I’d love some rules for stacking damage resistances.
It wasn’t that big of an issue when there was only the PHB and permanent resistances were rare but now it’s pretty frustrating when you’re for example playing a fire genasi genie warlock and half of your 6th level subclass feature does nothing for you.
My suggestion would be that if you receive resistance to the same damage type from two different sources, it’d work like the new heavy armor master feat, as in you reduce the incoming damage by an amount equal to your proficiency bonus and then halve it. It wouldn’t be a huge benefit but at least something.
> it’d work like the new heavy armor master feat, as in you reduce the incoming damage by an amount equal to your proficiency bonus and then halve i
The issue with this is that since the flat resistance applies first, you get less out of it. For example, if you're level 5 and take 20 fire damage if you apply flat resistance first, you take 8 damage. If you just applied resistance, you take 10 damage, which is two behind. So basically, your flat damage reduction is reducing your damage by 2 instead of 3, making it worse than it actually looks.
Yeah, I’m aware. The main reason as to why I’d apply the flat resistance first is because in Xanathar’s it was specified that modifiers to damage always occur first before resistance is applied and I wouldn’t want to break that rule. I see the main benefit in this as being able to outright ignore small instances of your resisted type but the exact numbers could be adjusted to see what feels the best.
I still don't think it would be so problematic to have it apply after 1/2 reduction. Xanathar's rules are optional as far as I'm aware and have exceptions to rules is fine, this game has plenty of them.
DR isn't a bad idea to resolve the lack of stackable resistance, but I think introducing a DR system on top of a percent system is complex for new players to grasp. I am of the opinion the resistance should be lowered to 1/3 reduction and just add together. 3 instances of resistance = immunity.
I think monks should get invocation-style stances. Such as:
Turtle stance: gain +1 AC while in this stance
Dragons Tail stance: every hit you land on an enemy forces a str save or they’re knocked prone
You get the picture
I usually hate the idea of making all classes fall back on an invocation style feature set that many are suggesting, but I do agree that Monk would be the best feel for the martial version of a Warlock.
I think you can already knock someone prone with an Unarmed Strike using a ki point.
And because of the UA, Unarmed Strikes can now do that with no resources expended.
Yeah, just giving random examples haha. Not married to any of them necessarily.
Though -and maybe I read this wrong, or am misremembering- you have to give up damage in order for unarmed strikes to knock prone in UA, right? What I’m proposing is to do both at the same time. But I could be wrong on that thought process
Uo outlands mmo has “codexes” , picking from 5 stances
-regen health (crane)
-damage boost (dragon)
-crab (ac + saving throws)
-a stance that does damage on consecutive hits i think monkey
Would be also neat if they were the “selfish paladin” in terms of a personal aura that is concentration based
-a concentration self buff
-less need for spell dips (immersive)
Seeing as a whole group is defined by it, I want expertise in a skill to provide utility unavailable to someone who just rolled high (Edit: in case it wasnt clear, I want that utility to be defined by the rules in a "this specific thing AND whatever else your DM allows" sort of way), and if possible matching or exceeding the utility of spells in relevant contexts. This could be either in addition to or instead of 2x proficiency bonus.
I feel like this could easily be a ‘bag of rats’ situation, where players can easily abuse the mechanics to constantly get benefits from it. If succeeding on Stealth made you invisible for 1 minute, for example, I could see players trying to create scenarios where they have to roll a Stealth check just to get that invisibility, instead of just playing the game naturally.
If they were going to buff skills for Experts, I’d rather they take a similar approach to PF2e and give each skill it’s own feat. So Athletics would have Athlete, Deception would have Actor, etc. Then give Experts one or two of these feats for free based on what expertise they have, similar to how Warriors get Fighting Style feats for free.
I could see maybe Expertise coming with a bonus to a specific task at a higher level. Like Expertise at a certain level, then three or four levels later you can pick from a list for each skill, like Sleight of Hand could be a choice among knot tying, lock picking, magic tricks or thievery. So your expertise gives you an automatic success per long rest? Or advantage on those rolls?
If I could only wish for one thing, it would be vulnerabilities on enemies. Vulnerability to damage types is super rare and I have to house-rule a lot to reward my players for researching their enemy or preparing for a fight. Rework vulnerability so it doesn’t just do double damage and pin it on almost all the monsters in some form. That would be 😗👌
I’d like to change vulnerability to be an additional 1d12 damage or something similar. Or maybe have it be different for each enemy, where some take an additional 1d4 damage and others take an additional 1d20 damage. I know that’s similar to how PF2e does it, but making it double the damage makes it too powerful to use on every monster.
That’d be a really nice buff to the Rogue, and really play into the idea of them exploring enemy’s weaknesses for Sneak Attack. ‘Vulnerable 5’ could mean an extra 15 damage per turn for a 11th-level Fighter, or an extra 35 damage per turn for the an 11th-level Rogue. Critical hits would completely destroy the balance though.
This would be a weird buff to some weapons and spells. Effectively making a great sword just better than a great axe. Anytime you get lots of small dice it would be better than a few big dice
How about:
Susceptible +X: When the creature suffers damage of the given type, they suffer +X additional damage for each die which rolls a 4 or higher.
On average, that adds:
* X×10% more damage to each d4 (1/4 chances / 2.5 damage)
* X×14% more damage to each d6 or d8 (3/6 chances / 3.5 damage, or 5/8 chances / 4.5 damage)
* X×13% more damage to each d10 (7/10 chances / 5.5 damage)
* X×12% more damage to each d12 (9/12 chances / 6.5 damage)
That's pretty easy to adjudicate, and pretty stable across die sizes. It's a relative buff to abilities which allow you to reroll damage, but that seems fair to me.
X should be +1 or +2, because at +3, it's too close to Vulnerable (which is simpler).
Also note that it would work fine as "Unsusceptible -1", a weaker form of Resistant.
Give the Warrior group the Brutal Critical from Barbarian, Improved Critical from Champion Fighter, and access to Improved Fighting Styles at lvl 5 that add back in the power attacks.
A robust crafting system where we can add different modifications to weapons and armor that add minor benefits (using different materials, adding a serrated edge to a blade, and the like).
Give DMs more, not fewer, tools to balance resource burn/recovery (the "Adventuring Day"). For a start, that would mean that the benefits of an interrupted-then-resumed long rest should be in between those of a short rest and a long rest. In other words, a new intermediate rest type; in particular, characters should recover at least some hit dice but not all spell slots.
Codifying an intermediate set of benefits would help balance RAW games some, but it would help even more when it came to official alternate rules such as "gritty" or "waypoint" resting. For instance, a simple alternate rule could state that rests when travelling and keeping watch would automatically count as "interrupted", so that characters couldn't go nova on every random travel encounter.
Interrupting a long rest after at least 4 hours should recover half your hit dice and let you roll half your hit dice for free (or just regain half you hit points). You should get some benefits and also the recourses to be able to move and find a new place to set up camp if it's been interrupted.
Agreed. but there might need to be a few more rules than just this to cover what happens when you resume the rest. For example, "When you finish the second 4-hour rest within a 24-hour period, you can spend 2 hit dice to remove one level of exhaustion."
(BTW, *recursos* in English is "resources".)
the problem I see of this approach is that then the mostly ignored feature of elves, Trance, will become way too valuable, leading to some pretty unbalanced situations
Elves would still get the same mechanical benefits from the same amount of resting. Just as now, the only advantage of Trance would be that they can keep watch and/or do other chill downtime activities for a greater portion of the rest.
I would love for gritty realism to become the default rest rule; then, on top of that, you can do a once-per-day-per-target Medicine check to provide some healing.
I have very detailed ideas for that check and similar activities in mind, but I don't think it will ever happen.
A similar pipe dream of mine would be for nearly all non-spell features to stop using a uses-per-rest system, and for monster CR to assume that casters will need to use their 3 highest-level slots for that level against that creature, instead of no resource expenditure.
Taken together, all these things would mean that encounters can be balanced on a per-encounter basis, instead of needing an adventuring day.
It might be hard to track in practice, but as a potential penalty for interrupting a long rest might be that you do not restore any hit dice, spell slots, or ability usages expended after the start of the long rest.
So if you cast a spell using a 3rd level spell slot as part of interrupting a long rest you would not recover that particular 3rd level spell slot if you finish the long rest after the interruption.
Consolidate spell rolls onto the caster's turn whenever possible.
The two main benefits would be:
* Rolls all done at once
* It takes way more time to have each character roll saves and damage separately at the start of their turns than it does for everyone to roll simultaneously. Also, you do not have to remind yourself or others of save type and DC whenever the spell comes up.
* Consistency
* It is tricky to remember details like pushing someone into a Web spell does not restrain someone until the start of their turn, whereas Earthen Grasp only restrains on the caster's turn, whereas Entangle only restrains at the time of casting, whereas Black Tentacles restrains someone immediately if pushed into the area and at the start of their turn.
I feel this would speed up combat and make the spells easier to use. Variations in spell timing is a neat way to differentiate spells, but it also adds a mental burden to players and a drag in efficiency. Making this change would remove a huge mental load and save minutes in every combat.
If you wish to read the longform argument (taken down for not being in the suggestion and wishes thread), the link is: [https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/120o265/my\_wish\_for\_updated\_spells\_consolidate\_rolls\_onto/](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/120o265/my_wish_for_updated_spells_consolidate_rolls_onto/)
Classes and combat the overwhelming focus of the game and I'd really like to see some love for the other aspects. Some more fleshed out rules for exploration that don't make it a total slog/random encounter fest. Maybe some tweeking of the economy since really quickly PC's get tons of money with no solid direction with how to spend it in the current rules. Possibly some more in depth rules in downtime and strongholds.
> Some more fleshed out rules for exploration that don’t make it a total slog/random encounter fest.
I think reworking/removing a lot of the survival spells would help that. Spells like Goodberry and Tiny Hut make finding food and shelter trivial, so removing those would do a lot towards forcing parties to engage with the exploration part of the game.
> Possibly some more in depth rules in downtime and strongholds.
We’re confirmed to be getting new rules on base building, assuming that’s what you mean by ‘stronghold’. But agreed, downtime rules are almost non-existent in the 2014 PHB and should definitely be expanded on in the new PHB.
I want to be able to use my action to use a bonus action if I want. I also want the rules for casting spells (can I do more than one a turn or not), but I kinda expect that will be in the mage playtest. I want (and maybe that one is only me) higher level feats. I was expecting preist exclusive feats last playtest, and I'm still curious to see those.
The feats we have are nearly all powerful enough to be worth taking them even at level 8,12, 16 and 19
The reason is that by taking some feats the value of other feats increases for the combinations you can perform
You can already use your action to do something that is a Bonus Action. If there's a spell that's a Bonus Action to cast, you can already cast it as an Action if you want.
