Zman's 5e Tweaks: Tweaks 2.0, Weapons and Armor, E10, and Monster Manual Expansion

[Zman]

Welcome and thank you for taking the time to give me feedback on my work. Some of you are familiar with my efforts and I appreciate any feedback you have given me in the past and will continue to give me. This is a new thread with all my 5e works centralized in one locations including my WIP Monster Manual Expansion.

Please, all feedback is welcome. My goals are a more balanced and varied 5e play experience with not just more viable options, but more total options available. Bump up the worst performers, notch down those viewed as too good, and ultimately create more viable play styles and options from a mechanical perspective. I don't expect nor aim for perfect balance, but easily implemented "hotfixes" that stay pretty true to the stock 5e experience. Note, I have not attempted to really balanced the Martial vs Spellcaster divide, but I have worked on the Martial vs Martial and Spellcaster vs Spellcaster concerns. Addressing Martial vs Spellcaster is much more complicated an issue and beyond the scope of my fixes.



Looking forward to your feedback, critiques, and comments.



Zman's 5e Tweaks V2.0. Spreadsheet Analysis

Zman's 5e Tweaks: Weapons and Armor V1.0

Zman's 5e Tweaks: E10 Variant V1.0

Zman's 5e Tweaks: Monster Manual Expansion V1.0

Spoiler: Current Playtesting

Show

I've gotten a chance to playtest a good portion of my work recently and so far am very pleased with how it is going and has been received. We are running my E10 Variant and are currently approaching 10,000xp. So far I'm quite happy and believe the characters are richer, more varied, and better balanced. My E10 Variant has some kinks I think will need some addressing, but overall I quite like it as a framework for dnd 5e and recognize it won't be everyone's cup of tea.

We have...
Half Elf Paladin- Powerful Physique one handing a Maul and shield bashing.
Dragonborn Barbarian- TWFing Battleaxe/Handaxe and Multiclassed with a touch of Sorceress for more fire flavor.
Wood Elf Mood Druid- Nothing crazy here, feels better than stock for sure.
Human Battlemaster- Extra Superiority Dice with Martial Adept, otherwise nothing crazy for a Battlemaster.
Half-Orc Abjuror- Multiclassed with a level of Fighter, and pretends he is a fighter, hitting the Gish feel just right.

[Zman]

Change Log:

Tweaks Change Log:
V2.0
8-24-17 Intimidating Presense removed 1/encounter mechanic, now can only target a creature once and failure immunizes everyone.
8-24-17 Removed Heavy Armor Master's clunky legacy dr3 and replaced it with a reaction for d6 reduction from a single attack.
8-24-27 Cleaned up Powerful Build's language
8-24-17 Cleaned up Defensive Duelist/Lighting Reflexes interaction language
8-24-27 Cleaned up part of Crossbow Expert, no more point blank spellcasting
8-28-17 Fixed Typos
9-16-17 HAM Reaction to 1d6+Prof for scaleability and works against all S/P/B
9-16-17 Made Grapple's Pin better than Grapple Shove.
9-16-17 Capped Flanking at +3, clarified.
9-16-17 Added Primeval Awareness fix for spell less ranger variant
9-16-17 Adjusted Spellless Ranger's Maneuvers known and Superiority Dice.
9-16-17 Fixed Typos and Formatting
9-19-17 Clarified Close Combat Archer


Weapons and Armor Change Log:
V1.0
9-9-17 Chanced Blowgun range to 50/100, added Silent feature


E10 Variant Change Log:


Monster Manual Expansion Change Log:
V1.0
8-24-17 Fixed Spelling Errors.
8-24-17 Fixed Oni damage in different sizes and adjusted CR to 11.
8-28-17 Reduced Lizardfolk Bite damage to D4

[Waterdeep Merch]

Starting with your monsters, I'm enjoying the expanded roster quite a bit. I especially like the additional ogres, as I love using them.

One note, though- switch the 'u' and the 'e' in 'neutral'. Everything else is so polished that it sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Zman]

Starting with your monsters, I'm enjoying the expanded roster quite a bit. I especially like the additional ogres, as I love using them.

One note, though- switch the 'u' and the 'e' in 'neutral'. Everything else is so polished that it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Thanks, I'm particularly fond of my Ogre Mage myself.

I'm sure there are other things that slipped by, I honestly don't know why i mispell neutral, eternal struggle.

I look forward to anymore feedback you have. I'm curious what people think about the miniboss monsters with a single Legendary Action.

[Arvin Natsuko]

I'm starting with the Monsters and seems pretty good. Thank you for the effort.

About the Oni, seems like the weapon's damage should be double because of the large size. Other than that, Ireally like the new Oni option.

[Arvin Natsuko]

I'm in love with your Variant Rules. The exhaustion level after drop to 0 hps is brilliant.

The race and class stuff I really don't know yet. Will take more time to think about.

Again, thank you for all of this.

[Zman]

I'm starting with the Monsters and seems pretty good. Thank you for the effort.

About the Oni, seems like the weapon's damage should be double because of the large size. Other than that, Ireally like the new Oni option.

Glad you're enjoying it. The MM expansion is still a WIP, but I'm afding to it as I use monsters or inspiration strikes me.

You're absolutely right, I forgot to add the Oni's large damage and it'll bump it's CR up too I bet. Perfect, thanks.

I'm in love with your Variant Rules. The exhaustion level after drop to 0 hps is brilliant.

The race and class stuff I really don't know yet. Will take more time to think about.

Again, thank you for all of this.

