Feedback on these house rules that attempt to fix rule "imbalances"

[dmhelp]

__________

[Imbalance]

Fixes? Maybe it's late, but these just look like tacked on restrictions. If you're new (hey, me, too), why not just set the limit at the core books and basics instead of "fixing" a bunch of things that are probably already fairly balanced? If you run a few games and feel confident, expand from there.

[sophontteks]

Halflings don't need the con buff, and it doesn't help their big problem. Darkvision.

So, first, halflings are very underappreciated in this edition. They are perfectly fine, but they have that halfling=rogue stereotype and 5e halflings actually make below average rogues. This is just because they lack darkvision, a valuable skill for the class that skulks in shadows.

Lightfoots can hide behind other creatures. This skill sounds pretty mundane, but having always-available moving cover is pretty fantastic for a caster. Just hide behind the other party members to avoid any damage before your turn. No more getting ambushed!

Anyway, if you do want halflings to see more use, just give them darkvision. Bam! Rogue problem solved. They are now top tier rogue picks.

[Griswold]

I would start by asking what problems are you responding to such that you need these house rules?

Many of these fixes you propose I haven't seen people complain about (halflings are a perfectly good race, for example), and multi classing and feats are already variant rules. If you don't like them, drop them.

[stoutstien]

Based on reading this your better off just going with banning multi-class and full casters or just limit players to stay under lv 10.
An other option that never gets brought up is making pregen characters for the table until you are more comfortable with the system.

[Kane0]

Sure, i'll throw in 2cp. I'll just append in red



Races

PHB races only except for special campaigns per DM (e.g. underwater campaign) Fine
Halflings - all halflings get an additional +1 con (e.g. a stout halfling gets +2 con) Not really necessary, buff the dragonborn instead
Humans - also get 2 extra skills (in addition to standard +1 to 6 stats and 1 language); no variant humans Fine


Classes

Cleric disciple of life - healing bonus will effect only one creature unless it is a level 3 or higher spell (e.g. goodberry affects only 1 berry) Not really necessary
Druid circle of the moon wild shape - CR limit: 1/2 @ level 2, 1 @ level 4 Fine
Fighter action surge - may only cast one spell between primary action and action surge Not really necessary
Paladin divine smite - only once per turn Not really necessary
Rogue assassinate - only the first hit against a surprised target is an automatic critica Not really necessary
Warlock agonizing blast - only adds charisma modifier to one bolt I object
Warlock repelling blast - only pushes target on one bolt I object
Wizard portent - gets only one d20 at 2nd level and two d20's at 14th level I object


Multiclassing

Paladins are single classed only Not really necessary
Warlocks are single classed only
Players are limited to two classes Fine
High elven/dark elven fighter/wizards are always proficient with heavy armor (applies if wizard is taken before fighter) Not really necessary
Dragonborn fighter/sorcerers (draconic bloodline only) are always proficient with heavy armor Not really necessary


Feats

PHB feats only Fine
Crossbow Expert - when using a hand crossbow in the offhand it can not be fired again until the user has a free hand (puts away the one handed melee weapon); when using a single hand crossbow the bonus attack does not apply if the user has the extra attack or thirsting blade class features (it does not stack with extra attacks) Get rid of the second part
Great Weapon Master - -5/+10 option with heavy weapons is only once per turn Fine
Lucky - only grants 1d2 luck point per day I object
Mobile - increases racial base speed to 35 feet, or to 40 feet for wood elves (before other movement bonuses) Not really necessary
Polearm Master - additional attacks of opportunity must be made with the polearm (not a spell); bonus attack only applies when wielded with two hands and counts as two weapon fighting (no stat mod to damage unless fighting style: two weapon fighting, also benefits from +1 AC with the dual wielder feat), the polearm cannot benefit from great weapon master or fighting style: great weapon fighting on the turn in which it gets the bonus attack This is messy, what is the goal?
Sentinel - when hitting a creature with an opportunity attack the creature's speed decreases by 10 feet for the rest of its turn instead of going to 0 Not really necessary
Sharpshooter - -5/+10 option is only once per turn Fine


AC

Barbarian unarmored defense caps at 18 AC (20 AC with shield) Not really necessary
Robe of the archmagi AC bonus only applies when using no armor and no shield Not really necessary
Only 1 Base Armor AC bonus at a time (choose 1 source only): regular armor, barbarian/monk unarmored defense, barkskin, draconic resilience, mage armor, robe of the archmagi, etc. Not really necessary
Only 1 Item Deflection AC bonus at a time (choose 1 AC effect only): magical armor bonus, magical shield bonus, bracers of defense, cloak/ring of protection, defender sword, ioun stone, staff of power, etc. Not really necessary
Only 1 Spell AC bonus at a time (choose 1 AC effect only): haste (can still get the other haste benefits even if another AC bonus is chosen), shield, shield of faith, wild surge spectral shield, etc. Not really necessary


Movement

Players are limited to two dash actions between their bonus action, action, action surge, haste action, wild surge action, and reaction (triple normal movement) Not really necessary
Boots of speed/haste add 30 to movement speed to humanoids instead of doubling it (non humanoid creatures still get double speed from haste) Fine
Only 1 magical movement bonus at a time (choose 1 effect only, haste usually is dominant): boots of speed, expeditious retreat, haste, longstridor, transmuter's stone, etc. Not really necessary


Spells

PHB spells only Fine
Only 1 range bonus effect at a time (choose 1 source only): distant spell, eldritch spear, spell sniper, etc. Not really necessary
Players can only cast one leveled spell between their bonus action, action, action surge, wild surge action, and reaction; all other spells must be cantrips (exception: spells that can be naturally cast as a reaction, e.g. shield or counterspell); e.g. maximum spells with backup damage: bonus action leveled spell, action cantrip, action surge full attack sequence, haste single attack, wild surge cantrip, and reaction cantrip (or counterspell/shield) could all be done on a turn Fine, except for reaction spells
Banishment and hypnotic pattern give additional saving throws at the end of each target's turn I object
Counterspell gives the target a saving throw to avoid having their spell countered (using the saving throw type of the counterspell caster, i.e. a charisma save if a sorcerer/warlock is casting counterspell, intelligence save if a wizard is casting counterspell) I object



I don't know how much time you've had with the game but I would recommend playing a bit more vanilla before you go making so many changes. Houserules and homebrew is best done incrementally and with plenty of testing, and i'm sure the regulars here would be happy to help you with your goals if you can tell us what you're aim at doing.

[PhantomSoul]

Counterspell gives the target a saving throw to avoid having their spell countered (using the saving throw type of the counterspell caster, i.e. a charisma save if a sorcerer/warlock is casting counterspell, intelligence save if a wizard is casting counterspell)


If you want to modify Counterspell, it might be easier to just say that you never auto-succeed and use the "spell of a higher level than the spell slot" system from Counterspell in all cases. (Personally I wish it had been done more like this, but oh well; it's not so bad that I'm worried about changing it given the inherent risk in picking Counterspell's level and possibly failing at the cost of a spell slot and a reaction if you guess the spell slot wrong then fail the ability check.)

But if the players don't know what spell they're considering countering, then they'll already have a risk factor.

[Rerem115]

I get what you're trying to do (kinda), but I'm not sure I like the implementation. I'll break it down by section:

Races--Sure, you do you. Nothing too out of the ordinary here. Not sure of the reasoning behind making Halflings a bit beefier, but whatever.

Classes--Cleric is an overly complicated way of going after Goodberry, unless you really think that Prayer of Healing is too strong. Druid is...unusual, but I guess if you want to weaken their tier 1, okay. Fighter change makes going single-classed EK less fun; I don't know if that's what you wanted, or if you just wanted to soft-ban multiclassing. I have to question the logic a little behind the Paladin and the Warlock changes; since both classes are now single class only, it makes a lot less sense to nerf them that hard. Portent nerf is also really painful, and why I understand the reasoning, I don't agree with it.

Multiclassing--I don't like band-aid fixes, but it's your table. Since I almost exclusive play single-classed builds anyway, not an issue for me.

Feats--Why doesn't XBE work with Extra Attack? Why nerf Mobile? Your PAM changes are overly complicated, and make Spartan players sad.

AC--Out of all the things to go for, why Barbarian Unarmored Defense? I've never seen that be problematic. 1 source Base AC is RAW, no need to houserule it. Not sure why you decided to go after item AC bonuses; as DM, you can just limit items anyway. I also feel like the spell AC changes are unnecessary; there aren't too many you can use to begin with, and it gives the players a chance to feel good powering up.

Spells-I've got a soft spot for Hypnotic Pattern and Counterspell myself, but whatever. I will respectfully disagree, but no complaints.

[Keravath]

I've been playing 5e for about 2 years now in Adventurer's League where pretty much everything RAW is allowed but sources are limited to PHB+1.

However, I started with D&D, AD&D in the 1970's and have played at least some of every edition of D&D (except 4th) since then.

I'd suggest that if you haven't played or DMed the current version much that you try playing it before making changes. The so-called OP class combinations or feats simply aren't. They can make for some builds that are a bit more effective in some aspects but every one has opportunity costs. In addition, the bounded accuracy design of 5e means that even unoptimized characters can be very effective and contribute almost as much as an optimized one.

In addition, some of the feats that are touted as the "best" ... GWM and SS for example ... aren't because the -5 actually matters for levels before tier 3 or 4 depending on the AC of the opponents. As opponent levels go up, so do their hit points and AC. A typical 13-14 AC in tier 1 for opponents might easily be 16-18 or more in tier 2. What this means is that there are a lot of cases when GWM/SS are NOT a good idea unless you can reliably get a bonus to hit or reliable advantage on the attacks.

However, in tier 3 and 4 these feats do get more effective since the max AC of average opponents levels off ... however, hit points of those opponents continues to rise so that doing an extra 10 points is much less significant.

This is all from play experience. Others may see it differently but when faced with tier appropriate opponents my characters with these feats have found that a lot of the time the feat with the -5/+10 goes unused since mathematically it would not result in greater damage. When it does hit, it looks cool and is more memorable but if your required to hit against the opponents AC is greater that 10 or so for a typical weapon before applying the -5 then it is usually a bad idea to use these feats (and you will find that this happens pretty frequently).

The same goes for a lot of the other feats you are planning to adjust. Lucky is a great example. I have a character with Lucky and it honestly makes very little difference. In one combat I ended up using it twice to try to make a difficult save, it worked once and didn't work the other time. Usually, when I use it, it fails. Why? I tend to save it for situations where I fail a potentially important and difficult saving throw. Often these have a high DC. If I need to roll a 15 for example and miss then Lucky gives me a second chance. However, even with the second chance I am still more likely to fail than not. Lucky is a great feat to choose when you don't have other choices or nothing else seems good but almost any other feat is better than Lucky.

Finally, most of the changes you suggest don't make much sense.

"Barbarian unarmored defense caps at 18 AC (20 AC with shield)"

Why change that? Unless you are playing in a world without any sort of magic items then by the time a barbarian can boost both their con and dex to 20 ... which honestly almost never happens since they don't get enough ASIs then other martial classes will have magical armor (up to +3) and will have a better AC than the barbarian. Do you plan to ban magic items in your games as well?

"hypnotic pattern gives extra saving throws at the end of each turn"

Clearly you didn't read the part of the spell that indicates that creatures can be awakened by being shaken or taking damage (unlike every other similar control spell). I used this spell in a game once and wizard woke up most of his minions with a quick magic missle that caused 3 damage to each minion and cost the wizard an action at the expense on my side of a 3rd level spell slot. Similarly, if the NPC opponents recognize the spell they can simply spend an action to shake their buddies awake ... and that assumes most of the targets fail their save. Can it be very effective occasionally? YES .. in certain situations against certain opponents but it is by not means an overpowered spell since it is EASY to stop the spell effect. If you take out the part about shaking folks awake and allow a save every turn that would be in line with other similar spells but takes away from the unique nature of hypnotic pattern.

When I first started reading and playing 5e, my initial impression was much the same as your suggested changes, some things seemed too powerful, some things way too effective, some builds so much better than others. However, I now have played a good dozen characters at various levels in tiers 1,2,3 in Adventurers League with hundreds of other characters built for both optimization and fun and in my opinion 5e is the best balanced version of D&D to date.

The only changes in your list that I thought might be useful were:
- PHB races only except for special campaigns per DM (e.g. underwater campaign)
- Humans - also get 2 extra skills (in addition to standard +1 to 6 stats and 1 language)

Some of the volo's races in particular can be a bit more powerful especially if you don't use the PHB+1 rule (I don't want to run into a yuan-ti pure blood hexblade for example ... but without access to hexblade it makes an above average but not impossibly good character).

Giving humans 2 extra skills is a start. Very few people choose to take a basic human since the stat bonuses boost dump stats in half the cases. There are very few applications where a basic human is a better choice so they could use a boost especially compared to a half-elf. However, I'd suggest something more along the lines of +2 to one stat, +1 to two or three others and 2 skills for a base human which makes them more flexible than a half-elf but they lose the darkvision and resistance to charm type effects.

Finally, game balance is pretty good but it CHANGES through the levels. Moon druids are really good in levels 1-4 (not good enough to nerf since the number of attacks they can get is in line with characters using two weapons, monks, characters with crossbow expert or polearm master, or even rogues at level 3 adding 2d6 from sneak attack) ... after that they are still fun to play but they drop off a lot in relative power as the other classes gain their level 5 bump in effectiveness. Moon druids pick up elemental forms once/short rest at level 10 but honestly everyone else get a bump at 11 and in the games I have played with a druid at that level they weren't OP compared to anyone.

Anyway, in your game you can do what you want. However, I would recommend trying to play the game as designed A LOT and over a wide range of levels since, in my opinion, from years of play in 5e, none of these fixes are actually required to have a good, fun and balanced game.

[Captain Bob]

Yeah I'm not going to do an in-depth breakdown like the gentlepersons above me, but they make the points I would also express - the game is pretty well balanced as it is... these changes aren't necessary. I'd reconsider, and also reconsider why you'd 'balance' a co-operative game. It largely ends up taking away from player choice and build creativity in my experience.

[bid]

Warlock agonizing blast - only adds charisma modifier to one bolt
Warlocks are single classed only

Bad idea. Warlock are eldritch archer, their damage is no better than a fighter doing 4*1d8+5 with hit+2 from archery style. They don't have to slots to match the other casters.
The only abuse is allowing warlock 2 MC to give Cha mods to all attacks. Limiting it based on warlock levels make EB no better than other cantrips.

In addition:
- crossbow still has the loading property, your offhand must be empty.
- lucky is kinda useless when you roll 9 and 12.
- assassinate is a trap choice unless the GM allows ambush too often. Since you can SA once, doing 2d6 with your offhand doesn't break anything.
- barbarian unarmored defense is a trap choice. A character with half plate AC17 will have Str18 and GWM by level 12, when your naked low-damage character finally matches AC with Dex14 / Con20. And only if you haven't found a magical half plate yet.
- AC doesn't stack. Draconic is 13+Dex, monk is 10+Dex+Wis. A draconic monk/barbarian can't get 13+Dex+Con+Wis even if you ignore the MC restriction.
- Dash+dash double-double is triple, you don't get 8x from dash+dash+dash. That range of movement isn't that big a deal.

I'm not sure about smite, but "once per turn" is a good idea for GWM/SS.


I think most of your restriction are misguided and based on an invalid interpretation of the rules.

[Foxhound438]

I don't know why you would want to implement this absolute wall of changes without actually trying things as is. 5e is pretty extensively playtested and only a few corner cases actually disrupt the game in any way, and almost no one that I've met playing DnD goes for that kind of thing.

And to look at something specific, if you're going to make warlocks single class only, fine. I personally get annoyed when I see a build help thread turn into "play a palasorlock instead" discussion, or a discussion of whether or not 2 levels of hexblade is going to do anything. But banning them from any multiclass and then also gimping the base class's main thing (eldritch blast)? might as well ban the whole class and not deal with it, because warlocks as single class characters are balanced around having few leveled spells but a strong cantrip. Even then, they're notably weaker than a fighter in terms of using an action to attack something until they expend one of their two (2) spell slots to make their attack marginally better than a vanilla, +0 longbow.

[BurgerBeast]

My two cents:

Don’t make any of these changes. Run the game with no multi-classing and no feats.

After a lot of experience with 5e, make tweaks as necessary.

[Jerrykhor]

All i see is a whole lot of unnecessary nerfs to stuff that aren't even that overpowered, but no buffs to the weaker options. If you want to do balance patches, dont just nerf nerf nerf. It makes you look like a school discipline teacher.

If i were harsh, I'd say this seems to be made by one who don't understand 5e balance, and i would argue against most of the changes on the list. I mean, you nerf Mobile and Assassinate, that says it all really.

But you're not my DM, so I won't bother.

[Bjarkmundur]

It sounds like you're worried. If reading some player options makes you this anxious, you should probably have a talk with your players. It sounds like you're getting ready for war and not a fun night of gaming.
Sometimes a "DM vs. Player" mentality can get out of hand, do your players know you're all in the same team?

[Theodoric]

PHB-only without feats and multiclassing is pretty balanced by itself and something the book practically recommends for newcomers. Just disregard the forums you've read and try that out first, all this isn't really necessary for you to have fun. Starting 5e with a laundry list of tweaks can only be discouraging.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Just chuck it all and play the game RAW.

[sakuuya]

It sounds like you were discouraged from doing a simple "PHB only, no feats, no multiclassing" game by reading forum threads where people reacted negatively to the idea of that kind of game. But here's the thing: the players who'd be turned off by a lack of feats and multiclassing are also gonna be turned off by this long list of nerfs. Basically, you're adding a ton of complication for no real benefit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I completely agree with the "run it vanilla, fix real problems as they arise" position. Most of the supposed imbalance is theoretical, and the rest mainly applies to AL (where DMs don't have discretion). And the rest only occurs at some tables.

I'd restrict myself to the core + published variants (see the DMG for lots of them). Then, when something happens, make a note and fix it later.

[Bjarkmundur]

I completely agree with the "run it vanilla, fix real problems as they arise" position. Most of the supposed imbalance is theoretical, and the rest mainly applies to AL (where DMs don't have discretion). And the rest only occurs at some tables.

I'd restrict myself to the core + published variants (see the DMG for lots of them). Then, when something happens, make a note and fix it later.

This is what I've been doing, and it works out great. I'm really glad I decided to do this.

[Bloodcloud]

I'll be blunt, if I was to be in your game and saw this list of houserule, I'd drop out. It gives the impression that you hate fun and would nerf any cool/effective tactic i'd come up with cause it's "OP". I'm not saying it's the case, but seriously thats the vibe this is giving me.

