House-ruling 5e: Alternatives to Ability Increases and Healing

[Kupursk]

Anyway, if you wanted to get rid of ASIs with minimal impact on the rest of the system, here's how I'd tackle it:

• ASIs are not allowed.
• In place of an ASI, you may take a Proficiency Increase. Each PI gives you a permanent +1 to your proficiency bonus.
• Feats do not provide stat boosts. For every two feats that would normally grant a stat boost, you receive a PI instead.
• You can't benefit from more than two PIs, no matter the source.
• PIs are applied after abilities that double your proficiency bonus (e.g., Expertise).

This would result in roughly the same math as now. A typical PC would have the same attack bonus, save DCs, and so forth in either system.

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of house-rule I'm looking for. That's a great start.

What do you mean by:

• You can't benefit from more than two PIs, no matter the source.

You can only pick this increase two times, at most? So I guess just create some new random class abilities for the empty levels? Or pick a feat?

Also:

• PIs are applied after abilities that double your proficiency bonus (e.g., Expertise).

I think I'd be inclined to just make Expertise give a +4 flat bonus anyway, instead of doubling the bonus. It'd be a stronger initial boost for those skills at very low levels, and at very high levels it'd be slightly lower so as not to go to crazy beyond the normal bounded accuracy limits. I'm not sure of all the implications, but I suppose it's not too far from the standard rule so it could work well.

Lastly...
One thing that comes to mind is that proficiency bonus doesn't increase HP (which a Con increase would). Generally speaking I'm fine with characters having lower Con and lower HP unless they really want to invest their initial abilities on Con (makes the choice more relevant). The only thing is, I don't know if 5e EXPECTS everyone to raise their Con along the leveling, as in... HPs will be too low for the expected damage received damage at higher levels. Especially for front-line characters.

 

[Dausuul]

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of house-rule I'm looking for. That's a great start.

What do you mean by:

• You can't benefit from more than two PIs, no matter the source.

You can only pick this increase two times, at most? So I guess just create some new random class abilities for the empty levels? Or pick a feat?

You'd have to pick a feat once you hit the limit.

My thinking is that in 90% of cases, ASIs are spent to boost your primary stat. Primary stats typically start at 16-17 (depending on racial mods), and they cap out at 20, meaning two ASIs will get you to the cap. Thus, to preserve the same system math, you shouldn't be allowed more than two PIs.

I think I'd be inclined to just make Expertise give a +4 flat bonus anyway, instead of doubling the bonus. It'd be a stronger initial boost for those skills at very low levels, and at very high levels it'd be slightly lower so as not to go to crazy beyond the normal bounded accuracy limits. I'm not sure of all the implications, but I suppose it's not too far from the standard rule so it could work well.

I think this would work quite nicely. It's certainly simpler.

One thing that comes to mind is that proficiency bonus doesn't increase HP (which a Con increase would). Generally speaking I'm fine with characters having lower Con and lower HP unless they really want to invest their initial abilities on Con (makes the choice more relevant). The only thing is, I don't know if 5e EXPECTS everyone to raise their Con some along the levels, as in... HPs will be too low for the expected damage received damage at higher levels. Especially for front-line characters.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. If you really want to crank your hit points, that's what the Toughness feat is for. Otherwise, starting Con should be fine.

 

[Kupursk]

Ability Scores
It also has further ripples - it makes having a class with a good bonus to your prime ability score required because that's set in stone and will have so much more affect on how your character plays then a bonus to any other ability score. This narrowing of viable concepts I dislike.

This is a big mechanical change, but the reason given for making the change isn't mechanical at all, yet will require a mechanical resolution. Just think of this as the natural results of focusing on it, much like a bodybuilder would increase what they could lift. That shift in viewpoint may alleviate this as an issue. Because this will have large shifts in play if removed.

That's very much true.

In earlier editions most of the numerical values came directly from class (THAC0 or Base Attack, % based Thief skills in 2e, Skill ranks in general in 3e), with the contribution from abilities being much smaller. In 5e the ability modifier a lot more relevant to your checks, so making for instance a high-Int low-Str Fighter just because you want to, will be a bigger drawback to your class than in 2e or 3e. (Or at least I suppose so, haven't really tried yet to know for certain.)

But that's why I was hoping for a house-rule that could compensate for the lack of higher ability scores and still be viable.

Reading your comment gave me a weird new idea, though... I could keep the "increases" but only raise the modifier and not the ability score. For example:
* Fighter starts at Str 16 (+3)
* At the appropriate level he receives a +1 increase to one modifier instead of +2 to an ability score.
* He choses Str and now has a value of 16 (+4)
* For most relevant class-related checks he'd use the increased modifier: to-hit, damage, athletics, etc.
* However when checking for raw brute strength (like lifting a big rock) or to calculate Encumbrance, he'd still only use the original 1d20+3 from his Str 16.

