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

[RSIxidor]

I really like the variability that the three-action system provides non-spelllcasters in combat. Spellcasters are still a little stuck in PF2 because most spells are two actions but warriors have a bit more variability.

I was thinking of just adapting the three-action system over to 5e. Bonus action abilities become actions (some would get "once a turn" limitations). Adding a few action options like defend (a more flavorful and generic version of the "raise shield" and which also can help allies), demoralize, coerce, and taunt (with a new condition to work with those last two). Splitting shove into shove and trip separately (this would only really matter if I also worked on builds to be different in this rendition). I could even see adding the MAP but using disadvantage instead. So, if you attack three times, you have DA on the second two attacks. Levels where you gain Extra Attack instead make it so that you get another attack without disadvantage. I'm thinking special attacks would also have the MAP.

I don't think it would be a perfect porting but at a glance I like the idea. What I don't like is making a move action an action again but I think it may be required for the economy to work.

At the same time, I also want to get rid of bonus actions in 5E altogether so I'm not even sure I know what I really want.

 

[dave2008]

Hey, it's what PC levels have been that way for multiple editions!

Almost all editions. Still, PC balance, or lack thereof, is not what I am shooting for.

So something closer to 4E's one monster of x level(CR) equal to one PC of x level?

I don't know, but I don't think so. I think it would be more fluid than that. Personally I like the idea of the total XP of an encounter determining its challenge. CR just represents how tough a monster is in combat relative to another monster. There would need to a guide or note about how CR play into that (like too high a CR is difficult to hit or will do a lot of damage, etc.), but it is really about the XP budget. At least that is my thinking.

 

[dave2008]

I really like the variability that the three-action system provides non-spelllcasters in combat. Spellcasters are still a little stuck in PF2 because most spells are two actions but warriors have a bit more variability.

I was thinking of just adapting the three-action system over to 5e. Bonus action abilities become actions (some would get "once a turn" limitations). Adding a few action options like defend (a more flavorful and generic version of the "raise shield" and which also can help allies), demoralize, coerce, and taunt (with a new condition to work with those last two). Splitting shove into shove and trip separately (this would only really matter if I also worked on builds to be different in this rendition). I could even see adding the MAP but using disadvantage instead. So, if you attack three times, you have DA on the second two attacks. Levels where you gain Extra Attack instead make it so that you get another attack without disadvantage. I'm thinking special attacks would also have the MAP.

I don't think it would be a perfect porting but at a glance I like the idea. What I don't like is making a move action an action again but I think it may be required for the economy to work.

At the same time, I also want to get rid of bonus actions in 5E altogether so I'm not even sure I know what I really want.

I think your on the right track. I like the idea of extra attack giving you another attack for the same action cost and I agree you probably need to make "move" an action if you do that. However, I might just make that a fighter ability, or perhaps they have a feature that removes the DA from the 2nd and/or 3rd attack.

I would like to find a way to add reactions to the action cost as well as bonus actions. Do that you might need to go to 6 action system (where a standard attack cost 2 actions)

 

[dave2008]

The simplest solution would be for WotC to errata CRs and update them for future printings of the MM.

Many demons should lose at least 1 CR, up to a third.

(Don't have the book here, but if a Nalfeshnee was CR 8 instead of CR 12(?) it could actually put fear into someone, much less hardened heroes...

But the only thing stopping a CR 12 monster from feeling like a threat is the fact someone tells use we should be fighting them at lvl 12 instead of lvl 8 (or whatever). If the guide says fighter a CR 12 monster from lvls 6-10 (depending on things), doesn't that work just as well as changing every single monster they have published?

And the current CRs actually work for some people. I think it is just easier for them to publish a separate encounter guideline for hardcore or advanced gamers. That with some more advanced options of existing monsters (which they are already doing) and the issue is solved., IMO.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Somewhere between all the different editions, off-shoots, and variatons lies that perfect version of D&D we all dream about playing. Problem is not everyone dreams about the same game in the end.

I had high hopes for PF2e, but the level of complexity and bookkeeping was still much more than I had hoped. Similarly, I was turned off by 5e's retro-slide back into some archaic ideas for game design, but now I appreciate some of the simplicity of a basic game that hasn't become overburdened by a glut of new options released over a short period of time.

