D&D General What Would You Base A non-OGL 5e-alike Game On? (+)

[DMZ2112]

What is better than the D20 mechanic? Maybe a 2d10 system to get more average numbers. Add a d10 when you have advantage and take one away with disadvantage. Do the same with skill checks.

Wahey, nice to see other folks thinking about this.

I started experimenting with 2d10 two years back, and while I was really pleased with how few changes to the rules were necessary to support it, I was never fully satisfied, so I went to 3d20, read the middle result. That's really cool probability magic, and not only do you not need to modify the rules at all, it comes with advantage and disadvantage baked right in -- just take the high result for advantage and the low result for disadvantage.

Unfortunately, players hated it because it feels like to roll well at all you have to roll well twice, and if you roll poorly you've often rolled poorly three times, which is kind of the point but also a hard sell. :\

 

[DMZ2112]

that is still the case in 5e too (minus the fixed slot the value goes in), so not sure what you want to gain back. Is it just to assign the rolls in order ? You can houserule that, in the official I would let the players choose

It's not, though.

In D&D5, ability scores only modify the d20 roll with a flat linear bonus from -5 to +5. Standard array gives you [-1, 0, +1, +1, +2, +2]. Rolling 4d6kh3 might move these around somewhat, but it's the relative difference between the individual bonus values that is relevant here.

If the modern d20 System really modeled an ability score bell curve, the differences between the bonuses would be greater the further you got from 10 ([+1, +3, +6, +10, +15]), which is not feasible using whole numbers, as it would obviously change D&D mechanics substantially.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not sure if this is a cop out, but I think that if there are 100 replies to this thread, you will get 100 different and possibly incompatible ideas.

In my opinion, that is what makes D&D and its 3PP diaspora great. It's not the best designed game, and never has been, but that has never stopped a large number of fans with substantially diverse TTRPG interests from playing it successfully and joyfully throughout the years, and deriving innumerable stories about some very different topics from it. None of us want the same things from it, and yet more of us stick around than not.

With the exception of a few niche generic systems, nearly every other RPG is concept- or setting-locked to a degree that requires some technical conversion to adapt to other playstyles. You can get surprisingly far with RAW D&D just by reskinning things.

If I knew how to recreate that in a vacuum, I wouldn't explain it here, I'd publish it.

I guess if I had one concrete request, it would be to reintroduce a bell curve to the core mechanic. In early D&D, the bell curve was baked into ability score generation -- you rolled 3d6, in order, and if you got an 18 in Strength, that was a 1 in 216 chance and you'd already beaten the odds, so you picked Fighter and every Strength check you made during the game with a simple, flat 1d20 was 90% successful on average, and that was okay.

Because your character got crushed by a falling slab at 3rd level, and you rolled your next character and got a 3 Dexterity and smug condolences from your fellow players. The wheel of fortune turns!

Ever since the move to linear ability score modifiers, the game has gotten very swingy. Can't argue with the simplicity, but the die has a linear 20-point spread; in D&D5, your character sheet doesn't become more relevant to success than that doom until about, what, 8th level, with some focused development? Probably closer to 10th or 11th, right at the end of the sweet spot.

Yeah this is why I prefer multi-die resolution mechanics, and/or success ladders.

3d6 roll under is a lot of fun, as are dice pools built by your character stats, especially if you are rolling under fyour ability score plus skill bonus, and rolling under your ability score gets a better result than rolling between that and the total number. ie, you have a 5 dex and a 2 in fencing, and you try to disarm someone, rolling under 5 is even better than rolling under 7, even though both succeed.

In my own game, it's d12+d6 rank dice, with a static DC success ladder. Roll under 9 and it's a total failure, between that and 14 is mitigated failure (you fail but can get something out of the attempt like setting up an ally), between that and 20 is partial success (you get what you want but there is a cost or complication), and 20+ is total success. It works really well, with most results early on being one of the two mixed results. Since you can use attribute points to push a result up one step, this means that AP get spent on that a lot more early on, and as you get more competent you naturally use AP mroe and more to power special abilities.

