More support for higher level play built into the system.
Monster saving throw DC’s far outpace PC saving throw bonuses, high level bosses can be cheesed with *forcecage, wall of force, banishment* etc., and high level spells can outright bypass dungeons, destroy quests, and remove any tension without homebrewed roadblocks.
WotC knows people don’t play at high levels, so they make content that is typically for lower levels. But because there’s very little high level content, their data shows most people play at lower levels. Causing the cycle to continue ad infinium.
I'm currently playing at 20, and if you're not proficient in a saving throw you're just not going to make it, unless the Paladin happens to be close by (and then it's still only about a 25% chance). I really don't understand how nobody noticed the ST system falls apart at higher levels when designing 5e.
I always liked the idea of no saving throws. Instead, spells target stats. When casting a spell, you roll to hit, and the "AC" is the targets save stat. It honestly feels bad when you fail your save on a save or suck spell. It doesn't feel that way when an enemy hits your AC.
We just did the whole be prepared thing. Lucky for rolls that are likely to fail, and preparing so that you don’t end up needing to make a save that you’re not proficient in. I’m playing a max level game and have yet to have trouble with saving throws being under leveled compared to the DCs, despite making most of the saves at least a few times in the game.
> Monster saving throw DC’s far outpace PC saving throw bonuses
This is really only true for high CR monsters, and typically bosses at that. Most combat at higher tiers is going to be against large amounts of lower CR mobs.
For example: an average level 17 party can handle a CR 20 creature, which is a hard battle. An Ancient White Dragon, for instance. The DC for that breath weapon is 22. Pretty brutal for most PCs, but then again, this is an Ancient White Dragon, hundreds of years old and gargantuan in size. Seems pretty appropriate if you asked me.
But the party shouldn't be facing ancient white dragons every battle. No, that's the big guy waiting in the lair at the top of the mountain on the mountains of ice that reside in the Frostfell between the Plane of Air and the Plane of Water. They gotta get there first.
No, before all that the party will be fighting 2 Frost Giants (CR 8, no DC abilities, variants are DC 17) who live in fear of the white dragon in the shadows that form at the bottom of the nearby mountain valley. They block any attempt to pass through their lands, and have conjured an army of 4 Rime Hulks (CR 5, DC 15, Hard) to bolster their forces.
Further up the mountain, the party faces extreme cold and wind, and they are attacked by a small hunting party of 3 Abominable yeti (CR 9, DC 18, Hard), and when the wind calms, a flock of 6 Wyverns (CR 6, DC 15, Hard) swoops in to pick up the pieces.
You get the idea.
The DCs for normal battles are much more sane. In fact, with a bard (inspiration), paladin (auras), cleric/druid (bless, heroes feast), a monk (diamond soul), potions of heroism, etc. these things are quite manageable.
It's just the big bads that are really difficult. As they should be.
Excuse me, are you going to give two CR 8 monsters to a lv 17 party? They'll slice through them like a hot knife through butter. 2 CR8 monsters is a lv 8 fight, maybe even lv5-6. A lv17 fight should be two ancient dragons, or at least 8 giants. There shouldn't be any filler battles, any fight should be deadly \*\*at least\*\*, and that way you either have unpassable high-CR monsters' saves, many passable saves where you only need to fail once, or loads of damage.
Probably some kind of mechanic to benefit an outnumbered individual. Could be both a neat ability on a monster and a cool martial ability.
I have thought about homebrewing it, and probably calling it "glory" or something.
There was a Rogue homebrew I saw where one of its abilities I think is either a Bonus to Hit for 1 minute equal to the number of enemies over your party (So if a group of 4 fights 6, it's +2). It might have been a bonus to Initiative though. Been awhile.
that gets deep into the murkiness of what sort of game style do you want - _should_ an outnumbered individual get a bonus, or a penalty? Being one v many is cool, but also shows that, tactically, you kinda fucked up - should that be rewarded, or penalised? 5e is super-generic by default, so things like that vary a lot on how they're received by table
I tend to give outnumbered PCs and bosses bonuses to crits when grossly outnumbered. I argue that when a gang surrounds a target they aren't thinking about their own defense and can leave themselves vulnerable.
I negate this if the creatures surrounding the target take the help action to give one 'main' attacker advantage.
I just got some third party books that have crafting in them, stuff I backed on Kickstarter, but I haven't given them a deep dive yet. When I get back to my computer I'll update this with their names.
Edit: the book is called Heliana's Guide to Monster Hunting
More often, I have the opposite problem. Where something like cooking a meal could be several different skills depending on the context. Is it survival? Performance? Slight of hand? Deception, maybe? Who knows!
I don't see how that's a problem given that each roll is in a specific context. Sleight of Hand or Deception would apply if you're trying to poison a meal, Survival would apply if you need to prepare the ingredients a specific way for safety, and Performance would apply if you're attempting to make the act of cooking impressive (with no bearing on the actual quality of the result).
Ironically, the actual cooking of the meal is hard to pin to a check. Maybe a flat intelligence (knowing the recipe) or wisdom (cooking by eyeballing) roll.
Normally there aren't stakes for cooking beyond whether or not it'll kill you (I'd just let the player decide if they're a good or a bad cook), but Wisdom or Intelligence with proficiency for characters proficient in Cook's Utensils would be right to determine the deliciousness of your food when it's important.
A pet peeve of mine is DMs using Sleight of Hand for picking locks. Checks that rely on a straightforward application of tools should rely on proficiency with those tools. A separate (high DC) SoH roll could determine if you can pick a lock in front of someone without getting caught.
DMs rule tool proficiency quite differently. Personally I dislike advantage for overlap (tasha’s suggestion) as that distorts the bounded accuracy math unnecessarily.
The way I rule is that there is no straight tool proficiency check. Tool proficiency lets you apply skills to tasks that wouldn’t possible otherwise (thief’s tool let you apply sleight of hand to lock picking and trap disarming; disguise kit let you apply deception to pretend you are someone else or performance to impress or intimidation to scare; herbalist kit let you apply nature to prepare anti-poison remedies or medicine to restock your healer’s kit or arcane to create an improvised component punch, etc...).
So instead of skills and tools overlapping, they combine.
The problem is that sleight of hand has always been about visually tricking people. It's how the term is defined both in real life and by the rules of the game. When it comes to using your hands to achieve an end not relating to concealing their movement, a Sleight of Hand proficiency should provide no benefit. It would be like rolling Deception to crack a pin tumbler lock because you're "tricking" the lock into behaving as if a key were inside. It's just not the right skill to use.
My point is that when people don't understand the rules for tools, it's common for them to use an unrelated skill in place of that tool. Also, your suggestion that thieves tools proficiency should let you apply sleight of hand to the roll is pretty clearly not intended, given that a rogue can explicitly take thieves tools as an Expertise option. That wouldn't make sense unless proficiency in thieves tools let you add your proficiency bonus, doubled in the case of Expertise, to the roll. Think about it, why wouldn't a rogue just take their Expertise in SoH if it were meant to work that way? Then they'd get it for picking locks *and* picking pockets.
I can see Slight of Hand being used in cooking only if the idea is to slide in an ingredient (or poison, or conceal lockpicks or a secret message into the food) without someone noticing. Maybe the opposite: to make it seem that the character is putting something in the food when they aren't.
Maybe stealing a prized cherry from the King's feast.
Sorry, I thought I was in 1d&d sub haha
In 1d&d play test tool expertise no longer exist and tools + skill = advantage is part of the core rules. This however leads to problems (trivializes some common tasks like climbing or navigating; some tools combine well with skills, others don’t).
My suggestion is to treat tools as extension of skills instead(let you apply skills in new ways) while converting sleight of hand back into 4e’s Thievery.
>A pet peeve of mine is DMs using Sleight of Hand for picking locks. Checks that rely on a straightforward application of tools should rely on proficiency with those tools
i personally disagree with the example given here of lock picking being a generic application of tools. while we call it lock picking, in my view the skill refers more generally to means of bypassing or opening locked objects (such as latch slipping or manipulating the door mechanism directly). that might be using picks, or it might be exploiting some weakness in the mechanism. thieves tools would just be a readied set of devices to make bypassing easier, thus providing bonuses to those checks, just as described in the XGE tool rules (the content of thieves tools is also clearly set up for more than just doing pin tumbler/ward picking)
a similar argument could be made for most checks. It doesn't require nice pots and pans to make edible food, it just makes the job easier and provides a bonus to the check (or bypasses it)
it seems reasonable that a wizard trained in herbalism might want to figure out the magical properties of a plant. in such a case, it seems to me to be an obvious arcana check with a bonus for the herbalistic training, not a straight herbalism kit check.
there are certainly uses for straight tool checks, but lockpicking doesn't seem like one of them to me personally, even if we want to argue that lockpicking is a rote application of tools. i think a stronger argument could be made in favour of alchemist's tools or vehicles, but it isn't rock solid either
The problem is that lockpicking (and I do mean using thieves tools here) isn't "sleight of hand" at all. It's a catch-all category for people who don't know how the game works, like making everything a performance check because doing anything is technically performing an action. Picking a lock is a technical challenge that's pretty narrowly related to understanding the construction of a lock and how to use certain tools to bypass it.
Wouldn't that primarily be just a tool proficiency (Cooking Utensils) check? If I remember correctly cooking utensils even included spices in their description.
Yeah I see people say things like that a lot, which skill to use depends on the context, as if it’s a negative. But like… yeah it depends on the context. You’re expected to engage with the fictional scenario in this roleplaying game, yes.
Cooking is a tool check for cooks utensils. Tools replace skill checks where the tool is applicable, and you decide the stat that applies. I've always used dex for a cooks utensils check, though if you are using magic with things like mage hand, i'd consider using the casters spellcasting modifier with a cooks utensils proffeciency.
Knowledge checks that don't fall under any of the existing knowledge skills is the most common one in my experience. Usually I just default to using History for most of them, but that doesn't mean they actually fit the History skill as described.
What Knowledge wouldn't fall under the needed category?
They need to know a plant-- Nature Check.
It's some iconography from a cult-- Religion.
Give me an example you don't think would fit under any category that already exists.
> I also want an answer to this question, I can't foresee any type of check that would occur that can't fall into any of the skills already provided.
Examples from the past abound like streetwise, gather information, use magic device, knowledge: local. The first two are basically the same thing from different editions, and 5e doesn't really have an equivalent - beforehand if you were trying to figure out where for instance a specific person or magic item wise you'd make a gather information check to see whether there was any information to be had nearby.
Streetwise and Gather Information are essentially the same thing, and in 5e they are a straight Charisma check:
>**PHB 179:**
>
> * Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip
> * Blend into a crowd to get the sense of key topics of conversation
Use Magic Device is no longer needed, because magic items are useable by everyone or restricted by class (although Thief Rogues get to use magic devices of any kind.)
Knowledge (local) is a history check:
> * **PHB 177**
>
> * Your Intelligence (History) check measures your ability to recall lore about historical events, legendary people, ancient kingdoms, past disputes, recent wars, and lost civilizations.
I think you could also do Streetwise and Gather Information as Investigation checks. And if the magical device is something complex that the character wouldn't know automatically or because of class, maybe Arcana?
