D&D 5E (2024) Unpopular opinion: I wish 5e PCs looked like NPCs

[Voadam]

During 4e my son was young and so we did a ton of solo one shots where he picked a monster out of one of the monster manuals and used that as his PC for the night. The mechanics were great for that, easy to keep track of but generally dynamic enough to be interesting without having overload.

About seven years ago in my face to face 5e campaign I DM'd I had planned a one shot to do out a flashback thing from one PC's backstory where he had been a high level evil warlord with the sword of Kas before he was drained of levels and reformed to be a good guy. Everybody would play a selection of high level preselected monsters/NPCs with different roles for the plot line, a blackguard with the Sword of Kas for that PC, the fiendish warlock, a couple of decently high level devils. For a one shot I felt it would be easy to get into the high powered mechanics effectively and quickly and feel high level and badass when fights came up compared with the problems some of them had tracking mechanics even with their moderately low level PC mechanics. Too bad that never came into fruition.

I feel the 4e/5e monster recharge mechanic works decently as a PC mechanic.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Mathy folks - would adding 1 to an attribute every level result in more or less powerful folks by level 20? I've been thinking of graphing it, then I get lazy. Ok, I start lazy, and my graphing desires are minimal for this topic, so it doesn't happen. But maybe someone else will do it?!

 

[TwoSix]

Mathy folks - would adding 1 to an attribute every level result in more or less powerful folks by level 20? I've been thinking of graphing it, then I get lazy. Ok, I start lazy, and my graphing desires are minimal for this topic, so it doesn't happen. But maybe someone else will do it?!

Assuming you're still restricted to the 20 cap, it would basically be like adding a +4 to all of your non-primary stats. (Your primary stat will usually hit 20 anyway in standard 5e progression.)

Since it can't boost your primary stat, but you could boost your Con and your secondary to 20, it's like a combination of an Amulet of Health and an item like Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, but at 20 instead of 19. Probably about a decently strong Very Rare item in value.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Assuming you're still restricted to the 20 cap, it would basically be like adding a +4 to all of your non-primary stats. (Your primary stat will usually hit 20 anyway in standard 5e progression.)

Since it can't boost your primary stat, but you could boost your Con and your secondary to 20, it's like a combination of an Amulet of Health and an item like Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, but at 20 instead of 19. Probably about a decently strong Very Rare item in value.

So... you would be more powerful? Not including any magic item upgrades?

 

[TwoSix]

So... you would be more powerful? Not including any magic item upgrades?

More powerful compared to what? You just asked if adding 1 stat per level would make you more powerful. You didn’t mention if you were replacing or changing anything else.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

More powerful compared to what? You just asked if adding 1 stat per level would make you more powerful. You didn’t mention if you were replacing or changing anything else.

Compared to regular character progression of ASI or feat every 4 levels. Assuming a bump of 2 per 4 levels, I guess you would be more powerful.

 

[Silam]

I think a really elegant game design would be "intentionally scalable complexity".

Scalable complexity in the sense that those who want to micromanage little details and min-max and do odd combos can (though the system balance should have guardrails), while those who want to basically play a MM stat block also should have the ability to do that!

And it should be intentional complexity as opposed to accidental complexity. For example, the way TWF, the Nick WM and the DW feat work in 5.5e is accidental complexity. I see nothing wrong balance-wise with giving TWF characters 2 extra attacks if they invest into that, but the way these rules are worded is absolute dog naughty word. Same for the Rogue’s constraint of 1 Sneak Attack "per turn but not necessarily my turn". It’s fine balance-wise but it’s accidentally complex. No good.

If you keep the "interface" between creatures simple (AC, saves, HPs, ability checks, skill checks), then it does not really matter what amount of complexity is tucked inside each creature. It could be arbitrarily simple or complex and it wouldn’t matter, as long as it dishes out attack rolls and save DCs, and likewise responds to these offenses by putting up an AC or a save.

So you could have a "Basic Subclass" for each class that is featureless. A Fighter with the Basic Fighter Subclass gets just some extra uses of Second Wind / Action Surge / Indomitable sooner than the base class, but no additional abilities. Very easy to play and definitely feasible to balance against the more complex subs.

And then on the other end of the spectrum you have stuff like the "Adventurer Class" which is basically a skill tree system (would need to be balanced a bit better probably but it’s a good start).

All of these characters could play at the same table. The intentionally scalable complexity is tucked inside the black box of each character sheet.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm with OP, I'd love a 5e Basic; a B5E to go along with A5E, if you will.

Shadowdark or to gritty?

 

[TwoSix]

People happy about 8 new subclasses in the Ravenloft book…buddy, I got 60+ new monster PC options!

 

[Gradine]

Shadowdark or to gritty?

I am not convinced that you meant to reply this to me