Level Up (A5E) [+] What features should a "Advanced 5E" have?

[Helldritch]

We should keep in mind that an A5ed will not remove anything and should not.
If your mod means that you remove something. It is not a good idea.
Your mod must ADD or Modify a thing that does not remove a thing.
Example: Removing any save is not a good idea. For the better or the worse, we have six saving throw type in 5ed. Let's keep to those.
Removing a skill is not a good idea. Adding one might be.

The rules of A5ed should add to the game. Otherwise, it will not be 5ed. Example, modifying how the longsword is modifed/called could be good. Example: Longsword are separated in two kinds. Bastard and arming sword. The bastard can be used with two hand to deal 1d10 instead of 1d8. The arming sword can only be used one hand but can use dexterity instead of strenght (finesse). You did not remove the long sword and added a sword that fits the elven background.

We have to work with the constrain of the original game here. Otherwise it will not be A5ed.

 

[TheSword]

Hmmm. "Sacred cow" is really an insult to certain Hindu traditions.

I was about to say "fetish", but it isnt much better.

I guess there is a "fixation" with a certain problematic six abilities.

It’s a metaphor. It means something revered and worth preserving. That’s not insulting it’s true.

The six ability scores have worked for almost fifty years. They are an integral part of D&D like AC, Hp, and Alignment. They work, not just for 5e but for Paizo, d20 and a dozen other spin offs compromising the lions share of the RPG market.

It’s odd to say you can’t make a great d&d system that works with them, when history and current reality, make it patently clear your can.

 

[clearstream]

(If you're not interested in the concept of an Advanced 5E, this thread isn't for you. Move along. Nothing to see here!)

I used "Advanced" just because AD&D did. That doesn't mean better, but it sounds better than "Crunchy 5E". The working title I have in mind is the '6th World System'.

If you ARE interested in the idea of an Advanced 5E - 5E with a bit more crunch - what features would you want to see in it?

Asking for a friend who is me who might make it.

1. For me a foundational rework would be rests. In a sense, the balance and crunchiness of the rest of the system is built on top of that.
2. Rules for social interactions.
3. Feats reworked as if non-optional, so that many more are reasonable picks and more strategies are valid, e.g. fixing the trap feat Savage Attacker or bringing out more of the potential in the lacklustre Dual Wielder.
4. Ranger revision, and generally pulling more exploration rules, more consistently, into the main game.
5. Monks reconsidered against role and action economy.
6. Ability score generation pulled back a bit, to increase the base game difficulty a notch, i.e. crunchier in play. I'd love to see a draw-with-no-replacement standard method!

 

[Coroc]

Correct weapons and armor, introduce their real names (long sword I am looking at you), Remove items without historic equivalent (leather/studded leather). Rework the damage of the quarterstaff (it should be 1d6 and two handed use only. Expand the weapons and armor list.

Make a paragraph that it is totally ok that the DM selects and limits classes etc. and other stuff to fit everything into his campaign.

Alter lesser restoration so it can cure 1 level of exhaustion, and greater restoration so it fixes up all exhaustion levels.

 

[TheSword]

Good luck with this project. I hope you’re able to chart a course between the many competing opinions while still being recognizably d&d.

Avoiding this becoming a regression to 3e that adds unnecessary complexity. Does it really make the game more fun if stealth is +3, Perception is +4 and Persuasion is +5 rather than just having all three at +4 or instance. Is a half feat every two levels really that much better than a full feat every four?

Or the reverse, the smoothing out that some people have requested, where everything is homogenized. The Dex superstat problem becomes spread to all stats depending on class. Races/heritage becomes generic and distinctions no longer matter.

Or lastly the product just becomes more of the same, and really we’re just adding bloat. Some people will always want more options, more feats, more abilities. There will never be satisfaction because power creep when feeding the beast like that is inevitable.

It’s worth noting that the skill example I gave is an example of power creep where now an alteration that in principal adds granularity just allows for higher bonuses where proficiency is exceeded. I’m not interested in a system that makes PCs more powerful. I am interested in one that makes PCs and DMs more empowered.

Good luck, if anyone can do this it will be you guys. As others have said I would definitely make sure you’re pretty certain what WOC are releasing in the near future to avoid trying to fill a space that isn’t really there.

