D&D 5E Making a 5E Variant I *Want* To Play (+thread)

[DND_Reborn]

So I guess my number one question is "are you fundamentally opposed to recalibrating 5E to use a 2d10 or 3d6 based central mechanic instead of a d20-based one?".

It's very hard to solve several of your items without making rolls virtually a forgone conclusion because the bonuses are so extremely large without changing away from a d20 and it's flat distribution. It sounds like you've sorta considered this but the approaches you took are hard to understand. Rolling dice with a penalty is going to be unfun for a lot of people, and complicates matters because there's no WYSWYG and you always get less than you rolled. Why not consider actual 3d6 or 2d10, and recalibrate things slightly?



Can you explain what you mean by "wonky"? Because I can't see it. Rolling 2d20 every attack roll and taking the lowest is also a lot slower than rolling 1d20, so I'm confused as to why it's fine there.

5/6/7 should maybe be one larger item because none of the changes makes sense without the others. #5 will make combat take far longer without 6/7. With 6/7 I still think people will find combat takes about the same time, only it's mostly people missing. Is that going to lead to more fun?

Your criticism re: success being boring will also apply to skills if you use the very large proficiency bonuses you are proposing. Hence my question re: dice.

Rolling 2d20 for "disadvantage" is not "a whole lot slower." It only takes an eye-blink to compare two numbers and pick the lower one. It is certainly faster than adding 2d10 or 3d6.

Yes, hitting all the time (or close to it) is boring and there is no challenge in it. People have mentioned how some of my ideas will make things auto-successes and such, well 5E is designed around a 60+% success rate. If you do something and it is easy to do, there is little challenge. We have (I am completely serious about this!) had players get more excited because they MISSED since it is the uncommon result. So, in talking it over with our other DM and all the players, only one felt this might not work out while everyone else is totally onboard.

Now, quick aside, yes the early items all revolve around the "larger" issue of proficiency, and the later ones around "combat/hit points" as they are obviously related.

Our group is combat heavy, so a lot more attack rolls are made more than ability/skill checks. The "large" proficiency bonus I am suggesting is not that large and is offset by the capped 18 ability score. If I do decide to go with the "basic D&D" model, 18's would only be +3 and thus my total bonus would be +11 (instead of a current +12) vs. the RAW +11. Also, but making expertise "advantage" I am actually making the higher DCs harder since no one would be +17 like they can be in RAW. So, success isn't much more likely and it simply makes sense because non-proficient vs. proficient removes the swinginess of the flat d20 some (since the non-proficient has "disadvantage").

The downside also of using 2d10 or 3d6 is for the proficient, it penalizes them for trying to reach higher numbers, which is not a goal. Success in ability checks is hardly automatic anyway, and I don't want to make the harder things even harder since they don't happen as often.

A lot of this came about from the idea of a non-proficient low ability score PC beating a proficient high ability score PC on checks.

For example. If a total -1 and a total +6 both roll a DC 15 check, there is a 10% chance the -1 will succeed while the +6 fails. 10% might not sound like a lot, but when you factor in the other alternatives it is to me. If this was a contested roll, the -1 will WIN 19.5% of the time! Nearly 1 out of 5 times someone with low ability and no proficiency is beating a PC with proficiency and high ability (or max proficiency in RAW). No, thank you, that is not realistic or making much sense to me.

If we take the same totals but apply "disadvantage" to the non-proficient, the chance of them winning a contested check drops to 8.125% or less than 1 in 12 times. I am okay with that. If they are both making an ability DC 15 check, the change of the -1 making it while the +6 fails is only 2.5% (1/4th of the RAW system). So, that makes sense. Someone with low ability and no proficiency should not likely succeed where the other fails.

I know this is a lot of derivation from the 5E design, and a lot of people won't like that, but it makes more sense to me as to how things work.

Thanks for your post!

 

[DND_Reborn]

#1
I'm not a fan of penalizing characters/players, especially when they already aren't great at something, but I think overall the positive effects of this might outweigh the negatives.

#4
I think every class should get something cool at every level, other than just more hit points. Since you're already minimizing the importance of HP, this seems like an especially good approach.

