If you could change one rule about 5th edition D&D, what would it be?
How could you make it 'better' by your interpretation?
What is it missing?
For me, it's weak but, the equipment list. Pathfinder 1e has a great equipment list that empowers PCs.
Traits are nice, as well.
Yours?
Quote from: Theory of Games;1090147If you could change one rule about 5th edition D&D, what would it be?
How could you make it 'better' by your interpretation?
What is it missing?
For me, it's weak but, the equipment list. Pathfinder 1e has a great equipment list that empowers PCs.
Traits are nice, as well.
Yours?
Well, I'd drastically cut back on special case rules, feats and class abilities in particular. I know that's really many small changes but it's directed.
The character classes need to all be re-written. I was glad to see feats being optional. But having a redundant quasi-skill system was only one of my beefs with the feat system. The other one is all the goofy super powers that come with them. Well, classes are still riddled with goofy super powers where 17th level fighters regenerate and triple the rate of a troll and such.
Despite my first inclination being "warlord class" or "proportional healing" my actual answer is going to be fixing the save math.
Save DCs are always proficient for the attacker. It is also almost always based on their best stat. Only one common and one rare save will be proficient for the defender (and may not even be tied to their best stat). Thus, you actually get worse at resisting opponents of similar level to yourself as you go up in level.
My fix is just that all saves should be proficient and leave the differences purely down to the ability scores. Since every class gets the same "one of Dex/Con/Wis and one of Str/Int/Cha" this change doesn't benefit any specific class more than any other.
As stated in the Monster Manual, monsters are built to only need proficient saves if they're particularly resistant to something (instead the designers just cranked up the ability scores since they don't have the "max of 20" limits that PCs do).
That simple fix would do the most to address the glaring math error in 5e's engine that's arguably worse than 3e's good/bad sabe disparity (because there were at least ways to shore up your poor saves and there were, at worst, only two of that needed buffing).
Then we can talk the benefits of proportional healing the next time this topic comes up.
Quote from: Lunamancer;1090155Well, classes are still riddled with goofy super powers where 17th level fighters regenerate and triple the rate of a troll and such.
Hit Points =/= meat points. The fighter isn't regenerating anything but their stamina and morale when they use their second wind ability. Problem solved.
This exact mentality is why I had to stop calling them Hit Points in the game system I'm writing. Somewhere along the way the notion that hit points are entirely meat got enough of a foothold that anything which attempts to model them in relation to stamina, morale and luck (which is what they've ALWAYS been since Gygax and Arneson were writing the rules) gets labeled as nonsensical superpowers.
So instead of the sensible and realistic "you roll with the attack and the axe glances off your armor... mark off 10 hit points (out of 80)" you've got people who think hit points are all meat saying "the axe lodges in your gut (somehow cleaving straight through your full plate armor, but not actually damaging it, and despite having the axe lodged in your gut, it doesn't impair you at all) for 10 hit points of damage."
The 5e fighter's Second Wind ability makes perfect sense in light of the first description (roll with the impact, glancing blow off the armor and, with each hit you're getting worn down a little more until you're going to be too fatigued to stop a blow that will drop you).
And frankly, if you're using the second description, then fighters are already so unrealistic (walking around unimpaired by multiple fatal wounds) that a little actual regeneration on top isn't going to meaningfully increase the level of unreality.
I'd change Class/Race/Background to Class/Race/Culture/Background. Race would be much reduced in importance. Culture and Background would handle more of the skills, proficiencies, that sort of thing. In turn, that would allow some simplification of the classes.
HP could use a rework
Starting in 3.x there was no good reason for ability scores to go from 3-18. Other than a few minor things (carry capacity & feat pre-reqs are the only things I can think of) only the modifier actually matters.
Just make the modifier be the score and it would significantly reduce complexity, especially for newbies. Unfortunately, it's a sacred cow and unlikely to be changed.
Many of the other changes people have put forward would make D&D no longer D&D. I don't want D&D to be a different game - I can just play one of them.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1090147If you could change one rule about 5th edition D&D, what would it be?
How could you make it 'better' by your interpretation?
What is it missing?
For me, it's weak but, the equipment list. Pathfinder 1e has a great equipment list that empowers PCs.
Traits are nice, as well.
Yours?
I'd remove the Social Justice Wankers from the Adventurer's League and any other flavor of Organized Play.
Alignment on player characters. Just get rid of it.
I saw a better implementation of Alignment done in Aperita Arcana for Fate Core. You give places and things alignment. But you make people subject to their personal reputation. if someone is an evil prick, then they will have the reputation of an evil prick. And face the consequences in kind.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1090147If you could change one rule about 5th edition D&D, what would it be?
Paladin & Ranger would not be spellcasters. They'd be Fighter paths.
Alignment is easy to ignore in 5e, it pretty much only ever appears as a mechanic in third party stuff from people who grew up on 3e/Pathfinder, but I'd drop it entirely as a core rule and move it to the GM's toolbox section.
Quote from: Chris24601;1090160Hit Points =/= meat points.
Nobody said it was.