I don't think I can bend that into a dnd feeling shape, though.

 

[mamba]

It's not, though.

In D&D5, ability scores only modify the d20 roll with a flat linear bonus from -5 to +5. Standard array gives you [-1, 0, +1, +1, +2, +2]. Rolling 4d6kh3 might move these around somewhat, but it's the relative difference between the individual bonus values that is relevant here.

If the modern d20 System really modeled an ability score bell curve, the differences between the bonuses would be greater the further you got from 10 ([+1, +3, +6, +10, +15]), which is not feasible using whole numbers, as it would obviously change D&D mechanics substantially.

I guess I misunderstood, to me the 3d6 / 4d6kh3 already are your bell curve for attributes.

You are basically doing an inverse bell curve for the bonuses on top of that, which should kill the bounded accuracy. Personally I think BA is a good idea

 

[Clint_L]

quite a few actually, certainly more than all the other games combined.

I certainly want the level of complexity 5e has, maybe slightly less, goign story heavy like PbtA is not for me, sorry @Clint_L

That's cool; my preferences are not for everyone. Lately I've been substituting other games, especially Dread in for D&D, while still playing in the same campaign.

I'm also not opposed to a rules-heavy system. I enjoy granularity quite a lot, sometimes. Just seems like we've already got D&D and a lot of D&D-similar games that cover that niche, including some non-OGL ones. Heck, I still have my old Palladium books.

Right now I'm working on figuring out how to combine Fiasco with D&D. I want to see if we can do a shared DM game with the act-structure and improvisation of Fiasco while keeping it in our campaign structure and using D&D rules as necessary to resolve encounters. I think there is a lot of potential if I can work it out.

 

[Faolyn]

What is better than the D20 mechanic? Maybe a 2d10 system to get more average numbers. Add a d10 when you have advantage and take one away with disadvantage. Do the same with skill checks.

I quite like this. I do prefer a little bit of a curve over pure randomness.

I also like Level Up's expertise dice, since it adds a level beyond advantage and disadvantage.

I suppose the next question is, regardless of the dice mechanic used, what sort of skill list this would have, and how they would be implemented. A flat bonus like in 5e, or using something like those expertise dice instead, or no skills at all, just using stats. Or something else.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I quite like this. I do prefer a little bit of a curve over pure randomness.

I also like Level Up's expertise dice, since it adds a level beyond advantage and disadvantage.

I suppose the next question is, regardless of the dice mechanic used, what sort of skill list this would have, and how they would be implemented. A flat bonus like in 5e, or using something like those expertise dice instead, or no skills at all, just using stats. Or something else.

I like the idea of making everything that has a proficiency in 5e to be a skill, including defenses and the types of magic, with weapons and armors being skills for categories rather than individual weapons or armor.

 

[Aldarc]

I would play Rob Schwalb's upcoming Shadow of the Weird Wizard, based on his Shadow of the Demon Lord system.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing I pondered was basing a game of rolling 3d6. Advantage adds a d6. Disadvantage removes a d6. And you criti if you roll two 6s.

But the core would be taking the TOP 20 Class fantasies of 5e and making them the base classes.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

One thing I pondered was basing a game of rolling 3d6. Advantage adds a d6. Disadvantage removes a d6. And you criti if you roll two 6s.

I like this, it works really well for Fantasy Age.

For crit, if you roll doubles you add the 2 ''double'' die and add it to damage dealt? And you cant crit if you have disadvantage.

IIRC, it puts the chance of crit-ing at 44%, which is more interesting than a 5% chance of adding a single die.

 

[Minigiant]

I like this, it works really well for Fantasy Age.

For crit, if you roll doubles you add the 2 ''double'' die and add it to damage dealt? And you cant crit if you have disadvantage.

IIRC, it puts the chance of crit-ing at 44%, which is more interesting than a 5% chance of adding a single die.