#5
Also not a fan of this, for the same as my response to #1. This feels like nerfing. Granted, I say this while comparing it to 5E as it is, so maybe if rolling 2d20 and taking the lowest was the default, maybe that would seem normal. It incentivizes only making attacks in ways you know you're good at, which...is less heroic, maybe? If anything, my experience with my group has been boredom from missing too often, not hitting too often.

I wonder if dropping the default disadvantage thing and just increasing the stacking of advantage would achieve what you're after?

#1. I agree for the most part. My point is if you want to have a good chance to succeed at something, make it a priority and take proficiency.

#4. Thank you! For me it more about offering something for PCs to improve in beyond class features since, well, with experience they should get better at some things at least.

#5. I can see your point, but if you can understand how mundane high success rates make things feel, they are actually in a way less "heroic" because they are common. YMMV of course, and if your table is not hitting things often than it isn't an issue, but I see it all the time.

The other point of this is it does make combat go faster because there is less dice rolling for damage and tracking it. Sure, you are rolling the d20 more because there are two of them, but you aren't switching out dice to grab the ones for damage as much.

We have to playtest this extensively before we decide to adopt any more of it (we already use the +8 max prof bonus and cap 18 ability scores).

Thanks for your input!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Going to focus mostly on skills because for the combat parts, I'm not a fan of using advantage and disadvantage for skill. If everyone is dodging, then everyone is in the same boat and you might as well roll normal. Missing more often will make combats drag, IMO. I don't really have a fix, though.

Spoiler: Item #1: Not enough difference between proficiency and non-proficiency.

Example. A +6 vs. a +0 in a contested roll will loose 22.75% of the time. +6 represents maximum proficiency and is only at tier 4 (17th+ level!), but will lose nearly 1 in 4 times?
Issue. This bugs me because you need 225,000 XP for tier 4, which is a lot of adventuring, trials, success, and failure, but you are not significantly better than someone with no experience whatsoever.
Change. You have "disadvantage" on any ability check you make when you do not apply proficiency. Expertise grants "advantage" instead of double the proficiency bonus.

Spoiler: Item #2: Proficiency (i.e. experience) does not count for enough and is nearly matched by ability scores.

Example. An INT 18 NPC without Arcana proficiency is only 10% less likely to know about Arcana than an INT 10 PC with Arcana at level 17+.
Issue. While ability scores should help certainly, they should not come close to matching what thousands of XP of adventuring can teach a PC.
Change. Proficiency progression is increased to a max of +8 following this pattern: +2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6,7,7,7,8,8,8 and ability scores cap at 18 with maximum +4. This yields a maximum bonus of +12

Spoiler: Item #3: A stress on ability scores over proficiency makes sub-optimal builds suffer.

Example. A STR 12 level 20 fighter who uses a longsword will max out at +7 compared to the STR 20 level 1 fighter who is also +7.
Issue: A 20th-level fighter's skill should far surpass the max STR bonus of +5, but it doesn't so people are not likely to play sub-optimal builds.
Change. See Item #2. In this example, the level 20 fighter would become +9, while the STR 18 (max) level 1 fighter would be +6. Not perfect, but it helps.

Spoiler: Item #4: Characters should improve in most areas as they progress but don't.

Example. A character without proficiency is just as likely to fail a DC 12 save at level 1 as at level 20.
Example. A character without stealth proficiency is just as likely to fail against a passive perception 10 at level 1 as at level 20.
Example. A character without proficiency has ridden a horse for thousands of XP worth of adventures as they leveled, but are no better at it then they were when they first got on it.
Issue.This ignores that such characters will have to test those saves, skills, etc. during their adventures but never get any better at them. Saves will be tested, non-stealthy characters will still have times when they need to make Dexterity (Stealth) checks, and so on.
Change. At each tier, the PC gains proficiency in a skill, language, tool, etc. along with a ASI +1 OR proficiency in a saving throw. So, you won't improve in everything but at least you get something.

Instead of non-proficiency = disadvantage and Expertise = advantage.

