Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 7028600" data-attributes="member: 12377">Wizards would really be shooting themselves in the foot hard, if they made such drastic changes within the next few years. Instead, let's think about what minor changes they might be able to squeak by.Instead of 5.5, we should be thinking about 5.1:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Errata. Most of the errata changes are mere wording changes, and could be included easily. I think the biggest one would be changing every damn monster in the MM that has resistance to non-magical "weapons" to instead have resistance to non-magical "weapon attacks." Most of the other errata changes are isolated to a single spot.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Clarifying language. I'm sure they've got a list of Frequently Asked Questions that are so dang frequent that it would be worth adding a sentence or two here or there to clarify the rules. This is kind of like errata++.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Re-balancing feats and spells. We all know that a few feats are OP and many others are duds. Likewise, several spells are obviously not worth taking. Some of this has already been addressed by errata. But they could do a few more, because the changes are isolated; it probably won't ripple through the system. Examples: I'd like to see the -5/+10 feets nerfed a little (a LITTLE), and Polearm Mastery nerfed. I think many of the skill-related feats (Athlete, Actor, Skulk, etc.) should grant Expertise in the skill they apply to. Weapon Master should just give proficiency in all weapons. Savage Attacker should somehow, you know, be savage, not just a damage upgrade.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Revised classes. They've said that they wouldn't include the revised ranger in a new printing of the PHB. But I think if they came out with a "Revised Edition" a few years from now, and if the revised ranger proved popular, they could put it in there and people would be happy rather than sad. I wouldn't change much about the other classes -- maybe improve the Four Elements monk a little, a couple of targeted fixes to barbarian's Frenzy and the warlock's Blade Pact, nerf the druid Moon Circle at low levels, that sort of thing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">New races, subclasses, feats, spells. A FEW new game elements would be good; it may help people who already have the un-revised PHB feel that they are getting some value. Adding new stuff is tricky because it's easy to go overboard and overwhelm new players. Everybody will have a different opinion about how much is too much, so here's mine: sorcerer doesn't have enough subclasses, there aren't enough feats for spellcasters, and non-fire energy types need better representation in damaging spells, especially at spell levels 2-3. I could maybe see a couple of new races (aasimar, genasi, and split tieflings into two subraces) and some racial feats, but maybe not.</li> </ul>My guideline would be to make the new PHB absolutely, ruthlessly backwards-compatible with existing adventures and supplements. There should be zero conversion needed for those things. Converting existing characters should be as simple as, "oh your underwhelming feat/feature now gives you a new bonus, so write that down." That's IT. Anything more and it will fracture the player-base and the publisher-base. We saw this with 3.5 and it sucked.</blockquote>

Verification