Pick Three things to 'fix' about 5e

[strangebloke]

So there are some cases where the design team clearly dropped the ball, and probably a few places where they took something a direction you didn't like. You get to 'fix' three 'things.' Small things. Really broad, widespread changes like rewriting a class or the skill system entirely are off the table.

I'll start:

1. TWF get's stat to damage by default, TWF style makes the extra attack without using a bonus action. (This really galls me for some reason. Too much competition for that bonus action, but also this just skewers so many duel-wielding builds)
2. GWM and Sharpshooter are reworked. Changed to -prof/+prof*2 like it should have been. Sharpshooter explicitly applies to only one hit. ('extra damage' is not a very disruptive thing, but feats this good kind of ruin the feats system as a whole. Lucky is bad as well, but in my experience it doesn't get picked that often.)
3. More effects interacting with exhaustion and cover. (These are two complicated subsystems that nothing interacts with, except to make them irrelevant. )

[Caelic]

1. Eldritch Blast scales with Warlock level, like invocations, rather than overall character level.

[PactOfTheDroid]

1. Tieflings should get a +1 to a physical stat instead of int, either dex or con. Especially since int is the weakest stat mechanically.

2. If both attacker and defender are blinded the attacker should still have disadvantage. The fact that it's a wash and reverts to a single D20 bugs me.

3. I'd remove the short rest identify from the DMG. There's already plenty of nearly free ways to identify a magic item, just sitting with it for an hour shouldn't tell you everything about it.

[strangebloke]

1. Eldritch Blast scales with Warlock level, like invocations, rather than overall character level.
This one rankles me, but it didn't make my top three because Warlocks get lots of other things to boost EB. It's really not a ridiculous cantrip in the hands of a non-warlock.

1. Tieflings should get a +1 to a physical stat instead of int, either dex or con. Especially since int is the weakest stat mechanically.

2. If both attacker and defender are blinded the attacker should still have disadvantage. The fact that it's a wash and reverts to a single D20 bugs me.

3. I'd remove the short rest identify from the DMG. There's already plenty of nearly free ways to identify a magic item, just sitting with it for an hour shouldn't tell you everything about it.
1. I agree, but I have no interest in tieflings so... eh.
2. This is a solid pick. I would even make a general rule, that the initiator (attacker) always ends up with disadvantage. Wearing a nice cloak of elvenkind doesn't compensate for the fact that you're on fire, Mick!
3. That's really specific! I guess that ruling makes sense, but it isn't something I would think someone would have as a top 3.

[Talamare]

1 - Core Attribute Fix
2 - Class Fixes
3 - Feat Fixes

Each thing has a few sub chapters.

[strangebloke]

1 - Core Attribute Fix
2 - Class Fixes
3 - Feat Fixes

Each thing has a few sub chapters.

Very coy, I'm sure, but read the OP.


You get to 'fix' three 'things.' Small things. Really broad, widespread changes like rewriting a class or the skill system entirely are off the table.

That said, I'm surprised you left skills off the table. The attribute system is way less broke than the skill system.

[Easy_Lee]

1. Clarity - rules and mechanics are often less clear and concise than they could be.
2. Add proficiency bonus to AC and damage rolls so that basic competency matters more in combat than the weapons and attributes you happen to have.
3. Build the weapons table from a mechanical perspective rather than a "thematic" (opinion-based) perspective.

[Garfunion]

Metamagic can only be applied to a sorcerer's known spells.

Select an ability attribute that best fits each class, to represent it's initiative modifier.

[Dudewithknives]

1. Casting a spell in melee range that is not a melee attack spell provokes an opportunity attack, and if you get hit while casting it, concentration check to get the spell off. If you do not get the spell off you do not lose the slot though.

2. Make TWF a viable and useful style.

3. Either everyone's abilites are scaled from class level, or character level, not some of one and some of the other.

can't just put 3

4. Get rid of short rest mechanics, short rests are not mandatory and not common from table to table so class mechanics should not be balanced on them.

[Easy_Lee]

Metamagic can only be applied to a sorcerer's known spell.

You must really hate sorcerers. Multiclassing is the primary way most people choose to make them functional in a given role, as their spell list leaves much to be desired.

[Garfunion]

You must really hate sorcerers. Multiclassing is the primary way most people choose to make them functional in a given role, as their spell list leaves much to be desired.

That's why I don't like sorcerers. You feel obligated to multiclass to make your sorcerer better

[The_Jette]

1) Sneak Attack damage can be stacked with spell damage if there's an attack roll associated with it.

2) Introduce Light shields that give the bonus to AC but can't be used to attack and can be used with Light Armor Proficiency. Also, introduce Tower Shields, which give a higher AC boost, but also can't be used for attack, and needs Heavy Armor Proficiency.

3) Change Heavy Armor Mastery damage reduction from a flat 3 to the Proficiency Bonus. By the time most people have it, it's as good as the feat is now, and gets a little better as the level increases. Might not fix everything, but it's a start. I'd also consider taking away Disadvantage on Stealth checks while wearing Heavy Armor, because the feat is still pretty weak, even if going up to 6 DR.

[the secret fire]

1. Skills, generally: they are far too unreliable and "swingy", and their weakness tilts the power balance towards magic. The fix I use at my table is to give all PCs the Reliable Talent feature (as Rogue 11) for all skills in which they are proficient. For Rogues, I change their 11th level feature to grant automatic advantage for the skills in which they have expertise. This forces me to change the Thief's Supreme Sneak ability, as well, which I alter to function like the old 3.5 Darkstalker feat (which I really like - and the Thief subclass could use a buff, anyway)

2. Shields: they aren't strong enough in the game. I buff them by doubling their AC bonus (to include enchantments) vs. ranged attacks. This both buffs sword-and-board fighting and melee fighting, in general, which I feel is appropriate. Ranged is a bit too strong compared to melee in 5e, imo. This change also has the virtue of being more realistic, as shields are more useful vs. ranged attacks.

3. Int skills: These are largely worthless in 5e. I fix this by making the Arcana, Nature and Religion skills include the ability to recall information about magical (construct, aberration, dragon, elemental, and monstrosity), natural (beast, fey, plant, ooze, humanoid, and giant) and religious (undead, fiend, and celestial) creatures, respectively, including their resistances and vulnerabilities.

[Kane0]

Just three? That's hard. Okay, i'll narrow my choices down to:

1. Correct two-weapon fighting to be more in line with other fighting styles with a combination of base rules, fighting style and/or feat(s)
2. Rolling ability checks/skills use 2d10 rather than 1d20, and alter some skills to be more even (looking at you, Athletics and Performance). In fact, why not alter the classic attributes to fit skills and the 3 pillars better, like say Physique/Dexterity, Acumen/Intuition and Charisma/Discipline
3. Advantage/disadvantage cancel on a 1:1 basis

There are tons more tweaks I'd like to do (and have done), but those are the core ones before getting into specifics like races/classes/spells and optional stuff like multiclassing and feats.

Edit: Bonus change: Add half proficiency bonus to saving throws you are not proficient in.

[2D8HP]

Not sure if these are problems with the game, or just my reading comprehension, but I'm unclear whether one should roll:



Acrobatics or Athletics,

Insight or Investigation,

Nature or Survival.


Maybe the intent is for different skills to be useable for the same challenges?

I'd also like a Spell-casting "training wheels" class, with rules as easy for me to keep track of as the "Champion" Fighter.

That's about it.

[Kane0]

Not sure if these are problems with the game, or just my reading comprehension, but I'm unclear whether one should roll:



Acrobatics or Athletics,

Insight or Investigation,

Nature or Survival.


Maybe the intent is for different skills to be useable for the same challenges?

I'd also like a Spell-casting "training wheels" class, with rules as easy for me to keep track of as the "Champion" Fighter.

That's about it.

I'ts not just you. Acrobatics/Athletics overlap pretty badly, but as a general rule of thumb insight is for people whereas investigation is for objects, nature is for knowing and survival is for doing.
I've houseruled a slightly different skill list to correct some of the worse ones (Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Brawn, Concentration, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Lore, Medicine, Perception, Persuasion, Stealth, Survival, Thievery)

A good 'training wheels' magic user might be MFoV's Warmage (http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2015/11/warmage.html).

[Rebonack]

1) Warlock casts via spellpoints rather than spell slots.

2) Bonus to Int grants additional non-skill profs at first level (languages, tools, kits, ect).

3) A weapon may be drawn as part of an attack without using an item interaction.

[2D8HP]

I'ts not just you. Acrobatics/Athletics overlap pretty badly, but as a general rule of thumb insight is for people whereas investigation is for objects, nature is for knowing and survival is for doing..
Thanks!



A good 'training wheels' magic user might be MFoV's Warmage (http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2015/11/warmage.html)..
I like that, thanks!

:smile:

[Doug Lampert]

Lots of people picking stuff about TWF, so I'll add my proposed fix (this may be too good, I haven't tried it yet, but it seems about right to me).

Goal: TWF with a rapier and dagger should be a thing that makes sense. One longer sword used primarily to attack and a shorter blade used primarily to parry but for occasional attacks is by far the most common TWF use both historically and in most fiction.

Give the ability to use that style without any special training, fighting style, or feat. It gives +1 to AC for the off-hand weapon, or if your primary weapon misses on an attack then once per round you can give up the AC bonus and take a free attack with the off-hand weapon on the same target.

That's your baseline, then you can modify with fighting styles and feats and the like, even magic items.

You can have the drow style "use two longswords to attack at once" feat. You can have a defending item that gives an extra 1-3 points of AC and can trade the extra AC for more "when a primary weapon miss" attacks.

It works for rogues, who should benefit from TWF and doesn't compete with their bonus action, it works for characters with multiple attacks as they get their one extra attack in almost every round.

[Easy_Lee]

That's why I don't like sorcerers. You feel obligated to multiclass to make your sorcerer better

Actually, I don't. I can make a single-classed sorcerer just fine using Subtle and Twin. I don't think you understood what I meant, so I'll expand.

Between their limited spell selection, few spells known, and lack of ritual casting given in exchange for metamagic, it's clear to one who studies the class that the correct way to build a sorcerer is by choosing a specific role. For most roles, the most effective way to build to that role is to multiclass.

That's true of every class, not just sorcerers. Rogues can improve their stealth by multiclassing into shadow monk. Paladins can increase their smite damage (and damage in general) by multiclassing into sorcerer. And so on.

A life cleric / divine soul sorcerer is a better healer than a pure divine soul. A warlock / sorcerer is often a better blaster than a pure sorcerer. Pure sorcerer can be a great support caster, but most people don't want to build that.

[TheUser]

1) The Two Weapon Fighting Fixes:
TWF operates without the need for a bonus action; functions with opportunity attacks.
TWF style from Ranger and Fighter allows a second attack with the extra attack feature at the cost of a bonus action and the ability to wield non-light weapons in the offhand.
Dual Wielder feat triggers bonus damage off of hitting both attacks to add prof bonus to damage; doubled if the attacks were made with advantage. (Max +24 DPR @ level 17)

2) Sharpshooter/GWM: -5/+10 -Prof Bonus/+2*Prof Bonus

3) The Sorcerer Fixes:
Sorcerers get +1 spell known per Tier (3 spells known at level 1, 7 spells known by level 5, 14 known by level 11 and 18 by level 17).
The sorcerer can swap 1 spell per long rest instead of 1 spell per level up.
Metamagic is only usable with spells from the sorcerer spell list.

[Jama7301]

After seeing all these TWF things, I'm wondering if something can't be done with an off-turn reaction with it. Something like making it a way to attack twice with an Opportunity Attack, or making it easier to use an Opportunity Attack.

[Dudewithknives]

After seeing all these TWF things, I'm wondering if something can't be done with an off-turn reaction with it. Something like making it a way to attack twice with an Opportunity Attack, or making it easier to use an Opportunity Attack.

How about you get 2 Opportunity Attacks per turn, or your first opportunity attack does not cost you a reaction. But specify must be wielding 2 different weapons.

[Honest Tiefling]

1. Races are too fixed in their ability scores. I kinda liked how 4e handled it, through I intend to use a house rule to make things super flexible when I finally get people together for a game. This would also solve the tiefling issue someone addressed. And yes, I am highly biased.

2. Inspiration Points. Not a another darn thing to keep track of session to session. I liked how the Angry DM handled it, and making it a thing per session so people will spend the darn things.

3. Rules to cast stealthily that don't tromple on skill-monkies. That reminds me, I have a thread to steal from with abandon read.

[Knaight]

1. Skill dice. Proficiency now gives +Pd6 instead of +P for proficient skills, Expertise makes that +Pd10.
2. Skill table changes. Easy through medium are all dropped in difficulty by 5, "Difficult" is added between medium and hard, and Nearly Impossible gets pushed up all the way to 40.
3. Proficiency gets added across the board to few things, including some that actually have it as a bonus. Notably: All saves, AC, attack bonus.

[Jama7301]

How about you get 2 Opportunity Attacks per turn, or your first opportunity attack does not cost you a reaction. But specify must be wielding 2 different weapons.

Sure. I'm bad with details, so I don't know how this works compared to other things, but I just felt that the Reaction action wasn't used, and could be used to give TWF a sort of counter-puncher sort of niche. Don't know how much this steps on the toes of Battlemaster and their Riposte or anything like that though.

[Kane0]

How I currently do it:

Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and are holding a one handed weapon in each hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with the weapon that you are holding in your off hand. If you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make this extra off hand attack as part of the attack action instead of using a bonus action.

