PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next 5e Balancing Overhaul



Trask
2019-04-18, 12:51 AM
I don't know if I really expect anyone to read this, frankly, quite large houserule document but here it is. I've been working on this for the better part of a year, inspired by many contributors here who are too numerous to mention but a few notables are Kane0, Kryx, Treantmonk, The Angrygm and a poster with an extremely good rework for Wild Shape whose name escapes me. So disclaimer, I have borrowed and incorporated many good ideas from creators better than I. This is simply a document that brings a lot of it together.

So what is this it exactly? The best way I'll describe it is a a comprehensive rebalancing and reimagning of D&D 5e mechanics, equipment, class options, and spells in the interest of more satisfying and deadly play, more balanced character options, and quality of life.

So please peruse and if you really do read my thing I will be flattered because I know its a behemoth

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rkw0d7LK9m

Crisis21
2019-04-18, 05:57 AM
There's some stuff you did that seems like it would be an interesting addition to existing 5e mechanics, and other things that strike me as unnecessarily gutting what were interesting and fun mechanics.

For example: I highly dislike re-doing the saving throw mechanics the way you did. Seeing saving throws for each ability score made for some interesting mechanics and I can't agree with getting rid of them. Yes, INT and CHA saves are underutilized, but that's not a reason to get rid of them entirely.

For another, your rebalancing seems to have weakened several races and classes overall, and I just can't agree with that direction.

Overall, this feels worse and less fun to play to me than 5e as written.

Trask
2019-04-18, 05:52 PM
There's some stuff you did that seems like it would be an interesting addition to existing 5e mechanics, and other things that strike me as unnecessarily gutting what were interesting and fun mechanics.

For example: I highly dislike re-doing the saving throw mechanics the way you did. Seeing saving throws for each ability score made for some interesting mechanics and I can't agree with getting rid of them. Yes, INT and CHA saves are underutilized, but that's not a reason to get rid of them entirely.

For another, your rebalancing seems to have weakened several races and classes overall, and I just can't agree with that direction.

Overall, this feels worse and less fun to play to me than 5e as written.

The choice to redo saving throws came from the fact that it is really impossible to make each saving throw matter equally (there is actually a good deal of math on the subject, provided by Kryx and in this saving throw version each one is balanced within 10% of each other which is MUCH better game design IMO, the idea of "good" and "bad" saves is frankly dumb as heck) and also to help eliminate the concept of complete and total dump stats which I personally dislike. This is compensated with the reworked way in which ASIs work.

I'm very surprised and interested in why you would say I weakened races and classes, because most if not all of the things added are straight buffs. Can you give a specific example of a race or class that was straight up weakened?

Crisis21
2019-04-18, 08:00 PM
The choice to redo saving throws came from the fact that it is really impossible to make each saving throw matter equally (there is actually a good deal of math on the subject, provided by Kryx and in this saving throw version each one is balanced within 10% of each other which is MUCH better game design IMO, the idea of "good" and "bad" saves is frankly dumb as heck) and also to help eliminate the concept of complete and total dump stats which I personally dislike. This is compensated with the reworked way in which ASIs work.

I'm very surprised and interested in why you would say I weakened races and classes, because most if not all of the things added are straight buffs. Can you give a specific example of a race or class that was straight up weakened?

*blinks* *looks back over*

Oh! Is that all just the stuff you were adding? I completely misinterpreted that. It looked like you had taken out features wholesale in several places.


Also, I don't think all saving throws were meant to be equal. Every class gets one major (DEX, CON, WIS) and one minor (STR, INT, CHA) saving throw. Many things will explicitly call for the former, but not many will for the latter. Honestly, it's a bit up to the DM to come up with extra reasons to use the latter three in my opinion, because they lend themselves a bit to less than usual circumstances.

Bjarkmundur
2019-04-18, 09:05 PM
I love it!
I also feel like each DM is pretty free to pick and choose which of these changes he wants to implement or try out, which is just perfect.

There are some things in here that are too clunky for my game, but definetly a ton of fun for more technical tables. Everything is set up very nicely and you've obviously out a lot of thought into each and every one of these mechanics.

Called Shot is definitely the first rule I'm going to test out. I've always hated sharpshooter and gwm.

Trask
2019-04-19, 12:27 AM
*blinks* *looks back over*

Oh! Is that all just the stuff you were adding? I completely misinterpreted that. It looked like you had taken out features wholesale in several places.


Also, I don't think all saving throws were meant to be equal. Every class gets one major (DEX, CON, WIS) and one minor (STR, INT, CHA) saving throw. Many things will explicitly call for the former, but not many will for the latter. Honestly, it's a bit up to the DM to come up with extra reasons to use the latter three in my opinion, because they lend themselves a bit to less than usual circumstances.

I think that there are lots of circumstances in which they could be used conceptually but arent because of purely mechanical reasons (monsters have high strength and a need for dump stats) and also really enforces certain roleplay choices (no one will ever have a bad wisdom and people are rarely smart or strong if they dont have to be) which I just dont like. I accept to a degree that its my own taste, but I've mulled it over quite a bit and read a lot of differing opinions on the subject and I have to conclude that I honestly think it makes the game better and less punishing to follow a character concept if the saves are equal in their mechanical value. I just really dont see a point in making 6 different saves and having 3 of them be extremely situational to the point of being nearly useless unless in specific campaigns.


I love it!
I also feel like each DM is pretty free to pick and choose which of these changes he wants to implement or try out, which is just perfect.

There are some things in here that are too clunky for my game, but definetly a ton of fun for more technical tables. Everything is set up very nicely and you've obviously out a lot of thought into each and every one of these mechanics.

Called Shot is definitely the first rule I'm going to test out. I've always hated sharpshooter and gwm.

Thanks, that means a lot. The Called Shot rule is a personal favorite of mine, I feel it quite elegantly solves the problem of those feats and also gives me a way to say yes to players who ask if they can just sacrifice accuracy for power or aim an impossible headshot.

If I might ask, what rules did you find clunky and was it a problem with the concept or the implementation? Interested to hear all thoughts and criticisms.