Zman's 5e Tweaks V2.0

[Laserlight]

To be fair, it isn't all bad for the Wizard. One reason i reduced its starting skill Proficiency was because with the +Int Mod skills from their class list meant most Wizards would have the exact same skill set.

"Because you are a wizard, you get more knowledge skills and language skills than anyone else, by far. Also, because you are a wizard, many of your knowledge and language skills are obscure enough that they never come up in normal play. Add Knowledge: Hummingbird Physiology and Language: Conversational Sumerian to your character sheet."

It is my hope that others get use out of my Tweaks and the hard work leads to benefits that reach much further than my particular table.

I'm adopting it for the group I DM and lobbying for it in my second group. Thanks for doing this--I've gleaned revisions for a few feats out the forum on my own, over time, but I'd never have done the work to gather them together, come up with new additions, test them all and write it up in a clean format. Kudos.

[Zman]

"Because you are a wizard, you get more knowledge skills and language skills than anyone else, by far. Also, because you are a wizard, many of your knowledge and language skills are obscure enough that they never come up in normal play. Add Knowledge: Hummingbird Physiology and Language: Conversational Sumerian to your character sheet."



I'm adopting it for the group I DM and lobbying for it in my second group. Thanks for doing this--I've gleaned revisions for a few feats out the forum on my own, over time, but I'd never have done the work to gather them together, come up with new additions, test them all and write it up in a clean format. Kudos.

Haha, you never know when conversational sumerian comes up, just once in awhile eclectic Mesopotamian trivia is relevant.


That is awesome, I feel like the project has come a long way since my original 1.1 revision. I'm trying to join a pbp using stock 5e, and man it feels so "unfinished" now.

I'd appreciate any feedback you and your group(s) have, especially anything they think is poorly balanced, unclear, or any niches that have been missed.

[Zman]

Change Log:
4-24-17 Added and Tweaked the UA Racial Feats


That was a big addition, I have gone through and added the UA Racial feats, tweaking some to take care of some of the initial problems I saw. Please let me know what you think, I might add some more that "fee" fight.

[RulesJD]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]

Evoker Wizards aren't that common, and I strongly contest your classification as "completely broken".



*snip*

Um, they are easily the 1st or 2nd most popular Wizard subclass.

Moreover, you're starting to take this personal, which is understandable given that you created it. The problem is, taking it personal means you're missing real critiques of your system.

So please take this important point before rereading the critiques: I LIKE your changes, and I like them more than my critiques. GWM/SS need nerf, VHuman needs nerf, etc. All on board with that.



The problem is, some of your changes create new problems. Allowing a Half-orc crit fishing build to be making such ridiculous damage numbers (relative to other class combos once GWM is out the door) while ALSO still having a Shield (which means magical shields later so toss on a lot more AC) means you are just trading one mandatory overpowered feat (GWM) for another.

Moreover, you need to be careful about rewriting core rules when you don't understand them yourself. For instance, yes I know about the Errata surrounding Empowered Evocation. What I also know (and you don't) is that Magic Missile works exactly how I described it working. You roll one d4+1+Int Mod. Apply that number for as many times as you have missiles. So a base Magic Missile from a level 10 Evoker would involve one roll of a d4+1+5 (20 int assumed) then applied 3 times depending on targeting. I get that you don't like it, but that's how the rules work currently until you also further modify that rule.

[Zman]

Um, they are easily the 1st or 2nd most popular Wizard subclass. Based on???

Moreover, you're starting to take this personal, which is understandable given that you created it. The problem is, taking it personal means you're missing real critiques of your system. I'm taking things too personally? Really, I didn't think so, I might need to reread my responses to see if I came off that way.

So please take this important point before rereading the critiques: I LIKE your changes, and I like them more than my critiques. GWM/SS need nerf, VHuman needs nerf, etc. All on board with that.

I'm glad.


The problem is, some of your changes create new problems. Allowing a Half-orc crit fishing build to be making such ridiculous damage numbers (relative to other class combos once GWM is out the door) while ALSO still having a Shield (which means magical shields later so toss on a lot more AC) means you are just trading one mandatory overpowered feat (GWM) for another.

Crit Fishing Half Orc can deal good damage. Standard twf build requires Dual Wielder to get a d8 in each hand. With powerful build the can get a d8 in each hand, so the same for a feat cost, with the addition of dual wielder they can make those d10s. That isn't a drastic difference.

Now, single handing a Greataxe, this can have the potential for problems, so lets run some basic numbers.

