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

[SmokeyCriminal]

I think it would be really hard to design characters like that. You're basically creating Category A puzzle piece, and Category B puzzle piece. So that would mean that you would have to take 'Woodsman' and put it with 'Sneaky', 'Tradesman', 'Acrobatic', and make sure that the pieces fit together and that they are relatively equal. And then you have to take 'Sneaky' and put it with 'Woodsman', 'Barbarian', and the rest of category A and make sure that the pieces fit together and that they are all relatively balanced.

From what I understand, when Mearls creates a new subclass, he comes up with a story of a character and then he uses that story as a guide, and he chooses a class who's 'theme' and mechanics can help with that story, and then he builds the subclass mechanics to tell that story. I think of it like, the Class is a theater, and the Sub Class is a story, so you need to figure out which theater is going to accommodate your story the best. It's why we saw the Scout jump around Classes.

I don't think you can design characters in that way using your new template. It feels more like 'Linking' mechanics as a posed to 'Stacking' mechanics.

But, if you do manage to figure out how to implement it, you could link more then just 2 pieces together. Maybe after a few levels or when you reach a new tier you can add another adjective/verb. So you can become a 'Sneaky Woodsman Noble'.

I like the direction you're going with Backgrounds. Backgrounds are there to "tie" you into the world, expanding on that would be good. You can have...Fore?ground. Basically a "new Background" when you enter a new Tier, a sort of "Checking in" with the world. where depending on what you did for the last few Levels/Arc, you get a new minor "perk." It could be as simple as choosing from the existing list of Backgrounds, or maybe create new ones specific to Tier. Just no skills, or maybe do add skills, idk. Maybe get one skill for your Background during creation, and one for every "new background."

I know Mearls would love to get rid of Bonus Actions.

What I would really like is Countdown Clocks, like they have in Blades in the Dark, for Downtime actions. If you want to build/create something or research/study/practice. They should be tied to a Countdown clock instead of just "X days." It's more flexible and elegant and simple.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Tomorrow I'm starting a game of Beyond the Wall, an OSR that has a interesting way of generating interesting character with a workable background and with built-in tie to the party (or the campaign). They are called Playbook and they are a document with a general character concept where you get to roll on multiple tables to generate your stats, ties and background, going as far a giving bonuses to who participated in an event in your background (like: the player to your right helped you avenge the murder of your father some years ago, he gains +1 Str). I think D&D could benefit from this kind of design where the character is the total sum of all his components: race and background should be more than first level choices, they should have more meaning in the character developpment, giving you your working stats and features.

Like: Dwarf +2 con (Some features at lvl 1/4/6/8/11/15/17), Sage +1 Int (Some features at level 1/2/7/9/12/16/18), Fighter +2 strength (Features at lvl 1/3/5/10/13/14/19/20).

 

[Guest 6801328]

It occurred to me that, although game design is fun, maybe starting with the problems to be solved (without specifying solutions) is the way to go. So to reboot the discussion in a new way, the problems I see that I would like to address:

- Certain "themes" that currently end up in classes or sub-classes seem like they should be able to be layered onto any class.
- High level spells too easily break plots and are unnecessary
- Many of the most interesting Feats can't compete with ASIs
- Too little variation in ability scores across characters (esp. need a fix for DDAL)
- Rapiers exist
- Dex is a god stat, which leads inexorably to rapiers and...worse...rapier-wielding Dexadins
- Racial choice is driven by class choice
- There is too much mechanical incentive to go ranged instead of melee
- Stealth is still confusing

 

[jayoungr]

I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.

 

[Raith5]

I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.

I agree but , for me there is an issue. But it is more that I wish mundane/martial side of things was a bit more interesting (especially at higher levels) relative to magic. I dont mean go so far as the 4e approach with respect to the gonzo abilities of low level martial PCs. I think 5e aced the magic classes but there is some interesting space between the 5e and 4e takes on martial PCs.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Re: backgrounds/themes:

In the Primeval Thule setting book they introduce Narratives, which are pretty much enhanced Backgrounds with farther-reaching mechanical benefits (often gaining followers, property, ships, and things like that). The setup isn't perfect, and I ended up having everyone pick both a Background and a Narrative, but it goes a long way toward making a character's part more relevant and shaping their development.

