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

[Ruin Explorer]

FWIW, these are definitely not true for me. I'm very visually-oriented, so I first have to consciously convert the pips to numbers, and then add the numbers. I don't instantly see the numbers, and it is definitely not faster than an eye-blink. I'm not alone in this, either.

I'm very visually-oriented too, and nearly became a professional artist - I'm still extremely, almost abnormally good at life portraits, and I can do this - and so can pretty much everyone I play D&D with, including my wife, who whilst extremely intelligent, has not played TT RPGs for that long. I also have ADHD (of a fairly serious kind) so it's not like I'm lacking disabilities or whatever.

If you have to convert pips to numbers, then add the numbers, that's downright odd to me, because even non-human animals can typically insta-count stuff like that. I'm not joking or being mean - this is literally a thing birds and chimps can do.

If you can't, okay, human brains are very diverse - I know that, I have serious ADHD as noted. But it is somewhat unusual, I would suggest, that a human has to convert pips to numbers first after some experience with dice.

Now do note I'm referring to relatively low numbers. I dunno if I could instantly do it with 5d6 or more. But 3d6 or 4d6? Yes. With animals there's certainly a limit to the number, and I suspect the same is true with humans.

 

[GMMichael]

Spoiler: I'm not proposing any new rules here, because a DM-shift will go a LONG way toward fixing most of these Items. Furthermore, when this number of rule-changes gather together, it's either time to use a different game or ::shudder:: start designing your own.

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.

The character with +6 doesn't lose a fight 22.75% of the time. 17th level vs (whatever tier 1 is) probably wins fights 99% of the time.

Re: skills, if you have 225,000 XP, why is the DM calling for a check against someone with no experience whatsoever? This is a DM problem, not a rules problem.

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

DM problem. Same as above.

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.

The 20th-level fighter's skill is also represented with hit points. See Item 8 Solution.

Spoiler: Item #5: Combat takes too long because average success rate is 60+%.

Example. A 5th-level fighter with STR mod +6 will hit an AC 14 on a 8 or higher (65%). With two attacks, he will hit with at least one attack 7 out of 8 times (87.75%) and both attacks 42.25%. It becomes more of a pleasant shock when you miss something!
Issue. This leads to boredom because success is more common than failure and is less exciting.
Change. All attack rolls are made with "disadvantage" (i.e. you are always Dodging). This makes it so you only hit half as often. (I'll address saves against spell damage later, but basically all saves are made with "advantage.") This change means the number of rounds of combat is about the same, but combat goes faster because you are rolling for damage and tracking it only half as much.

This one's a little odd to me. Rolling a "miss" in D&D combat is about the worst part of it, because it usually equates to "you accomplish nothing, and lose your turn." Sure, "hits" become more exciting, but at the expense of sheer frustration.

I'd skip this one and keep Item 6 if you want to make combat more exciting.

Spoiler: Item #8: ACs don't improve even though you've been trying to avoid attacks for levels..

Example. Again, a tier 4 cleric is just as easy "to hit" as he was at tier 1.
Issue. Your ability to avoid damage is reflected in the hit point bloat instead of actually making you harder "to hit".
Change. Nothing here yet. Have some thoughts but I don't know if I like them on this topic.

This is just a narration issue. All the DM has to do is stop announcing "hits" and "misses." You can still use rulebook terms if you want: succeed and fail.

Example. The tier 1 NPC rolls a successful attack against the tier 4 cleric.

DM: The foot-soldier orc forgets how epic you are, and his rage takes over. He swings his axe at you. What was your AC again?

Epic Cleric: It's 14. You don't know that by now?

DM: Anyway, (rolls a success) you take 8 damage as the orc swings at you. How do you defend?

Epic Cleric: I hold up an arm-guard and neatly stop the axe with it. I get up in his face and grin, preparing my counter-attack.

 

[GreenTengu]

I think quite a lot of this-- and many other issues-- could simply be fixed by getting rid of ability scores all together. Who needs them?

