What would you most like to see in 6e?

[OldTrees1]

Isn't the latter exactly the same thing as the former, but with more words? And generally meant to avoid admitting that the fighter is, indeed, 100% just "the guy who fights"?

The latter also indicates some non combat features you would expect the class to have.
1) This Fighter is master of the arts martial. That implies the ability to find, parse, and retain lots of information despite their different focus. I would expect this Fighter would be familiar with grand strategy, geography, logistics, and history.
2) This Fighter has trained their body and mind. Physical and mental fitness is relevant for more than just combat.

[Eldariel]

Unless you're chasing the optimization treadmill, in which case only a couple builds need apply anyway. The core baseline just isn't that high.

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, the whole concept of "optimization treadmill" is pretty narrowly applicable to only a very small subset of optimization games (those where DM specifically adapts power level to the party with no qualitative adaptions in the world) and games in general and thus largely useless for covering the vast array of playstyles where the expected contribution level is not "Modules run exactly as written".

[Dienekes]

The latter also indicates some non combat features you would expect the class to have.
1) This Fighter is master of the arts martial. That implies the ability to find, parse, and retain lots of information despite their different focus. I would expect this Fighter would be familiar with grand strategy, geography, logistics, and history.
2) This Fighter has trained their body and mind. Physical and mental fitness is relevant for more than just combat.

No. Absolutely, 100% no. Because the latter applies to way more than just combat. And tells me way more about how they fight (and how they do other things) than just "they fight". Because everyone fights. No class is combat-incapable. Fighters, whatever they're doing, do it

* based on their own training and diligence, not grants of power or pure natural talent or emotion (sets them apart from clerics, paladins, rangers, warlocks, monks, druids, barbarians, and sorcerers). This puts them as the martial version of the wizard.
* faster or more than others (better action economy, which matters outside of combat as well[1])
* flexibly. Unlike barbarians or rogues, who are kinda stuck in one "path", that of a Strong/Nimble hero, the fighter can do either STR or DEX and often can afford to do both enough to be efficient.[1]
* without stopping to sleep every 15 minutes (especially the Champion)
* versatile (via feats, mostly) -- a fighter doesn't have to be locked into the "I have no out of combat things". They've got ASIs and feats they could (gasp) spend on those things and still perform at par[1], and are almost entirely SAD as a class (either DEX or STR).

[1] Unless you're chasing the optimization treadmill, in which case only a couple builds need apply anyway. The core baseline just isn't that high.

Isn't this all a little bit much for a mechanic that could equally represent someone flailing about wildly, or going Whirling Dervish style?

Like we can say that they're trained and regimented in their behavior and know about tactics and strategy and whatnot. But that's not anywhere in the class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isn't this all a little bit much for a mechanic that could equally represent someone flailing about wildly, or going Whirling Dervish style?

Like we can say that they're trained and regimented in their behavior and know about tactics and strategy and whatnot. But that's not anywhere in the class.

Flailing about randomly doesn't get you 8 aimed heavy crossbow shots in 6 seconds, while running 30 feet wearing armor and carrying a pack and dodging attacks. Note that each and every attack is at the same bonus--you're not just swinging more, you're swinging more effectively, squeezing in three or four opportunities to hurt someone in 6 seconds with whatever weapon you pick up.

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, the whole concept of "optimization treadmill" is pretty narrowly applicable to only a very small subset of optimization games (those where DM specifically adapts power level to the party with no qualitative adaptions in the world) and games in general and thus largely useless for covering the vast array of playstyles where the expected contribution level is not "Modules run exactly as written".

The optimization treadmill effect happens anytime the party optimizes and enjoys challenge. Or they don't enjoy the game. Because if you optimize and don't adjust for that...you steamroll everything and it's not a challenge. It's even worse if there are gaps in the optimization of the party, because then things that challenge one person don't even scratch someone else, and things that challenge the optimizer are things that the unoptimized can't contribute to.

The game's baseline is one where a no-feat, no-multiclassing Champion Fighter that follows the Quick Build guide is "effective enough" for the campaign. And I'd say that's applicable to a whole lot more games than the forum "6x-deadly is the starting point" mentality. Especially since AL is a good chunk of the playerbase, and those are basically "module as written" games. And people complain that they're too easy, because they optimize and cheese out advantages (seeking out particular modules because of the guaranteed treasure, which is totally meta-thinking/MMO-thinking, but that's a separate conversation). AL modules are written to be a fun experience for a bunch of newbies who may only have the Basic Rules or Starter Set. That's the game's expectation. Sure, you can go above that. But you don't have to. And if you go far enough above, the system can't really help you. Any resulting breakage is on you, not the system. No more than if you try to ride your beach cruiser bike in the Tour de France.

[GooeyChewie]

Isn't the latter exactly the same thing as the former, but with more words? And generally meant to avoid admitting that the fighter is, indeed, 100% just "the guy who fights"?

In my opinion, yes. At best, its "the guy who fights better."

Thematically, the PHB describes Fighters thusly:

"Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike." -Well-Rounded Specialists, pg.70

Everything in that description focuses on hitting things with weapons. Fighters know lots of ways to hit things with weapons, and specialize in one particular way to hit things with weapons (or depending on the Style, on a way to not get hit).