Exhaustion for 0HP just makes sense and it's a good mechanic, helps curb Healing Word abuse which just breaks vermillistide.

The race stuff is pretty basic, most class stuff are small patches massaging the classes towards better balance. Feats were a big change of mine, lists of tweaks and a good number of new feats as well.

You are welcome! The more feedback I get, the more progress I make and the more polished the product becomes.

[Unoriginal]

Why give 22 CON to zombies?

[Zman]

Why give 22 CON to zombies?

Good question. My thinking was that human toughness ranges up to 20 constitution, and effectively anything above a 20 constitution is supernaturally tough. Honestly how many things are "tougher" than a shambling corpse that is simply unconcerned with damage, poison, pain, or even dismemberment. Sure, I've accounted for a good amount of that "toughness" with resistances and undead fortitude, but it seemed fitting to make them supernaturally tough as well in a constitution sense. I did up the DC for undead fortitude correspondingly as well.

Same thinking for giving Skeletons a 20 Con, while Wights only get a 16 as they are closer to a bridge to undeath.

Same thinking for why adult Trolls have a Constitution of 20-22.


It boils down to mortal toughness being framed by the Constitution 20 cap and no resistences, and what does supernatural toughness really amount to ie potentially higher con, resistances, or other abilities such as regeneration or undead fortitude.

[Desteplo]

Grappler feat is still trashed
-and being able to use dex for grapples takes away 1 of the 2 things strength could do over dex. Making dex even more superior

[Zman]

Grappler feat is still trashed
-and being able to use dex for grapples takes away 1 of the 2 things strength could do over dex. Making dex even more superior

How is it still trashed? The Grappler feat itself is now significantly better, and no longer references a rule that doesn't exist.

Yes, a dex based character can take a feat, Martial Artist, to use Dex for grappling, but that still comes at the cost of a feat, and a Str based character would have taken Grappler or Expertise and still be a better grappler. Str characters still have an advantage on Grappling.

The way I see it is I've enhanced the game by fixing a generally subpar feat, and by allowing another viable mechanic ie dex based martial artist grappler that both feels right and doesn't ruin balance.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'll have time to go over these in more depth when I get home, but I'll mention one thing- your warpick martial weapon is one that will never see use at my table, even if I chose to use your variants (which are, on the whole, pretty cool). The reason being that 2d3 damage dice. Neither my players nor I like rolling the "imaginary" dice for damage, they want clean and simple.

If you don't mind me asking, what's the idea behind it? Slightly higher average damage on a d6? For lols?

[Waterdeep Merch]

On the weapons and armor charts- a lot of this is really cool, very similar to things I've done myself. The rebalancing on the armors in particular is neat, since it would lead to a wider variety of equipment types in a game based on Dex values.

My one critique is on the improvements on the base damage on the mace. I can understand why- the real weapon is a monster in close combat and is notably better for dealing with armored enemies than more common bladed weaponry, and it really helps out melee clerics that aren't tempest or war. But from a balance perspective, this underrates martial weapons for any Strength-based sword n' board user by making it identical in damage capacity to anything from the martial list. The poor warhammer in particular can go weep softly in a corner, since it deals the same damage type too. The versatile trait isn't enough to make up for this, since it's rarely used as it is.

I don't think offering a side benefit to martial one-handers would break the game all that much if you'd prefer to keep the mace's d8. Maybe strip the side benefits off of the 'Feats' UA and make them bog standard for martial weaponry? Not the +1's, oh god no, but things like the OA buffs to swords. It would make using a longsword over a mace desirable if you can get it, and let the warhammer put down that Ben and Jerry's and rejoin the usable weapons list.

[Zman]

I'll have time to go over these in more depth when I get home, but I'll mention one thing- your warpick martial weapon is one that will never see use at my table, even if I chose to use your variants (which are, on the whole, pretty cool). The reason being that 2d3 damage dice. Neither my players nor I like rolling the "imaginary" dice for damage, they want clean and simple.

If you don't mind me asking, what's the idea behind it? Slightly higher average damage on a d6? For lols?

I appreciate you taking the time to look stuff over.

Oh, the Warpick.... Ugg. I know, 2d3 is clunky, but D3s are "real" dice as far as the rules are concerned, and the damage allows the Warpick to fill a niche. Otherwise, I have no idea how to fit it in anywhere without it being redundant. This way it is the "best" two weapon fighting weapon for strength users who don't take Dual Wielder.

Essentially, I don't like it, but it works.

[Kryx]

Hey Zman, I'm just going to take a brief look as I just got back from vacation and have some ideas I want to tackle.

GWM: There have been several threads lately that talk about making -5/+10 and its variations into a generic feature that is available to all weapons. Using -5/+10 or its variations once per turn wouldn't be fully balanced across classes most likely, but at least offering it to every build would bring a better baseline balance for this feature. I'd also suggest making it scale: use Disadvantage instead of -5 and Prof*2 instead of -10. If disadvantage is a problem then you can keep a static negative, though I'd heavily encourage not using -prof as a downward scaling feature would lose value as you level for most builds which doesn't make much sense.

"Varient Rules" should be "Variant Rules".
"Encumberance" should be "Encumbrance".

When I get more time I'll try to take a second look and see if I can steal a feat or two from you. :D

[Zman]

On the weapons and armor charts- a lot of this is really cool, very similar to things I've done myself. The rebalancing on the armors in particular is neat, since it would lead to a wider variety of equipment types in a game based on Dex values.

