OP's solutions are easy to implement, which is a huge advantage. I'm giving my feedback ignoring this particular advantage, just presenting my thoughts on how I'd like the game to be, just in case Next designers are reading.
- Reduce all monster HP by 50%.
I think reducing HP (and the damage of high-damage attacks) is a good idea. Bigger numbers may be fun, but smaller numbers are easier to deal with, and make the game faster. I'm not sure halving them outright is the right way to deal with it, but I have no clear idea. Ideally, I'd harken back to 1e, where HP grew substantially until about level 10, and then grew much more slowly. That way, characters quickly enter the rank of "heroes" but do not become immune to a bunch of I would apply this to both monsters and PCs.
Having said all that, your idea is easy to apply, which is a clear advantage.
- Reduce Monster and PC skills (and init?) by 1/2 level. Change skill training to +3 plus player may improve one skill per 2 levels. So an 8th level PC with a trained skill at 14 (training(5) + 1/2 level(4) + abil mod(5)) would have it be 8 plus maybe 1-4 more depending on his choices of skill improvement.
- Use 5e skill check DC calculations.
I have a real problem with the bulk of healing being randomized. If we get to the part of the fight where a character is in real danger (few HP left and facing a likely hit from an enemy, or something of that kind), and the healer heals the character but rolls low, nothing has been achieved: the character is still in real danger. The healer has basically wasted both the action and the power. Missing with an attack could be characterized as having no real impact for that round, but the fact that it's an opposed action makes this okay (perhaps only in my mind).
I'm not opposed to rolling dice to determine healing, I just don't like the idea that the dice determine the bulk of the HP healed. An easy fix for this would be to turn all hit dice into d4+X, where X was the maximum roll of the prior hit die and a 4. So, a d10 would turn into a d4+6, a d8 a d4+4, and a d6 d4+4. Or something like that.
-Leave attacks and defenses unchanged (or reduce PC attacks and defenses by 1/2 level and monster attacks and defenses by level? 1/2 level? Seems easier to just leave them so I don't have to modify magic items, feats, etc)
I must admit that I find the "arms race" of 4e ridiculous: PC's attacks and defenses go up as they gain levels, but so do the enemies attacks and defenses. The race, in some form, is inevitable, given the need to improve the characters (to reward players) and to present players with difficult enemies, but slowing the race down would allow dealing with smaller numbers, which are easier to add and subtract, and would make the game faster.
I really liked some of the new discussions about how often a character should hit and how to flatten the numbers. Here's where I stand. A player should hit an appropriate enemy on a roll of 8 (hitting is way more fun than missing) and a really tough enemy on a roll of 15 on a d20 (because some enemies are tough, dammit). To use small numbers translates to a +4 against a defense of 12 early in the character's career, and perhaps a +10 or 12 against a defense of 18-20 later. A really tough enemy, later in the character's career, might have defense 25! So it would be nice to spread six or eight attack roll increases throughout the character's career. And these would be big, rewarding events!
Again, implementing my ideas might be a pain in the butt.
- Action Economy: leave as is
I'm not sure if you mean as in Next or as in 4e, but I much prefer Next's action economy. Minor actions and opportunity actions are fiddly. Make them both free, and if you must, limit any given formerly-minor-action power to once per round. Going with only one action, one move, plenty of free, and one immediate (or whatever it's called in Next) means fewer choices, which keeps the game moving faster.
- Charge = Std Action, move 0.5 X speed + basic atk w/ +1 bonus, must be straight line and must move at least 10' (slowed creatures can never charge).
I miss a charge attack in Next. And I agree that slowed characters should not be able to charge.
- No action points (deciding to use them slows things down).
I like action points, and I find them simple to implement, but to each their own.
-Surprise Round: Move or Action. Surprised creatures don't act on their turns and attacks against them have advantage unless their turn has happened. (so if you go on init 10, attacks on you at init 11+ have advantage)
This is nice and simple.
- Replace surges with hit dice: 4 hp/level = d6 HD/level, 5 hp/level=d8, 6hp/level=d10, etc.
- Expending a HD = die roll plus con modifier (my players will find this more palatable, I think).
- any power that allows/requires a character to expend a surge equals him spending up to half his HD (round up). So healing word on a 5th level fighter,he can spend 0-3 HD. Let's say he spends 2, he gets 2d10+d6 hp back.
Everything I mentioned above with respect to healing applies here to hit dice.
And much more emphatically to rolled hit points. I have a level 3 fighter, but I roll a two and a one on my second and third level hit point rolls. Now I'm a terrible fighter. I see no benefit to this mechanic.
- Use adv/dis mechanic for combat advantage and most power/feats/traits/circumstances that give +2/-2 or more (except cover and concealment).
I agree, and if extra crit dice are removed, I'd let multiple advantages or disadvantages stack (so if you have three sources of advantage, roll 4d20 for the attack roll, and take the best. The net effect of this is that the additional dice don't impact the odds of hitting as much as they affect the odds of critting, and, if you've managed to scrounge up all those advantages, it seems fair to let you do max damage. I posted the maths here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...tage-disadvantage-stacking-5.html#post5962030
-Saves: use appropriate ability modifier vs appropriate DC (set by spell caster's ability mod or easy, medium, hard DCs for environmental effects), example: Save vs Hypnotism to avoid falling in a fire. Wisdom Save vs 10 + Caster's Int mod.
I'm fine with modifying saves a bit more than allowed in 4e (avoiding stun-lock extremes), but I think it's simpler and quicker to roll an attack vs Will defense. I really wish Next hadn't done away with the other defenses.
-Ranged weapon attacks in melee are made with disadvantage
Agreed.
-Spell disruption rules for area and ranged spells cast in melee
I'd have to see the details of this. I fear that this would become a real problem for certain types of characters. If I had to take a default position, I'd be against spell disruption rules, but give the casters disadvantage.
-OAs provoked by moving away without shifting (no advantage...).
I didn't know the current rules granted advantage on those attacks. I don't see why they should have advantage, so agreed.
-Do I need to figure out a way to limit encounter powers?...Maybe they become 2X per day? So a 5th level Rogue can backstab up to 4X per day. A Cleric can Holy Word 4X day? same limit per encounter, though? Don't know...but it has to be simple.
-Dailies are fine I think. I have no strong opinion one way or the other between AEDU/Vancian/Spell points/etc...As long as it is reasonably balanced and doesn't leave a wizard or cleric player (or the DM with NPCs) having to spend inordinate amounts of time choosing things, I'm for it.
I like the mechanic of encounter powers being recovered at the end of every combat, it makes tracking this kind of resource much easier, and discourages (or rather, prohibits) expending most of them in one encounter.
Having said that, there is a huge advantage to collapsing different powers into one: it shrinks the menu of options players have to review before deciding what to do on their turn, and reduces decision fatigue. Both of these advantages make the game move much faster. For example, I recently turned a 4e fighter player character into a companion character. Instead of giving him two at-wills, I added the following to the "Hit" line after the normal damage: either push the target one square and shift into the vacated square or shift one square and pull the target into the vacated square. The resulting power is mechanically almost identical to both Tide of Iron and Footwork Lure, two archetypal fighter powers. But the work necessary to select and implement the power is much lower because (a) you have much fewer powers to pick among and (b) you can pick the consequence after you realize the attack roll was successful, meaning that you both eliminate the decision process for the times in which you miss, and you reduce the window in which players discuss what effects to impose on the target.
Ideally, each character would have one or two at-wills that define the attack area and targets, with a list of possible effects that grows as the character gains levels. They would also have perhaps two encounter attack powers, also to define the attack area and targets, and each of these might also have an increasing list of possible effects, chosen after a hit has been verified. It might be fair to track an abstract use of encounter powers, so that even if there are only two powers, a character can make three or four uses of them. And then a list of utilities and dailies, which I'm not sure are collapsible, but some of which might be. Ideally, as the characters increase in level, they could move effects from dailies to encounters and ultimately at-wills. But, again, this would take a lot of design work.
I should mention another big complication that 4e imposes: effects and their durations. One of the biggest time-sinks in 4e is tracking them. My 4e paragon game initiative roster is usually a mess of effects and durations, and the best way we have come up to track all this is a dry-erase board which has seen so much use that it I'm thinking of buying a new one after a year. I would love it if all lasting-effects were limited to the standard conditions (attack disadvantage, restrained, slowed, and so on). The advantage of this would be make tracking them much simpler. Further, I think durations (other than immediately completed ones like forced movement or prone) should be limited to:
- end of target's turn
- save ends (also verified at the end of target's turn)
- encounter
It might be okay to move some of the more complicated effects to character powers, like defenders do in much of 4e, but doing this a lot would increase the number of options the player has to review, and the decision-making process regarding whether to use the given option, and the ensuing fatigue (which is not immediately perceived, but very real: I am quite exhausted after some 4e paragon fights).
