CapnZapp
Legend
part of my series on how D&D 5.1 Edition might look like.
this is not meant as a homebrew or houserule thread
None of my experienced gamers choose to play a “regular” fighter, as typified by the slow but strong Dwarf with his trusty battleaxe.
This is because they've all figured out that 5E makes it too easy to create characters with range. And range makes all the difference in the world.
Either they play ranged characters or they play melee characters with atypically high Speed.
All the optimization in the world doesn't matter if you can't actually reach your enemy to hit him. You can carefully minmax your damage per round, but it all goes down the drain if you lose an attack because the next enemy is out of reach.
Characters with range don't have that problem.
But the game isn't set up to handle this kind of party. The game still expects the trusty Dwarf with his axe.
Monsters hit points melt away before they can close into melee. If they ever reach melee. Characters that make sure they can always hit the foe that presents the greatest threat have a considerably easier time than characters that have no option but to hack their way past the meat shields. A party that is able to focus all its wrath on a single enemy at a time is way more effective than when each hero fights his own opponent. Speed and range is key to controlling the battlefield, and equally important: to deny that control for the enemy.
Monsters are simply not equipped to play on a battlefield that doesn't stay put like a slow Dwarf. They read as if their designers weren't aware of the powers and combinations they have given the player characters. Speed and range for one thing, but also battlefield control effects. Simple things, like forcing the monsters to a ranged battle. Many many monsters need to close into melee before they become dangerous. Yet their stat blocks doesn't provide the DM with any reliable ways of ensuring that this ever happens, should the players politely decline to play slow Dwarves with Axes.
There are of course ways to mitigate this. But each and every such after-the-fact solution will get old eventually. You can't have more than a few ambushes before the players give up on stealth. Rewriting the game completely is out of the question. Even WotC handing out more tools to the monsters is something that probably will not happen in a long time.
Instead, here are my suggestions on how to tweak the fundamental rules of the game, together with explanations of what the tweak is meant to fix and how the game should be improved. You might not have a particular problem and that's fine – just don't reply in that case. If on the other hand, you share my problem, but you see a flaw in either my reasoning or my fix, you're welcome to engage in constructive criticism.
1. Ranged fire is simply not costly enough in this edition. Ranged fire is inherently superior to melee (cue “don't bring a knife to a gun fight”), but melee combat is a cornerstone of the traditional fantasy genre that D&D is about. So every fantasy game (that isn't alternative or edgy, at least) has included rules that greatly favor melee over range, since no rational gamer would choose to specialize in melee otherwise. The most basic change is of course the hit point in itself. Its basic function is to ensure the axe dwarf lives long enough to actually reach the goblins, even if they all shoot arrows at him.
But more specifically, ranged fire has traditionally done weaker damage than melee. Shooting into melee was penalized, as was shooting while in melee yourself. There's been a trend to loosen these restrictions for a long time now, but in my experience 5E crosses an invisible line where there are simply not enough restrictions left! About the only one is inertia – the way players create Axe Dwarves out of tradition and nostalgia, not realizing that the reason they started creating them (in short; Axe Dwarves being better in combat) is mostly gone now.
This change is meant to fix this. Put the genie back into the bottle, as it were. Instead of actually fixing the shortcomings in how 5E monsters deal with highly mobile highly ranged (yet still fearsomely deadly and sturdy) characters, why not change the characters to match the hero image the monster designers actually had in mind?
Let me spell that out for you: more melee characters, fewer ranged characters. More slow characters, fewer quick characters. More ways for monsters to do their thing, fewer ways for characters to win before the monsters have time to do their thing.
2. Tweak the armor tables so that heavy armor always yields the highest AC. Then add back the Speed penalty of heavy armor. In other words, make players choose between great AC and great Speed. The way 5E lets players eat the cake and still keep it simply isn't backed up by the monster stats.
We'll decide against boosting heavy armor, and instead nerf light armor. Which you choose doesn't really matter, but ACs get high enough already, and characters certainly don't need the boost.
When I say “nerf light armor” what I really mean is “nerf the possibility to maximize light armor to the same high levels as heavy armor.” I'm not about to nerf your AC 10 regular Joe. Unoptimized Wizards and Rogues with AC 15 certainly isn't the problem. Maximized Monks and Barbarians with AC 20+ is.
