New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 786
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    For surges, I like having a surge value for healing. So healing spells heal tanks better. It’s part of what helps them do their job. But having a limit on the number of times a character can be healed aside from the healer’s supply of spells I can take or leave. It adds a challenge to the party tactics to make sure the damage gets spread around, not just during a fight but across the whole day. But I think it’s a complication which adds more administration than fun.

    I’m also a fan of Vancian casting. Picking the right spells gives me the same kick that having a character play perfectly in a situation gives. (That can be mechanical, but can also be but can also be my character being the right person in the right place at the right time to do the thing).
    But leave the cantrips. There’s few things more boring than being a low level spell slinger who’s out of spells.
    Or better yet, have a large but limited supply of low level spells so you do run out sometimes and have to try other options
    Or include a basic wand in a wizard’s starting kit.
    On a related note, make up at least a basic spell

    No universal dump stats. Like it. In fact I’d go so far as to say I’d like every stat to be a viable secondary stat for each class and every stat except the primary to be a viable dump. And if you do dump a stat hard, that will limit your character’s abilities. “I don’t have a dump stat” should be compatible with an optimized build

    Race – I don’t mind if it’s pure flavour as long as there’s enough other ways to customize a character. OTOH, as another independent variable, it does have a multiplying effect on the options. And if there’s race specific bonuses for each (or most classes) that’d be great. Roll on “Savage casting” to make an orcish Wizard perfectly functional! (I know, lots of table don’t need the level of optimization where the Orc wizard won’t work just fine. But I’d like there to be more options which work just fine at the other tables as well.

    Attrition = record keeping. It can be great. I ran an “adventure” drawing huge amounts of inspiration from “The retreat from Kandahar” which left such an impression on my players that my inattentive wife saw video footage of Afghanistan years later and recognized the terrain as “Farqaduk Territory”. But it adds to the workload. Probably aim for a system which doesn’t need that sort of record keeping as long as everyone gets a full night’s sleep. Then if you want to run attrition, you simply make a couple of encounters happen at night.

    Fighters need more out of battle work. Always have. Or if you really don’t want to give them that, you need to make them the best class in a fight. But don’t do that. Make them the skills generalist. Heaps of skill points, low caps, then nudge rogues and bards more firmly into their own lanes. Or go the other way. Let a fighter be a master of whichever skill area they go for. Give them feats or subclasses or whatever for “Social fighter” (Maybe call them the knight?) and “Wilderness Fighter” who looks a fair bit like a ranger but with less magic or “Sneaky fighter” who can out sneak the rogue but gets stopped by locked doors). You could take this in either direction and still have it play differently to any other class.
    Y’know what, just giving a fighter bonuses on athletics checks would do wonders to make their physicality seem real.
    I don’t just mean it’s a skill they are allowed to train in, I mean an athletic fighter is probably the best at it, and even a fighter that isn’t putting extra resources in will beat any other class that hasn’t invested heavily

    Biffoniacus_Furiou Wants more spells limited to archetypes. It might be a cool way to differentiate archetypes (or whatever we want to call them in the new edition). But will also make balance more unpredictable, especially as supplements are added.

    The suggestion of special abilities for martial characters seems good. But Simple classes for simple people is the opposite of this.
    Dienekes- As someone with children and who plays with a person who’s health issues give them limited ability to concentrate and fucus, simple classes are really valuable. 2 decisions in the whole build is fine. “I shoot it with my bow or hit with may axe” as the decisions that get made each round is perfect.

    Pex wants Psionics. I do too.
    But specifically, what I want is psionics which is not magic. There’s spells for “Dispel psionics” Dispel magic either doesn’t work at all or is much less effective against a psionic effect. Have lands and settings and stories where both are common, but also allow ones where different cultures meet for the first time and have to learn how to deal with the other type of power. Some monsters are immune or resistant to one, some to the other, some to both (and of course, most resist neither)

    Re the other Pillars as Schwann145 said, there could be more minigame to them, at least as an option.
    “I try to scare her off.” “Roll intimidate” is a bit limited. Maybe have a “Will” as hitpoints for social combat.

