D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[BookTenTiger]

I can't see how this works. You might as well say "replace the fighter, rogue and sorcerer with a dungeon focused class that could go combat, exploration or magic based."

I guess in my dream 6e, Fighter would have the role as a super combatant so the barbarian, or whatever you want to call it, wouldn't have to be Mr. Beefcake with all the Hit Points. Let's say you had a Wilder class that had monk-level hit points and a lot of cool abilities related to interacting with the wilderness. At first level you choose to either do Nature Spellcasting (Druid), Wild Style Combat (Barbarian), or Scouting (Ranger). The uniting theme of all three directions would be Nature, but each path could focus on a different style of play.

 

[mamba]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I think they knew a lot better than you give credit for. Because they literally did ask for feedback, and they objectively did respond to it. We have proof. Unless you've forgotten the Golden Wyvern Adept fiasco, and how it proved that WotC literally could do no right?

I did not forget about it, I never heard of it

I wasn’t paying attention to TTRPGs at the time, drifted out during 2e and back in during 5e. So no first hand knowledge, but WotC designing in an ivory tower pretty much sounded like the consensus in the retellings I have seen since

 

[Chaltab]

Fantasy RPG community is too divided to get what Hasbro ever wants ever again without another global pandemic channeling everyone to popular containing D&D elements.

Which is ironically their own damn fault because of the OGL crisis and the other bad behavior of the past several years.

 

[Reynard]

I guess in my dream 6e, Fighter would have the role as a super combatant so the barbarian, or whatever you want to call it, wouldn't have to be Mr. Beefcake with all the Hit Points. Let's say you had a Wilder class that had monk-level hit points and a lot of cool abilities related to interacting with the wilderness. At first level you choose to either do Nature Spellcasting (Druid), Wild Style Combat (Barbarian), or Scouting (Ranger). The uniting theme of all three directions would be Nature, but each path could focus on a different style of play.

This is why I advocate for talent trees in a theoretical 6E. Have fewer classes and let the player decide how to specialize (or not). Just don't have trap options or dead chains.

 

[mamba]

I strongly suspect it is. Who else bothers filling out length surveys? That group is always going to be a small percentage of actual customers.

I assume there is a difference between your most engaged and your most opinionated though

If not, and that means everyone filling out the UA falls into most opinionated, these are still different opinions, and they are probably not that far off from what others think, even if possibly more extremely held.

I don’t not see not having UAs as a feasible alternative to having them in any case, so I guess WotC has to figure out what to do with the feedback (just like they would have to regardless of this)

 

[Zardnaar]

This is why I advocate for talent trees in a theoretical 6E. Have fewer classes and let the player decide how to specialize (or not). Just don't have trap options or dead chains.

I was thinking that earlier.

My homebrew has talent trees. Some are locked eg you cant mix it with another one. They're your "archetype" ones.

I would consider it for 6E if polling indicated people wanted a more complex edition.

 

[Lanefan]

A playtest document is one specific "engineers' modular car". A house-rule document, even if made neat and pretty, is one hobbyist's muscle-car rebuild.

And yet that houserule document, if widely distributed, can still help inform others about that hobbyist's ideas and what worked and what didn't. One can then take those ideas, apply and test them oneself, and maybe learn from them. And therefore...

The former is an experimental platform designed for testing purposes. The latter is a cool object to view (or, in this case, to use). And neither one of them is a production-model car (=manuscript ready for publication).

...I still see little if any functional difference other than a) the author's intent and b) expected (or hoped-for) level of feedback.

 

[Lanefan]

They do the latter in their private playtest network: the public tests are just a smell test. Prevents stuff like "Magic of Incarnum" from happening.

Any idea how extensive and-or diverse in playstyles-experience-preferences this "private playtest network" is?

Or is it just the designers at their own gaming tables?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I did not forget about it, I never heard of it

I wasn’t paying attention to TTRPGs at the time, drifted out during 2e and back in during 5e. So no first hand knowledge, but WotC designing in an ivory tower pretty much sounded like the consensus in the retellings I have seen since

Well then, let me tell you the tale of Darth Wyvern the Golden.

