Zman's 5e Tweaks V1.3

[Zman]

Disclaimer: I love 5e, but here are a couple of things that bother me and could use tweaking. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel or rewrite the game. These tweaks are meant to be easy to apply patches that enhance balance and gameplay while simultaneously opening up more viable options. There is also some new content in the form of New Feats meant to fill some missing niches and give a few more options. Think of it as a balance patch meant to iron out a few wrinkles and I welcome feedback.

Love 5e, but wish it was a touch more balanced? Wish some things made a bit more sense? Wish some options were more viable or others less no-brainers? Give Zman's 5e Tweaks a look. Currently for the PHB.

Zman's Tweaks V1.3 (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HkZHSLvHu)

[Zman]

Change Log:
V1.1
7-16-16 Half, rounded down, of Int Mod Proficiencies as Tools
7-16-16 Advantage now on Int checks involving Knowledge and Reasoning only.
7-16-16 Polearm no longer makes Opportunity Attack, but Reaction attack. Fixes Sentinal interaction.
7-16-16 Removed changes to Sentinel.
7-16-16 Added 1/day Resistal all but Radiant, Necrotic, and Psychic Damage to Tough.
7-16-16 Expanded Cunning Opportunisht to trigger on disadvantaged attack.
7-16-16 Removed Changes to Expertise for Bard and Rogue.
7-16-16 Reworded Great Weapon Figthing Style
7-16-16 Clarified Font of Magic
7-16-16 Changed Ability Checks to a 2d10 roll.
V1.2
7-19-16 Reverted "Paladin only spell slot" language from Divine Smite
7-19-16 Fixed Pact of Blade HP bonus
7-20-16 Fixed a few typos
7-20-16 Changed Grappler to not allow advantage for larger creatures.
7-20-16 Gave Monks Extra Attack(2) at 11th level to bring up their lagging damage.
7-20-16 Increased Monk's stunning strike Ki cost to 2 and made it one attempt per turn.
7-20-16 Reduced Wizard's class skills to 1.
7-20-16 Creatures larger than their grappler have advantage on their escape checks.
7-20-16 DC10 Concentration save for spellcasting(material or somatic) or maintaining concentration while grappled.
7-22-16 Removed Charger feat, added modified default Charge option to combat.
7-22-16 Changed Polearm Master bonus attack from d4+Str to d6.
7-27-16 Tweaks are now pretty and formatted, link added.
7-27-16 Added Con Save or Exhausted for Resting in Armor
8-2-16 Specified PAM bonus attack is not Heavy.
8-4-16 Moved 2nd TWF Attack to 8th level instead of 11th
8-4-16 Made Dueling Master bonus attack one handed only.
8-4-16 Made Frenzy reset on Short/Long Rest
8-8-16 Fixed Expertise wording
8-8-16 Made TWE Light or Finesse
8-8-16 Added Finesse to CQA bonus attack
8-8-16 Hardcoded Maximum of 2 Short Rests per long rest
8-11-16 Removed Second Agonizing +Cha at 11th level(Due to Spellslinger)
8-11-16 Removed Volatile Spellcaster round restriction.
8-11-16 Changed Four Elements Monk to Ki cost -1 to become Ki cost equals spell level.
8-11-16 Clarified Moon Druid's Combat Wildshape AC bonus. Removed Mon Unamored Defense or Intuitive Defense Interaction
V1.3
8-24-16 Changed Hunter's Whirlwind Attack to 10'
4-5-17 Added Grid/Hex Potential for Scatter for AoE spellcasting ie Fireball
4-5-17 Clarified flanking conditions
4-13-17 Added Hardened Feat
4-14-17 Reworded Medium Armor Master to be congruent with new Armor/Weapon Tables.
4-14-17 Tweaked Armor/Weapons Table
4-17-17 Added Spell-less Ranger Variant
4-18-17 Added Feats: Powerful Build, Large Build, Lightning Reflexes, Martial Artist, and Weapon Specialist
4-19-17 Draw and Stow two weapons for TWFs.

[Zman]

Work In Progress:
7-19-16 Monk Damage
7-22-16 Charge as Default
8-3-16 TWF 2nd attack at 8th, not 11th level
8-3-16 Dueling Master, Bonus Attack is one handed
8-3-16 Frenzy, Resets on Short/Long Rest
8-8-16 Fix Expertise
8-8-16 Finesse or Light for TWE
8-8-16 Finesse for CQA
8-9-16 Hard code Maximum of 2 Short Rests
8-9-16 Look at Druid Fixes for Balance with AC and Intuitive Defense
8-11-16 Remove second agonizing Cha mod after 11th.
8-11-16 Remove Volatile Spellcaster restriction.
8-11-16 Change Four Elements Monk to Ki cost -1 to become Ki cost equals spell level.

Ideas:
7-15-16 Grappling and Spellcasting. DC10 Con save to cast while grappled. DC10 Concentration Save to maintain concentration while Grappled.
7-15-16 Grappling leading to Restrained progression. *I'm not sure if I really want to start meddling with Grappling Rules.

4-8-17 Spelless ranger gains combat Superiority 4d6 up to 6d8.
4-8-17 Hardened Feat: Half proiciency bonus(rounded up) to nonproficient saves.
4-11-17 Massive Damage: 1/2 or more HP Max in damage, roll on chart. System Shock 1:Dead 2-3: 0HP(Stable) 4-10: Disadvantage till end of next turn.
4-11-17 Instant Death: If damage equal to hit point maximum and drops you to zero, Con Save DC=Damage Taken or die.
4-11-17 Tweak weapon/armor tables.
4-11-17 Magic Armor/Shield enhancements do not stack.
4-11-17 Add Offhand Weapon Property for Dagger, Handaxe, and Light Hammer.
4-17-17 Add New Feats Powerful Build, Large Build, Lightning Reflexes, and Martial Artist.

[Specter]

Only read races so far, but Human still needs more than just a skill. Basically now they're worse half-elves., since some of those stats will go to dump stats. I don't think Half-Elf needs change, from my experience.

[Zman]

Only read races so far, but Human still needs more than just a skill. Basically now they're worse half-elves., since some of those stats will go to dump stats. I don't think Half-Elf needs change, from my experience.

Human
+1 to All Stats
2 Skills
*Net Change Gains 2 Skills

Half Elves
+2 Cha, +1 to two stats
1 Skill
Inferior Darkvision
Fey Ancestry
*Net Change Loses one skill, halves Darkvision


Humans gained two skills, Half Elves now only get one skill and have worse Darkvision. You still feel Human isn't good enough, but Half Elf was balanced previously?

[Specter]

Human
+1 to All Stats
2 Skills
*Net Change Gains 2 Skills

Half Elves
+2 Cha, +1 to two stats
1 Skill
Inferior Darkvision
Fey Ancestry
*Net Change Loses one skill, halves Darkvision


Humans gained two skills, Half Elves now only get one skill and have worse Darkvision. You still feel Human isn't good enough, but Half Elf was balanced previously?

Yes, because Darkvision and Fey Ancestry benefits all characters, but +1 to everything only benefits some very MAD builds.

[Cybren]

Grappler retains the ability of the feat that does not do anything

Putting a stat bump on skilled and keeping it 3 skills seems bad from a niche protection standpoint; between that and getting bonus skills from int mod, it becomes increasingly easy to have every important skill on one character and step on other peoples toes.

I don't understand the rationale for changing expertise to have super advantage.

Dueling seems objectively better than great weapon fighting.

[Zman]

Yes, because Darkvision and Fey Ancestry benefits all characters, but +1 to everything only benefits some very MAD builds.

Noted, but that is balanced by a skill and not just MAD build benefit from using +1s to bump stats.

Balance is better, may not be perfect, but better.


Grappler retains the ability of the feat that does not do anything

Putting a stat bump on skilled and keeping it 3 skills seems bad from a niche protection standpoint; between that and getting bonus skills from int mod, it becomes increasingly easy to have every important skill on one character and step on other peoples toes.

I don't understand the rationale for changing expertise to have super advantage.

Dueling seems objectively better than great weapon fighting.

Didn't think of removing any part of Grappler.

Why? Skilled wasn't really worth it before, I've never seen it taken. I saw it as more a half feat and as a half feat I views offering a +1 Stste was fair.

Expertise Change. The goal was to make an expertise roll more reliable. The math, sans advantage situation, makes the average roll on an expertise skill higher through 8th level. Very comparable through mid levels, and a bit lower at high levels. What it does is make someone with expertise reliably better at a skill and reduces swinyness. At high levels it reduces the max roll on a skill. Basically I viewed Expertose and breaking bounded accuracy and still being extremely swingy. This change makes it much more reliable with a comparable average.

Dueling is only better than Greatwepon Fighting when using a Versatile Weapon in two hands. Dueling increases damage by 2, GWF increases it by 1.25 on average. Previously Versatile Weapons were terrible when used two handed and I've made GWF better as a whole. Before this change Versatile weapons benefited far less from GWF, and did not benefit from Dueling. Using a Longsword one handed was better than using it two handed.

[JumboWheat01]

I like that change to Frenzy Barbarian. Would make it much more interesting and "safe" to play.

I say, though, if you want to balance out Half Elves a little more, they need to have their stat bonuses changed from +2 to Cha and +1 to two other stats of your choice to +2 to Cha and +1 to another stat of your choice. Almost all other races/subraces have +3 total stat modifications.

[Zman]

I like that change to Frenzy Barbarian. Would make it much more interesting and "safe" to play.

I say, though, if you want to balance out Half Elves a little more, they need to have their stat bonuses changed from +2 to Cha and +1 to two other stats of your choice to +2 to Cha and +1 to another stat of your choice. Almost all other races/subraces have +3 total stat modifications.


Thanks, it is safer and IMO an appropriate opportunity cost when compared to the Totems, especially since I added a much needed tiny nerd to Bear totem. Frenzy should never have been automatic exhaustion, at least it should have been a save.

I'm not sold on Half Elf needing to lose its dual +1s. It is a cross between Human(total +6) and Elf(Total +3), and a Half Elf's secondaries abilities aren't as good as other races. And Cha isn't quite Str for Half Orc, +2 Con for Dwarve's, or +2 Dex for Elves.

I considered a bigger change for Half Elves, +1 Dex, +2 Cha, + 1 to other. Basically force one of those +1s to Dex.

[Lucas Yew]

Many good points, but the horrifying nerf to Agonizing Blast was quite upsetting; it was the poor warlock's main schtick!

[Zman]

Many good points, but the horrifying nerf to Agonizing Blast was quite upsetting; it was the poor warlock's main schtick!

In my rough draft thread that issue got hashed out quite a bit. Basically...

Lvl1-4 No Nerf
Lvls5-10 Only a Nerf when hitting a single target twice. Small mathematical nerf.
Lvls11-16 Only a Nerf when targeting a single target and hitting with all three. Small mathematical Nerf. Most attacks have no net reduction in damage.
Lvls17+ Only a Nerf when hitting with three or four beams.

Basically, it was the Warlock's only Schtick! And it made every other blasting Cantrip very bad by comparison. And it was only really beat at range by a Fighter Archer hitting Lvl 20! And knock back force bolts are better than arrows.

Warlock's always ended up as blasters, their Paths weren't very defining or gimped. Now, their Paths are vastly better and a Warlock isn't forced to be Blasting EB every day all day.

[Cybren]

Noted, but that is balanced by a skill and not just MAD build benefit from using +1s to bump stats.

Balance is better, may not be perfect, but better.



Didn't think of removing any part of Grappler.

Why? Skilled wasn't really worth it before, I've never seen it taken. I saw it as more a half feat and as a half feat I views offering a +1 Stste was fair.

I think making sure every ability is exactly as attractive as every other ability is a rabbit hole it's hard for a game designer to emerge from, but even if your goal is to get people to take skilled more that just exacerbates the issue of skilled and +intmod skills allowing characters to step on each others toes. an eldricht knight human with skilled gets 2 from class, 2 from background, +2 from race, and +3 from the feat, and assuming they go for a medium int build, ~another +2. I'm not sure why i'd want to encourage players to take that many skills. You either accomplish two things: 1) no one still takes it, on the grounds that the other party members can cover all the skills they could need, or 2) everyone takes it, and people lose a bit of identity. I don't think 5E has enough skills to have that many easy sources of them


Expertise Change. The goal was to make an expertise roll more reliable. The math, sans advantage situation, makes the average roll on an expertise skill higher through 8th level. Very comparable through mid levels, and a bit lower at high levels. What it does is make someone with expertise reliably better at a skill and reduces swinyness. At high levels it reduces the max roll on a skill. Basically I viewed Expertose and breaking bounded accuracy and still being extremely swingy. This change makes it much more reliable with a comparable average.

Expertise doesn't break bounded accuracy- this discussion has existed on the forum before, but expertise is a cool ability because of bounded accuracy. I don't think the ability is functioning in a meaningful way if it doesn't at least slightly increase the ceiling on an expert character. I'd sooner give the expert the ability to gain advantage through some resource (n times per short rest, for example), and then giving them a small boost if both advantage dice hit.


Dueling is only better than Greatwepon Fighting when using a Versatile Weapon in two hands. Dueling increases damage by 2, GWF increases it by 1.25 on average. Previously Versatile Weapons were terrible when used two handed and I've made GWF better as a whole. Before this change Versatile weapons benefited far less from GWF, and did not benefit from Dueling. Using a Longsword one handed was better than using it two handed.

as you have it written great weapon fighting lets a greatsword wielding fighter reroll one of the dice but not both, and it forces them to take the second result so in almost all cases is worse than the current GWF style. Alternatively, I can use a longsword for 1d10+2 damage, and retain the option of using a shield, grappling, or both.

[JumboWheat01]

And Cha isn't quite Str for Half Orc, +2 Con for Dwarve's, or +2 Dex for Elves.

Cha is the main casting stat of this edition, though. Four classes use it, compared to three for Wis and one for Int.

And when compared to Str, only three classes really rely on Str, and one of them also gets great benefit from a high Cha as well.

Of course, things can be built however one pleases (pretty much,) but Cha is one of the major stats.

[Zman]

I think making sure every ability is exactly as attractive as every other ability is a rabbit hole it's hard for a game designer to emerge from, but even if your goal is to get people to take skilled more that just exacerbates the issue of skilled and +intmod skills allowing characters to step on each others toes. an eldricht knight human with skilled gets 2 from class, 2 from background, +2 from race, and +3 from the feat, and assuming they go for a medium int build, ~another +2. I'm not sure why i'd want to encourage players to take that many skills. You either accomplish two things: 1) no one still takes it, on the grounds that the other party members can cover all the skills they could need, or 2) everyone takes it, and people lose a bit of identity. I don't think 5E has enough skills to have that many easy sources of them

My goal was just to make things closer, I'm not going for perfect.

Int Mod skills is to make Int more attractive to everybody, especially classes that normally dump it. Only the Wizard is purely ain't based, even an EK really isn't. Now, on a class that has or can use a good ain't, sure Skilled isn't terribly attractive, but for any character that does not have a positive ain't Mod Skilled has become more attractive, just round off an odd Abikity score and pick up three skills. Stepping on toes enforces defined roles, this adds granularity and real specialization requires both a great Ability and being proficient. Having lots of skills without the maxed ability behind it means you can do a role in a pinch, but don't specialize in it.

Expertise doesn't break bounded accuracy- this discussion has existed on the forum before, but expertise is a cool ability because of bounded accuracy. I don't think the ability is functioning in a meaningful way if it doesn't at least slightly increase the ceiling on an expert character. I'd sooner give the expert the ability to gain advantage through some resource (n times per short rest, for example), and then giving them a small boost if both advantage dice hit.

Really? You just said it doesn't break bounded accuracy, and then in the next breath say it's special because it does. Max ability +5, Max Prof +6, max roll 20, max bounded skill check is a 31, with near impossible, the highest difficulty being DC 30. Maxed Rogue with old Expertise can hit DC37, and that is an entire tier beyond near impossible. My change means the Maxed rogue consistently hits DC25 almost half the time, and hits DC30 19% of the time and hits it 27% of the time when having advantage. It is a consistant advantage where the Rogue is great more often and far less likely to be mediocre, and it still hits the highest DC fairly often, basically 1/5, a DC only someone who is not only incredibly skilled, but losses the natural ability to pull off. That is Special IMO.

as you have it written great weapon fighting lets a greatsword wielding fighter reroll one of the dice but not both, and it forces them to take the second result so in almost all cases is worse than the current GWF style. Alternatively, I can use a longsword for 1d10+2 damage, and retain the option of using a shield, grappling, or both.

And that is a typo, dice not die.

[Cybren]

I said it's special because of bounded accuracy, not that it breaks it- it can't break bounded accuracy, because it exists within the context of it. But I'm not going to further this discussion if only because it's a played out one and i don't want to derail your thread. (Bounded accuracy makes it cool because it makes a bonus valuable, without bounded accuracy, it becomes an obligation rather than a benefit)

[Zman]

I said it's special because of bounded accuracy, not that it breaks it- it can't break bounded accuracy, because it exists within the context of it. But I'm not going to further this discussion if only because it's a played out one and i don't want to derail your thread. (Bounded accuracy makes it cool because it makes a bonus valuable, without bounded accuracy, it becomes an obligation rather than a benefit)

I say it breaks it because it feels like a tacked on rule out hat greatly extends the normal range for skill checks. My biggest problem is that at low levels Expertise underperformed, and at high levels allows checks outside the normal skill ranges. My change makes Expertise consistently better at low to mid levels, and more consistant at high levels. At level 1 a mere +2 does little to mitigate the likelihood of failing a DC 15, my changed Expertise makes DC15 reliably passable. That feel difference is important to play IMO.

Lvl1 Rogue 16 Dex with Acrobatics
Normal +5 Range:6-25 Avg:15.5 DC15: 55% DC10: 80% DC20: 30%
Stock Expertise +7 Range 8-27 Avg 17.5 DC15: 65% DC10: 90% DC20: 40%
New Expertise +5 Range 6-25 Avg: 18.8 DC15: 80% DC10: 96% DC20: 51%

This is why I prefer my modified Experiese. This relationship is heavily maintained through mid levels.

FYI feedback is good and I figured this change would cause some ruffled feathers.

[Zalabim]

I took some notes while reading through your list. A little rough draft in spots, but here you go.

Healer: I don't think it needs improvement, but definitely suggest advantage only on stabilization attempts. [Edit: if you're using harsher healing and recovery houserules, you might want to ban Healer.]

Keen Mind: Advantage only on checks to remember information (when such a check is even necessary). Maybe make it proficiency on Int saves, since those are quite rare.

Polearm Master/Sentinel: Consider if you wouldn't prefer for the Polearm Master attack to just be a reaction attack, instead of an opportunity attack, and whether you'd want this to trigger on forced movement.

Tough: No Change? It's worse than Inspiring leader, Healer, and Durable to begin with.

Cunning Opportunist: Don't call it an opportunity attack and a reaction. Just pick one. Seems a little weak.

Dueling Master/Dual Wielder: Still weak feats.

Light Armor Master: Pretty sure this is better than Medium Armor Mastery due to the difference in cost for armor.

Spell Savant/ Spellslinger: Just rather boring.

Unarmored Defense feats: Pretty likely to replace armor proficiency feats. Not really an opinion, just a caution.

Knowledge Domain/Dragon Sorcerer/Dwarf/Banneret: Odd that they keep normal expertise. [edit:] And ranger.

Sorcerer Font of Magic: Does it need to be said that they still regain all their points when they finish a long rest? Only likely to matter at 17 18 19.

Monk: The changes to the Ki costs on the 4 elements powers seem arbitrary. Should probably lower the required level on Eternal Mountain Defense if you want it to cost 3 Ki.

Warlock: it's Pact, not path, isn't it? And blade should be starting at +3 HP, right?
Agonizing Blast: Oh, that's ok. I'll just play a different character. Warlocks blast all day because they have 2 spell slots at a time.

Wizard: No change. Yeah.

TWF: Only fighters need that. Paladins actually get a boost to TWF at level 11, and Rangers, well, rangers.

Expertise: Expertise does something different than advantage. An expert can do things that others of a similar level cannot, or do things without having an extremely high ability score in the relevant attribute. I'm in the leave it alone camp.

[edit:] GWF fighting style: Not actually a buff. For greatswords, if you could use either result, it's basically the same as current according to http://anydice.com/program/35fa. Since you can't use either result, it's probably weaker than the current version. It's probably better for a 1d12 weapon like the greataxe. If you do allow using either result, it will not be weaker and will just mean rolling more dice, so be aware of that.

[Lombra]

Why nerfing both the paths of the barbarian? Frenzy is so good as it is, and there's no point in choosing bear totem if you can't resist the most dangerous damage types.

In my experience of berserker path, frenzy is very useful: you can take an action and attack, any action: a dash to rush on an enemy to keep your rage up, chug a potion to heal and keep your rage up, it's very useful as it is.

[Rysto]

TWF: Only fighters need that. Paladins actually get a boost to TWF at level 11, and Rangers, well, rangers.

PAM still outdoes TWF in almost every way on a high-level Paladin, and the Paladin needs to take a level of fighter for the TWF fighting style and delay his progression.

[Tanarii]

Bonus skills equal to int mod is a massively unbalanced boost. That's 1-2 bonus skills for most characters. The half-elf race and lore bard class already show how unbalanced this would be.
You're also giving most characters 1/3 to 2/3 of a bonus feat, while giving others nothing.

If players want their character to have more skills, there is a feat for that. If your players are avoiding it, or undervaluing Int checks / skills, you're not doing enough to encourage skill use generally, and Int checks / skill use in particular. It may work as a good short-cut house-rule for you personally to avoid doing it the hard way. but it's certainly not a system failure with 5e.

[Cybren]

PAM still outdoes TWF in almost every way on a high-level Paladin, and the Paladin needs to take a level of fighter for the TWF fighting style and delay his progression.

Well, if you're making a comprehensive master list of house rules, it's pretty easy to just add TWF to one of the paladin's options.

[R.Shackleford]

http://i.imgur.com/fJFOrhw.gif

I'll add more thoughts later but wanted to at least post this.

[Zman]

Firstly, thank you for the detailed response, it is greatly appreciated.


I took some notes while reading through your list. A little rough draft in spots, but here you go.

Healer: I don't think it needs improvement, but definitely suggest advantage only on stabilization attempts. [Edit: if you're using harsher healing and recovery houserules, you might want to ban Healer.]
Wisdom(Medicine) is used to Stabalize and to Diagnose an illness, feels fitting. Maybe it becomes a bit too good with +1 Wi's, but IMO non combat feats need some love and a Healer is wise, haha.

Keen Mind: Advantage only on checks to remember information (when such a check is even necessary). Maybe make it proficiency on Int saves, since those are quite rare.
IMO Int as an ability needs serious love, and this feat would make Int checks and saves feels special with a such a Keen mind. IMO the feat was very limited and of little value before, depending on how groups treat information, and now it feels special.

Polearm Master/Sentinel: Consider if you wouldn't prefer for the Polearm Master attack to just be a reaction attack, instead of an opportunity attack, and whether you'd want this to trigger on forced movement.
Elegant and simple, removes the need to change Sentinal. This is exactly the change I was missing. Thank you very much, I'm a bit sad I didn't think of it!

Tough: No Change? It's worse than Inspiring leader, Healer, and Durable to begin with.
Suggested changes? I'm definitely open to something, it isn't bad enough to be a half feat as +1 Con opens up the potential for +3HP/Level, but isn't great. What about a once per long rest ability that halts damage from an attack as a reaction? Maybe make it lasts I'll the start of your next turn.... I think I like that.

Cunning Opportunist: Don't call it an opportunity attack and a reaction. Just pick one. Seems a little weak.
Will definitely call it a Reaction attack, thank you. It is a bit weak, but fills a niche, the deft agile fighter that tails the bruiser and capitalizes on his "agro ". Suggestion? I'm open to anything that fits the niche, what if it is opened up to anytime an enemy attacks them with Disadvantage? I like that...

Dueling Master/Dual Wielder: Still weak feats.
I think they are fair feats, +1 AC is solid in bounded accuracy, and each adds a bit of Damage. +4.5 for Dueling Master, +2 for Dual Wielder lvls 1-4, +3 lvls 5-10, and +4(5-6) lvls 11+(Fighter). The change to TWF keeps TWF doing better late game. What combat feats are stronger?

Light Armor Master: Pretty sure this is better than Medium Armor Mastery due to the difference in cost for armor.
Armor cost is negligible beyond the first couple levels. I view +1 AC as roughly half a feat, less if it's conditional i.e. Requiring 16 Dex for Medium Armor Master.

Spell Savant/ Spellslinger: Just rather boring.
Yep, but Spellcasting needed some kind of love in the Feat Department, and non Evoker/Dragon Sorcerer's needed a way to get Ability Mod to Cantrip Damage. An additional Spell slot feat seems worth it and offers something to take. I'd like to make them more interesting, but IMO they are boring but necessary.

Unarmored Defense feats: Pretty likely to replace armor proficiency feats. Not really an opinion, just a caution.
I see them as ways to make character concepts work. Non Martial Monk? Cleric + Intuitive Defense and you've got a Divine Spellcaster walking around in robes and doges attacks because he knows where they're going to be that doesn't need to be a king fu master or rely on armor etc. They really don't offer better AC than Armors, unless you manage an 18+ Dex and 18+ Mental Stat, even then at best you manage Full Plate+ Shield. And IMO armor proficiency feats are only there because they need to be.

Sorcerer Font of Magic: Does it need to be said that they still regain all their points when they finish a long rest? Only likely to matter at 17 18 19.
It should still be specified, thank you.

Monk: The changes to the Ki costs on the 4 elements powers seem arbitrary. Should probably lower the required level on Eternal Mountain Defense if you want it to cost 3 Ki.
Basically just reduced the Ki cost for all abilities, their original pricing felt arbitrary to begin with, Monk could probably use more work, but I figured creating a larger Ki pool by losing the associated Ki costs was the path of least resistance.

Warlock: it's Pact, not path, isn't it? And blade should be starting at +3 HP, right?
Agonizing Blast: Oh, that's ok. I'll just play a different character. Warlocks blast all day because they have 2 spell slots at a time.
Doubly correct on HP and Pact.

