# Toward a Theory of 6th Edition



## Guest 6801328

Just thinking out loud here, but doing so is more fun when somebody can hear you....

As the Ranger debate always illustrates, "class" seems to encapsulate multiple facets of an archetype in ways that make it impossible to design classes using a single-inheritance model.  E.g., the "stealthy woodsman" archetype could inherit from Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, and even Druid.

It seems to me there are multiple dimensions we are trying to model with the single dimension of "class", and while two dimensions is still not a perfect fit, two might at least improve the situation.

What if concepts like "Woodsman" were turned into a template that were applied on top of any class, so that class became two choices from a matrix?  (In theory the matrix could be incomplete; the "Druid Knight" for example might not be allowed, but my aesthetic preference would be for all options to be both viable and permissible.)

Where I struggle is in coming up with a decent list of these templates.  Woodsman is the easy one, and as many people have pointed out, "Barbarian" is really something that should be applicable to any class.  Barbarians, after all, have sorcerers and priests and thieves just like other cultures do.  But after Woodsman and Barbarian, what are some other good ones?  Knight?  Noble?  Tradesman?  Tomb-raider?  Warl....never mind.

They are starting to sound like Backgrounds.

Background already _is_ a dimension, although it's currently a shallow dimension.  So one option might be to simply make Backgrounds beefier, with more significant abilities that have a greater impact on mechanics.  The thing I don't like about this is that I think there would probably be far fewer total backgrounds...but maybe not?  I'm honestly torn on whether I think it's better to combine them, or keep Backgrounds as they are.  

Pros of Using Backgrounds as Templates:
 - Reduces number of major chargen decisions
 - Avoids some redundancy since the concepts are somewhat similar (e.g., is "Outland" a Background or a Template?)
 - Fewer structural changes

Cons of Using Backgrounds as Templates:
 - Harder to create a well-designed Template than a Background, which means there would probably be fewer Backgrounds
 - Corollary to the above, but adding a "ribbon" choice, from a large number of choices, just means that the overall matrix of available concepts is much greater.


Regardless of whether or not Backgrounds are used, what would these templates look like?  My inclination is that they would not have abilities that unlock at specific levels the way classes do, but would have features that are all gained immediately, some of which scale with level.  Some examples:
 - Knight: increase your armor proficiency by one step.  (Which might mean class armor proficiencies would be reduced one step.)
 - Woodsman: difficult natural terrain does not reduce your movement
 - Barbarian: Rage (redesigned so that it also boosts spell-casting and other things)
 - Soldier: some kind of tactical warlord-y thing
Etc. etc. etc.

I could keep going, but I'm interested in your responses.


----------



## happyhermit

One of the things I like about D&D and something that sets it apart from most other RPGs is actually the relatively asymmetrical way in which classes are implemented. I really like how some classes describe a rather specific profession or lifestyle while others are much more open or even vague. I wouldn't be surprised if D&D further away from the idea because; most systems do, it's easier to design and implement new classes, etc, but there is something lost in the transition.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas

Elfcrusher said:


> It seems to me there are multiple dimensions we are trying to model with the single dimension of "class", and while two dimensions is still not a perfect fit, two might at least improve the situation.
> 
> What if concepts like "Woodsman" were turned into a template that were applied on top of any class, so that class became two choices from a matrix?
> ...
> They are starting to sound like Backgrounds.



 Or like 2e Kits, though they were technically class-specific.  Or like 4e Themes.

Actually, rather a lot like Themes.  



> Background already _is_ a dimension, although it's currently a shallow dimension.  So one option might be to simply make Backgrounds beefier, with more significant abilities that have a greater impact on mechanics.  The thing I don't like about this is that I think there would probably be far fewer total backgrounds...but maybe not?  I'm honestly torn on whether I think it's better to combine them, or keep Backgrounds as they are.



Backgrounds feel like an outgrowth of the old 'secondary skill,' in 1e, they're what you did/who you were before you started adventuring, their like an adjunct to race.   What you're discussing sounds like a corresponding adjunct to class, more about what you're doing & becoming in your adventures than about what you were.



> Regardless of whether or not Backgrounds are used, what would these templates look like?  My inclination is that they would not have abilities that unlock at specific levels the way classes do, but would have features that are all gained immediately, some of which scale with level.  ...



 That sound rather more like Backgrounds.  4e Themes and 3e Substitution levels were mechanics that maybe wouldn't work as well with 5e class designs, but could be something that might work here, for your Template idea. The mechanic would be to modify, add, or replace class features as you level - the obvious problem being that, aside from ASIs and spell slots, few classes have a lot of features developing in parallel.  




> Where I struggle is in coming up with a decent list of these templates. Woodsman is the easy one, and as many people have pointed out, "Barbarian" is really something that should be applicable to any class. Barbarians, after all, have sorcerers and priests and thieves just like other cultures do. But after Woodsman and Barbarian, what are some other good ones? Knight? Noble? Tradesman? Tomb-raider?



 One thing an idea like this could accomplish would be to reduce the number of classes, focusing them more on the practical aspects of mechanics.   So things that are currently (sub-)classes - Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard, Monk, Thief, Assassin, Illusionist - could well be Templates, or even intersections of template and class.

For instance, you could have a Scion Template - it's someone for whom their heritage is a terribly important part of the character that directly influences the capabilities, purpose, etc - apply that to Magic-User and you have a Sorcerer.


----------



## Nevvur

Interesting idea. Additional templates could represent approaches to magic (e.g. arcane, divine). One could also have a primary and secondary template rather than treating them as equal in influence. For instance, if we include a warrior template and a divine magic template, we could get a Cleric or Paladin depending on the assignment of primary and secondary.


----------



## Warmaster Horus

Modular monsters.  Instead of fixed stat blocks monsters should be scalable and have options for variation in capabilities within a given range of CR.


----------



## Parmandur

My understanding is that they tried something rather like that over the course of the 5E public playtesting, and it evolved into the existing Class-Subclass-Background system based on fan input.


----------



## jgsugden

Best indicators point to 6E being several years off.  

Personally, I hope they stick with 5E for 10 more years.  No system will be perfect, but this one is very good.  I think the odds of the next edition being significantly better to be slim.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> My understanding is that they tried something rather like that over the course of the 5E public playtesting, and it evolved into the existing Class-Subclass-Background system based on fan input.



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


----------



## nswanson27

lowkey13 said:


> I would ask for two changes, and two changes only, to make me perfectly happy.
> 
> 1. Less magic, but better magic. I want magic to be awesome, and rare. No 1/3 spellcasters, few (if any) 1/2 spellcasters, and spells should be infrequent and amazing.
> 
> 2. Go back to a system where most things (including to hit and saving throws) improve with level, not ability score. I know, bac to the dark ages. Sort of a super proficiency bonus or something.
> 
> My ideas have a snowball's chance in Baator of being implemented, but that's my two cents.




I hear you on 1 - especially at higher levels, there's too many reality-bending spells that get grandfathered in from previous editions. Also, trim back the spells that need 5+ paragraphs to explain. Also, cut out the ones no one uses just to make for fewer pages in the spell appendix. Flipping through pages in the hardcovers to find the spell description for a rule clarification takes up way too much time during gameplay.


----------



## Xeviat

I feel like the base 12 classes in 5E are too entrenched in the identity of D&D to really be altered. 4E changed a lot of these around, and I think that’s part of the reason it didn’t resonate with people. Pulling things out and making them modular could lead to that “sameism” that people complained about back then.

I for one want to see the classes looked at in a way that ensures each class plays differently than other classes, even classes that are trying to do the same thing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I wouldn't worry too much about trends for 6e, because the most important trend of all, the D&D movie, hasn't come out yet.  If the movie is popular, then 6e will be designed around making D&D more like the movie.  If Vin Diesel's character says "outlanders make good barbarians", then half the barbarian stuff will move into the outlander background. 

That being said, I could see a lot of value of grouping subclasses around themes (5e already has the 1/3 casters, the nature guys for classes that aren't au natural, the religious guys for nondivine classes, the feywild, and the Shadowfell, with "touch o' mystic" likely in the future), which could fit the goals of the abandoned warrior/caster/trickster/priest idea (everyone with a subclass in this theme can use this item).  It also wouldn't hurt to move some race stuff (like elves being good with longswords) into backgrounds.  I liked 4e's theme, paragon path, epic thing, so I would be good with picking subclasses at certain points  in the game (say rangers can be beast masters until level 8, and then they can pick the fey beast master subclass at level 9...... chainlocks get a familiar until level 9, then they pick the bodyslave subclass and get a more formidable minion.....wizards pick a school of magic until level 9 when they go generalist.....)


----------



## robus

Elfcrusher said:


> They are starting to sound like Backgrounds.
> 
> Background already _is_ a dimension, although it's currently a shallow dimension.  So one option might be to simply make Backgrounds beefier, with more significant abilities that have a greater impact on mechanics.  The thing I don't like about this is that I think there would probably be far fewer total backgrounds...but maybe not?  I'm honestly torn on whether I think it's better to combine them, or keep Backgrounds as they are.




I think that backgrounds should absolutely get more attributes. Some things that are tied to race are really things that are acquired through experience.

Race should be limited to genetic advantages only: darkvision, speed, things like that. 

Other skill based attributes should be moved into backgrounds. Having three things to mix and match will make for more interesting character creation.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I want to start with a 4e frame work of balance, so a epic level fighter can do as much as an epic level mage... you choose a background, a race, a class and a theme at 1st level and all of them go up as you level, at level 3 of a class you gain subclass abilities...

I would also bring back prestige classes... lots of choices.


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> I would ask for two changes, and two changes only, to make me perfectly happy.
> 
> 1. Less magic, but better magic. I want magic to be awesome, and rare. No 1/3 spellcasters, few (if any) 1/2 spellcasters, and spells should be infrequent and amazing.
> 
> 2. Go back to a system where most things (including to hit and saving throws) improve with level, not ability score. I know, bac to the dark ages. Sort of a super proficiency bonus or something.
> 
> My ideas have a snowball's chance in Baator of being implemented, but that's my two cents.



Not the 2 changes I was expecting.


----------



## Mephista

Elfcrusher said:


> I could keep going, but I'm interested in your responses.



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

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

Your discussion of how "barbarians" have shamans and the like?  That has nothing to do with the CLASS barbarian.  In fact, the name barbarian is really a misnomer, and more of a callback to some rather questionable decisions in the past. Currently, the barbarian class is a primal warrior that relies on some bits of mysticism and/or lots of adrenaline to push their bodies beyond the normal limits, rather than focusing on technique.  That's your job within your culture - you're a warrior with a specific style of fighting.  Someone else in your culture would be the shaman (druid, cleric or bard), they'd have a different role than yours.

Likewise, with Ranger.  There's more than just being a "stealthy woodsman."  You're a HUNTER.  Hunters stalk prey, thus they get the stealthy bits.  Hunters need to locate their prey and track them down.  Thus the woodsman angle as well as the survival bits. Even the bits of druid magic revolve around things like setting traps and hunting techniques, with a dash of Beast Mastery (another extension of being a kind of hunter). Hunting is what you do.  Fighters, even if they're aware of how to survive in the wilderness, aren't hunters. That's not their shtick.  Even a "druid knight" isn't the same thing.  None of them are professional hunters like the Ranger. 

While I'm sure the mechanics of race and background will shift around, I'm fairly sure they're going to remain the same three differences.  We'll probably see more variety of backgrounds, but I dont' think they'll be merging them or getting rid of them.  That's a step back from what people want.  Its moving towards 3e, not towards 6e.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


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




Trade the paladin for a warlord? I can't wait for 5.5 now!


----------



## Mephista

Getting the warlord as a fighter subclass is definitely something I expect in 5.5.  Actually, making the Fighter's subclasses each have more of a story behind them would probably be a first step.

Fixing TWFing is another


----------



## Oofta

I could see having more of an a-la-cart approach to building classes, but there's always going to be a balance between flexibility and simplicity.

So while I could see backgrounds having more mechanical impact for example, it's tough.  Right now it helps a little bit (my wizard knows how to open locks because he grew up in the streets), but where do you draw the line before you're creating a new game?

I think this version is successful because it gives enough flexibility to build most archetypes while still being simple enough to grasp the basic concepts.


----------



## Oofta

lowkey13 said:


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




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

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


----------



## Tormyr

lowkey13 said:


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




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

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


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Guest 6801328

Mephista said:


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




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



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




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


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


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



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


----------



## Mephista

Elfcrusher said:


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



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

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


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

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


----------



## Guest 6801328

Mephista said:


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




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

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



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




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


----------



## Mercule

lowkey13 said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## TwoSix

Mercule said:


> If we're going pie-in-the-sky, I'll actually one-up you. Make today's primary casters into 1/2 casters. Put out a PHB2 that details levels 21-40 and extends the spell tables through 9th level spells.
> 
> "Name level" in 1E AD&D was pretty much epic level. The system did OK above that level, but it was a bit funky. Anything above 5th level spells were largely there as set dressing and plot hooks. Over the years, there's come to be a feeling that you're somehow "cheated" if you don't get (at least theoretic) access to every spell in a reasonable period of time. Phooey. The higher levels operate fundamentally different because there's a sharp spike in impact of magic on the game. Just go ahead a "re-set" name level to epic level and accept it.
> 
> I expect there to be lots of folks who vehemently disagree with my take on this, but I can live with that.



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


----------



## Oofta

Tormyr said:


> I have 5 months to figure out how to get Mike Mearls to announce that the next full version of D&D is going to expand on all variations of gnome paladins and eliminate everything else.
> 
> EDIT: &%$#*!, I got ninja'd on this?!?!




Ya snooze, ya loose.


----------



## Alexemplar

Xeviat said:


> I feel like the base 12 classes in 5E are too entrenched in the identity of D&D to really be altered. 4E changed a lot of these around, and I think that’s part of the reason it didn’t resonate with people. Pulling things out and making them modular could lead to that “sameism” that people complained about back then.
> 
> I for one want to see the classes looked at in a way that ensures each class plays differently than other classes, even classes that are trying to do the same thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




  I don't know.  For me, the core of D&D has always been the Fighting Man/Fighter, the Thief/Rogue, the Cleric/Priest, and the Wizard/Mage.  They're not only the classes from which all the others were originally variants or combinations of. They also define the roles (thematically and mechanically) that people expect in your average D&D adventuring party.  People usually expect a party to contain one fighting guy for beating face, one skills/stealth guy for skills and stealth, one arcane magic guy for damage and utility, and a healer/support character.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Alexemplar said:


> I don't know.  For me, the core of D&D has always been the Fighting Man/Fighter, the Thief/Rogue, the Cleric/Priest, and the Wizard/Mage.  They're not only the classes from which all the others were originally variants or combinations of.



 /Originally/ there was no Thief.  Just say'n. 

But, yeah, in AD&D, they were the 4 classes, and the others ('cept the oddball Monk & Bard) were sub-classes of 'em.
And, that didn't really change much in 2e (they became four class groups:  Warrior, Wizard, Priest, & Rogue), so for about 25 years, that was just the way it was, and... 







> They also define the roles (thematically and mechanically) that people expect in your average D&D adventuring party.  People usually expect a party to contain one fighting guy for beating face, one skills/stealth guy for skills and stealth, one arcane magic guy for damage and utility, and a healer/support character.



...it became a tradition.

But, what the traditional cleric & magic-user do - cast spells - is essentially not that different.  And what the traditional fighter and thief do - use mundane skill (fighting's a skill) - is really not that different, either.  

You could probably take D&D down to just those two 'classes' - magic-user and skill-user; Mage & Hero, perhaps - and get all the remaining PH-in-some-edition classes and sub-classes and one-off-class-in-one-supplement-one-time classes by just applying various Templates to them.


----------



## Alexemplar

Tony Vargas said:


> But, what the traditional cleric & magic-user do - cast spells - is essentially not that different.  And what the traditional fighter and thief do - use mundane skill (fighting's a skill) - is really not that different, either.
> 
> You could probably take D&D down to just those two 'classes' - magic-user and skill-user; Mage & Hero, perhaps - and get all the remaining PH-in-some-edition classes and sub-classes and one-off-class-in-one-supplement-one-time classes by just applying various Templates to them.




  Eventually the classes went into those divergent directions.  In AD&D, Priest spell lists were a lot less like Magic-Users, they got more spell slots, and they maxed out at 7th level.  I never actually played AD&D, but I figured this was to gear them towards casting a higher number support/buff spells as compared to the Magic-User, who was geared more towards using their spells for offense.

  Also, while Fighters and Rogues both had abilities that were pretty much pre-3e skills, the nature of their skills were different with Fighters being more geared to being strong/leader types while the Rogue's skills were geared more towards sneaking around, and stealing stuff.

  Although with the way things have kind of bled into one another, you really could divide them into Warrior/Mages, especially where combat is concerned: classic sword and sorcery.  It also works pretty well with how such characters tend to be divided up in mythology/folkore.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Alexemplar said:


> In AD&D, Priest spell lists were a lot less like Magic-Users, they got more spell slots, and they maxed out at 7th level.  I never actually played AD&D, but I figured this was to gear them towards casting a higher number support/buff spells as compared to the Magic-User, who was geared more towards using their spells for offense.



 I did play, and run, AD&D a lot, and I figured about the same thing.  The Cleric got bonus spells (mostly lower level) because he was going to blow a lot of 'em on healing (especially at lower levels), the Magic-user didn't have that issue.

But the process of spellcasting was virtually identical for both, and is still very similar. 



> Also, while Fighters and Rogues both had abilities that were pretty much pre-3e skills, the nature of their skills were different with Fighters being more geared to being strong/leader types while the Rogue's skills were geared more towards sneaking around, and stealing stuff.



 Nod.  In AD&D, the mechanics were very different, too, and more exclusive.  But, in concept, they're both just highly trained/talented/determined people without supernatural powers.



> Although with the way things have kind of bled into one another, you really could divide them into Warrior/Mages, especially where combat is concerned: classic sword and sorcery.  It also works pretty well with how such characters tend to be divided up in mythology/folkore.



 Yes.  I think the proliferation of classes - it started very early, afterall - was just an accident of the game's development, not a fundamentally great idea or anything, just the way it happened in Gary's basement.  In going from Chainmail to D&D they took the artillery-casters and the fighting men and made them classes, and, when confronted with people wanting to play other things, well, more classes... 
...:shrug:


----------



## Guest 6801328

The idea of just two classes is oddly appealing.  I'd like to see an RPG based on that.

re: spells, I also would love to see the reality-breaking high-level spells dropped from the lists.  (Although I suspect it will never happen because Tradition.) There's no need for anything above 5th or 6th level; at higher level you just use higher level slots for lower level spells.  Sub-classes could potentially get signature "spells" as capstone abilities. 

A few other things I would like to see:
1) Disentangle ASIs from Feats.  Yes, yes, I know the argument about "they promised optional sub-systems" but the current system isn't working.  ASIs are too good compared to most Feats, except for a couple of overpowered Feats that all the munchkins take.  I want to take some of the really fun Feats but the optimizer in me can't do it.  (I think about starting a campaign with the inverse rule: ASIs are outlawed; Feats only.)

2) More features in sub-classes.  I'd like to see maybe 6 rather than 4 sub-class abilities, with the two new ones showing up sooner.

3) Ability score modifiers removed from classes.  Recalibrate point buy if needed to give everybody the same bonuses to be used where you want.  

4) New ability score generation that provides more variety and even some...gasp...randomness.  (I recently suggested Point Buy for three stats of your choice, and straight 3d6, in order, for the other three.  Or 4d6-1 or whatever.  Something totally random.)


----------



## Arilyn

Oofta said:


> Huh.  That's not what I heard.  It was gnomish paladins for everyone.  The only choice dual wielding rapiers or using two rapiers at the same time.
> 
> It greatly simplifies the game while still giving a lot of flexibility.  Does your know speak with a high squeaky voice?  Or just talk really rapidly?  The options are nearly endless.




I heard gnomes are ousted again. Next addition is called "Paladins and Pixies." Voice options still available.


