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



## Nebulous

I imagine it is still 5 years off, give or take, but WotC is probably doing the groundwork now, and considering how they might want to change their flagship game.  I do like 5e, but I want some more granularity in the rules, and I want them really listen to the community. 

1. Better book presentation.  It's hard to find what you need in the PHB aside from the spells.  I love the artwork, that's not the issue, but proper labeling of chapters and information, which PF does better.  And any book by Monte Cook. 

2. A skill system that is fun.  And more defined rules that takes away some of the guesswork.

3. Monsters that are tougher out of the box, with appropriate skills themselves, that don't need houserules to be challenging

4. And please, for God's sake, fix the ranger.  At this point I'm advocating kill that sacred cow, break up ALL of a Ranger's abilities and and make it some kind of archetype that can be layered in pieces over any class, so you could even have a thief/ranger or cleric/ranger.

What else would you like to see?


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

I'd rather see an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" that's basically compatible with 5E but has more complex character building and combat rules.


----------



## TwoSix

I don't think there's a need to go up an edition.  I could see a revised Player's Handbook a few years down the line that changes some of the character creation rules, maybe adds some new options, but the characters themselves run on the same underlying math.  So an original fighter and a new fighter are different, but can be played at the same table because they have the same general range of attack modifiers, damage, and HP.


----------



## Parmandur

I doubt they are even laying the groundwork at this point, since sales are continuing to be astronomical.

That being said, if I could dictate the next edition:

1. Make it backwards compatible with 5E rules: a %e adventure could be run in 6E, and a 5E PC can walk up to a 6E table without any issues. So no major system or process changes per se, but make the changes on the exceptions based parts of the game, so:

2. Make every Class choose the Subclass at Level 1. Allows for more variety in the design space, and people already plan their character around their archetype anyways.

3. Remove Feats and 3E style multiclassing, but use the ASI slots for soemthing like the Pathfinder 2 Archetype system, so the player can choose a multiclass archetype or a thematic archetype like "pirate" or "knight of the realm."

4. Design the Ranger around favored terrain as the Subclass: Highlander Rangers from the Mountains, Steppe Nomad Rangers fro mthe Grasslands, Robin Hood Rangers from the Forrest, Moody Dark Elf Rangers fro mthe Underdark, etc. Give it some actual flavor.

5. Bring the Artificer and Psion into the PHB


----------



## DND_Reborn

Unfortunately, I would want so many changes you could hardly call it D&D anymore. If I had a couple million dollars and a staff (much of the money would go towards paying the staff LOL) and a few years without having to work, I would make my own version.


----------



## Nebulous

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I'd rather see an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" that's basically compatible with 5E but has more complex character building and combat rules.




That, probably, is what 6e will be


----------



## CapnZapp

/in before the necro


----------



## Charlaquin

CapnZapp said:


> /in before the necro



Huh? The thread is 17 minutes old...


----------



## MonkeezOnFire

I'd like to see classes have more decision points for features. As right now once you've picked your subclass there isn't a lot of choice upon level up. It would be interesting if upon leveling you had a choice between a handful of features to take to differentiate builds within a class further. 

Other than that everything I want could probably easily be patched into 5e. An arcane half caster (the last artificer looked really good for this), Genasi that didn't suck, a feat to grant additional reactions now that we have some subclasses that can use them in interesting ways.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Huh? The thread is 17 minutes old...




He's saying he wants to review this when 6E may come to pass and somebody reopens this for humor value.


----------



## Ancalagon

I have no desire to see 6e, but it will happen, eventually...

My main problem with 5e is the tension between short rest and long rest classes and how it impacts pacing.


----------



## Parmandur

Ancalagon said:


> I have no desire to see 6e, but it will happen, eventually...
> 
> My main problem with 5e is the tension between short rest and long rest classes and how it impacts pacing.




That tension is super-intentional, and I think it adds to the game: but it depends on what people are saying in late 5E, whenever that might happen.


----------



## Lidgar

- I'd like a 5e core but most classes tweaked so they are less magic heavy.

- Less focus on classes characterized by a list of powers, more focus on their role playing potential (partly through a re-haul of the skill system and partly more fluff).

- Change the default healing and rest mechanic so it is not "easy mode".


----------



## Charlaquin

My #1 hope for 6e is that it maintains the basic conversation of play from 5e. DM describes the scenario, players say what their characters do, DM adjudicates, potentially calling for a roll to resolve outstanding uncertainty, narrates the results, and begins the process again. If anything, it would be nice to make that process a little more explicit. Whatever I may feel about 5e’s player-side options, I think its core mechanics are rock solid, and I hope they don’t change too much.

There are a few sacred cows I really hope 6e finally slaughters. The ability score/ability bonus divide is a big one.

I really hope to see more decisions to make in character advancement. I don’t need 3e microfeats or skill ranks or anything, but more decision points than just class, subclass, and a handful of ASIs would be nice. Keep some simple, decision-free options for the folks who like that, but throw the crunch crowd a bone too please.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

I don't!


----------



## Blue

Mearls has talked about keeping 5e as "evergreen", which pushes down thoughts of 6e some. Why spend resources (= money) several years before it can recoup those costs if the sales of the books stay high? And even in the gluts of 3.x and 4e, the core books sales stayed high.

But, just in the spirit of the question, here's some thoguhts off the top of my head what I'd like to see in an all-new edition:

* More tools or guidelines for DMs to tweak the classes based on their table and setting.

* Better balance between different resource recovery models (long rest, short rest, at-will) so that different DMing styles or narrative needs for a particular adventure don't hinder or highlight one model over another.

* More detailed multi-roll systems outside of combat. The concept of a Skill Challenge was good, but limiting it to just skills plus the horrid* mechanical implementation didn't help.

* More options for abstracting parts of combat. One example I see people doing in 5e is treating groups of much-lower-level NPCs as swarms. So being able to have swarms of goblins, or treat the crew of your ship in such a way that they interact with the battle but are still quick and few rolls.

* Somewhere halfway between there - can I do a non-lethal bar brawl in a fun, narrative, and quick way that doesn't involve round-by-round tactics? Same for the higher level party taking out a bunch of goblins. A few rolls, a quick montage, 5 minutes of wall time at most.

* Make Inspiration more then just a bolt-on that many DMs ignore. Integrate it into clases and such. (Such as old Vampire:the Masquerade had doing things that met your internal or external natures to recharge things.)

* Keep the concepts of Concentration and Upcasting.

* Have other long term attrition options for the DM to use besides Exhaustion and HD.

* Keep classes (mostly) not getting more powerful abilities until 3rd or 5th to prevent multiclass cherrypicking. However, make classes get at 1st so they don't suddenly change play style at 3rd. (For example, the Scout subclass that doesn't get needed skills until 3rd needs to get fixed.)

* More use for other ability scores for every class.

* Less reason to rush to increase your "prime" ability score to cap because mathematically it's often the strongest choice in front of customization. (Maybe modifiers change slower like every 3 steps, or change slower as the modifier increases, or other way to say "it's just fine to play a character with a +2 or +3 in your prime ability score, that won't stop you from being reasonable.)

* Grant more 1st level customization options ... and make beginners able to make a character quicker. I put these together because they can be contradictory so need to be considered together. I can create a 1st level character in 15 minutes and find it lacks oomph and uniqueness until later levels, but working with brand-new-RPGers I've taken four hours or more to explain options, how ability scores interact with classes and how races interact with ability scores, spellcasting and going through spells to pick, etc. An example of this type of rule would be to give an ability score modifier from race (choice of a few), and then an ability score modifier from class (choice of a few) - that can't go to the same one. Suddenly any race can play any class, while still feeling like that race.

*Increase focus on background, both fluff and mechanically. That a sorcerer criminal makes a reasonable thief, and an sage fighter makes a reasonable learned man. One way would be making training a larger part of the bonus that ability scores.


EDIT TO ADD
* More design space given to races to keep them relevant.  For example, each race has enough features that we can have a bare-bones larged sized race without breaking things.  In addition have potential for racial advancement besides a small list of racial feats.

EVEN MORE BONUS EDIT TO ADD:
* Workable pets. (Beastmaster, necromancer, etc.). Putting action economy first (among other things) has caused consistant problems. Assume that an extra attack or two will still be shorter than the spellcaster and get over it.

* Multiple formats, with reasonable costs once you own the format to get it in another format.  Hardcover, softcover, PDF, digitally integrated.  Yes, the cost for some of those changes of formatting is real an needs to be covered - moving to PDF isn't just checking layout, it's bookmarking, putting in indexes, covering watermarking & distribution costs.  Just like *cover have distribution costs.  Digitally integrated even more so, and probably separate for each application.  But being able to by a book for $30+format cost, and then rebuy the book for just $format cost plus a small convience fee - very nice.  And working with 3rd party like D&DBeyond, that $format can go majorly to them, and iof someoen is buying content for the first time through them the $content cost cost mostly to WotC.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I'd like the potential 6e to give more space to players choices beyond class. For the moment, race and background doesnt matter a lot past character creation. I'd like to choices to ''get better'' at higher level, just like class.

Like:
at level X,Y,Z you gain class features
at level A,B,C you gain new race features
at level F,G,H you gain new background features

a little like PF2, but with less mechanical tidbits, more streamlined.

EDIT:
and build the game starting with the exploration or social pillars, instead of them being afterthoughts once combat mechanics are all in place.


----------



## Parmandur

vincegetorix said:


> I'd like the potential 6e to give more space to players choices beyond class. For the moment, race and background doesnt matter a lot past character creation. I'd like to choices to ''get better'' at higher level, just like class.
> 
> Like:
> at level X,Y,Z you gain class features
> at level A,B,C you gain new race features
> at level F,G,H you gain new background features
> 
> a little like PF2, but with less mechanical tidbits, more streamlined.
> 
> EDIT:
> and build the game starting with the exploration or social pillars, instead of them being afterthoughts once combat mechanics are all in place.




I've been thinking about looking to the Ravnica Guilds as an example, and giving Tier based fluff abilities to other backgrounds: new stuff at 5th, 11th and 17th levels.


----------



## the Jester

Nebulous said:


> I imagine it is still 5 years off, give or take, but WotC is probably doing the groundwork now, and considering how they might want to change their flagship game.




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.

What I want from 5e is a better suite of options- more dials that can be tweaked to achieve various desired playstyles. I want more and better options for setting up different rates of recovery from resting. I want more and different methods of advancing with or without xp. I want a suite of options that brings back the feel of 4e combat. I want mass combat rules and domain management systems.



Nebulous said:


> 1. Better book presentation.  It's hard to find what you need in the PHB aside from the spells.




Just increasing the font size of the index and getting rid of every single entry that references another entry instead of just putting a page number on it, making the goddamn page numbers in the book readably dark instead of light enough that you can't see 'em in dim lighting, and putting a sort of "you are here" down the side of every page (like in PF2e) would pretty well fix this, IMHO.


----------



## RSIxidor

My wishes for a 6E.

Core of 5E ruleset - bounded accuracy, advantage, actions, etc

Rules to allow more variety of builds - but don't break the class+subclass model. Just give more options within that flavor framework. More choices on proficiency in skills to express personal choices (maybe proficiency and expertise are choices for all characters at certain levels and some classes/races/backgrounds get more). Maybe modify the class+subclass framework to allow for multiple subclasses to be chosen, with limitations. Multiclassing could also come from this subclass structure, though I don't personally have much issue with the per-level MC'ng. Make races and backgrounds provide more options as well. I started as a guild artisan, cool. Maybe sometime later I can become a master guildsman or something.

Rangers without favored anything. It's a sacred cow that I just don't care about. Make it so that rangers are extremely good at tracking, good at dealing with rough terrain, and good at hunting prey. Favored whatsits could be an optional feature but shouldn't have to be a forced one.

Add options to use skills more in combat where they make sense. Frightening with intimidation. Declaring a duel with diplomacy (or something). Acrobatics to disengage without spending an action.


----------



## Celebrim

I would like D&D Next to basically be D&D Last.   

I could see adding an Advanced Rules Supplement down the line that complexes up the game for people (who like me) find the 5e game a bit too much inspired by BECMI and a bit too little like a modern version of AD&D, but way too much of the hobby is invested in rule smithing up new approaches to existing approaches. It's complete narcissism and wasted effort. If you are good at rulessmithing, actually tackle hard problems for which the system doesn't have a good approach. And if your good at story telling, your efforts would be better spent telling good stories in existing systems rather than reinventing the wheel. Forty years into the hobby, we have a ton of systems that ought to work well enough for whatever story you are wanting to tell, and our hobby has gotten advanced enough that these rules engines come with licenses many of which allow you to drive for free.

I'm a rules smith myself. I'm currently in the process of rewriting or creating all the minigames and subsystems that back (or should be backing) the Skull & Shackles AP, so that they support the story better, because it's really obvious to the less experienced GM trying to run the AP that despite it being an AP it's less a how to guide than a rudimentary framework to inspire a highly experienced DM. It's kind of embarassing to the whole hobby how vague the text is or how little detail is actually there compared to the verbiage. But some of the ideas here are really good, and I haven't read the text yet (because I'm a player right now), but it feels like with some refinement this could have been a classic.

It's almost never the core engine that is really the problem with a system. (Unless you are doing something with dice pools and number of successes, which in practice tends to always be pretty terrible no matter how elegant it sounds.) I have some problems with the 5e core engine but I think mechanically its good enough that if your game isn't fun, it's probably not the core engines fault. It could be subsystems, in that your trying to tell a story that isn't focused on the expected core gameplay (in the same way S&S is focused on running a ship, ship to ship combat, mass combat, and a bunch of subsystems tangential to the Pathfinder core engine) and I think modern systems eschew subsystems to their detriment rather than trying to build them. But much more likely, any problems a game has now aren't in the science of gaming, but the art of it.

So tl;dr - D&D Next, D&D Last, D&D Forever, and whatever you do it ought to be modular plug ins for people who need that mechanical support because they've drifted from the core gameplay the core rules support.   Much more than a new edition, I want to see companies putting out good examples of play.


----------



## ad_hoc

Nebulous said:


> 3. Monsters that are tougher out of the box, with appropriate skills themselves, that don't need houserules to be challenging




I hope not. We have already had plenty of TPKs at our table.

I have found the monsters to be very difficult as is. The system favours monsters as long as there isn't just 1.


----------



## digitalelf

the Jester said:


> No thanks. I want off the edition treadmill entirely and forever.




This was one of the myriad of reasons why I did not convert to 4th edition from 3rd edition (as well as a part in why I abandoned Pathfinder RPG).

But instead of sticking with 3rd edition, I went back to 2nd edition AD&D.


----------



## pogre

Very satisfied with 5e, but I would like to see more codified reasons for PCs to push their resources before resting. Adventure structure largely does this for me now, but some mechanical benefits would be welcome.


----------



## Horwath

1. 3d6 base instead of d20.

2. 4 base abilities instead of 4 or 6 abilities and for all checks at least 2 abilities are used.
I.E. melee attack roll str+dex, ranged dex+wis

3. Moving from default 3-18 ability range. Make ability 0 default value. -1 below average, +1 above average and move on from that point.

4. Splitting again ability increases from feats.

5. separate slots for combat feats and racial/skill/flavor feats.


6. Taking from PF2E 3 actions per round but making it 6 actions per round(for 6 seconds)

regular attack; 2 actions,

dual wield; 3 actions to attack with both weapons,

Spell casting: default spell 4 actions,

Cantrips: 3 actions,

Attack boosting spells(like smites, hex, mark); 1 action

Move; 1 action. Reduce all speeds to compensate

Draw and stove weapons: 1 action

Stand up; 1 action

Crossbow reload:1,2 or 3 actions

Rapid shot: 3 actions for 2 shots(via feat ofc)

Power attack: +1 action per attack

Cleave: 1 action

drinking potion: 1 action

Applying oil/poison: 1 action

Flurry of blows: 3 actions, 2 attacks or 5 actions, 4 attacks for 1 ki point.

Shift: 2 actions, 1 move without AoO

Run: 2 actions, 3 moves in a straight line

Hide: 1 action,

Move while hidden: 2 actions, 1 move speed,

Climb/swim(without natural speed): 2 actions, 1 move speed

Concentration on a spell: 1 spell=1 action. 2 spells=3 actions. 3 spells=6 actions.
For overland movement: 1 spell=no change, 2 spells=half movement, 3 spells=cannot move from the spot.

Ready: as much actions as readied action will take. Max 3 actions.


----------



## GlassJaw

I certainly do NOT want a 6th edition. The game is too popular right now to even risk splitting the fan base.

That said, I am definitely in the camp of wanting systems expanded and some more customization options.

I'd like to see the feat system redone, an advanced skill system, expanded weapons and armor, among other things. I have my own list of class tweaks I'd like to see and the ranger is definitely top of the list.

However, there isn't anything that can't be houseruled/homebrewed. 5E is more homebrew friendly than even 3ed.


----------



## GlassJaw

Parmandur said:


> 3. Remove Feats and 3E style multiclassing, but use the ASI slots for soemthing like the Pathfinder 2 Archetype system, so the player can choose a multiclass archetype or a thematic archetype like "pirate" or "knight of the realm."




I do like this. I wouldn't remove multiclassing but I definitely agree that a) the feat system needs a redo and b) multiclassing needs something to allow for more options aside from the few cherry-picked builds that are clear winners above the rest.



> 4. Design the Ranger around favored terrain as the Subclass: Highlander Rangers from the Mountains, Steppe Nomad Rangers fro mthe Grasslands, Robin Hood Rangers from the Forrest, Moody Dark Elf Rangers fro mthe Underdark, etc. Give it some actual flavor.




I would specifically NOT do this. One of the biggest issues with the current Ranger is that many of its abilities are dependent on the type of campaign the DM is running. Attaching their subclass to a terrain type would further exacerbate this problem.


----------



## Parmandur

GlassJaw said:


> I do like this. I wouldn't remove multiclassing but I definitely agree that a) the feat system needs a redo and b) multiclassing needs something to allow for more options aside from the few cherry-picked builds that are clear winners above the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> I would specifically NOT do this. One of the biggest issues with the current Ranger is that many of its abilities are dependent on the type of campaign the DM is running. Attaching their subclass to a terrain type would further exacerbate this problem.




Mearls proposed this in his Ranger Happy Fun Hour: the idea isn't that the terrain-as-subclass Ranger gets an advantage in their home turf, but that they bring an advantage gained in their home wherever they go: a climb speed for a Mountain Ranger, Swim Speed for a Coastal Ranger, etc. Making it not tied to being in the terrain anymore., but providing the framework for the character's unique abilities.


----------



## GlassJaw

Parmandur said:


> Mearls proposed this in his Ranger Happy Fun Hour: the idea isn't that the terrain-as-subclass Ranger gets an advantage in their home turf, but that they bring an advantage gained in their home wherever they go: a climb speed for a Mountain Ranger, Swim Speed for a Coastal Ranger, etc. Making it not tied to being in the terrain anymore., but providing the framework for the character's unique abilities.




Ahh, ok. Fair enough. I do like that.

Seems like that could easily be incorporated into the base class or a single subclass though, a la Land Druid: choose a "land" and get the associated bonus.  It could be a Ranger "Survivalist" subclass.


----------



## RSIxidor

Parmandur said:


> Mearls proposed this in his Ranger Happy Fun Hour: the idea isn't that the terrain-as-subclass Ranger gets an advantage in their home turf, but that they bring an advantage gained in their home wherever they go: a climb speed for a Mountain Ranger, Swim Speed for a Coastal Ranger, etc. Making it not tied to being in the terrain anymore., but providing the framework for the character's unique abilities.




This sounds like a reasonable way to do favored terrain. I'd be fine with this. Reminds me of how the land druid gets spells based on their land but more generically usable.


----------



## Parmandur

GlassJaw said:


> Ahh, ok. Fair enough. I do like that.
> 
> Seems like that could easily be incorporated into the base class or a single subclass though, a la Land Druid: choose a "land" and get the associated bonus.  It could be a Ranger "Survivalist" subclass.




The suggestion arose out of the analysis of people's frustrations with the Ranger, which based on survey data apparently start with people getting anxious over their home terrain because they think it is important, when it is just a ribbon. Apparently this is big enough for people that Mearls thinks just making the Ranger "native to a terrain' would be the good base hook.

At any rate, any 6E will not have a Beastmaster. We have killed that one, for sure.


----------



## jgsugden

A 2030 release date.

The current edition is good and could run quite a while longer. 

When it does come, I'd like it to consider ways to incoroprate technology better into the game.  In the same way we can run Theater of the Mind vs Combat Grid games, we could run pure Pen and Paper vs Electronically Augmented (online, more complex/comprehensive math, etc...) games.


----------



## robus

They come up with a better term for "passive Perception" - the character is not bloody passive! They're just doing something repeatedly over time (like watching for traps etc).

My suggestions: "continual", "constant" or "steady", basically anything but "passive"


----------



## Parmandur

robus said:


> They come up with a better term for "passive Perception" - the character is not bloody passive! They're just doing something repeatedly over time (like watching for traps etc).
> 
> My suggestions: "continual", "constant" or "steady" anything but "passive"




But the player is passive, not actively declaring an action.


----------



## robus

Parmandur said:


> But the player is passive, not actively declaring an action.




Then why is it on the character sheet?!  I know what the intent is, but the amount of times people are confused by what passive means shows that the word choice is not ideal.


----------



## Parmandur

robus said:


> Then why is it on the character sheet?!  I know what the intent is, but the amount of times people are confused by what passive means shows that the word choice is not ideal.




Never seen anybody confused by the mechanic??


----------



## RSIxidor

Parmandur said:


> At any rate, any 6E will not have a Beastmaster. We have killed that one, for sure.




I actually hope that's not true. I like the flavor of some characters having a sidekick pet. They just can't seem to figure out the math of them very well.



robus said:


> They come up with a better term for "passive Perception" - the character is not bloody passive! They're just doing something repeatedly over time (like watching for traps etc).
> 
> My suggestions: "continual", "constant" or "steady", basically anything but "passive"




Sometimes I want to try out the hidden rolls thing that older editions had, where the DM rolled a die behind the screen to see if they notice stuff. But then I don't like the DM rolling dice for much anyway. I suppose it could have a different name but I really can't think of anything that works better.


----------



## robus

Parmandur said:


> Never seen anybody confused by the mechanic??



Really, I feel certain there's been any number of threads on this forum where what "passive" means has had to be clarified, that's it's not just some freebie base line score (i.e. the always on radar idea that many have). But that's it simply replacing a lot of continuous rolling with an average for a declared ongoing action.


----------



## Parmandur

RSIxidor said:


> I actually hope that's not true. I like the flavor of some characters having a sidekick pet. They just can't seem to figure out the math of them very well.




Maybe the variant Class features will work out to replace half-casting with a more robust Beast (which is needed to get the math some people want). But the Beastmaster as a distinct archetype will not happen in a 6E: no way Crawford brigns it back.

Another one for 6E: variant core class features, separate from archetype, like spell casting versus martial feats versus a beast for Rangers.


----------



## RSIxidor

Parmandur said:


> Maybe the variant Class features will work out to replace half-casting with a more robust Beast (which is needed to get the math some people want). But the Beastmaster as a distinct archetype will not happen in a 6E: no way Crawford brigns it back.
> 
> Another one for 6E: variant core class features, separate from archetype, like spell casting versus martial feats versus a beast for Rangers.




Oh yes! If we could choose to have spells or pets or some mix of the two instead of the expectation that rangers must have both, that would be far better.

I actually feel the same way about paladins. I don't feel that spellcasting is a necessary component of the class (especially when many slots are so often used for smiting). We could have features that support a spellcasting paladin, a sticky/defender paladin, and a damage-pumping paladin and let the player choose what combination fits their build best.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

I would like it if they fixed HP bloat, but the only mandatory fix in a new edition is for healing.

It's ridiculous that anyone can survive taking twenty solid arrow hits, but it's insane that the wounds are gone after a nap.


----------



## Parmandur

RSIxidor said:


> Oh yes! If we could choose to have spells or pets or some mix of the two instead of the expectation that rangers must have both, that would be far better.




So, imagine this:

A Subclass based around terrain, giving distinct abilities as appropriate: this could be easily 8-10 different archetypes.

Variant Features for Martial versus Magic versus Beastmaster.

24-30 basic varieties just for Ranger, not too shabby for design space and play.


----------



## RSIxidor

Saelorn said:


> I would like it if they fixed HP bloat, but the only mandatory fix in a new edition is for healing.
> 
> It's ridiculous that anyone can survive taking twenty solid arrow hits, but it's insane that the wounds are gone after a nap.




When they announced bounded accuracy, I foolishly assumed this meant HP would also be in smaller numbers. Whoops.


----------



## Horwath

Saelorn said:


> I would like it if they fixed HP bloat, but the only mandatory fix in a new edition is for healing.
> 
> It's ridiculous that anyone can survive taking twenty solid arrow hits, but it's insane that the wounds are gone after a nap.




Remember HPs are an abstract thing.

You aren't really hit until you get below 25% or 0.
Anything else is just dodge, parry, glance or just dumb luck.

But I agree, there could be less HP in total. Or MOAR DAMAGE!


----------



## Nebulous

the Jester said:


> Just increasing the font size of the index and getting rid of every single entry that references another entry instead of just putting a page number on it, making the goddamn page numbers in the book readably dark instead of light enough that you can't see 'em in dim lighting, and putting a sort of "you are here" down the side of every page (like in PF2e) would pretty well fix this, IMHO.




That would greatly help the layout problems.


----------



## Parmandur

Anybody else noticed that no WotC product has had an Index at since 2014? I think indexes, like Beastmasters, might be dead letters in the future.


----------



## Nebulous

Horwath said:


> Remember HPs are an abstract thing.
> 
> You aren't really hit until you get below 25% or 0.
> Anything else is just dodge, parry, glance or just dumb luck.
> 
> But I agree, there could be less HP in total. Or MOAR DAMAGE!




I've noticed that third party monster manuals like Tome of Beasts MASSIVELY upgrade monster damage and secondary effects.


----------



## Leatherhead

A philosophy of "If its your thing, you should be doing it all the time, not just X per day."

It's kind of lackluster to be a low level Battlemaster, Monk, or whatever and have to sit on your stockpile of resources for an encounter because you have to save them for the entire day.

Kind of like how they adopted cantrips for casters because spellcasters are supposed to cast spells.


----------



## jasper

Parmandur said:


> Never seen anybody confused by the mechanic??



Only when the old lady needed her gas tank flushed. She drives an electric car.


----------



## robus

Saelorn said:


> I would like it if they fixed HP bloat, but the only mandatory fix in a new edition is for healing.
> 
> It's ridiculous that anyone can survive taking twenty solid arrow hits, but it's insane that the wounds are gone after a nap.




For my table I describe damage differently for PCs vs NPCs. For PCs it's always close but not severe - they reduce terrible damage to just a scratch or a bruise. That is until the last hit that takes them to 0 HP. That attack got through their guard and caused a bad injury.

For monsters and NPCs the damage from the PCs nearly always hits and causes damage. That's because I want to give visceral feedback for their attacks. And these monsters generally will not gain the benefit of a rest and come back fighting the next day 

What I don't like is the popping up from 0 HP and getting stuck right back in. So I'd hope they'd come up with something a bit more crunchy there. I know there's a risk of a death-spiral - so it would need to avoid that.


----------



## Arnwolf666

Horwath said:


> Remember HPs are an abstract thing.
> 
> You aren't really hit until you get below 25% or 0.
> Anything else is just dodge, parry, glance or just dumb luck.
> 
> But I agree, there could be less HP in total. Or MOAR DAMAGE!



Someone that reads the book and understands hit points. Thank you.


----------



## Sacrosanct

I just came to read how many responses are basically "here's a list of things that when the WotC team thought about during the creation of 5e, they realized not enough people would buy the game if they were that way".


----------



## ScuroNotte

A ranger that is playable and enjoyable.

And a better written Sorcerer.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Horwath said:


> Remember HPs are an abstract thing.
> 
> You aren't really hit until you get below 25% or 0.
> Anything else is just dodge, parry, glance or just dumb luck.



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.


----------



## Lanefan

What would I like to see in a hypothetical 6e?

--- The modularity of design* we were promised during 5e design that never appeared in the end.

* - by this I mean that the game isn't just one system but a whole lot of not-necessarily-similar subsystems, and that changes or kitbashes to one to one will not have much if any impact on the others.

--- Backwards compatibility with, and-or easy and clearly-explained conversion to-from, ALL previous editions, such that those still playing any previous edition can still benefit from (and thus be tempted to buy) the new material.

--- No built-in preconception of "this is the level where the game ends" - leave it open-ended, but with a disclaimer to the DM to the effect of "should your game get beyond about level [range x-y], you're largely on your own; though the tables and charts can largely be extrapolated to some extent".  In other words, instead of saying the game goes from 1-20 or 1-30, just say it goes from 1-x where x can be whatever number you-as-DM feel comfortable with.

--- An end to jack-of-all-trades characters: no multiclassing, all characters have clear and unavoidable weaknesses as well as strengths

--- Flexibility enough to handle many different modes of play e.g. mixed-level parties, parties of 1 PC up to parties of 15 PCs, sandbox, hard-railroad, slow-pace and fast-pace, zero-to-hero, heroes from the start, etc.

--- Good stand-alone adventures - modules rather than hard-cover-book adventure paths, and lots of 'em - maybe even released before the core rules but at the very latest released side-along with them.  And at least one example of each 'type' of adventure up front as well: a dungeon delve, a city adventure, a wilderness adventure, a sleuthing adventure, a war-front adventure, a courtly adventure, a maritime adventure, and so on; covering a reasonable range of levels right out of the gate. EDIT to add: and along with this, a how-to-design-adventures publication for DMs that draws on specific examples from these adventures in terms of how element-x and design-y are likely to affect play.

--- Emphasis on player-side simplicity, let the DM worry about the complex under-the-hood stuff.

I could go on for ages, but that's probably enough for now.


----------



## jgsugden

All this ranger hate... They should release a Warden class which is essentially a revised ranger just to .... how should I say this.... settle people down.


----------



## robus

Related to my "passive" issue - I would also like to see a fresh approach to the "passive Perception" vs. "fixed DC" check when locating traps and secret doors etc.

I'd like to see something like:

* The secret door was installed by a skilled artisan: DC is d20 + 5 with Advantage to see how well it's stood the test of time.

* The trap was hastily set a few days ago: DC is d20 - 3

Some method to encourage DMs to creatively set DCs for static items.


----------



## cmad1977

Sacrosanct said:


> I just came to read how many responses are basically "here's a list of things that when the WotC team thought about during the creation of 5e, they realized not enough people would buy the game if they were that way".




This is basically a giant list of really bad ideas that WoTC has already considered and dismissed.

Edit: or really good ideas for very specific games.


----------



## Sacrosanct

jgsugden said:


> All this ranger hate... They should release a Warden class which is essentially a revised ranger just to .... how should I say this.... settle people down.




I think a lot of the problem people have with the ranger is that the game is built around three equal pillars, and those players don’t spend much time in the exploration pillar so the ranger looks weak by comparison.


----------



## RSIxidor

Sacrosanct said:


> I think a lot of the problem people have with the ranger is that the game is built around three equal pillars, and those players don’t spend much time in the exploration pillar so the ranger looks weak by comparison.




While we've got three pillars and playing in all of those pillars is fun, it's always felt to me that one of those pillars gets a lot more attention in the rules. Not necessarily a bad thing but to me that means anything that works primarily in one of the other pillars needs to have more universally useful functions. What the ranger does in the exploration pillar doesn't feel that interesting to me.

I think the benefits based on what terrain you came from feels more interesting than the what terrain you like to be in model, outside of just the mechanics. Just in a flavorful way.


----------



## Prakriti

Nebulous said:


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



The year 2030 or later on my calendar.


----------



## ad_hoc

Sacrosanct said:


> I think a lot of the problem people have with the ranger is that the game is built around three equal pillars, and those players don’t spend much time in the exploration pillar so the ranger looks weak by comparison.




I think it is more that people don't spend time in overland travel.


----------



## Zardnaar

1. Evolution not revolution.

2. Tweaked classes, clean them up slight buffs and nerfs.

3. Tweaked feats, buffs and nerfs

4. Lower the CR on a lot if critters that are to easy. 

5. Tweaked spells.

6. 2024 give or take a year.

I think in two or three years I'll be getting sick of 5E.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Sacrosanct said:


> I think a lot of the problem people have with the ranger is that the game is built around three equal pillars, and those players don’t spend much time in the exploration pillar so the ranger looks weak by comparison.



The other pillars are really built around one character taking control of the situation, while everyone else sits back and waits for them to finish. While the fighter is running the obstacle course up to the lever to open the door, the other three players are just sitting back and waiting for them to finish. Combat is the one pillar where everyone is participating at the same time. From a time-management perspective, it's more efficient in terms of letting people play, if you spend more time in combat.

Not to mention, the particular way that the ranger's mastery works is that it lets you breeze through most of the overland survival stuff with a minimum fuss. They're so good at what they do that it takes very little table time for them to do it. You spend more time doing overland stuff if you _don't_ have a ranger to trivialize it.


----------



## Raith5

Eventually I would like to see a 6e.

I would like to see more opportunities to customize characters from the start. A feat at first level would be a good start. 

I also dont like the trade off between ASIs and feats. Basically, more feats - just not pathfinder level of more feats.

I would like to see race matter more a high levels by making some racial features unlock with level or by via feats.

More combat options for martial PCs.

I think monsters could be a bit tougher and have a few more options

I would like to see more work and attention placed on high level play (13th level+).


----------



## Mistwell

I want to see it around 2028


----------



## anahata

Nebulous said:


> I imagine it is still 5 years off, give or take, but WotC is probably doing the groundwork now, and considering how they might want to change their flagship game.  I do like 5e, but I want some more granularity in the rules, and I want them really listen to the community.
> 
> 1. Better book presentation.  It's hard to find what you need in the PHB aside from the spells.  I love the artwork, that's not the issue, but proper labeling of chapters and information, which PF does better.  And any book by Monte Cook.
> 
> 2. A skill system that is fun.  And more defined rules that takes away some of the guesswork.
> 
> 3. Monsters that are tougher out of the box, with appropriate skills themselves, that don't need houserules to be challenging
> 
> 4. And please, for God's sake, fix the ranger.  At this point I'm advocating kill that sacred cow, break up ALL of a Ranger's abilities and and make it some kind of archetype that can be layered in pieces over any class, so you could even have a thief/ranger or cleric/ranger.
> 
> What else would you like to see?




More guidance for the DM. What does Intimidate do in combat? How am I supposed to handle magic items? How does a transmuter wizard's transmutation ability actually work? How can a character craft a normal nonmagical weapon? All those "use your judgement / discretion" sections in the DMG need to go. They don't help anyone, especially new DMs. There are so many holes in the rules that I've found running _just the starter module_ that I've determined 5e to be unuseable. I seriously don't understand how people actually play 5e given how many holes there are in the rules.


----------



## MockingBird

I would like the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons idea. Keep 5e as core and release option books. If there just has to be a new edition, hopefully it will be 100% backwards compatible. I feel like this is where PF2e drop the ball but I understand them wanting their own game.

5e has drawn in a lot of casual players who may not understand the need for new editions. WotC would need to navigate that very carefully in my opinion. Maybe revise the books kinda like 2e did. Throw the hardcore folks an Advanced Players Handbook and an Advanced Dungeon Masters book. Some folks are just gonna want something "new" though. Right now if they came out with a 6e (or even in a few years) I wouldn't bite on it. I've invested heavily into this edition and I'd just stick with it. Honestly this will probably be the last edition I invest in.


----------



## Nebulous

MockingBird said:


> I would like the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons idea. Keep 5e as core and release option books. If there just has to be a new edition, hopefully it will be 100% backwards compatible. I feel like this is where PF2e drop the ball but I understand them wanting their own game.
> 
> 5e has drawn in a lot of casual players who may not understand the need for new editions. WotC would need to navigate that very carefully in my opinion. Maybe revise the books kinda like 2e did. Throw the hardcore folks an Advanced Players Handbook and an Advanced Dungeon Masters book. Some folks are just gonna want something "new" though. Right now if they came out with a 6e (or even in a few years) I wouldn't bite on it. I've invested heavily into this edition and I'd just stick with it. Honestly this will probably be the last edition I invest in.




I totally agree with what many of you say about an AD&D 5.5e. but that would really be handled best by a 6e overhaul in the next 5 years. WotC WILL upgrade to 6th edition eventually, and 5e is probably halfway through its lifespan 

I wish they'd put out modular option books to change the current rules. I do.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Dragonboobs... uh, I mean... "Thoughtful depictions of each race's unique traits."


----------



## Parmandur

Nebulous said:


> I totally agree with what many of you say about an AD&D 5.5e. but that would really be handled best by a 6e overhaul in the next 5 years. WotC WILL upgrade to 6th edition eventually, and 5e is probably halfway through its lifespan
> 
> I wish they'd put out modular option books to change the current rules. I do.




They have every intention to avoid it, and their plan is working so far: no need to be hasty, give it another decade or more.


----------



## Parmandur

anahata said:


> More guidance for the DM. What does Intimidate do in combat? How am I supposed to handle magic items? How does a transmuter wizard's transmutation ability actually work? How can a character craft a normal nonmagical weapon? All those "use your judgement / discretion" sections in the DMG need to go. They don't help anyone, especially new DMs. There are so many holes in the rules that I've found running _just the starter module_ that I've determined 5e to be unuseable. I seriously don't understand how people actually play 5e given how many holes there are in the rules.




I'm not sure how I manage, because I am playing a clearly unplayable game.


----------



## thundershot

I really like the idea of having an Advanced Dungeons and Dragons book as a supplement to 5E. Why not dig out an old title and give it a new purpose?


----------



## Parmandur

thundershot said:


> I really like the idea of having an Advanced Dungeons and Dragons book as a supplement to 5E. Why not dig out an old title and give it a new purpose?




They almost did use "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" for the core books in 5E, to contrast with the Basic PDF, but found in marketing studied that it was a terrible idea that confused customers: which probably happened in the 70's & 80''s, too, but TSR was clueless.


----------



## anahata

Parmandur said:


> I'm not sure how I manage, because I am playing a clearly unplayable game.



Instead of responding with sarcasm, maybe provide advice instead?


----------



## Parmandur

anahata said:


> Instead of responding with sarcasm, maybe provide advice instead?




Yeah, if you had trouble with Lost Mines of Phandelver and the basic rules, I'm not sure I can help. Maybe watch some live Twitch broadcast or listen to some podcasts? Critical Role is good. The DND channel always has something on.


----------



## anahata

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, if you had trouble with Lost Mines of Phandelver and the basic rules, I'm not sure I can help. Maybe watch some live Twitch broadcast or listen to some podcasts? Critical Role is good. The DND channel always has something on.




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?


----------



## Argyle King

I'm not sure that my strongest desires would be viewed as being recognizably D&D, but I believe that a few could be easily implemented.

The simple changes
~more intuitive book layout and better indexing of content
~softcover options for books

More in-depth changes
~"bounded accuracy" which actually means bounded accuracy (hard to explain, but I've found that 5e's goal of keeping numbers manageable and meaningful doesn't always work -at least not in the context of what I thought those words would mean)
~a playstyle and worldbuilding baseline which has more grit and takes a little more inspiration from older fantasy and sword & sorcery, as opposed to a baseline which assumes everything is infused with magic; a race to save the multiverse as a common idea... I guess maybe that's old fashioned, but (and it's an odd thing to say) D&D sometimes doesn't feel like "fantasy" to me, especially not in the context of things like Game of Thrones, Conan, and etc. I'm not saying those need to be modeled perfectly (and I'm sure others have different influences), but it always seems strange to me that trying to tell stories from the things I've been inspired by (and in some cases inspired D&D) is such a struggle using the D&D game.
~despite my previous comment, one of the things I enjoyed from 4E was the mentality behind encounter design and having more moving parts rather than more static positions. If there's a way to have that style of encounter design mixed with a somewhat more grounded baseline, I would enjoy it. Truth be told, I still don't really understand the mentality behind 5e encounter design. 
...I suppose it's a little like 80s fantasy movies: by today's standards, the stories and effects are cheesy, but there's something about the "feel" of those movies which is rarely captured in newer stuff. I think part of that is a combination of fantastic thinking for the storylines governed by needing to use practical effects. I still want cool characters and flashy powers, but sometimes there's a realness to the guy in a rubber suit and practical effects that a digitized scene and greenscreen (despite being better) somehow fails to capture.
~more decision-making points for building a character and for playing the game... I can appreciate the streamlined appeal of a game, but I also feel that a lot of depth was sacrificed. I don't want PF2's feat bananza, but something a little more than what 5e currently offers would be nice.


For the most part, I enjoy 5e. However, I've also noticed that I'm less invested in the brand than I have been previously.


----------



## Parmandur

anahata said:


> 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?




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.


----------



## MockingBird

anahata said:


> 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?





That's what I love about this edition the most, the power the DM has. What would you think intimidate would do in combat? Does one really need an explicit rule for this? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to open up a constructive dialogue.


----------



## anahata

Parmandur said:


> 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

anahata said:


> "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

anahata said:


> 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.


----------



## vpuigdoller

I would love if they removed subclasses.  The more time passes the more I hate them.


----------



## ccs

ad_hoc said:


> 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).


----------



## Parmandur

vpuigdoller said:


> I would love if they removed subclasses.  The more time passes the more I hate them.




No.


----------



## Argyle King

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

anahata said:


> 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

Saelorn said:


> 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

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.


----------



## Garthanos

Horwath said:


> 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.


----------



## Guest 6801328

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.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> No.




Maybe?

Personally, I don't care if they are subclasses or have their own classes, so long as they exist for me to select.  I like choice.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Horwath said:


> 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

-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.


----------



## Campbell

anahata said:


> "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

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.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I honestly don't care what they do with 6th edition.  Any changes I want to see with 5E I have already been doing them for myself.


----------



## qstor

the Jester said:


> 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

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.


----------



## Aldarc

I would like to see less reliance on advantage/disadvantage. It's elegant and simple, but I find that it's a bit too ubiquitious of a "solution," which I find takes away from the charm.

Clean up the action economy and interaction with other rules.

Rework ASIs and feats. 

General Class Balance: Clean up the balance between short rest and long rest dependent (sub)classes. Plus, some general polish on classes that typically have mixed reviews (e.g., ranger, druid, sorcerer), even if they are more popular than other classes. This includes things like casters attempting to snipe the Warlock's EB, since it scales independently of the Warlock. Some capstones are more beneficial for other subclasses than others (e.g., Druid Capstone with the Circle of the Moon Druid). 

Druid: I would also rework Druid Wildshape so people can pick a general form that scales better (e.g., Hunter, Predator, Guardian, Wings, etc.) and then slap on the aesthetic they want instead of having to memorize the animal catalogue of forms and upgrading them. 

A spell-less Ranger and Paladin as default.

Warlord. (ducks)


----------



## Imaro

anahata said:


> 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?




What are your players trying to accomplish by using Intimidate in combat?


----------



## Blue

Saelorn said:


> I would like it if they fixed HP bloat, but the only mandatory fix in a new edition is for healing.
> 
> It's ridiculous that anyone can survive taking twenty solid arrow hits, but it's insane that the wounds are gone after a nap.




That's actually intentional in 5e.  Due to bounded accuracy, they can't just keep increasing defenses (AC & saves).  So increasing HPs is the way to keep foes alive.  It's supposed to keep them up for the same amount of time as if they had lesser HPs but a lot more misses/saves.

I'm not saying it's the right or only way to do it, but it's designed to fit a need, so it would have to be replaced by something else if removed.


----------



## Blue

RSIxidor said:


> When they announced bounded accuracy, I foolishly assumed this meant HP would also be in smaller numbers. Whoops.



Bounded accuracy leading to an increase in HPs should become clear with a bit of thought. Bounded accuracy means they can't keep more powerful creatures alive through increased defenses, so HP is the knob they have left to do so.


----------



## Blue

Nebulous said:


> That would greatly help the layout problems.



Can we also get 6E in bookmarked and searchable PDFs?  With a linked index.


----------



## Eric V

Lanefan said:


> Easy.  Make it up.  Make rulings.  You're the DM - you tell the game what to do, rather than the reverse.
> 
> It's the opposite philosohy from 3e or PF, where there's a rule for everything.




Is it possible this is a false binary, though?  I am not sure @anahata is asking for stone tablet rules, but maybe some examples of how some of this might work in play for some DMs would be helpful?  It's a DM Guide, after all.

No one's infringing on "DM decides;" just asking for things to make a better decision.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Blue said:


> Can we also get 6E in bookmarked and searchable PDFs?  With a linked index.



No.


----------



## Blue

Leatherhead said:


> A philosophy of "If its your thing, you should be doing it all the time, not just X per day."
> 
> It's kind of lackluster to be a low level Battlemaster, Monk, or whatever and have to sit on your stockpile of resources for an encounter because you have to save them for the entire day.
> 
> Kind of like how they adopted cantrips for casters because spellcasters are supposed to cast spells.




I have a different feel on this.

I don't want to see the same manuever time after time after time. It's boring. But by the same reason, the idea of "why can I only riposte three times a short rest" makes little sense. 

Personally, in a homebrew I'm playing with the idea that at the beginning of each round a die is rolled to indicate "opportunities" that round. And each character that has special features as maked each with one or more numbers from 1-12 (or whatever the die size is). So this round may be a "6", which is no special abilities for Brandar the Barbarian, an opponent leaving themselves open to beign tripped for Fredik the Fighter, and an ability to stab in the vitals for Relin the Rogue. Of course, Relin has that ability on four different numbers out of the 12, and Brandar has 8 different feats of fury on his opportunity list, just none happened to be on a 6. 

My biggest problem is getting in the way of player creativity. If there's sand on the floor, can they scoop it up to try to temporarily blind at any time, or do I have a die number for environment - i.e. the time when everything comes together to do so. But there's other parts of player creativity that aren't so easily dependant on external factors. The second biggest is if I do it for monsters they all do the same thing at the same time which is odd, but lots of rolls is slowing, etc.

Getting back to uses per X - resource management doesn't always make the most narrative sense, but it can work from a gamist point of view as a balance.  Because if you can do something all the time it can't be better then any other option otherwise it will always displace those lesser options.  Having some ability to go above and beyond is good for the game, and there needs to be a way to manage it that doesn't get in the way.  I'm open for other things, but I am for characters having more powerful but use-restricted abilities.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I think I would like paladins to have a warlock matrix:  pick an oath (to hit something, to guard something, or to find something) and pick an oath taker (celestial, fiend, fey, ancestor spirit).  Oaths make you good at something particular, as does oath takers.  [For the white roomers, hit something oath fiend oath taker would be the best damage dealer, but don't waste your time trying to heal anything, a barbarian with a medical kit is twice the healer you will be].

I would pick a different mechanical identity for warlocks.  Warlocks can change into *one* thing, that gets better as they level up (and even better if they spend invocations on it).  Druids can change into a bunch of things, but a druid's wolf at level 20 will be about the same as the one at level 3, while the warlock's dark wolf will be considerably more powerful at level 20 than at level 3.  I could see something like a shadow form being good for stealth, not combat, so 'locks wouldn't have to change in a fight.

I haven't figured out what this would look like, but I would like fighters to have a mechanism for getting better the longer the fight goes (maybe related to con).  Make them "main event" fighters.

I would add spiritual damage (like psychic damage).  Paladin's smites and some cleric spells would use it (also angels/devils/demons/etc. would do some spiritual damage when they hit).


----------



## Blue

Saelorn said:


> The other pillars are really built around one character taking control of the situation, while everyone else sits back and waits for them to finish. While the fighter is running the obstacle course up to the lever to open the door, the other three players are just sitting back and waiting for them to finish.




This is a really good observation. I don't think it's a "problem" from how we want RPGs mimic reality - there are times in RL when one person does the talking, or one person reads the maps, or fixes the technical problem. And mechanically doing something that mut involve everyone at times when it's not needed might foster the opposite result. If, for example, we make everyone involved in a negotiation, then the uncouth barbarian may be lowering everyone's choices and decide next time not to go witht he party at all which even further isolates that player.

Hmm, what do we expect in this case from an RPG mechanically? Is there a different goal we should be shooting for?


----------



## Campbell

Classes that feel like the class from first level, including subclass choice. If I want to play a more Strength oriented Valor Bard I have to play through 2 levels with an atrocious AC and nothing to back up the intended feel of the subclass.

Less disjointed resource management. Classes like Monks and Paladins often have several different pools of resources to manage that it can be hard to keep track of some of which renew on short rests and some of which renew on long rests. Some like Channel Divinity and Ki are in a combined pool while things like Lay On Hands and Bardic Inspiration have their own pool for a single ability.

Clear templates and more precise design language. Lay out the book so it is easy to use in the middle of play if you need to look something up.


----------



## gyor

A massive FRCG, twice the size of Pathfinders PHB


----------



## RSIxidor

Blue said:


> Bounded accuracy leading to an increase in HPs should become clear with a bit of thought. Bounded accuracy means they can't keep more powerful creatures alive through increased defenses, so HP is the knob they have left to do so.




I don't think that it had to, though. You still have incredibly hard to hit creatures with significant defensive abilities like legendary resistance. And HP and defense are only two knobs in a bigger machine. More powerful creatures could have other defensive abilities, or could be more deadly in combat than others. However, this might be too significant a change for a lot of tables compared to expectations.


----------



## Blue

anahata said:


> 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?




I think the issue is assuming that Intimidate does anything different in combat then it does out-of-combat. The results of the social skills have always been for the DM to adjudicate. In other words, combat/non-combat is an arbitrary distinction and it has the same effects in either.

Things like specific DCs and effects were done in earlier editions but dropped. Hard rules for social skills lead to things like "Diplomancers" from 3.5 where a hyper-focused build could make any NPC stop hostilities or agree to anything.


----------



## Blue

RSIxidor said:


> I don't think that it had to, though. You still have incredibly hard to hit creatures with significant defensive abilities like legendary resistance.




No, as a general rule you do not.  Sure there are a few exceptions, but the average AC for high CR 15+ is easily reachable.  Target AC by CR according the DMG is:

CR 10-12: 17 AC
CR 13-16: 18 AC
CR 17+: 19 AC

Saves are even lower. With only two saves being proficient, and that often overlapping a foe's good ability scores, there usually only have 2-4 good saves and 2 or more at minimal levels that are trivial for casters to overcome. A high level caster has a good number of known/prepared spells and should be able to target them.



RSIxidor said:


> And HP and defense are only two knobs in a bigger machine. More powerful creatures could have other defensive abilities, or could be more deadly in combat than others. However, this might be too significant a change for a lot of tables compared to expectations.




Other knobs: the ones I see are things like resistance and immunity. Those seem to be better applied where they fit, instead of just randomly given out to high CR creatures wholesale. And really, is there much difference to adding in a large number of resistances including B/P/S and just having more HPs?

"Could be more deadly in combat": I'm not sure how this addresses a creature's longevity in combat. I think you are saying they should be more glass-cannon-like - go down quicker but have done more damage in that time so everything evens out. _shrug_ That would work, though likely would be more swingy and put more important on initiative because a single action more or less could be 50% of it's total damage output for the combat.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Dausuul

I'm in the camp that would like to see 6E be largely backwards compatible with 5E; more of a 5.5. What I would like in 6E whenever it comes out:

1. Drastically scale back the use of bonus actions. You should never have an expectation of using your bonus action every round (two-weapon fighting, I'm looking at you), and you should not have to worry about bonus-action abilities "clashing" often unless you are multiclassing or doing something really exotic. Also, the bonus-action spells rule should be replaced with "You cannot cast more than one non-cantrip spell per turn."

2. Assorted class and subclass fixes. In many cases this would involve migrating features from 5E supplements into the PHB. For instance, some the hexblade's abilities should be incorporated into the Pact of the Blade.

3. Rework the stealth rules to be more intuitive and apply more cleanly to situations other than "rogue ducks behind a rock mid-combat." (Question: If you are invisible and standing in the area of a _silence_ spell, what does an enemy have to do in order to detect your location? Answer: Nothing, they automatically know. But you can take the Hide action and then they _might_ lose track of you.)

4. A few tweaks to the core races. Nonhumans should get more flexibility in their stat boosts. Humans need a happy medium in between the "+1 to all stats human," which sucks, and the "free bonus feat human," which is godlike.

5. Clean up and clarify how a lot of things work*. The Shield Master feat is the poster child for this - at one point the official ruling was that you could shove before your attack, and then it changed to you have to attack first, and Orcus alone knows what happens if you have Extra Attack. Maybe they could borrow somebody from the "Magic: The Gathering" side of the company to lend a hand--M:tG has gotten very good at boiling down complex mechanics into crystal-clear, unambiguous wording that fits on a playing card and leaves room for a picture.