Agonizing Blast, I've hashed this one out before but I'll summarize. It was the best Warlock feature, so good you were shoehorned into being an EB blaster, now it is slightly less good, but still the best at will Cantrip damage out there, and still top tier at will damage being Magical, Force, possibly filling battlefield control, and being granular. How much damage is being missed?? Well assume 60% hit chance.
Lvls 1-4: 0% Damage loss.
Lvls 5-10: Only lost on both hitting, so 36% of the time losing 4-5 Damage.
Lvls 11-16: Only lost on all three hitting, so 21.6% of the time losing 5 Damage.
Lvls 17+: Only losing Damage on 3+ Hits. Misses out on 10 damage 13% of the time. Misses out on 5 a Damage some of the time.

The he damage decrease is not that devastating. Warlock gains defining and useable Pact features now, and +Cha Mod damage can be gained via a feat if they wasn't Blaster Specialization effectively negating any damage loss except lvls17+, and with the feat better damage earlier levels. Warlock Blasting is much more granular, and much more in line with other forms of at will damage especially the non Agonizing Cantrips.

Wizard: No change. Yeah.
Sarcasm? Yes, the Wizard is good, primarily because Spells are good. Any suggestions?

TWF: Only fighters need that. Paladins actually get a boost to TWF at level 11, and Rangers, well, rangers.
As a base fighting style TWF starts to fall behind, yes a Paladin can add d8 Radient at Lvl 11, but that doesn't make TWF good for them, it's still terrible. Also, Paladins don't have access to the Fighting Style without dip or feat. Rangers, well Rangers definitely can benefit from it. Sure, with Hunter's Mark they can throw down 4x(2d6+Dex) vs 3x(2d6+Dex) and another d8 per attack with Collossus Slayer(Not Foe Dlayer) against a wounded single enemy, but Hunter's Mark competes for a bonus action with TWF, meaning it takes a bit to come online and doesn't transition between foes well. Basically, it gives Hunter Rangers a choice, which is good. Sure, fully online against a wounded single foe they will reach the king of the hill for damage, but that damage is conditional, difficult to keep online, and requires resources. Maybe Collossus Slayer changes need to be taken back now, yep I'm making it work twice at11th level.

Expertise: Expertise does something different than advantage. An expert can do things that others of a similar level cannot, or do things without having an extremely high ability score in the relevant attribute. I'm in the leave it alone camp.

Knowledge Domain/Dragon Sorcerer/Dwarf/Banneret: Odd that they keep normal expertise. [edit:] And ranger.

I've heard what everyone is telling me, they don't like the changes to Expertise so I'm going to remove them. What I am going to do is IMO,event my heavier handed changes for Abikity Checks instead, basically Ability Checks use 2d10, not a d20. Advantage becomes 3d10 best 2, disadvantage becomes 3d10 best 2. This change is heavier handed than I originally wanted, but The skill system needs to be fixed, and this should do it. Interestingly enough, Initiative becomes more reliant on your Dex Mod and less on the Dice...

[edit:] GWF fighting style: Not actually a buff. For greatswords, if you could use either result, it's basically the same as current according to http://anydice.com/program/35fa. Since you can't use either result, it's probably weaker than the current version. It's probably better for a 1d12 weapon like the greataxe. If you do allow using either result, it will not be weaker and will just mean rolling more dice, so be aware of that.
Incorrect actually, if you choose to reroll 1-3 on a d6 mathematically their average becomes 3.5 which raises a Greatswords average damage from 7 stock, 8.33 the old GWF, to 8.5 my way. What is better is now GWF is significantly improved for any large or single die weapon and no longer disproportionately benefits the Greatsword. The Greataxe is 6.5/7.33/8.0 vs the 7.0/8.33/8.5 Greatsword.

Oh, and as pointed out earlier die was a typo and should already be corrected to dice. So on a Greatsword you can reroll the dice. As I reread it again I need to change my wording, it is not can reroll just one die, it is not must reroll all of them, it is can reroll any of the weapon dice. That is the confusion, my wording did not accurately reflect the math I was working with.

Thanks again and apologies to the guy that pointed it out earlier, I knew what I meant but failed to accurately convey it. Will change.


Thanks again!


Why nerfing both the paths of the barbarian? Frenzy is so good as it is, and there's no point in choosing bear totem if you can't resist the most dangerous damage types.

In my experience of berserker path, frenzy is very useful: you can take an action and attack, any action: a dash to rush on an enemy to keep your rage up, chug a potion to heal and keep your rage up, it's very useful as it is.

I didn't Nerf both paths of the Barbarian. Frenzy is actually much improved now that it doesn't cause exhaustion, and forced a reckless attacks fits a Frenzy. I did slightly Nerf Bear Totem as it was too good, now it is still amazing and allows them to resist everything but three damage types. And thematicly, Bear resisting psychic damage or soul burn or soul rot doesn't make sense, but it does for anything elemental, poison, and physical. Now maybe we'll see more Eagle or Wolf Totem or Berserkers, not every Barbarian being a Bear Totem.

[Cybren]

Armor cost is negligible beyond the first couple levels. I view +1 AC as roughly half a feat, less if it's conditional i.e. Requiring 16 Dex for Medium Armor Master.


I wouldn't balance things being conditional as being "worth less"- that would be like saying polearm master isn't good for wizards so it's not as powerful

[Zman]

PAM still outdoes TWF in almost every way on a high-level Paladin, and the Paladin needs to take a level of fighter for the TWF fighting style and delay his progression.


Well, if you're making a comprehensive master list of house rules, it's pretty easy to just add TWF to one of the paladin's options.

Does TWF fit a Paladin Thematically? Not sure, guess it could. If people feel it is a needed addition we can, but I did add a feat option that would allow Paladins to snag TWF. PAM is now a competitive option with TWF and creates choices, it's not obvious optimization now which is IMO a good thing.


Bonus skills equal to int mod is a massively unbalanced boost. That's 1-2 bonus skills for most characters. The half-elf race and lore bard class already show how unbalanced this would be.
You're also giving most characters 1/3 to 2/3 of a bonus feat, while giving others nothing.

If players want their character to have more skills, there is a feat for that. If your players are avoiding it, or undervaluing Int checks / skills, you're not doing enough to encourage skill use generally, and Int checks / skill use in particular. It may work as a good short-cut house-rule for you personally to avoid doing it the hard way. but it's certainly not a system failure with 5e.

1-2 Skills for most characters?? I doubt that, Int as having no real Mechanical benefit for any character that wasn't a Wizard or an Eldritch Knight meant it was a dump stat for most characters. How many Fighters are putting a 12 or 14 in Int just to benefit their Knowledge checks??? Now, that dump comes at an opportunity cost. Skills are easy to come by, especially the "important" ones, this allows people a general benefit for putting some love into Int, making Int feel special, and opening up more viable Backgeounds i.e. Less use for mandatory skills like Perception. The goal is for smart characters to feel smart, this will do that.

Hey now, don't get personal and attack me as a lazy DM, it is absolutely true that Int is the undervalued ability of this edition and most often a Dump Stat. I do use Int skills, and skill use generally, but I don't know many players that are willing at Character creation to put a good score or their Pointbuy into Int just to make some skill checks a touch easier. Now, if that 12 or 14 in Int means they feel smart, know more languages, and are more skilled, I can see them doing it. My see this enhancing diversity in character creation, putting an opportunity cost to Dumping Int, and fixing a glaring "feel" problem with Int.

My only concern with it is that Wizards now get most of their class list at character creation leading to less variety in Skills at 1st level, but IMO it's an ok price to pay.


http://i.imgur.com/fJFOrhw.gif

I'll add more thoughts later but wanted to at least post this.

Thank you very much. I've got some wrinkles to iron out, but with a bit of polish I'm pretty happy with it.

[Zman]

I wouldn't balance things being conditional as being "worth less"- that would be like saying polearm master isn't good for wizards so it's not as powerful

Here is my point, look at a Medium Armor Mastery, is it worth it without adding a +1 Str or Dex? Is upping AC by 1 conditional on a 16 AC with a +1 Str or Dex worth it without removing Stealth Disadvantage? Is Stealth Disadvantage and conditional +1 AC worth a whole feat? Answer is probably not, but all together they are a reasonable price for a feat, especially as a Medium Armor has a lower AC cap than light or Heavy using feats.

The +1AC feom say Light Armor Master is not conditional, whereas the Medium Armor Master is conditional and likely requires some kind of investment on the part of the wearer.

[Cybren]

The +1AC feom say Light Armor Master is not conditional, whereas the Medium Armor Master is conditional and likely requires some kind of investment on the part of the wearer.

It doesn't require any investment- you can't balance things based on people who don't want to take the feat

[Zman]

It doesn't require any investment- you can't balance things based on people who don't want to take the feat

And you can't talk in absolutes and fo it's. We talk about half feats, but they aren't exactly .5 Feats worth, that is a gross misrepresentation. Feats need to be reasonably balanced, take a Savage Attack. No way was a Savage attacker was worth a full feat, it was much closer to a "half feat", so, take on a +1 Str and it's good to go. Is Savage attacker worth exactly .5 feats? Is +1 Strength? No, not really, but when added together they are approximately what a feat should be worth, which is roughly what an ASI is worth. So, when I say +1 AC is worth half a heat,my hat is not .5 Feats, it's is approximately half of what a feat should be worth.

[Tanarii]

1-2 Skills for most characters?? I doubt that
Okay two may be pushing it, since that's a 14. But 0-1 is still fairly normal for an Int bonus IMX. And you're giving the benefit very unevenly. Rogues, Wizards, Rangers, Druids, Warlocks, Bards, and Knowledge Clerics / EKs, all of whom regularly need decent to high Int anyway, get a boost. Paladins, non-EK fighters, and Barbarians don't. You know ... the characters that need more skills the most?


Skills are easy to come byNo they aren't. Every character gets 4, except for skill focused classes. Thats why half-elves are so broken. Which I note you toned down.


Hey now, don't get personal and attack me as a lazy DM,Yeah okay. Sorry about that. My bad.


it is absolutely true that Int is the undervalued ability of this edition and most often a Dump StatI disagree. That isn't my experience at all, unless the players know that ain't checks / skills will be regular ignored, or that there's a 'one person passes check = group passes check' unwritten rule in effect. I've noticed players tend to assume this will be the case more in AL, and I can't count the times I've seen it bite them in the ass.

[smcmike]

I like most of what you have here. Some thoughts:

Adding more ways to get skills seems problematic to me. Not because it's unbalanced, but because there just aren't all that many skills to get in 5e. A wizard with maxed intelligences will end up with proficiency in athletics and acrobatics and all sort of things that don't really fit the character, simply because the proficiencies have to go somewhere. I don't like that.

I agree that Keen Mind needed an improvement, but advantage on all intelligence checks is potentially problematic, for one reason: Counterspell and Dispel Magic. An Abjurer with this feat will be awfully strong. Maybe not too strong, but this is the clear balance issue that needs considering.

[Zman]

Okay two may be pushing it, since that's a 14. But 0-1 is still fairly normal for an Int bonus IMX. And you're giving the benefit very unevenly. Rogues, Wizards, Rangers, Druids, Warlocks, Bards, and Knowledge Clerics / EKs, all of whom regularly need decent to high Int anyway, get a boost. Paladins, non-EK fighters, and Barbarians don't. You know ... the characters that need more skills the most?

No they aren't. Every character gets 4, except for skill focused classes. Thats why half-elves are so broken. Which I note you toned down.

Yeah okay. Sorry about that. My bad.

I disagree. That isn't my experience at all, unless the players know that ain't checks / skills will be regular ignored, or that there's a 'one person passes check = group passes check' unwritten rule in effect. I've noticed players tend to assume this will be the case more in AL, and I can't count the times I've seen it bite them in the ass.

And having a +1 Int and learning a language and a skill/tool proficiency is so imbalancing? I hear the argument about the benefit being uneven, but those classes except the Wizard are not forced to have a high Intelligence.

Have you considered the reason you don't view Intelligence as undervalued is not because I do not put enough emphasis on Int checks, but you instinctively put more pressure on it to correct that imbalance? It is a matter of perspective and the truth likely lies in the middle.

I did tone Half Elves down, but gave the skill bonus to Humans to bump them up, Humans Jack of All trades etc.


I like most of what you have here. Some thoughts:

Adding more ways to get skills seems problematic to me. Not because it's unbalanced, but because there just aren't all that many skills to get in 5e. A wizard with maxed intelligences will end up with proficiency in athletics and acrobatics and all sort of things that don't really fit the character, simply because the proficiencies have to go somewhere. I don't like that.

I agree that Keen Mind needed an improvement, but advantage on all intelligence checks is potentially problematic, for one reason: Counterspell and Dispel Magic. An Abjurer with this feat will be awfully strong. Maybe not too strong, but this is the clear balance issue that needs considering.

I'm not sure more skills is that problematic, but what if half the Int Bonus rounded down had to be in Tool Proficiencies? Or possible all in Tool Proficiencies?? That would alleviate the Skill pressure to a degree, and push characters into diversifying with rewarding but niche proficiencies? I think that might be the compromise I'm looking for of halving the Int bonus out.

Very good point about Keen Mind, that is going to be revised to just offering Advantage on Knowledge Checks and Advantage on Int Saves. Thanks!




Thanks again everyone for your feedback. I will be incorporating a lot of what has been discuessed namely the removal of Expertise, Ability Check change, and revising the Int Bonus as skills as well as a lot of the minor things that were pointed out.

[Zman]

Change Log:
7-16-16 Half, rounded down, of Int Mod Proficiencies as Tools
7-16-16 Advantage now on Int checks involving Knowledge and Reasoning only.
7-16-16 Polearm no longer makes Opportunity Attack, but Reaction attack. Fixes Sentinal interaction.
7-16-16 Removed changes to Sentinel.
7-16-16 Added 1/day Resistal all but Radiant, Necrotic, and Psychic Damage to Tough.
7-16-16 Expanded Cunning Opportunisht to trigger on disadvantaged attack.
7-16-16 Removed Changes to Expertise for Bard and Rogue.
7-16-16 Reworded Great Weapon Figthing Style
7-16-16 Clarified Font of Magic
7-16-16 Changed Ability Checks to a 2d10 roll.


Thank you everyone for the feedback so far, here is a list of the changes I've made so far. The major one was listening to feedback about Expertise and rolling back those changes. Instead, I choose to address the swingyness of the Ability Check system head on and install a 2d10 bell curve.

All feedback is welcome, this effort is greatly enhanced by your time and effort.

[Zalabim]

You asked if I had suggestions for Tough and Cunning Opportunist.

For Tough, since you're using slower healing, the feat really needs to at least help recover its own bonus hit points each day. Otherwise, Tough characters would also take even longer to recover. Resistance (or damage reduction) is a neat idea too.

I know Cunning Opportunist is a little weak because its only benefit was the same as part of sentinel (without sentinel's overlapping sentinels restriction). I'm not sure what else is appropriate to add. I feel like something mobility related makes sense. Anything else I think of just sounds like a reflavored Sentinel.

Dual Wielder: It's weak because it is weaker than +2 Dexterity, which gives the same AC, the same damage bonus, and more. It does have some niche value for Str-based characters, the unusual lances, and characters who have already maxed their AC bonus from dexterity who want more AC, but can't use a shield. The simplest is just adding +1 Str or Dex, but boosting the damage of reaction attacks could probably be worked out somehow. Dueling Master looks like it ends up in the same place, but its fighting style is slightly better so I'm not sure.

I feel like most of the armor options would work better as alternate class features than feats, but the balance between them all isn't wildly off for any of them.

[Strill]

Your Divine Smite change makes no sense, since there's no way to distinguish Paladin spell slots from other classes' skill slots, apart from Warlock spell slots.

Apart from that I'm fantastically impressed. This really has had a ton of thought and research put into it. I honestly don't see much if any that I disagree with.

As for Spells, I'd personally change them so that all the damaging spells actually adhere to the DMG's damage recommendations. Lightning Bolt and Fireball were explicitly designed to be stronger than the DMG's recommendations, simply because they're staples of earlier editions, and the devs wanted them to stay important. However, that just ended up making 5th-level spells like Cone of Cold obsolete.

[Strill]

1-2 Skills for most characters?? I doubt that, Int as having no real Mechanical benefit for any character that wasn't a Wizard or an Eldritch Knight meant it was a dump stat for most characters. How many Fighters are putting a 12 or 14 in Int just to benefit their Knowledge checks??? Now, that dump comes at an opportunity cost. Skills are easy to come by, especially the "important" ones, this allows people a general benefit for putting some love into Int, making Int feel special, and opening up more viable Backgeounds i.e. Less use for mandatory skills like Perception. The goal is for smart characters to feel smart, this will do that.

I absolutely agree with INT being a dump stat, and I've put a lot of thought into making INT more useful as well. My conclusion was to give an extra skill proficiency at 14 INT, and an extra tool proficiency/language per int mod. Giving a skill proficiency per int mod was too much, since there just aren't enough skills to take, and it just ends up making Wizards much much stronger, when they really don't need any buffs.

One possible option is to add back in some of the more obscure INT-based skills from 3e like Knowledge:Nobility, Knowledge: Geography, or Knowledge: Dungeoneering, then make it so that each point of INT mod gives you proficiency in a knowledge skill.

[Kryx]

I've been balancing spells for a while now. See Spell Balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=639488216).
It's not perfect, but coming along.

I have a similar list of comprehensive houserules: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/edit/HJfWMWZgw

Overall I think we're of a similar mindset. Perhaps you've even seen my houserules before as I see a lot of them in here.

Though I think you've focused a bit granular and missed some big picture balance issues (like skills and saves).

Feats
I think you've missed some points here as well. PAM is still amazing and treads on TWF's niche. Imo it shouldn't have the bonus attack (and my math numbers (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255) back this up). I don't think 1/turn of -5/+10 is great - it's still very unbalanced 1/turn, but lets not debate that here as it's been debated many times. I think Sharpshooter is also problematic - WotC created all these great cover rules and your version still largely just ignores them and offsets the melee vs ranged balance.

I think 5e's choice of placing combat feats next to other pillar feats is a mistake. Players will inherently focus combat feats as that is the largest pillar of most games. I think splitting less powerful feats like Actor, Athlete, Linguist, Dungeon Delver, Keen Kind, Skills, etc to a separate list with it's own progression allows for characters to be good in combat while also having some flavor options.


_________________________


I absolutely agree with INT being a dump stat, and I've put a lot of thought into making INT more useful as well. My conclusion was to give an extra skill proficiency at 14 INT, and an extra tool proficiency/language per int mod. Giving a skill proficiency per int mod was too much, since there just aren't enough skills to take, and it just ends up making Wizards much much smarter, when they really don't need any buffs.
Agreed - 14 is a good level.

[R.Shackleford]

I have a problem with Intelligence being tied to tool usage.

I'm going to be blunt here and do note that I'm talking about family/friends but...

I know some rednecks that would have quite a few tool proficiency but their general Int is quite low.

The problem is Int is general knowledge whereas skills/tools is specific. The two really shouldn't be tied.

I also know some quite intelligent people who can't learn a new language. They just can't grasp it.

General intelligence isn't indicative to specific intelligence. Which is kinda a thing I've hated about D&D a lot. This isn't a specific edition problem tho.

[Zman]

You asked if I had suggestions for Tough and Cunning Opportunist.

For Tough, since you're using slower healing, the feat really needs to at least help recover its own bonus hit points each day. Otherwise, Tough characters would also take even longer to recover. Resistance (or damage reduction) is a neat idea too.

I know Cunning Opportunist is a little weak because its only benefit was the same as part of sentinel (without sentinel's overlapping sentinels restriction). I'm not sure what else is appropriate to add. I feel like something mobility related makes sense. Anything else I think of just sounds like a reflavored Sentinel.

Dual Wielder: It's weak because it is weaker than +2 Dexterity, which gives the same AC, the same damage bonus, and more. It does have some niche value for Str-based characters, the unusual lances, and characters who have already maxed their AC bonus from dexterity who want more AC, but can't use a shield. The simplest is just adding +1 Str or Dex, but boosting the damage of reaction attacks could probably be worked out somehow. Dueling Master looks like it ends up in the same place, but its fighting style is slightly better so I'm not sure.

I feel like most of the armor options would work better as alternate class features than feats, but the balance between them all isn't wildly off for any of them.

Good point about Tough not healing its own HP on Hit Dice healing, to be fair neither does the Dwarven racial feature. Adding a clause of added to con Mod for purposes of expending hit dice is easy enough.

I did add the reaction attack for when someone attacks you with disadvantage.

Duel Wielder does have niche for those using Strength, and it adds 2+ Damage per turn potential, more at later levels. It is very comparable to +1 Dex and IMO the draw two weapons shouldn't need to be specified, should just allow it stock to use a Bonus Action for a second item interaction.


Your Divine Smite change makes no sense, since there's no way to distinguish Paladin spell slots from other classes' skill slots, apart from Warlock spell slots.

Apart from that I'm fantastically impressed. This really has had a ton of thought and research put into it. I honestly don't see much if any that I disagree with.

As for Spells, I'd personally change them so that all the damaging spells actually adhere to the DMG's damage recommendations. Lightning Bolt and Fireball were explicitly designed to be stronger than the DMG's recommendations, simply because they're staples of earlier editions, and the devs wanted them to stay important. However, that just ended up making 5th-level spells like Cone of Cold obsolete.

Well, separation of classes exists for spell preparation for multiclasses characters. I want to use a same styled restriction that only makes spell slots from the single Paladin class available for Smites.

Thanks, I have put a solid effort into this project over the last year or so, I highly value balancing a needed balance improvement with a light hand. Don't want to write a new game, just patch and hit the low hanging fruit.

I'm not convinced the damaging spells really need rebalancing, when it comes to spells there are definitely other non direct damage spells I'd hit first.


I absolutely agree with INT being a dump stat, and I've put a lot of thought into making INT more useful as well. My conclusion was to give an extra skill proficiency at 14 INT, and an extra tool proficiency/language per int mod. Giving a skill proficiency per int mod was too much, since there just aren't enough skills to take, and it just ends up making Wizards much much stronger, when they really don't need any buffs.

One possible option is to add back in some of the more obscure INT-based skills from 3e like Knowledge:Nobility, Knowledge: Geography, or Knowledge: Dungeoneering, then make it so that each point of INT mod gives you proficiency in a knowledge skill.

Glad I'm not alone in my views on Int. My half Int Mod rounded down as Tools means a character with positive ain't Mod will get 1-3 skills, 0-2 Tools, and 1-5 extra Languages.

I don't necessarily want to add more skills, a light hand is best for this project. I'd love more specific Int based Knowledge Skills and to do that, and it was even a working idea of mine, but I don't feel it is right for this particular project.


I've been balancing spells for a while now. See Spell Balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=639488216).
It's not perfect, but coming along.

I have a similar list of comprehensive houserules: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/edit/HJfWMWZgw

Overall I think we're of a similar mindset. Perhaps you've even seen my houserules before as I see a lot of them in here.

Though I think you've focused a bit granular and missed some big picture balance issues (like skills and saves).

Feats
I think you've missed some points here as well. PAM is still amazing and treads on TWF's niche. Imo it shouldn't have the bonus attack (and my math numbers (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255) back this up). I don't think 1/turn of -5/+10 is great - it's still very unbalanced 1/turn, but lets not debate that here as it's been debated many times. I think Sharpshooter is also problematic - WotC created all these great cover rules and your version still largely just ignores them and offsets the melee vs ranged balance.

I think 5e's choice of placing combat feats next to other pillar feats is a mistake. Players will inherently focus combat feats as that is the largest pillar of most games. I think splitting less powerful feats like Actor, Athlete, Linguist, Dungeon Delver, Keen Kind, Skills, etc to a separate list with it's own progression allows for characters to be good in combat while also having some flavor options.


_________________________


Agreed - 14 is a good level.

Thank you for the links Kryx! I think we are of a similar mindset, though I can't say I've ever seen your list of house rules before, if I had I would have stolen exhaustion for sleeping stealth disadvantage armor.

We definitely have some similar ideas, but often a different approach about how we address them. You speak of missing bigger picture balance issues and I speak of a light hand. I feel you'd like to write a new version of 5e, while I want to write a patch. Especially for this project I am focused on as light of a hand as possible while still being effective, don't think I've missed and am oblivious to those issues, I merely see addressing them as too heavy handed for this project.

I too had Expertise as Advantage, but it is definitely contentious and only fixed one part of the skill problem. IMO a 2d10 bell curve for Ability checks goes a long way to solving that issue. A bit heavier hand than I wanted, but manageable.

PAM does tread on TWF, but fixing the interaction with Sentinel is a Nerf, fixing GWM is a fix, and adding the second offhand attack for TWF helps even more. We also have to remember that PAM has the cost of a feat when we compare it to stock TWF.

GWM,my each we've debated this before, haha. But, with the goal of greatly improving balance with a light hand it is the best available option. GWM gets out of hand when multiple attacks, especially with advantage, are in play. By capping it to a single big hit, we've curbed the excesses we start seeing at levels 5+, or when combined with PAM and Action Surge etc. Sharpshooter is in the same albeit worse boat, and yes I know my changes still ignore half cover, but doesn't feel as bad. Worse was big hitting from 600' with no disadvantage and no cover.

We are in complete agreement that WoTC should have separated Combat and NonCombat feats, but unfortunately fixing that is beyond the scope of this patch.



Thanks for the feedback guys!

[Zman]

I have a problem with Intelligence being tied to tool usage.

I'm going to be blunt here and do note that I'm talking about family/friends but...

I know some rednecks that would have quite a few tool proficiency but their general Int is quite low.

The problem is Int is general knowledge whereas skills/tools is specific. The two really shouldn't be tied.

I also know some quite intelligent people who can't learn a new language. They just can't grasp it.

General intelligence isn't indicative to specific intelligence. Which is kinda a thing I've hated about D&D a lot. This isn't a specific edition problem tho.

Yep, it a common and reoccurring problem that isn't limited to Int. I know a guy that looks weak and feeble, you could break him in half(low con) and he can't take a hit, but he can drink like a fish and doesn't get sick(high Con).

I understand your problem, but how can it be addressed with a light hand in the DnD framework?

[Kryx]

Switching -5/+10 to once a turn is just as light handed as removing it. Same with Sharpshooter. I agree that some of my other houserules are more heavy handed, but the strength of the change isn't really a valid reason here imo.