My one critique is on the improvements on the base damage on the mace. I can understand why- the real weapon is a monster in close combat and is notably better for dealing with armored enemies than more common bladed weaponry, and it really helps out melee clerics that aren't tempest or war. But from a balance perspective, this underrates martial weapons for any Strength-based sword n' board user by making it identical in damage capacity to anything from the martial list. The poor warhammer in particular can go weep softly in a corner, since it deals the same damage type too. The versatile trait isn't enough to make up for this, since it's rarely used as it is.

I don't think offering a side benefit to martial one-handers would break the game all that much if you'd prefer to keep the mace's d8. Maybe strip the side benefits off of the 'Feats' UA and make them bog standard for martial weaponry? Not the +1's, oh god no, but things like the OA buffs to swords. It would make using a longsword over a mace desirable if you can get it, and let the warhammer put down that Ben and Jerry's and rejoin the usable weapons list.

Thanks for taking a look. I tried to rebalance the weapons and armor list to open up a wider range of weapons and armors available.

The Mace... yep, the good old fashioned mace is kind of between a rock and a hard place. I agree that making it a d8 took some of the thunder away from the versatile Longsword, Warhammer, and Battleaxe. But, versatile is something that can come up in play, and the rest of my rules make using a Versatile weapon more viable. What is the other option? Leave it a d6 where it is inferior to spears, javelins, and quarterstaffs. Worse, as a d6 under stock 5e it is strictly inferior than spears, javelins, quartersaffs, and even handaxes.

At least this way it fills a niche on the table and isn't as good as a Martial weapon, but isn't strictly inferior to any other weapon. One goal of my rebalance of weapons is that no weapon is strictly inferior to a comparable weapon.

Is it perfect, nope. Is it a damn sight better than stock. Yep. Will those with access to only simple weapons be most often weilding maces... yet... unless they want reach and have the hand to spare for a spear, or are using dex and need a quarterstaff etc.

[strangebloke]

Equipment notes:
1. Armor tweaks in general are good. I like the simple structure of 'bad cheap option,' 'good expensive option 1,' 'good expensive option 2.'
2. A lot of these weapon options, while fine, seem redundant. How many 1-handed martial weapons that deal 1d8 do there need to be?
3. Warpick gets +2 damage from being wielded with two hands, and is also unplayable without digital dice.


Feat notes:

1. x/encounter abilities are wonky design. That's a conceit that's common in FATE, but less common in 5e. I don't like it.
2. Feat at first level is a good idea.
3. Heavy Armor Master does not need a buff. It needs to be reworked since its too good at 1st and too bad at 20th.
4. Medium armor Master is good.
5. PAM rework and GWM reworks are solid.
6. Powerful build is weird in conjunction with versatile weapon changes. Battleaxe deals only 0.5 less as a one handed weapon than the greataxe, and deals +.5 damage as a two-handed. It also explicitly lets you dual-wield two-handed weapons, which I assume is a mistake.
7. Lightning reflexes and defensive duelist have an awkward interaction in terms of verbage.
8. Crossbow expert is still weird as heck. It lets you cast ranged spells in melee and lets you duel-wield fricking crossbows. The 'make a ranged attack as a bonus action' is TWF at range, but with the fighting style built in.
9. Powerful persona and Intuitive Defense are very strong, and are therefore bad ideas. They lead to a homogenizing effect where everyone can have 16 AC or better at level 1 for a small investment.
10. Weapon Specialist should not be a half-feat IMO. It gives way too much for the cost of 1 STR or DEX.
11. Desperate Caster is really strong. A +16 to CON saves is possible to get if there's a paladin in the party. A +10 to CON isn't even that hard to get (+3 from pally, +3 from CON, +4 from prof) Even then a single level of exhaustion is not that big a deal, so you could pretty reliably get most of those spells off with no real downside.
12. Never a fan of feats that grant 1/rest abilities. Feels very fiddly and heavy on book-keeping.
13. 'Short but nimble' has a typo.(teh)

class notes:

1. bear totem doesn't need a nerf.
2. dueling fix is good.
3. GWF is still bad.
4. Unsure about monk changes. Haven't played many monks so I guess its not my business.
5. The druid changes are strange. Once again, exhaustion is a mechanic that makes me feel uneasy. I like the idea of long recovery after a tough day, but that's why I use the 1-week long rest rules.
6. rogue sneak attack touch is nice.
7. sorcerer stuff is nice.
8. Don't know much about warlocks, except that people complain about their effectiveness. Are these buffs enough?

Page 17 has a typo. 'Varient'

That's all for now.

[Unoriginal]

Good question. My thinking was that human toughness ranges up to 20 constitution, and effectively anything above a 20 constitution is supernaturally tough. Honestly how many things are "tougher" than a shambling corpse that is simply unconcerned with damage, poison, pain, or even dismemberment. Sure, I've accounted for a good amount of that "toughness" with resistances and undead fortitude, but it seemed fitting to make them supernaturally tough as well in a constitution sense. I did up the DC for undead fortitude correspondingly as well.

Same thinking for giving Skeletons a 20 Con, while Wights only get a 16 as they are closer to a bridge to undeath.

Same thinking for why adult Trolls have a Constitution of 20-22.


It boils down to mortal toughness being framed by the Constitution 20 cap and no resistences, and what does supernatural toughness really amount to ie potentially higher con, resistances, or other abilities such as regeneration or undead fortitude.

...but when an human has 20 CON, it means that they're incredibly tougher than most things, beyond the average human capacity. Same way how an human with 20 STR is stronger than an Ogre.