    Or just encourage GMs to play out the dialogue and be liberal with circumstance bonuses/penalties.

    And if you wanted to make a minigame out of exploration, maybe move away from mapped dungeon/landscape layouts.
    “We march over the mountains”. “OK, you need food, shelter, navigation and to avoid landslides, how are you doing that”
    “My barbarian will use her find shelter ability, The mage is casting locate avalanche, the cleric is praying to the storm god for kind weather, the ranger is hunting for wild sheep and the rogue has direction sense as racial ability”. Suddenly everyone can contribute. Or rolls are made and cost paid for unsuccessful rolls. The ranger failed? Dip into rations. The Barb failed? Everyone take a fatigue level from the cold

    Theodoxus likes the idea of class>archetype>subclass. I think that’s an unnecessary complication, especially for multiclassing.
    If a 10th level fighter wanted to dip into Assassin and shadow Monk, would they be Fighter 4, rogue3 Thief 2/Assassin 1, Rogue 3 Monk 2/Shadow 1.
    I’d rather see classes customised with feats and skills, or if you feel the need, have power choices at specific levels.
    And if I had my option, most feats would be available for any class, but have feat trees and give relevant feats at level up.
    So My Hypothetical fighter at 10th level might have completed the 5 feat “Precision fighting” tree, the 3 feat “mobile fighter” tree and the first 2 of the “Accurate” tree. They’ve also taken 2 “assassin” feats and 2 “Way of shadows” feats or might have multiclassed to get more shadowy assassinations
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  2. - Top - End - #182
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2013

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    For surges, I like having a surge value for healing. So healing spells heal tanks better. It’s part of what helps them do their job.
    You could potentially achieve this by having the healing dice be based on the target's hit dice instead of being defined by the spell. May need a provision for multiclass characters though - perhaps base it on whichever dice they have the most of?
    Last edited by Hytheter; 2021-06-24 at 12:43 AM.

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    One last thing, then I'm out.

    Counterspell. It needs to end. From 1st to 4th editions people have waited until someone else started casting a spell and cast Dispel Magic, waited until the dragon opened its mouth to chuck the dwarf in, waited until someone charged past to trip them. Now, in 5e, four plus decades into this, you can't. Because apparently the initative system breaks or the developers have brain parasites or something. Now you have to have a totally new spell to do something you always just did with Dispel Magic before.

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    One last thing, then I'm out.

    Counterspell. It needs to end. From 1st to 4th editions people have waited until someone else started casting a spell and cast Dispel Magic, waited until the dragon opened its mouth to chuck the dwarf in, waited until someone charged past to trip them. Now, in 5e, four plus decades into this, you can't. Because apparently the initative system breaks or the developers have brain parasites or something. Now you have to have a totally new spell to do something you always just did with Dispel Magic before.
    This ties to the bigger problem of 5e Initiative being a trainwreck as written. I don't even consider it playable for anything but one-shots. So much of combat is decided by whether the guy you wanted to buff you or CC enemy acts before the damage dealer. And unlike in previous editions, there's no way to fix bad Initiative: you can't delay, ready action sucks (unless you're specifically Rogue), etc. This leads to all kinds of absurd problems (whole 3esque Initiative, where turns are taken sequentially after rolling Initiative, sucks since it leaves many players just waiting for others to act for the majority of combat and causes the whole "enemy walks past Fighter who can't move because it's not his turn"-issue, but 5e has taken it to a new low).

    Ready action is the worst. Up until level 4, no problem. But once you get Extra Attack, you're paying not only your Reaction but your Extra Attack if you ready an attack. And if you're readying a spell? You're paying your concentration spell. The only class that can use ready action without problems 1-20 is Rogue. Every single other damn class pays two actions (Reaction and Action) and gets a lesser (for high level Fighters, far lesser) version of their action. And since e.g. Shield Master, PAM, TWF, and XBE are tied to attacking with your action, you often lose your bloody bonus action too! That's just ridiculous. Why should a character have to pay that much for just wanting to act a bit later in turn order?

