# D&D General What Would You Base A non-OGL 5e-alike Game On? (+)



## doctorbadwolf

Related to the other thread I started, but focused on mechanics. This is a plus thread, but “negative” replies about whether a mechanic would contribute to the “feel” of 5e are welcome. Just don’t be rude about it or talk down to anyone. 

I have ideas about the following/here are the goals: 

First: I would surmise that we want a fairly simple system, that is broad in scope, but has a definite identity and some assumed cosmology, and similar basic themes to D&D , like heroic fantasy, advancement from novice to epic hero, etc. 

Second: We’d want resolution mechanics that focus on determining the outcomes of a specific action declared by the player. 

Third: Mundane heroes that aren’t just doing reskinned magic but are making meaningful contributions to the action (with the same range of complexity as magic classes), and magical characters who are harnessing external or internal power to perform miracles, with distinct “powers”, and with different power sources having some degree of (at least implied) delineation, and a progression from simple at will tricks to “summon an Angel” type epic stuff. 

Fourth: Classes and levels, and the ability to start out either fairly competent or as a “zero” and gain power over time. (5e does this by making level 1 pretty weak, but level 3 is quite competent and robust)

Five: A focus on diversity and inclusion in worldbuilding and inspirations. 

My specific ideas will be in a follow up post.


----------



## Clint_L

I'm not super interested in a different but similarly rules-heavy system that accomplishes what D&D already accomplishes. If I was looking for an alternative, I would want to see something that fundamentally reimagines  a fantasy RPG, the way that _Dread_ fundamentally reimagined a horror RPG. A replacement game would need to keep only these elements:

1. Fantasy setting compatible (so some sort of rules for magic and monsters).
2. Some sort of mechanism for character advancement and ongoing campaigns.
3. Some mechanism for adding chance into the story.

I might be interested in something that shared out the power of the DM more, so that the story becomes more interactive. I would be happy to see the many different types of dice replaced with something more elegant. I would like to see a system that really foregrounded role-play over combat (and during combat).


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Few reskin ideas I had so far this week

Proficiency bonus = Heroic Bonus (+2 to +10, or maybe half-level)
Dis/Advantage = Inspiration/Despair, they can stack on the same roll.
Trained: add HB => Expertise: consider a roll of less than 7 a 7 =>Mastery: a permanent Inspiration on the roll

No stat, just skills! Tests are made against a TN using 1d20+Heroic Bonus (if trained)+Ancestry/Class Bonus

Skills: 
Strong attack, Precision attacks, Magical attacks
Might (str saves), Fortitude (con saves), Reflex (dex saves), Cunning (int saves), Presence (cha saves), Will (wis saves)
Lore X, Tools X, Instrument X, 
all the other 15 skills of 5e.

AC is based on armor only, with maybe a layer of DR.

Classes can be mostly the same, remove the ASI as part of the progression, give more real features. 
Build maneuvers for all fighter archetypes (BM, AA, PW etc) Give more 4e-assassin-like powers to the rogue.

Reduce Rote Action (bonus action), make them less everywhere.


----------



## GracefulBreath

6 level system where you add your level to anything you're Trained in on top of the relevant Attribute Bonus. Each level has 4 tiers, on the last tier of each level you get to increase an Attribute Score by 2 or 2 Attribute Scores by 1.
All characters will technically start level 2, as Level 1 acts as the character creation process (tier 1 you choose race, tier 2 you choose a background, tier 3 you increase an attribute score by 1, and as mentioned previously tier 4 increases 2 attribute scores or 1 score by 2).
After that you choose your class to start level 2 at.


----------



## Faolyn

Personally, I'd also go for non-D&D monsters. We hardly need yet another game with owlbears, chromatic dragons, the array of giants, and the like.


----------



## Composer99

If Paizo is right that PF2 can be done by just stripping away the OGL, that's where I'd start, but cutting down on a lot of the numbers to make it more like 5e.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

*I’d like to poke at alt dice mechanics, but I’m open to sticking with 1d20+mod against a DC. *

So, my own game uses 1d12+Xd6 dice pool, and all checks are skill checks where the X above is the number of applicable skill ranks (plus or minus any advantages or disadvantages). The system uses numerical mods very sparingly, and resolution has a 5-step success ladder (total fail, mitigated fail, partial success, total success, critical success), so it feels pretty different from 5e before you even get into different models for PC options, differing focus, and different style of advancement. 

So I don’t think I’d use that as the base chassis, necessarily. 

I also like a 3d6, roll under attribute value + skill bonus. Give attribute numbers that make 3d6 have a good success rate, and circumstance bonuses and penalties go from 1-3, and force or allow rerolls of extreme results. Ie, with a +1 bonus, you reroll 6s. With a -1 penalty, you reroll 1s. (Because you want lower rolls)

That probably feels pretty different (esp with roll under), too, but I think it preserves 5e’s vibe of knowing fairly well what a roll will result in before you look at any modifiers.

*I want to stick with class based, but I’m open to a different model that still makes characters that feel similar, and accomplishes the class building goals in the OP. *

I figure different classes, with similar but different concepts, like priest instead of cleric, knight, archer, and swashbuckler instead of fighter, Jack or thief and assassin instead of rogue, etc. 

I’d want to use a different mindset to determine what classes the game has. Like what you do, so a heavy beefy warrior that goes hulk smash is a Warrior, an armored defender/tactical-type is a knight, and a light and fast small weapons user might be a Swashbuckler. Ranged weapons expert is an archer. 


*Magic, I think is the hardest part. Making a whole spell list that remains 5e-like but isn’t “D&D spells” is a sticky wicket. And a lot of work*. 

