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

anahata

Villager
Depends on what's being done, but answer is always "Wing it." Maybe grant Advantage/Disadvantage, maybe the enemies flee, entirely up to the DM. The Transmuter ability is laid out clearly. There is some information on crafting in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, but the rules are suggestions: rulings (by the DM), not rules (dictated by the designers). I assure you that it is quite simple in practice.
"Wing it" doesn't really provide the kind of guidance that I'm looking for. In 3.5, things are clearly spelled out, and I'm far more comfortable figuring out what to do and how.

The transmuter ability is not laid out clearly. At all. A sentence or two is not clearly laying out how the ability works. For example, can the material be worked in its new state? Does it retain its worked shape when it reverts? This is the first thing my Wizard wanted to do with his new ability. The first. thing. The crafting rules in Xanathar's are the barest hint of guidance and doesn't really tell me how to run a session of crafting.

It may be simple, but that's my problem with it: it's so simple it doesn't actually provide me the guidance I need to decide how the system works. Anyway, this is way offtopic now, so I'm just going to agree to disagree.
 

Parmandur

Legend
"Wing it" doesn't really provide the kind of guidance that I'm looking for. In 3.5, things are clearly spelled out, and I'm far more comfortable figuring out what to do and how.

The transmuter ability is not laid out clearly. At all. A sentence or two is not clearly laying out how the ability works. For example, can the material be worked in its new state? Does it retain its worked shape when it reverts? This is the first thing my Wizard wanted to do with his new ability. The first. thing. The crafting rules in Xanathar's are the barest hint of guidance and doesn't really tell me how to run a session of crafting.

It may be simple, but that's my problem with it: it's so simple it doesn't actually provide me the guidance I need to decide how the system works. Anyway, this is way offtopic now, so I'm just going to agree to disagree.
I'd say yes, and yes, regarding the Transmuter. And then moving on.

3.5 could get overdetailed and lose the path foe the cobblestones.
 

ad_hoc

Adventurer
I'm going to assume good faith here.

It's not that I don't know how to be a DM. It's that my players want to do things--a lot of things--that aren't covered in the rules. See my first comment in this thread. One of the most rudimentary examples: What does Intimidate do in combat? The rules have no answer. How do I run a system that doesn't tell me what to do with basic situations like that?

There is no 'intimidate action'.

Intimidate is a skill which allows proficiency to be added to some ability checks.

In 5e players don't say 'I use X skill' they instead describe what they are doing. This may be 1st or 2nd person (a description of what the character is doing).

Then as DM you determine what happens. In this example lets say the PC is trying to scare the enemies by 'insert method here'. You determine whether the enemy are scared or not and what it means to be scared. If you feel the outcome is in doubt you can call for an ability check which you might allow for the intimidate skill to add proficiency to.

Have you played prior editions of the game? In my experience new players pick up the game quite well. I've had 2 friends who started DMing without issue soon after learning how to play.

The rules are designed to be intuitive and where a person is likely to be correct when guessing at what a rule is. I think this is 5e's greatest success and the #1 reason it is so popular. Most people have an easy time learning it. Not all of course, but no game is going to hit 100% of people.
 

ccs

39th lv DM
In 5e players don't say 'I use X skill' they instead describe what they are doing. This may be 1st or 2nd person (a description of what the character is doing).
Reality disagrees with you (and the book).
 

Johnny3D3D

Adventurer
To some extent, I can see Anahata's point, but I would posit that it is not unique to 5E.

Influence skills (and abilities) in D&D are often ambiguous. For example, I've seen charm effects be ruled as being anywhere from mind control to barely doing anything -depending upon the DM.

As far as Intimidation during combat?

I think it needs to be somewhat vague because of the variety of possible creatures, personalities, and situations which may be involved in a combat.

