# Pie in the Sky 6E



## Reynard (Aug 16, 2022)

Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?

For me, I think they should abandon the 3 book format and instead go with a Rule Book that is relatively slim and focuses entirely on characters and the processes of play, which you then couple with either an adventure (of the scale of Rime of the Frostmaiden or whatever) OR a setting book (Eberron, Ravenloft, whatever) which has new subclasses and spells and whatever. On top of that, you can do Genre Books for everything from high fantasy to gothic horror (but these work just as well as setting books).

The 5E chassis is pretty robust, and if you thin down the base options you can really focus it at a specific milieu, tone, mood, or whatever with a relatively small number of additions and changes.

Like I said, pie in the sky. But that's what I would want if it were up to me.


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 16, 2022)

Nonstandard Fantasy setting as the basic setting premise.

Like. Ravenloft as the core setting. Or Dark Sun. Or Spelljammer.

Something -other- than Mystara, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, or vaguely Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 16, 2022)

Psionics.

_looks at soulknife and psi warrior._

REAL psionics.

_#sorrynotsorry _


----------



## Shardstone (Aug 16, 2022)

Psionics.

Backgrounds with feats.

Martial classes with interesting feats from 9th level onwards.

Monsters that are more dynamic, and that don't always have to be in stat blocks.

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

But it can stay, if they make the game fun for Dms to run at high levels.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 16, 2022)

Shardstone said:


> But it can stay, if they make the game fun for Dms to run at high levels.




I'm not sure that any version has succeeded at high levels.


----------



## Jer (Aug 16, 2022)

- Moving from 3 core books to 2, with the encounter building and magic items combined with the Monster Manual into a single book.  A Dungeon Master book can come along chock full of optional rules and DMing advice but move all of the "required material" for a DM to run the game into a single book.

- Getting rid of ability score saving throws in favor of something that isn't 6 saving throws just to have one for each ability score.

Those are the ones that come off the top of my head at least.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 16, 2022)

My input is that I want a 9th level spell called “Pie in the Sky.”  I don’t know what it does yet, but it’s got to be something awesome.


----------



## Mezuka (Aug 16, 2022)

Remove all feats, ASI and 90% of class powers from the PHB. PC become awesome with the magical items and artifacts they find during their adventures. Put feats, ASI and more class powers in an Advanced D&D books. Letting the DM and players choose which type of game they want. It would be more modular.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Aug 16, 2022)

Shardstone said:


> Backgrounds with feats.



That's coming.

For me:
getting rid of ability scores and going to modifiers instead


----------



## Shardstone (Aug 16, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'm not sure that any version has succeeded at high levels.



I'm hoping for a miracle.


----------



## Mezuka (Aug 16, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> My input is that I want a 9th level spell called “Pie in the Sky.”  I don’t know what it does yet, but it’s got to be something awesome.


----------



## rooneg (Aug 16, 2022)

Shardstone said:


> Backgrounds with feats.



Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked to see that in 5.5e. They're already showing up in Spelljammer and will almost certainly be in the new Dragonlance book, so it's not really like they consider them incompatible with the current game.


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 16, 2022)

Oh, yes... Psionics and new spells.

Also different spell lists for different classes with -way- more uniqueness and less overlap. A real -difference- in how the magic feels based on which class or source the magic is coming from, too.

Also basically all of Level Up, in general, if I'm honest.

Rare spells, every class getting mechanics for every pillar, journey system...


----------



## beancounter (Aug 16, 2022)

Psionics with 1E mechanics.


----------



## Shardstone (Aug 16, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> Oh, yes... Psionics and new spells.
> 
> Also different spell lists for different classes with -way- more uniqueness and less overlap. A real -difference- in how the magic feels based on which class or source the magic is coming from, too.
> 
> ...



Yes, MUCH MORE unique spells for classes, PLEASE. Sorcerer only has chaos bolt?????????????????


----------



## Cadence (Aug 16, 2022)

Caps the power level at about the current level 10... and spreads it over about 30 levels of advancement, with rules for gradually adding feats or the like if the campaign keeps going. 

(Pretty sure I'm not getting that).


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 16, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Caps the power level at about the current level 10... and spreads it over about 30 levels of advancement, with rules for gradually adding feats or the like if the campaign keeps going.
> 
> (Pretty sure I'm not getting that).




Oh one can only dream, though.

Flatter curve, slower progression.  Maybe I'm misremembering 1980, but I felt like gaining levels was a long slog, and a 10th level character was a real achievement. Both for time invested, and not dying.


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 16, 2022)

Shardstone said:


> Yes, MUCH MORE unique spells for classes, PLEASE. Sorcerer only has chaos bolt?????????????????



You know what might be awesome for Sorcerers? Raw Powers.

Rather than having specific spells, they pick damage types and ways to wield. And as they grow in power they get to unlock increasing steps of power, like more damage or bigger AoEs or different kinds of AoEs and then also give them utility functions that they can get and build up in different ways...

Like how Level Up does Eldritch Blast, but do a whole -class- built around that. Not casting spells like a Wizard, but straight WIELDING MAGIC itself.

Also make them Constitution Casters.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 16, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> You know what might be awesome for Sorcerers? Raw Powers.
> 
> Rather than having specific spells, they pick damage types and ways to wield. And as they grow in power they get to unlock increasing steps of power, like more damage or bigger AoEs or different kinds of AoEs and then also give them utility functions that they can get and build up in different ways...
> 
> ...



Really focusing on that "unbridled magical energy" part of the sorcerer would be pretty cool.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 16, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?



4e base with some 2e balance and some 5e ideas.

everyone starts with 3hd and only gets new HD at odd levels (on even levels they get +1/+2/+3 hp like after 9th level in 2e) and you never get con bonus to Hp... healing remade to 'spend a HD' and 'heal as if you spent a hd' with every HD spent getting your con mod to hp healed. 

Break fighter and wizard up... fighter into 3 classes warlord fighter and magus, mage into 4 warmage Seeer beguiler and shaper

bring back teh idea that not all clerics get all spells... call it spheres or domians but make it a small list of all then deity/subclass choices

every class has a simple build option and a complex build option. 

all classes get the warlock treatment of 2 subclasses 1 at 1st 1 at 3rd

race gives cool extra's but not stat mods... default is array with optional point buy or rolling

backgrounds give bonuses like feats but not just free feats 

races have options as they level to take more advanced racial abilities instead of class features

all classes can swap abilities in some way (I like the 4e feats but maybe something else) so every 9th level character can in theory have the sam level of power and number of choices


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 16, 2022)

Wizards: Spells
Clerics: Invocations
Druids: Primalism
Bards: Songs and Leitmotifs
Warlocks: Spells, but Evil
Sorcerers: Raw Magic
Psions: Psionics

And then make them all different.

Like... Wizard/Warlock Spell entries:

*Acid Splash*
Conjuration Cantrip  
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: VS
Duration: Instantaneous

Cleric Invocations:

*Cure Wounds*
1st-Circle Restoration 
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Requirements: Holy Symbol, Prayer

Druid Primalism:

*Thorn Whip*
The Green Cantrip 
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Implements: Strip of Vine or Leather

Bard Leitmotifs:

*Vicious Mockery*
Humiliation Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V

Different "Schools" for different classes. Different requirements, components, implements, things like that. Whole separate lists that give them more flavor...

And then you cast "Detect Magic" and you find some "Storm Magic" and know it wasn't a Wizard who put the spell into effect, but a Druid. Or a "Vengeance Effect" and know it was a Cleric. Also gives different casters things to talk about as the Wizard tries, in vain, to categorize everything the Druid or Cleric or Bard does in terms of the eight schools of magic they were taught... Meanwhile the Sorcerer laughs and talks about how pure magic is just the energy of the universe that -some- people can manipulate directly, rather than relying on chants and wiggling fingers.

Yes. It -is- needlessly complex from a certain perspective. Why do you ask?


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 16, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> Remove all feats, ASI and 90% of class powers from the PHB. PC become awesome with the magical items and artifacts they find during their adventures. They could put feats, ASI and more class powers in an Advanced D&D books. Letting the DM and players choose which type of game they want. It would be more modular.



This!  This with bells on!

Pie in the sky, I want to see D&D move away from complex character building to specific visions and towards diegetic character growth through play.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Aug 16, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> This!  This with bells on!
> 
> Pie in the sky, I want to see D&D move away from complex character building to specific visions and towards diegetic character growth through play.



This: get most of the your race/class features are low-level, then gain more use of them as you level up. 

No way I'm waiting 9 levels to avoid difficult natural terrain when I'm a damn ranger! 14 level to hide as a bonus action!?


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 16, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> This: get most of the your race/class features are low-level, then gain more use of them as you level up.
> 
> No way I'm waiting 9 levels to avoid difficult natural terrain when I'm a damn ranger! 14 level to hide as a bonus action!?



Yea, exactly this.  Leveling gives you some more hit points and a few points of proficiency bonus, maybe some stat increases.  Everything else you gain is from the magic items you find (or build) and the NPCs you befriend.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 16, 2022)

Better or any real support for running chases (similar to Hot Pursuit), crafting, aerial combat (facing!), naval combat, mass combat (bring back Battlesystem in some form), and dominions and dynastic play.  Support for natural blessings and curses.  Support for divine intervention.  Support for holy sites, holy days, astrology, and magically tainted areas or nodes of power.   Support for spirits, shamanism, and animism.   Support for horror and madness.   Disease and injury support.   Support for 'man vs. nature' scenarios.  Support for fumbles, spell fumbles, and stunts.   Rebalance win button spells.  Truly useful religious supplements (see Book of the Righteous).  Exploration as a true pillar of play.  Functional guidelines for running social challenges/encounters.  Reduced number inflation with play as the goal of play and not leveling as goal of play.

Return D&D to it's roots as a world simulation and stop trying to assume what game is going to happen at the table and just support the game you think I'm going to play or want to play.  Let my table decide where the focus of play is.  Let my decide what the difficulty and tier is going to be.  Sell me minigames that extend the game.  Stop selling alternative chargen as the focus of what your rules offer.

It often makes me really wonder what play at some of these designers tables is like.  Are their players so tame and lacking in creativity and novel desires that they really think they are offering functional rules?  I feel like I have to write a couple of pages of house rules after practically every session because of the huge areas that players want to explore that the game system doesn't cover, and that is true of actually expansive rules sets and not just the overly narrow "the game is about chargen and combat" rules of 4e and 5e.


----------



## overgeeked (Aug 16, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?



I want the game to be one page long. That's it. I want it to be mostly free-form with a few bits of mechanics to have some structure and dice when necessary. Anything more than that just leads to arguments, rules lawyers, and power gamers.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 16, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?




An edition change in which the fans _don't_ use it as an excuse to be complete jerks to each other.


----------



## Stormonu (Aug 16, 2022)

(Actually, I don't want a 6E, but if it were up to me...)

Return of negative ability mods to race so modifiers balance out to 0.
Hit point bloat gone - after 9th level, you only get your Con modifier to HP gain; high-level monsters have much less HP.
The game only covers going up to 15th level.  Seperate book for the likes of 16th to 30th.
Saving throws and Skills use the whole ability score instead of just the modifier, so there's an actual difference between the likes of a 14 and a 15.
A one-book version of the game that combines PHB + DMG + MM.
My homebrew becomes the default world.  Failing that, Greyhawk.
A built in fighter/magic-user style class (Battlemage)
Boxed set versions of all the old campaign worlds, similar to the Spelljammer format (drop the adventure book, make it a rulebook with mechanics, a monster book and add a travelogue that details the campaign world.
The return of 32/64 page modules, with two yearly hardcover campaign length adventures.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 16, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> This: get most of the your race/class features are low-level, then gain more use of them as you level up.
> 
> No way I'm waiting 9 levels to avoid difficult natural terrain when I'm a damn ranger! 14 level to hide as a bonus action!?