QuoteThe fighter isn't regenerating anything but their stamina and morale when they use their second wind ability. Problem solved.
Not really.
QuoteThis exact mentality is why I had to stop calling them Hit Points in the game system I'm writing. Somewhere along the way the notion that hit points are entirely meat got enough of a foothold that anything which attempts to model them in relation to stamina, morale and luck (which is what they've ALWAYS been since Gygax and Arneson were writing the rules) gets labeled as nonsensical superpowers.
Nope.
Gary actually spelled out in fairly precise terms what hit points are. For beasts, it's all meat. All hit points from CON bonus are physical. And all hit points at first level are physical. Pre-stat inflation, what this meant is like 95% if not 99% across the board hit points were physical. High level player characters were an exception. But even then, say you've got a Fighter with 18 CON in AD&D and got max hp at first level, average rolls after that. By 5th level you've got 52 hit points. 30 of them are physical. Still more than half. Under that schema, the hypothetical 17th level 5E character, with a 20 CON, max hp at first level, average hp thereafter, would have 183 hit points (goofy already) and 90 of them--pretty much half--would be physical. But here's the icing on the cake. This goofy super power only kicks in when the character is below half hit points. So it only restores meat. Not stamina. You couldn't design something this goofy on purpose.
QuoteSo instead of the sensible and realistic "you roll with the attack and the axe glances off your armor... mark off 10 hit points (out of 80)" you've got people who think hit points are all meat saying "the axe lodges in your gut (somehow cleaving straight through your full plate armor, but not actually damaging it, and despite having the axe lodged in your gut, it doesn't impair you at all) for 10 hit points of damage."
Your own interpretation of this had a wooden stake driven through its heart by D&D haters in the 90's they brought up the poison save? Of course, 1E had an answer for this. All of the insinuative poisons in the DMG do zero damage on a successful save. Meaning the Poison save can be used to determine if a hit was physically substantial--at least substantial enough to get venom into the bloodstream. See, for every one person who might genuinely mistake hit points for meat points, there's gotta be at least 5 people like you who go totally off the rails in the opposite direction. The mechanic was originally meant to be more nuanced than either if the interpretations you graciously offer. And in fact only ever fully works when treated as nuanced. So when you get a newfangled mechanic that is absolutely dependent on hit points being something invisible from the land of make-believe, it's going to be goofy.
If I am limited to only one thing. I'd make all spellcasting hazardous and unpredictable. Maybe some kind of variant on the wild sorcerer, but much easier to trigger. And a much bigger table of possibilities, obviously.
Quote from: Psikerlord;1090220If I am limited to only one thing. I'd make all spellcasting hazardous and unpredictable. Maybe some kind of variant on the wild sorcerer, but much easier to trigger. And a much bigger table of possibilities, obviously.
Something like this (https://tenfootpolemic.blogspot.com/2019/05/magic-user-rework-fuck-spell-slots-get.html) or this (https://www.lastgaspgrimoire.com/do-not-take-me-for-some-turner-of-cheap-tricks/) works really well for that.
Personally, I'm in the "never seen this in real life" / "only exists on the internet" camp. I half suspect that people who
do see this at the table are playing with classes essentially designed to break the game. You'd never see some of the classes mentioned a few posts back at my table, ever. But then, I don't play 3.x or later editions, either (own, yes - play, no). So there's that. This thread has made me mighty grateful of that fact.
There are a lot of things I'd change, but if I can only choose one, I'd change the way armor works in the game to how armor actually works. Armor is all about mitigating damage when being physically hit, not the avoidance of being hit. There's a big difference there. The heavier the armor, the easier it is to physically hit you. Of course, the heavier the armor, the better the mitigation it will have and any damage you do take will be much less. There's a trade-off there that is ignored in D&D. It's over simplified and inaccurate because the game is designed around being a hit point sponge.
Quote from: Graewulf;1090228There are a lot of things I'd change, but if I can only choose one, I'd change the way armor works in the game to how armor actually works. Armor is all about mitigating damage when being physically hit, not the avoidance of being hit. There's a big difference there. The heavier the armor, the easier it is to physically hit you. Of course, the heavier the armor, the better the mitigation it will have and any damage you do take will be much less. There's a trade-off there that is ignored in D&D. It's over simplified and inaccurate because the game is designed around being a hit point sponge.
Changing armor to Damage Reduction wouldn't work in D&D without basically rebuilding the system from the ground up.
So basically the one thing that you'd change about D&D is make it an entirely different game? lol
Generally speaking I've never been able to make peace with armour making you harder to hit. Hit point inflation I can live with as long as there's some damage inflation to go with it. But I wouldn't strip it out of D&D because it's part of what makes D&D D&D. I play other games that do armour better. I mean, if I owned D&D, was mega rich, and had my way, I'd make the new edition a slightly cleaned up Rolemaster Standard System but that's mostly because I'm a very mean and bitter old man :D
Anyways in broader sense I'd like to bring D&D back to its wargame roots, make combat play faster so you can manage hundreds on a side, make sure realm management and naval combat and sieges are in the damn DMG. That's really a broad change one thing and not a fix for fifth edition though. Which is why I went with cutting back on special case rule bloat.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1090229Changing armor to Damage Reduction wouldn't work in D&D without basically rebuilding the system from the ground up.
