Simplifying Troublesome Mechanics

[DungeonDevil]

re: general RPG game design

What are some game mechanics in (any given edition of) D&D which have proven too complicated for you (either as a player and/or DM) that you felt could be better off simplified, smoothed out, or otherwise reduced to an elementary, nuclear principle reducing the steep learning-curve and speeding up the flow of play? Note that this does not constitute an indictment of anyone's intelligence, or reading-comprehension skills.

To start the ball rolling, I would submit my displeasure with the complexities of spell-casting, and keeping up with the descriptions and mechanics of all the individual spells. This is in addition to the "Vancian" system of cast-n-forget that I was never much pleased with, by its inherent implications.

(On a similar note, I have always admired the WEG Star Wars rules, but have harboured distaste for the overly-complicated nature of The Force: it seemed to negate the wondrous, mysterious nature of The Force, by reducing it to long lists of spell-like description-blocks, and other fiddly-bits.)

There must be an easier way than for both players and Referees to have an encyclopedic knowledge, and flawless recall, of the spell-listings, which constitute a sizeable portion of the LBBs and the PHB.

SUGGESTION:

1) The player describes what effect/appearance the spell should have.
2) The Referee uses his/her best judgement, and picks a percentage (using percentile dice), or estimates the percentage in 5% increments (using a d20).
3) Roll for success!

Does anyone else have any grumbles about overly-complex mechanics?

[Finarvyn]

This is an interesting topic to me, as many of the annoying things early on were fixed by me and then later fixed better in later editions. I feel like 5E is really well done overall, except that they really didn't emphasize that the material in the PH should be OPTIONAL -- my players all feel like if it's in the PH then I should allow it. I'd love to remove skills and backgrounds from 5E, but I get a huge pushback from my group.

Anyway, off the top of my head...

Armor class has always been an annoyance to me, and I fixed it years ago with an "armor rating" which was zero for no armor and got bigger as the armor got better. Then 3E fixed it by making AC go from 10 and get better as the armor got better. (Which turns out to be my armor rating +10.) Wish I had figured that out.

The entire concept of an attack table seemed cool at first, but making an equation for it was a lot better. I'm not talking about THAC0, but the 3E version of roll+mods to beat AC. Much better.

Magic and spellcasting troubled me for a long time. I think that fighters hardly ever lose their weapons but magic users can lose their spellcasting. Rather than having MU's throw daggers, I created a "cantrip" (didn't have a name for it back then) called Zap which did 1d6 damage but required an attack roll. 5E has fixed a lot of that with their cantrip system, but the scale is still off. 5E cantrips all do d8 or d10 damage and I would have kept it more like the d6.

Sticking with spell casting, I like 5E's "upcasting" but think that the scale is still broken. If a 3rd level fireball does 8d6, a 4th level fireball should be a lot better than 9d6. Let a 4th level fireball be 8d8 and a 5th level fireball be 8d10. That makes those spells worth upcasting.

Inspiration in 5E is a neat concept, but still needs adjusting because you only get one and spending it is too limited. Jason Vey has some great ideas in his 5E Amazing Adventures, and his concept is to allow characters to affect more than just a die roll. I've just been playing with Dragonbane and they allow one to "push" a stat for a re-roll, essentially giving a character six inspirations, but when you push a stat you roll disadvantage on all skill checks until you get a long rest. Seems like this sort of thing could give characters more narrative control without breaking the rulebook.

That's what's in my brain at the moment. Probably more later.

Jul 11, 2024 13:35:46 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

re: general RPG game design
I would submit my displeasure with the complexities of spell-casting, and keeping up with the descriptions and mechanics of all the individual spells. This is in addition to the "Vancian" system of cast-n-forget that I was never much pleased with, by its inherent implications.

SUGGESTION:

1) The player describes what effect/appearance the spell should have.
2) The Referee uses his/her best judgement, and picks a percentage (using percentile dice), or estimates the percentage in 5% increments (using a d20).
3) Roll for success!

Have you seen Dragonlance SAGA? I'll have to hunt around to find my rulebook, but if I recall correctly they have a system where you determine the effects of your spell and that gives it a point value. I think you pick range, number of targets, dice damage, how long the spell lasts, probably some other effects. Each selection has a chart with options and points associated with each choice.

I suppose one could simplify this even farther. "Utility" spells might have one cost, "combat" (i.e. "damage causing") spells another. Combat spells might get scaled by the dice of damage done. Cost multiplier for an area effect. Essentially, have a small list and encourage tons of "up casting."

