Big Ideas and Concepts Pre 5E

[Zardnaar]

Basic idea here is discussing the big picture concepts in D&D not pushing specific things unique to one edition.

So prestige classes, priest spheres or 4E powers not so much. The way saves scale, hit point bloat are fine. The exact labels don't matter eg kits vs archetypes or weapon masteries vs 4E or 2E versions. Magic item access eg found vs crafting vs buying is another example.

Simple-complex is another concept. I like B/X from DM PoV. Player PoV it's not the most exciting.

Some of us have homebrews and I've been tweaking mine for years. I've probably played more edition somewhat recently than most. They all offer ideas.

 

[ezo]

Simple-complex is another concept.

Frankly, this is the one I am struggling with most with 5E.

In the other thread it was mentioned about players struggilng to remember all the things their PCs can do, or have, etc. I currently have four players. Two are long-time vets of 5E (and D&D in general). The other two are new to D&D with 5E--one of them about 1.5 years ago, the other just half a year.

All of the, even the vets, occasionally forget something and remember it later on, realizing how much (in some cases) X might have made things better than the Y they used/did.

The two newer players: one is very organized, has over a dozen feature notes, etc. to help him track everything. The other's character sheet is a mess and only he can understand it lol! He often forgets or does "the wrong thing" (for example, he is a sword/board hexblade fighter build, but two of his invocations are for eldritch blast--which unless he is immediately in melee, he wants to do all the time).

A lot of the homebrew I've been developing with some others lately focuses on limiting features and PC "power" in general. While I think most of the group would be fine with that, I am fairly certain the new "organized" player wouldn't. He seems to really like all the "bells and whistles" for his fighter (rune knight).

So, I go back and forth. Should I finish the homebrew and force the group to try it? What about the one player who probably will fight against it? It hardly seems fair to him, but his PCs tend to be a bit OP and frankly as more a "low-key" DM it is annoying at times.

Proficiency Bonus
This is another issue I have with 5E, mostly due to bounded accuracy I think? While not a fan of the "thread-mill" effect of 3E, I think the base +2 to max +6 is too narrow a gap. Even when you factor in the likelihood of a PC improving a prime ability score from +3 to +5, you have a total increase of +5 to +11, barely double. This means, barring a feature like expertise (which is rampant in 2024 for this reason IMO), after likely dozens of adventures and hundreds of encounters, facing death in many possibly, you are only 30% more likely to hit, succeed in an ability check, etc.

I feel this leads to too much reliance on ability over proficiency (and experience which goes with it). My preference would be for proficiency to go up to +10 by default, and allow features like expertise to raise the floor or provide advantage, or even a smaller half proficiency bump (max +15 at 20th level). This would remove some of the stress on maximum out ability scores in key areas, I would think. Overall in a base 5E system, this could lead to +20 with expertise at most, with DCs up to 30 I don't think this would be bad at the extreme end of the game.

Hit Point and Damage Bloat
Ah... the inflation of D&D and the necessity of bounded accuracy. Numbers continue to grow as one direction dictates the other. You could just do a blanket "cut it all in half" and get back to more reasonable number for hit points and damage. Instead of damage bonuses increasing the floor and ceiling alike, allow additional dice representing damage bonuses via advantage.

For example, instead of 1d8+3 you have 4d8K1.
With 1d8+3 you have minimum 4, maximum 11, and average 7.5.
With 4d8K1, you have minimum 1, maximum 8, average 6.85 (over 68% your damage will be 7 or 8).

Attacks Are Too Easy (tied into HP and Damage bloat)
Sure, the baseline for 5E has been 65%, but let's be honest, this is often higher in practice and in 2024 is likely worse. It slows down the game IMO when you are hitting 3/4 times. Yeah, I know: "But missing isn't fun". Well, IMO, even as a player--hitting all the time practically isn't really any fun, either. It becomes predictable--and that is bad IMO. This enforces the slog many players experience in combat. You might as well just remove attack rolls and go straight to damage; cut out the middle-man.

In short, accuracy isn't "bounded", it is practically guaranteed!

The Plethora of Magic
Magic is much to easy to get in 5E, especially when you consider races, classes, and feats. It is just much too common for every PC to have some form a magic.