Two-Weapon fighting style:
When you use your reaction to make an attack while holding a one handed weapon in each hand, you can also make an attack against the same target using your off hand

Dual Wielder Feat:
+1 Dexterity
- You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate weapon in each hand
- If you hit a creature with both your primary and off hand weapons on your turn you deal additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus

[the secret fire]

I'ts not just you. Acrobatics/Athletics overlap pretty badly, but as a general rule of thumb insight is for people whereas investigation is for objects, nature is for knowing and survival is for doing.
I've houseruled a slightly different skill list to correct some of the worse ones (Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Brawn, Concentration, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Lore, Medicine, Perception, Persuasion, Stealth, Survival, Thievery)

A good 'training wheels' magic user might be MFoV's Warmage (http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2015/11/warmage.html).

I find the overlap between Perception and Investigation troublesome. So I just run it at my table that Perception is only a passive skill to notice stuff in the environment. All active searching then triggers the Investigation skill. This makes Perception weaker (which is a good thing), while making Investigation stronger, and clearly draws the line between the two.

In general, the skills system is 5e's biggest weakness, imo.

[Dudewithknives]

Sure. I'm bad with details, so I don't know how this works compared to other things, but I just felt that the Reaction action wasn't used, and could be used to give TWF a sort of counter-puncher sort of niche. Don't know how much this steps on the toes of Battlemaster and their Riposte or anything like that though.

As long as you make sure that it is not, "you get 2 reactions" it should be ok.

[Honest Tiefling]

I find the overlap between Perception and Investigation troublesome. So I just run it at my table that Perception is only a passive skill to notice stuff in the environment. All active searching then triggers the Investigation skill. This makes Perception weaker (which is a good thing), while making Investigation stronger, and clearly draws the line between the two.

I usually do something similar, but generally go with the idea that searching is a skill covered by investigation. If you take time to do it, it's probably search.

[Kane0]

I find the overlap between Perception and Investigation troublesome. So I just run it at my table that Perception is only a passive skill to notice stuff in the environment. All active searching then triggers the Investigation skill. This makes Perception weaker (which is a good thing), while making Investigation stronger, and clearly draws the line between the two.

In general, the skills system is 5e's biggest weakness, imo.

Yeah I generally use Perception as a passive see/hear/smell and Investigation as Search/Figure Out. The only time you might roll perception is to locate a creature using stealth using your action.

[Mongobear]

1. Jeremy Crawford removed as lead developer. If this is impossible, his special standing with online answers from SA and Twitter being official errata removed.

2. Exhaustion mechanic totally reworked. Stuff like Frenzy no longer applies it, but dropping to 0 and yo-yo'ing between near death, and receiving minor healing continuously is dumb.

3. TWFing completely reworked. My own house rules for it--Fighting style allows use of nonlight weapons, and allows a twin strike with Opportunity Attacks. Dual Wielder Feat adds stat to offhand damage, along with the other stuff it already grants. Offhand attack happens during attack action, like a pseudo Extra Attack, but requiring two weapons in hand.

[Asmotherion]

-Non Cantrips for Prepared Casters become Vancian (aka you prepare a specific number of Fireballs per Day) as they used to be. This gives more meaning to Spontaneus/Spells Known Casters. Arguably they could prepare a number of spells to cast spontaneusly up to their Spellcasting Modifier, for balance issues.

-Everyone with proficiency in Arcana can keep a spellbook, and cast a spell from it as an extended action that takes a full round action+the casting time of the spell, and by using a spell slot 2 levels higher than the spell it is meant to cast if it is in the Caster's Spell List, or 4 levels higher if it is not in their spell list. Doing so requires a successfull Arcana Check with a DC 15+Spell Level.

-A guide to potion making, from mundane ingrediants like coffee grains and oranges to more exotic ones like viper toxins. A rogue poisoner should have the option to specialise more into his poisoning skills, and not buy his poisons every time he visits a new town.

[nickl_2000]

1) Add in buckler and parrying dagger items.
2) Make it so you can draw more and throw more than one dagger by RAW per turn without the TWF fear.
3) Make the grappler feat not suck.

[Pex]

1) Defined skill DC example tables to allow players to know what their character can do and help DMs determine what is truly easy or hard. Provides for consistency within a campaign and across tables. Social skills like Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation don't have defined DCs. They are tabulated with opposed rolls.

2) A Point Buy system that has you start with 10s across the board for 0 points. Let the player choose to take a penalty if he wants to specialize more elsewhere rather than pay a tax to get rid of it. Players may also purchase scores above 15 at a reasonable cost. A 1st level character can have an 18 even if a racial modifier does it, including Human. Racial modifiers can be altered.

3) At some level > 1 spellcasters can Concentrate on more than one spell. Half proficiency rounded up in number is a possibility. Added to Magic Initiate Feat - If you accept a spell from a spellcaster other than yourself that requires Concentration to maintain, you may choose to take over the necessary Concentration. This does not affect Concentration necessary to maintain the spell on other creatures. The Concentration is only for you.

[Desteplo]

All the complaints about beast master, all the complaints about way of 4 elements. Because they’re perfectly fine as written. (Even after errata)
-all the complaints about powercreep because who cares? Hexblade isn’t the end all be all melee warlock. There are others that may be a little behind but that doesn’t mean they struggle.

-oh you meant the system itself?

[Telwar]

Bearing in mind my primary fix would be removing the Six Stat Save System, and instead converting everything to fixed defenses (or instead converting everything to a save). But that's off the table per OP rules. (shakes fist)


1. Races are too fixed in their ability scores. I kinda liked how 4e handled it, through I intend to use a house rule to make things super flexible when I finally get people together for a game. This would also solve the tiefling issue someone addressed. And yes, I am highly biased.

I *really* like how 13th Age handled stats. Races got two choices for stats, then your class got two choices, and you got to pick one from each (not the same stat). That enables non-traditional race/class builds rather than relying on lucky rolls or pretending that always having lower stat doesn't matter in a game where every +1 is fought over with knives.

Others are:

Skill DCs: Not having a list of suggested DCs for tasks empowers far fewer DMs than those whose time it wastes and irritates. I'd rather have consistency and a few modifiers and advantage/disadvantage than having two different DCs for climbing the same wall because you have different DMs in sequential sessions, or worse, because the DM forgot.

The list of weapons is basically nonsensical. I'd rather have Generic Hand Weapon, Generic Light Weapon, Generic Heavy Weapon, and if you HAVE to, add on damage types and reach and finesse and whatnot, and let you fluff your weapons as you wish.

[Rhedyn]

1. Player picks summons
2. Sage Advice removed
3. Replace skill system with any other system from any RPG ever

[Kane0]

Bearing in mind my primary fix would be removing the Six Stat Save System, and instead converting everything to fixed defenses (or instead converting everything to a save). But that's off the table per OP rules. (shakes fist)

The list of weapons is basically nonsensical. I'd rather have Generic Hand Weapon, Generic Light Weapon, Generic Heavy Weapon, and if you HAVE to, add on damage types and reach and finesse and whatnot, and let you fluff your weapons as you wish.

Would reverting to Fort/Ref/Will count?

You mean something like:
Small Simple Weapon: 1d4 damage + one quality
Large Simple Weapon: 1d6 damage + one quality
Small Martial Weapon: 1d8 damage + two qualities
Large Martial Weapon: 1d10 damage + two qualities
Dwarves, Elves and rogues gain prof in small weapons

Light Armor: AC 13 + Dex
Medium Armor: AC 16 + Dex (max 2)
Heavy Armor: AC 18, Min Str 15
Shield: +2 AC

?

[LeonBH]

So there are some cases where the design team clearly dropped the ball, and probably a few places where they took something a direction you didn't like. You get to 'fix' three 'things.' Small things. Really broad, widespread changes like rewriting a class or the skill system entirely are off the table.

1. Elven Accuracy removed
2. Hexblade removed
3. Healing Spirit removed

[Potato_Priest]

1. Monster "to hit" bonuses and saving throw DCs are actually regulated by their proficiency bonus (according to CR) and the relevant attribute, not higher or lower.
2. Big Monsters get fewer attacks, but the attacks they do have do a bit more damage and are AOE.
3. Nothing is resistant or immune to nonmagical weapons.

[Talamare]

Bringing back Fortitude / Reflex / Will from 4e as the new Saves (Not Alternative AC like 4e)

That way we don't have 6 different stats to raise up for 6 different Saves

[Grod_The_Giant]

Minor things...?

*Nonproficient saves still scale slightly (half proficiency?)
*Racial ability score bonuses replaced by a floating +2/+1
*Both base and variant humans replaced by something more interesting that's NOT the automatic first choice for every build.

(I really want to say something about skill scaling, but eh)

[Luccan]

So, does just having actual examples for skill checks count as rewriting the skill system? I guess it would. In no particular order, then:

1. Wild Magic Sorcerer's can roll on the Wild Magic Surge table by choice once per long rest. You can use it more often as you level (not confident enough to decide how often you should get more uses). Not a full fix to Wild Sorc, but it allows you to actually make use of the Wild Magic table and Tides of Chaos ability without constantly relying on the DM to remember it's a thing. So, you know, actually be a Wild Magic Sorcerer.

2. Monks gain bonus Ki equal to their Wisdom mod. Also, Way of Four Elements powers cost half as much ki as they do now (round down, minimum 1).

3. Druids can wear metal armor. Somehow the game doesn't explode.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Lets see only three things.

1) TWF/Thrown weapons. Maybe just a rewrite on how it all works and some more weapon options but definitely something.

2) You can concentrate on more than one spell. anymore than 1 requires a check or causes disadvantage or whatever every round to maintain, no action other than the normal spellcasting to drop concentrations and such.

3) Monk's can count their unarmed strikes as weapons for the purpose of the spells elemental weapon/magic weapon and other such abilties.

[Cybren]

1) get rid of that horrifying full page halfling art
2) warlocks use int
3) clean up glaringly obvious oversights, like grappler feat referencing rules that don't exist, or "parry" and "riposte" maneuvers having absolutely no synergy which is bad and I will never not complain about

[Malifice]

2. Exhaustion mechanic totally reworked. Stuff like Frenzy no longer applies it, but dropping to 0 and yo-yo'ing between near death, and receiving minor healing continuously is dumb.

I want to discourage the 5MWD, not encourage it.

Players gaining a level of exhaustion will try and long rest.

There are better ways of dealing with whack a mole other than imposing exhaustion levels (the latter just causes problems elsewhere).

[Luccan]

1) get rid of that horrifying full page halfling art

If we can't change anything else, change this. I still can't figure out why her head is so big.

[Malifice]

If we can't change anything else, change this. I still can't figure out why her head is so big.

3E Halfling:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZIXCB8u7afk/ThWMZI3doiI/AAAAAAAAWoY/4rWukmx7DVM/s1600/Dragon+%2523285.JPG

5E halfling:

https://media-waterdeep.cursecdn.com/avatars/thumbnails/6/256/420/618/636271789409776659.png

'Damn girl; you've really let yourself go!'

[Pex]

Honorable mention:

In large font in the DMG the following message:

With Bounded Accuracy and class abilities, we hope we've succeeded in creating a game where it is not a necessity for a character to have a particular magic item in order to play. While the game could technically be played without them that was not our intention. The player characters should get magic items that are useful and interesting to them in their adventuring career and more than just the occasional potion or scroll. While care should be had not to give out too much, too little or none is also not ideal. Magic items are special and meant to be enjoyed. You can have mysteries and stories surrounding them. They can assist in distinguishing the PCs in the world as worthy owners and the great deeds they have done with them. At its most basic players enjoy finding great treasures and using them. They add spice to the game.

[Mongobear]

I want to discourage the 5MWD, not encourage it.

Players gaining a level of exhaustion will try and long rest.

There are better ways of dealing with whack a mole other than imposing exhaustion levels (the latter just causes problems elsewhere).

Part of the rework likely would change how exhaustion works as well. 1 level reduction for a short rest, all for a long rest, I just didn't list that in my original post. If we could have listed 5 things we'd change, it would have been there.

[Luccan]

*snip*

Now that's just sloppy work. Half the jewels are spilling out onto the ground!

I'd like to point out, I can live with just Lidda. She dressed sensibly for an adventurer (more so than that sorcerer whose outfit was just BELTS at any rate) and her head wasn't over half the size of her torso. You know somethings wrong when the halfling looks more cartoony than the gnome.

[Ignimortis]

1) Reword all the "per short rest" abilities to be usable "per encounter". If that's too large, make short rests take 5 minutes and allow 2 or 3 per long rest.
Reasoning: if someone can actually take an hour to dilly-dally in a dungeon, they can just as well as take 8. A short rest is a breather.

2) ALL exhaustion levels are removed on long rest, and half (round up) on a short rest/encounter ending (if the first option is used). However, hitting 0 HP gives you a level of exhaustion after you're healed up or stabilized. Lesser restoration removes a single exhaustion level as an option, greater restoration removes all of them.
Reasoning: bouncing off 0 HP is less of an option, but still shouldn't be very punishing.

3) Sorcerers get free spells based on bloodline and have +1 spell slot per spell level. Sorcery point conversion rates brought in line (a spellslot gives and costs the same amount of Sorcery Points - presumably the default "cost" value). Cleric, Druid, Wizard are back to Vancian casting - you prepare a spell in a slot, you cast it, it's gone.
Reasoning: return to 3.PF sorcerer design of "high-capacity, low-option caster". 5e Sorcerer is barely half a class, same as Warlock. Our gaming group has an ironic saying "Wizards of the Coast, not X who can boast" for whenever a Wizard option is straight-up superior to other arcane casters, which is often, especially when WotC produces a Wizard option which is a better metamagic specialist (Lore Wizard) or Wild Mage (Invention Wizard).

[Cespenar]

1) Skill proficiency also allows the character to "take 10" by that skill.

2) Going down to zero HP gets you a Con save vs. Exhaustion.