6. Short rests should go back to being 5 minutes long. Perhaps add a limit of 2 short rests per day; that's the house rule I've been going with for a while, and I find it works well to ensure that classes with short-rest mechanics stay on par with their long-resting companions.

*Note that I don't believe everything needs to be codified in rules. That was the cardinal mistake of 3E, and I have no desire to go back to that. But anything that _is_ codified in rules should be clear and unambiguous. DMs shoulder too much work as it is, we shouldn't have to be WotC's copy editors as well.


----------



## Garthanos

anahata said:


> More guidance for the DM. What does Intimidate do in combat?




As for ideas about what might be achievable - Many of the fighters maneuvers could be couched as an effect achievable via intimidation  pushing, distracting, menacing, goading for example maybe even a trip or commanders strike.  (evasive footwork becomes menacing glare which darts from enemy to enemy as they attempt to hit you)


----------



## Umbran

Blue said:


> I think the issue is assuming that Intimidate does anything different in combat then it does out-of-combat. The results of the social skills have always been for the DM to adjudicate. In other words, combat/non-combat is an arbitrary distinction and it has the same effects in either.




Perhaps.

Now, wouldn't it be super-cool if the people who designed the game might be able to give some suggestions - not hard rules, but suggestions - on working with that, seeing as the timescales we are talking about (seconds for combat, vs. minutes or hours out of combat) are not the same?  Or maybe some thoughts about how you might have the skills have different effects in each realm?

It isn't like everyone is good with making rulings right out of the box.  A lot of people haven't been playing for decades.  Maybe having someone really experienced supply some ideas would be useful for folks, hm?


----------



## vpuigdoller

Parmandur said:


> No.



First time we disagree, Haha!  To each their own.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

I had a player tell me he wanted to use intimidate during a fight in 3.5.  I told him the most intimidating thing he could probably do was keep swinging that greatsword at his foe.  But if he wanted to stop that and run off at the mouth he could give that a shot.  I have a hard time thinking it would be more effective though.


----------



## Gladius Legis

Dausuul said:


> 4. A few tweaks to the core races. Nonhumans should get more flexibility in their stat boosts. Humans need a happy medium in between the "+1 to all stats human," which sucks, and the "free bonus feat human," which is godlike.



I've been testing out a Human that takes the Variant but, instead of +1 to 2 stats + bonus feat, it's just a flat +2 to any 2 stats with no bonus feat. It seems to be balanced pretty well. They still get the bonus skill proficiency.

And if a feat is worth +2 to a stat, the math is the same between the actual Variant and my Variant, er, variant. (Net +4.)


----------



## RSIxidor

Dausuul said:


> I'm in the camp that would like to see 6E be largely backwards compatible with 5E; more of a 5.5. What I would like in 6E whenever it comes out:
> 
> 1. Drastically scale back the use of bonus actions. You should never have an expectation of using your bonus action every round (two-weapon fighting, I'm looking at you), and you should not have to worry about bonus-action abilities "clashing" often unless you are multiclassing or doing something really exotic. Also, the bonus-action spells rule should be replaced with "You cannot cast more than one non-cantrip spell per turn."




I'd honestly be okay with just removing bonus actions. Stuff that happens quickly can be reworded to work in addition to another action. Like Healing Word could be a regular action but allows you to do another action in the same turn. Two-weapon fighting (regardless of whether the BA goes away altogether) could just be made to be part of attacking (when you take the attack action, if you _requirements_ make an additional attack as part of that action).


----------



## Blue

Umbran said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> Now, wouldn't it be super-cool if the people who designed the game might be able to give some suggestions - not hard rules, but suggestions - on working with that, seeing as the timescales we are talking about (seconds for combat, vs. minutes or hours out of combat) are not the same?  Or maybe some thoughts about how you might have the skills have different effects in each realm?
> 
> It isn't like everyone is good with making rulings right out of the box.  A lot of people haven't been playing for decades.  Maybe having someone really experienced supply some idea sis useful for folks, hm?




There's a balance point of being inviting to new players by including lots of guidelines, and being inviting to new players by presenting them with less rules. I know size of book and amount of rules are not the same thing, but it can feel like it and intimidate players.

I hear what you are saying, but adding more guidelines to every bit of play, including breaking out every specific bit for different pillars of play, seems to be against the design philosophy of "More Rulings, Less Rules" that they followed.


----------



## Krachek

6ed. Dream on. I heard they just open new market in Asia and South America.
2030 not before.


----------



## Gladius Legis

In general, I'm also in the camp that would want a 6e to be more of a 5.5, or an "Advanced" 5e. Things I've thought about that I'd like to see:

1) Every class, in addition to their class skills and proficiencies, gets to Expertise 1 proficient class skill at Lv. 1. _And only 1_. Rogues' and Bards' Expertise features stay as they are, that just means they get to Expertise many more skills than everyone else. That still allows the skill monkey classes their purpose, while also fixing certain iniquities such as Wizards not being the best at Arcana, or Clerics at Religion, Druids at Nature, Fighters and Barbarians at Athletics, and such.

2) All subclasses gained at Lv. 1. Adjust other early-level feature gains as necessary in all classes to accomodate that.

3) Things like Paladin Divine Smite and Battle Master Superiority Dice work like 4e Reliable powers. i.e., declare the Smite or maneuver before the attack, but if you don't hit you don't use up your spell slot or SD. Makes more sense narratively and eliminates the strategy of saving those resources for crits. (A strategy some find overpowered but I think is rather overrated, so meh, wouldn't miss it.)

4) Rogues being able to Sneak Attack with light weapons, even if they aren't finesse. A whack to the head with a club is as iconic a Sneak Attack as anything and should be allowed as such.

5) Rangers' favored terrain grants abilities based on the terrain they favor, but that can still be applied anywhere.

6) No Beast Master subclass. Just give Rangers a 2nd-level spell that allows them to bond with an animal and gives them a few bonuses, and if said animal dies, that same spell resurrects it.

7) Advanced and more powerful maneuvers for higher-level Battle Masters, perhaps those that take multiple dice to use.

8) Finesse weapons have a STR requirement to be used as finesse. For example, the dagger's finesse STR requirement could be fairly low (9), a shortsword somewhat higher (11) and the rapier taxing (13). It could even open the door for the longsword to be finessed, but the STR requirement could be made really steep (15).

9) Ranged weapons have a STR requirement. If your STR is below the requirement, your attacks are at disadvantage.

10) Maybe have an option to cast Concentration spells without Concentration, but to do so you have to cast it two spell levels higher? So apply the Bestow Curse model to general spellcasting. And that requirement would stack on top of a typical upcasting, so a non-Concentration 2nd-level Bless for example takes a 4th-level slot to cast.

11) Just bring back the proper surprise round. Seriously.

12) Designate an "off-hand" property on certain 1d4 weapons like daggers. Allowing an off-hand attack even if the main weapon isn't light. Thus actually allowing the classic rapier or longsword + dagger combination to function without a feat.


----------



## Nebulous

thundershot said:


> I really like the idea of having an Advanced Dungeons and Dragons book as a supplement to 5E. Why not dig out an old title and give it a new purpose?




For nostalgic reasons, it does sound very appealing. I would welcome a 5.5 edition, just clean up some of what we have now and make it a little crunchier.


----------



## 77IM

OK, here's my dream list for 5.5. (Actually I'd rather call it 5.1 because that's how version numbers work; .5 isn't supposed to represent a decimal half-way to the next full version.)

*1.* Largely backwards-compatible with 5e.

*2.* Balance/playability/clarity tweaks to certain feats, spells, classes (ranger), etc. Especially FEATS -- I like the design of choosing between an ASI and a feat, but most feats are just too weak (except for a few that are just too strong!).

_Compatibility: This could almost certainly be done in a backwards-compatible way; for example, the way the revised ranger has special abilities with the same names as the regular ranger, they just do something slightly different._

*3.* Eliminate bonus actions. They are used for too many different things, including extra damage. This leads to min-maxers attempting to optimize their use of bonus actions, which is really bad. I've also seen WAAAAAAAY too many new players confused by bonus actions.

I think they could solve this by recategorizing and rephrasing all the things which currently take a bonus action. For example, anything that gives you a bonus action attack should just become part of Extra Attack, with some wording that doesn't allow stacking. Cunning Action has really got to go.

_Compatibility: This would be tricky because some magic items in some published modules and supplements use the "bonus action" language. I think a sidebar about the old language and how to handle it would probably be sufficient to clear things up._

*4.* Nerf Expertise. I hate that Expertise breaks bounded accuracy. It's totally unnecessary. After much thought, I favor making Expertise a flat +2. This way it still "breaks" bounded accuracy but only by a mere +2, which is not nothing, but won't cause problems at higher levels.

_Compatibility: Published supplements that include "double your proficiency bonus" would have to change to +2, but there aren't very many of them. This could probably be handled by a conversion guide. Some monsters also have Expertise in certain skills, but monster math is weird, so I think we can just ignore that (plus, most of those monsters are CR 4 or lower, so it's already effectively a +2)._

*5.* Inspiration needs work. Its problems and potential fixes have been discussed to death. My preference is to allow Inspiration to stack, and to collapse the traits/bonds/ideals/flaws into fewer characteristics. I'd say, one Motivation (bond or ideal) one Quirk (trait or flaw) and maybe one more of either if you feel like it.

_Compatibility: Easy, since Inspiration is largely detached from the rest of the rules. Modularity FTW!_ _The old non-stacking Inspiration could be kept as a variant._

*6.* Magic Items need a better and more-granular power ranking. The current "rarity" system is poor. We need something like CR or spell levels, but for items. (We all know CR is imprecise, but imagine if monsters were rated only by Tier; encounter-building would be a mess.)

I would NOT include magic item prices in the core books. The power ranking could be used to derive prices if you want to allow commerce, but would primarily be used to rate items against each other for balance purposes.

_Compatibility: There would need to be some guideline to rank items that have been published in 5e supplements. Other than that, this would be a purely additive change that needs literally a single sentence to explain._

*7.* Monster XP needs to go. Just make XP values free-form based on encounter/adventure difficulty, with some simple guidelines. Or ditch XP altogether in favor of milestones, or move to a simplified system (e.g. 100 XP per level or 5 XP per level or whatever).

_Compatibility: Well, if you like XP, this is not backwards-compatible at all. I think this change might be worth it though._

*8. *Make point-buy/array the default for ability scores, and rolling the variant. I know rolling is a time-honored tradition beloved by many, but for most purposes, it's really terrible game design.

_Compatibility: Full. Literally just swapping which option is presented first._

*9. *Detach skills from ability scores, reduce the size of the skill list, and give skills a little more meat in the form of special options that you can only use if you are proficient. These would have to be "special" options, not generic things that anybody would try.

Alternatively, they could vastly increase the skill list, and make individual skills relatively less important. This would allow the designers and the DMs to phrase things in terms of ability scores only without even thinking about skills: the player can chime in with any skill proficiencies they might have. This is kind of the way tool proficiencies work now, and I think it could be expanded to non-tool areas.

This is a VERY difficult line to walk, and I think the current skill design sits right in the unhappy medium between "skills don't really matter; it's all about ability scores" and "skills matter a lot; pay attention to them."

_Compatibility: Sketchy at best. This is the change I'm least confident could be done in a backwards-compatible manner. A cleaner option might be to simply give each skill a slightly better definition and detach them from ability scores; give each skill examples of being used with at least two different abilities._


----------



## Jer

Despite 5e not being perfect - and heck not even being my favorite edition of D&D to play or run - I really don't want them to make any massive changes to it.  IMO the game is now "mature" and it's time to stop worrying about being innovative with D&D and start viewing it as a stable rules system.  There should be about as many changes to D&D between editions as there are between editions of Monopoly or Risk.

Having said that - what I'd like to see eventually is them market variants of the core ruleset that don't have to be 100% compatible with the current edition but speak to particular needs.  Like a version of the game that has more choices for characters without having to worry about how it remains balanced with the more minimalist 5e framework, or a version of the game that requires a grid and is designed to give a more tactical combat experience.  That's what I'd rather see happen instead of an actual 6th edition personally.


----------



## jasper

jgsugden said:


> All this ranger hate... They should release a Warden class which is essentially a revised ranger just to .... how should I say this.... settle people down.



I know why, no one likes anyone in dressy blues and wearing a mask. In fact he shot my uncle joe just for herding cattle.
...
....
....
...
We ain't going to mention they weren't our cattle.


----------



## jasper

Get rid of the colors and just go with black and white text and art. Less classes! How many are they now and how many books do they cover? Less feats or rework the current ones where they are just ok, not great and not bad. Some spells need to be nerfed, I leave up to you to decide. Death due to max age, yes bring back that golden ole from 1E.

Random replies
Ad_hoc …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)…… hahaha Your players do. My players either say I use X skill or if I lucky give me a description.
Vpuigdoller …I would love if they removed sub classes. The more time passes the more I hate them….. Yea forget midget or diesel, Nuke and guided missiles classes rule!

Random thoughts…
Each Deluxe DMG should come with a sharp sword and 10 get out of jail free cards. DMS can then legally lop the heads off of rules lawyers or Min Maxers. DM is responsible for cleaning up the carpet.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Blue said:


> That's actually intentional in 5e.  Due to bounded accuracy, they can't just keep increasing defenses (AC & saves).  So increasing HPs is the way to keep foes alive.  It's supposed to keep them up for the same amount of time as if they had lesser HPs but a lot more misses/saves.



Bounded Accuracy was a bad idea. It's better to not hit, than to hit for trivial damage. It's also _far_ more straightforward to understand what's happening within the narrative when that happens. 

If you swapped the advancement rates of hit/AC and HP, the game would make much more sense. That is something I would like to see in 6E.


----------



## Nebulous

anahata said:


> More guidance for the DM. What does Intimidate do in combat? How am I supposed to handle magic items? How does a transmuter wizard's transmutation ability actually work? How can a character craft a normal nonmagical weapon? All those "use your judgement / discretion" sections in the DMG need to go. They don't help anyone, especially new DMs. There are so many holes in the rules that I've found running _just the starter module_ that I've determined 5e to be unusable. I seriously don't understand how people actually play 5e given how many holes there are in the rules.




Did you prefer 3.5?  Taht


Parmandur said:


> They almost did use "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" for the core books in 5E, to contrast with the Basic PDF, but found in marketing studied that it was a terrible idea that confused customers: which probably happened in the 70's & 80''s, too, but TSR was clueless.




It DID confuse me in the 80s.  I avoided basic D&D because I thought AD&D was clearly superior, but never even got a chance to play it.


----------



## Nebulous

Olaf the Stout said:


> 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.




I know, the organization of the book is pretty awful compared to other big companies who put out similar product.


----------



## Lanefan

moisan4 said:


> -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.
> -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.



All of this in effect just adds up to one request: more complexity, more complication, more rules, more reward for system mastery, and more time spent on mechanics rather than role-play.

No thanks.


> -Remove rangers favoured enemies, it's junk. I know it's a staple, but it's time to pull that staple.



Rangers are already ruined, yet you'd pull one of the few things they have left going for them?


----------



## Stalker0

I like 5e a lot, but of course could always want more. There are a lot of small things, but for me there are 3 conceptual pieces:

1) more support for 1-2 encounter per day adventuring. I’m just not going to run 6 encounters per day...never will, and I would like more support for this style

2) Intelligence not a dump stat. Some more general mechanics to make it relevant to more classes.

3) A new form of concentration.

The new concentration solved several problems...but it created some new ones as well. I have watched my spell casting players really chaff under the restriction, and I think it’s also greatly reduced the variety of spells used. Concentration is too precious of a resource.

I am not sure what the answer is...but another try at this mechanic to see if a better middle ground can be found.


----------



## Lanefan

@77IM - you were going great through your first 5 points (see post 128), though for *point 5* a case might also be made to just ditch Inspiration entirely.

_Compatibility: as you note above, except ditching Inspiration would require removing anything that refers to or relies on its existence...which isn't much._

For *point 6*: I would include magic item pricing in the DMG, along with a note to DMs

the list is optional
the list is just a guideline and a DM is free to change pricing as she likes
it's the DM's choice whether or not to allow players access to the list

_Compatibility: full, it's an add-on
_
For *point 7*: having monster xp already listed does save the DM some time...but I'd rather see it be more granularly done, rather than always rounded to the nearest 100, and that the formula for calculating xp be provided in the DMG so DMs can a) accurately work out xp for their own homebrew monsters and b) tweak said formula if they so desire. (corollary: obviously the expectation would be that the xp amounts given for monsters in modules follow the same formula)

For various reasons I'd want to keep xp as the primary means of advancement, with milestone or ad-hoc advancement mentioned only as a non-supported option.

_Compatibility: full._

For *point 8*: No.  Just no.

And in your post you even hit the reason why - you mention rolling as being "awful game design"; but the question then arises as to whether the focus should be on just designing a game for its own sake (which was the tack taken by 4e; at least they were up-front about it) or on also helping to design a realistic and believable setting - because in the reality of any form of life the things reflected by the ability scores are rather random.

There's also an even more basic design question ahead of all that: within the game, how much of a role should sheer luck play?  The very fact that the game mechanics are largely based on dice rolls tells me that luck is intended to be, if not front-and-centre, certainly a very important element.

_Compatibility: almost full; though as a corollary effect I'd want to slow down (and somewhat randomize) ASIs - you choose which stat(s) are going to advance but it's uncertain when or how often that advancement will occur; done via cumulative dice rolls toward a target (see 1e Cavalier stat increments as an example)._

For *point 9*: I've yet to be sold on any skill system beyond some very basics, and not at all on "social" skills, thus I'm neutral here.


----------



## Lanefan

Stalker0 said:


> 3) A new form of concentration.
> 
> The new concentration solved several problems...but it created some new ones as well. I have watched my spell casting players really chaff under the restriction, and I think it’s also greatly reduced the variety of spells used. Concentration is too precious of a resource.
> 
> I am not sure what the answer is...but another try at this mechanic to see if a better middle ground can be found.



Maybe make a lot of spells a bit weaker but fully fire-and-forget, thus leaving concentration as something required for just a few specific spells?


----------



## TwoSix

Jer said:


> Having said that - what I'd like to see eventually is them market variants of the core ruleset that don't have to be 100% compatible with the current edition but speak to particular needs.  Like a version of the game that has more choices for characters without having to worry about how it remains balanced with the more minimalist 5e framework, or a version of the game that requires a grid and is designed to give a more tactical combat experience.  That's what I'd rather see happen instead of an actual 6th edition personally.



This is exactly what I want.  Any new edition of D&D should be a fork, not a reboot.


----------



## GreyLord

Only really one big thing, that Fighters (and perhaps all Warriors) advance more quickly in weapon proficiency than anyone else.  The idea that a bookworm will be equal to a highly trained soldier or warrior is one of the big things that I really think is hard to stretch one's imagination around in 5e.  

Make Warrior's Weapon Proficiencies like Rogues with their Skill proficiencies, they can double their Proficiency with a weapon.  Sure, it will make them hit far more often, but at higher levels they still need a little oomph to balance out with the high level spellcasters anyways...

Other than that, keep it as it is.  Maybe a tweak here or there, but overall, keep it very compatible with 5e...

so I guess that would the #2...

Compatible.  

don't throw out the baby with the dishwater.


----------



## Blue

Saelorn said:


> Bounded Accuracy was a bad idea. It's better to not hit, than to hit for trivial damage. It's also _far_ more straightforward to understand what's happening within the narrative when that happens.
> 
> If you swapped the advancement rates of hit/AC and HP, the game would make much more sense. That is something I would like to see in 6E.




Definitely *a* valid path. Low level creatures remain scary not because they still hit often, but because if they do hit it's for a sizable amount of your HPs. More powerful foes are scary because they hit A LOT, doing a good chunk of your HPs each time, and they are hard to hit in return.

Seems a bit more swingy than the direction 5e went because d20+mods has more variation then d12+8 (or whatever) damage dice.  A few good rolls can make hits to bring down a powerful foe quickly - be it the dragon the PCs just effortless took out, or the gnolls taking down a PC in the first round.  That's not a condemnation, just a comment on the difference.


----------



## The Green Hermit

I would like it to be backwards compatible. I am also on the train that wants more supplemental options rather than a complete restart.


----------



## Shardstone

jasper said:


> Get rid of the colors and just go with black and white text and art. Less classes! How many are they now and how many books do they cover? Less feats or rework the current ones where they are just ok, not great and not bad. Some spells need to be nerfed, I leave up to you to decide. Death due to max age, yes bring back that golden ole from 1E.
> 
> Random replies
> Ad_hoc …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)…… hahaha Your players do. My players either say I use X skill or if I lucky give me a description.
> Vpuigdoller …I would love if they removed sub classes. The more time passes the more I hate them….. Yea forget midget or diesel, Nuke and guided missiles classes rule!
> 
> Random thoughts…
> Each Deluxe DMG should come with a sharp sword and 10 get out of jail free cards. DMS can then legally lop the heads off of rules lawyers or Min Maxers. DM is responsible for cleaning up the carpet.



There are 12 classes in one book, and color art is not bad. Wait, am I responding to a troll again...hmmm


----------



## Azzy

I want it to be 5e cleaned up and fixed where it needs to be.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Oh, one other thing: even tho I'm not a big fan of psionics, I think the ''new phb'' should include most classes and subsystems required to play in the more popular settings. So, psionic caster and artificers should be base classes.


----------



## Shardstone

Azzy said:


> I want it to be 5e cleaned up and fixed where it needs to be.



What does this mean? Any examples?


----------



## akr71

Blue said:


> Mearls has talked about keeping 5e as "evergreen", which pushes down thoughts of 6e some. Why spend resources (= money) several years before it can recoup those costs if the sales of the books stay high? And even in the gluts of 3.x and 4e, the core books sales stayed high.




^This.  I don't expect to 6e any time soon, nor do I want it. I don't think 5e is the perfect game, but my players seem happy enough, and only one other (who occasionally DM's too), is a tinkerer.

That said, what I would like to see is a 'republishing' of the 3 core books, so all the 'official' player character options and spells were bundled into one book. All the treasure and maybe some of the lore, especially when it pertains to other planes bundled into a revised DMG. I don't know about one massive monster manual though - at least I don't have any ideas off the top of my head. This would keep the edition as an 'evergreen' product. Much of what I _need_, I can find through a third party or homebrew myself.

I would like more optional rules like a more robust skill system, weapons that feel unique (battleaxe vs longsword) and more shield options.

It will be interesting to see what WotC does after Essentials has been mass released for an extended period. What will happen to those new Sidekick and single person play rules?


----------



## cbwjm

I wouldn't mind seeing updates to classes such that they all gain their subclass at 1st level and each level where subclass abilities are gained are the same across each class. I want to be able to more easily mix and match subclasses, though I could do without the latter if it meant I could have 1st level subclasses for each class.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

I doubt we will see 6e within the next ten years, tbh. 

But, if I had Mike's job, my priorities for a 6e would be:

1. Backward compatibility, and don't call it 6e. 

2. Do not break apart the ranger, or rebuild it to use terrain as it's subclass, or any such conceptual overhaul. The ranger needs to do what it already does, but actually be effective at all levels, and for every choice to actually meaningfully impact the character. 
   [sblock] Natural Explorer should still include a favored terrain choice, which should give benefits to exploration in general, but particularly in stuff like movement, stealth, surviving hazards, etc, so that it is sometimes useful in combat as well. It should also have always on travel benefits for the whole team. If they can be tailored to a terrain but still useful anywhere, great. 
   Favored Enemy should stop being about choosing a species or similar grouping, and instead be things like "behemoths, hordes, outsiders, conjurations, spellcasters," etc. Dragons might be fine, but if things like Rocs and Griffons can be put in a group with them, that's better. Then, the benefit is to tracking, interacting with, evading, and fighting those types of creatures. Things like "when a flying creature that is larger than you leaves your threatened space, you can make an Opportunity Attack even if they Disengage or otherwise have an ability to move without provoking them." or the Hunter Ranger's Horde Breaker benefit. Basically consume the Hunter into the favored enemy class feature. 
Also, Rangers would have known spells equal to their Wisdom mod+half level, and Favored enemy would give the ability to use Hunter's Mark without a spell slot against a creature that qualifies as your favored enemy, or something like that. I prefer to keep HM a spell, though. I wouldn't replace it with a class feature, as such. [/sblock]

3. Give monsters skills, and bring back thinks like "leader" and "elite" classifications as templates to add to monsters, also clean up the math of monsters so that they are easier to adjust, and experiment in playtesting with different ways to make monsters more dynamic without making them overwhelming. 

4. Move further away from the idea that humanoid races can be born evil. 

5. Experiment with giving Fighters Legendary Actions instead of more extra attacks. 

6. Make Inspiration more front and center, in part by having characters automatically have inspiration when they gain a level, or maybe even at the start of an adventuring day, or something. 

7. Experiment with Extended Rests, as an expansion on Downtime. Provide alternate rules for only recovering some of your resources with a Long Rest. Perhaps half your spell levels in slots, for instance. Basically model something similar to the Journey rules in The One Ring and Adventures in Middle Earth, where you have to rest in a place of true safety to fully get back to 100%. But also provide bonuses when you take an Extended Rest, especially if you do so in a place where you are very well regarded, or in your own stronghold, etc. See 6; maybe you gain Inspiration at the end of an Extended Rest, in addition to being able to gain it by doing cool stuff and playing your character well. 

8. Make Travel more interesting. This would be a big goal, but I don't have any concrete ideas for it off the top of my head. 

9. Include actual advice for crafting, running a business, leading an organization, etc. Doesn't need to be whole subsystems, but some degree of support for DMs that don't want to invent a whole system from scratch or spend the whole campaign playing "idk just...um...roll a thing. okay, that seems pretty good...XYZ happens".


----------



## doctorbadwolf

pogre said:


> Very satisfied with 5e, but I would like to see more codified reasons for PCs to push their resources before resting. Adventure structure largely does this for me now, but some mechanical benefits would be welcome.



I'd love to see something like 4e's Action Points, here. A direct mechanical reward for pushing past the safe resource expenditure model.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Maybe the variant Class features will work out to replace half-casting with a more robust Beast (which is needed to get the math some people want). But the Beastmaster as a distinct archetype will not happen in a 6E: no way Crawford brigns it back.
> 
> Another one for 6E: variant core class features, separate from archetype, like spell casting versus martial feats versus a beast for Rangers.



lol this cracks me up, man. 

The beastmaster would definately be back in a 6e. 0% chance of it not coming back. The idea of making the player choose between spellcasting and having a beast is a silly notion that Mearls toyed with, that will never become the mainstream representation of the archetype, because it doesn't allow the Ranger that a huge swath of ranger fans want. That is, a spellcasting ranger with a beast. 

Not to mention, even what you want would be much, much, more elegantly acheived by simply including spells that beef up a creature you control, or even boost you and such a creature with one spell, OR simply allowing the ranger to burn spell slots in a manner similar to Divine Smite, and let BM ranger pets benefit whenever the ranger does so, in addition to simply burning a spell slot to heal the beast as a bonus action. 

But the Beast Conclave beast works just fine. It accomplishes all of it's goals, even if you do like we did at my table to ditch the conclave specific extra attack back to normal extra attack. A wolf companion has HP simialr to a rogue, can wear barding to get similar AC or better, and the HP and proficiency based buffs scale with character level rather than ranger level, meaning that the beast doesn't become less powerful as an MC ranger levels up. Fixing the core class issues with the PHB ranger, and replacing the PHB BM with the Beast Conclave, is all that is needed.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> lol this cracks me up, man.
> 
> The beastmaster would definately be back in a 6e. 0% chance of it not coming back. The idea of making the player choose between spellcasting and having a beast is a silly notion that Mearls toyed with, that will never become the mainstream representation of the archetype, because it doesn't allow the Ranger that a huge swath of ranger fans want. That is, a spellcasting ranger with a beast.
> 
> Not to mention, even what you want would be much, much, more elegantly acheived by simply including spells that beef up a creature you control, or even boost you and such a creature with one spell, OR simply allowing the ranger to burn spell slots in a manner similar to Divine Smite, and let BM ranger pets benefit whenever the ranger does so, in addition to simply burning a spell slot to heal the beast as a bonus action.
> 
> But the Beast Conclave beast works just fine. It accomplishes all of it's goals, even if you do like we did at my table to ditch the conclave specific extra attack back to normal extra attack. A wolf companion has HP simialr to a rogue, can wear barding to get similar AC or better, and the HP and proficiency based buffs scale with character level rather than ranger level, meaning that the beast doesn't become less powerful as an MC ranger levels up. Fixing the core class issues with the PHB ranger, and replacing the PHB BM with the Beast Conclave, is all that is needed.




We'll see how it goes when they test the variant features: we know from the Baldur's Gate 3 media tour that the video game Ranger is changed from the tabletop version in some (unrevealed) fundamental ways, and that Larian and WotC "were on the same page" as to the changes they were thinking about before speaking to each other (probably around the time Mearls was floating his Ranger ideason Twitch). Mearls has said changes similar to the upcoming video game will be tested later this year. It will be interesting.

But in the event of a 6E, the Beastmaster is toast, along with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. Particularly if the game is backwards compatible, and they can refer anybody who wants to play one back to the 5E version.

The Beastmaster works fine right now, working as designed: what they found is thst people who heard "Beastmaster" wanted something other than was designed, hence if they want to make that something else has to give.


----------



## Maxperson

Saelorn said:


> Bounded Accuracy was a bad idea. It's better to not hit, than to hit for trivial damage. It's also _far_ more straightforward to understand what's happening within the narrative when that happens.
> 
> If you swapped the advancement rates of hit/AC and HP, the game would make much more sense. That is something I would like to see in 6E.




I think the middle ground is best.  I mean, whiffing 30 times isn't any more or less satisfying to me than hitting 30 times and being like, "It still looks fine!?"  Better to be somewhere in the middle where you feel like you can hit a reasonable amount, and feel like when you hit you are accomplishing something.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> We'll see how it goes when they test the variant features: we know from the Baldur's Gate 3 media tour that the video game Ranger is changed from the tabletop version in some (unrevealed) fundamental ways, and that Larian and WotC "were on the same page" as to the changes they were thinking about before speaking to each other (probably around the time Mearls was floating his Ranger ideason Twitch). Mearls has said changes similar to the upcoming video game will be tested later this year. It will be interesting.
> 
> But in the event of a 6E, the Beastmaster is toast, along with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. Particularly if the game is backwards compatible, and they can refer anybody who wants to play one back to the 5E version.
> 
> The Beastmaster works fine right now, working as designed: what they found is thst people who heard "Beastmaster" wanted something other than was designed, hence if they want to make that something else has to give.



The BG3 comments are entirely unrelated to a hypothetical 6e. 

The middle part is literally just a thing you're making up with no backing of any kind. 

The last is...honestly also that, so far as I can tell.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> The BG3 comments are entirely unrelated to a hypothetical 6e.
> 
> The middle part is literally just a thing you're making up with no backing of any kind.
> 
> The last is...honestly also that, so far as I can tell.




The new tabletop game rules they test for 5E following the changes from the game will reflect the future direction of the game, including a 6E, if they are received well. The initial tests have to do with variant Ranger features similar to what Mearls has previously floated when the last batch of public surveys showed that XGtE had not raised Ranger satisfaction rates as they had hoped.

The second point is a prediction based on the principles of the modern D&D design cycle: if the Way of Four Elements and the Beastmaster don't get satisfactory marks, they'll be cut.

The third point is from Mearls dissection of the dissatisfaction with the Ranger in general, and the Beastmaster in particular: the Class and Subclass work, they have the math down, but they are not satisfactory to a large minority of players. Hence why Mearls floated the Variant Class features (the choice between spell/martial/beast). It'll be interesting to see where they take them, and if they are received well. As well as what BG 3 does with the Ranger on their end.


----------



## Ratskinner

Hmmm....I'm not looking for a 6e anytime soon. So I think I'll split my thoughts into two sections:

*"Minor" revisions*
Fix the resource recovery methods so all classes work on the same (or very similar) schedule. I've seen too many paladin novas for my taste.

More "martial" classes and options. Seems like everyone is a spellcaster...that seems odd to me.

Make skills and backgrounds more like 13th Age's

Make monsters and monster design work more like 4e, even if the combat system doesn't support all the detail.

*"Major" revisions*
Lower HP totals and progression. Including damage.
     Key more spell effects to damage, like Sleep in 5e. If HP are supposed to be such an abstraction, use it more like one.
Bake damage factors into classes, rather than by weapon or spell. (see 13th Age)
Replace Wisdom with Perception, and make the three mental stats work in conjunction with each other like the physical stats do for combat. (some spells or actions working on each of the three, rather than having each class take one as their primary.
Replace Intelligence with Learning or Lore. Let the player's intelligence determine their ability to solve problems, puzzles, and traps. But the character can know a great deal about the world that the player might not.
Do a lot of the stuff that the Dungeon Craft Youtube channel suggests.
   drop initiative
   make spells less complicated
Shift to an overall less complicated system informed by Index Card RPGs innovations for DC, and conflict resolution, etc.
     at the very least, institute some sort of countdown mechanics or clock for non-combat conflicts (see PbtA, BitD, and ICRPG).

dunno how much that would look like D&D when its done.


----------



## The Green Hermit

doctorbadwolf said:


> 9. Include actual advice for crafting, running a business, leading an organization, etc. Doesn't need to be whole subsystems, but some degree of support for DMs that don't want to invent a whole system from scratch or spend the whole campaign playing "idk just...um...roll a thing. okay, that seems pretty good...XYZ happens".




This would be very, very nice. True, people can just wing it, but newer players could use a bit of scaffolding.


----------



## Blue

vincegetorix said:


> Oh, one other thing: even tho I'm not a big fan of psionics, I think the ''new phb'' should include most classes and subsystems required to play in the more popular settings. So, psionic caster and artificers should be base classes.




Would you mind a Starter Set that only has a subset of classes, to keep choices (and options to be understood) for new players to a more focused amount, and then the primary PHB has everything?

Trying to balance more starting options (which I want) with new player friendly (which I also want).


----------



## jasper

I love the old black and white art. And think it would save money.  If it wouldn't then keep the art. And I think there are too many classes/races across too many books. Let me see. Correct me if I wrong 
Volos gives monster races
Mordenkainen gives races and classes
Sword coast gives race, class and a few spells. 
Elemental Evil companion gives races and spells.


----------



## Blue

doctorbadwolf said:


> The beastmaster would definately be back in a 6e. 0% chance of it not coming back. The idea of making the player choose between spellcasting and having a beast is a silly notion that Mearls toyed with, that will never become the mainstream representation of the archetype, because it doesn't allow the Ranger that a huge swath of ranger fans want. That is, a spellcasting ranger with a beast.




Question for you and @Parmandur, who seem to have opposite viewpoints on this. I have a third option I'd like to hear from people.

Would an invocation-based ranger (like a spell-less warlock) work in 6e for you. This would allow some rangers to take "woodlands magic" invocations (or whatever terrain), which also could mean some are at-will or have other usage-per-day that fits the ranger, as opposed to fits the caster system.  Or not to be taken for those who don't want to get magic involved. It would also allow invocations for beasts to get scouting, then combat, then even-cooler-in-various-ways customization. Plus Invocations like Hunter's Mark and others that fit other ragner archetypes (archer, scout, bounty hunter, warden, etc.)


----------



## Parmandur

Blue said:


> Question for you and @Parmandur, who seem to have opposite viewpoints on this. I have a third option I'd like to hear from people.
> 
> Would an invocation-based ranger (like a spell-less warlock) work in 6e for you. This would allow some rangers to take "woodlands magic" invocations (or whatever terrain), which also could mean some are at-will or have other usage-per-day that fits the ranger, as opposed to fits the caster system.  Or not to be taken for those who don't want to get magic involved. It would also allow invocations for beasts to get scouting, then combat, then even-cooler-in-various-ways customization. Plus Invocations like Hunter's Mark and others that fit other ragner archetypes (archer, scout, bounty hunter, warden, etc.)




Yeah, that seems to be a model for were this is headed.


----------



## anahata

MockingBird said:


> That's what I love about this edition the most, the power the DM has. What would you think intimidate would do in combat? Does one really need an explicit rule for this? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to open up a constructive dialogue.




How would I know what intimidate should do in combat? I don't get into fights. I have no experience or basis on which to decide. I also have no experience or basis on which to decide how magic works. That's why the rules exist: to provide a framework for things we humans in the real world have no experience of.



Lanefan said:


> Easy.  Make it up.  Make rulings.  You're the DM - you tell the game what to do, rather than the reverse.




How? On what basis? What do I choose? How do I justify the choice? I play an RPG instead of doing freeform makebelieve so that there's structure. Taking away the structure means it's no longer a game. I _don't want to be_ a game designer but 5e makes me one.



Lanefan said:


> 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.




This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad; _there is no foundation_. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it.



Garthanos said:


> As for ideas about what might be achievable - Many of the fighters maneuvers could be couched as an effect achievable via intimidation  pushing, distracting, menacing, goading for example maybe even a trip or commanders strike.  (evasive footwork becomes menacing glare which darts from enemy to enemy as they attempt to hit you)




What does all of that mean in game terms? How does it work? The ideas are great, but it doesn't tell me how to adjudicate actions.



Blue said:


> I think the issue is assuming that Intimidate does anything different in combat then it does out-of-combat. The results of the social skills have always been for the DM to adjudicate.




This is wrong. Here's the Intimidate skill description for 3.5 for in-combat use:



			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Demoralize Opponent
> You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent’s resolve in combat. To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target’s modified level check (see above). If you win, the target becomes shaken for 1 round. A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.




This is a mechanical, _quantifiable_, description of what the skill does and how to use it. Meanwhile, here's the entire text of the skill description for 5e:



			
				5e PHB said:
			
		

> When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.




There's no description of what kind of action it is, if it even is an action, what the effects are, how long they last, nothing. That specific use of the skill in 3.5 has more words than the entire description in fifth. This is the kind of detail that I want. "use your intuition" / "use your judgement" / "make a ruling" aren't helpful when there's no guidance on developing that intuition or judgement or any suggestions on what the ruling should be. I had to make a ruling on the spot when my player did this and, because there's no suggestions on what to do, how to handle the situation, I gave him something so powerful it broke encounters. 3.5 provides specific, _balanced_ (mostly) rules for the things my players want to do. 5e leaves me to make things up without providing any of the support needed to understand how to do so.



Nebulous said:


> Did you prefer 3.5?  Taht




I'm not sure what you were going to say after "That", but yes, I absolutely do prefer 3.5, for reasons that should be clear from the rest of the post. 5e is like tossing your infant into the ocean and telling them to swim. 3.5 pairs you with an Olympic swimming coach.


----------



## Blue

anahata said:


> This is wrong. Here's the Intimidate skill description for 3.5 for in-combat use:




So, THAC0 should exist because it was in a previous edition?

Sorry, if something was dropped from an earlier edition, that does not mean it was forgotten - and most often means it's intentional. Considering the differences between 3.5 and 5e design philosophies (simulationist vs. empowered DMs), it make sense it was dropped.


----------



## anahata

Blue said:


> So, THAC0 should exist because it was in a previous edition?
> 
> Sorry, if something was dropped from an earlier edition, that does not mean it was forgotten - and most often means it's intentional. Considering the differences between 3.5 and 5e design philosophies (simulationist vs. empowered DMs), it make sense it was dropped.




I never made the argument that THAC0 should exist. That's a strawman. I was correcting a falsehood in your post. And I furthermore disagree with the implied logic in your current post that something being dropped means it was inherently bad and needed to go. That position is predicated upon the (false) assumption that the decision to drop things is correct. I furthermore disagree with the philosophy of "empowered DMs" for 5e. The DM was always empowered from the original game. Not providing rules doesn't empower the DM, it just makes more work for them.

If we take your argument from the perspective of 4th edition, then, shall we say that everything that 4th dropped from 3rd is bad and needs to go? Including the things that 5th brought back? Surely that means that dropping things from a game can be a mistake, rather than that dropping things is necessarily correct as your post seems to suggest.


----------



## Parmandur

anahata said:


> How would I know what intimidate should do in combat? I don't get into fights. I have no experience or basis on which to decide. I also have no experience or basis on which to decide how magic works. That's why the rules exist: to provide a framework for things we humans in the real world have no experience of.
> 
> 
> 
> How? On what basis? What do I choose? How do I justify the choice? I play an RPG instead of doing freeform makebelieve so that there's structure. Taking away the structure means it's no longer a game. I _don't want to be_ a game designer but 5e makes me one.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad; _there is no foundation_. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it.
> 
> 
> 
> What does all of that mean in game terms? How does it work? The ideas are great, but it doesn't tell me how to adjudicate actions.
> 
> 
> 
> This is wrong. Here's the Intimidate skill description for 3.5 for in-combat use:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a mechanical, _quantifiable_, description of what the skill does and how to use it. Meanwhile, here's the entire text of the skill description for 5e:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no description of what kind of action it is, if it even is an action, what the effects are, how long they last, nothing. That specific use of the skill in 3.5 has more words than the entire description in fifth. This is the kind of detail that I want. "use your intuition" / "use your judgement" / "make a ruling" aren't helpful when there's no guidance on developing that intuition or judgement or any suggestions on what the ruling should be. I had to make a ruling on the spot when my player did this and, because there's no suggestions on what to do, how to handle the situation, I gave him something so powerful it broke encounters. 3.5 provides specific, _balanced_ (mostly) rules for the things my players want to do. 5e leaves me to make things up without providing any of the support needed to understand how to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you were going to say after "That", but yes, I absolutely do prefer 3.5, for reasons that should be clear from the rest of the post. 5e is like tossing your infant into the ocean and telling them to swim. 3.5 pairs you with an Olympic swimming coach.




This post is a good rundown of why I don't miss 3.x...


----------



## Blue

anahata said:


> I never made the argument that THAC0 should exist. That's a strawman. I was correcting a falsehood in your post. And I furthermore disagree with the implied logic in your current post that something being dropped means it was inherently bad and needed to go. That position is predicated upon the (false) assumption that the decision to drop things is correct. I furthermore disagree with the philosophy of "empowered DMs" for 5e. The DM was always empowered from the original game. Not providing rules doesn't empower the DM, it just makes more work for them.
> 
> If we take your argument from the perspective of 4th edition, then, shall we say that everything that 4th dropped from 3rd is bad and needs to go? Including the things that 5th brought back? Surely that means that dropping things from a game can be a mistake, rather than that dropping things is necessarily correct as your post seems to suggest.



Your "proof" that it was supposed to exist was merely that it existed in a previous edition.  But the same level of proof to show how that's a ridiculous stance you called a strawman.  Yet somehow that doesn't apply to your own proof.

In addition, you completely ignored the reaosning why I thought it was intentionally dropped, and instead tried to set up that I said everything dropped was intentional. Which is not supported by my original post. As you are so fond of pointing out strawmen, you may want to look closer to home.

I don't see anything constructive coming from continuing this.


----------



## TwoSix

anahata said:


> I'm not sure what you were going to say after "That", but yes, I absolutely do prefer 3.5, for reasons that should be clear from the rest of the post. 5e is like tossing your infant into the ocean and telling them to swim. 3.5 pairs you with an Olympic swimming coach.



Obviously, in a thread on what you would like "6e" to look like, a desire to see a reversion to the 3.5 "stone fortress" model of rules is an entirely relevant opinion to offer, and there's no reason to gainsay you.

As I'm sure you've picked up from the responses in this thread, though, your opinion does appear to be a minority one.  If you feel that your inability to do effective ad-hoc adjudication is something hindering your own play, I'm sure a lot of advice can be offered, both in this thread and others.  If you feel that detailed, rules-heavy structures are simply better for your playstyle, then I wish you continued good gaming with 3.5, and maybe you should check out Pathfinder 2 as well, since it offers a similar structure.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Blue said:


> Question for you and @Parmandur, who seem to have opposite viewpoints on this. I have a third option I'd like to hear from people.
> 
> Would an invocation-based ranger (like a spell-less warlock) work in 6e for you. This would allow some rangers to take "woodlands magic" invocations (or whatever terrain), which also could mean some are at-will or have other usage-per-day that fits the ranger, as opposed to fits the caster system.  Or not to be taken for those who don't want to get magic involved. It would also allow invocations for beasts to get scouting, then combat, then even-cooler-in-various-ways customization. Plus Invocations like Hunter's Mark and others that fit other ragner archetypes (archer, scout, bounty hunter, warden, etc.)




Ohhh....an invocation-based Ranger would be...interesting.  I'd like to see that.


----------



## Garthanos

anahata said:


> What does all of that mean in game terms? How does it work? The ideas are great, but it doesn't tell me how to adjudicate actions.



Well it is step one to decide what the effects are and the fighters maneuvers are well defined in game terms - a difficult part might be avoiding stepping too hard on fighter toes (if we are allowing improvised by the untrained). I like to give more rather than take away so we can do both.

Foundation I want the fighter to have reasons to use other skills for these things and have a choice to do their maneuvers more often. Solution I enable the fighter or martial adept to if they are trained in an appropriate skill to  trade one of their attacks to allow them perform their next attack with the benefit exactly as though they had another superiority die  d6 size with attribute mod for nice flavor. So far so good.

Now if we want people to improvise more for maneuvers they don't know or even try it without being trained in the skill. For instance  if you only trained in the maneuver or only trained in the skill you can now make a skill roll it might not even be too difficult = 10 or 15 + wisdom mod of enemy if the player character is "trained" in neither 20 or 25 + wisdom mod.

The reason I give a range of 10/15 or 20/25 is because I have not tested it.

Basically the above is just a house rule type modification... it is the kind of thing i might come up with in 1e  ( 4e did have a very vague general Intimidation can do this rule about inducing an enemy to perform an action and including when you could use that to induce surrender)

Any way perhaps they will do an Advanced D&D with more optional rules


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Blue said:


> Would you mind a Starter Set that only has a subset of classes, to keep choices (and options to be understood) for new players to a more focused amount, and then the primary PHB has everything?
> 
> Trying to balance more starting options (which I want) with new player friendly (which I also want).



Yes, that would be nice. I'm a big fan of OSR, so I dont feel like the game actually need the 12-15 classes. So a Basic started set with the main four would indeed be a good product. I would suggest to have special archetypes that represent the classes present in the full PHB, like the Scout rogue to play a ''ranger'', a divine champion fighter to play a ''paladin'' etc


----------



## jasper

Random replies

@anahata …This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad; _there is no foundation_. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it……

I see your point. But when I did play 3.x games I thought the scaffolding was hiding the big picture and the game. Too many hard parts to remember or look up. So, and I hate using these words. So you are in to 3.x crunch and I am into the 5E Fluff.

On Intimidate. Real world example. One my roll players asked to Intimidate and said he was talking about the guy’s mom. He won and I had the npc pass on his attack action.

On tossing the baby and swimming Coach. Yes but when Nebulous brings in another coach (buys the new 3.x book) around these parts it was the dm had to use those rules too.

@Twosix…. "stone fortress" model of rules … Good one. I stealing this and my pick pockets is 99%. J

Radom mumble. “Whimper whine, Whimper whine. I haven't used all the monsters from the 1E MM or played all the classes from the 1E PHB. Whimper Whine.


----------



## Lanefan

anahata said:


> How would I know what intimidate should do in combat? I don't get into fights. I have no experience or basis on which to decide. I also have no experience or basis on which to decide how magic works. That's why the rules exist: to provide a framework for things we humans in the real world have no experience of.



And which was 95% likely to have been made up in the first place by someone with just as much experience in these things as you.



> How? On what basis? What do I choose? How do I justify the choice? I play an RPG instead of doing freeform makebelieve so that there's structure. Taking away the structure means it's no longer a game.



This last sentence is an interesting statement and worth a longer look, as by extension you're saying that an unstructured or even partly-structured game cannot be defied as a game at all.  I rather suspect you'll hit a wall of disagrement on this one. 

A game can be a game with only the most minimal of 'structure' behind it.



> This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad; _there is no foundation_. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it.



Let me guess - you never played or DMed 0e or 1e, did you. 

In those editions, kitbashing the rules was an accepted (and sometimes necessary!) part of the DM's job: you were to some extent expected to look under the hood and figure out how it ran, and then both discouraged from* and encouraged to* tinker with the engine. 5e has to some extent** returned to that philosophy.

* - Gygax manages to do both, each in multiple places, in the 1e DMG.
** - but, sadly, nowhere near as much as was suggested during playtest.

Put another way, the game provides the framework - and it's not a bad one, all things considered - but it's on you to then provide the consistency and predictability to your players in the manner in which you would like to see it.

And as for being bad at game design: with rare exceptions people are bad at anything before they do much of it.  Only by trial and error and practice do they become less bad, and in some cases even halfway good...and even the professionals aren't above making some real facepalm-worthy design decisions - look no further than this forum and its constant stream of threads either complaining about a rule or proposing ideas to fix one.



> This is wrong. Here's the Intimidate skill description for 3.5 for in-combat use:
> 
> This is a mechanical, _quantifiable_, description of what the skill does and how to use it. Meanwhile, here's the entire text of the skill description for 5e:
> 
> There's no description of what kind of action it is, if it even is an action, what the effects are, how long they last, nothing.



And there's a reason for that: 5e tries (at least sort-of) to downplay player-side crunch mechanics in favour of giving ideas on how something can be done in character.  And the PH is, remember, first and foremost for players.

Now if you want to blame something for not giving more specifics, blame the DMG; as that's where the DM guidance should in theory be found.



> I'm not sure what you were going to say after "That", but yes, I absolutely do prefer 3.5, for reasons that should be clear from the rest of the post. 5e is like tossing your infant into the ocean and telling them to swim. 3.5 pairs you with an Olympic swimming coach.



Conversely, 5e (and 0e-1e) leave you-as-player free to think like your character and let the DM worry about the mechanics while at the table, where 3e (and 4e) instead keep you-as-player thinking about meta-mechanics all the time.


----------



## Garthanos

Saelorn said:


> Bounded Accuracy was a bad idea.



While I am not sure about your solution - I may agree with your conclusion for different reasons - I think that progression on to hit and hence skill change is innadequate to represent the distinction between tiers of characters (training tier is just too close to end game with only 25% increase although some attribute increase changes that the default amount of increase is low enough its still really really constrained )


----------



## Nebulous

The responses to this thread have really made me desire an upgraded and reorganized set of core books that hearken to the modular style of play that 5e originally said it would be like. I don't know if that will ever happen but it would be great.


----------



## ad_hoc

anahata said:


> How would I know what intimidate should do in combat? I don't get into fights. I have no experience or basis on which to decide. I also have no experience or basis on which to decide how magic works. That's why the rules exist: to provide a framework for things we humans in the real world have no experience of.




Anahata, I think your personal experiences are valid. While 5e isn't for you it's great that there is a game that you enjoy (3.5e).

Where I take issue with your statements are when they are broadened to the general.

5e has millions of players. Somewhere over 20 million at this time (though I think that is a low estimate). Most of those players are new to RPGs and hobby gaming.

I believe 5e is so popular and has this much momentum is because most people find it intuitive and easy to play.

Some, like you, don't and that's fine. The inverse is true with 3e. Most people find it to be hard to play.

Anecdotally I introduced many people to 3e who had trouble with it, found it to be a chore, and quickly abandoned it. In 5e everyone who I have introduced it to has picked it up well. 2 of the players who had no previous experience with RPGs started DMing for brand new groups of their friends after only a couple sessions.

In light of this, I think it is fair to say that the rules on intimidate are just fine.

Further, I think it is a mistake to try to codify everything in specific rules because the open nature of RPGs makes that impossible. Instead, 5e recognizes this and is designed around making rulings. This also allows players freedom to do things outside of what is written on their character sheets.

3e has a lot of play away from the table designing characters. 5e has a lot of play at the table where players come up with courses of action that aren't written on the character sheet.


----------



## GrahamWills

Copy as much of *13th Age* as they can get away with ...


----------



## Blue

GrahamWills said:


> Copy as much of *13th Age* as they can get away with ...



13th Age is my go-to fantasy system, but even I have to say that mechanical support for other pillars of play besides combat are basically limited to backgrounds.

So ... copy and expand!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

The Green Hermit said:


> This would be very, very nice. True, people can just wing it, but newer players could use a bit of scaffolding.



Heck, we aren't new at all, and have years of experience with other systems for crafting and invention, but the total lack of any guidance whatsoever is....frustrating for people who like a nicely balanced system. We get it done, by having conversations to figure out the nearest equivalent spells or existing magic items, vaguely average out the power level, then use the damage by level and magic item rarity by spell level charts in the DMG to figure out an equivelent rarity, and see if the cost and time for that makes sense to us for what I'm trying to create. It's...very imperfect.



Spoiler: crafting rant but also genuinely do you have advice lol



Like...what is the power level of a magic rapier that has 7 charges, with which it can cast Absorb Elements, Dispel Magic, and Counterspel, but only on effects which either target or originate within 5ft of the user? Is it Rare? Very Rare? We can look up staves with similar spell levels, but they aren't also a finesse weapon.
How much does adding that it can be used as a spellcasting focus change the equation, if at all?