My current idea is to delineate a specific number of cosmological areas (planes, moons, planets, “worlds”, whatever), with corresponding types of magic, and esoteric ideas that can be leveraged by priests, mages, esoteric scholars, etc, giving common threads that are easily understood and referenced to provide part of the “weird” and “wondrous” in the game. 

For example: 

13 types of magic, called Houses, and corresponding to elements of the cosmology themed on a similar paradigm to the zodiac. Each House describes a type of magic, a constellation and the section of the star field it “rules”, and a part of the cosmology (realms or worlds or whatever). 

So, The constellation Ferruset rules over the 3rd House, and is the House of Iron, which relates to heavy metals, magnetism, the metallurgy, and governs magic that involves moving objects around affecting the properties of heavy elements. 

*Magic without a long spell list. *

Rather than making every magical thing you can do into a distinct singular power, each magic type has 1-3 basic signs or glyphs that cost nothing to use so long as you have learned them. (Essentially cantrips) 

You can combine glyphs to create a spell, and you can empower glyphs (including as part of a spell) by spending focus or energy or whatever. Spells can get complex enough that they take multiple actions or rounds or longer, and the really wild stuff might take an hour to cast and a good chunk of your daily energy to power.


----------



## aco175

I'm kind of with @Clint_L in thinking I'm not looking for another D&D that is not D&D because we do not like them.  Pathfinder did that and what percentage did they bring over compared to what stayed and converted to 4e?  

What would we need to have to make me want to come over and not just play Pathfinder.  I like D&D and have the history of playing basically all my life.  Is there a better system to cover all the things D&D does not do well.

What is better than the D20 mechanic?  Maybe a 2d10 system to get more average numbers.  Add a d10 when you have advantage and take one away with disadvantage.  Do the same with skill checks.

Hit points.  As abstract as they are, I'm not sure a system with flesh wounds and actual bleeding wounds would be better if you need to track more.  Maybe an armor system that lets you negate damage to keep HP simple.  

Races and classes are likely most core and keeping the feel of the LotR base from older editions would be good.  I could be swayed with a leveling system change.  People play to gain more power and like the 'sweet spot' of mid levels, so something that only goes to 10-12 might keep people in the 3-7 range longer if those XP needs are spread out.  

Along the same lines is something that allows high level PCs to gather an army and rules that support that.


----------



## TerraDave

Composer99 said:


> Composer99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Paizo is right that PF2 can be done by just stripping away the OGL...
Click to expand...


Have they made a statement saying that?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Other assorted ideas: 

*Berserkers*: rather than a class based around this concept, it’s a trait anyone can gain that makes you harder to kill, harder to do mind magic against, and hit harder with melee or close basic attacks. A basic attack is an attack that doesn’t use any special abilities or the like, so regular weapon attacks, attack glyphs, etc. 

*Spells: *Basically, a spell is a complex working of one or more types of magic that requires energy to accomplish. You can do anything that falls within the Houses of magic you are trained in, and that you have enough energy for, but the complex stuff is easier if you master it as a Spell. 

Things that complicate a working are combining houses, and increasing things like range, area of effect, intensity (usually damage or healing value), number of targets, etc. let’s assume PF2 style actions per round. 

Basic magical attack is melee or close, little ability to aim, small effect, using 1 house/skill/school of magic, and uses 1 action. You can spend 1 mana to increase one of those (range, damage, precision, or complicate with a second skill), without increasing the time it takes to cast. Each additional facet of the working adds 1 action to the working. 

So, “Explosion” requires long range, accurate (choose a point or singular target without random chance of placement), large AoE, and combining fire and air magic, and you want it to do a lot of damage. So, it requires 3 actions, and at least 4 mana, but probably more to boost the damage to match DnD’s “fireball”. 

I’ll tinker with this to simplify it.


----------



## Composer99

TerraDave said:


> Have they made a statement saying that?



Here's a post from a thread here on ENWorld about PF2 and the OGL. As far as I can tell, these remarks predate the current kerfuffle by some time.

Note that Paizo would have to actually draft their own license to make this work, which they might be reluctant to do while this is all going down.


----------



## mamba

aco175 said:


> I'm kind of with @Clint_L in thinking I'm not looking for another D&D that is not D&D because we do not like them.  Pathfinder did that and what percentage did they bring over compared to what stayed and converted to 4e?



quite a few actually, certainly more than all the other games combined.

I certainly want the level of complexity 5e has, maybe slightly less, going story heavy like PbtA is not for me, sorry @Clint_L 




aco175 said:


> What is better than the D20 mechanic?  Maybe a 2d10 system to get more average numbers.  Add a d10 when you have advantage and take one away with disadvantage.  Do the same with skill checks.



going back and forth on whether I like 2d10 better than 1d20, Probably still 1d20 for simplicity



aco175 said:


> Hit points.  As abstract as they are, I'm not sure a system with flesh wounds and actual bleeding wounds would be better if you need to track more.  Maybe an armor system that lets you negate damage to keep HP simple.



same


aco175 said:


> Races and classes are likely most core and keeping the feel of the LotR base from older editions would be good.



agreed, 3pp can provide others, I would focus on the core 4 to 6


aco175 said:


> I could be swayed with a leveling system change.  People play to gain more power and like the 'sweet spot' of mid levels, so something that only goes to 10-12 might keep people in the 3-7 range longer if those XP needs are spread out.



