log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Add


log in or register to remove this ad


Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Skillpoints.
Profiency doesn't do it for me.
Seems like this could be simple house rule. You get the same number of points as proficiency would give you and let people spread them around however they want. I'd probably limit points you can spend on any single skill to double your proficiency for balance.

So if at 1st level you'd normally get 5 proficiencies between class and background, you have 10 points to spend at 1st level because your proficiency bonus is +2. At 5th level you'd get 5 more skill points and so on.
 

Mind of tempest

Adventurer
Yea, but I read @jgsugden's post as advocating for getting a specifically GM-chosen boon in place of feats, based on the narrative of the game. Personally, I love that idea; it moves character growth out of the metagame and into the narrative space, which I think is very rewarding.
but with great risk for example boons which do not really help, things that disagree with the characters, the dm flat out not giving sufficient numbers of them or even giving too many to one player.

your idea is not bad but would have to be done super carefully.
 

Asisreo

Archdevil's Advocate
it would also need lots of blood themed spells, I would put money on it ending up the edgy caster.
It needn't be edgy, though its a common trope. It would be similar to the necromancer, dealing with forces people usually aren't comfortable with for obvious reasons.

Spell selection would probably be a mix between warlock and sorcerer. We can easily flavor spells to have blood in them but some unique and viable blood/lifeleech spells could be fun. Something like:

Lifedrain
1st-level
Comp: V, M, S
Action
Range: 30ft

The target makes a constitution saving throw and takes 2d4 necrotic damage on failure or half as much on a success. You heal HP equal to half the damage taken.

At higher levels. For each spell slot level above 1st-level, increase the damage by 1d4

Leech
3rd-level
Comp: V, M, S
Action
Conc. 1 min
Range: 30ft

Choose a creature within range. That creature must make a constitution saving throw or be effected by the spell. At the start of the target's turn, the target takes 4d6 damage and you heal HP equal to the damage dealt. The target makes a Constitution Save at the end of their turn, ending the spell on a success.

At higher levels. For each spell slot level higher than 3, increase the damage by 1d6.


Puppeteer
5th-level
Comp: V, S
Action
Range: 300ft
Conc. 10 min

Choose a creature within range, that creature makes a charisma saving throw. If the creature is a humanoid, it makes the saving throw with disadvantage. On a failure, the creature takes 6d10 damage and falls unconscious. If this damage kills the creature, the effects act on its corpse. You can move the target in realistic ways as long as you're within range. You can use your bonus action to use the creature's action on your turn. If the creature takes damage or the spell ends, it wakes up. If the creature is further than the range of the spell during its duration or if the creature awakens early, the spell ends on the creature.
 



Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
No. Especially since character sheets had what the number was next to each weapon. So it was really easy. If you rolled a 15, and your THAC0 for that weapon (which had already factored in any modifiers) was 14, then you hit AC -1. It wasn't any more math, since the math was done up front to get the individual THAC0 for that weapon type. The only math was subtracting your roll from the THAC0 number. That's it. You didn't have the "I rolled a 14, +2 for strength, +1 for weapon, +4 for BAB, so I hit.....(14+2+1+4 is 21)...AC 21!"
Let's assume people are able to write down with the math on both sides instead of the example you gave where that was reserved for THAC0. With that both cases are rolling a die and working out a number. But one is addition and uses the intuitive case of higher AC = better, much like everything else, and a unified mechanic of d20+mod >= DC, and the other uses subtraction including to negative numbers (slower than addition), a non-intuitive lower=better that doesn't match anything, and does nto follow aunified mechanic.

Sorry, THAC0 loses by every difference there.

Here's an study (and there are plenty) about addition being easier than subtraction.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Let's assume people are able to write down with the math on both sides instead of the example you gave where that was reserved for THAC0. With that both cases are rolling a die and working out a number. But one is addition and uses the intuitive case of higher AC = better, much like everything else, and a unified mechanic of d20+mod >= DC, and the other uses subtraction including to negative numbers (slower than addition), a non-intuitive lower=better that doesn't match anything, and does nto follow aunified mechanic.

Sorry, THAC0 loses by every difference there.

Here's an study (and there are plenty) about addition being easier than subtraction.
We can't have a discussion if you ignore all those other things I said, like how THAC0 was capped in a 20 digit range and ascending AC isn't, for example. Another example is that one step of subtraction is generally easier than four or more steps of addition. It does not "lose in every difference". It's contextual. Sometimes it's easier, sometimes it's not. I already listed out in detail several examples. If you choose to ignore that part it's not my fault.
 

We can't have a discussion if you ignore all those other things I said, like how THAC0 was capped in a 20 digit range and ascending AC isn't, for example. Another example is that one step of subtraction is generally easier than four or more steps of addition. It does not "lose in every difference". It's contextual. Sometimes it's easier, sometimes it's not. I already listed out in detail several examples. If you choose to ignore that part it's not my fault.
None of your complaints about ascending AC are universal to that method though - in fact, none of them apply to 5e near as I can tell. (AC's stop at 25, you only need to add once, the only difference is addition vs subtraction.)

So saying THAC0 is better and would be an improvement, the context is "compared to what people are currently doing" - not compared to the worst-case version of another setup. You're comparing apple pie to rotten oranges and saying apples are better.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
We can't have a discussion if you ignore all those other things I said, like how THAC0 was capped in a 20 digit range and ascending AC isn't, for example. Another example is that one step of subtraction is generally easier than four or more steps of addition. It does not "lose in every difference". It's contextual. Sometimes it's easier, sometimes it's not. I already listed out in detail several examples. If you choose to ignore that part it's not my fault.
If limited range is the hill you want to die on, go ahead. I mean, you'll still be dead, but whatever. ;)

With bounded accuracy, the numbers you need to hit are slightly higher, but unlike previous edition (especially 3E) you aren't adding up that many. The vast majority of target numbers are between 10-20, with skills maxing out at 30. Having an ever so slightly smaller range is not particularly significant.