So basically the one thing that you'd change about D&D is make it an entirely different game? lol
Hackmaster 5e did it without making an entirely different game. It's still a d20 D&D knockoff. I'm sure it's not the only one out there either.
Quote from: Psikerlord;1090220If I am limited to only one thing. I'd make all spellcasting hazardous and unpredictable. Maybe some kind of variant on the wild sorcerer, but much easier to trigger. And a much bigger table of possibilities, obviously.
Yes. Take the Easy button away from casters. Insert more Risk / Reward into the equation.
Quote from: SavageSchemer;1090223Something like this (https://tenfootpolemic.blogspot.com/2019/05/magic-user-rework-fuck-spell-slots-get.html) or this (https://www.lastgaspgrimoire.com/do-not-take-me-for-some-turner-of-cheap-tricks/) works really well for that.
Personally, I'm in the "never seen this in real life" / "only exists on the internet" camp. I half suspect that people who do see this at the table are playing with classes essentially designed to break the game. You'd never see some of the classes mentioned a few posts back at my table, ever. But then, I don't play 3.x or later editions, either (own, yes - play, no). So there's that. This thread has made me mighty grateful of that fact.
Yes I really like that Lastgasp post on magic :D
Quote from: Razor 007;1090294Yes. Take the Easy button away from casters. Insert more Risk / Reward into the equation.
Yes it just makes magic more "magical" if it is not easily controlled
locked XP chart. Individual XP charts per class, please. Different people learn different things differently. The takeaway that a Magic-User has after a battle is wholly different than that of a fighter, or a thief, or a cleric (or a monk, bard, assassin, illusionist, druid, paladin or ranger).
Locked XP chart blandifies characters and leads to push-button games. Bleh.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1090163Starting in 3.x there was no good reason for ability scores to go from 3-18. Other than a few minor things (carry capacity & feat pre-reqs are the only things I can think of) only the modifier actually matters.
Just make the modifier be the score and it would significantly reduce complexity, especially for newbies. Unfortunately, it's a sacred cow and unlikely to be changed.
Many of the other changes people have put forward would make D&D no longer D&D. I don't want D&D to be a different game - I can just play one of them.
I've struggled with this myself. In my heartbreaker, abilities and modifiers are the same. There are some disadvantages. In 3.x, if you have a STR of 18, you can take 4 STR damage and you have a STR of 14 (+2 modifier). If your Strength were 4 and you took 4 strength damage, your Strength would be zero and you couldn't move.
If you want to include negative modifiers, you actually have to deal with negative numbers. If you don't deal with negative numbers, abilities are tightly constrained; ie 0-6 instead of 1-18.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1090559I've struggled with this myself. In my heartbreaker, abilities and modifiers are the same. There are some disadvantages. In 3.x, if you have a STR of 18, you can take 4 STR damage and you have a STR of 14 (+2 modifier). If your Strength were 4 and you took 4 strength damage, your Strength would be zero and you couldn't move.
Didn't you realize that strength damage should be adjusted to fit the scale? The -4 to +4 ability modifier range is a 9 point scale, which maps to the 18 point scale of the ability score range (2 to 19 not 3 to 18, to cover all possible scores associated with modifiers in the -4 to +4 range). If you have Str 18 and take 4 points of ability damage, the equivalent using just ability mods is Str +4 and 2 points of ability damage (i.e. halve the Str damage).
Edit: Not to mention that Str +0 (mods) is comparable to Str 10 in the full ability score range, not Str 0 (which is equivalent to -5). If you want to shift the scale so the modifiers are always positive, you'd have to shift the scale by 5 points. Though this screws up things like damage bonuses, so you're probably going to be stuck with negative scores. But if you say PCs are at least average at everything (scores of +0 or better, the equivalent of scores of 10 or better in the old system), then it will only come up in for monsters and NPCs, and special cases like severe ability damage.
Yes, I understand that you have to compress the amount of ability damage; that is my point. Having a poison that does 1d4 STR damage pretty much has to become 1 STR. You reduce variability which has some consequences.
5th edition? It is not my game, but if I could make one change to make me like it better, it would be about slowing down healing. As it goes, there is precious little long-term attrition in the game - you are either healed up or you are severely wounded, with little in between.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1090591Yes, I understand that you have to compress the amount of ability damage; that is my point. Having a poison that does 1d4 STR damage pretty much has to become 1 STR. You reduce variability which has some consequences.
Fairly minor consequences, and there are ways of reintroducing variability like allowing a save or rolling 1d2 twice and taking the lowest (average is exactly the same as 1d4/2)
I would re-tune the entire core game to be 10-levels.
Every other "issue" would likely be resolved within that core assumption.
If we're talking 5e specifically, my change is replace the current XP chart with the ones from the 1e Player's Handbook. Making high level play routine instead of rare was a huge change and, I think, the source of a lot of problems that would otherwise (almost) never come up.
