D&D 2E (5e + PF2e)/2?

[TheCosmicKid]

I hear a lot of complaints on the PF forums that 5e does have enough options and is not tactical enough. However, for me PF2e is not just adding some depth and options, but a lot more fiddle bits and complexity. To much for my taste. So I have a few questions for forum foragers:

1. Is there a RPG that has the simplicity of 5e with some more depth and tactical options like PF2e (or 4e really)?
2. Can you add depth and tactics to 5e without losing much of its simplicity / streamlined play?
3. Assumed “yes” to #2: how would you do it?

To start here are my thoughts on an answer to #3 (which means I think #2 is a yes):

• I would give tactical options to monsters (I’m already doing that)
• add tactically oriented subclasses
• Maybe rework feats to be half or mini feats and spread them across more levels

I got the impression that 5E was designed from the ground up on the philosophy that it's easier to start with a basic system and then season to taste with additional weight than to try to lighten a system that starts heavy. Always made sense to me.

And I think you're right on track on the question of how. Just more tactical options and more options in general. On your point about feats, I once had the vague idea (but never fleshed it out, because my playgroup is fine with 5E character building as-is) to expand the 5E language/tool proficiency system with "special proficiencies" that look like the little, granular 3E/PF style of feat. Perhaps even have them be trainable with downtime, so you don't lock yourself into a particular build, with some maximum number active at once.

I get the sense that you're already on the same page as me here, but I'll say it anyway: I would avoid broad, general bonuses to stuff. Those start to look like feat taxes real quick. I'd take the opportunity instead to port over all those 3E/PF feats with situational perks that you always wanted to take because they'd give your character some character but never got to because it was better just to take Weapon Focus instead.

 

[dave2008]

So elites and paragons are the same CR?

No, see below

Also, what about the action economy? Will Paragons be able to withstand a party's onslaught, or do you need to design legendary creatures for that? (and I thought you didn't like legendary actions). Your old elites dealt 1.5 times the damage of standard creatures for this reason as well. I think I'm failing to see how slapping some extra hp on a monster will solve some of the fundamental monster design issues in 5E.

Ok, I think didn't explain well enough. The basic design of my monsters will not change (though I seem to tweak a monster every time I touch it). The only difference is how CR is calculated. I will calculate CR by the book instead of using my own table (and I will use HD to determine the prof. bonus). So basically if I change nothing else on an elite monster, the CR will go up.

This will throw off encounter budgets, but I would rather provide a revised encounter budget table I guess (which I already made a long time ago anyway).

However, I haven't decided on legendary actions. I think they might be more interesting than some of the things I was doing to replace them. It was an experiment that I am not sure was successful. What do you think?

 

[dave2008]

That is easy, just remove +1/level number treadmill

It is not quite that simple, but the upcoming Gamemasters Guide will have a variant that allows you to do just that.

 

[dave2008]

Just up the number of feats. We give an additional racial feat at level 1, and extra feats only (not stat increases) at 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18.

Plus an additional skill at 7, 11 and 15

This adds some granularity. Also increases power but who cares if everyone has the same rules.

That add more options, but necessarily tactical ones. It really only gets us half way. I also personally prefer the idea of more smaller feats better

 

[dave2008]

one second actions, but you get them in batch of 6(1 round, 10 rounds per minute)

Then you can have:

Move: 2 actions. move your speed
Attack: 2 actions,
Two weapon fighting attack: 3 actions,
Rapid shot(2 shots): 3 actions,
Default spell: 4 actions, attack boosting spells(smites, hex, mark) 1 action,
Cantrip: 3 actions,
stand up: 1 action,
mount up: 1 action,
interact: 1 action,
Dodge: 4 actions,
Hide: 1 action,
Stealth move: 3 actions, move your speed
Disengage: 3 actions, move without AoO
Concentration: 1 spell - 1 action, 2 spells - 3 actions, 3 spells - 6 actions, 4 spells - 10 actions

Haste spell: gain 1 Extra action per round
Haste improved spell: gain 2 Extra actions per round. does not stack with haste
Time stop spell: 1 action cast: gain 10 actions for this round.

That is the idea, but I would just make a move action 1, and reduce the speed to accommodate that.

 

[Horwath]

That is the idea, but I would just make a move action 1, and reduce the speed to accommodate that.

Yeah move could be 1 action.

Standard move 20ft
Slow races 15ft
Fast races 25ft

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

So basically if I change nothing else on an elite monster, the CR will go up.

But that will more or less be mandatory, right? Changing other things. Will all things being elite/equal, will result in further CR increases. Sort of make me miss the original elite design goal of using more powerful foes without CR going through the roof. But maybe your revised encounter table will solve this?

This will throw off encounter budgets, but I would rather provide a revised encounter budget table I guess (which I already made a long time ago anyway).

I remember that vaguely. Did you ever finish it?

However, I haven't decided on legendary actions. I think they might be more interesting than some of the things I was doing to replace them. It was an experiment that I am not sure was successful. What do you think?

They are better (and imo more elegant) that the other things you tried out, such as extra reactions and turns etc. Also, they are a good way to counter stuns and failed saves. So I say keep them. Also, they are a fundamental part of the 5E chassis. Change as little of that as possible.

 

[CubicsRube]

I agree with the concept, but I am not talking about ad hoc things a DM can do. I am interesting it what bits of crunch could be added to provide it for all.

If you want to make tactics in combat more interesting, encourage players to use skill checks in combat to improvise cool moves, as a move action or bonus action allowing them to attack as well.

This thread is really quite broad, spanning out-of-play design (aka builds) and in play options.

On this note on in play combat options i am a big fan of. My design philosophy is to present at least two good choices in every situation (at least thats the ideal).

I've wanted to write up a codified list of bonus action moves that could be taken, and started work on it, but the time to balance and test it became way too cumbersome.

I'm a fan of a dynamic battlefield, so some options involved pushing, pulling and using nearby improvised objects.

For my tastes, being able to have a list of bonus action moves to take would make combats a lot more dynamic and interesting, because my experience is that nobody wants to give up their attack to try something novel.

 

[dave2008]

But that will more or less be mandatory, right? Changing other things. Will all things being elite/equal, will result in further CR increases. Sort of make me miss the original elite design goal of using more powerful foes without CR going through the roof. But maybe your revised encounter table will solve this?

Yes, CRs will go up which was the opposite of one of the original goals. But I was always basing that on the idea that the CR's "felt" right. I basically decided there is nothing magic about a particular CR. Just let them fall where they fall. People have been playing with the MM CRs for 5 years. If they need a higher CR than the DMG encounter budget says, they no it. Introducing a new CR scaling just muddies the water I think.

I remember that vaguely. Did you ever finish it?

I didn't think I had, but last time I looked at it seemed good to me. It probably just needs testing.

They are better (and imo more elegant) that the other things you tried out, such as extra reactions and turns etc. Also, they are a good way to counter stuns and failed saves. So I say keep them. Also, they are a fundamental part of the 5E chassis. Change as little of that as possible.

That was my thinking to, I will put them back (where needed). The bolded part was actually why I decided to dump my revised CR table.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

So did this thread die?