My fixes for 5th edition from almost 30 years of D&D player/GM and professional game tester

This is a LONG post, but it will be worth the read.


First, let me say I have been playing DnD for almost 30 years. My first experience with D&D was when they weren’t even book they where 5 x 8 pamphlets. I have played every edition and enjoyed them all some better than others. I am someone that didn’t like 4e as much. I think it did some things that were AWESOME! I love the abilities and making characters have unique powers, I didn’t like the over healing, and thought the tactical combat was too much of a focus, and skill challenges where a horrible decision. Home brew games were great, convention living games were horrible for the most part. I have also designed from the ground up 3 (none published table top games), and been a profession (paid for work several years ago) senior game tester for Lucas Arts.


So how do we make compromises and make the best of the best… well here are some of my ideas;


1) Hit Die (Hit Points)
I don’t like the current system at ALL. Rolling for hit points is SO CRITICAL, people get angry and then as a GM you let them re-roll anyway. SO having a mechanic like this broken imho. Also, has many others have stated the con modifier to the minimum really favors people rolling D4 or D6 over the fighter rolling d10.


So, here is the fix. Your Constitution modifier adds to the number of die you roll taking the highest roll (minimum of 1 die rolled). So my Wizard with a Constitution of 12 (+1) would roll 2d4 taking the highest roll. My Fighter with a 16 Constitution would roll 4d10 taking the highest one. I think this is a great compromise and makes Constitution more useful and players would feel better about the rolling and keep the same “spirit” of what you are trying to do.



2) Health and Healing: 
There needs to be a new system. I personally like Wounds and Vitality (you can still call them Hit points) Wounds equal your Constitution and heal either by magic (healing spells would need new math) or natural healing of 1 per day. Hit Points (Vitality) represent combat endurance and heal to full after a short rest.

Once you run out of Hit Points, you start taking Wound damage. This would increased survivability, maked Constitution a more valuable stat, and it's a pretty good compromise.


3) Critical Hits
I personally like max damage, because rolling 4 on a critical hit roll sucks! However, if you implement #1 Critical hits can still be max damage or an option rule would place a critical hit as normal damage directly to WOUNDS… OUCH!


My favorite option would be Max damage + weapon die roll (since we roll hit die and damage die at same time). It just depends on how deadly you want combat to be.


4) Spell casting. 
Well this is a tough one. I personally really like what they have done with the mix of at-wills and resource casting. I really think it’s hard to tell how it will really play out until we can test level 5 – 10. However, at 3rd level 4e you have at-wills, 2 encounter, 1 utility, & 1 daily: In 5e you have at-wills and 6 dailies, so you max in 5e is 3 encounters before you are empty and in 4E you would still have 2 encounter powers.


I’m really on the fence on this topic, BUT I would increase the casting to:
1st Level: 4
2nd level: 5
3rd Level: 5 and 3


5) Armor:
I don’t get the uproar over Heavy as much as some people. Most of my fighter/tank have never had more than 12 Dexterity so Plate Mail is always better than Medium armor. However, I think it is time the reworked the armor.. so here goes:


Armor & Shields
Light:  + Full Dexterity
Leather: AC 11
Studded Leather: AC 12
Chain Shirt: AC 13
Mithril Chain: AC 14


Medium + 1/2 Dexterity
Ringmail: AC 13
Scale: AC 14
Splint: AC 15
Dragon Scale: AC 16


Heavy + 0 Dexterity
Chainmail: AC 16
Banded: AC 17
Plate: AC 18
Adamantine: AC 19


Shields
Light: AC +1 (No penalty)
Heavy: AC +3 (Eliminates any Dexterity bonus to your AC)


6) Dexterity the Super stat
Ok, so this is RADICAL! We have always done it this way needs to change on this topic. So, here goes. Remove damage bonus from Dexterity from Finesses weapons and use Strength (like it was in 3e). Use Wisdom as your initiative modifier. WHAT?!?


I know crazy… here’s why; sometimes game balance has to take precedence over realism. Also, Wisdom is perception so I could argue that if I can’t perceive anything I can’t reacted to it. I could be the fastest gun in the west but if I’m shot in the back playing cards all that speed doesn’t help me.


7) Charisma the dump stat.
But Charisma does so much! Well, not really. So, how can we fix it. I LOVE action points. This makes NO LOGICAL sense from a reality stand point, but again game balance. Use the Charisma modifier as you action point value. 0 – 13 = 1 action point, 14 – 15 = 2, etc.


8) AoO and movement
I like the feel of the free movement. However, having orcs run by 4 characters to kill the wizard in the back isn’t fun or add to game balance. Yes the Guardian theme can stop ONE person, so 3 go by…still not fun.


There have been suggestions about giving disadvantage to people disengaging or moving through threaten areas (squares). I don’t like this because I think it will just mean people will go for the crazy super action since they can only get one disadvantage penalty (they don’t stack). Another solution could be a disengage roll. However, that adds more rolls.


I would simply say if you have been hit in melee combat on that round you cannot disengage unless you take a FULL ROUND action (hustle action) directly AWAY from the combatant. So, no additional rolls, and anyone can block by Readying an Action and if they hit it stops movement.


9) Surprise Round (removed after further discussion)
That’s all for now.

Modified Lost Mine Of Phandelver Map (removed adventure markers)

DnD Next (5e) GM 2 page info sheet

 

 

Saved for future thoughts
Didn't you already post this in the DM's Playtest forum?
The Wound/Vitality stuff is detailed in one of the Pathfinder's extra books. It's a great way to keep track of hp indeed, I liked it a lot, but I'm not up to use it simply because all of the monsters stats are made using the original hit points, so I'd need to recalculate them everytime and that kills the purpose of having ready-to-use monsters.

As for movement, I really liked the attack of opportunity from the 3.5e, it had the ability to keep players in check when they wanted to move away from enemies or rush into the reach of a dragon. It's simple and effective. I'd like to see some "disadvantages"  changed into attacks of opportunities in the DDN. 

You armor stuff is exactly how it is in the stuff I've seen from DDN.

Anyway, good additions. Many of these same areas were where I'd put some houseruling in previous edition, but with different approach.  
Didn't you already post this in the DM's Playtest forum?



