Lyxen, just to let you know, I am following the advice of others beforehand and will not debate/respond to you in this thread. It is off topic, and it is clear that any response will lead to further derailing. I don't know why you are playing the victim, as I have never attacked anyone for not powergaming/optimizing/minmaxing, but I have put most of my thoughts in this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I encourage people to please stop engaging with Lyxen in this thread. He has been asked several times, both both other respondents in the thread and by moderators of the board, to stop attacking others' ideas and attempting to discourage discussion of changes and suggestions for 5e. As he has refused to comply, I vote we simply ignore any further such attempts.
In that spirit...
For the first time in human history I find myself in agreement with Snetterton. 5e's grappling rules are a joke, and one of the most frequently Homebrew-Corrected things I've ever seen. While I understand that 5e is intended to be extremely fluid, fast, and simple, this is an area where the designers cut far too close to the bone. Improved grappling rules would go a long way towards spicing up oversimplified melee combat, and do wonders for improving the very popular but sadly underperforming PC archetype of the Grappler/Wrestler/Strongman. Many players want to make an unarmed brawler reliant on incredible might rather than the precision and accuracy of a monk, but the current 5e just doesn't let that happen. Improvements to grappling and unarmed combat would go a long way towards revitalizing melee. I know my own preferences for such a notion, but I'm curious what other folks might think?
Agreed on the first point here....
As for grappling...its hard to make them more complex but I would be willing to read how it would be done. PF2e pretty much as the same mechanics for grappling/tripping but its against a static DC instead of a roll so its easier to ensure you grapple/trip.
I could see 5e go that route and it would make stuff more streamlined yet and make it so the strongperson wins a lot more often.
The other approach would be to give a boon to the subclasses that grapple. More damage/debuff effects/ etc.. could be used to up the usefulness of grapple.
I once had a 30 minute discussion with a rogue player who wanted to grapple a caster NPC and keep him from doing somatic components. While at the time I thought this was silly for a dex based character to attempt I could maybe see this for a Mage Slayer barbarian who wants to cripple his caster enemies.
You asked how to change Grappling. In session 0, I presented my players with hard and soft copies of my House Rules that improve the game (yes, I know I know how arrogant that sounds, but it is fact).
There was a whole section on Grappling. You want simple, not going to happen. Much of this deals with Grappling something larger than the char, which drives me insane.
Grappling: All these modifiers are subject to varying conditions, such as wet conditions, slime, whatever comes up.......
Grappling is a special Melee attack, and 1 Grapple attempt = the Entire Attack Action.
Grappling a creature one size larger is at Disadvantage. You also need two hands free to attempt the Grapple on a creature one size larger than you.
When you have Grappled a target, you can attack the target the following turns with a Single (does not matter if you have multiple attacks in a turn, Monks being a special case) One-Armed Unarmed Attack or any weapon having the LIght Weapon Property, assuming it is still Grappled. (in this subcondition an Unarmed Attack would include the hilt of a sword, or the butt of some other weapon.)
Monks: Because at least one of your arms and/or legs involved in Grappling, your Unarmed Attacks available is cut in half.
Moving a Grappled Creature: You use your strength check (ie. Strength 18 = +4 on the roll) against the DC to see if you are successful. Two sizes smaller than you = DC 4 +/- the target's own strength/dexterity modifer. One size smaller than you = DC 8 +/- the target's own strength/dexterity modifer. Same size as you = DC 12 +/- the target's own strength/dexterity modifer. One size larger than you = DC 18 +/- the target's own strength/dexterity modifer. (see below for movement if the Grappled creature tries to move YOU).
The Grappled Creature may choose to drag/ carry you at half its speed on its movement, if it is at least one size larger than you. 50% of the time a Creature is Grappled, it is Restrained, unless at least one size larger than the Grappler. You cannot Restrain a creature larger than you. This Condition is re-rolled every turn. Grappling, then Dragging/Carrying a willing creature negates any Readied Action that turn for the willing grappled creature.
It just occured to me that one of the most important things for me to change would be to liberate spell effects from their extremely tight, narrow and "gamist" constraints.
Especially new players, but not only them, have a bit of trouble reconciliating the effects some spells are supposed to produce with real world logic. "The spell does only what it says in the description. If it doesn't say this, you can't produce the effect" In some aspects casting spells in 5e feels just as restrictive as it is in a video game when it should be the other way around.
There is a great scene in one of Terry Goodkind's novels from Sword of Truth series when an archmage fights against magic immune enemies. Realizing that his spells can't hurt them directly, he threw lightning in such a way that it destroyed parts of stone floor and sent razor sharp shards in their direction, lacerating them.
