D&D 6e: Will it come, and what would you want?

[the_brazenburn]

D&D 3.5 was around for five years before it was replaced by 4e. 4th edition, in its turn, had a six-year run before 5e came out and replaced it. Now 5e is in its fourth year, and the question on my mind is, will it be replaced like 3rd and 4th did?

Now, I know perfectly well that WotC has not released anything saying that they will. I'd actually be surprised, and a little disappointed. 5e has been my favorite edition so far.

Enough quibbling. Does anybody think we'll get a 6th edition any time soon, and what sort of things would you like to see in it?

[Kane0]

Most likely there will be, although I would wager it will take longer this time around. They just aren't pumping out books like they were for previous editions.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Maybe we'll get lucky and have a D&D 5.1

My feeling is this 5e might be the Windows XP of the D&D editions. The one that's going to last very long that no one really feels like changing from.

[Baptor]

Well,

WotC has given every indication they want 5e to be "evergreen."

The release schedule is so much slower. There's barely any books out for 5e compared to where 3e and 4e were by this time.

1st and 2nd edition had longer runs. Why not 5e?

BUT

WotC says and promises all kinds of unicorns and candy clouds. They rarely deliver on promises like "evergreen" material.

I believed 3e was once going to be that game that just kept on getting support. In a way it did. One could argue that 3e has lasted from 1999-2018 since Pathfinder is essentially another revision of the same edition and is still being printed and run. So I dunno, maybe good editions do last a long time.

Editions have not lived long as of recent memory, but then again the conditions have never been like they are now.

Mearls has said (for what that is even worth :smalltongue:) that "editions" won't really be a thing going forward - but they will be heavily revising the rules as needed. He said that they will run 5e as-is until enough of its problems bubble to the surface such that it makes sense to print a whole new revision. But then again Mearls says a lot too and contradicts himself often. I don't even remember how long ago that interview was.

If I had my druthers, I'd want them to drop the "editions" and just update the rules as necessary unless they want to make an entirely different game like they did with 4th edition. I hope that doesn't happen though.

Just my thoughts - I am not trying to prove anything here. YMMV and all that.

[sophontteks]

3.5 had a barrier to entry. It was too complex for newcomers and casual players.
4e removed the complexity along with everything else alienating many vets.
5e Is that happy medium

Unless there is a reason for them to update, I doubt they will. Much easier to add more content to what exists unless they feel something is flawed in the products core.

[Kane0]

Mearls has said (for what that is even worth :smalltongue:) that "editions" won't really be a thing going forward - but they will be heavily revising the rules as needed. He said that they will run 5e as-is until enough of its problems bubble to the surface such that it makes sense to print a whole new revision. But then again Mearls says a lot too and contradicts himself often. I don't even remember how long ago that interview was.



Indeed. One would think that 3 years is enough to give some portions of the game the 3.5 treatment.

[MadBear]

D&D 3.5 was around for five years before it was replaced by 4e. 4th edition, in its turn, had a six-year run before 5e came out and replaced it. Now 5e is in its fourth year, and the question on my mind is, will it be replaced like 3rd and 4th did?

Now, I know perfectly well that WotC has not released anything saying that they will. I'd actually be surprised, and a little disappointed. 5e has been my favorite edition so far.

Enough quibbling. Does anybody think we'll get a 6th edition any time soon, and what sort of things would you like to see in it?

I don't see it happening in the next 3-5 years. They've been purposefully slow in their release schedule so as to extend out this edition.

As to what I want, I'm mostly happy with 5e as is. It's the right mix of: DM's making table calls, clear rules, and almost no useless characters. If they did create a 6e, I'd like:

- more clarity and depth in how to use skills
- A bit more crunch on how the social pillar works.
- A bit more balance between caster/martial's (Still don't know how though)

[Knaight]

I fully expect 6e to show up eventually. That said, 5e will probably have a longer lifecycle than 3 or 4 did, given the much reduced publishing rate and what sound like promising sales numbers; exactly how long could vary.

As for what I want with 6e, I don't really care that much - D&D isn't really my game, and I pay attention to it more because it's the industry titan and standard entry point (and thus often the exit point for new players to whatever I'm running) than any real appreciation of it. If there's one thing I'd like to see though, it's WotC deciding that they need to compete with Starfinder, and releasing both D&D and a space game, maybe even going into proper science fiction instead of space fantasy. Having one visible genre to people outside RPGs isn't helping grow them.

[Naanomi]

While I’m sure it will happen eventually, I don’t see it in the horizon. Rather, I think some outside force will be the catalyst, something business related... sales drop off, or some controversy or conflict with the big-name developers will develop... or the IP is sold to another company in some way (including Hasboro going under or being bought out).

Until then, the edition seems to be meeting the business goals of the parent company; so I don’t see any big shift coming

[Solusek]

I do expect there will be a 6e, but not for many more years. I don't think we will hear even hints of it for at least another 5 years, and anything earlier than 6-7 years for a release date would surprise me. 5e Just doesn't have that many books yet and the team is pretty small. There is a lot of material they can still produce with this edition to keep the lights on.

[mephnick]

It's interesting. D&D, riding the wave of the nerd culture/streaming explosion, suddenly became relevant in the mainstream. Now it's everywhere and WotC have an entirely new generation of consumers that I can't believe they predicted they'd have 5 years ago. It's hard to say if they'll just let it ride or attempt to cash in on the new market again with 6e if interest starts to wane. I find the ups and downs of the D&D brand fascinating and it's hard to argue this isn't the new peak. Will it last? I think at some point you have to hit the reset button and create a new edition once you've done what you can with the current one or else it just becomes a mess.

[sophontteks]

They also learned from 4e that if they botch up a new release, there are plenty of other publishers who will jump at the opportunity and attempt to take the throne. They can't just hit reset if business slows. Its a process, and a risky one at that.

[Chugger]

DnD 6e will not be called that - it will be a largely unnecessary revamping of 5e, like 5e "improved" - so they can sell more books. But so far 5e is working far too well to be supplanted w/ a true 6e - it's very popular and still gaining. They won't mess with that for some time.

[Zanthy1]

5e is seeing the most players of any previous edition. Its accessibility (along with a change in pop culture) has brought more new players into the folds than ever before. It also excites us vets because it still provides a lot of that character building and roleplay elements we know and love, while also making it easier to find play groups when necessary. I moved to a brand new area 2 years ago, 8 hours away from home. I was able to convince a few friends to try out DnD 5e. They were apprehensive at first because of how complex and stigmatized it had been, but after 1 session they have fallen in love. We have been playing the same campaign for a year and half now! WotC will come out with a new edition, but I predict it'll be a long ways away, when the booming numbers have slowed down and much of their content seems to get repetitive.

[Pex]

It'll happen eventually, but I see a good number of years of 5E life to come.

What I want:

Everyone guess what my first one is. It's easy. Answer in white below this.
Defined DC example tables for skills.

A Point Buy system that doesn't think it an abomination of apocalyptic proportion for a 1st level character to have an 18 even if it takes a racial modifier to get it, including Human who still gets a feat if that racial ability remains. I also prefer 10 is 0 points and let a player choose to go lower for extra points instead of having to pay a tax to break even.

Concentration for spells mechanic is ok. I want spellcasters at some level > 1 to be able to concentrate on more than one spell with should you lose concentration you don't necessarily lose it on all the spells you're concentrating on. Each spell has its own check.

Separate Feat and ASI resources. The number and style of feats as they are now are fine but ok with the fiddling of them to be determined.

Go back to the Fortitude, Reflex, Will save model, and 4E's way is nice in that one of two ability scores can be used for the modifier. Do this and I'm willing to get over it Point Buy starts at 8 for 0 points.

Keep 5E's Advantage/Disadvantage.

Keep 5E's no 5 ft step. Players can move their full move and do whatever they want, including multiple attacks for warriors.

[Regitnui]

I don't see 6e for another decade at least. Between the slow release schedule, lack of campaign settings, and massive boom in players, WotC seems to have hit a sweet spot that I don't see the Corporate Overlords (CR30, someone stat them) leaning down to mess with them quite yet. Even if D&D suddenly tanks (All gods forbid), I could see them trying to sell the property/ruleset to a third party in a "Path5ender" arrangement more than a radical rewriting that comes with a new edition.

Pex, from the way you talk on these forums, I think you'd like "less power in the DM's hands" as your main thing. /friendlyteasing

[JackPhoenix]

About two weeks(?) ago, I've seen tweet from MM where he was asked the same question. His answer was that there are no plans for 6e. Sadly, I can't find it anywhere now to post it.

[Asmotherion]

D&D 3.5 was around for five years before it was replaced by 4e. 4th edition, in its turn, had a six-year run before Pathfinder partially, but not quite yet came out and replaced it. Now 5e is in its fourth year, and the question on my mind is, will it be replaced like 3rd and 4th did?

Now, I know perfectly well that WotC has not released anything saying that they will. I'd actually be surprised, and a little disappointed. 5e has been my favorite edition so far.

Enough quibbling. Does anybody think we'll get a 6th edition any time soon, and what sort of things would you like to see in it?
Fixed it for you XD

4e never quite Replaced 3.5. In many people's mind, mine included, 4e was a totally diferent kind of game that was not D&D, and had nothing to do with it. It's a cool game system, but so far from the Core mechanics of D&D that I don't count it as a Replacement for D&D. It's just a Diferent Game.

Pathfinder was the true "replacement" of 3.5 for many people, as it "fixed" many balance issues some people were facing. It sat well with some people, with others not so much. So, there are those who favore Pathfiner, the non-official version 3.6 of D&D of sorts, and those who prefear 3.5, with all it's completes, epic handbooks, skill tricks, and savage progressions. Which is the Real Dichotomy. I'd say it splits the D&D comunity in about 50-50, but I don't have any official survey results to check.

When 1e is the Alpha stage of what everyone wants, and 2e the beta stage, 3.0 was kinda like a Prototype to build on. It was solid. 3.5/Pathfinder were what came from that prototype. 4e was a side game that came in waiting for redesigning something based on the feedback from 3.0 through 3.5, that was itself based on 1e and 2e. And what came, in my oppinion is Perfection; we have 5e that mixes the best parts of all previous editions together, removing the bad parts and turning back to the original. I think we have at least 5 if not 10 more years of 5e ahead of us until the Wizards can amass enough feedback from the players and community, to even start designing a project like "6e".

6e, IMO will be a revised, more solid 5e with more defined rules about specific things, Bounded Accuracy and in general, will blend the low power and adaptability of 5e with the clarity of Rules of 3.5e, and all that optimised in a minimum of 1 PHB, 1 MM and 1 DMG. The rest will all be extra contenent like Spell tomes, Subclasses, Races and Subraces manuals, as well as Setting Specific Manuals with a lot of details etc.

Until we see a 6e we still have time IMO.

[Foxhound438]

It'll happen eventually, but I see a good number of years of 5E life to come.

What I want:

Everyone guess what my first one is. It's easy. Answer in white below this.
Defined DC example tables for skills.

A Point Buy system that doesn't think it an abomination of apocalyptic proportion for a 1st level character to have an 18 even if it takes a racial modifier to get it, including Human who still gets a feat if that racial ability remains. I also prefer 10 is 0 points and let a player choose to go lower for extra points instead of having to pay a tax to break even.

Concentration for spells mechanic is ok. I want spellcasters at some level > 1 to be able to concentrate on more than one spell with should you lose concentration you don't necessarily lose it on all the spells you're concentrating on. Each spell has its own check.

Separate Feat and ASI resources. The number and style of feats as they are now are fine but ok with the fiddling of them to be determined.

Go back to the Fortitude, Reflex, Will save model, and 4E's way is nice in that one of two ability scores can be used for the modifier. Do this and I'm willing to get over it Point Buy starts at 8 for 0 points.

Keep 5E's Advantage/Disadvantage.

Keep 5E's no 5 ft step. Players can move their full move and do whatever they want, including multiple attacks for warriors.

I think I can agree to almost all of this, the only real objection being the saves. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I do like having those situations where it's like "make a strength save" and I actually get rewarded for building something other than dex characters.

[Kane0]

Reflex saves were pretty much always ‘you take half damage’, the other two saved you from some real nasty stuff. Good reason to investx, but you’re right that forced movement doesnt neatly fit fort or ref.

[Beelzebubba]

The game is the most successful it's ever been, and one of the cornerstones is accessibility to new people. A new version won't serve that for quite some time. I bet they're aiming for this to be the longest running edition.

I think the danger they have now is new players getting confused/annoyed by similar content being spread out over multiple books. But, with their slow publishing cycle, it's not nearly as dangerous as it was for 3.X. They're also doing a good job with preventing power creep, too.

The main danger I see is is architectural flaws in D&D Beyond. Right now, it's structured *too much like the books* in some areas, with no good global search. I've had to learn how to use their website around the quirks, and that's a huge problem. 'Good search that scales well as new content is added' should have been the first thing on the spec.

[JellyPooga]

A Point Buy system that doesn't think it an abomination of apocalyptic proportion for a 1st level character to have an 18 even if it takes a racial modifier to get it, including Human who still gets a feat if that racial ability remains. I also prefer 10 is 0 points and let a player choose to go lower for extra points instead of having to pay a tax to break even.

I disagree on starting at 10. It feels too much like a flaw/merit system to me, which encourages a min/max mentality and at the end of the day, whether you start at 10, 8 or even 3 or 0, it functionally doesn't make any difference. Personally, I'd rather see a PB system that started at 6 and buys up to 16 (allowing for 18 with racial mods) and a rolling system that gives the same range of 6-16. I'd also see racial mods be more than merely a static bonus, but an increase of the mean as well, making the clumsy elf or the sickly dwarf a truly rare creature.


Concentration for spells mechanic is ok. I want spellcasters at some level > 1 to be able to concentrate on more than one spell with should you lose concentration you don't necessarily lose it on all the spells you're concentrating on. Each spell has its own check.

While I agree with you in principle, I'm inclined to disagree in practice, taken at face value; it feels clunky. I'd like to see an elegent system to handle this, but I'm not sure on the details of what that might look like.


Go back to the Fortitude, Reflex, Will save model, and 4E's way is nice in that one of two ability scores can be used for the modifier. Do this and I'm willing to get over it Point Buy starts at 8 for 0 points.

I like things being individual Ability Saves. I'd be inclined to do away with the notion of Saves altogether and just make everything Ability Checks. I mean, when it comes down to brass tacks, what is the purpose of differentiating between a Strength Check and a Strength Save? Either you're strong and can do strong things and resist strength based effects, or you're not. Granting a Class based bonus to certain Ability Checks (and by extension, anything resisted by said check) is no bad thing; Barbarians are strong, so get a bonus to Strength Checks, Rogues are quick and Wizards are smart; it reinforces Class identity. Perhaps giving an option of what Abilities you get a bonus to at each level could be a way to diversify that identity.[/spitballingideas]

[Arkhios]

Likewise, I would be disappointed if 5th edition would be left behind in favor for a completely new edition.

That said, if it had to happen, I'd prefer to keep the "Proficiency Bonus and AC/DC" (lol) as they are, as well as the limit to the maximum ability scores. It does what previous editions have failed to do very well: It brings long-term balance into the game, and keeps even the end-game interesting (at least on paper, I haven't got the luxury of playing that high, yet).

[Spore]

I am very fine with 5e. Mechanically it is enjoyable though having short rest and long rest mechanics differ from each other is certainly a bit weird since most people still run the 15 minute adventure day since often it is not sound from a story perspective to have 3-5 short rests a day.

On the fluff side however I hope 5e (or 6th I do not care) they become a bit more daring. Faerun is bog standard fantasy and other settings simply do not have the following they used to have. I want something unique and creative. I like the TES universe for sticking to the basic formula while having their own twists, such as: Restoration being an arcane school and gods rarely interfere with mortals directly. Khajiits as moon beings and Argonians as basically tree sap with sentience. The other races are divided into man and elves. And while itself could be a bit more daring, it is odd that a video game universe from 24 years ago is so innovative.

[Daphne]

Enough quibbling. Does anybody think we'll get a 6th edition any time soon?
No, I can only see thee possibility of a new edition 5 years or more from now. This edition will not end anytime soon.



and what sort of things would you like to see in it?
Changing the Adventure Day paradigm from 6 to 8 encounters with 2 short rests to 4 encounters with 1 short rest (and maybe reduce the time needed for a short rest). I also want a "fixed" version of Sorcerer.

[Millstone85]

I got into D&D during 4e and had mixed feelings about it. Moving to 5e was easy.

5e has since been conquering one of my shelves: PHB, MM, DMG, SCAG, VGtM, TftYP, XGtE and soon MToF. I hope it goes on.

When 6e arrives, that will be my first time having to decide if I want to spend on and learn a new edition when I liked the previous one.

[Spiritchaser]

Most things I’d want changed are additions that could be included in further 5e material, from better CR guidance (yes we all end up sorting this out on our own, but a few more pages wouldn’t hurt) to more spells, feats and classes, better flying rules, a few more weapons...

One fundamental change that might need a more drastic approach?

The relevance of pure martials at high level seems to be too limited.

For full disclosure, I’ve only DM’d a handful of play sessions above 15, but even there, it’s becoming a challenge to keep everyone relevant, even if it’s differently relevant.

Lots of ways to do this, from more open ended top tier martial powers, level gated martial feats, non magical attacks that create truly powerful single target de buffs equivalent in power to high level magic etc. But I think they’d work best if they’d been baked in from the beginning.

[Specter]

Will it come? Yes, because people want money.

What would I like? Clearer wording on the rulebooks. They should just hire a team of lawyers beforehand so they can poke holes in their rules like we do, and then do something about it.

[Pex]

I think I can agree to almost all of this, the only real objection being the saves. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I do like having those situations where it's like "make a strength save" and I actually get rewarded for building something other than dex characters.

The problem is as you gain levels in 5E you get worse at making saving throws because the DCs increase while 4 out of your 6 saves do not. Specific class features will get you more than two proficiencies/bonuses, but it's far from universal. There is room for middle ground in the math between 5E and how 3E did it.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem is as you gain levels in 5E you get worse at making saving throws because the DCs increase while 4 out of your 6 saves do not. Specific class features will get you more than two proficiencies/bonuses, but it's far from universal. There is room for middle ground in the math between 5E and how 3E did it. Unless a PC finds a way to ensure a + or a proficiency to Wisdom saves, they are guaranteed to flee from an Ancient Dragon's frightening presence. Ancient Black: DC 19 Wisdom; Ancient Blue DC 20 Wisdom; Ancient Green DC 19 Wisdom; Ancient Red DC 21 Wisdom; Ancient White DC 16 Wisdom; Ancient Brass 18; Ancient Bronze 20; Ancient Copper 19; Ancient Gold 24; Ancient Silver 21. (Granted, there are some divine spells that provide a chance to improve on this situation, and a few paladin auras that might be useful ...)

There are a variety of other issues with particular saves, but when half of the party runs away during the first round ... :smallcool:

I concur with Pex that another look at how saves scale up, or don't, would be handy.

As to 6th edition: I'd rather see 5e Dark Sun, 5e Planescape, and maybe even another try at Birthright with 5e as the base. Lastly, another effort at "large combat" rules which have been one of those "things" in each edition that takes a lot of work.

And for the love of all that is swords and sorcery, can we get a less clunky mounted combat system?

Without feats, the basic game has this "you are still vulnerable at high levels feature" that I am guessing was a piece of the bounded accuracy design scheme: even at high levels, you are mortal.

[The Jack]

I think I'd rather 5.x

whoever wrote the "owning a business" section in the DMG was a fool, and it needs to be fixed.
Although I like the "everything's in a smaller parameter so some level one's can fight a tarrasque and potentially do damage- I think 5e took it a little too far.
Feats aren't very equal. Some're killer, some totally suck.
The weapon table could use some improvements, as I've said in a thread.
Int is a very weak stat, as I've said in a thread.

There's some more wiggle room for class balance.
All fighters would be better off with superiority dice/a weapon mastery. Battlemaster redux be a leader/strategist type. I think fighter could use a third skill proficiency too.
Rangers could not suck.
Pact of blade warlocks shouldn't need to multiclass regardless of patron.
Monks'n rogues should get more weapon profeciencies.
It'd be nice if wizards could change cantrips.
Druid.
Lack of a mystic. The UA psyionics stuff is awful.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Just gonna go ahead and make some bold statements. No reason not too, we don’t really have anything to tell us 6e will be a thing and when if it is, what it be like etc. that being said:


This is what I have forseen!

-5e will last for 8 more years before it is replaced with Dungeons and Dragons VI: Return of the Half-Elf Prince. Now referred to as ROTHEP.

-it will take place in a brand new setting that Drizzt still somehow ended up in.

-entirely new stigmas will be applied to creatures including the standard humanoid playable races. Lizardfolk will be included along with Tabaxi as part of the core races. Orcs are as smart as they are brutish, elves are as stupid as they are beautiful.

-magic will permeate everyone and everything. There is no divide between divine and Arcane, it’s all in your head man. Gods can’t be proven to exist, and mages can heal. Psionics and other systems are again all in your head man it’s the same thing.

-there will be no “classes”. Instead you will pick up features as you gain experience. You can call yourself whatever you like though. Your Role will have impact in Play. What you refer to yourself as, what people call you, that’s what matters. Crunch wise optimisers will actually be the best role players.


-there will no longer be a balance issue between martials and casters. Fighting will be just as magical as casting.

-there are no spells. There are however magical techniques. You gain these techniques through features. Attacking a lot is also a magical technique. Magic is everything. It surrounds us, binds is, and penetrates us.

-magic tech is a thing. Crafting is great and artificers/engineers/alchemists/trapmakers etc are viable.

- necromancy is not inherently evil. It is however odd. Like a mix of bacon and peanut butter. Tasty to some, disgusting to others though nobody will hunt you down for it.

These are the comings of D&D after the 5th edition.

[Baptor]

You know I just thought of this - we are somewhat likely to see a 5.5 release in the next 3 years due to Pathfinder 2nd Edition. I'll bet WotC keeps an eye on that and if there are really neat mechanics they see as superior to their own, they may copy them. Hopefully by now they've learned not to underestimate Paizo.


It'll happen eventually, but I see a good number of years of 5E life to come.

What I want:

Everyone guess what my first one is. It's easy. Answer in white below this.
Defined DC example tables for skills..

Agreed. I'm primarily a DM and I would really like this as well. I set my own DCs and I'd like to think they are balanced but who knows. Even DMs don't always like DM fiat.


A Point Buy system that doesn't think it an abomination of apocalyptic proportion for a 1st level character to have an 18 even if it takes a racial modifier to get it, including Human who still gets a feat if that racial ability remains. I also prefer 10 is 0 points and let a player choose to go lower for extra points instead of having to pay a tax to break even.

I agree with the minimum is 10 (average). I think a "hero" should start at the baseline of "I don't suck" and then have the opportunity to be really adept as they spend points or whatever. I'm currently running a game called Hero Kids for my children that operates this way and I really like it. I realize not everyone thinks the way I do and want "stupid" fighters and "sick" mages, but I don't - really.


Concentration for spells mechanic is ok. I want spellcasters at some level > 1 to be able to concentrate on more than one spell with should you lose concentration you don't necessarily lose it on all the spells you're concentrating on. Each spell has its own check.

I'm OK with Concentration as-is but I've thought a lot about this. The old d20 Wheel of Time RPG required you to maintain concentration on every duration weave (spell) and there was a feat called multiweave that allowed you to hold one additional spell and you could take that multiple times to hold more and more. I've thought about introducing it into my 5e games but haven't for balance concerns.


Separate Feat and ASI resources. The number and style of feats as they are now are fine but ok with the fiddling of them to be determined.

I agree, it can be done better. What that would look like exactly I don't know. What I do know is that most games I know of where you get +stats on level and +skills don't make you choose.


Go back to the Fortitude, Reflex, Will save model, and 4E's way is nice in that one of two ability scores can be used for the modifier. Do this and I'm willing to get over it Point Buy starts at 8 for 0 points.

Agreed 100%. Look, I like the idea of the Ability scores as saves model, but in practice it doesn't work well. Like you said in a later post, DCs go up while saves don't, and at level 20 I can easily have a +0 to my Wisdom save against the bad guy's DC 19 Dominate Person spell.

4e's save system isn't perfect, but it does work. I have actually already houseruled it into my own games. Basically if anything calls for a Constitution save in my game, you can roll Strength if it is better. If it calls for Dexterity, you can roll Intelligence, and so on just like 4e. Sometimes it can seem a bit silly but it's far more balanced. I also cut the strength of enemy DCs by about 15% or so. The highest spell DC you'll face in my game is DC 16. So far it's worked fine for us.

Alternatively I'd accept a return to static DCs a la AD&D 2e (*gasp*). Hey, they worked all right from my recollections.


Keep 5E's Advantage/Disadvantage.

Yes, and I'd also throw in please keep 5e's Bounded Accuracy - it's my favorite thing about it.


Keep 5E's no 5 ft step. Players can move their full move and do whatever they want, including multiple attacks for warriors.

Agreed as well.

[Anonymouswizard]

Enough quibbling. Does anybody think we'll get a 6th edition any time soon, and what sort of things would you like to see in it?

My money is on six more years until 6e is a thing, at the earliest. I suspect we might get a 5.5 in two or three years that makes adjustments but won't make the old books obsolete.

As for what I want, well Knaight said it best.


