Would it be D&D anymore if ...

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
Would it be D&D anymore if a character's Attack/Damage and their AC was determined solely by their level, and not by their ability scores? A 5th level fighter is a 5th level fighter, it doesn't matter what their Strength or Dex is. I believe this has several strengths:

1) It frees up ability scores to be tied to character concepts. The Fighter is a fighter, they fight. Whether they fight by being strong, coordinated, intelligent, perceptive, or with their charm and wits, they're still a fighter.

2) Ability scores can be better balanced. Each ability score is now a saving throw, a few skills, and sometimes secondary abilities (carrying capacity, initiative, hp, languages ...). I'd suggest changing Con from +mod to hp/level to +Con score, lest it get out of hand fast.

3) Character balance and bounded accuracy is easier to maintain.

4) The game is easier to pick up by starting players. No longer are there unspoken rules about starting ability scores (if you're going to play a fighter, don't start with less than a 16 Str or Dex, depending on your style, and you'll want to pump it to 20 as fast as you can ...)

5) World building becomes more open. The best black smith in the world doesn't have to be a great warrior too (they can simply have a high stat in whatever is necessary, and the appropriate feats/proficiencies).

The only weakness I'm finding is it might create a feeling of same-y-ness between the characters. As it stands right now, characters are going to be prettymuch the same once we identify the optimization points. So why not cut out the middle man?

To keep feelings of customization, ability scores can be used as prerequisites for feats, granting special abilities and maneuvers, that are suggestive of certain high ability scores. Cleave requires strength, for instance, while whirlwind would require Dex. Thus, a Str Fighter will feel different from a Dex fighter ...

Thoughts? 
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
D&D is whatever the IP owner says it is.

That said, I suspect that the base would flip their crap.

As far as #5 goes, that's just a matter of realizing NPCs don't need to be built like PCs, and if they're noncombatants, they don't even need stats.  Just go 'Blacksmith Bob has a +26 Blacksmithing mod' or just let Blacksmith Bob do his stuff according to the needs of plot and screw the numbers.
Ability scores really only matter in initial levels and for non-combat actions. At higher levels, with better equipment, the bonuses help, but really, it's more about the usage of your feats, class features, tactics and rare weapons you have.

As for leveling to become artisans, you're looking at it the wrong way. Adventurers spend their time adventuring, NOT improving artisan skills. So they need to get a lot of experience for them to get enough competency in a non-adventuring skill for it to matter. Artisans who hone their craft are better than adventurers that dabble in their chosen craft. You don't need to level up to become a good artisan, and the best adventurers will never really become legendary smiths.
I think removing Str from melee attacks or Int from wizards spells would make it "not D&D".


If i had it my way, i'd remove attack rolls all together and make armor = extra HP.  

But that would still make it "not D&D".

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Prior to 3E, getting some form of modifier from ability scores to combat values was the exception rather than the rule; they didn't really kick in until the ability scores were very high. The major benefit of ability scores was when you needed an ability check, where they contributed 100% of their value - a score of 15 was effectively a +10 over a score of 5. While 3E went in the direction of letting all scores grant an appropriate modifier (with 10-11 being no wider of a range than 18-19 or 2-3), they could easily have gone the other way and removed ability score contributions to combat entirely.

To me, at least (and presumably to others as well), ability scores are primarily a matter of how well you interact with the world outside of combat. If Next decided that your chance to hit was a function of class and level (and possibly some other small bonuses, like feat and weapon selection), then that would feel more like D&D than 3E or 4E ever did. Likewise, if they decided that an ability check was (d20 + ability score) against (DC between 5 and 35), that would also seem right to me.
The metagame is not the game.
Would it be D&D anymore if a character's Attack/Damage and their AC was determined solely by their level, and not by their ability scores? A 5th level fighter is a 5th level fighter, it doesn't matter what their Strength or Dex is.



I'm one of those guys who thinks that primarily a new edition of D&D should feel like D&D. Change it too much in what makes it look like D&D and you might even have a good game, but why call it D&D then?

And yet I'm with you on this one! 
Like Saelorn said above, ability scores' contribution to combat and class-functionality has not always been a trademark of D&D rules. It always had some relevance, but in a former era of D&D that was not the primary focus for ability scores.

I wouldn't be so radical as to take away ability score contribution entirely, but I'd reduce the modifiers a lot.
Something like a +1 for a score of 15, and a +2 for an 18... or something like that. So that, yes, being strong you can still deal more damage than a regular guy, and being agile you can still avoid blows better, but the difference is not so much that players will feel inclined to always boost their "class primary ability" into the skies and dump the rest. Not taking that ability will not hurt their class's efficiency much in what it is supposed to be good at.