I'd level slower and reign in the high end powers, so if the new level 20 is the current level 15 in power, that is an improvement

Oh, and full theatre-of-the-mind support, similar to 13th Age. Maybe spellpoints, not a fan of vancian really


----------



## mamba

TerraDave said:


> Have they made a statement saying that?



essentially, they said they might have to make a few tweaks but otherwise think the OGL is optional at this point


----------



## aco175

I might like a system that allows you to take powers from other classes to build your PC.  Not multiclassing, but something that lets you take an ability at a cost.

Maybe my thief wants to be beefier and wants the fighters power that crits on 19-20.  As a thief I may have to pay 2x my points I get from leveling, but a mage that wants the same thing may have to pay 3x the points.  I know there are other point-buy classes in other games, but something to let you add some things at a cost might be interesting.


----------



## DMZ2112

I'm not sure if this is a cop out, but I think that if there are 100 replies to this thread, you will get 100 different and possibly incompatible ideas.

In my opinion, that is what makes D&D and its 3PP diaspora great.  It's not the best designed game, and never has been, but that has never stopped a large number of fans with substantially diverse TTRPG interests from playing it successfully and joyfully throughout the years, and deriving innumerable stories about some very different topics from it.  None of us want the same things from it, and yet more of us stick around than not.

With the exception of a few niche generic systems, nearly every other RPG is concept- or setting-locked to a degree that requires some technical conversion to adapt to other playstyles.  You can get surprisingly far with RAW D&D just by reskinning things.

If I knew how to recreate that in a vacuum, I wouldn't explain it here, I'd publish it.   

*I guess if I had one concrete request, it would be to reintroduce a bell curve to the core mechanic.*  In early D&D, the bell curve was baked into ability score generation -- you rolled 3d6, in order, and if you got an 18 in Strength, that was a 1 in 216 chance and you'd already beaten the odds, so you picked Fighter and every Strength check you made during the game with a simple, flat 1d20 was 90% successful on average, and that was okay.

Because your character got crushed by a falling slab at 3rd level, and you rolled your next character and got a 3 Dexterity and smug condolences from your fellow players.  The wheel of fortune turns!

Ever since the move to linear ability score modifiers, the game has gotten very swingy.  Can't argue with the simplicity, but the die has a _linear 20-point spread_; in D&D5, your character sheet doesn't become more relevant to success than that doom until about, what, 8th level, with some focused development?  Probably closer to 10th or 11th, right at the end of the sweet spot.


----------



## Zardnaar

Probably a 2d6 system against DCs or a single digit 1-12 system and you assign a dice to each ability score and roll that + modifiers vs a target number. 

 Think I like 2d6 better but at least the other one makes d12's great.


----------



## mamba

DMZ2112 said:


> I'm not sure if this is a cop out, but I think that if there are 100 replies to this thread, you will get 100 different and possibly incompatible ideas.



that is a given, but there will also be preferences


DMZ2112 said:


> *I guess if I had one concrete request, it would be to reintroduce a bell curve to the core mechanic.*  In early D&D, the bell curve was baked into ability score generation -- you rolled 3d6



that is still the case in 5e too (minus the fixed slot the value goes in), so not sure what you want to gain back. Is it just to assign the rolls in order ? You can houserule that, in the official I would let the players choose


----------



## Composer99

I think if this is to be a 5e look-alike then it needs to look as much like 5e as can be managed.

The nice thing about the 5e chassis is that if you strip out the magic system and classes it's a very barebones system that can be tweaked in many ways - witness what Cubicle 7 has done with some of its 5e games, or witness the Spheres combat and magic systems.

Having a 5e look-alike that's easy to mod gives a stable, familiar base that can be adapted to fit different needs and tastes.


----------



## TerraDave

Composer99 said:


> Here's a post from a thread here on ENWorld about PF2 and the OGL. As far as I can tell, these remarks predate the current kerfuffle by some time.
> 
> Note that Paizo would have to actually draft their own license to make this work, which they might be reluctant to do while this is all going down.



Its hard to find the actual original quote...but OK, if true, and Paizo moves to a new license, then the floodgates could reopen. Big ifs.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Oh, another one:

The 3 pillars XP from the old UA must be built in! Now that was a simple not hand-wavy xp system.


----------



## DMZ2112

aco175 said:


> What is better than the D20 mechanic?  Maybe a 2d10 system to get more average numbers.  Add a d10 when you have advantage and take one away with disadvantage.  Do the same with skill checks.



Wahey, nice to see other folks thinking about this.

I started experimenting with 2d10 two years back, and while I was really pleased with how few changes to the rules were necessary to support it, I was never fully satisfied, so I went to *3d20, read the middle result*.  That's really cool probability magic, and not only do you not need to modify the rules at all, it comes with advantage and disadvantage baked right in -- just take the high result for advantage and the low result for disadvantage.

Unfortunately, players hated it because it _feels like_ to roll well at all you have to roll well twice, and if you roll poorly you've often rolled poorly _three times_, which is kind of the point but also a hard sell.  :\


----------



## DMZ2112

mamba said:


> that is still the case in 5e too (minus the fixed slot the value goes in), so not sure what you want to gain back. Is it just to assign the rolls in order ? You can houserule that, in the official I would let the players choose



It's not, though.

In D&D5, ability scores only modify the d20 roll with a flat linear bonus from -5 to +5.  Standard array gives you [-1, 0, +1, +1, +2, +2].  Rolling 4d6kh3 might move these around somewhat, but it's the relative difference between the individual bonus values that is relevant here.  