• Some skills are capped at DC 10 if they are not trained. Skills such as knowledge skills would be capped at DC 10 because the character only knows 'common knowledge'. Therefore, training increases your upper range of DCs you can succeed on.
• Allow a certain amount of bonus points to increase skills. Proficiency +INT Bonus (for example). These can be added as a flat bonus to skills to improve them. Non-proficient skills can be added upon at a 2:1 ratio and proficient skills can be added upon at a 1:1. These extra bonuses do not get multiplied by expertise, nor do they count as 'proficiency' and are capped (not sure what the cap should be...half proficiency???) When your proficiency goes up, you get another point(+INT?) to allocate.

-Allow a character to spend 'x' number of points to make a non-proficient skill proficient (3 or 5 points?)

This allows characters who use a skill a lot to push their skill up or make it proficient to unlock the upper ceiling of what checks they can make.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Going to focus mostly on skills because for the combat parts, I'm not a fan of using advantage and disadvantage for skill. If everyone is dodging, then everyone is in the same boat and you might as well roll normal. Missing more often will make combats drag, IMO. I don't really have a fix, though.


Instead of non-proficiency = disadvantage and Expertise = advantage.

• Some skills are capped at DC 10 if they are not trained. Skills such as knowledge skills would be capped at DC 10 because the character only knows 'common knowledge'. Therefore, training increases your upper range of DCs you can succeed on.
• Allow a certain amount of bonus points to increase skills. Proficiency +INT Bonus (for example). These can be added as a flat bonus to skills to improve them. Non-proficient skills can be added upon at a 2:1 ratio and proficient skills can be added upon at a 1:1. These extra bonuses do not get multiplied by expertise, nor do they count as 'proficiency' and are capped (not sure what the cap should be...half proficiency???) When your proficiency goes up, you get another point(+INT?) to allocate.

-Allow a character to spend 'x' number of points to make a non-proficient skill proficient (3 or 5 points?)

This allows characters who use a skill a lot to push their skill up or make it proficient to unlock the upper ceiling of what checks they can make.

Just to address the combat issue. You are missing more with my ideas, but because HP is half, your hits count for twice as much. In reality, the number of rounds is roughly the same, maybe a bit less, than rolling normally against normal HP. But, the speed of each round is faster because you aren't rolling dice for damage and tracking damage with 2/3rd of the attacks, only about 1/3 (over all, that is). Given it does take a slight amount of time for comparing the 2d20's, the overall benefit is to speed up the combats IRT.

Now, on to skills!

I hadn't thought of capping non-proficient, I sort of came up when I was considered 4d6-4 for proficient and only 2d6-2 (later 3d6-3) for non-proficient since the highest you could get in 2d6-2 was 10 (and 15 on 3d6-3).

I'm fine with granting additional proficiencies with each tier as it allows PCs to improve something as they level without having to devote a feat to it. Now, if the 5E system was a skill point system like 3E, then I think your idea would work well (as I understand it anyway). I've toyed with doing a skill point system for 5E, but honestly the hassle seemed more than it was worth.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, in talking it over with our other DM and all the players, only one felt this might not work out while everyone else is totally onboard.

I don't think that means much at all. Enthusiasm is valuable in that it lets people try things, but it's terrible for assessing how well future things are likely to go. I think you know this.

So you're forcing Disadvantage and doubling Proficiency, essentially. What that means is people will miss slightly more often at lower levels, and less often at higher ones. Players will have to roll and compare 2d20 every attack, which means you can't do things like roll multiple attacks at once (unless you have matched pairs of d20s) unless you have at least enough Advantage to get "back in the black" as it were.

Even with the HP reductions you propose, I suspect this will make combat quite a bit slower, but less swingy, because you're taking the worse of 2d20. Low-AC enemies will get hit more often. High AC enemies will get hit less often (which is actually similar to switching to 3d6).

Rolling 2d20 for "disadvantage" is not "a whole lot slower." It only takes an eye-blink to compare two numbers and pick the lower one. It is certainly faster than adding 2d10 or 3d6.