Giving that much CON to the undead just because they're undead doesn't make sense to me. A zombie is tough because of Undead Fortitude, not because they have more CON.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Thanks for taking a look. I tried to rebalance the weapons and armor list to open up a wider range of weapons and armors available.

The Mace... yep, the good old fashioned mace is kind of between a rock and a hard place. I agree that making it a d8 took some of the thunder away from the versatile Longsword, Warhammer, and Battleaxe. But, versatile is something that can come up in play, and the rest of my rules make using a Versatile weapon more viable. What is the other option? Leave it a d6 where it is inferior to spears, javelins, and quarterstaffs. Worse, as a d6 under stock 5e it is strictly inferior than spears, javelins, quartersaffs, and even handaxes.

At least this way it fills a niche on the table and isn't as good as a Martial weapon, but isn't strictly inferior to any other weapon. One goal of my rebalance of weapons is that no weapon is strictly inferior to a comparable weapon.

Is it perfect, nope. Is it a damn sight better than stock. Yep. Will those with access to only simple weapons be most often weilding maces... yet... unless they want reach and have the hand to spare for a spear, or are using dex and need a quarterstaff etc.

This has me thinking about the weapons list and differentiating everything in general. In practice, there's no real difference between a greatsword or a maul, though conceptually they're extremely different. I wouldn't want to screw with the damage dice (and there's only so much you could do that anyway), so that leaves any changes to be up to traits.

4e attempted something like this, but I'd rather not reintroduce martial powers. The feats UA had a couple good ideas, but the +1 to hit screws with bounded accuracy and it shouldn't take a feat to tell that these weapons do different things. Part of the problem is that resistances to specific physical damage sources (B/P or S, and not just all three) are extremely scarce. In fact, I don't think they exist in any official monster lists at all.

I'm not sure which would be easier- increasing the instances of specific B/P/S resistances or find good powers that don't screw with the flow of the game.

[Zman]

Hey Zman, I'm just going to take a brief look as I just got back from vacation and have some ideas I want to tackle.

GWM: There have been several threads lately that talk about making -5/+10 and its variations into a generic feature that is available to all weapons. Using -5/+10 or its variations once per turn wouldn't be fully balanced across classes most likely, but at least offering it to every build would bring a better baseline balance for this feature. I'd also suggest making it scale: use Disadvantage instead of -5 and Prof*2 instead of -10. If disadvantage is a problem then you can keep a static negative, though I'd heavily encourage not using -prof as a downward scaling feature would lose value as you level for most builds which doesn't make much sense.

"Varient Rules" should be "Variant Rules".
"Encumberance" should be "Encumbrance".

When I get more time I'll try to take a second look and see if I can steal a feat or two from you. :D

Thanks Kryx, I'd appreciate you giving things a read through.

Gahh, damn spelling. For some reason I struggle with some things like that, neutral too. No matter how many times I correct it when I'm on the fly I am bound to misspell it, especially when I'm typing somewhere without a spellchecker.

GWM- I recognize that making it a generic weapon feature does indeed eliminate some of the balance problems I have hesitations about implementing it for a number of reasons.

1. Making it a universal combat option is a "bigger" change.
2. Making it available to all weapons doesn't "feel" right on one regard, but it could make sense.
3. Reducing it to just once per turn, while not perfect, is significantly more balanced than stock GWM and significantly better and easy to administer is in my opinion a "better" fix. It is really quite close to stock, so people are familiar with it, and adding a once per turn restriction to it is quite easy to accomplish.

[Kryx]

2. Making it available to all weapons doesn't "feel" right on one regard, but it could make sense.

It is easily flavored as a "called shot" where a person takes aim at a specific body part. That actually alleviates that missing component for some people.

If you think it's too big I understand, though I think some of your rules touch on things more strongly than this would.


On that same topic: -10 is too strong for early levels. The brokeness of -5/+10 is quite muted again when the damage scales off double proficiency.

[Zman]

Equipment notes:
1. Armor tweaks in general are good. I like the simple structure of 'bad cheap option,' 'good expensive option 1,' 'good expensive option 2.'
2. A lot of these weapon options, while fine, seem redundant. How many 1-handed martial weapons that deal 1d8 do there need to be?
3. Warpick gets +2 damage from being wielded with two hands, and is also unplayable without digital dice.


Feat notes:

1. x/encounter abilities are wonky design. That's a conceit that's common in FATE, but less common in 5e. I don't like it.
2. Feat at first level is a good idea.
3. Heavy Armor Master does not need a buff. It needs to be reworked since its too good at 1st and too bad at 20th.
4. Medium armor Master is good.
5. PAM rework and GWM reworks are solid.
6. Powerful build is weird in conjunction with versatile weapon changes. Battleaxe deals only 0.5 less as a one handed weapon than the greataxe, and deals +.5 damage as a two-handed. It also explicitly lets you dual-wield two-handed weapons, which I assume is a mistake.
7. Lightning reflexes and defensive duelist have an awkward interaction in terms of verbage.
8. Crossbow expert is still weird as heck. It lets you cast ranged spells in melee and lets you duel-wield fricking crossbows. The 'make a ranged attack as a bonus action' is TWF at range, but with the fighting style built in.
9. Powerful persona and Intuitive Defense are very strong, and are therefore bad ideas. They lead to a homogenizing effect where everyone can have 16 AC or better at level 1 for a small investment.
10. Weapon Specialist should not be a half-feat IMO. It gives way too much for the cost of 1 STR or DEX.
11. Desperate Caster is really strong. A +16 to CON saves is possible to get if there's a paladin in the party. A +10 to CON isn't even that hard to get (+3 from pally, +3 from CON, +4 from prof) Even then a single level of exhaustion is not that big a deal, so you could pretty reliably get most of those spells off with no real downside.
12. Never a fan of feats that grant 1/rest abilities. Feels very fiddly and heavy on book-keeping.
13. 'Short but nimble' has a typo.(teh)

class notes:

1. bear totem doesn't need a nerf.
2. dueling fix is good.
3. GWF is still bad.
4. Unsure about monk changes. Haven't played many monks so I guess its not my business.
5. The druid changes are strange. Once again, exhaustion is a mechanic that makes me feel uneasy. I like the idea of long recovery after a tough day, but that's why I use the 1-week long rest rules.
6. rogue sneak attack touch is nice.
7. sorcerer stuff is nice.
8. Don't know much about warlocks, except that people complain about their effectiveness. Are these buffs enough?

