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

[DeviousQuail]

Mostly focused on Points 2 through 4, just spitballing some ideas:

• If you implemented 2d10 you can make a rule that when you don't have proficiency you only get to roll 1d10. Or avoid 2d10 and just do d20 for proficiency and d10 for no proficiency. This should give those with proficiency a massive boost over the non-proficient without changing anything else.
• Expand the range of proficiency "tiers". You could go with none (no bonus), half (half bonus rounded down), proficient (standard 5e bonus), expert (x1.5 bonus rounded down), and master (x2 bonus). The only one of these that doesn't already exist, that I can think of, is the x1.5 bonus. And if you hate it you can just replace the x1.5 with something akin to the rogue's reliable talent ability.
• Whenever you get an ASI you'd also get to do either 1) adjust two skills from no prof to half prof or half prof to full prof 2) adjust one skill from prof to expert or expert to master.
• Instead of an altered progression you can just make proficiency start at +4 and end at +8. This should make conversions easier for players and NPCs because all you ever have to do is add 2 to proficient checks.
• To give levels more weight you could add a second "level bonus" alongside your proficiency bonus. Your level bonus would start at +1 and increase by 1 every time your proficiency bonus increases by 1. Unlike proficiency bonus, the level bonus would affect everything (saves, skill checks, initiative, AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, spell attacks, spell save DC, etc).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Mostly focused on Points 2 through 4, just spitballing some ideas:

• If you implemented 2d10 you can make a rule that when you don't have proficiency you only get to roll 1d10. Or avoid 2d10 and just do d20 for proficiency and d10 for no proficiency. This should give those with proficiency a massive boost over the non-proficient without changing anything else.
• Expand the range of proficiency "tiers". You could go with none (no bonus), half (half bonus rounded down), proficient (standard 5e bonus), expert (x1.5 bonus rounded down), and master (x2 bonus). The only one of these that doesn't already exist, that I can think of, is the x1.5 bonus. And if you hate it you can just replace the x1.5 with something akin to the rogue's reliable talent ability.
• Whenever you get an ASI you'd also get to do either 1) adjust two skills from no prof to half prof or half prof to full prof 2) adjust one skill from prof to expert or expert to master.
• Instead of an altered progression you can just make proficiency start at +4 and end at +8. This should make conversions easier for players and NPCs because all you ever have to do is add 2 to proficient checks.
• To give levels more weight you could add a second "level bonus" alongside your proficiency bonus. Your level bonus would start at +1 and increase by 1 every time your proficiency bonus increases by 1. Unlike proficiency bonus, the level bonus would affect everything (saves, skill checks, initiative, AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, spell attacks, spell save DC, etc).

Thanks for the spit. (j/k)

Seriously, though, your suggestions are good and address some issues, but create others I am trying to avoid.

For instance, originally I was going to use 4d6-4 (range 0-20) for everything instead of the d20. While this sounds cumbersome, we tried it for a while and people got the process quickly. If you lacked proficiency, you rolled only 2d6-2. This is pretty much your 2d10 and 1d10 suggestion. However, I found it added too much of a penalty, and then moved to 3d6-3 (max 15, so moderate tasks could be accomplished). That seemed to work well enough, but in doing more of the numbers I realized the "disadvantage" for non-proficiency accomplished the same goal (closely enough) without resorting to different dice (d10 or d6) or having to add the results (2d10, 4d6, 3d6, etc.) instead of simply comparing two dice (e.g. "disadvantage).

A couple others have suggested a 4-5 "tier" idea for non-proficient, proficient, expert... I don't know if I want to add one or two more levels of proficiency as it makes it more complex, but I'll give that more thought. It seems a popular idea here.

Sorry, but a hard "no" to the +4 to +8 proficiency progression. That maintains the difference of only +4 between levels 1 and 20, which is already present. My design goal (in case I was unclear) was to expand that difference, not maintain it. The +2 to +8 makes the difference +6, so 50% greater. Honestly, I would like it to be even more, like +10 max, but then it starts throwing other numbers well out of whack and makes it unbalanced. +8 max seemed a happy medium.

The level bonus idea is good. A simple solution that might help address numerous issues. I was already thinking of doing this with AC in a fashion, with a +1 AC bonus at each tier beyond the first. That would max out "effective" proficiency bonus at +9, which starts to stretch the numbers our a bit much over +8, but not incredibly so. The bump to damage would make foes fall that much quicker, speeding up combat in general, and it would represent over all general improvement in skills, saves, etc. even without proficiency. I'll look into that today.

Thanks for the feedback! Much appreciated.

 

[Horwath]

just replace d20 with 3d6 and you will see that even +2 higher modifier makes a big difference.

 

[DND_Reborn]

just replace d20 with 3d6 and you will see that even +2 higher modifier makes a big difference.