Those are my issues with 5E and the direction D&D has gone. Most of my tweaking and homebrews have been to lessen or eliminate those issues.

 

[Zardnaar]

Frankly, this is the one I am struggling with most with 5E.

In the other thread it was mentioned about players struggilng to remember all the things their PCs can do, or have, etc. I currently have four players. Two are long-time vets of 5E (and D&D in general). The other two are new to D&D with 5E--one of them about 1.5 years ago, the other just half a year.

All of the, even the vets, occasionally forget something and remember it later on, realizing how much (in some cases) X might have made things better than the Y they used/did.

The two newer players: one is very organized, has over a dozen feature notes, etc. to help him track everything. The other's character sheet is a mess and only he can understand it lol! He often forgets or does "the wrong thing" (for example, he is a sword/board hexblade fighter build, but two of his invocations are for eldritch blast--which unless he is immediately in melee, he wants to do all the time).

A lot of the homebrew I've been developing with some others lately focuses on limiting features and PC "power" in general. While I think most of the group would be fine with that, I am fairly certain the new "organized" player wouldn't. He seems to really like all the "bells and whistles" for his fighter (rune knight).

So, I go back and forth. Should I finish the homebrew and force the group to try it? What about the one player who probably will fight against it? It hardly seems fair to him, but his PCs tend to be a bit OP and frankly as more a "low-key" DM it is annoying at times.

Proficiency Bonus
This is another issue I have with 5E, mostly due to bounded accuracy I think? While not a fan of the "thread-mill" effect of 3E, I think the base +2 to max +6 is too narrow a gap. Even when you factor in the likelihood of a PC improving a prime ability score from +3 to +5, you have a total increase of +5 to +11, barely double. This means, barring a feature like expertise (which is rampant in 2024 for this reason IMO), after likely dozens of adventures and hundreds of encounters, facing death in many possibly, you are only 30% more likely to hit, succeed in an ability check, etc.

I feel this leads to too much reliance on ability over proficiency (and experience which goes with it). My preference would be for proficiency to go up to +10 by default, and allow features like expertise to raise the floor or provide advantage, or even a smaller half proficiency bump (max +15 at 20th level). This would remove some of the stress on maximum out ability scores in key areas, I would think. Overall in a base 5E system, this could lead to +20 with expertise at most, with DCs up to 30 I don't think this would be bad at the extreme end of the game.

Hit Point and Damage Bloat
Ah... the inflation of D&D and the necessity of bounded accuracy. Numbers continue to grow as one direction dictates the other. You could just do a blanket "cut it all in half" and get back to more reasonable number for hit points and damage. Instead of damage bonuses increasing the floor and ceiling alike, allow additional dice representing damage bonuses via advantage.

For example, instead of 1d8+3 you have 4d8K1.
With 1d8+3 you have minimum 4, maximum 11, and average 7.5.
With 4d8K1, you have minimum 1, maximum 8, average 6.85 (over 68% your damage will be 7 or 8).

Attacks Are Too Easy (tied into HP and Damage bloat)
Sure, the baseline for 5E has been 65%, but let's be honest, this is often higher in practice and in 2024 is likely worse. It slows down the game IMO when you are hitting 3/4 times. Yeah, I know: "But missing isn't fun". Well, IMO, even as a player--hitting all the time practically isn't really any fun, either. It becomes predictable--and that is bad IMO. This enforces the slog many players experience in combat. You might as well just remove attack rolls and go straight to damage; cut out the middle-man.

In short, accuracy isn't "bounded", it is practically guaranteed!

The Plethora of Magic
Magic is much to easy to get in 5E, especially when you consider races, classes, and feats. It is just much too common for every PC to have some form a magic.

Those are my issues with 5E and the direction D&D has gone. Most of my tweaking and homebrews have been to lessen or eliminate those issues.

I'm looking at 5E engine and thinking of tweaking it. One can stretch the numbers and use elements of previous editions.

The engine could power a modern B/X for example with skills, clone 4E or whatever.

Maybe 3.5 got hp right or even 3.0. Can dial damage down.

Adding ability scores to monsters in main cause of that. They've never gotten it right since.

Any thoughts on right amount conceptually?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I feel this leads to too much reliance on ability over proficiency (and experience which goes with it). My preference would be for proficiency to go up to +10 by default, and allow features like expertise to raise the floor or provide advantage, or even a smaller half proficiency bump (max +15 at 20th level).

