New DM considering special rules (Advice?)

[joshcw2011]

I have been playing for about a year and a half and have fallen in love with the game. I’m now trying to get some of my other friends who have never played into it by trying to dm for them. However; in my experience there were a few mechanical elements I kind of wish were different in base dnd so I am considering implementing a few changes. But again, this is my first time trying to dm and I am not sure if making these changes would feel overwhelming to new players or if these changes might need some fine tuning in terms of balancing so any advice is welcome.

First of all I would like to do point buy+free feat because I love feats and I have heard this was common practice.

Second, your weapon choice/damage type doesn’t seem to have much significance in dnd outside of flavor and I would like to change that. Also I feel like ranged physical attacks can be a little overpowered. So this is what I came up with:

Melee (Physical)
Bulgeoning-ignores 1 AC of enemies with armor/natural armor

Slashing-+2 dmg to enemies without armor/natural armor

Piercing-+1 dmg


Range (Physical)
Enemies with armor/natural armor get +1 level of cover up to 3/4 cover against ranged physical attackes (no cover>half cover>3/4 cover). This cannot give a target with 3/4 cover full cover.

Piercing-+1 dmg

Bludgeoning-target can’t take any reactions until the end of their next turn


Spell attacks (to balance other changes made)
+1 dmg whenever dmg is dealt



I also want to change GWM and sharpshooter so you get forgo your proficiency bonus to get double that bonus on the dmg roll. Additionally I want to make the following changes to the secondary affects of sharpshooter.
Instead of ignoring half cover and 3/4 cover, 3/4 cover is reduced to half cover and half cover is reduced to no cover.

[nickl_2000]

MHO? Go ahead and use point buy and give a free feat and the modifications to GWM/SS. You may have to adjust the encounters some, but it shouldn't be a big deal in the long run.

As for the changes to weapons and weapon types, don't do it. It's an added complication to new players.

[clash]

For new players I would give the free feat at level 3 instead of level 1. Give them a chance to get a feel for the mechanics before choosing their feat. I second not changing the weapons. that is a lot to remember when you are still learning everything. Keep it simple.

[joshcw2011]

Ya I was afraid it might be too complicated for new players. Maybe I can consider implementing them at some point later on once they have gotten comfortable with the mechanics of the game. Also good idea about giving the free feat at a later level.

[Toadkiller]

Also, it makes the job of finding the “sweet spot” in encounters more difficult. I’m DMing my first “real” 5e campaign and if you are home brewing encounters there is knack in finding challenging enough but not certain death battles. Increasing their offense without also boosting their HP will make that harder.

[Unoriginal]

Even without the "new player" angle, one shouldn't need to spend 5 mins checking everyone's equipment anytime someone consider making an attack.

Plus not being to take any action til the end of your next turn just from being hit by a blunt weapon at range? Monks need a full class feature just to do that in melee, and it has a save and a ki cost.

[joshcw2011]

Even without the "new player" angle, one shouldn't need to spend 5 mins checking everyone's equipment anytime someone consider making an attack.

Plus not being to take any action til the end of your next turn just from being hit by a blunt weapon at range? Monks need a full class feature just to do that in melee, and it has a save and a ki cost.

First this is removing their ability to take a reaction not an action which is no where near as powerful as monks stunning ability. Looking at cantripts like shocking grasp that give the same effect it seems the PHB considers this about equivalent to +1 damage (considering d10 cantrips with no side effect to this d8 cantrip).
Secondly, it really shouldn’t require anyone to repeatedly check equipment. They should know the damage type of their weapon anyway and all the player really should know is what that damage type means for which a tiny note on their character sheet could remind them. For example, next to your Warhammer attack make a tiny note of ‘-1AC vs armor.’ Besides, I as the DM could really do most of the tracking with regards to that anyway.

[joshcw2011]

Also, it makes the job of finding the “sweet spot” in encounters more difficult. I’m DMing my first “real” 5e campaign and if you are home brewing encounters there is knack in finding challenging enough but not certain death battles. Increasing their offense without also boosting their HP will make that harder.

Ya I figured it would be ok because these changes aren’t making that massive of a difference on their damage output (effectively +1 per attack on average) but I could be underestimating how impactful that is.

[SirGraystone]

A feat at level 1 is fine but I would remove the human variant so no one start with 2 feats. Another possibility is at level 4 give them both a feat and the +2 ASI.

I wouldn't change the weapons damage either, combat for new players are already slow, you don't more rules to slow thing down.