    Of course, it's easy to fix: throw the dysfunctional system out of the window and use one of its predecessors instead. But that doesn't speak highly for 5e Initiative. It's funny, apparently these sacrifices were made on the altar of simplicity and yet, on what planet is having to concentrate on a spell you're readying simplicity (especially since that means you have to drop your Concentration spell)? That's just a random unnecessary extra mechanic, not quite as bad as "non-material somatics can't be done with implement hand but material somatics can", but up there.
    Last edited by Eldariel; 2021-06-24 at 02:02 AM.
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Seoul

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    For surges, I like having a surge value for healing. So healing spells heal tanks better. It’s part of what helps them do their job. But having a limit on the number of times a character can be healed aside from the healer’s supply of spells I can take or leave. It adds a challenge to the party tactics to make sure the damage gets spread around, not just during a fight but across the whole day. But I think it’s a complication which adds more administration than fun.
    One big advantage of healing surges vs. hit dice for me is that it reduces the gap between the amount of downtime healing a party with and without a dedicated healer can do which makes it easier to play a party without a dedicated healer.

    If you're going to have hit dice AND healing spells, then just crossing one out when you get hit by a healing spell doesn't add too much administration.


    I’m also a fan of Vancian casting. Picking the right spells gives me the same kick that having a character play perfectly in a situation gives. (That can be mechanical, but can also be but can also be my character being the right person in the right place at the right time to do the thing).
    But leave the cantrips. There’s few things more boring than being a low level spell slinger who’s out of spells.
    Or better yet, have a large but limited supply of low level spells so you do run out sometimes and have to try other options
    Or include a basic wand in a wizard’s starting kit.
    On a related note, make up at least a basic spell
    Prefer not having unlimited cantrips for wizards (and only wizards) but wouldn't be outraged if they are included. Personally don't see how zapping someone with a simple boring damage cantrip over and over is any more interesting than plugging someone with a crossbow over and over when they do more or less the same thing.

    However losing flexibility and cantrip IS a nerf and wouldn't mind that being made up for with more spell slots. My preference would be more narrow or strange spells for wizards that take some McGyvering to apply but give wizards enough of them to make them a powerhouse if used intelligently.

    [quote[No universal dump stats. Like it. In fact I’d go so far as to say I’d like every stat to be a viable secondary stat for each class and every stat except the primary to be a viable dump. And if you do dump a stat hard, that will limit your character’s abilities. “I don’t have a dump stat” should be compatible with an optimized build[/quote]

    Going that far would be hard to implement but if they managed to pull that off I wouldn't complain. Just wouldn't want some kind of standardization to make that sort of thing possible.

    Race – I don’t mind if it’s pure flavour as long as there’s enough other ways to customize a character. OTOH, as another independent variable, it does have a multiplying effect on the options. And if there’s race specific bonuses for each (or most classes) that’d be great. Roll on “Savage casting” to make an orcish Wizard perfectly functional! (I know, lots of table don’t need the level of optimization where the Orc wizard won’t work just fine. But I’d like there to be more options which work just fine at the other tables as well.
    My preference for races and classes is to make races good at being off brand classes by giving them abilities that don't synergize well with their stat bumps.

    For example for half-orcs Relentless Endurance is MORE useful for half-orc wizards than beat sticks, high elf free cantrips are MORE useful for non-casters than casters and mountain dwarf proficiencies are really useful for casters rather than people who need strength. Just these bonuses aren't seen as being as useful as the +2 stat bump. Would like to see these things being useful enough that a lot of off-brand classes become really useful, kind of like how goblins are useful in giving a big added dollup of sneakiness to a lot of classes that normally aren't too sneaky.

