# (+)One Big Thing I Would Change



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2022)

So for the most part I run 5e with few houserules, mostly simple stuff or things added to change the basic play loop. 

However! 

If I could change one big thing in 5e, it would be this: 

No static numerical bonus stacks with another static numerical bonus, ever. 

Your shield can add to your AC because it’s a bonus and a calculation, not two bonuses, but a shield and a ring of protection would not stack. 

You might end up needing to change some stuff, like make shield work a little differently (maybe it changes your AC to 14 + Spellcasting mod +proficiency, for instance), but it would eliminate an Avenue of cheese while simplifying the game, I think. 

What about everyone else? What is a BIG bit singular thing you’d change. Something that can be stated in one normal sentence, preferably. 

And keep it civil and don’t snipe at others’ ideas.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2022)

That’s the 3.x rule, IIRC?


----------



## payn (Sep 24, 2022)

Alignment mechanics in magic items and spells.


----------



## ersatzphil (Sep 24, 2022)

Death Saves.


----------



## Jahydin (Sep 24, 2022)

Ability Checks! They just don't work the way they should.

Characters that can shoot lighting out of their eyes, self-heal at will, fall multiple stories, etc., etc., but as soon as skill/save rolls start to fly, it's like watching the 3 Stooges.

More than anything though, I just want more rules to make it a better *game*. As in, if you stripped away all the fluff and story elements, would it still be fun to run? If not, tweak it until it is.


----------



## Jahydin (Sep 24, 2022)

Morrus said:


> That’s the 3.x rule, IIRC?



I think in 3e bonuses of the same "type" don't stack.

I'm playing through Baulder's Gate (based on 2e) for the first time and I think that's the case too? Not sure, cause sometimes items stack, other times not...


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Sep 24, 2022)

Capping ability scores to 18, so that with proficiency bonus it eventually becomes +10, a nice flat number.
Remove ASI, including 1st level and 4/8/12 etc).
Give access to most class features before 10th level, with more ''name level'' roleplay features at high level, and more uses of the features acquired at low-level.


----------



## Eubani (Sep 25, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Capping ability scores to 18, so that with proficiency bonus it eventually becomes +10, a nice flat number.
> Remove ASI, including 1st level and 4/8/12 etc).
> Give access to most class features before 10th level, with more ''name level'' roleplay features at high level, and more uses of the features acquired at low-level.



I think that edition already exists.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Sep 25, 2022)

Eubani said:


> I think that edition already exists.



Not really, I still think that bounded accuracy/proficiency bonus are huge improvement on the first few editions. And I'd also require to have actual features for the first few levels, not just at lvl 1-2 then nothing but HP and more ''to-hit'' for 20+ levels. And it would also requires to have ability scores actually matters beyond the +X at every 2 points. 

On the other hand, I feel 5e has too many things/resources/features going on at the same time. I feel there's too much emphasis on what's going on the character's sheet and not enough on activity to do in-fiction.


----------



## Xamnam (Sep 25, 2022)

Advantage and Disadvantage cancel out only on a one to one basis.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Sep 25, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Not really, I still think that bounded accuracy/proficiency bonus are huge improvement on the first few editions. And I'd also require to have actual features for the first few levels, not just at lvl 1-2 then nothing but HP and more ''to-hit'' for 20+ levels. And it would also requires to have ability scores actually matters beyond the +X at every 2 points.
> 
> On the other hand, I feel 5e has too many things/resources/features going on at the same time. I feel there's too much emphasis on what's going on the character's sheet and not enough on activity to do in-fiction.



Honestly compressing the current game into 10 levels would be a massive improvement and match the lengths of most campaigns. Keep wishes for magic rings and genies, not as spells for players to cast!


----------



## Jahydin (Sep 25, 2022)

Xamnam said:


> Advantage and Disadvantage cancel out only on a one to one basis.



It's not that already? I'll be darned...


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 25, 2022)

I would cut the number of spells in the game by at least half, ideally three quarters. Make spells that can have different effects when cast at different levels. 

Eg. Burning hands, scorching ray and fireball could all be the same spell


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Sep 25, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> No static numerical bonus stacks with another static numerical bonus, ever.



