Would you play D&D if [rule X]?

[RangerWickett]

Would you play D&D if the following rules or design philosophy changed, and what would be your opinion of the change?

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

3) Spells always took more than a round to cast, but were commensurately stronger. Getting hit during casting would disrupt your spell.

4) Movement wasn't tracked by square; instead, the battle had different arenas, and you could move between them as a move action. You can attack anyone in the same arena with melee attacks. Flanking and similar things are replaced by simply seeing which side has numerical superiority.

5) There was a mechanic to inflict horrible wounds beyond simple HP damage during combat.

6) You could never get above level 6?

7) A typical combat exchange went Attack Roll -> Dodge/Parry Roll -> Damage Roll -> Armor/Toughness soak -> Damage inflicted.

8) There was a sanity score that took damage from encountering scary or horrible things.

9) There was a social standing score that took damage from attacks against your reputation.

10) Spells had a chance of going horribly awry and doing chaotic things.



Feel free to add your own.

 

[RangerWickett]

For me, I'd not like 1, 6, and 9. I think hitting should feel like 'hitting,' not "constantly have near misses." I like high-powered games. I don't think social situations could be simplified to a simple raw number.

I'd be okay with 3, 7, 8, and 10.

I'd like 2, 4, and 5.



Ooh, new idea. What if you did have a ton of Dodge Points, and you could spend the points to increase your defenses against a single attack, but if you actually get hit, you only have a few HP? This way the defender chooses how much he wants to dodge.

 

[the Jester]

Would you play D&D if the following rules or design philosophy changed, and what would be your opinion of the change?

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

Sure, and in fact this is how it was up through 3e. Played years and years like that.

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

Sure. However, this would have to come with a lot more changes to make it work (damage shouldn't escalate nearly as much, etc).

3) Spells always took more than a round to cast, but were commensurately stronger. Getting hit during casting would disrupt your spell.

Would I play? Sure. Would I really enjoy playing a caster? Probably not. I think this method is far inferior to anything D&D has used for spellcasting.

4) Movement wasn't tracked by square; instead, the battle had different arenas, and you could move between them as a move action. You can attack anyone in the same arena with melee attacks. Flanking and similar things are replaced by simply seeing which side has numerical superiority.

Sure, but it wouldn't be as fun for me on a tactical level.

5) There was a mechanic to inflict horrible wounds beyond simple HP damage during combat.

Sure, and in fact I have used "colorful critical hits" to lop off pc limbs, hack out eyes, break bones, disembowel them and inflict brain damage for... well, since 1e, and have pretty much never stopped (except briefly during the initial stages of a new edition).

6) You could never get above level 6?

Sure, and in fact, if I ever run 3e again it will almost certainly be an E6 campaign.

7) A typical combat exchange went Attack Roll -> Dodge/Parry Roll -> Damage Roll -> Armor/Toughness soak -> Damage inflicted.

I'd try it, but what a slowdown for combat. Unless everything else was seriously streamlined, I think this would be a major mistake for D&D.

8) There was a sanity score that took damage from encountering scary or horrible things.

Absolutely, and I've been in games with insanity points (roughly the same idea) many, many times. In fact, I'll sometimes dispense insanity points in my game on principle.

9) There was a social standing score that took damage from attacks against your reputation.

Absolutely, assuming it was a good mechanic I would love it. I have been mulling the options on this for quite some time as it stands.

10) Spells had a chance of going horribly awry and doing chaotic things.

For straight up D&D, not too interested. I'd try it in a one-shot and love it for games like Call of Cthulhu, though!

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

Interesting ideas, honestly I would be fine with 3-10. I especially prefer the attack / dodge / damage / damage reduction process. I think it is a better representation of how combat would actually occur.

As to the wounds, that would be a good idea, but difficult to represent in an RPG system. There are several that have tried to do this, and I'm most practiced in the Star Wars d20 (pre-saga) rules that implemented this. While that system was fairly good, it made certain creatures incredibly powerful and PCs terribly weak in comparison.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I like 2 more than 1.

In a game a while back we housruled "true HP" which were 1/4 of your total HP. Most damage came off of the top, but certain things (negative energy, critical hits, sneak attacks) came directly off of your true HP. It's sort of as if the rest of the damage to your HP was subdual damage, while true HP was lethal damage. Similar to CON drain, if you were at full health and had your true HP damaged, you lost regular HP as well (i.e. you could never have more HP than 4x your current true HP. There were some other details that made it work, and I'm mixing it up a tiny bit, but that's the gist.

I like 3 a LOT. I've always felt magic was too easy and so therefore wasn't that powerful. I could imagine something like "for every round you spend casting the DC for the saving throw to resist/avoid the effect increases by 2...or even each round spent casting applys a metamagic feat to it by rounds/lvl (maximize adds 3 rds, empower adds 2, etc).

4 is also pretty cool. It reminds me of how we played 2e with no map. It's a nice compromize between no map and grid based.