If the modern d20 System really modeled an ability score bell curve, the differences between the bonuses would be greater the further you got from 10 ([+1, +3, +6, +10, +15]), which is not feasible using whole numbers, as it would obviously change D&D mechanics substantially.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

DMZ2112 said:


> I'm not sure if this is a cop out, but I think that if there are 100 replies to this thread, you will get 100 different and possibly incompatible ideas.
> 
> In my opinion, that is what makes D&D and its 3PP diaspora great.  It's not the best designed game, and never has been, but that has never stopped a large number of fans with substantially diverse TTRPG interests from playing it successfully and joyfully throughout the years, and deriving innumerable stories about some very different topics from it.  None of us want the same things from it, and yet more of us stick around than not.
> 
> With the exception of a few niche generic systems, nearly every other RPG is concept- or setting-locked to a degree that requires some technical conversion to adapt to other playstyles.  You can get surprisingly far with RAW D&D just by reskinning things.
> 
> If I knew how to recreate that in a vacuum, I wouldn't explain it here, I'd publish it.
> 
> *I guess if I had one concrete request, it would be to reintroduce a bell curve to the core mechanic.*  In early D&D, the bell curve was baked into ability score generation -- you rolled 3d6, in order, and if you got an 18 in Strength, that was a 1 in 216 chance and you'd already beaten the odds, so you picked Fighter and every Strength check you made during the game with a simple, flat 1d20 was 90% successful on average, and that was okay.
> 
> Because your character got crushed by a falling slab at 3rd level, and you rolled your next character and got a 3 Dexterity and smug condolences from your fellow players.  The wheel of fortune turns!
> 
> Ever since the move to linear ability score modifiers, the game has gotten very swingy.  Can't argue with the simplicity, but the die has a _linear 20-point spread_; in D&D5, your character sheet doesn't become more relevant to success than that doom until about, what, 8th level, with some focused development?  Probably closer to 10th or 11th, right at the end of the sweet spot.



Yeah this is why I prefer multi-die resolution mechanics, and/or success ladders. 

3d6 roll under is a lot of fun, as are dice pools built by your character stats, especially if you are rolling under fyour ability score plus skill bonus, and rolling under your ability score gets a better result than rolling between that and the total number. ie, you have a 5 dex and a 2 in fencing, and you try to disarm someone, rolling under 5 is even better than rolling under 7, even though both succeed. 

In my own game, it's d12+d6 rank dice, with a static DC success ladder. Roll under 9 and it's a total failure, between that and 14 is mitigated failure (you fail but can get something out of the attempt like setting up an ally), between that and 20 is partial success (you get what you want but there is a cost or complication), and 20+ is total success. It works really well, with most results early on being one of the two mixed results. Since you can use attribute points to push a result up one step,  this means that AP get spent on that a lot more early on, and as you get more competent you naturally use AP mroe and more to power special abilities. 

I don't think I can bend that into a dnd feeling shape, though.


----------



## mamba

DMZ2112 said:


> It's not, though.
> 
> In D&D5, ability scores only modify the d20 roll with a flat linear bonus from -5 to +5.  Standard array gives you [-1, 0, +1, +1, +2, +2].  Rolling 4d6kh3 might move these around somewhat, but it's the relative difference between the individual bonus values that is relevant here.
> 
> If the modern d20 System really modeled an ability score bell curve, the differences between the bonuses would be greater the further you got from 10 ([+1, +3, +6, +10, +15]), which is not feasible using whole numbers, as it would obviously change D&D mechanics substantially.



I guess I misunderstood, to me the 3d6 / 4d6kh3 already are your bell curve for attributes.

You are basically doing an inverse bell curve for the bonuses on top of that, which should kill the bounded accuracy. Personally I think BA is a good idea


----------



## Clint_L

mamba said:


> quite a few actually, certainly more than all the other games combined.
> 
> I certainly want the level of complexity 5e has, maybe slightly less, goign story heavy like PbtA is not for me, sorry @Clint_L



That's cool; my preferences are not for everyone. Lately I've been substituting other games, especially _Dread_ in for D&D, while still playing in the same campaign.

I'm also not opposed to a rules-heavy system. I enjoy granularity quite a lot, sometimes. Just seems like we've already got D&D and a lot of D&D-similar games that cover that niche, including some non-OGL ones. Heck, I still have my old Palladium books.

Right now I'm working on figuring out how to combine _Fiasco_ with D&D. I want to see if we can do a shared DM game with the act-structure and improvisation of _Fiasco_ while keeping it in our campaign structure and using D&D rules as necessary to resolve encounters. I think there is a lot of potential if I can work it out.


----------



## Faolyn

aco175 said:


> What is better than the D20 mechanic? Maybe a 2d10 system to get more average numbers. Add a d10 when you have advantage and take one away with disadvantage. Do the same with skill checks.



I quite like this. I do prefer a little bit of a curve over pure randomness. 

I also like Level Up's expertise dice, since it adds a level beyond advantage and disadvantage.

I suppose the next question is, regardless of the dice mechanic used, what sort of skill list this would have, and how they would be implemented. A flat bonus like in 5e, or using something like those expertise dice instead, or no skills at all, just using stats. Or something else.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> I quite like this. I do prefer a little bit of a curve over pure randomness.
> 
> I also like Level Up's expertise dice, since it adds a level beyond advantage and disadvantage.
> 
> I suppose the next question is, regardless of the dice mechanic used, what sort of skill list this would have, and how they would be implemented. A flat bonus like in 5e, or using something like those expertise dice instead, or no skills at all, just using stats. Or something else.



I like the idea of making everything that has a proficiency in 5e to be a skill, including defenses and the types of magic, with weapons and armors being skills for categories rather than individual weapons or armor.


----------



## Aldarc

I would play Rob Schwalb's upcoming _Shadow of the Weird Wizard_, based on his _Shadow of the Demon Lord_ system.


