# My wishes for 6e: less dark vision and spellcasting classes



## Skyscraper (Mar 15, 2022)

What I would love to see in the next version of D&D 6 is a much lower frequency of:

1) dark vision. The poor races that do not currently have it are at a disadvantage compared to the majority that have it. And in a dungeon, it's common for the party to have to light a torch for the human PC only, while the other 3 would be fine without it.

2) magic in the form of spells. All classes currently have access to magic in the form of spells. I would like the spells to be distinctive of rare classes that might use it. I imagine for example the classes of ranger, fighter, rogue and barbarians without magic; and even the paladin could easily be differently designed. Then monsters too could have some powers, but fewer spells.

Regarding this last point, from the 4th edition, I would like them to bring back interesting powers for monsters, which are not necessarily spells. That was cool.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

Given the limitations of Darkvision (disadvantage on Perception checks that require sight), I never understood why people thought it was a big deal.  I once had a party who thought they could not bother with light sources and rely on Darkvision, and they blundered into so many traps (disadvantage on Perception lowers passive Perception by 5) that they finally broke down and started using light spells.  Sure you can see in dim light without penalty, but that's not really a huge advantage in my book.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 15, 2022)

I'm not too worried about darkvision, or spellcasting ability to be honest though I do think that non-casting versions of the paladin and ranger could exist, but that hasn't really been how they've been portrayed in DnD in any edition except 4e which was a fairly major departure from previous editions.

4e monster design was pretty awesome and I've used it for ideas in some of my homebrew monsters. Even something simple like swarms which dealt damage every round to other creatures in the swarm is a great addition to combat and the dragons had some cool effects that made them truly terrifying like an instant reaction breath weapon when bloodied. I'd say that 4e was the height of monster design for 4e. 5e doesn't quite hit those same highs though I've seen some 3rd party attempts at making more interesting monsters.


----------



## Horwath (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Given the limitations of Darkvision (disadvantage on Perception checks that require sight), I never understood why people thought it was a big deal.  I once had a party who thought they could not bother with light sources and rely on Darkvision, and they blundered into so many traps (disadvantage on Perception lowers passive Perception by 5) that they finally broke down and started using light spells.  Sure you can see in dim light without penalty, but that's not really a huge advantage in my book.



this.

also expand the penalty to Insight, Investigation, most tools, Survival...


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

Darkvision is not the powerful ur-feature people think it is, really, it's a ribbon "hey what if my torch goes out/I don't have a light spell?"  It's better than being blind in darkness or having to squint in dim light, and that's about it.  What makes Darkvision strong is that a lot of people don't read what it actually does, they assume it works like old Darkvision, where you just see in darkness out to the range listed.

I know this, because I saw it in action, when I first started playing 5e, I didn't have darkvision, and it was annoying when I couldn't even get a light spell cast so I could see what I was doing (as an archer build no less).  When I started DMing though, I took a closer look and realized- hey this doesn't do what people seem to think it does!

Now as for spellcasting classes, well the problem here is, what would you create?  The way the Paladin is built, a non-casting version would have to have a totally reworked smite, and it would lose a ton of utility- most noncasting Paladins I've seen just give them the ability to replicate things they could do with spells x/day anyways.

The Ranger is in the same boat.  And there's not a lot of conceptual design space for a new class that specifically doesn't use magic that isn't covered by something that already exists- scouts, duelists, rakes, hunters, assassins, acrobats, I think we could maybe get an alchemist, which is just a roundabout way to have non magic magic, and a warlord- but there's a lot of pushback against the idea of martial healing (though non-magical granting of temporary hit points seems kosher).


----------



## Oofta (Mar 15, 2022)

Skyscraper said:


> What I would love to see in the next version of D&D 6 is a much lower frequency of:
> 
> 1) dark vision. The poor races that do not currently have it are at a disadvantage compared to the majority that have it. And in a dungeon, it's common for the party to have to light a torch for the human PC only, while the other 3 would be fine without it.



For what it's worth, I agree.  I know you have disadvantage on perception checks but depending on the campaign and DM style that can go from "holy **** we're dead" to "we have what now?"  It's also one of the most ignored or forgotten penalties out there.

It goes both ways of course, DM's regularly ignore the limitation for their monsters as well.



Skyscraper said:


> 2) magic in the form of spells. All classes currently have access to magic in the form of spells. I would like the spells to be distinctive of rare classes that might use it. I imagine for example the classes of ranger, fighter, rogue and barbarians without magic; and even the paladin could easily be differently designed. Then monsters too could have some powers, but fewer spells.




It does feel sometimes like every edition is more and more "Dungeons and Spellcasters".  I get it, people like the idea of flexibility even if most people end up relying on a handful of spells in my experience.  You can do cool stuff with magic.  But when at least 5 out of 6 PCs is a spell caster of some sort in every game it does seem excessive.

Look at the MM for manual for monsters above CR 8 or so that are _not_ some kind of caster and the pickings are slim to none other than dragons.



Skyscraper said:


> Regarding this last point, from the 4th edition, I would like them to bring back interesting powers for monsters, which are not necessarily spells. That was cool.




There were some aspects of 4E I didn't care for, but I agree that monsters could use more variety.  Looks like they might be going that direction a bit based on what they're doing with the monsters of the universe.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 15, 2022)

I have never had an issue with spells, because to me spells are just class features slots with multiple options you can select from each day.

The Ranger COULD just give out an increase in speed, allow you to tell wild animals you mean them no harm, and a better way of helping the party sneak through the woods.  Basically give out _Longstrider, Animal Friendship_, and _Pass Without Trace_ as class features that are unchangeable.  But what if you don't wish to play that specific archetype of Ranger?  Spell slots allow you to go with a different playstyle by having multiple options of "class feature" to select from.

I mean really... what are Battlemaster Maneuvers?  They're basically spells!  You get four "spell slots" every short rest and using them gives you a damage bonus and does a neat trick.  Exactly like normal spells can do.  But of course those "don't count", because they don't appear in the book in the section headed as "Magic" and don't appear on any "Spell List".  And too many people are just incapable of separating the description from the mechanic.  The game could give out the exact same mechanic with the exact same refresh functionality to two different classes... and so long as one of them was identified and named as a "Spell"... that class is now a spellcasting class and causes all this consternation about too much magic.  But you just rename the mechanic and call it a "class feature"?  That's completely fine.

It's all ridiculous in my opinion.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Given the limitations of Darkvision (disadvantage on Perception checks that require sight), I never understood why people thought it was a big deal.  I once had a party who thought they could not bother with light sources and rely on Darkvision, and they blundered into so many traps (disadvantage on Perception lowers passive Perception by 5) that they finally broke down and started using light spells.  Sure you can see in dim light without penalty, but that's not really a huge advantage in my book.



Because players don't use darkvision as a cool but limited back up to having light, they use it as a replacement for having light.  And then get surly when you enforce the difference. Eventually, it gets exhausting and you start to feel like the bad guy.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 15, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I have never had an issue with spells, because to me spells are just class features slots with multiple options you can select from each day.
> 
> The Ranger COULD just give out an increase in speed, allow you to tell wild animals you mean them no harm, and a better way of helping the party sneak through the woods.  Basically give out _Longstrider, Animal Friendship_, and _Pass Without Trace_ as class features that are unchangeable.  But what if you don't wish to play that specific archetype of Ranger?  Spell slots allow you to go with a different playstyle by having multiple options of "class feature" to select from.
> 
> ...



I have no interest in separating the description from the mechanic.  It breaks my sense of immersion, and is the main reason I gave up on 4th ed.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 15, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I have no interest in separating the description from the mechanic.  It breaks my sense of immersion, and is the main reason I gave up on 4th ed.



Well, then (general) you have to accept the fact that all classes will have at least one spellcasting subclass version because "multiclass subclasses" are a thing WotC does for those tables that don't want to use the multiclassing rules.  And if (general) you want "less magic" in your game, you have to assert your authority as DM and world-builder and just not use or allow the "multiclass subclasses" in the game so that your barbarians, fighters, rogues and monks aren't "spellcasting classes".

Those are your choices-- either you pick and choose which parts of the game you use, or you allow the use of everything and just stop caring how the game identifies everything and you identify them differently yourself.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 15, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, then (general) you have to accept the fact that all classes will have at least one spellcasting subclass version because "multiclass subclasses" are a thing WotC does for those tables that don't want to use the multiclassing rules.  And if (general) you want "less magic" in your game, you have to assert your authority as DM and world-builder and just not use or allow the "multiclass subclasses" in the game so that your barbarians, fighters, rogues and monks aren't "spellcasting classes".
> 
> Those are your choices-- either you pick and choose which parts of the game you use, or you allow the use of everything and just stop caring how the game identifies everything and you identify them differently yourself.



Completely agree.  I like spells just fine.  I just generally don't like reskinning.

Besides, Level Up has plenty of great non-magical options, with lots of choice points along the way for different abilities.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 15, 2022)

Remove lighting rules so we can stop pretending to care about the rule designed to make you count torches for no good reason.

Everything has both magic and non-magic options. Yes, even the mage has the charlatan, a stage magician built on convincing people they have magic.


----------



## Gadget (Mar 15, 2022)

On the first, I do miss 4e's differentiation of low light vision & darkvision, though I can see why they ditched in the interest of simplicity.  I too, would like to see a reduction on the actual casting of spells for some classes & monsters, if for no other reason than to reduce the nearly endless refrain of "Well, that's a _DM_ spell," when spell design is criticized (something I almost never, or at least rarely, heard in previous editions).


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 15, 2022)

My hopes for 6E:

1.) It is far away - 2030?  5E is working, and still has fertile ground.

2.) Artificers, Barbarians, Bards, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Warlocks _do not_ have spells as part of the base class.  HOWEVER, they all have _multiple_ subclass options based around spellcasting or other forms of innate magic.  I don't want to eliminate the feel of these classes as we see them in 5E, but I want to expand the design space for non-spellcasters.

3.) Psionics released into the game within the first year.