    Attrition = record keeping. It can be great. I ran an “adventure” drawing huge amounts of inspiration from “The retreat from Kandahar” which left such an impression on my players that my inattentive wife saw video footage of Afghanistan years later and recognized the terrain as “Farqaduk Territory”. But it adds to the workload. Probably aim for a system which doesn’t need that sort of record keeping as long as everyone gets a full night’s sleep. Then if you want to run attrition, you simply make a couple of encounters happen at night.
    Good night's sleep = back to full doesn't work well with adventures based on long journeys (like LotR and stuff inspired by that) as any encounter that isn't an immediate and obvious threat of death can mostly be shrugged off. Prefer to have long rests at the end of a "mission" whatever that mission may be.

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    You know what I think I would like to see most in 6e?

    A better implementation of magic items
    Like for example all magic items require some amount of attunement, say from 1 to 3 slots), which scale by their power and you get a number of attunement slots equal to your prof bonus so that also scales?

    So you could end up with one high level char using a half dozen +1 equivalent items and another using just two +3 equivalent ones.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Like for example all magic items require some amount of attunement, say from 1 to 3 slots), which scale by their power and you get a number of attunement slots equal to your prof bonus so that also scales?

    So you could end up with one high level char using a half dozen +1 equivalent items and another using just two +3 equivalent ones.
    If it were for me, I'd simply ditch every magic items that grant any flat bonuses. Even in 5th edition.
    Last edited by Arkhios; 2021-06-24 at 03:43 AM.
    Please be mindful of what you say in public; sadly not all can handle sarcasm or The Internet Credibility.
    My Homebrew:
    Base Class: Warlord | Roguish Archetype: Inquisitor | Roguish Archetype: Thug | Primal Path: Rage Mage


    Quote Originally Posted by Anon von Zilch View Post
    Words actually mean things, people!


    Ongoing game & character:
    Sajan Uttam, human Monk 6/Fist of Irori 3 (Legacy of Fire)


    D&D/Pathfinder CV of sorts
    3.0 since 2002
    3.5 since 2003
    4e since 2008
    Pathfinder 1e since 2008
    5e since 2014

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Amnestic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Castle Sparrowcellar
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bosh View Post

    Prefer not having unlimited cantrips for wizards (and only wizards) but wouldn't be outraged if they are included. Personally don't see how zapping someone with a simple boring damage cantrip over and over is any more interesting than plugging someone with a crossbow over and over when they do more or less the same thing.
    Ignoring that a number of cantrips do more than just boring damage (eg. ray of frost slows, vicious mockery debuffs, control bonfire is a concentration repeat-damage option), it's not necessarily about it being 'interesting', it's about it feeling right and satisfying the class fantasy - that being a spellcaster instead of "guy in robes with crossbow".

    Now for you that might not be an issue, but personally as someone who did find it kinda lame that casters had to default to physical weapons like a pleb either once they were out of leveled spells or if one was simply not appropriate, infinite cantrips are good.

    There's certainly balance questions around cantrips (eg. scaling off char level instead of caster level, SCAGtrips) but that doesn't mean the core concept is wrong. At least in my eyes, it's one of the better changes 5e made (...well, 4e, really).
    DMing:
    Iron Crisis IC | OOC
    Cyre Red IC | OOC

    Playing:
    OotA IC | OOC

    Master Homebrew Index (5e)

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amnestic View Post
    Ignoring that a number of cantrips do more than just boring damage (eg. ray of frost slows, vicious mockery debuffs, control bonfire is a concentration repeat-damage option), it's not necessarily about it being 'interesting', it's about it feeling right and satisfying the class fantasy - that being a spellcaster instead of "guy in robes with crossbow".

    Now for you that might not be an issue, but personally as someone who did find it kinda lame that casters had to default to physical weapons like a pleb either once they were out of leveled spells or if one was simply not appropriate, infinite cantrips are good.
    Also, cantrips can scale with your casting stat, instead of dexterity, which is going to be your secondary attribute at best. A spellcaster with a crossbow would miss a lot.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Designing with the intent of removing all dump stats, if taken to the extreme, yields a state that is indistinguishable from scheduled numeric advancement and an absence of ability scores. Obviously it won’t go that far which brings us to the question of what we are hoping to accomplish.