5e is pretty decently balanced, it's not 3.5. Unless one of your player intentionnaly gimp himself, everybody is gonna contribute. Run a PHB only at first, then see if anything is necessary. Those seem largely misguided to me.

[Tanarii]

I am new to 5th edition and originally was thinking of running a "no feats/no multiclassing" campaign. After reading some of the "no feats" feedback on different forums I tried to balance the feats to still give people options instead of eliminating them.That's a huge mistake. If you're new to the edition, you have no idea what needs fixing or balancing. Just run a at least one campaign without feats or multiclassing. There's no shame in doing that, in fact it makes for some great experiences you can't get in a wide-open options game. And anyone can get the latter by playing AL.

[Keravath]

The only real "exploits" I am aware of in 5e are the Coffeelock idea to obtain infinite spell slots on a sorcerer/warlock and wish/simulacrum shenanigans yielding infinite simulacrums. Both are easily fixed by the DM just saying no. The second doesn't even come into play until level 17+.

5e has a number of circumstances that can result in players getting to roll a lot of dice or do a great deal of burst damage. Critical sneak attacks and smites are prime examples. This makes some combats a bit swingy but you need to remember it is a lot of FUN for the player when it happens. They roll a lot of dice and it becomes a memorable moment. So what if the monster of the day dies a little faster than you had planned or expected. Two key elements of DMing are flexibility and making the game fun. None of the changes you have suggested actually contribute much to either of those.

[stoutstien]

When 5e first came out I ran probably 30+ sessions that were no feats or multi-classing. Then I added feats for about 30 more and then multi-classing.

I can tell you this, 5e is definitely the most approachable edition from the players side but if you haven't DM at all before than 5e leaves a lot of vagueness. This is great once you have a good command of the game but at first I could see the source of frustration due to lack of rule references.

I am an avid home-brewer but I won't touch anything until I see it in actually play for a while.

[bid]

For ranged why would you not use a hand crossbow with crossbow expert and sharp shooter? At least until swift quiver.

For the non barbarian/non rogue:
For two hands melee why would you not use a polearm with PAM and GWM +/- GWF (if available)?
For one handed melee with shield why would you not use a quarterstaff with PAM +/- dueling (if available)?
Hand crossbow is limited to 120', compared to 600' for longbow. Also, remember that the -5/+10 is only useful on low AC targets which might as well be taken out with fireballs.

GWF only adds 1/2(on 1d4) 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6(on 1d12) damage, your 2d6 maul gets an extra 4/3 damage from 11 to 12.33 at Str18. Defense style is often better pick.

PAM + GWM with Str16 should be compared to Str20 at level 8 (if you remove variant human)
- Str20 = 2*(2d6+5) * .70 ~ 16.8 DPR
- Str18+PAM = 2*(1d10+4) * .65 + (1d4+4) * .65 ~ 16.6 DPR
- Str16+PAM+GWM = 2*(1d10+13) * .35 + (1d4+13) * .35 ~ 18.4 DPR
(ignoring crit)
Barbarian does better with reckless attack, but it's their whole shtick.

Quarterstaff + PAM cheese, house rule that it requires using both hands for the butt attack. And remember that spear has been added to PAM somewhere along the line.


I think the biggest stumbling block is short rest. You have to disable the 5-minute day and have them spend their resources over multiple encounters. That's one of the reason gritty realism with one long rest per week, one short rest per night gets some traction.

Also, remind your players you aren't an adversarial GM. Your goal is to challenge them and have fun. If they push for OP characters, they'll get OP challenges.

[Kane0]

For your first run try no multiclassimg amd no feats at all, they are optional after all.

The feats you mention are indeed powerful, but require setup and investment as well as having some hiccups built in like -5 to hit which is actually quite a noticeable balancing factor. Ultimately doing a little more damage isn't going to break the game, especially if only variant humans or characters that forsake stat increases can pull it off.

[sithlordnergal]

So if I simplified and ran RAW PHB only with no multiclassing of paladin or warlock....

For ranged why would you not use a hand crossbow with crossbow expert and sharp shooter? At least until swift quiver.

For the non barbarian/non rogue:
For two hands melee why would you not use a polearm with PAM and GWM +/- GWF (if available)?
For one handed melee with shield why would you not use a quarterstaff with PAM +/- dueling (if available)?

It seems like you are giving up a lot of damage.

These were a couple of links I was reading:
rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/67197/what-is-the-highest-possible-ac
dmdavid.com/tag/how-new-changes-created-the-4-most-annoying-spells-in-dungeons-dragons/

There are few reasons for this:

1) For the Crossbow expert/Sharp Shooter, you have to take two feats to get this. Meaning you need to either spend two ASI's, or be a Variant Human and spend an ASI. It's also only a d6 for damage, and while you have 3 attacks, that third attacks costs you a bonus action. That said, it is highly effective for anyone who chooses to specialize in ranged attacks, like Fighters and Rangers. It is good for Rogues, but it competes with their other bonus actions.

2) Because Greatswords and Greataxes do more damage then polearms, simple as that. You also find more magical swords in the DMG then anything else. While you can make a flametongue polearm, by raw you'll only ever find a flametongue sword. PAM and GWM are a great combo, don't get me wrong, but its far from perfect. And again, it takes up your bonus action, which is a major thing, and only does 1d4. Unless you have something to stack with that damage, it's really not that much.

3) Because of the similar issues above, and the problem that the Quarterstaff does terrible damage without Shillelgah. You actually average about the same amount of damage by doing 2d6+1d4, Extra Attack + PAM attack, as you do with 2d8 from a longsword. Now, there are some really cool staffs out there, but most of them require full casters to attune to them, so with limited multiclassing, the classes that work best with those items can't grab them.

In all seriousness, you don't really gain that much damage by going PAM or Crossbow Expert. You do gain more attacks, which can allow Sharp Shooter and GWM to proc, but with those are a bit of a crap shoot anyway since you take a -5 to hit. Looking at a dice average calculator, 3d6 from Crossbow Expert with a Handcrossbow did about as much from 2d8 from two longbow attacks, and the longbow has a higher range.

While Polearms tend to do 1d10 damage, and were about the same as a greatsword user. In fact, the only weapon that really lost out was the poor greataxe with an average damage of 13 for two attacks, while the others did an average of 14.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So if I simplified and ran RAW PHB only with no multiclassing of paladin or warlock....

For ranged why would you not use a hand crossbow with crossbow expert and sharp shooter? At least until swift quiver.

For the non barbarian/non rogue:
For two hands melee why would you not use a polearm with PAM and GWM +/- GWF (if available)?
For one handed melee with shield why would you not use a quarterstaff with PAM +/- dueling (if available)?

It seems like you are giving up a lot of damage.

These were a couple of links I was reading:
rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/67197/what-is-the-highest-possible-ac
dmdavid.com/tag/how-new-changes-created-the-4-most-annoying-spells-in-dungeons-dragons/

To expand on what other said (from a different angle)--I've been running two or three groups a year for the last 4 years. In those, no one has wanted to use a polearm. No one has taken GWM or PAM. No one has even considered taking CBE/SS. I've got a player who is loving Champion. Last combat he rolled a couple 19s and got to roll all the dice (6d6 because he's using a greatsword that deals an extra d6 lightning, like a knock-off flametongue). Even he didn't take GWM, even though he could. He took Heavy Armor Master, because he's gotten pin-cushioned enough to want more defensive power. I've never seen a warlock (and I've had several) cast hex or even consider hexblade. My wizards tend to prefer fireball to the more "optimal" spells. My clerics and other support types heal people even when they're not at 0 HP. And everyone has lots of fun. Mechanical optimization is, for my tables, not even a consideration. They won't anti-optimize, but they'll take flavor over power 100% of the time.

Unless you know you're playing with a bunch of dirty munchkins (sarcasm. more seriously, people who primarily care about how big of numbers they throw up on screen), imbalance just doesn't really matter at the level you're dealing with in 5e. Internet discussions blow it way out of proportion for how things end up in real play with real people. The only pseudo-exception is AL, where everyone is encouraged by the format to be as powerful as possible because you can never count on anyone else to be even possibly sane or have a synergistic party.

[Nemenia]

This is by no means any kind of helpful or critical advice, (and is just my 2c) but...

This is the kind of stuff that gets you on greentexts about being the DM nobody wanted to play with ever again. Bad idea

[Contrast]

Halflings - all halflings get an additional +1 con (e.g. a stout halfling gets +2 con)

This might well be the bump needed to make halflings better barbarians than rogues. I don't know if that was what you were trying to achieve :smallwink:


High elven/dark elven fighter/wizards are always proficient with heavy armor (applies if wizard is taken before fighter)
Dragonborn fighter/sorcerers (draconic bloodline only) are always proficient with heavy armor

I'm a little confused what you're trying to do here? Why specifically do elf fighter/wizards and dragon born fighter/sorc get a buff (and a really weird, often not relevant one at that)? This seems really arbitrary.


Crossbow Expert - when using a hand crossbow in the offhand it can not be fired again until the user has a free hand (puts away the one handed melee weapon); when using a single hand crossbow the bonus attack does not apply if the user has the extra attack or thirsting blade class features (it does not stack with extra attacks)

You already need a free hand to fire the crossbow again. The feat gets rid of the loading property but it still have the ammunition property which means you need a free hand to load ammo.


Only 1 Base Armor AC bonus at a time (choose 1 source only): regular armor, barbarian/monk unarmored defense, barkskin, draconic resilience, mage armor, robe of the archmagi, etc.

This isn't a houserule, this is just a rule. Look at page 14 of your PHB.



More generally speaking you have nerfed some good things, a load of OK things and quite a few bad things. The nerfs seem pretty arbitrary and I can't see any consistent theme which seems to be directing them. I'll agree with other people that its much more sensible to try playing the game for a bit before you start trying to nerf things.

[stoutstien]

@op.
Have you asked your table how they would feel about running a base no feat/ multi-class game until you get a feel for the game?
All the fourm banter of the internet combined is second to a single discussion at a table.

[JNAProductions]

Echoing those who say "Run a game without feats/multiclassing first."

5E, while certainly not perfectly balanced, is pretty reasonable in terms of its balance. Unless you have one player who REALLY does their research and intentionally tries to abuse the system, alongside players who are much less power-focused, AND you hit levels where you actually can overshadow other players, AND the other players actually notice and care about the imbalance...

Then you'll probably want different houserules, because this addresses none of that.

For what it's worth, the only two issues I can think of that you might want to address preemptively is coffeelocking, which I wouldn't even bring up unless a player announces their intent to multiclass Sorcerer and Warlock together; and Wish-Simulacrum chaining, which I address with the following rule:


A creature can only have one simulacrum of themselves at a time. (This includes sims of sims.) If the creation of another simulacrum is attempted, it fails if the original simulacrum is still alive, though no resources are expended in this case other than time wasted.

[Tanarii]

For the non barbarian/non rogue:
For two hands melee why would you not use a polearm with PAM and GWM +/- GWF (if available)?
For one handed melee with shield why would you not use a quarterstaff with PAM +/- dueling (if available)?

It seems like you are giving up a lot of damage.
PAM & GWM & SS are all potential balance-problem feats. But Feats are an optional rule. Nothing says that when you do decide to allow them, you have to allow them all at once.

But you won't know if you find them to be unbalanced unless you start off by running a few games without the optional rules first, for a baseline.

[47Ace]

I think that you have the wrong point of comparison for GWM, PAM, Crossbow Expert, and SS. I would argue, without any way to prove it, that having one of those feats is assumed for martial characters and that banning them is a massive nerf. The best way would probably to attempt a comparison of paladin and fighters at level 12 with and without feats. With a look at the damage output of an evocation wizard spamming fireballs. More feats is definitely a fighter class feature so past level 8 no feats is basically a fighter ban. I would suggest playing with no muliticlassing but with feats at first.

[stoutstien]

I think that you have the wrong point of comparison for GWM, PAM, Crossbow Expert, and SS. I would argue, without any way to prove it, that having one of those feats is assumed for martial characters and that banning them is a massive nerf. The best way would probably to attempt a comparison of paladin and fighters at level 12 with and without feats. With a look at the damage output of an evocation wizard spamming fireballs. More feats is definitely a fighter class feature so past level 8 no feats is basically a fighter ban. I would suggest playing with no muliticlassing but with feats at first.
a no feat game isn't going to make fighter worthless. you could make a champion fighter that uses twf that is arguably the worse subclass and worse style and still be hard pressed to say they are falling behind in anyway.

[47Ace]

a no feat game isn't going to make fighter worthless. you could make a champion fighter that uses twf that is arguably the worse subclass and worse style and still be hard pressed to say they are falling behind in anyway.

Not worthless just like a paladin without IDS is not worthless but I feel that more feats is as much of a fighter feature as IDS is a paladin feature. Or a lower level example you could constrain money to the point that plate is never affordable and fighters and paladins would still not be worthless but they would be below were they should be.

[stoutstien]

Not worthless just like a paladin without IDS is not worthless but I feel that more feats is as much of a fighter feature as IDS is a paladin feature. Or a lower level example you could constrain money to the point that plate is never affordable and fighters and paladins would still not be worthless but they would be below were they should be.

well using your original post of three characters at lv 12 1 fighter, pally, and wizard.
twf fighter is hitting 4(1d8+5)and can action surge to double this once per SR. critting on 19-20, and with all the asi going to stats remarkable athlete means you can pass most skill checks prof or not.(with the extra attack they can shove on first attack and still maintain a good damage out put and also help the pally crit more so they can be more affective)

paladin is hitting 2(2d6+5+1d8) and can nova to spike damage the real winner is aura of protection means both the pally and the fighter have a solid base to passing saves.

comparing the wizard isn't going to help but adding the wizard to the pally and fighter we have a solid 3 man party that can tackle just about anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@stoutstien, @47Ace:

I did the math once for a champion fighter and a non-vengeance paladin (IIRC it was devotion, but I can't say for certain). They're exactly on par (+- 5%) if you assume that they play conservatively and you have ~18 rounds of combat per long rest. By "conservatively" I mean that the paladin is mostly dumping his low level slots into smites and casting spells out of the high-level ones, using roughly half his slots for smiting.

And adding feats really doesn't change much, because both builds can afford a "big" combat feat. The major difference is that in a no-feat game, the fighter is more well rounded (capping 2 ability scores assuming standard array and having all positive modifiers OR capping 2 and having a third high stat), while the paladin can't cap either his secondary OR his CON. This leaves the fighter with significantly better HP and the paladin with slightly better all-around saves. The fighter can use ranged weapons without significant penalty, while the paladin stinks at range.

So the biggest determiner is the frequency of combat. If you're running a "normal" 5-6 medium/hard encounter day with two short rests, they're right on par. If all you have is a single, super-mega, single-monster encounter per day, the paladin shines. But that's bad for most classes, so do that sparingly. In addition, a nova paladin is likely to dump a lot of damage into overkill except on the "target dummy"-style encounters. So against a horde of smaller critters, the fighter is much more useful. Against flying things, the fighter is endlessly more useful. Against a single large target, the paladin is much more powerful.

So all in all, feats are not assumed by the system math. The classes are "in balance"* across a variety of encounters already, way more than white-room calculations of single mega-targets will predict.

* Also, balance is noisy. So IMO +- 10% is as good as you can meaningfully do. Anything more precise than that is an illusion of your test harness and only exists to stir up trouble between players. And DPR is one of the least important things a PC brings to the table--anyone can output damage and the DM can adapt to any range of damage output. DPR is boring.

[47Ace]

@stoutstien, @47Ace:

I did the math once for a champion fighter and a non-vengeance paladin (IIRC it was devotion, but I can't say for certain). They're exactly on par (+- 5%) if you assume that they play conservatively and you have ~18 rounds of combat per long rest. By "conservatively" I mean that the paladin is mostly dumping his low level slots into smites and casting spells out of the high-level ones, using roughly half his slots for smiting.

And adding feats really doesn't change much, because both builds can afford a "big" combat feat. The major difference is that in a no-feat game, the fighter is more well rounded (capping 2 ability scores assuming standard array and having all positive modifiers OR capping 2 and having a third high stat), while the paladin can't cap either his secondary OR his CON. This leaves the fighter with significantly better HP and the paladin with slightly better all-around saves. The fighter can use ranged weapons without significant penalty, while the paladin stinks at range.

So the biggest determiner is the frequency of combat. If you're running a "normal" 5-6 medium/hard encounter day with two short rests, they're right on par. If all you have is a single, super-mega, single-monster encounter per day, the paladin shines. But that's bad for most classes, so do that sparingly. In addition, a nova paladin is likely to dump a lot of damage into overkill except on the "target dummy"-style encounters. So against a horde of smaller critters, the fighter is much more useful. Against flying things, the fighter is endlessly more useful. Against a single large target, the paladin is much more powerful.

So all in all, feats are not assumed by the system math. The classes are "in balance"* across a variety of encounters already, way more than white-room calculations of single mega-targets will predict.

* Also, balance is noisy. So IMO +- 10% is as good as you can meaningfully do. Anything more precise than that is an illusion of your test harness and only exists to stir up trouble between players. And DPR is one of the least important things a PC brings to the table--anyone can output damage and the DM can adapt to any range of damage output. DPR is boring.

OK, as I said originally I hadn't done the math. I was thinking of using a pair of short-swords on the paladin with medium armor and dex. Witch solves the ranged problem and triggers IDS more. But I trust your math.

[stoutstien]

@stoutstien, @47Ace:

I did the math once for a champion fighter and a non-vengeance paladin (IIRC it was devotion, but I can't say for certain). They're exactly on par (+- 5%) if you assume that they play conservatively and you have ~18 rounds of combat per long rest. By "conservatively" I mean that the paladin is mostly dumping his low level slots into smites and casting spells out of the high-level ones, using roughly half his slots for smiting.

And adding feats really doesn't change much, because both builds can afford a "big" combat feat. The major difference is that in a no-feat game, the fighter is more well rounded (capping 2 ability scores assuming standard array and having all positive modifiers OR capping 2 and having a third high stat), while the paladin can't cap either his secondary OR his CON. This leaves the fighter with significantly better HP and the paladin with slightly better all-around saves. The fighter can use ranged weapons without significant penalty, while the paladin stinks at range.

So the biggest determiner is the frequency of combat. If you're running a "normal" 5-6 medium/hard encounter day with two short rests, they're right on par. If all you have is a single, super-mega, single-monster encounter per day, the paladin shines. But that's bad for most classes, so do that sparingly. In addition, a nova paladin is likely to dump a lot of damage into overkill except on the "target dummy"-style encounters. So against a horde of smaller critters, the fighter is much more useful. Against flying things, the fighter is endlessly more useful. Against a single large target, the paladin is much more powerful.

So all in all, feats are not assumed by the system math. The classes are "in balance"* across a variety of encounters already, way more than white-room calculations of single mega-targets will predict.

