D&D (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[Tony Vargas]

That's just it - there's a few elements of 5e design, of which this is one*, where it very much looks like the designers approach was a completely gamist** outlook and their specific intent was that players would in fact be somewhat expected to exploit these loopholes.

I suppose the "simplicity" goal could be called (small-g/non-Forge) gamist.
Heal-from-0 and death saves/death-if-you-take-your-max-hp-in-one-shot /not/ tracking negative numbers surely must have seemed simpler than tracking them.

I don't get a feel from 5e design that the potential of players to exploit loopholes was highly prioritized - neither in the sense of closing loopholes for the sake of balance, nor discretely holding them open to 'reward system mastery' - rather, whether something is a loophole being exploited or players having fun, is the sort of judgment 5e design leaves to the DM.
JMHO.

 

[Harzel]

That's just it - there's a few elements of 5e design, of which this is one*, where it very much looks like the designers approach was a completely gamist** outlook and their specific intent was that players would in fact be somewhat expected to exploit these loopholes. Were this not the case, either these design elements would have been changed before release or some big errata would have come out soon after.

* - another is full h.p. recovery on a long rest (carryover from 4e) no matter how badly bashed around you'd gotten during the preceding day's adventuring.
** - small-g, not the Forge version.

Taking advantage of overkill not hurting you (unless it's massive) to soak damage is not an explicitly described tactic in the rules; it's something you have to realize (or have someone tell you) you can do. I think it's debatable whether the designers intended in advance to build that in as a tactic or whether they just said, "Oh, look, our rules enable you to do that. shrug" In contrast, full recovery on an 8 hour snooze doesn't really seem like a "loophole"; it is explicitly one of the main (if not the main) ways to recover HP.

 

[Hurin70]

What do people find so vastly different between these two fantasy setting that it garners so much dislike??

I would honestly like to hear an answer to that too. I've played quite a bit of the Realms and find it a pretty good setting. I played some Greyhawk way back in the day, but I honestly couldn't tell you any major difference between them. So if anyone can explain why they prefer one to the other, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[The Green Hermit]

I was thinking, I would like for 6th edition to finally admit that animal companions never work.

Like, I get the appeal from a fluff perspective, but they always either end up too powerful or too weak. They mess with the action economy in annoying ways too.

I think the easiest fix would just be to treat animal companions as their own PCs. Either controlled by another player or by the player who wants it. Get their own progression and features and gets to be considered a full extra combattant when the DM is designing encounters.

Either that or jsut admit they're a pain and drop them entirely

I want the animal companions to remain, because it feels like a major part of being a ranger to me. However, I love the idea of having them have their own progression and features and being treated as an extra PC.

 

[robus]

I freaked my players out a couple of sessions ago when the wizard went down and the demon attacking him kept going causing him the auto fail his first two death saves. The wizards turn was next and he had to roll his final death save, whereupon the session ended. The post session debate among the PCs was quite entertaining as they tried to justify not healing him sooner.

So I think just ensuring that there’s enough variety in monster tactics that the players can’t predict what might happen if a PC goes down would be enough to curtail a blasé attitude?

 

[Undrave]

I want the animal companions to remain, because it feels like a major part of being a ranger to me. However, I love the idea of having them have their own progression and features and being treated as an extra PC.

Like I said, the flavor of a beast companion is solid, but making them mechanically a class feature is just never going to work properly. I'd be more work for bookkeeping but if you want a beast companion you should be willing to do it like that. Maybe have a Ranger who specializes in teamwork with an ally and the Beast having features that stack on top of that so that the Ranger, while they can still play off other regular PCs, and the Beast, who can team up with some other PCs as well, shine brighter together. Maybe throw in a few spells that are specifically for a Beast Master build. Since they're option you're not gimping a Ranger who doesn't want to work with a Beast Companion AND not all Beast Master are exactly the same build.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Like I said, the flavor of a beast companion is solid, but making them mechanically a class feature is just never going to work properly. I'd be more work for bookkeeping but if you want a beast companion you should be willing to do it like that. Maybe have a Ranger who specializes in teamwork with an ally and the Beast having features that stack on top of that so that the Ranger, while they can still play off other regular PCs, and the Beast, who can team up with some other PCs as well, shine brighter together. Maybe throw in a few spells that are specifically for a Beast Master build. Since they're option you're not gimping a Ranger who doesn't want to work with a Beast Companion AND not all Beast Master are exactly the same build.

If it helps, we’ve been running the revised Beast Master, with the single change that the ranger still gets Extra Attack instead of Coordinated Attack.

It works like a dream. The HP is about right on a wolf, though you need to give it some barding, and it could still use the ability to share healing with the ranger.

I don’t see any reason to disallow bird companions, and I’d do some slight tweaking to it, but IMO it shows that it can be done as a class feature just fine.

The base class needs to cool out, but the conclave is great.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've never understood the FR vs. Greyhawk hate. They're both generic fantasy worlds that have the same monsters, heroes, land formations and in many cases the same gods, just reskinned. Now I don't personally follow the LORE of the Forgotten realms, we don't read the novels (I did read a few years back, and maybe the first 5 Drizzt novels) but the Realms for me has also been a nice vanilla backdrop to insert whatever adventure I'm running, either homebrew or not. If it was Greyhawk maps and gods and whatnot, it would be the exact same thing with a different name.

What do people find so vastly different between these two fantasy setting that it garners so much dislike??

Well I'm not really sure how you got from "I don't really like FR" to "hate" and "so much dislike." And I can't even claim I like Greyhawk that much. I just generally prefer it over FR.

FR has just always felt too high fantasy to me. I like my fantasy a bit less fantastical. Or a different distribution curve anyway. A higher ratio of mundane to fantastical.

 

[R_J_K75]

Id like to see the class system removed and give the players the option to select a set number of balanced character features per level. Id also like to see the challenges harder if not downright deadly at times, i.e. save vs..."X" or you die, turn to stone or are polymorphed etc. I dont like how these type of effects saves are tiered, for instance a gorgons breath weapon.

 

[S'mon]

I would honestly like to hear an answer to that too. I've played quite a bit of the Realms and find it a pretty good setting. I played some Greyhawk way back in the day, but I honestly couldn't tell you any major difference between them. So if anyone can explain why they prefer one to the other, I'd be happy to hear it.

IME Greyhawk feels like a world of nations with a few city states; Faerun feels like a world of city states with a few nations.