Feel free to comment.
Some boring context most of you will skip:
Generally, I am a more game-y GM who likes powergaming, rules-based tactics and crunchy bits that are viable, especially when it are so central bits as classes and sub-classes. I prefer to adress rule issues as simply and straightforward as possible, rather than with complex patches riddled with smaller patches with tiny patches on top.
Verisimiltude, realism and the like take a backseat.
I am overall very, very happy with 5e, and could run it RAW without major complaints, but there are some minor tidbits that tickle me.
Without further ado:
General:
- Multiclassing allowed
- Feats allowed
(Reasoning: I like me games crunchy, with extra ketchup and extra layers of cheese. Needs no more reasoning than that :p )
Short Rests:
Short Rests take only half an hour.
(Reason: Boring stochastics.
My general rule for random dungeon encounters is 1 in d6 for every 10min turn. A full hour rest would be interrupted in 66.51% of all cases, a half hour rest in 42.13%. Giving a short rest a higher chance to be uninterrupted than to be interrupted makes it more attractive. A ~40%-chance of someone getting the drop on you with your pants down still makes special precautions like barricaded rooms, Wall of Stone or Rope Trick highly desirable.)
Skills:
Animal Handling
Control tamed creatures of Animal intelligence (e.g., Ranger's Animal Companion, Paladin's Steed, magic-user's Familiar, steeds in general) without expending actions by beating the Wis-Save of the beast.
99% of the time a comparison of your Take-10-AH vs the Take-10-Wis-Save is sufficient. Rolls may be called for when your Take 10 slips below that treshold (e.g. sudden disadvantage to your Wisdom), or critical situations calling for a morale check arise.
This explicitely doesn't extend to Undead created with Animate Dead, Create Undead or similar means - they are more like robots awaiting and following orders, than like animals driven by instinct.
(Reasoning: Animal Handling is pretty useless as it currently is, and hardwired pets like Animal Companions are pretty useless as they currently are. My approach was to take the weaknesses of both crunchy bits and marry them to make them both actually useful in play.
While it has the most mileage for Beastmaster Rangers, every character could profit from a mount with free extra actions like Dash or Disengage... Which makes it universally useful enough as far as I am concerned.
Animated Dead are excluded, because by sheer numbers they are already very strong and useful as they are, even with the necessary bonus action and spell-slot tax to keep them under control. No need to hand even more candy to them.)
Medicine
Using an Action, you can restore your Proficiency Bonus + Wis modifier HP to any creature including yourself (minimum of 1HP). The patient will need a Long Rest before being able to be treated with Medicine again, save for stabilizing.
(Reasoning: Medicine is extremely useless as it currently stands - everyone who spends a few dozen GP on a healer kit or knows the Spare the Dying cantrip can do the same shtick better without wasting a sharply limited skill slot on it. Some minor HP regain is nice and universally interesting, but nothing so fancy that it outshines Bards, Clerics or Druids.)
Classes:
Monks:
Hit Die gets increased to D10
Martial Arts die is always at least d6
Ki-Points: 4 on 2nd, 3rd and 4th level - all other levels unaltered
The need to meditate during short rests to regain Ki is waived. You still need a short rest to regain your Ki.
Additional 2nd level feature: Moment of Zen. You can spend a bonus action to regain your Martial Arts die in Ki (rolled or half die size - your call). You need a Short or Long Rest to be able use this feature again.
On level 20, you don't need to wait for a rest to be able to use this class feature, but can always spend a bonus action to regain your martial arts die in Ki.
(Reasoning: Monks eat through Ki like candy even if they limit themselves to do their main job of stunning and/or Open-Hand-flurrying the most dangerous foe, and just make for very squishy and weak melee types whenever they run out of it.
Stretching their Ki between rests out, letting them have more Ki on low levels and adding +1HP/level should make them more reliable contributors to the party and provide some leeway for less efficient uses of Ki like the Shadow Monk pseudo-spells.
Increased Martial Arts die at the beginning is mostly to make completely weaponless monks a viable choice from the beginning on. It won't influence long-term play at all, as MA d6 is very quickly reached.
As for waiving meditation... That is just getting rid of an unnecessary fluff restriction that isn't vital to the game.)
Ranger:
For the Beastmaster, see Animal Handling (which will greatly increase the effectiveness of your companion).
Size restrictions on companions are waived. The CR 1/4 restriction still stays in place.
At 7th level, Exceptional Training results in the attacks of the Companion becoming magical instead of the normal benefit.
Additionally, the companion becomes proficient in one saving throw you are proficient in.
At 11th level, Bestial Fury results in an Extra Attack for you companion instead of the normal benefit.
Additionally, the companion becomes proficient in a 2nd saving throw you are proficient in.