5 Yes, as above with my true HP.

6 Sure, level caps are arbitrary at any level.

7 Fine, but worries about it boggind down play. Maybe.

8 I'm fine with sanity scores, but they have to make sense to me.

9 This seems to be a MUCH better way to do diplomacy and intimidate than just the skills.

10 This is a bit niche. I'd like it in some games and not in others. All the other options are more structural, this is more specific and narrative? I'm not clear on how to express this, but it feels different than the other ones. I'd be fine with it, but it would, I think, change the feel of the game. Maybe the sanity scores also falls into this category as well.


11. (My own) Saving throws that were not "all or none". Either requiring something like multiple saves, using saves to shrug off effects, or the degree of effect is dependent up how badly (or how well) you made your save.

 

[Croesus]

1/2: Option 1 fits my idea of D&D (hit points) better than option 2. However, other game systems use option 2, for example Hero System, so I could live with either.

3. I'd be willing to try it, but my experience with similar limitations in other systems is that players tend to hate it. This basically becomes a "nerf the spellcaster" if the GM constantly disrupts spells, or "spellcasters rule" if he doesn't. A difficult balancing act.

4. I love this idea, but I suspect it would be difficult to implement in some situations. It could also be very difficult to protect spellcasters and other weak characters, unless everyone simply stays in the same arena.

5. Never liked such rules. Wouldn't want to play with this.

6. Fine by me.

7. Way too many rolls and calculations. I'd like something simpler, with the option for the player to modify the result (hero points or some such). Your idea of dodge points would be preferable to me.

8. Depends on how this limits how I can play the character. If it results in the GM deciding what my character does, not a chance. If it simply applies modifiers to certain actions, that's okay.

9. Not sure I like the concept of "attacks against reputation", but I do like the idea of a social score as a guide to how NPC's react, and something players can actively work to improve.

10. Within limits, ok. If we're talking Deck of Fate level of impact, nope.

11. (Saving throws) Agree 100%. it would require a complete rework of many spells, but eliminating "save or die" would be a good change to the system, IMO.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

#1 is "eh." I could see it working.

I'd dislike #2 in a D&D game, because rocketlauncher tag doesn't particularly appeal to me as a way to run heroic fantasy. (Note: This is related to save or die spells, etc.)

#3 would work, but only if there was a way for spellcasters to not be completely useless in combat unless casting, and only if there were viable ways to protect them.

I've run combats like #4 before, and it really isn't all that different from miniless Basic, etc., D&D combat, so sure. If it were set up like initial d20 Star Wars space combat, however, I would not approve.

#5 could be okay - I like the critical hits deck from Paizo. However, there'd have to be some serious stress testing on it.

For #6, I think E6 is a neat system, so go with it.

#7 is too many rolls for routine usage - especially if you're doing my favorite sort of PCs-vs-horde-o'-goblins combats.

I've never encountered something like #8 that I thought worked really, really well, but I'm not opposed to the idea.

Absolutely would like #9.

#10 ... Well, I like Ars Magica, so ... But, on the other hand, the one time I played it I took the (IIRC) Flawless Magic trait (or whatever) that eliminated any chance of miscast. The problem with "chaotic magic" is that you have to make the benefits worth the drawbacks, or "using magic" becomes the tool of only the reckless (and quickly replaced).

Dodge points: In general, I'm against ideas like this (e.g., "one-hit kills are common" type rules). I don't like combats that flow like miss-miss-miss-miss-kill. There's no sense, after 3 rounds, of where you are in the fight - are you winning? losing? Who knows?!

 

[Wednesday Boy]

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

Sounds okay but monster to hits and spell/power effects would have to be examined since they'd be hitting more often.

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

I'd give it a try but I'd be wary of monster damage because PCs would have a greater chance at getting dropped with one hit.

3) Spells always took more than a round to cast, but were commensurately stronger. Getting hit during casting would disrupt your spell.

I would definitely not want to play a caster with this rule. I like being able to do something every round.

4) Movement wasn't tracked by square; instead, the battle had different arenas, and you could move between them as a move action. You can attack anyone in the same arena with melee attacks. Flanking and similar things are replaced by simply seeing which side has numerical superiority.

I'm not against it but I like the tactical dynamic squares provide and would miss it in D&D. Dresden Files does exactly what you're indicating.

5) There was a mechanic to inflict horrible wounds beyond simple HP damage during combat.

I probably wouldn't like it unless it didn't offer so much of an advantage that it was preferrable to a regular attack. In other games I've played in where called shots had a much better result than a normal attack (blind your enemy, cut off their head, chop off their hand, etc.), the power gamers would always make a called shot.

I like the WEG d6 Star Wars rule where you could destroy an enemy's body part instead of killing them if you wanted to. (Or something along those lines.) I'd like to see that.

6) You could never get above level 6?

I would be okay staying at level 6 as long as there was still a way to expand on your character similar to how E6 lets you keep gaining feats even after you're topped out at 6th level.

7) A typical combat exchange went Attack Roll -> Dodge/Parry Roll -> Damage Roll -> Armor/Toughness soak -> Damage inflicted.

