My 1st 5e DMing session and some ideas for rules adjustments

[ghost_warlock]

The campaign I was playing in is on hiatus because the DM got a new job and won't be able to play for a few weeks (after which he'll go on winter layoff because the job is a construction job).

As such, I DM'd my first 5e game today. The party started off as a group of 0-level townsfolk trying to survive a sudden attack by undead just after nightfall. They all started in the local tavern and, as characters died, the players took control of a different townsperson (I had a stack of 20 pregen townsfolk; they'd determine which one they got with a d20 roll).

Four characters died, the tavern burned to the ground, the innkeeper's pet boar was eaten by zombies, and I realized that even noobs can be lethal to low-level monsters if you give them a bow, a good sniping position, and access to a lot of arrows. In the end, the group of four characters managed to fend off an attack by 10 skeletons and 10 zombies - way beyond a "deadly" encounter by the DMG's ruling. Granted, they had boarded themselves up inside the practically-indestructible town library and used oil and arrows to kill any undead that got in range.

Pretty much everyone seemed to have a great time.

I plan on continuing the campaign with the players playing the same townsfolk, with some adjustments. During a desperate moment, the characters turned to religion and begged one of the (homebrew) deities for aid. While they didn't actually receive any aid during the battle, in the aftermath they were all divinely awarded a stat-rearrange, a free feat, some equipment, and became 1st-level adventurers (plus 200 XP, so they're close to 2nd level). It looks like the players have decided on playing a cleric (of the deity that they prayed to) and a warlock. The other two haven't decided but one is debating between bard, sorcerer, wizard. The party will be filled out by the final player and a character for another player who couldn't make it today because he was sick.

However, there's just no way I can live with myself if I don't change some of the stuff in the system that bugs me.


Base die for Healing Word is d6. Scales by d6s.
Base die for Cure Wounds is 2d10. Scales by d10s.
For saves only, characters gain a +1 at 9th and another at 17th.
Several warlock invocations (bewitching whispers, dreadful word, minions of chaos, mire the mind, sculptor of flesh, and thief of five fates) are modified so they don't use a spell slot - they basically become 1/day spell-like abilities.
The Sign of Ill Omen invocation doesn't exist; Bestow Curse is on the warlock spell list.
Warlocks choose at 1st whether they want to use Constitution for their spellcasting stat instead of Charisma. This wouldn't affect how the class works in any other way, e.g., their proficient saves would remain Wisdom and Charisma and the Agonizing Blast invocation is still based off Charisma. Would actually make ranged warlocks less SAD as they'd need Dex, Con, & Cha rather than just Dex & Cha.
Characters started with proficiency in a number of different tools due to their backgrounds. As I don't plan on having that much downtime, I don't want it to take 250 days to gain proficiency with a new tool. Need to come up with a more acceptable time frame. Maybe 50 days and 50 gp? Learning new languages via training remains unchanged.
If a creature is flanked, all attacks against it receive a +1 bonus to hit.
Gnomes have advantage on saves against spicy food. :smalltongue:
Considering: At 9th level, beast master rangers can choose a beast with a CR of 1/2 for their companion. At 17th, they can choose a beast with a challenge rating of 1. Everyone in my group is under the impression that rangers are the "worst class in the game" so I want to make the class more attractive. Hunter rangers seem fine, however.


So I'm here looking for some thoughts on the changes I'm making.
Is there anything else I should be on the lookout for that might need adjusting in response (specifically for the sorcerer, bard, and wizard classes)?

[Jlooney]

The not scaling non prof thing is tricky. If you let them scale then you run the risk of destroying a major class feature of the rogue and the bard.

Con for a warlock would mean that they would really only two stats. Dex and con unless you leave the ability to add cha damage to EB as cha and not let con affect it.

I agree that your variant background thing is a good idea however a background is years worth of experience and not just one hellish night.

The main thing is that all of you are happy and that the game turned out well but beware. Adding free profs really hampers the benefit of some races and classes. You'll start blurring lines and even making certain choices invalid.

[ghost_warlock]

The not scaling non prof thing is tricky. If you let them scale then you run the risk of destroying a major class feature of the rogue and the bard.

The non-scaling I'm concerned about is saving throws, which I don't think rogues and bards have any class feature that augments. Neither Jack of All Trades nor Expertise applies to saving throws, only ability checks. Unless you meant Slippery Mind, in which case I'm not going to worry about a 15th-level ability as I'm not sure the game will even last long enough for that to matter.


Con for a warlock would mean that they would really only two stats. Dex and con unless you leave the ability to add cha damage to EB as cha and not let con affect it.

I'm not changing Agonizing Blast at all - it remains Cha-based. As it stands now, though, ranged warlocks are already pretty much single-stat characters as you can sort of get by without even investing much into Dex so long as you avoid taking too many vs.-AC attacks against you. And even if you do get hit somewhat often, most warlocks can find a way to mitigate the problem via temporary hit points. This is also why I'm not too worried about making them Con-based: they can already boost their effective hp through a number of ways so making Con their "main stat" doesn't seem like it'd unbalance things significantly in their favor.


I agree that your variant background thing is a good idea however a background is years worth of experience and not just one hellish night.

As it stands, characters can already choose pretty much whatever skills and proficiencies they want for their background, as per page 123 of the PHB - the fleshed-out backgrounds in the book are really only suggestions that help speed up character creation. I gave them all more tool proficiencies than they'd usually start with, but most of them are for things like the weaver's tools or carpenter's tools which aren't exactly going to be the source of ultimate cosmic power (I doubt they'll ever actually use the proficiencies).

So, really, the only major change there is that the cleric has proficiency with a longbow, which she'll likely only ever use if an enemy is too far away to hit with her spells (the character doesn't have a particularly high Dex anyway).


The main thing is that all of you are happy and that the game turned out well but beware. Adding free profs really hampers the benefit of some races and classes. You'll start blurring lines and even making certain choices invalid.

Blurring the lines is fine and I think everyone in my group appreciates it anyway. As for invalidating choices, which ones do you think will be affected strongly in a negative way?

