Grod's 5e Revisions-- Structual

[Grod_The_Giant]

So I've spent quite a while complaining about 5e's math-- skills (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480171-The-ol-5e-problem-how-to-deal-with-Small-bonuses), abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482350-What-if-we-removed-Abilities), Expertise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483815-Replacing-Expertise)... I'll sum up my complains briefly here:
The basic probability for succeeding on Easy/Moderate/Hard checks is, in my mind, much too low for someone who's supposed to be competent.
Expertise establishes a second tier of numerical competence, arbitrarily restricted to certain classes, making it harder to judge how to set DCs. (I'm also convinced that it's a patch to make skill-focused characters useful; the probabilities look about right when you look at Expertise bonuses)
Abilities contribute far too much to every aspect of your character to neglect, and there's no real way to get around it as there was in past editions.

But! Because I'm an incorrigible tweaker and homebrewer, I believe I've figured out how to adjust the base system to my satisfaction. And so I present it here, both to see if you guys can poke mechanical holes in it, and so that it might hopefully satisfy someone else with similar complaints.

(Although as a result of past threads... if you disagree with the basic ideas, please don't bog down the thread trying to tell me that I've committed thoughtcrime. I welcome opinions and criticism of implementation, and feel free to message me if you have strong thoughts on the underlying ideas, but we've filled pages and pages of past threads arguing the necessity of change. This doesn't need to be a new one)

Anyway. Without further ado...

Abilities
Characters no longer have ability scores, and do not have to deal with Ability requirements for things like heavy armor and multiclassing. Instead, they have two “Talented” Abilities, which are often—but not always—the same as the saves they are proficient in. These represent the aspects of mind and body that you are exceptionally gifted in.

When characters would normally gain an Ability Score Increase, they instead select one new proficiency of their choice—a skill, tool, a single weapon, a single type of armor or shield, or a language. In the case of armor, they cannot leapfrog categories—you must be proficient in at least one type of light armor to learn how to use a type of medium armor, and you must know how to use some medium armor before you can gain proficiency in heavy armor.

For the purposes of calculating total hit points and hit point recovery from spending hit dice, treat the character's Constitution Modifier as if it was equal to the average of the die-- for example, a Fighter would roll 1d10 and add 5, while a Wizard would roll 1d6 and add 3.

Proficiency and Talent
Proficiency bonuses are increased, as shown on the table below; however, no additional bonus is ever added to that unless otherwise specified. Characters also have a secondary bonus, Talent, equal to one-half their Proficiency bonus (rounded up). Talent frequently takes the place of Ability Modifiers, and stacks with itself when multiple Ability Modifiers would normally be used. As a general rule, anytime the game asks for an Ability Modifier in a situation that does not otherwise add Proficiency, substitute your Talent bonus. Specifically, Talent is used for

Class abilities that depend on an Ability Modifier, such as Unarmored Defense or the Paladin’s Aura of Protection.
Class abilities that normally add your Proficiency bonus as an additional numerical bonus, such as with the Beastmaster Ranger’s Companion.
Armor Class, with the same restrictions as your Dexterity modifier—up to +2 in medium armor and none in heavy.
Weapon damage rolls
Ability checks made with your Talented Abilities—including skills and tools, the one exception to the rule about stacking Talent and Proficiency.

Talent is not added to

Attack rolls
Save DCs
Saving throws





Level
Proficiency
Talent


1
+5
+3


2
+5
+3


3
+6
+3


4
+6
+3


5
+6
+3


6
+7
+4


7
+7
+4


8
+8
+4


9
+8
+4


10
+8
+4


11
+9
+5


12
+9
+5


13
+10
+5


14
+10
+5


15
+10
+5


16
+11
+6


17
+11
+6


18
+11
+6


19
+12
+6


20
+12
+6


Note: You might notice that that values for Proficiency look familiar. At all levels, they should be within one point of the original Proficiency plus a maxed-out ability score. This was achieved by running a regression against every new modifier--ie, every time proficiency+maxed ability returned an new value--and rounding down. The average difference is within 0.05.



For example, Ember is a third level Monk of the Four Elements. She selects Dexterity and Wisdom as her Talented Abilities, and Athletics, Acrobatics, Religion, and Stealth as her skills. As such, key game statistics include:


AC
16 (10 + 3 Talent [replacing Dex] +3 Talent [replacing Wis])


Hit Points
29 (3d8+12)


Ability Checks
Dexterity and Wisdom +3; all others +0


Saves
Strength and Dexterity +6; all others +0


Skills
Acrobatics, Religion, and Stealth +9; Athletics +6; all others +0


Attacks
Unarmed Strike +6 (d4+3), Javelin +6 (d6+3, range 30ft/120ft)


Specials
Deflect Missiles: Reduced damage by d20+6 (3 Talent [replacing Dex] +3 level)



Fist of Four Thunders: Creatures in 15ft cone take 2d8 thunder damage and are pushed back 10ft; DC 14 Con save for half damage and no knockback.




Feats
Characters gain one feat at 1st level and an additional feat at 7th, 14th, and 20th levels. Feats are classified as either “half feats”—those that also grant a +1 bonus to an ability score—or “full feats.” Half feats no longer grant those ability bonuses, but a character may choose to gain two half feats in place of one normal feat.

Race and Class-Based Adjustments
I'll make a separate thread for the majority of these; those listed here are only where the above changes affect things

Variant Humans are the only option, but they only get one half-feat.
Expertise is gone; in its place the Rogue gets Thief subclass abilities (said subclass going away) and the Bard gets social special abilities.
Talent bonus is used when determining how many spells you can prepare.
The Fighter and Rogue's extra ASIs (at 6th and 14th and at 10th, respectively) are special cases and may be used for a feat (one of which will grant a new Talented Ability)
Jack of All Trades/Remarkable Athlete add Talent to any check you're not already proficient in. (This is mechanically the same as the original; "half proficiency" just has a name, now)
The Beast Master's companion adds the Ranger's Talent bonus, not his full Proficiency.