----------



## zedturtle

Elfcrusher said:


> 3) Ability score modifiers removed from classes.  Recalibrate point buy if needed to give everybody the same bonuses to be used where you want.




A while back, I played around with a B/X variant that tied attributes generation to class. For example, a Fighter might roll 2d6+6 for Strength, and 3d6 for Intelligence, while a Magic User was the reverse. So you'd still have the randomness of sometimes having a Fighter with a weirdly low prime stat and a weirdly high 'dump' stat. But most Fighters would have good Strength, etc.


----------



## Guest 6801328

zedturtle said:


> A while back, I played around with a B/X variant that tied attributes generation to class. For example, a Fighter might roll 2d6+6 for Strength, and 3d6 for Intelligence, while a Magic User was the reverse. So you'd still have the randomness of sometimes having a Fighter with a weirdly low prime stat and a weirdly high 'dump' stat. But most Fighters would have good Strength, etc.




Yeah, I kinda like that.

The idea I came up with the other day is races and classes would both have minimums.  E.g., an Elf might have Dexterity minimum of 12, and Fighter might have a Strength minimum of 14.  So if you played an Elf Fighter you could dump your two lowest scores into Dex and Strength and still come out with 12 and 14.

Sure, a lot of players wouldn't ever use this, but it would introduce an incentive to pick atypical stat combinations.  "Sure my Fighter isn't the strongest around, but he's got wickedly high Con and Cha!"


----------



## Arilyn

Elfcrusher said:


> The idea of just two classes is oddly appealing.  I'd like to see an RPG based on that.
> 
> re: spells, I also would love to see the reality-breaking high-level spells dropped from the lists.  (Although I suspect it will never happen because Tradition.) There's no need for anything above 5th or 6th level; at higher level you just use higher level slots for lower level spells.  Sub-classes could potentially get signature "spells" as capstone abilities.
> 
> A few other things I would like to see:
> 1) Disentangle ASIs from Feats.  Yes, yes, I know the argument about "they promised optional sub-systems" but the current system isn't working.  ASIs are too good compared to most Feats, except for a couple of overpowered Feats that all the munchkins take.  I want to take some of the really fun Feats but the optimizer in me can't do it.  (I think about starting a campaign with the inverse rule: ASIs are outlawed; Feats only.)
> 
> 2) More features in sub-classes.  I'd like to see maybe 6 rather than 4 sub-class abilities, with the two new ones showing up sooner.
> 
> 3) Ability score modifiers removed from classes.  Recalibrate point buy if needed to give everybody the same bonuses to be used where you want.
> 
> 4) New ability score generation that provides more variety and even some...gasp...randomness.  (I recently suggested Point Buy for three stats of your choice, and straight 3d6, in order, for the other three.  Or 4d6-1 or whatever.  Something totally random.)




I like these ideas. I never liked the higher level spells anyway, as they tend to be too drastic, and too likely to result in something my GM will not be ready for.

1. Yes, for sure disentangle feats from ASI. Stats are getting ridiculously high. Feats feel more like something adventurers would have. 

2. I am all for more sub-class features, and more choices too. If you don't play to higher levels, you may only get 1 or 2 features. More choice would be nice. Since the team is not bringing out tons of new material, they have time to make sure choices are reasonably balanced.

3. Could go either way on this one.

4. Ability score generation definitely needs work. 13th Age has system where your defenses are averaged from 3 stats. This means it's a good idea to spread your stats around more evenly. Current point buy system in 5e is broken, as you are usually better off rolling. Also, if you are going to have a template for stats, it would be way better to have several templates to choose from. I like your idea too. You will have stats you need but not full control over what "nature" gave you at birth.


----------



## SmokeyCriminal

I think it would be really hard to design characters like that. You're basically creating Category A puzzle piece, and Category B puzzle piece. So that would mean that you would have to take 'Woodsman' and put it with 'Sneaky', 'Tradesman', 'Acrobatic', and make sure that the pieces fit together and that they are relatively equal. And then you have to take 'Sneaky' and put it with 'Woodsman', 'Barbarian', and the rest of category A and make sure that the pieces fit together and that they are all relatively balanced.

From what I understand, when Mearls creates a new subclass, he comes up with a story of a character and then he uses that story as a guide, and he chooses a class who's 'theme' and mechanics can help with that story, and then he builds the subclass mechanics to tell that story. I think of it like, the Class is a theater, and the Sub Class is a story, so you need to figure out which theater is going to accommodate your story the best. It's why we saw the Scout jump around Classes.

I don't think you can design characters in that way using your new template. It feels more like 'Linking' mechanics as a posed to 'Stacking' mechanics.

But, if you do manage to figure out how to implement it, you could link more then just 2 pieces together. Maybe after a few levels or when you reach a new tier you can add another adjective/verb. So you can become a 'Sneaky Woodsman Noble'.

I like the direction you're going with Backgrounds. Backgrounds are there to "tie" you into the world, expanding on that would be good. You can have...Fore?ground. Basically a "new Background" when you enter a new Tier, a sort of "Checking in" with the world. where depending on what you did for the last few Levels/Arc, you get a new minor "perk." It could be as simple as choosing from the existing list of Backgrounds, or maybe create new ones specific to Tier. Just no skills, or maybe do add skills, idk. Maybe get one skill for your Background during creation, and one for every "new background."

I know Mearls would love to get rid of Bonus Actions.

What I would really like is Countdown Clocks, like they have in Blades in the Dark, for Downtime actions. If you want to build/create something or research/study/practice. They should be tied to a Countdown clock instead of just "X days." It's more flexible and elegant and simple.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Tomorrow I'm starting a game of Beyond the Wall, an OSR that has a interesting way of generating interesting character with a workable background and with built-in tie to the party (or the campaign). They are called Playbook and they are a document with a general character concept where you get to roll on multiple tables to generate your stats, ties and background, going as far a giving bonuses to who participated in an event in your background (like: the player to your right helped you avenge the murder of your father some years ago, he gains +1 Str). I think D&D could benefit from this kind of design where the character is the total sum of all his components: race and background should be more than first level choices, they should have more meaning in the character developpment, giving you your working stats and features. 

Like: Dwarf +2 con (Some features at lvl 1/4/6/8/11/15/17), Sage +1 Int (Some features at level 1/2/7/9/12/16/18), Fighter +2 strength (Features at lvl 1/3/5/10/13/14/19/20).


----------



## Guest 6801328

It occurred to me that, although game design is fun, maybe starting with the problems to be solved (without specifying solutions) is the way to go.  So to reboot the discussion in a new way, the problems I see that I would like to address:

 - Certain "themes" that currently end up in classes or sub-classes seem like they should be able to be layered onto any class.
 - High level spells too easily break plots and are unnecessary
 - Many of the most interesting Feats can't compete with ASIs  
 - Too little variation in ability scores across characters (esp. need a fix for DDAL)
 - Rapiers exist
 - Dex is a god stat, which leads inexorably to rapiers and...worse...rapier-wielding Dexadins
 - Racial choice is driven by class choice
 - There is too much mechanical incentive to go ranged instead of melee
 - Stealth is still confusing


----------



## jayoungr

I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.


----------



## Raith5

jayoungr said:


> I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.




I agree but , for me there is an issue. But it is more that I wish mundane/martial side of things was a bit more interesting (especially at higher levels) relative to magic. I dont mean go so far as the 4e approach with respect to the gonzo abilities of low level martial PCs.  I think 5e aced the magic classes but there is some interesting space between the 5e and 4e takes on martial PCs.


----------



## Ath-kethin

Re: backgrounds/themes:

In the _Primeval Thule_ setting book they introduce Narratives, which are pretty much enhanced Backgrounds with farther-reaching mechanical benefits (often gaining followers, property, ships, and things like that). The setup isn't perfect, and I ended up having everyone pick both a Background and a Narrative, but it goes a long way toward making a character's part more relevant and shaping their development.


----------



## Arilyn

jayoungr said:


> I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.




I think, at least for most of us, not so much a hatred of magic, as a dislike of magic being so common in DnD it has become mundane. Practically every class can wield it. It is predictable and lacks wonder. It is often used by the designers to give classes abilities which would be better served by a non-magical source.


----------



## Li Shenron

Elfcrusher said:


> Regardless of whether or not Backgrounds are used, what would these templates look like?  My inclination is that they would not have abilities that unlock at specific levels the way classes do, but would have features that are all gained immediately, some of which scale with level.  Some examples:
> - Knight: increase your armor proficiency by one step.  (Which might mean class armor proficiencies would be reduced one step.)
> - Woodsman: difficult natural terrain does not reduce your movement
> - Barbarian: Rage (redesigned so that it also boosts spell-casting and other things)
> - Soldier: some kind of tactical warlord-y thing
> Etc. etc. etc.
> 
> I could keep going, but I'm interested in your responses.




Going along with your idea...

First, I would avoid a fifth template (not counting the "subs") on top of the existing four class+race+background+feats, which I think they are enough. So I would pretty much instead emphasize the background at the expense of the class.

Easiest starting point would be to simply "move" two skills proficiencies from class to backgrounds, which would then normally feature four of them (two fixed, and two chosen from a short list). The Fighter skills would end up in both the Soldier and Knight background for example, the Wizard skills would end up in the Sage background and so on.

Further changes require a lot more considerations. Non-skill proficiencies are still doable, but if you lower one "step" all classes, you have to take something else out of the Wizard, Sorcerer and Monk. Rage is too much to be granted by backgrounds at this point, so assuming you want a Barbarian background that grants Rage (which I don't think it's a good idea in general anyway), this would force you to step up the design of all other backgrounds, which almost certainly will become more differentiate, which in turn means more balancing work needed.

I would stick with the simpler version of these improved backgrounds first, and if you want bigger weapons like Rage to be available to all, turn them into feats instead. Because you know, feats are templates too.


----------



## Li Shenron

Elfcrusher said:


> It occurred to me that, although game design is fun, maybe starting with the problems to be solved (without specifying solutions) is the way to go.  So to reboot the discussion in a new way, the problems I see that I would like to address:
> 
> - Certain "themes" that currently end up in classes or sub-classes seem like they should be able to be layered onto any class.
> - High level spells too easily break plots and are unnecessary
> - Many of the most interesting Feats can't compete with ASIs
> - Too little variation in ability scores across characters (esp. need a fix for DDAL)
> - Rapiers exist
> - Dex is a god stat, which leads inexorably to rapiers and...worse...rapier-wielding Dexadins
> - Racial choice is driven by class choice
> - There is too much mechanical incentive to go ranged instead of melee
> - Stealth is still confusing




*None* of these can or will be fixed in another edition or another game, ever. You can create alternatives that you like better, and the inevitable consequence is a lot of other people will hate the alternatives more than the original. The purpose of newer editions is always to sell more books, not to fix the game for good.

On a couple of these, me too would appreciate some _simple _variation. For example:

- all projectile weapons could have their damage dice decreased one step

- Dex bonus to AC could be removed and replaced by a "defense" proficiency bonus, as long as only selected classes were proficient

The latter has a lot implications however, so it's not the kind of house rule that can just be dropped into a game without careful considerations and a certain amount of playtest.


----------



## dave2008

lowkey13 said:


> I would ask for two changes, and two changes only, to make me perfectly happy.
> 
> 1. Less magic, but better magic. I want magic to be awesome, and rare. No 1/3 spellcasters, few (if any) 1/2 spellcasters, and spells should be infrequent and amazing.




I basically agree, but I might do away with full casters instead of 1/2 casters (or only the wizard a full caster)



lowkey13 said:


> 2. Go back to a system where most things (including to hit and saving throws) improve with level, not ability score. I know, bac to the dark ages. Sort of a super proficiency bonus or something.




I still want things to improve with ability scores, but what if proficiency (level) granted cumulative advantage instead?  

Untrained:  d20
Trained: 2d20 (highest)
Proficient 3d20  (highest)
Expert:  4d20  (highest)
Master:  5d20  (highest)
Grand Master 6d20  (highest)

This would make better use of bounded accuracy IMO .


----------



## dave2008

Arilyn said:


> It is often used by the designers to give classes abilities which would be better served by a non-magical source.




There is a long tradition of that in DnD.  That doesn't mean it is a good idea though


----------



## Li Shenron

Elfcrusher said:


> _Race is a mix of your genetics and cultural upbringing.
> Backgrounds are your personal life. Where you a noble? Farmer? Have to live on the streets for a living?
> Class is a lot like your current profession. Your job. What you do for a living NOW.
> 
> _Yes, that's the purported intent.  And, as we've seen with classes like Barbarian and Ranger, the model breaks down and should be reconsidered.




The way I see it, it seems to "break down" because it is NOT the purported intent, while in fact it doesn't break down at all.

"Class" is a general heroic archetype and adventuring role. It is defined for _player characters _ within the context of a *campaign*. It does not imply anything about the PC place in society, and is therefore not a job or profession. At best you could say it implies your "job _within the adventuring party_", but not entirely. It doesn't even have to make any sense within the fantasy world. It _can_ have sense if you want to, so you _can_ say that Sorcerer in your fantasy world is also a "job", and that there are sorcerers' clubs and unions and badges, but it's only an option. This is why a Barbarian class or even an Elf class doesn't break down, until you pretend it to be something outside its original context at any cost.

"Background" instead is pretty much exactly what you do for a living. It's a job/profession but in an extended sense, because it includes options such as Hermit or Outlander or Criminal which are ways to manage getting along in life _without_ a true job, and yet they are exactly done _for a living_.

Then, there are fundamentally two different campaigning styles in a RPG:

- adventures are sparse: the PCs keep their "doing for a living" and background means "what you ARE when not adventuring"

- adventures are continuous: the PCs leave their "doing for a living" behind and background means "what you WERE before adventuring"


----------



## TwoSix

vincegetorix said:


> Tomorrow I'm starting a game of Beyond the Wall, an OSR that has a interesting way of generating interesting character with a workable background and with built-in tie to the party (or the campaign). They are called Playbook and they are a document with a general character concept where you get to roll on multiple tables to generate your stats, ties and background, going as far a giving bonuses to who participated in an event in your background (like: the player to your right helped you avenge the murder of your father some years ago, he gains +1 Str). I think D&D could benefit from this kind of design where the character is the total sum of all his components: race and background should be more than first level choices, they should have more meaning in the character developpment, giving you your working stats and features.
> 
> Like: Dwarf +2 con (Some features at lvl 1/4/6/8/11/15/17), Sage +1 Int (Some features at level 1/2/7/9/12/16/18), Fighter +2 strength (Features at lvl 1/3/5/10/13/14/19/20).



 Props for BtW mention, which is a fantastic game.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Also, on magic. I think magic in D&D is cheap and dont feel magical. Cantrips are the worst offender, but the fact that any class have at least 1 archetype that gives access to magic is strange: spellcasters feel almost as generic as fighter when everybody in the party can do magic. Last week I told my players that if I was to ever design a game (I'll not, but just talking), magic would be much stronger and magical, but also more draining. I want a mage to be able to cast fireballs or timestop or teleport at low level because that's what magic is all about: if I cant know if my player threw a firebolt or a normal bolt from his crossbow if he doest tell me, then there's a problem, magic should be obvious. But give less spellslots, so what if the mage must spend the two last encounter in the day with his dagger if he has already cleared the first one with is Summon Commet spell? Just dont dump all physical stats and you'll be fine. 

So fewer spellslot, but more magical spells. I'd like magic to be the rare ''ohhh sh***t'' moment. If I hear my player tell me again that he cast ''Create Bonfire'', turn after turn, I swear I'll do a nervous breakdown.


----------



## Guest 6801328

vincegetorix said:


> Also, on magic. I think magic in D&D is cheap and dont feel magical. Cantrips are the worst offender, but the fact that any class have at least 1 archetype that gives access to magic is strange: spellcasters feel almost as generic as fighter when everybody in the party can do magic. Last week I told my players that if I was to ever design a game (I'll not, but just talking), magic would be much stronger and magical, but also more draining. I want a mage to be able to cast fireballs or timestop or teleport at low level because that's what magic is all about: if I cant know if my player threw a firebolt or a normal bolt from his crossbow if he doest tell me, then there's a problem, magic should be obvious. But give less spellslots, so what if the mage must spend the two last encounter in the day with his dagger if he has already cleared the first one with is Summon Commet spell? Just dont dump all physical stats and you'll be fine.
> 
> So fewer spellslot, but more magical spells. I'd like magic to be the rare ''ohhh sh***t'' moment. If I hear my player tell me again that he cast ''Create Bonfire'', turn after turn, I swear I'll do a nervous breakdown.




Yeah, I largely agree with this.  I really don't like cantrips.  Not damaging ones, anyway.  The cow is out of the barn with D&D, though, so we're stuck with it forever.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Li Shenron said:


> The way I see it, it seems to "break down" because it is NOT the purported intent, while in fact it doesn't break down at all.
> 
> "Class" is a general heroic archetype and adventuring role. It is defined for _player characters _ within the context of a *campaign*. It does not imply anything about the PC place in society, and is therefore not a job or profession. At best you could say it implies your "job _within the adventuring party_", but not entirely. It doesn't even have to make any sense within the fantasy world. It _can_ have sense if you want to, so you _can_ say that Sorcerer in your fantasy world is also a "job", and that there are sorcerers' clubs and unions and badges, but it's only an option. This is why a Barbarian class or even an Elf class doesn't break down, until you pretend it to be something outside its original context at any cost.
> 
> "Background" instead is pretty much exactly what you do for a living. It's a job/profession but in an extended sense, because it includes options such as Hermit or Outlander or Criminal which are ways to manage getting along in life _without_ a true job, and yet they are exactly done _for a living_.
> 
> Then, there are fundamentally two different campaigning styles in a RPG:
> 
> - adventures are sparse: the PCs keep their "doing for a living" and background means "what you ARE when not adventuring"
> 
> - adventures are continuous: the PCs leave their "doing for a living" behind and background means "what you WERE before adventuring"




Yes, my claim that the model is "breaking down" is entirely subjective.  Some people are 100% happy with "Barbarian" (for example) being a class, and others like myself are not.  Sure, it works for what it is, but I think the game would be richer if I could play a barbarian cleric or a barbarian rogue without having to multiclass.


----------



## Li Shenron

Elfcrusher said:


> Yes, my claim that the model is "breaking down" is entirely subjective.  Some people are 100% happy with "Barbarian" (for example) being a class, and others like myself are not.  Sure, it works for what it is, but I think the game would be richer if I could play a barbarian cleric or a barbarian rogue without having to multiclass.




But what is *really *stopping you from saying that your Cleric or Rogue is _also _a Barbarian? 

Is it the lack of specific mechanical options, such as not being able to gain "Rage" without taking levels in the Barbarian class? Is it really so important for you to get this one specific mechanic, so that you won't feel like your PC is a Barbarian without it? Can you not describe your PC as "raging" pretty much every time you want, with or without the mechanical effects? This is objectively something missing from the game, and for a reason: it is one of those few "niche protection" abilities that were not made available to everyone as feats. The idea was, that at least a few things should be class-exclusives, otherwise why having classes at all, let's go play GURPS. It was left to each gaming group to destroy niche protection as much as they like with house rules. But guess what, they also left an open door anyway: multiclassing. Is it the mere lack of Rage what makes you rage (pun intended!), or is that you want to a Barbarian without being a Barbarian (class), without making up a Rage feat, without multiclassing, without just pretending narratively that you are a Barbarian anyway... how do I know that even if 6e comes up with a Barbarian background you won't then want to be a Barbarian _also_ without the background?

Or is it the lack of an official recognition, a "Barbarian" label to write on your character sheet? And why do you care? Even in organized play, no one can stop you from calling your PC a Barbarian if you want.