They are arbitrary as hell. Why exactly are Strength and Constitution not just one score? It is one thing to explain on paper that a person can be really strong and can't take a blow or can be really tough but not strong-- but whenever one tries to depict any such character narratively, it betray that the two things are intrinsically linked-- you can only be so strong without inherently being tougher or so tough without it inherently being about your strength. And when they are separate, you have a situation where the Fighter character has to raise up both which leads them to completely neglecting their mental/social scores and then pretty much every other class that isn't Fighter or Fighter+ just uses Strength as a complete dumpstat and gives the slightest care to Constitution.

Or you have cases where Dexterity is a large bag that somehow covers acrobatics, initiative, dodging, ranged attacks, disabling locks and mechanical devices, etc. And while I get that you want your Rogue to be super good at all of that? None of it is intrinsically linked. In fact, I see a much better argument for those last two to be governed by Wisdom and Intelligence respectively because you don't need to be an acrobat or juggler to be a good marksman or locksmith and being those things won't inherently help you either.

So why not just get rid of attributes all together, make the proficiency bonus higher overall. If you aren't trained in something, you only get your base proficiency and if you are trained then you get 2x your proficiency bonus to rolls.

All the areas on the spot that get used by the attributes can just be skills -- Dodge (AC), Initiative (can also be used as Dex saves), Melee Combat, Marksman, Toughness (HP & Str + Con saves), Willpower (Used for Wis, Int and Cha saves) and Knowledge (Arcana) can just be Arcana which can dictate your spellcasting power for all classes.

Increase the number of skills each class gets accordingly to make up for all these additional important skills. All class mechanics that previously referred to an attribute score + proficiency can just substitute in the most appropriate skill.

It allows one to make a much wider variety of characters than the previous system did.

 

[Blue]

Random thoughts as reading through, before letting myself get swayed by what others are saying.

Item #1

1. At 1st level there's now an average of a 7 point spread (evaluating disadvantage as -5) between proficient and not - more than the swing at 20th before.
2. Grapples became much more powerful, as often the grappled person will now also have disadvantage in addition to no proficiency. Athletics or Acrobatics almost becomes a skill tax.
3. For some oft-used skills, either in general like Perception or character specific like Survival for a ranger, it no longer is enough to have a good ability score - you MUST have taken the skill otherwise you are very bad at what you do.
4. We get odd cases like knowing what's in a city - which doesn't map to a skill, would be a straight Intelligence check, but wanting to know about the different quarters of the city which might be a INT (History) check now has some people with a disadvantage.
5. Some spells like Web or Maze require ability checks to greet free of. If a spell allows a skill, instead of that being easier for some, it's now a lot harder for most.

I know you're looking for a + thread, I'm bring these up because I want to contribute better ways to reach your goal than this. The penalty on not having the skill is the biggest issue here, so I'd suggest instead just standard proficiency in a skill is what is currently expertise, and expertise is advantage as you say it. This give a +4 at 1st level up to a +12. Combine that with increasing the higher difficulties on the DC chart, which mimics the increases in difficulty for opposed rolls. This makes proficiency in a skill worth a lot more, but without the huge swing down. I still worry a bit about grapples, but hey.

Item #2

Okay, reading this, I see that I need to reverse what I said above. The change here will already address the proficiency issues. The negatives I pointed with your idea become more pronounced. This solves point #1, and doing anything above will overshoot. So ignore anything you aor I wrote for #1, it's no good. Maybe have skill proficiency as 2+proficiency bonus and keep your expertise="advantage".

Among offensive casters, this strongly favors those with larger spells prepared/known. Because going against a proficient save and both DC and save get proficiency, but go against a non-proficient save and any chance to avoid the effect goes lower and lower at a much greater rate. That's not a bad thing, just an observation.

Fine with the cap at 18, works well with this. Can I make a suggestion that you also change ASI to be +1/+1 only? Leaves the cap a bit further away instead of just rushing for it.

Item #4

I like this. I would actually suggest breaking languages out and just giving them as boons when you are around them long enough - they are often like ribbon abilities, hard to hold a candle to skill or tools.