I would make double 1s an autofail. That how I run it in my homebrew Mansions and Minigiants

• Basic Roll is 3d6
• Advantage is 4d6
• Disadvantage is 2d6
• Critical Hit is double 2-6s
• Critical Miss is double 1s
• Critical damage is double 6s
• Super damage is tripe 6s
• Classes have bonus die to add to rolls

 

[delericho]

It depends on how rules-heavy you want it.

One thing I do know, though: I wouldn't start with D&D and decide what I wanted to change - that runs the risk of straying quickly into dangerous waters. Start with the bare minimum you feel you need to get the feel you're aiming for (probably just level and class, though I'd call that archetype), then build everything outward from there.

 

[delericho]

As for what I'd base it on...

I'd suggest characters be built out of three broad parts: archetype (class), background, and then a handful of merits.

I would drop race/ancestry/heritage entirely - as things stand, they're little more than a package of minor powers, and they're not all appropriate to all settings anyway. So instead I'd provide various merits for the most common abilities (low-light vision, for instance), and allow groups to describe them however they consider appropriate.

I think I'd also be inclined to drop ability scores entirely. The existing six are one of the genuine sacred cows of D&D, but the boundaries between them have always been debatable, and anyway they're largely chosen to optimize for a class anyway. So, again, I'd offer merits like Very Strong, Eidetic Memory, and so on as replacements.

In terms of resolution mechanic, I'm actually entirely agnostic - ultimately, it all boils down to a way to determine how good a character is at a given task, and therefore the chance of success against level-appropriate challenges: Perfect (approx. 100% chance of success), Good (approx. 70%), Average (approx. 50%), or Poor (approx. 20%). But there are lots of ways to skin that cat.

 

[J-H]

My first thought is a magic tag/power system, where you have 4 different descriptors, with a different point cost, and combine them according to the point limit imposed by the caster's level, and based on which options are known.
I'll spitball some numbers here.
When you cast, you pick one from each of the following effects.
Area (listed in order of increasing point cost)
0 Self
1 Single Target
2 Line with a length based on range
3 Ball/Sphere

Range (distance caster can affect from himself)
0 5'
1 30' [ball shape radius is 5']
2 60' [ball shape radius is 10']
3 120' [ball shape radius is 20']

Power
0 1d4 per proficiency bonus equivalent, or 1.
1 4dx, or 2 if not a dice-based effect
2 6dx, or 3 if not a dice-based effect
3 8dx, or 4 if not a dice-based effect
4 10dx
+2dx per power point invested

Effect (no cost)
Heal
Fire
Cold
Force
Status
Conjuration (teleportation/summoning)
etc.

Casting Mage Armor would be a Self-targeted spell with a Range of 0, a power level of 2, and an effect of Force for a total cost of 2 spell points.
Casting Magic Missile would be a Single-targeted (1) spell with a range of 60' (2) for, let's say, 6d6 damage for a cost of 3 spell points. Or you could "upcast" it for 9 total spell points to do 12d6 damage.
I think the damage tree should maybe be two points per jump.

But this lets you have casters specialize in effects, so clerics may get Heal and Status, and can progressively effect larger areas with their spells.
A Pyromancer gets Fire and some lesser effects, and wizards can pick several status types to know.

It needs some work but should be workable to describe about 70% of what we're used to from D&D.

 

[DMZ2112]

I guess I misunderstood, to me the 3d6 / 4d6kh3 already are your bell curve for attributes.

You are basically doing an inverse bell curve for the bonuses on top of that, which should kill the bounded accuracy. Personally I think BA is a good idea

Yes, that's why I said it's not feasible using current D&D5 mechanics. But a bell curve and bounded accuracy are not mutually exclusive. You can reintroduce one easily and without changing any other rules by rolling 3d20km1, among other options.

Really, how one achieves the result is less important than making sure that players' decisions about their characters are more relevant to play in the sweet spot than the colossal spread of a d20. In D&D5, a PC's original ability score modifiers only modify success rate by +/-20%, with every two points conferring 5% more control. If the group is using the standard array or point buy, that range is reduced to +10%/-5%.