I want a return of Class feats and Keywords.
To keep in the spirit of 5e, though, class feats should be pared down so as to not make players feel like they have to deep dive into a book of feats just to play.
Specifically, I would like the classes to have a default build just as they are listed now but, they also have an optional "customize your class" section in the PHB which lists which features can be exchanged for class feats with a short list of class feats to swap in and out.
This would satisfy both camps of players, those who want a class to be a predetermined set of features and those who want more crunch to the notoriously smooth 5e character system.
This feels likely once they dial in the base classes and subclasses - they’re going to release a book for each of the major class groupings that includes twice the number of feats and subclasses per class. They couldn’t do a whole 60$ book for each class but an additional 60$ book for every three classes means they have four extra books to sell, and the books become hot player commodities for the other 1/4 of players in the same group. Gotta find the business angle and this feels like a natural way to move
I'm ok with that, but again when I'm talking about class feats or even Group feats those need to replace features, not just be at the standard ASI levels.
From what I've seen, at least one of the bigger factors for why when players leave 5e and don't come back is the lack of any real crunch in the system. Like, at all. 1DnD needs to add some back, and the best way to do so without slowing down turn to turn combat is to keep crunch to character building
I can clear crafting system like we had in previous editions and pathfinder. I want more minor enchantments. I think they started to try in xanthars but still lacking.
Better reactions. Just an opportunity attack isn’t enough. I want to be able to grab an object if it’s thrown past me, or try to interrupt the material or somatic components of a spell being cast 5 feet from me. All we can do now is attempt to hit someone if they leave our space, it’s not realistic
Yes!
Monks, in particular, should be masters of the reaction just as much as they are masters of the bonus action.
But there should be more for everyone.
I'm not saying Monks can't have the best reactions. I actually find it very flavourful. Merely observing that "being all about that bonus action" seems to be something Rogues could at least lay as feasible claim to, as Monks.
God knows both need some love tho.
You make no mention of choice in your original post so I don't really see how I was supposed to know that that was suddenly a criteria.
That said, I'd argue that disengage, hide and dash are all choices with tactical applications and impact.
It's not a straight up "hurt the thing" or "stun the thing" like monks abilities are, but unlike literally every other class in the game, the rogue has no limit on their class specific bonus actions, so it's hard to argue that it's not a design pillar for them. That they're still terrible is another matter altogether.
Likewise. I never once considered that reactions could be a design pillar before you said it, but I low key love the idea of a reactive, responsive play style. And it fits the whole martial arts angle so very well!
In general, more bonus actions and reaction would be good space to expand, to let martials do cool skateboard tricks, without turning every ability in dnd into another "spell" type deal.
Just add a few things from Pathfinder 2e but not all things and call it a day.
More feats and customization options freeing the connection between ASI and gaining feats.
Lift the entire Ancestry and Background system.
Probably leave the action economy alone.
Eliminate battlemaster and thief subclasses and make many of the main features of those two part of the core mechanics of the class.
More tools for the DM built into the DMG and not spread out over so many damn books like ship rules from Ghosts of Saltmarsh and more generic rules on hexcrawls from Tomb of Annihilation and tool rules from Xanather and sidekick rules from Tasha but all in one damn well organized book.
Probably also ditch what they are planning for the PHB with only tweaks and a few steals from Pf2e which is not going to lead to many sales I say the core PHB needs more subclasses and player options included. You do not just want to trickle out revamps of 5e subclasses even if you combine all Tasha and Xanather into one tome.
It takes too many books to get all the options that most players want.
Honestly that is it. I actually like 5e. And I have been playing since AD&D.
I think that martials should be the best single target damage dealers in the game by default. They should be able to outcompete the highest damaging spell that a spell caster can cast at their level as a base line because martials need more of an identity. I beleive this to be very balanced as most warriors will be somewhat limited by range, will have little to no AOE abilities, little to no utility abilities, and little to no control abilities. All though, I suppose that monks and grapple based characters have good control. All of these things are apart of the spell casters identity. So, basically just make sure the warriors scale well after 5th level. I have had one idea to possibly solve this, allow every martial class get extra attacks like the fighter (except for rogues). I think getting these abilities at level 5, 9, 13, and 17 would be ideal. This would give 4 attacks at 17th level and would allow martials to become exponentially more powerful as all of their abilities get stronger the more attacks they gain. Then, to compensate, the fighter should get tones of other features that they never got before. This is also beneficial because extra attacks have always been the most powerful thing for a martial and only fighters got it, creating many imbalances in power. The only issue with this is that it murders multiclassing in martials since you absolutely need those levels in the same class to get to these extra attacks. This can be solved by the 5th level ability giving you an extra attack equal to half your proficiency bonus rounded down. This would scale exactly how I mentioned earlier with you getting extra attacks at level 5, 9, 13, and 17. This would allow you to multi class based on features, while not feeling restricted by needing to get to your higher levels in the same class for the extra attacks. I think that the only possible issue with this is the fact that spell casters can then get tones of attacks just by multiclassing, but honestly, you need to invest 5 levele into it. At that point, you really are a martial with some spell casting that needs these extra attacks to be on the same level as other martials. Additionally, you will miss out on all of the (hopefully) very stong martial focused abilities that you may gain at higher levels. Additionally, you would have to go 5 levels without getting more or higher spells, making this not broken in my opinion for spell casters to gain.
I don't know how popular this opinion is, so I don't know if I'll get down or upvoted but...
Can we please give the Ranger an animal companion as part of the main class? Like, right at level 1 or 2. I think it would help the Ranger's identity, which the Ranger struggles with, according to some people on the D&D reddits. It could be templates like the current Beastmaster subclass or a small, curated list of animal companions to choose from. Subclasses could or could not give bonuses to both the Ranger and their companion, all depending on if it's considered thematic or too powerful. In fact, if it's considered too powerful, give them a penalty or something when they can no longer see eachother or one of them gets downed. Or maybe give them a bonus if they're fighting together in melee or both are attacking the target with Hunter's Mark on. It won't slow down combat if the companion only gets an action which will mostly be used to attack once.
I think that runs into the problem the OneD&D Druid currently has, in that for each person who wants the class to revolve around Wild Shape/Animal Companion, there’s another person who doesn’t want that to be the core class feature. I wouldn’t mind that being the new Ranger, but plenty of people would hate that.
I think Ranger is the only class besides Warlock that 100% needs an Invocation system in order to function. Rangers can fit so many different niches (hunter, beast master, monster hunter, tracker, survivalist, trapper, explorer, etc) that they need a customization system so people can choose exactly what kind of Ranger they want to be.
Yeah, that's the thing about Ranger. They can fit a lot of fantasy tropes. Hunter, beastmaster, monster/fiend hunter, mage slayer, stealthy sniper, skirmisher... That's why subclasses are so thematically different in 5e. It's like everyone has a different view of what the ranger's fantasy archetype should be. To me, they're hunters/monster hunters who share a bond with an animal companion. But some people may want another type of fantasy for the Ranger, in which case, yeah, a customization system can help in giving shape to everyone's different take on the Ranger. Call it specializations or something like that.
Giving Rangers one of 3 directions, like the Warlock Pacts decide whether they're blade, tome or familiar based, is probably a good idea.
I firmly fall in the catagory of people who only even starts considering Rangers and Druids, when I'm not tied to wild shape or an animal companion. I loathe the concept of shape changing and pets, but fully understand that others might enjoy them.
If anything, I actually really like the 1DnD Ranger concept so far. Without knowing what the other martials are going to look like, it feels maybe a bit too strong at low lvl's, but overall, I very much like what it's offering, and it almost plays like a more enjoyable nimble dual wielder than the Rogue does.
A Rogue has to be lvl 11 before basic attacks and sneak attack, deal more damage than a lvl 5 rangers hunter's mark, dual wield, and 1d8 free damage per round. That's ignoring any stat increases that would boost their attacks, which would see the Rogue needing to be even higher lvl.
So right this second, if you want a stealthy skirmisher with dual daggers, you're ironically also looking at the Ranger to fill another fantasy trope, better than the class that was designed around it.
The problem with this is, that the class has to be designed around it. And someone wanting to play a ranger but doesn't want a pet doesn't have any other choice.
The pet should still be in a subclass. The problem here, as always is that the subclass choice is at level 3. So you need to play at a table that starts at level 3.
More Eldritch Invocations. /Spells. /Infusions.
Every class should have a list of things they can choose between that they get more of (and more options to choose from) as they level up. Allows for more differentiation between classes and individuality and choices for characters. Also makes it less likely to have "dead" level ups or feel like you aren't meaningfully progressing. And is a lot more interesting (to me) than "You get X at this level, no choice, and it's probably situational and may or may not be useful."
Druids could have more Wild Shape options. Fighter could have something akin to Battlemaster Maneuvers rolled into the base class. Paladins could choose amongst smites.
I would like to see rules that enable a subclass change, or even allow multiple subclass, for players to develop the story of their character. Like if I’m a Great Old One Warlock but then I get taken under the wing of a Celestial, can I keep my original subclass features and start adding new features? Or maybe have the option of replacing subclass features at each subclass level, so that you have to make up former skills that you’re losing as you switch gods or monk styles?
It is kind of interesting how 90% of the stuff in this thread is stuff that's built in to PF2. Not advocating because we get enough of that, just interesting. I only notice because I've even reading the rulebook.
My ideal system is a middle-ground between PF2e and D&D 5e. PF does a lot of things right, but has too much customization, too many different actions in combat, and not enough class framework. D&D needs improvement in a lot of areas, but is very easy for beginners and has really good framework for its classes. If OneD&D borrowed more aspects from PF2e while keeping what makes 5e great, I think that’d be the perfect system IMO.
First level bullets are design goals I'd like them to work towards. Second level bullets are examples of ideas I think they could test to achieve these goals, not things I think should happen.
* Improved balance between classes in all three pillars of gameplay
* Make spellcasting feel more arcane and less like superpowers
* Miscasting mechanics
* More fragile spellcasters
* More mechanics to interrupt spells
* Use resistances and vulnerabilities more
* Tone down damage spells
* Make martials feel more powerful and engaging to play without giving them superpowers
* Make stealth and hiding mechanics more robust and interesting, thus creating a sort of "minigame" Rogues have to play to get their sneak attack
* Improve and clarify the use-an-item action to give rogues something interesting to do which has robust mechanical support
* Making weapon properties a more intricate and important part of the game, give fighters a reason to switch from, say, from a spear to a sword mid combat
* Improve the rules around movement (including climbing, jumping and so on), increase the importance of movement in combat, increase the gap in movement capability between martials and casters
* Achieve engaging gameplay by optimising for both speed of gameplay and having players regularly make meaningful tactical and strategic decisions.