3) Mundane bonus action options; like Parry: add prof bonus to AC for the next attack, Fortify: add prof bonus to next saving throw, Aim: add prof bonus to next damage roll.

[Blacky the Blackball]

None of mine are actually changes to the rules, they're just changes to the organisation of the books (I assume that simply moving text around without changing the actual rules is sufficiently minor to fit with the intent of the OP, even if the things I'm moving around are pretty big).

1) Move the optional rules (Multiclassing, Feats, Variant Human, Rolling for Ability Scores) from the PHB to the DMG, putting them with the other optional things like Flanking rules and the "Gritty" Healing option, so the expectation is less "players can choose to use these unless the DM bans them" and more "these are some things a DM may want to add to the game if they desire more complexity".

2) Instead of using the flat proficiency bonuses as standard and proficiency dice as the alternate option, do it the other way around - so the dice are the standard and the fixed bonus is the option.

3) Move the rules for buying/making/selling magic items and the rules for earning money and the rules for spending at different lifestyles all into one single section of the DMG - call it the "Economics" chapter or something. These rules actually all fit together very well, but having them in different parts of the game just serves to hide that and confuse things.

[Hootman]

I've noticed several people put forward the idea of adding proficiency bonus to armor class. Can anyone explain why they think this might be a good idea? I don't get it. If proficiency is added to both your attack and your armor, and the enemies have the same bonuses, then there is no point adding it in the first place. They will just cancel out.

[BeefGood]

1. Improve language clarity in PHB.
2. Either remove darkvision from all/almost all PC races, or couple it with a nerf to daylight-vision.
3. Reconsider the classification of magic items in the "uncommon" and "rare" categories. For example, mithral plate should be rare because of its (presumed) cost.

[strangebloke]

1. Clarity - rules and mechanics are often less clear and concise than they could be.
2. Add proficiency bonus to AC and damage rolls so that basic competency matters more in combat than the weapons and attributes you happen to have.
3. Build the weapons table from a mechanical perspective rather than a "thematic" (opinion-based) perspective.
1. I mean, I agree, but I'm curious about specific examples?
2. I like the idea here, but it isn't horrible, to my mind, that things like AC scale non-linearly, since HP scales so fast. Overall, I do think this would be a good change.
3. The weapon tables are kind of boring, but they aren't that big of a problem IMO, other than silliness like the quarterstaff. (even then, I just like saying that I wield a quarterstaff with a pointy metal tip on one end)


Metamagic can only be applied to a sorcerer's known spells.

Select an ability attribute that best fits each class, to represent it's initiative modifier.
I don't get this one, really. Sorcerers being good at multiclassing doesn't weaken the base class.

1. Casting a spell in melee range that is not a melee attack spell provokes an opportunity attack, and if you get hit while casting it, concentration check to get the spell off. If you do not get the spell off you do not lose the slot though.

2. Make TWF a viable and useful style.

3. Either everyone's abilites are scaled from class level, or character level, not some of one and some of the other.

can't just put 3

4. Get rid of short rest mechanics, short rests are not mandatory and not common from table to table so class mechanics should not be balanced on them.
1. So mage slayer for everyone for free? I can get down with that.
2. I'm with ya brother. There are a dozen good ways to do it.
3. I can see why they did it they way that they did.
4. (you cheater!) don't have a problem with short rests, but I'll assent to those saying it could actually afford to be more gameified than it currently is.

1. Skills, generally: they are far too unreliable and "swingy", and their weakness tilts the power balance towards magic. The fix I use at my table is to give all PCs the Reliable Talent feature (as Rogue 11) for all skills in which they are proficient. For Rogues, I change their 11th level feature to grant automatic advantage for the skills in which they have expertise. This forces me to change the Thief's Supreme Sneak ability, as well, which I alter to function like the old 3.5 Darkstalker feat (which I really like - and the Thief subclass could use a buff, anyway)

2. Shields: they aren't strong enough in the game. I buff them by doubling their AC bonus (to include enchantments) vs. ranged attacks. This both buffs sword-and-board fighting and melee fighting, in general, which I feel is appropriate. Ranged is a bit too strong compared to melee in 5e, imo. This change also has the virtue of being more realistic, as shields are more useful vs. ranged attacks.

3. Int skills: These are largely worthless in 5e. I fix this by making the Arcana, Nature and Religion skills include the ability to recall information about magical (construct, aberration, dragon, elemental, and monstrosity), natural (beast, fey, plant, ooze, humanoid, and giant) and religious (undead, fiend, and celestial) creatures, respectively, including their resistances and vulnerabilities.
1. The current swingyness of skills is not really a problem. The trick is to only call for a check if there's a high chance of random failure. I say "You're proficient, you can just do the thing, it isn't that complex."
2. This is cool, and I like it! Combine this with AoOs against casters in melee and you've really made melee attractive.
3. Eh. This kind of thing is really easy to patch, and certainly allowable within the rules.

1. Jeremy Crawford removed as lead developer. If this is impossible, his special standing with online answers from SA and Twitter being official errata removed.

2. Exhaustion mechanic totally reworked. Stuff like Frenzy no longer applies it, but dropping to 0 and yo-yo'ing between near death, and receiving minor healing continuously is dumb.

3. TWFing completely reworked. My own house rules for it--Fighting style allows use of nonlight weapons, and allows a twin strike with Opportunity Attacks. Dual Wielder Feat adds stat to offhand damage, along with the other stuff it already grants. Offhand attack happens during attack action, like a pseudo Extra Attack, but requiring two weapons in hand.
1. I don't get why people hate JC so much. His rulings seem fine? Mearls is the one who makes all the crappy advice.
2. yup. This one bugs me. As it stands now it isn't an interactive mechanic.
3. ...I think you have overtuned it here.

[strangebloke]

I've noticed several people put forward the idea of adding proficiency bonus to armor class. Can anyone explain why they think this might be a good idea? I don't get it. If proficiency is added to both your attack and your armor, and the enemies have the same bonuses, then there is no point adding it in the first place. They will just cancel out.
Well, currently, AC scales very strangely. At low levels, 20AC means that you suffer quarter the damage that someone with 15 AC does, whereas at high levels, the difference between 20 and 15 is... marginal. As it stands currently, fighters and paladins are really resilient at low levels and really... not at high levels. (compared to rogues, druids, and barbarians.)

So the general idea is, make AC important into the late game. I'd be in favor of making the defense style into 'ceiling(prof bonus/2) bonus to AC.' I wouldn't just add straight prof bonus, though, because if the problem is that heavy armor melees are distinguished from their squishy peers enough... just giving away the AC bonus continues the problem.

[Kurald Galain]

The bonus on trained skills should be higher, so that rookies don't beat experts on opposed checks so often, and experts don't fail at easy DCs so often. As it stands, skills are much too swingy and unreliable. For instance, double the bonus from skill training (what expertise does now) and instead give free advantage for the rogue's and bard's expertise. Proficiency dice would also work, as would making skill checks on 3d6 instead of 1d20.

Advantage/disadvantage should cancel on a 1:1 basis.

Something to prevent conga line tactics.

Int should be more useful.

[ccjmk]

1. Eldritch Blast scales with Warlock level, like invocations, rather than overall character level.

Fully agree here, BUT it should be a Warlock Feature, not a cantrip, for that mechanic to work.

[Easy_Lee]

1. I mean, I agree, but I'm curious about specific examples?

It would take a long time to go through them all, but an easy one is reaction timing relative to the triggering effect.

Some reactions say "when," others say "after." Some reactions that use the same phrasing occur at different times according to the devs, such as the Protection fighting style (when=during) and Mage Slayer (when=after). There's a passage hidden in the DMG that says if you're ever in doubt about a reaction's timing, it happens after. Not only is that presumably not intended for players, it doesn't help one tell what the developers meant with any given reaction.

Another source if confusion is the developers' insistence that very similar terms mean different things. A "reaction attack" is not an "opportunity attack." Did these things need to be different? Probably not.

There are little things like this throughout 5e. As shown by the RAW threads, they add up.

[TheUser]

Bearing in mind my primary fix would be removing the Six Stat Save System, and instead converting everything to fixed defenses (or instead converting everything to a save). But that's off the table per OP rules. (shakes fist)



I *really* like how 13th Age handled stats. Races got two choices for stats, then your class got two choices, and you got to pick one from each (not the same stat). That enables non-traditional race/class builds rather than relying on lucky rolls or pretending that always having lower stat doesn't matter in a game where every +1 is fought over with knives.

Others are:

Skill DCs: Not having a list of suggested DCs for tasks empowers far fewer DMs than those whose time it wastes and irritates. I'd rather have consistency and a few modifiers and advantage/disadvantage than having two different DCs for climbing the same wall because you have different DMs in sequential sessions, or worse, because the DM forgot.

The list of weapons is basically nonsensical. I'd rather have Generic Hand Weapon, Generic Light Weapon, Generic Heavy Weapon, and if you HAVE to, add on damage types and reach and finesse and whatnot, and let you fluff your weapons as you wish.

Wow I actually love all of these. The weapon change is cool because you get to insert items like the Blackjack (finesse bludgeoning weapon anyone?) or the katana (e.g. versatile longsword with finesse property) I think the current system is fine if you allow for the inclusion of new weapons just put in exclusions like finesse and heavy can never be put together.

I also re-read improvised weapons and apparently they always do 1d4 damage which doesn't really make sense when your lift capacity goes above 1000lbs....

[mephnick]

There are little things like this throughout 5e. As shown by the RAW threads, they add up.

ranged attack - ranged weapon attack - ranged spell attack - melee attack - melee weapon attack - melee spell attack - attack - Attack action - reaction attack - attack of opportunity

All of these are separate things with different mechanical interactions with the rest of the system. It's a ranged attack, but it's not a ranged weapon attack, but it's a weapon, but it's an improvised weapon so it's treated as a weapon but not technically a ranged weapon even thought it's a weapon you use at range. Blah blah. It could have been simplified for sure.

[Scripten]

Maybe the intent is for different skills to be useable for the same challenges?

I think you're right about that. Considering that ability checks and skills are not set in stone, I imagine it was intentional to allow for multiple approaches to the same problem. In my games, I also adjust the DC based on approach, as the actions being taken may be more/less difficult depending on what they are. After all, it may be more difficult to climb across the chasm rather than swing on the vines above, but the hefty barbarian might find it preferable because she has a +8 to Athletics and a -1 to Acrobatics.


A weapon may be drawn as part of an attack without using an item interaction.

This would be your one free item interaction on your turn. Unless you mean sheathing a weapon and drawing another without using an action?


1. Skill dice. Proficiency now gives +Pd6 instead of +P for proficient skills, Expertise makes that +Pd10.
2. Skill table changes. Easy through medium are all dropped in difficulty by 5, "Difficult" is added between medium and hard, and Nearly Impossible gets pushed up all the way to 40.


Skill dice are in the DMG as a variant. Someone else suggested making it the default, which I could agree with.

I'm not sure what the point of changing the names of the skill table DCs would be? Do you just dislike the term "Very Easy" or...? Also, why would you raise the cap on Nearly Impossible? As it is, hitting 30 already takes a decent amount of concentration on building bonuses as well as a very good roll.


1) Skill proficiency also allows the character to "take 10" by that skill.

This is already handled by the skill system. If a task can be completed in a certain amount of time with 100% success, then the player can choose to take that time and succeed without a roll. Skill proficiency isn't even factored into that. Players should only be rolling Ability Checks when there's meaningful distinctions between success and failure which change the context of further rolls.

As for my changes:

1) Do something different with Inspiration. It's optional, I realize, but I've yet to see a table reliably use it. I try at mine, because I like the idea, but we always forget about it on one side of the screen or the other.

2) Make the Dragonborn breath weapon a bonus action attack, because it's pretty much useless at mid-game. Dragonborn don't really get anything to make up for it, either. (Damage resistance is cool but even for the common types it's too situational.)

3) UA Revised Ranger. 'Nuff said.

I'd also entirely rewrite the Monk class to do something entirely different, but that's out of the bounds of this topic. And probably counts more as plain homebrew than revision at that.

[mephnick]

Skill dice are in the DMG as a variant. Someone else suggested making it the default, which I could agree with.

Ehhh... Some people already complain about the swinginess of the d20. I think it's better as a variant, even though I like it.

[Easy_Lee]

ranged attack - ranged weapon attack - ranged spell attack - melee attack - melee weapon attack - melee spell attack - attack - Attack action - reaction attack - attack of opportunity

All of these are separate things with different mechanical interactions with the rest of the system. It's a ranged attack, but it's not a ranged weapon attack, but it's a weapon, but it's an improvised weapon so it's treated as a weapon but not technically a ranged weapon even thought it's a weapon you use at range. Blah blah. It could have been simplified for sure.

Agreed, for sure. To add to your list, "ranged weapon attack" and "attack with a ranged weapon" may not be the same thing depending on your table's interpretation. Same for the melee variant. In fact, unarmed strike can be used to make melee weapon attacks even though it's not a melee "weapon."

I'm convinced that everything having to do with weapons and attacks is more convoluted in 5e than it needs to be.

[Talamare]

Agreed, for sure. To add to your list, "ranged weapon attack" and "attack with a ranged weapon" may not be the same thing depending on your table's interpretation. Same for the melee variant. In fact, unarmed strike can be used to make melee weapon attacks even though it's not a melee "weapon."

I'm convinced that everything having to do with weapons and attacks is more convoluted in 5e than it needs to be.

and yet the developers have said if they could fix 1 thing about 5e...

It would be removing the Bonus Action

[Laurefindel]

Something to prevent conga line tactics.

Ok, I gotta ask what is this conga line tactic? Tried to google it but all I could find is some kind of bottleneck terrain allowing for PCs to take advantage of a choke point in a dungeon.