What if we gave it a random chance to regain charges when the user casts Absorb Elements, if they choose not to use the extra damage from that spell? Do we balance that like it has more charges?

What if instead, it eventually gains the ability to disrupt summoning and mind control magic, by perhaps causing damage to the caster of such magic when you damage a creature summoned or controlled by them, and forcing a concentration save to maintain the effect even if it normally isn't a concentration effect? Do we use Banishing Smite as a basis for that?

What if it instead gains a feature that boosts the Mage Slayer feat, making your reaction attacks as a result of spellcasting resolve before the spell resolves, thus allowing it to work against teleportation spells? The hell can that be compared to?

And that doesn't even get into stuff like a grappling gun attachment to a hand crossbow, or a arm bracer with a grappling retractor device built in that you can hook an arrow with webbing based cord packed into it onto, thus gaining a grapple shot device with the range of a longbow. Is it like a teleportation spell? Is it like a limited version of Fly? Is it like a more powerful Jump? What if it can pull flying creatures down if they fail a contested Strength check against the user?

What about a suit that resembles the flying suit of the kid from How To Train Your Dragon? Is that like a broom of flying?

What about improved designs for ship sails, weapons, etc? The damn ship related book didn't even have prices for the ship upgrades! How am I supposed to use that!?

Ugh! And don't get me started on Alchemy! At least I have the extensive list of Alchemical formulas from 4e to draw upon, but my wife's master alchemist needs some kind of system she can dig into to do more interesting things than acid and alchemist's fire without breaking the game! And my alchemist in a different game has like...2 alchemical inventions so far, because I don't want to push the DM. And those are literally just improved acid and alchemist's fire so that they can be loaded into an arrow with no loss of damage from the smaller amount of fluid.





Blue said:


> Question for you and @Parmandur, who seem to have opposite viewpoints on this. I have a third option I'd like to hear from people.
> 
> Would an invocation-based ranger (like a spell-less warlock) work in 6e for you. This would allow some rangers to take "woodlands magic" invocations (or whatever terrain), which also could mean some are at-will or have other usage-per-day that fits the ranger, as opposed to fits the caster system.  Or not to be taken for those who don't want to get magic involved. It would also allow invocations for beasts to get scouting, then combat, then even-cooler-in-various-ways customization. Plus Invocations like Hunter's Mark and others that fit other ragner archetypes (archer, scout, bounty hunter, warden, etc.)



I'd be fine with that. I actually think the Ranger would make sense as a Warlock style caster, with an option to trade spellcasting alltogether for something like manuevers, and woodslore type abilities.
As long as I don't have to choose between spellcasting and an animal companion, which would be entirely unacceptable, and which also just isn't ever going to happen outside of variant rules options published after a phb in order to "fix without errata" a screw up in balancing options.



Spoiler



Because they may claim they got the numbers right on the PHB beast, but they absolutely did not. A creature with 24 HP at level 8 is less powerful than a creature with 12 hp at level 3. The PHB beast loses power as you level. That isn't a balanced option. Monster damage output scales relative to PC HP. That means that a built in pet that can't be resummoned between fights has to scale it's HP by the same math.

People that claim that this calls for a pet that is bascially a full PC are being disingenuous. A wolf that can't even attack without using up the PC's actions, and has HP comperable to a rogue with none of the defensive or offensive class features, isn't anything like a PC.

Even the Revised Ranger Beast, which works, isn't anything like a full PC. It's a damage boost in the form of an extra attack most rounds, and an extra rogue's worth of HP and low AC on a moving target on your team. And that's all it is, without putting resources that you'd normally put into yourself into the pet, like magic armor. 

Its the same perception issue that Hexblades have. They aren't more powerful than other warlocks, but they can seem that way on paper, because they seem to get "more" than other patrons. But what they actually get is the what they need to be as effective as other patrons while being in melee instead of the warlock's normal ranged focus. That's it. And if you make a ranged hexblade, much of the extra stuff doesn't even come into play. And yet, people claim they're OP or broken or "ruinously powerful" left and right.

But yeah, give me a ranger that keeps subclasses where they are, folds some later features into earlier levels and beefs up Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy, and/or uses something like invocations to let me get those things while someone else grabs something different, and I'm fine with it. As it is, the Ranger literally just needs some light tweaking here and there.



Aside: I'd actually love a FE feature that lets you study an enemy and hyperfocus on them, spending a spell slot to gain a non-concentration bonus to attack and damage against them, using d4s or d6s since it's multiple attacks, but balanced against the Paladin's Smite, and keeping in mind that the ranger can stack Hunter's Mark or other damage boost spells on top of it. You'd be able to activate this ability without a spell slot 1/day, or without an action, or something, against your favored enemy? For terrain, I'd love to be able to study an area, and become preternaturally surefooted and impossible to evade while in that area, gaining this feature automatically in my favored terrain.



Blue said:


> Your "proof" that it was supposed to exist was merely that it existed in a previous edition.  But the same level of proof to show how that's a ridiculous stance you called a strawman.  Yet somehow that doesn't apply to your own proof.



This is a misrepresentation of  their points. They never said that it should exist because it was in a previous edition. They used a previous edition's take on skills as an example of what they feel the game needs, directly contrasting it with what they see as effectively a lack of literally any system for skills.
The responding claim, that they were claiming that things from old editions shouldn't be removed, was a blatant strawman argument.


----------



## GrahamWills

Blue said:


> 13th Age is my go-to fantasy system, but even I have to say that mechanical support for other pillars of play besides combat are basically limited to backgrounds.




Well, icon relationships have a fair amount of mechanical support and there are the usual D&D like skills such as Trap Sense and Thievery for the Rogue. There's also a range of mechanical effects like Swashbuckling that have mechanical parts, but require the GM to adjudicate; Wizards have the usual D&D sets of cantrips which are pretty much non-combat, and so on. Outside of core rules, the druid is probably the most mechanically complex in non-combat skills, allowing "scouting form" animal form and a fair number of terrain effects.

But overall, D&D is a game where the mechanics have always been about killing things and getting their loot, and the non-combat part has been mostly mechanics-free. 13th Age definitely sticks to that formula, adding more options for free-form non-combat and defining mechanics mostly for combat.

I don't think it would help D&D to move away from that; that's the space it owns and is defined by. Any variations from the D&D formula tend to get punished by the market


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Heck, we aren't new at all, and have years of experience with other systems for crafting and invention, but the total lack of any guidance whatsoever is....frustrating for people who like a nicely balanced system. We get it done, by having conversations to figure out the nearest equivalent spells or existing magic items, vaguely average out the power level, then use the damage by level and magic item rarity by spell level charts in the DMG to figure out an equivelent rarity, and see if the cost and time for that makes sense to us for what I'm trying to create. It's...very imperfect.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: crafting rant but also genuinely do you have advice lol
> 
> 
> 
> Like...what is the power level of a magic rapier that has 7 charges, with which it can cast Absorb Elements, Dispel Magic, and Counterspel, but only on effects which either target or originate within 5ft of the user? Is it Rare? Very Rare? We can look up staves with similar spell levels, but they aren't also a finesse weapon.
> How much does adding that it can be used as a spellcasting focus change the equation, if at all?
> 
> What if we gave it a random chance to regain charges when the user casts Absorb Elements, if they choose not to use the extra damage from that spell? Do we balance that like it has more charges?
> 
> What if instead, it eventually gains the ability to disrupt summoning and mind control magic, by perhaps causing damage to the caster of such magic when you damage a creature summoned or controlled by them, and forcing a concentration save to maintain the effect even if it normally isn't a concentration effect? Do we use Banishing Smite as a basis for that?
> 
> What if it instead gains a feature that boosts the Mage Slayer feat, making your reaction attacks as a result of spellcasting resolve before the spell resolves, thus allowing it to work against teleportation spells? The hell can that be compared to?
> 
> And that doesn't even get into stuff like a grappling gun attachment to a hand crossbow, or a arm bracer with a grappling retractor device built in that you can hook an arrow with webbing based cord packed into it onto, thus gaining a grapple shot device with the range of a longbow. Is it like a teleportation spell? Is it like a limited version of Fly? Is it like a more powerful Jump? What if it can pull flying creatures down if they fail a contested Strength check against the user?
> 
> What about a suit that resembles the flying suit of the kid from How To Train Your Dragon? Is that like a broom of flying?
> 
> What about improved designs for ship sails, weapons, etc? The damn ship related book didn't even have prices for the ship upgrades! How am I supposed to use that!?
> 
> Ugh! And don't get me started on Alchemy! At least I have the extensive list of Alchemical formulas from 4e to draw upon, but my wife's master alchemist needs some kind of system she can dig into to do more interesting things than acid and alchemist's fire without breaking the game! And my alchemist in a different game has like...2 alchemical inventions so far, because I don't want to push the DM. And those are literally just improved acid and alchemist's fire so that they can be loaded into an arrow with no loss of damage from the smaller amount of fluid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be fine with that. I actually think the Ranger would make sense as a Warlock style caster, with an option to trade spellcasting alltogether for something like manuevers, and woodslore type abilities.
> As long as I don't have to choose between spellcasting and an animal companion, which would be entirely unacceptable, and which also just isn't ever going to happen outside of variant rules options published after a phb in order to "fix without errata" a screw up in balancing options.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Because they may claim they got the numbers right on the PHB beast, but they absolutely did not. A creature with 24 HP at level 8 is less powerful than a creature with 12 hp at level 3. The PHB beast loses power as you level. That isn't a balanced option. Monster damage output scales relative to PC HP. That means that a built in pet that can't be resummoned between fights has to scale it's HP by the same math.
> 
> People that claim that this calls for a pet that is bascially a full PC are being disingenuous. A wolf that can't even attack without using up the PC's actions, and has HP comperable to a rogue with none of the defensive or offensive class features, isn't anything like a PC.
> 
> Even the Revised Ranger Beast, which works, isn't anything like a full PC. It's a damage boost in the form of an extra attack most rounds, and an extra rogue's worth of HP and low AC on a moving target on your team. And that's all it is, without putting resources that you'd normally put into yourself into the pet, like magic armor.
> 
> Its the same perception issue that Hexblades have. They aren't more powerful than other warlocks, but they can seem that way on paper, because they seem to get "more" than other patrons. But what they actually get is the what they need to be as effective as other patrons while being in melee instead of the warlock's normal ranged focus. That's it. And if you make a ranged hexblade, much of the extra stuff doesn't even come into play. And yet, people claim they're OP or broken or "ruinously powerful" left and right.
> 
> But yeah, give me a ranger that keeps subclasses where they are, folds some later features into earlier levels and beefs up Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy, and/or uses something like invocations to let me get those things while someone else grabs something different, and I'm fine with it. As it is, the Ranger literally just needs some light tweaking here and there.
> 
> 
> 
> Aside: I'd actually love a FE feature that lets you study an enemy and hyperfocus on them, spending a spell slot to gain a non-concentration bonus to attack and damage against them, using d4s or d6s since it's multiple attacks, but balanced against the Paladin's Smite, and keeping in mind that the ranger can stack Hunter's Mark or other damage boost spells on top of it. You'd be able to activate this ability without a spell slot 1/day, or without an action, or something, against your favored enemy? For terrain, I'd love to be able to study an area, and become preternaturally surefooted and impossible to evade while in that area, gaining this feature automatically in my favored terrain.
> 
> 
> This is a misrepresentation of  their points. They never said that it should exist because it was in a previous edition. They used a previous edition's take on skills as an example of what they feel the game needs, directly contrasting it with what they see as effectively a lack of literally any system for skills.
> The responding claim, that they were claiming that things from old editions shouldn't be removed, was a blatant strawman argument.




The Beastmaster math is right for what the designers intended to do with it: their mistake was not testing the Beastmaster adequately to find out that there was a mismatch between their intentions and what people wanted a beast pal to do. They've paid relatively harshly for that particular mistake. 

Given that the Beastmaster is balanced properly as is, to get a meatier Beast requires something else to give in the Ranger's power economy: the Revised Ranger does a couple of things to help it, such as give it the power from an extra attack action, but that cure proved worse than the disease. The trade-off of spells allows the pet to get all of the oomph of the half-caster spell slots (which are the hidden point buy currency of 5E), which results in a serious contribute that scales over time.

The Variant Class features approach has promise, but honestly I don't see them really being able to "fix" the Ranger for player satisfaction until an honest to God ground up redesign in a 6E situation.


----------



## Sacrosanct

anahata said:


> How? On what basis? What do I choose? How do I justify the choice? I play an RPG instead of doing freeform makebelieve so that there's structure. Taking away the structure means it's no longer a game. I _don't want to be_ a game designer but 5e makes me one.




Hmmm....I think if you did design a game, then you’d realize just how complex that effort is, and how silly this statement sounds. I’ve designed games. I know. Asking you to occasionally come up with a ruling that isn’t spelled out for you isn’t game design. 



> This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad; _there is no foundation_. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it.
> .




I guess this is where difference of preference comes in. What you call a scaffold of toothpicks, I call tools, supplies, and an instruction manual—items provided that give me the ability to be involved in the vision I want. What you call an impregnable fortress, I call shackles and a prison—things that prevent me from doing what I want. 

Needless to say, I disagree that there is no foundation in 5e. There are hundreds of rules in the books that give you that foundation. You’re saying there is no foundation because the entire house isn’t built and decorated for you. That’s not what foundation means.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> The Beastmaster math is right for what the designers intended to do with it: their mistake was not testing the Beastmaster adequately to find out that there was a mismatch between their intentions and what people wanted a beast pal to do. They've paid relatively harshly for that particular mistake.
> 
> Given that the Beastmaster is balanced properly as is, to get a meatier Beast requires something else to give in the Ranger's power economy: the Revised Ranger does a couple of things to help it, such as give it the power from an extra attack action, but that cure proved worse than the disease. The trade-off of spells allows the pet to get all of the oomph of the half-caster spell slots (which are the hidden point buy currency of 5E), which results in a serious contribute that scales over time.
> 
> The Variant Class features approach has promise, but honestly I don't see them really being able to "fix" the Ranger for player satisfaction until an honest to God ground up redesign in a 6E situation.



No, they didn’t get the balance right. They are wrong about that. If it can’t stay alive to do it’s job, it is underpowered. It’s that simple.

The revised ranger base class beefed it in some fairly minors ways blown out of proportion on forums, but the BM conclave is fine. The only issue with it is that extra attack should stay with the ranger. The beast gets a whole turn, that’s all it needs.

As for fixing the ranger, you keep saying things like that, but I don’t see any evidence to support it.

Edit: The goal of the pet was to be a pet that could help in exploration and survive in combat, and be helpful sometimes. It doesn’t do that in the phb. It does not work as a creature that can survive incidental damage from area of effect spells. It cannot survive adventuring with a level 12 party. It’s broken.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, they didn’t get the balance right. They are wrong about that. If it can’t stay alive to do it’s job, it is underpowered. It’s that simple.
> 
> The revised ranger base class beefed it in some fairly minors ways blown out of proportion on forums, but the BM conclave is fine. The only issue with it is that extra attack should stay with the ranger. The beast gets a whole turn, that’s all it needs.
> 
> As for fixing the ranger, you keep saying things like that, but I don’t see any evidence to support it.
> 
> Edit: The goal of the pet was to be a pet that could help in exploration and survive in combat, and be helpful sometimes. It doesn’t do that in the phb. It does not work as a creature that can survive incidental damage from area of effect spells. It cannot survive adventuring with a level 12 party. It’s broken.




The beast does help help with exploration, and a little with combat (primarily through conferrinf Advantage) If it dies, it can be replaced with another. Which isn't a great fit for what people wanted out of the Subclass. But the numbers work for what they gave it. Giving it an extra action without changing the balance elsewhere is a dog that don't hunt.

They don't, really, have to fix the Ranger: it works as is. In the event of a 6E, they will want to change it to be satisfactory, which will require radical action.


----------



## The Green Hermit

Blue said:


> Would you mind a Starter Set that only has a subset of classes, to keep choices (and options to be understood) for new players to a more focused amount, and then the primary PHB has everything?
> 
> Trying to balance more starting options (which I want) with new player friendly (which I also want).




That would have been nice to include in the Starter Set, along with the 5 stock characters.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> The beast does help help with exploration, and a little with combat (primarily through conferrinf Advantage) If it dies, it can be replaced with another. Which isn't a great fit for what people wanted out of the Subclass. But the numbers work for what they gave it. Giving it an extra action without changing the balance elsewhere is a dog that don't hunt.
> 
> They don't, really, have to fix the Ranger: it works as is. In the event of a 6E, they will want to change it to be satisfactory, which will require radical action.



Lol okay I’m not gonna go in circles over and over with you on this. 

There is no need for a radical change, and a pet that can’t survive any degree of danger and can’t be replaced without taking a bunch of time away from the adventure isn’t accomplishing its goals. The revised BM works absolutely fine, with the simple change of switching the level 5 back to normal extra attack, or letting the ranger pick between the two features at level 5. The PHB pet is underpowered. The only reason they won’t fix it via replacement is to avoid replacing a significant element of the PHB. That’s it.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Lol okay I’m not gonna go in circles over and over with you on this.
> 
> There is no need for a radical change, and a pet that can’t survive any degree of danger and can’t be replaced without taking a bunch of time away from the adventure isn’t accomplishing its goals. The revised BM works absolutely fine, with the simple change of switching the level 5 back to normal extra attack, or letting the ranger pick between the two features at level 5. The PHB pet is underpowered. The only reason they won’t fix it via replacement is to avoid replacing a significant element of the PHB. That’s it.




It's a Subclass that is fiddley and rewards careful work on the build, but conceptually appeals to people who might not like that. It's a mismatch conceptually, but the Subclass itself is not underpowered: it's unsatisfactory for a significant portion of it's intended audience, which is probably worse.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> It's a Subclass that is fiddley and rewards careful work on the build, but conceptually appeals to people who might not like that. It's a mismatch conceptually, but the Subclass itself is not underpowered: it's unsatisfactory for a significant portion of it's intended audience, which is probably worse.




The pet cannot survive exploration without the DM going out of their way, past about level 10.

It is underpowered.

And if they didn’t intend for it to be a combat pet, they’d have indicated that in a way that you don’t have to study the system math or lose a few pets to figure out. They knew that it would be taken into combat, and failed to make it able to survive that.

Even if we accept that a beast companion that can’t contribute significantly to damage is doing its job by providing advantage, like a strictly worse [on every axis] familiar, it has to either survive being in a combat zone, or be easy to get back, to do that job.

Literally all it absolutely needs is better HP scaling to not be strictly underpowered, but it can get its own attack and absolutely not be overpowered.

Edit: and even if we accept your position that the real problem is that they designed it with a different goal than what fans of the concept want out of it, that doesn’t indicate in any way that a total rewrite is needed to fix that problem. It can be more powerful without being overpowered. Balance in 5e isn’t a finely tuned matter of slim margins. It’s pretty robust. 

And even then, they could fix the subclass without errata by simply introducing new spells, and maybe a feat that strengthens familiars, beast companions, and conjured creatures. 

More likely than your “total rewrite with no BM archetype” theory in a hypothetical 5e would be a BM that uses mechanics more similar to the Battlesmiths iron defender, or a spell that the archetype gets for free and gets a boosted version of, like the chain warlock, but for “Find Animal Companion”.


----------



## Maxperson

anahata said:


> How? On what basis? What do I choose? How do I justify the choice? I play an RPG instead of doing freeform makebelieve so that there's structure. Taking away the structure means it's no longer a game. I _don't want to be_ a game designer but 5e makes me one.




That's easy.  You justify it and base it on fairness.  If you are doing your best to be fair with your rulings, the players are generally going to be okay with what you decide.  

As for taking away structure meaning it's no longer a game.  That's false.  Unless you have absolutely no rules/structure at all, it's still a game.  As an example, Chess is a highly structured game.  Chaos Chess adds cards that get dealt to the players that they can use to alter how pieces move.  The game suddenly becomes far less predictable and structured, but is still very much a game.


----------



## Ragmon

Soo many things....the lack of depth in character customization.

But hey, PF2 is looking really good to me (I might not even want 6e).


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> The pet cannot survive exploration without the DM going out of their way, past about level 10.
> 
> It is underpowered.
> 
> And if they didn’t intend for it to be a combat pet, they’d have indicated that in a way that you don’t have to study the system math or lose a few pets to figure out. They knew that it would be taken into combat, and failed to make it able to survive that.
> 
> Even if we accept that a beast companion that can’t contribute significantly to damage is doing its job by providing advantage, like a strictly worse [on every axis] familiar, it has to either survive being in a combat zone, or be easy to get back, to do that job.
> 
> Literally all it absolutely needs is better HP scaling to not be strictly underpowered, but it can get its own attack and absolutely not be overpowered.
> 
> Edit: and even if we accept your position that the real problem is that they designed it with a different goal than what fans of the concept want out of it, that doesn’t indicate in any way that a total rewrite is needed to fix that problem. It can be more powerful without being overpowered. Balance in 5e isn’t a finely tuned matter of slim margins. It’s pretty robust.
> 
> And even then, they could fix the subclass without errata by simply introducing new spells, and maybe a feat that strengthens familiars, beast companions, and conjured creatures.
> 
> More likely than your “total rewrite with no BM archetype” theory in a hypothetical 5e would be a BM that uses mechanics more similar to the Battlesmiths iron defender, or a spell that the archetype gets for free and gets a boosted version of, like the chain warlock, but for “Find Animal Companion”.




It isn't that it isn't meant to be combat effective, which it is if used properly, it just isn't doing what people want. Dan Dillon,now a full Designer for WotC, has done good work breaking this down.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I hope 6e skips trying to make pet subclasses and just gives us a pet class.  It is simple, the human/elf/dwarf/whatever is just there to 1) socially interact with other humanoids, 2) give the pet food/put on pet armor/any other services needed, and 3) hide while the fight is going on.  The pet gets 100% of the combat power.


----------



## Parmandur

MechaTarrasque said:


> I hope 6e skips trying to make pet subclasses and just gives us a pet class.  It is simple, the human/elf/dwarf/whatever is just there to 1) socially interact with other humanoids, 2) give the pet food/put on pet armor/any other services needed, and 3) hide while the fight is going on.  The pet gets 100% of the combat power.




The new Psion might go there.


----------



## ad_hoc

Parmandur said:


> It's a Subclass that is fiddley and rewards careful work on the build, but conceptually appeals to people who might not like that. It's a mismatch conceptually, but the Subclass itself is not underpowered: it's unsatisfactory for a significant portion of it's intended audience, which is probably worse.





Yeah, I think people undervalue all the things the beast can do in combat.

The beast still gets a reaction so can make OAs. They can cause disadvantage to ranged enemies by using their great speed to get up in their business. They can also use their body to help protect a vulnerable party member. It's very hard to actually protect party members in 5e, it's just I think, many DMs only have the monsters attack the high AC PCs. In a game where this isn't the case the beast can be quite good. In both cases; harrassing the enemy or protecting party members, the beast can Dodge for free.

People also forget what the Ranger is giving up for all of this. Just a conditional 1d8 dmg/rd. 

So, not much.


----------



## Parmandur

ad_hoc said:


> Yeah, I think people undervalue all the things the beast can do in combat.
> 
> The beast still gets a reaction so can make OAs. They can cause disadvantage to ranged enemies by using their great speed to get up in their business. They can also use their body to help protect a vulnerable party member. It's very hard to actually protect party members in 5e, it's just I think, many DMs only have the monsters attack the high AC PCs. In a game where this isn't the case the beast can be quite good. In both cases; harrassing the enemy or protecting party members, the beast can Dodge for free.
> 
> People also forget what the Ranger is giving up for all of this. Just a conditional 1d8 dmg/rd.
> 
> So, not much.




Yeah, it is working with a limited power budget, and can be outsized useful if done well by the player. So, WAD, but the design had flaws in principle that could have been avoided with more public testing.

Mearls straight out ruined the Ranger for me with is "If I were to design the Ranger from scratch now..." spiel, though: his ideas scratched my itch just right.


----------



## anahata

Lanefan said:


> Let me guess - you never played or DMed 0e or 1e, did you.




I did, briefly, play in older versions of the game, and hated it--but for very different reasons. There were so many restrictions on character creation back then that it truly stifled any kind of creativity out of me.



Lanefan said:


> Now if you want to blame something for not giving more specifics, blame the DMG; as that's where the DM guidance should in theory be found.




This is the most useful thing that has come out of this thread for me. I've said elsewhere that I like _playing_ 5e, a lot, actually, I just hate _running_ it because of the reasons I've outlined here.



Lanefan said:


> Conversely, 5e (and 0e-1e) leave you-as-player free to think like your character and let the DM worry about the mechanics while at the table, where 3e (and 4e) instead keep you-as-player thinking about meta-mechanics all the time.




Disagree. The weekly 3.x games I'm in feature a _lot_, a _LOT_, of roleplay, completely independent of the mechanics. Sure, the rules do come up, but there's tons of roleplay all the time. I wouldn't game with those folks if there wasn't roleplay. This is what's known as the Stormwind fallacy, which is to say that focusing on rules to build a powerful character (or, more broadly here, focusing on mechanics) means that one can't roleplay. I play with some of the munchiest people I've ever met and they're also some of the best roleplayers. One is a classically-trained actor and another plays one on TV in game.



Sacrosanct said:


> I guess this is where difference of preference comes in. What you call a scaffold of toothpicks, I call tools, supplies, and an instruction manual—items provided that give me the ability to be involved in the vision I want. What you call an impregnable fortress, I call shackles and a prison—things that prevent me from doing what I want.




You've always been able--and encouraged--to change the rules in earlier editions, to make rulings. The difference is that in 5e you're _required_ to, because the rulebooks don't provide you with many things you're likely to need.


----------



## Sacrosanct

anahata said:


> You've always been able--and encouraged--to change the rules in earlier editions, to make rulings. The difference is that in 5e you're _required_ to, because the rulebooks don't provide you with many things you're likely to need.




Like what?  What in 5e is so missing that you are required to design your own resolution system for it?  What are these "many things" that are missing?  Sounds like you have a list.


----------



## anahata

Sacrosanct said:


> Like what?  What in 5e is so missing that you are required to design your own resolution system for it?  What are these "many things" that are missing?  Sounds like you have a list.




The example I gave in this thread. Skill use. There's very little guidance on how to adjudicate the skills, on what they actually do. Or even using ability scores in general. Or how to bring magic items into a game. The prices listed are several thousand gp wide, and the advice given on how many to give players is "use your judgement"--but there's no advice given on how to develop that judgement. A post earlier suggested that the issue is really with the DMG, where the guidance should be, but is absent. It's fine to say "use your judgement", but without helping the DM develop that judgement, it's useless advice.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Parmandur

anahata said:


> The example I gave in this thread. Skill use. There's very little guidance on how to adjudicate the skills, on what they actually do. Or even using ability scores in general. Or how to bring magic items into a game. The prices listed are several thousand gp wide, and the advice given on how many to give players is "use your judgement"--but there's no advice given on how to develop that judgement. A post earlier suggested that the issue is really with the DMG, where the guidance should be, but is absent. It's fine to say "use your judgement", but without helping the DM develop that judgement, it's useless advice.




And yet millions of people are doing just that with 5E, no problem.


----------



## ad_hoc

anahata said:


> This is the most useful thing that has come out of this thread for me. I've said elsewhere that I like _playing_ 5e, a lot, actually, I just hate _running_ it because of the reasons I've outlined here.




So all you got from this conversation was satisfaction from one person agreeing with you?

You know there are 3e forums out there where there are lots of people who will agree with you I'm sure.


----------



## Sacrosanct

anahata said:


> The example I gave in this thread. Skill use. There's very little guidance on how to adjudicate the skills, on what they actually do. Or even using ability scores in general. Or how to bring magic items into a game. The prices listed are several thousand gp wide, and the advice given on how many to give players is "use your judgement"--but there's no advice given on how to develop that judgement. A post earlier suggested that the issue is really with the DMG, where the guidance should be, but is absent. It's fine to say "use your judgement", but without helping the DM develop that judgement, it's useless advice.




Needless to say, I disagree with pretty much all of this.  I think all of those things do exist, at least in adequate guidance.  If not, then wouldn't you think it would be a pervasive problem among gamers?  Your complaints are almost non existent among the millions of gamers who play.  That tells me that those problems aren't really problems as a whole.  I get how it doesn't meet what you want, and that's OK, but that doesn't mean the game is lacking in those areas like you claim.  I.e., your experiences are hardly universal or evidence that the game in general is lacking.

The game does tell you what ability scores are, how they are defined, and how they are used (by giving modifiers, how they are generated, and telling you what types of skills would be related to each one).   I'm not sure what more you could need.  Same with skills.  Same with magic items (it tells you how items are sorted by rarity, and what levels PCs typically tend to be when they find items by said rarity).  The DMG literally includes guidelines on everything you just listed, so I have to ask, did you even read it?

If you're looking for detailed black and white hard lines for every possible scenario, you're not going to get it.  That would result in a book 1000 pages long and even then things would be missing.  D&D learned the hard way that when you put things like "player of level X will have this exact amount of magic items of this type' and "skills are used exactly like this and only like this", you end up with players who rely on that and can't or won't think creatively.  It's the entire philosophy of "anything not expressly prohibited is possible."  As I mentioned, what you described as wanting feels like shackles.  A prison.  "If there isn't a specific rule for it, you can't do it."

And I for one am glad that D&D got away from that.  Judging by the sales #s, so are most people.  But either way, none of that means that the rules are missing as you claim.  I just reopened my DMG and yup, everything you claim isn't there is.  Guidelines and rules for how to handle skills, ability scores, magic item frequency, etc.  The 5e DMG is actually quite extensive.  In fact, I ignore about half of it because I already know how I want to handle it in game.


----------



## OB1

The latest Amazon sales numbers I think pretty clearly show what people prefer in terms of crunch in their TTRPG

D&D 5e PHB - #89 overall in books after 5 years in print
Pathfinder 2e - #1,246 in books after 3 weeks in print (though it did push ahead of 5e in the first week of it's release)

I think the above also speaks to when we should expect 6e (if ever).  6e won't come because of some predetermined expiration date for how long an edition 'should' exist.  It will come when it no longer attracts significant numbers of new players.

If you think about the classic sports that exist now, Baseball, Football, Soccer, etc, all went through periods in their early history where the rule system changed extensively before settling into their modern forms where rules evolve very slowly.  

I think it's an open question as to whether D&D needs another major revision before settling into that state, but I think there is a very good chance that we only see revision (not revolution) going forward.


----------



## Parmandur

OB1 said:


> The latest Amazon sales numbers I think pretty clearly show what people prefer in terms of crunch in their TTRPG
> 
> D&D 5e PHB - #89 overall in books after 5 years in print
> Pathfinder 2e - #1,246 in books after 3 weeks in print (though it did push ahead of 5e in the first week of it's release)
> 
> I think the above also speaks to when we should expect 6e (if ever).  6e won't come because of some predetermined expiration date for how long an edition 'should' exist.  It will come when it no longer attracts significant numbers of new players.
> 
> If you think about the classic sports that exist now, Baseball, Football, Soccer, etc, all went through periods in their early history where the rule system changed extensively before settling into their modern forms where rules evolve very slowly.
> 
> I think it's an open question as to whether D&D needs another major revision before settling into that state, but I think there is a very good chance that we only see revision (not revolution) going forward.




Yeah, RPGS have only been in existence for 45 years: what has happened so far is not necessarily reflective of the future of gaming.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> It isn't that it isn't meant to be combat effective, which it is if used properly, it just isn't doing what people want. Dan Dillon,now a full Designer for WotC, has done good work breaking this down.



lol I"m done with this. A pet creature cannot be working properly if it literally cannot survive succeeding on saves on AOEs or traps past level 10 or 12, and cannot be regained without taking a bunch of time out of adventuring. 
Familiars work because it takes 10 minutes and some gold, or a spell slot and some gold. Find Steed mounts work because they can survive some amount of danger, and can be regained with 10 minutes and a 2nd level spell slot. 
Animal Companions cannot survive any amount of danger for half the level progression of the game, and regaining them relies on DM fiat to even be possible at all, and takes more time than either of those options. And does, at best, the same amount as either of those. Except you have to be much more careful with it. Their intentions are meaningless, as well. It doesn't change what the problem is, and how it can be fixed.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> lol I"m done with this. A pet creature cannot be working properly if it literally cannot survive succeeding on saves on AOEs or traps past level 10 or 12, and cannot be regained without taking a bunch of time out of adventuring.
> Familiars work because it takes 10 minutes and some gold, or a spell slot and some gold. Find Steed mounts work because they can survive some amount of danger, and can be regained with 10 minutes and a 2nd level spell slot.
> Animal Companions cannot survive any amount of danger for half the level progression of the game, and regaining them relies on DM fiat to even be possible at all, and takes more time than either of those options. And does, at best, the same amount as either of those. Except you have to be much more careful with it. Their intentions are meaningless, as well. It doesn't change what the problem is, and how it can be fixed.




Sure, their design intentions matter for what the Class can do, and what the game objects accomplish when used as intended. When used as intended, the Beastmaster is quite effective. The trouble is the mismatch between design intent and player desire. And giving what many players want from a pet option requires more oomph. Simple as that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Sure, their design intentions matter for what the Class can do, and what the game objects accomplish when used as intended. When used as intended, the Beastmaster is quite effective. The trouble is the mismatch between design intent and player desire. And giving what many players want from a pet option requires more oomph. Simple as that.



You're joking. 
Have you actually tried to use the BM ranger for what they claim it was intended for? (yeah, bears are totally intended to be purely exploration helpers. Sure thing. They're full of crap, and don't want to admit that they biffed the beast stats.) After about level 8, certainly 12 at the latest for the tougher pets, it can't reliably survive _successful_ saves against traps and AOEs. It being intended to be frequently replaced, if true (it isn't), would simply be bad design, at best. They knew damn well that players who want to play a BM ranger don't want to replace their pet every other adventuring day. 

But the class was clearly meant to be able to stand beside the ranger in a fight, and it cannot do that. Simple as that.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> You're joking.
> Have you actually tried to use the BM ranger for what they claim it was intended for? (yeah, bears are totally intended to be purely exploration helpers. Sure thing. They're full of crap, and don't want to admit that they biffed the beast stats.) After about level 8, certainly 12 at the latest for the tougher pets, it can't reliably survive _successful_ saves against traps and AOEs. It being intended to be frequently replaced, if true (it isn't), would simply be bad design, at best. They knew damn well that players who want to play a BM ranger don't want to replace their pet every other adventuring day.
> 
> But the class was clearly meant to be able to stand beside the ranger in a fight, and it cannot do that. Simple as that.




Bears are not eligible as BM pets. They recommend birds or snakes. Not combat heavies.


----------



## Lanefan

anahata said:


> I did, briefly, play in older versions of the game, and hated it--but for very different reasons. There were so many restrictions on character creation back then that it truly stifled any kind of creativity out of me.



I'll turn that right back on you and say that if you ignore mechanics and focus on personality when creating a character there's no limit at all to what can be done.

The idea that every aspect of a character's personality always has to be somehow reflected in the game mechanics is the direct path to 3e/PF rule-for-everything madness.  And that kills creativity far faster - you spend too long ticking little boxes. (and in case you're wondering, yes I did my time in 3e)



> Disagree. The weekly 3.x games I'm in feature a _lot_, a _LOT_, of roleplay, completely independent of the mechanics. Sure, the rules do come up, but there's tons of roleplay all the time. I wouldn't game with those folks if there wasn't roleplay. This is what's known as the Stormwind fallacy, which is to say that focusing on rules to build a powerful character (or, more broadly here, focusing on mechanics) means that one can't roleplay. I play with some of the munchiest people I've ever met and they're also some of the best roleplayers. One is a classically-trained actor and another plays one on TV in game.



My problem in 3e was that it seemd every time I tried to roleplay something and-or try an off-the-wall action I had to consult my flippin' character sheet (or the PH) first to see if I was allowed to do it, which hauls me out of immersion and disrupts my train of thought. And that has nothing at all to do with relative character power.

And not all of us have professionally-trained actors at the table.


----------



## Sacrosanct

The design constraint of the beast master is to have a PC and their pet _combined _be roughly balanced with every other class/subclass.  I think a lot of people make the mistake in assuming they want the pet to be basically another PC.  Well, that would make the beastmaster too OP.  Not gonna happen.

So what does that mean?  The core ranger class offers many abilities regardless of subclass, so let's just compare the subclasses

Hunter:
At 3rd level, you can do around an extra 1d8 damage
At 7th level, you get conditional defense.  Nothing too major.  An AC bonus on subsequent attacks (not the first) from a creature against you. OR advantage on frighten saves.  Or enforcing disadvantage on opportunity attacks.  So basically, probably about 1/4 of all attacks against you if that.  
At 11th level, you get more attacks, but not as big as people assume.  You already have 2 attacks, but you're giving both of those up to either do volley or whirlwind.  Again, conditional, and you're probably only getting a bonus of one or two additional attacks in those situations.  So evened out, maybe an extra half attack per combat round.
At 15th level, you can basically half the damage against you once per round. (half to none on a made save, and half on a successful hit against you)

Now the beast master:
At 3rd level, you get your pet.  Let's say a panther because Drizzt (yawn)  24 HP and 14 AC (increases with your prof bonus).  What advantages does this give you (assuming your physical attack is better so not considering that a bonus to damage on a per round basis):

adv on perception checks.
no cost movement (meaning you can use it to detect or attack creatures from a distance without putting your PC directly in harm's way, or attacking creatures you can't see from your current position, or granting an ally advantage via help at a distance--this is a big one)
being able to knock opponents prone (again, at a distance)
simply by being another person on the battlefield, can take attacks that would normally go at you or an ally.  In mechanical terms, that's damage reduction to you or an ally.  24 points per long rest?  That's significant.  Even outside of all other benefits, which subclass ability grants you 24+ points of potential damage reduction at 3rd level?
At 7th level, you basically can grant advantage any anyone via help at no cost to your normal attacks unless you dual wield (since it's a bonus action).  Or it can dodge, which significantly improves it's damage reduction ability mentioned above since it is harder to hit and can suck up even more attacks that would otherwise be directed at you or an ally
At 11th level, it makes 2 attacks at the cost of one of yours.  If each attack from you does 1d8+4 (ability mod)+2 (assume magic item or equivalent bonus at 11th level) points of damage, and each panther attack does +8 to hit and 1d6+6 damage, then compare: giving up 10.5 points to gain 19 points--or +8.5 points of damage per round.  
At 15th level, when you cast as spell targeting you, you also target your pet.  Like stoneskin, which reduces your damage by half, _as wel_l as your pet's.

So to compare:
3rd level: advantage beast master
7th level: advantage beast master (free advantage and damage reduction every round is better than highly conditional defense bonus from hunter)
11th level: advantage beast master.  The 8.5 extra points of damage outpaces the extra half extra damage you get from volley or whirlwind.  You'd have to attack 5 or more enemies on your turn for hunter to outpace this.  How often does that happen when the beast master can do this every single turn?
15th level: advantage hunter.  Both grant half damage (or other versatility with beast master), but hunter doesn't have to use a spell slot to do so.

In summary
The beast master and the benefits aren't nearly as bad as people keep assuming.  In _some _cases, maximized damage in any given round might be less, but the versatility of the beast master far outpaces that.  If you assume the pet should be the same as an equal level PC in terms of AC,HP,Dmg, of course it's gonna look weak.  But for reasons already presented, that's incredibly flawed to look at it like that.


----------



## Lanefan

Will I get shot if I just say adventuring pets of any kind are annoying and that I for one would be happy to see the end of them?

*shields up!*


----------



## Parmandur

Sacrosanct said:


> The design constraint of the beast master is to have a PC and their pet _combined _be roughly balanced with every other class/subclass.  I think a lot of people make the mistake in assuming they want the pet to be basically another PC.  Well, that would make the beastmaster too OP.  Not gonna happen.
> 
> So what does that mean?  The core ranger class offers many abilities regardless of subclass, so let's just compare the subclasses
> 
> Hunter:
> At 3rd level, you can do around an extra 1d8 damage
> At 7th level, you get conditional defense.  Nothing too major.  An AC bonus on subsequent attacks (not the first) from a creature against you. OR advantage on frighten saves.  Or enforcing disadvantage on opportunity attacks.  So basically, probably about 1/4 of all attacks against you if that.
> At 11th level, you get more attacks, but not as big as people assume.  You already have 2 attacks, but you're giving both of those up to either do volley or whirlwind.  Again, conditional, and you're probably only getting a bonus of one or two additional attacks in those situations.  So evened out, maybe an extra half attack per combat round.
> At 15th level, you can basically half the damage against you once per round. (half to none on a made save, and half on a successful hit against you)
> 
> Now the beast master:
> At 3rd level, you get your pet.  Let's say a panther because Drizzt (yawn)  24 HP and 14 AC (increases with your prof bonus).  What advantages does this give you (assuming your physical attack is better so not considering that a bonus to damage on a per round basis):
> 
> adv on perception checks.
> no cost movement (meaning you can use it to detect or attack creatures from a distance without putting your PC directly in harm's way, or attacking creatures you can't see from your current position, or granting an ally advantage via help at a distance--this is a big one)
> being able to knock opponents prone (again, at a distance)
> simply by being another person on the battlefield, can take attacks that would normally go at you or an ally.  In mechanical terms, that's damage reduction to you or an ally.  24 points per long rest?  That's significant.  Even outside of all other benefits, which subclass ability grants you 24+ points of potential damage reduction at 3rd level?
> At 7th level, you basically can grant advantage any anyone via help at no cost to your normal attacks unless you dual wield (since it's a bonus action).  Or it can dodge, which significantly improves it's damage reduction ability mentioned above since it is harder to hit and can suck up even more attacks that would otherwise be directed at you or an ally
> At 11th level, it makes 2 attacks at the cost of one of yours.  If each attack from you does 1d8+4 (ability mod)+2 (assume magic item or equivalent bonus at 11th level) points of damage, and each panther attack does +8 to hit and 1d6+6 damage, then compare: giving up 10.5 points to gain 19 points--or +8.5 points of damage per round.
> At 15th level, when you cast as spell targeting you, you also target your pet.  Like stoneskin, which reduces your damage by half, _as wel_l as your pet's.
> 
> So to compare:
> 3rd level: advantage beast master
> 7th level: advantage beast master (free advantage and damage reduction every round is better than highly conditional defense bonus from hunter)
> 11th level: advantage beast master.  The 8.5 extra points of damage outpaces the extra half extra damage you get from volley or whirlwind.  You'd have to attack 5 or more enemies on your turn for hunter to outpace this.  How often does that happen when the beast master can do this every single turn?
> 15th level: advantage hunter.  Both grant half damage (or other versatility with beast master), but hunter doesn't have to use a spell slot to do so.
> 
> In summary
> The beast master and the benefits aren't nearly as bad as people keep assuming.  In _some _cases, maximized damage in any given round might be less, but the versatility of the beast master far outpaces that.  If you assume the pet should be the same as an equal level PC in terms of AC,HP,Dmg, of course it's gonna look weak.  But for reasons already presented, that's incredibly flawed to look at it like that.




Quite correct: the problematic aspect is that this is a bit of a tougher Subclass to use effectively, but narratively it appeals to newer players. Hence, expectations and reality collide and result in a significant minority report of dissatisfaction.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Lanefan said:


> Will I get shot if I just say adventuring pets of any kind are annoying and that I for one would be happy to see the end of them?
> 
> *shields up!*



I blame Everquest for the proliferation of pet usage


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sacrosanct

lowkey13 said:


> Naw. "Pet classes" are great for CRPGs, and a PITA for TTRPGs.
> 
> There are many players that love them (either because they believe they will come up with clever ways to abuse the rules, or they are emotionally stunted and want the love of fictional pet and/or undead), but my table has had a multi-decade ban on them, because the hassle is never equal to the fun.
> 
> This includes Beastmasters, wanna-be Drizzts, Necromancers, Summoners,Demon Binders, and any all sorts of other character classes that primarily operate through one or more surrogates.




It must really chap your hide how 5e made call woodland beings so overpowered then


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan

lowkey13 said:


> Naw. "Pet classes" are great for CRPGs, and a PITA for TTRPGs.
> 
> There are many players that love them (either because they believe they will come up with clever ways to abuse the rules, or they are emotionally stunted and want the love of fictional pet and/or undead), but my table has had a multi-decade ban on them, because the hassle is never equal to the fun.
> 
> This includes Beastmasters, wanna-be Drizzts, Necromancers, Summoners,Demon Binders, and any all sorts of other character classes that primarily operate through one or more surrogates.



I don't mind Summoners, Necromancers, and so forth so much; as most of their "pets" are temporary things - they're usually intended as no more than short-term cannon fodder, and work just fine as such.

But a true pet that's intended to stick around and survive - annoying.  (wizard familiars also fall into this category)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Bears are not eligible as BM pets. They recommend birds or snakes. Not combat heavies.



You're right about the bear. I'd forgotten that. The second sentence is completely false. They recommend no such thing. 

Further, the description literally refers to the pet as a combat companion. 



> The Beast Master archetype embodies a friendship between the civilized races and the beasts of the wild. United in focus, *beast and ranger fight the monsters that threaten civilization and the wilderness alike.
> 
> Ranger’s Companion
> *
> At 3rd level, you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is* trained to fight alongside you*.




Then we come to the actual mechanics of the class. At level 3, a 1/4 CR beast is a perfectly good combatant alongside the party. Then it gets scaling that clearly intends to keep it's attack, AC, and HP at a point where it won't die every single time you let it participate in a fight. 


> Choose a beast that is no larger than Medium and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower. Add your *proficiency bonus* to the *beast’s AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in*. Its *hit point maximum equals the hit point number in its stat block or four times your ranger level, whichever is higher.* Like any creature, it can spend Hit Dice during a short rest to regain hit points.
> 
> The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. *On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.*
> 
> If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself. The beast never requires your command to* use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack.*
> 
> While traveling through your favored terrain with only the beast, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
> 
> If the beast dies, you can obtain a new companion by spending 8 hours magically bonding with a beast that isn’t hostile to you and that meets the requirements.




I don't know why you are stuck on this idea that it was never the intent that this subclass was meant to have a combat pet, but you're objectively incorrect. 

That's very clearly a pet that is supposed to be usable in both exploration and combat. Most of it's features relate to combat, in fact. The features you get as you level up are also related to using the beast in combat. 

The only subclass levels where you don't gain a boost that is specific to using the pet in combat is 15th, and sharing spells is at least as useful in combat as it is in exploration, and is the first time after level 3's benefit of getting your proficiency in it's skills and stealthing better while traveling with you that the pet gets any benefit at all outside of combat. 

If they'd meant it to primarily be a scouting buddy, they'd have given it extra skill proficiency, or given the BM ranger something like Beast Sense as a bonus spell or feature, or the ability to communicate basic ideas with your beast (ya know, so it can scout ahead and report back, or you can both scout different directions and share info, etc), or literally anything at all as you level up that makes it a better scout, instead of making it better at fighting. 

And literally all it needs is a different HP scaling setup. That's it. Just give it a Hit Die per level you gain, and you're done, as far as balance goes. It just needs to keep up with average enemy damage output. Player expectations would be better met by giving it an attack either with your bonus action or on it's own, and there is room for that in balance terms, but it wouldn't be required to "fix" the BM Ranger. Your claim that the BM as an archetype just isn't going to work, or just will not be included in a 6e, is just nonsense that you can't back up with literally anything at all but repeating the claim.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> You're right about the bear. I'd forgotten that. The second sentence is completely false. They recommend no such thing.
> 
> Further, the description literally refers to the pet as a combat companion.
> 
> 
> 
> Then we come to the actual mechanics of the class. At level 3, a 1/4 CR beast is a perfectly good combatant alongside the party. Then it gets scaling that clearly intends to keep it's attack, AC, and HP at a point where it won't die every single time you let it participate in a fight.
> 
> 
> I don't know why you are stuck on this idea that it was never the intent that this subclass was meant to have a combat pet, but you're objectively incorrect.
> 
> That's very clearly a pet that is supposed to be usable in both exploration and combat. Most of it's features relate to combat, in fact. The features you get as you level up are also related to using the beast in combat.
> 
> The only subclass levels where you don't gain a boost that is specific to using the pet in combat is 15th, and sharing spells is at least as useful in combat as it is in exploration, and is the first time after level 3's benefit of getting your proficiency in it's skills and stealthing better while traveling with you that the pet gets any benefit at all outside of combat.
> 
> If they'd meant it to primarily be a scouting buddy, they'd have given it extra skill proficiency, or given the BM ranger something like Beast Sense as a bonus spell or feature, or the ability to communicate basic ideas with your beast (ya know, so it can scout ahead and report back, or you can both scout different directions and share info, etc), or literally anything at all as you level up that makes it a better scout, instead of making it better at fighting.
> 
> And literally all it needs is a different HP scaling setup. That's it. Just give it a Hit Die per level you gain, and you're done, as far as balance goes. It just needs to keep up with average enemy damage output. Player expectations would be better met by giving it an attack either with your bonus action or on it's own, and there is room for that in balance terms, but it wouldn't be required to "fix" the BM Ranger. Your claim that the BM as an archetype just isn't going to work, or just will not be included in a 6e, is just nonsense that you can't back up with literally anything at all but repeating the claim.




Eagles, hawks and snakes are prominent examples in the book. The strongest critters are weak pack critters, not bruisers.

They contribute to combat, in a way comparable to the equivalent level features of other subclasses as demonstrated above by @Sacrosanct . They are bonuses and tactical options for the PC, not agents in and of themselves.


----------



## DWChancellor

My vote is for 5.5E.  A cleanup and re-tightening of the rules and books.  A big push for redesigning core monsters to have a greater variety of (interesting, not just gotcha) gimmicks.  I rely on 3rd parties for a lot of that right now since the MM really only has a few tricks.  One thing 4E did better was to make "families" of monsters feel more related which is weaker in 5E.

Everything else feels (to me) like changing it would lose as much as it gains.  A testament to the excellent work on 5E.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Eagles, hawks and snakes are prominent examples in the book. The strongest critters are weak pack critters, not bruisers.
> 
> They contribute to combat, in a way comparable to the equivalent level features of other subclasses as demonstrated above by @Sacrosanct . They are bonuses and tactical options for the PC, not agents in and of themselves.




They demonstrated no such thing. Show me these examples, by the way. They aren't in the writeup for the ranger, at all, so far as I can tell. The strongest critters are fine at levels 3 to about 6 or 7. In that level range, you can choose a primarily scouting and advantage granting pet, or a pet that fights beside you, and the class doesn't punish either choice. It's later levels where one option becomes a trap. 

What sacrosanct demonstrated was a misunderstanding of the subclass and what it's features are. 24 hp (at most) of mitigated damage isn't an actual thing when the pet can die from incidental damage from an AOE, and when almost no one that wants to play the archetype is really down for constantly replacing their subclass granted pet with an entirely new animal chosen from animals available in the area in which they're currently adventuring. What CR 1/4 beasts are you finding in dungeons, by the way? And it sure as hell isn't 24hp soaked up per long rest. 
It takes 8 hours to regain the pet. There is no indication that this can be done as part of a long rest. How much time will the party let you take up regaining a pet _every single adventuring day?_

The idea that properly scaling HP (ie, HP scaling that doesn't decrease the pet's power over time) would make the pet equal to a full PC indicates a total lack of understanding, or refusal to admit to, what a PC has to work with. The pet has no special class features, very few proficiencies, etc. It's a wolf or whatever with some more HP. That doesn't compare at all to any PC class. 

I did, however, demonstrate that your claim that it's supposed to be a scouting pet  and NOT a combat companion is objectively false.


----------



## DWChancellor

Parmandur said:


> Eagles, hawks and snakes are prominent examples in the book. The strongest critters are weak pack critters, not bruisers.
> 
> They contribute to combat, in a way comparable to the equivalent level features of other subclasses as demonstrated above by @Sacrosanct . They are bonuses and tactical options for the PC, not agents in and of themselves.




Pretty much the same reason the entire "beast" type of 5E is dramatically weaker than other types at the same CRs.  Thanks druids =)

Edit - Whoops - Bring back skill challenges in a big way!  Front and center!


