Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8036516" data-attributes="member: 6987520">[USER=83242]@dave2008[/USER] , [USER=7015698]@Undrave[/USER]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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sources of advantage and disadvantage stack.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul>[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][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][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][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][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][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][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][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.[/SPOILER]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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).</blockquote>

Verification