Item #5

Hitting half the time will make characters like rogues very swingy. A few good or bad rounds in a row would be a huge difference in their output. It makes abilities like paladin smite or battlemaster maneuvers that you apply after the roll is a hit much more powerful. The Shield spell is a lot more powerful. All critical boosters are less powerful.

Minor increase in time rolling (working out advantage) for every roll vs. saving a having to do a damage roll half the time is a small time savings. However, what it does do is remove intuitiveness of the odds, which is really a big thing. There was an article a few months back about that, about good game design and talking about how dice pools reduce intuitive understanding of the player of the odds and the problems that causes.

Item #6

Criticals become deadly (though less likely with #5) so combat is every more swingy. Barbarians become glass cannons - they can offset the penalty to others, but it also offsets the penalty to hit them, and even with resistance, 2x low number is not a high number. Paladin smite and magic missiles win the day. Actions that grant advantage, like proning someone, will become standard fare as they will end combats much quicker. A caster will much more likely eliminate a foe taking the help action for the fighter than with casting an attack cantrip. Because with HP so low it's not attrition any more, it's who can get the hit in. Most PCs in Tier 2 can go down to a single hit, and die outright to a crit.

Sorry, I shouldn't go on. You want a + thread, but improvements I make need to be able to address the down the stream effects of what you are suggesting, and all of the changes have negative sides as well as positive sides. And the positive suggestions I have are how to avoid the negative, which usually seems to be by going for a different solution then you are.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm a little confused, are you saying you refuse to drop this concept just because it play-tests badly? That you'd force people into a campaign even if the play-test went poorly? Or are you just separating play-testing as in playing out encounters etc. to playing an actual session?

The "it" I am fully prepared to drop is the system, house-rule, etc.), not the game or campaign. We will play short story-line adventures, but use variant rules for a while when testing things, and then review how they operated and if we want to keep them. I would never force players to play something (especially long-term) they don't want--as that is hardly any fun, is it?

It isn't faster than adding 3d6. You can keep saying it is, but it isn't, unless you're using dice with numbers, not pips. I just find it weird that you keep pushing this counterfactual. But I guess if you believe that, well, there's no helping it.

Ok, it is faster. I posted my results earlier, and yesterday had two players who arrived earlier "warm-up" using pip dice, do ten 10 rolls, and warm-up with number-dice, do ten rolls, and finally 10 rolls using 2d20 with disadvantage. Now, I asked these two because they are also some of the non-math-oriented players. Here are the results (in seconds):

1: pips = 39.8 seconds, number = 35.3, 2d20 dis = 28.0
2: pips = 45.6 seconds, number = 44.7, 2d20 dis = 25.4

Sure, these are only two players, but this is meant to also help them be quicker while still accomplishing my goal. As you can clearly see, 2d20 dis is much faster, even for myself who has been rolling pip-dice for nearly 40 years.

So, no, there is not "helping it" because I've shown my method is faster. It is also more accurate since a few times both players made mistakes (which took a second or two to correct) on the pip dice and the numbers dice when doing 3d6, but neither identified the lower d20 at all.

There are dice with pips on them, where they have no pips on one side, and 1-5 pips on the other sides? I mean, I can believe it, but do you actually have a bunch of them? Where do you get them from?

The brain-processing time and anti-WYSWYG on 6 = 0 on numbered or normal 1-6 dice will be significant.

No, they aren't pip-dice, but numbered:

I've thought about buying some, but either way with numbers or pips is irrelevant. 2d20 with "disadvantage" is faster for most people.

That's not what you said earlier - you said you tried out 3d6-3, which is entirely different.

And why? Because it's more efficient and produces a result much more in line with the outcomes you say you want than what you're actually proposing.

While I did say that, I have ALSO run 3d6 and 2d10 before I did the 4d6-4 concept, which 3d6-3 and 2d6-2 were subsets of that 4d6-4 system.

And as I've shown (within my limited ability to test) 3d6 is not more efficient. While not identical, both give me the results I am looking for, so I am sticking to the easier and faster system.