As far as your other justifications like having the numbers written down ahead of time, that's something you can still do if addition is difficult for a person. I've done it for a player.

You like THAC0 for some reason. That's fine. You are allowed to have a preference. But this insistence that it is "better" despite all the studies that show addition is easier for most people. The multiple bonuses we had in 3E is a red herring that has nothing to do with it, the number of bonuses was a separate issue. I would also say just adding everything up (even in 5E with Bless for example) is easier.

It's easier for most people to roll a D20, then add all modifiers. If someone rolls a 10, has +5 because of static modifiers and a +3 from Bless:
10 + 5 + 3 = 18 is much easier than 10 - (10 + 5 +3) = -8.
THAC0 is just counterintuitive for most people. It's also an extra step.

Then add in things like cover with a -2 penalty
10 + 5 + 3 = 18 then subtract 2 so 16 versus 10 - (10 + 5 +3) = -8 then subtract 2 ... wait am I adding a negative to a negative so I'm really adding, maybe? Or do I subtract it? I mean, I need to reduce my chance to hit so -6 I guess.

But, again, adding is simply easier for most people. I have no idea where "all the things you've said" because as far as I can tell it boils down to "for me subtracting is easy, 3.x had too many modifiers and you can write the numbers down ahead of time". If subtracting is easier for you, great. It's not for most people. The overabundance of modifiers from 3.x are an issue no matter what system you use, and people still can and do just write down numbers ahead of time.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
None of your complaints about ascending AC are universal to that method though - in fact, none of them apply to 5e near as I can tell. (AC's stop at 25, you only need to add once, the only difference is addition vs subtraction.)

So saying THAC0 is better and would be an improvement, the context is "compared to what people are currently doing" - not compared to the worst-case version of another setup. You're comparing apple pie to rotten oranges and saying apples are better.
Ascending AC isn't limited to 5e. And 5e isn't the only game people are playing that uses ascending AC. Your analogy is flawed.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
We can't have a discussion if you ignore all those other things I said, like how THAC0 was capped in a 20 digit range and ascending AC isn't, for example. Another example is that one step of subtraction is generally easier than four or more steps of addition. It does not "lose in every difference". It's contextual. Sometimes it's easier, sometimes it's not. I already listed out in detail several examples. If you choose to ignore that part it's not my fault.
You worked out THAC0 ahead of time with all the modifiers yet you refuse to do so with Attack Bonus and therefore call it more steps. You ignore all of my points yet try to claim that yours should not be ignored.

As said, apply a level playing field and for the three points I detailed - unified mechanic, single step of addition easier than single step of subtraction, and intuitive higher=better like everything else, THAC0 fails on every criteria.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
You worked out THAC0 ahead of time with all the modifiers yet you refuse to do so with Attack Bonus and therefore call it more steps. You ignore all of my points yet try to claim that yours should not be ignored.

As said, apply a level playing field and for the three points I detailed - unified mechanic, single step of addition easier than single step of subtraction, and intuitive higher=better like everything else, THAC0 fails on every criteria.
Which isn't to say that THAC0 didn't have its day. It did. It was a definite improvement over having to look up your attack result on a table. It's just left behind by an even better improvement.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
You worked out THAC0 ahead of time with all the modifiers yet you refuse to do so with Attack Bonus and therefore call it more steps. You ignore all of my points yet try to claim that yours should not be ignored.
I didn't refuse to. As I said upthread that you ignored and omitted from what you quoted from me, that # when adding changed. It wasn't the same. BAB bonuses were different in 3e from one attack to another. There were many more scenarios that gave you a modifier one way or the other that differed from each attack than in THAC0 versions of the game. And then the numbers grew way beyond a 20 digit spread. All these things matter, and either didn't allow you to pre-calculate like you could in AD&D, or you had to have an entire sheet dedicated to all of these various scenarios for each weapon (which I've never seen)

that's what I mean by an even playing field. Because it wasn't. On the surface adding is easier, but not always the case when you're dealing with much greater values and more steps involved to get to the final value. It's contextual. I've literally given you multiple examples of scenario where THAC0 is easier, and you continue to ignore them and make blanket statements like THAC0 fails in every example. That's objectively not true. So if you refuse to acknowledge and ignore the examples I gave that prove how it doesn't always fail, then I think we're done because you're digging your heels on an argument that is objectively not true. So have a good day.
 




Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I didn't refuse to. As I said upthread that you ignored and omitted from what you quoted from me, that # when adding changed. It wasn't the same. BAB bonuses were different in 3e from one attack to another. There were many more scenarios that gave you a modifier one way or the other that differed from each attack than in THAC0 versions of the game. And then the numbers grew way beyond a 20 digit spread. All these things matter, and either didn't allow you to pre-calculate like you could in AD&D, or you had to have an entire sheet dedicated to all of these various scenarios for each weapon (which I've never seen)

that's what I mean by an even playing field. Because it wasn't. On the surface adding is easier, but not always the case when you're dealing with much greater values and more steps involved to get to the final value. It's contextual. I've literally given you multiple examples of scenario where THAC0 is easier, and you continue to ignore them and make blanket statements like THAC0 fails in every example. That's objectively not true. So if you refuse to acknowledge and ignore the examples I gave that prove how it doesn't always fail, then I think we're done because you're digging your heels on an argument that is objectively not true. So have a good day.
But that's an issue with 3E that has nothing to do with THAC0. If you added in the number of bonuses and modifications to a system that used THAC0 it would be just be even worse than what 3E had.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top