Page 17 has a typo. 'Varient'

That's all for now.

Firstly, thanks for the detailed response. I'll try and respond in as much detail as I can.

Equipment
1. Thanks, I feel like this strikes a much better balance point for armor and gives Medium armor a much better place to sit and its own niche.
2. True, I tried to leave the original table mostly intact. I did combine a few options that were completely redundant. I can see having a d8 weapon for each damage type in martial, and having something finessable like the rapier around. Didn't want to upset the chart too much, just nudge it towards balance and fill missing niches.
3. The book tells us how to roll a d3 ie roll a d6 1-2 is a 1 etc. It isn't perect, but nestles itself in a nice place damageswise despite less than ideal mechanics. I considered just combining it with the war pick, but then it doesn't fill the strength two weapon fighting niche to seperate str from dex in twf.

Feats
1. Oh, Intimidating presence uses the encounter mechanic. I'll just change it to a once per target and be done with it.
2. Thanks, removing Variant human and adding 1st level feat for all seems right for more diverse characters, and isn't much stronger than Variant human was on its lonesome.
3. I've been considering just removing the DR3 as its a clunky legacy throwback. I think I'm going to replace it with a reaction ability... but haven't decided what that will be. I've considered a reaction for resistance to a bludgeoning/slashing/piercing attack, but that is too good. Inspiration just struck me, and I'm thinking reaction to reduce damage from one nonmagical bludgeoning/slashing/piercing attack by 1d6. It'll be interactive, remove a legacy throwback, and not nearly as powerful as it was at low levels.
4. Thanks, I agree.
5. Yep, it curbs most of the problems with them. I like opening them up to spears etc.
6. Battleaxe vs Greataxe comparison is more a problem with the Greataxe being a pain. It is worded a bit clunky and could be cleaned up a bit, but its arguable if it explicitly allows TWFing two handers. I will clean up its language and make that more clear. Essentially it lets you up the damage die of versatile weapons dealing their full damage one handed... but without also having the Dual Wielder feat you can't be TWFing with d10s, only d8s. In many ways when used for two weapon fighting Powerful Build is worse the Dual Wielder, but if you want to play the mountain and monkey grip a maul, go ahead.
7. I need to clean up the language, I added it to make it clear Defensive Duelist can be used with Lightning Reflexes. I made the language of Lightning Reflexes specific to avoid abuse with PAM and Sentinal, making the extra AoO specifically and AoO.
8. It is, thanks for pointing out I hadn't addressed it yet. I need to specify its ignoring disadvantage for point blank shooting is crossbows only. And I should specify you need a free hand to fire a crossbow, but the designers obviously wanted someone to be able to fire the hand crossbow with their offhand while doing other things.
9. AC 16 for a small in vestment at level 1? That means having a 16 dex and a 16 Cha or Wis and spending their level 1 feat on Powerful Persona or Intuitive Defense. There is a significant opportunity cost involved with that feat choice, and a 16 dex is not a small investment unless you are using a very generous stat method. Even that 16 dex is still AC15 in Studded Leather, or AC 16 with Mage Armor. Dragon Sorcerers with 16 Dex start with AC 16. A Lore Bard with 14 Dex can take the feat Moderately Armored for Scale and a Shield and have AC 18 for far less investment, and for less investment his AC 19 with Half Plate. To max out AC at 20 you need significant investment, likely two ASIs in a primary stat, and three ASIs in a secondary or tertiary stat at the opportunity cost of useful feats.
10. Really? Most classes get Simple Weapon Proficiency and Martial weapons is usually only about ~+1 damage per attack. I honestly don't think that is worth that much outside of niche builds. Making it a half feat and giving a +1 feels much better than the old Weapon Master feat.
11. Sure, if someone spends a ton of resources to make their Constitution Saves unbelievably high they get another spell slot for each spell level with a very minor chance of exhaustion, but is that broken? For all the work put into that it seems worth it. It doesn't grant above a 5th level slot, and action economy is still being obeyed. With my variant rules on exhaustion dropping to 0 exhaustion is more of a concern. The vast majority of the time the spellcaster will be taking a moderate risk of exhaustion when they get desperate enough to use one of those slots.
12. Yeah, it is a bit of book keeping, but there are many such abilities in 5e so when in Rome...
13. Oh, I'm sure there are more typos where that one came from! Damn fat fingers...