Haha, no, it isn't. I'm pretty sure we could actually demonstrate that with science. Most people who play with dice regularly can instantly add the pips on 3d6. They literally don't have to think about it. You instantly see "13" or "6" or "17" or whatever - this is far faster than an eye-blink even. It's not a hard skill to acquire - even the player in my group who still confuses 1d10 and 1d12 can do it. You know this to be true. And adding is a faster mental function than subtraction, I daresay it's faster than comparison, too. So 3d6 is definitely, unquestionably faster. 2d10 might be closer.

I also question your thinking here, because you were using dice-equations involving subtraction. Subtraction is massively slower for pretty much everyone, than addition. 4d6-4 would take significantly longer to calculate than other stuff, and loses WYSWYG. That you were even considering that makes me suggest you reconsider 3d6 (without any -3 nonsense).

Success in ability checks is hardly automatic anyway, and I don't want to make the harder things even harder since they don't happen as often.

You wouldn't be "making things even harder". It's entirely unclear why you think you would be. You'd recalibrate the skill target DCs. Maybe you don't want to do that, that's fine, but in practice I suspect you will end up having to do this with your system.

So, success isn't much more likely and it simply makes sense because non-proficient vs. proficient removes the swinginess of the flat d20 some (since the non-proficient has "disadvantage").

For example. If a total -1 and a total +6 both roll a DC 15 check, there is a 10% chance the -1 will succeed while the +6 fails. 10% might not sound like a lot, but when you factor in the other alternatives it is to me. If this was a contested roll, the -1 will WIN 19.5% of the time! Nearly 1 out of 5 times someone with low ability and no proficiency is beating a PC with proficiency and high ability (or max proficiency in RAW). No, thank you, that is not realistic or making much sense to me.

Everything you're concerned about here is better solved with using, say, 3d6. You talk about people being "penalized for reaching for higher difficulties", but that's simply not true. You just recalibrate the difficulties appropriately. It sounds from what you're saying that you've dismissed this out of hand and haven't run the numbers at all, but rather ran the numbers for a different scenario with a fundamentally bad idea (4d6-4).

By just adding a very large bonus to proficient characters, you simply make it so DC15 is not really a thing anymore. It doesn't really matter if you make it so stats cap at +3. But you're still using 1d20. Things will still be very swingy. Simply increasing the size of the modifier (which is the approach you're taking) doesn't resolve the underlying issue - using a single die is always going to lead to swingy-ness in this kind of situation.

Reason I have a lot of (hopefully not useless) criticism here is that I have been looking at solving some of the same issues as you. My conclusion has been that there is no approach that retains the d20 which doesn't either:

A) Not actually solve the problems.

or

B) Merely create a new problem where you just basically always succeed, and in many cases there isn't even any point rolling.

Have you considered, if you're very keen to retain a d20, which seems to be the case, re-instating Take 10 and Take 20? And only letting proficient people use them? You'd have to rework Reliable Talent for Rogues, but you'll presumably need to do that anyway (and some other Rogue stuff). Between them they can solve a lot of problems with skills. It's actually kind of outright bad design that 5E threw them overboard and then tried to bring Take 10 back as a class feature.

 

[CubicsRube]

Thanks. I do, too.

However when you combine proficiency and ability score bonus, the goal is to keep the bonus roughly around the RAW +11 (sans expertise). If you limit ability to +3 (either with 16 or by changing the mods) and proficiency at +10, that is +13 which starts to push things further away.

I toyed with the idea of the basic ability mods (13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 is +3) and having proficiency progress up to +9 (so half level about...), which keeps the total capped at +12. It also makes the proficiency to ability mod ratio a nice 3:1 instead of the 2:1 I currently have, thus putting even more emphasis on proficiency.

I think just removing CON bonus from HP helps with that issue when you add an AC bonus. But, I do worry about it because with heavy armor, shield, defensive style, and magic items (armor +3, shield +3) you can get AC 30 by tier 4. Now, if I keep with the idea of a gritty game with very low magic, it isn't that bad because it would cap ACs around 24-25. I'm on the fence on it all, honestly.