I haven't playtested this, but I had the notion that "utility" spells might cost 1/2 a spell slot to know and 1/2 a spell slot to cast and that would encourage spellcasters to load up on stuff like Alarm or Hold Portal or other things that I thing magic users ought to have but my players don't often pick because they are too busy getting spells that have different damage types. (In 5E, remember.)

- - - - -

EDIT: Looks like you can get a PDF of the Dragonlance SAGA system rulebook for $10.
www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/186462/Dragonlance-Fifth-Age-Dramatic-Adventure-Game-SAGA

[ramblingcleric]

1) While I love the thematic focus on treasure acquisition and the decision-making that is (ideally) encouraged by a coin-based encumbrance system, my players tend to hate it and tracking encumbrance often gets neglected. I confess to always be on the hunt for something more streamlined. The last couple of years I have used the rather common STR=number of significant items that can be carrried. It’s not bad, but not quite right for me either.

2) Exploration tasks requiring a d6 roll. While not complicated at all, my players do not feel it is intuitive that a 1 or 2 is a success, so I long ago just flipped and standardized those rolls by making higher rolls a success, much like Delta’s target-6 rule.

3) Speaking of Delta. To-hit rolls. While tables don’t bother me, I use Delta’s Target 20 for attack rolls. Easy. However, I have yet to dump the traditional Saving Throw categories and table. I love them! I love the flavor, and I love the versatility the multiple categories provide for various situations.

4) Prime Requite experience bonuses and the calculation of the bonus itself. A lot of work for virtually no significant benefit. I have yet to come across a house rule that handles this in a creative and meaningful manner. Simply leveling out the curve with more equitable distribution does not address the very minor bonus this rule provides when it comes to leveling. I would love to hear from others that have addressed this (besides just throwing out PRs). I’ve spent far too many hours thinking about the PR bonus issue.

5) Spell tables. I am a Vancian fan. So-called fire-and-forget works for me, and I like spells to be considered as one more consumable resource (although I appreciate the arguments against this approach). With that said, I don’t like the table that lets you know how many spells by level per adventure. I dump this either for a simple formula (as in some of my home brew games) or I simply use The Vancian Spell Point house rule posted a while back by Bargle (?, apologies of I got that wrong) over at Dragonsfoot.

6) Thieves and their abilities. From my perspective, the class introduces more issues than benefits. Solution. I don’t play with a thief class.

That’s about it off the top of my head.

Peace

[drskull]

In Chainmal, the post melee morale formula makes baby Jesus cry.

[Desparil]

Jul 11, 2024 17:02:07 GMT -6 ramblingcleric said:

4) Prime Requite experience bonuses and the calculation of the bonus itself. A lot of work for virtually no significant benefit. I have yet to come across a house rule that handles this in a creative and meaningful manner. Simply leveling out the curve with more equitable distribution does not address the very minor bonus this rule provides when it comes to leveling. I would love to hear from others that have addressed this (besides just throwing out PRs). I’ve spent far too many hours thinking about the PR bonus issue.

5) Spell tables. I am a Vancian fan. So-called fire-and-forget works for me, and I like spells to be considered as one more consumable resource (although I appreciate the arguments against this approach). With that said, I don’t like the table that lets you know how many spells by level per adventure. I dump this either for a simple formula (as in some of my home brew games) or I simply use The Vancian Spell Point house rule posted a while back by Bargle (?, apologies of I got that wrong) over at Dragonsfoot.

One idea that I had for prime requisites - for a strictly brown books games mind you, the actual bonuses from Greyhawk and beyond already make ability scores worthwhile enough without needing even more incentives - would be to change them into a passive benefit. Specifically, a high prime requisite allowing a character to function in the class's primary role at a higher effective level. So a 2nd level fighter with 15 or higher Strength still has the hit points and saving throws due for his true level, but fights according to "4-6" column on the attack matrix. A cleric with 13 or higher Wisdom could actually cast a spell at 1st level instead of having to wait until 2nd level.

Probably the most controversial part of this would be magic-users; my initial suggestion would be that the higher effective level applies only to number of spells per day but not to determining spell effects that vary by level. So that way, one with a high enough Intelligence might get Fireball as early as 3rd level, but it would only be for 3d6 damage. Still very powerful against lesser monsters, but not as reliable of a room-clearer against gnolls or bugbears.

