D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[dave2008]

why are you thinking they did not do that with 5.5?

It is still to close to 5e 1.0 for them. It still swims in the same waters. They would prefer Hasbro/Wotc charted course to a new sea.

 

[mamba]

Between Cosmere and "generic Plotweaver, they have 8 different Settings currently in the oven, all of which will be able to work together in a very 5E style framework

if they can pull that off and keep everything balanced, hat off to them

 

[dave2008]

..., it’s that it is superhero wuxia

What does that mean to you. I ran a 5e game to 17th level and it never felt like superhero wuxia to me. So I feel like we have different definitions of that term.

 

[Parmandur]

if they can pull that off and keep everything balanced, hat off to them

The genius of the system is that all balance really just sits in the d20 Skill resolution math: magic, combat, diplomacy, exploration...all the same math, and math people already know and are familiar with from playing D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, it should be?

The point of the game is to face challenges. That means the goal of learning to play, at its most baseline level, is learning how to make choices that improve your ability to overcome the challenges you face.

It should be a hard sell to tell payers, "Okay, I want to introduce a rule, where the only function of that rule is to make you worse at overcoming the challenges you're going to face. How does that sound?"

Any player, trying to play effectively, should tell you that that sounds awful and maybe you should get better at negotiating.

If that rule makes sense in the setting from a Sim perspective, I would be and have been all for it.

 

[dave2008]

if they can pull that off and keep everything balanced, hat off to them

IDK, I feel I could do that now with 5e. I can't say it would suffice for everyone, but it would work for me an my group.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am still hopeful (probably stupidly so) that they will publish a book that is all optional and variant rules and systems. I no longer think it is likely, but I hope!

Yeah I was kind of expecting a sort of DMG2-type deal to be alluded to, and there's still time for it to appear, but... the vibe I'm getting from 2024 suggests it will not (not exactly a strong argument I admit, vibes lol).

What does that mean to you. I ran a 5e game to 17th level and it never felt like superhero wuxia to me. So I feel like we have different definitions of that term.

Right? I've run 5E up to 16th and honestly, it felt way more "grounded" than any 3E game I played above level 10th (and some lower than that!), and nothing any kind of superhero or wuxia RPG I've run.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just make DnD built for Nova-ing or non-attritional combat. It's what people want and abandon the pretensions of being a normal dungeon crawler, design new dungeons more like the theme park it is--a line of encounters and challenges that can be linear or taken freely. Make it even less of a real space.

Martials should get anime naughty word by level 3 at the latest, if I can't do sword winds by then, then the D&D designers imaginations have failed them. I agree with the idea of having 'tutorial' levels that are distinct from actual levels too

I would prefer more 'meta' abilities. Traps that are 'laid there an hour ago' by using your abilities that you've activated as a reaction, "I actually snatched some knives awhile ago", or something like 'If you participate in a fight and no one important dies then their attitude towards you is still neutral'

Monk should be more Orientalist--that's the appeal here, denying it is just a mistake. There should be some actual research done but if the traditional fantasy mold has rapiers in medieval europe without guns then authenticity shouldn't be a priority.

Magic items should be more common and 'de-specialed' in the mind of DMs. I'm fine with a sword that just does fire damage instead of slashing.

Vancian should only be on the wizard--all other casters should not even be designed with it, hell I'm not sure any of them should have similar casting system. And make sure the wizard's spells aren't anymore powerful than the other spellcasters

Alignment should be opt in, you can choose to be Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral or whatever but the only thing it does is that it should restrict certain spells and classes while those that choose to not have an alignment are free to pick whatever. So a Lawful character can't be a barbarian but nothing stops your law-abiding knight that has an empty field in it's alignment section on the character sheet to be a barbarian.

There will be no other benefit whatsoever for having an alignment.

Those sound like great ideas for the 6e I want them to make.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why would they ever do that?

WotC wants you to buy books with PC options. That's why they put Everything books and PC options in monster books. They are never going to say "The Greyhawk setting only has X, Y, and Z" options because then everyone who runs it says "cool, I don't have to ever buy another splatbook again". WotC is at best going to place soft bans (ie Theros or Krynn) but never endorse hard bans.

Yeah. That's not in WotC's business model. They desperately want you to buy everything.

 

[dave2008]

It should be a hard sell to tell payers, "Okay, I want to introduce a rule, where the only function of that rule is to make you worse at overcoming the challenges you're going to face. How does that sound?"

I don't play with strangers so it has never been a hard sell. We (me and my group) all agreed to cap stats at 18 and generally limit magic items to a +1 bonus (they can do other cool things though). So that means my players effectively agreed to a penalty of -3 to -4. Why, because we all think the game runs better that way.