Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 7791608" data-attributes="member: 12377">OK, here's my dream list for 5.5. (Actually I'd rather call it 5.1 because that's how version numbers work; .5 isn't supposed to represent a decimal half-way to the next full version.)1. Largely backwards-compatible with 5e.2. Balance/playability/clarity tweaks to certain feats, spells, classes (ranger), etc. Especially FEATS -- I like the design of choosing between an ASI and a feat, but most feats are just too weak (except for a few that are just too strong!).Compatibility: This could almost certainly be done in a backwards-compatible way; for example, the way the revised ranger has special abilities with the same names as the regular ranger, they just do something slightly different.3. Eliminate bonus actions. They are used for too many different things, including extra damage. This leads to min-maxers attempting to optimize their use of bonus actions, which is really bad. I've also seen WAAAAAAAY too many new players confused by bonus actions.I think they could solve this by recategorizing and rephrasing all the things which currently take a bonus action. For example, anything that gives you a bonus action attack should just become part of Extra Attack, with some wording that doesn't allow stacking. Cunning Action has really got to go.Compatibility: This would be tricky because some magic items in some published modules and supplements use the "bonus action" language. I think a sidebar about the old language and how to handle it would probably be sufficient to clear things up.4. Nerf Expertise. I hate that Expertise breaks bounded accuracy. It's totally unnecessary. After much thought, I favor making Expertise a flat +2. This way it still "breaks" bounded accuracy but only by a mere +2, which is not nothing, but won't cause problems at higher levels.Compatibility: Published supplements that include "double your proficiency bonus" would have to change to +2, but there aren't very many of them. This could probably be handled by a conversion guide. Some monsters also have Expertise in certain skills, but monster math is weird, so I think we can just ignore that (plus, most of those monsters are CR 4 or lower, so it's already effectively a +2).5. Inspiration needs work. Its problems and potential fixes have been discussed to death. My preference is to allow Inspiration to stack, and to collapse the traits/bonds/ideals/flaws into fewer characteristics. I'd say, one Motivation (bond or ideal) one Quirk (trait or flaw) and maybe one more of either if you feel like it.Compatibility: Easy, since Inspiration is largely detached from the rest of the rules. Modularity FTW! The old non-stacking Inspiration could be kept as a variant.6. Magic Items need a better and more-granular power ranking. The current "rarity" system is poor. We need something like CR or spell levels, but for items. (We all know CR is imprecise, but imagine if monsters were rated only by Tier; encounter-building would be a mess.)I would NOT include magic item prices in the core books. The power ranking could be used to derive prices if you want to allow commerce, but would primarily be used to rate items against each other for balance purposes.Compatibility: There would need to be some guideline to rank items that have been published in 5e supplements. Other than that, this would be a purely additive change that needs literally a single sentence to explain.7. Monster XP needs to go. Just make XP values free-form based on encounter/adventure difficulty, with some simple guidelines. Or ditch XP altogether in favor of milestones, or move to a simplified system (e.g. 100 XP per level or 5 XP per level or whatever).Compatibility: Well, if you like XP, this is not backwards-compatible at all. I think this change might be worth it though.8. Make point-buy/array the default for ability scores, and rolling the variant. I know rolling is a time-honored tradition beloved by many, but for most purposes, it's really terrible game design.Compatibility: Full. Literally just swapping which option is presented first.9. Detach skills from ability scores, reduce the size of the skill list, and give skills a little more meat in the form of special options that you can only use if you are proficient. These would have to be "special" options, not generic things that anybody would try.Alternatively, they could vastly increase the skill list, and make individual skills relatively less important. This would allow the designers and the DMs to phrase things in terms of ability scores only without even thinking about skills: the player can chime in with any skill proficiencies they might have. This is kind of the way tool proficiencies work now, and I think it could be expanded to non-tool areas.This is a VERY difficult line to walk, and I think the current skill design sits right in the unhappy medium between "skills don't really matter; it's all about ability scores" and "skills matter a lot; pay attention to them."Compatibility: Sketchy at best. This is the change I'm least confident could be done in a backwards-compatible manner. A cleaner option might be to simply give each skill a slightly better definition and detach them from ability scores; give each skill examples of being used with at least two different abilities.</blockquote>

Verification