OneDnD Pie in the Sky 6E


log in or register to remove this ad

I want combat to feel more like a fighting game -- by which I mean more active defense instead of simply hoping your opponent rolls lower than your AC. You would have parries and counters as reactions, or perhaps different types of defenses you choose on your turn that will force your opponent to change up tactics instead of just doing 'attack' over and over.

But I want that only if it's done in a way that doesn't slow the game down.
 

Mezuka

Hero
I want combat to feel more like a fighting game -- by which I mean more active defense instead of simply hoping your opponent rolls lower than your AC. You would have parries and counters as reactions, or perhaps different types of defenses you choose on your turn that will force your opponent to change up tactics instead of just doing 'attack' over and over.

But I want that only if it's done in a way that doesn't slow the game down.
That is what Steve Jackson wanted after trying D&D for the first time. He created Melee, later GURPS.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I know I shouldn't say it, but 4e Wizards didn't use Vancian style magic, and that was an actual complaint by those who didn't like the system.
I think it was more in terms of spell recovery pacing (encounter/daily) and restricted spell known, since the Wizard could no longer fill the niche of the guy with every spells in the world written in their spell book.

and well, let's be honest, there was also a long of complaining for the sake of it because it was new and different. :p
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
Oh, speaking of Wizard and magic: ''Vancian'' casting references are so far removed from the current zeitgeist that it seems like an hipster move to keep it in the game.

Nobody coming for the first time in D&D in the past 20 years has had in mind: ''gosh, I hope my spellcasters work like the ones from Jack Vance's Dying Earth!''. Nobody.

Either use a strain system or a mana pool and arrive in 2022, WotC!

There. I said it!
... given the choice I'll take a mana pool.

Your core class ability shouldn't make you suck at existing for using it in a D&D style game.
I want combat to feel more like a fighting game -- by which I mean more active defense instead of simply hoping your opponent rolls lower than your AC. You would have parries and counters as reactions, or perhaps different types of defenses you choose on your turn that will force your opponent to change up tactics instead of just doing 'attack' over and over.

But I want that only if it's done in a way that doesn't slow the game down.
3e introduced "Players roll all dice" so instead of an attack roll coming at you, you'd roll with your armor bonus to beat their Attack DC.

I think that's mostly good enough to make it work? Maybe have different "Ways" to defend yourself. Whether it's big heavy armor + Con bonus to be durable, Light armor + Dex + Weapon Mod for parry, or Intelligence+Proficiency to use a mystical barrier.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Oh, speaking of Wizard and magic: ''Vancian'' casting references are so far removed from the current zeitgeist that it seems like an hipster move to keep it in the game.

Nobody coming for the first time in D&D in the past 20 years has had in mind: ''gosh, I hope my spellcasters work like the ones from Jack Vance's Dying Earth!''. Nobody.

Either use a strain system or a mana pool and arrive in 2022, WotC!

There. I said it!
I'd be happy if they arrived in 1999 in terms of magic systems.
 

payn

Legend
Have you ever tried playing with "cool magic items"?

As much as I sympathize with the dislike for simple +x items that boost numbers and push bottom spell dispensers, if you move too far from that model the game becomes unplayable owing to information overload.

Complex magic items and especially those with numinous effects become a massive burden on play because of their situational effect on resolution. The less the player knows how the item works, the worse the problem gets. But it turns out that not fully understanding something is often a precondition for it being numinous and thus feeling 'magical', and you actually need the player to help with process resolution just to reduce your mental burden.

I tried running a game where everything had artifact like complexity without artifact like power, and it worked right up until when everyone started getting multiple magic items. Then it was too complex.

There are a lot of things as a GM I thought I wanted which turn out not to work - social combat systems, realistic languages, realistic coinage, magical feeling magic items, etc. Each has their own problem that makes the game worse that can't be overcome in pen and paper (or at all). You can do 'cool magic items' like Diablo II or Noita if you have a computer to run the math and keep track of whether the magic is working. With a computer you could even obfuscate the information about the item from the player so that they don't know why the craziness is happening. But it turns out that you can only have a couple such items in an entire campaign.

So you are stuck I think with trying to create flavor for what is at the bottom just +2 swords and push button spell dispensers.
I haven't because folks always choose a +2 breastplate over a cool magic breast plate that doesn't offer a math bump. Just bake the +2 to AC or attack into character progression already.

I see two ways of handling magic properties, either you go rulings over rules on how magic interacts with the game, or you hard codify its ability with the mechanics. I'm fine winging it, I do it a lot, but I know that makes many gamers quite unhappy.
 



Celebrim

Legend
Rod of Lordly Might is probably excessive, but definitely sign me up for getting rid of basic +1-3 magic items. Magic items can have all kinds of wonderful effects without a +1 in sight.