Quote from: tenbones;1090692I would re-tune the entire core game to be 10-levels.
Every other "issue" would likely be resolved within that core assumption.
There's a good reason why the default assumption in OD&D was that you retire from adventuring at 9th level and settle down to run a castle.
Quote from: goblinslayer;1091311There's a good reason why the default assumption in OD&D was that you retire from adventuring at 9th level and settle down to run a castle.
And the game didn't end. It shifted to players running armies and shaping the campaign world by their actions. The ultimate in sandbox play?
Armor Class needs a tweak for me. I like Star Wars Saga Edition for having the rule that AC is the best of either the armor worn + Dex bonus, or character level + 10 + Dex bonus.
Maybe cap that at about level 6-7, so that there's always a reason to don plate mail.
It's worked so far for my Stars Without Number games.
Quote from: RandyB;1091312And the game didn't end. It shifted to players running armies and shaping the campaign world by their actions. The ultimate in sandbox play?
Yep. And that's why I'd have "advanced" rules for levels 11+.
But that would be a separate line of books that plugs into the core based on the demand.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1090456locked XP chart. Individual XP charts per class, please. Different people learn different things differently. The takeaway that a Magic-User has after a battle is wholly different than that of a fighter, or a thief, or a cleric (or a monk, bard, assassin, illusionist, druid, paladin or ranger).
Locked XP chart blandifies characters and leads to push-button games. Bleh.
I never got this.
I mean, wouldn't this be an argument not for having different xp thresholds for leveling, but for having different classes gain different amounts of XP for different tasks, if anything?
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1090229Changing armor to Damage Reduction wouldn't work in D&D without basically rebuilding the system from the ground up.
Changing armor to damage reduction won't work, but changing it to an all-or-nothing saving throw does work. Convert the to-hit process to a skill vs skill roll and add an armor save if the target is wearing armor.
Not only does this scale better, as it doesn't require the PCs constantly upgrade their armor as they level up, but it also makes it easy to adjudicate attacks, such as grappling, bullets, and magic, that would ignore armor. And it also works without modification in genres that don't have heavy armor, such as Barsoom, the wild west, or WW2.
I've been playing OD&D this way for five years now. Of all the rules changes I've made over the decades, no other rules tweak has resulted in as much improvement to the gaming experience as this one has. So, yes, if I could change one aspect of D&D this would definitely be it.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1090147If you could change one rule about 5th edition D&D, what would it be?
I would focus on 12 levels instead of 20. That would break compatibility hard so the effort is not worth it compared to just writing a D&D clone from the ground up.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1090147How could you make it 'better' by your interpretation?
D&D 5th edition is fine in of itself.
However Adventures in Middle Earth is instructive. By altering the list of stuff; class, monsters, skills, abilities, items, spells, etc. D&D 5e can be adapted to completely different setting with different assumption on how magic, life, and the supernatural works.
That what I would focus on. And I wouldn't promote it as a better D&D 5th edition, but rather as a version of D&D 5th edition that offers a different experience than what was found in the PHB. One that was compatible if you wanted to do a hybrid campaign.
It does not take much little work to allow a player to play a AiME Scholar in Forgotten Realms or a PHB Warlock in Middle Earth.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1091857Changing armor to damage reduction won't work, but changing it to an all-or-nothing saving throw does work. Convert the to-hit process to a skill vs skill roll and add an armor save if the target is wearing armor.
Not only does this scale better, as it doesn't require the PCs constantly upgrade their armor as they level up, but it also makes it easy to adjudicate attacks, such as grappling, bullets, and magic, that would ignore armor. And it also works without modification in genres that don't have heavy armor, such as Barsoom, the wild west, or WW2.
I've been playing OD&D this way for five years now. Of all the rules changes I've made over the decades, no other rules tweak has resulted in as much improvement to the gaming experience as this one has. So, yes, if I could change one aspect of D&D this would definitely be it.
That would be a much easier rule to tack on from a balance perspective (though not easy - as I'm not sure what you'd be saving against), but it would slow down gameplay substantially. I'd have to see it in action to decide if it would be worth it.
Note: I like the idea of opposed rolls (at least for melee) and armor as DR. I think they're vibe is better - and the system I'm building uses both (melee is opposed attack rolls where one of you is hit each round - so it doesn't slow gameplay like opposed rolling usually does). It's just that I realize that both have substantial drawbacks which the D&D chassis isn't built for.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1090456locked XP chart. Individual XP charts per class, please. Different people learn different things differently. The takeaway that a Magic-User has after a battle is wholly different than that of a fighter, or a thief, or a cleric (or a monk, bard, assassin, illusionist, druid, paladin or ranger).
Locked XP chart blandifies characters and leads to push-button games. Bleh.
On the other hand one could design classes so that the amount of learning per level is equivalent thus justifying a unified XP chart.
My experience in writing and playing the rules for my Majestic Fantasy RPG, is that if classes are not balanced that it is best to have varying XP charts. I use the following excel spreadsheet
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tjuUIRQOFtUFDosTIXZ_Yt49AoEJNZDZ/view?usp=sharing
I have 7 charts that I pick from when creating a class
Starting at the following values for 2nd level.