Edit: Some showers thoughts on alternatives, if the fighter benefit is too weak or the others are too strong. Fighters could also gain the ability to reroll 1s (2s with 15+ Strength) on their hit dice. The benefit for clerics could instead be on Turning Undead. The benefit for magic-users could be inverted and instead of getting more spells, make spells more powerful (higher effective caster level for those with variable effects) and/or harder to resist (penalizing enemy saving throws).

[hamurai]

To me, the Vancian magic system used to be the main issue against playing D&D as a spell-caster. 5E improved the situation a lot:

The need to prepare every spell in advance will inevitably lead to adventures where you have completely useless spells with you, where you encounter situations in which the spell-caster can't do anything useful with their specialty, magic. Some spells are so niche, you'd be stupid to waste a spell slot for them unless you clearly know you'll need it. In effect, only some spells in the spell book will be used, while others will be noted, if at all, and then left to rot on their spellbook page.
I like 5E's approach which lets you memorize a couple of spells in advance, but you don't have to assign them to spell slots in advance. You're limited in the selection of spells (unless they can be cast as rituals, which allows casting from the spell book, which takes about 10 minutes), but you're free to decide which spells can be cast how often. So sometimes some spells will prove more useful and you'll cast them several times, others won't be cast at all, but the spell slot is not wasted in advance.

I also like 5E's idea of reactions, but the fact that some classes have to manage about a hundred different reactions and bonus actions can be confusing to new players and slows down play. A couple of useful options are enough. I might start a thread soon-ish about an idea we started playtesting to change reactions, for those interested.

[Desparil]

Jul 12, 2024 5:07:38 GMT -6 hamurai said:

I like 5E's approach which lets you memorize a couple of spells in advance, but you don't have to assign them to spell slots in advance. You're limited in the selection of spells (unless they can be cast as rituals, which allows casting from the spell book, which takes about 10 minutes), but you're free to decide which spells can be cast how often. So sometimes some spells will prove more useful and you'll cast them several times, others won't be cast at all, but the spell slot is not wasted in advance.

I also like 5E's idea of reactions, but the fact that some classes have to manage about a hundred different reactions and bonus actions can be confusing to new players and slows down play. A couple of useful options are enough. I might start a thread soon-ish about an idea we started playtesting to change reactions, for those interested.

I really liked how 4E did both of those things.
Basically all of the really niche spells were made rituals. 5E partially retained this, but there are still a lot without the ritual tag that I feel really should have it.
Reactions are also there, but since you're choosing your powers a la carte, individual players have near-total control over how many of these options they possess. Ditto for minor actions (the rough equivalent of bonus actions), with the nice added benefit that you're allowed to sacrifice your movement in order to take a second minor action if you like. Defender classes generally have a reaction attack to punish an enemy that violates' the defender's mark, and leader classes will have a minor action healing ability, but those are pretty much the only ones that are baked into the core class features.

[chicagowiz]

I've found myself more and more using 2d6 (lower values unfavorable to players, higher values favorable to players) for a great many things other than just reactions/morale. It's become my go-to for skill resolution (using +1 for 13+ attributes, 2+ for 18+ attributes, -1/-2 for low value attributes). This solves any sort of skill resolution requirement where it's not obvious that a player would succeed/fail. I also use it to generate difficulties if I'm not sure how difficult something should be. I'm using the Classic Traveller mechanic of 8+ to succeed.

I've used Delta's Target20 for 15 years now, and its second nature. It just works for me.

I've also stayed with the LBB rules of 100XP per HD (and awarding 1-2 extra HD if monsters have magic using skills or are otherwise difficult, like having poison or some effect. I think that's another Delta thing, "EHD"), even for my AD&D games.

I also don't the level scaling for XP awarded. It just didn't fit my game.

[jeffb]

Really dislike Vancian Magic

Always have. Sounds great as flavor, turns into a giant broken metagame in play.

The OP solution is pretty much what the 13th Age Companion character rules do- which is what I used when running 13th Age for the kids group, bitd. It involves dm/player collab and the briefest of guidelines. And imagination. All a win. Link to document below. I have swiped it for O/TSR D&D games as well as some of the other classes.

13thage.org/index.php/tabletop-aids/556-13th-age-companions

Otherwise I've tried spell points and casting rolls from T&T, Arduin and other old school D&D compatible products and they have worked OK... Shadowdark is a decent modern take.

I feel 4e got casting right in the overall sense for D&D. Easy pasy stuff you do all the time. More powerful spells you can only cast a couple times a day.vl Very powerful spells you can only muster up enough energy for once a day, and some spells you will need hours to perform as a ritual.