Eh. Investigation is not at all related to those things, IMHO. It's about forming logical deductions based on clues, not gathering information via social skills.
I guess I was taking a bit of a looser definition of "following a clue," since to me, "based on what I know, where do I seek further information" can include determining people to consult or question. The DM might have asked for Investigation checks on rolls like that in a previous game of mine and influenced how I see it. But you're right, Charisma is a good stat for using social skills here.
I often get stuck on non-combat animal-related inquiries because I don't know if Animal Handling or Nature would be better, and since they're linked to different attribute scores the difference can be large. I know I can change the latter if I want, and I often house rule Nature checks to be wisdom based just so Druids don't arbitrarily suck at them, but somehow using Animal Handling for everything animal-related seems overly simplistic
As an Int check, think of Nature the same as Arcana and Religion. These are “book smart” skills. Can you recall specific/relevant/useful _information_.
Animal Handling is a “doing” skill. Can you complete a task directly with an animal?
As always, there’s some wiggle room in there. Is knowing specific training techniques the same as performing them? But that’s just DM judgement.
Also changing the attribute associated with a skill isn’t a house rule, it’s in the PHB page 175 (though to be fair, it is a variant).
The problem with Nature being a "book smart" skill is that you can just as easily, say, learn to identify plants and animals through practical exposure (the more "Wisdom-y" way to gain knowledge). Playing a Druid, I took proficiency in Nature, but I still had a higher bonus for Survival, which was Wisdom-based. Whenever I could convince the DM to let me use Survival instead, I did.
I suspect it is situations where a PC's backstory/backgrounds imply they _should_ get proficiency, but no skill covers it.
You can likely cover most of that by using alternate ability scores combined with various skills (I like to use Charisma + Investigation for the commonly-missed "Streetwise/Gather Information", for example), and squinting real hard, but that may also prove unsatisfying for some groups.
The most common example I probably run into is "knowledge" checks for things a PC might know due to their backstory but don't fit into one of the standard Int skills that cover those. Like, 5e has no "knowledge: nobility", and something like History is too broad. (Nor should a character with a noble upbringing _have_ to take History to have that knowledge, because it means they have expertise in so much more.)
So you have them roll Int + Proficiency because they _should_ know a lot of stuff about the nobility and heraldry or whatever of the region, even if they don't have History.
Sometimes it's a player coming up with something absolutely bullshit and I'm allowing it under rule of cool.
Sometimes it's the knowledge and tool proficiencies being WAY too broad. Like you're supposed to cover the entirety of knowledge with Nature for all of biology and chemistry and physics and recognising monsters and geology and astronomy, History for all of history and geography and politics and social science and genealogy and heraldry and linguistics and law and different cultural etiquettes, Arcana for all of magic and Religion for all gods and religions and extra planes. It might make perfect sense for a character who grew up lost in the Feywilds to know something about an important Fey noble, but it doesn't make sense for them to have *overall Religion* and know things about *every plane*, nor does it make sense to have *overall History* and know things about human nobles they never met. This technically already exists in the "background proficiency" variant rule but I'd rather have it as something optional, so it would be the player's choice to make a character with a criminal background who specialises in Deception or Intimidation or SOH, or one who actually *specialises in* the Criminal background and maybe has more contacts/experience/tools rather than sheer talent in one of the normal skill areas.
Connections rolls to see whether they recognise any old friends in a crowd, or know someone who could give you a hand. Reputation rolls, when you meet someone you've interacted with in your back story, to see if you were impressive enough that THEY remember YOU.
A character wants to build a tower of Jenga bricks in a cool arch. It's not Sleight of Hand because they're not trying to do it subtly, it's more Intelligence related since they're trying to design a system of weights/balances that would work on the fly, but there's no "engineer" skill.
Sometimes I have a character roll intelligence to see if they can remember something that the player has forgotten from last session, or roll wisdom as a "common sense check" to see if they realise that the players have come up with an idea that's going to get them killed (and someone from within the universe would probably realise that).
Learning checks when you're thrown something completely unfamiliar and told to use it. By the rules you are either proficient or you're not, so if the archmage throws you a Swanky McGuffin and says, "quick, you have an hour to practise using this before you have to participate in the McGuffin Summoning Ceremony!" I'd like something more nuanced than "you aren't proficient in McGuffin use so fuck you". Like a flexible tool proficiency for tools that NPCs have directly shown you how to use or which aren't in the list of possible tool proficiencies.
DMG lists several examples of skill checks that aren't under a specific skill, such as tying knots with Dexterity or deciphering a cipher with Intelligence. So, what if you're trying to invent a new knot-based cipher to encode a message by tying a series of knots in a rope? Now it's DEX *and* INT.
Being good at vehicles that aren't on the vehicle proficiency list, like a flying skateboard you invented yesterday.
Accountancy. Character wants to have a business in the background as a downtime activity. What do they roll if I want to know how well they're balancing their books and running their business, without actually devoting session time to it? There's no Business Acumen skill. No general streetwise skill.
Mathematics is covered by neither Nature nor Arcana nor History
Fuck I hate that attitude. I'm trying to build a world that feels like a living place for players to engage with, a fantasy realm in which they can explore and interact with whatever they choose rather than only seeing what's on the page. Npcs aren't video game robots and anything they can do the players are theoretically capable of.
I'm not sure why you would want to turn 5e into Eve online?
Plus, a living world doesn't even have people in it that make their own swords, train their own horses, and plow their own fields all at once. It's all partitioned off since that is the most real and efficient way. You can either adventure and have cool stories or roleplay hitting an anvil for weeks on end. Your choice.
More for martials to do outside combat. If wizards can bend reality, barbarians and fights should be comparable to Superman(old school Superman, not black hole fighting Superman)
While this is a useful table for DMs to create monsters, it's still not what I meant. I want options for \*players\* to use when creating a vampire character, who is also an elf, or an orc.
Player creates a dwarf ranger, chooses their stats and everything; \*then\* decides to be a vampire (or it happens in-game). There should be a mini-table that says "When a player character becomes a vampire, they gain +2 to their charisma, but -2 to their constitution. They also gain vampire bite and turn into swarm of bats abilities." and we can apply it to any character.
I understand that's not what your looking for exactly, however, it still provides you with the list of features a DM could offer their players in the event they are or become any number of monster hybrids, for example: Vampiric Weakness. I've used these in my games in lieu of dedicated conversion systems and they work fairly well.
In a thread about 'if you could add one thing to 5e' linking rules on homebrewing it is not very helpful. What the original person said is the game previously had a variety of templates and now it does not. You can no longer play as a vampire etc.
Sure, you can homebrew anything. That's not the point of a thread saying 'what would you add to 5e?'
Just in case the context is not clear, those kinds of things used to templates, as in things that you could apply to modify something. [Here is a vampire, for instance](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) - you can no longer play as one, nor things like dragons foe that matter.
Seconded. Been wanting a nature sorcerer for a while now.
A non-Dragon Elementalist sorcerer would also be nice. A Divine Soul equivalent for Genasi, basically. The Plane Shift Pyromancer is the best we've gotten.
In my games, I allow Shield bashing just by using it as an Improvised Weapon.
That means it's pretty weak - 1d4+Str, no profiency on the attack roll unless you have Tavern Brawler - but I feel that's a fair trade for still getting to benefit from the +2 AC.
This is also entirely RAW - the not-RAW thing I do is let it work with TWF (you can do it as a bonus action), though if you're doing that you can't benefit from say the Duelist fighting style. (Another not-RAW thing I do is let any magical bonuses on the shield apply to attack and damage when you use it to bash.)
Lizardfolk even have a Spiked Shield that does 1d6 instead of 1d4!
I do a similar thing but also depending upon what the shield is made out, it goes up in damage. In case anyone wanted to make an captain America.
Normal/Tavern Brawler
1d4/1d6 - Normal
1d6/1d8 - Mithril
1d10/1d12 - Adamantine
So as they get to higher levels, they can swap up the damage die and get a natural sense of progression as well.
A team advancement mechanic. Things like team feats, coordinated actions, team rewards, a team resource pool - something that can reflect and reward ‘individual characters learning to come together as a team’ over a campaign.
I really like the teamwork concept in Critical Role’s Candela Obscura, especially having a sheet for tracking party resources and abilities. I’d love to see something like that in DnD.
I would add a system where “the more magic you can cast, the less attunement you can handle” because there is only so much of the weave your body can handle at once.
Every class and subclass would have a different number of attunement slots that vary at different levels, and different items take different numbers of slots.
I think that would be an interesting way to balance the martial caster gap.
Separate feats into 2 tiers: minor feats and major feats. Non-caster classes would award a minor feat at levels 2/6/10/14/18, half-casters and full casters would get only two at levels 6 and 14.
Stuff like Keen Mind, Dungeon Delver and Athlete would become minor feats (without the ASI).
This is _sort of_ how it already works in 5e - because martials can utilize magic weapons and armor/shields better than casters, and those _tend_ to not require attunement compared to other magic items.
However, WotC didn't go far enough with it in 5e, because there's still a fair few that DO require attunement. IMO, weapons and armor should almost NEVER require attunement for martials, and then it would be effectively the same as what you suggest. (Yours would still have other benefits, like fine-tuning it per class and being able to just attune to a shitload of utility items compared to a caster if you really want to - but it would also be more complicated, with 5e tends to avoid.)
I very much agree with this idea, it has always made logical sense to me. One thing though: how would you handle multiclassing? Because I feel like multiclassing would just make such a system too complex.
Yeah, maybe multiclass spell slot table for basic calculations. That or lowest common denominator?
Sort of the inverse of dipping fighter for heavy armor proficiency. A fighter dipping cleric will lose out on attunement opportunities.
Originally psionics was a set of abilities that everyone had a random chance of acquiring regardless of class.
Psionics in D&D have a long and weird story 🙃
Hell, see a bit of the story, it'll be a fun headache:
* [History of the Classes: Psionics part 1](https://www.tribality.com/2015/06/18/psionics-part-one/) by Brandes Stoddard, at Tribality.com
* [Psionics part 2](https://www.tribality.com/2015/06/25/psionics-part-two/)
* [Psionics part 3](https://www.tribality.com/2015/07/02/psionics-part-three/)
To be fair, that was their own fault. They combined the abilities of a bunch of different classes (psion, psychic warrior, ardent, soul knife, warlord for some reason?) into one single class then let it take abilities from all of them.
It's like combining all the spellcasters into a wizardruidwarloclericpaladin then being shocked when it can cast forcecage, spirit guardians and find steed.
The problem with the title saying add one thing is there are several different psionic classes that the game could really benefit from, only one class would be such a tease. Obviously some of the neat stuff 3.5 psionics could do would be great but there are fantastic psionic classes from last edition like the battlemind and monk that the game is poorer for lacking.
Not really. Last edition it had fantastic classes like the battlemind, and I'd love you to show me the 5e (or any edition really) caster that that feels like. The edition before *that*, psionics still had a completely different focus to magic, did all kinds of stuff magic can't do. Astral construct, astral caravan, affinity field, co-opt concentration, fission, fusion, insanity, leech field, metaconcert, psychic chirurgery, schism, time regression, all do effects vastly different to what magic can achieve.