I've looked into it already (along with 4d6-4) and it actually creates too much difference, making things wonky as bonuses get larger, plus the time (albeit quick) it takes to add the dice instead of compare them.

 

[CubicsRube]

I like the idea of moving ability bonuses more to proficiency. You could even cap abilities at 16 to make a +3 max like old school d&d. Proficiency I'd be tempted to ranp up to half level round up, so +1 at level 1 to +10 at level 19, giving you a bigger skill differential at a 13/14 max (which is still fairly bounded by my standards).

I think there's merit in the idea of adding proficiency to armor class and I've written on this before, but it may be some work to find the right amount of reduction to hit points. It's also likely to make the results of fights more swingy, which may be what you're looking for.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like the idea of moving ability bonuses more to proficiency. You could even cap abilities at 16 to make a +3 max like old school d&d. Proficiency I'd be tempted to ranp up to half level round up, so +1 at level 1 to +10 at level 19, giving you a bigger skill differential at a 13/14 max (which is still fairly bounded by my standards).

I think there's merit in the idea of adding proficiency to armor class and I've written on this before, but it may be some work to find the right amount of reduction to hit points. It's also likely to make the results of fights more swingy, which may be what you're looking for.

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.

 

[Coroc]

1. Did you forget the contribution nof the attribute behind skills?

2. Int 18 could be translated into profound general knowledge, aka also a bit of arcana
The only thing which should be changed is minimum caster attribute / spell level imho, no illiterate Int 10 Wizards, I houserule normally: For level 5 wizard spell you need 15 intellect. Everything else is minmaxing and I personally do not like this style.

3. See 2. A fighter with str 12 but level 20 will attack more often, but he still only has +1 to damage. This is about the same as comparing a str20 ogre to a mob with many more hd but only Str 10. Of course the melee ability will suffer from a low key attribute there is nothing to alter here, rather ask why the heck the fighter did not use one of his many ASI to invest in STR.


4. in ad&d magic was much more powerful many save or s****k

5. 5e combat is so far the fastest of any edition. Lower the AC items you give out and mobs AC or HP if you still want it faster.

6. HP bloat is easy to be fixed. Note down your mobs as e.g. 4HD +16 HP 20-48. Do you see the range? It is necessary, to make single mobs survive against bigger PC Groups for a meaningful time.

7. see 6

8. AC is a tough limiter in 5e. It affects so many things, like, will you be able to apply your SS GWM feat or not.
Also the revers is true, aka if you hand out items, which allow for a span to wide within your pc group, then you are in for crunchy encounter building.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@dave2008 , @Undrave

First, this is a + thread, so please only contribute if you have something to, you know, actually contribute. I appreciate everyone who honors that and thank you.

This is a BIG departure for the 5E core design framework in some ways, and I am okay with that. There is a lot in 5E I think is great so I want to keep playing it, but I want to see if it is possible to tailor it to fit my design goals. I'll continue to expand and update the OP as things get added and revised.

So, here we go. I will begin by focusing on two major areas: proficiency and combat/hit points. Now, I already have ideas on how to implement the changes I am looking for and these are presented as well, but I am open to other ideas. Please note the following:

• Sources of advantage and disadvantage stack.
• When I write "advantage" or "disadvantage" in quotes, I don't mean you actually have advantage or disadvantage, but I mean the mechanic is applied. This is an important distinction because disadvantage would prevent sneak attacks, but "disadvantage" (in quotes) does not.

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.

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.

Spoiler: Item #6: Hit Point bloat is necessary because combat success is too high.

Issue. This makes combat longer because damage is rolled more often and DM (and players) must track each hit taken. When players are rolling several dice due to sneak attacks, smites, fireballs, etc. the time spent can add up and slows down the game.
Change. NPCs/Monsters have half (or choose minimum) HP. So, not you are hitting half as much, but it counts twice as much when you hit.
Change. PCs get HP equal to their CON score at level 1. If their CON increases, so does their HP. After level 1, they only get HD.

EDIT: Changed 1st-level HP to CON given suggestions and running the numbers. It works well, especially if I have critical hits explode on damage dice.

Spoiler: Item #7: Hit Point bloat leds to less cinematic feel..

Example. We have a raging (+3), STR 18 (+4) 11th-level barbarian with dueling style (+2) and +1 longsword (avg 5), averages 14 dmg per hit, which is not enough to kill a single orc, yet in movies you see the heroes dropping orcs left and right with a single attack.
Example. Sleep now affects 5d8 (max 40) hp, not sufficient to stop a single Ogre, and will put one or (maybe) two orcs to sleep (can't affect 3).
Issue. Characters need to spend multiple attacks/spells to defeat creatures that in prior editions could be easily defeated.
Change. Half HP means these hits will now down foes when they actually hit. Spells like sleep can now affect creatures like an Ogre again.

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.

That's it for now. I'll revise items if anything is unclear. And thanks again for contributing (and thank you as well for not if you don't care to offer anything ).

