The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 338
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I feel like there's a lot of ground between "D&D stays exactly as it is" and "D&D becomes a GURPS clone". Whatever 'GURPS clone' is even supposed to mean; I get the impression GURPS is mostly thrown around as a generic bad thing, or at least one D&D shouldn't become. In practice, of course, D&D will stay exactly as it is even if there's a sixth edition in a few years' time. But there's nothing wrong with speculating about what could be.
    There is a lot of ground, but
    * changing to a skill/point-buy (rather than class/level) system
    * removing the increasing HP
    * changing away from a D20
    (which were all proposed) isn't in that ground IMO.

    There are changes you can make that are much less sweeping than those.
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    This topic makes me sad. What I see is a bunch of people, many of whom self-admittedly don't like D&D saying that D&D should stop being D&D and be more like <favored game>. Which is fine, but it's neither useful nor plausible. Even 4e, which got hammered for "not feeling like D&D" didn't do anything nearly that radical.

    And there are plenty of other systems you can use if that's what you want. But some people (myself included) like the core of D&D and don't want it ruined by making it just another skill/point-buy system.
    These are some good points. Wishing D&D had no classes, levels, or HP increases is like wishing McDonalds sold a wide selection of frozen pizza and a bucket of hammers.

    Go to walmart if that's what you're looking for. A discussion about D&D improvements shouldn't end up telling it to stop being the iconic RPG that it's always been. There's plenty of room for other types of RPGs to be what they are adjacent to D&D.

    For me, I'd like to see Feats come somewhere between 3.5 and 5e. 5e feats are so cool I wish they were less off to the side and more prominently featured. I get the desire to streamline character creation, but I think they may have cut it back just a little too far.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

    Everyone has their own jam.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    For me, I'd like to see Feats come somewhere between 3.5 and 5e. 5e feats are so cool I wish they were less off to the side and more prominently featured. I get the desire to streamline character creation, but I think they may have cut it back just a little too far.
    This is probably what I would most want out of 6e. 5e feats are great, but the combination of bounded accuracy and feats having to compete with ASIs means that they are too often neglected in favor of "+1 to everything your class does" until you cap your main ability score.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Mar 2019

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    * changing to a skill/point-buy (rather than class/level) system
    Moving to a skill-based system doesn't have to mean getting away from levels. And, broadly speaking, it doesn't mean having to get away from classes, either. It also doesn't have to mean that you go to GURPs level of crunch, either.

    You can preserve the classes and level advancement and still increase the role skills play in the game to allow greater customization of characters and slightly more immersive roleplay through more specific skill-sets.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Could combine the points system with feats? So for example, when you gain a level you gain 1 or 2 points that you can spend as you level up to get feats? Or alternatively when you get an ASI, you get 3-4 feat points or some other arrangement. That way feats only have to be balanced for a given point value, rather than having to all be treated as the same. Possibly combine that with separate classifications for combat, utility, and roleplaying feats, and you could have a complex point-buy system overlaid atop a conventional class system. Just add a suggested "track" or two to each class to make character-building easier and you should be golden.
    The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer

    And here's a rat for the road ~(,,_`;;'>

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by jjordan View Post
    Moving to a skill-based system doesn't have to mean getting away from levels. And, broadly speaking, it doesn't mean having to get away from classes, either. It also doesn't have to mean that you go to GURPs level of crunch, either.

    You can preserve the classes and level advancement and still increase the role skills play in the game to allow greater customization of characters and slightly more immersive roleplay through more specific skill-sets.
    Not very well. Mushing the two together results in the mess we had of 3e, with 50k different "skills", most of which aren't useful. And a whole different system for class features, etc. Or one side becomes vestigial (3e chose skills, others could choose classes).

    Skill systems and class systems are different enough to be largely incompatible in my experience.

    Not only that, but the poster I was particularly responding to did want to remove levels and classes. So :shrug:
    Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2019-09-09 at 10:59 AM.
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Not only that, but the poster I was particularly responding to did want to remove levels and classes. So :shrug:
    Which lucky for that poster, The Dark Eye already exist.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Translation--

    "I want D&D 6e to be nothing like D&D and instead be a GURPS-clone." Class/level system, d20s, and increasing HP are some of the hallmarks of the mechanics of D&D.