[joshcw2011]

A feat at level 1 is fine but I would remove the human variant so no one start with 2 feats. Another possibility is at level 4 give them both a feat and the +2 ASI.

I wouldn't change the weapons damage either, combat for new players are already slow, you don't more rules to slow thing down.

Ya definitely no human variant with the bonus feat. I do prefer your idea of giving the feat at level 4. Gives them more time to get familiar with their characters and level 3 already has a huge power jump and a big choice with them choosing a subclass. I remember getting to level 4 felt pretty underwhelming when I played so this would also help mitigate that.

[JackPhoenix]

First this is removing their ability to take a reaction not an action which is no where near as powerful as monks stunning ability. Looking at cantripts like shocking grasp that give the same effect it seems the PHB considers this about equivalent to +1 damage (considering d10 cantrips with no side effect to this d8 cantrip).
Secondly, it really shouldn’t require anyone to repeatedly check equipment. They should know the damage type of their weapon anyway and all the player really should know is what that damage type means for which a tiny note on their character sheet could remind them. For example, next to your Warhammer attack make a tiny note of ‘-1AC vs armor.’ Besides, I as the DM could really do most of the tracking with regards to that anyway.

You should look at the context of the ability you're trying to emulate, not just the effect. Shocking Grasp is a melee spell, putting the caster at risk, and it's available to sorcerer and wizard, two classes which shouldn't be in melee. What is it for is to allow the squishy spellcaster get out of hairy situation without suffering and opportunity attack. Different from allowing it at range for everyone. With no save for the effect (not that that adding save would be a good idea either, as it would add more unnecessary rolls).

Sling may be suboptimal weapon choice, but give one to a rogue, and you don't have to worry about enemies using Counterspell anymore.

As for the cover from armor, being harder to hit is already the purpose of wearing armor (or having NA). You just turned Sharpshooter/Spell Sniper into feat taxes for characters who want to attack at range.

Slashing damage is more or less useless, as almost anything you fight has armor or natural armor, especially at higher levels, anyone should be using bludgeoning weapon.

[joshcw2011]

You should look at the context of the ability you're trying to emulate, not just the effect. Shocking Grasp is a melee spell, putting the caster at risk, and it's available to sorcerer and wizard, two classes which shouldn't be in melee. What is it for is to allow the squishy spellcaster get out of hairy situation without suffering and opportunity attack. Different from allowing it at range for everyone. With no save for the effect (not that that adding save would be a good idea either, as it would add more unnecessary rolls).

Sling may be suboptimal weapon choice, but give one to a rogue, and you don't have to worry about enemies using Counterspell anymore.

As for the cover from armor, being harder to hit is already the purpose of wearing armor (or having NA). You just turned Sharpshooter/Spell Sniper into feat taxes for characters who want to attack at range.

Slashing damage is more or less useless, as almost anything you fight has armor or natural armor, especially at higher levels, anyone should be using bludgeoning weapon.

No one ever uses a sling, thought this might give it some use. My thought was some kind of stunning effect that wouldn’t be op. Potentially preventing a counterspell could be a great use of this but I don’t think it is overpowered for several reason. For one, those examples are so circumstantial and in this case would really only be useful if there was only 1 enemy that could counterspell and the rouge here could always miss anyway. Also the rouge in this example forgoing the massive damage they could be doing in order to allow their teammate a better chance to get off a spell I think is a fair trade. Even with this change I still think you would hardly ever see slings being used.

Armor and shields should be more effective against some weapons then others though and arrows are one the things they would be particularly strong against (especially shields). Besides the irl justification the second thing is that game wise ranged combat is really just straight up stronger then melee combat especially with feats like sharpshooter. There is a reason most games with range and melee combat usually have those ranged attacks deal less damage. I don’t like nerfing it that way though so this is an alternate attempt with irl justification. Also, even though this does call for sharpshooter to help mitigate this affect I also nerfed sharpshooter so that the overall benefit was reduced. Because of that, I don’t think these changes make sharpshooter any more of a feat tax then it was before. Furthermore, I like changes that make gameplay more tactical and that is exactly what this change does for archers. It makes the archer consider which enemies have armor when evaluating the most effective target for them to choose. It means that even after they have sharpshooter they have to consider better setting up their line of sight to an armored target that might otherwise be getting partial cover from other combatants. And even with these changes I still think your sharpshooter fighter is going to be more affective in pumping out damage then their melee counterparts.

