Some little 5e fixes, not really big but hope it helpes

[PoeticDwarf]

Hello everyone

Although 5e isn't broken at all, some things should be fixed, I here have some ideas to make it more balanced, I hope this can help although it isn't really much or something.

The problem here isn't that some races are too strong, the problem is some are to weak so you don't want to play them because others are just better. This isn't a real problem and all races have something unique but still. The changeling is for example seen as too strong, but there are reasons to play other races.

My suggested nerfs are:
The Aarackocra just gets +1 dex instead of +2
The Half-Elf gets +1 charisma instead of +2, maybe also just one skill profinciency and a small bonus next to that. If you don't want to do this, you could give the tiefling an extra resistance, or instead +1int +1 on a stat of the tiefling choice other than charisma
The Variant human gets proficiency in one extra skill, but just +1 on an ability score

Buffs:
The Dragonborns breath weapon deals 1d8 damage but next to that the breath weapon stays the same
Being small gives now for PCs half prof. bonus (rounded down) on initiative checks to make gnomes and halflings more useful, if you think that is too much then give half. prof bonus on one dex skill of the PCs choice if they play a small character

Making the warlock flexible and fun, removing mystic arcanum but giving 5-6 extra spell slots, at least 4 of these on levels above 9

Rangers don't need a damage boost (with the subclass change of BM), but a more useful favored enemy and better features than hide in plain sight could add something, little bit more skirmish style

Giving one extra spell known on levels 1, 7, 11 and 15 or something like that

Wildshape can be used an amount of times per rest equal to half proficiency bonus (rounded down), on level 18 druids get something fluff(y) and on level 20 they get beast spells. No at will shapechange on level 20 from now

Could get sort of trapfinding, now bards are better trapfindings in general, just to make it a little bit more roguey

Making melee clerics worth it, divine strike works on every attack per round, giving something to other clerics, on level 14 EVERY spell that deals directly damage gets wisdom modifier on damage for these clerics. Maybe a nerf for clerics for this, but I don't think there is need for that because clerics are only low level really strong

Champion fighters get on level 7 also extra crit chance, ending up with 17-20, thieves get on levels 3, 7 and 10 also +5ft movement speed and elemental monks have to spend one ki point less for spells they cast and know one power extra. Last, the beastmaster's animal can make one attack when the BM uses a bonus action to say so from level 7, this attack doesn't add prof. bonus on damage or attack rolls (ranger's choice) if the ranger does so the ranger can't let the beast make an attack another way, animals can from now on also be large

First, remove greenflameblade from the game, boomingblade just gets 1d8 damage automaticly on levels 5 and 17. Next to that, all damage spells should be slightly better except cantrips. On average one extra d8 on spells of level 1-2, 2d8 for levels 3-4, 3d8 5-6, 4d8 on level 7, 5d8 level 8 and 6d8 on level 9 (half extra damage for area spells), polymorph spells, wish, demiplane and some other high level spells should be nerfed a little, giving casters the same party role but making them in combat little more useful and out combat little less useful.

I just did half an hour about this, and it isn't really big or something, but I think it can help if you want an even more balanced party where everyone can play what they want, or if someone wants to be something that isn't optimal, and that this can still make it OK. Hope it helps

[Shaofoo]

It would really help to explain why do you do the changes that you want to do, at this point just saying the changes without any context is useless for discussion. Also it is best to go at it one at a time instead of unloading everything in one go. If you want to be taken seriously identify the biggest change or two ad attempt to discuss instead of just going crazy with changes. Also half an hour isn't much thinking especially since this means that on average you spent less than 4 minutes coming up with each idea, not really something that gives me confidence.

[Mara]

I think most of these suggestions have the opposite effect desired. The designed effect being balance. Many of these target a perceive fun issue not a perceived balance issue.

I've been crunching more than a few numbers. Neither Vhuman or half elf are OP. They are not always the optimal choice or even normally the optimal choice.

Extra slots on the warlock would be horrific. The removal of the higher order spells just stops them from being a real fullcaster.

If your goal is balance then the ranger is fine. Certain things are not "fun" about the ranger but they are balanced.

Sorcerers don't need more spells

I won't defend the level 20 ability but axing the wildshape to long rest is awful. Sure that level 2 spike goes down but levels 5-19 are now aweful next to a land druid.

God no. Rogue are finally good now because they aren't balanced around unfun BS niches.

Clerics: You know clerics are full casters right? This right here is an attempt to bring back Codzilla instead of having our perfectly competent at melee but that isn't their main class feature current clerics.

