What game mechanics do you like?

[mmadsen]

Yay! I know at least mmadsen will like my Christmas gift I intend to write.

You're just going to leave us hanging, aren't you, RangerWickett? Cruel.

 

[mmadsen]

While attractive in theory, each special ability that turns into a feat makes NPC statting more and more of a nightmare....Of course, there's probably ways to get around this problem....such as having a default array of selections for NPCs, and let PCs choose from the smorgasbord. If the default NPC stats material in the DMG were expanded significantly, and perhaps presented as templates, your suggestion would become a lot more viable, IMO.

And that's exactly what I'd like to see. For instance, the Fighter's already quite flexible, able to represent a French knight, and English longbowman, a Genoese crossbowman, a Roman legionary, or a Spartan hoplite; all of which could have their own sub-class templates. Then you'd know what a 5th-level Knight or 8th-level Archer would look like -- in the same easy shorthand that worked for older editions.

 

[mmadsen]

First off, I find spell point system require on-the-fly accounting, often a lot.

Do you find that 3E's psionics system requires a lot of accounting? Subtracting three power points doesn't seem any worse than checking off a 2nd-level slot -- or subtracting three hit points.

Second, many point based and spontaneous systems rely on deliberately or otherwise making mages more powerful than other characters, or make mages unapealing by making the scope of their powers very limited.

That's a very different change from simply going non-Vancian. The Sorcerer and Psion classes are both non-Vancian, for instance. Are they flawed because they don't memorize ("prepare") spells?

Anyway, a magic system true to Vance's work could just as easily use points as slots; you'd just have to make your choices in the morning, as you memorized your spells for the day. And a skilled wizard could only memorize three or four complex (high-level) spells, or a half-dozen simple (low-level) spells.

Third, many players ARE NOT cut out for spontaneous spell making.

True, but non-Vancian spell systems aren't necessarily spontaneous at all.

Fourth, Vancian magic has great flavor, IMO (read Vance sometime).

The flavor of Jack Vance's Dying Earth magic isn't in the memorization; it's in the evocative spell names with their implied history. A few D&D spells still follow a Vancian naming convention: Tenser's Floating Disk, Nystul's Magic Aura, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, etc. Of course, if you really like that flavor, you should rename all the spells in that style: Balto's Shocking Grasp, Circe's Sublime Sleep, etc.

I find the "magic battery" model very... unmagical and modern in tone.

Few RPG magic systems seem arcane; they almost all seem modern, D&D included. There's nothing particularly modern about the "magic battery" model though. Saying you have so much magic to spend isn't any more modern than saying you have so much firewood to burn, so much food to eat, so much gold in your purse to spend, so much seed to plant, or whatever.

For a more magical feel, I've been impressed with d20 Call of Cthulhu's Sanity and Ability costs and with S. John Ross's alternative Unlimited Mana rules for GURPS.

 

[Voadam]

And that's exactly what I'd like to see. For instance, the Fighter's already quite flexible, able to represent a French knight, and English longbowman, a Genoese crossbowman, a Roman legionary, or a Spartan hoplite; all of which could have their own sub-class templates. Then you'd know what a 5th-level Knight or 8th-level Archer would look like -- in the same easy shorthand that worked for older editions.

I agree, I'd like to see two tenth level rogues be able to have different choices of appropriate rogue abilities instead of a set amount of sneak attack and uncanny dodge, same with rangers, monks, paladins, druids and clerics. The rogue's massive skills help but the fighter is a much more flexible themed class than the rogue or cleric for making what you want work in the core system, which is odd. It doesn't seem as much a problem with the wizard, sorcerer, and bard because their class powers are pretty much their chosen spells known (although bard music is an everyone gets the same ability problem as well). Different spell choices can make characters with vastly different capability foci.

 

[maddman75]

Well, I like the feats, skills (though it makes creating NPCs an absolute nightmare in this edition - the skill points quadruple the time it takes to stat an NPC, and even more if the NPC is multiclass), multiclass rules, critical hit rules, more intuitive saving throws, cleric spontaneous casting, prestige classes (well, the concept at least), and better-statted monsters.

Quick tip for generating NPC skills quickly.

1) Figure out how many skill points they get a level. Class+Int mod, +1 if human.

2) The character has that many skills maxed out. Select the skills they focus on.

Done. For skills you know are going to be used in the coming encounter, go ahead and figure them up (level+stat+3). If not or maybe, don't bother. If you need them, you can always do it on the fly.

Its a little more complicated with multiclass, especially if skills overlap. But the principle is the same.

 

[Desdichado]

For a more magical feel, I've been impressed with d20 Call of Cthulhu's Sanity and Ability costs

Probably my favorite d20 magic system to date. Of course, it only works in a low magic setting, naturally, and I'm still not sure how to integrate it with non-spellcasting classes, but hey, that's what being the DM is all about, right?

Vancian magic, more and more unsatisfies me. It isn't flavorful, it seems more modern than most alternatives I've looked at, contrary to Psion's assertion, and it now feels too D&D to me.

 

[Synicism]

Personally, I like active defenses. Defense shouldn't simply be figured into a target number for your opponent to meet. I like the idea Mutants & Masterminds uses for a "Damage Save." I might try to base something on that.

Perhaps you get a "dodge" (or parry or shield block) per round as a free action that can be done on someone else's turn which is a Reflex save vs. a DC based on either your opponent's attack roll. Or something.

Having active defenses allows for more lethal damage systems, which I like.

 

[Conaill]

Having active defenses allows for more lethal damage systems, which I like.

It also means hp's don't have to go up astronomically with levels. Instead of getting better at surviving hits that would have been fatal at lower levels, the characters simply get better at defending themselves.

 

[mmadsen]

Personally, I like active defenses. Defense shouldn't simply be figured into a target number for your opponent to meet.

Do you use the Defense Roll variant (DMG, p. 64)?

I like the idea Mutants & Masterminds uses for a "Damage Save." I might try to base something on that.

The Damage Save effectively moves "rolling damage" from the attacker to the defender -- and it gets rid of Hit Points.

Perhaps you get a "dodge" (or parry or shield block) per round as a free action that can be done on someone else's turn which is a Reflex save vs. a DC based on either your opponent's attack roll. Or something.

If you're using the Defense Roll variant, and you like the Defense Bonus used in Star Wars and other games, it's easy enough to make the Defense Roll a Reflex Save.

Having active defenses allows for more lethal damage systems, which I like.

It's not active defenses that allow for more lethal damage; it's higher defenses, whether active or passive.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: What game mechanics do you like?

I'm thinking about adding the CoC critical hit damage rule into my 3E game. I miss being able to potentially kill PCs with every encounter.

Just realize that this makes numerous dagger stabs or sword slashes much less lethal than one big attack that does the same total damage.

I also am contemplating how to add insanity into my game, I may use CoC in some way or just tack the WFRP rules on.

Ravenloft offers up its own d20 rules for Madness. You might want to take a look.