...so your attack modifier is either your ability modifier or your proficiency bonus, whichever is higher? be careful what you wish for 

anyway, my big change would be separating feats and ASIs (which, from what i've heard, wizards STILL isn't doing for some ungodly reason). deciding between an objective and easy to understand stat boost and varying your skill set in more statistically opaque ways just isn't fun to me at all, and i don't see any good reason to force a decision point between them (especially when the game's math relies on only ever taking ASIs anyway).


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 25, 2022)

I've made this pitch... a few times now...  But I'll say it again: Excise ability scores from the game. Scale up proficiency bonus to compensate. Skills remain, but become proficiency only. Saving throws can go back to Fort/Ref/Will.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 25, 2022)

W'rkncacnter said:


> ...so your attack modifier is either your ability modifier or your proficiency bonus, whichever is higher? be careful what you wish for



I mean, gotchas aren’t helpful, but also….sure?  Magic weapons could also easily make you as good as an average person that is actually good with a weapon. 

But no, I specified that calculations can stack with bonuses. Your attack modifier is you ability score mod + proficiency. 

Still, I actually like the idea of your bonuses being the beater of, maybe? Hmm…


W'rkncacnter said:


> anyway, my big change would be separating feats and ASIs (which, from what i've heard, wizards STILL isn't doing for some ungodly reason). deciding between an objective and easy to understand stat boost and varying your skill set in more statistically opaque ways just isn't fun to me at all, and i don't see any good reason to force a decision point between them (especially when the game's math relies on only ever taking ASIs anyway).



Yeah that’s another good one.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 25, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> I've made this pitch... a few times now...  But I'll say it again: Excise ability scores from the game. Scale up proficiency bonus to compensate. Skills remain, but become proficiency only. Saving throws can go back to Fort/Ref/Will.



That really is a big change! Nice!

I kindof did this in the game I’ve written and am making a new version of, in that ability scores have nothing to do with your skills (and skills govern all actions). Instead, you can use attribute points to push bad checks up the success ladder, and to fuel special abilities.

So imagine if the wizard has Int Score spell points, and the Bard had Cha Dcore spell points, basically, and a level 3 wizard spell costs 3 Int to cast.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Sep 25, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, gotchas aren’t helpful, but also….sure?  Magic weapons could also easily make you as good as an average person that is actually good with a weapon.
> 
> But no, I specified that calculations can stack with bonuses. Your attack modifier is you ability score mod + proficiency.
> 
> Still, I actually like the idea of your bonuses being the beater of, maybe? Hmm…



it was more of a joke about phrasing then anything else, but i don't really like the idea anyway. i honestly don't really like how low a lot of 5e's numbers are - or perhaps more specifically, i don't really like how the low numbers mean the swinginess of the d20 makes what should be world-shattering badasses have unrealistically low odds of doing things they should be able to do quite consistently (unless you're a rogue or bard rolling their preferred skills, or an artificer using their tools, or you're using feats and took skill expert, you monster). that might be another big thing i'd think of changing - upping proficiency from quarter level plus one rounded up to half level rounded up...or maybe instead changing the d20 to, say, 2d10, to lower swinginess somewhat. the former would be a pretty big math change, and the latter would be...more then that. at that point it might just be better to use or make a different system entirely, which is why i probably wouldn't change it and didn't suggest it originally, but i think you could do some neat stuff with it.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah that’s another good one.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 25, 2022)

W'rkncacnter said:


> it was more of a joke about phrasing then anything else, but i don't really like the idea anyway. i honestly don't really like how low a lot of 5e's numbers are - or perhaps more specifically, i don't really like how the low numbers mean the swinginess of the d20 makes what should be world-shattering badasses have unrealistically low odds of doing things they should be able to do quite consistently (unless you're a rogue or bard rolling their preferred skills, or an artificer using their tools, or you're using feats and took skill expert, you monster). that might be another big thing i'd think of changing - upping proficiency from quarter level plus one rounded up to half level rounded up...or maybe instead changing the d20 to, say, 2d10, to lower swinginess somewhat. the former would be a pretty big math change, and the latter would be...more then that. at that point it might just be better to use or make a different system entirely, which is why i probably wouldn't change it and didn't suggest it originally, but i think you could do some neat stuff with it.