That being said, my gut feeling would be as follows:
1) decide what you feel is the best possible outcome: perhaps an entire group of goblins with low morale might flee/surrender; in contrast, the best possible outcome against a legendary red dragon might be a change in target or tactics; the best possible outcome again a mindless/fearless stone golem might be that it simply doesn't work. It may help to ask the player what their intended goal is. If you can't think of anything, perhaps it's something as simple as the target gaining the Frightened condition for a round or needing to make a concentration check to maintain a spell.
2) opposed check of intimidation vs the better of a wisdom (willpower) save or a charisma (force of personality) save: I'm essentially turning it into a mental/influence version of a grapple check; I might award advantage or disadvantage based upon the situation. For example, a foe which has a reputation for being cowardly, a foe which is greatly outnumbered, or a foe which is badly wounded might more easily succumb to intimidation. In contrast, Lord Terrance Patrick Killroy, legendary villain (first of his name, eater of souls, yada yada yada...) might have advantage during such a contest.
3) compare results and decide how near or far the results are to the best possible result: complete overwhelming success or success by a huge difference in results is (likely) nearest to the best possible result; drifting further away from that likely leads to a less desirable result.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It's not that I don't know how to be a DM. It's that my players want to do things--a lot of things--that aren't covered in the rules. See my first comment in this thread. One of the most rudimentary examples: What does Intimidate do in combat? The rules have no answer. How do I run a system that doesn't tell me what to do with basic situations like that?
Easy. Make it up. Make rulings. You're the DM - you tell the game what to do, rather than the reverse.

Note what rulings you make as you make them, so next time the same situation arises you already know what to do. And in your current situation you might want to pre-emptively bang out some notes on Intimidate and what it can do or not do in various situations, and how, at your table; and provide these to your players to put in their PHs.

Then, stick with your rulings until and unless you later realize you've made a glaring mistake (and it WILL happen!), at which point own up to your mistake, tell your table how you're going to change that ruling going forward, and carry on.

In short - it's intentional in 5e that the game as played at your table isn't expected to be exactly the same as Bob's down the street or Mary's at your FLGS. The rules provide the framework that you then flesh out to make your game yours.

It's the opposite philosohy from 3e or PF, where there's a rule for everything.
 

Horwath

Explorer
As a more basic guideline for how HP must work in order for a game to be anything other than a joke:

If there are mechanics to determine whether an attack hits or misses, and you roll to see that the attack actually does hit, and then you roll to see how much damage is inflicted as a result of the attacker's strength and other tangible factors - and your interpretation of that is that such that the attack didn't actually hit - then something has gone horribly wrong with your procedure.

Fifth Edition took the diplomatic route, by reminding us that narration will vary from table to table, even though the rules are obviously biased. Sixth Edition needs to remove that bias, or bring it down in the other direction.
It has to be explained that way.

I.E. you have a 1st level wizard with 10 Con and 6 HP and 11th level fighter with 70HP

They both get hit with a greatsword for 17 damage.

Wizard is instantly Dead, while fighter has maybe a scratch.

Both recieved same amount of damage, would that mean that fighter has some 150kg of extra fat that can be cut into without serious damage to muscles and internal organs?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
5e nerfed the impact of some magic items compared to earlier editions but not all of them... healing potions in particular I think would be bad to have a huge supply of available to parties but..

There is a magic item price table in Xanathars Guide to Everything with some random weirdness for fun.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
It has to be explained that way.

I.E. you have a 1st level wizard with 10 Con and 6 HP and 11th level fighter with 70HP

They both get hit with a greatsword for 17 damage.

Wizard is instantly Dead, while fighter has maybe a scratch.

Both recieved same amount of damage, would that mean that fighter has some 150kg of extra fat that can be cut into without serious damage to muscles and internal organs?
Yeh but if the target is a monster they might just be supernaturally tough.

A tricksy rogue extraordinarily lucky

A wizard might even be last second blocking with desparate personal shields which draw on deeper energy than normal spells.

And so on.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
Most of the changes I'd like to see would make it something other than D&D.

But, ok, I'll bite:
  • Nerfs to ranged weapon attacks to make them less universally awesome.
  • Less SAD, more MAD. Not necessarily in class design, but in how the attributes are used.
    • On a related note: get rid of Finesse weapons. Find a different solution.
  • Monster tactics.
  • Fewer ASIs, more Feats.
  • Rebalanced spells, so that they are all good choices.
  • Spending Inspiration lets you re-roll, rather than giving you advantage.
  • Slightly less in the base classes, slightly more in the subclasses.
  • A bit tougher resting/healing rules.
So I guess really I just want 5.5.
 

Saelorn

Adventurer
I.E. you have a 1st level wizard with 10 Con and 6 HP and 11th level fighter with 70HP

They both get hit with a greatsword for 17 damage.

Wizard is instantly Dead, while fighter has maybe a scratch.