I think this would slow combat down way too much.

8) There was a sanity score that took damage from encountering scary or horrible things.

Absolutely! I love Call of Cthulhu sanity checks!

9) There was a social standing score that took damage from attacks against your reputation.

Probably, it sounds intriguing.

10) Spells had a chance of going horribly awry and doing chaotic things.

Oh, most definitely! One of my favorite classes ever is the 2nd Ed. Tome of Magic's Wild Mage. I got to play one briefly and the GM let me write my own 1st level spell where I simply rolled twice on the wild surge table and got to pick either result. It was glorious!

 

[ThirdWizard]

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

I'm not sure. Depends on how its implemented. If Attack increases to compensate, then you're slowly entering a game where everything always hits. If Attack doesn't scale up, then you're going to just draw out combats longer as you have to chop through tons of HP without hitting more often.

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

Worse above. Now, you're entering a game where you never hit anything, and combat is innately grindy. Or you have to scale Attack with defenses in exacting detail or everything (including PCs) fall like a house of cards.

3) Spells always took more than a round to cast, but were commensurately stronger. Getting hit during casting would disrupt your spell.

Reminds me of previous versions of D&D. I'm glad they went away from it, but I'd still play if they hadn't.

4) Movement wasn't tracked by square; instead, the battle had different arenas, and you could move between them as a move action. You can attack anyone in the same arena with melee attacks. Flanking and similar things are replaced by simply seeing which side has numerical superiority.

Sounds like FATE zones. I like that.

5) There was a mechanic to inflict horrible wounds beyond simple HP damage during combat.

I'd still play. I would want it balanced toward PCs, though. The problem that always crops up is that PCs are attacked hundreds if not thousands of times over the course of a campaign, and if you even have a 1% chance for a horrible effect, it will eventually happen.

6) You could never get above level 6?

Meh. I think I'd drop it at that point. What's the point of a level and power based game when there isn't very far to go?

7) A typical combat exchange went Attack Roll -> Dodge/Parry Roll -> Damage Roll -> Armor/Toughness soak -> Damage inflicted.

It depends. If combat is shorter and more deadly, then it makes sense to do all those steps, because they really matter. If combat is unchanged except for that, then we're just drawing things out for little payoff.

8) There was a sanity score that took damage from encountering scary or horrible things.

That would change the genre around a bit too much, I think. D&D, at its core, is about confronting scary and horrible things, killing them, and taking their stuff. Now, I'm fine with it in context. If you're playing Ravenloft, that makes sense. But, not for core D&D. It would be too jarring.

9) There was a social standing score that took damage from attacks against your reputation.

That would be great.

10) Spells had a chance of going horribly awry and doing chaotic things.

Wild mages?

Base, no, that's not fitting with D&D because you need those spells when you're in combat to kill things (then take their stuff). If your spells might go haywire, then they aren't useful for that purpose, which means the way the game is played, casters become subpar.

It could be done well, but there's a thin line there to walk. Too often, and casters suck. Too little, and you can't count on your spells, but you need to count on them... it's weird.

 

[amerigoV]

I'm coming at this from a 1e/3e veteran, now lapsed that loves Savage Worlds

Would you play D&D if the following rules or design philosophy changed, and what would be your opinion of the change?

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

5) There was a mechanic to inflict horrible wounds beyond simple HP damage during combat.

7) A typical combat exchange went Attack Roll -> Dodge/Parry Roll -> Damage Roll -> Armor/Toughness soak -> Damage inflicted.

(1) This was D&D up until 4e. AC only changed with a better gear score except in 3e with the stat bump if you were a dex class. So that is fine.

(2) Probably not. Its sounds good on paper, but not much fun at the table "miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, DEAD"

(5) Not sure about 4e (I don't play it that much), but older editions had poison, energy drain, and other stat damage. So that is cool with me.

(7) Takes way too long. Savage Worlds tried this in one of their incarnations and moved to static defense and static toughness because it was too slow (and soak is a separate option in the game).

3) Spells always took more than a round to cast, but were commensurately stronger. Getting hit during casting would disrupt your spell.

10) Spells had a chance of going horribly awry and doing chaotic things.

(3) - No - hard to balance. As a player, I prefer to be able to do something meaningful every round.

(10) Depends on how it was handled. I like how Savage Worlds handles it, to it is not an unattractive option

4) Movement wasn't tracked by square; instead, the battle had different arenas, and you could move between them as a move action. You can attack anyone in the same arena with melee attacks. Flanking and similar things are replaced by simply seeing which side has numerical superiority.

Castle Ravenloft board game has something like that for movement. Interesting to have movement but not hard core "5'-step" level of tactical. I'd try it.

6) You could never get above level 6?

The sweet spot pre-4e for me has always been L5-L12. I would be find with the power curve flattening at L12 .

8) There was a sanity score that took damage from encountering scary or horrible things.

9) There was a social standing score that took damage from attacks against your reputation.

These are good optional rules for settings IMO, but not core rules.