I could also swear I already read that thing. 

I'll move two thing as sugestion to my The list topic.



  • Characters shouldn't be penalised for their whole life based on simple bad luck, too much is at stakes. For exemple when you roll a single HD per level. Two or three bad luck can make or break a character.

  • Every Abilities should have at least as much importance in the game.


 

This is a LONG post, but it will be worth the read.


First, let me say I have been playing DnD for almost 30 years. My first experience with D&D was when they weren’t even book they where 5 x 8 pamphlets. I have played every edition and enjoyed them all some better than others. I am someone that didn’t like 4e as much. I think it did some things that were AWESOME! I love the abilities and making characters have unique powers, I didn’t like the over healing, and thought the tactical combat was too much of a focus, and skill challenges where a horrible decision. Home brew games were great, convention living games were horrible for the most part. I have also designed from the ground up 3 (none published table top games), and been a profession (paid for work several years ago) senior game tester for Lucas Arts.


So how do we make compromises and make the best of the best… well here are some of my ideas;


1) Hit Die (Hit Points)
I don’t like the current system at ALL. Rolling for hit points is SO CRITICAL, people get angry and then as a GM you let them re-roll anyway. SO having a mechanic like this broken imho. Also, has many others have stated the con modifier to the minimum really favors people rolling D4 or D6 over the fighter rolling d10.


So, here is the fix. Your Constitution modifier adds to the number of die you roll taking the highest roll (minimum of 1 die rolled). So my Wizard with a Constitution of 12 (+1) would roll 2d4 taking the highest roll. My Fighter with a 16 Constitution would roll 4d10 taking the highest one. I think this is a great compromise and makes Constitution more useful and players would feel better about the rolling and keep the same “spirit” of what you are trying to do.



2) Health and Healing: 
There needs to be a new system. I personally like Wounds and Vitality (you can still call them Hit points) Wounds equal your Constitution and heal either by magic (healing spells would need new math) or natural healing of 1 per day. Hit Points (Vitality) represent combat endurance and heal to full after a short rest.

Once you run out of Hit Points, you start taking Wound damage. This would increased survivability, maked Constitution a more valuable stat, and it's a pretty good compromise.


3) Critical Hits
I personally like max damage, because rolling 4 on a critical hit roll sucks! However, if you implement #1 Critical hits can still be max damage or an option rule would place a critical hit as normal damage directly to WOUNDS… OUCH!


My favorite option would be Max damage + weapon die roll (since we roll hit die and damage die at same time). It just depends on how deadly you want combat to be.


4) Spell casting. 
Well this is a tough one. I personally really like what they have done with the mix of at-wills and resource casting. I really think it’s hard to tell how it will really play out until we can test level 5 – 10. However, at 3rd level 4e you have at-wills, 2 encounter, 1 utility, & 1 daily: In 5e you have at-wills and 6 dailies, so you max in 5e is 3 encounters before you are empty and in 4E you would still have 2 encounter powers.


I’m really on the fence on this topic, BUT I would increase the casting to:
1st Level: 4
2nd level: 5
3rd Level: 5 and 3


5) Armor:
I don’t get the uproar over Heavy as much as some people. Most of my fighter/tank have never had more than 12 Dexterity so Plate Mail is always better than Medium armor. However, I think it is time the reworked the armor.. so here goes:


Armor & Shields
Light:  + Full Dexterity
Leather: AC 11
Studded Leather: AC 12
Chain Shirt: AC 13
Mithril Chain: AC 14


Medium + 1/2 Dexterity
Ringmail: AC 13
Scale: AC 14
Splint: AC 15
Dragon Scale: AC 16


Heavy + 0 Dexterity
Chainmail: AC 16
Banded: AC 17
Plate: AC 18
Adamantine: AC 19


Shields
Light: AC +1 (No penalty)
Heavy: AC +3 (Eliminates any Dexterity bonus to your AC)


6) Dexterity the Super stat
Ok, so this is RADICAL! We have always done it this way needs to change on this topic. So, here goes. Remove damage bonus from Dexterity from Finesses weapons and use Strength (like it was in 3e). Use Wisdom as your initiative modifier. WHAT?!?


I know crazy… here’s why; sometimes game balance has to take precedence over realism. Also, Wisdom is perception so I could argue that if I can’t perceive anything I can’t reacted to it. I could be the fastest gun in the west but if I’m shot in the back playing cards all that speed doesn’t help me.


7) Charisma the dump stat.
But Charisma does so much! Well, not really. So, how can we fix it. I LOVE action points. This makes NO LOGICAL sense from a reality stand point, but again game balance. Use the Charisma modifier as you action point value. 0 – 13 = 1 action point, 14 – 15 = 2, etc.


8) AoO and movement
I like the feel of the free movement. However, having orcs run by 4 characters to kill the wizard in the back isn’t fun or add to game balance. Yes the Guardian theme can stop ONE person, so 3 go by…still not fun.


There have been suggestions about giving disadvantage to people disengaging or moving through threaten areas (squares). I don’t like this because I think it will just mean people will go for the crazy super action since they can only get one disadvantage penalty (they don’t stack). Another solution could be a disengage roll. However, that adds more rolls.


I would simply say if you have been hit in melee combat on that round you cannot disengage unless you take a FULL ROUND action (hustle action) directly AWAY from the combatant. So, no additional rolls, and anyone can block by Readying an Action and if they hit it stops movement.


That’s all for now.




I would really appreciate your participation in the Topic The list. It's made so we can work together to bring important points on the game.
1) I really like the idea of rolling more dice and take highest based on con mod. I've seen a lot of interesting HP systems, but I like that one a lot. Big problems I am seeing with it: If you gain con at higher level, is this retroactive? Can you go back and reroll the HP from those levels with the bonus die? What if the con boost is temporary? A magic item?

2) I agree that wounds and vitality is a better method than just HP, but I don't think we're going to see that in the core game as it is a step up in complexity. 

3)  That suggestion makes critical hits basically an instant kill. Losing a character to NPCs one hit out of every 20 is really ****. 