The problem I see with this...because I encounter it when I'm homebrewing stuff...is that it can feel like ALL of the abilities are intrinsic to the class.  So you front-load it and...then what?

Two options I sometimes use:
1) The abilities start off weaker and get stronger at higher level.  This works, but can feel uninspired when you don't get 'new' stuff just 'improved' stuff.
2) Give the class a list of options, and you choose one from the list at various levels.  E.g. battlemaster maneuvers or sorcerer metamagic.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 16, 2022)

Celebrim said:


> Return D&D to it's roots as a world simulation and stop trying to assume what game is going to happen at the table and just support the game you think I'm going to play or want to play.  Let my table decide where the focus of play is.  Let my decide what the difficulty and tier is going to be.  Sell me minigames that extend the game.  Stop selling alternative chargen as the focus of what your rules offer.



I really like this articulation.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 16, 2022)

Umbran said:


> An edition change in which the fans _don't_ use it as an excuse to be complete jerks to each other.



I said a new edition of D&D, not a new edition of humans.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 16, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I said a new edition of D&D, not a new edition of humans.




You said _PIE IN THE SKY_!  I want my pie!


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 16, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Caps the power level at about the current level 10... and spreads it over about 30 levels of advancement, with rules for gradually adding feats or the like if the campaign keeps going.
> 
> (Pretty sure I'm not getting that).




I thought I would be the only one saying I would like 30 levels instead of 20.

I'm aware that 4th Edition was an outlier with that, but I think it helped to flatten out the power curve.


----------



## beancounter (Aug 16, 2022)

I'd like to see warlocks get the ability to upcast beyond 5th level.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 16, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> The problem I see with this...because I encounter it when I'm homebrewing stuff...is that it can feel like ALL of the abilities are intrinsic to the class.  So you front-load it and...then what?



Not to be flippant, but you play and see what happens.

It's tough to articulate because there aren't really a ton of system to compare it to, but I want a D&D where your farmboy doesn't get Extra Attack because he hit 5th level and is a fighter, he gets Extra Attack because he helped the son of a famous swordsmaster and the swordsmaster agrees to teach him his techniques.


----------



## payn (Aug 16, 2022)

I want crit threat ranges and damage multipliers back. Alignment mechanics that are not tied to classes specifically.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 16, 2022)

payn said:


> I want crit threat ranges and damage multipliers back.



Mmm... swinginess. I love the "oh crit!" feeling, which is probably why I prefer low levels.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 16, 2022)

No Wizards or any of the baggage and limitations they and their stupid niche protection bring to the game.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Aug 16, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Not to be flippant, but you play and see what happens.
> 
> It's tough to articulate because there aren't really a ton of system to compare it to, but I want a D&D where your farmboy doesn't get Extra Attack because he hit 5th level and is a fighter, he gets Extra Attack because he helped the son of a famous swordsmaster and the swordsmaster agrees to teach him his techniques.



I call this: Character progression vs Class Progression, in terms of features acquisition. You have a bunch of features when you start your career. The rest of on the features comes from the adventuring itself (magic items, boons, charms) or from developing proficiency (better skills, more uses of starting features etc)


----------



## Shadowedeyes (Aug 16, 2022)

I mean, something that I 'want' in a kneejerk decision? No Gishes or Artificers. 

I don't actually want that because it would be a bad idea to do so for the game as a whole, and quite a few of my friends would be disappointed. I'll try to come up with some more things I actually think would be good rather than simply things I personally dislike to post about.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 16, 2022)

New setting books with updates for what's been going on over the past few decades would be nice.  If we are contractually obligated to play in the Forgotten Realms, about starting with Cormyr or Raven's Bluff instead of the Sword Coast?

More strictly DM-facing content, to help new and old DM's alike become better at their craft.

A definitive answer for whether D&D is low fantasy or high fantasy, and design that builds off of that, instead of trying to have it both ways.

And if D&D isn't low fantasy, bring back magic items!  None of this "optional content" or "three attunements" nonsense!  Actual guidelines for "by level X, characters could have Y items"!

I *want *my high level characters to have fantastic bling that gives them new powers and abilities!  Rods of Lordly Might, Helms of Brilliance, and Rings of Regeneration for all!


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 16, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Not to be flippant, but you play and see what happens.
> 
> It's tough to articulate because there aren't really a ton of system to compare it to, but I want a D&D where your farmboy doesn't get Extra Attack because he hit 5th level and is a fighter, he gets Extra Attack because he helped the son of a famous swordsmaster and the swordsmaster agrees to teach him his techniques.




Oh, sure, I love that. But...it doesn't feel like D&D and I don't think it would ever happen.

Of course, this is the "Pie in the Sky" thread, so I guess it's within bounds.


----------



## overgeeked (Aug 16, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Not to be flippant, but you play and see what happens.
> 
> It's tough to articulate because there aren't really a ton of system to compare it to, but I want a D&D where your farmboy doesn't get Extra Attack because he hit 5th level and is a fighter, he gets Extra Attack because he helped the son of a famous swordsmaster and the swordsmaster agrees to teach him his techniques.



Based on your description, you'd absolutely love Index Card RPG. It's a d20 game that functions exactly this way. Everything, including spells, are treated as things you pick up from adventuring rather than intrinsic traits.


----------



## payn (Aug 16, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> And if D&D isn't low fantasy, bring back magic items!  None of this "optional content" or "three attunements" nonsense!  Actual guidelines for "by level X, characters could have Y items"!



PF2 playtest had Cha mod per magic items you could have running at a time. I loved it, the other playtesters clearly hated it   


James Gasik said:


> I *want *my high level characters to have fantastic bling that gives them new powers and abilities!  Rods of Lordly Might, Helms of Brilliance, and Rings of Regeneration for all!



Im with you as long as we get rid of +x weapons and armor. I want cool magic items that do more than provide necessary number boosts.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 16, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I call this: Character progression vs Class Progression, in terms of features acquisition. You have a bunch of features when you start your career. The rest of on the features comes from the adventuring itself (magic items, boons, charms) or from developing proficiency (better skills, more uses of starting features etc)



Yea, I'm formalizing a lightweight 5e hack for my next game that pretty much works like that.  1st level, you get a race, a background, a 1d8 Hit Die, simple weapons, light armor, and 3 feats, and that's it.  Everytime you level, you gain a Hit Die and another feat.  (Proficiency bonus as normal)  You can either pick a feat from the books, or you can work with the DM to come up with a feat-like ability.  Every feat MUST be tied to something your character accomplished within the story.  

Everything else the character gains must be an item or boon that is found or crafted within the story.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 16, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Based on your description, you'd absolutely love Index Card RPG. It's a d20 game that functions exactly this way. Everything, including spells, are treated as things you pick up from adventuring rather than intrinsic traits.



Yea, I've looked at a few other systems that run this way.  Knave and Old School Stylish in the OSR space, for example, and Index Card RPG.


----------



## Professor Murder (Aug 16, 2022)

Abandoning the existing schools of magic and coming up with say six clear schools.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 16, 2022)

payn said:


> PF2 playtest had Cha mod per magic items you could have running at a time. I loved it, the other playtesters clearly hated it
> 
> Im with you as long as we get rid of +x weapons and armor. I want cool magic items that do more than provide necessary number boosts.



I concur, there's not a lot of reason for numeric boosts.  A few I'm ok with, like Bracers of Defense being equal to some kind of armor, or Gauntlets of Dexterity or Girdles of Giant Strength, but +1 magic swords can do die in a fire.  I'd much rather see magic weapons with neat abilities, like the old Frost Brand or Flametongue.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 16, 2022)

An end to plain +X items has been one of my dreams since I first started DMing and felt shame giving one out instead of a _magic_ item.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 16, 2022)

payn said:


> Im with you as long as we get rid of +x weapons and armor. I want cool magic items that do more than provide necessary number boosts.




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

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

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

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

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

So you are stuck I think with trying to create flavor for what is at the bottom just +2 swords and push button spell dispensers.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 16, 2022)

Professor Murder said:


> Abandoning the existing schools of magic and coming up with say six clear schools.



I almost want something more akin to the Mage system in old world of darkness for schools


----------



## Seramus (Aug 16, 2022)

More support for the Exploration and Social Pillars. _That includes martials getting some class feature choices to help, too._


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 16, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> An end to plain +X items has been one of my dreams since I first started DMing and felt shame giving one out instead of a _magic_ item.



I despite vanilla items.  I always give magic weapons and armor something special, even if it's just a quirk or minor drawback.  This has gotten me in trouble in the past, and it always bothered me that a +5 weapon was superior in every way to one that did a d6 cold damage.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 16, 2022)

Celebrim said:


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



Not every magic item needs to be a wand of wonder, but "+1d6 magical fire damage on a hit" is still better than "+1 sword".


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 16, 2022)

Celebrim said:


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



Yes. For years now.


Celebrim said:


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



I continue to dispute the continual accusations of information overload based on basic RPG elements.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 16, 2022)

I have played with cool magic items, quite a lot in AD&D.  As for creating flavor, this thing creates it's own flavor!  It slices, it dices, it juliennes fries!


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Aug 16, 2022)

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

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

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

There. I said it!


----------



## rooneg (Aug 16, 2022)

I want a PHB that's published in digest format. The game is fundamentally not that large, there's no reason the core rulebook can't fit that form factor.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 16, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Oh, speaking of Wizard and magic: ''Vancian'' casting references are so far removed from the current zeitgeist that it seems like an hipster move to keep it in the game.
> 
> Nobody coming for the first time in D&D in the past 20 years has had in mind: ''gosh, I hope my spellcasters work like the ones from Jack Vance's Dying Earth!''. Nobody.
> 
> ...



I know I shouldn't say it, but 4e Wizards didn't use Vancian style magic, and that was an actual complaint by those who didn't like the system.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 16, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I despite vanilla items.  I always give magic weapons and armor something special, even if it's just a quirk or minor drawback.  This has gotten me in trouble in the past, and it always bothered me that a +5 weapon was superior in every way to one that did a d6 cold damage.



I started out adding knock-on flavor effects and then just threw up my hands and deleted them and the 3x requirement that an item be +X before having a real magical effect. Life has been far more beautiful and basically none of us use them anymore except the new guy who just started and quickly figured out why we weren't excited to get a +2 sword.


----------



## Seramus (Aug 16, 2022)

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


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 16, 2022)

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

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


----------



## Mezuka (Aug 16, 2022)

RangerWickett said:


> I want combat to feel more like a fighting game -- by which I mean more active defense instead of simply hoping your opponent rolls lower than your AC. You would have parries and counters as reactions, or perhaps different types of defenses you choose on your turn that will force your opponent to change up tactics instead of just doing 'attack' over and over.
> 
> But I want that only if it's done in a way that doesn't slow the game down.



That is what Steve Jackson wanted after trying D&D for the first time. He created Melee, later GURPS.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Aug 16, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I know I shouldn't say it, but 4e Wizards didn't use Vancian style magic, and that was an actual complaint by those who didn't like the system.



I think it was more in terms of spell recovery pacing (encounter/daily) and restricted spell known, since the Wizard could no longer fill the niche of the guy with every spells in the world written in their spell book. 

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


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 16, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Oh, speaking of Wizard and magic: ''Vancian'' casting references are so far removed from the current zeitgeist that it seems like an hipster move to keep it in the game.
> 
> Nobody coming for the first time in D&D in the past 20 years has had in mind: ''gosh, I hope my spellcasters work like the ones from Jack Vance's Dying Earth!''. Nobody.
> 
> ...



... given the choice I'll take a mana pool.

Your core class ability shouldn't make you suck at existing for using it in a D&D style game.