Ah yeah, fair. I wanted to murder 4e’s half level math and also massacre all the stacking bonuses…like _all_ of them. I’d still be playing 4e if not for the bonuses math.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Sep 25, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ah yeah, fair. I wanted to murder 4e’s half level math and also massacre all the stacking bonuses…like _all_ of them. I’d still be playing 4e if not for the bonuses math.



yeah, that's also fair.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 25, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> I think in 3e bonuses of the same "type" don't stack.
> 
> I'm playing through Baulder's Gate (based on 2e) for the first time and I think that's the case too? Not sure, cause sometimes items stack, other times not...




In 3.0 I thought it was a really good idea at first... but after a while, there were so many different names for bonuses that you could stack way too much.

For 2e I can say that there was no general rule for stacking. I think there were limits for rings which interfered with each other and some special cases...


----------



## Malmuria (Sep 25, 2022)

Getting rid of unlimited cantrips.  Initially, I loved the idea of cantrips, but I found in play, even when convenient, they circumvent problems that would be really interesting to deal with in mundane ways.


----------



## John R Davis (Sep 25, 2022)

The Art. The recent stuff especially. 

(+). Pretty much happy with everything else. They have done a good job with 5e in my vast experience. It's very playable


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 25, 2022)

Add proper GMing principles and guidelines.


----------



## Smackpixi (Sep 25, 2022)

I would do something about great class features being so level gated…like I have a player excited to play a fiend warlock so he gets hurl through hell.  Which, yeah great for you in two forking years when we make it to 14th level and you do once and then we conclude campaign.


----------



## John R Davis (Sep 25, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Add proper GMing principles and guidelines.



Yeah. (+) Some stuff in there so a brand new GM gets some really good pointers


----------



## Olrox17 (Sep 25, 2022)

I’d make it so every spell (and class ability) with status conditions attached has hp thresholds, like the sleep spell does.
I would also make it so, if the target fails its save but has too many hit points to be affected, some kind of reduced, minor effect is applied instead.

With a system like this in place, we could probably get rid of the immersion breaking (but currently necessary) legendary resistance.

Might as well link my thread on the matter


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 25, 2022)

What one big thing I would change if I was working on 1D&D? I think it would have to be the Fighting Styles. I could see myself changing two things about them. The first would be to make subclasses based off of them. If you want your Fighter to have the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, there ought to be a subclass that allows you to do things with that Fighting Style. You shouldn't have to waste time trying to figure out which of the pre-existing subclasses can work with it. 

The second thing I would do is to create combat maneuvers for each Fighting Style. Someone with the Great Weapon Fighting style is going to fight differently than someone who has the Two-Weapon Fighting style.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 25, 2022)

All of the character abilities you select as a player would be at 1st level.  Leveling would give some numerical bonuses and more hit points, and that's it.  All character growth past that would be diegetic.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 25, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> All of the character abilities you select as a player would be at 1st level.  Leveling would give some numerical bonuses and more hit points, and that's it.  All character growth past that would be diegetic.



Diegetic?


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 25, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Diegetic?



All growth occurs within the context of the story.  You earn your abilities in the fiction, they aren't granted by selecting a metagame option.

Magic items are the main form of diegetic progression in standard D&D.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 25, 2022)

Morrus said:


> That’s the 3.x rule, IIRC?



Yep, modifiers of the same type don't stack... except for dodge/circumstance/armor bonuses, which do, because why be consistent, and then people start inventing new categories for their super-special new spells like profane...

EDIT: Pathfinder2 reduced the categories down to Status/Circumstance/Item, where only the highest positive and biggest negative modifer from each category applies. But then they still have untyped penalties, which all stack individually, making this whole categorization just... a lot of +1-2+1+1 that just feels like busywork.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Sep 25, 2022)

Make reactions like bonus actions: you don’t get one unless a feature or ability says you do. Then give the fighter a feature that grants AoO.


----------



## Argyle King (Sep 25, 2022)

I'd like proficiency dice to be the default rule instead of a flat bonus.


----------



## beancounter (Sep 25, 2022)

Floating ASI's


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 25, 2022)

No multiclassing. It's a class-based system, please act like one.

If there's a need for a new niche (and copy feats like Magic Initiate isn't enough), then make a new class for it.


----------



## ersatzphil (Sep 25, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> All of the character abilities you select as a player would be at 1st level.  Leveling would give some numerical bonuses and more hit points, and that's it.  All character growth past that would be diegetic.



May I interest you in The Black Hack?


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 25, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> I'd like proficiency dice to be the default rule instead of a flat bonus.