    This topic makes me sad. What I see is a bunch of people, many of whom self-admittedly don't like D&D saying that D&D should stop being D&D and be more like <favored game>. Which is fine, but it's neither useful nor plausible. Even 4e, which got hammered for "not feeling like D&D" didn't do anything nearly that radical.

    And there are plenty of other systems you can use if that's what you want. But some people (myself included) like the core of D&D and don't want it ruined by making it just another skill/point-buy system.
    Whenever these threads come up, I start thinking about what I'd change, and then I don't post most of it because, yeah, it wouldn't be D&D any more with all those changes. Levels, classes, d20, hyperscaling HP, etc... those are just core parts of the game that can't really go away without making it something else entirely -- for better or worse.

    So without making D&D into not!D&D, here's what I will would change.

    Presentation / writing -- whoever writes 6e needs to be capable of clarity, the writing shouldn't openly invite and encourage 30-some page threads about how three basic Warlock abilities interact with each other. And for pete's sake, hire a couple readers who weren't involved in the design process to read the thing and make sure it reads the way the developers THINK it reads -- actively look for unintended inferences and interactions.

    Have more of the game written and ready to publish before they start publishing, so that the first round of supplements are integrated and taken into account in the balance and capabilities.

    Examine the implicit setting, decide that's intentional and make it explicit... and trashcan the rest.

    Stop conflating species and culture into "Race". It's at least 2025 by that point, I think they can find a more nuance on that front.

    Put Backgrounds second, after whatever replaces "race" and before Classes.

    On Classes, lean towards toolkit instead of archetype, and clearly do so. If the best mechanics to represent a character shouldn't be walled off behind a bunch of assumptions and tropes. Being a highly skilled character shouldn't be fixed into being the sneak-thief or the entertainer/scoundrel. Being the character with inherent non-spell magical powers shouldn't be fixed into having "sold your soul" (or whatever pact).

    Give every class two possible "main stats" to choose from.

    Re-examine what Charisma actually means, and break things up so that you don't have umpteen different Classes that default to it (Warlock, Paladin, Bard, etc).

    For the love of all that is good and right, PLEASE ditch Vancian magic once and for all. (And no, I don't consider it core to D&D.) So much of what's hard about balance and magic in D&D could be solved by burying that fossil in the dirt where it belongs.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2019-09-09 at 11:42 AM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Whenever these threads come up, I start thinking about what I'd change, and then I don't post most of it because, yeah, it wouldn't be D&D any more with all those changes. Levels, classes, d20, hyperscaling HP, etc... those are just core parts of the game that can't really go away without making it something else entirely -- for better or worse.

    So without making D&D into not!D&D, here's what I will would change.

    Presentation / writing -- whoever writes 6e needs to be capable of clarity, the writing shouldn't openly invite and encourage 30-some page threads about how three basic Warlock abilities interact with each other. And for pete's sake, hire a couple readers who weren't involved in the design process to read the thing and make sure it reads the way the developers THINK it reads -- actively look for unintended inferences and interactions.
    I disagree, partially. Of course clarity is important. But most of those 30-page threads are motivated reasoning, not actual confusion. Whenever I see one of those, it's dollars-to-donuts that it's a couple people with very firm, very fixed notions of what it should say and all evidence to the contrary will be disregarded.

    Mostly, it comes down to people with a firm belief that DM discretion must be avoided at all costs, which is the opposite of 5e's design.

    And compared to either 4e or 3e (or especially 2e), 5e is already a pinnacle of writing clarity. 2e was just all over the place and poorly written, 3e tried to be legalistic...and failed miserably (producing extra ambiguity and outright disfunction by trying to avoid ambiguity). 4e was just a slog to actually read, plus all the keywords meant you were constantly flipping back and forth to cross-reference. 5e's been used as an example of good technical writing in several college courses that I'm aware of.

    Have more of the game written and ready to publish before they start publishing, so that the first round of supplements are integrated and taken into account in the balance and capabilities.
    I basically agree--the first adventure series (Tyranny of Dragons) was notorious for only partially working with the published rules because it was written based on playtest materials by a 3pp hired for the job.

    Examine the implicit setting, decide that's intentional and make it explicit... and trashcan the rest.
    No. I oppose anything that locks the game into one specific setting any more than absolutely necessary, but you need fluff. 4e's lack of fluff (or completely optional fluff, which is the same thing) was too little, games like Shadowrun (which are critically dependent on particular detailed settings) is way too much.