Ryan Reynolds But Why Gif

You're already essentially proposing two different systems with the default disadvantage in combat, which essentially turns combat rolls into 2d20, take the lowest (which does reduce swingy-ness). I'd suggest you'd be fine to use 3d6 for both, and just recalibrate AC numbers and the like. You're already recalibrating a ton of other stuff.

Your example also seems to support my point. I'm confused as to why you think it doesn't. Are you just saying that 3d6 does reduce swingy-ness more, but your 1d20 deal is "close enough"?

I don't want to roll 3d6 for one thing, and d20 for others. I would have to figure out how I want to do advantage/disadvantage with 3d6 and mess with other things as well.

5E already uses the concept of advantage/disadvantage, so I am not introducing anything new there. All the rolls are still d20s, just a matter of how many you roll and if you take the lowest, highest, or flat roll. I also don't want to recalibrate ACs, DC, etc. when all I have to do right now is half HP, which is much faster and easier. So, I am not recalibrating anything except HP.

If you are also including our house-rules to mod proficiency bonus and ability scores capping at +4, we've already been doing that for over a year now, so really nothing new there.

Hence why you recalibrate the numbers... what you have here is an approach no-one is suggesting.

You're suggesting this stuff, including recalibrating numbers (AC and DC) which I don't need to do otherwise. I have no incentive to use 3d6 over 2d20 dis.

No, it absolutely does not, not even as an optional or variant rule. I am astonished that you're suggesting really huge revisions to 5E when you don't know really basic stuff about 5E. Shouldn't you know the rules backwards before modifying them like this? I was working on the basis that you did. The only instances of something similar to Take 10 in 5E are Reliable Talent for Rogues and similar. Class/subclass abilities where with specific skills where you roll but if it's less than a 10 you treat it as 10 (which is still better than Take 10 because it could be higher).

Wow, first I wrote I swore I saw something about taking 10. It was a question, get it? I wasn't sure. There is nothing wrong with that. What I was mistakenly recalling was the Automatic Success variant in the DMG (pg. 239). People forget things or recall them mistakenly all the time.

Now, your tone about knowing rules back and forth pisses me off to be honest. It is rude, conceited, and pretty annoying. Your overall tone in most of this has been very condescending. "You know this to be true" and such similar statements. You aren't helping at this point and if you continue to pursue these points, I am simply not going to reply further. Thank you for your insight, but I simply do NOT agree with you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Spoiler: I'm not proposing any new rules here, because a DM-shift will go a LONG way toward fixing most of these Items. Furthermore, when this number of rule-changes gather together, it's either time to use a different game or ::shudder:: start designing your own.

5E design sees ability scores as dominant enough to nearly match max proficiency (a 5 to 6 ratio). I don't agree with that design view but I want to keep the maximum close to RAW +11. My view is that ability score should be significant, but not nearly so much as experience. Hence, I currently have a 1 to 2 ratio (+4 ability, +8 max prof) and I would even entertain taking it further to 1 to 3 (+3 ability, +9 prof).

Anyway, this is pretty much my last-ditch effort to keep playing 5E past the end of this year. We have a few (albeit) high levels to go in our main game, and Castle Ravenloft to finish in our CoS game. If I can't settle on something I like by the time those are done, I'll encourage both groups to try to shift to AD&D for a while and see if they enjoy it (the couple times we've tried it, they do, but they still like 5E, too).

I'm really not talking that many rule changes actually, but I've fiddled with them all enough that some of my friends have suggested just designing my own. To which I agree... :shudder

The character with +6 doesn't lose a fight 22.75% of the time. 17th level vs (whatever tier 1 is) probably wins fights 99% of the time.

Re: skills, if you have 225,000 XP, why is the DM calling for a check against someone with no experience whatsoever? This is a DM problem, not a rules problem.

This isn't a "fight" as you seem to think, it is a contested roll. One roll. And I don't think in a contested roll a non-proficient should win nearly 1 in 4 times over a +6 mod.