The only weakness I'm finding is it might create a feeling of same-y-ness between the characters. As it stands right now, characters are going to be prettymuch the same once we identify the optimization points. So why not cut out the middle man?



Quite the contrary, I think.
You'd have the liberty of making a high-Int fighter just because you want him to also be a learned man with many Knowledge skills, while another fighter in your group may want to be charismatic so as to be good at influencing NPCs and using skills like Diplomacy and Bluff.

If abilities are less tied to class-functionality, you only gain more variety.


D&D is whatever the IP owner says it is.

That said, I suspect that the base would flip their crap.

As far as #5 goes, that's just a matter of realizing NPCs don't need to be built like PCs, and if they're noncombatants, they don't even need stats.  Just go 'Blacksmith Bob has a +26 Blacksmithing mod' or just let Blacksmith Bob do his stuff according to the needs of plot and screw the numbers.



Yeah. Regardless of what changes are made, any change will rile up the "This isn't D&D anymore" crowd if they don't like it.

The pro-2E people said that about 3E, the pro-3E said that about 4E, and I have no doubt that same claim will be made about D&DN.

I agree with Saelorn and Rastapopoulos.  

I only played a few games in 2E, and don't really remember them all that well - I'm mostly 3/3.5E - so I can't really speak for how ability scores were handled before 3E or give an opinion on which I think is better.

While I do think that ability scores should still influence combat in some sense, I don't think they should be as prominent as they are now.  I think that it would be great if players were given the incentive to use their ability scores to reflect their character's uniqueness, be it in feats, skills, or personality.  I'd love to see a scholarly fighter,  or a charismatic barbarian poet. 
Saying ability scores didn't matter as much in 2e is ... questionable.  Yes, numerical bonuses for STR, DEX, and CON were mellower, but INT affected your ability to even learn a spell, much less cast it ('you rolled a 96?  Sorry, no Magic Missile for you, EVER'), and higher stats gave you stuff like regeneration and spell immunity.
Would it be D&D anymore if a character's Attack/Damage and their AC was determined solely by their level, and not by their ability scores?

Probably not.  Random stats and finding the right magic gloves or gridle wouldn't matter, and that's what the game is all about, really.  Lucky rolls and finding the right magic items.  Well, you know, for the kinds of characters making attacks and rolling weapon damage rather than casting spells.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!


Quite the contrary, I think.
You'd have the liberty of making a high-Int fighter just because you want him to also be a learned man with many Knowledge skills, while another fighter in your group may want to be charismatic so as to be good at influencing NPCs and using skills like Diplomacy and Bluff.

If abilities are less tied to class-functionality, you only gain more variety.



Maybe. There's also a possibility certain attributes will be widely considered better than others.
For example, in 4e Str and Con are pretty rarely applicable in Skill Challenges, in part due to having only 1 skill each and in part due to what those skills are. If granted completely leeway to pick whatever attributes you wanted, most people would dump Str and Con and go with either Dex or Int plus either Wis or Cha.   

Different classes having different prime/secondary stats tends to create natural variety among the party in terms of what stats are emphasized, even if members of a single class might tend to be fairly uniform. 
It can be argued that this would make it D&D once again, the original didn't have combat bonuses from attributes (a +1 as optional rule I recall). I would support a ballsy move like that.
Without commenting on the benefits of using the mechanic, the mechanic itself doesn't seem out of place for a D&D game. It's a means to the ends, which are pseudo-medevial monster hunting. This idea seems to accomodate that instead of hinder it, so I'd say it could be D&D.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick



The only weakness I'm finding is it might create a feeling of same-y-ness between the characters. As it stands right now, characters are going to be prettymuch the same once we identify the optimization points. So why not cut out the middle man?

To keep feelings of customization, ability scores can be used as prerequisites for feats, granting special abilities and maneuvers, that are suggestive of certain high ability scores. Cleave requires strength, for instance, while whirlwind would require Dex. Thus, a Str Fighter will feel different from a Dex fighter ...

Thoughts? 



It would,  if you playtest it you'll find that every character would function identical to every other character in it's class at every level.

Also,  I have to point out,  there's a very significant group that frowns on the whole "Optimization" thing. 

As for your idea,  it's contradictory.  What you're doing is...

-Remove Character customization (From attributes)
-Insert Character customization (From leveling based on attributes)

All you're doing is moving the effect from one spot to another,  your solution reintroduces the problem you wanted to solve,  and quite honestly,  I think you'll find there's alot of controversy around whether or not there's actually a problem there.


