D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[Sacrosanct]

Valid. Then again it is much closer to that than 4e was.

I won't argue that. I'm just saying that for every person who feels like 5e doesn't allow you to start as a hero, you'll have someone who says they start too heroic. So the truth is probably in the middle.

 

[Morrus]

As someone who prefers tactical combat, a fair amount of crunch, not being forced to wait until level 3-5 before I get to start making good on my character concept, and not being afraid of losing my character in the early game, what exactly do you recommend?

www.levelup5e.com

 

[Stalker0]

Valid. Then again it is much closer to that than 4e was.

Yeah I think that is where my perspective comes from. When I compared 5e to 4e, I noted that 1st level felt more "back to basics" than 4e's 1st level did. But I can respect that for 1e players it never got to "schlep level"

 

[dave2008]

You act as though I as a player have any control over this at all.

It is to bad that is your experience. D&D at its best, IMO, is a collaborative group effort. The players absolutely should have a say in such things. That is how I DM at least.

 

[dave2008]

I come from old school D&D (literally going directly from 1e to 5e in 2012 playtest), and I would make the argument that in 5e, first level is already a hero level, and zero to hero doesn't exist in 5e. I mean, look at 1e's classes (especially casters and thieves) and compare them to their 5e counterparts. It's not even close

Me too. We actually started our 5e campaign at level 0. You make the character the same, but you don't chose a class. You just get your race and background, no class benefits at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Me too. We actually started our 5e campaign at level 0. You make the character the same, but you don't chose a class. You just get your race and background, no class benefits at all.

Cool. How you determine the hit points?

 

[dave2008]

Cool. How you determine the hit points?

Well we use to pools: Hit Points (HP) and Bloodied Hit Points (BHP). At level 0, you only get your BHP, no HP. So every hit is bloody

FYI, HP are figured and applied normally and BHP are applied on critical hits and after HP gets to 0. BHP are determined by size, STR, & CON. Medium = 1. SO your BHP = 1 x (Str mod + Con mod).

There are more rules involved if your interested.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Rules cannot fix people issues. If you and the GM don't want to play the similar game that's not a rule issue.

They're called levels 1-3. Playing them is not forced to you any more than any other content.

So where do I go to find these mythical DMs that are willing start at the level I might possibly like to play? It would definitely make a difference in my interest.

I have literally found ZERO DMs thus far who were willing to even momentarily consider it. One had the patience to let me make an argument for it, and then said (essentially) "no, this is what's going to happen, it will be fine." (Spoiler alert: it was not fine.)

Realistically that is a question of semantics. Whether I say 1st level is the "hero level" compared to a "0" level, or I say 3rd is the hero level and 1st-2nd are your novice levels....its all the same thing. Now I can appreciate the book noting for new DMs that you do not have to start PCs at 1st level, and could even give suggestions on what level to start based on what kind of campaign they want to run.

The only way a person truly gets "shorted" is if the 1st level is already full hero and there is no zero level, as then there is no by the book way for a DM to run a novice campaign. In 5e, I personally feel that 1st level is still pretty novice, and 3rd level is the true "coming into your own", so I think it is offering the cake and eating it too.

I grant that a lack of "schlub" support was a flaw of 4e. I have never said otherwise. But I think you are far, far too quick to dismiss the "semantic" problem. Many many many many DMs see "1st level" and automatically--even reflexively--treat that as the necessary starting point for 100% of games. That may be simply an "error" of many DMs conflating this numeral value with an efficacious or procedural value. However, the error is so widespread, it seems much more practical (since we're already talking about a hypothetical 6e) to just accept that humans are silly in this particular way and design the game to short-circuit it.

The even bigger problem though? Newbie players and newbie DMs. I've seen three different novice DMs give up on DMimg 5e because of the incredible swinginess of the game, having one party punch three levels above its weight while another gets 1 death saving throw shy of a TPK on a merely slightly difficult fight. (I was, unfortunately, in the near-TPK group. This has happened 3 out of 4 times I've tried 5e where we had to start at 1st level.) New players benefit from a smoother and simpler introduction, yet also from getting to play a cool concept right away, and from not being horribly punished for errors made while they're still learning. Brutal lethality at lower levels is, yes, (somewhat) supportive of the older-school playstyle, but anti-supportive of newbie players, unless it's specifically opted into by the group and the new player is made aware that that is what they're getting. Bumping up to 3rd or even 5th level is anti-supportive for newbie players because they now have far more THINGS to figure out, pushing the already-high barrier of entry even higher.

I won't argue that. I'm just saying that for every person who feels like 5e doesn't allow you to start as a hero, you'll have someone who says they start too heroic. So the truth is probably in the middle.

I agree, and think the best way to address this is to make rules for each thing, that are well-supported and neither deprecated nor pushed, rather each getting its use cases discussed and advice offered for how to make each sing.

www.levelup5e.com

I am extremely cautiously optimistic, yes. But again, this would be significantly more than the "customization usually present at the table" idea (paraphrased) from the poster I quoted earlier.

Yeah I think that is where my perspective comes from. When I compared 5e to 4e, I noted that 1st level felt more "back to basics" than 4e's 1st level did. But I can respect that for 1e players it never got to "schlep level"

Which is why, as I said above, I advocate explicit, well-supported, and (ideally) indefinitely extensible zero-level rules. That way, any variation along the line between "schlub" and "competent adventuring hero" is covered, including "schlub to super-schlub," for those who never want to become "heroic" at all!

It is to bad that is your experience. D&D at its best, IMO, is a collaborative group effort. The players absolutely should have a say in such things. That is how I DM at least.

It's how I do as well. But we live in the age of "DM empowerment," where the rules are suggestions, and the actual suggestions and advice are like the Imperial Senate: remnants to be swept away.

 

[bmfrosty]

Whether they call it 5.1e or 5.5e or 6e or 5e Revised is all semantics.

I like the idea of them keeping the math the same keeping chapters 5+ of the PHB mostly unchanged (except for cleaning up clunky rules like underwater and dual wielding). Character creation where all the important changes seem to be likely coming from. I think that they're going to have to do something with races and backgrounds most importantly.

Races at bare minimum need to be renamed. Tasha's probably points the direction that they're taking.
Backgrounds could be broken up to make the back and forth a little less onerous.

Classes will be rewritten to some end I'm sure. Maybe something to make bonus actions unneeded. Mostly just to mix it up for players, I'm sure.

 

[DnD Warlord]

Overall, I agree with these.



If they're smart, they'll instead present variable rest times right in the PHB so it becomes more obvious that you can, and probably should, tweak these to meet the needs of your game, with more guidance in the DMG.

So, slightly less than a 50/50 chance.

One of my favorite camapaigns I had short rests take 9hours with at least 6 hours of sleep/rest and enough food for a meal and someplace realitivly safe.
Long rests took a week in a bed with food and safety.