Opinion: will you be reluctant or eager to switch from 5E to 6E?

[Necrosnoop110]

I realize this is a stretch because not all the facts are available but how do you think you and your gaming group will handle a full-on new edition? Assuming we get one. Are you a "5E for life" kind of D&Der? Do you think 5E will have as much inertia as 3E did? I still know tables that have no intention of moving beyond 3E as a forgone conclusion.

Just curious of your general thoughts here...

[Dienekes]

Depends on what changes are made to the edition.

I have a growing list of gripes with 5e, but if 6e solves none of them, then why would I care?

[RSP]

Depends on what it looks like. We played Pathfinder and 5E, but not 4E.

If it looks interesting and fun, I imagine we’d try it at least.

[clash]

I'm don't like all of the new changes 5e has been making but it's biggest problem in my opinion is the current lack of consistency. You have backgrounds and subclasses of wildly and intentionally different power levels. Races that were never built to be modular. My biggest hope for 5.5 or 6e is that it had the strengths of 5e but brings back consistent design of core. If I see that I'll switch right away.

[Necrosnoop110]

I'm don't like all of the new changes 5e has been making but it's biggest problem in my opinion is the current lack of consistency. You have backgrounds and subclasses of wildly and intentionally different power levels. Races that were never built to be modular. My biggest hope for 5.5 or 6e is that it had the strengths of 5e but brings back consistent design of core. If I see that I'll switch right away.

Interesting. I get the disparate power level critique especially with the power level/option creep as more rule-books appear. I largely agree with this other than to say that most of the new stuff is truly optional.

But most of the feedback overall, that I've seen, seem to say that 5E is too consistent to core and doesn't allow for mechanical subsystems. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Also, what do you mean by "Races that were never built to be modular"?

Thoughts?

[truemane]

I will buy the core books. I will read them and enjoy them. Good or bad, I always enjoy reading new rulebooks. I am always especially interested in new D&D rulebooks since, as the hobby's lingua franca, a new set of rules always represents a significant cultural moment.

Whether or not I switch over in RL will depend entirely on my players )both my regular group and my semi-regular rotating tables of new people). If I had to guess, I suspect I'll be running 5E tables for some time to come, regardless of how good or bad 6E is.

5E has dug itself deeply into popular culture in a way no RPG has done since I started gaming. So many people play 5E that have never played (and don't play) any other RPG. So the culture shift of a new edition is going to look more a new version of Microsoft Windows than any previous RPG shift.

We live in a bubble here, where it's taken as a given that most of us care deeply about all this. But I play almost entirely with randos and it's not the same out there as it is in here.

A full-blown 6E will be very interesting, in terms of what WOTC thinks we all want and in terms of what the (now very massive and very diverse and very balkanized) player base actually does want.

(on a lesser note, I own more 5E books than I do for any other edition, which will make me a little reluctant to move on)

[Amnestic]

It depends on a) if I like it and b) if other people like it. I like 5e enough that if there's no audience for 6e, even if I like it, I'll probably just stick to 5e - just as many people did with 3.5e vs 4e.

I hope it's good, since I like good things. I'm certainly not married to 5e but if there's not widespread adoption of 6e then it's hard to argue for change (and isn't that just a self-looping situation? \o/)

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Are sales dropping or something that a 6e is needed? Were they skipping a 5.5 mod?

Me, I'd be slightly annoyed and feel like they were forcing new book purchases on me.

Far as trying 6e, if it seemed reasonable I would.

Is this the same company that couldn't figure out how to make money off War At Sea miniatures but shapeways could?

[OldTrees1]

Will I be eager to switch from 5E? A bit, yes. I see room for improvement. Although some of the low hanging fruit can be solved with 5.5E.

Will I be eager to switch to 6E? Depends on which mistakes they double down on and what other mistakes they make. I don't think I will get 6E if it is as incomplete a product as 5E.

[nickl_2000]

If my DMs and group want it, I'll switch if not I won't. I won't be rushing it myself because I like the 5e tools I use

[Sigreid]

I've not been happy with the direction the dev team has been taking 5e for the past few years, so I would not be excited about 6e. That said, the most important component to enjoying an RPG is the people you play with, so if my friends want to switch, I'll probably go along.

[EggKookoo]

I will always try out the new edition. If it's bad, I can go back to the old one. But in general I'm kind of rules-agnostic. Meaning I don't have a preference for any particular edition. It's more important to me that a given edition knows what it is and is true to itself. I found that to be true for 5e.

Each edition solves problems and creates new ones, but usually more solving than creating. I think 3e was the "worst" in terms of solving vs. creating -- it solved a lot but it also created a lot of problems (still more solving than creating in the end, IMHO). And I've never played 4e so I don't know how that shook out from personal experience.

[clash]

Interesting. I get the disparate power level critique especially with the power level/option creep as more rule-books appear. I largely agree with this other than to say that most of the new stuff is truly optional.

But most of the feedback overall, that I've seen, seem to say that 5E is too consistent to core and doesn't allow for mechanical subsystems. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Also, what do you mean by "Races that were never built to be modular"?

Thoughts?

So for your first question about consistency it's things like how the new sorcerers have a subclass spell list and the old ones don't or how a lot of backgrounds now have powerful features built in and can't possibly be used alongside core backgrounds.

As far as races go, each of the core races was built and balanced as a kit. This may be controversially but I love the pick your racial stat bonuses change. I've made much more diverse characters since then. But certain races definitely shine above others because they were balanced as a kit. Like mountain dwarf armor proficiency was never a problem because the stat bonuses were most optional on characters that already had armor proficiency.

I think the next edition is a good chance to go back to core and bring it inline with the new assumptions and design.

[Necrosnoop110]

I don't think I will get 6E if it is as incomplete a product as 5E.

Please elaborate on the incompleteness of 5E. Not that I necessarily disagree (my biggest disappointment for 5E is the lack of robust psionics), I just want to hear your take.

Thanks,
Necro

[Pex]

2024 is still a ways to go. Even then it's colloquially if not officially 5.5E. I suspect when a new campaign starts it will use 5.5E. Any current 5E game will continue, maybe adopting changes on a case by case basis if it's a significant improvement. In a game I run now I did allow the dragonborn to switch to Fizzban version as well as the DM in a game I play.

A hypothetical 6E means a new game engine even if adopts ideas from previous editions. As long as it's not a radical difference like 4E I see no reason not to play it when a new game starts. That will be what, 2026? 2030? I'm more perturbed by the idea of playing with people who didn't exist in the 20th century.

[Necrosnoop110]

I'm more perturbed by the idea of playing with people who didn't exist in the 20th century.

Me right now (https://c.tenor.com/b8WAqSZ2k7AAAAAC/savingprivateryan-ww2.gif).

[paladinn]

Like many here I'll be pragmatic and say, "Let's see what it looks like."

I would sooner see a 5.5 than a 6e. The main need, IMO, is to consolidate all the changes from Xanathar's and Tasha's into the core. There are a lot of new/improved/different mechanics and concepts that have been introduced that have a tenuous relationship to what's gone before. WotC needs to step back and look at the whole thing and say, "How can all of this be applied across the board to make things consistent?"

{Scrubbed}

If there is, in fact, a 6e, it will mean that WotC has really run out of ideas. I get the same vibe from them now that I got when 3e was winding down. An actual 6e should be pretty revolutionary in terms of game mechanics, and I have No idea what that would look like.

[Demonslayer666]

We will likely try it, we did 4th.

I am hopeful that they will improve upon 5th and not try reinventing the wheel.

[OldTrees1]

Please elaborate on the incompleteness of 5E. Not that I necessarily disagree (my biggest disappointment for 5E is the lack of robust psionics), I just want to hear your take.

Thanks,
Necro

There are several sections where 5E decided to slack off and tell the GMs to write the rules instead. Understanding and emphasizing the GM can change the rules is one thing. Using that as an excuse to save labor and not provide a complete default is another.

The 5E ability check system is my biggest disappointment. If it were a robust system that empowered GMs, then it could also be a powerful tool for fleshing out high level characters' level appropriate out of combat utility. Instead we were given bad math, mislabeled DCs, and told to go fix it.

The 2nd biggest disappointment is the dearth of support for the 2 non combat pillars. Yes, they are harder to write content for as a game dev. But that is not an excuse to leave them this bare.

My 3rd biggest disappointment is the relative lack of diversity in PC species. When I was starting GMing, one of the new players had no concept of what was possible and wanted to play a dragon. The party was 6th level and they started as a level appropriate Wyrmling. D&D is incomplete without optional rules and guidance helping the GM let players play monstrous PCs that feel like those monsters (while also having a reasonable divide between PC and NPC creation rules).

5E was a good experiment but some of its tests didn't work. "Ruling not rules" only works if not used as an excuse by the developers to forget to print rules.

[LudicSavant]

I realize this is a stretch because not all the facts are available but how do you think you and your gaming group will handle a full-on new edition?

Depends if the new edition is good or not.

[EggKookoo]

My 3rd biggest disappointment is the relative lack of diversity in PC species. When I was starting GMing, one of the new players had no concept of what was possible and wanted to play a dragon. The party was 6th level and they started as a level appropriate Wyrmling. D&D is incomplete without optional rules and guidance helping the GM let players play monstrous PCs that feel like those monsters (while also having a reasonable divide between PC and NPC creation rules).

I would disagree here. I don't think D&D is under any obligation to allow you to play whatever you want. Certainly not as part of the core rules. A later "Play as an Actual Dragon" supplement? Sure. But not out of the gate.

Encouraging new players to take it slow at the start is a way to build a lasting relationship with the game. If the cooler/weirder stuff comes later, after learning the basics, it creates a sense of progression and mastery. It feels earned. If you just give the kid the keys to the Lamborghini as soon as he gets his license he's never going to appreciate what it means to have it. It takes a certain amount of responsibility and self-discipline to play an Actual Dragon PC without disrupting the game for everyone else.

[Segev]

Depends if the new edition is good or not.

Same here.

I am disturbed by the direction a lot of the choices the designers seem to be taking right now, as they seem to be making the game lose flavor in the (alleged) name of "balance" (this time defined by "variety of choice" that amounts to "everything will be the same but you can call it whatever you like")... and, more fundamentally, I feel they're making an enormous mistake by leaning away from short rest mechanics and into long rest mechanics. If there was a balance problem between the two, it would be better resolved by leaning more heavily into short rest mechanics, thereby helping ameliorate the 15-minute adventuring day, rather than encouraging it more strongly.

[OldTrees1]

I would disagree here. I don't think D&D is under any obligation to allow you to play whatever you want. Certainly not as part of the core rules. A later "Play as an Actual Dragon" supplement? Sure. But not out of the gate.

I too would not place it in the core 3 books. The DMG needs room for other things. It would be a supplement that gives the GM support and guidance for handling reasonable desires to play a monstrous PC.

PS: "Obligated" is poor word choice because D&D is not obligated to do anything. I think D&D aspires to be a generic fantasy RPG. Part of that position is providing support or guidance for handling monstrous PCs.


Encouraging new players to take it slow at the start is a way to build a lasting relationship with the game. If the cooler/weirder stuff comes later, after learning the basics, it creates a sense of progression and mastery. It feels earned. If you just give the kid the keys to the Lamborghini as soon as he gets his license he's never going to appreciate what it means to have it. It takes a certain amount of responsibility and self-discipline to play an Actual Dragon PC without disrupting the game for everyone else.

Good wisdom.

However if everyone involved can handle it, there is merit in letting the player have their creativity rather than restrict the new player to a more regimented experience.

With 20:20 hindsight, I think I made the right call. I appreciate the support and guidance D&D provided at the time in that earlier edition.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would disagree here. I don't think D&D is under any obligation to allow you to play whatever you want. Certainly not as part of the core rules. A later "Play as an Actual Dragon" supplement? Sure. But not out of the gate.

Encouraging new players to take it slow at the start is a way to build a lasting relationship with the game. If the cooler/weirder stuff comes later, after learning the basics, it creates a sense of progression and mastery. It feels earned. If you just give the kid the keys to the Lamborghini as soon as he gets his license he's never going to appreciate what it means to have it. It takes a certain amount of responsibility and self-discipline to play an Actual Dragon PC without disrupting the game for everyone else.

I agree with this.


Same here.

I am disturbed by the direction a lot of the choices the designers seem to be taking right now, as they seem to be making the game lose flavor in the (alleged) name of "balance" (this time defined by "variety of choice" that amounts to "everything will be the same but you can call it whatever you like")... and, more fundamentally, I feel they're making an enormous mistake by leaning away from short rest mechanics and into long rest mechanics. If there was a balance problem between the two, it would be better resolved by leaning more heavily into short rest mechanics, thereby helping ameliorate the 15-minute adventuring day, rather than encouraging it more strongly.

Yeah. On both accounts.


I too would not place it in the core 3 books. The DMG needs room for other things. It would be a supplement that gives the GM support and guidance for handling reasonable desires to play a monstrous PC.

PS: "Obligated" is poor word choice because D&D is not obligated to do anything. I think D&D aspires to be a generic fantasy RPG. Part of that position is providing support or guidance for handling monstrous PCs.


5e does not, in any way, aspire to be a generic fantasy rpg, except in the minds of people who are stuck in 3e. Which did aspire to that, stupidly. As time goes on, 5e has become even less generic.

[Psyren]

I'm in no rush for 6e, I think 5.5e has a lot of potential to improve and refresh the current edition. At the very least, I want to see what gaps remain before theorizing about what 6e could do.

For me, the open-endedness of this edition is a strength; they just need to (a) lay out the thought process DMs should go through when calling for an ability check more clearly, and (b) give a few broad examples of what sorts of challenges might become automatic or at least unchallenging as you advance through tiers.

[Segev]

(a) lay out the thought process DMs should go through when calling for an ability check more clearly, and (b) give a few broad examples of what sorts of challenges might become automatic or at least unchallenging as you advance through tiers.

These would both be very welcome, I agree.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm in no rush for 6e, I think 5.5e has a lot of potential to improve and refresh the current edition. At the very least, I want to see what gaps remain before theorizing about what 6e could do.

For me, the open-endedness of this edition is a strength; they just need to (a) lay out the thought process DMs should go through when calling for an ability check more clearly, and (b) give a few broad examples of what sorts of challenges might become automatic or at least unchallenging as you advance through tiers.


These would both be very welcome, I agree.

I third this.

[OldTrees1]

5e does not, in any way, aspire to be a generic fantasy rpg, except in the minds of people who are stuck in 3e. Which did aspire to that, stupidly. As time goes on, 5e has become even less generic.

You disagreed with something inside a decreasingly relevant tangent, therefore you decided to label any who disagree with you as "people who are stuck in <insert something here>".

You could have left my clarifying post alone inside its decreasingly relevant tangent. Instead you could have focused on the thread's topic.

I think it is best if we end it here.

[False God]

I don't really "switch" editions. I just end up repurposing them for specific styles of games.

Will I try it? Sure probably.

[Telok]

My group, in fact 90% of all gamers in this city, will blindly ditch the 5e books for the official wotc approved next best thing without any consideration of... well... anything. Because most of them are basically consumer sheep who only ever see marketing & ads for d&d. To play anything but the current wotc d&d flavor I'll have to run it myself.

[Zuras]

Given how annoyed I feel whenever I think about spending money on Monsters of the Multiverse when I already paid for the same content, I’d probably either stick with 5e or give something else a try out of pique.

If I’m going to need to learn a new system, I’d rather make a clean break, either to a more narrative system (Fate, 2d20, Savage Worlds) or to a more distinct crunchy system that at least won’t constantly trip me up by naming everything the same but using different rules (PF2 or something OSR).

If everyone at the table wanted to switch, I’ll probably buy a new PHB and participate, but I definitely wouldn’t be volunteer to DM and buy a new shelf of hardcovers.

[Selion]

I realize this is a stretch because not all the facts are available but how do you think you and your gaming group will handle a full-on new edition? Assuming we get one. Are you a "5E for life" kind of D&Der? Do you think 5E will have as much inertia as 3E did? I still know tables that have no intention of moving beyond 3E as a forgone conclusion.

Just curious of your general thoughts here...

This is what I guess will happen in my gaming group.
After the 6e release, there will be a period in which the content disparity will be in favour of 5e despite how good the new core mechanics will be. In the meanwhile old campaigns will keep going in the old system, while some sporadic one shot adventures will test the new rules. This until new content will kick in and become the new standard (unless its a disaster like 4e), then characters will be updated /rebranded to fit the new rules

[stoutstien]

Im pretty far from an edition purest so if there is content I like I'll use it and leave the rest behind like I've always done.

[Sandeman]

If they rebalance and fix some of the problems in 5E we will switch without much friction.

[tiornys]

If I’m going to need to learn a new system, I’d rather make a clean break, either to a more narrative system (Fate, 2d20, Savage Worlds) or to a more distinct crunchy system that at least won’t constantly trip me up by naming everything the same but using different rules (PF2 or something OSR).
I've had my eye on Icon (still in beta) as an interesting fusion of a narrative system with a crunchy combat system.

Odds are high that I'll prefer 6e to 5e. Maybe I'll even like it enough to be willing to DM it over 4e.

[Rynjin]

A hypothetical 6E means a new game engine even if adopts ideas from previous editions. As long as it's not a radical difference like 4E I see no reason not to play it when a new game starts. That will be what, 2026? 2030? I'm more perturbed by the idea of playing with people who didn't exist in the 20th century.

Yeah, the "issue" is that D&D is actually really bizarre compared to other RPGs. The game has pretty much reinvented the wheel with every single edition, to the point that they're completely different games.

Most RPGs don't do this. Yeah, you can point and say that Shadowrun 6e is unrecognizable compared to 1e, but 2e wasn't so different than 1e, 3e not so much compared to 2e, etc.

But D&D? Whoever has owned D&D at any given time has always felt the need to burn everything down and start from scratch with every new edition.

So anyone 5e fan "excited for" 6e is probably in for a rude awakening if they expect it to meaningfully resemble 5e. Even if a hypothetical 6e ends up being REALLY GOOD, it might not appeal to the current 5e playerbase.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So anyone 5e fan "excited for" 6e is probably in for a rude awakening if they expect it to meaningfully resemble 5e. Even if a hypothetical 6e ends up being REALLY GOOD, it might not appeal to the current 5e playerbase.

In fact, anyone who likes 5e is very likely to be disappointed in 6e, if historical trends hold. Because each edition is written, in large part, as a reaction against the perceived failures of the previous one. Thus the drunken wobble back and forth.

[Greywander]

I've been pretty vocal about my opinions regarding the recent direction 5e has taken. 5e started off in a fantastic place, not perfect, mind you, but it had a really strong start. Then they basically replaced the entire dev team, and things have... gone in a different direction. I'll concede that some people might like the new direction, but it's a clear departure from what made early 5e so popular in the first place.

Now, I don't expect 6e for a while. But I am of the opinion that 5e is entering a decline. I think the so-called "5.5e" will either save it or break it, and, well, I don't have high hopes. If 5e continues as it has, and in fact doubles down on what they've been doing, and absolutely tanks, then my expectation is that 6e will go in completely the opposite direction. This might mean they throw the baby out with the bathwater, distancing themselves from anything to do with 5e, similar to how they treated 4e, but it could also mean a sort of "reset" back to something like early 5e but with a different design direction thereafter.

Even so, I don't expect 6e for some time, maybe 2026 at the earliest, but more likely '28 or '30, depending on how swiftly 5e declines. I think by then I may have found a non-D&D system I prefer playing, or written up my own. But if I am still playing D&D at that point, then whatever 6e was would probably be better than what 5e had become.

[Angelalex242]

Eh. We're comparing a known quantity to a question mark. That is not a fair comparison.

[Kane0]

Reluctant because i made a point of collecting all the books i reasonably could for this edition. I can't justify doing that again

[Zevox]

I realize this is a stretch because not all the facts are available but how do you think you and your gaming group will handle a full-on new edition? Assuming we get one. Are you a "5E for life" kind of D&Der? Do you think 5E will have as much inertia as 3E did? I still know tables that have no intention of moving beyond 3E as a forgone conclusion.

Just curious of your general thoughts here...
Are you referring the announced backwards-compatible new sourcebooks coming in two years that everyone is referring to as 5.5E? Or a hypothetical full new edition that would have to be further off? Either way it depends upon the details, but my initial reaction to each idea is different.

For the former, I'm open to it but not enthusiastically looking forward to it. If it does turn out to be to 5E what 3.5 was to 3E, I might well encourage my group to get it. I'm happy with 5E as it stands, but I don't doubt it could be improved upon. If it doesn't look like it's adding anything I care for though, or like it's moving further away from 5E than their statements about it would imply, I might just shrug and ignore it as well.

For the latter, I'd be much more skeptical - again, because I'm happy with 5E. If the new edition looked really appealing for whatever reason, maybe I could be convinced, but by default, I wouldn't be excited if they came out and announced "6E D&D is coming!" Kind of like how, when 4th Edition was announced, my reaction was "why?" And I pretty much wrote it off entirely after hearing what it was doing to my favorite setting, the Forgotten Realms.

For the rest of my group, I have no idea. Everyone else I play with started with 5E, so I've never seen them react to an edition change before.

[Warder]

I've already switched away from 5e to PF2e in my local game, and given that WotC seems to be heading down a design direction that's the complete opposite of what I want, I doubt that will change. For my online group that still plays 5e, I suspect we'll just play whatever the DM wants to play. Which is fine. But I'm not giving WotC any more money for poor products, at least.

[Akal Saris]

I dislike the lack of options in 5E compared with 3E/PF, so if 6E embraces a more customizable approach to characters, then I would strongly push my group to adopt it.

[kazaryu]

it depends on how long it takes to get to 6e. we'll almost certainly not switch before the end of the current campaign. although i doubt we'll get 6e before my current campaign finishes..

but even then i'd be reticent to switch, since my current group is starting off new in 5e, i wouldn't wanna push them to learn a new system so soon after, even if it is still a d20 system.


but thats just my group. i'd have no problem straddling the line, just as i currently would have no problem playing a 4e or Pathfinder campaign. i'll almost certainly get the handbook when it comes out.

[Yakmala]

There's no way to judge at this point.

I played the hell out of earlier editions of D&D but only lasted a month in 4e before ditching it. 5e I've been playing for years and will happily continue to do so if 6e is garbage. If 6e is an improvement, or at least something equal but new, I'll probably switch.

[Skrum]

I'm excited. I'm generally in favor of the newest thing. I like new things. Assuming 6e isn't a complete disaster, I'll be pushing my group to switch for sure.

[t209]

I dislike the lack of options in 5E compared with 3E/PF, so if 6E embraces a more customizable approach to characters, then I would strongly push my group to adopt it.

Agreed. Maybe they could call it Advanced DnD 5E edition.
You know want to market it as “dnd but for bigger Brain” like the original ADnD.

[Hael]

I suspect we will switch over, unless its a disaster like 4e. I wasn't a fan of 5e to begin with, but things have definitely improved with Xanathars through Tashas at least (before the MoTM fail).

Sadly many of the most recent design decisions are troubling (many of which are eerily reminiscent of the initial dumbing down of DnD which originally displeased me) but well I will give it a fair shake.

[tsotate]

It depends in part on how hard WotC pushes people to switch. Now that they own dndbeyond, will staying with 5e even be an option for people heavily invested in the toolchain?

I honestly sort of hope not, since it will be much easier to convince my group to transition to pf2e if we're forced to change editions anyway.

[Zhorn]

It depends in part on how hard WotC pushes people to switch. Now that they own dndbeyond, will staying with 5e even be an option for people heavily invested in the toolchain?
I'm sure it'll be fine
It's not like there was some past precedence set with a WotC owned digital platform during an edition changeover

[kazaryu]

So anyone 5e fan "excited for" 6e is probably in for a rude awakening if they expect it to meaningfully resemble 5e. Even if a hypothetical 6e ends up being REALLY GOOD, it might not appeal to the current 5e playerbase.

i don't know...i'd say that it being a d20 system would be enough to 'meaningfully' resemble 5e. thats how i felt about 5e coming from pathfinder. and i didn't find 4e all that foreign either when i tried it. i do agree that depending on the design direction it takes, it may not appeal to the playerbase tho

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Are sales dropping or something that a 6e is needed? Were they skipping a 5.5 mod?

Me, I'd be slightly annoyed and feel like they were forcing new book purchases on me.

No one is forcing new purchases on you, but looking at the timeline.

Original D&D: 1974-1976 - 2 Years
Original AD&D: 1977-1988 - 11 years
AD&D 2e: 1989-1999 - 10 years
D&D 3.X: 2000-2007 - 7 years
D&D 4e: 2008-2013 - 5 years
D^D 5e: 2014-Present: 8 years.

None of WotC's editions have lasted as long as the TSR ones did. But given that 5e has been around longer now than either 4e or 3.X and given that even the failure that was 4th Edition still went 3 years longer than Gygax waited to revise. I don't think it's really right to claim they're rushing anything here.

[Leon]

Eventfully im sure but in the short term no reason to rush off to a new system, was still playing 3.P till the start of the lockdowns and only shifted to 5e because that's what was being offered by new groups and would easily go back to 3.P if a game were to be offered. Never played 4th as a player, ran a game of it once right at the start of its run but thru all its time i was playing 3.P games.

[Greywander]

No one is forcing new purchases on you, but looking at the timeline.

Original D&D: 1974-1976 - 2 Years
Original AD&D: 1977-1988 - 11 years
AD&D 2e: 1989-1999 - 10 years
D&D 3.X: 2000-2007 - 7 years
D&D 4e: 2008-2013 - 5 years
D^D 5e: 2014-Present: 8 years.

None of WotC's editions have lasted as long as the TSR ones did. But given that 5e has been around longer now than either 4e or 3.X and given that even the failure that was 4th Edition still went 3 years longer than Gygax waited to revise. I don't think it's really right to claim they're rushing anything here.
I think there's something to be said about how technology is changing the TTRPG space. Games-as-a-service is starting to become a thing, so a game that continually updates and gradually replaces old content with new content might be more desirable for some people. It's sort of a Ship of Theseus thing: is it really the same game if every aspect of it has been completely replaced? Call me old school, but I think I'd prefer a hard edition change if they need to make radical changes, instead of making gradual changes over a long period of time. For me, it would just be hard to commit to buy a book when I know it will be obsolete at some point in the near future. Even books from a past edition are still valid for that edition, but we're already seeing 5e content that's been overwritten by newer content.