4e STRIKES AGAIN

Hit Point and Damage Bloat
Ah... the inflation of D&D and the necessity of bounded accuracy. Numbers continue to grow as one direction dictates the other. You could just do a blanket "cut it all in half" and get back to more reasonable number for hit points and damage. Instead of damage bonuses increasing the floor and ceiling alike, allow additional dice representing damage bonuses via advantage.

For example, instead of 1d8+3 you have 4d8K1.
With 1d8+3 you have minimum 4, maximum 11, and average 7.5.
With 4d8K1, you have minimum 1, maximum 8, average 6.85 (over 68% your damage will be 7 or 8).

wait, so ability bonuses would let you roll additional damage dice and keep the highest instead of just being a bonus? that's actually a really neat idea

 

[ezo]

I'm looking at 5E engine and thinking of tweaking it. One can stretch the numbers and use elements of previous editions.

The engine could power a modern B/X for example with skills, clone 4E or whatever.

Maybe 3.5 got hp right or even 3.0. Can dial damage down.

Adding ability scores to monsters in main cause of that. They've never gotten it right since.

Any thoughts on right amount conceptually?

Honestly, I am not very familiar with 3rd edition as I only played it twice and that was years ago... I did play d20 SW for a while, and of course that is similar but not the same as 3rd D&D.

How are ability scores to monsters an issue? I agree they are, but perhaps for different reasons.

And the right amount of what? Proficiency? Hit points? Damage? All of it LOL???

4e STRIKES AGAIN

I will take your word on that--I've never even seen 4E.

wait, so ability bonuses would let you roll additional damage dice and keep the highest instead of just being a bonus? that's actually a really neat idea

Yes. It works well IME for the limited amount of play-testing we did. It was something @DND_Reborn began developing about 5 years ago IIRC.

We even applied the same thing to attack rolls using a slightly modified system:

Non-proficiency was disadvantage.
Proficiency was a single d20.
Each +1 granted another d20.

However, you easily get to the point were most of your rolls are always 15-20, and of course critical hits run rampant!

For example, if you were proficient with +3 on attack, it would be 4d20K1. Well, at that point, you have a 75%+ of getting 15 or better and 18.5% of a natural 20!

In some ways, it made sense. At "+3" the idea was you were exceptionally skilled!!! and the majority of the time, your "typical" would be very good when compared to someone who was merely proficient (+0), who rolled a single d20.

It might work for a system built from the ground up. The idea was more or less based on the WoD concept of "dots" for attributes and abilities.

This could be extended to include both skill and "attribute" (frankly, STR, DEX, etc. are attributes, not abilities and D&D has never gotten that right...). Attributes ranged from -2 to +3, and skill from -1 to +5 (we could never get these on the same scale LOL!). Of course, advantage and disadvantage would add or subtract dice. "Negative" dice resulted in disadvantage, net "0" was the single d20", and "positive" dice was net advantage. Ultimately, this was abandoned.

The final working model for one homebrew IIC was attributes became modifiers to the d20 roll, while skill determined the number of d20's. Barring other factors, this allowed for a maximum PC roll of 23, although creatures could be higher.

 

[Zardnaar]

Monsters never had ability scores pre 3.0. 8HD monster for example had 36 hp. 5E ogre has 59 hp iirc vs 18 pre 3E. Con score of 12 on 8HD monster boosts hp to 44, 18 con 68 hp.

Not saying pre 3E is ideal either. Fire giant in OSR game other night 60 hp, 5E 162.

3.0 and 3.5 are in the middle hp wise vs 4E and 5E. 3.5 has more hp than 3.0 as the monsters in 3.0 were often glass cannons.

 

[ezo]

Monsters never had ability scores pre 3.0. 8HD monster for example had 36 hp. 5E ogre has 59 hp iirc vs 18 pre 3E. Con score of 12 on 8HD monster boosts hp to 44, 18 con 68 hp.

Not saying pre 3E is ideal either. Fire giant in OSR game other night 60 hp, 5E 162.

3.0 and 3.5 are in the middle hp wise vs 4E and 5E. 3.5 has more hp than 3.0 as the monsters in 3.0 were often glass cannons.

