My preferences for D&D are odd

[AdmundfortGeographer]

As I said before, I think the best route is to take a d20-based system--3.x or 4E--and customize it to your liking.

The core of the problem around 3.x and later are the monsters. The monsters are designed tightly around a power baseline among the PCs. You take away things like the christmas tree effect and golf bag of items and your PCs drift further behind the assumed power. All of which even makes gametime prepping even more of a chore, something the OP declared was an outrageous chore for 3.x even before the tweeking began.

 

[The Shaman]

4) I hate the diplomacy skill.

My issues with Diplomacy begin with my issue with most skills in d20, in particular the social skills - between ability modifiers, skill ranks, feats, class abilities, and magic, equipment, or racial bonuses, characters can quickly trivialize the DCs in the rules-as-written.

That said, from what I've read there are some common problems which arise from how referees interpret the skill. First, some referees seem to treat Diplomacy like charm person, but Diplomacy is not a magical compulsion - moving a non-player character's attitude to "Helpful" shouldn't make them a thrall to the adventurer. The non-player character may "take risks" to aid or protect, but taking risks is not without reasonable limits or conditions. It also requires an environment conducive to making an appeal or argument - combat and similarly situations should be right out - and it requires a willing, undistracted listener.

Second, one of those limits on aid received by the Diplomacy skill is that many checks should be treated as opposed. A non-player character may have a "Helpful" attitude toward the adventurers' enemies, and gaining a "Helpful" attitude result doesn't automatically change this. The aid or protection a non-player character may give in these instances may be simply to remain neutral, or to offer to seek reconciliation.

Third and last, from what I've read a number of referees fail to consider the caveats contained in the Diplomacy rules. For example, there is a time component: "Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase" (d20 SRD) and "Diplomacy is at least a full-round action. The GM may determine that some negotiations require a longer period of time" (d20 Modern SRD). I prefer the Modern phrasing here because it doesn't include the "rushed" full-round check in the original SRD, which with massive bonuses can result in a change from "Hostile" to "Helpful" in six seconds, and by leaving the time period required to use the skill to the referee's discretion, to my mind the Modern rules encourage roleplaying the argument before making the skill check. Moreover, because the skill is not a magical or psionic compulsion, the skill requires a willing listener and the absence of distractions.

I don't think the Diplomacy skill is any worse than the other social skills in d20 games; I think it suffers from the same problem of bonus bloat that plagues the rest of the game, but I also think there are limitations on its use. In my experience, social skills don't detract from roleplaying, as long as they are used to resolve the results of roleplaying, rather than as a substitute for roleplaying.

 

[amerigoV]

Is there anyone else out there that also feels that blending the various mechanics of different D&D systems would be better than any one edition of the game?

Be sure everyone is on board before you kill yourself. If they are - have at it. Personally, I really do not want to spend my time figuring out someone's half-thought out homebrew system. So be sure you do not have a couple of people like me in your group

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Springboarding from amerigoV's point, you could also sit down with your group and have everyone make a list of what they do and don't like in various editions of D&D and make group-specific chimaera of D&D that you can all get a bunch of enjoyment from.

 

[ferratus]

Hmm, the mention of realm management and henchmen (both of which are not very directly combat related parts of the game) makes me think you may indeed benefit from trying something else.

I'm not sure. Henchmen, followers, and strongholds were definitely something you had in old school D&D rather than something you did. Hence there weren't rules for sending your men on missions, building special chambers for summoning demons, or rules for allowing your stronghold to build in wealth and power.

Is D&D just about the dungeon crawl? If it is, a lot of the criticism against 4e D&D should evaporate.

How gritty do you prefer combat to be? Do you feel your heroes should be fighting armies or do you feel your heroes should be leading armies?

Well, it isn't a matter of grittiness, but plowing through an army of mooks isn't very interesting for very long. I largely would want my 10th level wargaming to involve the hero leading his band of followers. For massive battles, I wouldn't use miniatures like Warhammer but something more abstract, like Risk. I'm definitely interested to see if there are more general rules I can crib from "The Conquest of Nentir Vale" that is due to be released in the coming year.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

The most comprehensive treatment of henchmen per se is the 1e DMG, which has pages and pages and pages about how to hire henchmen. Not so much about how to manage them. It also has pages and pages about how to build a stronghold, but not so much about how to run it once it's built.

I think the original vision for henchmen and strongholds was as money-sinks for rich, high-level characters so as to keep the characters hungry and going back to the dungeon for more. And I think to the extent that post-1e editions had these things, they were there because they were D&D tropes, not because anyone had done much thinking about how they'd work in play.

I think the underlying engine you want -- ascending AC and unified mechanic, but without at-wills, diplomacy or DC and retaining a lot of Moldvay/Cook's clean simplicity -- could be exapted from Basic Fantasy. You'd need to add on the conditions.