    Stop conflating species and culture into "Race". It's at least 2025 by that point, I think they can find a more nuance on that front.
    Meh. It's traditional and everyone except people looking for fights knows what's meant.

    Put Backgrounds second, after whatever replaces "race" and before Classes.
    Sure.

    On Classes, lean towards toolkit instead of archetype, and clearly do so. If the best mechanics to represent a character shouldn't be walled off behind a bunch of assumptions and tropes. Being a highly skilled character shouldn't be fixed into being the sneak-thief or the entertainer/scoundrel. Being the character with inherent non-spell magical powers shouldn't be fixed into having "sold your soul" (or whatever pact).
    I disagree. Tropes and archetypes make all the difference, especially for new players. 5e works best when you lean into them and ignore the "toolkit" idea. That is, 5e works beautifully when you start with the base archetypes and build from there organically--trying to retrofit a pre-determined, externally constructed "concept" into the mechanics is what causes problems IMX. I find the first way also produces more natural characters--the second always feels like the personality and backstory is shoehorned in. But that's my experience, YMMV.

    Give every class two possible "main stats" to choose from.
    Eh...don't care one way or another. Some are harder to do this with than others, others are very easy.

    Re-examine what Charisma actually means, and break things up so that you don't have umpteen different Classes that default to it (Warlock, Paladin, Bard, etc).
    Sacred cow here a bit. I sort of agree--they could certainly be more clear about the mental ability scores. No, INT is not synonymous with IQ. WIS is not "good decisionmaking and sage advice", it's "ability and training to distinguish self from other" (perception, writ large). CHA is largely "sense of self", but is the fuzziest of them.

    For the love of all that is good and right, PLEASE ditch Vancian magic once and for all. (And no, I don't consider it core to D&D.) So much of what's hard about balance and magic in D&D could be solved by burying that fossil in the dirt where it belongs.
    I disagree -- it is core. The slot/level progression of magic is about as core as the 6 ability scores, for example. I find much of the balance problems coming from people thinking that "magic = can do anything" and letting players get "creative" with spells (ie letting them twist the well-defined effects into much much more using fallacious logic and bad physics), but not giving the same leeway to non-magic things. That, or designing adventures around single big boss fights against a solo monster.
    Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2019-09-09 at 12:07 PM.
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    I would drop levels far sooner than dropping classes. People talk a lot about classes being restrictive, but levels are probably more to blame. Or rather, the combination of classes and levels, that ends up in the "this class get this at level X, period" effect. Dropping levels would make the mechanics a lot less suffocating while keeping the classes' benefit of helping define characters and providing strong themes.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I would drop levels far sooner than dropping classes. People talk a lot about classes being restrictive, but levels are probably more to blame. Or rather, the combination of classes and levels, that ends up in the "this class get this at level X, period" effect. Dropping levels would make the mechanics a lot less suffocating while keeping the classes' benefit of helping define characters and providing strong themes.
    You might have a point. Looking at the Classes and seeing "well I'd need to take at least X levels in this Class just to get this one thing that's central to the character I'm trying to build... while having to take all this irreverent stuff along the way..." might be the most aggravating part about Classes in D&D.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Presentation / writing -- whoever writes 6e needs to be capable of clarity, the writing shouldn't openly invite and encourage 30-some page threads about how three basic Warlock abilities interact with each other. And for pete's sake, hire a couple readers who weren't involved in the design process to read the thing and make sure it reads the way the developers THINK it reads -- actively look for unintended inferences and interactions.
    Actually this is one of 5e's strengths.

    You are suppose to run it how you think D&D should work. It doesn't matter what the devs thought, the language is intentionally ambiguous.

    Thematic Strength is what D&D 5e has over other editions of D&D. I personally do not value it, but given it's popularity, that must be a feature many people do want.

    A way to ruin D&D 5e for yourself is to care what the developers think the rules say. (I would know, I did ruin the system for myself that way)

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhedyn View Post
    Actually this is one of 5e's strengths.

    You are suppose to run it how you think D&D should work. It doesn't matter what the devs thought, the language is intentionally ambiguous.

    Thematic Strength is what D&D 5e has over other editions of D&D. I personally do not value it, but given it's popularity, that must be a feature many people do want.

    A way to ruin D&D 5e for yourself is to care what the developers think the rules say. (I would know, I did ruin the system for myself that way)
    "Intentionally ambiguous" sounds like a CYA for "sloppy", if you ask me.

