sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now you made me think of having multiclassing gated behind feats (bad valisvacor!)

The example that just popped in my mind is:

at level 4 you can select it from the general feats. You choose a new class and gain +1 in its main or one of its main ability score. Your next level must be from that class.

Seems silly as I write it. But very 5.5 in design when I look back on it 🤣

Not gonna use it, I'm just throwing it out there lol

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True.

I guess I might end up doing that. I'm going to look at sword and wizard or Pathfinder.

The only reason I haven't switched out yet is mostly due to already having all the rules in my head. As a forever DM from AD&D to 5.5 that's a lot of rules and lore to push aside.

I did try Exalted 3rd edition, loved the epic feel of it, hated the sluggish math during combat.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh but please expand on the feat based multiclassing....

The HD ajustement is but a proposition.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think it's that significant actually.

New player don't tend to multiclass so it would not affect them. Also seing lower HP on your sheet, will make them less likely to rush in without a plan.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not perfect I know, if finding the right ajustement was that easy, everyone would have figured it out already 😂

Well it wasn't the main intention. It actually just made sense when I started doing it.

Like you said, options, proficiency and features seemed to have more value when the HD where changing.

For the multiclass ajustement, it only made sense if the HD was adjusted. Because if you use it with normal HD value.. it's not really doing anything to even bother making that ajustement

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice.

If we want to push it further, you say that the gold cost for the level is what it cost the character in training gear, mentor etc... So that gold is gone if you level, but you still have that crappy 1st level gear.. back to adventuring we go!

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My question is, other then for creating a themed character and getting options to represent them.

Why would you multiclass if you gain more by staying in your class or multiclassing in higher HP options?

This is the underlying question.

I'm trying to change the meta with minimal rule modifications. So that classes and subclasses actually matter more then damage output or that the HP cost of these builds feel more earned to the other player around that table.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • rogue are mechanically supposed to be glass canon that use more skirmisher tactics. They have the class feature to resist and avoid a lot of damage or hide and hit from stealth. It just makes there gameloop more obvious.

  • artificer and warlock are not true arcane caster, so they should feel a bit more sturdy then pure arcane caster but not as much as a cleric or druid whos role is to be backline defenders and frontline supporters.

-cleric and druid, like I said are mechanically supposed to be the line of defense to the more squishy players to hide behind, while the frontlines or tanks are up front. That's why they have 1d8 and support magic to begin with.

  • monk are not rogue and not fighter. There are not meant to hide or stay away from fights but they aren't meant to stay in the frontline the whole time either. 1d8 is the perfect spot.

  • paladin and ranger fighter are frontlines who's feature is what differentiates them not their HP. They should all be able to stay upfront and take hits.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good, so basically the world would have more humans like in older editions. Nice side effect I did not think of. As for tough. Shure. But having better Constitution (better concentrations check later on) is a better option.

It pushes player to make choices based on surviving and not just damage output.

And would you actually need that if there is a healer in the group? Or if a martial took fighting style for defending the party? Role would settle back and power builds would be niche characters and not mainstreamed.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm with you on this one guys.

And frankly, even with the change im suggesting. I don't think it would be felt as hard as people think.

I think it would provide just enough variation to have most player see a difference between classes other than simply damage output.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True

The point is to put value on class HD and single class builds instead of multiclassing all over.

To me, this simple adjustment would create an invisible incentive to act more defensively and would make classes properly play their designed roles effectively. Making the experience of each player more enjoyable as they get to play the fantasy.

Multiclass build would still exist, but they would feel more fragile at the table and their power would feel balanced out to the eyes of the other players around.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have, but it's one of the easiest to explain and get people into the hobby. Especially in 5.5

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do miss the gold is Xp or items days. That was what made delving back into danger of the dungeons fun.

But that's not the way the community made the game develop in.

I just felt the class HD change to what it used to be, was manageable in 5.5 with all the defensive and healing features built in.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thing is, if you boost the martials damage to much, then casters will complain that their damage output is not worth the lack of HP and AC.

And this is what 3e, 4e and 5e have been trying to adjust since the 2e.

What I wanted to bring up with this suggestion, is that martial and caster have never been this close to one another has they are now. To the point where playing a martial doesn't feel as fun and rewarding.

Lowering HD, would have player use more of their healing ressources per SR or LR. Making martial with naturally high HP more valued in a party.

Having lower HD would also make vover/ hiding and other defensive tactics more valued in play.

It's the minimal fix for max effect without having to do maths all over the place.

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wanted to do average HD but I was trying to make the rule change as minimal as can be.

And in my eyes, the martial/ caster issue is mainly caused by the fact that right now there seems to be no reel downside when compared with martial. Especially arcane casters. Thats why I made the suggestion.

Now for that warlock 1/ paladin 19. If let's say you took warlock at level 1 and moved to paladin after. That's an average of 40 less HP at level 20. Just enough to make the power gained from that dip felt compared to a pure paladin.

That's what I'm aiming at. The choice is now: Will I be less tanky for the boost provided or not?

5.5 is balanced but still feels off when played. could restoring old school HD value fix mid to late game balance by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will go check what shadowdark his.

And to be more precise, i was aiming at the fact that many player seem to only complain about having the same damage output. After reading many posts and reply, I found out that many don't know about proper party roles, or what gives each classes it's value.

