D&D 5E Advanced 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons!

[Li Shenron]

Magic items are also not a module. They're present in virtually every adventure path and allowed in AL play, effectively meaning they're a core part of the game. The fact that the game runs just fine without them is a good choice, but I would be stunned to find the majority of tables didn't assume their presence and make use of them.

I don't doubt for a second that the majority of gaming groups use magic items... When magic items were inextricably embedded in the game (3e) there were lots of people screaming that they could not play a no-magic-item (or low-magic-item or even slightly-lower-magic-item) campaign. I guess now the same lots of people are scoffing that they never really said it was important.

But anything that you can ignore or take out of the game without having to change almost anything else at all, is effectively modular.

 

[Jester David]

One small change that would justify a new half-edition would be getting rid of Finesse-type weapons. Make all melee weapons use Strength to hit and damage.

Why?
Other than making rogues cry of course.

And while I'm dreaming, get rid of bounded accuracy and HP bloat by having everyone add their full level to all attacks and defenses (including saves and DCs).

Tht'a pretty easy to do.
Just do it. Dump proficiency and add level to all proficient checks. And add a monster's CR to all their checks.
And instead of the static DCs for skill checks, just make them DC 10+level or DC 15+level (like Oragnized Play did during 3e-4e).

The game will play identical when facing monsters of close to your level.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why?
Other than making rogues cry of course.

Because the current system doesn't make any sense. Damage is supposed to represent, among other things, how hard you hit. Even if you're more accurate, being more accurate with more force behind it should still have a greater impact than being that accurate with less force, and the current system doesn't reflect that at all. As it stands, a rogue thrusts their rapier exactly as hard with Strength 14 as they do with Strength 8, which is ridiculous. If you want to fight in melee, you should need to invest in the melee-fighting stat, which is Strength.

It also leads to weird and counter-intuitive combat encounters, like a Strength 14 air elemental hitting harder than a Strength 18 water elemental because its large, amorphous pseudopod is better aimed.

Really, what the current system does is to severely punish any character who doesn't build to extremes. There's no room for someone with above-average Strength and Dex, because they'll be out-classed in every way by anyone with higher Strength or higher Dex.

Tht'a pretty easy to do.
Just do it. Dump proficiency and add level to all proficient checks. And add a monster's CR to all their checks.
The game will play identical when facing monsters of close to your level.

You'd need to add it to saves and AC, too, though. As it stands, simply replacing the proficiency bonus with the level bonus in every equation would make it so every attack is successful and only proficient saves have any chance of succeeding whatsoever (I mean, even moreso than is already the case).

And the real benefit of scaling attack and damage would be to reduce hit points. If a level 7 fighter-type enemy has +7 to hit and AC, it wouldn't need so many hit points that it takes a dozen strikes from a greatsword before dropping. If a giant gorilla demon had +15 to hit and AC, then it wouldn't need hundreds of hit points in order to do its job. It would probably necessitate correcting the damage-dealing capabilities of most characters, as well; a fighter doesn't need four attacks in a round if the demon they're fighting doesn't take twenty hits to drop.

 

[dave2008]

And while I'm dreaming, get rid of bounded accuracy and HP bloat by having everyone add their full level to all attacks and defenses (including saves and DCs).

boo, hiss

 

[dave2008]

One small change that would justify a new half-edition would be getting rid of Finesse-type weapons. Make all melee weapons use Strength to hit and damage.

This makes little sense to me. Why would you use Str to hit?

Personally I prefer using Dex to hit for all weapons and Str for damage. Strength to hit never made much sense to me.

 

[dave2008]

It also leads to weird and counter-intuitive combat encounters, like a Strength 14 air elemental hitting harder than a Strength 18 water elemental because its large, amorphous pseudopod is better aimed.

Better aimed makes sense though, you are hitting a more vulnerable location so it does more damage. Hit someones toe with massive force isn't going to be nearly as deadly as hitting someone in the heart with significantly less force.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One small change that would justify a new half-edition would be getting rid of Finesse-type weapons. Make all melee weapons use Strength to hit and damage.

Wow, I have never wanted a thumbs-down button so much.

Perhaps the coolest thing about the 5e fighter - perhaps the only elegant mechanic in 5e other than Adv/Dis - is how seamlessly it works for armored (STR-based) vs archery/fencing 'light' (DEX-based) concepts. Heck how seamlessly you can take any character either direction.

Yeah, it makes DEX das überstat, but it's worth it to not have to take an entirely different class, feat or complicated build, to use a rapier & dagger more or less effectively instead of greatsword and full plate!

Because the current system doesn't make any sense. Damage is supposed to represent, among other things, how hard you hit. Even if you're more accurate, being more accurate with more force behind it should still have a greater impact than being that accurate with less force, and the current system doesn't reflect that at all. As it stands, a rogue thrusts their rapier exactly as hard with Strength 14 as they do with Strength 8, which is ridiculous.

