D&D General What are the coolest/most innovative mechanics D&D could take from other games?

[Ruin Explorer]

Sharing as asked by @dave2008

Logan Bonner's adventure in Dungeon #200, Blood Money, was a heist.

In order to make the heist be possible in D&D, and not just turn into combat the first time someone failed a roll or two (which happens all the time with D&D's high RNG, binary pass/fail and low threshold for rolling), Bonner added a mechanic, the name of which escapes me, but which I'll call "Preparation points".

Basically, the better you prepared for the heist (scouting, talking to people, gathering equipment, planning, infiltrating beforehand and so on), which included stuff the DM had pre-listed, but also stuff the DM judged as smart, the more "Preparation points" you got. Once the heist started, you could then spend those preparation points to negate/re-roll fluffed rolls, or to assert minor but potentially important bits of fiction, like "I stashed a crowbar here" or "I remembered to bring an extra 100' of rope" even though they weren't previously the case (so long as they were potentially possible and reasonable).

This worked extremely well to make the heist actually functional, and to not devolve into combat early on because someone missed a check. I'd be great to see D&D pick up a similar mechanic where appropriate.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What I am saying is that I want reactions to a part of the action economy, not an add on. Right now you get a reaction for free, it is not a part of the 3 action system. Instead I want you to have a total of 4 actions, including reactions.

So you could make 4 sword attacks, but the penalty on the 4th on is real steep. However, if you use one as reaction - no penalty.

This is what Forbidden Lands does. You refresh your actions at the end of the turn, rather than beginning. Any “reaction” you take during another player’s turn (Dodge or Parry) gets deducted from your total actions.

 

[dave2008]

This is what Forbidden Lands does. You refresh your actions at the end of the turn, rather than beginning. Any “reaction” you take during another player’s turn (Dodge or Parry) gets deducted from your total actions.

Yep, something like that.

 

[billd91]

I also like the idea you could take 4 reactions if you want.

From the perspective of having to deal with multiple different opportunities for PCs to interrupt other character's actions and the administrative overhead of adjudicating it (or having to endure it as a fellow player at the table), 4 reactions would suck.

 

[Umbran]

Hm.

I wonder what D&D would be like using popcorn initiative?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Hm.

I wonder what D&D would be like using popcorn initiative?

I tried it but my group didn't really take to it. They felt it undermined the value of initiative bonuses (since only the highest initiative roll matters).

What I've been using lately, and which has been well received, is a system I believe I came across on these forums (I'd love to attribute it, but I don't remember the poster or thread anymore).

Basically, all of the players roll initiative. Also, the DM rolls once using the highest initiative bonus among the monsters. Whoever rolls highest goes first, and then the two sides alternate until one side has no turns left (at which point the other side takes their remaining turns). I have the players go in initiative order but allow them to swap turns if desired. Even though it's not that different from popcorn (leaving aside the ability for one side to nova) they seem to be happy with it and so am I (because it's less tracking for me).

 

[Umbran]

I tried it but my group didn't really take to it. They felt it undermined the value of initiative bonuses (since only the highest initiative roll matters).

I don't understand that last bit. Since when does only the highest initiative roll matter?

In full-on popcorn initiative, there's no initiative roll at all - first initiative is given to whoever took action first in the narrative. It does undermine initiative bonuses, but Dex is an over-used stat anyway.

 

[dave2008]

From the perspective of having to deal with multiple different opportunities for PCs to interrupt other character's actions and the administrative overhead of adjudicating it (or having to endure it as a fellow player at the table), 4 reactions would suck.

Possibly. There are lot of things that go into a system designed to support this concept that could mitigate or eliminate that issue. I would not suggest just slapping it onto 5e without some more adjustments.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't understand that last bit. Since when does only the highest initiative roll matter?

In full-on popcorn initiative, there's no initiative roll at all - first initiative is given to whoever took action first in the narrative. It does undermine initiative bonuses, but Dex is an over-used stat anyway.

I wasn't aware of that. The version I used had everyone roll initiative, with the highest roll given first initiative.

It may have been the campaign. I don't remember exactly anymore. I think one of the players wanted to have the Alertness feat (variant human), and another wanted to play a bard (Jack of All Trades). So they felt more short changed than the average player. I think we tried it for three sessions or so, the players weren't happy, so we went back to the standard method.

 

[Mannahnin]

Similarly, I seem to recall that one of the Warhammer-like games had adding dice to a pool and totaling them, but since magic was fraught with peril any doubles (or more) would attract chaos and bad stuff. You could voluntarily use less dice, but then you were less likely to succeed.

Ideas like this, where more effort can cause problems, I think could be used. Even if it's just for stress/exhausion mechanic where you can push yourself to add more dice.

That sounds interesting. I wonder if there is an easy way to adapt that to D&D?

The Goblin Laws of Gaming do something like this. You have a pool of dice to use to power your spells. A single die can never miscast, but it's also relatively likely to fail to cast any spell but the weakest.

The GLOG: Wizards

I'm not happy with it, but I'm getting real naughty word tired of rewriting it. My OSR-compatible rules for wizards can be found right. . . ...

goblinpunch.blogspot.com

Well you would have to completely rework 5e to add the 3 action economy anyway so I don't think making it a 4 action economy is much of a difference.

Now, why I want something like this is mostly design aesthetic and a bit verisimilitude. It just bothers me that reactions are hanging out there doing there own thing and don't have an impact on the rest of the action economy. I also like the idea you could take 4 reactions if you want.

I haven't played Pathfinder 2 yet, but I would think three actions including an optional Reaction would be good for D&D.

In theory all of your actions and movement are taking up the same six seconds. Maybe you only get a Reaction IF you specifically reserve one by only taking two actions on your own turn.

This is what Forbidden Lands does. You refresh your actions at the end of the turn, rather than beginning. Any “reaction” you take during another player’s turn (Dodge or Parry) gets deducted from your total actions.

Oh, this is nice! This would also mean you wouldn't get denied your Reaction(s) against someone who got a higher initiative in the first round.