DungeonWorld is probably my favorite take on a Vancian type system.

[geoffrey]

Far and away the biggest problem is initiative (which is a dirty word). Fortunately, the nasty word is never mentioned in the 1974 rules or in GREYHAWK. But in the advanced D&D game, it is completely out of control (counting segments, weapon speed factors, "declarations", and all the rest of the sordid mess) and spawns literally thousands of argumentative posts on dragonsfoot--all to determine something as simple as who goes first.

I therefore regard all texts about initiative as a long series of typos that got way out of hand.

Dr. Holmes spelled-out the solution: highest dexterity goes first.

[ramblingcleric]

Jul 12, 2024 4:53:12 GMT -6 Desparil said:

Jul 11, 2024 17:02:07 GMT -6 ramblingcleric said:

4) Prime Requite experience bonuses and the calculation of the bonus itself. A lot of work for virtually no significant benefit. I have yet to come across a house rule that handles this in a creative and meaningful manner. Simply leveling out the curve with more equitable distribution does not address the very minor bonus this rule provides when it comes to leveling. I would love to hear from others that have addressed this (besides just throwing out PRs). I’ve spent far too many hours thinking about the PR bonus issue.

5) Spell tables. I am a Vancian fan. So-called fire-and-forget works for me, and I like spells to be considered as one more consumable resource (although I appreciate the arguments against this approach). With that said, I don’t like the table that lets you know how many spells by level per adventure. I dump this either for a simple formula (as in some of my home brew games) or I simply use The Vancian Spell Point house rule posted a while back by Bargle (?, apologies of I got that wrong) over at Dragonsfoot.

One idea that I had for prime requisites - for a strictly brown books games mind you, the actual bonuses from Greyhawk and beyond already make ability scores worthwhile enough without needing even more incentives - would be to change them into a passive benefit. Specifically, a high prime requisite allowing a character to function in the class's primary role at a higher effective level. So a 2nd level fighter with 15 or higher Strength still has the hit points and saving throws due for his true level, but fights according to "4-6" column on the attack matrix. A cleric with 13 or higher Wisdom could actually cast a spell at 1st level instead of having to wait until 2nd level.

Probably the most controversial part of this would be magic-users; my initial suggestion would be that the higher effective level applies only to number of spells per day but not to determining spell effects that vary by level. So that way, one with a high enough Intelligence might get Fireball as early as 3rd level, but it would only be for 3d6 damage. Still very powerful against lesser monsters, but not as reliable of a room-clearer against gnolls or bugbears.

Edit: Some showers thoughts on alternatives, if the fighter benefit is too weak or the others are too strong. Fighters could also gain the ability to reroll 1s (2s with 15+ Strength) on their hit dice. The benefit for clerics could instead be on Turning Undead. The benefit for magic-users could be inverted and instead of getting more spells, make spells more powerful (higher effective caster level for those with variable effects) and/or harder to resist (penalizing enemy saving throws).

Thanks for the suggestions. While I’ve done it a little differently, the basic approach of having a minor class-only bonus for a high PR is what I’ve settled on (for now). Although, I’m always fiddling around with what that bonus should be. For instance, I no longer grant clerics with a high wisdom the ability to cast a first level spell at first level. Instead, high-wisdom clerics get +1 on Turn Undead attempts.

[ramblingcleric]

Jul 12, 2024 5:07:38 GMT -6 hamurai said:

The need to prepare every spell in advance will inevitably lead to adventures where you have completely useless spells with you, where you encounter situations in which the spell-caster can't do anything useful with their specialty, magic. Some spells are so niche, you'd be stupid to waste a spell slot for them unless you clearly know you'll need it. In effect, only some spells in the spell book will be used, while others will be noted, if at all, and then left to rot on their spellbook page.

When you used the previous so-called Vancian method, did your experience of wasted spell slots occur in dungeon crawl play? I’m curious because I think you’re right when you say some of the spells (I would say more than some) are niche. I believe that is intentional in that many of the spells assume a dungeon crawling context. Hence my curiosity if this was your experience in a dungeon with a magic-using character.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 12, 2024 20:29:45 GMT -6 ramblingcleric said:

Jul 12, 2024 5:07:38 GMT -6 hamurai said:

The need to prepare every spell in advance will inevitably lead to adventures where you have completely useless spells with you, where you encounter situations in which the spell-caster can't do anything useful with their specialty, magic. Some spells are so niche, you'd be stupid to waste a spell slot for them unless you clearly know you'll need it. In effect, only some spells in the spell book will be used, while others will be noted, if at all, and then left to rot on their spellbook page.

