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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

[Sigreid]

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

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

[Ogre Mage]

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

[Psyren]

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

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

[Ignimortis]

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

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

[Dienekes]

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

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

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

[strangebloke]

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

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

Like its basically just

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

[NRSASD]

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

[skaddix]

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, that.

[Ignimortis]

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

Yeah, pretty much.

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

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

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

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

For any game I've played in, that would mean that Warlocks would be more likely to actually cast their things instead of going "I've got a Hex going, and I'll keep the other slot just in case".

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

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

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

Like its basically just

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, 3.5 called.

[Psyren]

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

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

[Ignimortis]

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

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

[Goobahfish]

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

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

I think this essentially nails the point.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ignimortis]

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

PF2 is decent - if you desire 5e, but slightly more complex and noticeably more competently made

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

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

I don't want any of those things, except for Sorcerer either disappearing or being revamped. The rest would be changes for the worse.

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

[Ignimortis]

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

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

[Warder]

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

[Black Jester]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[truemane]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amnestic]

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

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

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

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

[Luccan]

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler

Show

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Xervous]

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

This. To include even 'official' supplements.

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

How many days per week do you play?

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

Disappear would be good.

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

On board.

- Whatever they do with Metamagic, Wizards don't need it. They do not need a buff.

True, no buff needed.

- Hexblade needs to go entirely, and never be considered again.

Already true at my table.

Pact of the Blade is perfectly good and does what it is supposed to.

I add medium armor proficiency.

- If they keep levels 10+ in the game, they probably need to nerf full casters at level 14+.

Something like Mystic Arcanum? More high level spells as rituals?

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

I can get behind that.

- Rangers just need a minor tweak or two, they're a fun class that's very focused and plenty powerful. Possibly too focused though.

Make them prepared casters like the Paladin.

- Concentration on one spell is a keystone limitation and would require a system revamp to change. However revisiting which spells use concentration wouldn't be a bad thing.

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