(Reasoning: My house-ruled Animal Handling takes care of many Beastmaster weaknesses much more effectively than the official class features. Instead, I focused on adding stuff that goes beyond just buying a war-trained dog or bear.
Magical attacks will make the companion more useful on mid- and high-levels when enemies resistant or immune to mundane damage show up.
The major achilles heel of Companions are saving throws - hardly any beasts have any save proficiencies, and the vanilla Beastmaster features don't rectify that. Giving them some save proficiencies will at least give them a fighting chance against save-or-suck/die effects like Dominate Beast or Flesh to Stone...
As for size: I like to give players the option to have a companion that can double as a mount, without limiting them to Halflings and Gnomes as PC races or needing to pull off cheese like Polymorph spells. Where size influences raw power, it should already be reflected by the CR, so I see no balancing issue in that.)
Sorcerer:
Sorcery Pool: 4 on 2nd, 3rd and 4th level - all other levels unaltered
Additional 2nd level feature: Sorcery Surge. You can spend a bonus action to regain d6 (or 3) in your Sorcery Pool. You need a Short or Long Rest to be able use this feature again.
(Reasoning: Aiming for a more 3.x feel, where Sorcerers make up for their lack of versatility by more raw spells per day and standing power than Wizards. The current amount of sorcery points per adventuring day seems hardly like much, especially now when cantrips have become at-will and Warlocks are the better all-day-long blasters.
I actually think that sorcerers may need even more SP than that to stay a viable choice between both Wizards and Warlocks, but I first want to try a very conservative power-up and then maybe go up from there after some more play-testing...)
Warlock
Pact of the Chain:
See Animal Handling fpr general changes to beast henchmen.
Instead of the ability to grant your familiar an attack by foregoing one of your own, you gain proficiency in Animal Handling for free.
(Reasoning: Old pact feature became virtually useless with my changes to animal handling. A free animal handling skill has much of the same effect without being overpowered.)
Just out of curiosity, how much of this is stemming from actual play?
I only ask because I have a few things floating around in my head, but my first session or two will definitely be Rules As Written until I get a feel, in play, for what needs changing.
It seems like the basic flavor of these house rules is to jack up the power of roughly half the classes. Is there some over-arching philosophy behind this? It isn't the sort of thing I usually focus on with house rules - I tend to prefer focusing on one or two mechanics that I think are missing and influence everyone equally (like, a 'major wound' mechanic to cover injuries that effect you longer than a day).
Quote from: Larsdangly;784576It seems like the basic flavor of these house rules is to jack up the power of roughly half the classes. Is there some over-arching philosophy behind this? It isn't the sort of thing I usually focus on with house rules - I tend to prefer focusing on one or two mechanics that I think are missing and influence everyone equally (like, a 'major wound' mechanic to cover injuries that effect you longer than a day).
This. I find the Ranger and Sorcerer do fine as is. Ranger spells are RIDICULOUS if you're an archer with a beast companion. And cantrips for a sorcerer... try them out seriously. I would just fool with the short/long rest times first given they're baseline that effect all classes.
Opa would ban me if I ran a Ranger or a Chaos Sorcerer.:)
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;784563Just out of curiosity, how much of this is stemming from actual play?
I only ask because I have a few things floating around in my head, but my first session or two will definitely be Rules As Written until I get a feel, in play, for what needs changing.
None yet - it will yet be a month until I get to do a test run of of 5e, and probably a while more until I get to run it on more long term. (Still tied up in a 3.5 and a DCC campaign.)
The test run will actually be by RAW (except for sped up short rests and the extra use to Medicine), but I wanted to write down the areas that seem problematic on paper so I can focus on seeing how they actually work out in play. Monks, Beastmaster Rangers and Sorcerers are definitively going to be among the pregens, and will be paired up with classes covering a similar niche so I can see if there is something in need to be fixed.
Quote from: Larsdangly;784576It seems like the basic flavor of these house rules is to jack up the power of roughly half the classes. Is there some over-arching philosophy behind this?
Not a half, only a very small selection (2 1/2 out of 14) that I have strong enough doubts about that they will play well when gorged down RAW.
Monks seem once more like jacks of all trades without home turf, but this time around with lackluster magical tricks too. The AD&D version of the monk was plainly a mess. The 3.x version was intended to be some sort of "mage controller", but widely considered as lackluster even within this narrow role.
When I look at them as melee types, they seem like 2nd rate fighters with bad to mediocre AC, mediocre hitpoints, but nice enough damage output as long as they have Ki to flurry. As soon as Ki runs out (which happens very, very quickly in the early levels), they only manage to stay on par with a ranger who has picked up two-weapon style, sans the actual magical moxie of a half-caster.