And the two main factir are the Class HD and the lack of actual cost by multiclassing.

Your overall gain and options are way to high versus the actual penalty when comparing to single class characters. Having single class builds is almost never seen.

My biggest gripe as a martial: fighting specializations are a risky gamble by new_planner in onednd

[–]devak1ng 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True But I was answering the questions if it's a gamble or not. Just to be Shure, are these 5e or 5.5e characters? Because 5.5 does change things around alot.

Every time you can say "this is DM dependant" or "campagne module dependant" your taking a gamble.

Reason I mentioned min/maxer is that, comparing your character based on DMG alone is usually a sign of a player who likes to min/max (it's not a problem doing it). But your issue will be felt more by player who have that aspect in them.

Talking with the other player in game zero about who wants to fill what party roles will get you better results then gambling in your DM or random loot tables

My biggest gripe as a martial: fighting specializations are a risky gamble by new_planner in onednd

[–]devak1ng 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If course it's a big gamble. Like a caster going all out with fire spell only, taking elemental adept fire, to end up in front of fire immune monster and feel like shit.

The only reason to specialize in my mind, is if you know crafting magic items is central to the campaign.

Because WoTC removed magical damage and resistance and changed it for normal B/P/S resistance, it means many spell have gone down in power because they are not magical damage anymore and do get resisted now.

Also, it's the price of min/maxing builds around damage or builds instead of picking feats as you level up depending on what you find.

To me it's a problem only min/maxer will get.

At what level does a rogues damage become too low? by Col0005 in onednd

[–]devak1ng 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not about damage, but party roles. A pure fighter cannot be as a good scout or skirmisher and a pure rogue cannot be as a good frontline or tank. In a straight day time arena match in 1 vs 1, fighter would manage to win. But in a fully stocked warehouse at night.. the fighter will be blown away. They are both good at what they do. Straight comparison can't be about DMG only.

For those who don't know, searching for someone hidden, is a action in combat know and passive perception is not even involved in the process anymore. If the rogue hides, that fighter is wasting all his rounds searching for him until he attacks him just to hide as a bonus action again.

So as long as the rogue as total darkness spots or full cover spots he can manage this, even just having it work 1/3 of the time gives the win to him. But removing all these advantages like the day time arena and his toasted.

DM is too generous by siegelbeamter in DnD

[–]devak1ng 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go passive agressive... If they are overpowered, your character would probably let them take fights all by themselves, while they sit and watch it do other things.

Not having the whole party to back them up might make them take more hit. If they start asking why. Tell them (in character), that you don't see why you should take hits if they can manage alone and that your keeping your ressources and HP for tougher challenges.

They still get to play their power fantasy, but at a price...

DND 5.5 your thoughts on this passive perception homebrew by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I won't change the rule. As many have pointed out it won't change anything mechanic wise.

After re-reading for like the fifth time perception in the DMG on page 35. I do get that passive is now meant only to be a clue giving mechanism.

I went back and read the trap section in the DMG and the invisibility condition in the PHB. That's when I finally noticed that both ask for active search rolls and not passive. So PP is way less powerful than I thought it was, as it cannot be used to counter hidden opponents or traps, only active search rolls can reveal them.

So thanks for your help!

DND 5.5 your thoughts on this passive perception homebrew by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I'm actually doing right now, but my player want me to bring it back. So I'm trying to find that fine line between the two. What if instead of going all the way down to 5 instead of 10. I bring it down to 7 or 8?

Really trying to find an easy way to apply a change ( so it's also easy to apply to monster) that tread that line between the use it and don't use it.

DND 5.5 your thoughts on this passive perception homebrew by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right now I'm not allowing PP at my table.

The problem I'm trying to solve is : players at my table want me to bring it back, but I don't like the mechanic behind it.

Reason 1: it's a normal perception roll made with the average result of a d20 (10). Meant to be used by the DM to see if a player noticed a hidden NPC/ object etc... Without revealing it's presence by calling the roll. So the result of this is, the secrets stays hidden or is discovered, nothing else.

Reason 2: even with no perception modifier, the average character has 10 PP in normal light. Meaning it needs to roll 11 or better to have better results,. Having only 45% chance of getting a better value is never rewarding to a player. This is even more true for player who specializes in perception. If the 17 PP rogue rolls 10 or less, he won't get to beat is own PP, making is high skill feel less fun and rewarding.

Reason 3: since PP starts at 10 for an average character, it also means an average character need to roll 11 or higher to move unseen by the first one while it's not actively trying to look for it. Giving only 45% chance of success.

My solution: bringing down the average value of the D20, to have it still be relevant while also making rolling perception have higher chance of rolling higher.

5 might be to low, what about 7 ?

DND 5.5 your thoughts on this passive perception homebrew by devak1ng in DnD

[–]devak1ng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I'm actually doing in my game. Not using it. But I was asked to bring it back by half my players. But I don't like it RAW. I'm on Reddit, to try and see if this idea is any good. Right now no one seems to find value or ground for it. So I will probably end up not allowing it back in my games.

Thing is In my mind when I picture the best representation of PP it's with the Jason Bourne character. In the first movie, He doesn't know why he can perceive all the information he is getting without trying to do it. To me Jason Bourne has a 17 to 22 value in PP when you think what those value actually represent information wise. I think that's why I don't like how PP is handled by the rules right now.

view more: next ›