    "It works the way you think it should work" sounds great until you run into a table of people with N+1 opinions on how something actually works, and none of them can agree, and everything requires discussion before it can proceed, and every little thing about the character build requires a detailed "are we reading this the same way?" discussion between player and DM...
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    "Intentionally ambiguous" sounds like a CYA for "sloppy", if you ask me.

    "It works the way you think it should work" sounds great until you run into a table of people with N+1 opinions on how something actually works, and none of them can agree, and everything requires discussion before it can proceed, and every little thing about the character build requires a detailed "are we reading this the same way?" discussion between player and DM...
    That's personal preference there. I like intentional ambiguity, because it lets me run different tables differently without having problems with the rules at all.

    And if your table devolves into such things...that's an OOC problem due to rules lawyering and I guarantee it would work the same no matter how codified the rules were, because the rules can't cover everything (combinatorial explosion and all that). In fact, I've seen way more arguing about rules in regards to much more "tightly defined" systems, because the tighter the definitions, the more loopholes and interacting terms result. 5e, run properly, has none of that. Because the answer is "DM trusts players, players trust DM, they work it out". And that's the only possible answer, because rules aren't binding. Paper cannot bind people. If you can't trust the other players, you shouldn't play the game.
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    "Intentionally ambiguous" sounds like a CYA for "sloppy", if you ask me.

    "It works the way you think it should work" sounds great until you run into a table of people with N+1 opinions on how something actually works, and none of them can agree, and everything requires discussion before it can proceed, and every little thing about the character build requires a detailed "are we reading this the same way?" discussion between player and DM...
    You have the right of it. D&D 5e hinges heavily on "The DM is right".

    The mass appeal strength of the system runs into conflict with those who want to invest deeply in a system and understand it. 5e is not a system that can be understood without a DM there. 5e has just enough rules that former 3.5/4e D&D players can hop in and run the game like they think it should work, but once such players need to KNOW how it works, the illusion breaks.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    That's personal preference there. I like intentional ambiguity, because it lets me run different tables differently without having problems with the rules at all.

    And if your table devolves into such things...that's an OOC problem due to rules lawyering and I guarantee it would work the same no matter how codified the rules were, because the rules can't cover everything (combinatorial explosion and all that). In fact, I've seen way more arguing about rules in regards to much more "tightly defined" systems, because the tighter the definitions, the more loopholes and interacting terms result. 5e, run properly, has none of that. Because the answer is "DM trusts players, players trust DM, they work it out". And that's the only possible answer, because rules aren't binding. Paper cannot bind people. If you can't trust the other players, you shouldn't play the game.
    And yet I've never had those sorts of issues with HERO or WEG d6, and rarely even with messy systems like oWoD's various incarnations.

    It's not a matter of rules lawyering -- it's a matter of the rules being so poorly written that they leave themselves open to multiple reasonable interpretations, of the rules not being based on anything but themselves (so there's no "compare against something" test), and of the system having an endless deluge of mini-rules such as each spell being its own little box of rules, each Class ability being its own little box of rules, etc, and trying to have them all interact without turning into a chaos storm -- and it often being transparently clear that the authors put ZERO thought into how they interact.

    Thus, the 30-some page thread of how Pact of the Blade, Improved Pact of the Blade (or whatever it's called, AFB), and Hexblade interconnect, which could have been avoided for all but the maliciously motivated with just a few changes in wording.

    "Perfect clarity is impossible, so don't even try to be clear" is just letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    "The DM and players will figure it out, so there's no problem in the first place" is just a close cousin to the Rule 0 Fallacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rhedyn View Post
    You have the right of it. D&D 5e hinges heavily on "The DM is right".