----------



## Minigiant

One thing I pondered was basing a game of rolling 3d6. Advantage adds a d6. Disadvantage removes a d6. And you criti if you roll two 6s.

But the core would be taking the TOP 20 Class fantasies of 5e and making them the base classes.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Minigiant said:


> One thing I pondered was basing a game of rolling 3d6. Advantage adds a d6. Disadvantage removes a d6. And you criti if you roll two 6s.



I like this, it works really well for Fantasy Age.

For crit, if you roll doubles you add the 2 ''double'' die and add it to damage dealt? And you cant crit if you have disadvantage. 

IIRC, it puts the chance of crit-ing at 44%, which is more interesting than a 5% chance of adding a single die.


----------



## Minigiant

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I like this, it works really well for Fantasy Age.
> 
> For crit, if you roll doubles you add the 2 ''double'' die and add it to damage dealt? And you cant crit if you have disadvantage.
> 
> IIRC, it puts the chance of crit-ing at 44%, which is more interesting than a 5% chance of adding a single die.




I would make double 1s an autofail. That how I run it in my homebrew Mansions and Minigiants


Basic Roll is 3d6
Advantage is 4d6
Disadvantage is 2d6
Critical Hit is  double 2-6s
Critical Miss is double 1s
Critical damage is double 6s
Super damage is tripe 6s
Classes have bonus die to add to rolls


----------



## delericho

It depends on how rules-heavy you want it.

One thing I do know, though: I wouldn't start with D&D and decide what I wanted to change - that runs the risk of straying quickly into dangerous waters. Start with the bare minimum you feel you need to get the feel you're aiming for (probably just level and class, though I'd call that archetype), then build everything outward from there.


----------



## delericho

As for what I'd base it on...

I'd suggest characters be built out of three broad parts: archetype (class), background, and then a handful of merits.

I would drop race/ancestry/heritage entirely - as things stand, they're little more than a package of minor powers, and they're not all appropriate to all settings anyway. So instead I'd provide various merits for the most common abilities (low-light vision, for instance), and allow groups to describe them however they consider appropriate.

I think I'd also be inclined to drop ability scores entirely. The existing six are one of the genuine sacred cows of D&D, but the boundaries between them have always been debatable, and anyway they're largely chosen to optimize for a class anyway. So, again, I'd offer merits like Very Strong, Eidetic Memory, and so on as replacements.

In terms of resolution mechanic, I'm actually entirely agnostic - ultimately, it all boils down to a way to determine how good a character is at a given task, and therefore the chance of success against level-appropriate challenges: Perfect (approx. 100% chance of success), Good (approx. 70%), Average (approx. 50%), or Poor (approx. 20%). But there are lots of ways to skin that cat.


----------



## J-H

My first thought is a magic tag/power system, where you have 4 different descriptors, with a different point cost, and combine them according to the point limit imposed by the caster's level, and based on which options are known.
I'll spitball some numbers here.
When you cast, you pick one from each of the following effects.  
*Area (listed in order of increasing point cost)*
0 Self
1 Single Target
2 Line with a length based on range
3 Ball/Sphere

*Range (distance caster can affect from himself)*
0 5'
1 30' [ball shape radius is 5']
2 60' [ball shape radius is 10']
3 120' [ball shape radius is 20']

*Power*
0 1d4 per proficiency bonus equivalent, or 1.
1 4dx, or 2 if not a dice-based effect
2 6dx, or 3 if not a dice-based effect
3 8dx, or 4 if not a dice-based effect
4 10dx
+2dx per power point invested

*Effect (no cost)*
Heal
Fire
Cold
Force
Status
Conjuration (teleportation/summoning)
etc.

Casting Mage Armor would be a Self-targeted spell with a Range of 0, a power level of 2, and an effect of Force for a total cost of 2 spell points.
Casting Magic Missile would be a Single-targeted (1) spell with a range of 60' (2) for, let's say, 6d6 damage for a cost of 3 spell points.  Or you could "upcast" it for 9 total spell points to do 12d6 damage.
I think the damage tree should maybe be two points per jump.

But this lets you have casters specialize in effects, so clerics may get Heal and Status, and can progressively effect larger areas with their spells.
A Pyromancer gets Fire and some lesser effects, and wizards can pick several status types to know.

It needs some work but should be workable to describe about 70% of what we're used to from D&D.


----------



## DMZ2112

mamba said:


> I guess I misunderstood, to me the 3d6 / 4d6kh3 already are your bell curve for attributes.
> 
> You are basically doing an inverse bell curve for the bonuses on top of that, which should kill the bounded accuracy. Personally I think BA is a good idea



Yes, that's why I said it's not feasible using current D&D5 mechanics.  But a bell curve and bounded accuracy are not mutually exclusive.  You can reintroduce one easily and without changing any other rules by rolling 3d20km1, among other options.

Really, how one achieves the result is less important than making sure that players' decisions about their characters are more relevant to play in the sweet spot than the colossal spread of a d20.  In D&D5, a PC's original ability score modifiers only modify success rate by +/-20%, with every two points conferring 5% more control.  If the group is using the standard array or point buy, that range is reduced to +10%/-5%.

Going to 3d20km1 increases that +/-20% range with rolled scores to +/-27%, which at least makes your character sheet relevant to the check more than half the time.


----------



## Aldarc

Aldarc said:


> I would play Rob Schwalb's upcoming _Shadow of the Weird Wizard_, based on his _Shadow of the Demon Lord_ system.



Quoting myself here because Dave Thaumavore published a video today on YouTube comparing SotDL to 5e.