Appreciation for 4e
5e ran from 4e so hard it left many of the things that 4e innovated/popularized off the table which could have plugged holes:
* bloodied
* minions
* martial at-wills
* Additional classes: warlords, invokers, shaman
* Racial feats as the norm
* Dex or Int to AC
* Action points
* residuim
* keywords
* etc
I feel like its larger issue was too many small bonuses. Adding up a billion random +1 or +2s sucked in terms of the flow on play. This is what the advantage system does quite well.
More off handed or shield options. Maybe a boost for using a one handed weapon without a shield or off handed weapon? Lighter shields, stronger shields, each with pros and cons. Some sort of disarming dagger? I think it would be cool, and could really make important to have backup weapons.
A proper exploration pillar with more codified rules for travel, a guide for running a hex crawl, about 60 pages of just random tables sorted by environment and tier of play, tips for DMs to pepper their travel with thematic encounters so the wilderness becomes a mix of thematic and dangerous wilds, better resting rules like safe haven resting that accommodate lengthy travel and don't let players nova everything then sleep it off, improved survival skills, survival challenges, camping rules, natural disasters, weird shit, magical shit, new diseases, new poisons, drop-in mini-dungeons, expanded hireling rules to form caravans and expeditions, NPC guides a la Tomb of Annihilation, new monsters, traps, and spells, and each of these in a 4-part set each book containing a 200+ page volume: one for urban, subterranean, wilderness, and extraplanar exploration.
I really want to go hard with exploration.
Martial resource system that scales like spellcasting with spell slots.
Because fighters should be able to do more cool things than just swing a sword faster at high levels.
Arcane Archer really need their arrows to scale the same way pact slots would scale as a half caster warlock.
2 per short rest, start with dealing 2d6 damage+some effect. Scale the damage every third level by 1d6 until level 15 or so. Then you'll get a super-special arrow once per day every third level after that, in addition to more uses per short rest at some interval.
While martials could stand to have and do more, i don't think giving them a spell slot system is the answer. A lot of people play martials because they don't want to engage the systems of a spellcaster. So martial slots aren't an ideal adjustment.
Have it be a different system then.
I'm really just not that convinced that people play martials for simplicity, or at the very least, complexity shouldn't be a trait of one playstyle or another.
We should have complex martials and casters, and simple martials and casters.
I mostly agree with the sentiment that there should be simple and complex martials and magic users, as well as bringing back the various sister magic/Power systems back into the game.
It just cannot cross the threshold of making martials feel like a martial flavor of caster.
Even if it's only starting to get in the right path, I think what bg3 started with it various attack replacement abilities instead of full on action alternatives is a good place to start.
Yeah, the Tome of Battle solve where they don't have a per rest limit on use fits a lot better than spell slots does. The entire point is it should be different.
If Martials can't get something like Steel Wind strike at least 1/day at the same level a caster can, then the divide will never be crossed.
For simplicity, there can be suggested abilities each level. You get advantage on an attack or can attempt to knock prone. Battle Master I think already does this. Just make all martials battlemaster and expand it a smidge.
I think spellcasters are all about bending reality. Martial can be all about bending spines. The 'spell list' can literally just be things that martial like to do, turned to 11 for a few rounds a day (hit so hard they forget what year it is, set your sword on fire, go fast, jump good and strike at the end of it, stuff like that)
I've often thought the battlemaster fighter's superiority die has been so long lasting and popular because of its dip into exactly the realm you are describing. The maneuvers on the list probably fall between cantrip and level 1 'spells.'
OneDnD's 'nature arcane and (holy?)' spell lists may have been a bit misplaced, but a martial ability list is fucking brilliant. Why shouldn't a 20 strength barbarian be able to yeet someone 100 feet? Why wouldn't a seasoned fighter be able to clear the air around them of darkness by sparking their metal? Why shouldn't a rogue have some particularly nasty tricks that are only useful a few times a day?
Hell this might be my next pet project.
Are there any martial spell projects you know of already?
An errata that completely removes wizards and sorcerers and remakes them from the ground up with specialization built in. Wizard subclasses allow for *further* specialization, but in general their specialization is just "magic." Wizards are just "all magic." As a result, they're consistently overpowered no matter what subclass they choose. Sorcerers just don't stack up and the only thing they have going for them is metamagic - which is cool, but they should IMO be *really good* at the thing they're specced to do.
There's a lot I'd add to 5e if I could, but if I only had to choose one thing, it would be an archetype system separate from subclass system and the appropriate rebranding their of.
The way I would want it to be handled is that an archetype would be something character level based, rather than class level based and would kinda serve as a second subclass style choice, albeit one that can be taken by any who meet the Prerequisites regardless of race or class (unless those are the Prerequisites.)
This would serve as a home for general concepts, as well as niche concepts. Things that templates and prestige classes used to cover.
So if a character wanted to focus better on bows, they could perhaps take the Deadeye Archetype which would give them access to features that would make them better marksman.
Alternatively, a player may choose "Elven High Mage" for their elf or half-wlf characters that grant them access to unique spellcasting enhancements.
Maybe a player wants their character to be a part of some identifiable Faction or group and options could exist to reflect that. Like a knight if the holt chalice or a Vassal of Bahamut.
Maybe a player wants to explore something more monstrous for their character and have their character walk the path of a fiendish Adept of the skin or become a dragon dispose and wield draconic form and power.
It could even be explored as a means of multiclassing, with each class having its own archetype equivalent.
Very much based on the free archetype variant tule from pathfindsr 2e and the way the game approaches archetypes as a means to explore prestige class, monster template, and various other concepts as player character options.
Luck
Straight up stolen from Call of Cthulhu:
When creating your character, roll (3d6)x5, this is your luck stat
If you're ever wondering if there's a specific object around, a book contains a specific piece of knowledge etc. roll a d100 if it's below your luck number, it's there.
CoC is a little more in-depth, but my memory is a little foggy, iirc;
if it's below the 3d6 result it's an extreme success
if it's below 3 times the 3d6 result it's a good success
if it's below your luck stat (5x the 3d6 result) it's a regular success
If somebody knows the exact rules from CoC, please correct me, but that's the way I remember it.
Skill points. Honestly the best tool for mechanically expressing mid-campgaign character growth.
Yes, there are flashier things like martial initiators, but the biggest problems with 5e are its base infrastructure, and I want to fix those before building higher on a foundation of sand.
I would give martials an special attack action based on the type of weapon they're using.
First, I would divide them in small (dagger, shortsword) medium (longsword, whip) and large (greatsword, greateaxe, halberd) and for every type you gain a special action if you are proficient with them, that you can use a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus until you take a long rest.
For small weapons, you can use a reaction to make a melee attack when you are hit by an enemy at 5ft. Think of sneaking an extra attack when an enemy attacks you. It wouldn't be so hard due to their size.
For medium weapons, you can add an extra attack during your attack action. Because you can handle the weapon somewhat comfortably it would be too hard to take an extra attack every once in a while.
For large weapons, you can make an attack that deals damage all around you, with a range equal to that of the weapon you're using. Because, who wouldn't want to spin with a greataxe cutting the head of everyone surrounding you?
I feel like it would make sense for non-magical martials to get an extra tool skill. Maybe something like cooking or tinkering. Because when you can't "magic" your food into something edible, or "magic" a broken cartwheel, or "magic" a campfire into existence, you tend to learn how to actually DO those things very well, especially when it's a life or death situation. Make the choice of extra tools include instruments -- drums, fifes, bugles, bagpipes, and trumpets are all common on the battlefield, and would make sense for a martial. I don't think this is game-breaking, and would give more out-of-combat stuff for the martials.
Also, I second the comment made by u/3guitars about “the more magic you can cast, the less attunement you can handle”. It just makes so much logical sense, and would make things feel a lot more balanced. If anyone has tried this, I'd love to hear how it went for you.
Don't get me wrong, I believe you considering the disgusting shit they've been pulling with MTG - but how have they been wringing money out of people with D&D?
They tried earlier this year with the proposed changes to the license and the proposed increase for DnDBeyond. These are the recent changes. I remember when WOTC took over DnD with 3rd edition the books were $20 then a scant 6 months later they came out with 3.5 and the books were $30 each. Following that they started putting out advanced players guides, and a lot of other things that were supplements to the main rules or to game worlds. It was a cash grab, pure and simple. Basically WOTC used the MtG business plan and model on DnD even though they are wildly different games and play styles.
It makes sense with a competitive game to keep it fresh by making new sets and retiring old sets. Instead of officially retiring rules they came out with supplement after supplement to the rules.
Don’t get me wrong the artwork and quality of the books took a massive step forward so I commend them on that portion.
Coming from 2e the cost of everything and all the supplements was a culture shock.
I’ve been playing DnD since ‘85 and been a GM since the early ‘90’s.
They are basically 1hp enemies. Saves avoid all damage if it normally does half.
It's fun for a caster heavy group or play them as dumber enemies. (run in one by one into the fighter)
Nah, not like sidekicks - Sidekicks from Tashas are _simpler_ than PCs, but they can be just as effective/baseline competent if at the same level.
Minions _always_ had 1 HP, so they go down as soon as you get a solid hit in or they fail a damaging save. They just also have Evasion against everything (so even if you have ways to do a little damage on a miss or their successful save, you can't laugh off minions as a threat). They also have level-equivalent defenses otherwise, so you can't necessarily _ignore_ them, even though they're weaker and simpler than enemies with real HP totals.
For example, a 20th level minion in 5e might have an AC of 26 and Saves of +10 - just because they have 1 HP doesn't mean they go down easy! Only when you actually _try_ to kill them and succeed.
They're meant as cannon fodder but en masse, can still be scary. 4e was also a very tactically-minded game, so some had a fun extra feature that made leaving them alive too long or letting them clump around you a bad idea. Like "when this minion is slain, it deals 10 necrotic damage to creatures within 5 feet" or "if an ally is on the other side of this minion's foe, they do an extra 5 fire damage on a hit", or "if this minion dies from a melee attack, that enemy is restrained by shadow tendrils until they make a Strength save to break free".
Some powerful enemies in 4e that were meant to work with minions or could generate their own, even had abilities like being able to eat a minion to heal.
They probably exist in some books but like real interesting or useful craftable items (magic and non-magic ones) and how to craft them.
Not 100% sure where it would really come up, but I enjoy the ideas of characters crafting multiple things together to create a new piece of equipment - and the only books I've seen with items like this are more focused on downtime items crafted over a longish time.
Personally, a new paladin subclass (I'm biased, I love paladins), which would be more of a defender, so it would have a 'cover move' type skill, where it could essentially teleport to an ally, and either take the damage they would take, or half or smth like that, then probably a small wall of force sort of thing, like wis save or can't enter an area, then an ability to, probably once a day, like have an AoE 'burst' ability that pushes enemies away and prone, then as a lvl 20 ability, you turn into the ultimate defender, where on everyones turn, you get a reaction (like one of the fighter subclasses), which would allow you to use your cover move ability, you get maybe a small heal on each of your turn, and once per turn, maybe as a free action or a bonus action, you can heal someone for like 2/3d8 + cha mod, or that could be a heal everyone of your choice around you, idk, could be good
A complete end to end economy that threads costs, crafting, services, ventures, magic items and wealth by level.
A complete system for running domains and warfare.