I suppose the various armor proficiency feats would be unattractive if a character can just train to get proficiency with a particular armor. I think I'm okay with this as the DM. The Skilled and Weapon Master feats are absolutely terrible, so I don't have a problem making them even more awful - it'll just makes it more likely that players will choose better feats. :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

Your flanking and proficiency housrules are in the DMG. Flanks granting advantage is RAW, and the proficiency rule is a variant. IIRC, characters can gain feats and proficiencies if they do 250 days of intense training with a DM-approved mentor.

I played with the flanking "houserule" long before the DMG came out. Expect advantage to be really common.

Also, you did notice that Cure Wounds adds the spellcasting ability modifier to the healing, right? A lot of people miss that part and assume the spell is garbage because they think it doesn't heal enough.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Base die for Healing Word is d6. Scales by d6s.
Base die for Cure Wounds is 2d10. Scales by d10s.

I've heard some people doing this. Makes some sense, though I'd reduce CW to 1d10.


Need to do something about non-proficient saves not scaling.

I'd advise against this. You are not EPIC HEROES!!!11!!1!!! in this edition. You are allowed to suck at some things.


Several warlock invocations are modified so they don't use a spell slot - they basically become 1/day spell-like abilities.
The Sign of Ill Omen invocation doesn't exist; Bestow Curse is on the warlock spell list.

I don't see a huge problem. I personally thought the Warlock needed a *few* touch ups anyway.


Because they were my absolute favorite in 4e, I'm considering letting warlocks choose at 1st whether they want to use Constitution for their spellcasting stat instead of Charisma. Jury is still out on this one, though, and I doubt the guy who's planning on playing a warlock will want to anyway so not a big concern. This wouldn't affect how the class works in any other way, however; most pointedly that their proficient saves would remain Wisdom and Charisma (if they want proficiency in Constitution saves they have to find a different way to go about doing so).

Ahem.
http://i.imgur.com/q5pPmEZ.png

Please don't do this thing. SAD is a thing of 3.X. Leave it there. TO DIE.


Using flanking with the following adjustment: all attacks against a flanked creature have advantage. It never made sense to me that, if a creature is flanked, it would somehow be better able to defend against a third/fourth/etc. attacker. Obviously, this applies to PCs just as monsters. Partial cover still applies where appropriate for firing ranged into a melee.

It's in the DMG as an alt-rule, as mentioned above. You're good to go, though I would caution not to use it.


Is there anything else I should be on the lookout for that might need adjusting in response (specifically for the sorcerer, bard, and wizard classes)?

Honestly, from running and playing 5E, I can't really recommend messing with anything. It really is practically perfect.

Also, let us know how it goes. It sounds like your players are having fun!

[ghost_warlock]

IIRC, characters can gain feats and proficiencies if they do 250 days of intense training with a DM-approved mentor.

The rule is they can get tool or language proficiency in 250 days for the cost of 250 gp, yes (p. 187 of the PHB). For a language, 250 days seems more or less fair, but I don't expect that to really come up much.

My issue is that 250 days for a tool proficiency seems too long. I don't want to encourage the party taking anywhere near that much downtime but I don't want the proficiency to be completely free - it should still cost them something, after all. For that matter, 250 gp is a lot of money for the low-level characters that are actually going to use the tools to accomplish tasks rather than just casting a spell or ritual. Encouraging non-magical solutions to problems should be encouraged, after all.

Maybe I'll go with five days of training for 25 go to gain a tool proficiency. That seems fair to me, anyway.

Not sure about training for feats or skills...I'm not sure I'd allow that anyway. Training to get a feat in this way seems like it'd be extremely powerful and would really encourage players in a sandbox game to take tons of downtime for "free feats,"


I played with the flanking "houserule" long before the DMG came out. Expect advantage to be really common.

I read the flanking optional rules already. Per the DMG, only the two characters actively flanking the enemy have advantage. If their buddy with a bow or another friend in melee attacks the same flanked enemy, those attacks do not have advantage - which is absurd because it means that the enemy is better able to defend itself once the third (or fourth) attacker joins the fray. That's what I'm changing.




Also, you did notice that Cure Wounds adds the spellcasting ability modifier to the healing, right? A lot of people miss that part and assume the spell is garbage because they think it doesn't heal enough.

A cleric using their action and a daily spell slot for 1d8+3 points of healing is a terrible use of an action and a pitiful amount of healing. With the same action and spell slot they could have dealt 3d10 damage to an enemy and ended the combat, after all.


I'd advise against this. You are not EPIC HEROES!!!11!!1!!! in this edition. You are allowed to suck at some things.

My issue is entirely with high-level characters here. A 20th level sorcerer who happened to start with a Wisdom of 9 (a likely scenario) should not be constantly getting charmed by 1st-level characters because his Wisdom save stayed at -1 his entire career. It's asinine.


Ahem.
http://i.imgur.com/q5pPmEZ.png

Please don't do this thing. SAD is a thing of 3.X. Leave it there. TO DIE.

Ranged warlocks are already SAD, if you hadn't noticed. :smalltongue: If anything, this houserule will make them less SAD because they need both Con and Cha for full effect on eldritch blast+agonizing blast spamming.

Also, since most of their good skills are Charisma-based and there are no Constitution-based skills, they'll probably want a good Charisma anyway. I don't really expect this to appeal to many players but it's something I thought I'd offer for nostalgia's sake.


It's in the DMG as an alt-rule, as mentioned above. You're good to go, though I would caution not to use it.

I'd announced before we started play today that my houserule was how I was going to run flanking. It honestly never came up so I'll have to test it out in future sessions.


Also, let us know how it goes. It sounds like your players are having fun!

That's really the crux of it - these houserules are all aimed at making the game more fun. Giving players some more options for building their characters, making combat more dynamic, and encouraging them actually be out adventuring rather than spending time poking around in town training with NPCS. :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

I, also, would highly recommend against the flanking = advantage variant from DMG. It invalidates a LOT of things.