Also spell sniper doesn’t come in because this change doesn’t apply to spell attacks only physical attacks.

[JackPhoenix]

No one ever uses a sling, thought this might give it some use. My thought was some kind of stunning effect that wouldn’t be op. Potentially preventing a counterspell could be a great use of this but I don’t think it is overpowered for several reason. For one, those examples are so circumstantial and in this case would really only be useful if there was only 1 enemy that could counterspell and the rouge here could always miss anyway. Also the rouge in this example forgoing the massive damage they could be doing in order to allow their teammate a better chance to get off a spell I think is a fair trade. Even with this change I still think you would hardly ever see slings being used.

What "massive damage"? 1d8 from light crossbow/longbow instead of 1d6 from a sling?


Armor and shields should be more effective against some weapons then others though and arrows are one the things they would be particularly strong against (especially shields). Besides the irl justification the second thing is that game wise ranged combat is really just straight up stronger then melee combat especially with feats like sharpshooter. There is a reason most games with range and melee combat usually have those ranged attacks deal less damage. I don’t like nerfing it that way though so this is an alternate attempt with irl justification. Also, even though this does call for sharpshooter to help mitigate this affect I also nerfed sharpshooter so that the overall benefit was reduced. Because of that, I don’t think these changes make sharpshooter any more of a feat tax then it was before. Furthermore, I like changes that make gameplay more tactical and that is exactly what this change does for archers. It makes the archer consider which enemies have armor when evaluating the most effective target for them to choose. It means that even after they have sharpshooter they have to consider better setting up their line of sight to an armored target that might otherwise be getting partial cover from other combatants. And even with these changes I still think your sharpshooter fighter is going to be more affective in pumping out damage then their melee counterparts.

Why should they? 5e combat system is abstract for the simplicity of use. Changing one thing while leaving the rest of them as they are doesn't help with versimilitude, it creates an incoherent mess, because it's not clear what do you want. You haven't posted *how* you've changed SS, so as far as I know, dedicated ranged characters won't be affected as much as a melee character who needs to make ranged attack from time to time, and doesn't invest into it.


Also spell sniper doesn’t come in because this change doesn’t apply to spell attacks only physical attacks.

That's not really a point your houserules' favor, you know? Making things harder for martials, while giving pure benefit to spellcasters.

[Toofey]

Once spellcaster builds come online reactions are some of their strongest actions. No cost to eliminate reactions until end of following term is still way to powerful. Based on counterspell alone (to say nothing of shield at 1st level, which is a lifesaver for many mages) this ability could lead to TPK in situations where it shouldn't be a factor. 1 well placed fireball while your casters are on their heels because an enemy used a mace, and that's all she wrote.

[sophontteks]

I would limit what free feats players can take. Otherwise you'll likely find them picking from a very small selection of feats that are considered the best, and it'll make the party less diverse rather then more diverse.

One DM I had used a honebrew rule where players could either add 3 points to the point buy at start or take a racial feat for free. I was a triton, so I could cast create/destroy water at will and cast warding wind for protection. It was awesome for his theme and I wouldn't have even considered it if I could just choose any feat.

Ranged isn't OP. I wouldn't try to balance it. With some OP feats some fighting styles do come out on top, but just don't allow those feats for free to keep balance. Ranged attackers get disadvantage vs. prone and suffer penalties if the enemy takes cover. That actually balances them pretty well.

Overall I'd be careful messing with weapon and armor balance as a new DM. I wouldn't touch weapons, but you could give the heavy and medium armor feats for free without too much heartache. The medium armor feat is practically nessesary to make medium armor competitive. The heavy one will favor strength builds a lot, but I don't really think thats a big issue.

[MoiMagnus]

The rules you are suggestion are complex, for an effect on gameplay that will be mostly negligible.
That's exactly the kind of rules 5e tried to avoid.

(And as said by other, don't touch to the caster's reactions. Counter-spell is central to the balance of fight at high level.)

Here is some suggestion to reach the same effect:
1) For nerfing ranged attack and spells, give disadvantage more often. (Firing in a melee? disadvantage. Not enough light? disadvantage. Target higher than you? disadvantage). I'm not advising you to nerf ranged attack, but if you really want to, its how I would do it.
2) For weapon diversity, I suggest you to create unique weapons with those effect, rather than giving them to the normal weapon. (For example, the blacksmith of this town make swords that have "+2 dmg to enemies without armor/natural armor"). It would avoid having those effect during your first few sessions (and would avoid non-martial character to care about those effect).

