There are and have been endless discussions on what you would do in your own battle monster turn based RPG game, Pokemon "with Blackjack and hookers". My question is if you did design your own Pokemon inspired RPG, what would you do different? Mechanically how would it work?

I keep coming back to Pokemkn because I love the battle system. I've come to realize that despite this, I hate the RNG of this game. Hate crits, hate accuracy rolls and hate effect chance rolls. They always come on or off at the worst times. I will not say one "does" or "doesn't" deserve that fate, it's an acceptance one must agknowladge when using moves under 100% accuracy or allowing their strategy to revolve around moving 2nd, but it's unfun. In understand the desire to break stalemates but that's the logic of a casual game, not one that respects the players inginuity and intelligence. In TF2 random crits are fine in casual settings because there's so much out of your control on the battlefield already, but that contrasts greatly with the environment of a single/double match, my control vs yours.
I'd want to abolish rng rolls for something strategy-oriented but involving risks and rewards, like tracking distance from the enemy. Maybe to use Focus Blast you need to get closer to your enemy, maybe instead of Ember having a 10% chance to burn the target you need to be a lot closer to the target than the needed distance for the base attack.
I also think (assuming a computer game) allowing the player to just have free access to the save data through like an .ini or .json file would let them build competitve viable sets like Showdown without a care about hacking. Like Pokemon if on online PvP I would still impliment checks for impossible stats or moves, but otherwise let it all loose. Might ruin the value of pokemon as collectibles like say with event Pokemon, but I think the competitive integrity and streamline would be more important.

So, what do you want in a Pokeclone?

>>57914050 (OP)
I think the biggest problem with Pokemon's battle mechanics is how discrete all the numbers are. Your attack deals 1.5x damage. Your defense can take six fixed modifiers. This was reasonable, and technically impressive to boot, on the Game Boy. We aren't constrained by the Game Boy any more, and there's no reason for things to be so limited. If I was making a Pokeclone, or advising Game Freak, I'd do away with fixed modifiers and move to more variable percentage-based modifiers. One Pokemon's Flamethrower might do 344% damage to a Grass type, another Pokemon's Flamethrower might only do 276% damage. There could be all kinds of stacking modifiers, meaning that you could have ridiculously powerful bosses that could only be defeated by combining the moves and powers of several different Pokemon, instead of having world-ending threats dealt with in the same way that you beat Bug Catcher Billy in the early game.

>>57914301
Ooh, you're harkening me a thought back to classic ttrpg mechanics where weapons or attacks incorporated stats directly into the specific weapon formula (ex. 1d4+STR, 2d10+AGIx2).
Though to be honest I'm not sure what the reasoning behind your example numbers would be or how the hypothetical factors are coming together.
Like are you saying one pokemon could have a stat modifier to stack a damage multiplier to the move's power and that then gets calculated? So as opposed to
>Swords Dance ups your modifier by 2, and being at +2 attsck is a x2 multiplier to your attack stat
It would be
>swords dance now multiplies all physical attack base powers by 2, so Liquidation after a Swords Dance has a power of 170 which then gets calculated by the attacker's Attack stat normally
Mathematically the same but presented more simplicity?