Discussion regarding a simplified D&D Game System

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

I'm a D&D DM and Player and have been for years, but as I think of game systems, I like many other people try to think of a better way to create D&D. Which leads me to a few thoughts.

1. Ability Score =/= Ability Bonus. For example in 3.5, an 18 Str yields a +4, a 20 a +5 and so on.

2. Level =/= Attack/Saving Throw/Whatever Bonus. For example in 4E, a level 10 character has a +5 Bonus to Attack. In 3.5 you have to consult a chart to know what your saving throw bonus is.

3. Inconsistent # of hits til death. For example if not playing spellcasters, D&D starts out requiring several hits til death for monsters and quickly becomes rocket launcher tag. 4E is the opposite, with combats dragging longer and longer as levels increase.


Prelminary Idea #1

1. Have a standard D&D point buy stat generation scheme from 3-18 and assume races will grant a +2 to a chosen stat. Thus a 20 is the normal maximum score for a stat. Have each stat contribute its number towards the appropriate skill or attack. Thus a 20 Str will grant a +20 on Str Checks and Melee attacks whereas a 7 Str would grant +7 on Str checks and Melee Attacks
2. D20 is replaced by D100. DC50 replaces DC10 for skill Checks. Starting AC is 50. Attacks and most rolls use D100
3. The character's level grants its numerical bonus to Attack and AC. Thus a Level 7 18 Dex character would have an AC of 50+18+7= 75 AC
4. Significant bonuses come in ranges of 5s (5, 10, 15, etc.) to emulate +1 on a D20, but most bonuses (random spell boosting junk) come in the form of a simple +1 for the D100.
5. Average number of hits til death is 4 which is 4x average monster damage
6. Average number of HP is 4x average monster damage
7. For some sample numbers, we'd have Assumed 20 in stat. Level 1, average bonuses (from class, feats, or whatever) as 5. with this we'd have an average Damage of 26/turn with 104 HP.

The problems I potentially see with this is that starting stats make a bigger difference than level, maybe that's ok or not, not completely sure. The advantage is that these numbers can be tweaked. We can make monsters knowing the average numbers of hits they should be able to take before death to ease new creation and could make monsters' damage in ranges of the number of hits they deal. So a weak monster would deal half a hit of damage, and perhaps a stronger one would deal 1 and a half hit worth of damage or perhaps even 2 hits worth of damage per actual hit.

Just some ideas, I welcome your thoughts.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Just dump racial bonuses. No one likes them, because your way (unless I'm misreading it) would lead again to "you must be this race to be this class" and that shit sucks.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

In this particular Preliminary Example, Racial Bonuses would equal a +2% bonus on successes, a real bonus, but very small in the wide spectrum.

[Previn]

I think you're going to be very disappointed if you actually try and use what you've laid out.

d100 isn't particular good for anything besides minutia of numbers that no one cares about. That you're adding +1 at times means that you're going to encourage all the bad things about bonus accumulation that exists in 3.5 (dumpster diving, bonus stacking, bonuses too small to actually see a difference, having to figure out and add a bunch of numbers).

I don't think a 2% bonus even counts as a 'real bonus' in this system. I think you're trying to fixing things in the wrong direction.

I don't understand what you're trying to get with the HP system you've outlined, but that might be because it's too little of information.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Then let's ignore minutiae of bonuses for the moment, it's very easy to design all bonuses as significant in the range of 5, 10, etc. and few being able to give out.

HP in this system that's used is directly related to how much damage it would take to kill you in 4 hits. So if we say "The average monster damage per hit is 6", then our starting hp would be 24 and so forth.

Now, another possibility with stats, would be to have stats starting at 0, that progress numerically 1, 2, 3, 4, thus instead of a Str 18 giving a +4, your Str is simply 4. This way you could use a D20 on the roll. A negative Str would equally mean penalties. However, the advantage of this system is that any status effects are immediately understood. Gain -2 Str and -2 Dex due to being shaken directly means a -2 penalty in all those skill checks and attacks (rather than those actually being just a -1 penalty).