    The mass appeal strength of the system runs into conflict with those who want to invest deeply in a system and understand it. 5e is not a system that can be understood without a DM there. 5e has just enough rules that former 3.5/4e D&D players can hop in and run the game like they think it should work, but once such players need to KNOW how it works, the illusion breaks.
    Game rules should work without constant need for personal subjective interpretation. I should be able to pick up the rulebook for a system, and understand how it works, without requiring the developer or a GM to be in the room with me clarifying every third thing.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2019-09-09 at 03:10 PM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedSorcererGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    I want content to be released more frequently honestly, aside from UA stuff which doesn't really count, only sword coast and Xenathar's really changed the game to any substantive level I feel, and it even then it wasn't a whole lot

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    You might have a point. Looking at the Classes and seeing "well I'd need to take at least X levels in this Class just to get this one thing that's central to the character I'm trying to build... while having to take all this irreverent stuff along the way..." might be the most aggravating part about Classes in D&D.
    There's more than a few systems (various Warhammer systems, Storyteller systems, PbtA systems, just to name those I've played) that use some kind of boxes and categories, even if they don't call them classes. But they don't have levels and don't make everything about the character depend on that box. So they avoid the issues D&D classes have.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Anonymouswizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my library

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhedyn View Post
    You have the right of it. D&D 5e hinges heavily on "The DM is right".
    A system that relies heavily on GM rulings is fine, but D&D 5e is weird. It clearly defines combat (barring edge cases), goes into minute detail about magic, and then just throws up It's hands and goes 'figure it out after rolling 1d20+ability+proficiency+modifiers', and then insists it's all equally important. This kind of rules split isn't unique to D&D, but D&D is relatively unique in claiming it's all equally important.

    The mass appeal strength of the system runs into conflict with those who want to invest deeply in a system and understand it. 5e is not a system that can be understood without a DM there. 5e has just enough rules that former 3.5/4e D&D players can hop in and run the game like they think it should work, but once such players need to KNOW how it works, the illusion breaks.
    And that illusion is what makes some of us really against 5e.

    I played mostly with scientists and engineers when at uni, and there was a significant tendency to want to know how the rules worked and how they fit together. We didn't play 4e because it was clear how it fit together and we didn't like that, but enjoyed Unknown Armies and GURPS because of how the rules all slotted together without the GM having to bodge everything. We didn't play 5e because it wasn't released until the last couple of years we played together, but there was definite dislike compared to GURPS and 3e. And when I played 5e I grew to hate it, it was such a limited game that relied in the GM to do anything.

    On the other hand I like Adventures in Middle Earth because the book actually adds more depth to noncombat gameplay with Journey and Audience mechanics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    There's more than a few systems (various Warhammer systems, Storyteller systems, PbtA systems, just to name those I've played) that use some kind of boxes and categories, even if they don't call them classes. But they don't have levels and don't make everything about the character depend on that box. So they avoid the issues D&D classes have.
    Yep, a lot of games use looser classes to funnel characters towards archetypes without closely controlling everything. A lot also use races to determine basic abilities while players get free reign over skills and more advanced powers, which I quite like. There's a whole spectrum going from the WoD games ('class' mainly affects costs and weaknesses), to WoD as a whole ('class' determines what abilities you have access to, but everybody has equal access to skills), to Anima/Rolemaster (you can theoretically learn anything, but your class will make it efficient to focus on one or two specific areas), to the Warhammer games (you can only buy what your class let's you without GM say so, but each class has a range of available stuff and you don't have to buy everything), to D&D (a Fighter gets exactly this at exactly this level).
    Snazzy avatar (now back! ) by Honest Tiefling.

    RIP Laser-Snail, may you live on in our hearts forever.

    Spoiler: playground quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelphas View Post
    So here I am, trapped in my laboratory, trying to create a Mechabeast that's powerful enough to take down the howling horde outside my door, but also won't join them once it realizes what I've done...twentieth time's the charm, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    How about a Jovian Uplift stuck in a Case morph? it makes so little sense.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    Yep, a lot of games use looser classes to funnel characters towards archetypes without closely controlling everything. A lot also use races to determine basic abilities while players get free reign over skills and more advanced powers, which I quite like. There's a whole spectrum going from the WoD games ('class' mainly affects costs and weaknesses), to WoD as a whole ('class' determines what abilities you have access to, but everybody has equal access to skills), to Anima/Rolemaster (you can theoretically learn anything, but your class will make it efficient to focus on one or two specific areas), to the Warhammer games (you can only buy what your class let's you without GM say so, but each class has a range of available stuff and you don't have to buy everything), to D&D (a Fighter gets exactly this at exactly this level).
    This is correct about the older Warhammer games, but the newer ones (well, relatively newer, they're pretty old by now) like Dark Heresy 2E operate on an "aptitude" system where your basic choices - background, homeworld and role - determine how easy or hard it is to purchase certain attributes, skills or talents, though each choice also has unique abilities. I'm not sure how Warhammer Fantasy 4E does it, but I think it cleaves closer to the old model.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Anonymouswizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my library