Basically whenever making a pure attribute check, use the original value with its original modifier (equivalent of rolling-under for general ability checks in 2e). And whenever the ability is used to modify a skill, attack, DC or whatever, use the increased modifier instead.

Any thoughts on this idea?

 

[Ovinomancer]

As Blue suggested, you should play the game as written a bit before jumping in to rewrite big pieces of the foundations. 5e does NOT run or play like 3e, and only loosely like 2e. Trying to get a 3e feel out of 5e is a bad take -- just play 3e.

That said:

1. I think your concern that ability scores switch from descriptive to mechanical is a tad overblown. The mechanical effects tie directly into the descriptive effects. ASIs, as many have said, you can jettison, but they aren't the boogeyman you've imagined (I've never seen or heard of the negative examples you've presented actually occurring.) Still, just skipping them (and feats) will not affect your game very much at all until higher tiers, and there minorly.

2. HP. This is a big point of contention. The reason it's designed this way is to eliminate the need for a cleric to just be a primary healbot, and to remove the strange hp economy that occurred in older editions -- sure, you didn't heal quickly on your own, but it was trivial once the CLW wands showed up. 5e jettisons the need for the workaround to arrive at the same point -- if you take a long rest you're fully healed. In 3e/2e it was clerics using most of their slots to heal and/or burning through CLW wand charges, but you got to the same place. 5e does it so that you're not needlessly tracking CLW wands as a tax and so clerics can to nifty things other than hold slots for healing. I'd recommend actually looking at how you really played -- how often was natural healing a real factor in your games past low levels, and what costs in overhead did that consume? Then ask if the problem is that you're having narrative trouble with non-magic wand healing instead of full hitpoints. Then, you can work on a better narration of the hp gain rather than assume the problem is the mechanics.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Basically whenever making a pure attribute check, use the original value with its original modifier (equivalent of rolling-under for general ability checks in 2e). And whenever the ability is used to modify a skill, attack, DC or whatever, use the increased modifier instead.

Any thoughts on this idea?

That's more workable. Basically, instead of increasing your actual Strength, you learn to use your existing Strength more effectively. You only have a Strength of 16, so you don't look like Arnold, but your experience means that you can apply your Strength to be on-par with an 18 or 20 in most circumstances.

Personally, I'm not a fan of it because it adds complexity. I like that Strength 16 and Strength 20 both have consistent meanings within the game world and within the game mechanics. If you don't mind the additional complexity, and if it really bothers you that high-level fighters trend toward Arnold over time, then it should be fine. Honestly, raw ability checks almost never come up within the system, anyway.

 

[Kupursk]

2. HP. This is a big point of contention. The reason it's designed this way is to eliminate the need for a cleric to just be a primary healbot, and to remove the strange hp economy that occurred in older editions -- sure, you didn't heal quickly on your own, but it was trivial once the CLW wands showed up. 5e jettisons the need for the workaround to arrive at the same point -- if you take a long rest you're fully healed. In 3e/2e it was clerics using most of their slots to heal and/or burning through CLW wand charges, but you got to the same place. 5e does it so that you're not needlessly tracking CLW wands as a tax and so clerics can to nifty things other than hold slots for healing. I'd recommend actually looking at how you really played -- how often was natural healing a real factor in your games past low levels, and what costs in overhead did that consume? Then ask if the problem is that you're having narrative trouble with non-magic wand healing instead of full hitpoints. Then, you can work on a better narration of the hp gain rather than assume the problem is the mechanics.

I guess I just have a very different experience with 2e/3e from what some of you folks did.

In our games we never felt that "need" for a "heal bot", either through a cleric or wands. In fact I don't recall ever having a cure light wounds wand. Potions were more frequent, but not abundant to the point of players depending on them for anything. They were used more like an "oh crap" resource whenever things when awry, and they were always limited anyway.

Most of our games were gritty and low-magic. No magic shops and not a huge abundance of magic items. You got what you'd find while adventuring. Very often there'd be no clerics in the party, even. Player's would just rely on natural recovery per rest, and the occasional potion and such. Other than that just try to avoid as much as possible taking unnecessary damage.

Usually when there was a cleric, sure, healing made things easier, but mostly the party also fought more carelessly because they knew there was healing. And often the cleric wouldn't spend that many slots in cure spells, after all he did want to play the class for the other spells too. Meaning... sure a cleric helps a lot, but it was never "mandatory."

That's why the 5e healing standards feel so alien to me, I guess.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Those are interesting ideas. If I do play with ability increases I'll probably implement something on those lines.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the overwhelming majority of bonuses that players get come before level 10. You're expected to have a 16 at level 1, so +5 to hit with the +2 proficiency bonus. You get two ASIs before level 10, and your proficiency bonus increases twice. You should have a +9 by level 10. However, between level 11 and level 20, you only get two more increases. You cap out at +11. The game is built around leveling the PCs out like that, so they'll feel like they're gaining a lot of power in the early game, but it tapers off.