Of course, if we liked ability damage, we'd have to rethink Ability damage as causing unconsciousness at -6 or just removing that mechanic entirely.

[hogarth]

The system as you've proposed it sounds very homogeneous (i.e. all characters of the same level have basically the same ability to succeed at all tasks, plus or minus 10%). Obviously that's what you're going for, but it sounds a bit dull and undifferentiated to me. I kind of like the idea that certain characters will take the spotlight during certain tasks.

[malak]

The problems I potentially see with this is that starting stats make a bigger difference than level, maybe that's ok or not, not completely sure.

I think it should be the other way around. Hit-Chance should be dependent only on level, not on attributes. Maybe put some minimum attributes for classes, so that all fighters are strong or fast, all wizards intelligent.. Attributes should only be used directly for skills.


Let me rephrase that:

Attack Bonus
- depends only on level and maybe +1 for some weapon types (and of course on magic item plusses)

Defenses
- depend only on class and items (armor plusses, shield)

Hit Points
- Depend on Class, with a fixed class-dependent bonus per level (probably three levels: tank, medium, squishy)

Skills
- Depend on skill point allocation and attributes



That the attribute bonuses are directly added to attack boni (or spell DC) are a bad idea, as hitting is too important to sacrifice and not recognizing this is just a trap for newbies. It doesn't matter so much for skills because no skill is nearly as important as the attack bonus/spell DC. Removing this direct correspondence, racial bonuses can still be used, but will not be the deciding factor (only use class x for wizard because of INT bonus, etc).

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Well, if one's goal is to keep attribute scores = bonuses, with your suggestion a few things would be required. Either Stats do not add up bonuses to attack, AC, etc. and thus 3-18 in attributes is purely in the realm of skill checks, arm wrestling contests and so forth, and has no direct attribution to combat effectiveness that could possibly work. Or, one reduces stat bonuses to the small range (0-4) and thus stats matter least compared to the other bonuses gained (which could be in increments of 5, 10, 15) and so on.

[malak]

Well, if one's goal is to keep attribute scores = bonuses, with your suggestion a few things would be required. Either Stats do not add up bonuses to attack, AC, etc. and thus 3-18 in attributes is purely in the realm of skill checks, arm wrestling contests and so forth, and has no direct attribution to combat effectiveness that could possibly work.

Exactly. Stat allocation that are not optimized for combat effectiveness are invitations for trap options. Why not remove those traps from the start...

[Winnah]

Surely the simplification of a game D&D would not involve an inflated RNG that needs to be carefully balanced. That way lies madness.

I would suggest a reduction of attributes and ranges. Bigger numbers and tiny modifiers will only slow a game down.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Let me show my calculations so far:




These numbers are for an attacker against a level 1 defender. Levels 2 & 3 show the damage types for the kind of attacks they would deal against an average level 1 PC or Monster. If you look at the numbers, you'll notice that you can easily adjust the equations for wanting more hits to equal death, less, or whatever. Stat and level bonuses can be removed or upgraded as well.

Looking at the numbers it seems trivial to remove stat and level bonuses and add those numbers into the power bonus. Right now I'm looking at an adjusted sheet with only power bonus and misc bonus, it seems that the beginning number is the default x value. Thus, Regular power avg. damage is 11.5 at level 1, 23 at level 2, 34.5 at level 3. Right now I'm pondering just having the powers themselves state that their damage improves by x at every character level and have them do the math, or try to have different powers for every level or something.

[OgreBattle]

use a d6, six possible results is simple and quick to grasp.

[Krakatoa]

d100 is not a good idea at all.

I think for non-combat things (ie, Skills, Stunts, non-combat spells) a simple D20+ability mod would be fine, with the ability in use being agreed upon by the player and DM. So that you could Intimidate with STR by flexing your muscles, or some such.

For combat abilities, d20+Ability Mod+All relevant item and situational bonuses is fine.

And of course every roll should add 1/2 your level, which is such a simple and elegant alternative for BAB that it should have been part of the 3.5 update.