We'll assume level 5 Champion for extra attack and a +3 Proficiency bonus and the standardish 65% hit chance.
Stock: Two-Handed Greataxe: 13.7+2.6 = 16.3 DPT
Powerful Build: One-Handed Greataxe and Shield: 12.6+2.6 = 15.2 DPT
GWM: Greataxe: 15.0+2.6 = 17.6 DPT + ~2.5(GWM BA Attack).
Powerful Build +GWM: 12.6+2.6 = 15.2 DPT + 2.3(GWM BA Attack).

That seems reasonable. Now, if you are dropping in Reckless attack giving advantage here, it changes things, GWM using a greataxe two handed gets much much better, the crits for every method get much better, Powerful Build when used one handed gets better compared to Stock, but GWM using a Greataxe is still the highest damage style available, even compared to stacking Powerful Build and GWM.

Since a Greataxe with Powerful build is swung one handed it will not qualify for a GWM -5/+10, though it could benefit from the ba attack trigger from GWM.

Why do you feel that this crit fishing build will "make ridiculous damage numbers"? I need to plug it into my spreadsheet, but I'm pretty certain my damage numbers are way way lower than stock 5e GWM, and each of the different new styles aren't blowing the damage caps off anything.


Moreover, you need to be careful about rewriting core rules when you don't understand them yourself. For instance, yes I know about the Errata surrounding Empowered Evocation. What I also know (and you don't) is that Magic Missile works exactly how I described it working. You roll one d4+1+Int Mod. Apply that number for as many times as you have missiles. So a base Magic Missile from a level 10 Evoker would involve one roll of a d4+1+5 (20 int assumed) then applied 3 times depending on targeting. I get that you don't like it, but that's how the rules work currently until you also further modify that rule.

Empowered Evocation (p. 117). The
damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls.

I do not understand how you are interpreting that to allow it to apply to every single missile in a Magic Missile. "One damage roll of a spell" is quite clear, you are applying it to multiple damage rolls from the same spell.

Be careful with the ad hominem "you need to be careful about rewriting core rules when you don't understand them yourself."

[Laserlight]

Empowered Evocation (p. 117). The
damage bonus applies to one damage roll of a spell, not multiple rolls.

I do not understand how you are interpreting that to allow it to apply to every single missile in a Magic Missile. "One damage roll of a spell" is quite clear, you are applying it to multiple damage rolls from the same spell.

I believe RulesJD is saying "The bonus only applies to one roll, but with MM you only roll damage once. You do apply it multiple times, but you only roll once, so the bonus is added to every hit." (I have no opinion on whether that's right or not, I'm just attempting to clarify)

[Malifice]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]
The math and analysis of EB+Agonizing+Hex is brutal. It isn't akin to martial basic attacks, it is much much better in most cases, and happens earlier. The stock EB+Agonizing blast out damages a Fighter with Long bow, it is also a magical attack. Doesnt require ammunition, nor magical ammunition to bypass resistences. With Hex, it is absolutely devastating and the best at will damage in the game, happens at range, and is magical. Then Repelling is in there, because why not and it has massive control capability and is quite potent, even completely negating some combat encounters with lower speed lower AC enemies. IMOo, that is a problem.

Completely not true if running by core.

The archery Fighter starts with + 2 to hit over and above the warlock, and he's already adding ability modifier to damage at first level. He also out ranges the warlock.

At second level the warlock catches up (the warlock can blow one of his two precious spell slots for hex for an extra 3.5 points of damage, but the DPR increase of the fighters archery style well and truly is is more than that), and the fighter now has access to action surge.

At third level the fighter now has 4d8 superiority dice to add on top of his normal attacks. This includes the selection of menacing attack which prohibits the target from moving closer to the archer, and adding one D8 to the damage and precision attack which ensures that the attacks hit.

Laying on SharpShooter over-the-top (which is something that the warlock does not have access to) makes it worse. Particularly when combined with precise strike.

The fighter relies on dexterity meaning he will probably shoot first, and have a higher armour class. The fighter has access to magical bows and magical arrows which stack. The fighter has more hit points.

At fifth level both get an extra shot. Ditto at 11th. At 17th level the warlock gets an extra shot per round while our fighter has to wait until 20th. Of course by this stage our fighter now has two action surges every short rest (Six arrows per turn) and has six superiority dice all of which are D12s. He is also consistently at +2 to hit over and above what the warlock is, and it will likely have a magical bow and magical arrows by this level.

You can't say they're not even close.

[Zman]

I believe RulesJD is saying "The bonus only applies to one roll, but with MM you only roll damage once. You do apply it multiple times, but you only roll once, so the bonus is added to every hit." (I have no opinion on whether that's right or not, I'm just attempting to clarify)

Ok.... so Magic Missile creates 3 missiles, a dart does 1d4+. Are people saying that you only roll a single d4 for Magic Missile and multiply by how many darts there are, not roll 3d4+3 against a target?

Seriously?

