D&D 5E A L12 (level 12 limit) Variant

[DND_Reborn]

Based on the 4-6 character party, around level 12 most of the powerful monsters can still function as solo BBEGs, but once you get much past it, even the toughest monsters don't cut it any more. Given also the fact that a lot of parties start to loose steam around level 8-10, I decided to take a stab at making an L12 variant where progression stops at level 12.

Now, one thing I did in this is also remove subclasses. I know a lot of people won't like that aspect, but I do. I have added a feature to many classes, and augmented some current ones, and nerfed some others. I am not looking for universal liking and don't expect it.

Anyway, this is draft #1 for what I will probably do when I run my next 5E game. I am sharing it just to get some feedback (hopefully constructive, dare I ask? ).

I have a lot of house-rules that go along with it all, but for now I want to focus mostly on the classes. I will attach the completed (thus far) pdf if anyone cares to read everything. At this point 90% of the material is still subject to modification.

PLEASE NOTE: This idea is meant for a slower-paced, lower-power style of game where caution and careful planning is more likely to win the day than anything else. Magic will be rare and money scarce. It is meant so that something like a lich, beholder, or other stable BBEG can be (with good DMing, ) the pinnacle of the game.

As always, thanks for readying and your interest.

Spoiler: Character Advancement

Spoiler: Barbarian

Spoiler: Bard

Spoiler: Cleric

Spoiler: Druid

Spoiler: Fighter

Spoiler: Monk

Spoiler: Paladin

Spoiler: Ranger

Spoiler: Rogue

Spoiler: Sorcerer

Spoiler: Warlock

Spoiler: Wizard

 

[pogre]

Although it is not for me and my style of 5e - I appreciate the amount of work that went into this and your willingness to share!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Although it is not for me and my style of 5e - I appreciate the amount of work that went into this and your willingness to share!

Thanks! I did spend a lot time on it, mostly deciding what to add that would make up for the lack of subclasses. I totally apprecaite this is certianly not for a lot of tables.

I thought about a straight "stop at level 12" and not mess with anything else, but I love to tinker so it turned into more.

 

[dave2008]

Thank you for sharing! Quick question: are you completely removing 7th-9th level spells or are they potentially available through rituals / scrolls? Also, any limits to magic items?

 

[TwoSix]

Under the Proficiencies header in each class section, you mention "armor, shield or weapon category".

1) What are the weapon categories?
2) Are armor and shields also supposed to be in categories?

 

[DEFCON 1]

It has a lot of really interesting stuff in it, and I'm all for reducing a lot of the extra features many classes get (especially via subclasses). For particular campaigns where magic items are meant to be important rewards... the less features you get just through level-up makes the features gained through magic items have more use and importance.

Of all the things you put together... the one thing that struck me was reading the Ranger and the Rogue back-to-back. You added a bunch of things to Cunning Action, which I found interesting (a couple of them were like the agility-based Battlemaster maneuvers ported over and made into bonus actions.) But it was Free Movement that hit me... letting the rogue ignore difficult terrain for a turn. This was right after reading the Ranger, who got his standard allotment of Natural Explorer options, one of which was ignore difficult terrain (but doing it for free without spending a bonus action.) But it did make me realize just how much the rogue gains over the ranger through the bonus action use in combat (especially with the extra bits you gave.) And it made me think that because the ranger and rogue are so close thematically in what they do during combat (both use ranged, both dual-wield) that the ranger feels like it should be gaining the same sort of stuff the rogue does, especially bonus action related. The rogue seems to have it all over the ranger in combat.

I mean, you're now giving the rogue the ability to sneak attack with a longbow and to gain advantage on said attacks with the longbow via Take Aim and/or Hide (these two cunning action abilities I think overlap each other). That's huge for him. But what does the Ranger get in comparison during combat? He gets a slightly bigger hit die / HP, sure, but he still has to cast a concentration spell to use Hunter's Mark for additional damage (that doesn't even match the damage the rogue gets via sneak attack), they're both using the same weapon now, and the Ranger doesn't get to make any of his attacks with advantage because it doesn't have cunning bonus action use. Honestly, it feels like you cut the ranger's legs out from under him.

To get any sort of balance back... I think you would either need to take out the martial ranged weapons from the Rogue's SA to start... and you could probably consider giving the ranger Cunning Action too-- with perhaps its own list of uses (like let the rogue have Hide, Quick Step, Misdirect, and Unbound) and the give the ranger Take Aim, Free Movement, and Disengage.) Balancing the two for combat seems really important for the two right now.

But other than that one critique, good work!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Thank you for sharing! Quick question: are you completely removing 7th-9th level spells or are they potentially available through rituals / scrolls? Also, any limits to magic items?

No problem. I know a lot of people here are tinkers like myself. I always enjoy hearing others' houserules, etc. so I am happy to share.