I'll see you Proficiency dice, and raise you Ability modifier dice. Have a 12 Intelligence? Add a d4 ro Intelligence checks. Have a 20 Strength? Add a d12 to that roll.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 25, 2022)

ersatzphil said:


> May I interest you in The Black Hack?



Oh, I’ve already been around the block on most of the NSR type games (Knave, GLOG, Into the Odd, etc) already.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 25, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I’d make it so every spell (and class ability) with status conditions attached has hp thresholds, like the sleep spell does.
> I would also make it so, if the target fails its save but has too many hit points to be affected, some kind of reduced, minor effect is applied instead.
> 
> With a system like this in place, we could probably get rid of the immersion breaking (but currently necessary) legendary resistance.
> ...



Oh man that’s a heck of a thing. As a DM who loves LR and has never seen any immersion issue with it, it’s not for me, but it’s an impressive work.


----------



## Olrox17 (Sep 25, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Oh man that’s a heck of a thing. As a DM who loves LR and has never seen any immersion issue with it, it’s not for me, but it’s an impressive work.



It is the single biggest house rule I have ever implemented in a dnd game! Wouldn’t run 5e without it nowadays, though.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Sep 25, 2022)

A lot of what people are suggesting can be accomplished by just playing Dungeon Crawl Classics.

But in keeping with actually playing 5e, the big change I would like is ditching damage-dealing cantrips. Magicians being able to do magical stuff without using spell slots is fine with me - it addresses a major gripe my friends and I had about TSR-era wizards. But I don't like damage-dealing cantrips. It feels videogamey to me, and more than almost anything else makes D&D feel like a (barely) glorified combat game.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 26, 2022)

Similar to to 3.5e and what they tried in XGtE with tools, lot's of fixed DC examples for ALL skills.

fixed stealth vs perception.
when can you use your stealth, when do you have disadvantage, when advantage.
At what distance you get bonuses to stealth, what is the difference is sound carrying in dungeon vs forest?


----------



## Greg K (Sep 26, 2022)

At the moment (and subject to change), the one big thing that I would change is the design team


----------



## DeviousQuail (Sep 26, 2022)

Removal of the big combat feats. Break them down into smaller parts and make them all part of a combo style/maneuver/stance list for warriors. As an example GWM gets broken into two parts; one gives the famous -5/+10 and the other gives the bonus action attack after crits and kills. Then the warrior classes get to pick a few as they level up in a similar fashion to cantrips for casters. Fighters get the most and have the fastest progression, paladins and rangers get fewer with a slower progression, monks/barbs/rogues progress the same as paladins and rangers but start with fewer, gish subclasses of casters get a couple and have the slowest progression.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Sep 26, 2022)

DeviousQuail said:


> paladins and rangers get fewer with a slower progression, monks/barbs/rogues progress the same as paladins and rangers but start with fewer



...why would the non-fighter full martials get fewer then the martial-leaning half-casters? that seems kind of backwards to me


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 26, 2022)

Ath-kethin said:


> A lot of what people are suggesting can be accomplished by just playing Dungeon Crawl Classics.
> 
> But in keeping with actually playing 5e, the big change I would like is ditching damage-dealing cantrips. Magicians being able to do magical stuff without using spell slots is fine with me - it addresses a major gripe my friends and I had about TSR-era wizards. But I don't like damage-dealing cantrips. It feels videogamey to me, and more than almost anything else *makes D&D feel like a (barely) glorified combat game.*



It's not?!


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> It's not?!



You’d think if it was a glorified combat game it would be better at it.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 26, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> You’d think if it was a glorified combat game it would be better at it.



I'm sure that is someone's one big thing that they would change.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 26, 2022)

Change 'Charisma' to 'Presence', that way we can write out all six ability scores with a single letter, rather than always having five single letters and a 'Ch'.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 26, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Change 'Charisma' to 'Presence', that way we can write out all six ability scores with a single letter, rather than always having five single letters and a 'Ch'.



better solution would be to delete Constitution.


----------



## aco175 (Sep 26, 2022)

I would bring back attacking the monsters Fort/Ref/Will saves instead of a saving throw.  As a player, I like rolling dice and as a DM, I try to have the players roll the dice.  This was when the mage casts a fireball, the player gets to roll the 10 dice to hit and the 8 dice to damage rather then the DM making a save for each monster.  I could even keep having monsters that cast fireball allowing the player to make a save for the PC rather than the monster attacking Reflex.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> better solution would be to delete Constitution.