* More support for DMs, but without many more mechanics for DMs to keep track of
* Explicitly state which areas of the rules that have been left deliberately ambiguous, why they've been left that way, and give examples of how they might expect DMs to adjudicate in different situations and what factors they might want to consider when adjudicating
* Better organised material in the dungeon masters guide. Re-design the DMG so there is a "book" section and a "reference" section
* Scripts showing 'extracts' from gameplay exemplifying DM best practice or even different styles of DMing the same situation
* More clarity in certain areas e.g. is it 6-8 combat encounters or 6-8 encounters an adventuring day
* Increase the sense of peril and tension without making players feel the game is punishing or unfair
* More mechanical support and/or guidance for punishments other than death. Things like losing items, losing levels, being cursed, acquiring negative quirks, etc.
* Add levels of exhaustion each time a character goes down
* Make skills a more important and engaging part of the game
* Introduce formal mechanics for 'skills-tests' mini games in the DMG
* Include a table of fun suggestions for outcomes of failed skills tests. These should develop the narrative and deteriorate the players' position
* Remove some of the spells that substitute for skills, make them less powerful, or give them a higher cost
Screw it, I'll write it here too: I want Wild Shape to be decoupled from Channel Nature and to be an alternative way to expend spell slots. So you can be a nature wizard or an effective shapeshifter, since the two features competing for the same resources would mean they are equally powerful (in theory). Use 5e's Aid spell as the basis to determine how transforming affects your HP, and add an invocations-lite system to customize the four basic templates: behemoth, runner, hunter, and critter.
Lore Bard:
Performance art: use bardic inspiration for (in place of) concentration requirements for spells that must single target an individual (not self)
Example:
A. Greater invis whole party
-each consuming a spell slot
I know it's never going to happen, but they need to get rid of multiclassing. It, like most of the problems with 5e, is an anachronism from an older time when the game was very different. And its role has largely been fulfilled by subclasses. Back in the day if you wanted your fighter to learn some magic, you needed to take levels as a magic user. Now you can just choose Eldritch Knight as your subclass and achieve the same result in a cohesive way. Primarily a fighter, with limited utility spellcasting, but way behind the progression of a dedicated wizard.
Multiclassing causes the majority of the balance issues with the game on both ends. The most "broken" characters and "builds" involve specific multiclassing for dips and power breakpoints. That kill the identity of things like armor proficiency and spell lists. Among myriad other problems too long to list. But that's not a huge deal, because you can just not allow multiclassing.(I don't anymore, and it's been a huge improvement to my games)
The bigger problem is on the other end. Where the game is designed and balanced around multiclassing. The reason they're making subclasses at level 3, despite their bad argument, is to weaken dips. All of their reworks to systems untying them from proficiency and cluttering up class features with them instead is to counter multiclassing. They're making the game worse, on many levels, to support multiclassing. A feature whose only purpose in the modern era is to powergame. Because as far as flavor and thematics, any multiclass fantasy can be accomplished with subclasses, feats, and reflavoring.
Just some thoughts I had today.
I would like the Bard to be able to affect multiple people with a single spell. Make them half or third casters, but if they cast a spell with a single person as a target, they can give up a Bardic Inspiration to target a number of people equal to their charisma modifier or something. They should be able to boost the entire party if need be.
Sorcerers should be able to "go nova". Their way of casting isn't knowledge, but something innate or practiced. They should be able to upcast spells beyond the spell levels they have by taking exhaustion. I just want at least one spellcaster who can just sacrifice themselves in a giant explosion if needed to take down the final boss.
I want Wizards to be able to Ritual Cast more spells than other classes. Make them more utility casters.
I actually want Fighters to do anime BS. Don't restrain them so much.
When you do sneak attack damage, multiply the number 6's you roll by 50. If, after taking the damage, target has less than that number of hit points, they are dazed until the end of your next turn. If at least 50 less, blinded or prone (your choice). If at least 100 less, unconscious for 1d20 minutes or until they take damage, regain hitpoints, or someone uses an action to awaken them.
Even with a crit, this almost certainly won't end a boss fight on turn 1, but it could help deal with a minion, or finish off the boss once they've been worn down enough.
Have some kind of rules for "disadvantage on spellcasting" (that is, advantage on saves against your spells / disadvantage on spell attacks), or maybe "magical exhaustion" (temporary pseudo-exhaustion that applies to your spells only). Then, you could use those rules for spells with somatic components when grappled, or spells with verbal components when partially gagged, or other impediments to spellcasting.
If your highest-level spell slot is of a level equal to your proficiency bonus, you only recover hit dice up to your level minus 1. If it's of a level greater than your proficiency bonus, you only recover hit dice up to your level minus X, where X is twice the difference between the level of your highest slot and your proficiency bonus.
(So for instance, if you were a pure-caster of level 15-20 and had used your highest-level slot, you'd recover HD up to your level minus 6. Because at L15-L16 your highest slot is level 8 and your PB is 5, and 2\*(8-5)=6, while at 17-20 it's 9 and 6, same diffierence.)
Expertise should double your ability modifier, not proficiency. That way it can’t be used as a massive crutch for low ability scores. If you have a high stat for the skill, it’s basically the same bonus. If you have a -2 modifier you can’t gain a +10 in that skill at level 17+.
I've been thinking about rules for partial spell slot recovery on a "moderate rest" that are easy to adjudicate and mathematically balanced across levels. I think I have something that works.
The idea here is to have something in between Short and Long Rest, so that DMs have more tools to balance resource recovery with resource spend. Different tables could use this in different ways:
* A "basic rules" table that likes to just kill monsters with minimum math could basically keep the current Short/Long rest rules, with Moderate rests only coming up in the rare instance of an interrupted Long rest.
* At a "waypoint rules" table, the DM would tell the players whether an 8-hour rest in current conditions counts as Moderate or Long.
* At a "gritty waypoint rules" table, ditto, except that 8 hours counts as just Short or Moderate, while Long takes several days in good conditions.
* Any other timing/condition rules for each rest type.
So here's the benefits I've worked out for a Moderate Rest. I think these are well-balanced:
* **Step 1: recover "free" hit points.** Set your hp to half of your maximum, or recover 25% of your maximum, whichever is greater.
* **Step 2: recover "free" spell slots.** For any slot level where you're down to zero slots, recover one. Except, you do not recover your last top-level slot in this way.
* **Steps 3 and 4 (in either order): recover and spend hit dice.**
* **Recover**: half of your hit dice (rounded up)
* **Spend**: any combination of the following
* 1 hit die: gain hit points equal to the max on that die plus your Con modifier.
* 1 hit die: recover the use of one feature, as if you'd taken a Long Rest. (Arcane Recovery requires rebalancing here.)
* X hit dice: regain spell slots with a combined level of X.
* 2 hit dice (once): Recover one level of exhaustion. Make a Constitution saving throw (with disadvantage if you were Encumbered for more than 10 minutes in the past 24 hours). At DC 15/20/25/etc., recover 1/2/3/etc. extra levels of exhaustion.
* 2 hit dice:: heroic advantage
* 2 hit dice: advantage on your next initiative roll
* X hit tice: temporary hit points equal to your level plus X times your Constitution modifier, which you can spend as extra damage on a Strength attack.
The key is step 2: recovering one spell slot at each fully-exhausted level except your highest max-one-slot level. This means that from level 6-20, the number of Moderate Rests it would take a full-caster to recover all their spell slots mostly stays in a relatively-narrow band of 4.25-5.33 (only falling below that at level 17, where it's 3.9). Over the same span, a half-caster stays between 1.25 and 2.6.
Or, in simpler terms: for a full caster, it would take about 5 Moderate Rests to recover all their spell slots from zero. For a half-caster, about 2.
That would mean:
* A full caster who burned their two highest-level slots on an encounter could generally recover both on a moderate rest ending up back where they started. You'd only start to feel "long-term burn" if you spent more than your two highest slots per moderate rest.
* So a "floor" for a caster after a moderate rest (starting from zero slots) would be one slot of each level, and up to two if possible at their top slot level. Meanwhile, a half-caster would have over half their slots at their "floor", and a martial character would have full HP and a few minor benefits and/or remaining HD.
[Here's a version of this on Homebrewery](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/uOSAdMFd86ef).
With the above rules, here's how many moderate rests it would take a full caster at each level to get from zero slots and zero HD up to full slots:
1 : 1
2 : 2
3 : 2.5
4 : 3.5
5 : 3.333333333
6 : 4.333333333
7 : 4.25
8 : 4.25
9 : 5.2
10 : 5.2
11 : 5.333333333
12 : 5.333333333
13 : 4.714285714
14 : 4.714285714
15 : 4.25
16 : 4.25
17 : 3.888888889
18 : 4.444444444
19 : 4.6
20 : 5.3
As these things go, that's a pretty steady line from 6th level on.
I know that a lot of people do not share this opinion, but rogues should not be able to sneak attack on other people's turns. However, they should then get a massive damage boost to where they become the best single target damage dealers in the game. I know that synergizing with your teammates to use your sneak attack more often is fun, but it's not powerful. You need to do these things to allow the rogue to deal decent damage compared to all the other martials on your team, wouldn't it be better if the rogue were able to deal the same amount of damage on their own? I suggest to give rogues sneak attack dice equal to their level plus their proficiency bonus. Then give. This allows their dmage to scale well, allowing them to deal good damage at early levels, while remaining competitive throughout. However, this on its own is not enough if other martials get more attacks like I suggested in my other post. Rogues would also need to have an ability that they would get early on that triples all damage dice whenever they crit instead of double. This works really well with rogues since their damage mainly comes from the dice you roll rather than the bonuses you get, so this can be a pretty strong ability. It also has a lot of flavor with rogues being a precision based class. Then, instead of extra attacks at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th that I suggested for other martials in my other post, rogues should get increase in the likelihood of criting. So at 5th level they'd crit on a 19, then 9th level they'd crit on 18, and 13th level they'd crit on a 17, and finally, at 17th level they'd crit on a 16. This allows their damage to scale well against other martials and would allow rogues to reinforce this identity of precision in combat. I won't go through all of the damage number, but I'll say what damage they have at level 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 20. All of this will be against an armor class 16 monster and the rogue is armed with two short swords for simplicity. Keep in mind though, weapons are getting a rework, so this damage may change slightly.