Admittedly, SotDL is more like if 5e and Warhammer Fantasy had a love child. However, Schwalb's upcoming Shadow of the Weird Wizard is more of an ode to Gygaxian fantasy in a clearly Greyhawk-inspired setting, albeit through the quirky, eccentric lenses of Rob Schwalb.


----------



## RangerWickett

GracefulBreath said:


> 6 level system where you add your level to anything you're Trained in on top of the relevant Attribute Bonus. Each level has 4 tiers, on the last tier of each level you get to increase an Attribute Score by 2 or 2 Attribute Scores by 1.
> All characters will technically start level 2, as Level 1 acts as the character creation process (tier 1 you choose race, tier 2 you choose a background, tier 3 you increase an attribute score by 1, and as mentioned previously tier 4 increases 2 attribute scores or 1 score by 2).
> After that you choose your class to start level 2 at.



I am intrigued by this idea, but instead of having 'levels' having 'tiers,' if I were to design such a system, I'd have character abilities be gated by tier. Mundane, Adventurer, Heroic, Paragon, Epic, and Mythic would be the tiers.

You could thus have games where the tier stays the same the whole way through, and the reward of adventuring is learning new abilities to _widen_ your abilities, rather than increase your power. Or you could have 'zero to hero' games, or maybe something like 'hero to legend' plots. And there could be designs that require certain trials or achievements to go from one tier to the next.

And maybe there'd be designs like, "I'm a Paragon Warrior, but I'm able to pick up a few Adventurer-tier magical abilities. Our Paragon Mage also knows a few Adventurer-tier scoundrel abilities," etc.


----------



## RangerWickett

If any game is to replace D&D as the one that informed nerds rally around - and that's a VERY tall order - I think you still need a few things:

* The full polyhedron set. The d20 is an icon of tabletop RPGs, and nerds have lots of dice they won't want to go to waste. 

* A resolution system that's easy to teach to new players. Roll a d20 and add a bonus to try to beat a target number is the right level of complexity. Having multiple bonuses crop up in the course of a combat (like with 3rd ed) is more complicated than having advantage.

* Not requiring a battle map. You want people to be able to still play on Zoom or watch on Twitch without needing to see a grid. Precise positioning shouldn't matter if you want your game to be used for online play.

And finally

* Some *cool* hook that makes it worthwhile for gamers to pick your system over any other, and for designers to give up on their own fantasy heartbreaker to design for yours.


----------



## TwoSix

RangerWickett said:


> * Some *cool* hook that makes it worthwhile for gamers to pick your system over any other, and for designers to give up on their own fantasy heartbreaker to design for yours.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

RangerWickett said:


> If any game is to replace D&D as the one that informed nerds rally around - and that's a VERY tall order - I think you still need a few things:
> 
> * The full polyhedron set. The d20 is an icon of tabletop RPGs, and nerds have lots of dice they won't want to go to waste.
> 
> * A resolution system that's easy to teach to new players. Roll a d20 and add a bonus to try to beat a target number is the right level of complexity. Having multiple bonuses crop up in the course of a combat (like with 3rd ed) is more complicated than having advantage.



Agreed. I love dice systems, but whatever you choose it needs to use the full dice set and be very simple to teach and use. 


RangerWickett said:


> * Not requiring a battle map. You want people to be able to still play on Zoom or watch on Twitch without needing to see a grid. Precise positioning shouldn't matter if you want your game to be used for online play.



Yeah I definitely think that you can use precise distance a _bit_, but not nearly as much as 3.5 or 4e. 


RangerWickett said:


> And finally
> 
> * Some *cool* hook that makes it worthwhile for gamers to pick your system over any other, and for designers to give up on their own fantasy heartbreaker to design for yours.



Yeah I think this is maybe the thinnest needle to thread tbh. Too much “hook” and you’ve got one more specialized game. Not enough and it’s just, “very generic fantasy mechanics bundle”.


----------



## Minigiant

RangerWickett said:


> I am intrigued by this idea, but instead of having 'levels' having 'tiers,' if I were to design such a system, I'd have character abilities be gated by tier. Mundane, Adventurer, Heroic, Paragon, Epic, and Mythic would be the tiers.
> 
> You could thus have games where the tier stays the same the whole way through, and the reward of adventuring is learning new abilities to _widen_ your abilities, rather than increase your power. Or you could have 'zero to hero' games, or maybe something like 'hero to legend' plots. And there could be designs that require certain trials or achievements to go from one tier to the next.
> 
> And maybe there'd be designs like, "I'm a Paragon Warrior, but I'm able to pick up a few Adventurer-tier magical abilities. Our Paragon Mage also knows a few Adventurer-tier scoundrel abilities," etc.




That's how "classes" work in the homebrew game one of my groups plays. Classes are tiered. As you level, you can switch to a higher tier class. A Tier 1 Warrior can opt to be a Tier 2 Fighter at level up.

Higher Tier classes are stronger but have fewer action/fate points. Your tier counts against the Power level of the adventure for counting action/fate points. So you could roll with lower tier mundane character with tons of points to lucks your way of of jams.


----------



## Faolyn

Minigiant said:


> One thing I pondered was basing a game of rolling 3d6. Advantage adds a d6. Disadvantage removes a d6. And you criti if you roll two 6s.
> 
> But the core would be taking the TOP 20 Class fantasies of 5e and making them the base classes.



As in, champion is a class, eldritch knight is a class, battle master is a class?