* Also, balance is noisy. So IMO +- 10% is as good as you can meaningfully do. Anything more precise than that is an illusion of your test harness and only exists to stir up trouble between players. And DPR is one of the least important things a PC brings to the table--anyone can output damage and the DM can adapt to any range of damage output. DPR is boring.

yes ~10% is about right and as the party get higher level it gets even harder to determine who is more powerful which is a point in favor in how well 5E did as far as class balance. not perfect but the best ive seen in any TTRPG to date.

[Mikal]

Your post said you’re new to 5E. So how can you tell what’s “balanced” or not since you have little to no actual experience with it?

As such I say if you want to run it to get to know it before throwing the baby out with the bath water with your house rules, just run it RAW. No feats no multiclassing no variant human etc.

While boring to me personally since I like all three of those, that’s the best way for you to actually get a feel for how things work before trying to build a better mousetrap without actually seeing a mouse in your life.

[Shuruke]

I don't know why you would want to implement this absolute wall of changes without actually trying things as is. 5e is pretty extensively playtested and only a few corner cases actually disrupt the game in any way, and almost no one that I've met playing DnD goes for that kind of thing.

And to look at something specific, if you're going to make warlocks single class only, fine. I personally get annoyed when I see a build help thread turn into "play a palasorlock instead" discussion, or a discussion of whether or not 2 levels of hexblade is going to do anything. But banning them from any multiclass and then also gimping the base class's main thing (eldritch blast)? might as well ban the whole class and not deal with it, because warlocks as single class characters are balanced around having few leveled spells but a strong cantrip. Even then, they're notably weaker than a fighter in terms of using an action to attack something until they expend one of their two (2) spell slots to make their attack marginally better than a vanilla, +0 longbow.

In my opinion the changes look like they are intended to counter hyper optimized builds like the palladin Assassin or Sorlock

Tbh at my table I've never had issues with classes i just change things here and their just to see how it turns lut and of its more fun

[BloodOgre]

@OP Our question to you, is what are you trying to fix. As a few others have said, some of your rules sound a bit arbitrary and most of them seem aimed at limiting the PCs. I would also suggest, as others have, that since you are new, just play with the existing rules for a while, without the optional stuff like feats and multi-classing if you need to. But don't go making rules about things that haven't been an issue.

For the most part, I play RAW. And if a player finds a way to be overpowered, then I send overpowered monsters at them.

[bid]

It also bothers me when a fighter 3/wizard 17 seems potentially as a better caster than a wizard 20 (or sorcerer, because of action surge).
I think your solution of boosting the wizard capstone is fine. After all, fighter 3 / wizard 3 isn't better than wizard 6 and that holds true until level 17.

OTOH, you can cover for any class weakness by having the proper magic item show up. Or player weaknesses, if it stops their fun. So it's not that important to have an exact balance.

[Jerrykhor]

I just want a world where everyone is on equal footing. I've been reading posts on what people thought were abuses of the game, where it is harder to challenge the group because of certain player builds. It also bothers me when a fighter 3/wizard 17 seems potentially as a better caster than a wizard 20 (or sorcerer, because of action surge).

How does this look for race/class balance (mostly bringing things up instead of nerfing)?

Content

PHB only


Races

Halflings gain darkvision


Classes

Clerics at level 20 - when using their action to cast a spell may use a bonus action to make a single weapon attack
Druid circle of the moon wild shape - CR limit: 1/2 @ level 2, 1 @ level 4
Paladins are single classed only
Ranger at level 14 - gains an additional fighting style
Ranger at level 20 - on their first turn of combat receives an additional attack when using the attack action; foeslayer applies to hit and damage of the chosen attack
Ranger beastmaster - may use a bonus action to command the beast to attack; when an ally within the beast's movement range is attacked may use his/her reaction to have the beast attack the attacker; the beast may only use one attack action per turn between the ranger's attack action/bonus action/reaction, if the beast is hasted its haste action is taken with its attack action
Sorcerers at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day
Warlocks are single classed only
Warlock repelling blast - each target may only be pushed by that warlock once per turn
Wizards at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day


Capstone balance really don't matter much. Tier 4 seldom see the light of the day, and when it does, its balance is already out of whack by the McGuffins, godly magic items, legendary boons and whatnot.

What's the point of fixing something you'll never use? You are new, so i doubt you'll DM at level 20 straight away, and you really shouldn't.
What's the point of giving most casters Action Surge at 20 when they can multi-class Fighter and get it earlier?

Not trying to be rude, but you obviously don't have a clue on balance, so stop playing Game Designer. There's too many redundant changes, like 'if the beast is hasted...'. You're kidding, right? Nobody will cast haste on the beast, I can guarantee you that.

Fix the real problems, not theoretical problems. I'm sure your players will cut you some slack since you are new.

[Arathryth]

I think I get what the OP was trying to do, and it inspired me. Here are my proposed House Rules:

-PHB
-No Feats or Multi Classing
-PC's start with 10 in all stats
-Human is the only playable race
-Champion Fighter, Thief Rogue, and Evocation Wizard are the only playable classes
-No backgrounds
-No magic items
-Players have 6 seconds to complete their turn, if they go over their time, their character immediately falls unconscious with 2 failed death saves

[Zhorn]

I think I get what the OP was trying to do, and it inspired me. Here are my proposed House Rules:

-PHB
-No Feats or Multi Classing
-PC's start with 10 in all stats
-Human is the only playable race
-Champion Fighter, Thief Rogue, and Evocation Wizard are the only playable classes
-No backgrounds
-No magic items
-Players have 6 seconds to complete their turn, if they go over their time, their character immediately falls unconscious with 2 failed death saves

While I'm sure that last line was said in jest (and a good few of the others too), I would totally play in that game.
Entire game of quick time events.
DM: "Ok Jimmy, you're up. Press X to not die"
Jimmy: "I... umm... ahh"
DM: "Jimmy falls unconscious and is bleeding out. Sally, you're up"
Sally: "AXE! I ROLL TO AXE!" *frantically throws all the dice is a desperate bid to survive*

good times

[Unoriginal]

I just want a world where everyone is on equal footing.

Then play 5e as it is.

And if someone tries to abuse something, just say no.

[Aquillion]

Clerics at level 20 - when using their action to cast a spell may use a bonus action to make a single weapon attack


What's the point of this? Is your game actually likely to reach level 20, or is this just theorycrafting? I would suggest waiting until you are near level 20 before deciding if you want to change anything there - you'll have a better sense of your party.




Druid circle of the moon wild shape - CR limit: 1/2 @ level 2, 1 @ level 4

Why? Circle of the Moon is all about Wild Shape, and this is its central ability. You seem to be delaying its progression for no reason. This also complicates playing the class in irritating ways, because players will have to constantly update their best combat form.



Paladins are single classed only
Warlocks are single classed only

Silly and adds nothing. Paladins and Warlocks have a lot of good multiclassing options, but they're just as strong single-classed. People multi-class because they like to feel they're playing something unique; Warlocks and Paladins are popular because they provide a lot of options, not because this is OMGBROKEN. A single-class Cleric, Bard, or (at high levels) Wizard can easily match or exceed the power of any Warlock / Paladin multiclass.

And more generally, 5e is fairly well-balanced. It's not possible to make every single build equally strong, but it's not like 3.5e where it's likely to cause problems in the course of normal play.




Ranger at level 14 - gains an additional fighting style
Ranger at level 20 - on their first turn of combat receives an additional attack when using the attack action; foeslayer applies to hit and damage of the chosen attack
Ranger beastmaster - may use a bonus action to command the beast to attack; when an ally within the beast's movement range is attacked may use his/her reaction to have the beast attack the attacker; the beast may only use one attack action per turn between the ranger's attack action/bonus action/reaction, if the beast is hasted its haste action is taken with its attack action


Just use the UA Ranger fix instead... if someone even wants to play a ranger. You should probably figure that out first?




Warlock repelling blast - each target may only be pushed by that warlock once per turn


I have no idea why you would do this.

You understand that single-class warlocks aren't that strong, right?




Sorcerers at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day
Wizards at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day

While most classes could use better capstones, I'm baffled that you'd say you want to fix vaguely-defined "imbalances", then buff level 20 wizards (by which point they're already one of the strongest classes in the game, if not the strongest.)

Most of these are terrible ideas, and even the ones that aren't completely terrible still aren't great.

Look, here's my advice: Do not houserule anything yet. Don't take random forum posts so seriously (especially since it sounds like you have very little experience actually playing the game.) 5e is, comparatively speaking, one of the most well-balanced versions of D&D. The complaints you're seeing are from optimizers excessively focused on very subtle distinctions, ones that will not come up and do not matter in the vast majority of games.

Unlike 3.5e (which may be where your worries are coming from), 5e will generally feel balanced out of the box; as long as you just follow the rules as written and avoid knee-jerk houserules like these, things should be fine.

The reality is that the game was designed by people who knew what they were doing. Many of the things you're (fairly blindly) tinkering with were set up after careful deliberation. There's definitely room for improvement, but you have to have experience with the system and with your group.

Play it as written first. Grit your teeth and fix nothing. Even if you think your players are actively breaking something, do nothing. Control the urge to fix things. Intercede only if it seems like your players aren't having fun. If you find you're having trouble challenging your players, scale up the difficulty.

But really, here's the most important advice: Stop worrying about trying to fix the game. Stop it. Being a DM is hard enough without trying to redesign the game at the same time. You're making things harder on yourself and your players, will likely introduce more imbalance than you're trying to fix, and are generally just wasting your time.

Instead, talk to your players. Find out what they want out of the game, what they're going to play, what their characters' goals are and so on. Start thinking about the setting and scenario. Spend your time writing up possible encounters or planning NPCs or maps or dungeons or anything but this. Those are the things that will make the game fun for your players.

Not dropping a massive list of arbitrary rules changes on them, day one, based on whatever random forum posts you read recently. Put all that out of your head. Forget about it. Focus on running your game, not on trying to "fix" Dungeons and Dragons.

Sweeping houserules are almost never a good idea, especially ones you come up with based on theorycrafting without actually identifying a clear, direct problem in your specific game that your players need you to fix (or a question that needs to be resolved.)

[Aquillion]

I think I get what the OP was trying to do, and it inspired me. Here are my proposed House Rules:

-PHB
-No Feats or Multi Classing
-PC's start with 10 in all stats
-Human is the only playable race
-Champion Fighter, Thief Rogue, and Evocation Wizard are the only playable classes
-No backgrounds
-No magic items
-Players have 6 seconds to complete their turn, if they go over their time, their character immediately falls unconscious with 2 failed death saves

No dice. Any time dice would be rolled, the average is used instead.
Players cannot advance in level, since doing so makes balancing the game more difficult.
Players heal to full after every encounter, to avoid imbalance from resource depletion.
All fights take place on an infinite featureless plane to prevent players from pulling any tricks with the environment, which can be hard to balance.
In fact, the entire setting is an infinite featureless plane.
All enemies are identical goblins.
All encounters consist of 2.5 such goblins, which is precisely balanced for a four-person level 1 party.
No loot or treasure, it's hard to balance.
No plot, no NPCs except the goblin encounters - this can lead to imbalance if the players make allies or enemies.
The goblins cannot be negotiated with. In fact, no one may speak or communicate at all.
All encounters are precisely identical. The goblins and PCs always start in the same configuration.
No downtime between encounters. After killing one encounter's worth of 2.5 goblins, the PCs instantly recover to full and encounter another 2.5 goblins.
No character details. All characters are nondescript humans of indeterminate gender, height, and appearance.
To ensure balanced encounters, all players are given a script for what their characters do each encounter (since all encounters are identical, there's just one script.) Players may not deviate; the script is automatically executed each encounter.
Obviously, the goblins also react identically each encounter.
Players are not permitted to quit or leave the game, since a player leaving midway through would cause imbalance. You are here forever.
The passing of time could cause players to tire or pass out or, eventually, to die of old age. Not the characters, their players. Therefore, time is not permitted to pass in reality while the game is being played.
Really, players are a source of potential imbalance - some know the game better than others, say, or might be more charismatic and take the lead. Even with the scripts, this is not permissible. Therefore, there will be no players. The DM plays all roles.
Actually, the DM is another source of imbalance. Since we've eliminated all possible sources of deviation, the script will just be loaded into an impartial computer and set to run on a loop, forever.

There. The game is now almost as balanced as 4e.

[Zhorn]

*snip*
You forgot:

1v1
no items
fox only
final destination

[MoiMagnus]

Warlock repelling blast - each target may only be pushed by that warlock once per turn

I have no idea why you would do this.

You understand that single-class warlocks aren't that strong, right?

I will answer this because I had a similar rule in my campaign.

The reason we implemented such a rule is that most of our battle map had (for aesthetic reasons) "zone where if you fall into it, you're mostly dead, or at least out of the fight".
Think about fighting on boats (possibly flying boats), on a "bridge without barriers", on a flying island, ...
And when that was not the case, the battleground certainly had some "magical zones" here and there.

This make anything that push or move opponents far stronger than what it should be, hence the need of nerfing them (because a cantrip that says "get rid of an enemy that doesn't fly, whatever its CR" is too powerful ).

However, if you don't have that kind of weird map frequently, I don't see why you would need this nerf.

[Unoriginal]

If the environment makes something more powerful, I'd be pretty pissed to see that thing nerfed in response.

It's like being told "the campaign will have a lot of boat fights, so I'm nerfing all the spells and abilities that can set things on fire."

Sacrificing options, for NPCs as much as PCs, because of battlemap aesthetics seems unpleasant to play through. But eh, if it worked for your table, it worked for your table.

[JNAProductions]

My current batch is mainly a delay in power gain to moon druid power shape and a couple of multiclassing limits and everyone cries like babies. Did you all cry when 3.5 edition was released because you had to take 2 paladin levels instead of 1?

Okay, you're clearly not here in good faith. There's absolutely no need to insult the good people of this forum because we're critiquing your houserules.

[Willie the Duck]

Okay, you're clearly not here in good faith. There's absolutely no need to insult the good people of this forum because we're critiquing your houserules.

Jerrykhor was not being diplomatic ("Not trying to be rude, but you obviously don't have a clue on balance, so stop playing Game Designer. There's too many redundant changes, like 'if the beast is hasted...'. You're kidding, right? Nobody will cast haste on the beast, I can guarantee you that."), but also not hugely over-harsh, and you are right that OP did not have to respond in kind.

To the OP, the number one way to not be treated as an adult is to imply that other people are being childish for not agreeing with your position. Everyone is not crying like babies over your suggestions. You do not have that power over them (since people clearly aren't giving you or your suggestions the respect you think you/they deserve, why would you think you have the power to upset them so much that they cry like babies?). People disagree with your judgments and are doing you the favor of offering critique. Mind you, some are being more or less kind in their methods, but that does not change the fact that subjecting your ideas to critique means that those providing feedback are the ones doing exactly what you asked of all of us in the first place.

On to the meat of your post:

Level 2 moon druid getting a CR1 wild shape seems a ...bit... too strong compared to other level 2 characters.

It does, and one of the strongest complaints about moon druids is the jagged power distribution. Moving CR 1 might work, or just declare bears (since they are the biggest culprit) to be CR 1.01 and thus you don't qualify until L3. I don't know that it is needed, but it is okay. I think rocking level 2 is kind of payback to moon druids for other levels when they are behind the curve (not that I would encourage this overall model for game balancing-game design in general).


The wizard 5/fighter 2 gives something up. Eventually they get it back. What about from the perspective of the wizard 18 (or sorcerer 18) picking his last two levels? It seems better to dip with the current capstones. Some campaigns you aren't sure how high your character is going to go. It can effect you psychologically on how you advance your character.

Yes, I can see that. If I thought Wiz 18 choosing ftr1 over wiz19 is a big problem, I might consider a similar change. But there are so many 2-level dips that could happen, why specifically address this one specific situation?


I don't really want to use an unearthed arcana ranger that strengthens the ranger overall if the problem is that their high level powers are not as good as multiclassing. And shouldn't the beastmaster be viable?

Yes, Beastmaster should be viable. If your fix is predicated on a hasted beast that doesn't reflect how games really play out, someone should mention that such that you can fix your fix.


I've read about multiple warlocks with repelling blast trivializing encounters but I can't find the link now. Maybe they were sorlocks stacking EB with QEB. So maybe repelling blast doesn't need to be nerfed if warlocks can't multiclass? I can remove it from my list? I was trying to get feedback.

Repelling blast can be a problem. Mostly it is more of an issue in that it makes DMs simply not bother with certain encounter types (like a platform maze, where PCs and opponents are pushing each other around to keep each other from a prize, or the like) that might be otherwise fun. One of the dangers of being so good at something that actually playing it out is boring. Similarly, a common criticism of rangers as well, as they can make adventuring in the wilderness (something someone looking to play a ranger might consider fun) uneventful and boring. I don't know if repelling blast needs a fix, but there is an argument that a less on-off version of it might actually benefit a warlock more, as their presence wouldn't just mean certain adventures don't happen in the first place.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I just want a world where everyone is on equal footing. I've been reading posts on what people thought were abuses of the game, where it is harder to challenge the group because of certain player builds. It also bothers me when a fighter 3/wizard 17 seems potentially as a better caster than a wizard 20 (or sorcerer, because of action surge).

How does this look for race/class balance (mostly bringing things up instead of nerfing)?

Content

PHB only


Races

Halflings gain darkvision


Classes

Clerics at level 20 - when using their action to cast a spell may use a bonus action to make a single weapon attack
Druid circle of the moon wild shape - CR limit: 1/2 @ level 2, 1 @ level 4
Paladins are single classed only
Ranger at level 14 - gains an additional fighting style
Ranger at level 20 - on their first turn of combat receives an additional attack when using the attack action; foeslayer applies to hit and damage of the chosen attack
Ranger beastmaster - may use a bonus action to command the beast to attack; when an ally within the beast's movement range is attacked may use his/her reaction to have the beast attack the attacker; the beast may only use one attack action per turn between the ranger's attack action/bonus action/reaction, if the beast is hasted its haste action is taken with its attack action
Sorcerers at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day
Warlocks are single classed only
Wizards at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day


Gimping a bunch of classes isn't really putting things on "even footing", and the fact you'd suggest things like forcing single-classing on Paladins and Warlocks while giving a huge buff to Sorcerer/Wizards at level 20 . . . yeesh. Seems like completely pointless tweaking by somebody who actually admits they don't know the system. My group plays more or less RAW in published material with zero restrictions, and we've got both a multiclassed Paladin/Sorcerer and Warlock/Bard, and there's nothing odd about them, it's just roleplaying flavor. The genuinely problematical stuff is the Barbarian/Champion GWM who crit-fishes and annihilates everything, and a Sharpshooter Ranger who does huge damage, and even then it's fine, because we work around it.