As for what I want with 6e, I don't really care that much - D&D isn't really my game, and I pay attention to it more because it's the industry titan and standard entry point (and thus often the exit point for new players to whatever I'm running) than any real appreciation of it.

There's a good number of us who only own or have read 5e because it's the game we get bugged about every other day.

What would make me want to actually play 6e?
-Either add a skill system the designers cared enough about to develop or remove it entirely.
-Kill the three book core idea. One corebook, maybe two, including monster creation rules and example adversaries.
-Burn all development notes on Faerun and vow never to release another book for it again.
-Psionics are core. They're a key part of several types of fantasy, but 5e seems to be insistent that nobody wants them that badly.

[BloodOgre]

WotC still has plenty to do to finish milking 5e, even in the core rules. Where is the manual of the planes? Psionics? Deities & Demigods (Legends and Lore for you youngsters)? Monster Manual II? Fiend Folio? Not to mention various worlds like DragonLance, GreyHawk, Dark Sun, and Ebberon. Heck, I'd pay for a couple of HC campaign books that were just the core Dragon Lance modules converted to 5e.

As for what I'd like in 6th (or even in a supplement for 5th) a method for casters to cast more than one concentration spell, via another spell, feat, class feature, or even a magic item. Casters should be able to cast more cantrips or have a way to learn more cantrips, or have a way to swap out cantrips.

But really, the last thing I want is to have to spend a fortune to move to a new edition.

[2D8HP]

....Does anybody think we'll get a 6th edition any time soon, and what sort of things would you like to see in it?


I hope not, as most of what I'd like (without being a whole other game I already own) are available as options anyway.

Most of the changes I'd like involve subtraction anyway, but importing some of the content in Volo's and Xanathar's into the core books would've been nice, but I already have those books.

I suppose a "training wheels" spell casting class that has the easy to learn simplicity of the Champion Fighter martial class would be nice, but there's no need for a new edition for that.

Most of 5e's classes seem to complex too me, but the simpler classes I actually play seem to hold their own well enough, so as a player I'm not really effected by those classes existence, but the whole of 5e is too much for me to handle as a DM, but I suspect that when I was younger and had more mental agility and time to study it I could've.

First level seems fine as is for the classes I play, but I would like "leveling up to be more incremental, so that level 10 would be the equivalent to what level 4 or 5 is now, and have a level 35 to 40 that would be the equivalent of the current level 20.

Oh, and dustbin Faerun, 4e's Nentir Vale looked intriguing, or a more human centered setting, but again that's subtraction not addition.


Fixed it for you XD

4e never quite Replaced 3.5. In many people's mind, mine included like 2D8HP, 4e 3e was a totally diferent kind of game that was not D&D, and had nothing to do with it. It's a cool popular game system, but so far from the Core mechanics of D&D that I don't count it as a Replacement for D&D. It's just a Diferent Game.....


Fixed that for me!


:tongue:



No, I can only see thee possibility of a new edition 5 years or more from now. This edition will not end anytime soon....


I hope even longer than that.


..the basic game has this "you are still vulnerable at high levels feature" that I am guessing was a piece of the bounded accuracy design scheme: even at high levels, you are mortal.


PC's still being mortal at high levels seems to be completely, utterly, totally, beautifully, virtuously and truly, a good thing to and for me.

The complaints I see in this Forum that "high level PC'S in 5e are too weak" is greatly different than my experiences and tastes.

Zero to Hero is fine, it's the step to gods that I don't care for.


...the last thing I want is to have to spend a fortune to move to a new edition.


+1

[mephnick]

-Psionics are core. They're a key part of several types of fantasy, but 5e seems to be insistent that nobody wants them that badly.

But are they a key part of the type of fantasy D&D is trying to emulate? I'd argue they aren't. D&D is definitely more pulp medieval fantasy at it's core. There are some sci-fi elements that have snuck in throughout the years, but I wouldn't say they are a focus of the brand. I think psionics are much better suited as a supplement.

[Anonymouswizard]

But are they a key part of the type of fantasy D&D is trying to emulate? I'd argue they aren't. D&D is definitely more pulp medieval fantasy at it's core. There are some sci-fi elements that have snuck in throughout the years, but I wouldn't say they are a focus of the brand. I think psionics are much better suited as a supplement.

Alternative then, they can stop insisting D&D is meant to emulate generic fantasy. Either do what you claim, or stop claiming it.

[Knaight]

But are they a key part of the type of fantasy D&D is trying to emulate? I'd argue they aren't. D&D is definitely more pulp medieval fantasy at it's core. There are some sci-fi elements that have snuck in throughout the years, but I wouldn't say they are a focus of the brand. I think psionics are much better suited as a supplement.

There's psionics in some pulp medieval things, not least the Deyrini series. This is without getting into how those elements that snuck in throughout the years were pretty prevalent in the very first years of D&D.


Alternative then, they can stop insisting D&D is meant to emulate generic fantasy. Either do what you claim, or stop claiming it.
They should really do this anyways - adding psionics hardly makes it a generic fantasy game, especially given the continued existence of specific named planes, and if there's anything that's been hurting modern D&D it's the way it's been unable to decide on a level of focus.

[mephnick]

There's psionics in some pulp medieval things, not least the Deyrini series.

What's this? I've read a ton of fantasy and Google doesn't even know what it is.

[mephnick]

Alternative then, they can stop insisting D&D is meant to emulate generic fantasy. Either do what you claim, or stop claiming it.

Agreed. I'd love nothing better than D&D to come out and say "Listen, this is medieval fantasy system based around fighting monsters in dungeons and wilderness and taking their ****."

The fact that it pretends to be a vehicle to base any DM's stupid campaign ideas that don't work on is my main problem with it.

[Baptor]

What would make me want to actually play 6e?
-Either add a skill system the designers cared enough about to develop or remove it entirely.
-Kill the three book core idea. One corebook, maybe two, including monster creation rules and example adversaries.
-Burn all development notes on Faerun and vow never to release another book for it again.
-Psionics are core. They're a key part of several types of fantasy, but 5e seems to be insistent that nobody wants them that badly.

1. I agree, 5e's skill system is an absolute joke. Either go all in and make a real skill system or go back to AD&D's straight ability checks. I'm fine with the later TBH.
2. Agreed. Once I saw that at work in Pathfinder and other RPGs I felt kind of cheated and used by WOTC who feels like they have the right to milk 3 books of money out of me every edition. I just got an RPG for my kids called Hero Kids and the Core Book has everything you could need. What's funny is that I DID go on to buy more rulebooks for it but its nice to know you can get everything you need in 1 book.
3. I like Forgotten Realms and I 100% support this. There was a time where I wanted them to 'fix' it - I no longer trust them to do that. Just let it alone.
4. I don't really like psionics but I don't hate it. I agree with your later post though that D&D needs to fish or cut bait with psionics - either its a thing or it isn't.


I suppose a "training wheels" spell casting class that has the easy to learn simplicity of the Champion Fighter martial class would be nice, but there's no need for a new edition for that.

Most of 5e's classes seem to complex too me, but the simpler classes I actually play seem to hold their own well enough, so as a player I'm not really effected by those classes existence, but the whole of 5e is too much for me to handle as a DM, but I suspect that when I was younger and had more mental agility and time to study it I could've.

Oh, and dustbin Faerun, 4e's Nentir Vale looked intriguing, or a more human centered setting, but again that's subtraction not addition.

PC's still being mortal at high levels seems to be completely, utterly, totally, beautifully, virtuously and truly, a good thing to and for me. Zero to Hero is fine, it's the step to gods that I don't care for.

+1 to the simplistic caster - warlock almost achieves that now, but I'd like a simplified caster that isn't bound up like they are.

Again agreed, for all the praise for 5e simplicity, the classes are really complex. As a player I want something with some options but classes like cleric and wizard and bard are just too much. I agree also that the solution is just more simplistic options - we don't have to take away the other classes.

As a DM I don't really have trouble running for those classes now I've taken the approach that the players are totally responsible for knowing how their own stuff works. The only time I'll step in is if something they do or want to do is completely broken.

Again, I'm a FR fan and I agree. Let go of FR. I'd like to see more of Nentir Vale as well.

Amen to nixing the supergod level power. I have established a level cap of 10th in my home games and we all agree its for the best. Still I'd like to have a game where my players and I can enjoy all levels and tiers of play without the game going completely off the rails. Shoot, just eliminating or nerfing some of the level 9 spells and capstones would've gone a long way. Some of that stuff looked to me more like the kind of thing that one person brings to your table and says is totally balanced when its clearly a self-serving game breaker.

[Cynthaer]

A Point Buy system that doesn't think it an abomination of apocalyptic proportion for a 1st level character to have an 18 even if it takes a racial modifier to get it, including Human who still gets a feat if that racial ability remains. I also prefer 10 is 0 points and let a player choose to go lower for extra points instead of having to pay a tax to break even.

Serious question: Would you like it better if instead of "27-point buy", they called it "17-point buy", but you could go down to 8 in any given stat for extra points?

That is, is it just a presentation/feel thing for you? Or do you specifically want a mechanical change, like being able to go below 8 for even more points?

[Eric Diaz]

It seems this thread indicates there will be no D&D 6e anytime soon, because about 80% of the things people want do not require (or warrant) a new edition.

For example, better martials/better weapons: I'd sooner have a "book of war" (that I don't think is coming) than a new edition.

"Example skill DCs"... I agree (kinda), but you definitely do not need an entire edition for that.

Ditto "better ranger", "better champion", "better point buy", psionics, new settings, etc.

Most things will be fixed with new feats, spells, and splats.

I also have a list of things I dislike about 5e but most of them do not need a new edition to fix, while others (I wish it was a lot clearer and simpler, for example) are not problematic enough for most players, so there will be no new edition.

Things I agree could warrant a new edition, but I don't think they will:

- Better saves as you level up.
- Less bounded accuracy (which would also fix skills, etc. - IMO everyone should get some expertise - which is ANOTHER example of something they simply fixed with a new feat).
- Things should be way simpler.

... and that is all I can think of for now.

[Oramac]

Honestly, I hope 5e sticks around for quite a while longer. I don't want, nor have the cash, to shell out for more books.

More importantly, I like 5e. It's fun and accessible while still giving enough crunch to be exciting.


What I want:

A Point Buy system that doesn't think it an abomination of apocalyptic proportion for a 1st level character to have an 18 even if it takes a racial modifier to get it, including Human who still gets a feat if that racial ability remains. I also prefer 10 is 0 points and let a player choose to go lower for extra points instead of having to pay a tax to break even.

Separate Feat and ASI resources. The number and style of feats as they are now are fine but ok with the fiddling of them to be determined.

Keep 5E's Advantage/Disadvantage.

If they ever do make a 6e (which I'm sure they will), I agree with these. Definitely want to keep/have this.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm going to note that when I want D&D I run a modified Fantasy AGE. In my mind it keeps the babies that 5e threw out with the bath water, but I limit the number of breathers per day (while letting Mages regain MP via breathers). It also only has three classes, essentially making you customise further via feat chains, including special subclass-esque ones (which include 'Paladin', 'Necromancer', and other class limited ones, but also ones such as 'Diplomat' or 'Beaatmaster' that anybody can take). So I really couldn't care less about 5.5 or 6e.

[LordEntrails]

There is no way in Heck that WotC has any interest in 6E. You do all know the PHB is #1 best seller in it's class on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/4441/ref=zg_b_bs_4441_1)? That it has sold more than every other edition put together? Just because you have been playing it for years, doesn't mean it needs to be updated or changed.

When it drops off the best seller lists and WotC can't figure out how to resurrect it, then they will start contemplating 6E. Given how it has been doing, no reason to believe that is going to happen for many years to come. Given the success of 5E, means their is every reason that 6E will be in public beta test for years just like 5E was. That means a decade until 6E, if it was doing poorly now. It's not.

EDIT: It's currently #35 out of ALL books on Amazon. WotC would have to be incompetent to mess with that!

[Pex]

Serious question: Would you like it better if instead of "27-point buy", they called it "17-point buy", but you could go down to 8 in any given stat for extra points?

That is, is it just a presentation/feel thing for you? Or do you specifically want a mechanical change, like being able to go below 8 for even more points?

I suppose with bias, I like how Pathfinder does it. Start at 10s. 16 is a reasonable cost for your prime and racial modifier makes it 18, if you want. As it happens, in my Pathfinder game playing an Arcanist which is a bit MAD I opted not to get an 18 at first level even with racial mods. Ending up with 16s in my primes and 14 CO was a more rounded fit for me. I don't need an 18 at 1st level. I want the ability of having it at a reasonable cost if I want it. At session 0 the DM wanted to roll for stats, but I convinced him to use Point Buy, something I'd have never done a few years ago.

It's more important to me a 1st level character can have an 18 even if it takes a racial modifier to do it for a reasonable cost than for a starting score to be 8 or 10. "17-Point Buy" doesn't work for 5E because it still forbids the 18. 4E Point Buy was fine. 3E Point Buy was fine, but it punished MAD classes if you go below 28 points and even 28 is suspect. It's a tangent, but as classes become less MAD Point Buy works better. In any case, the problem is not Point Buy; it's 5E's implementation of it.

[2D8HP]

Alternative then, they can stop insisting D&D is meant to emulate generic fantasy. Either do what you claim, or stop claiming it.


Agreed. I'd love nothing better than D&D to come out and say "Listen, this is medieval fantasy system based around fighting monsters in dungeons and wilderness and taking their ****."

The fact that it pretends to be a vehicle to base any DM's stupid campaign ideas that don't work on is my main problem with it.

Once again I'll quote Gygax:


"....those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste."

E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin


"The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, HPL, and A. Merritt."


-Gygax
16 May 1979

I like a lot of the new works cited in 5e's "Appendix E" (and of course my fiction reading was greatly set by '79's "Appendix N"), but yeah, much as I like me some Mabinogoin, Morte d'Arthur, and the Norse Sagas, I don't want D&D for that (and I have other games that do those well enough).

But yeah, D&D would suit me if it just focused on the works that Gygax lists above.

Oh who am I kidding, just Howard or Leiber would be enough!

Oh, I noticed a new Conan RPG out, and Savage World's has a Lankhmar setting book.




+1 to the simplistic caster - warlock almost achieves that now, but I'd like a simplified caster that isn't bound up like they are.

Again agreed, for all the praise for 5e simplicity, the classes are really complex. As a player I want something with some options but classes like cleric and wizard and bard are just too much. I agree also that the solution is just more simplistic options - we don't have to take away the other classes.

As a DM I don't really have trouble running for those classes now I've taken the approach that the players are totally responsible for knowing how their own stuff works. The only time I'll step in is if something they do or want to do is completely broken.

Again, I'm a FR fan and I agree. Let go of FR. I'd like to see more of Nentir Vale as well.

Amen to nixing the supergod level power. I have established a level cap of 10th in my home games and we all agree its for the best. Still I'd like to have a game where my players and I can enjoy all levels and tiers of play without the game going completely off the rails. Shoot, just eliminating or nerfing some of the level 9 spells and capstones would've gone a long way. Some of that stuff looked to me more like the kind of thing that one person brings to your table and says is totally balanced when its clearly a self-serving game breaker.


Can you be my DM?


....It's currently #35 out of ALL books on Amazon. WotC would have to be incompetent to mess with that!

*cough*

[Luccan]

3.5 had five years, but 3.x had around eight. 3.5 was an updated, arguably better version of 3rd, but they were still basically the same game. 5e has at least 4 more years (probably more), barring a sudden massive shift in what the market is interested in.

[Daphne]

Most of 5e's classes seem to complex too me

Just curious, which options do you think aren't too complex, other than Champion? I can think of Thief and maybe Barbarians, anything else?

[2D8HP]

Just curious, which options do you think aren't too complex, other than Champion? I can think of Thief and maybe Barbarians, anything else?


Yeah, I'm intimidated by complex mechanics, so my first class was the Champion Fighter, and I'm currently playing one (highest level played 11th).

I've also played a Barbarian (first level),

a Thief Rogue (third level), and a

Swashbuckler Rogue (5th level).

I'd have to say Swashbuckler is probably my favorite so far (especially if you have a level or five of Fighter), but I'm glad I did Champion first (actually second, I'd briefly played a first level Rogue as my first 5e PC, but the game flamed out too soon, my Champion was the first 5e PC that I got to third level).

I'm intrigued by the Ancients Paladin, Eldrich Knight Fighter, Gloom Stalker Ranger, and the Scout Rogue, but especially the Paladin and Ranger classes intimidate me with their myriad options and resources to keep track of, and I think I want more table time till I tackle one of them.

I've looked carefully at the Battlemaster Fighter, and the Wizard, but both look like way too much for me to keep track of effectively, so I'm doubtful of ever playing them.

[Whit]

One of the biggest things besides fixing 4th was to NOT repeat with quick new editions which pissed off the community. There will be a revised edition after 4-6 years from now but it will be taking all the errata and fixing other things. But the majority will keep as is

[KorvinStarmast]

Agreed. I'd love nothing better than D&D to come out and say "Listen, this is medieval fantasy system based around fighting monsters in dungeons and wilderness and taking their ****."

The fact that it pretends to be a vehicle to base any DM's stupid campaign ideas that don't work on is my main problem with it. *Standing Ovation*

To thine own self be true

[2D8HP]

Alternative then, they can stop insisting D&D is meant to emulate generic fantasy. Either do what you claim, or stop claiming it.



Agreed. I'd love nothing better than D&D to come out and say "Listen, this is medieval fantasy system based around fighting monsters in dungeons and wilderness and taking their ****."

The fact that it pretends to be a vehicle to base any DM's stupid campaign ideas that don't work on is my main problem with it.



Once again I'll...



*Standing Ovation*

To thine own self be true



:redface:

@KorvinStarmast said it better in two lines than I said it in.....

.....a lot more than two lines (I don't have that many fingers)!

I want to hang out with all y"all, even KorvinStarmast who's old enough to be my dad....

.....if he'd been amazingly precocious.

So what's better to watch when you can't game Conan the Destroyer or Excalibur?

(Don't answer AW, because I know your gonna suggest a high quality film I've never heard of instead.

I will gladly take your beer suggestions though!)

:biggrin:

[Ignimortis]

To be honest, I disagree with most of you. D&D to me always was a high-power game, almost up to "medieval fantasy superheroes". It feels more or less like it in various editions, but I've never felt that D&D was a rough swords&sorcery game past the first four levels, and those are usually the most boring and luck-driven (oh, that random no-name orc rolled a random crit for 39 damage? Guess your character's done for!).

To me, D&D is at its' best from levels 5 to 11, and this holds true for every edition I've played (2e, 3.5e, PF, 5e). Heroes are heroic, villains are menacing and infamous, monsters are mythologically grand. Going below 5 is a chore, going above 11 either means not much to look forward to (2e and 5e) or magic gets a bit too over the top (3.PF).

So if D&D actually started wholeheartedly doing what it purports to do, and only that, I wouldn't like it, and I see no reason for it to be this way - there are other games who do that anyway, but the "medieval fantasy superhero" genre is empty aside from D&D and Exalted, and Exalted is a mechanical mess, even if the setting's kinda cool.

However, if we were talking small-scale changes, like 5.5e, then most of the good stuff was already suggested by Pex. More resources to build characters with, more system clarity. A bit more crunchy stuff, dammit!

[Millstone85]

Ditto "better ranger", "better champion"While I love the class as it is, what I want for a "better warlock" is a true double-subclass design.

The first subclass is defined by your patron:
* the archfey, an entity with strong ties to the wilds.
* the fiend, an entity from the lower planes (variant: the celestial).
* the great old one, an entity from the depths of time.
* the inevitable, an entity acting as the grim hand of fate.
* the primordial, an entity from the elemental planes.
* the witch-king, an older mortal (or undead) spellcaster.

No mere boon, the second subclass defines you as a warlock:
* the binder, a minionmancer whose main servant is an unusual familiar.
* the hexblade, a gish whose blade inflicts hexes, pretty self-explanatory.
* the occultist, your typical glass cannon and trickster type of spellcaster.

And yes, that could indeed be material for 5.5 rather than 6e.

[Arkhios]

While I love the class as it is, what I want for a "better warlock" is a true double-subclass design.

The first subclass is defined by your patron:
* the archfey, an entity with strong ties to the wilds.
* the fiend, an entity from the lower planes (variant: the celestial).
* the great old one, an entity from the depths of time.
* the inevitable, an entity acting as the grim hand of fate.
* the primordial, an entity from the elemental planes.
* the witch-king, an older mortal (or undead) spellcaster.

No mere boon, the second subclass defines you as a warlock:
* the binder, a minionmancer whose main servant is an unusual familiar.
* the hexblade, a gish whose blade inflicts hexes, pretty self-explanatory.
* the occultist, your typical glass cannon and trickster type of spellcaster.

And yes, that could indeed be material for 5.5 rather than 6e.

I must say, while I'm normally against rebuilding any classes, Warlock has too many wiggly parts and the divide between patron and a boon lacks "focus".
What you listed might work pretty well, to be honest. At least, for me. Never really liked Warlock that much. Not in 3.5, not in 4e, and not now in 5e. That, on the contrary, might be interesting to play.

[Baptor]

Can you be my DM?

:smallredface: That's a really nice thing to say. I would be happy to run a game for you were it possible. I'd be happy to run a game for just about anyone here. This is a great community, even with our occasional bickering. :smallwink:

[ZorroGames]

D&D 3.5 was around for five years before it was replaced by 4e. 4th edition, in its turn, had a six-year run before 5e came out and replaced it. Now 5e is in its fourth year, and the question on my mind is, will it be replaced like 3rd and 4th did?

Now, I know perfectly well that WotC has not released anything saying that they will. I'd actually be surprised, and a little disappointed. 5e has been my favorite edition so far.

Enough quibbling. Does anybody think we'll get a 6th edition any time soon, and what sort of things would you like to see in it?

I truly, truly hope not. I played D&D when it first came out and the see-sawing back and forth betweeb OD&D, “Basic,” BECMI - aka as “BLEECHme, another version?” locally, and “advanced” was crazy. Second Edition AD&D was the final straw.

Game is solid. Fiddle with the basics in your home games but leave it alone mechanically, WOTC, just providing optional supplements as desired.

[ZorroGames]

I fully expect 6e to show up eventually. That said, 5e will probably have a longer lifecycle than 3 or 4 did, given the much reduced publishing rate and what sound like promising sales numbers; exactly how long could vary.

As for what I want with 6e, I don't really care that much - D&D isn't really my game, and I pay attention to it more because it's the industry titan and standard entry point (and thus often the exit point for new players to whatever I'm running) than any real appreciation of it. If there's one thing I'd like to see though, it's WotC deciding that they need to compete with Starfinder, and releasing both D&D and a space game, maybe even going into proper science fiction instead of space fantasy. Having one visible genre to people outside RPGs isn't helping grow them.

I love Science Fiction and Science Fiction war games but that is one product I simply would not even look at, much less buy! Played too many products like that “back in the day” and, like Pathfinder, that would be “lock weapons on target, fire until vaporized,” level of disinterest.

[2D8HP]

To be honest, I disagree with most of you. D&D to me always was a high-power game, almost up to "medieval fantasy superheroes"....


To be fair (before I get ranty again) you did say "to me" first, but as to "always":

Nuh-uh!


....this holds true for every edition I've played (2e, 3.5e, PF, 5e)....


Ah! You started with 2e!

History time!

oD&D before the Greyhawk supplement really didn't support high level play in the modern sense, and not much afterwards unless you consider all TSR D&D one "edition" from 1974 to 1999.

Yes there was "no theoretical limit to how high a character may progress, i.e. 20th-level Lord, 20th-level Wizard, etc."

but

they were no spells above 6th level, and all classes after 11th level only accumulated one hit point with each level, Elves and Hobbits could not be Fighting-Men/Fighters past 4th level, Dwarves couldn't get past 6th level, Elves couldn't get higher than an 8th level Magic Users, indeed only Elves and Humans could be Magic-Users at all, and only Humans could be Clerics, so until Greyhawk and the introduction of the Thief class, no non-humans could be a 9th level or above anything.

Epic?

Mythic?

Nope

not in terms of later D&D/AD&D, but it was still gloriously fun.

Once again I'll quote Gygax:


"....those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste."

E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin


In my reading of those works cited as inspiration in the '74 rules, none of the protagonists seemed that superpowerful to me.

This was to change:


"The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, HPL, and A. Merritt."


-Gygax
16 May 1979

The fiction of Vance (cited in 79) did have some high power stuff, but since they were no 7th and up spells in the '74 rules, the power level was lower.

But even after higher power became possible the creator balked as quickly becoming superpowered "Epic" and "Mythic" PC's is what Gygax called "Dungeons and Beavers not Dungeons & Dragons" back in the 1970's


"D&D IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE DM

Successful play of D&D is a blend of desire, skill and luck. Desire is often initiated by actually participating in a game. It is absolutely a reflection of the referee's ability to maintain an interesting and challenging game. Skill is a blend of knowledge of the rules and game background as applied to the particular game circumstances favored by the referee. Memory or recall is often a skill function. Luck is the least important of the three, but it is a (actor in successful play nonetheless. Using the above criteria it would seem that players who have attained a score or more of levels in their respective campaigns are successful indeed. This is generally quite untrue. Usually such meteoric rise simply reflects an incompetent Dungeonmaster.

