Would you play D&D if the sacred cows were sacrificed?

[Gundark]

Yarrr just thought going through me head and I feel the need to be the devil's advocate...yarrrrr

I see a lot of people saying that D&D HAS to have these concepts or it isn't D&D. 3rd ed. had some bovine carange (Thac0, negative ACs) and I'm sure that some people were like "it's gotta have Thac0 or else it's not D&D. Well thac0 is gone and I'm playing D&D.

I agree with what psion said that there is an underlying assumption about the term "sacred cow" that makes you think that the mechanic is flawed in some way. For example the mechanic of AC works fine. However if the game evolves and something better comes...why not switch? I'm not the biggest fan of Hit points, at low levels they're fine, at higher levels IMHO they slow down the game(fighting something with 400 hit points...ugh). I don't know what a good replacement would be (I thought damage saves was the answer, but now I don't like them). However if a really good option came along...hey that cow would be dead on the alter.


btw I voted neutral...it depends on what the new mechanic looked like

 

[GVDammerung]

So much would depend on _WHICH_ sacred cows are to be slaughtered.

AC - Armor no longer reduces likelihood to be hit but reduces damage? 'Bout darn time.
Classes made one optional setup in a more ala carte point/abiiity/skill driven system? No problem.
Levels done away with entirely? I'd be on the fence.
Hit points done away with for VtM-like conditions or health levels? No way.
ETC. . . .

Bottom line - if 4E is 3.X, why bother with 4E?

4E has got to offer something different, and hopefully improvements. Some slaughtering of the sacred cows I see as essential. Back to the top - which ones? Maybe that is another poll?

 

[Gundark]

Back to the top - which ones? Maybe that is another poll?

cool someone make this...I'd like to see it

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Choranzanus covered this pretty well, but I'll reply for emphasis.

But there are a lot of internal inconsistencies even in the game itself.

OK. I'll buy that. That doesn't mean sacrifice the sacred cows. Matter of fact, many of the sacred cows have nothing to do with the inconsistencies.

CR doesn't work.

Not a sacred cow. It's a system implemented with the new game.

Player hit points being different then every other thing in existance? Stupid.

Why? There are variations in hit die type between types of monsters.

Besides that, it's not a sacred cow.

% chance to miss with spells thanks to concealment/blur, etc...? Stupid.

Not a sacred cow.

Turning undead? Stupid as currently written.

That's a very subjective opinion. Anyway, while turning undead is, indeed, a sacred cow, I don't see anyone wanting to get rid of it.

Unified mechanics that can be used for various levels of play that don't get bogged down at higher levels? That's worth cooking some steaks.

What does that have to do with sacred cows? The game could be improved, just like anything, but it doesn't seem like the sacred cows are what's preventing that from happening. Matter of fact, 3e itself improved upon the game while retaining the best of the sacred cows, like AC, hit points, classes, and levels.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The biggest problem in terms of classes and levels is that for new mechanics to be introduced that there must be more classes, more feats and more skills.

A solid system can have all the mechanics necessary in one core book and provide options on using them to model various efforts around the table to do things that D&D currently misses in it's core set.

Books like Complete Warrior are useful not only because of the PrCs in there, but for the abilities those PrCs get in that a reader can look them over and see some new mecahnics in the d20 system and how those might be modeled.

The limitation comes in wanting mechanic A but not wanting to play PrC B. Wanting the game effect of feat C, but not wanting the three prerequisites for it.

It would also eliminate the redudnant material that's creept into the game. How many feats have we seen as variants of a luck style where you get a bonus to a die roll 1/day ,or a bonus d6 to a die roll, or action points?

The game is crushed under the weight of it's supplements not because it has to be, but because the current game mechanics force it.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

If the sacred cows were AoO's, feats, templates, CRs and the d20 mechanic, then I'd love to see them gone.

Edit: Good Lord, yes, and PrC's. They urgently need dropping.

 

[GVDammerung]

Anyway, while turning undead is, indeed, a sacred cow, I don't see anyone wanting to get rid of it.

Turning undead is a terrific example of what can happen when you tinker with a sacred cow and have your head up your butt at the same time (my opinion). 3X turning is attrocious, IMO. It is clumsy and not much fun, IMO. The older, "scared cow" systems were far superior, IMO, but not perfect by any means. I could go for being rid of turning, especially in its 3X form and go to clerics getting a straight damage vs undead bonus, maybe advancing by level like sneak attacks, coupled with a "keep away" ability that might advance by level, but more slowly, growing in radius.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The biggest problem in terms of classes and levels is that for new mechanics to be introduced that there must be more classes, more feats and more skills.

