D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Reynard]

Well, personally I think A5e is superior design quality to 5.5, but obviously I'm biased. Can't speak to TotV.

The monster design at least is, for both. I am less familiar with or concerned about the player facing stuff.

 

[Reynard]

It does it at the cost of extra rules and more things to keep track of though. That was ultimately my player's feedback after our A5e game, they didn't think the new layer of rules added enough "oomph" to warrant it (which was surprising as even my more crunchy oriented players thought the same).

The point being is, one of 5e's greatest successes was toning back the rules after two editions that had done a lot to add a lot of codified rules. And so in any 6e discussion, any pushing to add more on top has to be met very carefully, the days of a lot more crunch being core to the game is gone imo.

Maybe, but remember we are talking about personal preferences here, not what we think WotC would or should do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It does it at the cost of extra rules and more things to keep track of though. That was ultimately my player's feedback after our A5e game, they didn't think the new layer of rules added enough "oomph" to warrant it (which was surprising as even my more crunchy oriented players thought the same).

The point being is, one of 5e's greatest successes was toning back the rules after two editions that had done a lot to add a lot of codified rules. And so in any 6e discussion, any pushing to add more on top has to be met very carefully, the days of a lot more crunch being core to the game is gone imo.

Considering simplicity an objective good that 5e facilitated is, ironically, a subjective opinion, held by you and your players perhaps but not by all. Obviously, I consider A5e extra rules layer a very good thing, and regularly add to it in my own game.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not asking to cleave mountains here, I'm basically asking for my sword guy's sword to also be considered a shortbow(with lesser range if must).

What? Why wouldn't you just use a shortbow? Why should a sword act like a shortbow? How can a sword act like a shortbow?

If you are talking about "sword aura" or similar ideas from manga an such, well that would come along well after 3rd level. The earliest I would want to see stuff like that is level 11+. For D&D, I think the first 10 levels should be fairly mundane. However, it should also provide clear direction how to start at level 11 (possible even guidance to make it act like level 1) of that is your preference. But D&D should always have room for the 0-hero idea IMO. If it also supports hero-legend and legend-mythic, that is just a bonus (one that I want).

 

[mamba]

If you could magically take TotV and slap the 5.5 PHB cover on it, I guarantee the fan reaction to it would be similar to what actual 5.5 got.

I agree, but that also means they are no worse, just less popular.

 

[mamba]

I asked if any 3pp specifically exclude THEIR other material from their settings. Show me a Paizo book that limits what you can use from other Pathfinder books. Or a Kobold Press setting that doesn't allow all the options in Tales of the Valiant.

they both publish one setting only, it would be weird for them to have options that they exclude from that setting

 

[dave2008]

The monster design at least is, for both. I am less familiar with or concerned about the player facing stuff.

IME, they are not superior in play to the 5e24 MM. With the exception that the MM doesn't have anything equivalent to A5e elite, 5e14 mythic monsters. There are of course specific ones that can go either way. If A5e upped there math to match 5e24 MM then I would give it the nod as there designs generally have more options which I like design-wise. However, I find that a problem at the table often (that is why I said "in play" at the beginning).

 

[Stalker0]

So 66 pages deep, thought I would finally jump in with my short list. Overall, 5e is a pretty good system, "everyone's 2nd favorite" as they say. So I think any attempts to "go radical" or likely to be met with failure. So we need to look at some key areas.

Monster Design
While the player side of the fence looks pretty good, the monster design I think is the biggest part of the system ripe for innovation. 5e monsters aren't very exciting especially when you compare it to 4e's monsters imo (4e monster design at least later on was some of the best imo).

This is the place that you could do the most overhauling. Players will still have their more traditional comfortable classes they know and love, without having to learn too many rules. The DM can take this one on to gain a new class of better monsters for more interesting encounters.

A few notes here:

1) Legendary Resistance "works" at stopping high level spells from one-shotting boss monsters but in the most boring way possible. A5e made some nice improvements here, but this is an area that we go more radical.

