D&D 5E Three proposals for 5e options

TL;DR – 1. HP thresholds for all conditions, and stack conditions in tiers. (So you can't stun a high-level foe on turn one, but you can make him lose his reactions.)

2. Have a list of ‘maneuvers’ for monsters to use, like swallow, trample, and fling so you don’t have to reproduce them over and over.

3. Get rid of spells as the default form of magic. Let characters use magic more like at-will super-powers.


D&D NEXT is still in Beta, and there’s still time to try crazy things. So here are three ideas I’d like to see tried out. The conceit behind all these is that the core game should have examples of ‘doing cool stuff,’ and then specific refinements of that. So anyone ought to be able to try to climb on the back of a monster, and certain character options might improve that or add extra rules to it.

Conditions and HP Threshold
Every character and creature has a stat called Threshold, which is equal to its level.

We create three tiers of conditions, with minor, moderate, and major versions of each. For instance:

Reeling – The target cannot take reactions until the end of the attacker’s next turn.
Dazed – The target is reeling, and can either move or use an action on its turn, not both.
Stunned – The target can take no actions or reactions.

Disarmed – The target drops what it’s holding.
Injured Arm – The target is disarmed and cannot hold objects in its arm until it receives healing. (Point to page xx for a small paragraph on healing wounds.)
Severed Arm – The target loses its arm or hand.

Minor conditions can be inflicted on any creature. A normal character has to spend an action to apply the condition – perhaps you headbutt or use a minor enchantment spell to reel someone, and anyone can try to disarm. A specially trained character can add it to an action, like a fighter using martial dice to swing a sword and disarm someone.

Whenever a creature tries to apply one of these conditions, if the target’s hit points (after any damage dealt by the attack) are at or below the attacker’s Threshold, you kick the condition up a notch.

If you score a critical hit when attempting to apply a condition, you kick it up another notch. So a critical hit that gets someone under your Threshold can basically take someone out of the fight, which honestly would have happened anyway with another attack.

Obviously there’s some reality checking here. If you’re unarmed, and you try to disarm a man who has a club, you might be able to break his arm, but you aren’t going to rip it out of its . . . well hm, Beowulf says maybe we should have rules for that.

Expending Resources to Enhance Conditions
Those rules are for at-will attacks. But different classes should have ways to expend limited resources in order to kick things up. A wizard can use a higher level spell to go from ‘reel his mind’ to ‘daze or stun him.’ For martial characters, I’m not sure if people would go for 4e Essentials-style “once per encounter” boosts.


Monstrous Maneuvers
I posted a thread complaining that the dragon in the playtest bestiary was boring to fight. I’d like to propose the Monster Manual have a chapter on common monster maneuvers, and then each monster’s entry would list the kind of stuff it does. So all dragons would get the same old claw/claw/bite, but reds might enjoy pouncing and mangling, while blues grab, fly away, and fling.

The playtest challenge is balancing different maneuvers. I do want dragons to occasionally bite and claw people, and to occasionally do clever tricks, so a) the combat math needs to have combats that last several rounds, and b) different options can’t be perfect in all situations.

But there ought to be rules for, say, climb onto someone larger than you and hide in their blind spot (useful for goblins vs. PCs, and PCs vs. dragons); or thrash around and knock over everyone surrounding you if they’re small enough; or slam your mighty claw down on a poor human to hold him to the floor as you reach in with your mouth and rip him in half.

Sure, mechanically that last one might just be claw/claw/bite, but let’s inject some more cinematic flavor and dynamism into our combats.


Simple Magic-Users
Spells are awesome. I’m a fan. Harry Potter has spells. Jack Vance has spells. Video games have spells. Anime characters sometimes shout their spell names as they cast them. It’s a cool flavor, and should remain in the game.

But Gandalf doesn’t have a specific spell list; he just does magic. Elemental benders from Avatar just control elements; they don’t have specific spell lists. In most classic folklore, people who use magic have some field of expertise – they control fire, or they talk to the dead – but they can do a ton of stuff in that field, not just one or two things that are statted out as spells.

So one option for character creation should be the magic-user that picks one or two types of magic they can do, and then has broad options there. Using the conditions rules above, every mage can try to create conditions, and the rules for magic would help adjudicate how many people they could affect, and how many times per day or per encounter they can boost the power to do something impressive.

The illusionist doesn’t have spell slots; he just can make illusions (maybe with a limit to how much area or how many fake things active at once). His illusory creatures can attack, but the damage (at least at low level) goes away when the illusion ends.

The necromancer can control dead creatures, and they can spend an action to make corpses move around and attack (with limits on number of corpses and size and damage dealt based on level). He can throw necromantic energy, or deliver it with a touch. He can talk to the dead.

The really powerful world-altering magic is covered by rituals.

Then you get to weird stuff, like the flight specialist. If you want to be able to use flight magic, you need to . . . I dunno, spend a feat? Use a ‘magic-user specialty slot’ that you gain from your class and level? Some limited resource as part of character creation.

At high level you end up with mage A who can control fire, summon celestial animals, and teleport; while mage B can speak any language, see the future, and create defensive barriers to protect his allies; and mage C can grow huge, control insects (and has a pet giant bug that follows him around), and conjure powerful storms.



What do you think?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

2. Have a list of ‘maneuvers’ for monsters to use, like swallow, trample, and fling so you don’t have to reproduce them over and over.

The other two sound like cool ideas but as a DM I can't disagree with this one more. Having a list of abilities that you have to either memorize or look up for each monster is a huge pain and slows things to a crawl.

I do agree that higher level or boss monsters need more abilities, but they should be on the same page as the monster. Easier for the printer to print the same ability descriptions over and over on each page than for DMs to keep looking them up mid-battle.
 