In regards to total bounds for proficiency, yes it depends on how much you are willing to stretch past 11, and that's personal preference. Note however, this wouldn't happen until late Tier 4, when the game is being stretched anyway. My personal preference is limiting at 16 to make it possible to max out an ability at character creation because I prefer feats anyway, but it's not necessarily for everyone.

However, if you want to keep to the 2:1 ratio, might I suggest starting proficiency at +1 as per below? the early levels pass quickly, and it creates a slightly higher difference in proficiency levels between novice (level 1) and tier 4 characters which I noticed was one of your goals.

Level	Ability	Proficiency	Total
1​	3​	1​	4​
2​	3​	1​	4​
3​	3​	2​	5​
4​	4​	2​	6​
5​	4​	3​	7​
6​	4​	3​	7​
7​	4​	4​	8​
8​	4​	4​	8​
9​	4​	5​	9​
10​	4​	5​	9​
11​	4​	5​	9​
12​	4​	6​	10​
13​	4​	6​	10​
14​	4​	6​	10​
15​	4​	7​	11​
16​	4​	7​	11​
17​	4​	7​	11​
18​	4​	8​	12​
19​	4​	8​	12​
20​	4​	8​	12​

Regarding HP, my preferred method is CON Score at level 0, then Level 1 onwards is just half HP increase (fixed level). Consider the methods below using a d8 hit die class. Characters start of as robust as a level 3 character. The d8 character with CON14 catches up in HP at Level 8 and the CON10 character in the old method will always be 10HP less well off than the new method character.

I like the added durability to starting classes, and I also like lessening the temptation to bump up CON in favour of other scores. CON is still plenty useful for it's save, but less of a no-brainer. That's one of my design goals, not something you've stated. But I thought I'd share it on the HP discussion.

	Old Method	Old Method	New method	New method
Level	CON 10	CON 14	CON 10	CON 14
1​	5​	7​	15​	19​
2​	10​	14​	20​	24​
3​	15​	21​	25​	29​
4​	20​	28​	30​	34​
5​	25​	35​	35​	39​
6​	30​	42​	40​	44​
7​	35​	49​	45​	49​
8​	40​	56​	50​	54​
9​	45​	63​	55​	59​
10​	50​	70​	60​	64​
11​	55​	77​	65​	69​
12​	60​	84​	70​	74​
13​	65​	91​	75​	79​
14​	70​	98​	80​	84​
15​	75​	105​	85​	89​
16​	80​	112​	90​	94​
17​	85​	119​	95​	99​
18​	90​	126​	100​	104​
19​	95​	133​	105​	109​
20​	100​	140​	110​	114​

Lastly, the AC item is tricky and it's one that I've played with on many angles (weapon bonus to defense, proficiency instead of dex, etc) but in the end it has all seemed like a lot of work because there are so many intricate little subsystems, spells and effects that interact with AC. If you find a method you're happy with, please let me know!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Oi... long posts... why so long....

Sigh, fine. Here we go...

I don't think that means much at all. Enthusiasm is valuable in that it lets people try things, but it's terrible for assessing how well future things are likely to go. I think you know this.

Well, that is the whole point isn't it? To try something you think will make the game more enjoyable. If we try this and the players start rebelling, I am fully prepared to drop it as a failed attempt. So, we'll have to see once this is finalized enough to try in an actual campaign instead of just play-testing.

So you're forcing Disadvantage and doubling Proficiency, essentially. What that means is people will miss slightly more often at lower levels, and less often at higher ones. Players will have to roll and compare 2d20 every attack, which means you can't do things like roll multiple attacks at once (unless you have matched pairs of d20s) unless you have at least enough Advantage to get "back in the black" as it were.

I'm not forcing one and doubling the other. That would basically say I am double-dipping but it isn't.

Actually, you have it backwards. It means people will miss slightly less often

We don't do all attacks at once. We can't because the results of the first hit can impact the situation before the second attack is even made. Now, sure if you color-code your attack dice (this is first, this is second), you can but then you are still using the time scanning for the first color die and it's damage (if you roll that as well). Given the challenge the players have rolling a single attack at a time, I don't think I'd want to try rolling two attacks or even three!