When I look at them as utility types... They don't shine in this department either. No expertises, and the non-combat perks are a grab bag of situational stuff like reduced falling damage or poison resistance. Mostly passive stuff that might or might not come in handy depending on the situation - not something you can actively plan for to use.
The magical tricks have a very limited selection, and put a drain on the already scarce Ki points undermining the melee role of monks even further when used.
Now, when I look at them as "mage controllers", they have taken two steps forward und one backward. Full movement even when attacking or disengaging is a step up from the 3.x way for getting to the backlines. Stunning Fist is very, very handy for tying up mages as long as it lasts (and when it finally comes online at level 5). The step backwards is that there are no Attacks of Opportunity against spellcasting - if you want to control mages with an AoO HP tax, the only way to get it done in 5e it to get the Mage Slayer feat.
(And that being said, the 3.x idea of the "mage controller" isn't exactly the thing that comes to my mind when I envision an Open Hand Bruce Lee type, a Shadow Snake-Eyes type or an Elemental Ryu type. The very concept of a specialized "mage controller" monk has always reminded me more of a school bully who stuffs weenie nerds into their locker, takes away their lunch money and then slips away before the hall monitors give him a boo-boo, than of anything resembling a cloistered warrior who has spent all his lifetime to hone his body into the ultimate living weapon.)
Rangers aren't as badly of, but Beastmaster-Rangers are a very weird case that manages to irk both my sense of class balance and my sense of disbelief. They spend a lot of levels into a single animal companion - an animal companion that is apparently lobotomized as it can't even defend itself without the Ranger spending his actions to tell it to do so, and gets undone very quickly with magic as it has not even one proficient save.
Why not get a litter of war-trained dogs instead? They at least act on their own, can at least be quickly replaced, and are a purchase anyone can do (rather than something you have to devote a subclass to with even worse results).
My aim with that rewrite was to turn animal companions into something that actually feels like an addition to the ranger and has some staying power, rather than like an alternate attack that any dweeb with a Web spell can neuter at will.
Of the classes I am concerned of, Sorcerers are the best off. As full-casters, they are still a pretty strong class and can make a good contribution to the group. Their problem is that their 3.x-shtick doesn't count for much anymore. Sorcerers used to be hammers that have to treat anything as a nail (as opposed to the versatile batman wizard), but at least could hammer on and on when the wizard finally got forced to pull out the crossbow. Now Sorcerers don't have substantially more spells than the wizard and still suffer from a very small selection, while wizards get a more flexible spell selection each day and get more mileage out of the same spells with their school specializations. Raw spell slots aren't as desirable anymore anyway, given the at-will cantrips that can be very effective for constant blasting.
Speaking of constant cantrip blasting, Warlocks do it and they do it better than Sorcerers ever did. Who needs many spell slots and known spells when they've got Eldritch Blast beefed up with Invocations, and who cares about using up Warlock spell slots when they are all refilled with just a short rest?
The one edge Sorcerers still have over both competitor classes is the monopoly on Metamagic, and I have to admit that it can be very nifty. Maybe it is enough to offset the shortcomings of the Sorcerer class compared both to Wizard and Warlock, but I remain skeptical until I have seen it happen on the table.
All other classes seem very fine, and much better balanced than in any earlier edition I have seen. In fact, even my complaints above are very, very mild stuff when I compare them to olde times (or current times with my 3.x game ;) ).
Quote from: Skyrock;784529Control tamed creatures of Animal intelligence (e.g., Ranger's Animal Companion, Paladin's Steed, magic-user's Familiar, steeds in general) without expending actions by beating the Wis-Save of the beast.
The paladin's steed is NOT of animal intelligence. It has at least 6 INT, and can understand a language. That means that you don't need to control it in battle at all, just give it orders. this also means that it can take attack actions, unlike normal mounts.
I'm surprised you don't have any houserules for Pact of the Blade warlocks. They barely get anything when they take it, and they have to take two invocations just to stay relevant in damage, and even then still do less damage than they would with Eldritch Blast. Eldritch Blast warlocks, on the other hand, only need to take one invocation for damage, and can get an awesome invocation to get a 10-yard knockback per blast. That knockback not only helps them keep at range, but can also be used to knock enemies off cliffs, into environmental hazards, and can help group up enemies for an ally's upcoming AoE. Pact of the Blade gets nothing like that.
On top of that, warlocks are ill-equipped for melee combat anyway with only light armor and mediocre hp. The only advantage you get from Pact of the Blade is the ability to take take melee-attacks without disadvantage. Meanwhile Chain and Tome warlocks get some really powerful abilities like a permanently invisible familiar for constant spying, or ritual casting (which gets you a normal familiar on top of other stuff), or all sorts of other cool goodies.