Without math to backup ideas that change DPR you can't see the full picture, so I'd encourage you to examine the math of your choices.
But I won't press. Your choices are your own. :)

_____

Moon druid is a rather large nerf. Moon druid is already an incredibly weak archetype for anything but tanking a lot of damage. I don't think reducing the CR (after 4th level) is a balanced option, especially when compared to polymorph.
Here is my rule: "Moon Druid at level 2 has their maximum CR set to ½. At 4 it is CR 1, and 6+ is CR 2 as is the normal. Moon Druid needs a rewrite."

Fighting Styles
I calculate the math of them: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255
Their worth is fairly equal to 5-10% more DPR except Dueling. You've kept dueling the same usage as it still works with a shield. S&B still as much damage as TWF until 11th

2d10
You could surely argue that 2d10 is a better curve than d20, but you could do so for every roll. And if you do so then it's no longer a d20 system. I think that's be a nice change overall, but very different.

[R.Shackleford]

Yep, it a common and reoccurring problem that isn't limited to Int. I know a guy that looks weak and feeble, you could break him in half(low con) and he can't take a hit, but he can drink like a fish and doesn't get sick(high Con).

I understand your problem, but how can it be addressed with a light hand in the DnD framework?

I think the skill system needs to be expanded to three tiers instead of two.

Right now we have ability checks and skill checks. This shows general and then a little more specific.

Going beyond that to be even more specific would allow people like me OR people who like a more 3e skill list (or both) to get what they want. You could always shut down the third, most specific, tier if you are a DM and don't want to deal with it.

Tier 1: Ability Check

Tier 2: Skill List

Tier 3: Very Specific List of odd abilities, tools, and languages.

Give everyone the same number (2 tier 3 choices) and you could have that diversity.

[Zman]

Switching -5/+10 to once a turn is just as light handed as removing it. Same with Sharpshooter. I agree that some of my other houserules are more heavy handed, but the strength of the change isn't really a valid reason here imo.


Without math to backup ideas that change DPR you can't see the full picture, so I'd encourage you to examine the math of your choices.
But I won't press. Your choices are your own. :)


Not true, flat out removing a feature is very different than changing the number of uses. Also, if you remove -5/+10 we have to replace it with something else which is an additional change. The change of "You can..." To "Once per turn, you can..." Is a very light handed change.

Oh, don't act like Math doesn't back up my position, we both know it does. Sure at very low levels the white room comparison is favorable to GWM, but less so than stock as it can't be used on the Bonus Action attack. By 5th level it is now being used on one attack instead of on 2-3 attacks per turn, or 4-5 with an Action Surge. By limiting it to a single attack per turn it mitigates the massive damage spikes that imbalance the feat. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is a very simple way to make the situation vastly improved.



_____

Moon druid is a rather large nerf. Moon druid is already an incredibly weak archetype for anything but tanking a lot of damage. I don't think reducing the CR (after 4th level) is a balanced option, especially when compared to polymorph.
Here is my rule: "Moon Druid at level 2 has their maximum CR set to ½. At 4 it is CR 1, and 6+ is CR 2 as is the normal. Moon Druid needs a rewrite."

Fighting Styles
I calculate the math of them: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255
Their worth is fairly equal to 5-10% more DPR except Dueling. You've kept dueling the same usage as it still works with a shield. S&B still as much damage as TWF until 11th

2d10
You could surely argue that 2d10 is a better curve than d20, but you could do so for every roll. And if you do so then it's no longer a d20 system. I think that's be a nice change overall, but very different.

Moon Druid has some massive power jumps that were arbitrary and painfully obvious. Yes, CR is lower, but less so once you apply Proficiency bonus to form AC and the first attack per turn. Forms are not far more granular in their power increases, and the low AC low damage sack of HP problem is mitigated by the Proficiency bonus. Your change is similar to mine, but are giving them CR2 at 6th, they get it at 8th. By 10h they are at normal CR. And I agree, stock Moon Druid is a disaster.

Fighting Styles, I did change GWF so it is improved and narrows that gap. For instance it now grants +1.5 Damage per attack for a Greatsword and Greataxe, and 3 Damage on a Crit. Archery is now a +1 to hit and +1 Damage which is comparable. TWF really is the lackluster option, though with changes to TWF and the additional attack at 11th level it is much better. So, I didn't change Dueling, but brought GWF and TWF up, and made Archery more reasonable. I'm open to suggestions for needed changes here, But I see the situation as greatly improved.

2d10 to every roll would be incredibly problematic without a major rewrite and can only easily be ported for Ability Checks. Using 2d10 for Attacks and Saves make AC and saves values incredibly skewed. The value of +qAC already increases as the AC value does, but using 2d10 its value would grow exponentially the higher the AC value and would be nearly worthless if you have low AC. I'd love to use he mechanic widespread, but it's just not viable for anything but Ability Checks without a major rewrite. I originally didn't want to resort to it for Abikity Checks, but the Skill Sustem is just too problematic without some kind of change. I'm open to better alternatives that aren't heavy handed.

[Kryx]

Oh, don't act like Math doesn't back up my position, we both know it does.
You don't have to act aggressive. This isn't a pissing contest.
I've shown math for -5/+10 a hundred times. Limiting it to 1/round doesn't make it any less must-have or terribad (depending on build and enemy). A Barbarian, BM Fighter (trip), OoV Paladin, etc will still greatly want this feat and it will still immensely increase their DPR in comparison to not only other classes, but other builds of the same class.
But again it seems you've made up your mind so lets not discuss this.


Moon Druid has some massive power jumps that were arbitrary and painfully obvious.
You've taken a bad option and made it worse. They already had good AC from barkskin. Adding Prof to the first attack doesn't do much at all besides make them ~80-90% likely to hit on that attack.. that's not a good option.

Again this is quite bad compared to polymorph (though the base option is too, this just makes it worse).


Fighting Styles, I did change GWF so it is improved and narrows that gap.
So in math terms a 1d12 GWF went from 7.63 to 7.96. 2d6 GWF went from 8.33 to 8.5.
That has had next to no impact on balance. We're still looking at 8% for GWF and 20% for Dueling on a fighter.


TWF really is the lackluster option, though with changes to TWF and the additional attack at 11th level it is much better.
I only see additional attack at 11. If that's it then TWF is still not good compared to GWM or PAM.


heavy handed.
You really like this word, but it is incredibly subjective. 1d20 -> 2d10 is very heavy handed imo.

[Zman]

You don't have to act aggressive. This isn't a pissing contest.
I've shown math for -5/+10 a hundred times. Limiting it to 1/round doesn't make it any less amazing or terri-bad (depending on build and enemy). But again it seems you've made up your mind so lets not discuss this.


I'm not being aggressive, you were condescending and arrogant by implying that if I had done the math I'd have no choice but to agree with you.

When -5/+10 is at its most problematic is when multiple attacks are combined with advantage and low AC enemies.

A kind of illustrative example would be a Lvl 20 Fighter with Greatsword using its Action Surge. Throw in Advantage either through Trip, or a shove, or external effect etc. He has a +11 to Hit, a CR9 Yeti has an AC of 15. 85% hit rate, 60% with GWM.
With all 8 attacks... Sans crits etc
Stock GWM: 144.9 + 18.5 if the Bonus Action attack triggers.
Single Attack GWM: 100.8 +11.8 if the Bonus Action attack triggers
No GWM: 94.1

2 Yeties solo vs our Lvl 20 Fighter is nearly a 2x Deadly encounter. Our stock GWM Fighter has solid odds of ending the encounter in two turns by Novaing Action Surges. Modified GWM can Nova and end the encounter 3-4 Turns. No GWM it'll be ~4 Turns.

Anytime there are multiple attacks available, which is most every turn due to the potential Bonus action attack and always after 5th level GWM has the potential for extreme spike damage.



You've taken a bad option and made it worse. They already had good AC from barkskin. Adding Prof to the first attack doesn't do much at all besides make them ~80-90% likely to hit on that attack.. that's not a good option.



Proficiency to Damage, the goal being shore up the pathetic animal form's damage. My change is often better than Barkskin and doesn't force resource expenditure. Barkskin does nothing to fix late gameAC problems.




So in math terms a 1d12 GWF went from 7.63 to 7.96. 2d6 GWF went from 8.33 to 8.5.
That has had next to no impact on balance. We're still looking at 8% for GWF and 20% for Dueling on a fighter.



Ahh, your math is wrong for the Greataxe, it's 7.33 to 8.0, your math is right for Greatsword. Now GWF doesn't disproportionately benefit the Greatsword and both benefit to a greater degree. Consider for a second that proportional damage increases shouldn't be compared to the base style damage, but expected average damage. Once you do that Duesling and GWF become much much closer and given the nature of the system perfectly viable. And either way, the gap between them has closed.




I only see additional attack at 11. If that's it then TWF is still not good compared to GWM or PAM.


PAM and GWM have a feat investment. The same Feat investment gives TWF the TWF style or increases the weapon die which closes the damage gap. Better, not perfect. These changes are better than the stock game, they won't be perfect, but they are quick patches that improve balance.




You really like this word, but it is incredibly subjective. 1d20 -> 2d10 in only one area is very heavy handed imo.

And that is your opinion. I've already lamented feeling it was the simplest solution to Skills in 5e, and have asked for better more light handed suggestions. Have any?

[borg286]

One easy way to add curve to the ability checks is to do 3d6, similar to many other tabletop RPGs. The average is roughly the same as 1d20 but much less likely to get fantastic results. The problem with 2d20 is that the new average total is 20 instead of 10. Thus the DC list would indeed need to be adjusted. It would need less adjusting if you went with 3d6. Advantage simply means rolling 3d6 twice and taking the better. Advantage on 1d20 when you had a 50% chance before makes your chances = 75%, or roughly a +5. But if you had a 80% chance of success your advantaged roll is only 96% or a +3. Compare this with 3d6 version. When you have advantage on something that already looks like a bell curve simply moves the average up by about +2 and doing little to the high end. It is less advantageous, but more predictable for table DCs, which is a needed aspect for crafting adventures. Overkill on monsters is already a solved problem. Getting max on a knowledge check is harder to handle.

[Zman]

One easy way to add curve to the ability checks is to do 3d6, similar to many other tabletop RPGs. The average is roughly the same as 1d20 but much less likely to get fantastic results. The problem with 2d20 is that the new average total is 20 instead of 10. Thus the DC list would indeed need to be adjusted. It would need less adjusting if you went with 3d6. Advantage simply means rolling 3d6 twice and taking the better. Advantage on 1d20 when you had a 50% chance before makes your chances = 75%, or roughly a +5. But if you had a 80% chance of success your advantaged roll is only 96% or a +3. Compare this with 3d6 version. When you have advantage on something that already looks like a bell curve simply moves the average up by about +2 and doing little to the high end. It is less advantageous, but more predictable for table DCs, which is a needed aspect for crafting adventures. Overkill on monsters is already a solved problem. Getting max on a knowledge check is harder to handle.

2d10, not 2d20. Plus, 2d10 is a nicer Curve than 3d6 to adapt in.

[borg286]

2d10, not 2d20. Plus, 2d10 is a nicer Curve than 3d6 to adapt in.

Ah, misread. 2d10 is great, and your approach to advantage is good also. I wouldn't have bat an eye if advantage applied to 2d10 in the naïve way, rolling it twice and taking the better.

[Zman]

Ah, misread. 2d10 is great, and your approach to advantage is good also. I wouldn't have bat an eye if advantage applied to 2d10 in the naïve way, rolling it twice and taking the better.

No worries, haha. Thanks, it makes Advantage good, but not nearly as cumbersome as rolling it twice.

[Strill]

Well, separation of classes exists for spell preparation for multiclasses characters. I want to use a same styled restriction that only makes spell slots from the single Paladin class available for Smites. Spells known and spells prepared are separated by class. Spell slots are communal, and there's no way to separate them, or label them by class.


Glad I'm not alone in my views on Int. My half Int Mod rounded down as Tools means a character with positive ain't Mod will get 1-3 skills, 0-2 Tools, and 1-5 extra Languages.

The problem is, when you make it half INT mod rounded down, you give the most rewards to players who max out their INT, aka Wizards. Is that really what you intended? I think Wizards are fine, even with INT being a weak stat in general.

The reason I gave out only one skill proficiency was so that it was in reach of non-wizards, while not giving too many extra unneeded benefits to Wizards.

[Kryx]

The problem is, when you make it half INT mod rounded down, you give the most rewards to players who max out their INT, aka Wizards. Is that really what you intended? I think Wizards are fine, even with INT being a weak stat in general.

The reason I gave out only one skill proficiency was so that it was in reach of non-wizards, while not giving too many extra unneeded benefits to Wizards.
Agreed!


_________________________


@zman: I'm sorry if I came off condescending. What you took for condescending was more of "this forum has looked at these ideas many times, I'm too lazy to do the math on these". Again I apologize. Though I'd ask you to also cut down on the aggression.

My point was that you've made many changes to the system based on balance, but have so far (besides the -5/+10 math above) not provided any math to show that the original was unbalanced or that your new version was balanced better. I was legitimately encouraging you to work out the math. Damage based ideas cannot be judged fairly without math to back them up.

That said I did work out the math to your -5/+10 once per turn idea:
http://i.imgur.com/H0meOTO.png
You can see the full math at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1741155585 on line 53, 77, and 119.

Based on that layout I'd agree that once per turn definitely reins in the damage. I'd still be rather concerned with the feature as many bosses will have higher AC, thus making it a trap option against bosses. I'd also be concerned about Fighter BM vs other Fighters and Paladin OoV vs other Paladins as their ability to get advantage could make their build much better than the others by using -5/+10. But I don't want to do the math for those.

Suffice to say your idea is definitely better than RAW.



Ahh, your math is wrong for the Greataxe, it's 7.33 to 8.0, your math is right for Greatsword.
7.33 is correct and what I had on my sheet. I just misspoke on the reply earlier. 7.96 was because I assumed you wouldn't reroll a 6, but mathematically you would so 8 is correct. However that does not change anything because greatsword is the better choice and greatsword is unchanged. It still goes from 8.33 to 8.5 which is incredibly negligible.
The gap hasn't been closed, at all. 0.17 extra damage per attack has next to no impact on the overall damage. GWM still provided a 8% damage boost over defensive while Dueling provides a 20% damage boost over defensive.

Defensive, mind you, provides a 10% damage reduction (5% miss based on the normal hit chance means you're 10% less likely to take damage than before).

I actually wouldn't be surprised to see S&B doing very similar damage to GWM in your nerfed GWM system.
I'm not going to do the math for the fighter, but based on your earlier numbers the GWM would be much lower than the current line:
http://i.imgur.com/jBHmxQj.png


PAM and GWM have a feat investment. The same Feat investment gives TWF the TWF style or increases the weapon die which closes the damage gap. Better, not perfect. These changes are better than the stock game, they won't be perfect, but they are quick patches that improve balance.?
Sure, then fix Dual Wielder to be competitive. Also take a look at monk who does the lowest damage of any martial.

Here is Fighter TWF with an extra attack at 11 vs S&B:
http://i.imgur.com/v3Qq2yl.png
That math is not good. We're comparing a 20 AC build vs an 18 AC build (TWF only gets 18 AC at level 12 whereas S&B gets it whenever they get plate which is typically level 4).

You can compare the numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1629776436 Copy the extra attack at 11 over from houserules.


And that is your opinion. I've already lamented feeling it was the simplest solution to Skills in 5e, and have asked for better more light handed suggestions. Have any?
As I said, "Light-handed" is entirely subjective. It may or may not be the right thing to do, but changing the base die that the system is based on is too much for the majority of the player base. See https://www.rpgcrossing.com/showthread.php?t=128834 for examples of people not considering it light handed.

Now on to your reasoning:

By adding a bell curve to Ability checks a large amount of the swingyness of 5e skills will be mitigated, it greatly increases the importance of the raw Ability Score. Skills and ability checks become more reliable and less dependent on the whim of the dice. No required changes to Skill DCs.
The swingyness of 5e is true in every facet of the game. It's true for ability checks, it's true for saving throws, it's true for attacks. It's true for every facet of the game that involves a d20.
Saving throws add your ability score and sometimes your proficiency - the same as skills do.
Attacks add your abiliy score and most of the time your proficiency - similar to skills.

This idea (2d10) and similar ideas (3d6) have been around for a long time. I'm just stating that your justification for skills applies to every d20 in the game.

[Theodoxus]

One easy way to add curve to the ability checks is to do 3d6, similar to many other tabletop RPGs. The average is roughly the same as 1d20 but much less likely to get fantastic results. The problem with 2d20 is that the new average total is 20 instead of 10. Thus the DC list would indeed need to be adjusted. It would need less adjusting if you went with 3d6. Advantage simply means rolling 3d6 twice and taking the better. Advantage on 1d20 when you had a 50% chance before makes your chances = 75%, or roughly a +5. But if you had a 80% chance of success your advantaged roll is only 96% or a +3. Compare this with 3d6 version. When you have advantage on something that already looks like a bell curve simply moves the average up by about +2 and doing little to the high end. It is less advantageous, but more predictable for table DCs, which is a needed aspect for crafting adventures. Overkill on monsters is already a solved problem. Getting max on a knowledge check is harder to handle.

I'm using 3d6 with a control die 1-2 (-2), 3-4 (0), 5-6 (+2) This generates a true 1-20 with bell curve. It is however, not as nice as 2d10 for convenience of dice...

However, my group is mostly Obsidian players, so using 6s for checks is more intuitive...

[Tanarii]

We're comparing a 20 AC build vs an 18 AC build (TWF only gets 18 AC at level 12 whereas S&B gets it whenever they get plate which is typically level 4).
If your players are getting plate at level 4 you're giving out far too much gold. That's about 3-4 levels too early.

Edit: It's possible if you gave out a huge level 5-10 hoard at level 5, that they might get it just before level 6. But that should be the earliest expected level for half-plate or full-plate.

[gkathellar]

I'm using 3d6 with a control die 1-2 (-2), 3-4 (0), 5-6 (+2) This generates a true 1-20 with bell curve. It is however, not as nice as 2d10 for convenience of dice...

However, my group is mostly Obsidian players, so using 6s for checks is more intuitive...

That's inspired. Could be kind of awkward to implement at first, but I really, really like the idea.

[Kryx]

If your players are getting plate at level 4 you're giving out far too much gold. That's about 3-4 levels too early.
See Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?402507-Deconstructing-5e-Typical-Wealth-by-Level). Based on average treasure hordes the players should have accrued 4500 gold by level 6. If you were to make those numbers progress more evenly instead of jumping at level 6 then by level 4 they'd definitely have 1500g. Level 6 at the very latest using the game's standard treasure.

So let's assume the worst: plate at 6th level.
A light armor class is getting 12+3 = 15 AC. likely +1 dex at 4 so 16 AC. S&B is at minimum 16+2=18. Likely 17+2=19 by 3rd level at the latest.

Summary: TWF is behind S&B in AC by 2, likely 3. Only at later levels with full ASI investment can they still fall 2 AC short of S&B.
One might respond: "this is normal" and I agree with that. However the problem occurs when S&B is doing just as much damage as TWF.

[Tanarii]

See Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?402507-Deconstructing-5e-Typical-Wealth-by-Level). Based on average treasure hordes the players should have accrued 4500 gold by level 6. If you were to make those numbers progress more evenly instead of jumping at level 6 then by level 4 they'd definitely have 1500g. Level 6 at the very latest using the game's standard treasure.That in fact is exactly what I was talking about. The numbers don't progress evenly because: 1) The DMG treasure guidelines don't jump until after level 5; 2) The character capabilities are far lower before level 5, level 4-->5 is an 100% increase in power; 3) Tiers are intentionally designed to have massively increasing rewards, starting slowly at first and increasing towards the end. Level 5-->6 is a jump because it's in the next tier, but it's also the bottom of the tier.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no garuntee that you'll have a treasure hoard / 4500gp by level 6. That's an assumption made on "* The hoards are evenly distributed throughout their appropriate level ranges." That's not a reasonable assumption to make. It's far more common IMX for DMs & adventures to have bigger hoards later in each tier, and even multiple hoards in a single level near the end of a tier.

But regardless, the clear break point is the second tier. There's no realistic reason to expect Half or Full Plate in play before the second tier has been started. (Even Breastplate may be stretching it.)


So let's assume the worst: plate at 6th level.That's not worst. That's earliest. Or at least, some time mid-5th level would be earliest. I look at that as "at" 6th.


One might respond: "this is normal" and I agree with that. However the problem occurs when S&B is doing just as much damage as TWF.Oh, I totally don't think it's normal for S&B to be doing as much damage as TWF. I think Dueling Style should only work with a weapon in one hand, and nothing in the other. That's how I read the class feature until I found out about JC's clarification on it.

[Kryx]

Furthermore, there is absolutely no garuntee that you'll have a treasure hoard / 4500gp by level 6. That's an assumption made on "* The hoards are evenly distributed throughout their appropriate level ranges." That's not a reasonable assumption to make. It's far more common IMX for DMs & adventures to have bigger hoards later in each tier, and even multiple hoards in a single level near the end of a tier.
Based on the average treasure distribution an average player will have plate armor at 6. A GM could always choose to delay it, but that is exactly what should be assumed.


There's no realistic reason to expect Half or Full Plate in play before the second tier has been started. (Even Breastplate may be stretching it.)
Splint comes in at level 3. Which is the 17+2=19 I put above. 19 ac at level 3 compared to 15 or 16 at 4+.


Oh, I totally don't think it's normal for S&B to be doing as much damage as TWF. I think Dueling Style should only work with a weapon in one hand, and nothing in the other. That's how I read the class feature until I found out about JC's clarification on it.
Sure, but that's not what OP is balancing around. OP is balancing around RAW/RAI in which case Dueling works for S&B.



In that case even if the PC gets plate at 6 that heavy armor PC is massively outclassing the TWF PC in AC and is equivalent in damage. Semantics aside that is my complaint.

[Tanarii]

Based on the average treasure distribution an average player will have plate armor at 6. A GM could always choose to delay it, but that is exactly what should be assumed.You just quoted a thread that shows how this is not the case. Players will only have plate armor by level 6 based on non-average assumptions about treasure distribution. (ie that it's evenly distributed across a tier.) Edit: I'll concede that's it's unlikely to be as late as level 8 unless the DM is intentionally delaying treasure. However, by level 6 or 7 is a far cry from by level 4. ie getting them in the "training levels" isn't to be expected. That was my original point.


Sure, but that's not what OP is balancing around. OP is balancing around RAW/RAI in which case Dueling works for S&B.Let me rephrase then. A simple balance fix is to change Dueling so it doesn't work with a shield in the other hand.

[gkathellar]

Summary: TWF is behind S&B in AC by 2, likely 3. Only at later levels with full ASI investment can they still fall 2 AC short of S&B.
One might respond: "this is normal" and I agree with that. However the problem occurs when S&B is doing just as much damage as TWF.

To expand on this issue, quoting Revlid from his attempt at a fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493875-Two-Weapon-Fighting-fix-(4th-time-s-a-charm-)):


If you are wielding two melee weapons, you can engage in two-weapon fighting.
These melee weapons must be light and one-handed.
If you Attack while you are two-weapon fighting, you can use your bonus action to make another attack, which must use your other weapon.
You do not add your Ability modifier to this other attack.
You can attack a different target, or perform another action (free action, action surge) before you use this bonus action.

So two-weapon fighting is initially a very square deal. You sacrifice:

Extra damage from a non-light weapon
Extra extra damage from a two-handed weapon
Extra AC from a shield
A bonus action


In exchange for:

Extra damage from an extra attack
Extra opportunity to hit with an extra attack


This isn’t a bad trade! The most damaging light one-handed weapons in the game deal 1d6 damage, while a two-handed heavy weapon deals 1d12/2d6 damage – so you’re giving up a bonus action to deal the same average damage as a greatsword-wielding knight, while probably using Dexterity instead of Strength and giving you two chances to hit. The shield guy’s more difficult to compare, but let’s set him aside for now.

Taking the Two-Weapon Fighting style as a Fighter or Ranger even lets you add your Ability modifier to the second attack, pushing it above the greatsword-wielder… although at that point they’ll have Great Weapon Fighting and be dealing more damage themselves, and the shield guy has Defense or Dueling. Whatever. We’ll leave this out and assume it equalizes, because the math on Great Weapon Fighting is too involved for my puny brain to put out on a forum post.

The problem comes in two forms.

Extra Attack
Bonus Actions


Extra Attack comes in at level 5 for Fighters, Paladins and Rangers, and it cuts the relative usefulness of Two-Weapon Fighting in half, because now the greatweapon guy is popping out 2d12+(Mod x 2) or 4d6+(Mod x 2) damage per turn with two attacks, and you can push out 3d6+(Mod x 2) damage per turn. You’re both specced for damage over defense, and you’re already doing worse than him! That’s where it stops for Rangers and Paladins, and thank god for that.

For Fighters, it gets worse, because they get Extra Attack again, later on. And again, and again, and again. At 11th level, the greatweapon guy is doing 6d6+(Mod x 3) damage per turn, and you’re stuck at 4d6+(Mod x 3). Why even bother? It’ll get even worse later on. Hell, the one-handing guy with the shield is looking better than you – if you both have your relevant Fighting Styles, he’s doing 3d8+(Mod x 3)+6. And he gets a shield.

It’s actually even worse than that, because here we hit the second point – bonus actions. When you start off, this is a non-sacrifice, because there’s nothing else you can really do with bonus actions… but as you proceed through your Class levels, you get quite a few things you can do.

As a Fighter, you get to use your bonus action to take an Action Surge once per short rest. Paladins and Rangers can use their bonus actions on certain Spells like Divine Favour and Hunter’s Mark, as can Eldritch Knights and similar Archetypes/Multiclass options. Rogues don’t get Extra Attacks, which keeps two-weapon fighting competitive, but their bonus action is occupied by Cunning Action, which lets them dart around and hide.

You can’t use your two-weapon fighting if you’re doing any of these things. So you start off pretty balanced, and then grow badly. The stuff two-weapon fighting sacrifices becomes more valuable, the stuff it offers becomes less so. Diminishing returns in effect.

The relevant Fighting Style doesn’t help at all with this. It just lets you add your Ability modifier to the second attack, so it’s basically a trap once you move past 5th level. Even the relevant feat, Dual Wielder, is absolutely pathetic – you get +1AC, which is less than the shield you’re giving up, along with the ability to use non-light weapons to change your d6 to a d8 if you don’t mind looking a bit stupid. And that costs a feat – other people get those too, y’know.