1. Devalues rogue characters, as that is their schtick;
2. Devalues AC-based characters and mobs, as attacks will hit more often than not with advantage;
3. Significantly boosts the value of HP, as AC is less effective;
4. Makes combat maneuvering very one dimensional - everyone clusters around the mobs, even casters do this (I played a straight sorcerer last campaign, and often would hit with firebolt and then charge and stand next to one of the mobs to give the paladin advantage on his attack - it felt really weird, from a flavor/realism point of view), as the advantage it gives to melee is so valuable. No one is tripping opponents, or moving in and out of range, because the easiest way to get advantage is to flank.
5. As a subset of 4, devalues feats and subclasses that grant advantage, making those selections less interesting.


Nerfed:
Pack tactics
Rogue flanking
Prone condition
Paralyzed condition
Unconscious condition
Grappling
Feat: Mounted Combatant
Hiding and invisibility in combat
Attacking creatures squeezed into a small space
Help action in combat
Vow of emnity
Assassinate
Versatile Trickster
Conditions that grant disadvantage on attack rolls that would be (under house rule) neutralized by flanking:
Compelled Duel
Poisoned (condition)
Prone (condition)

I have it set so that Flankng grants +1 to attack as recommended in that thread. It's still nice enough to try for, but not game breaking.

[ghost_warlock]

I, also, would highly recommend against the flanking = advantage variant from DMG. It invalidates a LOT of things.

*snip*

I have it set so that Flankng grants +1 to attack as recommended in that thread. It's still nice enough to try for, but not game breaking.

So the argument is that flanking = advantage makes combat less dynamic and messes with verisimilitude. Hm. Given those lists, that's actually a persuasive argument for not using the flanking rules.

I do like your proposed alternative, but I might make it a +2 simply to keep parity with the familiar "+2/+5" guideline. That also makes flanking sort of an anti-cover.

[Kryx]

I do like your proposed alternative, but I might make it a +2 simply to keep parity with the familiar "+2/+5" guideline.

+2 is too much with bounded accuracy based on the math presented here:


One thing to keep in mind, too, is that with the lower power structures inherent in this edition, any given + is much more meaningful. So, think of it this way: +2 to hit was 1/5th of max level bonus to hit for Wizards, 2/15ths of the max level bonus to hit for Rogue types, or 1/10th of the max level bonus to hit for Fighter types. +2 in this system is the equivalent of 1/3rd of your max bonus by level for *everyone*.

Put another way, the +4 equivalent provided by Advantage, equivalent to 2/3rds of your max bonus by level, is the same as a +10 bonus in 3.5 for Rogue types (+6 for Wizards, +13 for fighters). Just so it's clear what exactly is being provided here.

The main reason I quoted you in this is to raise the point that the +2 from flanking previously, being between 1/5th and 1/10th of the max bonus by level, would indeed equate to a +1 bonus with the reduced scaling provided by this system. That's not nerfing it at all, that's just keeping up with the times.

[ghost_warlock]

+2 is too much with bounded accuracy based on the math presented here:

By that math, RAW having partial cover provide a +2 bonus to AC is also too big.

[LuthielValkire]

If you do monkey with saves, I'd only do it in a very minor way -- like adding + 1 to all non-proficient saves at level 11+ or adding a +1 to add to one non proficient save of the character's choice per tier and not to exceed 1/2 the proficiency bonus (rounded down). But would advise against even this.

Characters should remain challenged by certain things. Weaknesses are as defining as strengths. In addition, bounded accuracy and bounded saves makes 1st level anything still a potential challenge to even high level characters. This is a good thing and one of the reasons why 5e is so dynamic.

[metaridley18]

By that math, RAW having partial cover provide a +2 bonus to AC is also too big.

Cover is less likely to occur and also easier to defeat than flanking. If you are flanked, you'll have to soak minimum two Opportunity Attacks (with the flanked bonus still applicable) to leave the flanked position. If an enemy has partial cover, it's most likely due to a chest high wall or some other terrain feature that PCs can simply walk around to engage.

[ghost_warlock]

If you do monkey with saves, I'd only do it in a very minor way -- like adding + 1 to all non-proficient saves at level 11+ or adding a +1 to add to one non proficient save of the character's choice per tier and not to exceed 1/2 the proficiency bonus (rounded down). But would advise against even this.

Characters should remain challenged by certain things. Weaknesses are as defining as strengths. In addition, bounded accuracy and bounded saves makes 1st level anything still a potential challenge to even high level characters. This is a good thing and one of the reasons why 5e is so dynamic.

I was thinking maybe a +1 to non-proficient at 9th and then maybe again at 17th. It wouldn't be as much as a 1/2 proficient bonus, but it also wouldn't be complete stagnation. All attacks and save DCs continue to scale up as the characters level so their defenses should as well. I don't plan on tinkering with AC because it can already scale up due to getting access to the more expensive armors, a few of the classes double-dipping ability scores to AC (so it can scale up multiple times as they improve both of those scores), or learning new armor proficiencies as they level (such as the valor bard).

[JoeJ]

Maybe I'll go with five days of training for 25 go to gain a tool proficiency. That seems fair to me, anyway.


Five days to become a proficient blacksmith, or carpenter, or teamster, or navigator? The characters would really be able to laugh the chumps who spend several years as apprentices in those trades, wouldn't they?

[ghost_warlock]

Five days to become a proficient blacksmith, or carpenter, or teamster, or navigator? The characters would really be able to laugh the chumps who spend several years as apprentices in those trades, wouldn't they?

No more than PC wizards laugh at NPC wizards who spend their whole lives studying magic but never reach the levels of mastery the PCs do just blowing up gnolls with fireballs.

Comparing PC and NPC proficiencies and getting riled up about it is the road to madness.

[Kornaki]

I was thinking maybe a +1 to non-proficient at 9th and then maybe again at 17th. It wouldn't be as much as a 1/2 proficient bonus, but it also wouldn't be complete stagnation. All attacks and save DCs continue to scale up as the characters level so their defenses should as well. I don't plan on tinkering with AC because it can already scale up due to getting access to the more expensive armors, a few of the classes double-dipping ability scores to AC (so it can scale up multiple times as they improve both of those scores), or learning new armor proficiencies as they level (such as the valor bard).

