Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8685650" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Despite my misgivings about 5e, it is inarguable that (a) it has brought people into the hobby, and (b) familiarity is important.So, for me, a "perfect" edition upgrade would need to bring back as much as possible of 4e, without compromising the positive things 5e has brought to the table. This would, necessarily, be a tricky thing, navigating a difficult space. But I think it is possible, albeit there would be a fair amount of testing required.Things that could be translated (not simply copied!) from 4e:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Healing surges. Probably the single easiest system to translate over, though I have seen criticisms of how 4e approached things that might warrant meaningful changes in doing the translation. I didn't personally agree with those criticisms, but examining such things is one of the most important parts of testing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"At-will" powers for everyone, not just casters. Again, this should be pretty easy to import.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Skill Challenges. Ideally iterated and improved upon, learning from how the community handled them (e.g. the "Obsidian Skill Challenge system.")</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The 4e perspective on what skills are. I don't know why, but 5e has induced some bizarrely narrow, closed-off interpretations of skills, very contrary to the broad, open-ended way 4e skills were presented, even though the text itself doesn't really support such a narrow reading. Baking such open-endedness explicitly into the text would be a significant improvement.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Backgrounds+Themes. 5e BGs are...tolerable. But they could be much better. 4e themes, especially near the end of its run, were really quite good, and present a lot of fun opportunities.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some classes, in particular Warlord, but also Shaman and Avenger. For the latter two, although it would emphatically not be my preference, I could see them working as subclasses of Druid and Rogue respectively, rather than full classes in their own right. I'd very much prefer full classes, but as I said above, this is a compromise, so I can't get everything I'd like.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Weapon types and properties. I've already spoken about this elsewhere. I think this would add a great deal of richness (and address some of the lingering wonky/uneven balance in 5e's weapon list) while barely affecting the complexity, because weapon properties and types essentially already exist, they're just danced around with oblique references.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Though I know this will be highly controversial....roles. Specifically subclass roles, with the direct, explicit statement that (sub)class roles ARE NOT a limitation on what you're ALLOWED to do, but a clear statement of what you DEFINITELY CAN do. Which...is what 4e roles always were, but people apparently need it called out explicitly and repeatedly in order to find it palatable.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fully decoupling monster stat blocks from PC class/race features. Players don't look at statblocks, DMs do. The vast, vast majority do not need to be constructed as though they were something a player could pick up and use. Where possible, it is of course useful to cut down on unnecessary text by exploiting parallelism and symmetry. But do not put game-design aesthetics ahead of at-the-table functionality. Statblocks must work; if they can also be made to look and feel nice, that is lovely, but their function must always come first.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Generally just...actually friggin' TEST the game. Not just ask for qualitative feedback. Do mathematical testing. Get actual survey design people, so you can design surveys that are actually effective at telling you what you need to know, not just push-polls confirming what you already intended to do. (I still remember one of the HORRIBLE polls WotC put up, where one of the questions was straight-up "every answer is yes," but ranging from "enthusiastic yes" to "reluctant yes." It was absolutely infuriating, doubly so because I know for certain that whoever posted that poll had no idea how bad it was.</li> </ul>Things I would simply change, which aren't strictly related to keeping something from either edition:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Significant revision of the Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlock classes, particularly the first and last. All of these end up relatively weak in 5e's current design structure, particularly due to their dependence on short rests, or their efforts to be totally rest-independent (looking at you, Champion.) Bringing them up to par or even slightly above par would be a huge improvement.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Moderate revisions of the Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard classes. The Wizard doesn't really need any more power, but it desperately yearns for more mechanics to support being a magical researcher. Druid mostly just needs Moon to be smoothed out in power; personally, I'd make a specific list of forms that can be taken, so as to make a more regular, natural progression, but there are some other wrinkles here and there to adjust. Sorcerer is straight-up weaker than it should be; bring back the Next Playtest Sorcerer or fix the one we have. Barbarian is okay-ish, but Berserker needs to be yeeted into the sun or fixed because it SUCKS, and several other paths are much weaker than they should be.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rewrite and simplify unarmed strikes and grappling wherever possible. As usual, unarmed strikes are ridiculously over-complicated for no reason. Just stat it up like an ordinary weapon. Grappling is better than unarmed strikes, but it was even more better in 4e, and I'm sure 5e can come up with its own system (whether 4e-derived or not) that is better.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Separate ASIs from feats. Feats become an optional rule toggle, with five options: no feats at all, feats instead of ASIs, feats in addition to ASIs, feats instead of ASIs, and feats acquired at a different rate (presumably based on total character level, not class level). Add more good feats and remove some feats if they simply can't be brought up to par (some of the "armor mastery" feats, for example, just...aren't good.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bring back minor actions, but call them bonus actions (since that's what people are familiar with now). All the ridiculous verbal gymnastics necessary to keep up the charade grows wearying. "You don't have a Bonus Action, things just let you take a Bonus Action sometimes, but you can only take one Bonus Action per turn, and Bonus Actions are absolutely not Actions. Even though they're actions. And other things can let you take bonus Actions, which are not Bonus Actions, even though both things are actions."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">5e's fluid rules regarding movement are clearly a big hit, so keep them--but bring back the move action, which you can spend to have your speed's worth of movement, OR to do some OTHER thing with your movement. That opens a ton of design space without changing anything about how 5e currently works. Technically, if we ABSOLUTELY HAVE to preserve the "it's not an action" thing, there are similar ridiculous circumlocutions we can do, but I just really really dislike calling a spade a "metalflap soil extrication assistance device" when we can call it a goddamn spade.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Regularize "ancestry" presentation. In my ideal world, implement my list of ancestry options, where each (other than maybe human) has 4 distinct "lineages" or "clans" within each ancestry. Actually friggin' balance them so we don't get issues like the PHB dragonborn a second time.</li> </ul>Unless contradicted above, keep whatever systems are present in 5e. For example, as much as I dislike neo-Vancian spellcasting, it's obviously here to stay, at least until we get a new edition and can try again at fixing that absolute nightmare of a subsystem. Keeping healing more-or-less the way it is, but dependent either on long-rest-based resources (such as spells) or gated via healing surges. Stuff like that. It would take much too long to list all the specific 5e things being kept, so just...presume it's kept unless otherwise specified.So...yeah. That's what I'd want for my "perfect" 5.5e. I'm absolutely 100% dead certain I'm going to get maybe at best two or three things from the above list. I've made peace with that fact. I'd rather not discuss that specific side of things (whether or not this is plausible) any further, if it's all the same to others.</blockquote>

Verification