I'd go the other way around. Have Warrior as the class. Different types of warriors, or different fighting styles, could be expressed by something akin to a chosen feat or option. Not really an archetype, but similar.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> As in, champion is a class, eldritch knight is a class, battle master is a class?
> 
> I'd go the other way around. Have Warrior as the class. Different types of warriors, or different fighting styles, could be expressed by something akin to a chosen feat or option. Not really an archetype, but similar.



Too easy to accidentally copy something OGL and Too easy to copy the flaws of 5e.

Split the Champion, Battlemaster, and Eldritch Knight into their own classes and give them the full class design space to capture their identities. Samewith something like the Beastmaster and Hexblade. Cut them out and make full classes. We aren't bound to WOTC's no "new classes" rules. And doing so helps you separate yourself from 5e OGL more.


----------



## Faolyn

Minigiant said:


> Too easy to accidentally copy something OGL and Too easy to copy the flaws of 5e.
> 
> Split the Champion, Battlemaster, and Eldritch Knight into their own classes and give them the full class design space to capture their identities. Samewith something like the Beastmaster and Hexblade. Cut them out and make full classes. We aren't bound to WOTC's no "new classes" rules. And doing so helps you separate yourself from 5e OGL more.



Fair enough. Although I'd worry there'd be a very high risk of some classes definitely outshining others. Like, how would a Champion class be as interesting as a Battlemaster Class? Yes, I know that they wouldn't be taken directly from 5e, but the concept of the "basic fighter" isn't going to be as compelling as "basic fighter, but with maneuvers." 

I'm usually up for combining things, taking the most interesting parts of multiple archetypes and making them into a single, more interesting one. Combine Sharpshooter and Arcane Archer. Battle Master, Kensei, and maybe even Hexblade. Battlemaster, Samurai, and Purple Dragon Knight. Champion and Brute. Obviously not taking it _directly _from them, of course, but the ideas.

(Also, it might be easier if, like a lot of OSR games, this only went up to 10th level.)


----------



## DMZ2112

Advancement beyond 10th level is fine, but the game has to change.  It needs to reflect that the players are now the threat, and the adventurers monsters come to them.  Gotta build that dungeon stronghold.

Also, my version of this thing would have only four classes and a ton of archetypes for each.  Too many different kinds of heroes is difficult to mount a defense against I like clearly organized categories.

::_Dungeon Heart beats in the background::_

Hush.


----------



## RangerWickett

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah I think this is maybe the thinnest needle to thread tbh. Too much “hook” and you’ve got one more specialized game. Not enough and it’s just, “very generic fantasy mechanics bundle”.



I, naturally, have an idea I think will work.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> Fair enough. Although I'd worry there'd be a very high risk of some classes definitely outshining others. Like, how would a Champion class be as interesting as a Battlemaster Class? Yes, I know that they wouldn't be taken directly from 5e, but the concept of the "basic fighter" isn't going to be as compelling as "basic fighter, but with maneuvers."
> 
> I'm usually up for combining things, taking the most interesting parts of multiple archetypes and making them into a single, more interesting one. Combine Sharpshooter and Arcane Archer. Battle Master, Kensei, and maybe even Hexblade. Battlemaster, Samurai, and Purple Dragon Knight. Champion and Brute. Obviously not taking it _directly _from them, of course, but the ideas.
> 
> (Also, it might be easier if, like a lot of OSR games, this only went up to 10th level.)



That's *why* you do it as a full class.

You have 20 levels to make the Champion fun instead of 4. And you are not bogged down with beeing forced to include class features that take up too much class design power.


----------



## RangerWickett

Minigiant said:


> That's *why* you do it as a full class.
> 
> You have 20 levels to make the Champion fun instead of 4. And you are not bogged down with beeing forced to include class features that take up too much class design power.



Or you kinda minimize the whole 'preloaded class options' thing and let people pick abilities so they can make fun characters on their own.


----------



## Minigiant

RangerWickett said:


> Or you kinda minimize the whole 'preloaded class options' thing and let people pick abilities so they can make fun characters on their own.




That's the path to either feat option or false choices.

If 5e has taught us anything is that everything isn't swappable. Somethings are not the same same power/flavor or don't have the same design space. If are to make a ne 5e-ish OGL game,its best to learn from the issues of 5end WOTC's management of it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> Too easy to accidentally copy something OGL and Too easy to copy the flaws of 5e.
> 
> Split the Champion, Battlemaster, and Eldritch Knight into their own classes and give them the full class design space to capture their identities. Samewith something like the Beastmaster and Hexblade. Cut them out and make full classes. We aren't bound to WOTC's no "new classes" rules. And doing so helps you separate yourself from 5e OGL more.



Yeah my current ideal class lineup features 4 classes with roots in the fighter class; brute, knight, swashbuckler, and archer. The Warden is my current name for the swordmage and may be inspired in part by the Paladin, esp with the protective auras, while the Mystic is a more hermetic/occult version of the monk. The Ranger is still the Ranger. Whether there is a Pet Class or not, the Ranger would have an option for an animal companion, probably tied to the spirits of nature rather than a mundane beast. 

Since my conception of an assassin class can actually fight (my 5e homebrew gets extra attack), I guess it’s a bit of a rogue/fighter in D&D terms. 

But tbh this is a lot. I’m not gonna dive too deep into it until I know the status of the OGL. 


Faolyn said:


> Fair enough. Although I'd worry there'd be a very high risk of some classes definitely outshining others. Like, how would a Champion class be as interesting as a Battlemaster Class? Yes, I know that they wouldn't be taken directly from 5e, but the concept of the "basic fighter" isn't going to be as compelling as "basic fighter, but with maneuvers."