 

[Arilyn]

I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.

I think, at least for most of us, not so much a hatred of magic, as a dislike of magic being so common in DnD it has become mundane. Practically every class can wield it. It is predictable and lacks wonder. It is often used by the designers to give classes abilities which would be better served by a non-magical source.

 

[Li Shenron]

Regardless of whether or not Backgrounds are used, what would these templates look like? My inclination is that they would not have abilities that unlock at specific levels the way classes do, but would have features that are all gained immediately, some of which scale with level. Some examples:
- Knight: increase your armor proficiency by one step. (Which might mean class armor proficiencies would be reduced one step.)
- Woodsman: difficult natural terrain does not reduce your movement
- Barbarian: Rage (redesigned so that it also boosts spell-casting and other things)
- Soldier: some kind of tactical warlord-y thing
Etc. etc. etc.

I could keep going, but I'm interested in your responses.

Going along with your idea...

First, I would avoid a fifth template (not counting the "subs") on top of the existing four class+race+background+feats, which I think they are enough. So I would pretty much instead emphasize the background at the expense of the class.

Easiest starting point would be to simply "move" two skills proficiencies from class to backgrounds, which would then normally feature four of them (two fixed, and two chosen from a short list). The Fighter skills would end up in both the Soldier and Knight background for example, the Wizard skills would end up in the Sage background and so on.

Further changes require a lot more considerations. Non-skill proficiencies are still doable, but if you lower one "step" all classes, you have to take something else out of the Wizard, Sorcerer and Monk. Rage is too much to be granted by backgrounds at this point, so assuming you want a Barbarian background that grants Rage (which I don't think it's a good idea in general anyway), this would force you to step up the design of all other backgrounds, which almost certainly will become more differentiate, which in turn means more balancing work needed.

I would stick with the simpler version of these improved backgrounds first, and if you want bigger weapons like Rage to be available to all, turn them into feats instead. Because you know, feats are templates too.

 

[Li Shenron]

It occurred to me that, although game design is fun, maybe starting with the problems to be solved (without specifying solutions) is the way to go. So to reboot the discussion in a new way, the problems I see that I would like to address:

- Certain "themes" that currently end up in classes or sub-classes seem like they should be able to be layered onto any class.
- High level spells too easily break plots and are unnecessary
- Many of the most interesting Feats can't compete with ASIs
- Too little variation in ability scores across characters (esp. need a fix for DDAL)
- Rapiers exist
- Dex is a god stat, which leads inexorably to rapiers and...worse...rapier-wielding Dexadins
- Racial choice is driven by class choice
- There is too much mechanical incentive to go ranged instead of melee
- Stealth is still confusing

None of these can or will be fixed in another edition or another game, ever. You can create alternatives that you like better, and the inevitable consequence is a lot of other people will hate the alternatives more than the original. The purpose of newer editions is always to sell more books, not to fix the game for good.

On a couple of these, me too would appreciate some simple variation. For example:

- all projectile weapons could have their damage dice decreased one step

- Dex bonus to AC could be removed and replaced by a "defense" proficiency bonus, as long as only selected classes were proficient

The latter has a lot implications however, so it's not the kind of house rule that can just be dropped into a game without careful considerations and a certain amount of playtest.

 

[dave2008]

I would ask for two changes, and two changes only, to make me perfectly happy.

1. Less magic, but better magic. I want magic to be awesome, and rare. No 1/3 spellcasters, few (if any) 1/2 spellcasters, and spells should be infrequent and amazing.

I basically agree, but I might do away with full casters instead of 1/2 casters (or only the wizard a full caster)

2. Go back to a system where most things (including to hit and saving throws) improve with level, not ability score. I know, bac to the dark ages. Sort of a super proficiency bonus or something.

I still want things to improve with ability scores, but what if proficiency (level) granted cumulative advantage instead?

Untrained: d20
Trained: 2d20 (highest)
Proficient 3d20 (highest)
Expert: 4d20 (highest)
Master: 5d20 (highest)
Grand Master 6d20 (highest)

This would make better use of bounded accuracy IMO .