While adventurers in a D&D campaign must grade their play to their referee, it is also incumbent upon the Dungeonmaster to suit his campaign to the participants. This interaction is absolutely necessary if the campaign is to continue to be of interest to all parties. It is often a temptation to the referee to turn his dungeons into a veritable gift shoppe of magical goodies, ripe for plucking by his players. Similarly, by a bit of fudging, outdoor expeditions become trips to the welfare department for heaps of loot. Monsters exist for the slaying of the adventurers — whether of the sort who "guard" treasure, or of the wandering variety. Experience points are heaped upon the undeserving heads of players, levels accumulate like dead leaves in autumn, and if players with standings in the 20's. 30's and 40's of levels do not become bored, they typically become filled with an entirely false sense of accomplishment, and they are puffed up with hubris. As they have not really earned their standings, and their actual ability has no reflection on their campaign level, they are easily deflated (killed) in a game which demands competence in proportionate measure to players' levels.

It is therefore, time that referees reconsider their judging. First, is magic actually quite scarce in your dungeons? It should be! Likewise, treasures should be proportionate both to the levels of the dungeon and the monsters guarding them. Second, absolute disinterest mast be exercised by the Dungeonmaster, and if a favorite player stupidly puts himself into a situation where he is about to be killed, let the dice tell the story and KILL him. This is not to say that you should never temper chance with a bit of "Divine Intervention," but helping players should be a rare act on the referee's part, and the action should only be taken when fate seems to have unjustly condemned an otherwise good player, and then not in every circumstance should the referee intervene. Third, create personas for the inhabitants of your dungeon — if they are intelligent they would act cleverly to preserve themselves and slay intruding expeditions out to do them in and steal their treasures. The same is true for wandering monsters. Fourth, there should be some high-level, very tricky and clever chaps in the nearest inhabitation to the dungeon, folks who skin adventures out of their wealth just as prospectors were generally fleeced for their gold in the Old West. When the campaign turkies flock to town trying to buy magical weapons, potions, scrolls, various other items of magical nature, get a chum turned back to flesh, have a corpse resurrected, or whatever, make them pay through their proverbial noses. For example, what would a player charge for like items or services? Find out, add a good bit, and that is the cost you as referee will make your personas charge. This will certainly be entertaining to you and laying little traps in addition will keep the players on their collective toes. After all, Dungeon masters are entitled to a little fun too! Another point to remember is that you should keep a strict account of time. The wizard who spends six months writing scrolls and enchanting items is OUT of the campaign for six months, he cannot play during these six game months, and if the time system is anywhere reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neighborhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of foolishness. Ingredients for scroll writing and potion making should also be stipulated (we will treat this in an upcoming issue of SR or in a D&D supplement as it should be dealt with at length) so that it is no easy task to prepare scrolls or duplicate potions.

When players no longer have reams of goodies at their fingertips they must use their abilities instead, and as you will have made your dungeons and wildernesses far more difficult and demanding, it will require considerable skill, imagination, and intellectual exercise to actually gain from the course of an adventure. Furthermore, when magic is rare it is valuable, and only if it is scarce will there be real interest in seeking it. When it is difficult to survive, a long process to gain levels, when there are many desired items of magical nature to seek for, then a campaign is interesting and challenging. Think about how much fun it is to have something handed to you on a silver platter — nice once in a while but unappreciated when it becomes common occurrence. This analogy applies to experience and treasure in the D&D campaign.

It requires no careful study to determine that D&D is aimed at progression which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D&D. While D&D is pretty flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing something entirely different — perhaps their own name "Dungeons & Beavers," tells it best.*It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.

By requiring players to work for experience, to earn their treasure, means that the opportunity to retain interest will remain. It will also mean that the rules will fit the existing situation, a dragon, balrog, or whatever will be a fearsome challenge rather than a pushover. It is still up to the Dungeonmaster to make the campaign really interesting to his players by adding imaginative touches, through exertion to develop background and detailed data regarding the campaign, and to make certain that there is always something new and exciting to learn about or acquire. It will, however, be an easier task. So if a 33rd level wizard reflects a poorly managed campaign, a continuing mortality rate of 50% per expedition generally reflects over-reaction and likewise a poorly managed campaign. It is unreasonable to place three blue dragons on the first dungeon level, just as unreasonable as it is to allow a 10th level fighter to rampage through the upper levels of a dungeon rousting kobolds and giant rats to gain easy loot and experience. When you tighten up your refereeing be careful not to go too far the other way."

-Gygax
THE STRATEGIC REVIEW APRIL 1976

Now I suppose Moorcock's Elric (cited in '79"s "Appendix N") is "a one man army" with his demonsword and his sorceries, but Howard's Conan, Moore's Jirel, and Leiber"s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are all more human scale than that!

The Swords & Sorcery fiction that mostly inspired D&D just didn't have all those superpowers held by the heroes, and originally your PC was supposed to build a stronghold and retire around 10th level!

Tim Kask, first employee of TSR:

"Time passed and the game continued to grow as well as expand in unexpected directions. Level-creep--PC’s at high Levels that were never considered, let alone allowed for, began to proliferate. In the early years PC’s “retired” at Lvl 9 or 10 and a new PC started; this level-creep was eating up the game. We were getting pleas for help from DM’s and players alike.

The tipping point came one day in a letter I had to open *that day that spurred a supplement almost that very week. (I must have “had the duty” that day; we took turns opening and reading mail to TSR.) In this powerful thought provoker, a bewildered DM wrote the following, more or less (I will paraphrase a bit):

“Dear TSR, I don’t know where to go with my campaign next. Last session, my players went to Valhalla. They killed Loki, all the Valar, a dozen Valkyries, Thor and Odin and destroyed the Bifrost Bridge. “

I read this aloud to Gary and Brian; when we picked ourselves up off the floor or regained our senses, as the case may have been, ( I swear to you that this is true) we knew level-creep had gone too far. That week saw the impetus for one more supplement gather enough steam that I set out to edit the last of the RPG-oriented supplements,*Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. This was the closest to a rule book that we came; we felt that PC’s should not be powerful enough to knock off gods. So we gave them really high amounts of HP: Odin 300, Thor 275. We charted out character levels undreamed of in the original game."

(The source of the quote is here (http://kaskoid.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-i-helped-to-pull-rope-that-tolled.html?m=1))


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9vECzikqpY[

High level play (in the modern sense) just wasn't part of the original rules in 1974, supplements came out and added it more and more because players demanded it (they didn't build strongholds and retired their PC's) and by 2e it was made regular, but it wasn't "always".

Now excuse me while I light some incense, turn on the black light, put "Houses of the Holy" by Led Zeppelin on my Hi-Fi after I get off my CB radio.

10-4 good buddy!

[ZorroGames]

Unless a PC finds a way to ensure a + or a proficiency to Wisdom saves, they are guaranteed to flee from an Ancient Dragon's frightening presence. Ancient Black: DC 19 Wisdom; Ancient Blue DC 20 Wisdom; Ancient Green DC 19 Wisdom; Ancient Red DC 21 Wisdom; Ancient White DC 16 Wisdom; Ancient Brass 18; Ancient Bronze 20; Ancient Copper 19; Ancient Gold 24; Ancient Silver 21. (Granted, there are some divine spells that provide a chance to improve on this situation, and a few paladin auras that might be useful ...)

There are a variety of other issues with particular saves, but when half of the party runs away during the first round ... :smallcool:

I concur with Pex that another look at how saves scale up, or don't, would be handy.

As to 6th edition: I'd rather see 5e Dark Sun, 5e Planescape, and maybe even another try at Birthright with 5e as the base. Lastly, another effort at "large combat" rules which have been one of those "things" in each edition that takes a lot of work.

And for the love of all that is swords and sorcery, can we get a less clunky mounted combat system?

Without feats, the basic game has this "you are still vulnerable at high levels feature" that I am guessing was a piece of the bounded accuracy design scheme: even at high levels, you are mortal.

Dragons should be rare and ultra freakin’ scarey. I remember seeing the dragon (polymorohed Malificent,) in Sleeping Beauty on the Drive-In screen as a kid. I think I held my breath in awe until the hero slew her.

No Dark Sun, no Planescape, maaaaaybe Birthright, but certainly extending the known world for adventures - way overdue!

I play fantasy wargames for large battles thank you. I will note if you can set aside your grognard badge that Two Hour War Games has scaleable (3 sizes of conflict) fantasy rules that play out in about... Two Hours...

Mounted Combat? Well parking your cart and pony or horses out side a dungeon turns a nice profit for the locals running the McDonalds of fast horsemeat schtick. Okay, seriously, that should definitely come but fix exploration please, first. Between that and the next to non-existent social pillar.

[Theodoxus]

Having taken a lot of diverse ideas and mashed them into what I'm calling 5.5E, I get the desire to dream about the next edition. But I agree with those saying we don't need to jump all the way to 6E.

However, I think WotC is reluctant to even go to .5 after the phenomenal disaster that Essentials was for 4E. It felt like the old Star Wars Galaxy CRPG, where years after release, they completely changed the combat and social system, unlocking jedi and other changes players had wanted from the beginning. Yes, the end product was clearly better than the original, but it was too much change to the core and pissed a ton of people off. I know WotC doesn't want to be burned again going that route. Heck, I think it's the primary reason they haven't officially released the revised ranger. It's hard to promote a radical shift in design philosophy without calling out the very real "oops" factor of the original incarnation.

I had a grognard ask me last night if multiclassing and dual classing were still a thing in 5E. I think it would be wicked nice to be able to have those back, as separate things. I think it'd be really cool to have class based experience tables again. I'm a little iffy on exceptional strength scores - as you'd probably have to go back to 1E style attribute bonuses... and that's a little jarring... but dropping attribute scores altogether and just sticking with modifiers only is certainly doable (if my own playtesting means anything).

Moving away from the Holy D20 wouldn't be remiss either. 2d10 flattens out the DCs on skill checks; 3d6+2 wouldn't be bad either. It provides implicit knowledge to the player that a DC 5 check is an autopass - which it should be. As it is, I only use d20's in combat, as I enjoy critical hits and failures (not detrimental 'hit your friend' failures though).

I have a feat that lets you boost the number of spells you can concentrate on to Proficiency Bonus -1. Working as intended (though no one has tried the Spike Growth/Fog Cloud combo yet...)

Feats every odd level (including first), ASI per normal, and they're separate things, no swapping 1 for the other - but with using only modifiers, an ASI is just +1 to 1 attribute, and all feats are 'half' feats, with no modifier boosts. So most 'full' feats are split into component parts, but there's very little 'feat tax', as in prior editions, unless you want to rebuild an original feat back.

[ZorroGames]

2D8HP,

Sounds like started playing in the same time frame!

Personally, I admit to disliking Gygax for non-game reasons but everything you quoted for early D&D seems to be zeroed in on target.

Only knew two DMs who could run a extremely high level challenge in those days. But we ran coordinated teams (think squads or fire teams) run by one player many times. Horses for courses. We had high level tradtitional one character per player games too. Still only thosevtwo for me.

The problem was people kept bringing people out if retirement for “one shots” while on ‘sabbaticals.’

5e: Tier 1 is fun and fast, especially for new players; I find Tier 2 much like the old days in pleasure measurement, which is critical to me; Tier 3 looks superheroic but chalkenging - let you know when I quit playing multiple characters and focus; Honestly, I really have doubts about Tier 4.

[Anonymouswizard]

I love Science Fiction and Science Fiction war games but that is one product I simply would not even look at, much less buy! Played too many products like that “back in the day” and, like Pathfinder, that would be “lock weapons on target, fire until vaporized,” level of disinterest.

Honestly, the problem WotC will have if going science fiction is essentially the sheer variety of games it'll be competing against. Science Fantasy games like Starfinder, harder space opera like Traveller, softer space opera like Star Wars/Trek, transhumanist games like Eclipse Phase and Transhuman Space, even cyberpunk games like Shadowrun and, uh, Cyberpunk.

Whereas D&D standards as the titan of fantasy roleplaying, for better or worse, and any fantasy game that wants a piece of the pie has to square up and try fighting for space. The science fiction scene is much more divided, Starfinder tried to become the game people go to for SF and became the game that's D&D in spaaaaace and not considered that much unless you play a 3.X game. You ask people what the primary SF game is and they'll likely tell you their favourite, which while it'll tend towards Shadowrun and Traveller you'll get people talking about the Star Wars games or claiming that Transhuman Space blows all the others out of the water.

WotC is doing so well with 5e because everybody knows what D&D is (and some people know of Pathfinder). It's the game that has always been associated with RPGs, to the point where I've had to explain games as 'like D&D but', and there's no real World of Darkness that's presenting a unified force. Okay, there's Fate and the various Powered by the Apocalypse games, but they're not really massive and won't be known by anybody outside the hobby. But if WotC makes a SF game based on 5e (and if they're not going Science Fantasy it really has to be a new game instead of a supplement) then they're going into a place where they don't have massive name recognition and there's already a fair amount of competition.

[oxybe]

6th ed will come when D&D fails to meet enough hasbro quotas that it threatens mothballing (D&D as a brand name has value in recognition, so I don't see them selling it barring something VERY lucrative). It happened to 3rd and 4th. Hasbro has some pretty big quotas on what it calls it's core and non-core brands, and I don't think D&D, now that the honeymoon period of the new edition release is over, has the pull to be a "core" Hasbro brand so it all falls down to WotC keeping the brand profitable enough that it won't merit mothballing.

I can't make much predictions, as I don't know how much money it's getting from the GM guiild and stuff like the D&D Beyond, but i'll at least give 5th ed a few more years, 3-5, to see what they've got up their sleeves.

For what I would like to see from a 6th ed?

Effort into making a game with bite. A strong hook outside of "let's not rock the boat". 5th ed bores me to tears and is the first edition I'm simply not buying books for. None of it's content interests me enough to warrant spending my dollars.

2nd, 3rd & 4th all had things it did very well that grabbed my attention and would still make me want to run and play in those games today, but 5th ed instead strove to be 2nd place at most in those things. Which is fine, but I would personally want a game that does something really well despite it's flaws and I can work around them, then a game that does things adequately with no major flaws.

D&D was the innovator of the TTRPG. It paved the way for other games. For all it's faults, at least 4th ed tried to be something other then just "okay" and I love that game for it. a game of 3rd ed and pathfinder is as much defined by the content you don't allow as much as it is by the content you do... there is just so much stuff you can tweak to get things juuuuust right. 2nd ed was a horrid mess, but it does fast, loose and dangerous in ways 5th ed dearly wishes it could.

I want a 6th ed that makes me pickup the book, look at the character classes or player options or whatever and make me go "THAT'S COOL! I WANT TO PLAY THAT!". I'm fully open to opening the Sacred Butcher and processing me some Sacred Hamburgers for sizzlin' on the BBQ. Give me something that's vaguely D&D shaped and familiar but does something neat? Sold.

[2D8HP]

2D8HP,

Sounds like started playing in the same time frame!

Personally, I admit to disliking Gygax for non-game reasons but everything you quoted for early D&D seems to be zeroed in on target....


Thanks @Zorrogames!

Sadly no, we didn't actually start at the same time frame as you as are my senior and https://i.pinimg.com/originals/41/46/f6/4146f6220eaa9360c920f2136bac4a11.gif, I started in 1978 as DM with the Holmes Set and my little brother as my first victim player.

In '79 when I brought the bluebook to class and my future best friend (Derek Whaley Lindstrom, RIP) saw it and invited me to play D&D at his house, where his brother was the DM using the LBB's, including the Supplements (one of which we called "Claudes, Demi-Claudes, and Zero's", and let's just say that I thoroughly "studied" the Eldrich Wizardry cover), and he also used the AD&D Monster Manual (how envious I was that his had the cool Lizardman logo instead of the lame Wizard logo mine had), and extensive use was made of third-party Arduin and All the World's Monster's (we were in Berkeley, California).

For a long time I thought that the rules from the Perrin Conventions were oD&D because that's what we used!

Good times.

While I was excited to get the PHB and DMG to be "Advanced", I now think AD&D was a mistake, they should've kept it one game with options.


Honestly, the problem WotC will have if going science fiction is essentially the sheer variety of games it'll be competing against...


Maybe, I remember when Traveller (Space Opera), Champions (comic book superheroes), Cyberpunk (pretty much real life, why not just go out the door?), and Vampire (landlords and bosses, or something close), were all more popular than D&D (especially Vampire, which yoy could buy at Barnes & Noble when you couldn't get D&D there).

But evertime I visit Endgame in Oakland, or Gamescape in San Francisco, I go in the back, look at their new and used RPG's and see yet another "Fantasy Heartbreaker" that I've never heard of from the '80's, and all subsequent decades, and I look at the effort, expense and what looks like love that were put into them, and check to see how far they're marked down, and can I fit them in my bag.

I've got dozens and I've seen hundreds.

I don't think there's any lack of competition in the back of speciality game shops.

I think it's what's on the shelf in the front and at big chain bookstore.


...I want a 6th ed that makes me pickup the book, look at the character classes or player options or whatever and make me go "THAT'S COOL! I WANT TO PLAY THAT!". I'm fully open to opening the Sacred Butcher and processing me some Sacred Hamburgers for sizzlin' on the BBQ. Give me something that's vaguely D&D shaped and familiar but does something neat? Sold.


I hope I have the same excitement, but I've got hundreds of game books, most of which would take me days to un bury, so I'm a bit short on avalible storage space!

[Baptor]

2nd, 3rd & 4th all had things it did very well that grabbed my attention and would still make me want to run and play in those games today, but 5th ed instead strove to be 2nd place at most in those things. Which is fine, but I would personally want a game that does something really well despite it's flaws and I can work around them, then a game that does things adequately with no major flaws.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at. Can you provide an example of something innovative 2e, 3e and 4e did that was "sizzling?" Especially 2e. That was basically a cleaned up version of 1e with very few changes.

IMHO, 5e's bounded accuracy is very innovative and I love the unified Proficiency Bonus. As a DM and content creator, I feel like I can design just about anything around this core concept. If I'm disappointed in anything its that 5e didn't go far enough with the Proficiency Bonus. You can tie it to so many more things, and I have.

[Kurald Galain]

WotC has given every indication they want 5e to be "evergreen."
That's precisely what they said for 4.5...


And sooner or later (and it may have happened already) somebody within WOTC is going to succesfully pitch redesigning D&D from scratch. Again. Just think of all the jokes about hexes they can make for 6th edition...

[Kurald Galain]

Can you provide an example of something innovative 2e, 3e and 4e did that was "sizzling?"
Oh, easily.

2E: Almost all popular campaign settings started in 2E. Class kits. Almost all succesful D&D video games are based on 2E.
3E: Unified mechanics. Prestige classes. Epic rules. Solid world generation and exploration rules. Tome of Battle (controversial, I know). Huge amounts of enthousiastic third-party support.
4E: That one's harder because almost any element from 4E is controversial. But basically all of 5E's skill and out-of-combat mechanics are from 4E.


5e's bounded accuracy is very innovative
Come now, there's nothing innovative about stating that modifiers may not be higher than +6.

[oxybe]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at. Can you provide an example of something innovative 2e, 3e and 4e did that was "sizzling?" Especially 2e. That was basically a cleaned up version of 1e with very few changes.

I started with 2nd ed. It grabbed my attention by getting me interested in this whole TTRPG thing. Yes it's a largely cleaned up version of 1st, so if i'm going to be playing a relatively rules light fantasy game, i'll probably play it

3rd ed and PF did level based gameplay with a high degree of customization.

4th ed had focus on pulp-action gameplay with dynamic combat.

5th ed isn't as light as 2nd ed, lacks the amount of customization 3rd ed has less focus on the style of play it wants to present & it's combat is less interesting.

I'm not looking for something made by the Elon Musk of TTRPGs, but the room-temperature water that is 5th ed just failed to grab my attention.


IMHO, 5e's bounded accuracy is very innovative and I love the unified Proficiency Bonus. As a DM and content creator, I feel like I can design just about anything around this core concept. If I'm disappointed in anything its that 5e didn't go far enough with the Proficiency Bonus. You can tie it to so many more things, and I have.

You mean a singular number that is level dependant, doesn't vary by class and is added to your attacks, skills & saves?

You mean 4th ed's half-level bonus?

That thing?

[the secret fire]

I don't see it happening in the next 3-5 years. They've been purposefully slow in their release schedule so as to extend out this edition.

As to what I want, I'm mostly happy with 5e as is. It's the right mix of: DM's making table calls, clear rules, and almost no useless characters. If they did create a 6e, I'd like:

- more clarity and depth in how to use skills
- A bit more crunch on how the social pillar works.
- A bit more balance between caster/martial's (Still don't know how though)

Agreed on all of the above, though I would add that a good fix to the skills system might go a long way to addressing the still-present (though muted) caster/martial imbalance. My simple fix to the skills system is to have all skill proficiencies grant the equivalent of the Rogue's Reliable Talent class ability (minimum 10 to all D20 rolls), with Reliable Talent then granting a minimum 15.

Skills are really the one thing the martial classes have over the casters, but, as currently constituted, they rely too much on the outcome of a D20 roll to be consistently useful.

[Millstone85]

You mean a singular number that is level dependant, doesn't vary by class and is added to your attacks, skills & saves?

You mean 4th ed's half-level bonus?

That thing?I believe he is talking about something that doesn't get added to every attack, skill and save, just those you are proficient with.

[Unoriginal]

Does this topic REALLY belong on the 5e subforum?

It's kinda like asking someone "so, when are you getting a new lover and what kind of person are you looking for?" when you're in the car of said person's lover and they're driving you to your appointment.

It would be more appropriate to put in the general Roleplaying Games forum.

[Naanomi]

Skills are really the one thing the martial classes have over the casters, but, as currently constituted, they rely too much on the outcome of a D20 roll to be consistently useful.
Bards are full casters and arguably dominate skills... and Monk, Fighters, and Barbarians don’t have a lot of special skill support

[the secret fire]

Bards are full casters and arguably dominate skills... and Monk, Fighters, and Barbarians don’t have a lot of special skill support

All of this needs to be fixed, as well, though that is mainly just a matter of adjusting how many skill points each class gets. The main structural fix needed to address martial/caster imbalance - i.e. making skills more powerful and more reliable - is by far the bigger issue here.

[Unoriginal]

All of this needs to be fixed, as well, though that is mainly just a matter of adjusting how many skill points each class gets. The main structural fix needed to address martial/caster imbalance - i.e. making skills more powerful and more reliable - is by far the bigger issue here.

There is no martial/caser imbalance in 5e, and skills certainly have nothing more to do with martials than with casters.

[ZorroGames]

There is no martial/caser imbalance in 5e, and skills certainly have nothing more to do with martials than with casters.

Should that be in blue type?

[Daphne]

Should that be in blue type?

Not at all.

[the secret fire]

There is no martial/caser imbalance in 5e, and skills certainly have nothing more to do with martials than with casters.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/meet-greet-40/81388-newb-seeks-bolt-lambo-door-kit-803anigif_not_sure_if_ser-gif

[Unoriginal]

Should that be in blue type?


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachments/meet-greet-40/81388-newb-seeks-bolt-lambo-door-kit-803anigif_not_sure_if_ser-gif

Yeah yeah, you can pretend my position is laughable if you want, but the fact is that people have been trying to prove that casters are still better than martials in 5e literally since before the release of the game, and no one has managed to do it.

And by all the gods and their angels, did they try.

Anyhow. I suppose it's not the kind of talk for that kind of topic. I have to reiterate, however, that "what would you want for a different game if 5e gets out of the picture" is hardly a topic for a 5e subforum. Same way you wouldn't go to a 3.X subforum to discuss about what you like in 4e.

[the secret fire]

Yeah yeah, you can pretend my position is laughable if you want, but the fact is that people have been trying to prove that casters are still better than martials in 5e literally since before the release of the game, and no one has managed to do it.

And by all the gods and their angels, did they try.

It's a subjective standard. If what you demand is "proof", then your demands are misguided. I don't think it's a coincidence that all of the consensus tier 1 classes are casters.

For my part, I think the gap has been substantially narrowed in this edition, and that this is a very good thing, arguably the best thing about 5e in comparison to 3.5 (don't care about 4th edition). I think, in fact, that the gap has been narrowed to the point that a much-needed revision to the skills system (imo, still easily the weakest part of the game) might be enough to close the gap, entirely, or at least to the point that it is no longer worth discussing.

Skills are where the devs should focus their attention; martial/caster imbalance is a second-order priority, imo. The D&D skills system still does a remarkably poor job of reflecting how skills work in the real world, where skilled people don't fail nearly as often due to dumb luck as they do in the game. Shifting the balance of power incrementally towards martials by way of such a fix would just be killing two birds with one stone.

[Amdy_vill]

yes there will be a 6e i think i will come out some time between 2027 and 2040

[Unoriginal]

It's a subjective standard. If what you demand is "proof", then your demands are misguided.

If it's a "subjective standard", aka an opinion, then mine is as valid as yours.

But "casters and martials are imbalanced" is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact, which implies objectivity, which demands evidences if not proof.

You can't say "casters are better than martials in 5e, not sure if anyone could suggest the contrary seriously" and when asked to demonstrate it go "it's subjective, duh".


I don't think it's a coincidence that all of the consensus tier 1 classes are casters.