Anyway, if they did commit to a games-as-a-service model then you could expect that edition to last pretty much indefinitely. Too bad the same can't be said for individual pieces of content within that edition.

[Ignimortis]

I am 99% sure that the theoretical 6e will appeal to me even less than 5e, since 5e has enjoyed wild success and thus WotC is unlikely to try something new and radically different from 5e. IMO, though, they should, D&D-likes aside from 4e have been Frankensteining the 3e PHB over and over in an attempt to get it right, whereas it's quite possible that it has always been bad and salvaging it is impossible.

[Warder]

Agreed. Maybe they could call it Advanced DnD 5E edition.
You know want to market it as “dnd but for bigger Brain” like the original ADnD.

I've seen so much resistance to any form of Expert rules for 5e, and I'll never understand why. From day one of seeing 5e it always struck me as a very modular ruleset which would make injection of advanced rules easy (and likely the intent at some point, though that was my own speculation). But from the backlash whenever anything even slightly mechanically complex is presented or even suggested, I suppose it's also easy to see why they would've dropped it.

It reminds me though, I really should check out Level Up at some point. It was on my radar for very long and then I just sort of forgot about it, it'd be interesting to see if they actually delivered on the promises.

[OldTrees1]

I've seen so much resistance to any form of Expert rules for 5e, and I'll never understand why. From day one of seeing 5e it always struck me as a very modular ruleset which would make injection of advanced rules easy (and likely the intent at some point, though that was my own speculation). But from the backlash whenever anything even slightly mechanically complex is presented or even suggested, I suppose it's also easy to see why they would've dropped it.

It reminds me though, I really should check out Level Up at some point. It was on my radar for very long and then I just sort of forgot about it, it'd be interesting to see if they actually delivered on the promises.

This might be because "Expert rules" tend to be heard as or even sold as "Complexity for complexity's sake" regardless of the actual intended sale's pitch.

In general, complexity is viewed as a cost. You only have a budget of X complexity, before it is too complex. What returns do you gain from this source of complexity? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Sometimes yes but only as a variant you would never use but you reckon some other playgroup would.

[EggKookoo]

This might be because "Expert rules" tend to be heard as or even sold as "Complexity for complexity's sake" regardless of the actual intended sale's pitch.

In general, complexity is viewed as a cost. You only have a budget of X complexity, before it is too complex. What returns do you gain from this source of complexity? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Sometimes yes but only as a variant you would never use but you reckon some other playgroup would.

There's also the issue of creep. Say I want more detail in weapon types. Not too much to add some complexity there. But then say you want more detail in the crafting rules. By itself, also probably not too bad to add complexity. But now the game as a whole has increased in complexity in both areas. A third person has to either work with or make an effort to avoid them if they're not wanted.

What I like about a simpler system like 5e is it allows me to add complexity at my table without impacting your table. The moment that added complexity becomes official, even if packaged as an option, it becomes something all players have to deal with one way or another.

[J-H]

I probably won't switch. I still have 3 more years of campaign queued up and the design direction the last couple of years has been moving away from my preferences instead of towards them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's also the issue of creep. Say I want more detail in weapon types. Not too much to add some complexity there. But then say you want more detail in the crafting rules. By itself, also probably not too bad to add complexity. But now the game as a whole has increased in complexity in both areas. A third person has to either work with or make an effort to avoid them if they're not wanted.

What I like about a simpler system like 5e is it allows me to add complexity at my table without impacting your table. The moment that added complexity becomes official, even if packaged as an option, it becomes something all players have to deal with one way or another.

Agreed. And this extra (from my perspective) complexity comes at a cost--developers spend time making such things, rather than cleaning up loopholes or building new cool things that actually fit the system.

Complexity, in my mind, is a sometimes necessary evil. It's a cost that occasionally must be paid. Not something with inherent positive value. Personally, I think they should simplify (streamline might be a better word) casters, not lard on extra dice rolls into martials and call it features. Let people do cool things without jumping through mechanical hoops to do so. Yes you can is better, most of the time, than yes you can, sometimes, depending on the outcome of this roll which is modified by those circumstances, but only x times per day. Unless y.

[DigoDragon]

I will be reluctant to switch, but only because I have invested in a lot in 5e books and am having a difficult time find a local group willing to play 5e. Haven't been able to get into a forum PbP game that lasts either. No point spending money if I'm not able to use the material. ^^

[Keltest]

I personally am unlikely to even purchase most of the so-called 5.5 content, let alone a hypothetical 6e. The design direction theyre taking the game is drastically unappealing to me, and they seem to be making decisions based on placating the Twitter peanut gallery rather than just making a fun game and letting people do what they will with it.

I personally have spent a few hundred dollars on 5e stuff as it is, and I fully intend to have that last me decades if I can help it. I'm sure as heck not going to spend more money on stuff I already have (twice, if you count my AD&D stuff!), especially if the quality drop continues.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have a growing list of gripes with 5e, but if 6e solves none of them, then why would I care? I feel similarly, but the core + some of Xanathar's is pretty good. (The falling rules from Xanathar's are still rubbish and Hexblade is but one example of how badly wrong they can go in one direction, and the battle rager how garbagely they can go in another direction).

I will buy the core books. I will read them and enjoy them. Probably, but I want to be in on the play test.

5E has dug itself deeply into popular culture in a way no RPG has done since I started gaming. So many people play 5E that have never played (and don't play) any other RPG. So the culture shift of a new edition is going to look more a new version of Microsoft Windows than any previous RPG shift. I support this observation.

In a game I run now I did allow the dragonborn to switch to Fizzban version as well as the DM in a game I play. Me too, I liked the upgrade.

A hypothetical 6E means a new game engine even if adopts ideas from previous editions. As long as it's not a radical difference like 4E I see no reason not to play it when a new game starts. If they do to D&D what 4e did, they'll deserve the blood letting that will ensue.

If there is, in fact, a 6e, it will mean that WotC has really run out of ideas. They have not run out of bad ideas, though, see a variety of the new UA offerings in the last three years. :smallyuk:

For me, the open-endedness of this edition is a strength; they just need to (a) lay out the thought process DMs should go through when calling for an ability check more clearly, and (b) give a few broad examples of what sorts of challenges might become automatic or at least unchallenging as you advance through tiers. The DMG was high on page count and low on "how to be a good DM" advice. If nothing else, a better DMG for new DM's would be welcome.

To play anything but the current wotc d&d flavor I'll have to run it myself. I think your best move is to develop new GMs and new DMs. Sometimes, I have had to say "no, not playing unless someone else is the DM/GM." In some cases, no game, in other cases, someone else was "next man up" as it were.

Whoever has owned D&D at any given time has always felt the need to burn everything down and start from scratch with every new edition. Not true for the AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e change, and very much not true in the Basic (Holmes) to B/X (and then BECMI) editions. The latter was in particular an improvement.

So anyone 5e fan "excited for" 6e is probably in for a rude awakening if they expect it to meaningfully resemble 5e. I worry that you are correct.

In fact, anyone who likes 5e is very likely to be disappointed in 6e, if historical trends hold. Not to mention how many books I already have.

Reluctant because i made a point of collecting all the books i reasonably could for this edition. I can't justify doing that again Yep. Me neither, and my wife is already not pleased with how many I do have.

I'm sure it'll be fine
It's not like there was some past precedence set with a WotC owned digital platform during an edition changeover Indeed, that's the next piece of the problem.

To answer the OP: will you be reluctant or eager to switch from 5E to 6E?
Neither.

[Tanarii]

If I don't eagerly switch, it will be the first edition of D&D I have not done that. But "Tasha" design team currently in power has given me no reason to hope, and I've boycotted all of their products so far.

And it could still happen. I utterly ripped on Mearls for 4e Essentials, and even left the gaming world for a few years as a result. And then it turned out he did know what he was doing after all.

Even if I am still a little bitter about Martials losing Powers. :smallamused:



Not true for the AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e change, and very much not true in the Basic (Holmes) to B/X (and then BECMI) editions.
It felt a lot like a burning to me at the time, but it was my first edition change. Before that I'd been mashing up BECMI and AD&D, so I hadn't seen previous revisions.

But even the release of 2e C&T was enough to show me I'd been mistaken about it being a burning. And of course, then 3e. Now the AD&D -> 2e switch looks almost like clearing the clutter and tidying up.

[KorvinStarmast]

Now the AD&D -> 2e switch looks almost like clearing the clutter and tidying up. That's how it seemed at the time, but I will say that I didn't really get into B/X and BECMI that much until I had a new group that started with BX. And I still ran that as a mish mash of AD&D 1e and B/X/C because most of my stuff was AD&D 1e heavy.

[druid91]

Frankly I've already mostly switched from 5e to Warhammer RPGs and WoD. I think the last book I bought was Fizbans Dragon book and that was a one-off because I always like to get the dragon book out of Nostalgia for my dads 'The Hobbit' inspired D&D campaigns when I was growing up that always had a dragon.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'd say largely reluctant.

Perhaps the only direction that designers seem to be going that I'd say is an improvement is balancing out short and long rests (if not removing SRs entirely).

Otherwise, I'd say there are a number of things that seem to be status quo or getting worse, mostly regarding published mods that we tend to use. In no particular order:

1. 'Races' effectively becoming skins. They really just need to do away with that word and use 'Species'.

2. No real attempt to balance the exploration pillar with the others. Though I will give credit and say RotF is a recent mod where there was a good amount of exploration required.

3. Mods that tend to end after tier 2. I liked some of the earlier published material. OotA comes to mind as one that supported play into later levels, though there were others.

4. Kind of goes with my #2, but newer material that's very role play (social pillar) heavy. I know Critical Role plays a part here, but it's not what our group enjoys.

5. Kind of overlaps with my #1, but almost everything that's added seems overlaping and 'samey' in a high fantacy setting.

I can't really see spending more $ to continue going in this direction. I've started collecting some of the material on the web for a Darksun setting and modifying some of my 2e mods for a campaign. I could also see doing that for some of the other settings from earlier editions. If I have to create stuff myself anyway I might as well spend the time for something that fits what our group likes to play.

[Segev]

Perhaps the only direction that designers seem to be going that I'd say is an improvement is balancing out short and long rests (if not removing SRs entirely).

I agree with many of your points, but sharply disagree on this one. If they were rebalancing it by leaning more into SRs so that everybody had reason to want to use them, that'd be good, but moving towards what could be the utter elimination of SRs entirely is a very bad move, to my mind. 3e and 4e both had problems with 15 minute adventuring days, especially as modules and powers PCs could get made it impossible to punish just holing up for 23 or so hours to get those daily-recharged abilities back. 5e modules have done nothing to help with that. Even wandering monsters are hard to justify in some of them, with the way the dungeons and their denizens are designed.

Punishing resting is always going to be an uphill battle, too, because it'll always war against allowing resting as also being required, and players will naturally seek ways to secure rests. Making short rests more attractive to everyone will help with that immensely. Eliminating them only exacerbates the problem.

[Jervis]

Depends. If they follow through with the short rest removal i’m worried about how the game is gonna go. To be honest i’m not extremely optimistic.

[Psyren]

I am 99% sure that the theoretical 6e will appeal to me even less than 5e, since 5e has enjoyed wild success and thus WotC is unlikely to try something new and radically different from 5e. IMO, though, they should, D&D-likes aside from 4e have been Frankensteining the 3e PHB over and over in an attempt to get it right, whereas it's quite possible that it has always been bad and salvaging it is impossible.

I'd say that has more to do with the OGL being extremely welcoming to third-party development than the inherent quality (perceived or actual) of 3e.


No one is forcing new purchases on you, but looking at the timeline.

Original D&D: 1974-1976 - 2 Years
Original AD&D: 1977-1988 - 11 years
AD&D 2e: 1989-1999 - 10 years
D&D 3.X: 2000-2007 - 7 years
D&D 4e: 2008-2013 - 5 years
D^D 5e: 2014-Present: 8 years.

None of WotC's editions have lasted as long as the TSR ones did. But given that 5e has been around longer now than either 4e or 3.X and given that even the failure that was 4th Edition still went 3 years longer than Gygax waited to revise. I don't think it's really right to claim they're rushing anything here.

Agreed though I will point out that they are not in fact skipping 5.5e, that's what we're getting in 2024.


The DMG was high on page count and low on "how to be a good DM" advice. If nothing else, a better DMG for new DM's would be welcome.

I think it could have been organized better certainly - but a lot of the time I find that folks (not saying you) who don't think it contains much "how to DM advice" haven't read as much of it as they should be.

[Ignimortis]

I'd say that has more to do with the OGL being extremely welcoming to third-party development than the inherent quality (perceived or actual) of 3e.


If that was the main contributing factor, I doubt 5e and PF2e would've turned out the way they are. Neither is compatible with 3e content, but both, to me, seem to be attempts to get 3e's PHB to work in a different way with similar starting points.

[strangebloke]

"reluctant" implies I'm going to be forced to use the new stuff.

Nah. I have my players, most of them don't even follow new releases. They don't know where the radiant citadel is, or what a starjammer is, or why haste is good to cast on a rogue. If I like the new material? I will buy? If I don't? I will not. Nobody will care. At most one of the guys who DMs for me will use the new stuff in which case, meh.

I didn't buy SCAG. I will probably buy Theros at some point. I have Tasha's, Xanathar's, Volot's, Fizban's, MTOF. I will not be getting MMOM, since although I like the races everything else looks Dumb.

[Psyren]

If that was the main contributing factor, I doubt 5e and PF2e would've turned out the way they are. Neither is compatible with 3e content, but both, to me, seem to be attempts to get 3e's PHB to work in a different way with similar starting points.

PF2e IS based on the 3.5 OGL. And 5e doesn't have to be. The 3.5 OGL spawned the most third-party game systems.

[Ignimortis]

PF2e IS based on the 3.5 OGL. And 5e doesn't have to be. The 3.5 OGL spawned the most third-party game systems.

Not really at that point. PF1e, sure, it's basically 3.5 with houserules and a new wrapper. But PF2e probably has less things in common with 3.5 than 5e does, unless calling classes Fighter and Wizard and using stricter Vancian casting is somehow reliant on 3.5 OGL.

[Velaryon]

Like many in this thread, my opinions would be based at least partly on what the new edition looks like. I have no problem staying with the older edition if I don't like the new one, and the financial investment I've made into the editions I do play also makes me want to keep playing those editions. But if a hypothetical 6E looks like it caters to the kind of game I want to play, then I'd probably be willing to try it out.

Another consideration for me is the fact that I run a D&D club for teens at work, so after a certain point I'd most likely have to switch to the new edition at least for the work game.

[Eldariel]

If the recent releases and the direction the game has taken are any indication of the future, I will most likely disagree with many of the fundamental design choices. Then again, I disagree with much of 5e too (especially most things on the DM side of the screen) but I can still make it work by virtue of just DMing myself. I will of course try the next edition out and see how much I like it: much will depend on the company I keep though. If WotC finally manages to write enjoyable martial characters (even just one class) in the Core, I'm willing to forgive a lot of nonsense elsewhere but I'm not holding my breath: they've tried for over 20 years but we're still stuck in the "simple martial, complex caster"-framework for no reason (okay, they succeeded once towards the end of 3e but then failed to carry it over to 4e even though it was a supposed "beta product").

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I agree with many of your points, but sharply disagree on this one. If they were rebalancing it by leaning more into SRs so that everybody had reason to want to use them, that'd be good, but moving towards what could be the utter elimination of SRs entirely is a very bad move, to my mind. 3e and 4e both had problems with 15 minute adventuring days, especially as modules and powers PCs could get made it impossible to punish just holing up for 23 or so hours to get those daily-recharged abilities back. 5e modules have done nothing to help with that. Even wandering monsters are hard to justify in some of them, with the way the dungeons and their denizens are designed.

Punishing resting is always going to be an uphill battle, too, because it'll always war against allowing resting as also being required, and players will naturally seek ways to secure rests. Making short rests more attractive to everyone will help with that immensely. Eliminating them only exacerbates the problem.

Maybe I should clarify the point I was making.

I actually don't mind short rests, and probably my first choice would be to keep them in and balance classes so that everyone gets back roughly the same proportion of abilities on long and short rests. The other guy who DMs our group figures class abilities on a LR and subclass on a SR would be good design. I continue to think the biggest issue with 5e is that as a DM you can't really deviate too much or too often from the prescribed 'schedule' without playing favorites amongst a party. For that reason if I was given the choice between the status quo and eliminating SRs entirely I'd just eliminate them.

As to your point about short adventuring days, well that's just going to be an issue with some DMs/ groups no matter what you do so long as there are expendable resources. I'm not sure when characters get resources back is going to change the way some people clearly prefer to play. My personal view is that short days continues to be the source of many groups' issues and threads about perceived imbalance, but I'm not sure of the solution.

[Asmotherion]

I used to think 5e was the best thing that happened to D&D. Then it hit me: The oversimplicity effectivelly meant that I can create a limited amount of characters before I've played everything. And since I have specific concepts that I like, it effectivelly means I have even less options.

So, by now, yeah, I'm eager for a 5.5e or an 6e, whichever comes.

[Psyren]

Not really at that point. PF1e, sure, it's basically 3.5 with houserules and a new wrapper. But PF2e probably has less things in common with 3.5 than 5e does, unless calling classes Fighter and Wizard and using stricter Vancian casting is somehow reliant on 3.5 OGL.

It IS the point. We were talking about which edition lent itself to the most prominent third-party creations and spinoffs, and 3e still has that crown. They have yet to develop an OGL that is robust enough to create the next Pathfinder, and that could very well be a selling point for 6e (albeit potentially a problem for WotC in the long term.)


Maybe I should clarify the point I was making.

I actually don't mind short rests, and probably my first choice would be to keep them in and balance classes so that everyone gets back roughly the same proportion of abilities on long and short rests. The other guy who DMs our group figures class abilities on a LR and subclass on a SR would be good design. I continue to think the biggest issue with 5e is that as a DM you can't really deviate too much or too often from the prescribed 'schedule' without playing favorites amongst a party. For that reason if I was given the choice between the status quo and eliminating SRs entirely I'd just eliminate them.

As to your point about short adventuring days, well that's just going to be an issue with some DMs/ groups no matter what you do so long as there are expendable resources. I'm not sure when characters get resources back is going to change the way some people clearly prefer to play. My personal view is that short days continues to be the source of many groups' issues and threads about perceived imbalance, but I'm not sure of the solution.

I think 5.5e should be LR-focused with some (much smaller) benefit on an SR that could be skipped if a group wants to skip SRs without making any given class feel useless, but makes games that keep them do feel at least a little different.

[Sigreid]

I used to think 5e was the best thing that happened to D&D. Then it hit me: The oversimplicity effectivelly meant that I can create a limited amount of characters before I've played everything. And since I have specific concepts that I like, it effectivelly means I have even less options.

So, by now, yeah, I'm eager for a 5.5e or an 6e, whichever comes.

That's largely a weakness of the class system. It sounds like you might be happier with one of the many build a bear systems that give you a point (power) budget to create whatever you like from the bits and pieces available.

[EggKookoo]

I used to think 5e was the best thing that happened to D&D. Then it hit me: The oversimplicity effectivelly meant that I can create a limited amount of characters before I've played everything. And since I have specific concepts that I like, it effectivelly means I have even less options.

It's funny what people look for in TTPRGs. To me, the character as far as mechanics go is nothing (or virtually nothing). What matters is the adventure. I'd be perfectly happy with a D&D that had no classes, just three or four "roles" (spellcaster, martial, healer/support, rogue/scout/stealth), explicit freedom to reflavor things as I like, and a rules system that accommodated any action I can think of.

One thing I dislike about modern D&D is the loadout of class features. I want fewer of them, please, or at least have them built like spells where there may be a ton to choose from, but I only get to pick a small number for a given PC.

Honestly I think I would prefer a new D&D that eschewed class/subclass features in favor of gear-based progression.

[Psyren]

You don't need to ditch the class system to have functionally unlimited* character build potential. You just can't wait around for WotC to design every concept you might want to play. If you truly run out of ideas in first party, and you don't want to design new ones yourself, that's what third-party is for.

*Or at least, limits a given player is unlikely to reach in their lifetime

[PhoenixPhyre]

You don't need to ditch the class system to have functionally unlimited* character build potential. You just can't wait around for WotC to design every concept you might want to play. If you truly run out of ideas in first party, and you don't want to design new ones yourself, that's what third-party is for.

*Or at least, limits a given player is unlikely to reach in their lifetime

I agree. And I think the community would be better off ditching the special status that gets attached to the word "official". Wotc stuff isn't special or even better balanced or written than a lot of the better homebrew or 3P stuff. Or even more in keeping with the rest of the system. CF hexblade, peace and twilight clerics.

Tables should, imo, dump the idea that RAW or 1st party content is any different than anything else and evaluate all content on its merits, not source. And be comfortable homebrewing content to fit individual tables. To me "playing strictly by RAW and official content only" is a big warning that I'm not going to like the game.

[Sigreid]

I agree. And I think the community would be better off ditching the special status that gets attached to the word "official". Wotc stuff isn't special or even better balanced or written than a lot of the better homebrew or 3P stuff. Or even more in keeping with the rest of the system. CF hexblade, peace and twilight clerics.

Tables should, imo, dump the idea that RAW or 1st party content is any different than anything else and evaluate all content on its merits, not source. And be comfortable homebrewing content to fit individual tables. To me "playing strictly by RAW and official content only" is a big warning that I'm not going to like the game.

I think whether it's official or third party a DM needs to be cautious about what they let in their game. Unless you're just going for a beer and popcorn campaign that you're ok with being varying degrees of ridiculous, then just go with whatever seems amusing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think whether it's official or third party a DM needs to be cautious about what they let in their game. Unless you're just going for a beer and popcorn campaign that you're ok with being varying degrees of ridiculous, then just go with whatever seems amusing.

Right. Not "default accept anything 1st party and deny anything else." Set standards for what works for your table and scrutinize everything accordingly. And your standards and my standards don't have to match.

[Sigreid]

Right. Not "default accept anything 1st party and deny anything else." Set standards for what works for your table and scrutinize everything accordingly. And your standards and my standards don't have to match.

Hell, even if we both choose to just use core RAW, your table and mine are going to look and operate completely differently most likely.

[Segev]

I think 5.5e should be LR-focused with some (much smaller) benefit on an SR that could be skipped if a group wants to skip SRs without making any given class feel useless, but makes games that keep them do feel at least a little different.

Why do you feel this to be superior design? Specifically, the preference for LR with SR being entirely optional, over SR being something that benefits everyone sufficiently that you don't have people pushing for LR whenever an SR would do on basis that SR doesn't do enough for them?

[Dienekes]

If we're going over the SR/LR divide, I honestly think the best method of differentiation was in 4e. Perhaps dress it up as short and long rests, if you want. Because apparently people really dislike stuff being called Daily or Encounter powers. But having your abilities refresh either per encounter or per day seems much easier to understand and to balance around than having abilities that refresh based on per day and per three-ish encounters, maybe, depending on what the players and DMs are feeling. And used if the players correctly guess the difficulty of the encounter before it has even played out.

[Sigreid]

If we're going over the SR/LR divide, I honestly think the best method of differentiation was in 4e. Perhaps dress it up as short and long rests, if you want. Because apparently people really dislike stuff being called Daily or Encounter powers. But having your abilities refresh either per encounter or per day seems much easier to understand and to balance around than having abilities that refresh based on per day and per three-ish encounters, maybe, depending on what the players and DMs are feeling. And used if the players correctly guess the difficulty of the encounter before it has even played out.

I think what people really disliked, especially me, was the samieness. You had lots of classes with lots of powers except it was really only a few powers with lots of different names for the same thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think what people really disliked, especially me, was the samieness. You had lots of classes with lots of powers except it was really only a few powers with lots of different names for the same thing.

I think lots of people disliked lots of different things, including the fact that things had changed at all (who moved my cheese/every change breaks someone's workflow syndrome). Many of which were that wizards were no longer the most powerful, versatile, and special things out there.

[Tanarii]

I think what people really disliked, especially me, was the samieness. You had lots of classes with lots of powers except it was really only a few powers with lots of different names for the same thing.
Within a give class, they could have certainly just had "if selected at level 7, effect is the same as previous but damage is 2dX" or the like. 13th age did that, and it saved space. But between classes, the only sameness was number of powers and refresh rate. There was a bigger difference between a Fighter and Rogue than 5e has, as much of a difference between a Cleric and a Warlock or Sorcerer, and a far bigger difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard. Or comparing like for like, a 4e Warlock and Sorcerer were significantly different, and they were both Strikers.

What I disliked was how slow combat was, and after the fact (ie after playing 5e Theatre of the Mind), the requirement for a battlemat.

[Sigreid]

Within a give class, they could have certainly just had "if selected at level 7, effect is the same as previous but damage is 2dX" or the like. 13th age did that, and it saved space. But between classes, the only sameness was number of powers and refresh rate. There was a bigger difference between a Fighter and Rogue than 5e has, as much of a difference between a Cleric and a Warlock or Sorcerer, and a far bigger difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard. Or comparing like for like, a 4e Warlock and Sorcerer were significantly different, and they were both Strikers.

What I disliked was how slow combat was, and after the fact (ie after playing 5e Theatre of the Mind), the requirement for a battlemat.

When I read the core books, my observation was different on the powers. I don't really know how it plays as I never felt the need to play it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When I read the core books, my observation was different on the powers. I don't really know how it plays as I never felt the need to play it.

Having both read and played it, the powers read very homogenized, but that's mostly due to the very regular formatting and mathematical foundation. They play quite differently, and the small differences in effects make substantial and notable differences. Even between a Paladin and a Fighter (both Defender-role), you get substantial differences in both what you can do well and how you do it.

[Ogre Mage]

I will be glad to give it a solid try. By 2024, it will have been 10 years since the previous edition which I feel is enough time. If I like it I will continue playing it. If not then I won't.

[Psyren]

Why do you feel this to be superior design? Specifically, the preference for LR with SR being entirely optional, over SR being something that benefits everyone sufficiently that you don't have people pushing for LR whenever an SR would do on basis that SR doesn't do enough for them?

Because LRs are guaranteed at every single table in this game. SRs are not, and even when they are, the amount you get isn't. So basing the resource model around the rest system you are 100% likely to see and that's the easiest one for both DMs and parties to plan around makes sense.