Let me explain my reasoning more fully, from the start: Two-Weapon Fighting in 5e starts out fine. You are effectively getting greatweapon damage in exchange for a bonus action – with the benefit that you're splitting your damage potential across two attacks, which lets you target multiple enemies, use "activates on hit" powers more frequently, increase your odds of hitting with at least one attack, and, yes do things like grappling and shoving people.

There are two problems, which mostly come about when you level up, and are pretty different depending on which class you're playing.
1) Extra Attacks. All sources of Extra Attacks devalue Two-Weapon Fighting, because Two-Weapon Fighting does not scale with it. This is a particular problem for Fighters (and Hunter Rangers), who get loads of Extra Attacks and access to features that work well with single weapons of any size.
2) Bonus Action Cost. All features and spells which use a Bonus Action are in direct competition with Two-Weapon Fighting, because Two-Weapon Fighting consumes a Bonus Action. This is a particular problem for... Everyone In The Core Other Than Champion Fighters and Hunter Rangers.

Note that multiclassing – and a ****ing pox on multiclassing in a world where Archetypes exist, seriously – means that it's difficult to address these problems class-by-class.

With that in mind, what can't the fix be?

1) The fix cannot be that Two-Weapon Fighting gives you even more Extra Attacks, because that doesn't solve the Bonus Action problem for Other Classes, but does boost the effectiveness of too many effects that do not fall under the aegis of the class. At 11th level, a greatsword Fighter gets 3 2d6 attacks and a two-weapon Fighter gets 6 1d6 attacks? Well and good, except the two-weapon guy has a magic poison dagger. Hope you enjoy making twice as many Con checks!

2) The fix cannot be that it doesn't cost a Bonus Action, because while that's useful for everyone else, it does very little for many Fighters, who are the Class that suffer most from the proliferation of Extra Attacks. It also undermines the Swashbuckler Archetype, because being able to combine Disengage and Two-Weapon Fighting is that Archetype's first signature feature, so ideally we don't give it to any Rogue who dips a level into Fighter (or vice versa, ****ing multiclassing).

3) The fix cannot be advantage, because there are many other sources of attack advantage and it doesn't stack at all, so you're just invalidating other, probably more interesting powers in favour of boosted accuracy for your attack flurry.

4) The fix can be extra damage on existing attacks. This has no mechanical issues. It is, however, boring as hell – not to mention, it eliminates all the things that make dual-wielding interesting and distinct to begin with. The ability to attack multiple opponents, the increased hit chance, the sense of a deadly flurry...

[Kryx]

You just quoted a thread that shows how this is not the case. Players will only have plate armor by level 6 based on non-average assumptions about treasure distribution. (ie that it's evenly distributed across a tier.) Edit: I'll concede that's it's unlikely to be as late as level 8 unless the DM is intentionally delaying treasure. However, by level 6 or 7 is a far cry from by level 4. ie getting them in the "training levels" isn't to be expected. That was my original point.
6 = 4500. Please show how that is not the case in that thread.

Also here is CapnZapp's recommendation: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=15787.0. His recommendation which is based on WBL evened out puts plate at level 4.

4 or 6 doesn't really matter in the end. The difference is 1 AC and doesn't weaken the claim much at all.



Let me rephrase then. A simple balance fix is to change Dueling so it doesn't work with a shield in the other hand.
That would make S&B More balanced with TWF, but does not make TWF more balanced with GWM or PAM.

Instead I'd recommend buffing TWF to be much closer to GWM/PAM.

[Kryx]

To expand on this issue, quoting Revlid from his attempt at a fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493875-Two-Weapon-Fighting-fix-(4th-time-s-a-charm-)):
TWF Core Rules:
Turning TWF into Shield master (prone) isn't a good option. At that point TWF is doing less than S&B with Dueling.
Not only that, but stepping on BM toes with the disarm. And somehow TWF can tank via marking? Strange...

Fighting Style
He removed the bonus action cost, but in his very reasoning he says that is not a good fix. This doesn't solve the math issues and causes more problems.

Dual Wielder
So the same as default except he now has a shield. So... basically S&B once again, but worse as it doesn't have Dueling?


His proposal doesn't solve TWF. It just turns it into S&B.

[gkathellar]

TWF Core Rules:
Turning TWF into Shield master (prone) isn't a good option. At that point TWF is doing less than S&B with Dueling.

Fighting Style
He removed the bonus action cost, but in his very reasoning he says that is not a good fix. This doesn't solve the math issues and causes more problems.

Dual Wielder
So the same as default except he now has a shield. So... basically S&B once again, but worse as it doesn't have Dueling?


His proposal doesn't solve TWF. It just turns it into S&B.

Oh, I'm not standing by his fix. That said, he does a thorough, understandable job of explaining why TWF is bad, which is why I quoted that section of his post. I only linked to the fix to give credit where credit was due.

Honestly, I'd be tempted to approach TWF with a sort of "can opener" mechanic, where each attack supplements subsequent hits. This would (a) be distinct from existing fighting styles, and (b) take inspiration from how two-weapon fighting works IRL, where one weapon is used to trap, distract, or control distance while the other goes to town on the opponent.

[Tanarii]

6 = 4500. Please show how that is not the case in that thread.Because, as that thread proves, the only way to get 6=4500 is to assume that all the hoards for the tier have their values averaged, and each level gains 1/nth of that amount. In other words, make an assumption that isn't going to be true for the majority of games.


Also here is CapnZapp's recommendation: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=15787.0. His recommendation which is based on WBL evened out puts plate at level 4.I've read it. It's terrible. A far more accurate assumption is about gold = 1/10th xp. (edit: prior to level 5 that is)


4 or 6 doesn't really matter in the end. The difference is 1 AC and doesn't weaken the claim much at all.Ultimately, I agree. I only jumped all over it because it's a commonly assumption that players will have FP, or all the other gear they could possibly want, before exiting the first tier.


That would make S&B More balanced with TWF, but does not make TWF more balanced with GWM or PAM.Nothing will balance TWF with GWM or PAM as written except an equally broken TWF feat. The best solution is to nerf GWM / PAM, not buff other stuff. Very IMO.

[Zman]

Spells known and spells prepared are separated by class. Spell slots are communal, and there's no way to separate them, or label them by class.



The problem is, when you make it half INT mod rounded down, you give the most rewards to players who max out their INT, aka Wizards. Is that really what you intended? I think Wizards are fine, even with INT being a weak stat in general.

The reason I gave out only one skill proficiency was so that it was in reach of non-wizards, while not giving too many extra unneeded benefits to Wizards.

It is as simple as making the spellslots that are available for use with Smite are only spell slots that would be available to a single classed Paladin with their levels. If I didn't have levels of Sorcerer, how many Spell Slots would I have available?

Yes, Wizards to benefit disproportionately from this change, since they start with a higher Int Mod they have a narrow selection from their class list at game start, and Tools aren't earth shattering in balance. But, if you really trim it down it makes Int feel less special again, and a 14 is a bit of a Stretch for many characters. It is a Horse a piece, at Max Wizards will eventually have 3 additional skills, likely two more from their class list and one additional, as well as two Skill Proficiencies.


Agreed!


_________________________


@zman: I'm sorry if I came off condescending. What you took for condescending was more of "this forum has looked at these ideas many times, I'm too lazy to do the math on these". Again I apologize. Though I'd ask you to also cut down on the aggression.


And I've been involved in some of those discussions. Either way, with toneless txt neither of us are coming across as friendly.



My point was that you've made many changes to the system based on balance, but have so far (besides the -5/+10 math above) not provided any math to show that the original was unbalanced or that your new version was balanced better. I was legitimately encouraging you to work out the math. Damage based ideas cannot be judged fairly without math to back them up.


And just because I have not use an incredibly thorough yet limited spreadsheet to illustrate my points doesn't mean I do not have math to back up my positions. As your example you list shows it is spot on in regards to the Barbarian.



That said I did work out the math to your -5/+10 once per turn idea:
http://i.imgur.com/H0meOTO.png
You can see the full math at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1741155585 on line 53, 77, and 119.

Based on that layout I'd agree that once per turn definitely reins in the damage. I'd still be rather concerned with the feature as many bosses will have higher AC, thus making it a trap option against bosses. I'd also be concerned about Fighter BM vs other Fighters and Paladin OoV vs other Paladins as their ability to get advantage could make their build much better than the others by using -5/+10. But I don't want to do the math for those.

Suffice to say your idea is definitely better than RAW.


Of course it is better than RAW. And if you had three AC categories instead of aveage monster AC we would get a much better picture about how this would look as well, against a high AC enemy the Barbarian's damage curve would look like a GWMless one barring Crits and Kills and the additional attack. Against Low AC enemies Damage would be considerably higher and my change to only a single -5/+10 attack would greatly curb that damage. This was the desirable result and works exactly as intended.

Trap against Boss Enemies? Sure, -5/+10 is a trap against a any high AC enemy, that does not make it a trap. The game has enemies of many varying ACs and -5/+10 is best in the low to moderate range and a liability against those enemies with higher ACs. Players get to gauge the risk reward of that situation, just because they can make the wrong decision doesn't mean they can't have a decision to make. Yes, there are features that can readily mitigate the penalty and make the -5+10 shine, but they require resources. Sure, a Battle Master can use Precision to boost to hit to net that sweet +10 Damage... or they could have used a maneuver that simply added the die to damage. At that time it is a marginal boost and relatively worth the expenditure of resources. For the Paladin, droping your Vow is a big investment and now it pays smaller and more reasonable dividends.

Either way the change to GWM is significantly better than stock. No, my changes aren't going to achieve your very uniform and similar damage curves of your HouseRules, but will be significantly better than Stock.



7.33 is correct and what I had on my sheet. I just misspoke on the reply earlier. 7.96 was because I assumed you wouldn't reroll a 6, but mathematically you would so 8 is correct. However that does not change anything because greatsword is the better choice and greatsword is unchanged. It still goes from 8.33 to 8.5 which is incredibly negligible.
The gap hasn't been closed, at all. 0.17 extra damage per attack has next to no impact on the overall damage. GWM still provided a 8% damage boost over defensive while Dueling provides a 20% damage boost over defensive.



No worries, I figured that was the case. Greatsword is the better choice because 2d6 is better than a d12, what has changed is it no longer benefits substantially more from GWF than a Greataxe. Greataxe now benefits numerically equally, 1.5 damage per hit, 3 Damage on a crit just as the Greatsword does. The Greataxe is no longer further gimped when a character has access to GWF which is a large improvement to the game.

Yes, a Greatsword benefits .17 Damage/hit better than before. And yes, 1.5 damage per hit, 3 damage per crit, for about a ~1.6 Damage increase is lower than the 2 damage increase per hit from Dueling.

No Fighting Style
Dueling Longsword: d8+2+Str = 4.5+Str
GWF Greataxe: d12+Str = 6.5 +Str
GWF Greatsword: 2d6+Str = 7.0 +Str

Stock
Dueling Longsword: d8+2+Str = 6.5+Str
GWF Greataxe: d12+Str = 7.33 +Str
GWF Greatsword: 2d6+Str = 8.33+Str

GWF change
Dueling Longsword: d8+2+Str = 6.5+Str
GWF Greataxe: d12+Str = 8.0 +Str
GWF Greatsword: 2d6+Str = 8.5+Str

*Does not factor in marginal increased benefit for GWF on Crits.

Comparing the proportional increase in damage from Dueling for single handed weapons to the proportional increase in damage for GWF for two handed weapons isn't quite reflective of their worth. It is also valid to be comparing their absolute increase in damage vs one another. If we do that we have a 1.6-1.7 Damage increase per hit for GWF compared to a 2 Damage increase per hit for Dueling. When we look at damage per hit these changes make sense, and the overall damage output is reasonable and improved when compared to Stock.




Defensive, mind you, provides a 10% damage reduction (5% miss based on the normal hit chance means you're 10% less likely to take damage than before).

I actually wouldn't be surprised to see S&B doing very similar damage to GWM in your nerfed GWM system.
I'm not going to do the math for the fighter, but based on your earlier numbers the GWM would be much lower than the current line:
http://i.imgur.com/jBHmxQj.png

As a rough approximation, sure, assuming there was a 50% chance the enemy will hit you.

An interesting question is how valuable is defense compared to offense? Offense drops enemies and results in corresponding damage reductions. A difficult, likely futile, and interesting comparison would be the increased damage that a GWF does as a defense characteristic compared to that of Dueling with a shield. As would attempting to quantify the damage increase that Dueling and GWF have as a defensive statistic. Basically comparing the worth of GWM and Dueling to Defense directly using a defensive metric, and alternatively defense as an offensive metric as the longer you can stand the more damage you output. If we do that, Dueling having a larger proportional increase in damage will make more sense as it would be needed to start dropping enemies whereas the damage increase of GWF on an already high damage style is already leagues ahead in that regard. A proportionally high increase to a low/moderate damage style is required to approach a modest increase to a high damage style in attempting to value them appropriately with a defensive bonus. Then we could compare a High damage style like Two Handed Weapon Fighting without the GWF Fighting Style with the Defense instead compared to Dueling with a Shield.

Dueling(+1Net AC) Longsword: 6.5 +Str Damage/Hit
Greataxe: 6.5 +Str Damage/Hit
Greatsword: 7.0 +Stre Damage/Hit

Here we see the failings of the Greataxe as a Fighter Weapon, the d12 just doesn't compete with 2d6, and we end up with a .5 Damage/Hit vs +1AC for Sword and Board while Sword and Board equals the Greataxe's damage. There are many other balancing factors to examine here, for instance feat support for Great Weapons offer options for increasing Damage. Obviously utilizing GWM, is vastly superior at dealing damage than Dueling with a Shield, the damage increase from an additional attack is up to +100% 1-4th level, +50% 5-10th level, +33% 11-19th level, and +25% at 20th level before factoring in the damage from the single -5/+10 attack. I guess we'll disagree with what "very similar" damage means, we know access to -5/+10 even on a single attack raised DPR especially situationaly and we have a change at a large percentage increase to DPR when the bonus action attack triggers.




Sure, then fix Dual Wielder to be competitive. Also take a look at monk who does the lowest damage of any martial.


Dual Wielder is on the lower power side for a feat, +1AC and +1.36-4.76 Damage per turn assuming 60% to hit chance. It is certainly better than a half feat, but not quite as good as some other damage feats ie PAM which adds 3.51-4.71 before factoring in the Reaction attack assuming a to hit of 60%. 2d8+3(6) or 12/15(GWF) vs D10+d4+6 or 14 for Early game is an advantage for PAM, TWF puts DualWieding ahead, GWF narrows the gap to .75 advantage for PAM. Late Game for Fighter with TWF it is now 7d8 +35 or 66.5 vs 4d10 +d4 +25 or 55 PAM + GWF giving the Damage advantage to TWF. Basically, adding the second offhand attack at 11th makes up the difference and puts TWF in the lead.

Yes Monk damage is on the low end of the scale and needs something else... I was thinking making Flurry change to taking the attack action twice which would still allow for the bonus action attack. Would given them one additional attack with Ki expendiature. Ultimately I'd prefer if the Monk did not have to rely on Stunlock shenanigans and had competitive damage instead. I'd rather Stunning Strike impose advantage on all attacks etc instead of purely shutting them down for a round.

I did already write in an additional ASI for them to help with their MAD problems while I figured out what I wanted to do with them.



Here is Fighter TWF with an extra attack at 11 vs S&B:
http://i.imgur.com/v3Qq2yl.png
That math is not good. We're comparing a 20 AC build vs an 18 AC build (TWF only gets 18 AC at level 12 whereas S&B gets it whenever they get plate which is typically level 4).

You can compare the numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1629776436 Copy the extra attack at 11 over from houserules.


You sure that math is right? Fairly certain you have this wrong.

We'll ignore to hit chance as its identical and Crits for the time being.
TWF Fighter vs Dueling Sword and Board
Lvl1: 2d6+6(13) vs d8+5(9.5) Advantage TWF
Lvl4: 2d6+8(15) vs d8+6(10.5) Advantage TWF
Lvl5: 3d6+12(23.5) vs 2d8+12(21) Advantage TWF
Lvl6: 3d6+15(26.5) vs 2d8+14(23) Advantage TWF
Lvl8: 3d8+15(29.5) vs 2d8+14(23) Large Advantage TWF
Lvl11: 5d8+25(47.5) vs 3d8+21(34.5) Very Large Advantage TWF
Lvl20: 6d8+30(57.0) vs 4d8+28(46.0) Very Large Advantage TWF

Edit: Adding Fighter without TWF TWFing vs Dueling Sword and Board
Fighter vs Dueling Sword and Board
Lvl1: 2d6+3(10) vs d8+5(9.5) Advantage TWF
Lvl4: 2d6+4(11) vs d8+6(10.5) Advantage TWF
Lvl5: 3d6+8(19.5) vs 2d8+12(21) Advantage Dueling S&B
Lvl6: 3d6+10(21.5) vs 2d8+14(23) Advantage Duelding S&B
Lvl8: 3d8+10(24.5) vs 2d8+14(23) Advantage TWF
Lvl11: 5d8+15(37.5) vs 3d8+21(34.5) Advantage TWF
Lvl20: 6d8+20(47.0) vs 4d8+28(46.0) Advantage TWF
*Against TWF gains a bit when crits are factored in.

Edit: Now I see that your comparison was a Stock Fighter using two weapons against a Fighter who took Duelist. Really not sure why you did that? Shouldn't they both benefit from the Fighting Style? Duelist keeps pace with the stock fighter, but when you factor in the Fighting style TWF blows ahead, even without it it still outperforms the Dueling S&B for all but 5-7th levels. Even if the Fighter forwent TWF for Protection, a fairly inefficient choice, and picked up Dual Wielder they would both have AC20 and very comparable damages at the cost of a Feat or if you don't Take Dual Wielder you have AC19 with better damage early game and marginally worse damage late game. Not seeing a problem here.

Even if we don't factor in Dual Wielder at 8th TWF is still vastly superior to a Dueling Sword and Board from a damage standpoint, and that seems fairly offset by +2 AC. If we factor in Crits the damage advantage grows slightly for the TWF. Basically Sword and Board is only competitive damage-wise with TWF for three levels between 5th and 7th and never catches TWF.

On an entirely different subject, I doubt most parties are getting Plate at 4th level, IMO it is much more likely to be 6th level.




As I said, "Light-handed" is entirely subjective. It may or may not be the right thing to do, but changing the base die that the system is based on is too much for the majority of the player base. See https://www.rpgcrossing.com/showthread.php?t=128834 for examples of people not considering it light handed.

Now on to your reasoning:

The swingyness of 5e is true in every facet of the game. It's true for ability checks, it's true for saving throws, it's true for attacks. It's true for every facet of the game that involves a d20.
Saving throws add your ability score and sometimes your proficiency - the same as skills do.
Attacks add your abiliy score and most of the time your proficiency - similar to skills.

This idea (2d10) and similar ideas (3d6) have been around for a long time. I'm just stating that your justification for skills applies to every d20 in the game.



It is subjective. I didn't change the base die, only for Ability Checks which are already separated from D20 rolls for Attacks and Saves. Attacks and saves rely on equal chance ie automatic success and automatic failure on a 20 and a 1. Adding a bell curve to Attacks and Saves really ruins what semblence of balance exists whereas adding a Bell curve to Ability Checks reduces the weight of the die and makes check more predictable. It makes raw comparison checks make more sense, far less Str 10 Wizard beating a Str20 Barbarian in an arm wrestling match or wrestling/grappling match. It makes achieving an expected Skill DC far more reliable.

This is a set of Tweaks, if someone is looking at using mine they are already willing to change the game, they can just as easily drop that single change from the Tweaks. Nothing else is balanced around that change, it affects no other part of the Tweaks, but is a patch for the Skill System and Ability Checks without rewriting an entire section of the game. I really cannot think of any other way to simply patch that aspect of the game and welcome suggestions.



I'm using 3d6 with a control die 1-2 (-2), 3-4 (0), 5-6 (+2) This generates a true 1-20 with bell curve. It is however, not as nice as 2d10 for convenience of dice...

However, my group is mostly Obsidian players, so using 6s for checks is more intuitive...

Interesting concept, though it bight be a bit fiddly for most people. For the above reasons it should only be used for Ability Checks, too much of the game breaks if you use it for saves and attack rolls.


If your players are getting plate at level 4 you're giving out far too much gold. That's about 3-4 levels too early.

Edit: It's possible if you gave out a huge level 5-10 hoard at level 5, that they might get it just before level 6. But that should be the earliest expected level for half-plate or full-plate.


See Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?402507-Deconstructing-5e-Typical-Wealth-by-Level). Based on average treasure hordes the players should have accrued 4500 gold by level 6. If you were to make those numbers progress more evenly instead of jumping at level 6 then by level 4 they'd definitely have 1500g. Level 6 at the very latest using the game's standard treasure.

So let's assume the worst: plate at 6th level.
A light armor class is getting 12+3 = 15 AC. likely +1 dex at 4 so 16 AC. S&B is at minimum 16+2=18. Likely 17+2=19 by 3rd level at the latest.

Summary: TWF is behind S&B in AC by 2, likely 3. Only at later levels with full ASI investment can they still fall 2 AC short of S&B.
One might respond: "this is normal" and I agree with that. However the problem occurs when S&B is doing just as much damage as TWF.

Even with the supplied links I do not see support for Plate at 4th level, maybe half plate, but wouldn't expect Plate to become available until 5th at the earliest or more likely 6th level. In my current campaign that would have been 6th level before anyone could afford plate. Also, WBL also include some magic items that by 5e can't really be sold, so a good amount of that wealth can be tied up in things that can't be sold so there is less liquid wealth making 6th level or so more likely, maybe even 7th level before a character has enough liquid wealth for Plate.

[Zman]

TWF Core Rules:
Turning TWF into Shield master (prone) isn't a good option. At that point TWF is doing less than S&B with Dueling.
Not only that, but stepping on BM toes with the disarm. And somehow TWF can tank via marking? Strange...

Fighting Style
He removed the bonus action cost, but in his very reasoning he says that is not a good fix. This doesn't solve the math issues and causes more problems.

Dual Wielder
So the same as default except he now has a shield. So... basically S&B once again, but worse as it doesn't have Dueling?


His proposal doesn't solve TWF. It just turns it into S&B.

I completely agree, this is not an effective fix and does nothing to really solve the problem.



Honestly, I'd be tempted to approach TWF with a sort of "can opener" mechanic, where each attack supplements subsequent hits. This would (a) be distinct from existing fighting styles, and (b) take inspiration from how two-weapon fighting works IRL, where one weapon is used to trap, distract, or control distance while the other goes to town on the opponent.

That is an interesting idea, I've seen people try and come up with a "rend" for hitting with your mainhand and offhand attack for bonus damage which definitely could be used to work on the problem.

I haven't ran any math whatsoever on the concept, but as I read your inspiration from IRL TWF I had the idea that the offhand attack could be used to grant Advantage for the mainhand attacks. Attack with the Offhand first, if it hits it grants Advantage to the Main hand attacks. Problem is it still doesn't have enough damage then, and needs another little boost like granting an additional d6 to the hit or maybe just an additional die on Crits or something, but the initial feel of that is too good then at low levels and maybe not good enough at later levels and it makes Advantage ultra common and devalues it. Just spitballing...

[Strill]

It is as simple as making the spellslots that are available for use with Smite are only spell slots that would be available to a single classed Paladin with their levels. If I didn't have levels of Sorcerer, how many Spell Slots would I have available?The problem here is that if you do this, you can't use this same mechanic with any other class feature. For example, what if Sorcerer had a class feature based on "sorcerer spell slots"? There would be overlap between Paladin spell slots and Sorcerer spell slots.

Overall though, I honestly see no need whatsoever for this change. If you're a Spellcaster X, Paladin 2, then you're already a spell level behind, which is an enormous nerf for a spellcaster, since your highest level spells are by far your most powerful. Furthermore, spending spell slots for divine smite damage is a waste when you could be casting actual spells. Who cares that you spend a 4th-level slot for a measly +5d8 (22.5) when you could've turned an ally into a T-Rex with Polymorph or just cast Blight for 8d8 (36) damage? They already nerfed themselves by multiclassing Paladin. I see no reason to nerf them even more.

I get the impression that this change is based on experience with DMs who don't follow the encounters per day guidelines, and just give their party 1 fight per day, which they trounce by spending all their spell slots on Divine Smite. That's not a problem with Divine Smite. It's a problem with not following the encounters per day guidelines, which are probably the most important rule in the game.


Yes, Wizards to benefit disproportionately from this change, since they start with a higher Int Mod they have a narrow selection from their class list at game start, and Tools aren't earth shattering in balance. But, if you really trim it down it makes Int feel less special again, and a 14 is a bit of a Stretch for many characters. It is a Horse a piece, at Max Wizards will eventually have 3 additional skills, likely two more from their class list and one additional, as well as two Skill Proficiencies.Three additional skills is an enormous amount of extra skills. You do realize that by default, most characters start with only 4 to 6 skills right?

Maybe getting an extra skill at 13 INT would be better than 14 INT. The point, after all, is to prevent people from dumping INT, and 13 certainly isn't dumping INT. Thirteen is 2 fewer point-buy-points than 14 so it's easier to fit into a build. Thirteen has also historically been a common ability score prerequisite for feats and such.

If you want INT to be more useful, I recommend coming up with a completely different benefit for having high INT. The skill system can't handle characters with that many skills because there's not enough room for each person to have their own niche.


Comparing the proportional increase in damage from Dueling for single handed weapons to the proportional increase in damage for GWF for two handed weapons isn't quite reflective of their worth. It is also valid to be comparing their absolute increase in damage vs one another. If we do that we have a 1.6-1.7 Damage increase per hit for GWF compared to a 2 Damage increase per hit for Dueling. When we look at damage per hit these changes make sense, and the overall damage output is reasonable and improved when compared to Stock.

The problem is you took away Greatweapon Fighting's ability to affect non-weapon dice, which was the only thing keeping it competitive. There's no reason to take a two-handed weapon when you could get +2 AC from a shield in exchange for dealing a tiny bit less damage.


Yes Monk damage is on the low end of the scale and needs something else... I was thinking making Flurry change to taking the attack action twice which would still allow for the bonus action attack. Would given them one additional attack with Ki expendiature. Ultimately I'd prefer if the Monk did not have to rely on Stunlock shenanigans and had competitive damage instead. I'd rather Stunning Strike impose advantage on all attacks etc instead of purely shutting them down for a round.The problem with Stunning Strike is that it doesn't follow the devs' guidelines for ki point costs. 1 Ki point is supposed to equal 1 spell point, but Stunning Strike is worth at least a 2nd-level slot since you get an attack with it, and can use it multiple times in the same turn. That means it should be worth around 3 ki points, not 1.