Even with the HP reductions you propose, I suspect this will make combat quite a bit slower, but less swingy, because you're taking the worse of 2d20. Low-AC enemies will get hit more often. High AC enemies will get hit less often (which is actually similar to switching to 3d6).

No, it won't take longer. I know this because we're already play-testing it. The act of rolling for damage and applying/tracking damage is longer than the misses take. And yes, the result is similar to doing 2d10 or 3d6, but it is faster to scan two dice then add them.

Haha, no, it isn't. I'm pretty sure we could actually demonstrate that with science. Most people who play with dice regularly can instantly add the pips on 3d6. They literally don't have to think about it. You instantly see "13" or "6" or "17" or whatever - this is far faster than an eye-blink even. It's not a hard skill to acquire - even the player in my group who still confuses 1d10 and 1d12 can do it. You know this to be true. And adding is a faster mental function than subtraction, I daresay it's faster than comparison, too. So 3d6 is definitely, unquestionably faster. 2d10 might be closer.

Haha yes, it is. A lot of people who play for a long time have acquired that ability (myself included). And I can prove it scientifically if you want. Here:

I rolled 2d20 10 times, scanning the results to find the lower number, and it took me 11.25 seconds. Basically the time to pick up the dice and reroll them as I could scan them, see the numbers, and determine the lower by the time I had picked up the dice.

When I rolled 3d6 10 times, it took me 14.5 seconds. Mostly the time to pick up the dice because I had three to gather instead of 2, but there was a few times I had to pause to confirm my initial grasp of the number.

Try it. 2d20 with disadvantage IS faster than 3d6. I'll have a couple guys in the group do it tomorrow and let you know how they do.

You know it to be true.

Of course addition is faster than subtraction, you'll get no argument from me there.

I also question your thinking here, because you were using dice-equations involving subtraction. Subtraction is massively slower for pretty much everyone, than addition. 4d6-4 would take significantly longer to calculate than other stuff, and loses WYSWYG. That you were even considering that makes me suggest you reconsider 3d6 (without any -3 nonsense).

It isn't actually subtraction. That is just, mathematically dice-wise, how it works out. We rolled 4d6 (or 3d6), discarding 6's (essentially you treat them as 0). And there are dice out there that are 0-5 and adding them is even faster than normal d6. One of my issues with 3d6 at first as you can't get the full range of 1-20 as you're missing 1,2,19, and 20. I came up with 4d6-4 as a bell-curve for a range of 0-20. Not only do you get the full 1-20 range, but it allows you to treat 0 as a critical fumble (which a lot of tables use).

I expanded on that to think of 4d6-4 as proficient, removing a die for disadvantage, another for lack of proficiency, etc. It actually works well and my online group tried it for a few sessions. They actually didn't like going back to flat d20's! Fortunately, the like helping me playtest different ideas.

I did consider 3d6, but for the reasons I've stated I prefer "disadvantage". Both accomplish the same goal, so I don't know why you are so dead-set against it.

You wouldn't be "making things even harder". It's entirely unclear why you think you would be. You'd recalibrate the skill target DCs. Maybe you don't want to do that, that's fine, but in practice I suspect you will end up having to do this with your system.

No, I would not adjust DCs at all and I won't need to. Keep in mind you only have "disadvantage" when you lack proficiency. If you have proficiency, it is the same as RAW with a flat d20. I am making things harder for PCs that aren't good a them in that they haven't "trained deeper".

Everything you're concerned about here is better solved with using, say, 3d6. You talk about people being "penalized for reaching for higher difficulties", but that's simply not true. You just recalibrate the difficulties appropriately. It sounds from what you're saying that you've dismissed this out of hand and haven't run the numbers at all, but rather ran the numbers for a different scenario with a fundamentally bad idea (4d6-4).

Why use 3d6 and have to re-calibrate DCs (I DID look into this BTW) when my way I don't need to? I did it all with 3d6, 2d10, and 4d6-4, FWIW.

By just adding a very large bonus to proficient characters, you simply make it so DC15 is not really a thing anymore. It doesn't really matter if you make it so stats cap at +3. But you're still using 1d20. Things will still be very swingy. Simply increasing the size of the modifier (which is the approach you're taking) doesn't resolve the underlying issue - using a single die is always going to lead to swingy-ness in this kind of situation.

