D&D (2024) Toward a Theory of 6th Edition

[Oofta]

I have 5 months to figure out how to get Mike Mearls to announce that the next full version of D&D is going to expand on all variations of gnome paladins and eliminate everything else.

EDIT: &%$#*!, I got ninja'd on this?!?!

Ya snooze, ya loose.

 

[Alexemplar]

I feel like the base 12 classes in 5E are too entrenched in the identity of D&D to really be altered. 4E changed a lot of these around, and I think that’s part of the reason it didn’t resonate with people. Pulling things out and making them modular could lead to that “sameism” that people complained about back then.

I for one want to see the classes looked at in a way that ensures each class plays differently than other classes, even classes that are trying to do the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know. For me, the core of D&D has always been the Fighting Man/Fighter, the Thief/Rogue, the Cleric/Priest, and the Wizard/Mage. They're not only the classes from which all the others were originally variants or combinations of. They also define the roles (thematically and mechanically) that people expect in your average D&D adventuring party. People usually expect a party to contain one fighting guy for beating face, one skills/stealth guy for skills and stealth, one arcane magic guy for damage and utility, and a healer/support character.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know. For me, the core of D&D has always been the Fighting Man/Fighter, the Thief/Rogue, the Cleric/Priest, and the Wizard/Mage. They're not only the classes from which all the others were originally variants or combinations of.

/Originally/ there was no Thief. Just say'n.

But, yeah, in AD&D, they were the 4 classes, and the others ('cept the oddball Monk & Bard) were sub-classes of 'em.
And, that didn't really change much in 2e (they became four class groups: Warrior, Wizard, Priest, & Rogue), so for about 25 years, that was just the way it was, and...

They also define the roles (thematically and mechanically) that people expect in your average D&D adventuring party. People usually expect a party to contain one fighting guy for beating face, one skills/stealth guy for skills and stealth, one arcane magic guy for damage and utility, and a healer/support character.

...it became a tradition.

But, what the traditional cleric & magic-user do - cast spells - is essentially not that different. And what the traditional fighter and thief do - use mundane skill (fighting's a skill) - is really not that different, either.

You could probably take D&D down to just those two 'classes' - magic-user and skill-user; Mage & Hero, perhaps - and get all the remaining PH-in-some-edition classes and sub-classes and one-off-class-in-one-supplement-one-time classes by just applying various Templates to them.

 

[Alexemplar]

But, what the traditional cleric & magic-user do - cast spells - is essentially not that different. And what the traditional fighter and thief do - use mundane skill (fighting's a skill) - is really not that different, either.

You could probably take D&D down to just those two 'classes' - magic-user and skill-user; Mage & Hero, perhaps - and get all the remaining PH-in-some-edition classes and sub-classes and one-off-class-in-one-supplement-one-time classes by just applying various Templates to them.

Eventually the classes went into those divergent directions. In AD&D, Priest spell lists were a lot less like Magic-Users, they got more spell slots, and they maxed out at 7th level. I never actually played AD&D, but I figured this was to gear them towards casting a higher number support/buff spells as compared to the Magic-User, who was geared more towards using their spells for offense.

Also, while Fighters and Rogues both had abilities that were pretty much pre-3e skills, the nature of their skills were different with Fighters being more geared to being strong/leader types while the Rogue's skills were geared more towards sneaking around, and stealing stuff.

Although with the way things have kind of bled into one another, you really could divide them into Warrior/Mages, especially where combat is concerned: classic sword and sorcery. It also works pretty well with how such characters tend to be divided up in mythology/folkore.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In AD&D, Priest spell lists were a lot less like Magic-Users, they got more spell slots, and they maxed out at 7th level. I never actually played AD&D, but I figured this was to gear them towards casting a higher number support/buff spells as compared to the Magic-User, who was geared more towards using their spells for offense.

I did play, and run, AD&D a lot, and I figured about the same thing. The Cleric got bonus spells (mostly lower level) because he was going to blow a lot of 'em on healing (especially at lower levels), the Magic-user didn't have that issue.

But the process of spellcasting was virtually identical for both, and is still very similar.

Also, while Fighters and Rogues both had abilities that were pretty much pre-3e skills, the nature of their skills were different with Fighters being more geared to being strong/leader types while the Rogue's skills were geared more towards sneaking around, and stealing stuff.

Nod. In AD&D, the mechanics were very different, too, and more exclusive. But, in concept, they're both just highly trained/talented/determined people without supernatural powers.

Although with the way things have kind of bled into one another, you really could divide them into Warrior/Mages, especially where combat is concerned: classic sword and sorcery. It also works pretty well with how such characters tend to be divided up in mythology/folkore.

Yes. I think the proliferation of classes - it started very early, afterall - was just an accident of the game's development, not a fundamentally great idea or anything, just the way it happened in Gary's basement. In going from Chainmail to D&D they took the artillery-casters and the fighting men and made them classes, and, when confronted with people wanting to play other things, well, more classes...
...:shrug:

 

[Guest 6801328]

The idea of just two classes is oddly appealing. I'd like to see an RPG based on that.

re: spells, I also would love to see the reality-breaking high-level spells dropped from the lists. (Although I suspect it will never happen because Tradition.) There's no need for anything above 5th or 6th level; at higher level you just use higher level slots for lower level spells. Sub-classes could potentially get signature "spells" as capstone abilities.