When you used the previous so-called Vancian method, did your experience of wasted spell slots occur in dungeon crawl play? I’m curious because I think you’re right when you say some of the spells (I would say more than some) are niche. I believe that is intentional in that many of the spells assume a dungeon crawling context. Hence my curiosity if this was your experience in a dungeon with a magic-using character.

I've always resented the waste of spell slots, and honestly that's one of our first house rules in the 70's. We allowed magic-user characters to pick their spells known and then free-cast from there.

For some reason that I have never understood, Gygax seemed to believe that magic-users were way overpowered and always seemed to want to limit their effectiveness. Somehow I envision him chuckling about some MU having chosen "detect magic" when he needed "knock" in the game session, as if the player could have anticipated the dungeon. Unless they are playing a game where they keep going into the same dungeon, where one could plan that they need a certain spell in a certain location to get through, I don't really get it. If I remember correctly, White Plume Mountain (by Lawrence Schick) has a place at the very beginning where if you are lacking one specific spell you can't continue the adventure. That makes no design sense to me at all.

[hamurai]

Jul 12, 2024 20:29:45 GMT -6 ramblingcleric said:

When you used the previous so-called Vancian method, did your experience of wasted spell slots occur in dungeon crawl play? I’m curious because I think you’re right when you say some of the spells (I would say more than some) are niche. I believe that is intentional in that many of the spells assume a dungeon crawling context. Hence my curiosity if this was your experience in a dungeon with a magic-using character.

We mostly played dungeon crawls back then, yes. Some wilderness exploration, too. Not a lot of politics or city adventures.

Jul 13, 2024 4:10:20 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

For some reason that I have never understood, Gygax seemed to believe that magic-users were way overpowered and always seemed to want to limit their effectiveness. Somehow I envision him chuckling about some MU having chosen "detect magic" when he needed "knock" in the game session, as if the player could have anticipated the dungeon. Unless they are playing a game where they keep going into the same dungeon, where one could plan that they need a certain spell in a certain location to get through, I don't really get it.

That's exactly my experience. 

I played exactly 1 MU back then. It was a campaign some friends played, not my regular group. I started at 5th level or so. There were too many times I thought "Dammit, now I should have memorized [insert niche spell name]", when we lacked a spell like Knock, Feather Fall, Spider Climb, Detect Magic, etc.

Of course I would memorize some of these just to be prepared, but then I might have needed two Knock spells and no Spider Climb. It often seemed impossible to anticipate the spells and the number needed.

I always advocated a system like Fin's, where you could just cast as long as you had the right spell slot. Or something like HeroQuest, which was pretty much my first fantasy game, where I could at least cast each spell once.

Edit: After this experience, when my friends and me started our group, I always played a non-caster. When I was DM, I made sure our Wizard player was able to use at least some of his memorized spells and I maybe changed a steep climb to a magically locked door, something like that.

[DungeonDevil]

Jul 12, 2024 8:47:41 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Far and away the biggest problem is initiative (which is a dirty word). Fortunately, the nasty word is never mentioned in the 1974 rules or in GREYHAWK. But in the advanced D&D game, it is completely out of control (counting segments, weapon speed factors, "declarations", and all the rest of the sordid mess) and spawns literally thousands of argumentative posts on dragonsfoot--all to determine something as simple as who goes first.

I therefore regard all texts about initiative as a long series of typos that got way out of hand.

Dr. Holmes spelled-out the solution: highest dexterity goes first.

Lots of great, insightful discussion thus far. Thanks!
I agree about the aforementioned grievances. The problem with the organic evolution of D&D with its manifold sub-systems is the headache of navigating a daunting labyrinth for the novice player.
I know it was intended for AD&D, but I use (and encourage new players to read) the well-researched -- though not without its own controversy -- A.D.D.I.C.T. (Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Initiative and Combat Table) document.

[ramblingcleric]

The examples you both cite certainly sound aggravating, and I imagine I would not have had fun in those situations either. It also seems that you both are pointing to another issue—that the Vancian system is particularly susceptible to certain Referee/DM styles (especially ones that lack impartiality and actively seek to exploit and punish players) and/or poor adventure design. Of course, many rules might suffer because of such factors. But anyway, yea, Vancian will indeed suck if someone exploits it by actively (maliciously?) going out of the way to punish a player’s choice or by making such a narrowly designed adventure that only one pre-determined solution based on an ill informed spell choice is possible.