To take your example, is flipping from a -1 wisdom save to a +1 wisdom save going to cure the problem that you think exists?

[The J Pizzel]

Just a quick comment on the Flanking conversation: my group couldn't wait to try it out after the DMG came out. 2 of my players are from 3.5 and the other 4 are from 4E and they've been missing it fiercely. I posted all the pros and cons I've collected from various web pages and put them in our Facebook group page, citing the way it devalues lots of class and monster features and generally makes combat somewhat bland, but provides a massive boost in damage and etc. I tried my best to stay neutral during conversation so as not to tip the balance.

After really diving into it, the entire group was a resounding and unanimous NO. In fact, I'm putting all the DMG variants up bit by bit for us to discuss and they generally haven't wanted any changes. The game really is pretty damn well made.

jP

[Shining Wrath]

For the 250 days / 250 GP to become proficient in something:
1) Allow proficiency to be transmitted from one PC to another during the presumed "downtime", travel, et cetera. Cost whatever they agree upon. If the Bard wants to teach the Paladin how to use thieves tools that's their business.
2) Reduce the time if there's in-game exposure to the new proficiency; for example, if your party encounters Gnomes on a pretty regular basis, and Gnomes live in the area, learning to speak Gnomish can take less time in the same way that I'd have a leg up learning Spanish from living in Colorado.

EXPLICIT STATEMENT: I do not find there to be any similarities between Gnomes and Mexicans, other than as "groups of people who speak a different language". Mexicans are not tiny people who wear adorable hats.

3) You might reduce the time required if the character has a high score in the corresponding ability. Doesn't it make sense that a high Dex character would learn to how to use thieves tools faster?

[ghost_warlock]

To take your example, is flipping from a -1 wisdom save to a +1 wisdom save going to cure the problem that you think exists?

Increasing chances of success by 10% is better than stagnation, yes.


For the 250 days / 250 GP to become proficient in something:
1) Allow proficiency to be transmitted from one PC to another during the presumed "downtime", travel, et cetera. Cost whatever they agree upon. If the Bard wants to teach the Paladin how to use thieves tools that's their business.

I figured they could already do this, the rule change was mostly for reducing downtime in the corner cases where nobody had that proficiency.


2) Reduce the time if there's in-game exposure to the new proficiency; for example, if your party encounters Gnomes on a pretty regular basis, and Gnomes live in the area, learning to speak Gnomish can take less time in the same way that I'd have a leg up learning Spanish from living in Colorado.

While in theory that sounds nice, in practice it sounds like I'd have to start calculating "gnome concentration" for the players who want to figure out where they'd learn the language fastest. :smalltongue:


3) You might reduce the time required if the character has a high score in the corresponding ability. Doesn't it make sense that a high Dex character would learn to how to use thieves tools faster?

I'd really rather have a broad-sweeps rule for this rather than having to evaluate scenarios on a case-by-case basis. That, and figuring out how much faster a character with an 18 Dex learns the skill compared to a character with merely a 16 Dex...


EXPLICIT STATEMENT: I do not find there to be any similarities between Gnomes and Mexicans, other than as "groups of people who speak a different language". Mexicans are not tiny people who wear adorable hats.

Best comment in thread. Gnomes in my setting will now refer to the PCs as "gringos" and "pendejos." :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Also, I've updated the original post.

[Shining Wrath]

Increasing chances of success by 10% is better than stagnation, yes.



I figured they could already do this, the rule change was mostly for reducing downtime in the corner cases where nobody had that proficiency.



While in theory that sounds nice, in practice it sounds like I'd have to start calculating "gnome concentration" for the players who want to figure out where they'd learn the language fastest. :smalltongue:



I'd really rather have a broad-sweeps rule for this rather than having to evaluate scenarios on a case-by-case basis. That, and figuring out how much faster a character with an 18 Dex learns the skill compared to a character with merely a 16 Dex...



Best comment in thread. Gnomes in my setting will now refer to the PCs as "gringos" and "pendejos." :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Also, I've updated the original post.

I'm looking to give you excuses to do this on a case-by-case basis precisely because I don't think characters should be doing this too often - otherwise, what's the point of a Background? If you broad-sweep this into easyland, you'll have everyone in your party speaking 12 languages and proficient with 6 different tools.

[JoeJ]

No more than PC wizards laugh at NPC wizards who spend their whole lives studying magic but never reach the levels of mastery the PCs do just blowing up gnolls with fireballs.

Comparing PC and NPC proficiencies and getting riled up about it is the road to madness.

Did they reach that level of mastery in 5 days? Being able to gain a tool proficiency that fast would completely break my suspension of disbelief, even if the character used a montage.

[Dalebert]

The 250 days doesn't have to be continuous, does it? You don't necessarily want total realism. That spoils the game. 250 days does seem rather long but 5 days seems awfully short. My character would develop an almost jack-of-all-trades list of tool proficiencies in your game.

[ghost_warlock]

I'm looking to give you excuses to do this on a case-by-case basis precisely because I don't think characters should be doing this too often - otherwise, what's the point of a Background? If you broad-sweep this into easyland, you'll have everyone in your party speaking 12 languages

Pretty sure I already said earlier in the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18533900&postcount=6) that the decreased training time didn't apply to languages...not that I see why anyone would bother in the first place given that they could just use a ritual. :smallconfused:


and proficient with 6 different tools.


Did they reach that level of mastery in 5 days? Being able to gain a tool proficiency that fast would completely break my suspension of disbelief, even if the character used a montage.


The 250 days doesn't have to be continuous, does it? You don't necessarily want total realism. That spoils the game. 250 days does seem rather long but 5 days seems awfully short. My character would develop an almost jack-of-all-trades list of tool proficiencies in your game.

While that all sounds mighty terrifying, remember that the only tools PCs are likely to actually use their proficiencies in are theives tools and maybe the poisoner's kit or disguise kit.

Surely, all of the PCs spending their hard-earned gold to become proficient brewers is going to break my game. :smallwink:

Also, I've updated the original post.

[Dalebert]

While that all sounds mighty terrifying, remember that the only tools PCs are likely to actually use their proficiencies in are theives tools and maybe the poisoner's kit or disguise kit.

