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

[MechaTarrasque]

I hope 6e skips trying to make pet subclasses and just gives us a pet class. It is simple, the human/elf/dwarf/whatever is just there to 1) socially interact with other humanoids, 2) give the pet food/put on pet armor/any other services needed, and 3) hide while the fight is going on. The pet gets 100% of the combat power.

 

[Parmandur]

I hope 6e skips trying to make pet subclasses and just gives us a pet class. It is simple, the human/elf/dwarf/whatever is just there to 1) socially interact with other humanoids, 2) give the pet food/put on pet armor/any other services needed, and 3) hide while the fight is going on. The pet gets 100% of the combat power.

The new Psion might go there.

 

[ad_hoc]

It's a Subclass that is fiddley and rewards careful work on the build, but conceptually appeals to people who might not like that. It's a mismatch conceptually, but the Subclass itself is not underpowered: it's unsatisfactory for a significant portion of it's intended audience, which is probably worse.

Yeah, I think people undervalue all the things the beast can do in combat.

The beast still gets a reaction so can make OAs. They can cause disadvantage to ranged enemies by using their great speed to get up in their business. They can also use their body to help protect a vulnerable party member. It's very hard to actually protect party members in 5e, it's just I think, many DMs only have the monsters attack the high AC PCs. In a game where this isn't the case the beast can be quite good. In both cases; harrassing the enemy or protecting party members, the beast can Dodge for free.

People also forget what the Ranger is giving up for all of this. Just a conditional 1d8 dmg/rd.

So, not much.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, I think people undervalue all the things the beast can do in combat.

The beast still gets a reaction so can make OAs. They can cause disadvantage to ranged enemies by using their great speed to get up in their business. They can also use their body to help protect a vulnerable party member. It's very hard to actually protect party members in 5e, it's just I think, many DMs only have the monsters attack the high AC PCs. In a game where this isn't the case the beast can be quite good. In both cases; harrassing the enemy or protecting party members, the beast can Dodge for free.

People also forget what the Ranger is giving up for all of this. Just a conditional 1d8 dmg/rd.

So, not much.

Yeah, it is working with a limited power budget, and can be outsized useful if done well by the player. So, WAD, but the design had flaws in principle that could have been avoided with more public testing.

Mearls straight out ruined the Ranger for me with is "If I were to design the Ranger from scratch now..." spiel, though: his ideas scratched my itch just right.

 

[anahata]

Let me guess - you never played or DMed 0e or 1e, did you.

I did, briefly, play in older versions of the game, and hated it--but for very different reasons. There were so many restrictions on character creation back then that it truly stifled any kind of creativity out of me.

Now if you want to blame something for not giving more specifics, blame the DMG; as that's where the DM guidance should in theory be found.

This is the most useful thing that has come out of this thread for me. I've said elsewhere that I like playing 5e, a lot, actually, I just hate running it because of the reasons I've outlined here.

Conversely, 5e (and 0e-1e) leave you-as-player free to think like your character and let the DM worry about the mechanics while at the table, where 3e (and 4e) instead keep you-as-player thinking about meta-mechanics all the time.

Disagree. The weekly 3.x games I'm in feature a lot, a LOT, of roleplay, completely independent of the mechanics. Sure, the rules do come up, but there's tons of roleplay all the time. I wouldn't game with those folks if there wasn't roleplay. This is what's known as the Stormwind fallacy, which is to say that focusing on rules to build a powerful character (or, more broadly here, focusing on mechanics) means that one can't roleplay. I play with some of the munchiest people I've ever met and they're also some of the best roleplayers. One is a classically-trained actor and another plays one on TV in game.

I guess this is where difference of preference comes in. What you call a scaffold of toothpicks, I call tools, supplies, and an instruction manual—items provided that give me the ability to be involved in the vision I want. What you call an impregnable fortress, I call shackles and a prison—things that prevent me from doing what I want.

You've always been able--and encouraged--to change the rules in earlier editions, to make rulings. The difference is that in 5e you're required to, because the rulebooks don't provide you with many things you're likely to need.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You've always been able--and encouraged--to change the rules in earlier editions, to make rulings. The difference is that in 5e you're required to, because the rulebooks don't provide you with many things you're likely to need.

Like what? What in 5e is so missing that you are required to design your own resolution system for it? What are these "many things" that are missing? Sounds like you have a list.

 

[anahata]

Like what? What in 5e is so missing that you are required to design your own resolution system for it? What are these "many things" that are missing? Sounds like you have a list.

The example I gave in this thread. Skill use. There's very little guidance on how to adjudicate the skills, on what they actually do. Or even using ability scores in general. Or how to bring magic items into a game. The prices listed are several thousand gp wide, and the advice given on how many to give players is "use your judgement"--but there's no advice given on how to develop that judgement. A post earlier suggested that the issue is really with the DMG, where the guidance should be, but is absent. It's fine to say "use your judgement", but without helping the DM develop that judgement, it's useless advice.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

The example I gave in this thread. Skill use. There's very little guidance on how to adjudicate the skills, on what they actually do. Or even using ability scores in general. Or how to bring magic items into a game. The prices listed are several thousand gp wide, and the advice given on how many to give players is "use your judgement"--but there's no advice given on how to develop that judgement. A post earlier suggested that the issue is really with the DMG, where the guidance should be, but is absent. It's fine to say "use your judgement", but without helping the DM develop that judgement, it's useless advice.

And yet millions of people are doing just that with 5E, no problem.

 

[ad_hoc]

This is the most useful thing that has come out of this thread for me. I've said elsewhere that I like playing 5e, a lot, actually, I just hate running it because of the reasons I've outlined here.

So all you got from this conversation was satisfaction from one person agreeing with you?

You know there are 3e forums out there where there are lots of people who will agree with you I'm sure.