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?

I've looked into it already (along with 4d6-4) and it actually creates too much difference, making things wonky as bonuses get larger, plus the time (albeit quick) it takes to add the dice instead of compare them.

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.

 

[ART!]

#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?

 

[DND_Reborn]

1. Did you forget the contribution nof the attribute behind skills?

2. Int 18 could be translated into profound general knowledge, aka also a bit of arcana
The only thing which should be changed is minimum caster attribute / spell level imho, no illiterate Int 10 Wizards, I houserule normally: For level 5 wizard spell you need 15 intellect. Everything else is minmaxing and I personally do not like this style.

3. See 2. A fighter with str 12 but level 20 will attack more often, but he still only has +1 to damage. This is about the same as comparing a str20 ogre to a mob with many more hd but only Str 10. Of course the melee ability will suffer from a low key attribute there is nothing to alter here, rather ask why the heck the fighter did not use one of his many ASI to invest in STR.


4. in ad&d magic was much more powerful many save or s****k

5. 5e combat is so far the fastest of any edition. Lower the AC items you give out and mobs AC or HP if you still want it faster.

6. HP bloat is easy to be fixed. Note down your mobs as e.g. 4HD +16 HP 20-48. Do you see the range? It is necessary, to make single mobs survive against bigger PC Groups for a meaningful time.

7. see 6

8. AC is a tough limiter in 5e. It affects so many things, like, will you be able to apply your SS GWM feat or not.
Also the revers is true, aka if you hand out items, which allow for a span to wide within your pc group, then you are in for crunchy encounter building.

1. No, I didn't forget it, I just don't think it should be nearly as strong as max proficiency. Think of it this way, a character with INT 18 will have a very broad knowledge about a lot of things (+4 to every INT/knowledge check), but without proficiency has not "delved deeper" into any field and should not likely know about the things a PC with proficiency would (in that skill, that is).

Let's look at a simple example. Suppose Andy is INT 18, Bob is INT 10 but has proficiency in Arcana. With a DC 15 check, Andy (with "disadvantage") would have a 25% chance to make the check. Bob, with the +2 modifier for proficiency only, but a flat d20 roll, would have a 40% chance. So, Bob should be more likely to know about Arcana because he's gone deeper into it.

Now, Andy with INT 18 has that same 25% chance for any DC 15 check (without proficiency), but without proficiency Bob has only a 9% chance. So, High INT still counts for a lot because it applies to all INT checks, but proficiency is focused and make someone with lower INT better at that one thing. If you give Andy proficiency in Arcana, his chance soars to 60%, combining high INT and further study/training beyond what a base ability score might provide.

2. That reminds me of the old AD&D minimum INT to cast X level spells. Not a bad addition really so I might incorporate some variant as a house-rule, but I generally find casters seek to near-max or max primary spellcasting ability scores anyway so it might be unnecessary.

3. This is basically the same as #1 where IMO proficiency should trump ability scores. To your point, the fighter probably would invest something into ASI or feat-related ASI +1 for STR, but the point is more about the +6 RAW max prof bonus compared to the +5 RAW max ability bonus. Another way to look at it is in RAW proficiency increases only +4 during your entire adventuring career. That +4 bump is less than the +5 bump you get from maxing out your ability score. So, in other words, the WotC design team for 5E valued maximum ability higher than all 20 levels of experience of adventuring. Just don't see it that way.

With my suggestion of +2 to +8 (and I only stopped at +8 to try to keep numbers in line with RAW to prevent even more tweaking and house-rules), the bump is +6, compared to the ability cap at 18 of +4. The ability bump is still very strong, but now is less than what 20 levels of adventuring experience represents. That just makes more sense to me as IME knowledge/skill trumps ability. (I know in 5E technically ability subsumes some training as well as raw talent, but the idea is still there.)

4. Improving save chances is necessary when compared to reducing HP bloat and the changes made to attacks. Think of it this way: the defender (whether against an attack or spell) has the "advantage". In saves, this is simply giving "advantage" to the roll. In attacks, this is accomplished by imposing "disadvantage" on the attacker because AC is static.

5. YMMV but for me 5E is much slower combat than AD&D was. We can take hours to resolve combat in 5E. Part of this is due to the experience of the players and I get that, but a big part is also due to the high hit success rate and subsequent damage rolls and hp tracking. We even went to average damage, but we don't force that because a lot of players enjoy rolling. I've been thinking about enforcing average damage on hits, and only allowing rolls on criticals but I have to discuss that with our group tomorrow.

6. Yep, love the fact there is a range. We sometimes bump BBEGs and solos to make the battle harder. I realized I could also do the minimum of the range (simply adding the number of HD to the bonus, as if all 1's were rolled) but doing half HP gets me close most times and seems to work better.

8. Yeah, AC is the item I am most going back and forth on right now.

Thanks a bunch for your input!