4.) 4 Core Books: 1.) *PHB* (Crunch for players including core rules, heritages, backgrounds, classes, equipment (including dozens of common magic items) and spells.  2.) *DMG* (Crunch for DMs with magic items, traps, treasure, environment rules (lava versus snow versus desert versus dessert), downtime mechanics, planar rules, dseases, poisons, rules for ability checks, etc...) 3.) *Monster Manual* (With better spacing - I'd rather pay an extra $1 for a physical copy with better spacing than having so many entries that span pages) 4.) *Role Playing Guide* - While the PHB and DMG tell you game mechanics, this book will advise on methods (plural - as there are many different approaches to cover) to role play characters. While the other books deal with the body of D&D, this will deal with the soul of it. It will have advice on creating and using backstories. It will have advice on Session 0 discussions. It will talk about acting and storytelling techniques. It will talk about story structures and how they differ when applied to a one shot delve, a 6 session adventure, or a 2 year campaign. It will talk about the different ways you approach a minor NPC and a main recurring NPC, and how to transition a minor character into a robust main character (the Frazier problem). It will cover how to build the story behind a dungeon. It will cover how to approach depth in your PCS - including when you might consider removing depth from your PCs for the sake of the story. It will include guidance for how to interact with player and PC input into storylines (both before the campaign, proactively during the campaign, and retroactively during the campaign [when a player wants to add to the history of their PC, for example]. It'll cover how to decide between requiring a role, and making a decision. It will cover ways to approach player and character autonomy. It'll deeply explore the differences between a railroad, a sandbox, and other variations. 

5.) It will remember that in D&D, while there is room for shades of grey, redemeption, and moral ambiguity... there is also room for true unrepentant and horrible evil that needs to be stopped - period.

6.) Present the Great Wheel Cosmology in a simplified form to make it more accessible.  You can maintain the core of the Great Wheel and make it easier to learn in levels.  For example, in my Homebrew, there is one Hell Plan.  At the 'center' of it are the 9 Hells controlled by the Devils, and surrounding it are the seemingly infinite wastes controlled by Demons.  Avernus is the outer ring of the 9 Hells, and the Battlefield of the Blood War.  When players first learn my lore, they can learn this in phases.  1.) There is a Hell.  2.) There are realms controlled by Devils, and realms controlled by Demons.  3.) They're at war.  4.) Demons want to fight their way to the Heart of the 9 Hells, Nessus, and the Devils are fighting them off.  5.) There are 9 Hells controlled by Devils - Nessus at the core, 7 more realms surrounding it, and Avernus encircling those 7 realms.  6.) .... (You can peel into it deeper and deeper to get more detail, but you can also just start with a very simple starting level and stay there if there is no need to dive deeper).

7.) Redo weapons.  I'd like them to have more personality.  I want someone wielding a battleaxe, longsword and warhammer to feel different in their everyday adventuring.  I'd like PCs to be able to decide they want to use a Star Trek Bat'leth with their PC and have rules to cover it.  I want for the magic weapons in the game to not be mostly swords.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

I remember when they tried to simplify the Great Wheel, and we got 4e's cosmology, and I don't think anyone particularly cared for it if they were used to the old lore.  I liked 4e a lot and I completely ignored most of that (other than incorporating the Shadowfel and Feywild into my games).


----------



## Lidgar (Mar 15, 2022)

A party that only relies on darkvision and has a gloom stalker ranger can be pretty powerful, penalties notwithstanding.

one fix I’ve seen is to drastically reduce range. Say 20’ for dwarves and 10’ for other races with it.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

I'm still not sure Darkvision needs to be fixed.  We had better darkvision (and low-light vision) in previous editions, and I never heard anyone complain about it.  Sure, it's common now because there's no longer a difference between the two, and many races had one or the other historically, but it really is terrible.  Sure you can find a niche situation where it's ok, but you can also have an entire party of people who dip Warlock for Devil's Sight.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Mar 15, 2022)

Been a month or so since the last thread like this, so my opinions haven't changed much.



EzekielRaiden said:


> What do I _want_?
> 
> Warlord, more inherent Fighter utility, Warlord, revisions to several spells to make them less obtuse, Warlord, better support for tactical combat, Warlord, martial healing, Warlord, actually useful magic item pricing etc., Warlord, a complete overhaul of the CR system so that it's not near-worthless, Warlord, a rework of most of the game's feats so they don't suck so much (or, for the rare few, are not stupidly powerful), Warlord, a Cosmic sorcerer subclass, Warlord, and Warlord.
> 
> ...




Not that they've changed much in a year...or several, for that matter (but I only have evidence for a year).


EzekielRaiden said:


> Warlords, static defenses, Warlords, some kind of Skill Challenge-like _structure_ for non-combat encounters, Warlords, Prestige Classes, Warlords, the ability to craft magic items, Warlords, a wider variety of feat options, Warlords, oh, and also Warlords.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I remember when they tried to simplify the Great Wheel, and we got 4e's cosmology, and I don't think anyone particularly cared for it if they were used to the old lore.  I liked 4e a lot and I completely ignored most of that (other than incorporating the Shadowfel and Feywild into my games).



A lot of people liked the World Axis cosmology.

I was just glad to be rid of the Wheel.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

Well if you liked the World Axis, that's fine.  I was a Planescape fan.  So.

But I do remember a lot of gnashing of the teeth about the World Axis and simplified alignment.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Well if you liked the World Axis, that's fine.  I was a Planescape fan.  So.
> 
> But I do remember a lot of gnashing of the teeth about the World Axis and simplified alignment.



There was a lot of gnashing of teeth in general. Mostly over lies like square fireballs, shouting arms back on, 'everyone is casters', 'It's an MMO for having elements D&D invented' and other dross people still try to spread.

I remember a thread called 'The Tyranny of Fun'. They were angry that the game was _fun_.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

I liked square fireballs.  Sure a "firecube" may sound silly to some, but it made it easy to figure out who or what was blasted by it.  And why not a cube?  It's magic!  Heck, if memory serves, back in 2e there was a spell that let you make firecubes- Squaring the Circle!

EDIT: wait, what?  Angry that a game is fun?  Oh you mean like how game developers are mad about Elden Ring?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I liked square fireballs.  Sure a "firecube" may sound silly to some, but it made it easy to figure out who or what was blasted by it.  And why not a cube?  It's magic!  Heck, if memory serves, back in 2e there was a spell that let you make firecubes- Squaring the Circle!



It wasn't even a cube. It was acknowledging that abstraction exists and making AoEs not annoying.


James Gasik said:


> EDIT: wait, what?  Angry that a game is fun?



Yup. There was a thread with this long OP article about how Players were spoiled by having an expectation of fun and how the game trying to be fun is not what D&D is about. It was wild.


James Gasik said:


> Oh you mean like how game developers are mad about Elden Ring?



Assuming Elden Ring is fun. I'm not a fan of the Rhythm Game with Swords genre.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

Boy.  I always thought D&D was a game.  I play games to have fun, I must be doing it wrong!

EDIT: Ok, I remembered RISK is a thing.  Maybe not all games are fun...


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Boy.  I always thought D&D was a game.  I play games to have fun, I must be doing it wrong!
> 
> EDIT: Ok, I remembered RISK is a thing.  Maybe not all games are fun...



You play D&D to learn to D&D better.

I am not kidding. This was a point in the 'discussion'.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Well if you liked the World Axis, that's fine.  I was a Planescape fan.  So.
> 
> But I do remember a lot of gnashing of the teeth about the World Axis and simplified alignment.



I personally vastly preferred the World Axis, and I was already quite familiar with the Great Wheel--and how unbearably crufty and overstuffed it is.

Like, honest to goodness, has the difference between Gehenna, Hades, and Carceri ever _really_ mattered for your games? Have you ever actually _used_ the para-elemental or quasi-elemental planes?


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

No to the first question, EzekielRaiden, to be honest.  Yes to the second.  I don't mind if we cut some planes, I just felt the Axis removed some I really liked. : )


----------



## dave2008 (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I remember when they tried to simplify the Great Wheel, and we got 4e's cosmology, and I don't think anyone particularly cared for it if they were used to the old lore.  I liked 4e a lot and I completely ignored most of that (other than incorporating the Shadowfel and Feywild into my games).



Yikes! The 4e cosmology was one of my favorite things about the edition (and I fantasized about the great wheel in the 1e Deities & Demigods for many years as young man/boy). The 4e cosmology was a breath of fresh-air and I loved the Dawn War as well.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Boy.  I always thought D&D was a game.  I play games to have fun, I must be doing it wrong!
> 
> EDIT: Ok, I remembered RISK is a thing.  Maybe not all games are fun...




It's also possible that someone isn't the best spokesman for whatever that argument might have been.

The trouble with "fun," is that different people have fun in different ways; if this wasn't both true and banal, then we would all have the exact same hobbies and preferences. Which, last I checked, wasn't the case.

So, for example, some people prefer things that provide immediate feedback and gratification; others prefer things that have more delayed gratification - and neither is "right."

To use an example I'm familiar with, I've run groups that had no "mapping" at all, and I've also run groups that absolutely had someone mapping- because that person found mapping to be fun. They loved mapping, and recording treasure, and that made them feel more of a part of the game. Different people, different preferences.

(I think that this is also one of the reasons that 5e generates so much ... conversation. It's because people are playing it in very different fashions, so there tends to be disputes at the high level of granularity over issues that are really about approaches to the game, and are instead masquerading as rules questions.)


----------



## dave2008 (Mar 15, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Well if you liked the World Axis, that's fine.  I was a Planescape fan.  So.
> 
> But I do remember a lot of gnashing of the teeth about the World Axis and simplified alignment.



I think you can mesh the two fairly well.


----------



## dave2008 (Mar 15, 2022)

@Snarf Zagyg , it seems your new icon is a cross between Harley Quinn and Azula!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> @Snarf Zagyg , it seems your new icon is a cross between Harley Quinn and Azula!