[strangebloke]

and yet the developers have said if they could fix 1 thing about 5e...

It would be removing the Bonus Action
To be fair, a lot of frustration stems from 'i have no bonus action.' I mean come on, tell me it wouldn't be cool to cast hunters mark, run in, attack twice with twf, and then disengage with cunning action? 'cause I'm pretty sure that's how that would work if I read Mearls comments correctly.

The whole attack nonsense is really low level. Like I don't know if you'd even call it a 'change' as such. Like do any of those distinctions have any real balance implications?

[Cybren]

and yet the developers have said if they could fix 1 thing about 5e...

It would be removing the Bonus Action

the bonus action is a higher-level mechanic that wound up creating levels of abstraction and complexity they didn't intend on adding to the system with the gain being opening design space, and within that design space they can accomplish a lot with a reworked and more robust set of 'normal' actions, and some of it they may not want in 5E at all, wheras simplifying or clarifying what is or isn't a "___ weapon attack" would probably produce positive outcomes on the game, wouldn't be as far reaching. So it's completely understandable why they'd want to ditch bonus actions if they could only change one thing.


To be fair, a lot of frustration stems from 'i have no bonus action.' I mean come on, tell me it wouldn't be cool to cast hunters mark, run in, attack twice with twf, and then disengage with cunning action? 'cause I'm pretty sure that's how that would work if I read Mearls comments correctly.

The whole attack nonsense is really low level. Like I don't know if you'd even call it a 'change' as such. Like do any of those distinctions have any real balance implications?

You didn't read it correctly. While some things might be done as 'free' actions you may or may not be able to stack up in a round, most bonus actions would be folded into a larger list of regular actions. They gave the example of having an "attack with two weapons" action, or a "Flurry of Blows" action.

[Oramac]

There's really only one thing I'd absolutely, positively, "fix" if I could. A couple other things I'd toy with, but I can live with as they are.

Definite Fix
1. The Shield - No, not the spell. The item. In a system with Bounded Accuracy, a +2 bonus to AC is too good for a single non-magical you can get from 1st level. It basically puts Heavy Weapon builds at an immediate disadvantage that the extra damage does not make up for (IMO).

Nice things
2. Spell Points - I'd make spell points the default, and slots the option. Personally, I just like them better.

3. Alignment - I just don't like it. I'd remove it completely. I feel like players focus too much on "am I playing a proper Chaotic Good?" rather than "am I playing my character?".

[strangebloke]

the bonus action is a higher-level mechanic that wound up creating levels of abstraction and complexity they didn't intend on adding to the system with the gain being opening design space, and within that design space they can accomplish a lot with a reworked and more robust set of 'normal' actions, and some of it they may not want in 5E at all, wheras simplifying or clarifying what is or isn't a "___ weapon attack" would probably produce positive outcomes on the game, wouldn't be as far reaching. So it's completely understandable why they'd want to ditch bonus actions if they could only change one thing.

You didn't read it correctly. While some things might be done as 'free' actions you may or may not be able to stack up in a round, most bonus actions would be folded into a larger list of regular actions. They gave the example of having an "attack with two weapons" action, or a "Flurry of Blows" action.

Wait. Am I reading this right?

Because, what I thought it said was that all bonus actions would be rolled into conditional free 'add-ons' like: "When you take the attack action, you can also attack with a light weapon in your offhand." or "When you take the disengage, hide, or dash action, you may also make a melee weapon attack" This isn't a problem, generally, because it's easy to limit some things like cunning action to once around, other things like spells are already only once a round, other things like TWF and PAM shouldn't really be stackable (if you get rid of quartstaff), and stacking things like hunter's mark and TWF is fine. You'd probably have to still make a 'flurry of blows' action, sure, and GWM and PAM would have to be reworded, but mostly I didn't think there would be an issue.

What I think you're saying now is that we suddenly have a host of different action types, which horribly confuses certain abilities that trigger "When you take 'X' action." That's pretty strange.

[Doug Lampert]

The bonus on trained skills should be higher, so that rookies don't beat experts on opposed checks so often, and experts don't fail at easy DCs so often. As it stands, skills are much too swingy and unreliable. For instance, double the bonus from skill training (what expertise does now) and instead give free advantage for the rogue's and bard's expertise. Proficiency dice would also work, as would making skill checks on 3d6 instead of 1d20.

Advantage/disadvantage should cancel on a 1:1 basis.

Something to prevent conga line tactics.

Int should be more useful.

The Conga line is prevented by the obvious observation that if you step up next to me and have time to attack, then I have time to counter-attack. There should thus be no limit on reactions that does not also apply to attacks from the same space in the same round, and since no one wants to track attacks from which space when, just say that you do NOT spend your reaction to opportunity attack against any foe that attacked you on his turn.

[strangebloke]

There's really only one thing I'd absolutely, positively, "fix" if I could. A couple other things I'd toy with, but I can live with as they are.

Definite Fix
1. The Shield - No, not the spell. The item. In a system with Bounded Accuracy, a +2 bonus to AC is too good for a single non-magical you can get from 1st level. It basically puts Heavy Weapon builds at an immediate disadvantage that the extra damage does not make up for (IMO).

Nice things
2. Spell Points - I'd make spell points the default, and slots the option. Personally, I just like them better.

3. Alignment - I just don't like it. I'd remove it completely. I feel like players focus too much on "am I playing a proper Chaotic Good?" rather than "am I playing my character?".

Yikes I disagree with all of these.
1. +2 AC is good at the beginning and bad by the end. If you're playing with feats, Heavy Weapon builds do not need any more support than they already have.

Actually, thinking about it more, a lot of problems would be solved if we just made shields +proficiency to AC.

2. Just as fiddly and a huge buff to casters that they don't need.

3. Alignment as it's been handled is fine. people who are just playing an alignment wouldn't magically learn how to roleplay if you took their crutch away.

[Cybren]

Wait. Am I reading this right?

Because, what I thought it said was that all bonus actions would be rolled into conditional free 'add-ons' like: "When you take the attack action, you can also attack with a light weapon in your offhand." or "When you take the disengage, hide, or dash action, you may also make a melee weapon attack" This isn't a problem, generally, because it's easy to limit some things like cunning action to once around, other things like spells are already only once a round, other things like TWF and PAM shouldn't really be stackable (if you get rid of quartstaff), and stacking things like hunter's mark and TWF is fine. You'd probably have to still make a 'flurry of blows' action, sure, and GWM and PAM would have to be reworded, but mostly I didn't think there would be an issue.

What I think you're saying now is that we suddenly have a host of different action types, which horribly confuses certain abilities that trigger "When you take 'X' action." That's pretty strange.

There probably would be "when you take action X" if they designed 5E this way. There would just be an action that is reflective of action X and the bonus action.

[Submortimer]

1) Warlock casts via spellpoints rather than spell slots.

2) Bonus to Int grants additional non-skill profs at first level (languages, tools, kits, ect).

3) A weapon may be drawn as part of an attack without using an item interaction.


.
Thanks!


.
I like that, thanks!

:smile:

If you dig it, pick up the Complete Warmage for a dollar in our store. It's much, MUCH better, and very well revised.

[KorvinStarmast]

1. Exhaustion is a hot mess

Some of the above examples are good ways forward.

a) ALL exhaustion levels are removed on long rest, and half (round up) on a short rest/encounter ending (if the first option is used). However, hitting 0 HP gives you a level of exhaustion after you're healed up or stabilized.
Lesser restoration removes a single exhaustion level as an option, greater restoration removes all of them.
Reasoning: bouncing off 0 HP is less of an option, but still shouldn't be very punishing.
b) Going down to zero HP gets you a Con save vs. Exhaustion.
2.
I've noticed several people put forward the idea of adding proficiency bonus to armor class. Can anyone explain why they think this might be a good idea? I don't get it. If proficiency is added to both your attack and your armor, and the enemies have the same bonuses, then there is no point adding it in the first place. For the Fighter class only, was my idea. It may not be the best idea ever, however.

3. Warlock as Int caster.

In re the shield: it's fine as is, it is not too strong.
Choices are of interest: if I wan't this I have to give up that.

[Submortimer]

1. Eldritch Blast scales with Warlock level. It's such an easy fix and it gets rid of basically every problem with the two-level Warlock dip.

2. Feats are not optional, they're a part of the game. I haven't played in a single game where people haven't used feats but it is SO DUMB that I have to ignore them when writing classes and subclasses because "some tables may not allow feats".

3. The Sorcerer. Get rid of it. It's WHOLE shtick, spontaneous casting, is what everyone does now. They're just basically worse wizards. What to do instead? The Psion. Make it use power points, make it Int based, give it metamagic, it can cast spells without using components, and give us the different types of psions as the subclasses.


I mean, for crying out loud, the WARLOCK gets to be a base class, and psions in D&D have been around way longer than them.

[BeefGood]

3. Nothing is resistant or immune to nonmagical weapons.

Good thought. IMX magic resistance/immunity doesn't make the game more fun.

[dickerson76]

1) Move the optional rules (Multiclassing, Feats, Variant Human, Rolling for Ability Scores) from the PHB to the DMG, putting them with the other optional things like Flanking rules and the "Gritty" Healing option, so the expectation is less "players can choose to use these unless the DM bans them" and more "these are some things a DM may want to add to the game if they desire more complexity".

Emphasis added. I just want to clarify: rolling for ability scores is the default; point buy is the variant (optional) rule.

[Talamare]

Emphasis added. I just want to clarify: rolling for ability scores is the default; point buy is the variant (optional) rule.

or the Truth...
Point Buy is the only acceptable form of playing, and they lie to you saying that Rolling is the default because 4e was bad.

[Suicune]

1. Skill rules. I think 3.5 did a much, much better job with investing INT affected 'points' instead of just a flat "add proficiency", especially because it scales so slowly and doesn't feel like a huge advantage. Plus, I think points add both customization in character and mechanical building.

2. INT being a dump stat. It's not as bad as people make it out to be, but it's not really worth investing into other than thematics when wisdom is a better saving throw and charisma is a better social stat. I think it might be better scrapping Perception for just Investigation, to at least make it one of the most-used skills.

3. Feats being so sidelined. I think subclasses help out with customization, but feats feel pretty tacked on for the sake of it when it could be a more interesting system. There's few feats that feel as interesting as subclass traits, and that's a shame, in my opinion.

[Talamare]

What if you gained Proficiency in a # of skills or tools equal to your Int Modifier?

[Talamare]

1 - Removal of Finesse
2 - Dexterity affects Accuracy for ALL Attacks
3 - Strength affects Damage for Ranged Attacks

[the secret fire]

or the Truth...
Point Buy is the only acceptable form of playing, and they lie to you saying that Rolling is the default because 4e was bad.

While I agree with you that some control should lie in the hands of the player at stat generation, straight point buy has its own drawbacks, the biggest of which being that you get a lot of cookie-cutter "builds" in which nearly every member of a certain class looks the same (e.g. every wizard has Dex and Con as secondary stats, and dumps Str and Cha). Straight point buy leads, somewhat ironically, to less diversity among the PCs.

I prefer a mixed system in which the players are allowed to choose certain stats at creation (either one at 18, two at 16 or three at 14), and then everything else is just 4d6 drop lowest, in order. This allows the players to (more or less) play the characters they want, while still allowing space for a bit of randomness and diversity. I like a world where some wizards just happen to be strong.

[KorvinStarmast]

or the Truth...
Point Buy is the only acceptable form of playing,
Nope. Not even close. This isn't GURPS, please go back again and read the rules.
Also, D&D isn't a competition.

[Feuerphoenix]

Well I do really like rolling Stats. It adds a new level of playing with suboptimal stats, for example. But more importantly, I think it should also be limited. The main problem for me is it’s swingingness.

On the table where I am a player, I came up with a nice idea with my DM: added up, your chat should not be stronger than +5 (you calculate all boni and mali of your Stats together) and not be weaker than +3. This way a player can be strong in its core fields, while the dm still has several spots to attack the character.

A character is good, but stats determine by a lot, if your char is fun. Without weaknesses, the game becomes stale and boring.

[strangebloke]

It's WHOLE shtick, spontaneous casting, is what everyone does now.
It's whole shtick...

... In 3x, where it sucked and was horribly designed.

5e sorcerer is very fun. Psions are great, but most DMs don't allow them in my experience.

1 - Removal of Finesse
2 - Dexterity affects Accuracy for ALL Attacks
3 - Strength affects Damage for Ranged Attacks

Sigh.

This is bad.

First off it's a huge Nerf to martials, since suddenly they all need three good stats, whereas a caster could get by with mediocre Dex and con and just used cantrips that require saving throws.Secondly, it makes most gishes impossible, since they'd need four good stats. Thirdly, it would mean stupid builds like a guy with eight strength swinging a greatsword, so it wouldn't even end up being much more realistic.

Just reduce everything to mind/body/soul and call it a day.

[BloodOgre]

3E Halfling:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZIXCB8u7afk/ThWMZI3doiI/AAAAAAAAWoY/4rWukmx7DVM/s1600/Dragon+%2523285.JPG



Since some folks have mentioned having a difficult time figuring out what some skills are for...

Passive perception allows you to see a person scaling down a wall out of the corner of your eye.

Perception allows you to notice that there are jewels falling out of the bag, and that she is armed, despite the fact that your eyes are likely drawn elsewhere.

Insight allows you to deduce not just that she is a thief, but estimate the quantity of jewelry she has stolen (without looking in the bag) and determine if she is an immediate threat to you, and that she's probably done this before.

Investigation allows you to identify the contents of the bag when you search her as well as discovering a knife in one boot, a jimmy in the other, the lockpick set in her hair and the platinum coin and a small jewel under her tongue (which insight tells you she will use to bribe the jailer if she can't bribe you with some of the jewelry she has stolen).