I am not saying that this particular effect should be written in the spell description but I would want spells to be described and handled in such a way that I don't have to explain to a new player why his powerful Lightning Bolt can't shatter a window but it can set a pile of dry hay on fire and inversely why his Chain Lightning can shatter a window but it can't set a pile of dry hay on fire.
It just occured to me that one of the most important things for me to change would be to liberate spell effects from their extremely tight, narrow and "gamist" constraints.
Especially new players, but not only them, have a bit of trouble reconciliating the effects some spells are supposed to produce with real world logic. "The spell does only what it says in the description. If it doesn't say this, you can't produce the effect" In some aspects casting spells in 5e feels just as restrictive as it is in a video game when it should be the other way around.
There is a great scene in one of Terry Goodkind's novels from Sword of Truth series when an archmage fights against magic immune enemies. Realizing that his spells can't hurt them directly, he threw lightning in such a way that it destroyed parts of stone floor and sent razor sharp shards in their direction, lacerating them.
I am not saying that this particular effect should be written in the spell description but I would want spells to be described and handled in such a way that I don't have to explain to a new player why his powerful Lightning Bolt can't shatter a window but it can set a pile of dry hay on fire and inversely why his Chain Lightning can shatter a window but it can't set a pile of dry hay on fire.
I couldn't swear to 4e, but Lightning Bolts were capable of damaging stone in at least every version up to 3.5e. And bounced if hitting a solid object, so you could get interesting effects out of them under the right circumstances.
Exactly!
From 3.5 Srd:
The lightning bolt sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in its path. It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the bolt may continue beyond the barrier if the spell’s range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Now, I wouldn't want to impose my logic onto others and remake every spell but I would appreciate something like a "Rule 0 of spellcasting: let your imagination fly" in which the DM is encouraged to allow for certain leeway in the effects the spells can produce if they feel like the situation warrants it and want to reward thinking outside the box.
That way when someone asks whether their Druid can cast Grasping Vine in order to try and save the party by redirecting a rolling boulder, or if he can use the spell to grasp an unattended object, the answer can be "according to the spell description no, because it's not a creature but under the general rule of spellcasting your DM may allow for that".
It just occured to me that one of the most important things for me to change would be to liberate spell effects from their extremely tight, narrow and "gamist" constraints.
Especially new players, but not only them, have a bit of trouble reconciliating the effects some spells are supposed to produce with real world logic. "The spell does only what it says in the description. If it doesn't say this, you can't produce the effect" In some aspects casting spells in 5e feels just as restrictive as it is in a video game when it should be the other way around.
There is a great scene in one of Terry Goodkind's novels from Sword of Truth series when an archmage fights against magic immune enemies. Realizing that his spells can't hurt them directly, he threw lightning in such a way that it destroyed parts of stone floor and sent razor sharp shards in their direction, lacerating them.
I am not saying that this particular effect should be written in the spell description but I would want spells to be described and handled in such a way that I don't have to explain to a new player why his powerful Lightning Bolt can't shatter a window but it can set a pile of dry hay on fire and inversely why his Chain Lightning can shatter a window but it can't set a pile of dry hay on fire.
I couldn't swear to 4e, but Lightning Bolts were capable of damaging stone in at least every version up to 3.5e. And bounced if hitting a solid object, so you could get interesting effects out of them under the right circumstances.
Indeed, in AD&D, lightning bolts were very complicated, including bouncing back at the caster if they could not shatter a wall for example. But they could also set fire to combustibles:
Explanation/Description: Upon casting this spell, the magic user releases a powerful stroke of electrical energy which causes damage equal to 1 sixsided die (d6) for each level of experience of the spell caster to creatures within its area of effect, or 50% of such damage to such creatures which successfully save versus the attack form. The range of the bolt is the location of the commencement of the stroke, i.e. if shot to 6", the bolt would extend from this point to n inches further distance. The lightning bolt will set fire to combustibles, sunder wooden doors, splinter up to 1' thickness of stone, and melt metals with a low melting point (lead, gold, copper, silver, bronze). Saving throws must be made for objects which withstand the full force of a stroke (cf. fireball). The area of the lightning bolt's effect is determined by the spell caster, just as its distance is. The stroke can be either a forking bolt 1" wide and 4" long, or a single bolt %"wide and 8" long. If a 12th level magic-user cast the spell at its maximum range, 16" in this case, the stroke would begin at 16" and flash outward from there, as a forked bolt ending at 20" or a single one ending at 24". If the full length of the stroke is not possible due to the interposition of CI nonconducting barrier (such as a stone wall), the lightning bolt will double and rebound towards its caster, its length being the normal total from beginning to end of stroke, damage caused to interposing barriers notwithstanding. Example: An 8' stroke is begun at a range of 4", but the possible space in the desired direction is only 3%"; so the bolt begins at the 3%" maximum, and it rebounds 8" in the direction of its creator. The material components of the spell are a bit of fur and an amber, crystal or glass rod.