[Zalabim]

I never got more than preliminarily into fixing TWF damage (and damage only, sorry it's not interesting) by changing the fighting style benefit to add the other hand weapon damage die to your hits when you're TWF. So you'd deal 2d6 damage with your attacks, just like a greatsword, and get a bonus action attack instead of better average damage. I'm not sure if the Dual Wielder feat would need any changes after this. It would give you 2d8 damage attacks and +1 AC to compare against GWM and PM. I was worried that the change would be broken with lances.

Ideally, the fighting styles would be TWF > GWF > TWF(not using bonus action) > Dueling. It's hard to pick where to slot in archery, defense, and protection. Then the feats should each have their own best role. GWM for easy to hit targets and burst damage. DW for an all-rounder. SM for dominating similar sized opponents. PM for defensive and reach tactics. Sentinel to work with allies.


Summary: TWF is behind S&B in AC by 2, likely 3. Only at later levels with full ASI investment can they still fall 2 AC short of S&B.
One might respond: "this is normal" and I agree with that. However the problem occurs when S&B is doing just as much damage as TWF.

One might also respond: They are the same class. They have the same armor proficiency. They have the same armor. The S&B has two more AC because it has a shield.


The problem is you took away Greatweapon Fighting's ability to affect non-weapon dice, which was the only thing keeping it competitive. There's no reason to take a two-handed weapon when you could get +2 AC from a shield in exchange for dealing a tiny bit less damage.

The tweaks don't take away that ability. It already doesn't have that ability.

[Kryx]

Nothing will balance TWF with GWM or PAM as written except an equally broken TWF feat. The best solution is to nerf GWM / PAM, not buff other stuff. Very IMO.
100% agreed. Nerfing PAM and -5/+10 is much easier than buffing TWF, Monk, Paladins, bladelocks, War Clerics, etc etc etc. Plus it makes sense - a polearm's niche shouldn't be more attacks.

I remove the bonus attack from PAM, -5/+10 from GWM and sharpshooter, and boost TWF to compete. Martial internal balance problem solved.


But the OP chose to instead leave PAM where it is, nerf GWM to be about half as effective, and left TWF nearly the same. That results in PAM > GWM > S&B > TWF.

________________________


Three additional skills is an enormous amount of extra skills. You do realize that by default, most characters start with only 4 to 6 skills right?
Again I 100% agree. Nearly doubling skills for a Wizard is not the right direction. Even 1 at 14 int is questionable imo. But I don't have a great solution besides fixing saving throws - even then Int should contribute more, but the options are rather limited.


The problem is you took away Greatweapon Fighting's ability to affect non-weapon dice, which was the only thing keeping it competitive. There's no reason to take a two-handed weapon when you could get +2 AC from a shield in exchange for dealing a tiny bit less damage.
GWF does not have that ability by RAI as clarified in sage advice. Without that it is perfectly in line with the expected 8% boost. GWF is perfectly fine.

If you keep the (potential) RAW then it heavily favors options with rider dice and makes those options unequally better in comparison to other options.

______________



One might also respond: They are the same class. They have the same armor proficiency. They have the same armor. The S&B has two more AC because it has a shield.
Please read the part you quoted more carefully. You'll notice the "I agree with that" part about shield having more AC. The issue is the damage being the same which I also point out in the very part you quote.

And the AC is not always equal to 2. It varies from 4 more to 2 more based on level. Mostly 3.


@ZMan I'll reply to that wall when I get some time later.

[Zman]

The problem here is that if you do this, you can't use this same mechanic with any other class feature. For example, what if Sorcerer had a class feature based on "sorcerer spell slots"? There would be overlap between Paladin spell slots and Sorcerer spell slots.

Overall though, I honestly see no need whatsoever for this change. If you're a Spellcaster X, Paladin 2, then you're already a spell level behind, which is an enormous nerf for a spellcaster, since your highest level spells are by far your most powerful. Furthermore, spending spell slots for divine smite damage is a waste when you could be casting actual spells. Who cares that you spend a 4th-level slot for a measly +5d8 (22.5) when you could've turned an ally into a T-Rex with Polymorph or just cast Blight for 8d8 (36) damage? They already nerfed themselves by multiclassing Paladin. I see no reason to nerf them even more.

I get the impression that this change is based on experience with DMs who don't follow the encounters per day guidelines, and just give their party 1 fight per day, which they trounce by spending all their spell slots on Divine Smite. That's not a problem with Divine Smite. It's a problem with not following the encounters per day guidelines, which are probably the most important rule in the game.


I am starting to believe that fixing this isn't terrible necessary. I'm still not a fan of that dip, but likely not imbalanced. I'm probably going to remove that change.



Three additional skills is an enormous amount of extra skills. You do realize that by default, most characters start with only 4 to 6 skills right?

Maybe getting an extra skill at 13 INT would be better than 14 INT. The point, after all, is to prevent people from dumping INT, and 13 certainly isn't dumping INT. Thirteen is 2 fewer point-buy-points than 14 so it's easier to fit into a build. Thirteen has also historically been a common ability score prerequisite for feats and such.

If you want INT to be more useful, I recommend coming up with a completely different benefit for having high INT. The skill system can't handle characters with that many skills because there's not enough room for each person to have their own niche.


Only 4-6 skills, really?? I guess I've never made a 5e character before... /sarcasm
Yes, three skills, equivalent to gaining a feat in stock 5e, equivalent to half a feat if these tweaks are used. Also, at least one of those skills will be learned in play and not likely until 8th level at the earliest.

Int is the red headed step child of 5e abilities and needs something. A single skill for a 14 doesn't do it. Maybe a single skill for a 12, and some other Int benefit would work in addition to my languages bonus.

The skill system can indeed handle it, and characters will be making different checks due to Abilitiy scores being used, and adding the 2d10 bell curve makes those ability mods more important.. Sure, that Wizard may be proficient in persuasion, but they likely don't have above a 12 Cha, so they are rarely stepping on the Bards toes, but provide a competent backup. Pick any skill the Wizard takes beyond ain't skills and the Wizard is not a specialist and likely 2-5 behind the party specialist in that skill for the whole game.

I do not see this in the negative light you do.





The problem is you took away Greatweapon Fighting's ability to affect non-weapon dice, which was the only thing keeping it competitive. There's no reason to take a two-handed weapon when you could get +2 AC from a shield in exchange for dealing a tiny bit less damage.

The problem with Stunning Strike is that it doesn't follow the devs' guidelines for ki point costs. 1 Ki point is supposed to equal 1 spell point, but Stunning Strike is worth at least a 2nd-level slot since you get an attack with it, and can use it multiple times in the same turn. That means it should be worth around 3 ki points, not 1.

It did not have this ability, I believe it was cleared up via the devs in a tweet.

I agree that Stunning strike is under costed for Ki cost, but the Monk needs better damage before that can happen. My idea is making flurry of blows double the attack action instead of two attacks as a bonus attack netting +1 attack when Ki is expended which helps.


I never got more than preliminarily into fixing TWF damage (and damage only, sorry it's not interesting) by changing the fighting style benefit to add the other hand weapon damage die to your hits when you're TWF. So you'd deal 2d6 damage with your attacks, just like a greatsword, and get a bonus action attack instead of better average damage. I'm not sure if the Dual Wielder feat would need any changes after this. It would give you 2d8 damage attacks and +1 AC to compare against GWM and PM. I was worried that the change would be broken with lances.

Ideally, the fighting styles would be TWF > GWF > TWF(not using bonus action) > Dueling. It's hard to pick where to slot in archery, defense, and protection. Then the feats should each have their own best role. GWM for easy to hit targets and burst damage. DW for an all-rounder. SM for dominating similar sized opponents. PM for defensive and reach tactics. Sentinel to work with allies.



Adding the second attack at 11th level does help TWF damage. Interesting idea but Duel Woelder making the damage 2d8 is awefully good, but not too imbalancing. The real question is why would anyone use a two handed weapon now? That is a very workable idea... Though it could be problematic if magic weapons get involved that add extra damage, basically you could double up bonuses to damage.



One might also respond: They are the same class. They have the same armor proficiency. They have the same armor. The S&B has two more AC because it has a shield.

The tweaks don't take away that ability. It already doesn't have that ability.

I agree, they have the same armor, it should wearing different armor... Unless the TWF went Dex based which is an unnecessary assumption and not needed for the comparison, the Duelist could just as easily go Dex.



100% agreed. Nerfing PAM and -5/+10 is much easier than buffing TWF, Monk, Paladins, bladelocks, War Clerics, etc etc etc. Plus it makes sense - a polearm's niche shouldn't be more attacks.

I remove the bonus attack from PAM, -5/+10 from GWM and sharpshooter, and boost TWF to compete. Martial internal balance problem solved.


But the OP chose to instead leave PAM where it is, nerf GWM to be about half as effective, and left TWF nearly the same. That results in PAM > GWM > S&B > TWF.

Assuming Fighting Style and Feat
TWF>GWM>PAM>S&B but is conditionally PAM+GWM>PAM/GWM>TWF>S&B
TWF, PAM, and GWM are all competitive with each other damage wise when using a Feat and Fighting Style, TWF also has +1 AC.

I pointed out the flaws in your TWF math above by assuming a fighting style for Duelist and not for TWF.




________________________


Again I 100% agree. Nearly doubling skills for a Wizard is not the right direction. Even 1 at 14 int is questionable imo. But I don't have a great solution besides fixing saving throws - even then Int should contribute more, but the options are rather limited.


GWF does not have that ability by RAI as clarified in sage advice. Without that it is perfectly in line with the expected 8% boost. GWF is perfectly fine.

If you keep the (potential) RAW then it heavily favors options with rider dice and makes those options unequally better in comparison to other options.

______________



Please read the part you quoted more carefully. You'll notice the "I agree with that" part about shield having more AC. The issue is the damage being the same which I also point out in the very part you quote.

And the AC is not always equal to 2. It varies from 4 more to 2 more based on level. Mostly 3.


@ZMan I'll reply to that wall when I get some time later.

AC does not vary by more than 2, both slap on the best heavy armor they can afford which they can afford at exactly the same time. Don't assume Dex based TWF Fighter, because it is just as necessary as Dex based S&B.

[Kryx]

Only 4-6 skills, really?? I guess I've never made a 5e character before... /sarcasm
Wow. This is how you treat people providing you feedback on your houserules?

You don't deserve the feedback with that attitude. I'm out.

[Zman]

Wow. This is how you treat people providing you feedback on your houserules?

You don't deserve the feedback with that attitude. I'm out.

It is of similar tone to the comment it responded to where it was insinuated that I didn't understand the fundamentals of character creation. I took it as him using sarcasm to emphasize his point, and not as a personal attack and then responded with sarcasm myself.

If you look to the response to feedback from the exact same poster in the exact same post you'll see where I took his constructive criticism and agreed with it.

I guess responding to tone with similar tone is not acceptable despite the fact I've demonstratively responded to good quality constructive criticism and made adaptions where warranted.


I'm sad to see you go Kryx, your feedback was useful and your very rigid, very detailed, and sometimes narrow viewpoint was appreciated and constructive.

[Strill]

Only 4-6 skills, really?? I guess I've never made a 5e character before... /sarcasmI just figured that you were focusing on the extreme-end of what's possible, like a Half-elf Rogue (8), and were losing context for what is typical.

Yes, three skills, equivalent to gaining a feat in stock 5e, equivalent to half a feat if these tweaks are used. Also, at least one of those skills will be learned in play and not likely until 8th level at the earliest.One feat is a big deal, and Wizards don't need any help. I don't think that having to wait till 8th level to get the last one makes that much of a difference.

For perspective, Wizards in 3e only got 2 + INT (the minimum) skill points per level, to compensate for the extra skill points they'd get from having high INT. Do you lower the Wizards' starting skills here as well?

But then the problem is that if you give Wizards fewer skills, to compensate for their high INT, do you also lower the base starting skills for everyone so that, for example, Eldritch Knights don't outmatch Wizards in skills? And if you do that, then everyone has to invest in INT if they want to have a reasonable number of skills, so now everyone is MAD, and then newbies who fail to min-max are hurt even more. I'm pretty confident that that's the reason the devs stopped INT from affecting skills in the first place.

[Zman]

I just figured that you were focusing on the extreme-end of what's possible, like a Half-elf Rogue (8), and were losing context for what is typical.
One feat is a big deal, and Wizards don't need any help. I don't think that having to wait till 8th level to get the last one makes that much of a difference.

For perspective, Wizards in 3e only got 2 + INT (the minimum) skill points per level, to compensate for the extra skill points they'd get from having high INT. Do you lower the Wizards' starting skills here as well?

But then the problem is that if you give Wizards fewer skills, to compensate for their high INT, do you also lower the base starting skills for everyone so that, for example, Eldritch Knights don't outmatch Wizards in skills? And if you do that, then everyone has to invest in INT if they want to have a reasonable number of skills, so now everyone is MAD, and then newbies who fail to min-max are hurt even more. I'm pretty confident that that's the reason the devs stopped INT from affecting skills in the first place.

No worries. There are 18 skills, a normal character will start with 4-6, the extreme end being 8. Most classes on the high end will only hit 9skills, i.e. Human Wizard with 20 Int or Human Rogue with 12-14 Int, most Wizards will have 6-7 for most of the game. Basically it moves the range of expected skills from 4-8 to 4-9.

Im not convinced three skills makes that big of an impact on game balance and definitely view it as a half feat. That said I'm worried about it inherently benefiting Wizards to an outsized degree.

Trust me, Wizards getting so many skills bother me and one thing I was tenatively considering was dropping their starting skills by 1 but was hesitant due to potential backlash. I would definitely not lower the starting skills of other classes. Wizards are forced to Boost Int and that should be reflected in their starting Skills. Plus, being a Trained a Wizard and thematically being taught to rely on magic makes you less likely to learn mundane skills.

Is simply reducing Wizards to one class skill appropriate, and if so, does it make the Skill/Tools bonus acceptable overall?

[JumboWheat01]

The extreme end is actually 10. A (phb-based) Half-elf Lore Bard will have 10 total. 2 from being a Half-elf, two from the background, three from being a bard and three more from being a Lore Bard, with four of those skills having expertise.

At that point, you wonder why you have spells.

[Zman]

The extreme end is actually 10. A (phb-based) Half-elf Lore Bard will have 10 total. 2 from being a Half-elf, two from the background, three from being a bard and three more from being a Lore Bard, with four of those skills having expertise.

At that point, you wonder why you have spells.

Forgot Lore Bard gets three additional skills. With my changes it is now a Human Lore Bard that will have 10 while a Half Elf Lore Bard will only have 9, and if they have an Int 12-15Int they will end up with 11(10 for Half Elf) with the absolute maximum for a Single Classed character being 13 for a 20 Int Human Lore Bard which I doubt anyone will ever see in play. The practical Maximum for characters really doesn't change, sure a Human Lore Bard can easily net one additional skill if they invest in Int and hit 11/18 or 61% of skills instead of 56% of skills. And when we are talking about Lore Bards, we are talking about a class that already had half proficiency to those skills already.

The maximum for Non Bards currently is a Human Rogue for 8 Skills, if they invest 12-15Int they will have 9. The only real problem I see is with Wizards easily netting additional skills.

I guess the overall additional skills a character can gain is valued at less than a feat and it is still very rare for any character to be skilled in more than half the skills.

Well, skills are decidedly weaker than spells. It does take till 10th level before the second pair of Expertise comes into play.

[Tanarii]

I'm not convinced three skills makes that big of an impact on game balance and definitely view it as a half feat. That said I'm worried about it inherently benefiting Wizards to an outsized degree.

Trust me, Wizards getting so many skills bother me and one thing I was tenatively considering was dropping their starting skills by 1 but was hesitant due to potential backlash. I would definitely not lower the starting skills of other classes. Wizards are forced to Boost Int and that should be reflected in their starting Skills. Plus, being a Trained a Wizard and thematically being taught to rely on magic makes you less likely to learn mundane skills.

Is simply reducing Wizards to one class skill appropriate, and if so, does it make the Skill/Tools bonus acceptable overall?One thing to consider is the tendency of DMs to run skills as "One Skill to Rule Them All". In other words, for many skills, DMs will only require one skill check from the player with the highest bonus. Assuming this generally holds true for all Int, Wis (except Perception) and Cha skills, a 6 person party already more than sufficiently covers the skill spectrum. Of course, if you don't play with DMs like that, or you aren't a DM like that (I'm not), or if you regularly play in smaller groups, then it'll be different. (I'm assuming a home group here, not AL, since we're talking house-rules.)

Also I think if you really want to give stuff from Int, allow up to one skill proficiency, and make the rest languages/tool proficiency. Maybe exclude some of the more powerful tools (Thieves, Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit), and even some of the more useful Skills (Stealth jumps to mind).

[Zman]

One thing to consider is the tendency of DMs to run skills as "One Skill to Rule Them All". In other words, for many skills, DMs will only require one skill check from the player with the highest bonus. Assuming this generally holds true for all Int, Wis (except Perception) and Cha skills, a 6 person party already more than sufficiently covers the skill spectrum. Of course, if you don't play with DMs like that, or you aren't a DM like that (I'm not), or if you regularly play in smaller groups, then it'll be different. (I'm assuming a home group here, not AL, since we're talking house-rules.)

Also I think if you really want to give stuff from Int, allow up to one skill proficiency, and make the rest languages/tool proficiency. Maybe exclude some of the more powerful tools (Thieves, Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit), and even some of the more useful Skills (Stealth jumps to mind).

You do make good points about skill usage and how much it varies from one group to another. I don't think I fall into the "one check to rule them all category" and see skill redundancy in the party as a good thing. I usually assume a 4-5 person party. I like situations where characters can find themselves needing a skill they don't necessarily specialize in and absolutely hated 3.P's super specialization. A good example would be an area of the battlemap that is very difficult to navigate and characters have to either voluntarily move at half speed, or can move at full speed if they make DC10 Acrobatics risking prone on a DC5 failure.

Even with skill redundancy parties benefit from overlap, the guy with a good check isn't always going to make it and often times its is someone else that will roll well enough to cover the gap. Maybe you don't have that high of a Charisma but since you are proficient in deception you pull that lie off. Or maybe when your party is executing a rouse you'll need to pass a deception check or give the group away etc. Maybe you fancy that smart character who is not charismatic but still capable of deception etc.

Languages I fixed to Int.

Now, you said limit it to one Skill and one Tool, well unless they have a 16+Int they will be limited to that category which basically covers every character that is not specialized in Int, which is either a thematic Intelligent character in which I feel they should be rewarded for that Int investment, or is a Wizard. By dropping the Wizard's base skills by 1, they rely on their Int rather than their Class to grant them their normal starting skills and only receive bonus skills when they hit Int16+.

[Tanarii]

Now, you said limit it to one Skill and one Tool, well unless they have a 16+Int they will be limited to that category which basically covers every character that is not specialized in Int, which is either a thematic Intelligent character in which I feel they should be rewarded for that Int investment, or is a Wizard. By dropping the Wizard's base skills by 1, they rely on their Int rather than their Class to grant them their normal starting skills and only receive bonus skills when they hit Int16+.
I was working off the assumption of a number of bonus things = Int bonus still. With a limit of one Skill, but no limit on Languages or Tool proficiency. In other words, Int 16 would get three bonus things, but no more than one of them could be a skill.

In a campaign that doesn't have a single group that all takes any downtime together, that's a huge bonus. Taking 250 days of downtime is effectively retiring a character, as the campaign timeline continues with or without the downtime character. Of course, those kinds of campaigns are less common nowadays.

[Zman]

Change Log:
7-19-16 Reverted "Paladin only spell slot" language from Divine Smite
7-19-16 Fixed Pact of Blade HP bonus
7-20-16 Fixed a few typos
7-20-16 Changed Grappler to not allow advantage for larger creatures.
7-20-16 Gave Monks Extra Attack(2) at 11th level to bring up their lagging damage.
7-20-16 Increased Monk's stunning strike Ki cost to 2 and made it one attempt per turn.
7-20-16 Reduced Wizard's class skills to 1.
7-20-16 Creatures larger than their grappler have advantage on their escape checks.
7-20-16 DC10 Concentration save for spellcasting or maintaining concentration while grappled.







I was working off the assumption of a number of bonus things = Int bonus still. With a limit of one Skill, but no limit on Languages or Tool proficiency. In other words, Int 16 would get three bonus things, but no more than one of them could be a skill.

In a campaign that doesn't have a single group that all takes any downtime together, that's a huge bonus. Taking 250 days of downtime is effectively retiring a character, as the campaign timeline continues with or without the downtime character. Of course, those kinds of campaigns are less common nowadays.

Right now it grants Int Mod additional languages. It also grants Int mod Skills and tools with the stipulation that half mod rounded down has to be in tools. So a 16 Int grants 3 languages and up to two skills/one tool.

[Rabbit_Shadow]

Change Log:
7-20-16 DC10 Concentration save for spellcasting or maintaining concentration while grappled.


how about only having a dc10 con save for spells that require you to toss their hands in the air, like they just don't care. :)

[Zman]

how about only having a dc10 con save for spells that require you to toss their hands in the air, like they just don't care. :)

Thanks Rabbit, of course I meant spell with somatic or material components and really should have specified that, it should have not be effecting spells that were merely verbal spells.

Edit: Went and changed that oversight.

[Zman]

Change Log:

7-22-16 Removed Charger feat, added modified default Charge option to combat.

Added a modified Charge option to combat, removed the Charger Feat.

[Oramac]

Overall I really like what you've got here. Two things I would change.


[SPOILER=Feats]

Sharpshooter
Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and count three-quarters cover as half cover.

The wording here could be slightly confusing. If I ignore half-cover, and treat 3/4 cover as half-cover, I could make the argument that I ignore 3/4 cover.

I know what you're going for, and I like it, but the wording could be clearer.


Volatile Spellcaster
When you cast a spell that deals damage you can choose to increase the size of the damage die one step(d4>d6>d8>d10>d12>2d8). This increased damage die only affect the spell on the round it is cast, any damage caused by a volatile spell on subsequent rounds is unaffected. Upon choosing to cast a volatile spell that is not a cantrip, roll a d20, on a roll of a 1 gain one level of exhaustion, on a roll of a 20 cast the spell at its next highest level.


I'm no math whiz, but this feels incredibly OP, especially if someone builds around it. For example: If I were to take this feat plus Elemental Adept on my Tempest Sorcerer, using Chromatic Orb and Destructive Wrath I'm looking at maximized damage on a minimum of 3d10 (out of a 1st level slot) or a max of 11d10 (out of a 9th level slot), all of which ignores resistance (Ele Adept). With a little bit of setup/teamwork from my party I can also get an auto-crit on those with Hold Person/Monster for a metric ton of damage in one turn.

[Zman]

ChangeLog

7-22-16 Changed Polearm Master bonus attack from d4+Str to d6.






Overall I really like what you've got here. Two things I would change.



The wording here could be slightly confusing. If I ignore half-cover, and treat 3/4 cover as half-cover, I could make the argument that I ignore 3/4 cover.

I know what you're going for, and I like it, but the wording could be clearer.



I'm no math whiz, but this feels incredibly OP, especially if someone builds around it. For example: If I were to take this feat plus Elemental Adept on my Tempest Sorcerer, using Chromatic Orb and Destructive Wrath I'm looking at maximized damage on a minimum of 3d10 (out of a 1st level slot) or a max of 11d10 (out of a 9th level slot), all of which ignores resistance (Ele Adept). With a little bit of setup/teamwork from my party I can also get an auto-crit on those with Hold Person/Monster for a metric ton of damage in one turn.

I'm glad you like it and thank you for your time.

The wording could be confusing, but I don't think it is likely to be misunderstood, and even if it was it plays the way they were written stock. I considered calling it downgrading cover one level, but then you have to clarify not downgrading full cover. Now, it doesn't say 3/4 cover becomes 1/2 cover, it says treat it as if it were which doesn't make it not 3/4 cover. Sure, you could make the argument, but I don't think it would end up being misplayed all too often. If you have a better suggestion on how to word it as clearly and easily as possible, I'm all ears.

Sure, someone can build around a Feat, now that is one hell of a combo to build around and lets look at it, how much more damage is volatile spellcaster really bringing to the table? Also, I think you mean Tempest Domain Cleric, not Storm Sorcerer as the Storm Sorcerer doesn't have the ability to maximize dice, but a Tempest Cleric does as a Channel Divinity 1xrest, 2xrest after 6th level, and 3xrest at 18th level. In this case, two damage per dice, that is it. So, instead of dealing 24 damage, you deal 30.

I mean the vast majority of damage that combination does can be done without the Volatile Spellcaster feat, all that feat does is bring 2 damage per die for this combination, and I think it would be very tough to see in practice, you already need two feats and at least 2 levels of Tempest Cleric. I just don't see this combination as that much worse than stock, or as all that likely to be used/abused.

[Oramac]

Also, I think you mean Tempest Domain Cleric, not Storm Sorcerer as the Storm Sorcerer doesn't have the ability to maximize dice, but a Tempest Cleric does as a Channel Divinity 1xrest, 2xrest after 6th level, and 3xrest at 18th level. In this case, two damage per dice, that is it. So, instead of dealing 24 damage, you deal 30.

I mean the vast majority of damage that combination does can be done without the Volatile Spellcaster feat, all that feat does is bring 2 damage per die for this combination, and I think it would be very tough to see in practice, you already need two feats and at least 2 levels of Tempest Cleric. I just don't see this combination as that much worse than stock, or as all that likely to be used/abused.

Nope. I mean Tempest Sorcerer. Two (or 6) levels of Tempest Cleric, 18 (or 14) of Storm Sorcerer. This gets you access to both Chromatic Orb and Lightning Bolt, which are not on the Tempest Cleric spell list. Upping those from d8 (orb) to d10 or d6 (bolt) to d8 is pretty potent when you upcast the spell out of a higher level slot, combined with Destructive Wrath. Even without the Volatile Feat, I've one-shot bad guys on a crit using this build.

EDIT: with regards to the wording of the first feats, that's a good point. And the intent is still clear regardless of how it's read, so it should be fine.