[Ignimortis]

Because LRs are guaranteed at every single table in this game. SRs are not, and even when they are, the amount you get isn't. So basing the resource model around the rest system you are 100% likely to see and that's the easiest one for both DMs and parties to plan around makes sense.

SR powers should just reset the moment you end the encounter. Any breather at all, you get all your stuff back. Anything fringe that doesn't let you have a refresh is incredibly unlikely with that model.

[Dienekes]

When I read the core books, my observation was different on the powers. I don't really know how it plays as I never felt the need to play it.


Having both read and played it, the powers read very homogenized, but that's mostly due to the very regular formatting and mathematical foundation. They play quite differently, and the small differences in effects make substantial and notable differences. Even between a Paladin and a Fighter (both Defender-role), you get substantial differences in both what you can do well and how you do it.

I've become increasingly convinced, the true lesson of D&D 4e isn't about balance or complexity or homogenization. The true lesson is that presentation matters.

[Tanarii]

SR powers should just reset the moment you end the encounter. Any breather at all, you get all your stuff back. Anything fringe that doesn't let you have a refresh is incredibly unlikely with that model.
That's fine if they're combat powers only, or DMs actually run non-combat stuff as encounters and they don't take too much time. And even then, a non-combat encounter might theoretically even span several hours with time for a short rest in the middle of it.

Basically, think of the utility (and possibly shenanigans) if warlocks could get their spell slots back with a 5 min break.

Also even for combat abilities, it allows SR abilities to be better tuned in terms of system expectations if you can expect to have them back after 1 Deadly Fight or 2 Medium ones. E.g. you can expect to use both your Wild Shapes in a Deadly combat if you get knocked out of it, but only need 1 in a medium battle. Warlocks being able to use 2 slots in a Deadly battle and only needing 1 in a medium. BMs and Monks, all their dice / ki vs only needing half. Etc.

Edit: I agree that giving them back after a 5 min break, assuming one after every combat encounter, and scaling both combat and non-combat features appropriately would be more elegant. But I bet we'd find that any Martial non-combat resource using abilities (assuming they introduced them as they should) would be N time per LR, not short-SR based.

[strangebloke]

SR powers should just reset the moment you end the encounter. Any breather at all, you get all your stuff back. Anything fringe that doesn't let you have a refresh is incredibly unlikely with that model.

I agree. I think the devs are/were nervous about 1/encounter abilities though because it opens the "wut if we fight a rabbit a bunch of times so I can spam my abilities" can of worms. But then they have this in 5e anyway, and nearly all the SR abilities that exist don't benefit give you much even if you can regain them an infinite number of times. Like okay infinite out of combat wildshape uses.... broken? Not. Really?

Like its basically just

Pact Magic slots used on spells with longer durations (armor of Agathys, hex) especially noncentration ones (lol Jorasco hafling with Aid or golgari agent warlock with animate dead)
healing, like hands of healing (mercy monk) or Second Wind (fighter)
spamming skill buffs like BI / Ambush. (Fortunately this doesn't matter because skills are stupid already!)

[NRSASD]

Personally, I'll be reluctant to switch. As a DM, I'm unhappy with the direction 5E is going, so I've homebrewed a ton and just play the game I want to play. Lower magic, damage hurts, less power ranger style characters. Since I've put so much effort into building these tools for my own enjoyment, and I have little faith that WotC can produce better (not that I have that much faith in my abilities, more I have so little faith in theirs), I doubt I'll be interested in 6E. That said, who knows! I would love to be surprised.

[skaddix]

Really depends on what they change...I am curious about how they reform Classes and Races.

Races its about the bonuses and racial traits vs learned abilities. I assume its pick your own bonus but it will be interesting to see how that hurts flavor.

Classes on the other hand. No more Short and Long Rest variation across classes that needs to be standardized. And they really need to figure out the difference between SPONT and PREPARED Casters cause that is goddamn mess. Metamagic should not be exclusive for Sorcs. Hexblade needs to be mostly default for Pact of the Blade. Warlocks need some eldritch blast variants and could stand to be able to cast more. Monks need a Ki Cost Overall. They need to find a way to boost Martials without just nerfing Casters. I think a lot of classes are no longer distinct enough that you could easily fold a lot of them...Ranger and Sorcerer really stand out as especially directionless. Oh and I want to be able to concentrate on more spells...maybe tie it to proficiency.

[Psyren]

SR powers should just reset the moment you end the encounter. Any breather at all, you get all your stuff back. Anything fringe that doesn't let you have a refresh is incredibly unlikely with that model.

While I'm fine with that (or with a 1-10 minute short rest, which most of the time would amount to the same thing), the SR-limited powers would likely need to be rebalanced to compensate for this. Warlocks getting all their pact slots back or druids getting all their wild shapes back every single combat isn't inherently bad, but it's unlikely you'd feel too constrained if you had 2-3 pact slots or 2 wildshapes every fight either, with what you can potentially get out of those abilities currently.


That's fine if they're combat powers only, or DMs actually run non-combat stuff as encounters and they don't take too much time. And even then, a non-combat encounter might theoretically even span several hours with time for a short rest in the middle of it.

Basically, think of the utility (and possibly shenanigans) if warlocks could get their spell slots back with a 5 min break.

Also even for combat abilities, it allows SR abilities to be better tuned in terms of system expectations if you can expect to have them back after 1 Deadly Fight or 2 Medium ones. E.g. you can expect to use both your Wild Shapes in a Deadly combat if you get knocked out of it, but only need 1 in a medium battle. Warlocks being able to use 2 slots in a Deadly battle and only needing 1 in a medium. BMs and Monks, all their dice / ki vs only needing half. Etc.

Edit: I agree that giving them back after a 5 min break, assuming one after every combat encounter, and scaling both combat and non-combat features appropriately would be more elegant. But I bet we'd find that any Martial non-combat resource using abilities (assuming they introduced them as they should) would be N time per LR, not short-SR based.

Yeah, that.

[Ignimortis]

I've become increasingly convinced, the true lesson of D&D 4e isn't about balance or complexity or homogenization. The true lesson is that presentation matters.
Yeah, pretty much.


That's fine if they're combat powers only, or DMs actually run non-combat stuff as encounters and they don't take too much time. And even then, a non-combat encounter might theoretically even span several hours with time for a short rest in the middle of it.

Basically, think of the utility (and possibly shenanigans) if warlocks could get their spell slots back with a 5 min break.

Also even for combat abilities, it allows SR abilities to be better tuned in terms of system expectations if you can expect to have them back after 1 Deadly Fight or 2 Medium ones. E.g. you can expect to use both your Wild Shapes in a Deadly combat if you get knocked out of it, but only need 1 in a medium battle. Warlocks being able to use 2 slots in a Deadly battle and only needing 1 in a medium. BMs and Monks, all their dice / ki vs only needing half. Etc.

Edit: I agree that giving them back after a 5 min break, assuming one after every combat encounter, and scaling both combat and non-combat features appropriately would be more elegant. But I bet we'd find that any Martial non-combat resource using abilities (assuming they introduced them as they should) would be N time per LR, not short-SR based.
For any game I've played in, that would mean that Warlocks would be more likely to actually cast their things instead of going "I've got a Hex going, and I'll keep the other slot just in case".

Also for any game I've played in, the narrative does not distinguish between Medium and Deadly fights. You get your rests when narratively appropriate or when you know that you can't go on with your current resources. If someone blew their SR resources in a single combat and everyone else has enough HP and LR resources to carry on? You're back to autoattacking, we can't camp out here for an hour, and even 5 minutes would be rather dumb. I guess 1 minute could swing it, and one of my DMs houseruled that for a couple sessions, then complained that we short rested after every fight, and rescinded the rule.

Giving everyone more LR resources isn't really a good idea, but since they're easy to balance, WotC will certainly follow up on that. My expectations for them are very low.


I agree. I think the devs are/were nervous about 1/encounter abilities though because it opens the "wut if we fight a rabbit a bunch of times so I can spam my abilities" can of worms. But then they have this in 5e anyway, and nearly all the SR abilities that exist don't benefit give you much even if you can regain them an infinite number of times. Like okay infinite out of combat wildshape uses.... broken? Not. Really?

Like its basically just

Pact Magic slots used on spells with longer durations (armor of Agathys, hex) especially noncentration ones (lol Jorasco hafling with Aid or golgari agent warlock with animate dead)
healing, like hands of healing (mercy monk) or Second Wind (fighter)
spamming skill buffs like BI / Ambush. (Fortunately this doesn't matter because skills are stupid already!)

My line of thinking, too. Infinite out of combat healing might interfere with D&D's dungeon crawling roots, but for a tactical fighting game it's a godsend, because it means you can start off most fights in almost peak condition - which, in turn, means that you can fight fun encounters every time instead of lazily chopping up Medium fight trash designed only to drain your resources.


Really depends on what they change...I am curious about how they reform Classes and Races.

Races its about the bonuses and racial traits vs learned abilities. I assume its pick your own bonus but it will be interesting to see how that hurts flavor.

Classes on the other hand. No more Short and Long Rest variation across classes that needs to be standardized. And they really need to figure out the difference between SPONT and PREPARED Casters cause that is goddamn mess. Metamagic should not be exclusive for Sorcs. Hexblade needs to be mostly default for Pact of the Blade. Warlocks need some eldritch blast variants and could stand to be able to cast more. Monks need a Ki Cost Overall. They need to find a way to boost Martials without just nerfing Casters. I think a lot of classes are no longer distinct enough that you could easily fold a lot of them...Ranger and Sorcerer really stand out as especially directionless. Oh and I want to be able to concentrate on more spells...maybe tie it to proficiency.
Hey, 3.5 called.

[Psyren]

My line of thinking, too. Infinite out of combat healing might interfere with D&D's dungeon crawling roots, but for a tactical fighting game it's a godsend, because it means you can start off most fights in almost peak condition - which, in turn, means that you can fight fun encounters every time instead of lazily chopping up Medium fight trash designed only to drain your resources.

There's a variant for this - Epic Heroism on DMG 267. Or you can keep regular resting but add in the Healing Surges variant on DMG 266.

[Ignimortis]

There's a variant for this - Epic Heroism on DMG 267. Or you can keep regular resting but add in the Healing Surges variant on DMG 266.

And as long as it stays "an optional rule in DMG only", it will be used incredibly scarcely. The point is to make baseline alterations that would help the game function better, not say "every GM knows what's best for their table, we don't have to do anything".

[Goobahfish]

I agree. And I think the community would be better off ditching the special status that gets attached to the word "official". Wotc stuff isn't special or even better balanced or written than a lot of the better homebrew or 3P stuff. Or even more in keeping with the rest of the system. CF hexblade, peace and twilight clerics.

Tables should, imo, dump the idea that RAW or 1st party content is any different than anything else and evaluate all content on its merits, not source. And be comfortable homebrewing content to fit individual tables. To me "playing strictly by RAW and official content only" is a big warning that I'm not going to like the game.

I think this essentially nails the point.

So... I'm not convinced that there is a cogent 6E out there. I can see 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E and 5E all as different editions of the game with different core design principles (from 3E onward) and different outcomes.

Any 6E that comes out now will at best be a 5.5E or... a 4.5E or a 3.5.5E (or some weird hybrid). The design space of these games is so saturated now that there really isn't enough space for a real 6E. At best it will be like an official homebrewed 5. The only way out of this rut is to streak far enough away that calling it D&D is specious. 5E is already on the periphery of what you could call D&D genuinely (which I think at its core sits somewhere in 2, 3, 3.5 and has at its core, classes, dungeons, alignments and fantasy races). This is not to throw shade at 5E, it is 'D&D-lite' essentially which I think is what a lot of people are happy to play. But that is what it is. It is hard to make the game have more depth without adding rules and thus violating 'lite'. Even now the way the game is set up adding spells, subclasses and feats is verging into a non-lite place.

So what could a 5.5 offer? Honestly, 5.1 would probably be a better description. There are plenty of homebrew 5.1's out on the interwebs. But they are mostly tweaks of existing classes/subclasses/feats/spells rather than a substantial change in how the game works. I think an official 5.1 wouldn't be a terrible thing. Basically some buffs/nerfs and clarifications. Beyond that, I think 6E is basically doomed to fail. I mean, what could they genuinely bring to the table. A simpler game? As if that is even possible. A more complex game? I think the player base basically said no (and those that didn't do PF/PF2).

To that end, I think changing the LR/SR rules slightly would probably do the game some good. Not to totally derail the topic but SRs should be ~10 minutes (i.e. expected after any decent combat) and LRs should give less resources back. I argue this as players (assuming they have agency) would logically be using LRs all the god-damn time when possible because who does things ill-prepared in real life? If I knew I could use 10 spells a day, I would keep my days short. Regardless of occupation.

RE: PhoenixPhyre, I think that having a codified 'normal rules' is good for creating new games (so there is less... homebrew overhead) but yeah, any table where the DM is avidly anti-homebrew is a table I would just be stifled with (I dislike multiclassing but prefer hybrid classes/subclasses etc). I think a genuine culture of 'DM has NO power but must justify a hard NO with a decent reason' is probably the best place for D&D tables everywhere to sit.

[Ignimortis]

So what could a 5.5 offer? Honestly, 5.1 would probably be a better description. There are plenty of homebrew 5.1's out on the interwebs. But they are mostly tweaks of existing classes/subclasses/feats/spells rather than a substantial change in how the game works. I think an official 5.1 wouldn't be a terrible thing. Basically some buffs/nerfs and clarifications. Beyond that, I think 6E is basically doomed to fail. I mean, what could they genuinely bring to the table. A simpler game? As if that is even possible. A more complex game? I think the player base basically said no (and those that didn't do PF/PF2).

I wouldn't be so sure. PF2 is decent - if you desire 5e, but slightly more complex and noticeably more competently made (which is the highest praise Paizo'll ever hear from me, the hacks that they are), with most of the 5e assumptions in place (aside from "no magic items required" and "bounded accuracy", neither of which works all that well in 5e anyway).

If you actually want a different game that could still be D&D, 6e could've had you covered. Make classes that are actually very distinct in playstyle and abilities, make more complex and varied mechanics for both classes and enemies, do some actual math on how things work out, set proper expectations for various points of the game (level 1, level 5, level 10, etc), then make the game actually feel level 15 when you get there (or dispense with levels above 10 if you want to keep doing what 5e is actually doing). Lots of things that could be done, really.

However, that theoretical game is unlikely to sell nearly as well as 5e has. Therefore, I technically agree that whatever future releases WotC makes will be at most 5.5 and at worst 5e Essentials.

[Tanarii]

PF2 is decent - if you desire 5e, but slightly more complex and noticeably more competently made
PF2 was a disaster. If that's the direction the Devs are trying to go, there's no way I'd go back to buying their product. But I'm pretty sure they've observed and learned from the disaster. I don't know they've learned from their own home-made disaster yet though.


Classes on the other hand. No more Short and Long Rest variation across classes that needs to be standardized. And they really need to figure out the difference between SPONT and PREPARED Casters cause that is goddamn mess. Metamagic should not be exclusive for Sorcs. Hexblade needs to be mostly default for Pact of the Blade. Warlocks need some eldritch blast variants and could stand to be able to cast more. Monks need a Ki Cost Overall. They need to find a way to boost Martials without just nerfing Casters. I think a lot of classes are no longer distinct enough that you could easily fold a lot of them...Ranger and Sorcerer really stand out as especially directionless. Oh and I want to be able to concentrate on more spells...maybe tie it to proficiency.
I don't want any of those things, except for Sorcerer either disappearing or being revamped. The rest would be changes for the worse.

- More short rest for all classes, better yet more classes like the Warlock, the best designed class in the game.
- Nothing wrong with spells known and spells prepared, unless you mean Wizards getting too many spells.
- Whatever they do with Metamagic, Wizards don't need it. They do not need a buff.
- Hexblade needs to go entirely, and never be considered again. Pact of the Blade is perfectly good and does what it is supposed to.
- Warlocks don't need more slots. They have plenty.
- Monk Ki costs are properly balanced. They have plenty.
- If they keep levels 10+ in the game, they probably need to nerf full casters at level 14+. But they definitely need to make spell casting hard again regardless. D&D casting doesn't match any media inspirations except video games.
- Rangers just need a minor tweak or two, they're a fun class that's very focused and plenty powerful. Possibly too focused though.
- Concentration on one spell is a keystone limitation and would require a system revamp to change. However revisiting which spells use concentration wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Ignimortis]

PF2 was a disaster. If that's the direction the Devs are trying to go, there's no way I'd go back to buying their product. But I'm pretty sure they've observed and learned from the disaster. I don't know they've learned from their own home-made disaster yet though.
In what way was it a disaster? It's a serious question, no sarcasm. I mean, I don't particularly like it (I could write pages of text on why exactly), but everywhere I go, I hear either "just homebrew stuff for 5e, that fixes all problems you have with it" or "just go play PF2, it solves every problem 5e has". Like, it's not a smash hit, but the reception is more than lukewarm.

[Warder]

In what way was it a disaster? It's a serious question, no sarcasm. I mean, I don't particularly like it (I could write pages of text on why exactly), but everywhere I go, I hear either "just homebrew stuff for 5e, that fixes all problems you have with it" or "just go play PF2, it solves every problem 5e has". Like, it's not a smash hit, but the reception is more than lukewarm.

I'm very happy with PF2, having switched to it from 5e this year. It's not without its flaws, but if I were to wait for the perfect RPG I'd never actually play. That having been said, it is very obviously targetted at 5e players who find 5e lacking, not necessarily PF1 players - which is why I'm enjoying it so much, I suspect.

[PhoenixPhyre]

RE: PhoenixPhyre, I think that having a codified 'normal rules' is good for creating new games (so there is less... homebrew overhead) but yeah, any table where the DM is avidly anti-homebrew is a table I would just be stifled with (I dislike multiclassing but prefer hybrid classes/subclasses etc). I think a genuine culture of 'DM has NO power but must justify a hard NO with a decent reason' is probably the best place for D&D tables everywhere to sit.

I don't disagree about having codified "normal rules". Defaults are important. To be honest, I do tend to run the rules (as opposed to the content such as monsters, worlds, items, etc) pretty close to stock. 5e's core resolution system actually works (for my purposes) pretty darn well used straight up. I was more talking about that extra content.

And I'd be a bit more lax with the "decent reason" thing--it's very acceptable, for me, to hear "no, because the setting's aesthetics make it awkward" or "no, because it'd involve a lot of extra work during play". But then again, being able to create characters with widely-varying mechanical implementations is very far down my priority list. I'm fine with being quite restricted on mechanical character options as long as the world and narrative are coherent and there's a reason for things (even if I don't know what that reason is). And being able to build "exactly what I want" doesn't make up for having incoherent settings (which it usually accompanies). It's one reason why AL just isn't my thing--the culture encourages building characters entirely as a mechanical power-seeking exercise and the story-lines (sorry WotC) range from stupid to head-scratching. And I'd have to play in either Forgotten Realms or Eberron, both of which are a fate worse than no game at all.

[Black Jester]

5th edition is probably the game most specifically designed to avoid giving any offense and to circumvent potential sources of frustration and even minor inconveniences.

Characters dying is badwrong-unfun, so have a massive cache of hit points, and an extra safety net in form of death saves.
Bad consequences for getting mauled is badwrong-unfun, so have full healing overnight, every night.

Living, breathing settings with deep lore require reading and research (which, of course, is badwronmg-unfun, almost like having to do homework), so let’s only have shallow, very lightweight settings.

Spellcasters running out of spells is badwrong-unfun, so have infinitely spammable cantrips.

Not being able to play an optimized goblin sorcerer, or a frigging dragon, or being told “no, you can’t do that” in general, is badwrong-unfun, so do whatever you want with your ability scores and play every class, every race, every concept in every campaign setting, no matter if it fits.

Not being able to play a character exactly as planed from level 1 to level 20 (also known as “RPG eugenics”) is badwrong-unfun, so have point-buy options to create the predetermined, cookie-cutter characters with carefully managed strengths and flaws.

Not being the predetermined victor of any hostile encounter is badwrong-unfun, so have an encounter challenge rating process to make sure that the game world panders to your personal strengths and weaknesses and never pushes the envelope too much.

--

I think this trend will get even more prominent with any new publication, because, on an economic level, it makes sense to create the biggest tent and the lowest possible threshold. Low challenge gaming makes the hobby more accessible for casuals and new players who might drop the hobby if they make a badwrong-unfun experience like having the character killed, and people dropping out of the game don’t buy any more books. The guys with the lowest frustration threshold are way more likely to whine about things being “unfair”, especially when they feel entitled to something, like instant gratification and winning, all the time, without effort. Considering how public these complaints are nowadays, and how toxic some of the voices of this particular group (I am not even sure it is a loud minority any more), it is probably a sensible self-care measure for the writers to offer the least amount of irritation, by design.
So, I expect that the next version of D&D is going to be even softer, even limper, even more afraid to actually challenge the players. There will be even more power creep. There will be even less of a focus on pro-active gaming, and independent scheming or implementing shenanigans.

So… if my predictions are true, I will probably not get involved in a 6th edition. I already feel that the verisimilitude-based gaming style focused on exploring and experiencing a game world has become less and less considered by mainstream D&D. I might very well shift to the OSR on a permanent base, because I genuinely have more respect for any author who write their own passion project games on base of their own preferences than for the expected Karen appeasement policy described above.

[Segev]

I think what people really disliked, especially me, was the samieness. You had lots of classes with lots of powers except it was really only a few powers with lots of different names for the same thing.This was my problem with it, certainly. Everybody was a martial adept. It is the same problem that points-based systems have for me. But at least points-based systems have enormous flexibility to customize your everything to make up for the fact that everything uses the exact same subsystem. (There's more nuance to this than I can cram into a short reply, and I doubt anybody wants to read an essay right here and now. Hopefully it's clear enough.)


Because LRs are guaranteed at every single table in this game. SRs are not, and even when they are, the amount you get isn't. So basing the resource model around the rest system you are 100% likely to see and that's the easiest one for both DMs and parties to plan around makes sense.

Thing is, if everybody has things they get back on short rests, then all the PCs are likely to consider them worth taking. This will increase the likelihood of a table having SRs. Further, even if you're somehow at a table that doesn't get SRs but still gets LRs, if everybody gets stuff back at SRs, they also still get them all back at LRs, so the design paradigm of leaning more heavily into SRs for everyone would still serve your purpose.


The only 2 ways I can see your statement making sense and having LR-only be an improvement is if either somehow features ONLY came back on SRs but NOT LRs, and somehow the party was still insisting on only taking LRs, or if LRs are "guaranteed" because the DM is the one preventing SRs but granting LRs. I can't imagine a DM doing this. If there's no time due to DM action to take an SR, how on Toril, Greyhawk, and the Great Wheel are you finding time for an LR?

My assumption - and please correct me if I'm wrong and spell out the actual case you're thinking of - is that you're thinking of games / tables where the LR-based classes simply insist that any rest be a LR in order to recharge them, and refuisng to stop to SR if they still have resources even if the SR classes are tapped out. Leaving aside any commentary on the wisdom or good play of this choice, this would be ameliorated by having everybody get more stuff back from SRs. You might still have Warlocks be almost entirely SR-dependent, but if the wizard and fighter and rogue all got sufficiently refreshed from short resting, they wouldn't resist taking them quite so much. If, indeed, literally every class got features that refreshed on a short rest, the most degenerate case scenario would simply be that those who still also got LR refreshment more strongly than SR refreshment would demand 5 minute adventuring days...just as they do now.

...Having written that out, I'm guessing that's what you foresee, and you're looking at giving all classes the same LR refreshment level so that the currently-SR classes aren't overshadowed by the 5-min.-adventurer who novas then demands 24 hours of total rest before continuing on. Is that correct? (I have what I think is a solution, and it's still in leaning into SRs, but I don't want to dive too deeply into assuming what your thoughts and concerns are before confirming them.)

[Psyren]

And as long as it stays "an optional rule in DMG only", it will be used incredibly scarcely. The point is to make baseline alterations that would help the game function better, not say "every GM knows what's best for their table, we don't have to do anything".

But not every GM wants things like fully-recharged PCs before every encounter. You appear to want that, but I and many others don't. So "here are some optional tools each table can use/tweak to find their bliss" IS indeed the right approach for them to take.

And who cares how "scarcely used" a variant is? The vast majority of us play in one campaign at a time, and certainly one session at a time, so you generally only have to tailor the playstyle of one to what you want to do. Flex those IRL persuasion skills. And if they need to be pumped first, well, you'll find that the ability to persuade your friends of something has value that extends well beyond just your leisure time.


PF2 was a disaster. If that's the direction the Devs are trying to go, there's no way I'd go back to buying their product. But I'm pretty sure they've observed and learned from the disaster. I don't know they've learned from their own home-made disaster yet though.



In what way was it a disaster? It's a serious question, no sarcasm. I mean, I don't particularly like it (I could write pages of text on why exactly), but everywhere I go, I hear either "just homebrew stuff for 5e, that fixes all problems you have with it" or "just go play PF2, it solves every problem 5e has". Like, it's not a smash hit, but the reception is more than lukewarm.


I'm very happy with PF2, having switched to it from 5e this year. It's not without its flaws, but if I were to wait for the perfect RPG I'd never actually play. That having been said, it is very obviously targetted at 5e players who find 5e lacking, not necessarily PF1 players - which is why I'm enjoying it so much, I suspect.

I wouldn't call PF2 a disaster. It's starting to gain more traction as 5e ages, and being #2 TTRPG in the world by sales is a good place to be.

With that said, I don't think 5e becoming more like PF2 is remotely a good idea. Each game should stick to what they're good at. (In 5e's case that is primarily "being an onramp to the hobby for non tabletop gamers" which it does vastly better than PF2.)

[truemane]

Aside from whatever gripes I have with various rules minutiae (which is the sort of thing we can fight about forever and never agree on), if I was in charge of 6E and/or had a magic wand, the two design elements I would like to see are:

1. Explicitly modular/sliding scale versions of different rules. You keep Short and Long Rests, for example, and the mechanical impact of each is the same, but rather than telling us "Short Rest = 1 Hour, Long Res = 8 Hours" you say that the length of time each takes is up to the DM. And you offer some guidelines ("Gritty" = 8 hour SR, 1 week LR, "Low Fantasy" = X and Y, "Heroic Fantasy = A and B" etc). You could do the same with Racial features, various class features, etc. A sliding scale with a few different stopping points. So then every game, every campaign, as part of its Session 0, would include "We're doing High Fantasy Rests, Gritty Magic Features, Low Fantasy Martial Features." And the language isn't "This is what the rule is but you can do whatever you want." The language is "These are all equally valid options depending on what kind of game you want to play."