Monsters
Monsters should add their ability bonus to any skills they're proficient in twice; otherwise they shouldn't need adjustment-- the above changes shouldn't affect any combat-relevant numbers.

[krugaan]

All I can say is any decent discussion is going to involve *way* more math than i'm willing to do. Looks very interesting, but its ... a rather large departure from 5E structure, as it involves retooling almost everything.

It might almost be a new game system.

Edit: KRYX I CHOOSE YOU! /throws Pokeball

KRYX, USE SPREADSHEET ATTACK!

It's (hopefully) super effective!

[Grod_The_Giant]

All I can say is any decent discussion is going to involve *way* more math than i'm willing to do. Looks very interesting, but its ... a rather large departure from 5E structure, as it involves retooling almost everything.

It might almost be a new game system.

Edit: KRYX I CHOOSE YOU! /throws Pokeball

KRYX, USE SPREADSHEET ATTACK!

It's (hopefully) super effective!
It's really not, I don't think. It's basically saying "you get the maximum possible Ability bonus for your level on everything you're proficient in; then pick two Abilities and get a bonus on raw ability checks and Expertise in those skills."

[Baptor]

Yeah, that is quite and overhaul.

For the time being, I've just decided the goal of the 5e devs was such that people with Expertise aren't supposed to fail. Ever. They are supposed to sail past anything reasonable and be capable of the truly epic or impossible tasks. So far, I really haven't had an issue.

One idea I had to replace it was an Easy Medium Hard system that doesn't use Abilities AT ALL. Very 2nd edition ish. Easy is 6+, Medium 11+, Hard 16+ on a d20. Yes this was lifted from 13th Age.

So a rogue might only have to roll a 6 or better to pick a regular lock, but the untrained wizard has to roll a 16 or better and the fighter who dabbles in such things 11 or better.

But it's just easier to do nothing.

So I do nothing.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For the time being, I've just decided the goal of the 5e devs was such that people with Expertise aren't supposed to fail. Ever. They are supposed to sail past anything reasonable and be capable of the truly epic or impossible tasks. So far, I really haven't had an issue.
They failed pretty hard, then (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20685794&postcount=81).

[R.Shackleford]

To OP

I don't recall where but insaw a pretty simple homebrew system that turned everything into "skills" (attacks, AC, akills, swiming, etc) and got rid of ability scores.

I think there was different tiers of skills or something like that... I'll have to Google it later.

I've recently became a big fan of removing ability scores and I'll definitely read your stuff in more detail, it looks great thus far.

[DeAnno]

When characters would normally gain an Ability Score Increase, they instead select one new proficiency of their choice—a skill, tool, a single weapon, a single type of armor or shield, or a language. In the case of armor, they cannot leapfrog categories—you must be proficient in at least one type of light armor to learn how to use a type of medium armor, and you must know how to use some medium armor before you can gain proficiency in heavy armor.

This in particular seems like it would screw up class balance. Suddenly ASIs become nearly dead levels, which means that people are either going to want to multiclass out at those levels or just have to suffer through them. Also, classes with more dead levels like Fighter and Rogue are pretty hurt by this. Rogue got Thief as a freebie out of the deal, but Fighter didn't get anything. It's a class that already had problems in Featless games, and in this system it's even worse.

[mgshamster]

This in particular seems like it would screw up class balance. Suddenly ASIs become nearly dead levels, which means that people are either going to want to multiclass out at those levels or just have to suffer through them. Also, classes with more dead levels like Fighter and Rogue are pretty hurt by this. Rogue got Thief as a freebie out of the deal, but Fighter didn't get anything. It's a class that already had problems in Featless games, and in this system it's even worse.

I'm not so sure that's true. Proficiencies are already hard to get past character creation, and this makes it so the classes with more ASI's get more proficiencies than anyone else.

If Grod hasn't already done it, I'd also combine this with giving the fighter a bit more feats as well.

[mgshamster]

Grod - what would you think about changing the resilient feat to make it so you pick a third ability score to be talented in? (It would be the only feat with an ability score increase that didn't become a "half feat")

[Grod_The_Giant]

This in particular seems like it would screw up class balance. Suddenly ASIs become nearly dead levels, which means that people are either going to want to multiclass out at those levels or just have to suffer through them. Also, classes with more dead levels like Fighter and Rogue are pretty hurt by this. Rogue got Thief as a freebie out of the deal, but Fighter didn't get anything. It's a class that already had problems in Featless games, and in this system it's even worse.
I dunno, I consider "plus one to some stuff" to be nearly dead as well; at least this way you can get something new.

Multiclassing returns to its 3e style, where you can either dip around for variety or commit to one class for higher level abilities, which I think is fine. All it means is that "keeping up with arbitrary benchmarks" no longer matters.

Valid point on Fighters; in my class tweaks I specify that they and Rogues get to use their extra ASIs for feats. I also have no intention of running featless games, but you're right that they're extra sad... Maybe they could also spend them on extra Talented Abilities.

Edit: if you have a suggestion for the ASI levels, I'd love to hear it?


Grod - what would you think about changing the resilient feat to make it so you pick a third ability score to be talented in? (It would be the only feat with an ability score increase that didn't become a "half feat")
Hmm... I think I'd I'd rather make a new feat for that, honestly. Resilient is good all by itself. But it does make some amount of sense... Hmm.

[Kryx]

Edit: KRYX I CHOOSE YOU! /throws Pokeball

KRYX, USE SPREADSHEET ATTACK!

It's (hopefully) super effective!
*dodges*
Ain't nobody got time to test the balance.

It seems interesting, but is a departure much too far for my tastes - especially since I make a character sheet for roll20 that can't just break the whole system so easily.

[krugaan]

*dodges*
Ain't nobody got time to test the balance.

It seems interesting, but is a departure much too far for my tastes - especially since I make a character sheet for roll20 that can't just break the whole system so easily.

Kryx missed.