The 20th-level fighter's skill is also represented with hit points. See Item 8 Solution.

This one's a little odd to me. Rolling a "miss" in D&D combat is about the worst part of it, because it usually equates to "you accomplish nothing, and lose your turn." Sure, "hits" become more exciting, but at the expense of sheer frustration.

I'd skip this one and keep Item 6 if you want to make combat more exciting.

Well, we will have to see if that happens. Generally ACs are low enough that hitting should still be frequent enough overall that there won't be any frustration. If it does work out that way, we can always drop these ideas, but fortunately our table is willing to try them.

The other issue is rolling for damage takes time as well (especially when near tier 4 we are hitting 80% of the time!) and I want to speed things up. Most of the players have generally adopted average damage, which helps a lot.

My biggest concern if I half HP but don't adopt another system to balance it some, magic will become to powerful. I am hoping that won't be the case. Our group generally agrees magic got nerfed too much in 5E (most of us like the linear fighter/ quad wizard "issue" others have had problems with-- we haven't) and would prefer to see magic rarer, but more powerful again.

This is just a narration issue. All the DM has to do is stop announcing "hits" and "misses." You can still use rulebook terms if you want: succeed and fail.

Example. The tier 1 NPC rolls a successful attack against the tier 4 cleric.

DM: The foot-soldier orc forgets how epic you are, and his rage takes over. He swings his axe at you. What was your AC again?

Epic Cleric: It's 14. You don't know that by now?

DM: Anyway, (rolls a success) you take 8 damage as the orc swings at you. How do you defend?

Epic Cleric: I hold up an arm-guard and neatly stop the axe with it. I get up in his face and grin, preparing my counter-attack.

This is basically what 5E already does. Myself (when I DM) and our DM both have to narrate "hits" that do "damage" but the defender acting (dodging, blocking, etc.) to avoid the "lethal damage" instead.

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll definitely keep the ideas in mind as we test out this material. Maybe you'll be right and not hitting as often will become frustrating? I don't see it happening, but I could be wrong and if I am we'll try another tact or maybe shudder a different game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, no, there is not "helping it" because I've shown my method is faster.

No, you haven't, but you've shown that for two of your players, specifically, it is (you didn't provide figures for yourself). If you're only planning to use this for your group and their bizarre inability to count pips, then okay. I mean, people made errors? Counting pips on three dice? What the hell? But that should work for them, I guess.

I've thought about buying some, but either way with numbers or pips is irrelevant. 2d20 with "disadvantage" is faster for most people.

No, it isn't true for "most people" - it might be, but you haven't proven that. You keep claiming this as a fact, and it's not. It's faster for two of your players. The fact that you're asserting pips or numbers is "irrelevant" is frankly proving my point completely. It's certainly not "irrelevant" - if you run the tests and again with numbered dice and they're not slower than pips, something severely messed-up is going on.

Now, your tone about knowing rules back and forth pisses me off to be honest.

It's a pretty common sentiment. I didn't used to agree with it, but people here convinced me, and I would now say that unless you understand a rules-system in some detail, you probably shouldn't make major modifications to it. I mean, obviously no-one can stop you, but I think it's reasonable to criticise modifications made when the rules system isn't properly understood.

Thank you for your insight, but I simply do NOT agree with you.

Okay, I'll be interested to hear how well this turns out for you, because you're trying to solve problems I also consider to be problems (except the combat one, I think you're the first person I've ever heard who suggested PCs need to miss more in 5E).

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think quite a lot of this-- and many other issues-- could simply be fixed by getting rid of ability scores all together. Who needs them?

They are arbitrary as hell. Why exactly are Strength and Constitution not just one score? It is one thing to explain on paper that a person can be really strong and can't take a blow or can be really tough but not strong-- but whenever one tries to depict any such character narratively, it betray that the two things are intrinsically linked-- you can only be so strong without inherently being tougher or so tough without it inherently being about your strength. And when they are separate, you have a situation where the Fighter character has to raise up both which leads them to completely neglecting their mental/social scores and then pretty much every other class that isn't Fighter or Fighter+ just uses Strength as a complete dumpstat and gives the slightest care to Constitution.