All of these are unbalancing. Champion DPR skyrockets with feats like GWM. The character that can dash twice a turn does not need more move speed. Elemental becomes the go to monk subclass. BM is already stronger than hunter, more buffs = bad

Spells: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Let's buff caster DPR and then nerf some fun options but that won't actually impact strength because there are plenty of strong spells competing for slots. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[PoeticDwarf]

It would really help to explain why do you do the changes that you want to do, at this point just saying the changes without any context is useless for discussion. Also it is best to go at it one at a time instead of unloading everything in one go. If you want to be taken seriously identify the biggest change or two ad attempt to discuss instead of just going crazy with changes. Also half an hour isn't much thinking especially since this means that on average you spent less than 4 minutes coming up with each idea, not really something that gives me confidence.
sorry that I say it, but this makes no sense at all. First you don't look at the idea but the time it took me to make it. That is just stupid. Second you either think. Hey that's right, I know where's he is talking about the sorcerer should get more spells or you think. I don't think that's true. So the point is that if I say why I thought that or not there is no difference. You agree or not

I think most of these suggestions have the opposite effect desired. The designed effect being balance. Many of these target a perceive fun issue not a perceived balance issue.

I've been crunching more than a few numbers. Neither Vhuman or half elf are OP. They are not always the optimal choice or even normally the optimal choice.

Extra slots on the warlock would be horrific. The removal of the higher order spells just stops them from being a real fullcaster.

If your goal is balance then the ranger is fine. Certain things are not "fun" about the ranger but they are balanced.

Sorcerers don't need more spells

I won't defend the level 20 ability but axing the wildshape to long rest is awful. Sure that level 2 spike goes down but levels 5-19 are now aweful next to a land druid.

God no. Rogue are finally good now because they aren't balanced around unfun BS niches.

Clerics: You know clerics are full casters right? This right here is an attempt to bring back Codzilla instead of having our perfectly competent at melee but that isn't their main class feature current clerics.

All of these are unbalancing. Champion DPR skyrockets with feats like GWM. The character that can dash twice a turn does not need more move speed. Elemental becomes the go to monk subclass. BM is already stronger than hunter, more buffs = bad

Spells: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Let's buff caster DPR and then nerf some fun options but that won't actually impact strength because there are plenty of strong spells competing for slots. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

First you say, this is not about balance then you say, this is all about balance. You say now, in fact, I can not give my opinion, but you can give your opinion.

"Nerf some fun options" if you think gamebreaking is fun go to another edition. Logic and balance is what makes 5e something for me.

The 18 monk 2 rogue can dash twice a turn also so that's stupid. And little bit more crit chance doesn't make somethings DLR "skyrocketing". BM is better than hunter, you may have your opinion but 95% of the ppl won't agree with you. Elemental the way to go? It still doesn't add much

"To bring bake codzilla, one one side you say casters must have fun options. Now you say clerics may not have fun options.
BARDS AND BLIEPING WIZARDS ARE NOW BETTER IN MELEE

"Rogues are finally good". I think rogues are now not like rogues. As if advantage on investigation checks to find trals changes that much

So warlocks become OP necause they are not fullcasters anymore? This is getting worse

Sorcerers don't need more spells. You are totally right, because it is (blue) always balanced to not even have two spells per level (blue). Compared to a wizard
I never said anything about long rests. Read better and give good comments

Vhuman is for every class one of the best option. Now it is sometimes good. Halfelf is just, I can be as mad as I want, that is no personal opinion

So next time give real feedback please

[Shaofoo]

sorry that I say it, but this makes no sense at all. First you don't look at the idea but the time it took me to make it. That is just stupid. Second you either think. Hey that's right, I know where's he is talking about the sorcerer should get more spells or you think. I don't think that's true. So the point is that if I say why I thought that or not there is no difference. You agree or not

The way you responded to Mara in such a way made me right about not engaging your ideas since it seems you don't even have a grasp of what you really want yourself.

And yes I did go over your ideas in the first post because I was able to say that you never mention WHY you want to do the changes beyond "This is OP or UP". That says nothing to me at all. And the fact that you spent less than 4 minutes per idea is hardly a good thing.

I mean why do you want to give 4 level 9 slots to Warlock? I mean what is the point? At this point I even question if you even played or even looked at the PHB to see how the game is structured. And that was one of the first ideas, I don't feel very confident in your analysis if you don't even grasp how spellcasting is supposed to be structured. And you do have several spellcasters to follow.

So if you force me to go all or nothing in your ideas then I will have to go that all your ideas are bad. Don't dump all your ideas in one post so people don't get exhausted trying to say why everything is wrong or what needs changing and don't get defensive when people question your ideas.