No armor AC = 10 + Dex modifier (max 2)
Studded Leather AC = 12 + Dex modifier (max 2)
Mage Armor AC = 13 + Dex modifier (max 2)
Unarmored Defense = 10 + Wis/Con modifier + Dex modifier (max 2)
… (I'm sure you see the pattern here)
This increases the value of shields and heavier armors. Dexterity loses a bit of glory, but don't worry: it's probably still the best ability.
Remember that this doesn't impact your unoptimized Wizard at all. But it puts a damper on the speed demons, the monks and barbarians with Speed 50 and still AC 20!
2b. Then we come to heavy armor. I said I would add back the speed penalty, but I won't. There's nothing wrong with Speed 30 after all, and since Speed 15 is nigh-unplayable, there is already a ban on wearing platemail without a decent Strength in practice. I'll make the following change instead:
3. Now you might think the nerf to ranged fire doesn't impact spellcasters, making them the new kings of ranged fire. And you would have a point. But more pressingly, I have a problem with endless cantrips in regards to building a believable world.
If you can Firebolt every round of the day, you would be able to burn through the thickest wall. If you can cast Mending every round, say bye bye to craftsmen. And so on. The way Eldritch Blast would be far superior to any archer is a comparatively small issue, but sure, it is still an issue.
As compensation, cantrip use is made more flexible.
I believe this goes a long way to explain why casters don't cantrip their days away. It doesn't change combat that much, but it does provide a reason why every archer doesn't go to Warlock school... instead, it should mean spellcasters again reach for mundane weaponry to have as backups for the first time since this edition came out. Not a bad thing, if you ask me.
That's it for now. Thoughts?
(And please do remember: let's make this a thread where we buy into the premise and offer constructive criticism. If you don't see the problems I'm having, or you're convinced I'm playing the game badwrongfun, feel free to post elsewhere but not in this thread. This thread is for people that recognize my problems in their games)
Regards,
Zapp
this is not meant as a homebrew or houserule thread
None of my experienced gamers choose to play a “regular” fighter, as typified by the slow but strong Dwarf with his trusty battleaxe.
This is because they've all figured out that 5E makes it too easy to create characters with range. And range makes all the difference in the world.
Either they play ranged characters or they play melee characters with atypically high Speed.
All the optimization in the world doesn't matter if you can't actually reach your enemy to hit him. You can carefully minmax your damage per round, but it all goes down the drain if you lose an attack because the next enemy is out of reach.
Characters with range don't have that problem.
But the game isn't set up to handle this kind of party. The game still expects the trusty Dwarf with his axe.
Monsters hit points melt away before they can close into melee. If they ever reach melee. Characters that make sure they can always hit the foe that presents the greatest threat have a considerably easier time than characters that have no option but to hack their way past the meat shields. A party that is able to focus all its wrath on a single enemy at a time is way more effective than when each hero fights his own opponent. Speed and range is key to controlling the battlefield, and equally important: to deny that control for the enemy.
Monsters are simply not equipped to play on a battlefield that doesn't stay put like a slow Dwarf. They read as if their designers weren't aware of the powers and combinations they have given the player characters. Speed and range for one thing, but also battlefield control effects. Simple things, like forcing the monsters to a ranged battle. Many many monsters need to close into melee before they become dangerous. Yet their stat blocks doesn't provide the DM with any reliable ways of ensuring that this ever happens, should the players politely decline to play slow Dwarves with Axes.
There are of course ways to mitigate this. But each and every such after-the-fact solution will get old eventually. You can't have more than a few ambushes before the players give up on stealth. Rewriting the game completely is out of the question. Even WotC handing out more tools to the monsters is something that probably will not happen in a long time.
Instead, here are my suggestions on how to tweak the fundamental rules of the game, together with explanations of what the tweak is meant to fix and how the game should be improved. You might not have a particular problem and that's fine – just don't reply in that case. If on the other hand, you share my problem, but you see a flaw in either my reasoning or my fix, you're welcome to engage in constructive criticism.
0. The only character combination allowed is slow Dwarves with Axes.
Just kidding.1. Ranged fire is simply not costly enough in this edition. Ranged fire is inherently superior to melee (cue “don't bring a knife to a gun fight”), but melee combat is a cornerstone of the traditional fantasy genre that D&D is about. So every fantasy game (that isn't alternative or edgy, at least) has included rules that greatly favor melee over range, since no rational gamer would choose to specialize in melee otherwise. The most basic change is of course the hit point in itself. Its basic function is to ensure the axe dwarf lives long enough to actually reach the goblins, even if they all shoot arrows at him.