It's important to have heroes.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Mar 15, 2022)

despite my desire to see the monk made into a complex half caster I oddly agree with the sentiment of this thread, we have too many fighter caster subclasses it is honestly depressing.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

It's the easiest approach to building new subclasses.  Give them spells.  Spells exist, WotC keeps cranking out new ones, and they can thematically do ANYTHING.  

Abilities that aren't spells or don't replicate spell effects are hard.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 15, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> despite my desire to see the monk made into a complex half caster I oddly agree with the sentiment of this thread, we have too many fighter caster subclasses it is honestly depressing.




When all you have in the design space are spells, every problem looks like a lack of magic.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Mar 15, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> When all you have in the design space are spells, every problem looks like a lack of magic.



so what we need is more design space?


James Gasik said:


> It's the easiest approach to building new subclasses.  Give them spells.  Spells exist, WotC keeps cranking out new ones, and they can thematically do ANYTHING.
> 
> Abilities that aren't spells or don't replicate spell effects are hard.



honestly, we are limited by the spells as it eats all other possibilities.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

I mean, of course WotC creates new design concepts in spell form.  Look at their most successful game line!


----------



## Tinker-TDC (Mar 15, 2022)

The thing about darkvision is I've never got the "Disadvantage on all perception checks so it's not really too good," argument because the number one reason to have it isn't really for seeing and completing puzzles in complete darkness, it's that without it in combat darkness means disadvantage on every attack for a martial (worst for rogue since you can never get sneak attack) and no spells that target a creature you can see.
Like, for adventuring and puzzles and whatnot sure, you've got time, light a torch. For combat against a party without darkvision a goblin with a bucket of water has the spell "Blind All Opponents" (if your using torches, though Light cantrip is so ubiquitous I don't think I've been in a party without it.)


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 15, 2022)

Well ok, consider this.  When does combat begin?  When you realize that there are enemies and either they attack you, or you attack them.

How do you determine surprise?  Which group notices the other first.  Thus blundering about with only Darkvision means you are more likely to be surprised by enemies using stealth, since your means to detect them is disadvantaged.

You can argue that this goes both ways, but monsters that use stealth are generally good at it (proficiency, good Dexterity, lighter armor).  

The average adventuring party will include characters who have disadvantage due to heavy armor, no proficiency, and possibly bad Dexterity.  This leads to more scenarios where the players are surprised than not.

Then there are traps, hazards, and pitfalls to take into account.  If you don't use a lot of these, the penalty to Perception may not seem like a big deal, but in exploration, especially in dangerous areas, your enemies can and should have things strewn about that cause noise and slow down opponent so that they can be warned in advance of their approach.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 15, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> so what we need is more design space?




But that design space will pull us towards "disassociated mechanics" and no one wants that!!!


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 15, 2022)

Skyscraper said:


> 1) dark vision. The poor races that do not currently have it are at a disadvantage compared to the majority that have it. And in a dungeon, it's common for the party to have to light a torch for the human PC only, while the other 3 would be fine without it.



When finished I hope you will check out our 5E MOD. Most races have lost darkvision and it makes the game much more interesting.

In our last session, the party was losing to goblins and had to flee. Two members went ahead, but lacked darkvision (one was a gnome) so their speed was half and the goblins harassed them easily. Fortunately for the gnome, his _sanctuary_ spell kept him safe enough, but the human was killed by the goblins. The half-orc (who picked up their light) also managed to escape, joining the gnome (so he could see!).

BUT part of this is also nerfing light and other cantrips which allows "always on" light sources. So, produce flame, light, and dancing light as now 1st level spells. Continual flame remains the only "always on" light source, but they don't have it yet.



Skyscraper said:


> 2) magic in the form of spells. All classes currently have access to magic in the form of spells. I would like the spells to be distinctive of rare classes that might use it. I imagine for example the classes of ranger, fighter, rogue and barbarians without magic; and even the paladin could easily be differently designed. Then monsters too could have some powers, but fewer spells.



Yep. This too. In fact, we've removed Sorcerer (folding metamagic into Wizards), made Bards and Warlocks into half-casters, and Paladins and Rangers are being retooled as 1/3-casters akin to Eldritch Knight (they will in fact become subclasses of Fighter in the process).

This is a big part of the flipped script I commented on in another thread. Getting it so there is a better balance with fewer strong casters, more like prior editions.

As a side note, I prefer less powerful spells in general and making even full-casters take longer to get them, so the spell progressions have all been updated. I will add, however, our XP table is also faster after level 5, so if you had enough XP to be 15th level RAW you would be 20th on our table. This will hopefully encourage players to reach higher levels, as the accepted information that many games die out around level 10--with our table you would be level 13.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 15, 2022)

MichaelSomething said:


> But that design space will pull us towards "disassociated mechanics" and no one wants that!!!



Well I do, but I like good game design, something d=D&D abhors.


----------



## Joshy (Mar 16, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> When finished I hope you will check out our 5E MOD.



Where can I find your 5e MOD?

Playtest wise, how have your changes rangers and paladins turned out? 

I'm working on a homebrew right now to reduce the classes to nine. Three each of non casters, half casters, and full casters. Giving martials more customization and things to do in battle.
I was hoping to look at others overhaul and get an idea if my effort would be worth it or the direction I should take.


And not to derail the conversation.

I have been playing the game with a low light vision alternative for a while now. Very few races have darkvision and the ones that do usually have a small distance or are special deep races that how some form of light sensitivity. Things like dwarves having innate 10ft darkvision, but 60ft lowlight vision unless they have the deep subrace.


Now when it comes to magic, I'm fine with the way spells are but I do tend to give monsters creative abilities. Like 3.5 supernatural abilities so they have some differences. If I want magic to be rarer I either limit what classes can be chosen or limit the allowed caster level.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 16, 2022)

Joshy said:


> Where can I find your 5e MOD?



PM me and I'll send you the homebrew share links... it is a constant WIP though.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 16, 2022)

I feel many races, especially elves, can swap darkvision for a cantrip.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 16, 2022)

Brightvision (human): see color in bright light, black-and-white in dim, and blind in darkness.

Darkvision: see black-and-white in darkness, color in dim, and blind in bright light.


----------



## Joshy (Mar 16, 2022)

Low-light vision: You have superior vision in dim conditions. You can see in dim light within X feet of you as if it were bright light
(No more perception disadvantage from lightly obscured environment because of light levels.)


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 16, 2022)

Joshy said:


> Low-light vision: You have superior vision in dim conditions. You can see in dim light within X feet of you as if it were bright light
> (No more perception disadvantage from lightly obscured environment because of light levels.)



This is what our Mod calls "Shadowsight". Helps in dim light, useless in darkness.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 21, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> I personally vastly preferred the World Axis, and I was already quite familiar with the Great Wheel--and how unbearably crufty and overstuffed it is.
> 
> Like, honest to goodness, has the difference between Gehenna, Hades, and Carceri ever _really_ mattered for your games? Have you ever actually _used_ the para-elemental or quasi-elemental planes?



See, I actually hated the fact that the World Axis was specifically designed to cater to adventuring.  It felt very gamey to me, while the Great Wheel felt like something wizened sages who only kinda know what they're talking about would come up with, based on the information they had.

But my opinion on these things is well known.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 21, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It's also possible that someone isn't the best spokesman for whatever that argument might have been.
> 
> The trouble with "fun," is that different people have fun in different ways; if this wasn't both true and banal, then we would all have the exact same hobbies and preferences. Which, last I checked, wasn't the case.
> 
> ...



While all of that is true, it's also true that the game has a preferred approach, built into the rules and assumptions, and that approach is not what everyone wants.


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 21, 2022)

Fan of

Darkvision:  sees in dim light as if it were bright light and sees in darkness as if it were dim light
Elfsight: sees in dim light as if it were bright light, bonus to perception in bright light
Nightvision: sees in darkness as if it were dim light
Heatvision: sees hot things as red and cool things as blue in darkness and dim light
Devilsight: sees in dim light as if it were bright light and sees in darkness and magical darkness as if it were dim light
Farsight: ignores penalty to perception in bright light and dim light due to distance


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Mar 21, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> See, I actually hated the fact that the World Axis was specifically designed to cater to adventuring.  It felt very gamey to me, while the Great Wheel felt like something wizened sages who only kinda know what they're talking about would come up with, based on the information they had.
> 
> But my opinion on these things is well known.



For my part, the Great Wheel's "a place for everything and everything in its place" thing makes it much more gamey, despite being less adventureable. IRL cosmologies weren't clean, neat, and (most importantly here) _precisely comprehensive_. The Norse had nine realms--about which very little was known. The Greeks knew the world was round by 500 BC, but had Ultima Thule with some _crazy_ stuff said about it, and (at least by the 2nd century AD) were comfortable with what we would call blatantly sci-fi elements (alien races living on the Moon and Sun, e.g. Lucian's satirical _True Story_.)

As I see it, the World Axis isn't "made for play" (though that is the _Doylist_ reason it exists.) Instead, it represents Watsonian _imperfect knowledge_. We know a bit about the Elemental Chaos...but who the frig knows what's beyond the edge of the parts people have seen? We know there's a "Feywild," but a fixed map thereof? Hilarious, pull the other one. The ignorance and incompleteness makes it natural--much more like real medieval maps (the _hic sunt dracones_, or _leones_ if you prefer more historical prevalence.) To have an understanding as precise and comprehensive as the Great Wheel, where anyone with even a little education on the topic can know the precise layout and (in most cases) composition of literally every plane except the Abyss (since its structure is infinite layers and thus...can't be fully spelled out)...just feels really, really artificial. It feels much more like "I have to have all these planes existing, because the alignment grid _requires_ it." For all the complaints 4e got about "grid-filling" with its classes, the Great Wheel should really get some flak for grid-filling _planes_.