In my opinion, Pact of the Blade warlocks should unlock Thirsting Blade for free at 5th level, Armor of Shadows for free at 3rd level, and get some kind of additional utility or battlefield control benefit built into the Pact to compensate for the utility and damage which other pacts already get for free.
Bladelocks seem fine to me as they are.
I guess Bladelocks could be one of the few cases where multiclassing could be a very sensible choice. Bards of Valor and Paladins should rhyme well, as they provide extra armor and and are already charisma-based casters, so there is not much more MAD then you already have to deal with as a swordslinging gish.
Eldritch Knights with their many spell&sword / sword&spell combo class features could also work well and become very very scary with a boosted Eldritch Blast, but would have some tricky MAD to deal with.
Quote from: Skyrock;788274Bladelocks seem fine to me as they are.
Really? The fact that they have to invest so much to do LESS damage than they could with just Eldritch Blast is fine to you?
QuoteI guess Bladelocks could be one of the few cases where multiclassing could be a very sensible choice. Bards of Valor and Paladins should rhyme well, as they provide extra armor and and are already charisma-based casters, so there is not much more MAD then you already have to deal with as a swordslinging gish.
Eldritch Knights with their many spell&sword / sword&spell combo class features could also work well and become very very scary with a boosted Eldritch Blast, but would have some tricky MAD to deal with.
Eldritch Knights wouldn't have have much MAD. They'd need high strength and CHA, same as a Paladin. They wouldn't need INT because they wouldn't really need any other offensive spells. They can focus on stuff like Haste and Shield instead, which don't require any attribute.
Quote from: Strill;788330Really? The fact that they have to invest so much to do LESS damage than they could with just Eldritch Blast is fine to you?
Apples and Oranges. You are comparing a pact feature to invocations.
The other pact features are similarly tame. Pact of the Chain provides a familiar+ that is a bit meatier than the usual familiar (and with the pact invocation allows to bind outsiders, which is nifty when it comes in, but is also very situational). Pact of the Tome provides a couple of cantrips (and an invocation to cast all written down ritual spells as rituals - nifty, but only useable between encounters). Pact of the Blade provides a weapon+ (with extra damage through invocation.)
You could be both a Bladelock, and a nifty glass-cannon that puts all the invocations it has into boosted Eldritch Blasts. That pact blade would still be handy if you get forced into melee by an enemy with high AC (tough to hit with Eldritch Blasts if they suffer Disadvantage on the to-hit roll), or when you deal with an enemy that is immune to Eldritch Blasts but not to blades (like Rakshasas).
If you really want to get a lot of mileage out of the pact blade and become a better gish, go multi-classing and become a part-time Paladin, weekend Valor Bard or hobby Eldritch Knight.
Like I said, I see no need for any fixes with the bladelock that aren't already covered by the rules, and I won't believe that there is anything broken about it until I've actually seen it in long-term play.
Quote from: Skyrock;788609Apples and Oranges. You are comparing a pact feature to invocations.
No I'm not. I'm comparing a pact feature + 2 invocations, to no pact feature, and 2 invocations.
Pact weapon requires two invocations just to keep pace with baseline Eldritch Blast damage. If you don't take the two invocations for your pact weapon, there's just no reason to use it at all. You might as well just use an ordinary weapon. If you take Agonizing Blast on the other hand, then Eldritch Blast is flat-out superior. If you take Repelling Blast, then you get a 10' knockback on every hit, something that the Pact blade has no chance of matching.
Meanwhile Pact of the Chain can give you a permanently invisible familiar! This is a perfect spy and scout which has absolutely enormous utility. Pact of the tome with an invocation, can get you ANY ritual spell from any class, which gets it a normal familiar, and can also take the Shillelagh spell if they need to melee for whatever reason. This also gets them powerful divination spells like Commune, Augury, and Divination.
QuoteYou could be both a Bladelock, and a nifty glass-cannon that puts all the invocations it has into boosted Eldritch Blasts. That pact blade would still be handy if you get forced into melee by an enemy with high AC (tough to hit with Eldritch Blasts if they suffer Disadvantage on the to-hit roll), or when you deal with an enemy that is immune to Eldritch Blasts but not to blades (like Rakshasas).
If you're forced into melee you're still better off using Eldritch Blast anyway. You get more hits, and with Repelling Blast, if any of them lands you get a 10' knockback allowing you to escape. All you can hope for with a weapon attack is that you kill the thing.
For niche fights like a rakshasa, yes a pact weapon might be ever so marginally better than an ordinary weapon, but those situations are few and far between.
QuotePact of the Blade provides a weapon+ (with extra damage through invocation.)
Extra damage that's far less than Eldritch Blast. I don't think you're acknowledging that these two things are mutually exclusive, and the pact weapon is the inferior option.