[bid]

When characters would normally gain an Ability Score Increase, they instead select one new proficiency of their choice—a skill, tool, a single weapon, a single type of armor or shield, or a language. In the case of armor, they cannot leapfrog categories—you must be proficient in at least one type of light armor to learn how to use a type of medium armor, and you must know how to use some medium armor before you can gain proficiency in heavy armor.
- skill = 1/3 feat (skilled)
- tool = 1/3 feat (skilled) or 250 days downtime
- single weapon = 1/6 feat (weapon master half-feat)
- type of armor = 1/2 feat (lightly, heavily, partial moderately half-feats)
- shield = 1/4 feat (partial moderately armored half-feat)
- language = 1/6 feat (linguist half-feat)
Much weaker than before, should be ok if all classes had the same penalty but:
- MAD classes used all ASI as stat increase, they get a minor bonus here
- SAD classes used few ASI as stat increase, they get a malus here
- fighter gains almost nothing at level 6 and 16, heavy penalty
- rogue gains almost nothing at level 10, penalty

I won't comment on how hard this skews balance, but this is something you should check. For instance:
- wizard can get 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/3 = 2.17 "feat" including full armor/shield
- fighter can get 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1.67 "feat" with its basic 5 ASI
- fighter can get 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 2.33 "feat" with all 7 ASI
- fighter can get 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1.00 "feat", considering the lost 2/3 "feats" at level 6 and 16


I think AC doesn't work (or I missed something):
- studded leather = 12 (no Dex talent) or 14-18 depending on level
- half-plate = 15 (no Dex talent) or 17
- plate = 18
Light armor is heavily penalized at low level while plate suffers nothing. All caster classes must go half-plate to get their typical AC15 or pick Dex talent.


I'd much rather see expertise as a way to reduce DC by one full step. Or as an advantage to skill check (to cancel disadvantage, since experts can try in impossible situations).


Now, your monk example:
- that means a monk 1-2 will have AC14 at the level they don't have the hp to stay in melee
- Str ability checks shoudn't get +3 since it's not talented

[R.Shackleford]

Kryx missed.

Kryx turned away!

[bid]

Edit: if you have a suggestion for the ASI levels, I'd love to hear it?
Allow the matching half-feats:
- next armor type, with shield in medium as expected (all 3 armored half-feats)
- 3 weapons (weapon master)
- one skill + one (tool or language)

Add some non-combat ribbons from background, race or class:
- outlander's wanderer or ranger's natural explorer
- barbarian spirit seeker or warlock's eldritch invocations of similar strength
- fighter/rogue's running jump

[Grod_The_Giant]

Much weaker than before, should be ok if all classes had the same penalty but:
- MAD classes used all ASI as stat increase, they get a minor bonus here
- SAD classes used few ASI as stat increase, they get a malus here
- fighter gains almost nothing at level 6 and 16, heavy penalty
- rogue gains almost nothing at level 10, penalty
All classes get more ability to use off-ability skills, if nothing else. Fighter/Rogue will get either a feat or a Talented skill at those levels in the class tweaks, but I'll edit it into the main post.


I think AC doesn't work (or I missed something):
You add your Talent to AC regardless of whether or not you have Talented Dex.


I'd much rather see expertise as a way to reduce DC by one full step. Or as an advantage to skill check (to cancel disadvantage, since experts can try in impossible situations).
DC manipulation a) depends on DMs sticking to the specified DC 10/15/20 and b) is effectively a +5 bonus. Advantage I considered but discarded as too easy to get via the Help action, rendering the point moot. We discussed a bunch of alternatives in the original Expertise thread, and I ultimately decided that I just didn't like the ability as a generic "I am better at skills in X way" ability-- it seemed to me to be both more flavorful and more fun to replace them with actual unique class abilities.

(Having a Talented Ability is equivalent to the original Expertise in terms of raw numbers, but since it's a universal thing it's not quite the same onus-- and it makes the math work for everyone)


Now, your monk example:
- that means a monk 1-2 will have AC14 at the level they don't have the hp to stay in melee
- Str ability checks shoudn't get +3 since it's not talented
My bad on the Str bonus; I originally had characters be automatically Talented in abilities whose saves they were proficient in. Fair point on Talent giving you lower AC at levels 1 and 2, though. Maybe I should have it be minimum +3? That should fix the issue.

[bid]

Fair point on Talent giving you lower AC at levels 1 and 2, though. Maybe I should have it be minimum +3? That should fix the issue.
Or just round up.

Thanks for the clarifications. I see how nothing of value is lost by your simplification.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Or just round up.
Oooh, that's perfect. It's actually an even better match for the ability progression, too. Sold!

[Theodoxus]

The most glaring concern I see is that if you have unarmored defense, your AC jumps 2 points (provided you're Talented in Dex and Wis/Con - and why wouldn't you be, if you were going for UD?) So levels 1-5, everyone one regardless of natural ability, will have a 16 base AC, which automatically jumps to 18 at 6th, which jumps again to 20 at 11 and finally 22 at 16th level. Personally, I prefer both more granularity, and diversity in my world. As for a solution? I don't know... Outside of having a Primary and Secondary talent score that steps up at different rates... Just spitballing, but maybe have your Primary keep the current progression, but your secondary starts at 1 and increases every 4 levels to a max of 5. This keeps your total max at +11, which is what 5E has, and provides a slightly smoother progression... though it hurts Monks more, with a 14 AC for 4 levels...

[DeAnno]

Edit: if you have a suggestion for the ASI levels, I'd love to hear it?

I think the fairest thing to do would be just let the Fighter and Rogue take feats at their extra-ASI levels instead of the proficiency.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The most glaring concern I see is that if you have unarmored defense, your AC jumps 2 points.
Not a huge deal, I don't think? 5e already had very homogenous bonuses; this is just taking that to its logical "numbers are just how your track level" conclusion.

When I post the class tweaks, I'll probably revise Unarmored Defense to be +Proficiency, though, which should have roughly identical values but scale more evenly.