Maybe. There's also a possibility certain attributes will be widely considered better than others.
For example, in 4e Str and Con are pretty rarely applicable in Skill Challenges, in part due to having only 1 skill each and in part due to what those skills are. If granted completely leeway to pick whatever attributes you wanted, most people would dump Str and Con and go with either Dex or Int plus either Wis or Cha.   



Con might need a little more development in that area, agreed. But Str I think already has good stuff going its way.

Climbing, Swimming, Jumping... these are checks that might be life-saving sometimes. Also more Str means carrying capacity. For those who'd like to wear heavier armor without being encumbered, for example, some Str will be required. Str also means any feat of raw strength like bending bars, bashing doors open, opposed rolls to push/pull someone, dragging stuff, etc (actually playing a "strong guy" and not just having a high Str because it gives you better numbers in combat).

I think it's perfectly possible to make a game that has the properties you describe and have it feel like D&D in play. If you look at actual D&D characters in any edition, the size of the attack/damage bonus they're getting from a stat is within 1 or 2 of some average for probably 99% of characters. Standardizing that bonus would, not, I feel comfortable saying, shatter the feeling of the game. (I'm not saying that there are no losses, but I feel like anybody saying "it's not D&D if I can't make an 8 int wizard and have a character that can't do anything" has very strange ideas about what the important things that make D&D what it is are.) I'm not saying that it's a good idea, or that it wouldn't require some substantial re-evaluation if you wanted to preserve things like "almost 100% of wizards are extraordinarily intelligent". I'd consider, for example, it to be a poor state of affairs if cranking an stat not intuitive to the archetype was clearly a better strategy than cranking a stat intuitive to the archetype. Statbound classes do have some drawbacks, but they also do a reasonable job making absolutely darn sure that intuitively important stats really are the most important.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
It would remove the need for that clunky 4E feat that let you use a different ability score for basic attacks.

And yes, especially in 4E, people's attack scores were generally within 2 points of each other (whether you started with a 16, 18, or 20 in your primary stat). Now, if 4E used Next's 6 save system instead, then there might be a choice with these: In point buy, if a 16 is the standard high stat for a class, and 14 is the standard secondary stat, then pushing for an 18 or a 20 high stat will sacrifice defenses elsewhere. A trade for offense over defense is possible.

But the book still "lets" you make a 10 Str fighter, and that probably should be avoided.

As for my idea of feat prerequisites, I don't think it's removing the problem and then reintroducing the problem. It's about creating differences in characters that match the ideas of the scores they have. A Charismatic fighter could get access to taunts and feints, while an Intelligent fighter could focus on disarms and finding weak spots.

As for it being fixing a problem that doesn't exist, it's true; kind of. It isn't a problem for veteran players; we know what we get from different scores and which classes/fighting styles need different scores. Starting players don't. The fact that the game lets you hose your own character accidentally (even if you're doing something that seemed like it made sense, like a Dex 20/Str 10 ranger with TWFing and Weapon Finesse in 3E ...) is something that should be changed. 
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
It would remove the need for that clunky 4E feat that let you use a different ability score for basic attacks.



I would have fixed that by making more at-will powers count as basics, myself.
It would remove the need for that clunky 4E feat that let you use a different ability score for basic attacks.



I would have fixed that by making more at-will powers count as basics, myself.



Trouble was that the powers that grant basic attacks are based around the notion that basic attacks are weaker than actual at-will powers.
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
Another alternative would be to make it a feature of any class that feels strange without it, like the Battlemind.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Another alternative would be to make it a feature of any class that feels strange without it, like the Battlemind.



Most definitely.
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
Yes it is still D&D... actually, old D&D worked that way. And the more I think about it, it could be a module actually.

Adding ability scores to something could be added back in, as functions of levels or equippment.
A light armor could allow you to add dexterity modifier to armor, a rogue level 10 might add dexterity to attack rolls vs heavy armor. Fiddly, but possible.
I vote for "Not D&D."

Not necessarily a bad game, but not D&D. 
"Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk
Statbound classes do have some drawbacks, but they also do a reasonable job making absolutely darn sure that intuitively important stats really are the most important.

There are other ways of going about it, of course. Wizards could require a minimum Intelligence to cast their spells (10 + spell level), while clerics could do the same for Wisdom (as compared to currently, where Wisdom is a dump stat for most clerics), and you could put similar requirements onto weapons.


The metagame is not the game.
Statbound classes do have some drawbacks, but they also do a reasonable job making absolutely darn sure that intuitively important stats really are the most important.

There are other ways of going about it, of course. Wizards could require a minimum Intelligence to cast their spells (10 + spell level), while clerics could do the same for Wisdom (as compared to currently, where Wisdom is a dump stat for most clerics), and you could put similar requirements onto weapons.



