Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Pie in the Sky 6E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 8734682" data-attributes="member: 58197"><p>Not quite. There would be two scores: Proficiency bonus, and zero. Whenever you pick up a d20, you are either going to add your proficiency bonus to the roll, or use the result straight-up*.</p><p></p><p>This would have a number of benefits. It would all but eliminate one of the biggest sources of confusion I have seen at the table over thirty-five years of playing D&D: Which number do I use for what? Likewise, it virtually eliminates character sheet math. And it would make skills, attacks, and saving throws fully independent of each other, allowing for a greater variety of concepts without sacrificing effectiveness. Do you want to be a fighter who's also an intelligent and learned scholar? No problem. You no longer have to wrench points out of the stats that are vital to your survival (Strength and Con) to invest in Intelligence. Just take the Sage background, put skill proficiencies in Arcana and History, and the rest is roleplaying.</p><p></p><p>Now, to what would be lost: You'd have a lot less granularity (none, in fact) in measuring <em>how</em> good you are at X versus Y. I don't think most players care much about that, but some folks care a whole lot. There is also [USER=6796468]@Steampunkette[/USER]'s excellent point that we lose the ability to represent certain things mechanically; the hulking barbarian and the scrawny wizard now have the same encumbrance limit, and Legolas and Gimli have no reason to wear different types of armor. To address this, I would use a feat-like mechanic, where you can choose traits like Powerful Build (double your encumbrance) or Evasive (boost your AC when wearing light or no armor). The key is that these traits are binary--you have them or you don't--and they don't affect anything else. The barbarian who doesn't take Powerful Build is no less effective at hacking up monsters.</p><p></p><p>The other thing that would be lost, however, is fifty years of D&D tradition--it would ignite a backlash that would make 4E look well-received--and that's why this is pie in the sky. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">*In practice, it wouldn't be quite that simple. Stuff like Expertise would have to be accounted for somehow; though I might replace Expertise with a Reliable Talent-type mechanic, where a floor gets put under the roll. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 8734682, member: 58197"] Not quite. There would be two scores: Proficiency bonus, and zero. Whenever you pick up a d20, you are either going to add your proficiency bonus to the roll, or use the result straight-up*. This would have a number of benefits. It would all but eliminate one of the biggest sources of confusion I have seen at the table over thirty-five years of playing D&D: Which number do I use for what? Likewise, it virtually eliminates character sheet math. And it would make skills, attacks, and saving throws fully independent of each other, allowing for a greater variety of concepts without sacrificing effectiveness. Do you want to be a fighter who's also an intelligent and learned scholar? No problem. You no longer have to wrench points out of the stats that are vital to your survival (Strength and Con) to invest in Intelligence. Just take the Sage background, put skill proficiencies in Arcana and History, and the rest is roleplaying. Now, to what would be lost: You'd have a lot less granularity (none, in fact) in measuring [I]how[/I] good you are at X versus Y. I don't think most players care much about that, but some folks care a whole lot. There is also [USER=6796468]@Steampunkette[/USER]'s excellent point that we lose the ability to represent certain things mechanically; the hulking barbarian and the scrawny wizard now have the same encumbrance limit, and Legolas and Gimli have no reason to wear different types of armor. To address this, I would use a feat-like mechanic, where you can choose traits like Powerful Build (double your encumbrance) or Evasive (boost your AC when wearing light or no armor). The key is that these traits are binary--you have them or you don't--and they don't affect anything else. The barbarian who doesn't take Powerful Build is no less effective at hacking up monsters. The other thing that would be lost, however, is fifty years of D&D tradition--it would ignite a backlash that would make 4E look well-received--and that's why this is pie in the sky. :) [SIZE=3]*In practice, it wouldn't be quite that simple. Stuff like Expertise would have to be accounted for somehow; though I might replace Expertise with a Reliable Talent-type mechanic, where a floor gets put under the roll. [/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Pie in the Sky 6E
Top