I think the fairest thing to do would be just let the Fighter and Rogue take feats at their extra-ASI levels instead of the proficiency.
That's the plan.

[NewDM]

I like it, but as others have said its not really D&D without the named ability scores.

A simpler system would be to remove the scores themselves and leave the bonuses. Any score that is odd is +0.5

Then you add double proficiency bonus to all skills and expertise gets an extra D20 reroll or something like that so they don't break the new bounded accuracy.

[bid]

provided you're Talented in Dex and Wis/Con - and why wouldn't you be, if you were going for UD?
Talented in Con seems like a waste, no skill check there. Another reason to make UD +Proficiency regardless of where you put your talents.

[MrStabby]

This in particular seems like it would screw up class balance. Suddenly ASIs become nearly dead levels, which means that people are either going to want to multiclass out at those levels or just have to suffer through them. Also, classes with more dead levels like Fighter and Rogue are pretty hurt by this. Rogue got Thief as a freebie out of the deal, but Fighter didn't get anything. It's a class that already had problems in Featless games, and in this system it's even worse.

This is a pretty good point.


Also there is too little distinction between characters as it is. Two level 6 paladins are likely to be very, very similar. Now add in that they can't distinguish themselves by being stronger, more charismatic, more dexterous than others and I can see games being very homogeneous.



I am not sure that any benefits from these changes outweigh the damage they cause. I wish you luck though - good to see some alternatives out there.

[Zalabim]

With expertise, there's 4 broad levels of skill proficiency: Expertise + Primary Attribute up to 17. Skilled + Primary Attribute or Expertise + Dump Attribute up to 11. Skilled + Dump Attribute or Unskilled + Primary Attribute up to 5. Unskilled + Dump Attribute as low as -1. There's some shuffle between the lowest and highest levels based on exact stat distribution between secondary and dump stats.

With these changes, there's 4 precise levels of skill proficiency. Skilled + Talented up to 18. Skilled + Untalented up to 12. Unskilled + Talented up to 6. Unskilled + Untalented 0. There is no variance.

So it looks like your changes are aimed to remove character's attributes and increase the value of gaining proficiency in a skill. It also has minor ripple effects throughout the combat system. Unarmored Defense sees some improvement, particularly for barbarians. Fighters, and fighter-y types, see some potential delay in weapon damage bonus. Non-fighter-y types see a small-major improvement in weapon usage. The balance of races shifts somewhat, as stats no longer matter. HP flies up and down all across the board, as the value of a larger hit die is expanded. I think HP is up on average though. What gets used for saving throws?

I don't think anything gets changed so far that it wouldn't run, but I don't think it's a good house rule. The change seems more sweeping than is necessary to meet your goals. I'll tell you my suggestion for any "my characters don't succeed enough" complaint is just to lower the DC until they succeed as much as you want them to.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Also there is too little distinction between characters as it is. Two level 6 paladins are likely to be very, very similar. Now add in that they can't distinguish themselves by being stronger, more charismatic, more dexterous than others and I can see games being very homogeneous.
I would actually think the opposite. Two paladins in vanilla 5e are likely to be very, very similar-- they'll both have the highest possible Charisma and probably Strength, with a decent score in Con, and both will almost certainly be races that give bonuses to Cha and Str. With this, you no longer need to invest in certain stats to be be a certain class. Instead, you choose two things to be good at. One might say "I'm strong and charasmatic," while another might say "I'm wise and tough." Both will have identical combat stats, but their skills and "abilities" can look very different.


With expertise, there's 4 broad levels of skill proficiency: Expertise + Primary Attribute up to 17. Skilled + Primary Attribute or Expertise + Dump Attribute up to 11. Skilled + Dump Attribute or Unskilled + Primary Attribute up to 5. Unskilled + Dump Attribute as low as -1. There's some shuffle between the lowest and highest levels based on exact stat distribution between secondary and dump stats.

With these changes, there's 4 precise levels of skill proficiency. Skilled + Talented up to 18. Skilled + Untalented up to 12. Unskilled + Talented up to 6. Unskilled + Untalented 0. There is no variance.
...yes, and? There's some slight variance lost, yes, but I don't think anyone really cares about "my Charisma is okay-ish" as a character trait.


So it looks like your changes are aimed to remove character's attributes and increase the value of gaining proficiency in a skill. It also has minor ripple effects throughout the combat system. Unarmored Defense sees some improvement, particularly for barbarians. Fighters, and fighter-y types, see some potential delay in weapon damage bonus. Non-fighter-y types see a small-major improvement in weapon usage. The balance of races shifts somewhat, as stats no longer matter. HP flies up and down all across the board, as the value of a larger hit die is expanded. I think HP is up on average though. What gets used for saving throws?
Unarmored Defense is slightly more appealing? Horrors. Weapon damage lags by a point at a few levels? Oh no. HP is slightly higher (as Wizards effectively get +3 Con, Rogues and the like +4, Fighters +5 and Barbarians +6)? Egads. All the changes are tiny and-- with the exception of HP-- average out to be about equal to the original scores.

Saves were Proficiency plus Ability modifier, so they're replaced by the new Proficiency. I went back and forth on whether Talented abilities should get a bonus or not and eventually I decided no; that would create too much incentive to take Talented Wisdom and/or Constitution, which was the sort of "well, it's good for the game..." thinking I wanted to remove.

Races... with the exception of variant humans and half-elves, all offer identical +2/+1 adjustments. They're affected pretty much equally. The only difference is that now you don't have to pick a race whose stats match your build. Could you elaborate on how


I don't think anything gets changed so far that it wouldn't run, but I don't think it's a good house rule. The change seems more sweeping than is necessary to meet your goals. I'll tell you my suggestion for any "my characters don't succeed enough" complaint is just to lower the DC until they succeed as much as you want them to.
I don't think anything gets changed more than a point for a few levels in either direction (which, I will remind you, is a 5% change), so I kind of have to question your definition of "sweeping." Lowering the DCs has the effect of devaluing your actual abilities more, since anyone with a lucky roll can pull off harder stunts.