The consensus is that there are no tiers in 5e (aside from the "tiers of plays" for the lvl 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and 16-20, which are something else entirely)



Skills are where the devs should focus their attention; martial/caster imbalance is a second-order priority, imo. The D&D skills system still does a remarkably poor job of reflecting how skills work in the real world, where skilled people don't fail nearly as often due to dumb luck as they do in the game. Shifting the balance of power incrementally towards martials by way of such a fix would just be killing two birds with one stone.

5e's rules already include that skilled people don't fail often due to dumb luck, since they auto-succeed the task unless the situation is so that failure would have serious consequences.

So you're complaining about something that's not in the game.

[mephnick]

Man I've played and run games into Tier 3 now and I haven't seen any caster/martial disparity. Honestly I see concentration being broken and saves being made all over the place while I tear it up with a Fighter. As long as you remotely structure your adventuring day properly it isn't a problem. I think people who think casters dominate probably aren't very good at challenging their party, depleting resources or running a combat. Or they think that a Wizard teleporting the entire party is..like, an individual win for the wizard alone? I don't get it.

[Knaight]

Come now, there's nothing innovative about stating that modifiers may not be higher than +6.

That's not the "innovative" part. The innovative part is actually coming through a bit more on one unified mechanic, which can really be seen in comparison to 3.5. For instance, here's a quick overview of the most common numerical scales in 3.5.
Attributes: 3-18+
Class Skill Ranks: 0-23
Cross Class Skill Ranks: 0-10
Spell Levels: 0-9
BAB: 0-10, 0-15, 0-20
Good Saves: 2-12
Bad Saves: 0-6
DCs: Mostly increments of 5, 10-40.
AC: 10-19+ (it can dip below 10, but that's incredibly niche).

5e collapsed this down a fair amount with its Proficiency mechanic, bringing in one core number used all over the place. Suddenly the list has Proficiency: 2-6 substituted in for a fair few of those categories, and No Proficiency: 0 substituted in for others.

It's the sort of thing I'd find a bit more impressive if GURPS hadn't managed a consistent 3-18 scale back in 1986, but then "innovation" in D&D pretty consistently means catching up to where the rest of the industry was 20 years ago, and GURPS was genuinely ahead of its time here.

[Unoriginal]

Or they think that a Wizard teleporting the entire party is..like, an individual win for the wizard alone?

Some have argued that, yes. Needless to say, the argument falls pretty flat on its head.


I don't get it.

Same, to be honest. People always bring a lot of weird mental gymnastic for that kind of arguments.

[the secret fire]

If it's a "subjective standard", aka an opinion, then mine is as valid as yours.
Never said it isn't.


The consensus is that there are no tiers in 5e (aside from the "tiers of plays" for the lvl 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and 16-20, which are something else entirely)
O rly?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542843-2017-Class-Rank-Survey-results-are-in!


5e's rules already include that skilled people don't fail often due to dumb luck, since they auto-succeed the task unless the situation is so that failure would have serious consequences.

So you're complaining about something that's not in the game.

Not sure if you've ever had to make use of training in life-or-death situations, but I have. The swinginess of 5e skill checks does not line up, at all, with my experience of the use of skills where "failure would have serious consequences". If the real world were like D&D, an army in the field could not function. Scouts would constantly derp their stealth checks, commanders would often forget how to read maps, and hardly any vehicles would be left running after a few weeks. There is a certain baseline of competence that people are able to establish which does not simply degenerate to randomness when they are put under stress. Royally screwing up under stress is possible, of course, but a real-world skill system ought to look something much more like the GURPS 3d6 method, with a bell curve of possible outcomes, most of which are clustered in the middle. D&D is almost certainly not going to move to a 3d6 system so, barring that, some baseline proficiency needs to be established beyond what is currently present in the game.

The 1d20 system is appropriate for determining the outcome of attack/damage/save rolls, where chaos favors the fortunate. It is ill-suited, however, to dealing with what it means to be "skilled", in or out of combat. That is my subjective opinion in an area where I have considerably more experience than the average bear.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not sure if you've ever had to make use of training in life-or-death situations, but I have. The swinginess of 5e skill checks does not line up, at all, with my experience of the use of skills where "failure would have serious consequences". If the real world were like D&D, an army in the field could not function. Scouts would constantly derp their stealth checks, commanders would often forget how to read maps, and hardly any vehicles would be left running after a few weeks. There is a certain baseline of competence that people are able to establish which does not simply degenerate to randomness when they are put under stress. Royally screwing up under stress is possible, of course, but a real-world skill system ought to look something much more like the GURPS 3d6 method, with a bell curve of possible outcomes, most of which are clustered in the middle. D&D is almost certainly not going to move to a 3d6 system so, barring that, some baseline proficiency needs to be established beyond what is currently present in the game.


None of those things (except stealth, which is opposed) are good uses of skills in 5e. If you insist on running 5e skills (which really aren't a skill system but a modified ability check system) like that, of course it fails for you. But that's because you're trying to use a pitchfork to dig holes.

If you have a map, you're not rolling Survival checks (or if you are, they're low DC). Maintaining vehicles isn't covered by any skill--just like any tool-related thing those are "if you're proficient, it happens."

The differences between a bell-curve and a flat system only show up in large sample sizes. And within a single game you don't have large sample sizes. You're constantly drawing from different distributions (different modifiers, different TN). That makes the choice of dice used mostly just cosmetic (and taste).

[Unoriginal]

Never said it isn't.

Yet you expressed disbelief that I could be serious about it.



O rly?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542843-2017-Class-Rank-Survey-results-are-in!

That survey was not conducted in a way that can give any result beside from "which class is popular among the people who took this survey".

I could also post this thread :http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545137-What-are-5th-editions-character-tiers&highlight=tier

if I wanted to show the consensus on tiers in 5e based on only one point of data.




Not sure if you've ever had to make use of training in life-or-death situations, but I have. The swinginess of 5e skill checks does not line up, at all, with my experience of the use of skills where "failure would have serious consequences". If the real world were like D&D, an army in the field could not function. There is a certain baseline of competence that people are able to establish which does not simply degenerate to randomness when they are put under stress. Royally screwing up under stress is possible, of course, but a real-world skill system ought to look something much more like the GURPS 3d6 method, with a bell curve of possible outcomes, most of which are clustered in the middle. D&D is almost certainly not going to move to a 3d6 system so, barring that, some baseline proficiency needs to be established beyond what is currently present in the game.

D&D is not a real-world simulator, nor is it trying to be. There is much more baseline proficiency in 5e than in 3.X or 4e by making it so that for a skill check to be required, there need to be a) a logical chance of failure b) important consequences in case of failure.

[the secret fire]

D&D is not a real-world simulator, nor is it trying to be.

No it is not, but that doesn't mean reforming the skills system wouldn't constitute a substantial improvement. I might add that the skills system is probably the one part of the game which tries hardest to simulate real-world interactions. If it utterly fails to do so, that could be construed as a serious problem.


There is much more baseline proficiency in 5e than in 3.X or 4e by making it so that for a skill check to be required, there need to be a) a logical chance of failure b) important consequences in case of failure.

Being better than previous editions doesn't make it good.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No it is not, but that doesn't mean reforming the skills system wouldn't constitute a substantial improvement. I might add that the skills system is probably the one part of the game which tries hardest to simulate real-world interactions. If it utterly fails to do so, that could be construed as a serious problem.


No. The skills system (which you're using wrong) doesn't try to simulate real-world interactions. At all.

And don't confuse your own subjective preferences with objective quality measurements.

Having a "real" skill system would only help if the entire system was built around it, and then you'd have a completely different system with different core assumptions. At that point you really would just have D&D in name only (like people complained about with 4e).

[the secret fire]

None of those things (except stealth, which is opposed) are good uses of skills in 5e. If you insist on running 5e skills (which really aren't a skill system but a modified ability check system) like that, of course it fails for you. But that's because you're trying to use a pitchfork to dig holes.

You may be right about the mechanics, but I think you grossly underestimate the difficulty of trying to navigate under fire. The difference between a trained soldier and a schmuck off the street is a lot more than a proficiency bonus.


The differences between a bell-curve and a flat system only show up in large sample sizes. And within a single game you don't have large sample sizes. You're constantly drawing from different distributions (different modifiers, different TN). That makes the choice of dice used mostly just cosmetic (and taste).

Strongly disagree. Do you have any experience with 3d6 systems? The difference in skill check distributions is palpable. It doesn't take long, at all, before the swinginess of 1d20 rolls starts to feel like a noticeable nuisance in comparison.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Strongly disagree. Do you have any experience with 3d6 systems? The difference in skill check distributions is palpable. It doesn't take long, at all, before the swinginess of 1d20 rolls starts to feel like a noticeable nuisance in comparison.

Humans are really really bad with probability. Are you rolling 30+ identical checks, with identical modifiers, against identical TNs and writing down the results? If not, that perception is entirely due to bias and cannot be trusted.

[the secret fire]

No. The skills system (which you're using wrong) doesn't try to simulate real-world interactions. At all.

That's a bold, and I think plainly incorrect, statement. Somewhere under all that fantasy, there most certainly is a simulationist element to D&D.

[Baptor]

I believe he is talking about something that doesn't get added to every attack, skill and save, just those you are proficient with.

Yes you are correct. They can say whatever they want, but I noticed nothing exactly like proficiency bonus until 5e.


That's not the "innovative" part. The innovative part is actually coming through a bit more on one unified mechanic, which can really be seen in comparison to 3.5. For instance, here's a quick overview of the most common numerical scales in 3.5.

Attributes: 3-18+, Class Skill Ranks: 0-23, Cross Class Skill Ranks: 0-10, Spell Levels: 0-9, BAB: 0-10, 0-15, 0-20, Good Saves: 2-12, Bad Saves: 0-6, DCs: Mostly increments of 5, 10-40., AC: 10-19+ (it can dip below 10, but that's incredibly niche).

5e collapsed this down a fair amount with its Proficiency mechanic, bringing in one core number used all over the place. Suddenly the list has Proficiency: 2-6 substituted in for a fair few of those categories, and No Proficiency: 0 substituted in for others.

Thank you for spelling it out for them, thought I doubt it will do any good. I found nothing about their arguments that 2-4th editions were "innovative" any more or less valid than mine about 5th, but YMMV.

Bottom line is, 5e's bounded accuracy and proficiency system has empowered me as DM to create more homebrew content than any other edition I've played - and I've played them all except for 1st and 4th and I am still very familiar with those systems. Once you realize the core number (D&D's "42" if you will) that everything is based on, building things from scratch is easy. This wasn't so for me in other editions - especially 3rd.

So you might not find it innovative, but to me it was a masterstroke, and frankly the "Come now, there's nothing innovative about stating that modifiers may not be higher than +6." was insulting and unnecessary. Isn't it possible just to answer my honest question and play nice?


Does this topic REALLY belong on the 5e subforum?

It's kinda like asking someone "so, when are you getting a new lover and what kind of person are you looking for?" when you're in the car of said person's lover and they're driving you to your appointment.

It would be more appropriate to put in the general Roleplaying Games forum.

For a short time, many of us were responding with tweaks to 5e. That was nice. Then the edition warriors crashed the party and now its nothing but "5e sucks" posts, so yeah this needs to be moved now. This is why we can't have nice things.

[the secret fire]

Humans are really really bad with probability. Are you rolling 30+ identical checks, with identical modifiers, against identical TNs and writing down the results? If not, that perception is entirely due to bias and cannot be trusted.

Lol...as if one needed to sperge out with a handful of dice and a notepad to understand the effects of a probability distribution curve.

[Unoriginal]

You may be right about the mechanics, but I think you grossly underestimate the difficulty of trying to navigate under fire. The difference between a trained soldier and a schmuck off the street is a lot more than a proficiency bonus.


In D&D, the difference between a schmuck off the street and a trained soldier is between a Commoner and a Guard NPC statblock. You're affirming your bias as if they were facts.

Beside, it seems you are misunderstanding what PhoenixPhyre is saying.

To use an example you used, a commander will never forget how to read a map because, as PhoenixPhyre was saying, it's not the kind of thing you call an Ability check for. It's an auto-success.

[the secret fire]

To use an example you used, a commander will never forget how to read a map because, as PhoenixPhyre was saying, it's not the kind of thing you call an Ability check for. It's an auto-success.

This "auto-success" argument is incredibly convenient. It seems to pop up whenever someone wants to defend the broken skills system. "Lol...you're doing it wrong. That doesn't call for a roll, at all."

Trust me, navigating the labyrinthine streets of an old city while under fire (or repelling down a fast rope in a hot zone, or driving under fire) is neither the kind of task that should result in automatic success, nor the kind of task at which people with appropriate training should fail as often as a 1d20 roll + proficiency bonus would suggest they should. People (ok, mostly ****ty lieutenants) do get lost under fire, but it is not commonplace. This is precisely the space where the 1d20 skills system breaks down.

[Knaight]

The differences between a bell-curve and a flat system only show up in large sample sizes. And within a single game you don't have large sample sizes. You're constantly drawing from different distributions (different modifiers, different TN). That makes the choice of dice used mostly just cosmetic (and taste).

The sample sizes requires aren't that big, and can easily be met within a single game. As a fairly simplified example of this, one can split distributions into quartiles and then use binomial distribution behavior to determine the probability that one particular quartile shows up the expected amount of times or more, and the expected amount of times. Take three convenient distributions as examples, break them into quartile probabilities, and you get this:

1d20: .25, .25, .25, .25
3d6: .0926, .4074, .4074, .0926
11d2 (dice pool of size 11): .0327, .4673, .4673, .0327

Then you can look at a fairly moderate number of rolls - say 20. That's hardly unreasonable for a whole session in most games Looking at first and last quartile probabilities that take advantage of symmetry, here's the probability that each distribution gets over 5 and less than 5 hits.

1d20: .617, .585
3d6: .993, .032
11d2: .9996, .0004

Those aren't even remotely similar. Even at small sample sizes there are obvious differences in behavior, which is far from just being cosmetic.

[Unoriginal]

This "auto-success" argument is incredibly convenient. It seems to pop up whenever someone wants to defend the broken skills system. "Lol...you're doing it wrong. That doesn't call for a roll, at all."

... yes, it's convenient because it's how the game designers have decided to solve the issue.

You're basically saying "this 'people have legs' argument is incredibly convenient. It seems to pop up whenever someone wants to defend the broken walking system."



Trust me, navigating the labyrinthine streets of an old city while under fire (or repelling down a fast rope in a hot zone, or driving under fire) is neither the kind of task that should result in automatic success, nor the kind of task at which people with appropriate training should fail as often as a 1d20 roll + proficiency bonus would suggest they should. People (ok, mostly ****ty lieutenants) do get lost under fire, but it is not commonplace. This is precisely the space where the 1d20 skills system breaks down.

What.

Once again, you're trying to equate D&D and real life.

Also, if you want to say "navigating the streets of an old city while under fire requires an ability check, one that people with appropriate training can fail, but mostly won't", you're describing a WIS (Survival) check of a DC between 10 and 15.

Your basic human Scout would succeed that without much issues.

[Vorpalchicken]

I think d20s are too swingy and 3d6 is too curvy. 2d6 would be about right if you went into hyper bonded accuracy but that's not very d&d like.

d20s produce very chaotic and unrealistic results but that has become part the excitement of the game. Actually adavantage/disadvantage mitigates that a fair bit so overall I think sticking with d20s is the only way to keep it feeling like d&d.

I think the weakness to most saves at high levels needs to be addressed, maybe changed to weakness to a couple saves, but not "Awesome at all saves because I'm high level."

Another thing I would really like cleaned up is bonus actions. That is so overly complicated right now, requiring careful rules parsing to get it right.

Either the fine print should disappear or the idea of bonus actions should.

For example, if you don't want sorcerers to huck two fireballs, you could have quicken only apply to cantrips, rather than writing a twisted fiddly rule that amounts to the same thing.

A further example is right now a shield master can bash before the main attacks, a monk can flurry only after. A berserker can bonus action attack independent of an attack action, so can a hasted character but most other bonus action attacks require a regular action attack.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Lol...as if one needed to sperge out with a handful of dice and a notepad to understand the effects of a probability distribution curve.

Your casual use of slurs is noted.

For everyone else, I ran some numbers in excel. I took sets of samples from the two distributions (3d6 and 1d20) and calculated the probability associated with the Students-T Test (2 tailed, unequal variance). The usual standard is that a probability < 5% indicates that they're probably from different distributions.

Here are the numbers I got:



Data Points
P value


10
0.64


20
0.31


30
0.49


50
0.22



Even after regenerating the numbers many times, in no case did even the 50 roll sample go below 5%. I don't think I've ever seen a session where more than about 15 ability checks were rolled for the whole table during the session.

So yes, you do need a big sample size. That's why they call it the law of large numbers. Probability distributions don't hold (well) for small sample sizes.

Edit:


The sample sizes requires aren't that big, and can easily be met within a single game. As a fairly simplified example of this, one can split distributions into quartiles and then use binomial distribution behavior to determine the probability that one particular quartile shows up the expected amount of times or more, and the expected amount of times. Take three convenient distributions as examples, break them into quartile probabilities, and you get this:

1d20: .25, .25, .25, .25
3d6: .0926, .4074, .4074, .0926
11d2 (dice pool of size 11): .0327, .4673, .4673, .0327

Then you can look at a fairly moderate number of rolls - say 20. That's hardly unreasonable for a whole session in most games Looking at first and last quartile probabilities that take advantage of symmetry, here's the probability that each distribution gets over 5 and less than 5 hits.

1d20: .617, .585
3d6: .993, .032
11d2: .9996, .0004

Those aren't even remotely similar. Even at small sample sizes there are obvious differences in behavior, which is far from just being cosmetic.

You can't do that with small sample sizes. You have to do a T test (or similar). I do accept that in the extreme case (large dice pools) the numbers converge pretty fast. But for 3d6 or 2d10? Nope. And you have to compare like to like and actually keep track. There's also the issue that most of these differences are within the error that comes from having imperfect dice (which basically all D&D dice are). Except in extremes, you're unlikely to see large variations due just to distribution effects in a session, and between sessions things like recency bias, confirmation bias, and other such cognitive effects become much more likely.

[the secret fire]

... yes, it's convenient because it's how the game designers have decided to solve the issue.

You're basically saying "this 'people have legs' argument is incredibly convenient. It seems to pop up whenever someone wants to defend the broken walking system."

And yet walking may require a skill check under certain circumstances. A skill check which a trained acrobat or sailor will fail far too often.


What.

Once again, you're trying to equate D&D and real life.

And you seem to be insinuating that there is no simulationist element, whatsoever, to the game. I don't insist on perfect simulation. I simply want it to be better.


Also, if you want to say "navigating the streets of an old city while under fire requires an ability check, one that people with appropriate training can fail, but mostly won't", you're describing a WIS (Survival) check of a DC between 10 and 15.

Your basic human Scout would succeed that without much issues.

Your basic human scout (all the way up to level 4) with an average Wis who is trained in Survival will have a whopping +2 bonus to his roll. He will fail a DC 10 check 7 out of 20 times. This is precisely the problem. Thank you for formulating it so neatly for me.

[Cynthaer]

Your basic human scout (all the way up to level 4) with an average Wis who is trained in Survival will have a whopping +2 bonus to his roll. He will fail a DC 10 check 7 out of 20 times. This is precisely the problem. Thank you for formulating it so neatly for me.

I mean, you can set the DC to whatever you want. If you set it to 5, then that character would only fail 2/20 times. But the differences are so fiddly at that point that most people won't bother to call for a DC 5 skill check, because usually it's more interesting to get on with the story.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to different design priorities. 3.5e's skill system aimed for more of a "simulate the entire world" approach, which has advantages and disadvantages. 5e's aims for a little more narrative reasoning—the most stripped-down quick-and-dirty decision tree for skill checks in 5e is basically:

[Character tries to do something]
Is it possible? If not, they fail.
Is it trivial? If so, they succeed.
Is failure consequential or interesting? If not, they (eventually) succeed.
Roughly how hard should it be to succeed? DC is 5/10/15/20/25, accordingly (usually between 10 and 20).

I know I've just written out something that gets explained a billion times in these discussions, but my point is to highlight why people are saying things like "5e's skill system isn't simulationist", even though it "simulates" the outcome of actions. Every question in that list was mostly about the narrative goals and circumstances.

Obviously a lot of people hate that aspect of the system, and that's completely fair. It's purely a matter of taste, and I think it's quite reasonable to say you want a more simulationist skill system in a hypothetical 6e (the topic of the thread).

But it's not really relevant to say that the 5e skill system "fails" to accurately simulate certain scenarios probabilistically over time when it's not designed to do that at all.

[the secret fire]

I mean, you can set the DC to whatever you want. If you set it to 5, then that character would only fail 2/20 times.

And a completely untrained person will only fail 4/20 times. You are right that the probability of success on any given roll can be manipulated at will by the DM, but that just comes back to the fact that the difference between a trained and an untrained person's ability to perform under stress is modeled extremely poorly by the current system.


But the differences are so fiddly at that point that most people won't bother to call for a DC 5 skill check, because usually it's more interesting to get on with the story.

I don't find the possibility of getting lost in combat "fiddly", at all, but ymmv.


But it's not really relevant to say that the 5e skill system "fails" to accurately simulate certain scenarios probabilistically over time when it's not designed to do that at all.

Fair enough. I agree that it is not designed to precisely simulate real world scenarios (it is definitely designed to simulate them somewhat), but maintain that it should do a better job of doing so. More reliable skills would lead, imo, to more satisfying gameplay, especially for the classes which depend on non-magical means to get the job done.

[LordEntrails]

... If there's one thing I'd like to see though, it's WotC deciding that they need to compete with Starfinder, and releasing both D&D and a space game, maybe even going into proper science fiction instead of space fantasy. Having one visible genre to people outside RPGs isn't helping grow them.

I think they are getting to re-launch Star Frontiers. They have the IP and they are starting to do something with it...


I love Science Fiction and Science Fiction war games but that is one product I simply would not even look at, much less buy! Played too many products like that “back in the day” and, like Pathfinder, that would be “lock weapons on target, fire until vaporized,” level of disinterest.

What about Star Frontiers? They way the original Volturnus campaign ran, there was actually very little combat. Lots and lots of role playing and exploration. I'm a player in a Volturnus campaign now and often have complete sessions that have no combat at all and there is no shortage of enjoyment and rewards.


Honestly, the problem WotC will have if going science fiction is essentially the sheer variety of games it'll be competing against. Science Fantasy games like Starfinder, harder space opera like Traveller, softer space opera like Star Wars/Trek, transhumanist games like Eclipse Phase and Transhuman Space, even cyberpunk games like Shadowrun and, uh, Cyberpunk....
... But if WotC makes a SF game based on 5e (and if they're not going Science Fantasy it really has to be a new game instead of a supplement) then they're going into a place where they don't have massive name recognition and there's already a fair amount of competition.

Star Frontiers is one of the originals, and though it's community is pretty small, it has been active all of these years.

[Unoriginal]

And yet walking may require a skill check under certain circumstances

Walking on difficult-to-walk-on surfaces may require a check, yes. IF you are not taking the time to do it calmly, in which case it's auto-success.



Your basic human scout (all the way up to level 4) with an average Wis who is trained in Survival will have a whopping +2 bonus to his roll. He will fail a DC 10 check 7 out of 20 times. This is precisely the problem. Thank you for formulating it so neatly for me.

... you're speaking nonsense.

A basic human Scout (as in, the NPC statblock) has +6 to WIS (Survival) checks.

Of course a PC with only average WIS isn't going to be very good at this task. That's like saying "the guy with average STR is not good at STR checks".

[Luccan]

Walking on difficult-to-walk-on surfaces may require a check, yes. IF you are not taking the time to do it calmly, in which case it's auto-success.




... you're speaking nonsense.

A basic human Scout (as in, the NPC statblock) has +6 to WIS (Survival) checks.

Of course a PC with only average WIS isn't going to be very good at this task. That's like saying "the guy with average STR is not good at STR checks".

Far be it from me to speak for them, but I believe they're reffering to the fact that a scout PC at level 4 with average Wis can't be very good by training, barring Expertise. Someone who has trained all their life to scout but isn't naturally better than other people at being intuitive (ok, not gonna start in on all the problems with Wis) is suddenly a mediocre scout at best.

[Pex]

5e's rules already include that skilled people don't fail often due to dumb luck, since they auto-succeed the task unless the situation is so that failure would have serious consequences.

So you're complaining about something that's not in the game.


None of those things (except stealth, which is opposed) are good uses of skills in 5e. If you insist on running 5e skills (which really aren't a skill system but a modified ability check system) like that, of course it fails for you. But that's because you're trying to use a pitchfork to dig holes.

If you have a map, you're not rolling Survival checks (or if you are, they're low DC). Maintaining vehicles isn't covered by any skill--just like any tool-related thing those are "if you're proficient, it happens."

The differences between a bell-curve and a flat system only show up in large sample sizes. And within a single game you don't have large sample sizes. You're constantly drawing from different distributions (different modifiers, different TN). That makes the choice of dice used mostly just cosmetic (and taste).

This is where I cut in for my obligatory rant that different DMs have different opinions on when a PC doesn't need to roll and can just do a thing, and when a roll is called the DC will be different depending on who is DM that day. That's the problem. There is no consistency and no benchmark to compare to claim someone else is doing it wrong.