2. Trickier (and possibly not distinct enough from #1 to merit a whole thing) but I'd love there to be a single trait called "Scale" or something that you decide at the start of a campaign and the effect of a bunch of other traits are keyed off it. Like, 20 Strength in a "High Fantasy" scaled game would be different than 20 Strength in a "Gritty" game. You can be the strongest possible person in either case, but what that looks like in game would depend on what sort of game you're playing. And different monsters would have traits keyed to scale (or might possibly even have a scale dictated). A Troll's Regeneration might be "X per level of Scale", but a Titan might just exist at "Epic Fantasy" scale no matter what else is happening.

Basically I would love it if the Level 1 to Level 20 scale weren't absolute, so the only way to make things BIGGER is to increase their level and the only way to keep things contained is to lower the level. Give me some tools to run a local, street-level, hardscrabble Level 1 to Level 20 game that is distinct from a gonzo-Tippyverse Level 1 to Level 20 game.

And the DMG could (in part) be about to manage all those IF/THEN statements. IF you want your game to look like [Pop Culture Reference] THEN we recommend the following settings. But IF you want it to look more like [Anime Series] THEN the following might be better.

I'm not sure how you'd do it without burying yourself in math (if anyone remembers the "Scale" mechanic from 1st Edition West-End Games Star Wars, it was an amazingly efficient and elegant way to account for the size differences of various things in the Star Wars Universe, but in practice it was slow and awkward). But I'd love D&D to stop telling me what D&D is, and instead give me some shared language I can use with my players to come to an agreement on what D&D is going to be at our table and then some tools to help make it that way.

[Amnestic]

Living, breathing settings with deep lore require reading and research (which, of course, is badwronmg-unfun, almost like having to do homework), so let’s only have shallow, very lightweight settings.


You can say a lot of things about the Forgotten Realms but calling it "lightweight" or lacking in "deep lore" is certainly not what I would say about it. It has all of the lore. So much lore. Infinity lore.

And while it's not the only setting for 5e by any stretch, it does have the most adventures set there for this edition by a large margin (I counted at least 10 set in FR), with other settings usually only getting one adventure book (be it a single adventure or an anthology of smaller ones) each, so I feel fairly safe calling it the 'default' 5e setting.

...even if I wish it wasn't.

[Luccan]

It really depends on what 6e looks like. My current thought is I would make the switch, if only because a fresh start with consistency will probably be really nice after they shifted a lot of things for 5.5, but I'll also need to see how the updates for this edition turn out before I can make that decision. That being said, there's certainly things they could do for 6e that I would find very unappealing. For instance I don't want them to reduce mechanical distinction between ancestries any further. But I also think I prefer stat bonuses to be player/class driven, so I wouldn't want them to remove that after implementing it more recently.

[Psyren]

Thing is, if everybody has things they get back on short rests, then all the PCs are likely to consider them worth taking. This will increase the likelihood of a table having SRs. Further, even if you're somehow at a table that doesn't get SRs but still gets LRs, if everybody gets stuff back at SRs, they also still get them all back at LRs, so the design paradigm of leaning more heavily into SRs for everyone would still serve your purpose.

I am in favor of everybody having something they get back on a short rest (generally, some fraction of what they get back on a long rest.) You can have that and still have SRs be optional going forward.

For example: I could see the 5.5 fighter getting action surge back on a short rest like they do currently. I could also see them getting the ability to use additional action surges without resting at all, by spending a LR resource (e.g. a hit die), or being able to recover their action surge without short resting PB times per long rest, or even both. If they did that, then no matter what kind of table you sit down to play Fighter at, you have a reasonable expectation of getting multiple action surges in an adventuring day instead of it having the potential to vary wildly from 1-5.



The only 2 ways I can see your statement making sense and having LR-only be an improvement is if either somehow features ONLY came back on SRs but NOT LRs, and somehow the party was still insisting on only taking LRs, or if LRs are "guaranteed" because the DM is the one preventing SRs but granting LRs. I can't imagine a DM doing this. If there's no time due to DM action to take an SR, how on Toril, Greyhawk, and the Great Wheel are you finding time for an LR?

My assumption - and please correct me if I'm wrong and spell out the actual case you're thinking of - is that you're thinking of games / tables where the LR-based classes simply insist that any rest be a LR in order to recharge them, and refuisng to stop to SR if they still have resources even if the SR classes are tapped out. Leaving aside any commentary on the wisdom or good play of this choice, this would be ameliorated by having everybody get more stuff back from SRs. You might still have Warlocks be almost entirely SR-dependent, but if the wizard and fighter and rogue all got sufficiently refreshed from short resting, they wouldn't resist taking them quite so much. If, indeed, literally every class got features that refreshed on a short rest, the most degenerate case scenario would simply be that those who still also got LR refreshment more strongly than SR refreshment would demand 5 minute adventuring days...just as they do now.

...Having written that out, I'm guessing that's what you foresee, and you're looking at giving all classes the same LR refreshment level so that the currently-SR classes aren't overshadowed by the 5-min.-adventurer who novas then demands 24 hours of total rest before continuing on. Is that correct? (I have what I think is a solution, and it's still in leaning into SRs, but I don't want to dive too deeply into assuming what your thoughts and concerns are before confirming them.)

Actual case I was thinking of spelled out above. For the rest:

1) By having every 1/SR resource move to multiple times per LR, you don't actually have to worry about "finding time for a LR." Every group with a non-Warlock spellcaster already does that. What it does mean is that you can spend every hour of the adventuring day doing something from one of the three adventuring pillars (exploration, social interaction, or combat) instead of taking a whole hour for a breather. (Note that resting doesn't fall under any of the three pillars, because during a rest you're not allowed to do much of anything.)

2) It doesn't have to be the case you describe of the LR classes tyrannically grinding the group to a halt if they still have resources and the SR classes don't. The party can simply be in a situation where time is of the essence and a short rest is difficult to justify. An hour is a long time to stop and do nothing if, say, you're breaking out of (or into) a prison, or chasing down a kidnap victim as the trail grows cold, or trying to interrupt a critical ritual. But if you spend your 8 hours of active time resolving that situation then long-resting afterward is usually reasonable.

So again, what I want isn't to nuke short rests from orbit entirely. Rather, what I want is to modify classes so that short rests are a nice-to-have for everyone, rather than the current design where they are a critical necessity for some classes and irrelevant for others.


Aside from whatever gripes I have with various rules minutiae (which is the sort of thing we can fight about forever and never agree on), if I was in charge of 6E and/or had a magic wand, the two design elements I would like to see are:

1. Explicitly modular/sliding scale versions of different rules. You keep Short and Long Rests, for example, and the mechanical impact of each is the same, but rather than telling us "Short Rest = 1 Hour, Long Res = 8 Hours" you say that the length of time each takes is up to the DM. And you offer some guidelines ("Gritty" = 8 hour SR, 1 week LR, "Low Fantasy" = X and Y, "Heroic Fantasy = A and B" etc). You could do the same with Racial features, various class features, etc. A sliding scale with a few different stopping points. So then every game, every campaign, as part of its Session 0, would include "We're doing High Fantasy Rests, Gritty Magic Features, Low Fantasy Martial Features." And the language isn't "This is what the rule is but you can do whatever you want." The language is "These are all equally valid options depending on what kind of game you want to play."

This is another great point. By making classes no longer crucially dependent on short rests, you can much more easily tweak the length of SR vs. LR without crippling some classes' effectiveness. If you're in a gritty game for example where a SR takes 8 hours and there are multiple encounters in that day, the LR classes like Wizards and Rogues can ration their resources and rely more heavily on at-wills like cantrips or cunning actions. Whereas the SR classes like Warlocks and Monks feel the pinch very sharply, because they're currently designed to burn through their resources almost in a single fight.

[Xervous]

Given the current trajectory I have a feeling I’m not the target audience for 5.5/6e. It will be something I read once for some errant nugget of inspiration when visiting a friend who bothered to take the hit on the purchase. They don’t want to acknowledge their own design intent and it gets tiresome wondering what a system is trying to do when others just lay it all out.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think whether it's official or third party a DM needs to be cautious about what they let in their game. This. To include even 'official' supplements.

I used to think 5e was the best thing that happened to D&D. Then it hit me: The oversimplicity effectivelly meant that I can create a limited amount of characters before I've played everything. And since I have specific concepts that I like, it effectivelly means I have even less options. How many days per week do you play?


I don't want any of those things, except for Sorcerer either disappearing or being revamped. Disappear would be good.

- More short rest for all classes, better yet more classes like the Warlock, the best designed class in the game.
- Nothing wrong with spells known and spells prepared, unless you mean Wizards getting too many spells.
On board.

- Whatever they do with Metamagic, Wizards don't need it. They do not need a buff. True, no buff needed.

- Hexblade needs to go entirely, and never be considered again.
Already true at my table.

Pact of the Blade is perfectly good and does what it is supposed to. I add medium armor proficiency.

- If they keep levels 10+ in the game, they probably need to nerf full casters at level 14+. Something like Mystic Arcanum? More high level spells as rituals?

But they definitely need to make spell casting hard again regardless. D&D casting doesn't match any media inspirations except video games.
I can get behind that.

- Rangers just need a minor tweak or two, they're a fun class that's very focused and plenty powerful. Possibly too focused though. Make them prepared casters like the Paladin.

- Concentration on one spell is a keystone limitation and would require a system revamp to change. However revisiting which spells use concentration wouldn't be a bad thing. I like concentration as is, but a few spells that require it (barkskin!) should not have it.

[Psyren]

I like concentration as is, but a few spells that require it (barkskin!) should not have it.

Concur. The mechanic is fine but it's being applied far too widely at present.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Concur. The mechanic is fine but it's being applied far too widely at present.

I wouldn't say far too widely, but improperly. There are some spells that should absolutely require it that don't (eg forcecage) and some that shouldn't require it (eg barkskin). Personally, I think that concentration is simultaneously too easy to break (for monsters, but this is minor since so few actually use it) and too hard to break (for more optimized PCs).

But forcecage needs a rethink IMO anyway. It's anti-fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

I... and too hard to break (for more optimized PCs).

When I played an unoptimized (no res wis Con{1}, no war caster) spell caster the break in concentration was far too common in my experience.
Cast spell, get hit, miss the save, nobody has to save versus Spirit Guardians (for example, since the save is on their turn). (As but one example)

There's a good reason to optimize if you want the spell to work. :smallyuk: ( Dil's "cut damage in half tattoo once per long rest" was just icing on the cake in the late game where I was able to make a save that, with the amount of damage inflicted, normally she could not have).

Plenty of folks don't try to optimize for concentration maintenance.

{1} Correction thanks to Psyren :smallsmile:

[EggKookoo]

We ruled barkskin doesn't need concentration ages ago.

I've considered removing it outright in our current campaign, but that's probably because we're caster-heavy at the moment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When I played an unoptimized (no res wis, no war caster) spell caster the break in concentration was far too common in my experience.
Cast spell, get hit, miss the save, nobody has to save versus Spirit Guardians (for example, since the save is on their turn). (As but one example)

There's a good reason to optimize if you want the spell to work. :smallyuk: ( Dil's "cut damage in half tattoo once per long rest" was just icing on the cake in the late game where I was able to make a save that, with the amount of damage inflicted, normally she could not have).

Plenty of folks don't try to optimize for concentration maintenance.

Right. What I'm concerned about is when people do optimize for it. In the unoptimized case, everything's fine. NBD. But the way that caster defenses and concentration optimization stacks, it's really easy to basically be immune to losing concentration on anything less than about a 30 damage hit. And most creatures scale via attacks, not raw damage per hit. Meaning that nothing but those big single-attack bruisers (who are very vulnerable to other means of not hitting) has a hope of breaking concentration.

[Telok]

This was my problem with it, certainly. Everybody was a martial adept. It is the same problem that points-based systems have for me. But at least points-based systems have enormous flexibility to customize your everything to make up for the fact that everything uses the exact same subsystem. (There's more nuance to this than I can cram into a short reply, and I doubt anybody wants to read an essay right here and now. Hopefully it's clear enough.)

My group found the 4e warrior defender/striker types to be incredibly samey outside their class specific mark/bonus damage mechanics. They thought the casters were super samey too, being mostly area/single attacks with ok damage or crap damage and a rider. Except the fighter 'come and get it' that we referred to as the gravity shift fighter spell.

The person who tried bard got pretty pissed. Had taken a bow, implement, and weapon powers by just picking what sounded good off the list. The forced switching and trying to keep up three required item to-hit bonuses just was insane.

Warlord could be pretty unique with the ally attacks. But nobody, not even a first time rpg player with no d&d history at all, could get over the shout healing.

[Saelethil]

I realize this is a stretch because not all the facts are available but how do you think you and your gaming group will handle a full-on new edition? Assuming we get one. Are you a "5E for life" kind of D&Der? Do you think 5E will have as much inertia as 3E did? I still know tables that have no intention of moving beyond 3E as a forgone conclusion.

Just curious of your general thoughts here...

As far as a 5.5 (or whatever they call the 2024 update) goes, I’ve liked some of the changes they’ve already shown that I’m assuming are leading up to 2024, such as flexible ability scores and more feats but I am firmly on team Short Rest so the shift to PB/LR is annoying (even if I understand the reasoning). I’ll probably be the first of my group to pick up the new PHB and read through it. If I don’t like it I won’t recommend switching and I don’t imagine anyone else in my group is likely to look into it too much unless I pester them.
Whenever 6e comes out it’ll really depend on what the game looks like. It’s hard enough to get my group to look at another system for a one-shot so even if I like it more than 5(.5?), if I only like it a little bit more it’s probably not worth pushing.

[Easy e]

I got off the "new edition" train of games long ago, and am in no hurry to get back on that carousel.

Unless it is VASTLY different than 5E, why would I change?

[Segev]

It doesn't have to be the case you describe of the LR classes tyrannically grinding the group to a halt if they still have resources and the SR classes don't. The party can simply be in a situation where time is of the essence and a short rest is difficult to justify. An hour is a long time to stop and do nothing if, say, you're breaking out of (or into) a prison, or chasing down a kidnap victim as the trail grows cold, or trying to interrupt a critical ritual. But if you spend your 8 hours of active time resolving that situation then long-resting afterward is usually reasonable.

So again, what I want isn't to nuke short rests from orbit entirely. Rather, what I want is to modify classes so that short rests are a nice-to-have for everyone, rather than the current design where they are a critical necessity for some classes and irrelevant for others.
Thanks for clarifying/explaining.

It has been my experience that making SR abilities into more times/LR leads to that "tyrannical halting" of the adventure. Yes, you CAN and SHOULD have time pressures where possible to make that less of a desirable trait, but WotC has demonstrated they can't do that in their own modules, and without examples of how to do that in creative ways, many DMs (me, my uncreative self, included) run out of ways to force that. With monsters and the illusion of lethal death awaiting should they press on, it only makes sense that the party who just nova'd their way past them - feeling, thus, that they've been super challenged, if the number of resources spent is any indication - would feel that stopping and waiting for all their resources to be back makes sense.

Players are, in my experience, very good at securing a location for a rest. VERY good. To the point that it seems extremely contrived to pull out the wandering xorn that is all that can get through those defenses every time they try to wait 24 hours (having had less than an hour since their last long rest) rather than just resting 1.

Maybe SRs need to be shorter to accommodate your other concerns, but I vastly prefer them to be encouraged by the resource attrition rate than to be deprecated to something you can just shrug off as "well, they don't restore anything useful to *me*, so the whole party had better rest or I'm useless after novaing everything I have in the first encounter, where I also overshadowed anybody who didn't have nova capability to that degree."

[Psyren]

Thanks for clarifying/explaining.

It has been my experience that making SR abilities into more times/LR leads to that "tyrannical halting" of the adventure. Yes, you CAN and SHOULD have time pressures where possible to make that less of a desirable trait, but WotC has demonstrated they can't do that in their own modules, and without examples of how to do that in creative ways, many DMs (me, my uncreative self, included) run out of ways to force that. With monsters and the illusion of lethal death awaiting should they press on, it only makes sense that the party who just nova'd their way past them - feeling, thus, that they've been super challenged, if the number of resources spent is any indication - would feel that stopping and waiting for all their resources to be back makes sense.

Players are, in my experience, very good at securing a location for a rest. VERY good. To the point that it seems extremely contrived to pull out the wandering xorn that is all that can get through those defenses every time they try to wait 24 hours (having had less than an hour since their last long rest) rather than just resting 1.

Maybe SRs need to be shorter to accommodate your other concerns, but I vastly prefer them to be encouraged by the resource attrition rate than to be deprecated to something you can just shrug off as "well, they don't restore anything useful to *me*, so the whole party had better rest or I'm useless after novaing everything I have in the first encounter, where I also overshadowed anybody who didn't have nova capability to that degree."

"They don't restore anything useful to *me*" is how they currently work. As I mentioned repeatedly, I don't want that.

I'm fine, repeat, fine with them being useful. I just don't want them to be required for anyone, because that gives the DM more freedom. They don't have to worry about building in one hour breaks regardless of what is happening in the story, because failing to do so means the monk and warlock are now screwed and the fighter doesn't get their nuke back.


I wouldn't say far too widely, but improperly. There are some spells that should absolutely require it that don't (eg forcecage) and some that shouldn't require it (eg barkskin). Personally, I think that concentration is simultaneously too easy to break (for monsters, but this is minor since so few actually use it) and too hard to break (for more optimized PCs).

But forcecage needs a rethink IMO anyway. It's anti-fun.

Fair enough.


When I played an unoptimized (no res wis, no war caster) spell caster the break in concentration was far too common in my experience.
Cast spell, get hit, miss the save, nobody has to save versus Spirit Guardians (for example, since the save is on their turn). (As but one example)

Did you mean Res Con here?



Warlord could be pretty unique with the ally attacks. But nobody, not even a first time rpg player with no d&d history at all, could get over the shout healing.

Even the Giant made fun of it :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Did you mean Res Con here?
Yes I did, I was recalling a Wis based Caster (Cleric) and juxtaposed the two in my head. Res Con.

[Segev]

"They don't restore anything useful to *me*" is how they currently work. As I mentioned repeatedly, I don't want that.

I'm fine, repeat, fine with them being useful. I just don't want them to be required for anyone, because that gives the DM more freedom. They don't have to worry about building in one hour breaks regardless of what is happening in the story, because failing to do so means the monk and warlock are now screwed and the fighter doesn't get their nuke back.

Oh, I agree, that is the problem currently. I think the solution is to give MORE classes/subclasses SR features, NOT to make FEWER features SR-related.

I don't think it is actually a problem for DMs to "work an hour of rest into the adventure." I think that tends to happen fairly naturally. And, if the DM and players feel they can't spare that much time, they can tweak the timing of a short rest down to whatever they feel it should be.

Frankly, I think we need potions or even mundane items that can serve to shorten or replace short rests, too. But, again, an hour? It's a touch awkward, but not ridiculously so. If the party is using rituals, that's only 6x as long as it takes to cast one.

Also, I am a fan of trying to structure time a bit more, using 10-minute "turns" in dungeons (inspired, I admit, by 1e rules on the subject) to both mark time, mark major actions by players, and to give some structure. And a short rest is just six turns under that, which isn't that big of a deal.

But...again...I have trouble picturing a game where the DM had to "find time to squeeze in" short rests, but the party had any opportunity to take long rests.

[Tanarii]

Players are, in my experience, very good at securing a location for a rest. VERY good. To the point that it seems extremely contrived to pull out the wandering xorn that is all that can get through those defenses every time they try to wait 24 hours (having had less than an hour since their last long rest) rather than just resting 1.

Probably easiest and quickest change would be to houserule LTH so it's not a ritual. Or just ban it entirely.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Probably easiest and quickest change would be to houserule LTH so it's not a ritual. Or just ban it entirely.

My change is "it's an object that can be broken".

[EggKookoo]

I don't think it is actually a problem for DMs to "work an hour of rest into the adventure." I think that tends to happen fairly naturally.

Especially because the SR rules are so forgiving. A lunch break can be a short rest.

[Psyren]

Oh, I agree, that is the problem currently. I think the solution is to give MORE classes/subclasses SR features, NOT to make FEWER features SR-related.

That's what I'm proposing too. Where I think we differ is that I want all SR features (new and old) to not require more than one short rest per day for the class to function. If you get 2 or more, great, and if you don't, you don't feel cheated/screwed. Psionic Energy Dice (Soulknife and Psiwar) are a great example of this - you benefit from every single SR, but if you get zero you can still contribute for a full day.


I don't think it is actually a problem for DMs to "work an hour of rest into the adventure." I think that tends to happen fairly naturally.

A lot of the time it does, but not always. And I think the campaigns where this is never a problem don't have anything to worry about either way, so of course they're going to concentrate their design on the tables having trouble.


Frankly, I think we need potions or even mundane items that can serve to shorten or replace short rests, too.

Not a potion - but Scroll of Catnap?



But...again...I have trouble picturing a game where the DM had to "find time to squeeze in" short rests, but the party had any opportunity to take long rests.

In a lot of busy jobs, you're lucky to get 1 hour-long break per 8-hour shift. Some don't even give you 30 minutes uninterrupted (though that's illegal in many jursidictions IIRC). So it's not unheard of, and that's without taking into account any of the scenarios I mentioned earlier where time might be of the essence due to the situation itself.

Now, I agree with you that the time per short rest can be tweaked to compensate, but that starts to run into other balance considerations like Warlocks maintaining multiple hour-long buffs when they're not supposed to be, etc.

[Segev]

Probably easiest and quickest change would be to houserule LTH so it's not a ritual. Or just ban it entirely.
While I see why that's an issue, just having rooms to barricade go a long way. If the module goes out of its way to spell out that the only wandering monster available doesn't approach that room, and gives no time pressure....

Forge of Fury's glitterhame level is awkward.



That's what I'm proposing too. Where I think we differ is that I want all SR features (new and old) to not require more than one short rest per day for the class to function. If you get 2 or more, great, and if you don't, you don't feel cheated/screwed. Psionic Energy Dice (Soulknife and Psiwar) are a great example of this - you benefit from every single SR, but if you get zero you can still contribute for a full day.
Yeah, that does seem to be where we differ. If that's the direction they go, it could be okay, but only if they are very careful to give resource restoration at SR as well as LR. I have seen a lot of moving things to LR with more uses, but not much that is getting smaller restorations as SRs.



A lot of the time it does, but not always. And I think the campaigns where this is never a problem don't have anything to worry about either way, so of course they're going to concentrate their design on the tables having trouble.
My experience has been the opposite: the trouble is in justifying only taking that short rest for reasons that make sense IC when LR lets you nova the next fight, too.




Not a potion - but Scroll of Catnap?
I knew there was something. Yeah, things like that being more prevalent.




In a lot of busy jobs, you're lucky to get 1 hour-long break per 8-hour shift. Some don't even give you 30 minutes uninterrupted (though that's illegal in many jursidictions IIRC). So it's not unheard of, and that's without taking into account any of the scenarios I mentioned earlier where time might be of the essence due to the situation itself.Adventuring is rarely that busy, and is often self-paced on a more-than-during-immediate-combat level. I have yet to see a module that creates so much time pressure that a SR is unfeasible if you clear a section of the dueon that comprises maybe three encounters at most. At MOST. Often, you can secure a locale with just one encounter.


Now, I agree with you that the time per short rest can be tweaked to compensate, but that starts to run into other balance considerations like Warlocks maintaining multiple hour-long buffs when they're not supposed to be, etc.

Granted, some additional thought has to go into it. Concentration goes a ways towards limiting this, but between being over-applied and other issues, that's not enough by itself. But thus is the kind of thing a good DMG would discuss alongside the possibility of changing length of short rests.

[Psyren]

Adventuring is rarely that busy, but sometimes it's busier. Remember, adventuring parties are special ops / Navy Seals in a lot of cases, you can't always guarantee a mandated 1 hour lunch break from your union rep when Vecna is about to ascend.

Nova-ing two fights in a row isn't a big deal, that's a strategic choice on the part of the players. It might work out in their favor or it might not, just like stopping for an hour-long SR might work out in their favor or not.

[Segev]

Adventuring is rarely that busy, but sometimes it's busier. Remember, adventuring parties are special ops / Navy Seals in a lot of cases, you can't always guarantee a mandated 1 hour lunch break from your union rep when Vecna is about to ascend.

Nova-ing two fights in a row isn't a big deal, that's a strategic choice on the part of the players. It might work out in their favor or it might not, just like stopping for an hour-long SR might work out in their favor or not.

Sure. You can't always guarantee a 1-hour break happens NOW. But the DM also can arrange for natural break points before boss fights. Or for scrolls of catnap to be available. >_> <_<

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure. You can't always guarantee a 1-hour break happens NOW. But the DM also can arrange for natural break points before boss fights. Or for scrolls of catnap to be available. >_> <_<

I have a stock item that I tend to provide periodically (usually when I know there's a boss fight and no sane way to rest and it makes sense to provide them; they can be bought in some areas):

Potion of Apprentice's Friend
Common potion.

This potion takes one minute to drink. After having been drunk, the user receives the benefit of a short rest.

Special: For every such potion drunk after the first since completing a long rest, the drinker must make a Constitution saving throw with DC = 10 + 5*number of these potions drunk since the last long rest. On a failed saving throw, the drinker also gains 2 levels of exhaustion.

------

What are these potions? Basically energy drinks. On meth. Think dark black coffee, juiced with massive quantities of both sugar and methamphetamines. Heroes are strong stuff, so they can survive one of them just fine. After that...bad things happen. Basically, it's a shorter time cost catnap scroll that anyone can use...at a price.

And yes, they can stockpile these to some degree--if only 2 people need short rests and they have 4 available, they can save some for later.

[Psyren]

Sure. You can't always guarantee a 1-hour break happens NOW. But the DM also can arrange for natural break points before boss fights. Or for scrolls of catnap to be available. >_> <_<

Maybe they can. Or maybe the party, through their own choices/mistakes (or simple bad luck), no longer has time for that, or already burned through whatever providence they were given. (As a reminder, Catnap only works 1/LR no matter how many times it is cast.)