Mechanically, outside of the Martial Archetype, Fighters get the following:

Fighting Style - Your Fighter's specialization as described in the Well-Rounded Specialists section.
Second Wind - A way to heal yourself as a bonus action.
Action Surge - A way to take an additional action on your turn.
ASIs at 4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th and 19th levels - More options than any other class.
Extra Attack - You make additional attacks when you take the Attack action.
Indomitable - A way to reroll saving throws.

Second Wind, Action Surge and Extra Attack all only matter if you are taking turns, which usually (though admittedly not always) means you're in combat. Indomitable might be useful in exploration situations, though probably more often comes up when you are targeted by an enemy. And of course Fighting Style relates directly to fighting.

If Fighters have a core mechanic beyond "hit it with a weapon," that mechanic exists in the fact that they get so many ASIs. And that mechanic brings me back to the idea that the Fighter's core concept is that you as the player have to define the character's concept. The ASIs allow you to choose where your character excels, especially if you can use them to pick up feat. You can call it flexibility, or versatility, or being a blank slate, or a "well-rounded specialist," but however you want to call it, the player has to build the build. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is debatable.

[OldTrees1]

Isn't this all a little bit much for a mechanic that could equally represent someone flailing about wildly, or going Whirling Dervish style?

Like we can say that they're trained and regimented in their behavior and know about tactics and strategy and whatnot. But that's not anywhere in the class.

I expect a class that mechanically instantiates how PhoenixPhyre's understands the Fighter class concept, would have out of combat features indicating knowledge, physical fitness, and mental fitness. The 5E Fighter technically, if I squint, has some mechanical instantiation of those concepts, maybe the 6E would have better instantiation of those non combat features?

It is true that someone flailing around incompetently would struggle to be represented using PhoenixPhyre's description of the Fighter class concept. Flailing Wildly but not incompetently might be closer to Reckless Attacking (an all out attack fighting style) or a Drunken Master (feigning incompetence to exploit the enemy misconceptions). The former (Reckless Attacking) could still fit however the latter might want a class concept with support for feints and deception (I am not sure if that is included or excluded based on PhoenixPhyre's comment about sneakiness).

Whirling Dervish style seems very compatible with PhoenixPhyre's description of the Fighter class concept.


So basing it PhoenixPhyre's description I would expect the class to gain features that represented the knowledge base the Fighter acquired. What that knowledge base might look like would vary from PC to PC. I would also expect class features represented a trained mind and body, but I don't know if that would necessarily be a regimented mind and body. That might vary from PC to PC. So I could easily see a Whirling Dervish character using PhoenixPhyre's description of Fighter and it would support the non combat features I would expect a Whirling Dervish to have.

[Eldariel]

The optimization treadmill effect happens anytime the party optimizes and enjoys challenge. Or they don't enjoy the game. Because if you optimize and don't adjust for that...you steamroll everything and it's not a challenge. It's even worse if there are gaps in the optimization of the party, because then things that challenge one person don't even scratch someone else, and things that challenge the optimizer are things that the unoptimized can't contribute to.

This ignores the entire existence of sandboxes, that kinda-sorta self-adjust but are qualitatively different with each power level since the power level affects the amount of places you have access to in the world/the options you have available at a given place. As well as higher difficulty parts of modules, which do exist especially with monsters played sensibly..

[Morty]

If Fighters have a core mechanic beyond "hit it with a weapon," that mechanic exists in the fact that they get so many ASIs. And that mechanic brings me back to the idea that the Fighter's core concept is that you as the player have to define the character's concept. The ASIs allow you to choose where your character excels, especially if you can use them to pick up feat. You can call it flexibility, or versatility, or being a blank slate, or a "well-rounded specialist," but however you want to call it, the player has to build the build. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is debatable.

My general opinion is that it's not a very good thing. Being able to do "everything" means that whatever the fighter does do, it tends to boil down to the same thing with different trimmings. And there's not much that can be done about it without bloating the class with features until it's longer than two other martial classes put together. Or more than two. In a game built around strongly defined classes, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for one of them to be "figure it out yourself" while others (barbarian, monk) come with a very clear idea of what they are and aren't.

[Pex]

My general opinion is that it's not a very good thing. Being able to do "everything" means that whatever the fighter does do, it tends to boil down to the same thing with different trimmings. And there's not much that can be done about it without bloating the class with features until it's longer than two other martial classes put together. Or more than two. In a game built around strongly defined classes, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for one of them to be "figure it out yourself" while others (barbarian, monk) come with a very clear idea of what they are and aren't.

For other people that's the whole point great feature. They want the ability to choose for themselves. Those who want everything to be a choice of whatever whenever will play Point Buy systems like GURPS, but accepting the class framework there is joy in making choices among options sometimes especially because all the other classes are static. Even the static classes have choices, in 5E namely their subclass. For the Fighter to be unique of most of it being player choice they're satisfied that's the Fighter's shtick, and the only issue is whether the options they are given are good.