[mgshamster]

I would actually think the opposite. Two paladins in vanilla 5e are likely to be very, very similar-- they'll both have the highest possible Charisma and probably Strength, with a decent score in Con, and both will almost certainly be races that give bonuses to Cha and Str. With this, you no longer need to invest in certain stats to be be a certain class. Instead, you choose two things to be good at. One might say "I'm strong and charasmatic," while another might say "I'm wise and tough." Both will have identical combat stats, but their skills and "abilities" can look very different.

Even with two characters who are mechanically identical, they can be very different characters. One think I like to do is make two identical characters via mechanics and explore their differences through personality. Especially if they're in the same party. :)

[Coidzor]

especially since I make a character sheet for roll20 that can't just break the whole system so easily.

What do you mean by that?

[Zalabim]

There are a lot of UA material races that only get +1 to two ability scores, and Mountain Dwarves get +2 to Str and Con, presumably because these races have abilities that are more or less powerful or synergistic. Additionally, not every combination of abilities scores is equally relevant.

I think "changes that impact every corner of the system in some way" qualifies as sweeping. You could go farther in removing ties between classes and ability scores by opening up the class skill list to all skills and allow choosing saving throw proficiencies freely, or more freely.

So you can't use a simpler and more direct solution because then other people could also play with your toys. Sorry, I've seen the "d20 is too large/bonuses are too small" complaint too many times to have any patience left for it. At least you didn't suggest going to 3d6 or 2d10.

[Kryx]

What do you mean by that?
I make a character sheet for roll20.
https://github.com/mlenser/roll20-character-sheets/blob/master/5eShaped/ReadMe.md

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are a lot of UA material races that only get +1 to two ability scores, and Mountain Dwarves get +2 to Str and Con, presumably because these races have abilities that are more or less powerful or synergistic. Additionally, not every combination of abilities scores is equally relevant.
Okay. Looking at races...
Dwarves get darkvision, poison resistance, and tool and weapon proficiencies; Hill Dwarves get extra hit points, Mountain Dwarves get medium armor, and Druegar get SLAs. Any way makes for a solid warrior race, especially for classes without proficiencies of their own.
Elves get darkvision, Perception, various (excellent) weapons and their sleep/charm stuff. High Elves get a cantrip, Wood Elves stealth, and Dark Elves SLAs. Still great.
Halflings get their rediculous Lucky ability, resistance to fear, and nimbleness. Lightfoots get stealth, Stouts get... less, admittedly, but they're hardly terrible still.
VHumans get a skill and a half-feat.
Dragonborn get a breath weapon and a big elemental resistance. They could potentially use a bit of a boost, but they needed that before, too.
Gnomes get darkvision and the fantastic Gnome Cunning that probably makes them worth it all by itself. Forest Gnomes get one of the best cantrips and a useful animal speech ability, Tinker Gnomes get... ribbons, okay, but they did before, too. Svirfneblin get situational stealth and access to Svirfneblin Magic. No real losses.
Half-Elves still get darkvision and two skill proficiencies, a 50% advantage over most characters. Not bad. They go down in value a little bit, especially compared to humans, admittedly.
Half-Orcs are still fantastic with darkvision, Intimidation, one "get out of death free" card a day and augmented criticals.
Tieflings get darkvision, fire resistance, and good SLAs. Feral Tieflings are irrelevant, but the other variants are still good.
Aarakocra fly. They don't need any other excuses.
Genasi all get a useful ability and an SLA. (Not sure why Air and Earth Genasi don't get a cantrip, incidentally)
Goliaths are still the strongest there is with Athletics and Powerful Build; Stone's Endurance is also great.

Of the set, the only ones I can think who really lose are Half-Elves, and even they're not terrible. Con boosts seem to have been a bit over-valued, compared to other stats, but even those races hardly seem unplayable. If you see any specific issues I'd love to hear them, though.


I think "changes that impact every corner of the system in some way" qualifies as sweeping. You could go farther in removing ties between classes and ability scores by opening up the class skill list to all skills and allow choosing saving throw proficiencies freely, or more freely.
Character creation changes are substantial, but once you have finished sheets everything should play pretty much exactly the same as before.

[Chambers]

Character creation changes are substantial, but once you have finished sheets everything should play pretty much exactly the same as before.

Then I don't see what the big point is, if the play is the same as before. I read the OP and am honestly not seeing the draw here, what the big gain is for using these changes.

[mgshamster]

Then I don't see what the big point is, if the play is the same as before. I read the OP and am honestly not seeing the draw here, what the big gain is for using these changes.

He wants less influence of the ability scores to in-game mechanics. He wants proficiency to have a greater impact on tasks compared to those who do not have proficiency. And I think he wants ability scores to have greater abstraction when it comes to character decisions and roleplaying - as compared to having ability scores simply giving you a bonus or penalty.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Then I don't see what the big point is, if the play is the same as before. I read the OP and am honestly not seeing the draw here, what the big gain is for using these changes.
You're no longer limited by ability scores. You don't have to agonize over every ASI, don't have to feel limited by what race's ability boosts match your class, don't have to deal with "the untrained Cleric is more perceptive than my Fighter who invested a skill in it." It simplifies things, in a lot of ways- you're good at the things you want to be good at, good at the things you choose to specialize in without bleed-through. You can just make a character and play the game.

Edit: mgshamster nailed it.

[Chambers]

You're no longer limited by ability scores. You don't have to agonize over every ASI, don't have to feel limited by what race's ability boosts match your class, don't have to deal with "the untrained Cleric is more perceptive than my Fighter who invested a skill in it." It simplifies things, in a lot of ways- you're good at the things you want to be good at, good at the things you choose to specialize in without bleed-through. You can just make a character and play the game.

Edit: mgshamster nailed it.

