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

[Blue]

11. Scale certain feats (-5/+10s, HAM) by proficiency bonus. HAM would be half proficiency bonus on its damage reduction, while GWM and SS would be giving up your prof bonus to hit in exchange for double the prof bonus to damage.

Someone made a showing a while ago that a by-proficiency bonus of -prof/+2xProf was actually mathematically more powerful than -5/+10. Basically it was that based on the ACs of foes of around your CR, the bonus gets applied enough more times that it more than makes up for being a smaller bonus. The -5/+10 peaks at less levels.

 

[Blue]

Add feats to the game, in place of ASI. Redesign all feats so that they also include +1 to a stat.

"Redesign all feat to include +1" seem like it means "reverse feats being a big deal in 5e by neutering all of the pure feats so they are still balanced with a +1."

But even if it's boosting feats, I'd dislike this. There's be so much focus on taking feats that increase your prime ability score that most instances of a class will be really the same because there's not a lot of variation, especially when looking for 3 or 4 feats with the same ability score mod. So this will drastically reduce variations in characters of the same class - campaign after campaign they will have the same build.

Redesign classes so that they gain feats and sub-class abilities at standard levels. Multi-classing now lets you gain one class's primary features in place of your sub-class.

Yes please.

Actually, I originally hoped subclasses should be class independant. So you could have a "Primal woodsman" subclass, and you might pick it for your fighter to have ranger-like things, or your barbarian, but also maybe your wizard. SO on and so forth.

Go back down to three saves, so everyone knows which one protects you from mind-affecting attacks.
Reduce the duration of a short rest to five minutes, with the explicit assumption that it should take place after every encounter. Re-design class abilities around this assumption.

Like both of these as well.

Get rid of free healing, to free us from the tyranny of six encounters per day.

Free healing has very little to do with this. I'd definitely want to drop the expected number of encounters too, but personal healing freed us from requiring a party has a healer and I never want to return there.

Fix the HP bloat, by getting rid of +Con to HP and +Str/Dex to damage.

With bounded accuracy controlling chance to hit, HPs are the primary knob the designers have to keep things (PCs or foes) alive. So it's going to be many multiple of single character-round worth of damage. If you do 5 damage vs. a 60 HP creature or 50 damage vs. a 600 HP creature it's the same thing.

 

[Blue]

Expertise for extremely important class skill seems like an excellent way to go. My initial reaction is to suggest that all wizards get expertise in Arcana automatically, and that all Clerics get expertise in religion automatically but thinking about it a bit, player choice is better.

Can I suggest this instead:
Grant a third skill with background. For a single skill offered by your class you already have from elsewhere (background, race, etc.) you make pick it a second time and get expertise.

It means that sage wizard can have expertise in Arcana (or a bunch of other learned things), while a criminal wizard will probably just have a wider selection of skills (since background gives an extra).

But regardless if you do it this way or the way you were suggesting, I'd strongly recommend it's character level 1 - a multiclassed character doesn't picking up a another expertise every time they take a new class.

 

[coolAlias]

Liking a lot of the ideas here so far, especially regarding saving throws and giving weapons and armor more diverse traits that allow a wider variety to be useful depending on the circumstances.

As for ASI vs feats, I think the problem is compounded by certain things:

1. Lucky rolled stats allow a character to quickly eclipse others in power by choosing feats
2. A +2 to a primary stat is better than most feats
3. MAD classes often feel like they aren't allowed to take feats because of point #2

Granted, ability scores aren't everything and a 16 is perfectly acceptable even at level 10, but it really hurts as a spellcaster when your limited resource spells fail because your spell save DC is 1 or 2 points lower than it could be.

My solution would be to lower the power level of individual feats a bit, removing all "+1 to stat" portions and breaking others up a bit (e.g. Power Attack could become just -5/+10 or whatever, and then a Cleave feat for the bonus attack), and go back to a 3e-style feat progression where characters gain feats based on total character level and some classes or races can grant bonus feats.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But even if it's boosting feats, I'd dislike this. There's be so much focus on taking feats that increase your prime ability score that most instances of a class will be really the same because there's not a lot of variation, especially when looking for 3 or 4 feats with the same ability score mod. So this will drastically reduce variations in characters of the same class - campaign after campaign they will have the same build.