If the Great Wheel were explicitly given as a best-fit approximation with either known exceptions, or outstanding questions left unanswered, it would feel a lot more like the best-effort _attempt_ to understand the cosmos, not a perfectly-comprehensive _atlas_ of the cosmos with no parts left out or unaccounted for.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 21, 2022)

Adventures on the Outer Planes are a fairly old school concept, and the Great Wheel was intended as the next logical destination for high level play.  Planescape monopolized on this, as, basically, ANYTHING GOES on the outer planes.  The sub-layers of different Planes could provide their own unique problems.  A Plane where Magic doesn't work?  Check.  A Plane where coming in contact with a river will make you forget who you are?  Check.

A Plane where the atmosphere ends 10' up?  Check.  A Plane that consists of an endless battlefield full of warriors who come back to life no matter how many times you kill them?  Check.  A Plane where time flows backwards and players run the risk of becoming so young they are helpless, or even ceasing to have ever been born?  Check.

When the time came to explore the Planes in 4e (like in the later stages of Scales of War), a lot of what had been established in the old Great Wheel was recycled.  I found myself piloting the head of a dead God through the Astral Sea to a Citadel run by the Arcane from Spelljammer (now renamed the Mercane) to bring the fight to the Githyanki Emperor (who had imprisoned the latest incarnation of Gith, who we had to free).  And it was awesome, but ultimately, it made me really wonder why they had bothered to change the Planes at all if you were just going to have the same adventures.  Even the Feywild wasn't a new idea- Fey had long been said to come from an Alternate Prime Material Plane.

And even when I visited the Shadowfel, it really felt more like Ravenloft to me- to the point that there were "Domains" in the Shadowfel ruled by Dark Lords (Scales of War had me visit the Domain of Betrayal, where we fought Kas- the legendary warrior who had betrayed Vecna).


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 21, 2022)

I’d be ok with all the spellcasting classes if they made each class choose spells from a unique list.  Too many classes pick from the wizard list and the sorcerer list is identical to the wizard list except it has less spells and bards get all the illusion enchantment spells that wizards get along with some Druid spells.    I’d even be ok if their spell lists were shorter.  Just make them unique.

I’d be happier with dark vision if it gave more penalties to other things: like ranged attacks and other ability checks.  People don’t care if they get an occasional penalty to perception.  Give them a penalty to attack and sure as heck they’ll make sure they have a light source.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 21, 2022)

They really should care about the penalty to Perception.  I'm happy to use ambushes and traps to make them care!


----------



## tetrasodium (Mar 21, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Because players don't use darkvision as a cool but limited back up to having light, they use it as a replacement for having light.  And then get surly when you enforce the difference. Eventually, it gets exhausting and you start to feel like the bad guy.



This is my experience as well.  Players flatly refuse to use anything but dark vision.  If I  put in silly traps that require color to solve then I'm the bad guy beings unreasonable punishing them like that & the game devolves into a tedious tomb of horrors style poke everything with a ten foot pole twice slog.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

Totally agree on less spells and bringing back the interesting 4e Monster designs! 

And speaking of spells, I feel like rituals are underused. Would be great to have more subclasses that get some flavourful rituals the way the Totem barbarian does, but we'd need more rituals for that. And we could use a Ritual focus Wizard or Cleric.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Warlords, oh, and also Warlords.



If we can't have a separated Warlord class, then I just want the Warlord to skin the Fighter and wear his name. The 'basic Fighter' should just be a single build, and the Fighter should go back to its roots as the mundane leader of men like back when it became the lord of a castle. 



James Gasik said:


> The way the Paladin is built, a non-casting version would have to have a totally reworked smite, and it would lose a ton of utility- most noncasting Paladins I've seen just give them the ability to replicate things they could do with spells x/day anyways.



How about, instead of 'spend Spell Slots to Smite' they went the other way around? Spend Smite charges to cast from a subclass specific set of spells? Then, if you want a more spell caster Paladin, you can give them a subclass with actual spell slots to use on a curated list of utility spells? While the more warrior-like subclasses just get more bashing-heads-in stuff. 


Oofta said:


> It does feel sometimes like every edition is more and more "Dungeons and Spellcasters". I get it, people like the idea of flexibility even if most people end up relying on a handful of spells in my experience. You can do cool stuff with magic. But when at least 5 out of 6 PCs is a spell caster of some sort in every game it does seem excessive.



An don't forget the HUGE section of the PHB dedicated to spells, and how every single book seems to add spells (especially to the Wizard list!). 'Make it a spell' seems to be the default for any interesting action in the game. 


Vaalingrade said:


> A lot of people liked the World Axis cosmology.
> 
> I was just glad to be rid of the Wheel.



I LOVED the 4e cosmology! It had so many interesting adventuring locations! And it was fairly simple to remember how it worked.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Like, honest to goodness, has the difference between Gehenna, Hades, and Carceri ever _really_ mattered for your games? Have you ever actually _used_ the para-elemental or quasi-elemental planes?



Is the elemental plane of cheese (or _elemanthal _plane) a para-elemental or quasi-elemental plane?


dave2008 said:


> Yikes! The 4e cosmology was one of my favorite things about the edition (and I fantasized about the great wheel in the 1e Deities & Demigods for many years as young man/boy). The 4e cosmology was a breath of fresh-air and I loved the Dawn War as well.



I loved the cosmic lore of 4e and all the cool gods. Felt very MYTHIC because not everything was clear cut. Like in the Dawn War, where a traditionally evil god like Bane was instrumental in the Gods' victory over the Primordials. There was interesting alliances and you had gods like Erathis who had more grey areas. _The Plane Above_ is literally my favorite 4e book and I urge everyone to read it jut for the lore.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> I’d be ok with all the spellcasting classes if they made each class choose spells from a unique list.  Too many classes pick from the wizard list and the sorcerer list is identical to the wizard list except it has less spells and bards get all the illusion enchantment spells that wizards get along with some Druid spells.    I’d even be ok if their spell lists were shorter.  Just make them unique.
> 
> I’d be happier with dark vision if it gave more penalties to other things: like ranged attacks and other ability checks.  People don’t care if they get an occasional penalty to perception.  Give them a penalty to attack and sure as heck they’ll make sure they have a light source.



I feel like most issues with spell casting come down to the Wizard being too damn flexible and being too vague of a concept. Picking a specialization as a Wizard doesn't really mean much beyond the first few levels. 

I think a 6e Wizard should have a small base list of generic utility spells (Light, Tenser's Floating Disk, Feather Fall, Sending, that sort of thing, maybe Magic Missile and Shield) and have all their cooler spells based on their chosen specialty. So, yes, you can build a Wizard in many different ways, but you can't just pile up all the BEST SPELLS on the same character because some of them would be mutually exclusive. 

But I bet Wizard fans would riot and apparently they're the most important fans so we HAVE to bend over backward for them.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 21, 2022)

Undrave said:


> I feel like most issues with spell casting come down to the Wizard being too damn flexible and being too vague of a concept. Picking a specialization as a Wizard doesn't really mean much beyond the first few levels.
> 
> I think a 6e Wizard should have a small base list of generic utility spells (Light, Tenser's Floating Disk, Feather Fall, Sending, that sort of thing, maybe Magic Missile and Shield) and have all their cooler spells based on their chosen specialty. So, yes, you can build a Wizard in many different ways, but you can't just pile up all the BEST SPELLS on the same character because some of them would be mutually exclusive.
> 
> But I bet Wizard fans would riot and apparently they're the most important fans so we HAVE to bend over backward for them.



Yeah, WotC is not going to nerf the wizard to the degree many people around here seem to want.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 21, 2022)

Undrave said:


> I feel like most issues with spell casting come down to the Wizard being too damn flexible and being too vague of a concept. Picking a specialization as a Wizard doesn't really mean much beyond the first few levels.
> 
> I think a 6e Wizard should have a small base list of generic utility spells (Light, Tenser's Floating Disk, Feather Fall, Sending, that sort of thing, maybe Magic Missile and Shield) and have all their cooler spells based on their chosen specialty. So, yes, you can build a Wizard in many different ways, but you can't just pile up all the BEST SPELLS on the same character because some of them would be mutually exclusive.
> 
> But I bet Wizard fans would riot and apparently they're the most important fans so we HAVE to bend over backward for them.



I agree that each wizard school should also be unique.  The risk there is, instead of picking all the BEST spells, people will pick the type of wizard with the BEST LIST.  It’s doable. 

In a game I was in, the DM separated the wizard schools:  high wizards with divination, abjuration and evocation;

black wizards with enchantment, and necromancy and conjuration

illusionists: illusion and compulsions

low wizards: low level utility spells

All wizards got ‘general’ spells. 

in any case, as you can see, illusionists got shafted and there was a a huge list of creatures that their spells didn’t work on.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> I agree that each wizard school should also be unique.  The risk there is, instead of picking all the BEST spells, people will pick the type of wizard with the BEST LIST.  It’s doable.
> 
> In a game I was in, the DM separated the wizard schools:  high wizards with divination, abjuration and evocation;
> 
> ...



I think using the 'magic school' system as the basis for a Wizard subclass (except maybe Illusionists and Necromancer) is probably the most boring thing they could have went with. A school specialty for the rebate on copying spells? Sure, that's a decent flavorful class feature, but it shouldn't be the only basis for a subclass. And a lot of classifications feel arbitrary.

I'd imagine Wizard subclasses with more thematic spell list than purely label-based. More thoughts given to the place of that specific tradition in the world.

Also, Divination should be more of a Cleric thing anyway


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, WotC is not going to nerf the wizard to the degree many people around here seem to want.



Wizard privilege.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 21, 2022)

When Wizards were brought down to "normal" in 4e, there was tons of backlash that they didn't "feel like Wizards", even with Ritual casting and the Spellbook feature that no other Class had.  What consistently strikes me as odd in discussions about powering down the Wizard, is that many of the same people who don't want the Fighter to change, are the same people who don't want the Wizard to change!  It's like, can't you see the problem of a game that has "Badass Normal Fighters" and "Godlike Magical Wizards" on the same team?

It's like having Batman and Superman on the Justice League- sure, you can tell great stories about them, but so many things have to happen for it to work.  Actually, scratch that, we know what it's really like.  


