Quote from: Jaeger on January 04, 2022, 11:37:20 PM
Now we are to the one adjustment I'd make that many D&D fans would have serious issues with...

Now that I have made HD the game meta mechanic – we can ease up on the built-in meta mechanic that is HP bloat.

The 'sweet spot' for most D&D games seems to be lvls 4-10. I'd simply tune for that sweet spot for 20 levels of play.

Stop all HP and spell progression at lvl 5 or 6. All other level increases occur as normal. So the characters get more powerful, yet still retain a certain vulnerability to threats.

I'd have to figure out a way to ritualize some of the iconic high level spells - while subtly nerfing them at the same time.

This flattens the math making it things far more streamlined as the designers no longer have to deal with the scaling issues that HP inflation has always brought to the game.

And of course, I would have some rules for the PC's to create traps for the bigger and tougher monsters in the MM.


The E6 mode of play may not survive the playtest - but even then I think I could get way with capping HP around Lvl 10 AD&D style.

I like most of those suggestions.  I'd play a game built this way.  For the quoted part, I've got an alternate route to the same goal:  Give new hit points every odd level instead of every level. Adjust the monster/spell math to fit, as stated.

Sure, if necessary, toss a bone to fighter types by giving them a flat bonus on even levels.  Done right, the flat bonus can even take the place of different hit dice, so that everyone gets d6 all the time.  Certain classes just get a bonus (or more of a bonus), making it 1d6+N every two levels.  Wizards get a d6!  Every other level like everyone else, but no bonuses! It looks nice at first, but they still need to stay out of melee.

Depending on how deadly you want it to be at start (and for how long), maybe give one-time bonus points to start--but that's an aspect that depends on the rest of the design and how you want it to work, I know.  I'm doing this in conjunction with slightly higher damage output in my own d20-style game, and I'm liking the results so far.  Everyone's got more points to start, getting hit hurts, and the points don't grow that fast over the levels.

What's wrong with 5e? The people running the game. They all stink. Cocks on down, remove them all. Make the HQ of DnD studio a cabin in North Dakota. If someone has ever lived in Washington state or Oregon they are precluded from the job.

Make the game modular as we were promised. Keep everything else. Hire artists that paint on physical canvas. Make art so awesome we want calendars of it. Hire writers to create awesome campaigns and game designers to implement them. Have a good 1-20 campaign. Print a megadungeon. Print castle Greyhawk! The Gygax estate would happily sell you Gary's zagyg papers.

If someone uses the words gross or problematic fire them. If they like kale, fire them. If they wear those canvas shoes that always end up stinking, fire them.

DnD's biggest problem is personnel.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 06, 2022, 12:44:49 PM


I like most of those suggestions.  I'd play a game built this way.  For the quoted part, I've got an alternate route to the same goal:  Give new hit points every odd level instead of every level. Adjust the monster/spell math to fit, as stated.

Another option would be to reduce the Fighter's HD but give them an increase every level, while other classes only get the increase on odd levels.

Lots of good ideas in this thread.

Steven Mitchell,
I like that. HP every other level. It is elegant.

Quote from: horsesoldier on January 06, 2022, 03:10:29 PM
What's wrong with 5e? The people running the game. They all stink. Cocks on down, remove them all. Make the HQ of DnD studio a cabin in North Dakota. If someone has ever lived in Washington state or Oregon they are precluded from the job.

Make the game modular as we were promised. Keep everything else. Hire artists that paint on physical canvas. Make art so awesome we want calendars of it. Hire writers to create awesome campaigns and game designers to implement them. Have a good 1-20 campaign. Print a megadungeon. Print castle Greyhawk! The Gygax estate would happily sell you Gary's zagyg papers.

If someone uses the words gross or problematic fire them. If they like kale, fire them. If they wear those canvas shoes that always end up stinking, fire them.

DnD's biggest problem is personnel.

Yes.

Much of the opinion I've seen expressed here seems to be in favor of an ascending, level-based flat proficiency bonus. Personally I'm not a fan and it feels like a cheap way of inflating dice numbers without providing any meaningful mechanical or storytelling value. Raw level-based bonuses are only there to protect storygamers from making bad decisions, but that doesn't mean everyone should be stuck with a system that's neutered.

Quote from: Zelen on January 08, 2022, 12:30:40 AMStorygamers from making bad decisions, but that doesn't mean everyone should be stuck with a system that's neutered.

Is any type of gamer you dislike a storygamer? Storygamers generally just eshew most numbers and hate randomness getting in the way of the story. Numbers inflation is more a munchkin thing anyway!

We all know for true-RPG fans - trad-immersionist-storygamer-and-OP modes are all the same kind of game, which is badwrongfun.

Rather than reduce PC hit points, increasing monster damage has the same effect without any need to mess with PC-side rules. Many WOTC monsters have anaemic DPR even per the DMG monster building table. There is plenty of scope to double the damage of many higher level monsters, usually by increasing the number of attacks.

Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2022, 07:20:50 AM
Rather than reduce PC hit points, increasing monster damage has the same effect without any need to mess with PC-side rules. Many WOTC monsters have anaemic DPR even per the DMG monster building table. There is plenty of scope to double the damage of many higher level monsters, usually by increasing the number of attacks.