1,500 xp Clerics
1,750 xp Burglar, Thug, Merchant Adventurer
2,000 xp Fighters, Mountebank (street MU), Assassins,
2,250 xp Knight, Solider (fighters with some extra abilities)
Artificers (ritual only caster), Rune caster (ritual only caster), Theurgists (ritual only)
2,500 xp Magic User, Wizards (different spell casting system)
2,750 xp Order of Thoth (MUs with extra abilities)
3,000 xp Paladin, Myrmidon (fighters with supernatural abilities)
The only outlier are the clerics but they are agents of their religions and can't just do whatever they feel like. So I left it at the traditional level. Otherwise I would pegged it at a base of 1,750 or 2,000.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1091862That would be a much easier rule to tack on from a balance perspective (though not easy - as I'm not sure what you'd be saving against), but it would slow down gameplay substantially. I'd have to see it in action to decide if it would be worth it.
It's usually just a straight save. Leather saves at 17+, Chainmail at 14+ and Platemail at 10+. This closely corresponds to the percentage of hits that turn to misses using the base OD&D to-hit charts. Of course, I have a ton more types of armor as well.
It doesn't slow down the game as most monsters don't actually have armor saves and the players roll theirs while I'm making the monster's attack roll. Of course, some monsters, such as dragons, giant bugs, and elite orcs might wear armor but these are special cases. It takes less time than the math from using damage reduction.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1091942It takes less time than the math from using damage reduction.
I didn't say that it takes more time than DR. But it does take more time than D&D's traditional method of armor as AC.
And frankly - it throws D&D's normal balance totally out of whack. Maybe you can make it work by eyeballing the difficulty of various foes, but they would not be the same with those rules in place. It's at least halfway to an entirely new system.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1091944I didn't say that it takes more time than DR. But it does take more time than D&D's traditional method of armor as AC.
It takes more time -per roll- but less time overall to resolve the entire combat. I also use rules that speed up combat such as damage spillover and abstract movement. I can run 10 v 10 fights in significantly less time than I could run 4 v 4 fights in AD&D.
QuoteAnd frankly - it throws D&D's normal balance totally out of whack. Maybe you can make it work by eyeballing the difficulty of various foes, but they would not be the same with those rules in place.
What balance you are about talking about here? Yes, some monsters might be slightly tougher or weaker than in the current rules, but that's something common with any new version.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1092005It takes more time -per roll- but less time overall to resolve the entire combat. I also use rules that speed up combat such as damage spillover and abstract movement. I can run 10 v 10 fights in significantly less time than I could run 4 v 4 fights in AD&D.
What balance you are about talking about here? Yes, some monsters might be slightly tougher or weaker than in the current rules, but that's something common with any new version.
All of this 100% confirms what I said initially.
The change doesn't work slapped on top of D&D. I did not say that it couldn't work at all.
You have drastically changed the rules of the game (which is 100% fine) and it's not really D&D at all anymore. It's your homebrew system which started out with a D&D chassis.
It's like if I buy a F150 truck, change out the engine, body, add seats, and then talk about how the F-150 can totally comfortably & safely seat 7. Well... maybe mine can, but that doesn't really make it true for F-150s. Without those major modifications it seats 2 comfortably and 4-5 in a pinch.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1092006All of this 100% confirms what I said initially.
The change doesn't work slapped on top of D&D. I did not say that it couldn't work at all.
You have drastically changed the rules of the game (which is 100% fine) and it's not really D&D at all anymore. It's your homebrew system which started out with a D&D chassis.
It somewhat of an art to craft a mechanic that feel D&Dish and there are specific nuances for each edition.
I found you can to a lot of modifications to the list of stuff and still have the result work with the edition you started from. Of course the feel of the fantasy genre will change with the new lists but that probably the point like with Adventures in Middle Earth versus the D&D 5e PHB.
Lists include
- Classes
- Spells
- Equipment
- Magic Items
- Monster
As far as the mechanics goes I found mucking around with the follow renders it incompatible with the original edition.
- Armor Class
- Hit Points
- Levels and Hit Dice
- Saving Throws to avoid something "bad" happening
- Damage is dealt by rolling higher or equal to a number based on AC (THACO, chart or ascending)
Mechanics one can muck around with that has little to no impact on compatibility are
- Resolve tasks and check. Either by using skills, proficiency, something based on attributes, d6s, or something else.
- Special abilities on Equipment, like a Mace get +1 to hit on plate armor. A flask of oil does 1d6 damage for 2 round in a 10 by 10 square.
- Attribute modifiers
One divide between classic D&D (AD&D 2e and prior) and later editions (D&D 3.X, Pathfinder, 4e, 5e) are how to conduct initiative and combat actions.
As a rule in a classic edition you can muck around with how initiative and combat actions are handled and still remain compatible. However you are much more limited in later editions as many abilities make use of standard terms used in the combat rules. Like reaction, standard action, swift action, bonus action, move action, and so on.
