D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh, sure, no problem there. Great stuff.

But the rules don't have to be designed around this premise.

To a point; but it's only more recently that finding one's desired item(s) has gone from a player-side hope to a player-side expectation. Remember, before 3e players weren't allowed to see the magic item lists and thus in theory didn't even know what was out there (and still don't, if the DM is any good at homebrewing items).

Perhaps, though if the game has rules or even just guidelines for commissioning items from artificers then given enough in-game time and cash a character will eventually be able to get the item she seeks.

But this idea can't have the items be manufactured in just a few days or even a few weeks. You commission it now and pick it up in six months, or a year, or whatever; while maybe or maybe not continuing to adventure in the meantime depending on what you and-or your party decide.

Unfortunately, that simply won't happen. Like I understand where you're going with that, but that will not--ever--be the default rules of the game. This isn't a speculation on my part; it is a statement of fact.

People aren't interested in waiting six to twelve IRL months to get something. Mostly because it's unlikely any campaign they play will ever last that long. Campaigns that last more than a year are rare. Campaigns that last two years or more are extremely rare. That's just the nature of the beast. Remember how 5e campaigns almost never last past level 12, and aren't even guaranteed to reach double digits? Yeah...when it takes about a month to gain a new level, that means most campaigns last less than a year.

You're literally setting a standard that means most players never get the thing they want. That's never going to fly; it's asking others to accept a "reasonable" standard which puts everything they're asking for out of reach. In other words, it isn't actually a reasonable standard, even if you think it is or should be.

Sure. Not so much retraining perhaps but additional training. In 1e a fighter gained a new weapon proficiency at 4th, 7th 10th... levels; so if you found a hella good weapon during 6th level you'd claim it as yours at that point but wait until after 7th level training to put it to much use.

But doesn't that mean waiting four to six months to use it? From what you've said previously about how slow levelling is.

You're not going to find an audience willing to bite for that. It's just not what people want to play. You should, most certainly, be supported in doing that (yet another reason to have "novice levels" and incremental advance rules--spooling out development as long as the group finds that worthwhile)--but it's simply not going to happen that the game will be designed such that you get a cool item and it sits in your bag for four to six IRL months.

The golf bag approach works well if a fighter is collecting weapons good against specific foes e.g. a Giantslayer, a Dragonslayer, a Flametongue, etc.

And I have never--not once--seen a GM willing to hand out anything near that number of weapons. Even the most treasure-filled campaign I've ever played didn't have that. Perhaps that's how some folks ran it in the past, but I've never seen a shred of evidence that something like that would be tolerated today, nor that it was even particularly acceptable 30 years ago.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While agree those are issues and ones I have concerns about too. In fact I had almost the exact same reaction you just listed when I first read it. However, what I love about it is the the story aspects of it. It is not a simply a broom that flies, it is a magic broom with a story. That is, IMO, where the magic is. It feels like real folklore or mythology. That is the magic. I think that mindset is important and you can have some of that without some of the baggage. However, if this is only way to get cool magic items than I would accept that baggage. It is just so much more interesting and "magical" IMO.

I certainly grant that it is much more engaging.

I just don't think that forcing every single magic item into this mold is a viable strategy. The well of inspiration is only so deep, and if you hold things to this standard and they start becoming slop, it's going to be way, way worse than just putting out basic, useful, but not particularly engaging options.

I think the more viable path forward is to have some things that...really are just tools made by societies to solve problems, and then also truly Wondrous Items that are things like this. So, maybe a third, or half, or whatever, of the magic items in any given supplement get this kind of treatment, and the remainder are more workhorse things. Things like your bag of holding, your basic +1 gear, your everburning torches, things of that nature. Stuff where it's understandable that any civilization which knows how to make them, genuinely would try to make a sufficient number to meet need. That first third (half, 60%, whatever), however, bring the cool and quirky, the fun and flirty. Ironically, 13th Age has Mr. Mearls beat to the punch--and they're coming out with a 2nd edition sometime in the near-ish future. If you haven't checked out their item quirk concepts, definitely give them a look. I think you'll find something that might be a useful stepping stone between what Mearls is doing--which I think is a bit extreme to ask of every single item--and the often unfortunately dull form a lot of D&D items take.