Both recieved same amount of damage, would that mean that fighter has some 150kg of extra fat that can be cut into without serious damage to muscles and internal organs?
You're reading too much into it. All I'm saying is that they were both hit. You were previously saying that the fighter wasn't hit, in this scenario. There are any number of reasonable explanations for this, and none of them involve the fighter losing kilograms worth of meat in the transaction.

Of course, none of those reasonable explanations permit for a degree of injury which is potentially fatal to the wizard - 10 damage, for example, in this scenario - to vanish entirely after a nap.
 

moisan4

Villager
-Separate ASI and feats. ASI are too important to miss out on, but feats add uniqueness and specialty. Even/odd number ability scores from feats and their usefulness could be worked on.
-Half (3/6) of the caster classes use charisma, yet only two feats that isn't race specific adds charisma. In comparison, only one caster class uses intelligence, yet there are four non race specific feats that add intelligence. Are they even trying?
-Add more feats, and not just race specific. Some races have many feats, others have none. They add more variety in builds.
-Classes and more importantly sub classes need to be way more unique. Better balance, and more variety and options. Beast master, wild magic, berserker, four elements, cough, cough... Really bad execution of concepts.
-Balance classes for refreshed abilities on short rests. Every class should benefit from short rests besides healing, or no one. It's a really awkward mechanic for a party as it exists now.
-Spell overhaul. Remove redundancy, and balance the rest. There are a lot of bad spells in every spell list, and a few jems. Faerie fire is insane, and no official errata for healing spirit, really?
-Marital classes like battle master are great but flawed. Manoeuvres should be like spells, better ones are locked by level advancement. You take the best manoeuvres at level 3, then picking lesser ones later.
-Most classes need more bonus and reaction spells and abilities. Valor bard bonus action attack is a step in the right direction.
-More options for character creation that gives more opportunities to do variable things both on the battle field and for role playing that are class specific.
-Remove rangers favoured enemies, it's junk. I know it's a staple, but it's time to pull that staple.
-More skills and abilities that add advantage or disadvantage. Faerie fire adds an AOE, save or suck, 25% hit probability increase to an entire party with a 1st level spell only available to two classes.
-Also the way D&D material is written has always sucked in relation to rules. An example: Advantage or disadvantage. Almost no skill or ability plainly says it adds advantage or disadvantage, they'll say it's adds a condition. Then you need to know what that condition does, which is advantage or disadvantage. D&D material is famously bad for this.
-Things like unlimited cantrips, manoeuvres, metamagic, fighting styles, and invocations are great. They add variety to class builds and play style. More of this please.
 
Last edited:

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
"Wing it" doesn't really provide the kind of guidance that I'm looking for. In 3.5, things are clearly spelled out, and I'm far more comfortable figuring out what to do and how.

The transmuter ability is not laid out clearly. At all. A sentence or two is not clearly laying out how the ability works. For example, can the material be worked in its new state? Does it retain its worked shape when it reverts? This is the first thing my Wizard wanted to do with his new ability. The first. thing. The crafting rules in Xanathar's are the barest hint of guidance and doesn't really tell me how to run a session of crafting.

It may be simple, but that's my problem with it: it's so simple it doesn't actually provide me the guidance I need to decide how the system works. Anyway, this is way offtopic now, so I'm just going to agree to disagree.
If you are looking for a game that clearly defines things like what Intimidate can do in combat, has clear and concise rules, and provides more guidance on how to cover things not explicitly covered in the rules while having better handling time at the table than 3.5 you might want to take a look at Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
 

Eubani

Explorer
A little more experimentation and looking forward regardless of Grognard tears, tantrums and threats. A Fighter with choices and utility including out of combat. More decision points in character creation. Separate the gain of combat and out of combat feats. Make race affect the character more and past 1st level.
 

qstor

Adventurer
No thanks. I want off the edition treadmill entirely and forever. I recognize that might be asking too much, but that is what I want from 6e- it never to come around.
I don't see corporate WotC and Hasbro letting the core of 5e stand unchanged. I give the 6e announcement next year which will be the sixth year of 5e.
 

Olaf the Stout

Adventurer
If someone at WotC could figure out how to write a proper index that would be great. That and a better way to know what part of the book you're in. I mean, there's dozens and dozens of books (not just RPG books, but travel books, etc.) that have found great ways to make their material as accessible as possible, so WotC really have no excuses there.
 

Advertisement

Top