[MadBear]

This is where I cut in for my obligatory rant that different DMs have different opinions on when a PC doesn't need to roll and can just do a thing, and when a roll is called the DC will be different depending on who is DM that day. That's the problem. There is no consistency and no benchmark to compare to claim someone else is doing it wrong.

and this is where I cut in for my obligatory reply, that I see this flexibility as a strength and not a weakness. As it allows for more diverse play, without players that get to dictate to a DM how the DM runs their game.

I think both a completely quantified and a completely loose set of how skills has benefits and drawbacks for how D&D plays for different tables.

[the secret fire]

Far be it from me to speak for them, but I believe they're reffering to the fact that a scout PC at level 4 with average Wis can't be very good by training, barring Expertise. Someone who has trained all their life to scout but isn't naturally better than other people at being intuitive (ok, not gonna start in on all the problems with Wis) is suddenly a mediocre scout at best.

Yup. This is the problem. I give no ****s about NPC stat blocks or skill checks. The problem is PCs failing skill checks at an absurd rate in spite of being nominally "proficient". PC skills simply aren't as reliable as they ought to be. Player characters, barring a high level of specialization, simply do not feel very skilled.

[the secret fire]

and this is where I cut in for my obligatory reply, that I see this flexibility as a strength and not a weakness. As it allows for more diverse play, without players that get to dictate to a DM how the DM runs their game.

I think both a completely quantified and a completely loose set of how skills has benefits and drawbacks for how D&D plays for different tables.

Some level of standardization is necessary, though. The question here is whether or not there is enough standardization in terms of how skill checks are handled, and if the standards set are good ones. The slippery "Well, a good DM just doesn't call for a roll" response to every criticism of a nebulous and poorly-designed skill system is an insufficient response. Too much flexibility leads to chaos, and a game that is less fun.

If all DMs were angels, we wouldn't need rules.

[mephnick]

Oh sweet another skill system debate. It's been 5 god damn minutes since the last one I guess..

[Pex]

and this is where I cut in for my obligatory reply, that I see this flexibility as a strength and not a weakness. As it allows for more diverse play, without players that get to dictate to a DM how the DM runs their game.

I think both a completely quantified and a completely loose set of how skills has benefits and drawbacks for how D&D plays for different tables.

A player knowing the rules and what his character can do based on those rules does not infringe on the DM being able to run his game. RPGs that are not 5E do that all the time.


Oh sweet another skill system debate. It's been 5 god damn minutes since the last one I guess..

Of course! That's what some of us want in a hypothetical 6E, a return to an established skill system.

[Foxhound438]

Unless a PC finds a way to ensure a + or a proficiency to Wisdom saves, they are guaranteed to flee from an Ancient Dragon's frightening presence. Ancient Black: DC 19 Wisdom; Ancient Blue DC 20 Wisdom; Ancient Green DC 19 Wisdom; Ancient Red DC 21 Wisdom; Ancient White DC 16 Wisdom; Ancient Brass 18; Ancient Bronze 20; Ancient Copper 19; Ancient Gold 24; Ancient Silver 21. (Granted, there are some divine spells that provide a chance to improve on this situation, and a few paladin auras that might be useful ...)

There are a variety of other issues with particular saves, but when half of the party runs away during the first round ... :smallcool:

I concur with Pex that another look at how saves scale up, or don't, would be handy.


That's a good point. But that really isn't a problem with the save-per-stat model, it's a problem with proficiency in a save as one of the only non-stat scaling factors. Even if the system was instead ref/fort/will saves, there's really not a good chance of making the save if you aren't playing a high-wis class that also gets to add proficiency.


O rly?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542843-2017-Class-Rank-Survey-results-are-in!


in case you hadn't actually read through that post, it's purely a popularity contest. All of the rankings that aren't the top and bottom popularity results are literally only defined by "between the rank above and the rank below", with no assessment of the actual usefulness or work output of those classes. Worse yet, the top rank is described as "overpowered and possibly needs nerf", which I can only describe as being ludicrously, comically fallacious. The top 4 rated are lore bard, which is inches rather than miles ahead of any other bard, and really only during the 4 levels where others don't have any magical secrets; diviner wizard, which really comes with no more utility (possibly even less) than other traditions, and is likely only rated high because people like to have the portent ability, not so much because it makes you somehow invincible; the hexblade warlock, which is still worse than even sorcerers at casting and worse than fighters at damage (which really brings emphasis to the fact that this is a popularity contest, not a power ranking, seeing as how so many people were hyping this class up around the time that survey was conducted); and finally the moon druid, which is only great at exactly 2 or exactly 3 levels depending on how you rate elemental forms, and at 20 it's not really that impressive to have "infinite HP(tm)*does not apply to all effects" anymore, especially with the invulnerability spell coming out of XGE.

[Eric Diaz]

I think d20s are too swingy and 3d6 is too curvy. 2d6 would be about right if you went into hyper bonded accuracy but that's not very d&d like.


5e works well with 2d10, at least for skills A fighter with a +5 bonus to athletics+strength will succeed 95% of the time against DC 10, instead of the usual 20% failure rate.

[the secret fire]

in case you hadn't actually read through that post, it's purely a popularity contest.

I read this part:


Looking only at official published classes, there's an unmistakably strong relationship between power and happy gameplay. Nearly all of the well-liked classes ranked B+ or higher, while Elements Monk, Beastmaster, and PDK ruled the bottom of both lists.

...and while I might not agree completely with the particular rankings in that post, it is absurd to claim that there is not a fairly wide disparity in power between some of the classes, with the casters generally coming out on top. Again, I don't think this is nearly as big a problem as it was in previous editions (ignoring 4th), but it is still a thing, yeah. Making non-magical methods of achieving the PCs' ends more viable would be an excellent way of bridging what gap still remains.

I mean...spells go off exactly as planned, every single damn time. They might require an attack roll or trigger a save, but a wizard is never just going to miss with his fireball. Why is the use of magic completely determinate while PCs employing non-magical means are stuck blundering around like idiots due to a deeply flawed skill resolution system? If anything, the reason for this is almost certainly because 5e tries too hard to be simulationist (in spite of protests to the contrary), and does a crappy job of it with respect to skills. I think the game has the pieces in place to be quite well-balanced between the classes as currently constituted, but the imbalance will remain so long as ostensibly "skilled" characters are constantly held at the mercy of a ludicrously swingy skill resolution system.

[Kane0]

Ayup, I use 2d10 and can say it works nicely.

[Garresh]

The only issue I have with 5e is the incredibly vague stealth system. Stealth is 100% fiat, which wouldn't be a bad thing if it included guidelines. Like DMs have nothing to serve as a baseline so the power of stealth-based archetypes and abilities vary wildly between tables. But that doesn't require a new edition. 5e more than any past edition sees players buying not just one but every book. Rebooting it will just kill profits and community.

[Naanomi]

A ‘fixed’ skill system isn’t ever going to really close the caster/martial disparity. It will help things like Invisibility overshadowing stealth perhaps (which it doesn’t in this edition, but you get the concept)... but don’t touch the “genre/scope” changing spells like Teleport, Plane Shift, Ressurection, Wind Walk, Wish, True Polymorph, Clone; spells that don’t only have ‘power’ but also change the kind of tactics and stories that are possible to begin with.

We also still have to contend with spells like ‘Pass Without Trace’, ‘Glibness’, ‘Fabricate’, and ‘Skill Empowerment’... it doesn’t boost martial characters via the skill system doesn’t work if casters dominate skill checks as well

[Ignimortis]

... you're speaking nonsense.

A basic human Scout (as in, the NPC statblock) has +6 to WIS (Survival) checks.

Of course a PC with only average WIS isn't going to be very good at this task. That's like saying "the guy with average STR is not good at STR checks".

But the default system doesn't support the PC without Wisdom as a primary stat having high Wisdom. Best they can do is 16, and it will stay untouched for the rest of the game, probably, and that usually also means that one of their stats has a negative modifier, or that their CON is lower than average (usually being 14 for most characters, as a secondary priority for ALL characters, regardless of class).

The default point-buy values are not the best, because they encourage maxing out (so usually 16 or 17) your primary stat, then getting your CON high enough (usually 14), and then, if you're not wearing heavy armor, then you can't go wrong with 14 DEX. Whoops, that means you're out of stats, because you wanted basic adventuring competence - being good at your job, being tougher to kill than most people, and being tougher to hit than most people.

The exceptions are rogues, who can afford to put a 14 into some score they want higher than normal, and fighters, who can theoretically get by with STR and CON. Everyone else needs 3 stats (primary, CON, and either DEX or STR for AC) to do well. I would much prefer a 32-point buy, which at least would let everyone have an unusual aptitude (+2) in one of their "unimportant" stats.


Yup. This is the problem. I give no ****s about NPC stat blocks or skill checks. The problem is PCs failing skill checks at an absurd rate in spite of being nominally "proficient". PC skills simply aren't as reliable as they ought to be. Player characters, barring a high level of specialization, simply do not feel very skilled.

Hear, hear!

[the secret fire]

A ‘fixed’ skill system isn’t ever going to really close the caster/martial disparity. It will help things like Invisibility overshadowing stealth perhaps (which it doesn’t in this edition, but you get the concept)... but don’t touch the “genre/scope” changing spells like Teleport, Plane Shift, Ressurection, Wind Walk, Wish, True Polymorph, Clone; spells that don’t only have ‘power’ but also change the kind of tactics and stories that are possible to begin with.

The first three of the spells you list are mainly party-level utility spells. The caster being a conduit for party empowerment is really not the problem. High level casters becoming silly powerful doesn't bother me, either. High level wizards should feel pretty godly, I think. It's what happens at the lower levels that is the real problem.


We also still have to contend with spells like ‘Pass Without Trace’, ‘Glibness’, ‘Fabricate’, and ‘Skill Empowerment’... it doesn’t boost martial characters via the skill system doesn’t work if casters dominate skill checks as well

Yes, these spells are also a problem. I have outright banned PwoT from my table for the way it marginalizes conventional stealth (I give Shadow Monks Shadow Blade in exchange). Glibness is an 8th level spell, so whatever, but the others can be problematic, yeah. I assume by "Skill Empowerment" you meant Enhance Ability?

[Naanomi]

The first three of the spells you list are mainly party-level utility spells.
I realize my opinion may not match many others, but the ‘utility’ spells are what really make casters overshadow mundane characters so thoroughly. Imagine two parties, one with no casters and one with all casters... and imagine the kinds of adventures they can do. Tracking across the countryside to get to the liche’s mountaintop lair is a challenge and time sink for martial character... the caster has line of sight to the mountaintop and just teleports there. Want to sell loot? Martial characters better have a wagon and a month to schlep back to town, the casters know a dozen interplanar marketplaces to visit ten minutes from now. Need a Phoenix feather? Martials need to quest, wizards need a rock to True Polymorph into a baby Phoenix.

Yes, in practice that helps the whole party... but it is also what really highlights the difference to me


I assume by "Skill Empowerment" you meant Enhance Ability?
It is in Xanathar’s... expertise for an hour basically

[Kurald Galain]

This "auto-success" argument is incredibly convenient. It seems to pop up whenever someone wants to defend the broken skills system. "Lol...you're doing it wrong. That doesn't call for a roll, at all."
Well, it generally means that skill checks end up something like "DC 15, except DC 10 if you're an elf, except DC 20 for a cleric, except rangers automatically succeed".

And yes, forum threads on 5E skills regularly come up with suggestions like that. So that basically means that the DM is modelling the entire skill system in his head, and you'd better hope he's consistent at that and that in a tense action scene he doesn't forget what your character is supposed to auto-succeed or auto-fail at.

[Beelzebubba]

I realize my opinion may not match many others, but the ‘utility’ spells are what really make casters overshadow mundane characters so thoroughly. Imagine two parties, one with no casters and one with all casters... and imagine the kinds of adventures they can do. Tracking across the countryside to get to the liche’s mountaintop lair is a challenge and time sink for martial character... the caster has line of sight to the mountaintop and just teleports there. Want to sell loot? Martial characters better have a wagon and a month to schlep back to town, the casters know a dozen interplanar marketplaces to visit ten minutes from now. Need a Phoenix feather? Martials need to quest, wizards need a rock to True Polymorph into a baby Phoenix.

Yes, in practice that helps the whole party... but it is also what really highlights the difference to me

Yeah, agreed. I think it's a failure that inter-dimensional portals aren't a bit more 'forward' as a feature of the reality, so martial classes don't need caster chaperones everywhere.

I'm running an 'old school greatest hits' campaign, with storylines culled from 1st and 2nd edition. The one feature I've added to my setting that's different is 'natural portals everywhere', which means getting to the Elemental Plane of Fire can be accomplished by visiting some lava, or the Feywild is accessible via a pool surrounded by Dryad trees.

They can also just open up anywhere - that could explain absolutely bonkers monsters like Beholders, since it's hard to imagine them in a natural ecology. They can also come and go, too, so it's not like the entire world is a sieve to other dimensions.

I'm also revealing portals when plot-appropriate, at the same time spellcasters obtain fast/far travel options. For example, the city's Temple of Pelor is built on the site of a portal to the home plane, which is only accessible to the characters after they win the trust of the church.

I think you can see where this is going - I'm basically turning spells that are plot contrivances into *globally accessible* plot contrivances.

It's definitely not grim 'n gritty, but I'm referencing pulp fantasy tropes like the 'Land of the Dead' being a place you can journey to physically like in Lieber's Fafhrd & Grey Mouser - or The Odyssey.

It doesn't get rid of the imbalance entirely, but it sure minimizes it for the stuff that's most frustrating. And, I think does justice to the pulp fantasy roots of the game.

[Pex]

I realize my opinion may not match many others, but the ‘utility’ spells are what really make casters overshadow mundane characters so thoroughly. Imagine two parties, one with no casters and one with all casters... and imagine the kinds of adventures they can do. Tracking across the countryside to get to the liche’s mountaintop lair is a challenge and time sink for martial character... the caster has line of sight to the mountaintop and just teleports there. Want to sell loot? Martial characters better have a wagon and a month to schlep back to town, the casters know a dozen interplanar marketplaces to visit ten minutes from now. Need a Phoenix feather? Martials need to quest, wizards need a rock to True Polymorph into a baby Phoenix.

Yes, in practice that helps the whole party... but it is also what really highlights the difference to me



Why should it matter that a party of all warriors will have different adventures and challenges than a party of all spellcasters other than DM resentment he doesn't think he can run his all warrior based adventure idea with all spellcaster players at his table?

[Naanomi]

Why should it matter that a party of all warriors will have different adventures and challenges than a party of all spellcasters other than DM resentment he doesn't think he can run his all warrior based adventure idea with all spellcaster players at his table?
I mostly write my adventures out ‘party agnostic’ (as do published adventures for the most part)... which becomes a challenge at higher levels. ‘Ok here, they steal a boat from the pirate lord and brave the monster filled sea in a journey back to the princess’ home town... oh wait... no they just cast teleport circle’; or conversely ‘the next part of the puzzle is a stone from the Elemental plane of earth... which you swordsmen can’t reach... well, never mind the next part of the puzzle is a side quest to find a mage’ or ‘the king lies dead in his tomb, the cult has finally managed to kill him and replace him with... oh, True Ressurection... never mind’

The fact that spellcasters warp adventure potentials like this in ways that other classes do not is a big part of why I see imbalance manifest

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mostly write my adventures out ‘party agnostic’ (as do published adventures for the most part)... which becomes a challenge at higher levels. ‘Ok here, they steal a boat from the pirate lord and brave the monster filled sea in a journey back to the princess’ home town... oh wait... no they just cast teleport circle’; or conversely ‘the next part of the puzzle is a stone from the Elemental plane of earth... which you swordsmen can’t reach... well, never mind the next part of the puzzle is a side quest to find a mage’ or ‘the king lies dead in his tomb, the cult has finally managed to kill him and replace him with... oh, True Ressurection... never mind’

The fact that spellcasters warp adventure potentials like this in ways that other classes do not is a big part of why I see imbalance manifest

In my experience, it's the "party agnostic" thing that breaks down at high levels. Basically, all games tend toward player-directed scenarios as level increases (especially in mid/high T3 and above).

I gave up trying to plan more than bare-bones situations long ago. Trying to cover all the options without a high-level utility caster is hard enough as to make it not useful. I tend to only plan out (other than very high-generality issues) a session or two in advance.

Heck, I had a level 5 party disrupt what I thought was a nicely linear scenario without any spells--they tricked a flunky and ambushed the boss quite a bit early. He'll probably escape, but it turns an infiltrate and explore mission into something quite a bit different.

[Naanomi]

Of course you need to be flexible, and planning too far ahead is challenging (though I’ve had some luck even in high level play... we are running through an adaptation of the ‘quest for glory’ video games now with plans on going to 20 with it)... but there is a difference between “the clever rogues captured the cult leader off guard earlier than I thought they would” and “the mages teleport to Arcadia to recruit an angel army to fight the demon prince directly”

[PhoenixPhyre]

Of course you need to be flexible, and planning too far ahead is challenging (though I’ve had some luck even in high level play... we are running through an adaptation of the ‘quest for glory’ video games now with plans on going to 20 with it)... but there is a difference between “the clever rogues captured the cult leader off guard earlier than I thought they would” and “the mages teleport to Arcadia to recruit an angel army to fight the demon prince directly”

How are they getting to Arcadia? That takes an attuned tuning fork...which is completely under your control. And if the demon prince were really that big a threat, the angels would be knocking on your door without going there. Or they're prevented from interfering for the same reasons that they don't interfere normally.

[Regitnui]

Why should it matter that a party of all warriors will have different adventures and challenges than a party of all spellcasters other than DM resentment he doesn't think he can run his all warrior based adventure idea with all spellcaster players at his table?

Have you ever run a game as a DM, Pex? Because that's not how it works. A DM plans for their players. The main trouble Naanomi was referring to was the fact that a caster, especially full casters, have options at their disposal martial simply cannot replicate. And unless you're giving the martials impossibly strange magic items, they can't plane shift or make food from nothing or heal themselves by tensing their neck and grunting really hard.

The imbalance is not "broken game" in 5e, where a cleric or druid actually needs some support from a party to really be effective. The imbalance is encounters and exploration potential. It doesn't matter than an all-warrior party has different adventures to an all-mage party. It matters that the mage has a swiss army knife and the warrior has a Phillips screwdriver. It's on the DM more than ever before to keep things engaging for martial and magical player characters alike.

[Naanomi]

Attuned forks only cost 250gp, can’t be that rare... and there is always Gate (which can also bring angels where they may not be able to go as well) or Wish (which can negate the material component need)

I don’t want to derail this thread, and I think my stance is clear (even if people don’t agree with it); but ultimately my point: fixing the skill system in a theoretical 6e is unlikely to address perceived caster/martial disparity for a variety of reasons

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don’t want to derail this thread, and I think my stance is clear (even if people don’t agree with it); but ultimately my point: fixing the skill system in a theoretical 6e is unlikely to address perceived caster/martial disparity for a variety of reasons

This I can totally agree with. The "skill system" (which really isn't one, but that's a separate conversation) isn't at the root of any disparity that exists.

In my opinion, the biggest issue is (like in 3e) that spells (especially utility spells) use a permission ticket model--have spell = make effect happen while the rest of the system (especially for martials) use a capability improvement model--improvement reduces the chance of failure but only on things you could meaningfully attempt without the ability.

I'd support moving both to the improvement model--make spells like knock grant proficiency in thieves tools (or advantage on a check or something like that) instead of just opening the door. Things like teleport and plane shift should become non-spell rituals accessible to anyone that pays the correct cost.

[the secret fire]

Have you ever run a game as a DM, Pex? Because that's not how it works. A DM plans for their players.

Yes, full casters are more challenging for DMs, but so what? The level of DM planning necessary is really not the problem, and the utility powers of wizards don't truly warp the game until high levels. If a DM allows a high level wizard into his game and fails to account for that fact, he has no one to blame but himself.

[the secret fire]

In my opinion, the biggest issue is (like in 3e) that spells (especially utility spells) use a permission ticket model--have spell = make effect happen while the rest of the system (especially for martials) use a capability improvement model--improvement reduces the chance of failure but only on things you could meaningfully attempt without the ability.

I'd support moving both to the improvement model--make spells like knock grant proficiency in thieves tools (or advantage on a check or something like that) instead of just opening the door. Things like teleport and plane shift should become non-spell rituals accessible to anyone that pays the correct cost.

You could also have spellcasting require a skill/success check, as it does in DCC, with the possibility of losing spells for nothing and nasty side-effects on a poor roll.

Or you could go the other way (away from the poorly implemented simulationism of the skill system) and give martials abilities which simply work = like the equivalent of Spider Climb, Knock, etc. Either way you want to solve it, the gap between stupidly swingy martial abilities and determinate spellcasting is at the root of the problem here.

[Naanomi]

Making most spells that lack a to-Hit or save now require a skill check (Arcana, religion, Nature, Performance, etc) would be interesting

[Kurald Galain]

Making most spells that lack a to-Hit or save now require a skill check (Arcana, religion, Nature, Performance, etc) would be interesting

So wizards will fail to cast a spell 30% of the time? Yeah, that's going to fly :smallbiggrin:

[Naanomi]

So wizards will fail to cast a spell 30% of the time? Yeah, that's going to fly :smallbiggrin:
Everything a noncaster does has similar failure rates yes?

[KorvinStarmast]

This is where I cut in for my obligatory rant that different DMs have different opinions on when a PC doesn't need to roll and can just do a thing, and when a roll is called the DC will be different depending on who is DM that day. That's the problem. There is no consistency and no benchmark to compare to claim someone else is doing it wrong. Without the ability to fail, there is no success. (Or "success is meaningless" )
Without a consequence for failure, there is no point in making a check with a roll.
Control freak players are as bad for the game as control freak DMs.

I've seen some interesting models of dice pool ability check systems that skew a probabllity curve toward success as one gets to add more dice. I'll find you a link ... D&D doesn't use this, but I like what the systems do to address what an expert does versus a novice

Note: in the original game of D&D, the persuasion/morale check that used charisma was a 2d6 roll with a charisma modifier.
For example, if you had an 18 charisma (+4 modifier), you were unable to get a hostile reaction unless something else added a negative modifier to the attempt.

What you have been complaining about, ad infinitum, regarding 5e is an imbedded problem with a d20 system versus any other dice system.

Lastly: find ways to try and set up the circumstances around the attempt to be with advantage. It's a mechanical feature of the game. Work with your DM, rather than assuming an antagonistic relationship.

[Unoriginal]

Everything a noncaster does has similar failure rates yes?

No.

Not at all.




--------------

Gods and angels, this thread...

Think I'm going to leave it for good, now, because at that point it's making me want to bash my own head with a sledgehammer.

[Kurald Galain]

Everything a noncaster does has similar failure rates yes?

Similar? Hardly. The failure rate for most of your saving throws goes up to about 80%.

[Theodoxus]

I'd love more exposition from those who think the martial/caster divide is over inflated.

I'd like to know what martial can grant advantage against multiple enemies at once (faerie fire); can render multiple enemies inactive at once (hypnotic pattern); can render the battlefield moot through terrain manipulation (fog cloud).

Even low level casters have a massive effect on the battlefield if they're not concentrating (no pun intended) on firebolts and magic missiles. Sure, if you're just comparing damage potential, the divide is slight. If you're comparing how to shut down an encounter, the divide is massive. And to state there isn't a difference between them is a disservice.

I'm a bit sad that 5E didn't ship with a Tome of Battle style martial capability. The closest is the 4 Element Monk, and that's still just borrowing magic and fueling it with a ton of ki.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd love more exposition from those who think the martial/caster divide is over inflated.

I'd like to know what martial can grant advantage against multiple enemies at once (faerie fire); can render multiple enemies inactive at once (hypnotic pattern); can render the battlefield moot through terrain manipulation (fog cloud).

Even low level casters have a massive effect on the battlefield if they're not concentrating (no pun intended) on firebolts and magic missiles. Sure, if you're just comparing damage potential, the divide is slight. If you're comparing how to shut down an encounter, the divide is massive. And to state there isn't a difference between them is a disservice.

I'm a bit sad that 5E didn't ship with a Tome of Battle style martial capability. The closest is the 4 Element Monk, and that's still just borrowing magic and fueling it with a ton of ki. Thank you for your summary of the five minute adventure day. in a day with only one or two encounters, the influence of magic or other 1/day resources will be amplified.

I have used fog cloud in combat: neat effect that lasts for a few rounds at most if the enemy can move out of it. I still like it.
Faerie Fire: nice, so long as you can keep it up and your allies aren't in it. I like it.

[Naanomi]

Thank you for your summary of the five minute adventure day. in a day with only one or two encounters, the influence of magic or other 1/day resources will be amplified.
The ability to grow a magic mansion or teleport back to your inn to nap facilitates resting on demand in ways mundane characters cannot replicate

[Unoriginal]

I'd like to know what martial can grant advantage against multiple enemies at once (faerie fire); can render multiple enemies inactive at once (hypnotic pattern); can render the battlefield moot through terrain manipulation (fog cloud).

Martials can't do that.

The thing is, martials don't NEED to do that.

Martials are good at what they do. Granting advantage against multiple enemies at once or making them inactive is useless without someone that can take care of the enemies.

You have not described "casters take care of the encounter with one spell". You've described "casters help the martials take care of the encounter."