Also, very important rule: do NOT make basic enemies more complex. (If an enemy has a sword, do NOT give him +2 dmg against non-armor)
Important enemies can have more complex way of behaving. The time you pass playing an enemy should be proportional to "how much the PJ care about them". So irrelevant enemies should be played in few seconds to not slow down the fight.

[Beelzebubba]

My advice is to ditch all that stuff.

The reason this game is bigger than it has ever been is because it got rid of as much of the ultimately self-defeating complexity of earlier editions as possible without scaring the old farts like me.

The things you're doing here will make the game pointlessly complicated, and from my experience with new players, and having played since 1979 and DM'd since 1982, this is the most accessible version of D&D since Basic.

You'll also ruin their ability to use the books to learn, because there will be all this extra overhead that they'll need to factor in.

So, sorry, leave the game design for experienced players. Play vanilla D&D with newbies.

[Eric Diaz]

My 2c: don't change the whole system, just crits. This way, you don 't have to check every blow, but just a fraction of them.

And just adding extra effects to critical hits is WAY less intrusive than changing all weapons.

Here are some ideas:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/05/slashingpiercingbludgeoning-hacking.html

But you can use whatever you want. The point is that you make crits more relevant and weapon/armor combinations more interesting, without having to re-work the whole system.

EDIT: although I have to agree... new players should try RAW first.

[Kadesh]

Incorporate those mechanics in through Magic Gear, and see what the players think. That way, you can always take it off them later, or obviate their use with higher tier gear later on. If they don't want to give it up - well, that shows you how OP it is.

Edit - GWM/SS change is a good one. Significantly removes the early game swinginess but still gives the extremely useful BA attack/ignore cover.

Personal opinion is that the game is in a fine case, and global rule changes make it difficult and annoying for everyone to understand, as there's no page in a rulebook to refer to.

[ciarannihill]

I have been playing for about a year and a half and have fallen in love with the game. I’m now trying to get some of my other friends who have never played into it by trying to dm for them. However; in my experience there were a few mechanical elements I kind of wish were different in base dnd so I am considering implementing a few changes. But again, this is my first time trying to dm and I am not sure if making these changes would feel overwhelming to new players or if these changes might need some fine tuning in terms of balancing so any advice is welcome.

First of all I would like to do point buy+free feat because I love feats and I have heard this was common practice.

Second, your weapon choice/damage type doesn’t seem to have much significance in dnd outside of flavor and I would like to change that. Also I feel like ranged physical attacks can be a little overpowered. So this is what I came up with:

Melee (Physical)
Bulgeoning-ignores 1 AC of enemies with armor/natural armor

Slashing-+2 dmg to enemies without armor/natural armor

Piercing-+1 dmg


Range (Physical)
Enemies with armor/natural armor get +1 level of cover up to 3/4 cover against ranged physical attackes (no cover>half cover>3/4 cover). This cannot give a target with 3/4 cover full cover.

Piercing-+1 dmg

Bludgeoning-target can’t take any reactions until the end of their next turn


Spell attacks (to balance other changes made)
+1 dmg whenever dmg is dealt



I also want to change GWM and sharpshooter so you get forgo your proficiency bonus to get double that bonus on the dmg roll. Additionally I want to make the following changes to the secondary affects of sharpshooter.
Instead of ignoring half cover and 3/4 cover, 3/4 cover is reduced to half cover and half cover is reduced to no cover.

This sounds like loads of housekeeping added on for minor gains, if any. A lot of it is counter to 5e's design philosophy and might be more at home in something like Pathfinder. The -Prof +Double Prof is actually only a strict nerf to those feats at specific levels as at lower level the -5 hurts a lot more for what you get out of it (meaning it's arguably better to have the smaller variation, except for probably Barbarians) and is a strict buff at the high level stages, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with the change, if I'm honest.

Also I'll never understand why people think ranged weapons shouldn't be effective -- there's a reason they were a mainstay of all forms of military combat throughout all of history: An arrow to the throat is just as deadly as a knife is, but the person you're attacking is far less likely to be able to fight back from the range.

For a first time DM I'd personally play the game straight as is, I'd probably even recommend starting with a published adventure to give yourself an accurate depiction of challenge curve as per RAW. 5E is fairly well balanced, and most changes I've seen to the parts that arguably aren't as balanced are overcorrections and throw other things out of whack.