My personal solution to Wizards comes from the old Cormanthor: Empire of Elves.  There, it introduced a new approach to specialist Wizards the ancient Elves had developed, the Dualist.  Instead of seeing the various schools of magic as opposed to one another, they saw them as two sides of the same coin.  A Dualist specialized in two, normally opposed schools of magic (like, say, Invocation/Evocation and Enchantment), and could cast NOTHING ELSE.  This has the effect that, if something is immune to say, Enchantment spells, you can still light them up with magical energies.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> What consistently strikes me as odd in discussions about powering down the Wizard, is that many of the same people who don't want the Fighter to change, are the same people who don't want the Wizard to change! It's like, can't you see the problem of a game that has "Badass Normal Fighters" and "Godlike Magical Wizards" on the same team?



Because that's what they want.

I'm convinced Wizard fans are just fans of feeling like the best character in the party. Wizard player LOVE this scenario:



> *DM: *Your path is blocked by [OBSTACLE]
> 
> *Fighter:* I will overcome [OBSTACLE] with my strength!
> 
> ...




Then repeat adnauseum until the end of the campaign. Not even counting the Fireballs and other combat spells. Anything that interferes with this gameplay loop or lets somebody else perform it is seen as a bad thing, is 'Not D&D!' and causes the Wizard to 'not feel like a Wizard'.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 21, 2022)

That's sad, but also pretty much true.  I just don't understand why it has to be that way.


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 21, 2022)

Scholar class.

There is more to brainpower than magic spells. Especially in fantasy. And eventual D&D will be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting this.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> That's sad, but also pretty much true.  I just don't understand why it has to be that way.



Because, somehow, the words of Wizard players have been given WAY too much weight. They decided they were the 'canary in the mine' of D&D and the sole keeper of what is 'True D&D'. If the Wizards player are unhappy, apparently your game will be slandered and tanked like 4e.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 21, 2022)

Undrave said:


> Because, somehow, the words of Wizard players have been given WAY too much weight. They decided they were the 'canary in the mine' of D&D and the sole keeper of what is 'True D&D'. If the Wizards player are unhappy, apparently your game will be slandered and tanked like 4e.



Hey, if WotC really wanted to nerf wizards, they would do it.  More people like crazy magic powers than not.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 21, 2022)

It's hard to say, since they rarely do anything but give Wizards more power.  The only times when they haven't that I can think of are 3.5's polymorph subschool, and maybe early 4e (but they were quick to give the class back it's toys- there are more options for Wizards than any other class by the end).


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Hey, if WotC really wanted to nerf wizards, they would do it.  More people like crazy magic powers than not.



That's not exactly what the D&D beyond stats say... Wizards were in 4th place beyond Fighter, Rogue and Cleric. Fighters are the most popular and yet it feels like Wizards are the ones getting all the toys...


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 21, 2022)

Well look at the classes.  Clerics cast spells and fight.  Bards cast spells, fight and inspire.  Wizards cast spells and...uh...cast more spells.  Since they don't have a secondary role, all support for Wizards is basically more spells.


----------



## Jer (Mar 21, 2022)

Undrave said:


> Because, somehow, the words of Wizard players have been given WAY too much weight. They decided they were the 'canary in the mine' of D&D and the sole keeper of what is 'True D&D'. If the Wizards player are unhappy, apparently your game will be slandered and tanked like 4e.



To be fair - the 4e Wizard was the worst design of all of the 4e initial classes in the PHB in many ways.  They created a "Controller" role for the class without really knowing what it meant and the various builds in the PHB for the Wizard are among the least interesting and the least tied to creating a distinctive play experience when compared to the other builds.  They eventually figured out what they wanted the Controller to be, but it just wasn't there when the PHB came out.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 21, 2022)

I mean, it was, but there were still spells that had nothing to do with the role, like fireball and magic missile.  It took them awhile to realize evocation-style damage spells can control as well, like one of the best things to come out of Essentials, Fountain of Flame.

But of course, they never took anything away from the Wizard either, so they had tons of powers that supported their role dubiously.  Which is really noticeable if your table has, say, an Invoker or Psion as well as a Wizard.


----------



## Jer (Mar 21, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I mean, it was, but there were still spells that had nothing to do with the role, like fireball and magic missile.  It took them awhile to realize evocation-style damage spells can control as well, like one of the best things to come out of Essentials, Fountain of Flame.



The big problem was that when they created the Wizard they didn't really know what a Controller was.  What they created was more like a combo of Striker and Leader than what the Controller eventually became.  And by the time they fixed it most of the folks who really liked Wizards had already moved on.


----------



## Lakesidefantasy (Mar 21, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Given the limitations of Darkvision (disadvantage on Perception checks that require sight), I never understood why people thought it was a big deal.  I once had a party who thought they could not bother with light sources and rely on Darkvision, and they blundered into so many traps (disadvantage on Perception lowers passive Perception by 5) that they finally broke down and started using light spells.  Sure you can see in dim light without penalty, but that's not really a huge advantage in my book.



And it only extends to 60 feet, which usually doesn't matter. Maybe darkvision could be reduced to 30 feet. That way we could have our cake but have to eat it too.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 21, 2022)

Undrave said:


> That's not exactly what the D&D beyond stats say... Wizards were in 4th place beyond Fighter, Rogue and Cleric. Fighters are the most popular and yet it feels like Wizards are the ones getting all the toys...



Fighters are the easiest class to play, and veteran players inevitably steer newbies (who now far outnumber the vets) into fighter for their first PC.  Also, new players are unlikely to make their feelings known to WotC (respond to polls and the like) making those already invested in the game have a weightier vote than their numbers would indicate.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

Jer said:


> To be fair - the 4e Wizard was the worst design of all of the 4e initial classes in the PHB in many ways.  They created a "Controller" role for the class without really knowing what it meant and the various builds in the PHB for the Wizard are among the least interesting and the least tied to creating a distinctive play experience when compared to the other builds.  They eventually figured out what they wanted the Controller to be, but it just wasn't there when the PHB came out.



That's fair! But we know the designer had to fight the team constantly to not make the Wizard the best class in the game. I guess they over-tuned in the other direction. And because 1 class out of the lot was not as good, and it was the WIZARD, the whole game was lambasted. The Monk in 5e sucks but nobody is decrying the whole edition because of it.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 21, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Fighters are the easiest class to play, and veteran players inevitably steer newbies (who now far outnumber the vets) into fighter for their first PC.  Also, new players are unlikely to make their feelings known to WotC (respond to polls and the like) making those already invested in the game have a weightier vote than their numbers would indicate.



It took until Tasha's to get new maneuvers while Wizards got spells at every opportunities, usually far more than any other spell casting classes too.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 21, 2022)

Undrave said:


> That's fair! But we know the designer had to fight the team constantly to not make the Wizard the best class in the game. I guess they over-tuned in the other direction. And because 1 class out of the lot was not as good, and it was the WIZARD, the whole game was lambasted. The Monk in 5e sucks but nobody is decrying the whole edition because of it.



That is deeply reductive.  The relative weakness of the wizard was far from the only thing people complained about in 4th edition.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 21, 2022)

Undrave said:


> It took until Tasha's to get new maneuvers while Wizards got spells at every opportunities, usually far more than any other spell casting classes too.



Spells have always been treated as a player bone to throw in virtually any product, so people who otherwise don't care about the book have a reason to buy it anyway.  Subclasses and races are the same.  If feats weren't "optional" in 5e they would have been the same way. But, maneuvers are considered a new mechanic, designed for a single subclass, so they got short shrift.  I would have liked to have seen more earlier too.


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 21, 2022)

Jer said:


> The big problem was that when they created the Wizard they didn't really know what a Controller was.  What they created was more like a combo of Striker and Leader than what the Controller eventually became.  And by the time they fixed it most of the folks who really liked Wizards had already moved on.



It took too long for them to figure out what controller was. And bythetime they did, managing the rider effects was a hassle.


They didn't get Striker right either. Well they did. They just didn't stress that Strikers deal damage AND avoided retaliation via naturally described aggro dump (I shift/moonwalk a billion squares/feet away).


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 21, 2022)

Can I make another post bout the hope for a Man of Fantasy Science owning dragons with Da Vinci gadgets, alchemist fire, distilled poisons, gunpowder, anatomy charts, and historic battle maps?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Mar 21, 2022)

Undrave said:


> Totally agree on less spells and bringing back the interesting 4e Monster designs!



Sadly, the reversion on gnolls (for example) does not bode well for such changes.



Undrave said:


> If we can't have a separated Warlord class, then I just want the Warlord to skin the Fighter and wear his name. The 'basic Fighter' should just be a single build, and the Fighter should go back to its roots as the mundane leader of men like back when it became the lord of a castle.



This would be good, but the major problem is the underlying design of the Fighter class fights this. While it isn't powerful compared to what magic can do, as far as basal class features go, FIghters have some of the beefiest basic features (particularly Action Surge), so it's very hard for subclass to make a dramatic effect on them (as opposed to, say, Ranger, Monk, or Druid, which are almost defined _more_ by subclass than base class).



Undrave said:


> How about, instead of 'spend Spell Slots to Smite' they went the other way around? Spend Smite charges to cast from a subclass specific set of spells? Then, if you want a more spell caster Paladin, you can give them a subclass with actual spell slots to use on a curated list of utility spells? While the more warrior-like subclasses just get more bashing-heads-in stuff.



See, I'd be super on board for that. You have (say) Proficiency * Charisma smites per day. You can expend them to perform Litanies, some of which are spells, some of which are unique effects. At high levels, you can expend multiple smites to perform Grand Litanies, which are significantly more powerful but costly to use.

Keeps the Smite power front-and-center, and ditches the spellcasting without overly sacrificing flexibility. Oaths can thus offer unique Litany options tailored to the feel and tone of that specific oath, too.



Undrave said:


> elemanthal



That's a _queso_-elemental plane.



