D&D 5E Innovations I'd like to keep in 5E

hmm I'm probably in a minority

Innovations in healing from 4e I like is clerics being able to heal as a minor action, even the entire party, in one shot. That is cool. But! A fighter with 50 HP and 28 AC gets healed for 3d8+10, let's say, with a cure serious wounds spell in 3.x or PF. Now you can either spend two to heal the fighter at the end of the fight, or one on the fighter and one on himself or the rogue. What do you do?

As 4e taught us, aside from healing surges granting recipient-based healing, is that having higher defenses is tantamount to having more HP, of course this is not true in a game where all the hits go towards the fighter, but in a game where enemies would target the wizards first to kill them off, more like 3.5 (let's say marking or mark punishment did not exist), you would get a more balanced drain, less frequency of hits but the ones that do target them land more often, and do a greater fraction of the recipient's HP. What am I saying here? I think fighters should take a few more heals, or standard action heals or higher level ones, to amount to the same fraction of HP restored as one targetting the rogue or wizard. I think that's a feature, not a bug. So, spend two minor actions, or three, in one round, and cast a cure serious, a cure moderate, and a cure light to top off the fighter, if he's really in such a bind. I really dislike that in 3.x and PF clerics, even though they can spontanously convert into heals, end up spending many of their standard actions to buff allies or debuff enemies or heal. When do I get to fight, huh?

I spent tons of effort getting my Axe swing all magicky and dangerous and stuff. But I rarely got to use it. Also, anecdotally, with spell conversions, I rarely had a given day where I could not heal up the entire party with what spells I had left. Granted, my PF cleric had the healing subdomain that boosts heals by 50%, but still. Even before I got there, we rarely camped not at full or reasonably close to full (or at least capable of surviving what might attack us during the night).

What am I saying? I prefer spells to scale with the proficiency of the caster, with a Con bonus for the receiver as others have suggested. A cleric's balancing act is often between how much healing to do, vs keeping that Remove Poison spell handy because when you need it, you REALLY need it. Now. I guess it's up to DMs to give a good variety of monsters to keep clerics on their toes about what spells they prepare, so it doesn't get monotonous, but I'd like healing spells to be minor actions, at least as you go up levels.

Maybe standard->move->minor upgrade. Action economy is big in D&D, even for a cleric. Being able to "nova" more healing to restore a fighter when you don't have any "Heal" big heals left, is good. Or maybe a feat or a theme or archetype that lets you do that. It would make me want to play a cleric again. Wait, what am I saying, even despite the crappy action economy of PF clerics' normal heals, their channel heals are super good. They should get some free metamagic feats to boost those though. I never had enough feats to make a halfway decent warrior who could channel in the midst of combat without healing all his foes. Sucks that Charisma and Wisdom and Strength and Con are all necessary for certain builds.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've something thought of doing it a different way altogether - unifying mechanic is PCs roll all their attacks, and NPCs/Monsters don't.
<snippage>

Never implemented it, but thought it could work. :D

I did it briefly for a heavily homebrewed 3e game, after I read the suggestion somewhere. It worked quite well. I gained a bunch of space at my end of the table (no need for dice or rolling space..), but it did sometimes feel a little odd on the back end of no dice. The other (minor) issue is that players who don't DM aren't often used to rolling three of four d20s on a turn, and often don't have enough of different colors. So that can sometimes take some time.
 

Yes. If they go back to something resembling 3rd edition or earlier then a cure wounds spell should heal 1/4 of the hit points of the character being healed rather than 1d8 plus level of the cleric. Maybe it won't follow that specific formula but it I think it should be based off the character being healed and not the character doing the healing.

Perhaps for higher level cure spells the cleric can tack on additonal bonus due to their power. But the baseline should be set by the character being healed.

I've always wondered about this issue. You've got (pre 4e) these Cure X Wounds spells. So why not scale them as you suggest using different dice:

X die size
Light d4/level of target
Moderate d6/...
Serious d8/...
Critical d10/...

You still have the "still fighting at full while critically wounded" issue, but this might to a lot to alleviate some of HPs problems. It might also help ease the "healbot" demands on the Cleric.
 

1. Using attack bonuses and ascending AC instead of THAC0 or the charts.

2. Recategorizing saving throws as Fort/Ref/Will instead of the old five categories (but still keeping AD&D style static numbers to save against).

Aside from those two things, I don't see much worth keeping.
 

I've always wondered about this issue. You've got (pre 4e) these Cure X Wounds spells. So why not scale them as you suggest using different dice:

X die size
Light d4/level of target
Moderate d6/...
Serious d8/...
Critical d10/...

You still have the "still fighting at full while critically wounded" issue, but this might to a lot to alleviate some of HPs problems. It might also help ease the "healbot" demands on the Cleric.
Many years ago, I guess it was around 1985, I was running AD&D for a group of players, some of whom were very critical of the game.

