I WANT it to attack me! Defenders, marking, and cover (5e quick fix)

Merry Christmas folks! And Happy New Year!

Just a quick fix I've been using lately.

When I have too many foes against the PCs (or too few) and I don't know which PCs get attacked, I've been letting the PCs choose when they could reasonably do so - by declaring they are trying to protect another PC or taking the front, etc. If there are more NPCs than PCs, usually everyone gets attacked, and the ones who choose to be in the frontline get attacked more often.

This alleviates some of the burden of running multiple NPCs in combat.

Intelligent NPCs that have motives to do otherwise can choose to attack the flank or rear instead.

If you play with miniatures, this is even easier to do; but I play mostly theater of the mind. Many RPGs tried to solve this issue: Dungeon World even has a specific "defend" move. The One Ringlet's you choose a  forward, defensive, open, or rearward stance - which gives you a bonus/penalty both to attack AND defend. D&D 4e had its "marking" etc. D&D 5e has some optional marking rules too, but I think you could even use the "core" rules to put yourself between an attacker and a victim. Other than that, there are "opportunity attacks" to insure foes do not walk pass the fighter to get to the wizard with impunity.

This feels organic to me - the bravest fighters will be attacked first, as it should be. It is also fictionally appropriate.

Mechanically, there are other ways to deal with that - make the attacker roll two dice, the highest one attacks the defender, the lowest one the defended. The interesting bit is that the defender is putting himself in significant danger. The downside is that it makes the defender EASIER to hit when the attacker is trying to get to someone else!

Maybe a better solution would be mixing the two - the defender serves as cover and, if the attack "hits the cover" (missing by 2 points, for example), then he makes another attack against the defender. Its the same rule I'd use for "shooting in the mêlée" - you can hit an ally by accident! Notice that even if you "hit cover" the defender might be unscathed - maybe because it was a glancing blow, or maybe the hit was absorbed by armor.

Mechanically, it feels perfect - hitting the intended target is harder, but the chance you'll hit SOMEONE is a bit higher.

(BTW, would we use half cover [+2] or three quarters[+5]? Maybe +5 when you're intentionally being the cover, +2 when unintentional. It opens interesting ). 

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-to-run-npcs-in-combat-days-of.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/09/should-monsters-know-what-theyre-doing.html

5e quick fix: classes

 My minimalist 5e project is going very slowly. It always seems that I have to choose between sticking close to 5e or going full minimalist. Anyway, I'm unsure about that one. I think I might release something anyway, just so people can play with that as they wish.

If you want to take a look or comment on it, I'll often be talking about it here in the blog, but I've also started a thread in the GitP forum. Feel free to participate!

With that said... 

5e is a decent enough game. Probably my second-favorite version of D&D. I get the feeling that the "fixes" it needs are minimal. So, instead of writing a minimalist version of 5e, maybe I should just use 5e with house rules? Or, as I call them, "quick fixes"? We'll see. I'm currently playing Shadow of the Demon Lord and I like it. But D&D still has something enticing for me.

Anyway, here are some small fixes, for example, that I'd add to existing classes. 

Fighter:

- Indomitable - when you re-roll, you have advantage.

Champion:

- Improved crit also adds your prof bonus to crits.

- Expertise to athletics or acrobatics.

- Remarkable Athlete also applies to damage.

Paladin:

Divine Sense used at will.

Barbarian:

Frenzy: costs one HD instead of exhaustion.

Ranger.

Colossus Slayer: the extra damage is according to the target's HD (for example, giants would take an extra 1d10 or 1d12; 1d20 for gargantuan creatures. Colossus slayer indeed!)

Monk:

- Ki is equal to level + wis.

Sorcerer:

- Uses sorcery points exclusively. (TBH I want all spellcasters to do that, but that's another story...)

---

Any other quick fixes you would use for 5e?

Better Intelligence/Charisma (5e quick fix)

I find Intelligence and Charisma to be of limited use for non-spellcasters (unlike Wisdom, which is very useful for defense). This optional rule gives them more value (notice, however, that there is another quick fix for that).