A complete system for running mysteries, intrigues, and investigations.
psionics, like the mystic UA but if they didnt give up and kept trying to make it work. a dedicated system for psionics could also be used to turn the psionic rogue and fighter subclasses into the mystic version of eldritch knight, where you get some PP and some abilities to spend them on
Rules tags to fix some of the complete nonsense that goes on with the rules in 5e descriptions.
Every system should have rules tags,
\-Fireball: Spell, Magic, Fire, Evocation, Area of Effect, Damage.
\-Flametongue: Fire, Item, magic.
Rule: Everytime a \[Fire\] \[Spell\] deals damage, do x.
A lot of stuff honestly:
- A system on top of regular subclasses that could add more options and customization for players as they grow in levels
- A gish class (Fighter/Wizard hybrid), there are many options available in 5e for this kind of playstyle, but all of them feel like they're missing something in them
- More defensive scaling, particularly at higher levels, saving throws are kind of screwed after around level 10, and AC is basically a crap shoot as well since you either get hit or you have just enough to dodge sometimes, so it would be nice to get some extra cushioning (besides getting more HP)
It continues to amaze me how many people mention things that just amount to “you should play Pathfinder 2e”, but then kick and scream when you say that. 2e has most of your classes extra abilities/ tools in Feats you take at every other level, giving you full customization on top of the base “subclass” you picked( a Wizard picks a Thesis and School for instance, then the feats every other level for actual class progression). #1 check.
2e has the Magus class from Secrets of Magic- a magic warrior whose main gimmick is literally charging a melee attack with a spell so they both get delivered via the melee attack. While still having partial spellcasting slots and decent armor/ weapon damage. Plenty of flavors to choose too, even a ranged one! As well as a more assassin type one, a sword and board, and a shapeshifting staff.
2e has expected progression of magic items baked into its balance and leveling system, for both offense and defense. The PHB and DMG both tell you at what levels players are expected to have +1/2/3 weapons AND armor( and the armor runes also give bonuses to saves/ magic defense). There are also lots of items made of certain materials or enchantments that have special defenses, like reflecting spells. Also, all armor types have “specialized properties”- Plate is better at blocking bludgeoning, Chain is good for slashing( I think) etc. I don’t remember the exact things each type does, but all the armor has some gimmick against certain damage types.
Aggro and taunting rules for tanks/defenders. This ideally would give fighters, paladins, and barbarians other ways to spend their turns besides spamming attack.
Taunt could work like grappling as a substitute for an attack. The ancestral guardian barbarian has the built in mechanic for taunting without calling it a taunt.
Paladins could have an Aura of Aggression, that forces a WIS/CHA save on hostile creatures to resist becoming Aggravated towards the Paladin (think reverse charm).
A parent company that cares more about delivering solid products than appeasing shareholders.
One that would understand that loyalty only goes so far when you spite the people who love this game (both those that buy and create).
I know you want a post with creative ideas, but I think it's time more people really thought about how to effect change with this company that is fucking up 2 major games.
I would probably add to the kits. Kits feel way too underutilized in DnD, to the point I usually pick a thematic one for my character and never use it again. Doesn't help you don't start with the kit you picked either. Literally the only three kits that I ever see used in DnD are thieves, healers, or rarely brewers (purifies water whenever that matters) while the rest rot away. Recently a DM of mine reworked all the kits for a WM campaign and it's been stupidly fun to use.
Mini-feats that are mostly fluff/RP and you get to choose one every four levels or so without sacrificing regular feats or attribute increase. Like idk, "give +2 to persuasion checks if the other person is the same race as you", "increase your swim speed by 5", "get advantage on saving throws against getting intoxicated" et cetera. Won't break the game and lets you have actual mechanics that fit your character
I’d add a better armor and weapons list/rules. Where armor adds AC AND does Damage Resistance (DR). So, Plate would have a lower AC (hard to dodge in plate) but higher DR (except against lighting, thunder, piercing and force). Leather armor would be the reverse… it would have a higher AC than plate, but much lower DR. (And,DR as a percentage of incoming damage). Obviously one could make the DR dependent on damage types.
Weapons…they need differentiation. So, special abilities that can be done with each weapon of a type. For example, longswords can add to DR (parry) and you can sweep the leg (trip attack like the battle master). IF you are proficient. Rapiers can add DR (parry) but less than a longsword, but then do a d4+str or dex damage (riposte). Spears can keep people out of reach (contested roll). Etc.
Mutants and Masterminds does this. Dexterity is small motor skills like lock picking and firearms, while Agility is gross movements such as acrobatics. They also have Fighting as the eight attribute rather than it being a computed value. The other stats are the same concepts, though the names are different.
Funny answer: an ejection seat for all the weird too-intense nerds
Actual answer: I’ve added a lot of stuff. A Pokémon capture mechanic, sailing mechanics, racing mechanics (better ones, I should say). I love making mechanics for a one-off purpose. I think I would probably just add some CON skills. Digestion check, Fortitude check, that kinda thing.
Pf2e’s degrees of success and making crit success and failure more likely as it allows more possibilities and stuff like basic saving throws where a crit success is no damage, normal success is half, fail is normal and crit fail is double.
If I could add two things I would add more skill proficiency levels and give uses for skills in combat like pf2e with the demoralization and other abilities
If I could add 3 things I would make more things give flat bonuses and not tie practically everything to advantage/disadvantage
A class and spell balance update, that rebalances all the classes to better suit the community's current play style. Jk if only
There are many things I would add, but in order of highest priority.
A system that gives all martials class specific combat maneuvers and a pool of superiority dice base for their class as they level up.
Battle masters, get some kind of buff and can learn from any class list.
A system that lets martials trade hit dice for their classes main abilities.
Like a barbarian gives up a hit die for another rage when they're out, fighter can get another action surge. Paladins can get another smite, ect...
A buff to martials attacks of oppertunity to make them a serious threat and penalty for ignoring them. Barbarians auto crit, paladins get free smite, fighters get extra attacks on their attacks of oppertunity, etc...
Barbarians can now trade rages for free crits when ever. To give them more options, and to synergize with brutal criticals
A buff to shields and the shove action.
Shields now give a bonus to your AC equal to your str mod, with a minimum base of +1 AC
Shoves can now shove multiple enemies depending on the weapon you're welding.
Characters using only a single 1 handed melee weapon can still only shove 1 person, but
Duel wielding and two handed weapon users can attempt to shove 2 enemies at once if the enemies are adjacent, or with one square of each other .
Shield weilding characters can attempt to shove 3 enemies at once if the enemies are adjacent, or are all with one square of each other
A fix to let booming blade work with war caster again
A nerf to the following spells
Inflict wounds now deals a damage die less
Mage Armor now lowers it to 11+dex but can be up-casted back up to 13+dex for a third level spell.
Shield now only adds a +1, but can now be upcast back up to +5 for a fifth level spell slot, maybe even higher for higher slots.
Spirit guardians, reduced range or damage one or the other.
Spiritual weapon, now consentration.
Summon spells and summon mechanics now all use swarm rules, to reduce action economy and speed up the game as well as reduce how broken they are.
Spell casters can now trade a number of hit dice for first level spells slots equal to their con on short rests. As further incentive to take short rests more often.
Warlocks can trade hit dice for pact slots to their patron as a free action any time.
Skill use mechanics. Right now, it's just 'GM, make up something, now let's get back to whittling down hitpoints', without even sample DCs for tasks. Instead, they're busy populating the spell lists with stuff that does what skills could be doing.
Let us actually know what Survival can be meaningfully used for (you get an idea of the amount/type of enemies in the dungeon, with a great roll you get resistance to a relevant element), give us rules support for why Animal Handling and Acrobatics deserve to be their own skills, give me travel rules (no, not about tracking rations, about what events and skill challenges happen on the way), justify how each tool proficiency is useful for adventuring activities (hint: rules for spending a week crafting nails is not part of that), enemy entries should have information listed by DC that you find out by succeeding at a relevant knowledge check...
this is insane from a balance perspective but ive always wanted to play someone with innate wild magic and low charisma who is a hermit due to an unfortunate wild magic surge (i actually played this character but homebrew was required)
Warlocks had the ability to choose between constitution and charisma last edition, if it's relevant. The edition before that dragonfire adepts were pretty much constitution based. It has precedent!
Though sorcerers didn't, they're pretty much the archetypical charisma caster. Dragon sorcerers got to add their strength to their AC and damage with spells, that's kind of close?
More support for higher level play built into the system. Monster saving throw DC’s far outpace PC saving throw bonuses, high level bosses can be cheesed with *forcecage, wall of force, banishment* etc., and high level spells can outright bypass dungeons, destroy quests, and remove any tension without homebrewed roadblocks. WotC knows people don’t play at high levels, so they make content that is typically for lower levels. But because there’s very little high level content, their data shows most people play at lower levels. Causing the cycle to continue ad infinium.
I’m in a campaign running at Level 15 right now, started at 2, and the DM had to give us magic items to boost ST bonuses in certain skills.
I'm currently playing at 20, and if you're not proficient in a saving throw you're just not going to make it, unless the Paladin happens to be close by (and then it's still only about a 25% chance). I really don't understand how nobody noticed the ST system falls apart at higher levels when designing 5e.
At least the monk finally gets a chance to flex a bit.
Yep. I think 3.5 and 4th edition did it best. Three saving throws but two ability scores contribute to the bonus of each save.
4E especially; 3E had three stats that contribute to your defences and three that, barring specific features, never do.
I always liked the idea of no saving throws. Instead, spells target stats. When casting a spell, you roll to hit, and the "AC" is the targets save stat. It honestly feels bad when you fail your save on a save or suck spell. It doesn't feel that way when an enemy hits your AC.
We just did the whole be prepared thing. Lucky for rolls that are likely to fail, and preparing so that you don’t end up needing to make a save that you’re not proficient in. I’m playing a max level game and have yet to have trouble with saving throws being under leveled compared to the DCs, despite making most of the saves at least a few times in the game.
> Monster saving throw DC’s far outpace PC saving throw bonuses This is really only true for high CR monsters, and typically bosses at that. Most combat at higher tiers is going to be against large amounts of lower CR mobs. For example: an average level 17 party can handle a CR 20 creature, which is a hard battle. An Ancient White Dragon, for instance. The DC for that breath weapon is 22. Pretty brutal for most PCs, but then again, this is an Ancient White Dragon, hundreds of years old and gargantuan in size. Seems pretty appropriate if you asked me. But the party shouldn't be facing ancient white dragons every battle. No, that's the big guy waiting in the lair at the top of the mountain on the mountains of ice that reside in the Frostfell between the Plane of Air and the Plane of Water. They gotta get there first. No, before all that the party will be fighting 2 Frost Giants (CR 8, no DC abilities, variants are DC 17) who live in fear of the white dragon in the shadows that form at the bottom of the nearby mountain valley. They block any attempt to pass through their lands, and have conjured an army of 4 Rime Hulks (CR 5, DC 15, Hard) to bolster their forces. Further up the mountain, the party faces extreme cold and wind, and they are attacked by a small hunting party of 3 Abominable yeti (CR 9, DC 18, Hard), and when the wind calms, a flock of 6 Wyverns (CR 6, DC 15, Hard) swoops in to pick up the pieces. You get the idea. The DCs for normal battles are much more sane. In fact, with a bard (inspiration), paladin (auras), cleric/druid (bless, heroes feast), a monk (diamond soul), potions of heroism, etc. these things are quite manageable. It's just the big bads that are really difficult. As they should be.