I'm not a fan of the 10+spell level on the casting Ability Score.

To cast the high-end spells 8th or 9th spell levels... you need an Int (for wizards) of 18 or 19. And 18/19 is a lot. It's something that should be rare and remarkable, not a value you just "expect" a certain type of character to have. Especially since the idea here would be to detach from the concept of "one high ability" for each class.

I'd rather have something like a chance of learning new spells based on Int (again, for wizards, as an example), and make the high-level spells have difficult DCs to learn. This would make a high Int valuable for wizards, but not mandatory.

It's saying "you'll be better at that if you invest in that" but if you choose otherwise you still have a chance at it with the trade-off of being good at something else.

With the 10+spell level requisite it's like saying "you need that much, or you just won't have access to stuff from your class."



That said, we could have a middle-ground requisite (something like a score of 15 for higher level spells). Just so we don't have dump-Int wizards, which for the wizard's concept wouldn't make much sense. An Int of 15 is something reasonable to expect a powerful wizard to have. But a 18 or 19 should be something rare and amazing, in my opinion.

D&D is whatever the IP owner says it is.


Sorry, no.  We've been over this, I think. 

Remember New Coke?  Same rules apply.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
This might be the perfect place for something I was thinking recently...

As my group was getting ready to adventure with DnDNext we came across a startling conclusion...  we do not realy like the d20 system anymore.  We have exceptionaly fond memories of our DnD 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 adventures, but after playing with so many other systems d20 seems so clunky, over simplified and unrealistic. 

The real question for this aptly titled thread is "would it still be DnD if it wasn't d20?"

I almost feel like DnD is a setting now...  When we play fantasy it always seems to be DnD.  To me DnD is Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, GreyHawk, and Planescape!  The various Mythos' in my opinion is what DnD is and should be.  I think there is a better gaming mechanic to use, so I'll prolly use that for the adventures I run.  AND if DnD stays a d20 system I will prolly buy the core rulebooks (cuz I'm a geek like that), but I seriously doubt I would actually play  in a d20 system ever again...
+1 to that. I've found the things I've disliked about the post 3e D&D rulesystems , like bonus and hit point inflation and almost expected character optimization, boils down to the d20 system. It tried to unify systems, compare and balance abilities but, in my opinion, failed in some areas and created other problems in other. Not all of d20 is bad but I do think that it doesn't deserve he status as assumed basis for D&Next.
D&D is whatever the IP owner says it is.


Sorry, no.  We've been over this, I think. 

Remember New Coke?  Same rules apply.



Unfortunately so. That lesson being...

People will reject something if they percieve it as new and different take on something they consider classic, even if they prefer it in blind taste tests.  So the solution is to change your classic formula subtly over time without acting like you're doing anything new, so people won't really notice. 
I'd rather have something like a chance of learning new spells based on Int (again, for wizards, as an example), and make the high-level spells have difficult DCs to learn. This would make a high Int valuable for wizards, but not mandatory.

That works too, I guess. I like the minimim score requirement because it's a deferred cost in any system that lets you raise your stats over time, and it clearly tells you where you can stop just piling on the numbers. Granted, there's never previously been an edition which had both stat-gain with levels and a maximum ability score cap.

The learn check really penalizes you for not having as high of a score as possible - there's always a chance that you'll fail the check by a small margin, and max-ing the stat would have saved you. The minimum score approach has the benefit of removing some fairly harsh randomness (of the you-can-never-learn-fireball variety) from a system that is already full of randomness.

The metagame is not the game.
I'd rather that int limit the number of spells you can learn of a given level, no randomness, no can never learn fireball, and it keeps every wizard from being Hermione Granger, Merlin, Gandalf, Presto, and Tim all at the same time.
The real question for this aptly titled thread is "would it still be DnD if it wasn't d20?"

I almost feel like DnD is a setting now...  When we play fantasy it always seems to be DnD.  To me DnD is Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, GreyHawk, and Planescape!  The various Mythos' in my opinion is what DnD is and should be.  I think there is a better gaming mechanic to use, so I'll prolly use that for the adventures I run.  AND if DnD stays a d20 system I will prolly buy the core rulebooks (cuz I'm a geek like that), but I seriously doubt I would actually play  in a d20 system ever again...

I agree that D&D is very much a setting of its own - a D&D wizard is a discrete thing which does not really exist outside of D&D. The same can be said of clerics and druids, to some extent. If you take that lore and try to fit it somewhere else, though, then it doesn't always translate well - there were a lot of old video games that claimed to be D&D, yet they felt nothing like it (though there were also some that did translate well).

