Swarmkeeper
Hero
Yes to this. I’ve found that a key feature to 5e is flexibility. Tweaking some rules here and there for the enjoyment of your table is implicitly encouraged. So... wouldn’t change a thing.
D&D 5E What would you change?
Yes to this. I’ve found that a key feature to 5e is flexibility. Tweaking some rules here and there for the enjoyment of your table is implicitly encouraged. So... wouldn’t change a thing.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
You have some interesting points, some I agree with and that aren't to my personal taste. Here's some feedback that even where I don't agree may be useful for refining the ideas.
Every campaign I've been in has eneded int he 8-11th range. Say 90% of my total play time is 8th an lower. At hose levels, the extra proficiency bonuses you put in besides expert are using just a +1 because of how low proficiency is. If you are going to add complexity, don't make it for a trivially overlooked adjustment.
I excluded Expert. Comparing it to the current Expertise which double proficiency, this is also in the +/-1 of the current system, except now all the way up to 13th so 100% of mty play experience.
In other words, this doesn't have enough affect on play to justify adding complexity. If you want to add additional tiers, make them meaningful. If they aren't meaningful, you're just complicating the system for little reason.
These are pretty interesting, and your logic seems sound to me.
I think you could do a good job in an RPG with these ideas. I don't know if they bolt onto 5e particularly well unless you also change a number of the surrounding affects of those design choices.
Either they all are needed, or you can pick any few. If you can do a high-WIS-only fighter, you've strayed fairly far from D&D sacred cows already, so I'm going to instead assume that you mean all are valuable to characters.
5e doesn't give the ability to advance lots of stats if they all are needed. As a matter of fact,t here's a real faustian choice in 5e about ASI (vs. half-feat) vs. feat, and feats are what give characters choices and make them more interesting. Requiring spending ASI/feat selections more on "math bonuses" to stay relevant will ultimately make characters less interesting and less varied from each other.
If you change it, say giving ASIs that can give +1 to three stats, you have ability score inflation. That doesn't play well with bounded accuracy, it negates the assumptions that everyone will have some Achilles Heels in terms of poor saves, and frankly some classes can really take better advantage of several good ability scores than others, so there would also need to be class rebalancing.
In other words, it doesn't work with the current 5e ability score system, and would take a lot of work on the surroundings to include a more robust ability score increase system.
Having a large changes (like half damage) invalidate a bunch of build concepts. And frankly, I'd rather a game allow me my fantasy archetypes instead of penalizing me with too much realism in my escapist fantasy game.
Workable changes make sense, though again make sure they are meaningful changes. Also make sure that they never need to be recalculated in combat regardless if you are fighting a pixie or t-rex - combat is the longest single mechanical activity by the wall clock and introducing additional math comes only with overwhelming new advantages.
Why? Rather, if it scales then everything about it should scale,including cost as a percentage of wealth. If a healing potion is a considerable investment for a 1st level character, a potions that heals the same percentage of HPs for a 5th level character should still be a considerable investment. Now, it may not scale that much, but then the price doesn't scale that much.
Which brings us back to - if the price differs, do we want that there is mysterious inflation because you are higher level, or just more effective (and costly) potions which keep verisimilitude and make narrative sense?
I'm absolutely fine for this. The 5e design space is easily set up to allow new classes and a non-warrior cleric makes plenty of sense.
I have both thematic and mechanical issues with this.
Thematically, for most classes (*cough*dang-fighter*cough*), the subclasses are specific themes. Swapping back and forth undercuts that.
Mechanically, some features are better than others though it usually averages out in the end. This means that picking and chosing could end up effectively reducing choice as the "best" options per level get picked and characters end up getting more and more alike.
Mechanically it also has the issue that you need mroe playtesting and balancing because you can create more combinations. Oftne this means either some combonations get much more powerful (*cough*3.5*cough*) or everythign gets watered down so the choices can't end up as force multipliers. Neither is a direction I like.
Think about exactly what the design space of subclasses is (compared to classes), and that each provides a distinct flavor and set of mechanics is a real part of that.
20th level is a myth for 99% of gamers with the possible exception of a one shot adventure to give it a try. And for the 1% it's not a myth for, I doubt it takes up more than 5% of their total time playing. Do what you want.
As I mentioned originally, some of these I like and some I think need some additional consideration to make them and their repercussions fit into the existing 5e design. Some of those are still ideas I'd like to see, but in an RPG that incorporates them from the ground up.
Every campaign I've been in has eneded int he 8-11th range. Say 90% of my total play time is 8th an lower. At hose levels, the extra proficiency bonuses you put in besides expert are using just a +1 because of how low proficiency is. If you are going to add complexity, don't make it for a trivially overlooked adjustment.
I excluded Expert. Comparing it to the current Expertise which double proficiency, this is also in the +/-1 of the current system, except now all the way up to 13th so 100% of mty play experience.
In other words, this doesn't have enough affect on play to justify adding complexity. If you want to add additional tiers, make them meaningful. If they aren't meaningful, you're just complicating the system for little reason.
These are pretty interesting, and your logic seems sound to me.
I think you could do a good job in an RPG with these ideas. I don't know if they bolt onto 5e particularly well unless you also change a number of the surrounding affects of those design choices.
Either they all are needed, or you can pick any few. If you can do a high-WIS-only fighter, you've strayed fairly far from D&D sacred cows already, so I'm going to instead assume that you mean all are valuable to characters.
5e doesn't give the ability to advance lots of stats if they all are needed. As a matter of fact,t here's a real faustian choice in 5e about ASI (vs. half-feat) vs. feat, and feats are what give characters choices and make them more interesting. Requiring spending ASI/feat selections more on "math bonuses" to stay relevant will ultimately make characters less interesting and less varied from each other.