Or you have cases where Dexterity is a large bag that somehow covers acrobatics, initiative, dodging, ranged attacks, disabling locks and mechanical devices, etc. And while I get that you want your Rogue to be super good at all of that? None of it is intrinsically linked. In fact, I see a much better argument for those last two to be governed by Wisdom and Intelligence respectively because you don't need to be an acrobat or juggler to be a good marksman or locksmith and being those things won't inherently help you either.

So why not just get rid of attributes all together, make the proficiency bonus higher overall. If you aren't trained in something, you only get your base proficiency and if you are trained then you get 2x your proficiency bonus to rolls.

All the areas on the spot that get used by the attributes can just be skills -- Dodge (AC), Initiative (can also be used as Dex saves), Melee Combat, Marksman, Toughness (HP & Str + Con saves), Willpower (Used for Wis, Int and Cha saves) and Knowledge (Arcana) can just be Arcana which can dictate your spellcasting power for all classes.

Increase the number of skills each class gets accordingly to make up for all these additional important skills. All class mechanics that previously referred to an attribute score + proficiency can just substitute in the most appropriate skill.

It allows one to make a much wider variety of characters than the previous system did.

This reminds me of the stuff @CubicsRube is trying to do and has some merit. I'll give this some thought. We won't be playing for a few weeks probably due to family events, so I have lots of time. Thanks for your insight!

 

[TwoSix]

This reminds me of the stuff @CubicsRube is trying to do and has some merit. I'll give this some thought. We won't be playing for a few weeks probably due to family events, so I have lots of time. Thanks for your insight!

It's not exactly getting rid of ability mods, but one rule I'm using in my next campaign (a highly modified 5e) is that characters can use their proficiency modifier in place of ability modifier if the ability modifier is higher. So character with high stats have a low-level advantage from their natural talent, but at high levels it's only your skill that really matters. Ability modifiers still have a use, though, since they often control frequency of use of various gained abilities (e.g. I can use this ability [Int Mod] times per long rest).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Random thoughts as reading through, before letting myself get swayed by what others are saying.

Cool. I helps to see things yourself before possibly being influenced by mine or others further points. Appreciated.

Item #1

1. At 1st level there's now an average of a 7 point spread (evaluating disadvantage as -5) between proficient and not - more than the swing at 20th before.
2. Grapples became much more powerful, as often the grappled person will now also have disadvantage in addition to no proficiency. Athletics or Acrobatics almost becomes a skill tax.
3. For some oft-used skills, either in general like Perception or character specific like Survival for a ranger, it no longer is enough to have a good ability score - you MUST have taken the skill otherwise you are very bad at what you do.
4. We get odd cases like knowing what's in a city - which doesn't map to a skill, would be a straight Intelligence check, but wanting to know about the different quarters of the city which might be a INT (History) check now has some people with a disadvantage.
5. Some spells like Web or Maze require ability checks to greet free of. If a spell allows a skill, instead of that being easier for some, it's now a lot harder for most.

I know you're looking for a + thread, I'm bring these up because I want to contribute better ways to reach your goal than this. The penalty on not having the skill is the biggest issue here, so I'd suggest instead just standard proficiency in a skill is what is currently expertise, and expertise is advantage as you say it. This give a +4 at 1st level up to a +12. Combine that with increasing the higher difficulties on the DC chart, which mimics the increases in difficulty for opposed rolls. This makes proficiency in a skill worth a lot more, but without the huge swing down. I still worry a bit about grapples, but hey.

Item #2

Okay, reading this, I see that I need to reverse what I said above. The change here will already address the proficiency issues. The negatives I pointed with your idea become more pronounced. This solves point #1, and doing anything above will overshoot. So ignore anything you aor I wrote for #1, it's no good. Maybe have skill proficiency as 2+proficiency bonus and keep your expertise="advantage".

