D&D (2024) Toward a Theory of 6th Edition

[Oofta]

We're going to get rid of the paladins and gnomes in 5.5e.

Huh. That's not what I heard. It was gnomish paladins for everyone. The only choice dual wielding rapiers or using two rapiers at the same time.

It greatly simplifies the game while still giving a lot of flexibility. Does your know speak with a high squeaky voice? Or just talk really rapidly? The options are nearly endless.

 

[Tormyr]

We're going to get rid of the paladins and gnomes in 5.5e.

I have 5 months to figure out how to get Mike Mearls to announce that the next full version of D&D is going to expand on all variations of gnome paladins and eliminate everything else.

EDIT: &%$#*!, I got ninja'd on this?!?!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

Fundamentally, I think you're confusing a character's history and culture for their class.

Um, actually, no. But I do think you are not understanding (or did not read carefully enough) my argument.

Race is a mix of your genetics and cultural upbringing.
Backgrounds are your personal life. Where you a noble? Farmer? Have to live on the streets for a living?
Class is a lot like your current profession. Your job. What you do for a living NOW.

Yes, that's the purported intent. And, as we've seen with classes like Barbarian and Ranger, the model breaks down and should be reconsidered.

 

[Parmandur]

Class, sub-class & background was prettymuch how Essentials, which Mearls also helmed, was done. I don't recall if HotFK/L omitted Themes or downplayed them, but HotFw & HotEC made strong use of Themes, which were more like what the OP's proposing. Nothing like that hit the playtest, as best I can remember - I participated in the whole playtest, but sometimes the packets cycled faster than the playtests I was running....

I didn't tune in until Spring of '14, so I didn't participate directly: but one of the older playtesting docs I saw definitely had Themes, rather like subclasses that could be applied to any class.

 

[Mephista]

And, as we've seen with classes like Barbarian and Ranger, the model breaks down and should be reconsidered.

That's just it, it doesn't break down. You just jump right from the barbarian warrior profession to tribal culture, and try to firmly associate the two as if they're the same thing. They're not. You grossly oversimply Ranger to being a "woodsman," and that too is not true - rangers are defined by being professional hunters, which is entirely different thing than you describe in the opening paragraph. Being a hunter, and thus a Ranger, is an entire tradecraft. You cannot just simplify it as learning basic outdoor skills.

You asked what people thought, and here's my answer - you're mixing up culture and calling in your post, which just undermines your entire post.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think they need to go old school B/E and get ride of races and backgrounds, instead gnome is a class for example. The gnome would know hattery and paladining, halflings would be quasi barbarians, etc. Simplify and make the game run more smoothly. If you can't whip up a 20th level gnome in 5 minutes its too complicated.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's just it, it doesn't break down. You just jump right from the barbarian warrior profession to tribal culture, and try to firmly associate the two as if they're the same thing. They're not. You grossly oversimply Ranger to being a "woodsman," and that too is not true - rangers are defined by being professional hunters, which is entirely different thing than you describe in the opening paragraph. Being a hunter, and thus a Ranger, is an entire tradecraft. You cannot just simplify it as learning basic outdoor skills.

Yes, yes, I totally understand what the intent is. And I say (and lots of people have agreed in many threads) that it's just not working.

Imagine that your "Hunter" is a class. "Woodsman" is a Template/Background. The current "Ranger" is fulfilled by playing a Hunter/Woodsman. But you could play an urban Bounty Hunter by taking "Hunter" with a different background, and you wouldn't be stuck with skills unapplicable skills. Or an Underdark Hunter.

You asked what people thought, and here's my answer - you're mixing up culture and calling in your post, which just undermines your entire post.

You seem to think I don't understand how culture and calling are used. So, yes, I'm "mixing them up" in the sense of "stirring the pot", but not in the sense of confusing one for the other.

 

[Mercule]

1. Less magic, but better magic. I want magic to be awesome, and rare. No 1/3 spellcasters, few (if any) 1/2 spellcasters, and spells should be infrequent and amazing.

If we're going pie-in-the-sky, I'll actually one-up you. Make today's primary casters into 1/2 casters. Put out a PHB2 that details levels 21-40 and extends the spell tables through 9th level spells.

"Name level" in 1E AD&D was pretty much epic level. The system did OK above that level, but it was a bit funky. Anything above 5th level spells were largely there as set dressing and plot hooks. Over the years, there's come to be a feeling that you're somehow "cheated" if you don't get (at least theoretic) access to every spell in a reasonable period of time. Phooey. The higher levels operate fundamentally different because there's a sharp spike in impact of magic on the game. Just go ahead a "re-set" name level to epic level and accept it.

I expect there to be lots of folks who vehemently disagree with my take on this, but I can live with that.

 

[TwoSix]

If we're going pie-in-the-sky, I'll actually one-up you. Make today's primary casters into 1/2 casters. Put out a PHB2 that details levels 21-40 and extends the spell tables through 9th level spells.

"Name level" in 1E AD&D was pretty much epic level. The system did OK above that level, but it was a bit funky. Anything above 5th level spells were largely there as set dressing and plot hooks. Over the years, there's come to be a feeling that you're somehow "cheated" if you don't get (at least theoretic) access to every spell in a reasonable period of time. Phooey. The higher levels operate fundamentally different because there's a sharp spike in impact of magic on the game. Just go ahead a "re-set" name level to epic level and accept it.

I expect there to be lots of folks who vehemently disagree with my take on this, but I can live with that.

I'm down. More abilities like warlock invocations, maybe more slots, but less powerful abilities.