I get what you're saying. I guess I just don't feel limited/agonized, etc. I don't see any mechanical issues in the revision that immediately come to mind.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I get what you're saying. I guess I just don't feel limited/agonized, etc. I don't see any mechanical issues in the revision that immediately come to mind.
Cool. Like I've said, I like how 5e PLAYS, generally speaking, just not some of the underlying maths and assumptions. If I can fix the latter without changing the former, I'll be a happy man.

[newsman77]

I don't like these changes, but if it makes sense for your table, more power to you. I'm in the boat with those that don't not feel angonized/frustrated by the current system.

I followed the OP's original thread on skill changes, and just don't understand why the DM doesn't stick to the established DC's for this edition. I also don't understand why the DM doesn't limit certain checks to only those proficient in said skill. That seems way easier that revamping the entire edition to force it to fit in better with the 3.5 skill system. But then again, I really disliked the 3.5 skill system. I'm happy with the way this one turned out.

[Takewo]

I actually think that those are great changes. It takes away the burden of min-maxing and lets you play the character that you actually want to play, which is cool.

The only potential problem that I can see is characters who would use a secondary ability in their attack rolls. Let's say, for instance, that I want to play a Pally with good charisma and constitution. With ability scores, I can still get a fair bonus to strength, so that my melee attacks don't suck that much, but with this, I wouldn't get any bonus to attack and damage rolls, would I? (I mean other than the proficiency bonus) The same happens if I, for instance, I want to play a ranger based on ranged attacks, if my talented abilities are, say, dexterity and wisdom, melee attacks are going to suck a bit.

Basically, my concern is that characters may not have a sort of thing in which they aren't really good but they don't really suck either. But that might not be true. How do you see it?

[Grod_The_Giant]

The revised Proficiency is roughly equal to the old Prof bonus plus the bonus for a maxed-out ability score. Everything you're trained in, then, is as good as the game assumes it'll be. And with Talent to weapon damage rolls, you'll be preforming according to expectations there, too.

Talent plus Proficiency is the equivalent of Expertise. That's the only time they add together. Characters can thus have skills they're middling good at, either through Prof but no Talent or Talent but no Prof, but class abilities and combat stats will always be at max.

-----

Though speaking of, I wanted to get opinions on saves. Originally I had you get three Talented abilities--your proficient saves and one of your choice. I cut that down because that was a lot, but I did kind of like that I could have Talent to saves if you didn't have Proficiency. As is now, I feel like I can't do that, as it would give too much incentive to take Talents in things other than your listed saves, so you wouldn't see the expected strong barbarians, smart wizards and so on. But I liked having one medium save... What do you guys think? I guess I could add a rule for one medium save...

[mgshamster]

Though speaking of, I wanted to get opinions on saves. Originally I had you get three Talented abilities--your proficient saves and one of your choice. I cut that down because that was a lot, but I did kind of like that I could have Talent to saves if you didn't have Proficiency. As is now, I feel like I can't do that, as it would give too much incentive to take Talents in things other than your listed saves, so you wouldn't see the expected strong barbarians, smart wizards and so on. But I liked having one medium save... What do you guys think? I guess I could add a rule for one medium save...

I believe the current system is set up so you can only be good at two ability scores, yes? Which is mechanically the same as being good at two saves.

It kind of removes options for someone to be medium all around instead of specialized in two.

With that in mind, I like the idea of throwing on a talent to a third ability score (maybe as a feat or half feat?), because it means you have someone who wants to focus on personal improvement instead of focising on career improvement.

On a completey different note, having the varied ability scores like would work really well with the house rule system that spreads out spell saves somewhat evenly across all saving throws.

[Chambers]

Thought of a possible problem, related to saving throws as mentioned. In order to get Talented to damage with a melee attack you'd need to be Talented with that Ability, Strength for example. Is that right?

Being Talented with Stength also means you add that to your Strength saves. It seems to me that Strength and Dexterity are going to be chosen more often for Talented because of you need it for melee damage, which means Strength and Dexterity saves are going to be over represented in saving throw distribution between characters.

Not sure if I explained that right. Did that make sense?

[Blue Lantern]

Despite the 2 pages discussion I still am not sure about what this changes are supposed to represent honestly, you say that you want to de-associate class mechanical abilities from character attributes, but then what does being Talented means, is it just a mechanical abstraction that has no character relation, so you could create, for instance, a Fighter with talent in strength that appears really skinny but also really good with a sword?

You also said that you like the way 5e plays but not the math behind, can you elaborate on that?

[Grod_The_Giant]

With that in mind, I like the idea of throwing on a talent to a third ability score (maybe as a feat or half feat?), because it means you have someone who wants to focus on personal improvement instead of focising on career improvement.
Agreed. I think a full feat is a fair cost.


On a completey different note, having the varied ability scores like would work really well with the house rule system that spreads out spell saves somewhat evenly across all saving throws.
What system is this?


Thought of a possible problem, related to saving throws as mentioned. In order to get Talented to damage with a melee attack you'd need to be Talented with that Ability, Strength for example. Is that right?
Fortunately not-- Talent always gets added to weapon damage rolls.

Based on the last few posts, I think I need a new term for the abilities you're good at- there seems to be a lot of confusion about when Talent bonus applies. It gets used whether an ability modifier would normally be used that Proficiency is NOT already added- so, say, in a damage roll but not an attack roll. The exception is with your chosen abilities. There it gets ADDED to ABILITY CHECKS, including skills and tools. That's the only way your chosen abilities affect things- raw checks, skills and tools.

Does that clear things up? I probably need to rewrite the original rules to make it clearer. Maybe add more verbal explanation to the example.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Grod, have you thought about just straight up dropping expertise and adjusting DCs to meet the new top bonuses? Then no one class would have a "best" number... they would all be capable to the same extent, with proficiency. Instead of expertise, grant each class advantage on one skill from their actual class list...it must be on their class list...not granted by background, or feat. Bards are fine with their jack of all trades feature... and don't need expertise... which in actuality goes against the very idea of jack of all trades. Leaving rogues, who should get advantage on their preferred tools(thieves tools, disguise kit, poisoner's kit, etc...), and one other skill of their choice at level 6.