Sure. I would start with those and then move on to some silly things like carpentry, woodcarving, whatever. I would get good at all the things. They would all feel rather cheap. If I were the rogue in your game, I would be annoyed that everyone in the party is proficient in thieves tools, but I would think they're stupid if everyone wasn't.

[Kornaki]

Sure. I would start with those and then move on to some silly things like carpentry, woodcarving, whatever. I would get good at all the things. They would all feel rather cheap. If I were the rogue in your game, I would be annoyed that everyone in the party is proficient in thieves tools, but I would think they're stupid if everyone wasn't.

Who cares that you're proficient in carpentry? When are you ever going to use it?


Increasing chances of success by 10% is better than stagnation, yes.


The complaint was that a level 1 wizard could easily charm a 9 wisdom level 20 character. The proposed rule change doesn't change that. It was a qualitative complaint that the chance of success is too high, the chance of success is still very high (greater than half in fact). I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to solve what you thought was a problem in the game.

[JoeJ]

While that all sounds mighty terrifying, remember that the only tools PCs are likely to actually use their proficiencies in are theives tools and maybe the poisoner's kit or disguise kit.

Surely, all of the PCs spending their hard-earned gold to become proficient brewers is going to break my game. :smallwink:

Also, I've updated the original post.

I saw that, and I think it works better.

If I could rapidly get proficiency in tools, in addition to the thieves, disguise, and poisoner tools you mentioned, I'd also want to pick up alchemist, carpenter, cartographer, cook, jeweler, leatherworker, mason, smith, tinker, forgery kit, all the gaming sets, herbalism kit, a couple of musical instruments, navigator's tools, land vehicles, and water vehicles (not necessarily in that order).

[Slipperychicken]

What if you cap the number of proficiencies they can get? Like maybe you can only get one extra per five levels?

[Dalebert]

Who cares that you're proficient in carpentry? When are you ever going to use it?

I said it was silly. After I learned all the ones that matter, like the three mentioned and a few more, I would just be picking up skills for flavor at 5 days and 25gp a pop. Why not? And those three that "matter", wouldn't, when everyone in the party knows them.

[JoeJ]

Who cares that you're proficient in carpentry? When are you ever going to use it?

Creating temporary fortifications, evaluating fortifications, making certain kinds of traps, determining the safety of wooden structures like bridges or buildings, sabotaging wooden structures like bridges or buildings, creating temporary bridges, repairing wagons, repairing ships, weather proofing that abandoned hut you found just as the storm started to close in, disassembling part of the hut to use as firewood without bringing the whole thing down on your head. A creative player can think of all kinds of uses for carpentry skill.

[Inchoroi]

Actually, come to think of it, I got an idea. On the Proficiency in tools houserule, why not divide the normal 250 days/gold by your Ability score in the ability used with it? For example, lets say you're a fighter and want proficiency in thieves' tools; you're dex based, so you have a 16 dex, and then divide the 250 by 3, meaning that you'd spend 84 days/gold instead.

I think I might adopt this.

[ghost_warlock]

Creating temporary fortifications, evaluating fortifications, making certain kinds of traps, determining the safety of wooden structures like bridges or buildings, sabotaging wooden structures like bridges or buildings, creating temporary bridges, repairing wagons, repairing ships, weather proofing that abandoned hut you found just as the storm started to close in, disassembling part of the hut to use as firewood without bringing the whole thing down on your head. A creative player can think of all kinds of uses for carpentry skill.

Honestly, if the plot of the game suggests that any of these things might actually contribute to the success of the party, there's a good chance that the DM would have planned for it and the characters would get to do them even without proficiency.

Even if the DM hadn't planned for it, isn't the DM more than likely to say something like "yeah, I suppose that could work...give me an Intelligence check to see if you can figure it out in time." Of course, then one of the other players says that they'll help and the DM grants advantage on the check. Proficiency in woodworking never even came up.

[JoeJ]

Honestly, if the plot of the game suggests that any of these things might actually contribute to the success of the party, there's a good chance that the DM would have planned for it and the characters would get to do them even without proficiency.

Even if the DM hadn't planned for it, isn't the DM more than likely to say something like "yeah, I suppose that could work...give me an Intelligence check to see if you can figure it out in time." Of course, then one of the other players says that they'll help and the DM grants advantage on the check. Proficiency in woodworking never even came up.

I have never played with a DM who lets the PCs use abilities they don't have. Nor would I allow it, since it makes the choices the players made in creating their characters meaningless.

[ghost_warlock]

I have never played with a DM who lets the PCs use abilities they don't have. Nor would I allow it, since it makes the choices the players made in creating their characters meaningless.

Outside of the aforementioned thieves tools, disguise kit, and poisoner's kit, tool proficiencies are meaningless choices, though. :smallconfused:

With a handful of niche builds as exceptions, these sorts of proficiencies have always been meaningless in D&D. Once you get into the dungeon, nobody cares that your character is a skilled cobbler unless they need you to make them magic boots - in which case what spells you can cast to enchant the boots are far more important. Hardly anybody took the Profession skill or Knowledge (architecture and engineering) seriously in 3e and these sorts of crafting skills were seen as so meaningless by the devs that they didn't even exist in 4e - if you wanted your character to be a skilled cartwright you just told the DM, he made a note of it, and then everyone promptly got on with the game and forgot about it.

Even in 5e, these proficiencies only exist as a hand-wave for what your character is doing to support itself during downtime - that's the only mechanical use they're given in RAW.

[JoeJ]

Outside of the aforementioned thieves tools, disguise kit, and poisoner's kit, tool proficiencies are meaningless choices, though. :smallconfused:

With a handful of niche builds as exceptions, these sorts of proficiencies have always been meaningless in D&D. Once you get into the dungeon, nobody cares that your character is a skilled cobbler unless they need you to make them magic boots - in which case what spells you can cast to enchant the boots are far more important. Hardly anybody took the Profession skill or Knowledge (architecture and engineering) seriously in 3e and these sorts of crafting skills were seen as so meaningless by the devs that they didn't even exist in 4e - if you wanted your character to be a skilled cartwright you just told the DM, he made a note of it, and then everyone promptly got on with the game and forgot about it.

