D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

You can't have it both ways.

Either things need to be consistent, have a basis, and be possible to explain within the setting or that isn't the case. Demanding explanations re: one characters abilities not other is just illustrating a double standard.

D&D's arcane magic presents a huge problem here if you want to demand explanations - something you actively advocated for doing. Because there's absolutely no consistency and no "magic system" behind arcane magic in D&D. It's a random assortment of rule of cool, dungeon cheese, landgrabs from the domains of other classes, show off stuff, and just random half-baked (in all senses of baked) stuff. Either you drop the demand for explanations or accept that arcane magic, more than any other area of D&D, needs a top to bottom review for consistency and that such a review will inevitably mean a lot of spells need to die or be drastically changed in functionality. Given you said you were eager to see things like implausible multi attacks and jogging away from 80ft falls on to rocks I'm surprised you're focusing on the fact that some spells would have to go too. That's the unavoidable result of precisely your own proposals.

We have a spell list inherited from a time when there were only two or maaaaybe three ways to be Someone Who Flings Supernatural Stuff....that is now being forced to be the spell list for a world where there are half-a-dozen such ways, all of them mutually self-reinforcing and entrenching.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As most games in all editions tend(ed) to end by level 10, getting to that 3000 point isn't as much of a concern.

We should not design something based on the predicate, "Oh, nobody ever actually plays this, so it doesn't matter if it's badly-made!"

Good game design spreads the fun around vaguely evenly over the course of the game.

Yeeees...

Such as, I dunno, oscillating power variation...or converging power variation...

Why? The theory is that the game starts at level 1 and goes to level 20; but the practice is that it starts at 1 and goes to about 10 or 12; with "high level" being anything about 9th or above.

Because, as stated, it is bad design to take as an assumption, "Well, because nobody ever uses this, it's fine if it's badly-made."

Like just as a general principle of work, whether or not something is frequently used should never have any bearing on whether it is made with the best quality work one can produce. The only things that should affect the quality of one's work are the resources one has for producing it (including time), and the price one believes one's labor(s) to be worth.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We have a spell list inherited from a time when there were only two or maaaaybe three ways to be Someone Who Flings Supernatural Stuff....that is now being forced to be the spell list for a world where there are half-a-dozen such ways, all of them mutually self-reinforcing and entrenching.

Yep and what's interesting is if you suggested taking away any spells at all or reorganising them people get incredibly upset, even over trash tier spells . But if WotC actually just does it, without discussion, people mostly just accept it! There are people who would write a 2500 word essay on why Nebulars Nebulous Nebuliser*, a spell from an obscure book in 2003, which 5E strangely retained, which has the sole purpose of disrupting cloud type spells of below level 3 and inexplicably cannot be upcast to deal with higher ones nor functions on natural clouds/vapours is the very soul and heart of D&D and losing it would be the end of their 30+ year love of the game, if you suggested removing it. But if WotC just throws it out of the PHB, they don't even blink, let alone write the essay mourning it and quitting D&D.

* = Fictional spell to avoid this becoming the "omg don't delete spell X!!!" thread

 

[Remathilis]

Fighters should be both Striker AND Defender at the same time. Rogues should be neither, but instead be a fifth role, something like "Scout" (shared with Ranger).

3e, and to a greater extent 4e and 5e, made sneak attack far too easy to use; Rogues could do it almost every round and even from range. Hence, Rogues became the main damage dealers.