Oh, I am well familiar with AD&D 1E and 2 E, I just didn't know how things changed in 3E and since then to what we have in 5E.

But you have to look at the over all picture. Consider a AD&D 5th-level Fighter with STR 17 using a longsword with specialization (single) vs. a 5E DND Fighter with STR and Dueling style vs. their edition ogres:

(Note: Fighters have DEX 15 and CON 16.)

In AD&D, the fighter can defeat the ogre in 3 rounds typically, 2 if he is lucky at all; while the ogre would need 17 rounds to take down the fighter.

In 5E, the fighter defeats the ogre in 5 rounds most often, 4 if lucky; while the ogre would need 10 rounds to defeat the fighter.

Is it any wonder in 5E people can feel like combat is a slog? The 5E fighter hits 20% more often, attacks 33% more often, but takes nearly twice as long to kill his ogre???

Now, you mention Fire Giant, so we'll look at those as well vs. 10th-level Fighters:

(Note: the 5E Fighter is now STR 20, not 17.)

Now, the "experience" of AD&D fighter kicks in and he hits more often than the 5E fighter despite the ACs being comparable. The AD&D fighter is likely to win against the Fire Giant in 4 rounds.

Well, again we see the slog created by HP bloat. The 5E fighter will take over a dozen rounds to take down the hp bag of the 5E Fire Giant! Meanwhile, such a heavy hitter at 28 avg. dmg the Fire Giant will squash the 5E figter in 3 rounds or less if he gets lucky.

Of course, there are other factors which aren't being considered. This is a quick "down and dirty" comparison.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, I am well familiar with AD&D 1E and 2 E, I just didn't know how things changed in 3E and since then to what we have in 5E.

But you have to look at the over all picture. Consider a AD&D 5th-level Fighter with STR 17 using a longsword with specialization (single) vs. a 5E DND Fighter with STR and Dueling style vs. their edition ogres:

View attachment 396712
(Note: Fighters have DEX 15 and CON 16.)

In AD&D, the fighter can defeat the ogre in 3 rounds typically, 2 if he is lucky at all; while the ogre would need 17 rounds to take down the fighter.

In 5E, the fighter defeats the ogre in 5 rounds most often, 4 if lucky; while the ogre would need 10 rounds to defeat the fighter.

Is it any wonder in 5E people can feel like combat is a slog? The 5E fighter hits 25% more often, attacks 33% more often, but takes roughly twice as long to kill his ogre???

Now, you mention Fire Giant, so we'll look at those as well vs. 10th-level Fighters:

View attachment 396713
(Note: the 5E Fighter is now STR 20, not 17.)

Now, the "experience" of AD&D fighter kicks in and he hits more often than the 5E fighter despite the ACs being comparable. The AD&D fighter is likely to win against the Fire Giant in 4 rounds.

Well, again we see the slog created by HP bloat. The 5E fighter will take over a dozen rounds to take down the hp bag of the 5E Fire Giant! Meanwhile, such a heavy hitter at 28 avg. dmg the Fire Giant will squash the 5E figter in 3 rounds or less if he gets lucky.

Of course, there are other factors which aren't being considered. This is a quick "down and dirty" comparison.

Works for me. AD&D fighter is comparatively better.

I've had a 2E one solo a lich, Dragon and marillith one after the other.

 

[ezo]

Works for me. AD&D fighter is comparatively better.

I've had a 2E one solo a lich, Dragon and marillith one after the other.

Not surprising really, specially when you factor in the amount of magic items, etc. PCs often had. 2E was "even worse".

I had an epic PC (Fighter 9/ Cleric 11/ Ranger 18) along with my friend's Magic-User 27th (or something). Together we defeated Tiamat and her five ancient consort dragons in Hell. But, IME, a lot of AD&D games were fairly gonzo, LOL!

 

[Zardnaar]

Not surprising really, specially when you factor in the amount of magic items, etc. PCs often had. 2E was "even worse".

I had an epic PC (Fighter 9/ Cleric 11/ Ranger 18) along with my friend's Magic-User 27th (or something). Together we defeated Tiamat and her five ancient consort dragons in Hell. But, IME, a lot of AD&D games were fairly gonzo, LOL!

Ours was something like F13/Thief 14 with haste effect. Maybe 12/14 something like that.