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

[Tony Vargas]

Probably been asked elsewhere, but if you could change/fix just a handful of 5e things, what would go on your list?

Scale bad saves with level at the same rate as proficient ones - (so Proficiency -2, in essence).
Scale save DCs with slot level instead of character level.
Make it abundantly clear that the DM can (and should) vary the time it takes to compete a rest, and whether a rest is possible, with the pacing of his campaign and the circumstance of the adventure, to make it more natural for the DM to maintain the 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest/long rest point at which the game theoretically can be balanced - include a fixed-pacing variant for that, in which short-rest recharges simply happen after every-other encounter and long rests recharges happen after every 7th encounter.
Tweak MCing:
Assign ASI's by character level, not class level. (Bonus ASIs still happen at the same class level.)
Classes that give Extra Attack combine levels to gain that first extra attack, and fighter levels can continue to build on that.
Re-cast some sub-classes, like the PDK, Battlerager, Bladesinger, &c as setting-based PrCs.

 

[Nebulous]

Oh and I’d change a crit to Max DMg plus an extra set of dice rolled.

I've been doing that for years. It works well, both on the DM and player side and a crit can suddenly swing a combat into dangerous territory. A crit from a bullette could, at max, do 100 hp damage.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

That's why I used Wizards in my example. Wizards almost universally take +Int at level 4, because they get the short end of feats under the existing implementation. Fighting types actually have feats that are comparable to +Str or whatever, and they are more versatile because of it, but that doesn't really extend to spellcasters (unless you have an odd casting stat, and you choose one of the half feats).

If there are only six feats that give +2 to Int, but they also each grant a minor power, then every Wizard gets a choice between six things at level 4, where they previously only had one real choice. That can't possibly reduce variety. Even if every single Wizard chose the same feat (say, the one that gives Detect Magic as a passive), it would still be the same amount of variety as there is currently, where they all pick +2 to Int and don't get the passive. And if someone wanted to do something different, even if it was generally less effective, they wouldn't have to sacrifice their basic competence in order to do so.

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".

As opposed to the current system, where a Strength of 20 means the Heavily Armored feat is sub-optimal?

The way I've actually implemented this system, in my own game, is that each feat gives you a choice between two stats. In the off chance that both of those stats are maxed, you get to raise any other stat.

This is just a quick thread. None of us are writing these suggestions in full legalese. It's safe to assume that any suggestion which would create an obvious problem that can be trivially patched is also suggesting that patch.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

This is my experience as well. Most level 4 options are feats rather than stat boosts in the games I've played in.

That's why I used Wizards in my example. Wizards almost universally take +Int at level 4, because they get the short end of feats under the existing implementation. Fighting types actually have feats that are comparable to +Str or whatever, and they are more versatile because of it, but that doesn't really extend to spellcasters (unless you have an odd casting stat, and you choose one of the half feats).

I'm playing an abjurer right now who just hit level 4. I choose war casting feat. I'd posit that casters who use concentration spells would choose that feat more often than the INT stat boost.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I would go back to the three saves that 3.5e has got (Con, Dex and Wis) if that is possible somehow. Biggest obstacle is the 2 strong save mechanic per character. There would eventually have to be feats so that you can put different stats up for save like 3.5e force of personality or intelligent reflexes.

But maybe this would make Dex an even more uber stat than it is already so maybe that is not so feasible.

they had sort if a soft strength save that was used occasionally too. But it didnt really operate like a save and it wasnt called a save i think either. Strength dc checks for maintaining activities like continuous swimming vs beginning to sink come to mind. Basically the soft save before drowning.

 

[Blue]

If there are only six feats that give +2 to Int, but they also each grant a minor power, then every Wizard gets a choice between six things at level 4, where they previously only had one real choice. That can't possibly reduce variety. Even if every single Wizard chose the same feat (say, the one that gives Detect Magic as a passive), it would still be the same amount of variety as there is currently, where they all pick +2 to Int and don't get the passive. And if someone wanted to do something different, even if it was generally less effective, they wouldn't have to sacrifice their basic competence in order to do so.

I thought we were talking +1, not +2. That makes a difference because I've been arguing about a character taking 3 or 4 feats to cap their prime ability score.

Stayig with the +1, it still can and does reduce variety because characters get more than one ASI over their adventuring career. If at 12th the current way we have wizards with +4 INT and a feat, +2 ASI and two feats and only rarely three feats, and the new way we have wizards only picking feats from a reduced list that gives +INT so 70% have the same top three +INT feats and 95% of them have 3 of the top 4 same feats - that's a lot less variety.

The way I've actually implemented this system, in my own game, is that each feat gives you a choice between two stats. In the off chance that both of those stats are maxed, you get to raise any other stat.

Once you open them up to multiple ability scores, the number of available feats for an ability score increases dramatically. You'll still have "the best feats" for a build, but the later picks will show more variety. I like that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Stayig with the +1, it still can and does reduce variety because characters get more than one ASI over their adventuring career. If at 12th the current way we have wizards with +4 INT and a feat, +2 ASI and two feats and only rarely three feats, and the new way we have wizards only picking feats from a reduced list that gives +INT so 70% have the same top three +INT feats and 95% of them have 3 of the top 4 same feats - that's a lot less variety.

Oh yeah, that would definitely be a problem, if feats were only at +1. It would feel like forever before you could cap out and move on to something interesting.

 

[5ekyu]

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.



This heavily benefits those classes that only have "daily" resources. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing, really.



I rather like these two points. If I was going to do a full rewrite of 5E, I'd consider shrinking the HP a LOT more than this but this would be a start. I don't like Constitution only being useful for saving throws, though (unless you're a Barbarian). With no skills, HP increase and saving throws was really all it had going on. A little more important for concentration-focused casters but that's really it.

"This heavily benefits those classes that only have "daily" resources. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing, really."

Thar depends on the specifics. If a fighter goes from one action surge between short rests to one between long rests plus the ability to spend 2hd (maybe more maybe less) to regain it during play without needing a rest - not seeing how that is bad.

If you think of it, in concept it allows them to nova, like a caster, dying a known 5mwd by using their HD to say action surge round after round, not just once.

But details will be bedeviled.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thar depends on the specifics. If a fighter goes from one action surge between short rests to one between long rests plus the ability to spend 2hd (maybe more maybe less) to regain it during play without needing a rest - not seeing how that is bad.

You're essentially penalizing him HD. The usual ratio of uses of short rests to long rests is 2-3:1, and, of course, you start with both charged, so every 1 short rest resource translates into 3-4 uses between long rests.

Thus, if you standardize on long rests and eliminate the short rest mechanic, the fighter should get Action surge 3 or 4 times per day, rising to 6 or 8 at very high level.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'd balance the classes around an expected adventuring day of 4 encounters and 1 short rest rather than 8 encounters and 2 short rests.

Days with just 1 encounter would still favor the daily classes, but you'd no longer need extremely long adventuring days before the short rest classes start seeing benefits.