer with weapons.

Why is it even desirable? Tradition?

 

[Lanefan]

Casters and non casters are pretty balanced in combat in 5e.

As written, perhaps, but does anyone actually manage to consistently present a 6-to-8 encounter day every day in practice?

Such changes would make casters pretty bad compared to a straightforward damage dealer with weapons.

Why is it even desirable? Tradition?

I'd prefer casting to be much more high risk-high reward. Adding in the risk element means some of the damage and blast and other combat spells can be beefed up again. It also cuts down on spell-based in-combat healing by making it much more risky, which I also want to see.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As written, perhaps, but does anyone actually manage to consistently present a 6-to-8 encounter day every day in practice?

I'd prefer casting to be much more high risk-high reward. Adding in the risk element means some of the damage and blast and other combat spells can be beefed up again. It also cuts down on spell-based in-combat healing by making it much more risky, which I also want to see.

I never have 6-8 encounters. Casters are on par with weapon users.

If you want to make using magic in combat harder as a goal in itself...cool?

I really hope that is never the case in DnD again.

 

[Hriston]

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

Designing my own version of D&D would begin with clarifying the Chainmail combat system and carrying it forward along with other material from Chainmail, the LBBs, and the supplements into a redesign of AD&D that emphasizes a game procedure that includes random generation of character, terrain, encounters, and story elements.

 

[Hriston]

Everyone starts with Base Character HP 1d4, 1 Save, Background Skills and 10 Feats

Use Feats =
Increase HP step (d6. d8. d10)
Add save
Armour and Weapon Proficiency
bonus Skill proficiency
Class features

so Fighter (Duelist)
HP 1d10 (3 Feats)
Saves Strength, Dexterity (1 Feat)
Armour: Light Armour (1 Feat)
Fighting Style: Dueling - Martial Weapons (1 Feat)
Skills: Acrobatics, Intimidation (1 Feat)
Class: Second Wind, Sneak attack (2 Feats)
(1 Bonus Feat)

so Wizard
HP 1d6 (1 Feats)
Saves Intelligence, Wisdom (1 Feat)
Armour:none
Fighting Style: none
Skills: Arcana, Insight (1 Feat)
Class: Spellcaster (Cantrips), Spellbook 1 (2 Feats)
2 Spell slot (2 feat)
(3 Bonus Feats)

* Feats are used to increase Spellbook Level and to add Spell slots

This is quite similar to the 0th level rules which I’m currently developing!

 

[5ekyu]

I never have 6-8 encounters. Casters are on par with weapon users.

If you want to make using magic in combat harder as a goal in itself...cool?

I really hope that is never the case in DnD again.

Yeah, me too. I personally find the myth of the 6-8 encounters balance necessity to be amusing.

And I also dont wsnt to go to one set of PCs as consistent performers and the other as jackpots who outperform except whren they completely fail.

Keep the wave motion part vorlon part minbari gun out of PCs dedign, thank you very much.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Well, I just started with what I was already playing (4e) and which I saw a lot of useful features and characteristics in. Then I incorporated a bunch of things that improve on and extend what was there already. At the same time I did rewrite a lot of the rules in a somewhat simpler form and with some modest structural changes (which is probably just because I like writing games).

In terms of literally "how did I do it?" I just sat down and wrote it! There's no magic to this, you simply write down what the rules of your game are, and maybe something about why or how to use it, assuming you want anyone else to be able to play it too.

 

[Blue]

9. Ban Coffeelocks…

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

Quick PSA tangent: A coffeelock is the concept that a sorcerer has no limit to the number of spell slots they create via Sorcery Points (RAW true) combined with warlock refreshing slots on a short rest (true), and that no listed penalty in RAW for not taking long rests means there isn't one (by DM).

They break down warlock slots for SP, use SP to make slots that will stay until used, short rest to get those warlock slots back, and then lather, rinse, repeat without ever taking a long rest and resetting everything. Hence the "coffee" part.

And doing this for weeks during down-times for huge numbers of slots.