[Theodoxus]

The optimization treadmill effect happens anytime the party optimizes and enjoys challenge. Or they don't enjoy the game. Because if you optimize and don't adjust for that...you steamroll everything and it's not a challenge. It's even worse if there are gaps in the optimization of the party, because then things that challenge one person don't even scratch someone else, and things that challenge the optimizer are things that the unoptimized can't contribute to.

That's quite hyperbolic. I've yet to see a game where one player brought a character so unoptimized as to not only be a hindrance to the party, but to actually make it difficult for the DM to not accidentally kill them. Bounded Accuracy and attunement slots prevents 99% of the problem that existed in 3.X where this kind of occurrence did happen.

I'd be interested in seeing what you would consider a miss-match of implementation. If you're so inclined to indulge my curiosity, can you build a 4 person party where 1 character is so OP as to outshine the rest, being bored with encounters and another is so UP that they probably won't live through an encounter and would routinely be knocked out? And please, consider using PB. I know it's easy to make a broken character with straight 3's... it's much harder with Standard Array or 11's across the board...

[MrStabby]

That's quite hyperbolic. I've yet to see a game where one player brought a character so unoptimized as to not only be a hindrance to the party, but to actually make it difficult for the DM to not accidentally kill them. Bounded Accuracy and attunement slots prevents 99% of the problem that existed in 3.X where this kind of occurrence did happen.

I'd be interested in seeing what you would consider a miss-match of implementation. If you're so inclined to indulge my curiosity, can you build a 4 person party where 1 character is so OP as to outshine the rest, being bored with encounters and another is so UP that they probably won't live through an encounter and would routinely be knocked out? And please, consider using PB. I know it's easy to make a broken character with straight 3's... it's much harder with Standard Array or 11's across the board...

We set our standards too low if we ask for a game to be unplayable before we condemn it.

It can just be bad. It canbe a crap game where at least one person isn't having much fun. We can condemn it for that.

[Theodoxus]

Sure, but that's not what Phoenix said. I find it odd that if you provide too much equality, you get 4th Ed and calls for too much sameness. But if it's a little too swingy, so one character might have a slightly harder time because the encounters are built around their weakness, there are cries to make it more fun/balanced/"better".

I don't envy the devs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, but that's not what Phoenix said. I find it odd that if you provide too much equality, you get 4th Ed and calls for too much sameness. But if it's a little too swingy, so one character might have a slightly harder time because the encounters are built around their weakness, there are cries to make it more fun/balanced/"better".

I don't envy the devs.

I will admit to some hyperbole. But the difference (although not as big as 3e) is still meaningful.

The best example I have was not one of over optimization, but of anti optimization. Fairly normal party, level 5-ish, slightly above baseline (ie a feat or two, a couple magic items here and there), although no particular efforts at synergy or "builds". A bunch of randoms at a game store. And one player brings a halfling cleric/barbarian wielding a greatsword. With low STR (enough to multiclass, not enough to really use it, even if it weren't heavy). And not even attempting to use his abilities in any sane sort of way.

It was nearly impossible for him to contribute in any meaningful way to anything the party did. Combat? Nope[1]. Social stuff? Yeah, no. He was absolutely useless, and refused to change. And that kind of optimization gap meant that anything he could contribute to was trivial for the party without him; anything that could challenge the party, he was dead weight.

Now put a Basic Rules Human (not variant) Champion Fighter in a party with an optimized, say, sorcadin. Something that fills the same basic role (front-line melee). The fighter will be outclassed enough that the imbalance will be noticeable and annoying to deal with by the DM. Or put him in a party with a heavy minion-master. He'll be lucky if he can even find an adjacent space next to an enemy.

I've heard these complaints from AL players--the new players, with only the PHB, come in and there's a group of people who have been playing forever, know all the tricks, have all the books, know which modules to snipe for special gear, etc. Since the DM can't, by AL rules, adjust very much, they become spectators at the game. Things are usually dead by the time their second turn rolls around, and sometimes their first (if they rolled poorly for initiative).

[1] the most effective he ever was was the session where he had to leave halfway through and said we could keep playing his character. Someone switched out to a sling and he actually hit an enemy or two.

[Theodoxus]

I've played with a guy like your first. He built a fraidy-cat rogue who hid anytime combat came up. He didn't want to search for traps (too scary) or unlock doors (probably monsters inside). I asked him "why are you playing this useless character?" He thought it would be fun. We eventually gave him an ultimatum - change your character (even keeping the same, just make it an adventurer) or leave the table. He swapped out for a Paladin, but didn't really ever bring the whole kit to bear. He was an oddball... never wanted to take the spotlight so purposefully sandbagged every character he ever made.

In the case of the first guy though, if I was DMing for him, I wouldn't have played merciful. Encounters are encounters and if you're going to be useless to the party, you're gonna get eaten quick.