You really just joined the site to drop a bunch of "suggestions" for a game system you don't understand?

[Aquillion]

Level 2 moon druid getting a CR1 wild shape seems a ...bit... too strong compared to other level 2 characters.It really isn't. It's one of those things that seems stronger on paper until you look at the very limited list of Beasts available and what they actually do. In practice you're going to be a bit behind the pure damage classes in terms of damage; the extra HP helps you tank, but your AC will tend to be much lower than a PCs, so if you get targeted you'll get knocked out of Wild Shape real fast. Moon Druids are able to use Wild Shape for fighting, unlike the others, but the real advantage is still the ability to choose a form that fits your situation well.


The wizard 5/fighter 2 gives something up. Eventually they get it back. What about from the perspective of the wizard 18 (or sorcerer 18) picking his last two levels? It seems better to dip with the current capstones. Some campaigns you aren't sure how high your character is going to go. It can effect you psychologically on how you advance your character.Taking Fighter 2 early delays your entire spell progression for the rest of your career; it's a huge sacrifice (admittedly, you get a lot in exchange, but it's a big trade-off.)

If you do it at level 18, it doesn't really matter. At that point you have Wish. A wizard at that point is already so powerful that it's a bit baffling that you'd want to buff them either way. (Even at that point, taking two levels of Fighter sacrifices a 6th and 7th level spell slot - why would you want to change that and make wizards even more powerful?)


I don't really want to use an unearthed arcana ranger that strengthens the ranger overall if the problem is that their high level powers are not as good as multiclassing. And shouldn't the beastmaster be viable?The problem is that the entire structure of the ranger isn't fun to play (they specifically mentioned that when they released the UA Ranger - there are other weak classes, but Ranger was the one where people kept saying "it's not fun.")

You seem fixated on multiclassing. I don't understand why. 5e multiclassing is mostly reasonably balanced; but it's an optional rule. If you really hate it (and it does seem like you do), you can just ban it at your table. You don't have to come up with excuses.


I've read about multiple warlocks with repelling blast trivializing encounters but I can't find the link now. Maybe they were sorlocks stacking EB with QEB. So maybe repelling blast doesn't need to be nerfed if warlocks can't multiclass? I can remove it from my list? I was trying to get feedback.Any optimized build can trivialize encounters if the DM doesn't take that into account, but that's not really limited to one class, and honestly I would say that Warlock Eldritch Blast builds tend to be harder to break to that extent because they lack a "Power Attack" option ala Sharpshooter or Greater Weapon Mastery.


My current batch is mainly a delay in power gain to moon druid power shape and a couple of multiclassing limits and everyone cries like babies. Did you all cry when 3.5 edition was released because you had to take 2 paladin levels instead of 1?Man, complaining about balance is almost a national pastime here. People are criticizing your tweaks because for the most part you're not fixing actual problems and because most people dislike this sort of shoot-from-the-hip sort of knee-jerk "balance" houserules, having suffered through them in the past in numerous editions. They don't usually work out the way you want them to (and these certainly wouldn't.)

Like - to go with my example above - I could understand banning Sharpshooter or GWM. I'd disagree (you're just going to push the "best build" elsewhere and hurt some builds that really rely on them to be viable at all), but you'd be clearly banning one of the strongest options in the game.

Trying to nerf Moon Druid shapeshifting, though? That just feels like directionless theorycrafting - sort of a knee-jerk "CR 1 at level 2 can't possibly be balanced, right?" without actually looking at the numbers or trying it in play. The problem you're trying to fix there just doesn't exist. Moon Druid shapeshifters are fun but not remotely top-tier, let alone overpowered. If tested your houserule in a game, all you'd find is that it makes the Moon Druid player unhappy because they're unable to effectively use their iconic subclass feature at low levels.

And nerfing Warlocks while buffing Wizards is just bizarre - again, it feels like you're reacting to the fact that people discuss Warlock multiclassing a lot (because it's easy to multiclass them on account of having single-attribute-dependency on a commonly-maxed stat, plus Hexblades letting you be even more SAD.) But "easy to multiclass with" isn't the same thing as being overpowered.

[Keravath]

Level 2 moon druid getting a CR1 wild shape seems a ...bit... too strong compared to other level 2 characters.

The wizard 5/fighter 2 gives something up. Eventually they get it back. What about from the perspective of the wizard 18 (or sorcerer 18) picking his last two levels? It seems better to dip with the current capstones. Some campaigns you aren't sure how high your character is going to go. It can effect you psychologically on how you advance your character.

I don't really want to use an unearthed arcana ranger that strengthens the ranger overall if the problem is that their high level powers are not as good as multiclassing. And shouldn't the beastmaster be viable?

I've read about multiple warlocks with repelling blast trivializing encounters but I can't find the link now. Maybe they were sorlocks stacking EB with QEB. So maybe repelling blast doesn't need to be nerfed if warlocks can't multiclass? I can remove it from my list? I was trying to get feedback.

My current batch is mainly a delay in power gain to moon druid power shape and a couple of multiclassing limits and everyone cries like babies. Did you all cry when 3.5 edition was released because you had to take 2 paladin levels instead of 1?

I wouldn't say anyone is crying like babies. You asked for feedback on your planned house rules. Some of us have been playing and running D&D for decades and 5e for years more recently. You asked to tap into our experience in play in order to assess your balance changes.

The bottom line, from most of our feedback is that there is no justification for any of the changes you are suggesting.

Why do we say this? 5e has a better base balance than any of the other editions I have played (I only played one game of 4e and am not counting it :) ). Almost ALL of the forum discussion on balance is talking about relatively piddly differences in effectiveness between a maximally optimized character and one that is just average. I haven't seen a character yet that isn't playable. There was even someone in a recent game playing a character that just liked magic. They were level 4 with one level each in cleric, wizard, bard and sorcerer I think. They wandered around in heavy armor with a speed reduction for the low strength and even that character could contribute.

In a recent high level module (tier 3) the barbarian with GWM was simply awesome in melee but they would have had more troubles except my bard used wall of force to isolate some of the bad guys. Is the fact that the barbarian was rocking 80+ hit points of damage on some turns a balance issue? No.

Does a druid taking a bear form have an edge over other second level characters? Absolutely ... extra hit points, multiattack (bad AC though). However, by 4th and 5th level it evens out and the druid is pretty average. Levels 6-9 other classes do better. Is it worth house ruling this? Not in my opinion - level 2 goes by so quickly it is irrelevant and it is actually good if the moon druid can feel cool about what they can do for a couple of levels.

Repelling blast? Up until level 10 this is only at most 20' of movement ... pushing one creature twice or two once each. The only time it might remotely be an issue is if you are fighting in an environment with lots of drops and edges without handholds (I would certainly give creatures a save if they happen to fall off). Also in such an environment, the opponents are much more likely to have flying ability and who knows they may also have repelling blast. In the particular case of a sorlock using quickened eldritch-repelling blast then they can use it more ... but even then YOU (the DM) know they have it so it is on you to decide on reasonable encounters. Keep in mind that an ability like that is ONLY encounter wrecking if the DM decides they want it to be.

The bottom line is that in general there really isn't anything to fix here. Some DMs will adjust stuff that they feel "unrealistic" and might tweak something. Other DMs blow a gasket at some of the nova damage that a paladin or rogue might be capable of ... but honestly it isn't that often ... it happens on a crit ... and it becomes a wonderful story telling moment when the chief villain of the day goes down because the dice gods were on the side of the players that day. It becomes a fun and memorable moment.

So ... here is the advice that most of the folks in this thread have offered ...

NONE of your changes are really necessary at all ... not one of them. Play the game for six months with characters going at least from tier 1 to 3 ... see how it plays and then, if you and your players weren't having fun, make some adjustments if you think them needed. Theorycrafting is the worst way to make balance changes - go for playtesting instead :)

[Arathryth]

While I'm sure that last line was said in jest (and a good few of the others too), I would totally play in that game.
Entire game of quick time events.
DM: "Ok Jimmy, you're up. Press X to not die"
Jimmy: "I... umm... ahh"
DM: "Jimmy falls unconscious and is bleeding out. Sally, you're up"
Sally: "AXE! I ROLL TO AXE!" *frantically throws all the dice is a desperate bid to survive*

good times

You, my good Sir, just made me spit Pepsi all over my keyboard. The mental image of this game actually being played is just that hilarious.

[Kane0]

Sure, i'll take another crack. In red like last time.




PHB only Fine
Halflings gain darkvision Give it to Dragonborn instead
Clerics at level 20 - when using their action to cast a spell may use a bonus action to make a single weapon attack Unnecessary
Druid circle of the moon wild shape - CR limit: 1/2 @ level 2, 1 @ level 4 Unnecessary, unless you have an actual Moon Druid in the party ruining the fun of the others
Paladins are single classed only Just don't allow multiclassing, it's a variant rule
Ranger at level 14 - gains an additional fighting style Fine
Ranger at level 20 - on their first turn of combat receives an additional attack when using the attack action; foeslayer applies to hit and damage of the chosen attack The ranger needs a lot of work, this is fine but it's level 20. Most games don't get to 20
Ranger beastmaster - may use a bonus action to command the beast to attack; when an ally within the beast's movement range is attacked may use his/her reaction to have the beast attack the attacker; the beast may only use one attack action per turn between the ranger's attack action/bonus action/reaction, if the beast is hasted its haste action is taken with its attack action Just use the first part about bonus action to direct your beast, scrap the rest
Sorcerers at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day Unnecessary
Warlocks are single classed only Just don't allow multiclassing, it's a variant rule
Wizards at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day I object


I don't know how much time you've had with the game but I would recommend playing vanilla before you go making changes. Houserules and homebrew are best when they specifically address actual issues at your table, incrementally with plenty of testing and player buy-in. I'm sure the regulars here would be happy to point you in the right direction if you're looking to identify imbalances (nerfs as well as buffs).

[qube]

> Halflings gain darkvision Give it to Dragonborn instead

second that notion. (halfling's lucky is a very nice incentive to play them.)

> Paladins are single classed only Just don't allow multiclassing, it's a variant rule
> Warlocks are single classed only Just don't allow multiclassing, it's a variant rule

Yeah ... (not to mention, fighter 2 is a much more powerful multiclass not adressed)

---

As for giving spellcasters action surge at lvl 20 ... that's just a bad idea. (and no - Sorcerers can't emulate Action Surge by quicken spell - as, if you cast a spell as bonus action, you can only cast a cantrip during that turn) ... The last thing anyone needs is a caster unloading his 9th and 8th spell in one turn - breaking both combat, and seriously overshadowing his fellow players.

[PeteNutButter]

My general rule of thumb when considering a nerf on something is to first consider if I can apply the necessary changes differently first. Nerfs have a way of feeling like a knife in the back of the player. Why use that method when as a DM you are literally god?

For instance, instead of pushing the brown bear to level 4 on the moon druid (which is probably more balanced) if one of your players actually plays a moon druid, just plan the level 2 session accordingly. A lot of mooks with low + to hit might not be a problem for the high AC paladin but that brown bear will get shredded. He'll feel cool tanking a bunch of damage, but it will be damage you planned him to tank, and then the world goes back to normal in a level or two. Everyone has fun. Conversely if they get in a tough fight at level 2, the druid would spend the whole fight secretly hating you for your nerfing his class.

My point is there are so many levers and knobs you have access to as a DM, class adjustments should probably left primarily to the buff department, and nerfs can be done behind the screen via session planning. No "optimized build" is optimal everywhere, so challenge your players appropriately.

[Jerrykhor]

Level 2 moon druid getting a CR1 wild shape seems a ...bit... too strong compared to other level 2 characters.

The wizard 5/fighter 2 gives something up. Eventually they get it back. What about from the perspective of the wizard 18 (or sorcerer 18) picking his last two levels? It seems better to dip with the current capstones. Some campaigns you aren't sure how high your character is going to go. It can effect you psychologically on how you advance your character.

I don't really want to use an unearthed arcana ranger that strengthens the ranger overall if the problem is that their high level powers are not as good as multiclassing. And shouldn't the beastmaster be viable?

I've read about multiple warlocks with repelling blast trivializing encounters but I can't find the link now. Maybe they were sorlocks stacking EB with QEB. So maybe repelling blast doesn't need to be nerfed if warlocks can't multiclass? I can remove it from my list? I was trying to get feedback.

My current batch is mainly a delay in power gain to moon druid power shape and a couple of multiclassing limits and everyone cries like babies. Did you all cry when 3.5 edition was released because you had to take 2 paladin levels instead of 1?

You're not the first guy who asks for opinions and don't like it when people give theirs that is backed by sound reasoning. What's yours? That X is OP because you heard someone said it?

Its good to know what are the 'meta' options and what are the weaker stuff. But what you are trying to do is form solutions that are looking for problems. We DMs have unlimited power, with unlimited monsters, that have unlimited stats... theoretically. Doesn't mean we should use them, but its there when we need it. That is why most of us say your changes are unnecessary. Why nerf players damage when you can buff monsters' HP? Why nerf Assassinate when you can just not give Surprised? Not just that, things like stacking AC is a fun thought exercise that we like to do, but actually doing it is going to have a ton of opportunity costs.

And its not that Moon Druids are too powerful, its Land Druids that are too weak.

[Bloodcloud]

I just want a world where everyone is on equal footing. I've been reading posts on what people thought were abuses of the game, where it is harder to challenge the group because of certain player builds. It also bothers me when a fighter 3/wizard 17 seems potentially as a better caster than a wizard 20 (or sorcerer, because of action surge).

Honestly, chances of your players reaching level 20 when starting at level 1 are... remote at best. Balance past level 15 should really not be much of a concern. That fighter 2-3 wizard 17 being better is a level 20 snapshot without considering level 1-17, where taking thos fighter levels will impact spell progression significantly!

My advice, don't modify before playing. You'll see. The imbalance is actually minimal varies from level to level (moon druid is OP at 2nd, balances off quickly will staying relevant all the way, rogue is a fairly smooth progression, monks and bard get a HUGE boost at 5...). RNGesus can easily have more impact on who seems OP than character build, and player cooperation can easily outshine a player doing his own OP guy.

[Bloodcloud]

I will answer this because I had a similar rule in my campaign.

The reason we implemented such a rule is that most of our battle map had (for aesthetic reasons) "zone where if you fall into it, you're mostly dead, or at least out of the fight".
Think about fighting on boats (possibly flying boats), on a "bridge without barriers", on a flying island, ...
And when that was not the case, the battleground certainly had some "magical zones" here and there.

This make anything that push or move opponents far stronger than what it should be, hence the need of nerfing them (because a cantrip that says "get rid of an enemy that doesn't fly, whatever its CR" is too powerful ).

However, if you don't have that kind of weird map frequently, I don't see why you would need this nerf.

Throwing monsters into holes makes my players sooo happy... I'm not taking that from them. Just putting more monster (to throw off the mountain/into the chasm/the lava/the endless pit of pain)

But then, some monster also grapple. The one time I put an air elemental who could push and couldn't fall, they where panicking. Unloaded a bunch of ressources. Good times.

OP, you have to relax and embrace the imbalances. They balance off in the end.

[Aquillion]

Throwing monsters into holes makes my players sooo happy... I'm not taking that from them. Just putting more monster (to throw off the mountain/into the chasm/the lava/the endless pit of pain)Exactly this. If a player builds a character around tossing monsters out the window, don't take that away from them. Let them defenestrate to their heart's content. Just, when building encounters, take that into account - sometimes include some enemies you can assume they're going to send hurtling to their doom, and some they can't.

It's not like every single fight is going to take place over a bottomless chasm of doom. You can throw some in to give the player a chance to enjoy their UNLIMITED POWER, and have other fights where they need to use different tactics.

[Willie the Duck]

Let them defenestrate to their heart's content.

I absolutely need to use this (with no relevant context) in a game where the party walks in on the trailing end of a conversation. :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

Exactly this. If a player builds a character around tossing monsters out the window, don't take that away from them. Let them defenestrate to their heart's content. Just, when building encounters, take that into account - sometimes include some enemies you can assume they're going to send hurtling to their doom, and some they can't.

It's not like every single fight is going to take place over a bottomless chasm of doom. You can throw some in to give the player a chance to enjoy their UNLIMITED POWER, and have other fights where they need to use different tactics.
So much of the warlock's power is wrapped up in EB it hard to change it without causing unintentional problems. Saying that I wish they did put a save on repelling blast or have a clause where it didn't auto break grapples for even just a size limit.

[PhantomSoul]

So much of the warlock's power is wrapped up in EB it hard to change it without causing unintentional problems. Saying that I wish they did put a save on repelling blast or have a clause where it didn't auto break grapples for even just a size limit.

Adding a Saving Throw with a DC equal to the Warlock Spell Save DC seems like a reasonable fix. (In my campaign Eldritch Blast is a class feature instead of a cantrip, which effectively gives an extra cantrip to Warlocks but means it doesn't scale with non-Warlock levels for multiclassing. In one of the more recent Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hours Mike Mearls even said it probably should have been a class feature, which was a nice bit of vindication haha)

[stoutstien]

Adding a Saving Throw with a DC equal to the Warlock Spell Save DC seems like a reasonable fix. (In my campaign Eldritch Blast is a class feature instead of a cantrip, which effectively gives an extra cantrip to Warlocks but means it doesn't scale with non-Warlock levels for multiclassing. In one of the more recent Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hours Mike Mearls even said it probably should have been a class feature, which was a nice bit of vindication haha)
Honestly the lock could use the extra cantrip. I may look into this. I've already made agonizing blast based on lock lvs so wouldn't be to be of a jump

[Contrast]

Adding a Saving Throw with a DC equal to the Warlock Spell Save DC seems like a reasonable fix. (In my campaign Eldritch Blast is a class feature instead of a cantrip, which effectively gives an extra cantrip to Warlocks but means it doesn't scale with non-Warlock levels for multiclassing. In one of the more recent Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hours Mike Mearls even said it probably should have been a class feature, which was a nice bit of vindication haha)

I'd think long and hard before attaching another dice roll to something you expect a PC to be doing 3-4 times a round eventually.

I agree that eldritch blast should be a class feature though (for the double purpose of not scaling without warlock levels and making it so a new player can't accidentally miss it).

[MThurston]

Any feedback?

Content

PHB only


Races

Halflings gain darkvision


Classes

Clerics at level 20 - when using their action to cast a spell may use a bonus action to make a single weapon attack
Druid circle of the moon wild shape - CR limit: 1/2 @ level 2, 1 @ level 4
Paladins are single classed only
Ranger at level 14 - gains an additional fighting style
Ranger at level 20 - on their first turn of combat receives an additional attack when using the attack action; foeslayer applies to hit and damage of the chosen attack
Ranger beastmaster - may use a bonus action to command the beast to attack; when an ally within the beast's movement range is attacked may use his/her reaction to have the beast attack the attacker; the beast may only use one attack action per turn between the ranger's attack action/bonus action/reaction, if the beast is hasted its haste action is taken with its attack action
Sorcerers at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day
Warlocks are single classed only
Wizards at level 20 - gain action surge 1/day


I would give Dragonborn darkvison.