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> They demonstrated no such thing. Show me these examples, by the way. They aren't in the writeup for the ranger, at all, so far as I can tell. The strongest critters are fine at levels 3 to about 6 or 7. In that level range, you can choose a primarily scouting and advantage granting pet, or a pet that fights beside you, and the class doesn't punish either choice. It's later levels where one option becomes a trap.
> 
> What sacrosanct demonstrated was a misunderstanding of the subclass and what it's features are. 24 hp (at most) of mitigated damage isn't an actual thing when the pet can die from incidental damage from an AOE, and when almost no one that wants to play the archetype is really down for constantly replacing their subclass granted pet with an entirely new animal chosen from animals available in the area in which they're currently adventuring. What CR 1/4 beasts are you finding in dungeons, by the way? And it sure as hell isn't 24hp soaked up per long rest.
> It takes 8 hours to regain the pet. There is no indication that this can be done as part of a long rest. How much time will the party let you take up regaining a pet _every single adventuring day?_
> 
> The idea that properly scaling HP (ie, HP scaling that doesn't decrease the pet's power over time) would make the pet equal to a full PC indicates a total lack of understanding, or refusal to admit to, what a PC has to work with. The pet has no special class features, very few proficiencies, etc. It's a wolf or whatever with some more HP. That doesn't compare at all to any PC class.
> 
> I did, however, demonstrate that your claim that it's supposed to be a scouting pet  and NOT a combat companion is objectively false.




I never said it wasn't a combat asset: and as a combat asset, it makes a contribution as is. I agree making a pet archetype that treats pets as casually replaceable and disposable was a strategic mistake from a game design point of view, but it is working as intended.


----------



## Sacrosanct

doctorbadwolf said:


> What sacrosanct demonstrated was a misunderstanding of the subclass and what it's features are.




Nope.  Pretty sure I listed all of them out.  If there's anyone who has a misunderstanding here, it's you.  You seem to be doing exactly what I warned of: assuming the pet has to be a stand alone combatant on equivalent footing as a stand alone PC.  That's wrong.  The subclass has to be balanced with other other subclass, and that's what I did by the comparison.  You're also flawed in that you seem to be focused on combat only when you get many other benefits out of combat that the other subclass does not get.  Those things matter.  And you also have a misunderstanding on how math works in combat.  For example:



> 24 hp (at most)




Not at most.  At _least_.  It takes at least 24 points of damage.  And since we know that attacks rarely do exactly the hp total, a higher potential is protected.  For example, if a monster does 10 hp of damage every round, it takes all 3 round to kill the pet.  30 points have been protected.  And that's assuming every attack hits.  Many will miss (especially if said pet is dodging).  That sucks up even more attacks that would be directed otherwise at party members.  And that's damage absorbed without anyone else having spent any other resources.    



> of mitigated damage isn't an actual thing when the pet can die from incidental damage from an AOE, and when almost no one that wants to play the archetype is really down for constantly replacing their subclass granted pet with an entirely new animal chosen from animals available in the area in which they're currently adventuring. What CR 1/4 beasts are you finding in dungeons, by the way? And it sure as hell isn't 24hp soaked up per long rest.




That's all speculation.  And incorrect.  When you long rest, it goes back to full, so theoretically you can reduce damage by an infinite amount depending on how many combats you have in how many days as long as you keep adventuring.  All without spending a single resource.  So at 3rd level with the classic panther, you can reduce at _least _24 points per long rest.  At higher levels, it's even more hp.  4 per level if I'm not mistaken.



> It takes 8 hours to regain the pet. There is no indication that this can be done as part of a long rest. How much time will the party let you take up regaining a pet _every single adventuring day?_





I said long rest because anything of significant time more than a short rest is usually practically applicated once per day (it's not likely you'll go through more than one pet per day).  Although, technically you don't need a long rest at all.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Also, what cr 1/4 or lower beasts are there that can be found in a dungeon?

Giant Bat 
Giant Centipede 
Giant Frog 
Giant Lizard 
Giant Poisonous Snake 
Giant Wolf Spider 
Giant Rat 
Giant Weasel 
Mastiff 
Poisonous Snake 
Stirge 
Wolf 

And swarms if you're really creative.

If you can't find a beast in a dungeon, you're a pretty poor ranger.  And that's assuming you're stuck in a dungeon in the long haul and can't make it outside at some point to find another.


----------



## Parmandur

Sacrosanct said:


> Nope.  Pretty sure I listed all of them out.  If there's anyone who has a misunderstanding here, it's you.  You seem to be doing exactly what I warned of: assuming the pet has to be a stand alone combatant on equivalent footing as a stand alone PC.  That's wrong.  The subclass has to be balanced with other other subclass, and that's what I did by the comparison.  You're also flawed in that you seem to be focused on combat only when you get many other benefits out of combat that the other subclass does not get.  Those things matter.  And you also have a misunderstanding on how math works in combat.  For example:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at most.  At _least_.  It takes at least 24 points of damage.  And since we know that attacks rarely do exactly the hp total, a higher potential is protected.  For example, if a monster does 10 hp of damage every round, it takes all 3 round to kill the pet.  30 points have been protected.  And that's assuming every attack hits.  Many will miss (especially if said pet is dodging).  That sucks up even more attacks that would be directed otherwise at party members.  And that's damage absorbed without anyone else having spent any other resources.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all speculation.  And incorrect.  When you long rest, it goes back to full, so theoretically you can reduce damage by an infinite amount depending on how many combats you have in how many days as long as you keep adventuring.  All without spending a single resource.  So at 3rd level with the classic panther, you can reduce at _least _24 points per long rest.  At higher levels, it's even more hp.  4 per level if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> I said long rest because anything of significant time more than a short rest is usually practically applicated once per day (it's not likely you'll go through more than one pet per day).  Although, technically you don't need a long rest at all.




Don't forget that, per the most recent Errata, the pet will use Hit Dice on a short Rest.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Interesting observation.  a stirge is a beast, and I bet never chosen for a pet.  But imagine the surprise at a 9th level beast master with a stirge.

"Ha!  What a puny pet!  You loser, it can't hurt me, it's a *STIRGE*!"

Stirge attacks at +9 to hit, and latches on, doing an average of 9.5 points of damage automatically each turn without needing to use any of the ranger's attack actions after the first.  Enemy goes to swat it thinking it will be easy and finds out it has an AC of 18 and 36 hit points.  Hmm....

5e, making the Minsc concept a reality!


----------



## DWChancellor

Sacrosanct said:


> Interesting observation.  a stirge is a beast, and I bet never chosen for a pet.  But imagine the surprise at a 9th level beast master with a stirge.




Of course...

"The stirge can detach itself by spending 5 feet of its movement.* It does so after it drains 10 hit points* of blood from the target or the target dies."

Going to need a pack of stirges.


----------



## Parmandur

DWChancellor said:


> Of course...
> 
> "The stirge can detach itself by spending 5 feet of its movement.* It does so after it drains 10 hit points* of blood from the target or the target dies."
> 
> Going to need a pack of stirges.




A trained Stirge might behave differently...


----------



## Sacrosanct

DWChancellor said:


> Of course...
> 
> "The stirge can detach itself by spending 5 feet of its movement.* It does so after it drains 10 hit points* of blood from the target or the target dies."
> 
> Going to need a pack of stirges.





"No!  bad stirge!  you keep drinking!  I never told you to stop!"  lol

Although, now I want to create a beast master with a giant frog pet.  Why?  Just to humiliate the gnome paladins by swallowing them.


----------



## DWChancellor

Sacrosanct said:


> Although, now I want to create a beast master with a giant frog pet.  Why?  Just to humiliate the gnome paladins by swallowing them.




Okay, maybe 6E needs better pet classes _and_ skill challenges.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> Nope.  Pretty sure I listed all of them out.  If there's anyone who has a misunderstanding here, it's you.  You seem to be doing exactly what I warned of: assuming the pet has to be a stand alone combatant on equivalent footing as a stand alone PC.  That's wrong.  The subclass has to be balanced with other other subclass, and that's what I did by the comparison.  You're also flawed in that you seem to be focused on combat only when you get many other benefits out of combat that the other subclass does not get.  Those things matter.  And you also have a misunderstanding on how math works in combat.  For example:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at most.  At _least_.  It takes at least 24 points of damage.  And since we know that attacks rarely do exactly the hp total, a higher potential is protected.  For example, if a monster does 10 hp of damage every round, it takes all 3 round to kill the pet.  30 points have been protected.  And that's assuming every attack hits.  Many will miss (especially if said pet is dodging).  That sucks up even more attacks that would be directed otherwise at party members.  And that's damage absorbed without anyone else having spent any other resources.
> 
> I said long rest because anything of significant time more than a short rest is usually practically applicated once per day (it's not likely you'll go through more than one pet per day).  Although, technically you don't need a long rest at all.




The pet dies, it takes 8 hours to get it back, meaning you get it back less often than per long rest. It's pretty simple. Most groups aren't going to want to wait 16 hours for you to get your pet back and take a long rest. 

It also isn't balanced, at all, to have a benefit that isn't actually stronger than other subclasses, where you can lose literally your entire subclass for at least the rest of the adventuring day, because a fireball killed a wolf.

As for focusing on combat, that is what is being compared. I did acknowledge the exploration benefits. They are less than the Find Familiar spell. By a significant margin. 

A creature with HP roughly comparable to the lower HP classes, and at-level attack and AC numbers, with less damage at most levels (until it gets to attack twice, a wolf is a couple points higher damage than a rogue who isn't getting their SA and has no way to get a second attack, because it adds your Proficiency mod to damage. Which means it does much, much, _much_ less damage than any member of any class does per round, as it should.), and nothing else, _is objectively not comparable to a PC. _It's that simple. If you can't admit that, there's no point in continuing this. 4 times ranger level HP is not comparable to a PC, which means that the _pet loses defensive power as you level._ It doesn't maintain it's power level, it gets weaker and weaker. 

PC HP by level and monster damage by CR are tuned to eachother in a rising scale. The pet has to either have HP that allows it to survive monster damage at a given level, or the ability to be regained (whether the same pet or a new one) more easily than effectively taking a 16 hour long rest, or it isn't capable of being more than a liability in combat. It is that simple. At higher levels, even tougher pets can insta-die on a successful save against a trap or AoE that isn't even aimed at them specifically.

With a creature that is very clearly intended to participate in combat, this isn't working as intended. 

For further evidence, see how they've built pets for subclasses since then. They avoided it for a long time, and now they have provided pets that have a decent chance of survival on successful saves, can be regained by spending a level 1 spell slot, and accomplish their goals using much simpler rules.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> Also, what cr 1/4 or lower beasts are there that can be found in a dungeon?
> 
> Giant Bat
> Giant Centipede
> Giant Frog
> Giant Lizard
> Giant Poisonous Snake
> Giant Wolf Spider
> Giant Rat
> Giant Weasel
> Mastiff
> Poisonous Snake
> Stirge
> Wolf
> 
> And swarms if you're really creative.
> 
> If you can't find a beast in a dungeon, you're a pretty poor ranger.  And that's assuming you're stuck in a dungeon in the long haul and can't make it outside at some point to find another.






Oh this is good. Yep, every DM is definitely gonna agree with you that those are available in undermountain, or whatever. Sure. This isn't a "bad DMs are bad" argument, either. Good DMs are often going to not want to contrive the availability of the type of creature the ranger likes to bond with, or even any natural beasts at all, in every dungeon. I've run dungeons where nothing natural can live, long term, or where no animals will willingly stay nearby, but I've also run dungeons where none of those would be found, and you'd be stuck with regular sized rodents and snakes. 

Beyond that, how often do you have 16 hours in an adventuring day to spend tracking down a new pet (without risk of patrolling enemies, traps, or the like, thus increasing how long the ranger is stuck without their subclass for no good reason) and also take a long rest at some point? Is it fun for you to spend 8 hours getting your subclass back while your friends get a long rest and you have to spend the next adventuring day with none of your spells or HD back, and possibly gain a level of exhaustion? Do you think that's fun for a significant percentage of people who play the game?


----------



## SkidAce

doctorbadwolf said:


> lol I"m done with this. A pet creature cannot be working properly if it literally cannot survive succeeding on saves on AOEs or traps past level 10 or 12, and cannot be regained without taking a bunch of time out of adventuring.
> Familiars work because it takes 10 minutes and some gold, or a spell slot and some gold. Find Steed mounts work because they can survive some amount of danger, and can be regained with 10 minutes and a 2nd level spell slot.
> Animal Companions cannot survive any amount of danger for half the level progression of the game, and regaining them relies on DM fiat to even be possible at all, and takes more time than either of those options. And does, at best, the same amount as either of those. Except you have to be much more careful with it. Their intentions are meaningless, as well. It doesn't change what the problem is, and how it can be fixed.



Why can't you Raise Dead on your creature, like you could a fallen party member?


----------



## DWChancellor

What I find interesting about this pet conversation catching fire is that the ranger, and its pet, has been catching flak since release.

I mean, it isn't a new irritation right?  I kind of wish they'd decided to errata the whole thing after the Unearthed Arcana alternates.


----------



## DWChancellor

SkidAce said:


> Why can't you Raise Dead on your creature, like you could a fallen party member?




Or Revivify...


----------



## Sacrosanct

It takes 8 hours to get the pet back. That’s also the same length as a long rest, right?  Why are you saying it takes 16 hours?  Man, your math skills are getting worse.

And if you think those beasts don’t exist in the undermountsin, then I don’t know what to tell you. Clearly you haven’t read a single undermountain adventure or book lol.


----------



## Guest 6801328

MechaTarrasque said:


> I hope 6e skips trying to make pet subclasses and just gives us a pet class.  It is simple, the human/elf/dwarf/whatever is just there to 1) socially interact with other humanoids, 2) give the pet food/put on pet armor/any other services needed, and 3) hide while the fight is going on.  The pet gets 100% of the combat power.




And if Warlord is a type of pet you can choose, it might be a win-win-win.


----------



## Parmandur

SkidAce said:


> Why can't you Raise Dead on your creature, like you could a fallen party member?




Or death saves, spare the dying, etc.


----------



## Garthanos

DWChancellor said:


> What I find interesting about this pet conversation catching fire is that the ranger, and its pet, has been catching flak since release.
> 
> I mean, it isn't a new irritation right? I kind of wish they'd decided to errata the whole thing after the Unearthed Arcana alternates.



4e ranger with pet was ... slightly inadequate too bet it's even older too


----------



## Parmandur

DWChancellor said:


> What I find interesting about this pet conversation catching fire is that the ranger, and its pet, has been catching flak since release.
> 
> I mean, it isn't a new irritation right?  I kind of wish they'd decided to errata the whole thing after the Unearthed Arcana alternates.




The biggest issue there is that a decided majority of people are happy with the Ranger right now. The minority report is significant, but most are satisfied. That, and the Subclass/Class work mechanically as is. Those two facts make a "fix" problematic.


----------



## Lanefan

Sacrosanct said:


> It takes 8 hours to get the pet back. That’s also the same length as a long rest, right?  Why are you saying it takes 16 hours?



Probably because the actions required to get the pet back don't fall under the definition of restful...


> Man, your math skills are getting worse.



 ...therefore, like it or not, the math as presented is right: 8 plus 8 does come to 16.

But @SkidAce and others do have a good point: why not just revive the flippin' thing?  It's automatic in 5e, and nowhere near as costly as earlier editions.

That said, my thoughts keep wandering back to this:

Pirates get to have parrots on their shoulders.  Rangers get stirges on theirs; and I don't know 'bout you but I sure don't want a stirge that close to my neck all day no matter how well traied it is...


----------



## Sacrosanct

Lanefan said:


> Probably because the actions required to get the pet back don't fall under the definition of restful...
> ...therefore, like it or not, the math as presented is right: 8 plus 8 does come to 16.




It doesn’t require a long rest, so it doesn’t take 16 hours. That’s why what he was saying makes no sense when he said no one has 16 hours to replace their pet. 



> But @SkidAce and others do have a good point: why not just revive the flippin' thing?  It's automatic in 5e, and nowhere near as costly as earlier editions.



 Yes that’s true. And another reason why it doesn’t make sense to keep claiming that is such a major drawback to the design.


----------



## Blue

Lanefan said:


> Will I get shot if I just say adventuring pets of any kind are annoying and that I for one would be happy to see the end of them?
> 
> *shields up!*



Curious, why the dislike for pets?

A friend I've been gaming with for several decades feels the same way and always claims it's because it takes so much longer.  But in truth pets have a very limited choice of actions, and when I run a pet class (over various editions and games) I take regularly take less time then the casters.

So I'm biased to feel that some of the disgruntlement against pets is not soundly based in fact, but I have him as most of my example so I'm wondering what other basis for feeling there are out .


----------



## Parmandur

Sacrosanct said:


> It doesn’t require a long rest, so it doesn’t take 16 hours. That’s why what he was saying makes no sense when he said no one has 16 hours to replace their pet.
> 
> 
> Yes that’s true. And another reason why it doesn’t make sense to keep claiming that is such a major drawback to the design.




I imagine the number of DMs who don't give their Beastmaster's pet the full gamut of death saves is close to nil.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

the Jester said:


> 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.
> 
> What I want from 5e is a better suite of options- more dials that can be tweaked to achieve various desired playstyles. I want more and better options for setting up different rates of recovery from resting. I want more and different methods of advancing with or without xp. I want a suite of options that brings back the feel of 4e combat. I want mass combat rules and domain management systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Just increasing the font size of the index and getting rid of every single entry that references another entry instead of just putting a page number on it, making the goddamn page numbers in the book readably dark instead of light enough that you can't see 'em in dim lighting, and putting a sort of "you are here" down the side of every page (like in PF2e) would pretty well fix this, IMHO.



Some of the index entries send you to another item in the index, which then just gives a single page number. Why would you do that instead of just listing the page number under the first entry? It makes no sense.


----------



## ssvegeta555

anahata said:


> The example I gave in this thread. Skill use. There's very little guidance on how to adjudicate the skills, on what they actually do. Or even using ability scores in general. Or how to bring magic items into a game. The prices listed are several thousand gp wide, and the advice given on how many to give players is "use your judgement"--but there's no advice given on how to develop that judgement. A post earlier suggested that the issue is really with the DMG, where the guidance should be, but is absent. It's fine to say "use your judgement", but without helping the DM develop that judgement, it's useless advice.



Yep, I have the same preferences. I found 5e largely too loosey goosey for my tastes. I feel lost on what to do next and there's very little guidance provided. It's too open.

3.5 and other crunchy games have a nice sturdy foundation. While some feel it's stifling, I like the how things are spelled out and structured, to reference as a baseline and as a jumping off point for rulings as I run the game. I went back to 3.5 (stealing some 5e rules to backport) finding 5e just not to my tastes. I feel at home again and it feels great.  And I also want more options and mechanics. 

As for the topic of 6e. Hmm... A proper pet class would be nice.


----------



## Lanefan

Blue said:


> Curious, why the dislike for pets?
> 
> A friend I've been gaming with for several decades feels the same way and always claims it's because it takes so much longer.  But in truth pets have a very limited choice of actions, and when I run a pet class (over various editions and games) I take regularly take less time then the casters.
> 
> So I'm biased to feel that some of the disgruntlement against pets is not soundly based in fact, but I have him as most of my example so I'm wondering what other basis for feeling there are out .



There's three types of pets: 

One, something that really is just a pet and nothing more - doesn't have a hope in hell of surviving the first AoE spell it gets caught in, so why bother? (I've had a couple of players try this over the years in my games, resulting in a rather fast 100% death rate for the poor pets)

Two, wizards' familiars - now not only do I have to worry about managing my own resources, I have to make sure I have enough cat food.  Sure they provide some benefits to the wizard, but having played wizards with familiars in a few editions I just find them annoying to keep track of and constantly have to worry about keeping safe; and as DM or as someone playing in a party that has one there's always the back-of-mind concern about killing it.

Three, rangers' (and sometimes druids') animal companions - these are to me the worst offenders.  If a druid needs an animal she can just wildshape into said animal and have done with it.  Ranger animal companions just don't do it for me - it's just the awful Drizzt-ification of the class rearing its ugly head yet again.  Does Aragorn wander around with a pet?  No, horses and steeds notwithstanding.  Does Robin Hood?  No; he shoots them and feeds them to his merry men.

This is why the Figurines of Wondrous Power are so nice - bring out the Onyx Dog and (in 1e) you've got a dog for 12 hours; and if it dies it just reverts to statuette form so nobody need be too concerned about protecting it.


----------



## Sacrosanct

If you think animal companions suck in DND, don’t play wfrp1e lol. Took me forever to finally get the gold to buy a war horse for my knight PC, only to have it immediately die from a scaven attack. 

Yes, I’m still bitter...


----------



## The Green Hermit

I'm rolling up a beastmaster for my next PC, so I guess I'm about to discover which side of the debate I am on.


----------



## schneeland

The question of pet companions aside (not a big fan of the current implementation - if anything, just allow everyone to have a loyal dog companion  - but that's personal preference), there is a number of things I would like to see in a potential sixth edition. 
However, I also have little hope for them to actually appear (also, I agree that 6e is not happening until the sales decline - the may do something in 2024 for the 50th anniversary of D&D, but that might as well be just a leather tome version of the basic books). 
Still, since this is my chance, here's my thoughts:

Product policy:

I would like to see a return of proper campaign setting books (like the 2e boxes or the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign guide) and also smaller books/"regional guides" with details. Not everything needs to be there in excessive detail (probably small soft cover books of ~100 pages would be enough), but I really would like to see modernized (and timeline-adapted) versions of books/boxes like "Waterdeep and the North", "Empires of the Sands", "Menzoberranzan", etc.
Like someone a few pages back, I would like to see more independent adventures, not only adventure path-style campaign books.
I really would like to have official (searchable and indexed) PDFs again like we have for 3/3.5e
Layout&Structure:

The books would really benefit from a better index and, while were at it, also better layout that highlights rules parts more clearly (also, don't hide rule parts in plain text)
As someone already noticed, a better index would also be much appreciated
Translation policy:

Probably not relevant for people that only buy the English books, but for the love of god, the current nonsense of putting brand management before everything else and not translating so many words should stop. Iconic names like Waterdeep, Evermeet, etc. were translated in Germany for every edition since the first, and translators were allowed to come up with names that at least felt like an adequate use of the German language. The fact that we now have titles like "Waterdeep: Drachenraub" is one of my major dissatisfactions with 5e.
Abilities/Skills/Checks:

On the one hand, I like the simplicity of advantage/disadvantage, but a) it is too coarse-grained and b) there is an awful lot of rules that dictate when you should get advantage. I would very much prefer a system that leans more into DM judgement, but allows at least one, maybe two more levels for the relative fictional position. Theoretically this could be done by introducing major advantage/disadvantage and rolling 3d20. Beyond three dice, though, this might start to be too slow at the table (and the probability distribution shifts a little too much towards the higher end of the spectrum)
I would like a more fine-grained skill system - that's probably the only thing I really like about PF2. In 5e, characters of the same subclass often fill rather "samey", and I really would like to have the option for a little more customization here.
Related to the previous point: I am not a big fan of the current progression system where you become better just by levelling up. I would rather like to see skill increases for that.
I would like to also see skills for combat and magic (probably an even bigger step for D&D than some other stuff in my list)
Go back to roll under attribute (probably: +skill) or drop the 3d6 / 3-18 attribute scores. If we are just using the bonus, then we can also skip the old stuff that is now devoid of mechanical meaning.
Split Wisdom into Willpower and Perception
Split Dexterity into Agility/Speed and Nimbleness; use agility to determine movement rate
Character Classes:

Generally I feel, there is a lot of potential to weed out classes here and sharpen the concept for the remaining ones, e.g.
Sorcerers and warlocks could be merged - you either go the long and hard way to learn magic (Wizard) or you bargain with a power of questionable morality or alien motives to gain power quicker.
Druids stop being full casters and are now only shapeshifting nature-lovers
While we're at it: current clerics can go away - healing works much better in 5e without constant cure XXX spell spamming, and if you want to play a religious warrior, you can play a Paladin. Maybe introduce a new Priest class for religious scholars that can exorcize evil things and maybe also commune with their god for divine intervention - but that should be a new subsystem that does not work like wizardly magic
Generally: no one gets access to the full spell list all the time (too much time wasted picking the right spells for the next day) - you learn a number of spells (receive it from your patron) and choose only from those
Rogues are in a weird space right now where they feel like DEX-based warriors - I don't have a good idea on what to do with them right now
On the other hand: rename Monk into Martial Artist/Ninja, actual monks like Little John could be a subclass of the Priest class
Rangers become lightly armoured scout types - no one gets an animal companion (see initial comment)

Multi-classing could go away completely - rather allow people to adopt additional (mechanically represented) traits with feats or something like that
Currently a lot of the "powers" characters gain through level progression are combat-related - replace them with more options that support the other pillars of play
Hit Points/Combat:

Limit hit point inflation or come up with an alternative system, where hit points only represent level of exhaustion and will to fight, and there is a (low) number of actual wounds characters can take. 
Probably critical hits should always deal actual wounds then. 
Actual wounds shouldn't heal without treatment on rests

Encourage tactical play through situational bonuses/penalties (see more fine-grained advantage/disadvantage system); also: add more examples on what people could do in combat and maybe also offer advice to DMs on how to adjudicate the respective difficulties
Introduce some sort of success level for attacks that carries over to damage
Consider modelling combat/conflict as opposed rolls instead of flat AC/stat-based checks; armour then does damage reduction instead of making you harder to hit (this is, admittedly, a pretty major change); maybe only allow defence against ranged attacks if you have a shield
Magic Items:

Allow special fighting techniques, fancy rune tattoos or something like that as alternative to magic items
Races/Backgrounds:

Consider tying ability score increases to backgrounds instead of sub-races; maybe consider also moving race ASIs there (I have become so used to them, though, that I don't mind the either - but making an elfen black smith a little stronger than a dwarven scholar seems only logical to me)
Following a sentiment uttered before: Halflings go away and are merged into Gnomes.
General Tone/Settings:

Having started with 2e, the plethora of player races in 5e does not really match my mental image of the D&D fantasy world - this is, of course, highly subjective, and people seem to love their Tieflings, Dragonborn, Aasimar, etc., but I would really like to see a variant of the game with a more classical feel.
Generally: I feel, there is room for a few campaign settings that branch off the main line and offer a different perspective.
Tiers of Play:

For the most part of my D&D history, my characters never went much beyond level 12 (I think, I have a handful of characters that go up to 14), and the current adventure modules also seem to live in that range. So maybe consider two lines, where "basic" 6e goes up to level 12, and "advanced" 6e goes up to higher levels (maybe even beyond 20)
I could come up with a few more things, but I really think I have written enough by now. Sorry for the wall of text, guys


----------



## doctorbadwolf

SkidAce said:


> Why can't you Raise Dead on your creature, like you could a fallen party member?



So, the pet is gonna take up the Cleric’s daily resources, the Ranger’s subclass, the Ranger’s Actions, AND has to be balanced against the idea that numerical equity translates to power level balance when comparing it to the damage output of a Hunter’s benefits? 

No one else in this thread sees how that is more cost than benefit?


----------



## Sacrosanct

doctorbadwolf said:


> ?
> 
> No one else in this thread sees how that is more cost than benefit?




Nope. Largely because you keep misconstruing how the subclass and pet abilities function. So can we drop it now?  You’re largely alone on this hill.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> Nope. Largely because you keep misconstruing how the subclass and pet abilities function. So can we drop it now?  You’re largely alone on this hill.



LOL in this thread, maybe.


----------



## Lanefan

schneeland said:


> Abilities/Skills/Checks:
> 
> Go back to roll under attribute (probably: +skill) or drop the 3d6 / 3-18 attribute scores. If we are just using the bonus, then we can also skip the old stuff that is now devoid of mechanical meaning.





Agree with this, both specifically and in a broader sense of don't try to shoehorn everything into one mechanic (which is a flaw with 5e - advantage is a great mechanic for some situations but the 5e designers went nuts with it)



> Split Wisdom into Willpower and Perception




Disagree.  Willpower, as in spiritual strength, belongs under Charisma; so if anything split Charisma into Willpower and [Comeliness/Persuasion/whatever name it gets]



> Character Classes:
> 
> Generally I feel, there is a lot of potential to weed out classes here and sharpen the concept for the remaining ones, e.g.
> 
> Sorcerers and warlocks could be merged - you either go the long and hard way to learn magic (Wizard) or you bargain with a power of questionable morality or alien motives to gain power quicker.
> Druids stop being full casters and are now only shapeshifting nature-lovers
> While we're at it: current clerics can go away - healing works much better in 5e without constant cure XXX spell spamming, and if you want to play a religious warrior, you can play a Paladin. Maybe introduce a new Priest class for religious scholars that can exorcize evil things and maybe also commune with their god for divine intervention - but that should be a new subsystem that does not work like wizardly magic





Agree re Sorcerers and Warlocks.  Disagree re Druids - I'd rather see them become full-on Nature Clerics.  Absolutely disagree re normal Clerics...in part because healing in 5e needs to be harshly reined in if only to give a healing class something to do!



> Races/Backgrounds:
> 
> Following a sentiment uttered before: Halflings go away and are merged into Gnomes.





This is the second time I've seen this heresy posted in this thread.

If anything, get rid of Gnomes and - while politely telling the Tolkein estate to get stuffed - rename Halflings as Hobbits like they should have been all along.


----------



## schneeland

Lanefan said:


> Disagree.  Willpower, as in spiritual strength, belongs under Charisma; so if anything split Charisma into Willpower and [Comeliness/Persuasion/whatever name it gets]




The thing is:
a) I would like to have a representation of characters that are strong in faith/will, but not necessarily very perceptive (so that the Cleric is not naturally more perceptive than the Ranger)
b) Wisdom is currently the casting attribute for clerics - I considered Willpower as a replacement for that. That is, if Clerics stay.




Lanefan said:


> Agree re Sorcerers and Warlocks.  Disagree re Druids - I'd rather see them become full-on Nature Clerics.




Might also be an option. Where would you see the wild-shaping, then?




Lanefan said:


> Absolutely disagree re normal Clerics...in part because healing in 5e needs to be harshly reined in if only to give a healing class something to do!




Ok, if the amount of non-cleric healing is cut significantly, then that would be an option, too. I would, however, n that case like to see the martial part move out of the archetype.

Also, your reply somehow triggered the idea in my head that the invocation mechanic that is currently with Warlocks, would actually make a good fit for the powers a god imbues their Clerics with.




Lanefan said:


> This is the second time I've seen this heresy posted in this thread.
> 
> If anything, get rid of Gnomes and - while politely telling the Tolkein estate to get stuffed - rename Halflings as Hobbits like they should have been all along.




Haha! Well, I actually wouldn't only having hobbits and admittedly, iconic characters like Regis from Salvatore's novels are more Hobbit than Gnome. If we could agree, finally calling them the Hobbits they always were, we can drop the Gnomes (sorry, Gnomes! ... well, I actually don't even feel bad about this ).


----------



## Nebulous

schneeland said:


> The question of pet companions aside (not a big fan of the current implementation - if anything, just allow everyone to have a loyal dog companion  - but that's personal preference), there is a number of things I would like to see in a potential sixth edition.
> However, I also have little hope for them to actually appear (also, I agree that 6e is not happening until the sales decline - the may do something in 2024 for the 50th anniversary of D&D, but that might as well be just a leather tome version of the basic books).
> Still, since this is my chance, here's my thoughts:
> 
> Product policy:
> 
> I would like to see a return of proper campaign setting books (like the 2e boxes or the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign guide) and also smaller books/"regional guides" with details. Not everything needs to be there in excessive detail (probably small soft cover books of ~100 pages would be enough), but I really would like to see modernized (and timeline-adapted) versions of books/boxes like "Waterdeep and the North", "Empires of the Sands", "Menzoberranzan", etc.
> Like someone a few pages back, I would like to see more independent adventures, not only adventure path-style campaign books.
> I really would like to have official (searchable and indexed) PDFs again like we have for 3/3.5e
> Layout&Structure:
> 
> The books would really benefit from a better index and, while were at it, also better layout that highlights rules parts more clearly (also, don't hide rule parts in plain text)
> As someone already noticed, a better index would also be much appreciated
> Translation policy:
> 
> Probably not relevant for people that only buy the English books, but for the love of god, the current nonsense of putting brand management before everything else and not translating so many words should stop. Iconic names like Waterdeep, Evermeet, etc. were translated in Germany for every edition since the first, and translators were allowed to come up with names that at least felt like an adequate use of the German language. The fact that we now have titles like "Waterdeep: Drachenraub" is one of my major dissatisfactions with 5e.
> Abilities/Skills/Checks:
> 
> On the one hand, I like the simplicity of advantage/disadvantage, but a) it is too coarse-grained and b) there is an awful lot of rules that dictate when you should get advantage. I would very much prefer a system that leans more into DM judgement, but allows at least one, maybe two more levels for the relative fictional position. Theoretically this could be done by introducing major advantage/disadvantage and rolling 3d20. Beyond three dice, though, this might start to be too slow at the table (and the probability distribution shifts a little too much towards the higher end of the spectrum)
> I would like a more fine-grained skill system - that's probably the only thing I really like about PF2. In 5e, characters of the same subclass often fill rather "samey", and I really would like to have the option for a little more customization here.
> Related to the previous point: I am not a big fan of the current progression system where you become better just by levelling up. I would rather like to see skill increases for that.
> I would like to also see skills for combat and magic (probably an even bigger step for D&D than some other stuff in my list)
> Go back to roll under attribute (probably: +skill) or drop the 3d6 / 3-18 attribute scores. If we are just using the bonus, then we can also skip the old stuff that is now devoid of mechanical meaning.
> Split Wisdom into Willpower and Perception
> Split Dexterity into Agility/Speed and Nimbleness; use agility to determine movement rate
> Character Classes:
> 
> Generally I feel, there is a lot of potential to weed out classes here and sharpen the concept for the remaining ones, e.g.
> Sorcerers and warlocks could be merged - you either go the long and hard way to learn magic (Wizard) or you bargain with a power of questionable morality or alien motives to gain power quicker.
> Druids stop being full casters and are now only shapeshifting nature-lovers
> While we're at it: current clerics can go away - healing works much better in 5e without constant cure XXX spell spamming, and if you want to play a religious warrior, you can play a Paladin. Maybe introduce a new Priest class for religious scholars that can exorcize evil things and maybe also commune with their god for divine intervention - but that should be a new subsystem that does not work like wizardly magic
> Generally: no one gets access to the full spell list all the time (too much time wasted picking the right spells for the next day) - you learn a number of spells (receive it from your patron) and choose only from those
> Rogues are in a weird space right now where they feel like DEX-based warriors - I don't have a good idea on what to do with them right now
> On the other hand: rename Monk into Martial Artist/Ninja, actual monks like Little John could be a subclass of the Priest class
> Rangers become lightly armoured scout types - no one gets an animal companion (see initial comment)
> 
> Multi-classing could go away completely - rather allow people to adopt additional (mechanically represented) traits with feats or something like that
> Currently a lot of the "powers" characters gain through level progression are combat-related - replace them with more options that support the other pillars of play
> Hit Points/Combat:
> 
> Limit hit point inflation or come up with an alternative system, where hit points only represent level of exhaustion and will to fight, and there is a (low) number of actual wounds characters can take.
> Probably critical hits should always deal actual wounds then.
> Actual wounds shouldn't heal without treatment on rests
> 
> Encourage tactical play through situational bonuses/penalties (see more fine-grained advantage/disadvantage system); also: add more examples on what people could do in combat and maybe also offer advice to DMs on how to adjudicate the respective difficulties
> Introduce some sort of success level for attacks that carries over to damage
> Consider modelling combat/conflict as opposed rolls instead of flat AC/stat-based checks; armour then does damage reduction instead of making you harder to hit (this is, admittedly, a pretty major change); maybe only allow defence against ranged attacks if you have a shield
> Magic Items:
> 
> Allow special fighting techniques, fancy rune tattoos or something like that as alternative to magic items
> Races/Backgrounds:
> 
> Consider tying ability score increases to backgrounds instead of sub-races; maybe consider also moving race ASIs there (I have become so used to them, though, that I don't mind the either - but making an elfen black smith a little stronger than a dwarven scholar seems only logical to me)
> Following a sentiment uttered before: Halflings go away and are merged into Gnomes.
> General Tone/Settings:
> 
> Having started with 2e, the plethora of player races in 5e does not really match my mental image of the D&D fantasy world - this is, of course, highly subjective, and people seem to love their Tieflings, Dragonborn, Aasimar, etc., but I would really like to see a variant of the game with a more classical feel.
> Generally: I feel, there is room for a few campaign settings that branch off the main line and offer a different perspective.
> Tiers of Play:
> 
> For the most part of my D&D history, my characters never went much beyond level 12 (I think, I have a handful of characters that go up to 14), and the current adventure modules also seem to live in that range. So maybe consider two lines, where "basic" 6e goes up to level 12, and "advanced" 6e goes up to higher levels (maybe even beyond 20)
> I could come up with a few more things, but I really think I have written enough by now. Sorry for the wall of text, guys




Some interesting ideas there.  I personally dislike D&D beyond 12th level, maybe even 10th, so splitting the game into different books would be fine with me.   I also wouldn't mind seeing a god-level supplement like they did for Basic D&D years back.


----------



## JeffB

A return to 4e style  monster design/stat blocks. No referencing outside the stat block, more interesting abilities that make monster unique in play. Scaling foes- so no more first 5 levels of play centered around orcs, kobolds, hobgoblin, ogres, and gnolls...boring.

A revised Contest/Skill Challenge system

A detachment from the Great Wheel/PS Cosmology and lore.

No need to include classes like the Cleric or Magic Users to ensure enough "firepower" and healing or a "balanced" party.

Per encounter/scene resource management and adventure design philosophy. Remove the "per day" design.

"Open slot cyclic initiative"  (e.g FFG Star Wars)  or return to round to round initiative. 

Non pass/fail or non binary resolution mechanics. PF2 is trying, albeit in a 3.5 kind of game design mentality. D&D should move into the 21st century as well. "fail forward" is easy to preach, but if the mechanics are still binary it feels forced and klunky.

A very small sample sandbox core setting ala Nentir Vale tied into the rulebooks. Address "classic" settings in the DMG, and offer them for sale otherwise. I feel D&D needs to return to it's roots as a playground of your own making, not the Forgotten Realms Roleplaying Game.

Availability of smaller adventures ala LMoP. 

Focus on bonus/penalties for attributes- not stat scores.(e.g. my STR is +3, not 17)

Return to big 3 defenses/saves- F/R/W and tie 2 abilities into each score.


Things I would keep from 5E:
A/D
Lair/Legendary Actions
Character Class complexity
DM adjudication focus
Bounded Accuracy aka- Hit often, get hit often.


----------



## SkidAce

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, the pet is gonna take up the Cleric’s daily resources, the Ranger’s subclass, the Ranger’s Actions, AND has to be balanced against the idea that numerical equity translates to power level balance when comparing it to the damage output of a Hunter’s benefits?
> 
> No one else in this thread sees how that is more cost than benefit?




No more so than if any other party members dies.

IMO.


----------



## FrogReaver

Given Pathfinder 2e, 6e probably just got delayed 5-10 more years.  Pathfinder 2e decided not to really compete in the same space as 5e, so now there's no reason for 5e to change up the base game, especially when they have been releasing everything at a snail pace as is.  At this rate they can easily sustain the game 5-10 more years as long as it remains popular enough.


----------



## Guest 6801328

JeffB said:


> I feel D&D needs to return to it's roots as a playground of your own making, not the Forgotten Realms Roleplaying Game.




Some mighty argue that the period in which it was the Greyhawk Roleplaying Game was also the "roots" of the game, but I agree with you.  I really don't like FR.

One thing that I think would help is to encourage the idea that not all races/classes/subclasses (and even spells) are appropriate to all settings.  Of course DMs are always free to restrict options, but given the way the game is presented that can lead to grumbling.  I'd like it to be _assumed_ that DMs will restrict options to those that are appropriate to their setting, so that a game in which all options were available would be unusual.


----------



## JeffB

Elfcrusher said:


> Some mighty argue that the period in which it was the Greyhawk Roleplaying Game was also the "roots" of the game, but I agree with you.  I really don't like FR.
> 
> One thing that I think would help is to encourage the idea that not all races/classes/subclasses (and even spells) are appropriate to all settings.  Of course DMs are always free to restrict options, but given the way the game is presented that can lead to grumbling.  I'd like it to be _assumed_ that DMs will restrict options to those that are appropriate to their setting, so that a game in which all options were available would be unusual.




I actually meant "pre-greyhawk", i.e. the pre AD&D era. Before "named" spells and artifacts with names as placeholders, not "tied into" an assumed setting. When we as DMs ran our own wildly varying "settings" -because there wasn't anything besides what we pulled from literature, movies or our arses  Each of us had a mishmash of what we thought was "cool" and expanded on it. I think I have mentioned it here before- I had a blast playing my Paladin of Odin raiding a Temple of Set in the bowels of Barsoom. Not to say everyone mixed Fantasy and Sci-Fi, but we did our own thing, and the game, the gaming culture, and even the game designers (at the time) encouraged it.  Some of myt group ran very LoTR type games, or Medieval England, or Cthulhu meets Conan. Now everyone want to sell you their IP, and D&D has regurgitated itself to where it has become it's own brand of vanilla fantasy.

I also agree that an emphasis on using rule/options  to fit the setting, instead of fitting the setting to the rules (as we have seen since the switch into 2E) as written would be most welcome.


----------



## Guest 6801328

JeffB said:


> I actually meant "pre-greyhawk", i.e. the pre AD&D era. Before "named" spells and artifacts with names as placeholders, not "tied into" an assumed setting. When we as DMs ran our own wildly varying "settings" -because there wasn't anything besides what we pulled from literature, movies or our arses  Each of us had a mishmash of what we thought was "cool" and expanded on it. I think I have mentioned it here before- I had a blast playing my Paladin of Odin raiding a Temple of Set in the bowels of Barsoom. Not to say everyone mixed Fantasy and Sci-Fi, but we did our own thing, and the game, the gaming culture, and even the game designers (at the time) encouraged it.  Some of myt group ran very LoTR type games, or Medieval England, or Cthulhu meets Conan. Now everyone want to sell you their IP, and D&D has regurgitated itself to where it has become it's own brand of vanilla fantasy.
> 
> I also agree that an emphasis on using rule/options  to fit the setting, instead of fitting the setting to the rules (as we have seen since the switch into 2E) as written would be most welcome.




There should be an emote for "Grognard Alert!"

But, like I said, I agree with you.  EDIT: I didn't start playing until AD&D, but we certainly didn't play "in Greyhawk", even if we used modules ostensibly set there.  

I wasn't claiming AD&D _is_ the roots of the game, just that many people might think of it as such, because it was Gygax's own setting during much of the "roots" phase.  (And I can't wait to see how somebody corrects me on that in some minor, pedantic way...)


----------



## JeffB

Elfcrusher said:


> There should be an emote for "Grognard Alert!"
> 
> But, like I said, I agree with you.
> 
> I wasn't claiming AD&D _is_ the roots of the game, just that many people might think of it as such, because it was Gygax's own setting during much of the "roots" phase.  (And I can't wait to see how somebody corrects me on that in some minor, pedantic way...)




 Yeah, I've been around the block. That said- while I prefer the Wild and Wooly of OD&D in a fiction/story/theme context, I prefer modern rule-sets like 13A and DW to tell those stories.

And I understand your point re: GH better now- thanks. We didn't even bother with GH the setting once AD&D modules arrived or even the folio*. We just played them in our own world. We used the names and such maybe....Duchy of Geoff, Wild Coast, etc. But barring a small paragraph in the introduction of the modules, eh.  It wasn't really until the first sighting of Dragonlance modules (and by that time I had pretty much abandoned D&D) that I felt that a setting was being rammed down my throat by an AD&D product. 

*one of us bought that when it arrived. He loved the maps (who doesn't?) . He never used it after he read it. IMO GH was always more interesting and exciting though the classic adventures rather than it's setting books/boxes. Much like Kalamar and Aihrde today. But I digress.


----------



## Sacrosanct

I don’t know if pre-AD&D is the best descriptor, since it came out in ‘79, and if I were a betting man, I’d bet most of us who played from ‘79 all the way to the mid 80s used our own game worlds anyway. For teenage me, that was most of the fun, especially if other players weren’t immediately around. I’d sit in class and instead of doing algebra, I was writing notes on ZaGatul and his necromancy lair in the heart of the Alakabath jungle. It’s one of the things I really liked about those old modules. They were easy to drag and drop into your own campaigns.

If 6e comes out, I’d like to see shorter adventures like those old modules that are largely setting agnostic for that reason


----------



## ad_hoc

FrogReaver said:


> Given Pathfinder 2e, 6e probably just got delayed 5-10 more years.  Pathfinder 2e decided not to really compete in the same space as 5e, so now there's no reason for 5e to change up the base game, especially when they have been releasing everything at a snail pace as is.  At this rate they can easily sustain the game 5-10 more years as long as it remains popular enough.




It isn't possible for Pathfinder or any other RPG to compete with D&D.

They're all tiny blips in the RPG marketplace.

D&D competes with boardgames not other RPGs. 

I don't think Pathfinder was ever a concern after 5e took off. The 'delay' is simply that 5e is successful and their plan is to create a definitive edition of D&D. To not even think of it as 5e, just as, 'this is D&D'. It's about strengthening their brand IMO. Any sort of 'update' they give to the game will be to reinforce the current core system I think.


----------



## FrogReaver

ad_hoc said:


> It isn't possible for Pathfinder or any other RPG to compete with D&D.
> 
> They're all tiny blips in the RPG marketplace.
> 
> D&D competes with boardgames not other RPGs.
> 
> I don't think Pathfinder was ever a concern after 5e took off. The 'delay' is simply that 5e is successful and their plan is to create a definitive edition of D&D. To not even think of it as 5e, just as, 'this is D&D'. It's about strengthening their brand IMO. Any sort of 'update' they give to the game will be to reinforce the current core system I think.




Depends on what you mean by compete.  But pathfinder 2e didn't attempt to be a slightly different 5e with more character options.  It seems it's in a weird place right now for most people.  It didn't have to be that way IMO.


----------



## The Green Hermit

Nebulous said:


> Some interesting ideas there.  I personally dislike D&D beyond 12th level, maybe even 10th, so splitting the game into different books would be fine with me.   I also wouldn't mind seeing a god-level supplement like they did for Basic D&D years back.




What I dislike is that so few published campaigns give an option for advanced levels. They could easily start mid-range with several, for example, being recommended for continuation of xyz.


----------



## gyor

Zardnaar said:


> 1. Evolution not revolution.
> 
> 2. Tweaked classes, clean them up slight buffs and nerfs.
> 
> 3. Tweaked feats, buffs and nerfs
> 
> 4. Lower the CR on a lot if critters that are to easy.
> 
> 5. Tweaked spells.
> 
> 6. 2024 give or take a year.
> 
> I think in two or three years I'll be getting sick of 5E.




 I don't see 6e coming out in 2024, the way things are going I think 2030 is more likely. They have no reason to dump 5e when not only are things going so well there is both so much room for more market growth and creative growth.


----------



## GreyLord

The Green Hermit said:


> What I dislike is that so few published campaigns give an option for advanced levels. They could easily start mid-range with several, for example, being recommended for continuation of xyz.




I think (so just me thinking on it) that the reason for this probably is that when research has been done it indicates that the levels that are most played are low level games.  That means that more games are going to be run for low level characters and PC's than mid to high level.  The higher level you get, the fewer people are playing those levels.

Thus, to appeal to the greatest amount of audience (Read money here) you want a product that is useful to the greatest amount of players and groups.  Thus, low level adventures are always in demand, and mid-level adventures occasionally (and they just released one with Dungeon of the Mad Mage).

The problem if one creates adventures for high level or advanced levels is that there would be a lower player base to buy the game for those levels.  In theory at least.  So, the material is made for where the money is.


----------



## FrogReaver

GreyLord said:


> I think (so just me thinking on it) that the reason for this probably is that when research has been done it indicates that the levels that are most played are low level games.  That means that more games are going to be run for low level characters and PC's than mid to high level.  The higher level you get, the fewer people are playing those levels.
> 
> Thus, to appeal to the greatest amount of audience (Read money here) you want a product that is useful to the greatest amount of players and groups.  Thus, low level adventures are always in demand, and mid-level adventures occasionally (and they just released one with Dungeon of the Mad Mage).
> 
> The problem if one creates adventures for high level or advanced levels is that there would be a lower player base to buy the game for those levels.  In theory at least.  So, the material is made for where the money is.




But it's not just the number of games/players for a particular level range but also the amount of material available.

Here's the deal, a DM is going to go out and probably buy most all adventuries and mine them for material.  Some they may run straight by the book, but likely not all.

If that's really the demographic buying material, then they will buy material for many different level ranges IMO.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

SkidAce said:


> No more so than if any other party members dies.
> 
> IMO.



A party member contributes an enormous amount more than even the most well built revised ranger pet.


----------



## Parmandur

GreyLord said:


> I think (so just me thinking on it) that the reason for this probably is that when research has been done it indicates that the levels that are most played are low level games.  That means that more games are going to be run for low level characters and PC's than mid to high level.  The higher level you get, the fewer people are playing those levels.
> 
> Thus, to appeal to the greatest amount of audience (Read money here) you want a product that is useful to the greatest amount of players and groups.  Thus, low level adventures are always in demand, and mid-level adventures occasionally (and they just released one with Dungeon of the Mad Mage).
> 
> The problem if one creates adventures for high level or advanced levels is that there would be a lower player base to buy the game for those levels.  In theory at least.  So, the material is made for where the money is.




The issue is not just the predominance of Tier 1 & 2 play over Tier 3 & 4 (and actual play by all accounts is overwhelmingly below Level 10-ish): the major issue for sales purposes is that there is an extremely strong correlation between tables playing high level and wanted by to make personalized Adventures for the characters at that table. Per Chris Perkins, it isn't that high level playing tables haven't been given a product, but are extremely uninterested when WotC asks if they want one.

No accident that the one high level product is basically a Smorgasbord of dungeon material to mine.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Parmandur said:


> The issue is not just the predominance of Tier 1 & 2 play over Tier 3 & 4 (and actual play by all accounts is overwhelmingly below Level 10-ish): the major issue for sales purposes is that there is an extremely strong correlation between tables playing high level and wanted by to make personalized Adventures for the characters at that table. Per Chris Perkins, it isn't that high level playing tables haven't been given a product, but are extremely uninterested when WotC asks if they want one.
> 
> No accident that the one high level product is basically a Smorgasbord of dungeon material to mine.




Interesting.  And that makes sense to me.

I suppose if I, as a DM, wanted an "adventure" for Tier IV characters I would want it to be much more loosely structured.  Like, some major plot elements, then lots of various ideas and threads and NPCs and the like.

For example, if a McGuffin is needed, I'd like to see four different sketches, each a quarter page, outlining how it might be acquired, with each sketch tying in some of the NPCs and themes from throughout the book.


----------



## Lanefan

schneeland said:


> The thing is:
> a) I would like to have a representation of characters that are strong in faith/will, but not necessarily very perceptive (so that the Cleric is not naturally more perceptive than the Ranger)
> b) Wisdom is currently the casting attribute for clerics - I considered Willpower as a replacement for that. That is, if Clerics stay.



Second thing first: I'd leave Wisdom as the Clerics' casting stat even if Willpower gets divorced from it.  Willpower to me means spiritual strength, relevant to things like attacks against the spirit (e.g. level drain in older editions) and revival from death (which I'd move from Con).

First thing second: go through the stats and try to figure where perception belongs.  Strength?  Constitution?  Charisma?  None of those.  Dexterity?  Maaaybe, but it's a weak connection at best.  That leaves Intelligence and Wisdom - and of those the reason you'd give it to Wisdom is that giving it to Intelligence makes Int far more useful all round than Wis, which would become a dump stat for all except Clerics.



> Might also be an option. Where would you see the wild-shaping, then?



Still with the Nature Cleric, though maybe dialled back a bit.



> Ok, if the amount of non-cleric healing is cut significantly, then that would be an option, too. I would, however, n that case like to see the martial part move out of the archetype.



By "martial part" do you mean martial healing (a la 4e Warlords) or do you mean the Clerics' ability to fight half-decently?

If the former, I completely agree.  If the latter, I'm not sold.  I could actually see a good case for there being a bunch of different "fight level" (or in 3e, BAB) progressions for different types of Clerics - War Clerics would be nearly as good as Fighters (with their spells - particularly healing - chopped back as a trade-off), run-of-the-mill Clerics would be about as they are now (which is fine), and Healing or Nature Clerics would have a somewhat slower fight-level progression - maybe more like Rogues.  There could be half a dozen or more broad Cleric "types", and if they really wanted to get down to it this would all be specific to deity along with deity-specific spells and variants on spells.



> Haha! Well, I actually wouldn't only having hobbits and admittedly, iconic characters like Regis from Salvatore's novels are more Hobbit than Gnome. If we could agree, finally calling them the Hobbits they always were, we can drop the Gnomes (sorry, Gnomes! ... well, I actually don't even feel bad about this ).



There's nothing in the world stopping you from calling them Hobbits at your table.


----------



## Lanefan

doctorbadwolf said:


> A party member contributes an enormous amount more than even the most well built revised ranger pet.



Obviously, because the pet isn't counted as a party member on its own but merely as an extension of the Ranger - they're a unit.