Another interesting thought... how about removing the existing system of fixed racial ability bonuses, dropping it to +1 in their most relevant ability, then adding the ability bonuses to backgrounds(+1 in two different abilities, choices could be made by choosing a this or that type approach similar to starting equipment). You could further restrict the abuse of skill selection outside of the class from the background overlapping/already chosen skill proficiencies only being allowed to be chosen from the class list. Humans will get +1 to 2 different ability scores and 2 additional skill proficiencies, there won't be any variant human option. Half elves will get a +1 to any ability score and a +1 to CHA. Mountain Dwarves will get a +1 to Con and a +1 to Str. All other races get a +1 to their most dominant ability score, subraces lose the +1 to relevant ability score, unless it was a +2(which then becomes a +1 instead, in addition to the racial +1). All other racial features are maintained. Point buy goes up from 27 to 28 or standard array goes from [15,14,13,12,10,8] to [15,14,13,13,10,8].

That should handle racial diversity among classes, all classes being valid options, and expertise being the only way to overcome DCs.

[mgshamster]

What system is this?

I've spent half the morning looking for it and I sicced a friend of mine on it. Turns out, it was on the Wizard's forum. So it's gone now.

But basically, someone went through all the spells and tried to even out the saving throws by category across the ability scores. Things like Hold Person became a strength save, a dominate person became a charisma save.

It wasn't perfectly evened out, but it definitely increased the uncommon saves. We might have to recreate it. May be something I'll work on this week or next week.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Despite the 2 pages discussion I still am not sure about what this changes are supposed to represent honestly, you say that you want to de-associate class mechanical abilities from character attributes, but then what does being Talented means, is it just a mechanical abstraction that has no character relation, so you could create, for instance, a Fighter with talent in strength that appears really skinny but also really good with a sword?
In general, the idea is that if you're trained in something, if you're Proficient, you're good at it, no if's, and's, or but's. Proficiency is all you need. There's none of this "talent is equally important and actually starts out more important" business. If you have Proficiency, you're as good as the system expects you to be, no work required.

Talented Abilities-- which I really need to rename-- serve dual roles. On the one hand they plug up the gaps that absent abilities leave in "raw" Ability checks, so we don't have to worry about stretching old skills or making up new ones. On the other, they serve as replacements for Expertise, essentially. They're your trademark character traits, so the skills that are based on them are cranked up more. It gives you the appropriate math, and it's far more easily-accessible and wide-reaching than Expertise was.

Does that make sense? You're automatically good at what you're proficient in, then you pick two abilities to have extra-good skills in.


You also said that you like the way 5e plays but not the math behind, can you elaborate on that?
It's just a generally solid RPG. It has a lot of the "feel" of 3.5, but it's way more streamlined. Apart from the swinginess of the skill system, it's just... fun to play. I don't want to change that by introducing too many fiddly bits.


Grod, have you thought about just straight up dropping expertise and adjusting DCs to meet the new top bonuses? Then no one class would have a "best" number... they would all be capable to the same extent, with proficiency.
"If everyone's super, no-one will be"? Someone brought it up earlier. In essence, that's the opposite of what I want to happen. I want training to mean more, not less. Everyone already has a chance of hitting even a Hard check; I don't want to give every commoner a shot at Very Hard or Impossible.


Another interesting thought... how about removing the existing system of fixed racial ability bonuses, dropping it to +1 in their most relevant ability, then adding the ability bonuses to backgrounds(+1 in two different abilities, choices could be made by choosing a this or that type approach similar to starting equipment). You could further restrict the abuse of skill selection outside of the class from the background overlapping/already chosen skill proficiencies only being allowed to be chosen from the class list. Humans will get +1 to 2 different ability scores and 2 additional skill proficiencies, there won't be any variant human option. Half elves will get a +1 to any ability score and a +1 to CHA. Mountain Dwarves will get a +1 to Con and a +1 to Str. All other races get a +1 to their most dominant ability score, subraces lose the +1 to relevant ability score, unless it was a +2(which then becomes a +1 instead, in addition to the racial +1). All other racial features are maintained. Point buy goes up from 27 to 28 or standard array goes from [15,14,13,12,10,8] to [15,14,13,13,10,8].
So... instead of getting rid of the existing mild limits, we should add more? Encourage more Criminal Rogues and Sage Wizards? Yeah... not my cup of tea, thank you.


I've spent half the morning looking for it and I sicced a friend of mine on it. Turns out, it was on the Wizard's forum. So it's gone now.

But basically, someone went through all the spells and tried to even out the saving throws by category across the ability scores. Things like Hold Person became a strength save, a dominate person became a charisma save.

It wasn't perfectly evened out, but it definitely increased the uncommon saves. We might have to recreate it. May be something I'll work on this week or next week.
Hmm. Waybackmachine?

[Blue Lantern]

In general, the idea is that if you're trained in something, if you're Proficient, you're good at it, no if's, and's, or but's. Proficiency is all you need. There's none of this "talent is equally important and actually starts out more important" business. If you have Proficiency, you're as good as the system expects you to be, no work required.

Talented Abilities-- which I really need to rename-- serve dual roles. On the one hand they plug up the gaps that absent abilities leave in "raw" Ability checks, so we don't have to worry about stretching old skills or making up new ones. On the other, they serve as replacements for Expertise, essentially. They're your trademark character traits, so the skills that are based on them are cranked up more. It gives you the appropriate math, and it's far more easily-accessible and wide-reaching than Expertise was.

Does that make sense? You're automatically good at what you're proficient in, then you pick two abilities to have extra-good skills in.