[Mellack]

None of these changes are needed. Play it as written. The game is fairly well balanced. Especially as a new group, it is better to see it in actual use before making alterations.

[Jamesps]

I'd say the moon druid change is pretty spot on. The rest of the changes might not be necessary, but that one is definitely a good one. I remember I was running Horde of the Dragon Queen for players that had never played 5th edition before. There was a moon druid, and the other characters were continually flabbergasted by how powerful she was at the early levels. Level two was the actual point where one player suggested that everyone scrap their characters and make moon druids. She was just outperforming everyone by so much.

I assured everyone that things would balance out in a few levels, but honestly this wasn't a necessary problem and the fix you mention would certainly alleviate it even if it's only a temporary issue.

[MThurston]

I wouldn't say anyone is crying like babies. You asked for feedback on your planned house rules. Some of us have been playing and running D&D for decades and 5e for years more recently. You asked to tap into our experience in play in order to assess your balance changes.

The bottom line, from most of our feedback is that there is no justification for any of the changes you are suggesting.

Why do we say this? 5e has a better base balance than any of the other editions I have played (I only played one game of 4e and am not counting it :) ). Almost ALL of the forum discussion on balance is talking about relatively piddly differences in effectiveness between a maximally optimized character and one that is just average. I haven't seen a character yet that isn't playable. There was even someone in a recent game playing a character that just liked magic. They were level 4 with one level each in cleric, wizard, bard and sorcerer I think. They wandered around in heavy armor with a speed reduction for the low strength and even that character could contribute.

In a recent high level module (tier 3) the barbarian with GWM was simply awesome in melee but they would have had more troubles except my bard used wall of force to isolate some of the bad guys. Is the fact that the barbarian was rocking 80+ hit points of damage on some turns a balance issue? No.

Does a druid taking a bear form have an edge over other second level characters? Absolutely ... extra hit points, multiattack (bad AC though). However, by 4th and 5th level it evens out and the druid is pretty average. Levels 6-9 other classes do better. Is it worth house ruling this? Not in my opinion - level 2 goes by so quickly it is irrelevant and it is actually good if the moon druid can feel cool about what they can do for a couple of levels.

Repelling blast? Up until level 10 this is only at most 20' of movement ... pushing one creature twice or two once each. The only time it might remotely be an issue is if you are fighting in an environment with lots of drops and edges without handholds (I would certainly give creatures a save if they happen to fall off). Also in such an environment, the opponents are much more likely to have flying ability and who knows they may also have repelling blast. In the particular case of a sorlock using quickened eldritch-repelling blast then they can use it more ... but even then YOU (the DM) know they have it so it is on you to decide on reasonable encounters. Keep in mind that an ability like that is ONLY encounter wrecking if the DM decides they want it to be.

The bottom line is that in general there really isn't anything to fix here. Some DMs will adjust stuff that they feel "unrealistic" and might tweak something. Other DMs blow a gasket at some of the nova damage that a paladin or rogue might be capable of ... but honestly it isn't that often ... it happens on a crit ... and it becomes a wonderful story telling moment when the chief villain of the day goes down because the dice gods were on the side of the players that day. It becomes a fun and memorable moment.

So ... here is the advice that most of the folks in this thread have offered ...

NONE of your changes are really necessary at all ... not one of them. Play the game for six months with characters going at least from tier 1 to 3 ... see how it plays and then, if you and your players weren't having fun, make some adjustments if you think them needed. Theorycrafting is the worst way to make balance changes - go for playtesting instead :)

5e is far from balanced. Is all unbalanced.

[Unoriginal]

5e is far from balanced. Is all unbalanced.

Then play something else. There's plenty of systems out there you'll like better.

[JNAProductions]

5e is far from balanced. Is all unbalanced.

Do you have any evidence to back that up, or are you just salty?

[Keravath]

5e is far from balanced. Is all unbalanced.

It's all different I would agree. I honestly wouldn't say it is unbalanced especially in comparison to earlier editions.

Each class and race brings fun and variety to the table. Some shine in one situation and others under different circumstances but overall I would have to stand by my experiences that the "balance" is generally good over a wide range of levels.

Yes the barbarian with GWM and maxed strength is going to do more melee damage than my bard. However, the barbarian will die a horrible death if my hypnotic pattern had not locked down 8 opponents for most of the fight. Both combinations are powerful in their own way. The bard isn't doing the same level of melee damage, the barbarian doesn't get the same cool spells nor would he be as good at them if he did.

In the end, all things considered, I find that the classes and races are sufficiently well balanced that you can have fun playing any character and a DM can create situations that challenge everyone in the party.

However, every character can't do everything as well as any other character ... that isn't balance ... its boredom :)

[sophontteks]

Any forced movement breaks a grapple. Gust, gust of wind, push, etc.
An invocation is a high cost for a warlock, it should work as good as gust.

[stoutstien]

I'd say the moon druid change is pretty spot on. The rest of the changes might not be necessary, but that one is definitely a good one. I remember I was running Horde of the Dragon Queen for players that had never played 5th edition before. There was a moon druid, and the other characters were continually flabbergasted by how powerful she was at the early levels. Level two was the actual point where one player suggested that everyone scrap their characters and make moon druids. She was just outperforming everyone by so much.

I assured everyone that things would balance out in a few levels, but honestly this wasn't a necessary problem and the fix you mention would certainly alleviate it even if it's only a temporary issue.
Moon druids are very spikey and it's very hard to compare them fairly due to it. At 2nd, 10th, and 20th lv they have huge power jumps but ever other lv they are behind. Due to a lot of beast forms relying on hp not ac to have staying power the white room example of a moon druid holding concentration on a spell while being on the front line doesn't last long.
If you really think they have to much power your better off reducing the beast hp by 1/2 than reducing CR.

*You want to see a powerful druid? Shepard are in the running for best subclass in the game.

***On the note of repelling blast. It can't be toggled on/off so it can remove targets from forms of CC or from hazard areas

[Mutsden]

***On the note of repelling blast. It can't be toggled on/off so it can remove targets from forms of CC or from hazard areas

I thought this was allowed RAW.

"When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line."

Isn't it implied that you're allowed to choose when you push the target and also how far (between 0' and 10')?

[Kalashak]

Unless the DM was a person I knew REALLY well, and trusted a lot, I'd probably not play in a game with all these house rules. I would play in a game that didn't allow feats or multiclassing, which I think would solve most of your complaints.

[Doug Lampert]

Adding a Saving Throw with a DC equal to the Warlock Spell Save DC seems like a reasonable fix. (In my campaign Eldritch Blast is a class feature instead of a cantrip, which effectively gives an extra cantrip to Warlocks but means it doesn't scale with non-Warlock levels for multiclassing. In one of the more recent Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hours Mike Mearls even said it probably should have been a class feature, which was a nice bit of vindication haha)
I'd think long and hard before attaching another dice roll to something you expect a PC to be doing 3-4 times a round eventually.

I agree that eldritch blast should be a class feature though (for the double purpose of not scaling without warlock levels and making it so a new player can't accidentally miss it).

Steal the 4th edition rule where you could fall prone (within limits) to avoid forced movement.

In 5th, you could just add a rule that you can fall prone as a reaction when pushed or otherwise forced moved and that this uses your reaction, you could add a roll to do this, but it shouldn't be a very hard roll, prone isn't usually good and it's costing a reaction.

Then add an additional house-rule that eldritch blast won't push a prone character.

[stoutstien]

I thought this was allowed RAW.

"When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line."

Isn't it implied that you're allowed to choose when you push the target and also how far (between 0' and 10')?

I really need to check my English PHB before posting. 🙄

[stoutstien]

Thank you for all the feedback. Sorry I got snarky before I wasn't trying to single any particular person out, I was just tired of the sarcastic responses saying "add the rule where players always have disadvantage!"

I don't want to eliminate multiclassing I just don't think it should be a no brainer for every charisma based caster to add a 2 level warlock dip. I really like the suggestion of moving eldritch blast to a class feature and having it scale with warlock levels. I would then open up multiclassing with warlock again.

I would prefer it if all weapon styles are on equal footing when "feated out" (e.g. TWF is viable).

Here is my table (actually if anyone knows a table generator that works with this forum... the one I used doesn't work) for weapon damages RAW (using 20 stat +5 mod and a +3 weapon):
Average Damage (20 stat, +3 wp) first attack second attack third attack fourth attack
greatsword
16 (26)
32 (42)
48 (78)
64 (104)
halberd PAM
24 (44)
37.5 (67.5)
51 (91)
64.5 (114.5)
dual longswords w DW twf
25
37.5
50
62.5
longsword/shield dueling
14.5
29
43.5
58
quarterstaff/shield PAM dueling
24
37.5
51
64.5
hand crossbow CE
23 (43)
34.5 (64.5)
47 (87)
59.5 (109.5)
heavy crossbow w CE
13.5 (23.5)
27 (47)
40.5 (70.5)
54 (94)
bold = great weapon master/sharp shooter for -5 hit/+10 damage (number in parenthesis is damage against poor ac target, actual damage will usually be between the two numbers)
Note: This is without the effect of GWF, if someone else wants to calculate or link feel free. If you are using a giant strength girdle then halberd/dual longswords/quarterstaff end up with a few extra point advantage vs this table (up to +4 relative damage increase).

Maximum AC (for power attack) = attack bonus - average damage/2 + 16
giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472938-Great-Weapon-Mastery-How-to-5-10-Like-a-Pro

Here is my table for weapon damages after my current attempt at feat changes:
Average Damage (20 stat, +3 wp) first attack second attack third attack fourth attack
greatsword w SA (level 11+)
22 (32)
38 (48)
54 (64)
70 (80)
halberd PAM
24 (34)
37.5 (47.5)
51 (61)
64.5 (74.5)
dual longswords DW (level 11+) twf
33
45.5
58
70.5
longsword/shield w SA (11+) dueling
20.5
35
49.5
64
quarterstaff/shield PAM dueling
24
37.5
51
64.5
hand crossbow CE
23 (33)
34.5 (44.5)
47 (57)
59.5 (69.5)
heavy crossbow w CE/MA (lvl 8+)
27 (37)
40.5 (50.5)
54 (64)
67.5 (77.5)

Feats

Dual Wielder - at level 11, when using a bonus action to attack with an offhand weapon, your offhand damage is increased by +8 damage
Great Weapon Master - -5/+10 option with heavy weapons is only once per turn
Martial Adept - at 8th level when using the ranged attack action may use a bonus action to make an additional ranged attack (Crossbow Expert required to use with crossbows)
Polearm Master - opportunity attacks must be made with the polearm (applies to war caster)
Savage Attacker - before using a melee attack action may use a bonus action to mini rage for +2 damage on your next hit that turn; at level 5 damage increases to +4; at level 11 damage increases to +6
Sharpshooter - -5/+10 option is only once per turn

Ok so first off don't try to balance with max stats, lv 11+, and +3 weapons.
Magic items are not handed out at the local 7-11 like other editions.(can't speak for AL no experience ). As a rule I don't hand out plain +1,2,3 weapons bc they are boring.
Assuming standard array or point buy no one is maxing attack/casting stat until lv 6 and that is only for fighter and rouge due to having an extra ASI. Everyone else is waiting until lv 8. So your examples are all off bc they can't have all the shiny feats and max stats that soon.

Now if you are really worried about GWM and SS you can change them from -5/+10 to -prof bonus/+double Prof bonus. Still good but alot softer damage curve.

Twf is rough and you will hear 100 different approaches to fix it 'IF' it even need one. I wouldn't even touch it unless a player expresses concern that it's so bad they avoid using it. (doubt it)


But to reiterate. Every one of your white room problems can be solved by a no feat/no multi-class game.

[Mellack]

I doubt you even need to worry about what happens at high levels. It will probably takes months of gaming to even reach middle levels. Very few games reach level 20. Try it out as written for a while. If problems begin to arise, you have lots and lots of time to make adjustments before you even get to those levels.

[stoutstien]

I would rather give build options with multiclassing and feats but try to add more equity....
Welcome to the paradox of games. More options and complexities will inherently add unbalanced mechanics.
Don't stress about stuff that may not even come up at your game.
**Talk too your potential players**
Seriously. For all you know they will be super excited about being a gnome Barbarian with a decent cha score and take actor and be a circus strongman.

I'd say about 1 in about 500 players are true min/max guys and they get bored and move along once you make them encounter and problems they can't just kill. And if your whole table is that way you won't have to worry about bad combos because they won't take them. Tables tend to self balance in my experience.

[bid]

Assuming standard array or point buy no one is maxing attack/casting stat until lv 6 and that is only for fighter and rouge due to having an extra ASI. Everyone else is waiting until lv 8.
Rogue only get one extra ASI, at level 10.

[stoutstien]

Rogue only get one extra ASI, at level 10.
Crap sure enough. But it stands that they will max primary stat first if that is the goal

[Kane0]

If you quote my post you can copy this:


row 1 col 1
row 1 col 2
row 1 col 3


row 2 col 1
row 2 col 2
row 2 col 3


row 3 col 1
row 3 col 2
row 3 col 3



It isn't a no brainer for CHA based PCs to take 2 warlock levels. You delay your casting, ASI and any other class feature progression by 2 levels to get those goodies in additions to any purely non-mechanical consequences. In many cases it's a fair trade, in many it isn't. Imagine not getting fireball until level 7 and having a lower DC than you could have. At most I would recommend something simple, like the EB modifying invocations not kicking in for additional EB rays unless your warlock level matches (ie Warlock 5, 11 and 17).
Remember: the game is not only played at level 20 with ideal stats and gear. The same tradeoff can be seen between ASIs spent on stat increases and those spent on getting feats, many are great and worth it but much of the time you will really want that +2 to Dex instead. This is the kind of stuff that takes place at the table during real games but you don't see on the forums as much.

That aside, how about these changes to the feats you mentioned:
Crossbow Mastery:
- You ignore the loading quality of ranged weapons
- Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls
- You are able to use one handed ranged weapons as well as melee weapons when Two Weapon Fighting

Dual Wielder:
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can also make an attack using your off hand against the same creature
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack using your off hand as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. This extra attack can only be taken once per turn, and you cannot then use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn
- You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

Great Weapon Mastery:
- You can add your Strength modifier twice to the damage rolls of melee weapons wielded in both hands, excluding reach weapons.
- On your turn, when you score a critical hit or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with a melee weapon wielded in both hands, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action

Polearm Mastery:
- When you make an attack with a reach weapon as part of the attack action, as a bonus action you can make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack is not treated as having reach and uses a d4 for its damage die.
- While you are wielding a reach weapon, other creatures provoke an Opportunity Attack from you when they enter your reach

Sharpshooter:
+1 Dexterity
- Your ranged weapon attacks treat 3/4 cover as 1/2 cover, and 1/2 cover as no cover
- You double the short range of any ranged weapon attacks you make

I don't claim these to be perfect solutions, but it's a starting point to get you and those who would help you thinking.

[JNAProductions]

Great Weapon Mastery:
- You can add your Strength modifier twice to the damage rolls of melee weapons wielded in both hands, excluding reach weapons.
- On your turn, when you score a critical hit or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with a melee weapon wielded in both hands, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action

That's not a good fix. At Strength 20 (so level 12 for Barbarians, 8 for Fighters, 8/6 if they're VHuman) that's half the damage bonus... But at no accuracy penalty.

It's too good.

[Lindonius]

Thank you for all the feedback. Sorry I got snarky before I wasn't trying to single any particular person out, I was just tired of the sarcastic responses saying "add the rule where players always have disadvantage!"

I don't want to eliminate multiclassing I just don't think it should be a no brainer for every charisma based caster to add a 2 level warlock dip. I really like the suggestion of moving eldritch blast to a class feature and having it scale with warlock levels. I would then open up multiclassing with warlock again.

The reason for action surge for capstone wizard/sorcerer is because it is the only way to have 2 leveled spells in a single turn (plus a potential reaction leveled spell). If you use a quickened leveled spell then you are limited to cantrips. So when at the start of combat the 18 sorcerer/2 fighter (or 17/3) would seem superior to the pure class. "The last thing anyone needs is a caster unloading his 9th and 8th spell in one turn - breaking both combat, and seriously overshadowing his fellow players." That was my thinking in nerfing it, but with all of the objections it seemed better to buff the capstone.

I would prefer it if all weapon styles are on equal footing when "feated out" (e.g. TWF is viable).

Here is my table (actually if anyone knows a table generator that works with this forum... the one I used doesn't work) for weapon damages RAW (using 20 stat +5 mod and a +3 weapon):
Average Damage (20 stat, +3 wp) first attack second attack third attack fourth attack
greatsword
16 (26)
32 (42)
48 (78)
64 (104)
halberd PAM
24 (44)
37.5 (67.5)
51 (91)
64.5 (114.5)
dual longswords w DW twf
25
37.5
50
62.5
longsword/shield dueling
14.5
29
43.5
58
quarterstaff/shield PAM dueling
24
37.5
51
64.5
hand crossbow CE
23 (43)
34.5 (64.5)
47 (87)
59.5 (109.5)
heavy crossbow w CE
13.5 (23.5)
27 (47)
40.5 (70.5)
54 (94)
bold = great weapon master/sharp shooter for -5 hit/+10 damage (number in parenthesis is damage against poor ac target, actual damage will usually be between the two numbers)
Note: This is without the effect of GWF, if someone else wants to calculate or link feel free. If you are using a giant strength girdle then halberd/dual longswords/quarterstaff end up with a few extra point advantage vs this table (up to +4 relative damage increase).