4) Vancian spell casting should become a module. That said, if more spells per day are given at low levels as you suggest, there needs to be something keeping it in check at higher levels. Maybe when you only have 2-3 spell levels available at a given time. So instead of 6 1st, 6 2nd, 6 3rd, 5 4th, 5 5th, 5 6th, 4 7th, 4 8th, and 4 9th level spells, you might just have 4 9th, 5 8th, and 6 7th level spells, to keep the number of options manageable.

5) Honestly, I think Max Dex from 3e should come back. When all armor+max dex added up to similar numbers, things were easier to balance out. Characters just picked the armor that used the dex level they had. The biggest issue was how heavy armors got so badly penalized for the ability to not need dex (which is an awesome stat anyway. Especially with the free dex to hit/damage now)

6/7) Attributes could use a little more balance, but I don't see action points as being the way to go. I do agree more needs to be taken off of dex, it's used for more than any other two stats put together.

8)  Opportunity Actions is another thing that seems like it's adding more complexity we won't see in the core. I think we're pretty much stuck with the 1 reaction per turn. Maybe we'll get lucky and get some special ability you can use to stop movement in an area, but I doubt it.
Didn't you already post this in the DM's Playtest forum?



Yes I did, as a GM and player playtester I put it there and in general. The forums don't move so well so yes I posted in multiple places. Shame on me 

3)  That suggestion makes critical hits basically an instant kill. Losing a character to NPCs one hit out of every 20 is really ****. 



Yes, if it goes straight to Wounds it could be. However, as I mentioned my favorite Critical rule is Max + die roll that goes to hit pints first.
Didn't you already post this in the DM's Playtest forum?



Yes I did, as a GM and player playtester I put it there and in general. The forums don't move so well so yes I posted in multiple places. Shame on me 

3)  That suggestion makes critical hits basically an instant kill. Losing a character to NPCs one hit out of every 20 is really ****. 



Yes, if it goes straight to Wounds it could be. However, as I mentioned my favorite Critical rule is Max + die roll that goes to hit pints first.



Personally, I generally use a variant of Wounds/HP that is a little more complex, to get the same feel, but without the swingy nature that usually accompanies wound point systems.

Basically, the number of wounds is smaller. You get 5+con mod in wounds. Natural healing for wounds is 1+half con mod, doubled with medical care. So a tough guy heals naturally faster than a not so tough guy, rather than taking several times longer just because he has more WP. Hit points are closer to 4e in style, and recover with a short rest.

Then, I have a Damage Threshold number. I have a formula I use for my games, but that formula really depends on what expected damage numbers are, so is pretty worthless here. The gist is that a tough character should have a DT a bit above the average damage taken on a hit, while a frail character has a DT a bit below that average. So say your average damage per hit is 40 points of damage. The Fighter in Plate should have a DT around 50, while the Wizard should be more like 25-30.

If the damage threshold number is exceded,  you take 1 point of wound damage. For every 10 points beyond the damage threshold, you take an extra wound point. So that Wizard with a 30 DT takes a 50 damage hit, he incurs 3 wound points. Critical hits cause a bonus 1 wound point, in addition to anything incurred from the damage it deals.

If you reach 0 hit points, your damage threshold is reduced by 10, and you incur an extra wound point for every 5 points of damage over the new threshold, instead of every 10. This applies to the attack that reduced you to 0 hit points. For example, the Wizard gets brought to 0 hit points with a 40 damage hit. Normally this would incur 2 wound points, but since he got brought to 0 hit points, his DT is instead 20, and he takes a total of 5 wound points in damage. A Knight with his 50 DT gets brought to 0 by the same hit, and takes only a single wound point from the same hit. So hitting 0 hp isn't sure to bring you down, but it's pretty likely to.

 A character brought to 0 wound points falls unconscious, and begins bleeding out. If the character hits -5 wound points, they die.

1) Hit Die (Hit Points)
I don’t like the current system at ALL. Rolling for hit points is SO CRITICAL, people get angry and then as a GM you let them re-roll anyway. SO having a mechanic like this broken imho. Also, has many others have stated the con modifier to the minimum really favors people rolling D4 or D6 over the fighter rolling d10.



This is a good thing. Someone rolling a d4 needs it a lot more than someone rolling a d10.



So, here is the fix. Your Constitution modifier adds to the number of die you roll taking the highest roll (minimum of 1 die rolled). So my Wizard with a Constitution of 12 (+1) would roll 2d4 taking the highest roll. My Fighter with a 16 Constitution would roll 4d10 taking the highest one. I think this is a great compromise and makes Constitution more useful and players would feel better about the rolling and keep the same “spirit” of what you are trying to do.




Nah, that creates a massive gulf between the characters, which is a bad thing. If we were talking something like increasing the die one step until it's d12, and thereafter adding a +1 modifier, that'd be something to go with, so a wizard with a +3 Con modifier actually rolls d10 for hit points, while a fighter with a +3 Con modifier rolls d12+2 for hit points.




2) Health and Healing: 
There needs to be a new system. I personally like Wounds and Vitality (you can still call them Hit points) Wounds equal your Constitution and heal either by magic (healing spells would need new math) or natural healing of 1 per day. Hit Points (Vitality) represent combat endurance and heal to full after a short rest.

Once you run out of Hit Points, you start taking Wound damage. This would increased survivability, maked Constitution a more valuable stat, and it's a pretty good compromise.



This system has been tried before, it never stuck. You'd have to do a complete overhaul of the combat system, not just change one bit here and there.



3) Critical Hits
I personally like max damage, because rolling 4 on a critical hit roll sucks! However, if you implement #1 Critical hits can still be max damage or an option rule would place a critical hit as normal damage directly to WOUNDS… OUCH!


My favorite option would be Max damage + weapon die roll (since we roll hit die and damage die at same time). It just depends on how deadly you want combat to be.



So you open up saying you have 30 years of experience and you're just talking about personal preference? I thought it would be well worth the long read.




4) Spell casting. 
Well this is a tough one. I personally really like what they have done with the mix of at-wills and resource casting. I really think it’s hard to tell how it will really play out until we can test level 5 – 10. However, at 3rd level 4e you have at-wills, 2 encounter, 1 utility, & 1 daily: In 5e you have at-wills and 6 dailies, so you max in 5e is 3 encounters before you are empty and in 4E you would still have 2 encounter powers.