Like I said, try picking an idea or two and present it to the public, at least when it is rejected they only reject 2 ideas rather than 8 all at once.

[JNAProductions]

Hello everyone

Although 5e isn't broken at all, some things should be fixed, I here have some ideas to make it more balanced, I hope this can help although it isn't really much or something.

The problem here isn't that some races are too strong, the problem is some are to weak so you don't want to play them because others are just better. This isn't a real problem and all races have something unique but still. The changeling is for example seen as too strong, but there are reasons to play other races.

My suggested nerfs are:
The Aarackocra just gets +1 dex instead of +2

It's now a godawful choice. Flight is just something you have to plan for, not something that you need to nerf for.

The Half-Elf gets +1 charisma instead of +2, maybe also just one skill profinciency and a small bonus next to that. If you don't want to do this, you could give the tiefling an extra resistance, or instead +1int +1 on a stat of the tiefling choice other than charisma

This takes them from one of the best to one of the worst. A little nerfing is okay, but both together is too much.

The Variant human gets proficiency in one extra skill, but just +1 on a skill of your choice

This now makes VHuman the best at skills. Forever. A Rogue or Bard VHuman will always be +1 better than anyone else. With bounded accuracy, that's a big deal.

Buffs:
The Dragonborns breath weapon deals 1d8 damage but next to that the breath weapon stays the same

Eh, could use a buff. That's not a bad change.

Being small gives now for PCs half prof. bonus (rounded down) on initiative checks to make gnomes and halflings more useful, if you think that is too much then give half. prof bonus on one dex skill of the PCs choice if they play a small character

You do realize Halfling's lucky and Gnome's spell resistance are crazy useful, right? There are plenty of reasons to play a small race. No need to give them bonuses.

Making the warlock flexible and fun, removing mystic arcanum but giving 5-6 extra spell slots, at least 4 of these on levels above 9

Ridiculously overpowered. I don't think any more has to be said.

Rangers don't need a damage boost (with the subclass change of BM), but a more useful favored enemy and better features than hide in plain sight could add something, little bit more skirmish style

O-kay. What actual changes are being made?

Giving one extra spell known on levels 1, 7, 11 and 15 or something like that

Seems reasonable.

Wildshape can be used an amount of times per rest equal to half proficiency bonus (rounded down), on level 18 druids get something fluff(y) and on level 20 they get beast spells. No at will shapechange on level 20 from now

Huge nerf. If you don't like unlimited wildshape, change that, but don't nerf wildshape into the ground.

Could get sort of trapfinding, now bards are better trapfindings in general, just to make it a little bit more roguey

Why? Bards and Rogues are literally just as good-in fact, Rogues will probably be better since they have more ASIs to spend on Wisdom and Intelligence. You need a good reason here.

Making melee clerics worth it, divine strike works on every attack per round, giving something to other clerics, on level 14 EVERY spell that deals directly damage gets wisdom modifier on damage for these clerics. Maybe a nerf for clerics for this, but I don't think there is need for that because clerics are only low level really strong

CoDZilla much? They're already decent melee fighters. Not the best, but they're also FULL CASTERS. They shouldn't be the best!

Champion fighters get on level 7 also extra crit chance, ending up with 17-20, thieves get on levels 3, 7 and 10 also +5ft movement speed and elemental monks have to spend one ki point less for spells they cast and know one power extra. Last, the beastmaster's animal can make one attack when the BM uses a bonus action to say so from level 7, this attack doesn't add prof. bonus on damage or attack rolls (ranger's choice) if the ranger does so the ranger can't let the beast make an attack another way, animals can from now on also be large

Champion seems unneeded. Not bad, just not needed.

Thieves are now crazy fast, which doesn't really fit.

Elemental Monk-yeah, that's actually a good change.

BM changes, I'd just do a full-scale rewrite. A couple of minor changes aren't enough to make it fun, and the math is already sound.

First, remove greenflameblade from the game, boomingblade just gets 1d8 damage automaticly on levels 5 and 17. Next to that, all damage spells should be slightly better except cantrips. On average one extra d8 on spells of level 1-2, 2d8 for levels 3-4, 3d8 5-6, 4d8 on level 7, 5d8 level 8 and 6d8 on level 9 (half extra damage for area spells), polymorph spells, wish, demiplane and some other high level spells should be nerfed a little, giving casters the same party role but making them in combat little more useful and out combat little less useful.

Why? Just why? That needs to be answered.

I just did half an hour about this, and it isn't really big or something, but I think it can help if you want an even more balanced party where everyone can play what they want, or if someone wants to be something that isn't optimal, and that this can still make it OK. Hope it helps

Right, check inside the spoilers in the quote for my comments in bold. Overall... Not seeing much good here.