Maximum AC (for power attack) = attack bonus - average damage/2 + 16
giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472938-Great-Weapon-Mastery-How-to-5-10-Like-a-Pro

Here is my table for weapon damages after my current attempt at feat changes:
Average Damage (20 stat, +3 wp) first attack second attack third attack fourth attack
greatsword w SA (level 11+)
22 (32)
38 (48)
54 (64)
70 (80)
halberd PAM
24 (34)
37.5 (47.5)
51 (61)
64.5 (74.5)
dual longswords DW (level 11+) twf
33
45.5
58
70.5
longsword/shield w SA (11+) dueling
20.5
35
49.5
64
quarterstaff/shield PAM dueling
24
37.5
51
64.5
hand crossbow CE
23 (33)
34.5 (44.5)
47 (57)
59.5 (69.5)
heavy crossbow w CE/MA (lvl 8+)
27 (37)
40.5 (50.5)
54 (64)
67.5 (77.5)

Feats

Dual Wielder - at level 11, when using a bonus action to attack with an offhand weapon, your offhand damage is increased by +8 damage
Great Weapon Master - -5/+10 option with heavy weapons is only once per turn
Martial Adept - at 8th level when using the ranged attack action may use a bonus action to make an additional ranged attack (Crossbow Expert required to use with crossbows)
Polearm Master - opportunity attacks must be made with the polearm (applies to war caster)
Savage Attacker - before using a melee attack action may use a bonus action to mini rage for +2 damage on your next hit that turn; at level 5 damage increases to +4; at level 11 damage increases to +6
Sharpshooter - -5/+10 option is only once per turn


Stop. Really. Just....stop. You're spending way to much time trying to correct perceived imbalances that don't exist. Getting your calculator out to spam math regarding DPR suggests to me that you spend way more time reading D&D forums than you do playing the game. Trust me....It all works. You don't need to "fix" any of it. The time would me more wisely spent on your campaign world and NPCs. Your players will appreciate that way more than all this time you appear to be dedicating to trying to fix something that isn't broken.

[stoutstien]

That's not a good fix. At Strength 20 (so level 12 for Barbarians, 8 for Fighters, 8/6 if they're VHuman) that's half the damage bonus... But at no accuracy penalty.

It's too good.
So far I've tried
Limit to once per turn
-3/+6
-prof/+2x Prof
I just ended up adding -prof/+2xprof as a special weapon feature for all 2hd weapons ranged weapons included. *Only works with attacks made with the attack action.*

[Kane0]

Stop. Really. Just....stop. You're spending way to much time trying to correct perceived imbalances that don't exist. Getting your calculator out to spam math regarding DPR suggests to me that you spend way more time reading D&D forums than you do playing the game. Trust me....It all works. You don't need to "fix" any of it. The time would me more wisely spent on your campaign world and NPCs. Your players will appreciate that way more than all this time you appear to be dedicating to trying to fix something that isn't broken.

I mean, I agree and all but sometimes it's just fun to do (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22985536&postcount=8).

[Lindonius]

I mean, I agree and all but sometimes it's just fun to do (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22985536&postcount=8).

Oh no doubt about that. What I would like to see is some number crunching for DPR verses "expected time alive". As the numbers tell us, a duelist will do less damage than a GWM but the fact that the duelist will have 2 higher AC means he will ultimately stay alive longer and thus ultimately do more damage due to the age old problem of "you do 0 DPR when you're dead".
I've personally found that experience beats theorycrafting every time. As an example, my first ever 5e character was a halfling rogue and he survived from lev 1 thru 20. I remember at the time of creation I was very undecided about which subclass to take. Bearing in mind this was vanilla 5e, the online consensus was overwhelmingly in favour of assassin>thief and also overwhelming in favour of taking crossbow expert - all due to "RAWR! DPR!" number-crunching wisdom. I chose to follow my heart and go with thief just because it seemed more "fun" (fast hands and Use Magic Device) but all through the campaign I kept wondering "what if I had gone with assassin?" Well I'll tell you by the end of that campaign, if I had chosen assassin + Crossbow Expert.... I would have died SEVEN times. And I'm not talking unconscious and on 0HP, I mean actual character death. The main reason for this was due to 2 things:

1 = Thieves can drink (and apply) healing potions as a bonus action.

2 = Shoot from hidden, then move and hide again is a better use of your bonus action than getting a second crossbow attack (and you get to save an ASI too). Why? Because being hidden at they end of every turn helps you stay alive and therefore do more damage + save downed friends.

I've noticed other problems of a similar vein with regards to perceived "forum wisdom", spells are another good example. All of those lovely guides that rate spells at different levels, assigning them colour codes based on their usefulness. So many of those guides have many spells with low ratings that say "meh, situational". And yet I've seen 1st hand those purple rated "situational" spells singularly save many of my groups from total TPKs (featherfall is a good example.)

So I guess my point is much of the stuff that is talked about regarding OP classes, weapon styles, feats etc rarely actually plays out that way on the table.

In my experience.

And one must assume in WoTC experience as well given the amount of actual gameplay hours that have been played of 5e both before and since release. My attitude is that if WoTC see no need to errata stuff in the name of "balance" then that's ok with me. I mean, they invented the game after all.

[Arkhios]

Clerics' level 20 feature makes War Domain 1st-level feature obsolete. I'd re-evaluate the need.

[MThurston]

Then play something else. There's plenty of systems out there you'll like better.

LOL. Someone is thin skinned. I play many games but 5e is simple. Unbalanced and simple. So it's easier for the masses to learn and enjoy.

[MThurston]

Do you have any evidence to back that up, or are you just salty?

Races are far from balanced and everyone here should know that.

At will, short rest and long rest abilities do not match and the GM has to make sure one doesn't outshine another.

But again, you should know that.

Taking archer fighting style gives a +2 To attack. No bonus to melee attacks. This leads to power attacks where archers only have to minus 3 to hit to get +10 damage.

PAM is without a dought unbalanced to any other weapon feat.

Rogue having to use ranged or finesse weapons isn't balanced at all!

Why not tell Paladins they have to use versatile or two handed weapons to smite?

I can keep going if you want me to. The classes and subclass abilities have issues also.

[Contrast]

5E isn't perfectly balanced I agree. They tried having balance as a game design priority in 4E and that went down like a lead balloon. 5E gets my personal 'balanced enough' stamp though in that its hard to build a bad character and differences at the table are small enough that everyone feels like they're contributing.

If you think 5E is that unbalanced you must find 90% of other RPGs a hot mess.


Rogue having to use ranged or finesse weapons isn't balanced at all!

Why not tell Paladins they have to use versatile or two handed weapons to smite?

I get why you might have issues with the others but I'm not really sure what your complaint is for these ones. I don't get how you think either of these things have a particularly unbalancing impact on the game :smallconfused:

[MThurston]

5E isn't perfectly balanced I agree. They tried having balance as a game design priority in 4E and that went down like a lead balloon. 5E gets my personal 'balanced enough' stamp though in that its hard to build a bad character and differences at the table are small enough that everyone feels like they're contributing.

If you think 5E is that unbalanced you must find 90% of other RPGs a hot mess.



I get why you might have issues with the others but I'm not really sure what your complaint is for these ones. I don't get how you think either of these things have a particularly unbalancing impact on the game :smallconfused:

Sneak Attack vs Smite

Both extra damage and both have limitations.

Rogue never required a special weapon to sneak attack before but now they do. Why?

And it finesse requirement is silly. Whips but not clubs can do sneak attack damage?

The game is broken if I throw a throwing hammer and get a sneak attack?

Silly.

Every rule set has unbalance to it. Rifts and Paladium games is the worst. I do not like how they do things there.

But being balanced or unbalanced doesn't mean a game can't be fun.

Half the posts on here are about making your character the most unbalanced to be powerful.

I just don't know why people are getting bent over a word they know is true.

I play in one 5e game and run one 5e game. If I didn't like the game I wouldn't do either but I am not blind to it's issues.

Why don't Dragonborn have Darkvision?

[SpanielBear]

Sneak Attack vs Smite

Both extra damage and both have limitations.

Rogue never required a special weapon to sneak attack before but now they do. Why?

And it finesse requirement is silly. Whips but not clubs can do sneak attack damage?

The game is broken if I throw a throwing hammer and get a sneak attack?

Silly.

Every rule set has unbalance to it. Rifts and Paladium games is the worst. I do not like how they do things there.

But being balanced or unbalanced doesn't mean a game can't be fun.

Half the posts on here are about making your character the most unbalanced to be powerful.

I just don't know why people are getting bent over a word they know is true.

I play in one 5e game and run one 5e game. If I didn't like the game I wouldn't do either but I am not blind to it's issues.

Why don't Dragonborn have Darkvision?

But no-one here is going to the wall about the game being perfectly balanced.

The main opinion more seems to be that it is balanced enough- that playing it as-is is fun and no-one ends up feeling underpowered or screwed over by a trap build. Which as far as I can tell is your opinion too. So... who are you arguing against?

Yours sincerely, member 523,176 of the masses who enjoy simple games.
;-)

[sophontteks]

The players who try to optimize their characters purely based on the forums tend to make characters that fail at the roleplaying part of the game. They are useless at everything that isn't DPS related, and in 5e that can be a lot. This is fine for AL, which is a different beast, but these combat-focused characters get eaten alive in modules like Curse of Strahd and Out of the Abyss.

So first, combat balance is fine in 5e. Very few broken builds. Second, combat balance doesn't really matter anyway. The real powerhouse characters at a good table are the ones who can carry the party out of combat and further the plot.

Warlocks with invisible familiars, Druids wildshape scouting, Rogues taking 10 on skill checks, Barbarian strengthmancy, Subtle Sorcerers, Wizard rituals, Glamour bards charm nuke, Shepherd's talk to animals, guidance, inspiration, Aura of protection. These are the OP things in 5e. Dealing a little more damage is practically a non-factor unless the game is a pure dungeon crawl.

[Contrast]

Sneak Attack vs Smite

Both extra damage and both have limitations.

Rogue never required a special weapon to sneak attack before but now they do. Why?

And it finesse requirement is silly. Whips but not clubs can do sneak attack damage?

The game is broken if I throw a throwing hammer and get a sneak attack?

Silly.

A club is worse than a rapier and a throwing hammer is worse than...well literally any ranged weapon. So you're not really complaining about balance here unless your argument is that the limited access to bludgeoning weapons available to a rogue severely impacts on their performance because your campaign features all skeleton enemies (even then you have the sling). You could probably change the restriction to 'not heavy weapons' without changing much balance wise - its more of a fluff restriction than a balance one.

I'm not sure what smite has to do with this argument at all. If you're looking for a justification on smite not having a limitation on it I'd point out the limitation of spell slots.


I just don't know why people are getting bent over a word they know is true.

5E is by far the most balanced system I see played on a regular basis, hence why levelling it as a key criticism of the system seems bizarre to me. If you go through the responses in this thread I don't think people were generally saying 5E couldn't use tweaks - they were just suggesting that OP didn't seem to have enough experience with the system to start tweaking it and that poorly thought through tweaks are likely to do more harm than good so they'd be better off leaving changing things until they actually started to experience problems.


Why don't Dragonborn have Darkvision?

Why doesn't everyone have darkvision? Why does anyone have darkvision? My preferred fix to dark vision is to nerf it down to low light vision (see normally in dim light, no benefit in darkness).

[MThurston]

But no-one here is going to the wall about the game being perfectly balanced.

The main opinion more seems to be that it is balanced enough- that playing it as-is is fun and no-one ends up feeling underpowered or screwed over by a trap build. Which as far as I can tell is your opinion too. So... who are you arguing against?

Yours sincerely, member 523,176 of the masses who enjoy simple games.
;-)

Ah, but my original response was someone saying the game is balanced. Which it is clearly not. And that was my point. I was pointing out there is unbalance to 5e.

Everything can't be equal.

[Darc_Vader]

I'm not sure what smite has to do with this argument at all. If you're looking for a justification on smite not having a limitation on it I'd point out the limitation of spell slots.

On a level more equivalent to Sneak Attack weapon type limitations, Smite also requires a melee weapon (melee weapon attack? One of the two), so overall Smite is probably more limited than Sneak Attack is.

[MThurston]

5E is by far the most balanced system I see played on a regular basis, hence why levelling it as a key criticism of the system seems bizarre to me. If you go through the responses in this thread I don't think people were generally saying 5E couldn't use tweaks - they were just suggesting that OP didn't seem to have enough experience with the system to start tweaking it and that poorly thought through tweaks are likely to do more harm than good so they'd be better off leaving changing things until they actually started it.

I can name almost 5 RPGs more balanced than 5e. 5e is just the most popular.

It's ok that 5e isn't balanced.

[Contrast]

I can name almost 5 RPGs more balanced than 5e. 5e is just the most popular.

It's ok that 5e isn't balanced.

OK? Per my comment up above I'd guesstimate that 5E is more balanced than 90% of other systems I've tried out (some popular, some not, obviously none as popular as 5E). I've enjoyed playing many of those games despite their balance issues. I've not enjoyed playing some of those games because of their balance issues. So we agree that balance isn't the be all and end all of what makes an enjoyable system.

Your original comment though was that 5E was 'all unbalanced'. I strongly disagree with that assessment (unless by 'all unbalanced' you were simply trying to imply it wasn't perfectly balanced in which case as I and others have mentioned, you're arguing with no-one and I'd be happy if you could clarify to make that clear).

[Arkhios]

I can name almost 5 RPGs more balanced than 5e. 5e is just the most popular.

It's ok that 5e isn't balanced.

Which 5? I'm sincerely curious. Although I couldn't help but smile at the way you said it.

"Almost 5" ...is the last one almost balanced, or what? (no offense, just amusing)

[MThurston]

OK? Per my comment up above I'd guesstimate that 5E is more balanced than 90% of other systems I've tried out (some popular, some not, obviously none as popular as 5E). I've enjoyed playing many of those games despite their balance issues. I've not enjoyed playing some of those games because of their balance issues. So we agree that balance isn't the be all and end all of what makes an enjoyable system.

Your original comment though was that 5E was 'all unbalanced'. I strongly disagree with that assessment (unless by 'all unbalanced' you were simply trying to imply it wasn't perfectly balanced in which case as I and others have mentioned, you're arguing with no-one and I'd be happy if you could clarify to make that clear).

I believe I have more than put up fact as to why the game isn't balanced.

I still find it enjoyable and do my own house rules to get around the silliness of some of the rules.

[Bloodcloud]

I would rather give build options with multiclassing and feats but try to add more equity....

Then your players need to regularly pay their mortgage on the tavern, that will increase equity...

Sorry, IRL tax lawyer here.

Honestly, DND 5e is an asymetric game. Different builds will shine in different way. The balance achieved is enough that it's hard to make a "trap" build that will feel useless all the time, and even fully optimized build can be put in a situation where that play on their weakness. There is no omnipotent character. There is no useless character. Sometimes they will trivialise an encounter. That's ok. I'd say it's a feature! Sometimes an encounter will be kicking their ass. That's fine too. You've got enough knobs to adjust as a DM.

A team of nova kings will get flustered if they unload on the boss and coup de théâtre there's a second wave of enemies. Super DPR bow guys won't laugh when they fight incorporeal undead who retreat through the walls every round. Suddenly the bard gets damn useful when he negociate and make best friend with the way over-cr giants.

Again, I'm pretty sure your fretting over the imbalance of lvl 20 geared up builds forgetting the journey to get there. Which, unless you are running a lvl 20 one-shot, is meaningless.

The paladin in my game traded GWM for a stat increase. He wasn't using it too good, and in fact at low level there are fewer of the high hp/low ac monsters that make it ideal (or at least they weren't fighting too many of them). It's a great feat, but it's not an effortless game breaking thing.

[DeTess]

My problem with multiclassing paladins is I'm not sure I would go above 6th (or 7th with ancients) paladin when you can use bard or sorcerer levels for the rest....

As someone that has actually played a paladin multi-class from 1-20 (a 10/10 split between sorcerer and paladin at the end), there are many factors in a real game that don't play into a white-room though experiment. For example, one of the reasons for me taking levels in sorcerer was that our party lacked any sort of cast for a significant portion of the campaign, so we lacked things like invisibility or flight, which levels in sorcerer provided. On the other hand, I noticed lack of features a full paladin would have with some regularity. Lack of the aura of courage in particular hurt a lot. If the party had had a full caster already, I might have dipped a single level for the 'shield' spell, and that's it. If I'd build the character at level 20, I wouldn't have dipped at all so I didn't miss out on the glorious paladin capstone.

Either way, I'm going to add my vote to the chorus of people recommending against heavily house-ruling before you've got some decent play experience. Small things like dragonborn dark-vision are fine, but a lot of the other stuff you've listed are pretty group-depended on how relevant they are. You've done a lot of fiddling with high-level features, while most campaigns never actually get that far (and at high level, balance breaks down anyway, no matter what changes you make).

So play the game, and if you feel like stuff is unbalanced, have a discussion with your group about what would be the best solution.

[stoutstien]

War Domain bonus attack is when they attack. Capstone bonus attack would be when they cast. So they would be complementary.

That aside I would consider an alternative Capstone if someone had a better idea.

I updated the first post and added darkvision for dragonborns (which everyone would have now, essentially making it the disadvantage of the human).

My problem with multiclassing paladins is I'm not sure I would go above 6th (or 7th with ancients) paladin when you can use bard or sorcerer levels for the rest....

you can't complain about imbalance in the game system if you are using rolled stat.

Paladin is one of the strongest single classes in the game. If there was even a 30% chance I would reach lv 20 I would go pure paladin no questions asked. No amount of sorcerer lv can touch those capstone's.

[Kane0]

Try not to base your math purely off number of attacks, or one round worth of attacks for that matter. Rogues only ever have one or two where fighters could go from 1 to 10. There is always more context to consider.


I'm liking more clean feat changes:

Crossbow Expert - bonus attack only applies when using a melee weapon on the first turn of combat (2 hands are required to reload the crossbow) That's two conditions where you really only need one of them
Dual Wielder - offhand attack can be made with the attack action instead of using a bonus action I approve
Great Weapon Master - instead of power attack adds +2 damage with heavy non polearms -Prof to hit and + double prof to damage is the most elegant solution i've seen so far
Polearm Master - opportunity attacks must be made with the polearm (not a spell); must use polearm two handed to receive the bonus attack I approve
Sentinel - when hitting a creature with an opportunity attack the creature's speed decreases to 10 feet (if it currently has more movement available) I don't believe Sentinel to be a problem, it's designed to do one thing and does it well
Sharpshooter - instead of power attack adds +2 damage with missile weapons -Prof to hit and + double prof to damage is the most elegant solution i've seen so far

[bid]

I'm liking more clean feat changes:

Crossbow Expert - bonus attack only applies when using a melee weapon on the first turn of combat (2 hands are required to reload the crossbow)
Dual Wielder - offhand attack can be made with the attack action instead of using a bonus action
Great Weapon Master - instead of power attack adds +2 damage with heavy non polearms
Polearm Master - opportunity attacks must be made with the polearm (not a spell); must use polearm two handed to receive the bonus attack
Sentinel - when hitting a creature with an opportunity attack the creature's speed decreases to 10 feet (if it currently has more movement available)
Sharpshooter - instead of power attack adds +2 damage with missile weapons

I like those. Minor adjustments:
- XE - just allow TWF to do the BA attack with a hand crossbow, ignoring the ammunition restriction. (If you need both hands, you can only throw a dagger before using the hand crossbow because it's impossible to sheath and pull out you main weapon in the same turn.)
- DW - you mean the TWF is done as part of the attack action, without the BA requirement.
- GWM - +2 damage is what you'd expect on average. As a GM, I'd "cheat" and kill whoever is almost dead just to allow the BA attack.
- PAM - pretty much, you must use quarterstaff/spear with versatile to gain the BA attack.
- sentinel - impaling the target should stop it cold. As a GM you don't care if one of your creature is stopped since the other ones are free to pass. Just plan accordingly.
- SS - same as GWM, and still "cheat" them dead even if there's no BA followup.