Back to the original topic, while I agree with the suggestion to use spells inventively in general, this goes off in multiple directions:
First, it should be not only the spells, but all the powers and actually most of the actions, all of these should be allowed to be used inventively.
Back to my example of the character Jumping on the giant boar, it was to steer it away from the prophetess by twisting its head by grabbing the ears, the character had no way to kill the boar quickly enough to prevent it from attacking the prophetess and probably goring her to death in one blow.
But then, you get in the area of general consistency and of players wanting to repeat or deviate things further. And this can only happen with the right spirit around the table. I don't want to pull the topic back to minmaxing and rule-lawyering, but it is connected, as soon as you make a ruling like this, players will remember it. Some will only and simply remember it with fondness, but some will try to exploit it, and depending on your table you need to be prepared for this. What I'm trying to say here (and this is why I posted the lengthy description of lightning bolt above), you might end up either with a very complicated game (like AD&D was, and this is not what my understanding of the trend of the game is) or a lot of small house rules to keep track of.
Finally, the area of "real world logic" is a tricky one. First, D&D is not a realistic game, it is at best a simulation of high fantasy. Surviving a fireball is not "real world logic", in the real world, you would be dead. Things like hit points and damage are not wholly physical for example, for some characters, it's really luck or divine protection. Moreover, even in "real world logic", you can get different interpretations, for example (and this is not a criticism of anyone), Lathlaer thinks that a lightning bolt should not set combustibles on fire, but Gygax did...
No no, I want it to set combustibles on fire. And I want it to be able to damage objects. Per RAW now LB sets things on fire and CL destroys objects. I don't see any reason why both spells couldn't do both.
And I also think that if a Druids wants to be cool and cast Call Lightning in order to set a pyre on fire, they should also be able to do it (per RAW, they are not).
I would change the rogues sneak attack to a cap at 5d6. A high level rogue could do 10d6 every round its like a fireball every round. He or she does more damage with one attack than a fighter with three...doesn't make sense. And a crit!!!! Forget about it..
I would change the rogues sneak attack to a cap at 5d6.
1) A high level rogue could do 10d6 every round its like a fireball every round.
2) He or she does more damage with one attack than a fighter with three...doesn't make sense. And a crit!!!! Forget about it..
1) Actually, no, it's not. Fireball is an AoE spell, which means that it can (and usually will) be used to damage more than one creature every time it is used. Sneak Attack only damages one creature.
2) If you look at the underlying math of the game, Rogues are actually just on par with Fighters, Paladins, and similar classes. They're not overpowered, even if their Sneak Attack dice does seem like a lot for one attack. Fighters and other classes have other features to allow them to keep up with Rogues (Action Surge, 4 attacks every action and probably a bonus action attack, and their subclasses that normally enhance their damage).
1.) I would change the spell attack so that all physical spell attacks involve a to hit roll which might set a spell save DC and that have range modifiers rather than max range
You want to throw a fireball? Roll to hit, add range modifiers, cover, etc. Your roll sets the spell save DC.
2.) I would get rid of the racial ability to add a bonus anywhere you want. Humans would be the only race with that feature
3.) I would add a couple of more Wild Surge tables based on themes. There might be a whimsical one, a horror one, etc. so that the GM can choose which one to use for the tone of his campaign.
1.) I would change the spell attack so that all physical spell attacks involve a to hit roll which might set a spell save DC and that have range modifiers rather than max range
You want to throw a fireball? Roll to hit, add range modifiers, cover, etc. Your roll sets the spell save DC.
I'd only want that if they really boosted how likely it is that the caster gets their spell to work as planned. Currently, a little more than half my targets get hit full on by a Fireball. Reduce that by almost half again for the To Hit roll? That is a major nerf. If they messed with the mechanics so that it's roughly the same odds as now, but the DC gets adjusted by my rolls? That could be an interesting experiment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
3.) I would add a couple of more Wild Surge tables based on themes. There might be a whimsical one, a horror one, etc. so that the GM can choose which one to use for the tone of his campaign.