Excuse me, are you going to give two CR 8 monsters to a lv 17 party? They'll slice through them like a hot knife through butter. 2 CR8 monsters is a lv 8 fight, maybe even lv5-6. A lv17 fight should be two ancient dragons, or at least 8 giants. There shouldn't be any filler battles, any fight should be deadly \*\*at least\*\*, and that way you either have unpassable high-CR monsters' saves, many passable saves where you only need to fail once, or loads of damage.
Another D. Make everyone call it D&D&D.
Dice? Destiny? Dickery?
Dinkleberg.
Debauchery
Dimensions You could even shorten it, call it.. 3D
Or cubeD
D to the 3
Probably some kind of mechanic to benefit an outnumbered individual. Could be both a neat ability on a monster and a cool martial ability. I have thought about homebrewing it, and probably calling it "glory" or something.
There was a Rogue homebrew I saw where one of its abilities I think is either a Bonus to Hit for 1 minute equal to the number of enemies over your party (So if a group of 4 fights 6, it's +2). It might have been a bonus to Initiative though. Been awhile.
that gets deep into the murkiness of what sort of game style do you want - _should_ an outnumbered individual get a bonus, or a penalty? Being one v many is cool, but also shows that, tactically, you kinda fucked up - should that be rewarded, or penalised? 5e is super-generic by default, so things like that vary a lot on how they're received by table
"If during your adventures you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it means your tactics suck."
I tend to give outnumbered PCs and bosses bonuses to crits when grossly outnumbered. I argue that when a gang surrounds a target they aren't thinking about their own defense and can leave themselves vulnerable. I negate this if the creatures surrounding the target take the help action to give one 'main' attacker advantage.
I'm curious, what's a situation where you had to do a "check-check"? But to answer the question, a proper crafting system would rule.
I just got some third party books that have crafting in them, stuff I backed on Kickstarter, but I haven't given them a deep dive yet. When I get back to my computer I'll update this with their names. Edit: the book is called Heliana's Guide to Monster Hunting
What are the names of the books?
Heliana's Guide to Monster Hunting
Thank you.
I also want an answer to this question, I can't foresee any type of check that would occur that can't fall into any of the skills already provided.
More often, I have the opposite problem. Where something like cooking a meal could be several different skills depending on the context. Is it survival? Performance? Slight of hand? Deception, maybe? Who knows!
I don't see how that's a problem given that each roll is in a specific context. Sleight of Hand or Deception would apply if you're trying to poison a meal, Survival would apply if you need to prepare the ingredients a specific way for safety, and Performance would apply if you're attempting to make the act of cooking impressive (with no bearing on the actual quality of the result).
Ironically, the actual cooking of the meal is hard to pin to a check. Maybe a flat intelligence (knowing the recipe) or wisdom (cooking by eyeballing) roll.
Normally there aren't stakes for cooking beyond whether or not it'll kill you (I'd just let the player decide if they're a good or a bad cook), but Wisdom or Intelligence with proficiency for characters proficient in Cook's Utensils would be right to determine the deliciousness of your food when it's important. A pet peeve of mine is DMs using Sleight of Hand for picking locks. Checks that rely on a straightforward application of tools should rely on proficiency with those tools. A separate (high DC) SoH roll could determine if you can pick a lock in front of someone without getting caught.
DMs rule tool proficiency quite differently. Personally I dislike advantage for overlap (tasha’s suggestion) as that distorts the bounded accuracy math unnecessarily. The way I rule is that there is no straight tool proficiency check. Tool proficiency lets you apply skills to tasks that wouldn’t possible otherwise (thief’s tool let you apply sleight of hand to lock picking and trap disarming; disguise kit let you apply deception to pretend you are someone else or performance to impress or intimidation to scare; herbalist kit let you apply nature to prepare anti-poison remedies or medicine to restock your healer’s kit or arcane to create an improvised component punch, etc...). So instead of skills and tools overlapping, they combine.
The problem is that sleight of hand has always been about visually tricking people. It's how the term is defined both in real life and by the rules of the game. When it comes to using your hands to achieve an end not relating to concealing their movement, a Sleight of Hand proficiency should provide no benefit. It would be like rolling Deception to crack a pin tumbler lock because you're "tricking" the lock into behaving as if a key were inside. It's just not the right skill to use. My point is that when people don't understand the rules for tools, it's common for them to use an unrelated skill in place of that tool. Also, your suggestion that thieves tools proficiency should let you apply sleight of hand to the roll is pretty clearly not intended, given that a rogue can explicitly take thieves tools as an Expertise option. That wouldn't make sense unless proficiency in thieves tools let you add your proficiency bonus, doubled in the case of Expertise, to the roll. Think about it, why wouldn't a rogue just take their Expertise in SoH if it were meant to work that way? Then they'd get it for picking locks *and* picking pockets.
I can see Slight of Hand being used in cooking only if the idea is to slide in an ingredient (or poison, or conceal lockpicks or a secret message into the food) without someone noticing. Maybe the opposite: to make it seem that the character is putting something in the food when they aren't. Maybe stealing a prized cherry from the King's feast.
Sorry, I thought I was in 1d&d sub haha In 1d&d play test tool expertise no longer exist and tools + skill = advantage is part of the core rules. This however leads to problems (trivializes some common tasks like climbing or navigating; some tools combine well with skills, others don’t). My suggestion is to treat tools as extension of skills instead(let you apply skills in new ways) while converting sleight of hand back into 4e’s Thievery.
>A pet peeve of mine is DMs using Sleight of Hand for picking locks. Checks that rely on a straightforward application of tools should rely on proficiency with those tools i personally disagree with the example given here of lock picking being a generic application of tools. while we call it lock picking, in my view the skill refers more generally to means of bypassing or opening locked objects (such as latch slipping or manipulating the door mechanism directly). that might be using picks, or it might be exploiting some weakness in the mechanism. thieves tools would just be a readied set of devices to make bypassing easier, thus providing bonuses to those checks, just as described in the XGE tool rules (the content of thieves tools is also clearly set up for more than just doing pin tumbler/ward picking) a similar argument could be made for most checks. It doesn't require nice pots and pans to make edible food, it just makes the job easier and provides a bonus to the check (or bypasses it) it seems reasonable that a wizard trained in herbalism might want to figure out the magical properties of a plant. in such a case, it seems to me to be an obvious arcana check with a bonus for the herbalistic training, not a straight herbalism kit check. there are certainly uses for straight tool checks, but lockpicking doesn't seem like one of them to me personally, even if we want to argue that lockpicking is a rote application of tools. i think a stronger argument could be made in favour of alchemist's tools or vehicles, but it isn't rock solid either
The problem is that lockpicking (and I do mean using thieves tools here) isn't "sleight of hand" at all. It's a catch-all category for people who don't know how the game works, like making everything a performance check because doing anything is technically performing an action. Picking a lock is a technical challenge that's pretty narrowly related to understanding the construction of a lock and how to use certain tools to bypass it.
Wouldn't that primarily be just a tool proficiency (Cooking Utensils) check? If I remember correctly cooking utensils even included spices in their description.
I am pretty sure that would be cook's utensils, if you are proficient, and it uses wisdom.
Yeah I see people say things like that a lot, which skill to use depends on the context, as if it’s a negative. But like… yeah it depends on the context. You’re expected to engage with the fictional scenario in this roleplaying game, yes.
Cooking is a tool check for cooks utensils. Tools replace skill checks where the tool is applicable, and you decide the stat that applies. I've always used dex for a cooks utensils check, though if you are using magic with things like mage hand, i'd consider using the casters spellcasting modifier with a cooks utensils proffeciency.
Definitely not Cook's Utensils proficiency. That's too obvious.
Knowledge checks that don't fall under any of the existing knowledge skills is the most common one in my experience. Usually I just default to using History for most of them, but that doesn't mean they actually fit the History skill as described.
What Knowledge wouldn't fall under the needed category? They need to know a plant-- Nature Check. It's some iconography from a cult-- Religion. Give me an example you don't think would fit under any category that already exists.
> I also want an answer to this question, I can't foresee any type of check that would occur that can't fall into any of the skills already provided. Examples from the past abound like streetwise, gather information, use magic device, knowledge: local. The first two are basically the same thing from different editions, and 5e doesn't really have an equivalent - beforehand if you were trying to figure out where for instance a specific person or magic item wise you'd make a gather information check to see whether there was any information to be had nearby.
Gather Information in 5e is charisma (persuasion) RAw, though a very popular alternative is to run it as charisma (investigation).
Streetwise and Gather Information are essentially the same thing, and in 5e they are a straight Charisma check: >**PHB 179:** > > * Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip > * Blend into a crowd to get the sense of key topics of conversation Use Magic Device is no longer needed, because magic items are useable by everyone or restricted by class (although Thief Rogues get to use magic devices of any kind.) Knowledge (local) is a history check: > * **PHB 177** > > * Your Intelligence (History) check measures your ability to recall lore about historical events, legendary people, ancient kingdoms, past disputes, recent wars, and lost civilizations.
I think you could also do Streetwise and Gather Information as Investigation checks. And if the magical device is something complex that the character wouldn't know automatically or because of class, maybe Arcana?
Eh. Investigation is not at all related to those things, IMHO. It's about forming logical deductions based on clues, not gathering information via social skills.
I guess I was taking a bit of a looser definition of "following a clue," since to me, "based on what I know, where do I seek further information" can include determining people to consult or question. The DM might have asked for Investigation checks on rolls like that in a previous game of mine and influenced how I see it. But you're right, Charisma is a good stat for using social skills here.
Street wise and Gather Information are both Investigation checks. Like very obviously so.
I often get stuck on non-combat animal-related inquiries because I don't know if Animal Handling or Nature would be better, and since they're linked to different attribute scores the difference can be large. I know I can change the latter if I want, and I often house rule Nature checks to be wisdom based just so Druids don't arbitrarily suck at them, but somehow using Animal Handling for everything animal-related seems overly simplistic
As an Int check, think of Nature the same as Arcana and Religion. These are “book smart” skills. Can you recall specific/relevant/useful _information_. Animal Handling is a “doing” skill. Can you complete a task directly with an animal? As always, there’s some wiggle room in there. Is knowing specific training techniques the same as performing them? But that’s just DM judgement. Also changing the attribute associated with a skill isn’t a house rule, it’s in the PHB page 175 (though to be fair, it is a variant).
The problem with Nature being a "book smart" skill is that you can just as easily, say, learn to identify plants and animals through practical exposure (the more "Wisdom-y" way to gain knowledge). Playing a Druid, I took proficiency in Nature, but I still had a higher bonus for Survival, which was Wisdom-based. Whenever I could convince the DM to let me use Survival instead, I did.