However, HP (and the associated amount of healing you generally had) in older editions was built more like a long-term resource, being chipped away with every encounter during the adventure, unless something bad and unpredictable happened, or too many unlucky rolls. But in 5e it seems like the overall (expected) damage players take in every fight appear to be much higher, probably to compensate for the increase overall healing in the system. And I fear that simply lowering healing to 2e - 3e standards might not work.

I was actually looking for some guidelines to rebalance monster DAMAGE to a lower healing standard, and not the healing itself which is easy to do.

I know that some monsters haven't changed much in terms of damage. For instance the Bulette has about the same damage per round in 3e and 5e.

But some, like the Bugbear, went from 1d8+2 per round in 3e to a whooping 2d8+2+2d6 in 5e.

It's not just damage. If you look through the Monster Manual, you'll find very few creatures have more than AC 20, while the first creatures with AC 20 have a CR of around 3. Like I said, it's really quite easy to get +10 to hit by level 10, while it's very rare for even a PC's AC to go much above 22 outside of limited effects like the shield spell. You get to the mid point of the experience table, and every attack hits -- especially with advantage being fairly easy to access! You miss a lot less in 5e in general and HP values are much higher to compensate; that's why Magic Missle is so bad. You don't get hit so much that armor feels worthless, but you get hit a lot, and there just aren't the complex defenses that you could put up in earlier editions with spells. Concentration makes a lot of spells and effects a lot less appealing and really limits what you can do, and attunement assures that you've got to pick and choose what items you really want.

I strongly recommend playing the game for one campaign to level 10 or so without modificiations. Modifying or limiting ASIs isn't going to break anything, but changing damage, hp, and healing is poking at the game's foundation, IMO. What you're suggesting is a huge undertaking.

The game is built around 6-8 relatively weak encounters per day (much weaker than you'd see in earlier editions) and those are intended to nickel and dime the PCs. That's how the short rest classes (Fighter, Warlock, Monk) are intended to keep up, and how the game helps ensure the PCs won't long rest all the time. The encounters are also usually very fast and very short. Unless you're a Life Cleric, you probably can't keep up. It's a bit different, and not always intuitive to new players coming from earlier editions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess I just have a very different experience with 2e/3e from what some of you folks did.

In our games we never felt that "need" for a "heal bot", either through a cleric or wands. In fact I don't recall ever having a cure light wounds wand. Potions were more frequent, but not abundant to the point of players depending on them for anything. They were used more like an "oh crap" resource whenever things when awry, and they were always limited anyway.

Most of our games were gritty and low-magic. No magic shops and not a huge abundance of magic items. You got what you'd find while adventuring. Very often there'd be no clerics in the party, even. Player's would just rely on natural recovery per rest, and the occasional potion and such. Other than that just try to avoid as much as possible taking unnecessary damage.

Usually when there was a cleric, sure, healing made things easier, but mostly the party also fought more carelessly because they knew there was healing. And often the cleric wouldn't spend that many slots in cure spells, after all he did want to play the class for the other spells too. Meaning... sure a cleric helps a lot, but it was never "mandatory."

That's why the 5e healing standards feel so alien to me, I guess.

Well, you're certainly an outlier, then. I'd recommend the gritty healing optional rules in the DMG to get this feel. Easy, no mess.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well, you're certainly an outlier, then.

Do we have data on that? My understanding is that AD&D varied wildly between tables, and my own experience with 2E was as described - never get into a fair fight, avoid taking damage whenever possible, and natural healing was sufficient for when you failed at that.

 

[Gadget]

1) Well I would dispute that ability scores were less important in 3e's unbounded ability score system, where PC's had an arms race to mid to twenty-something or higher in their main ability score--at least 5e sets a hard limit at twenty--but I guess we all have different experiences. Though I guess 3e had a lot more ways to stack multiple bonus sources onto whatever you were attempting, so 5e does make ability scores more important by virtue of limiting all the multiple sources of stacking enhancements to a roll. I think the weakling to Schwarzenegger concern is more white room concern than reality, as most campaigns don't play the full level range to get all the ability score increases and the 'weakling' fighter would struggle with the low initial ability score initially.

2) I think you are better off with the alternate rules of healing in the DMG, but first I would examine the reasons why the healing is the way it is: Namely, the whole "who's going to play the Heal-bot?" issue that came up again and again in 3x & even AD&D. Now you don't feel the pressure to have a cleric/druid healer. Also, the famous 3e "load up on cheap wands of cure light wounds to fill up on HP after a tough battle." And in a keg of healing potions and you can see why they just decided to get rid of the whole thing.