Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6954585" data-attributes="member: 12731">To follow the instructions, I'm choosing the way saving throw bonuses fall hopelessly behind save DCs for epic monsters.I'm fine with a stupid fighter having to roll perhaps a 17 to succeed on an Intelligence save. I am not fine with a character having to roll 21 to succeed (that is, impossible saves). It just stinks of bad design. It's not elegant. And more importantly, it's not fun.My solution is really only a suggested approach. Make it so DCs top out at 19. The idea a 1st level spell gets DC 11 and a 9th level spell gets 19 is a good starting point. Then, epic superhuge worldending threats like, say, Demogorgon or Tiamat, could perhaps have an ability that forces characters to save at disadvantage.You need to roll twice, but you can always make the roll. If you start thinking "but isn't that much like the idea behind bounded accuracy"... you'd be completely right!In essence, the designers forgot to apply their beloved bounded accuracy on saves. And that's hugely irritating.Now, to the real reason I wrote - nitpicking your own suggestions! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I symphatize with the desire for more non-magical subclasses.1/2 casters and 1/3 casters are already weak as is, and it'd be wrong to change that. After all, the 3E Bard showed us that a jack of all trades should be at 80% of those trades. Not 50%.What you could do, however, is restrict the increase in save DC for 1/3rd casters. In 5E their Hold Person and Fear spells can be just as devastating as a Wizard's, which I can somewhat see as a point of contention.The Vancian ship has sailed, and I'm grateful for it.I symphathize with the desire to get rid of cantrips. In my case it's not an issue in combat, but for worldbuilding. Sure you don't need a dagger or crossbow, but that is not worth the way cantrips make the world seem like a videogame. A cantrip allows you to apply flame to an object continously. So you don't need firewood to keep warm - just heat up a chunk of stone or metal. You can melt things, letting you open locks. A cantrip like Mending absolutely wrecks local economies, since you never need another supply in your life.So I don't need to remove cantrips entirely. But I do symphatize with the idea you can't cast cantrips nearly as free as you can chop wood or swing swords. Stor right there Saelorn. What you're really saying is: you want less monsters and less combat in your world.The only reason healing is as generous in 5E is because you want to get to the fun stuff - the kobolds in the next room.If your PCs encounter fewer and weaker enemies (so that they can still win fights even without hit points) or spend more downtime recuperating back at the inn, that's quite okay. But it's not the way most people play, and it's not the way published adventures are set up. There's nothing wrong with your suggestion, except your idea it should be the default rule. As an optional variant, I don't have any problem with it. As a core rule, no - it's just not the D&D most people want.1) I'm afraid that's mathematically unsound. Making it a half feat (so -5/+10 is replaced by +1 Str or Dex) is by far the solution that combines "simple" with "working". 2) I suggest removing Crossbow Expert entirely3) no opinion4) A is on the right idea, except it's probably too harsh, and it doesn't stop first level dips. The idea is that restricting MC to first tier is not fun if you later in life decide you want to spread out, perhaps for RP reasons. It simply feels needlessly inflexible to not allow MC at every level-up.B also has merit, only it does nothing to stop "abuse" other than triple-class builds.How aboutC1. If you are a multiclass character, the class with most levels is your primary class.C2. Other classes are secondary classes.C3. If you have one or more secondary classes with fewer levels than half your primary class levels (round down), you must take a level in one of those secondary classes when you next level. So, if you dip Cleric 1, and then start taking Fighter levels, you will find that when you reach level 5, you must take a second cleric level. As a Fighter 3/Cleric 1 character you're fine (since 3 divided by two rounded down is 1, and Clr 1 is not less than this number). As a Fighter 4/Cleric 1 character you now have fewer cleric levels than half your primary class levels (since 4 divided by 2 is 2, and Clr 1 is now less than this number). Thus your sixth level needs to be Cleric, making you a Fighter 4/Cleric 2 character. This gets rid of one level dips.The rule is otherwise flexible enough to allow you to abandon one class, and focus on others.For instance, I might be a Fighter 10 that suddenly wants to explore the Bard concept with a pinch of Rogue on the side. I could pick a level of Bard, but then I couldn't go back to Fighter unless I pick up five levels of Bard first: at level 16 I could take Fighter 11 since 5 is "not fewer than half" of 11 (rounded down).What I could do, however, is go L11: Bard (Fighter 10/Bard 1) L12: Wizard (Fighter 10/Bard 1/Wizard 1)L13: Bard (Fighter 10/Bard 2/Wizard 1)and so onThe regular MC ability requirements would still be in place, so I wouldn't worry about restricting multiclassing to two classes. The requirements mean more than three classes is probably an impracticality.Sure. Each campaign world has a right to restrict character races. I would hate for a player bringing along Volo's demanding to be allowed to play a Tabaxi or Hobgoblin. That's just player entitlement that needs to go.In general, the only PHB change I would make is to drop darkvision for elves and half-elves. It's just too easy to create a near-traditional party that is all-darkvision with 5E elves.The traditional D&D party, Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling party is 25% darkvision, and that's okay. But with 5E I have found players can and will choose Half-Elf instead of Human, and Gnome instead of Halfling. Voila you have a close to traditional party with 100% darkvision. I simply dislike the way this makes humans (& halflings) the odd man out. Not having darkvision becomes a liability, rather than having darkvision is an asset. I hate the way "man, couldn't you pick half-elf instead? Describe your characters as having human-like ears. And we can skip the lanterns and gain huge stealth bonuses!" puts pressure on players to abandon non-darkvision as the default.Switch back elves to Nightvision* and this problem goes away. WHen the dwarf is alone in having darkvision, he can't blame the human and halfling for not having it. *) Low-Light VisionCharacters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the tiniest candle flame is next to her as a source of light.Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.</blockquote>

Verification