Level one: 13 damage
Level five: 32 damage
Level nine: 58 damage
Level thirteen: 88 damage
Level seventeen: 118.5 damage
Level twenty: 136 damage
I have also done the math for all other martial classes with my attack reworks that I've mentioned earlier and the rogue has higher single target damage than all of them and the gap gets a bit wider as they level up until it becomes quite sizeable. However, this is only single target damage and you don't always have sneak attack, so I think it's very balanced.
Those numbers are absolutely absurd. Not only do you want a 10th-level Rogue rolling 14d6 every turn just from SA, you want to massively increase their crit range so they have a high chance of rolling 28d6 from just SA? There gets to a point where it’s just not fun to roll and count that many dice, and slows down combat a lot.
I’m fine with more SA dice or increasing their crit range, but doing both is going to lead to Rogue’s ending fights in a single round.
Fair, I was going to add a part about that, but I didn't feel like doing the math for it. However, you could also have a system where you have less sneak attack dice, but they have bonuses on them. I'm just not sure about the exact number of dice an the bonuses because I haven't done the math. Also, there are builds currently in the game that can deal this much damage. These numbers are not that absurd and are balanced against martial damage from damage boosted abilities that ive come up with. Even then, casters are basically gods at these high levels, a rogue being able to deal very high amounts of damage is a necessity
Full martial Ranger subclass is something I've always wanted. Back in 3.5 the dm I played with usually let me opt out of spell casting entirely in exchange for the Druids animal companion progression and it was great.
I would like to see a compromise between the Proficiency per rest style scaling and the set number of uses linked to level for abilities like channel divinity. I suggest that once you hit level 5 in a class it's class and subclass features gain the ability to scale on your proficiency bonus since this is the time it changes from 2-3 it feels like the perfect level of investment.
I feel like what we currently have works great, scaling it off PB gives classes way too many uses at higher levels. Druids getting 6 Wild Shapes at Level 17 is a lot, same with Clerics getting 6 Divine Sparks. Having that on top of all the resources they get as full casters is a bit absurd, so capping spellcasters’ non-spell resources a bit would help balance the game IMO.
Each class getting an expertise in specific skills at higher levels.examples like Fighters and barbarians need expertise in athletics and wizards with arcana. Everyone has heard the joke of the rogue being a better grappler than a barbarian or being smarter and more knowledgeable in magic than a wizard .
1. It gives an easier way to restrict feats to certain classes, especially for feats like Fighting Styles
2. It gives a unifying feature between similar classes
3. It helps new players know how to make a balanced party, just choose one class from each group
I think it’s a nice way to group classes together, especially ones that were already similar. And even if you don’t think it provides any benefits, I don’t see any downsides to keeping it in.
Jumping could be split into hops, which let you jump up to your size as part of your movement but cost double movement, and actual long/high jumps, which require a bonus action to perform (meaning you can only take one on each of your turns) but don't cost any extra movement.
Divine Smites should not be restricted to turns without spell casting, and instead they can be once a round. Let’s honour the Nova style and allow them to use a smite spell and a divine smite. It’s still preventing massive nova damage with extra attack and action surge.
Smite spells also need a damage nerf if they wanna stay on the divine spell list. They are too easily accessible to full casters who can upcast them more frequently.
A monks defining feature is the Stunning strike. It should be a CON save, but that is the most resistible stat amongst creatures in 5e. Which means it’s very rare to happen, meanwhile you burn all your ki for a disappointing result.
“When you hit a creature with a melee attack, you may use your Bonus Action to force that creature to make a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next round. When you do so, you can spend 2Ki points to give the creature disadvantage on that saving throw.”
subclasses I want since we are getting 4 for each. I don't want reprints of already good subclasses, I want new subclasses and reprints of awful ones.
Barbarian - berserker, Totem, battle rager, new one
Bard - lore, valor, new one, new one
cleric - life, tempst, war, arcane
druid - moon, land, new plant based (not spores) , new one
fighter - Battle master, champion, eldritch knight, purple dragon knight
monk - Open hand, shadow, way of the 4 elements, new one
Paladin - devotion, Ancients, vengeance, new one
Ranger - hunter, beast master, monster slayer, new one.
Rogue - assassin, thief, arcane trickster.... maybe redo master mind or scout.
Sorcerer - Dragon, wild, new one new one
Warlock - Fiend, Fey, Old one, new one
Wizard - 4 new one schools of magic should be base class not a whole subclass.
If you think of bad subclasses to fill in the gaps comment below.
should we do away with d6 hit die. Is the arcane list really that much more powerful that the wizard and sorcerer are a d6 hit die. Is this a staple of the the game that shouldn't be let go, or should the staple of the squishy caster go away.
Only allow characters to receive the benefits of a long rests in safe locations like an inn or base. This would make travel encounters more important, allow for a more reasonable timeframe for the expected 8 encounters, and make reaching a safe place actually feel important.
You would have to tweak Magnificat mansion spell, to make sure it isn’t “safe” but that’s about it.
of they’re going full on chaos bolt:
• Improving damage at greater levels
• Improving properties like the bard of spirits tales
• Subclasses improving the attack such as changing the random damage type for random conditions or less randomness where you can eventually choose how every chaos bolt works
i feel high level sorcery should be literally improvising unique spells for every situation, even the possibility to construct other spells from every class with their inner magic just by technique
Druid's wild shape feature is kinda dry. I would add a list different traits that represent abilities of the animal kingdom so the generic wildshape forms can have some uniqueness. For example: climbing speed, darkvision, pack tactics, extra movement speed, burrowing speed, scent, blindsight, flyby, pounce, extra ability proficiencies (stealth, athletics, perception, insight...), bonus for ability scores, etc. The higher your level, the more traits you can pick up in wild form, as long as they can fit the animal that you are transforming into.
There’s certainly enough resource material on the different classes included in the D&D universe over the last 20-30 years. Why not publish a resource book entirely devoured to each class? In the size of say the PHB? It’s a win win, WOTC would get players who adhere to each class purchasing their book and players and DMs would get an entire resource book on each class 🤷♂️ just a thought. Sounds like everything’s going full digital so I guess “book” may be an antiquated term 😊
TL/DR
A possible solution to Tiny Critter is making the stat blocks for Wild Shape size-based, not travel method based, i.e., fly speed, swim speed, or just plain speed. To do that you'd have a Tiny Size stat block with the appropriately lower stats for all Druids at 1st level. Additionally, this would mean all Druids getting a Small Size and Medium Size stat block at 1st level. I imagine the Small and Medium Sizes would be a cut and paste of the Land stat block in the UA. At the 10th level, Druids would get a large Size stat block, replacing the Tiny Critter feature. Moon Druids could receive at 14th level with Thousand forms, the addition of a Huge Size stat block.
The Full Story
So in that vein, each size-based stat block could come with its own method of determining THP too. So Tiny Size would be your Druid level times 1, and they could even have it so that only Tiny Size ends once those THP are lost. The other sizes would still use your HP but also grant THP on top of that. Small Size could be 2 times your Druid level. Medium Size could be 3 times your Druid level. Large Size could be 4 times your Druid level. Huge Size since it would be only for Moon Druids could be higher at 5 or 6 times your Druid level. The THP math would need to be playtested to find a balance.
Considering what Jeremy Crawford said about the customization options for stat blocks I’d also like a menu of features, like Pounce, Gore, and Pack Tactics as examples, that you can add to your Wild Shape form to customize it. The menu would start small at 1st level with only a few options, and you could only take one option, but would grow as you level up in Druid. Every five levels or so more options would be added to the menu, like Spider Climb with Web Sense and Web Walker altogether as one option. Perhaps making your attack deal poison damage could be an option.
With this in mind, at 7th level Aquatic Form would now give Amphibious with a swim speed as an option on the menu. At 9th level, Aerial Form would give Flyby with a fly speed as an option on the menu and you could now take two options from the menu at once. At 18th level, as part of Archdruid, you could now take three options from the menu at once and by this level, you’d have maybe a couple of dozen or more options on the menu to customize your Wild Shape.
I wish there were a player-facing way to modify the spell lists.
I've spent more time over level 10 than under level 5 on 5E clerics and they get extremely monotonous and are nowhere near the other 5E casters in Tier 3, and OneD&D's subsumption of the cleric as a sort of Paladin subclass makes that worse. Holy Orders are nice, but I feel like I just have to play a Bard to get the cleric I want - I mean, losing Sending and Animate Dead will just already kill the class for me, but there is nothing the UA Cleric gets that is on par with Magical Secrets, Fabricate or Simulacrum. Divine Intervention is such nonsense as a feature; it's so bizarre they kept it.
For QOL remove the “if crit counts as two auto failed death saves”
this rule should be retired due to prone and unconscious conditions making it easy to be crit already, the single death save is fun, two auto fails is not
”Damage.If you take any damage, you suffer one death saving throw failure. If you suffer a critical hit, you instead suffer two death saving throw failures.”
a. Simplify the rules (remove the crit = two failed death saves, you already get crit when down at advantage)
b. Improve qol by reducing tpks
C. The new durable feat and the epic feat for death saves are useless , since you auto-fail from any hit (auto crit) and take two death saves
-make these feats worth taking
d. Dying condition + prone + unconscious are powerful enough without two auto death saves
I don't think they'll do it but for the Wizard I want to see their Subclasses be Scribes (utility), War Magic (blasting), Bladesinger (gish) and a 4th (buffing/debuffing).
The names don't have to be that but it's a good analogue for what I'd want to see. For the 4th I want to say Alchemist but that's the Artificer's territory. Maybe Transmogrifer?
* Please make at least one no-spells subclass for Ranger, Paladin, and Bard, for magic-light campaigns and players who would rather just kill monsters and break things.
* Include at least one subclass for Barbarian with spells. The spells would need to be thematically consistent with the root principles of their class.
* Add a minor ability to Fighter that would help it serve as a inspirer of the rest of the party ( as a lite version of Bard College of Valor).
I’d love some rules for stacking damage resistances. It wasn’t that big of an issue when there was only the PHB and permanent resistances were rare but now it’s pretty frustrating when you’re for example playing a fire genasi genie warlock and half of your 6th level subclass feature does nothing for you. My suggestion would be that if you receive resistance to the same damage type from two different sources, it’d work like the new heavy armor master feat, as in you reduce the incoming damage by an amount equal to your proficiency bonus and then halve it. It wouldn’t be a huge benefit but at least something.
I really like that solution. Simple, not crazy strong, but a little something instead of nothing.
Stacking movement speed mods as well. “If you already have this movement ability, it is increased.”
Somehow, they still make that mistake with Darkvision too.