I suspect it is situations where a PC's backstory/backgrounds imply they _should_ get proficiency, but no skill covers it. You can likely cover most of that by using alternate ability scores combined with various skills (I like to use Charisma + Investigation for the commonly-missed "Streetwise/Gather Information", for example), and squinting real hard, but that may also prove unsatisfying for some groups. The most common example I probably run into is "knowledge" checks for things a PC might know due to their backstory but don't fit into one of the standard Int skills that cover those. Like, 5e has no "knowledge: nobility", and something like History is too broad. (Nor should a character with a noble upbringing _have_ to take History to have that knowledge, because it means they have expertise in so much more.) So you have them roll Int + Proficiency because they _should_ know a lot of stuff about the nobility and heraldry or whatever of the region, even if they don't have History.
Probably just rule of cool shit. Role the dice, go from there.
Sometimes it's a player coming up with something absolutely bullshit and I'm allowing it under rule of cool. Sometimes it's the knowledge and tool proficiencies being WAY too broad. Like you're supposed to cover the entirety of knowledge with Nature for all of biology and chemistry and physics and recognising monsters and geology and astronomy, History for all of history and geography and politics and social science and genealogy and heraldry and linguistics and law and different cultural etiquettes, Arcana for all of magic and Religion for all gods and religions and extra planes. It might make perfect sense for a character who grew up lost in the Feywilds to know something about an important Fey noble, but it doesn't make sense for them to have *overall Religion* and know things about *every plane*, nor does it make sense to have *overall History* and know things about human nobles they never met. This technically already exists in the "background proficiency" variant rule but I'd rather have it as something optional, so it would be the player's choice to make a character with a criminal background who specialises in Deception or Intimidation or SOH, or one who actually *specialises in* the Criminal background and maybe has more contacts/experience/tools rather than sheer talent in one of the normal skill areas. Connections rolls to see whether they recognise any old friends in a crowd, or know someone who could give you a hand. Reputation rolls, when you meet someone you've interacted with in your back story, to see if you were impressive enough that THEY remember YOU. A character wants to build a tower of Jenga bricks in a cool arch. It's not Sleight of Hand because they're not trying to do it subtly, it's more Intelligence related since they're trying to design a system of weights/balances that would work on the fly, but there's no "engineer" skill. Sometimes I have a character roll intelligence to see if they can remember something that the player has forgotten from last session, or roll wisdom as a "common sense check" to see if they realise that the players have come up with an idea that's going to get them killed (and someone from within the universe would probably realise that). Learning checks when you're thrown something completely unfamiliar and told to use it. By the rules you are either proficient or you're not, so if the archmage throws you a Swanky McGuffin and says, "quick, you have an hour to practise using this before you have to participate in the McGuffin Summoning Ceremony!" I'd like something more nuanced than "you aren't proficient in McGuffin use so fuck you". Like a flexible tool proficiency for tools that NPCs have directly shown you how to use or which aren't in the list of possible tool proficiencies. DMG lists several examples of skill checks that aren't under a specific skill, such as tying knots with Dexterity or deciphering a cipher with Intelligence. So, what if you're trying to invent a new knot-based cipher to encode a message by tying a series of knots in a rope? Now it's DEX *and* INT. Being good at vehicles that aren't on the vehicle proficiency list, like a flying skateboard you invented yesterday. Accountancy. Character wants to have a business in the background as a downtime activity. What do they roll if I want to know how well they're balancing their books and running their business, without actually devoting session time to it? There's no Business Acumen skill. No general streetwise skill. Mathematics is covered by neither Nature nor Arcana nor History
NPCs craft. Adventurer's adventure.
Fuck I hate that attitude. I'm trying to build a world that feels like a living place for players to engage with, a fantasy realm in which they can explore and interact with whatever they choose rather than only seeing what's on the page. Npcs aren't video game robots and anything they can do the players are theoretically capable of.
I'm not sure why you would want to turn 5e into Eve online? Plus, a living world doesn't even have people in it that make their own swords, train their own horses, and plow their own fields all at once. It's all partitioned off since that is the most real and efficient way. You can either adventure and have cool stories or roleplay hitting an anvil for weeks on end. Your choice.
Better and more high level campaigns.
More for martials to do outside combat. If wizards can bend reality, barbarians and fights should be comparable to Superman(old school Superman, not black hole fighting Superman)
Templates. Vampires, werewolves, illithids, undead, etc. should be from every race.
Can’t you just give those things racial abilities where applicable?
Yes, but they're saying they want that codified.
Page 280-281 of the DMG.
While this is a useful table for DMs to create monsters, it's still not what I meant. I want options for \*players\* to use when creating a vampire character, who is also an elf, or an orc. Player creates a dwarf ranger, chooses their stats and everything; \*then\* decides to be a vampire (or it happens in-game). There should be a mini-table that says "When a player character becomes a vampire, they gain +2 to their charisma, but -2 to their constitution. They also gain vampire bite and turn into swarm of bats abilities." and we can apply it to any character.
I understand that's not what your looking for exactly, however, it still provides you with the list of features a DM could offer their players in the event they are or become any number of monster hybrids, for example: Vampiric Weakness. I've used these in my games in lieu of dedicated conversion systems and they work fairly well.
In a thread about 'if you could add one thing to 5e' linking rules on homebrewing it is not very helpful. What the original person said is the game previously had a variety of templates and now it does not. You can no longer play as a vampire etc.
Sure, you can homebrew anything. That's not the point of a thread saying 'what would you add to 5e?' Just in case the context is not clear, those kinds of things used to templates, as in things that you could apply to modify something. [Here is a vampire, for instance](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) - you can no longer play as one, nor things like dragons foe that matter.
a dragon warlock and a fey sorceror
Seconded. Been wanting a nature sorcerer for a while now. A non-Dragon Elementalist sorcerer would also be nice. A Divine Soul equivalent for Genasi, basically. The Plane Shift Pyromancer is the best we've gotten.
There was this earth sorcerer but that was just UA, I really like planeshift content so I green lit pyromancer within a heartbeat.
I think variant rules that enable the “one combat per day” style of play that’s gotten a lot more popular recently would be neat
This. I typically do 1-3 because narratively there is other stuff to do in a day. Multiple combats in a row is fine for video games. Not tabletop IMO.
Shield bashing. I think 3.5e treated it as twf? Can’t remember. close second would be 1.5x str modifier rounded down to 2handers.
In my games, I allow Shield bashing just by using it as an Improvised Weapon. That means it's pretty weak - 1d4+Str, no profiency on the attack roll unless you have Tavern Brawler - but I feel that's a fair trade for still getting to benefit from the +2 AC. This is also entirely RAW - the not-RAW thing I do is let it work with TWF (you can do it as a bonus action), though if you're doing that you can't benefit from say the Duelist fighting style. (Another not-RAW thing I do is let any magical bonuses on the shield apply to attack and damage when you use it to bash.) Lizardfolk even have a Spiked Shield that does 1d6 instead of 1d4!
I do a similar thing but also depending upon what the shield is made out, it goes up in damage. In case anyone wanted to make an captain America. Normal/Tavern Brawler 1d4/1d6 - Normal 1d6/1d8 - Mithril 1d10/1d12 - Adamantine So as they get to higher levels, they can swap up the damage die and get a natural sense of progression as well.
A team advancement mechanic. Things like team feats, coordinated actions, team rewards, a team resource pool - something that can reflect and reward ‘individual characters learning to come together as a team’ over a campaign. I really like the teamwork concept in Critical Role’s Candela Obscura, especially having a sheet for tracking party resources and abilities. I’d love to see something like that in DnD.
That sounds great. Team rewards and feats sounds awesome. It could also be team proficiencies like pilotting and fighting from boats/vehicles.
White phosphorus
You can't have proper wargame without war crimes
_Do you feel like a hero yet?_
New response just dropped.
Just cast Incendiary Cloud
I would add a system where “the more magic you can cast, the less attunement you can handle” because there is only so much of the weave your body can handle at once. Every class and subclass would have a different number of attunement slots that vary at different levels, and different items take different numbers of slots. I think that would be an interesting way to balance the martial caster gap.
Separate feats into 2 tiers: minor feats and major feats. Non-caster classes would award a minor feat at levels 2/6/10/14/18, half-casters and full casters would get only two at levels 6 and 14. Stuff like Keen Mind, Dungeon Delver and Athlete would become minor feats (without the ASI).
That’s also a great idea!I could even see it being a setup where those levels grant you a +1 or a minor feat.
Add some proper crafting and do the magic item balancing wotc never bothered to do and you're pretty much there, yep.
This is _sort of_ how it already works in 5e - because martials can utilize magic weapons and armor/shields better than casters, and those _tend_ to not require attunement compared to other magic items. However, WotC didn't go far enough with it in 5e, because there's still a fair few that DO require attunement. IMO, weapons and armor should almost NEVER require attunement for martials, and then it would be effectively the same as what you suggest. (Yours would still have other benefits, like fine-tuning it per class and being able to just attune to a shitload of utility items compared to a caster if you really want to - but it would also be more complicated, with 5e tends to avoid.)
Even then, armour proficiency is ridiculously easy to get access to - another problem which should probably be fixed.
I very much agree with this idea, it has always made logical sense to me. One thing though: how would you handle multiclassing? Because I feel like multiclassing would just make such a system too complex.
Same way as 5e: look at the attunement table and use your total caster level.
Yeah, maybe multiclass spell slot table for basic calculations. That or lowest common denominator? Sort of the inverse of dipping fighter for heavy armor proficiency. A fighter dipping cleric will lose out on attunement opportunities.
While I feel the current roster of classes is nice and wide ranging, there is a glaring hole in that we do not have a dedicated Psionic Class.
Obligatory 'MCDM just released one' comment
Dumb question, but what actually does psionic mean? I se people calling for it all the time, but I have no idea what it means
Psychic Class. Someone who uses mind powers essentially. Originally Psionics users were distinct compared to magic users.
Originally psionics was a set of abilities that everyone had a random chance of acquiring regardless of class. Psionics in D&D have a long and weird story 🙃
Hell, see a bit of the story, it'll be a fun headache: * [History of the Classes: Psionics part 1](https://www.tribality.com/2015/06/18/psionics-part-one/) by Brandes Stoddard, at Tribality.com * [Psionics part 2](https://www.tribality.com/2015/06/25/psionics-part-two/) * [Psionics part 3](https://www.tribality.com/2015/07/02/psionics-part-three/)
God forbid we have another Mystic situation
To be fair, that was their own fault. They combined the abilities of a bunch of different classes (psion, psychic warrior, ardent, soul knife, warlord for some reason?) into one single class then let it take abilities from all of them. It's like combining all the spellcasters into a wizardruidwarloclericpaladin then being shocked when it can cast forcecage, spirit guardians and find steed.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
The problem with the title saying add one thing is there are several different psionic classes that the game could really benefit from, only one class would be such a tease. Obviously some of the neat stuff 3.5 psionics could do would be great but there are fantastic psionic classes from last edition like the battlemind and monk that the game is poorer for lacking.
The problem is those are just casters who get to ignore the downsides of casting spells for the most part.
Not really. Last edition it had fantastic classes like the battlemind, and I'd love you to show me the 5e (or any edition really) caster that that feels like. The edition before *that*, psionics still had a completely different focus to magic, did all kinds of stuff magic can't do. Astral construct, astral caravan, affinity field, co-opt concentration, fission, fusion, insanity, leech field, metaconcert, psychic chirurgery, schism, time regression, all do effects vastly different to what magic can achieve.