1e-2e had backstriking, where a Thief had the potential to do a big whack o' damage but probably only once per combat unless the circumstances were quite favourable...and it had to be melee, no ranged backstrikes

I've been avoiding the 1e vs 4e fighter debate (round 4 million) but I'm jumping in here. We could argue about the dice and damage, but I will argue to my dying breath that rogues need sneak attack to be a reliable source of damage to be remotely useful in combat. It was absolutely ridiculous that the Thiefs signature combat action required so much DM-ajudicated setup for such little payoff (an extra dice or three depending on level) and it was so easy to thwart that I barely ever saw it used and never used to any great effect that rolling a critical hit didn't match. If you want to go back to limiting sneak attack, I recommend limiting spellcasting (a wizard can only cast one save or suck spell per combat, a cleric can only heal a character once per combat) and other class features (paladins get 1 smite per combat, monks only one stunning first per flight, etc). You know, to be fair.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yep and what's interesting is if you suggested taking away any spells at all or reorganising them people get incredibly upset, even over trash tier spells . But if WotC actually just does it, without discussion, people mostly just accept it! There are people who would write a 2500 word essay on why Nebulars Nebulous Nebuliser*, a spell from an obscure book in 2003, which 5E strangely retained, which has the sole purpose of disrupting cloud type spells of below level 3 and inexplicably cannot be upcast to deal with higher ones nor functions on natural clouds/vapours is the very soul and heart of D&D and losing it would be the end of their 30+ year love of the game, if you suggested removing it. But if WotC just throws it out of the PHB, they don't even blink, let alone write the essay mourning it and quitting D&D.

* = Fictional spell to avoid this becoming the "omg don't delete spell X!!!" thread

Believe me, I've seen this behavior pattern in plenty of other places, it ain't unique to D&D. "IF THIS IS GONE I QUIT!!!" 4000 upvotes.

Playercount when the official system changes: no negative change.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My bet, as I've stated before, is somewhere between (very roughly) 4 and 7 years after launch. Hence why I've said if we haven't heard relatively reputable rumors/"my secret sources"-type stuff that there's a 6e playtest in the works by the time we've hit the 5 year mark (so late 2029/early 2030), 5.5e will have done quite well, because the playtest is gonna take 2-3 years and the rumors should arrive well before the public portion of the playtest.

I think you're being very optimistic re: 2-3 year playtest. That would be ideal but with 4E and 5E it was a lot shorter than that and as that seems to have happened with all WotC editions I suspect it will be more like 6-12 months. Agree re: if we haven't heard. That said even if 2024 does well I suspect WotC senior management may want the perceived big sales of a full new edition.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Are people generally satisfied with the PHB species of 5.5?

i would rather we got goblins in place of goliaths and as @Minigiant mentioned, giving all species subspecies again and reimplementing half-elves and half-orcs (possibly as human subspecies rather than occupying a slot as their own entries?)

i have a more general distaste for the feebleness of the species budgets in general but i'd say that's a tangential issue.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Add a "Dungeonborn" species for symmetry

symmetry with what?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

i would rather we got goblins in place of goliaths and as @Minigiant mentioned, giving all species subspecies again and reimplementing half-elves and half-orcs (possibly as human subspecies rather than occupying a slot as their own entries?)

i have a more general distaste for the feebleness of the species budgets in general but i'd say that's a tangential issue.

Goliaths are more established and popular in D&D and are the only real "big guy" trope race D&D has managed to popularize across settings (dragonborn failing to hit that trope and landing on honourable warrior race and beast people spaces instead), which is a trope a lot of players are looking for. Goblins are almost certainly more popular than gnomes and perhaps halflings at this point (for new PCs being created today, not retroactively) and basically a trope to themselves so should replace gnomes as one of the "small guy" trope reps in a future PHB if anything.

Agree re half elves and orcs but WotC seem to have taken a simple "if we just pretend it isn't there, it won't be an issue!" approach re mixed species PCs after their appalling rules in the 2024 playtest were rejected.

 

[Stalker0]

Fighters were the Defender who was best at personally doing damage. Pretty much bar none. You had to really, really work for any other Defender to reach what just a reasonably well-built, well-played basic Fighter could do.

Yeah the trick with 4e "roles", is that while the rules state each class has a role, in reality the classes often had a minor "secondary role" baked in.

The fighter was a Defender/Striker for example. Yes defending was its main thing....but it could still bring the pain.