RangerWickett said:


> I want combat to feel more like a fighting game -- by which I mean more active defense instead of simply hoping your opponent rolls lower than your AC. You would have parries and counters as reactions, or perhaps different types of defenses you choose on your turn that will force your opponent to change up tactics instead of just doing 'attack' over and over.
> 
> But I want that only if it's done in a way that doesn't slow the game down.



3e introduced "Players roll all dice" so instead of an attack roll coming at you, you'd roll with your armor bonus to beat their Attack DC.

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


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 16, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Oh, speaking of Wizard and magic: ''Vancian'' casting references are so far removed from the current zeitgeist that it seems like an hipster move to keep it in the game.
> 
> Nobody coming for the first time in D&D in the past 20 years has had in mind: ''gosh, I hope my spellcasters work like the ones from Jack Vance's Dying Earth!''. Nobody.
> 
> ...



I'd be happy if they arrived in 1999 in terms of magic systems.


----------



## payn (Aug 16, 2022)

Celebrim said:


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



I haven't because folks always choose a +2 breastplate over a cool magic breast plate that doesn't offer a math bump. Just bake the +2 to AC or attack into character progression already.

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


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Aug 16, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> Your core class ability shouldn't make you suck at existing



T'was more something like the Stamina pool of Dragon Age...
which has the benefit of being usable by casters AND martials.


----------



## Medic (Aug 16, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


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



Hello.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 16, 2022)

Seramus said:


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




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


----------



## Professor Murder (Aug 16, 2022)

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


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 16, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> T'was more something like the Stamina pool of Dragon Age...
> which has the benefit of being usable by casters AND martials.



Stamina Pool/Mana Pool
Tomato Potato.

Strain systems as I've seen them are basically "You cast a spell? Roll to avoid a level of Fatigue!"


----------



## Willie the Duck (Aug 16, 2022)

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

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

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

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

On to what others have said...


Shardstone said:


> Cutting out like at least 1/3rd of the spells, but none of the new ones, just from the original PHB. There's so many in there, and tbh, I really don't know why they exist in 5E. I'm not sure Simulacrum needs to be in the game anymore.
> 
> But it can stay, if they make the game fun for Dms to run at high levels.



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


Celebrim said:


> Better or any real support for running chases (similar to Hot Pursuit), crafting, aerial combat (facing!), naval combat, mass combat (bring back Battlesystem in some form), and dominions and dynastic play.  Support for natural blessings and curses.  Support for divine intervention.  Support for holy sites, holy days, astrology, and magically tainted areas or nodes of power.   Support for spirits, shamanism, and animism.   Support for horror and madness.   Disease and injury support.   Support for 'man vs. nature' scenarios.  Support for fumbles, spell fumbles, and stunts.   Rebalance win button spells.  Truly useful religious supplements (see Book of the Righteous).  Exploration as a true pillar of play.  Functional guidelines for running social challenges/encounters.  Reduced number inflation with play as the goal of play and not leveling as goal of play.
> 
> Return D&D to it's roots as a world simulation and stop trying to assume what game is going to happen at the table and just support the game you think I'm going to play or want to play.  Let my table decide where the focus of play is.  Let my decide what the difficulty and tier is going to be.  Sell me minigames that extend the game.  Stop selling alternative chargen as the focus of what your rules offer.



Bravissimo! Magnifico! Other words of adulation! 


Celebrim said:


> It often makes me really wonder what play at some of these designers tables is like.  Are their players so tame and lacking in creativity and novel desires that they really think they are offering functional rules?  I feel like I have to write a couple of pages of house rules after practically every session because of the huge areas that players want to explore that the game system doesn't cover, and that is true of actually expansive rules sets and not just the overly narrow "the game is about chargen and combat" rules of 4e and 5e.



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


Umbran said:


> An edition change in which the fans _don't_ use it as an excuse to be complete jerks to each other.



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


TwoSix said:


> Not to be flippant, but you play and see what happens.
> 
> It's tough to articulate because there aren't really a ton of system to compare it to, but I want a D&D where your farmboy doesn't get Extra Attack because he hit 5th level and is a fighter, he gets Extra Attack because he helped the son of a famous swordsmaster and the swordsmaster agrees to teach him his techniques.



Wouldn't that be any of the point-buys (GURPS, HERO, etc.) with training as a gate/point reducer? I love the idea, but class&level seem like rather hard to shake D&D-isms.


----------



## Shardstone (Aug 16, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> Things I want that have not been mentioned or I want to specify my own touches:
> 
> I want a two*-pronged game (either two distinct pillars, or a divergence at maybe 6th or 9th level. One column is where the warriors and rogue are/stay experienced everypersons who succeed by luck, brilliance, caginess and (mostly) realistic application of force and daring-do; paired with spellcasters who make illusionary vipers to scare away enemies or create 'pay hp to bypass' crowd control like walls of thorns or other relatively grounded magics. The other column is where there are spellcasters who can raise the dead, traverse the planes, turn back time, grant wishes, and such; they are alongside warriors who lop the tops off mountains, rogues who can leap to the clouds (and balance on them), bards who can serenade Death itself until it gives up a loved one, and so forth. *or more, with potential for middle grounds
> 
> ...



If the spells are made just cooler and more engaging, sure. But do we really need Simulacrum AND Clone? Couldn't we just combine those into one spell and move on with it?

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

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


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 16, 2022)

Professor Murder said:


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



The new edition will just be a laminated index card that says 'Ask Your DM'.

And some people will celebrate wildly in the streets.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 16, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> Wouldn't that be any of the point-buys (GURPS, HERO, etc.) with training as a gate/point reducer? I love the idea, but class&level seem like rather hard to shake D&D-isms.



Nope, because that would still make it much more player-facing than what I'm looking for.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 16, 2022)

Professor Murder said:


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



Well since this is an aspirational thread, that doesn't matter, does it?


----------



## Professor Murder (Aug 16, 2022)

Professor Murder said:


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



To clarify my feelings: This is a good thing.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 16, 2022)

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

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

Remove the bonus action requirement from dual wielding. 

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

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

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

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

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

Add artificer to core books.


----------



## schneeland (Aug 16, 2022)

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


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 16, 2022)

Medic said:


> Hello.



Is it me you're looking for?


----------



## beancounter (Aug 16, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Is it me you're looking for?



Cause I wonder where you are and I wonder what you do.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 16, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> 3e introduced "Players roll all dice" so instead of an attack roll coming at you, you'd roll with your armor bonus to beat their Attack DC.
> 
> I think that's mostly good enough to make it work? Maybe have different "Ways" to defend yourself. Whether it's big heavy armor + Con bonus to be durable, Light armor + Dex + Weapon Mod for parry, or Intelligence+Proficiency to use a mystical barrier.



The dream 6E system I was tinkering with started with the 4e-style "everything is an attack roll against a static defense" (instead of the mix of attacks and saves), but then gave PCs (and important enemies) a limited number of 'saves' per encounter, which work sort of like how Legendary Resistances work for monsters in 5e.

The idea is that each 'save' would make an attack miss you _and_ would give you some brief benefit. Like the 'Basic Combat' save would let you make an attack miss you, and then you could also do a combat maneuver against the attacker, like to shove or trip or grab them.

The 'Basic Will' save would let you make an attack against your will defense miss, and perhaps give you immunity to emotion and compulsion effects for a round as you get a moment of lucidity.

And then advanced stuff like 'Enraged Defiance' might be a mid-level berserker save that lets you stop an attack and then give you a bonus to damage and let you shove people really well for a round or something.

So because it combines a defensive shield and an offensive boost, you usually want to wait for an opportune moment to use it, not simply spam saves against the first attack.

In this way, HP would be like a passive defense -- your character is just naturally ducking and weaving to make sure that attacks that hit are only grazes, rather than serious wounds, and when you run out of HP, you take a solid hit that drops you.

And saves would be your active parries -- your limited-use ability to avert disaster and possibly turn the tide in your side's favor.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 16, 2022)

*Five Book Core System That Removes Most Spells And Magic Items From The Players Handbook And Dungeon Master's Guide Respectively.*

75% of the issues with D&D come from page space in core books.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 16, 2022)

Usability: look to products like Old School Essentials for how to make physical books useable at the table. Focus on layout: topics should be confined to one page or two page spreads. Important topics should not start in the middle of the page (I saw a flip through of the new starter set rulebook and the "combat" section started at the very end of a two page spread, continuing to the next page ).  Cross reference sections with page number references (that, yes, you have to update when you do a reprint.  That's your actual job).  Spell lists should have page numbers.  Organize spells by level for ease of use.  Make pdf "cheat sheets" available for free that can be printed out.  Design a character sheet that teaches new players with an intuitive design.  Instead of the backsplashes they put on every page, use color boxes to highlight important information.  In terms of writing, look at your word count, and reduce it by 20%.  No spell should need more than one paragraph of description.

Content: I too, would like to see all the core rules in one book.  At least, combine the PHB and the DMG, and include a good handful of monster stat blocks in the book.  Information about setting up a game ("session 0," etc) and "running the game" should be in one core book.  The core can be simplified--perhaps material for levels 1-10.  Later books can expand on this: levels 11-20, spells 6th-9th, books with optional rules for dungeon masters, a book for world building and adventure creation, etc.

In sum, they might look to what is their best product in my opinion: the Young Adventure's Guides!  Nicely produced stitched-binding books with intuitive layout and good, succinct writing.  Questing Beast review here:


----------



## Reynard (Aug 16, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> *Five Book Core System That Removes Most Spells And Magic Items From The Players Handbook And Dungeon Master's Guide Respectively.*
> 
> 75% of the issues with D&D come from page space in core books.



I don't get what you are saying. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 16, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I don't get what you are saying. Can you elaborate?





Player's Handbook
How to make a PC
PC rules

Monsters Manual
 Monsters
Monster Templates

Dungeon Master's Guide
Stuff to be a DM

Equipment Catalogue
Exotic Weapons
Magic items
Tools uses
Gadgets
Maneuvers

Spell Whatever
All the spells

Only the most basic spells in the PHB and the most base magic items in the DMG. Shove them in their own books so spells lists can be expanded AND spells/item don't suck up PHB and DMG page space.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 16, 2022)

I am not paying for 5 books to Core any game.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 16, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I am not paying for 5 books to Core any game.



That's why It's pie in the sky

I'm sure that spells being 25% of the PHB is why so many things are missing, shortened, weaken, or trivialized in the book.

Then the EEPC comes out to add the spells the PHB is missing. 

Imagine if the PHB had *80 more pages to put most race, class, skill, equipment, and background stuff in it.*


----------



## Seramus (Aug 16, 2022)

beancounter said:


> Cause I wonder where you are and I wonder what you do.



Are you somewhere feeling lonely?
Or is someone loving you?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 16, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> That's why It's pie in the sky
> 
> I'm sure that spells being 25% of the PHB is why so many things are missing, shortened, weaken, or trivialized in the book.
> 
> ...



Delete the Wizard?

I'm trying to get a movement started.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 16, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Delete the Wizard?
> 
> I'm trying to get a movement started.




I bet if each person could delete their one least favorite thing we could have a really streamlined game at the end...


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 16, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I am not paying for 5 books to Core any game.



Buy 1 core book that presents a complete game.   Basically, the SRD with better presentation, more character options, and only a selection of most used spells/treasure/monsters.

Buy 2+ more optional books to expand the game in a particular direction:

Tier 3+4 play, with high level spells, and increased character options (prestige classes?), and high level magic items, advice for running high level games
Monster books with more info (tactics, lairs, lore), higher CR monsters, and specific thematic foci
Optional rules: crafting, strongholds, hirelings/sidekicks, pets and companions, low magic games, high magic games, etc.
World building and adventure creation - expands on basic advice in the core book
Books with character options

I think they were sort of trying to do this the past decade.  A good example would be the Saltmarsh book, that has all the rules for ship campaigns.  Does that need to be in the core book?  Probably not, since ship combat and underwater adventuring doesn't come up that much.  But it works well in an expansion book.