In the case of AL - that's the nature of the beast, sadly. Back before Covid, I took I don't know how many newbies under my wing and tweaked their character concepts when what they built didn't actually what they had thought it would do. However, I will say, one guy never strayed from playing a Champion. Each new session, a new flavor of Champion. He played every fighting style multiple times. He was a little slow at grokking the rules - so his turns needed a lot of assistance (ideal targets, what dice to roll, what spell effects were hampering him, which were helping (lord have mercy, I don't think he EVER understood the mechanics of Bless). But he loved Champions. He is my go to whenever someone says "some folks want a simple, no frills option".

I think in both your examples, tbh, it's the players, not the DM that have to match their expectations to reality. My Champion fighter friend is happy as a pig in mud playing his character. He doesn't care if there's a hyper-specialized ubermensch in the party. He understands at some level that the game has a lot of better options, but it's not the option for him, specifically. And for AL, it's a little tougher - if you're new, you don't know what you don't know - but as long as at least one seasoned player is willing to 'newbie-wrangle' and help those interested in receiving help, it's not bad (also provided the veterans aren't total d-bags - that happens too, sadly).

[blackjack50]

Yes.

At most, they might need Natural Explorer benefits other than pseudo expertise to apply in any natural terrain.

That is how I feel. If you know how to track in mud you can track in sand. Tracking is more about wildlands experience. Favored terrain is a bit silly.

[Waazraath]

I will admit to some hyperbole. But the difference (although not as big as 3e) is still meaningful.

The best example I have was not one of over optimization, but of anti optimization. Fairly normal party, level 5-ish, slightly above baseline (ie a feat or two, a couple magic items here and there), although no particular efforts at synergy or "builds". A bunch of randoms at a game store. And one player brings a halfling cleric/barbarian wielding a greatsword. With low STR (enough to multiclass, not enough to really use it, even if it weren't heavy). And not even attempting to use his abilities in any sane sort of way.

It was nearly impossible for him to contribute in any meaningful way to anything the party did. Combat? Nope[1]. Social stuff? Yeah, no. He was absolutely useless, and refused to change. And that kind of optimization gap meant that anything he could contribute to was trivial for the party without him; anything that could challenge the party, he was dead weight.

Now put a Basic Rules Human (not variant) Champion Fighter in a party with an optimized, say, sorcadin. Something that fills the same basic role (front-line melee). The fighter will be outclassed enough that the imbalance will be noticeable and annoying to deal with by the DM. Or put him in a party with a heavy minion-master. He'll be lucky if he can even find an adjacent space next to an enemy.

I've heard these complaints from AL players--the new players, with only the PHB, come in and there's a group of people who have been playing forever, know all the tricks, have all the books, know which modules to snipe for special gear, etc. Since the DM can't, by AL rules, adjust very much, they become spectators at the game. Things are usually dead by the time their second turn rolls around, and sometimes their first (if they rolled poorly for initiative).

[1] the most effective he ever was was the session where he had to leave halfway through and said we could keep playing his character. Someone switched out to a sling and he actually hit an enemy or two.

Your first example... I don't know. That's when you play chess with sombody who will only move his knights, monopoly with sombody who never buys anything, risk with somebody who only attacks with 1 army at a time. I mean, yeah, it sucks, but that doesn't has anything to do anymore with game design, has it? In this case, the adagium 'don't hate the player, hate the game' (Ice-T) should be turned around (while obviously 'hate' is an overstatment and the player should be politely explained that gaming is a social happening intened for everybody to have fun, which only is possible if people take the game mechanics just moderately serious).

The second example: yeah. There's that.

Reading your post, I wonder though how much of this is AL and game store play - I only play at tables with friends, and this simply never occurs, because we do session 0, we talk about how much we want to optimize, help folks that don't have the skills or interest to put a lot of effort in it, or (with only 1 experienced optimizer in a group of new folks) spend all optimization effort in "making the group stronger" instread of going for max DPR.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your first example... I don't know. That's when you play chess with sombody who will only move his knights, monopoly with sombody who never buys anything, risk with somebody who only attacks with 1 army at a time. I mean, yeah, it sucks, but that doesn't has anything to do anymore with game design, has it? In this case, the adagium 'don't hate the player, hate the game' (Ice-T) should be turned around (while obviously 'hate' is an overstatment and the player should be politely explained that gaming is a social happening intened for everybody to have fun, which only is possible if people take the game mechanics just moderately serious).

The second example: yeah. There's that.

Reading your post, I wonder though how much of this is AL and game store play - I only play at tables with friends, and this simply never occurs, because we do session 0, we talk about how much we want to optimize, help folks that don't have the skills or interest to put a lot of effort in it, or (with only 1 experienced optimizer in a group of new folks) spend all optimization effort in "making the group stronger" instread of going for max DPR.

Personally, that first player (thinking back) smacked way more of someone who was neurodiverse to a large degree and didn't/couldn't/wouldn't respond to clues that it wasn't working. It felt like he had some kind of goal/design in mind, but wouldn't share that or budge or reconsider. Effectively, I treated him as if he wasn't there for balancing/encounter/scene design purposes.

