D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Faolyn]

I kinda want to go wacky and get rid of classes. Take all those archetypes and turn them into a whole buncha. Maybe even just 10-level classes instead of 20-level classes. Have some core abilities that can be used throughout so you can say "this class is a Full/Half/Tertiary Spellcaster" or "this class gets Rage", and then divide spells into a few types (arcane/divine/eldritch/whatever) instead of a different spell list for each class. That sorta thing. The classes would have fewer abilities, but be more tightly focused.

I have no idea if this is a decent idea or not, but I kinda like it.

 

[Faolyn]

I mean, 5.0 explicitly tells people to use bare minimum 5 encounters a day, and typically ranging between 5 and 8...and that particular pattern got so routinely ignored, it was one of the biggest factors behind various design changes in 5.5e.

Weirdly, I've been told (primarily by redditors) that I'm failing at D&D if I didn't do 5-8 encounters per day.

 

[Stormonu]

For me, as much as I genuinely enjoy 5E, this would be my wants:

One book. The core should be rules-light enough to cover all the essential player option, a good mix of monsters, treasure and whatnot. Rules Enclopedia did it once, it should be possible to do again.

Less focus on combat. The game slows to a crawl or leans to strings of combat. Round to round feels like swinging nerf bats. Each roll of the die should have a significant affect on the narrative and instead of being a blow-by-blow I’d prefer a combat roll to cover a significant sequence of events, and in the neighborhood of three rolls per PC to resolve (covering the opening moves and position, main combat and wrap up).

Finally, spells are too prevalent and specific. In many ways, they are autocomplete buttons for certain actions - replacements for skill checks ( which worked for old editions that lacked skill systems). I really like the way Savage Worlds handles spells - rather than having a half-dozen damage spells that vary by level, area and damage type, SW uses one spell, and you set the specifics when you use it ( or acquire it) with what is called “trappings”. Likewise, a spell like invisibility might be a generic spell that augments a skill check and could cover a wide range of spells - invisibility ( perception), darkness ( a “mass” sort of invisibility), silence ( affects hearing instead of sight), strength (affects strength skills instead of perception), enlarge/reduce ( affects size instead of stats), charm person (affects charisma skills) and so on.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sounds good for 6e. Right in line with the more intentional design I think they should follow.

I am curious what you think that intention should be. I was under the impression that the lack of intentional design in 5e was something you prized, and the presence of intentional design in 4e was something you greatly disliked about it. Is that not the case?

Edit: Meant to respond to this as well, but forgot.

Plenty of OSR games and games that inspired the OSR have many magic items. It's a major source of differentiation for PCs, and a major source of power. Not sure where you're coming from here.

Every single time I've ever interacted with a self-avowed "OSR"/"old school" fan, they have made it clear their intense and consistent antipathy to the idea of giving out even the weakest of magic weapons, magic armor, or whatever else until the party is an extremely high level. Like, we're talking never giving out even a +1 weapon before level 10 in 1e or 2e, and even getting one at level 10 would be considered insanely generous.

Have you not seen this yourself? The people who constantly advocated for "making magic items magical again", which 100% always meant "making magic items something nobody ever actually receives". The people who constantly railed against "christmas trees" and "magic item marts" as being the second-worst thing to ever happen to D&D. On and on it went. The genuine hatred for the very idea that players could want, and try to gain, particular magic items because they liked said items or thought said items would make for a powerful combination of effects.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, as much as I genuinely enjoy 5E, this would be my wants:

One book. The core should be rules-light enough to cover all the essential player option, a good mix of monsters, treasure and whatnot. Rules Enclopedia did it once, it should be possible to do again.

Less focus on combat. The game slows to a crawl or leans to strings of combat. Round to round feels like swinging nerf bats. Each roll of the die should have a significant affect on the narrative and instead of being a blow-by-blow I’d prefer a combat roll to cover a significant sequence of events, and in the neighborhood of three rolls per PC to resolve (covering the opening moves and position, main combat and wrap up).

Finally, spells are too prevalent and specific. In many ways, they are autocomplete buttons for certain actions - replacements for skill checks ( which worked for old editions that lacked skill systems). I really like the way Savage Worlds handles spells - rather than having a half-dozen damage spells that vary by level, area and damage type, SW uses one spell, and you set the specifics when you use it ( or acquire it) with what is called “trappings”. Likewise, a spell like invisibility might be a generic spell that augments a skill check and could cover a wide range of spells - invisibility ( perception), darkness ( a “mass” sort of invisibility), silence ( affects hearing instead of sight), strength (affects strength skills instead of perception), enlarge/reduce ( affects size instead of stats), charm person (affects charisma skills) and so on.

If I may ask:

What game is left, if we cut out the focus on combat? Because, especially if we remove most of the unique/utility spells, there's...not much left in D&D other than combat.

 

[Chaltab]

Made a hypothetical class chart for how I'd handle the 6E fighter.