[Oramac]

1. +2 AC is good at the beginning and bad by the end. If you're playing with feats, Heavy Weapon builds do not need any more support than they already have.

Actually, thinking about it more, a lot of problems would be solved if we just made shields +proficiency to AC.

I play heavy weapon characters almost exclusively and, while I'm no math genius, anecdotally the way they play feels significantly worse than a character with a shield. The extra damage, even from a Greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting, just doesn't make up for the increased frequency of being hit.

This is also true for Two-Weapon characters, which are even worse off as TWF is arguably inferior to great weapons for damage, and still loses out of +2 AC.

And feats aren't always in play, nor are they always worth taking. You can't tell me that spending an ASI on GWM is worth not using a shield that comes with the damn starting gear.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I play heavy weapon characters almost exclusively and, while I'm no math genius, anecdotally the way they play feels significantly worse than a character with a shield. The extra damage, even from a Greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting, just doesn't make up for the increased frequency of being hit.

This is also true for Two-Weapon characters, which are even worse off as TWF is arguably inferior to great weapons for damage, and still loses out of +2 AC.

And feats aren't always in play, nor are they always worth taking. You can't tell me that spending an ASI on GWM is worth not using a shield that comes with the damn starting gear.

Would you feel better if to gain the +2 bonus you had to use your reaction before knowing the result of attack roll? And then it lasted until the beginning of your turn?

[strangebloke]

I play heavy weapon characters almost exclusively and, while I'm no math genius, anecdotally the way they play feels significantly worse than a character with a shield. The extra damage, even from a Greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting, just doesn't make up for the increased frequency of being hit.

This is also true for Two-Weapon characters, which are even worse off as TWF is arguably inferior to great weapons for damage, and still loses out of +2 AC.

And feats aren't always in play, nor are they always worth taking. You can't tell me that spending an ASI on GWM is worth not using a shield that comes with the damn starting gear.

Totally can.

The AC is better than a great weapon at the start of the game when you have no HP and two AC decreases the damage you take by half.

By the end of the game it's more like a fifteen percent decrease at best, to a type of damage that is less common than it was.

For comparison, without feats you're getting 30 percent more weapon damage from a heavy weapon, or other utility like long reach.

Gwm is so good it's absurd. Look up kryx's DPR calcs some time. The gwm fighter deals like fifty percent more than his nearest rival.

[LeonBH]

Just reduce everything to mind/body/soul and call it a day.

Mind (Int)/Body (Dex, Str, Con)/Soul (Wis, Cha)?

Do you mean combine the stats, or something else?

[BloodOgre]

1. Since everyone gets to add str/dex bonus to melee damage as well as other potential bonuses (sneak attack bonus, rage bonus, etc), True casters should get damage bonuses to at least low level spells that do damage. At least make a true caster's casting attribute bonus the minimum he/she can do with a spell. It may not mean that much for higher level spells, but it helps at lower levels.

2. Mage armor should be allowed to be cast as a ritual when casting on self. It already takes up a known spell.

3. Proficiency should mean more than just adding the proficiency bonus, at least for some skills. A bard with proficiency in both performance and lute can still technically get outperformed by a fighter who has never touched one before. Playing a given song on a lute should be perhaps a DC10 or DC15 for a bard and a DC25 for someone who has never touched a lute.

[strangebloke]

Mind (Int)/Body (Dex, Str, Con)/Soul (Wis, Cha)?

Do you mean combine the stats, or something else?
It isn't something I'd do, but yeah, combine them.

Well, a lot of Dex aspects would end as 'mind' and a probably a lot of the WIS/CHA would as well. I'm just saying it's better than requiring every martial to have their physical stats as ALL HIGH but allowing casters to skate by on single attribute dependency.

[Talamare]

Sigh.

This is bad.

First off it's a huge Nerf to martials, since suddenly they all need three good stats, whereas a caster could get by with mediocre Dex and con and just used cantrips that require saving throws.Secondly, it makes most gishes impossible, since they'd need four good stats. Thirdly, it would mean stupid builds like a guy with eight strength swinging a greatsword, so it wouldn't even end up being much more realistic.

Just reduce everything to mind/body/soul and call it a day.

It would include several more changes that would make everything work together.

[Easy_Lee]

It would include several more changes that would make everything work together.

Then it doesn't sound like the kind of thing that would fit into a "change three things" compilation.

[Talamare]

Then it doesn't sound like the kind of thing that would fit into a "change three things" compilation.

It's cumulative effort
Besides, your first thing you list was also far more than 3 things with 'fix all the blurry rules'

Pulling it back~
1 - Bear Barbarian, now specifically grants resistance to Fire, Cold, and Lightning
2 - Frenzy Barbarian, no longer exhausts, now goes into a Rage that provides no Physical Resistance (as the penalty)
3 - Battlerager, grapple damage scales

[Easy_Lee]

It's cumulative effort
Besides, your first thing you list was also far more than 3 things with 'fix all the blurry rules'

Pulling it back~
1 - Bear Barbarian, now specifically grants resistance to Fire, Cold, and Lightning
2 - Frenzy Barbarian, no longer exhausts, now goes into a Rage that provides no Physical Resistance (as the penalty)
3 - Battlerager, grapple damage scales

That's fair, but in my defense that wouldn't actually change any rules, just update unclear ones to be more clear. Only Crawford and Mearls could do that as they're the only ones that know what they meant.

Your barbarian changes seem fine.

[strangebloke]

1. Since everyone gets to add str/dex bonus to melee damage as well as other potential bonuses (sneak attack bonus, rage bonus, etc), True casters should get damage bonuses to at least low level spells that do damage. At least make a true caster's casting attribute bonus the minimum he/she can do with a spell. It may not mean that much for higher level spells, but it helps at lower levels.

2. Mage armor should be allowed to be cast as a ritual when casting on self. It already takes up a known spell.

3. Proficiency should mean more than just adding the proficiency bonus, at least for some skills. A bard with proficiency in both performance and lute can still technically get outperformed by a fighter who has never touched one before. Playing a given song on a lute should be perhaps a DC10 or DC15 for a bard and a DC25 for someone who has never touched a lute.
1. I wouldn't say that casters need any help. Damage isn't their niche in any case.
2. This just heightens sorcerer problems.
3. I agree with the spirit of this. You could just double proficiencies and expertise with respect to skills. However, your really shouldn't have separate DCs for separate PCs. You can soft fix this by saying "you're proficient. No check for you."

[Knaight]

I've noticed several people put forward the idea of adding proficiency bonus to armor class. Can anyone explain why they think this might be a good idea? I don't get it. If proficiency is added to both your attack and your armor, and the enemies have the same bonuses, then there is no point adding it in the first place. They will just cancel out.

They cancel out if you have the same proficiency. If the proficiencies aren't the same it gives an advantage to higher proficiency creatures. That's the goal.

Generally the choice to scale primarily by HP and damage instead of hit change just feels really weird. It works fine in something like a very gamist videogame (e.g. Age of Wonders 3), but for an RPG it just seems off. This mitigates that a bit, and makes skill matter for not getting hit.

[Caelic]

1) get rid of that horrifying full page halfling art



Please, yes. What IS that hideous thing?

[Eric Diaz]

Okay, three SMALLISH things, if not very small.

1. EVERYONE get expertise in some shape or form. Maybe expertise is just advantage, I dunno.
2. Proficiency bonus applies to all saves, get expertise for two or more. Probably applies to everything. AC, etc.
3. Advantages/disads can stack.

I feel these would fix most things I dislike about 5e.

[mephnick]

A bard with proficiency in both performance and lute can still technically get outperformed by a fighter who has never touched one before.

Or the DM can do what he's supposed to and say "The Fighter who has never touched a lute can't beat the lute professional in a lute battle, no need to roll because the outcome is impossible and thus does not have a DC."

[strangebloke]

Okay, three SMALLISH things, if not very small.

1. EVERYONE get expertise in some shape or form. Maybe expertise is just advantage, I dunno.
2. Proficiency bonus applies to all saves, get expertise for two or more. Probably applies to everything. AC, etc.
3. Advantages/disads can stack.

I feel these would fix most things I dislike about 5e.

So bounded accuracy, but with a much higher bound to mitigate the swingyness of the d20.

I can dig it.

[Oramac]

3. I agree with the spirit of this. You could just double proficiencies and expertise with respect to skills. However, your really shouldn't have separate DCs for separate PCs. You can soft fix this by saying "you're proficient. No check for you."

I'd agree here. The other option is saying someone without proficiency can't make the check in the first place. I've done this in my own games for other skills (Arcana, History, Survival, etc.) and it works fairly well.

In either case, the sentiment is solid.

[Jama7301]

I've seen the suggestion of adding proficiency to AC, and I've been wondering, would this be for PCs only, or for all monsters, and how would it affect Bounded Accuracy and the design choice of "low level monsters can still inflict damage"?

[Submortimer]

It's whole shtick...

... In 3x, where it sucked and was horribly designed.


Nothing has changed, it still feels like a poor design.



5e sorcerer is very fun. Psions are great, but most DMs don't allow them in my experience.


It's all subjective, of course, but the only thing I've ever seen a sorcerer do better than a wizard is multiclass with Warlock.

And DM's would allow Psions if they had been a core class, like they now allow warlocks.

[N810]

1) better crafting rules. (like being able to here smiths to make things for you)

2) mechanical reasons to take less popular weapons. (so many are just 6d damage and that's it)

3) all levels of exhaustion are gone after a long rest.

[Eric Diaz]

So bounded accuracy, but with a much higher bound to mitigate the swingyness of the d20.

I can dig it.

Yeah, that is exactly my goal.

[Ajadea]

3 little things? Okay.


Int-based Warlock. There's too many Charisma-based casters. I like some variety.
Simplify the weapon attack rules. Melee weapon attack/ranged weapon attack/melee spell attack/ranged spell attack. That's it.
Increased ability to gain proficiencies: I would say grant extra tool/language/kit proficiencies at first level for high Int, and then additionally allow purchase of 1 skill proficiency or 2 tool/language/kit proficiencies for 1 stat point at levels where ability score increases are gained, instead of the Skilled feat. That allows for a little more flexibility for the character to learn things.

[mephnick]

So bounded accuracy, but with a much higher bound to mitigate the swingyness of the d20.

...is that still Bounded Accuracy then?

[mephnick]

[
Increased ability to gain proficiencies: I would say grant extra tool/language/kit proficiencies at first level for high Int


How about gaining a proficiency choice controlled by a stat you get to a certain level? Like every time one of your stats reaches +3, you get a choice bound to that stat. Tying it to Int just arbitrarily favours Wizards.

[Easy_Lee]

You can mitigate the swingy nature of the d20 by instead rolling 1d8+1d12. This skews results toward the average, but also reduces the number of crits you roll and can complicate advantage / disadvantage.

[Hootman]

They cancel out if you have the same proficiency. If the proficiencies aren't the same it gives an advantage to higher proficiency creatures. That's the goal.

Yeah, I noticed that after I made my post. I like the idea in a general sense (more experienced warriors should be harder to hit by less experienced ones), but I feel like the implementation isn't quite right.


I've seen the suggestion of adding proficiency to AC, and I've been wondering, would this be for PCs only, or for all monsters, and how would it affect Bounded Accuracy and the design choice of "low level monsters can still inflict damage"?

I was thinking the same thing, which is why I don't like the idea exactly as presented. It would be absurd to give the bonus only to PCs; you wouldn't be able to justify it in-universe without it being literal Plot Armor(Class), so that means most everything in the MM gets a +2 or better to their current AC.

Now a goblin with a shield has a 17 AC, and the 1st level PC taking him on can only hit on 12+, rather than 10+. Granted, the goblin has to roll better as well, but he probably has more friends than you do.

That same goblin (having somehow survived, probably by Disengaging and legging it with his superior AC to block the longshot attack) attacks a PC who made it all the way to level 17, and can only hit on a 20 now, because even the average wizard's AC is at least 21 with Mage Armor (Shield, 26), the rogue has a 23+, and the iconic paladin is rocking a 27 before magical upgrades.

I feel like this change may cause more problems than it solves, but I'm open to other perspectives.

[Knaight]

Yeah, I noticed that after I made my post. I like the idea in a general sense (more experienced warriors should be harder to hit by less experienced ones), but I feel like the implementation isn't quite right.
It's a quick fix, a more thorough fix probably involves scrapping the AC system entirely, or at least applying fairly large systemic changes.


I was thinking the same thing, which is why I don't like the idea exactly as presented. It would be absurd to give the bonus only to PCs; you wouldn't be able to justify it in-universe without it being literal Plot Armor(Class), so that means most everything in the MM gets a +2 or better to their current AC.
This is why you also increase attack by proficiency again, to take this effect away.


That same goblin (having somehow survived, probably by Disengaging and legging it with his superior AC to block the longshot attack) attacks a PC who made it all the way to level 17, and can only hit on a 20 now, because even the average wizard's AC is at least 21 with Mage Armor (Shield, 26), the rogue has a 23+, and the iconic paladin is rocking a 27 before magical upgrades.
This is exactly what is supposed to happen, although that goblin should have their attack doubled and can probably hit the wizard more easily (shield excepted).

[Eric Diaz]

...is that still Bounded Accuracy then?

Well, yes. I didn't even suggest bigger numbers - just expertise for everybody, which is something two classes - and potentially all humans - can already get.

[Mith]

How about gaining a proficiency choice controlled by a stat you get to a certain level? Like every time one of your stats reaches +3, you get a choice bound to that stat. Tying it to Int just arbitrarily favours Wizards.