But more unlikely to happen because they use CON for HP and many saving throws, so they'd have to gerry-rig the game differently to compensate.  Mine is merely cosmetic and thus won't require actual game adjustments.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> better solution would be to delete Constitution.



What would you replace Constitution with? _curious_ I know that CON doesn't contribute much to the game.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 26, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> But more unlikely to happen because they use CON for HP and many saving throws, so they'd have to gerry-rig the game differently to compensate.  Mine is merely cosmetic and thus won't require actual game adjustments.




Your would be easier, but deleting Con and merging it into STR would solve 2 problems:
1. Con is almost always passive or just pure resistance score.
2. Dex vs. Str debate


----------



## Horwath (Sep 26, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> What would you replace Constitution with? _curious_ I know that CON doesn't contribute much to the game.



add it to STR


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> add it to STR




So you want every wizard to be Arnold Schwarzenegger... I meant The Rock...

I guess if you got rid of con, you should just make concentration dependend on your spellcasting stat. Allthough I rather like the Idea of not having both concentration and spell save DC on the same stat.

I think, better than getting rid of a whole stat is just limiting stats to 18, not 20. Takes away a lot of pressure.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> 2. Dex vs. Str debate




The whole debate is just a perception problem. Escially with the new shove and grapple rules, str becomes a lot more useful (actually it was as useful before, but noone cared to actually make use of grabs, if not specially built for it).


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 26, 2022)

Okay. Strength is used for any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force yourself through tight spaces, to jump, climb, or swim beyond your usual physical limits, and to otherwise apply brute force to a situation.

Constitution otoh measures your health, stamina and vitality.  

I could see STR representing your physical health by still providing HP. I am not sure how STR could lend itself to stamina and vitality though. Stamina IMO would work well in determining how close you are to receiving the Fatigued/Exhausted condition and the need for either a short o long rest. A Stamina point mechanic?


----------



## Horwath (Sep 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think, better than getting rid of a whole stat is just limiting stats to 18, not 20. Takes away a lot of pressure.



this is always an option.

or put feats and ASI's in separate resource pool.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The whole debate is just a perception problem. Escially with the new shove and grapple rules, str becomes a lot more useful (actually it was as useful before, but noone cared to actually make use of grabs, if not specially built for it).



grab is better in current rules.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> grab is better in current rules.




Only if you exploit advantage and expertise. Most importantly, you can't use it as an opportunity attack in the current rules. In OneDnD you can.
So for a normal fighter, or a battlemaster who uses precision attack, the new rules are way better.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> or put feats and ASI's in separate resource pool.




Please no. Rather get rid of ASI altogether.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Please no. Rather get rid of ASI altogether.



this I can also agree. Put some part of ASI's in default array/point buy together with +2/+1 bonus and you would get Pillars of eternity abilities.
everything at start and only increasing via magic later on.

I.E. starting array:
18,16,14,12,12,10

or point buy:

8: 0pts
10: 1pt
12: 2pts
14: 3pts
16: 5pts
18: 8pts

point pool: 21


----------



## DeviousQuail (Sep 26, 2022)

W'rkncacnter said:


> ...why would the non-fighter full martials get fewer then the martial-leaning half-casters? that seems kind of backwards to me



A matter of opinion I guess. Paladins and Rangers already get a fighting style while monk/barb/rogue don't so this change would give all of them the same number of new things. Paladins and Rangers would just have more because they already get one. 

I also see Paladins and Rangers as having more "standard" combat training. Probably why they got a fighting style while the others didn't. Monk/barb/rogue make up for it by having their unique combat methods of martial arts/reckless attack/sneak attack. But that's basically my own head canon so ymmv.


----------



## vagabundo (Sep 26, 2022)

ha, people would hate it but 1/2 level instead of proficiency bonus. Its much more manageable in the 1-20 level range ( and most games don't go above level 10 I'd wager).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> this I can also agree. Put some part of ASI's in default array/point buy together with +2/+1 bonus and you would get Pillars of eternity abilities.
> everything at start and only increasing via magic later on.
> 
> I.E. starting array:
> ...



I could see half-feats to make uneven scores even. Other than that, having a higher array would be possible. I think however that an 18 at level 1 is too much.