I’m really on the fence on this topic, BUT I would increase the casting to:
1st Level: 4
2nd level: 5
3rd Level: 5 and 3





I suppose you've done playtesting to come to this conclusion?



5) Armor:




Who cares? They said they hadn't finalised the armor rules and that it's not what they wanted to test anyway.




6) Dexterity the Super stat
.



Con is the super-stat, not Dex.



7) Charisma the dump stat.





We haven't seen bards or paladins yet, why waste time on this?






8) AoO and movement
I like the feel of the free movement. However, having orcs run by 4 characters to kill the wizard in the back isn’t fun or add to game balance. Yes the Guardian theme can stop ONE person, so 3 go by…still not fun.


There have been suggestions about giving disadvantage to people disengaging or moving through threaten areas (squares). I don’t like this because I think it will just mean people will go for the crazy super action since they can only get one disadvantage penalty (they don’t stack). Another solution could be a disengage roll. However, that adds more rolls.


I would simply say if you have been hit in melee combat on that round you cannot disengage unless you take a FULL ROUND action (hustle action) directly AWAY from the combatant. So, no additional rolls, and anyone can block by Readying an Action and if they hit it stops movement.


That’s all for now.




That's only a problem because people are thinking in terms of grid combat. Think about it in terms of theatre of the mind combat and the solution is to have ranks, like Final Fantasy II. People in the rear rank can't be attacked by melee attacks as long as people in the front ranks are active. Thieves and the like being the exception, as they can sneak around to the back.
This is a good thing. Someone rolling a d4 needs it a lot more than someone rolling a d10.



False. A higher hit die is supposed to be a benefit. It is intended to be a boost to the classes that get it to make up for the fact that they generally can't cast a lot of nice protective buffs on themselves. If the d4 guy always has a 4, while the d10 guy is averaging a 4-5, then that d10's benefit is practically nil. Either let high hit dice be an advantage, or get rid of differences in hit dice and let fighters assume combat styles/stances that give them buffs along the lines of what casters use.

 Differences in hit dice need to be pronounced, one way or the other. 

 
Con is the super-stat, not Dex.



What? Dex adds to AC, hit, Damage, Initiative, and a bunch of skills, etc. Right now all constitution does is add to your base hit points. Dex has way more going for it, both in terms of things it can do, and general utility.
This is a good thing. Someone rolling a d4 needs it a lot more than someone rolling a d10.

I don't think anything that gives the major advantage to a low hit point class to be a good thing.


This system has been tried before, it never stuck. You'd have to do a complete overhaul of the combat system, not just change one bit here and there.

 

Not you wouldn't need to overhaul anything in the combat system, The only change that might need to be looked at would be starting hit points. And it did stick and has been and is still being used in several non-D&D D20 systems. 

So you open up saying you have 30 years of experience and you're just talking about personal preference? I thought it would be well worth the long read.

 
Sorry to disapoint you just like Wizards you can't make eveyone happy. 

I suppose you've done playtesting to come to this conclusion

 
Yes, I have. I have also read 100's of posts. My suggestion was to try and bring a balance or medium between the pre-4e and 4e players. 
 

Who cares? They said they hadn't finalised the armor rules and that it's not what they wanted to test anyway.

 
I care and just because they haven't finished doesn't mean suggestion are meaningless. They haven't finished anything yet that is the point of this playtest. Not sure why you are so hostile? 

Con is the super-stat, not Dex.

 
I have no idea how you can come to this. As from my expeince, and 100's of posts I don't see one thread calling Con the super stat. I do see several calling Dex the super stat and some saying Con is too weak.

We haven't seen bards or paladins yet, why waste time on this?

Because I beleive stats should be useful for all classes. Hence, the suggestion I am making to balance stats instead of min/max stats depending on you class

That's only a problem because people are thinking in terms of grid combat. Think about it in terms of theatre of the mind combat and the solution is to have ranks, like Final Fantasy II. People in the rear rank can't be attacked by melee attacks as long as people in the front ranks are active. Thieves and the like being the exception, as they can sneak around to the back.

 
All I'm saying is having a rule to prevent someone in melee combat where in map or mind from walking away. You don't want it ok. That doesn't make my suggestion any less valid. I personally don't think in the theatre of the mind I want an orc who has 3 melee players on him, just walking away and attacking the shortbow archer in the back. I'm not saying that a GM can't make a "ruling" on it, but having a written rule might be more helpful.

1) Hit Die (Hit Points)
I don’t like the current system at ALL. Rolling for hit points is SO CRITICAL, people get angry and then as a GM you let them re-roll anyway. SO having a mechanic like this broken imho. Also, has many others have stated the con modifier to the minimum really favors people rolling D4 or D6 over the fighter rolling d10.



This is a good thing. Someone rolling a d4 needs it a lot more than someone rolling a d10.





Actually no. The guy rolling the d10 needs it way more, because he's a front line character. You can live with a fragile wizard who sits in the back and most of the time doesn't take hits. But if the guy who tanks damage can't even do that, you've invalidated his entire level.


The concept of rolled hit points is just stupid in general. It's not even needed. Just pick a number of HP you want to give people for each class and go with that. Rolled HP is a design concept that should have died in a fire.

This is a good thing. Someone rolling a d4 needs it a lot more than someone rolling a d10.

I don't think anything that gives the major advantage to a low hit point class to be a good thing.



also note that mart of the usefullness of con in this system comes from the fact that you get your con modifyer as bonus to the dice that you use to heal.

so the main advantage of con is not that you have more HP but that you can heal for larger amounts. 
This is a good thing. Someone rolling a d4 needs it a lot more than someone rolling a d10.

I don't think anything that gives the major advantage to a low hit point class to be a good thing.



also note that mart of the usefullness of con in this system comes from the fact that you get your con modifyer as bonus to the dice that you use to heal.

so the main advantage of con is not that you have more HP but that you can heal for larger amounts. 



Given how much hit dice suck though, that doesn't really make a difference. Healing 2 more hit points per day than the next guy doesn't make you much more durable. Especially when compared to 4e where you got an extra healing surge from higher con, or 3.5 where you got to add your con mod to HP every level.