Which means one of two results occurs:

[Ranger + pet] > Average Party member; [Ranger - pet] = Average Party member
[Ranger - pet] < Average Party member; [Ranger + pet] = Average party member.

Which means one of two things has to happen for the Ranger design to work: either every Ranger has to have a pet in order to keep up (whether the player wants one or not), or pets get banned because the pet unbalances the class.

Now if 5e was a lot more supportive and encouraging of characters bringing henches and hirelings and so forth into the field as a regular thing then I'd be much more on board with pets as they're just another variant on the same idea.  But it isn't...so I'm not.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Lanefan said:


> Obviously, because the pet isn't counted as a party member on its own but merely as an extension of the Ranger - they're a unit.
> 
> Which means one of two results occurs:
> 
> [Ranger + pet] > Average Party member; [Ranger - pet] = Average Party member
> [Ranger - pet] < Average Party member; [Ranger + pet] = Average party member.
> 
> Which means one of two things has to happen for the Ranger design to work: either every Ranger has to have a pet in order to keep up (whether the player wants one or not), or pets get banned because the pet unbalances the class.
> 
> Now if 5e was a lot more supportive and encouraging of characters bringing henches and hirelings and so forth into the field as a regular thing then I'd be much more on board with pets as they're just another variant on the same idea.  But it isn't...so I'm not.



Nope. Ranger+pet can be slightly more powerful in some ways (mostly HP on the field and tactical options, in the case of the very functional revised BM), and Ranger-pet slightly less powerful, as long as the pet is available most of the time, but also sometimes either not available or uses resources to keep around. The trick is not making it cost more than it benefits the party. 

The Revised Ranger, with Primeval Awareness and Natural Explorer tweaked to not make nonsense of exploration, Beast Master accomplishes this just fine. Well, as long as you switch it back to normal Extra Attack instead of making another attack with the pet when you use the attack action. That is probably fun for some players, but every ranger player I know isn’t playing a BM ranger to play a wolf with a ranger pet.


----------



## Blue

SkidAce said:


> No more so than if any other party members dies.
> 
> IMO.




But the issue is that the Pet dies a lot more frequently. That once you've hit third tier the pet will die if they are unharmed and MAKE their save vs. an AoE.


Frequency would make them take up more in that case.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Agree with this, both specifically and in a broader sense of don't try to shoehorn everything into one mechanic (which is a flaw with 5e - *advantage is a great mechanic for some situations but the 5e designers went nuts with it*)



So umm.... wow. We agree on something. 



> If anything, get rid of Gnomes and - while politely telling the Tolkein estate to get stuffed - rename Halflings as Hobbits like they should have been all along.



I would be less interested in halflings and D&D if they were renamed back to hobbits. The moment they are renamed "hobbits," then people bring Middle Earth to any homebrew I may use that may include halflings. I would not like that.



Lanefan said:


> Second thing first: I'd leave Wisdom as the Clerics' casting stat even if Willpower gets divorced from it.  Willpower to me means spiritual strength, relevant to things like attacks against the spirit (e.g. level drain in older editions) and revival from death (which I'd move from Con).
> 
> First thing second: go through the stats and try to figure where perception belongs.  Strength?  Constitution?  Charisma?  None of those.  Dexterity?  Maaaybe, but it's a weak connection at best.  That leaves Intelligence and Wisdom - and of those the reason you'd give it to Wisdom is that giving it to Intelligence makes Int far more useful all round than Wis, which would become a dump stat for all except Clerics.



From my understanding of @schneeland's post, they are not proposing Wisdom to coexist alongside Willpower and Perception, but, rather, that Willpower and Perception would replace Wisdom entirely such that there is no longer a Wisdom stat. So "[leaving] Wisdom as the Clerics' casting stat even if Willpower gets divorced from it" would not be hypothetically possible because Willpower and Perception are replacing Wisdom, which is getting removed entirely from the game (per schneeland's proposal).



Nebulous said:


> Some interesting ideas there.  I personally dislike D&D beyond 12th level, maybe even 10th, so splitting the game into different books would be fine with me.   I also wouldn't mind seeing a god-level supplement like they did for Basic D&D years back.



This is a fairly brilliant idea, though I'm sure it would ruffle some feathers. Sell D&D as levels 1-10 and then later publish D&D for levels 11-20 (D&D Advanced?) after those rules have been appropriately playtested. The major issue I would foresee is that people may feel like they are only getting "half a game" if WotC sold the game this way.


----------



## schneeland

Aldarc said:


> From my understanding of @schneeland's post, they are not proposing Wisdom to coexist alongside Willpower and Perception, but, rather, that Willpower and Perception would replace Wisdom entirely such that there is no longer a Wisdom stat. So "[leaving] Wisdom as the Clerics' casting stat even if Willpower gets divorced from it" would not be hypothetically possible because Willpower and Perception are replacing Wisdom, which is getting removed entirely from the game (per schneeland's proposal).




Yes, that was the idea. I find Wisdom too fuzzy if it includes both awareness/perception and the spiritual power of a cleric (I got the impression @Lanefan did not share this assessment).


----------



## SkidAce

Some would sat that wise people can be very perceptive.


----------



## Garthanos

SkidAce said:


> Some would sat that wise people can be very perceptive.



And if your task is standing guard discipline(associated with wisdom) can keep you focused on being aware . I really do not think Perception being a wisdom trait is at all stretching anything


----------



## FrogReaver

Garthanos said:


> And if your task is standing guard discipline(associated with wisdom) can keep you focused on being aware . I really do not think Perception being a wisdom trait is at all stretching anything




And intelligent people can be some of the most unpreceptive


----------



## Garthanos

FrogReaver said:


> And intelligent people can be some of the most unpreceptive



or the fastest thinkers able to respond quickly if they are also decisive  ... but yes general awareness is different than perceptive about a target of focus


----------



## Sacrosanct

It’s almost as if the skills and attributes a person can have are impacted by more than just one of six total ability scores


----------



## Guest 6801328

Sacrosanct said:


> It’s almost as if the skills and attributes a person can have are impacted by more than just one of six total ability scores




I would not be in favor of D&D going this direction, but I do have an appreciation for systems where the scores you actually use on a consistent basis are derived from two other "primary" scores.  So maybe Strength and Dexterity are primary, but they combine into an "Athletics" score (or whatever) that actually gets used for things like attack rolls, climbing, etc.

Thought experiment: starting with the six classic D&D attributes, what six derived attributes would be most useful?  How many cross the physical/mental boundary?  (E.g., Dexterity and Intelligence for Defense?)

Or is six not enough?


----------



## Garthanos

Sacrosanct said:


> It’s almost as if the skills and attributes a person can have are impacted by more than just one of six total ability scores



Its the reason I like having flexibility in this regards take a feat and get to use intelligence wisdom (or yes maybe that vivacious bubbly personality which decides without worries) for your initiative


----------



## Lanefan

schneeland said:


> Yes, that was the idea. I find Wisdom too fuzzy if it includes both awareness/perception and the spiritual power of a cleric (I got the impression @Lanefan did not share this assessment).



Let's break it down a bit - what does Wisdom (in game terms) include:

1. Intuition and instinct
2. Long-term reasoning and deduction (as opposed to immediate problem-solving; that's Int)
3. Willpower and-or spiritual strength
4. Awareness and-or perception (the actual act of noticing things)
5. Processing of perceptions (the mental realization of the meaning of what you perceive)
6. For Clerics, the ability to better channel spells given by a deity

Of those, AFAIC 1, 2, 5 and 6 are hardcore Wisdom, and would be left behind as such regardless - there'd still be a Wisdom stat.

3 should IMO get shifted into Charisma.

4 is a tough one.  It doesn't belong under Wisdom, but where else to put it?  The answer, at cost of some added complexity, is nowhere - it becomes kind of its own thing.  Not a stat along with Str, Int, etc., but a number (or series of numbers?) arrived at by determining each character's inherent vision, hearing, and smell capabilities vs. an arbitrary average.  Race* would play a big role here, and class** a lesser; along with a random die roll for each - say a d10 where 1-2 indicates poor, 3-8 indicates average, and 9-0 indicates particularly good at that sense for that race (this could be granularized even further, to allow for inherently blind or deaf PCs).  Then situational factors like armour and environment come in.

* - Elves and Hobbits would be good at hearing, Gnomes at smell, etc., for example
** - Rangers and Rogues would be better at all simply via training

I don't think there's enough in Willpower by itself to justify giving it its own separate stat.  And there needs to be some ongoing in-play importance to each stat, to avoid it just becoming a dump.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Lanefan said:


> ** - Rangers and Rogues would be better at all simply via training




I dunno.  You get trained to notice specific things.  If you hang out with hunters, for example, they are often really good at noticing birds and animals a long way off.  Cops will notice expired registrations.  My wife notices (and remembers) gas station prices. Proofreaders notice subtle grammar and spelling errors.


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> I would not be in favor of D&D going this direction, but I do have an appreciation for systems where the scores you actually use on a consistent basis are derived from two other "primary" scores.  So maybe Strength and Dexterity are primary, but they combine into an "Athletics" score (or whatever) that actually gets used for things like attack rolls, climbing, etc.
> 
> Thought experiment: starting with the six classic D&D attributes, what six derived attributes would be most useful?  How many cross the physical/mental boundary?  (E.g., Dexterity and Intelligence for Defense?)
> 
> Or is six not enough?



Now this is on to something!

First, I'll say it doesn't have to be symmetrical - there's no need to try to force multiples of 6 combinations, for example, when only maybe 4 or 7 or 13 make sense.

But here's a few ideas, starting with yours kind-of as quoted:

Strength-Dexterity - Athletics (climbing, jumping, etc. but not attack rolls)
Strength-Intelligence - Attack Rolls (you know how best to apply your force)
Intelligence-Dexterity - Martial Defense
Wisdom-Charisma - Mental/Spiritual Defense (e.g. vs psionics and charms)
Constitution-Charisma - Physical/Spiritual Defense (e.g. vs direct non-damage death effects, possession, etc.)
Constitution-Wisdom - Physical/Spiritual Resilience (e.g. revival from death)

And after all that, by sheer accident there just happens to be 6, with each stat used twice!


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> I dunno.  You get trained to notice specific things.  If you hang out with hunters, for example, they are often really good at noticing birds and animals a long way off.  Cops will notice expired registrations.  My wife notices (and remembers) gas station prices. Proofreaders notice subtle grammar and spelling errors.



Which is just what I'm getting at: Rangers and Rogues are trained to notice everything.  Other classes might be good at noticing things specific to class e.g. a Fighter might notice something about her foe's armour that others would likely miss, but that comes under 'situational'.  For Rangers and Rogues, it's blanket.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I think I would be more interested in "what you notice" coming from background than from class.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Lanefan said:


> Which is just what I'm getting at: Rangers and Rogues are trained to notice everything.  Other classes might be good at noticing things specific to class e.g. a Fighter might notice something about her foe's armour that others would likely miss, but that comes under 'situational'.  For Rangers and Rogues, it's blanket.




Why would a ranger notice a book that was unlike the other books in a library?

Why would a rogue notice birds flocking in irregular ways?

EDIT: On the other hand, if "You get to add (some bonus) to all Perception checks that rely on (insert some senses)" were designed as a class bonus for rangers or rogues, I could see hand-waving it in the same way that we hand-wave so many things in an RPG.  I succumbed to arguing about realism...which I despise anyway...instead of game mechanics.


----------



## Blue

Sacrosanct said:


> It’s almost as if the skills and attributes a person can have are impacted by more than just one of six total ability scores



While I wouldn't want it for D&D 6e because it doesn't fit my mental box of "D&D", 13th Age (a d20 OGL game that came out a bit before 5e and is similarly streamlined) does this.  Several things are calculated as the middle score of three.  For example your Mental Defense (a 4e type defense-instead-of-save) is based on your class, but the bonus is the middle value of Int, Wis and Chr modifiers.  Your AC modifier is the middle of Con, Dex, and Wis.


----------



## delph

bestcrafted/overcrafted (call it like you want) weapons and armors giving +1(+2?) without magic and be best base for enhancing


----------



## Garthanos

Blue said:


> While I wouldn't want it for D&D 6e because it doesn't fit my mental box of "D&D", 13th Age (a d20 OGL game that came out a bit before 5e and is similarly streamlined) does this.  Several things are calculated as the middle score of three.  For example your Mental Defense (a 4e type defense-instead-of-save) is based on your class, but the bonus is the middle value of Int, Wis and Chr modifiers.  Your AC modifier is the middle of Con, Dex, and Wis.



I think I get what you mean about being D&D but its a subtle one. I am now a days quite on board with single attributes affecting actions.  To me attribute in use sort of defines the style of the actions being used....  I seen that type of mechanic in RuneQuest where attributes were merged together and distinctions were lost. A fighter using strength and a rogue using dex and a ranger sometimes using either  is defining a style, In RQ it would be an amalgam for everyone.  I like 4es pick  your best as to me that fills the trope of *playing to ones strengths *and is a better expression of the characters style.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Oh, I wasn't trying to argue for the removal or change to the 6 D&D stats.  I was arguing that they are what they are, and it's part of D&D, so don't waste time trying to shoehorn or force those abilities into a skill where they might not fit, and just go with what was assigned, otherwise it's a hole that has no end.


----------



## Nebulous

Aldarc said:


> This is a fairly brilliant idea, though I'm sure it would ruffle some feathers. Sell D&D as levels 1-10 and then later publish D&D for levels 11-20 (D&D Advanced?) after those rules have been appropriately playtested. The major issue I would foresee is that people may feel like they are only getting "half a game" if WotC sold the game this way.




Agreed, it would anger a lot of people as "half a game" and probably WON'T happen, but I would personally love to see that. Of course, you'd also have the split of spells according to what you can cast by level, so at some point you'd need both books at least for the spell list.


----------



## Aldarc

Nebulous said:


> Agreed, it would anger a lot of people as "half a game" and probably WON'T happen, but I would personally love to see that. Of course, you'd also have the split of spells according to what you can cast by level, so at some point you'd need both books at least for the spell list.



Honestly though, there are more intuitive ways that D&D could do spell level progression. Spreading spells across 10 spell levels (not including cantrips) in 20 levels seems much easier.


----------



## Lanefan

Nebulous said:


> Agreed, it would anger a lot of people as "half a game" and probably WON'T happen, but I would personally love to see that. Of course, you'd also have the split of spells according to what you can cast by level, so at some point you'd need both books at least for the spell list.



The DM would, anyway; as 90% of the times those spells come into use are in figuring out what high-level opposition can do.

The rest of the use comes from working out what spells might have been used to generate funky magic effect xyz that you want to stick into a dungeon somewhere.



			
				Aldarc said:
			
		

> Honestly though, there are more intuitive ways that D&D could do spell level progression. Spreading spells across 10 spell levels (not including cantrips) in 20 levels seems much easier.



Works fine if you don't want anyone to have spells before 2nd level.   But the casting progression starts at 1st, so either it finishes before 20th (thus an every-other-level 10-spell-level progression would end at 19th) or there's got to be some gaps in it.

And a 9-level progression, for example, could gain spell levels at 1st-3rd-5th then 8th-10th-12th then 15th-17th-19th.  Or if you want to keep it strictly tier-based, 1st-3rd then 5th-7th then 10th-12th then 15th-17th then 20th; though I think I prefer the former.


----------



## bmfrosty

The core rules are great.  I wouldn't do much more to them than restate them and reorganize them slightly.

I'd turn feats and multiclassing off by default.  Make them very distinctly an optional rule to the point of having them not available or restricted in AL play.

I'd also work in more optional rules and give them distinct names.  For example we have a rule for Critical Hits.  I could see two more variations on that - one being the max dice + dice version - call that the "Perkins Crit" (or whatever) - and I could see also having a crit table to roll a d20 on - call that a "Table Crit".  Having specific names for them would give a universal shorthand to it.

I'd include a glossary of terms and keywords as well.  The rules have rules for how to read them, but I haven't run into them while reading the book.

I'd work out a way to deduplicate proficiencies given by class, race, and background.

The math in the game is pretty great, so I wouldn't mess with it.

I think the biggest thing that I would want worked on would be the classes themselves. Every class could use some rework. Not necessarily major, but often minor. Take this rule for the Monk:

"At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property."

Change that to:

"At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are weapons that you are proficient with that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property."

And it means that your Monk can use Darts as Monk Weapons.  You can use a Sun Sword as a monk weapon.

All it does is add some D8 weapons to the list which is a small change in the math in levels 1-10, but opens up the opportunities for flavor.


----------



## ad_hoc

bmfrosty said:


> I'd turn feats and multiclassing off by default.  Make them very distinctly an optional rule to the point of having them not available or restricted in AL play.




This is already the case.

Rules for Adventurer's League are separate from the rules for D&D. It uses some optional rules and has its own house rules. 

Feats and multiclassing are already presented as being optional and the majority of tables don't use them.

Keep in mind that AL probably represents 1% or less of the 5e player base.


----------



## Garthanos

ad_hoc said:


> Feats and multiclassing are already presented as being optional and the majority of tables don't use them.



Feats seem used locally but multi-classing even though available nobody using it. (I know anecdotes ahoy)


----------



## Lanefan

bmfrosty said:


> The core rules are great.  I wouldn't do much more to them than restate them and reorganize them slightly.
> 
> I'd turn feats and multiclassing off by default.



Feats purely optional?  Absolutely!

Multiclassing?  My answer would be to allow a character to have two classes maximum, and no more; largely bewcause there's still a few key concepts that just can't quite be done within a single class.

That said, make it 2e-style multiclassing where xp are split into each class, rather than the additive style used since then.  Far more organic.



> I'd also work in more optional rules and give them distinct names.  For example we have a rule for Critical Hits.  I could see two more variations on that - one being the max dice + dice version - call that the "Perkins Crit" (or whatever) - and I could see also having a crit table to roll a d20 on - call that a "Table Crit".  Having specific names for them would give a universal shorthand to it.



Ditto for fumbles.



> I think the biggest thing that I would want worked on would be the classes themselves. Every class could use some rework.



Pretty much guaranteed this would happen anyway, if only to a) make it different from 5e and b) incorporate whatever new mechanics they dream up for 6e.


----------



## bmfrosty

Anecdotally, I've never been at a table that says no to multiclassing or feats.

But anecdotes 'eh?


----------



## bmfrosty

Lanefan said:


> Multiclassing? My answer would be to allow a character to have two classes maximum, and no more; largely bewcause there's still a few key concepts that just can't quite be done within a single class.



My thought on this is similar.  Two classes at most and then a rule that if you have two classes, when levelling you must level the class in which you have the fewest levels. 

It prevents dipping and approximates the older multiclassing strategies.


----------



## Garthanos

bmfrosty said:


> Anecdotally, I've never been at a table that says no to multiclassing or feats.



Multiclassing looks like a bit of a trap in many cases...


----------



## Lord of Nessus

It's not gonna happen, but... I'd like to see the elimination of automatic ability score adjustments and skills/proficiencies according to Race. It's fine to say, for instance, that Elves tend on average to be more graceful than Humans, but don't hardwire that into a Dex bonus applied to every. single. Elf. Instead, let PCs CHOOSE whether they want to apply their ability score bonuses (which they would get for being adventurers, not because of Race) to the stereotypical scores, or whether to make their Elf different. Likewise, not every bloody Elf, Dwarf or whatever would realistically all have identical training in the use of specific weapons - after all, Humans aren't all skilled in martial weapons, as witness the many baker, blacksmith, tavern keeper, merchant, etc. NPCS. Surely Elven and Dwarven societies have the equivalent? As written, the rules assume every member of those races get warrior training, which is ludicrous. A description of skills many martially-inclined Elves or Dwarves take can be in the flavor text, while the rules allow the PCs to assign their starting skills as they prefer (I.e. no automatic proficiency in certain weapons just for being an Elf, Dwarf, etc. The PCs would have the OPTION of going the standard route and getting the stereotypical "Elf" package should they so choose - they just wouldn't be FORCED to do so.)

Likewise, DMs could make NPC Elves and Dwarves either conform to or depart from the traditional standards.


----------



## Lanefan

Lord of Nessus said:


> It's not gonna happen, but... I'd like to see the elimination of automatic ability score adjustments and skills/proficiencies according to Race. It's fine to say, for instance, that Elves tend on average to be more graceful than Humans, but don't hardwire that into a Dex bonus applied to every. single. Elf.



Thing is, if the race is on average more dextrous than Humans (who are always the baseline default) how else do you reflect this?



> Instead, let PCs CHOOSE whether they want to apply their ability score bonuses (which they would get for being adventurers, not because of Race) to the stereotypical scores, or whether to make their Elf different.



Once they've nicely started adventuring this is exactly what happens, when players assign their ASIs.



> Likewise, not every bloody Elf, Dwarf or whatever would realistically all have identical training in the use of specific weapons - after all, Humans aren't all skilled in martial weapons, as witness the many baker, blacksmith, tavern keeper, merchant, etc. NPCS. Surely Elven and Dwarven societies have the equivalent? As written, the rules assume every member of those races get warrior training, which is ludicrous. A description of skills many martially-inclined Elves or Dwarves take can be in the flavor text, while the rules allow the PCs to assign their starting skills as they prefer (I.e. no automatic proficiency in certain weapons just for being an Elf, Dwarf, etc. The PCs would have the OPTION of going the standard route and getting the stereotypical "Elf" package should they so choose - they just wouldn't be FORCED to do so.)



On this I agree.  Weapon training, learned skills, etc. should all in theory be informed by some combination of class and background, based on whatever concept the player has in mind.

But those are different from hard-baked physical attributes of a species, which probably should be built in somehow.  Dwarves are both stronger and tougher than Humans, on average.  Elves and Hobbits are more dextrous; one could argue Elves are more charismatic as well, if charisma included comeliness or beauty.  Gnomes are...well, Gnomes; and thus more pointless than Humans. 

Otherwise, the obvious risk is that a character's race becomes little more than fluff, in which case just make 'em all Human and have done with it.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, if the race is on average more dextrous than Humans (who are always the baseline default) how else do you reflect this?



You mean, how do you force player characters to be adjusted toward the norms for their race?  My question would be WHY do PC's need to be adjusted toward racial norms?

The DM can and will assign stats to NON-player characters however they wish.  If they want more elves with higher dexterity scores, doing more dexterity-oriented things then that is what the DM will have happen.  But I don't see any reason that PC's need to ALSO noticeably reflect ability score patterns seen in their entire race.  If a player wants a dexterous elf to reflect the trend seen in NON-player character elves, then let the player assign a higher amount to Dex, and a lower amount to a stat where elves tend to be lower than humans.  If the player doesn't mind their PC being in the lower Dex percentile for their race, SO BE IT.

You do not need to use stat bonuses/penalties to reinforce racial stereotypes that the DM is going to assign to NON-PLAYER-characters as they see fit anyway.  Let the DM worry about the NPC's reflecting the idea that _in that campaign world_ Elves tend to be more dexterous.  Let the PLAYERS decide what they want stats for their character to reflect.  Period.  



> Once they've nicely started adventuring this is exactly what happens, when players assign their ASIs.



It doesn't need to start there.  It can start AT character creation when players assign their scores to stats.  There just isn't a reason I can fathom that PC's need to be pushed into having their characters ability scores weighted to specifically reflect those of NON-player characters.  If every dwarf character the players ever create for a campaign actually has a constitution below 11, does that alter the fabric of space-time and make the race of dwarves in that game world weaker and less hardy than humans?  No.  Because the DM will still have all NPC dwarves skew towards being hardier and stronger.  Why MUST player characters always be emblematic of their race regardless of what those racial tendencies are?  It will not alter the GAME WORLD that the DM presents to the players in any way.  At best it will only alter the perception of NPC's toward the _individual_ player characters in comparison to the norms in that game world.



> But those are different from hard-baked physical attributes of a species, which probably should be built in somehow.



But those differences aren't hard-baked in the first place.  NON-player demi-humans run the gamut of low to high in various stats just as humans do.  For a particular stat there will be a higher percentage that are better or worse, but they aren't ALL better, nor ALL worse in the same way - nor should they be - NOR should we keep acting as if they are.

Why does this need to be _forcibly_ built into PLAYER character creation?  Again, can't a player choose to create a NOT-above-human-averages-dexterity elf?  Can't they choose to create a NOT-above-human-averages-constitution dwarf?  If so, then let them.  If they want the "_usually_ more dexterous" elf as their character, they can.  They just assign a high score to Dex.  If they want a "_usually_ more high constitution" dwarf, they just assign a high score to Con.  Baking is then done, regardless of how hard the crust is on the dish that the PLAYER chose to make, and the food can be served.



> Dwarves are both stronger and tougher than Humans, on average.  Elves and Hobbits are more dextrous; one could argue Elves are more charismatic as well, if charisma included comeliness or beauty.  Gnomes are...well, Gnomes; and thus more pointless than Humans.



But can you argue that PLAYER characters MUST reflect those tendencies? Can't those tendencies be reflected by their choices in assigning stats as to whether their PC will demonstrate those tendencies or not?



> Otherwise, the obvious risk is that a character's race becomes little more than fluff, in which case just make 'em all Human and have done with it.



I find it difficult to buy into that line of reasoning at all.  If you take two characters with identical ability scores and hand them to two different players and say, "Your scores have been assigned.  Make whatever character you like but there are no default RACIAL abilities," would you get all humans?  If someone under those restrictions decides they DO want to play a demi-human despite not being bribed to do so by racial abilities within the game, wouldn't they still do so and still play their character AS a demi-human and not a human to at least SOME degree?  I don't buy that ONLY mechanical benefits of a choice of race will produce results that don't seem like a re-fluffed human.  If anything, I'd argue that giving all characters of a given race the same racial abilities only hands them a roleplaying crutch and expects every character ever to lean on that in order to seem different than humans because they can't and won't be trusted to do it any other way.


----------



## Lanefan

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> You mean, how do you force player characters to be adjusted toward the norms for their race?  My question would be WHY do PC's need to be adjusted toward racial norms?



Simple: because that's what the race is.  Thus, if you want to play an Elf you just have to accept the fact that Elves tend to be more dextrous than Humans and that this is reflected in a stat adjustment after you've assigned your stats, because when you're rolling up an Elf you're rolling up an Elf, not a Human.  It's as much a part of the territory as accepting that the native language of an Elf is 99.9% likely going to be Elvish.

Now don't take this to mean I like the way D&D has gone about doing stat adjustments through the various editions; I don't, as IMO there's a better (though slightly more complicated) way to do it.  See below.



> The DM can and will assign stats to NON-player characters however they wish.  If they want more elves with higher dexterity scores, doing more dexterity-oriented things then that is what the DM will have happen.  But I don't see any reason that PC's need to ALSO noticeably reflect ability score patterns seen in their entire race.  If a player wants a dexterous elf to reflect the trend seen in NON-player character elves, then let the player assign a higher amount to Dex, and a lower amount to a stat where elves tend to be lower than humans.  If the player doesn't mind their PC being in the lower Dex percentile for their race, SO BE IT.



Yes, but what exactly does "the lower Dex percentile" represent when talking about an Elf?  An Elf might, for example, be Dex 8 in Human (and thus game) terms but be Dex 6 in the eyes of other Elves.



> You do not need to use stat bonuses/penalties to reinforce racial stereotypes that the DM is going to assign to NON-PLAYER-characters as they see fit anyway.  Let the DM worry about the NPC's reflecting the idea that _in that campaign world_ Elves tend to be more dexterous. Let the PLAYERS decide what they want stats for their character to reflect. Period.



Keep in mind that when the player is rolling stats, the stats as rolled (or assigned) are for a Human.  The 3-18 bell curve is based on Humans.  Thus, if you're not rolling up a Human these stats won't be correct.



> But those differences aren't hard-baked in the first place.  NON-player demi-humans run the gamut of low to high in various stats just as humans do.



Agreed.  BUT, the end points of those lows and highs will be different for each race.


> For a particular stat there will be a higher percentage that are better or worse, but they aren't ALL better, nor ALL worse in the same way - nor should they be - NOR should we keep acting as if they are.



There will be exactly the same number who are better or worse than the racial average *for that race*: it'll be very slightly less than 50% that are higher, the exact same number that are lower, and the remaining few are bang on it...an average that very well might not be the same as the 10.5 average for a Human. So, here's how to accomplish this:

First, as DM decide what the low point and high point for each stat for each race will be, relative to a Human. Carrying on with the same example: Elves are dextrous, so it's simple to assume the clumsiest Elf is still going to be somewhat more dextrous than the clumsiest Human - so in Human terms the low Elf dex is 6.  However, the most dextrous of Elves can reach levels of grace beyond what a Human can do, so let's put their high to 19.

So now Elvish dex is on a 6-19 bell curve; and you can either find some combination of dice to roll this or, much easier, just design a table to convert each result on the standard 3-18 bell curve to its corresponding number on 6-19.

Like this table right here. (if you scroll up from where this puts you you'll see the stat adjusts we use for each stat by race)

Note that sometimes stats get adjusted down - Part-Orc Charisma, for example, gets hammered.  Hobbit and Gnome Strength doesn't do very well either.  And so on.



> Why does this need to be _forcibly_ built into PLAYER character creation? Again, can't a player choose to create a NOT-above-human-averages-dexterity elf? Can't they choose to create a NOT-above-human-averages-constitution dwarf? If so, then let them.



Players can always do this, but they have to accept that both the system and the setting will more or less gently fight against them when they do.



> If they want the "_usually_ more dexterous" elf as their character, they can.  They just assign a high score to Dex.  If they want a "_usually_ more high constitution" dwarf, they just assign a high score to Con.



Where instead they should be able to assign an average score to that stat and let the system convert it to whatever the average score would be for that race.



> But can you argue that PLAYER characters MUST reflect those tendencies?



Yes I can, to the extent that if that's what the setting demands the player is somewhat obliged to go along with it.  Sure a player can stick a 6 onto a Dwarf's Con score...but that's 6 on the Human bell curve; the same relative-to-average score for a Dwarf might be 9 or 10 in game terms.



> Can't those tendencies be reflected by their choices in assigning stats as to whether their PC will demonstrate those tendencies or not?



Within race, sure.  On the objective this-is-how-you-compare-to-a-Human scene, not so much.



> I find it difficult to buy into that line of reasoning at all.  If you take two characters with identical ability scores and hand them to two different players and say, "Your scores have been assigned.  Make whatever character you like but there are no default RACIAL abilities," would you get all humans?



I think you'd get a lot of characters who played like Humans - even more so than now



> If someone under those restrictions decides they DO want to play a demi-human despite not being bribed to do so by racial abilities within the game, wouldn't they still do so and still play their character AS a demi-human and not a human to at least SOME degree?  I don't buy that ONLY mechanical benefits of a choice of race will produce results that don't seem like a re-fluffed human.



In fairness, you're making an assumption here for which I can't blame you as it's the way 5e is designed, but it's something I really don't like: that all racial abilities are benefits.

My philosophy runs more toward no benefit without penalty - it's easier to keep things balanced that way, and cut down on the arms-race aspect.  Thus, if Elves are going to be on average more Dextrous then some other stat (in our game, Wisdom) is going to take a hit to compensate.


----------



## S'mon

I don't want a 6e. I can see myself buying a redone 5e phb with better index and layout, better Ranger class - maybe have casting and noncasting paths - and maybe a mm with tweaked monsters. Very happy with 5e though.


----------



## Dausuul

ad_hoc said:


> Feats and multiclassing are already presented as being optional and the majority of tables don't use them.



The majority of _PCs_ don't _have_ any feats. There is no reason to believe most tables don't allow them.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Lanefan said:


> Simple: because that's what the race is.  Thus, if you want to play an Elf you just have to accept the fact that Elves *tend to* be more dextrous than Humans




Yes, tend to.

In other worse, across the entire population of elves the gaussian distribution will have a peak somewhat higher than it is for other races.  (Or compared to humans, if we are using that as a baseline.)

But:

Chargen rules are for creating PCs, not the entire population of elves.  The chargen rules don't have to produce that statistical shift.
PCs are, by definition, outliers from the population.
I think you've chosen the wrong hill to die on.  Man in the Funny Hat has nailed it.


----------



## bmfrosty

Garthanos said:


> Multiclassing looks like a bit of a trap in many cases...



It is in many cases, but there are a bunch of examples of 'take 1 level of rogue to get x more proficiencies.' things that I feels should be discouraged.  I'm very tired of 'DPR' being a character concept.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lord of Nessus said:


> It's fine to say, for instance, that Elves tend on average to be more graceful than Humans, but don't hardwire that into a Dex bonus applied to every. single. Elf. Instead, let PCs CHOOSE whether they want to apply their ability score bonuses (which they would get for being adventurers, not because of Race) to the stereotypical scores, or whether to make their Elf different.



You already have the choice of whether you want your Elf to have higher or lower Dexterity than average. Nobody is stopping you from building an elf with 15 Strength and 10 Dex.



Lord of Nessus said:


> Likewise, not every bloody Elf, Dwarf or whatever would realistically all have identical training in the use of specific weapons - after all, Humans aren't all skilled in martial weapons, as witness the many baker, blacksmith, tavern keeper, merchant, etc. NPCS. Surely Elven and Dwarven societies have the equivalent? As written, the rules assume every member of those races get warrior training, which is ludicrous.



Because there's no precedent for any (pseduo-)Medieval European civilization to mandate bow practice for all able-bodied adults 

Remember, racial bonuses are _bonuses_. They're a little extra, on top of what you already get. You can build a perfectly functional character, without considering these bonuses at all. If you want to play one of the few elves who never learned to use a bow, in spite of ample time for practice and social encouragement, then I don't think many DMs are going to stop you; it's just that writing the option into a book would be a waste of space, since there's no good reason to opt out from free stuff.


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> Yes, tend to.
> 
> In other worse, across the entire population of elves the gaussian distribution will have a peak somewhat higher than it is for other races.  (Or compared to humans, if we are using that as a baseline.)
> 
> But:
> 
> Chargen rules are for creating PCs, not the entire population of elves.  The chargen rules don't have to produce that statistical shift.
> PCs are, by definition, outliers from the population.
> I think you've chosen the wrong hill to die on.  Man in the Funny Hat has nailed it.



Where I posit the chargen rules do have to reflect that statistical shift somehow, as part of a greater reflection of the conceits of the setting; much the same as they reflect e.g. a setting's lack of Gnomes - if the setting doesn't have Gnomes, rolling up a Gnome and trying to play it isn't going to do you any good and will probably gas off the DM in the process.

The character is part of the setting, right?*  Thus, if the setting dictates that Dwarves are generally tougher than Humans (which most if not all do) then a PC Dwarf in that setting at any point on the toughness bell curve should trend tougher than a Human at the same relative point on the bell curve.  Further, if Dwarves are known to be tougher than Humans a player who wants to play a Dwarf is, I think, entitled to some expectation that the system will build that in somehow.

Either that, or the statistical shift has to disappear from the general population meaning all playable-creature culturess then run on Human stats.

* - if it isn't, and the character is seen purely as a game token and nothing more, then we're probably trying to compare apples and canoes.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Lanefan said:


> Where I posit the chargen rules do have to reflect that statistical shift somehow, as part of a greater reflection of the conceits of the setting; much the same as they reflect e.g. a setting's lack of Gnomes - if the setting doesn't have Gnomes, rolling up a Gnome and trying to play it isn't going to do you any good and will probably gas off the DM in the process.




The setting doesn't _tend_ to have Gnomes, or simply doesn't have Gnomes?

If the latter then you are comparing apples and oranges.

If the former, how exactly do you propose the chargen rules reflect that?  Give them terrible ability scores so that people will _tend_ to not choose that race?


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Lanefan said:


> Either that, or the statistical shift has to disappear from the general population meaning all playable-creature cultures then run on Human stats.



The _statistical_ shift of the _general_ population will still be set by the DM.  PLAYER characters do not need to always reflect or benefit from the statistical tendencies of the general population.


----------



## ad_hoc

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> The _statistical_ shift of the _general_ population will still be set by the DM.  PLAYER characters do not need to always reflect or benefit from the statistical tendencies of the general population.




What is the point in playing a race if your character doesn't reflect that race?

Just play a human if you want to be human.


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> The setting doesn't _tend_ to have Gnomes, or simply doesn't have Gnomes?
> 
> If the latter then you are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> If the former, how exactly do you propose the chargen rules reflect that?  Give them terrible ability scores so that people will _tend_ to not choose that race?



Easy, if clunky - if you want a Gnome you have to roll against [whatever odds] and if you fail, no Gnome for you.

On a broader scale, I generally make basic races chooseable but if you want something exotic (e.g. a Gnome in this example) you have to roll on a chart and be prepared to play whatever you get even if it's nothing close to what you had in mind.

In my current setting this is in fact exactly the case: Gnomes exist but are very rare in most parts of the world, and to reflect this they're not usually chooseable* as a race - you have to roll on the chart for any hope of getting one.

* - unless the party happens to be in an area where there actually are some Gnomes; they'd be chooseable were someone to roll up a character at that point and have it join then.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

ad_hoc said:


> What is the point in playing a race if your character doesn't reflect that race?
> 
> Just play a human if you want to be human.



Assume the average ability score roll is 12.  An average human has a 13 Con (12+1 for being human).  The average dwarf then has a 14 Con (12+2 for being a dwarf).  I CHOOSE to create a dwarf PC with a 12 Con because I want any higher score used elsewhere. _ My character doesn't reflect his race._  I clearly just want to play a human and I should crumple up my dwarf's character sheet and create a human.

Player characters do not need to statistically reflect their race in their attribute scores.

[edit: correcting typo]


----------



## Lanefan

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Assume the average ability score roll is 12.  An average human has a 13 Con (*12+1* for being human).  The average dwarf then has a 14 Con (*12+1* for being a dwarf).  I CHOOSE to create a dwarf PC with a 12 Con because I want any higher score used elsewhere. _ My character doesn't reflect his race._  I clearly just want to play a human and I should crumple up my dwarf's character sheet and create a human.
> 
> Player characters do not need to statistically reflect their race in their attribute scores.



 (I bolded a glitch in your post - you have 12+1 coming to two different amounts; I think for the Dwarf you meant 12+2)

Nothing anywhere saying you can't play a Con 12 Dwarf...all it means is that you stuck a 10 in its Con slot.  It's a slightly spindly Dwarf, by Dwarf standards, but still as tough as the average non-adventuring Human.  Carry on!  All is good!

What you can't play is a Con 4 Dwarf, as the lowest they go [3 + 2] is 5.

But none of that is reason to suggest the +2 shouldn't be there at all, which is how I'm reading your position here..


----------



## S'mon

BX style minimum stats by race (CON 9 Dwarf, DEX 9 Elf) work just as well as 1e+ style attribute mods by race, IMO. And it can give more flexibility if players want to avoid unoptimised PCs.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

It seems like you could move saving proficiency out of class and into race.  The dwarf will make good con saves because dwarves have proficiency with con saves, and elves can have proficiency with dex saves.  

The subrace could get the dud save (str, int, cha).  I would like all races to have subraces.

You could move the +2 to the class and the +1 to the subclasses.  You would only get this on your first class, unless you had a racial power that lets you get this when you multiclass (I think this should be the main racial power for humans).


----------



## Lord of Nessus

ad_hoc said:


> What is the point in playing a race if your character doesn't reflect that race?
> 
> Just play a human if you want to be human.




.... seriously? You actually think it's the ability score adjustments that make a member of a Race an Elf, Dwarf, or whatever rather than being a Human? For starters, ability score adjustments for the various Races and Sub-Races haven't been consistent and identical across editions - Humans used to receive no ability score bonuses or penalties, and now they do (+1 to all ability scores), so I guess either 5th Edition doesn't have any "real" Humans by your definition, or else prior editions did not! (And that's before mentioning the option of  variant Humans which get +1 to two ability scores, proficiency in one skill, and one feat. As far as the rulebooks are concerned, both groups are equally Human, even though they don't match.) Likewise with Elves, who have only positive score adjustments in 5e but which used to have penalties as well. What makes an Elf an Elf is not a +2 to Dexterity (If my Human PC raises his Dex so it matches an Elf's, does he become a Elf?) but biology. Of course, most Elves are raised by two Elven parents in an Elven society and pick up the language, culture, etc. but an Elf that was raised by two Dwarves (because, say, the parents were killed by Orcs and the Dwarves rescued the baby) and only learned the Dwarven language would still be a Elf, because it was born to an Elven mother and had an Elven father. Said individual would still have the physical traits that would identify him/her as an Elf (i.e. pointy ears) and nobody would confuse them for a Dwarf.


----------



## Lord of Nessus

Saelorn said:


> Because there's no precedent for any (pseduo-)Medieval European civilization to mandate bow practice for all able-bodied adults




Umm, that was in Medieval England... it didn't apply to all Medieval Humans, and even then didn't literally apply to every single English person (i.e. women were not so required). If you want to argue that it's reasonable for one specific group of Elves to almost all be trained in the use of a particular weapon, that would be one thing - but all Elves everywhere is another.  All Human cultures are not identical, why would every Elven culture be identical?


----------



## ad_hoc

Lord of Nessus said:


> .... seriously? You actually think it's the ability score adjustments that make a member of a Race an Elf, Dwarf, or whatever rather than being a Human?




It's differences that make them different.

Strip those away and you just end up with a mush of theme and a bunch of numbers for a game.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lord of Nessus said:


> Humans used to receive no ability score bonuses or penalties, and now they do (+1 to all ability scores), so I guess either 5th Edition doesn't have any "real" Humans by your definition, or else prior editions did not!



Numbers don't mean the same things between editions. Strength 25 does not mean the same thing in AD&D that it did in 3E.

As far as the reality defined by 5E is concerned, the average human has like a 14 in all stats (between 4d6 drop low, and the +1 racial bonus), and elves average +1 to Dex and -1 to Con in comparison.



Lord of Nessus said:


> And that's before mentioning the option of  variant Humans



If you want to ruin your game with non-sensical variant rules, than that's on you. There's a reason why the variant rules require explicit permission from the DM.


----------



## Lord of Nessus

ad_hoc said:


> It's differences that make them different.
> 
> Strip those away and you just end up with a mush of theme and a bunch of numbers for a game.




Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Your mention of "theme" makes me think you are disagreeing, but then you mentioned "a bunch of numbers" which sounds like ability scores! Please clarify...


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lord of Nessus said:


> Umm, that was in Medieval England... it didn't apply to all Medieval Humans, and even then didn't literally apply to every single English person (i.e. women were not so required). If you want to argue that it's reasonable for one specific group of Elves to almost all be trained in the use of a particular weapon, that would be one thing - but all Elves everywhere is another.  All Human cultures are not identical, why would every Elven culture be identical?



Why do you assume that all elves within a given setting should necessarily form a broader group than all Medieval English people? If we want to assume that all elves are from one culturally-homogeneous region, then that's a perfectly reasonable assumption for any given game world.

It's weird enough that there are multiple intelligent species on one planet. It would be significantly more unusual if every species showed up in multiple regions independently.


----------



## Lord of Nessus

Saelorn said:


> If you want to ruin your game with non-sensical variant rules, than that's on you. There's a reason why the variant rules require explicit permission from the DM.




LOL, but giving every Human a +1 to each ability score isn't nonsensical? Remember what the whole point of ability scores adjustments was in the first place, and what it meant: it showed how your character compared to an average Human, who was assumed to have a 10 in each ability score, like the Commoner NPC stats in the Monster Manual. A PC getting +1 in each ability score might make sense if you assume that the +1s are because that particular Human is an adventurer, and thus more hardy, etc. than the average bloke. But if you apply the +1 to all Humans, it becomes a farce, because then what the hell are the +1s in reference to? Bonuses and penalties make no sense except in reference to an average specimen of something. The Commoner gets scores of 10 in every ability score because the Commoner's not an adventurer. Other Human NPCs in the Monster Manual receive different bonuses according to what they are (a Knight, a Noble, a Spy, etc.) Also, the variant Human rules in no way "ruin" a game, and many choose to use them. The decision to make those the variant rules and not make those the standard and the +1 to each ability score the variant was simply an arbitrary decision on the part of the designers, and could have easily gone the other way.


----------



## Lord of Nessus

Saelorn said:


> Why do you assume that all elves within a given setting should necessarily form a broader group than all Medieval English people? If we want to assume that all elves are from one culturally-homogeneous region, then that's a perfectly reasonable assumption for any given game world.
> 
> It's weird enough that there are multiple intelligent species on one planet. It would be significantly more unusual if every species showed up in multiple regions independently.




Except there is no necessity for them to show up independently in multiple regions in order to have separate cultures. After all, Humans aren't thought to have originated independently in separate areas of the word (whether created or evolved), are thought to have come from one "batch", and yet Humans do not all share the same culture. Even if you started with one batch of Elves, if one group settled in one type of terrain in one area of the world and the other settled in different terrain in a distant part of the world, you'd expect the two groups to diverge over time and not stay identical.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lord of Nessus said:


> But if you apply the +1 to all Humans, it becomes a farce, because then what the hell are the +1s in reference to?



In this case, it's in reference to the other races. Humans are (on average) stronger, tougher, and more charismatic than elves are. That's just how their world works. Humans are also (on average) stronger than hill dwarves, but not as strong as mountain dwarves.

It's also important to remember that NPCs are created using these same rules, if you actually care about statting them out. They all benefit from rolling 4d6 drop low, with standard racial stat bonuses. There's nothing in this edition about 3d6 being any sort of average. The numbers in the Monster Manual are just a simplification, to make things easier to run, in situations where you don't really care about accurate modeling.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lord of Nessus said:


> Except there is no necessity for them to show up independently in multiple regions in order to have separate cultures. After all, Humans aren't thought to have originated independently in separate areas of the word (whether created or evolved), are thought to have come from one "batch", and yet Humans do not all share the same culture. Even if you started with one batch of Elves, if one group settled in one type of terrain in one area of the world and the other settled in different terrain in a distant part of the world, you'd expect the two groups to diverge over time and not stay identical.



And if you want your elves to do that, in your world, then you're more than free to change their stats. The DMG goes into great length about how you should change the abilities of each race or class, depending on how you change their place in the world.

By default, though, the racial proficiency in longbow makes perfect sense under a specific assumption about how the races are spread throughout the world.


----------



## ad_hoc

Lord of Nessus said:


> Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Your mention of "theme" makes me think you are disagreeing, but then you mentioned "a bunch of numbers" which sounds like ability scores! Please clarify...




Having numbers isn't a bad thing. There are lots of numbers in the game.

Having a lack of theme, or 'thematic mush' of numbers isn't a game I want to play. I want the numbers to be used to create theme/narrative. Ability scores are a tool to that end. 

In other words I only care that my character has a +3 to whatever if that has actual meaning in the narrative.


----------



## Lanefan

Lord of Nessus said:


> .... seriously? You actually think it's the ability score adjustments that make a member of a Race an Elf, Dwarf, or whatever rather than being a Human? For starters, ability score adjustments for the various Races and Sub-Races haven't been consistent and identical across editions - Humans used to receive no ability score bonuses or penalties, and now they do (+1 to all ability scores), so I guess either 5th Edition doesn't have any "real" Humans by your definition, or else prior editions did not!



Yeah, not all 5e rules are great...

But that said, it's the relative differences that matter; and those can be easily seen by putting a 12 into each stat and seeing what the racial adjustments do to them.



> Likewise with Elves, who have only positive score adjustments in 5e but which used to have penalties as well. What makes an Elf an Elf is not a +2 to Dexterity (If my Human PC raises his Dex so it matches an Elf's, does he become a Elf?) but biology. Of course, most Elves are raised by two Elven parents in an Elven society and pick up the language, culture, etc. but an Elf that was raised by two Dwarves (because, say, the parents were killed by Orcs and the Dwarves rescued the baby) and only learned the Dwarven language would still be a Elf, because it was born to an Elven mother and had an Elven father. Said individual would still have the physical traits that would identify him/her as an Elf (i.e. pointy ears) and nobody would confuse them for a Dwarf.



Perhaps, but that Dwarf-raised Elf would be highly unusual* and not all that reflective of the species as a whole.

* - unusual enough that I'd have to think long and hard about whether to allow it as a chosen background without some sort of random roll attached.


----------



## S'mon

Saelorn said:


> It's also important to remember that NPCs are created using these same rules, if you actually care about statting them out. They all benefit from rolling 4d6 drop low, with standard racial stat bonuses. There's nothing in this edition about 3d6 being any sort of average. The numbers in the Monster Manual are just a simplification, to make things easier to run, in situations where you don't really care about accurate modeling.




You seriously think that the PHB rules on making PCs are intended to represent typical NPCs too? And the entries at the back of the MM are not?


----------



## The Crimson Binome

S'mon said:


> You seriously think that the PHB rules on making PCs are intended to represent typical NPCs too? And the entries at the back of the MM are not?



Check the DMG. They're both equally valid ways for generating NPCs. (It's not like generating stats for a PC, where the rules definitely assume that you will roll, and only suggest using the array if you're too lazy to go through the effort.)

The only question is whether you care about getting the _right _answer, or if you're okay with sacrificing the integrity of the model for the sake of speed.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Saelorn said:


> It's also important to remember that NPCs are created using these same rules, if you actually care about statting them out. They all benefit from rolling 4d6 drop low, with standard racial stat bonuses. There's nothing in this edition about 3d6 being any sort of average. The numbers in the Monster Manual are just a simplification, to make things easier to run, in situations where you don't really care about accurate modeling.



_"A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities"_ (PHB 173). This value of "10 or 11" as the average is corroborated by the stats for the commoner and further implied in the system math itself which assigns those scores a modifier of +0, but hopefully it's enough to establish it that it's stated clearly and explicitly in the rules defining the ability scores. Now, if your "model" is to give all NPCs 4d6-drop-1 abilities, then NPCs generated by this model will have an average score of 12-and-a-bit. Which is not 10 or 11. Therefore your model produces results that diverge from what is established to be reality. Therefore your model is not accurate. Therefore you need to reconsider your model. I think if you try using 3d6 instead, your model will henceforth produce the correct average.


----------



## CubicsRube

I don't really know where I'd want to start with a 6e, but after onboarding new players, I'd really like to see WotC make the jump to dropping ability scores and just using modifiers.

Beyond that there's a bunch of things that suit my personal taste, but I'd love to see them lean more into backgrounds, maybe even having race, background, culture, then character class as build options to make things more interesting.

Each of these choices should have weight, but also build a good narrative for where my character has come from before they became an adventurer.

Maybe Doogan was a dwarf that grew up amongst elves in silverymoon as a herder before he felt the call of Pelor and became a cleric. Why not? Even without further details I feel like Doogan here has an interesting story, and if I was in a party woth Doogan I'd want to know more about him.


----------



## CubicsRube

Actually now that I think about it....

I'd like to see some things that are written up as spells become more class traits. There are way too many spellcasters for my liking in 5e.

I'd like hunters mark to be a skill that all rangers can do.

I'd like detect magic and counterspell a skill that all wizards can do (requiring a roll, not automatic) to differentiate with other spellcasters.

I'd like hex to be a skill that all warlocks can do.

I'd like guidance to be a skill that all clerics can do (this is a cantrip, but really just for flavour I'd like it as an ability of theirs).

Have i missed anything? Probably, but the sentiment is there...


----------



## TheCosmicKid

CubicsRube said:


> Actually now that I think about it....
> 
> I'd like to see some things that are written up as spells become more class traits. There are way too many spellcasters for my liking in 5e.
> 
> I'd like hunters mark to be a skill that all rangers can do.
> 
> I'd like detect magic and counterspell a skill that all wizards can do (requiring a roll, not automatic) to differentiate with other spellcasters.
> 
> I'd like hex to be a skill that all warlocks can do.
> 
> I'd like guidance to be a skill that all clerics can do (this is a cantrip, but really just for flavour I'd like it as an ability of theirs).
> 
> Have i missed anything? Probably, but the sentiment is there...



I'm not sure what you mean by this. You say you want to turn these spells into features because there are too many casters, but then you mention features for classes that pretty definitely still should be casters in any future game. Like, I definitely get turning hunter's mark into a feature and making the ranger a non-caster by default. All for it, in fact. But the wizard? _Detect magic_ and _counterspell_ or no, wizards are still going to be spellcasters, right?

And if they are casters, it makes sense to me that any supernatural action they can perform should just be a part of that preexisting system rather than stand apart from it. Cleaner and simpler design that way. So if anything, I'd go the other direction: make _turn undead_ and _wild shape_ and the like into spells. If we want one of these spells to define and differentiate a class, we can (a) give it to the class automatically and say it's always prepared and/or (b) give them class features that make them better at casting the spell than others. See the necromancer's Undead Thralls feature for an existing example of this.


----------



## Blue

Garthanos said:


> Multiclassing looks like a bit of a trap in many cases...



It can be a trap, need not be.
Tier 1, multiclassing can seem good - until the rest of your party hits 3rd, then 4th, then 5th and you get further and further behind the power curve.
Tier 2, you can start doing some multiclassing and be on-par with straight classed characters as long as you follow some easy rules (don't leave behind ASIs, get 5th level power bump, etc.)
Tier 3-4 you can make characters that are a lot weaker to a measurable amount stronger.