The second is toxic, however. It's a great way to turn off (or ruin) new players. It seems to grow out of the same mentality present here on the forums, where comparative power (build A vs build B) is what matters, rather than standards-referenced power (using the DMG/PHB guidelines as the baseline). That comparative mentality leads to a "meta" thinking (as in fighting-game meta), where there are winners and there are losers, and winners only play as winners. The mentality that the point of the game is to crush everything as effortlessly as possible, to "win at character creation". Or to "break the game". Which is something I detest, personally.

And there's such a thing as not wanting to optimize. Preferring simple, straightforward builds over complex ones. Preferring to not plan out builds in advance and to take what is thematic or what looks cool. So not optimizing (beyond "follow the quick build instructions for your class" and "don't use weapons/armor you're not proficient in") is a valid use case.

[Theodoxus]

Hmm. I guess it depends on how you're defining optimization.

Generally, I see optimization as bleeding edge tech, getting the absolute most out of a build as quickly as possible. Such that you're generally taking a singular aspect of a specific build concept to the epitome of potentiality: "If you're a wizard, put your highest stat in Intelligence. Play a race that gets a +2 bonus to Int (or if using Tasha's, put the +2 from whatever race you're playing - probably MDwarf for the armor - in Int. Use your ASI's to get to 20 Int, ASAP, but also grab Keen Mind so you can memorize your spellbook (and thus keep it nicely locked in your locker at the Adventurer's Guild, or hidden under the bar at your friendly local tavern, and use minor illusion to pull it up from memory to study. Go Divination if you want to mess with the enemy/boost your friends, or go Evoker if you want Nuclear magic missiles (grabbing Hexblade if you REALLY want to melt faces)."

It sounds like you're talking about optimization being: "If you're a wizard, put your highest stat in Intelligence. Play a race that gets +2 bonus to Int (or Tasha's), Try to get to 20 soonish, but don't worry too much about feats, there's really nothing good for wizards anyway. Grab a few decent cantrips that target different saves and AC for variety (never fall for a one trick pony), and scour the internet for the best spells for each level.

So then 'not optimizing' would be, what? Putting nothing higher than a 15 in Int? Grabbing a fun and interesting race regardless of their stat bonuses (and if using Tasha's, don't put the +2 in Int, but maybe Dex or Con?) Take sleep and become "the sleepmeister!" or maybe color spray too. Maybe just start taking spells alphabetically, or a silly theme like "only spells that have a J in their name".

And then what's un-optimizing? Throwing your lowest stat in Int? Then grabbing all attack spells with spell attack or saving throws that start at DC 8? Never take a spell that has a modicum of utility in it? And definitely take all the spells that have costly spell components that are consumed on casting (and then never have said components on you, naturally.) Or maybe use your free 2 spells per level to keep taking 1st level spells until you run out of 1st level spells to take. (Except color spray, magic missile and sleep, because those don't care about your Int...)

[Corsair14]

Another one of my changed gripes is Familiars. I house rule it in all my games but bringing Familiars back to the way they were prior to 5e. They were a random summoned local creature imbued by the spell with slightly higher intelligence than standard, and bonded to the wizard, sharing of sense etc. It still has a good chance on acting on natural instincts, the example given is a ferret familiar watching a camp of orcs might be distracted if it spots a mouse. If something bad happened to the familiar, the wizard felt it. In in the original rules, if it died, the wizard must roll a system shock or die, and if he survives he still loses a point of constitution. I think that is too severe and changed it to a con save to pass out for d4 hours and still lose the con point. Wizards wanting more exotic familiars have to travel to exotic locales to find populations of these and if they want a more intelligent familiar like a fairy, imp, mephit or pseudo-dragon then they actually have to befriend or make deals with them before they cast it. Of course in Ravenloft the Dark Powers are happy to assign a familiar who will work to corrupt the caster.

I really dislike the disposable and mutable nature of familiars in 5e, they lose a lot of their character.

[Theodoxus]

You want to bring back all the rest of the negative attribute effects? Level draining? Not sure that's going to be popular, but I could be wrong...

[KorvinStarmast]

That is how I feel. If you know how to track in mud you can track in sand. Tracking is more about wildlands experience. Favored terrain is a bit silly.

Concur. Or one ought to be able to add to them over the course of an adventuring career ... IMO.

It seems to grow out of the same mentality present here on the forums, where comparative power (build A vs build B) is what matters, rather than standards-referenced power (using the DMG/PHB guidelines as the baseline). That comparative mentality leads to a "meta" thinking (as in fighting-game meta), where there are winners and there are losers, and winners only play as winners. The mentality that the point of the game is to crush everything as effortlessly as possible, to "win at character creation". Or to "break the game". Which is something I detest, personally.

It is, though, reflective of the gaming community as of the year 2021, and gamers in general, who (see CRPGs and MoBAs and RTS and MMORPG with PvP servers) have a non trivial overlap with TTRPG gamers. "I am better than you" competitiveness comes with playing games and taking the game and its result as what matters. Mike Mornard had/has a memorable quote on one of the old school boards wherein he muses that "if players start getting into it with each other, the DM has the challenge level too low; a good DM presents a challenge that will kill some of the PCs if they don't work as a team or if the players do not use their wits" (me paraphrasing his observation). I think that's good advice for any DM to ponder.