[Zman]

Nope. I mean Tempest Sorcerer. Two (or 6) levels of Tempest Cleric, 18 (or 14) of Storm Sorcerer. This gets you access to both Chromatic Orb and Lightning Bolt, which are not on the Tempest Cleric spell list. Upping those from d8 (orb) to d10 or d6 (bolt) to d8 is pretty potent when you upcast the spell out of a higher level slot, combined with Destructive Wrath. Even without the Volatile Feat, I've one-shot bad guys on a crit using this build.

EDIT: with regards to the wording of the first feats, that's a good point. And the intent is still clear regardless of how it's read, so it should be fine.

Sure, and this is costing you two feats, and a channel divinity to pull off. What it gives you is an additional 2 damage per die over the identical build without Volatile Spellcaster. My point is that the combination is already quite strong and very limited, and now if they spent another feat(of their 4-5) on Volatile Spellcaster all it is giving them is an additional +25-33% damage a few times per day and a 5% chance of extra damage from an upscaled spell and an 5% chance of gaining a level of exhaustion. It is pretty good, but the build was already pretty good at dealing damage. When you look at how long that build takes to come online to the point where it can be used more than very rarely it isn't going to be game breaking. Lightning bolt stock deals 14/28 damage, Destructive Wrath makes that 24/48 damage, and dropping another Feat makes it 32/64 damage save dependent and Lightning Bolt can't Crit.

Sure, you could deal some damage this way, but I'm not convinced it will break the game, and the amounts of damage it is putting out aren't beyond a Champion's action surge etc.

[Aett_Thorn]

Zman, first off, thanks for putting all of this together. I'm sure that it took you quite a bit of time.

One issue that jumped out at me was with the fix to Beast Master Ranger. I get what you are trying to do here, as it frees up the action, and allows you to use a bonus action to get the same result. However, I think that this has maybe just as many issues as the action. Many (most of the better) Ranger spells use the bonus action to work. You couldn't cast/reposition Hunter's Mark, couldn't use some of the weapon spells (such as ensnaring strike or lightning arrow), or make use of Swift Quiver nearly as well as a Hunter could. As such, I think that you'd still be in a bit of a hole compared to a Hunter, even though I think that it's a bit smaller of a hole.

Not really sure how to fix this without just giving Beast Masters a free source of damage each round from their companion. Based on the action economy in 5e, it seems like there's no good way to use the companion without somehow screwing over the Ranger.

[Oramac]

Truncated

Sure, you could deal some damage this way, but I'm not convinced it will break the game, and the amounts of damage it is putting out aren't beyond a Champion's action surge etc.

Fair enough. Though the Champion requires multiple attack rolls to hit in order to match the damage, and a clever player/party can use Hold Person for an auto-crit on the Chromatic Orb with a single attack roll. Plus, as both Sorcerer and Cleric are full casters, the build really comes online at 3rd level.

In either case, your point is taken. I'm still not convinced it's balanced, but I'm willing to give it a shot in-game before throwing it out.

[Zman]

Zman, first off, thanks for putting all of this together. I'm sure that it took you quite a bit of time.

One issue that jumped out at me was with the fix to Beast Master Ranger. I get what you are trying to do here, as it frees up the action, and allows you to use a bonus action to get the same result. However, I think that this has maybe just as many issues as the action. Many (most of the better) Ranger spells use the bonus action to work. You couldn't cast/reposition Hunter's Mark, couldn't use some of the weapon spells (such as ensnaring strike or lightning arrow), or make use of Swift Quiver nearly as well as a Hunter could. As such, I think that you'd still be in a bit of a hole compared to a Hunter, even though I think that it's a bit smaller of a hole.

Not really sure how to fix this without just giving Beast Masters a free source of damage each round from their companion. Based on the action economy in 5e, it seems like there's no good way to use the companion without somehow screwing over the Ranger.

Well, you put your finger on one of the tweaks that I am most leary about myself. When I first proposed it me and Evil Anagram had a long heated back and forth on the issue. Ironically, his position is that Beastmaster is balanced damagewise tobegin with and that my changes actually allow the Beastmaster to do too much damage.

You are absolutely right, by commanding the Beast as a Bonus action it now competes with other bonus actions, especially Hunters Mark. But, what you gain is that levels 3-4 you aren't watching your Beast do all the work or doing nothing while you attack, you both get to attack. The lvls 3-4 Cheerleader was something I viewed as a "must fix". Now, you have your Ranger's base damage sans Hunter's Mark unfettered, you can always get your attacks in and now get to decide if you are going to have your beast do some work with that bonus action, or will you boost your damage with Hunters mark, or use a bonus action spell etc.

Is the Beastmaster in that much of a hole damagewise compared to a Hunter? The Hunter will get bonus damage from say Collossus Slayer, so d8/turn. Sure, they'll get volley later for more damage but it is situational. Sure, the Hunter will deal a lot of damage with TWF and Hunters Mark given my changes to TWF at lvl 11, but that bonus action for Hunter's Mark is now harder to make with TWF being better. Meanwhile, the Beastmaster gets his two attacks and at 11th level his beast gets two as well which is better than stock. If the Beastmaster wants to cast a bonus action spell after 7th level the beast can still move and help, or dodge, or dash as the Beastmaster casts a bonus action spell and makes his two attacks.

Just a snapshot at high level comparisons look like...
The Hunter with Dual Wielder and Longswords is doing 4d8+20(TWF) +d8(Collossus Slayer) +4d6(Hunters Mark) 56.5 Damage sans to hit modifier. Now, the Hunter loses 2d8+10 +26d on turns where he has to shift his Hunter's Mark.
The Beastmaster with his Wolf would be doing 4d4+14(Beast) DC16 Knockdown for Prone +2d8+12(Dueling) for 45 Damage without Hunter's Mark, the damage gap will be narrowed significantly when the Wolf Knocks the target down. Against a single monster the Beastmaster could pull out Hunters Mark and add an additional 4d6 Damage, of course doing so costs a bonus action and makes the companion only help or move for a turn.
**(Forgot lvl20 Foe Slayer which does now benefit the Hunter to a greater degree against favored enemies.)

It would take a more extensive breakdown but I'm pretty confident the Beastmaster is stronger than the Hunter... except maybe at lvl 20... so long as the Beast is alive and definitely behind when the Beast is dead and I think that is where it should be.


Fair enough. Though the Champion requires multiple attack rolls to hit in order to match the damage, and a clever player/party can use Hold Person for an auto-crit on the Chromatic Orb with a single attack roll. Plus, as both Sorcerer and Cleric are full casters, the build really comes online at 3rd level.

In either case, your point is taken. I'm still not convinced it's balanced, but I'm willing to give it a shot in-game before throwing it out.

Yes, the Champion does. Sure, a Hold Person, which has a save and requires another spellcaster or a quickened spell, and another spell slot is far from a guarentee. It is good, I'm just not convinced it is broken.

Also, to fully come on line it would take a lvl 1 feat, 2 levels of Tempest Cleric, 4 levels of Storm Sorcerer for the second feat. Even so, you've got a 6th level character that can hit for 50 Thunder Damage once per rest and a total of three times per day under best circumstances. At this level that kind of single round damage isn't out of the realm of possibility for critting martials and required a lot of resources to pull off. Pretty sure a straight Sorcerer slinging a standard fireball will deal more damage to a couple of foes than this combo can do to a single enemy.

It is something awefully cool that a character that specialized in unbridled and unrivaled control over Thunder and Lightning can pull off, it won't really break the game as it'll often be too much damage for a mook and be wasteful, and most tougher enemies already have well over 50HP and won't be single shot at this point, at least not to the point that the addition of Volatile Spellcaster broke it, the damage will have the same relative effect even if it is 2 per die lower.

[Oramac]

Also, to fully come on line it would take a lvl 1 feat, 2 levels of Tempest Cleric, 4 levels of Storm Sorcerer for the second feat. Even so, you've got a 6th level character that can hit for 50 Thunder Damage once per rest and a total of three times per day under best circumstances.

At 5th level (2 cleric, 3 sorc, playing half-elf) I rolled a nat 20 against a Mind Flayer in the first round of combat. Out of a 3rd level spell slot, that's 80 damage. The Illithid has 71 hit point and no resistance. CR7 monster dead in one round with no feats at all. Let it be known, the DM was pissed. :D

That said, you're right in that for that build the Volatile feat would most likely always be overkill. I retract my previous statement. Sorry for the waste of time!

[Zman]

At 5th level (2 cleric, 3 sorc, playing half-elf) I rolled a nat 20 against a Mind Flayer in the first round of combat. Out of a 3rd level spell slot, that's 80 damage. The Illithid has 71 hit point and no resistance. CR7 monster dead in one round with no feats at all. Let it be known, the DM was pissed. :D

That said, you're right in that for that build the Volatile feat would most likely always be overkill. I retract my previous statement. Sorry for the waste of time!

Most definitely not a waste of time haha, it made me take a good hard look at what I did and justify it. And yeah, that is a nasty Crit! Ironically the problematic component of the whole situation is Destructive Wrath, not Volatile Spellcaster, haha!

[Oramac]

Ironically the problematic component of the whole situation is Destructive Wrath, not Volatile Spellcaster, haha!

Haha. True enough. Glad I could help in some small way, then!

[Zman]

And it is pretty!

Zman's Tweaks V1.2 (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HkZHSLvHu)

[treecko]

Coming from another thread as to not derail it. I dislike the new feats that give +int, chr, or wis to armor class. (intuitive defense, powerful persona, and tactician.) Particularly, the classes that would not have a high armor class to begin with, specifically wizard, bard, and sorcerer. At level 1 with point buy, these classes can take half elf or gnome, get a 17 in their casting stat (bumped up to 18 by the feat), and a 16 in dex. With that they have an armor class of 10+4+3. Not only is it comparable to mage armor, which would be 1/2 of their spell slots to bother casting at lv 1, it's also even better. This AC is about competitive with the main tanks of the level, with the trick of shield as well to make a wizard almost unhittable. Of course, as the casting stat goes up, as does the AC. This leads to the aforementioned classes having AC close to a defensive character while also having the power of shield to become even better. Classes like the wizard go down very quickly when focused, but a powerful buff to their AC combined with the strength of shield makes the longevity and therefore usefulness of the class go up, an increase that is definitely not needed, as wizards and bards are already on top.

[Zman]

Coming from another thread as to not derail it. I dislike the new feats that give +int, chr, or wis to armor class. (intuitive defense, powerful persona, and tactician.) Particularly, the classes that would not have a high armor class to begin with, specifically wizard, bard, and sorcerer. At level 1 with point buy, these classes can take half elf or gnome, get a 17 in their casting stat (bumped up to 18 by the feat), and a 16 in dex. With that they have an armor class of 10+4+3. Not only is it comparable to mage armor, which would be 1/2 of their spell slots to bother casting at lv 1, it's also even better. This AC is about competitive with the main tanks of the level, with the trick of shield as well to make a wizard almost unhittable. Of course, as the casting stat goes up, as does the AC. This leads to the aforementioned classes having AC close to a defensive character while also having the power of shield to become even better. Classes like the wizard go down very quickly when focused, but a powerful buff to their AC combined with the strength of shield makes the longevity and therefore usefulness of the class go up, an increase that is definitely not needed, as wizards and bards are already on top.

Thank you for your feedback. This is something I've thought quite a bit about.

Firstly, my Pointbuy does allow a character to buy a 16, so any race that has a +1 can pick a +1 feat to hit an 18 if they want to be hyper focused.

Wizard starts with AC16 or AC17 instead of AC15 or AC16. At 1st level they can net +1 AC over Mage Armor and frees up a spell slot, but it comes at the cost of Warcaster, Resilient Con, Spell Savant, Spellslinger, or Volatile Spellcaster. Sure, one ASI goes to Int and nets another +1 AC for AC18 at 4th level. +2 AC over non Int AC feat is good, but it isn't outside the realm of reasonable. Now, the Wizard is choosing between +2 Dex, +2 Con, Spell Savant, Spellslinger, Volatile Spellcaster, Resilient Con, Warcaster etc. so, with 2 more ASI put into Dex instead of other feats can pump AC even further to AC 20, but now we have a 12th level Wizard that has at best a +2 Con Save for concentration, pitiful at will damage, and lacks the other benefits other feats could have brought. Yes, a Wizard has access to Shield which is a good spell and can boost AC higher.

I mean, if the Wizard really wanted AC they could just dip Defense Fighter at lvl1 and rock AC17/19 at game start and end ups at AC21 by the time they hit Full Plate, and that nets +4 HP and Proficiency in Con saves. Yeah, there is an opportunity cost, being one Caster Level behind, just as taking the Int AC feat comes at an opportunity cost of other feats. If a character want to specialize, they can, but it comes at a cost and we can make solid arguments about the relative worth of those choices. A Wizard that wants defense could just go Abjuror and have extra HP that is more significant that the AC as a defense boost.


Bard. Yes, the Cha AC feat is a great choice for a Bard. Sure, you can pump AC with a 16 Dex and 16 or 18 Int and spending your 1st level feat to start the game with AC16 or AC17. Alternatively a Valor Bard can just pick up Medium Armor Master at 4th and rock an AC18/20 with only one feat choice and gets to start the game with only a 15 Dex instead of a 16.

Or the Lore Bard that takes only a 13 Dex and uses their 1st level Feat for Moderatley Armored and now rocks effectively AC15/17 at 1st level and once they get half plate they have AC17/19 at 5th level. One feat, nets comparable AC for a Bard for most of the game and frees up additional ASIs And likely Point Buy points.


I agree that the feats can be used to specialize in AC and grant an AC comparable to defensive characters especially at lower levels, but they come with opportunity cost, don't break bounded accuracy, open up new character options, and are far from the "best" option or the most powerful Feats. I mean, if we break down the benefits the Wizard will often be better off picking up extra Con as the defensive increase in HP often averages out to greater survivability.

[Oramac]

Coming from another thread as to not derail it. I dislike the new feats that give +int, chr, or wis to armor class. (intuitive defense, powerful persona, and tactician.)

The piggyback off of this, I think the feats are fine, but don't really see the need for so many of them. Why not just have one feat that lets you add Con/Int/Wis/Cha (players choice) to their AC?

[Zman]

The piggyback off of this, I think the feats are fine, but don't really see the need for so many of them. Why not just have one feat that lets you add Con/Int/Wis/Cha (players choice) to their AC?

A fun name and fitting description, haha. Would you rather take Unarmored(Int) or Tactician? Unarmored(Wis) or Intuitive Defense? Unarmored(Cha) or Powerful Persona?

[Oramac]

A fun name and fitting description, haha. Would you rather take Unarmored(Int) or Tactician? Unarmored(Wis) or Intuitive Defense? Unarmored(Cha) or Powerful Persona?

Meh. I guess I'd rather just have the one Feat (Well-Rounded Defense?). Doesn't really matter all that much. Just thought I'd ask.

[Zman]

8-2-16 Specified PAM bonus attack is not Heavy.
8-4-16 Moved 2nd TWF Attack to 8th level instead of 11th
8-4-16 Made Dueling Master bonus attack one handed only.
8-4-16 Made Frenzy reset on Short/Long Rest


Working on a large spreadsheet that compares the stock game to my fixes, so far it's revealed a few minor issues bit overal my napkin math is holding up well to more extensive comparisons. Will link it when more classes are done.

[rudy]

Cool! I like a lot of your tweaks. Not all of them, but a lot.

Suggestion to make Human more interesting. Instead of giving them skill versatility, let them choose two backgrounds instead of one. Not only does this get them the two extra skills of skill versatility, it is much more flavorful, and comes with some minor tool bonuses and such, as well as the extra feature. I definitely think that would put them on par with a lot of the other races.

EDIT: In my games, specifically, i have changed humans to:

* +1 in any FOUR stats
* Common; you also speak a regional human dialect appropriate to your background. If no such dialect exists, then you may be permitted to pick up another language at DM's discretion. [note that their choosing two backgrounds gives them many opportunities to get other languages]
* Choose TWO backgrounds, gaining all skill, tool, language and feature benefits from both. The normal rules for gaining the same skill twice allowing you to choose any skill in its place apply, though the DM may limit you to a skill replacement appropriate to the background.
For starting equipment from the background for which you must choose one or the other. [Or work with your DM for a combination of both sets of equipment]. Be sure to think about the story which combines your two backgrounds!

[Zman]

Cool! I like a lot of your tweaks. Not all of them, but a lot.

Suggestion to make Human more interesting. Instead of giving them skill versatility, let them choose two backgrounds instead of one. Not only does this get them the two extra skills of skill versatility, it is much more flavorful, and comes with some minor tool bonuses and such, as well as the extra feature. I definitely think that would put them on par with a lot of the other races.

EDIT: In my games, specifically, i have changed humans to:

* +1 in any FOUR stats
* Common; you also speak a regional human dialect appropriate to your background. If no such dialect exists, then you may be permitted to pick up another language at DM's discretion. [note that their choosing two backgrounds gives them many opportunities to get other languages]
* Choose TWO backgrounds, gaining all skill, tool, language and feature benefits from both. The normal rules for gaining the same skill twice allowing you to choose any skill in its place apply, though the DM may limit you to a skill replacement appropriate to the background.
For starting equipment from the background for which you must choose one or the other. [Or work with your DM for a combination of both sets of equipment]. Be sure to think about the story which combines your two backgrounds!

Thanks! Which do you like the best, which do you dislike and why?

That is a very viable solution for Human and I like it quite a bit, but my changes were aimed to be trying to be super simple and make Half Elves feel like a cross between Humans and Elves. Since they are so mechanically similar I'm not inclined to want to make that change, though it definitely works. As custom backgrounds is essentially a core rule, I don't see the need for making it two Backgeounds, and some don't necessarily mesh well narratively.


Stay tuned for the math aka spreadsheet supporting the Tweaks from a balance perspective.

[rudy]

Ok, after reading through everything, some comments. Anything I don't mention means I liked it.

* Dragonborn I have no comment, because I completely ignore them as a race.

* The extra skills based on intelligence bonus is too many. Suggested modification:


At game start, each player gains a total number of picks equal to their intelligence modifier in any of the following:
- Languages (two standard, or one exotic)
- Any two from: Artisan's tools, gaming set, musical instruments, vehicles (one kind)
- Navigator's Tools
- Herbalism Kit
- Disguise Kit
- Forgery Kit
- Poisoner's Kit
- Thieves' Tools

Two picks can be used to gain proficiency in any skill.

* Inferior Darkvision, as a concept. Anything that adds to the complexities of lighting is not something I want to deal with as a GM. I understand why you would add this, but I don't think the logic outweighs the game practicality.

* I don't like the last bullet of Close-Quarters Archer with the "stabbing them with an arrow" bit. It feels too silly to be something you could do every round. If you really want to keep it, you should make clear whether it's a finessable attack or not. If not, it's probably pretty useless to the kind of character who wants to shoot arrows at a person right next to him anyway. I'd replace it to a flat +1 to attack for attacks within 60 feet. Boring, perhaps, but there is precedence with the Unearth Arcana weapon feats.

Further on that feat, I would give a distance limitation on the ignoring cover so that it doesn't overlap as much with Sharpshooter. Perhaps change it to "ignores 1/2 or 3/4 cover granted by other creatures for shots within 60 feet", or something like that.

* Think Grappler is too silly/powerful now. I would ditch the last bullet point. The strength addition is more than enough to make it a viable feat.

* Keen Mind is way too good now, in my opinion, assuming this means they have advantage whenever they try to see if they know something pertinent about the creature in question. I would weaken that to something like "1/rest, you can re-roll an intelligence ability check".

* Linguist is too good for campaigns where languages matter (and for campaigns where they don't matter, then you would never take it even with the changes). I'd change that to something like "You can acquire mastery of a new language over a month of regular exposure". This allows DM flexibility for what that mastery might look like after, say, a week. Maybe you can communicate very basic phrases, etc.

* Medium Armor Master sounds too powerful now, but I don't have any specific suggestions.

* Would change your modification to Polearm Master so that they *can* add their ability modifier if they have the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style.

* Powerful Persona is too powerful, and also conceptually a bit on the silly side. Feats shouldn't be able to boost your AC by 3 more than what you could otherwise get, and that one can for many builds (such as an archer bard, or a sorcerer.

* Skilled is way too good. I'd tone it down to something like:
-Increase one stat by 1, and gain proficiency in two skills, at least one of which is tied to the stat that you increased.

* Skulker seems potentially overpowered, but no specific suggestions.

[rudy]

Oops! Forgot to say I didn't get beyond the feats section yet, so my comments do not include the class changes.

[Zman]

Ok, after reading through everything, some comments. Anything I don't mention means I liked it.

* Dragonborn I have no comment, because I completely ignore them as a race.


I'm not a fan of them as a race, but now they at the least aren't terrible and are functional.



* The extra skills based on intelligence bonus is too many. Suggested modification:



How many characters that aren't a Wizard are going to have more than a 14 Int? Very very few, that means at most a non Wizard will get 1 Skill and 1 Tool out of this. Wizards have had their starting skills decreased by one for balance purposes. This is at most half a feat worth of bonus if a character invests heavily in Int which is normally absolutely pointless and has almost no mechanical benefit.




* Inferior Darkvision, as a concept. Anything that adds to the complexities of lighting is not something I want to deal with as a GM. I understand why you would add this, but I don't think the logic outweighs the game practicality.



I considered a Low Light Vision but I did'nt want to add another mode, this uses the existing rules just halves the distance, and those with it benefit from the dimlight to 40' from a torch etc. It makes humans less bad as more races can use light instead of functioning well without it.



* I don't like the last bullet of Close-Quarters Archer with the "stabbing them with an arrow" bit. It feels too silly to be something you could do every round. If you really want to keep it, you should make clear whether it's a finessable attack or not. If not, it's probably pretty useless to the kind of character who wants to shoot arrows at a person right next to him anyway. I'd replace it to a flat +1 to attack for attacks within 60 feet. Boring, perhaps, but there is precedence with the Unearth Arcana weapon feats.

Further on that feat, I would give a distance limitation on the ignoring cover so that it doesn't overlap as much with Sharpshooter. Perhaps change it to "ignores 1/2 or 3/4 cover granted by other creatures for shots within 60 feet", or something like that.


Well, being next to someone everyround is something you would generally like to avoid so I'd rarely expect to see it employed that often. Maybe for a flavor point it could equate to hitting them with your bow etc. It probably should have Finesse, but it feels somewhat flavorful to shoot an arrow at them, smack them with your bow, then dart out of their reach. Without it, I felt the feat was lacking something to make it special and a low damage bonus action attack has quite a bit of precedence. You could make the same argument against PAM.



* Think Grappler is too silly/powerful now. I would ditch the last bullet point. The strength addition is more than enough to make it a viable feat.


I changed the nonfunctioning rule that was present by making it do something and adding a larger creature has advantage when escaping a grapple.



* Keen Mind is way too good now, in my opinion, assuming this means they have advantage whenever they try to see if they know something pertinent about the creature in question. I would weaken that to something like "1/rest, you can re-roll an intelligence ability check".


Well, Keen Mind wasn't really a powerhouse feat to begin with and needs something to give it a bit more oomph. Also, this interacts with my chances to Ability checks and isn't quite as swingy as you are thinking. Without expertise we are still talking about a 20 Inch character in the range of 9-31 throughout their career. This will mean they occasionally hit a DC 20 instead of a DC15 or a DC 25 instead of a 20, it isn't going to break the game and is only as powerful as each DM makes it with pertinent information.



* Linguist is too good for campaigns where languages matter (and for campaigns where they don't matter, then you would never take it even with the changes). I'd change that to something like "You can acquire mastery of a new language over a month of regular exposure". This allows DM flexibility for what that mastery might look like after, say, a week. Maybe you can communicate very basic phrases, etc.



I mean there already exists the rule for spending 250gp and 250 days to learn a language, this costs a feat and is thematically appropriate. I don't really see how this would "break" a campaign as any such campaign would require some way to learn said languages. This still has to make sense story wise etc.



* Medium Armor Master sounds too powerful now, but I don't have any specific suggestions.


It still requires Dex16 for a character that likely isn't maxing dex and is at most a secondary stat. +1 Dex, +1 AC(if Dex 16), and no Disadvantage on Stealth is appropraite as +1 AC is roughly half a feat, +1 Dex is roughly half a feat, and no Disadvantage on Stealth is less than half a feat. Essentially I discount the +1AC due to the Dex Requirement making it and the no Disadvantage on Stealth equal to roughly half a feat. It may fall into the better than average side feat, but it isn't broken.



* Would change your modification to Polearm Master so that they *can* add their ability modifier if they have the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style.


This was my original plan, but the math just doesn't work out. PAM is too good, removing the +Str to offhand reduces the amount of damage the feat puts out by a reasonable amount and reduces just how amazingly good the feat is.



* Powerful Persona is too powerful, and also conceptually a bit on the silly side. Feats shouldn't be able to boost your AC by 3 more than what you could otherwise get, and that one can for many builds (such as an archer bard, or a sorcerer.


Silly? I don't think so. It covers the concept of people who are so arrogant and confident in their safety they walk through harm with nothing between them and harm but their wry smile. Or the guy who isn't amazingly agile but chooses to make you miss with his eyes instead. The guys whose body language is always misread. The guy that look just too scary to attack without reservation etc. Mechanically it is sound, it isn't boosting AC by 3, for most of the game it is spending a Feat on a +1 Cha and a +1 or +2 AC. It can be optimized to grant +2 AC most of the game but isn't much better than simply spending a feat on Medium Armor for a Lore Bard. I mean a 14 Dex Lore Bard has AC 14 in Studded Leathor, picking up Moderately Armored for Medium Armor Prof gives him AC 17/19 with Half Plate and maybe a shield. A 16 or 18 Charisma Lor Bard only nets AC 15 or AC 16 with Powerful Persona. Mechanically it doesn't break bounded accuracy and comes with substantial opportunity cost. Sure, a character can optimize AC using this feat, but they may have just been better with a 13 Dex, taking their first level as Fighter with Defense and rocking AC 19/21.



* Skilled is way too good. I'd tone it down to something like:
-Increase one stat by 1, and gain proficiency in two skills, at least one of which is tied to the stat that you increased.


No one was taking Skilled before, I made it a half feat. Essentially you are overvalueing Skill Profs.



* Skulker seems potentially overpowered, but no specific suggestions.

It really isn't overpowered in anymeaningful way, considering that little changed that isn't already accessible with the Int changes.


Oops! Forgot to say I didn't get beyond the feats section yet, so my comments do not include the class changes.