Class

1. No, but this "feels" right. Soulrot, Soulfire, and psychic damage shouldn't be shrugged off like fire, or bludgeoning etc. It isn't something that will come up that often, and lets necrotic and radient feel special.
2. Thanks, versatile weapons need their niche. This was the least I could do to help them.
3. Bad as in not the numerical advantage of Dueling, but better in that it no longer heavily favors Greatswords over Greataxes and other weapons, not it gives roughly and equal boost across the board instead of just plain being better for Greatswords and Mauls. At least this gives the Greataxe a little break.
4. Monks needed help in the top half of the level range. Damage wise they were the works martial like class around. Most of these changes were definitely needed, and in some ways more might have been as well. This set of fixes followed the ", simple and better not perfect" mantra.
5. Yeah, if you're using a one week long rest exhaustion will feel different, but IMO exhaustion is a good balancing mechanic that when coupled with my exhaustion on 0hp, really makes characters consider what they are doing, and risking exaustion is a real risk. In my current campaign we've had people going through the days and adventuring with a level of exhaustion and really feeling it when initiative comes around, or they are on watch, etc.
6. I feel that is RAI, and we shouldn't be looking for ways for Rogues to deal sneak attack damage multiple times per round, it was obviously balanced around once per turn.
7. Thanks, I feel it really gives them the nudge they need. Even the 2 sorcery points on a short rest is little, but it feels like enough haha.
8. There are nerfs there too. It nerfed agonizing and repelling blast which were essentially too good and annoying to have in play, while simultaneously buffing much of the rest of the class and made a bladelock far more viable. Given the other feat support I have in the game Warlocks become a much more vialbe and dynamic class. Had one in my last campaign for a while and it held up well.


Really, truly thank you for the detailed comments. I'll work on incorporating some of that, and rethink the rest.

...but when an human has 20 CON, it means that they're incredibly tougher than most things, beyond the average human capacity. Same way how an human with 20 STR is stronger than an Ogre.

Giving that much CON to the undead just because they're undead doesn't make sense to me. A zombie is tough because of Undead Fortitude, not because they have more CON.

This is really a matter of personal preference. I could say no longer being a living feeling creature and having dead flesh instead of living makes you tougher. I could have left undead fortitiute at DC5+ and kept a zombie's constitution lower and giving it another hit dice and it would have been the same. I felt this was better. Mechanically, it doesn't hurt anything.

Why not lower zombie Con down to 10 or 12 like most humans, I mean if being a zombie doesn't increase their constitution, why up it to 16?

An Ogre is a living mortal thing, its strong because its big, not really supernatural.

This has me thinking about the weapons list and differentiating everything in general. In practice, there's no real difference between a greatsword or a maul, though conceptually they're extremely different. I wouldn't want to screw with the damage dice (and there's only so much you could do that anyway), so that leaves any changes to be up to traits.

4e attempted something like this, but I'd rather not reintroduce martial powers. The feats UA had a couple good ideas, but the +1 to hit screws with bounded accuracy and it shouldn't take a feat to tell that these weapons do different things. Part of the problem is that resistances to specific physical damage sources (B/P or S, and not just all three) are extremely scarce. In fact, I don't think they exist in any official monster lists at all.

I'm not sure which would be easier- increasing the instances of specific B/P/S resistances or find good powers that don't screw with the flow of the game.

Yeah, I see what you mean. If you look at my monster list I'm using more damage type resistances in some places and plan to in more. They exist officially in the skeleton, its vulnerable to bludgeoning. I plan on adding it to more when appropriate. But, conceptually I think having the damage type diffrences is good even if it is often redundant and doesn't accomplish much. When we kill the big bad, I want a sword or an axe or a maul, not just reflavor of the month two handed great weapon that deals 2d6... I mean that is the same reason the Battleaxe and the Longsword are differentiated, its because players want an axe and a sword to be seperate.

It is easily flavored as a "called shot" where a person takes aim at a specific body part. That actually alleviates that missing component for some people.

If you think it's too big I understand, though I think some of your rules touch on things more strongly than this would.


On that same topic: -10 is too strong for early levels. The brokeness of -5/+10 is quite muted again when the damage scales off double proficiency.

Yeah, a called shot mechanic works. I agree, some of my changes are stronger than this change, but usually that is for a reason. One concern I have is an overall elevation in power level among all martials with no resource cost.

I'm not saying your idea doesn't accomplish your goals, just that my solution greatly alleviates the problems the -5/+10 causes, and does so with a much smaller splash. I'm not saying your idea doesn't work, or if I was redesigning the whole system and making 6e that I wouldn't heavily consider it.

[ZorroGames]

I have, just because it seems easier to step up/down dice in certain wargames that use the mechanic; D3, D5, D7, D9, etc., so while I am unlikely to use your rules the "odd" dice mechanic is easily solvable with a quick order to the UK or USA web stores that carry them.

[strangebloke]

9. AC 16 for a small in vestment at level 1? That means having a 16 dex and a 16 Cha or Wis and spending their level 1 feat on Powerful Persona or Intuitive Defense. There is a significant opportunity cost involved with that feat choice, and a 16 dex is not a small investment unless you are using a very generous stat method. Even that 16 dex is still AC15 in Studded Leather, or AC 16 with Mage Armor. Dragon Sorcerers with 16 Dex start with AC 16. A Lore Bard with 14 Dex can take the feat Moderately Armored for Scale and a Shield and have AC 18 for far less investment, and for less investment his AC 19 with Half Plate. To max out AC at 20 you need significant investment, likely two ASIs in a primary stat, and three ASIs in a secondary or tertiary stat at the opportunity cost of useful feats.
10. Really? Most classes get Simple Weapon Proficiency and Martial weapons is usually only about ~+1 damage per attack. I honestly don't think that is worth that much outside of niche builds. Making it a half feat and giving a +1 feels much better than the old Weapon Master feat.
11. Sure, if someone spends a ton of resources to make their Constitution Saves unbelievably high they get another spell slot for each spell level with a very minor chance of exhaustion, but is that broken? For all the work put into that it seems worth it. It doesn't grant above a 5th level slot, and action economy is still being obeyed. With my variant rules on exhaustion dropping to 0 exhaustion is more of a concern. The vast majority of the time the spellcaster will be taking a moderate risk of exhaustion when they get desperate enough to use one of those slots.
12. Yeah, it is a bit of book keeping, but there are many such abilities in 5e so when in Rome...