But then we should dissociate attributes from everything besides skills (as you suggested otherwise) and few othere things (which I would suggest).

At least we should not expect stats to increase at all.

Maybe Str as requirements for high damaging weapons, dex for light armor cl (you can circumvent the requirement with heavy armor), con for hp, int for bonus proficiencies in tools and languages, wis... maybe Initiative (as initiative nowadays is more awareness in the first round of combat) and cha for attracting followers...


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Sep 26, 2022)

vagabundo said:


> ha, people would hate it but 1/2 level instead of proficiency bonus. Its much more manageable in the 1-20 level range ( and most games don't go above level 10 I'd wager).



I think stat capped at 18 + half-level as proficiency bonus + no ASI would be somewhat close mathematically speaking. So if you are lucky and have a 18 (+4) in your main stat, you'll eventually be at +14 on a d20 roll. So I guess AC should be a little higher to accommodate.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 26, 2022)

I like the clarity of half your level... it's certainly better than proficiency and rage bonus and half your level references all progressing at different rates that are still close to each other in the commonly-played level range.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 26, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I think stat capped at 18 + half-level as proficiency bonus + no ASI would be somewhat close mathematically speaking. So if you are lucky and have a 18 (+4) in your main stat, you'll eventually be at +14 on a d20 roll. So I guess AC should be a little higher to accommodate.



I like the slow increase of 1/4 your level with some start bonus.

maybe +2 with +1/4 levels increase at levels 4,8,12,16 and 20 would be more intuitive than increase at levels 5/9/13/17.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I could see half-feats to make uneven scores even. Other than that, having a higher array would be possible. I think however that an 18 at level 1 is too much.
> 
> But then we should dissociate attributes from everything besides skills (as you suggested otherwise) and few othere things (which I would suggest).
> 
> ...



if abilities do not increase then 18 STR will only be a problem at levels 1-3. that you go through within 2-4 sessions.

and having no ASI's across levels and all abilities being even, or even better, just use modifiers and point buy modifiers, will remove problem of meta-gaming with planing your abilities in advance.

Just pick your abilities at 1st level and that is it.
And hope for some magic items.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 26, 2022)

I’d love if classes were less of the overall design space ratio of a character, make species and background _actually matter _beyond once in a blue-moon occurrences, and for them to develop new traits over multiple tiers.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> if abilities do not increase then 18 STR will only be a problem at levels 1-3. that you go through within 2-4 sessions.
> 
> and having no ASI's across levels and all abilities being even, or even better, just use modifiers and point buy modifiers, will remove problem of meta-gaming with planing your abilities in advance.
> 
> ...




Somehow I have to concur, on the other hand, I think your point buy is way too high for my tastes. I think, the game can be balanced around main stat 16, not 18.
I also like the possibility of a negative modifier. I'd probably also like modifier = stat - 10 for skills and don't add it to attack or damage.

Edit: I know my 16 is then better than your 18. But I think the game would be better if 14 is the new 18.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Sep 26, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Change 'Charisma' to 'Presence', that way we can write out all six ability scores with a single letter, rather than always having five single letters and a 'Ch'.



I think fiddling with the six abilities would cause more uproar than most other changes.

But for the record, DCC ditched both Charisma and Wisdom and replaced them with Personality.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Sep 26, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> It's not?!



It can be anything you want it to be, my friend.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 26, 2022)

Ath-kethin said:


> I think fiddling with the six abilities would cause more uproar than most other changes.
> 
> But for the record, DCC ditched both Charisma and Wisdom and replaced them with Personality.



That's why I only changed the name.  Everything else remains the same.  

But you're right... anything in older books that mention Charisma would need players to remember that Charisma was now Presence.  But I don't care... still would rather be able to write the ability scores as S / D / C / I / W / P.  Heh heh.


----------



## vagabundo (Sep 27, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I think stat capped at 18 + half-level as proficiency bonus + no ASI would be somewhat close mathematically speaking. So if you are lucky and have a 18 (+4) in your main stat, you'll eventually be at +14 on a d20 roll. So I guess AC should be a little higher to accommodate.



Stat capped at 18 for that b/x vibe.. I like it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 27, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I like the clarity of half your level... it's certainly better than proficiency and rage bonus and half your level references all progressing at different rates that are still close to each other in the commonly-played level range.