I look forward to you going through them.

[rudy]

I look forward to you going through them.
With respect, the half hour I spent on the first part didn't produce any result. Now, that may be because your system is perfect, but even if that's true I'm not inclined to spend a bunch more time doing the second part so that you can tell me why my concerns aren't a problem.

[Zman]

With respect, the half hour I spent on the first part didn't produce any result. Now, that may be because your system is perfect, but even if that's true I'm not inclined to spend a bunch more time doing the second part so that you can tell me why my concerns aren't a problem.

Yes, and I thank you for the time you spent, your feedback is appreciated. If by "didn't produce any result" you mean I didn't agree wholeheartedly with you and change them, then yes it was unproductive. You voiced your biggest concerns, I systematically responded and essentially went point by point and addressed them. Much of the differences were stylistic and Adam dependent, not necessarily in the inherent balance of the changes. I certainly do not believe it is perfect, but I can make very strong arguments for it producing a game with better balance, and a greater variety of viable and builds. Given how much of the Tweaks you liked, I was surprised by your snark.

[rudy]

Given how much of the Tweaks you liked, I was surprised by your snark.

Wasn't intended to be snarky. I meant it entirely literally, in the sense that any time I spend reviewing the rest of it is extremely likely to not actually affect anything, and so it's not worth the time.

*Why* it won't affect anything isn't relevant, the point remains that my input is not likely to actually be helpful.

Best,

[Zman]

Wasn't intended to be snarky. I meant it entirely literally, in the sense that any time I spend reviewing the rest of it is extremely likely to not actually affect anything, and so it's not worth the time.

*Why* it won't affect anything isn't relevant, the point remains that my input is not likely to actually be helpful.

Best,

Which I find an odd sentiment as you "liked" the vast majority of the changes I had made. I like all feedback, even if I disagree with it because I must have a strong enough argument to counter it, if I don't it means it was a change that was uncecessary, potentially unbalanced, or arbritrary and needs to be addressed.

[Sabeta]

I keep getting a bad ID whenever I try to view this. I'm just clicking your link, but Homebrewery returns a blank page. Tried changing "share" to "edit" and it says no such Homebrew exists.

[rudy]

Coming back to this after all. Sorry if I was snarky earlier; my bad.


How many characters that aren't a Wizard are going to have more than a 14 Int? Very very few, that means at most a non Wizard will get 1 Skill and 1 Tool out of this. Wizards have had their starting skills decreased by one for balance purposes. This is at most half a feat worth of bonus if a character invests heavily in Int which is normally absolutely pointless and has almost no mechanical benefit.
I had actually missed the fact when I first read it that half had to be tool proficiencies. I actually withdraw my objection to this one.


I considered a Low Light Vision but I did'nt want to add another mode, this uses the existing rules just halves the distance, and those with it benefit from the dimlight to 40' from a torch etc. It makes humans less bad as more races can use light instead of functioning well without it.
Still wouldn't use this. It makes sense, it's balanced, but it adds complexity, and is not worth that. YMMV.


Well, being next to someone everyround is something you would generally like to avoid so I'd rarely expect to see it employed that often. Maybe for a flavor point it could equate to hitting them with your bow etc. It probably should have Finesse, but it feels somewhat flavorful to shoot an arrow at them, smack them with your bow, then dart out of their reach. Without it, I felt the feat was lacking something to make it special and a low damage bonus action attack has quite a bit of precedence. You could make the same argument against PAM.
No, it's not really the same as PAM, because ramming someone with the blunt end of a polearm makes a lot more sense than wacking them with a bow. You're more likely to damage your bow than you are to actuall deal damage. I'd still recommend coming up with something else.


I changed the nonfunctioning rule that was present by making it do something and adding a larger creature has advantage when escaping a grapple.I don't know what that means.


Well, Keen Mind wasn't really a powerhouse feat to begin with and needs something to give it a bit more oomph. Also, this interacts with my chances to Ability checks and isn't quite as swingy as you are thinking. Without expertise we are still talking about a 20 Inch character in the range of 9-31 throughout their career. This will mean they occasionally hit a DC 20 instead of a DC15 or a DC 25 instead of a 20, it isn't going to break the game and is only as powerful as each DM makes it with pertinent information.Still think this is way, way too much. You too Resilience (Intelligence) and added a LOT. Now, I'll grant you that Resilience (Intelligence) is not a great feat, but it's bad feat design to completely obsolete one feat with another. At the very least, remove the proficiency in intelligence saving throws.


I mean there already exists the rule for spending 250gp and 250 days to learn a language, this costs a feat and is thematically appropriate. I don't really see how this would "break" a campaign as any such campaign would require some way to learn said languages. This still has to make sense story wise etc.Learning a language in 3 days would never make sense story wise. It's not going to "break" anything, no, but it's silly. Maybe change it so that you learn the very basics in 3 days, and more after that?


It still requires Dex16 for a character that likely isn't maxing dex and is at most a secondary stat. +1 Dex, +1 AC(if Dex 16), and no Disadvantage on Stealth is appropraite as +1 AC is roughly half a feat, +1 Dex is roughly half a feat, and no Disadvantage on Stealth is less than half a feat. Essentially I discount the +1AC due to the Dex Requirement making it and the no Disadvantage on Stealth equal to roughly half a feat. It may fall into the better than average side feat, but it isn't broken.Okay, I can agree that this is just "better than average" and not broken.


This was my original plan, but the math just doesn't work out. PAM is too good, removing the +Str to offhand reduces the amount of damage the feat puts out by a reasonable amount and reduces just how amazingly good the feat is.True, but if it requires Two-Weapon Fighting Style to get that bonus then they're giving up a different style. Doesn't matter much, though.


Silly? I don't think so. It covers the concept of people who are so arrogant and confident in their safety they walk through harm with nothing between them and harm but their wry smile. Or the guy who isn't amazingly agile but chooses to make you miss with his eyes instead. The guys whose body language is always misread. The guy that look just too scary to attack without reservation etc.It's thematically silly, and it makes AC generic. What 5e doesn't need is a way to get your AC based on any of your stats. Such feats just make stats more and more generic, rather than actually representing different things about a character. More ways to make a character SAD just promote this genericism.


Mechanically it is sound, it isn't boosting AC by 3, for most of the game it is spending a Feat on a +1 Cha and a +1 or +2 AC. It can be optimized to grant +2 AC most of the game but isn't much better than simply spending a feat on Medium Armor for a Lore Bard. I mean a 14 Dex Lore Bard has AC 14 in Studded Leathor, picking up Moderately Armored for Medium Armor Prof gives him AC 17/19 with Half Plate and maybe a shield. A 16 or 18 Charisma Lor Bard only nets AC 15 or AC 16 with Powerful Persona.
Assuming your GM doesn't use advanced encumbrance rules, I'll grant that they will net about the same change in AC. I think there is an important factor you are forgetting, though. The stat boost that medium armor proficiency is either strength or dex. The charisma boost is inherently more important to most bards. You can't treat every +1 stat as "half a feat" for balance reasons; it matters what they are coupled with. A +1 to a primary casting stat that also boosts your AC by a bunch is MUCH better for a caster than a +1 to a physical stat that also boosts your AC.


No one was taking Skilled before, I made it a half feat. Essentially you are overvalueing Skill Profs.I think you run the risk of undervaluing skills by making them incredibly common, but this is not a major sticking point.


It really isn't overpowered in anymeaningful way, considering that little changed that isn't already accessible with the Int changes.Yeah, I withdraw my unease about this one.

I'll see about the rest.

[Kane0]

I'd like to see the fighter's indomitable ability become short-rest based.

Other than that, everything looks good.

[rudy]

Some new feats I overlooked (I thought at first all the new stuff was bolded, but I see that was just for changes to old stuff).

Dueling Master: I'm having trouble imagining a build that would want to spend a feat on this, to be honest. This is most optimally used with a longsword. Assuming they can use two-hands for their primary attacks, and switch to one-hand for their bonus attack (which RAW the feat seems to allow), that gives them 2d10+1d8 damage = 15.5 average. Meanwhile, they could be using a 2d6 weapon for 4d6 = 14 average. Not clear that a feat is worth 1.5 damage a round and +1 ac, though maybe I'm missing something.

Intuitive Defense: Same issues with the charisma AC one. Seems WAY too powerful for a druid, presuming this ac applies to their wild shape form.

Tactician: Same, though this is slightly less of a concern due to Mage Armor.

Thrown Weapon Expert: I dislike this mainly because of the fact that thrown weapons can use strength for attack rolls. Someone with an 8 Dex should not be able to gracefully throw a trident 60 feet to zoom past his buddy's head by inches to hit the ogre his buddy is fighting. For this and balance, I think that "free action" drawing should be limited to light/finesse thrown weapons as well. Really this entire feat should be limited to such. Even if you disagree with all of that, your current wording does not allow the use of a thrown dart with your bonus action, because it is "finesse" and not "light". I presume that was not your intention.

Volatile Spellcaster is... maybe okay. It seems powerful, because the "restriction" of 5% chance of exhaustion is not very threatening. It's essentially +1 damage per die of a spell. For one example, a 30% increase in the damage from fireball. On the other hand, this is a feat, and it's the only thing it's granting, so it might be okay.

Okay, that's the feats. The only thing I'm not sure about I haven't commented on is Expertise; i'm going to wait until I get to reviewing your Variant Rules section, which I really should have evaluated first.

[rudy]

Evaluation of Variant Rules:

I really like the 2d10 thing for ability checks. I think for my own games I will change this, though, so that only ability checks you are proficient in use 2d10. It is a way to represent the greater stability of a skilled practitioner, rather than the wild attempts of the untrained. I also don't want to normalize things like Counterspell to a bell curve.

I don't like your shortening of the timespan of Short Rest. I would personally make the Breather (which is a nice idea) take five minutes, and leave the short rest as is. I just don't like the "quick, recharge!" aspect of it all. Takes me even further out of realism.

I do like the change to Long Rest. That full healing doesn't sit well with me.

Resting in ARmor change: good.

Flanking change: I prefer the advantage system for this.

Threatened space: eeeehhhhh. It makes sense, I'll grant, I'm just not sure I would want to complicate combat more than needed.

Ranged Attacks into Close Combat: Isn't this already in there? That you can have cover from creatures next to you?

Grappling: no comment; I don't understand or care enough about grappling to try to evaluate this balance.

Charge: I like the fact that this isn't a feat any more, but I think +5 damage is too much, especially at lower levels, given that anyone can do it. Recommend cutting it to +2, OR, say "add your ability modifier twice" to make it scale a bit.

Two-Weapon Fighting: hmm... this runs the risk of making two-weapon fighting *too* good, I feel. Would suggest changing the Two-Weapon Fighting fighter style so that it only lets you add your ability modifier to one attack with your off hand?

Character Creation Points: Wouldn't employ this myself, because I don't like encouraging min-maxers to dump their INT or other things to 6. Of course, I'd have fun taking advantage of the fact that their character is an idiot, and having NPCs fleece them.

Expertise: Even though it's not in this section, I consider this a Variant Rule. I strongly dislike this change. Expertise was so nice because it allows those who have it to achieve things that others cannot. That's no longer true; now it just makes them more reliable. Reliable is nice, but it's also boring. This trades epicness for reliability. Do I understand correctly that making Expertise just grant another die affects the Rogue/Bard expertise as well?

Next: Classes

[Zman]

I keep getting a bad ID whenever I try to view this. I'm just clicking your link, but Homebrewery returns a blank page. Tried changing "share" to "edit" and it says no such Homebrew exists.

Can anyone else confirm, just checked it from my tablet and it worked. Otherwise the 1.1 in the spoiler has just about everything and the change log summarizes anything else.


Coming back to this after all. Sorry if I was snarky earlier; my bad.

W local,e back and all is forgiven.



I had actually missed the fact when I first read it that half had to be tool proficiencies. I actually withdraw my objection to this one.


No worries and an easy mistake to make. If it makes you feel better I originally didn't have that clause and got significant pushback and was convinced to forced the half tool Proficiemcy rule and reduce Wizard Skills by one.




Still wouldn't use this. It makes sense, it's balanced, but it adds complexity, and is not worth that. YMMV.


Yeah, I went back and forth, but see almost every race having full Darkvision problematic for any party with a Human. I almost wonder if adding LowLight Vision would have been better so few races could truly see in the dark.




No, it's not really the same as PAM, because ramming someone with the blunt end of a polearm makes a lot more sense than wacking them with a bow. You're more likely to damage your bow than you are to actuall deal damage. I'd still recommend coming up with something else.


Mechanically similar to PAM, plus PAM doesn't make any real word Polearm fighting sense either,mat least not every round. Any suggestions for something else that would keep the feat balanced and worth it's cost?



I don't know what that means.


The last line of Grappler is meaningless as its purpose was removed from he game, I added a rule to Grappling that gave larger creatures advantage to escape a grapple, and changed the no functioning rule to something that worked against Large creatures.



Still think this is way, way too much. You too Resilience (Intelligence) and added a LOT. Now, I'll grant you that Resilience (Intelligence) is not a great feat, but it's bad feat design to completely obsolete one feat with another. At the very least, remove the proficiency in intelligence saving throws.


It does not grant Proficiency to Int saves, it adds Advantage, so they are different. Int Saves are the least used saves in the game and there is presidency with Warcaster. Sure, it is better than Resilient Int, but Resilient Int is a bad feat that can't be addressed without changing Resilient in general. Yeah,mots better than Resilient Int, but is it too good? I don't think so as Int saves are unbelievably rare, and most of the trimmings are just ribbons are more or less irrelevant DM dependent.



Learning a language in 3 days would never make sense story wise. It's not going to "break" anything, no, but it's silly. Maybe change it so that you learn the very basics in 3 days, and more after that?


I wanted to add a finite amount of time to avoid unecessary DM adjudication and I felt it fit the natural Linguist Archtype, think the Comms officer from Enterprise who could pick up the basics of a language with minimal exposure and be passable in speaking the language quite quickly. Would a week be better than three days? IMO this again falls into the territory of DM dependent as the DM can deem the exposure insufficient and make it longer etc and usually such things will be handwaived downtime i.e. "After nearly a week with the Dwarven caravan you've picked up the Dwarven tongue, you accent is thick but your grasp of the language functional..."



Okay, I can agree that this is just "better than average" and not broken.


And AC for Medium Armor maxes out at 18 with the feat and requires 16 Dex as a Sexondary Stat. I mean, it isn't better than a 20 Dex Primary stat and Light Armor Master and worse than Heavy Armor Master and a 12 Dex.



True, but if it requires Two-Weapon Fighting Style to get that bonus then they're giving up a different style. Doesn't matter much, though.


I originally wrote that in, but the math bothered me, and I included a way to get easy access to fighting styles with a feat. It's a small difference, but the big thing was removing Heavy from the haft attack.



It's thematically silly, and it makes AC generic. What 5e doesn't need is a way to get your AC based on any of your stats. Such feats just make stats more and more generic, rather than actually representing different things about a character. More ways to make a character SAD just promote this genericism.


I understand this concern, but it doesn't make them SAD, it makes the DAD needing Dex and a Mental Stat. Maxing AC in this fashion requires a feat and four ASIs. Sure, the Wizard can take Tactician, and then one or two more ASIs for Int and then two or three ASIs for Dex, but that means they didn't take Warcaster or Volatile SpellCaster, or Spellslinger, or Spell Savant, or Resilient Con. Wizard could just as easily gotten gotten better AC with a fighter Dip, or even spending two feats for Lightly Armored and Moderately Armored, start game with 12 Dex and end up with AC 17/19 or just dipped Protection Fighter at 1st for AC19/21. As I showed earlier, getting competitive AC is easy with either a dip or a Feat, and the AC bonus isn't massive. If a character wants to be SAD, they still face the opportunity cost in a feat and it does make some character concepts more viable, day Unarmored cleric armored in Wisdom and a Faith, or does every Priest need armor? Sure, Armor is easier, but Intuitive Defense means we don't need to dip Monk and get things that don't make sense to make the concept work. You say silly, I say that is subjective and your opinion.




Assuming your GM doesn't use advanced encumbrance rules, I'll grant that they will net about the same change in AC. I think there is an important factor you are forgetting, though. The stat boost that medium armor proficiency is either strength or dex. The charisma boost is inherently more important to most bards. You can't treat every +1 stat as "half a feat" for balance reasons; it matters what they are coupled with. A +1 to a primary casting stat that also boosts your AC by a bunch is MUCH better for a caster than a +1 to a physical stat that also boosts your AC.


Yeah, that is one potential problem. Feats are inherently more valuable for one character than another, that +1 Str or Dex is great for a fighter etc. Yes, the Bard can benefit from that +1, but thanks to bounded accuracy and limiting stats to 20 it makes at most a momentary difference. Sure, under my fixes any race with a +1 to Charisma could optimize and start with an 18 after a half feat, but that comes with opportunity cost. Is that AC and 18 Cha worth the secondary stats and feat opportunity cost like Warcaster? Or the Con for HP and Con Saves, or the Int for an extra Peoficiency or two, or the Wisdom for saves, or even Dex reducing the AC Bonus. I don't treat every +1 as equal, but just because they aren't equal for a single class, doesn't make them not balanced overall. Is this much difference then Heavy Armor Master and its +1 Str for a fighter at the opportunity cost of GWM?



I think you run the risk of undervaluing skills by making them incredibly common, but this is not a major sticking point.


Fair point, and I certainly was Leone to that trap prior to the Int changes. But, I didn't let skilled give any additinal peoficiencies, just gave it a half feat. I had never heard of Skilled being taken in stock 5e except when a guy was trying to maximize skills with a Lore Bard and Rogue for more expertise.



Yeah, I withdraw my unease about this one.

I'll see about the rest.

Thanks for the discussion. I am definitely slight uneasy about my AC feats, but everytime I break it down I don't see them as overpowered or doing more than can be done ease where.


I'd like to see the fighter's indomitable ability become short-rest based.

Other than that, everything looks good.

That is a good idea. I may just do that, as a once a day it's a bit lackluster as most fighters are only going to be proficient in Str and Con and really susceptible to Wisdom.

[Sabeta]

I'm going to go through and critique races, as they're one of the easiest things to balance and understand. Each race can be mathmatically broken down by comparing everything to ASI's. Basically, an ASI is worth 1 point, minor class features are worth half a point, and major ones can be worth as much as 2 points. I'm using this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ViqLSEN67mmd2Lo_OJ-H5YX0fccsfI97kFaqx7V1Dmw/edit#heading=h.7audh45g2zwq) as a baseline, but I do disagree with some of what he says. (He massively undervalues wings and flying for example, because his own homebrew has wings make you large while flying for special logistics: ie, no flying in cramped caves because you suddenly become "large")

Dwarf and Elf are the MOST powerful race outside of specific brands of V.Human. They have half a dozen minor benefits which add up when compared to other races. I mean, Hill Dwarf's +1 HP/Level feature is something not shared by any other race, and is easily comparable to a point of constitution. (only one point because the HP bonus isn't granting you bonuses towards con saves/checks) Elves also get Fey Ancestry, Trance, and Free Cantrips. Needless to say, it seems silly to me that you would nerf Half-Elf before either of these two. If we assume that an average score is "Six", then Dwarf, Elf, and Half-Elf all need nerfs. Dragonborn and halfling need buffs. Although Human technically hits a perfect 6, I would argue it too needs reworking to be truly balanced. The rest are either fine, or close enough to fine that any changes to them might tip them too hard in one direction.

Dwarves score a 6.5-7. Most of it comes from .5 abilities, and unfortunately a lot of them are flavorful, but not mandatory.
-Dwarven Resilience (.5)
-Weapon Proficiencies (.5)

Elves are slightly better. They score 7-7.5.
-Weapon Proficiencies (.5)
-Perception Proficiency (1) (Note: I rate this higher than the Redditor because of how useful Perception is for literally everything)

Half-Elf are just barely above the benchmark (6.5), I would be content to leave them alone, but let's bring them inline a little bit.
-ASI Decrease (Take away one ASI, this puts them below the curve thought)
OR
-Skill Proficiencies (If you take away both this puts them behind the curve, but I feel still holds up well regardless)

I honestly don't like your home-brewed Inferior Darkvision. That's just not how genetics works. Blended Inheritance is a thing, but primarily affects various color palettes or epigenetic information.

Half-Orc and Non-Variant Tieflings are both 5.5, but I feel like the Orc's Extra Crit and Tieflings Fire Resistance more than make up that half point difference. I'm leaving them unchanged.

I would give Humans 2 +2s, 2 tool proficiencies, and 2 common languages.

I've never used a Dragon, I honestly feel like they're out of place. Though I also felt like Argonians are out of place in the world of Elder Scrolls. I won't comment on their balance.

Halflings are equally underpowered (Score 5, as I rate Lucky higher than Redditor). A Tool and Language of their choice rounds them out.

[rudy]

Classes

Barbarian:
Not really a "change", but for Path of the Berserker, you should make sure it's clear that since each attack is "Reckless", attacks on the Barbarian are all at advantage.

Bear Nerf: Good; needed.

Druid
I don't understand the point of the first bullet point. Can't druids already just expend a use of wildshape to switch to a different form.
As for the second, not sure if the boost was needed, but it doesn't seem especially problematic.

AC boost for combat wild shape is too much. Adding to AC is an especially bad idea, due to it stacking with other things. Note how carefully most classes avoid doing that. I'd suggest "Your AC cannot be lower than 10 + constitution modifier + dexterity modifier while in wildshape form".

Fighter
Archery change: This may actually be *more* powerful than the base Archery at low levels, considering how low damage is, but it's more flavorful than the +2 to attack, at least.

I don't like the fact that sword-and-board now has no way to benefit their attacks. It may be balanced, though, unsure.

Great Weapon Fighting seems more balanced between 1d12 and 2d6, now. Assuming you re-roll anything below average, which is best, you get 1d12 goes from 6.5 to 8, and 2d6 goes from 7 to 8.5. Nice job on equalizing those.

Monk
I really don't think the base Monk needs that many boosts. Another ASI AND another extra attack seems like major overkill. It's already a very viable class, just not a primary damage dealer, which it's not supposed to be. I could maybe accept one of those two, but both is way beyond. Only thing about Monks that really needs boosting is the Way of Four Elements.

Paladin
Divine Smite: I don't know paladin balance well enough to comment on this intelligently. It's a minor buff, in any case.

Ranger
I'm leery about the Beast Master changes being too much, though I know the base ones are sub-par. Can't say more than that.

Sorcerer

I don't think you thought about the fact that since your short rests are only 5 minutes, a sorcerer can get back 24 sorcery points in an hour. You can't have characters able to recover resources unlimitedly during short rests if you have 5 minute short rests.

Your rewording of "Wild Magic Surge" makes it sound like it's optional. If that's your intent, then that makes for a duller world. If it's not your intent, you should clarify that.

Warlock

I don't understand the warlock well enough to comment at this time..

Wizard
Ok.

[Zman]

Some new feats I overlooked (I thought at first all the new stuff was bolded, but I see that was just for changes to old stuff).


No worries, bear with the giant txt blocks.



Dueling Master: I'm having trouble imagining a build that would want to spend a feat on this, to be honest. This is most optimally used with a longsword. Assuming they can use two-hands for their primary attacks, and switch to one-hand for their bonus attack (which RAW the feat seems to allow), that gives them 2d10+1d8 damage = 15.5 average. Meanwhile, they could be using a 2d6 weapon for 4d6 = 14 average. Not clear that a feat is worth 1.5 damage a round and +1 ac, though maybe I'm missing something.


Actually, I had to add the one handed restriction to the bonus attack because mathematically it was ending up too good and shouldn't have been better than a Greatweapon. Basically a Dueling Longsword was equallaing a GWF Greatsword. I have my massive spreadsheet nearing a point I can share it and it shows how it stacks up with the likes of PAM or GWM. Also, Paladins and Rogues make good use of it. +1AC is a half feat, the bonus action attack is a half feat.



Intuitive Defense: Same issues with the charisma AC one. Seems WAY too powerful for a druid, presuming this ac applies to their wild shape form.


Druid's Wildshape AC is increased, but still caps 20. As it is a new AC equation you ignore creature natural armor. Likely it'd often be a wasted feat especially late game. I've run the math with a monk dip, and it was underwhelming for a Druid.



Tactician: Same, though this is slightly less of a concern due to Mage Armor.


Yep, but Mage Armor is available to Warlock's, and a bard could just pick it up or get it with Magic Initiate from Sorcerer along with attack Cantrips.



Thrown Weapon Expert: I dislike this mainly because of the fact that thrown weapons can use strength for attack rolls. Someone with an 8 Dex should not be able to gracefully throw a trident 60 feet to zoom past his buddy's head by inches to hit the ogre his buddy is fighting. For this and balance, I think that "free action" drawing should be limited to light/finesse thrown weapons as well. Really this entire feat should be limited to such. Even if you disagree with all of that, your current wording does not allow the use of a thrown dart with your bonus action, because it is "finesse" and not "light". I presume that was not your intention.


I'll double check my wording to make sure it makes sense. Sure, he is an 8dex fighter but he is a Thrown Weapon Expert in spite of his lack of natural Dex, haha. Actually, your described scenario sounds pretty awesome and is one I'm trying to create. The draw multiple thrown weapons was intentional, I see a Fighter grabbing a handful of javelins and whipping them out reasonable as far as dnd goes.

Should read Finnesse or Light.



Volatile Spellcaster is... maybe okay. It seems powerful, because the "restriction" of 5% chance of exhaustion is not very threatening. It's essentially +1 damage per die of a spell. For one example, a 30% increase in the damage from fireball. On the other hand, this is a feat, and it's the only thing it's granting, so it might be okay.


Yep, as a damage boost for Cantrips it is fairly weak, it's occasionally spectacular, occasionally a laiability, and averages +1 Damage per die. So Fireball hits at 35 not 27 and has a chance for an additional 2d8 and a chance for exhaustion. Given my 0p causes exhaustion it is more common and could be debilitating with a string of bad luck.



Okay, that's the feats. The only thing I'm not sure about I haven't commented on is Expertise; i'm going to wait until I get to reviewing your Variant Rules section, which I really should have evaluated first.


Evaluation of Variant Rules:

I really like the 2d10 thing for ability checks. I think for my own games I will change this, though, so that only ability checks you are proficient in use 2d10. It is a way to represent the greater stability of a skilled practitioner, rather than the wild attempts of the untrained. I also don't want to normalize things like Counterspell to a bell curve.