[jeffb]

Honestly, IDK where we got our "initiative rule" back in 77/78. We did not use anything outlined in the LBBs (and had no access to the documents/magazine articles available today, from articles BITD), and we all had some choice words for AD&D when it arrived and ignored it completely (we did the "OD&D and adding all the good bits from AD&D" take, like many other groups)

We had a Holmes book for all of us to reference when it first came out thanks to one guy(and then I bought a copy of the book, maybe the others did too), and I recall one of our group using Holmes initiative for his games- he quickly tired of rolling up DEX scores on the spot (not sure why he didn't do this in prep and write it down- dumb kids we were).

But when I started playing with that first group we rolled a die (whatever die was closest or the DM said) per side, high roll wins, and then the players/monsters would go in whatever order seemed appropriate for the situation. Round ends, roll again. Once in a while there would be a brief discussion of who should go first/tactical notes, but it was always brief and we we were pressured to act quickly. We never had Spell/ Missiles/Movement/Melee phases. It was very much like todays D&D, without the static initiative. We did have some exception rules for "holding a shot" or "holding a spell"- what they would call an interrupt action in modern games. "I'm holding my turn to see if the EHP is starting to cast a spell and if he does I'm going to shoot my longbow at him" I still use this entire system today for any O/TSR game and have used it with modern versions, though some rules can get a bit wonky in say 4E or 5E using this method. I've spent more words discussing it here than I probably ever have explaining it to players.

I don't care for any sort of static initiative, in any game (D&D or otherwise). I find the randomness of a simple initiative system every round adds a good amount of tension and encourages some play decisions that make things interesting (often a "go for broke" moment).

Edit to add- I know I harp on this entirely too much- I vastly prefer Dungeon World's "no initiative" combat. Just go with what makes sense in terms of the gameplay fiction and what the players are telling you they do. But for O/TSR D&D, I still use the 1D6 per side, per round.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 11, 2024 14:09:57 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I haven't playtested this, but I had the notion that "utility" spells might cost 1/2 a spell slot to know and 1/2 a spell slot to cast and that would encourage spellcasters to load up on stuff like Alarm or Hold Portal or other things that I thing magic users ought to have but my players don't often pick because they are too busy getting spells that have different damage types. (In 5E, remember.)

Okay, so it's a little tacky to quote yourself, but I'm doing it anyway.

I think I'm going to try this for my next 5E game, but the concept should work for any edition where spell slots exist rather than spell points. (And for spell points I could have one utility cost and one combat spell cost.) I'm planning to run that Shattered Obelisk game and am working on a house rule doc for it. I'm adding this to my list.

[ramblingcleric]

Jul 13, 2024 11:01:34 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jul 11, 2024 14:09:57 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I haven't playtested this, but I had the notion that "utility" spells might cost 1/2 a spell slot to know and 1/2 a spell slot to cast and that would encourage spellcasters to load up on stuff like Alarm or Hold Portal or other things that I thing magic users ought to have but my players don't often pick because they are too busy getting spells that have different damage types. (In 5E, remember.)

Okay, so it's a little tacky to quote yourself, but I'm doing it anyway.

I think I'm going to try this for my next 5E game, but the concept should work for any edition where spell slots exist rather than spell points. (And for spell points I could have one utility cost and one combat spell cost.) I'm planning to run that Shattered Obelisk game and am working on a house rule doc for it. I'm adding this to my list.

I like this, perhaps because it retains a Vancian-like feel. It seems to simply go the opposite direction…just like certain complex (or higher level spells) might require more effort and mental capacity to “memorize”(e.g., 1 or more spell slots), so too spells defined as less complex only require 1/2 a slot. I’d be interested to hear how that plays out in your game.

[chicagowiz]

Jul 12, 2024 20:29:45 GMT -6 ramblingcleric said:

Jul 12, 2024 5:07:38 GMT -6 hamurai said:

The need to prepare every spell in advance will inevitably lead to adventures where you have completely useless spells with you, where you encounter situations in which the spell-caster can't do anything useful with their specialty, magic. Some spells are so niche, you'd be stupid to waste a spell slot for them unless you clearly know you'll need it. In effect, only some spells in the spell book will be used, while others will be noted, if at all, and then left to rot on their spellbook page.

When you used the previous so-called Vancian method, did your experience of wasted spell slots occur in dungeon crawl play? I’m curious because I think you’re right when you say some of the spells (I would say more than some) are niche. I believe that is intentional in that many of the spells assume a dungeon crawling context. Hence my curiosity if this was your experience in a dungeon with a magic-using character.