Since these were the points we disagreed on :P
9. I guess you're pretty much right. Giving monk class features to non-monks just feels a bit icky. Casters are pretty SAD already, which means that they are well-suited to pick up these feats and remove one of their core weaknesses. Then again, now they have more feat options...
10. Once again, yeah, probably right. The fighting styles are a much bigger deal than the proficiencies.
11. My thought was that it feels strong when you're at, say, level 9 and you have two fifth level spells and everyone else has one. Or when you're at 7th and have an extra firewall. Top-level spells typically trivialize encounters. If you're only having six encounters a day, trivializing one more is a big deal. The investment isn't actually that big, since pumping CON saves as high as possible is something many casters do anyway. I don't know, if you're taking Resilient (CON) as well as this, as well as using a paladin class feature... I guess that's a pretty huge investment.
12.Sigh... I know.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Spoiler: Passingly relevant quotes

Show

My one critique is on the improvements on the base damage on the mace. I can understand why- the real weapon is a monster in close combat and is notably better for dealing with armored enemies than more common bladed weaponry, and it really helps out melee clerics that aren't tempest or war. But from a balance perspective, this underrates martial weapons for any Strength-based sword n' board user by making it identical in damage capacity to anything from the martial list. The poor warhammer in particular can go weep softly in a corner, since it deals the same damage type too. The versatile trait isn't enough to make up for this, since it's rarely used as it is.

I don't think offering a side benefit to martial one-handers would break the game all that much if you'd prefer to keep the mace's d8. Maybe strip the side benefits off of the 'Feats' UA and make them bog standard for martial weaponry? Not the +1's, oh god no, but things like the OA buffs to swords. It would make using a longsword over a mace desirable if you can get it, and let the warhammer put down that Ben and Jerry's and rejoin the usable weapons list.

The Mace... yep, the good old fashioned mace is kind of between a rock and a hard place. I agree that making it a d8 took some of the thunder away from the versatile Longsword, Warhammer, and Battleaxe. But, versatile is something that can come up in play, and the rest of my rules make using a Versatile weapon more viable. What is the other option? Leave it a d6 where it is inferior to spears, javelins, and quarterstaffs. Worse, as a d6 under stock 5e it is strictly inferior than spears, javelins, quartersaffs, and even handaxes.

At least this way it fills a niche on the table and isn't as good as a Martial weapon, but isn't strictly inferior to any other weapon. One goal of my rebalance of weapons is that no weapon is strictly inferior to a comparable weapon.

GWM: There have been several threads lately that talk about making -5/+10 and its variations into a generic feature that is available to all weapons. Using -5/+10 or its variations once per turn wouldn't be fully balanced across classes most likely, but at least offering it to every build would bring a better baseline balance for this feature. I'd also suggest making it scale: use Disadvantage instead of -5 and Prof*2 instead of -10. If disadvantage is a problem then you can keep a static negative, though I'd heavily encourage not using -prof as a downward scaling feature would lose value as you level for most builds which doesn't make much sense.

This has me thinking about the weapons list and differentiating everything in general. In practice, there's no real difference between a greatsword or a maul, though conceptually they're extremely different. I wouldn't want to screw with the damage dice (and there's only so much you could do that anyway), so that leaves any changes to be up to traits.

4e attempted something like this, but I'd rather not reintroduce martial powers. The feats UA had a couple good ideas, but the +1 to hit screws with bounded accuracy and it shouldn't take a feat to tell that these weapons do different things. Part of the problem is that resistances to specific physical damage sources (B/P or S, and not just all three) are extremely scarce. In fact, I don't think they exist in any official monster lists at all.

I'm not sure which would be easier- increasing the instances of specific B/P/S resistances or find good powers that don't screw with the flow of the game.

So something I was thinking about on the walk home: what if you took the -5/+10 mechanic out of the relevant feats and instead imposed a system-wide ability to do -prof./+2*prof., but limited it to martial weapons? Really give the martial weapons a true distinction from the simple weapons besides a couple of extra damage points? Then you can keep increased damage die sizes, and you won't have to fear about the martial ones being outclassed, eg. mace vs warhammer.

Did you purposely not include base (bludgeoning) shield bash damage on your weapon table? Not saying that that's a bad thing, I was just curious.

Are you going to be implementing a special materials section? I've got some very minor special material rules that I use at my own table (I'm a 3.5e grognard, what can I say?). Just little things, like mithral armor not having a strength requirement and the like.

[Zman]

Since these were the points we disagreed on :P
9. I guess you're pretty much right. Giving monk class features to non-monks just feels a bit icky. Casters are pretty SAD already, which means that they are well-suited to pick up these feats and remove one of their core weaknesses. Then again, now they have more feat options...
10. Once again, yeah, probably right. The fighting styles are a much bigger deal than the proficiencies.
11. My thought was that it feels strong when you're at, say, level 9 and you have two fifth level spells and everyone else has one. Or when you're at 7th and have an extra firewall. Top-level spells typically trivialize encounters. If you're only having six encounters a day, trivializing one more is a big deal. The investment isn't actually that big, since pumping CON saves as high as possible is something many casters do anyway. I don't know, if you're taking Resilient (CON) as well as this, as well as using a paladin class feature... I guess that's a pretty huge investment.
12.Sigh... I know.