2) Vulnerability: Its too all or nothing in 5e, which is why its seen so rarely. Toning this down and bringing it back in gives us a lot of new options to play with.

3) Another look at legendary monsters. 4e's later solo monsters I think finally got to the sweet spot of what boss monsters should look like. We have also had some really innovative stuff on the 3pp side that could be incorporated here. Legendaries in 5e are ok but they still don't do the proper job.

Concentration
I do think WOTC inclusion of this mechanic is good. It helps to trim down so much of the bloat of buffs that was the hallmark of mid to high level 3e play especially. But...the mechanic is TOO restrictive.

The problem is the mechanic tries to solve two problems at once.

1) We want to ensure certain buffs are not stacked on top of each other.
2) We want an interruption mechanic so that certain powerful spells can be "stopped" through damage or other effects.

Both of these are excellent things to model....but they are two completely different things, and should have two mechanics. Having a summon spell that my fighter can interrupt is great. Having a defensive spell that can't be stacked with 5 other defensive spells is wonderful. Having a defensive buff that can go down at the first hit is not good.

So splitting concentration into two separate things would solve a lot of the constriction with concentration.

20 10 levels

We have had 20 level dnd for a while now (though not always). And the data is in....people don't play 20 level dnd. Study after study has consistently shown that campaigns that make it to 20 levels are unicorns. 10 is the highest many people ever play, and sometimes not even that high. (and I am saying this as a DM who has gone to 20th level, even 25 in 4e once before).

And yet the conversations around high levels often consume so much of the design discussion oxygen. Many many discussions on these very boards amount to "this breaks at high levels". It is not productive to have so much design space dedicated to an area your audience does not use.

Its time to toss 11-20 level dnd into the trash, and go back to the name level concept. At 10th level (maybe 11th), you are at the peak, and you normally retire. And then for those players that want to keep going, you introduce your "epic feats" or "epic bonuses" or "epic rituals" to lay on top....so you can still bring in those classic high level spells and effects into the narrative....but in a small portion of the design space.

Heck, 10th level parties in 5e can already take on adult dragons, they are already hitting the pay grades you need for most big world ending type stories.

Every once in a while someone comes in and says they want a 30 level or even a 50 level dnd, and everyone kind of laughs and goes "well maybe they will make an epic level book for that or something", but no one takes it too seriously. Well its time for the 11-20 level players to take that as well....put 11-20th in some kind of immortals/epic handbook, and craft a 10 level system that is tight, fun, and chock full of awesome....instead of stretching it over a level range a small fraction of your audience will ever see.

 

[Reynard]

IME, they are not superior in play to the 5e24 MM. With the exception that the MM doesn't have anything equivalent to A5e elite, 5e14 mythic monsters. There are of course specific ones that can go either way. If A5e upped there math to match 5e24 MM then I would give it the nod as there designs generally have more options which I like design-wise. However, I find that a problem at the table often (that is why I said "in play" at the beginning).

I agree that the power bump for PCs in the 2024 rules means you have to tream them as a level or two higher when using the A5E encounter system. I don't see the complexity in the monsters being a problem though -- quite the opposite. I hate one trick pony bags of hit points.

 

[dave2008]

Considering simplicity an objective good that 5e facilitated is, ironically, a subjective opinion, held by you and your players perhaps but not by all. Obviously, I consider A5e extra rules layer a very good thing, and regularly add to it in my own game.

My group ultimately rejected A5e because of the added complexity too. I like a lot of it design-wise so I still buy a lot of the books, but they don't get any use. Currently I am looking at even less complex version of 5e, that is why I am very interested in Mike Mearl's Odyssey. It seem like it might 90% of what I want 5e to be and which case I might use it has the basis for our next campaign (with some required homebrew of course - nothing is perfect). That depends on the final product of course, but most of what he discusses makes a lot of sense to me.