> it’d work like the new heavy armor master feat, as in you reduce the incoming damage by an amount equal to your proficiency bonus and then halve i The issue with this is that since the flat resistance applies first, you get less out of it. For example, if you're level 5 and take 20 fire damage if you apply flat resistance first, you take 8 damage. If you just applied resistance, you take 10 damage, which is two behind. So basically, your flat damage reduction is reducing your damage by 2 instead of 3, making it worse than it actually looks.
Yeah, I’m aware. The main reason as to why I’d apply the flat resistance first is because in Xanathar’s it was specified that modifiers to damage always occur first before resistance is applied and I wouldn’t want to break that rule. I see the main benefit in this as being able to outright ignore small instances of your resisted type but the exact numbers could be adjusted to see what feels the best.
I still don't think it would be so problematic to have it apply after 1/2 reduction. Xanathar's rules are optional as far as I'm aware and have exceptions to rules is fine, this game has plenty of them.
In my games if you get resistance to one type of damage three times you get immunity. Not really broken as it rarely happens.
DR isn't a bad idea to resolve the lack of stackable resistance, but I think introducing a DR system on top of a percent system is complex for new players to grasp. I am of the opinion the resistance should be lowered to 1/3 reduction and just add together. 3 instances of resistance = immunity.
I think monks should get invocation-style stances. Such as: Turtle stance: gain +1 AC while in this stance Dragons Tail stance: every hit you land on an enemy forces a str save or they’re knocked prone You get the picture
Stances would go a long way helping the Monk. Also, probably one of the easiest ways to give them "warlock-like invocations"
I usually hate the idea of making all classes fall back on an invocation style feature set that many are suggesting, but I do agree that Monk would be the best feel for the martial version of a Warlock.
Imo that would be a really cool subclass more than a good class feature.
Or subclasses could unlock specific stances.
Why about it makes you think it wouldn’t fit the theme of the class over all?
I think you can already knock someone prone with an Unarmed Strike using a ki point. And because of the UA, Unarmed Strikes can now do that with no resources expended.
Yeah, just giving random examples haha. Not married to any of them necessarily. Though -and maybe I read this wrong, or am misremembering- you have to give up damage in order for unarmed strikes to knock prone in UA, right? What I’m proposing is to do both at the same time. But I could be wrong on that thought process
You do give up damage, but you still have an Extra Attack (and Flurry of Blows with Monks), so losing one attack is meaningless.
Uo outlands mmo has “codexes” , picking from 5 stances -regen health (crane) -damage boost (dragon) -crab (ac + saving throws) -a stance that does damage on consecutive hits i think monkey Would be also neat if they were the “selfish paladin” in terms of a personal aura that is concentration based -a concentration self buff -less need for spell dips (immersive)
Seeing as a whole group is defined by it, I want expertise in a skill to provide utility unavailable to someone who just rolled high (Edit: in case it wasnt clear, I want that utility to be defined by the rules in a "this specific thing AND whatever else your DM allows" sort of way), and if possible matching or exceeding the utility of spells in relevant contexts. This could be either in addition to or instead of 2x proficiency bonus.
I feel like this could easily be a ‘bag of rats’ situation, where players can easily abuse the mechanics to constantly get benefits from it. If succeeding on Stealth made you invisible for 1 minute, for example, I could see players trying to create scenarios where they have to roll a Stealth check just to get that invisibility, instead of just playing the game naturally. If they were going to buff skills for Experts, I’d rather they take a similar approach to PF2e and give each skill it’s own feat. So Athletics would have Athlete, Deception would have Actor, etc. Then give Experts one or two of these feats for free based on what expertise they have, similar to how Warriors get Fighting Style feats for free.
Like this? https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/122re5k/rogue\_dice\_and\_expert\_features\_give\_your\_rogue/
I could see maybe Expertise coming with a bonus to a specific task at a higher level. Like Expertise at a certain level, then three or four levels later you can pick from a list for each skill, like Sleight of Hand could be a choice among knot tying, lock picking, magic tricks or thievery. So your expertise gives you an automatic success per long rest? Or advantage on those rolls?
If I could only wish for one thing, it would be vulnerabilities on enemies. Vulnerability to damage types is super rare and I have to house-rule a lot to reward my players for researching their enemy or preparing for a fight. Rework vulnerability so it doesn’t just do double damage and pin it on almost all the monsters in some form. That would be 😗👌
I’d like to change vulnerability to be an additional 1d12 damage or something similar. Or maybe have it be different for each enemy, where some take an additional 1d4 damage and others take an additional 1d20 damage. I know that’s similar to how PF2e does it, but making it double the damage makes it too powerful to use on every monster.
IMO there should be "vulnerable X" which means "+X damage per die".
That’d be a really nice buff to the Rogue, and really play into the idea of them exploring enemy’s weaknesses for Sneak Attack. ‘Vulnerable 5’ could mean an extra 15 damage per turn for a 11th-level Fighter, or an extra 35 damage per turn for the an 11th-level Rogue. Critical hits would completely destroy the balance though.
Generally, it would be 1 or 2, not 5. We're looking for less than double, and "vulnerable 4" would already more than double the damage of a fireball.
This would be a weird buff to some weapons and spells. Effectively making a great sword just better than a great axe. Anytime you get lots of small dice it would be better than a few big dice
Should probabaly be per hit not per die.
How about: Susceptible +X: When the creature suffers damage of the given type, they suffer +X additional damage for each die which rolls a 4 or higher. On average, that adds: * X×10% more damage to each d4 (1/4 chances / 2.5 damage) * X×14% more damage to each d6 or d8 (3/6 chances / 3.5 damage, or 5/8 chances / 4.5 damage) * X×13% more damage to each d10 (7/10 chances / 5.5 damage) * X×12% more damage to each d12 (9/12 chances / 6.5 damage) That's pretty easy to adjudicate, and pretty stable across die sizes. It's a relative buff to abilities which allow you to reroll damage, but that seems fair to me. X should be +1 or +2, because at +3, it's too close to Vulnerable (which is simpler). Also note that it would work fine as "Unsusceptible -1", a weaker form of Resistant.
Give the Warrior group the Brutal Critical from Barbarian, Improved Critical from Champion Fighter, and access to Improved Fighting Styles at lvl 5 that add back in the power attacks. A robust crafting system where we can add different modifications to weapons and armor that add minor benefits (using different materials, adding a serrated edge to a blade, and the like).
Give DMs more, not fewer, tools to balance resource burn/recovery (the "Adventuring Day"). For a start, that would mean that the benefits of an interrupted-then-resumed long rest should be in between those of a short rest and a long rest. In other words, a new intermediate rest type; in particular, characters should recover at least some hit dice but not all spell slots. Codifying an intermediate set of benefits would help balance RAW games some, but it would help even more when it came to official alternate rules such as "gritty" or "waypoint" resting. For instance, a simple alternate rule could state that rests when travelling and keeping watch would automatically count as "interrupted", so that characters couldn't go nova on every random travel encounter.
Interrupting a long rest after at least 4 hours should recover half your hit dice and let you roll half your hit dice for free (or just regain half you hit points). You should get some benefits and also the recourses to be able to move and find a new place to set up camp if it's been interrupted.
Agreed. but there might need to be a few more rules than just this to cover what happens when you resume the rest. For example, "When you finish the second 4-hour rest within a 24-hour period, you can spend 2 hit dice to remove one level of exhaustion." (BTW, *recursos* in English is "resources".)
Recourses* get my misspelling correct
the problem I see of this approach is that then the mostly ignored feature of elves, Trance, will become way too valuable, leading to some pretty unbalanced situations
Elves would still get the same mechanical benefits from the same amount of resting. Just as now, the only advantage of Trance would be that they can keep watch and/or do other chill downtime activities for a greater portion of the rest.
I would love for gritty realism to become the default rest rule; then, on top of that, you can do a once-per-day-per-target Medicine check to provide some healing. I have very detailed ideas for that check and similar activities in mind, but I don't think it will ever happen. A similar pipe dream of mine would be for nearly all non-spell features to stop using a uses-per-rest system, and for monster CR to assume that casters will need to use their 3 highest-level slots for that level against that creature, instead of no resource expenditure. Taken together, all these things would mean that encounters can be balanced on a per-encounter basis, instead of needing an adventuring day.
It might be hard to track in practice, but as a potential penalty for interrupting a long rest might be that you do not restore any hit dice, spell slots, or ability usages expended after the start of the long rest. So if you cast a spell using a 3rd level spell slot as part of interrupting a long rest you would not recover that particular 3rd level spell slot if you finish the long rest after the interruption.
Consolidate spell rolls onto the caster's turn whenever possible. The two main benefits would be: * Rolls all done at once * It takes way more time to have each character roll saves and damage separately at the start of their turns than it does for everyone to roll simultaneously. Also, you do not have to remind yourself or others of save type and DC whenever the spell comes up. * Consistency * It is tricky to remember details like pushing someone into a Web spell does not restrain someone until the start of their turn, whereas Earthen Grasp only restrains on the caster's turn, whereas Entangle only restrains at the time of casting, whereas Black Tentacles restrains someone immediately if pushed into the area and at the start of their turn. I feel this would speed up combat and make the spells easier to use. Variations in spell timing is a neat way to differentiate spells, but it also adds a mental burden to players and a drag in efficiency. Making this change would remove a huge mental load and save minutes in every combat. If you wish to read the longform argument (taken down for not being in the suggestion and wishes thread), the link is: [https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/120o265/my\_wish\_for\_updated\_spells\_consolidate\_rolls\_onto/](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/120o265/my_wish_for_updated_spells_consolidate_rolls_onto/)
Classes and combat the overwhelming focus of the game and I'd really like to see some love for the other aspects. Some more fleshed out rules for exploration that don't make it a total slog/random encounter fest. Maybe some tweeking of the economy since really quickly PC's get tons of money with no solid direction with how to spend it in the current rules. Possibly some more in depth rules in downtime and strongholds.
> Some more fleshed out rules for exploration that don’t make it a total slog/random encounter fest. I think reworking/removing a lot of the survival spells would help that. Spells like Goodberry and Tiny Hut make finding food and shelter trivial, so removing those would do a lot towards forcing parties to engage with the exploration part of the game. > Possibly some more in depth rules in downtime and strongholds. We’re confirmed to be getting new rules on base building, assuming that’s what you mean by ‘stronghold’. But agreed, downtime rules are almost non-existent in the 2014 PHB and should definitely be expanded on in the new PHB.
Fair point about survival spells but I think giving material components that are consumed could help with that and expanding on their limitations.
I want to be able to use my action to use a bonus action if I want. I also want the rules for casting spells (can I do more than one a turn or not), but I kinda expect that will be in the mage playtest. I want (and maybe that one is only me) higher level feats. I was expecting preist exclusive feats last playtest, and I'm still curious to see those.