[joshcw2011]

My 2c: don't change the whole system, just crits. This way, you don 't have to check every blow, but just a fraction of them.

And just adding extra effects to critical hits is WAY less intrusive than changing all weapons.

Here are some ideas:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/05/slashingpiercingbludgeoning-hacking.html

But you can use whatever you want. The point is that you make crits more relevant and weapon/armor combinations more interesting, without having to re-work the whole system.

EDIT: although I have to agree... new players should try RAW first.

Thanks I really like this idea.

[joshcw2011]

I could talk about how trying to prevent a mage from using shield this way would actually be pretty dumb as attacking them in the first place gives them a chance to use that reaction or go into the math that demonstrates how a SS fighter with a bow can outdamage any sword wielding fighter counterpart all without having to put themselves out on the front line, but none of that really matters. I can definitely see the point in not overcomplicating the rules and that simplicity can be more important then maximizing the significance of choice or balance. Can already see how many ways what I thought were fairly simple and clearly written rules could be misinterpreted in this thread with people talking about spell sniper being a feat tax, losing a reaction by being hit with a mace, or being able to inflict stun and make a target lose a full action with just a sling.

[joshcw2011]

This sounds like loads of housekeeping added on for minor gains, if any. A lot of it is counter to 5e's design philosophy and might be more at home in something like Pathfinder. The -Prof +Double Prof is actually only a strict nerf to those feats at specific levels as at lower level the -5 hurts a lot more for what you get out of it (meaning it's arguably better to have the smaller variation, except for probably Barbarians) and is a strict buff at the high level stages, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with the change, if I'm honest.

Also I'll never understand why people think ranged weapons shouldn't be effective -- there's a reason they were a mainstay of all forms of military combat throughout all of history: An arrow to the throat is just as deadly as a knife is, but the person you're attacking is far less likely to be able to fight back from the range.

For a first time DM I'd personally play the game straight as is, I'd probably even recommend starting with a published adventure to give yourself an accurate depiction of challenge curve as per RAW. 5E is fairly well balanced, and most changes I've seen to the parts that arguably aren't as balanced are overcorrections and throw other things out of whack.

That is a fair point and probably a good suggestion. In regards to the smaller sub point that is why I didn’t want to approach it in the usual way by nerfing the damage. Instead my approach was based of the realistic notion that things like shields were particularly affective at protecting against things like arrows.
The -prof +double prof is better when you don’t factor in ways that accuracy loss can be dealt with (reckless attack, bless, precision maneuver,ect). My actual experience with these feats wasn’t until level 8 but from my understanding they can pretty pretty much destroy lower level encounter with the right builds. Not really that big of a problem I guess since a new player isn’t actually going to come up with a build like that though.

[sophontteks]

I could talk about how trying to prevent a mage from using shield this way would actually be pretty dumb as attacking them in the first place gives them a chance to use that reaction or go into the math that demonstrates how a SS fighter with a bow can outdamage any sword wielding fighter counterpart all without having to put themselves out on the front line, but none of that really matters. I can definitely see the point in not overcomplicating the rules and that simplicity can be more important then maximizing the significance of choice or balance. Can already see how many ways what I thought were fairly simple and clearly written rules could be misinterpreted in this thread with people talking about spell sniper being a feat tax, losing a reaction by being hit with a club, or being able to inflict stun and make a target lose a full action with just a sling.
You can math things out on paper and give theoretical dps numbers but it doesn't mean it actually has any merit in game.

The rules are simple to understand, but applying them in the game as a new dm will get hard. Its more to keep track of. I can barely keep track of lighting conditions as is.

[GlenSmash!]

Ask new DM I often had a desire to add houserules to improve the game. Beef up things I thought were weak, tone down things I found too strong etc.

Now that I've done it for a few years I found the benefits of doing so were marginal, and the cost was increased complexity.

I don't even bother anymore. No one complains to me about Sharpshooter or GWM they just all play the characters they want to play.

I still catch myself thinking "Maybe I should fix this" from time to time but I hold off until I see a problem actually occur in play.

[joshcw2011]

Fair enough. As much as I enjoy playing and theorycrafting I have never dm’d so that’s why I was asking.

[Kadesh]

Fair enough. As much as I enjoy playing and theorycrafting I have never dm’d so that’s why I was asking.