And that's always the thing when people pretend that casters are superior. They take a situation where the casters are assisting the martials in doing their job, and then go "aha, see how the casters are better?"

That, or they live in a world where there is no consequences for casters' actions and where casters never run out of spells.

As for Fog Cloud: it renders the battlefield moot because no one can see anything in the whole terrain. Sure, it can be useful to run away or as part of a strategy, but it's hardly solving any problem on its own.



Even low level casters have a massive effect on the battlefield if they're not concentrating (no pun intended) on firebolts and magic missiles. Sure, if you're just comparing damage potential, the divide is slight. If you're comparing how to shut down an encounter, the divide is massive. And to state there isn't a difference between them is a disservice.

There is no divide, and pretending there is because people are stuck on the god-wizards of 3.X or whatever is the disservice. Casters have a number of "do X" buttons that can, in some circumstances, allow the PCs to avoid some encounters. Otherwise, said buttons help dealing with the encounter. A limited number of time per day, aside from the cantrips. That's good, that's what casters are for.

It does not mean the casters are superior. It means the casters are doing their job.

That's it.


D&D is a team game. Pretending the casters are better, despite the repeatedly lack of evidence for this position, is just saying "All characters are team players, but some are more team players than others."

[Joe dirt]

personally, i would like to see them get away from classes all together and instead go with a system that u pick perks on a perk tree. much like skyrim does. that way if u want to "multiclass" its just a matter of picking the right perks to get the feel. but if u want to specialize then u narrow ur perk selection as u level up.

also some of the spells are broken and we all know it. i would like to see many of those spells go away or nerfed and replaced with well play tested ones. other spells are almost useless, those should gain some usefulness. I know its hard to play test every spell thoroughly but we all know by now what works and what is broken. just tweek the existing spell list.

also i never liked that u only have so many spells per day. i would replace that with spells recharge after so many rounds, hours, or for the most powerful ones... days. and i would add a rule that the time could be decreased based on how many spell casters are aiding in the spell.... would give a coven feel to spell casting that is missing from the rule set so far.

as far as skills, i would make stealth rules much harder, stealth is kind of a broken skill as is passive perception, no more passive, players MUST roll and a nat 1 should be a fail with skills regardless of bonuses

in addition this i would change something fundamental to d&d but i would remove the d20 and go with a d100, it just scales things up and gives more refinement. everything basically becomes a percentage chance of success and failure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

personally, i would like to see them get away from classes all together and instead go with a system that u pick perks on a perk tree. much like skyrim does. that way if u want to "multiclass" its just a matter of picking the right perks to get the feel. but if u want to specialize then u narrow ur perk selection as u level up.


Doing that breaks the idea of D&D 6e and would go over worse than 4e did.



also some of the spells are broken and we all know it. i would like to see many of those spells go away or nerfed and replaced with well play tested ones. other spells are almost useless, those should gain some usefulness. I know its hard to play test every spell thoroughly but we all know by now what works and what is broken. just tweek the existing spell list.

Which ones in particular? I've only seen real breakage with wish + simulacrum, which any sane DM has already banned.

[Unoriginal]

The ability to grow a magic mansion or teleport back to your inn to nap facilitates resting on demand in ways mundane characters cannot replicate


Ah, yes, because now Fighters and Barbarians and the like are "mundane characters".

They're not trained adventurers going in the belly of the earth to steal riches from ghosts and goblins

They're not dragon slayers, demons' banes, breakers of giants.

They're not combatants capable of killing bears and giant snakes with their bare hands.

Nope, not at all.

They're "mundane".

Nothing to see here, folks. As it turns out, Mike Mearls made a mistake, he meant to post the Commoner statblocks half a dozen time in the PHB in-between the Caster classes, you know, for pacing, but for some reason some sort of nonsensical writeup about people swinging swords and axes showed up instead.



personally, i would like to see them get away from classes all together and instead go with a system that u pick perks on a perk tree. much like skyrim does. that way if u want to "multiclass" its just a matter of picking the right perks to get the feel. but if u want to specialize then u narrow ur perk selection as u level up.

So you don't want D&D?



also some of the spells are broken and we all know it. i would like to see many of those spells go away or nerfed and replaced with well play tested ones. other spells are almost useless, those should gain some usefulness. I know its hard to play test every spell thoroughly but we all know by now what works and what is broken. just tweek the existing spell list.

Which spells are those? Aside from wish + simulacrum, like PhoenyxPhyre said, there is no real "broken" spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

The ability to grow a magic mansion or teleport back to your inn to nap facilitates resting on demand in ways mundane characters cannot replicate I like Leomund's Tiny Hut as a ritual. Keeps the rain out. But it isn't *necessary* for adventuring.
Casting that fortress spell in the same spot once each day for a year is neat. No question. (But the other party members are leveling up for that year .... since they are out adventuring)

In a year a mundane character can build/have built a larger fortress, but it costs money/favors/influence. ya know, role playing. :smallbiggrin:

Healing surge. not magic, but handy.
Action surge: not magic, but handy.

Attacks: you never run out of them.
Critical hit increases (some martial classes): not magic, but neat.

IMO, the baseline fighter ought to have at least one more Skill/tool/language at level 1.

Battlemaster: superiority dice are a resource, like a spell, but are not a spell.

[Joe dirt]

Ah, yes, because now Fighters and Barbarians and the like are "mundane characters".

So you don't want D&D?



Which spells are those? Aside from wish + simulacrum, like PhoenyxPhyre said, there is no real "broken" spell.

of course i want D&D... but think about the versatility of having a system where u get starting number of perks and u can build the character that is good at fighting, spell casting, thieving, or healing depending based on where u spend those perks vs the current system in 3.5/5 where u are pigeon holed into making certain decisions... let me give u an example... i like to play wizard types but what if i want to gain a few abilities into healing. the current way is to invest an entire level into say cleric but what if u dont want everything a cleric comes with and just want the healing, well ur forced to take these other things and train as a full cleric. but u see yourself not as a cleric but rather a devout follower of a particular god, while u continue on the journey of being a "wizard" and putting the majority of your perks in the "wizard" tree u would give up a few things that wizards normally get in lou of gaining a bit of healing instead... its the same kind of thing, u are thinking 5th ed is the end all be all. but i come from playing 1rst edition where elf was a "class" u could play.... and yes 4th ed was a disaster. not saying this vision would go over well as people have become "used" to the rules and only like tweaks to the current set generally but if u ever played skyrim u would know how easy and seem less the leveling is. and yes i think its superior to 5th ed.

as far as spells and some being broken, there are a number of them, the druid spell that summons pixies for example then using the pixies to polymorph the entire party is the equivilant of a 9th level spell, mass polymorph. the spell needs to be nerfed so the list does not include pixies.

there are also spells that nobody would ever pick as they are considered too weak when compared with other options. witchbolt is such a spell, i would just make them more useful, while keeping the "feel" of the spell as is.

[Consensus]

Ah, yes, because now Fighters and Barbarians and the like are "mundane characters".
They're not trained adventurers going in the belly of the earth to steal riches from ghosts and goblins
They're not dragon slayers, demons' banes, breakers of giants.
They're not combatants capable of killing bears and giant snakes with their bare hands.
Nope, not at all.
They're "mundane".
Nothing to see here, folks. As it turns out, Mike Mearls made a mistake, he meant to post the Commoner statblocks half a dozen time in the PHB in-between the Caster classes, you know, for pacing, but for some reason some sort of nonsensical writeup about people swinging swords and axes showed up instead.


When people say 'mundane characters' they mean ones that can't use magic, as in the characters are mundane in that regard. Instead of nit-picking over a commonly used term, you could address the rest of the argument in that quote.

[2D8HP]

...I'm running an 'old school greatest hits' campaign, with storylines culled from 1st and 2nd edition. The one feature I've added to my setting that's different is 'natural portals everywhere', which means getting to the Elemental Plane of Fire can be accomplished by visiting some lava, or the Feywild is accessible via a pool surrounded by Dryad trees.

They can also just open up anywhere - that could explain absolutely bonkers monsters like Beholders, since it's hard to imagine them in a natural ecology. They can also come and go, too, so it's not like the entire world is a sieve to other dimensions.

I'm also revealing portals when plot-appropriate, at the same time spellcasters obtain fast/far travel options. For example, the city's Temple of Pelor is built on the site of a portal to the home plane, which is only accessible to the characters after they win the trust of the church.

I think you can see where this is going - I'm basically turning spells that are plot contrivances into *globally accessible* plot contrivances.

It's definitely not grim 'n gritty, but I'm referencing pulp fantasy tropes like the 'Land of the Dead' being a place you can journey to physically like in Lieber's Fafhrd & Grey Mouser - or The Odyssey.

It doesn't get rid of the imbalance entirely, but it sure minimizes it for the stuff that's most frustrating. And, I think does justice to the pulp fantasy roots of the game.


I so want a ticket to that!

PLEASE, BABY, PLEASE!


...also some of the spells are broken and we all know it. i would like to see many of those spells go away or nerfed and replaced with well play tested ones.....


If your saying "Nerf high-level spell caster PC's", I really don't have a problem with that, but unless I DM again, I doubt that I'd even notice.


...as far as skills, i would make stealth rules much harder, stealth is kind of a broken skill as is passive perception, no more passive, players MUST roll and a nat 1 should be a fail with skills regardless of bonuses


Yeah, that I don't like 'cause Stealth is my groove.

I suppose it be okay to nerf a bit at higher levels, but please keep first level as is!


in addition this i would change something fundamental to d&d but i would remove the d20 and go with a d100, it just scales things up and gives more refinement. everything basically becomes a percentage chance of success and failure.


You know, I'd really think you'd like RuneQuest.


...IMO, the baseline fighter ought to have at least one more Skill/tool/language at level 1.


Sounds good.


...Battlemaster: superiority dice are a resource, like a spell, but are not a spell.


Finally! I'm not alone in feeling that the Battlemaster Fighter feels like a caster!

[Naanomi]

Ah, yes, because now Fighters and Barbarians and the like are "mundane characters".
As an adjective to contrast to ‘magical characters’... plenty of casters are ‘martial’ so I don’t like that differentiation per se

DnD is a team activity sure... but to over-extend an analogy, ideally a team should have all positions, and a team of all linebackers or team of all quarterbacks should struggle... but the reality is that all quarterback (caster) team functions fine and can do things the linebacker team can never dream of. In practice it doesn’t matter much, because people tend to field more traditional teams... but the underlying distinction is still evident

That is the last sports analogy I ever hope to make in my life

[Unoriginal]

When people say 'mundane characters' they mean ones that can't use magic, as in the characters are mundane in that regard.

Words have meanings. To call something "mundane" is to imply it lacks something "special", and even when not used in a derogatory context, it still means "nothing to write home about."

And the post was clearly advocating for the superiority of those who are not "mundane".



Instead of nit-picking over a commonly used term, you could address the rest of the argument in that quote.


Casters can provide transportation and shelter. Being the group's taxi driver/portable innkeeper does not make them superior.

[the secret fire]

Martials can't do that.

The thing is, martials don't NEED to do that.

Martials are good at what they do. Granting advantage against multiple enemies at once or making them inactive is useless without someone that can take care of the enemies.

You have not described "casters take care of the encounter with one spell". You've described "casters help the martials take care of the encounter."

I basically agree with you here. i don't think casters dominate combat relative to martials. 5e does a good job of making combat a team effort. It's when the martials try to do anything other than killing things with pointy objects where the real problems start popping up in the system. The skills system is laughably random, and there are too many spells out there which either grossly overshadow skills (Pass Without Trace being the biggest offender, but there are plenty of others), or replace skills, entirely, with an effect which always works (Spider Climb, Knock, etc.) and is therefore not subject to the vicissitudes of a 1d20 die roll.

[Consensus]

Words have meanings. To call something "mundane" is to imply it lacks something "special", and even when not used in a derogatory context, it still means "nothing to write home about."

And the post was clearly advocating for the superiority of those who are not "mundane".


Sorry about being rude last post, but back to the argument :smallsmile:

to trot out dictionary definitions, this is the second one the pops up on google: of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one.
I think that fits this context pretty well. So ultimately my point here is that words have multiple meanings, often based on context and when, talking about D&D characters mundane usually means "unable to or doesn't use magic"

[Unoriginal]

As an adjective to contrast to ‘magical characters’...


We both know that calling any D&D character "mundane" is making them a disservice.


plenty of casters are ‘martial’ so I don’t like that differentiation per se

To me it just show how pointless those "my guy is the strongest" debates are. Plenty of martials are "casters" too.


but the reality is that all quarterback (caster) team functions fine and can do things the linebacker team can never dream of. In practice it doesn’t matter much, because people tend to field more traditional teams... but the underlying distinction is still evident

That's a rather bold claim.

I'd trust an all-martial team to survive a whole adventure much more than I'd trust an all-caster one.

[Naanomi]

I'd trust an all-martial team to survive a whole adventure much more than I'd trust an all-caster one.
If they can get there in the first place without ‘shelter and a taxi’... I’d still put my money on the caster team to actually succeed in the adventure personally, but it is a point of legitimate debate. In the extreme example, a Berserker, Battlemaster, Swashbuckler, Open-Hand Monk... just can’t do a lot of things required of many adventures (fly, Detect Magic, etc) where the Moon Druid, Lore-Bard, Diviner, Tempest Cleric doesn’t have any obvious gaps that they ‘need’ a martial/mundane character to fill

Edit: wait... the party without healing, ressurection, or the ability to teleport away is more likely to survive?

[Pex]

I mostly write my adventures out ‘party agnostic’ (as do published adventures for the most part)... which becomes a challenge at higher levels. ‘Ok here, they steal a boat from the pirate lord and brave the monster filled sea in a journey back to the princess’ home town... oh wait... no they just cast teleport circle’; or conversely ‘the next part of the puzzle is a stone from the Elemental plane of earth... which you swordsmen can’t reach... well, never mind the next part of the puzzle is a side quest to find a mage’ or ‘the king lies dead in his tomb, the cult has finally managed to kill him and replace him with... oh, True Ressurection... never mind’

The fact that spellcasters warp adventure potentials like this in ways that other classes do not is a big part of why I see imbalance manifest

It's important for any DM to know the capabilities of the player characters when designing adventures. Taking into account abilities helps the DM design encounters that allows PCs to shine, give turns for individual PCs to shine, and provide (hopefully) fun challenges when a PC's particular ability he or she likes won't work to save the day. If you don't assess PC abilities that's not the players' fault nor the game's. Eventually a chasm no longer becomes an obstacle. A DM should adapt to that reality, not resent it.

[Naanomi]

It's important for any DM to know the capabilities of the player characters when designing adventures. Taking into account abilities helps the DM design encounters that allows PCs to shine, give turns for individual PCs to shine, and provide (hopefully) fun challenges when a PC's particular ability he or she likes won't work to save the day. If you don't assess PC abilities that's not the players' fault nor the game's. Eventually a chasm no longer becomes an obstacle. A DM should adapt to that reality, not resent it.
So published adventures are... universally bad? Should never be run as written? Should have a thousand if/than scenarios to address individual character options that may or may not be present?

[strangebloke]

of course i want D&D... but think about the versatility of having a system where u get starting number of perks and u can build the character that is good at fighting, spell casting, thieving, or healing depending based on where u spend those perks vs the current system in 3.5/5 where u are pigeon holed into making certain decisions... let me give u an example... i like to play wizard types but what if i want to gain a few abilities into healing. the current way is to invest an entire level into say cleric but what if u dont want everything a cleric comes with and just want the healing, well ur forced to take these other things and train as a full cleric. but u see yourself not as a cleric but rather a devout follower of a particular god, while u continue on the journey of being a "wizard" and putting the majority of your perks in the "wizard" tree u would give up a few things that wizards normally get in lou of gaining a bit of healing instead... its the same kind of thing, u are thinking 5th ed is the end all be all. but i come from playing 1rst edition where elf was a "class" u could play.... and yes 4th ed was a disaster. not saying this vision would go over well as people have become "used" to the rules and only like tweaks to the current set generally but if u ever played skyrim u would know how easy and seem less the leveling is. and yes i think its superior to 5th ed.

See, you're absolutely right to point out the merits of such a system, although I think your examples could use some work. But DND and it's family are the only ttrpgs that do have classes. Gurps, FATE, Mutants and Masterminds... they are all classless, and there if you want them. DND has a few core mechanics that you absolutely can't dispose of and still call it dnd. Classes are one of those things.

[Regitnui]

Putting a chasm in is sometimes done just so the obstacle can be made trivial, and the player can feel awesome.

[Pex]

Without the ability to fail, there is no success. (Or "success is meaningless" )
Without a consequence for failure, there is no point in making a check with a roll.
Control freak players are as bad for the game as control freak DMs.

I've seen some interesting models of dice pool ability check systems that skew a probabllity curve toward success as one gets to add more dice. I'll find you a link ... D&D doesn't use this, but I like what the systems do to address what an expert does versus a novice

Note: in the original game of D&D, the persuasion/morale check that used charisma was a 2d6 roll with a charisma modifier.
For example, if you had an 18 charisma (+4 modifier), you were unable to get a hostile reaction unless something else added a negative modifier to the attempt.

What you have been complaining about, ad infinitum, regarding 5e is an imbedded problem with a d20 system versus any other dice system.

Lastly: find ways to try and set up the circumstances around the attempt to be with advantage. It's a mechanical feature of the game. Work with your DM, rather than assuming an antagonistic relationship.

There is nothing wrong with an autosuccess. The PC is just that good. There doesn't need to be a chance of failure for everything. The fun is in eventually becoming that good then enjoy the fruits of that labor. 5E's problem is when a PC is that good depends on who is DM that day. I go back to climbing trees, but I do so for a reason. Three different campaigns, three different DMs, someone wants to climb a tree. First DM says "OK, you climb the tree. Now what?" Second DM says make an Athletics check DC 10. Third DM says make an Athletics check DC 15. The player has no input on his character's ability to climb trees or any skill that's not an opposed roll. It depends on who is DM that day. It's not about the d20 at all. In Pathfinder, the DC to climb a tree is 15. When not in combat anyone can Take 10, so you need a total +5 climb modifier for autosuccess. Everyone knows when it's an autosuccess or you need to roll and what the DC is for the roll.

[the secret fire]

So published adventures are... universally bad? Should never be run as written? Should have a thousand if/than scenarios to address individual character options that may or may not be present?

No, but a good DM should obviously adapt them somewhat if he's got an unorthodox party. Published adventures are pretty cookie-cutter because they have to be, and yes, they often aren't all that great if played mindlessly and without any preparation on the part of the DM.

[Pex]

So published adventures are... universally bad? Should never be run as written? Should have a thousand if/than scenarios to address individual character options that may or may not be present?

A DM should always read over a published module and make changes as appropriate and/or for taste. A publisher cannot possibly know every party make-up, and besides which it's the DM's campaign, not the publisher. The DM is never subject to the publisher's fancy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A DM should always read over a published module and make changes as appropriate and/or for taste. A publisher cannot possibly know every party make-up, and besides which it's the DM's campaign, not the publisher. The DM is never subject to the publisher's fancy.

I fully agree. Published modules are best used (and there's wording to this effect in the DMG, and in the modules themselves IIRC) as starting points. As labor-saving devices. They can be done straight through with no edits, but at the risk of player grumbling. Even AL allows and encourages small (non-fundamental) changes to the flow of the modules to better fit the group.

[Joe dirt]

See, you're absolutely right to point out the merits of such a system, although I think your examples could use some work. But DND and it's family are the only ttrpgs that do have classes. Gurps, FATE, Mutants and Masterminds... they are all classless, and there if you want them. DND has a few core mechanics that you absolutely can't dispose of and still call it dnd. Classes are one of those things.

actually ur wrong, d&d did officially experiment with such a system. this was in a 2nd edition splat book and it was quite a fresh idea at the time. u basically had so many point to "buy" features, and to cast certain spells u bought the ability and each ability had a cost associated with it. I thought it was interesting back then and i think other systems took it and ran with the idea. but this was very experimental and i have no idea why this didn't take off, my guess is they could never sell the idea to consumers and this splat book was probably the play test for the beginnings of d&d 3rd edition. but then d&d went bankrupt and because of that had to shelve all its ideas on the table and they sold out to what is now known as wizards of the coast, who had their own team of designers who later designed what we now know as 3rd edition, and later with 5th edition (which is basically a streamlined version of 3rd/3.5) due to the popularity of pathfinder, their main competition now.

[strangebloke]

actually ur wrong, d&d did officially experiment with such a system. this was in a 2nd edition splat book and it was quite a fresh idea at the time. u basically had so many point to "buy" features, and to cast certain spells u bought the ability and each ability had a cost associated with it. I thought it was interesting back then and i think other systems took it and ran with the idea. but this was very experimental and i have no idea why this didn't take off, my guess is they could never sell the idea to consumers and this splat book was probably the play test for the beginnings of d&d 3rd edition. but then d&d went bankrupt and because of that had to shelve all its ideas on the table and they sold out to what is now known as wizards of the coast, who had their own team of designers who later designed what we now know as 3rd edition, and later with 5th edition (which is basically a streamlined version of 3rd/3.5) due to the popularity of pathfinder, their main competition now.

I never said that they've never tried it. They've tried everything at some point or other. But if you don't want classes.... why play dnd, as opposed to GURPS or any one of the dozen others?

[Joe dirt]

I never said that they've never tried it. They've tried everything at some point or other. But if you don't want classes.... why play dnd, as opposed to GURPS or any one of the dozen others?

isn't this a thread on the future? a thread on bouncing ideas around. i just think there are superior ways of doing things.

[strangebloke]

isn't this a thread on the future? a thread on bouncing ideas around. i just think there are superior ways of doing things.

Right.

and I'm saying that most systems do things the way you suggest. It does work. But it's also not really dnd, because dnd's class system is one of its defining traits (along with magic loot, dungeon crawls, and certain monster types).

[Joe dirt]

Right.

and I'm saying that most systems do things the way you suggest. It does work. But it's also not really dnd, because dnd's class system is one of its defining traits (along with magic loot, dungeon crawls, and certain monster types).

as i said before i was playing when "elf" was a class... things have changed and change is ok as long as it makes it general idea better

the original "standard" for the system is actually middle ages fantasy, u can fill in the blanks on how the details of that works without "classes", Gandalf was a wizard that used a sword... this perk buy thing works for this without Gandalf needing to take a level in fighter.

btw the 2nd ed splat book title i refer to was called "skills and powers"
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22709715867&searchurl=kn%3Dadvanced%2Bdungeons%2Bdragons%2Bdun geon%2Bmaster%2527s%2Bguide%26sortby%3D17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title10

[Cynthaer]

isn't this a thread on the future? a thread on bouncing ideas around. i just think there are superior ways of doing things.

That's fair enough. I don't think there's a wrong answer to "what would you want in 6e".

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to do that with the D&D brand specifically, because historically one of its biggest strengths is modeling fantasy archetypes with strongly-defined classes.

[strangebloke]

as i said before i was playing when "elf" was a class... things have changed and change is ok as long as it makes it general idea better

the original "standard" for the system is actually middle ages fantasy, u can fill in the blanks on how the details of that works without "classes", Gandalf was a wizard that used a sword... this perk buy thing works for this without Gandalf needing to take a level in fighter.

btw the 2nd ed splat book title i refer to was called "skills and powers"
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22709715867&searchurl=kn%3Dadvanced%2Bdungeons%2Bdragons%2Bdun geon%2Bmaster%2527s%2Bguide%26sortby%3D17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title10

I recognize that many players have been playing since before I was born. I recognize that the game has changed a lot in that time.

I just think that abandoning a class system at this time would make DND less differentiated from its competition, and would likely lead to other games filling in DND's niche of class-based, turn-based, fantasy combat-focused RPG. (pathfinder took over when 4e came out, as an example.) I think this is well-supported by the last twenty years of ttrpg history, and I don't see why dnd changing to be less unique is actually a positive.

[Joe dirt]

I recognize that many players have been playing since before I was born. I recognize that the game has changed a lot in that time.

I just think that abandoning a class system at this time would make DND less differentiated from its competition, and would likely lead to other games filling in DND's niche of class-based, turn-based, fantasy combat-focused RPG. (pathfinder took over when 4e came out, as an example.) I think this is well-supported by the last twenty years of ttrpg history, and I don't see why dnd changing to be less unique is actually a positive.

true that they bombed with 4th ed, but if u want basically an updated version of 5th ed then they should make a 5.5 not a 6th ed.

When i think of generations of d&d i want better and not the same. now im not sure how to market something as radical as what i am saying but i think the makers of 2nd edition was faced with the same problem before their bankruptcy and ultimate sell out to wizards of the coast, how do u get players excited by a superior system but is much different than the base one they had been playing? like i said 3rd edition would look more like what i have been saying had the bankruptcy not happened.

[MadBear]

true that they bombed with 4th ed, but if u want basically an updated version of 5th ed then they should make a 5.5 not a 6th ed.

When i think of generations of d&d i want better and not the same. now im not sure how to market something as radical as what i am saying but i think the makers of 2nd edition was faced with the same problem before their bankruptcy and ultimate sell out to wizards of the coast, how do u get players excited by a superior system but is much different than the base one they had been playing? like i said 3rd edition would look more like what i have been saying had the bankruptcy not happened.