OK, but using just STR for both to hit and damage as, you suggested, is no more realistic. Higher of STR or DEX to hit, STR & DEX combined for damage might start to make 'realistic' sense to the level you're suggesting....





....but, frankly, that level of realism can start to make a game suck pretty hard. ;P

 

[Jester David]

Because the current system doesn't make any sense. Damage is supposed to represent, among other things, how hard you hit. Even if you're more accurate, being more accurate with more force behind it should still have a greater impact than being that accurate with less force, and the current system doesn't reflect that at all. As it stands, a rogue thrusts their rapier exactly as hard with Strength 14 as they do with Strength 8, which is ridiculous. If you want to fight in melee, you should need to invest in the melee-fighting stat, which is Strength.

It also leads to weird and counter-intuitive combat encounters, like a Strength 14 air elemental hitting harder than a Strength 18 water elemental because its large, amorphous pseudopod is better aimed.

Really, what the current system does is to severely punish any character who doesn't build to extremes. There's no room for someone with above-average Strength and Dex, because they'll be out-classed in every way by anyone with higher Strength or higher Dex.

Theoretically though, Dexterity determines your ability to accurately hit weak spots. Really, while Dex makes little sense with damage, Strength makes little sense for attacks.

That leads to an interesting house rule to test in 5e: use Dex for attack rolls and Str for damage rolls. For all weapons. So can hit less often for more damage or more often for less damage or somewhere in the middle.
It'd be interesting.

You'd need to add it to saves and AC, too, though.

Well, yeah. Increase all the numbers across the board. Everyone gets a +5 to everything!!

And the real benefit of scaling attack and damage would be to reduce hit points. If a level 7 fighter-type enemy has +7 to hit and AC, it wouldn't need so many hit points that it takes a dozen strikes from a greatsword before dropping. If a giant gorilla demon had +15 to hit and AC, then it wouldn't need hundreds of hit points in order to do its job. It would probably necessitate correcting the damage-dealing capabilities of most characters, as well; a fighter doesn't need four attacks in a round if the demon they're fighting doesn't take twenty hits to drop.

How do you figure?
Using the DMG numbers, when you hit CR 17, AC is expected to increase faster than attack bonuses. The difference in ACs is +6 between CR 1 and 20 and the difference in proficiency is +4. Even if you factor in two ability score boosts, you only end up hitting 5% more.

In practice, monsters from the Monster Manual don't follow those rules very well. And many do have much lower (or higher) ACs. But most mid to high level monsters in the MM also have very low hit points compared to what is expected, so dropping hit points isn't as necessary. Really... they should go up.
Monsters have hundreds of hit points because players attack as a party and can do that much damage. My level six party can easily crank out over a hundred hit points of damage in a round.

You can change that by increasing ACs and reducing accuracy, but that also increases this miss rate. When players miss, that's not fun. That's their turn wasted. 5e has a much higher hit rate compared to 4e and 3e because missing half the time sucks.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This makes little sense to me. Why would you use Str to hit?

Personally I prefer using Dex to hit for all weapons and Str for damage. Strength to hit never made much sense to me.

You're not just trying to touch an enemy with your weapon.You're trying to hit them hard enough that they'll feel it through the armor (or thick hide) that is the main factor in determining Armor Class, which has always been one of the weird things about D&D. (This edition doesn't even have touch attacks, which were mostly just a formality in 3E anyway; instead, this edition just assumes you succeed, which is honestly a pretty safe assumption.)

You could, alternatively, make a game where Dexterity determined both accuracy and evasion, and Strength was just for damage. I know that's how it works in GURPS, for example. You just need to be careful with those, because the math for most such systems tends to work out in such a way that a character with high Dexterity is just better than a character with high Strength. From a pure game balance perspective, using Strength as your offense stat and Dexterity as your defense stat is more balanced; and it's also a better representation of reality, where individual strength is the overwhelming factor in many fights.

 

[Lanliss]

You're not just trying to touch an enemy with your weapon.You're trying to hit them hard enough that they'll feel it through the armor (or thick hide) that is the main factor in determining Armor Class, which has always been one of the weird things about D&D. (This edition doesn't even have touch attacks, which were mostly just a formality in 3E anyway; instead, this edition just assumes you succeed, which is honestly a pretty safe assumption.)

You could, alternatively, make a game where Dexterity determined both accuracy and evasion, and Strength was just for damage. I know that's how it works in GURPS, for example. You just need to be careful with those, because the math for most such systems tends to work out in such a way that a character with high Dexterity is just better than a character with high Strength. From a pure game balance perspective, using Strength as your offense stat and Dexterity as your defense stat is more balanced; and it's also a better representation of reality, where individual strength is the overwhelming factor in many fights.

I guarantee that, using a rapier, no amount of strength will make you more likely to pierce the armor so they feel it. some dexterous movements though, allowing you to slide into an opening in the armor, will work quite well. After that, it takes very little pressure for a sharp object to pierce human flesh.