----------



## TwoSix

Li Shenron said:


> But what is *really *stopping you from saying that your Cleric or Rogue is _also _a Barbarian?
> 
> Is it the lack of specific mechanical options, such as not being able to gain "Rage" without taking levels in the Barbarian class? Is it really so important for you to get this one specific mechanic, so that you won't feel like your PC is a Barbarian without it? Can you not describe your PC as "raging" pretty much every time you want, with or without the mechanical effects? This is objectively something missing from the game, and for a reason: it is one of those few "niche protection" abilities that were not made available to everyone as feats. The idea was, that at least a few things should be class-exclusives, otherwise why having classes at all, let's go play GURPS. It was left to each gaming group to destroy niche protection as much as they like with house rules. But guess what, they also left an open door anyway: multiclassing. Is it the mere lack of Rage what makes you rage (pun intended!), or is that you want to a Barbarian without being a Barbarian (class), without making up a Rage feat, without multiclassing, without just pretending narratively that you are a Barbarian anyway... how do I know that even if 6e comes up with a Barbarian background you won't then want to be a Barbarian _also_ without the background?
> 
> Or is it the lack of an official recognition, a "Barbarian" label to write on your character sheet? And why do you care? Even in organized play, no one can stop you from calling your PC a Barbarian if you want.



For a lot of players, a descriptor doesn't feel meaningful if there isn't at least a hint of mechanical connection to the concept.  See Craft and Profession skills back in 3.5, and why removing them was controversial.


----------



## Oofta

jayoungr said:


> I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.




For me there are two basic reasons.

Too many spells are still an "I win" button.  Even some low level spells like Heat Metal can effectively take out your BBEG if he's wearing metal armor because he won't be able to hit anything, and the caster just has to run away to ensure the spell lasts and there's no saving throw.  Forcecage and Banishment at higher levels also make encounter design incredibly difficult.

Then there's the ubiquity of magic.  It's not as bad as 4E (where IMHO _everyone_ had supernatural abilities) but it's still too common for a low magic world.  It kind of forces you to have a high magic world, which is not necessarily what everyone wants.

I'm OK with it and enjoy the game, just means if I want to create a low magic world I have to do quite a bit of customizing which is hard to balance.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

jayoungr said:


> I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.




I prefer magic to be something wild and dangerous and mysterious, more like Hyperboria than the Wizarding World.  I'd like checks to cast a spell with a chance things get crazy if failed.  Like WHFP 2e.


----------



## Mistwell

A who lot of this thread reads like a wish list of minority views concerning elements of the game which are highly popular. Which means 6e would not change them. If people LIKE magic in the game, 6e isn't going to reduce it nearly as much as you want it to. Wouldn't you need to establish this is actually a popular view of the game before expecting a new version to address it in that manner? 

Otherwise, I suspect it just means you should either houserule the existing game to suit your lower magic needs, buy third party products which satisfy those needs, or try another game which addresses those needs?


----------



## Oofta

Mistwell said:


> A who lot of this thread reads like a wish list of minority views concerning elements of the game which are highly popular. Which means 6e would not change them. If people LIKE magic in the game, 6e isn't going to reduce it nearly as much as you want it to. Wouldn't you need to establish this is actually a popular view of the game before expecting a new version to address it in that manner?
> 
> Otherwise, I suspect it just means you should either houserule the existing game to suit your lower magic needs, buy third party products which satisfy those needs, or try another game which addresses those needs?




Some house rules are easy.  For example I can ban the handful of spells that really annoy me, or tweak them.  But in our last game (6 players) _everyone_ had supernatural abilities of some sort.

I don't really have a problem with that but since this is a how-would-you-tweak-the-game thread it's a valid issue to raise.  

But yeah, some of the suggested changes are just a different game.


----------



## happyhermit

Yeah, about all I see that they could do to address these things without making the game less useful to huge groups of people is to make the game a bit more flexible and modular, but even then you have to consider that one of the biggest criticisms of 5e is that it isn't focused and defined enough. There could be alternate or limited spell lists, limited class/subclass lists, more non-magical classes and guidelines to implement them, of course that doesn't actually require a new edition. Honestly, even a different class/subclass structure doesn't require a new edition, it could uses and/or add to the existing spell lists etc. and leave the vast majority of the mechanics completely unchanged.


----------



## Krachek

lowkey13 said:


> I would ask for two changes, and two changes only, to make me perfectly happy.
> 
> 1. Less magic, but better magic. I want magic to be awesome, and rare. No 1/3 spellcasters, few (if any) 1/2 spellcasters, and spells should be infrequent and amazing.
> 
> 2. Go back to a system where most things (including to hit and saving throws) improve with level, not ability score. I know, bac to the dark ages. Sort of a super proficiency bonus or something.
> 
> My ideas have a snowball's chance in Baator of being implemented, but that's my two cents.




You can suppress ASI and force players to take feat. Ability Scores wont change that much.

I think magic is already awesome. Some posters whim about impossible DC at high level. That is awesome and frightful magic!


----------



## Arilyn

Mistwell said:


> A who lot of this thread reads like a wish list of minority views concerning elements of the game which are highly popular. Which means 6e would not change them. If people LIKE magic in the game, 6e isn't going to reduce it nearly as much as you want it to. Wouldn't you need to establish this is actually a popular view of the game before expecting a new version to address it in that manner?
> 
> Otherwise, I suspect it just means you should either houserule the existing game to suit your lower magic needs, buy third party products which satisfy those needs, or try another game which addresses those needs?




Elfcrusher was musing on theoretical changes, and posted them for discussion. It's a conversation on game design focussed on DnD. I am finding it to be an interesting thread with some neat ideas being tossed around. Making house rules or playing another game is not the point. This is not a "bash" DnD conversation. Certainly hope it doesn't devolve into that, anyway.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Li Shenron said:


> But what is *really *stopping you from saying that your Cleric or Rogue is _also _a Barbarian?
> 
> Is it the lack of specific mechanical options, such as not being able to gain "Rage" without taking levels in the Barbarian class? Is it really so important for you to get this one specific mechanic, so that you won't feel like your PC is a Barbarian without it? Can you not describe your PC as "raging" pretty much every time you want, with or without the mechanical effects? This is objectively something missing from the game, and for a reason: it is one of those few "niche protection" abilities that were not made available to everyone as feats. The idea was, that at least a few things should be class-exclusives, otherwise why having classes at all, let's go play GURPS. It was left to each gaming group to destroy niche protection as much as they like with house rules. But guess what, they also left an open door anyway: multiclassing. Is it the mere lack of Rage what makes you rage (pun intended!), or is that you want to a Barbarian without being a Barbarian (class), without making up a Rage feat, without multiclassing, without just pretending narratively that you are a Barbarian anyway... how do I know that even if 6e comes up with a Barbarian background you won't then want to be a Barbarian _also_ without the background?
> 
> Or is it the lack of an official recognition, a "Barbarian" label to write on your character sheet? And why do you care? Even in organized play, no one can stop you from calling your PC a Barbarian if you want.




I feel like I should be lying on a couch while responding to this.  It all starts with my mother....

Um...cough...no, that is, what I meant to say is...

Yes, it's true that you can flavor your characters however you want.  I could easily say, "My cleric is a barbarian cleric."  But the same could also be said for fighters.  Why do we need a Barbarian class when we could just write the word "barbarian" on our Fighter character sheet?  I think it's because it's fun to have flavorful, evocative abilities.

So just as it's fun to have an actual Barbarian Fighter class, I think it would be fun to have an actual Barbarian Cleric (Shaman?  Witch-doctor?) class.  The way this would get solved under the current model is to do exactly that: create a new class or sub-class.  But I think the proliferation of classes and sub-classes is an inelegant way to solve the design goal: you end up trying to design completely unique abilities when there's a ton of overlap between the concepts, and the only combinations allowed are the ones that have been explicitly designed.  

As I mentioned earlier, I'm really talking about the difference between single vs. multiple-inheritance hierarchies.  Certainly single-inheritance has the advantage of being easier to understand, but there are lots of problems that single-inheritance doesn't solve well.  We already know that RPGs are one of them because we have three dimensions (class, race, background).  Essentially what I'm saying is that one of those dimensions should carry more weight, and class should carry less.


----------



## Mistwell

Oofta said:


> Some house rules are easy.  For example I can ban the handful of spells that really annoy me, or tweak them.  But in our last game (6 players) _everyone_ had supernatural abilities of some sort.
> 
> I don't really have a problem with that but since this is a how-would-you-tweak-the-game thread it's a valid issue to raise.
> 
> But yeah, some of the suggested changes are just a different game.






Arilyn said:


> Elfcrusher was musing on theoretical changes, and posted them for discussion. It's a conversation on game design focussed on DnD. I am finding it to be an interesting thread with some neat ideas being tossed around. Making house rules or playing another game is not the point. This is not a "bash" DnD conversation. Certainly hope it doesn't devolve into that, anyway.




Guys maybe I missed something (it's possible as I read the thread quickly). But the title of the thread is "Toward a Theory of 6th Edition" which seems to imply to me it's not a "how would you tweak the game" but rather "what will the game be tweaked to". The later question begins with, "what do people want from the game" doesn't it?


----------



## dave2008

Oofta said:


> Then there's the ubiquity of magic.  It's not as bad as 4E (where IMHO _everyone_ had supernatural abilities) but it's still too common for a low magic world.  *It kind of forces you to have a high magic world,* which is not necessarily what everyone wants.





I agree with most of this except the bold part.  IMO, it is very easy to play 5e with low-magic.  I would even argue from monster stand point it works better in a low-magic world.  Now, you have to restrict things which some DMs don't like to do, but the core of the game functions wonderfully with low or non magic.


----------



## Oofta

Mistwell said:


> Guys maybe I missed something (it's possible as I read the thread quickly). But the title of the thread is "Toward a Theory of 6th Edition" which seems to imply to me it's not a "how would you tweak the game" but rather "what will the game be tweaked to". The later question begins with, "what do people want from the game" doesn't it?




As [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] said, it's just a discussion on hypothetical changes.  I like 5E, I hope it doesn't get replaced any time in the near future.

_But_ over the history of D&D it does seem like there's been more and more of a move towards the supernatural/magic classes and builds.  That's not necessarily a bad thing it just may not work for every campaign.  Take barbarians for example.  At higher levels there's a totem animal that gives them options to do things like sprout wings and give them limited fly.  That's not a bad thing it just may not fit in a Cimmerian-themed campaign.

Then again the tweaks I would make are pretty cosmetic and could be tacked on to the existing game compared to some of the suggestions which would really change the nature of the game.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Mistwell said:


> Guys maybe I missed something (it's possible as I read the thread quickly). But the title of the thread is "Toward a Theory of 6th Edition" which seems to imply to me it's not a "how would you tweak the game" but rather "what will the game be tweaked to". The later question begins with, "what do people want from the game" doesn't it?




Since I gave the thread the title, I'll explain:

First (not trying to be pedantic but I don't know what everybody here knows) "Toward a theory of..." is kind of a meme in academia.  I was trying to be witty.  Failing as usual.

Second, I'm not trying to predict what 6th _will_ be I just wanted to get a brainstorming session going of what people would _like_ 6th to be, regardless of who likely they think their ideas are. That's all.  Just a fun game design jam session.


----------



## Oofta

dave2008 said:


> I agree with most of this except the bold part.  IMO, it is very easy to play 5e with low-magic.  I would even argue from monster stand point it works better in a low-magic world.  Now, you have to restrict things which some DMs don't like to do, but the core of the game functions wonderfully with low or non magic.




How do you go about doing it?  Just ban wizards/sorcerers/clerics/druids and several subclasses?

I'm curious because I was thinking about trying something along these lines someday.


----------



## dave2008

Mistwell said:


> Guys maybe I missed something (it's possible as I read the thread quickly). But the title of the thread is "Toward a Theory of 6th Edition" which seems to imply to me it's not a "how would you tweak the game" but rather "what will the game be tweaked to". The later question begins with, "what do people want from the game" doesn't it?




I believe the title is misleading - it happens.


----------



## dave2008

Oofta said:


> How do you go about doing it?  Just ban wizards/sorcerers/clerics/druids and several subclasses?
> 
> I'm curious because I was thinking about trying something along these lines someday.




It depends on your goals, but yes you could do that.  That would be the only way if you want no magic (along with banning all of the caster sub-classes).  Or you could ban only full casters, or limit spells to 5th level, or eliminate cantrips, or make cantrips require a spell slot, or you could reduce the number of spell slots, or you could make the casting of a spell cost a HD/spell level (recharge on short or long rest depending on how low magic you want).

This magic purge can also easily carried through with magic items because the core game is built with the assumption you don't have them (except for few monsters).


----------



## Li Shenron

Elfcrusher said:


> Second, I'm not trying to predict what 6th _will_ be I just wanted to get a brainstorming session going of what people would _like_ 6th to be, regardless of who likely they think their ideas are. That's all.  Just a fun game design jam session.




Ok then 

I currently have VERY FEW desires for change. So few that it won't qualify as a 6e, not even 5.5 or 5.1 really:

- I don't like Guidance to be a cantrip because I think some players will find it's convenient to spam it all the time 

- I think the multiclassing restrictions are pointless, removing the required scores and the Proficiency restrictions wouldn't practically change balance but make everything simpler

- I would have preferred all saving throws to be more or less equally frequent 

- I would have preferred subclasses to start at 3rd level for all classes and grant abilities at the same levels 

That's all I can think about at the moment, and none of these things are substantial really...


----------



## Guest 6801328

I'm ok with having casters, but I want to limit the effects.  For example, "Fly" should be extraordinarily rare, "Teleport" should be a ritual that takes hours and the cooperation of several casters, and "Wish"...the real version...should be limited to god-like beings.  (I understand that the current wording of Wish is kind of necessary, but it also sucks the narrative joy out of the idea of a Wish.)


----------



## Mistwell

Elfcrusher said:


> Since I gave the thread the title, I'll explain:
> 
> First (not trying to be pedantic but I don't know what everybody here knows) "Toward a theory of..." is kind of a meme in academia.  I was trying to be witty.  Failing as usual.
> 
> Second, I'm not trying to predict what 6th _will_ be I just wanted to get a brainstorming session going of what people would _like_ 6th to be, regardless of who likely they think their ideas are. That's all.  Just a fun game design jam session.




Fair enough, and thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> Then there's the ubiquity of magic.



 Magic is ubiquitous among classes in 5e, sure:  every class has supernatural powers, no exceptions - Ki is explicitly magical, Fighters & Rogues can cast spells, Totem Barbarian use them as rituals and their rage comes from a supernatural source.  But it's not ubiquitous in the wider world, unless you assume character classes are - magic items are comparatively rare, supernatural monsters or the DM's to place in whatever frequency he sees fit, or choose not to use at all.  







> It's not as bad as 4E (where IMHO _everyone_ had supernatural abilities) but it's still too common for a low magic world.



 Then your opinion is at odds with the facts.  In 4e, there were several Sources, only one of which, 'Martial,' was explicitly not supernatural, and none of the only-4 classes that depended solely on that source was able to fill the 'Controller' Role, so the non-supernatural side was still pointedly under-served.  Still, it was the high-water mark for D&D as far as support for and balance of non-supernatural PCs was concerned. (For the record, late 3.5, with the highly-customizable, non-supernatural fighter and Rogue in the PH, followed by the Knight, Scout and the beefed-up-fighter Warblade just before the ed closed, came in second in that sense, and 5e, with /every/ class having some supernatural powers, and only 3 having sub-classes nominally free of them, with all of those laser-focused on DPR, has arguably defined a new low in that regard.)



Oofta said:


> _But_ over the history of D&D it does seem like there's been more and more of a move towards the supernatural/magic classes and builds.  That's not necessarily a bad thing it just may not work for every campaign.



 I think it's more a circle than a straight-line trend.  In the early game, when a sub-class called for some ability, spells tended to be thrown at it to open up competence - thus spellcatsing rangers, for instance.  Similarly, things that could reasonably be accomplished without magic, like lopping off a limb with a slashing weapon for example, could, for convenience, I suppose, only be accomplished with a magic item - the sword of sharpness, for the same example.  As the game evolved through to 4e, non-magical options became more and more capable, and magic & non-magic, alike, became less niche-protected.  

5e has returned to a focus on PC magical abilities as their prime defining and most significant practical abilities.  Skills aren't gone, but they aren't niche-protected 'special abilities' like they were for the Thief in the classic game, nor able to do much that stands out; non-magical combat is back to just doling out damage as rapidly as possible.  FWIW.



dave2008 said:


> I agree with most of this except the bold part.  IMO, it is very easy to play 5e with low-magic.  I would even argue from monster stand point it works better in a low-magic world.  Now, you have to restrict things which some DMs don't like to do, but the core of the game functions wonderfully with low or non magic.



It very much depends on what you mean by 'low magic.'  High-magic, spellcasting PCs adventuring in a low-magic world with few to no  magic items to be found?  5e works fine.  A low/no-magic party, regardless of world?  Not s'much.



Oofta said:


> How do you go about doing it?  Just ban wizards/sorcerers/clerics/druids and several subclasses?
> I'm curious because I was thinking about trying something along these lines someday.



  You could reduce magic on the party side by removing full-casters entirely, sure, leaving you with half- and third- casters, and every class still able to use magic, just not as powerful magic.  You could reduce the availability of magic by removing cantrip & rituals, Warlocks, & 1/2 & 1/3-casters and substantially reducing spell slots for full casters (1 to 3 slots of a level equal to their highest-level spell, only).  Or you could re-focus magic to be more genre-conformal by removing slots, instead, but keeping rituals, cantrips, and, for the most potent casters, the odd attack cantrip at full power.

What you can't do is remove magic entirely from the game and still have it function, the very few, very limited, overly focused non-supernatural PC options just aren't up to it.

The Template idea might very well help with that, giving PCs another source of missing out-of-combat and support contributions.



SmokeyCriminal said:


> I think it would be really hard to design characters like that. You're basically creating Category A puzzle piece, and Category B puzzle piece. So that would mean that you would have to ...make sure that the pieces fit together and that they are relatively equal. ...
> I don't think you can design characters in that way using your new template. It feels more like 'Linking' mechanics as a posed to 'Stacking' mechanics.



 'Linking,' if I follow, could work better than Stacking (which has more potential for abuse).

For instance, you could have three puzzle-pieces - the existing Background & Class, plus a Template - but focus each one on a single pillar.  Class could provide the character's combat-pillar focus/role & effectiveness.  Background could provide his social status, context, and interaction capabilities.  Template, then, by default (and 'woodsman' serves as a good example, here), could provide his competence & theme in the exploration pillar.  



> I like the direction you're going with Backgrounds. Backgrounds are there to "tie" you into the world, expanding on that would be good. You can have...Fore?ground. Basically a "new Background" when you enter a new Tier, a sort of "Checking in" with the world.



 Sounds interesting...


----------



## Guest 6801328

Tony Vargas said:


> Then your opinion is at odds with the facts.  In 4e, there were several Sources, only one of which, 'Martial,' was explicitly not supernatural, .




There is a difference between something being considered Supernatural (capitalized) in terms of game rules, and the effect it is describing being supernatural (lowercase).  To steal your example from another thread, if a human leaps over a castle wall, it's supernatural, end of story, regardless of how the game rules describe its source.  Call it "superhuman" if you want, but if it's a human (or human-like being) doing it, then that's synonymous with "supernatural".


----------



## Oofta

dave2008 said:


> It depends on your goals, but yes you could do that.  That would be the only way if you want no magic (along with banning all of the caster sub-classes).  Or you could ban only full casters, or limit spells to 5th level, or eliminate cantrips, or make cantrips require a spell slot, or you could reduce the number of spell slots, or you could make the casting of a spell cost a HD/spell level (recharge on short or long rest depending on how low magic you want).
> 
> This magic purge can also easily carried through with magic items because the core game is built with the assumption you don't have them (except for few monsters).




I like the idea of a low magic fantasy world - Tolkien's Middle Earth for example is really quite low magic with really only a handful of NPCs having access to magic (other than the One Ring, of course).

I also think this is a whole separate topic.  Maybe I'll think about some alternatives (medium/low/no magic) it and start a thread at someday.