I’d rather slow everything down to the same rate as proficiency bonus than speed up PB, myself, but I can see the appeal of having one progression for everything. 



Ath-kethin said:


> But in keeping with actually playing 5e, the big change I would like is ditching damage-dealing cantrips. Magicians being able to do magical stuff without using spell slots is fine with me - it addresses a major gripe my friends and I had about TSR-era wizards. But I don't like damage-dealing cantrips. It feels videogamey to me, and more than almost anything else makes D&D feel like a (barely) glorified combat game.



Would you accept a compromise where all casters have the ability to make simple attacks with thier magic as a basic rule and/or class feature, and Cantrips as such are purely for utility?

Ie, the staff as a focus has attack and damage, the wand has different damage, etc, and the basic spell attack has different range and maybe other things depending on what you use to make the attack. Then, some classes have an “implement” replacement feature where you don’t need a focus you can just attack with these values because you are the focus or whatever.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Sep 27, 2022)

My big change would be to go back to having mechanically interesting additions to the game.  5e design is so stagnant that the game today is so similar to when it released that floating ASI is considered a major change.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 27, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Would you accept a compromise where all casters have the ability to make simple attacks with thier magic as a basic rule and/or class feature, and Cantrips as such are purely for utility?



They've already done that in the monster stat blocks, so why not for PCs.  In Monsters of the Multiverse, every monster that had at least one damage dealing cantrip in their spellcasting list, had it/them removed in favor of a "Deathly Ray" or "Grave Bolt" type of attack in the "Actions" section.


----------



## Blue (Sep 27, 2022)

I love 5e, and for me there's only one fatal flaw - how horribly calibrated the various rest mechanics are balanced between characters.

It looks like they are doing away with short rests, but that's still just moving the problem to some classes have a lot more long rest attrition features while others have at-wills.

There's a couple ways to handle it, but I think the easiest to slot in to what we've seen of One D&D so far would be:  Continue replacing 1/short rest with Prof times per full recovery.  But change full power recovery to basically per "per adventure" instead of during a long rest.  Maybe if the DM wants to break that down, so there's a journey, a full recovery, and then an adventure.  Or not.  Short and long rests would continue, but for things like spending HD, recovering HPs, HD, and exhaustion levels, etc.  They would have nothing to do with power recovery.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 27, 2022)

Blue said:


> I love 5e, and for me there's only one fatal flaw - how horribly calibrated the various rest mechanics are balanced between characters.
> 
> It looks like they are doing away with short rests, but that's still just moving the problem to some classes have a lot more long rest attrition features while others have at-wills.
> 
> There's a couple ways to handle it, but I think the easiest to slot in to what we've seen of One D&D so far would be:  Continue replacing 1/short rest with Prof times per full recovery.  But change full power recovery to basically per "per adventure" instead of during a long rest.  Maybe if the DM wants to break that down, so there's a journey, a full recovery, and then an adventure.  Or not.  Short and long rests would continue, but for things like spending HD, recovering HPs, HD, and exhaustion levels, etc.  They would have nothing to do with power recovery.



I like your points, but I don't think I will be able to shake off around 35 years of regaining power after sleeping overnight.  It's ingrained.

Could however ditch the fully healed overnight though, so there's that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Gorck said:


> They've already done that in the monster stat blocks, so why not for PCs.  In Monsters of the Multiverse, every monster that had at least one damage dealing cantrip in their spellcasting list, had it/them removed in favor of a "Deathly Ray" or "Grave Bolt" type of attack in the "Actions" section.



Right. And I’ve been saying for a lot time that Eldritch Blast should just allow you to make a ranged spell attack when you take the attack action. Why not extend that to all casters and put the different attack cantrip effects into either class specific or focus specific, or both, groups?


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Sep 28, 2022)

I would like martials to have something that uses concentration (and gishes have to figure out whether to use that or concentrate on a spell).  Stances or something like that.  You can start a fight (especially if you are ambushing somebody) doing crazy stuff, until you get popped in the nose (and have to make a con check), then you have to decide to use an action to (re)activate a stance or swing your sword.  I think it would do wonders for monks (gimmick is now spending ki points to activate "magic stances", even more wild than the martial stances).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 28, 2022)

MechaTarrasque said:


> I would like martials to have something that uses concentration (and gishes have to figure out whether to use that or concentrate on a spell).  Stances or something like that.  You can start a fight (especially if you are ambushing somebody) doing crazy stuff, until you get popped in the nose (and have to make a con check), then you have to decide to use an action to (re)activate a stance or swing your sword.  I think it would do wonders for monks (gimmick is now spending ki points to activate "magic stances", even more wild than the martial stances).