About GWM/SS, you could allow the full +10 damage if they have advantage and both rolls hit the target. The whole reckless attack barbarian shtick is all about overkill, otherwise you might as well play BM.

[Solusek]

The updated list of house rules looks pretty good to me now (much much better than the first version). I do wonder why only warlock invocations from Xanathars are allowed, though? Most of Xanathar's is perfectly fine. It's a great sourcebook that gives players a lot more options for cool characters to play.

[sophontteks]

Why are GWM and polearm master being nerfed when dual wielder is being buffed this much?

A free extra attack vs. GWM +2 damage? Get outta here. Dual wielder is a must-pick for every martial. At level 5 fighters can action surge 6 attacks + a bonus action. Eventually they can attack a blistering 8 times in one round.

I'd say these changes are unfairly targetting the feat-dependent fighter, but currently its just forcing them all to be dual wielders.

[Willie the Duck]

Why are GWM and polearm master being nerfed when dual wielder is being buffed this much?

A free extra attack vs. GWM +2 damage? Get outta here. Dual wielder is a must-pick for every martial. At level 5 fighters can action surge 6 attacks + a bonus action. Eventually they can attack a blistering 8 times in one round.

I'd say these changes are unfairly targetting the feat-dependent fighter, but currently its just forcing them all to be dual wielders.

Can't tell if subtle comedy or personal crusade, but this doesn't actually do anything except move the extra attack from a bonus action to part of the regular action. Yes it adds one extra attack during an action surge, and allows a fighter with two occupied hands to try to find another use for their bonus action (second wind, I guess?) but if that was the only thing keeping dual wielding from being the dominant fighting style in your campaign, I'd call that a pretty unique (and frankly rather exciting) game.

[sophontteks]

I'd take a level of rogue personally. Two attacks plus disengage every round is crazy. Rogue's in general really benefit from this too, so might as well combine them. Paladins have a ton of uses for that bonus action, so do barbarians.

The point is this. The OP is nerfing every single martial feat except shield master because they are OP. Then he buffs dual wielder, and a literally free extra attack is huge. With the nerfs it is a must-have from an optimization standpoint.

Is the OP achieving their goal of creating more balanced choices here?

[PhantomSoul]

Can't tell if subtle comedy or personal crusade, but this doesn't actually do anything except move the extra attack from a bonus action to part of the regular action. Yes it adds one extra attack during an action surge, and allows a fighter with two occupied hands to try to find another use for their bonus action (second wind, I guess?) but if that was the only thing keeping dual wielding from being the dominant fighting style in your campaign, I'd call that a pretty unique (and frankly rather exciting) game.

I think fighters are the case where it's less of a consideration -- dual-wielding rogues and monks seem like where the decision has more important repercussions.

[Willie the Duck]

I think fighters are the case where it's less of a consideration -- dual-wielding rogues and monks seem like where the decision has more important repercussions.


I'd take a level of rogue personally. Two attacks plus disengage every round is crazy. Rogue's in general really benefit from this too, so might as well combine them. Paladins have a ton of uses for that bonus action, so do barbarians.

A rogue is definitely a better example to use to highlight how this might cause problems. Although we already have the swashbuckler, and it is hardly the OMG-must-have archtype choice for rogues. It is good, mind you, but not a game-changer.

Paladins and barbarians do have more uses for bonus actions than straight up fighter, but they don't also have the action-surge, so the comparison needs re-mathing (only the fighter is going to ever get an extra attack with this option as opposed to the status-quo, everyone else just frees up their bonus action).



The point is this. The OP is nerfing every single martial feat except shield master because they are OP. Then he buffs dual wielder, and a literally free extra attack is huge. With the nerfs it is a must-have from an optimization standpoint.

First and foremost, you keep using the phrase literally free, and it very clearly is not that. Feat, fighting style, d8s instead of up to 2d6 as base damage, needing 2 magic weapons once resistance becomes common, there are opportunity costs that have to be considered.

Regardless, I'm not sure I agree. PAM really only is getting rid of 1H shield +spear/staff, or reaction-attacks with things other than the weapon. SS and GWM become more situational feats, but still worth the feat slot (I have seen people take SS simply for the range and cover benefits, GWM I haven't actually seen used much, although that might have more to do with preferred level-of-play).

OP's suggestion certainly does have an odd incentivization structure (most-greatly benefits rogues, who are already using twf if they are doing melee), but it also does not (in my mind) make 2wf a must-have for anyone else. There are builds I can imagine for rangers or barbarians/paladins (with a 1 level fighter dip for relevant fighting style, I guess), but that just brings it into the fold of options someone might choose, not a must-have.


Is the OP achieving their goal of creating more balanced choices here?

Overall? Solid, unequivocal *NO*. I think everyone-other-than-OP participating in this thread is on the same page: pre-emptively fixing a game one hasn't actually played much but simply read the online complaints regarding is a foolish endeavor. Play the game, starting with the lowest amount of breakers (MC and feats) and slowly add those in and see what works for your group. Everyone is in agreement and have stated this repeatedly. OP is not listening, so here we are. So do I think this endeavor is a good idea in the first place? No. That is not the same thing as agreeing with your opinion on 2wf.

Anecdotally, none of these issues have been the sticking points my group has found. Rest frequency, finding a good balance between realism and playability (i.e. not penalizing the martials utilizing mechanisms that exist in the real world, while still occasionally saying, "well your bow would not be strung at this point, realistically" etc.), and general issues with the ranged/melee balancing (well before feats come into play) are much bigger issues for us that GWM or PAM or Wiz18/Ftr 2 and all the stuff we've been discussing.

[Bloodcloud]

I'm liking more clean feat changes:

Crossbow Expert - bonus attack only applies when using a melee weapon on the first turn of combat (2 hands are required to reload the crossbow)
Dual Wielder - offhand attack can be made with the attack action instead of using a bonus action
Great Weapon Master - instead of power attack adds +2 damage with heavy non polearms
Polearm Master - opportunity attacks must be made with the polearm (not a spell); must use polearm two handed to receive the bonus attack
Sentinel - when hitting a creature with an opportunity attack the creature's speed decreases to 10 feet (if it currently has more movement available)
Sharpshooter - instead of power attack adds +2 damage with missile weapons


Congratulation, you made the game less balanced.

Rogue benefits a lot, you nerfed fighter (who doesn't need nerfing) and made sentinel useless.

[bid]

A free extra attack vs. GWM +2 damage? Get outta here. Dual wielder is a must-pick for every martial. At level 5 fighters can action surge 6 attacks + a bonus action.
Woah, hold your horses!

At level 8, with Str20 + feat:
- GWM defense style = 4d6+14 ~ 28
- DW TWF style = 3d8+15 ~ 28.5
GWM will still crit/kill for BA "free" attack. And he still has a free hand.

At level 11:
- GWM defense style = 6d6+21 ~ 42
- DW TWF style = 4d8+20 ~ 38


As for rogue, BA is only there to land SA if you missed your main attack. It just simplifies away the tactical decision to run away without damage.

[Imbalance]

OP, you have to relax and embrace the imbalances.

We do love warm hugs.


You're spending way to much time trying to correct perceived imbalances that don't exist.

I am real, and I'm fabulous!


Since my players will be rolling stats (I know that creates imbalances but I've been playing since basic/1st edition) I think that would be a big boost to GWM unless it was once per round.

With this, you are pretty much negating every other effort you have put forth about starting the players on equal footing, especially in the face of near-unanimous advice at your request to just play the game and try it out as is. Wow.

[stoutstien]

Woah, hold your horses!

At level 8, with Str20 + feat:
- GWM defense style = 4d6+14 ~ 28
- DW TWF style = 3d8+15 ~ 28.5
GWM will still crit/kill for BA "free" attack. And he still has a free hand.

At level 11:
- GWM defense style = 6d6+21 ~ 42
- DW TWF style = 4d8+20 ~ 38


As for rogue, BA is only there to land SA if you missed your main attack. It just simplifies away the tactical decision to run away without damage.
when dealing with two weapon fighting don't forget to factor in on hit bonuses such as rage damage, Hunter's Mark, hex, and so on.
I tried a similar fixed where once a class got extra attack the offhand attack got moved the attack action. Work okay but had a problem pertaining to monks then.
I think that's why the two weapon fighting mechanics has always been an interest for me as far as Homebrew. At low levels it's above the normal curve then drastically drops as the game advances.

For most tables it's fine the way it is. You're way more likely to run into issues with concentration spell conflicts and rest/recovery timing than anything involving damage output.
As a DM, damage is probably the easiest thing to counter.

[bid]

when dealing with two weapon fighting don't forget to factor in on hit bonuses such as rage damage, Hunter's Mark, hex, and so on.
Yeah that's true. Your BA is freed up for HM/hex. No change for barbarian which have no use for their BA.

The only way a fighter might come up ahead is to BA shield master, attack main hand, and TWF with a shield attack. But that requires shield master, DW and tavern brawler iirc.

[jh12]

Yeah that's true. Your BA is freed up for HM/hex. No change for barbarian which have no use for their BA.

Except in that vital first round, where going into Rage no longer conflicts with the extra attack.

[Mellack]

If you are rolling stats you will allow far more imbalance than any of the feats. You are allowing a difference of 2-3 ASI right from the start. I don't understand how you can worry about minor things when you are having that major difference in character power for the character's whole career.

[Willie the Duck]

If you are rolling stats you will allow far more imbalance than any of the feats. You are allowing a difference of 2-3 ASI right from the start. I don't understand how you can worry about minor things when you are having that major difference in character power for the character's whole career.

Well, I'm not sure that one makes the other irrelevant in this case. There have been issues that have arisen in the past where someone's concern is really in the 9th or 10th decimal place when another factor we only knew to 2 sig figs (or use analogy of your choice), and it is hard to understand why anyone would care. This one though, imbalance in feats and class options probably do magnify on top of attribute imbalance (-5/+10 with Sharpshooter or GWM, for instance, does come online as a reasonable option earlier if you might start out with a 20 Str or Dex).

A reasonable response might be, "well sure, but address the biggest problem (attribute imbalance) first." However, honestly speaking, that's a deal-breaker for a lot of groups. Pretty much all the ones I am aware of offline. D&D is that game where you roll up a character, full stop. Sometimes you address the problems you can address.

Not that that makes OP's overall tact advisable, but I can see why he's addressing feats and class combos and the like, as opposed to attributes rolls.

[Aquillion]

Not that that makes OP's overall tact advisable, but I can see why he's addressing feats and class combos and the like, as opposed to attributes rolls.I mean, people can run a game any way they want, but I took it as a given that someone who was worried about inter-party balance would use point buy or standard array. Sure, you could choose to fit what you can, but the sorts of fixes people are talking about here are mostly a waste of time compared to the massive imbalance of eg. someone whose top stat is 12 vs 18.

If they're really using rolled stats, I would strongly recommend that they immediately forget all of this and focus all their efforts on convincing their players to accept point-buy. Otherwise, it's like worrying about a drippy faucet when your entire apartment is flooded a foot deep - especially at low levels, rolled stat differences have a much, much bigger and more palpable impact than anything that has been discussed here.

[Keravath]

Ah, but my original response was someone saying the game is balanced. Which it is clearly not. And that was my point. I was pointing out there is unbalance to 5e.

Everything can't be equal.

My response was that the game was more or less balanced. Any game with perfect balance is utterly boring since the only way to have perfect balance is to make everything the same. 4e was something like that with each class having essentially at will damage abilities with different fluff.

I also said 5e is far more balanced than any previous version of D&D. I would stand by that one.

Finally, most of what you cite as "balance" issues are fluff design choices ...
- why does a rogue need a finesse or ranged weapon for sneak attack ... I don't know but it doesn't make the game more or less balanced to have that constraint.
- paladins do great nova damage, limited by spell slots
- rogues can have good damage every turn through sneak attack if they can set it up by getting advantage somehow
- barbarians with great weapon master can get some AWESOME damage every turn while raging, using reckless attack and hitting with a two handed weapon

Paladins get some other spells (bless!), rogues get some skills and expertise!, barbarians are well barbarians :) ... they get some cool features too but it mostly helps them survive their reckless ways.

The point is that each of these examples has character, they play very differently, however each and every one can contribute significantly and meaningfully to the party over pretty much the entire range of levels for many different kinds of encounters. They are each fun to play. On average, they meet MY definition of being more or less balanced since they can each contribute "significantly and meaningfully" ... they don't do exactly the same amount of damage, they don't apply the same skills, they can't shine in every situation ... but they all do very well in general ... in fact almost every class and archetype in 5e is completely playable and fun to play over most of the level range (I haven't played tier 4 yet so can't comment on how that scales from experience ... but for tier 1-3 it certainly seems to be true).

This is how I tend to define BALANCE in terms of a role playing game. Each class is different but can contribute "significantly and meaningfully" to the situations that the characters and party have to face during the game. I think the issue in our discussion is simply that my definition or concept of balance must differ from yours. I think you define it as perfectly equal whereas I would define it as playably equal :)

[Willie the Duck]

If they're really using rolled stats, I would strongly recommend that they immediately forget all of this and focus all their efforts on convincing their players to accept point-buy.

Lots of people consider rolling for stats to be a fun and important part of the game. Convincing people not to have fun is putting the cart (balance) before the horse (why we're actually sitting down to play).


Otherwise, it's like worrying about a drippy faucet when your entire apartment is flooded a foot deep - especially at low levels, rolled stat differences have a much, much bigger and more palpable impact than anything that has been discussed here.

I think I already made a nice, fitting analogy about significant digits and why I don't think it is the case that any differences we have here will be made irrelevant based on the overall variance. You don't have to agree, but it would be nice to know if you recognized the argument. I don't think it is a case of a drippy faucet. I think it is a broken pipe that will add a foot deep to your apartment when it is already flooded a foot deep - sure, your apartment is flooded either way, but you still would rather have it a foot deep than 2 feet deep.

[Mellack]

Well, I'm not sure that one makes the other irrelevant in this case. There have been issues that have arisen in the past where someone's concern is really in the 9th or 10th decimal place when another factor we only knew to 2 sig figs (or use analogy of your choice), and it is hard to understand why anyone would care. This one though, imbalance in feats and class options probably do magnify on top of attribute imbalance (-5/+10 with Sharpshooter or GWM, for instance, does come online as a reasonable option earlier if you might start out with a 20 Str or Dex).

A reasonable response might be, "well sure, but address the biggest problem (attribute imbalance) first." However, honestly speaking, that's a deal-breaker for a lot of groups. Pretty much all the ones I am aware of offline. D&D is that game where you roll up a character, full stop. Sometimes you address the problems you can address.

Not that that makes OP's overall tact advisable, but I can see why he's addressing feats and class combos and the like, as opposed to attributes rolls.


The reason I think rolling is such an oversight in this case is most of the things the OP wants to change are feats. When someone starts with much higher stats, they can take feats while another PC is just having to spend raising up their stats to match. We are no longer comparing characters with different feats, but one with several to another with none to get equivalent stats. That is never going to be balanced with that as your starting point.

[stoutstien]

Op is better off just putting level/class level requirement on the feats that he deems are too strong for low-level play.

[bid]

Except in that vital first round, where going into Rage no longer conflicts with the extra attack.
That too, and that still make DW 34.5 vs 32 at level 5, and 46 to 46 at level 11. Nothing worth getting one's panties in a bunch.


And yet again, not a single drop of hysteria for fighters. I guess we can relax and breathe through the nose.

[Kane0]

If youre worried about high ACs dont give the party +X armor and shields. ‘Problem’ solved.

And 18/2 casters beating caster 20s in duels is fine, they are giving up capstones and spell slots for that capability. Its a tradeoff, and its fair. Besides, some casters like abjurers will be far better in spell duels than others anyway, action surge or no. Dont think about just one situation when attempting to balance.

Edit: Oh and Xanathars is fine too. There are a SELECT FEW things like the ranger subclasses that are notably power-creepy, but thats largely to address thinggs from the PHB.
Except bloody hexblades, but thats a personal pet peeve not a widely agreed consensus.

[stoutstien]

I'm not convinced that an 18/2 dumping 2 spells at an opportune moment isn't superior.

That is my problem with Xanather's. I got so much outcry with targeted nerfs that I would rather just avoid the whole issue of the select few things that bother me.

Sorcerers (& Wizards) at level 20 - gain uncounterable once/combat (use resets when initiative is rolled) - when someone counterspells your spell you may use your use of uncounterable to make the spell immune to counterspell
No idea what you are talking about here with uncounterable. Unless it's a suppose change.

Oh fun. Ok if you were going to build a 2x/ 18 wizard when would you take the dip? This is a good thought exercise for Dms

[Tanarii]

Except bloody hexblades, but thats a personal pet peeve not a widely agreed consensus.
Yup. If we're talking banning OP things from Xanathar's, Hexblade would probably be at the top of my list too.

[Solusek]

Yup. If we're talking banning OP things from Xanathar's, Hexblade would probably be at the top of my list too.

Banning Hexblades hurts more than it helps, unless you also fix pact of the blade. Hexblade has problems but at least it gives Warlocks who want to use a sword a viable route.

The balance issue with Hexblade come when someone says "eh, Ill be a Hexblade who primarily uses Eldritch Blast anyways and also Ill take 18 levels of Sorcerer." But for the dude who wants 20 levels of Hexblade because he wants to use a sword instead of eldritch blast the class works perfectly fine and isn't a problem. In fact, it solves the problem of blade pact being a steaming pile of **** on its own.

[Tanarii]

Banning Hexblades hurts more than it helps, unless you also fix pact of the blade.Pact of the Blade doesn't need to be fixed.

The problem is players that want very effective melee, both offense and defense, and very effective full casting. Full casting plus a backup in melee offense was fine, especially at the minor cost of the pact boon feature. But as the Hexblade subclass more than amply demonstrates, what those players wanted in the first place is considerably OP.

[bid]

Pact of the Blade doesn't need to be fixed.
Or at least nothing that can't be fixed by starting fighter 1. The Cha melee is too SAD.

[Solusek]

Or at least nothing that can't be fixed by starting fighter 1. The Cha melee is too SAD.