I like this. If I understand properly, someone can boost a stat with an ASI and run it as practising a skill associated with the Stat? So if a Barbarian boosts Dex up to 16, they can take Acrobatics as a skill, saying they practise to get better and so become more dexterous? This also limits the skill growth to +2 skills. Useful, but aside from Strength, it doesn't allow one to completely claim a skill area without investing other methods of claiming skills through class and background.

[Theodoxus]

I couldn't pick just three... so with Zman's help, I rewrote the game... (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rJqn6Xo7M)

[Telwar]

Would reverting to Fort/Ref/Will count?

Yeah, something like that. I really did like that in 4e, everyone rolled against a fixed defense. It bothered me that in 3.PF or 5e, it's still on the expert swordsman to hit a minion (i.e. the miss is assumed), whereas a spellcaster is assumed to have a successful spell unless the target saves.

Alternately, everybody forces saves, and honestly that might reflect some things better, as you can hit an unresisting target pretty easily, but one that's dodging/parrying/blocking is going to have an easier time making sure that weapon doesn't hit, or if it does, it hits an area that can absorb the blow.


You mean something like:
Small Simple Weapon: 1d4 damage + one quality
Large Simple Weapon: 1d6 damage + one quality
Small Martial Weapon: 1d8 damage + two qualities
Large Martial Weapon: 1d10 damage + two qualities
Dwarves, Elves and rogues gain prof in small weapons

Light Armor: AC 13 + Dex
Medium Armor: AC 16 + Dex (max 2)
Heavy Armor: AC 18, Min Str 15
Shield: +2 AC

?

Something like that would definitely work, and you could even pre-define weapons based on qualities, but 13th Age (I really did like that game) had a Simple/Martial and Light/Medium/Heavy hierarchy, *and* it varied by class, so say a paladin would do d10s with a greatsword, whereas a sorcerer would have like a d8 and a -4 to hit.

[strangebloke]

...is that still Bounded Accuracy then?
Unless there's some nuance I'm missing... it's still bounded? The numbers could go up to a thousand but so long as there's pretty much a finite limit to them, it's still 'bounded'.

Now, if the numbers get high enough that a low-level threat can't hit you without a nat 20, for instance, well... that's kind of breaking the spirit of the thing. But he's just talking about letting more players than rogues and bards get absurd skill checks. But I kinda feel, with all due respect, that he's tilting at windmills. There are lots of ways to fix the d20 swingyness that don't involve rewriting class features.

Yeah, I noticed that after I made my post. I like the idea in a general sense (more experienced warriors should be harder to hit by less experienced ones), but I feel like the implementation isn't quite right.

I was thinking the same thing, which is why I don't like the idea exactly as presented. It would be absurd to give the bonus only to PCs; you wouldn't be able to justify it in-universe without it being literal Plot Armor(Class), so that means most everything in the MM gets a +2 or better to their current AC.

Now a goblin with a shield has a 17 AC, and the 1st level PC taking him on can only hit on 12+, rather than 10+. Granted, the goblin has to roll better as well, but he probably has more friends than you do.

That same goblin (having somehow survived, probably by Disengaging and legging it with his superior AC to block the longshot attack) attacks a PC who made it all the way to level 17, and can only hit on a 20 now, because even the average wizard's AC is at least 21 with Mage Armor (Shield, 26), the rogue has a 23+, and the iconic paladin is rocking a 27 before magical upgrades.

I feel like this change may cause more problems than it solves, but I'm open to other perspectives.
Good thoughts.

two additional thoughts:
1. Shield bonus as proficiency to AC. It makes shields a lot better at high levels. It probably keeps them even with something like dueling for a fighter, but it's also probably way better than every other option for every class that isn't fighter. Feats change things, but all this does is to make TWF want to go cry in a corner even more.

2. Remember that HP =/= meat. That lvl one fighter can get a few nicks in on the old master, but nothing that even phases the old guy. Think of it as the more experienced warrior getting a little sore from having to put this FNG in his place. I mean, mathmatically, a level 10 guy probably loses less than 10% of his health fighting a level 1 guy.


I couldn't pick just three... so with Zman's help, I rewrote the game... (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rJqn6Xo7M)

Yeah... not really within the realm of what we're talking about here. Still, I'm curious what Zman would pick. Big fan of his 'tweaks.'

[mephnick]

Unless there's some nuance I'm missing... it's still bounded? The numbers could go up to a thousand but so long as there's pretty much a finite limit to them, it's still 'bounded'.

Now, if the numbers get high enough that a low-level threat can't hit you without a nat 20, for instance, well... that's kind of breaking the spirit of the thing. But he's just talking about letting more players than rogues and bards get absurd skill checks.

He mentioned adding it to PC AC and saves which is what I was taking issue with. That quickly approaches obsolete low-level threats. Just skills is ok I guess.

[Logosloki]

Ritual magic is an innate ability of adventurers - both pc and npc. Ritual magic includes scrolls and magic items.

Any flavour text that insinuates negative impact on the progression or function of your class(es) is sidebar'd. Sidebars of this nature trigger on the consent of the player.

immunity and resistance are changed to hardened and resistance. Hardened gives a passive half damage to whatever it affects (hardened against fire means you take half of the final damage amount from anything with the keyword fire) and resistance mwans you take half damage on a save to that keyword (DC is the level of CR of the source).

[Blacky the Blackball]

Emphasis added. I just want to clarify: rolling for ability scores is the default; point buy is the variant (optional) rule.


or the Truth...
Point Buy is the only acceptable form of playing, and they lie to you saying that Rolling is the default because 4e was bad.

Sorry, I was unclear. My shuffling of text would leave Standard Array as the only method in the PHB, and put both the Rolling and Point Buy methods in the DMG optional rules section.

[Talionis]

1. Add an Tinker/Alchemist Class to the game.
2. Agonizing Blast Invocation requires Warlock 5. Front load Hexblade less.
3. Add to number of Feats available. Separate feats from ASI somehow.

[Black Jester]

I would like to see a return to the three Saving Throw Categories from 3.X - with a minor bonus (half proficiency bonus) to non proficient Saves.

Spellcasting should either provoke attacks of opportunity (without requiring a feat) or gappling or being grappled should prevent casting spells with somatic components. One or the other.

Turning cantrips into an unlimited ressource was easily the worst design decision of 5e; nothing to make magic lam and mundane as making it cheap as dirt. Cantrips should be used only a few times (Attribute + Proficiency Bonus), and recharge on a short rest.

[Talamare]

1 - GWM & Sharpshooter no longer has the Power Attack Feature
2 - New Feats Power Attack and Power Shot,

You may negate the accuracy bonus from Proficiency to Attack Rolls to gain your Proficiency Bonus to Damage Rolls. 2 Handed Weapons gain Double Proficiency Bonus to Damage Rolls.

[Pex]

Turning cantrips into an unlimited ressource was easily the worst design decision of 5e; nothing to make magic lam and mundane as making it cheap as dirt. Cantrips should be used only a few times (Attribute + Proficiency Bonus), and recharge on a short rest.

Disagree strongly. It makes spellcasters feel like spellcasters. Practicality, it helps spellcasters conserve their slots of which they get far fewer than in previous editions but still contribute something meaningful to the combat. Out of combat it's a magical ribbon effect like you read about in stories. It is also aesthetically pleasing to say "I cast Fire Bolt/Sacred Flame/Eldritch blast" rather than "I fire my crossbow". I'm playing a spellcaster, not a warrior. Casting spells is the whole point.

[Mongobear]

I already replied, but I thought of more...

1. Spread the Proficiency bonus scaling out more. Start at +1, end at +7.

2. Proficiency applies to everything listed as a class/race/background skill or save. You get Int modifier choices for skills to be "focused" on gaining Expertise with. Stuff that grants Expertise now grants Advantage, Jack of All Trades/Remarkable Athlete let's you "Take 10" on the checks they apply to. Saving throw proficiency determined by class, formula for DCs increased accordingly.

3. ASIs and Feats divided from one another. Feats gained at 1st level, and every level Cantrips increase, however they no longer grant stat boosts for Half Feats, except for Resilient. Half Feats buffed accordingly, or paired with one another to be on par with the good Feats.

[Laurefindel]

1) remove racial ability modifiers. If you MUST include them, leave them floating between few "favored" abilities.

2) tweak TWF; removal of bonus action reqrement is a good start.

3) rework the wild magic surge table. Concept of wild mage is fine, just make wild magic randomly affect the potency of your current spell rather then cartoony effects like spewing blue butterflies out of your arse.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sorry, I was unclear. My shuffling of text would leave Standard Array as the only method in the PHB, and put both the Rolling and Point Buy methods in the DMG optional rules section. I'd ask you to make sure you stay away from any revision to the D&D game. What you suggested makes the game worse, and less flexible, not more or better, and drives its feel toward a CRPG. Must thumbs down this one.

[Eric Diaz]

Unless there's some nuance I'm missing... it's still bounded? The numbers could go up to a thousand but so long as there's pretty much a finite limit to them, it's still 'bounded'.

Now, if the numbers get high enough that a low-level threat can't hit you without a nat 20, for instance, well... that's kind of breaking the spirit of the thing. But he's just talking about letting more players than rogues and bards get absurd skill checks. But I kinda feel, with all due respect, that he's tilting at windmills. There are lots of ways to fix the d20 swingyness that don't involve rewriting class features.



He mentioned adding it to PC AC and saves which is what I was taking issue with. That quickly approaches obsolete low-level threats. Just skills is ok I guess.

It is not "either/or". It is quantity, not quality - shades of grey and all.

Take goblins, for example. +4 to hit, +6 under my proposal. They would be able to hit an AC 26 PC even without the "natural 20" rule. A 20th level Fighter would STILL not have an easy time against 100 goblin archers, but a dozen would be a lot easier to deal with.

BTW, the wisest thing an adult black dragon would do against 100 determined goblins archers would be flying the other way.

Saves? A 20th level wizard would STILL have about one chance in three of being INSTANTLY turned to stone if he opens a door and sees a medusa (CR 6) on the other side. A 20th level fighter, OTOH, might have a 5% or less of being petrified, making a lonely medusa almost obsolete - which, admittedly, goes against some of 5e's goals.

EDIT: Remember, At the fourth tier (levels 17-20), Characters achieve the pinnacle of their class features, becoming heroic (or villainous) archetypes in their own right. The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance during their adventures.. So, somehow, they can save the MULTIVERSE, but wouldn't dare fighting a decent sized goblin army.

Anyway, it is not something I care enough to rewrite the whole system. But, personally, while i LIKE bounded accuracy, I think they went TOO FAR on this direction.

[Gardakan]

That's why I don't like sorcerers. You feel obligated to multiclass to make your sorcerer better

Sorcerer are viable on their own. Multiclassing while being a primary sorcerer is something else. Like I took a level of Bard to get good use of my Charisma.

[JNAProductions]

It is not "either/or". It is quantity, not quality - shades of grey and all.

Take goblins, for example. +4 to hit, +6 under my proposal. They would be able to hit an AC 26 PC even without the "natural 20" rule. A 20th level Fighter would STILL not have an easy time against 100 goblin archers, but a dozen would be a lot easier to deal with.

BTW, the wisest thing an adult black dragon would do against 100 determined goblins archers would be flying the other way.

Saves? A 20th level wizard would STILL have about one chance in three of being INSTANTLY turned to stone if he opens a door and sees a medusa (CR 6) on the other side. A 20th level fighter, OTOH, might have a 5% or less of being petrified, making the medusa almost obsolete

Anyway, it is not something I care enough to rewrite the whole system. But, personally, while i LIKE bounded accuracy, I think they went TOO FAR on this direction.

Right, but a 20th level Fighter has around (assuming 20 Con) 224 HP. If Goblins only hit on a Nat 20, they deal an average of (assuming shortbow and +3 Dex mod, since I'm AFB at the moment) .5 points of damage per shot. (.325 if that Fighter has Adamantine armor.) So that's 448 Goblin/rounds to kill him, assuming they're all in range and he never imposes disadvantage. Meanwhile, since he's at +11 to hit, in all probability, he's killing around 3 a turn.

You can hit anything on a Nat 20 in 3.5 too-that doesn't make it a good idea.

[Talamare]

Right, but a 20th level Fighter has around (assuming 20 Con) 224 HP. If Goblins only hit on a Nat 20, they deal an average of (assuming shortbow and +3 Dex mod, since I'm AFB at the moment) .5 points of damage per shot. (.325 if that Fighter has Adamantine armor.) So that's 448 Goblin/rounds to kill him, assuming they're all in range and he never imposes disadvantage. Meanwhile, since he's at +11 to hit, in all probability, he's killing around 3 a turn.

You can hit anything on a Nat 20 in 3.5 too-that doesn't make it a good idea.

So what you're saying is...
The D in DnD stands for Dynasty Warriors

[Eric Diaz]

Right, but a 20th level Fighter has around (assuming 20 Con) 224 HP. If Goblins only hit on a Nat 20, they deal an average of (assuming shortbow and +3 Dex mod, since I'm AFB at the moment) .5 points of damage per shot. (.325 if that Fighter has Adamantine armor.) So that's 448 Goblin/rounds to kill him, assuming they're all in range and he never imposes disadvantage. Meanwhile, since he's at +11 to hit, in all probability, he's killing around 3 a turn.

You can hit anything on a Nat 20 in 3.5 too-that doesn't make it a good idea.

Even assuming 20 Con and Adamantine armor, and even if the fighter kills 4 goblins every turn - he would be dead in 6 rounds, more or less, after killing less than... what? 30 goblins?

And under normal rules? Say, AC 24* and adamantine armor? Maybe 10 dead goblins before death? It is more... realistic, I think. Just not exactly my taste.

How many orcs did Boromir kill in the books, and what level should he be? OTOH, in The Hobbit movies a dwarf can take 100 goblins at once... probably too much for me, at least until level 15+.