Primary Ability: Strength or Dexterity
Hit Point Die: D10 per Fighter level
Hit Points at Level 1: Con Score + 6
Hit Points per additional Fighter Level: 6 + your Con. modifier
Saving Throw Proficiencies: Strength, Constitution
Skill Proficiencies: Choose 2: Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Persuasion, Perception, or Survival.
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple and Martial weapons
Armor Training: Light, Medium, and Heavy armor and Shields

Class Features

Level​	Feature​	Maneuvers Known​
1​	Tactical Mind, Martial Specialization*	1​
2​	Second Wind, Action Surge	2​
3​	Fighter Subclass	3​
4 ​	General Feat	3​
5​	Multiattack	4​
6​	General Feat	4​
7​	Subclass Feature, Martial Specialization	5​
8​	General Feat	5​
9​	Indomitable	6​
10​	Subclass Feature, Martial Specialization	6​
11​	Multiattack II	7​
12​	General Feat	7​
13​	Studied Attacks,	8​
14​	General Feat	8​
15​	Subclass Feature, Martial Specialization	9​
16​	General Feat	9​
17​	Mastery Maneuvers**	11​
18​	Subclass Feature	11​
19​	Epic Feat	12​
20​	Epic Destiny***	12​

*Martial Specialization is a new feature that combines aspects of Fighting Style and Weapon Mastery and determines what Maneuvers a Fighter can learn.
**Mastery Maneuvers are high level maneuvers for Tier 4 Martial Characters
***Epic Destiny is a universal level 20 feature similar to Epic Destinies from 4th Edition, unlocking a capstone feature for 20th level and options for advancement into 5th tier play.

 

[dave2008]

I mean, 5.0 explicitly tells people to use bare minimum 5 encounters a day, and typically ranging between 5 and 8...and that particular pattern got so routinely ignored, it was one of the biggest factors behind various design changes in 5.5e.

Were does it say that. Here is the part about the adventuring day and I don't see anything about 5/day.

The Adventuring Day​

Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.

In the same way you figure out the difficulty of an encounter, you can use the XP values of monsters and other opponents in an adventure as a guideline for how far the party is likely to progress.

For each character in the party, use the Adventuring Day XP table to estimate how much XP that character is expected to earn in a day. Add together the values of all party members to get a total for the party’s adventuring day. This provides a rough estimate of the adjusted XP value for encounters the party can handle before the characters will need to take a long rest.

 

[Reynard]

How has 5e embraced metacurrency for over a decade? BIFTs have not exactly taken the game by storm from what I can see.

Inspiration is metacurrency.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Were does it say that. Here is the part about the adventuring day and I don't see anything about 5/day.

The Adventuring Day​

Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.

In the same way you figure out the difficulty of an encounter, you can use the XP values of monsters and other opponents in an adventure as a guideline for how far the party is likely to progress.

For each character in the party, use the Adventuring Day XP table to estimate how much XP that character is expected to earn in a day. Add together the values of all party members to get a total for the party’s adventuring day. This provides a rough estimate of the adjusted XP value for encounters the party can handle before the characters will need to take a long rest.

...

Did you read the very thing you just quoted?

Because you're literally talking about what I'm referencing here.

It literally says, "six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day."

 

[Faolyn]

Also, here's my ideal Humanoid Book, which would be separate from the rest of the monsters. (Separate in this case can mean "it's own chapter in the PHB or MM")

Step 1: Create a whole ton of NPC statblocks for every tier. Make them both as generic and as flavorful as possible. Yes, it's a weird combo.

Step 2: Write up the humanoids. For each one, do the physical description, a bit of lore, and three different example mini-cultures (no more than few sentences for each--these are examples designed to get the GMs and players to think). The cultures could be anything from "The Nation of Gnomingrad" to "the Brass Orc Mercenary Company." One culture should be evil, one neutral, and one good.

(See, my biggest problem with alignment is that no matter how much the game says "usually" or insists that any particular race doesn't have to be the listed alignment, they almost never actually take that into consideration in their actual books. This way, even if the description says "this species is mostly one alignment, there's an "official example" of a way to include variants.)

Step 3: For each of these humanoids, include both the PC stats and an NPC template. The NPC templates can include stat modifications, even though the PC stats wouldn't. This should hopefully satisfy both the people who think that one particularly strong PC halfling means that all halflings will also be strong (nope, their NPC template says they get a -4 to Strength; the PC halfling is just unique), and those people who need or want guidelines for where to assign their stats.

Each humanoid would take up a page, maybe two if there's a lot of art involved.

Then, to make an orc knight or elf raider or grung druid, you put the appropriate NPC template on the statblock.

Does it mean that you can play one right out of the book? No, there's math involved. However, so much of this is done online these days via DDB or a VTT that one of those will do the math for a large number of players, and hey, it's still easier and faster than what was involved in 3e.