I think the problem you'd face is that what you want to create already exists in numerous other RPG's. You're not creating a new system, but rather taking a classic system and trying to make it fit into a niche that already exists.

Imagine if you will, that the next Star Trek was pitched as "you know, I'm tired of all the political intrigue, and moral dillema's. I'd like a Star Trek that was more about bouncing from one adventure to another, with way more fighting, and a bigger focus on battles."

I mean, Star Wars and other Sci Fi already covers that pretty well.

A 6th ed is going to be bound by some of the tropes that make the game recognizably D&D. Part of that includes classes (despite a skill tree buying system being better), a 1-20 stat that's rolled using d6's (despite it making almost no sense at all), and linear fighters vs exponential wizards (despite how much people say they hate it). Those are all classics of the system that will hand around regardless of the edition, because it's part of what "marks" it D&D.

[strangebloke]

What would I want for 6th?

better skill use rules.
social combat rules
mass combat rules
More generic options like feats, skills, spells, and fighting styles.


I think the problem you'd face is that what you want to create already exists in numerous other RPG's. You're not creating a new system, but rather taking a classic system and trying to make it fit into a niche that already exists.

Imagine if you will, that the next Star Trek was pitched as "you know, I'm tired of all the political intrigue, and moral dillema's. I'd like a Star Trek that was more about bouncing from one adventure to another, with way more fighting, and a bigger focus on battles."

I mean, Star Wars and other Sci Fi already covers that pretty well.

A 6th ed is going to be bound by some of the tropes that make the game recognizably D&D. Part of that includes classes (despite a skill tree buying system being better), a 1-20 stat that's rolled using d6's (despite it making almost no sense at all), and linear fighters vs exponential wizards (despite how much people say they hate it). Those are all classics of the system that will hand around regardless of the edition, because it's part of what "marks" it D&D.

I agree with the intent of your post but I disagree with your examples. Rolling for stats and wizard/fighter power discrepancies are not core to DND as a concept.

Classes, races, loot, combat, and spells as discrete-bits-of-text are all very key to what DND is.

[MadBear]

I agree with the intent of your post but I disagree with your examples. Rolling for stats and wizard/fighter power discrepancies are not core to DND as a concept.

While I would love to say that you're right, the whole wizard/fighter power discrepancy has been with us since the beginning, and the only time they really fixed it (4e), resulted in a massive bust. That's not to say that people don't want the gap to be smaller, but I think that inherently that gap exists within and as part of what makes D&D, D&D.

[strangebloke]

While I would love to say that you're right, the whole wizard/fighter power discrepancy has been with us since the beginning, and the only time they really fixed it (4e), resulted in a massive bust. That's not to say that people don't want the gap to be smaller, but I think that inherently that gap exists within and as part of what makes D&D, D&D.

I think wizards want to be powerful in a certain way, and fighters want to be powerful in a certain way. I think that wizards will continually tell you that their form of power is more powerful than the fighter's form of power, but in my experience in 5e, the discrepancy is really not worth noting, except at the extreme end of optimization.

[FreddyNoNose]

Well if the money starts to dry up, they might create a new system.

[Joe dirt]

I think the problem you'd face is that what you want to create already exists in numerous other RPG's. You're not creating a new system, but rather taking a classic system and trying to make it fit into a niche that already exists.

Imagine if you will, that the next Star Trek was pitched as "you know, I'm tired of all the political intrigue, and moral dillema's. I'd like a Star Trek that was more about bouncing from one adventure to another, with way more fighting, and a bigger focus on battles."

I mean, Star Wars and other Sci Fi already covers that pretty well.

A 6th ed is going to be bound by some of the tropes that make the game recognizably D&D. Part of that includes classes (despite a skill tree buying system being better), a 1-20 stat that's rolled using d6's (despite it making almost no sense at all), and linear fighters vs exponential wizards (despite how much people say they hate it). Those are all classics of the system that will hand around regardless of the edition, because it's part of what "marks" it D&D.

i am not talking about changing d&d from a roll playing game or what it fundamentally is, a fantasy middle ages type system with magic, monsters, gods. im talking about getting rid of the "class" based system and going to a perk buy system so that you can have a more customization in characters.

this does not change the base idea of d&d.

[Daphne]

i am not talking about changing d&d from a roll playing game or what it fundamentally is, a fantasy middle ages type system with magic, monsters, gods. im talking about getting rid of the "class" based system and going to a perk buy system so that you can have a more customization in characters.

this does not change the base idea of d&d.

Yes it does. D&D is a game of strong archetypes, removing classes dilutes this. It also brings back the 3.X character building minigame and removes the simplicity that brought a lot of new players to the game.

[Naanomi]

While I would love to say that you're right, the whole wizard/fighter power discrepancy has been with us since the beginning, and the only time they really fixed it (4e), resulted in a massive bust. That's not to say that people don't want the gap to be smaller, but I think that inherently that gap exists within and as part of what makes D&D, D&D.
I would say that the dichotomy/disparity is not a core part of DnD... but there are a lot of ‘iconic spells’ that are; and they are hard to reconcile comparably to characters lacking them

[Unoriginal]

but I think that inherently that gap exists within and as part of what makes D&D, D&D.

5e proves that you can be D&D without that gap.

[Joe dirt]

Yes it does. D&D is a game of strong archetypes, removing classes dilutes this. It also brings back the 3.X character building minigame and removes the simplicity that brought a lot of new players to the game.

actually originally D&D was a combat simulation game set in a fantasy world. originally elves and dwarves were "classes" as i said earlier d&d has changed many times, and u can certainly have strong archetypes with a perk tree, to get better perks in say archery u invest in those perks, which represents a certain amount of time training and each perk requires prerequisites to gain the more advanced perks.

character creation would be easier.

for example if u wanted to recreate an archer u can keep training (adding perks into the archer perk tree) at the same time if u want someone that is a good archer but also knows some magic u divide your perk selection between the various perk trees. the split perk character would never be as good at archery as the pure archer but might have more versatility.

its just a different way to think about the same problem. as i stated earlier 2nd ed did officially experiment with such a system. it was in a book called skills and powers.

[MaxWilson]

Yes it does. D&D is a game of strong archetypes, removing classes dilutes this. It also brings back the 3.X character building minigame and removes the simplicity that brought a lot of new players to the game.

In practice, removing classes from a game transforms character building from a Knapsack 1-0 problem (NP hard, extremely interesting and difficult to solve) into Continuous Knapsack (trivial, no hard choices). Either you deliberately spend your builds points inefficiently, or you trivially create highly-specialized, narrowly-but-insanely effective characters (e.g. in GURPS 4E, the Totally Abusive Assassination Special power from http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=13861), or the GM steps in with ad hoc modifiers (in GURPS 4E, Unusual Background costs) to bring costs up to something that feels more approximately fair to him, or simply vetoes certain combinations ("you may not take Rapid Fire and shotgun slugs together on Innate Attacks").

In the end the system winds up feeling a lot more bland because you're not forced into interesting tradeoffs.

Playing with classless systems, especially effects-oriented classless systems like GURPS 4E has moved toward, really increased my appreciation for "packages" that make you pay for not-so-good stuff along with really good stuff, and packages with a built-in ordered progression and prerequisites before you can get the best powers. In short, (A)D&D-style classes.

[the secret fire]

...and linear fighters vs exponential wizards (despite how much people say they hate it). Those are all classics of the system that will hand around regardless of the edition, because it's part of what "marks" it D&D.

Nyet. How long have you been playing the game? Before 3rd edition, the martial/caster power balance was a very different sort of thing. "Magic Users" in the old days were considerably more brittle, relatively less powerful, and a fair bit less versatile.

1) They had d4 hit die. They could get literally one-shotted, both by monsters and high-level thieves.
2) Their spells could be interrupted on a hit, regardless of damage. You had to declare your casting at the beginning of a round, and if you took a shot before you came up in the initiative order, you lost the spell. This was a huge hindrance at all levels of play, and one which frequently came into play. An old-school Magic User who got ambushed could easily die without ever getting a spell off. This was made ever more difficult by the weapon speed rules, which allowed guys using small, quick weapons (daggers and darts were the worst) to interrupt a spell even if you beat them in the initiative order.
3) They had limited daily-use of cantrips (starting with AD&D Unearthed Arcana), and these were mostly worthless, anyway. The idea of spamming an attack cantrip was alien to older editions.
4) They leveled up more slowly than the martial classes, lagging a level or so behind by the time they got to the mid-levels.
5) They had the worst saving throws in the game, while the Fighter's saves would get so ridiculous that it became difficult for the Wizard to stick him with save-or-suck spells.
6) Specialization caused them to lose access to one or more spell schools.
7) They were limited to human, half-elf and elf (with only Gnomes getting to be Illusionists).

Perhaps more importantly than all of that, though, is that old-school magic users simply had access to fewer spells. 5e has trimmed down the spell bloat of 3.5, but the 5e Wizards still has a larger range of spells than the pre-3rd edition Magic User had, and none of the potentially horrific side-effects (aging from Haste spells, System Shock save-or-die on Polymorph, "oopsie" fireballs which expand further than intended in enclosed spaces, etc.).

Magic Users in pre-3rd edition D&D were notoriously difficult to play, and tended to meet bloody ends with great regularity. Yes, they could become very powerful at the higher levels, so they were in some sense "quadratic", but it was a hard slog to get there, and they had certain vulnerabilities (compared to 5e Wizards) which never went away.

[MadBear]

Nyet. How long have you been playing the game? Before 3rd edition, the martial/caster power balance was a very different sort of thing. "Magic Users" in the old days were considerably more brittle, relatively less powerful, and a fair bit less versatile.

1) They had d4 hit die. They could get literally one-shotted, both by monsters and high-level thieves.
2) Their spells could be interrupted on a hit, regardless of damage. You had to declare your casting at the beginning of a round, and if you took a shot before you came up in the initiative order, you lost the spell. This was a huge hindrance at all levels of play, and one which frequently came into play. An old-school Magic User who got ambushed could easily die without ever getting a spell off. This was made ever more difficult by the weapon speed rules, which allowed guys using small, quick weapons (daggers and darts were the worst) to interrupt a spell even if you beat them in the initiative order.
3) They had limited daily-use of cantrips (starting with AD&D Unearthed Arcana), and these were mostly worthless, anyway. The idea of spamming an attack cantrip was alien to older editions.
4) They leveled up more slowly than the martial classes, lagging a level or so behind by the time they got to the mid-levels.
5) They had the worst saving throws in the game, while the Fighter's saves would get so ridiculous that it became difficult for the Wizard to stick him with save-or-suck spells.
6) Specialization caused them to lose access to one or more spell schools.
7) They were limited to human, half-elf and elf (with only Gnomes getting to be Illusionists).

Perhaps more importantly than all of that, though, is that old-school magic users simply had access to fewer spells. 5e has trimmed down the spell bloat of 3.5, but the 5e Wizards still has a larger range of spells than the pre-3rd edition Magic User had, and none of the potentially horrific side-effects (aging from Haste spells, System Shock save-or-die on Polymorph, "oopsie" fireballs which expand further than intended in enclosed spaces, etc.).

Magic Users in pre-3rd edition D&D were notoriously difficult to play, and tended to meet bloody ends with great regularity. Yes, they could become very powerful at the higher levels, so they were in some sense "quadratic", but it was a hard slog to get there, and they had certain vulnerabilities (compared to 5e Wizards) which never went away.


I agree with pretty much every thing you just said. Having played my fair share of AD&D (I started playing around 1992 when I was 7), the linear/exponential trend was even greater back then. They've definitely closed the gap where now wizards are much less likely to die horribly at lower levels, and fighters much better overall at higher levels.

Heck back then, the fact that wizards had a higher ceiling was part of the appeal, since they were outclassed so badly early on. Me and my friends saw it as a challenge to have our wizard survive long enough to become the most powerful person in the game.

[Theodoxus]

^ I miss that aspect...

I guess, I'd add to my wishes for 6E, to have a OD&D class leveling scale; Rogues have the smallest XP need, Wizards have the most and the rest are sprinkled in between.

I also would bring back multiclassing, where you're essentially gestalt, having access to two or three classes simultaneously, and XP is split evenly between them. (so a Fighter/Rogue would end up like 11/15 at everyone else's single class 20).

I'd also change current mutliclassing to class based feats. It's amazing and prevents dipping, since there's a feat tax and level limit, as well as limiting secondary classes to a maximum of two choices.

I think it'd be pretty cool to bring back the old saves too. Wand/Staff/Rod; Polymorph; Poison; Spell etc. But have them key off different attributes. Instead of a Fireball using Dex, you'd have "Spell" using Dex. Pretty much a semantic thing, but I grew up on it, and it feels better.

I'd also toss out the 3-20 stats. Sure, it's iconic, but really, how many actual things are tied to the Stat, and not just modifier? All I can think of currently is Jump distance, and that's easy enough to change to 10+Mod+Proficiency if proficient in athletics (Athletics Expertise would naturally double your PB to the distance).

[mephnick]

Heck back then, the fact that wizards had a higher ceiling was part of the appeal, since they were outclassed so badly early on. Me and my friends saw it as a challenge to have our wizard survive long enough to become the most powerful person in the game.

That's why I liked it back then. A wizard getting to high levels back in the day was a group accomplishment, so no one felt cheated when the wizard got super powerful because everyone had a hand in it and now it was this great boon to the party. Now there's no risk in playing a caster so that group effort is no longer needed to keep them alive (relatively) and all everyone cares about is "spotlight time" and following their snowflake backstories. *puts on rose-coloured glasses* It used to be about the team, man.

[MaxWilson]

Nyet. How long have you been playing the game? Before 3rd edition, the martial/caster power balance was a very different sort of thing. "Magic Users" in the old days were considerably more brittle, relatively less powerful, and a fair bit less versatile.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. They were more brittle, yes, but considerably more powerful. In AD&D you could do things with 4th level spells that are impossible even with 9th level spells in 5E, except Wish*. (Because Wish* can do anything the DM lets it do.)



1) They had d4 hit die. They could get literally one-shotted, both by monsters and high-level thieves.
2) Their spells could be interrupted on a hit, regardless of damage. You had to declare your casting at the beginning of a round, and if you took a shot before you came up in the initiative order, you lost the spell. This was a huge hindrance at all levels of play, and one which frequently came into play. An old-school Magic User who got ambushed could easily die without ever getting a spell off. This was made ever more difficult by the weapon speed rules, which allowed guys using small, quick weapons (daggers and darts were the worst) to interrupt a spell even if you beat them in the initiative order.
3) They had limited daily-use of cantrips (starting with AD&D Unearthed Arcana), and these were mostly worthless, anyway. The idea of spamming an attack cantrip was alien to older editions.
4) They leveled up more slowly than the martial classes, lagging a level or so behind by the time they got to the mid-levels.
5) They had the worst saving throws in the game, while the Fighter's saves would get so ridiculous that it became difficult for the Wizard to stick him with save-or-suck spells.
6) Specialization caused them to lose access to one or more spell schools.
7) They were limited to human, half-elf and elf (with only Gnomes getting to be Illusionists).

Perhaps more importantly than all of that, though, is that old-school magic users simply had access to fewer spells. 5e has trimmed down the spell bloat of 3.5, but the 5e Wizards still has a larger range of spells than the pre-3rd edition Magic User had, and none of the potentially horrific side-effects (aging from Haste spells, System Shock save-or-die on Polymorph, "oopsie" fireballs which expand further than intended in enclosed spaces, etc.).

Magic Users in pre-3rd edition D&D were notoriously difficult to play, and tended to meet bloody ends with great regularity. Yes, they could become very powerful at the higher levels, so they were in some sense "quadratic", but it was a hard slog to get there, and they had certain vulnerabilities (compared to 5e Wizards) which never went away.

Everything you say is true, but there were also more powerful spells back then too. Consider the difference between 2nd edition Stoneskin/Ironskin (negate large number of attacks completely, indefinite duration) and 5E Stoneskin (takes concentration, lasts for 1 hour, negates at best half of the damage), or between 2nd edition Magic Jar (works on any type of creature, dying just shunts you back into the Magic Jar so you can take over a new victim, 5th level) and 5E Magic Jar (works only on humanoids, dying has a good chance of killing you, 6th level). Or Invisibility, or Explosive Runes, or Polymorph Self, or Domination, or Mount, etc. Not to mention all the awesome clerical spells from the Tome of Magic's spheres of Mind, Numbers, etc.

There are a small handful of spells like Clone which are clearly better in 5E, and most of them are (like Clone) related to keeping PCs healthy and alive so they can keep adventuring--but in terms of being a proactive force in the world, 5E spellcasters are vastly weaker than 2nd edition spellcasters of the equivalent level. 2nd edition spellcasters were often cubic or better (you get more spells, higher-level spells, and better-working spells as you increase in level--by 20th level you could produce an elephant or a roc with a 1st-level Mount spell) and 5E spellcasters are closer to linear than quadratic, with a few rare exceptions for spells like Planar Binding and Animate Dead that are roughly linear in some other metric like wealth. (And combat power is roughly quadratic in number of troops, so total power for Animate Dead/Planar Binding winds up being roughly quadratic in wealth.)

Count me also as one of those who prefers the AD&D approach to wizarding. Delayed gratification is where it's at--I want to struggle through those early levels on my way to ultimate power! (But really, just ultimate paranoia, since at 20th level I've still got only about 40 HP.)

[the secret fire]

That's why I liked it back then. A wizard getting to high levels back in the day was a group accomplishment, so no one felt cheated when the wizard got super powerful because everyone had a hand in it and now it was this great boon to the party. Now there's no risk in playing a caster so that group effort is no longer needed to keep them alive (relatively) and all everyone cares about is "spotlight time" and following their snowflake backstories. *puts on rose-coloured glasses* It used to be about the team, man.

Agreed. Back in the AD&D days, Magic Users could become mega-powerful at high levels, but nothing about the process felt cheap. If they were going to last that long, they really had to earn it, and they needed a lot of help along the way...a true glass cannon class. I don't ever remember anyone begrudging the Magic Users their eventual payoff, nor bragging about them being "gods", which I find incredibly tiresome.

5e has made them considerably more durable and self-reliant without removing much of the top-end potential. It's not nearly as disgusting as the bad old days of 3.5, but I still prefer my Wizards more on the vulnerable and finicky side.

[the secret fire]

Everything you say is true, but there were also more powerful spells back then too.

Oh, for sure, and I loved that! I hate the current save-or-suck mechanic, and the fact that so many spells have had their teeth pulled. I understand why they did it (playing a Wizard is fun, and the difficulty of the class was a barrier to entry), but there's just so much about the current iteration of the Wizard that feels less exciting, less risky, and less spectacular when it works.

It's not that Magic Users were necessarily less powerful (in many ways they were more powerful), but they were a lot more vulnerable, even at high levels (though Contingency certainly helped). They really needed the rest of the party, and the idea of clearing a dungeon with a party of all Magic Users (something I see bandied about as a viable tactic in 5e) would have been seen as some kind of masochistic fever dream. As mephnik said, it really felt like a group effort to get an AD&D Wizard properly leveled.

[Pex]

I have no problem with the nerfs of spell power over the editions, but count me out to having my first level wizard die from an attack by a house cat. A class weakness existing in the past is no excuse it should exist in the future. Even spellcasters are entitled to survive to level 2.

[Naanomi]

Though even back then you could easily get away without a fighter type... clerics ‘tanked’ well and had generally better saves. It was harder to get away without a rogue though

[MaxWilson]

Oh, for sure, and I loved that! I hate the current save-or-suck mechanic, and the fact that so many spells have had their teeth pulled. I understand why they did it (playing a Wizard is fun, and the difficulty of the class was a barrier to entry), but there's just so much about the current iteration of the Wizard that feels less exciting, less risky, and less spectacular when it works.

I also mildly dislike that 5E wizards can take learning spells for granted. Not only do they have a 100% chance to learn a given spell when they come across it, but they actually get two free spells from nowhere whenever they level up, and by vanilla 5E rules they can choose any two wizard spells they want.

Eat your heart out, Mazirian.


It's not that Magic Users were necessarily less powerful (in many ways they were more powerful), but they were a lot more vulnerable, even at high levels (though Contingency certainly helped). They really needed the rest of the party, and the idea of clearing a dungeon with a party of all Magic Users (something I see bandied about as a viable tactic in 5e) would have been seen as some kind of masochistic fever dream. As mephnik said, it really felt like a group effort to get an AD&D Wizard properly leveled.

Yes, I think the vulnerability of Magic Users is a really neat and important trope.

Note that they had pretty awful saves too until they got above (!) 20th level, at which point their saves went to reasonably-good-but-not-as-good-as-a-fighter's-except-against-spells.

[XIX]

There will be a 6e exactly when their sales of 5e and addons have a big enough dip in sales

[the secret fire]

I also mildly dislike that 5E wizards can take learning spells for granted. Not only do they have a 100% chance to learn a given spell when they come across it, but they actually get two free spells from nowhere whenever they level up, and by vanilla 5E rules they can choose any two wizard spells they want.

Eat your heart out, Mazirian.

Yes, I think the vulnerability of Magic Users is a really neat and important trope.

Note that they had pretty awful saves too until they got above (!) 20th level, at which point their saves went to reasonably-good-but-not-as-good-as-a-fighter's-except-against-spells.

Fortunately (and I give the game a big compliment here), it is not hard to implement a much more AD&Dish Wizard in 5e with a few house rules which do not break the system as a whole.

Incidentally, the other thing I have been crying about in this thread (the skills system), I was long ago able to fix to my liking at my table with a few simple changes to the 5e system. It is definitely a flexible and easy-to-customize game engine. One of it's real virtues.

[the secret fire]

I have no problem with the nerfs of spell power over the editions, but count me out to having my first level wizard die from an attack by a house cat. A class weakness existing in the past is no excuse it should exist in the future. Even spellcasters are entitled to survive to level 2.

I actually enjoyed playing in a world where Magic Users died young. It was part of the appeal of the setting, and the class, I might add. It was a great challenge. There was a ludicrous payoff at the end, but even then, it never felt easy. You were always one hit away from the abyss.

[Pex]

I actually enjoyed playing in a world where Magic Users died young. It was part of the appeal of the setting, and the class, I might add. It was a great challenge. There was a ludicrous payoff at the end, but even then, it never felt easy. You were always one hit away from the abyss.

I fundamentally oppose any game mechanic that punishes you for doing what your character is supposed to be doing, including existing.

[Regitnui]

I fundamentally oppose any game mechanic that punishes you for doing what your character is supposed to be doing, including existing.

That's not a game mechanic punishing a player. It's a balancing factor. Wizards have always had low HP, to balance their ability to attack and immobilize from range with a lack of survivability. It's a thing for mages everywhere, not just D&D.

[Mith]

Nyet. How long have you been playing the game? Before 3rd edition, the martial/caster power balance was a very different sort of thing. "Magic Users" in the old days were considerably more brittle, relatively less powerful, and a fair bit less versatile.

1) They had d4 hit die. They could get literally one-shotted, both by monsters and high-level thieves.
2) Their spells could be interrupted on a hit, regardless of damage. You had to declare your casting at the beginning of a round, and if you took a shot before you came up in the initiative order, you lost the spell. This was a huge hindrance at all levels of play, and one which frequently came into play. An old-school Magic User who got ambushed could easily die without ever getting a spell off. This was made ever more difficult by the weapon speed rules, which allowed guys using small, quick weapons (daggers and darts were the worst) to interrupt a spell even if you beat them in the initiative order.
3) They had limited daily-use of cantrips (starting with AD&D Unearthed Arcana), and these were mostly worthless, anyway. The idea of spamming an attack cantrip was alien to older editions.
4) They leveled up more slowly than the martial classes, lagging a level or so behind by the time they got to the mid-levels.
5) They had the worst saving throws in the game, while the Fighter's saves would get so ridiculous that it became difficult for the Wizard to stick him with save-or-suck spells.
6) Specialization caused them to lose access to one or more spell schools.
7) They were limited to human, half-elf and elf (with only Gnomes getting to be Illusionists).

Perhaps more importantly than all of that, though, is that old-school magic users simply had access to fewer spells. 5e has trimmed down the spell bloat of 3.5, but the 5e Wizards still has a larger range of spells than the pre-3rd edition Magic User had, and none of the potentially horrific side-effects (aging from Haste spells, System Shock save-or-die on Polymorph, "oopsie" fireballs which expand further than intended in enclosed spaces, etc.).

Magic Users in pre-3rd edition D&D were notoriously difficult to play, and tended to meet bloody ends with great regularity. Yes, they could become very powerful at the higher levels, so they were in some sense "quadratic", but it was a hard slog to get there, and they had certain vulnerabilities (compared to 5e Wizards) which never went away.

So I started out with Basic D&D, and while I enjoy 5e alot more than 3.5, I litwrally started cackling with glee seeing the map of The Knowen World in a borrowed copy of Rules Cyclopedia. I enjoy the system more, and have alot more fun with it. But there are things I enjoy about 5e as well.

A non exhaustive list of things I would like to see in a revised edition. Some of these ideas may already be available in 5e that I have forgotten. Furthrr discussion may change my mind. :smalltongue:

-Stat generation: I like 3-18 stat rolling, but since we do not have "roll under stat" checks, a table to roll for modifiers makes more sense. However, since only even stats matter, give a bonus to having an odd stat that makes it unessesary to track exactly what your stat number is. So it goes: 0, 0+ small perk, +1, +1+ small perk, etc. No idea about this perk, since any that I can think of may be better than the +1 and no perk.

