D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Lanefan]

I thought about 3 boxes, but not everyone likes to play novice characters so I split it out. However, I would make them all optional. You could start with box 1 or box 3, it doesn't matter. Play the game you want to play. Also, I would make box 1 & 2 completely compatible, only differing in tone, with box 3 being the only one with features that are not always directly compatible.

I see no reason to have barriers between heroic and legendary characters. I do see there being some barriers to being godly characters.

The main reason to separate out the "heroic" (got to come up with a different term for that; not everyone's a hero) game from the legendary game is that there's so many rules and systems that work well at low level or high level yet fall apart when applied to the other.

So, split them out to avoid having to design rules that covers 2nd level and 17th level equally well.

 

[TwoSix]

Monk is possibly the only class in D&D that locked into "How it was in the '70s, man". All the others have changed hugely, and changed with the times. Once more: delete Monks.

I don't mind Monks, but a 6e monk should be pulling concepts from Cradle, xianxia fiction, Street Fighter, WoW and Diablo, not from David Carradine or some awful '70s fiction.

Edit: And DBZ and Naruto, of course.

 

[Lanefan]

So...what do people think would be the likely time frame for a next edition?

3 years? 5 years? 10 or Longer?

Playtests and-or pre-publicity etc. starts in 2029. Release at GenCon 2031.

 

[Chaltab]

Screw 70s Orientalism, but you can pry monks from my cold dead hands.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't mind Monks, but a 6e monk should be pulling concepts from Cradle, xianxia fiction, Street Fighter, WoW and Diablo, not from David Carradine or some awful '70s fiction.

Edit: And DBZ and Naruto, of course.

Just have a generic Technique list with all of that which runs on Focus points.

Feature: Spells
Resource: Spell Slots
Main user: Wizards, Clerics, Bards

Feature: Maneuvers
Resource: Superiority
Main user: Fighters, Champions

Feature: Techniques
Resource: Focus
Main user: Monks

Feature: Invocations
Resource: Edge
Main user: Warlocks, Hexblades

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't mind Monks, but a 6e monk should be pulling concepts from Cradle, xianxia fiction, Street Fighter, WoW and Diablo, not from David Carradine or some awful '70s fiction.

Edit: And DBZ and Naruto, of course.

They shouldn't be pulling from most of those either whilst retaining the name or concept of "Monk".

The whole concept is profoundly screwed up. It's a class desperate in need of a new concept, different chassis, different default abilities. It really should have no elements of monasticism retained by default whatsoever. The Monk as we know them should be one subclass of a different class entirely.

No other D&D class has this issue (somewhat amazingly).

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it's not.

You've put the cart before the horse.

Monks are colonisers on stolen land lol. Monks should not exist. They only exist because some utter oaf in the 1970s was a hyperfan of a very specific series of novels (not even kung fu flicks in general - someone here identified the specific novels where the character, who IIRC, is a frickin' white guy, has these powers), and managed to twist Gygax or whoever's arm into making a terrible class. We'd be better off if the Vampire class guy had succeeded at that, not him!

Delete Monks. We're not weird orientalists from the 1970s. We're not fans of incredibly bad (I am told) novels. Replace them with a class that's actually relevant to 2025 and can use the same powers isn't a weird niche-concept orientalist deal.

Monk is possibly the only class in D&D that locked into "How it was in the '70s, man". All the others have changed hugely, and changed with the times. Once more: delete Monks.

If WotC didn't delete monks for 5.5, they're not going to for 6e.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If WotC didn't delete monks for 5.5, they're not going to for 6e.

They couldn't delete them in 5.5, they had said they would retain backwards compatibility. A point you've made a few times is how dangerous insisting on backwards compatibility is to design. I strongly suspect they would have made them into a new class if they hadn't promised that.

I don't see any reason not to delete them in 6E.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nah I think the people want 6E.

The issue is the designers and fandom can't get over their own personal biases to facilitate fans not like themselves

I think it's other way round. 5E hit most good things for most people.

They also did the wide playrest to figure out what people wanted.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, given that the primary target market is 12 year olds...

A sad commentary in and of itself.