D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[mamba]

I do wish a hypothetical 6e wouldn't engage in illusionism about how much its classic attrition model actually matters.

arguably 5e already does that, either that, or it gets undermined at the table. All the spells that let you bypass it by allowing rest / food anywhere do not help that system at all

 

[Micah Sweet]

arguably 5e already does that, either that, or it gets undermined at the table. All the spells that let you bypass it by allowing rest / food anywhere do not help that system at all

Absolutely. This is why A5e had to alter or remove all that stuff.

 

[dave2008]

I mean, yeah, it's a suggestion, and I usually do run far fewer than that because my table doesn't care all that much for combat. But as I said elsewhere, I've run into a large number of people who not only took that suggestion as a rule but thought that I was failing at D&D for not adhering to it.

I can't take anyone seriously who would suggest you could fail at D&D

 

[dave2008]

Joke: D&D is the Tiamat of RPGs. Not sure why people want to add another head to a creature that hasn't been able to agree with itself for the last 50 years.

Don't disparage our Queen!

 

[kermit4karate]

/looks at PF2... Is it?

Yes, I think so. PF2's recent surge occurred immediately after the D&D OGL controversy. They reportedly sold 8 months worth of PF core rulebooks in 2 weeks after Jan 2023. The OGL was a far greater influence than anything having to do with the actual games IMO.

 

[payn]

Yes, I think so. PF2's recent surge occurred immediately after the D&D OGL controversy. They reportedly sold 8 months worth of PF core rulebooks in 2 weeks after Jan 2023. The OGL was a far greater influence than anything having to do with the actual games IMO.

That would be its second surge. Paizo folks have indicated PF2 selling more than PF1. My point is the second best selling RPG isnt where you think the market is. The games you point out are a market, but not the market.

 

[Parmandur]

arguably 5e already does that, either that, or it gets undermined at the table. All the spells that let you bypass it by allowing rest / food anywhere do not help that system at all

Well, the Spells are the resources in 5E: it is a game of attrition of Spell Slots and HP, more than water and food, etc. Though the latter help overall if kept track of carefully.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm old enough to remember when this was a wish list for 6e.....I gave up on page 29. Too bad, for awhile there were interesting things.

 

[ECMO3]

All I can say is: Literally decades of video game design have consistently shown you are, in every way, wrong on this.

I am not talking about video games and what works well in Video games does not necessarily translate to what works better in D&D.

Also, people routinely make choices that make their video game play more difficult. For example, you can play Baldur's Gate 3 on Story Mode or you can play it on honour mode or anything in between. From an "optimization" standpoint story mode is better than honour mode. You literally can't be killed. your character in Baldurs gate is FAR more powerful in relative terms when played on an easy difficulty. Yet I think very few people "optimize" in this fashion.

TTRPG design isn't that different.

It is way different IMO. Further even if it isn't different, it is contrary to your central argument. BG3 is the most popular fantasy D&D game of recent era (perhaps ever) and there is very little balance in it. BG3 is far less balanced than 5E and far more popular, and it is a safe bet the people buying and playing BG3 over and over again are enjoying it.

If video games == TTRPGs, then Baldur's Gate 3 proves that you are incorrect on your observation that balance improves the game play experience.

The consistent complaints about 3e and 5e have both been exactly the thing you claim people won't complain about: that some things are overpowered compared to others, and shouldn't be

. Consider the hue and cry about silvery barbs, or the Twilight Cleric, or even going all the way back to the original UA Storm Sorcerer, and how people said (essentially) "this is getting bonus spells that the other sorcerers don't have", so WotC...chose to cut out the Storm bonus spells, rather than issuing errata for the PHB. (One of many decisions that eventually contributed to 5.5e.)

Not really, I've seen that on message boards, but not in game.

The only complaint I have seen about Silvery Barbs (and Absorb Elements) in play is that a DM banned them. It is actually the opposite of what you claim - I have seen people complain specifically about the efforts made to balance the game and to the point that the entire rest of the group of players asked him to reverse his decision.

I played multiple campaigns with another player and as a DM with a player playing a Twilight Cleric and never heard a single complaint about it, nor have I observed anything at all negative from it. Ironically, despite the hand wringing on the message boards over Twilight Sanctuary, one of the four PCs I have had killed outright in a game was in a game with a Twilight Cleric, while Twilight Sanctuary was active.

I don't play UA so I can't comment on the Sorcerer.

Players can take care of story themselves. They're really quite good at it, in fact. They don't need to be shepherded into a realm of storybuilding

Exactly! Which is what quotas on encounters do. Shepherd the players into those encounters.

The proof is in how people--consistently, here on ENWorld, on Reddit, in WotC surveys, in wider gaming discussion--have responded to 5.0 as it developed, and how 5.5e was tested, and what 5.5e has become since releaseily based on

5.5 Design was heavily based on surveys, so I think the opposite is actually true. Surveys and playtests got us what we got in 5.5. Supposedly 5.0 was based on that as well.

Further time and time again it was the surveys that prevented WOTC from taking bolder steps and got them to undo the bigger changes they had in the UA. Many of these changes that were in the UA and then cut specifically made the game more balanced and they were rejected.

I do agree there are many people on message that complain about these things, but I have no way of knowing whether they are a majority or a minority, and I also see plenty of people complaining about the large number of fans that won't let WOTC make big changes.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

If you play published adventures there are some with a boatload of magic. I just finsished a 5E conversion of a series of greyhawk adventures from 1-20 (Village of Homlett, Temple of Elemental Evil, Scourge of the Slavelords, Against the Giants, Queen of Spiders). The DM gave us whatever was in the game, modified to 5E rules.

We had a ton of magic items. At games end (level 20) my Ranger personally had Bracers of Defense, Ring of Protection, Staff of Striking, Staff of Whithering, Staff of Swarming Insects, Staff of Frost, Wand of Paralyzation, Rope of Entanglement, Wand of Fear, Dagger of Venom, two daggers +1, Hand Axe +1, Short Sword +2, two Javelins of Lightning, Javelin +2, Heavy Crossbow +1, several scrolls and several potions.

I would change out what I was attuned to every short rest after I burned through charges on one item.

We did have two intelligent swords plus a flame tongue, a Frost Band, a short sword of Life Stealinig, a Girdle of Giant Strength, another Javelin of Lightning and some other great weapons, but other party members got those as I was more of a caster/controller.