I've been a player since 2nd edition, which I have played since grade school. I would describe myself as a 4th edition fan, lamenting only that it did not go far enough. I like experimental things, my favorite thing to do in games I run is to mess with the mechanics, bring things in from other games. Things I hate in games are legacy mechanics that exist only because they are things that have always been in the game. For example, Mage the Awakening is my current favorite game but I'll be the first to sat it has a lot of flaws.
In Dungeons and Dragons, I would get rid of the following things
Saving Throws and Armor class. 4th edition had the right idea of turning saving throws in to static defenses. I would take it a step further an emulate Star Wars Saga and get rid of armor class as well. I would take it further and let armor give characters extra hit points or some other option.
Alignment. I have always hated the 9 categories. I would just get rid of alignment. It's not appropriate for every story, or even every fantasy story. Eberron and Dark Sun, both wonderful settings are much better without alignment since heroism and order versus chaos are really not key themes of those settings. I'd rather have modules that have alternatives like corruption or reputation. World of Darkness has a morality mechanic that shows your character slowly losing his grip on his humanity. It also has a virtue and vice system that rewards you with extra-willpower for indulging in your vice or demonstrating your virtue.
Vancian casting has always been awful. It may have been interesting in one dreadful pulp series but how many other fantasy settings have it?
Casters overshadowing everyone else and invalidting everyone elses abilities. 4E did the right thing here
Classes, particularly the four classes. What about a system where you have access to every power of every class if you're willing to spend the points. What if we went further and did away with classes altogether like in Skyrim or The Secret World.
3-18 Ability Scores. These are pretty much depreciated anyway. Only the abilty bonus really matters. Odd numbered scores are pretty much pointless except for feat requirements which exists only to make odd scores not pointless. Why not replace Ability Scores with just the bonuses.
Since this is a D&D Next forum and those things are likely to not change, I don't think you're going to like the new edition at all. Have you explored other systems?
The problem with sacrificing all of things is that you just described all of the things I prefer about D&D over other systems. (with the exception of caster superiority which I won't get into).
I'm not trying to say your preferences are wrong here just that if these mechanics are all dropped from the game outright then you are destroying what others like about the game.
If instead modular options are offered for these things then we can both be satisfied.
Let the option to sacrifice the cows rest in the hands of the group rather than send them all to the slaughterhouse.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
A lot of the sacred cows don't need to be killed. We just need to be offered a (insert dietary metaphors such as kosher, vegetarian, etc, here) option for those who aren't into sacred beef.
For example: I hate vancian casting. However, it doesn't need to die. It just needs to be one of multiple options. I hate alignment. However, it doesn't need to die. We just need to be able to ignore it without significantly impacting the core rules. I hate single attribute skills. However, it doesn't need to die. We just need to be able to use different attributes for performing different aspects of a skill (e.g. use Wis and Athletics/Climb to spot the safest path up a cliff face, potentially providing a bous to allies who follow you up).
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
Things I hate in games are legacy mechanics that exist only because they are things that have always been in the game.
If you want to change the rules so they are barely recognizable as the same game, then why play the game in the first place? Just play a game that has the rules you like (or closest to it), instead of changing one that is already established.
The "sacred cows" are sacred for a reason; they're not just "legacy" rules, they convey the spirit of the game and provide a functional framework that has worked throughout the many decades of the game's existence.
It'd be like revising Magic: The Gathering and changing it so it's more like Bang!. Both have a set of functional rules, and both need occasional revisions, but it would be absurd to adjust the core mechanics of one just to mimic the other.
If you don't like D&D and all that it stands for, don't play D&D. There are PLENTY of other knock-offs out there that are just as viable.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
I was going to defend the OP, then I looked closer and realized he's wanting to drop attributes and classes of all things. I mean really, I'm all for progression in game design, not wanting caster supremacy and wanting to change how defenses work... but calling the class system a sacred cow is pushing it.
Things I hate in games are legacy mechanics that exist only because they are things that have always been in the game.
If you want to change the rules so they are barely recognizable as the same game, then why play the game in the first place? Just play a game that has the rules you like (or closest to it), instead of changing one that is already established.
Unless you're saying that D&D's rules are mostly legacy mechanics that exist "only because they have always been in the game" and not for other resons, then that's not what the OP means. If a traditional mechanic is good at what it does, then it has more reason for being than just tradition and is not a "legacy mechanic."
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
I was going to defend the OP, then I looked closer and realized he's wanting to drop attributes and classes of all things. I mean really, I'm all for progression in game design, not wanting caster supremacy and wanting to change how defenses work... but calling the class system a sacred cow is pushing it.
To be fair, classes are a sacred cow. However, you don't have to kill them to have a classless system. BESM d20 accomplished a classless system that works alongside regular classes.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
To be fair, classes are a sacred cow. However, you don't have to kill them to have a classless system. BESM d20 accomplished a classless system that works alongside regular classes.
Classes are not a sacred cow. By definition, a sacred cow is something that makes no sense but exists anyway. (edit; Yes, the phrase 'sacred cow' is insulting to the Hindu faith. We should probably stop using it, tbh; its intent is very much.....I can't remember the word I'm looking for, but it's bad, ok?)
Classes are a perfectly viable form of game design. They're not everyone's favorite design, but they serve a purpose, they are useful, and whether or not any given person likes them, they are not a sacred cow.
(Pet peeve of mine: People calling everything 'sacred cows'. The phrase has a specific meaning!)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
