D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Zardnaar]

Okay.

Now what happens if the fighters are under-equipped, because the GM thinks giving out items means you're running a "Monty Haul" campaign? Because they think giving out items is "bad GMing"? Because that's what I hear over and over and over again from OSR types.

No magic items. No feats. No bonuses. Nothing. Just what you are as a fighter, nothing more. Possibly less, if they're feeling even slightly spicy today.

It means your DMs an ass hat. That's not an edition problem.

I didn't use official adventures to much. You wouldn't have a golf vag full of 20+ 1 andc2 items.
. You coukd expect decent stuff though. That level 13 fighter had bracers of blinding strike, frost tongue, +5 vanilla, cloaks of something cool and various other knick sknacks.

Less than official adventures.

B2 KotbL you coukd expect a complete set of +1&2 items, gauntlets, cloaks, boots etc.

X1 similar deal but +2 and 3 items.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It means your DMs an ass hat. That's not an edition problem.

It is if the edition is designed with strong but unstated expectations and many GMs act exactly counter to those expectations.

Funny, guess what I think one of the greatest problems with 5e is?

Which, on that subject, 6e: convert every assumption into an explicit instruction. Lots of people will still ignore it. But making it an explicit instruction is enormously helpful for showing people why what they're choosing to do is the cause of their problems.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is if the edition is designed with strong but unstated expectations and many GMs act exactly counter to those expectations.

Funny, guess what I think one of the greatest problems with 5e is?

Which, on that subject, 6e: convert every assumption into an explicit instruction. Lots of people will still ignore it. But making it an explicit instruction is enormously helpful for showing people why what they're choosing to do is the cause of their problems.

2E dmg did cover this not explicitly eg you need xyz weapon by ABC.

More don't he an ass hat and put PCs in impossible positions.
. Eg if half the party xan do xyz don't do xyz.
(We used Dungeon magazine a lot *we lacked published adventures) and I thought they were very generous.

I ran sone 1E and 2E published adventures late 2023-early 2025 and Dungeon magazine handed out less than the older ones.

1E Dungeon magazines were were different than say 1997-99. Adventures started to get good again around 1995.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

2E dmg did cover this not explicitly eg you need xyz weapon by ABC.

More don't he an ass hat and put PCs in impossible positions.
. Eg if half the party xan do xyz don't do xyz.
(We used Dungeon magazine a lot *we lacked published adventures) and I thought they were very generous.

I ran sone 1E and 2E published adventures late 2023-early 2025 and Dungeon magazine handed out less than the older ones.

1E Dungeon magazines were were different than say 1997-99. Adventures started to get good again around 1995.

Yes, I'm aware it didn't.

I see that as a pretty significant problem. I saw it as one then (my very very very first introduction to TTRPGs was the 2nd edition books, I just never actually played them), and I see it as one now with 5e.

And yes, that "I thought they were very generous" thing is precisely the problem. GMs, in my experience, always think official modules are over-generous. Even when they aren't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For my own self, and I know many will find so much to criticize about this:

4e was a great structure presented badly. 5e actively tried to avoid anything that smelled like 4e, to the point of repeatedly reinventing the wheel, sometimes completely unnecessarily (e.g., 4e crits are just flat simpler and easier than 5e crits.) So, bring back more of the engine of 4e, but disguise it. D&D: Mojave, as I've previously phrased it.

Vancian casting needs to be reworked. The old 4e ritual system was a good try, but probably needs to be tweaked further. Perhaps Wizards get bonus "utility" slots or something? I dunno. Something to signpost this better. But variable-encounters-per-day vs fixed-powerful-resources-per-day still isn't working, and something has to be done. The kludge of Legendary Resistance and the like is a very simple proof that Vancian casting is simply too powerful as it is.

Monster design has already drifted in a 4e-like direction with 5.5e, and I expect it to drift further.

Some real thought needs to go into non-combat stuff. Not necessarily "mechanics" per se, but...something. Because as it stands, as far as rules go, anything that isn't combat practically doesn't exist unless the GM does all of the heavy lifting, and that's not tenable as a long-term design element.

Terrain needs to be made more important, and ideally, forced movement as well. That's one of the great things about 4e, and 5e pretty much totally erased it, which encourages really really really dull combat environments.

Simplicity vs complexity needs to be distributed better amongst the class archetypes.

Entirely opposed to what several posters have said, I think 6e needs several more classes. Up to 12 more than 5e has. Replacing those with "talent trees" is absolutely not going to achieve the results folks would like to see, and will instead just make things harder to understand and even more build-focused than they want to see, especially because balancing talent tree type things is significantly harder than balancing separate (sub)classes that can't easily mix.

Finally...for God's sake, give us well-made Novice Levels and incremental advancement rules. This is genuinely the single greatest step that could be taken toward making a D&D that is actually a "generic" system that serves everyone's interests. I am not joking, it is legit actually something that serves nearly everyone. It serves the hardcore simulationists, because such usage helps take the edge off the awkwardness of discrete levels, and makes characters feel more like they "build up to" their increases in power. It helps the old-school/high-difficulty fans, who want to spool things out and start extremely minimalist. And it helps the gamists of all stripes, because it means 1st level can be actually competent, rather than a training-wheels session, and they can elect to choose what advancement rate best suits them. Literally everyone wins, except the designers needing to do the work to make it happen, I guess.

 

[Aldarc]

Rethinking class archetypes, including a willingness to cut, add, and/or combine past classes.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe someone has addressed this already, but next time you use the term sacred cow consider an alternative, like dead dude on lumber, and consider if someone might find it offensive. If you do, that's fine, feel free to offend everyone's religion, but don't act like the one you're familiar with is better than the one you aren't.

That is certainly one way to approach the situation. it is clear that you recognize the term to be a common shorthand and therefore probably understand it was not used with any malice intended. But you decided to respond in a way absolutely least likely to get the result you desired.

And for the record, I say "Christ on a stick!" far more often than I use the term "sacred cow."

 

[Reynard]

I find it a little frustrating and a little sad that so much of this discussion is backward looking. But I suppose I should have guessed that.

 

[Parmandur]

I find it a little frustrating and a little sad that so much of this discussion is backward looking. But I suppose I should have guessed that.

Makes sense when you think about it: 2014 was designed to be appealing to a wide group of players, and at this point most people who play D&D, snd hence also TTRPGs, started with 5E 2014.

Then 2024 was designed to focus on appealing to what people wanted to see improved in 2014.

One individual may or may not like or be frustrated with aspects of this, but they put a lot of R&D resources into those two efforts...so it makes perfect sense that most D&D fans want to see an iteration with some refinements for any theoretical revision, even when given a total blank check.

That, combined with the target audience being kids who are new to the game...any "6E" is probably going to be another careful iteration.

 

[Reynard]

Makes sense when you think about it: 2014 was designed to be appealing to a wide group of players, and at this point most people who play D&D, snd hence also TTRPGs, started with 5E 2014.

Then 2024 was designed to focus on appealing to what people wanted to see improved in 2014.

One individual may or may not like or be frustrated with aspects of this, but they put a lot of R&D resources into those two efforts...so it makes perfect sense that most D&D fans want to see an iteration with some refinements for any theoretical revision, even when given a total blank check.

That, combined with the target audience being kids who are new to the game...any "6E" is probably going to be another careful iteration.

Sure. but here, on EN World, a lot of people are talking about bringing back older stuff, from 3.x and 4E is TSR-isms.

But you are right, 5E was inherently mechanically regressive (from 4E) and that was a major point of its early success.