The problem is not that the write up is excessive. The problem is that at it's heart, the original Swiss Army Magic Item is just a combo +X item and push button spell dispenser with more than one button on it. You get a +1, +2, +3, and +4 item combined with 7 different spells to dispense a couple of which are 'at will'.
If anything, the write up is too short, because as soon as the PC figures out he can force doors with by planting it against something, I'm going to need to know how that enormous force of a Storm Giant can be applied against something other than a door because my players will come up with infinite creative uses not described by the rules (since opening doors was a subsystem in 1e that didn't interact with anything else). Give the GM at least some guidelines here.
 

What people should steel themselves for is a basic likelihood.
DnD's base rules are not going to get any more complex than they are now. If anything, expect even more streamlining.
 


Things I want that have not been mentioned or I want to specify my own touches:

I want a two*-pronged game (either two distinct pillars, or a divergence at maybe 6th or 9th level. One column is where the warriors and rogue are/stay experienced everypersons who succeed by luck, brilliance, caginess and (mostly) realistic application of force and daring-do; paired with spellcasters who make illusionary vipers to scare away enemies or create 'pay hp to bypass' crowd control like walls of thorns or other relatively grounded magics. The other column is where there are spellcasters who can raise the dead, traverse the planes, turn back time, grant wishes, and such; they are alongside warriors who lop the tops off mountains, rogues who can leap to the clouds (and balance on them), bards who can serenade Death itself until it gives up a loved one, and so forth. *or more, with potential for middle grounds

Alternately, I would like a game where warriors and rogues fought alongside Battlemages who use spells instead of swords and arrows (the spells doing similar, if not identical, things to said swords and arrows) and Taskmages who used spells instead of skills (again, of similar style and scope). The spells that raised the dead and travelled the planes and such would then be part of a separate progression unrelated to class (and maybe main level) that is open to anyone (and the answer to 'is magic better?' becomes 'yes, but since this is open to everyone, the spellcasting classes aren't better').

Regardless, I would an expansive non-magical, non-combat resolution system, where people can do more than just succeed or fail. This too will likely have to be divided for people who want 'realistic' heroes, and those who are playing Beowulf swimming for days in armor (and maybe in-between). Fighters should be allowed at this table, to the point where the line between dexterous fighters and rogues (or burly rogues and other types of fighters) may become blurry. That's fine. If these need to be in supplements or 'stronghold builder's guide,' 'intrigue-maker's guide,' etc. so be it.

On to what others have said...
Cutting out like at least 1/3rd of the spells, but none of the new ones, just from the original PHB. There's so many in there, and tbh, I really don't know why they exist in 5E. I'm not sure Simulacrum needs to be in the game anymore.

But it can stay, if they make the game fun for Dms to run at high levels.
Honestly, the spell names and base ideas can stay, the implementations just have to really be crafted (and tested, and tested again) to make sure that they don't disrupt the game. I recall Simulacrum and summons and druid wildshape and shapechange-y spells in various editions which were honestly pretty weak (wish has always been a nightmare balanced against costs the first step was finding a way around suffering). The various Force _____ spells could also be made less break-ish if you could just regular-violence your way through them, etc.
Better or any real support for running chases (similar to Hot Pursuit), crafting, aerial combat (facing!), naval combat, mass combat (bring back Battlesystem in some form), and dominions and dynastic play. Support for natural blessings and curses. Support for divine intervention. Support for holy sites, holy days, astrology, and magically tainted areas or nodes of power. Support for spirits, shamanism, and animism. Support for horror and madness. Disease and injury support. Support for 'man vs. nature' scenarios. Support for fumbles, spell fumbles, and stunts. Rebalance win button spells. Truly useful religious supplements (see Book of the Righteous). Exploration as a true pillar of play. Functional guidelines for running social challenges/encounters. Reduced number inflation with play as the goal of play and not leveling as goal of play.

Return D&D to it's roots as a world simulation and stop trying to assume what game is going to happen at the table and just support the game you think I'm going to play or want to play. Let my table decide where the focus of play is. Let my decide what the difficulty and tier is going to be. Sell me minigames that extend the game. Stop selling alternative chargen as the focus of what your rules offer.
Bravissimo! Magnifico! Other words of adulation!
It often makes me really wonder what play at some of these designers tables is like. Are their players so tame and lacking in creativity and novel desires that they really think they are offering functional rules? I feel like I have to write a couple of pages of house rules after practically every session because of the huge areas that players want to explore that the game system doesn't cover, and that is true of actually expansive rules sets and not just the overly narrow "the game is about chargen and combat" rules of 4e and 5e.
I would hold off on assuming this has anything to do with what the designers play, and more about what they think we the buying public want as a common architecture of gameplay. I'm assuming that their tables have all sorts of social encounters, politics, domain play, wilderness whatnot, but they don't believe we want what they use (or not 51% or more of us want any given version thereof, that last part probably being true).
An edition change in which the fans don't use it as an excuse to be complete jerks to each other.
Man, you dream bigger than I. If wishes were horses, I would get an Andalusian showhorse , and you'd get a pegacentauricorn.
Not to be flippant, but you play and see what happens.