Even in 5e, these proficiencies only exist as a hand-wave for what your character is doing to support itself during downtime - that's the only mechanical use they're given in RAW.

You're generalizing your own playstyle; a lot of us don't play that way. Skills ("non-weapon proficiencies") were added to AD&D in the first place because they were important for games that aren't just one dungeon crawl after another. That's still true in 5e.

For example, if you're doing a lot of exploring or traveling, having the right tool proficiencies will let you keep your equipment in good repair even if nobody in the party can cast Mending, or if the damage is too big for that spell. They'll also let you create vital equipment when you're miles from the nearest trading post, figure out where you are (navigator's tools), and make a map (cartographer's tools) so that others can benefit from your exploration. I shouldn't even need to mention the benefits of land and/or water vehicle proficiency in a game with lots of travel.

In a campaign with heavy political maneuvering, a character's ability to influence an important guild may depend on them actually being a master of the appropriate trade. And proficiency in brewer's supplies, calligrapher's supplies, cook's utensils, or a musical instrument could help a character influence a powerful NPC, and might be the key to getting access to that NPC in the first place. Plus, anybody who wants to gamble their way into access like James Bond needs proficiency in at least one type of gaming set.

For a dungeon adventure, having the right tool proficiencies could let a group talk their way past the guards and into the BBEG's throne room without having to fight for every step. Even evil overlords sometimes want to be entertained, or need craftsmen to work on their fortress and equip their troops.

Mechanical support in the rules is right there at the top of p. 154 of the PHB, but it requires some creativity by the players. And while I don't deny the possibility, I've never known a DM to run a game that allows or encourages that much out-of-the-box thinking without also requiring the PCs to actually have whatever proficiencies they're trying to use.

[Raging_Pacifist]

Base die for Healing Word is d6. Scales by d6s.
Base die for Cure Wounds is 2d10. Scales by d10s.
For saves only, characters gain a +1 at 9th and another at 17th.
Several warlock invocations are modified so they don't use a spell slot - they basically become 1/day spell-like abilities.
The Sign of Ill Omen invocation doesn't exist; Bestow Curse is on the warlock spell list.
Warlocks choose at 1st whether they want to use Constitution for their spellcasting stat instead of Charisma. This wouldn't affect how the class works in any other way, e.g., their proficient saves would remain Wisdom and Charisma and the Agonizing Blast invocation is still based off Charisma. Would actually make ranged warlocks less SAD as they'd need Dex, Con, & Cha rather than just Dex & Cha.
Characters started with proficiency in a number of different tools due to their backgrounds. As I don't plan on having that much downtime, I don't want it to take 250 days to gain proficiency with a new tool. Need to come up with a more acceptable time frame. Maybe 50 days and 50 gp? Learning new languages remains unchanged.
On a trial-basis, flanking provides a +2 to hit. Additionally, all attacks against a flanked creature have the same attack bonus. It never made sense to me that, if a creature is flanked, it would somehow be better able to defend against a third/fourth/etc. attacker. Obviously, this applies to PCs just as monsters. Partial cover still applies where appropriate for firing ranged into a melee.
Gnomes have advantage on saves against spicy food. :smalltongue:
Considering: At 9th level, beast master rangers can choose a beast with a CR of 1/2 for their companion. At 17th, they can choose a beast with a challenge rating of 1. Everyone in my group is under the impression that rangers are the "worst class in the game" so I want to make the class more attractive. Hunter rangers seem fine, however.


So I'm here looking for some thoughts on the changes I'm making.
Is there anything else I should be on the lookout for that might need adjusting in response (specifically for the sorcerer, bard, and wizard classes)?

This Invaldiates its niche use. Healing Word is a desperate, last resort spell.

Why step cure wounds from 1d8 to 2d10? You more than double the spells potency that way, as well as healing should not be emphasized as purely magical.

I like evryone getting a bump to saves.
Which invocations are you turning into Spell-Like-Abilities? You do know Warlock gets all spell slots back on a short rest right? Your change gimps warlock.

I'm mildly okay with this.

Wat2hek? Warlocks getting the option to use CON for spellcasting instead of CHA? How would that help in any way, other than to make CHA irrelevant? Woof.

Backgrounds DO provide tool/skill proficiencies, and can customize them at will.

In the DMG, flanking provides advantage. I like +2 a bit better.

Wat

Yes.

[ghost_warlock]

And while I don't deny the possibility, I've never known a DM to run a game that allows or encourages that much out-of-the-box thinking without also requiring the PCs to actually have whatever proficiencies they're trying to use.

I'm not surprised, as this is the first edition in which niche, non-adventuring proficiencies are handled in this manner.

I've never played under a DM that was concerned whether my character was proficient with carpenter's tools when I wanted to barricade a door. Likewise, I've never played under a DM who was concerned whether my character was proficient with cook's tools when I stated my character was preparing a meal for the party by campfire. I've never played under a DM who seemed the slightest bit concerned that my character wasn't proficient with mason's tools when I stated that I wanted to build a stone cairn for a fallen adventuring companion. I've never played under a DM who penalized my character for not being proficient with a playing card set when I stated my character was going to try to make some money gambling.

I don't think becoming proficient with any of these tools is worth 250 days time and 250 gp for my players so I'm reducing the time and cash investment in them. I don't understand why giving easier access to these, essentially flavor, proficiencies is the most hotly debated point. :smallconfused:


This Invaldiates its niche use. Healing Word is a desperate, last resort spell.

Why step cure wounds from 1d8 to 2d10?

See this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?388193-Is-Cure-Wounds-a-terrible-spell).

Even just going by some number-crunching by my own players, Cure Wounds is a terrible use of a standard action. Even most low-level monsters deal more damage with a single attack than Cure Wounds is capable of healing so characters will almost always be better off just attacking instead of trying to heal their allies. As I want to encourage in-combat healing, I want to increase the potency of healing spells.

As for Healing Word, the change averages out to 1 extra point of healing per spell level so I don't really see how that "invalidates its niche use."