As it stands, every wizard takes +Int at level 4, because anything else is shooting yourself in the foot. You can't get less variety than that. Even if there were only six feats that added +Int, forcing every wizard to take one of those six in order to gain their +Int at level 4 will necessarily increase variety, since there are more choices that aren't obviously wrong.

Not to mention, given the stat cap, every wizard will only want enough +Int feats to cap their Int. After that, they can start choosing between +Dex or +Con feats or whatever.

With bounded accuracy controlling chance to hit, HPs are the primary knob the designers have to keep things (PCs or foes) alive. So it's going to be many multiple of single character-round worth of damage. If you do 5 damage vs. a 60 HP creature or 50 damage vs. a 600 HP creature it's the same thing.

If 5 vs 60 is the same as 50 vs 600, then why bother with the meaningless inflation? Likewise, there's no point in keeping ability scores that are separate from ability modifiers. Just say that your Int bonus is +3, and cut out the pointless bookkeeping.

I would actually suggest that we get rid of Bounded Accuracy entirely, and move to scaling accuracy and defense instead, but that might go beyond the scope of a .25 edition. My other suggestions are mostly just organizational or cosmetic.

 

[Blue]

As it stands, every wizard takes +Int at level 4, because anything else is shooting yourself in the foot. You can't get less variety than that.

Sure you can. If after 3-4 ASIs every wizard has the mostly overlap, that's a heck of a lot worse. Feats are about customization - if there's effectively no customization over the course of your entire play because everyone takes the same top feats (and we can't pretend that all of the feats will be perfectly balanced individually and in groups that there won't be a top crop). That's a lot less variety then an ASI and then a choice of feats.

Plus, it don't agree with the premise that all characters take an ASI at 4th. I've personally played several characters who have taken other feats. Sometimes a full feat, like my half-elven paladin who took Inspiring Leader. Sometimes it's a +1 ability score feat like my 17 DEX halfling who took Second Chance (from XGtE). I've seen others do it at the tables I've played. While it's most common to go for an ASI at 4th, going feats already happens.

Not to mention, given the stat cap, every wizard will only want enough +Int feats to cap their Int. After that, they can start choosing between +Dex or +Con feats or whatever.

Another way to say that is "once you hit your cap, you are effectively locked out of taking more feats focusing on your prime ability score because they are very sub-optimal compared to advancing an ability".

I would actually suggest that we get rid of Bounded Accuracy entirely, and move to scaling accuracy and defense instead, but that might go beyond the scope of a .25 edition. My other suggestions are mostly just organizational or cosmetic.

That's how it was for all of the previous editions. If you think Bounded Accuracy is a failure, then remove it. I'm fine with it for my style of running because it increases the variety of opponents I can use, but there is no universal truth in that. While I happen to like the changes it has brought, there's no objective metric I can point to in order to say Bounded Accuracy is better or not for the game as a whole.

 

[Blue]

As for ASI vs feats, I think the problem is compounded by certain things:

1. Lucky rolled stats allow a character to quickly eclipse others in power by choosing feats
2. A +2 to a primary stat is better than most feats
3. MAD classes often feel like they aren't allowed to take feats because of point #2

Granted, ability scores aren't everything and a 16 is perfectly acceptable even at level 10, but it really hurts as a spellcaster when your limited resource spells fail because your spell save DC is 1 or 2 points lower than it could be.

To my eye a spell caster is in a better position that an weapon wielder. First, for many spells there's still an effect on a successful save such as half damage. Second is the nature of the save system. With only two trained saves, even with good ability scores that don't align with those saves a foe has at best 2-4 decent saves. A caster can and should go after the poor saves. Where a +3 from ability and then +2-6 more for proficiency is matched up against a +0 or +1 save - a much better chance to succeed than an attack with a +3 STR or DEX.

