D&D 5E A 10-Level Variant for 5E for review and work

[Esker]

I think we also need the context of how multiclassing works in your variant, since that places some constraints on what you can do with the distribution of features.

 

[NotAYakk]

The big design elements are removing ASIs and increasing proficiency so the game remains balanced in terms of every thing else. Also, I think characters have too many HP, especially at higher levels. Finally, many games seem to teeter off before reaching higher levels so those features are never or hardly ever experienced.

Defense IS mostly static in 5E, as reflected in the idea that ever increasing HP makes up for it. I have removed some of the HP, but added an AC bonus by level. Again, I am trying to rebuild character classes while keeping it balanced with the rest of 5E.

So, if you aren't going to rebuild every monster in 5e, or build your own encounter-building mechanism, or something similar, this is going to cause problems.

Your compressed characters deal as much damage as a character twice their level (spells, abilities, etc). But their HP is no greater.

+Prof to AC or whatever mitigates this (in theory, there is a bonus that is balanced with lost HP), but (a) it does this in a way that trivializes low level monsters, and (b) it doesn't work on spell damage, and (c) does this in a way that violates the math assumptions of the CR system.

The reason why AC doesn't climb that much (nor do saves) compared to ATK/Damage/HP is because they wanted to keep low CR foes a threat, allowing a fight with a horde of orcs to be an epic battle that doesn't demand alternative mechanics.

Now, you could rebuild every monster (or perform some transformation on it) and/or invent a new encounter building system. But there is a non-trivial amount of work there. I know; I'm just trying to redo the encounter math without changing the balance (because I think the 5e CR math is annoying) and it is taking hours of work.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I agree with the other posters that said that it would be useful to separate the level-compression proposal from the new class features you're adding, since they really do stand separately, it seems to me.

@Charlaquin : This might be the base fundamentals you are looking for.

Here is a flat 2-level compressed into 1-level spreadsheet, a basis for what I am doing:

I think I got everything in there...

It shows where gaps are. In creating my tables I moved some things a level in one direction or the other to fill in the gaps, and added some features elsewhere.

 

[Esker]

+Prof to AC or whatever mitigates this (in theory, there is a bonus that is balanced with lost HP)

Thing is, there isn't even. At least not a fixed bonus. Each additional point of AC is worth more in equivalent HP than the one before it. So by replacing HP with an AC bonus you're skewing the balance toward already high AC characters.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So, if you aren't going to rebuild every monster in 5e, or build your own encounter-building mechanism, or something similar, this is going to cause problems.

Your compressed characters deal as much damage as a character twice their level (spells, abilities, etc). But their HP is no greater.

+Prof to AC or whatever mitigates this (in theory, there is a bonus that is balanced with lost HP), but (a) it does this in a way that trivializes low level monsters, and (b) it doesn't work on spell damage, and (c) does this in a way that violates the math assumptions of the CR system.

The reason why AC doesn't climb that much (nor do saves) compared to ATK/Damage/HP is because they wanted to keep low CR foes a threat, allowing a fight with a horde of orcs to be an epic battle that doesn't demand alternative mechanics.

Now, you could rebuild every monster (or perform some transformation on it) and/or invent a new encounter building system. But there is a non-trivial amount of work there. I know; I'm just trying to redo the encounter math without changing the balance (because I think the 5e CR math is annoying) and it is taking hours of work.

First, no I am not rebuilding anything else.

They don't have half the HP, closer to 60-80% of characters of comparable power in L20 RAW. The two examples below show a Fighter and Wizard given RAW HP and my variant L10 HP. Since I feel most PCs have too many HP as is, this was intended.

As to your objections:
(a) I am fine with low-level monsters becoming trivial. That is a feature of this, not a bug.
(b) True, it won't help with spell damage. But then 5E nerfed a lot of spells, so again, not a bug.
(c) Most people IME don't follow the CR system for numerous reasons.

So, much of what you think will be problematic is actually something I want in this. If I just wanted to compress levels, I would do as others have suggested and made every two levels worth one. That is only part of my goal here.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think we also need the context of how multiclassing works in your variant, since that places some constraints on what you can do with the distribution of features.

I'll do the formal write-up tomorrow morning probably, but here is the idea (I explored this in a previous thread):

If you choose to multiclass, your second class (limited of two only, no triple-threats) becomes your subclass. You gain 1 level in your subclass for each subclass award in your primary class. You do not gain subclass awards for your second class.

Example. A player wanted to make a Cleric/Wizard (primary class is always listed first). Instead of choosing a domain (e.g. subclass) for his Cleric as normal, he chooses "Wizard" and gains the features of a 1st level Wizard.

The characters L10 progression would look like this:

1: Cleric 1 (Wizard 1)
2: Cleric 2 (Wizard 1)
3: Cleric 3 (Wizard 2)
4: Cleric 4 (Wizard 2)
5: Cleric 5 (Wizard 2)
6: Cleric 6 (Wizard 3)
7: Cleric 7 (Wizard 3)
8: Cleric 8 (Wizard 3)
9: Cleric 9 (Wizard 4)
10: Cleric 10 (Wizard 4)

Is this going to create combinations that are too powerful? Maybe. Are the abilities in a second class up to level 4 worth the existing subclass features for domains, oaths, archetypes, or whatever? Probably more.

So, this concept could easily change, but it is my initial take on it.

 

[Esker]

I'll do the formal write-up tomorrow morning probably, but here is the idea (I explored this in a previous thread):
...

Ok yeah, I had some memory of this but didn't recall the details. This puts huge balance constraints on how you handle subclass features then. That's why you have to separate them from the base class feature chart, and include them at exactly the same levels for every class.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ok yeah, I had some memory of this but didn't recall the details. This puts huge balance constraints on how you handle subclass features then. That's why you have to separate them from the base class feature chart, and include them at exactly the same levels for every class.

They are included at exactly the same levels for every class (1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th) which is precisely why I put them on the base class feature chart.

Am I missing something in your point???

 

[Esker]

They are included at exactly the same levels for every class (1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th) which is precisely why I put them on the base class feature chart.

Am I missing something in your point???

No, no, I just wanted to clarify for myself why it was important that you did that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No, no, I just wanted to clarify for myself why it was important that you did that.

LOL ok, just checking.

If you have time, give the multiclassing concept some thought. I like the principle behind it (basically like an Eldritch Knight could be made instead as a Fighter/Wizard), and hope the power balance won't become an issue.