D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Zardnaar]

This is a little off topic, but I think about pre-3.0 saving throws A LOT in relation to what is being communicated.

The short version is: in TSR era D&D, saving throws were inherent to the PC, based on class and level, and very, very rarely modified in any way by the source of the thing being saved against. Couple this with fighters and half lines having such good saves and you can really see the influences on the game.

The 3.0+ saves are a different thing. I don't mind the consolidation into intuitive categories, but taking away the inherentness of saves really changed the way we look at that thing at the intersection of system and fiction.

So, in my 6E, that is another thing I would like: saving throws return to being inherently about your class fantasy being ablevto resist X, y or z. I wouldn't necessarily go back to the TSR categories, but I might find a middle ground between those and Fort, Reflex and Will. Ability score saves can just go.

TSR or 4E. Something along those lines.
. Im watching PCs blow inspiration and lucky feat and still struggling with bad saves.

NPCs bad will save your CR doesn't matter.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you could still get the essence of 4E without drastically changing the framework. 5E basically plays like 4E with all the tactical guts stripped out as it is, so what you'd need to do is sew them back in without all the 3E cruft and with a presentation that doesn't put people off.

And how do you get the 1e or BX feel back in there?

 

[Zardnaar]

And how do you get the 1e or BX feel back in there?

Very stripped back similar to 1dt playtest packet or 2nd o e.

5E engine could do 4E if you changed assumptions eg add micro feats back, all saves scale etc. It could clone 4E or B/X.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Dungeon Masters Guide and Monsters Manual

DIALS for
(i) Gritty (Lower Starting Stats, Hit Point modification*, Slower Rests, HD usage, H-Kit Dependency, Touch Attacks*** etc)
(ii) High Level (Encounter Design, Monster Modification, Higher Skill use, Setting Challenges, Terrain/Environmental Damage with engaging with creatures of sizes 2 or more than larger than you etc)
(iii) Low Magic (Spellcasting Interruption, Cantrip Limitation, Ability tied to Spellcasting Level, Magic Overexposure, Attunement modification, No Spell Focus etc)
(iv) Narrative Play (Plot Point, TBIF use/leverage, XP system modification etc)
(v) Supernatural

* Hit Point based on Size, Hit Point Cap or Health Levels
** Class Features tied to the Exhaustion Track
*** Refer Monster Design

TOOLS
Degrees of Failure/Success in Combat and Skills
Faster Combat
Gamist (Inspiration/Desperation points, Plot Points etc)
Skill Challenges
Fail Forward
Damage Severity linked to Level
Sanity (Madness, Conditions Emotional etc)
Advantage/Disadvantage (Lesser +2, Multiple)

MONSTER DESIGN
Minions and Mooks
Oozes, Mobs and Swarms
Hardness, Damage Threshold, Damage Reduction and Resistance
Regeneration
Materials Matter (Adamantine, Blessed, Silver etc)
Touch attacks for Incorporeal Creatures

OTHER
Disease Track
Magic Overexposure (Tracking, Side Effects)

Player's Handbook

ABILITIES
Class minimums
Odd numbers count

SKILLS
Subskill system
Expertise (1d6) as opposed to doubling proficiency

MODULAR
TBIF (Traits, Bonds Ideals, Flaws) system fleshed out
Languages (Expansion on Social and Exploration Pillar)

MULTI CLASS
Limitations (eliminate the 1st/2nd level dip)

 

[GrimCo]

D&D's biggest problem is that it wants to be jack of all trades system. That means it needs to support or at least not actively hinder myriad of different play styles.

When it comes to 6e, i would like commitment. Pick one or two complimentary play styles and design game around those styles. Go all in with mechanics to support them.

My ideal hypotetical would have two separate lines. Basic and Complex. Basic with no choices, every class get's one iconic active ability and rest are passive you don't need to think about. Complex are add on to basic. You get list of class options and every level, you pick one. Martials get stance/manouver system from 3.5 Bo9S by default that scales same way spells scale.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I know, I know. "Another 6E Thread?!?"

Yes. But I want to keep it positive. If you love 5E (either flavor, or any other edition) that's awesome! Congratulations, you have your game. However, i (and I asssume some other folks) would like to see the next iteration of D&D.

For my part, I like 5E but it has been around a long time and its weaknesses are pretty easy to see (and I personally do not think 2024 5E addressed them). So I would really like to see a new edition of the game.

I think D&D, to be D&D, will always need some of its sacred cows: classes, hit points, and levels, some form of "Vancian" casting, and the baked in genre that is D&D (that constantly evolves). But I also think it can adopt other game subsystems to make it a better play experience even while retaining those sacred cows. it doesn't have to be quite the Frakengame that Daggerheart is (and I love Daggerheart but it is definitely composed of many parts), but it could stand to embrace more modern approaches to some of its gameplay challenges. I also personally like "clean and concise" as design ethos and so I would like to see Shadowdark as a influence (without some of the built in randomness).

What do you think? What would your preferred hypothetical 6E look like?

And, again, this is a + thread. Please try and keep it positive about 6E (as a hypothetical).

The one and only speedbump in all this is your specific call out of "Vancian" casting.

That is the albatross around D&D's neck.

As long as "Vancian" casting remains, I'm pretty well convinced that it will be impossible to make a D&D that achieves what you are hoping it will achieve: fixing the known problems with 5e, which are by and large the exact same problems as 3e, just mollified slightly.

Well, I say that, but there are two other options. I just don't think either of them has even the slightest chance of successfully taking off.