A few other things I would like to see:
1) Disentangle ASIs from Feats. Yes, yes, I know the argument about "they promised optional sub-systems" but the current system isn't working. ASIs are too good compared to most Feats, except for a couple of overpowered Feats that all the munchkins take. I want to take some of the really fun Feats but the optimizer in me can't do it. (I think about starting a campaign with the inverse rule: ASIs are outlawed; Feats only.)

2) More features in sub-classes. I'd like to see maybe 6 rather than 4 sub-class abilities, with the two new ones showing up sooner.

3) Ability score modifiers removed from classes. Recalibrate point buy if needed to give everybody the same bonuses to be used where you want.

4) New ability score generation that provides more variety and even some...gasp...randomness. (I recently suggested Point Buy for three stats of your choice, and straight 3d6, in order, for the other three. Or 4d6-1 or whatever. Something totally random.)

 

[Arilyn]

Huh. That's not what I heard. It was gnomish paladins for everyone. The only choice dual wielding rapiers or using two rapiers at the same time.

It greatly simplifies the game while still giving a lot of flexibility. Does your know speak with a high squeaky voice? Or just talk really rapidly? The options are nearly endless.

I heard gnomes are ousted again. Next addition is called "Paladins and Pixies." Voice options still available.

 

[zedturtle]

3) Ability score modifiers removed from classes. Recalibrate point buy if needed to give everybody the same bonuses to be used where you want.

A while back, I played around with a B/X variant that tied attributes generation to class. For example, a Fighter might roll 2d6+6 for Strength, and 3d6 for Intelligence, while a Magic User was the reverse. So you'd still have the randomness of sometimes having a Fighter with a weirdly low prime stat and a weirdly high 'dump' stat. But most Fighters would have good Strength, etc.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A while back, I played around with a B/X variant that tied attributes generation to class. For example, a Fighter might roll 2d6+6 for Strength, and 3d6 for Intelligence, while a Magic User was the reverse. So you'd still have the randomness of sometimes having a Fighter with a weirdly low prime stat and a weirdly high 'dump' stat. But most Fighters would have good Strength, etc.

Yeah, I kinda like that.

The idea I came up with the other day is races and classes would both have minimums. E.g., an Elf might have Dexterity minimum of 12, and Fighter might have a Strength minimum of 14. So if you played an Elf Fighter you could dump your two lowest scores into Dex and Strength and still come out with 12 and 14.

Sure, a lot of players wouldn't ever use this, but it would introduce an incentive to pick atypical stat combinations. "Sure my Fighter isn't the strongest around, but he's got wickedly high Con and Cha!"

 

[Arilyn]

The idea of just two classes is oddly appealing. I'd like to see an RPG based on that.

re: spells, I also would love to see the reality-breaking high-level spells dropped from the lists. (Although I suspect it will never happen because Tradition.) There's no need for anything above 5th or 6th level; at higher level you just use higher level slots for lower level spells. Sub-classes could potentially get signature "spells" as capstone abilities.

A few other things I would like to see:
1) Disentangle ASIs from Feats. Yes, yes, I know the argument about "they promised optional sub-systems" but the current system isn't working. ASIs are too good compared to most Feats, except for a couple of overpowered Feats that all the munchkins take. I want to take some of the really fun Feats but the optimizer in me can't do it. (I think about starting a campaign with the inverse rule: ASIs are outlawed; Feats only.)

2) More features in sub-classes. I'd like to see maybe 6 rather than 4 sub-class abilities, with the two new ones showing up sooner.

3) Ability score modifiers removed from classes. Recalibrate point buy if needed to give everybody the same bonuses to be used where you want.

4) New ability score generation that provides more variety and even some...gasp...randomness. (I recently suggested Point Buy for three stats of your choice, and straight 3d6, in order, for the other three. Or 4d6-1 or whatever. Something totally random.)

I like these ideas. I never liked the higher level spells anyway, as they tend to be too drastic, and too likely to result in something my GM will not be ready for.

1. Yes, for sure disentangle feats from ASI. Stats are getting ridiculously high. Feats feel more like something adventurers would have.

2. I am all for more sub-class features, and more choices too. If you don't play to higher levels, you may only get 1 or 2 features. More choice would be nice. Since the team is not bringing out tons of new material, they have time to make sure choices are reasonably balanced.

3. Could go either way on this one.

4. Ability score generation definitely needs work. 13th Age has system where your defenses are averaged from 3 stats. This means it's a good idea to spread your stats around more evenly. Current point buy system in 5e is broken, as you are usually better off rolling. Also, if you are going to have a template for stats, it would be way better to have several templates to choose from. I like your idea too. You will have stats you need but not full control over what "nature" gave you at birth.