Overriding that and fudging the clock is always a possibility. But DMs who choose to let the dice fall where they may are not wrong either, so long as everyone - the DM included - is having fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe they can. Or maybe the party, through their own choices/mistakes (or simple bad luck), no longer has time for that, or already burned through whatever providence they were given. (As a reminder, Catnap only works 1/LR no matter how many times it is cast.)

Overriding that and fudging the clock is always a possibility. But DMs who choose to let the dice fall where they may are not wrong either, so long as everyone - the DM included - is having fun.

DMs should (IMO) provide the opportunity to benefit from SR and plan their adventuring days (the ones that are more set in stone, at least) to accommodate short rests. If the party doesn't take them or misses their chance because they decided to do <other thing> instead or waffled or otherwise burnt their chance, that's their problem IMO.

[Segev]

Maybe they can. Or maybe the party, through their own choices/mistakes (or simple bad luck), no longer has time for that, or already burned through whatever providence they were given. (As a reminder, Catnap only works 1/LR no matter how many times it is cast.)

Overriding that and fudging the clock is always a possibility. But DMs who choose to let the dice fall where they may are not wrong either, so long as everyone - the DM included - is having fun.

Of course they're not doing anything wrong. However, altering the game to encourage 5 minute adventuring days in order to accommodate the players in such games isn't fixing anything. Those players will still be out of resources. And now have no time for a long rest, either.

I'm more okay with your proposed fix than with what WotC is actually showing signs of doing. I still prefer stronger lean-in to SRs, though, myself.

[Psyren]

DMs should (IMO) provide the opportunity to benefit from SR and plan their adventuring days (the ones that are more set in stone, at least) to accommodate short rests. If the party doesn't take them or misses their chance because they decided to do <other thing> instead or waffled or otherwise burnt their chance, that's their problem IMO.

I think we're aligned.


Of course they're not doing anything wrong. However, altering the game to encourage 5 minute adventuring days in order to accommodate the players in such games isn't fixing anything. Those players will still be out of resources. And now have no time for a long rest, either.

I'm more okay with your proposed fix than with what WotC is actually showing signs of doing. I still prefer stronger lean-in to SRs, though, myself.

I think I'm missing something - I don't see how "there's a time limit so you can't stop for an hour" somehow "encourage 5 minutes of adventure and then resting for 8 hours. The whole point of having a timed plot is to discourage both approaches.

[Goobahfish]

I don't disagree about having codified "normal rules". Defaults are important. To be honest, I do tend to run the rules (as opposed to the content such as monsters, worlds, items, etc) pretty close to stock. 5e's core resolution system actually works (for my purposes) pretty darn well used straight up. I was more talking about that extra content.

And I'd be a bit more lax with the "decent reason" thing--it's very acceptable, for me, to hear "no, because the setting's aesthetics make it awkward" or "no, because it'd involve a lot of extra work during play".

No arguments from me.



If you actually want a different game that could still be D&D, 6e could've had you covered.

He he, I think my broad point is that either 6E will look like a weird rehash of previous editions or be something which barely resembles D&D. I think there is still space for other games PF2 being a good example of something a bit different, but even PF2 isn't that different from the D&D canon.


1. Explicitly modular/sliding scale versions of different rules. You keep Short and Long Rests, for example, and the mechanical impact of each is the same, but rather than telling us "Short Rest = 1 Hour, Long Res = 8 Hours" you say that the length of time each takes is up to the DM. And you offer some guidelines ("Gritty" = 8 hour SR, 1 week LR, "Low Fantasy" = X and Y, "Heroic Fantasy = A and B" etc). You could do the same with Racial features, various class features, etc. A sliding scale with a few different stopping points. So then every game, every campaign, as part of its Session 0, would include "We're doing High Fantasy Rests, Gritty Magic Features, Low Fantasy Martial Features." And the language isn't "This is what the rule is but you can do whatever you want." The language is "These are all equally valid options depending on what kind of game you want to play."

This is an example of something I had considered. What if you had 'simple rules', 'medium rules' and 'advanced rules' where each was more strictly codified. I.e. you specified if you were playing an advanced game and thus things became crunchier as a consequence.

RE: Short rests

I think the basic important arguments here are:
#1: DMs confecting reasons to deny rests is lame and should only happen with a specific purpose in mind (in the same way putting people in a desert has a specific purpose in mind - water scarcity). It sounds almost like people are confecting rest-denial as a form of ad-hoc balancing which sounds terribad (either as the game is badly designed or just pointless malice on the parts of the DM).
#2: Any class that is structurally SR dependent (Monks, Warlocks) is problematic at tables which don't Short Rest (never been at one of those myself).

Honestly, I dislike LR classes. From a purely 'game mechanic' stance, 'Nova-ing' is a logical strategy (even it makes you a kind of crappy player). If the DM then punishes players for Nova-ing by denying rests, they are kind of being a crappy DM. The whole dynamic basically encourages crappy play or quite severe curtailing of player agency (i.e. static adventuring days).

I would be inclined to push the resource management towards: Passives like Cantrips/Weapon attacks are enough to 'just win' a difficult encounter. SR abilities are designed to be nova'd every encounter which will make difficult encounters 'not difficult' but not easy. LR abilities are 'clutch' abilities designed to get players out of a pinch and aren't really expected to be used at all, especially in easy encounters.

I was kind of annoyed when I first played a druid and the 'get spells back' was once per LR. I mean... what is the point? One extra conditional spell per day? Seems kind of lame.

[Keltest]

Honestly, I dislike LR classes. From a purely 'game mechanic' stance, 'Nova-ing' is a logical strategy (even it makes you a kind of crappy player). If the DM then punishes players for Nova-ing by denying rests, they are kind of being a crappy DM. The whole dynamic basically encourages crappy play or quite severe curtailing of player agency (i.e. static adventuring days).

I disagree. I think managing resources around the uncertainty of replenishment is an important part of the problem solving process, to say nothing of game balance. If a wizard can just burn all their spell slots without concern that they might not have a resource they need, then the limits on the resource are not actually affecting the game at all and may as well not be present.

If youre going to nova, or burn a dozen spells unlocking chests, or hunting for traps or whatever, you should have to weigh the opportunity cost of those resources not being available later when you decide to do those things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree. I think managing resources around the uncertainty of replenishment is an important part of the problem solving process, to say nothing of game balance. If a wizard can just burn all their spell slots without concern that they might not have a resource they need, then the limits on the resource are not actually affecting the game at all and may as well not be present.

If youre going to nova, or burn a dozen spells unlocking chests, or hunting for traps or whatever, you should have to weigh the opportunity cost of those resources not being available later when you decide to do those things.

Which means there has to be an opportunity cost. Which generally means reducing the number of resources you have available. You should absolutely feel the pain if you go nova and it isn't a one-fight day. Otherwise, it's a solved game--go nova hard, early on, and anyone who can't gets left behind.

[Psyren]

I disagree. I think managing resources around the uncertainty of replenishment is an important part of the problem solving process, to say nothing of game balance. If a wizard can just burn all their spell slots without concern that they might not have a resource they need, then the limits on the resource are not actually affecting the game at all and may as well not be present.

If youre going to nova, or burn a dozen spells unlocking chests, or hunting for traps or whatever, you should have to weigh the opportunity cost of those resources not being available later when you decide to do those things.

Agreed.



RE: Short rests

I think the basic important arguments here are:
#1: DMs confecting reasons to deny rests is lame and should only happen with a specific purpose in mind (in the same way putting people in a desert has a specific purpose in mind - water scarcity). It sounds almost like people are confecting rest-denial as a form of ad-hoc balancing which sounds terribad (either as the game is badly designed or just pointless malice on the parts of the DM).
#2: Any class that is structurally SR dependent (Monks, Warlocks) is problematic at tables which don't Short Rest (never been at one of those myself).


"Your band of underdog heroes trying desperately to save the world don't always have an uninterrupted hour in a day (much less 2-3 of them!) to sit around doing nothing but shooting the breeze" is not "confecting rest-denial." It's simply having a plot with stakes and urgency, which most good ones do.

[Segev]

I think I'm missing something - I don't see how "there's a time limit so you can't stop for an hour" somehow "encourage 5 minutes of adventure and then resting for 8 hours. The whole point of having a timed plot is to discourage both approaches.

If there's time for a long rest, there's time for a short rest. I am stating it for clarity, not because I think you don't know it.

If the DM is denying access to a long rest, he might not be denying access to a short rest. Either intentionally or just by letting the dice fall where they may regarding the timing of whatever is creating time pressure. Of course, there may be time for neither. It is unusual, but actual time pressure that isn't "go go go right now" can do that.

I see where you're coming from: if players are pacing out their LR powers they can use more often than SR powers, they may have some left when they get to that boss fight with no time for any rests at all. The trouble is, if they can pace that out, they can also pace out their SR powers. Further, I don't find the increased pressure to have 5-minute adventuring days that the pure-LR model that WotC is pushing towards with everything becoming more uses/long rest worth the rare times when a boss fight has zero chance to rest before it being left with those players who wisely kept some LR powers rather than nova-ing but where SR players would have blown everything already.

...that's a mess, but I'm tired enough I can't figure out how to word it better.

Anyway. The trouble with WotC's approach is that it doesn't solve most of the problems it wants to, and what little help it gives to your very specific scenario is overshadowed by the preponderance of 5-minute adventuring days it encourages coupled to the fact that players are encouraged by the way this trains them to have nova'd away their LR resources, anyway, making the boss fight impossible (and forcing the DM's hand to grant them a LR for the sake of the fight being "fair," or ending his campaign with a downer ending because the way the rules trained them to play didn't work in his big boss encounter).

Your suggestion of SRs restoring an LR bloc of resources is...something with potential. But I still prefer there actually be SR classes, as well. Give them some amount of LR "deeper well" of resources, perhaps, too, but don't eliminate the SR design space.

Besides, those scrolls of catnap or energy drink potions or whatever can serve for those clutch moments when you NEED a short rest but have only 2 minutes.

[Psyren]

If there's time for a long rest, there's time for a short rest. I am stating it for clarity, not because I think you don't know it.

"If there's time for you to go to bed at night, there's time for you to take an hour-long nap during your shift." It just doesn't follow.

Long Rests typically happen at the end of the day, while Short Rests happen during it. They don't happen at the same time. And just as importantly, LR resources tend to come in greater quantities than SR ones, so you don't run out of them at the same time either.

[Goobahfish]

I disagree. I think managing resources around the uncertainty of replenishment is an important part of the problem solving process, to say nothing of game balance. If a wizard can just burn all their spell slots without concern that they might not have a resource they need, then the limits on the resource are not actually affecting the game at all and may as well not be present.

If youre going to nova, or burn a dozen spells unlocking chests, or hunting for traps or whatever, you should have to weigh the opportunity cost of those resources not being available later when you decide to do those things.

The problem here is that this view is a narrow lens. The meta-strategy becomes how to do 5-minute adventuring days. If you solve the 'turn X into a 5 minute adventuring day' you have solved the smaller problem of 'run out of resources by going nova'.

Half the responses in this thread seem to be hacked homebrew methods for overcoming these weird tensions created by bad game design. This mechanism works well in isolation like an individual game of Hearts/Uno etc where certain powerful cards need to be played at the right time to win, not immediately played nor saved for the last round. However, in D&D where the number of games played and the number of rounds per game is tacitly under the control of the players, it revokes the basic balance of the system.

The counter-meta is for the DM to screw with rests in narratively unsatisfying ways. They can be interesting if they are the point (as in my original analogy to desert adventures) but are really problematic if they are incidental balancing mechanisms.

---

To clear up some confusion, I am not against LR abilities. I think they are cool. My concern is that some classes are 'structural LR classes' which I think is pretty dumb because 'LR' isn't really codified within the game (and definitely shouldn't be) and thus these characters have wildly fluctuating power levels.

As I said, I think most of the power of classes should be derived from passive abilities and short rests with LR serving as 'clutch nova' mechanics rather than 'default nova' mechanics.

[Keltest]

The problem here is that this view is a narrow lens. The meta-strategy becomes how to do 5-minute adventuring days. If you solve the 'turn X into a 5 minute adventuring day' you have solved the smaller problem of 'run out of resources by going nova'.

Half the responses in this thread seem to be hacked homebrew methods for overcoming these weird tensions created by bad game design. This mechanism works well in isolation like an individual game of Hearts/Uno etc where certain powerful cards need to be played at the right time to win, not immediately played nor saved for the last round. However, in D&D where the number of games played and the number of rounds per game is tacitly under the control of the players, it revokes the basic balance of the system.

The counter-meta is for the DM to screw with rests in narratively unsatisfying ways. They can be interesting if they are the point (as in my original analogy to desert adventures) but are really problematic if they are incidental balancing mechanisms.

---

To clear up some confusion, I am not against LR abilities. I think they are cool. My concern is that some classes are 'structural LR classes' which I think is pretty dumb because 'LR' isn't really codified within the game (and definitely shouldn't be) and thus these characters have wildly fluctuating power levels.

As I said, I think most of the power of classes should be derived from passive abilities and short rests with LR serving as 'clutch nova' mechanics rather than 'default nova' mechanics.

What do you mean? A long rest is generally assumed to be "tonight's sleep" which you can't avoid without exhausting yourself to death eventually. That seems pretty well codified to me. Youre taking long rests for sleep, if nothing else, all the time (absent the use of the grim and gritty rules where a long rest is a week). The 5 minute adventuring day comes into play when a DM doesnt have any other challenges between the first encounter of the day and the next long rest opportunity, which leads to absurd things like the party crawling through a dungeon, finding a band of ogres, burning all their spell slots on it, then camping out in their room for 8 hours while the next room with a pack of orcs wait politely for them to finish. Hence restricting rests.

[Tanarii]

If the DM is denying access to a long rest, he might not be denying access to a short rest. Either intentionally or just by letting the dice fall where they may regarding the timing of whatever is creating time pressure. Of course, there may be time for neither. It is unusual, but actual time pressure that isn't "go go go right now" can do that.
Simple example, using the 15% chance of a wandering encounter (DMG) every hour (DM call but reasonable), there is an 85% chance of succeeding on a short rest, but only a 27% chance of succeeding on a long rest.

[Psyren]

To clear up some confusion, I am not against LR abilities. I think they are cool. My concern is that some classes are 'structural LR classes' which I think is pretty dumb because 'LR' isn't really codified within the game (and definitely shouldn't be) and thus these characters have wildly fluctuating power levels.

LR is codified within the game. DMG 84:


The Adventuring Day

Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can get through fewer...This provides a rough estimate of the encounters the party can handle before the characters will need to take a long rest.

In general, LR resources are designed so the characters can make it through 6-8 encounters per day. That includes both combat and non-combat encounters. If your players are routinely nova-ing all their resources 2 encounters into that and you don't want them to, either your encounters' difficulty might need to be adjusted, or your players need to be trained out of doing that and conditioned to internalize the importance of properly managing their resources.

[PhoenixPhyre]

LR is codified within the game. DMG 84:



In general, LR resources are designed so the characters can make it through 6-8 encounters per day. That includes both combat and non-combat encounters. If your players are routinely nova-ing all their resources 2 encounters into that and you don't want them to, either your encounters' difficulty might need to be adjusted, or your players need to be trained out of doing that and conditioned to internalize the importance of properly managing their resources.

Making encounters more difficult (one of the options here), in my experience, makes people nova even harder. It becomes a spiral. I find that uncertainty is the most effective thing, along with having a bunch of different clocks running. Not doom clocks, but "the world is progressing, even if you stop". And enforcing the idea that you can only LR once in 24 hours. So a 5 minute working day means taking an entire day off. Not holing up for 8 hours, but holing up for 20+ hours.

[Segev]

"If there's time for you to go to bed at night, there's time for you to take an hour-long nap during your shift." It just doesn't follow.No, that's not a valid response, because you changed what I said to make it ridiculous. I said, "If there's time for a long rest, there's time for a short rest." I did not say, "If there is time for a long rest in situation A, there's time for a short rest in situation B."

To use your wording: "If there's time for you to go to bed at night, there's time for you to take an hour-long nap at night."

If there's time for you to take a long rest before your big boss battle, there's time for you to take a short rest before your big boss battle. The reverse is not necessarily true.


Long Rests typically happen at the end of the day, while Short Rests happen during it. They don't happen at the same time. And just as importantly, LR resources tend to come in greater quantities than SR ones, so you don't run out of them at the same time either.Agreed. The issue being that a 5 minute adventuring day comes about when short rests give so little that it becomes worth it to just stop everything, fortify up, and wait 23 hours rather than 1.

My position is that LR classes need more SR restoration. That way, SRs give them enough to justify taking one and keeping going, extending those LR resources a little further, possibly by not having to use them up at all in favor of SR resources, or possibly (as you've suggested) by restoring a smaller amount of them. SR classes getting a few LR resources is also fine, but I do like there being SR-strong classes and LR-strong classes, so having some classes get better SR abilities with more limited ways ot extend their use over long stretches while others get LR abilities that don't refresh as fast with SRs is good. You have to be careful about whether SR or LR abilities are stronger if both can have LR and SR restoration, though.

I think, for example, monks getting ki back on an SR is good, but maybe they need an LR feature that lets them recover some ki as an action or something PB/day. Warlocks having some LR-restoration bonus spell slots or spell slot recovery or something would also be good. Something, as you note, to let them push just a little longer if they happened to need that short rest but can't get it.

That said, you can keep the current paradigm and JUST give the LR classes a little bit more of their prime resources back with a short rest (maybe sorcerers get PB SP back per SR, and Arcane Recovery can be spread out over multiple SRs, and barbarians get 1 rage back per SR, for example), and solve the specific scenario of, "LR classes aren't out of juice yet, but SR classes are, and you have a boss fight that won't wait an hour for you to rest" with better/more options for instant SRing. Catnap, special potions, a hero point based mechanic, or whatever excuse you want to use to give PCs the ability to sometimes SR without taking the full hour.

[EggKookoo]

Making encounters more difficult (one of the options here), in my experience, makes people nova even harder. It becomes a spiral. I find that uncertainty is the most effective thing, along with having a bunch of different clocks running. Not doom clocks, but "the world is progressing, even if you stop". And enforcing the idea that you can only LR once in 24 hours. So a 5 minute working day means taking an entire day off. Not holing up for 8 hours, but holing up for 20+ hours.

Seconding the value of multiple small clocks over one big doomsday clock. The latter is more likely to reduce agency, since ignoring the clock ends the story or comes close to it. Having multiple smaller, manageable clocks makes each rest an interesting decision in opportunity cost. It gets the players discussing things.

[Keltest]

Agreed. The issue being that a 5 minute adventuring day comes about when short rests give so little that it becomes worth it to just stop everything, fortify up, and wait 23 hours rather than 1.

I disagree. 5 minute adventuring days come about when there is no disadvantage to doing so. If theres no penalty for having a long rest after every encounter, or some restriction on doing so, then people are just going to do it all the time, and indeed it becomes the best strategy to do so. It doesnt have anything to do with short rests, because people will always prefer having more resources to fewer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree. 5 minute adventuring days come about when there is no disadvantage to doing so. If theres no penalty for having a long rest after every encounter, or some restriction on doing so, then people are just going to do it all the time, and indeed it becomes the best strategy to do so. It doesnt have anything to do with short rests, because people will always prefer having more resources to fewer.

Agreed. And that's where having a sense that the world is moving on without you matters. Not just locally (ie the place you're in), but globally. The longer you ignore certain threats or opportunities, the worse they get or the more the chance they have of vanishing. And making that fairly open.

But that requires people to actually be engaged with the world and the narrative. It's less effective when only the mechanics matter. I don't have any answers for that other sort, other than personally not playing at those tables.

[Keltest]

Agreed. And that's where having a sense that the world is moving on without you matters. Not just locally (ie the place you're in), but globally. The longer you ignore certain threats or opportunities, the worse they get or the more the chance they have of vanishing. And making that fairly open.

But that requires people to actually be engaged with the world and the narrative. It's less effective when only the mechanics matter. I don't have any answers for that other sort, other than personally not playing at those tables.

Even in a basically storyless game like a megadungeon crawl, wandering encounters and the idea that the party might not be able to get a long rest whenever they feel like it still help add uncertainty to the availability of a long rest after every encounter and as such help dissuade nova tactics. You dont need staggeringly complex geopolitics to convince people that they cant just sit on their butts for 23.5 hours. A pack of ogres clobbering them mid-rest because they have no resources to use will do it too.

[Warder]

TIL that people had such strong opinions about the SR/LR recharge thing - I've seen it mentioned before, of course, but it's never once been an issue at any table I've played at, so I never expected it'd be a hotly debated topic for something that needs rectifying in an edition change.

In my experience, resistance to taking short rests come from a narrative perspective; an hour is a very long time to hole up in hostile territory, and there are quite often other external time limits to consider as well - you know, "stopping the ritual", etc. It seems to me that the easiest "fix", if one is needed, is to make short rests much shorter - 10 minutes tops - and limit the amount you can benefit from between long rests. It's a very hard sell to convince the party to sit down and have lunch for an hour when dragon cultists are summoning Tiamat, but taking a breather to wrap your wounds makes far more narrative sense.

[Keravath]

If 6e is a stealth reversion to 4e - I won't play it and most of the folks I know wouldn't play it either. So, playing 6e would depend on what changes are made to the mechanics and how it plays compared to 5e. There is always room for improvement in a game system.

However, if they try to simplify it too much, make it too accessible, reduce record keeping, give the players less they need to know to play the game, try to reduce d&d to its lowest common denominator - all of those sound like a great idea and are certainly laudable goals to make it easier to play to attract more players and easier to run to encourage more DMs - but if those goals come at the cost of losing whatever "je ne sais quois" makes D&D the game it is then it is less likely to be successful.

In my opinion, that is more or less what happened with 4e. (Note: These are my impressions based on no more than half a dozen game sessions of 4e). The system was simplified and streamlined. Each class had at-will, encounter, and daily abilities as well as healing surges so that everyone could play whatever character you liked but mechanically it had little impact since everything essentially felt the same. I felt that the 4e system would have made a decent video game.

On the other hand, 3.5e, Pathfinder etc had far too much detail. Optimization and required level of knowledge were too high in my opinion to capture a wider audience.

5e seemed to find a sweet spot, enough like 1e and the other versions of D&D to feel like D&D while also simplifying the mechanics enough to make the game more accessible and easier to play. My personal opinion is that 5e is the best version of the game published so far (though I didn't play basic, I started with AD&D).

TL;DR ... I will buy the core books for 6e same as I have done for every other version :) ... whether it sees play will depend on whether it is "better" than 5e in terms of mechanics while still capturing the feeling that makes the game D&D.

[Psyren]

To use your wording: "If there's time for you to go to bed at night, there's time for you to take an hour-long nap at night."

But this doesn't work, because "at night" means the adventuring day is over. You should have no reason to short rest when the adventuring day is over, so I can't connect with this idea at all.



If there's time for you to take a long rest before your big boss battle, there's time for you to take a short rest before your big boss battle.

As I mentioned, the point of a time limit is that there's no time for either rest before the boss battle. But with long rest resources you don't need to rest before the boss battle, because they come in larger quantities. You just have to manage those resources.



Agreed. The issue being that a 5 minute adventuring day comes about when short rests give so little that it becomes worth it to just stop everything, fortify up, and wait 23 hours rather than 1.

It's only worth it to do this if your plot has no stakes or urgency. Which imo makes it a bad plot.



I think, for example, monks getting ki back on an SR is good, but maybe they need an LR feature that lets them recover some ki as an action or something PB/day. Warlocks having some LR-restoration bonus spell slots or spell slot recovery or something would also be good. Something, as you note, to let them push just a little longer if they happened to need that short rest but can't get it.
...
That said, you can keep the current paradigm and JUST give the LR classes a little bit more of their prime resources back with a short rest (maybe sorcerers get PB SP back per SR, and Arcane Recovery can be spread out over multiple SRs, and barbarians get 1 rage back per SR, for example), and solve the specific scenario of, "LR classes aren't out of juice yet, but SR classes are, and you have a boss fight that won't wait an hour for you to rest" with better/more options for instant SRing. Catnap, special potions, a hero point based mechanic, or whatever excuse you want to use to give PCs the ability to sometimes SR without taking the full hour.

I'm conceptually fine with these (but the devil is in the details.)

[Ogun]

The grittiness/ high fantasy scale of 5e reflects all of dungeons and dragons history.
Starting out as disposable and becoming godlike was baked into the experience.
That early level lethality has gone down, the late level invulnerability, not as much.
The various scales mentioned, the modularity, these are all features of class free point buy games designed to be used for any fantasy world you want.
Gurps and Hero system spend huge portions of their page counts offering ways to set the tone you are looking for, mechanically.

Asking Dnd to do that is possible, and it's happening, but it can, will and has frustrate a lot of old guard.
By allowing 3rd party and homebrew to do this work, Dnd avoids a lot of potential missteps.


On the original topic, I will play whatever the lingua franca game is.
I never played 4th, because the people I played with at the time hated it.
I like mucking about with systems, but playing with friends beats any potential gain from a system.

This maybe why I'm genuinely confused by the anti short rest arguments. 😳
If your druid or warlock is out of their best resources, why wouldn't you try to short rest?
If your party is in the middle of rescuing hostages, chasing down cultists, or clearing out trolls, rests can't happen.
Marshaling all of a parties resources is part of the game.
Short or long rests are tactical choices, and also narrative tools.

Speaking of narrative tools, the best games I've played in are the ones that sharply curtail class options.
I'm talking games where there are only rogues, monks and warlocks!
The classes reflected the world building the DM was undertaking.
Instead of trying to hamstring full casters to make their power level fit the gritty setting, he eliminated them.
In another game he capped spellcasters at 3rd level spells.
In all games he runs, he removes the parts of Dnd that don't fit his vision.
This works for us because his visions are flipping awesome, and we want in on them.
You can build a lot of what you want from a big bloated overpowered mess, just by saying no to stuff you don't like.