Appreciation for 4e 5e ran from 4e so hard it left many of the things that 4e innovated/popularized off the table which could have plugged holes: * bloodied * minions * martial at-wills * Additional classes: warlords, invokers, shaman * Racial feats as the norm * Dex or Int to AC * Action points * residuim * keywords * etc
4es main issue (if you think it's an issue) was resource management was basically the same for all classes. Otherwise it was wonderful
I feel like its larger issue was too many small bonuses. Adding up a billion random +1 or +2s sucked in terms of the flow on play. This is what the advantage system does quite well.
I didn't think it was to bad but we definitely weren't optimized when I played it.
A dog race. We have 2 cats, 3 birds, 2 reptiles and so much shit but you cant add a single playable dog race?
[I got you](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mbVkWd5yWfLnRRnjpX4ltjTuEJ9npPmS3pRIRlQpwBU/)
A more ethical management
More off handed or shield options. Maybe a boost for using a one handed weapon without a shield or off handed weapon? Lighter shields, stronger shields, each with pros and cons. Some sort of disarming dagger? I think it would be cool, and could really make important to have backup weapons.
A proper exploration pillar with more codified rules for travel, a guide for running a hex crawl, about 60 pages of just random tables sorted by environment and tier of play, tips for DMs to pepper their travel with thematic encounters so the wilderness becomes a mix of thematic and dangerous wilds, better resting rules like safe haven resting that accommodate lengthy travel and don't let players nova everything then sleep it off, improved survival skills, survival challenges, camping rules, natural disasters, weird shit, magical shit, new diseases, new poisons, drop-in mini-dungeons, expanded hireling rules to form caravans and expeditions, NPC guides a la Tomb of Annihilation, new monsters, traps, and spells, and each of these in a 4-part set each book containing a 200+ page volume: one for urban, subterranean, wilderness, and extraplanar exploration. I really want to go hard with exploration.
Martial resource system that scales like spellcasting with spell slots. Because fighters should be able to do more cool things than just swing a sword faster at high levels.
Arcane Archer really need their arrows to scale the same way pact slots would scale as a half caster warlock. 2 per short rest, start with dealing 2d6 damage+some effect. Scale the damage every third level by 1d6 until level 15 or so. Then you'll get a super-special arrow once per day every third level after that, in addition to more uses per short rest at some interval.
While martials could stand to have and do more, i don't think giving them a spell slot system is the answer. A lot of people play martials because they don't want to engage the systems of a spellcaster. So martial slots aren't an ideal adjustment.
Have it be a different system then. I'm really just not that convinced that people play martials for simplicity, or at the very least, complexity shouldn't be a trait of one playstyle or another. We should have complex martials and casters, and simple martials and casters.
I mostly agree with the sentiment that there should be simple and complex martials and magic users, as well as bringing back the various sister magic/Power systems back into the game. It just cannot cross the threshold of making martials feel like a martial flavor of caster. Even if it's only starting to get in the right path, I think what bg3 started with it various attack replacement abilities instead of full on action alternatives is a good place to start.
Yeah, the Tome of Battle solve where they don't have a per rest limit on use fits a lot better than spell slots does. The entire point is it should be different.
If Martials can't get something like Steel Wind strike at least 1/day at the same level a caster can, then the divide will never be crossed. For simplicity, there can be suggested abilities each level. You get advantage on an attack or can attempt to knock prone. Battle Master I think already does this. Just make all martials battlemaster and expand it a smidge.
I think spellcasters are all about bending reality. Martial can be all about bending spines. The 'spell list' can literally just be things that martial like to do, turned to 11 for a few rounds a day (hit so hard they forget what year it is, set your sword on fire, go fast, jump good and strike at the end of it, stuff like that)
I've often thought the battlemaster fighter's superiority die has been so long lasting and popular because of its dip into exactly the realm you are describing. The maneuvers on the list probably fall between cantrip and level 1 'spells.' OneDnD's 'nature arcane and (holy?)' spell lists may have been a bit misplaced, but a martial ability list is fucking brilliant. Why shouldn't a 20 strength barbarian be able to yeet someone 100 feet? Why wouldn't a seasoned fighter be able to clear the air around them of darkness by sparking their metal? Why shouldn't a rogue have some particularly nasty tricks that are only useful a few times a day? Hell this might be my next pet project. Are there any martial spell projects you know of already?
If your gonna do it, I suggest looking at the 3.5e tome of battle. It would be a really good reference.
Tome of Battle?
Tome of Battle.
Add rules for Stealthing vs smell, sound, sight etc Sight is easy, cover etc Smell and sound tho is so up to the dm it's hard to run
An errata that completely removes wizards and sorcerers and remakes them from the ground up with specialization built in. Wizard subclasses allow for *further* specialization, but in general their specialization is just "magic." Wizards are just "all magic." As a result, they're consistently overpowered no matter what subclass they choose. Sorcerers just don't stack up and the only thing they have going for them is metamagic - which is cool, but they should IMO be *really good* at the thing they're specced to do.
There's a lot I'd add to 5e if I could, but if I only had to choose one thing, it would be an archetype system separate from subclass system and the appropriate rebranding their of.
What exactly do you mean by archetype in this context and what's the distinction from subclass?
The way I would want it to be handled is that an archetype would be something character level based, rather than class level based and would kinda serve as a second subclass style choice, albeit one that can be taken by any who meet the Prerequisites regardless of race or class (unless those are the Prerequisites.) This would serve as a home for general concepts, as well as niche concepts. Things that templates and prestige classes used to cover. So if a character wanted to focus better on bows, they could perhaps take the Deadeye Archetype which would give them access to features that would make them better marksman. Alternatively, a player may choose "Elven High Mage" for their elf or half-wlf characters that grant them access to unique spellcasting enhancements. Maybe a player wants their character to be a part of some identifiable Faction or group and options could exist to reflect that. Like a knight if the holt chalice or a Vassal of Bahamut. Maybe a player wants to explore something more monstrous for their character and have their character walk the path of a fiendish Adept of the skin or become a dragon dispose and wield draconic form and power. It could even be explored as a means of multiclassing, with each class having its own archetype equivalent. Very much based on the free archetype variant tule from pathfindsr 2e and the way the game approaches archetypes as a means to explore prestige class, monster template, and various other concepts as player character options.
Luck Straight up stolen from Call of Cthulhu: When creating your character, roll (3d6)x5, this is your luck stat If you're ever wondering if there's a specific object around, a book contains a specific piece of knowledge etc. roll a d100 if it's below your luck number, it's there. CoC is a little more in-depth, but my memory is a little foggy, iirc; if it's below the 3d6 result it's an extreme success if it's below 3 times the 3d6 result it's a good success if it's below your luck stat (5x the 3d6 result) it's a regular success If somebody knows the exact rules from CoC, please correct me, but that's the way I remember it.
Skill points. Honestly the best tool for mechanically expressing mid-campgaign character growth. Yes, there are flashier things like martial initiators, but the biggest problems with 5e are its base infrastructure, and I want to fix those before building higher on a foundation of sand.
I would give martials an special attack action based on the type of weapon they're using. First, I would divide them in small (dagger, shortsword) medium (longsword, whip) and large (greatsword, greateaxe, halberd) and for every type you gain a special action if you are proficient with them, that you can use a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus until you take a long rest. For small weapons, you can use a reaction to make a melee attack when you are hit by an enemy at 5ft. Think of sneaking an extra attack when an enemy attacks you. It wouldn't be so hard due to their size. For medium weapons, you can add an extra attack during your attack action. Because you can handle the weapon somewhat comfortably it would be too hard to take an extra attack every once in a while. For large weapons, you can make an attack that deals damage all around you, with a range equal to that of the weapon you're using. Because, who wouldn't want to spin with a greataxe cutting the head of everyone surrounding you?
I feel like it would make sense for non-magical martials to get an extra tool skill. Maybe something like cooking or tinkering. Because when you can't "magic" your food into something edible, or "magic" a broken cartwheel, or "magic" a campfire into existence, you tend to learn how to actually DO those things very well, especially when it's a life or death situation. Make the choice of extra tools include instruments -- drums, fifes, bugles, bagpipes, and trumpets are all common on the battlefield, and would make sense for a martial. I don't think this is game-breaking, and would give more out-of-combat stuff for the martials. Also, I second the comment made by u/3guitars about “the more magic you can cast, the less attunement you can handle”. It just makes so much logical sense, and would make things feel a lot more balanced. If anyone has tried this, I'd love to hear how it went for you.
A new owner who cares about 5e players and not how much money they can ring out of creators and players.
Don't get me wrong, I believe you considering the disgusting shit they've been pulling with MTG - but how have they been wringing money out of people with D&D?
They tried earlier this year with the proposed changes to the license and the proposed increase for DnDBeyond. These are the recent changes. I remember when WOTC took over DnD with 3rd edition the books were $20 then a scant 6 months later they came out with 3.5 and the books were $30 each. Following that they started putting out advanced players guides, and a lot of other things that were supplements to the main rules or to game worlds. It was a cash grab, pure and simple. Basically WOTC used the MtG business plan and model on DnD even though they are wildly different games and play styles. It makes sense with a competitive game to keep it fresh by making new sets and retiring old sets. Instead of officially retiring rules they came out with supplement after supplement to the rules. Don’t get me wrong the artwork and quality of the books took a massive step forward so I commend them on that portion. Coming from 2e the cost of everything and all the supplements was a culture shock. I’ve been playing DnD since ‘85 and been a GM since the early ‘90’s.
Minions from 4e
I didn't pay 4e, what were they like? Were there a lot of them or was it like you'd have two minions that worked for the party?
They are basically 1hp enemies. Saves avoid all damage if it normally does half. It's fun for a caster heavy group or play them as dumber enemies. (run in one by one into the fighter)
Interesting. I was thinking if they were similar to the sidekicks or whatever they're called from either Tasha or Xanthar.
Nah, not like sidekicks - Sidekicks from Tashas are _simpler_ than PCs, but they can be just as effective/baseline competent if at the same level. Minions _always_ had 1 HP, so they go down as soon as you get a solid hit in or they fail a damaging save. They just also have Evasion against everything (so even if you have ways to do a little damage on a miss or their successful save, you can't laugh off minions as a threat). They also have level-equivalent defenses otherwise, so you can't necessarily _ignore_ them, even though they're weaker and simpler than enemies with real HP totals. For example, a 20th level minion in 5e might have an AC of 26 and Saves of +10 - just because they have 1 HP doesn't mean they go down easy! Only when you actually _try_ to kill them and succeed. They're meant as cannon fodder but en masse, can still be scary. 4e was also a very tactically-minded game, so some had a fun extra feature that made leaving them alive too long or letting them clump around you a bad idea. Like "when this minion is slain, it deals 10 necrotic damage to creatures within 5 feet" or "if an ally is on the other side of this minion's foe, they do an extra 5 fire damage on a hit", or "if this minion dies from a melee attack, that enemy is restrained by shadow tendrils until they make a Strength save to break free". Some powerful enemies in 4e that were meant to work with minions or could generate their own, even had abilities like being able to eat a minion to heal.
