D&D (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[Parmandur]

Question for you and @Parmandur, who seem to have opposite viewpoints on this. I have a third option I'd like to hear from people.

Would an invocation-based ranger (like a spell-less warlock) work in 6e for you. This would allow some rangers to take "woodlands magic" invocations (or whatever terrain), which also could mean some are at-will or have other usage-per-day that fits the ranger, as opposed to fits the caster system. Or not to be taken for those who don't want to get magic involved. It would also allow invocations for beasts to get scouting, then combat, then even-cooler-in-various-ways customization. Plus Invocations like Hunter's Mark and others that fit other ragner archetypes (archer, scout, bounty hunter, warden, etc.)

Yeah, that seems to be a model for were this is headed.

 

[anahata]

That's what I love about this edition the most, the power the DM has. What would you think intimidate would do in combat? Does one really need an explicit rule for this? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to open up a constructive dialogue.

How would I know what intimidate should do in combat? I don't get into fights. I have no experience or basis on which to decide. I also have no experience or basis on which to decide how magic works. That's why the rules exist: to provide a framework for things we humans in the real world have no experience of.

Easy. Make it up. Make rulings. You're the DM - you tell the game what to do, rather than the reverse.

How? On what basis? What do I choose? How do I justify the choice? I play an RPG instead of doing freeform makebelieve so that there's structure. Taking away the structure means it's no longer a game. I don't want to be a game designer but 5e makes me one.

In short - it's intentional in 5e that the game as played at your table isn't expected to be exactly the same as Bob's down the street or Mary's at your FLGS. The rules provide the framework that you then flesh out to make your game yours.

It's the opposite philosohy from 3e or PF, where there's a rule for everything.

This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad; there is no foundation. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it.

As for ideas about what might be achievable - Many of the fighters maneuvers could be couched as an effect achievable via intimidation pushing, distracting, menacing, goading for example maybe even a trip or commanders strike. (evasive footwork becomes menacing glare which darts from enemy to enemy as they attempt to hit you)

What does all of that mean in game terms? How does it work? The ideas are great, but it doesn't tell me how to adjudicate actions.

I think the issue is assuming that Intimidate does anything different in combat then it does out-of-combat. The results of the social skills have always been for the DM to adjudicate.

This is wrong. Here's the Intimidate skill description for 3.5 for in-combat use:

Demoralize Opponent
You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent’s resolve in combat. To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target’s modified level check (see above). If you win, the target becomes shaken for 1 round. A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.

This is a mechanical, quantifiable, description of what the skill does and how to use it. Meanwhile, here's the entire text of the skill description for 5e:

When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.

There's no description of what kind of action it is, if it even is an action, what the effects are, how long they last, nothing. That specific use of the skill in 3.5 has more words than the entire description in fifth. This is the kind of detail that I want. "use your intuition" / "use your judgement" / "make a ruling" aren't helpful when there's no guidance on developing that intuition or judgement or any suggestions on what the ruling should be. I had to make a ruling on the spot when my player did this and, because there's no suggestions on what to do, how to handle the situation, I gave him something so powerful it broke encounters. 3.5 provides specific, balanced (mostly) rules for the things my players want to do. 5e leaves me to make things up without providing any of the support needed to understand how to do so.

Did you prefer 3.5? Taht

I'm not sure what you were going to say after "That", but yes, I absolutely do prefer 3.5, for reasons that should be clear from the rest of the post. 5e is like tossing your infant into the ocean and telling them to swim. 3.5 pairs you with an Olympic swimming coach.

 

[Blue]

This is wrong. Here's the Intimidate skill description for 3.5 for in-combat use:

So, THAC0 should exist because it was in a previous edition?

Sorry, if something was dropped from an earlier edition, that does not mean it was forgotten - and most often means it's intentional. Considering the differences between 3.5 and 5e design philosophies (simulationist vs. empowered DMs), it make sense it was dropped.

 

[anahata]

So, THAC0 should exist because it was in a previous edition?

Sorry, if something was dropped from an earlier edition, that does not mean it was forgotten - and most often means it's intentional. Considering the differences between 3.5 and 5e design philosophies (simulationist vs. empowered DMs), it make sense it was dropped.

I never made the argument that THAC0 should exist. That's a strawman. I was correcting a falsehood in your post. And I furthermore disagree with the implied logic in your current post that something being dropped means it was inherently bad and needed to go. That position is predicated upon the (false) assumption that the decision to drop things is correct. I furthermore disagree with the philosophy of "empowered DMs" for 5e. The DM was always empowered from the original game. Not providing rules doesn't empower the DM, it just makes more work for them.

If we take your argument from the perspective of 4th edition, then, shall we say that everything that 4th dropped from 3rd is bad and needs to go? Including the things that 5th brought back? Surely that means that dropping things from a game can be a mistake, rather than that dropping things is necessarily correct as your post seems to suggest.

 

[Parmandur]

How would I know what intimidate should do in combat? I don't get into fights. I have no experience or basis on which to decide. I also have no experience or basis on which to decide how magic works. That's why the rules exist: to provide a framework for things we humans in the real world have no experience of.



How? On what basis? What do I choose? How do I justify the choice? I play an RPG instead of doing freeform makebelieve so that there's structure. Taking away the structure means it's no longer a game. I don't want to be a game designer but 5e makes me one.



This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad; there is no foundation. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it.



What does all of that mean in game terms? How does it work? The ideas are great, but it doesn't tell me how to adjudicate actions.