Great question! The idea is magic 6th-level and above is "High Magic" that has mostly been lost. Some rare practitioners (11th and 12th level PCs and a few NPCs) have touched on some of those lost skills and secrets, but otherwise such magic are virtually unheard of.

For the game, PCs will be able to cast such spells off from scrolls if they find them. But the ability to master such power has been lost, or maybe the gods are denying it for some reason, no one knows for certain.

Magic items will be rare, something a commoner might see maybe a few times during their life. Their will be none (or extremely little) buying/selling such items. Even moderately powerful magic items will be coveted by kings and such, so having some items might be problematic.

Under the Proficiencies header in each class section, you mention "armor, shield or weapon category".

1) What are the weapon categories?
2) Are armor and shields also supposed to be in categories?

Armor categories are light, moderate, and heavy as normal.
Shield categories are shields and heavy shields (kite shields and tower shields).
Weapon categories are simple and martial, as normal.

You have to know prior proficiencies to advance to the next one. So, you can't jump from light armor to heavy armor, for instance.

 

[TwoSix]

Armor categories are light, moderate, and heavy as normal.
Shield categories are shields and heavy shields (kite shields and tower shields).
Weapon categories are simple and martial, as normal.

You have to know prior proficiencies to advance to the next one. So, you can't jump from light armor to heavy armor, for instance.

Ahh, OK. That's significantly more generous than what I was expecting (not in a bad way), but that usage makes sense.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It has a lot of really interesting stuff in it, and I'm all for reducing a lot of the extra features many classes get (especially via subclasses). For particular campaigns where magic items are meant to be important rewards... the less features you get just through level-up makes the features gained through magic items have more use and importance.

Of all the things you put together... the one thing that struck me was reading the Ranger and the Rogue back-to-back. You added a bunch of things to Cunning Action, which I found interesting (a couple of them were like the agility-based Battlemaster maneuvers ported over and made into bonus actions.) But it was Free Movement that hit me... letting the rogue ignore difficult terrain for a turn. This was right after reading the Ranger, who got his standard allotment of Natural Explorer options, one of which was ignore difficult terrain (but doing it for free without spending a bonus action.) But it did make me realize just how much the rogue gains over the ranger through the bonus action use in combat (especially with the extra bits you gave.) And it made me think that because the ranger and rogue are so close thematically in what they do during combat (both use ranged, both dual-wield) that the ranger feels like it should be gaining the same sort of stuff the rogue does, especially bonus action related. The rogue seems to have it all over the ranger in combat.

I mean, you're now giving the rogue the ability to sneak attack with a longbow and to gain advantage on said attacks with the longbow via Take Aim and/or Hide (these two cunning action abilities I think overlap each other). That's huge for him. But what does the Ranger get in comparison during combat? He gets a slightly bigger hit die / HP, sure, but he still has to cast a concentration spell to use Hunter's Mark for additional damage (that doesn't even match the damage the rogue gets via sneak attack), they're both using the same weapon now, and the Ranger doesn't get to make any of his attacks with advantage because it doesn't have cunning bonus action use. Honestly, it feels like you cut the ranger's legs out from under him.

To get any sort of balance back... I think you would either need to take out the martial ranged weapons from the Rogue's SA to start... and you could probably consider giving the ranger Cunning Action too-- with perhaps its own list of uses (like let the rogue have Hide, Quick Step, Misdirect, and Unbound) and the give the ranger Take Aim, Free Movement, and Disengage.) Balancing the two for combat seems really important for the two right now.

But other than that one critique, good work!

Hmm. Excellent points and I'll review it later. My initial response is that the Ranger's favored enemy and greater favored enemy balance out the rogue's ability. As you know, the rogue does have to use their bonus action, so that is the cost.

IME rogues rarely have a hard time getting advantage via the Hide action when they are sniping, but the ability to snipe effectively does fit the ranger as well...

Originally, I thought you were going to head a different direction I've thought of: combine ranger and rogue into one class. If you think about how they are often played or portrayed, you can think of one class, the ranger the wilderness version, the rogue the urban version.

 

[TwoSix]

To get any sort of balance back... I think you would either need to take out the martial ranged weapons from the Rogue's SA to start... and you could probably consider giving the ranger Cunning Action too-- with perhaps its own list of uses (like let the rogue have Hide, Quick Step, Misdirect, and Unbound) and the give the ranger Take Aim, Free Movement, and Disengage.) Balancing the two for combat seems really important for the two right now.

But other than that one critique, good work!

Not sure I agree with that. The ranger has spells, after all, which is a significant versatility advantage over rogue. Plus, the ranger has druid cantrips, which means their attack capabilities can be completely based of Wisdom. Grab shillelagh and produce flame, use a shield and a quarterstaff with dueling. Plus bonus damage if they're against their favored enemy. Polearm master and Hunter's Mark, Extra Attack 3 levels before Rogue; I think the Ranger will be fine.

That being said, I don't think we want to assume the min-max case; I would give the Ranger something useful for their bonus action just to avoid PAM shenanigans. Not sure what.