I think the curve is beneficial in all of those scenarios and so far has been excellent at reducing the stinginess of he die overpowering ability, proficiency or even expertise. Give it a try and see what you think.



I don't like your shortening of the timespan of Short Rest. I would personally make the Breather (which is a nice idea) take five minutes, and leave the short rest as is. I just don't like the "quick, recharge!" aspect of it all. Takes me even further out of realism.


This is preference, I found it implausible to ever be short resting in a dungeon etc, the lack of short rests on multi encounter days penalized short rest classes and made long rest classes too good. It isn't quick recharge for anyone that isn't supposed to quick recharge. For me, it enhances vermisilitude rather than ruins it. It makes zero sense for me for a party to rest for a whole hour in a dungeon, and if they can't, the games assumptions t rest and long rest classes breaks down.



I do like the change to Long Rest. That full healing doesn't sit well with me.


Never did for me, it also helps to balance out the short rest changes. Day after day of encounters means characters aren't at full hit dice and need to ration that healing.



Resting in ARmor change: good.


Glad you approve, it was a late addition. I originally was looking at a scaling DC, this was simple and easy.



Flanking change: I prefer the advantage system for this.


The Advantage system is mechanically broken and destabilizes the game and undervalues many features, i.e. A Barbarian's Reckless attack or a Wolves Pact a Tactics. It makes advantage too easy to get and ruins the feel of combat IMO with constant shuffling for Advantage.



Threatened space: eeeehhhhh. It makes sense, I'll grant, I'm just not sure I would want to complicate combat more than needed.


Wi h any kind of flanking,me specially advantage flanking easy movement around a creature makes auto flanking very common.



Ranged Attacks into Close Combat: Isn't this already in there? That you can have cover from creatures next to you?


Only when they block you unless I'm mistaken.



Grappling: no comment; I don't understand or care enough about grappling to try to evaluate this balance.


Fair enough.



Charge: I like the fact that this isn't a feat any more, but I think +5 damage is too much, especially at lower levels, given that anyone can do it. Recommend cutting it to +2, OR, say "add your ability modifier twice" to make it scale a bit.


It fixes some of the problems with kiting, and it does make early levels a bit more exciting, but should only be happening at th clash. It could easily remove the damage bonus, I kept it as it was in the original feat and by level five deals less damage than standard actions.



Two-Weapon Fighting: hmm... this runs the risk of making two-weapon fighting *too* good, I feel. Would suggest changing the Two-Weapon Fighting fighter style so that it only lets you add your ability modifier to one attack with your off hand?


Once the spreadsheet is done you can see for yourself. It fixes TWF's weakness and is pretty balanced. Only one that gives me pause is if a Oaladin takes feats for TWF and Dual Wielder and hits level 11, otherwise it's solid and fits in its place as a solid damage dealing option.



Character Creation Points: Wouldn't employ this myself, because I don't like encouraging min-maxers to dump their INT or other things to 6. Of course, I'd have fun taking advantage of the fact that their character is an idiot, and having NPCs fleece them.


Sure, and most Dams will ore this first, I put it in as an option. I have also used a 15-10 array, but it's less flexible.



Expertise: Even though it's not in this section, I consider this a Variant Rule. I strongly dislike this change. Expertise was so nice because it allows those who have it to achieve things that others cannot. That's no longer true; now it just makes them more reliable. Reliable is nice, but it's also boring. This trades epicness for reliability. Do I understand correctly that making Expertise just grant another die affects the Rogue/Bard expertise as well?

Next: Classes

Expertise is now unchanged. It was only changed originally before I chose to be heavy handed and fixed the whole ability check system.

[rudy]

Mechanically similar to PAM, plus PAM doesn't make any real word Polearm fighting sense either,mat least not every round. Any suggestions for something else that would keep the feat balanced and worth it's cost?It's a bit dull, but I'd just give them +1 to attacks within 30 feet. It's in line with the weapon feats in Unearthed Arcana.


Yeah,mots better than Resilient Int, but is it too good?
Yes. You're giving them advantage on History, Nature, Religion, Arcana and a significant portion of Investigation checks. Four or five skills. Compare that to the Expertise feat. You're giving them advantage on int saving throws. Not common, but it's something. You're giving them a bunch of useful if not powerful features on top of that (well, the last one at least). And then you're saying all of that is worth half a feat by adding +1 to an ability score on top of it. You may disagree, but this is the single most overpowered thing in your rules.


Would a week be better than three days?I would personally word it as something like "You can learn a new language after a week of constant exposure". This leaves it open to DMs to decide how long it will take if the exposure is not constant. As it is currently written, they could study some books for a couple hours each night for three days.


I originally wrote that in, but the math bothered me, and I included a way to get easy access to fighting styles with a feat. It's a small difference, but the big thing was removing Heavy from the haft attack.
Not a big deal; the extra complexity is probably not worth it anyway.


I understand this concern, but it doesn't make them SAD... Is this much difference then Heavy Armor Master and its +1 Str for a fighter at the opportunity cost of GWM?
I'm afraid I don't understand the last comparison. I still believe they are overpowered, but the bigger problem is how generic they are, letting people base their ac on whatever stat that they like. That's ultimately why I wouldn't use them. I'm sure others will enjoy them.


Fair point, and I certainly was Leone to that trap prior to the Int changes. But, I didn't let skilled give any additinal peoficiencies, just gave it a half feat. I had never heard of Skilled being taken in stock 5e except when a guy was trying to maximize skills with a Lore Bard and Rogue for more expertise.
I'm certainly not arguing that the original feat was good, but I don't think it's the equivalent of half a feat, hence my suggestion for +1 stat, and 2 skills.

[rudy]

Expertise is now unchanged. It was only changed originally before I chose to be heavy handed and fixed the whole ability check system.
Did you leave it changed in the Expertise feat intentionally, then, or is that an artifact that you forgot to change?

[Zman]

I'm going to go through and critique races, as they're one of the easiest things to balance and understand. Each race can be mathmatically broken down by comparing everything to ASI's. Basically, an ASI is worth 1 point, minor class features are worth half a point, and major ones can be worth as much as 2 points. I'm using this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ViqLSEN67mmd2Lo_OJ-H5YX0fccsfI97kFaqx7V1Dmw/edit#heading=h.7audh45g2zwq) as a baseline, but I do disagree with some of what he says. (He massively undervalues wings and flying for example, because his own homebrew has wings make you large while flying for special logistics: ie, no flying in cramped caves because you suddenly become "large")

Dwarf and Elf are the MOST powerful race outside of specific brands of V.Human. They have half a dozen minor benefits which add up when compared to other races. I mean, Hill Dwarf's +1 HP/Level feature is something not shared by any other race, and is easily comparable to a point of constitution. (only one point because the HP bonus isn't granting you bonuses towards con saves/checks) Elves also get Fey Ancestry, Trance, and Free Cantrips. Needless to say, it seems silly to me that you would nerf Half-Elf before either of these two. If we assume that an average score is "Six", then Dwarf, Elf, and Half-Elf all need nerfs. Dragonborn and halfling need buffs. Although Human technically hits a perfect 6, I would argue it too needs reworking to be truly balanced. The rest are either fine, or close enough to fine that any changes to them might tip them too hard in one direction.

Dwarves score a 6.5-7. Most of it comes from .5 abilities, and unfortunately a lot of them are flavorful, but not mandatory.
-Dwarven Resilience (.5)
-Weapon Proficiencies (.5)

Elves are slightly better. They score 7-7.5.
-Weapon Proficiencies (.5)
-Perception Proficiency (1) (Note: I rate this higher than the Redditor because of how useful Perception is for literally everything)

Half-Elf are just barely above the benchmark (6.5), I would be content to leave them alone, but let's bring them inline a little bit.
-ASI Decrease (Take away one ASI, this puts them below the curve thought)
OR
-Skill Proficiencies (If you take away both this puts them behind the curve, but I feel still holds up well regardless)

I honestly don't like your home-brewed Inferior Darkvision. That's just not how genetics works. Blended Inheritance is a thing, but primarily affects various color palettes or epigenetic information.

Half-Orc and Non-Variant Tieflings are both 5.5, but I feel like the Orc's Extra Crit and Tieflings Fire Resistance more than make up that half point difference. I'm leaving them unchanged.

I would give Humans 2 +2s, 2 tool proficiencies, and 2 common languages.

I've never used a Dragon, I honestly feel like they're out of place. Though I also felt like Argonians are out of place in the world of Elder Scrolls. I won't comment on their balance.

Halflings are equally underpowered (Score 5, as I rate Lucky higher than Redditor). A Tool and Language of their choice rounds them out.

I disagree with how those Minor and Major traits are valued and find the entire idea of balancing the races this way a poor place to start. I'll likely comment much more tomorrow as I don't really have time.


Classes

Barbarian:
Not really a "change", but for Path of the Berserker, you should make sure it's clear that since each attack is "Reckless", attacks on the Barbarian are all at advantage.


While Frwnzied, yes. Frenzy is limited to three dimes a day with the two rest adventuring day restrictions.



Bear Nerf: Good; needed.


Yep, and makes sense as soul burn or soul rot isn't easily resisted.



Druid
I don't understand the point of the first bullet point. Can't druids already just expend a use of wildshape to switch to a different form.
As for the second, not sure if the boost was needed, but it doesn't seem especially problematic.

AC boost for combat wild shape is too much. Adding to AC is an especially bad idea, due to it stacking with other things. Note how carefully most classes avoid doing that. I'd suggest "Your AC cannot be lower than 10 + constitution modifier + dexterity modifier while in wildshape form".


Clarifying their ability to change and forcing them back to normal form till the next turn unless extending the same form.

Boost? This removes the infinite Moon Druid problem as they are lower Car forms and now they have to come back to their starting form before changing. No more infinite HP.

AC is capped at 20, what form is so Problematic? Moon Druids have weaker forms through low levels balancing their power,mother boost to damage and AC mean their forms are more useful throughout the game.





Fighter
Archery change: This may actually be *more* powerful than the base Archery at low levels, considering how low damage is, but it's more flavorful than the +2 to attack, at least.


It is slightly better for DPR, but doesn't combine nearly as powerfully with Sharpshooter. Probably unecessary with Sharpshooter changes.



I don't like the fact that sword-and-board now has no way to benefit their attacks. It may be balanced, though, unsure.


Did not remove Dueling from affecting Sword and Board.



Great Weapon Fighting seems more balanced between 1d12 and 2d6, now. Assuming you re-roll anything below average, which is best, you get 1d12 goes from 6.5 to 8, and 2d6 goes from 7 to 8.5. Nice job on equalizing those.


Yep, vastly superior to stock GWF.



Monk
I really don't think the base Monk needs that many boosts. Another ASI AND another extra attack seems like major overkill. It's already a very viable class, just not a primary damage dealer, which it's not supposed to be. I could maybe accept one of those two, but both is way beyond. Only thing about Monks that really needs boosting is the Way of Four Elements.


I can show you the math, extra attack was desperately needed at 11th, also Monk DPR is highly dependent on its Bonus Action and Ki. Plus, Stunning Steik now isn't spam able, without it Monk was not even competent at damage. Now,mad a MAD class it fits much better. Monk does well at low levels which are unaffected.



Paladin
Divine Smite: I don't know paladin balance well enough to comment on this intelligently. It's a minor buff, in any case.


It's minor, and why not. I originally had language to avoid using Multiclass spell slots for Smite but was convinced it isn't a balance issue after all, just my bias.



Ranger
I'm leery about the Beast Master changes being too much, though I know the base ones are sub-par. Can't say more than that.


Still haven't fully analyzed this change but so far it looks solid, and avoids the terrible levels 3 and 4 where the Beastmaster is a cheerleader. Also, bonus action opportunity cost is the name of the new Beast Master.



Sorcerer

I don't think you thought about the fact that since your short rests are only 5 minutes, a sorcerer can get back 24 sorcery points in an hour. You can't have characters able to recover resources unlimitedly during short rests if you have 5 minute short rests.

Your rewording of "Wild Magic Surge" makes it sound like it's optional. If that's your intent, then that makes for a duller world. If it's not your intent, you should clarify that.


Ahh, there is a defacto limit of 2 short rests per day. I'm not sure if it's hard coded, but infinite short rests like this isn't part of the game.

...Actually, DMG pg 84 makes 2 Short Rests standard, that needs to be hard coded as a max of 2 Short Rests per day, so any problem you've had that involved infinite short rests isn't going to be right. I actually though it was heavily emphasized as two short rests per day.



Warlock

I don't understand the warlock well enough to comment at this time..

Wizard
Ok.

[rudy]

Not really a "change", but for Path of the Berserker, you should make sure it's clear that since each attack is "Reckless", attacks on the Barbarian are all at advantage.
Thought of a way to word this more elegantly: "While in a frenzy, if you attack on your turn you must choose to use Reckless Attack."

[Zman]

Did you leave it changed in the Expertise feat intentionally, then, or is that an artifact that you forgot to change?

Yep, that is an artifact that never got corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.

[rudy]

AC is capped at 20, what form is so Problematic?
It's problematic because it makes it way too easy to get to 20 AC very early. Throw in a level of monk, or grab the wisdom AC feat, and you can have 20 AC by level 4, at the latest. This is why all class features that grant significant boosts to AC do not give a straight plus to AC. Instead, they give you a base AC. Just as Monk doesn't "add wisdom to AC", you should not "add your proficiency modifier to AC". At the very least, change it to "Your AC cannot be lower than 10 + your proficiency modifier + your dexterity modifier". Stacking is a bad idea, and something that's avoided in 5e for very good reason.


Did not remove Dueling from affecting Sword and Board.
oops; misread.


I can show you the math
Monks are not a DPR class. They are a lockdown class, a mobility class, a "set up your buddy to knock 'em down class". You can't evaluate the value of a monk with DPR analysis alone.


Ahh, there is a defacto limit of 2 short rests per day. I'm not sure if it's hard coded, but infinite short rests like this isn't part of the game.

...Actually, DMG pg 84 makes 2 Short Rests standard, that needs to be hard coded as a max of 2 Short Rests per day, so any problem you've had that involved infinite short rests isn't going to be right. I actually though it was heavily emphasized as two short rests per day.
Yeah, that's just a "suggestion", and there is no mention of a limit of any kind in the PHB. If you make that a "rule", it's fine, but then it becomes odd that they can only have two five-minute breaks per day... It might actually be more elegant for your system to make the rule: "You cannot benefit from more than one short rest per hour". This then limits it as much as the original system did.

[rudy]

You know, Zman, something was confusing me about your flanking, and I finally figured it out.

You say "change grants advantage to +1...". But flanking doesn't do *anything* by vanilla RAW. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "change".

[Zman]

Thought of a way to word this more elegantly: "While in a frenzy, if you attack on your turn you must choose to use Reckless Attack."

Is it that confusing? I'll look at the wording.


It's problematic because it makes it way too easy to get to 20 AC very early. Throw in a level of monk, or grab the wisdom AC feat, and you can have 20 AC by level 4, at the latest. This is why all class features that grant significant boosts to AC do not give a straight plus to AC. Instead, they give you a base AC. Just as Monk doesn't "add wisdom to AC", you should not "add your proficiency modifier to AC". At the very least, change it to "Your AC cannot be lower than 10 + your proficiency modifier + your dexterity modifier". Stacking is a bad idea, and something that's avoided in 5e for very good reason.


Level 4 at the latest? I believe using a few very specific forms and optimizing to the extreme to hit WIS 20 at 4th level it is possible to hit AC20, most often in that situation you'll have AC18 or AC19 instead. But, now the Moon Druid has their forms reduced not hitting CR 1 till 4th, and not CR2 till 6th, has more restrictions on changing shape.

Yes, stacking is bad, but this does not bread bounded accuracy, and this isn't much different than a Beastmaster's beast getting such bonuses to their animal companion. Precedence is there, though a BMs AC doesn't have accesses to a Monk a Dip or Wis AC feat...

Yes, a Druid can optimize AC while Wild Shaped, and this extra AC is critical mid to late game when Wild Shape becomes terrible.

10+Dex+Prof is probably better, but isn't perfect. Anything that relies on natural armor becomes effectively worse while Dex creatures get a boost. I'll have to look at the forms more closely to see if this is a better alternative.

I've got some calculations to do, I'm far from convinced this is as broken as you claim as bounded accuracy is maintained and is really only problematic when optimized at low levels.




oops; misread.


Monks are not a DPR class. They are a lockdown class, a mobility class, a "set up your buddy to knock 'em down class". You can't evaluate the value of a monk with DPR analysis alone.


And you support that opinion with?? Firstly, the monk is a martial class as it has extra attack and when analyzed the monk is a competent DPR class with great at will damage and significant burst damage throu 10th level often exceeding a Fighter in sustained burst damage, but when they reach the third and fourth tiers they do not receive DPR bonuses as they should and the class falls far behind its defining levels in party damage output. Adding an attack at 11th level fixes this problem, and does not make them a pure DPR class, and they fulfill the mobile striker and lockdown role. Previously after 11th level the Monk just Stunlokcked opponents in a boring manner. My changes give the class the needed boost at mid levels and maintains the feel of the class throughout the game.

Once I post my spreadsheet this becomes more clear, but is pretty easy to see with any damage analysis south low and mid levels, the lack of increase is stark at 11th which should represent an entire new tier of power.




Yeah, that's just a "suggestion", and there is no mention of a limit of any kind in the PHB. If you make that a "rule", it's fine, but then it becomes odd that they can only have two five-minute breaks per day... It might actually be more elegant for your system to make the rule: "You cannot benefit from more than one short rest per hour". This then limits it as much as the original system did.

No, I absolutely do not like that suggestion. A core component of the game is balance around Short rest and along Rest dependent classes, this balance needs two Short Rests per long rest to maintain that balance. I will simply add the hard limit of two short rests per days in stead of the recommended two, it will be a maximum of two. Of groups are playing with more than two short rests per day they are risking overpowering the short rest classes. The whole why can't you take more than two five minute rests is in the same vein of why cant I take more than one long rest etc, it's a balancing game mechanic and won't always make sense.

Anyway, one hour short rests are cumbersome, break vermisilitude, and because of that fact favor long rest dependent classes. Shortening short rests and enforcing a max two short rest per day cap is good for balance.


You know, Zman, something was confusing me about your flanking, and I finally figured it out.

You say "change grants advantage to +1...". But flanking doesn't do *anything* by vanilla RAW. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "change".

Obviously this is on reference to the Flanking optional rule from the DMG which grants advantage.

[rudy]

And you support that opinion with?? Firstly, the monk is a martial class as it has extra attack and when analyzed the monk is a competent DPR class with great at will damage and significant burst damage throu 10th level often exceeding a Fighter in sustained burst damage, but when they reach the third and fourth tiers they do not receive DPR bonuses as they should and the class falls far behind its defining levels in party damage output. Adding an attack at 11th level fixes this problem, and does not make them a pure DPR class, and they fulfill the mobile striker and lockdown role. Previously after 11th level the Monk just Stunlokcked opponents in a boring manner. My changes give the class the needed boost at mid levels and maintains the feel of the class throughout the game.

Once I post my spreadsheet this becomes more clear, but is pretty easy to see with any damage analysis south low and mid levels, the lack of increase is stark at 11th which should represent an entire new tier of power.
Dude, it's an opinion as you yourself point out. I don't need to "support" it like this is some sort of formal debate. The monk has performed admirably in its role in all the games I've played, because players understand that it's not meant to be a primary DPR class. That's all I need. I really couldn't care less about the spreadsheet on it.


Obviously this is on reference to the Flanking optional rule from the DMG which grants advantage.
Obvious to some, not obvious to all. Assuming people know the base rules is fine, but your homebrew would be a lot more user friendly if you didn't assume that people were familiar with all of the optional rules in the DMG.

[Zman]

Dude, it's an opinion as you yourself point out. I don't need to "support" it like this is some sort of formal debate. The monk has performed admirably in its role in all the games I've played, because players understand that it's not meant to be a primary DPR class. That's all I need. I really couldn't care less about the spreadsheet on it.


Obvious to some, not obvious to all. Assuming people know the base rules is fine, but your homebrew would be a lot more user friendly if you didn't assume that people were familiar with all of the optional rules in the DMG.

And your opinion is based on incorrect information, the Monk through level 10 has good DPR, it is only after level 11 when it is forced into a stunlock support role. It is inconsistent. Your anecdotal evidence, most of which I assume comes from below level 11, does not change the reality of what happens to the class after level 11. My spreadsheet, or Kryx's, or a back napkin calculations you can make will illustrate how stark the difference is and how the Monk has the worst damage of any martial after level 11 and very competitive damage before level 11.

You are right, I could specify all the rules involved in flanking. I do assume that anyone that is looking to install these rules in their game is a DM, or a player that is going to lobby their DM, and has enough system knowledge to know that Flanking is a variant rule in the DMG. I should add a clause that states you need to use the Flanking rules from the DMG and modify them accordingly.

[rudy]

And your opinion is based on incorrect information, the Monk through level 10 has good DPR, it is only after level 11 when it is forced into a stunlock support role. It is inconsistent. Your anecdotal evidence, most of which I assume comes from below level 11, does not change the reality of what happens to the class after level 11. My spreadsheet, or Kryx's, or a back napkin calculations you can make will illustrate how stark the difference is and how the Monk has the worst damage of any martial after level 11 and very competitive damage before level 11.

I think I will respectfully bow out at this point. I'm really not being snarky this time, but we have fundamentally incompatible views on how to evaluate classes if you continue to insist on your spreadsheet after my saying that I don't care about the DPR calculations, because I don't view the monk as a DPR class. Whether or not a class is meant for "DPR" is not an objective thing, it's subjective, and so I don't see the benefit in continuing this conversation. Best, though.

[Zman]

I think I will respectfully bow out at this point. I'm really not being snarky this time, but we have fundamentally incompatible views on how to evaluate classes if you continue to insist on your spreadsheet after my saying that I don't care about the DPR calculations, because I don't view the monk as a DPR class. Whether or not a class is meant for "DPR" is not an objective thing, it's subjective, and so I don't see the benefit in continuing this conversation. Best, though.

You don't view it as a DPR class, yet it exists as a competent DPR class for levels 1-10 and fails to maintain that established relationship after level 11. How the class functions levels 1-10, and levels 11+ is not subjective. You are relying on your subjective feelings about how a Monk operates and ignoring the math behind the class. My changes simply maintain the design of the class as a mobile functional striker with lockdown capabilities to levels 11+.

Just becasue you don't care about the under the hood math, doesn't make it critically important for parts of the game. A Monks with a Flurry DPR of 22 at level 5 and DPR of 28 at level 20 is a problem when you have other classes like GWF Fighter with DPR 17 at lvl 5 and DPR 27 at level 11, and DPR 36 at level 20. My change gives an additional attack at 11th level that boost DPR and DPR is against edged up by the additional attack giving the Monk Flurry DPR of 35.5 at 17th level, and that is still with a resource expendiature in Ki, with lower at Will DPR. The Monk functions as a mobile striker and fills the role you described with these changes, it just maintains competent and good burst DPR at later levels.

Sorry you need to bow out, but if you discount the math the game is built on I don't see us having productive arguments. Feelings lead to bias, which is a reason I'm examing my Wild Shape changes and how they interact with Unarmored Defense or Intuitive Defense from an optimization standpoint. My bias is to defend my changes, the logical side of me will more thoroughly examine the math like I did when I first made them. The change works well using Creature's ACs, but can potentially be broken with Intuitive Defense, something a Monk did delayed other aspects of Druid and I deemed acceptable. Now, I need to reexamine my position. That is how I approach balance, by trying to remove feeling when it isn't supported by concrete analysis.

[Zman]

8-2-16 Specified PAM bonus attack is not Heavy.
8-4-16 Moved 2nd TWF Attack to 8th level instead of 11th
8-4-16 Made Dueling Master bonus attack one handed only.
8-4-16 Made Frenzy reset on Short/Long Rest
8-8-16 Fixed Expertise wording
8-8-16 Made TWE Light or Finesse
8-8-16 Added Finesse to CQA bonus attack
8-8-16 Hardcoded Maximum of 2 Short Rests per long rest
8-11-16 Removed Second Agonizing +Cha at 11th level(Due to Spellslinger)
8-11-16 Removed Volatile Spellcaster round restriction.
8-11-16 Changed Four Elements Monk to Ki cost -1 to become Ki cost equals spell level.
8-11-16 Clarified Moon Druid's Combat Wildshape AC bonus. Removed Mon Unamored Defense or Intuitive Defense Interaction

Name it V1.3 after all the small changes and cleanups. Thanks again to all who have helped this process along.

Also, here is the link to my spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12uWo8yF3vr75KRyryeaWNbU4d0XgOYvIoYocu0NMM1o/edit?usp=sharing)that I've been using to plug in the core came and my house-rules into to get a feel for its balance. The sheet is still being updated and worked on but captures most of the at will damage. Now, there is much more to the game than damage, but it is one aspect of the game that can be balanced and needed some love. Also, all the added feats are included and are falling into the desired power levels opening up multiple viable options instead of just a few.

[rudy]

One minor comment. Under the Expertise feat, the wording "This bonus does not stack with the Bard or Rogue abilities of the same name." isn't really necessary, since the general rules state that two doublings never stack.

BUT, it's not like it hurts to have it there.

[Zman]

One minor comment. Under the Expertise feat, the wording "This bonus does not stack with the Bard or Rogue abilities of the same name." isn't really necessary, since the general rules state that two doublings never stack.

BUT, it's not like it hurts to have it there.

Very true, I thought I would specify just in case. Sometimes its better to be safe than sorry.

Anyway, here is the spreadsheet I was referencing where you can see some of the stuff roughly extrapolated out, ie Monk's damage compared to other classes etc.

[rudy]

Zman, your changes to several of the feats are pushed off the page to the point where you can't read them without looking at the source. Just FYI.

[Zman]

Zman, your changes to several of the feats are pushed off the page to the point where you can't read them without looking at the source. Just FYI.

What browser are you using, I can't duplicate the problem on Chrome?

[rudy]

What browser are you using, I can't duplicate the problem on Chrome?
Oh, huh. Firefox. Strange that it would be browser dependent. Not a huge deal, though.

[Zman]

Oh, huh. Firefox. Strange that it would be browser dependent. Not a huge deal, though.

It is built and optimized for chrome and acts up on other browsers.