Almost certainly get yourself a baseline and get to know the rules before modifying them. That is why Magic Items are good, as they're transient. If you wish to make things more permanent after they've proven a success, provide the players with the opportunity to practice it. For example, a Hammer that provides a +1 bonus to hit against foes wearing Armour/Natural Armour might be taken to a capable Transmuter/Item Enchanter, and apply it to a more permanent item, like say a Ring, allowing you to pick up that Dwarven Thrower Hammer later on, for a massive +4 to hit armoured foes, at the cost possibly of 2 Attunement Slots.

Or you could even make it passive - a monk who masters the Kata of their Dojo's style might be able to get that +1 to hit against Armoured Foes, without needing to use the bracers of pummeling.

Bear in mind though that giving characters magic weapons with magic effects might make the artificial HP bloat of creatures who resist/are immune to nonmagical attacks far easier than their challenge suggests.

Keep It Simple Stupid is a very apt part of playing the game, and there are a lot of moving parts to keep track of that you don't need to add further too with additional houserules that don't really change how the game is played.

[joshcw2011]

Almost certainly get yourself a baseline and get to know the rules before modifying them. That is why Magic Items are good, as they're transient. If you wish to make things more permanent after they've proven a success, provide the players with the opportunity to practice it. For example, a Hammer that provides a +1 bonus to hit against foes wearing Armour/Natural Armour might be taken to a capable Transmuter/Item Enchanter, and apply it to a more permanent item, like say a Ring, allowing you to pick up that Dwarven Thrower Hammer later on, for a massive +4 to hit armoured foes, at the cost possibly of 2 Attunement Slots.

Or you could even make it passive - a monk who masters the Kata of their Dojo's style might be able to get that +1 to hit against Armoured Foes, without needing to use the bracers of pummeling.

Bear in mind though that giving characters magic weapons with magic effects might make the artificial HP bloat of creatures who resist/are immune to nonmagical attacks far easier than their challenge suggests.

Keep It Simple Stupid is a very apt part of playing the game, and there are a lot of moving parts to keep track of that you don't need to add further too with additional houserules that don't really change how the game is played.

Awesome idea, definitely sounds like a good way to incorporate some of these affects.

[ciarannihill]

The -prof +double prof is better when you don’t factor in ways that accuracy loss can be dealt with (reckless attack, bless, precision maneuver,ect). My actual experience with these feats wasn’t until level 8 but from my understanding they can pretty pretty much destroy lower level encounter with the right builds. Not really that big of a problem I guess since a new player isn’t actually going to come up with a build like that though.

Here's the problem with this, though: The replacement your proposed becomes a zero risk damage increase when used alongside those things. At least at lower levels -5 is still pretty substantial, but a -2 or -3? Easily compensated for, especially when the result is +4/6 damage. It's far rarer to beat an AC by 5 or more than by 2 or more.

A level 1 Fighter with GWM and a +3 mod gets a +/-0 to hit and does 2d6+13 damage (meaning even an AC of 12 requires a higher than average roll to hit at all, let alone something like an AC of 15) as opposed to your proposed change which gives them a +3 to hit still and they do 2d6+7 damage (6 less) but just as likely to devastate lower CR opponents when you factor in GWF style (iirc 2d6 reroll 1s and 2s averages to ~8.33 damage so ~15.33 total damage on average), while also being substantially easier to hit, then the bonus action on kill has the chance to kick in to hit another enemy for the same substantial damage. I'm not going to bother going through and doing the math for the average AC of CR1-3 enemies, but my guess would be that once you factor in the accuracy difference, the follow up attack, and the likelihood of overkilling enemies the variation of -Prof, +2xProf is stronger than GWM at levels 1-3.

I think you might be breaking lower level play more with the change (except with regards to Barbarians specifically because of Reckless Attack), is my point.

[MoiMagnus]

Ask new DM I often had a desire to add houserules to improve the game. Beef up things I thought were weak, tone down things I found too strong etc.

Now that I've done it for a few years I found the benefits of doing so were marginal, and the cost was increased complexity.

I don't even bother anymore. No one complains to me about Sharpshooter or GWM they just all play the characters they want to play.

I still catch myself thinking "Maybe I should fix this" from time to time but I hold off until I see a problem actually occur in play.

Right, and fixing the players is usually more important than fixing the game. Having a character more powerfull than the other is not a problem as long as he does not take "all the light" and everybody has its time to shine and have fun.

[ciarannihill]

Ask new DM I often had a desire to add houserules to improve the game. Beef up things I thought were weak, tone down things I found too strong etc.

Now that I've done it for a few years I found the benefits of doing so were marginal, and the cost was increased complexity.