[Zman]

If your desired goal is balance I feel much of a his falls short.

I'd firstly start with the most over powered and underpowered options, i.e. Lvl 20 Moon Druid and or Agonizing/Repelling Blast, and the Weapon Master Feat...

Basically if you could bring down the top 2% of abilities and bring up the bottom 2% of abilities while leaving the middle 96% alone you'd have a profound impact on balance.

[PoeticDwarf]

{Scrubbed}

I don't know what you are talking about with the warlock. You all saying it is "ridiculously OP" (and yes JNA, Mara already said that so be quiet). But what is wrong with removing a level 6, 7, 8 and 9 slot for 5-6 level 5 slots?

[PoeticDwarf]

The way you responded to Mara in such a way made me right about not engaging your ideas since it seems you don't even have a grasp of what you really want yourself.

And yes I did go over your ideas in the first post because I was able to say that you never mention WHY you want to do the changes beyond "This is OP or UP". That says nothing to me at all. And the fact that you spent less than 4 minutes per idea is hardly a good thing.

I mean why do you want to give 4 level 9 slots to Warlock? I mean what is the point? At this point I even question if you even played or even looked at the PHB to see how the game is structured. And that was one of the first ideas, I don't feel very confident in your analysis if you don't even grasp how spellcasting is supposed to be structured. And you do have several spellcasters to follow.

So if you force me to go all or nothing in your ideas then I will have to go that all your ideas are bad. Don't dump all your ideas in one post so people don't get exhausted trying to say why everything is wrong or what needs changing and don't get defensive when people question your ideas.

Like I said, try picking an idea or two and present it to the public, at least when it is rejected they only reject 2 ideas rather than 8 all at once.
4 level 9 slots WTH
4 slots the warlock gets after warlock level 9 {Scrubbed}

Why everything is wrong? The only wrong thing I see are the ones who reacted like you on this thread

Question your ideas? Saying "bad change, bad change, bad change" isn't questioning

And I have to explain more?

[PoeticDwarf]

I thought this forum was to share ideas and have fun. Turns out I was wrong. Do you all even have feelings?

And go on, report me for a tripple post, but ImSAMazing is the one with eleven posts in a row (see campaign quotes III, around page 10 I think)

[JNAProductions]

I thought this forum was to share ideas and have fun. Turns out I was wrong. Do you all even have feelings?

And go on, report me for a tripple post, but ImSAMazing is the one with eleven posts in a row (see campaign quotes III, around page 10 I think)

Enderdwarf, I think you're taking it a little too personally. We're critiquing your suggested changes, not insulting you personally.

As for my own homebrew, I think some of it is pretty well balanced. Others (Tau, Bulwark) aren't as good. The difference being, when people say "This thing about your homebrew is bad", I don't get offended. I look at the critique, see if it's valid, and if it is, make changes. (Or occasionally abandon the project-again, Bulwark, the concept is just kinda... Bad.) If it isn't, then I don't make changes, but I don't lash out.

[Shaofoo]

I really thought the forum could do better than this...

I'm not even going react on these strange comments. Faith in humanity destroyed

I saw the homebrew of some of you. And you say that I can't come up with normal ideas.

I think JNA is even the most stupid here. He think his homebrew is normal but it is just really bad, and then he is now saying everything *** Mara already said.

I thought this forum was to have fun and share ideas, turns out I was wrong.

I don't know what you are talking about with the warlock. You all saying it is "ridiculously OP" (and yes JNA, Mara already said that so be quiet). But what is wrong with removing a level 6, 7, 8 and 9 slot for 5-6 level 5 slots?

You can share ideas, that doesn't make you immune to criticism.

The problem isn't you presenting ideas, it is that ideas that you presented are bad ideas. Your little fixes do not help the game at all quite frankly.

Like I said, take those ideas and think on them some more and then come back one at a time.

[CantigThimble]

Dude, you're overreacting to people's responses on here. They don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by making these changes and don't think the changes are very well thought out (which is made worse by the fact that your wording is kind of unclear in some of these, such as the warlock one).

If you want to be taken more seriously then explain what you think is wrong that needs to be fixed and how these changes will fix that. Your first post kind of assumes we already understand your thought process on why clerics need more damage or why bards shouldn't be good at trapfinding. We don't understand that thought process, so naturally we disagree with you by default because we like the base rules.

People will be much more understanding if they understand your reasons better.