The advantage of this model is that people who are content with the "basic" game can get everything they need in one book, and the people who want a more "advanced" game can expand it.


----------



## not-so-newguy (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?
> 
> For me, I think they should abandon the 3 book format and instead go with a Rule Book that is relatively slim and focuses entirely on characters and the processes of play, which you then couple with either an adventure (of the scale of Rime of the Frostmaiden or whatever) OR a setting book (Eberron, Ravenloft, whatever) which has new subclasses and spells and whatever. On top of that, you can do Genre Books for everything from high fantasy to gothic horror (but these work just as well as setting books).
> 
> ...



The three alignment system with alignment being baked into play. 
Examples of "baked into play" 
spells that target creatures of certain alignment, class restrictions, a skill dedicated to the knowledge of a specific alignment (instead of alignment languages).


----------



## lingual (Aug 17, 2022)

More cowbell


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

lingual said:


> More cowbell



FREEBIRD!!!!


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?



Subclass roles, Warlord, actual martial/caster balance, Warlord, an official return of Skill Challenges, Warlord, better ritual rules, Warlord, more feats in terms of both number acquired and options to choose from (and separating feats from ASIs), Warlord, reworking hit dice so they're a limit on daily healing, Warlord, Avenger, Warlord, Shaman, Warlord...oh, and Warlord, can't forget that.

I don't, strictly speaking, want "4e mark 2, electric boogaloo." The ship has sailed on certain things in that regard. But I would very much have preferred...let's say "4.(3.5)e," if that makes sense, rather than the "3.75e with some bug fixes" that we actually got.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 17, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Subclass roles, Warlord, actual martial/caster balance, Warlord, an official return of Skill Challenges, Warlord, better ritual rules, Warlord, more feats in terms of both number acquired and options to choose from (and separating feats from ASIs), Warlord, reworking hit dice so they're a limit on daily healing, Warlord, Avenger, Warlord, Shaman, Warlord...oh, and Warlord, can't forget that.
> 
> I don't, strictly speaking, want "4e mark 2, electric boogaloo." The ship has sailed on certain things in that regard. But I would very much have preferred...let's say "4.(3.5)e," if that makes sense, rather than the "3.75e with some bug fixes" that we actually got.



As a person who only very lightly played 4e, what is the intense draw of the Warlord?


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> As a person who only very lightly played 4e, what is the intense draw of the Warlord?



In that light, how can you be a "Warlord" at 1st level...

Seems like something that should be a 3E Prestige class.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> As a person who only very lightly played 4e, what is the intense draw of the Warlord?



Warlord was a heavy tactics class with emphasis on positioning and sacrificing your actions to either buff/heal allies or to give allies actions.

For example, my favorite at-will was Wolfpack Tactics. It let me move an ally while I make an attack, positioning both of us into flanking positions, or getting them out of harm's way. And that was just one of my two at-wills.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 17, 2022)

Unpopular opinion:

I really, truly _don't _want a 6th Edition.  I'm barely lukewarm on a revised 5th Edition.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Warlord was a heavy tactics class with emphasis on positioning and sacrificing your actions to either buff/heal allies or to give allies actions.
> 
> For example, my favorite at-will was Wolfpack Tactics. It let me move an ally while I make an attack, positioning both of us into flanking positions, or getting them out of harm's way. And that was just one of my two at-wills.




In terms of combat things, is Paladin the closest in 5e?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

Cadence said:


> In terms of combat things, is Paladin the closest in 5e?



In the same way Mars is the closest thing to Earth, honestly. Maybe Paladin has some spells that can do warlord stuff, but them being spells and thus a sad, limited resource makes it not.

Thank you for not thinking the Battlemaster can even hold a sad, once or twice and encounter candle to Warlord though.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> In the same way Mars is the closest thing to Earth, honestly. Maybe Paladin has some spells that can do warlord stuff, but them being spells and thus a sad, limited resource makes it not.
> 
> Thank you for not thinking the Battlemaster can even hold a sad, once or twice and encounter candle to Warlord though.




I've been in a game or two where the paladin has regularly stepped up and taken blows for people or used actions to deflect damage.  I don't think I've been in one where anyone played a battlemaster...


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> As a person who only very lightly played 4e, what is the intense draw of the Warlord?



2 parts.

The ability to use the mental parts of combat
The ability to invoke the support side of combat
Inspiration, Tactics, Bravery, Resourcefulness, Team Play, Insight

Basically the abilty to use Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma in battle without needed it converting it into magic much how people do it in real life.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> In the same way Mars is the closest thing to Earth, honestly. Maybe Paladin has some spells that can do warlord stuff, but them being spells and thus a sad, limited resource makes it not.
> 
> Thank you for not thinking the Battlemaster can even hold a sad, once or twice and encounter candle to Warlord though.



What about Bard?  Like a "college of war" wherein bardic inspiration can be used for the things you describe?


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> What about Bard?  Like a "college of war" wherein bardic inspiration can be used for the things you describe?



That might be a cool idea, but the Marshal/Warlord was a non-magical class that acted as a sort of force multiplier for their party.  In addition to giving allies free attacks and buffing attacks, they could do things like give the whole team free movement with Reorient the Axis, or even get your party to stop dying with Stand the Fallen.

I never really grokked why they weren't liked more, since I know there are people who want low/no magic games.  Sure, there were gripes about Warlord healing, but given the explanation of hit points has only ever partially been "physical injury", it's not really forcing the game to contort into unusual shapes.

Plus there are documented instances in the real world of military men rousing their subordinates from comas, shock, fatigue, and galvanizing them merely by barking orders authoritatively.


----------



## Undrave (Aug 17, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> In that light, how can you be a "Warlord" at 1st level...
> 
> Seems like something that should be a 3E Prestige class.



I don't think you should be a Wizard at 1st level.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

Warlord is probably not a great name for the class (even if it it's badass), but it's better than Marshal!


----------



## Raith5 (Aug 17, 2022)

I just want a 6e that is based on 5e and has a) more interesting monsters, b) more customization/design choices for PCs, c) something for my PC to spend gold on (masterwork items, magic items - I dont care if they are + or something more complex), and d) actually works well above 12th level.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 17, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Plus there are documented instances in the real world of military men rousing their subordinates from comas, shock, fatigue, and galvanizing them merely by barking orders authoritatively.



Yeah I was thinking of armies that used music and banners for inspiration and organization.  The moon druid uses spell slots for something other than spells, so perhaps other classes could do that too.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

Raith5 said:


> I just want a 6e that is based on 5e and has a) more interesting monsters, b) more customization/design choices for PCs, c) something for my PC to spend gold on (masterwork items, magic items - I dont care if they are + or something more complex), and d) actually works well above 12th level.



These are all changes 5e could still make.  But yeah, why fix the game when we can sell you all new core rulebooks?


----------



## Crimson Terrain (Aug 17, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> You know what might be awesome for Sorcerers? Raw Powers.
> 
> Rather than having specific spells, they pick damage types and ways to wield. And as they grow in power they get to unlock increasing steps of power, like more damage or bigger AoEs or different kinds of AoEs and then also give them utility functions that they can get and build up in different ways...
> 
> ...



Con casters really don't work well for what should be obvious reasons, but I'm on board for the rest.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> ... given the choice I'll take a mana pool.
> 
> Your core class ability shouldn't make you suck at existing for using it in a D&D style game.
> 
> ...



In the game I’m building, you defend with a skill, just like you attack with a skill. Which skill is largely up to the player, with GM able to veto absurd choices. It’s fun!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> What about Bard?  Like a "college of war" wherein bardic inspiration can be used for the things you describe?



So the real big thing that keeps this from happening is... the mechanics don't exist in 5e.

So going back to my example, we have Wolf Pack Tactics. That was an at-will deal. I could do that every round, whenever I wanted. You don't get to do cool things whenever you want in 5e if you're not a caster. It has to be based on points or dice or some other rest-resetting ability. The game wants to push you into spending at least half of each combat using a basic, barebones attack with the excuse being making a choice every round is too hard and too time-consuming.

But that's not all.

My other favorite was Commander's Strike. It just straight up let me spend my normal attack allowing an ally to make an attack with a bonus equal to my INT mod. Basically, I gave my buddy an extra attack with a bonus rather than trying myself. It's an ability to manipulate the action economy in a fairly complex way. They get this attack out of turn, meaning that they get to, for example, attack early should they have rolled poorly on initiative, or when it would be better for them to act instead of me.

Again, a mechanic that's not in this edition. There's no replacement for that.

I can't remember the name, but I then had an encounter power that let me switch places with an ally within a certain distance. I could do this in every encounter, and since it didn't draw AOO, it let me put myself in harm's way for an ally, set up flanking between two allies, or put enemies in harm's way by placing the casters in a strategic position. Again, screwing with positioning and action economy with an on-tap resource I'm not going to be missing from a battle.

Further on, there were paragon path abilities that used action points.

Action Points were like inspiration, but awesome. They gave you an additional action when popped and at the second tier (level 10+) you got a paragon path that let you get other bennies when you popped them. So I could do things like Wolf Pack Tactics to make an attack nd move an ally into position, then pop my action point, using Commander's Strike to let them attack. Then my inspiring action(I think that was the name) let another ally try to break out of an effect they were under or get temp HP.

That's a non-spellcaster just absolutely changing the momentum of a fight in one turn and it was so much fun and that's... not a thing anymore and likely never will be. And that's a shame.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> As a person who only very lightly played 4e, what is the intense draw of the Warlord?



Others have covered some of it, so this may seem a bit repetitious now, but it was all of the following:

Re-introducing the "leader of men" archetype. AIUI, before 2e, Fighters became legit landed nobility, with retainers, servants, and the responsibilities and rewards of being "lord/lady of the manor." 2e and 3e let that archetype lapse (until very late 3.5e with the Marshal.) Giving that archetype its own defined space was a popular move.
Offering a "cerebral" martial character. This means both letting players play martial characters who valued mental stats as much as (if not _more_ than) physical stats, but also giving players martial characters which emphasized tactical choices, deep and meaningful gameplay, and a party-wide perspective as opposed to a personal-focused perspective (which was an overall goal of 4e; the Warlord was just the most prominent demonstration of that goal.)
Making a support character exciting, even _daring_. Support-focused characters are generally not very entertaining, but there _are_ a lot of players out there who genuinely enjoy supporting other people, rather than being the ones doing the direct actions. The Warlord was the best example in 4e of a support-focused character that was genuinely a lot of fun to play. Part of this stems from the Warlord being a very _active_ support, whereas D&D has traditionally focused on _passive_ and _reactive_ support. Another part comes from 4e actually leveraging the Standard vs Minor action distinction to enable Leaders, like Warlords, to simultaneously do something impressive (usually Standard actions) _and_ do something to help out or patch up an ally (usually Minor actions.)
Diversifying the martial class-space. Have you ever noticed how we have three or four different variations on "arcane full-caster"? Each with half a dozen or more subtle variations? Yet we have basically _one_ "guy who fights with weapons." Warlord created diversity by emphasizing different _aspects_ of the martial class-space: instead of Fighter having to be all things to all people when it comes to martial classes, it could be _some_ things for all people, and Warlord (along with other classes) could fill other needs.
It was "new" in the way Dragonborn were "new." That is, _technically_, something like it had existed in late-3e, the Marshal class. But having it front-and-center, PHB1? That was different, and it caught attention. This also meant that, because it had been around from the beginning, it got a lot of pretty good support, and became very diverse toward the end of 4e's run (e.g. the "lazylord" became _one possible_ build path, though I personally favored Bravura, the "high-risk, high-reward" leadership style, kinda-sorta the "subclass" in 5e terms.)
Due to the combination of these effects, Warlords are iconic for 4e. They were quite popular while 4e was running, and their exclusion from 5e was a very noticeable..._choice_, to use a more neutral term than I normally would.