Maybe if attributes scaled a lot, to the point where at level 20 you're getting like 300+ HP from your con mod it might be worth it. But right now? Not a chance. 
This is a good thing. Someone rolling a d4 needs it a lot more than someone rolling a d10.

I don't think anything that gives the major advantage to a low hit point class to be a good thing.



also note that mart of the usefullness of con in this system comes from the fact that you get your con modifyer as bonus to the dice that you use to heal.

so the main advantage of con is not that you have more HP but that you can heal for larger amounts. 



Given how much hit dice suck though, that doesn't really make a difference. Healing 2 more hit points per day than the next guy doesn't make you much more durable. Especially when compared to 4e where you got an extra healing surge from higher con, or 3.5 where you got to add your con mod to HP every level.

Maybe if attributes scaled a lot, to the point where at level 20 you're getting like 300+ HP from your con mod it might be worth it. But right now? Not a chance. 



well with the flatter math i think they also want to go for flatter Hp progresion.
 
This is a good thing. Someone rolling a d4 needs it a lot more than someone rolling a d10.

I don't think anything that gives the major advantage to a low hit point class to be a good thing.



also note that mart of the usefullness of con in this system comes from the fact that you get your con modifyer as bonus to the dice that you use to heal.

so the main advantage of con is not that you have more HP but that you can heal for larger amounts. 



Given how much hit dice suck though, that doesn't really make a difference. Healing 2 more hit points per day than the next guy doesn't make you much more durable. Especially when compared to 4e where you got an extra healing surge from higher con, or 3.5 where you got to add your con mod to HP every level.

Maybe if attributes scaled a lot, to the point where at level 20 you're getting like 300+ HP from your con mod it might be worth it. But right now? Not a chance. 



well with the flatter math i think they also want to go for flatter Hp progresion.
 




Flatter HP progression doesn't mean that daily healing needs to be so flat. If a character has access to only 100 hp as his max, but has hundreds of HP in reserve he can use to keep going all day, that's a good thing! Characters shouldn't be stopping to rest every 1-2 encounters, you should be able to go through whole modules without taking more than one extended rest.
From the playtest you take an average dice hp when you level and only use the actual hd for healing.  I'd like the idea of something more robust for hp, but I don't want more complexity.


Dex may be a bit of a super stat, but I think that a small nerf would be better than a large one.  Add half-Dex to damage rather than none and not have it core for the fighter make it build or theme based and only rogues are proficient to use dex for finesse weapons. 
From the playtest you take an average dice hp when you level and only use the actual hd for healing.  I'd like the idea of something more robust for hp, but I don't want more complexity.



Taking average is probably the best way to handle the baseline. All the other options I like fiddling with, but I do agree should be options.


Dex may be a bit of a super stat, but I think that a small nerf would be better than a large one.  Add half-Dex to damage rather than none and not have it core for the fighter make it build or theme based and only rogues are proficient to use dex for finesse weapons. 



What that does is nerf Rogues (whose damage is already pretty pathetic given that to use sneak attack they have to waste every other round hiding, since flanking doesn't give advantage). If you give rogues full dex to damage as their feature, all that really does is nerf Fighters from being able to use dex. For example, right now I'd like to make a fighter as a race with a bonus to using Quarterstaves (maybe Humans have the ability to choose their racial weapon bonus? I dunno), and go with high dex, no str, and take advantage of the cheaper armor/better initiative. 1d10+7 isn't so much worse from 2d6+7, and getting to do that while having 18 AC instead of 15, and a +3 init mod would be pretty nice.
What that does is nerf Rogues (whose damage is already pretty pathetic given that to use sneak attack they have to waste every other round hiding, since flanking doesn't give advantage).



Not sure how much you have play tested the Rogue but he is by far the highest damage dealing class right now at 3rd level (max level right now) and his numbers just keep getting better if you look at the math.

So math: 3rd level rogue 1d6+3 attacking every round with 100% hit rate, with average damage (3.5) = 2d6+6 in 2 rounds or 13 damage. Now sneaking; 3rd level rogue attacking every other round does 4d6+3 damage or 17 damage.

Now we both know that you don't hit 100% of the time, and we also know rolling 2d20 taking highest result will hit more often then rolling 1d20. So the sneaky rogue is MUCH better. You have the same chance of getting a critical hit 2/20 chance, but 9 damage vs 27 damage is huge.

Now for you 4e fans 6th level Rogue using at-will (since you want sneak every round) power doing 1 (W) with sneak = 6d6+6 (3d6+3 x2 rounds) or 27 vs 7d6+3 (every other round) or 27. So at 6th level the 5e rogue equals the 4e rogue in damage. Except, chance to hit is better and critical damage is MUCH better. Once it's over 6th level (based on continued sneak damage progression) there is no contest the 5e rogue attacking every other round is a lot better.
From the playtest you take an average dice hp when you level and only use the actual hd for healing.  I'd like the idea of something more robust for hp, but I don't want more complexity.



Taking average is probably the best way to handle the baseline. All the other options I like fiddling with, but I do agree should be options.


Dex may be a bit of a super stat, but I think that a small nerf would be better than a large one.  Add half-Dex to damage rather than none and not have it core for the fighter make it build or theme based and only rogues are proficient to use dex for finesse weapons. 



What that does is nerf Rogues (whose damage is already pretty pathetic given that to use sneak attack they have to waste every other round hiding, since flanking doesn't give advantage). If you give rogues full dex to damage as their feature, all that really does is nerf Fighters from being able to use dex. For example, right now I'd like to make a fighter as a race with a bonus to using Quarterstaves (maybe Humans have the ability to choose their racial weapon bonus? I dunno), and go with high dex, no str, and take advantage of the cheaper armor/better initiative. 1d10+7 isn't so much worse from 2d6+7, and getting to do that while having 18 AC instead of 15, and a +3 init mod would be pretty nice.



A possible resolution here could be different fighter types.  For example instead of the slayer you have the bravado or something that uses finesse weapons. And besides a fighter can still use his strength with finesse weapons should he choose to use them.
A possible resolution here could be different fighter types.  For example instead of the slayer you have the bravado or something that uses finesse weapons.


I like that! +1

What that does is nerf Rogues (whose damage is already pretty pathetic given that to use sneak attack they have to waste every other round hiding, since flanking doesn't give advantage).