Similarly, you might check out the Griffon's Saddlebag. Hussar quite enjoys many of its items, which tend to be quirky but not deep like this is. You might say that they're magic by way of whimsy, whereas Mearls' proposal is magic by way of...I suppose "history". Every item in his style needs an extensive and often complication-inducing history.

Perhaps a mix of all of these things--utility, whimsy, and history--is a more effective approach than any one of them alone.

 

[Zardnaar]

From actually checking the math.

Three "deadly+" encounters simply cannot produce enough bonus damage output for a Champion to ever, even remotely, keep up with a Paladin--to say nothing of the Wizard, who will be eating well with all the enemies that must be present, or the singular enemies that will almost surely have at least one weak saving throw they can target, as opposed to their AC, which will be extremely difficult for said Champions to actually hit. (Remember, even if the Champion's crit range is increased, ONLY a natural 20 is a guaranteed hit. You can "crit but miss" on a 19 as a Champion.)

Minimum is +5 or so to hit that's AC 24.

Unless you're an idiot (12-14 prine ability) or less with an A hat DM this isn't a realistic scenario.
.

 

[Horwath]

I don't know about what should change, or whether or not it needs to change at all, or if/when/how a new edition were to come to pass...but assuming it does, here's a list of what I'd like to see.

1. A spell point system to replace the current spell level/spell slot system. The version in the 5E DMG is good, but I'd like to see it expanded and ensconced as the standard in the Player's Handbook.

yes.

2. A half-dozen "core classes" with feat trees, to replace the 13 classes/900 subclasses/multiclassing system. This would address some of my biggest gripes with 5E's power curve and player-side rules exploitation.

4 classes

warrior:
d12 HD
extra attacks at levels 5,9,13,17
no spells
max amount of masteries/maneuvers/fighting styles

gish/half-caster
d10 HD
Extra attacks at levels 5, 11,19
half caster; 1-5th level spells
moderate amount of masteries/maneuvers/fighting styles

adept(2/3rd) caster
d8 HD
extra attack at levels 9/17
2/3rd caster: 1-7th level spells
minor amount of masteries/maneuvers/fighting styles

mage:
d6 HD
extra attack at 11
full spellcasting: 1-9th level spells
no or limited amount of masteries/maneuvers/fighting styles

3. A new default D&D setting. I don't have a problem with Forgotten Realms or Ebberon or any of the other published ones; I just like new campaign settings and I want more of them. New edition should have a new campaign setting, IMO.

This can works and not.
maybe keep new setting for dedicated book that has page count to explore it later.

But really, that's all I can think of. I don't know if it's enough to merit an entirely new edition of the game, but there ya go.

with only 4 classes, focus can be shifted on balancing features that will be available to all characters, with some prerequirements at level limit.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I have enjoyed 5e a lot. I enjoyed earlier editions a lot. There are a few changes I would advocate and enjoy moving forward.

Bonus actions are now almost instinctive. We know when we can use them. Same with reactions. But there has to be a cleaner way to incorporate both in a more unified system.

Maybe have a clean list of extra actions with a column about when they can be used?

I find the dilution of good and evil a little bit…unsatisfactory. Let’s have holy swords
And Elric soul sucking evil swords unapologetically. Simplify good and evil so people have the ballpark (no endless philosophical arguments about it) and lean into it.

Make species abilities matter with pros and cons leading to some variety of play. Don’t smooth out all the bumpy edges. If we don’t want complications and details we can do other story games elsewhere.

Get a system that makes players greedy again. Or heroic. Or something. Experience for gold, experience for heroics with an itemized list of acts…lean into the game so while we roleplay we also shoot for a higher score again.

Reduce the pew pew…cantrips are cool in practice but make them a resource too like arrows. Maybe burn a spell slot to earn more cantrip uses for the day. Whatever ration of spell level to cantrip use determined to be best.

Clean up stealth and exploration. Mix old school exploration. You don’t make a roll to find the object that is hidden unless you are clear about where you are pressing and looking. (Bring back more skill and less “I roll for x”).

Integrate special ability uses from subclasses with spells. Each class has a list of powers divided by spell level. In short spells are not all spells but are hey have a united mechanic.

The devotion paladins holy weapon is 2nd level spell vs a tacked on ability in addition to a spells. Everyone has a list incorporating their spells and abilities into one list and united mechanic.

However, many won’t be spells and a vanilla fighter or barbarian beserker would have a list of abilities that are explicitly not magical.

Make fewer classes “spell casters” and be explicit about what their abilities represent.