One caveat that anything with numbers can make things easier or harder thus effect the feel of the fantasy genre. For example effect of AD&D 1e Unearthed Arcana on characters meant that the creature in the AD&D 1e monster manual were easier to deal with. It didn't make it compatible but it alter the feel of the fantasy genre.
Some of my thoughts from mucking around with my own rules.
http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2008.pdf
Quote from: Psikerlord;1090220If I am limited to only one thing. I'd make all spellcasting hazardous and unpredictable. Maybe some kind of variant on the wild sorcerer, but much easier to trigger. And a much bigger table of possibilities, obviously.
The problem with this is that if magic doesn't work usefully enough, often enough, to be worth the risk of what happens when it goes wrong, the vast majority of players are going to stop doing it, especially if the consequences of a magic backfire stand a reasonable chance of hosing all the other PCs in the vicinity.
Razor007, I think, phrased it better with the words "Risk vs. Reward". Players should be able to fine-tune the oomph of their magic to set their own balance, so that players who try for game-breaker effects are more likely to get broken themselves. Maybe take all the different magic-enhancement feats and spell-level limits and work them all into a set of tradeoff charts, so that in theory a first-level mage
can try to cast a Still, Silent Meteor Swarm -- but faces so many penalties he's practically certain to fry himself from inside first.
Baked-in Interventionist Polytheism/Monolatry. :)
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1092038The problem with this is that if magic doesn't work usefully enough, often enough, to be worth the risk of what happens when it goes wrong, the vast majority of players are going to stop doing it, especially if the consequences of a magic backfire stand a reasonable chance of hosing all the other PCs in the vicinity.
Apparently it not an issue given the DCC RPG which magic is indeed unpredictable and can wind up hosing all the other PCs in the vicinity.
I ran a playtest session of the Emerald Sorcerer for Goodman Games. They arrived at the dungeon with entrance door being locked. The wizard had an enlarge spell. He cast the spell and got the best possible result. The door expanded 500% and shot out of the frame like a bat out of hell.
I used miniatures and saw that the caster was in the line of fire. So I rolled a 1d6 and rulled that on a 3 or 4 it was going straight at the caster and he will need to make a save. I roll a 4, and he failed his save. He was 1st level and only had 2 hit points and died.
The only time I ever ran thing and a character suffered death by door. Not even Sean Bean can boast that.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1092006All of this 100% confirms what I said initially.
The change doesn't work slapped on top of D&D. I did not say that it couldn't work at all.
You have drastically changed the rules of the game (which is 100% fine) and it's not really D&D at all anymore. It's your homebrew system which started out with a D&D chassis.
Given that the save math is based off average chances to miss from OD&D, I don't think this is the case at all. It's also in keeping with D&Dness in that it's the same basic mechanic as a saving throw. It also fits right into the tradition of miniature wargaming at the time. Armour saves from that tradition are still in use by the most popular miniature wargames today.
It's very D&D.
On second thought; I think what D&D 5E really needs, is a Rolling Table for Wenches!!!
We all need some quality Wenches, right?
Quote from: Razor 007;1092044On second thought; I think what D&D 5E really needs, is a Rolling Table for Wenches!!!
We all need some quality Wenches, right?
1e DMG has you covered.
I'm sure someone can come up with a brothel encounter table.
Quote from: RandyB;10920461e DMG has you covered.
My premium edition reprint of the 1E DMG may not have that.....
Quote from: Razor 007;1092064My premium edition reprint of the 1E DMG may not have that.....
Page 192 under Harlot
Quote from: Chris24601;1090157My fix is just that all saves should be proficient and leave the differences purely down to the ability scores. Since every class gets the same "one of Dex/Con/Wis and one of Str/Int/Cha" this change doesn't benefit any specific class more than any other.
It harms monks who eventually get proficiency in all saves. I would prefer that Resilient (feat for proficiency in one save) be allowed to be taken multiple times for different abilities (in the rules as written, it can only be taken once).
That high level characters cannot save reliably against everything is an improvement in 5e; in early D&D, player characters had a slightly worse to hit chart but benefited from ability score bonuses and magic items that their opponents almost never got. In compensation, missing a single saving throw is mostly not a permanent defeat (in particular, a lot of effects allow repeated saving throws to end the effect).
Quote from: estar;1091865On the other hand one could design classes so that the amount of learning per level is equivalent thus justifying a unified XP chart.
My experience is that it is better to have characters advance at the same rate - same experience awards to all members of the party, same XP chart for all classes. Even though classes in 5e are not closely balanced, players still play a wide variety of character classes.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1092005It takes more time -per roll- but less time overall to resolve the entire combat. I also use rules that speed up combat such as damage spillover and abstract movement. I can run 10 v 10 fights in significantly less time than I could run 4 v 4 fights in AD&D.
If you go from one roll to hit followed by a damage roll to one roll to hit, one armor save and then a damage roll, you are necessarily slowing down resolution; if combats actually go faster it's because of your other changes or because the shift in balance means fights end in fewer rounds (which carries changes for the game in terms of giving parties a chance to change tactics or choose to use their limited resources when they see how the fight is going).
Quote from: tenbones;1090692I would re-tune the entire core game to be 10-levels.