 

[TheSword]

One thing I would like to see is an review of bonus actions and reactions. At the moment ‘power’ seems to depend on how many of these you can maximize in a round to get extra attacks or abilities.

I would like to see some basic bonus actions that anyone can do (other than attack with an off hand). Less powerful uses than existing feat and class effects, but still relevant. Empower a spell, move a bit further, hit a bit more accurately etc.

Then give people two bonus actions a round but remove one if you used your reaction in the last turn.

Just my contribution

 

[TheSword]

Last point. I would really give some thought to how this would interact with major VTTs.

In this age if the additions you’re looking at can’t be represented on a 5e character sheet, even by amending a blank sheet or by adding in equipment and new abilities then you’re cutting your product off from a large large group of people who now and for the foreseeable future want to play this way.

It is a solvable problem I’m sure, if A5e is truly backwards compatible. I would definitely put some thought into this at the design stage.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The general question here is:

But do the gaming public really want a more traditional experience?

Magical classes is, as I see it, part of a greater trend to move D&D away from classic Lord of the Ringsian Thieves World etc grounded fantasy and into... something else with inspiration drawn from sources outside classic western fantasy.

I guess it's a question for the surveys. My point here is that it might not be a coincidence or an accident so many classes have magic in 5E... and that changing this might not be the job for a project specifically geared to be "advanced 5E Dungeons and Dragons"...?

Oh, its quite a personal wish I dont expect to be shared by the majority

But I'm not talking about having a ''spell-less everything!'' like in AiME, more like be sure to have a little more non magical archetypes for the mundane class. Naturally, spellcasting class will have spellcasting archetype, a spell-less wizard is just a commoner, after all

Its just that for now, with 13 classes, we have 3 classes that I would consider mundane: rogue, barbarian and fighter. Yet only 2 of the 6 published barbarian archetypes do not use magical effects, and the 2 currently in UA are also magical. Its mostly the same thing for the Fighter. So if I want to play a game where magic is considered rare or dangerous or feared or even gone, the available archetypes are really restrained. I know this is probably not the type of game most people play, but I strongly believe that this is a kind of playstyle that could be somewhat supported by an advanced D&D, without going full magic less.

 

[Mike Myler]

Oh look—a survey! Level Up Survey #1: Broad Outlines

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

One other features ideas:

This is a personal pet-peeve, probably unshared and opposed by a lot of people, but...

- if you start messing with the spells, I'd go with Illusion and Enchantment spells that have a specific mechanical effect instead of being left to the group's judgement. I was reminded by a recent post on the D&D forum about Suggestion, which is the spell I hate the most in the game. 4e had a nice way of doing illusion and enchantment by letting the caster move/frightened/daze/confuse etc a target. There's nothing more dull as a Dm to have to pause to think about if Orc num.367 is intelligent enough to test an illusion, or what would be its reaction to the sight of said illusion, and does he like Orc num.59 enough to tell him its an illusion. Same with Suggestion, I dont like how you need to pause to consider if Bandit Captain num.47 would consider the request to flee as reasonable, does he have a boss over him that could threaten him with death? is fleeing punishable by death in his crew? I'd prefer something like a lesser version of Compulsion.

- An idea from Reddit: remove the History skill and instead use Language proficiency to roll check related to a specific culture OR give advantage to social or history check when you are both trained in the skill and the language of the ''target''.

- If skills are still related to an ability score, maybe put Intimidation in Strength?

EDITED to add:

- Make ''Suprised'' a condition! When you surprise someone, they gain the Surprised condition until the start of their next turn.

- Disease should either be a condition (I usually go with ''Disadvantage'' on healing roll).

- Maybe bring back the Weakened condition (''Disadvantage'' on damage roll) and Dazed (Disadvantage on saves).

Anyway the idea is to have a little more variety in terms of affliction to threaten the players beyond ''disadvantage on everything'' or HP loss.

- Also, maybe simplify the Stealth rules a little. Like: Use an Action to Hide when you have at least 1/2 cover. Roll a Stealth roll against the Passive Perception of all creatures you from which you have cover. On a success, you are Invisible to the creature until the start of your next turn or you make an attack or provoke a saving throw.