Mechanically, it is a trap if you are, for example, forced to use "old school" even splitting of XP.   It completely hamstrings the character, especially at lower level.  I can't really believe that anyone who suggests it has run multiple characters using that alongside straight classed characters for levels 1-10 where most play happens because it does not make viable characters with most combinations of classes.


----------



## Blue

Lanefan said:


> On a broader scale, I generally make basic races chooseable but if you want something exotic (e.g. a Gnome in this example) you have to roll on a chart and be prepared to play whatever you get even if it's nothing close to what you had in mind.




I'm glad that works at your table.  I know a player who would love an random exotic race roll as long as there were some real oddities on it.  Personally it would get in the way of fun for me - "no gnomes" is fine, but "you might have to play something you don't want to" is  a non-starter.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Blue said:


> I'm glad that works at your table.  I know a player who would love an random exotic race roll as long as there were some real oddities on it.  Personally it would get in the way of fun for me - "no gnomes" is fine, but "you might have to play something you don't want to" is  a non-starter.



Well, it's just like when you play with 3d6 in order: some of your characters are mysteriously clumsy when on clifftops, ships at sea, and bridges over alligator-infested swamps.


----------



## BigBadDM

Personally I would do the following:

Get rid of multi classing. (why have the option of a fighter/mage or eldritch knight, same with rogue/mage,etc)
  - multi-classing was great when their were only 4-6 cores classes, now it is a min/max tool.

Does a Paladin and Ranger really need to be its own core class? Can't they just fall in under fighter as archetypes. Back to the old school again. 

Get rid of the sorcerer or merge it with the warlock. (the idea of a warlock with meta magic is pretty good).
   - honestly a 1e illusionist was light years ahead of the current sorcerer. Otherwise make some sorcerer only spells. 

Bard - needs a slight nerf with spells known and remove expertise.  If you weren't allowed to change 2 spells every level, spells known would't need a nerf. But basically a bard always has the best spells in the game. It is arguably the best caster as is (spell poaching, huge known spells, armor, d8 HD, inspiration, social skills). The idea is jack of all trades, but really it is a master at Magic and Skills.


----------



## Garthanos

Blue said:


> It can be a trap, need not be.
> Tier 1, multiclassing can seem good



Generally speaking yeh that is the definition ... when it can be hard to do right... but can look good even when it really isnt where as someone who might better know what they doing it wont be as much.


----------



## Garthanos

BigBadDM said:


> The idea is jack of all trades, but really it is a master at Magic and Skills.



Lugh _Samildánach_


----------



## BigBadDM

Garthanos said:


> Lugh _Samildánach_



Yep, Bards are pretty much gods in this edition


----------



## Kinematics

On the issue of racial stat boosts: There is an obvious functional use for the stats, as a way to bump up your purchased stats (using that as a baseline) to a level that provides the overall balance desired for character creation.  That is, you get your 27 points, plus another 3 points in stats (usually).  Thus it doesn't seem unreasonable to unlock stats from races, and just give a free +2/+1 at the end of stat selection.

However there are two problems with that:

There are a few races where the non-stat bonuses are such that +2/+1 isn't appropriate.  This includes both types of humans (+1 to two stats, and +1 to all), mountain dwarves (+2 to two stats), and tritons (+1 to three stats).
While not immediately obvious, it seems that there is no race (that I can find) that increases both Str and Dex.  You can use the human race to get +1 to each, but there's no race that will give you +2 to one of them and also +1 to the other.  This appears to be a deliberate balance choice to avoid an obvious best choice race for combat.
Those two points make it difficult to make a rule to allow players to pick any two stats they want to boost, because there will be a strong preference to go for some combination of Str and Dex.  Adding "exceptions" to rules (ie: "Choose +2 in one stat and +1 in another, but you cannot take a combination of Str and Dex") is generally looked down on, and it draws attention to something you wanted to avoid in the first place.

Even if you split the stats up in categories (eg: one physical, one mental), you end up with "Choose your primary combat stat plus Wisdom, because Wisdom is your most important mental saving throw" kind of advice.  It also means you can't get Str+Con races, like half-orcs and goliaths.  And as you continue to try to refine it, you run into more and more of these conundrums.

So by attaching the bonus to the race, they can prevent certain undesired combinations from appearing, while also giving a varied appeal to the races.  Yes, you still get certain races being better for certain jobs, which helps encourage a bit more variety in race choice, as the secondary aspects of race choices (skills, spells, etc) have a much weaker effect on choice.


From an abstract sense, I'd prefer the Ancestry / Culture / Background / Class splitup in construction, but I can see why it doesn't always match up with how people actually make choices in character creation.  The current Race/Subrace option is basically a merged Ancestry/Culture construction in order to deliberately limit players' choices, which can, ultimately, be beneficial.

In addition, it can be difficult to separate out a lot of the subrace benefits into culture benefits.  For example, Sunlight Sensitivity and Superior Darkvision for dark elves is more intrinsic than cultural... probably.  I guess if you lived underground all your life, you might develop those traits.  Hmm.



Having said all that, I could see a somewhat more esoteric way to achieve this end.  It still singles out Str and Dex, but isn't quite as troublesome in terms of how it is constructed.


> You have 4 points you can spent to further raise stats, by +1 per point.  You may not add more than 2 points to any given stat. If you choose to raise Str or Dex, you must spend 1 extra point for the amount you gain (ie: spend 2 points to get +1, or spend 3 points to get +2).
> 
> In addition to the above, you may spend one of your stat points to instead buy an extra skill proficiency.



This would allow getting either Str or Dex, but not both (since it would cost 5 points to get +2/+1 in the both of them).  Also, if you choose to only get stats other than those two, you can also get a skill proficiency (since it would cost just 3 points to get +2/+1 in non-Str/Dex stats), which may be desirable to some people.

That would increase character design flexibility without being too much more of a hassle.  Maybe.


----------



## Lord of Nessus

I wish all Arcane spellcasters (i.e. Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc.) got the same number of spells known and spell slots per level. A Player shouldn't be penalized for choosing to play a caster whose power is innate as opposed to studied from a book. Sure, there can be game-mechanical differences between Sorcerers, Wizards and Warlocks (and maybe different spell lists)... but does the number of spells known/spell slots need to be that difference? In 3e Sorcerers knew many more spells at 20th level than they do in 5e. I'm not saying make Sorcerers and Wizards identical except for casting method, I'm saying make them equally potent to play as.


----------



## Thurmas

There are a number of things I would like to see in a 6th edition. I will start with what I see as being hands down the most important. 

1. Backwards compatibility with all 5E adventures and monster books.  Don't invalidate the products people have already purchased. Make the focus on characters and rules.

2. More well rounded and balanced characters. I don't think 5E is bad, but there is certainly disparity between some classes.  Take what was learned from 5E and make really interesting classes using the same system. 

3. A more flexible class system. I love the way the warlock works.  It has so many options as it levels. It isn't just a set in stone leveling progression. You truly get to build a character as you desire. 

4. Similar to the last point, more flexibility in leveling. Separate ASI and feat advancement. ASI is fine as is, but give feats separately. They add so much flavor to characters. Tone down the power if needed, but allow them to still give power and customization to characters more frequently every few levels. 

5. Races and backgrounds that add interesting features after level 1-3.

6. The same base classes plus the warlord, Artificer and psion. 

7. Subclass selection at level 2.  1 is too early,  3 is too late.  Avoid 1 level dips. Don't make characters wait forever for defining characteristics.

8. More balanced spells.  Enough time has passed, every spell should be good, useful and appropriately balanced. There should be no duds. 

9. A slightly more varied weapons and armor list. They should be varied and distinct, but still simple and balanced.   

10. Anything other than the current version of the ranger. 

11. Fix the rules that in 5E don't work well or are unclear.  Stealth, 2 weapon fighting, wording of shield master, etc.  

12. More guidance on magic item economy. 

13. I'm sure there are more.  My biggest thing is don't completely revamp what 5E did. Just improve it.


----------



## The Green Hermit

Thurmas said:


> 1. Backwards compatibility with all 5E adventures and monster books.  Don't invalidate the products people have already purchased. Make the focus on characters and rules.




Agreed. And make it easier to adapt earlier adventures as well.



> 9. A slightly more varied weapons and armor list. They should be varied and distinct, but still simple and balanced.




A metal shield, for example, should have different weight and properties than a wooden shield.


----------



## Vael

First, I'd like to not see a 6e anytime soon, I'm more than happy with 5e.

But, assuming a 6e is coming:

1. Maintain a solid, simple core.
2. Have an alternative to level based multiclassing. I preferred the 4e approach to multiclassing to the 3.5/5e system, but I know I'm an outlier. So maybe offer both?
3. Streamline DMing, offer more aids, make it easier to run with less prep. Be more transparent about magic items and how award them, and offer other bonuses instead and how they balance.


----------



## CubicsRube

The Green Hermit said:


> A metal shield, for example, should have different weight and properties than a wooden shield.




This is one of those things i  my pers0nal preference bucket, but may not be suited to everyone.

I'd like a buckler that is +1 to ac only but can be used as a 1d3 offhand weapon.

I'd like masterwork weapons back in.

I'd love magic weapons and armor to do away with + bonuses and instead have interesting effects.

I know the last one is sacred and will never be removed


----------



## BigBadDM

Lord of Nessus said:


> I wish all Arcane spellcasters (i.e. Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc.) got the same number of spells known and spell slots per level. A Player shouldn't be penalized for choosing to play a caster whose power is innate as opposed to studied from a book. Sure, there can be game-mechanical differences between Sorcerers, Wizards and Warlocks (and maybe different spell lists)... but does the number of spells known/spell slots need to be that difference? In 3e Sorcerers knew many more spells at 20th level than they do in 5e. I'm not saying make Sorcerers and Wizards identical except for casting method, I'm saying make them equally potent to play as.




If Sorcerer's had the spell number of spells known as a Wizard I would play them every time. I would never play a Wizard again because a Warlock's meta magic is that powerful. 

I think the number of spell slots at for 7th, 8th and 9th level spells is perfect. Who wants to play a game where the arcane class is casting Wish three times a day. We did that before and it wasn't fun for everyone else at the table.


----------



## Markh3rd

At PAX west this year Jeremy Crawford mentioned 2025 as a potential year for 6th edition. It was a casual mention and not a hard announcement but it gives you an idea of potential intent and a timeframe.


----------



## Parmandur

Markh3rd said:


> At PAX west this year Jeremy Crawford mentioned 2025 as a potential year for 6th edition. It was a casual mention and not a hard announcement but it gives you an idea of potential intent and a timeframe.




What was the context, if I may ask?


----------



## TheSword

I would like to see a very long delay!


----------



## Markh3rd

Parmandur said:


> What was the context, if I may ask?




We were asking about a book like xanathars coming out any time soon. He said it probably would since 6th edition probably wouldn't be until around 2025 so we had more to look forward until then.


----------



## Nebulous

Id actually like to see armor as damage reduction.  Plate mail and a shield would give you the best protection naturally, but you have to be VERY strong to wear/wield it effectively, like 16+.  Your actual AC would derive from Dexterity and maybe class bonuses or feats.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Vael

lowkey13 said:


> "D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?"
> 
> I want to see Roman Numerals.  If the Super Bowl gets 'em, so should D&D.
> 
> I play D&D VI. How you doin'?




Save that for DnD X. The most extreme of DnDs


----------



## Guest 6801328

Vael said:


> Save that for DnD X. The most extreme of DnDs




That will be when they abandon backward compatibility and rebuild D&D on a Unix core.


----------



## BookBarbarian

Apologies for not reading all the thread, and perhaps repeating an idea, but I would have just quoted it and replied anyway.

I'd rework bonus actions. In concept they are a thing that should feel like a bonus. In reality if you can reliably get one every turn they are so advantageous as to be _almost _necessary. Besides that they are the clunkiest thing for my new players to get their heads around.

Scrap them and remap existing ones to work without bonus actions, or give the equivalent of reactions IE Attacks of Opportunity to Bonus Action and no TWF is not it.

PS. This would also help with TWF
PPS. This would also help with the bonus action spell/action cantrip rule which new players also have a hard time wrapping their heads around.


----------



## ad_hoc

BookBarbarian said:


> I'd rework bonus actions. In concept they are a thing that should feel like a bonus. In reality if you can reliably get one every turn they are so advantageous as to be _almost _necessary. Besides that they are the clunkiest thing for my new players to get their heads around.




FWIW Mike Mearls agrees with you.

I get the feeling that design-wise it is the thing he regrets most.

He said he would rather it be a combined action than to have separate bonus actions.

I agree with him, it would make for a smoother more streamlined game.


----------



## Parmandur

ad_hoc said:


> FWIW Mike Mearls agrees with you.
> 
> I get the feeling that design-wise it is the thing he regrets most.
> 
> He said he would rather it be a combined action than to have separate bonus actions.
> 
> I agree with him, it would make for a smoother more streamlined game.




He actually walked that back after further consideration.


----------



## BookBarbarian

ad_hoc said:


> FWIW Mike Mearls agrees with you.
> 
> I get the feeling that design-wise it is the thing he regrets most.
> 
> He said he would rather it be a combined action than to have separate bonus actions.
> 
> I agree with him, it would make for a smoother more streamlined game.





Parmandur said:


> He actually walked that back after further consideration.




I'd love to see his reasoning on the walk back.


----------



## Parmandur

BookBarbarian said:


> I'd love to see his reasoning on the walk back.




It was in the course of the Happy Fun Hour. He decided that bonus actions were fine, it was two weapon fighting that he disliked.


----------



## ad_hoc

Parmandur said:


> It was in the course of the Happy Fun Hour. He decided that bonus actions were fine, it was two weapon fighting that he disliked.




What was his demeanour about it?

It sounds like acceptance now that it is the way it is. I mean, I definitely don't want to change Bonus Actions now that we have them, I can just envision a game without them.

Speaking of two-weapon fighting, I really dislike that one of the attacks doesn't use your modifier as damage. It's just so fiddly. I guess I don't know any other way to do it though.

The big issue I see is that every 'fix' I've seen doesn't work once the Rogue is introduced to the situation. The 2nd attack needs to be a Bonus Action as Rogues gain a huge advantage to have 2 chances to land Sneak Attack. Giving up their Cunning Action though is a significant enough trade-off so it works as is.


----------



## Nebulous

Bonus actions are fantastic, to the point that more monsters almost need them mandatory to keep up.  Goblins are vicious little f**** at 1st level, but even they get that bonus disengage which is so annoying to PCs.


----------



## Parmandur

ad_hoc said:


> What was his demeanour about it?
> 
> It sounds like acceptance now that it is the way it is. I mean, I definitely don't want to change Bonus Actions now that we have them, I can just envision a game without them.
> 
> Speaking of two-weapon fighting, I really dislike that one of the attacks doesn't use your modifier as damage. It's just so fiddly. I guess I don't know any other way to do it though.
> 
> The big issue I see is that every 'fix' I've seen doesn't work once the Rogue is introduced to the situation. The 2nd attack needs to be a Bonus Action as Rogues gain a huge advantage to have 2 chances to land Sneak Attack. Giving up their Cunning Action though is a significant enough trade-off so it works as is.




He was sanguine about it: determined that he wouldn't want to change the action economy, but rather change two-weapon fighting on the level of Equipment rules.


----------



## teitan

What I would want to see in a possibly 6e is an emphasis on backwards compatibility. When 2e came around, 1e modules etc were still very usable. The stat blocks didn't change so much that it was really noticeable. Even when 3E first came around I could still run 1e or 2e modules with no problem... at first. Then 3.5 flipped the script a great deal. While it was still 3rd edition some of the micro changes impacted large parts of the game. It even made recent releases, within months before 3.5 came out, totally incompatible due to the micro changes like the changes to Harm. I'm looking at City of the Spider-Queen, the much hyped storyline for the Realms that year, was all of the sudden not compatible with 3.5 rules as written so conversion was a huge pain. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil required a conversion document half the length of the module. Was 3.5 a superior product overall? Yes. It was amazing, forward thinking in how people had started to play the game. 4E was a forget about it moment with backwards compatibility. Also a brilliant, forward thinking game. 

But man, I would love to see WOTC not keep doing these massive overhauls with every edition. Pathfinder succeeded because it was backwards compatible with 3.5. I'd like a possible 6e to essentially be handled the same way as 1-2e or 3.5 to PF1. Clarification and tweakage to classes. Maybe less than 3.5 to PF1. Enough that it is a good thing to upgrade but not so much that I need to spend a couple hours converting a module for a time when I didn't even have enough time to prep my own adventures. I like that 5e is easily compatible with 1-2e and Basic. I like that 3e can be converted to 5e with some patience. Let's keep that in 6e.


----------



## The Green Hermit

This. I am still bitter that PlayStation stopped making their consoles backwards compatible. And that only takes the effort of plugging in a new machine, not figuring out all the different mechanics.


----------



## Lord of Nessus

BigBadDM said:


> If Sorcerer's had the spell number of spells known as a Wizard I would play them every time. I would never play a Wizard again because a Warlock's meta magic is that powerful.
> 
> I think the number of spell slots at for 7th, 8th and 9th level spells is perfect. Who wants to play a game where the arcane class is casting Wish three times a day. We did that before and it wasn't fun for everyone else at the table.




Um, in 3rd Edition Sorcerers were much closer to the Wizard in those terms, and it wasn't the case that everybody played a Sorcerer and abandoned the Wizard. And I wasn't asking for more slots per se, just that all Arcane classes get the same number - which can be limited to avoid overpowered casters, as with the Wish situation you mentioned. (Warlocks were late to the scene, and since I didn't see what they looked like in 3.5, I can't really comment on them.)


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

I agree with the people saying it should be a semi-minor step up that is fully compatible with 5e, if only because of how popular it is and making a completely new version would anger all the new fans they got.

For an _actual_ addition to this thread, I think they should revisit the idea of all fighters having Superiority Dice, because having a "braindead" option for the newbies isn't that necessary nowadays, and even if it is, you kinda have the Barbarian for that.


----------



## ad_hoc

FlyingChihuahua said:


> For an _actual_ addition to this thread, I think they should revisit the idea of all fighters having Superiority Dice, because having a "braindead" option for the newbies isn't that necessary nowadays, and even if it is, you kinda have the Barbarian for that.




That's insulting to people who like the Champion.


----------



## Parmandur

ad_hoc said:


> That's insulting to people who like the Champion.




Yeah, the Champion is great.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

ad_hoc said:


> That's insulting to people who like the Champion.



Wasn't meant to be insulting, sorry. If it's any consolation, I like the Champion.

I was just using it as another tern for super simple class that doesn't take a lot of mental energy to use effectively.


----------



## BookBarbarian

ad_hoc said:


> That's insulting to people who like the Champion.




Insulting to those that like Barbarians too.

When to reckless Attack and When to rage are more tactical decisions than most people give them credit for.


----------



## Guest 6801328

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Wasn't meant to be insulting, sorry. If it's any consolation, I like the Champion.
> 
> I was just using it as another tern for super simple class that doesn't take a lot of mental energy to use effectively.




I'm not sure I'd count the decision of when to spend a few superiority as "mentally taxing."  It's little minor tiny additional factor added onto the baseline considerations of where to move, what target to pick, when to Dodge or Shove or Grapple or Disengage, etc. etc. etc.  And champions (not to mention barbarians) do all of those things.


----------



## BookBarbarian

I know veteran players, 30+ year players that prefer the Champion as it hearkens back to those 1e Fighters. I don't see value in taking away those type of options that those players prefer just because some others think the are for "noobs".


----------



## Guest 6801328

BookBarbarian said:


> I know veteran players, 30+ year players that prefer the Champion as it hearkens back to those 1e Fighters. I don't see value in taking away those type of options that those players prefer just because some others think the are for "noobs".




I know, right?

Kids these days!  They think it's all about keybinds.

/grumpyoldcuss


----------



## S'mon

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I agree with the people saying it should be a semi-minor step up that is fully compatible with 5e, if only because of how popular it is and making a completely new version would anger all the new fans they got.
> 
> For an _actual_ addition to this thread, I think they should revisit the idea of all fighters having Superiority Dice, because having a "braindead" option for the newbies isn't that necessary nowadays, and even if it is, you kinda have the Barbarian for that.




LOL - I have seen plenty of newbies & (especially) grognards struggle with the complexity of the Barbarian. Champion is at the high end of what many can handle.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

S'mon said:


> LOL - I have seen plenty of newbies & (especially) grognards struggle with the complexity of the Barbarian. Champion is at the high end of what many can handle.



Y'know, I might think you're having a laugh, but I would believe that this has actually happened.


----------



## S'mon

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Y'know, I might think you're having a laugh, but I would believe that this has actually happened.




If anything I understated a bit, I rem one 1e AD&D guy quit because he could not handle the Champion's Action Points & Second Wind.


----------



## Blue

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I agree with the people saying it should be a semi-minor step up that is fully compatible with 5e, if only because of how popular it is and making a completely new version would anger all the new fans they got.



Funny, I'm the exact opposite.  As long as 5e has legs I want it to keep kicking, so a "mostly 5e, and you can convert your stuff but we'll be coming out with everything again so if you do you might have some mid-campaign surprises" is so completely off the table it's not funny.

If 6th Ed isn't a major departure, then just keep 5e.  None of that "5.5e" stuff.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Y'know, I might think you're having a laugh, but I would believe that this has actually happened.



As an anecdote: most of my players play Champions, mayyyyyybe a Thief if they feel extreme that day. And having a group of 8, I can tell that I appreciate people not overthinking things with a bunch of options 

Oh, and the most spellcasting we have at the table is the dedicated spellcaster player, you know the one who plays:

A warlock with no attack cantrip and only utility spells, using a crossbow in battle with a dex mod of +1.
A moon druid who only shapeshift as small animals to hitch a ride in people backpack, with cantrip to start a campfire and one to predict the weather...in the underdark.

God, I love'em!


----------



## cmad1977

BookBarbarian said:


> Insulting to those that like Barbarians too.
> 
> When to reckless Attack and When to rage are more tactical decisions than most people give them credit for.




Yes. I’m constantly in groups as a barbarian and the group memebers are always 
‘Why aren’t your raging? You should always rage!’ 

To which I reply 
‘Calm down, squishies.’


----------



## Guest 6801328

S'mon said:


> If anything I understated a bit, I rem one 1e AD&D guy quit because he could not handle the Champion's Action Points & Second Wind.




I wonder what his version of that story is.


----------



## BookBarbarian

cmad1977 said:


> Yes. I’m constantly in groups as a barbarian and the group memebers are always
> ‘Why aren’t your raging? You should always rage!’
> 
> To which I reply
> ‘Calm down, squishies.’




In truth, I save one Rage for a high attack/high AC boss fight (because if they are so likely to hit me I might as well just Reckless Attack and if they are hard to hit I need to reckless attack in which case I want to have a Rage use handy), then I burn though all the rest as often as combats happen.

I'm also trying to figure out if an enemy has a low enough AC to make using -5/+10 from GWM worth it, and if so should I Reckless Attack, and if so should I Rage. Making those decisions would paralyze some of my players.


----------



## S'mon

Elfcrusher said:


> I wonder what his version of that story is.




Atherton would probably say he didn't like 5e and preferred 1e.


----------



## Tony Vargas

If all goes well, future editions of D&D will be like special editions of other established properties, with art &c alluding to some tie-in or other marketing angle.  

A 50th anniversary edition, for instance.  With, at least, really cool cover art, maybe some commentary by surviving TSR alumni, downloadable pdfs of the original game, etc.

But, at this point, WotC, and others outside the deepest darkest die-hard-est hard-core of the fanbase (and I'm looking out from that little redoubt, so don't take anything I say too seriously) realize that the rules/mechanics/minutiae of D&D are unimportant to the brand beyond maintaining consistency and continuity of the brand experience.  That is, the long unstable wild-west era of D&D, when the game was in constant flux, is likely over.  5e probably won't be called "5e" that much longer, either:  it'll just be D&D.  And 'e's will be dusted off only for erudite, increasingly obscure and irrelevant, factoids about the game's past.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> If all goes well, future editions of D&D will be like special editions of other established properties, with art &c alluding to some tie-in or other marketing angle.
> 
> A 50th anniversary edition, for instance.  With, at least, really cool cover art, maybe some commentary by surviving TSR alumni, downloadable pdfs of the original game, etc.
> 
> But, at this point, WotC, and others outside the deepest darkest die-hard-est hard-core of the fanbase (and I'm looking out from that little redoubt, so don't take anything I say too seriously) realize that the rules/mechanics/minutiae of D&D are unimportant to the brand beyond maintaining consistency and continuity of the brand experience.  That is, the long unstable wild-west era of D&D, when the game was in constant flux, is likely over.  5e probably won't be called "5e" that much longer, either:  it'll just be D&D.  And 'e's will be dusted off only for erudite, increasingly obscure and irrelevant, factoids about the game's past.




WotC has never called 5E "5E". They literally have always called it "Dungeons & Dragons" in every media since 2014.


----------



## Hurin88

I find it interesting to see many posters in this thread suggest things for 6e that were in 4e. I hope that's the sign we're finally past the vigilante phase, when everything from 4e had to die in fire, and that we can finally, calmly, and rationally appreciate and accept what good ideas 4e had.

It did have some. I understand why many people disliked 4e, and some hated it, and I'm not expecting anyone who hated it to start loving it. But by the same token, 4e had some good ideas that can be of use in the future, even aside from the elements that 5e adopted but refused to call by their 4e names (like hit dice). 

I personally would like to see the return of the Warlord. Playing one was the most fun I have ever had in a DnD campaign, and the 5e pseudo-versions just don't do it for me.

I would also like to see the return of clear rules (rather than 'rulings' and DM fiat), especially for things like Stealth. 

I would also like to see the return of negative hit points from still earlier editions. The way characters currently keep popping up in battles, going from 0 hits to 1 hit and back again and again, makes 5e combat seem like a silly game of whack-a-mole. 

I would also like to have something for my character to spend hismoney on, and magic items become more abundant. Yes, I know, that raises some balance issues, but 5e already has balance issues, at least judging from the published modules (which are TPK-fests). On the subject of balance, I'd like to see more of that too -- how about fewer Kobayashi Maru scenarios to start? And a decent Ranger? Is that too much to ask?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Lord of Nessus said:


> Except there is no necessity for them to show up independently in multiple regions in order to have separate cultures. After all, Humans aren't thought to have originated independently in separate areas of the word (whether created or evolved), are thought to have come from one "batch", and yet Humans do not all share the same culture. Even if you started with one batch of Elves, if one group settled in one type of terrain in one area of the world and the other settled in different terrain in a distant part of the world, you'd expect the two groups to diverge over time and not stay identical.



Also, the Irish weren’t going hard on the longbow when the English were, and they’re right the hell next to each other, and have had closely tied cultures since before the advent of writing.


----------



## Lanefan

Hurin88 said:


> I understand why many people disliked 4e, and some hated it, and I'm not expecting anyone who hated it to start loving it. But by the same token, 4e had some good ideas that can be of use in the future, even aside from the elements that 5e adopted but refused to call by their 4e names (like hit dice).



Bloodied.  Best mechanic 4e gave us, and it's not even close: a mechanical reflection of how a creature might change as it gets more and more hurt.

And the 'bloodied' condition doesn't always have to kick in at strictly half a creature's h.p. total.  It could happen as soon as the creature is damaged at all; or not until the creature is close to death...each one could be different.  But the idea of a creature gaining (or losing!) abilities as its health gets worse is excellent.



> I personally would like to see the return of the Warlord. Playing one was the most fun I have ever had in a DnD campaign, and the 5e pseudo-versions just don't do it for me.



As long as it doesn't have (1) non-magical and-or (2) ranged healing, as those concepts do need to die in a fire.

A fire which I'd be quite happy to light. 



> I would also like to see the return of clear rules (rather than 'rulings' and DM fiat), especially for things like Stealth.



The problem there with stealth is that no set of rules can possibly cover every situation that's going to arise during play at any given table (never mind every table!), so either the in-play situations have be unrealistically shoehorned to fit the rules somehow or the stealth rules have to be 58 pages long.



> I would also like to see the return of negative hit points from still earlier editions. The way characters currently keep popping up in battles, going from 0 hits to 1 hit and back again and again, makes 5e combat seem like a silly game of whack-a-mole.



On this, however, you have my absolute support and agreement!

And if they don't bring back negative h.p., another answer is some sort of rule or system that severely limits what you can do for the first few rounds after being cured up from 0.  Maybe a scaled and unmodified die roll, something like:

1-2 - you remain prone and cannot rise.  You are defenseless.
3-5 - you remain prone and cannot rise; you get the benefits of your defenses, and attacks against you have advantage.  You can do nothing other than defend.
6-10 - you can move at 1/4 rate, all attacks are at disadvantage, melee attacks against you have advantage,  you have no reaction or bonus action this round, and you cannot cast spells of any kind (but can activate or use devices)
11-15 - you can move at 1/2 rate, you can cast a spell or activate or use a device, but you have no reaction or bonus action this round
16-20 - you are fully functional and can act as usual.

So if you got cured from 0 you'd roll against this table each round, at +1 for each previous roll, until you got into the 16-20 range; and a subsequent roll cannot make your situation worse (e.g. if you roll 12 in the first round of recovery then roll 1 in the second round, the 1 is ignored as your situation cannot get worse) until and unless you get hit back down to 0 again, which starts this process over.

Note this is an off-the-cuff shot at this; were I designing it for real it'd be a lot more granular - probably a different condition for each number below 16.



> I would also like to have something for my character to spend hismoney on, and magic items become more abundant. Yes, I know, that raises some balance issues, but 5e already has balance issues, at least judging from the published modules (which are TPK-fests). On the subject of balance, I'd like to see more of that too -- how about fewer Kobayashi Maru scenarios to start?



I don't mind magic being more abundant as long as it's also made more fragile.

As for "TPK fests" - this rather goes against what I most often hear about 5e, that it's too forgiving on the PCs.


----------



## S'mon

Lanefan said:


> As for "TPK fests" - this rather goes against what I most often hear about 5e, that it's too forgiving on the PCs.




When I switched to 5e from 1e/3e/4e I pretty much ceased slaughtering my parties. Still get the occasional PC death, but no full TPK since Jan 2015 when I started running 5e, and only one near-TPK when a level 4 group decided to take on a level 7 or 8 encounter. If they had waited one level they would likely have been ok.


----------



## S'mon

Personally I like Warlord 'morale healing' from 4e, and I find the heal-from-0 (borrowed from 4e) works well too, since it only kicks in when the party are in imminent danger of destruction and helps mitigate the squishiness of some PCs. Anyway as GM I can coup de gras PCs at 0 hp, I can target healers, etc.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Let me second the bloodied condition as something to bring to 6e from 4e.  I think it could even be made backwards compatible with 5e:  a dungeon master can give a creature that has suffered damage the bloodied condition.  At that point the dungeon master can pick from or roll for an effect on the bloodied table for the creature's type or the dungeon master can use the bloodied condition effect contained in the creature's stat block.  [With the tables, all monsters and NPC's might not have individual effects, and if you had a 5e monster that didn't {yet} have a 6e stat block, you could give it the bloodied condition.]

I would let the players give the PC the bloodied condition if the PC suffered half of their hp's in damage (or less if they use an inspiration point) with an effect based on class and level (multiclass PC's use their total level and pick one of their classes).  I am not sure if this would work out, but I see each class having a 20 effect table, and you can pick an effect with a number equal to or less than your level.  A player who doesn't want the PC to have the bloodied condition can choose not to invoke it.


----------



## Hurin88

Lanefan said:


> As long as it doesn't have (1) non-magical and-or (2) ranged healing, as those concepts do need to die in a fire.
> 
> A fire which I'd be quite happy to light.




I'm fine with getting rid of non-magical and ranged healing. There's a lot that can be done with things like temporary hit points and bandages.



> As for "TPK fests" - this rather goes against what I most often hear about 5e, that it's too forgiving on the PCs.




I should have been clearer: at high levels, a group of optimized characters can crush encounters pretty easily. So yes, the game can become too easy/forgiving.

At low levels, however, character options are limited, and the first couple of levels in particular are rocket tag. On top of that, each of the published modules I've played had multiple unbalanced encounters. Horde of the Dragon Queen was notorious for that (because the makers didn't have the final monster stats for things like Berserkers/Bandits, IIRC). I'm currently DMing Princes of the Apocalypse, and an encounter that includes one CR 7 BBEG, an additional (invisible) CR 6 henchman, and another dozen CR 1/8 mooks is in an area recommended for a level 6 party. That's a TPK waiting to happen.


----------



## S'mon

Hurin88 said:


> I'm currently DMing Princes of the Apocalypse, and an encounter that includes one CR 7 BBEG, an additional (invisible) CR 6 henchman, and another dozen CR 1/8 mooks is in an area recommended for a level 6 party. That's a TPK waiting to happen.




I guess groups vary a lot, but I'm DMing PoTA and I can't imagine that being much of an issue for my group; at level 6 they just took out both Elizar Dryflagon and Vanifer (with her fire elementals) in a single session. Not having had a LR since the previous session where they fought through Scarlet Moon Hall taking out the guards and flame priests.

They did nearly TPK when they first attacked Scarlet Moon Hall at level 3 & ran into multiple fireball wielding flame priests! Especially as I misread one flame guard as a flame priest causing them to be facing 3 priests, a fire elemental, 2 hellhounds & 2 flame guards in a single encounter...


----------



## Guest 6801328

I'll add my vote to getting rid of popping up, good as new, from 0 HP.  It's actually a good tactic to intentionally absorb a really big hit at low health and go unconscious just as long as somebody can toss a healing word before your next turn.  That's just...lame.

Maybe you should gain a level of exhaustion every time you go unconscious.


----------



## 5ekyu

1 better wording on their encounters per day to exhaust a party baseline expectation so that folks do not think it is a requirement and know its just a benchmark for them making guesses.

2 then again, a better balancing encounter bit altogether that deals with in-play balance more than on-paper balance.

3 Three Rs of Encounters - robust, reactive and resilient guidelines.

4 Turn more/all of the "one save or suck" effects into "race-to-three" akin to how contagion works. "One save and useless" is boring. 

5 incorporate spending HD more into normal routine kinds of stuff, not just resting, perhaps have spending HD at varying rates be a way to refresh "short rest" abilities *in place of* "short rests."

6 basically ditch short rests in favor of an accountable resource for shorter recovery abilities - see 5.

...


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hurin88 said:


> I find it interesting to see many posters in this thread suggest things for 6e that were in 4e. I hope that's the sign we're finally past the vigilante phase, when everything from 4e had to die in fire, and that we can finally, calmly, and rationally appreciate and accept what good ideas 4e had.



 If you liked 4e, Hope is the main thing 5e has delivered.  Hang onto it as long as you can, I guess.



> I would also like to have something for my character to spend hismoney on, and magic items become more abundant.



 One thing 5e has sorta added, or at least presented a little differently from 1e, is Downtime.  Dowmtime seems like a great place to dispose of treasure.  Just needs to be elaborated on some.

Exp/level is already a built in system that rewards players for success with greater power that can be used to achieve greater successes.  Magic items have always been gasoline on that fire, anyway.  5e pushing them further back under DM control wasn't an entirely bad thing, neither was 3e/4e make/buy & wealth/level making them into a player level-based build resource, of course, just a very different thing.   But, the upshot, in 5e, the game is tuned to work with magic items as a DM-controlled bonus, not an expected part of advancement, and make/buy would mess that up pretty severely.



> On the subject of balance, I'd like to see more of that too



 Well, you can Hope.



> And a decent Ranger? Is that too much to ask?



 Yes.  It's right up there with trisected angles and squared circles. ;P The issue with the Ranger is downright ontological.  You can't have a decent implementation of the Ranger because we don't have a decent definition of the Ranger.  It's just another case of a player wanting to play something from fiction (Aragorn) that the D&D Fighter wasn't nearly up to handling, and the DM pasting some spells & special abilities to a Fighter+, and papering over the strict superiority of the resulting class with some HD/hp shell games and unrealistic stat requirements.   Instead of, y'know, actually filling out the fighter into a worthwhile class that does significantly more than hit things.




> Yes, I know, that raises some balance issues, but 5e already has balance issues, at least judging from the published modules (which are TPK-fests).



Funny how some DMs run a 5e module and get TPKs, while others get cakewalks.  D&D really is back to being more about the DM than the rules.

Edit:


Hurin88 said:


> I should have been clearer: at high levels, a group of optimized characters can crush encounters pretty easily. So yes, the game can become too easy/forgiving.
> 
> At low levels, however, character options are limited, and the first couple of levels in particular are rocket tag. On top of that, each of the published modules I've played had multiple unbalanced encounters. Horde of the Dragon Queen was notorious for that ....



 OK, yes, you have a point there.


----------



## Henry

Hurin88 said:


> I find it interesting to see many posters in this thread suggest things for 6e that were in 4e. I hope that's the sign we're finally past the vigilante phase, when everything from 4e had to die in fire, and that we can finally, calmly, and rationally appreciate and accept what good ideas 4e had.



Consider that even Pathfinder 2nd edition has picked up a few 4e-ish ideas (multiclassing works on the same principal as original multiclassing in 4e; class features have a VERY similar structure to the way powers are picked from 4e; magic items are classified by character level of appropriateness; monster stats are calculated in ways very similar to the way their stats are calculated from 4e); I think the ideas (divorced from the edition tribalism that was so hot in our veins at the time, and WotC's dramatic direction changes) are being re-evaluated.


----------



## Lanefan

MechaTarrasque said:


> Let me second the bloodied condition as something to bring to 6e from 4e.  I think it could even be made backwards compatible with 5e:  a dungeon master can give a creature that has suffered damage the bloodied condition.  At that point the dungeon master can pick from or roll for an effect on the bloodied table for the creature's type or the dungeon master can use the bloodied condition effect contained in the creature's stat block.  [With the tables, all monsters and NPC's might not have individual effects, and if you had a 5e monster that didn't {yet} have a 6e stat block, you could give it the bloodied condition.]



Hmmm...this leads down some interesting paths.

In 4e a creature's bloodied condition was what it was, no variance.  But here you're suggesting that each creature could have a variable range of possible bloodied conditions (which could include none at all) - cool!

And to take it a step further, there could be degrees of bloodied e.g. condition x kicks in when the creature is first damaged, condition y begins when the creature hits half h.p., condition z arises when the creature has less than 10% of its h.p. left - that sort of thing.

Complicated as hell, of course, and the space it'd all take up would make the MM bigger than the full-size Oxford Dictionary - but maybe worth a look as a per-campaign system for DMs who are so inclined.



> I would let the players give the PC the bloodied condition if the PC suffered half of their hp's in damage (or less if they use an inspiration point) with an effect based on class and level (multiclass PC's use their total level and pick one of their classes).  I am not sure if this would work out, but I see each class having a 20 effect table, and you can pick an effect with a number equal to or less than your level.  A player who doesn't want the PC to have the bloodied condition can choose not to invoke it.



Here, however, I'd put the brakes on; for a few reasons:

1. PCs generally have enough going for them already, and players have enough (or too much) to keep track of as it is without adding more.
2. It's inevitable, due to player-driven design pressures, that any and all PC bloodied conditions will end up being beneficial to the PC, resulting in nothing more than an overall power boost.  That said, if PCs took a hit somehow because of becoming bloodied, or even if there was some sort of benefit-penalty trade-off, I could maybe sort of get behind it.  Otherwise you could easily end up with PCs intentionally trying to get hurt (or hurting themselves!) in order to invoke their bloodied condition, which seems a bit ridiculous.

EDIT to add: with one exception - I'd say a Barbarian cannot rage unless it has taken damage within the last minute, which preserves various Barbarian tropes.

To make becoming bloodied carry any sort of penalty would, however, require a fundamental change in what seems to have become WotC's overall design philosophy (which largely eschews penalties) - I'm not holding my breath on that.


----------



## Blue

5ekyu said:


> 1 better wording on their encounters per day to exhaust a party baseline expectation so that folks do not think it is a requirement and know its just a benchmark for them making guesses.




Better wording on encounters per day to dispel the myths that it's not an important balance point between the long rest, short rest, and at-will primary classes determined by testing and design.  Special attention towards dispelling the myth that tougher encounters use more of all resources from all classes in even amounts.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Hurin88 said:


> I find it interesting to see many posters in this thread suggest things for 6e that were in 4e.



Fourth Edition had plenty of good ideas. It also had a lot of bad ideas, though; and for whatever reason, the designers only brought the bad ideas into 5E.

If I really wanted to make a good 6E, I would go back to 4E, and then build up the good ideas while abandoning the bad ideas. It would be an awful lot of work, though.


----------



## Lanefan

Hurin88 said:


> I should have been clearer: at high levels, a group of optimized characters can crush encounters pretty easily. So yes, the game can become too easy/forgiving.
> 
> At low levels, however, character options are limited, and the first couple of levels in particular are rocket tag.



Nothing wrong with that at all!

A large part of reaching high level is being lucky enough to survive low level. 



> On top of that, each of the published modules I've played had multiple unbalanced encounters. Horde of the Dragon Queen was notorious for that (because the makers didn't have the final monster stats for things like Berserkers/Bandits, IIRC). I'm currently DMing Princes of the Apocalypse, and an encounter that includes one CR 7 BBEG, an additional (invisible) CR 6 henchman, and another dozen CR 1/8 mooks is in an area recommended for a level 6 party. That's a TPK waiting to happen.



Unbalanced only if the PCs insist on a) seeing combat as the only way through/around any encounter, and b) taking all the foes on at once in a pitched battle.

But if they do some careful scouting to find out what they're up against, and then lead with some AoE spells* to both clear out the mooks and soften up the big guys, they should be fine.

* - by 6th level they should have some decent AoE spells at their disposal...right?


----------



## Nebulous

S'mon said:


> They did nearly TPK when they first attacked Scarlet Moon Hall at level 3 & ran into multiple fireball wielding flame priests! Especially as I misread one flame guard as a flame priest causing them to be facing 3 priests, a fire elemental, 2 hellhounds & 2 flame guards in a single encounter...




How did that NOT kill a 3rd level party?? Three fireballs alone should be enough to waste them, not to mention all the other stuff. A fire elemental alone is CR 5 and resistant to non-magic.


----------



## Nebulous

Hurin88 said:


> I should have been clearer: at high levels, a group of optimized characters can crush encounters pretty easily. So yes, the game can become too easy/forgiving.
> 
> At low levels, however, character options are limited, and the first couple of levels in particular are rocket tag. On top of that, each of the published modules I've played had multiple unbalanced encounters. Horde of the Dragon Queen was notorious for that (because the makers didn't have the final monster stats for things like Berserkers/Bandits, IIRC). I'm currently DMing Princes of the Apocalypse, and an encounter that includes one CR 7 BBEG, an additional (invisible) CR 6 henchman, and another dozen CR 1/8 mooks is in an area recommended for a level 6 party. That's a TPK waiting to happen.




Yeah, at mid to high level, an optimized party is nearly impossible to drop in 5e unless you unleash something ridiculously OP, like 3 adult dragons. 

I ran Princes too (loved it) but I can't recall which encounter you are referring to above. 

Oddly, we would have had a TPK in Princes from an Invisible Stalker.  The heroes had no way to target it, no faerie fire, and I had to cut corners just so they all didn't die in a random encounter.


----------



## Hurin88

Nebulous said:


> I ran Princes too (loved it) but I can't recall which encounter you are referring to above.
> 
> Oddly, we would have had a TPK in Princes from an Invisible Stalker.  The heroes had no way to target it, no faerie fire, and I had to cut corners just so they all didn't die in a random encounter.




That's the one. The Invisible Stalker is actually only the pet of one of the evil bosses (trying not to give spoilers here), but it alone can challenge a party, being a CR 6 itself. Then the boss is CR 7. Then there are 10 or 12 CR 1/8 mooks with magic weapons too. Oh, and the book states that if a certain CR 3 creature escaped from an earlier battle, it is here as well. And then, the icing on top is if things go bad, there is a chance the CR 7 boss can summon a CR 11 creature to finish the PCs off.

So, that makes for a level 6 party potentially facing:
--1 CR7 boss
--1 CR6 boss pet
--1 CR3 mob
--10 CR 1/8 mooks
--1 CR 11 summon

For a party of five adventurers, a 'deadly' encounter is 7,000 xp. This one is 9,000 without the summon, or 16,200 with him.

Lol!


----------



## Nebulous

Hurin88 said:


> That's the one. The Invisible Stalker is actually only the pet of one of the evil bosses (trying not to give spoilers here), but it alone can challenge a party, being a CR 6 itself. Then the boss is CR 7. Then there are 10 or 12 CR 1/8 mooks with magic weapons too. And the icing on top is if things go bad, there is a chance the CR 7 boss can summon a CR 11 creature to finish the PCs off.
> 
> Lol!




Ah ok, I think I know now which one you are talking about.  The party developed a terrible phobia of stalkers 


Hurin88 said:


> That's the one. The Invisible Stalker is actually only the pet of one of the evil bosses (trying not to give spoilers here), but it alone can challenge a party, being a CR 6 itself. Then the boss is CR 7. Then there are 10 or 12 CR 1/8 mooks with magic weapons too. Oh, and the book states that if a certain CR 6 creature escaped from an earlier battle, it is here as well. And then, the icing on top is if things go bad, there is a chance the CR 7 boss can summon a CR 11 creature to finish the PCs off.
> 
> So, that makes for a level 6 party potentially facing:
> --1 CR7 boss
> --2 CR6 subbosses
> --10 CR 1/8 mooks
> --1 CR 11 summon
> 
> Lol!




Ok, it's been so long since I ran that encounter I had to go back and look at it (probably 4 years ago).  Yes, it can be tough.  It does say the mooks are poisoned though, oddly, so that would put them all at disadvantage.  It's the summoned thing that is the kicker.  Take that away and the fight wouldn't be bad at all.  For some reason in our campaign that summon didn't happen, I can't recall why now.  But it was still pretty epic fight, and their first boss fight.


----------



## S'mon

Nebulous said:


> How did that NOT kill a 3rd level party?? Three fireballs alone should be enough to waste them, not to mention all the other stuff. A fire elemental alone is CR 5 and resistant to non-magic.




I followed the given NPC tactics and the party only took one fireball AFAICR - from the priest who should have been a guard...   It also helps we have 7 PCs, and they spread out. But it was still nearly a TPK.

R1 The party encountered 2 priests, one of whom recognised a PC, PCs rolled well on init.  One priest starts praying to bring forth the elemental per adventure description, while the other is killed before he can cast. The guards started shooting.

R2  The 3rd priest & hounds approach (dash). 2nd priest retreats behind wicker giant. PCs continue attacks. A PC foolishly attacked the dormant fire elemental, bringing it forth.

R3 PCs kill 2nd priest, the 3rd priest gets in range and casts fireball on several PCs. Hell hounds start breathing. Fire elemental is attacking too. PCs are going down all over the place.

R4 PC Barbarian reaches & attacks the 3rd priest, who uses burning hands on him.

R5 PCs kill the 3rd priest. The hell hounds discorporate (not in the adventure, but then neither was the 3rd priest) . Fire elemental is killed. Remaining PCs grab their fallen and retreat, still under fire from the guards.

That's how I recall it, anyway. The group has 2 good healers (Cleric & Druid), and the Bear-barian and red dragonborn are fire resistant.

Some pics here - T1/M5/1491 DR session 3 Lvl 3  - Scarlet Moon Hall  (XP 12+5=17)







Guy in red bottom left is Priest #3 being attacked by Barbarian. Priest #2 is the prone woman by the wicker giant, she must have been stunned or otherwise incapacitated I think (maybe by the Kensai?). And I see some shenanigans with a hell hound attacking the fire elemental, no doubt sorcery at work...


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Lanefan said:


> Hmmm...this leads down some interesting paths.
> 
> In 4e a creature's bloodied condition was what it was, no variance.  But here you're suggesting that each creature could have a variable range of possible bloodied conditions (which could include none at all) - cool!
> 
> And to take it a step further, there could be degrees of bloodied e.g. condition x kicks in when the creature is first damaged, condition y begins when the creature hits half h.p., condition z arises when the creature has less than 10% of its h.p. left - that sort of thing.
> 
> Complicated as hell, of course, and the space it'd all take up would make the MM bigger than the full-size Oxford Dictionary - but maybe worth a look as a per-campaign system for DMs who are so inclined.
> 
> Here, however, I'd put the brakes on; for a few reasons:
> 
> 1. PCs generally have enough going for them already, and players have enough (or too much) to keep track of as it is without adding more.
> 2. It's inevitable, due to player-driven design pressures, that any and all PC bloodied conditions will end up being beneficial to the PC, resulting in nothing more than an overall power boost.  That said, if PCs took a hit somehow because of becoming bloodied, or even if there was some sort of benefit-penalty trade-off, I could maybe sort of get behind it.  Otherwise you could easily end up with PCs intentionally trying to get hurt (or hurting themselves!) in order to invoke their bloodied condition, which seems a bit ridiculous.
> 
> EDIT to add: with one exception - I'd say a Barbarian cannot rage unless it has taken damage within the last minute, which preserves various Barbarian tropes.
> 
> To make becoming bloodied carry any sort of penalty would, however, require a fundamental change in what seems to have become WotC's overall design philosophy (which largely eschews penalties) - I'm not holding my breath on that.





That is true for the PC's--have to rethink that.

For monsters and NPC's, some would have specific bloodied options (all Legendary monsters would have them), and the rest would involve some standard things  (make barbarian-style reckless melee attacks, become frightened, etc) and some type specific things (demons with CR higher than 4 could sacrifice half their remaining hp's to summon a shadow demon [100% success], fey could teleport themselves and the nearest 5 creatures into the Feywild, dragon's breath weapon immediately recharges and it does maximum damage on a hit, but then the dragon can't use it again for 1 minute, oozes splatter, and my favorite, lycanthrope's bites now have the curse property (you need to prove your worth in combat to become a werewolf) but their immunity to non-silver or magic weapons becomes resistance, etc.).  Having multiple bloodied conditions would be one of those dials that DM's could play with (jaded groups could have to deal with swingier combat).


----------



## S'mon

Just a note that some 5e NPCs & monsters do have bloodied status changes, eg the Champion NPC.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Blue said:


> 5ekyu said:
> 
> 
> 
> better wording on their encounters per day to exhaust a party baseline expectation so that folks do not think it is a requirement and know its just a benchmark for them making guesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better wording on encounters per day to dispel the myths that it's not an important balance point between the long rest, short rest, and at-will primary classes determined by testing and design.  Special attention towards dispelling the myth that tougher encounters use more of all resources from all classes in even mounts.
Click to expand...


Heh.

Sometimes I think you're both right (or wrong, or there's not a difference between right and wrong in this context)...

Yeah, there's an idea (myth?) maybe even intent, that the game be played at a certain, specific pacing that could, on paper, balance hyper-versatile, high-peak-power, casters with the few benighted non-caster options, with an extra helping of complexity in the form of short rest-based classes on top of the traditional LFQW.  

Is it /really/ the intent that anyone actually run adventures that grueling, though?  Or is it just something to point to when someone complains that classes are radically imbalance ("they're not, your just doin' it wrong!")?  
...IDK anymore....


----------



## S'mon

Tony Vargas said:


> the few benighted non-caster options




I don't think I've ever had a 5e Barbarian player complain they were "benighted"!


----------



## Tony Vargas

S'mon said:


> I don't think I've ever had a 5e Barbarian player complain they were "benighted"!



 That's a hurtful stereotype, that is.


----------



## Blue

Tony Vargas said:


> Heh.
> 
> Sometimes I think you're both right (or wrong, or there's not a difference between right and wrong in this context)...
> 
> Yeah, there's an idea (myth?) maybe even intent, that the game be played at a certain, specific pacing that could, on paper, balance hyper-versatile, high-peak-power, casters with the few benighted non-caster options, with an extra helping of complexity in the form of short rest-based classes on top of the traditional LFQW.
> 
> Is it /really/ the intent that anyone actually run adventures that grueling, though?  Or is it just something to point to when someone complains that classes are radically imbalance ("they're not, your just doin' it wrong!")?
> ...IDK anymore....




This is why I like 13th Age. Nice gamist solution: at-will, per encounter, or per full-heal-up which happens every four encounters.

But in 5e, I'm happier and happier with rest variants to spread the time so I can throw encounters at whatever pace best fits the narrative, and have wiggle room to make it fit the resource management modules.  Of course, that's with a little cheating - AiME style sanctuaries a la Elrond's Last Homely House where they can get a full rest overnight, or a magic fountain that grants a rest if I'm running a more traditional dungeon instead of a Five Room Dungeon concept.


----------



## 5ekyu

Blue said:


> Better wording on encounters per day to dispel the myths that it's not an important balance point between the long rest, short rest, and at-will primary classes determined by testing and design. Special attention towards dispelling the myth that tougher encounters use more of all resources from all classes in even mounts.