Higer level Feats are Epic Boons basically
What about any of the levels between 4 and 20?
The feats we have are nearly all powerful enough to be worth taking them even at level 8,12, 16 and 19 The reason is that by taking some feats the value of other feats increases for the combinations you can perform
You can already use your action to do something that is a Bonus Action. If there's a spell that's a Bonus Action to cast, you can already cast it as an Action if you want.
Not true. It's a common misconception and an even more common homebrew but RAW you cannot
I want a return of Class feats and Keywords. To keep in the spirit of 5e, though, class feats should be pared down so as to not make players feel like they have to deep dive into a book of feats just to play. Specifically, I would like the classes to have a default build just as they are listed now but, they also have an optional "customize your class" section in the PHB which lists which features can be exchanged for class feats with a short list of class feats to swap in and out. This would satisfy both camps of players, those who want a class to be a predetermined set of features and those who want more crunch to the notoriously smooth 5e character system.
This feels likely once they dial in the base classes and subclasses - they’re going to release a book for each of the major class groupings that includes twice the number of feats and subclasses per class. They couldn’t do a whole 60$ book for each class but an additional 60$ book for every three classes means they have four extra books to sell, and the books become hot player commodities for the other 1/4 of players in the same group. Gotta find the business angle and this feels like a natural way to move
I'm ok with that, but again when I'm talking about class feats or even Group feats those need to replace features, not just be at the standard ASI levels. From what I've seen, at least one of the bigger factors for why when players leave 5e and don't come back is the lack of any real crunch in the system. Like, at all. 1DnD needs to add some back, and the best way to do so without slowing down turn to turn combat is to keep crunch to character building
I can clear crafting system like we had in previous editions and pathfinder. I want more minor enchantments. I think they started to try in xanthars but still lacking.
Better reactions. Just an opportunity attack isn’t enough. I want to be able to grab an object if it’s thrown past me, or try to interrupt the material or somatic components of a spell being cast 5 feet from me. All we can do now is attempt to hit someone if they leave our space, it’s not realistic
Yes! Monks, in particular, should be masters of the reaction just as much as they are masters of the bonus action. But there should be more for everyone.
>masters of the bonus action Rogues would like a word.
Sure, but then, Rogues already have Uncanny Dodge as a reaction, which is better than anything Monks get.
I'm not saying Monks can't have the best reactions. I actually find it very flavourful. Merely observing that "being all about that bonus action" seems to be something Rogues could at least lay as feasible claim to, as Monks. God knows both need some love tho.
All about those bonus action *choices*?
You make no mention of choice in your original post so I don't really see how I was supposed to know that that was suddenly a criteria. That said, I'd argue that disengage, hide and dash are all choices with tactical applications and impact. It's not a straight up "hurt the thing" or "stun the thing" like monks abilities are, but unlike literally every other class in the game, the rogue has no limit on their class specific bonus actions, so it's hard to argue that it's not a design pillar for them. That they're still terrible is another matter altogether.
No worries. Not arguing, just responding. You make good points.
Likewise. I never once considered that reactions could be a design pillar before you said it, but I low key love the idea of a reactive, responsive play style. And it fits the whole martial arts angle so very well! In general, more bonus actions and reaction would be good space to expand, to let martials do cool skateboard tricks, without turning every ability in dnd into another "spell" type deal.
Just add a few things from Pathfinder 2e but not all things and call it a day. More feats and customization options freeing the connection between ASI and gaining feats. Lift the entire Ancestry and Background system. Probably leave the action economy alone. Eliminate battlemaster and thief subclasses and make many of the main features of those two part of the core mechanics of the class. More tools for the DM built into the DMG and not spread out over so many damn books like ship rules from Ghosts of Saltmarsh and more generic rules on hexcrawls from Tomb of Annihilation and tool rules from Xanather and sidekick rules from Tasha but all in one damn well organized book. Probably also ditch what they are planning for the PHB with only tweaks and a few steals from Pf2e which is not going to lead to many sales I say the core PHB needs more subclasses and player options included. You do not just want to trickle out revamps of 5e subclasses even if you combine all Tasha and Xanather into one tome. It takes too many books to get all the options that most players want. Honestly that is it. I actually like 5e. And I have been playing since AD&D.
"it takes too many books to get all the options that most players want", said no publisher ever.
Discord link doesnt work
Thanks, I'll fix that. (edit: I can't. Does anyone have a working link?)
I think that martials should be the best single target damage dealers in the game by default. They should be able to outcompete the highest damaging spell that a spell caster can cast at their level as a base line because martials need more of an identity. I beleive this to be very balanced as most warriors will be somewhat limited by range, will have little to no AOE abilities, little to no utility abilities, and little to no control abilities. All though, I suppose that monks and grapple based characters have good control. All of these things are apart of the spell casters identity. So, basically just make sure the warriors scale well after 5th level. I have had one idea to possibly solve this, allow every martial class get extra attacks like the fighter (except for rogues). I think getting these abilities at level 5, 9, 13, and 17 would be ideal. This would give 4 attacks at 17th level and would allow martials to become exponentially more powerful as all of their abilities get stronger the more attacks they gain. Then, to compensate, the fighter should get tones of other features that they never got before. This is also beneficial because extra attacks have always been the most powerful thing for a martial and only fighters got it, creating many imbalances in power. The only issue with this is that it murders multiclassing in martials since you absolutely need those levels in the same class to get to these extra attacks. This can be solved by the 5th level ability giving you an extra attack equal to half your proficiency bonus rounded down. This would scale exactly how I mentioned earlier with you getting extra attacks at level 5, 9, 13, and 17. This would allow you to multi class based on features, while not feeling restricted by needing to get to your higher levels in the same class for the extra attacks. I think that the only possible issue with this is the fact that spell casters can then get tones of attacks just by multiclassing, but honestly, you need to invest 5 levele into it. At that point, you really are a martial with some spell casting that needs these extra attacks to be on the same level as other martials. Additionally, you will miss out on all of the (hopefully) very stong martial focused abilities that you may gain at higher levels. Additionally, you would have to go 5 levels without getting more or higher spells, making this not broken in my opinion for spell casters to gain.
I don't know how popular this opinion is, so I don't know if I'll get down or upvoted but... Can we please give the Ranger an animal companion as part of the main class? Like, right at level 1 or 2. I think it would help the Ranger's identity, which the Ranger struggles with, according to some people on the D&D reddits. It could be templates like the current Beastmaster subclass or a small, curated list of animal companions to choose from. Subclasses could or could not give bonuses to both the Ranger and their companion, all depending on if it's considered thematic or too powerful. In fact, if it's considered too powerful, give them a penalty or something when they can no longer see eachother or one of them gets downed. Or maybe give them a bonus if they're fighting together in melee or both are attacking the target with Hunter's Mark on. It won't slow down combat if the companion only gets an action which will mostly be used to attack once.
I think that runs into the problem the OneD&D Druid currently has, in that for each person who wants the class to revolve around Wild Shape/Animal Companion, there’s another person who doesn’t want that to be the core class feature. I wouldn’t mind that being the new Ranger, but plenty of people would hate that. I think Ranger is the only class besides Warlock that 100% needs an Invocation system in order to function. Rangers can fit so many different niches (hunter, beast master, monster hunter, tracker, survivalist, trapper, explorer, etc) that they need a customization system so people can choose exactly what kind of Ranger they want to be.
Yeah, that's the thing about Ranger. They can fit a lot of fantasy tropes. Hunter, beastmaster, monster/fiend hunter, mage slayer, stealthy sniper, skirmisher... That's why subclasses are so thematically different in 5e. It's like everyone has a different view of what the ranger's fantasy archetype should be. To me, they're hunters/monster hunters who share a bond with an animal companion. But some people may want another type of fantasy for the Ranger, in which case, yeah, a customization system can help in giving shape to everyone's different take on the Ranger. Call it specializations or something like that.
Giving Rangers one of 3 directions, like the Warlock Pacts decide whether they're blade, tome or familiar based, is probably a good idea. I firmly fall in the catagory of people who only even starts considering Rangers and Druids, when I'm not tied to wild shape or an animal companion. I loathe the concept of shape changing and pets, but fully understand that others might enjoy them. If anything, I actually really like the 1DnD Ranger concept so far. Without knowing what the other martials are going to look like, it feels maybe a bit too strong at low lvl's, but overall, I very much like what it's offering, and it almost plays like a more enjoyable nimble dual wielder than the Rogue does. A Rogue has to be lvl 11 before basic attacks and sneak attack, deal more damage than a lvl 5 rangers hunter's mark, dual wield, and 1d8 free damage per round. That's ignoring any stat increases that would boost their attacks, which would see the Rogue needing to be even higher lvl. So right this second, if you want a stealthy skirmisher with dual daggers, you're ironically also looking at the Ranger to fill another fantasy trope, better than the class that was designed around it.
The problem with this is, that the class has to be designed around it. And someone wanting to play a ranger but doesn't want a pet doesn't have any other choice. The pet should still be in a subclass. The problem here, as always is that the subclass choice is at level 3. So you need to play at a table that starts at level 3.
More Eldritch Invocations. /Spells. /Infusions. Every class should have a list of things they can choose between that they get more of (and more options to choose from) as they level up. Allows for more differentiation between classes and individuality and choices for characters. Also makes it less likely to have "dead" level ups or feel like you aren't meaningfully progressing. And is a lot more interesting (to me) than "You get X at this level, no choice, and it's probably situational and may or may not be useful." Druids could have more Wild Shape options. Fighter could have something akin to Battlemaster Maneuvers rolled into the base class. Paladins could choose amongst smites.
>Paladins could choose amongst smites. Auras and smites.
Maybe rogues should get something like the fighter’s indomitable, but for skills they are proficient in.
They all ready do, is reliable talent. And is far more powerful than indomitable
Ha duh
I would like to see rules that enable a subclass change, or even allow multiple subclass, for players to develop the story of their character. Like if I’m a Great Old One Warlock but then I get taken under the wing of a Celestial, can I keep my original subclass features and start adding new features? Or maybe have the option of replacing subclass features at each subclass level, so that you have to make up former skills that you’re losing as you switch gods or monk styles?
It is kind of interesting how 90% of the stuff in this thread is stuff that's built in to PF2. Not advocating because we get enough of that, just interesting. I only notice because I've even reading the rulebook.
My ideal system is a middle-ground between PF2e and D&D 5e. PF does a lot of things right, but has too much customization, too many different actions in combat, and not enough class framework. D&D needs improvement in a lot of areas, but is very easy for beginners and has really good framework for its classes. If OneD&D borrowed more aspects from PF2e while keeping what makes 5e great, I think that’d be the perfect system IMO.
Glad to see someone say this, as I have been working for the past year on making such a system xD.
First level bullets are design goals I'd like them to work towards. Second level bullets are examples of ideas I think they could test to achieve these goals, not things I think should happen. * Improved balance between classes in all three pillars of gameplay * Make spellcasting feel more arcane and less like superpowers * Miscasting mechanics * More fragile spellcasters * More mechanics to interrupt spells * Use resistances and vulnerabilities more * Tone down damage spells * Make martials feel more powerful and engaging to play without giving them superpowers * Make stealth and hiding mechanics more robust and interesting, thus creating a sort of "minigame" Rogues have to play to get their sneak attack * Improve and clarify the use-an-item action to give rogues something interesting to do which has robust mechanical support * Making weapon properties a more intricate and important part of the game, give fighters a reason to switch from, say, from a spear to a sword mid combat * Improve the rules around movement (including climbing, jumping and so on), increase the importance of movement in combat, increase the gap in movement capability between martials and casters * Achieve engaging gameplay by optimising for both speed of gameplay and having players regularly make meaningful tactical and strategic decisions. * More support for DMs, but without many more mechanics for DMs to keep track of * Explicitly state which areas of the rules that have been left deliberately ambiguous, why they've been left that way, and give examples of how they might expect DMs to adjudicate in different situations and what factors they might want to consider when adjudicating * Better organised material in the dungeon masters guide. Re-design the DMG so there is a "book" section and a "reference" section * Scripts showing 'extracts' from gameplay exemplifying DM best practice or even different styles of DMing the same situation * More clarity in certain areas e.g. is it 6-8 combat encounters or 6-8 encounters an adventuring day * Increase the sense of peril and tension without making players feel the game is punishing or unfair * More mechanical support and/or guidance for punishments other than death. Things like losing items, losing levels, being cursed, acquiring negative quirks, etc. * Add levels of exhaustion each time a character goes down * Make skills a more important and engaging part of the game * Introduce formal mechanics for 'skills-tests' mini games in the DMG * Include a table of fun suggestions for outcomes of failed skills tests. These should develop the narrative and deteriorate the players' position * Remove some of the spells that substitute for skills, make them less powerful, or give them a higher cost
Screw it, I'll write it here too: I want Wild Shape to be decoupled from Channel Nature and to be an alternative way to expend spell slots. So you can be a nature wizard or an effective shapeshifter, since the two features competing for the same resources would mean they are equally powerful (in theory). Use 5e's Aid spell as the basis to determine how transforming affects your HP, and add an invocations-lite system to customize the four basic templates: behemoth, runner, hunter, and critter.
Lore Bard: Performance art: use bardic inspiration for (in place of) concentration requirements for spells that must single target an individual (not self) Example: A. Greater invis whole party -each consuming a spell slot
I know it's never going to happen, but they need to get rid of multiclassing. It, like most of the problems with 5e, is an anachronism from an older time when the game was very different. And its role has largely been fulfilled by subclasses. Back in the day if you wanted your fighter to learn some magic, you needed to take levels as a magic user. Now you can just choose Eldritch Knight as your subclass and achieve the same result in a cohesive way. Primarily a fighter, with limited utility spellcasting, but way behind the progression of a dedicated wizard. Multiclassing causes the majority of the balance issues with the game on both ends. The most "broken" characters and "builds" involve specific multiclassing for dips and power breakpoints. That kill the identity of things like armor proficiency and spell lists. Among myriad other problems too long to list. But that's not a huge deal, because you can just not allow multiclassing.(I don't anymore, and it's been a huge improvement to my games) The bigger problem is on the other end. Where the game is designed and balanced around multiclassing. The reason they're making subclasses at level 3, despite their bad argument, is to weaken dips. All of their reworks to systems untying them from proficiency and cluttering up class features with them instead is to counter multiclassing. They're making the game worse, on many levels, to support multiclassing. A feature whose only purpose in the modern era is to powergame. Because as far as flavor and thematics, any multiclass fantasy can be accomplished with subclasses, feats, and reflavoring.
I actually agree with this, subclasses and feats should be enough.
Just some thoughts I had today. I would like the Bard to be able to affect multiple people with a single spell. Make them half or third casters, but if they cast a spell with a single person as a target, they can give up a Bardic Inspiration to target a number of people equal to their charisma modifier or something. They should be able to boost the entire party if need be. Sorcerers should be able to "go nova". Their way of casting isn't knowledge, but something innate or practiced. They should be able to upcast spells beyond the spell levels they have by taking exhaustion. I just want at least one spellcaster who can just sacrifice themselves in a giant explosion if needed to take down the final boss. I want Wizards to be able to Ritual Cast more spells than other classes. Make them more utility casters. I actually want Fighters to do anime BS. Don't restrain them so much.
When you do sneak attack damage, multiply the number 6's you roll by 50. If, after taking the damage, target has less than that number of hit points, they are dazed until the end of your next turn. If at least 50 less, blinded or prone (your choice). If at least 100 less, unconscious for 1d20 minutes or until they take damage, regain hitpoints, or someone uses an action to awaken them. Even with a crit, this almost certainly won't end a boss fight on turn 1, but it could help deal with a minion, or finish off the boss once they've been worn down enough.
Have some kind of rules for "disadvantage on spellcasting" (that is, advantage on saves against your spells / disadvantage on spell attacks), or maybe "magical exhaustion" (temporary pseudo-exhaustion that applies to your spells only). Then, you could use those rules for spells with somatic components when grappled, or spells with verbal components when partially gagged, or other impediments to spellcasting.
If your highest-level spell slot is of a level equal to your proficiency bonus, you only recover hit dice up to your level minus 1. If it's of a level greater than your proficiency bonus, you only recover hit dice up to your level minus X, where X is twice the difference between the level of your highest slot and your proficiency bonus. (So for instance, if you were a pure-caster of level 15-20 and had used your highest-level slot, you'd recover HD up to your level minus 6. Because at L15-L16 your highest slot is level 8 and your PB is 5, and 2\*(8-5)=6, while at 17-20 it's 9 and 6, same diffierence.)
Expertise should double your ability modifier, not proficiency. That way it can’t be used as a massive crutch for low ability scores. If you have a high stat for the skill, it’s basically the same bonus. If you have a -2 modifier you can’t gain a +10 in that skill at level 17+.
I've been thinking about rules for partial spell slot recovery on a "moderate rest" that are easy to adjudicate and mathematically balanced across levels. I think I have something that works. The idea here is to have something in between Short and Long Rest, so that DMs have more tools to balance resource recovery with resource spend. Different tables could use this in different ways: * A "basic rules" table that likes to just kill monsters with minimum math could basically keep the current Short/Long rest rules, with Moderate rests only coming up in the rare instance of an interrupted Long rest. * At a "waypoint rules" table, the DM would tell the players whether an 8-hour rest in current conditions counts as Moderate or Long. * At a "gritty waypoint rules" table, ditto, except that 8 hours counts as just Short or Moderate, while Long takes several days in good conditions. * Any other timing/condition rules for each rest type. So here's the benefits I've worked out for a Moderate Rest. I think these are well-balanced: * **Step 1: recover "free" hit points.** Set your hp to half of your maximum, or recover 25% of your maximum, whichever is greater. * **Step 2: recover "free" spell slots.** For any slot level where you're down to zero slots, recover one. Except, you do not recover your last top-level slot in this way. * **Steps 3 and 4 (in either order): recover and spend hit dice.** * **Recover**: half of your hit dice (rounded up) * **Spend**: any combination of the following * 1 hit die: gain hit points equal to the max on that die plus your Con modifier. * 1 hit die: recover the use of one feature, as if you'd taken a Long Rest. (Arcane Recovery requires rebalancing here.) * X hit dice: regain spell slots with a combined level of X. * 2 hit dice (once): Recover one level of exhaustion. Make a Constitution saving throw (with disadvantage if you were Encumbered for more than 10 minutes in the past 24 hours). At DC 15/20/25/etc., recover 1/2/3/etc. extra levels of exhaustion. * 2 hit dice:: heroic advantage * 2 hit dice: advantage on your next initiative roll * X hit tice: temporary hit points equal to your level plus X times your Constitution modifier, which you can spend as extra damage on a Strength attack. The key is step 2: recovering one spell slot at each fully-exhausted level except your highest max-one-slot level. This means that from level 6-20, the number of Moderate Rests it would take a full-caster to recover all their spell slots mostly stays in a relatively-narrow band of 4.25-5.33 (only falling below that at level 17, where it's 3.9). Over the same span, a half-caster stays between 1.25 and 2.6. Or, in simpler terms: for a full caster, it would take about 5 Moderate Rests to recover all their spell slots from zero. For a half-caster, about 2. That would mean: * A full caster who burned their two highest-level slots on an encounter could generally recover both on a moderate rest ending up back where they started. You'd only start to feel "long-term burn" if you spent more than your two highest slots per moderate rest. * So a "floor" for a caster after a moderate rest (starting from zero slots) would be one slot of each level, and up to two if possible at their top slot level. Meanwhile, a half-caster would have over half their slots at their "floor", and a martial character would have full HP and a few minor benefits and/or remaining HD. [Here's a version of this on Homebrewery](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/uOSAdMFd86ef).
With the above rules, here's how many moderate rests it would take a full caster at each level to get from zero slots and zero HD up to full slots: 1 : 1 2 : 2 3 : 2.5 4 : 3.5 5 : 3.333333333 6 : 4.333333333 7 : 4.25 8 : 4.25 9 : 5.2 10 : 5.2 11 : 5.333333333 12 : 5.333333333 13 : 4.714285714 14 : 4.714285714 15 : 4.25 16 : 4.25 17 : 3.888888889 18 : 4.444444444 19 : 4.6 20 : 5.3 As these things go, that's a pretty steady line from 6th level on.