Except that from what I understood proficiency is not all you need, because most of the class abilities and weapon damage are still linked to talent, so a fighter that is not "talented" in strength will be doing less damage than one that is, most prepared caster will still need to be talented in their main stat or they get less spells prepared.
It seems to me that in the end nothing has changed, except hard capping the number of high abilities to two, which gives the SAD classes the choice to getting a second talent where is most efficient, (looking at you wizard and cleric) while the MAD ones are forced toward the talents needed toward their class, eg. all monks will be talented in DEX and WIS, all paladin in STR and CHA, which also makes the classes geared toward less efficient abilities slightly less effective (look at the paladin, getting the two good saves in two of the least efficient ones).
It seems to me if the issue is mostly the swingingness of the math, especially for skills, there would be less complicated ways to do it.

But if this work for you, go for it.

PS- should make a drinking game, one shot every time I used the word efficient :)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Except that from what I understood proficiency is not all you need, because most of the class abilities and weapon damage are still linked to talent)
Hmm. I guess I'm still too confusing... Okay. I'm changing Talented Abilities to being called Gifted Abilities.

Your Talent Bonus is inherent, half your Proficiency rounded up. You use it whenever an ability mod would normally be called for and Proficiency does NOT apply. Say, the Paladin's Cha-to-saves aura. Or Agonizing Blast. Or your Dex bonus to AC. Or weapon damage rolls.

Your Gifted Abilities only matter for ability checks, where they provide an ADDITIONAL bonus- you get to use your Talent bonus for raw ability checks and as a Expertise type bonus on skills. That's it. That's all. Ability checks only.

Can you point out what parts of the OP are confusing you? I want to make sure it makes sense.

[Blue Lantern]

Hmm. I guess I'm still too confusing... Okay. I'm changing Talented Abilities to being called Gifted Abilities.

Your Talent Bonus is inherent, half your Proficiency rounded up. You use it whenever an ability mod would normally be called for and Proficiency does NOT apply. Say, the Paladin's Cha-to-saves aura. Or Agonizing Blast. Or your Dex bonus to AC. Or weapon damage rolls.

Your Gifted Abilities only matter for ability checks, where they provide an ADDITIONAL bonus- you get to use your Talent bonus for raw ability checks and as a Expertise type bonus on skills. That's it. That's all. Ability checks only.

Can you point out what parts of the OP are confusing you? I want to make sure it makes sense.

Ok, so based on this last post let's recap the three.

Proficiency is used for:


Attach roll with weapon you are proficient with.
Spell attack roll
Roll for tools you are proficient with.
Skill roll for skills you are proficient with



Talent is used for:


Weapon damage roll for every weapon (proficient or not).
Attach roll with weapon you are not proficient with.
AC instead of DEX.
Prepared spell number.
All classes features that would use ability bonuses, no matter the ability.
Skill roll for skills you are not proficient with
Ability checks.
Saves.



Gifted Abilities, bonus added only for two abilities:


Additional bonus to ability and skill check.



If that is how it is, your character are noticeably more powerful that normal, getting bonus to everything, but I don't think it is, because it would contradict the character example you put in your opening post, so I assume the last three elements in the talent list should go in the Gifted list.

Even in the second case I personally do not like it too much, because it still make character basically flawless, also the ability to use pretty much every weapon at least half decently do not sits too well with me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Your assumption is mostly correct; I should rewrite the rule slightly to eliminate the broad case. Talent needs to be for

Class abilities that reference ability modifiers (Including prepared spells)
Class abilities that used to add Proficiency (ie, Beastmaster)
Damage (for weapons you're proficient in? I like the sound of that)
AC (in armor you're proficient in?)

And... I think that's it, outside of Gifted ability checks. Everything else would be a straight d20 roll. Am I missing anything that falls apart without ability mods?

The biggest gain, I think, is actually getting your full ability progression AND feats. Apart from that, it's largely multiclass and MAD characters who benefit, which is a bit of change I can certainly support--it's more enabling than game-damaging.

[Blue Lantern]

Your assumption is mostly correct; I should rewrite the rule slightly to eliminate the broad case. Talent needs to be for

Class abilities that reference ability modifiers (Including prepared spells)
Class abilities that used to add Proficiency (ie, Beastmaster)
Damage (for weapons you're proficient in? I like the sound of that)
AC (in armor you're proficient in?)

And... I think that's it, outside of Gifted ability checks. Everything else would be a straight d20 roll. Am I missing anything that falls apart without ability mods?

The biggest gain, I think, is actually getting your full ability progression AND feats. Apart from that, it's largely multiclass and MAD characters who benefit, which is a bit of change I can certainly support--it's more enabling than game-damaging.

Ok, that makes more sense, just a couple of points that I think are worth checking.

First, classes less reliant on skills (ie. casters) will probably only chose Gifted abilities for the saves, which mean all of them will take CON plus DEX or WIS.

Second, the HP inflation and slightly higher ceiling in the proficiency and talent numbers, makes the characters a bit stronger, so if you don't readjust also monster HP, you should probably consider a slight CR increase for the same difficulty, something like 1/5 or 1/4 CR increase per level. (I did not the math so I may be far off, but I think a little increase is warranted)

[Grod_The_Giant]

First, classes less reliant on skills (ie. casters) will probably only chose Gifted abilities for the saves, which mean all of them will take CON plus DEX or WIS.
Hmm? I was under the impression that saves were distinct from normal ability checks- hence having both Guidance and Resistance. Though that's a point... Only having two saves with a modifier is a definite weakness. Especially for casters and concentration checks. Hmm. I might give them Talent to concentration, to make such spells a little more functional.


Second, the HP inflation and slightly higher ceiling in the proficiency and talent numbers, makes the characters a bit stronger, so if you don't readjust also monster HP, you should probably consider a slight CR increase for the same difficulty, something like 1/5 or 1/4 CR increase per level. (I did not the math so I may be far off, but I think a little increase is warranted)
What if we drop HP to average minus one? That should be a little closer. As for the rest... The numbers are really close, and I don't think ever off by more than one point for one level. Characters gain more in the way of versatility than power. My suspicion is that any difference would be lost in that noise of differing tactical or character creation skills.