    As a simple, heavily constrained system there will be optimal ability score allocations for a given concept. The problem to be addressed is giving each ability score a reason to be taken. Classes will determine some ability score or scores that matter. Options in the given class may call for other ability scores, as will choices external to class like feats or skills.

    The small numbers involved in advancing low ability scores for d20 rolls makes them generally unrewarding if the field is not already being focused. This is the fault of the advancement system where using an ASI to take an 18->20 is weighted the same as taking an 8->10. Without any sort of incentive there will never be a point at which a dump stat is worth considering. If the choice was between 18->20 or 8->14 the fighter is looking at tuning up his combat effectiveness, which he gets to use frequently, or a 15% swing on his CHA saves and social rolls, which he has determined come up less frequently. Extend the point buy chart just for the purpose of tracking an ability score’s cost, then progress by awarding extra point buy points. We can’t see less than the current assumed zero investment in dump stats, so if you accept the assumption that there is zero investment this change can only increase the frequency of investment. (It also helps races play catch up if they are missing a desired high starting ability score)
    Last edited by Xervous; 2021-06-24 at 06:50 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    If they wanted to encourage no dump stats they could go back to the old ability score tables and simply front load the bonuses so that you get most of the bonus by say 14, and 15-20 does very little.

    But I think a lot of the success 5e has had is attributed to keeping things simple so I would think they will want to keep things simple in a 6e as well.

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    That's where I'm not in total agreement with Bounded Accuracy. It was never a problem for me that PCs outgrew foes. If the 3E ogre can never hit a level 16 PC except for the Natural 20 always hits rules. I was perfectly fine with that. Here is where PCs and monsters follow different rules work in my favor. It only matters that PCs have a reasonable chance to hit the enemy and save against their affects at the relative power level of the enemy compared to the level of the PCs, accepting the weaker save has a bit harder chance to make. I don't object to Bounded Accuracy where a 5E ogre can still hit a level 16 PC, but if my hypothetical fix for 6E means the 6E level 16 Fighter is forever after immune to the 6E Intellect Devourer, I won't be crying over it. The Fighter has dragons and beholders to worry about.
    Seems the easiest fix for that is to create horde rules. A lone wolf has a DC 11 knock down. 3 wolves increase to DC 12; every two wolves increases the DC by +1. As the wolves are thinned out, the DC lowers.

    At 20th level, a party of 6 without AOE magic (laughable, but assume it's the end of a very long combat day and the caster's are wiped out and the wolves attack just before dawn (7 hours into a long rest) - and a 20 member wolf pack is charging down on them for 'easy pickings'. Those wolves will have DC 21 knock downs, until they start getting thinned out. That could be a cakewalk or a deadly encounter depending on party makeup and left over resources.

    Bounded Accuracy doesn't have to mean something never improves so others remain relevant... Horde rules can work for HP, to hit, damage, ability DCs... whatever you think will help keep lower CR foes a threat outside of just sheer numbers. Yeah, it's a bit more work to build the encounter, but if done right (not just 'napkin math' by the DM, but on a spreadsheet - thanks modern DMing!) it's not hard at all to make the adjustments on the fly. Heck, a simple formula in Excel would do the trick.
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkhios View Post
    If it were for me, I'd simply ditch every magic items that grant any flat bonuses. Even in 5th edition.
    Agreed. Outside of player specific options like infusions or forge clerics I've removed them from my game.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post

    Bounded Accuracy doesn't have to mean something never improves so others remain relevant... Horde rules can work for HP, to hit, damage, ability DCs... whatever you think will help keep lower CR foes a threat outside of just sheer numbers. Yeah, it's a bit more work to build the encounter, but if done right (not just 'napkin math' by the DM, but on a spreadsheet - thanks modern DMing!) it's not hard at all to make the adjustments on the fly. Heck, a simple formula in Excel would do the trick.
    Quite clearly good math is illegal, or at least they didn’t bother to correct the devs understanding on that.