One of the many complaints was that the Cure...Wounds spells made no sense. If a 6 hp wound to a peasant was fatal, and a 6hp wound to a 1st level rogue nearly so, but a 6hp wound to a 4th level fighter was a mere scratch, why did it take the same cure light wounds spell to cure a scratch as a potentially-mortal wound? It made the high-hp characters seem kinda 'needy,' really.

Being a big fan and defender of AD&D back in the day - particularly the 'fact' that hit points didn't represent just absorbing more punishment - I thought about that for a long while, and finally realized the problem with their complaint: It was absolutely right.

The solution I came up with was a 'wound system.' A wound of up 1/4 your hp total hps, was a 'Light Wound.' Cure Light Wounds could heal 1d8 damage, /or/ completely heal one individual 'Light Wound.' 1/2 your hit points was Serious, 3/4 Critical, and more than that 'Mortal.' I suppose it's obvious how Cure Serious and Cure Critical worked.
 

Many years ago, I guess it was around 1985, I was running AD&D for a group of players, some of whom were very critical of the game.

One of the many complaints was that the Cure...Wounds spells made no sense. If a 6 hp wound to a peasant was fatal, and a 6hp wound to a 1st level rogue nearly so, but a 6hp wound to a 4th level fighter was a mere scratch, why did it take the same cure light wounds spell to cure a scratch as a potentially-mortal wound? It made the high-hp characters seem kinda 'needy,' really.

Being a big fan and defender of AD&D back in the day - particularly the 'fact' that hit points didn't represent just absorbing more punishment - I thought about that for a long while, and finally realized the problem with their complaint: It was absolutely right.

The solution I came up with was a 'wound system.' A wound of up 1/4 your hp total hps, was a 'Light Wound.' Cure Light Wounds could heal 1d8 damage, /or/ completely heal one individual 'Light Wound.' 1/2 your hit points was Serious, 3/4 Critical, and more than that 'Mortal.' I suppose it's obvious how Cure Serious and Cure Critical worked.

I'd certainly be willing to give such a system a whirl.
 

But what did those different XP charts ADD to the game?

Mechanically, it made character classes easier to balance. In 1e, paladins are essentially fighters with some additional abilities. In exchange for those additional abilities, they have to earn more experience in order to gain a level.

Once you make fighters and paladins use the same XP chart, you then have to give something to the fighter in order to keep them balanced.
 

Mechanically, it made character classes easier to balance. In 1e, paladins are essentially fighters with some additional abilities. In exchange for those additional abilities, they have to earn more experience in order to gain a level.

Once you make fighters and paladins use the same XP chart, you then have to give something to the fighter in order to keep them balanced.

Well considering that nobody's been interested in giving the fighter ANYTHING for several editions now, maybe we should start thinking in terms of buffing the fighter instead of how much we can make life harder for everyone else to make the fighter feel better.

Also: differing XP advancements makes for hell on non-XP games, I don't like XP at all. I don't want to think about how much those 17 goblins were worth, I don't want to worry if my players are cheating their XP, I don't want the rules lawyer to argue with me that the lvl7 Glatinous Cube was really 3456 XP and not 3479 XP, meaning the party didn't level and now needs 10xp so they have to go kill a kobold. Then there's using XP as a resource which always shows up in editions with different advancement tables.

XP is a meta-game tool used to track how accomplished your players are. It shouldn't be a balancing tool or a resource or anything at all. If you can't balance the classes on their own merits, throwing on superficial "well you level slower!" isn't going to help. It just means Timmy will be shooting death rays next week instead of this one, it means Timmy will still be OP compared to the fighter in a week instead of today.
 

Mechanically, it made character classes easier to balance. In 1e, paladins are essentially fighters with some additional abilities. In exchange for those additional abilities, they have to earn more experience in order to gain a level.

.

Exactly. I liked the old system. For example in 2e the thief achieves first level with just 1,250 xp, while the wizard requires 2,500 xp for second level. It is a balance issue. The thief generally remains a level ahead under the system. At 10,000 xp he is 5th level (the wizard is 4th at 10,000). At 160,000 the thief is 10th level, but the wizard doesn't reach 10th until 250,000 xp. Eventually the thief is ahead by two levels. So a thief with 1,100,000 xp is 15th level, while a wizard with 1,125,000 is only 13th.
 

Well considering that nobody's been interested in giving the fighter ANYTHING for several editions now, maybe we should start thinking in terms of buffing the fighter instead of how much we can make life harder for everyone else to make the fighter feel better.

I like fighters, feel they could be improved a bit (1e and 2e they were okay, but lagged behind in 3e at times), but want them to stay simple and don't want the encounter/daily/at will stuff of 4e. Would you be okay with attaching power attack to the fighter's attack (and removing it from the general feat list) so they always have access to a broader damage range. This would be modified mind you so the numbers work. For example initially fighters may have a penalty tp attack for a corresponding bonus on damage, but this would change as they level (so eventually there is a minimal penalty). Alternately you could cap the power attack and reduce the cap as the fighter levels. This is what I think has been missing, a consistent way for the fighter to stand out as a damage machine in armed combat. They should also be much tougher than other characters.
 

Remove ads

Top