Still, a more tactical game is highly desired and sorely missed since 4e showed us how easy it was to create balance and fun if we allowed ourselves to break away from certain constraints of what we think a D&D game must include. Of course, there was much room for improvement on many levels (we won't dive into that rabbit hole again!), but sadly we may never see the potential growth and redesign of an otherwise great idea from that misunderstood edition, which was prematurely dismissed and swept under the basement boards.

As far as creating a hybrid, tactical-based mixture from the current contenders, pick a side and incorporate only a few elements from the other that you would like to change gradually. Focus on low level play only. You can worry about higher levels when/if your campaigns actually reach that high. And don't worry too much about preserving design balance because its flimsy enough as it is. Trust your experience to be able to adjudicate on the fly and make adjustments as needed.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

But the only thing stopping a CR 12 monster from feeling like a threat is the fact someone tells use we should be fighting them at lvl 12 instead of lvl 8 (or whatever). If the guide says fighter a CR 12 monster from lvls 6-10 (depending on things), doesn't that work just as well as changing every single monster they have published?

And the current CRs actually work for some people. I think it is just easier for them to publish a separate encounter guideline for hardcore or advanced gamers. That with some more advanced options of existing monsters (which they are already doing) and the issue is solved., IMO.

This sounds like the way to go, because it will leave current CRs still usable. Rather than needing to recalculate the CR of every monster published, you can simply create new monsters in line with the DMG guidelines.

Then what changes is the encounter-building guidelines, with modifiers (or even different tables) for party capabilities.

This would allow catering for both:
A 4-person group of newcomers to D&D, who have progressed their characters according to what seemed cool at the time.
- To a full-gonzo group of 7 min/maxers who have co-ordinated their optimisation with the rest of the party and have access to rather more magic items than usual.

You don't need to re-calculate a different CR for each monster for each type of party, just re-calculate how you build encounters using existing CRs.

Somewhere between all the different editions, off-shoots, and variatons lies that perfect version of D&D we all dream about playing. Problem is not everyone dreams about the same game in the end.

I think that the initial concept was that DMsGuild would provide modules or additional rules for a group to slot into their game to change it to that perfect version.
However in practice a lot of groups veer away from DMsguild content in general and only want to use official rules, even if that means that their specific group or preferred style of play might not be ideally catered for.[/QUOTE]

As far as creating a hybrid, tactical-based mixture from the current contenders, pick a side and incorporate only a few elements from the other that you would like to change gradually. Focus on low level play only. You can worry about higher levels when/if your campaigns actually reach that high. And don't worry too much about preserving design balance because its flimsy enough as it is. Trust your experience to be able to adjudicate on the fly and make adjustments as needed.

Perhaps the best place to start would be an expansion of the optional maneuvers in the DMG such as Disarm. Balanced so they don't render the Battlemaster irrelevant, but codified so that players and DMs view them as standard as the grapple and shoving rules - rather than something unusual that has to be adjudicated on the spot.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Won't xp per CR need to be lowered, if parties are expected to fight much higher CR monsters? Otherwise, they'll rise much more rapidly in levels (which may be fine, but should be transparent).

 

[gargoyleking]

My only problem with PF 2 is the part where you have to re-calculate all of your bonuses every level just because scaling. I'm a big fan of the proficiency tiers system but adding your levels to everything jist seems overblown. Maybe mix the 5e proficiency in instead of levels but keep TEML.

 

[dave2008]

Won't xp per CR need to be lowered, if parties are expected to fight much higher CR monsters? Otherwise, they'll rise much more rapidly in levels (which may be fine, but should be transparent).

I would rather change the XP per level table than change the monster XP. That way it is a nice little package of simple correlated changes. If your going to change every XP, you might as well change the CR

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I would rather change the XP per level table than change the monster XP. That way it is a nice little package of simple correlated changes. If your going to change every XP, you might as well change the CR

Yes, you're right.
While you are at it this could also be used to provide some guidance for slow, medium and fast advancement.