IMHO it breaks down with the concept that a DM can't assign a penalty after being awake for days on end. Rulings not rules makes this clear to me. But in AL games that's often not the case that a DM feels free to do that. So this rules-loophole can work at some tables.

(Just to be abundantly clear, I do not endorse Coffeelocks.)

 

[5ekyu]

Quick PSA tangent: A coffeelock is the concept that a sorcerer has no limit to the number of spell slots they create via Sorcery Points (true) combined with warlock refreshing slots on a short rest (true), and that no listed penalty in RAW for not taking long rests means there isn't one (by DM).

They break down warlock slots for SP, use SP to make slots that will stay until used, short rest to get those warlock slots back, and then lather, rinse, repeat without ever taking a long rest and resetting everything. Hence the "coffee" part.

And doing this for weeks during downtimes for huge numbers of slots.

IMHO it breaks down with the concept that a DM can't assign a penalty after being awake for days on end. Rulings not rules makes this clear to me. But in AL games that's often not the case that a DM feels free to do that. So this rules-loophole can work at some tables.

(Just to be abundantly clear, I do not endorse Coffeelocks.)

Also note that XGTE znd various wordings on sleep vs long rest have now tended to make this much more on shakey legal ground. Not to mention a JC answer that there is no explicit tule allowing pact magic dlots to be used for any class feature on other classes except for casting spells.

In my campaign, under rulings, I list that pact magic (short rest) slots cannot sub-for spellcasting slots. (Long rest) except for casting spells.

 

[steenan]

I'm not sure if it's fair for me to answer this thread's question as I mainly play non-D&D games. But if I were to design a game that could be identified as D&D and keep at least some of the D&D tropes, I'd start by deciding what I want the game to do, what is its main goal. I see several different approaches here.

D&D as an entry game
Simple rules, with character sheets containing everything players need during play (PbtA-like playbooks could be really helpful here). Single book with all that is necessary to play - and nearly all books published after that being pre-made adventures, not additional crunch. Clear description of the process of play and rules to regulate it, so that it's possible to learn playing and running the game from the book alone.
This version of D&D should have no lethality by default and stay away from any kind of mature themes. It need not be aimed for kids specifically, but it should be something that a family may comfortably play together.

D&D as an exploration game
Full support for low prep sandbox play. Many character abilities (both magical and non-magical) that help in travel, survival and information gathering without making it trivial. A lot of random tables and maps. Good GM guides for monster and settlement creation. Simplified combat, so that it doesn't overshadow exploration aspects of the game.
In this approach to D&D, I'd like abilities like tracking, talking with animals or bardic knowledge to be considered more important and powerful that any combat bonuses.

D&D as dungeon crawler
Big focus on inventory management. Nearly all magical items are consumable. Stress and mental damage as dangerous as physical one. Return to wealth based XP gains. Brutal and deadly combat that can only be survived with good preparation and use of consumables. Structured play, specifically for dungeon delving, including pacing mechanisms that fit it. Clear endplay rules, with characters retiring to wealth, power and safety if they manage to live that long.

D&D as tactical game
A lot of character customization options. Well balanced tactical play, both in and out of combat. Building combos - both between one character's abilities and between characters - crucial to playing effectively. Well implemented and explicit (known to players) difficulty ratings. Character building and optimization fully accepted and embraced as part of the gameplay.
This version is not for beginners and not for casuals. If you want to play, you're expected to read, understand and fully engage the rules. There are probably digital tools to make characters, make monsters and reference rules quickly. They include auto-updates when the rules get tuned after the release to keep them fully balanced.

Each version would keep the standard D&D ability scores (but probably move away from 3-18 scale), d20 vs DC rolls and the basic set of classes. All but the dungeon crawler would make HP explicitly non-physical (you only get meaningfully wounded at zero), while the dungeon crawler would make them impossible to recover without extended rest in a safe place or using a rare and costly potion. All versions would probably have only players rolling dice. Entry and dungeon crawler versions would have shorter advancement (8-10 levels); the other two versions would have many levels (20-30), but flatter advancement (stronger starting characters and not so drastic change between levels).