You more than double the spells potency that way, as well as healing should not be emphasized as purely magical.

Huh? Why shouldn't healing be magical?


Which invocations are you turning into Spell-Like-Abilities? You do know Warlock gets all spell slots back on a short rest right? Your change gimps warlock.

The affected invocations are: bewitching whispers, dreadful word, minions of chaos, mire the mind, sculptor of flesh, and thief of five fates. So I'm making the (mostly) really awful invocations a bit less awful because they can be used without burning a spell slot. This in absolutely no way "gimps" warlocks and, instead, effectively gives the characters who took those invocations a free daily spell slot to cast them with.


Wat2hek? Warlocks getting the option to use CON for spellcasting instead of CHA? How would that help in any way, other than to make CHA irrelevant? Woof.

As I noted in the text you quoted, Cha is not irrelevant for any warlocks who want to use eldritch blast to full effect, as Agonizing Blast is still based on Cha. Warlocks who choose this will have to be a bit more careful with their ability boosts and feats, as they'll need both a Con and Cha of 20 to use eldritch blast to the same effect as a standard warlock with just a 20 Cha.

Blade warlocks who don't ever plan to use eldritch blast will probably get the best benefit from the alternative, but even they'll likely want to use eldritch blast from time to time so I doubt they'd dumpstat Cha completely (especially since Lifedrinker also still keys off of Charisma).


In the DMG, flanking provides advantage. I like +2 a bit better.

After playtesting last session, I've come to agree with Kryx that +1 is probably more appropriate. My primary intended change here, though, is that it made no sense to me that only the two creatures specifically involved in flanking gained the attack bonus.


Wat

It's a joke based on another comment in the thread. :smalltongue:

[Pramxnim]

Your Ranger houserule doesn't actually impact the Beastmaster Ranger that much, especially if you kept the restriction that the beast has to be medium size. No beast of CR 1/2 or 1 is actually better than the Flying Snake or the Giant Poisonous Snake, which are CR 1/8 and 1/4 respectively.

Some choices may beat the aforementioned 2 in terms of damage (Brown Bear has an attack that does 2d6+4, which is higher than the Flying Snake's 3d4+1, and slightly higher than the Poisonous Snake's 1d4+4 + 3d6/2), but none can beat them in terms of AC or attack bonus. I would just try to balance beast companion stats with respect to the two snakes' stats rather than try to give the BM Ranger options that aren't actually better.

[ghost_warlock]

Your Ranger houserule doesn't actually impact the Beastmaster Ranger that much, especially if you kept the restriction that the beast has to be medium size.

I hadn't intend to keep them restricted to medium size, no. Good catch!


No beast of CR 1/2 or 1 is actually better than the Flying Snake or the Giant Poisonous Snake, which are CR 1/8 and 1/4 respectively.

Some choices may beat the aforementioned 2 in terms of damage (Brown Bear has an attack that does 2d6+4, which is higher than the Flying Snake's 3d4+1, and slightly higher than the Poisonous Snake's 1d4+4 + 3d6/2), but none can beat them in terms of AC or attack bonus. I would just try to balance beast companion stats with respect to the two snakes' stats rather than try to give the BM Ranger options that aren't actually better.

The real problem is that the stats for most of the beasts just suck. It seems like even moon druids, with their much larger range of options, will usually stick with a few decent forms and ignore the overwhelming majority of lackluster options. What rangers (and sort of druids, too) really need is a better diversity of beasts that don't have disappointing stats. We definitely need more dinosaurs. :smalltongue:

[Justin Sane]

Ranger Quarry (replaces Favored Enemy): "Once per Long Rest, as a Bonus Action you may designate a creature you know of as your Quarry. You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your Quarry, as well as on Intelligence (Investigation) and Wisdom (Insight) checks relating to it. You may only have one Quarry designated at a time. At levels 6 and 14, you an additional use of this ability per Long Rest and can have one additional Quarry."

Proposed house-rule for my group. As a clarification, we rule that Investigation can be used to replace Gather Information from 3.5. Also, Foe Slayer references Quarry, not FE.
Thoughts?

[AstralFire]

I'm not surprised, as this is the first edition in which niche, non-adventuring proficiencies are handled in this manner.

I've never played under a DM that was concerned whether my character was proficient with carpenter's tools when I wanted to barricade a door. Likewise, I've never played under a DM who was concerned whether my character was proficient with cook's tools when I stated my character was preparing a meal for the party by campfire. I've never played under a DM who seemed the slightest bit concerned that my character wasn't proficient with mason's tools when I stated that I wanted to build a stone cairn for a fallen adventuring companion. I've never played under a DM who penalized my character for not being proficient with a playing card set when I stated my character was going to try to make some money gambling.

I don't think becoming proficient with any of these tools is worth 250 days time and 250 gp for my players so I'm reducing the time and cash investment in them. I don't understand why giving easier access to these, essentially flavor, proficiencies is the most hotly debated point. :smallconfused:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't include these as important parts of games based on 3E or PF because the only levels at which they would remotely matter were the least interesting: levels 1 to 3. With the absurd amount of power and endurance for that power which spellcasters had access to, it was simply not reasonable to have a high stakes card game outside of maybe Eberron, where magic to force everyone not to use magic was a standard feature of Sharn.

When running other systems which didn't explicitly support the notion (such as 4E), then sure, go with whatever was in your backstory.

When running with systems that actually supported it, like Star Wars Saga Edition, yeah -- it actually became a big deal.

Re: Constitution Warlocks:

While 5E is well-enough designed that even a truly SAD character would not be able to run amok the way they did in 3E, I don't see what benefit this adds to build options and it would greatly increase the power of martial dips into the class and rolled (rather than arranged or point-bought) warlocks at low level. It seems like a bad departure in design.


Ranger Quarry (replaces Favored Enemy): "Once per Long Rest, as a Bonus Action you may designate a creature you know of as your Quarry. You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your Quarry, as well as on Intelligence (Investigation) and Wisdom (Insight) checks relating to it. You may only have one Quarry designated at a time. At levels 6 and 14, you an additional use of this ability per Long Rest and can have one additional Quarry."