----------



## Arilyn

I would get rid of tool proficiencies. It is clunky having tools and skills. There is a sense that tool proficiencies are less useful, and therefore easier to acquire, but thieves tools totally fly in the face of that theory.

I also would prefer the proficiency system be more diverse. All classes get all proficiencies at the same rate. First of all, should your proficiency bonus in attacks, skills and saves be the exact same number going up at the same rate as everyone else? Maybe classes should get a proficiency/non-proficiency bonus, with the proficiency bonus going up faster. Non-proficiency bonus would still improve, but at a much slower rate. Maybe even have three rates, good, average and poor.

Could also have a magic proficiency, which would allow wizards to be accurate with spells, but not so much with weapons. Magic proficiency would also be added to your saves against spells and other magic effects.

This may sound like it's adding extra complexity, but it would be built right into the class, so wouldn't be too hard to keep track of or anything. 

Anyway, just some rough, preliminary thoughts.


----------



## dave2008

Tony Vargas said:


> It very much depends on what you mean by 'low magic.'  High-magic, spellcasting PCs adventuring in a low-magic world with few to no  magic items to be found?  5e works fine.  A low/no-magic party, regardless of world?  Not s'much.




I disagree, it works fine with no magic.  If you have a healing issue you can just increase HD healing, but depending on your campaign style this is really not needed either.

The core to hit/AC/DC/Save mechanic works well (if not better) without spells and magic equipment.  It puts the MM monsters on a more level playing field, which makes the game more interesting IMO.  Haven't played this way a lot, but we have messed around with it.


----------



## Tony Vargas

dave2008 said:


> If you have a healing issue you can just increase HD healing...



 HD healing can extend the adventuring day, but in the absence of class balance issues with large amounts of daily resources in the form of spell slots, that's not really a terribly important issue - in-combat healing, OTOH, can be.


> The core to hit/AC/DC/Save mechanic works well (if not better) without spells and magic equipment.  It puts the MM monsters on a more level playing field, which makes the game more interesting IMO.



 They did come right out and say they 'didn't assume' magic items, and it does show in the way encounter balance can skew when items are included.  But, spells are very much assumed, and the absence of support and other capabilities that are primarily or only available through spells is problematic - as is the simple lack of range in concepts & contributions that non-supernatural PC options encompass.



Elfcrusher said:


> There is a difference between something being considered Supernatural (capitalized) in terms of game rules, and the effect it is describing being supernatural (lowercase).



 There is a difference between an explicit rule, like a keyword, with a jargon meaning in context, and an 'opinion' that is the exact opposite of that explicit rule.  The difference being is that the rule is a simple fact about the game in question, and the opinion is a judgement of how desirable that rule is.  
D&D, for instance, has always had explicit rules about magic making at least some casters in D&D 'Vancian,'  it has been a common opinion that such is simply not how magic works.  The opinion is wrong in the context of D&D, but the opinion that D&D's magic system doesn't model most source material (even Dying Earth, if we get technical & exact about it), is not invalid, just a judgement. 

Similarly, Oofta could have opined that the superhuman feats of 4e martial characters were, say 'unrealistic.'  It's merely calling them 'supernatural' or magical or 'casting spells,' that is false, even with an 'IMHO' fatuously appended.



> To steal your example from another thread, if a human leaps over a castle wall...



...it's super-human, but not supernatural.   Supernatural feats are things done through agencies outside of nature and natural experience.  Jumping is a natural agency, the strength & skill of the person doing it, it's not supernatural, in itself, even if it is super-human or unrealistic by the bar set by modern knowledge of physics.   Casting a jump spell, OTOH, relates an action (mumbling and breaking insect legs) that, in nature, doesn't cause you to move let alone leap any distance, and an agency not found in nature (magic), to the otherwise natural act of jumping - it's supernatural.

Of course, like the supernatural, the super-human can be fantastic (suitable for a fantasy setting), "naive" (suitable for an pre-scientific traditional tale),  or unrealistic (not suitable for a accurate simulation of RL, or a hard-science-fiction story).  
So the conflation is understandable.


----------



## Oofta

Elfcrusher said:


> There is a difference between something being considered Supernatural (capitalized) in terms of game rules, and the effect it is describing being supernatural (lowercase).  To steal your example from another thread, if a human leaps over a castle wall, it's supernatural, end of story, regardless of how the game rules describe its source.  Call it "superhuman" if you want, but if it's a human (or human-like being) doing it, then that's synonymous with "supernatural".




I was going to reply something along this lines.  I don't care what the label was, martial powers could only be explained as supernatural.  Take the lowly "Come and Get It".  You forced movement, can only do it every once in a while and you get to wack everyone.  

Yeah, I know you can say it's just yelling at people and pissing them off, but how do you insult an wolf?  "Your mother was a lazo-apso"?

Almost all fighter powers were supernatural in practice, they did things that could not be physically accomplished without supernatural assistance.

Yes, champion fighters in 5E push the boundaries of what is physically possible, but I've also seen videos of archers who can fire more arrows in a short period of time than I would have though physically possible Lars Anderson.


----------



## Wiseblood

I shock myself when I even think this. Don't make a 6e. Leave D&D alone. Like Monopoly. 4e might have done better or worse if it didn't have D&D on the label. D&D, as awesome as it has been, has a lot of baggage. Sacred cows, legacy IP, and assumptions about rules (because of how they used to work).

We have D&D. Heck, we even call Pathfinder D&D.  No need to name it D&D if it is fun it will probably be called D&D by us anyway.

I would like to see Wizards produce a fantasy role playing game. One that is compared to D&D but doesn't have to feel like D&D.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> I was going to reply something along this lines.  I don't care what the label was, martial powers could only be explained as supernatural.



  Obviously, you could, as the DM, remove a power or change it's keywords if you found it didn't fit your campaign, and, as a player, you could always change fluff to fit your character concept, or simply not choose a power that didn't fit it. 

But, the 4e fighter & it's powers were explicitly not magical, nor supernatural, though sometimes super-human.  Just as the Monk's ki, in 5e, is explicitly magical, even though it's used to some do things that aren't necessarily superntural (many Open-Hand uses) as well as things that clearly are (by the other two 'Ways').



> Take the lowly "Come and Get It".  You forced movement, can only do it every once in a while and you get to wack everyone.



 Nod.  It's the kind of thing that happens in the action genre all the time.  The minions are no match for the hero, but they come at him one-at-a-time to be cut down, anyway.   Why didn't they attack him all at once and beat him down in 2 seconds flat, or keep their distance and pepper him with missile fire?  Because that'd be a sucky action scene.



> Yeah, I know you can say it's just yelling at people and pissing them off, but how do you insult an wolf?



 You meet it's gaze, they're like dogs that way, it's a challenge.

Really, the dumber the monster, the more predictable and easy it's going to be to manipulate tactically.  A golem or ooze, for instance, C&GI and other 'trick'-based maneuvers should 'realistically' be at-will vs things like that.

No, there's nothing supernatural, or even terribly unrealistic, about goading, tricking, or maneuvering enemies into a tactical mistake (and not being able to do so constantly, for that matter) - nor, on the other extreme, is there anything supernatural, about a player pushing a genre-conformance button to 'make' enemies do something (another, willfully 'dissociative' way of imagining C&GI as non-supernatural, if it works for you).

But, ultimately, it was up to the player to choose and describe his powers in ways that fit his character concept, including any personal bars he had for realism or fantasy tropes.  

In 5e, the magical/superntural status of various class abilities is mostly explicit, and it's up to the DM to change them, if he likes.



> Yes, champion fighters in 5E push the boundaries of what is physically possible, but I've also seen videos of archers who can fire more arrows in a short period of time than I would have though physically possible .



 Every fighter heals itself instantly with Second Wind, or suddenly doubles his speed with Action Surge, each - separately - only once/rest.  CS dice are similarly guilty.  It's no different in nature, just fewer in number - and thus not so nearly-balanced with the supernatural powers of other classes.




happyhermit said:


> Yeah, about all I see that they could do to address these things without making the game less useful to huge groups of people is to make the game a bit more flexible and modular, but even then you have to consider that one of the biggest criticisms of 5e is that it isn't focused and defined enough.



Adding options, especially in one-off supplements not necessarily meant to be combined with other one-off supplements can address both issues:  it can add options for types of characters and campaigns the game doesn't handle well, as it is - /and/ when applied by itself, such a supplement can make the game more focused and defined.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> HD healing can extend the adventuring day, but in the absence of class balance issues with large amounts of daily resources in the form of spell slots, that's not really a terribly important issue - in-combat healing, OTOH, can be.
> They did come right out and say they 'didn't assume' magic items, and it does show in the way encounter balance can skew when items are included.  But, spells are very much assumed, and the absence of support and other capabilities that are primarily or only available through spells is problematic - as is the simple lack of range in concepts & contributions that non-supernatural PC options encompass.
> 
> ...it's super-human, but not supernatural.   Supernatural feats are things done through agencies outside of nature and natural experience.  Jumping is a natural agency, the strength & skill of the person doing it, it's not supernatural, in itself, even if it is super-human or unrealistic by the bar set by modern knowledge of physics.   Casting a jump spell, OTOH, relates an action (mumbling and breaking insect legs) that, in nature, doesn't cause you to move let alone leap any distance, and an agency not found in nature (magic), to the otherwise natural act of jumping - it's supernatural.
> 
> Of course, like the supernatural, the super-human can be fantastic (suitable for a fantasy setting), "naive" (suitable for an pre-scientific traditional tale),  or unrealistic (not suitable for a accurate simulation of RL, or a hard-science-fiction story).
> So the conflation is understandable.




You have a unique definition of supernatural.  It's kind of right there in the word - supernatural is anything that goes above and beyond what is natural.

Anyway, I don't think it's worth arguing about and I really don't want to pull my 4E books off their shelf of shame to pull out more egregious examples of fighters so called "martial" powers.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Tony Vargas said:


> ...it's super-human, but not supernatural.   Supernatural feats are things done through agencies outside of nature and natural experience.  Jumping is a natural agency, the strength & skill of the person doing it, it's not supernatural, in itself, even if it is super-human or unrealistic by the bar set by modern knowledge of physics.   Casting a jump spell, OTOH, relates an action (mumbling and breaking insect legs) that, in nature, doesn't cause you to move let alone leap any distance, and an agency not found in nature (magic), to the otherwise natural act of jumping - it's supernatural.
> 
> Of course, like the supernatural, the super-human can be fantastic (suitable for a fantasy setting), "naive" (suitable for an pre-scientific traditional tale),  or unrealistic (not suitable for a accurate simulation of RL, or a hard-science-fiction story).
> So the conflation is understandable.




No, false.  A normal activity (e.g. jumping) with impossible results _is_ supernatural.  I don't know exactly where the line is between "improbable" and "impossible" but I know jumping over a castle wall is on the impossible side, and therefore if a human does it (without technology support) it's supernatural/magical.  (We can do some F=ma and dy = vo*t + 0.5at^2 if you want to...).  "The existence of twilight does not disprove the difference between Day and Night."

I know you rely on this argument to demonstrate why a Warlord class is necessary, but it's a false argument.


----------



## Satyrn

Arilyn said:


> I would get rid of tool proficiencies. It is clunky having tools and skills. There is a sense that tool proficiencies are less useful, and therefore easier to acquire, but thieves tools totally fly in the face of that theory.
> 
> I also would prefer the proficiency system be more diverse. All classes get all proficiencies at the same rate. First of all, should your proficiency bonus in attacks, skills and saves be the exact same number going up at the same rate as everyone else? Maybe classes should get a proficiency/non-proficiency bonus, with the proficiency bonus going up faster. Non-proficiency bonus would still improve, but at a much slower rate. Maybe even have three rates, good, average and poor.




I don't think we need a non-proficiency rate. 4e did it with its half-level bonus to everything, and all it wound up leading to was an inflation of all numbers, because in the end if everyone's adding half their level to everything, they might as well be adding zero.

But I like where you're going at the end with the good/average/poor ratings. But I would scrap the poor and just leave it at +0. Good would be what we have now, capping out at +6, while I'd have decent cap out at +4. Just a small difference.

Then I'd give fighters good profuciency in all things combat, and decent proficiency in skills, while the rogue would be decent in combat and good with skills, etc. Something like that anyway.


----------



## snickersnax

I would like to see a consistency pass by the editing team.  For example if a wizard can't cast spells wearing padded armor (winter coat and snow pants) or a leather cat suit because he's too hampered, how is that same wizard able to have no trouble casting spells restrained by manacles, wearing a backpack with a suit of full plate in it, and being grappled by an orc who is stabbing him with a dagger.  This kind of silliness and dozens of similar examples should edited out.  

This consistency should include verbal descriptions and rules math.  There shouldn't be two rules sets, one if you read a description and one if you look at the math.

Whoever decided that a self-referencing index was a good idea should be fired from the editing team _see index, self-referencing_


----------



## dave2008

Tony Vargas said:


> HD healing can extend the adventuring day, but in the absence of class balance issues with large amounts of daily resources in the form of spell slots, that's not really a terribly important issue - in-combat healing, OTOH, can be.




By increase HD healing I was also including he possibility of adding in combat HD healing like 4e.  I don't think this is necessary for my groups play style, but for some it might.



Tony Vargas said:


> They did come right out and say they 'didn't assume' magic items, and it does show in the way encounter balance can skew when items are included.  But, spells are very much assumed, and the absence of support and other capabilities that are primarily or only available through spells is problematic - as is the simple lack of range in concepts & contributions that non-supernatural PC options encompass.




I disagree (unless I am misunderstanding you), my group is all blasters at heart, they almost never use support/buff/nerf spells (no cleric or paladin and almost always chose damage spells) and the game works fine.  To be clear, i do not currently limit spells in my campaign, but I am frugal with magic equipment and treasure in general.

Now, the lack of base non-magic classes would be an issue.  But that is not, IMO, an issue with the core design.  You just need to add more non-magic class / subclass options.


----------



## Parmandur

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I prefer magic to be something wild and dangerous and mysterious, more like Hyperboria than the Wizarding World.  I'd like checks to cast a spell with a chance things get crazy if failed.  Like WHFP 2e.



No accident that Harry Potter made the "Inspirational Reading" list for the 5E PHB.


----------



## Parmandur

Mistwell said:


> A who lot of this thread reads like a wish list of minority views concerning elements of the game which are highly popular. Which means 6e would not change them. If people LIKE magic in the game, 6e isn't going to reduce it nearly as much as you want it to. Wouldn't you need to establish this is actually a popular view of the game before expecting a new version to address it in that manner?
> 
> Otherwise, I suspect it just means you should either houserule the existing game to suit your lower magic needs, buy third party products which satisfy those needs, or try another game which addresses those needs?



Definitely no way that a theoretical 6E isn't built around popular survey consensus, given how that has worked out for 5E.

I'll lay odds right now that 6E will be backwards compatible with 5E, more like the iteration of B/X to BECMI to Rules Cyclopedia than any sort of revroll.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Elfcrusher said:


> No, false.  A normal activity (e.g. jumping) with impossible results _is_ supernatural.



 Impossible is contextual.  Physically impossible by the standards of modern bio-mechanics & physics is very different from impossible in a mythic or fantasy context, even before supernatural agency comes into it.  It's impossible for a RL world high-jump record holder to clear a castle wall.  It wasn't impossible for heroes of legend, because the people telling their tall tales weren't being fact-checked by Guinness, it was just a way of illustrating that the hero could really jump.  



> I don't know exactly where the line is between "improbable" and "impossible" but I know jumping over a castle wall is on the impossible side, and therefore if a human does it (without technology support) it's supernatural/magical.  (We can do some F=ma and dy = vo*t + 0.5at^2 if you want to...).



 I don't want to, no.  Impossible for an unaided human IRL is fine & fairly easily established, it's just not relevant to whether something is supernatural in an imaginary fantasy world - it might draw a relatively hypothetical line between the mundane, RL-realistic and the superhuman, fantasy-heroic, though.   
Let alone relevant to a fantasy RPG system where some things are explicitly called out as magical and others not.



> "The existence of twilight does not disprove the difference between Day and Night."



 That's how I'm seeing you argue against the distinction between super-human and super-natural that I'm pointing out.  You're insisting that because something accomplishes the impossible (twilight) that there is no distinction between the superhuman (day) and the supernatural (night).



dave2008 said:


> I disagree (unless I am misunderstanding you), my group is all blasters at heart, they almost never use support/buff/nerf spells (no cleric or paladin and almost always chose damage spells) and the game works fine.



 Nod.  I'm sure it's possible to run for a group like that in 5e - anything's possible, really, with the amount of latitude the DM has - I just don't consider it too well supported.  5e's fast-combat tuning tends to make offense-heavy parties just roll over many encounters without apparent challenge - the 'too easy' complaint we hear so often - ratchet it up enough to create a sense of challenge and it can tilt over the edge into a death-spiral and even TPK.  The support/buff/heal (traditional Cleric) role acts as a sort of net to catch the party when that happens, so lacking it is an issue.  
The DM can always be the net, though.



> By increase HD healing I was also including he possibility of adding in combat HD healing...Now, the lack of base non-magic classes would be an issue.  But that is not, IMO, an issue with the core design.  You just need to add more non-magic class / subclass options.



I think we're closer to being in agreement than I thought:  yes, the basic design is not, in itself, an impediment to adding and modding enough to make it work for a low-/no- magic party.

Similarly, the basic design is no impediment to just adding Templates onto 5e.  But, the existing classes are, since they're not so generic nor so consistent in their design as the idea might need to work well....


----------



## Stalker0

I feel like the heart of 5e is very solid...I've greatly enjoyed the system over all.

Now there are plenty of tweaks I would make (class adjustments, spell tweaks, etc). But that's a house rules or a supplemental book kind of fix.

If I were to try and look at fundamentals that I would change, there are only a few.

1) Rebalancing of stats. While any class will generally have prime stats and weaker stats, I feel the gap is too high.

Int is the biggest offender, incredibly useless for a large portion of builds. Many have argued that dex is too strong.

2) Another look at healing. Even with all of the dm options on healing, there is still a lot of precieved dissatisfaction. Whack a mole, invincible high level characters are a few noted concerns. I think this needs a relook.

3) a complete relook at rests and how things are regained.

This is one of those "revolutions" I consider worthy of a new edition. The daily rest mechanic is archaic and has a number of issues.

But assuming it is too popular to remove...I would like an embedded variant that helps a dm balance classes with few encounters per day as the norm.

Many dms like myself do not want to throw 5-6 encounters at a party a day in order to properly challenge them. I want 2 maybe 3. I would love some rules to provide adjustments to monsters and classss to better fit this model...which I believe is decently common at house tables. I want my fighters and wizards to feel competitive with each other, even under a 2 encounter a day model


----------



## Tony Vargas

Stalker0 said:


> 1) Rebalancing of stats. While any class will generally have prime stats and weaker stats, I feel the gap is too high.
> Int is the biggest offender, incredibly useless for a large portion of builds. Many have argued that dex is too strong.



 If classes were to have a prime stat - but backgrounds also each favor a stat, and Templates, likewise, that could spread things out a bit.  Or if every class had abilities that keyed off two or three stats, in total, rather than primarily off one.  For instance, if wizards targeted their attack spells with DEX, learned/prepped spells with INT, set their spell DCs with CHA, and gained bonus slots from CON, that'd spread it out quite a bit.



> 2) Another look at healing. Even with all of the dm options on healing, there is still a lot of precieved dissatisfaction. Whack a mole, invincible high level characters are a few noted concerns. I think this needs a relook.



 My concern is that any attempt to 'fix' whack-a-mole would most likely address the wrong issue and make it worse.  The bottom line, IMHO, is that in-combat healing is too low-impact or inefficient, and thus players feel the need to maximize it by leveraging the heal-from-0 rule - that is, you wait until an enemy 'overkills' and ally then prop him up with a few hps so it'll happen again, in that way you keep the ally fighting while exending relatively little healing to counter relatively large quantities of damage.   Being able to heal an ally up to full once or twice a combat would be more dramatic than being able to prop him up with a few hps over and over.



