D&D 5E What If?

[GameOgre]

What for?

(If the answer is "To use them in my games," then my question is, "Why are you unsatisfied with the options currently available?")

ok well here goes.

I dislike disadvantage. It's a neat idea that sucks. I HATE to see a player get all excited about rolling a Nat 20 then remember she has disadvantage and that it means nothing.

Result- House rule in our games a nat 20 is immune to disadvantage for everyone.(players and monsters).

I dislike concentration as it stops tons of really neat things that occurred in other editions, like a wizard flying around with the fly spell going and freely casting in battles against other flying monsters. Really there are tons of things the concentration rules mess up.

I dislike the level 20 hard cap in games where feats are not used as it means basically no meaningful benefit is gained. (my 1/2 orc now has a intelligence of 10 instead of 8..yay he is getting smarter).

In games that use feats the already too easy to defeat monsters become even more so when the pc's alone get feats. Beef monsters up with feats might just work!




but really the thread is about people talking about idea for changing the game and how it would effect the rules because it's neat to see what others thing about your ideas and it would be cool to see what rules bother you guys and how you deal with them.

Perhaps I might even discover something that doesn't bother me right now but that might later?

If nothing else it's fun.

 

[GameOgre]

I, for one, can't wait to see a first level PC cast wish...

A 1st level PC can already cast wish. If the DM gives them a ring of Wish's.

The only way for a 1st Wizard to cast the wish spell would be if the DM gave it to them.

Not that this no spell level idea would be a good thing necessarily but it isn't as nutty as it sounds.

For instance if you removed the level limit but the DM never brought in high level spells till the pc would have been able to cast them it wouldn't matter. Or would it?

I just thought the idea was wild and cool and wondered if it could work.

 

[77IM]

What if hit points could go negative?

When you fail a death save, instead of 3-failures-and-you're-out, you take damage equal to your current negative hit points. (E.g. if you are at -7 you take another 7 damage.) Reach negative HP, and you die. Getting at least 1 point of healing, or succeeding on 3 death saves, stabilizes you. Damage from other sources doesn't count as a failed death save, but does automatically destabilize you.

Death-and-dying rules have one of the biggest impacts on genre and play-style of any rules, because they help determine how deadly combat is and influence PC and NPC willingness to engage in lethal fights.

 

[GameOgre]

Negative hit points would be fine I think but letting a pc go all the way to negative hit points would be basically ruling out death unless everyone went down.

I mean when you have over 100 hit points that would mean you can go over negative 100 right?

I think it would be better to just say negative con or something like that...heck even -10 like back in he day would work.

At -10 = death I think it would increase the lethality in your game by a little. If that's the side effect you are going for then I think it works!

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

How about a PC with proficiency in blacksmith tools can modify weapons? Add properties or stats in one respect at the cost of others? Like, increase the critical range, but the weapon must now be used in two hands if it was originally made for one? Or you get +1 to hit, as you've made it lighter or with a better point of balance, but now it hits for -1?

 

[GameOgre]

How about a PC with proficiency in blacksmith tools can modify weapons? Add properties or stats in one respect at the cost of others? Like, increase the critical range, but the weapon must now be used in two hands if it was originally made for one? Or you get +1 to hit, as you've made it lighter or with a better point of balance, but now it hits for -1?

I love this idea! I think the idea of a give and take works fine. You will want to be careful so you don't make a clear winner in the weapons war but.....it's doable.

I also like the idea of going further with it and adding in magic. Like in Diablo (the err video game) you can add magical gems to increase the damage or add fire effects and....ok ok probably going a lot crazier with the idea than you had in mind but still....great idea!

 

[Cyan Wisp]

Sounds like you guys need to play some 3.5e!

Concentration, Adv/DisAdv, death saves (not negative hp tracking), capped Ability Scores, different build rules for PC/monsters, limited attunement to magic items, reduced book-keeping... these are the hallmarks of a re-designed game that works well.

I'm a 3.5e fan, but I adore 5e, as is, for the elements listed above. Caster/martial inequality was addressed in 5e and it relies on things like Concentration and limited high level spells. Granular bonuses were addressed and the alternative relies on Adv/DisAdv. The arms race was addressed and it relies on bounded accuracy, limited attunement, limited AC, limited Prof. bonus.

These are the strengths of the 5e game and are integral. Seriously, just play 3.5e or PF. They have most of the things you are mentioning.

So... What if? Answer: you'll be playing a different game.

PS: Wish at 1st level; Isn't that called prestidigitation?

 

[GameOgre]

Sounds like you guys need to play some 3.5e!

Concentration, Adv/DisAdv, death saves (not negative hp tracking), capped Ability Scores, different build rules for PC/monsters, limited attunement to magic items, reduced book-keeping... these are the hallmarks of a re-designed game that works well.

I'm a 3.5e fan, but I adore 5e, as is, for the elements listed above. Caster/martial inequality was addressed in 5e and it relies on things like Concentration and limited high level spells. Granular bonuses were addressed and the alternative relies on Adv/DisAdv. The arms race was addressed and it relies on bounded accuracy, limited attunement, limited AC, limited Prof. bonus.

These are the strengths of the 5e game and are integral. Seriously, just play 3.5e or PF. They have most of the things you are mentioning.

So... What if? Answer: you'll be playing a different game.

PS: Wish at 1st level; Isn't that called prestidigitation?

So your take on 5E is that there shouldn't be any house rules and if people want to mess around with the rules(you know like EVERY other rpg game or edition EVER) they should go play something else.

Got it.
Thanks for your input.
It sure was thought provoking.


Now where were we?

Anyone use the options in the back of the DMG about skills?

I kinda like the idea of one skill prof stat for class and one for background. Those ideas are pretty cool. I'm not too sure how they would work though. After all not all stats are created equal skill wise.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I love this idea! I think the idea of a give and take works fine. You will want to be careful so you don't make a clear winner in the weapons war but.....it's doable.

I also like the idea of going further with it and adding in magic. Like in Diablo (the err video game) you can add magical gems to increase the damage or add fire effects and....ok ok probably going a lot crazier with the idea than you had in mind but still....great idea!

Nah, i wouldn't mind magic integrated into this at all. As long as it's still contained in some way. Like requiring a pretty high level of experience in crafting the thing

 

[GameOgre]

Probably link it to your level prof bonus somehow then. I'm not too sure how since there is a difference in numbers. Also at high levels the bonus's could get unbalancing.

It needs to be something simple but at the same time allows you to tinker with weapons and armor ect.. in a meaningful way.