I don't even bother anymore. No one complains to me about Sharpshooter or GWM they just all play the characters they want to play.

I still catch myself thinking "Maybe I should fix this" from time to time but I hold off until I see a problem actually occur in play.

This, so much this. The most I will do is tweak encounters or monsters on the fly if need be. Or if I've been building up to and encounter I'll sometimes take the monster manual version and alter it -- make it a more special encounter. If at higher levels maybe I'll give a Legendary action or legendary resistance, maybe I'll give a fight "phases" (or rather, decide that the enemy will take certain actions or that reinforcements will appear at certain triggers).

[Orc_Lord]

Hey, admittedly I skipped the replies....

I did the same thing for my first campaign. I wanted to balance and personalize things. For example one of my biggest beefs is that you can't learn new skills...so if you got a horse and rode it from level 1 to 20 you would never get Animal Handling skill by RAW.

So I decided that I needed to fix that, queue adding complicated skill leveling rules...

There was a bunch of those changes I made. This lead to character sheets that needed a bunch of extra info, so they can comply with my vision and there was confusion during leveling.

Then there is something else that happens, you realize that some of the ideas need rebalancing, so suddenly at level 3 you say max HP per level was a bad idea, let's go RAW instead, and now all your players have to redo their characters.

A couple of months ago a DM that plays Pathfinder games exclusively wanted to play in my games. He told me, hey I want to learn how DnD 5e works, so could I run it RAW so I get the learn the rules of the game.

I did just that for a short 6 sesion campaign. This lead to a lot of "is this thing I do RAW or RAI I can't remember?" I realized that for the most part RAW is fine. The little tweaks in the rules do more harm than good on the grand scale.

The caveat is, RAI rules on your side of the table are fine. So let's say you decide that every time a character falls unconscious they get a scar from the wound. That's on your side of the table, the players don't have to deal with it, it doesn't alter their character concept. It creates story but it can also be ignored.

I did something similar on the character side and it sucked, I decided that warlocks get physically corrupted as they level, because I didn't like that pacts for the most part where flavor. Someone was playing a Hexblade I had a d20 table with affects, I rolled that he grew 2 inches and lost 20lbs (to look more gaunt), next level his hair became more coarse (bestial), next level if he sat in a place for more than 2 hours a feint grey fog would surround him (shadowfell flavor). This was of course affecting how people interacted with him

And that's when the player said, "uhm I don't want to play this character anymore he looks like a freak."

See what my mistake was I was changing how his character concept worked because of my rules affecting his side of the table.

I am telling you of my failures so you can avoid them.

If I was starting over I would
1. Start RAW
2. If it came up make calls for my side of the table
3. Start messing with player RAI tweaks

And also ask yourself will my players have more fun with more complexity? In some tables that I fun, in others it kills them.

[joshcw2011]

Here's the problem with this, though: The replacement your proposed becomes a zero risk damage increase when used alongside those things. At least at lower levels -5 is still pretty substantial, but a -2 or -3? Easily compensated for, especially when the result is +4/6 damage. It's far rarer to beat an AC by 5 or more than by 2 or more.

A level 1 Fighter with GWM and a +3 mod gets a +/-0 to hit and does 2d6+13 damage (meaning even an AC of 12 requires a higher than average roll to hit at all, let alone something like an AC of 15) as opposed to your proposed change which gives them a +3 to hit still and they do 2d6+7 damage (6 less) but just as likely to devastate lower CR opponents when you factor in GWF style (iirc 2d6 reroll 1s and 2s averages to ~8.33 damage so ~15.33 total damage on average), while also being substantially easier to hit, then the bonus action on kill has the chance to kick in to hit another enemy for the same substantial damage. I'm not going to bother going through and doing the math for the average AC of CR1-3 enemies, but my guess would be that once you factor in the accuracy difference, the follow up attack, and the likelihood of overkilling enemies the variation of -Prof, +2xProf is stronger than GWM at levels 1-3.

I think you might be breaking lower level play more with the change (except with regards to Barbarians specifically because of Reckless Attack), is my point.