I honestly cannot say that I have seen anyone claim that "tougher encounters use more of all resources from all classes in even mounts" or that any encounter would "use all resources from all classes in even mounts" in any case.

Are you saying you have? I certainly did not see anything about it in the DMG, where the usual reflection on resources is "party redources" not character by class comparisons. 

If so, yup, that needs to get cleared right up too. 

Heck, if I had my druthers, the gistbof the balancing encounters eould be on much more reactive to what your party is than any generic party stuff. It would emphasize how specific challenge types chosen by the GM are more what creates imbalance or balance "in actual play."


----------



## Blue

5ekyu said:


> I honestly cannot say that I have seen anyone claim that "tougher encounters use more of all resources from all classes in even mounts" or that any encounter would "use all resources from all classes in even mounts" in any case.




They do all the freaking time.  I can produce dozens if not hundreds of claims just from ENworld about how more difficult encounters balances out more encounters.  They just haven't thought through what they are saying to realize that what they are asserting is that (a) tougher battles preserve the balance between the different resource models and (b) tougher battles use up an equal number of resources for all of the characters regardless of class or resource model.

So no, you won't see those words because if they worked out the repercussions of their statements, they likely would not say it.



5ekyu said:


> Heck, if I had my druthers, the gistbof the balancing encounters eould be on much more reactive to what your party is than any generic party stuff. It would emphasize how specific challenge types chosen by the GM are more what creates imbalance or balance "in actual play."




Oooh, I'd love this. I'll back your idea right here.

Especially since resources are completely valid to use in scenes that don't involve combat, but usually happen at a rather different rate. (A combat scene could likely involve 0-3 spell slots per full caster once you're into Tier 2 or higher, while non-combat scenes usually use a lot less party resources.)


----------



## ad_hoc

I find the difficulty is largely dependent on what the DM does.

A lot of people's experience on the internet is far different from mine. 

Someone once posted that their level 1 PCs wiped out their drow captors at the start of Out of the Abyss.

That is an extreme case but it stands that I think many DMs maneuver encounters to make it easier for the PCs.

A common remark I see on forums is if PCs die or TPKs happen the DM is at fault. In their games PC death is against the rules. The idea that the weaker monsters in a fight would finish off PCs is outrageous for these people. There are also the people who only have 1 encounter per long rest. I've seen many tables be 6-8 players too which really skews things. Yes, a party of 8 PCs can take down a single high CR monster. That doesn't mean the CR system doesn't work though. And of course there is also the idea that it is rude for a DM to have monsters attack the lower AC party members.

It's often hard to have discussions because what are good options in their games will be far different than what is good and bad in a game at my table.


----------



## Nebulous

S'mon said:


> I followed the given NPC tactics and the party only took one fireball AFAICR - from the priest who should have been a guard...   It also helps we have 7 PCs, and they spread out. But it was still nearly a TPK.
> 
> R1 The party encountered 2 priests, one of whom recognised a PC, PCs rolled well on init.  One priest starts praying to bring forth the elemental per adventure description, while the other is killed before he can cast. The guards started shooting.
> 
> R2  The 3rd priest & hounds approach (dash). 2nd priest retreats behind wicker giant. PCs continue attacks. A PC foolishly attacked the dormant fire elemental, bringing it forth.
> 
> R3 PCs kill 2nd priest, the 3rd priest gets in range and casts fireball on several PCs. Hell hounds start breathing. Fire elemental is attacking too. PCs are going down all over the place.
> 
> R4 PC Barbarian reaches & attacks the 3rd priest, who uses burning hands on him.
> 
> R5 PCs kill the 3rd priest. The hell hounds discorporate (not in the adventure, but then neither was the 3rd priest) . Fire elemental is killed. Remaining PCs grab their fallen and retreat, still under fire from the guards.
> 
> That's how I recall it, anyway. The group has 2 good healers (Cleric & Druid), and the Bear-barian and red dragonborn are fire resistant.
> 
> Some pics here - T1/M5/1491 DR session 3 Lvl 3  - Scarlet Moon Hall  (XP 12+5=17)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy in red bottom left is Priest #3 being attacked by Barbarian. Priest #2 is the prone woman by the wicker giant, she must have been stunned or otherwise incapacitated I think (maybe by the Kensai?). And I see some shenanigans with a hell hound attacking the fire elemental, no doubt sorcery at work...




Ahh...this is the above ground encounter in Princes at the Fire temple.  My guys totally skipped this and entered through the underground passages.


----------



## Tony Vargas

5ekyu said:


> I honestly cannot say that I have seen anyone claim that "tougher encounters use more of all resources from all classes in even amounts"



 You often here advice/anecdotes along the lines of:

"You don't need 6-8 encounters every day, just have 3-4 really hard ones, it's the same thing!" 

Which, yeah, implies that an encounter twice as hard uses twice the hps, spell slots, &c, from each character, evenly.  Which is, I suppose, not necessarily warranted, though it seems reasonable enough on the surface.


----------



## 5ekyu

Blue said:


> They do all the freaking time. I can produce dozens if not hundreds of claims just from ENworld about how more difficult encounters balances out more encounters. They just haven't thought through what they are saying to realize that what they are asserting is that (a) tougher battles preserve the balance between the different resource models and (b) tougher battles use up an equal number of resources for all of the characters regardless of class or resource model.
> 
> So no, you won't see those words because if they worked out the repercussions of their statements, they likely would not say it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh, I'd love this. I'll back your idea right here.
> 
> Especially since resources are completely valid to use in scenes that don't involve combat, but usually happen at a rather different rate. (A combat scene could likely involve 0-3 spell slots per full caster once you're into Tier 2 or higher, while non-combat scenes usually use a lot less party resources.)



That's kinda what I thought, "they" say something else but you read it as having to have also meant... what you think it must mean.

And in fact, we both know its just a lot more complicated than that. 

For one thing, it doesnt have to affect everyone equally in terms of how much have I lost. If the fighters hot pummeled and the cleric is low on cures - odds are we are stopping or making major changes even if the mages are still 80% full. 

Short resters, long resters, two encounters, four, eight - you can have them play balanced or imbalanced based on a lot of other factors than number of rests. 

That said, as I noted above, I prefer to shift away from short rest and move to using HD to recover some spent abilities by class and recovering up to half your HD in a long rest. I think myself linking core mechanics to situational opportunities is not the best design.


----------



## Lord of Nessus

Saelorn said:


> Fourth Edition had plenty of good ideas. It also had a lot of bad ideas, though; and for whatever reason, the designers only brought the bad ideas into 5E.
> 
> If I really wanted to make a good 6E, I would go back to 4E, and then build up the good ideas while abandoning the bad ideas. It would be an awful lot of work, though.




5e brought from 4e the Dragonborn,, 4e-style Tieflings, Eladrin, and Warlock, the Shadowfell (with the Raven Queen and Shadar-Kai), the Feywild (with mention of a few specifically 4e Fey lords), the Elemental Chaos, Primordials (albeit only one stat block so far), the Dawn Pantheon, and a few of the monsters such as the Archons (renamed Myrmidons) and Star Spawn. You don't like a single one of those? I mean, that's your right, but...


----------



## Parmandur

Lord of Nessus said:


> 5e brought from 4e the Dragonborn,, 4e-style Tieflings, Eladrin, and Warlock, the Shadowfell (with the Raven Queen), the Feywild (with mention of a few Fey lords), the Elemental Chaos, Primordials (albeit only one stat block so far), the Dawn Pantheon, and a few of the monsters such as the Archons (renamed Myrmidons). You don't like a single one of those? I mean, that's your right, but...




IIRC, he's not a big fan of the Proficiency system and Hit Dice.


----------



## Lanefan

Lord of Nessus said:


> 5e brought from 4e the Dragonborn,, 4e-style Tieflings, Eladrin, and Warlock, the Shadowfell (with the Raven Queen and Shadar-Kai), the Feywild (with mention of a few specifically 4e Fey lords), the Elemental Chaos, Primordials (albeit only one stat block so far), the Dawn Pantheon, and a few of the monsters such as the Archons (renamed Myrmidons) and Star Spawn. You don't like a single one of those? I mean, that's your right, but...



Of the ones of those I'm familiar with, I can't say I'm an outright supporter of any.  I'm neutral to Eladrin, the Shadowfell, and the Elemental Chaos; I don't know anything about the Dawn Pantheon or Star Spawn; and actively dislike Dragonborn, Tieflings, the Warlock, and the Feywild.

The Raven Queen, Primordials, and Archons all predate 4e.


----------



## Kinematics

Lanefan said:


> On this, however, you have my absolute support and agreement!
> 
> And if they don't bring back negative h.p., another answer is some sort of rule or system that severely limits what you can do for the first few rounds after being cured up from 0. Maybe a scaled and unmodified die roll, something like:
> 
> 1-2 - you remain prone and cannot rise. You are defenseless.
> 3-5 - you remain prone and cannot rise; you get the benefits of your defenses, and attacks against you have advantage. You can do nothing other than defend.
> 6-10 - you can move at 1/4 rate, all attacks are at disadvantage, melee attacks against you have advantage, you have no reaction or bonus action this round, and you cannot cast spells of any kind (but can activate or use devices)
> 11-15 - you can move at 1/2 rate, you can cast a spell or activate or use a device, but you have no reaction or bonus action this round
> 16-20 - you are fully functional and can act as usual.
> 
> So if you got cured from 0 you'd roll against this table each round, at +1 for each previous roll, until you got into the 16-20 range; and a subsequent roll cannot make your situation worse (e.g. if you roll 12 in the first round of recovery then roll 1 in the second round, the 1 is ignored as your situation cannot get worse) until and unless you get hit back down to 0 again, which starts this process over.
> 
> Note this is an off-the-cuff shot at this; were I designing it for real it'd be a lot more granular - probably a different condition for each number below 16.



Another idea that may be a little easier to work with would be that dropping to 0 HP puts you at level 6 Exhaustion (ie: dead).  This would be a short-term/temporary version of exhaustion, and doesn't overwrite or remove any real exhaustion levels you may have.

Healing effects (spells, potions, Second Wind, etc) reduce the exhaustion level, usually by 1, but possibly more when using high-level effects.  And once you're no longer at 0 HP, your temp exhaustion also drops by 1 point at the end of each of your turns.

This means immediately after a simple Healing Word, you're sitting at speed 0 and prone, unable to move or stand up, and at the usual disadvantage.  Next round you can move at half speed, but your max HP is halved (potentially also limiting the value of using Heal on a 0 HP person).  And so on, down the exhaustion table.  You can start getting back into the fight within a couple rounds, but you'll likely be struggling.  Having a healing potion on hand is the best way to get back on your feet, as you'd be able to drink that even at exhaustion level 5, and it would be another -1 to the exhaustion level.

A fighter would likely have the quickest recovery, as he could quaff a potion and use Second Wind on the first turn that he's back up (though Second Wind wouldn't be available if he fell to 0 HP again), allowing him to be at exhaustion level 2 (half speed, but no attack disadvantage) on his second turn after being healed from 0.

... Honestly, I kind of like this idea.  Might try it as a house rule.


----------



## Lanefan

Kinematics said:


> Another idea that may be a little easier to work with would be that dropping to 0 HP puts you at level 6 Exhaustion (ie: dead).  This would be a short-term/temporary version of exhaustion, and doesn't overwrite or remove any real exhaustion levels you may have.
> 
> Healing effects (spells, potions, Second Wind, etc) reduce the exhaustion level, usually by 1, but possibly more when using high-level effects.  And once you're no longer at 0 HP, your temp exhaustion also drops by 1 point at the end of each of your turns.
> 
> This means immediately after a simple Healing Word, you're sitting at speed 0 and prone, unable to move or stand up, and at the usual disadvantage.  Next round you can move at half speed, but your max HP is halved (potentially also limiting the value of using Heal on a 0 HP person).  And so on, down the exhaustion table.  You can start getting back into the fight within a couple rounds, but you'll likely be struggling.  Having a healing potion on hand is the best way to get back on your feet, as you'd be able to drink that even at level 5, and it would be another -1 to the exhaustion level.
> 
> A fighter would likely have the quickest recovery, as he could quaff a potion and use Second Wind on the first turn that he's back up, allowing him to be at exhaustion level 2 (half speed, but no attack disadvantage) on his second turn after being healed from 0.
> 
> ... Honestly, I kind of like this idea.  Might try it as a house rule.



The only major issue I have with this is that if level 6 Exhaustion means you're dead then no amount of conventional healing is going to get you upright; your best bet is Revivify or something more persuasive along those lines.  Or Animate Dead. 

What you might want to do is add what amounts to a level 5.5 Exhaustion - it'd be the same as level 6 except you can be cured up from it conventionally (as per your ideas above), and things like Raise Dead or Animate Dead ain't gonna work on you.  Not yet, anyway.


----------



## Kinematics

Lanefan said:


> The only major issue I have with this is that if level 6 Exhaustion means you're dead then no amount of conventional healing is going to get you upright; your best bet is Revivify or something more persuasive along those lines.  Or Animate Dead.
> 
> What you might want to do is add what amounts to a level 5.5 Exhaustion - it'd be the same as level 6 except you can be cured up from it conventionally (as per your ideas above), and things like Raise Dead or Animate Dead ain't gonna work on you.  Not yet, anyway.



Hm. OK.  Could flip the description around, and instead of saying that you're at exhaustion level 6 when you drop to 0, instead say that when you're healed above 0 HP, you gain the temporary exhaustion effect at level 5.  That skips the level 6 scenario, and avoids needing to add a 5.5 version.  

It would also mean (at this stage of the design) that the first healing effect will always put you at level 5 exhaustion, regardless of the effect level.  So, for example, if Heal might have removed 2 or 3 levels of the temp exhaustion after you'd recovered, it wouldn't have that bonus recovery when first curing you from 0 HP.


----------



## S'mon

I find 'heal from 0' works much better in play than in theory. Like a lot of 5e.


----------



## Campbell

Saelorn said:


> Fourth Edition had plenty of good ideas. It also had a lot of bad ideas, though; and for whatever reason, the designers only brought the bad ideas into 5E.
> 
> If I really wanted to make a good 6E, I would go back to 4E, and then build up the good ideas while abandoning the bad ideas. It would be an awful lot of work, though.




I do not view them in turns of good ideas and bad ideas. For the type of game that Fourth Edition was its mechanics were excellent. However I broadly agree for the most part although some of our specifics are probably different (I like proficiency even if I have issues with its implementation). Most of the features of Fourth Edition that Fifth Edition kept like abstract martial resources, abilities that do not describe what is actually happening in the fiction, monsters with bloated hit points when compared to similar level PCs, hit dice, Dexterity to attack and damage, and short and long rests are not things I value outside of the context of Fourth Edition. Things like tight math, clear and consistent rules, strong templating, encounter math that works, rules elements that tie characters to the setting and get them to engage with it more fully, ritual magic as something anyone with the right skills can do, monsters with unique abilities and the like are things I am still very much a fan of.

When I first saw Fifth Edition my response as a Fourth Edition fan at the time was "Wrong half". I have grown to enjoy it for what it was and for the sake of current fans would not want it changed, but "Wrong half" is still the way I broadly feel.


----------



## Guest 6801328

S'mon said:


> I find 'heal from 0' works much better in play than in theory. Like a lot of 5e.




Does it bother you at all when a fighter says, “No, don’t heal me now. I’ll just take the next big hit, and then the Bard can use a bonus action to get me up. I won’t even miss a turn.”


----------



## cmad1977

Elfcrusher said:


> Does it bother you at all when a fighter says, “No, don’t heal me now. I’ll just take the next big hit, and then the Bard can use a bonus action to get me up. I won’t even miss a turn.”




That doesn’t happen. IF it does it’s not a rules issue it’s a table issue.


----------



## Undrave

Hello everyone, first post here adding some musing of my own (took me like three weeks to confirm my account...), though I admit I haven't read everything in this thread.

I'd personally prefer if short-rest ressources were the norm and long rest ressources rarer, and possibly more impactful. I know people feel like limiting Spells FEELS more like Magic but it seems to me to just be habit at this point... but whatever.

I would like to see the Social pillar almost completely divorced from your class and concentrated in your background. Your class should be about combat and some explorationabilities (with other backgrounds adding to Exploration more than Social). The Bard and MAYBE some Cleric domains would be the exception. 

I think it would help mitigate a lot of issues. 

I liked Healing Surges and would like to see them come back because I think they worked better than Hit Dice. They scaled better, were used as fuel for abilities AND, if the math was ajusted, could make combat more dangerous. This thing with Healing Surges is that you basically have only a small portion of your daily vitality available per encounter. If it represents stamina or luck or a combination, then it would make sense for it to run out faster than your overall endurance. Each combat could bring you down close to 0 or to 0, but you wouldn't be out for the day. And it works as a cap on abusive healing (both by requiring the use of surges AND by limiting your max HP at any time). 

I liked the concept of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. Maybe instead of adding them onto your class and complicating things, maybe your class only provides ability up to a certain level, after which you need to start leveling up in a Paragon Path for a while and THEN into an Epic Destiny. It seems a bit silly that you pick your subclass at lv 3 and it's just what you are until the end of your career (baring multiclassing). Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies were a cool way to express the growth and progression of your character, with a fun variety of perequisite. Some could be simpler than others, with a few just being "Just keep doing the same thing but better" and others adding new aspects to characters like a dip into certain types of magic. 

A 6th edition needs just a few more tactical levers to pull so we could bring back the Warlord and more Martial options... but not too much to mess with the sacro-saint "Theater of the Mind" style of play (AUGH am I the only one who think that sounds super elitist?) 

And finally: If you're gonna have a HUGE spell list shared by every caster out there, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THE GODS organise it by LEVEL first and THEN alphabetically >< seriously, trying to pick spells in the PHB is a nightmare!


----------



## Maxperson

Lord of Nessus said:


> 5e brought from 4e the Dragonborn,, 4e-style Tieflings, Eladrin, and Warlock, the Shadowfell (with the Raven Queen and Shadar-Kai), the Feywild (with mention of a few specifically 4e Fey lords), the Elemental Chaos, Primordials (albeit only one stat block so far), the Dawn Pantheon, and a few of the monsters such as the Archons (renamed Myrmidons) and Star Spawn. You don't like a single one of those? I mean, that's your right, but...



It also brought...

Hit dice
Overnight healing
Encounter powers(short rest abilities)
Daily powers(long rest abilities)
Proficiency
Recharge powers
Average hit points for PCs when they level
And I'm sure a bit more, but I can't remember off the top of my head.


----------



## S'mon

Elfcrusher said:


> Does it bother you at all when a fighter says, “No, don’t heal me now. I’ll just take the next big hit, and then the Bard can use a bonus action to get me up. I won’t even miss a turn.”




Never heard anyone say that. I'm happy to CDG the fallen (did it tonight, got Cleric to 0 hp & 2 failed death saves) so any player allowing additional CDG attempts vs their PC isn't playing too smart.

I guess something like that could happen with eg a strafing dragon, but no would not bother me.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lord of Nessus said:


> 5e brought from 4e the Dragonborn,, 4e-style Tieflings, Eladrin, and Warlock, the Shadowfell (with the Raven Queen and Shadar-Kai), the Feywild (with mention of a few specifically 4e Fey lords), the Elemental Chaos, Primordials (albeit only one stat block so far), the Dawn Pantheon, and a few of the monsters such as the Archons (renamed Myrmidons) and Star Spawn. You don't like a single one of those? I mean, that's your right, but...



Nothing on that list adds value to my campaign. I prefer things to be a little more Tolkien-esque.

Honestly, aside from the dragonborn, the rest of that list could be summarized as "crazy magic nonsense"; and even the dragonborn are a little far out there. It's fine if you're playing in an absurd ultra-magic setting, like the Forgotten Realms, but it doesn't fit with anything more mainstream.


Parmandur said:


> IIRC, he's not a big fan of the Proficiency system and Hit Dice.



I like the proficiency system in 5E, and the half-level bonus that came before it. I have nothing against a wizard and a fighter having the same chance to hit, all else being equal, because those other things are rarely equal.

I hate the concept of Hit Dice and healing surges, along with any game mechanic which hinges on the idea that a hit (within the game mechanics) isn't really a hit (within the narrative). The whole reason I'm relying on a huge system of game mechanics is so that it can tell us what happens next, whenever we take an action; so game mechanics that exist primarily for their own sake, without codified meaning within the narrative, are kind of pointless. Likewise, I'm not a fan of the whole "change any fluff you want, because the mechanics are the only thing that matter" thing.


----------



## Ash Mantle

I'm not sure if this has been said or not, but having easier multiclassing integration would be excellent. This'll possibly mean the ASIs would need to be freed from their class features and tied back in with class level.


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:
			
		

> Does it bother you at all when a fighter says, “No, don’t heal me now. I’ll just take the next big hit, and then the Bard can use a bonus action to get me up. I won’t even miss a turn.”





cmad1977 said:


> That doesn’t happen. IF it does it’s not a rules issue it’s a table issue.



Sorry, but it's a rules issue.

If the rules didn't allow it, there'd be no issue.


----------



## Lanefan

Undrave said:


> And finally: If you're gonna have a HUGE spell list shared by every caster out there, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THE GODS organise it by LEVEL first and THEN alphabetically >< seriously, trying to pick spells in the PHB is a nightmare!



The problem, of course, arises when different classes share the same spell at different levels.  If the spells were sorted first by level as you suggest then either a number of spell write-ups would have to be repeated (wasting column inches) or there'd be a lot of instances of "see write-up on page xxx" which is flat-out annoying.


----------



## Campbell

I prefer organizing spells alphabetically rather than by level because the primary use case should be referencing it in play.

For the purpose of choosing spells during level up a better solution is to have better summaries in the spell lists,


----------



## Vael

Lanefan said:


> The problem, of course, arises when different classes share the same spell at different levels.  If the spells were sorted first by level as you suggest then either a number of spell write-ups would have to be repeated (wasting column inches) or there'd be a lot of instances of "see write-up on page xxx" which is flat-out annoying.




That's a 3.5 ism that 5e abandoned. There's no "this class gets a 3rd level spell as a 2nd level spell" that I'm aware of.


----------



## Undrave

Lanefan said:


> The problem, of course, arises when different classes share the same spell at different levels.  If the spells were sorted first by level as you suggest then either a number of spell write-ups would have to be repeated (wasting column inches) or there'd be a lot of instances of "see write-up on page xxx" which is flat-out annoying.




Except that 5e spells have a level of their own that is independant on when a character gains access to it. Plant Growth is ALWAYS a 3rd Level Spell, regardless of the fact the Druid gets it earlier than the Ranger.

Heck, spell levels really should have been called something else (rank?) just to avoid confusion... 

And the Spell List at the start of the section really should have included a mark denoting which spells are rituals.


----------



## Hurin88

ad_hoc said:


> I find the difficulty is largely dependent on what the DM does.
> 
> A lot of people's experience on the internet is far different from mine.
> ...
> 
> A common remark I see on forums is if PCs die or TPKs happen the DM is at fault. In their games PC death is against the rules. The idea that the weaker monsters in a fight would finish off PCs is outrageous for these people. There are also the people who only have 1 encounter per long rest. I've seen many tables be 6-8 players too which really skews things. Yes, a party of 8 PCs can take down a single high CR monster. That doesn't mean the CR system doesn't work though. And of course there is also the idea that it is rude for a DM to have monsters attack the lower AC party members.




I think you hit the nail on the head there. 

I try to play the monsters as I expect them to act, and with an appropriate amount of intelligence for their intelligence score. A mindless golem might attack players at random. But predatory creatures will try to isolate the weakest party member, disable him/her, and drag that prey away. Smart, trained soldiers like Hobgoblins know that healing spells can bring creatures back up, so they will try to finish downed opponents when it is easy to do. Chaotic evil death cultists don't go easy on characters just to be nice; they flay them alive and use their skins as jewelry. So I prefer a game that is better balanced, so I don't have to break immersion and try to devise some rational reason why the cave bear doesn't want to eat that nice, juicy, unconscious halfling lying at his feet.


----------



## Hurin88

Elfcrusher said:


> Does it bother you at all when a fighter says, “No, don’t heal me now. I’ll just take the next big hit, and then the Bard can use a bonus action to get me up. I won’t even miss a turn.”




They may not say it, but I know that sometimes they are thinking it. And yes, it does bother me that this tactic works. It shouldn't.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> Does it bother you at all when a fighter says, “No, don’t heal me now. I’ll just take the next big hit, and then the Bard can use a bonus action to get me up. I won’t even miss a turn.”



In the extremely unlikely event that ever happened, I’d simply take it as players talking tactics while their characters say things that accomplish the same goals, because the mechanics are abstractions that help us interact with a world we don’t inhabit. 

But generally, the times where two healers go before the fight goes again, but only one dangerous monster, and the fighter is totally comfortable getting hit by the most dangerous enemy while at low health, and it wouldn’t be better for the party to have the fighter up the whole round, are so that I’m comfortable saying “that will never happen”. 


Nebulous said:


> Id actually like to see armor as damage reduction.  Plate mail and a shield would give you the best protection naturally, but you have to be VERY strong to wear/wield it effectively, like 16+.  Your actual AC would derive from Dexterity and maybe class bonuses or feats.



Why the high strength requirement? 

16+ represents world championship competitive level strong man levels of strength. It’s within spitting distance of “literally as strong as it’s possible to be without magical aid”. 

You don’t need that kind of strength to wear plate armor effectively.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Hurin88 said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head there.
> 
> I try to play the monsters as I expect them to act, and with an appropriate amount of intelligence for their intelligence score. A mindless golem might attack players at random. But predatory creatures will try to isolate the weakest party member, disable him/her, and drag that prey away. Smart, trained soldiers like Hobgoblins know that healing spells can bring creatures back up, so they will try to finish downed opponents when it is easy to do. Chaotic evil death cultists don't go easy on characters just to be nice; they flay them alive and use their skins as jewelry. So I prefer a game that is better balanced, so I don't have to break immersion and try to devise some rational reason why the cave bear doesn't want to eat that nice, juicy, unconscious halfling lying at his feet.




I agree with your end goal, that is the desire for a well balanced game, but I’d tangentially challenge the notion that CDG mid-combat is better tactics or more realistic for predators. 

In general, predators stuck in a fight for food (very few predators want to be in that position at all) will very rarely try to slink off with the food while a creature is attacking them. They are most vulnerable while carrying or dragging something away. Immediate survival pretty much _always_ trumps long term survival, for non-sapient animals. They’ll either keep attacking dangerous animals to try to secure the food and drive off what they can’t secure, or flee if they’re overwhelmed, or circle around and look for an opportunity to take down another creature quickly. A bleeding out creature is just fresher food when they’re done. 

As for tactical creatures, only the cruel or those who are already winning, or who can’t reasonably _simply harm the cleric_ should see CDG as better than putting the hurt on the cleric. IDK about you, but I don’t fill fights with creatures that can’t hurt the party’s back line. A CDG doesn’t even guarantee a death unless they can do it twice, and the same hobs know that some casters can just revivify. The smart hob tries to kill the still standing enemies before wasting actions on the ones that are already down.


----------



## Guest 6801328

cmad1977 said:


> That doesn’t happen. IF it does it’s not a rules issue it’s a table issue.




How is it a table issue if the rules allow it?


----------



## 5ekyu

Elfcrusher said:


> How is it a table issue if the rules allow it?



Well, the rules allow a lot of things. 

For some tables those things may be seen as issues. For others, not. 

Those are what makes them "table issues."

At my table for instance, the idea of letting folks drop thrn curing them from 0 as a tactic is a risk and a trade-off that in some circumstances may work out but in others it can be a really bad idea and it's not always clear which is which. 

There are a lot of that kinda thing in 5e and at actual tables too.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> How is it a table issue if the rules allow it?



The rules allow PvP, but that doesn’t make I any less a table issue if someone engages in PvP when the rest of the table isn’t into that.


----------



## S'mon

doctorbadwolf said:


> As for tactical creatures, only the cruel or those who are already winning, or who can’t reasonably _simply harm the cleric_ should see CDG as better than putting the hurt on the cleric. IDK about you, but I don’t fill fights with creatures that can’t hurt the party’s back line. A CDG doesn’t even guarantee a death unless they can do it twice, and the same hobs know that some casters can just revivify. The smart hob tries to kill the still standing enemies before wasting actions on the ones that are already down.




My game yesterday, the Red Hand of Doom hobs in the Old Rhest bell tower put a good deal of effort into putting down the Cleric and CDGing her while she was down - one CDG missed though so they only got her to 2 failed death saves before she got healed.

She spends a lot of time at 0 hp, but previously it had mostly been due to dragon strafing where other PCs could put a potion in her before she died.

I find the 5e system works well; if it wasn't easy to bring her back from 0 hp she would have already been killed two or three times and the player would have had to make a new PC. As it stands the battles are tough and tense but no one has lost a PC yet.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> The rules allow PvP, but that doesn’t make I any less a table issue if someone engages in PvP when the rest of the table isn’t into that.




That's kind of a lame answer.  You're basically saying that anybody who uses the rules as written is...a douche?

Maybe.

But that doesn't change the fact that there's this really weird hole in the rules.




5ekyu said:


> Well, the rules allow a lot of things.
> 
> For some tables those things may be seen as issues. For others, not.
> 
> Those are what makes them "table issues."
> 
> At my table for instance, the idea of letting folks drop thrn curing them from 0 as a tactic is a risk and a trade-off that in some circumstances may work out but in others it can be a really bad idea and it's not always clear which is which.
> 
> There are a lot of that kinda thing in 5e and at actual tables too.




Ok, so one way to prevent the players from exploiting a gaping hole in the rules is to punish them with CDG.  Sure.  That "fixes" the rules.  Sorta.  Depends on initiative order, though, in this case.

But that's not really an argument that there's not a weird design...dare I say "flaw"?...in the rules.


----------



## 5ekyu

Elfcrusher said:


> That's kind of a lame answer. You're basically saying that anybody who uses the rules as written is...a douche?
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact that there's this really weird hole in the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so one way to prevent the players from exploiting a gaping hole in the rules is to punish them with CDG. Sure. That "fixes" the rules. Sorta. Depends on initiative order, though, in this case.
> 
> But that's not really an argument that there's not a weird design...dare I say "flaw"?...in the rules.



Exploit, gaping, punish players, blah, blah...

If my sorcerer throws a quick fireball then follows right there with his twinned chill touch on the two who seemed very hurt by it, it creates a serious tactical issue for that other side. That is even more true if the target was one who "dropped". 

I am sure from one table to the next, this can be given lots of names.


----------



## S'mon

Elfcrusher said:


> That's kind of a lame answer.  You're basically saying that anybody who uses the rules as written is...a douche?...
> 
> ...Ok, so one way to prevent the players from exploiting a gaping hole in the rules is to punish them with CDG...




Are you saying a DM who uses the CDG rules on PCs is ...a douche?


----------



## Undrave

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


----------



## Guest 6801328

S'mon said:


> Are you saying a DM who uses the CDG rules on PCs is ...a douche?




Uhhhh....no. ???   I was attempting to paraphrase the argument that compared players who exploit the healed-from-zero rules to players who pvp without consent.


----------



## Guest 6801328

5ekyu said:


> Exploit, gaping, punish players, blah, blah...




"blah blah"?

Am I detecting snark?



> If my sorcerer throws a quick fireball then follows right there with his twinned chill touch on the two who seemed very hurt by it, it creates a serious tactical issue for that other side. That is even more true if the target was one who "dropped".
> 
> I am sure from one table to the next, this can be given lots of names.




I really have no idea what argument you are making here.

And I'm suspecting you misinterpreted my argument, as well.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> That's kind of a lame answer.  You're basically saying that anybody who uses the rules as written is...a douche?
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact that there's this really weird hole in the rules.



The hell are you on about? I’m saying no such thing, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Try again?


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> The hell are you on about? I’m saying no such thing, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Try again?




Oh?  Hmm.  I guess I completely misunderstood your point.  Here's what you wrote:


> The rules allow PvP, but that doesn’t make I any less a table issue if someone engages in PvP when the rest of the table isn’t into that.




So the way I read that is that the rules don't distinguish between PC and NPC targets, so in theory you can apply all of your attacks against other players.  Thus the rules "allow" PvP.

But to then attack your party members (without them agreeing to do it) would be very uncool.

And thus, as I read it, to use something permitted by the rules but not necessarily in the spirit of them, such as exploiting the "heal from zero" effect and initiative order, would be similarly uncool.

In other words, "That's not a flaw because the social contract will prevent it from being exploited."

Is that not correct?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> Oh?  Hmm.  I guess I completely misunderstood your point.  Here's what you wrote:
> 
> 
> So the way I read that is that the rules don't distinguish between PC and NPC targets, so in theory you can apply all of your attacks against other players.  Thus the rules "allow" PvP.
> 
> But to then attack your party members (without them agreeing to do it) would be very uncool.
> 
> And thus, as I read it, to use something permitted by the rules but not necessarily in the spirit of them, such as exploiting the "heal from zero" effect and initiative order, would be similarly uncool.
> 
> In other words, "That's not a flaw because the social contract will prevent it from being exploited."
> 
> Is that not correct?



You overthought it. 

Being allowed by the rules doesn’t make something a rules issue. Plenty of things are allowed by the rules, but are pretty inarguably table issues. I made no particular judgements about anyone being “douches” or any of that stuff you’re projecting on to my post. 

Further, I was directly replying to statements about whether this is a rules issue or a table issue, so my statements only have meaning in that specific context. Since I didn’t speak on, or reply to, anything about who is or isn’t a jerk, or being “uncool”, my statements clearly aren’t about those things.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> You overthought it.
> 
> Being allowed by the rules doesn’t make something a rules issue. Plenty of things are allowed by the rules, but are pretty inarguably table issues. I made no particular judgements about anyone being “douches” or any of that stuff you’re projecting on to my post.
> 
> Further, I was directly replying to statements about whether this is a rules issue or a table issue, so my statements only have meaning in that specific context. Since I didn’t speak on, or reply to, anything about who is or isn’t a jerk, or being “uncool”, my statements clearly aren’t about those things.




Ah, ok.  I guess since you are calling it an "issue" I assumed you meant it is a bad thing, and then extrapolated that to pvp.  But maybe you meant either of those things is only an issue if people at the table make it an issue?

In any event, I could strip out the value-judgment-laden language and I think the point still stands.

Where I disagree with you is that, to me, the healing-from-zero exploit is a purely mechanical loophole that could have been closed.  To me a "table" issue is something like how you are going to portray sensitive issues, or whether using out-of-character-knowledge is ok, etc. 

But, whatever.  I wish the loophole weren't there.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> Ah, ok.  I guess since you are calling it an "issue" I assumed you meant it is a bad thing, and then extrapolated that to pvp.  But maybe you meant either of those things is only an issue if people at the table make it an issue?
> 
> In any event, I could strip out the value-judgment-laden language and I think the point still stands.
> 
> Where I disagree with you is that, to me, the healing-from-zero exploit is a purely mechanical loophole that could have been closed.  To me a "table" issue is something like how you are going to portray sensitive issues, or whether using out-of-character-knowledge is ok, etc.
> 
> But, whatever.  I wish the loophole weren't there.




I replied directly to a discussion of whether it is a table issue or a rules issue. I don’t understand why you keep overthinking my statements beyond that context.


----------



## Hurin88

doctorbadwolf said:


> In general, predators stuck in a fight for food (very few predators want to be in that position at all) will very rarely try to slink off with the food while a creature is attacking them. They are most vulnerable while carrying or dragging something away. Immediate survival pretty much _always_ trumps long term survival, for non-sapient animals. They’ll either keep attacking dangerous animals to try to secure the food and drive off what they can’t secure, or flee if they’re overwhelmed, or circle around and look for an opportunity to take down another creature quickly. A bleeding out creature is just fresher food when they’re done.




Point taken. I think I will make my predators a little less likely to try to drag characters off if they feel they might be attacked when doing so.



> As for tactical creatures, only the cruel or those who are already winning, or who can’t reasonably _simply harm the cleric_ should see CDG as better than putting the hurt on the cleric. IDK about you, but I don’t fill fights with creatures that can’t hurt the party’s back line. A CDG doesn’t even guarantee a death unless they can do it twice, and the same hobs know that some casters can just revivify. The smart hob tries to kill the still standing enemies before wasting actions on the ones that are already down.




Yes, and I didn't want to imply that my Hobgoblins are always trying to CDG. But there are situations when it makes sense for a Hobgoblin to finish a downed opponent: if the players are retreating or not actively attacking, or if the Hobgoblin doesn't know if there is a cleric in the party, or if the Cleric is the one on the ground. I find that some groups just assume that monsters will move on to the next player rather than finishing a downed one, and there are circumstances when cruel or smart foes would choose instead to finish the Cleric or give vent to their cruelty.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Hurin88 said:


> Point taken. I think I will make my predators a little less likely to try to drag characters off if they feel they might be attacked when doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I didn't want to imply that my Hobgoblins are always trying to CDG. But there are situations when it makes sense for a Hobgoblin to finish a downed opponent: if the players are retreating or not actively attacking, or if the Hobgoblin doesn't know if there is a cleric in the party, or if the Cleric is the one on the ground. I find that some groups just assume that monsters will move on to the next player rather than finishing a downed one, and there are circumstances when cruel or smart foes would choose instead to finish the Cleric or give vent to their cruelty.




Absolutely! I tend not to play a lethal game, because I’d rather explore the characters than have a new one show up because of an unlucky die roll, but there are certainly times when CDG is either in character or tactically sound. I’ve seen a few DMs seed the defeat of the monsters by wasting a monster’s turn killing an unconscious PC while equally dangerous PCs still stand, so I wanted to clarify that!


----------



## S'mon

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ve seen a few DMs seed the defeat of the monsters by wasting a monster’s turn killing an unconscious PC while equally dangerous PCs still stand




With 5e heal potions so ubiquitous, I think it basically always makes sense to CDG PCs. But not all monsters know this. My Red Hand hobgoblins certainly do though.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

S'mon said:


> With 5e heal potions so ubiquitous, I think it basically always makes sense to CDG PCs. But not all monsters know this. My Red Hand hobgoblins certainly do though.



It only makes sense if, 
a) you want PCs CDGing your guys too, and 
2) your Action isn’t better spent elsewhere to ensure victory

Because if you win the fight, their healing potions become yours, and you can CDG them then. But I have absolutely seen fights turn from bad news for the PCs to a decisive victory and a quick revivify because the DM decided that a CDG was more in character than dealing with the very deadly remaining PCs, essentially wasting that enemy’s entire turn.


----------



## S'mon

doctorbadwolf said:


> It only makes sense if,
> a) you want PCs CDGing your guys too, and
> 2) your Action isn’t better spent elsewhere to ensure victory
> 
> Because if you win the fight, their healing potions become yours, and you can CDG them then. But I have absolutely seen fights turn from bad news for the PCs to a decisive victory and a quick revivify because the DM decided that a CDG was more in character than dealing with the very deadly remaining PCs, essentially wasting that enemy’s entire turn.




It could be a waste, eg if the lone monster only has 1 attack and it's not enough damage to kill outright. Usually it's several foes with ca 2 attacks each. Healing potions are only 50gp so nice but not great loot. Anyway CDG prevents use of healing potion, keeping it safe for the monster! 
PCs rarely need to CDG NPCs since they usually die at 0. I tend to apply the PC rules to NPCs brought exactly to 0; though.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> I replied directly to a discussion of whether it is a table issue or a rules issue. I don’t understand why you keep overthinking my statements beyond that context.




Wait...you _still_ think I'm misunderstanding you?

In that case, any possibility that maybe your point isn't as clear as you believe?

EDIT: Scratch that.  On second thought, it's not important.  Let's drop it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> Wait...you _still_ think I'm misunderstanding you?
> 
> In that case, any possibility that maybe your point isn't as clear as you believe?
> 
> EDIT: Scratch that.  On second thought, it's not important.  Let's drop it.




Seriously? Lol okay. 

I mean, you were still trying to tie what I said to some value judgement about using the rules as written when I was literally talking about whether it’s a rules issue or a table issue, but sure. 

Like, you know that “that’s a table issue” doesn’t imply any value judgement about any behavior, right? You presented the issue (a word which here means, a point of contention) of whether or not the healing rules in 5e are a problem. I didn’t weigh in on whether it’s a problem, I spoke on the difference between a rules issue and a table issue. 

You previous reply still didn’t seem to understand the difference.


----------



## Undrave

Feels rot me like the 'Heal from 0' rules work as the designer intended. They would have put penalty on that if they really wanted to make it less optimal, or make bonus action healing better so healing before the ally drops to 0 would be a better move. 

But, if you think its too easy, you could always just deny the healed character an action on its first turn. They're not defenceless or anything (staying down would be just as dangerous at low HP than at 0 because of the advantage) and they could get up, but they would still be shaken enough not to be able to just smack a dude right away. I think adding more complications would lead to more bookkeeping than is necessary and just cause the Heal Bot play style to come back, with paranoid players spending their turns making sure no one drop instead of contributing to ending the fight faster.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Undrave said:


> Feels rot me like the 'Heal from 0' rules work as the designer intended. They would have put penalty on that if they really wanted to make it less optimal, or make bonus action healing better so healing before the ally drops to 0 would be a better move.
> 
> But, if you think its too easy, you could always just deny the healed character an action on its first turn. They're not defenceless or anything (staying down would be just as dangerous at low HP than at 0 because of the advantage) and they could get up, but they would still be shaken enough not to be able to just smack a dude right away. I think adding more complications would lead to more bookkeeping than is necessary and just cause the Heal Bot play style to come back, with paranoid players spending their turns making sure no one drop instead of contributing to ending the fight faster.




Yeah, maybe it's as the designers intended but too often I've seen it result in tactical choices that just feel like gaming the system.  Going to 0 should (in my opinion, anyway) be something you want to avoid more than you do.  If there's a (better) chance that letting somebody drop to zero takes them out of the fight completely, or at least reduces their effectiveness, it would change that calculation.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> Seriously? Lol okay.
> 
> I mean, you were still trying to tie what I said to some value judgement about using the rules as written when I was literally talking about whether it’s a rules issue or a table issue, but sure.
> 
> Like, you know that “that’s a table issue” doesn’t imply any value judgement about any behavior, right? You presented the issue (a word which here means, a point of contention) of whether or not the healing rules in 5e are a problem. I didn’t weigh in on whether it’s a problem, I spoke on the difference between a rules issue and a table issue.
> 
> You previous reply still didn’t seem to understand the difference.




Yeah, like I thought, this is turning toxic.  I'll pass.


----------



## Tony Vargas

5ekyu said:


> Well, the rules allow a lot of things.
> For some tables those things may be seen as issues. For others, not.
> Those are what makes them "table issues."



 That's essentially saying there are NO 'rules issues,' only table issues, because a hypothetical table might ignore (or enjoy or exploit) a given rule issue, no matter how heinous it might be, and at any that don't, the DM can just override/change/ignore the rule that's an issue.

If we were talking any game other than 5e D&D, that'd be a pointless tautology, at best, at worst a disingenuous dodging of the point.  

But, since we are talking a possible 6e relative to 5e, it's a solid point.  Unless the idea is that 6e should abandon DM Empowerment, there's no need for it to 'fix' any perceived rules problems from 5e, since that's the role of the DM.


----------



## Harzel

Elfcrusher said:


> That will be when they abandon backward compatibility and rebuild D&D on a Unix core.




It'll be fine.  VMdungeon (TM) will let you run them both at once.


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> Yeah, maybe it's as the designers intended but too often I've seen it result in tactical choices that just feel like gaming the system.



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.



> Going to 0 should (in my opinion, anyway) be something you want to avoid more than you do.  If there's a (better) chance that letting somebody drop to zero takes them out of the fight completely, or at least reduces their effectiveness, it would change that calculation.



Agreed.


----------



## Nebulous

Elfcrusher said:


> Some mighty argue that the period in which it was the Greyhawk Roleplaying Game was also the "roots" of the game, but I agree with you.  I really don't like FR.




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??


----------



## Tony Vargas

Lanefan said:


> 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

Lanefan said:


> 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.


----------



## Hurin88

Nebulous said:


> 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

Undrave said:


> 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

The Green Hermit said:


> 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

Undrave said:


> 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

Nebulous said:


> 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

Hurin88 said:


> 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.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> The rules allow PvP, but that doesn’t make I any less a table issue if someone engages in PvP when the rest of the table isn’t into that.



It doesn't make it any less a rules issue, either.  Why are you guys trying to isolate the issue into one camp or the other?  No rule, no issue.  No asshat, no issue.  It takes two to tango.


----------



## Maxperson

Hurin88 said:


> 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 major difference, and why I prefer the Realms, is that the Realms has far greater depth of lore.  There's just much, much more written about it.  They also have different histories.  Greyhawk doesn't try to give you various cultures with similarities to Earth.  The Realms does.  If you want to be able to go to something sorta like Egypt, the Realms is for you.


----------



## Blue

R_J_K75 said:


> 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.




There are a lot of systems out there, many of which exactly as you say.  I love D&D, but I also love other systems.  If this bothers you, try branching out to some new games to see if it scratches that itch.

(Not trying to say this isn't a perfectly valid wish for 6e for you, just that you can experience it now if you want.)



R_J_K75 said:


> 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.




This would likely not be in 6e, since that's an intentional design point that D&D has moved away from save or die effects where a single bad roll can kill a character.


----------



## R_J_K75

Blue said:


> There are a lot of systems out there, many of which exactly as you say.  I love D&D, but I also love other systems.  If this bothers you, try branching out to some new games to see if it scratches that itch.
> 
> (Not trying to say this isn't a perfectly valid wish for 6e for you, just that you can experience it now if you want.)
> 
> 
> 
> This would likely not be in 6e, since that's an intentional design point that D&D has moved away from save or die effects where a single bad roll can kill a character.




I know that there are other systems out there but Ive already invested alot of time and money into D&D and its what my players are most familiar with so I think switching at this point might not be worth it.  Id imagine even if the class system changed somethings like races, spells, magical items and monsters would probably remain somewhat similar to as theyve been for many years.  So thats how I justify staying with D&D.  As far as the save vs. die request, I realize that it was a conscious decision on their part to remove from the game but sometimes it seems its gone a bit too far.


----------



## S'mon

R_J_K75 said:


> I know that there are other systems out there but Ive already invested alot of time and money into D&D and its what my players are most familiar with so I think switching at this point might not be worth it.  Id imagine even if the class system changed somethings like races, spells, magical items and monsters would probably remain somewhat similar to as theyve been for many years.  So thats how I justify staying with D&D.  As far as the save vs. die request, I realize that it was a conscious decision on their part to remove from the game but sometimes it seems its gone a bit too far.




I tend to bring back a bit of save or die. Ignoring Jeremy Crawford helps - IMC being reduced to 0 hp by disintegrate et al is always fatal. And homebrew monsters can have save or die effects. Heck, IMC being pushed off a boat while wearing heavy armour is die-die unless your druid kindly cast Water Breathing on you beforehand!


----------



## R_J_K75

S'mon said:


> I tend to bring back a bit of save or die. Ignoring Jeremy Crawford helps - IMC being reduced to 0 hp by disintegrate et al is always fatal. And homebrew monsters can have save or die effects. Heck, IMC being pushed off a boat while wearing heavy armour is die-die unless your druid kindly cast Water Breathing on you beforehand!




Yep, hard to come back from that one.  Not everyone deserves a participation trophy.


----------



## 5ekyu

Elfcrusher said:


> "blah blah"?
> 
> Am I detecting snark?
> 
> 
> 
> I really have no idea what argument you are making here.
> 
> And I'm suspecting you misinterpreted my argument, as well.



Snark? If choosing to point out and disregard use of loaded terms and subjective judgements is snark, then I guess my dictionary is out if date. 

But to clarify, what are the objective rationale for your use of punish, gaping, exploit etc?

what separates npcs taking effective tactics against PCs from agm punishing them ?
How big and by what measure is a rules issue gaping cs just a regular run of the mill rules issue? 
Where is the line between exploit and tactic? 

If the answer to each of them is "depends on yourbpreferences" then using those as derogatories doesnt help st all any sort if discussion about merit or not of rules- it's basically name calling. Might as well just say. "This rule smells bad and has BO."

Meh...


----------



## Blue

Maxperson said:


> The major difference, and why I prefer the Realms, is that the Realms has far greater depth of lore.  There's just much, much more written about it.  They also have different histories.  Greyhawk doesn't try to give you various cultures with similarities to Earth.  The Realms does.  If you want to be able to go to something sorta like Egypt, the Realms is for you.




Everyone is right for their own table. The amount of lore is actually why I don't run the Realms - for me picking an existing setting is shorthand for the players to bring in their own knowledge so we have a shared understanding of the place. I wouldn't pick Eberron and remove the dragonmarks, houses, warforged and the Last War - it would be unrecognizable as Eberron.

So with FR I know that I do not have "all the lore" in my head, and my players can know more than me about various subjects. I haven't read any of the FR novels, for instance. 

"But Sammaster ..." this or "But the Red Wizards ..." that or "The Mythal ..." other thing. I don't want to say "my campaign, this is how it is here" and actively mislead players by things I didn't know enough to tell them are different from their assumptions. Rather play in a world where they don't have those assumptions.

On the other hand, that's lead by my own shortcomings with FR. If I was more fluent with it's lore I might love that depth and richness.


----------



## 5ekyu

Undrave said:


> Feels rot me like the 'Heal from 0' rules work as the designer intended. They would have put penalty on that if they really wanted to make it less optimal, or make bonus action healing better so healing before the ally drops to 0 would be a better move.
> 
> But, if you think its too easy, you could always just deny the healed character an action on its first turn. They're not defenceless or anything (staying down would be just as dangerous at low HP than at 0 because of the advantage) and they could get up, but they would still be shaken enough not to be able to just smack a dude right away. I think adding more complications would lead to more bookkeeping than is necessary and just cause the Heal Bot play style to come back, with paranoid players spending their turns making sure no one drop instead of contributing to ending the fight faster.



Personally, in my next game, I am likely going something like this

0 hit points does not mean unconscious. 
While at 0 hp you make death saves as normal per 5e rules. At three fails you die, at three success you stabilize. 
You can act but are at risk. Any damage while st zero causes an extra death save fail _and_ a con save or get knocked out. 
Each fail gives you one level of exhaustion as well but that goes away when you stabilize. 

Heal from zero is still fine. The drama of zero isxdyill there but less inaction.


----------



## 5ekyu

robus said:


> 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?



Just the frequency of AoE damage is often enough. I mean being inside the spirit guardians radius of the enemy cleric and getting one magic missle out of the swarm ought to be of serious concern to many players who dont fear dropping to zero.

This of course depends on campaign but frankly, it's rare in my games for deadly situation like PCs at zero to be occurring in the "it's a dumb brute adverssry" encounters. 

The cases where PCs tend to get to zero are when they are fighting adversaries eith magic snd resources at their hands as well, so, on going area effects and multi-target effects are not only present but also raise the stakes on going zero. 

So, in my gsmes and in my ecperience the going to zero then heal up is a serious risk in most of the encounters where it is even an issue. It's a serious risk of going dead. 

I imagine for games ehere somehow the party or characters is put en prise by non-magic brutes with regularity would feel differently.


----------



## R_J_K75

Blue said:


> Sammaster




If youre mentioning Sammaster Id say you have a decent knowledge of the Realms.  Hes not obscure but probably not  as well known as Halaster, Elminster or Drizzt.


----------



## Blue

R_J_K75 said:


> If youre mentioning Sammaster Id say you have a decent knowledge of the Realms.  Hes not obscure but probably not  as well known as Halaster, Elminster or Drizzt.



I know enough to know that I don't know it all.  Some people I play with have read all the novels, run FR since AD&D times, and the like.


----------



## Undrave

If D&D were to cut out classes entirely it would probably lose a lot of players who just LIKE class-base mechanic. Especially since it's a rarer and rarer breed of RPG, if you're looking at the wider market...



R_J_K75 said:


> ... As far as the save vs. die request, I realize that it was a conscious decision on their part to remove from the game but sometimes it seems its gone a bit too far.




The problem with Save-or-Die is that they're a bad game mechanic. It's why modern boardgames don't have 'Skip a turn' mechanics (though I would argue SOME mechanics are almost the same but that's a topic for a different discussion) and almost never have player elimination rules. At least if they're not war themed.

It's just not fun for a random roll of ONE die to just destroy everything you've invested into with little recourse.

Of course, Save-or-Die make sense for stuff like a Gorgon's petrification gaze narratively, and it's no doubt dramatic, but here we see the Narration aspect of D&D clashing against its Game aspect... In the end a decision was made that they are selling a GAME first and foremost.

Wether or not that's preferable is up for personal choice, but I get the feeling it's working enough for D&D's bottomline to just keep it that way... Though that could be an interesting optional rule to throw with enough warnings.