True, the flat d20 is still swingy, but I don't want to incorporate one system for one thing (attacking) and use another for a different system (ability checks). And the swinginess is reduced in contested checks between proficient and non-proficient or proficient and expert.

Here, I'll give you a concrete sample:
3d6, DC 15:
-1: 4.6%
+6: 74.1%

"disadvantage" for -1, "flat proficient" for +6, DC 15
-1: 6.3%
+6: 60%

Both methods make the -1 less likely to succeed compared to flat d20, but 3d6 improves the positive modifier, regardless of whether the check is made with proficient or not. 3d6 also puts too much emphasis on the middle rolls. It makes it so even with proficiency you are not as likely to hit the higher DCs, making it harder than it should be for someone with proficiency IMO.

Reason I have a lot of (hopefully not useless) criticism here is that I have been looking at solving some of the same issues as you. My conclusion has been that there is no approach that retains the d20 which doesn't either:

A) Not actually solve the problems.

or

B) Merely create a new problem where you just basically always succeed, and in many cases there isn't even any point rolling.

Have you considered, if you're very keen to retain a d20, which seems to be the case, re-instating Take 10 and Take 20? And only letting proficient people use them? You'd have to rework Reliable Talent for Rogues, but you'll presumably need to do that anyway (and some other Rogue stuff). Between them they can solve a lot of problems with skills. It's actually kind of outright bad design that 5E threw them overboard and then tried to bring Take 10 back as a class feature.

5E already has Take 10, doesn't it? I swore I saw it someplace... Allowing only proficient checks to use them would help probably, but it doesn't solve the combat issue. I'll have to think about that some more!

Whew! Man, I hate long posts.

No offense intended, because I appreciate you taking the time to try to help, but can we focus on one thing only next time?

LOL and thanks! I was so tired from writing I forgot when I finished and posted it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In regards to total bounds for proficiency, yes it depends on how much you are willing to stretch past 11, and that's personal preference. Note however, this wouldn't happen until late Tier 4, when the game is being stretched anyway. My personal preference is limiting at 16 to make it possible to max out an ability at character creation because I prefer feats anyway, but it's not necessarily for everyone.

However, if you want to keep to the 2:1 ratio, might I suggest starting proficiency at +1 as per below? the early levels pass quickly, and it creates a slightly higher difference in proficiency levels between novice (level 1) and tier 4 characters which I noticed was one of your goals.

Level	Ability	Proficiency	Total
1​	3​	1​	4​
2​	3​	1​	4​
3​	3​	2​	5​
4​	4​	2​	6​
5​	4​	3​	7​
6​	4​	3​	7​
7​	4​	4​	8​
8​	4​	4​	8​
9​	4​	5​	9​
10​	4​	5​	9​
11​	4​	5​	9​
12​	4​	6​	10​
13​	4​	6​	10​
14​	4​	6​	10​
15​	4​	7​	11​
16​	4​	7​	11​
17​	4​	7​	11​
18​	4​	8​	12​
19​	4​	8​	12​
20​	4​	8​	12​

Regarding HP, my preferred method is CON Score at level 0, then Level 1 onwards is just half HP increase (fixed level). Consider the methods below using a d8 hit die class. Characters start of as robust as a level 3 character. The d8 character with CON14 catches up in HP at Level 8 and the CON10 character in the old method will always be 10HP less well off than the new method character.

I like the added durability to starting classes, and I also like lessening the temptation to bump up CON in favour of other scores. CON is still plenty useful for it's save, but less of a no-brainer. That's one of my design goals, not something you've stated. But I thought I'd share it on the HP discussion.