The official game can't do that without losing customers.
It has to keep things simple enough , while offering at least the illusion of choice in character creation and play.
Bloat and powercreep ensue, because they have to keep selling, and "official crunch" is the only thing they have a monopoly on.
I messed around with PF2 but it seems like the philosophy is to make character building choices pretty meaningless.
Like every race was little more than a skin in a video game.
Because having your prefered class/race combo be subpar is less fun for some people, one could say 5.5 is headed that way.
The realistic consequences of being a different species, race, or even culture require zero mechanical support support to invoke and yet they are not often invoked at gaming tables.
With that as a given, I don't really see how tying ability score allotment is meaningful.
If it can be changed by training(leveling) up, let it start out at a "level of training" unique to that PC.
I've played a weak Goliath, it was a blast.
There are plenty of other things that can be unique to individual fantasy races.
I'm not a fan of the PB per day abilities, but Attribute Bonus per day could reward a PC for leaning into the racial gimmick.
Size still matters, though less and less.
Different kinds of movement proliferate.
(Why have unlimited flying on 1st level PCs when it's hard to aquire for every class?)
And then there are inexplicable outliers like the bugbear...

As long as my people play it, I will try 6e.
If it has edge cases and unusual bits to exploit, I'll play around with the system for fun.

[TMac9000]

Judging from our group’s past behavior:

When 2E came out, we switched to 2E. When 3E came out, we switched to 3E. When 3.5 came out, we switched to 3.5. When 4E came out, we gave it a whirl. (It was fun but it didn’t really feel like D&D.) And when 5E came out, we switched to 5E.

I expect that when 6E happens, and eventually it will, we’ll probably slide over to that.

Note: I respect folks who hew to older editions. I *do* run Classic Traveller, after all, despite all the new editions out there. I guess I like my SF old school, but don’t really GAF when it comes to fantasy.

[Necrosnoop110]

If 6e is a stealth reversion to 4e - I won't play it and most of the folks I know wouldn't play it either. So, playing 6e would depend on what changes are made to the mechanics and how it plays compared to 5e. There is always room for improvement in a game system.


Agreed.

I think, however, there is a way to work towards better "power" balance (balance both between classes and with the absolute 1-20 power range) and play-ability, without losing the open-ended-ness that makes D&D different than war-gaming or board-games. And I think streamlining things isn't exactly the same thing as power balancing.

I often speculate whether Advanced vs Basic and/or Core vs Epic rulesets would work toward making the game better for both newbies and hardcore. Whether or not "dividing" the game in such a way will ever happen much or at all, is another question.

[Sception]

I'll be excited, I like playing with new stuff. That said, I'll be /more/ excited if it's compatible enough with 5e that I can still play a Conquest Paladin, because as much as I like playing with new stuff, what I /really/ like is playing with the exact same old stuff that I always play with.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have a stock item that I tend to provide periodically (usually when I know there's a boss fight and no sane way to rest and it makes sense to provide them; they can be bought in some areas):

Potion of Apprentice's Friend
Common potion.

This potion takes one minute to drink. After having been drunk, the user receives the benefit of a short rest.

Special: For every such potion drunk after the first since completing a long rest, the drinker must make a Constitution saving throw with DC = 10 + 5*number of these potions drunk since the last long rest. On a failed saving throw, the drinker also gains 2 levels of exhaustion.

------
Play test Endorsement: in our previous campaign these weren't all that plentiful, but when we had them they were a very good means to the end that PhoenixPhyre describes - and from my end, it did wonders for pacing and SR incorporation into play.
I heartily recommend that any DM consider importing this custom magic item into their campaign. You could say that we play tested it and gave a resounding four out of four thumbs up. (And I usually ended up giving mine to the Warlock; I was the bard).

If 6e is a stealth reversion to 4e - I won't play it and most of the folks I know wouldn't play it either. Yep. Crawford is a big fan of the fey wild, and he was a 4e dev also. You can see a bit more creeping 4eism, I think, happening as we progress. (Mind you, my favorite 4e ism is Adv/Disadv, I think it's a great tool).


Note: I respect folks who hew to older editions. I *do* run Classic Traveller, after all, despite all the new editions out there. I guess I like my SF old school, but don’t really GAF when it comes to fantasy. I am so envious; Classic Traveller? Haven't had a chance to play that in nearly 40 years.

[Segev]

I disagree. 5 minute adventuring days come about when there is no disadvantage to doing so. If theres no penalty for having a long rest after every encounter, or some restriction on doing so, then people are just going to do it all the time, and indeed it becomes the best strategy to do so. It doesnt have anything to do with short rests, because people will always prefer having more resources to fewer.


Agreed. And that's where having a sense that the world is moving on without you matters. Not just locally (ie the place you're in), but globally. The longer you ignore certain threats or opportunities, the worse they get or the more the chance they have of vanishing. And making that fairly open.

But that requires people to actually be engaged with the world and the narrative. It's less effective when only the mechanics matter. I don't have any answers for that other sort, other than personally not playing at those tables.

I agree; part of the problem is lack of consequences for resting for longer. However, there is a certain amount of self-regulation that players will engage in if they feel they have a choice NOT to decide to hole up for 23 hours. Not all players, but some.

Regardless, more SR restorations make it easier to weigh short rests as actually worth doing enough that keeping going rather than finding that place to hunker down and hoping you have enough time is viable.

[Goobahfish]

What do you mean? A long rest is generally assumed to be "tonight's sleep" which you can't avoid without exhausting yourself to death eventually. That seems pretty well codified to me. Youre taking long rests for sleep, if nothing else, all the time (absent the use of the grim and gritty rules where a long rest is a week). The 5 minute adventuring day comes into play when a DM doesnt have any other challenges between the first encounter of the day and the next long rest opportunity, which leads to absurd things like the party crawling through a dungeon, finding a band of ogres, burning all their spell slots on it, then camping out in their room for 8 hours while the next room with a pack of orcs wait politely for them to finish. Hence restricting rests.

Oh yes, there are rules for what happens when a LR happens, but nothing resembling "you must finish 6 encounters before taking a Long Rest".


This provides a rough estimate of the encounters the party can handle before the characters will need to take a long rest.

As I said, not codified. That is clearly DM fiat.


or your players need to be trained out of doing that and conditioned to internalize the importance of properly managing their resources

Sorry, what now? Are players pets?


I find that uncertainty is the most effective thing, along with having a bunch of different clocks running.

This is broadly the correct solution assuming the rules exist. However, my main point is that this becomes a necessary 'meta-rule' (there must be a time-limit on everything) which basically restricts the types of games that can be run. I do similar things, but having the 'need' to this all the time (to 'balance' the game) is inherently restrictive.


It seems to me that the easiest "fix", if one is needed, is to make short rests much shorter - 10 minutes tops - and limit the amount you can benefit from between long rests.

That is my solution too. A short rest representing 'enough time to patch up small wounds, drink some water, take some deep breaths and get your s##t together'.

Also, I literally call it a 'breather'.

-----

OK, perhaps I can further clarify. If we assume that the game is balanced if the players do 6 encounters. Thus, if the players do less than 6, the game is kind of unbalanced (at least for the LR/SR balance).

Each time the party try to avoid an encounter (say socially, sneakily or using a cunning plan) they are changing the 'balance' of the game. These behaviours (avoiding encounters) shouldn't be discouraged. Yet, for a DM trying to maintain 'balance', they have a kind of perverse incentive to do so. It is this same perverse incentive which indicates that having a 5-minute adventuring day is bad.

The thing is, it doesn't even need to be a 5-minute day. It could be a three encounter day and it is still unbalanced.

Moreover, any day which involves 'travel' (i.e. we walk for 4 hours to go from A to B) basically halves the 'adventuring day' anyway. In a completely in-world reasonable way. If a half-day trip needs three random encounters... that seems tedious.

Now... from a purely logistical point of view, having a 6-encounter day is a LONG day from a 'at the table' perspective (i.e. it might require more than a single session). Record keeping of spells and so forth between sessions is... awkward.

My main point is that the balance of the game shouldn't be that beholden to the flow of the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree with the concept that 5e D&D is balanced around 6 encounters. Or 1 encounter. Or any specific number of encounters. That's not a reasonable reading of the text, in context. For one BIG thing, it leaves out the scale of the encounters (6 Medium =/= 6 Hard, etc). For another, it treats the post hoc "in playtesting, we found that our parties generally needed about 6-8 Medium encounters and 2 short rests before they needed to take a long rest" statement (which is what we have) with a "we designed it so that if you're not having 6 Medium encounters and two long rests per long rest it's out of balance."

One fight per day is ok. If, on other days, you have more than that. The only real pathological case is always 1 fight. Variety is what matters. And the number estimated? That was for
a) playtesting
b) very low optimization optimization (basic rules, since the PHB wasn't out yet) parties
c) using playtest enemies
d) over a limited span of levels.

That entire chapter of the DMG only applies with any confidence to new DMs and low-optimization parties. Everything else is left up to the DM. I've had great success with not even tracking the adventuring day more than "ok, I probably want there to be the chance of more than one fight that day". Not calculating encounter budgets or difficulty, not even really calculating the CR of homebrew creatures beyond "what proficiency bonus do I want them to have".

Balance is much more affected by how you play than any of the mechanical details.

Mathematically, the best balance point isn't fights per day, it's rounds per short rest. And the "magic number" seems to be about 7-9. 3x 3-round fights works. But so does 1x4 and 1x3. Or 1x 10 round fight. Just don't do the same thing every day and you'll be fine. People will learn not to nova, because there's the risk of needing it later.

[Psyren]

^ While I agree that the guidelines can't uniformly apply to every table, I also think you're conflating "encounter" and "fight."

[PhoenixPhyre]

^ While I agree that the guidelines can't uniformly apply to every table, I also think you're conflating "encounter" and "fight."

I'm being a bit loose, but any encounter or scene that has the potential to use resources counts as a "fight".

However, I think that the xp tables are the most wrong way to assess that for most games. The difficulty definitions apply broadly, but what is Medium (will drain some, but not many resources) for one group may be deadly or easy for another. Trying to pin things to the xp definition makes the whole idea less useful.

[Keravath]

In fact, anyone who likes 5e is very likely to be disappointed in 6e, if historical trends hold. Because each edition is written, in large part, as a reaction against the perceived failures of the previous one. Thus the drunken wobble back and forth.

Odd. That isn't my impression at all.
1e->2e->3e->3.5e was a pretty natural progression. They fixed some of the issues along the way ... moved away from THAC0, percentile strength and other 1e idiosyncracies.

4e was the odd one out being an utterly different design paradigm.

5e actually seemed like a natural progression in terms of simplification and streamlining from 3/3.5e while incorporating some concepts from 4e.

If 6e is a refinement of 5e then it will likely succeed, if it is a radical change like 4e the odds might be against it unless the system is so much better.

[Psyren]

I'm being a bit loose, but any encounter or scene that has the potential to use resources counts as a "fight".

Why not just say encounter? Potential to use resources is how they're defined.

[Tanarii]

Odd. That isn't my impression at all.
1e->2e->3e->3.5e was a pretty natural progression. They fixed some of the issues along the way ... moved away from THAC0, percentile strength and other 1e idiosyncracies.
3e was a hard left turn on many fronts that alienated a large chunk of the existing player base, who refused to make the conversion. It even earned the name The Edition That Shall Not Be Named (TETSNBN) on dragonsfoot. What saved it was the internet era bringing geekdom out of cold and resulting in huge growth in the RPG market due to bringing in large new generation of players.

The break between TSR D&D and WotC 3e was as big as the break to WotC 4e. Whereas 5e is basically 3e core framework with some good ideas stolen from 4e, plus a few of its own good ideas in how to simplify things.

[EggKookoo]

3e was a hard left turn on many fronts that alienated a large chunk of the existing player base, who refused to make the conversion. It even earned the name The Edition That Shall Not Be Named (TETSNBN) on dragonsfoot. What saved it was the internet era bringing geekdom out of cold and resulting in huge growth in the RPG market due to bringing in large new generation of players.

I agree. I don't think any edition defines a generational divide quite like 3e does.

[Psyren]

Yeah I wasn't even much of a 2e fan (all my knowledge of it came from Baldur's Gate) and even I remember the huge edition wars and resentment that popped up because of 3e; and then again for 3.5, aka "oops we forgot to playtest, buy new core books!" 4e was not at all the only edition change to cause hostility.

[Segev]

I agree. I don't think any edition defines a generational divide quite like 3e does.

I do not see this. I started with 1e and 2e in the 90s, and played them for years before 3e came out. I thought 3e an improvement in almost every way. There are things now that I look back at and think should be reincorporated, but by and large I still think 5e is also far superior to 2e. I actually like both 3.PF and 5e for different things and don't have a favorite between them.

I would play 1e core only again before I would play 4e, though. 4e just...wasn't D&D, in the same sense that a Winnebago is not a Cessna. Winnebegos are fine for what they're designed for, but if you wanted a personal plane, they're going to disappoint.

[Tanarii]

I agree. I don't think any edition defines a generational divide quite like 3e does.


I do not see this. I started with 1e and 2e in the 90s, and played them for years before 3e came out. I thought 3e an improvement in almost every way.
I think EggKookoo put it very succinctly. Despite the fact I started in 85, and played constantly until 3e came out, and personally loved it and adopted it with many of my friends. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a huge paradigm shift on multiple fronts, and for much of the existing player base just wasn't D&D any more. Just like 4e. Which I also loved and adopted. (Although by then my friends had settled down and I had to join official play in game stores and meet/find dedicated groups of players.)

IMO, ultimately the primary difference for the existing player base was there wasn't a Pathfinder (2e style) as an alternative after 3e came out. They were just left with games with no more support. Otoh many of them were fine with that, there was a ton of TSR content, especially for 2e. Pretty sure I owned most of it too :smallamused:

[Segev]

IMO, ultimately the primary difference for the existing player base was there wasn't a Pathfinder (2e style) as an alternative after 3e came out. They were just left with games with no more support. Otoh many of them were fine with that, there was a ton of TSR content, especially for 2e. Pretty sure I owned most of it too :smallamused:

There was, though. Several, though the one I can think of off the top of my head is Palladium.

[Goobahfish]

I disagree with the concept that 5e D&D is balanced around 6 encounters. Or 1 encounter. Or any specific number of encounters. That's not a reasonable reading of the text, in context. For one BIG thing, it leaves out the scale of the encounters (6 Medium =/= 6 Hard, etc). For another, it treats the post hoc "in playtesting, we found that our parties generally needed about 6-8 Medium encounters and 2 short rests before they needed to take a long rest" statement (which is what we have) with a "we designed it so that if you're not having 6 Medium encounters and two long rests per long rest it's out of balance."

This is all true. I have enough experience being a DM to know that balance is... a really nebulous DM/game dependent phenomenon. I suppose the point that I am making is that having classes whose 'core mechanics' really drive by the long rest create distortive incentive structures to minimize the number of encounters per day in a way that say a fighter (battlemaster probably), doesn't. Clearly fighters are a bit more boring than other classes and making all classes homogenous (4e) is also a bad idea. The rules for each class need to be 'different enough' to make playing one feel very different from another.

An example of what I find very weird from a design perspective is the Sorcerer/Warlock divide (which is probably why the Sorcerer often sits 1" from the dustbin in many conversations). At their core, the difference is really... how you get your spells back (obviously metamagic and invocations etc are small differences). They both have a limited spell list and seem to have a roughly similar aesthetic (but different fluff around that aesthetic - patrons vs blood - 'loner caster').

Now, 'how you get your spells back' basically means that they have diametrically opposed preferences for encounter styles. Sorcerers clearly would prefer short-day hard encounters, whereas the warlock prefers a series of small->medium encounters with periodic rests.

This is interesting, but again creates distortive tensions in the game. Especially if a party is dominated by one 'style' of class over the other (i.e. 3 Sorcerers and a Warlock). Having short rests as a sort of 'per encounter' given except in 'chain encounters' (which happen seldomly) tends to create a healthier playstyle. Obviously abilities then need to be balanced to account for it, but having 'mostly short rest' parties I have found leads to 'decent adventuring days' being a norm rather than an exception.

[Psyren]

I mean, you can choose to disregard the guidance they give on rests just like any other guidance in the DMG, but doing that and then complaining there's no guidance seems pretty counterproductive.

[Tanarii]

There was, though. Several, though the one I can think of off the top of my head is Palladium.
Palladium was NOT effectively "3rd party AD&D". Which is what would be a like for like situation.

[Segev]

Palladium was NOT effectively "3rd party AD&D". Which is what would be a like for like situation.

I suppose. It is remarkably close, in that you can clearly see where it branched off from AD&D and started bolting on its own ideas. But I agree that it's more dissimilar to AD&D than PF1 is to 3.5. Even with PF1's lengthy years of advancements and additions.

The main thing, though, is that I just don't see AD&D lingering the way 3.5 did. 3.5 is still played, with an active community. Sure, it's often 3.PF, but I also think PF2 is probably less successful than Paizo wanted it to be based on how much 3.PF still sticks around. 5e pulled more people away from 3.PF than 4e did from 3e, and PF2 has not pulled as many away from PF1 and 3.PF as 5e did. I see more people still playing 5e and 3.PF than I do (still) playing 4e or even switching to PF2, though I am sure there are PF1 players who play PF2 as well.

There's always been resistance to any edition change, but 3e seemed to pretty much win people over, as far as I can tell, in general/majority-enough sense that 4e never did. I think 5e has won over both 3e and 4e players, as I don't see 4e lingering the way 3e still does, and I know most 3.PF players I know have no problem with 5e and will play it as readily as they will 3.PF. (The reverse is not true: I know a number of 5e players who are very hesitant to try out 3.PF.)

[Tanarii]

The main thing, though, is that I just don't see AD&D lingering the way 3.5 did.
It did linger, and it still does. But the AD&D player base at the time (which split) was much smaller than the explosive growth of new players coming in for the first time during 3e.

With 3e->4e there was a much larger player base to split and a larger number to stay on with 3e and then PF. But no explosive growth of new 4e players to make up the difference.

Point being the radical changes of 3e were contentious and split the existing player base. It just didn't have the same impact on the success of the new edition.

[Psyren]

It did linger, and it still does. But the AD&D player base at the time (which split) was much smaller than the explosive growth of new players coming in for the first time during 3e.

With 3e->4e there was a much larger player base to split and a larger number to stay on with 3e and then PF. But no explosive growth of new 4e players to make up the difference.

Point being the radical changes of 3e were contentious and split the existing player base. It just didn't have the same impact on the success of the new edition.

I think this is an important point. Every edition change breaks its base to some degree. The key is to offset the players who won't switch (or even just delay switching) with new ones.

Can a hypothetical 6e do this? Given 5e's current size and notoriety, I think we'd need a big paradigm shift or killer app for that. Integrated VTT or AI or VR for example. If it's just the same model of dead tree PHB+DMG+MM with all-new rules to learn and then we'll maybe do some online stuff later, it will likely not succeed.

[KorvinStarmast]

Can a hypothetical 6e do this? Given 5e's current size and notoriety, I think we'd need a big paradigm shift or killer app for that. Integrated VTT or AI or VR for example.
If it's just the same model of dead tree PHB+DMG+MM with all-new rules to learn and then we'll maybe do some online stuff later, it will likely not succeed. Very much concur.

[Segev]

Can a hypothetical 6e do this? Given 5e's current size and notoriety, I think we'd need a big paradigm shift or killer app for that. Integrated VTT or AI or VR for example. If it's just the same model of dead tree PHB+DMG+MM with all-new rules to learn and then we'll maybe do some online stuff later, it will likely not succeed.

I sincerely doubt that integrated VTT, AI, VR, or anything electronic that actually raises the barrier to entry and requires making things work across multiple interfaces will facilitate D&D. Frankly, D&D as a computer game has been done over and over and over again, and arguably most video games today are the evolution of that into something that actually works on a video game model. There's no way to "integrate" VTTs into D&D without breaking D&D as an accessible platform, and VTTs that "do D&D" already exist, some better and some worse. I think that will always be a parallel innovation, rather than anything that integration would make one or the other more palatable.

4e wasn't only a response to 3.5 running out of creativity. There were systemic flaws with the game balance that were perceived as needing fixing. I don't agree with how they fixed them (or even that they were the massive flaws the designers of 4e thought they were), but that was the impetus, and that's what led to a new edition being its own thing while still (allegedly) being D&D.

5e was, similarly, a response to the way 4e was not crushing Pathfinder the way WotC probably desired, and an attempt to make D&D more accessible to new players while drawing the 3e fanbase back to the fold. I think it largely succeeded, there.

Unless 6e has a sort of "big idea" about how it wants to reshape the game to present itself to the new and existing audience as D&D, but better-for-this-kind-of-gaming, I don't think it'll do very well. People will resist moving over, and resent having to just to get new content. Especially if all the "new" content is merely rehashing old content because the designers ran out of creativity for 5e and want to get paid for retreading old ground.

A third party effort seems to have rebuilt 5e with more of a 3e granularity, calling themselves "Level up D&D" or something like that. The biggest thing they've done that I think is a clever move is try to re-integrate exploration as a pillar with solid mechanics that make finding shelter and civilization a reward in and of itself. Not sure what I think of it as a whole, and it is closer to a 5.5 or 5.75 than a 6.0, being built recognizably on 5e's chassis, but "re-integrate exploration pillar" might be one Big Idea that could help sell a 6e.

[Warder]

A third party effort seems to have rebuilt 5e with more of a 3e granularity, calling themselves "Level up D&D" or something like that. The biggest thing they've done that I think is a clever move is try to re-integrate exploration as a pillar with solid mechanics that make finding shelter and civilization a reward in and of itself. Not sure what I think of it as a whole, and it is closer to a 5.5 or 5.75 than a 6.0, being built recognizably on 5e's chassis, but "re-integrate exploration pillar" might be one Big Idea that could help sell a 6e.

Everything I've seen of Level Up (which admittedly is pretty limited, since I don't own it) has looked really good. I suspect if I return to D&D in my local game, it'll be in the shape of Level Up rather than whatever WotC will release next. But yes, I completely agree - giving more weight to the exploration (and social, for that matter) pillar would be a worthy improvement for a potential new edition, but I would be very surprised if that's what we're getting. Current D&D operates very much according to the MCU formula - cool moments, flashy powers, dipping deep into that power fantasy - but don't worry so much about the moments in between.

I think the first time I realized that was when Healing Spirit had just been released and people rightly pointed out that it broke healing between fights, and both JC and Mike Mearls said who cares, that's not important - fights are meant to be started at max HP anyway. Mind. Blown.

[Psyren]

I sincerely doubt that integrated VTT, AI, VR, or anything electronic that actually raises the barrier to entry and requires making things work across multiple interfaces will facilitate D&D.

I agree those things constitute a barrier to entry today, because technology isn't quite there yet (aside from the VTT, and even then they can be a bit clunky for a newcomer to set up.) But we're not talking about today - we're talking about some hypothetical future when an entirely new edition of the game would be seen as warranted.

There was a time when expecting people to have an internet connection would have been considered a barrier to entry for D&D. Now it's actually a growth factor for the hobby (hi there global pandemic) rather than an obstacle.


A third party effort seems to have rebuilt 5e with more of a 3e granularity, calling themselves "Level up D&D" or something like that. The biggest thing they've done that I think is a clever move is try to re-integrate exploration as a pillar with solid mechanics that make finding shelter and civilization a reward in and of itself. Not sure what I think of it as a whole, and it is closer to a 5.5 or 5.75 than a 6.0, being built recognizably on 5e's chassis, but "re-integrate exploration pillar" might be one Big Idea that could help sell a 6e.

"5e but a bunch more rules" doesn't sound like a good idea for 6e to me. Pivoting the whole game in that direction would likely lead to the fail state I mentioned.


Unless 6e has a sort of "big idea" about how it wants to reshape the game to present itself to the new and existing audience as D&D, but better-for-this-kind-of-gaming, I don't think it'll do very well. People will resist moving over, and resent having to just to get new content. Especially if all the "new" content is merely rehashing old content because the designers ran out of creativity for 5e and want to get paid for retreading old ground.

We agree on this much if nothing else.

[Telok]

I
"5e but a bunch more rules" doesn't sound like a good idea for 6e to me. Pivoting the whole game in that direction would likely lead to the fail state I mentioned.

Sounds like a good idea to me... if... they cleaned up some of the stupid confusing **** rules that currently exist first and wrote decent simple straight rules for stuff that keeps stumping people. I've certainly seen a few DMs stumped for making exploration & travel be more than a series of random encounter rolls.

Example, all the reactions I know of are written in the method of "if X happens then you can do Y as a reaction". This makes reactions an exclusionary exception set of rules. You can never, by the rules, just generally use a reaction to react to anything like ducking when you hear a trap trigger. It always has to be one exact predefined trigger for one exact predefined reaction. You could instead write an ability like "In Harms Way: As a reaction you move up to 5' to throw yourself between an ally and danger, taking the full effect of that danger on yourself." Simple, if a bit vague (for real publication I'd add a short one sentence example), and inclusive of the players doing lots of defferent interesting fun stuff.

Pictures & examples. The books could do with some useful pictures & examples. Like what not to have to roll perception for, or what they intend for the stupid lighting levels to look like. Damn stupid rules are still causing "yeah its dark but they didn't hide so i know exactly where they all moved to" kinds of crap since 4e came out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree those things constitute a barrier to entry today, because technology isn't quite there yet (aside from the VTT, and even then they can be a bit clunky for a newcomer to set up.) But we're not talking about today - we're talking about some hypothetical future when an entirely new edition of the game would be seen as warranted.

There was a time when expecting people to have an internet connection would have been considered a barrier to entry for D&D. Now it's actually a growth factor for the hobby (hi there global pandemic) rather than an obstacle.


I run an online game. Having an integrated VTT (which implies a mandatory VTT) or other digital component would be an instant "do not buy, do not play" for me. Especially since that would make them free (and feel more comfortable) with more complex mechanics (leaning on the VTT to handle the load). See below for my thoughts on that.

VTTs are ok...as stopgaps when you can't actually all get together, put away the devices, and just play. They're always an impedence mismatch for play. They always slow things down and complicate life and put pressures on the gameplay (having fancy maps means smaller maps and less spontaneity, for one thing). Playing online is roughly double the prep work, and it's the annoying prep work--finding maps, wiring up the walls, making sure I have tokens and character sheets written for all the custom stuff, etc. And they're janky at best, even when they work perfectly.

Having the system assume a particular VTT/other solution means that homebrew is locked into the walls of what the electronic solution is programmed for. Much less ability to do wild and funky things without fighting the system. And not only that--it would increase the incentive to be locked into adventure paths/purchased modules, because it solves that setup problem. And I hate those.