DND_Reborn said:


> In that light, how can you be a "Warlord" at 1st level...
> 
> Seems like something that should be a 3E Prestige class.



How can you be a "Paladin" at 1st level? How can you be a "Warlock"? How can you be a _Wizard_, someone who has to have completed _years_ of education and training before they could attain such a lofty rank! How can a mere _novitiate_ call upon the great miracles of the gods?!

The argument is specious. We allow for varying levels of "background training" or the like before a character actively appears in the narrative. And where we choose not to do that, we write our own explanation of what the class is--potentially even making an outright break with the implied flavor of the name. "Warlord," "Marshal," "Captain," they're labels, just as "Barbarian" is a label which does not literally mean "a person who does not speak Greek, so they just babble 'bar bar bar.'"

Plus, just try proposing the addition of a PrC. _Any_ PrC. Doesn't matter how you spin it. You'll get shouted down by folks who hated the 3e version (for good reason, 3e PrCs were _bad design_) and thus respond equally negatively to any proposed new ones. I would know. I tried. Even as just a trial balloon, even as literally just "if the issues could be fixed, would you consider this?", folks were near-unanimous, on multiple forums, that PrCs are _bad bad bad_ and should never _ever EVER_ be allowed to exist in 5e.



Cadence said:


> In terms of combat things, is Paladin the closest in 5e?



Not really. The fact it uses spells is a huge issue, same with Bard (the other primary "well isn't it just an X?" option.)

The community term for the brute mechanical function of the Warlord, or any other similar sort of thing, is "full Cleric replacement." That is, the Warlord could do everything the baseline Cleric could do through its class actions: it could heal (though not as well as a Cleric could), it could grant saves (ditto), it could buff (generally better than a Cleric would, especially for offense), and it could grant attacks (one of the best at doing so.) Notably, _raise dead_ was a ritual in 4e, which meant anyone could learn it; Clerics could get it inherently, to having Ritual Caster as a bonus feat, but a Warlord could easily pick up Ritual Caster and would spend exactly the same money a Cleric would in order to learn it. (Incidentally, this meant a Wizard could actually be even better at resurrecting the dead than a Cleric, as they got some rituals _for free_, unlike most other classes that get the Ritual Caster feat as a starting feature.)

The Warlord was an entirely non-spellcasting character. She might be doing things that _in our world_ would be outright supernatural, but _in D&D_ are pretty much par for the course (even in 5e, consider Fighter self-healing). She didn't "shout wounds closed"--but she could help her allies survive_ shock_ long enough to actually recover, so long as they still had some gas left in the proverbial tank. (Which, believe it or not, is actually more similar to real-life healing than D&D usually is. Many deaths from injuries would have been preventable if the shock those injuries caused had been addressed fast enough. That's one part of why CPR and AEDs are so important; they can keep a person alive through the period of shock, allowing medical treatment to restore homeostasis, and thus saving a life.)


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 17, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> What about Bard?  Like a "college of war" wherein bardic inspiration can be used for the things you describe?



As noted above, (a) still a spellcaster, and (b) getting to do something cool at most 5 times per short rest is...a little iffy, given the utility of 4e At-Will and Encounter powers. It might, barely, work for the early levels, given the whole "you have 1 encounter and 1 daily" sort of thing, but the comparison will really start to show its faults around roughly 5th-6th level (if we take the "1 5e level = 1.5 4e levels" convention, that would be roughly level 8-9 in 4e), where characters now have multiple encounter and daily powers, and Bardic inspiration is still stuck at 5/short rest _if_ you took +2 Cha at level 4.

Edit: And if you rebuild a Bard that doesn't use spellcasting, replacing it with some other mechanic, and which has unique and powerful Bardic Inspiration uses...why even keep calling it a "Bard"? You've just totally rewritten the class, you may as well just _call_ it Warlord (or Captain or Marshal or whatever) and be done with it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

A non-caster bard that used the inspirational power of music (remember when bards played music?) would be awesome, actually.

Ongoing effects that are altered or supplemented by chord changes, breakdowns, choruses, crescendos, etc...


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 17, 2022)

So I kinda wound up writing a 2,052 word article for combat system variant rules options that I might pitch to the Gatepass Gazette...

So thanks, everyone! S'fun stuff.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

A sacred cow I'd like to slay would be how Hit Dice are assigned to classes.  Hit points are, in part, the ability of a character to avoid serious injury due to skill, finesse, luck, danger sense, etc..

It strikes me, then, that melee classes that typically don't wear much armor should have higher Hit Dice to reflect the fact that they will take more damage due to being hit more often (due to lower AC).  Perhaps the Monk should have d12 Hit Die, and the Rogue have d10?

I'd argue for lowering Barbarians to d10 and Fighters and Paladins to d8 based on this paradigm as well.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Delete the Wizard?
> 
> I'm trying to get a movement started.



The Cleric goes first, AFAIC.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 17, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Psionics.
> 
> _looks at soulknife and psi warrior._
> 
> ...



Aberrant mind sorcerer with spell points variant, Subtle spell metamagic and Telekinetic feat.

/runs away!


----------



## Horwath (Aug 17, 2022)

HD d12, martial character, has total of 4 or 5 attacks per round at late levels, some subclasses have 1/3 casting(new spell levels every 5 class levels)

HD d10; half-casters/martials, has total of 2 or 3 attacks per round, new spell levels every 4 class levels

HD d8; 2/3 caster, has 1 or maybe 2 attack(depending on class/subclass), new spell levels every 3 class levels

HD d6; full caster, 1 attack, possibly 2 attacks from subclass, new spell levels every 2 class levels


----------



## Horwath (Aug 17, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> Remove all feats, ASI and 90% of class powers from the PHB. PC become awesome with the magical items and artifacts they find during their adventures. Put feats, ASI and more class powers in an Advanced D&D books. Letting the DM and players choose which type of game they want. It would be more modular.



so PHB is what, 20 pages max?

I'd buy that for a dollar


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?




I REALLY WANT the druids armor/shield restrictions to disappear, or be demoted to optional, as in "most druids...".

I have then to turn the question a bit around to answer properly... what I REALLY DON'T want and I am sure to get.

I really don't want a minor rules update. I'd rather have either non-rules updates only (such as more alternative character options, variants and narrative changes) or a completely new edition of the game with severe rules changes and non-backward-compatibility.

And I know that a minor rules update is exactly what we'll get.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 17, 2022)

balanced weapons table, with damage die categories for melee weapons;
1d3-1d4-1d6-1d8-1d10-1d12-2d6-2d8

base weapon; 1handed, simple, versatile for any non-light, non-finesse 1Handed weapon

*d8, 1Handed, versatile(d10)*

finesse, reduce damage die by one step

light, reduce damage die by one step

reach, reduce damage die by one step

thrown(40/120), reduce damage die by one step

martial weapon, increase damage die by one step

2Handed, increase damage die by two steps

Heavy, increase damage die by one step

some rule limitations;
Reach cannot be thrown,
2Handed cannot be thrown,
Light must be 1Handed,
Heavy must be 2Handed,


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 17, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I'd buy that for a dollar



I certainly wouldn't buy it for much _more_ than a dollar though. I can write something good enough at that point--or use the scads of _literally free_ options available online.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 17, 2022)

Undrave said:


> I don't think you should be a Wizard at 1st level.





EzekielRaiden said:


> How can you be a "Paladin" at 1st level? How can you be a "Warlock"? How can you be a _Wizard_, someone who has to have completed _years_ of education and training before they could attain such a lofty rank! How can a mere _novitiate_ call upon the great miracles of the gods?!



Wizard, Paladin, Warlock, etc. do not convey the same level of accomplishment _WAR_-*LORD* does IMO. Now FightingLeader is more ambiguous towards someone who isn't necessarily advanced in their field.

As for Wizard, calling them Mage or Magic-User would be fine with me, a Paladin might be a Crusader, a Warlock or Cleric might be a Devotee... If you feel THOSE names convey the same level of power Warlord does to me, suggest they should be changed also.

But hey, I don't care for the class concept, so I'll just leave it alone at this point. (Bows out.)


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 17, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> Oh, yes... Psionics and new spells.
> 
> Also different spell lists for different classes with -way- more uniqueness and less overlap. A real -difference- in how the magic feels based on which class or source the magic is coming from, too.
> 
> ...



I basically agree with @Steampunkette , but perhaps a little less options than LevelUp (I can do without separating exhaustion into strife and fatigue, and a few other things) and a few more things not in level up:

3-4 base classes and everything else is a subclass
Armor w/ DR
Vitality points 
Clear DMG suggestions / variants / options to adapt to a particular genre / playstyle (the modular options often discussed)
Update encounter guidelines that discuss Party composition and playstyle, and a revision of the challenge naming convention and descriptions (so deadly = deadly)
Monster roles


----------



## Horwath (Aug 17, 2022)

Exhaustion as -1 penalty per level instead of binary disadvantage on more and more rolls:

per level of exhaustion:
-1 to all attack, saves and ability checks
-1 to AC and all DCs
-5ft to speed(min of 5ft speed)


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 17, 2022)

Something closer to 4e: 

possibly replacing squares/feet with more abstract distances: e.g., close, near, far, zones, etc.
Defenses instead of Saving Throws
Separating spells between Cantrips, Spells, and (out of combat) Rituals
Rituals requiring skill checks, multiple people, or healing surges (see below) to perform
Healing Surges instead of Hit Dice - but rename that to Vitality/Energy or something
Warlord/Marshal
Psionics: a forethought part of design rather than an afterthought
Class "power sources" that are thematically tied to the D&D multiverse: e.g., martial, arcane, primal, divine, psionic, etc.
Mechanically interesting monster design that is easy to run for GMs that amounts to more than HP bloat
Per Encounter/Scene-based design rather than Per Day/Long Rest-based design.

I would also like spell levels cleaned up a bit so they are a little more user-friendly. By that I mean that spells go from 0 to 9th level, which is not intuitive across 20 levels of gameplay for most new players UNLESS you are so used to D&D's oddities. So I would potentially like to see spells go from 1st to 10th level OR have spells cap at 5th level and everything above 5th level spells are Rituals.


----------



## Scott Christian (Aug 17, 2022)

A default setting that isn't everything.

&

An official D&D snack sold with the purchase of each book.


----------



## Scott Christian (Aug 17, 2022)

Shardstone said:


> Yes, MUCH MORE unique spells for classes, PLEASE. Sorcerer only has chaos bolt?????????????????



Attached on to this, not having spells do as much damage. More versatile and interesting - yes. More damage than a sword - no.


----------



## Scott Christian (Aug 17, 2022)

Promise - my last one.

DMG's optional rule: Allowing befriended NPCs, books, or exotic encounters to teach you unique feats.


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 17, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> I basically agree with @Steampunkette , but perhaps a little less options than LevelUp (I can do without separating exhaustion into strife and fatigue, and a few other things) and a few more things not in level up:
> 
> 3-4 base classes and everything else is a subclass
> Armor w/ DR
> ...



At least one of these is in the article I wound up writing last night because of Ranger Wickett... He's also read the article.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 17, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> At least one of these is in the article I wound up writing last night because of Ranger Wickett... He's also read the article.



Interesting, which one!?


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 17, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Interesting, which one!?



I can't reveal what's in the article 'cause it hurts the chances of a pitch getting accepted. But one is in there!


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 17, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> I can't reveal what's in the article 'cause it hurts the chances of a pitch getting accepted. But one is in there!