I'm curious what you dislike about the d20 system, though. I've always found it to be the most solid foundation for any game, though a lot of that gets lost in details of what 3E did wrong. I've never heard about anyone wanting to translate D&D lore into any other system, though; I've almost always heard of it going the other way around.

The metagame is not the game.
D&D is whatever the IP owner says it is.


Sorry, no.  We've been over this, I think. 

Remember New Coke?  Same rules apply.

New Coke ultimately got Coca-Cola more shelf space at retailers.  That touched off a whole 'cola war,' where bottlers went crazy introducing variations and flavors to try to shoulder eachother aside on the shelf.  

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

... I've always found it to be the most solid foundation for any game, though a lot of that gets lost in details of what 3E did wrong. I've never heard about anyone wanting to translate D&D lore into any other system, though; I've almost always heard of it going the other way around.



    I've run Eberron using the Silhouette system.  Kieth Baker, the setting's own creator,sometimes runs games using the Over the Edge  system.

  The main reason you saw  the reverse- other settings being adapted to d20- is because of the system's popularity, and less because it was a particularly good fit.  D20's popularity is tied to the D&D brand name, which is what the average person thinks of when you mention tabletop roleplaying.

   It should be noted that D&D's biggest competitor- Pathfinder- is basically just the repackaged previous edition of D&D.
... I've always found it to be the most solid foundation for any game, though a lot of that gets lost in details of what 3E did wrong. I've never heard about anyone wanting to translate D&D lore into any other system, though; I've almost always heard of it going the other way around.



    I've run Eberron using the Silhouette system.  Kieth Baker, the setting's own creator,sometimes runs games using the Over the Edge  system.

I've played Dark Sun using a storyteller-esque system.  And played Hero in place of D&D (not just adapting the setting, mind you, but also modeling the mechanical oddities the system implies about the settings, like armor that deflects hits or the availability of raise dead).  

 The main reason you saw  the reverse- other settings being adapted to d20- is because of the system's popularity, and less because it was a particularly good fit.  D20's popularity is tied to the D&D brand name, which is what the average person thinks of when you mention tabletop roleplaying.

When you get six joe random gamers together, chances are they've all played D&D and know the system.  Chances are that they'd each rather play something else, too, just 6 different something elses.  So, yeah, D&D got used for many things it was ill-suited for (like Heroic Fantasy) - d20 was a big step forward in that sense, since it (finally) opened up the core of the system to some other genres.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Rolling a d20 just doesnt seem as effective a gaming system as say rolling 3d6...  I'm not even saying that is the best way, but currently I think it is better...  Having a 5% chance to fail at everything you do regardless of training or level is kind of rediculous IMO, as well as having a 5% to succeed at the other end of the spectrum.  AND I have had players that just love rolling 3 - 20's in a row and killing a major plot NPC/Monster in one hit.  While those are exciting stories, it really kinda sucks:  the only reason you succeed on your quest is one dood got realy realy REALY lucky..bahhh

and the sysem I am currently remodeling to mimic DnD is Hero, but even that I am changing a couple of things and introducing new things to make it "feel" like DnD.   Hero just allows for more customization of everything...  character creation, background, skills and skill progression, attack types/forms, powers and spells.  Instead of having Firebolt and Fireball, you can have a feat that allows you to play with your firebolt to make it AE... The system just "feels" right comparatively...
Having a 5% chance to fail at everything you do regardless of training or level is kind of rediculous IMO, as well as having a 5% to succeed at the other end of the spectrum.

Does the current iteration of the playtest packet include automatic success on a 20, or automatic failure on a 1? At least as far as skill checks go, I know that 3E made no caveats one way or another, and I know that 4E did not declare automatic success on a 20 (though I do not recall how it treats a 1 for a skill check).

The only place where I've ever seen that rule was on attack rolls (and possibly saving throws). Certainly, the 3x20 has never been a core rule of any edition. I wonder if it's fair to dislike a system because the playerbase tends to add house rules that you dislike.

Customization, at least, I can understand as one of the trade-offs with a class-based system over a class-less one, but there's no particular reason why d20 must be class-based.
The metagame is not the game.
So, yeah, D&D got used for many things it was ill-suited for (like Heroic Fantasy)



That's not true, plenty of heroic fantasy in D&D, let's not play that one.

I've always found it to be the most solid foundation for any game, though a lot of that gets lost in details of what 3E did wrong. I've never heard about anyone wanting to translate D&D lore into any other system, though; I've almost always heard of it going the other way around.



killershrike ported D&D into HERO system years ago, and more recently redid it with pathfinder.
killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Conversion3...