"5e but a bunch more rules" doesn't sound like a good idea for 6e to me. Pivoting the whole game in that direction would likely lead to the fail state I mentioned.


Exactly. More rules, more complexity is, to me, a downside. Something that pushes me away. Not something that attracts me.

[Psyren]

I run an online game. Having an integrated VTT (which implies a mandatory VTT) or other digital component would be an instant "do not buy, do not play" for me.

I covered the folks who would react this way (see "offset" above.) And I truly believe it would offset, because there's huge growth potential - I can't imagine the number of people who want to DM who don't have a physical group, and who don't want to wrestle with Roll20 or Foundry (much less spring for the paid versions) to set up their game.

If nothing else, WotC can certainly afford to host any number of games either without charging a subscription or including the cost in the sub fee people are already paying for Beyond.


Sounds like a good idea to me... if... they cleaned up some of the stupid confusing **** rules that currently exist first and wrote decent simple straight rules for stuff that keeps stumping people. I've certainly seen a few DMs stumped for making exploration & travel be more than a series of random encounter rolls.

To be blunt, those DMs are just not trying. There's so much guidance for fleshing out exploration and travel online, and if they don't want to bone up on that it can just be skipped.


You can never, by the rules, just generally use a reaction to react to anything like ducking when you hear a trap trigger.

This kind of thing is already baked into your reflex save and AC; your character is not a mannequin in between actions.


Pictures & examples. The books could do with some useful pictures & examples. Like what not to have to roll perception for, or what they intend for the stupid lighting levels to look like. Damn stupid rules are still causing "yeah its dark but they didn't hide so i know exactly where they all moved to" kinds of crap since 4e came out.

Why wouldn't you know where they are, or at least what square to target, if they're making no attempt to hide? Your disadvantage to hit does enough to cover the chance of being wrong.

[Tanarii]

Having an integrated VTT doesn't necessarily imply required. But it probably does mean the rules would have to be written to be more in line with battlemat play.

I know it won't happen, largely because D&D has it roots in war gaming, but it'd be interesting to see D&D move away from any grid, even 1ft increments. Typically RPGs move to a close(melee)/near/far/distant system, or zone based, or some combination thereof. Not only that, but in theory zone based could work absolutely fine with a VTT, and it would eliminate the need for them to be precision/gridded maps. (I don't know if any existing VTTs currently handle this.) of course, id expect a large number of players would probably prefer a VTT act as a battlemat with precision maps, even if that means more overhead for the DM.

[Psyren]

Having an integrated VTT doesn't necessarily imply required. But it probably does mean the rules would have to be written to be more in line with battlemat play.

I know it won't happen, largely because D&D has it roots in war gaming, but it'd be interesting to see D&D move away from any grid, even 1ft increments. Typically RPGs move to a close(melee)/near/far/distant system, or zone based, or some combination thereof. Not only that, but in theory zone based could work absolutely fine with a VTT, and it would eliminate the need for them to be precision/gridded maps. (I don't know if any existing VTTs currently handle this.) of course, id expect a large number of players would probably prefer a VTT act as a battlemat with precision maps, even if that means more overhead for the DM.

I think the closest we'll get to moving away from a grid is what they did - guidance on adjudicating theater of the mind like we have in the DMG.

[Segev]

An innovation I think would be interesting would be a combat system - and a system as a whole, but especially combat - designed to run in play by post. IT would require minimal back-and-forth for each major decision. Rounds that require just the DM to lay out the start of round situation, the players to give input exactly once for what they do, and then the DM can resolve the round, and lay out the next round. This would mean redesigning everything so that it doesn't require lots of choices about how defenses are applied to each attack. No reactions.

[Tanarii]

That's how AD&D ran. Everyone declares actions, then initiative is determined based on those declared actions. It's a fundamental difference from WotC D&D.

BECMI doesn't have rules stating when you declare what you will do, but it uses side initiative and the order of acting is movement, Missile, Magic, hand to hand within a side. Some of the text in the RC kind of implies you should declare at least when your side gets to act, but it's not concrete. You may get to declare when the appropriate phase comes up.

[Telok]

To be blunt, those DMs are just not trying. There's so much guidance for fleshing out exploration and travel online, and if they don't want to bone up on that it can just be skipped.

And there's the problem. You have to go online looking to find 3rd party and homebrew rules & advice to fix what could be covered in maybe 5 pages in the DMG. You or I might do that, but either zero of the DMs I've ever played 4e or 5e under could do it. Or maybe they did & couldn't figure it out, or maybe they don't trust "broken op homebrew" from the internet. I've heard both reasons at the table for not using anything not directly from WotC.

The rest of your stuff is just excuses. Yes your character is sitting there trapped like a mime in a 5' box when its not your turn unless you have explicit rules. Your character can't shout a warning, catch a falling person, move from your mime box, or take any actions without without explicit permission (almost always from a spell too) You the player are a passive lump when its not your turn. I track time, I spend nearly 90% of combat time being a passive lump. People go to the bathroom and come back to some saves and damage because they have no rules permitted reactions beyond a weak opportunity attack. Stealth is just as bad with everyone having echo-location unless you both spend your turn doing nothing but trying to be silent and rolling high enough to beat passives. Its a like a pure video game set up with glowing outlines of creatures in pitch black rooms. You don't even know where the walls are but you know exactly where the people walk around them even if they're on the other side.

You're happy with few or no rules and lots of hand waving. That's fine, I can run my preferred systems that way (Paranoia has significantly fewer & lighter rules and that's a really fun flexible system). But I've seen multiple new DMs bounce hard off D&D because they can't make up everything on the fly or trawl blogs for fixes. I keep seeing people show up on boards having the same DMing problems & questions for fifteen years now that you say aren't issues.

I'd like to see a 6e with real modular rules. An official working exploration module that DMs can use or ignore as they like. A working mass combat module to let fighters lead armies & not auto dump stat charisma. Just actual rules that work when new DMs use them, even if they ask for too many rolls because they don't want to keep fiating the PCs failing or succeeding most of the time. I can deal with a section that says "these are the optional <foo> rules and here's a five sentences TLDR of best advice if you don't want to use them" by keeping or dropping it as I like. But if never exists in the official books I'll almost certainly never see it when anyone but me is the DM and I'll keep meeting people having the same damn problems with D&D all over again, that could habe been fixed with 5 pages of decent optional rules in some official books.

[LudicSavant]

And there's the problem. You have to go online looking to find 3rd party and homebrew rules & advice to fix what could be covered in maybe 5 pages in the DMG.

Well now I just wanna know what cool online sources you're using. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

And there's the problem. You have to go online looking to find 3rd party and homebrew rules & advice to fix what could be covered in maybe 5 pages in the DMG. You or I might do that, but either zero of the DMs I've ever played 4e or 5e under could do it. Or maybe they did & couldn't figure it out, or maybe they don't trust "broken op homebrew" from the internet. I've heard both reasons at the table for not using anything not directly from WotC.

I'm not talking about "homebrew," I'm talking about advice blogs and youtube guides like AngryGM, Matt Colville, Ginny Di, MonarchsFactory etc etc. Not to mention, you know, forums like this one. The answer to "how do I make {pillar} interesting" isn't cramming in dozens more rules, it's learning from other DMs.

And thinking any game with any semblance of depth these days gets away without that stuff is just a grognard mindset. Kids playing Minecraft and Roblox are trained to look this stuff up online, your DM can too. You just have to give them the honest feedback that you find exploration challenges at your tables boring.



The rest of your stuff is just excuses.

You don't need a reaction or explicit movement to dodge a trap. What did you think the reflex save meant, your character phasing out of reality? You should feel free to narrate that stuff as e.g. ducking if you want to.

And I'm sorry your DMs don't let you catch falling allies or even speak out of turn. To be frank, that sounds like a very unappealing table to be at.


I keep seeing people show up on boards having the same DMing problems & questions for fifteen years now that you say aren't issues.

If we added 1000 more pages to the DMG you'd still see that. Or rather, you wouldn't because every new DM would run screaming for the hills and the game would die out. Mission accomplished I guess.

[Segev]

It isn't "thousands of pages" that are needed. It is merely some structure. Something to hang more of a game around than a random encounter once every few days, and some very crude ration tracking. Something to make the resource attrition math 5e relies on for challenge and decision-making complexity work at exploration scale as well as dungeon-crawling scale.

My own very basic suggestion for this is to have normal resting work only if you are in a "settlement." In one, you long rest normally, and for 24 hours after a long rest, short rests take an hour. After that, they take eight hours, as if in "gritty realism" rules. This makes finding villages, inns, tribes, goblin encampments, etc. valuable rewards while exploring. If you like, have rules for establishing a "settlement" (a "base camp," perhaps) that takes a week of setup and then requires a hireling or few to maintain. This lets you use the "gritty realism" long rest duration when you are desperate in the wilderness. And then your base camp can be right outside the dungeon, giving you dungeon-crawling rest timing while you explore it!

I don't think that is "Thousands of pages of rules," but it makes exploration have the right attrition rate, gives it more rewards for finding things while exploring, and lets you use the existing gameplay loop for dungeon crawling with exploration if you want.

[Corsair14]

Most groups will happily or reluctantly switch over. In-store groups generally wont have a choice except in stores where the owner isnt pushing currently sold games. Home groups will run the range of cheerfully going over to saying, "nope, I own too many 5e books to switch." My group alternates games systems every 3-8 months, so with the next game being run being 4e Warhammer Fantasy and that likely being a long running campaign and I refusing to run 5e(I'll play it if someone else is running) and most of my group being either retired or in school, I doubt we would upgrade to 6 anytime near the release date. More likely it would be after someone lets curiosity get the best of them and they pick up a book and decide to want to run it.

[Mud Puppy]

Response 204 on this thread.... so if you've read down this far I'll throw in my two cents....

As a newer player who discovered this game in 2018 and has only ever played 5e, I didn't understand how several years into a "new" edition there were still a bunch of people playing 3.5e let alone the version to remain name/numberless in between 3.5 and 5. "Why wouldn't you jump up to the new version and keep up with the new stuff?" I thought to myself. Suffice to say I understand it now. My play groups haven't had time to get through all of the 5e content in the few years we've been playing. The idea of not ever getting to play CoS, for example(its up next when we finish SKT!), after hearing so many good reports about it leaves me almost as disappointed as when Disney bought Star Wars and declared all of the old EU books I grew up reading were no longer canon.

I will very likely make the jump to the new version when it comes out, but maybe not right away, and then I reserve the right to bitch about the new version the way all the old timers have complained about 5e.

[Amechra]

[QUOTE=Segev;25538901]The main thing, though, is that I just don't see AD&D lingering the way 3.5 did./QUOTE]

Legitimate question: have you ever heard of the OSR? Because TSR-era D&D has been "lingering" for 40+ years.

...

For anyone who doesn't get why 3e was such a massive departure from 2e, it has a lot to do with what the rules are focused on.

Early D&D was a game about pulling off heists while juggling limited resources. Combat was something to be avoided (which is why you could have the Fighter as a class that was better at fighting than everyone else), your character's mechanical identity was almost entirely tied up in their class, player-driven character customization was pretty sparse on the ground, and the game generally embraced randomly determining very important things about your characters. Now, 2e did start to move away from this — you had some customization in the form of Non-Weapon Proficiencies and modules moved away from being pure dungeon-crawls — but WotC looked at that trend and ran with it.

Like, for one thing? 3e completely changed how leveling up and multiclassing worked. In TSR D&D, different classes leveled at different rates, and the two forms of multiclassing were "you have two classes — split your XP between them" (for non-humans) and "you can swap classes, but you aren't allowed to use your original class's stuff until your level in your new class meets or beats your level in your old one" (for humans). 3e went "nah — all levels are created equal, and you can snap them together like lego", and then poured on a massive number of little dials you could tweak to get your character just right.

On top of that, the way you level up is different. In TSR D&D, you got XP for bringing home loot. Oh, sure, you could get XP by killing monsters, but that was chump change compared to the XP you'd get for looting their stuff. And the game reflected that — encumbrance was important, modules focused on what fabulous riches were in the place you were ransacking, and combat wasn't terribly balanced (because it wasn't a core activity, and as such didn't need to be). Flash-forward to 3e, and your primary source of XP was killing monsters — as such, the entire game was refocused around combat. Encumbrance was suddenly kinda pointless (because "how much loot can I carry?" was a less important question) and there was a definite focus on combat being "fun" and "engaging" (classes developed more combat-related features, monster entries became more focused on what that monster did in a fight, and we saw the introduction of the CR system).

Ironically, I'm pretty sure that that's the reason why 3.5 ended up with a reputation for turning players into magical Christmas trees — players had to get loot as part of the basic genre assumptions of D&D, but magic items were the only loot that was actually mechanically valuable. And, since combat was now supposed to be "balanced", the designers balanced it with the assumption that players would have cool magic items... which made having those magic items more-or-less mandatory.

The reason why people don't remember this being a problem in the same way that the transition from 3e to 4e was a problem (and, again, 4e was arguably more similar to 3e than 3e was to 2e)... 3e came out in 2000 and got a lot of new players (for a bunch of complicated reasons that I won't get into). As a result, most of the NERD FIGHTS over the new edition were restricted to a handful of older forums, which got drowned out by the people who started in 3e and never had any interest in AD&D in the first place. It turns out that releasing a new edition of D&D at a time when there's a broad cultural interest in "geek stuff" is a good idea that gets people to try out the game — who knew?

I'd argue that 3e's success has more to do with WotC's good management (because good lord did TSR mismanage D&D) and the fact that the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Star Wars prequels came out around the same time than it does with 3e necessarily being a good game, kinda like how I'd attribute 5e's success to the resurgence of nostalgia for the 80s/90s and the popularity of podcasts/streaming first and to the mechanics second.

tl;dr: I'd pretty sure that 6e is going to bomb hard unless WotC can catch lightning in a bottle twice.

[Tanarii]

tl;dr: I'd pretty sure that 6e is going to bomb hard unless WotC can catch lightning in a bottle twice.
Three times. They already caught it twice with 3e and 5e.

But it's worth noting that "grand dungeon heist followed by wilderness exploration followed by ruling and mass combat" fell by the wayside early on as a common way to play*. My personal experience that most people tended to play either something close to "series of combat encounters", or something like "cooperative storytelling time maybe with one big fight". And TSR juggled trying to accommodate those two types of players with a originally game designed for neither.

But you'll note that's still the two way split that WotC struggles to find a way to accommodate, with a nod to dungeon/wilderness exploration with some no-structures vestigial rules. They do it by having a tactical (but less tactical than 4e) game, lots of rhetoric about how the game is about story, personality suggestions for players, and one (also vestigial) narrative rule.

*IMO OSR kinda tried to rewrite the narrative by claiming that many folks actually played dungeon heist etc. But that it wasn't really accurate. It's just how it was intended to be played, and how it works best.

[KorvinStarmast]

But yes, I completely agree - giving more weight to the exploration (and social, for that matter) pillar would be a worthy improvement for a potential new edition, but I would be very surprised if that's what we're getting. Instead of the long lists of names in Xanathar's, five pages to add a bit more meat for the exploration pillar might have been more value added.

I think the first time I realized that was when Healing Spirit had just been released and people rightly pointed out that it broke healing between fights, and both JC and Mike Mearls said who cares, that's not important - fights are meant to be started at max HP anyway. Mind. Blown. Yeah, that contradicts 'six to eight medium encounters before you run out of resources' as a design concept.

There was a time when expecting people to have an internet connection would have been considered a barrier to entry for D&D. Now it's actually a growth factor for the hobby (hi there global pandemic) rather than an obstacle. Without youtube, I don't get told 'that not how it works in D&D (per Matt Mercer)' when running an encounter, to which I countered "Then go play at his table."

"5e but a bunch more rules" doesn't sound like a good idea for 6e to me. Pivoting the whole game in that direction would likely lead to the fail state I mentioned. 5e is already bloating. More rules it doesn't need.

{VTT} They always slow things down and complicate life yes, yes, and more yes. In compensation, it lets me play with people all over the country.

Exactly. More rules, more complexity is, to me, a downside. Yes.

If nothing else, WotC can certainly afford to host any number of games either without charging a subscription or including the cost in the sub fee people are already paying for Beyond. And then there's the problem of waiting in line if the servers are/server is, full. Just like when WoW was released. :smallyuk:

This kind of thing is already baked into your reflex save and AC; your character is not a mannequin in between actions.
Indeed, and as a DM I do not generally prevent brief comments by other players during another's turn, but it better be quick since a round is only six seconds long of "in world" time.

Why wouldn't you know where they are, or at least what square to target, if they're making no attempt to hide? Your disadvantage to hit does enough to cover the chance of being wrong. A lot of people seem to not know how to use disadvantage.

Having an integrated VTT doesn't necessarily imply required. But it probably does mean the rules would have to be written to be more in line with battlemat play. Hey, sounds like 4e.
Typically RPGs move to a close(melee)/near/far/distant system, or zone based, or some combination thereof. [/quote] of course, id expect a large number of players would probably prefer a VTT act as a battlemat with precision maps, even if that means more overhead for the DM.[/QUOTE] A generation of CRPGs will inform the desires of the fan base, and I think that a lot will prefer that.

Rounds that require just the DM to lay out the start of round situation, the players to give input exactly once for what they do, and then the DM can resolve the round, and lay out the next round. This would mean redesigning everything so that it doesn't require lots of choices about how defenses are applied to each attack. No reactions. Max Wilson does something like this called "we go" and it's good enough for a play by post game. I had some trouble with it due to also running and playing straight 5e tow or three other times in the same week.

I've heard both reasons at the table for not using anything not directly from WotC. I prefer that and I'm not a noob. I have a limit to how much bloat I need to deal with as a DM. And some of what comes from WoTC I'll not use anyway.


The rest of your stuff is just excuses. Yes your character is sitting there trapped like a mime in a 5' box when its not your turn unless you have explicit rules.

Your character can't shout a warning, catch a falling person, move from your mime box, or take any actions without without explicit permission (almost always from a spell too) You the player are a passive lump when its not your turn.
Are you aware that this is a turn based game? It's not an RTS. It's not an MMORPG.

I'd like to see a 6e with real modular rules.
An official working exploration module that DMs can use or ignore as they like.
A working mass combat module to let fighters lead armies & not auto dump stat charisma.
I'd not mind that for 5e.

The answer to "how do I make {pillar} interesting" isn't cramming in dozens more rules, it's learning from other DMs. This, so much this. That's how a lot of us grew as DMs; we learn from other DMs. We play, we learn, we DM, rinse and repeat.

You don't need a reaction or explicit movement to dodge a trap. What did you think the reflex save meant, your character phasing out of reality?

{snip nice post} I will very likely make the jump to the new version when it comes out, but maybe not right away, and then I reserve the right to bitch about the new version the way all the old timers have complained about 5e. One of the best posts in this thread. Welcome, glad you are enjoying your games. :smallsmile:


On top of that, the way you level up is different. In TSR D&D, you got XP for bringing home loot. Oh, sure, you could get XP by killing monsters, but that was chump change compared to the XP you'd get for looting their stuff. And the game reflected that — encumbrance was important, modules focused on what fabulous riches were in the place you were ransacking, and combat wasn't terribly balanced Yeah, it was swingy.

tl;dr: I'd pretty sure that 6e is going to bomb hard unless WotC can catch lightning in a bottle twice. A third time. I'll argue that they captured lightning in a bottle with 3e, partly for the reasons that you mention in your very nice post. They did so again with 5e. But I don't see that happening a third time.

[Psyren]

It isn't "thousands of pages" that are needed. It is merely some structure. Something to hang more of a game around than a random encounter once every few days, and some very crude ration tracking. Something to make the resource attrition math 5e relies on for challenge and decision-making complexity work at exploration scale as well as dungeon-crawling scale.

My own very basic suggestion for this is to have normal resting work only if you are in a "settlement." In one, you long rest normally, and for 24 hours after a long rest, short rests take an hour. After that, they take eight hours, as if in "gritty realism" rules. This makes finding villages, inns, tribes, goblin encampments, etc. valuable rewards while exploring. If you like, have rules for establishing a "settlement" (a "base camp," perhaps) that takes a week of setup and then requires a hireling or few to maintain. This lets you use the "gritty realism" long rest duration when you are desperate in the wilderness. And then your base camp can be right outside the dungeon, giving you dungeon-crawling rest timing while you explore it!

I don't think that is "Thousands of pages of rules," but it makes exploration have the right attrition rate, gives it more rewards for finding things while exploring, and lets you use the existing gameplay loop for dungeon crawling with exploration if you want.

My point wasn't actually the number of pages, but that no addition by human designers can possibly eliminate "people showing up on boards with DMing problems" (Telok's words.) That is not a realistic goal for any game unless the plan is to make it as shallow as Solitaire or Tetris.


Response 204 on this thread.... so if you've read down this far I'll throw in my two cents....

As a newer player who discovered this game in 2018 and has only ever played 5e, I didn't understand how several years into a "new" edition there were still a bunch of people playing 3.5e let alone the version to remain name/numberless in between 3.5 and 5. "Why wouldn't you jump up to the new version and keep up with the new stuff?" I thought to myself. Suffice to say I understand it now. My play groups haven't had time to get through all of the 5e content in the few years we've been playing. The idea of not ever getting to play CoS, for example(its up next when we finish SKT!), after hearing so many good reports about it leaves me almost as disappointed as when Disney bought Star Wars and declared all of the old EU books I grew up reading were no longer canon.

I will very likely make the jump to the new version when it comes out, but maybe not right away, and then I reserve the right to bitch about the new version the way all the old timers have complained about 5e.

I think you're in luck and that "6e" will be a long time off.


Ironically, I'm pretty sure that that's the reason why 3.5 ended up with a reputation for turning players into magical Christmas trees — players had to get loot as part of the basic genre assumptions of D&D, but magic items were the only loot that was actually mechanically valuable. And, since combat was now supposed to be "balanced", the designers balanced it with the assumption that players would have cool magic items... which made having those magic items more-or-less mandatory.

I think there was an expectation component to this as well. 3e came out in 2000; what were the biggest non-D&D RPGs and RPG-adjacent games while it was being developed? You had Diablo, Heroes of Might & Magic 3, Elder Scrolls Daggerfall, Ultima 7-9, MMOs like Everquest/Asheron's Call/Ultima Online, and even some JRPGs like Final Fantasy 7 and 8. What did they all have in common? Your characters get absolutely decked out in magical gear as they level, often with a paper doll UI of some kind. There's zero chance the devs weren't playing multiple of those games, and that likely reinforced the "magic item body slots" mechanic and the expectation that all high level characters would eventually fill up those slots.


The reason why people don't remember this being a problem in the same way that the transition from 3e to 4e was a problem (and, again, 4e was arguably more similar to 3e than 3e was to 2e)... 3e came out in 2000 and got a lot of new players (for a bunch of complicated reasons that I won't get into). As a result, most of the NERD FIGHTS over the new edition were restricted to a handful of older forums, which got drowned out by the people who started in 3e and never had any interest in AD&D in the first place. It turns out that releasing a new edition of D&D at a time when there's a broad cultural interest in "geek stuff" is a good idea that gets people to try out the game — who knew?

There was also a change in the internet itself. The TSR-era old guard largely cornered Usenet and BBS type systems, whereas when 3e debuted we were seeing the rise of BBcode-style message boards (like ENWorld, WotC's own and... well, this one) and AOL chat rooms. Meanwhile, 5e's debut coincided with the rise of streaming services and podcasts as you mentioned. Not only did both editions experience explosive growth, that growth was compounded by the new players having safer spaces where they primarily interacted with each other rather than edition warring.

The Playground itself started roughly around.... 2004? 2005? Not long after 3.5 came out anyway. I don't know if anyone who was around back then is still posting, but maybe they saw a lot of tension between AD&D and 3e players back then. I doubt it though; I'm willing to bet the majority of people who joined communities like this one, even if they were familiar with AD&D, were at least bullish on 3e and/or 3.5.


I'd argue that 3e's success has more to do with WotC's good management (because good lord did TSR mismanage D&D) and the fact that the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Star Wars prequels came out around the same time than it does with 3e necessarily being a good game, kinda like how I'd attribute 5e's success to the resurgence of nostalgia for the 80s/90s and the popularity of podcasts/streaming first and to the mechanics second.

tl;dr: I'd pretty sure that 6e is going to bomb hard unless WotC can catch lightning in a bottle twice.

It can be both. Yes, 5e was a bit lightning in a bottle in that Stranger Things and some other stuff threw D&D back into the cultural zeitgeist shortly after it debuted, and then it got a shot in the arm years later when the pandemic forced us to find new ways to interact with one another. But none of that would have mattered if the only edition out was 4e or even 3e, people would have gotten interested in D&D again before quickly bouncing off those games' impenetrable masses.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think there was an expectation component to this as well. 3e came out in 2000; what were the biggest non-D&D RPGs and RPG-adjacent games while it was being developed? You had Diablo, Heroes of Might & Magic 3, Elder Scrolls Daggerfall, Ultima 7-9, MMOs like Everquest/Asheron's Call/Ultima Online, and even some JRPGs like Final Fantasy 7 and 8. What did they all have in common? Your characters get absolutely decked out in magical gear as they level, often with a paper doll UI of some kind. There's zero chance the devs weren't playing multiple of those games, and that likely reinforced the "magic item body slots" mechanic and the expectation that all high level characters would eventually fill up those slots. That's the kind of 'recursion' I have often referred to, in that D&D led to / influenced a bunch of those computer games which then led to / influenced changes in D&D and so on. What has bugged me is that they keep getting M:tG flies in my D&D soup. :smallfrown:

For Amercha: "because good lord did TSR mismanage D&D" earns you free doughnuts. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

That's the kind of 'recursion' I have often referred to, in that D&D led to / influenced a bunch of those computer games which then led to / influenced changes in D&D and so on.

It's recursive, yes, but also it's a bit of a steady build-up/progression. Loot was expected in 2e to drive character advancement, which often took the form of magic items, and when programmers were making other RPGs based on 2e the best way for them to incorporate magic items and balance those games was by assigning them to specific slots (e.g. only one amulet on your "neck slot", only one cloak on your "back slot" etc), which was then codified back into D&D by 3e designers and so on. Whether consciously or not, game designers tend to be influenced by the other games they play.