4e was originally going to have a lot more flavor and setting information. They released an early preview showing a Wizard feat, "Golden Wyvern Adept". The feat was mechanically identical to the eventual Spell Accuracy feat we got in the actual 4e PHB1, which functionally works like the 5e Sorcerer metamagic "Careful Spell" (but it scales off your Wis mod, not Cha, and could be used anytime, no resource cost.) It came with various fluff bits talking about the Golden Wyvern order and its Adepts. None of the fluff was mandatory, it was just pre-written, so that the game would have a flavor and direction to start with.

This precipitated an absolute firestorm, because how DARE the books DEMAND that every GM's world absolutely must have Golden Wyverns in it, and an order of Adepts named after it that practiced certain types of techniques! That was so horrendously offensive, it kicked off an incredible wave of outrage. So WotC listened. This was before the books were ready to be printed, so they adjusted. They removed all of the flavorful names and gave things clean, dry, no-fluff titles so that every group could invent their own flavor. They reduced the presentation of fluff on powers to just a single line of generic descriptive text, so that people could get a loose idea of the designers' intent, but not feel in any way restricted by that intent. They focused their designs on being effective mechanics, and trusted GMs to specify the flavor and world-building, because that is what people told them they wanted.

And then what was 4e trashed for? Dry, mechanical descriptions and design. Books with no flavor, descriptions that were "anemic", everything sooooo generic.

It was quite literally listening to feedback, responding to a firestorm of criticism, and then getting a new one for heeding the first!

TL;DR: The designers tried to include flavor. They were told, loudly and angrily, ”HOW DARE YOU FORCEFEED US FLAVOR?!” Then, when they published books that avoided any suggestion of forcefeeding anyone flavor...they were told, loudly and angrily, ”WHERE'S THE FLAVOR?!?!?!"

WotC could literally do no right. It wasn't possible. Include flavor and you're ramming it down GMs' throats. Exclude it and you're producing a dry technical manual rather than a lovingly-illumined manuscript.

 

[Zardnaar]

My homebrew I design the engine first. You can then tweak it for preferences. Pre 5E I was using the 4E one tweaked (I don't use NADs). Then switched to 5E mostly so players understand it.

If you keep that up to date you can rapidly update your monsters or whatever. If you pick a direction on feats you don't have to do much with them.

I woukd probably stret h bounded accuracy a bit. 18 AC or so at CR 13 is a joke. And they inflated HP do its kindly a wash anyway.

So naive a blend of 5E and 4E proficiency numbers. +1 every two or 3 levels.

Complex/simple. Poll for that. I woukd consider cutting archetypes for talent trees or even only 1 option modified with feats.

I would poll for feats. Yay or nay. If yay micro vs larger ones. If nay bit more power built into the classes.

All defenses would scale with level. Probably add a bonus on class design. 3 saves spellcasters get 1 save, half casters 2, martials 3.

Would poll on reduced hit points and danage. Easier for DM. 3.5 got it anout right. 4E to many hit points not enough danahe. 5E to many hit points and damage but maybe peopke like that.

Woukd make monsters tougher. Scaling defenses, greater magic resistance. Bring back energy drain but it causes exhaustion instead.

Probably use 5E skill list and the engine woukd resemble it. Numbers might change eg +1 every 2 or 3 levels.

Armor would get overhaul maybe more 3.5 or 4E direction.

Danage dealing spells woukd scake for free. Bring them in line with xantrips if HP stays the sane as 5.5. If HP is reduced may scale danage down. Eg if fireballs a 8d6 now 6d6 in future. Otherwise 3.5 fireball.

Other danage dealing spells would ve overhauled. They kinda suck atm. Fireball hits to hard of NPCs cast it espicially on CR 2 or 3 foes. Decent BPC spell mediocre player spell (PCs generally don't have 200-300hp).

If simple is the new way forward fighter would probably resemble 5.5. Weapon masteries may or nay not go forward or add some from 3.5 and 4E eg brutal or x3 crits or crit 19/20. Topple may be gone full stop.

If complex probably use talent tree or something like Warlock as a template.

Potential chopping block

Archetypes
Hit point bloat
Concentration mechanic
Feats
5E monster design (some 5.5 might make it)



Potential return.

Half Elves
Scaling saves
Energy drain
Improved/greater magic resistance
Prestige classes.
Microfeats
Scaling damage dealing spells

Overhaul
Multiclassing

For big changes e simple/complex poll. Also explain the changes. Eg simple might mean no archetypes. Really simple no feats as well.

Complex feats, talent trees, build your own class from curated list.