James Gasik said:


> It's like, can't you see the problem of a game that has "Badass Normal Fighters" and "Godlike Magical Wizards" on the same team?



For a significant portion of people--no, they can't. Sometimes it's because they see "the DM can play favorites and give the Fighter special treatment to fix it" as a valid fix, rather than the _incredibly awful_ non-fix that it actually is. Sometimes it's because they legitimately believe Wizards simply _should_ be better than Fighters. (Yes, I have had someone tell me that to my digital face, live on stream.) Sometimes it's because they don't necessarily want Wizards to be more powerful, but their expectations force Fighters into a mechanical dead end while continually giving powerful and flexible options to the Wizard, so they think there are at worst minor wrinkles that can be easily smoothed over.



Micah Sweet said:


> Hey, if WotC really wanted to nerf wizards, they would do it.  More people like crazy magic powers than not.



There is a difference between "crazy magic powers" and "_better than everyone else_ magic powers." That difference is one WotC doesn't seem to grasp very well--and which they have continuously, and seemingly not-fully-intentionally, leaned into across multiple editions now. It happened in 3e, it _would_ have happened in 4e without Heinsoo actively fighting it, and it happened again in 5e even with an overall tweaking downward of the power of magic compared to 3e.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 21, 2022)

I don't know, I played a Ranger in 4e.  I could strike and control from range if need be, and I was basically the team all-star in a lot of fights.  The problem with Strikers was that most DM's I played with didn't understand the role.  I heard complaints all the time that Strikers did "too much damage".  "Uh, yeah, that's kind of the point, but also, most of the Strikers you see in play aren't that good!"

This went on for awhile until we got to the Next Playtest, and I helped another player put together the UBER RANGER, completely maximized for damage.  Our first big fight, the Ranger won initiative, and the monster was dead before he was even finished with his turn!  

But many Strikers were kind of bad at their jobs, I'll grant.  The Rogue was ok, but you needed Combat Advantage, and with no "always available" way to get it (outside of flanking, which required the other players to remember you were a Rogue), many players overloaded on Utility Powers that granted it.  The Sorcerer was a mess.  The Assassin was a mess.  The Monk was a mess (though fun to play, if you understood it's mechanics).  But Barbarians and Rangers were always top shelf in my experience.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 21, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I don't know, I played a Ranger in 4e.  I could strike and control from range if need be, and I was basically the team all-star in a lot of fights.  The problem with Strikers was that most DM's I played with didn't understand the role.  I heard complaints all the time that Strikers did "too much damage".  "Uh, yeah, that's kind of the point, but also, most of the Strikers you see in play aren't that good!"
> 
> This went on for awhile until we got to the Next Playtest, and I helped another player put together the UBER RANGER, completely maximized for damage.  Our first big fight, the Ranger won initiative, and the monster was dead before he was even finished with his turn!
> 
> But many Strikers were kind of bad at their jobs, I'll grant.  The Rogue was ok, but you needed Combat Advantage, and with no "always available" way to get it (outside of flanking, which required the other players to remember you were a Rogue), many players overloaded on Utility Powers that granted it.  The Sorcerer was a mess.  The Assassin was a mess.  The Monk was a mess (though fun to play, if you understood it's mechanics).  But Barbarians and Rangers were always top shelf in my experience.



Is having the monster die on turn 1 a desired outcome?  I can't imagine it, as either a player or a DM.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 21, 2022)

Well one of the resources used was a Daily, and yes, pretty much.  The Striker's role is to deal damage.  The Leader's is to set him up, and the Defender's is to protect him, while the Controller limits how many enemies can threaten him.  So if all moving parts are in synch, that's how one is meant to get past most encounters.  Even a powerful solo monster can only do so much, unless it has minions and the like (which is usually the Controller's job).

Most fights aren't one in a single turn- I admit, that character was tuned, but it was to show the DM that he had the wrong idea.  He seemed to think that Strikers should only do a little more damage than the other classes, for some reason.  There of course, were trade-offs one could make, you can sacrifice a little damage for more mobility, or better defenses, and most people did, because most groups didn't work together that efficiently.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 22, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Well one of the resources used was a Daily, and yes, pretty much.  The Striker's role is to deal damage.  The Leader's is to set him up, and the Defender's is to protect him, while the Controller limits how many enemies can threaten him.  So if all moving parts are in synch, that's how one is meant to get past most encounters.  Even a powerful solo monster can only do so much, unless it has minions and the like (which is usually the Controller's job).
> 
> Most fights aren't one in a single turn- I admit, that character was tuned, but it was to show the DM that he had the wrong idea.  He seemed to think that Strikers should only do a little more damage than the other classes, for some reason.  There of course, were trade-offs one could make, you can sacrifice a little damage for more mobility, or better defenses, and most people did, because most groups didn't work together that efficiently.



Honestly, I would hate to play in a team that gleefully trivialized what was probably a narratively important combat, and I would really hate to DM for such a team.  Especially if a stated goal is to show up the DM and prove him wrong.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 22, 2022)

Well in the instance of SUPER RANGER, I felt a playtest session, not a real campaign in the slightest, was the best opportunity to prove my point.  We were stress testing a new format for adventures, after all.  It ended up with a string of easy encounters, a hard one, and a TPK (too...many...trolls...).

Now as far as narratively important combats, I'm going to state that first, I don't super optimize.  My last 5e character was a multiclassed High Elf Arcane Cleric/Wizard, and I was keeping my levels even (basically, he was a rebuild of my old 3e character, who wasn't terribly optimized either).  I make characters, not robots (unless they ARE robots, of course).  I try to match the level of competency of the other players as best I can, but I'm not looking to outshine people with greater mechanical knowledge.  As a DM myself, nothing wrecks a game faster than an unbalanced party.  Except maybe a Deck of Many Things.

It's just hard to explain "this is how the game is" to someone who thinks a Hybrid Blackguard/Assassin is somehow the bleeding edge of CharOp without showing them, and I thought a game with no real stakes was the best time to do that.

Now, moving on, no plan goes according to plan.  Enemies can sometimes be taken out with luck, or players for that matter.  I don't see everyone playing on the same level, working to support each other, to achieve greater success through synergy as a problem.  Too many tables are just "four or five random guys on an adventure".

If everyone is playing the best they can, how can that be wrong?  So the monster the DM thought was a super epic enemy died?  It's not like he doesn't have more chances to challenge the party.  It's not like there can't be narrative consequences as well- maybe other villains will realize what a threat the party is and move to react?

I don't see how the heroes being good at what they do coming at the expense of the story.  It just means the story changes.  Which is the expected result for player actions, isn't it?


----------



## Undrave (Mar 22, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> This would be good, but the major problem is the underlying design of the Fighter class fights this. While it isn't powerful compared to what magic can do, as far as basal class features go, FIghters have some of the beefiest basic features (particularly Action Surge), so it's very hard for subclass to make a dramatic effect on them (as opposed to, say, Ranger, Monk, or Druid, which are almost defined _more_ by subclass than base class).



I would want that for a 6e, not a 5.5e, mind you. I know the CURRENT Fighter can't handle that, but I think a future iteration of the Fighter totally could if built like that from the start.


EzekielRaiden said:


> See, I'd be super on board for that. You have (say) Proficiency * Charisma smites per day. You can expend them to perform Litanies, some of which are spells, some of which are unique effects. At high levels, you can expend multiple smites to perform Grand Litanies, which are significantly more powerful but costly to use.
> 
> Keeps the Smite power front-and-center, and ditches the spellcasting without overly sacrificing flexibility. Oaths can thus offer unique Litany options tailored to the feel and tone of that specific oath, too.



Yeah that's a really cool name! Maybe instead of Grand Litanies we could call them 'Miracles'  Some could have Litany that heal or gets rid of curses, or cast Shield of Faith on allies, while other allow offensive buffs. It would cut down the base class flexibility but vastly improve the theme of the Oaths. The Oath of the Ancient would feel a lot more druidic with that system.


EzekielRaiden said:


> That's a _queso_-elemental plane.



Ah, of course!


James Gasik said:


> But many Strikers were kind of bad at their jobs, I'll grant. The Rogue was ok, but you needed Combat Advantage, and with no "always available" way to get it (outside of flanking, which required the other players to remember you were a Rogue), many players overloaded on Utility Powers that granted it. The Sorcerer was a mess. The Assassin was a mess. The Monk was a mess (though fun to play, if you understood it's mechanics). But Barbarians and Rangers were always top shelf in my experience.



The Avenger was a lot of fun and I really chewed the scenery as a Star Pack Warlock!


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 22, 2022)

The Avenger was fun, if built a little backwards.  Pursuit required you to get a good basic attack, that the class didn't have natively, for example.  Not as good as some other Strikers, but unique, which is a big selling point.  It's a class I wouldn't mind seeing back.

I didn't get too many chances to play a Warlock, the original "V-design" was strange to me, but I did eventually play one for a little bit, a Water Genasi from Calimshan.  I also tried a multiclass Warlock once but...yeah that didn't go over well, lol.  The class had a lot of strange utility, and it was funny watching my DM try to find ways to prevent me from triggering Hellish Rebuke.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Mar 22, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Because players don't use darkvision as a cool but limited back up to having light, they use it as a replacement for having light.  And then get surly when you enforce the difference. Eventually, it gets exhausting and you start to feel like the bad guy.



To me, this says your players just don't like the way light and sight work. They've taken a perfectly natural method to avoid having to deal with problems, and you escalated by inventing new problems specifically designed to screw over their effort to avoid problems. That bespeaks of a conflict between you and your players, with each side taking more and more strident, hard line positions. Eliminating or weakening darkvision isn't going to change that dynamic, it's just an attempt to take away the tools the players have used in order to not engage with the thing you have offered.

It seems, to me, that you first need to have a conversation with your players about this issue, since you clearly want an experience or situation that they have displayed a strong aversion to (whether or not they realize that's what they are doing). Second, you need to re-evaluate how you are handling this element of play to see if there is a different approach, or some house ruling, that you can use to make it more functional for your group.

