Level Up (A5E) If it's not broke don't fix it

[Morrus]

I'm not questioning the validity of his word; the question I have is he in a position to where, in the case of the upcoming 5e book, his word is law. Or will, in the coming year, others make the final decisions?

Who do you think is able to override me regarding decisions about my own products?

 

[Micah Sweet]

As far as changes that are being considered, in broad strokes the first survey covered a lot of ground regarding things they want to look at.

 

[Mike Myler]

I've said plenty of times in the last 24 hours that this is going to be 5E but a bit crunchier. I don't know how else to say it.

Here ya go

 

[Mike Myler]

I have great faith in the ability of @Morrus and his crack team of game ninjas to hold back the urge to cater to every wish-listing bit of input they get.

Anyone who does not believe this statement is welcome to peruse the Mythological Figures and Epic Monsters columns from the last 2 years for proof. I for one dig on reading everyone's opinions and feedback, but please don't mistake that as a desire for commands or something else other than wanting to know. There's a lot to be learned from between the lines of feedback and making the best use of feedback is, I am very sure at this point, an important skill for game designers.

 

[Nebulous]

You are correct. It should be compatible, but have a different feel. That is the point. It is 5e with a different feel: more crunchy.

In some ways I'm doing this now with Tales of the Old Margreve. New races, new subclasses, new spells, revised feats, talents and ancestral weapons. It's the same 5e rules but crunchier. I still hate the 5e skill system though and wish that could wholesale be swapped out.

 

[dave2008]

I still hate the 5e skill system though and wish that could wholesale be swapped out.

What would you prefer?

Personally, I like the option in the DMG that gives you proficiency in anything that is appropriate for your background. I don't see a lot of need for a hard coded and intricate skill system. But everyone is different.

 

[Nebulous]

What would you prefer?

Personally, I like the option in the DMG that gives you proficiency in anything that is appropriate for your background. I don't see a lot of need for a hard coded and intricate skill system. But everyone is different.

yeah, that's what I want, something more hard coded. But I don't expect level up to touch that, that's fine.

 

[dave2008]

yeah, that's what I want, something more hard coded. But I don't expect level up to touch that, that's fine.

Out of curiosity, what does that get you? What do you enjoy about such a system. I assume you want more skills and maybe more degrees of mastery? Do you like the character building part or is there something in the play that you like better. I guess when I see more granularity I see more change to not use your skill. But I guess if it is built on tiered system you could mitigate that:
Skill:
Social Interaction (add prof. bonus to all social interaction skills and sub skills)
Sub Skills (get advantage or expertise if trained?):

• Diplomacy
• Persuasion
• Deception
• Intimidate

 

[Jd Smith1]

Who do you think is able to override me regarding decisions about my own products?

My bad: I thought this was a WOTC product.

 

[Flamestrike]

I find it hilarious that the bloke that has been the most vocal about dissing 5E on here for years, starts a thread called 'if it aint broke dont fix it'.

Maybe that's just me.