As a fix to an existing game, I agree.  As a ground-up rewrite, I think it's better to look hard at the root problem.  The numbers should be as small as possible while still handling the intended design, as this make handling time (modestly) easier for everyone.  There is a counter-tendency to make the numbers too small for the sake of smallness, but that tendency hasn't been gratified in a long time.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 08, 2022, 07:48:37 AM
As a fix to an existing game, I agree.  As a ground-up rewrite, I think it's better to look hard at the root problem.  The numbers should be as small as possible while still handling the intended design, as this make handling time (modestly) easier for everyone.  There is a counter-tendency to make the numbers too small for the sake of smallness, but that tendency hasn't been gratified in a long time.

Sure, a 0e-2e style hp progression works great in a game designed around that. So I wouldn't fix 5e by messing with 5e PC hp, but a new game with a 5e style engine certainly could alter hp. Personally I like PCs starting out with ca 20-25 hp in 3e-5e type games, then say 6 hp/level to 10th and 2-3 thereafter would work, with monsters & spells likewise scaled. For 0e-2e I like starting with 8-12 hp, then ca 3-4 hp/level to 9th, then 1-2 thereafter.

Re large numbers being a problem - I find this can be a problem, but:
a) On VTT, not a problem - VTT tracks the hp
b) Tabletop, static damage, not much of a problem, calculating hp-damage is still quick & easy with big numbers.
c) Tabletop, rolled damage - this is where big hp & damage numbers noticeably slow the game

So I tend to use static damage in high level tabletop play, any time the VTT doesn't have an easy button to click, and any time it's a monster effect like dragon breath on a group of PCs.

One thing that 5E did well and that is worth learning from was making bonuses smaller but making rolls more numerous via advantage/disadvantage. This helps reduce outlier results for rolls and brings the bonuses more to the forefront.

5E is actually similar in regard to that to what goes on behind the scenes with numbers in something like Final Fantasy (which, ironically, was itself based on D&D) where damage and HP get very high but accuracy and defense do not. This is a really important principal to keep in mind when designing systems and I do give 5E a lot of credit for improvements it made to the math of 3rd and previous editions.

This makes balancing for things much easier and more consistent and maintains the 'threat' of lower level monsters if they are in sufficient number (instead of bonuses making them all-but irrelevant).

What S'mon said is quite right with controlling for HP over certain levels. One thing I'll definitely agree with is the large numbers (or large numbers of dice) slowing things down. Controlling HP bloat would actually help with this quite a bit by dealing more in static bonuses for both HP and damage rather than continuously stacking dice results.

Played 5E with my regular online group for awhile.  Despite having a good DM, good group, & good setting it just wasn't that fun.  I didn't like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, nor was I a big fan of the rest system.  It just didn't feel like D&D to me.  I'll play C&C or 1E over this any day.

I've been wanting to run this theory publicly for a while to see if I was way off or what.  My problem with 5e is that WOTC seems to have abandoned the necessary quest to make each class fun and interesting to play through all levels.  The challenge has always been to make sure the rogue, the fighter, the cleric, etc. remain as fun to play as the wizard at all levels.

Instead of doing this, to me it feels like they capitulated all creativity in favor of making everyone a wizard.  Now we have fighters (even barbarians!) that can cast a spell or carve runes that effectively is the same thing, rogues that have psychic daggers they can summon, etc.  As a matter of fact, in a recent Reddit poll wizards ranked quite high on "classes that are not fun to play."  Reason:  because they have no differentiator now that everything else is a flavored wizard.

Hey WOTC, you're doing it wrong.  Get back to a fighter being skilled at armor and weapons.  Rogues skilled at sneaking and stabbing.  It's just utterly regrettable what they they've done.  It's all just mush.  Start over.

Quote from: Brooding Paladin on January 08, 2022, 09:36:21 PM
I've been wanting to run this theory publicly for a while to see if I was way off or what.  My problem with 5e is that WOTC seems to have abandoned the necessary quest to make each class fun and interesting to play through all levels.  The challenge has always been to make sure the rogue, the fighter, the cleric, etc. remain as fun to play as the wizard at all levels.

Instead of doing this, to me it feels like they capitulated all creativity in favor of making everyone a wizard.  Now we have fighters (even barbarians!) that can cast a spell or carve runes that effectively is the same thing, rogues that have psychic daggers they can summon, etc.  As a matter of fact, in a recent Reddit poll wizards ranked quite high on "classes that are not fun to play."  Reason:  because they have no differentiator now that everything else is a flavored wizard.

Hey WOTC, you're doing it wrong.  Get back to a fighter being skilled at armor and weapons.  Rogues skilled at sneaking and stabbing.  It's just utterly regrettable what they they've done.  It's all just mush.  Start over.

I think the PHB wasn't so bad at this. But there is a lot of lazy design in later splats (Tasha's the nadir) where yes it feels that 'everyone is a wizard, Harry'. As in much of 5e there's a notable decline in quality from the point where Crawford took over and could fully implement his rainbow-coloured vision of what 5e should be. Including everyone being a sparkly snowflake spellcaster.