Because as it stands, I don't think anything you could do to merely nerf or eliminate darkvision would solve the real problem you appear to have: _you_ think lighting and sight based challenges are cool or interesting and your _players_ (seem to) think they are onerous or frustrating.



tetrasodium said:


> This is my experience as well.  Players flatly refuse to use anything but dark vision.  If I  put in silly traps that require color to solve then I'm the bad guy beings unreasonable punishing them like that & the game devolves into a tedious tomb of horrors style poke everything with a ten foot pole twice slog.



Same as above. If your players are consistently pushing back against your efforts to do this...why assume they are just being petulant? Why not take it as a sign that they just do not find joy or interest in this thing you're doing and look for ways to either make those challenges actually rewarding in their eyes (pun intended), or to make them interesting in their own right?


Why punish, when you could try to find common ground, so that (with a little luck) you can give them vision-based challenges they _enjoy_, rather than merely endure or actively avoid?


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 22, 2022)

I'm not sure what the hate out is for Wizards.  A lot of 5e spells were nerfed from previous editions:  no save or suck spells, concentration etc...  I've been playing a high level wizard and am often disappointed how they've changed specific spells.

The issue between fighters and wizards, IMO, is at higher levels is the 'mundane' fighter-types have to rely on caster-types for various things:  flying, hitting monster's weaknesses (elemental damage), getting past obstacles ect...  It's a lot of 'supernatural' trouble-shooting that spellcasting brings to the table.

Here's the thing - and I think it's been mentioned on this board:  At 10th + it seems a wizard is able to do so much more while a fighter continues to be a good fighter.  I think if they said, "tier 3 and 4 is god-like superhero tier" and gave those fighting classes special (non-spellcasting) powers - like flight, or amazing leaps or the ability to pick up horses and throw them at dragons or whatever, then they'd feel special next to wizards.   Sure, they can find boots of flight and helms of teleport but those are campaign and DM reliant.  Nothing is baked into the classes.

As it is, the game really encourages mutli-classing to get some kind of spellcasting in order to get that bit of extra utility.

That said, you can't give every class EVERYTHING.  It's a team-based game, after all and you have to pool resources to overcome challenges.


----------



## tetrasodium (Mar 22, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> To me, this says your players just don't like the way light and sight work. They've taken a perfectly natural method to avoid having to deal with problems, and you escalated by inventing new problems specifically designed to screw over their effort to avoid problems. That bespeaks of a conflict between you and your players, with each side taking more and more strident, hard line positions. Eliminating or weakening darkvision isn't going to change that dynamic, it's just an attempt to take away the tools the players have used in order to not engage with the thing you have offered.
> 
> It seems, to me, that you first need to have a conversation with your players about this issue, since you clearly want an experience or situation that they have displayed a strong aversion to (whether or not they realize that's what they are doing). Second, you need to re-evaluate how you are handling this element of play to see if there is a different approach, or some house ruling, that you can use to make it more functional for your group.
> 
> ...



You are missing things.  The penalty to perception risk of things like  traps/puzzles 
 that can't be seen without color & similar are how 5e handles dark vision.. Period. It's not punishing players to hit that any more than it is for monsters to hit their hp. Unfortunately 5e is tuned so far in favor of the player in so many ways that simply mentioning that players get surly  & refuse to accept anything but the perfection of dark vision generates accusations of a gm punishing their players alongside a use your words tall it out backhand. It gets tiring being setup as the villain by an edition.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Mar 22, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You are missing things.  The penalty to perception risk of things like  traps/puzzles
> that can't be seen without color & similar are how 5e handles dark vision.. Period. It's not punishing players to hit that any more than it is for monsters to hit their hp. Unfortunately 5e is tuned so far in favor of the player in so many ways that simply mentioning that players get surly  & refuse to accept anything but the perfection of dark vision generates accusations of a gm punishing their players alongside a use your words tall it out backhand. It gets tiring being setup as the villain by an edition.



Frankly, I consider this completely irrelevant to what I said.

It doesn't matter if you ARE playing by the rules or not, if the players are so clearly demonstrating that they _don't like_ what you're giving them in the game--whether _you_ consider that dislike appropriate or inappropriate is honestly not all that impactful on how the situation should be resolved. Now, obviously, they must like all the other stuff enough to stick with it, or you wouldn't have a stable enough gaming group to have the complaint in the first place. From there, if you feel you're being "set up as the villain" (unless that's hyperbole, which you don't seem to intend it as), then you want something from the game that your players don't, and vice versa.

I'm not sure whether you are referring to me or them when you mention a "use your words tal[k] it out backhand," but if that's how you feel about your players then there may be even worse problems than I'd previously assumed. You sound like you _resent_ your players. Which, if true, you may want to consider whether you should keep running games for that group. Resentment is very difficult to ameliorate once it takes root.

If you don't actually _resent_ your players and you're just frustrated with the situation, again, I really think that you need to have a long _out-of-game_ conversation with them. There's clearly a gap between you and them, which you seem to be filling with some rather uncharitable descriptions of their thoughts and feelings on the matter (characterizing them as petulant children). It's very likely there's more to it, and given you have the reins of power here, it kinda is your responsibility to find out what they _want_ and why they (from your perspective) are making such perfectionistic demands, that (objectively) extend outside the actual remit of the rules for darkvision. To find out why they (presumably, but I don't think this is a stretch) feel "cheated" when their darkvision is not the cure-all for lighting-based difficulties.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 22, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> To me, this says your players just don't like the way light and sight work. They've taken a perfectly natural method to avoid having to deal with problems, and you escalated by inventing new problems specifically designed to screw over their effort to avoid problems. That bespeaks of a conflict between you and your players, with each side taking more and more strident, hard line positions. Eliminating or weakening darkvision isn't going to change that dynamic, it's just an attempt to take away the tools the players have used in order to not engage with the thing you have offered.
> 
> It seems, to me, that you first need to have a conversation with your players about this issue, since you clearly want an experience or situation that they have displayed a strong aversion to (whether or not they realize that's what they are doing). Second, you need to re-evaluate how you are handling this element of play to see if there is a different approach, or some house ruling, that you can use to make it more functional for your group.
> 
> ...



Are you saying that, if the PCs don't like how a rule works, the DM should just change it until they do?  Does this apply to other aspects of the game, or just light and vision?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Mar 22, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Are you saying that, if the PCs don't like how a rule works, the DM should just change it until they do?  Does this apply to other aspects of the game, or just light and vision?



I'm saying that if the players and the DM disagree about things so fundamentally that it _actively upsets both parties_, they need to sit down and have a conversation about what each side wants. If, coming out of that conversation, they agree that a house-rule is the best solution to the problem, then full steam ahead. If it just requires a change of method or approach for the people involved, awesome, that has fewer knock-on consequences and doesn't require so much "testing" as "monitoring." If they decide that the system they're using is simply unable to furnish their needs, then they may need to consider other options. If they can't come to any kind of understanding at all, the group may need to disband--irreconcilable differences.

The game is a shared social and emotional space. The DM is granted significant authority and autonomy over that space in order to facilitate a more interesting result. If that autonomy and authority are being challenged, something has gone wrong. Finding out _what_ has gone wrong and then considering ways to address it--including the possibility that no such way exists, and therefore the group cannot achieve its ends and should disband or heavily reorganize--is the only productive response. House-rules are but one possible solution.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 22, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> I'm saying that if the players and the DM disagree about things so fundamentally that it _actively upsets both parties_, they need to sit down and have a conversation about what each side wants. If, coming out of that conversation, they agree that a house-rule is the best solution to the problem, then full steam ahead. If it just requires a change of method or approach for the people involved, awesome, that has fewer knock-on consequences and doesn't require so much "testing" as "monitoring." If they decide that the system they're using is simply unable to furnish their needs, then they may need to consider other options. If they can't come to any kind of understanding at all, the group may need to disband--irreconcilable differences.
> 
> The game is a shared social and emotional space. The DM is granted significant authority and autonomy over that space in order to facilitate a more interesting result. If that autonomy and authority are being challenged, something has gone wrong. Finding out _what_ has gone wrong and then considering ways to address it--including the possibility that no such way exists, and therefore the group cannot achieve its ends and should disband or heavily reorganize--is the only productive response. House-rules are but one possible solution.



My group doesn't usually have this problem, actually.  I have seen it in groups I've visited, at cons and at game stores.  I do, however, think it's a problem if the players don't want to follow the rules, and I suspect that, "we're going to keep the lighting rules as they are in the base game" isn't a common point to bring up in session 0.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 22, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Are you saying that, if the PCs don't like how a rule works, the DM should just change it until they do?  Does this apply to other aspects of the game, or just light and vision?



Pretty much, yes. That's the actual reason for Rule 0; for the DM to adjust the game for the group, not to assert their dominance.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Mar 22, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> My group doesn't usually have this problem, actually.  I have seen it in groups I've visited, at cons and at game stores.  I do, however, think it's a problem if the players don't want to follow the rules, and I suspect that, "we're going to keep the lighting rules as they are in the base game" isn't a common point to bring up in session 0.



I mean, that's fair, but there can easily be plenty of things that _ideally_ should have come up in Session 0 but didn't and that thus need to be ironed out later. That's just a fact of life, people don't always know how to fully express all their intuitions and expectations in advance.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 22, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Pretty much, yes. That's the actual reason for Rule 0; for the DM to adjust the game for the group, not to assert their dominance.



I'm never going to be ok with the desires of the players always coming first.  There needs to be some give and take, or the DM becomes a cruise director.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 22, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Pretty much, yes. That's the actual reason for Rule 0; for the DM to adjust the game for the group, not to assert their dominance.



Also, if the game intends session 0 to be, "How can the DM change what and how they run to accommodate the players, who are more important" then they should say so.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 22, 2022)

'For the group'.

It's right there in the post.