Proposed house-rule for my group. As a clarification, we rule that Investigation can be used to replace Gather Information from 3.5. Also, Foe Slayer references Quarry, not FE.
Thoughts?

What's the action used to designate a creature as your Quarry? Does it have to be in sight, or can you determine it from mere clues of their existence?

It seems pretty decent, though.

[Justin Sane]

What's the action used to designate a creature as your Quarry?Bonus Action, mostly because at 20 you could save up a use for a decent damage boost in a fight you weren't expecting.
Does it have to be in sight, or can you determine it from mere clues of their existence?Clues are enough, subject to a bit of discretion. "The nearest dragon" doesn't work, "the dragon that attacked this village last year" does. As long as you're specific, it's good.
It seems pretty decent, though.Thanks!

[Xetheral]

With a handful of niche builds as exceptions, these sorts of proficiencies have always been meaningless in D&D. Once you get into the dungeon, nobody cares that your character is a skilled cobbler unless they need you to make them magic boots - in which case what spells you can cast to enchant the boots are far more important. Hardly anybody took the Profession skill or Knowledge (architecture and engineering) seriously in 3e and these sorts of crafting skills were seen as so meaningless by the devs that they didn't even exist in 4e - if you wanted your character to be a skilled cartwright you just told the DM, he made a note of it, and then everyone promptly got on with the game and forgot about it.

Even in 5e, these proficiencies only exist as a hand-wave for what your character is doing to support itself during downtime - that's the only mechanical use they're given in RAW.

I strongly disagree. In 3.5 some of the best characters I've ever run games for had impressive scores in "fluff" skills, and were being played by very creative players who came up with ingenious uses for them. In one particular 3.5 game the party had experts in both Profession: Cook and Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering. The former was used to great effect to influence NPCs (such as getting an NPC of interest to approach the party to find out what that great smell was), and the latter was being rolled constantly (even in dungeons) to figure out how to maximize the environmental impact of blasting spells.

[JoeJ]

I've never played under a DM that was concerned whether my character was proficient with carpenter's tools when I wanted to barricade a door. Likewise, I've never played under a DM who was concerned whether my character was proficient with cook's tools when I stated my character was preparing a meal for the party by campfire. I've never played under a DM who seemed the slightest bit concerned that my character wasn't proficient with mason's tools when I stated that I wanted to build a stone cairn for a fallen adventuring companion. I've never played under a DM who penalized my character for not being proficient with a playing card set when I stated my character was going to try to make some money gambling.

You've obviously played with a very different bunch of people than I have. In all the games I can remember playing, including those where I've been the DM, trying to do carpentry or stonemasonry without the right proficiency has been penalized just like attacking with a weapon that you don't have proficiency with is penalized. Even before non-weapon proficiencies were introduced in late 1e, in the group I was playing with you had to have a background justifying why you knew a particular skill if you wanted to be able to do anything difficult with it.

[cmac]

I love this whole concept you've come up with! What a great way to make a group.

I have a few ideas that pop right into my head.

Cover mechanics firing arrows at zombie horde
Not sure if you are using it, but with a pack of zombies shambling toward you you might want to make use of the cover rules for firing into a group. AC bonus for zombies that are shambling behind other zombies in a group. I'd probably track the impact rules for firing at someone using cover (roll the attack with modified AC from cover, if it would hit without the mod from cover it hits the cover, ie the zombie in front).

PC and NPC panic when Friendly NPC dies
Whenever a PC goes down, the remaining roll to determine if they are feared for a round.

Enhanced Grapple and Takedown Mechanics for Groups of Zombies
I would definitely try to encourage zombie group grapples and takedowns. For each zombie in the immediate area add some kind of bonus to the grapple or takedown roll (not just advantage). Same for Strength checks when breaking down doors or barricades.

Infecting PCs and forcing them to play knowing they could become undead
Zombie Infection
If you're going with the infection route for zombification, then if a character is under half HP and gets hit by a zombie, have them roll a const save or get infected. Maybe come up with an infection progression chart with 2-3 stages that they roll Const against every round before turning zombie.

Undead curse
Same as above, but instead of an infection you stick more to the magical aspect of DandD. Damage at half and you are cursed by the same dark energies that animated the undead. Roll to save against becoming undead.

Either one adds that dramatic element of having characters who are turning undead and still can help the group.

[Once a Fool]

First of all, love your initial setup. I did almost the exact same thing during the playtest. (The players each ran two level 1 characters in a Night of the Living Dead-style scenario. The survivors got to take on I6 Ravenloft.)


A cleric using their action and a daily spell slot for 1d8+3 points of healing is a terrible use of an action and a pitiful amount of healing. With the same action and spell slot they could have dealt 3d10 damage to an enemy and ended the combat, after all.

Well, as in previous editions, Cure Wounds isn't really a combat spell, although it can be used that way, in an emergency. In 5e, it is much more efficiently used to supplement HD healing (because you only get half of those back with a long rest).


My issue is entirely with high-level characters here. A 20th level sorcerer who happened to start with a Wisdom of 9 (a likely scenario) should not be constantly getting charmed by 1st-level characters because his Wisdom save stayed at -1 his entire career. It's asinine.

You are positing that an unwise level 20 character who has never bothered to improve his/her wisdom should be better able to resist charms by virtue of experience. I propose that such a character has failed to learn from that experience (as shown by the lack of gained wisdom) and should be no more resistant to charms than s/he was at level 1.

-----

Regarding the Flanking issue: If you think Advantage is too potent, but would rather not keep track of a fiddly bonus, may I offer a player-driven alternative?

If at least one ally is opposite an enemy, any character that is adjacent to that enemy can use the Help action (attack option) as a Bonus Action.

This ensures a few things:

Flanking becomes, as the OP desired, a team project not limited to two participants.


The first attacker never has Advantage from flanking.


In order to grant an ally flanking advantage, a character must forgo any other Bonus Action.


Flanking only grants Advantage to the first attack that a character makes in a turn.


Since a player must actively choose to interact with the flanking rule, it is not a mere bonus to be kept track of; it is a decision that they either make, or do not.