Not sure how much you have play tested the Rogue but he is by far the highest damage dealing class right now at 3rd level (max level right now) and his numbers just keep getting better if you look at the math.

So math: 3rd level rogue 1d6+3 attacking every round with 100% hit rate, with average damage (3.5) = 2d6+6 in 2 rounds or 13 damage. Now sneaking; 3rd level rogue attacking every other round does 4d6+3 damage or 17 damage.

Now we both know that you don't hit 100% of the time, and we also know rolling 2d20 taking highest result will hit more often then rolling 1d20. So the sneaky rogue is MUCH better. You have the same chance of getting a critical hit 2/20 chance, but 9 damage vs 27 damage is huge.




Okay let's clean up your math:

First, the Rogue needs Advantage to use his sneak attack. In the rules, you can't feint or flank for advantage. Your only option is hiding. By RAW you may or may not be able to hide in combat, but we'll assume the intention is the rogue can hide while fighting.

His options are to deal 1d6+3 with a +5 to hit, or deal 4d6+3 when he has advantage. Obviously the 3d6 bonus plus the increased accuracy from advantage are enough that he finds it worth it to hide and sneak attack every other round, rather than just do normal attack every round.

So assuming the Rogue always succeeds on his hide check, he gets to attack every other round at +5 for 4d6+3 damage. Because remember, hiding takes an action, so he spends round one hiding, round two attacking.

Now let's assume he's facing a target with say... 12 AC. This means he hits on a 7 or better, 70% of the time. Of course he has advantage, so he gets to roll twice, taking the better, so he actually succeeds about 90% of the time, assuming my math for that isn't totally off. (if it is please correct me)

So he has a 90% chance of dealing an average of 17 damage. He has about a 10% chance of one of those rolls being a crit, so it breaks down like:

10%-0
80%-17
10%-27

Average damage for the attack: 16.3 

But wait! This requires a round of set up to get the advantage. So that damage has to be split over 2 rounds, so he's averaging 8.15 damage per  round. And this assumes every hide check succeeds and he doesn't need to waste more actions hiding. (For example, if he fails his hide check 20% of the time, that means 1 time in 5 he needs to spend another extra action. So rather than 1 attack per 2 rounds, he's getting 5 attacks per 11 rounds, bringing the average damage per round down to 7.4)


On the other hand, let's look at the Fighter: 
At level 3, he's got 2d6+8 damage, and has +6 to hit. He doesn't waste every other round gaining advantage, he just stabs things. On a miss, he deals 3 damage. So his damage spread is:

5%-20
70%-15
25%-3

Average per hit: 12.25

So he's averaging about 50% more damage per round than the rogue, even before considering cleave, or the bonus action, or anything else.


Now if the rogue can magic tea party up some free advantage, he can pull ahead, but given that's totally DM fiat you can't really account for it, or count on it. Basically the rogue's damage output is terrible until we get some way to reliably gain advantage without wasting half your rounds.

You are right that the rogue does seem to scale better than others, but we have no way to know if the scaling will keep up as it is currently, or if at level 3 it suddenly stalls out and the fighter starts picking up. With the way hit point scaling works, if the Fighter really only gets +1 damage every 3 levels, then there's much bigger problems than rogue sneak attack.
Ok, I did get over zealous and say "the most damaging" I should have said one of the most damaging.

In my comparision I was comparing in my examples rogue attacking each round vs stealthing then attacking every other round I stand by my math that a rogue steathly does on average more damage than a rogue attacking every round.
As far as comparing it to a fighter, that is different. And harder to do since we don't really know level progression that affects damage and to hit. 

But lets look at what we know. And not a 12 AC but a Bug Bear with AC15. Fighter +6 & 2d6+7 vs +5 and 4d6+3

Fighter to hit:
40% (1-8) = 0 damage
55% (9-19) = 14 damage
5% (20) = 21 damage

Rogue to hit:
45% (1-9) = 0 damage
50% (10-19) = 17 damage
5% (20) = 27 damage

Now the Rogue gets an additional 11/20 hit chance on his roll, 2d20 best result. I'm not a statistic master but it seems close to me they both have 10% critical chance Rogue doing 6 more damage. Each round the Figther have a 12/20 60% chance to hit vs the Rogue having a 15/20 75% chance (because of rolling 2d20). So over a 100 rounds;
Fighter hits: 50 times for 14 damage or 700, 10 times for 21 damage or 210 for a TOTAL of: 910
Rogue hits: 32.5 times for 17 damage or 552, 5 times for 27 damage or 135 for a TOTAL of: 687

So yes based on what we know the fighter is a better damage dealer, the way the pregens are written. If you take a Dwarven Rogue using a great axe with a higher Strength it would be much closure. And I am personally fine with the way it is. Especially because for 50 rounds the Rogue isn't taking damage and the Fighter is.
 
Since I was comparing in my examples rogue attacking each round vs steal thing then attacking every other round I stand by my math that a rogue steathly does on average more damage than a rogue attacking every round. As far as comparing it to a fighter, that is different. And harder to do since we don't really know level progression that affects damage and to hit. But if you take a dwarves rogue with same Strength using a great axe. I bet by level 5 or 6 the rogue would out damage him. But again hard to tell without more info.



Well the original context was "No you can't nerf dex to damage because that will make the rogue suck even more"

Your response was, I quote:
Not sure how much you have play tested the Rogue but he is by far the highest damage dealing class right now at 3rd level (max level right now)



 

My math was showing how this is distinctly not true, because the rogue is 33% below the Fighter.


For fun, the 3rd level Wizard does 2d4+2 with no miss, average of 7, which is comparable with the rogue even without using his actual spells. The cleric has a +6 attack for 1d8+4, averaging just shy of 7 damage per round, once again not using actual spells (which includes stuff like 4d6+4). The other cleric has +4 to hit for 1d10+1d8+2 for an average of 8.8 damage per round, as long as he has his hour long buff up.

So basically, 2 out of 4 characters match or exceed the rogue's damage. The other two characters are the pure casters, and their damage is only slightly below, while not actually using their main spells. So contrary to being the strongest damage dealing class, the Rogue is verifiably the worst. 
So basically, 2 out of 4 characters match or exceed the rogue's damage. The other two characters are the pure casters, and their damage is only slightly below, while not actually using their main spells. So contrary to being the strongest damage dealing class, the Rogue is verifiably the worst. 