How else would you introduce new mechanics? Any game is likely to use the elements they're based upon to introduce new mechanics. Otherwise, what is the alternative? Entirely new mechanics? Or no new mechanics at all? I think it's unrealistic to think there is a way to design a game that obviates any need for further supplements. There will always be somebody who wants more, despite how comprehensive the game seems. Plus, what game company is gonna design a game that would never require further publications to add to ro support it?

A solid system can have all the mechanics necessary in one core book and provide options on using them to model various efforts around the table to do things that D&D currently misses in it's core set.

Such as? I think the core rules of D&D cover a lot of concepts pretty well. The only thing really lacking is an article discussing how to use the rules to model a wide variety of concepts. James Wyatt had a series of articles in Dragon soon after the release of 3e demonstrating how multiclassing could be used to generate a variety of concepts, but they sank away quietly as everyone scrambled to get the new prestige classes. It's not because these prestige classes were any better at modeling a given concept than multiclassing or wise selection of skills and feats. It was, and is, because prestige classes are the new shiny toy. Plus, they are the weak link in 3e - I like the concept of prestige classes, but if there's anything about 3e most likely to cause power creep, it's prestige classes.

Books like Complete Warrior are useful not only because of the PrCs in there, but for the abilities those PrCs get in that a reader can look them over and see some new mecahnics in the d20 system and how those might be modeled.

The limitation comes in wanting mechanic A but not wanting to play PrC B. Wanting the game effect of feat C, but not wanting the three prerequisites for it.

That's more a problem with prestige classes than a problem with the core rules or the sacred cows.

It would also eliminate the redudnant material that's creept into the game.

No it wouldn't. If you think that sacrificing some of D&D's most enduring sacred cows will eliminate rules bloat due to endless supplements, I'd say you'll end up disappointed. GURPS doesn't use classes and levels, and how many supplements does it have?

How many feats have we seen as variants of a luck style where you get a bonus to a die roll 1/day ,or a bonus d6 to a die roll, or action points?

The game is crushed under the weight of it's supplements not because it has to be, but because the current game mechanics force it.

The accumulating weight of the system you speak of is, in my opinion, a non-issue. The game is only crushed under that weight if one is compulsive and has to use every supplement. The core game can be used for just about any given character concept from classic fantasy. The core can be used on its own without recourse to any other books. The game mechanics don't "force" anything. There will never be the perfect game system that somehow eliminates the need for additional or alternative rules.

 

[Voadam]

The biggest problem in terms of classes and levels is that for new mechanics to be introduced that there must be more classes, more feats and more skills.

I think you could easily use 3.5 UA's three class system (warrior, expert, spellcaster) and turn all class abilities into feats. Expansions would then only need to be about new feats, not new classes. Still a class and level system, but the neat abilities all come in one easily interchangeable form.

Level-less simply means not tying in bundles of save, attack, hp, and class power progression together. Levels are generally a better way to keep PCs balanced with each other IMO.

 

[Choranzanus]

The biggest problem in terms of classes and levels is that for new mechanics to be introduced that there must be more classes, more feats and more skills.

The game is crushed under the weight of it's supplements not because it has to be, but because the current game mechanics force it.

That's business. But it is not like you can't have years of fun with just core books.

The limitation comes in wanting mechanic A but not wanting to play PrC B. Wanting the game effect of feat C, but not wanting the three prerequisites for it.

Yes, that is the appeal of character points, but ultimately you have to introduce new mechanic to stop players "picking cherries". They basically suffer from other extreme.

It would also eliminate the redudnant material that's creept into the game. How many feats have we seen as variants of a luck style where you get a bonus to a die roll 1/day ,or a bonus d6 to a die roll, or action points?

That is actually good idea.

But there are a lot of internal inconsistencies even in the game itself.

Player hit points being different then every other thing in existance? Stupid.

My point here was:realism and fun don't go well together in an RPG.

At last, I would like to say that I am definitely not rules conservative. I am pretty shocked that so many people apparently hate a system of which they know basically nothing.
I would have no problem with Vancian magic going and AC being DR, broader classes etc.