Among offensive casters, this strongly favors those with larger spells prepared/known. Because going against a proficient save and both DC and save get proficiency, but go against a non-proficient save and any chance to avoid the effect goes lower and lower at a much greater rate. That's not a bad thing, just an observation.

Fine with the cap at 18, works well with this. Can I make a suggestion that you also change ASI to be +1/+1 only? Leaves the cap a bit further away instead of just rushing for it.

Item #4

I like this. I would actually suggest breaking languages out and just giving them as boons when you are around them long enough - they are often like ribbon abilities, hard to hold a candle to skill or tools.

Item #5

Hitting half the time will make characters like rogues very swingy. A few good or bad rounds in a row would be a huge difference in their output. It makes abilities like paladin smite or battlemaster maneuvers that you apply after the roll is a hit much more powerful. The Shield spell is a lot more powerful. All critical boosters are less powerful.

Minor increase in time rolling (working out advantage) for every roll vs. saving a having to do a damage roll half the time is a small time savings. However, what it does do is remove intuitiveness of the odds, which is really a big thing. There was an article a few months back about that, about good game design and talking about how dice pools reduce intuitive understanding of the player of the odds and the problems that causes.

Item #6

Criticals become deadly (though less likely with #5) so combat is every more swingy. Barbarians become glass cannons - they can offset the penalty to others, but it also offsets the penalty to hit them, and even with resistance, 2x low number is not a high number. Paladin smite and magic missiles win the day. Actions that grant advantage, like proning someone, will become standard fare as they will end combats much quicker. A caster will much more likely eliminate a foe taking the help action for the fighter than with casting an attack cantrip. Because with HP so low it's not attrition any more, it's who can get the hit in. Most PCs in Tier 2 can go down to a single hit, and die outright to a crit.

Sorry, I shouldn't go on. You want a + thread, but improvements I make need to be able to address the down the stream effects of what you are suggesting, and all of the changes have negative sides as well as positive sides. And the positive suggestions I have are how to avoid the negative, which usually seems to be by going for a different solution then you are.

Ok, ignoring #1 since you moved on to #2.

#2. I am totally on board with doing a +1/+1 ASI instead of allowing a PC to jump +2 in one. I don't think anyone at the table would be hollering over this change.

#4. Good point. We have two PCs that speak Undercommon in our main game now and have been dealing a lot with Drow, so allowing the other PCs to pick up on it makes sense. Maybe have them make an INT (Undercommon) check unless they pick up the language via proficiency? What do you think about that? It might be too fiddly and easier simply to grant proficiency after a time.

#5. Hmm... I hadn't thought about the idea of the after-the-roll influence of things like smite. I guess I was thinking since you already apply them after the hit, it doesn't really change anything. The rogue's SA is after the hit as well. I guess I am just not seeing the issue you see really.

I don't mind the boost in things like shield, since a design goal (not yet addressed in the OP) is to make casters a bit stronger.

As for critical boosters, like the Champion features, I already have ideas on how to address them. Really, as critical hits themselves become less likely overall (as a group, we haven't decided on matching 20's since that is super rare) but are currently thinking the critical hit rule will be you hit and both dice match. So, if you needed a 13 to hit, and rolled double 13's, 14's, 15's, etc. it is critical. I am well aware this decreases critical hits, but that is a feature for this system, not a bug.

For Champions, my initiate thoughts are both dice hit and must be within 1 of each other, not match. At higher levels, the two dice would both need to hit but be within 2 of each other. Another option is that critical boosters will add more damage when critical hits are scored.

Honestly, this is all still a WIP, so I am not sure where the final change will happen as we are still working on the ideas.

#6. Yeah, I have thought a lot about some of the possible issues. That is what all the play-testing will help us with, though. I think some of your assumptions are very valid, others not as much IMO, but we'll see. I do like that things like knocking an opponent prone is actually more useful, for instance. Honestly, the big issue is just finding the time to play-test.

LOL don't worry, your comments are well-thought and well-received. Like any new thing, I have a list of features, pros, cons, and possible issues. So, thanks for your insights!