Yes, it's happened - a 1st level mage memorizes "Charm Person" when "Sleep" would have been more useful, or vice-versa, something similar.

To address that, I stole the Holmes rule from the 1977 Basic for my LBB game where a mage can create a scroll for 100gp/1 wk per level of spell.

[drskull]

I use the Holmes scroll rule whenever I can too. It not only allows mages to tote along some utility spells, but gives them something to spend their money on. Also, since I keep close count on the passage of time and living expenses, it gives a nice dimension to player choice outside the adventure.

[geoffrey]

Jul 15, 2024 6:24:26 GMT -6 chicagowiz said:

I stole the Holmes rule from the 1977 Basic for my LBB game where a mage can create a scroll for 100gp/1 wk per level of spell.

That is indeed a rule both useful and awesome.

[ramblingcleric]

Jul 15, 2024 6:24:26 GMT -6 chicagowiz said:

Jul 12, 2024 20:29:45 GMT -6 ramblingcleric said:

Yes, it's happened - a 1st level mage memorizes "Charm Person" when "Sleep" would have been more useful, or vice-versa, something similar.

To address that, I stole the Holmes rule from the 1977 Basic for my LBB game where a mage can create a scroll for 100gp/1 wk per level of spell.

lol. Well, I hear what you’re saying…but, I understand “wasted spell slot” and being in a situation where another spell “would have been more useful” as different. Having Sleep or Charm Person still in the mix for an adventure hardly seems to be a waste, even if one of those might not be ideal for a particular situation during the course of an adventure session. But perhaps I’m being overly semantic or personally locked into a different approach to play with the class. In any case, it seems I’m drifting away from the OPs original post. Apologies.

Oh, and yea, I’m with you on the Holmes rule regarding scrolls. Been using that approach to scroll creation for decades.

[aramis]

Jul 11, 2024 13:35:46 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

re: general RPG game design

What are some game mechanics in (any given edition of) D&D which have proven too complicated for you (either as a player and/or DM) that you felt could be better off simplified, smoothed out, or otherwise reduced to an elementary, nuclear principle reducing the steep learning-curve and speeding up the flow of play? Note that this does not constitute an indictment of anyone's intelligence, or reading-comprehension skills.

To start the ball rolling, I would submit my displeasure with the complexities of spell-casting, and keeping up with the descriptions and mechanics of all the individual spells. This is in addition to the "Vancian" system of cast-n-forget that I was never much pleased with, by its inherent implications.

First thing: D&D's magic doesn't look like what's in the first 3 Dying Earth novels... Cugel has a spell memorized (from a book, but he didn't take the book with) and uses it repeatedly....

The best way I've found to keep it workable? simply put each one on an index card; only give the players the cards they can use. they hand you the cards when used, so you don't need to remember nor search for in the books during play.

Jul 11, 2024 13:35:46 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

(On a similar note, I have always admired the WEG Star Wars rules, but have harboured distaste for the overly-complicated nature of The Force: it seemed to negate the wondrous, mysterious nature of The Force, by reducing it to long lists of spell-like description-blocks, and other fiddly-bits.)

Funny, I found WEG's approach to the Force just about right. It was initiative that I hated under 1e. (Which is why I use WEG SW 2.0e when I use WEG. Generally, I use FFG, and don't find it a problem).

I always hated D&D/AD&D attack matrixes. I hated THAC-0 more.
I would steal an idea from "much newer" games (cough cough, Pendragon... and Palladium) of opposed rolls to hit. If you attack in melee, an NPC must use their action to fend you off or take it in the shorts. if you haven't attacked yet, and get attacked, you may either suck it up or use your attack on them... if both attach, high roller hits low roller; tie- both hit each other. Nat 20 always hits, nat 1 or modified ≤5 always misses. Beat their roll by 10+, bonus damage (double the dice)...


I also much prefer armor reducing damage by 10-AC. Shields get a parry against any one attacker separate from the attack, do 1d3 damage on a hit.

And I like HP to reflect actual damage, which it canonically doesn't in pre-3.x... but that gets into a whole 'nother rant.

[aramis]

Jul 11, 2024 14:09:57 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Have you seen Dragonlance SAGA? I'll have to hunt around to find my rulebook, but if I recall correctly they have a system where you determine the effects of your spell and that gives it a point value. I think you pick range, number of targets, dice damage, how long the spell lasts, probably some other effects. Each selection has a chart with options and points associated with each choice.

