D&D 5E Version 5.25 -- what do you change?

[oreofox]

Interesting question. I feel like a lot of the ideas for improving D&D that float around here are more along the lines of heavy overhauls, so restricting our consideration to a humbler "5.25" may actually bring us to some unexplored territory.

Here are a few of my thoughts:

• Move the subclass choice down to level 1 for most if not all of the classes. The devs made a deliberate design choice in 5E to avoid that where possible, but looking back with a few years' experience of the game I think it was the wrong one.
• Spread out saving throw effects more between all six of the ability scores, and provide a stronger thematic definition of what each saving throw is for. Making concentration an Int save instead of Con would do a lot all on its own. Get rid of the idea of "strong" and "weak" saving throws; let the ranger be Dex/Con and the monk be Dex/Wis like we all know they ought to be.
• A lot of people are going to say the opposite, but I say lean into Expertise a little more: give most if not all classes expertise in one thematically appropriate skill (e.g. Arcana for wizards) and let the rogue/bard's niche be more versatility than raw numerical superiority.
• Stacking advantage and disadvantage, within reason. Obviously I see the virtue in simplicity of not letting them stack. But I also repeatedly see my party's barbarian Reckless Attack while blinded to completely cancel out the disadvantage to attacks while providing no additional advantage to enemy attackers.

I haven't read all the replies, but your's stuck out to me. Especially your first point. While I don't know about all at level 1 (I would say level 2 for all except cleric and sorcerer, or maybe just sorcerer would stay level 1), I'd have them all get their subclass abilities at the same levels (such as all at 2nd, 5th, 8th, 15th, instead of what we have now. Sorcerer would get their 2nd level ability at 1st).

Your other points, I agree with.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

They might have made it Con to avoid Wizards being single-stat characters. With concentration on Int all Wizards will have great saves on it. I'm not sure I mind that, but I wondered if you had considered it and if so where do Wizards land? That's my main hesitation.

Conceptually I'm okay with wizards being a one-stat class. And it's not exactly like Constitution becomes useless to a wizard after this change.

 

[cbwjm]

Interesting question. I feel like a lot of the ideas for improving D&D that float around here are more along the lines of heavy overhauls, so restricting our consideration to a humbler "5.25" may actually bring us to some unexplored territory.

Here are a few of my thoughts:

• Move the subclass choice down to level 1 for most if not all of the classes. The devs made a deliberate design choice in 5E to avoid that where possible, but looking back with a few years' experience of the game I think it was the wrong one.
• Spread out saving throw effects more between all six of the ability scores, and provide a stronger thematic definition of what each saving throw is for. Making concentration an Int save instead of Con would do a lot all on its own. Get rid of the idea of "strong" and "weak" saving throws; let the ranger be Dex/Con and the monk be Dex/Wis like we all know they ought to be.
• A lot of people are going to say the opposite, but I say lean into Expertise a little more: give most if not all classes expertise in one thematically appropriate skill (e.g. Arcana for wizards) and let the rogue/bard's niche be more versatility than raw numerical superiority.
• Stacking advantage and disadvantage, within reason. Obviously I see the virtue in simplicity of not letting them stack. But I also repeatedly see my party's barbarian Reckless Attack while blinded to completely cancel out the disadvantage to attacks while providing no additional advantage to enemy attackers.

I pretty much agree with all of these points.

For point 1, I'd even push it so far as to make all classes gain subclass abilities at the same level.

Point 4, I've thought about having a couple of different sources that affect adv./disadv. Not sure what I'd call them, but if you had 2 sources granting advantage, it would require 2 sources to cancel them out. Probably no more than 3 different sources in total so that it doesn't get crazy.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I haven't read all the replies, but your's stuck out to me. Especially your first point. While I don't know about all at level 1 (I would say level 2 for all except cleric and sorcerer, or maybe just sorcerer would stay level 1), I'd have them all get their subclass abilities at the same levels (such as all at 2nd, 5th, 8th, 15th, instead of what we have now. Sorcerer would get their 2nd level ability at 1st).

Your other points, I agree with.

The reason to give the subclass choice at 1 is to allow definitional subclasses with character-creation features in classes besides the cleric and sorcerer.