This is wrong. Here's the Intimidate skill description for 3.5 for in-combat use:



This is a mechanical, quantifiable, description of what the skill does and how to use it. Meanwhile, here's the entire text of the skill description for 5e:



There's no description of what kind of action it is, if it even is an action, what the effects are, how long they last, nothing. That specific use of the skill in 3.5 has more words than the entire description in fifth. This is the kind of detail that I want. "use your intuition" / "use your judgement" / "make a ruling" aren't helpful when there's no guidance on developing that intuition or judgement or any suggestions on what the ruling should be. I had to make a ruling on the spot when my player did this and, because there's no suggestions on what to do, how to handle the situation, I gave him something so powerful it broke encounters. 3.5 provides specific, balanced (mostly) rules for the things my players want to do. 5e leaves me to make things up without providing any of the support needed to understand how to do so.



I'm not sure what you were going to say after "That", but yes, I absolutely do prefer 3.5, for reasons that should be clear from the rest of the post. 5e is like tossing your infant into the ocean and telling them to swim. 3.5 pairs you with an Olympic swimming coach.

This post is a good rundown of why I don't miss 3.x...

 

[Blue]

I never made the argument that THAC0 should exist. That's a strawman. I was correcting a falsehood in your post. And I furthermore disagree with the implied logic in your current post that something being dropped means it was inherently bad and needed to go. That position is predicated upon the (false) assumption that the decision to drop things is correct. I furthermore disagree with the philosophy of "empowered DMs" for 5e. The DM was always empowered from the original game. Not providing rules doesn't empower the DM, it just makes more work for them.

If we take your argument from the perspective of 4th edition, then, shall we say that everything that 4th dropped from 3rd is bad and needs to go? Including the things that 5th brought back? Surely that means that dropping things from a game can be a mistake, rather than that dropping things is necessarily correct as your post seems to suggest.

Your "proof" that it was supposed to exist was merely that it existed in a previous edition. But the same level of proof to show how that's a ridiculous stance you called a strawman. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to your own proof.

In addition, you completely ignored the reaosning why I thought it was intentionally dropped, and instead tried to set up that I said everything dropped was intentional. Which is not supported by my original post. As you are so fond of pointing out strawmen, you may want to look closer to home.

I don't see anything constructive coming from continuing this.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure what you were going to say after "That", but yes, I absolutely do prefer 3.5, for reasons that should be clear from the rest of the post. 5e is like tossing your infant into the ocean and telling them to swim. 3.5 pairs you with an Olympic swimming coach.

Obviously, in a thread on what you would like "6e" to look like, a desire to see a reversion to the 3.5 "stone fortress" model of rules is an entirely relevant opinion to offer, and there's no reason to gainsay you.

As I'm sure you've picked up from the responses in this thread, though, your opinion does appear to be a minority one. If you feel that your inability to do effective ad-hoc adjudication is something hindering your own play, I'm sure a lot of advice can be offered, both in this thread and others. If you feel that detailed, rules-heavy structures are simply better for your playstyle, then I wish you continued good gaming with 3.5, and maybe you should check out Pathfinder 2 as well, since it offers a similar structure.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Question for you and @Parmandur, who seem to have opposite viewpoints on this. I have a third option I'd like to hear from people.

Would an invocation-based ranger (like a spell-less warlock) work in 6e for you. This would allow some rangers to take "woodlands magic" invocations (or whatever terrain), which also could mean some are at-will or have other usage-per-day that fits the ranger, as opposed to fits the caster system. Or not to be taken for those who don't want to get magic involved. It would also allow invocations for beasts to get scouting, then combat, then even-cooler-in-various-ways customization. Plus Invocations like Hunter's Mark and others that fit other ragner archetypes (archer, scout, bounty hunter, warden, etc.)

Ohhh....an invocation-based Ranger would be...interesting. I'd like to see that.

 

[Garthanos]

What does all of that mean in game terms? How does it work? The ideas are great, but it doesn't tell me how to adjudicate actions.

Well it is step one to decide what the effects are and the fighters maneuvers are well defined in game terms - a difficult part might be avoiding stepping too hard on fighter toes (if we are allowing improvised by the untrained). I like to give more rather than take away so we can do both.

Foundation I want the fighter to have reasons to use other skills for these things and have a choice to do their maneuvers more often. Solution I enable the fighter or martial adept to if they are trained in an appropriate skill to trade one of their attacks to allow them perform their next attack with the benefit exactly as though they had another superiority die d6 size with attribute mod for nice flavor. So far so good.

Now if we want people to improvise more for maneuvers they don't know or even try it without being trained in the skill. For instance if you only trained in the maneuver or only trained in the skill you can now make a skill roll it might not even be too difficult = 10 or 15 + wisdom mod of enemy if the player character is "trained" in neither 20 or 25 + wisdom mod.

The reason I give a range of 10/15 or 20/25 is because I have not tested it.

Basically the above is just a house rule type modification... it is the kind of thing i might come up with in 1e ( 4e did have a very vague general Intimidation can do this rule about inducing an enemy to perform an action and including when you could use that to induce surrender)

Any way perhaps they will do an Advanced D&D with more optional rules

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Would you mind a Starter Set that only has a subset of classes, to keep choices (and options to be understood) for new players to a more focused amount, and then the primary PHB has everything?

Trying to balance more starting options (which I want) with new player friendly (which I also want).

Yes, that would be nice. I'm a big fan of OSR, so I dont feel like the game actually need the 12-15 classes. So a Basic started set with the main four would indeed be a good product. I would suggest to have special archetypes that represent the classes present in the full PHB, like the Scout rogue to play a ''ranger'', a divine champion fighter to play a ''paladin'' etc