I suppose one could simplify this even farther. "Utility" spells might have one cost, "combat" (i.e. "damage causing") spells another. Combat spells might get scaled by the dice of damage done. Cost multiplier for an area effect. Essentially, have a small list and encourage tons of "up casting."

I haven't playtested this, but I had the notion that "utility" spells might cost 1/2 a spell slot to know and 1/2 a spell slot to cast and that would encourage spellcasters to load up on stuff like Alarm or Hold Portal or other things that I thing magic users ought to have but my players don't often pick because they are too busy getting spells that have different damage types. (In 5E, remember.)

- - - - -

EDIT: Looks like you can get a PDF of the Dragonlance SAGA system rulebook for $10.
www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/186462/Dragonlance-Fifth-Age-Dramatic-Adventure-Game-SAGA

Only thing for DL5A (DragonLance Fifth Age - the actual title) is that DL5A uses make when casting magic, and so slows the game to a crawl.
And the DL Classic doesn't include the DL stats for the D&D spells, but otherwise allows playing the originals in DL5A...

I do like DL5A, it's a solid game on its own terms, but it doesn't do D&D with any fidelity.

And note that the deck is different from the other SAGA system game: Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game. (WHich is not to be confused with the earlier FASRIP games, MSH, RMSH, AMSH)

Also, it is a PCs roll to hit NPCs, and PCs roll to avoid being hit by NPCs, two separate actions.

The GM only plays cards for setting initiative in DL5A; in MSHAG, the GM gets to play cards from hand for NPCs...

[Parzival]

My solutions for Vancian magic:
1.) More starting spells. Four at 1st level, with the INT bonus (B*) granting more low level spells. Covers a lot of the complaints, frankly.
2.) Non-damage cantrips, with unlimited casting (no “fire and forget” on these). Each can only be used once per encounter or turn, but other than that you can keep casting ‘em.
3.) Casting from a spell book— solves the “I didn’t prepare that spell” quandary. However, these spells take some time to cast and might fail… even disastrously.
4.) Cheaper scroll creation (more like Holmes), and allowed at 1st level (if you’ve got the gold…)

And the big one: Don’t be a Gotcha DM. If the adventure requires a specific spell which the MU didn’t select, either change the adventure or give the MU an opportunity to realize what he needs and re-prepare, or provide a scroll to fit the gap. Also, be open to unexpected uses for magic. Cleverness is expected of the players— don’t step on it or whine about it. If they out-thought you, they deserve the rewards for doing so.

[Parzival]

As for complicated mechanics, I think the attack charts are too wonky. Why weren’t they all just a simple progression, based on PC class and level? So the fighter classes advance by +1 (5%) with each level. Clerics go up +1 every two levels. Thieves every three, Magic-users every four. Do monsters by Hit Die (with any HD bonus adding +1)

Once you do that, THAC0 becomes super easy, and indeed the charts aren’t needed at all.

Even 5e misses this opportunity, instead using “proficiency” bonuses. Why? Just let the level be the standard. All you need is the formula: (Ascending) AC value - attacker level = To Hit requirement. So if you’re AC 10, then the 1st level attacker needs a 9+ to hit you, and a 5th level attacker needs a 5 or better (get some armor, fool!) With chain and shield, you’re 16. Firstie needs a 15, Fifthy needs a 10. (Time to buy something better…). And if you have that +5 shield and +5 plate, then you are AC 28. Firstie and Fifthy are screwed (or need a nat 20), and a big bad 20th level warrior needs an 8 or better.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 29, 2024 13:45:18 GMT -6 Parzival said:

Once you do that, THAC0 becomes super easy, and indeed the charts aren’t needed at all.

THAC0 replaces the charts, but so does ascending AC and BAB and all of the 5E methods. Easy peasey.

[hamurai]

Jul 29, 2024 13:28:02 GMT -6 Parzival said:

2.) Non-damage cantrips, with unlimited casting (no “fire and forget” on these). Each can only be used once per encounter or turn, but other than that you can keep casting ‘em.

What kind of cantrips are those? Could you give some examples?

[DungeonDevil]

Jul 29, 2024 13:45:18 GMT -6 Parzival said:

As for complicated mechanics, I think the attack charts are too wonky. Why weren’t they all just a simple progression, based on PC class and level?

Doesn't that have to do with what is deemed copyrightable? From what I have been told, if data can be reduced to a formula or equation, it cannot be copyrighted. Thus the wonkiness may have been a device to retain IP rights over the data. *shrug*