The other two sound like cool ideas but as a DM I can't disagree with this one more. Having a list of abilities that you have to either memorize or look up for each monster is a huge pain and slows things to a crawl.
It's funny, I'm against HP thresholds (though the tier things makes it much, much more acceptable), and don't want them in, and I'm against the "let characters use magic more like at-will super-powers" proposal (though, again, the way it's described as a goal is fine, I just don't like the results -sounds like a longer spell list). I am, however, in huge support of #2, the list of maneuvers (though I want it to apply to PCs, too, as appropriate). I know it's just opinion stuff, but that's where I land on it. As always, play what you like :)
 

First off, glad you are excited about the new edition. I think exploring optional rulesets will be the strongest "buy-in" for 5E. I wont comment on 2 of your options since I am not a fan, so no point in beating on you for an option I don't care about.

I do like the HP threshold idea. Sort of. Maybe. There is this ongoing "issue" with HP and D&D that really boils down to HP as abstract wounds/fatigue vs HP as real wounds/fatigue. Most agree that a separate HP "pool" is the way to resolve the split, but most also agree that its not very D&D to do so, and WotC is very unlikely to slay that sacred cow in an edition that is trying to resurrect previously slain cows.

In some respects you are creating a separate pool, but rather than "points" you specify discrete conditions. You could easily call your conditions "wounds" and you'll see what I mean. I lose Hit Points and I gain Wounds (conditions). More on that below. I applaud you for trying to keep the terminology within the existing framework. We know what "conditions" are, and we expect them to work like other conditions. This is a defining characteristic of a "good" option: It doesn't add systems, merely expands them. Thats an ideal most options won't achieve, but its a good design goal.

I would approach it a little differently. You went for defining the condition (the wound) over the accumulation of conditions (wounds) as an emphasis. I do note they have a severity rating, which is a sort of accumulation, but its not emphasized. I'd flip the emphasis. You can't discuss HP/wounds without discussing healing, and you've avoided that for the most part, but I think that is an easy enough "fix" once you have this part down.

Example (rough, off-the-top-of-my-head redo):

Characters have HP as normal.
Critical hits = Automatic wound
Become Bloodied (half HP) = Gain 1 wound
Take any damage while at 0 HP = 1 wound/10 HP dealt round down (minimum 1)

Characters do not fall unconscious at 0hp. At 0hp they are "Dazed" and at a -2 penalty to all rolls
There is no "negative" HP
Characters DO fall unconscious when Wounds > 1/2 Con
Characters Die when Wounds > Con
Wounds are healed ONLY by rest or Magic. Cure Wounds spells heal 1-2-3-4 wounds (light moderate, etc) not HP. 1 wound per extended rest seems about right. HP becomes an encounter mechanic, so either full replenishment, partial replenishment, or perhaps HD refresh every 10 min (per encounter)...this would have to be adjusted for "severity" desired at the table.

From here you could use a hit location table, a wound vs weapon table, etc to describe the types of wounds and their "conditions" as you describe. But can be used in this intermediate way I describe above if conditions are too much bother for people.

As to healing, I think changing the Cure light, cure moderate, etc, to heal 1 wound, 2 wounds, etc respectively could go along way to making a nice hybrid abstract fatigue/real wound system that, while not perfect, could be reduced back to straight HP as in the Core, or further simulated with wound effects.
 

Most agree that a separate HP "pool" is the way to resolve the split, but most also agree that its not very D&D to do so, and WotC is very unlikely to slay that sacred cow in an edition that is trying to resurrect previously slain cows.

Yeah, I would have really liked WOTC to try out a VP/WP system for DND in its playtest. I think the core foundation of the mechanic is sound, and if they addressed some of the issues its had traditionally (like in SW how crits bypass WP, which was a bad idea!) I would be interested to see if there was a lot of lashback or if people liked it.
 

I think there is still time to playtest a "module" along those lines, but I also think WotC isn't interested at this point. We may have to satisfy ourselves with a homebrewed kludge of an option. I fear that any post-release official "module" would be no better than what any of use could come up with. The benefit of doing so at core design is to make the module interface smoothly with the core.
 

Switch HP thresholds to Hit Dice thresholds and I agree with you. There is no reason why a high HP but dimwitted ogre should be more difficult to affect with mind magic than a frail wizard!
 

That doesn't work. It's not based on total HP, it's based on current HP. HP changes during combat, so you wear down an enemy and then can take him out with a cool maneuver or spell. Hit Dice (by which I assume you mean the traditional definition of 'level') don't change during combat.

Now, whether your attack affects him at all is based on his saving throw, and for that he's worse off than the wizard. So the wizard has a good chance of just shrugging off the spell entirely. But the ogre will just be a little confused, because it's still got enough wherewithal to recognize its mind is being messed with. Once it gets hurt a few times, though, it's distracted and can't resist any further.
 

Simple Magic-UsersBut Gandalf doesn’t have a specific spell list; he just does magic. Elemental benders from Avatar just control elements; they don’t have specific spell lists. In most classic folklore, people who use magic have some field of expertise – they control fire, or they talk to the dead – but they can do a ton of stuff in that field, not just one or two things that are statted out as spells.

There would be nothing wrong with this approach, in fact it's pretty cool, but I hope you understand that it would potentially require a HUGE amount of design work :)

Your suggestions reminded me of Mongoose publishing's Encyclopedia Arcane series, which were a lot of books each of which presented a themed alternative magic system. Even without doing things that complicated, I am not sure you can design one system to cover them all that would be fairly easy to balance and still allow different wizards to work differently. But of course, these subsystems don't need to be as complex as in the EA series (they obviously needed to fill a book with each...).

That's just to say that this is cool, but could never be the core system IMHO.
 


Remove ads

Top