----------



## R_J_K75

Blue said:


> I know enough to know that I don't know it all. Some people I play with have read all the novels, run FR since AD&D times, and the like.




I probably know more about the Realms than the average player but by far do I know it all.  Id say my knowledge is in specific areas of the Realms.  Ive played with people who knew as much if not more than me and would tell me "thats not how it really is" if I took some creative license, and that doesnt make for a fun game.


----------



## Greg K

Here is what I want to see in 6th edition.

Remove the non-biological aspects (e.g. armor, weapon and tool proficiencies) from race.
Introduce a choice of Environment and/or Culture choice similar to Rich Howard's Ultimate Adaptability Variant Humans for 5th Editionon the Tribality website, but expanded to all races such as with HARP.
environment (e.g. Arctic, Forest, Grassland, Hills, etc)​
cultural option (Martial Society, Theocracy, Mageocracy)​

Bring back Night Vision and the Night Vision/Dark Vision distinction
All classes get their subclasses at first level
more customization:
class variants​
variant class abilities.​

new classs
(Name): Rogue/Wizard combinations go here.​
Arcane Tricksters
Beguiler

Scholar​
Shaman​
Warlord​
Warrior Mage: Fighter/Wizard  subclass moved here.​
Bladesinger
Duskblade
Eldritch Knight
Spellsword

Witch​

Skills
Skill Points as an optional system in the DMG

​


----------



## Tony Vargas

S'mon said:


> Heck, IMC being pushed off a boat while wearing heavy armour is die-die unless your druid kindly cast Water Breathing on you beforehand!



Beowulf is a much shorter poem in your world.


----------



## Undrave

Tony Vargas said:


> Beowulf is a much shorter poem in your world.




Yeah, people have done it in real life. Swimming in Armour: A Test

This reminds me a bit of the time someone on the old WotC forum said you shouldn't be able to do archery properly on horseback, only to be inundated with footage of an actual horseback archery contest... 

It's not easy but it's not insta-death.


----------



## S'mon

Undrave said:


> Yeah, people have done it in real life. Swimming in Armour: A Test




I actually based my rules on that video! There is a big difference between "moving forward" (easy enough in armour) and "staying afloat" (much harder). The rule I use is you sink 1'/round per lb weight of armour, and can either swim up or forward. So with a 20 lb breastplate and speed of 30' you can stay afloat and move forward 10'/round, but with 40 lb armour and speed 30' you're sinking 10'/round.

Beowulf the Barbarian with a 20 lb chain shirt and speed 40' could stay afloat and swim forward 20' on the surface, or swim forward 40' while sinking 20'.


----------



## Undrave

S'mon said:


> I actually based my rules on that video! There is a big difference between "moving forward" (easy enough in armour) and "staying afloat" (much harder). The rule I use is you sink 1'/round per lb weight of armour, and can either swim up or forward. So with a 20 lb breastplate and speed of 30' you can stay afloat and move forward 10'/round, but with 40 lb armour and speed 30' you're sinking 10'/round.
> 
> Beowulf the Barbarian with a 20 lb chain shirt and speed 40' could stay afloat and swim forward 20' on the surface, or swim forward 40' while sinking 20'.




Are you on the high sea often enough for it to come into play all the time?


----------



## S'mon

Undrave said:


> Are you on the high sea often enough for it to come into play all the time?




We had a raft/boat battle on the Rhestwash river, followed next session by battle in the sunken ruins of Rhest. Both battles involved some pushing heavily armoured hobgoblins into the water and laughing while they went _glug_ _glug_ _glug_. Most of the PCs are lightly armoured and now the Druid is using Water Breathing so less of a concern for them; it's more a way to even the odds vs the superior hob forces.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Undrave said:


> It's just not fun for a random roll of ONE die to just destroy everything you've invested into with little recourse.



Agreed, but there's no reason why save-or-die must necessarily be one roll. Even if it is literally just one saving throw, with failure causing instant death, there's still everything that we do in response to the knowledge that such an ability exists. 

Before you make the saving throw, you have to choose to look at the medusa. Assuming a proper set-up, that's a decision which should be made with full knowledge of the risks involved. It moves the game back a step, from normal swing-for-damage combat. The game aspect becomes your decision of whether or not to look, rather than the random outcome of the die roll.

Although, it's easy for the DM to get that one wrong, if the book doesn't explain how obvious this should be.


----------



## Tallifer

6E for me would be a revival and improving redaction of 4E. AEDU, paragon, epic, character builder, everything is core, treasure wish lists, stat blocks, skill challenges. I know I am an exception, so actually I would just like WotC to support and update the 4E character builder for us non-OSR/non-Pathfinder weirdos.


----------



## Undrave

Tallifer said:


> 6E for me would be a revival and improving redaction of 4E. AEDU, paragon, epic, character builder, everything is core, treasure wish lists, stat blocks, skill challenges. I know I am an exception, so actually I would just like WotC to support and update the 4E character builder for us non-OSR/non-Pathfinder weirdos.




Oh I love 4E and the Powers and AEDU and keywords and distinct Power Sources and ALL the tactical stuff...

But I will admit it got really heavy at later levels. I could go for a lighter version. Like I mentioned earlier, one where your class stops at Paragon and your Paragon Path and then Epic Destiny provides new powers and maybe you even have to replace powers earlier (or stick with the previous ones, only they get a boost).


----------



## Tallifer

I need epic 4E just so I can read in the rules "Once per day when you die..." [cue various epic effects}


----------



## Undrave

Tallifer said:


> I need epic 4E just so I can read in the rules "Once per day when you die..." [cue various epic effects}




Man, those Epic Powers were truly epic! I forgot which one... Horizon Walker? Where, when you die you just...Show up! As if you had walked from the land of the Dead. It's so epic and silly and amazing!


----------



## S'mon

Undrave said:


> Man, those Epic Powers were truly epic! I forgot which one... Horizon Walker? Where, when you die you just...Show up! As if you had walked from the land of the Dead. It's so epic and silly and amazing!




Yeah I loved that one!


----------



## Hurin88

Tallifer said:


> 6E for me would be a revival and improving redaction of 4E. AEDU, paragon, epic, character builder, everything is core, treasure wish lists, stat blocks, skill challenges. I know I am an exception, so actually I would just like WotC to support and update the 4E character builder for us non-OSR/non-Pathfinder weirdos.




I've run quite a few groups through different editions of DnD for the first time, and I still think 4e is the best for new players. It gives everyone a moment in the spotlight and is remarkably easy to pick up. 

I also liked the way it made martial characters fun to play (Warlord and Fighter in particular, but also Ranger too). 

So I guess call me a wierdo too!


----------



## ad_hoc

Hurin88 said:


> I've run quite a few groups through different editions of DnD for the first time, and I still think 4e is the best for new players. It gives everyone a moment in the spotlight and is remarkably easy to pick up.
> 
> I also liked the way it made martial characters fun to play (Warlord and Fighter in particular, but also Ranger too).
> 
> So I guess call me a wierdo too!




The numbers say otherwise. And it's not even close.


----------



## Eric V

Hurin88 said:


> I've run quite a few groups through different editions of DnD for the first time, and I still think 4e is the best for new players. It gives everyone a moment in the spotlight and is remarkably easy to pick up.
> 
> I also liked the way it made martial characters fun to play (Warlord and Fighter in particular, but also Ranger too).
> 
> So I guess call me a wierdo too!




It's probably the most fun my group has ever had with D&D; hoping to repeat that with 13th Age.

I know most people assume there will be a 6e, but...I just don't think there will.  The game now is the game as it will be.  Maybe some variations (like how Risk has LotR Risk, different themes of Monopoly, etc.) but not a whole new edition; that would go against their stated goals.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Eric V said:


> I know most people assume there will be a 6e, but...I just don't think there will.  The game now is the game as it will be.  Maybe some variations (like how Risk has LotR Risk, different themes of Monopoly, etc.) but not a whole new edition; that would go against their stated goals.



It wouldn't be the first time that they abandoned their goals for the edition.


----------



## Eric V

Saelorn said:


> It wouldn't be the first time that they abandoned their goals for the edition.



No, but these are financial goals...different, no?

5e is a game designed expressly to be popular...a new edition would signify they failed to do that, no? And they have certainly not failed; if not the best version of the game it is easily the most popular one. Why deviate from that?


----------



## Lanefan

Blue said:


> This would likely not be in 6e, since that's an intentional design point that D&D has moved away from save or die effects where a single bad roll can kill a character.



Yes, it has; and the question is whether or not this is a good thing (I say it's not).


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hurin88 said:


> I've run quite a few groups through different editions of DnD for the first time, and I still think 4e is the best for new players. It gives everyone a moment in the spotlight and is remarkably easy to pick up.



 Very true, IMX, as well. 
The problem was, I suppose, just not that many folks showing up to try it - and even that didn't exactly fit my experience, since our FLGS saw plenty of new gamers and grew rapidly from 2010 through 2014 (and is still growing, moved into new digs with more space for the second time).  

Moving books is just a different proposition from being accessible to new players when they sit down at the table for the first time.  4e was more accessible than any version of D&D since B/X, but, at the same time, it was 'controversial' and had a whacked 'shelf presence,' and just wasn't timed to the market.  It was not innovative, player-focused, accessible D&D that the market was primed for in 2008, it was old-school revival. 

But, on topic, unless something changes dramatically, the market shows no signs of being ready for anything other than very traditional takes on D&D.  There's no impetus to a 6e, let alone a 6e as iconoclastic as 4e was.



> I also liked the way it made martial characters fun to play (Warlord and Fighter in particular, but also Ranger too).



 I found Ranger - strikers in general - a tad boring.  DPR just not that engaging.  But, /lots/ of players love just throwing out the big numbers, that way.  In retrospect, the game could've used a few more options like the Elemental Sorcerer, a lot earlier.


----------



## Lanefan

Saelorn said:


> Agreed, but there's no reason why save-or-die must necessarily be one roll. Even if it is literally just one saving throw, with failure causing instant death, there's still everything that we do in response to the knowledge that such an ability exists.
> 
> Before you make the saving throw, you have to choose to look at the medusa. Assuming a proper set-up, that's a decision which should be made with full knowledge of the risks involved. It moves the game back a step, from normal swing-for-damage combat. The game aspect becomes your decision of whether or not to look, rather than the random outcome of the die roll.
> 
> Although, it's easy for the DM to get that one wrong, if the book doesn't explain how obvious this should be.



I see it that while you can choose not to look at the medusa you're still going to need a (very easy but not guaranteed) save; just in case you glanced anyway be it by mistake, distraction, or whatever.

And a 1 is a 1 is a 1...


----------



## Nebulous

Eric V said:


> No, but these are financial goals...different, no?
> 
> 5e is a game designed expressly to be popular...a new edition would signify they failed to do that, no? And they have certainly not failed; if not the best version of the game it is easily the most popular one. Why deviate from that?




If sales start to sag eventually, which they will, that's how it works, I'm sure they will want to have a 6th edition in mind to reboot popularity.  When that actually happens is unknown.  I don't think a new edition after a highly successful 10 year run would indicate failure whatsoever.


----------



## Eric V

Nebulous said:


> If sales start to sag eventually, which they will, that's how it works, I'm sure they will want to have a 6th edition in mind to reboot popularity.  When that actually happens is unknown.  I don't think a new edition after a highly successful 10 year run would indicate failure whatsoever.




I could see a big marketing push once sales go down, but not a new edition, at least not with their stated goals for the game.

I know that's how it was done in the past, for sure; I just think they are trying to not do as they have done before.

Obviously, I can't know this is true; I am just basing this on what they have stated. A sixth edition would go against their stated goals.  They don't even call the current game 5th edition.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Nebulous said:


> If sales start to sag eventually, which they will, that's how it works, I'm sure they will want to have a 6th edition in mind to reboot popularity.



 IMHO, the games' potential for evolution is past, at this point.  When 5e's sales begin to flag, they /might/ finally open it up to some depth, selling supplements to the hard-core player-base, but, more likely, they'll start doing what other long-established brands do:  marketing-driven 'editions' that are, really, the same game, just packaged & promoted in a fresh way.



> I don't think a new edition after a highly successful 10 year run would indicate failure whatsoever.



Frankly, 5e could roll rev to 6e tomorrow, and it wouldn't make it any less successful.


----------



## Nebulous

Tony Vargas said:


> IMHO, the games' potential for evolution is past, at this point.  When 5e's sales begin to flag, they /might/ finally open it up to some depth, selling supplements to the hard-core player-base, but, more likely, they'll start doing what other long-established brands do:  marketing-driven 'editions' that are, really, the same game, just packaged & promoted in a fresh way.
> 
> Frankly, 5e could roll rev to 6e tomorrow, and it wouldn't make it any less successful.




I would love to see a 5.5 edition.  I don't mind buying all new core books.  My monster manual is falling apart 5 years!  And sigh, the layout of the PHB grieves me, it is so hard to find info, and that damn index that directs you to look at other entries to find the page you're looking for!


----------



## Nebulous

But I'm an oldhat DM running 5e for a newbie group of players and it is crazy easy to teach the game to them.  Any flaws 5th edition has, attracting new players and teaching them the rules is NOT one of them.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lanefan said:


> I see it that while you can choose not to look at the medusa you're still going to need a (very easy but not guaranteed) save; just in case you glanced anyway be it by mistake, distraction, or whatever.
> 
> And a 1 is a 1 is a 1...



In that case, I go back to the previous post, about save-or-die being a bad mechanic. Any time that you can lose all of your character investment through a single die roll, without having a chance to avoid that die roll, then it's a bad mechanic. If you always have a chance to fail, and there's no way to avoid those rolls, then probabilities will definitely catch up to you eventually and there's no point in even trying to stay alive.

Although, in this case, it might be sufficient to just game the DM. If there's a risk of looking at the medusa, even when you try to not do so, then you need to resort to blindfolds. And if the DM rules even a blindfold has a 5% chance of failure, then you need an actual Blindness spell (which can be trivially reversed with Lesser Restoration). As long as there's some viable way to avoid a save-or-die roll, then the existence of the mechanic can be justified.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Nebulous said:


> But I'm an oldhat DM running 5e for a newbie group of players and it is crazy easy to teach the game to them.



 Compared to teaching them what?  ;P
From 2010 through 2017 I ran a /lot/ of intro games, Encounters, conventions, AL, for genuinely-new as well as returning players, or long-time players 'new' to the current ed. 
/New/ players picked up 4e much more readily than other eds, 5e included.  Long-time & returning players ranged from being bemused for a bit before grokking it, to insurmountable perplexity, to violent rejection.  Conversely, 5e sucks returning players right in, and their enthusiasm is infectious to new players.  (Honestly, for a lot of us long-time loyal D&Ders, 5e's sometimes a tad 'meh' - not disappointing, not offensive, just not quite everything some past edition was to us - but still evocative enough of those past editions to make us want to see it succeed.)



> Any flaws 5th edition has, attracting new players and teaching them the rules is NOT one of them.



 It's not two of them (because that's two very different things). 

5e has it really good as far as drawing new players in - if it drives some of them away, plenty more where they came from.

The accessibility of the rules once they're sitting down, and the meeting of expectations if they haven't been exposed to the peculiar D&D sub-genre of fantasy through an MMO or something before, not so much.  They're not as baroque and unintuitive as 1e (and 1e managed to be hugely successful too, don't forget, so it's can't be that significant a flaw when it comes moving product), but it's exactly clear, concise, or intuitive, either. 
Familiarity to returning players, OTOH, more than makes up for that.

(I think one thing that's overlooked when considering 'appeal to new players,' is, however ironically, the importance of nostalgia.  With a property that has a history & rep from a decades-ago fad, even new players often are drawn to it wanting that bygone experience - _out of curiosity rather than nostalgia_, but it demands the design make similar sacrifices.  That kind of new player needs to hear the old-timers, however grumpily, acknowledging that, yes, this is _the real thing_.)


----------



## Undrave

Eric V said:


> I could see a big marketing push once sales go down, but not a new edition, at least not with their stated goals for the game.
> 
> I know that's how it was done in the past, for sure; I just think they are trying to not do as they have done before.
> 
> Obviously, I can't know this is true; I am just basing this on what they have stated. A sixth edition would go against their stated goals.  They don't even call the current game 5th edition.




I'm very wary of brands pretending to go to an 'Evergreen' style. 

Hasbro is pushing this idea with Transformers recently and I think it's a big mistake. They basically nuked the old IDW universe, which had only gotten massively popular the moment they departed from the traditional canon and ENDED THE GREAT WAR. You now had those formers enemies uneasily living together and trying to rebuild a broken Cybertron and all those warriors with no idea what to do with themselves (including some that were built DURING the war and were seen as expendables) and your badge no longer guaranteed you were a good guy or a bad guy (Getaway you BASTARD!)...It was bold and it was brilliant! And now they just backpedaled on it and shat out some milquetoast reboot. Going 'Evergreen' means we'd have never gotten Beast Wars or Animated or even Rescue Bots, all fun incarnations with lots to offer but that departed from the core classic that Genwunners expect. 

Going Evergreen is why New Star Wars is just Empire VS Rebel with new Disney-owned branding. Or why nobody takes death seriously in comic books or even can invest in legacy character anymore... and why they have readership in the low 6 digits...

It'll get stale and stiffle creative risks.


----------



## R_J_K75

Undrave said:


> If D&D were to cut out classes entirely it would probably lose a lot of players who just LIKE class-base mechanic.




I understand, its just a personal preference of mine.  I can understand the drawbacks of removing the class system, for one its a way of establishing yourself not only in the gaming community among your peers, i.e., I'm currently playing a 7th lvl human paladin, and but also in the game itself.  Counter to that though I just always found that limiting.  To use a real world example, (if you consider your class as your occupation), as a Mechanical Design Drafter by trade, Im often asked to do other things outside of that primary role to which Ive picked up other unrelated skills.  Outside of my professional life I have other skills, interest and hobbies.  I'd just like to see more options like this in the character creation, but I certainly wouldnt expect them to change a major game component on my account.  Perhaps a modular template like class system rather than a linear or tree-like one  would suit this better.  I'd even settle for an optional set of rules, but then again probably more trouble for them than its worth to suit a small segment of the market. 



Undrave said:


> It's just not fun for a random roll of ONE die to just destroy everything you've invested into with little recourse.




I too have felt the pain from one random die roll, and it really sucks when you're on the losing end.  Though I cant argue that I haven't felt suspense or thought I had that much to lose since that mechanic has been removed from the game.  I suppose it may still be there in the game and Im just not using the mechanics to my advantage but telling a player "make your 2nd save vs. petrifaction" or "go ahead slugger, you've made 2 death saves, 1 more and you'll be up and at 'em" just sometimes doesn't have the same ring as "YOU'RE DEAD"!  I can honestly say Ive never killed a PC premeditated.  Sometimes the dice just dont go a players way and they need to accept that and move on.


----------



## Lord of Nessus

Lanefan said:


> The Raven Queen, Primordials, and Archons all predate 4e.



They do? If so, that's news to me. Regarding those later two, yes, there were powerful named Elemental lords before 4e, such as Grumbar, Kossuth, Istishia, and Akadi, and the Archomentals of Good and Evil, but to my knowledge they were never called Primordials or credited with the creation of the world - they mostly just ruled over some of the Elemental planes (or tried to, anyway). "Archons" certainly existed in 2e and 3e, but they were heavenly beings living on Mount Celestia, not Elemental soldiers, which again, to my knowledge didn't exist before 4e.  Apologies if I'm wrong.

I do vaguely remember Shadar-Kai existing in 3.5e and I assume they were tied to the Raven Queen at that point - anybody know what book/supplement introduced them?


----------



## Hurin88

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e was more accessible than any version of D&D since B/X, but, at the same time, it was 'controversial' and had a whacked 'shelf presence,' and just wasn't timed to the market.  It was not innovative, player-focused, accessible D&D that the market was primed for in 2008, it was old-school revival.




Yes, well said.



> I found Ranger - strikers in general - a tad boring.  DPR just not that engaging.  But, /lots/ of players love just throwing out the big numbers, that way.




I find the 5e Fighter much more boring -- at least the 4e version had some interesting powers. Doing basic attacks all day long, like the 5e fighter, gets boring faster for me at least. 

As to the Ranger, I liked what 4e did because I like the concept of a purely Martial Ranger, whose power comes from skill at arms, rather than from spells (even if, admittedly, the 4e Ranger had some crazy spell-like abilities). 

To me, the Warlord was never about DPR (at least for himself). I liked the fact that I could be an effective healer/buffer as a Martial combatant; I've never really liked playing a healer, but I did like playing a Warlord. And I loved roleplaying as the salty drill sergeant, or the commander who leads from the front. Good times.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Eric V said:


> I know most people assume there will be a 6e, but...I just don't think there will.  The game now is the game as it will be.  Maybe some variations (like how Risk has LotR Risk, different themes of Monopoly, etc.) but not a whole new edition; that would go against their stated goals.



I agree with you in broad strokes. I believe WotC when they say there are currently no plans for 6E. All indicators are that they are happy with the way 5E is going, and that they have good financial reason to be.

But...

Never say "never". 6E is pretty definitely not gonna happen in 2020, or in 2022, but who the heck can say what state the D&D scene is going to be in 2030 or 2035? Even now, when there are no plans for 6E, Mearls has been caught a couple of times saying things like "If I were designing 6E, here's how I'd do wizards differently..." He's a designer, it's part of his job to think that way, I would too if I were his position, but... he _is_ thinking that way.


----------



## Lanefan

Saelorn said:


> In that case, I go back to the previous post, about save-or-die being a bad mechanic. Any time that you can lose all of your character investment through a single die roll, without having a chance to avoid that die roll, then it's a bad mechanic. If you always have a chance to fail, and there's no way to avoid those rolls, then probabilities will definitely catch up to you eventually and there's no point in even trying to stay alive.



Exactly.  In a large part it's a game of luck (that's why we have dice) - and sooner or later everyone's going to die; and that's why the game has revival-from-death mechanics built into its core.

Now if revival mechanics didn't exist then I'd be closer to agreement with you, though even then I'd posit that random chance and sheer bad luck will every now and then have their say.

And I say this as a player who has a track record of losing more characters than just about anyone else in our crew. 



> Although, in this case, it might be sufficient to just game the DM. If there's a risk of looking at the medusa, even when you try to not do so, then you need to resort to blindfolds. And if the DM rules even a blindfold has a 5% chance of failure, then you need an actual Blindness spell (which can be trivially reversed with Lesser Restoration). As long as there's some viable way to avoid a save-or-die roll, then the existence of the mechanic can be justified.



All of which make fighting the Medusa that much more difficult, particularly if you're running a game that doesn't have blindfighting as a 'thing'.  But yes, I'd say a blindfold is effective until-unless the Medusa does something about it e.g. tries to remove it...though if she does that means she's close enough to stick a sword into...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

ad_hoc said:


> The numbers say otherwise. And it's not even close.



Not really. The numbers say dnd is selling better now, and that’s really all they say.


----------



## Lanefan

Lord of Nessus said:


> They do? If so, that's news to me. Regarding those later two, yes, there were powerful named Elemental lords before 4e, such as Grumbar, Kossuth, Istishia, and Akadi, and the Archomentals of Good and Evil, but to my knowledge they were never called Primordials or credited with the creation of the world - they mostly just ruled over some of the Elemental planes (or tried to, anyway). "Archons" certainly existed in 2e and 3e, but they were heavenly beings living on Mount Celestia, not Elemental soldiers, which again, to my knowledge didn't exist before 4e.  Apologies if I'm wrong.
> 
> I do vaguely remember Shadar-Kai existing in 3.5e and I assume they were tied to the Raven Queen at that point - anybody know what book/supplement introduced them?



I don't know where I saw it but I seem to remember the Raven Queen being a thing way back in 2e or even earlier.  I know I'd heard of her many years before 4e was even a blip on the radar.

As for Primordials - OK, the name changed for 4e but the idea of deity-level primordial or elemental creatures goes back, again, to 2e if not earlier.

Ditto Archons - they were redefined for 4e as elemental soldiers (which makes no sense to me whatsoever!).  Far better they be divine minions or angel-equivalents from various pantheons.


----------



## S'mon

Eric V said:


> I could see a big marketing push once sales go down, but not a new edition, at least not with their stated goals for the game.
> 
> I know that's how it was done in the past, for sure; I just think they are trying to not do as they have done before.
> 
> Obviously, I can't know this is true; I am just basing this on what they have stated. A sixth edition would go against their stated goals.  They don't even call the current game 5th edition.




Yeah, I think reissued and updated current ruleset (PHB, MM, & likely DMG) with new art for the 2024 anniversary is probably likeliest, but that they won't call it 6e or 5.5e, and it'll be fully backwards compatible with 5e material, especially the adventures.

The 5e PHB could really do with a do-over considering how hard it is to find stuff - no page bleeds, terrible index, unintuitive layout & ordering. But the actual gameplay is good & very popular. The 5e MM lacks encounter tables (they are in XGTE), lacks listings by CR (they are in DMG), lacks NPC racial adjustments (they are in DMG), and monsters vary wildly within the same CR listing. The 5e DMG does not have big problems, but XGTE generally has better stuff on eg downtime activities. Also I think the DMG should begin with 'running your first adventure' not 'creating the world'!


----------



## S'mon

Lanefan said:


> I don't know where I saw it but I seem to remember the Raven Queen being a thing way back in 2e or even earlier.  I know I'd heard of her many years before 4e was even a blip on the radar.
> 
> As for Primordials - OK, the name changed for 4e but the idea of deity-level primordial or elemental creatures goes back, again, to 2e if not earlier.
> 
> Ditto Archons - they were redefined for 4e as elemental soldiers (which makes no sense to me whatsoever!).  Far better they be divine minions or angel-equivalents from various pantheons.




Well 1e-2e-3e Greyhawk had Wee Jas who is basically Raven Queen.
The Elemental Princes of Evil are from 1e, originally Fiend Folio.


----------



## Undrave

S'mon said:


> Yeah, I think reissued and updated current ruleset (PHB, MM, & likely DMG) with new art for the 2024 anniversary is probably likeliest, but that they won't call it 6e or 5.5e, and it'll be fully backwards compatible with 5e material, especially the adventures.
> 
> The 5e PHB could really do with a do-over considering how hard it is to find stuff - no page bleeds, terrible index, unintuitive layout & ordering. But the actual gameplay is good & very popular. The 5e MM lacks encounter tables (they are in XGTE), lacks listings by CR (they are in DMG), lacks NPC racial adjustments (they are in DMG), and monsters vary wildly within the same CR listing. The 5e DMG does not have big problems, but XGTE generally has better stuff on eg downtime activities. Also I think the DMG should begin with 'running your first adventure' not 'creating the world'!




They could include the revised Ranger directly in there, maybe reprint a couple of additional spells (Seriously, why do Clerics and Bards only get 1 attack Cantrips in the PHB? Toll the Dead should be in there!)... The various class Spell Lists at the start of the Spell section really need a marker to indicate which ones are Rituals.


----------



## Undrave

Tallifer said:


> 6E for me would be a revival and improving redaction of 4E. AEDU, paragon, epic, character builder, everything is core, treasure wish lists, stat blocks, skill challenges. I know I am an exception, so actually I would just like WotC to support and update the 4E character builder for us non-OSR/non-Pathfinder weirdos.




How about we just drop daily powers entirely? Push the Rituals a bit more and give Ritualist classes features to make them cheaper (especially the Wizard who also get free ones). 

Or really shake the grognards and turn Wizards not Psion-style classes with a bunch of At-Wills they can augment a certain number of time per short rest, but with a bit more flexibility (like instead of Augment 1, augment 2, etc there's Augment 1A, Augment 1B, Augment 1C etc and you can combine them together). 

AND then give the Fighter the dailies


----------



## Nebulous

Hurin88 said:


> I find the 5e Fighter much more boring -- at least the 4e version had some interesting powers. Doing basic attacks all day long, like the 5e fighter, gets boring faster for me at least.




You know, Dungeon Crawl Classics has a mechanic in the fighter (warrior) class called Mighty Deed of Arms.  I wonder if it can be ported to 5e without unbalancing things?  

_The mechanic for Mighty Deeds of Arms was designed
to encourage exciting stunts by ambitious warriors in the
tradition of literary heroes. The goal was to create a rules
system that encouraged situation-specific freedom without
creating a lot of cumbersome rules. The author’s original
expectation was that this system would be used for disarms,
parries, and other traditional combat maneuvers,
but in actual playtesting the Mighty Deeds of Arms have
been exciting and unpredictable. It’s clear now that the system
encourages creative actions, and the author believes it
works best with creative warriors who devise interesting
attacks._


----------



## Nebulous

S'mon said:


> Yeah, I think reissued and updated current ruleset (PHB, MM, & likely DMG) with new art for the 2024 anniversary is probably likeliest, but that they won't call it 6e or 5.5e, and it'll be fully backwards compatible with 5e material, especially the adventures.
> 
> The 5e PHB could really do with a do-over considering how hard it is to find stuff - no page bleeds, terrible index, unintuitive layout & ordering. But the actual gameplay is good & very popular. The 5e MM lacks encounter tables (they are in XGTE), lacks listings by CR (they are in DMG), lacks NPC racial adjustments (they are in DMG), and monsters vary wildly within the same CR listing. The 5e DMG does not have big problems, but XGTE generally has better stuff on eg downtime activities. Also I think the DMG should begin with 'running your first adventure' not 'creating the world'!




I would be very, very happy if they did this.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Nebulous said:


> _The mechanic for Mighty Deeds of Arms was designed
> to encourage exciting stunts by ambitious warriors in the
> tradition of literary heroes. The goal was to create a rules
> system that encouraged situation-specific freedom without
> creating a lot of cumbersome rules. The author’s original
> expectation was that this system would be used for disarms,
> parries, and other traditional combat maneuvers,
> but in actual playtesting the Mighty Deeds of Arms have
> been exciting and unpredictable. It’s clear now that the system
> encourages creative actions, and the author believes it
> works best with creative warriors who devise interesting
> attacks._




I really like that conceptually.  I wonder how well it would mix with the 5e mindset/approach, since as a game it doesn't really encourage that kind of gameplay. By which I mean vaguely defined mechanics.   Just look at how much debate/argument ensues from minor illusion.  Or how Paladins no longer have 'detect evil' but rather 'detect specific creature types.'  Or how the Wish spell has changed over editions.

But, yeah, I personally would have a blast with that, both as a player and as a DM.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hurin88 said:


> I find the 5e Fighter much more boring -- at least the 4e version had some interesting powers. Doing basic attacks all day long, like the 5e fighter, gets boring faster for me at least.



Well, sure.  Even the high-end of the 5e fighter player-agency scale, the BM, has less going on than a 'boring' (to me) 4e striker, heck, the BM doesn't even stack up to the Essentials Knight/Slayer, who at least got some utilities.



> As to the Ranger, I liked what 4e did because I like the concept of a purely Martial Ranger, whose power comes from skill at arms, rather than from spells (even if, admittedly, the 4e Ranger had some crazy spell-like abilities).



The latter eRangers, Hunter and Scout, got primal invocations, which would have been spells or spell-like abilities in any other edition, yes.  They also got pretty bizarre from a game design perspective, their 'spells' were utilities, usually minor-impact, but the Hunters were amped-up into Controller role-support.  ::



> To me, the Warlord was never about DPR (at least for himself). I liked the fact that I could be an effective healer/buffer as a Martial combatant; I've never really liked playing a healer, but I did like playing a Warlord. And I loved roleplaying as the salty drill sergeant, or the commander who leads from the front. Good times.



 I got the feeling that secondary-striker was in the back of the design across the board with Martial.  A warlord's buffs and action granting gave it high de-facto DPR (though, really, it was boosting allies DPR), a fighter whose mark was consistently ignored did striker-like DPR via Combat Challenge.  4e never got completely away from the D&D tradition of using weapons meaning contributing damage, just away from the tradition of not contributing anything else.


----------



## Nebulous

Elfcrusher said:


> I really like that conceptually.  I wonder how well it would mix with the 5e mindset/approach, since as a game it doesn't really encourage that kind of gameplay. By which I mean vaguely defined mechanics.   Just look at how much debate/argument ensues from minor illusion.  Or how Paladins no longer have 'detect evil' but rather 'detect specific creature types.'  Or how the Wish spell has changed over editions.
> 
> But, yeah, I personally would have a blast with that, both as a player and as a DM.




I dunno.  I guess I could houserule it in and see what happens.  It's kind of a shame that D&D doesn't have that baked it, it would create much more interesting fights that are cinematic.


----------



## Nebulous

Elfcrusher said:


> I really like that conceptually.  I wonder how well it would mix with the 5e mindset/approach, since as a game it doesn't really encourage that kind of gameplay. By which I mean vaguely defined mechanics.   Just look at how much debate/argument ensues from minor illusion.  Or how Paladins no longer have 'detect evil' but rather 'detect specific creature types.'  Or how the Wish spell has changed over editions.
> 
> But, yeah, I personally would have a blast with that, both as a player and as a DM.




Mighty Deed of Arms: _Warriors earn their gold with
pure physical prowess. They swing across chapels on
chandelier chains, bash through iron-banded oaken
doors, and leap over chasms in pursuit of their foes.
When locked in mortal melee, their mighty deeds of
arms turn the course of battle: a brazen bull rush to
push back the enemy lines, a swinging flail to entangle
the beastman’s sword arm, or a well-placed dagger
through the enemy knight’s visor.

Prior to any attack roll, a warrior can declare a Mighty
Deed of Arms, or for short, a Deed. This Deed is a
dramatic combat maneuver within the scope of the
current combat. For example, a warrior may try to
disarm an enemy with his next attack, or trip the opponent,
or smash him backward to open access to a
nearby corridor. The Deed does not increase damage
but could have some other combat effect: pushing
back an enemy, tripping or entangling him, temporarily
blinding him, and so on.

The warrior’s deed die determines the Deed’s success.
This is the same die used for the warrior’s attack
and damage modifier each round. If the deed die is
a 3 or higher, and the attack lands (e.g., the total attack
roll exceeds the target’s AC), the Deed succeeds. If
the deed die is a 2 or less, or the overall attack fails,
the Deed fails as well._

So it is a d3 at 1st level that you roll alongside your attacks.  It is a simple system.  It SEEMS like it would mesh with 5e, but every other class might feel left out when the fighter is doing all this cool crap (and logical simple things) that they can't expressly attempt.  But DAMN - that would turn your vanilla fighter into one whopping interesting class.


----------



## Nebulous

*Types of Deeds*
_There is no limit to the types of Deeds that a warrior can
perform. Any situation-appropriate specialized attack
should be encouraged. To help provide some general
framework for understanding the concept behind Mighty
Deeds of Arms, we have provided seven general categories
below. These are merely suggestions to give a sense of possibility
and scale. The guidelines that follow should help the judge
decide which benefits to apply to a high deed die roll.
Creative players will certainly come up with new Deeds.
Encourage and allow this.

Blinding Attacks
Blinding attacks usually involve making a called shot to an
enemy’s eyes. Examples include throwing sand in an enemy’s
face, stabbing a knife through a visor, or impaling a
target’s eyeball with an arrow. Blinding attacks obviously
must take place where appropriate to the enemy; they are
useless against oozes, for example. Against certain opponents,
such as a cyclops, the judge may “bump up” results
to the next-higher level, given the more serious effect of
blinding blows against such creatures.

Deed Die Blinding Result
3 Opponent’s eyes are irritated and stinging, and
he has difficulty seeing. On his next attack, the
opponent suffers a -2 attack penalty.

4 Opponent is temporarily blinded. He suffers a
-4 penalty to his next attack roll and may only
move at half speed.

5 Opponent is completely blinded for 1d4
rounds. He flails about with wild attacks, suffering
a -8 penalty to attack rolls, and can move
only in a random direction at half speed.

6 Opponent is completely blinded, as above, for
2d6 rounds.

7+ Opponent is blinded for the next 24 hours. Additionally,
he must make a Fort save against the
warrior’s attack roll. On a failure, he is permanently
blinded._


----------



## Nebulous

Goddamn it, looking over the DCC corebook just makes me want to play it.  It's a damn good game.  Lethal as hell, but damn good.  If you like your fantasy dark and gritty.  There are five or six pages devoted to spell duels and counterspelling, including a randomized chart for "Phlogiston Disturbance."


----------



## Lanefan

Nebulous said:


> Goddamn it, looking over the DCC corebook just makes me want to play it.  It's a damn good game.  Lethal as hell, but damn good.  If you like your fantasy dark and gritty.  There are five or six pages devoted to spell duels and counterspelling, including a randomized chart for "Phlogiston Disturbance."



DCCRPG is great provided you don't want to play a spellcaster, because as-written any caster is going to end up a twisted wreck after half a dozen adventures.  There's even a series of pictures detailing this at some point in the book (can't check where as mine's out on loan right now).


----------



## Nebulous

Lanefan said:


> DCCRPG is great provided you don't want to play a spellcaster, because as-written any caster is going to end up a twisted wreck after half a dozen adventures.  There's even a series of pictures detailing this at some point in the book (can't check where as mine's out on loan right now).




AND...your spells have like a 50% chance to not even work!  That would get very frustrating.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Assuming the classes are already "balanced" (whatever that means), "Heroic Deeds" would need to have a cost.  I propose 1 HD.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Nebulous said:


> Mighty Deed of Arms...
> So it is a d3 at 1st level that you roll alongside your attacks.  It is a simple system.  It SEEMS like it would mesh with 5e, but every other class might feel left out when the fighter is doing all this cool crap (and logical simple things) that they can't expressly attempt.  But DAMN - that would turn your vanilla fighter into one whopping interesting class.



That's the way of adding anything cool the fighter:   
"But shouldn't anyone be able to do it?"



Elfcrusher said:


> Assuming the classes are already "balanced"



They're not.







> (whatever that means)



 It means "Not Really D&D."   ;P
5e may be (or not be) many things, but it's most definitely D&D. 


> "Heroic Deeds" would need to have a cost.  I propose 1 HD.



 CS dice would be the obvious possibility for a fighter-only sub-system.
HD are fine in concept, too, in fact, trading between HD and CS dice is an intuitive idea.  D&D has kinda a history with resources that can be used as healing, or as something else... and HD recharge slower than any other resource in 5e...


----------



## Nebulous

Lanefan said:


> DCCRPG is great provided you don't want to play a spellcaster, because as-written any caster is going to end up a twisted wreck after half a dozen adventures.  There's even a series of pictures detailing this at some point in the book (can't check where as mine's out on loan right now).




You are right, per the book spellcasters degrade quickly, but that's an easy house rule to work around.


----------



## Lanefan

Nebulous said:


> You are right, per the book spellcasters degrade quickly, but that's an easy house rule to work around.



This was my initial thought as well, but I haven't delved deep enough into the system to determine whether taking that penalty (or the spell-failure chance) off of casters would make them too dominant.


----------



## The Green Hermit

Undrave said:


> 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.




I could get behind that.


----------



## The Green Hermit

S'mon said:


> Yeah, I think reissued and updated current ruleset (PHB, MM, & likely DMG) with new art for the 2024 anniversary is probably likeliest, but that they won't call it 6e or 5.5e, and it'll be fully backwards compatible with 5e material, especially the adventures.
> 
> The 5e PHB could really do with a do-over considering how hard it is to find stuff - no page bleeds, terrible index, unintuitive layout & ordering. But the actual gameplay is good & very popular. The 5e MM lacks encounter tables (they are in XGTE), lacks listings by CR (they are in DMG), lacks NPC racial adjustments (they are in DMG), and monsters vary wildly within the same CR listing. The 5e DMG does not have big problems, but XGTE generally has better stuff on eg downtime activities. Also I think the DMG should begin with 'running your first adventure' not 'creating the world'!




What is XGTE? I'm not familiar with that acronym.


----------



## Hurin88

Xanthar's Guide to Everything.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Tony Vargas said:


> CS dice would be the obvious possibility for a fighter-only sub-system.
> HD are fine in concept, too, in fact, trading between HD and CS dice is an intuitive idea.  D&D has kinda a history with resources that can be used as healing, or as something else... and HD recharge slower than any other resource in 5e...




What are CS dice?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> What are CS dice?



Combat superiority. The Battlemaster’s maneuver dice.


----------



## Nebulous

Lanefan said:


> This was my initial thought as well, but I haven't delved deep enough into the system to determine whether taking that penalty (or the spell-failure chance) off of casters would make them too dominant.




I don't know either.  I would have to tweak something though. I don't mind the casters going crazy over a longer period of time if that was to be stretched out. But the high chance of failing a spell roll round after round would just be demoralizing as a player. I'd probably change it to a 10% of total failure. The rest would be the lowest level of success, and then if you roll high then the success increases. I do love how all the spells get better incrementally as you hit the higher DCs.


----------



## Eric V

Undrave said:


> I'm very wary of brands pretending to go to an 'Evergreen' style.
> 
> 
> 
> It'll get stale and stiffle creative risks.




I feel it already has!    That comes with designing a game to be popular.

But the benefits (D&D's massive popularity) seem to far outweigh any perceived shortcomings.  People still play Monopoly and Risk to this day.


----------



## robus

The rules are finally "good enough and simple enough" IMHO. They support the goals of a successful D&D game which is everyone having fun participating in a fantasy adventure without having to be an expert, which is why the player base is exploding and pulling in people who aren't particularly nerdy but love the escapist fun that a TTRPG can provide.

I know I certainly enjoy getting away from my computer and sitting around a table with real people and telling wild stories  (not to take anything away from those who play via computer, of course, but I don't think that's the majority?).

To majorly mess with this success, just to "refresh" the ruleset, would be a big mistake IMHO. There's a gritty crunchy option available to those who want it (in PathFinder 2, or other RPGs). D&D needs to keep its grip on being the most popular RPG, and that means a stable rules base that people can become familiar with (and eventually expert).

The way to keep things fresh (IMHO) is to, slowly, expand the available classes, introduce new spells & monsters and settings to go with them. And of course adventures.

And finally a book they should absolutely produce is a more friendly guide to DMing. The DMG is terrible for new DMs, IMHO, and D&D needs more and more DMs. "How to become a great DM" or some such. 


(Edited before someone flags "gritty" here too!)


----------



## Undrave

robus said:


> And finally a book they should absolutely produce is a more friendly guide to DMing. The DMG is terrible for new DMs, IMHO, and D&D needs more and more DMs. "How to become a great DM" or some such.




Ah yes, a beginner's guide to dungeon mastering wouldn't be bad at all. Maybe they could get Matt Mercer's star power on board with some of his tips? I dunno. 

I guess the rules are 'good enough' indeed, but the 'how to put them to use' could use some refreshing itself.


----------



## Blue

Undrave said:


> Ah yes, a beginner's guide to dungeon mastering wouldn't be bad at all. Maybe they could get Matt Mercer's star power on board with some of his tips? I dunno.
> 
> I guess the rules are 'good enough' indeed, but the 'how to put them to use' could use some refreshing itself.



Actually, I'd love that as videos instead of a book.  So get literal Matt Mercer.  I think the strengths of the media align better with beginning DM tips beyond what's given in the DMG.


----------



## robus

Blue said:


> Actually, I'd love that as videos instead of a book.  So get literal Matt Mercer.  I think the strengths of the media align better with beginning DM tips beyond what's given in the DMG.




That’s a really interesting idea. Matt has done a series like this with Geek & Sundry but to have it be an official WotC series on DMing would be great.


----------



## Blue

robus said:


> That’s a really interesting idea. Matt has done a series like this with Geek & Sundry but to have it be an official WotC series on DMing would be great.



Get him and Chris Perkins riffing off each other on DMing advice.


----------



## S'mon

Blue said:


> Get him and Chris Perkins riffing off each other on DMing advice.




Maybe Colville and Mercer - "The Two Matts"?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

S'mon said:


> Maybe Colville and Mercer - "The Two Matts"?




I really can’t stand Colville, so I’d have a hard time watching that, but I do suppose it would be popular. 

Tangentially, I seriously can’t fathom why he or Koebel are popular, at all. I’m a tolerant guy, but they both make me anxious in the context that if they get any more popular I will have a hard time avoiding their content. 

Anyway, I’d be all for a series with Mercer, Perkin, and the guys from WebDM.


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> DCCRPG is great provided you don't want to play a spellcaster, because as-written any caster is going to end up a twisted wreck after half a dozen adventures.  There's even a series of pictures detailing this at some point in the book (can't check where as mine's out on loan right now).




Yes that's the point: a DCC spell caster will behave like an "Appendix N" literary spellcaster: either barely daring to ever use a Light spell and be a Gandalf or Merlin, or become a Conan villain or Skeksi. Genre emulation, and Class balance.


----------



## S'mon

doctorbadwolf said:


> I really can’t stand Colville, so I’d have a hard time watching that, but I do suppose it would be popular.
> 
> Tangentially, I seriously can’t fathom why he or Koebel are popular, at all.




I like Colville's GMing advice a lot. I like his rather old school sandboxy/political 1e AD&D type approach and emphasis on player contribution over GM's story.


----------



## Lanefan

Parmandur said:


> Yes that's the point: a DCC spell caster will behave like an "Appendix N" literary spellcaster: either barely daring to ever use a Light spell and be a Gandalf or Merlin, or become a Conan villain or Skeksi. Genre emulation, and Class balance.



DCCRPG achieves "class balance" by taking 1e's near-useless 1st level MU and extending that uselessness all the way through its career.

In other words, it tips the balance the other way far beyond what's needed.

Don't get me wrong - DCCRPG isn't a bad system, and has some very good ideas that can be exported into other games (the dice ladder is brilliant!).  But the way it abuses arcane casters is a significant weak point IMO.


----------



## Nebulous

Lanefan said:


> DCCRPG achieves "class balance" by taking 1e's near-useless 1st level MU and extending that uselessness all the way through its career.
> 
> In other words, it tips the balance the other way far beyond what's needed.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - DCCRPG isn't a bad system, and has some very good ideas that can be exported into other games (the dice ladder is brilliant!).  But the way it abuses arcane casters is a significant weak point IMO.




I haven't played it much, but it does seem like a magic user in DCC would be mostly frustrating with the occasional burst of "look how f*****g awesome I can be sometimes!"  But mostly you're just an insane shell of a human being possessed by demons.  I would love to know how people who play DCC regularly handle magic and the side effects.


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> DCCRPG achieves "class balance" by taking 1e's near-useless 1st level MU and extending that uselessness all the way through its career.
> 
> In other words, it tips the balance the other way far beyond what's needed.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - DCCRPG isn't a bad system, and has some very good ideas that can be exported into other games (the dice ladder is brilliant!).  But the way it abuses arcane casters is a significant weak point IMO.





Nebulous said:


> I haven't played it much, but it does seem like a magic user in DCC would be mostly frustrating with the occasional burst of "look how f*****g awesome I can be sometimes!"  But mostly you're just an insane shell of a human being possessed by demons.  I would love to know how people who play DCC regularly handle magic and the side effects.




To be honest, the Corruption system is a real danger, but it isn't like your Mage will be a broken shell after two sessions or something (unless you roll like Will Weston). Corruption is something that _can_ happen on a Critical Fail, not _will_ happen on a critical failure, and most of the corrupt effects are cosmetic, like a failed Prismatic Spray giving you rainbow colored skin or Comprehend Languages giving you a stutter (each spell has a distinct range of possible Corruptions).

The bigger effect of failing spell checks is losing the spell for the day.


----------



## Parmandur

Crunched the math, most spells you have a 0.0083333...% chance of Corruption on a d20 roll (critical failure followed by rolling 1 on a d6), though that goes up or down depending on the dice chain. Not enough to make Mage's worthless or feel worthless, but definitely enough to encourage giving the Warriors and Thieves their time in the narrative Sun.


----------



## Nebulous

Parmandur said:


> Crunched the math, most spells you have a 0.0083333...% chance of Corruption on a d20 roll (critical failure followed by rolling 1 on a d6), though that goes up or down depending on the dice chain. Not enough to make Mage's worthless or feel worthless, but definitely enough to encourage giving the Warriors and Thieves their time in the narrative Sun.




But doesn't a spell have around a 50% per casting of just plain not working?  I would hate that as a player.


----------



## Parmandur

Nebulous said:


> But doesn't a spell have around a 50% per casting of just plain not working?  I would hate that as a player.




So do the Warriors sword swings. Working as designed. There are no spell slots, no resource management, just risk.


----------



## Nebulous

Parmandur said:


> So do the Warriors sword swings. Working as designed. There are no spell slots, no resource management, just risk.




Lol, that's true, lots of risk!  I do love how the spells scale at the higher ends and do some really crazy stuff.


----------



## Parmandur

Nebulous said:


> Lol, that's true, lots of risk!  I do love how the spells scale at the higher ends and do some really crazy stuff.




I appreciate that it doubles down on the gambling factor. The XP system also encourages avoiding combat, if possible.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

S'mon said:


> I like Colville's GMing advice a lot. I like his rather old school sandboxy/political 1e AD&D type approach and emphasis on player contribution over GM's story.



I don’t mind some of his advice in written summary form.  it’s just him I can’t stand. Tried watching his video about Star Wars, thought maybe it was just that I found his arguments whiney and irritating, so gave him another chance on a video about dnd, still hated every second of watching him, figured it really is just him. 

But let’s not derail things further. I’m glad people have lots of choices of dnd personalities to follow.


----------



## messy

S'mon said:


> I'm happy to CDG the fallen (did it tonight, got Cleric to 0 hp & 2 failed death saves) so any player allowing additional CDG attempts vs their PC isn't playing too smart.




as far as i know, cdg means "ckill da guy." can someone clarify, please?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

messy said:


> as far as i know, cdg means "ckill da guy." can someone clarify, please?



I suspect you’re being facetious, but in case you aren’t, it means coup de grace. Which means “to deliver the final killing blow to an injured or otherwise incapacitated creature.”


----------



## Nebulous

Parmandur said:


> I appreciate that it doubles down on the gambling factor. The XP system also encourages avoiding combat, if possible.




Does it? I haven't paid enough attention to that aspect.  The Crit tables are brutal though, I know that much.


----------



## Parmandur

Nebulous said:


> Does it? I haven't paid enough attention to that aspect.  The Crit tables are brutal though, I know that much.




Take a look at the XP rules, they are brilliant: sort of a hybrid of traditional D&D and more modern milestones, based on story "scenes" rather than a complex math formula based off of murder or looting.


----------



## Nebulous

Parmandur said:


> Take a look at the XP rules, they are brilliant: sort of a hybrid of traditional D&D and more modern milestones, based on story "scenes" rather than a complex math formula based off of murder or looting.




I'd be perfectly happy if 6e abandoned XP altogether and stuck with some sort of milestone system.  I never liked the tedious math aspect.


----------



## Parmandur

Nebulous said:


> I'd be perfectly happy if 6e abandoned XP altogether and stuck with some sort of milestone system.  I never liked the tedious math aspect.




WotC says that right now, the majority of DMs are using milestone leveling: seems to be the direction the game is evolving.


----------



## ad_hoc

messy said:


> as far as i know, cdg means "ckill da guy." can someone clarify, please?




Coup de grace


----------



## Lanefan

Parmandur said:


> Crunched the math, most spells you have a 0.0083333...% chance of Corruption on a d20 roll (critical failure followed by rolling 1 on a d6), though that goes up or down depending on the dice chain. Not enough to make Mage's worthless or feel worthless, but definitely enough to encourage giving the Warriors and Thieves their time in the narrative Sun.



Your arithmetic is off.

Critical failure (1/d20) is 5%; corruption (1/d6) is about 17% of that; so the overall odds of corruption are slightly below 1% per spell cast. (put another way, your decimal point is probably 2 places left of where it should be).

I know these odds well, as our melee fumble chance uses exactly the same sequence - 1/d20 followed by 1/d6 - and has for over 35 years.


----------



## Lanefan

Nebulous said:


> I'd be perfectly happy if 6e abandoned XP altogether and stuck with some sort of milestone system.  I never liked the tedious math aspect.



I see it as just part of the job, and an absolutely essential one.  Individual per-encounter xp are a hard-coded fact of life in my games and always will be, for a bunch of reasons I've gone into at length in other threads here over the years.


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> Your arithmetic is off.
> 
> Critical failure (1/d20) is 5%; corruption (1/d6) is about 17% of that; so the overall odds of corruption are slightly below 1% per spell cast. (put another way, your decimal point is probably 2 places left of where it should be).
> 
> I know these odds well, as our melee fumble chance uses exactly the same sequence - 1/d20 followed by 1/d6 - and has for over 35 years.




My notation was off, yes, 0.83333% odds. And most of the Corruptions are more role-playing complications than threats.


----------



## S'mon

Lanefan said:


> I see it as just part of the job, and an absolutely essential one.  Individual per-encounter xp are a hard-coded fact of life in my games and always will be, for a bunch of reasons I've gone into at length in other threads here over the years.




I like XP, but I've gone over to a scale of ca 20 XP/level, rather than thousands or hundreds of thousands.


----------