Those are actually kind of present in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. They're spooky themed ones, aberrant ones, broken magic ones, and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
2) If you look at the underlying math of the game, Rogues are actually just on par with Fighters, Paladins, and similar classes.
They're actually kind of weak unless it's a zero magic items game. A level 20 rogue with a rapier and 20 dex does a base of 1d8+10d6+5 (44) damage per round, a level 20 fighter with dueling style does 4d8+28 (46), and any static damage bonuses (such as a magic weapon or buffing spell) apply 4x to the fighter, 1x to the rogue.
I think this thread has unknowingly become an excellent place for DMs to look and find some interesting ideas or for players to ask for.
As I was reading through all this I was actually thinking the same thing.
If I could change one thing about 5e, it would be to replace the action economy with the one Pathfinder 2nd edition uses.
But arguably I would say that 5e would be universally more playable for me if three things happened and frankly 2 of the three things are being addressed through 3rd party material.
Monster Design, which Matt Coville is going to fix later this year and the speed and deadliness of combat, already fixed with hardcore rules.
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
Honestly, looks a lot like 4th edition (I've been playing around with converting 4th edition monsters to 5e; it's reasonably straightforward as long as you start PCs at level 3).
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
It really does and though I don't know if Matt is aware of it, but based on the preview, this content is completely D&D system neutral, meaning you can use it in any version of D&D and it works.
The descriptions might be system neutral, but the mechanics certainly are not. A lot of things (such as ability score modifiers, attack bonus, and armor class) don't make sense for editions before 3rd, and the standards for what those things should be have changed dramatically between 3e, 4e, and 5e.
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
That sounds horrific.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lyxen, just to let you know, I am following the advice of others beforehand and will not debate/respond to you in this thread. It is off topic, and it is clear that any response will lead to further derailing. I don't know why you are playing the victim, as I have never attacked anyone for not powergaming/optimizing/minmaxing, but I have put most of my thoughts in this thread.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Just to throw this out to anyone who isn't aware, the Ignore function is your friend. It has made my life marvelous ever since I started using it.
You asked how to change Grappling. In session 0, I presented my players with hard and soft copies of my House Rules that improve the game (yes, I know I know how arrogant that sounds, but it is fact).
There was a whole section on Grappling. You want simple, not going to happen. Much of this deals with Grappling something larger than the char, which drives me insane.
Grappling:
All these modifiers are subject to varying conditions, such as wet conditions, slime, whatever comes up.......
Grappling is a special Melee attack, and 1 Grapple attempt = the Entire Attack Action.
Grappling a creature one size larger is at Disadvantage. You also need two hands free to attempt the Grapple on a creature one size larger than you.
When you have Grappled a target, you can attack the target the following turns with a Single (does not matter if you have multiple attacks in a turn, Monks being a special case) One-Armed Unarmed Attack or any weapon having the LIght Weapon Property, assuming it is still Grappled. (in this subcondition an Unarmed Attack would include the hilt of a sword, or the butt of some other weapon.)
Monks: Because at least one of your arms and/or legs involved in Grappling, your Unarmed Attacks available is cut in half.
Moving a Grappled Creature:
You use your strength check (ie. Strength 18 = +4 on the roll) against the DC to see if you are successful.
Two sizes smaller than you = DC 4 +/- the target's own strength/dexterity modifer.
One size smaller than you = DC 8 +/- the target's own strength/dexterity modifer.
Same size as you = DC 12 +/- the target's own strength/dexterity modifer.
One size larger than you = DC 18 +/- the target's own strength/dexterity modifer.
(see below for movement if the Grappled creature tries to move YOU).
The Grappled Creature may choose to drag/ carry you at half its speed on its movement, if it is at least one size larger than you.
50% of the time a Creature is Grappled, it is Restrained, unless at least one size larger than the Grappler. You cannot Restrain a creature larger than you. This Condition is re-rolled every turn.
Grappling, then Dragging/Carrying a willing creature negates any Readied Action that turn for the willing grappled creature.
It just occured to me that one of the most important things for me to change would be to liberate spell effects from their extremely tight, narrow and "gamist" constraints.
Especially new players, but not only them, have a bit of trouble reconciliating the effects some spells are supposed to produce with real world logic. "The spell does only what it says in the description. If it doesn't say this, you can't produce the effect" In some aspects casting spells in 5e feels just as restrictive as it is in a video game when it should be the other way around.