So not optimizing (beyond "follow the quick build instructions for your class" and "don't use weapons/armor you're not proficient in") is a valid use case.

I am at least partly guilty here, since I can drive myself crazy trying to figure out 'the best' spell to pick for the 'spells known' classes like sorcerer or bard or warlock.

Spoiler: Details on me doing it yet again

Show

As you know, I am still unable to decide on my second magical secrets choice for my 14th level bard (and I picked Simulacrum for an explicit RP/Strategy purpose: we will have in game uses for the simulacrum of one of the four party members being seen somewhere while the rest of us are off doing things to thwart the campaign based enemies. (That freaking lich, for one). Or to have go and check in, for example, on our shipping operations down south in the Serpent Kingdom area. I am glad we have a pause in the game while I wrack my brain for a best choice. (Already dumped dominate person for Tongues. I mean, I'm a bard, for crying out loud. How can I not have tongues?)

As the dedicated support caster, I want to be 'the best I can be' at supporting the party. That's me being me. I don't want to be 'better than the other PCs' I want to support them as best I can. So I drive myself nuts with analysis paralysis.
Own goal, I guess.

You want to bring back all the rest of the negative attribute effects? Level draining? Not sure that's going to be popular, but I could be wrong...

Heh, level drains coming back would be fine, but I think that there'd be a riot in AL community over that.

[MrStabby]

Personally, that first player (thinking back) smacked way more of someone who was neurodiverse to a large degree and didn't/couldn't/wouldn't respond to clues that it wasn't working. It felt like he had some kind of goal/design in mind, but wouldn't share that or budge or reconsider. Effectively, I treated him as if he wasn't there for balancing/encounter/scene design purposes.

The second is toxic, however. It's a great way to turn off (or ruin) new players. It seems to grow out of the same mentality present here on the forums, where comparative power (build A vs build B) is what matters, rather than standards-referenced power (using the DMG/PHB guidelines as the baseline). That comparative mentality leads to a "meta" thinking (as in fighting-game meta), where there are winners and there are losers, and winners only play as winners. The mentality that the point of the game is to crush everything as effortlessly as possible, to "win at character creation". Or to "break the game". Which is something I detest, personally.

And there's such a thing as not wanting to optimize. Preferring simple, straightforward builds over complex ones. Preferring to not plan out builds in advance and to take what is thematic or what looks cool. So not optimizing (beyond "follow the quick build instructions for your class" and "don't use weapons/armor you're not proficient in") is a valid use case.

I think comparative power is a bit more complicaed than this. Power isn't just some scalar value that you can compare and say one thing is more powerful than another (in general, sometimes you basically can). I think power is about the ability to do something specific or the ability to resolve a specific problem.

Now my approach is that I don't really need the most powerful character at the table - not by a long shot. I do havever find it unsatisfying to not have an appropriate niche where I can shine (or if I do but that it never comes up). There is a comparative element of power here; if I am playing a healer then I don't want anything else at that table making my healing look less than strong. That is my thing and I want tobe good at it. Now I would be happy to play a weaker healer and to trade effectiveness for character up until the point where I was no longer the most effecive healer - it is for me specifically about a type of relative power but it is specific.

I think that players should have the right to play characters that are remarkably good at something. I think that one of the weaknesses of 5th edition is that it is too easy to be very good at too many things; there are too many ways to step on the toes of other players. For example the Jorassco wizard is a better healer than most clerics if the wizard rolled well. I would certainly like any 6th edition to make it a bit harder to be so broadly good - make more space for other characters.

Personally I would like to see things like casting stats be associated with spells rather than classes - so banishment might use the same stat when cast by a cleric or by a sorcerer, so you chose you stats to reflect they type of spell you want to be good at.

[Pex]

Level drains are horrific. It takes real world time, effort, and energy to earn the character level you have, and you take it all away with one attack and bad luck saving throw, if you were lucky even to get one? In some cases two levels! No fornication way!

[Corsair14]

The find familiar penalty reduced Con by 1. I actually wouldnt have an issue with the level drain though. Maybe not permanent but regain at a rate of one level per game week. Level drains were one of the better parts of previous editions making monsters especially scary to fight against.

[MrStabby]

I don't think I would like level drain back, too much pain and bookkeeping.

I wouldn't mind a richer set of draining effects though. We have max HP drain, we have exhaustion, we have stat drain... maybe the equivalent of level drain could be lowering proficiency bonus?

[Tanarii]

Heh, level drains coming back would be fine, but I think that there'd be a riot in AL community over that.

Agreed on both. Level draining made versions undead and other creatures a truly scary threat. Not only that, there wasn't as much of an expectation that the party all remain the same level, and the XP curves made powerleveling one party member that got drained fairly easy. Plus, yknow, perma-death and having to start a new character from 1st was a real possibility. Or promote a henchman/retainer to primary PC.

[Xervous]

Level drain? Cool.

GM arbitrarily removing class features? Sounds like the realm of “how does a paladin get down a hill?”

