D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

That you have to train to level up in 1e fairly strongly implies the existence of places where such can be done - martial arts or mercenary training schools, thieves' guilds, mages' guilds or labs, temples, etc.

It's explicitly called out for the Monk - they have monasteries where they get their training - and Bard, for what that's worth.

"Very strongly implies" is not what is demanded of Fighters though. Fighters have to have ironclad, unequivocal proof.

The same standard should apply to everyone. Either the Fighter having wuxia powers means that wuxia powers have implied justification--just as Wizards copying scrolls "very strongly implies" their connection to an academic and/or hermetic tradition, or Clerics having this-that-etc. "very strongly implies" the existence of monasteries that train them--or Fighters having wuxia powers needs firm, irrefutable explanation and so do Wizards and Clerics etc. etc.

Otherwise, it's a blatant double standard, predicated solely on "Fighters aren't part of the caster club, so they get shafted."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that's a key observation.

I mean, it's worth noting that 4e characters were specifically designed to be competent, but to never have too many powers overall. You only get 2 at-wills (3 for humans), and then a rotating set of no more than 4 encounters and 4 daily powers from your class. Anything else is a bonus you elected to have on top, like racial powers, Paragon Path stuff, or the like.

4e was specifically designed to be "sweet spot" from roughly level like, five-six onward.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, it's worth noting that 4e characters were specifically designed to be competent, but to never have too many powers overall. You only get 2 at-wills (3 for humans), and then a rotating set of no more than 4 encounters and 4 daily powers from your class. Anything else is a bonus you elected to have on top, like racial powers, Paragon Path stuff, or the like.

4e was specifically designed to be "sweet spot" from roughly level like, five-six onward.

Reading the phb lately it seemed to stretch lvl 3 to 10 or so over 30 levels. Class designs bloated. No more than 5 pages per class imho.

Sweet spots usually 3-7.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Reading the phb lately it seemed to stretch lvl 3 to 10 or so over 30 levels. Class designs bloated. No more than 5 pages per class imho.

Sweet spots usually 3-7.

Considering I'm quite confident that would completely exclude all spellcasters from 5e, how do you expect to run this, like...ever?

In fact I'm pretty sure even the Fighter isn't 5-or-fewer pages. Each subclass is at least half a page by itself!

 

[Reynard]

Another key 6E component for me would be ease of prep and running on the fly. Maybe hire @SlyFlourish to write the section on making up and altering monsters on the spot.

 

[Zardnaar]

Considering I'm quite confident that would completely exclude all spellcasters from 5e, how do you expect to run this, like...ever?

In fact I'm pretty sure even the Fighter isn't 5-or-fewer pages. Each subclass is at least half a page by itself!

Spells aren't in the class section. That's what I'm meaning.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Spells aren't in the class section. That's what I'm meaning.

So you're now giving every spellcaster an enormous boost in what it's allowed to be, while nerfing anything that isn't a spellcaster?

I mean, if you want to be obvious about it, there are more straightforward ways, but. This is open and unabashed caster favoritism. Casters are now simply, objectively better than non-casters. They are allowed however much design space the designers feel like writing, while non-casters are limited to only five pages for literally all of their mechanics, including subclasses.

No. That's absolutely unacceptable. You're literally destroying the ability to play non-casters.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't really understand what that has to do with what I said.
This sounds, to me, like a demand that any new edition actually be well-tested, rigorous, and serious about delivering systems that genuinely and fairly reliably work. Which is something I absolutely want to see.

That is the ideal with any game, but what we are likely to see is not that.

And I'm saying that the rules of 5e (2014) are good enough for a base system in order for a table/GM to design or amend the areas they feel are weak or require work.
This is the reality of things where 5e (2024) and beyond is likely going to start losing customers buying-on to the new shiny, IMO.

 

[Zardnaar]

So you're now giving every spellcaster an enormous boost in what it's allowed to be, while nerfing anything that isn't a spellcaster?

I mean, if you want to be obvious about it, there are more straightforward ways, but. This is open and unabashed caster favoritism. Casters are now simply, objectively better than non-casters. They are allowed however much design space the designers feel like writing, while non-casters are limited to only five pages for literally all of their mechanics, including subclasses.

No. That's absolutely unacceptable. You're literally destroying the ability to play non-casters.

Variety of complexity that's opt in.

4E lacked that 4E died whimpering.

Its also a presentation thing. Try reading an old spell compendium.

5E blew up as it was comparatively simple.

Im guessing you didn't play Star Wars Saga Edition?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That is the ideal with any game, but what we are likely to see is not that.

And I'm saying that the rules of 5e (2014) are good enough for a base system in order for a table/GM to design or amend the areas they feel are weak or require work.
This is the reality of things where 5e (2024) and beyond is likely going to start losing customers buying-on to the new shiny.

I mean the buy-on has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of either version of 5e. Like genuinely it is completely irrelevant which is better and which is worse.

The market for people who were considering buying D&D 5e, but didn't for a whole decade, is pretty damned slim. So outright brand-new customers are going to be thin on the ground.

The market for people who already have D&D 5e, but are unhappy with it, cannot be any greater than the market was for people who didn't have it before 5.0 dropped. It is almost certainly smaller, because some proportion will be happy with what they have, and some proportion will dislike something about the new, whatever that dislike may be.

Every re-release in this kind of situation is chasing diminishing returns. That is the nature of revisions. They will never have the staying power of the original thing, if the original thing succeeded, as this did.

I've already been saying for years now that 5.5e would only have between 4 and 6 years in the tank, compared to 5.0's decade. Fewer if it did really poorly, perhaps edging up into 7 years if it did phenomenally well, but either way, it's a thing of diminishing returns. If we haven't heard reputable rumbles about an upcoming 6th edition playtest by 2029, 5.5e will have significantly exceeded its expected lifespan.