Appreciate the followup.

9. Oh, I've gone over these a couple of times in my head, haha. But thats the beauty of them, if a Caster takes one of these three feats then they are no longer SAD, they become MAD, because now they need not only their primary Int, Wis, or Cha, but also need more Dex. Dex 14 and a 20 Cha with Powerful Persona is only an AC17. A 14 Dex and medium armor proficiency hits AC19 with a shield for less resource investment. I know it feels bad giving out a monk class feature, but I did it with fighters and fighting styles. And it gives that pacifist priest you've always wanted to play becomes viable, no need to dip and hadwave away his martial arts.
10. I value a fighting style as a half feat, its less than half of what you'd get dipping fighter etc.
11. Sure it is strong, but so are many feats that are doing things a lot more than once per day when you're reusing that big spell. Not to mention it loses its values beyond level 9. You pretty much picked the feats pinacle. It is quite a bit weaker before that and after that, it only really hits its stride at the mid levels. And does take a lot to mitigate the risks. 1 Feat Desperate Spellcaster. 2 Feats bumping casting stat. 1 feat Warcaster. 1 Feat Resilient Con. That is five feats by my count, and most games will only have 3 feats at that point. And that is if you're sticking with that 14 Con or so you started the game with.
12. Personally I'm ok with them, but they can get annoying.

[Kryx]

just that my solution greatly alleviates the problems the -5/+10 causes

I don't believe it does. The feature is still very problematic at early levels.

By your own "no D&D 6.0" your charge change and a myriad of other changes are just as impactful if not more than the change I'm suggesting. I know you want smaller changes, but that reasoning seems to be being used as an excuse to avoid a change that you personally don't like (which is totally fine).

I'll provide a link to the discussion about making it a default feature and then let the issue drop if you do not care to investigate that thread or speak on it further.

what if you took the -5/+10 mechanic out of the relevant feats and instead imposed a system-wide ability to do -prof./+2*prof., but limited it to martial weapons?

This is what I was suggesting (minus the martial weapons and the to hit scaling negatively as you level which is not a good feature for the vast majorty of builds).

[Zman]

I have, just because it seems easier to step up/down dice in certain wargames that use the mechanic; D3, D5, D7, D9, etc., so while I am unlikely to use your rules the "odd" dice mechanic is easily solvable with a quick order to the UK or USA web stores that carry them.

Yeah, if you really wanted to run around wielding war picks a magic marker and a dice works, or you can order actual d3s.

So something I was thinking about on the walk home: what if you took the -5/+10 mechanic out of the relevant feats and instead imposed a system-wide ability to do -prof./+2*prof., but limited it to martial weapons? Really give the martial weapons a true distinction from the simple weapons besides a couple of extra damage points? Then you can keep increased damage die sizes, and you won't have to fear about the martial ones being outclassed, eg. mace vs warhammer.

Did you purposely not include base (bludgeoning) shield bash damage on your weapon table? Not saying that that's a bad thing, I was just curious.

Are you going to be implementing a special materials section? I've got some very minor special material rules that I use at my own table (I'm a 3.5e grognard, what can I say?). Just little things, like mithral armor not having a strength requirement and the like.

I still don't like how damage output is affected when it can be applied to every attack. It has situation damage spikes that are extremely high ie multiple attacks and advantage.

I'd be far more amenable to system wide "called shot" for -prof/+2xprof if it was still limited to only one attack per turn and probably not usable on AoOs.

Purposefully, not really. I didn't want a normal buckler to require martial weapon proficiency... and didn't see the bludgeoning from a buckler in the same light as one actually meant to be weaponized. So, I guess it was mostly intentional.

Special Materials? Well, I do use some, but I treat them as magic items in their own right. So, if I every get around to putting all my magic items and item revisions to paper like my MM Expansion, they'll be right in there.

[Zman]

I don't believe it does. The feature is still very problematic at early levels.

By your own "no D&D 6.0" your charge change and a myriad of other changes are just as impactful if not more than the change I'm suggesting. I know you want smaller changes, but that reasoning seems to be being used as an excuse to avoid a change that you personally don't like (which is totally fine).

I'll provide a link to the discussion about making it a default feature and then let the issue drop if you do not care to investigate that thread or speak on it further.

Can you quantify "very problematic"? It is still "better" than stock since the crit/kill BA attack can't utilize it. Sure, there is a period around levels 2-4 where Reckless Attack, Vow of Emnity, make that one attack per round better than the rest, but the difference is at least muted and the spike damage situations ie Berserker Reckless attacking are definitely better. Archery is "better" when combined with it now. PAM can't abuse it. One Extra attack hits the tables its balancing effects are felt to a greater effect. When its only one attack people feel the gamble, and people's risk aversion plays a big role as well.

One big concern I have about making it a default feature is that it does not solve the spike damage situations that advantage creates.

Its the better, not perfect argument.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Read over the rest of it. Overall, your tweaks make for a more consistent game than base 5e. There's a couple good ideas I might snatch. A lot of it's up to taste, but I don't consider that a bad thing.

E10 is an interesting twist on leveling mechanics. It's more of a dedication than simply using your other rules, but the math appears sound and it caters to a particular taste. Again, not a bad thing. I may even have a campaign idea rattling around that would be better served this way than by standard leveling. I think it would especially fit in with an Eberron game.