[Shaofoo]

4 level 9 slots WTH
4 slots the warlock gets after warlock level 9 READ NEXT TIME

I play 5e since the day it exsist, so turns out you are as dumb as I thought

Why everything is wrong? The only wrong thing I see are the ones who reacted like you on this thread

Question your ideas? Saying "bad change, bad change, bad change" isn't questioning

And I have to explain more?

The reason why I didn't go over in such detail unlike the other poor souls that did is because I had a suspicion that you were going to blow up and overreact at the first sign of criticism. Turns out I was right.

I was burned before by people throwing every single idea at the wall and expecting praises and only to get mad when the praises weren't coming; this was no different.

Next time, be more accepting to what other people say instead of just disregarding everyone.

[ericgrau]

I think in about 2 posts you got the opposite opinion. It's hard to balance or fix based on opinion because (a) it varies so much and (b) what you really need is number crunching and playtesting. WotC tested their game with thousands of people. You've played with a few. Like anything it could probably be improved but you aren't going to accomplish it well on a whim.

That said fun is #1 so if you have a fun house-rule that you and those you play with like to use, go for it. Even suggest it to others who might like it too. Just don't expect everyone to have the same preference. So maybe you could look into "5e fun house rules" instead of "fixes". Or if you want to fix something then bring up something your group has done 1,000 times that seems like a loophole that was missed in early game design and testing.

I mean most of these except for the rogue are number things without any number crunching or playtesting shown to support them. The rogue OTOH is a style change that some might prefer to use because they want the game to be that way.

I say this about 3.5e fixes too but at least 3.5e has several years of play behind it leading to popular opinions, for better or for worse (they're not necessarily right, but they're something).

[PoeticDwarf]

I think in about 2 posts you got the opposite opinion. It's hard to balance or fix based on opinion because (a) it varies so much and (b) what you really need is number crunching and playtesting. WotC tested their game with thousands of people. You've played with a few. Like anything it could probably be improved but you aren't going to accomplish it well on a whim.

That said fun is #1 so if you have a fun house-rule that you and those you play with like to use, go for it. Even suggest it to others who might like it too. Just don't expect everyone to have the same preference. So maybe you could look into "5e fun house rules" instead of "fixes". Or if you want to fix something then bring up something your group has done 1,000 times that seems like a loophole that was missed in early game design and testing.

I mean most of these except for the rogue are number things without any number crunching or playtesting shown to support them. The rogue OTOH is a style change that some might prefer to use because they want the game to be that way.

I say this about 3.5e fixes too but at least 3.5e has several years of play behind it leading to popular opinions, for better or for worse (they're not necessarily right, but they're something).
WOW, so the problem is my lack of the English language you are saying now. It is just that I don't always use the correct word at the correct place now instead of "blablaba all your fixes are wrong blablabla"

Reacting on what others said, maybe I'm going to listen to you if you listen to me. You are saying things I never said and acting like I never played 5e or can't balance stuff, which isn't right at all.

Why have I three warnings for "trolling" or something on this thread and you all none, just because you can't give feedback. It is not that I can't react sportive on feedback or something (I can't react on this sort of feedback). And could a mod close this thread, they also close threads where I complain about something little

[Illven]

Why have I three warnings for "trolling" or something on this thread and you all none, just because you can't give feedback. It is not that I can't react sportive on feedback or something (I can't react on this sort of feedback). And could a mod close this thread, they also close threads where I complain about something little

You can't see the infractions of other posters. You can only see your own.

You're just assuming they don't have warnings for trolling this thread.

[JNAProductions]

WOW, so the problem is my lack of the English language you are saying now. It is just that I don't always use the correct word at the correct place now instead of "blablaba all your fixes are wrong blablabla"

No. There are some points of confusion, but overall the people posting here think the issue is that these fixes are addressing things that aren't broken to start with.

Reacting on what others said, maybe I'm going to listen to you if you listen to me. You are saying things I never said and acting like I never played 5e or can't balance stuff, which isn't right at all.

We never said you haven't played 5E or can't make balanced material. We're saying these specific fixes are not balanced.

Why have I three warnings for "trolling" or something on this thread and you all none, just because you can't give feedback. It is not that I can't react sportive on feedback or something (I can't react on this sort of feedback). And could a mod close this thread, they also close threads where I complain about something little

My responses in bold. I have no response to the last bit that I can post publicly.

[KorvinStarmast]

I thought this forum was to share ideas and have fun. Turns out I was wrong. Do you all even have feelings?
Yes.
If you aren't going to put more thought into your "fix" suggestions, nor provide more reasoning for a given "why this ought to be revised," idea, then you are wasting your time, and quite frankly are opening your ideas to criticism as being not fully fleshed out in your attempt at brainstorming (if that was even your intention).