    On a more serious note the votes have been in, D&D sells better with rounded rubber clad edges and fewer pointy numbers. If you want to sell the car to everyone you need the warning about drinking the battery acid. To you it might seem excessive, but they’re taking a broad aim. If you can look at the product and say “eh, good enough”, they’ve met their design intent.
    Last edited by Xervous; 2021-06-24 at 07:28 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xervous View Post
    Designing with the intent of removing all dump stats, if taken to the extreme, yields a state that is indistinguishable from scheduled numeric advancement and an absence of ability scores. Obviously it won’t go that far which brings us to the question of what we are hoping to accomplish.

    As a simple, heavily constrained system there will be optimal ability score allocations for a given concept. The problem to be addressed is giving each ability score a reason to be taken. Classes will determine some ability score or scores that matter. Options in the given class may call for other ability scores, as will choices external to class like feats or skills.

    The small numbers involved in advancing low ability scores for d20 rolls makes them generally unrewarding if the field is not already being focused. This is the fault of the advancement system where using an ASI to take an 18->20 is weighted the same as taking an 8->10. Without any sort of incentive there will never be a point at which a dump stat is worth considering. If the choice was between 18->20 or 8->14 the fighter is looking at tuning up his combat effectiveness, which he gets to use frequently, or a 15% swing on his CHA saves and social rolls, which he has determined come up less frequently. Extend the point buy chart just for the purpose of tracking an ability score’s cost, then progress by awarding extra point buy points. We can’t see less than the current assumed zero investment in dump stats, so if you accept the assumption that there is zero investment this change can only increase the frequency of investment. (It also helps races play catch up if they are missing a desired high starting ability score)
    Implement some additional diminishing returns? Point buy ready does this at creation with high scores costing more, but say for example when you get an ASI you can spend it by increasing a high stat by 1 or a low stat by 2, with 'low' being defined as having a modifier lower than your prof bonus or something.
    Last edited by Kane0; 2021-06-24 at 07:35 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Implement some additional diminishing returns? Point buy ready does this at creation with high scores costing more, but say for example when you get an ASI you can spend it by increasing a high stat by 1 or a low stat by 2, with 'low' being defined as having a modifier lower than your prof bonus or something.
    This will just further incentivize feats IMO. Remember the 8->10 is also competing with a feat or secondary stats. Or in a feat free game you’re just shunting investment off to a secondary stat. The wizard upon capping INT at L4, going 17-18, will not look to CHA or STR when there’s CON and DEX he can push to 16. Enforcing a soft cap will merely incentivize pushing multiple relevant ability scores up to it. A soft cap does nothing for the dump stats if it does not impact everything that has higher priority than them.

    Basing it off proficiency bonus is terrifying. That’s inviting build nonsense where the same inputs at different times can yield differing outputs. 3.5e skills were atrocious because of this. We don’t need that kind of bookkeeping headache.
    If all rules are suggestions what happens when I pass the save?

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2013

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xervous View Post
    build nonsense where the same inputs at different times can yield differing outputs...We don’t need that kind of bookkeeping headache.
    Definitely agree that anything involving this kind of thing should be avoided wherever possible.

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xervous View Post
    That’s inviting build nonsense where the same inputs at different times can yield differing outputs. 3.5e skills were atrocious because of this. We don’t need that kind of bookkeeping headache.
    Like your first level of rogue gets you different numbers of skills if you take it at your first level or your first level of fighter gets different armour proficiencies...

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    There is one method where advancing attributes costs more the higher they go.

    It’s a step more complicated than the current design, but let’s say instead of just getting a +2 to any attribute they instead gave out the 4ish point buy points to add to your attributes. The exact number to be determined after math and balancing of course.

    This would encourage diversifying your stat spread as focusing down one attribute gets you less points to play with overall. And makes those who do focus down one stat to get the best boost impressive rather than the norm.

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ProsecutorGodot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrStabby View Post
    Like your first level of rogue gets you different numbers of skills if you take it at your first level or your first level of fighter gets different armour proficiencies...
    Both of which are part of what was designed as optional, so of course it adds more complexity.