But more specifically, ranged fire has traditionally done weaker damage than melee. Shooting into melee was penalized, as was shooting while in melee yourself. There's been a trend to loosen these restrictions for a long time now, but in my experience 5E crosses an invisible line where there are simply not enough restrictions left! About the only one is inertia – the way players create Axe Dwarves out of tradition and nostalgia, not realizing that the reason they started creating them (in short; Axe Dwarves being better in combat) is mostly gone now.
This change is meant to fix this. Put the genie back into the bottle, as it were. Instead of actually fixing the shortcomings in how 5E monsters deal with highly mobile highly ranged (yet still fearsomely deadly and sturdy) characters, why not change the characters to match the hero image the monster designers actually had in mind?
Let me spell that out for you: more melee characters, fewer ranged characters. More slow characters, fewer quick characters. More ways for monsters to do their thing, fewer ways for characters to win before the monsters have time to do their thing.
As a rule, ranged fire always deals Strength-based damage, never Dexterity-based damage.
Thrown finesse weapons remain unchanged (they still allow you to use Dexterity for both attack and damage). 2. Tweak the armor tables so that heavy armor always yields the highest AC. Then add back the Speed penalty of heavy armor. In other words, make players choose between great AC and great Speed. The way 5E lets players eat the cake and still keep it simply isn't backed up by the monster stats.
We'll decide against boosting heavy armor, and instead nerf light armor. Which you choose doesn't really matter, but ACs get high enough already, and characters certainly don't need the boost.
When I say “nerf light armor” what I really mean is “nerf the possibility to maximize light armor to the same high levels as heavy armor.” I'm not about to nerf your AC 10 regular Joe. Unoptimized Wizards and Rogues with AC 15 certainly isn't the problem. Maximized Monks and Barbarians with AC 20+ is.
2a. Lets cap the Dexterity bonus of *any* AC calculation to +2.
Here's a few examples to illustrate what that means:No armor AC = 10 + Dex modifier (max 2)
Studded Leather AC = 12 + Dex modifier (max 2)
Mage Armor AC = 13 + Dex modifier (max 2)
Unarmored Defense = 10 + Wis/Con modifier + Dex modifier (max 2)
… (I'm sure you see the pattern here)
This increases the value of shields and heavier armors. Dexterity loses a bit of glory, but don't worry: it's probably still the best ability.
Remember that this doesn't impact your unoptimized Wizard at all. But it puts a damper on the speed demons, the monks and barbarians with Speed 50 and still AC 20!
2b. Then we come to heavy armor. I said I would add back the speed penalty, but I won't. There's nothing wrong with Speed 30 after all, and since Speed 15 is nigh-unplayable, there is already a ban on wearing platemail without a decent Strength in practice. I'll make the following change instead:
Heavy Armor prevents you from benefiting from a Speed increase
, whether magical or otherwise. A Speed increase can still negate a Speed penalty but that's it.3. Now you might think the nerf to ranged fire doesn't impact spellcasters, making them the new kings of ranged fire. And you would have a point. But more pressingly, I have a problem with endless cantrips in regards to building a believable world.
If you can Firebolt every round of the day, you would be able to burn through the thickest wall. If you can cast Mending every round, say bye bye to craftsmen. And so on. The way Eldritch Blast would be far superior to any archer is a comparatively small issue, but sure, it is still an issue.
Cantrips are no longer unlimited. Instead spellcasters gain four cantrip slots when they first learn to cast cantrips. They gain one additional cantrip slot at character levels 4 and 10, respectively. Cantrip slots recharge after a short rest for all casters.
As compensation, cantrip use is made more flexible.
Cantrips known is changed into cantrips prepared/memorized.
You have access to every cantrip on your class spell list: after a long rest you can change which ones you have prepared/memorized.I believe this goes a long way to explain why casters don't cantrip their days away. It doesn't change combat that much, but it does provide a reason why every archer doesn't go to Warlock school... instead, it should mean spellcasters again reach for mundane weaponry to have as backups for the first time since this edition came out. Not a bad thing, if you ask me.
That's it for now. Thoughts?
(And please do remember: let's make this a thread where we buy into the premise and offer constructive criticism. If you don't see the problems I'm having, or you're convinced I'm playing the game badwrongfun, feel free to post elsewhere but not in this thread. This thread is for people that recognize my problems in their games)
Regards,
Zapp
Last edited:
