1 - We add our INT modifier to the amount of skill points we start with at first level, and can only put one point into the skill.
2 - We gain more skill points as we level at each of the Ability Score Improvement Tiers. We gain 2 Skill Points to be used for Skill Proficiencies and 2 Points for Weapon Proficiencies.
3 - Skill Proficiencies. When you gain the 2 skill points at your Ability Modifier levels, only 1 skill point can be used per skill increase level tier.
- 1 Skill Point = Proficient (+ proficiency bonus to skill)
- 4 Skill Points = Master (gain advantage on all checks made with the skill)
- 5 Skill Points = Ascendant (Increase the Maximum and the Ability Score related to skill by +1)
- 6 Skill Points = Transcendent (Increase the Maximum and the Ability Score related to skill by +2)
Note: If your race gives you a skill, and you choose a background that gives you that same skill, and you put one of your skill points into that same skill, it counts as 3 skill points from the start at level 1. If you choose the skilled feat, it counts as 1 point per skill chosen.
(Ex: to optimize this, a level 1 character chooses Half-Orc. They are now proficient in Intimidation. They choose the Fighter class and the Soldier background and now a specialist in Intimidation. If they put one of their starting skill points into that same skill, they now an expert in Intimidation at level 1. Then at level 4, they take the Skilled feat and choose Intimidation as one of the skills, they are now a Master, and if they put one of their 2 skill points at level 4 into Intimidation, they are now an Ascendent with Intimidation. Upon reaching level 6, they gain another 2 Skill Points and can become Transcendent with the Intimidation Skill.)
4 - Weapon Proficiencies: When you gain the 2 weapon skill points at your Ability Modifier levels, only 1 skill point can be used per weapon per skill increase level tier. Applies to Monk's Unarmed Attacks and to Caster's Offensive Cantrips (Eldritch Blast, Fire Bolt, Acid Splash, etc.)
- 1 Skill Point = Proficient (+ proficiency bonus to hit)
Note: If your race gives you weapon proficiency, and you choose a class that gives it to you, it counts as 2 skill points from the start at level 1. If you choose the Weapon Master Feat, it counts as 1 point per weapon chosen.
(Ex: to optimize this, a Level 1 character chooses High Elf. They are now proficient with Longsword, Shortsword, Longbow, and Shortbow. They choose to become a fighter, and are now specialized in all four weapons. Then at level 4, they take the Weapon Master Feat and choose all four Elf Weapon Training weapons, they are now an Expert in Longsword, Shortsword, Longbow, and Shortbow, and if they put each one of their 2 skill points at level 4 into two of the weapons, Longsword and Longbow, they are now Prestigous with them. Upon reaching level 6, they gain another 2 Weapon skill points and can either Master Longsword and Longbow, or raise the Shortsword and Shortbow to Prestigous. At level 8 they gain another 2 Weapon skill points and can either become Supreme with Longsword and Longbow, or Master the Shortsword and Shortbow)
I am not sure I would use such a homebrew rule, to be honest. I like the fact that in 5th edition you do not have to worry about skill points or the like, but I see how your idea could be interesting.
My main concern would be balancing, especially in relation to the combat balancing in terms of the weapon proficiency points, as if for the skill checks it's "merely" a matter of upping the difficulty, re-balancing all the enemies the party might face having to take into consideration all the variables of the weapon proficiency levels seems like a bit overloading the game.
Also: this technically leaves the focused casters (Wizards and Sorcerors especially) at quite the loss, as they would not benefit very much form the weapon proficiency points. At least this is the impression I get from this.
Overall I have the feeling it is a tad too powerful as a mechanic, at the cost of a lot of balancing out to be done by the DM. Were these feats, it'd be a bit more balanced, with each feat needing the previous tier as a prerequisite.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I am also an advocate for bringing back bonus spells. That would benefit the casters and not the melee. You also have Bladesingers and Bladelocks who could benefit nicely from it. This would affect monks Unarmed Strikes as well.
As for the Weapon Proficiency points going unused by pure casters, I understand how that might be worthless to them, but perhaps they could:
- put them into weapons they don't have access to, but want access to.
- put them into tool proficiencies instead.
- be applied to their offensive cantrips (Eldritch Blast, Fire Bolt, Acid Splash, etc.) THIS ONE IS THE WINNER!
That would be, imho, another variable to take into consideration at the moment of balancing encounters, making the DM's job harder.
I am not trying to say it's a bad idea, I am just saying that adding new mechanics comes with risks and drawbacks. Integrating the same ideas in the form of, for example, Feats, would keep everything within the current system and help keeping the characters balanced and the work of the DM less daunting.
To make clear what my view is let me state clearly that it's all a matter of not having any kind of "tradeoff" but a simple addition on top of what the game already offers. Going the Feat way it would be instead an integration, as the players still have to decide if they want the Ability increase or the feat, keeping the game balanced as it is (provided the Feats have appropriate prerequisites themselves). All additional rules WotC has put into the DMG or XGtE are in themselves balanced with the rest of the system (albeit with varying grades of success and liking by the community) because they work with what is already in the system, just changing it slightly to maintain as much as possible balance but offering an alternative way of doing something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
We should be getting Ability Score Increases as well as Feats. Not one or the other. Both.
This game has quite a bit of growth ahead of it. EverQuest started out with minimal magic items and so did WoW. This game 5E feels like its been hit with the biggest nerf bat in D&D history.
Almost all of the good magical items need attunement and you can only attune to three items. That is super lame. Artifacts should be limited, but not magical items.
A warlock at 8th level can only cast 2 spells before needing to rest, but knows 9. What kind of crap is that? Then I feel forced to always pick Armor of Agathys and Hex for my spells. The other ones just aren't that helpful to me and appear to just be filler when I am so restricted. All I can do is Eldritch Blast everything while shifting Hex around after Armor of Agathys wears off. Don't even try to justify it by saying that I get spells back after a short rest.
Requiring concentration on so many spells is a total load of bull as well.
It would appear, from context, that the reasoning is full-on disagreement with the entire idea behind 5th edition and it's chosen style of keeping the game functional and balanced.
I would say because of the Point Buy encouraging min/max, making you take incredibly low stats in order to get 15 in one or two others. As a player, wouldn't you like to have both? Feats are nice perks to enhance your character, and having both helps. Maybe, I am a power gamer, but maybe some people are comfortable with their supposedly heroic adventuring characters dwelling in mediocrity.
The average human has all Abilities eating at 10. Any character is almost automatically better than the average human in everything except maybe one Ability left at 8 and maybe one at 10.
Also, point buy is not the only Ability score system, you can also use the 4d6 method, which on average yields higher basic stats and could even result in a basic score of 18 before racial bonuses.
So, according to what scale is a character mediocre for you?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I support the 4d6, but I need to take into account the lowest common denominator being Adventurer's League. Taking negative and 0 modifier's on an ability is mediocre - average. We are supposed to be adventurers. Hero's and Villain's. Yes underdogs have been known to have epic tales written about them, but who wants to be the underdog? We all want to be bad ass.
So for you everything should be 12+, I gather. And following up I could also argue that for you an heroic deed, or being a hero, is being flawless and getting extremely high results, regardless of the actual difficulty faced, am I correct?
That is one way to play the game (not mine, obviously enough), but while I could see the sense in that if on the other end of the table you have a DM that keeps very high DCs and makes you face enemies of way higher level than the party, I can't really see the sense of it in AL, as all published adventures are created and balanced in relation to the Standard array or point-buy Ability systems, and therefore the challenges in those adventures are calibrated for that type of Ability ranges.
I always found powerful but flawed characters to be more interesting, but I understand this is not your preferred style.
Let me ask you one last question: do you consider Caramon and Raistlin heroes? What about Sam and Frodo?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Taking negative and 0 modifier's on an ability is mediocre - average. We are supposed to be adventurers. Hero's and Villain's. Yes underdogs have been known to have epic tales written about them, but who wants to be the underdog? We all want to be bad ass.
Have you seen the stats on a commoner? Point buy already produces characters that are exceptional. It sounds more like you don't want to have any weaknesses at all, while still being exceptional at something. That's boring.
Skill Suggestions:
1 - We add our INT modifier to the amount of skill points we start with at first level, and can only put one point into the skill.
2 - We gain more skill points as we level at each of the Ability Score Improvement Tiers. We gain 2 Skill Points to be used for Skill Proficiencies and 2 Points for Weapon Proficiencies.
3 - Skill Proficiencies. When you gain the 2 skill points at your Ability Modifier levels, only 1 skill point can be used per skill increase level tier.
- 1 Skill Point = Proficient (+ proficiency bonus to skill)
- 2 Skill Points = Specialist (+ double proficiency bonus to skill)
- 3 Skill Points = Expert (Gain the special ability associated with the Unearthed Arcana: Feats for Skills of the chosen skill : https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-SkillFeats.pdf )
- 4 Skill Points = Master (gain advantage on all checks made with the skill)
- 5 Skill Points = Ascendant (Increase the Maximum and the Ability Score related to skill by +1)
- 6 Skill Points = Transcendent (Increase the Maximum and the Ability Score related to skill by +2)
Note: If your race gives you a skill, and you choose a background that gives you that same skill, and you put one of your skill points into that same skill, it counts as 3 skill points from the start at level 1. If you choose the skilled feat, it counts as 1 point per skill chosen.
(Ex: to optimize this, a level 1 character chooses Half-Orc. They are now proficient in Intimidation. They choose the Fighter class and the Soldier background and now a specialist in Intimidation. If they put one of their starting skill points into that same skill, they now an expert in Intimidation at level 1. Then at level 4, they take the Skilled feat and choose Intimidation as one of the skills, they are now a Master, and if they put one of their 2 skill points at level 4 into Intimidation, they are now an Ascendent with Intimidation. Upon reaching level 6, they gain another 2 Skill Points and can become Transcendent with the Intimidation Skill.)
4 - Weapon Proficiencies: When you gain the 2 weapon skill points at your Ability Modifier levels, only 1 skill point can be used per weapon per skill increase level tier. Applies to Monk's Unarmed Attacks and to Caster's Offensive Cantrips (Eldritch Blast, Fire Bolt, Acid Splash, etc.)
- 1 Skill Point = Proficient (+ proficiency bonus to hit)
- 2 Skill Points = Specialized (+ proficiency bonus to damage)
- 3 Skill Points = Expertise (+1 to critical threat range) ex: 20 becomes 19-20; 19-20 becomes 18-20; etc.
- 4 Skill Points = Prestige (+1 to critical damage multiplier) ex: x2 becomes x3; x3 becomes x4; etc.
- 5 Skill Points = Mastery (You gain advantage on ALL attacks made with this weapon)
- 6 Skill Points = Supremacy (increased damage dice) ex: [1 = 1d4], [1d4 = 1d6], [1d6 = 1d8], [1d8 = 2d6], [1d10 = 2d8], [1d12 = 3d6], [2d6 = 3d6]
Note: If your race gives you weapon proficiency, and you choose a class that gives it to you, it counts as 2 skill points from the start at level 1. If you choose the Weapon Master Feat, it counts as 1 point per weapon chosen.
(Ex: to optimize this, a Level 1 character chooses High Elf. They are now proficient with Longsword, Shortsword, Longbow, and Shortbow. They choose to become a fighter, and are now specialized in all four weapons. Then at level 4, they take the Weapon Master Feat and choose all four Elf Weapon Training weapons, they are now an Expert in Longsword, Shortsword, Longbow, and Shortbow, and if they put each one of their 2 skill points at level 4 into two of the weapons, Longsword and Longbow, they are now Prestigous with them. Upon reaching level 6, they gain another 2 Weapon skill points and can either Master Longsword and Longbow, or raise the Shortsword and Shortbow to Prestigous. At level 8 they gain another 2 Weapon skill points and can either become Supreme with Longsword and Longbow, or Master the Shortsword and Shortbow)
I am not sure I would use such a homebrew rule, to be honest. I like the fact that in 5th edition you do not have to worry about skill points or the like, but I see how your idea could be interesting.
My main concern would be balancing, especially in relation to the combat balancing in terms of the weapon proficiency points, as if for the skill checks it's "merely" a matter of upping the difficulty, re-balancing all the enemies the party might face having to take into consideration all the variables of the weapon proficiency levels seems like a bit overloading the game.
Also: this technically leaves the focused casters (Wizards and Sorcerors especially) at quite the loss, as they would not benefit very much form the weapon proficiency points. At least this is the impression I get from this.
Overall I have the feeling it is a tad too powerful as a mechanic, at the cost of a lot of balancing out to be done by the DM. Were these feats, it'd be a bit more balanced, with each feat needing the previous tier as a prerequisite.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I am also an advocate for bringing back bonus spells. That would benefit the casters and not the melee. You also have Bladesingers and Bladelocks who could benefit nicely from it. This would affect monks Unarmed Strikes as well.
As for the Weapon Proficiency points going unused by pure casters, I understand how that might be worthless to them, but perhaps they could:
- put them into weapons they don't have access to, but want access to.
- put them into tool proficiencies instead.
- be applied to their offensive cantrips (Eldritch Blast, Fire Bolt, Acid Splash, etc.) THIS ONE IS THE WINNER!
That would be, imho, another variable to take into consideration at the moment of balancing encounters, making the DM's job harder.
I am not trying to say it's a bad idea, I am just saying that adding new mechanics comes with risks and drawbacks. Integrating the same ideas in the form of, for example, Feats, would keep everything within the current system and help keeping the characters balanced and the work of the DM less daunting.
To make clear what my view is let me state clearly that it's all a matter of not having any kind of "tradeoff" but a simple addition on top of what the game already offers.
Going the Feat way it would be instead an integration, as the players still have to decide if they want the Ability increase or the feat, keeping the game balanced as it is (provided the Feats have appropriate prerequisites themselves). All additional rules WotC has put into the DMG or XGtE are in themselves balanced with the rest of the system (albeit with varying grades of success and liking by the community) because they work with what is already in the system, just changing it slightly to maintain as much as possible balance but offering an alternative way of doing something.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
We should be getting Ability Score Increases as well as Feats. Not one or the other. Both.
This game has quite a bit of growth ahead of it. EverQuest started out with minimal magic items and so did WoW. This game 5E feels like its been hit with the biggest nerf bat in D&D history.
Almost all of the good magical items need attunement and you can only attune to three items. That is super lame. Artifacts should be limited, but not magical items.
A warlock at 8th level can only cast 2 spells before needing to rest, but knows 9. What kind of crap is that? Then I feel forced to always pick Armor of Agathys and Hex for my spells. The other ones just aren't that helpful to me and appear to just be filler when I am so restricted. All I can do is Eldritch Blast everything while shifting Hex around after Armor of Agathys wears off. Don't even try to justify it by saying that I get spells back after a short rest.
Requiring concentration on so many spells is a total load of bull as well.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I would say because of the Point Buy encouraging min/max, making you take incredibly low stats in order to get 15 in one or two others. As a player, wouldn't you like to have both? Feats are nice perks to enhance your character, and having both helps. Maybe, I am a power gamer, but maybe some people are comfortable with their supposedly heroic adventuring characters dwelling in mediocrity.
Mediocrity according to what scale?
The average human has all Abilities eating at 10. Any character is almost automatically better than the average human in everything except maybe one Ability left at 8 and maybe one at 10.
Also, point buy is not the only Ability score system, you can also use the 4d6 method, which on average yields higher basic stats and could even result in a basic score of 18 before racial bonuses.
So, according to what scale is a character mediocre for you?
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I support the 4d6, but I need to take into account the lowest common denominator being Adventurer's League. Taking negative and 0 modifier's on an ability is mediocre - average. We are supposed to be adventurers. Hero's and Villain's. Yes underdogs have been known to have epic tales written about them, but who wants to be the underdog? We all want to be bad ass.
So for you everything should be 12+, I gather. And following up I could also argue that for you an heroic deed, or being a hero, is being flawless and getting extremely high results, regardless of the actual difficulty faced, am I correct?
That is one way to play the game (not mine, obviously enough), but while I could see the sense in that if on the other end of the table you have a DM that keeps very high DCs and makes you face enemies of way higher level than the party, I can't really see the sense of it in AL, as all published adventures are created and balanced in relation to the Standard array or point-buy Ability systems, and therefore the challenges in those adventures are calibrated for that type of Ability ranges.
I always found powerful but flawed characters to be more interesting, but I understand this is not your preferred style.
Let me ask you one last question: do you consider Caramon and Raistlin heroes? What about Sam and Frodo?
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
The Forum Infestation (TM)