If you have a positive Intelligence modifier that doesn't grant you extra spells, you can pick one additional language, tool or weapon proficiency for each +1. If you have a positive Charisma modifier that doesn't grant you extra spells, you can pick one additional language, tool or weapon proficiency for each +1. For example, if your modifier is +2 you can get two extra languages, etc.  You can trade three languages (etc.) for one new skill.

(You could do the same for Wisdom, but, again, Wisdom saves are already very useful and the Perception skill is nearly ubiquitous. Also, in RP-heavy campaign you could have additional contacts based on Charisma, but that's is not such a "quick" fix since it involves more tinkering).

Now every one gets a new reason to have better Intelligence and Charisma, without making spell-casters more powerful than they already are - although some multi-classes might benefit a bit.

My champion (5e)

Since 5th edition is about eight years old, I'm guessing everyone has its own version of the Champion by now. Here's mine.

The idea is not doing a complete overhaul; just the minimum changes necessary to make it closer to the Battlemaster in damage output (and give it some out of combat utility), without adding much complexity, so the the Champion remains the "simple fighter". 

I think a couple of small changes at levels 3 and 7 might be enough. This is because Improved Critical and Remarkable Athlete are especially weak; if we fix them early on, we fix the entire subclass.

Of course if you already like the champion as written, you can use the original version. As always, I advise making all house rules optional.

If you like this, I might do the barbarian (berserker) and ranger (hunter) next. Currently, I'm only interested in the SRD... The beastmaster ranger would take more rewriting. I'm not sure the other SRD classes need additional boosts; maybe the assassin. The warlock an the sorcerer I find a bit lackluster and redundant with wizard, but, well, they are good enough I guess. Paladin, wizard, cleric, druid, rogue, are all more or less balanced IMO (if anything, maybe fighters and barbariasn need a bigger boost to compete with them).

---

Improved Critical

Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit with a weapon attack, you add your proficiency bonus to your damage.

Skilled Athlete

At 3rd level, you can choose Acrobatics or Athletics as a new skill. If you're already proficient in the skill you choose, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make using this skill.

Remarkable Athlete

Starting at 7th level, you can add half your proficiency bonus (round up) to any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check you make that doesn’t already use your proficiency bonus, and also to the damage you deal with an weapon attack. 

In addition, when you make a running long jump, the distance you can cover increases by a number of feet equal to your Strength modifier.

---

So, now the Champion can be awesome at grappling (or at least escaping from a grapple) and deal decent damage throughout his career.

The boost is STILL not enough to outshine the Battlemaster, but it makes both Improved Critical and Remarkable Athlete good features. 

Giving the entire proficiency bonus to damage at level 3 would work too, although I'm a bit concerned that in this case everyone would take three levels in fighter just for that (and action surge, etc.). There might be some other balance issue here (maybe with multi-classing), but I don't see it.

Fortitude/Reflex/Will in D&D 5e: another quick fix

D&D 5e saving throws has pros and cons; overall, I like it, but I think it could be a bit better. I wrote a post about that in 2015.

It just occurred to me that there's a simpler and better solution to do Fortitude/Reflex/Will in D&D 5e.

Here is how it goes: Fortitude is the average of your Strength and Constitution. Round up. Reflex the average of Int and Dex, and Will the average of Wis and Cha.

BTW, use Reflex for initiative if you want to. And Fortitude for concentration checks. Now spellcasters have some use for strength, and fighters some use for Intelligence. Nice, right?

In addition now, everyone is proficient in every save. Features that add proficiency (monk etc.) now give a +2 bonus intead. Or something.

This way, we have just cut the number of saving throws by half, removed one class distinction, gave Intelligence and Charisma a bigger role, increased STs in high levels (a worthy fix IMO) and made odd ability scores a bit more useful in some circumstances.

Not bad for a quick fix!

Attuning to nonmagical items (D&D 5e quick fix)

A quick alternative to the usual "find progressively better magic items as you adventure" scheme.

Instead, start with an item that seems ordinary, but has some history behind it. Maybe it came from your ancestors, or as a gift from someone you admire, or maybe you forged a sword yourself for some worthy goal. It might be an ordinary shield you just REALLY like and that's it. Or your favorite set of thieves' tools. Any item, really.