The DM is part of the group, but they have to accept they're just _part_ instead of the leader or most important Gary Stu who should always get their way above and beyond everyone else. They chose the job where their responsibility to making sure *everyone* has fun and they should not abuse it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 22, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> 'For the group'.
> 
> It's right there in the post.
> 
> The DM is part of the group, but they have to accept they're just _part_ instead of the leader or most important Gary Stu who should always get their way above and beyond everyone else. They chose the job where their responsibility to making sure *everyone* has fun and they should not abuse it.



Everyone includes the DM.  You shouldn't make someone run a game they don't like.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 22, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Everyone includes the DM.  You shouldn't make someone run a game they don't like.



Then don't run it if you can't compromise.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 22, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Everyone includes the DM.  You shouldn't make someone run a game they don't like.



The sweet spot is that everyone involved, players and DMs, should be _flexible_ and _accommodating_.  Don't walk into a game with a hard opinion about how the game should be played or what should be included or excluded.


----------



## tetrasodium (Mar 22, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> The sweet spot is that everyone involved, players and DMs, should be _flexible_ and _accommodating_.  Don't walk into a game with a hard opinion about how the game should be played or what should be included or excluded.



The trouble with the gm doing this in 5e is that the players don't "_ need_" anything from the gm.   From the players perspective the gm doesn't have anything to give in a flexible give & take so it becomes take and take.  That was not always the case & saying that the gm should have a discussion with their players over all of this does not change the lack of things to give in exchange for taking off the cruise ship guide hat that expects the gm just give the players everything they want.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Mar 22, 2022)

Skyscraper said:


> What I would love to see in the next version of D&D 6 is a much lower frequency of:
> 
> 1) dark vision. The poor races that do not currently have it are at a disadvantage compared to the majority that have it. And in a dungeon, it's common for the party to have to light a torch for the human PC only, while the other 3 would be fine without it.
> 
> ...



I think darkvision in most races should be nerfed, bring down the standard range from 60 to 30 feet (is the baseline 60ft?) except in a few choice cases like drow or duregar(?) dwarves, so that it’s more beneficial to more races to bring a torch.

As for the topic of magic, a few things: firstly the wizard, the most common complaint is that they can do everything and anything with their massive spell lists, so to combat this I think that favoured and forbidden schools should be brought back in addition to capping their other nonspecialised spells at spell level 5 or something, this also benefits the sorcerer who while having less magic is also less restricted in their use of it, just, give them a few more sorcery points please.

Next the half casters ranger and paladin (im aware Artificers exist but I haven’t seen their abilities so I’m ignoring them) I think they would benefit from being bumped down from half casters to one-third casters, with their signature abilities becoming powers more like 4e, hunter’s mark is just something the ranger can do, paladin’s smite gets ‘uses’ like the bardic inspiration, spend more uses of it to deal more damage rather than higher level spell slots, lay on hands has a bigger hp pool to compensate for less uses of spell healing and so on and so forth, the ranger now draws from the druid spell list and paladin the cleric’s, I know alot of people want magicless ranger so like someone else mentioned earlier put the spellcasting into some subclasses ranging from none magic to some magic to magic prioritised.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 22, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> The trouble with the gm doing this in 5e is that the players don't "_ need_" anything from the gm.   From the players perspective the gm doesn't have anything to give in a flexible give & take so it becomes take and take.  That was not always the case & saying that the gm should have a discussion with their players over all of this does not change the lack of things to give in exchange for taking off the cruise ship guide hat that expects the gm just give the players everything they want.



The DM has to run the game.  Even novices to the game are aware that DMing takes more effort than playing, and the DM absolutely should walk away if they don't feel the players are respecting the time they put in.

Edit:  To be clear, this isn't a 5e issue, as 5e makes no instruction that the DM has to accommodate the players no matter what their request.  This is just a general TTRPG issue when it comes to establishing a group that understands and respects the social contract at the table.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 22, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> The DM has to run the game.  Even novices to the game are aware that DMing takes more effort than playing, and the DM absolutely should walk away if they don't feel the players are respecting the time they put in.



And the players should know it's not _that_ much effort and they should take over if the DM thinks their choice of taking up the role make them the most important person at the table.

If the job is so onerous that the only reason one would do it is UNLIMITED POWER, then please don't do it.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 22, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> And the players should know it's not _that_ much effort and they should take over if the DM thinks their choice of taking up the role make them the most important person at the table.
> 
> If the job is so onerous that the only reason one would do it is UNLIMITED POWER, then please don't do it.



Of course.  To my mind, the ideal table is one where everyone takes turns DMing.


----------



## tetrasodium (Mar 22, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> The DM has to run the game.  Even novices to the game are aware that DMing takes more effort than playing, and the DM absolutely should walk away if they don't feel the players are respecting the time they put in.
> 
> Edit:  To be clear, this isn't a 5e issue, as 5e makes no instruction that the DM has to accommodate the players no matter what their request.  This is just a general TTRPG issue when it comes to establishing a group that understands and respects the social contract at the table.



That's kind of missing the point though. Look at common 3.x things GM's let players start with and how %e treats them

A free feat at level 1 *| *Feats are optional & the system's crunch/math assumes they are not used so ignore that some are wildly imbalanced
A free magic item *|* "Optional" & the system's math  assumes they are not in use.  Plus with the removal of body slots  & simplification of almost all subjective equipment choices out these are pretty much always going to be an objectively more powerful thing in every way or trash to be sold
It doesn't stop there though

Familiar loss really hurts _*| *_spend an hour & nothing of value
carrying capacity light medium & heavy loads with penalties for medium & heavy _*|*_ There is a variant rule that drops it from no penalty as long as under strength*15 pounds to strength*5 & quite a few races  can double the already extremely generous capacity
etc


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 22, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> That's kind of missing the point though. Look at common 3.x things GM's let players start with and how %e treats them
> 
> A free feat at level 1 *| *Feats are optional & the system's crunch/math assumes they are not used so ignore that some are wildly imbalanced
> A free magic item *|* "Optional" & the system's math  assumes they are not in use.  Plus with the removal of body slots  & simplification of almost all subjective equipment choices out these are pretty much always going to be an objectively more powerful thing in every way or trash to be sold
> ...



I'm unclear as to what would indicate as to the social contract of various tables.


----------



## tetrasodium (Mar 22, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> I'm unclear as to what would indicate as to the social contract of various tables.



I'm not sure why you'd jump from discussion about being flexible in a discussion between players & /GM's where the system leaves the GM with nothing to give other than "I'm the cruise ship guide" to players who have everything they need _already_ granted by the system so I'm not sure how to clarify your uncertainty. The GM needs to either walk, be a cruise ship guide, or engage in nerfs to claw back things given by the system in too many ways.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 22, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Then don't run it if you can't compromise.



Again, if you can't compromise with the DM, the same thing applies.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 22, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Again, if you can't compromise with the DM, the same thing applies.



Except we keep running into DMs who feel like 'compromise' means 'do what I say because I volunteered to do work'.


----------



## James Gasik (Mar 22, 2022)

I think, pun intended, that Darkvision has a perception problem.  It's not Darkvision, for one.  Darkvision would imply you can see in the dark.  That's not what Darkvision does.  It would be more accurately be called "Dimvision", because it lets you see in Dim light.  Then it goes on to allow you to treat darkness as dim light.

This really is a penalty, and I'm not sure why so many people go "yeah, but, it's too useful and people don't need light" despite the very serious issues of running around dangerous areas squinting because you can't see good.  It doesn't need to be nerfed or changed or anything.  Disadvantage is a huge penalty for a game with bounded accuracy.  Lowering passive Perception by 5 is a huge penalty.  You don't need to do anything more- you need to make Perception matter more while traveling.

Now, to address player pushback on this- probably, when they pick a race and it says it has the special ability of "Darkvision", they fail to realize what that means, and assume it does what it says it does.  Then are annoyed when their "special thing" doesn't work as they thought it did.  It's like the guy who tried to sue Hawaiian bread because it wasn't made in Hawaii, or the other guy who tried to sue Pop Tarts because Strawberry Pop Tarts don't contain much, if any, real strawberries.  They fell for the advertising and didn't read the ingredients.

You need to explain to them the reason WotC throws Darkvision around on so many races- it's a "ribbon" ability.  It's not the big cool reason to play race X or Y.  Darkvision is not the answer to lighting problems.  Light is the answer to lighting problems.

But DM's need to make sure this goes both ways- if you have some Bugbears creeping up on the party, they need to miss things too for not using light.  I have seen DM's pretend that monsters have "super darkvision", and it's annoying.

Now is lighting annoying?  Hell yes it is.  Does keeping track of who can see what become irksome for DM's and players alike?  Absolutely it does.  If you want to throw lighting rules out the window, it will probably make your game better.

But Darkvision as written is not, nor ever has been, some godlike ability in 5e.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Mar 22, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Except we keep running into DMs who feel like 'compromise' means 'do what I say because I volunteered to do work'.



Who's "we"?  I think most people here are accepting of compromise.  You just have to remember that means both sides bend, not just the DM.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Mar 22, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Who's "we"?  I think most people here are accepting of compromise.  You just have to remember that means both sides bend, not just the DM.



It's DMs on this board that keep complaining about having to compromise because they don't want to bend at all.


----------



## Cadence (Mar 22, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> It's DMs on this board that keep complaining about having to compromise because they don't want to bend at all.



And the other side continually sounds like if the DM ends up saying no to anything at all for any reason that they aren't compromising...


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 23, 2022)

I still would love a Scholar class with Plague Doctor and Apothecary subclasses. They could upgrade basic purchased items.

Updgrding healing potions with more healing or special benefits  
Acid becomes Corrosive Bombs
Antitoxin distilled Purification Vials
Alchemist's Fire focused Fire Bombs
Basic Poison concentrated into Poison Grenades and Plague Grenades
Holy Water can be distilled into Antideath Grenades that heal living and harm undead
Return of tanglefoot bags and thunderstones with the addition of choking and blinding powders
Special drugs that make you go fast, keep you awake, see in bullet time, ignore pain and more


----------