This game is built around being single ability dependent for almost everyone. I don't see why the disdain for a warlock using a melee weapon is so strong. You do know an Eldritch Blast focused warlock does more damage, right? Choosing to focus your warlock on using a melee weapon instead of EB is generally a hindrance for flavor or fun reasons, not a power gaming choice.

[Captain Panda]

My commentary on your changes is in bold.


I've played the original Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5th, NWN, NWN 2, DDO, and now 5th edition. I prefer players to roll stats (which I know creates imbalances). I am naturally a min/maxer/power gamer, but I prefer for optimized builds to not be too broken.

Goals

All classes and subclasses are valid options (e.g. beastmaster) That's a fair goal.
All weapon styles are on equal footing when "feated out" (e.g. TWF is viable) Harder to make work than you'd think. Mearls keeps throwing ideas at the wall and most people agree they aren't great, and he was one of the key people who built this system.
Taking a two level dip isn't a no brainer (e.g. why not take 2 warlock for a charisma caster) and all capstones are viable That's also a fair goal. Though honestly taking a couple warlock levels doesn't strike me as a horrible blight on the game.


Content

PHB only plus Xanather's warlock invocations Not a fan of scrapping Sword Coast material, honestly. I really like the cantrips. If you want a pure sorcerer to be viable, giving them something good to do with their action when they use quicken runs counter to the design goal. Granted, a pure sorcerer will still be outclassed in this respect by a sorlock or a sorcadin, but the point stands.
Players roll for stats once, after seeing their rolls they may choose to use them or the standard array. I've used this method before.
There will be a few +3 items by level 10, not every player will have them


Races

Halflings gain darkvision Halflings are already pretty good, why add this?
Dragonborn gain darkvision Dragonborn kind of suck, so I can see why you're adding this.


Classes

Druid circle of the moon wild shape - CR limit: 1/2 @ level 2, 1 @ level 4 Not a fan, but I do tend to play a lot of druids. Nerfs like this will probably get you some very grumpy players, or discourage people from playing druids. They are the least popular class.
Ranger at level 14 - gains an additional fighting style I'd approve of this change.
Ranger beastmaster - may use a bonus action to command the beast to attack I approve of this change, though the beast in question is still somewhat weak, this is at least a step in the right direction. You might want to consider just using variant ranger.
Warlocks - eldritch blast is a class feature at level 1 (may not be chosen by magical secrets, etc.) and scales by warlock level instead of character level (this also essentially gives warlocks 1 extra cantrip) Warlocks are a popular class right now, as a dip. This change would fix that, people wouldn't dip warlock, but I think the result would be just no one using warlock in any capacity. Your fix doesn't address the inherent problem with warlocks being not-great.


Feats

Crossbow Expert - bonus attack only applies when using a melee weapon in the main hand for a melee attack action I think all of these fixes are poor ideas. These feats make melee focused characters competitive with casters. Casters aren't the gods they allegedly were in previous editions, but if you nerf these feats they will outpace melee characters by a mile. They already do become better as you get to higher and higher levels, but these feats make the gulf smaller. Strongly disagree with all of these changes.
Great Weapon Master - instead of power attack adds +2 damage with heavy non polearms
Polearm Master - opportunity attacks must be made with the polearm (not a spell); must use polearm two handed to receive the bonus attack
Sentinel - when hitting a creature with an opportunity attack the creature's speed decreases to 10 feet (if it currently has more movement available)
Sharpshooter - instead of power attack adds +2 damage with missile weapons


Spells

Banishment and hypnotic pattern give additional saving throws at the end of each target's turn Then no one will use (or even take) banishment. You would be better off using Tasha's, which is level one, and provides the same effect.
Goodberry is not affected by cleric disciple of life Out of combat healing really isn't that big a deal unless your campaign focuses on gritty survivalism.
Haste (also Boots of Speed) double movement or add 30' (whichever is less) Dunno what this is aiming to fix.


Epic

Ranger at level 20 - foe slayer instead adds wisdom bonus to damage on all attacks against all foes Good change. The ranger capstone is the worst in the game.
Sorcerers (& Wizards) at level 20 - gain uncounterable once/combat (use resets when initiative is rolled) - when someone counterspells your spell you may use your use of uncounterable to make the spell immune to counterspell Not a bad idea. Though sorcerers can already do this with subtle spell.


Overall I think there are a few good changes, but most of them are too heavily focused on a low level view of the game. The feats you nerf are going to make people playing melee damage builds very unhappy, especially.

[Contrast]

There will be a few +3 items by level 10, not every player will have them


Only just noticed this. I would strongly advise against handing out substantial +X items. Magic items are cool but you can hand out interesting and powerful magic items without +3 weapons - particularly by level 10.



Banishment and hypnotic pattern give additional saving throws at the end of each target's turn


Out of interest what is your problem with these spells in particular? Why is Hypnotic Pattern getting a nerf and not Fear? Why is Banishment getting a nerf and not Polymorph?

If you do want to give Hypnotic Pattern a reoccurring save I'd at least get rid of the 'can easily be shaken awake' bit of the spell.

[stoutstien]

The banishment and hypnotic pattern was from:
https://dmdavid.com/tag/how-new-changes-created-the-4-most-annoying-spells-in-dungeons-dragons/ I thought it was a parody page.
He has no reference point of spell power. We are comparing hypnotic patterns to fireball...
Banishment vs black tentacles or freedom of movement. Maybe even greater freaking invisibility

[Contrast]

The banishment and hypnotic pattern was from:
https://dmdavid.com/tag/how-new-changes-created-the-4-most-annoying-spells-in-dungeons-dragons/

Just to put a counter point:

Hypnotic pattern isn't party safe so will usually need to be cast before engaging. Usually not everyone will be effected and the natural reaction of many NPCs to their friends standing around gormlessly will be to try and wake them up. Plus attacking them will wake them up again and they still have to actually be killed. As has been mentioned in many situations (i.e. ones where AoE effects are useful/appropriate) there's a good chance it's just worse than Fireball.

Banishment again doesn't actually kill anyone so you still have to kill the person when they get back. Its a single target save and do nothing spell so you may expend a 4th level spell slot for nothing. When the PCs gain access to it their DC is gonna be 15-16 probably so even someone with no prof or stat in the save is gonna have a 1/4 chance of causing the spell to whiff. When it does land the spell requires concentration - do some damage to the caster and the creature will pop back in.


Both spells will likely make the combat somewhat easier when pulled off successfully with the potential to both do nothing or make it much easier. This is the spellcasters schtick - expend spell slots to have a dramatic effect. If you have an issue with the effects of these particular spells you're going to need to go through the entire spell list as there are a number of spells with similar purposes so players will probably just take them instead. I would argue this isn't necessary but if you think it is you're going to need to be more comprehensive.

As I said - if you gave me these nerfs I'd just give you a confused look as a player and learn Fear and Polymorph instead.

[Jerrykhor]

You do make good points on the spells.

On melee vs casters at high levels I would think I can just titrate the frequency of things like girdles of giant strength (that I would have been more hesitant to give with everyone getting power attack)?

Spell balance is a whole different ball game, unfortunately you aren't really qualified to meddle in them. You still have too much of 'Someone told me this is OP, so Imma hit it with my nerf bat many times' mentality.

One way to help with judging a feature or spell is whether you would take it if you were a player seeking to optimise. Would that change to Ranger capstone really encourage you to not multi-class? I doubt it. Would that change to Sorcerer capstone do the same? Laughable. If you knew what Metamagic sorcerer have, its a completely useless capstone.

[bid]

How balanced is this?

Monk four elements - no ki costs for spells (may still spend ki to increase effectiveness of certain spells, maximum additional ki spent as if the spell still cost ki); a monk (of appropriate level) may use one unleveled discipline, one 6th level or less discipline, one 11th level or less discipline, and one 17th level or less discipline per short rest (elemental attunement is still unlimitted uses)

So essentially they keep their ki for regular monk abilities (or increasing spell levels). At 3rd level they can cast 1 spell per short rest (not affecting their ki). At 17th level they can cast 4 spells per short rest.
I think (but I'm far from sure) that ki costs are the same as spells. In that case, giving the same spell slots progression as AT/EK might work if you use spell points.

[sophontteks]

The popularity of the druid has nothing to do with their balance. Not that I disagree with giving land druids some love. I just doubt this will address why their aren't popular. It's not a problem that needs to be fixed really.

[Jerrykhor]

The popularity of the druid has nothing to do with their balance. Not that I disagree with giving land druids some love. I just doubt this will address why their aren't popular. It's not a problem that needs to be fixed really.

Actually it does. Land Druids are objectively weaker than Moon Druids, that is a fact. If Moon Druids had more uses of Wildshape rather than increased CR limit, they'd be really bad too. That is what Land Druid is right now but worse, because they only get more spell slots IF they short rest. Also, their extra spells known don't kick in until Level 3. So at level 2, they are basically a lousy hippie wizard. Their other problem is that depending on the sub-type of Land you choose, the bonus spells known might already be on the Druid spell list. That's just really lame.

[stoutstien]

Actually it does. Land Druids are objectively weaker than Moon Druids, that is a fact. If Moon Druids had more uses of Wildshape rather than increased CR limit, they'd be really bad too. That is what Land Druid is right now but worse, because they only get more spell slots IF they short rest. Also, their extra spells known don't kick in until Level 3. So at level 2, they are basically a lousy hippie wizard. Their other problem is that depending on the sub-type of Land you choose, the bonus spells known might already be on the Druid spell list. That's just really lame.

Objectively wouldn't be the right word for this. Land druid are less popular because they are not as flashy as the other circles. even discounting the expanded spell list which there are some really good spells on them, spell slot recovery means you are casting more of those potentially encounter ending spells a day. Only thing better than summoning 8 wolves is doing it twice. And this future levels up every time you do compared to Moon through its will get these spikes of power every 4-5 levels.
Land druids are the only prepared casters with spell slot recovery. Don't sell them short.

Objectively they get more out of the capstone then moon does due to stronger forms are less of an impact when you can do it at will.

[Bloodcloud]

I'm not convinced that an 18/2 dumping 2 spells at an opportune moment isn't superior.

That is my problem with Xanather's. I got so much outcry with targeted nerfs that I would rather just avoid the whole issue of the select few things that bother me.

Sorcerers (& Wizards) at level 20 - gain uncounterable once/combat (use resets when initiative is rolled) - when someone counterspells your spell you may use your use of uncounterable to make the spell immune to counterspell

The thing is, if those 2 lvls are taken before 18, then that caster is a full spell level short and get less spell slots. Double shatter is not as good as a single fireball.

And i doubt reaching level 20 is happening any time soon

[OverLordOcelot]

Objectively they get more out of the capstone then moon does due to stronger forms are less of an impact when you can do it at will.

I disagree completely with this. The CR1 forms that land druids are limited to only have around 30-52 HP, which is really just one good hit. Moon druids with a CR5 elemental or CR6 beast have either over 125 HP or lots of immunities and resistances. That's a huge difference in ability to soak damage, the extra strength on forms is the difference between 'might soak an attack' and 'you have to focus fire to make HP damage stick'. Similarly, Moon druids get a plethora of utility options from the capstone that land druids don't. Elemental forms provide ability to fit through a 1" wide opening while still having enough HP to take a hit, ability to meld into stone, undispellable flight, automatic escape from any grapple, immunity to fire, resistance to several damage types (including nonmagic weapons), and immunity to paralyzation, poison, petrification, prone, restrained, and unconscious.

[Yunru]

So many of those guides have many spells with low ratings that say "meh, situational". And yet I've seen 1st hand those purple rated "situational" spells singularly save many of my groups from total TPKs

So what you're saying is... that the spells the guides rate as situationally useful... are useful in the right situation... and thus the guide is wrong? O.o

[stoutstien]

I disagree completely with this. The CR1 forms that land druids are limited to only have around 30-52 HP, which is really just one good hit. Moon druids with a CR5 elemental or CR6 beast have either over 125 HP or lots of immunities and resistances. That's a huge difference in ability to soak damage, the extra strength on forms is the difference between 'might soak an attack' and 'you have to focus fire to make HP damage stick'. Similarly, Moon druids get a plethora of utility options from the capstone that land druids don't. Elemental forms provide ability to fit through a 1" wide opening while still having enough HP to take a hit, ability to meld into stone, undispellable flight, automatic escape from any grapple, immunity to fire, resistance to several damage types (including nonmagic weapons), and immunity to paralyzation, poison, petrification, prone, restrained, and unconscious.

A land druid is going to use unlimited animal shapes to try to avoid getting hit by using forms with fly, burrowing, or swimming while concentrating on what ever spell.
This is lv 20 damage isn't an issue, it's those saving throws that can shut you down. All the HP is the world can't stop a feeblemind or plane shift.

I'm not saying either land or Moon druid are better but it's a far cry to say that land druid are weak and need any form of buff.

If that landroid wants to pull something out at lv 20 to tank they have shapechange. Nothing says 'come at me' like an ancient red dragon

[OverLordOcelot]

A land druid is going to use unlimited animal shapes to try to avoid getting hit by using forms with fly, burrowing, or swimming while concentrating on what ever spell.

The moon druid can fly, meld with stone, or swim while also having enough HP to take a hit without losing the ability to fly, burrow, or swim. The ability gives the moon druid more, better options for attempting the same things.


This is lv 20 damage isn't an issue, it's those saving throws that can shut you down. All the HP is the world can't stop a feeblemind or plane shift.

Damage is always an issue, as Power Word: Kill, disintegrate, harm, meteor swarm, and the like demonstrate. The fact that the druid capstone doesn't remove all dangers is trivially true but irrelevant to the question of whether the ability benefits a land or moon druid more. And while wildshape doesn't stop those two specific dangers, the moon druid's wildshape does stop holds, exhaustion, poison, paralysis, and a host of other effects that are also quite nasty (and not defended against by the land druid's wildshape). Also in the event of a feeblemind the land druid becomes dead weight, while the moon druid still maintains some effectiveness and a ton of difficulty to kill.


I'm not saying either land or Moon druid are better but it's a far cry to say that land druid are weak and need any form of buff.

I am specifically discussing your claim that the capstone is more useful to land druids than moon druids. The 'land druids are weak' claim is not something I have said, so arguing against that point in response to me makes no sense.


If that landroid wants to pull something out at lv 20 to tank they have shapechange. Nothing says 'come at me' like an ancient red dragon

They have shapechange once per day for one hour and have to give using any concentration spells as well as 8 hours of not being surprised, all enemy attack rolls having disadvantage, and advantage on their own attack rolls, ability checks, and saves. I'll take the moon druid in an elemental or big beast form that gets a fresh stack of HP every round, can maintain a concentration spell, and uses his 9th level slot for advantage on most rolls while enemies have disadvantage to hit him, plus a concentration spell for even further boost over an ancient red dragon who's hit points don't replentish and who can't maintain concentration on anything. The fact that the tanking land druid won't have advantage on all saves while the moon druid will, and you earlier claimed that HP don't matter and that saves are what you need to worry about is pretty significant there.

[stoutstien]

Different strokes. In all my years running 5th edition campaigns damage alone in the higher tiers of play just hasn't been an issue. Heck even the case of death we are looking at players having true Resurrection, wish, and other ways a reversing practically infinite damage.
So the worse that can have is the players has to sit out a couple of rounds. Damage alone is just not a threat to a high lv party if it directed at them.

get hit by maze or force cage and it can be literally a longer duration then just dying.

A level 20 party is not going to be fearful of fighting 10 Balors. It is going to be closing gates so the Balors are not entering and destroying civilization.

*The big advantage of shapechange vs wild shapes is access to legendary saves.

[sophontteks]

Actually it does. Land Druids are objectively weaker than Moon Druids, that is a fact. If Moon Druids had more uses of Wildshape rather than increased CR limit, they'd be really bad too. That is what Land Druid is right now but worse, because they only get more spell slots IF they short rest. Also, their extra spells known don't kick in until Level 3. So at level 2, they are basically a lousy hippie wizard. Their other problem is that depending on the sub-type of Land you choose, the bonus spells known might already be on the Druid spell list. That's just really lame.
My response was not about the popularity of an archtype, but of the class in general. He stated that Druids were unpopular. Moon druids, and Shepherd druids are among the best in the game. Thus their balance is not a factor to their popularity.

I agree that land druids could use some love, but I doubt it'll make druids more popular.

[sophontteks]

I saw this suggestion somewhere on a forum for a druid popularity suggestion:


Druids can use metal armor, all simple weapons, and scimitars; wild shape is non metal armor/shield only


Maybe that would help increase druid popularity slightly? Also I'm not sure dragonborn need a boost based on their racial popularity (dragonborn, tiefling, and half-elf seem like common races and halfings seem like a rare race).

I'm afraid you are mis-interpeting these statistics. Popularity is not a good way to consider balance. People do not play the strongest things in an RPG. They play what they want to roleplay. Min-maxers in 5e are a minority, and they aren't well-rewarded for trying to max their character, because roleplaying tends to be both the reward and what is rewarded by the DM.

Compared to other classes, druids have a very specific flavor that doesn't appeal to everyone. Or, it does, but there just is not much variety to their backgrounds. Like, there is a great amount of variety to wizards and clerics, but druids are all very similar. They all fall into that nature-loving caster nitch. This is not really a problem. It just makes them less numerically popular, but just because less people play them doesn't mean people don't enjoy playing them.

Allowing armor with wildshaped is overpowered enough to possibly be game-breaking. Moon druids would overshadow martial classes if they have a massive wall of HP, full casting, and a good AC.

Dragonborn are horribly underpowered. People like their flavor and have to take a hit just to play what they want. It's a bit of a trap for newer players who may not realize just how under-powered they are, and it is the lament of experienced players who feel that they can't play something they genuinely want to. The sad truth about dragonborn is that they offer almost nothing. The breath attack is bad, and it's just about all they have. It makes it hard for them to stick out as the unique race they should be. They are still popular because most people just don't care that its weaker, or don't know.

[PhantomSoul]

Dragonborn breath weapon does 2d8 at 1st, 4d8 at 6th, 6d8 at 11th, and 10d8 at 16th
[/LIST]


This one is quite surprising; the level progression is unusual. I'd recommend having the damage changes occur at more normal levels -- incredibly granular (e.g. every two levels, but likely then with a smaller die size), matching proficiency (1, 5, 9, 13, 17), or matching cantrips (1, 5, 11, 17). That's not a balance question so much as a question of expectations for when players would think to check the update in damage and what I'd view as "logical" levels based on other values in the game.

[Asmotherion]

Sure, i'll throw in 2cp. I'll just append in red



I don't know how much time you've had with the game but I would recommend playing a bit more vanilla before you go making so many changes. Houserules and homebrew is best done incrementally and with plenty of testing, and i'm sure the regulars here would be happy to help you with your goals if you can tell us what you're aim at doing.

i agree with this evaluation.