Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kupursk" data-source="post: 7560041" data-attributes="member: 6986037">Those are interesting ideas. If I do play with ability increases I'll probably implement something on those lines.Still, I'd like to keep ability scores as a description of your character's physical and mental attributes, not just rules mechanics. By that I mean that in our games someone with 18 Strength is massively-built like Conan or The Mountain (from Game of Thrones), because ability scores don't represent "skill" for us, but a description of the character's physicality and mental faculties. An 18 in this case means the peak of raw human strength (or maybe 20 would be that in 5e). And it'd be very WEIRD if almost every warrior in the world became a massive bulk of muscles like those in the example.I understand that's not how 5e interprets ability score values but more just like a "general aptitude." However, that's how it used to be back in the olden 2e days, and how we always interpreted abilities at our table. I'd strongly feel like something is missing if it's not longer the case.I'm quite ok with keeping ability scores at their initial values. I'm just looking for something else to add to the characters in place of the increases, so that they're not simply generally weaker.I was thinking of something on the lines of "+1 to all attacks" or "+1 to all skill."But such increases affect a different scope of what an ability increase does. That's why I'm checking with you folks who've had more experience in 5e, to see what could fit well and what'd cause issues.I've always kept healing low in my games. Close to 2e standards, even when running 3e. My settings are usually on the low-magic and gritty side. No magic shops and such. This usually means "fight smarter" and resort to basic natural recovery or whatever potions you can find, in case you take too much damage. Healing spells I stick to a smaller selection, also 2e style. Very often, even, no one plays a cleric at our table.Lack of healing's never been a big problem. Sure it means being more careful with encounters and sometimes they do get into a really tough spot. But that on occasion just builds the tension and danger.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.</blockquote>

Verification