Keep the things that work…bounded accuracy is good. Class and hit points are sacred. Alignment…make good and evil matter again.

reduce overlap of abilities…let clerics do the blessing. If someone does get access from abilities from another class, make an in game requirement.

This feat gives me bless and some other holy power. Don’t make it a throw away tacked on thing. Require the character pray each day in exchange. Make options have some grounding so players feel a pull to the fiction even if they play it more like a wargame, generally.

 

[Horwath]

I think 5e.2024 has gone a bit farther down the road of nerfing monster defenses than I would like. I'd like to see lycanthropes toughened up again. Just having a lot of hit points doesn't exactly make them scary - not like them regenerating or strongly resisting non-silver damage does anyway. I'd like to see more magical abilities given to the demons again.

Ideally, every monster, except of most low levels ones(CR 0-3) should have a list of damage types that they are:
resistant,
immune,
vulnerable,

IE:
Vampire:
Immune: Necrotic, Lightning,
Resistant; Cold, Non-magical weapons
Vulnerable: Fire, Radiant

I'd like them to get their heads straighter and with more clarity about hiding/stealth/perception.

heh,
I would say everyone would.
IE, for 3E, what are penalties for distance for Perception checks?
Surely it's easier to hide from someone at 200ft rather at 20ft?

But, then again, I think the incrementalism of the 5e pairing from 2014 to 2024 is the way to go. I DON'T want the editions lurching around with massive changes again. That SUCKED.

It's not the change that sucks, its' rather that the changes sucked mechanically. Or thematically.

 

[Horwath]

I'm unsure how this opinion will go over here, but I felt that 4E was a total disaster. It didn't turn me off from D&D entirely. I waited it out. But it did lessen my enthusiasm for it.

since it's a + thread, I will try to find my + sides of 4E, in my opinion that are worth keeping in some format.

1: at will spells(cantrips), this includes martial maneuvers. with scaling included.
2. removal of medium armor. It's hardly used in 5E and never in 3E.(outised mithral versions, but that is generally light armor).
3. everything is an attack roll.
4. Healing surges, much better than 5E HD healing.
5. Rituals.
6. AEDU system in theory, in practice it was awful, well the fact that every class had the same amount of everything is awful.
7. 5 Min short rest. 1hr is NOT a short rest. This cleared up later 3.5e feat(ure)s of once or X per combat usage.

 

[Reynard]

The benefit of moving away from the subclass system would be increasing versatility of a smaller number of classes and allow players much more control in how their character develops and plays. However, I recognize that some ease of use might be lost. So in making the talent trees, I think it would be worth having a list of "archetypes" that tell new players (or just those less interested in "builds") what talents to take to fit a certain character theme.

One thing I can't really decide for myself in a theoretical 6E is how important magic items should be, math wise. I much prefer items that are evocative and inherently cool over those with flat bonuses or just create established spell effects. But those kinds of items are harder to account for in things like published adventure design.

 

[Retros_x]

I would love a new action economy and overworked math, especially less HP bloat. Anything that makes combat more fluid and faster too. New resource management like slot or pip inventory or anything else that makes resource management worthwile again, because IMO its needed for exploration pillar. (Also no spells on low level that make resources obsolete).

I don't need a lot for social pillar, maybe make reaction rolls and moral rolls RAW again. Overall I am relatively happy with 5e so for a new 6e I would like to be brave and try new naughty word. I don't need another 5e24.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think an xp cost for abilities would give more options. Basic classes and each class has a pool (or buffet) of abilities to choose from that you can buy with earned xp.

The benefit of moving away from the subclass system would be increasing versatility of a smaller number of classes and allow players much more control in how their character develops and plays. However, I recognize that some ease of use might be lost. So in making the talent trees, I think it would be worth having a list of "archetypes" that tell new players (or just those less interested in "builds") what talents to take to fit a certain character theme.

One thing I can't really decide for myself in a theoretical 6E is how important magic items should be, math wise. I much prefer items that are evocative and inherently cool over those with flat bonuses or just create established spell effects. But those kinds of items are harder to account for in things like published adventure design.

For items it’s always harder to determine. A dm being too generous can break the math of the game. Another option items unlock abilities instead of giving static bonuses. This would make characters more rounded instead of more powerful. I always liked the idea of items costing “power” to use. If you had to invest xp to attune to them, it would balance them.