It is all a matter of taste, IMO.

*I don't even know that a Fighter can have AC 24 if we believe that magic weapons are optional... which I don't, of course.

[Knaight]

Right, but a 20th level Fighter has around (assuming 20 Con) 224 HP. If Goblins only hit on a Nat 20, they deal an average of (assuming shortbow and +3 Dex mod, since I'm AFB at the moment) .5 points of damage per shot. (.325 if that Fighter has Adamantine armor.) So that's 448 Goblin/rounds to kill him, assuming they're all in range and he never imposes disadvantage. Meanwhile, since he's at +11 to hit, in all probability, he's killing around 3 a turn.

That doesn't actually need that many goblins. Essentially n goblins last for n/3 rounds, so you get n2/3 attacks for n goblins. 37 goblins should be able to do it.

[Khrysaes]

I skipped from page 1 to 5.... so maybe these have been suggested.

1: Rangers prepare spells rather than have spells known.

2: Arcane Archer is a ranger subclass and not fighter. Except it isnt ranged specific(works with melee), and instead of 2 uses per rest, it is used by spending spell slots like smites. Damage scales based on spell level.

3: Remove most of the ranger's power from subclasses and spells and put it into the main class. Have the subclasses and spells accuentuate the base chasis.

4: Just rewrite the entire ranger.

5: Warlocks use spell points rather than spell slots.

6: Sorcs use spell points rather than spell slots. Sorcery points are added to spell points.

7: Wild magic sorcs instead of having what they currently do, get reckless casting rather than surge(or surge on double 10's), as the Inventor wizard from Jan 2018 UA.

8: TWF, gain an off hand attack each TURN, not using a bonus action. maybe 1/extra attack as well.

[2D8HP]

..... Either remove darkvision from all/almost all PC races, or couple it with a nerf to daylight-vision.....
So maybe all races with Darkvision have the same disadvantage in daylight that Drow do, or something like that?

That's pretty good, even with a Feat for "variant human", Darkvision is such an advantage that Half-Elf usually looks to be a better option than Human

[Blacky the Blackball]

I'd ask you to make sure you stay away from any revision to the D&D game. What you suggested makes the game worse, and less flexible, not more or better, and drives its feel toward a CRPG. Must thumbs down this one.

Better/worse is just subjective opinion - so we'll simply have to disagree on that. Naturally, I think my suggestions would make the game better, not worse (obviously I do - or I wouldn't have suggested them).

Since my suggestions have taken no options or rules out of the game, I've clearly not made it any less flexible. You can still do absolutely anything with the game modified by my suggestions that you would be able to do with the game not modified by my suggestions.

What my suggestions do change is that they put control of that flexibility more firmly in the DM's hands. They make more of the game parts into "as a DM you might want to use this in your campaigns, if you and your players prefer a more complex game" rather than "as a player you can feel free to use this, unless your control-freak of a DM bans it". The same flexibility is still there, but the onus is on the DM to actively add the more complex options if they want them, rather than it being assumed to be the default unless the DM takes them away because they don't want them.

Optional rules should always be opt-in, rather than opt-out. In terms of flexibility, there's no difference - you can still choose to use the options or not - but psychologically there's a big difference between adding a mechanic/system/option to the game and removing one.

And I've no idea what you think CRPGs have to do with my suggestions. That one seems completely out of left field.

[toapat]

1: Each character can have 0-3 Inspiration, and inspiration is only generated by having the Ideal/Trait/Bond/Flaw system be used either to push people into bad situations (IE, Trait: never back down pushes you into an unwinnable fight) or by acting on them (Bond: Save a Damsel in Distress: Rescue the extremely masculine Half-Orc, powerlifing Sorcerer from falling to their death).

2: Advantage and Disadvantage are summed up, and you only roll 2D20 when one outranks the other.

3: Paladins may use their class features with any weapon attacks, not just melee. Barbarians may use their class features with any Strength weapons. Sorcerers use Spell points instead of Spell Slots. Every Class with fighting style gets every fighting style.

4: Champion fighter doesnt exist.

5: Short Rests take 8/4 hours, Long rests take 24/12 hours

[UrielAwakened]

1) Attacker always rolls (Fort, Ref, Will are defenses again).

2) Add actual rules for DMs to DM. Rules about running a session, failing forward, etc.. Modernize being a game master a little bit since they're still treating it like a free-for-all.

3) Just everything about magic items becomes different.

[Ignimortis]

5: Short Rests take 8/4 hours, Long rests take 24/12 hours

Why do you believe LONGER rests are good? Nobody would ever take a short rest if it took even more than it does now. Sitting for X hours in a dungeon just screams "bad idea" unless you can find a defensible position and reinforce it well enough to actually rest and not peek into the shadows for possible enemies. 5e doesn't give enough resources, especially at low levels, for this to work. Imagine being a warlock who's stuck casting 2 spells per day for 10 levels, or any class with a short-rest based mechanic. It's obvious that it was designed with the idea of "1-2 combats between short rests".

[toapat]

It's obvious that it was designed with the idea of "1-2 combats between short rests".

you missed that the long rest also takes a significant increase in time. Short rests, in generally everyone's experience across 4 different Media groups ive observed, says that the current rest system is broken because its too easy to ignore the "6 encounter" day. This is a change brought up half the time and that ive seen people who even like the current 1 hour/8 hour rest durations typically receive with pretty open arms. The chane makes Short rests much more accepted by non-short rest classes

but, as i also put, its the lowest priority bandage fix below deleting an entire archetype

[Potato_Priest]

Here would be my fix to the rest system:

No resources besides HP recharge on a short rest. All formerly short rest recharge abilities now recharge on a long rest only and have 3x as many uses. If a previously long rest recharge feature becomes a short rest recharge feature (like bardic inspiration at level 5) multiply the available uses by 3 instead.

The hope would be that this would allow you to tailor the adventuring day to your preference and that of your players: you could have anywhere from 1 encounter per day to 10 without seriously mucking up class balance.

This, after I think about it, is perhaps the best change I could possibly make to the system, far above my other suggestions. The only problem is that warlocks get a bit weird, but they were strange anyway.

[huttj509]

Why do you believe LONGER rests are good? Nobody would ever take a short rest if it took even more than it does now. Sitting for X hours in a dungeon just screams "bad idea" unless you can find a defensible position and reinforce it well enough to actually rest and not peek into the shadows for possible enemies. 5e doesn't give enough resources, especially at low levels, for this to work. Imagine being a warlock who's stuck casting 2 spells per day for 10 levels, or any class with a short-rest based mechanic. It's obvious that it was designed with the idea of "1-2 combats between short rests".

I think that might be the point. If someone finds it unreasonable to fit 5-6 fights in an adventuring day, a more leisurely pace would correlate with a change to the rest rules.

Though isn't that already a mentioned option in the DMG?

[JBPuffin]

How broad is redoing weapons and armor? Use generic weapons and armor and give examples of each. Pair it down so that choosing your weapons is strategic, but you can also style them however you want (chakram, anyone?). Too broad? If not, that's my #1 (knock everything else down one). If it is, here's the list:

1. All full-casting classes have spells known equal to their spell slots (so 2 1st at level 1, 4 1st and 2 2nd at level 3, etc) plus 1 at each level. Clerics and Druids already get extra spells, no reason they should be able to prep from their whole GD list. Normal spellcasting uses spell points, and Sorcery points are equivalent to spell points on a 1-for-1 basis, but Pact Magic is tracked separately.
2. Clerics start with wizard armor and weapon proficiencies. Life etc offer medium, War et al only offer the rest of the simple weapons. Sorcerers and Wizards get light armor. Bards and Warlocks get shield proficiency. Druids are clearly allowed to wear/use metal stuff should they wish to (for the a-holes who say otherwise).
3. Rogue gets Jack of All Trades at Level 2; Expertise now only adds half your proficiency bonus.

...Okay, a couple more.
4. Dual-wielding requires proficiency with at least 3 martial weapons, but you get the benefits of the Dual Wielder feat automatically.
5. Initiative based on the sum of Dex, Int, and Wis modifiers. Yes, this makes Initiative strangely fiddly for this edition. No, I don't have a problem with that.
6. Breath Weapon is a bonus action, and Dragonborn get darkvision and training in one Charisma skill.
7. Half-Elf only gets +1 to Charisma.
8. Tiefling gets +1 to whatever other score it wants rather than Intelligence - remember, they're the spawn of humans, however seemingly distant.

That fixes everything that seems off to me in the PHB.

[Mith]

@JBPuffin For your first change, have you played earlier editions and disliked the spell selection for Clerics and Druids then too? I'm not saying you are wrong with your opinion, it just seems like a strange fix to me since Divine casters have always been "all spells available".

[Talionis]

Fix Weapon Throwing with a strong feat that makes it worthwhile and different from Bows and Crossbows. Since thrown weapons have shorter range and the loading ammunition problem of not being able to draw enough weapons, if suggest that it be similar to Pole Arm Mastery in power level.

[Malifice]

Even assuming 20 Con and Adamantine armor, and even if the fighter kills 4 goblins every turn - he would be dead in 6 rounds, more or less, after killing less than... what? 30 goblins?

Champion. Survivor.

[Potato_Priest]

Alright, I've compiled a new list, due to reminders about darkvision from Beefgood and my own insights into the rest system.

1. Short rest recharge features rechorge on a long rest, but have 3 times as many uses.
2. If your race grants you darkvision, you can choose to keep it and gain sunlight sensitivity, or lose darkvision.
3. No monsters except lycanthropes are immune/resistant to nonmagical weapons.

[Mith]

If no monster is immune or resistant to magical weapons save lycanthropes, do you plan to adjust HP as well? Part of the balance I think with some monsters is that they are introduced when magic weapons are scarce, making them a lot more difficult to drop.

[Potato_Priest]

If no monster is immune or resistant to magical weapons save lycanthropes, do you plan to adjust HP as well? Part of the balance I think with some monsters is that they are introduced when magic weapons are scarce, making them a lot more difficult to drop.

As a general rule I won't, but I don't follow the CR system (I've gotten pretty good at eyeballing it with some experience) so I don't foresee this being an issue in my games, as I'll just throw more stuff at them to make up for the monster not making the fighter obsolete.

I want to be able to play a low-magic item game without hurting my martials, and this is the way to do it.

[BeefGood]

4: Champion fighter doesnt exist.


I get that some people don't want to play a Champion, and there have been threads about that, but why must it be eliminated? For example, do you think that it's a trap option, and people choose it without realizing, and then later they decide that it's not fun? Or is it too powerful and therefore makes the game less fun for everyone else?

[Potato_Priest]

Here's another, albeit minor fix:

All snakes are immune to the prone condition.

[Sudsboy]

1. Add feats that buff one hand and dual wield damage, or rework GWM and Sharpshooter (or both!)

2. Expand and rework spell lists so the caster classes don't share as many. Playing my bard doesn't feel significantly different than playing my wizard in combat.

3. Make our DM hand out treasure.

[Wartex1]

1. TWF either gets extra attacks as you gain more regular attacks or the fighting style removes the bonus action requirement.

2. Sorcerer gets Level+CHA spells known by default

3. Martials get a slight bonus to attacks at low levels to differentiate more between martials and non-martials before extra attacks happen.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

1. ASI and Extra Attacks are based on character level. Rather than BAB, characters have “Combat Proficiency” based on class that isn’t added to attacks but gives bonus attacks at fixed amounts. Fighters have the highest CP and still gain bonus ASIs at the levels they do now.

2. Go all-in on the MtG crossover and replace the classic 9 alignments with a color wheel alignment system. You lose the confusing clash between real world morals and the outdated objective morality of D&D in favor of something more flexible and descriptive.

3. Warlocks cast with Int, Sorcerers use the Spell Point variant by default, and Rangers are prepared casters

[toapat]

I get that some people don't want to play a Champion, and there have been threads about that, but why must it be eliminated? For example, do you think that it's a trap option, and people choose it without realizing, and then later they decide that it's not fun? Or is it too powerful and therefore makes the game less fun for everyone else?

Champion Fighter is something else entirely, its an option that consumes valuable system lifetime resources for detrimental gain, which is further hurt by the fact it is effectively redundant with the Berserker barbarian. If they wanted an auto pilot class, why didnt they make the berserker more autopilot and more powerful by giving them expanded critical range.

[strangebloke]

Champion Fighter is something else entirely, its an option that consumes valuable system lifetime resources for detrimental gain, which is further hurt by the fact it is effectively redundant with the Berserker barbarian. If they wanted an auto pilot class, why didnt they make the berserker more autopilot and more powerful by giving them expanded critical range.
You kidding me?

Berserker is fairly complex to play, compared to champion.

Do I rage? Do I reckless attack? Do I frenzy?

All tough decisions.

I was relieved to see my player switch to champion from the warlock they had been playing. Went from ten minutes waffling on each turn to 'i attack again.'

[Mith]

Champion Fighter is something else entirely, its an option that consumes valuable system lifetime resources for detrimental gain, which is further hurt by the fact it is effectively redundant with the Berserker barbarian. If they wanted an auto pilot class, why didnt they make the berserker more autopilot and more powerful by giving them expanded critical range.

I think the synergy between the expanded crit range and the Brutal Critical damage spike might have been too much for the balance between Frenzy and the other Barbarian subclasses.

[toapat]

I think the synergy between the expanded crit range and the Brutal Critical damage spike might have been too much for the balance between Frenzy and the other Barbarian subclasses.