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    This is correct about the older Warhammer games, but the newer ones (well, relatively newer, they're pretty old by now) like Dark Heresy 2E operate on an "aptitude" system where your basic choices - background, homeworld and role - determine how easy or hard it is to purchase certain attributes, skills or talents, though each choice also has unique abilities. I'm not sure how Warhammer Fantasy 4E does it, but I think it cleaves closer to the old model.
    WFRP4e is essentially what 2e did, but more streamlined. So instead of a bunch of Careers which promote you to more advanced Careers you have four ranks in your Career, but can leave and start at rank 1 in another Career.
    Snazzy avatar (now back! ) by Honest Tiefling.

    RIP Laser-Snail, may you live on in our hearts forever.

    Spoiler: playground quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelphas View Post
    So here I am, trapped in my laboratory, trying to create a Mechabeast that's powerful enough to take down the howling horde outside my door, but also won't join them once it realizes what I've done...twentieth time's the charm, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    How about a Jovian Uplift stuck in a Case morph? it makes so little sense.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    A system that relies heavily on GM rulings is fine, but D&D 5e is weird. It clearly defines combat (barring edge cases), goes into minute detail about magic, and then just throws up It's hands and goes 'figure it out after rolling 1d20+ability+proficiency+modifiers', and then insists it's all equally important. This kind of rules split isn't unique to D&D, but D&D is relatively unique in claiming it's all equally important.



    And that illusion is what makes some of us really against 5e.

    I played mostly with scientists and engineers when at uni, and there was a significant tendency to want to know how the rules worked and how they fit together. We didn't play 4e because it was clear how it fit together and we didn't like that, but enjoyed Unknown Armies and GURPS because of how the rules all slotted together without the GM having to bodge everything. We didn't play 5e because it wasn't released until the last couple of years we played together, but there was definite dislike compared to GURPS and 3e. And when I played 5e I grew to hate it, it was such a limited game that relied in the GM to do anything.

    On the other hand I like Adventures in Middle Earth because the book actually adds more depth to noncombat gameplay with Journey and Audience mechanics.



    Yep, a lot of games use looser classes to funnel characters towards archetypes without closely controlling everything. A lot also use races to determine basic abilities while players get free reign over skills and more advanced powers, which I quite like. There's a whole spectrum going from the WoD games ('class' mainly affects costs and weaknesses), to WoD as a whole ('class' determines what abilities you have access to, but everybody has equal access to skills), to Anima/Rolemaster (you can theoretically learn anything, but your class will make it efficient to focus on one or two specific areas), to the Warhammer games (you can only buy what your class let's you without GM say so, but each class has a range of available stuff and you don't have to buy everything), to D&D (a Fighter gets exactly this at exactly this level).
    I wonder if you would like The Black Hack 2e. It's rules light, but the rules are clear and everything is given equal consideration.

    You 3d6 down on the standard 6 stats, if you roll 14+, the next stat is 7.

    You pick a class (Warrior, Thief, Cleric, Wizard, barring 3rd party), and you write a one sentence background. Most class abilities are received at level one, with HP, stats, and some features improving with level.

    The skill system is basically you can do whatever makes sense that your character can do, roll under your attribute if their is a chance of failure. Apply advantage/disadvantage as appropriate for the situation.

    When a creature attacks you in melee, you roll under strength to avoid the attack, if you are attacked at range, you roll under dexterity. When you are dodging or attacking, you add the difference between level and monster HD if it is higher. Your armor can block x number of successful hits (determined after damage is rolled) before needing repairs.

    Wizard spells take up one page and cleric prayers take up one page. Most of the book is dedicated to GM creative tables with a bestiary near the back and all the monsters only have HD, attacks, special abilities, treasure, and random interaction tables.

    I too am disappointed by D&D 5e, I can appreciate that it is good at something I don't like and see how that has caused it to be popular. I much prefer games that are a particular thing (even if that is a particular kind of generic) rather than trying to be all things to all people through misinterpretation.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhedyn View Post
    trying to be all things to all people through misinterpretation.
    At the end of the day, that's not a bad way of expressing my opinion of the thing (which is based in part on the things said trying to promote the system).
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Anonymouswizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my library

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhedyn View Post
    I wonder if you would like The Black Hack 2e. It's rules light, but the rules are clear and everything is given equal consideration.
    Got it, it's interesting but I'll stick with more high tech settings for now. I really need to get on with building my GURPS Space setting for when I finally very a group willing to play it (or In Nomine,Thai would be fun).
    Snazzy avatar (now back! ) by Honest Tiefling.