The first is to hard-enforce resting cycles. That is, you have to complete (at least) one encounter before you can short rest, and you have to complete some number (probably five) encounters before you can long rest. That would fix the problem, but I'm pretty sure that would be so offensive to the fanbase that WotC wouldn't even dare suggest it, let alone test it.

The second is to gut the spell list, so that technically you still have "Vancian" spellcasting, but it's significantly depowered and a bunch of the classic spells are now just straight-up gone. Again, I don't believe WotC would even suggest this.

So we're left with a conundrum. Vancian spellcasting is actively at odds with the kind of gameplay D&D is based around playing, but it's (apparently) so beloved that it cannot ever be rescinded or amended to fix its severe, cripplingly bad balance problems when forced into the pacing and gameplay loop of D&D.

 

[Zardnaar]

The one and only speedbump in all this is your specific call out of "Vancian" casting.

That is the albatross around D&D's neck.

As long as "Vancian" casting remains, I'm pretty well convinced that it will be impossible to make a D&D that achieves what you are hoping it will achieve: fixing the known problems with 5e, which are by and large the exact same problems as 3e, just mollified slightly.

Well, I say that, but there are two other options. I just don't think either of them has even the slightest chance of successfully taking off.

The first is to hard-enforce resting cycles. That is, you have to complete (at least) one encounter before you can short rest, and you have to complete some number (probably five) encounters before you can long rest. That would fix the problem, but I'm pretty sure that would be so offensive to the fanbase that WotC wouldn't even dare suggest it, let alone test it.

The second is to gut the spell list, so that technically you still have "Vancian" spellcasting, but it's significantly depowered and a bunch of the classic spells are now just straight-up gone. Again, I don't believe WotC would even suggest this.

So we're left with a conundrum. Vancian spellcasting is actively at odds with the kind of gameplay D&D is based around playing, but it's (apparently) so beloved that it cannot ever be rescinded or amended to fix its severe, cripplingly bad balance problems when forced into the pacing and gameplay loop of D&D.

Scaling saves us the way to fix vancian. Make it very unreliable outside of direct damage.

At higher levels they wasn't risk a save or euck or buff a nartual for example.

5.0 I got bored. T Rex 75% chance to fail a save or suck approx targeting a mental sace.

2E 75% chance to make save.

5E defenses scale poorly. 5.5 martials are a lot better spellcasters can't seal the deal very well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Scaling saves us the way to fix vancian. Make it very unreliable outside of direct damage.

At higher levels they wasn't risk a save or euck or buff a nartual for example.

5.0 I got bored. T Rex 75% chance to fail a save or suck approx targeting a mental sace.

2E 75% chance to make save.

5E defenses scale poorly. 5.5 martials are a lot better spellcasters can't seal the deal very well.

As always, your experience is so different from mine I cannot meaningfully interact with what you have described.

This is literally the antithesis of what I have, personally, experienced.

Martials are caddies who clean up after the spellcasters have already decided which side has won. Sure, their damage output is impressive. It doesn't decide combats. It simply ends them. The decision happened long before it ended, if the casters go in with all their spells.

And if they don't go in with all their spells, then the players have failed to manipulate the game so that they could do that. Because that's, unfortunately, the obvious optimal way to play. Never go into combat unless you have ample spell slots first, and blow as many as you can as fast as you can to nuke the enemy in round 1 or 2 at worst.

I choose not to play that way because I find it boring as hell. But that means intentionally choosing to play sub-optimally.

 

[Zardnaar]

As always, your experience is so different from mine I cannot meaningfully interact with what you have described.

This is literally the antithesis of what I have, personally, experienced.

Martials are caddies who clean up after the spellcasters have already decided which side has won.

2E adventures had way more loot than modern adventures. We also used 1E ad BECMI ones.

Said fighters were very well equipped. AC 27. Make your saves 75-95% of the time.

2E monsters also had flat NR as a %. That coukd get up to 90%. +4 weapons could turn up around level 6-8 along with intelligent weapons.

Death automatically won initiative and automatically hit. A spellcaster couldn't really cast in that scenario.

Tough critters saved as fighters. 20HD+ they saved 75-95% of the time before any other modifiers.

Lose initiative take any damage spell fails and you lose the spell slot.

If you use casting times and weapon speed magical weapons decrease weapon speed. Higher level spells generally take longer to cast. .... We used those rules.

Level 12/13 fighter could reasonably expect a selection of +3-+5 weapons, armor, rings, cloaks, etc. Running official adventures anyway.

Weapons were often speed, dancing, flametongue etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

2E adventures had way more loot than modern adventures. We also used 1E ad BECMI ones.

Said fighters were very well equipped. AC 27. Make your saves 75-95% of the time.

2E monsters also had flat NR as a %. That coukd get up to 90%. +4 weapons could turn up around level 6-8 along with intelligent weapons.

Death automatically won initiative and automatically hit. A spellcaster couldn't really cast in that scenario.

Tough critters saved as fighters. 20HD+ they saved 75-95% of the time before any other modifiers.

Lose initiative take any damage spell fails and you lose the spell slot.

If you use casting times and weapon speed magical weapons decrease weapon speed. Higher level spells generally take longer to cast. .... We used those rules.

Okay.

Now what happens if the fighters are under-equipped, because the GM thinks giving out items means you're running a "Monty Haul" campaign? Because they think giving out items is "bad GMing"? Because that's what I hear over and over and over again from OSR types.

No magic items. No feats. No bonuses. Nothing. Just what you are as a fighter, nothing more. Possibly less, if they're feeling even slightly spicy today.