I'd would probably allow for only ONE nonmagical item per PC to be attuned at a time. Of course, there should be an in-character explanation.

The usual rules for Attunement apply.

Attunement
Some magic items require a creature to form a bond with them before their magical properties can be used. This bond is called attunement, and certain items have a prerequisite for it. If the prerequisite is a class, a creature must be a member of that class to attune to the item. (If the class is a spellcasting class, a monster qualifies if it has spell slots and uses that class’s spell list.) If the prerequisite is to be a spellcaster, a creature qualifies if it can cast at least one spell using its traits or features, not using a magic item or the like.
Without becoming attuned to an item that requires attunement, a creature gains only its nonmagical benefits, unless its description states otherwise. For example, a magic shield that requires attunement provides the benefits of a normal shield to a creature not attuned to it, but none of its magical properties.
Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it (this can’t be the same short rest used to learn the item’s properties). This focus can take the form of weapon practice (for a weapon), meditation (for a wondrous item), or some other appropriate activity. If the short rest is interrupted, the attunement attempt fails. Otherwise, at the end of the short rest, the creature gains an intuitive understanding of how to activate any magical properties of the item, including any necessary command words.
An item can be attuned to only one creature at a time, and a creature can be attuned to no more than three magic items at a time. Any attempt to attune to a fourth item fails; the creature must end its attunement to an item first. Additionally, a creature can’t attune to more than one copy of an item. For example, a creature can’t attune to more than one ring of protection at a time.
A creature’s attunement to an item ends if the creature no longer satisfies the prerequisites for attunement, if the item has been more than 100 feet away for at least 24 hours, if the creature dies, or if another creature attunes to the item. A creature can also voluntarily end attunement by spending another short rest focused on the item, unless the item is cursed.

Here is the twist: every time your gain an odd level, roll 1d6 for every nonmagical item you're attuned to, and 1d10 for each magic item. If you roll a 1, the item becomes better somehow.

Maybe start with a +1 bonus, then +2, etc. Add extra damage against dragons if you're on a quest to slay dragons. Give the player some choice. Require special materials or new quests if you want to. You might prefer rolling every level, or every four levels, etc., as you wish.

Your call.

You can still combine this with the usual "find progressively better magic items as you adventure" - even found items can improve with time, if you attune to them.

Could the PC give their items away? Well, it would be missing the point, and also sub-optimal, but why not let them? Especially if a PC dies and a new PC want to continue the dead man's quest, etc. Sounds like a good idea.

If you want to limit that, make the item lose some of its power when changing hands. Only high-level heroes leave legendary items worthy of notice.

I see a lot of advantages to that rule, but one thing that comes to mind is that I know one character (Rogue) that played trough a whole (published) module but found no magic weapons with finesse, only plenty of monsters that are outright immune to nonmagical attacks. The entire group is level 10 and everyone else has magic items (or just spells) since level 5.

There is also this player tendency to pay attention to things that have no special importance or powers. "So, this is the shield of the last guy that fought the tyrant? I'll take it!". Why not let players CHOOSE what is important and POTENTIALLY give it a benefit?

[Giving it a benefit AUTOMATICALLY might be a bad idea, but I'll not go into this here.]

In short, this gives players meaningful choices. I like it.

Anyway, let me know what you think in the comments.

---

I wrote a couple fo books about magic items: Dark Fantasy Magic Items and 100 Magic Weapons (Dark Fantasy). You can find it by clicking on these links.

If you like this, you'll find more stuff like this on my Dark Fantasy line.

It is also a great way to support this blog!

Hope you enjoy it! Thanks!

Quick, RANDOM, and BALANCED abilities for 5e D&D

This idea is adapted to fifth edition from Dark Fantasy Characters; I also wrote about this before. 

However, this time the table is simpler, faster and perfectly "legal" in 5e - it means you could achieve the same results from the standard "point buy" system. 

Here is how it works: roll 1d20 three times, using the table below. Each roll defines two ability scores.

d20	Ability scores
1	15, 8
2	8, 15
3	14, 9
4	9, 14
5	13, 12
6	12, 13
7	15, 8
8	8, 15
9	12, 12*
10	12, 12*
11	11, 13*
12	13, 11*
13	9, 14*
14	14, 9*
15	8, 14**
16	14, 8**
17	13, 10**
18	10, 13**
19	12, 11**
20	11, 12**

One suggestion: the first roll defines Strength and Intelligence. The second, Wisdom and Dexterity. And the third for Constitution and Charisma. 

This creates strongly archetypal characters, but not necessarily optimal for 5e - specially if you want a specific class, such as Monk or Eldritch Knight. It also creates some odd results from time to time. Because of that, it should be OK to swap some abilities around or even assign them at will.

After getting six scores, can raise one ability score for each asterisk you got. Raising an ability score from 13 to 14 or from 14 to 15 takes two asterisks. You cannot start beyond 15 at this point (although races, feats, etc., might allow you to do so). 

If you want to give a player some incentive to use random rolls instead of point-buy, just give him an extra asterisk or two.

Example: if you roll 3, 17, and 5, you'd get Strength 14, Intelligence 9, Wisdom 13, Dexterity 10, Constitution 13 and Charisma 12, plus one asterisk (allowing you to raise Int, Dex or Cha by one point). A decent fighter, probably some kind of leader.

---

If you like this post, you might enjoy Dark Fantasy Characters.

It contains a collection of tables to inspire the creation of characters.

It includes tables meant for player characters, non player characters, or (frequently) both.

The focus is on dark fantasy tropes: flawed heroes, terrible villains, corrupting magic, ominous ruins and damned wastelands.

This is system-less book, to be used with any game of your choice (except for one table, which is similar to the one in this post, but with some additional suggestions for "epic" or "gritty" games, and so on).

Darkness in in 5e D&D - torches, stealth and encounter distance (quick fix)

Fifth edition D&D lacks clear, explicit rules about these subjects.

I wrote a couple of posts about them already: here and here.

But these are long. Here is the TL;DR version:

- Torches are conspicuous (like lanterns, candles, etc.). They can be seem from a mile away in the dark. Even in dim light, they'll probably be quickly noticed unless there are brighter lights around, Which means, basically, that you cannot sneak around while carrying your own sources of light, and you can NEVER surprise someone in these circumstances - unless you opposition is asleep, blind (blindsight), etc.

- Large groups are noisy. When making stealth checks, do not make it a "group ability check". Each PC rolls separately. If the thief succeeds and the paladin fails, the opposition only sees the paladin at first. Which might be a good opportunity for the thief.

- If no one is sneaking or carrying torches, encounter distance is defined by darkvision (usually 60 feet). If both parties have darkvision 60 feet, the encounter begins at a distance of 60 feet. If you randomly encounter a monster with better darkvision than you, it sees you first. It decides whether to approach or not... or to attack from a distance. With a good perception check, you might hear a noise, take cover, etc.

- Special circumstances may change this - if there is a door or other obstacle, for example, both parties could hear one another though the door.

- Inside narrow dungeons, encounters happen in corners. If one side is carrying a torch, you might still see the light before turning the corner, but it would make things less obvious.

- Unless you avoid this on purpose, if someone in your group has a torch, the whole group will be spotted easily in the dark.

- Intelligent monsters that have darkvision may use torches anyway, unless they are expecting an attack by enemies that do not have darkvision. This is a bit more complicated. Darkvision does not ignore the darkness, it makes it milder (like "dim light" - which causes disadvantage in perception checks). In addition, you cannot see colors in darkness, only shades of gray.

It seems creatures with darkvision would prefer live in dim light if possible - they keep their edge against diurnal creatures and can see well enough. However, most sources of light in the game create bright light in a small radius and dim light in a bigger radius - potentially forcing goblins, for example, to live partially in bright light.

However...

- Monsters with keen senses may have different rules. If you use the rules as strictly written, a goblin should fight a wolf in the dark if given a choice. However, wolves have keen hearing and smell, and goblins have bows. A goblin village threatened by wolves might prefer to surround itself with torches if the night is dark, to see the wolves approaching (without disadvantage) and take them down from a distance.

If the goblin village is threatened by giant bats (with blindsight), they would DEFINITELY use torches.

However, a goblin village surrounded by aggressive HUMANS would never use torches, for similar reasons - humans rely on sight MORE than goblins, and would have a hard time approaching without being noticed.

Most of this is common sense, but easy to forget when you're playing the game and looking for actual rules.

In addition, all this stuff might hinder your fun, specially if the entire group suffers because one single PC doesn't have darkvision. If that is the case, decide what is best for you. Many groups hand-wave the whole notion of light and darkness... but using it right can lead to awesome situations.

---
If you want to support this blog, check out my books! Most are compatible with 5e.

Weapons/armor limitation (minimalist D&D)

Half-baked ideas, continued from here:

* You are proficient in all weapons and armor.

* Maximum weapon damage is equal to Strength (two-handed), 2/3 Strength (right hand) and 1/3 Strength (left and). 

* Off-hand weapon applies the WORST of Str/Dex.

* Special weapons allow you to add BOTH your Strength and Dex modifiers, or double your Str modifier, but the same limits may still apply.

* The maximum amount of AC bonus you can get from armor is equal to half your Strength. Strength 16 means you can get a +8 bonus (AC 18).

* Shield does not affect AC.

* If you get hit, you can dodge or block. To dodge, roll 1d20+Dex. To block, 1d20+AC bonus+shield bonus. Dodging avoids damage, blocking merely reduces it (maybe to one quarter damage?).

* HP = Constitution times level divided by three.

What´s the point?

A "Dark Souls" style system where you find new weapons and discover new fighting styles as you progress and make choices. Also, I hate the idea of "you are a wizards therefore you cannot use a sword".

Super-fast 5e monsters

If you know proficiency bonus, everything else is easy to find.

Attack bonus: proficiency x 2

Save DC: 8 + proficiency x 2

Damage: 5+(CRx5)

HP: 15+(CRx15)

"Good" saves/skills/checks: proficiency x 1.5

"Weak" saves/skills/checks: half proficiency, if any

AC: 10 + "Good" save.

Why? Well...

Attack bonus: double proficiency is meant to encompass both proficiency bonus an ability bonuses. These will be close to PC's bonuses.

Save DC: calculated like PC's save DCs.

HP and Damage: based on the DMG. Number of attacks is not that important. A limited attack ("recharge 4-6", etc.) affects a whole area (example: breath weapon) and, unless you succeed on a save, deal double damage (10+CRx10).

Good/weak saves: these are simplifications; monsters could have six different saves, but it is a decent approximation.

AC: start with unarmored. Since you don't add proficiency to AC most of the time, it is a bit lower than attack bonus. At high levels, monster will be easier to hit, but will be able to take more punishment as PC damage will not usually keep up with monster HP (at least for fighters).

Smoother table:

CR	Prof	x0.5	x1.5	x2
1	2	1	2	3
2	2	1	3	4
3	2	1	3	4
4	2	1	3	5
5	3	1	4	5
6	3	1	4	6
7	3	2	5	6
8	3	2	5	7
9	4	2	5	7
10	4	2	6	8
11	4	2	6	8
12	4	2	6	9
13	5	2	7	9
14	5	2	7	10
15	5	3	8	10
16	5	3	8	11
17	6	3	8	11
18	6	3	9	12
19	6	3	9	12
20	6	3	9	13
21	7	3	10	13
22	7	3	10	14
23	7	4	11	14
24	7	4	11	15
25	8	4	11	15
26	8	4	12	16
27	8	4	12	16
28	8	4	12	17
29	9	4	13	17
30	9	4	13	18

Special thanks: 

- Unknown user that commented here.

- Blog of holding.

UPDATE: If you want to create your own monsters, take a look at  Teratogenicon, our most impressive book so far. Check the previews to see for yourself!

Knave, old school hacks, and minimalist D&D (not a review)

Usually, I'm not the greatest a fan of minimalism in role-playing games. However, Knave (affiliate link*), the latest game by Ben Milton - of the awesome Maze Rats - piqued my interest with an intriguing concept: D&D without classes or special powers, with characters defined by their abilities and items.

Anyway, he posted the whole thing (only 6 pages or so) on youtube. A review would be a bit useless: the book is awesome and incredibly clever; go check it out.

But it got me thinking on how I would do a minimalist, equipment-based version of D&D.

Abilities

3d6 in order. Modifiers are new-school style (+1 for 12/13, +2 for 14/15, etc.), but, to make things simpler, no negative modifiers.

Since abilities are so central, everything would be roll-under (roll 1d20 under you ability score to succeed), like Moldvay suggests. This would include saves, attacks and spells.

An ability of 3 would be very hindering regardless of the +0 modifier.

Natural 1 is a critical hit. Probably double damage. No need for "fumbles".

Here is how I'd use abilities to keep things nice and symmetric:

Encumbrance and armor

Encumbrance is central in such an equipment-focused game, and I obviously like the idea of encumbrance slots.

I'd be tempted to go one step further in the direction of videogames and give body, legs, chest, arms and head "slots" for armor, each with a +1 AC bonus. So a naked warrior with helmet and shield would get +2. A well-armored fighter would have greaves, bracers, body armor (chain?), breastplate and helmet, for a total of +5 or maybe +6. Shield would also count as secondary weapon.

However... just listing different types of armors with different weights, each giving a +1 point of AC per "slots" would be simpler.

Dexterity would give you an armor bonus... provided you have enough EMPTY slots as suggested in the link above.

Attacks are opposed rolls: if the attacker hits, the defender gets to roll "dodge", which will only be successful if lower than AC but higher than the attacker's roll.

Or just get rid of armor AC and do damage reduction instead. Seems fitting.

Weapons and abilities

Since the game is about abilities and inventory, I would make them interact a bit more: maybe limit weapon damage to you Strength score, so carrying a 1d8 blade would be less useful if you have Strength 5, add "finesse" weapons that use Dexterity instead of Strength, and so on.

Magic

Roll under Intelligence to cast a spell. Any spell.

One interesting thing about knave is that, to use spells, you need to carry spell-books. So "spell slots" are actually... encumbrance slots! Nice! However, you can only use each book once a day. Your grimoires get "bricked" after one use. Not ideal, IMO. How about magic points, to mirror hit points? Each use costs one magic point per spell level. Fail and lose twice that much. Less than 0 means terrifying death, or worse. Or maybe let the spell turn against the caster in that case - better have high Charisma then!

Magic points need SOME use for non-magicians. So maybe they are some kind of "luck points" or "willpower", and can be used for re-rolls, etc.

Charisma protects you from magic. Seems fitting with roguish heroes. "Physical" magic might allow you to roll DEX instead.

Tools instead of skills

Since there are no skills, 5e's concept of tools would fit perfectly here. A medicine kit instead of a healing skill, and so on.

No levels?

Since we got rid of classes, why not go further and get rid of levels? Every significant "goal" achieved (a couple of short adventures, etc.) allows everyone in the group to augment one ability by one (maximum 20, although rolling a 20 is automatic failure anyway), and the person with the least ability score sum to augment two abilities.

For epic monsters, additional Strength (say, Strength 28 for an ancient dragon) could cause it to crit on an 8 or less.

No hit points?

Maximum HP is equal to constitution. Maximum MP is equal to Wisdom. HOWEVER, you ability modifier serves as damage resistance. If you have 16 (+3) Constitution, you only have 16 HP but can ignore 3 points of damage from any source. If you have 16 (+3) Wisdom, you can cast third-level spells without spending any magic points!

Numbers would be lower across the board. A dragon causing, say, 1d6+9 damage would be scary for everyone. And with 24 (+6) Constitution, would ignore all attacks that cause six point of damage or less.

Spells would have to be nerfed as well; maybe 1d6+spell level damage would be enough, provided you can hit lots of targets with a fireball. A magic wand or staff could allow you to cast 0-level "missiles" doing 1d6 damage.

What's the point?

This is admittedly half-baked, but I was inspired to write down some random ideas for minimalist D&D and this is what I've got so far.

Would I use it?

My ideal level of complexity is around 50 pages, like my Dark Fantasy Basic; however, the whole idea of Knave sounds so cool that I would be happy to try it for a few games.

*By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

5e quick fix: Help Action

5e quick fixes are exactly what they say on the tin. Small house rules to fix D&D problems you probably don't have. Use them wisely!

This is how it works in 5e:

Help

You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn.

Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.

Second paragraph makes sense and we will not discuss it here.

First one is needlessly tied to "turns". What if you're going through an ancient library and looking for a forgotten tome? Seems that the help action would be applicable even if there are no turns to be counted.

But it also seems to rely too much on GM fiat.

When can I help? I assume I  must declare HOW I'm helping, and the GM must find my idea reasonable. But HOW reasonable?

Should the Int 8 barbarian be that useful to the Int 20 wizard trying to find the tome? What about that Int 5 NPC that can barely read? What about the Int 14 cleric, should she be MORE helpful than the barbarian?

Can your cat familiar help the Str 20 champion to move a huge boulder?

"Volo's Brazen Strumpets? Dear lord, can this brute even READ?"

Many people would say "the DM will decide arbitrarily depending on the circumstances".

But you know me, I always prefer a simple mechanical solution to "the system is bad, but the GM can fix it if it gets ridiculous".

So here is the fix: the helper must succeed against he original DC divided by two to actually help.

Let's see some examples:

Find a forgotten tome in a huge library (DC 20): the barbarian with Int 8 will roll against DC 10 to be of any help. The chances that he will be useful are fifty-fifty.

Perform an ordinary task (DC 10): it only takes beating a DC 5 to help someone with an ordinary task, so in most ordinary circumstances two heads think better than one. Easy task? You can help 90% of the time even with no bonus.

Moving an impossibly huge boulder (DC 25): the Str 3 cat is unlikely to beat the DC 13 difficulty to help the champion, but at least there is a 20% chance. The Str 8 wizard would be more helpful, and the Str 16 paladin has more than 50% chance of being useful - 60% or more if trained in athletics.

Of course, the difference between cat, wizard and paladin looks too small, but that's an effect of bounded accuracy. I'd prefer using 2d10 instead of 1d20 for skills anyway!

Another way of dealing with this is group checks. But, as you know, if the Str 20 champion is trying to move a boulder, having a couple of Str 16 folks at his side can actually HINDER his chances! To fix that, try this post: Harder stealth (5e quick fix).

Minions! (5e quick fix)

The problem: 

Tracking hit points for 12 different orcs at the same time - especially if you're not using miniatures.

The (other) problem:

"Warrior" classes have few ways of fighting mobs. Maybe this isn't such a big problem for everybody... but I don't like thinking of a 10th-level barbarian or fighter being taken down by a dozen orcs. How many did Boromir kill? I didn't run the numbers, so maybe I'm wrong about the odds here. Let me know. Anyway...

The solution: 

When you are fighting against a group of minions, all damage is dealt to the group, indistinctively.

There is one single number you track: excess damage.

For example, each orc has 15 HP. If you deal 10 damage to an orc and an ally deals 7 damage to another orc, one orc is killed, and there are 2 points of excess damage. (This doesn't necessarily mean the second orc is dead - it means some orc, for some reason, dropped out of the fight).

If you cast Burning Hands and deal 8 points of damage to four different orcs, total damage dealt is 32 HP. Which means you killed to orcs and caused 2 points of excess damage.

When excess damage reaches a certain threshold, another minion is killed. In the simpler version of this rule, when excess damage reaches 15 HP (the same HP of a single orc), another orc is killed.

But if you like the idea of losing some of the excess damage, you can set the threshold a bit higher - maybe 20 HP or even more.

Limitations:

To avoid absurdity, you can limit this options to melee (within melee reach) and AoE spells that affect all targets, or nearby targets. Ranged weapons are very good as they are, anyway. But then again you might just allow crazy results - imagine a thrown spear that pins two goblins at once! It all depends on the tone you're going for.

Have I seen this before?

Probably. 13th Age has something similar, and even the DMG has a "cleaving" variant that says "When a melee attack reduces an undamaged creature to 0 hit points, any excess damage from that attack might carry over to another creature nearby."

But notice that this isn't exactly the same - this doesn't require you if you wound two creatures with burning hands, for example, you can kill one and leave other barely hurt instead.

Also, I remember discussing this idea in forums and I'm sure someone else must have had similar thoughts.

What's the point?

Avoid keeping track of individual monsters HP. Make running mobs in "theater of the mind" style games a lot easier.

SCALING ARMOR for 5e D&D

The latest post might have been a bit confusing.

This is easier, I hope. Well, if you want a different idea - even simpler - then let me draw that for you.

If you want crunch... read on!

First, get rid of 5e's armor tables.

Source.

Now you have this:

- A number of encumbrance slots equal to your Strength. If you fill HALF of these, you're half-encumbered. Fill all, and you're encumbered. Less than half means you're unencumbered.
- Armor takes a variable number of encumbrance slots (1 slot for AC 11, 2 slots for AC 12, 5 slots for AC 15, etc).
- Light armor is AC 12, medium 13-15, and heavy 16-18.
- Cost is 10 gp times AC bonus, squared. AC 14 costs 160 gp, for example, and AC 18, 640 GP (yes, it is cheaper, but you need Str 18 to make the most of it). You can get cheap armor for one quarter of the price, but you suffer a -1 penalty to AC.
- AC 15 or higher gives you disadvantage in stealth.
- Dexterity gives you a variable bonus to AC.
- Armor proficiency works as usual.

The bonus is:

* Start with column A.
* If you're using armor, and your armor's AC is greater than your Str, move one column to the right.
* If you're half-encumbered (i.e., half of your encumbrance slots are filled), move one column to the right. If you're encumbered, move two columns to the right instead, and speed drops by 10ft.
* If you're using medium amor, move one column to the right. If you're using heavy amor, move two columns to the right instead.

(The table below is the "smoother" version from last post; remember, column C is the ability modifier you're used to. Notice that there is no column "F"; if you move one column to the right of E, you cannot get a bonus from Dex, but you can still get a penalty).

Dex	A	B	C	D	E
8	-1	-1	-1	-1	-1
9	-1	-1	-1	-1	-1
10	0	0	0	0	0
11	1	1	0	0	0
12	1	1	1	1	1
13	2	2	1	1	1
14	3	2	2	2	1
15	3	3	2	2	1
16	4	4	3	2	2
17	5	4	3	3	2
18	6	5	4	3	2
19	6	5	4	4	3
20	7	6	5	4	3

Some examples:

Unfettered build (AC 17):
No armor, Str 8, Dex 20, unencumbered - use column A, get AC 17. With only 8 encumbrance slots, this PC must travel light at all times to keep the high AC. Light armor would raise your AC to 18; if you're carrying a shield and weapon too, you'd lose the unencumbered status, but raise AC to 20.

Traditional thief (AC 19):
Light armor (AC 12), Str 12, Dex 20, unencumbered - use column A, get AC 19.

Brutish rogue (AC 17):
Medium armor (AC 14), Str 14, Dex 16 - use column C, get AC 17. If you manage to stay unencumbered - not an easy thing to do - your AC is 18.

Heavy and fast (AC 20):

Heavy armor (AC 18), Str 18, Dex 14 - use column D, and you get AC 20. Notice that with 18 encumbrance slots, and 8 of those being filled by armor, is practically impossible for this build to be unencumbered. What this build can do is use a shield - and get to AC 22!

But... I don't like these ABCDE tables!

You can have a similar result by just giving +1 AC to anyone who is unencumbered, provided their DEX is 10 or higher, and -1 to anyone whose strength is smaller than their armor's AC.

What's the point?

As always, we want to give people good reasons to have BOTH Str and Dex. Notice that most of these builds require both, which is suboptimal by RAW, but they get a small AC boost in this system. In practice, PCs will rarely be unencumbered.

Side effects may include:

* Duels! In duels, BOTH sides are more likely to be unencumbered, which makes the fight lasts for a bit longer... perfect!

* Giving a reason to have odd ability scores.

* Making encumbrance more meaningful.

* Making each point of Str/Dex count.

* Making each armor unique (you might be better off with AC 13 than 14, for example, but it all depends on your stats). You might have different sets of armor for dueling, exploring, traveling, etc.

Adverse effects:

* Dex becomes even more useful.

* Barbarians/monks might need fine tuning. Paladins in plate may suffer a little if they have Str 16 or less and low Dex.

* ACs might become higher all around - although the difference is seldom greater than +1 or +2.