If you change it, say giving ASIs that can give +1 to three stats, you have ability score inflation. That doesn't play well with bounded accuracy, it negates the assumptions that everyone will have some Achilles Heels in terms of poor saves, and frankly some classes can really take better advantage of several good ability scores than others, so there would also need to be class rebalancing.
In other words, it doesn't work with the current 5e ability score system, and would take a lot of work on the surroundings to include a more robust ability score increase system.
Having a large changes (like half damage) invalidate a bunch of build concepts. And frankly, I'd rather a game allow me my fantasy archetypes instead of penalizing me with too much realism in my escapist fantasy game.
Workable changes make sense, though again make sure they are meaningful changes. Also make sure that they never need to be recalculated in combat regardless if you are fighting a pixie or t-rex - combat is the longest single mechanical activity by the wall clock and introducing additional math comes only with overwhelming new advantages.
Why? Rather, if it scales then everything about it should scale,including cost as a percentage of wealth. If a healing potion is a considerable investment for a 1st level character, a potions that heals the same percentage of HPs for a 5th level character should still be a considerable investment. Now, it may not scale that much, but then the price doesn't scale that much.
Which brings us back to - if the price differs, do we want that there is mysterious inflation because you are higher level, or just more effective (and costly) potions which keep verisimilitude and make narrative sense?
I'm absolutely fine for this. The 5e design space is easily set up to allow new classes and a non-warrior cleric makes plenty of sense.
I have both thematic and mechanical issues with this.
Thematically, for most classes (*cough*dang-fighter*cough*), the subclasses are specific themes. Swapping back and forth undercuts that.
Mechanically, some features are better than others though it usually averages out in the end. This means that picking and chosing could end up effectively reducing choice as the "best" options per level get picked and characters end up getting more and more alike.
Mechanically it also has the issue that you need mroe playtesting and balancing because you can create more combinations. Oftne this means either some combonations get much more powerful (*cough*3.5*cough*) or everythign gets watered down so the choices can't end up as force multipliers. Neither is a direction I like.
Think about exactly what the design space of subclasses is (compared to classes), and that each provides a distinct flavor and set of mechanics is a real part of that.
20th level is a myth for 99% of gamers with the possible exception of a one shot adventure to give it a try. And for the 1% it's not a myth for, I doubt it takes up more than 5% of their total time playing. Do what you want.
As I mentioned originally, some of these I like and some I think need some additional consideration to make them and their repercussions fit into the existing 5e design. Some of those are still ideas I'd like to see, but in an RPG that incorporates them from the ground up.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
There's times I find myself coming down on the opposite side of discussions than you, but I endorse what you are saying here to the hilt.
The forced number of encounters per day and all of the different resource-management cycles of the classes balanced for that is by a huge margin my biggest problem with 5e. (And I really enjoy the system, this isn't a bitch comment.)
Your other points are also things I struggle with.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I see several people wishing that subclassing started at 1st level. Mechanically, I feel your pain, especially when developing subclasses like a rogue Scout who should have outdoors-y skills, etc.
That said, pushing back subclasses to 3rd is something I like a lot in the character narrative. Partially because I don't see starting at 1st to be a sacred cow.
If you want to have a "locals make good" or "coming of age", you can start at 1st level and you're just a half step past nobody. You're not a knight or a whatever, you've got some skills that if-the-gods-are-smiling will help you live through whatever you need to do. When you advance to 3rd and take your paladin oath or choose your wizardly path, it's a milestone in your character development. I like having that option.
On the other hand, you can start at 3rd. You're newly minted. Serious, able to do things that other's can't. Make a change in the world. Except for that misfit over there, that master-of-none who's handy in a brawl or with his axe, but now keeps rubbing that disquieting tattoo that covers both arms. (Multiclassed, not up to 3rd in any class.)
Or you can start as Heroes at 5th. This is probably close to where 4e started characters in terms of full run out of the starting gate. You'll make a difference in this world, or you'll die trying. Or both. But this isn't your first rodeo nor your first fireball.
EDIT: I like the idea of extending what the warlock does with a patron and a subclass, allowing more than one choice. So perhaps a cleric will pick a domain at 1st, but a subclass (cloistered sage, warrior of faith, preacher, what have you) just like the other classes do that comes about at 3rd.
That said, pushing back subclasses to 3rd is something I like a lot in the character narrative. Partially because I don't see starting at 1st to be a sacred cow.
If you want to have a "locals make good" or "coming of age", you can start at 1st level and you're just a half step past nobody. You're not a knight or a whatever, you've got some skills that if-the-gods-are-smiling will help you live through whatever you need to do. When you advance to 3rd and take your paladin oath or choose your wizardly path, it's a milestone in your character development. I like having that option.
On the other hand, you can start at 3rd. You're newly minted. Serious, able to do things that other's can't. Make a change in the world. Except for that misfit over there, that master-of-none who's handy in a brawl or with his axe, but now keeps rubbing that disquieting tattoo that covers both arms. (Multiclassed, not up to 3rd in any class.)
Or you can start as Heroes at 5th. This is probably close to where 4e started characters in terms of full run out of the starting gate. You'll make a difference in this world, or you'll die trying. Or both. But this isn't your first rodeo nor your first fireball.
EDIT: I like the idea of extending what the warlock does with a patron and a subclass, allowing more than one choice. So perhaps a cleric will pick a domain at 1st, but a subclass (cloistered sage, warrior of faith, preacher, what have you) just like the other classes do that comes about at 3rd.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