The high-level gameplay you want sounds reminiscent of Traveller, except in a fantasy paradigm (so with castle-building instead of starship-building). There are intelligible rules for running a mercenary outfit (band of henchmen), trade, exploration etc. at a level that's more "zoomed out" than D&D's. But making it work for fantasy would involve substantial rewriting. :\

 

[Ariosto]

I just don't understand why they didn't develop rules for realm management and gave you henchmen and followers that you had to babysit rather than use and spend.

For what aspects of "realm management" do you want more rules? There are in fact rules dealing with the subject in D&D books (Original, Advanced and Expert).

Naturally, there are also more complex treatments by people who are especially fond of this or that subject. Chivalry & Sorcery (including the C&S Sourcebook) and King Arthur Pendragon come immediately to mind.

Why not rules for followers giving XP to their lord through their adventures?

Why should someone score XP for doing nothing? Henchmen (in AD&D, anyhow) get half the XP they would have received as independent characters. The latter reap the full rewards secured with the assistance of the henchmen (and followers, and hirelings, and slaves, and charmed victims, and magic swords, and whoever else contributed to the expedition).

That is how "followers give XP to their lord through their adventures".

Why not rules for how to play politics or build your own dungeon?

For the latter, see 1st ed. DMG p. 106ff (UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION, fortifications, sieges, and so on), and p. 28ff (HIRELINGS), along with whatever other sections may be applicable to your circumstances (magics, monsters, treasures, etc.). The Dungeoneer's Survival Guide covers geology, spelunking and related topics.

The rulebook for playing politics is The Prince, by Machiavelli.

 

[Ariosto]

I also don't understand why spell-casters kept getting exponentially tougher while the martial classes languished.

I don't think "exponentially" is quite accurate in anything ever billed as D&D. Magic-users in particular are extremely fragile, not "tough" at all -- as ambitious "inferiors" in the craft well know.

In 1st ed. AD&D (without Unearthed Arcana), nonhuman characters, druids, paladins, and rangers have either sharp limits to advancement or limited spell-casting ability.

Human clerics, magic-users and illusionists are the big deal, as they can keep getting the ability to cast more spells long (ca. 4 to 5 million x.p. long) after the fighter's fighting ability (vs. fantastic types, not normal men) has topped out apart from HP.

It is likely that high-level magicians shall become the most individually powerful figures in a long-lived campaign. This is rather in keeping with the source material, and in particular such figures make great villains. A single 29th-level Chaotic Wizard or Evil High Priest, plus retinue, might challenge a whole party of lower-level heroes.

(One thing that traditionally makes the heroes the heroes is that they use "good, honest" muscle and guile instead of "foul, treacherous" magic. Of course, D&D itself tends to subvert this.)

There is nothing to keep any player who wishes to do so from fielding a human cleric, magic-user or illusionist. The clerics have much the edge in survival, and their powers are largely attuned to providing support for other characters in a team. The other two classes tend to die frequently, and at low levels -- or in cases of disintegration -- resurrection is improbable.

Thus, it is likely that one's fighters shall attain eminence sooner.

Notice the plural? DM permitting, one can -- Gary Gygax certainly did! -- have more than one character in one's "stable". Henchmen might be "promoted" to independent status, able to have henchmen of their own.

 

[Ariosto]

Hence there weren't rules for sending your men on missions, building special chambers for summoning demons, or rules for allowing your stronghold to build in wealth and power.

1) You are allowed to send your men on missions. That's an implicit rule, like, "You are allowed to use swords and battle axes to fight."

There are reaction and morale factors for testing their willingness to do something. There are as many "mechanical" provisions for missions conducted by my men as for missions conducted by anyone else.

2) That a player had to discover details of enchantments, from creating a spell or scribing a scroll, to brewing a potion or forging a magic sword, to breeding a chimera or safely(?) invoking a Pit Fiend, was by design. Mysteries requiring more than looking up in a handbook -- even in the "forbidden" DMG -- were of the essence of the game.

Ditto, by the way, rolling dice to "solve" puzzles and similar dodges. Actually doing one's own thinking was part of the fun of the game.

3) Your stronghold can build in wealth if you make investments that increase the tax base. That's allowed not just by common sense but explicitly. Likewise, you can -- believe it or not -- actually take the army and siege engines you are allowed to build and use them to raid or conquer neighboring baronies.

Players inevitably will engage in commerce within a few sessions in my experience, and doing deals does not suddenly stop when they become barons. Neither does talking with people, making and breaking alliances.

It never ceases to amaze me how determined some people are to see prohibitions where my friends and I have ever seen only their absence.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I got kinda lost with the mix of " Combat abilities (such as Hit Dice and Amour Class) largely cap at level 10" and "epic god-like mythological battles". How does that work, gods have a CR of 12? To have an epic tier your combat abilities need to keep going up.

Edit; oooh neat smilies