Every other "issue" would likely be resolved within that core assumption.
I assume this would be different than just limiting player characters to 10th level, since you can just impose that limitation in your own game. And just compressing things so that 10th level characters get the benefits of 16-20th level characters seems kind of pointless. So would you throw out the effects of high level spells entirely, or just confine them to unusual magic items (sort of what OD&D did)?
Quote from: estar;1092018As far as the mechanics goes I found mucking around with the follow renders it incompatible with the original edition.
- Armor Class
- Hit Points
- Levels and Hit Dice
- Saving Throws to avoid something "bad" happening
- Damage is dealt by rolling higher or equal to a number based on AC (THACO, chart or ascending)
I am completely unclear on the difference between the first and last element of that list.
QuoteOne divide between classic D&D (AD&D 2e and prior) and later editions (D&D 3.X, Pathfinder, 4e, 5e) are how to conduct initiative and combat actions.
As a rule in a classic edition you can muck around with how initiative and combat actions are handled and still remain compatible. However you are much more limited in later editions as many abilities make use of standard terms used in the combat rules. Like reaction, standard action, swift action, bonus action, move action, and so on.
This is mostly because classic editions either didn't explain their initiative rules or they were just ignored. I played in separate OD&D and 1e games that were pretty thoroughly incompatible with each other just from how initiative and actions were handled.
Quote from: rawma;1092232I am completely unclear on the difference between the first and last element of that list.
It may be splitting hairs but there several variants that still have Armor Class but but use as part of a mechanic for damage reduction.
Quote from: rawma;1092232This is mostly because classic editions either didn't explain their initiative rules or they were just ignored. I played in separate OD&D and 1e games that were pretty thoroughly incompatible with each other just from how initiative and actions were handled.
Yet both can use each other lists (monsters, spells, etc), and support material so differences in initiative and handling actions is not a source of incompatibility. For example swap what the OD&D did with the AD&D referee did for initiative and action and nothing else.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1092006You have drastically changed the rules of the game (which is 100% fine) and it's not really D&D at all anymore. It's your homebrew system which started out with a D&D chassis.
If I'm limited, as the OP suggested, to only changing one rule, I will always opt for the rule that provides the most improvement. Whether that changes the game to something that's not really D&D isn't a concern. That it becomes a better game is. There isn't much point to changing a rule if its impact is negligible.
Quote from: Razor 007;1092044On second thought; I think what D&D 5E really needs, is a Rolling Table for Wenches!!!
We all need some quality Wenches, right?
slovenly trull
cheap trollop
saucy tart
wanton wench
aged madam
and more!
In addition to the offering of the usual fare, the harlot is 30% likely to know valuable information, 15% likely to make something up in order to gain a reward, and 20% likely to be , or work with a thief.
No prices though.......
Quote from: rawma;1092226It harms monks who eventually get proficiency in all saves. I would prefer that Resilient (feat for proficiency in one save) be allowed to be taken multiple times for different abilities (in the rules as written, it can only be taken once).
Boo hoo... it robs level 14+ monks of half a feature (they still get to reroll all saves for 1 ki point at level 14) in trade for actually making the game playable. And it doesn't make Resilient into a stupid feat tax... I thought 4E had killed everyone's desire for feat taxes (it also doesn't fix games where they're not using feats).
The lack of scaling of non-proficient saves results in the same degree of disparity as 3e inflicted between good and bad saves (in fact the base variance scales almost identically starting at 2 better and ending at 6 better) and is made even worse by the lack of stat buff items you could at least partially buff your weaker saves with (without burning limited ASI/feat slots).
The net result is one where saves that are trivial for one PC are impossible for another; particularly at higher levels. And 5e still has enough save or lose effects that auto-failing means you might as well go make a fast food run since you're going to have plenty of time on your hands. Some allow you to roll every round, but when your save bonus is +1 vs. DC 22 and natural 20s don't automatically succeed... not even advantage will get you out before the duration is over.
Save DCs always being proficient and using the attacker's best ability score while all the targets non-proficient saves are also for scores that are likely to be low anyway has always been the greatest mechanical flaw in the system. It cascades into why the CR system is basically useless because it can't possibly account for the vast disparity in potential save values in relation to their abilities.
In a high level party the worst save might be a -1 and the best +12 or more... there is no DC you could possibly set that wouldn't be a joke to one character or a death sentence to the other). If you make all the saves proficient though (to match that all the attacks are also proficient) the high stays the same but the low bumps up to +5. Now you could set a DC at say 19 and the one with the poor -1 save needs a 14+ on the die and the one with the +12 needs a 7+ on the die. That's a much more comfortable range to have at least some challenge to both ends of the spectrum (basically a 1/3 chance for a poor save and 2/3 for best save) and one where getting advantage can make a meaningful difference.
If that minorly affects one class in the rare instance your campaign makes it to level 14+ (note it's not even losing anything, it still has proficiency with all saves) it's worth it for the overall improvement to the entire game's underlying engine.
I'm not sure if this counts as a change or an addition. Magicians powering spells with their lifeforce, or other peoples' life force.