[Misery Esquire]

Doing some posting today! To combine previous thoughts, some now-rejected Strixhaven, and ideas from other threads, here's some work from over the week;

Spoiler: Levelling

Show

Triplex leveling, renaming Backgrounds to something that can more reasonably be acceptable as advancing with you. (Archtype, Legend, Profession?)

Three track progression is probably enough added complexity - whether XP/level guidelines thereby need adjustment is beyond me.

I don't know that this is an actually good idea, but it interests me at least.

Spoiler: Classes Stuff

Show

Each class has at the subclass leveling time the option to remain specialized with a subclass that emphasizes one of the classes' features to prominence, or to enter a prestige class crossclass. The crossclass overwrites your ordinary progression, and you only progress inside that crossclass after you select it; e.g. whether you enter Eldritch Knight from Fighter or Wizard, the EK will be the same, and you now level as an EK not a Wizard or Fighter. This cuts down on the number of Class Alike subclasses, while leaving it open to having whatever weird admixture crossclasses you could want!

Still open to multiclass, but not into either of the "source" classes of your crossclass (if you have one). Obviously this system would be suppressive/discouraging to multiclass as you're already entering a sort of mix-class, but encouraging sole-class through benefit rather than penalty or forbbidance seems the better way, especially if someone has a specific vision they feel they can build via mixology.

Though this may make the Classes section even heftier. Problem for the editors! Designward, ho!

Uncertain how it would work, but an interesting addendum option: You can also choose to enter this crossclass later, at any of the times your subclass features would update (7, 11, etc, or whatever the new level progression rate is). Defunct thought; would require a much more 3e framework than is likely wanted.

Speculative: give every class a Primary and Secondary statistic to weigh, in addition to the stats various tertiary effects that they provide for everyone, for example a Sorcerer's spells per day is by Con, but the effectiveness is by Cha. A Fighter goes Str for use of weapons and how hard they hit and Dex for manuever use. Str/Cha for Barbarians - how strong-smash they are plus slightly changing the fluff of Rage to be more in line with legendary heroes - ex. Beowulf or Cu Culhainn; they were as much about boasting and impressing as they were about throttling sea serpents.

Spoiler: Duo stat list

Show

Not particularly happy with this list, just a first pass. And the examples above are open to adjustment as well - they were just that, examples of the idea.

Bard - Cha/Dex
Barbarian- Str/Cha
Cleric - Wis/Int
Druid - Wis/Con
Fighter - Str/Dex
Paladin - Wis/Str
Ranger - Dex/Wis
Rogue - Dex/Int
Sorcerer - Con/Cha
Warlock - Cha/Int
Wizard - Int/Dex

Spoiler: Races

Show

Possibly rename Races to a synonym, possibly not. Mostly 3e Canon, but everything is weirdly interbreedable for them to be species.

Race leveling for humans either has to be boring, possibly strapped to class choice, or the default setting has to be a non-Earth expy (Dark Sun, Eberron) and then human cultures/kingdoms can have stats tied to them. Doing that in an Earth-esque, even if you choose a non-Euro-Medieval, will have obvious results. ... By which I mean everyone will be outraged no matter who gets which bonuses. (And whoever gets INT will be the most controversial.)

Possibly all races should have levelling hooked to class/class stats, thus creating specialities and eliminating the need for the ASI/Feat question. Though if Feats remain optional there may need/want to be some other choices to make?

Spoiler: More Classes Stuff

Show

On Rangers, mentally substitute the word Hunter every time you see it. The Ranger is the Prepared Fighter with a dash of magic/mysticism. 3e style Favoured Enemy/Terrain, but something that they can change, not as a daily power but more often than leveling. Unsure where the happy medium is. Possibly by level 1-5, then daily 6-15, per rest 16-20? Have them specialize in the use of simple & practical weapons, but dealing riders based on correctly selecting their target type in FE/T. Casting ability remains supplemental rather than structural.
(And dual wielding Drow. Specifically. )

The Fighter is the Sorcerer; spontaneous choice of martial ability with weapons that they optioned into early on, and only change with difficulty - e.g. on leveling, or retraining in town. More powerful than the Ranger in a headon collision, but less class-ability to setup. Like the Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter or PAM/Sentinel Fighters of 5e; except the feats are built-in class choices.

To rephrase & consolidate slightly; the Fighter applies maneuvers based on their preselected weapon of choice. The Ranger applies conditions based on the target. So, the Fighter can cause Bleeding and Pierce DR with a pike but has to try and apply those (and/or Manuevers) to every target, while the Ranger prepares to Daze or Bleed Goblins, OR Knock Down or Slow Skeletal Undead. (With more options available to both of them, especially the Ranger as he gains levels - just a fast example.)

And I suppose the Barbarian and Warlock are therefore cousins in this simile-based planning in that they both primarily have one button* that they want to smash until it provides victory, though through different means. (Rage vs. EB (or At-Wills if a more 3e style))

*Reductive? Yes. And?

Spoiler: Social

Show

In the social tree allowing everyone to just apply whichever stat they want, pretending for the moment that the most charismatic of the players won't just apply their acting ability to the DM directly, will dump-stat CHA, except for those casters that use it for their magic.