> 3) a complete relook at rests and how things are regained.
> 
> This is one of those "revolutions" I consider worthy of a new edition. The daily rest mechanic is archaic and has a number of issues.



 Short rest stands out as problematic, to me.  Some things, like CS dice, that are currently short-rest would make more sense as literal encounter resources - things that have no use/meaning out of combat, and that 'recharge,' in essence, when you roll initiative.  And, the fixed resting times unduly dictate campaign pacing.  Some adventures might work better if a short rest could be taken as little more than a breather in the corridor before kicking in a door - others it wouldn't make sense get the benefit of a short rest for days on end.  



> But assuming it is too popular to remove...I would like an embedded variant that helps a dm balance classes with few encounters per day as the norm.
> 
> Many dms like myself do not want to throw 5-6 encounters at a party a day in order to properly challenge them. I want 2 maybe 3. I would love some rules to provide adjustments to monsters and classss to better fit this model...which I believe is decently common at house tables. I want my fighters and wizards to feel competitive with each other, even under a 2 encounter a day model



 Fewer and less imbalanced daily resources among the classes would be the obvious way to go, without just eliminating the whole rest-recharge thing, entirely.


----------



## Alexemplar

Oofta said:


> I was going to reply something along this lines.  I don't care what the label was, martial powers could only be explained as supernatural.  Take the lowly "Come and Get It".  You forced movement, can only do it every once in a while and you get to wack everyone.
> 
> Yeah, I know you can say it's just yelling at people and pissing them off, but how do you insult an wolf?  "Your mother was a lazo-apso"?
> 
> Almost all fighter powers were supernatural in practice, they did things that could not be physically accomplished without supernatural assistance.




   That's a "narrative" powers/features. Similar to how in 1e/2e, the Fighting Man/Fighter was assumed to get followers and a keep. Similar to how every Warlock receives a Book of Shadows/Pact Weapon/Improved familiar at 3rd level.  Not at a point where it would be most logical given their their relationship with their patron, but at level 3.  The Rogue deals extra damage when they catch the enemy unawares or flank them to a degree no other class can.

   These characters are not functioning in accordance with the law that every Fighter gets followers. that  every Warlock gets a pact gift, or Rogues are unique in getting a bonus to damage from an ambush regardless of how much sense it does or doesn't make. The They represent any number of events, tropes, including fate, luck, and plot contrivances that would result in the desired effect.  

  Basically, it's a mechanic that can actually impact part of the game's narrative.  They haven't been especially common in D&D as compared to many other RPGs, but they've pretty much always been there in one form or another.


----------



## TwoSix

Oofta said:


> I was going to reply something along this lines.  I don't care what the label was, martial powers could only be explained as supernatural.  Take the lowly "Come and Get It".  You forced movement, can only do it every once in a while and you get to wack everyone.
> 
> Yeah, I know you can say it's just yelling at people and pissing them off, but how do you insult an wolf?  "Your mother was a lazo-apso"?
> 
> Almost all fighter powers were supernatural in practice, they did things that could not be physically accomplished without supernatural assistance.





Alexemplar said:


> Basically, it's a mechanic that can actually impact part of the game's narrative.  They haven't been especially common in D&D as compared to many other RPGs, but they've pretty much always been there in one form or another.



Paging 2009...your forum war discussion points have just arrived.


----------



## Morrus

TwoSix said:


> Paging 2009...your forum war discussion points have just arrived.




You’re an entire decade out. These conversations were happening on this very forum in 1999.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Alexemplar said:


> That's a "narrative" powers/features. Similar to how in 1e/2e, the Fighting Man/Fighter was assumed to get followers and a keep. Similar to how every Warlock receives a Book of Shadows/Pact Weapon/Improved familiar at 3rd level.  Not at a point where it would be most logical given their their relationship with their patron, but at level 3.  The Rogue deals extra damage when they catch the enemy unawares or flank them to a degree no other class can.
> 
> These characters are not functioning in accordance with the law that every Fighter gets followers. that  every Warlock gets a pact gift, or Rogues are unique in getting a bonus to damage from an ambush regardless of how much sense it does or doesn't make. The They represent any number of events, tropes, including fate, luck, and plot contrivances that would result in the desired effect.
> 
> Basically, it's a mechanic that can actually impact part of the game's narrative.  They haven't been especially common in D&D as compared to many other RPGs, but they've pretty much always been there in one form or another.



 Hit points & saving throws are another example, and, as Morrus points out, the debates those spawned go way back (though with the reverse of the emphasis you typically get, today), not just to the early days of these forums and to UseNet and BBSs and Out on a Limb, but, apparently, to people just harassing EGG about it enough that he wrote a whole treatise on the topic of hps in the 1e DMG.


----------



## Oofta

Alexemplar said:


> That's a "narrative" powers/features. Similar to how in 1e/2e, the Fighting Man/Fighter was assumed to get followers and a keep. Similar to how every Warlock receives a Book of Shadows/Pact Weapon/Improved familiar at 3rd level.  Not at a point where it would be most logical given their their relationship with their patron, but at level 3.  The Rogue deals extra damage when they catch the enemy unawares or flank them to a degree no other class can.
> 
> These characters are not functioning in accordance with the law that every Fighter gets followers. that  every Warlock gets a pact gift, or Rogues are unique in getting a bonus to damage from an ambush regardless of how much sense it does or doesn't make. The They represent any number of events, tropes, including fate, luck, and plot contrivances that would result in the desired effect.
> 
> Basically, it's a mechanic that can actually impact part of the game's narrative.  They haven't been especially common in D&D as compared to many other RPGs, but they've pretty much always been there in one form or another.




I was going to respond ... but it's just not worth it.  Other than to say I have no clue what point you are trying to make.  Getting followers or being really good at stabbing somebody are not supernatural.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> Hit points & saving throws are another example, and, as Morrus points out, the debates those spawned go way back (though with the reverse of the emphasis you typically get, today), not just to the early days of these forums and to UseNet and BBSs and Out on a Limb, but, apparently, to people just harassing EGG about it enough that he wrote a whole treatise on the topic of hps in the 1e DMG.




There's a difference between simplifications of reality for ease of play and things that fall out of the realm of possible.  If I punch somebody hard enough an long enough eventually they will fall unconscious.  HP may be a greatly simplified way of representing that, but it's simple and it works.

That's different from a rogue's _Blinding Barrage_ where they get to attack and blind multiple opponents because they have possession of a single dagger.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> I was going to respond ... but it's just not worth it.  Other than to say I have no clue what point you are trying to make.  Getting followers or being really good at stabbing somebody are not supernatural.



Neither is enemies running up to you.  They're perfectly natural events.  The 1e Fighter didn't send out a telepathic wave that mind-controlled men-at-arms into flocking to his banner, he built up a reputation in the process of reaching 9th level and built a keep and *ding* that attracted followers.  A rogue's SA (or backstab in the classic game, for that matter) could do a lot of damage, on the theory he 'hit a vital spot' because the enemy couldn't properly defend himself.  Other characters with daggers should, by all rights, be able to inflict the exact same wound, but they litterally can't, even when the enemy 'can't properly defend itself,' even when they score crits, for the most part, even when their chance to hit in the same circumstance is much better than the rogue's (entirely possible in 3e, for instance).  They just don't produce the same damage number from a single attack with a dagger.  
It's just an abstraction that, yes, perhaps, depending on how you imagine it, 'impacts the narrative,' but there's no need to call it a supernatural power.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> Neither is enemies running up to you.  They're perfectly natural events.  The 1e Fighter didn't send out a telepathic wave that mind-controlled men-at-arms into flocking to his banner, he built up a reputation in the process of reaching 9th level and built a keep and *ding* that attracted followers.  A rogue's SA (or backstab in the classic game, for that matter) could do a lot of damage, on the theory he 'hit a vital spot' because the enemy couldn't properly defend himself.  Other characters with daggers should, by all rights, be able to inflict the exact same wound, but they litterally can't, even when the enemy 'can't properly defend itself,' even when they score crits, for the most part, even when their chance to hit in the same circumstance is much better than the rogue's (entirely possible in 3e, for instance).  They just don't produce the same damage number from a single attack with a dagger.
> It's just an abstraction that, yes, perhaps, depending on how you imagine it, 'impacts the narrative,' but there's no need to call it a supernatural power.




I don't want to be rude, but we just have a different opinion of what qualifies as supernatural.  End of discussion.


----------



## TwoSix

Oofta said:


> I was going to respond ... but it's just not worth it.  Other than to say I have no clue what point you are trying to make.  Getting followers or being really good at stabbing somebody are not supernatural.



Not to stretch out a normally tedious discussion that usually goes nowhere, but the relation between followers and "Come and Get It" is that they're both meta powers.  They're abilities exercised by the player on behalf of the character, but have no origin on any capability of the character (other than the position in the game world he holds via the fiction of the game).  Neither ability is supernatural, they're merely game constructs that give the player a plot coupon to make NPCs do something, instead of the DM doing it.


----------



## TwoSix

Morrus said:


> You’re an entire decade out. These conversations were happening on this very forum in 1999.



Fair enough; I just tend to associate those particular points with the peak of the edition war.


----------



## Oofta

TwoSix said:


> Not to stretch out a normally tedious discussion that usually goes nowhere, but the relation between followers and "Come and Get It" is that they're both meta powers.  They're abilities exercised by the player on behalf of the character, but have no origin on any capability of the character (other than the position in the game world he holds via the fiction of the game).  Neither ability is supernatural, they're merely game constructs that give the player a plot coupon to make NPCs do something, instead of the DM doing it.




In the real world people built castles.  People have followers.  The details of how it happens is glossed over in the rules but it is in no way unnatural or supernatural.


----------



## Alexemplar

Oofta said:


> In the real world people built castles.  People have followers.  The details of how it happens is glossed over in the rules but it is in no way unnatural or supernatural.




  In the real world, getting your own castle or follower is not an automatic thing just because you're a warrior. Likewise, in the overwhelming majority of fantasy stories, the warrior characters are usually really really good at holding the enemies' attention so they don't target/attack the more vulnerable characters.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby

ASI: +1/+1 or +2. One at 8th, one at 16th, but not interchangeable with feats.

Class-based, siloed feat design: there are now three distinct types of feats: combat/exploration/social. Five feats across 20 levels. Each class gets a type of feat slot at a particular level based on their focus. A fighter, for instance, would get 1 combat feat at say 6th, another at 12th, and a third at 18th, as well as 1 exploration and 1 social somewhere (maybe interchangeable but only one of each across 20 levels). Wizard would probably be the same as the fighter (combat feats aren't just about physical fighting but any type of D&D mechanics involved with combat), whereas a bard would have more social and a ranger would have more exploration.


----------



## Oofta

Alexemplar said:


> In the real world, getting your own castle or follower is not an automatic thing just because you're a warrior. Likewise, in the overwhelming majority of fantasy stories, the warrior characters are usually really really good at holding the enemies' attention so they don't target/attack the more vulnerable characters.




I'll just repeat - just because the details are glossed over and because the game assumed it would happen, nothing supernatural is required.

Come and Get It on the other hand literally pulls creatures up to 15 feet whether or not they even know you exist.

It's apples and oranges.  Heck it's not even apples and oranges, it's more like apples and a tire iron.


----------



## TwoSix

Oofta said:


> In the real world people built castles.  People have followers.  The details of how it happens is glossed over in the rules but it is in no way unnatural or supernatural.



Semantics at this point.  Don't need another point-buy thread in my life, so concern level is now zero.


----------



## Oofta

I'm not going to bother responding to any more "building a castle and getting followers is just like Come and Get It".

I'm not saying 4E was a bad game.  I'm just saying that something that could and did happen in the real world is not supernatural.  Something that could not and does not physically happen is supernatural.

Disagree all you want, it's just an opinion.


----------



## Alexemplar

Oofta said:


> I'll just repeat - just because the details are glossed over and because the game assumed it would happen, nothing supernatural is required.
> 
> Come and Get It on the other hand literally pulls creatures up to 15 feet whether or not they even know you exist.
> 
> It's apples and oranges.  Heck it's not even apples and oranges, it's more like apples and a tire iron.




   The Fighter warrior feature also gets you a keep and followers, even if those people don't know you, have a high opinion of you, have any wealth or connections of note, etc . It just assumes that by making it to a given level you get followers and a keep whether you were a famous saintly knight who saved the realm or an anonymous shady murder hobo who spent their whole adventuring life in a foreign land.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Tony Vargas said:


> Impossible is contextual.




No, it's not.  



> Physically impossible by the standards of modern bio-mechanics & physics is very different from impossible in a mythic or fantasy context, even before supernatural agency comes into it.  It's impossible for a RL world high-jump record holder to clear a castle wall.  It wasn't impossible for heroes of legend, because the people telling their tall tales weren't being fact-checked by Guinness, it was just a way of illustrating that the hero could really jump.
> 
> Impossible for an unaided human IRL is fine & fairly easily established, it's just not relevant to whether something is supernatural in an imaginary fantasy world - it might draw a relatively hypothetical line between the mundane, RL-realistic and the superhuman, fantasy-heroic, though.
> Let alone relevant to a fantasy RPG system where some things are explicitly called out as magical and others not.




Ok, I see what you're doing here.  

Impossible is still impossible, but in make-believe we can pretend it's otherwise.

So we can say that in our fantasy world, things that would undoubtedly be supernatural don't need supernatural explanations because in this world people are stronger, better, faster than in the real world.  So it's not supernatural for a hero to leap over a wall, because in this world the rules about the energy each gram of human muscle can exert are either different or even not relevant, so we're not constrained by physiology and physics.  The "super" is now "natural".

Got it.

Except...this means that the line between mundane and supernatural/magical/etc. is arbitrary in a fictional world.  We can declare something is non-supernatural, non-magical simply by believing it so.

And thus your argument about the importance of having classes that derive their powers from non-magical, non-supernatural forces falls apart.  Because if the line is arbitrary, and not determined by any laws from the real world, then you are free to simply move that line to whatever suits your purpose.  You want non-magical healing?  Great, just decide that in your game universe the ability to Lay on Hands is not magical, it's mundane.  Humans are just "better" on that side of the veil and you don't need chemistry and biology to explain it, it's just non-magical.

Of course, if what suits your purpose is to demonstrate that the game needs non-magical, non-supernatural superpowers, then you can (and do!) adjust the line accordingly.  But it's really entirely your choice of where to put that line.



> That's how I'm seeing you argue against the distinction between super-human and super-natural that I'm pointing out.  You're insisting that because something accomplishes the impossible (twilight) that there is no distinction between the superhuman (day) and the supernatural (night).




Errr...no, I was arguing the opposite.  That supernatural and superhuman can mean the same thing, if we're using "superhuman" to literally mean "beyond what is possible for a human".  (There are, of course, metaphorical uses for the word, such as "he put in a superhuman effort to get the report done in time for the meeting.")

You, on the other hand, have been arguing that "superhuman" is in a different category than "supernatural".  E.g., leaping over a castle wall is merely superhuman because it is a more extreme version of something humans do, while shooting lasers out of your eyes is supernatural because humans don't otherwise emit any light from their eyes.  But that's also an arbitrary distinction, easily manipulated to support either conclusion.  E.g., teleportation is merely superhuman and not supernatural, because humans do go from point A to point B, and teleportation is just going from point A to point B very, very quickly.  The Wish spell is only superhuman because humans do wish for things and sometimes get them, and Wish is just the same thing with a higher success rate.  Etc.  (Actually this is kind of a fun game....)

Getting back to the twilight argument, I was making the point that leaping over an ox could be called superhuman, and leaping over a hut could be superhuman, and leaping over a castle wall could be superhuman, and leaping all the way around the world could be superhuman.  Somewhere in there we went from just being "impressively improbable" to "impossible by the usual definition of the word", and the fact that we might not be able pinpoint exactly where that distinction lies does not mean the distinction isn't there.  

At some point leaping becomes just as impossible and thus supernatural as shooting lasers from your eyes.

You have an aesthetic preference for actions which closely resemble real human actions, and that's cool.  You are entitled to that preference and I respect it.  I have an aesthetic bias that does not include rapiers, especially dual-wielded, and thinks that rogues should stab things not shoot them. Neither of us is going to be able to objectively prove that our preference belongs or does not belong in the game.


----------



## Oofta

Elfcrusher said:


> At some point leaping becomes just as impossible and thus supernatural as shooting lasers from your eyes.




<SARCASM>Right, but we all know that Superman isn't supernatural he's super-human. After all he's actually _vulnerable_ to magic.  </SARCASM>


----------



## Alexemplar

Elfcrusher said:


> Except...this means that the line between mundane and supernatural/magical/etc. is arbitrary in a fictional world.  We can declare something is non-supernatural, non-magical simply by believing it so.




  That's exactly how it works when dealing with fantasy worlds- and often times the real world, depending on who you're talking to. The human mind is intrinsically geared towards this kind of blurring and it becomes even more true when formulating narratives.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> That's different from a rogue's _Blinding Barrage_ where they get to attack and blind multiple opponents because they have possession of a single dagger.



 To be fair, that was true only if it was a magical dagger, as they were able to return intantly when thrown - otherwise he'd've needed at least one thrown weapon per target  - and quickdraw...



Oofta said:


> <SARCASM>Right, but we all know that Superman isn't supernatural he's super-human. After all he's actually _vulnerable_ to magic.  </SARCASM>



I'm not up on all the canon, but as I recall, the original superman was simply from a high-G world, superhumanly strong, fast, able to leap tall buildings (tad derivative of Burrough's "John Carter," if you think about it) - but not fly or fry eggs by staring at them, and not quite supernatural. At some point he got retconned to the explanation that his powers were psychokinetic and powered by the energy of the yellow sun - and, he crossed that line.



Elfcrusher said:


> Impossible is still impossible, but in make-believe we can pretend it's otherwise.



 Though it's not entirely cogent there's also a line between impossible, for an unaided human (dead-lifting tons), and logically impossible (meaningless), God creating a stone He could not lift.



> That supernatural and superhuman can mean the same thing, if we're using "superhuman" to literally mean "beyond what is possible for a human".



 And your vehicle for that is the 'twighlight' case of the impossible - because something impossible may be superhuman (day), like leaping over a castle wall, and something supernatural (night), like dematerializing and walking through a castle wall would certainly be impossible, then the two must be the same (night = day, because: twilight).



> You, on the other hand, have been arguing that "superhuman" is in a different category than "supernatural"



 Yes, because it's a quite easy category difference....







> E.g., leaping over a castle wall is merely superhuman because it is a more extreme version of something humans do, while shooting lasers out of your eyes is supernatural because humans don't otherwise emit any light from their eyes.  But that's also an arbitrary distinction, easily manipulated to support either conclusion.



 Meaning is arbitrary, if you get right down to it, all language is symbolic, but no, it's a very clear test and easy to apply consistently.  







> E.g., teleportation is merely superhuman and not supernatural, because humans do go from point A to point B, and teleportation is just going from point A to point B very, very quickly.



 That is NOT what teleportation is, though.  Teleportation is moving from one point to another without passing through any other points on the way.  Teleportation is supernatural.  A teleport mechanic, in an effects-based game like Hero, might be used to model a non-supernatural power, but it would generally have a limitation placed on it so it did actually include more natural movement - for instance, a super-escape-artist might buy a teleport to escape from impossibly difficult confinement, but the 'effect' would still be wiggling out of it, not moving without traversing space.  FWIW.



> The Wish spell is only superhuman because humans do wish for things and sometimes get them, and Wish is just the same thing with a higher success rate.



 Not actually that far off base.  In Mage: the Ascension, for instance, magick can be covered with a coincidence, so if you wish for a million dollars and win the lottery, you're fine, but if you just conjure the money out of thin air in front of everyone, you can invoke some paradox.  Not the exact same distinction, but very similar - it's more about how the effect looks.  Supernatural is more about how the effect happens, it's really little to do with degree.  In the case of Wish, earth-shaking magic is, indeed being invoked - supernatural as all heck.