Getting all subclass features on the same schedule has some obvious upsides, but would require a lot of shuffling of other class features. In particular, notice how the full casters mostly get their subclass features on even levels because they're trying not to overlap with new spell levels. It would also require all classes to give their subclasses equal weight, which might be limiting for future design.

 

[Vael]

I just don't know if it's worth the effort to standardize class progressions, I'm not clear why every class has to have their subclass give them features at certain levels.

 

[Shiroiken]

Keeping things relatively simple, since this is just a revision and not a new edition:

• Correct Standard Array (and point buy, I suppose) to be 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
  • This is closer to the average you'd get by rolling
• Lower Ability Score Maximum to 18, rather than 20
  • 18 is just as arbitrary as 20, but is the traditional "best"
• Give Standard Human actual benefits, rather than just +1 to everything
  • +1 to everything is not only boring, but it affects the number of human PCs based on the method of ability score generation
• Balance the Range Class
  • More favorite enemies and terrain, and a combat bonus against FE
• Rework the Armor and Weapons to be actually balanced
  • Armor is just a treasure sink for AC, since most expensive is always best
  • Too many weapons are simply worse than others in every way
• Boost up the 75% of feats that are utter crap
  • The "OP" feats are the only ones worth the opportunity cost of +2 to your primary ability score
• Balance the Saving Throws across all ability scores
  • All "dump stats" create a weakness to be exploited

 

[Blue]

Correct Standard Array (and point buy, I suppose) to be 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

As a point, once you introduce a 16 the race/class parings with narrow even further, just to combos where you can start with an 18 in your prime ability score. I would see that as a strong negative consequence. Want to adjust that +1 elsewhere I'm fine, but leave standard array / point-buy with an odd highest score.

 

[Shiroiken]

As a point, once you introduce a 16 the race/class parings with narrow even further, just to combos where you can start with an 18 in your prime ability score. I would see that as a strong negative consequence. Want to adjust that +1 elsewhere I'm fine, but leave standard array / point-buy with an odd highest score.

I could accept that, but it still leaves rolling as a "better" choice, since it allows a 57% chance of getting a 16+ (and thus the 18 after racial mods) at start.

 

[Blue]

I could accept that, but it still leaves rolling as a "better" choice, since it allows a 57% chance of getting a 16+ (and thus the 18 after racial mods) at start.

Then a solution would be to max out racial modifiers at +1. Which I wouldn't mind with additions to other racial features to make races as (or more) powerful, but less tied to specific classes.

In the current game, I have seen rolled characters with that 16+ do a lot strogner than characters who don't, and it usually gets worse over time as stronger rolls mean more feats whih multiply, while weaker ability scores mean more ASIs just trying to catch up. That's why with as much as I love the organic method of rolling, for 5e with it's Faustian ASI or Feat choice I prefer point-buy.

(My preferred rolling method prior to 5e was 4d6 drop the lowest in order, three times. Then pick one set. Even more organic then just rolling because you end up strengths and weaknesses that you may not have throught to put them.)

 

[Shiroiken]

Then a solution would be to max out racial modifiers at +1. Which I wouldn't mind (in addition to other racial features) to make races as (or more) powerful, but less tied to specific classes.

I'd personally like this, and remember during the early playtest you only got +1 from race and got another +1 from class.

In the current game, I have seen rolled characters with that 16+ do a lot strogner than characters who don't, and it usually gets worse over time as stronger rolls mean more feats whih multiply, while weaker ability scores mean more ASIs just trying to catch up. That's why with as much as I love the organic method of rolling, for 5e with it's Faustian ASI or Feat choice I prefer point-buy.

Agreed, and it's one of the biggest flaws in 5E IMO. I understand the concept they went with it, but I still don't like it. Although I will disagree about point buy... I've found that while point buy allows a lot of non-traditional concepts (especially if MAD), it lends itself too much back to cookie-cutter ability score choices (expecially due to the imbalance in ability score benefits).

(My preferred rolling method prior to 5e was 4d6 drop the lowest in order, three times. Then pick one set. Even more organic then just rolling because you end up strengths and weaknesses that you may not have throught to put them.)

Nice method. I think this could work really well, because if you get a nice set of rolls, it might not fit a specific character you have it mind.