It's tough to articulate because there aren't really a ton of system to compare it to, but I want a D&D where your farmboy doesn't get Extra Attack because he hit 5th level and is a fighter, he gets Extra Attack because he helped the son of a famous swordsmaster and the swordsmaster agrees to teach him his techniques.
Wouldn't that be any of the point-buys (GURPS, HERO, etc.) with training as a gate/point reducer? I love the idea, but class&level seem like rather hard to shake D&D-isms.
 

Things I want that have not been mentioned or I want to specify my own touches:

I want a two*-pronged game (either two distinct pillars, or a divergence at maybe 6th or 9th level. One column is where the warriors and rogue are/stay experienced everypersons who succeed by luck, brilliance, caginess and (mostly) realistic application of force and daring-do; paired with spellcasters who make illusionary vipers to scare away enemies or create 'pay hp to bypass' crowd control like walls of thorns or other relatively grounded magics. The other column is where there are spellcasters who can raise the dead, traverse the planes, turn back time, grant wishes, and such; they are alongside warriors who lop the tops off mountains, rogues who can leap to the clouds (and balance on them), bards who can serenade Death itself until it gives up a loved one, and so forth. *or more, with potential for middle grounds

Alternately, I would like a game where warriors and rogues fought alongside Battlemages who use spells instead of swords and arrows (the spells doing similar, if not identical, things to said swords and arrows) and Taskmages who used spells instead of skills (again, of similar style and scope). The spells that raised the dead and travelled the planes and such would then be part of a separate progression unrelated to class (and maybe main level) that is open to anyone (and the answer to 'is magic better?' becomes 'yes, but since this is open to everyone, the spellcasting classes aren't better').

Regardless, I would an expansive non-magical, non-combat resolution system, where people can do more than just succeed or fail. This too will likely have to be divided for people who want 'realistic' heroes, and those who are playing Beowulf swimming for days in armor (and maybe in-between). Fighters should be allowed at this table, to the point where the line between dexterous fighters and rogues (or burly rogues and other types of fighters) may become blurry. That's fine. If these need to be in supplements or 'stronghold builder's guide,' 'intrigue-maker's guide,' etc. so be it.

On to what others have said...

Honestly, the spell names and base ideas can stay, the implementations just have to really be crafted (and tested, and tested again) to make sure that they don't disrupt the game. I recall Simulacrum and summons and druid wildshape and shapechange-y spells in various editions which were honestly pretty weak (wish has always been a nightmare balanced against costs the first step was finding a way around suffering). The various Force _____ spells could also be made less break-ish if you could just regular-violence your way through them, etc.

Bravissimo! Magnifico! Other words of adulation!

I would hold off on assuming this has anything to do with what the designers play, and more about what they think we the buying public want as a common architecture of gameplay. I'm assuming that their tables have all sorts of social encounters, politics, domain play, wilderness whatnot, but they don't believe we want what they use (or not 51% or more of us want any given version thereof, that last part probably being true).

Man, you dream bigger than I. If wishes were horses, I would get an Andalusian showhorse , and you'd get a pegacentauricorn.

Wouldn't that be any of the point-buys (GURPS, HERO, etc.) with training as a gate/point reducer? I love the idea, but class&level seem like rather hard to shake D&D-isms.
If the spells are made just cooler and more engaging, sure. But do we really need Simulacrum AND Clone? Couldn't we just combine those into one spell and move on with it?

And should Wish really stay a spell? I'd say not. It should be a 20th level feature or feat or something, but ought we give it out at 17th level? I'm just not sure.

These kinds of questions I would like for WotC to ask and reflect on.
 





doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The ability to improvise spells. And the knowledge spells (except history I guess) all have magical applications (like identifying magic).

Hard code that skills can do anything, and provide the framework to make it so. This means anyone can disarm someone or rally their allies, and a character like the Battlemaster simply are better at it.

Remove the bonus action requirement from dual wielding.

Give some characters, like the swashbuckler rogue, the ability to simply attack once as a bonus action.

Remake the Monk as the Mystic, but keep the design such that you can use 2014 Monk subclasses with the 2024 Mystic.

Rework when the ranger gets some abilities, and make them the “Jack of all trades” for skills. Again, keep things in order such that old subclasses still work.

Reduce Bardic Spellcasting to something like 2/3, beef bardic inspiration way up, and add several spells that are similar to the 3.5 songs or 4e daily powers that last through the encounter, buffing the whole team.

Give fighters the ability to just change a fail to a success on a single ability check, attack, or saving throw, PB/LR.

Add artificer to core books.
 

I would like to see the things I complained about in the "what do you find wrong with 5e"-thread fixed, but I guess, most of that is already in the sky-pie-region.
And I want the bloody Wisdom stat gone :)
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top