For instance, aporting a silver piece from your purse into you hand is supernatural, even though it's a trivially easy and natural thing to just reach into your purse and pull out a silver piece - and, even though sleight of hand could appear to do the same thing.



> Getting back to the twilight argument, I was making the point that leaping over an ox could be called superhuman, and leaping over a hut could be superhuman, and leaping over a castle wall could be superhuman, and leaping all the way around the world could be superhuman.  Somewhere in there we went from just being "impressively improbable" to "impossible by the usual definition of the word", and the fact that we might not be able pinpoint exactly where that distinction lies does not mean the distinction isn't there.



  When you get right down to it, entering orbit is just an incredibly powerful leap.  



> At some point leaping becomes just as impossible and thus supernatural as shooting lasers from your eyes.



Sure, and a certain point, the supernatural - starting a fire pyrokinetically for instance - becomes just as trivial as striking a match.  Possible vs impossible, degree of power or believably really has no bearing.



> I have an aesthetic bias that does not include rapiers, especially dual-wielded, and thinks that rogues should stab things not shoot them. Neither of us is going to be able to objectively prove that our preference belongs or does not belong in the game.



 I think it's more reasonable, in the case of oh-so-inclusive 5e, to say that neither of us has any right to say the other's preferences should be excluded from the game.  And, what do you have against the famed Florentine fencing style?



Oofta said:


> I don't want to be rude, but we just have a different opinion of what qualifies as supernatural.  End of discussion.



 Oh, I'm fine with that.  I was just pointing out that your opinion that one 4e fighter power should have been supernatural in no way alters the fact that no fighter power in 4e was supernatural.  The editions have offered different menus of non-magic-using classes.  AD&D PH had the Fighter & Thief, both 100% non-magic-suing.  3e PH had the Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian (EX powers but no SU, quite explicitly), likewise.  The 4e PH had the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, & Warlord, likewise, 100% non-magical.  5e happened to give every class at least some magical powers, though, it does have specific Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian sub-classes that do not.  AD&D, 3e, & 5e all limited their non-magic using classes to DPR and skill-specialist roles - 4e was unique in letting them cover 3 of it's 4 formal roles: Defender (aggro), Striker (DPR - and, incidentally in the case of Ranger & Rogue, skill-specialists), and Leader (support).  While Martial lacked the Controller role in 4e, it was a fairly seamless thing to run a campaign with only martial PCs, whether the world was high-, low-. or no- magic - 5e isn't as far away from that as other pre-4e eds, but it could be closer, and 6e certainly could go there if it wanted to...

...Templates could help.  Having a 4th (after Race, class & background) major choice point for PCs could give more flexibility in creating a fully-functional party in spite of concept or campaign limitations on what sorts of characters might be appropriate...


----------



## Guest 6801328

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm not up on all the canon, but as I recall, the original superman was simply from a high-G world, superhumanly strong, fast, able to leap tall buildings (tad derivative of Burrough's "John Carter," if you think about it) - but not fly or fry eggs by staring at them, and not quite supernatural. At some point he got retconned to the explanation that his powers were psychokinetic and powered by the energy of the yellow sun - and, he crossed that line.
> 
> Though it's not entirely cogent there's also a line between impossible, for an unaided human (dead-lifting tons), and logically impossible (meaningless), God creating a stone He could not lift.
> 
> And your vehicle for that is the 'twighlight' case of the impossible - because something impossible may be superhuman (day), like leaping over a castle wall, and something supernatural (night), like dematerializing and walking through a castle wall would certainly be impossible, then the two must be the same (night = day, because: twilight).
> 
> Yes, because it's a quite easy category difference.... Meaning is arbitrary, if you get right down to it, all language is symbolic, but no, it's a very clear test and easy to apply consistently.   That is NOT what teleportation is, though.  Teleportation is moving from one point to another without passing through any other points on the way.  Teleportation is supernatural.  A teleport mechanic, in an effects-based game like Hero, might be used to model a non-supernatural power, but it would generally have a limitation placed on it so it did actually include more natural movement - for instance, a super-escape-artist might buy a teleport to escape from impossibly difficult confinement, but the 'effect' would still be wiggling out of it, not moving without traversing space.  FWIW.
> 
> Not actually that far off base.  In Mage: the Ascension, for instance, magick can be covered with a coincidence, so if you wish for a million dollars and win the lottery, you're fine, but if you just conjure the money out of thin air in front of everyone, you can invoke some paradox.  Not the exact same distinction, but very similar - it's more about how the effect looks.  Supernatural is more about how the effect happens, it's really little to do with degree.  In the case of Wish, earth-shaking magic is, indeed being invoked - supernatural as all heck.
> 
> For instance, aporting a silver piece from your purse into you hand is supernatural, even though it's a trivially easy and natural thing to just reach into your purse and pull out a silver piece - and, even though sleight of hand could appear to do the same thing.
> 
> When you get right down to it, entering orbit is just an incredibly powerful leap.
> 
> Sure, and a certain point, the supernatural - starting a fire pyrokinetically for instance - becomes just as trivial as striking a match.  Possible vs impossible, degree of power or believably really has no bearing.
> 
> I think it's more reasonable, in the case of oh-so-inclusive 5e, to say that neither of us has any right to say the other's preferences should be excluded from the game.  And, what do you have against the famed Florentine fencing style?
> 
> Oh, I'm fine with that.  I was just pointing out that your opinion that one 4e fighter power should have been supernatural in no way alters the fact that no fighter power in 4e was supernatural.  The editions have offered different menus of non-magic-using classes.  AD&D PH had the Fighter & Thief, both 100% non-magic-suing.  3e PH had the Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian (EX powers but no SU, quite explicitly), likewise.  The 4e PH had the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, & Warlord, likewise, 100% non-magical.  5e happened to give every class at least some magical powers, though, it does have specific Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian sub-classes that do not.  AD&D, 3e, & 5e all limited their non-magic using classes to DPR and skill-specialist roles - 4e was unique in letting them cover 3 of it's 4 formal roles: Defender (aggro), Striker (DPR - and, incidentally in the case of Ranger & Rogue, skill-specialists), and Leader (support).  While Martial lacked the Controller role in 4e, it was a fairly seamless thing to run a campaign with only martial PCs, whether the world was high-, low-. or no- magic - 5e isn't as far away from that as other pre-4e eds, but it could be closer, and 6e certainly could go there if it wanted to...
> 
> ...Templates could help.  Having a 4th (after Race, class & background) major choice point for PCs could give more flexibility in creating a fully-functional party in spite of concept or campaign limitations on what sorts of characters might be appropriate...




You are really just making up your own definitions here.  I'll grant that you are quite consistent about the application of those definitions, but they are your made-up definitions.

According to Google...
Supernatural:







> (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.




For example...a human jumping over a castle wall.

I do understand your definition, but it's just something you concocted that helps explain your aesthetic preference about RPGs and...conveniently...supports your desired conclusion that martial powers are neither magical nor supernatural.

I propose we introduce two new terms, vargasian and non-vargasian, to distinguish between manifestations or events that are merely greatly enhanced versions of reality from those that are not.  Then we can all be using words to mean the same thing and can proceed with this discussion without confusion.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Elfcrusher said:


> ...supports your desired conclusion that martial powers are neither magical nor supernatural.



 It's not so much supporting a conclusion as challenging the "opinion" that the game has somehow consistently never meant the things it comes right out and says.  3e & 4e were perfectly clear, with explicit labels, Sources in 4e, and (EX) & (SU) in 3e.  5e, I suppose in keeping with it's design philosophy, is not so succinct, but still makes it perfectly clear that spells and Ki are explicitly magical, leaving only a handful of none-too-varied sub-classes as non-supernatural options.  

Taken far enough, an idea like your Templates could let players take a class in different directions, that way.  For instance, Divine magic could be part of a Template, applied to a hypothetical warrior class, you have a Paladin...


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> To be fair, that was true only if it was a magical dagger, as they were able to return intantly when thrown - otherwise he'd've needed at least one thrown weapon per target  - and quickdraw...



Nope.  Blinding Barrage requirement is: _"You must be wielding a crossbow, a light thrown weapon, or a sling."_  So as long as you were holding a single dagger you were good to go.  

I just looked up the exact wording but I remember this particular power because both guys that played rogues (different campaigns) remarked on how silly it was.  Then again they had both been playing since 2E.


----------



## Oofta

Alexemplar said:


> That's exactly how it works when dealing with fantasy worlds- and often times the real world, depending on who you're talking to. The human mind is intrinsically geared towards this kind of blurring and it becomes even more true when formulating narratives.




By that definition in a world where magic works absolutely nothing would be supernatural.  In a world where there are ghosts, they are "natural" to that world.

I think that's silly, but to each his own.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> Nope.  Blinding Barrage requirement is: _"You must be wielding a crossbow, a light thrown weapon, or a sling."_  So as long as you were holding a single dagger you were good to go. .



 Yes, it was limited to those weapons, but it didn't negate the rules that applied to them. Without magic or the right feat, you could use the power with a lone non-magical dagger - but you'd only get to attack one target in the blast... if you're holding a bunch of 'em, though, go to town...


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes, it was limited to those weapons, but it didn't negate the rules that applied to them. Without magic or the right feat, you could use the power with a lone non-magical dagger - but you'd only get to attack one target in the blast... if you're holding a bunch of 'em, though, go to town...




That's not what the power says.  The only requirement is a single dagger.   No mention of multiple daggers or even ammunition.

But I'm done, you will never agree so there's no point.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> That's not what the power says.  The only requirement is a single dagger.   No mention of multiple daggers or even ammunition.



 Using a crossbow or sling required ammunition.  Making an attack with a light thrown weapon required you throw it.  If it's magical, it came right back, if not, better've had some more handy, 'cause you're not wielding it anymore.  

Powers did let you make multiple attacks by loading all the ammo you needed as part of the power, or throwing all the weapons you're holding, but they didn't make either appear from nowhere...

...well, unless they explicitly said they did - exception-based design, and all...

...or, you had Bracers of Infinite Blades, which, actually, well, magically conjured up daggers for you...


----------



## corwyn77

Tony Vargas said:


> /Originally/ there was no Thief.  Just say'n.
> 
> But, yeah, in AD&D, they were the 4 classes, and the others ('cept the oddball Monk & Bard) were sub-classes of 'em.
> And, that didn't really change much in 2e (they became four class groups:  Warrior, Wizard, Priest, & Rogue), so for about 25 years, that was just the way it was, and... ...it became a tradition.
> 
> But, what the traditional cleric & magic-user do - cast spells - is essentially not that different.  And what the traditional fighter and thief do - use mundane skill (fighting's a skill) - is really not that different, either.
> 
> You could probably take D&D down to just those two 'classes' - magic-user and skill-user; Mage & Hero, perhaps - and get all the remaining PH-in-some-edition classes and sub-classes and one-off-class-in-one-supplement-one-time classes by just applying various Templates to them.




You know, there are plenty systems out there with only one class - Hero, GURPS, Savage Worlds.

More seriously, way back in the D20 days, Green Ronin came out with True 20 - three classes, Warrior, Expert, and Adept. Everything was a combination of those three.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> Using a crossbow or sling required ammunition.  Making an attack with a light thrown weapon required you throw it.  If it's magical, it came right back, if not, better've had some more handy, 'cause you're not wielding it anymore.
> 
> Powers did let you make multiple attacks by loading all the ammo you needed as part of the power, or throwing all the weapons you're holding, but they didn't make either appear from nowhere...
> 
> ...well, unless they explicitly said they did - exception-based design, and all.




I quoted the specific rule.  Specific overrides general.

*Blinding Barrage*
*Requirement:* You must be wielding a crossbow, a light thrown weapon, or a sling.
*Target:* Each enemy in blast you can see

And now you've made me pull my 4E PHB from it's shelf of shame.*  

_*I literally have my 4E books on a different bookcase hidden away in a corner, far far away from my other D&D books. Wouldn't want to contaminate them._


----------



## Tony Vargas

In order for specific to override general, it actually has to conflict in some way.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> In order for specific to override general, it actually has to conflict in some way.




It specifically states you hit everybody in an area of effect with no mention or limitation on how many weapons you have.  I don't know of anyone who ever read it the way you do, and I played a lot of LFR with 4E so I played with a wide variety of players and DMs.

Anyway, I don't care enough to continue the conversation.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> It specifically states you hit everybody in an area of effect



 It targets enemies in the blast you can see.  You still have to resolve attack rolls to hit each of them, and ranged and thrown weapons have simple, clear, rules on how to do that - which include needing enough ammunition or non-magical thrown weapons  (or one magical thrown weapon that conveniently returns to your hand after resolving each one).



> with no mention or limitation on how many weapons you have.



 It doesn't have to repeat the light thrown and load properties to avoid contradicting them.  If it were meant to override the normal reading of powers and weapons it would have had a 'Special' line spelling that out.

4e had it's issues, and, really, one of them /was/ how dreadfully precise it was.



> I don't know of anyone who ever read it the way you do, and I played a lot of LFR with 4E so I played with a wide variety of players and DMs.



 It was a question settled, officially, within months of publication, though it rarely came up:  it wasn't hard to carry plenty of ammo, and magic weapons were assumed.  I was in some games with lower magic, so it mattered, rarely  - in a trivial, 'oh, you're going to have to use your sling,' way.

Though, to be fair, C&GI and BB were about as gonzo as heroic tier martial powers got - just not supernatural.


----------



## Stalker0

By the laws of all that is holy can we please get this thread back on topic.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Stalker0 said:


> By the laws of all that is holy can we please get this thread back on topic.




Probably not.  It's a general rule of the forums that all threads longer than 5 pages become debates about either metagaming or warlords.  Sometimes both.


----------



## Arilyn

Elfcrusher said:


> Probably not.  It's a general rule of the forums that all threads longer than 5 pages become debates about either metagaming or warlords.  Sometimes both.




Yep. Those warlords drive me crazy with their metagaming.

Back on topic, how about armour? Should DnD have armour reduce damage, instead of making you harder to hit? Armour class, as it is now, is a hold over from miniature war gaming. It never made sense for individual heroes. F20 games almost always introduce alternative rules for this, but are then ignored. Is it worth changing the system in the core rules for our theoretical 6e? Classes could have a defense score based off dex, which slowly builds as players gain levels. 

I also think heavy armour should be way too unwieldy to adventure in. Who in their right mind would go crawling around a dungeon in plate? I realize that's just a pet peeve, however. If we stripped all the silly things out of DnD, we wouldn't have a game left. Let's not go there...


----------



## Oofta

Stalker0 said:


> By the laws of all that is holy can we please get this thread back on topic.




Sorry for contributing to the derailment of what was supposed to be a generic statement about how sometimes I'd like to have an option for a base game that assumed only mundane (although perhaps extraordinary) abilities.   

Anyway, start with mundane and then add on layers of magic and supernatural.


----------



## Oofta

Arilyn said:


> Yep. Those warlords drive me crazy with their metagaming.
> 
> Back on topic, how about armour? Should DnD have armour reduce damage, instead of making you harder to hit? Armour class, as it is now, is a hold over from miniature war gaming. It never made sense for individual heroes. F20 games almost always introduce alternative rules for this, but are then ignored. Is it worth changing the system in the core rules for our theoretical 6e? Classes could have a defense score based off dex, which slowly builds as players gain levels.
> 
> I also think heavy armour should be way too unwieldy to adventure in. Who in their right mind would go crawling around a dungeon in plate? I realize that's just a pet peeve, however. If we stripped all the silly things out of DnD, we wouldn't have a game left. Let's not go there...




I think AC bonus from dexterity is far too great as it is.  Someone in armor should be much tougher to damage than someone naked or covered in a single layer of hardened leather.  I can see adding a point or two to AC from dexterity and I get the trope of somebody dodging out of the way, but it was shown on Mythbusters that you can't deflect an arrow (or catch it) even if you know it's coming.

But more realism could be added to armor.  Depending on the level of metalworking, chain mail was _the_ go-to armor.  But you could also have different levels of all types of armor.  Mail armor could just be your upper body or could include leggings for example.  

_My_ pet peeve is that people that plate armor was heavy and cumbersome.  It wasn't. I'll refer you to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's web site on the topic here.*

Modern soldiers carry far more weight than your typical suit of armor. In addition, it probably wasn't much hotter than any other armor since all armor had heavy padding to absorb blows.  After all, stopping the cutting power of an enemies blade was only half the purpose of the armor, it also had to absorb the impact.

But AC is a tough issue.  If you model it as damage resistance it gets fiddly, and some monsters will never do _any_ damage.  Much like HP is a horrible stand-in for physical endurance and ability to take damage, it may be the best of bad options.

_*If you want to ignore what historians believe and talk about how armor is too heavy and cumbersome and people in plate should need assistance to stand from prone, feel free; I'll just ignore you._


----------



## Greg K

Li Shenron said:


> - I would have preferred subclasses to start at 3rd level for all classes and grant abilities at the same levels




Myself, I would have preferred that they all start at 1st.


----------



## Alexemplar

Arilyn said:


> Back on topic, how about armour? Should DnD have armour reduce damage, instead of making you harder to hit? Armour class, as it is now, is a hold over from miniature war gaming. It never made sense for individual heroes. F20 games almost always introduce alternative rules for this, but are then ignored. Is it worth changing the system in the core rules for our theoretical 6e? Classes could have a defense score based off dex, which slowly builds as players gain levels.




  Unarmored defense bonus for all classes- or at least the ones expected to take attacks and have decent defenses- makes sense.  There's so many settings and character concepts that don't favor armor.  I still think armor should provide some kind of benefit though, as it provides incentive for some characters to actually want to wear it when/where appropriate.


  I think my favorite non-AC/damage reduction approach is armor as HP.  As in +1 HP per character level for lighter armors and maybe even as high as +5 per character level for the heaviest stuff.  That way the guy in bigger armor could take more hits before falling, but is still not immune to being plinked by weak attacks. It'd also give Fighters/Barbarians/Paladins a kind of "unarmored defense" as they already have larger damage die than other classes.  Other classes would need heavier armor just to get the level of a naked warrior, and should the warriors wear some armor, they become even more survivable.


----------



## Mephista

Arilyn said:


> I would get rid of tool proficiencies. It is clunky having tools and skills. There is a sense that tool proficiencies are less useful, and therefore easier to acquire, but thieves tools totally fly in the face of that theory.



 I think it depends on the tool and skills?  I mean, when was the last time you had someone roll Perform in game?  Or Investigate over Perception?  How about Religion, when Arcana covers info about undead and fiends/celestials? Meanwhile, thief-style tools come up fairly often (lockpicking, disguise, poison) as part of their trades. 


The issue with tools is that, fundamentally, they're mostly crafting and social games/instruments. Crafting rules are crap to the point of being discouraged, and social rules are so simplistic that non-Intimidate/Deception/Persuade rarely come up. 



corwyn77 said:


> More seriously, way back in the D20 days, Green Ronin came out with True 20 - three classes, Warrior, Expert, and Adept. Everything was a combination of those three.



A lot of games use this rough design as well in modern times.  You can kind of see in 5e too - warriors classes with a heavy focus on fighting, dedicated spellcasters classes, and then classes that focus a lot on skills over magic or martial ability (ranger, rogue especially, traditionally bard as well).  

Though, there's also some modern theory that divide classes into warrior via weapon type (sword/board, great sword/axe, lancer, fists, bows, knives), crafters (farmers, blacksmiths, etc) and casters (white mage, black mage, shaman, etc), but its a similar idea.