What has bugged me is that they keep getting M:tG flies in my D&D soup. :smallfrown:

I'm a little torn on this. MTG content makes for an easy scapegoat for whatever one's personal bugbear is with the current design direction, whether that's power creep, updated race designs, {insert favorite older setting} being ignored etc. But on the other hand, there are some MTG settings I've wanted to play in and inhabit for years, like Ravnica/Kamigawa/Lorwyn, and 5e leaning into that in any capacity saves me a lot of work.

[Segev]

The main thing, though, is that I just don't see AD&D lingering the way 3.5 did.

Legitimate question: have you ever heard of the OSR? Because TSR-era D&D has been "lingering" for 40+ years.Fair; my own experience with it is that it's a LOT harder to find any games doing that than still running 3.PF. It's a lot easier to find 3.PF games than OSR or 4e ones, and finding 3.PF games is not much harder than finding 5e ones. Again, in my personal experience. I have no real means of running a proper statistical analysis.



For anyone who doesn't get why 3e was such a massive departure from 2e, it has a lot to do with what the rules are focused on.
Snipped for space, but those are all good points. The thing is... no group I played 1e or 2e with treated it that way. I don't know how typical my experience was, but it seemed like most games of D&D ran a lot more like what 3e was designed for even before 3e came out, and I strongly suspect that's what drove part of the 3e paradigm in its inception.

[EggKookoo]

That's how AD&D ran. Everyone declares actions, then initiative is determined based on those declared actions. It's a fundamental difference from WotC D&D.

Funny thing is, I have never played any TTPRG using that method. I've been doing this since well before 2e, and across multiple different game systems and play groups (often unconnected socially), and we always played the "WotC D&D" resolve-each-turn way. It just felt more intuitively correct to us.

[Keltest]

Funny thing is, I have never played any TTPRG using that method. I've been doing this since well before 2e, and across multiple different game systems and play groups (often unconnected socially), and we always played the "WotC D&D" resolve-each-turn way. It just felt more intuitively correct to us.

Ditto. I have never heard of anybody who ran it any other way even.

[Tanarii]

Snipped for space, but those are all good points. The thing is... no group I played 1e or 2e with treated it that way. I don't know how typical my experience was, but it seemed like most games of D&D ran a lot more like what 3e was designed for even before 3e came out, and I strongly suspect that's what drove part of the 3e paradigm in its inception.


Funny thing is, I have never played any TTPRG using that method. I've been doing this since well before 2e, and across multiple different game systems and play groups (often unconnected socially), and we always played the "WotC D&D" resolve-each-turn way. It just felt more intuitively correct to us.
I've always gotten the impression (from reading on it and personal experience) that by 1985, few folks played D&D the way it was envisioned as a Dungeon Heist. Hardly surprising, by then TSR wasn't selling it that way. The campaign settings and modules and books they were selling were all at odds with the way the game was supposely designed. It wasn't really until OSR that it went back to The Right Way To Play was dungeon heist.

I'm not 100%, but it's also possible 2e was when they dropped XP for GP as the standard rule. Or I may just be getting confused by Rogues getting bonus XP for stolen gp.

Otoh individual initiative instead of side initiative I never really saw at tables until 2e optional rules for it. Then it started showing up. But as I said, BECMI (and maybe 0e B and B/X) it's not clear the order is declare then initiative, just aide initiative. AD&D had it though.

[EggKookoo]

Otoh individual initiative instead of side initiative I never really saw at tables until 2e optional rules for it. Then it started showing up. But as I said, BECMI (and maybe 0e B and B/X) it's not clear the order is declare then initiative, just aide initiative. AD&D had it though.

I was playing Call of Cthulhu and DC Heroes by 1986 and we definitely did individual initiative (per-round) and immediate turn-resolve. No idea if that was codified in the rules or just part of TTPRG culture by then.

I think DC Heroes had a suggestion in the rules that actions should be declared in descending initiative order (so slower people declare first) and resolved in ascending order, so the faster characters could make more informed decisions almost as though they were reading the battlefield. No one I know played it like that and I could even be completely misremembering.

[Amechra]

Snipped for space, but those are all good points. The thing is... no group I played 1e or 2e with treated it that way. I don't know how typical my experience was, but it seemed like most games of D&D ran a lot more like what 3e was designed for even before 3e came out, and I strongly suspect that's what drove part of the 3e paradigm in its inception.

Oh, yeah, no, there's a reason that 3e ended up the way that it did.

...

You could honestly write a book about how people play D&D "wrong" instead of trying to find a game that does what they actually want, and why that happens (and how there were a few points in the history of the hobby where D&D's dominant position could've been overturned... which, funnily enough, were roughly in the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s).

[TheBrassDuke]

Unfortunately I’ve been so busy I have to use Beyond and mainly play via discord (with an AirPod) while at work…and if our group switches right away, and there’s no Beyond support for 6th, I’ll be stuck for a bit.

[Tanarii]

Honestly though, since 2024 is going to be 5.5e, it's probably too far out to predict how we'll feel about gaming another 10 years from now. :smallamused:

[diplomancer]

I'm a little torn on this. MTG content makes for an easy scapegoat for whatever one's personal bugbear is with the current design direction, whether that's power creep, updated race designs, {insert favorite older setting} being ignored etc. But on the other hand, there are some MTG settings I've wanted to play in and inhabit for years, like Ravnica/Kamigawa/Lorwyn, and 5e leaning into that in any capacity saves me a lot of work.

I'm sure the new Bugbears are the personal bugbears of people who dislike power creep.

Sorry, couldn't resist it; I actually love the new Bugbears.

[Amechra]

But on the other hand, there are some MTG settings I've wanted to play in and inhabit for years, like Ravnica/Kamigawa/Lorwyn, and 5e leaning into that in any capacity saves me a lot of work.

Kamigawa is something I'd be very down for, but I'm not sure that D&D would be a good fit for it mechanically or thematically.

(I'd love to see someone go back and fix the "Asian-inspired setting written in the early 2000s" flaws in OG Kamigawa, because *man* was the high concept strong.)

...

My big complaint about the MTG settings as RPG settings is that they're very focused on the specific cast of characters — what they really need to do is take the high concept for each set and extrapolate from there.

Like, it says quite a bit that you pointed directly at the settings with strong high concepts that the players are likely to interact with.

[Tawmis]

I realize this is a stretch because not all the facts are available but how do you think you and your gaming group will handle a full-on new edition? Assuming we get one. Are you a "5E for life" kind of D&Der? Do you think 5E will have as much inertia as 3E did? I still know tables that have no intention of moving beyond 3E as a forgone conclusion.
Just curious of your general thoughts here...

As others said; it all depends.
D&D is not flawless.
I loved D&D, AD&D, 3 and 3.x - but 4e?
Absolutely hated.
Absolutely. Effing. Hated.
Played it several times, never even bothered to purchase any of the books.
First time, since 1980 that I didn't pick up at least ONE of the books.
5e has been amazing. My players make me feel blessed.
If 6e looks like it has the same ease as 5e, a low learning curve for me and my players, I will probably try it.
If it gives me 4e vibes, then it's 5e for me.

[Telok]

My point wasn't actually the number of pages, but that no addition by human designers can possibly eliminate "people showing up on boards with DMing problems" (Telok's words.) That is not a realistic goal for any game unless the plan is to make it as shallow as Solitaire or Tetris.

Understand you're misrepresenting. I would like replacing disassociated random encounter charts and lists of stuff with actual best practices advice for to teach new DMs on their first DMG how to truely effectively run a game. Your response has been that those things shouldn't be in the DMG because they can hit up Youtubes & Angry GM type blogs to learn that better than WotC can ever do. What I see is new DMs coming up with the same "encounters per rest", "magic negates travel", and those sorts of things that were solved problems with decent advice even before 5e hit the shelves. You keep saying its impossible to solve, or the the DMG doesn't need it, or its more rules that are a bad thing because rules are always bad without exception.out of time hotta go

[Psyren]

Understand you're misrepresenting. I would like replacing disassociated random encounter charts and lists of stuff with actual best practices advice for to teach new DMs on their first DMG how to truely effectively run a game. Your response has been that those things shouldn't be in the DMG because they can hit up Youtubes & Angry GM type blogs to learn that better than WotC can ever do. What I see is new DMs coming up with the same "encounters per rest", "magic negates travel", and those sorts of things that were solved problems with decent advice even before 5e hit the shelves. You keep saying its impossible to solve, or the the DMG doesn't need it, or its more rules that are a bad thing because rules are always bad without exception.out of time hotta go

I'm fine with more "advice." Advice could be things like "X might be considered a Medium task until the end of Tier 1" or "consider not allowing Y with a skill check until Tier 3."

But defined DC tables are not "advice," rather they're handcuffs. "X skill use is DC 20" means that both disallowing X, and saying X should be easier or even automatic later, are likely to cause problems at tables (or have foregoing a check not occur to them at all) when skill use should rightly be the province of the DM. Skill rules, like all other open-ended rules, should teach DMs how to think, not tell them what to think.

[HPisBS]

The other guy who DMs our group figures class abilities on a LR and subclass on a SR would be good design.

That'd probably be the best change. Best chance to satisfy the most people and keep things as balanced as possible.
Most elegant, too.

Makes me wonder what that'd make Monks look like, though....



- That, and I'd want more support for the non-combat "pillars," of course.

It especially bugs me that I have to invent every piece of what goes into the creation of any given Magic Item myself. Nevermind fixing the MacGuffin, how do you even craft a +1 sword, what components do you need to gather?... ****, I don't know!

[Segev]

I'm fine with more "advice." Advice could be things like "X might be considered a Medium task until the end of Tier 1" or "consider not allowing Y with a skill check until Tier 3."

But defined DC tables are not "advice," rather they're handcuffs. "X skill use is DC 20" means that both disallowing X, and saying X should be easier or even automatic later, are likely to cause problems at tables (or have foregoing a check not occur to them at all) when skill use should rightly be the province of the DM. Skill rules, like all other open-ended rules, should teach DMs how to think, not tell them what to think.

Please note that I, at least, would consider "X might be considered a medium task" to be all I need as examples to close that loop on ability check DCs that I have been complaining is not adequately completed for so long. I don't need hard DC charts and tables. I need some guidelines of what is an "Easy," "Medium," or "Hard" task, from which I can extrapolate other tasks or make determinations about whether circumstances make THIS one easier or harder than the guideline examples.

[EggKookoo]

Please note that I, at least, would consider "X might be considered a medium task" to be all I need as examples to close that loop on ability check DCs that I have been complaining is not adequately completed for so long. I don't need hard DC charts and tables. I need some guidelines of what is an "Easy," "Medium," or "Hard" task, from which I can extrapolate other tasks or make determinations about whether circumstances make THIS one easier or harder than the guideline examples.

My impression is that 5e expects each DM to come up with these as feels appropriate for a campaign or table. "DC Wars" (which isn't a new Warner Bros crossover superhero movie) are among the major sources of player-DM conflict.

I think the rules were designed with the idea of social media and forums like this place in mind. DMs can cross-pollinate and come up with what works best. At the same time, I have no idea how AL handles these things, but frankly I don't care.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My impression is that 5e expects each DM to come up with these as feels appropriate for a campaign or table. "DC Wars" (which isn't a new Warner Bros crossover superhero movie) are among the major sources of player-DM conflict.

I think the rules were designed with the idea of social media and forums like this place in mind. DMs can cross-pollinate and come up with what works best. At the same time, I have no idea how AL handles these things, but frankly I don't care.

AL says "just use the module." Going outside that is discouraged.

[Segev]

My impression is that 5e expects each DM to come up with these as feels appropriate for a campaign or table. "DC Wars" (which isn't a new Warner Bros crossover superhero movie) are among the major sources of player-DM conflict.

I think the rules were designed with the idea of social media and forums like this place in mind. DMs can cross-pollinate and come up with what works best. At the same time, I have no idea how AL handles these things, but frankly I don't care.

Guidelines let DMs move them around. Lack of guidelines means DMs are left fumbling in the dark.

[Psyren]

Guidelines let DMs move them around. Lack of guidelines means DMs are left fumbling in the dark.

Not sure what you mean by "move them around."


My impression is that 5e expects each DM to come up with these as feels appropriate for a campaign or table. "DC Wars" (which isn't a new Warner Bros crossover superhero movie) are among the major sources of player-DM conflict.

Agreed. Whatever guidance they add, should avoid these arguments as much as possible.

[False God]

I used to think 5e was the best thing that happened to D&D. Then it hit me: The oversimplicity effectivelly meant that I can create a limited amount of characters before I've played everything. And since I have specific concepts that I like, it effectivelly means I have even less options.

So, by now, yeah, I'm eager for a 5.5e or an 6e, whichever comes.

That depends entirely on if 6E provides more "open ended" creation.

I think the main point of difference between 5E and it's primary predecessor 3.5 is that while 5E provides a lot of options, those options can only be combined in a certain arrangement and are all of roughly equitable power levels. Both of which were a very big elements of 4E and only being able to connect certain dots in certain order goes a LONG way towards balancing out the game.

I often go back and forth between 5E and 3.5/Pathfinder. The former I run for lower-level games (1-10) and the latter for high-level games (15+). 3.5/PF has a lot of open-ended creativity. You can combine almost anything to make nearly everything. But these options are FAR from equitable and it is up to the DM to filter the content and guide the players to ensure that they have a strong enough understanding of what is available and what isn't, to produce a character appropriate for the content(theme, power level, etc...).
5E on the other hand has a wide number of equitable options, but a much more limited ability to combine them. The DM needs to go through far less work and filter far less content to ensure the players are producing characters appropriate to the content. In addition, players are generally able to combine any of the appropriate elements regardless of their system mastery or access to playable materials to produce viable characters for nearly any sort of content.
4E similarly limited character combinations (race, class, background, abilities, etc...) and the game overall required far less management from the DM to produce viable characters. Players were also to create viable characters given nearly any materials put in front of them.

While I agree that I would like to see 6E be more "open-ended", I DONT want to go back to the days of having options that look strong, fun, interesting and enjoyable; only to turn out that they are absolutely horrid options in play.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I switched to 5e immediately after reading and running Mines of Phandelver. It was the reception of that module that led to my table's adoption of the system. I hope that regardless of what they do with 6e, they make a similar beginning module that properly shows off what makes it cool. I don't want to surf an entire rulebook to figure out why I shouldn't just run another system I know better.

[EggKookoo]

Guidelines let DMs move them around. Lack of guidelines means DMs are left fumbling in the dark.

I know we've had these discussions repeatedly over the past few years, in one form or another. The main criticism I've seen is that a given DM might not know how to set a realistic DC for a given task. To me, that's okay. You don't need to be realistic, you just need to be consistent.

I've also heard the position that no one complains that the game tells us the DC for hitting a CR 1 orc, so why would people complain that it gives us set DCs for various tasks? I guess if I had to reconcile that, I'd say none of us here have much experience fighting orcs, and even those with practical martial weapon experience probably wouldn't agree on a number. But many of us can and have climbed trees, juggle, perform, pick locks, craft things, and so on. Plus, it feels intuitively right to say combat needs to be more precisely balanced than most skill checks. It's safe to leave the latter up to a DM, but it's better to encode the former into the rules a bit more tightly.

In the end, I think that the response to "why don't we have a list of DCs?" is for people to then get into arguments about what those DCs should be is a clear sign that the 5e devs made the right choice.

[Segev]

Not sure what you mean by "move them around."



Agreed. Whatever guidance they add, should avoid these arguments as much as possible.If the DM truly feels that a guideline is out of whack, he likely didn't need it and can set the DC where he feels it should be. I don't meme well, but picture Captain Barbosa commenting on "The Pirate's Code."

If, however, a DM has no clue how hard it should be to keep your balance while walking on a rolling runaway waterwheel and fencing with another pirate who is doing the same right next to you, it might be nice to have some guidelines about how hard, at least, it is to keep your balance in a situation or two. And again the DM who has a firm idea how hard that is and thinks the guidelines aRe bunk can ignore them or use whatever complicating factors he wants to set his own DCs.


I know we've had these discussions repeatedly over the past few years, in one form or another. The main criticism I've seen is that a given DM might not know how to set a realistic DC for a given task. To me, that's okay. You don't need to be realistic, you just need to be consistent.

I've also heard the position that no one complains that the game tells us the DC for hitting a CR 1 orc, so why would people complain that it gives us set DCs for various tasks? I guess if I had to reconcile that, I'd say none of us here have much experience fighting orcs, and even those with practical martial weapon experience probably wouldn't agree on a number. But many of us can and have climbed trees, juggle, perform, pick locks, craft things, and so on. Plus, it feels intuitively right to say combat needs to be more precisely balanced than most skill checks. It's safe to leave the latter up to a DM, but it's better to encode the former into the rules a bit more tightly.

In the end, I think that the response to "why don't we have a list of DCs?" is for people to then get into arguments about what those DCs should be is a clear sign that the 5e devs made the right choice.
As Psyren put it, I would be fine with a few example guidelines. I don't need a table of official firm DCs.

I assure you, most of us don't have experience picking locks or translating ancient texts or playing mumblety-peg without losing a finger. That's certainly no more likely we know how to do than to hit an orc with a halberd!

[Tanarii]

If, however, a DM has no clue how hard it should be to keep your balance while walking on a rolling runaway waterwheel and fencing with another pirate who is doing the same right next to you, it might be nice to have some guidelines about how hard, at least, it is to keep your balance in a situation or two. And again the DM who has a firm idea how hard that is and thinks the guidelines aRe bunk can ignore them or use whatever complicating factors he wants to set his own DCs.
Even though I generally come down on the side of against DC charts 3e style, if they were done well with accompanying text and were in the DMG, a la the Social Interactions section, they could work.

Although I do think that in that case they'd want to to follow a series of examples like yours (call it: Acrobatics DC 10 every round to avoid slipping, Athletics DC 10 to grab hold and avoid falling) with a general note "for Wushu games subtract 5 from all physical DCs, for heroic swashbuckling use as is, and for Guy at the Gym add 5". :smallwink:

[Raven777]

I'm the only one who DMs, and considering I'm a conservative dinosaur with an aversion to change a mile wide, we're gonna keep wobbling between 5e (which I find better for roleplay heavy) and PF1 (which I find better for crunch) for a good, long while.

That is, unless WotC's 6e attempt veers back into being more like 3.PF in regards to spellcasting power, magic items, crafting, minions, feats and templates. Basically, be the 3.875 or PF1.5 revision I wished for from Paizo, but never got. That I could see myself embracing. But I doubt that's the direction the wind will ever blow again.

[Goobahfish]

I think the only things that need some... let's say 'heavy guidelines' in 5e exploration are tasks which are more than a 'roll and forget'.

So, you want to leap across that chasm (save or suck), yeah... roll a DC X check. That stuff isn't too difficult to get right after a few games. Especially once the DM realises that 'no check required' is usually the best option in more than 50% of situations.

The big problem I see is for things like Stealth, where a newby DM will go. "And make another stealth check" or "make another disguise kit check", or "make another deception check". OR a player goes "I also make an Arcana check..."

These situations are slightly problematic only because of the maths involved. 5 stealth checks where each is 'save or suck' is a death sentence. 5 deception checks where each is 'save or suck' is a death sentence. Having 5 players roll an Arcana check with no obvious downside if lots of them failing is just bad design.

Other than that... 5 = easy, 10 = moderate, 15 = hard, 20 = dangerously difficult etc is about as much guidance as you need in general.

[Telok]

Other than that... 5 = easy, 10 = moderate, 15 = hard, 20 = dangerously difficult etc is about as much guidance as you need in general.

Counter: I've had a DM literally say they thought three 30% chances of success were equal to a 90% chance. The people on this board are not your average DMs, they're the superusers who know that a fighter str:athletic +11 vs dc 15 still results in 1 in 6 action-hero-better-than-olympic-athletes falling into the lava. The math on a +0 int save character vs a mind flayer stun is really terrible, but many DMs not on boards like this just don't know that.

People who don't grok the probabilities need significantly more guidance or need a bulletproof stat/skill/save system they don't accidentally screw up by trusting it's numbers.

[Psyren]

If, however, a DM has no clue how hard it should be to keep your balance while walking on a rolling runaway waterwheel and fencing with another pirate who is doing the same right next to you, it might be nice to have some guidelines about how hard, at least, it is to keep your balance in a situation or two.

Eh... what other pirate? How fast? Are we rolling on a level plane, uphill, or down?

I think I'd rather just eyeball it, and the fewer examples there are of DCs for "balance on a tree branch," "walk the plank" or "ride a unicycle on a tightrope," to memorize, the more likely it is that other DMs will feel empowered to do the same.

For me, acceptable guidelines would be more tied to tier than situation.

[Segev]

Eh... what other pirate? How fast? Are we rolling on a level plane, uphill, or down?

I think I'd rather just eyeball it, and the fewer examples there are of DCs for "balance on a tree branch," "walk the plank" or "ride a unicycle on a tightrope," to memorize, the more likely it is that other DMs will feel empowered to do the same.

For me, acceptable guidelines would be more tied to tier than situation.
I find the opposite: with no guidelines, I have no idea where to start setting DCs. With guidelines, I can interpolate or extrapolate. I can modify based on conditions. But with no baseline guidance, I have no idea what the intended competency of an average character in D&D is. I have no point of reference that isn't worse than the worst "guy at the gym" estimates. Because I don't go to the gym.

This doesn't make me feel "empowered." It makes me feel as helpless as receiving instructions for how to build my very first kit plane that simply read, "This is an easy one! Step 1: read these instructions! Step 2: Build the plane!"

[Goobahfish]

Counter: I've had a DM literally say they thought three 30% chances of success were equal to a 90% chance.

o_O

Right... well yes. I think there should be something in the DM's guide that says, if there is a check, where the consequence is DEATH and it happens more than once in a campaign* then you should rethink having a check at all. Either make it multiple fails == death (with some capacity to abandon the need for a check) OR make it crystal clear that death is a likely outcome.

* it is fine to have DEATH happen due to some kind of big world-ending event, but not... because you fell down a well and died because you failed a balance check to peek over the edge.


I find the opposite: with no guidelines, I have no idea where to start setting DCs.

I think the correct compromise is to point out 'suggested DCs' but also have some text somewhere that says... "these suggestions aren't rules GTFO of the DMG you munchkin."

[Psyren]

I find the opposite: with no guidelines, I have no idea where to start setting DCs.

Does the task in question require talent or training? Both? Both + magic or luck? Both + magic AND luck? Or none of the above?

That's all you need for a starting point for the vast majority of challenges., I'd say.



I think the correct compromise is to point out 'suggested DCs' but also have some text somewhere that says... "these suggestions aren't rules GTFO of the DMG you munchkin."

Printed DCs would be weaponized no matter how many disclaimers were plastered around them. I'll pass.

[Goobahfish]

Printed DCs would be weaponized no matter how many disclaimers were plastered around them. I'll pass.

So you rate the value of preventing munchkins arguing with DM's as more important than giving new DM's suggestions so they don't completely mess up games?

That seems... off.

[Segev]

Does the task in question require talent or training? Both? Both + magic or luck? Both + magic AND luck? Or none of the above?
.

Climbing a rope is requires talent and training, so I guess it isn't automatic.

Oh, wait, there exist guidelines for this: it is meant to be climbed, and rules for climbing are provided, and it shouldn't therefore require a check at all.

Now, how many other things that seem obvious to me are nigh impossible are actually meant to be done without a check? I have no guidelines for most of the skills or abilities. If I use yours, then again, climbing a rope becomes quite a bit harder than intended, and thus I can assume a great many other things do, too.

With guidelines, like the rules for climbing, I actually have some idea what the game intent is for PCs to be able to do. Without them, I don't, and your suggestion that lacks any examples of what should "require talent and training" leaves me just as helpless to assign DCs as calling them "easy" or "hard" with no examples of what tasks are easy or hard does.

[EggKookoo]

This doesn't make me feel "empowered." It makes me feel as helpless as receiving instructions for how to build my very first kit plane that simply read, "This is an easy one! Step 1: read these instructions! Step 2: Build the plane!"

I don't mean to come across as callous but welcome to DMing for 5e. The mechanics just aren't that precise. It's not meant to give you some kind of accurate or authentic means to resolve actions. It's meant to give you the tools you need to come up with results that are satisfying and fun. The question is not "how do I know how easy or hard it would be to do X?" but "how can I make doing X feel exciting, engaging, and possibly dangerous for the players?"

Stop worrying and learn to love the DC.

[Segev]

I don't mean to come across as callous but welcome to DMing for 5e. The mechanics just aren't that precise. It's not meant to give you some kind of accurate or authentic means to resolve actions. It's meant to give you the tools you need to come up with results that are satisfying and fun. The question is not "how do I know how easy or hard it would be to do X?" but "how can I make doing X feel exciting, engaging, and possibly dangerous for the players?"

Stop worrying and learn to love the DC.

I'm not asking for precision. I'm asking for ballparks. I do not think that too much to ask. Close the gosh-darned loop.

[KorvinStarmast]

Guidelines let DMs move them around. Lack of guidelines means DMs are left fumbling in the dark. Being indecisive isn't a good look. Pick a number, have the player roll, keep play moving. If you can't decide between 10 or 15, then pick a number in between (I have noticed that 12, 13, and 14 crop up in published adventures) and go with it. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and good is all that is needed to keep playing.

[Segev]

Being indecisive isn't a good look. Pick a number, have the player roll, keep play moving.

Sure. Climbing a rope is DC 20. Have fun!

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure. Climbing a rope is DC 20. Have fun! As mentioned before, climbing already has a rule. Your assumption of 'abusive DM' is not accepted.

[EggKookoo]

Sure. Climbing a rope is DC 20. Have fun!

I know it's blue and all, but honestly? Yes, that's exactly it.

DMing is iterative. You run a session, you make choices (like picking DCs). You gauge player feedback. You adjust for next session. If the players are indeed having fun with DC 20 climbs checks, great. If not, you'll know.

[Tanarii]

So you rate the value of preventing munchkins arguing with DM's as more important than giving new DM's suggestions so they don't completely mess up games?

That seems... off.
3e. No matter how much you caveat it, it is two decades of proof that DC tables will be and still are weaponized.

The same way that we can't have Martials and Wizards on the same resource renewal rate because of 4e. Except 3e DC tables resulted in actual negative results at many gaming tables, not just "it doesn't feel like D&D anymore" perception.

Another example of how caveats will be ignored no matter what: in 5e the rules have an explicit about climbing not requiring checks except when X, and yet it's constantly brought up as an example by forumites.