Frenzy already surpasses the other specs, and its only 5% per threat and per die. id rather have it cleanly excel in its dedicated function, rather then poison the water with a bad subclass and a subclass that doesnt outperform by significant enough margin to ever be better than the alternatives

[Jigawatts]

My 3 things (which I acknowledge dont really follow the OPs rules)

Bounded Accuracy (makes the game more a about blind luck than a characters innate skill, and exasperates D&Ds swingyness problem)

Auto full HP upon 8 hours rest (I prefer old school methods of health recovery)

Concentration (I like magic to be intricate, in depth, and reward clever combinations of spells)

[Potato_Priest]

My 3 things (which I acknowledge dont really follow the OPs rules)

Bounded Accuracy (makes the game more a about blind luck than a characters innate skill, and exasperates D&Ds swingyness problem)

Auto full HP upon 8 hours rest (I prefer old school methods of health recovery)

Concentration (I like magic to be intricate, in depth, and reward clever combinations of spells)

Sounds to me like you should be playing 3.x/pathfinder. If you’ll pardon my curiosity, why aren’t you?

[seventh_soul]

1. Ranger abilities scale

2. Change sorcerer or warlock to intelligence

3. Add more finesse weapons

[strangebloke]

Frenzy already surpasses the other specs, and its only 5% per threat and per die. id rather have it cleanly excel in its dedicated function, rather then poison the water with a bad subclass and a subclass that doesnt outperform by significant enough margin to ever be better than the alternatives

See, here's the thing though. Champion is bad compared to other subclasses, but only when those other subclasses are played with a high degree of system mastery.

My player was much more effective as a champion than she had been as a warlock. She later played a battlemaster, and due to her mismanagement of her superiority dice and her bad positioning skills, she actually saw a credible dip in her overall strength.

I view fighter as a necessary evil. It's a generic class for when you want to play a martial but don't want any other fluff constraints.

Berzerker has some serious problems, though, I'll assent to that.

[Doug Lampert]

Here's another, albeit minor fix:

All snakes are immune to the prone condition.

Why? Real snakes can be prone, and it's a disadvantage, they have a definite top and bottom and strongly prefer the top to be on top.

You can't knock a snake down, but you can flip it on it's side or back. Maybe disadvantage to attempts to prone a snake, but it shouldn't be impossible.

[Whit]

Let’s make it broad: now that they see the mistakes from the initial 5e to the new stuff, they should 1. Revise race , Skills and feats

[jas61292]

See, here's the thing though. Champion is bad compared to other subclasses, but only when those other subclasses are played with a high degree of system mastery.

And it's not just system mastery. Metagame knowledge and luck is also key to most theoretical analyses that show the power of the battlemaster. Uniform workdays (that you know in advance are uniform), never using superiority dice badly, etc.

Yes, luck can effect anyone, but with someone like the Champion, such things are independent events. Critting when it was unnecessary doesn't stop you from critting again later. But rolling a 1 on your superiority die when you needed a 2 to finish off the enemy is effectively a waste of a resource.

I'm not gonna say battlemaster is bad, or champion is amazing, but white room theorycrafting almost always assumes situations of perfect knowledge and average luck, which causes it to overstate the power of anything that relies on player decisions, relative to those that at more passive.

[KorvinStarmast]

about theory crafting and white room battles:

I was playing in a text based game last night.
Level 2 paladin in melee combat with two bandits.
I missed the first three attacks.
Damage inflicted = 0. I am sure that one of you will be happy to tell me the DPR for that character with a dueling fighting style ... Str 16 (+3) and Prof Bonus +2. I think the AC I was up against was 14 or 15, not sure. I'll look at (4.5 + 3 + 2) x .55 (Presuming I needed a raw 10 to hit) and arrive at: 5.225
DPR is meaningless in actual combat that lasts 3-5 rounds.
I did hit on the fourth attack, which was nice. But I didn't do 15.7 damage. Nor 21.
My two opponents missed me quite a bit, but the two hits were
for 1 damage, and a Critical hit. (Damage spike).
Their "DPR" also was more or less meaningless in terms of how the encounter ended up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it's not just system mastery. Metagame knowledge and luck is also key to most theoretical analyses that show the power of the battlemaster. Uniform workdays (that you know in advance are uniform), never using superiority dice badly, etc.

Yes, luck can effect anyone, but with someone like the Champion, such things are independent events. Critting when it was unnecessary doesn't stop you from critting again later. But rolling a 1 on your superiority die when you needed a 2 to finish off the enemy is effectively a waste of a resource.

I'm not gonna say battlemaster is bad, or champion is amazing, but white room theorycrafting almost always assumes situations of perfect knowledge and average luck, which causes it to overstate the power of anything that relies on player decisions, relative to those that at more passive.


about theory crafting and white room battles:

I was playing in a text based game last night.
Level 2 paladin in melee combat with two bandits.
I missed the first three attacks.
Damage inflicted = 0. I am sure that one of you will be happy to tell me the DPR for that character with a dueling fighting style ...
DPR is meaningless in actual combat that lasts 3-5 rounds.
I did hit on the fourth attack, which was nice.
Str 16 (+3) and Prof Bonus +2.
My two opponents missed me quite a bit, but the two hits were
for 1 damage
and a Critical hit. Damage spike.
Their "DPR" also was meaningless in terms of how the encounter ended up.

My rule of thumb is that theoretical DPR variations of about 15% or less are under the noise floor for real play (and can basically be ignored). Too many assumptions about averages, not enough rolls for statistics to have low variances.

[KorvinStarmast]

Too many assumptions about averages, not enough rolls for statistics to have low variances. Indeed. If our combats have something like 20 rolls for an encounter (which at higher levels I've run into a few times with 3x attacks per turn for my champion) I suspect that DPR will begin to be less irrelevant at table. It's still a useful analytical tool.

[Rhedyn]

And it's not just system mastery. Metagame knowledge and luck is also key to most theoretical analyses that show the power of the battlemaster. Uniform workdays (that you know in advance are uniform), never using superiority dice badly, etc.

Yes, luck can effect anyone, but with someone like the Champion, such things are independent events. Critting when it was unnecessary doesn't stop you from critting again later. But rolling a 1 on your superiority die when you needed a 2 to finish off the enemy is effectively a waste of a resource.

I'm not gonna say battlemaster is bad, or champion is amazing, but white room theorycrafting almost always assumes situations of perfect knowledge and average luck, which causes it to overstate the power of anything that relies on player decisions, relative to those that at more passive.
What many people forget is that Great Weapon Master procs a bonus action attack on a critical hit.

When that is taken into account, champions do very well at closing the distance with Battlemasters in the models I've seen.

[strangebloke]

What many people forget is that Great Weapon Master procs a bonus action attack on a critical hit.

When that is taken into account, champions do very well at closing the distance with Battlemasters in the models I've seen.

Really?

Because a BM can choose to use precision attack after he misses, which (in a white room) effectively gives him a +3 or so to attack since he can wait to expend his dice until it's probable that he'll turn a hit into a miss. In other words he can mostly mitigate the cost of GWM.

The analysis I've seen favors BMs, until you add in feats and then the BM completely destroys the Champion.

However, in-game performance is more determined by the skill of the player than the power of the baseline build he's using.

[toapat]

See, here's the thing though. Champion is bad compared to other subclasses, but only when those other subclasses are played with a high degree of system mastery.

you assume im saying champion shouldnt exist because of BM and EK, youre fundamentally missing the point that Champion is developed on Bad Faith assumptions and inherently, detrimentally effects Berserker Barbarian in a way other classes dont really have an equivalent.

because both the Berserker barbarian and the Champion fighter are both designed to the exact same role, the class which is already allocated that role (barbarian) cannot excel at the single type of role that having a class that further compounds on being "low technical skill" would truly provide as a good experience.

No, im not denying that Champion is one of the lowest skill subclasses in the game, but it simply doesnt fulfill the needs of the system at that function, Berserker could with a revision without Champion existing

[KorvinStarmast]

because both the Berserker barbarian and the Champion fighter are both designed to the exact same role, I'd be interested to see your support for this assertion.
Not being snarky, I really do want to see how you arrived at this statement.

[Jigawatts]

Sounds to me like you should be playing 3.x/pathfinder. If you’ll pardon my curiosity, why aren’t you?

Because I love how streamlined 5E is and I hate how fiddly 3.5/Pathfinder/the d20 system is. I also love how it feels like 2E. Honestly, a 2E retroclone mixed with some modern/5E elements would be my perfect version of D&D, sadly that does not exist and most retroclones are BD&D based.

[Talamare]

Have you guys considered taking all this Champion discussion into a new thread?

[qube]

1. Adding class+level to spells
2. add all advantage/disadvantages to get an end result (2 things that give advante, 1 that gives disadvantage --> still get advantage)
3. fix the beastmaster

[toapat]

I'd be interested to see your support for this assertion.
Not being snarky, I really do want to see how you arrived at this statement.

Berserker and Champion are designed to form a "maximal damage for minimal input logic" subclass, simply put, you are supposed to give people who dont feel comfortable with any resources one of those classes to play.

This is problematic because it means you cannot have a class that passively excels at its Job to make players feel good about their abilities while they learn either limited resource management or the mechanics of the game, which is further impacted by the fact a Fighter actually has to have pretty high system mastery to be remotely relevant against a First time Paladin who at least handles all of their own bookkeeping effectively.

So, rather then have the most Technically intensive mundane handle the "Blind Idiot" subclass, such a subclass should have access to native, simple, and powerful tools that do not require alot of system mastery to utilize, Barbarian fits this profile alot better, with their binary status of Rage and the enduring status of rage.

As i said, the very existence of Champion Fighter is only a thing because of Bad Faith development.

[strangebloke]

...which is further impacted by the fact a Fighter actually has to have pretty high system mastery to be remotely relevant against a First time Paladin who at least handles all of their own bookkeeping effectively.

So, rather then have the most Technically intensive mundane handle the "Blind Idiot" subclass, such a subclass should have access to native, simple, and powerful tools that do not require alot of system mastery to utilize, Barbarian fits this profile alot better, with their binary status of Rage and the enduring status of rage.

What about fighter is technically intensive? You mean feat selection? substituting attacks for shoves and grapples? It's mostly brainless, imo. Fighting with a great weapon? Pick a muscly looking race from the phb, take gwf, gwm, put on your armor, and go ham. Wanna go sword and board? Grab the one-handed fighting style or the defensive one or the protection one and go ham. Pick up shield master cause you're a guy with a shield. Throw some points in charisma just cause you feel like being sexy. Yeah, you'll be a lump in many situations, but you rolled up a functional character within fifteen minutes or first picking up the phb, and you'll be competing with the best of them. There's no way to screw up a champion except for twf.

Yeah, the Paladin will be stronger, but he had do much homework to do you can't really envy him. He has three separate resource pools to track and can blow his power curve early or leave precious resources unused. A lot of his spells are situational, he has three stats that he really wants to be high and in terms of fluff he's in a much more rigid path. While after sixth level he'll never be useless, 'passive buff' isn't precisely an enviable role.

[toapat]

What about fighter is technically intensive? You mean feat selection? substituting attacks for shoves and grapples? It's mostly brainless, imo. Fighting with a great weapon? Pick a muscly looking race from the phb, take gwf, gwm, put on your armor, and go ham. Throw some points in charisma just cause you feel like being sexy. Yeah, you'll be a lump in many situations, but you rolled up a functional character within fifteen minutes or first picking up the phb. There's no way to screw up a champion except for twf.

Yeah, the Paladin will be stronger, but he had do much homework to do you can't really envy him. He has three separate resource pools to track and can blow his power curve early or leave precious resources unused. A lot of his spells are situational, he has three stats that he really wants to be high and in terms of fluff he's in a much more rigid path. While after sixth level he'll never be useless, 'passive buff' isn't precisely an enviable role.

so youre forgetting just how often Action Surge can simply whiff?

[JNAProductions]

so youre forgetting just how often Action Surge can simply whiff?

I have no idea what this is supposed to be in response to. It doesn't address anything you quoted.

[strangebloke]

so youre forgetting just how often Action Surge can simply whiff?
So you're saying that proper use of action surge (aka, get advantage and make sure it's an important target) is enough complexity to put fighter on par with other martials? Rogues, monks, and paladins are way more complicated. Barbarians, particularly berserkers, can easily get themselves killed with poor usage of rage and reckless attack.

[toapat]

So you're saying that proper use of action surge (aka, get advantage and make sure it's an important target) is enough complexity to put fighter on par with other martials? Rogues, monks, and paladins are way more complicated. Barbarians, particularly berserkers, can easily get themselves killed with poor usage of rage and reckless attack.

in a system where Champion without Shield Mastery or DM Fiat cant RAW generate their own Advantage because only 4 generic maneuvers are codified and none of those cause prone.

Getting yourself killed on Reckless attack is only a problem of Communication such as Matt Colville described in one of his campaign retrospectives, it should not feel arbitrary to the players that they die and it should not feel like they are specifically punished for such, and they shouldnt feel ostracized for their mistakes.

[JNAProductions]

You can Shove someone prone. That gives advantage if you're in melee range.

[LeonBH]

So you're saying that proper use of action surge (aka, get advantage and make sure it's an important target) is enough complexity to put fighter on par with other martials? Rogues, monks, and paladins are way more complicated. Barbarians, particularly berserkers, can easily get themselves killed with poor usage of rage and reckless attack.

I think toapat is assuming that if you're not a Champion Fighter, you will be either an Eldritch Knight (has spell slots) or a Battlemaster (has maneuvers/superiority dice). And to be fair, both Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight require a higher level of system mastery.

But even assuming that, the base chassis of the Fighter class doesn't require that much thought to use well. And since the Champion Fighter adds no new resources to the Fighter's base class, it thus remains at a low level of "required" mastery.

Barbarians are a long rest class, and in that sense they require more bookkeeping than the Champion Fighter. But not by much since they just have a single resource pool, whereas Fighters just have to remember Action Surge and Second Wind once per short rest.