Yes I mentioned in my edit I got over zealous. But I still don't think that the other classes will out damage the Rogue in later levels (1 target damage), the rouge damage growth is exponential by earning 1d6 per level. Based on what we know if the Rogue gains 1d6 per level and the fighter gain +1 damage per 2 levels. By level 9 or so the Rogue would top the Fighter based on higher chance to hit and huge critical damage numbers.

So basically, 2 out of 4 characters match or exceed the rogue's damage. The other two characters are the pure casters, and their damage is only slightly below, while not actually using their main spells. So contrary to being the strongest damage dealing class, the Rogue is verifiably the worst. 


Yes I mentioned in my edit I got over zealous. But I still don't think that the other classes will out damage the Rogue in later levels (1 target damage), the rouge damage growth is exponential by earning 1d6 per level. Based on what we know if the Rogue gains 1d6 per level and the fighter gain +1 damage per 2 levels. By level 9 or so the Rogue would top the Fighter based on higher chance to hit and huge critical damage numbers.



First, the rogue's damage growth is not exponential, it's very much linear (+1d6 per level). It's just linear at a faster rate than anyone else seems to.

But yes, if scaling remains exactly like it looks from the first 3 levels, then the rogue will eventually outdamage everyone. But there's too many unknown factors to say that for sure. The rogue could for example have a logrithmic growth curve, where his bonus sneak attack dice start coming slower at higher levels. Even if that's not the case, Fighters could have an exponential damage growth, where they start getting more damage bonuses at higher levels. Wizards and Clerics will almost certainly have a pretty steady increase in damage as level increases. 

Basically, there's too many unknown factors to predict scaling beyond the first 3 levels. What we do know from the first 3 levels is that for those 3 levels, the Rogue is a bottom tier damage dealer, and is boring to boot because he spends at least half his turns doing absolutely nothing. 
Basically, there's too many unknown factors to predict scaling beyond the first 3 levels. What we do know from the first 3 levels is that for those 3 levels, the Rogue is a bottom tier damage dealer, and is boring to boot because he spends at least half his turns doing absolutely nothing. 


I think it's mid-tier and boring is a preference and a matter of opinion. I personally like to sneak around and pop out and do big damage and slip away into the shadows. To me that is not boring at all, it's great fun. Plus I'm not getting the crap kick out of me because I'm hidden 50% of the time.

I really think it's a big mistake to use equipment of any kind as a balancing factor and that includes armor.    

Armor is simply an item that changes your AC just like a magical item can.   Why should it stamp out your dex modifier to the extent that the game has suggested since 3e?     

For me, armor exists in the game for the same reason it historically existed.    In that respect, plate armor should be more manuverable than chain mail.    If I pay 10,000 gp for a suit of full plate then  I expect it to be the best armor that money can buy.  

But here we go again, the system is offering to screw the fighter class over simply because he is wearing the best armor in the game.     Make it expensive or even rare to find, but don't inject gamist concepts into armor.  

Lastly, I see no reason why a fighter in plate with a 10 dex would be just as good as a fighter in plate with an 18 dex.  You can ask a trained gymnast to walk a straight line and they can do it easy drunk.   I see no reason why such a character couldn't retain his /her dex in what is being referred to as heavy armor, especially a suit that is custom fited for the character in question.   


Critical Hits in a system where you have Hit Points and Wound Points:

Max weapon damage applies to your HP, and a regular weapon damage roll-no modifiers-applies to WP.  A weapon that deals 1d8+4 would deal 12 damage to your HP, and 1 to 8 points of WP, with 4 points on average.

This shows just how dangerous critical hits are.  Not only do they seriously wear you down, but they also do lasting harm. 
That warm fuzzy feeling you get when you a forum thread you're subscribed to has a new comment.
Critical Hits in a system where you have Hit Points and Wound Points:

Max weapon damage applies to your HP, and a regular weapon damage roll-no modifiers-applies to WP.  A weapon that deals 1d8+4 would deal 12 damage to your HP, and 1 to 8 points of WP, with 4 points on average.

This shows just how dangerous critical hits are.  Not only do they seriously wear you down, but they also do lasting harm. 



Except you have stuff like a fighter who deals 2d6+7 damage at level 1. Wound Points equal to con score gets you like 12 wound points that doesn't scale with level at all, meaning on average a level 1 fighter can one shot just about anyone 1 time out of 20.
Obviously the fighter deals too much damage right now.
That warm fuzzy feeling you get when you a forum thread you're subscribed to has a new comment.
I see your point though.  Maybe critical hits deal 1 wound damage, in addition to Hit Point damage.  Either that, or your WP would have to go up in level too.
That warm fuzzy feeling you get when you a forum thread you're subscribed to has a new comment.
Obviously the fighter deals too much damage right now.



I see your point though.  Maybe critical hits deal 1 wound damage, in addition to Hit Point damage.  Either that, or your WP would have to go up in level too.



The fighter doesn't really deal too much damage. He's got about 2 points average over a Cleric/Wizard's at wills, and 1 point over the melee cleric with a buff up. Seems about right to me for a low level character. 

As for how to make WP work, I refer to my post on the first page of the thread: Here

Because I was led to this thread with an overhyped title, and it massively under-delivered, this will most likely be quite snarky.


1) Hit Die (Hit Points)
I don’t like the current system at ALL. Rolling for hit points is SO CRITICAL, people get angry and then as a GM you let them re-roll anyway. SO having a mechanic like this broken imho. Also, has many others have stated the con modifier to the minimum really favors people rolling D4 or D6 over the fighter rolling d10.


So, here is the fix. Your Constitution modifier adds to the number of die you roll taking the highest roll (minimum of 1 die rolled). So my Wizard with a Constitution of 12 (+1) would roll 2d4 taking the highest roll. My Fighter with a 16 Constitution would roll 4d10 taking the highest one. I think this is a great compromise and makes Constitution more useful and players would feel better about the rolling and keep the same “spirit” of what you are trying to do.