Going to 3d20km1 increases that +/-20% range with rolled scores to +/-27%, which at least makes your character sheet relevant to the check more than half the time.

 

[Aldarc]

I would play Rob Schwalb's upcoming Shadow of the Weird Wizard, based on his Shadow of the Demon Lord system.

Quoting myself here because Dave Thaumavore published a video today on YouTube comparing SotDL to 5e.


Admittedly, SotDL is more like if 5e and Warhammer Fantasy had a love child. However, Schwalb's upcoming Shadow of the Weird Wizard is more of an ode to Gygaxian fantasy in a clearly Greyhawk-inspired setting, albeit through the quirky, eccentric lenses of Rob Schwalb.

 

[RangerWickett]

6 level system where you add your level to anything you're Trained in on top of the relevant Attribute Bonus. Each level has 4 tiers, on the last tier of each level you get to increase an Attribute Score by 2 or 2 Attribute Scores by 1.
All characters will technically start level 2, as Level 1 acts as the character creation process (tier 1 you choose race, tier 2 you choose a background, tier 3 you increase an attribute score by 1, and as mentioned previously tier 4 increases 2 attribute scores or 1 score by 2).
After that you choose your class to start level 2 at.

I am intrigued by this idea, but instead of having 'levels' having 'tiers,' if I were to design such a system, I'd have character abilities be gated by tier. Mundane, Adventurer, Heroic, Paragon, Epic, and Mythic would be the tiers.

You could thus have games where the tier stays the same the whole way through, and the reward of adventuring is learning new abilities to widen your abilities, rather than increase your power. Or you could have 'zero to hero' games, or maybe something like 'hero to legend' plots. And there could be designs that require certain trials or achievements to go from one tier to the next.

And maybe there'd be designs like, "I'm a Paragon Warrior, but I'm able to pick up a few Adventurer-tier magical abilities. Our Paragon Mage also knows a few Adventurer-tier scoundrel abilities," etc.

 

[RangerWickett]

If any game is to replace D&D as the one that informed nerds rally around - and that's a VERY tall order - I think you still need a few things:

* The full polyhedron set. The d20 is an icon of tabletop RPGs, and nerds have lots of dice they won't want to go to waste.

* A resolution system that's easy to teach to new players. Roll a d20 and add a bonus to try to beat a target number is the right level of complexity. Having multiple bonuses crop up in the course of a combat (like with 3rd ed) is more complicated than having advantage.

* Not requiring a battle map. You want people to be able to still play on Zoom or watch on Twitch without needing to see a grid. Precise positioning shouldn't matter if you want your game to be used for online play.

And finally

* Some cool hook that makes it worthwhile for gamers to pick your system over any other, and for designers to give up on their own fantasy heartbreaker to design for yours.

 

[TwoSix]

* Some cool hook that makes it worthwhile for gamers to pick your system over any other, and for designers to give up on their own fantasy heartbreaker to design for yours.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If any game is to replace D&D as the one that informed nerds rally around - and that's a VERY tall order - I think you still need a few things:

* The full polyhedron set. The d20 is an icon of tabletop RPGs, and nerds have lots of dice they won't want to go to waste.

* A resolution system that's easy to teach to new players. Roll a d20 and add a bonus to try to beat a target number is the right level of complexity. Having multiple bonuses crop up in the course of a combat (like with 3rd ed) is more complicated than having advantage.

Agreed. I love dice systems, but whatever you choose it needs to use the full dice set and be very simple to teach and use.

* Not requiring a battle map. You want people to be able to still play on Zoom or watch on Twitch without needing to see a grid. Precise positioning shouldn't matter if you want your game to be used for online play.

Yeah I definitely think that you can use precise distance a bit, but not nearly as much as 3.5 or 4e.

And finally

* Some cool hook that makes it worthwhile for gamers to pick your system over any other, and for designers to give up on their own fantasy heartbreaker to design for yours.

Yeah I think this is maybe the thinnest needle to thread tbh. Too much “hook” and you’ve got one more specialized game. Not enough and it’s just, “very generic fantasy mechanics bundle”.