Well, if everyone has a resource pool, the champion simply spends it to add to rolls directly, increase intensity of hits, boost defense. Basically, it’s just “spend 1 [resource] to increase the result of a d20 roll by 1d6”. Meanwhile the Battlemaster (what I call the knight) has a combination of stances, techniques, and a mark that can either help it lock down enemies as a tank or give allies extra efficacy against them as a “leader” type. 


Faolyn said:


> I'm usually up for combining things, taking the most interesting parts of multiple archetypes and making them into a single, more interesting one. Combine Sharpshooter and Arcane Archer. Battle Master, Kensei, and maybe even Hexblade. Battlemaster, Samurai, and Purple Dragon Knight. Champion and Brute. Obviously not taking it _directly _from them, of course, but the ideas.
> 
> (Also, it might be easier if, like a lot of OSR games, this only went up to 10th level.)



My current idea is, whatever number of types of magic, you also have that number of levels, levels of magical power, etc. so, 9 or 13 or something. 

I could be convinced of 13 classes, with way more (mostly) mundane classes than magical focused. 

Especially if there isn’t an actual level limit, and you can take a “level” of something that in D&D 5e would be a feat.


----------



## RangerWickett

Minigiant said:


> That's the path to either feat option or false choices.
> 
> If 5e has taught us anything is that everything isn't swappable. Somethings are not the same same power/flavor or don't have the same design space. If are to make a ne 5e-ish OGL game,its best to learn from the issues of 5end WOTC's management of it.



I would love to see a game where classes aren't 20 level affairs, but more like "4 useful powers," with prerequisites that are based on whatever the equivalent of "tier" is, but so you can potentially have a lot of suites of abilities that widen your talents without increasing your power.

So like, there'd be, sure, the classic Expert/Mage/Priest/Warrior suite, but they'd only be the "adventurer tier" basic option. You'd get XP that you could spend to learn new abilities in that class, or you could spend a big chunk of XP to add an extra class, but all those abilities would be pretty low-power.

But if you accomplished some milestone (maybe plot-related, maybe just get enough XP), you'd graduate to "heroic tier," and you could start taking classes like "Bard, Rogue; Warlock, Wizard; Cleric, Druid; Fighter, Ranger," etc. Then at "paragon tier" you might get "Arcane Trickster/Shadowdancer, Enclavist/Warcaster, Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit, Juggernaut/Swashbuckler." Or something like that.

Character development would be a mix of "pick a neat cluster of abilities to learn" and "well, I'm done with those, time to pick a new suite to start learning."

You could publish tons and tons of classes, each with the equivalent of 4 levels in a normal class, but they'd all be tightly themed with neat abilities that worked well together.

It just requires planning out a system for how these things can work.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

So, I’ve started breaking magical and nonmagical skills into 12 houses, within 4 courts, although I might change that around as it develops. Each house is named for a type of magic, but also has non-magical skills associated with it. 

The Courts are compass points (and each house will probably have ordinal directions associated with them), with themes corresponding to the general concepts associated with the 4 suits of the minor arcana. 

So each Court has:

a name, such as The Court of The Dawn
a Wind (the East Wind, etc)
a guiding “star” (East is Lucifer or Venus, the Morning Star)
An element and it’s associated magic skill, Dawn being Wind and Aeromancy
2 other magic skills, eg. Dawn also has Mind Magic and Alchemy
3 Physical skills and 3 Interaction skills
A type of Ritual Tool chosen by looking at the tools commonly used as the four suits of the minor arcana in a tarot deck, so Dawn (East, Wind) has the Blade
Meanwhile, each House will have one skill of each of the three categories, a constellation, and a mythic being associated with it. 

What this allows for is a solved game of combining and using different types of magic, what skills share metaphysical space between categories, and thus lend themselves to combination, like Aeromancy, Acrobatics, and Linguistics, or Shadow, Stealth, and Deception, and which magic skills combine well and what general philosophy governs adjudication of those types of magic. It gives a logic that you can put on a chart, making it easier to have a magic system that works via magic skills with somewhat loosely defined parameters as opposed to a spell list.

It’s late, so forgive me if that makes little sense.


----------



## dave2008

My current plans are to use PF2e as a base.  However, it will take a bit of re-working to simplify it enough for my group. I will wait to see how the current debacle shakes out before I take that on though.


----------



## TwoSix

RangerWickett said:


> I would love to see a game where classes aren't 20 level affairs, but more like "4 useful powers," with prerequisites that are based on whatever the equivalent of "tier" is, but so you can potentially have a lot of suites of abilities that widen your talents without increasing your power.
> 
> So like, there'd be, sure, the classic Expert/Mage/Priest/Warrior suite, but they'd only be the "adventurer tier" basic option. You'd get XP that you could spend to learn new abilities in that class, or you could spend a big chunk of XP to add an extra class, but all those abilities would be pretty low-power.
> 
> But if you accomplished some milestone (maybe plot-related, maybe just get enough XP), you'd graduate to "heroic tier," and you could start taking classes like "Bard, Rogue; Warlock, Wizard; Cleric, Druid; Fighter, Ranger," etc. Then at "paragon tier" you might get "Arcane Trickster/Shadowdancer, Enclavist/Warcaster, Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit, Juggernaut/Swashbuckler." Or something like that.
> 
> Character development would be a mix of "pick a neat cluster of abilities to learn" and "well, I'm done with those, time to pick a new suite to start learning."
> 
> You could publish tons and tons of classes, each with the equivalent of 4 levels in a normal class, but they'd all be tightly themed with neat abilities that worked well together.
> 
> It just requires planning out a system for how these things can work.



That’s almost exactly Shadow of the Demon Lord.


----------