Instead every class should have through itself and it's [Background]/Race, a shortlist of skills with social applications - ones appropriate to certain situations, and sometimes open to being applied out of those situations. A Fighter with an "Army Experience" (name pending) skill will be able to understand soldiers, militant nobles, and such - but could also use it in a courtly setting; telling gruesome or valorous stories is likely to make some kind of splash! (Drinks, lunch, underwear) And it could be used in the field - not as a Survival replacement, but for identifying "scavenging" locations, or the best spot to nap.

Spoiler: Exploration

Show

To further the value of the Ranger & others exploration ability and DM/Player understanding of it, one of the first Adventure Modules should be based on it; random encounters as you make your way into the wilderness at low-ish levels, the deadliness of which are mitigated by appropriate use of exploring skills - No clear Teleport targets, and ensure that Food & Water spells are moved up a bit so that travel isn't just a "And then you walked three weeks" - at the same time, minutiae demands should remain low; a series of checks to remain well fed, not inevitable starvation from supplies bookkeeping or surprise starvation from one failed check.

Keep them on a time limit via either plot (he'll eat the sun in six days!) or Time Per Expedition (you can wander in the jungle for a week, then you have to turn back to start again).

Low rolls should become encounters rather than failures: parched and weary, you're thankful to find a spring of clear water... but your unmindfulness means you miss that it's full of nymphs, until you stumble in amongst them! Etc, surprise drop bears, etc.

Now, you could fairly note that I haven't made any real suggestions on changes at all for exploring - and that's answered twofold; first, I'm not certain what specifics need adjusting or how, and I don't have any changes that are based on anything aside from personal preferences. And secondly, just giving people the experience of exploring will open the concept up to them, thusly improving it without any materiel change.

Yes, I know the forums has a bunch of Sandbox-Character Plot DMs, but an Adventure is the best way to (relatively quickly) introduce the idea that to new players that their characters CAN just wander into random things as a fun part of the game. Rather than the Strahd effect (this is someone else's saga that you will enter and choose/create the end to, the pieces are already there) or the Critical Role effect (campaigns are a cohesive cooperative character-narrative experience! (...With professional comedians and actors! And as a performance piece have direction for all actors, including the DM.))

[Theodoxus]

What are classes, exactly? The PHB describes them as more than professions, they're your calling. But that doesn't make much sense either. A calling doesn't provide mystical power or a sudden knowledge of how to don armor and swing a sword with any accuracy.

So how does one go from a profession in a background, say, Sage trained in the Library sciences to suddenly being able to wear medium armor with proficiency and swing a giant axe while being super angry?

Handwavium sucks here too.

I'm not advocating going to a classless system, because they nearly always devolve into picking/buying the best cookie cutter traits and everyone is playing the same full caster who dabbles in just enough martial skill to grab all the mechanically optimal things and eschew the rest.

What I am asking is what is a Ranger, a Fighter, a Wizard - fundamentally. If there were colleges or military school or even guilds that train you in the fundamentals, that'd be one thing. But not every Fighter is a Soldier; not every Wizard a Sage and not every Druid is a hermit (however THAT works).

Should a characters' adventuring profession tie somehow to their background profession? At the very least, should it not provide some options for a backstory as to not just why, but how?

The older I get, the less I can just shrug and say "it just is because the rules say it just is." I need something a bit less nebulous than 'it's a calling'. I'd love integrated classes in 6E. I'd love for them to be called anything other than 'Class', but that's a step too far, I'm sure.

[Dienekes]

What are classes, exactly? The PHB describes them as more than professions, they're your calling. But that doesn't make much sense either. A calling doesn't provide mystical power or a sudden knowledge of how to don armor and swing a sword with any accuracy.

So how does one go from a profession in a background, say, Sage trained in the Library sciences to suddenly being able to wear medium armor with proficiency and swing a giant axe while being super angry?

Handwavium sucks here too.

I'm not advocating going to a classless system, because they nearly always devolve into picking/buying the best cookie cutter traits and everyone is playing the same full caster who dabbles in just enough martial skill to grab all the mechanically optimal things and eschew the rest.

What I am asking is what is a Ranger, a Fighter, a Wizard - fundamentally. If there were colleges or military school or even guilds that train you in the fundamentals, that'd be one thing. But not every Fighter is a Soldier; not every Wizard a Sage and not every Druid is a hermit (however THAT works).

Should a characters' adventuring profession tie somehow to their background profession? At the very least, should it not provide some options for a backstory as to not just why, but how?

The older I get, the less I can just shrug and say "it just is because the rules say it just is." I need something a bit less nebulous than 'it's a calling'. I'd love integrated classes in 6E. I'd love for them to be called anything other than 'Class', but that's a step too far, I'm sure.

Eh, one of my player’s was a merchant who was captured by Orcs and forced to work as a gladiator and found he had a talent for killing that he developed once he escaped. I don’t see how a Barbarian with the Guild Artisan is any weirder. And led to some good roleplay with his eye for business and eventual confrontation with his captors.

My point being, there’s some benefit for differentiating background from class. Is it always perfect? No. But it can lead to interesting characters.