Well, is that RAW? At the least it could be argued as ambiguous, and then it is obviously flying in the face of RAI with the errata.

That is his argument, an ambiguous reading of RAW that flies in the face of RAI.

Even if we accept that as true, it's a problem with rules lawyering and the errata not being written well enough, not with the intent.

Please, if that is somehow considered RAW, point it out and I'll clarify the errata and Spellslinger as not not be horridly abused by something like this.


Edit: Wow, there is an SA about it. All I can say is wow, that is a terrible SA about RAW that clearly contradicts RAI, poorly done. I'll fix and effectively errata both my Spellslinger and the Empowered Evocation to not be moronic and abusable in that RAW interpretation. http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/evocation/

@RulesJD This could have been so much easier by exercising better communication without ad hominen. Next time say, "Hey, here is an unintended rules interaction based on this SA interpretation that is abuse-able with this ability." Toss in a link, and all you would have gotten was a thank you.

[Zman]

Completely not true if running by core.

The archery Fighter starts with + 2 to hit over and above the warlock, and he's already adding ability modifier to damage at first level. He also out ranges the warlock.

At second level the warlock catches up (the warlock can blow one of his two precious spell slots for hex for an extra 3.5 points of damage, but the DPR increase of the fighters archery style well and truly is is more than that), and the fighter now has access to action surge.

At third level the fighter now has 4d8 superiority dice to add on top of his normal attacks. This includes the selection of menacing attack which prohibits the target from moving closer to the archer, and adding one D8 to the damage and precision attack which ensures that the attacks hit.

Laying on SharpShooter over-the-top (which is something that the warlock does not have access to) makes it worse. Particularly when combined with precise strike.

The fighter relies on dexterity meaning he will probably shoot first, and have a higher armour class. The fighter has access to magical bows and magical arrows which stack. The fighter has more hit points.

At fifth level both get an extra shot. Ditto at 11th. At 17th level the warlock gets an extra shot per round while our fighter has to wait until 20th. Of course by this stage our fighter now has two action surges every short rest (Six arrows per turn) and has six superiority dice all of which are D12s. He is also consistently at +2 to hit over and above what the warlock is, and it will likely have a magical bow and magical arrows by this level.

You can't say they're not even close.

You forget to mention the d10 vs d8 damage die.
You aren't mentioning archer actually requires a bow.
You state outranged, but effective range for EB can be higher with Eldritch Spear Evocation, for standard play their ranges are de facto equal.
You are comparing limited resources like action surge to something that last for prolonged periods of time.
You are not mentioning that EB is magic and isn't resisted by a host of monsters. The archer needs magical arrows.
You are comparing limited resources like superiority dice.
You aren't valueing Hex which can last all day, and is cast with regenable short rest resources and last entire encounters.
You are not properly valuing moving a creature 10-40' per turn without save.
You are correct when you value sharpshooter, but stock its broken, and the Warlcock can compensate with Spell Sniper, but loses that comparison.
17th level action surge vs Forsight(Advantage on Initiative and ability checks, can't be surprised, advantage on all attack rolls, saves, etc)
The Warlock has access to magic items too, and does't need exhaustible magic arrows to deal magical damage.
If you start bringing in all other fighter features, all other warlock features are fair game too.


Fighter should be the best at will damage in the game, stock it isn't.

[RulesJD]

*snip*

@RulesJD This could have been so much easier by exercising better communication without ad hominen. Next time say, "Hey, here is an unintended rules interaction based on this SA interpretation that is abuse-able with this ability." Toss in a link, and all you would have gotten was a thank you.

It also could have been easier if you took my first critique post and realized I was right.

Plus it's fun watching someone attempting to be mean to someone else knowing they are wrong. Letting them dig their hole and all that.

[Zman]

It also could have been easier if you took my first critique post and realized I was right.

Plus it's fun watching someone attempting to be mean to someone else knowing they are wrong. Letting them dig their hole and all that.

Really??

Here is your first post, lets see how helpful you were.

General input:

The stuff from the PHB that you changed is by and large fantastic. Removing Variant Human, buffing up certain feats/classes, nerfing others, etc.

The stuff that you added is straight up brokenly OP. This isn't surprising as most homebrew creators want their content to actually be used, which means there has to be incentive to use it, which means making it stronger than the already available options.

Hmm.... looks like you called things brokenly OP. Now, we know that is because of some rules lawyering and a debatable SA ruling that goes against RAI of the errata. Your next post does outline some damage specifics, but again, you failed to communicate effectively, and no where in the exchanges did you point out SA, or acknowledge how I declared things to work and said I would errata eliminates the problem.

You also opened with an ad hominen attack by assigning intent for me to make the things I added to be OP so they'd be used. So, now that you know I obviously didn't intend anything to be OP, I imagine your apology should be forthcoming any minute now. I acknowledge I was wrong about the letter of RAW, so can you acknowledge you were wrong about assigning intentions?