This and moving special attack options from the DMG to the PHB, I think would really help make the game more interesting for the folks who are dissatisfied with martial characters. 

Oh! And if they each have a special crit bene, and there are class ones and fighting style ones, it would do a huge solid for the Champion!


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 28, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This and moving special attack options from the DMG to the PHB, I think would really help make the game more interesting for the folks who are dissatisfied with martial characters.
> 
> Oh! And if they each have a special crit bene, and there are class ones and fighting style ones, it would do a huge solid for the Champion!



Yup.

If Feats become core,then the variant rules chapter needs bulking up.


Additional Actions
Implements
Martial Exploits
Muliclassing
Scions
Traits


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 28, 2022)

In 3.xE bonuses of the same type don't stack. a shield gave a shield bonus to AC and armor gave an armor bonus. a Ring of Deflection gave a deflection bonus. and so on. there are many types. There is also Touch AC which does not include armor or shields, and Flat-Footed which does not include Dex.


doctorbadwolf said:


> So for the most part I run 5e with few houserules, mostly simple stuff or things added to change the basic play loop.
> 
> However!
> 
> ...


----------



## Gorck (Sep 28, 2022)

Blue said:


> *It looks like they are doing away with short rests*, but that's still just moving the problem to some classes have a lot more long rest attrition features while others have at-wills.



Are they?  In the Character Origins packet, the new description of Long Rest specifies "if the rest was at least 1 hour long before the interruption, the creature gains the benefits of a *Short Rest*" which would imply that Short Rests are still going to be a thing.


----------



## Blue (Sep 28, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Are they?  In the Character Origins packet, the new description of Long Rest specifies "if the rest was at least 1 hour long before the interruption, the creature gains the benefits of a *Short Rest*" which would imply that Short Rests are still going to be a thing.



You are correct; I was imprecise.  What I mean to say was that they seem to be removing _powers that reset _on a short rest, instead moving them to Proficiency times per day.  Short rests, for the rest of what they do, would still exist.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 28, 2022)

Blue said:


> You are correct; I was imprecise.  What I mean to say was that they seem to be removing _powers that reset _on a short rest, instead moving them to Proficiency times per day.  Short rests, for the rest of what they do, would still exist.



Yeah.  And that's the approach I've taken with Bugbears&Borderlands.  They technically exist, but really only for things like HP recovery.  All class features are based on prof bonus times per long rest.  I think that's the way they are going forward as well.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 28, 2022)

I'm kind of glad they're toning down the short rest-reliant things (if they are actually consistent about it and do it to everything) - they introduce too much variability, what with having to take an hour which means you might as well take 8 hours.

We could've just had per-encounter resources in the first place and have it all make sense and be balanced, but that'd be too close to 4e, oh no. Unless it's these other encounter powers that we just don't call encounter powers, we just use different phrasings to say 'refreshes when you next roll initiative', then it's acceptable.

4e's encounter powers weren't perfect, but maybe encounter resources would be.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Yup.
> 
> If Feats become core,then the variant rules chapter needs bulking up.
> 
> ...



I don’t especially want to see martial exploits as a general rule, and I don’t know what “scions” refers to, but mostly I agree. 


shadowoflameth said:


> In 3.xE bonuses of the same type don't stack. a shield gave a shield bonus to AC and armor gave an armor bonus. a Ring of Deflection gave a deflection bonus. and so on. there are many types. There is also Touch AC which does not include armor or shields, and Flat-Footed which does not include Dex.



Yes, and I hated that with a burning hatred is normally reserve for things that matter. 

Hated it in 4e, as well, much as I otherwise love 4e. 

No stacking. Ever. You get a calculation, and the highest available bonus, and might have advantage, and that is it.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 29, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t know what “scions” refers to, but mostly I agree.



Scions is a 3e eraclass where you attuned to an intelligent magic item and leveled it up, unlocking new features. Like you'd get a dragon sword and the sword would get more powers instead of you getting fighter class features.

Hexblade with more blade and less hex.


----------