No worries!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 17, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 2 parts.
> 
> The ability to use the mental parts of combat
> The ability to invoke the support side of combat
> ...



concepts that 5e just can't do without spell casting... inspiring leader, tactical support character, and complex resource management martial characters... the Warlord is great for all of that.

Non magic healing in a game where hp are not supposed to be physical meat seems like a grandslam, but I know people were VERY upset that if they sunk 4 arrows right into your chest how could you heal without magic (not with standing that 4 arrows in your chest should at least slow you down if not drop you)


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> concepts that 5e just can't do without spell casting... inspiring leader, tactical support character, and complex resource management martial characters... the Warlord is great for all of that.
> 
> Non magic healing in a game where hp are not supposed to be physical meat seems like a grandslam, but I know people were VERY upset that if they sunk 4 arrows right into your chest how could you heal without magic (not with standing that 4 arrows in your chest should at least slow you down if not drop you)



People have a hard time grokking the idea that if you take hit point damage from four arrows, they are *not* sticking in you- they missed or only grazed you!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> A non-caster bard that used the inspirational power of music (remember when bards played music?) would be awesome, actually.
> 
> Ongoing effects that are altered or supplemented by chord changes, breakdowns, choruses, crescendos, etc...



check out (my daily pitch for it this would seem) The Middle earth 5e book for a martial non magic bard....

edit: it's called Warden


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 17, 2022)

The abolishment of ability scores. And I don't mean "get rid of the score and just use the modifier." I mean no score, no modifier, no nothing. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are excised from the game, root and branch. Everything is folded into a single proficiency bonus, and you either have it or don't.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

BTW, while I hate plugging the book constantly, Adventures in Rokugan has a nonmagical support class, the Courtier, that can do some very warlordly things with nothing but the power of words!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The Cleric goes first, AFAIC.



We need someone to fail utterly at combat healing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 17, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> People have a hard time grokking the idea that if you take hit point damage from four arrows, they are *not* sticking in you- they missed or only grazed you!



Yeah I had a DM years ago (but still 5e... just early 5e) that narrated a fight with a 5th level barbarian (well raging and taking half damage) as slicing open his throat, and ripping out his tendons... and shoving the sword clean through his chest... So the fight ended and I the cleric asked "Who needs healing?" and the barbarian player laughed "It depends cause I would except I am still over 3/4 my hp... but boy that description sounded like it had me dead..."   the DM got mad at us for 'not role playing how serious the damage was' from scimitars... so d6 maybe +1 or +2... to someone taking half damage, and got hit 3 or 4 times... even if we say 4 hits all for 7 damage (so 3 after half) that is 12hp... a 1st level barbarian is still up let alone a 5th level one.


----------



## Steampunkette (Aug 17, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> The abolishment of ability scores. And I don't mean "get rid of the score and just use the modifier." I mean no score, no modifier, no nothing. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are excised from the game, root and branch. Everything is folded into a single proficiency bonus, and you either have it or don't.



That... I don't like.

Because those things give us a mechanical basis to have different kinds of characters who are better or worse at different things than their compatriots. Take, for example, avoiding damage by dodging rather than relying on heavy armor to resist incoming damage or parrying attacks that come at you. Even using magic to protect yourself from people attacking you.

With strength, dexterity, constitution, and casting attributes we can make those different descriptions have a mechanical weight in the game which can help to reinforce the identity of the characters. Legolas dodges, Gimli resists, Aragorn parries, Gandalf uses magic. Y'know?

... yeah. I felt kinda dirty using LotR as my example, but it's one everyone knows...

As a designer I want more levers to play with, to base mechanics off of, to make things more interesting. And while it is a tightrope walk between too few and too many, I think attributes being removed would absolutely be too few.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yeah I had a DM years ago (but still 5e... just early 5e) that narrated a fight with a 5th level barbarian (well raging and taking half damage) as slicing open his throat, and ripping out his tendons... and shoving the sword clean through his chest... So the fight ended and I the cleric asked "Who needs healing?" and the barbarian player laughed "It depends cause I would except I am still over 3/4 my hp... but boy that description sounded like it had me dead..."   the DM got mad at us for 'not role playing how serious the damage was' from scimitars... so d6 maybe +1 or +2... to someone taking half damage, and got hit 3 or 4 times... even if we say 4 hits all for 7 damage (so 3 after half) that is 12hp... a 1st level barbarian is still up let alone a 5th level one.



Oof, yeah, I feel that.  I've played D&D for a very long time, and a lot of DM's seem to want to narrate every sword hit as being well, hit by a sword.  I remember in my 2e days, my highest level character was a Fighter (Gladiator kit) and due to magic, he got a Con of 19.  We would every so often switch off DM's in those days, so one day I was in a game run by the "grittier, more hardcore" DM.

We're being attacked by Orcs with spears, and he's decided (for whatever reason) that my character has offended the gods, and pretty soon I'm being attacked (somehow) by 10 of them in melee combat.  Every hit (and weirdly, they sure hit a lot for being Orcs) was described as a near fatal blow.

A good ways through the fight, he decides to ask me how many hit points I have, and seemed very put out when I said "67, why do you ask?".  He then asked to see my sheet, saw my maximum hit point total was over 100, and seemed upset for the rest of the adventure.

Afterwards, he got into an argument with the main DM about how he let the characters in his campaign get "super powered".  Never no mind that his personal character was a high level Fighter with a 19 Strength wielding _Blackrazor_, lol.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 17, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> People have a hard time grokking the idea that if you take hit point damage from four arrows, they are *not* sticking in you- they missed or only grazed you!




_Rhetorical question alert._

So a "critical hit" means your miss was really, really close and scared them out of twice as much vitality as a normal hit (aka normal miss that was close enough to effect things)?  And all poisoned weapons actually involve skin passing gasses to explain how they work without actually hitting?   And the sword of wounding keeps sucking vitality by making the target think it's being nearly missed again (like someone who saw a mosquito and now keeps imagining they're being bitten)?

_End Alert Zone_.

I don't know what I have a harder time imagining, hp damage being all wounds/injuries or never being wounds/injuries until the last one.

In any case, 6e specifying how damage should be narrated would sure deal with a number of regularly occurring thread topics!  Or at least change the posts to being about how much folks hate the new damage narration rule!  [I would have proposed one, here if there was one I knew of and liked  ].


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 17, 2022)

Cadence said:


> _Rhetorical question alert._
> 
> So a "critical hit" means your miss was really, really close and scared them out of twice as much vitality as a normal hit (aka normal miss that was close enough to effect things)?  And all poisoned weapons actually involve skin passing gasses to explain how they work without actually hitting?   And the sword of wounding keeps sucking vitality by making the target think it's being nearly missed again (like someone who saw a mosquito and now keeps imagining they're being bitten)?
> 
> _End Alert Zone_.



I don't know what a good answer is. but in my Saturday game my artificer has about 100hps... if you hit him 6 times dead on with a spear or sword he should be SUPER dead... but 6 hits can be 6d8+6 (so 30ish damage) and that means I am somewhere aroung 70% fine... it just has to be hand waved sometimes

even an assassin assassinating me at this level with 1d4 hidden blade and 5d6 sneak attack +1 magic +4 dex and double dice is 2d4(6)+10d6(35)+5 damage... so 46 damage on average... not enough to have me at 1/2 hp let alone kill me


Cadence said:


> I don't know what I have a harder time imagining, hp damage being all wounds/injuries or never being wounds/injuries until the last one.
> 
> In any case, 6e specifying how damage should be narrated would sure deal with a number of regularly occurring thread topics!


----------



## delericho (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?



I'm actually pretty happy with the core of 5e, so I'd mostly be looking for small tweaks to that (but a lot of them). But where I think the game really needs an update is in the DMG and the MM.

For the MM, I'd mostly want to see the various monster tables taken out of the appendix in the DMG and reinserted here. I'd also want the "Monster Features" table from p280 of the DMG moved to the MM (and future monster books should include a similar table as standard).

The big thing, though, is that the monsters themselves need a thorough overhaul - too many of them are just big bags of hit points. And they should bring back the Minion/Elite/Solo split and the explicit monster roles from 4e. Oh, and get rid of all the fiddly little CRs, and instead give every monster a level range that they're considered appropriate against - so a goblin might be a "tier 1 minion" or whatever.

The DMG I would suggest needs a complete rewrite, and should be squarely aimed at DMs of middling ability - newbie DMs should be pointed to the Starter Set and/or tutorial videos on the website, while experienced DMs don't need the help so much. But for mid-level DMs they should aim to provide tools to reliable craft decent encounters/adventures/campaigns/settings in various styles.

So I'd start at the lowest level there: the encounter. This one basically follows the 4e model - an encounter has a number of slots, which are then filled with a set of monsters of an appropriate level. Add advice to include a mix of monster roles, on the use of minions, solos, etc, and adding terrain and situational effects, and you have something workable.

For adventures, I would suggest the system should build these in a similar way to PC construction - where PCs are built by making some big decisions (race, class, background) and then some customisations (skills, equipment), so adventures would have a setting (dungeon, urban, wilderness, planes), a types (treasure hunt, mystery, escape), and a level range.

For each of the settings you then have a bunch of sub-settings (so wilderness might be forest, or mountains, or jungle, or whatever). For each of _these_ I would present a 2 or 4 page spread gathering together some dedicated rules, suggested terrain features, suggested monsters (doubling as a random encounter table), and so on.

That way, a mystery set on a river boat ("Death of the Nile") has some key similarities but also key differences to an escape set in a sinking ship ("The Poseidon Adventure"), and also some _different_ key similarities and differences to a mystery set in an isolated mansion ("And Then There Were None").

Oh, and don't forget to include _loads_ of example traps, plot complications, escalations, twists, and so on and so forth. These are basically equivalent to spells that the DM uses at various times, so they demand a significant page count be dedicated to them.

The repeat much the same structure for campaigns and settings.

(I would then finish up with a fairly long chapter on high-level adventures, on the grounds that this may well be the _only_ support those will ever get, and then retain the DM's Workshop more or less as it is. Random treasure and the magic item descriptions would be moved to a very long appendix.)


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

No one really says it's never wounds, just never telling wounds. Lots of bruises and lacerations, impact strain from clashing weapons and over extension, grit in the eyes -- just not being constantly flayed alive by every d6 you take.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 17, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> People have a hard time grokking the idea that if you take hit point damage from four arrows, they are *not* sticking in you- they missed or only grazed you!



It's not surprising that when the rules say you get "hit" and take "damage," people have trouble with the claim that you were not hit and didn't take any damage.

That has always been the problem with hit points: All of the terminology used throughout the game reinforces the idea that they are primarily meat and losing them means physical injury. If they were called "defense points," and losing them was "defending" instead of "taking damage," no one would have a problem with the idea that you can lose them when an attack misses you.

But it's far too late to change the terminology now. So D&D is left with the same compromise it's had since 1E: Pay lip service to the idea that hit points are not meat, but minimize the number of situations where you actually _need_ that idea to make sense of what's going on.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

I'm just going to let the man speak for himself here.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 17, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> It's not surprising that when the rules say you get "hit" and take "damage," people have trouble with the claim that you were not hit and didn't take any damage.
> 
> That has always been the problem with hit points: All of the terminology used throughout the game reinforces the idea that they are primarily meat and losing them means physical injury. If they were called "defense points," and losing them was "defending" instead of "taking damage," no one would have a problem with the idea that you can lose them when an attack misses you.
> 
> But it's far too late to change the terminology now. So D&D is left with the same compromise it's had since 1E: Pay lip service to the idea that hit points are not meat, but minimize the number of situations where you actually _need_ that idea to make sense of what's going on.




I kind of wish they'd just say something like the picture resolution (or sigma field or whatever) just isn't fine enough to distinguish between a deep cut, shallow cut, scrape, graze, miss that made you exert, and whatever else.  