    Your ability scores are not optional.

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Amnestic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Castle Sparrowcellar
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    This would encourage diversifying your stat spread as focusing down one attribute gets you less points to play with overall. A
    I'm not sure it would. Chances are if I'm a wizard, bumping Int from 18 to 19 is still worth more to me than bumping strength from 8 to 12 even when Int 19 gets me nothing other than being a step closer to Int 20. Ditto for vice versa with a fighter.

    Investment cost in stats isn't the only issue, they need a reason to do so.
    DMing:
    Iron Crisis IC | OOC
    Cyre Red IC | OOC

    Playing:
    OotA IC | OOC

    Master Homebrew Index (5e)

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amnestic View Post
    I'm not sure it would. Chances are if I'm a wizard, bumping Int from 18 to 19 is still worth more to me than bumping strength from 8 to 12 even when Int 19 gets me nothing other than being a step closer to Int 20. Ditto for vice versa with a fighter.

    Investment cost in stats isn't the only issue, they need a reason to do so.
    STR admittedly has the fewest allures outside its narrow primary use case. CHA tied to social rolls, WIS nails perception and frequent saves. INT... yeah same deal. Given this is only 2/6 ability scores we are looking at a fix to make INT / STR potentially desirable and a separate fix to give people a reason to look at dump stats.
    If all rules are suggestions what happens when I pass the save?

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Amnestic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Castle Sparrowcellar
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Lets make strength the initiative score.

    You become so muscular you react faster.
    DMing:
    Iron Crisis IC | OOC
    Cyre Red IC | OOC

    Playing:
    OotA IC | OOC

    Master Homebrew Index (5e)

  24. - Top - End - #204
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Counterspell. It needs to end.
    Hard disagree. The action economy (which includes reactions) allows this to fit within the system. Was your suggestion that Dispel Magic be either an action or a reaction to cast, and thus render counterspell unnecessary?
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldariel View Post
    Ready action is the worst. Up until level 4, no problem. But once you get Extra Attack, you're paying not only your Reaction but your Extra Attack if you ready an attack.
    Easily fixed. When you ready an action, you get to take that action. The Fighter's or the Monk's Action to Attack includes both attacks. Not hard to fix. Don't need a new edition for that.
    Of course, it's easy to fix: throw the dysfunctional system out of the window and use one of its predecessors instead.
    Not necessary. It works well enough for small groups.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Like for example all magic items require some amount of attunement, say from 1 to 3 slots), which scale by their power and you get a number of attunement slots equal to your prof bonus so that also scales?

    So you could end up with one high level char using a half dozen +1 equivalent items and another using just two +3 equivalent ones.
    Neat idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xervous View Post
    [color=blue] If you can look at the product and say “eh, good enough”, they’ve met their design intent.
    Successful one.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2021-06-24 at 10:06 AM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  25. - Top - End - #205
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    I don't think it's possible to make all attributes useful to all classes with the way attributes and classes look like now. Not without some logical contortions. Either attributes or classes would need to change, and that's not going to happen.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  26. - Top - End - #206
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Hard disagree. The action economy (which includes reactions) allows this to fit within the system. Was your suggestion that Dispel Magic be either an action or a reaction to cast, and thus render counterspell unnecessary?
    Gonna be honest, I don't understand the whole sacred cow-ness of action economy stuff that's come up in D&D recently. For flipping decades some variation of "I prepare to cast dispel magic to interrupt the enemy caster's spell" worked just fine. Now you need a special new spell because... "mustn't <something> action economy".

    If you absolutely had to write another random exception into something to let basic tactics work like they always have, you could have tacked "You can cast this spell as a reaction to <events>" onto Dispel Magic. But instead we have two dispel magic spells now to help kick sorcerers, and other spells-known casters, in the face a bit more.

  27. - Top - End - #207
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    A few things I'd love to see in 6e (I'm sure I'm forgetting some things; this is off the top of my head).