Magicians get their usual complement of prepared spells that they can use without problems. If they want to cast spells that they haven't got prepared or they've cast all their spells for the day they can spend hp on a 1 hp for 1 spell-level basis. These HP come back much more slowly than they would normally.
If they want to take the hp from a willing person then they can spend someone else's hp at a 2hp for one spell level. These HP don't come back
If they want to take from an unwilling person they can spend at 4hp per one spell level, these don't come back either. Mass sacrifices beckon.
There would be a save of some sort for unwilling victims.
Quote from: Blood Axe;1092260slovenly trull
cheap trollop
saucy tart
wanton wench
aged madam
and more!
In addition to the offering of the usual fare, the harlot is 30% likely to know valuable information, 15% likely to make something up in order to gain a reward, and 20% likely to be , or work with a thief.
No prices though.......
Well Dang then!!! How am I supposed to know if I'm getting a good deal or not?
I mean, I want to feel like I'm getting my money's worth....
Wanton Wench, for the win!!!
Quote from: Chris24601;1092317The net result is one where saves that are trivial for one PC are impossible for another; particularly at higher levels. And 5e still has enough save or lose effects that auto-failing means you might as well go make a fast food run since you're going to have plenty of time on your hands. Some allow you to roll every round, but when your save bonus is +1 vs. DC 22 and natural 20s don't automatically succeed... not even advantage will get you out before the duration is over.
Sounds like someone pines for the "I Win!" button. That any single character still struggles with some saves is a feature, not a bug; high level parties need to work together to defeat opponents with that high a DC. Or they should face that they're not that good and look for easier challenges.
There's a difference between "struggles" and "automatically fails." There's a difference between needing a 14+ on a d20 succeed (struggle... i.e. something that could be overcome with luck or advantage) and needing a 21+ on a d20 (nothing you do will affect the outcome). Why even bother wasting time with having the player roll if they need a 21+? Just tell them "you're automatically turned to stone. Go make a food run or something."
If anything is an "I Win" button it's the save structure as it currently exists. All the wizard has to do is fire off the right spell from his arsenal of choices against the opponent's worst save and because they're using their best ability score with proficiency to determine the DC they're practically guaranteed success.
It's 3e garbage rocket tag where whoever gets their save-or-suck off first wins.
ETA: This isn’t even a case of “doesn’t get better.” The PCs and monsters actually get worse against threats similar in power to your own as they level up. At first level having a -1 save against DCs being in the 11-14 range is a challenge. But at 17th level that save is still a -1 and the typical save DCs are now in the 19-21 range.
“Doesn’t get better” would be still needing a 12-15 on the die... now you need a natural 20 or can’t possibly save at all.
Quote from: Chris24601;1093051There's a difference between "struggles" and "automatically fails." There's a difference between needing a 14+ on a d20 succeed (struggle... i.e. something that could be overcome with luck or advantage) and needing a 21+ on a d20 (nothing you do will affect the outcome). Why even bother wasting time with having the player roll if they need a 21+? Just tell them "you're automatically turned to stone. Go make a food run or something."
If anything is an "I Win" button it's the save structure as it currently exists. All the wizard has to do is fire off the right spell from his arsenal of choices against the opponent's worst save and because they're using their best ability score with proficiency to determine the DC they're practically guaranteed success.
It's 3e garbage rocket tag where whoever gets their save-or-suck off first wins.
ETA: This isn't even a case of "doesn't get better." The PCs and monsters actually get worse against threats similar in power to your own as they level up. At first level having a -1 save against DCs being in the 11-14 range is a challenge. But at 17th level that save is still a -1 and the typical save DCs are now in the 19-21 range.
"Doesn't get better" would be still needing a 12-15 on the die... now you need a natural 20 or can't possibly save at all.
Wizards have an automatic win? You just met an opponent and you are that certain you know their worse save? It sounds like all of your character builds (your own characters and the ones you meet) are so stereotyped that anyone can judge their class and best save because of course they'd never have a Resilient feat. It's pretty rare for a player character to get over DC20 save difficulty (+5 for max ability score of 20, +6 proficiency at level 17; you'd need specific magic items to add to that DC; opponents could very well have the benefits from their magic items). I've played 4th tier (my druid made it to 20th level, and my rogue has seen play at 17th level) and I've not seen the problem you describe - those ongoing saves are often from concentration spells, and what I have experienced is that fourth tier play is dominated not by sucky saves but by battles of counterspells (and by better preparation; my druid survived Power Word Kill in a slightly weakened wild shape by having a Death Ward; thanks, cleric ally!). Get a bless spell or a magic item that improves that weak ability score, bring along a charismatic paladin and stay in their aura, bring diverse allies who can break spells or otherwise negate effects, and use strategy rather than dice to prevail.
I'd be amenable to a house rule allowing characters to spend hit points or hit dice to get a bonus on significant saves; I like resource management. But the big issue in old D&D was that "everybody always saves" so the wizards always used the damage spells - they scaled with level and you got at least 1/2 damage, and maybe 5e slightly overcompensates for that. But your complaints are just whiny.