In the followup exchanges you stated things as true, that are truthfully obscure, debatable, and reliant on an SA ruling, all of which you did not acknowledge or point out.

I even said how I intend the ruling to work, and if they weren't already errated they would be. You continued to argue without being helping in the slightest.


Your behavior was quite petty, and as I said before you demonstrated poor communication skills. I appreciate feedback, and your point was valid and helpful, but how you went about it was quite combative and unnecessary. I acknowledge you are correct about RAW as far as SA rulings go, now will you acknowledge you were wrong in assigning intent?

[Zman]

Had our "Session 0" with these tweaks and my E10 Variant. Man, I liked the process. We used 2d6+4EighteenRoller and it was quite fun, everyone ended up with characters better than pointbuy, but with the limitations of the rolling no one is really "stronger" than you'd expect from a decent point buy, but their normal dump stats are much better on average with the occasional stellar dump stat. It definitely benefits MAD over SAD characters. We actually used the teamwork version where three people used some of their rolls to help those who initially rolled poorer out benfitting the party as a whole to a greater degree. The huge list of additional feats, including the Racial Feats, was definitely well received and we have a wide variety of characters.

Building and planning a character with the E10 Variant has been fun, so many decisions and so many more build combinations its great. I think the PrimaryClass/SecondaryClass(Potentially) is more fluid for creating a character than the Multiclassing rules. Took a bit to teach them, but so far people have enthusiastically embraced the idea. About half are planning or have selected Secondary Classes, one is even going to be a Dragonborn Barbarian/Sorcerer.

So far we have...
Primary//Secondary
Dragonborn Barbarian//Sorcerer
Half Elf Paladin
Wood Elf Life Cleric
High Elf Rogue//Alchemist(3rd Party)
Half Orc Abjurer//Fighter

And likely a either Fighter or Fighter//War Cleric


I'm looking forward to further playtesting during the campaign.

[Mongobear]

Im loving a lot of these tweaks, but I do have a question/request for a tweak or even a small mention on a ruling that has always irked me/bugged me.

I noticed you added a bunch of weapons with odd damage dice, 2d3, 2d4, etc.

The ruling as it stands now is that effects like Savage Attack(Half-Orc) and Brutal Critical (Barbarian) only add one of those dice into a crit, meaning a 2d4 weapon scoring a critical deals (2d4(weapon) + 2d4(normal critical bonus) + 1d4(SA or BC) + Mod).

I personally dislike this, and thing there should be an errata/fix that weapons with such a damage range are just special and the two dice are always rolled together on these sorts of abilities, effectively making 2d3=1d6, 2d4=1d8, and 2d6=1d12 as far as these abilities are concerned.

Did I miss your own tweak/change to this sort of thing? or do you feel the RAW of them currently is fine?

[Zman]

Im loving a lot of these tweaks, but I do have a question/request for a tweak or even a small mention on a ruling that has always irked me/bugged me.

I noticed you added a bunch of weapons with odd damage dice, 2d3, 2d4, etc.

The ruling as it stands now is that effects like Savage Attack(Half-Orc) and Brutal Critical (Barbarian) only add one of those dice into a crit, meaning a 2d4 weapon scoring a critical deals (2d4(weapon) + 2d4(normal critical bonus) + 1d4(SA or BC) + Mod).

I personally dislike this, and thing there should be an errata/fix that weapons with such a damage range are just special and the two dice are always rolled together on these sorts of abilities, effectively making 2d3=1d6, 2d4=1d8, and 2d6=1d12 as far as these abilities are concerned.

Did I miss your own tweak/change to this sort of thing? or do you feel the RAW of them currently is fine?

Glad you're enjoying them.

Yes, the reason being some weapons needed a niche. My goal was to make no martial/simple weapon strictly inferior to another in its same category. This required utilizing something like 2d4 for certain weapons. Note, this has a precident in the Greatsword/Maul with 2d6. So, I viewed 2d4 as perfectly fine to use.


Now, the one weapon with 2d3.... that was because it I was stuck in a situation where I would either make the weapon redundent, strictly inferior, or use an odd dice combination like 2d3. Now, the PHB tells us d3s are perfectly legal and tells us how to roll them, so I opted for that as the best solution.


I did not tweak that for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the Greataxe is Strictly Inferior to the Greatsword... except for those abilities. Its niche, and doing so means something like the Greataxe loses a potential use. I didn't see a big enough problem to require it being fixed. It kind of bothers me too, but gives Half Orcs and Barbarians more reason to use a single swingier bigger die weapon vs one that statistically has a higher average damage and bell curve.


Thanks for reading!