Or, you could just have a module for fixed style/for those that love rolling. Con does need to factor into them in a meaningful way (more than Next). No reason to re-invent the wheel when there are only two choices people want.  Roll if you want luck. Don't if you don't.

2) Health and Healing: 
There needs to be a new system. I personally like Wounds and Vitality (you can still call them Hit points) Wounds equal your Constitution and heal either by magic (healing spells would need new math) or natural healing of 1 per day. Hit Points (Vitality) represent combat endurance and heal to full after a short rest.

Once you run out of Hit Points, you start taking Wound damage. This would increased survivability, maked Constitution a more valuable stat, and it's a pretty good compromise.




Really? HP is a very broad system, representing a variety of factors in combat (luck, morale, energy, actual damage). I can't imagine WotC changing something that has actually worked for each edition just because you like something more complicated.

HP + reworked surges = simple and easy.
 

3) Critical Hits
I personally like max damage, because rolling 4 on a critical hit roll sucks! However, if you implement #1 Critical hits can still be max damage or an option rule would place a critical hit as normal damage directly to WOUNDS… OUCH!


My favorite option would be Max damage + weapon die roll (since we roll hit die and damage die at same time). It just depends on how deadly you want combat to be.


Critical hits aren't that even that big of a deal, and your wound system is bad.


4) Spell casting. 
Well this is a tough one. I personally really like what they have done with the mix of at-wills and resource casting. I really think it’s hard to tell how it will really play out until we can test level 5 – 10. However, at 3rd level 4e you have at-wills, 2 encounter, 1 utility, & 1 daily: In 5e you have at-wills and 6 dailies, so you max in 5e is 3 encounters before you are empty and in 4E you would still have 2 encounter powers.


I’m really on the fence on this topic, BUT I would increase the casting to:
1st Level: 4
2nd level: 5
3rd Level: 5 and 3


Not even sure what it is you are suggesting. Tweaking the amount of spells they get I think? What a radical change that will interest all camps involved.


5) Armor:
I don’t get the uproar over Heavy as much as some people. Most of my fighter/tank have never had more than 12 Dexterity so Plate Mail is always better than Medium armor. However, I think it is time the reworked the armor.. so here goes:


Armor & Shields
Light:  + Full Dexterity
Leather: AC 11
Studded Leather: AC 12
Chain Shirt: AC 13
Mithril Chain: AC 14


Medium + 1/2 Dexterity
Ringmail: AC 13
Scale: AC 14
Splint: AC 15
Dragon Scale: AC 16


Heavy + 0 Dexterity
Chainmail: AC 16
Banded: AC 17
Plate: AC 18
Adamantine: AC 19


Shields
Light: AC +1 (No penalty)
Heavy: AC +3 (Eliminates any Dexterity bonus to your AC)


Your "rework" is tiny tweaks to the AC value. Count me not blown away. 


6) Dexterity the Super stat
Ok, so this is RADICAL! We have always done it this way needs to change on this topic. So, here goes. Remove damage bonus from Dexterity from Finesses weapons and use Strength (like it was in 3e). Use Wisdom as your initiative modifier. WHAT?!?


I know crazy… here’s why; sometimes game balance has to take precedence over realism. Also, Wisdom is perception so I could argue that if I can’t perceive anything I can’t reacted to it. I could be the fastest gun in the west but if I’m shot in the back playing cards all that speed doesn’t help me.


Cool, annoying complicated weapons that use different stats for attack and damage. Make other stats more important. Tough sell on changing Init from Dex to Wis. Being perceptive usually amounted to Suprise Round, not flat out reflexes. Dex is amazing now because the bare bones rules haven't provided any additional information on the other ones.


7) Charisma the dump stat.
But Charisma does so much! Well, not really. So, how can we fix it. I LOVE action points. This makes NO LOGICAL sense from a reality stand point, but again game balance. Use the Charisma modifier as you action point value. 0 – 13 = 1 action point, 14 – 15 = 2, etc.


I'd like to applaud you for actually posting something actually meaningful. But again, we need to see a more expanded stat system before I'd advise any radical additions.


8) AoO and movement
I like the feel of the free movement. However, having orcs run by 4 characters to kill the wizard in the back isn’t fun or add to game balance. Yes the Guardian theme can stop ONE person, so 3 go by…still not fun.


There have been suggestions about giving disadvantage to people disengaging or moving through threaten areas (squares). I don’t like this because I think it will just mean people will go for the crazy super action since they can only get one disadvantage penalty (they don’t stack). Another solution could be a disengage roll. However, that adds more rolls.


I would simply say if you have been hit in melee combat on that round you cannot disengage unless you take a FULL ROUND action (hustle action) directly AWAY from the combatant. So, no additional rolls, and anyone can block by Readying an Action and if they hit it stops movement.


9) Surprise Round (removed after further discussion)
That’s all for now.


The perils of grid-less combat. It's like playing cops and robbers as kids, except the cop decides if and when any of the attacks hit. You are trying to put a penalty into provoking AoO without actually provoking an AoO. Again, if why re-invent the wheel? If you don't want 4 orcs running around, use AoO. It's not that hard of a mechanic.

Your fixes are tiny or irrelevant tweeks to an initial playtest that fail to address the main issues between the two primary camps. Next time don't try to sell your "fixes" so hard with your "30 years of experience". "My personal views to the initial playtest" would have been suffice, because I came in here expecting actual game design, and was rewarded with a bunch of completely bias and unfounded changes, with little to no explanation WHY these changes were needed.

In case you cant tell, it REALLY irks me when people open their arguments with their amazing commitment to the game, as if it is provable in any way to the people they are talking to and somehow gives their personal views of the game more credence than the next poster. It's the internet. It doesn't.
In case you cant tell, it REALLY irks me when people open their arguments with their amazing commitment to the game, as if it is provable in any way to the people they are talking to and somehow gives their personal views of the game more credence than the next poster. It's the internet. It doesn't.


Sorry to disappoint you. The feedback from my ideas have been generally positive and liked. I'm not sure if you where expecting me to completely redo the game system. Which I have some ideas that would do that. However, since they are making a 5th edition of a long standing game I'm not in the camp that says they are trying to redefine the game completely. So, yes I made some modifications to their basic design which I feel help the system. You disagree. Thanks for you time.

Sign In to post comments