But that's just a digression, I had an idea about the ASI that I wanted to suggest. What if the modifiers from ability scores changed slower as you go up? Making somnething up off the top of my head, say an 11 is +1, 13 = +2, 16 = +3, 19 is +4 and 23 is +5. Change the cap to 23 as well, and some monsters will need to be updates.

So going up in ability scores some makes sense, but once you are high it will take more than one ASI and at that point feats become a better deal. So you can push forward for the biggest bonus but at a high opportunity cost, or grab feats. That might introduce some variation. (Again, those are just sample numbers I picked out of the air, don't think of them are rigorous.)

 

[Hussar]

Runs in.

Warlords

Runs out.

 

[Laurefindel]

To echo some posters above, those would be my preferred design "fixes"

Subclasses
Ideally, I'd like a bit less quantity and more balance betwwen all subclasses. But primarily, I'd like them to either:
a) all be available from level 1 for all classes (I don't care if that signature subclass feature arrives later on, but I'd prefer to give thematic direction from the get go)
or
b) explicitly make level 1 an apprentice level with subclasses arriving at level 2, and have all characters start at level 2; either as journeymen in one class or multiclass as apprentice in two different classes. Adjust all level 1 threats (goblins, basic traps and all) for that level 2 starting point.

Background
Give them more oomph, almost as much as a subclass key feature. Let the Outsider be the natural explorer, the Noble give temp hp, the Entertainer influence others, etc. Make background a more relevant choice, even if its key feature only kicks-in at later levels.

Pets
Pick one: regular pet/animal companions/familiars/hirelings/summon creatures have their own turn and actions, or have them all feed off your character's action economy. Then built and apply the "pet sub-system" uniformally and consistently.

Magic
Offer a build-in low(er) magic setting in the base game
and/or
Elaborate on how spells to be "cast" non-magically without using spell slots either as inherent magical abilities, magic rituals, border-line supernatural abilities, or mundane abilities conveniently fitting into spell format.

Weapons & Armours
Either reduce the number and lean more on cosmetic preferences, or diversify statistics and abilities to represent a broader range of different weapons/armours.

Others
Expand on the Social and Exploration pillars mechanically.

Personality Traits & Inspiration
The present system is not broken, but it doesn't feel as thorough as other systems in the game. This has lots of room to be expanded upon. I can see this tied to backgrounds somehow...

 

[coolAlias]

To my eye a spell caster is in a better position that an weapon wielder. First, for many spells there's still an effect on a successful save such as half damage. Second is the nature of the save system. With only two trained saves, even with good ability scores that don't align with those saves a foe has at best 2-4 decent saves. A caster can and should go after the poor saves. Where a +3 from ability and then +2-6 more for proficiency is matched up against a +0 or +1 save - a much better chance to succeed than an attack with a +3 STR or DEX.

But that's just a digression, I had an idea about the ASI that I wanted to suggest. What if the modifiers from ability scores changed slower as you go up? Making somnething up off the top of my head, say an 11 is +1, 13 = +2, 16 = +3, 19 is +4 and 23 is +5. Change the cap to 23 as well, and some monsters will need to be updates.

So going up in ability scores some makes sense, but once you are high it will take more than one ASI and at that point feats become a better deal. So you can push forward for the biggest bonus but at a high opportunity cost, or grab feats. That might introduce some variation. (Again, those are just sample numbers I picked out of the air, don't think of them are rigorous.)

Whether it's a weak save or not, the point is that the caster is expending a limited resource that has a chance of failure - but it really applies to every class' primary stat(s). When feats are competing against increasing the reliability of your primary function, it's a tough sell to a lot of people.

For myself, I actually prefer taking a feat at 4th and/or 8th if my primary stat is already 16, since that's still good enough to adventure and having feats is more fun, but I think we'd see a lot more build variety all around if feats and ASIs were either separated like I discussed above OR they were made more competitive with each other - perhaps by making them somewhat weaker but more common, or buffing the non-"OP" feats a little so they are enticing.

Interesting idea on the slowing progression - reminds me a little of 2e. It would be an interesting experiment. I like the 5e system because it is so simple, I don't have to look at any charts to know what the modifier is.