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.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.
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.
+Prof to AC or whatever mitigates this (in theory, there is a bonus that is balanced with lost HP)
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.
I'll do the formal write-up tomorrow morning probably, but here is the idea (I explored this in a previous thread):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):
...
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.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???
LOL ok, just checking.No, no, I just wanted to clarify for myself why it was important that you did that.