    1. Ability scores are just one number. I think it's stupid to have the score and a modifier. Currently you roll/buy/choose your Ability Scorers and then pretty much forget they exist for the rest of the campaign. There's no reason 6e couldn't just use one freaking number and base everything on that.

    2. Spell points. Personally, I'd love to see this for all casters, but would be ok with it even if it was only for sorcerers.

    3. Initiative. Something has to be done. One thing I like the idea of it group initiative. For example (and this would need a LOT more iteration, of course), Party & monsters roll initiative. Top 2 party members discuss actions and go, top 2 monsters go, next 2 party members discuss and go, next 2 monsters, etc. etc. Obviously it would need some work, but I've used this system even in 5e and it works SOOOOO much better than the standard initiative system.

    4. Ability Score Bonuses tied to class, not race. Give races some neat in- or out-of-combat features, but keep the ability modifiers tied to classes.
    Insert Clever Signature Here

  28. - Top - End - #208
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bosh View Post

    Prefer not having unlimited cantrips for wizards (and only wizards) but wouldn't be outraged if they are included. Personally don't see how zapping someone with a simple boring damage cantrip over and over is any more interesting than plugging someone with a crossbow over and over when they do more or less the same thing.

    However losing flexibility and cantrip IS a nerf and wouldn't mind that being made up for with more spell slots. My preference would be more narrow or strange spells for wizards that take some McGyvering to apply but give wizards enough of them to make them a powerhouse if used intelligently.
    It's aesthetics. I'm a spellcaster, not a warrior. I want to be casting spells. It sounds and feels better to say "I cast Fire Bolt" instead of "I fire my crossbow".
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  29. - Top - End - #209
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Gonna be honest, I don't understand the whole sacred cow-ness of action economy stuff that's come up in D&D recently. For flipping decades some variation of "I prepare to cast dispel magic to interrupt the enemy caster's spell" worked just fine. Now you need a special new spell because... "mustn't <something> action economy".
    You can thank WoTC for that; it's not a matter of what's sacred, it's the tools we have to work with since they took over. Most of my D&D play before 5e was TSR stuff, so this 'action economy' thing took a while to get used to. But in a turn based game, how you do stuff in each turn and what you can do during your turn need to be clear. The never ending quest for the balance between 'verisimilitude' and 'realism' and easy to apply mechanics will likely see another tweak in the future. So far, this framework is effective if not perfect.
    If you absolutely had to write another random exception into something to let basic tactics work like they always have, you could have tacked "You can cast this spell as a reaction to <events>" onto Dispel Magic. But instead we have two dispel magic spells now to help kick sorcerers, and other spells-known casters, in the face a bit more.
    OK, if that errata/exception was made for Dispel Magic, you could certainly do away with counterspell as it's function would be taken care of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oramac View Post
    3. Initiative. Something has to be done. One thing I like the idea of it group initiative.
    We had that in the original game. Honestly, nothing has to be done. The current method works, and for small groups (3 to 5 PCs) is very usable. When I have crowds, I clump them into initiative clumps of 3-5. That's kind of like 'group initiative' without going back to OD&D "all 15 bandits fire their bows before any of you gets to do anything" stuff that group initiative creates.

    Ability Score Bonuses tied to class, not race. Give races some neat in- or out-of-combat features, but keep the ability modifiers tied to classes.
    Not a bad idea. (13th Age offers a +2 from your class and a +2 from your race, and from each you can pick from one of two options; no reason not to adapt to something like that).
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2021-06-24 at 12:18 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  30. - Top - End - #210
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    We had that in the original game. Honestly, nothing has to be done. The current method works, and for small groups (3 to 5 PCs) is very usable. When I have crowds, I clump them into initiative clumps of 3-5. That's kind of like 'group initiative' without going back to OD&D "all 15 bandits fire their bows before any of you gets to do anything" stuff that group initiative creates.
    That's fair. And true. Really, they don't even have to make a 6e at all. But being that this is a wish list, I wished for stuff. :D
    Insert Clever Signature Here

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •