Grantypants
Explorer
I like the idea of proficiency bonus being a die value rather than a set bonus, but in play it seems to slow down the game as you have more numbers to add every time.
The Cleave rules are fun, but I don’t require that subsequent target to be undamaged. Definitely worth expanding on.I used to love playing Rogues in 3.x, so when I first started playing 5e I used the optional Flanking and Tumble rules. But I quickly realized they weren't necessary. With the 5e Sneak Attack rules, Rogues no longer needed to be flanking. And with 5e's movement rules, I no longer needed to tumble into flanking position.
But 2 optional rules that I do like using are the Hitting Cover and Cleave rules on page 272. Hitting Cover leads to iconic hostage situations where you have to decide whether you want to lay down your weapons or try to snipe the person holding the hostage without damaging the hostage. Cleave just replaces the old 3.x feat and makes my Greataxe wielding Barbarian that much cooler. It also makes battles with many low-level minions go much quicker.
I’d love to see those expanded beyond fight or flight rules.Bloodied (pg 248) Morale (pg 273) as part of a comprehensive fight or flight system.
I think a lot of people like the idea. I like the idea, for example! But I liked the idea of the dice mechanic in Earthdawn! The practice? Not so much.I like the idea of proficiency bonus being a die value rather than a set bonus, but in play it seems to slow down the game as you have more numbers to add every time.
Fair. My concern was that bloodied and morale have a natural interaction in a fight or flight situation.I’d love to see those expanded beyond fight or flight rules.
Absolutely. Bloodied just has so many ways it could turn dials in the system very intuitively, from “when bloodied, the Gnoll reaver gains THP and deals 1d10 extra damage on a successful melee weapon attack while it has those THP” to gating certain kinds of healing behind being bloodied (or behind a certain level of morale, for that matter).Fair. My concern was that bloodied and morale have a natural interaction in a fight or flight situation.
Spell points is a mess in 5e because slot based casters mostly stop getting slots after the first for higher level slots while a handful of low level "iconic" spells punch way above what their slot levels & very low spell point costs justify. 5.5/6e will need to do a lot better thereSpellpoints, but only for Sorcerers. Merge it with Sorcery Points into a single larger pool, and Sorcerers can choose to spend it on more spells per day or on altering a fewer number of spells per day.
I am impressed with how well points per Short Rest balances.Spellpoints, but only for Sorcerers. Merge it with Sorcery Points into a single larger pool, and Sorcerers can choose to spend it on more spells per day or on altering a fewer number of spells per day.
Normally, a 17th level Wizard can cast 1 9th level spell per day. Unless I’m missing something, with your method, a 17th level Wizard would be able to cast 2 9th level spells per Short Rest. Are you sure that’s balanced?I am impressed with how well points per Short Rest balances.
The basic idea is, the mage gains a number of spell points equal to the fullcaster level + 1. The cost of any spell equals its slot level.
For example:
A level 5 Wizard has a spell pool equal to 6 points ( = level + 1 points).
The Wizard can use these points to cast two Fireballs (3rd slot x 2 = 6 point cost), or cast one of each Fireball, Invisibility, and Magic Missile (3rd slot + 2nd slot + 1st slot = 6 point cost).
When the pool depletes a Short or Long Rest can refresh it back to the maximum of 6 points.
This set up is amazingly balanced. It even works for the highest slot levels of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th.
It should probably the standard mechanics for any character that uses spell points, regardless of class.
Yeah. But. The level 17th level Wizard using these spell slots will never be able to cast a 9th-slot spell, an 8th-slot spell, a 7th-slot spell, a 6th-slot spell, two 5th-slot spells, three 4th-slot spells, and three 3rd-slot spells DURING THE SAME COMBAT ENCOUNTER!Normally, a 17th level Wizard can cast 1 9th level spell per day. Unless I’m missing something, with your method, a 17th level Wizard would be able to cast 2 9th level spells per Short Rest.
Are you sure rests aren't that easy to get?Yeah. But. The level 17th level Wizard using these spell slots will never be able to cast a 9th-slot spell, an 8th-slot spell, a 7th-slot spell, a 6th-slot spell, two 5th-slot spells, three 4th-slot spells, and three 3rd-slot spells DURING THE SAME COMBAT ENCOUNTER!
If the Wizard depletes all the spell points on only two spells, the Wizard will be vulnerable to any encounters afterward, and gaining a 1-hour Short Rest may or may not be easy.
The genius of the Short Rest spell pool is, it keeps the size of spell pool small thereby making "broken" "novas" impossible.
We can compare the 5e Warlock, with regard to Short Rest mechanics.Are you sure rests aren't that easy to get?
My experience is that the party rests the amount of times = to the loudest member of the party who nova'd their abilities out. We want to disinsentivise the 5MWD. This just turns it into the 5-Minute-Work-Hour, thus making it far easier to recharge without losing everything (1 hour is far easier to rest thoroughly than 6).