-Races: Races give a bonus to stats, with all non human races raising the stat cap on 1 stat by 1 step (22 vs. 20) in accordance to their +2 stat. Any -2 stat implemented sets the cap at 18 (+4). Humans +1 to all gives you either the small perk or raising an attribute. I would group races together as "similar" to make comparable chassis: (Small folk are all Small races), Medium folk have most other races with the exception of Orcs, Goliaths, and Firbolgs, who are large.

-Skill system: I like the idea of using 2d10 to curve rolls vs 1d20, but I would like the idea of using percentiles, thus giving a PC an easy way of rolling to estimate the dufficulty. "The average person (+0, no proficency) would succeed at this [1-DC]% of the time". I would have ability modifiers and proficency help modify the roll, although I am not sure how. Proficency + Stat mod may be enough. I would also add a few more skills to allow for a bit more nuance. Dammit I like Knowledge(Arch./Eng) if only to deal with categorising constructs.

-XP: bring back the longer xp gains. I like the idea of gold being worth more than a monster kill for xp to shift focus of the skills. I think the idea of "spending gold on class resources to convert gold to XP" would make a good money sink and a choice between resources and personal power. Granted, this may also be a terrible idea.

- Allow a means of Gestalt where you take on significant XP dragging, but end up with more class resources. Allow this option at level 3 (become level 2/level 1) or higher. This replaces multiclassing as a concept.

-On the subject of classes in general, I wonder about making some classes higher level entry classes. This probably doesn't work so cleanly anymore, but something like Fighter(Most martial characters), Arcanist(Wizard, Warlock, Alcemist, Artificer), Priest (Cleric, Druid), Mystic (Psion, Sorceror), Skulker(Rouge). The options to expand your character concepts to the other classes become available at 3rd level sub class, 5th level as the new sub class pick for the shifted classes, then proceeding on from there. Bards are either a Rogue class, or they are the mid level jack of all trades they started as.

-Spellcasters get their at will cantrips, but I think they should be changed up. Light for example, should be a way to produce or supress a small light source (torch) for a short period of time, not a magical torch. 1st level dancing lights should be the much more versitile spell that can be used to also create glowing objects. The at will cantrips get the casters feeling like they are magic users, but bot completely invalidating resource drains with cantrips. I also wonder about being able to switch out your cantrips.

-As far as spell casters gaing new spells, I wonder at using a DC at 10+spell level vs. 2d10+ Casting stat + proficency to allow for a wizard to learn from a spellbook or learn at level up. At level up, you roll your check against each spell level you can cast and see if you gain a spell at that spell level. If you fail that check, comapre that roll against the lower level DC. If it beats that check you gain a spell. You can only gain half Proficency modifier spells upon level up.

-As for numbers of spells, I agree with the idea of shrinking the number of spells available as the cantrips always give a caster something to do in combat. Perhaps scale the number of Concentrating effects casters can hold onto up to 3, with the concentration DC increading with each additional spell, and each spell needibg it's own saving throw.

-To give risk to casting spells, I would look at making the Speed factor Initiative the standard combat system, with spells lowering your initiative at -1/level, and having to make Concentration checks if you are targeted before you get the spell off.

-While the difference is largely cosmetic, I like the feel of AD&D saving throw arrays. Tying this array to stats, with potential racial bonuses also coming into play works well.

-Morale saving throws. Perhaps 2d10 to give a curved effect, although percentile may also work.

-A system that allows martials to gain a large grouping of followers based on their Charisma and level starting around level 9. Compare this to casters with the exception of Bards and Clerics that may only be able to take on an apprentice. This allows for a new set of resources such as information networks and being able to bring more bodies to a problem. With this comes the need for mass combat. Ideally one that allows for resolution of squad level and larger so that you can deal with summons/minions easily.

I realise I could build this all myself, or steal other people's work, but this would get me to look at paying out money.

[2D8HP]

I fundamentally oppose any game mechanic that punishes you for doing what your character is supposed to be doing, including existing.


You mean all PC's should have unlimited HP @Pex, because that was the big difference?

Anyway, balance issues have been there at the start of D&D.
I can very much remember how in 70's early 80's it was hard to get anyone to play a "Magic User" (even when the Intelligence score roll was higher their Strength), simply because at low levels they had the least they could do (and the lowest hit points).

Most everyone played "Fighting-Men" to start, but those few who played for "the long game" found that "Magic Users" vastly overpowered other classes at high levels. Thematically and for "world building" it made sense, magicians should be rare, and "the great and powerful Wizard" should be more fearsome then the "mighty Warrior". But as a game? Having separate classes each doing their unique thing is more fun, and always hanging in the back while another PC does everything isn't.

While it ruins my "old school cred" I am in the tank for balance. So far in play (low levels so far) 5e seems to hit it about right, but I find high level play confusing and a bit dull, plus I lack the mental agility to effectively play a spell-caster anyway, plus I want to play Captain Sinbad the hero, not the villainous Sokurah the Magician!


I bought and read the 3e PHB over a decade ago, and have glanced at it, 2e AD&D, 3.5, and 4e but I never played those versions of D&D, so grab a shovel full of salt..

I've played B/X and 5e D&D recently, Oe D&D and 1e AD&D decades ago, and some other RPG's, so those are what I base my responses on.

While in theory Magic-Users became the most powerful characters (it even suggested so in the rules:


1974 - Dungeons & Dragons Book 1: Men & Magic,
(Page 6)

"...Magic-Users: Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long hard road to the top, and to begin with they are very weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up...."



IIRC, in practice Mages were so weak that no one I knew played them long. We only did it when we rolled badly or (briefly) wanted a challenge, so I never saw any Mages past second level that weren't NPC's at my usual tables.

I did encounter some higher level Magic User PC's at DunDraCon around 1980 or so, but the players were bearded college student jerks, who thought they were all that because they could drive and vote!

So what if my character is "Just another imitation Conan", is your Gandalf/Merlin/Thulsa Doom expy that much better?

*rant* *rave* *grumble* *fume*

....anyway, it was such a long slog before a Magic User PC became less weak than the other classes that if they survived to become poweful it seemed like a just reward in old D&D.

[Naanomi]

One of two characters I played to decent levels in older editions was a Mage... I don’t remember it being particularly hard to survive compared to anyone else. Had more tools to survive than the rogue did, who was always one percentage/Stealth roll away from being killed scouting...

[strangebloke]

Having wizards that are puny at low levels and godly at high levels is perfectly fine if the assumption of the campaign is that your character will always start at level one, even if you're joining late in the campaign.

If 'everyone starts at level 9' then having a flat power curve for all classes is better.

[LordEntrails]

Come on, my magic-user had one magic missile per day at level one. You had to hold it back for just the perfect occasion. The rest of the time you just stood in the back with a handful of darts, or a crossbow if you were lucky!

[Pex]

Wizards having less hit points than other characters is not a problem. First level wizards dying from a house cat is a problem. There's a difference.

[Knaight]

actually originally D&D was a combat simulation game set in a fantasy world. originally elves and dwarves were "classes" as i said earlier d&d has changed many times, and u can certainly have strong archetypes with a perk tree, to get better perks in say archery u invest in those perks, which represents a certain amount of time training and each perk requires prerequisites to gain the more advanced perks.
Those elves and dwarves were highly archetypal, as were the rest of the classes. Strong archetypes have been there for the beginning. As for perk trees having strong archetypes, while they can be used for that it's not really a strength of the design - fundamentally what perk trees are good for is allowing for a mix of specializations while placing mechanical focus on what players choose to specialize in, while also allowing for high degrees of mechanical differentiation among characters skilled in similar things.

There's also a matter of how classes and levels are pretty core to making D&D D&D, particularly given how little they're used elsewhere.


Wizards having less hit points than other characters is not a problem. First level wizards dying from a house cat is a problem. There's a difference.
It's a problem with the house cat, and to some extent an example of the HP system getting inherently weird because of the lower bound of 1 damage, where the model just starts working incredibly poorly at low power ranges (while working better at the sort of things the game is actually focused around).

[Regitnui]

Wizards having less hit points than other characters is not a problem. First level wizards dying from a house cat is a problem. There's a difference.

Why are you fighting housecats?

And honestly, there's no way to really model "it hurts and you're bleeding" without taking at least one hit point away. Housecats do inflict damage, they're predators after all, but this is the game coming up short on housecats, not on wizards.

[Mith]

Why are you fighting housecats?

And honestly, there's no way to really model "it hurts and you're bleeding" without taking at least one hit point away. Housecats do inflict damage, they're predators after all, but this is the game coming up short on housecats, not on wizards.

"Against Small or larger creatures, the damage dealt is non-lethal. Every 20 points of non lethal damage is converted to 1 point of lethal damage."

Wordy, and may need fine tuning, but I think the idea is sound.

[Naanomi]

Eh... the housecat situation was always weird. I don’t imagine a cat killing anyone, no matter how weak, in a combat situation... newborn infants routinely survive cat scratches. A swarm of cats maybe... but a single cat shouldn’t have meaningful combat stats in any simulationist model

[Mith]

Eh... the housecat situation was always weird. I don’t imagine a cat killing anyone, no matter how weak, in a combat situation... newborn infants routinely survive cat scratches. A swarm of cats maybe... but a single cat shouldn’t have meaningful combat stats in any simulationist model

Fair enough. The only other thing I can think of besides the non lethal damage mechanic is "Cannot reduce a creature of x size or higher below 1 hp."

[Naanomi]

Fair enough. The only other thing I can think of besides the non lethal damage mechanic is "Cannot reduce a creature of x size or higher below 1 hp."
I wouldn’t even try to model it, I can’t imagine a situation where it would come up in an actual game. If I needed a mechanic it would be 1d2-1 damage; no damage to creatures size small or larger... but I’d never need a mechanic. If a cat was stalking a Polymorphed mouse person, or a familiar... I’d just let any successful ‘to hit’ be Lethal or something

[Knaight]

Eh... the housecat situation was always weird. I don’t imagine a cat killing anyone, no matter how weak, in a combat situation... newborn infants routinely survive cat scratches. A swarm of cats maybe... but a single cat shouldn’t have meaningful combat stats in any simulationist model

On the other hand, the cat can kill mice just fine - clearly it does damage to something. Plenty of simulationist models should work there, for others it doesn't matter. The default D&D damage model without special provisions is one of those other models (which is fine by me; I don't use PV=nRT for high pressure gases and don't hold it against the equation, and I certainly don't hold game mechanics to a higher standard than actual physics/chemistry).

[Naanomi]

True, but then again a mouse probably has 0hp

EDIT: I did the math, on average it would only take 14 house 5e Cats to kill a 1st level 5e Fighter... I think I could take on 14 housecats on real life without dying

[goodpeople25]

"Against Small or larger creatures, the damage dealt is non-lethal. Every 20 points of non lethal damage is converted to 1 point of lethal damage."

Wordy, and may need fine tuning, but I think the idea is sound.
While I guess nonlethal has it's merits for representing how the result is reached, wouldn't the result be pretty much the same besides that it would be much harder for the unconscious victim to die? And the lethal damage seems pretty pointless besides letting it eventually kill things. There seems like there'd be easier solution if you just wanted to avoid deaths.

Shoot forgot to clarify editions, sorry about that. (I know it's a 5e forum but the cat thing makes my mind lean towards 3rd.)

[2D8HP]

My frustration with the 1977 "bluebook" Basic Dungeons & Dragons rules was that there were situation that I couldn't adjudicate using the 48 pages of rules.

My frustration with the 1979 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules, was that with the hundreds of pages of rules I suspected that in there were rules that applied to whatever situation that I had to adjudicate as DM, but watching me flip through seemingly endless pages wasn't fun for my players.

What I'd like as DM/GM is to quickly know what rules apply, and when to make up a ruling.

Less pages and better indices (type big enough for me to read for example, curse your tiny type Index WotC!) would help.

Contra The Giant's:

"I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. It makes it very difficult to "wing" an adventure when there is no system for determining how to assess modifiers to this skill. Is that circumstance worth a -1? A -4? A -15? There's no guidelines given. In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want" (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html)

so many "tools" (rules) that I can't remember or quickly find them is worse for me than my not having those rules and just making something up on the spot, because watching someone else desperately turn pages, or try to decipher opaque text isn't fun for long, consequently I prefer the 48 pages of the bluebook to DM with, or other RPG's entirely to GM (Call of C'thullu is easier than most D&D, and Pendragon while not as easy as CoC, makes up for it with an intriguing setting).

As a player a little more rules than 48 pages is good, because my imagination is sparked more be a catalog than a blank page, but if there's no GM because the heavy rules make it too hard, then I don't get to game which is worse.

What I't like out of a 6e is rules that I may DM/GM well enough so that my players will have fun (and I don't want to flee because, for example, they're firearms in it when worlds without guns is what I RPG to escape!).

As a player I just want a game that I will have fun playing that actually has enough DM/GM's that there's a spot at the table for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I'd like as DM/GM is to quickly know what rules apply, and when to make up a ruling.

Less pages and better indices (type big enough for me to read for example, curse your tiny type Index WotC!) would help.

Contra The Giant's:

"I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. It makes it very difficult to "wing" an adventure when there is no system for determining how to assess modifiers to this skill. Is that circumstance worth a -1? A -4? A -15? There's no guidelines given. In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want" (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html)

so many "tools" (rules) that I can't remember or quickly find them is worse for me than my not having those rules and just making something up on the spot, because watching someone else desperately turn pages, or try to decipher opaque text isn't fun for long, consequently I prefer the 48 pages of the bluebook to DM with, or other RPG's entirely to GM (Call of C'thullu is easier than most D&D, and Pendragon while not as easy as CoC, makes up for it with an intriguing setting).



Amen. As a player, I'd rather the DM make an informed snap judgement and move on instead of focusing on making sure all the legalisms are followed exactly, especially if that comes at the cost of fun. As a DM, I enjoy being trusted enough to exercise discretion.

For all those who feel that rules that aren't written aren't rules at all--the vast majority of the US Federal Code was never enacted by a legislature. Most laws hand massive amounts of discretion to the implementers (the administrative agencies and judges) to decide the parameters. Because they acknowledge that they can't specify things in advance with anything like enough specificity.

In general, a legalistic culture is one that is full of people looking to take advantage. Because it's somehow ok if the book can be twisted into saying something screwy. It's the rules, after all. And we have to follow the rules, don't we?

[Pex]

Amen. As a player, I'd rather the DM make an informed snap judgement and move on instead of focusing on making sure all the legalisms are followed exactly, especially if that comes at the cost of fun. As a DM, I enjoy being trusted enough to exercise discretion.

For all those who feel that rules that aren't written aren't rules at all--the vast majority of the US Federal Code was never enacted by a legislature. Most laws hand massive amounts of discretion to the implementers (the administrative agencies and judges) to decide the parameters. Because they acknowledge that they can't specify things in advance with anything like enough specificity.

In general, a legalistic culture is one that is full of people looking to take advantage. Because it's somehow ok if the book can be twisted into saying something screwy. It's the rules, after all. And we have to follow the rules, don't we?

Where as I want to know what my character can do and not have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day because every DM has to make everything up on the spot. I want that blueprint. I want to know how easily or not my character can climb a tree because of the choices I made for my character and not because Fred is DM instead of Mike today.

[Naanomi]

I don’t see much of a practical difference in implementatiom between 3 and 5 skill system... in the later, the DM makes up the DC... in the former, the DM makes up if the tree has ‘many’ or ‘some’ handholds and the book sets the DC... either way the DM makes some pretty arbitrary decisions that effect the process

[2D8HP]

Where as I want to know what my character can do and not have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day because every DM has to make everything up on the spot. I want that blueprint. I want to know how easily or not my character can climb a tree because of the choices I made for my character and not because Fred is DM instead of Mike today.


As a player I'd be more likely to share your view if I didn't remember how much of a hassle trying to DM a rules heavy system was, and if I didn't find getting a DM to be the hassle it is.

Where is this realm of many DM's that you dwell in?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don’t see much of a practical difference in implementatiom between 3 and 5 skill system... in the later, the DM makes up the DC... in the former, the DM makes up if the tree has ‘many’ or ‘some’ handholds and the book sets the DC... either way the DM makes some pretty arbitrary decisions that effect the process

Agreed. In one case (5e), the delegation is explicit and built into the system with safeguards (DCs are supposed to be in a narrow range from 10-20 most of the time, most things shouldn't need a roll at all). In the other, it pretends to be set by objective factors, but is really up to the content designer and can/will be abused by abusive DMs all while hiding behind the fig leaf of "it's the rules".


As a player I'd be more likely to share your view if I didn't remember how much of a hassle trying to DM a rules heavy system was, and if I didn't find getting a DM to be the hassle it is.

Where is this realm of many DM's that you dwell in?

The only place where character portability is a concern is AL. Strangely enough, there are more constraints on DM discretion in that setting...almost like we should reserve constraints for where they're needed and not inflict them on everyone else where they're only a hindrance...hmmm. No, that would mean that the designers knew what they were doing, and we can't have that.

[strangebloke]

And round and round it goes.

Look, the guidance on skills is just plain anemic. Everyone should agree on that. Many of the 'best practice' things players talk about on here are not in the rules but probably should be, like not calling for certain types of checks or allowing auto success on others.

But then, the guidance we do have is frequently ignored. So there you go.

[Pex]

I don’t see much of a practical difference in implementatiom between 3 and 5 skill system... in the later, the DM makes up the DC... in the former, the DM makes up if the tree has ‘many’ or ‘some’ handholds and the book sets the DC... either way the DM makes some pretty arbitrary decisions that effect the process


When it's only a generic tree there's no need to be concerned about minutiae when creating the adventure. If PCs are climbing trees regularly in Pathfinder you remember it's DC 15, and Take 10 can often mean you don't have to think about it whether something needs a roll or not. The math of the game takes care of it for you. When the DC is not 15 that tree is Special for some reason specifically placed there for a purpose. The DC was determined beforehand when the DM created the adventure. At that moment minutiae was important for that tree. The same applies for other things. A dungeon wall is DC 20 to climb. The Dragon's Lair wall won't be.


As a player I'd be more likely to share your view if I didn't remember how much of a hassle trying to DM a rules heavy system was, and if I didn't find getting a DM to be the hassle it is.

Where is this realm of many DM's that you dwell in?

Repeated use of particular skills leads to memory. Take 10 and Take 20 (Pathfinder) relieves even having to think that hard. If we don't remember or know the exact DC, when even Take 10 gives you a DC 20+ of 25+, depending, we can be sure you succeed unless it's some unusual circumstance. If some skill does need to be looked up, such as when you can't Take 10, it's done and we don't mind it. It takes a few seconds. It's not a tragedy.

[Tanarii]

Many of the 'best practice' things players talk about on here are not in the rules but probably should be, like not calling for certain types of checks or allowing auto success on others.DMG pages 237-240 + PHB 173-178 for the former. DMG of 237, multiple ability checks, for the latter.

Of possibly DMG p237, Ability checks, 2nd paragraph, depending on what you mean. Really, pages 237 and 238 tell the DM everything they need to know, that isn't in the PHB (ie passive & group checks).

Of course, it's nothing like the 3e method, and apparently lost DMs don't actual read it. If forum posts are anything to go by.

[Kurald Galain]

Amen. As a player, I'd rather the DM make an informed snap judgement and move on instead of focusing on making sure all the legalisms are followed exactly, especially if that comes at the cost of fun. As a DM, I enjoy being trusted enough to exercise discretion.

Note how The Giant asks for tools that he can use, and not for legalisms that have to be followed exactly. Frankly, nobody is asking for legalisms that have to be followed exactly.

[FaerieGodfather]

While I love the class as it is, what I want for a "better warlock" is a true double-subclass design.

The first subclass is defined by your patron:

...

No mere boon, the second subclass defines you as a warlock:

I would really like to see "double-subclass" become the standard for every class. Some classes would be "one from column A, one from column B", while others would be "here's your options, pick two".


Nyet. How long have you been playing the game? Before 3rd edition, the martial/caster power balance was a very different sort of thing. "Magic Users" in the old days were considerably more brittle, relatively less powerful, and a fair bit less versatile.

...

Magic Users in pre-3rd edition D&D were notoriously difficult to play, and tended to meet bloody ends with great regularity. Yes, they could become very powerful at the higher levels, so they were in some sense "quadratic", but it was a hard slog to get there, and they had certain vulnerabilities (compared to 5e Wizards) which never went away.

Everyone seems to be mystified where this horrific imbalance came from in d20, but if you look at the transition from AD&D to d20:
The biggest restrictions on spellcasting power were removed because they're "weren't fun"
All of the biggest advantages of warriors were either removed or given to other classes, in the interests of "standardizing" the system, and then:
A bunch of additional restrictions were piled on top of mundane combat and non-weapon proficiencies for no reason at all.

Used to be, Warriors and Rogues had the best saves. Used to be, only Warriors got multiple attacks... and they got mutiple attacks at their full attack bonus while moving. Used to be, you got your full Dexterity bonus to AC even in field plate.

And 5e appears to have tried to reverse a lot of this crap... but only halfway.


I also would bring back multiclassing, where you're essentially gestalt, having access to two or three classes simultaneously, and XP is split evenly between them. (so a Fighter/Rogue would end up like 11/15 at everyone else's single class 20).

I'd also change current mutliclassing to class based feats. It's amazing and prevents dipping, since there's a feat tax and level limit, as well as limiting secondary classes to a maximum of two choices.

YASS KWEEN

I've been trying to get AD&D/Gestalt multiclassing to work in 3.X for over a decade, and I am scared to even try it on with 5e, but it's my Gold Standard: a character who advances evenly in Wizard and Cleric to level 20 (the equivalent of Wiz 10/Clr 10) should be less powerful than a Wizard 20 or Cleric 20, but they should be able to pull their own weight in the same party. Preferably, this same system should also not allow characters to "dip" into classes that they do not intend to pursue; characters should be allowed to multiclass freely, but not for free.

[GreyBlack]

Cleaner delineation on the mental space that the cleric and paladin occupy; either make the cleric more of a spellcaster and less of a fighter, or tone down the spellcasting ability of the paladin and the cleric while introducing a new, more caster class to have a broader spectrum of divine priest options.

[Pex]

Everyone seems to be mystified where this horrific imbalance came from in d20, but if you look at the transition from AD&D to d20:
The biggest restrictions on spellcasting power were removed because they're "weren't fun"
All of the biggest advantages of warriors were either removed or given to other classes, in the interests of "standardizing" the system, and then:
A bunch of additional restrictions were piled on top of mundane combat and non-weapon proficiencies for no reason at all.

Used to be, Warriors and Rogues had the best saves. Used to be, only Warriors got multiple attacks... and they got mutiple attacks at their full attack bonus while moving. Used to be, you got your full Dexterity bonus to AC even in field plate.

And 5e appears to have tried to reverse a lot of this crap... but only halfway.



You can obviously count me in for liking they took away some of the "not fun" restrictions to magic, but I also agree they should not have taken away the Nice Things of warriors such as exclusive multiattacks. The 5ft step and its corollaries smack down the warrior hard. Some feats and class abilities in 3E and Pathfinder try to make up for it, with Tome of Battle being the Great Apology, but yes they could use their Nice Things back. Pathfinder did a little compared to 3E, and a preliminary look at Pathfinder 2E looks like they will do more in their retrofit. We'll know where they're headed when it's finally released.

[FaerieGodfather]

You can obviously count me in for liking they took away some of the "not fun" restrictions to magic, but I also agree they should not have taken away the Nice Things of warriors such as exclusive multiattacks.

Sure, me too. I like 5e-style spell preparation (for Wizards) and Warmage-casting (with a cut-down spell list) for Clerics.

And I actually love the idea of a Concentration check to keep a spell after you eat an Attack of Opportunity.

I just think it's ridiculous they allowed the spellcasters to roll a Concentration check to avoid the Attack of Opportunity.

[Finback]

and what sort of things would you like to see in it?

THRI-KREEN.

That is all.

[FaerieGodfather]

THRI-KREEN.

That is all.

Go back to Thri-Kreen of Athas for the subraces, and include the Xixchil.

[2D8HP]

I think it would've been great if a lot of the Xanthar's content was in the PHB instead of most of the spells.

[Luccan]

I think it would've been great if a lot of the Xanthar's content was in the PHB instead of most of the spells.

To be fair, none of the Xanathars content was complete at that point.

Still, in a 6e, I'd like all classes to have comparable numbers of choices in the base book (unlike in 5e where the wizard got a ton of subclasses outright and classes like ranger got 2)

[Adopteros]

Interesting, where can I find some rules about this game?

[Arkhios]

Interesting, where can I find some rules about this game?

You can't. This is pure speculation and/or wishful thinking of something that may or may not happen. There is no solid proof from wizards of the coast or otherwise, that a 6th edition would be around the corner.

[KorvinStarmast]

The only rule I am sure about is that necromancy is deemed to be evil on the GiTP forums.
Where is this realm of many DM's that you dwell in? It's a fantasy world, a fantasy world, not the real world. Some day, I may try and DM in AL, but at the moment the wife is not going to let me indulge in that, and the public gaming scene nearby is subdued, or dead.


and apparently lost DMs don't actual read it. If forum posts are anything to go by. Yeah.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: 6e Necromancy is a banned school.