The only thing that feels like it would bother me is when all the "hits" are always the same.  (Both being continually sliced to ribbons and having no I'll effect really, and always passing out at zero solely from exhaustion seem odd to me).


----------



## Cadence (Aug 17, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I'm just going to let the man speak for himself here.
> View attachment 258000




Yup.  It's a big old mish-mash!


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 17, 2022)

Steampunkette said:


> That... I don't like.
> 
> Because those things give us a mechanical basis to have different kinds of characters who are better or worse at different things than their compatriots. Take, for example, avoiding damage by dodging rather than relying on heavy armor to resist incoming damage or parrying attacks that come at you. Even using magic to protect yourself from people attacking you.
> 
> ...



I don't object--at all!--to putting mechanical weight on such things. I just despise the way it's done in D&D, where we have these six numbers representing vaguely defined concepts which cascade down across a variety of unrelated mechanics.

I would much prefer a set of stand-alone traits--which might well use the feat mechanic--which offer narrowly defined effects. So Legolas might have the Evasive trait, which grants +5 to your AC when wearing light or no armor, and +2 when wearing medium armor. Gimli lacks this trait and wears plate armor. (As for Aragorn and Gandalf, parrying and using magic for defense already have mechanical representations--Defensive Duelist feat, fighter maneuvers, spells like _shield _and _mage armor_--which are separate from ability scores.)


----------



## jgsugden (Aug 17, 2022)

If I were WotC, and I were doing a new edition right now, I would:


Change little beyond the below.
Restore the idea of giving spell lists to monsters - but just highlight recommended spells instead of dumbing down the game.
Tweak the balance on a few feats, spells and subclasses.
Add psionics to the core of the game in a way that respects the origin of them in D&D
Add back in rules for 21st to 30th levels.
Add in more guidance on how to _design_ high level games
Make miniatures the default and theater of the mind the option (it is easier to go to theater of the mind).
Don't move _too_ far from the idea of violence being the solution to most problems.
Simplify the Cosmology.  Merge the Elemental Planes.  Merge the Abyss and the 9 Hells into a Single Plane with regions.  Merge all the Heavenly planes into a single plane with regions.
Make more fantasy beasts - a lot of monstrosities should just be beasts.  It doesn't have to "be / have been" real for it to be a beast.
Add wounds to the game - mechanical impairments caused by certain events such as going to 0 hps, being critically hit, or as part of special boss monster attacks.  The idea that a PC is either at full power or dead, with no middle ground for being hurt by an attack doesn't sit perfectly well with me.


----------



## ART! (Aug 17, 2022)

Spell levels and character levels being the same, so that when you get to 5th level as a wizard, for instance, you can now cast 5th level spells. You'd have to redistribute the spell lists into umpteen levels if you want to stick with capping classes at 20 levels, but there are other options (13th Age caps it at 10th level, easy-peasy).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> We need someone to fail utterly at combat healing.



Luckily, more interesting classes like the Bard, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, and even Sorcerer and Warlock with the right subclass, can take that role, and no one will miss the painfully boring cleric.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Luckily, more interesting classes like the Bard, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, and even Sorcerer and Warlock with the right subclass, can take that role, and no one will miss the painfully boring cleric.



You've convinced me. Delete the Cleric too. They're basically Warlocks with extra steps anyway.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> You've convinced me. Delete the Cleric too. They're basically Warlocks with extra steps anyway.



Huh.  How strange.  I never really thought the Cleric was a problem.  If there's a class I'd do away with, it'd be Paladin. Not because there's any problem with the class mechanically but just because "Crusading Priest" and "Paladin" are pretty much the same archetype, so having two different classes for them always felt odd to me.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Huh.  How strange.  I never really thought the Cleric was a problem.  If there's a class I'd do away with, it'd be Paladin. Not because there's any problem with the class mechanically but just because "Crusading Priest" and "Paladin" are pretty much the same archetype, so having two different classes for them always felt odd to me.



I just assumed the Paladin would already be deleted because it's 'cleric what is good with stabbing'.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 17, 2022)

One class: adventurer. Everything else is a feat.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> One class: adventurer. Everything else is a feat.



I like the cut of your jib, son. You're hired.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I like the cut of your jib, son. You're hired.



Well, that's the last thing I wanted. Dammit.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> One class: adventurer. Everything else is a feat.











						Adventurer by /u/aeyana
					

Adventurer by /u/aeyana - Created with GM Binder.




					www.gmbinder.com


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Well, that's the last thing I wanted. Dammit.



Shouldn't have shown you absolute monster chops at game design then.

Now if you'll follow me to HR. We'll be paying you in exposure.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 17, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'm not sure that any version has succeeded at high levels.



Relatedly, my pie in the sky = 6E E6 as core.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Well, that's the last thing I wanted. Dammit.



I think you can save yourself by replacing the word "Feat" with "Spam", and the words "Ability Score Improvement" with "Eggs And".


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 17, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Unpopular opinion:
> 
> I really, truly _don't _want a 6th Edition.  I'm barely lukewarm on a revised 5th Edition.




I'm 100% with you.  Although I have lots of little beefs with 5e, I think a full 6e would be more likely than not to move even further away from my own personal definition of optimal.  I like it better than any previous edition, which is about as much as I can realistically hope for.

I think it's mostly the people who want D&D to be something very different than it is who wish for 6e, but I bet most of them would be bitterly disappointed with the result.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> One class: adventurer. Everything else is a feat.




Handiworks Games' 5e-based "Beowulf" has one class: Hero.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> You've convinced me. Delete the Cleric too. They're basically Warlocks with extra steps anyway.



I disagree on why, but at least it gets rid of D&D’s least important class. 


James Gasik said:


> Huh.  How strange.  I never really thought the Cleric was a problem.  If there's a class I'd do away with, it'd be Paladin. Not because there's any problem with the class mechanically but just because "Crusading Priest" and "Paladin" are pretty much the same archetype, so having two different classes for them always felt odd to me.



If they’re the same archetype, Cleric sucks more, so it can get yeeted. 

Also they aren’t, btw. The Paladin isn’t a priest, they’re a knight.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I disagree on why, but at least it gets rid of D&D’s least important class.



But I had already gotten rid of the Wizard.


doctorbadwolf said:


> If they’re the same archetype, Cleric sucks more, so it can get yeeted.
> 
> Also they aren’t, btw. The Paladin isn’t a priest, they’re a knight.



The Paladin might be named after a specific group of knights, but they're priests. They're holy dudes filled with holy power, not professional peasant murderers and alcohol sinks.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 17, 2022)

I'd really like a paladin that's a fighter with clericy flair, a half caster cleric, and a full caster, non-martial priest.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 17, 2022)

I don't think any of the classes really are what their names are anymore.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I don't think any of the classes really are what their names are anymore.



Hmm...

Fighter - Assailant (because they can't do anything but attack)
Bard - Actual Wizard
Barbarian - Actual Fighter
Monk - We Couldn't Figure Out how to do an Unarmed Fighter based on Pop Culture
Ranger - We genuinely have no idea. Nature? Bows? Large, gas guzzling utility vehicles?
Warlock - Sugarbaby Mage. Left out of the Infinity Saga, the only storyline where they mattered.
Cleric - Holy Warlock
Paladin - Violent Holy Warlock
Druid - I, Aku, the shapeshifting Master of Darkness
Artificer - We forgot this was a thing
Sorcerer - Mutant
Psion - I know we forgot something, I just can't put my finger on it...
Rogue - The Good One. Just historically across editions and clones. Wait... Subclasses? Oh crap. Stall for time. STALL.
Wizard - Attention Sink


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 17, 2022)

One other thing I'd want is to officially categorize supernatural aspects by power source

Magic
Channel Divinity
Infusions
Invocations
Magic Arrows
Spells
Cantrips
Rituals
Sorceries


Martial
Exploits
Maneuvers
Tricks
Techniques 

Psionics
Disciplines
Powers


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> But I had already gotten rid of the Wizard.
> 
> The Paladin might be named after a specific group of knights, but they're priests. They're holy dudes filled with holy power, not professional peasant murderers and alcohol sinks.





None of the classes are based on cynical readings of the historical concepts associated with them. 

Paladins are not priests. Being “holy” does not make one a priest.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> None of the classes are based on cynical readings of the historical concepts associated with them.



Warlocks literally make deals with supernatural forces instead of being laymen good at medicine and science.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 17, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Paladins are not priests. Being “holy” does not make one a priest.



In literature and history, paladins were pious knights and not actual priests.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Warlocks literally make deals with supernatural forces instead of being laymen good at medicine and science.



Warlocks are what the word "sorcerer" actually means.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Warlocks are what the word "sorcerer" actually means.



D&D's relation with synonyms is... interesting.

Earth spirits can be cobbler elves who talk to badgers or tiny dragon-dog-lizard men.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Warlocks literally make deals with supernatural forces instead of being laymen good at medicine and science.



Yes? What point do you think the above makes?


Reynard said:


> In literature and history, paladins were pious knights and not actual priests.



Precisely.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 17, 2022)

Pie in the sky?  Here goes...

Hugely dial back the "character build" aspect of the game, such that a) most characters of a given class run on the same underlying mechanics and it takes personality-background-roleplay to differentiate them in play, b) class abilities are almost entirely baked-in and strongly niche-protected (i.e. no more feats or spells that allow members of one class to do things that should be reserved for another), and c) char-gen takes 15 minutes tops using nothing but the PH, dice, pencil, and paper.

Bring back the idea of penalties as well as bonuses.  Yes, your Hobbit is weaker than the baseline (Human), so stick a flat -1 on your strength before going any further.

Add in a body-fatigue or wound-vitality system to allow for lingering injuries and better narration of damage.

Make hit points valuable again.  No in-combat healing unless at significant risk to the caster (e.g. no ranged healing of any kind).  Resting overnight only gets you back a small fraction of your h.p., not the whole lot.

Make spells harder both to cast and to aim.  Much easier interruption, no such thing as combat casting, must roll to aim non-targeted ranged spells (i.e. nearly all AoE spells), etc.  Also, make spells more potentially dangerous to one's allies.  Do away with concentration and instead put hard limits on how many times a day a lot of buff/utility spells can be cast.

Somehow randomize initiative each round.  Probably requires re-doing the whole system to use a smaller die; and for the love of hell allow ties and simultaniety.  Drop dex bonuses to initiative, they don't make sense and dex is already too powerful.

Make strength the only stat that helps (or hurts, if very weak) with melee combat to-hit and damage.  No more weapon finesse; leave dex for defense and missile fire only.

Magic items - make them more easy come, easy go; make them interesting; and for gawd's sake give us a useful price list that isn't done on a formula (lookin' sideways at you, 4e) but instead has each item or item-property valued independently by expected usefulness and-or expense to create.

Throw wealth-by-level guidelines out the window.  If one DM wants to be super-stingy and another wants to go full-on Monty Haul, each should receive the same encouragement, support, and range of suggestions as does a DM who plays it right down the middle.

Put in enough levels and gradations to allow the game to smoothly progress from true zero (commoner) to hero, then note a series of possible starting points for the DM depending on the campaign.  With 4e and to a lesser extent 5e there's far too big a gap between commoner and 1st-level character.

Give players some ideas as to what to spend their PCs' treasure on; be it training, strongholds, spell research, item creation, whatever; and then back those ideas up with some mechanics.

Slow down level advancement.  A lot.  Echoing (I think it was @Bill Zebub ?) upthread, make the playable part of the game only about 10-12 levels* but make each of those levels really mean something.  At the same time, leave it all open-ended such that if a DM wants higher-than-10th foes or the table wants higher-than-10th play the game can handle it.  Put another way, design for 1-20 or even higher but make it clear up front that the PC-playable part is intended only to be within the 1-10 or 1-12 range of that.