----------



## Arilyn

Oofta said:


> I think AC bonus from dexterity is far too great as it is.  Someone in armor should be much tougher to damage than someone naked or covered in a single layer of hardened leather.  I can see adding a point or two to AC from dexterity and I get the trope of somebody dodging out of the way, but it was shown on Mythbusters that you can't deflect an arrow (or catch it) even if you know it's coming.
> 
> But more realism could be added to armor.  Depending on the level of metalworking, chain mail was _the_ go-to armor.  But you could also have different levels of all types of armor.  Mail armor could just be your upper body or could include leggings for example.
> 
> _My_ pet peeve is that people that plate armor was heavy and cumbersome.  It wasn't. I'll refer you to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's web site on the topic here.*
> 
> Modern soldiers carry far more weight than your typical suit of armor. In addition, it probably wasn't much hotter than any other armor since all armor had heavy padding to absorb blows.  After all, stopping the cutting power of an enemies blade was only half the purpose of the armor, it also had to absorb the impact.
> 
> But AC is a tough issue.  If you model it as damage resistance it gets fiddly, and some monsters will never do _any_ damage.  Much like HP is a horrible stand-in for physical endurance and ability to take damage, it may be the best of bad options.
> 
> _*If you want to ignore what historians believe and talk about how armor is too heavy and cumbersome and people in plate should need assistance to stand from prone, feel free; I'll just ignore you._




Yeah, not sure if it's worth changing, but if DnD were a new game, armour would reduce damage, not make you harder to hit. Dex already helps with Armor class, unless you are wearing the heavier stuff. Not sure that damage reduction is that big a problem. Barbarians do it with no armour at all...

I don't believe heavy armour was so encumbering, warriors couldn't stand up without assistance. I don't believe anyone would want to crawl through caverns and dodge pit traps in the stuff, though. Soldiers donned armour before a pitched battle, they didn't wear it all day, every day...But anyway, let's not argue about that and derail thread again.

Armour is kind of "painted" on in DnD, anyway, so maybe game should go more abstract. Each class gets a different armour class bonus (skip damage resistance altogether), and players can decide where it's coming from. Knight in shining armour, or battered leather, but I dodge really well, or I'm so cool, I just glide out of the way. Could do the same with weapons. Each class would do certain dice of damage, no matter what they are wielding. Fluff would be up to you. Course weapons wouldn't have special qualities anymore, but 5e is pulling away from that anyway.

These are just random thoughts, so don't want anyone jumping down my throat, especially since I'm not sure they are good ideas anyway.


----------



## Arilyn

Alexemplar said:


> Unarmored defense bonus for all classes- or at least the ones expected to take attacks and have decent defenses- makes sense.  There's so many settings and character concepts that don't favor armor.  I still think armor should provide some kind of benefit though, as it provides incentive for some characters to actually want to wear it when/where appropriate.
> 
> 
> I think my favorite non-AC/damage reduction approach is armor as HP.  As in +1 HP per character level for lighter armors and maybe even as high as +5 per character level for the heaviest stuff.  That way the guy in bigger armor could take more hits before falling, but is still not immune to being plinked by weak attacks. It'd also give Fighters/Barbarians/Paladins a kind of "unarmored defense" as they already have larger damage die than other classes.  Other classes would need heavier armor just to get the level of a naked warrior, and should the warriors wear some armor, they become even more survivable.




Yes, armour class as hp can work. Also, encompasses idea of character getting tired as extra hp from armour get eaten away. Can also simulate your armour getting battered, and requiring repairs or replacement.  Does 5e still have wooden shields? Used to make me laugh how those things were indestructible...


----------



## Arilyn

Greg K said:


> Myself, I would have preferred that they all start at 1st.




Me too.


----------



## Arilyn

Mephista said:


> I think it depends on the tool and skills?  I mean, when was the last time you had someone roll Perform in game?  Or Investigate over Perception?  How about Religion, when Arcana covers info about undead and fiends/celestials? Meanwhile, thief-style tools come up fairly often (lockpicking, disguise, poison) as part of their trades.
> 
> 
> The issue with tools is that, fundamentally, they're mostly crafting and social games/instruments. Crafting rules are crap to the point of being discouraged, and social rules are so simplistic that non-Intimidate/Deception/Persuade rarely come up.
> 
> A lot of games use this rough design as well in modern times.  You can kind of see in 5e too - warriors classes with a heavy focus on fighting, dedicated spellcasters classes, and then classes that focus a lot on skills over magic or martial ability (ranger, rogue especially, traditionally bard as well).
> 
> Though, there's also some modern theory that divide classes into warrior via weapon type (sword/board, great sword/axe, lancer, fists, bows, knives), crafters (farmers, blacksmiths, etc) and casters (white mage, black mage, shaman, etc), but its a similar idea.




As far as tools go, my problem is having both tool and skill proficiencies. What's wrong with just having skills? Some skills require tools, like carpentry, some don't like athletics (usually).  Having performance and tool proficiency(instrument) is messy and causes confusion over which one to use. I get the difference, but when would you care about your instrument skill if you didn't have an audience?

True 20 was good system, although I never got a chance to use it. Liked the "build your own" feel.


----------



## Oofta

Arilyn said:


> Yeah, not sure if it's worth changing, but if DnD were a new game, armour would reduce damage, not make you harder to hit. Dex already helps with Armor class, unless you are wearing the heavier stuff. Not sure that damage reduction is that big a problem. Barbarians do it with no armour at all...
> 
> I don't believe heavy armour was so encumbering, warriors couldn't stand up without assistance. I don't believe anyone would want to crawl through caverns and dodge pit traps in the stuff, though. Soldiers donned armour before a pitched battle, they didn't wear it all day, every day...But anyway, let's not argue about that and derail thread again.
> 
> Armour is kind of "painted" on in DnD, anyway, so maybe game should go more abstract. Each class gets a different armour class bonus (skip damage resistance altogether), and players can decide where it's coming from. Knight in shining armour, or battered leather, but I dodge really well, or I'm so cool, I just glide out of the way. Could do the same with weapons. Each class would do certain dice of damage, no matter what they are wielding. Fluff would be up to you. Course weapons wouldn't have special qualities anymore, but 5e is pulling away from that anyway.
> 
> These are just random thoughts, so don't want anyone jumping down my throat, especially since I'm not sure they are good ideas anyway.




This _is _a thread about ideas and what-ifs.  Sorry if it sounded like I was jumping down your throat.  

I think one of the problems you will always have with any kind of game design is you can't please everyone.  Personally, I find reducing damage annoying other people don't.  

If you could come up with a truly modular system - plugging in pieces you like, swapping out some things for others - that would be cool.  But added flexibility always adds extra complexity and one of the nice things about 5E is how easy it is to grok.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Oofta said:


> _My_ pet peeve is that people that plate armor was heavy and cumbersome.  It wasn't. I'll refer you to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's web site on the topic here.*




Maybe historical plate armor in Europe wasn't cumbersome, but in D&DLand it is because it's made differently?  

Anyway, if plate armor were not cumbersome then it would always, in all situations, be better than chain.  So instead of having trade-offs (e.g. protection vs. agility) that lead to interesting decisions, it's purely a matter of how much you can afford.  Which is boring.

All-in-all, I'd rather have a game be unrealistic in ways that result in decision-making that has interesting trade-offs.

I agree that avoidance vs. absorption should, in some sense, be modeled differently.  But is it getting too complex?  Is it still D&D?  I would predict that it would never happen...it would be akin to moving away from d20...but Heavy Armor Master gives a tiny little hint that maybe it's not completely off the table.

EDIT: And, anyway, if HP are abstract and represent meat, endurance, luck, skill, etc., then absorbing a blow vs. deflecting a blow can be treated the exact same way.  If you have plate armor and the attack misses you by 2 it means the armor absorbed it.  If you are a monk and the attack misses you by 2 it means you dodged.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Elfcrusher said:


> Maybe historical plate armor in Europe wasn't cumbersome, but in D&DLand it is because it's made differently?
> 
> Anyway, if plate armor were not cumbersome then it would always, in all situations, be better than chain.



 Sure, something like it was in the classic game.  



> All-in-all, I'd rather have a game be unrealistic in ways that result in decision-making that has interesting trade-offs.



 Interesting ones, yes, though that requires some pretty careful balancing.  3e & 5e have both tried to balance armor in three categories, and ended up with an obvious-best light armor, and obvious-best heavy armor, and decidedly 'meh' medium armor.  It's tough, because armor doesn't really do a whole lot to make multiple different kinds each distinctive, meaningful, & viable.



> I agree that avoidance vs. absorption should, in some sense, be modeled differently.  But is it getting too complex?  Is it still D&D?



 No & No...



Arilyn said:


> Back on topic, how about armour? Should DnD have armour reduce damage, instead of making you harder to hit?



 As shocking and innovative as it would be for D&D to rush into 1978 like that, maybe.  



> Classes could have a defense score based off dex, which slowly builds as players gain levels.



 Attack as a bonus and Defense as a DC works fine in d20.  Attacks could go against a certain defense, weapons against a DEX-based defense, poisons against CON, sneaky tricks & mind-affecting magics vs WIS, etc...  

And, different defensive skills or tricks might substitute one for another.  Armor, for instance, could substitute CON for DEX defense - you have to have the endurance to walk around in the stuff all the time, but enemies have to hit the bits not covered by the armor.  Shields could do something similar for STR.  



> I also think heavy armour should be way too unwieldy to adventure in. Who in their right mind would go crawling around a dungeon in plate?



 Heh.  A fairytale Knight in Shining Armor would run around, crawl through dungeons, hack through briars, climb mountains, ride through flames, and swim oceans in full armor.  



Arilyn said:


> Yes, armour class as hp can work. Also, encompasses idea of character getting tired as extra hp from armour get eaten away. Can also simulate your armour getting battered, and requiring repairs or replacement.  Does 5e still have wooden shields? Used to make me laugh how those things were indestructible...



 Armor absorbing hp damage and needing repairs goes way back to the 1e UA Cavalier and it's Field Plate and Full Plate armors.  It wasn't too wonderful a sub-system, about like the heavy armor feat in 5e, really.



Arilyn said:


> As far as tools go, my problem is having both tool and skill proficiencies. What's wrong with just having skills? Some skills require tools, like carpentry, some don't like athletics (usually).  Having performance and tool proficiency(instrument) is messy and causes confusion over which one to use.



 I'm not sure exactly what motivated the whole Tool Proficiency thing.  Maybe it was trying to wedge in the demand for crafting skills.  They really do about nothing, but it was one of the hot buttons that got pushed when, after being largely ignored and irrelevant (except when combined with the Fabricate spell) for years in 3.x, it was simply dropped.  

All that silly would be far enough in the past by the time a hypothetical 6e rolled around that it could maybe take a more rational approach... 
...more likely, though, it'll just pendulum-swing to an extreme, again.  ;(


----------



## Mephista

Arilyn said:


> As far as tools go, my problem is having both tool and skill proficiencies. What's wrong with just having skills?



 Fair enough. They basically are the same thing anyways.



> True 20 was good system, although I never got a chance to use it. Liked the "build your own" feel.



 Never tried it, what's it about?


Oofta said:


> This _is _a thread about ideas and what-ifs.  Sorry if it sounded like I was jumping down your throat.
> 
> I think one of the problems you will always have with any kind of game design is you can't please everyone.  Personally, I find reducing damage annoying other people don't.



 I actually do like DR armor.  Creates a bit more of a dynamic between shrugging off hits versus dodging hits.  There's plenty of games that go this route, even in modern day, so its not like its not current. 

I doubt D&D will go that way, though.


----------



## corwyn77

Mephista said:


> Fair enough. They basically are the same thing anyways.
> 
> Never tried it, what's it about?




True 20 is an OGL fantasy rpg, based somewhat on Mutants & Masterminds, an OGL supers game.

It has 3 classes where you build your character similar to D20 multiclassing - all of your abilities are additive - but the classes are very broad.

Warrior - features any ability you would expect that is not associated with a spellcaster or rogue-like class.
Expert - Rogue, non-spell parts of bard, etc.
Adept - all spellcasting features
Each class has a core ability that you only get if you take that class at level 1. Otherwise, there are no fixed class features. You start with 4 feats and get 1 every level which need to be from a list for the class you are taking.

So if you wanted a 5e bard you would take a mix of levels in Expert and Adept. Eldritch Knight would mix Warrior and Adept. You can be as much of a dabbler as you want at the cost of your other class(es).

No hit points, uses a toughness save based on con vs. damage taken
No ability scores, just the modifiers, starting with a total of 6 at character creation with increases at higher levels.

Those are the big changes. The link takes you to GR's store for all the true 20 stuff. The core book is only $10 for the pdf, $5 for the original non-revised one.

https://greenroninstore.com/search?x=0&y=0&q=true+20


----------



## Guest 6801328

Tony Vargas said:


> Interesting ones, yes, though that requires some pretty careful balancing.  3e & 5e have both tried to balance armor in three categories, and ended up with an obvious-best light armor, and obvious-best heavy armor, and decidedly 'meh' medium armor.  It's tough, because armor doesn't really do a whole lot to make multiple different kinds each distinctive, meaningful, & viable.




Agreed.  

Yet-another-thing-I-love-about The One Ring is that any character can choose any armor, right out of chargen, but there really are serious trade-offs.  Almost nobody...maybe an occasional Dwarf...chooses the heaviest option, Mail Hauberk, because encumbrance in TOR is a really big deal.



> As shocking and innovative as it would be for D&D to rush into 1978 like that, maybe.




I tend to consider precedents from pre-AD&D to be non-starters.  It's not like "Elf" as a class has any chance of being resurrected.


----------



## corwyn77

Elfcrusher said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Yet-another-thing-I-love-about The One Ring is that any character can choose any armor, right out of chargen, but there really are serious trade-offs.  Almost nobody...maybe an occasional Dwarf...chooses the heaviest option, Mail Hauberk, because encumbrance in TOR is a really big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to consider precedents from pre-AD&D to be non-starters.  It's not like "Elf" as a class has any chance of being resurrected.




Heh, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy has Professional (class-ish) templates for Elf and Dwarf - not in the core rules, but still...

Of course it's trying to be nostalgic.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Tony Vargas said:


> Heh.  A fairytale Knight in Shining Armor would run around, crawl through dungeons, hack through briars, climb mountains, ride through flames, and swim oceans in full armor.




I assume this was meant a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do appreciate a little bit of "fairy tale" in my RPGs.  (One reason I am full of anticipatory hope about the prediction that Feywild will be the next focus.)  

I do value mechanics that, as I said, I like interesting trade-offs, so on the armor issue specifically I wish there were more factors at play.  Not because I care about realism.  Realism is mostly just the enemy of fun.


----------



## Arilyn

Elfcrusher said:


> I assume this was meant a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do appreciate a little bit of "fairy tale" in my RPGs.  (One reason I am full of anticipatory hope about the prediction that Feywild will be the next focus.)
> 
> I do value mechanics that, as I said, I like interesting trade-offs, so on the armor issue specifically I wish there were more factors at play.  Not because I care about realism.  Realism is mostly just the enemy of fun.




Yes. Narrative fun is better, but we are all such big geeks, we get into ridiculous discussions on the true historical rapier, and is chanmail an actual armour, and how much water should one need to drink in a day's adventuring? 

And we will never learn.


----------



## Alexemplar

Arilyn said:


> Yes. Narrative fun is better, but we are all such big geeks, we get into ridiculous discussions on the true historical rapier, and is chanmail an actual armour, and how much water should one need to drink in a day's adventuring?
> 
> And we will never learn.




  That's usually what it comes down to.

  Some people are trying to model a fantasy _story_ or varied genres/styles, with appropriate characters, cliches and story beats.

  Some people are trying to model _reality_ as it would be assuming that suddenly D&D cosmology, spellcasting, monsters, and the like actually existed in our world's medieval history.

  A lot of people are somewhere between the two because of passing familiarity with either of the above and the fact that fact that they often bleed over with one another.


----------



## Oofta

Elfcrusher said:


> I assume this was meant a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do appreciate a little bit of "fairy tale" in my RPGs.  (One reason I am full of anticipatory hope about the prediction that Feywild will be the next focus.)
> 
> I do value mechanics that, as I said, I like interesting trade-offs, so on the armor issue specifically I wish there were more factors at play.  Not because I care about realism.  Realism is mostly just the enemy of fun.




In the LOTR movies did you ever see Gimli without heavy armor on?  Most images of fantasy warriors have people running around in heavy armor all the time.

I guess I just don't understand why it bothers people.  Personally, it bothers me that barbarians can have just as high an AC while running around in a loincloth.  I know it's supernatural, but still.  Layers of metal and padding should protect you better than a loincloth.  Or a single layer of leather because you can dodge out of the way of 5 arrows coming at you from different directions at the same time.

I guess I'm just saying that we all accept a bunch of tropes that may or may not be realistic.

In _my_ version of more realistic, there should be more granularity to types of armor but dexterity based characters could never match the AC of people wearing even moderately heavy armor unless there is a supernatural explanation (e.g. monks ki adding to their AC).


----------



## Satyrn

Oofta said:


> In _my_ version of more realistic, there should be more granularity to types of armor but dexterity based characters could never match the AC of people wearing even moderately heavy armor unless there is a supernatural explanation (e.g. monks ki adding to their AC).




After playing my moderately dextrous gnome battlemaster, I find I like the way 5e does armor. It goes a long way toward what your after, because breastplate was still gave a better AC than studded leather. And would remain until (if) I upped my Dex to 18 - and it was only if I took my DEX to 20 that it would be a worse choice - and at that time I really wouldn't mind that with a superdex character.

And plate is still higher than that. (And if you're playing a dwarf cleric, you could put a 10 in both Str and Dex and still be rocking that plate AC without fuss)


----------



## Guest 6801328

Oofta said:


> In the LOTR movies did you ever see Gimli without heavy armor on?  Most images of fantasy warriors have people running around in heavy armor all the time.




I try to block out my memories of the LOTR movies.



> I guess I just don't understand why it bothers people.  Personally, it bothers me that barbarians can have just as high an AC while running around in a loincloth.  I know it's supernatural, but still.  Layers of metal and padding should protect you better than a loincloth.  Or a single layer of leather because you can dodge out of the way of 5 arrows coming at you from different directions at the same time.
> 
> I guess I'm just saying that we all accept a bunch of tropes that may or may not be realistic.
> 
> In _my_ version of more realistic, there should be more granularity to types of armor but dexterity based characters could never match the AC of people wearing even moderately heavy armor unless there is a supernatural explanation (e.g. monks ki adding to their AC).




Oh, as I've said many times it doesn't bother me from a realism perspective at all.  I just think it's boring if, once you save up enough gold, there's no decision to be made about armor.  I don't like it when there's a "best" armor or a "best" weapon.  "Encumbrance" is just a handy concept to balance against protection in order to make the decision non-obvious.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> In the LOTR movies did you ever see Gimli without heavy armor on?  Most images of fantasy warriors have people running around in heavy armor all the time.
> 
> I guess I just don't understand why it bothers people.



  Expectations get shaped by a lot of things.  Hollywood actors have never liked having their faces covered on screen (and the audience needs to know who's who), so a lot of movies get made with heroes wearing no armor, or running around with their visors up or helmets off constantly.

The very heavy armor used in jousting was preserved in museums, and people wearing armor modeled on it as costumes (without training to accustom themselves to it, of course) got the impression it was incredibly cumbersome - something re-enactors later debunked.

Early D&D made being 'able' (allowed) to wear armor a major advantage of the fighter and cleric, and made it a very large advantage, so DMs were often tempted to push back against it by layering restrictions, many of them counter-genre or based on modern misconceptions on armor to 'balance' it.  Even though unarmored characters are barely at a disadvantage relative to their heavy-armored comrades, now, that habit remains.



> Personally, it bothers me that barbarians can have just as high an AC while running around in a loincloth.  I know it's supernatural, but still.  Layers of metal and padding should protect you better than a loincloth.  Or a single layer of leather because you can dodge out of the way of 5 arrows coming at you from different directions at the same time.
> 
> I guess I'm just saying that we all accept a bunch of tropes that may or may not be realistic.



 Calls for realism always seem to be selective, and are usually about something else.  Armor is too effective, so make it unrealistically cumbersome (and throw rust monsters at the party).   



Elfcrusher said:


> I just think it's boring if, once you save up enough gold, there's no decision to be made about armor.  I don't like it when there's a "best" armor or a "best" weapon.  "Encumbrance" is just a handy concept to balance against protection in order to make the decision non-obvious.