Like I said without compensating for the accuracy you are right that it generally better at lower levels with these changes. That isn’t a big deal cause it is actually generally better to not use those abilities anyway in those situations. It is when you do have a means for addressing the accuracy loss that it becomes a problem. Let’s consider a second level barbarian with GWM since they have an easy way to deal with this accuracy loss through reckless attack. With a +3 strength they have a +5 attack role. With reckless attack against a 13 AC target (fairly average) that gives them a ~58% chance to hit taking the -5/+10 approach. That is going to deal an average of 20(2d6+13)x.58=11.6 damage. If instead they use a -2/+4 they have a 75% chance to hit for an average of 14(2d6+7)x.75=10.5 damage. While we are at it, not using the ability at all gives a 10(2d6+3)x.84=8.4 damage. Perhaps this is the sweet spot for that ac though so let’s see what happens at 11 and 15 as well

AC 11
-5/+10 20x.7=14
-2/+4 14x.84=11.8
—— 10x.91=9.1


AC 15
-5/+10 20x.44=8.8
-2/+4 14x.64=9
—— 10x.75=7.5

Well for higher AC’s it does look like the new method is a bit better but most enemies they will be fighting at that level will be on the lower end of that spectrum. Plus, average damage dealt doesn’t completely encapsulate the significance of the damage spike where enemies that should take a couple hits can now be dealt with in one.

[ciarannihill]

Like I said without compensating for the accuracy you are right that it generally better at lower levels with these changes. That isn’t a big deal cause it is actually generally better to not use those abilities anyway in those situations. It is when you do have a means for addressing the accuracy loss that it becomes a problem. Let’s consider a second level barbarian with GWM since they have an easy way to deal with this accuracy loss through reckless attack. With a +3 strength they have a +5 attack role. With reckless attack against a 13 AC target (fairly average) that gives them a ~58% chance to hit taking the -5/+10 approach. That is going to deal an average of 20(2d6+13)x.58=11.6 damage. If instead they use a -2/+4 they have a 75% chance to hit for an average of 14(2d6+7)x.75=10.5 damage. While we are at it, not using the ability at all gives a 10(2d6+3)x.84=8.4 damage. Perhaps this is the sweet spot for that ac though so let’s see what happens at 11 and 15 as well

AC 11
-5/+10 20x.7=14
-2/+4 14x.84=11.8
—— 10x.91=9.1


AC 15
-5/+10 20x.44=8.8
-2/+4 14x.64=9
—— 10x.75=7.5

Well for higher AC’s it does look like the new method is a bit better but most enemies they will be fighting at that level will be on the lower end of that spectrum. Plus, average damage dealt doesn’t completely encapsulate the significance of the damage spike where enemies that should take a couple hits can now be dealt with in one.

I mean I specifically called out Barbarian as the single exception to my point, so you using it as the example to debunk my point is moot. You would feel the impact far more in things like Fighter which doesn't have a baked in accuracy increase to compensate for the -5 the way a Barbarian can. One class is not the whole of 5E.

Not to mention I think AC 11 is too low a bar for comparison, since next to no Monsters have it, even at low CR, but that's another conversation entirely.

[joshcw2011]

I mean I specifically called out Barbarian as the single exception to my point, so you using it as the example to debunk my point is moot. You would feel the impact far more in things like Fighter which doesn't have a baked in accuracy increase to compensate for the -5 the way a Barbarian can. One class is not the whole of 5E.

Not to mention I think AC 11 is too low a bar for comparison, since next to no Monsters have it, even at low CR, but that's another conversation entirely.

And your comment was a response to my comment that had already mentioned it was only a broken mechanic in these scenarios where the accuracy loss can be mitigated so I am not sure what your point is. I think we both agree that the -5/+10 can become broken in some early builds/play styles and we agree that the -prof/+dbl helps to bring down the power level in those scenarios a bit. The only point that remains to show that the -prof/+dbl isn’t broken in other instances. In this case let’s take your first level fighter again with the +3 mod and evaluate his performance against a 13 AC, 15 AC and 18AC.
Base:10(2d6+3)
13 AC
—/— 10x.6=6
-2/+4 14x.5=7
-5/+10 20x.35=7

15 AC
—/— 10x.5=5
-2/+4 14x.4=5.6
-5/+10 20x.25=5

18 AC
—/— 10x.35=3.5
-2/+4 14x.25=3.5
-5/+10 20x.1=2

Any higher ac and it is just better not to use the ability. You are right that the -prof/+dbl is generally better then the -5/+10, but is it broken? I would argue that it is not as it is only going to give you at most +1 dmg (since you argued against lower AC’s). In fact I would say that the -5/+10 is actually underperforming here compared to what I would like to see. The issue is that mitigating that penalty loss is very easy through various means (reckless, bless, precision maneuver, bardic inspiration, fairy fire, ect.)