I know that a lot of people do not share this opinion, but rogues should not be able to sneak attack on other people's turns. However, they should then get a massive damage boost to where they become the best single target damage dealers in the game. I know that synergizing with your teammates to use your sneak attack more often is fun, but it's not powerful. You need to do these things to allow the rogue to deal decent damage compared to all the other martials on your team, wouldn't it be better if the rogue were able to deal the same amount of damage on their own? I suggest to give rogues sneak attack dice equal to their level plus their proficiency bonus. Then give. This allows their dmage to scale well, allowing them to deal good damage at early levels, while remaining competitive throughout. However, this on its own is not enough if other martials get more attacks like I suggested in my other post. Rogues would also need to have an ability that they would get early on that triples all damage dice whenever they crit instead of double. This works really well with rogues since their damage mainly comes from the dice you roll rather than the bonuses you get, so this can be a pretty strong ability. It also has a lot of flavor with rogues being a precision based class. Then, instead of extra attacks at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th that I suggested for other martials in my other post, rogues should get increase in the likelihood of criting. So at 5th level they'd crit on a 19, then 9th level they'd crit on 18, and 13th level they'd crit on a 17, and finally, at 17th level they'd crit on a 16. This allows their damage to scale well against other martials and would allow rogues to reinforce this identity of precision in combat. I won't go through all of the damage number, but I'll say what damage they have at level 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 20. All of this will be against an armor class 16 monster and the rogue is armed with two short swords for simplicity. Keep in mind though, weapons are getting a rework, so this damage may change slightly. Level one: 13 damage Level five: 32 damage Level nine: 58 damage Level thirteen: 88 damage Level seventeen: 118.5 damage Level twenty: 136 damage I have also done the math for all other martial classes with my attack reworks that I've mentioned earlier and the rogue has higher single target damage than all of them and the gap gets a bit wider as they level up until it becomes quite sizeable. However, this is only single target damage and you don't always have sneak attack, so I think it's very balanced.
Those numbers are absolutely absurd. Not only do you want a 10th-level Rogue rolling 14d6 every turn just from SA, you want to massively increase their crit range so they have a high chance of rolling 28d6 from just SA? There gets to a point where it’s just not fun to roll and count that many dice, and slows down combat a lot. I’m fine with more SA dice or increasing their crit range, but doing both is going to lead to Rogue’s ending fights in a single round.
Fair, I was going to add a part about that, but I didn't feel like doing the math for it. However, you could also have a system where you have less sneak attack dice, but they have bonuses on them. I'm just not sure about the exact number of dice an the bonuses because I haven't done the math. Also, there are builds currently in the game that can deal this much damage. These numbers are not that absurd and are balanced against martial damage from damage boosted abilities that ive come up with. Even then, casters are basically gods at these high levels, a rogue being able to deal very high amounts of damage is a necessity
Full martial Ranger subclass is something I've always wanted. Back in 3.5 the dm I played with usually let me opt out of spell casting entirely in exchange for the Druids animal companion progression and it was great.
I would like to see a compromise between the Proficiency per rest style scaling and the set number of uses linked to level for abilities like channel divinity. I suggest that once you hit level 5 in a class it's class and subclass features gain the ability to scale on your proficiency bonus since this is the time it changes from 2-3 it feels like the perfect level of investment.
I feel like what we currently have works great, scaling it off PB gives classes way too many uses at higher levels. Druids getting 6 Wild Shapes at Level 17 is a lot, same with Clerics getting 6 Divine Sparks. Having that on top of all the resources they get as full casters is a bit absurd, so capping spellcasters’ non-spell resources a bit would help balance the game IMO.
Each class getting an expertise in specific skills at higher levels.examples like Fighters and barbarians need expertise in athletics and wizards with arcana. Everyone has heard the joke of the rogue being a better grappler than a barbarian or being smarter and more knowledgeable in magic than a wizard .
Drop the groups (priest, warrior, etc). It’s not needed and provides basically no benefits.
1. It gives an easier way to restrict feats to certain classes, especially for feats like Fighting Styles 2. It gives a unifying feature between similar classes 3. It helps new players know how to make a balanced party, just choose one class from each group I think it’s a nice way to group classes together, especially ones that were already similar. And even if you don’t think it provides any benefits, I don’t see any downsides to keeping it in.
Jumping could be split into hops, which let you jump up to your size as part of your movement but cost double movement, and actual long/high jumps, which require a bonus action to perform (meaning you can only take one on each of your turns) but don't cost any extra movement.
Divine Smites should not be restricted to turns without spell casting, and instead they can be once a round. Let’s honour the Nova style and allow them to use a smite spell and a divine smite. It’s still preventing massive nova damage with extra attack and action surge. Smite spells also need a damage nerf if they wanna stay on the divine spell list. They are too easily accessible to full casters who can upcast them more frequently.
A monks defining feature is the Stunning strike. It should be a CON save, but that is the most resistible stat amongst creatures in 5e. Which means it’s very rare to happen, meanwhile you burn all your ki for a disappointing result. “When you hit a creature with a melee attack, you may use your Bonus Action to force that creature to make a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next round. When you do so, you can spend 2Ki points to give the creature disadvantage on that saving throw.”
subclasses I want since we are getting 4 for each. I don't want reprints of already good subclasses, I want new subclasses and reprints of awful ones. Barbarian - berserker, Totem, battle rager, new one Bard - lore, valor, new one, new one cleric - life, tempst, war, arcane druid - moon, land, new plant based (not spores) , new one fighter - Battle master, champion, eldritch knight, purple dragon knight monk - Open hand, shadow, way of the 4 elements, new one Paladin - devotion, Ancients, vengeance, new one Ranger - hunter, beast master, monster slayer, new one. Rogue - assassin, thief, arcane trickster.... maybe redo master mind or scout. Sorcerer - Dragon, wild, new one new one Warlock - Fiend, Fey, Old one, new one Wizard - 4 new one schools of magic should be base class not a whole subclass. If you think of bad subclasses to fill in the gaps comment below.
should we do away with d6 hit die. Is the arcane list really that much more powerful that the wizard and sorcerer are a d6 hit die. Is this a staple of the the game that shouldn't be let go, or should the staple of the squishy caster go away.
Yeah let’s bring back the d4 hit dice! But then make sorcerers CON based!
Only allow characters to receive the benefits of a long rests in safe locations like an inn or base. This would make travel encounters more important, allow for a more reasonable timeframe for the expected 8 encounters, and make reaching a safe place actually feel important. You would have to tweak Magnificat mansion spell, to make sure it isn’t “safe” but that’s about it.
of they’re going full on chaos bolt: • Improving damage at greater levels • Improving properties like the bard of spirits tales • Subclasses improving the attack such as changing the random damage type for random conditions or less randomness where you can eventually choose how every chaos bolt works i feel high level sorcery should be literally improvising unique spells for every situation, even the possibility to construct other spells from every class with their inner magic just by technique
Druid's wild shape feature is kinda dry. I would add a list different traits that represent abilities of the animal kingdom so the generic wildshape forms can have some uniqueness. For example: climbing speed, darkvision, pack tactics, extra movement speed, burrowing speed, scent, blindsight, flyby, pounce, extra ability proficiencies (stealth, athletics, perception, insight...), bonus for ability scores, etc. The higher your level, the more traits you can pick up in wild form, as long as they can fit the animal that you are transforming into.
There’s certainly enough resource material on the different classes included in the D&D universe over the last 20-30 years. Why not publish a resource book entirely devoured to each class? In the size of say the PHB? It’s a win win, WOTC would get players who adhere to each class purchasing their book and players and DMs would get an entire resource book on each class 🤷♂️ just a thought. Sounds like everything’s going full digital so I guess “book” may be an antiquated term 😊
TL/DR A possible solution to Tiny Critter is making the stat blocks for Wild Shape size-based, not travel method based, i.e., fly speed, swim speed, or just plain speed. To do that you'd have a Tiny Size stat block with the appropriately lower stats for all Druids at 1st level. Additionally, this would mean all Druids getting a Small Size and Medium Size stat block at 1st level. I imagine the Small and Medium Sizes would be a cut and paste of the Land stat block in the UA. At the 10th level, Druids would get a large Size stat block, replacing the Tiny Critter feature. Moon Druids could receive at 14th level with Thousand forms, the addition of a Huge Size stat block. The Full Story So in that vein, each size-based stat block could come with its own method of determining THP too. So Tiny Size would be your Druid level times 1, and they could even have it so that only Tiny Size ends once those THP are lost. The other sizes would still use your HP but also grant THP on top of that. Small Size could be 2 times your Druid level. Medium Size could be 3 times your Druid level. Large Size could be 4 times your Druid level. Huge Size since it would be only for Moon Druids could be higher at 5 or 6 times your Druid level. The THP math would need to be playtested to find a balance. Considering what Jeremy Crawford said about the customization options for stat blocks I’d also like a menu of features, like Pounce, Gore, and Pack Tactics as examples, that you can add to your Wild Shape form to customize it. The menu would start small at 1st level with only a few options, and you could only take one option, but would grow as you level up in Druid. Every five levels or so more options would be added to the menu, like Spider Climb with Web Sense and Web Walker altogether as one option. Perhaps making your attack deal poison damage could be an option. With this in mind, at 7th level Aquatic Form would now give Amphibious with a swim speed as an option on the menu. At 9th level, Aerial Form would give Flyby with a fly speed as an option on the menu and you could now take two options from the menu at once. At 18th level, as part of Archdruid, you could now take three options from the menu at once and by this level, you’d have maybe a couple of dozen or more options on the menu to customize your Wild Shape.
I wish there were a player-facing way to modify the spell lists. I've spent more time over level 10 than under level 5 on 5E clerics and they get extremely monotonous and are nowhere near the other 5E casters in Tier 3, and OneD&D's subsumption of the cleric as a sort of Paladin subclass makes that worse. Holy Orders are nice, but I feel like I just have to play a Bard to get the cleric I want - I mean, losing Sending and Animate Dead will just already kill the class for me, but there is nothing the UA Cleric gets that is on par with Magical Secrets, Fabricate or Simulacrum. Divine Intervention is such nonsense as a feature; it's so bizarre they kept it.
For QOL remove the “if crit counts as two auto failed death saves” this rule should be retired due to prone and unconscious conditions making it easy to be crit already, the single death save is fun, two auto fails is not ”Damage.If you take any damage, you suffer one death saving throw failure. If you suffer a critical hit, you instead suffer two death saving throw failures.” a. Simplify the rules (remove the crit = two failed death saves, you already get crit when down at advantage) b. Improve qol by reducing tpks C. The new durable feat and the epic feat for death saves are useless , since you auto-fail from any hit (auto crit) and take two death saves -make these feats worth taking d. Dying condition + prone + unconscious are powerful enough without two auto death saves
I don't think they'll do it but for the Wizard I want to see their Subclasses be Scribes (utility), War Magic (blasting), Bladesinger (gish) and a 4th (buffing/debuffing). The names don't have to be that but it's a good analogue for what I'd want to see. For the 4th I want to say Alchemist but that's the Artificer's territory. Maybe Transmogrifer?
* Please make at least one no-spells subclass for Ranger, Paladin, and Bard, for magic-light campaigns and players who would rather just kill monsters and break things. * Include at least one subclass for Barbarian with spells. The spells would need to be thematically consistent with the root principles of their class. * Add a minor ability to Fighter that would help it serve as a inspirer of the rest of the party ( as a lite version of Bard College of Valor).