It's never seemed to have worked before.  Rather, for instance, in 3e, it became all about DEX.  If your DEX bonus was +1 your optimal armor was full plate, +3, it was breastplate (or Mithral Full Plate, FTW), if your DEX bonus was +8 (yeah, it could happen), magical 'Celestial Mail' was the ticket...  

Stealth has sometimes worked better, 5e's disadvantage on stealth, 3e & 4e armor check penalties affecting stealth and other skills, would make it reasonable to generally (or occasionally, depending on the build) choose mobility over protection, and not because your class 'forced' you.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Tony Vargas said:


> *It's never seemed to have worked before.*  Rather, for instance, in 3e, it became all about DEX.  If your DEX bonus was +1 your optimal armor was full plate, +3, it was breastplate (or Mithral Full Plate, FTW), if your DEX bonus was +8 (yeah, it could happen), magical 'Celestial Mail' was the ticket...
> 
> Stealth has sometimes worked better, 5e's disadvantage on stealth, 3e & 4e armor check penalties affecting stealth and other skills, would make it reasonable to generally (or occasionally, depending on the build) choose mobility over protection, and not because your class 'forced' you.




Perhaps not in D&D.  Not yet.  (Growth mindset!)  The stealth thing is a step in the right direction.  I don't know the answer but I know it's possible to balance the incentives.  I'm curious to see what the "Sleeping in Armor" section in XGtE will say.


----------



## Stalker0

Elfcrusher said:


> Perhaps not in D&D.  Not yet.  (Growth mindset!)  The stealth thing is a step in the right direction.  I don't know the answer but I know it's possible to balance the incentives.  I'm curious to see what the "Sleeping in Armor" section in XGtE will say.




In real life there are armors that simply superior to others. The balancing factor is cost....the best armor in the world is ridiculously expensive, that only the crazy rich could afford.

The thing is...most PCs are the crazy rich. Adventurers make money regular people can only dream of....which is why they are willing to get chewed on by dragons and stunned by mind flayers. So Pcs quickly get to the levels of wealth needed to buy the best armor....and then stop.


----------



## SmokeyCriminal

What hasn't been mentioned at all yet is Twitch and Streaming and how it may impact 6E.

 3 years ago you were lucky if there was 2 games on the D&D page and only Rollplay had more then 5 viewers, but today there is consistently a dozen games in the page, and even that is really impressive because of its consistency. Aside from the, about a dozen, staple games on Twitch (Hearthstone, Overwatch, League of Legend, ect.) literally every other multi-million dollar triple A game dies off after a few months. The new Legend of Zelda game, which is the highest rated game of all time, first contender of game of the year, and came out about 5 months ago, it has the same amount of channels playing it as the D&D page, and less viewers. 

3 years ago there was really only one channel playing TTRPGs on Twitch with any degree of success and that was Rollplay, now I can easily name half a dozen. Plus Companies are allowing some of these channels to use their IP, and I'm talking about Geek & Sundry having permission by the owners of Star Trek, to play a Star Trek RPG game on their channel, and HyperRPG got the rights to play a Power Rangers RPG by Saban. And of course D&D has started their own channel, which is growing. Plus all the cross pollination between all of these channels is insane, they are not competing at all, they are all interested in one thing only, growth. And they are receiving it. It's only getting bigger, more channels are popping up and being supported by the streaming community, more companies are showing an interest, more celebrities are participating. D&D is entertainment, it is a spectator sport.

Its not going to be too long untill a TTRPG is made _specifically_ for streaming.

And with D&D proper in the business of streaming, I'm sure they are learning how the medium works and gathering information and data, and learning from successful channels and from their own failures. They're only going to get better at it.

So then I wonder how much of all this will be reflected on 6E. the DMG is a book made specifically for a DM to run a game, and the medium _used to be_ exclusively the tabletop, but more and more its also streaming. 

Do you think it will have tips on how to run a stream of D&D? Maybe talk about cross chatter, when to have breaks and how long they should be, ect...

Some channels like HyperRPG are very viewer interactive. Maybe the 6E will have a guide on how much the viewers need to donate to give a player or the DM advantage on a roll, maybe talk about what parts of the system are okay to let viewers fiddle with and which not to. The same way it gives advice to DMs on tweaking their game

What about rules and options specifically for streaming? Like a rest mechanic that is optimal for streaming. because they found out that the audience likes it when there is a "breather" or inter-party interaction every 45min, so they tweak the resting mechanism to need to happen about every 45min.

Or maybe borrow small mechanics from a different RPG that was made specifically for streaming? 

Oh, what about deliberately excluding certain things that previous editions had specifically because they assume that 6E will be _watched_ by a broader audience? Like maybe they get data that says the audience doesn't like Advantage/Disadvantage, so they get rid of it for 6E.

I don't know what, if any, impact streaming will have on 6E, or even what that would look like. But I've read on these boards about how 4E was affected by videogames and MMOs. And D&D isn't afraid of being influenced by culture trends. But at the same time, still no PDFs, so its hard to say for sure what sticks and what doesn't.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Stalker0 said:


> *In real life there are armors* that simply superior to others. The balancing factor is cost....the best armor in the world is ridiculously expensive, that only the crazy rich could afford.
> 
> The thing is...most PCs are the crazy rich. Adventurers make money regular people can only dream of....which is why they are willing to get chewed on by dragons and stunned by mind flayers. So Pcs quickly get to the levels of wealth needed to buy the best armor....and then stop.




I'll bookmark this post and if I ever need armor in real life I'll come back and read the rest of what you wrote...


----------



## Guest 6801328

SmokeyCriminal said:


> What hasn't been mentioned at all yet is Twitch and Streaming and how it may impact 6E.
> 
> 3 years ago you were lucky if there was 2 games on the D&D page and only Rollplay had more then 5 viewers, but today there is consistently a dozen games in the page, and even that is really impressive because of its consistency. Aside from the, about a dozen, staple games on Twitch (Hearthstone, Overwatch, League of Legend, ect.) literally every other multi-million dollar triple A game dies off after a few months. The new Legend of Zelda game, which is the highest rated game of all time, first contender of game of the year, and came out about 5 months ago, it has the same amount of channels playing it as the D&D page, and less viewers.
> 
> 3 years ago there was really only one channel playing TTRPGs on Twitch with any degree of success and that was Rollplay, now I can easily name half a dozen. Plus Companies are allowing some of these channels to use their IP, and I'm talking about Geek & Sundry having permission by the owners of Star Trek, to play a Star Trek RPG game on their channel, and HyperRPG got the rights to play a Power Rangers RPG by Saban. And of course D&D has started their own channel, which is growing. Plus all the cross pollination between all of these channels is insane, they are not competing at all, they are all interested in one thing only, growth. And they are receiving it. It's only getting bigger, more channels are popping up and being supported by the streaming community, more companies are showing an interest, more celebrities are participating. D&D is entertainment, it is a spectator sport.
> 
> Its not going to be too long untill a TTRPG is made _specifically_ for streaming.
> 
> And with D&D proper in the business of streaming, I'm sure they are learning how the medium works and gathering information and data, and learning from successful channels and from their own failures. They're only going to get better at it.
> 
> So then I wonder how much of all this will be reflected on 6E. the DMG is a book made specifically for a DM to run a game, and the medium _used to be_ exclusively the tabletop, but more and more its also streaming.
> 
> Do you think it will have tips on how to run a stream of D&D? Maybe talk about cross chatter, when to have breaks and how long they should be, ect...
> 
> Some channels like HyperRPG are very viewer interactive. Maybe the 6E will have a guide on how much the viewers need to donate to give a player or the DM advantage on a roll, maybe talk about what parts of the system are okay to let viewers fiddle with and which not to. The same way it gives advice to DMs on tweaking their game
> 
> What about rules and options specifically for streaming? Like a rest mechanic that is optimal for streaming. because they found out that the audience likes it when there is a "breather" or inter-party interaction every 45min, so they tweak the resting mechanism to need to happen about every 45min.
> 
> Or maybe borrow small mechanics from a different RPG that was made specifically for streaming?
> 
> Oh, what about deliberately excluding certain things that previous editions had specifically because they assume that 6E will be _watched_ by a broader audience? Like maybe they get data that says the audience doesn't like Advantage/Disadvantage, so they get rid of it for 6E.
> 
> I don't know what, if any, impact streaming will have on 6E, or even what that would look like. But I've read on these boards about how 4E was affected by videogames and MMOs. And D&D isn't afraid of being influenced by culture trends. But at the same time, still no PDFs, so its hard to say for sure what sticks and what doesn't.




Interesting.  I hope you are wrong, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## TwoSix

SmokeyCriminal said:


> I don't know what, if any, impact streaming will have on 6E, or even what that would look like. But I've read on these boards about how 4E was affected by videogames and MMOs. And D&D isn't afraid of being influenced by culture trends. But at the same time, still no PDFs, so its hard to say for sure what sticks and what doesn't.



Excellent post.  I'm not involved with the streaming community, but it's getting hard to ignore its presence.


----------



## steeldragons

So, going back to the OP (TL;DR most of the rest of the thread and tangential arguments)...

Sounds like what you want is a kind of Champions-esque "build you own" class/game system. Your character is a collection of various proficiencies and skills of various levels 

To that end, your character might be created thusly (thinking out loud/off the top of my head):
1. Base Class. Different elements (features, skills, armor, weapons, ability/facility with magic, etc...) need to be fixed to the "base" framework.
e.g. A Fighting Man gives you access to all armors and shields, all weapons, bonus to weapon attacks and physical feats, start with [let's say] 3 starting individual skill/features and pick 2 more every 3 levels.

2. "Theme/Background". A combination of the 5e "Background" and some of the 5e subclass flavor/features might fall in here. Other sets (though less in number and more specific in flavor) of skills might be packaged here that get overlaid upon your base. Say you might pick up additional feature packages at set points as you level up (5th, 9th, 16th, or what have you).
e.g. The Outlander: gives you Survival, Tracking, Nature Lore for a specified terrain, Stealth & Hiding in natural surroundings, Light Armor proficiency if you don't already have it, and a bonus weapon proficiency.

3. Individual skills/features. Single elements that your previous choices permit and/or you add to your character as you level up. THIS is where things can get out of hand with option paralysis as each element is individual, so the list would inevitably get longer and longer the more kinds of characters and abilities they would have grow and grow.
e.g. use thieves' tools, ride/control a mount, special Attack maneuver, learn another spell/weapon, know first aid, etc...


----------



## Morrus

SmokeyCriminal said:


> and I'm talking about Geek & Sundry having permission by the owners of Star Trek, to play a Star Trek RPG game on their channel.




Permission! 

I suspect the negotiation was the opposite way round...


----------



## Cristian Andreu

It's rather evident to me that 6e will be about the true core of D&D: the Warlord.

We'll see Warlords, Warladies, Warlads, Warlandlord, Warlalalas (for the Bard stand-in), Warlollypops, Other Warlord, Warlordier, and Warlordiest.

It's the only reasonable course of action.


----------



## steeldragons

So, since this is now rattling around in my brain (thanks so much), and you mentioned liking the pared down idea of base classes, I"m seeing something like this...

1. Choose your base character from one of the following:
Fighter: You excel in combat. You like using weapons and armor. 
Armor & Shields: all. Weapons: Choose 4. Magic: No.
Feature 1: When you make an attack against a target, with a weapon or unarmed, add your Strength modifier +2 to the attack roll.
Feature 2: When you make a skill or save roll that relies on your physical strength (Str), toughness (Con), accuracy or reflexes (Dex) add +2 to the roll in addition to the relevant ability modifier.
Feature 3: Choose 1 Background. 
Feature 4: Choose 2 individual skills/abilities from the Elements list. 

Supporter: You excel in an array of skills which may be as focused or diverse as you wish. You might use certain weapons and/or magic.
Armor & Shields: Choose 3 with which you are proficient. Weapons: Choose 1-3. Magic: Choose 1-3 basic spells. Your combination of Weapons and Magic known can not exceed 4. 
Feature 1: Choose 3 separate attacks, whether by a specific weapon or specific magic spell, and you add +2 to the attack roll or spell save DC (as relevant, player's choice if both are possible).
Feature 2: Choose 3 ability scores. When you have a skill or save roll dependent on one of these skills, add +1 to the roll in addition to the relevant ability modifier. Once chosen, these 3 abilities can not be changed.
Feature 3: Choose 1 Background.
Feature 4: Choose 3 individual skills/abilities from the Elements list.

Caster: You excel in the use of magic powers. You like using spells and your wits.
Armor & Shields: No. Weapons: Choose 2. Magic: Choose 2 basic spells.
Feature 1: When you make an attack against a target with a magic spell, add your Casting Ability modifier +2 to the attack roll or spell save DC (as relevant, player's choice if both are possible).
Feature 2: When you have a skill or save roll that relies on your intellect or memory (Int), reasoning or judgement (Wis), or personality or force of will (Cha) add +2 to the roll in addition to the relevant ability modifier.
Feature 3: Choose 1 Background.
Feature 4: Choose 4 individual skills/abilities (including additional magic spells or abilities) from the Elements list.

Character Background List (far from a complete realm of possibility, but for examples' sake)
Background: description
Background Feature 1: You know and excel at 1-4 automatically granted Skills. Add +2 to rolls attempting to use these skills.
Background Feature 2: Choose 1-4 additional Elements. Note the combined total of Feature 1 and Feature 2 can not exceed 5 and will fluctuate depending on the Background's flavor and areas of expertise.

Possible "suites": Soldier/Guard, Mercenary/Gladiator, Berserker/Mad Man, Outlander/Scout, Scholar/Historian, Archivist/Scribe, Friar/Priest, Thief/Burglar, Assassin/Bounty Hunter, Magician/Hedge Mage, Druid/Shaman, Medic/Herbalist, etc... etc... 

Elements List: 1 extra Weapon Proficiency, 1 extra Armor or Shield proficiency, 1 magic spell, 1 magic ritual, 1 mental ability, 1 divine channeling, 1 combat maneuver, 1 roguish maneuver, 1 language/field of study, 1 such like, etc... etc...


----------



## zedturtle

SmokeyCriminal said:


> What hasn't been mentioned at all yet is Twitch and Streaming and how it may impact 6E.
> 
> 3 years ago you were lucky if there was 2 games on the D&D page and only Rollplay had more then 5 viewers, but today there is consistently a dozen games in the page, and even that is really impressive because of its consistency. Aside from the, about a dozen, staple games on Twitch (Hearthstone, Overwatch, League of Legend, ect.) literally every other multi-million dollar triple A game dies off after a few months. The new Legend of Zelda game, which is the highest rated game of all time, first contender of game of the year, and came out about 5 months ago, it has the same amount of channels playing it as the D&D page, and less viewers.
> 
> 3 years ago there was really only one channel playing TTRPGs on Twitch with any degree of success and that was Rollplay, now I can easily name half a dozen. Plus Companies are allowing some of these channels to use their IP, and I'm talking about Geek & Sundry having permission by the owners of Star Trek, to play a Star Trek RPG game on their channel, and HyperRPG got the rights to play a Power Rangers RPG by Saban. And of course D&D has started their own channel, which is growing. Plus all the cross pollination between all of these channels is insane, they are not competing at all, they are all interested in one thing only, growth. And they are receiving it. It's only getting bigger, more channels are popping up and being supported by the streaming community, more companies are showing an interest, more celebrities are participating. D&D is entertainment, it is a spectator sport.
> 
> Its not going to be too long untill a TTRPG is made _specifically_ for streaming.
> 
> And with D&D proper in the business of streaming, I'm sure they are learning how the medium works and gathering information and data, and learning from successful channels and from their own failures. They're only going to get better at it.
> 
> So then I wonder how much of all this will be reflected on 6E. the DMG is a book made specifically for a DM to run a game, and the medium _used to be_ exclusively the tabletop, but more and more its also streaming.
> 
> Do you think it will have tips on how to run a stream of D&D? Maybe talk about cross chatter, when to have breaks and how long they should be, ect...
> 
> Some channels like HyperRPG are very viewer interactive. Maybe the 6E will have a guide on how much the viewers need to donate to give a player or the DM advantage on a roll, maybe talk about what parts of the system are okay to let viewers fiddle with and which not to. The same way it gives advice to DMs on tweaking their game
> 
> What about rules and options specifically for streaming? Like a rest mechanic that is optimal for streaming. because they found out that the audience likes it when there is a "breather" or inter-party interaction every 45min, so they tweak the resting mechanism to need to happen about every 45min.
> 
> Or maybe borrow small mechanics from a different RPG that was made specifically for streaming?
> 
> Oh, what about deliberately excluding certain things that previous editions had specifically because they assume that 6E will be _watched_ by a broader audience? Like maybe they get data that says the audience doesn't like Advantage/Disadvantage, so they get rid of it for 6E.
> 
> I don't know what, if any, impact streaming will have on 6E, or even what that would look like. But I've read on these boards about how 4E was affected by videogames and MMOs. And D&D isn't afraid of being influenced by culture trends. But at the same time, still no PDFs, so its hard to say for sure what sticks and what doesn't.




Considering when Mearls did the round table with Mercer/Colville/Koebel that incorporating the streaming subculture more would be something they were looking at for 6th edition, I think that’s a good point.


----------



## corwyn77

steeldragons said:


> So, since this is now rattling around in my brain (thanks so much), and you mentioned liking the pared down idea of base classes, I"m seeing something like this...
> 
> 1. Choose your base character from one of the following:




Cool, but we already have True20.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Yeah, although I started off the thread riffing on pie-in-the-sky ideas, probably the more useful discussion is about what is possibly/likely to actually change in 6e.  I would posit:

Ranger from the ground up
Small shift in balance of power from archery to melee
Rethinking ability scores, so that:
 - Race is not as vital for optimization
 - Characters are more varied
Some rethinking of ASIs and Feats

Less likely, but on my wish list, would be a rebuild of the magic system:
 - Spell lists purged and rewritten so that all spells are good choices
 - More rituals
 - Incentive for casters to occasionally use weapons instead of all cantrips, all the time

Also, although I loathe the warlord, my early Christmas Gift to [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]Vargas is that I would like the Fighter to be more of a harness for creating interesting sub-classes.


----------



## Satyrn

Elfcrusher said:


> Also, although I loathe the warlord, my early Christmas Gift to [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]Vargas is that I would like the Fighter to be more of a harness for creating interesting sub-classes.



Given Mike Mearls' regrets about how the fighter was made, I'm gonna probably find that I don't like the 6e fighter's "story first" design.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Why the focus on rules?  D&D is more then a bunch of rules.  

How about more citation of the historical and cultural underpinnings? 

Explaining that D&D is a group activity that requires people to work together and not be jerks.

Better advice on the business of running a game.

Game design advice, managing group dynamics, and all the other stuff that isn't a rule?

Sent from my VS990 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Guest 6801328

MichaelSomething said:


> Why the focus on rules?  D&D is more then a bunch of rules.
> 
> How about more citation of the historical and cultural underpinnings?
> 
> Explaining that D&D is a group activity that requires people to work together and not be jerks.
> 
> Better advice on the business of running a game.
> 
> Game design advice, managing group dynamics, and all the other stuff that isn't a rule?
> 
> Sent from my VS990 using EN World mobile app




Well, sure....but that's all independent of any particular edition, right?  Why is a discussion about it relevant to a discussion about what 6e might look like?


----------



## MichaelSomething

Elfcrusher said:


> Well, sure....but that's all independent of any particular edition, right?  Why is a discussion about it relevant to a discussion about what 6e might look like?




Do you want the long answer or the short answer?  The long answer will take thousands of words.  The short answer is, look at 4th Edition.


----------



## Guest 6801328

MichaelSomething said:


> Do you want the long answer or the short answer?  The long answer will take thousands of words.  The short answer is, look at 4th Edition.




Ah, ok, I see your point.

I was assuming that 6e would be very much like 5e, but tweaked.  Of course that would probably be numbered 5.5e.


----------

