D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Sacrosanct]

Too late.
They are now so used to 5e they will become resistant to change.

They aren't new fans anymore.

Oh, I don't know. A lot of established 5e fans who started with 5e are enjoying Shadowdark. I'm sure there are some that would enjoy some of the other stuff too.

 

[mixmastashizz]

Oh, I don't know. A lot of established 5e fans who started with 5e are enjoying Shadowdark. I'm sure there are some that would enjoy some of the other stuff totoo.

My current 1e group all started with 4e and 5e. If you run it, they will come

 

[Faolyn]

Well SWSE gave feats and talents.

Feat
Talent
Feat
Talent

Etc.

I would poll for feats and then big or micro if response was yes.

Talent trees or equivalent eg warlock template would consider if archetypes got nuked.

Neither if polling was overwhelming for basic. I suspect feats eould get voted on bit how they're implemented.....

I imagine feats would win simply because people are used to them.

But you could definitely help to make the classes more unique by providing something like the warlock invocations (if I'm understand you correctly), and/or the knacks various Level Up classes get. You could easily do those in addition to the feats. Thus, even if someone doesn't want to take any of the feat-subclass-chains, they could still make their character interesting and unique.

Actually, the potentially interesting thing about the feats is that if they're written well, they could act as subclasses for multiple classes. You'd probably want to put limits on what classes could take them, though. Like, you probably wouldn't let wizards take a swashbuckler-esque feat chain, but you could easily have such a feat chain be taken by fighters, rangers, and rogues.

 

[Minigiant]

Oh, I don't know. A lot of established 5e fans who started with 5e are enjoying Shadowdark. I'm sure there are some that would enjoy some of the other stuff too.

Shadowdark isn't Official D&D.

People tend to allow other games to experiment.
But D&D? Only the stuff they instantly like

 

[SkidAce]

Same. My favorite is 1e with the following 2e rules:
thief skill progression
bard class
THAC0 official
spell schools and priest spheres

Priest spheres were so handy. Now a days (and for a 6th E) I would just say normal list is from the PH, any other "sphere" like spells you have to learn.

That way you could introduce a whole slew of shadow spells for the god of shadows, and all the other clerics of the world would not automagically get them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Shadowdark isn't Official D&D.

People tend to allow other games to experiment.
But D&D? Only the stuff they instantly like

I don't know that I agree with that. A person's first experience to something that they might end up liking isn't typically "I only like this, no other variation will do!"

 

[Minigiant]

I don't know that I agree with that. A person's first experience to something that they might end up liking isn't typically "I only like this, no other variation will do!"

I'm not saying that someone's first experience is their preference.

I'm saying that someone might be okay with an aspect in Shadowdark or Daggerheart but hate it in D&D. And vice versa love it in D&D but hate it in Shadowdark or Daggerheart. And these opinions don't set in until you pass the newbie phase.

 

[Aldarc]

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I think WOTC should revisit good ideas from 4E more readily in future: the fans that reflexively hate it and all of its trappings are no longer half the customer base. Given the proliferation of great OSR games, they're probably not even a quarter.

Agreed. I would like to see a full and proper return of Bloodied, roll to hit vs. static defenses (AC, Con, Ref, Will), and monster roles.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Less low level and more low power and low customization.

OSR is heavily player skill over character skill and you only get that if characters start with low power, gain power slowly, and have little ability to enhance strength nor cover weaknesses.

OSR typically does that by killing or retiring PCs before they get to high levels.

Genuine question here.

What is "player skill"?

Like...what is it, what is the thing that is happening when one is displaying it? What is the thing one acquires by attempting it and failing to display it? What is gained through it?

Because every time I've asked someone to explain the difference to me, every time I've tried to dig past the frankly tedious nondescriptive rhetoric, it either goes nowhere, or seems to end up being really not very much different from the other kinds of things that other games do.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I've been playing D&D since 1981 and I love 5E.

I played BEC and 1E extensively and loved those too, played 2E quite a bit and thought it was ok, not as good as 1E but still great. Played 3E some, it was ok but a definite downgrade. We tried 4E for one adventure and absolutely hated it and 4E drove us back to 1E swearing off any newer versions. We kept on playing 1E in our group and by 2016 had lots of turnover new players joining, old ones leaving and had some younger players not even born when 1E was published. We saw no point in ever moving to another version and if you asked me in 2015 what I would be playing in 2025 I would have told you 1E AD&D.

We did not participate in the original 5E playtest and we kept playing 1E until around 2016 when some of the younger players suggested trying 5E (they were playing 1E at the time and enjoying it). At their urging, I reluctantly went out and purchased the Phandelver starter set and gave it a try. We loved it, switched immediately to 5E, bought some new books and never looked back.

Additionally, I personally liked 5E so much I actively started looking for additional gaming groups and looking for groups online.

I played every version of D&D since 1981 and played 1E extensively right up until we switched and I think 5E is substantially better than all those other iterations, much better than some of them. I am well versed enough that I could DM a Basic, Expert, 1E or 2E game immediately, right now, with no brush up at all and I have the books to do it. I think I could manage a 3E game with a little study. I would not waste my time with 4E. I "barely pay attention to those old games" because 5E is just a better game in my opinion, both as a player and as a DM. Its just like I barely play Checkers, War or Gin any more, but I play Chess, Hearts and Pinochle quite a bit ... those games are just better and more fun for me, so why play the others?

Out of interest @ECMO3 having played so long with the earlier editions have you made any houserules for your 5e games that carry some of the 1e-2e thinking?
That's what I'm most curious of...

I enjoy 5e because of the flexibility in bringing in some of the earlier edition concepts should one want to.
I mean you could make a rule that ability mods only increase on 13, 15, 17 and 19 or cap hit point progression at level 9 or remove damage dealing cantrips or incorporate resurrection survival rates or loss on Con after death...
5e is a dream for that.
And you could do the same for 3e and 4e concepts.