There is a great scene in one of Terry Goodkind's novels from Sword of Truth series when an archmage fights against magic immune enemies. Realizing that his spells can't hurt them directly, he threw lightning in such a way that it destroyed parts of stone floor and sent razor sharp shards in their direction, lacerating them.
I am not saying that this particular effect should be written in the spell description but I would want spells to be described and handled in such a way that I don't have to explain to a new player why his powerful Lightning Bolt can't shatter a window but it can set a pile of dry hay on fire and inversely why his Chain Lightning can shatter a window but it can't set a pile of dry hay on fire.
Exactly!
From 3.5 Srd:
Now, I wouldn't want to impose my logic onto others and remake every spell but I would appreciate something like a "Rule 0 of spellcasting: let your imagination fly" in which the DM is encouraged to allow for certain leeway in the effects the spells can produce if they feel like the situation warrants it and want to reward thinking outside the box.
That way when someone asks whether their Druid can cast Grasping Vine in order to try and save the party by redirecting a rolling boulder, or if he can use the spell to grasp an unattended object, the answer can be "according to the spell description no, because it's not a creature but under the general rule of spellcasting your DM may allow for that".
No no, I want it to set combustibles on fire. And I want it to be able to damage objects. Per RAW now LB sets things on fire and CL destroys objects. I don't see any reason why both spells couldn't do both.
And I also think that if a Druids wants to be cool and cast Call Lightning in order to set a pyre on fire, they should also be able to do it (per RAW, they are not).
I would change the rogues sneak attack to a cap at 5d6. A high level rogue could do 10d6 every round its like a fireball every round. He or she does more damage with one attack than a fighter with three...doesn't make sense. And a crit!!!! Forget about it..
1) Actually, no, it's not. Fireball is an AoE spell, which means that it can (and usually will) be used to damage more than one creature every time it is used. Sneak Attack only damages one creature.
2) If you look at the underlying math of the game, Rogues are actually just on par with Fighters, Paladins, and similar classes. They're not overpowered, even if their Sneak Attack dice does seem like a lot for one attack. Fighters and other classes have other features to allow them to keep up with Rogues (Action Surge, 4 attacks every action and probably a bonus action attack, and their subclasses that normally enhance their damage).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Probably include rules for adopting monsters as Player Characters.
1.) I would change the spell attack so that all physical spell attacks involve a to hit roll which might set a spell save DC and that have range modifiers rather than max range
You want to throw a fireball? Roll to hit, add range modifiers, cover, etc. Your roll sets the spell save DC.
2.) I would get rid of the racial ability to add a bonus anywhere you want. Humans would be the only race with that feature
3.) I would add a couple of more Wild Surge tables based on themes. There might be a whimsical one, a horror one, etc. so that the GM can choose which one to use for the tone of his campaign.
I'd only want that if they really boosted how likely it is that the caster gets their spell to work as planned. Currently, a little more than half my targets get hit full on by a Fireball. Reduce that by almost half again for the To Hit roll? That is a major nerf. If they messed with the mechanics so that it's roughly the same odds as now, but the DC gets adjusted by my rolls? That could be an interesting experiment.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Those are actually kind of present in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. They're spooky themed ones, aberrant ones, broken magic ones, and so on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They're actually kind of weak unless it's a zero magic items game. A level 20 rogue with a rapier and 20 dex does a base of 1d8+10d6+5 (44) damage per round, a level 20 fighter with dueling style does 4d8+28 (46), and any static damage bonuses (such as a magic weapon or buffing spell) apply 4x to the fighter, 1x to the rogue.
I think this thread has unknowingly become an excellent place for DMs to look and find some interesting ideas or for players to ask for.
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
The big issue with 'fixing' combat is lack of agreement about what that means; different players and groups have dramatically different desires.
Honestly, looks a lot like 4th edition (I've been playing around with converting 4th edition monsters to 5e; it's reasonably straightforward as long as you start PCs at level 3).
One thing I’d like is for each skill to have an associated feat. This feat would grant a few spells with a DC.
For example, the Survival feat would enable you to cast Pass without Trace if you made a survival skill check vs some DC.
Arcana might let you cast Detect Magic.
Religion might let you cast Protection from Evil.
Each feat would give you three spells with increasingly. harder DCs
The descriptions might be system neutral, but the mechanics certainly are not. A lot of things (such as ability score modifiers, attack bonus, and armor class) don't make sense for editions before 3rd, and the standards for what those things should be have changed dramatically between 3e, 4e, and 5e.
Customization.
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
That sounds horrific.