* - as currently known.  My previous note about very-low-level gradations might add a couple of new levels at the low end; thus making the playable range something like -2 to +10 or +12.

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


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yes? What point do you think the above makes?



They're a class based on a cyncial reading of the actual people.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> They're a class based on a cyncial reading of the actual people.



No, they’re not. What on earth are you on about?

Edit: just to be super clear, the 5e warlock is, if anything, a very generous and optimistic reading of the term warlock. 

And there is a reason that the witch has never been part of the warlock class, if that’s the road you’re trying to walk down with this nonsense. 

The warlock is based on people like Alistair Crowley, as much as on anything else.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 17, 2022)

I am super curious about why there needs to be hostility over this of all things.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 17, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I disagree on why, but at least it gets rid of D&D’s least important class.
> 
> If they’re the same archetype, Cleric sucks more, so it can get yeeted.
> 
> Also they aren’t, btw. The Paladin isn’t a priest, they’re a knight.



But if one were to encounter a Lawful Good Cleric of Tyr in full armor in universe, they might not be able to see much difference between them and a Paladin.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 18, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> But if one were to encounter a Lawful Good Cleric of Tyr in full armor in universe, they might not be able to see much difference between them and a Paladin.



That seems unlikely to me. The cleric would almost certainly have different vestments that anyone observing would have the cultural knowledge to know the basics of, would use very different titles, etc. 

But you’re also using the most extreme case as if it represents the whole. 

No one is struggling to see the difference between any Paladin and the vast majority of clerics.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 18, 2022)

I would make a single twenty dollar core rule book and supplement that will small monthly releases.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 18, 2022)

MichaelSomething said:


> I would make a single twenty dollar core rule book and supplement that will small monthly releases.



Same.  I think my #1 unrealistic hope would be a core rulebook that goes levels 1-10, no more than three subclasses per class, a section for the dm on running the game, and the most thematic/essential magic items and monsters, all in one book (though $20 is unrealistic...would still be more like $60).  That's the core, and everything else--monster books, levels 11-20, 6th-9th level spells, more magic items, world/adventure building guide--is an optional supplement.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Aug 18, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I am super curious about why there needs to be hostility over this of all things.



Because of the apparent belief that WotC follows these threads and will base their decisions on whoever “wins” on Enworld.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 18, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Same.  I think my #1 unrealistic hope would be a core rulebook that goes levels 1-10, no more than three subclasses per class, a section for the dm on running the game, and the most thematic/essential magic items and monsters, all in one book (though $20 is unrealistic...would still be more like $60).  That's the core, and everything else--monster books, levels 11-20, 6th-9th level spells, more magic items, world/adventure building guide--is an optional supplement.




Yup. That would be great. Make it with only spells and features that can be described in three sentences or less. Spells and features that come with their own little rules sets (pets, wildshaping, summoning spells, etc) can be in the optional advanced books.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 18, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Pie in the sky?  Here goes...
> 
> Hugely dial back the "character build" aspect of the game, such that a) most characters of a given class run on the same underlying mechanics and it takes personality-background-roleplay to differentiate them in play, b) class abilities are almost entirely baked-in and strongly niche-protected (i.e. no more feats or spells that allow members of one class to do things that should be reserved for another), and c) char-gen takes 15 minutes tops using nothing but the PH, dice, pencil, and paper.
> 
> ...



Well that is definitely pie-in-the-sky! Though I like a few of your pies, I think the game has passed you by for good!


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 18, 2022)

Split the Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard into 2 classes, a simple one and a complex one.

Fighter
Weaponmaster
Rogue
Scoundrel
Arcanist
Wizard


----------



## Lazvon (Aug 18, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Because of the apparent belief that WotC follows these threads and will base their decisions on whoever “wins” on Enworld.



Hahahahaha. Ahem. Ha!


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 18, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Because of the apparent belief that WotC follows these threads and will base their decisions on whoever “wins” on Enworld.



The tagline for this movie somehow seems appropriate:


----------



## Scott Christian (Aug 18, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> The abolishment of ability scores. And I don't mean "get rid of the score and just use the modifier." I mean no score, no modifier, no nothing. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are excised from the game, root and branch. Everything is folded into a single proficiency bonus, and you either have it or don't.



Now that is pie in the sky!   

But in seriousness, can you explain everything being "folded into a single proficiency?" Wouldn't that make everything the same score, no matter what you are doing?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I don't think any of the classes really are what their names are anymore.



As I said, they're labels. That label may tell you some things. It may also deceive you.


----------



## glass (Aug 18, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> The abolishment of ability scores. And I don't mean "get rid of the score and just use the modifier." I mean no score, no modifier, no nothing. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are excised from the game, root and branch. Everything is folded into a single proficiency bonus, and you either have it or don't.



My preference is to revamp the ability scores to make them more balanced. Oddly, while neither is terribly likely, I feel like ditching them entirely is probably more likely that ditching them in favour of an improved version.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 18, 2022)

Scott Christian said:


> Now that is pie in the sky!
> 
> But in seriousness, can you explain everything being "folded into a single proficiency?" Wouldn't that make everything the same score, no matter what you are doing?



Not quite. There would be two scores: Proficiency bonus, and zero. Whenever you pick up a d20, you are either going to add your proficiency bonus to the roll, or use the result straight-up*.

This would have a number of benefits. It would all but eliminate one of the biggest sources of confusion I have seen at the table over thirty-five years of playing D&D: Which number do I use for what? Likewise, it virtually eliminates character sheet math. And it would make skills, attacks, and saving throws fully independent of each other, allowing for a greater variety of concepts without sacrificing effectiveness. Do you want to be a fighter who's also an intelligent and learned scholar? No problem. You no longer have to wrench points out of the stats that are vital to your survival (Strength and Con) to invest in Intelligence. Just take the Sage background, put skill proficiencies in Arcana and History, and the rest is roleplaying.

Now, to what would be lost: You'd have a lot less granularity (none, in fact) in measuring _how_ good you are at X versus Y. I don't think most players care much about that, but some folks care a whole lot. There is also @Steampunkette's excellent point that we lose the ability to represent certain things mechanically; the hulking barbarian and the scrawny wizard now have the same encumbrance limit, and Legolas and Gimli have no reason to wear different types of armor. To address this, I would use a feat-like mechanic, where you can choose traits like Powerful Build (double your encumbrance) or Evasive (boost your AC when wearing light or no armor). The key is that these traits are binary--you have them or you don't--and they don't affect anything else. The barbarian who doesn't take Powerful Build is no less effective at hacking up monsters.

The other thing that would be lost, however, is fifty years of D&D tradition--it would ignite a backlash that would make 4E look well-received--and that's why this is pie in the sky. 

*In practice, it wouldn't be quite that simple. Stuff like Expertise would have to be accounted for somehow; though I might replace Expertise with a Reliable Talent-type mechanic, where a floor gets put under the roll.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 18, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> This would have a number of benefits. It would all but eliminate one of the biggest sources of confusion I have seen at the table over thirty-five years of playing D&D: Which number do I use for what?



That's what character sheets are for?

"What number do I use for Stealth"

"The one next to the word 'Stealth', Bob."


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 18, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> That's what character sheets are for?
> 
> "What number do I use for Stealth"
> 
> "The one next to the word 'Stealth', Bob."



And yet, somehow, this simple task gives new and casual players no end of trouble. For some reason, they keep going back to chargen, recalculating from scratch, and getting lost. I don't know why, but they do. I think it may be a desire to get a handle on where those numbers came from.

(5E added another layer of confusion by deciding to give saving throws the same names as ability scores, so when the DM calls for a Dexterity save, the player has to be steered away from a straight-up Dex check. I wish they would go back to Fort/Ref/Will for saves. I doubt it will happen in the anniversary edition, it would break backwards compatibility, but maybe one day they'll do it.)


----------



## Reynard (Aug 18, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> And yet, somehow, this simple task gives new and casual players no end of trouble. For some reason, they keep going back to chargen, recalculating from scratch, and getting lost. I don't know why, but they do. I think it may be a desire to get a handle on where those numbers came from.
> 
> (5E added another layer of confusion by deciding to give saving throws the same names as ability scores, so when the DM calls for a Dexterity save, the player has to be steered away from a straight-up Dex check. I wish they would go back to Fort/Ref/Will for saves. I doubt it will happen in the anniversary edition, it would break backwards compatibility, but maybe one day they'll do it.)



I don't think turning every action into a game of DM-may-I is going to bring the clarity and speed to play that you think it is.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 18, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> And yet, somehow, this simple task gives new and casual players no end of trouble. For some reason, they keep going back to chargen, recalculating from scratch, and getting lost. I don't know why, but they do. I think it may be a desire to get a handle on where those numbers came from.
> 
> (5E added another layer of confusion by deciding to give saving throws the same names as ability scores, so when the DM calls for a Dexterity save, the player has to be steered away from a straight-up Dex check. I wish they would go back to Fort/Ref/Will for saves. I doubt it will happen in the anniversary edition, it would break backwards compatibility, but maybe one day they'll do it.)




Oh it's not confusion that causes trouble.  My players aren't confused, they know exactly what they are doing.  Their trouble isn't coming from a place of "which number do I use?"  It comes from a place of "but this number over here is _bigger _and I want to use that one instead!"


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I don't think turning every action into a game of DM-may-I is going to bring the clarity and speed to play that you think it is.



...I think you must have meant to reply to someone else. Or else there are about seven steps in your reasoning that you left out of your post, because I have no idea how you got from "replace ability mods with a single proficiency bonus" to "a game of DM-may-I."


----------



## Undrave (Aug 18, 2022)

I want them to make weapons choices INTERESTING. Weapons should be about more than just 'what's the biggest number?'

Every group of weapon should have a THING it does that other weapons don't and maybe it would be worth it to sacrifice damage for that THING. 

We'd surely see less rapier if that was the case.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 18, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> ...I think you must have meant to reply to someone else. Or else there are about seven steps in your reasoning that you left out of your post, because I have no idea how you got from "replace ability mods with a single proficiency bonus" to "a game of DM-may-I."



If there are no attributes or skills, then every time you do something you have to ask if your class or background provides proficiency in this particular action. Or I misunderstood and you did not mean there were no skills?


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> If there are no attributes or skills, then every time you do something you have to ask if your class or background provides proficiency in this particular action. Or I misunderstood and you did not mean there were no skills?



The original post @Dausuul made never mentioned getting rid of skills, only attributes.  I would imagine skill definition would be even more important in a game with only one level of bonus granularity.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> If there are no attributes or skills, then every time you do something you have to ask if your class or background provides proficiency in this particular action. Or I misunderstood and you did not mean there were no skills?



Ah, no, I see the confusion. Ability scores are eliminated, but skills remain. Either you are proficient, in which case you roll 1d20 + prof bonus, or you are not, and roll 1d20 straight up. No more cascading modifiers from other parts of the sheet.

The same applies to attack rolls and saving throws (which I'd put back to Fort/Ref/Will).


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 18, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> That's what character sheets are for?
> 
> "What number do I use for Stealth"
> 
> "The one next to the word 'Stealth', Bob."



"But next to Stealth it says 275 g.p..."


----------



## Reynard (Aug 18, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> Ah, no, I see the confusion. Ability scores are eliminated, but skills remain. Either you are proficient, in which case you roll 1d20 + prof bonus, or you are not, and roll 1d20 straight up. No more cascading modifiers from other parts of the sheet.
> 
> The same applies to attack rolls and saving throws (which I'd put back to Fort/Ref/Will).



Gotcha. My bad. I'm totally ok with the idea of eliminating stat numbers and replacing with traits/feats. Or give D&D Fate Accelerated style Approaches instead of stats and skills.


----------