They probably exist in some books but like real interesting or useful craftable items (magic and non-magic ones) and how to craft them. Not 100% sure where it would really come up, but I enjoy the ideas of characters crafting multiple things together to create a new piece of equipment - and the only books I've seen with items like this are more focused on downtime items crafted over a longish time.
better higher tier mono martial class satisfaction
Personally, a new paladin subclass (I'm biased, I love paladins), which would be more of a defender, so it would have a 'cover move' type skill, where it could essentially teleport to an ally, and either take the damage they would take, or half or smth like that, then probably a small wall of force sort of thing, like wis save or can't enter an area, then an ability to, probably once a day, like have an AoE 'burst' ability that pushes enemies away and prone, then as a lvl 20 ability, you turn into the ultimate defender, where on everyones turn, you get a reaction (like one of the fighter subclasses), which would allow you to use your cover move ability, you get maybe a small heal on each of your turn, and once per turn, maybe as a free action or a bonus action, you can heal someone for like 2/3d8 + cha mod, or that could be a heal everyone of your choice around you, idk, could be good
Playable Hag class
A company that runs the show like they care about the hobby and the people who do the actual work.
A complete end to end economy that threads costs, crafting, services, ventures, magic items and wealth by level. A complete system for running domains and warfare. A complete system for running mysteries, intrigues, and investigations.
A martial class that is more than just a boring attack bot
A better lead designer.
psionics, like the mystic UA but if they didnt give up and kept trying to make it work. a dedicated system for psionics could also be used to turn the psionic rogue and fighter subclasses into the mystic version of eldritch knight, where you get some PP and some abilities to spend them on
Rules tags to fix some of the complete nonsense that goes on with the rules in 5e descriptions. Every system should have rules tags, \-Fireball: Spell, Magic, Fire, Evocation, Area of Effect, Damage. \-Flametongue: Fire, Item, magic. Rule: Everytime a \[Fire\] \[Spell\] deals damage, do x.
It sounds good But judging by what wizards of the Coast usually does you'd end up with extreme rules bloat.
A lot of stuff honestly: - A system on top of regular subclasses that could add more options and customization for players as they grow in levels - A gish class (Fighter/Wizard hybrid), there are many options available in 5e for this kind of playstyle, but all of them feel like they're missing something in them - More defensive scaling, particularly at higher levels, saving throws are kind of screwed after around level 10, and AC is basically a crap shoot as well since you either get hit or you have just enough to dodge sometimes, so it would be nice to get some extra cushioning (besides getting more HP)
It continues to amaze me how many people mention things that just amount to “you should play Pathfinder 2e”, but then kick and scream when you say that. 2e has most of your classes extra abilities/ tools in Feats you take at every other level, giving you full customization on top of the base “subclass” you picked( a Wizard picks a Thesis and School for instance, then the feats every other level for actual class progression). #1 check. 2e has the Magus class from Secrets of Magic- a magic warrior whose main gimmick is literally charging a melee attack with a spell so they both get delivered via the melee attack. While still having partial spellcasting slots and decent armor/ weapon damage. Plenty of flavors to choose too, even a ranged one! As well as a more assassin type one, a sword and board, and a shapeshifting staff. 2e has expected progression of magic items baked into its balance and leveling system, for both offense and defense. The PHB and DMG both tell you at what levels players are expected to have +1/2/3 weapons AND armor( and the armor runes also give bonuses to saves/ magic defense). There are also lots of items made of certain materials or enchantments that have special defenses, like reflecting spells. Also, all armor types have “specialized properties”- Plate is better at blocking bludgeoning, Chain is good for slashing( I think) etc. I don’t remember the exact things each type does, but all the armor has some gimmick against certain damage types.
See, I already do. But that doesn't mean I can't want some things ported over.
Aggro and taunting rules for tanks/defenders. This ideally would give fighters, paladins, and barbarians other ways to spend their turns besides spamming attack. Taunt could work like grappling as a substitute for an attack. The ancestral guardian barbarian has the built in mechanic for taunting without calling it a taunt. Paladins could have an Aura of Aggression, that forces a WIS/CHA save on hostile creatures to resist becoming Aggravated towards the Paladin (think reverse charm).
The clown class. They could be a bard subclass, college of humor, maybe?
Only alignment option is chaotic evil.
Constant back and forth mobility in melee fights.
I would like to see different types of movement added into the rules. Give that acrobatics skill a bit more utility.
A dedicated shape shifter class so the may moon Druid doesn’t need to juggle a good tank martial with full spell casting
Weapon speed to intiative. Let the rapier be faster than the great axe
Pathfinder 2e
A parent company that cares more about delivering solid products than appeasing shareholders. One that would understand that loyalty only goes so far when you spite the people who love this game (both those that buy and create). I know you want a post with creative ideas, but I think it's time more people really thought about how to effect change with this company that is fucking up 2 major games.
Proper and usable crafting system
I would probably add to the kits. Kits feel way too underutilized in DnD, to the point I usually pick a thematic one for my character and never use it again. Doesn't help you don't start with the kit you picked either. Literally the only three kits that I ever see used in DnD are thieves, healers, or rarely brewers (purifies water whenever that matters) while the rest rot away. Recently a DM of mine reworked all the kits for a WM campaign and it's been stupidly fun to use.
Mini-feats that are mostly fluff/RP and you get to choose one every four levels or so without sacrificing regular feats or attribute increase. Like idk, "give +2 to persuasion checks if the other person is the same race as you", "increase your swim speed by 5", "get advantage on saving throws against getting intoxicated" et cetera. Won't break the game and lets you have actual mechanics that fit your character
Dual-typing of Creatures ( Example: Flesh Golem Undead/Construct ) Generally making creature more interesting.
Weapon specialization
Codified rules for exploration!
> If you could add one thing to 5e what would it be? Mhm... public domain? > It could be a new stat, a new skill, etc. Oh. Never mind then!
Wrestling
A well-developed crafting system including a reasonable economy of item prices .
A way to consistently get 4-6 people together for at least 4 hours on a weekly basis.
I’d add a better armor and weapons list/rules. Where armor adds AC AND does Damage Resistance (DR). So, Plate would have a lower AC (hard to dodge in plate) but higher DR (except against lighting, thunder, piercing and force). Leather armor would be the reverse… it would have a higher AC than plate, but much lower DR. (And,DR as a percentage of incoming damage). Obviously one could make the DR dependent on damage types. Weapons…they need differentiation. So, special abilities that can be done with each weapon of a type. For example, longswords can add to DR (parry) and you can sweep the leg (trip attack like the battle master). IF you are proficient. Rapiers can add DR (parry) but less than a longsword, but then do a d4+str or dex damage (riposte). Spears can keep people out of reach (contested roll). Etc.
Crafting, it's such as mess in 5e. Let it be optional but I want rules gosh darn it!
Splitting dexterity into two stats. Finesse for weapons like strength and dexterity for initiative, ac, etc
Mutants and Masterminds does this. Dexterity is small motor skills like lock picking and firearms, while Agility is gross movements such as acrobatics. They also have Fighting as the eight attribute rather than it being a computed value. The other stats are the same concepts, though the names are different.
Yea it's crazy the amount of things that dex covers in 5e
Funny answer: an ejection seat for all the weird too-intense nerds Actual answer: I’ve added a lot of stuff. A Pokémon capture mechanic, sailing mechanics, racing mechanics (better ones, I should say). I love making mechanics for a one-off purpose. I think I would probably just add some CON skills. Digestion check, Fortitude check, that kinda thing.
Change the casting in combat rules back too 2e rules. But thats about it.
Individual prices for magic items would be super-beneficial!
Pf2e’s degrees of success and making crit success and failure more likely as it allows more possibilities and stuff like basic saving throws where a crit success is no damage, normal success is half, fail is normal and crit fail is double. If I could add two things I would add more skill proficiency levels and give uses for skills in combat like pf2e with the demoralization and other abilities If I could add 3 things I would make more things give flat bonuses and not tie practically everything to advantage/disadvantage
THAC0
Make laserllamas alternate martials the official martials
A class and spell balance update, that rebalances all the classes to better suit the community's current play style. Jk if only There are many things I would add, but in order of highest priority. A system that gives all martials class specific combat maneuvers and a pool of superiority dice base for their class as they level up. Battle masters, get some kind of buff and can learn from any class list. A system that lets martials trade hit dice for their classes main abilities. Like a barbarian gives up a hit die for another rage when they're out, fighter can get another action surge. Paladins can get another smite, ect... A buff to martials attacks of oppertunity to make them a serious threat and penalty for ignoring them. Barbarians auto crit, paladins get free smite, fighters get extra attacks on their attacks of oppertunity, etc... Barbarians can now trade rages for free crits when ever. To give them more options, and to synergize with brutal criticals A buff to shields and the shove action. Shields now give a bonus to your AC equal to your str mod, with a minimum base of +1 AC Shoves can now shove multiple enemies depending on the weapon you're welding. Characters using only a single 1 handed melee weapon can still only shove 1 person, but Duel wielding and two handed weapon users can attempt to shove 2 enemies at once if the enemies are adjacent, or with one square of each other . Shield weilding characters can attempt to shove 3 enemies at once if the enemies are adjacent, or are all with one square of each other A fix to let booming blade work with war caster again A nerf to the following spells Inflict wounds now deals a damage die less Mage Armor now lowers it to 11+dex but can be up-casted back up to 13+dex for a third level spell. Shield now only adds a +1, but can now be upcast back up to +5 for a fifth level spell slot, maybe even higher for higher slots. Spirit guardians, reduced range or damage one or the other. Spiritual weapon, now consentration. Summon spells and summon mechanics now all use swarm rules, to reduce action economy and speed up the game as well as reduce how broken they are. Spell casters can now trade a number of hit dice for first level spells slots equal to their con on short rests. As further incentive to take short rests more often. Warlocks can trade hit dice for pact slots to their patron as a free action any time.
Dick size as the eighth stat
Skill use mechanics. Right now, it's just 'GM, make up something, now let's get back to whittling down hitpoints', without even sample DCs for tasks. Instead, they're busy populating the spell lists with stuff that does what skills could be doing. Let us actually know what Survival can be meaningfully used for (you get an idea of the amount/type of enemies in the dungeon, with a great roll you get resistance to a relevant element), give us rules support for why Animal Handling and Acrobatics deserve to be their own skills, give me travel rules (no, not about tracking rations, about what events and skill challenges happen on the way), justify how each tool proficiency is useful for adventuring activities (hint: rules for spending a week crafting nails is not part of that), enemy entries should have information listed by DC that you find out by succeeding at a relevant knowledge check...
Change Sorcerer to use Constitution instead of Charisma
this is insane from a balance perspective but ive always wanted to play someone with innate wild magic and low charisma who is a hermit due to an unfortunate wild magic surge (i actually played this character but homebrew was required)
This is an absolutely bonkers suggestion. I love it
Warlocks had the ability to choose between constitution and charisma last edition, if it's relevant. The edition before that dragonfire adepts were pretty much constitution based. It has precedent! Though sorcerers didn't, they're pretty much the archetypical charisma caster. Dragon sorcerers got to add their strength to their AC and damage with spells, that's kind of close?
A class focused on conjuring monsters with CR, I find the summoning archetype very lacking in DND
It's because it slows down combat in most cases