	Old Method	Old Method	New method	New method
Level	CON 10	CON 14	CON 10	CON 14
1​	5​	7​	15​	19​
2​	10​	14​	20​	24​
3​	15​	21​	25​	29​
4​	20​	28​	30​	34​
5​	25​	35​	35​	39​
6​	30​	42​	40​	44​
7​	35​	49​	45​	49​
8​	40​	56​	50​	54​
9​	45​	63​	55​	59​
10​	50​	70​	60​	64​
11​	55​	77​	65​	69​
12​	60​	84​	70​	74​
13​	65​	91​	75​	79​
14​	70​	98​	80​	84​
15​	75​	105​	85​	89​
16​	80​	112​	90​	94​
17​	85​	119​	95​	99​
18​	90​	126​	100​	104​
19​	95​	133​	105​	109​
20​	100​	140​	110​	114​

Lastly, the AC item is tricky and it's one that I've played with on many angles (weapon bonus to defense, proficiency instead of dex, etc) but in the end it has all seemed like a lot of work because there are so many intricate little subsystems, spells and effects that interact with AC. If you find a method you're happy with, please let me know!

I like the lower prof bonus at low levels and the slower progression at higher levels is interesting. It really isn't far off from what I am already working with and if I played at a table that used it, that would be cool with me.

I am seeing that "stretching" first hand right now as our main game is nearing tier 4.

I updated the OP because I am convinced that CON for level 1 HP is a good way to go. I did the same thing you did with half HD (no more per level bonus) at each level. I think it gives ample HP but not so much that PCs feel close to invincible.

So far, the simplest thing for AC is just to grant a +1 bonus with each new tier. It shows some skill in avoiding damage, but doesn't out strip armor and other protections. In a game where armor was DR, then I would boost AC equally with proficiency.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Laurefindel]

This is less a « complete overhaul » than I expected. It manageable. There may be hope for you yet

I’ll have to digest all the replies and your own comments before I commit too much in this thread. A few thoughts...

Have you considered shelving the hp rather than a lower but still linear progression? In my experience, hp bloat isn’t so much a problem until later tiers. I wonder if halving hp will result in too fragile PCs in early segments of the game.

About skills: in 3e, the game was « max your skills or don’t bother ». I like that 5e gives you a chance at succeeding what your character isn’t optimized to do. I feel that dis. on untrained skills will bring back the « don’t bother » aspect. You have the opportunity for a untrained/apprentice/journeyman/master progression I think (dis./ +ability mod / + prof. Bonus / adv.)

More later

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is less a « complete overhaul » than I expected. It manageable. There may be hope for you yet

I’ll have to digest all the replies and your own comments before I commit too much in this thread. A few thoughts...

Have you considered shelving the hp rather than a lower but still linear progression? In my experience, hp bloat isn’t so much a problem until later tiers. I wonder if halving hp will result in too fragile PCs in early segments of the game.

About skills: in 3e, the game was « max your skills or don’t bother ». I like that 5e gives you a chance at succeeding what your character isn’t optimized to do. I feel that dis. on untrained skills will bring back the « don’t bother » aspect. You have the opportunity for a untrained/apprentice/journeyman/master progression I think (dis./ +ability mod / + prof. Bonus / adv.)

More later

LOL take your time there is a lot going on!

I am trying to get what I want without getting crazy about tweaking, so I am glad you think there's hope.

HP for PCs isn't half, but currently CON at level 1 and then HD after with no CON bonus. With the slight bump at level one, I don't think this will put PCs in a big hole for wanting HP. I agree bloat is a bigger issue at later levels. I think also the problem I am seeing is due to half of our PCs having such high CONs that the HP is probably more than other party's experience.

For skills, I suppose it depends on the DC, but even with "disadvantage" for non-proficiency, it isn't a "why bother". It is more of a "let the person who is good at it, do it."

Technically, I sort of already have the untrained, apprentice, journeyman, master thing:

Untrained: non-proficient ("disadvantage"), no ability modifier (or negative) (i.e. You really have no ability or knowledge at all.)
Apprentice: non-proficient ("disadvantage"), ability modifier (i.e. You have some exposure, natural talent, etc.)
Journeyman: proficient, ability modifier (i.e. You are trained/studied and augment your earlier exposure, natural talent, etc.)
Master: expertise ("advantage"), ability modifier (i.e. You've gone deeper than many before you. You have a better chance of succeeding at the difficult.)