    RIP Laser-Snail, may you live on in our hearts forever.

    Spoiler: playground quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelphas View Post
    So here I am, trapped in my laboratory, trying to create a Mechabeast that's powerful enough to take down the howling horde outside my door, but also won't join them once it realizes what I've done...twentieth time's the charm, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    How about a Jovian Uplift stuck in a Case morph? it makes so little sense.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    You might have a point. Looking at the Classes and seeing "well I'd need to take at least X levels in this Class just to get this one thing that's central to the character I'm trying to build... while having to take all this irreverent stuff along the way..." might be the most aggravating part about Classes in D&D.
    "the most aggravating part about Classes in D&D"? About classes in 3e, maybe. What about 2e's Skills and Powers, that gave you (limited) ability to customize your character, and dip other powers? What if an even stronger version of the same type of "dipping" system existed in 6e, where classes had the option to be played straight, as classes, or to make point-buy style tradeoffs? Would that meet your requirements?

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    On Classes, lean towards toolkit instead of archetype, and clearly do so. If the best mechanics to represent a character shouldn't be walled off behind a bunch of assumptions and tropes. Being a highly skilled character shouldn't be fixed into being the sneak-thief or the entertainer/scoundrel. Being the character with inherent non-spell magical powers shouldn't be fixed into having "sold your soul" (or whatever pact).
    This. Divorce class fluff from mechanics, or at least put them in different rooms.

    Edit: Come to think of it, I might be able to pinpoint why 5e doesn't do it for me while 3.5 did. D&D is supposedly a rather generic, entry-level heroic fantasy game, but it doesn't do generic heroic fantasy well enough. It's not generic enough because you have classes-as-archetypes, an almost fixed power/narrative level and inability to properly realize many fantasy concepts with enough precision in regards to abilities and power.
    Last edited by Ignimortis; 2019-09-10 at 12:30 AM.
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).
    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    WFRP4e is essentially what 2e did, but more streamlined. So instead of a bunch of Careers which promote you to more advanced Careers you have four ranks in your Career, but can leave and start at rank 1 in another Career.
    So I've heard, yes. It does sound like a streamlined version of the frequently byzantine old career system. I think I still prefer the Dark Heresy 2E approach, though it also has a number of flaws - it's fairly easy to end up paying a lot of XP for things your character should be good at.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Ignimortis View Post
    Edit: Come to think of it, I might be able to pinpoint why 5e doesn't do it for me while 3.5 did. D&D is supposedly a rather generic, entry-level heroic fantasy game, but it doesn't do generic heroic fantasy well enough. It's not generic enough because you have classes-as-archetypes, an almost fixed power/narrative level and inability to properly realize many fantasy concepts with enough precision in regards to abilities and power.
    I think this rather demonstrates the anti 5e bias problem.

    5e has fewer options, but generally even the poorer choices are still functional (they work, they just underperform).

    Can't say the same for 3.5. Playing the original Ranger in 5e isn't as bad as trying to play a the original monk or paladin in 3.5.

    We seem to romanticize the variety of 3.5's choices to the extent that we forget half of them were postively dysfunctional without a tremendous amount of system mastery. 5e is better because you basically don't even have that concern (and several functional classes struggled to keep pace with full spellcasters).

    With such a poor balance of options, can we fairly say there were more choices, even if most of these extra choices were trap options?
    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

    Everyone has their own jam.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    I think this rather demonstrates the anti 5e bias problem.

    5e has fewer options, but generally even the poorer choices are still functional (they work, they just underperform).

    Can't say the same for 3.5. Playing the original Ranger in 5e isn't as bad as trying to play a the original monk or paladin in 3.5.

    We seem to romanticize the variety of 3.5's choices to the extent that we forget half of them were postively dysfunctional without a tremendous amount of system mastery. 5e is better because you basically don't even have that concern (and several functional classes struggled to keep pace with full spellcasters).

    With such a poor balance of options, can we fairly say there were more choices, even if most of these extra choices were trap options?
    For me personally? Yes. In 3.PF, I could play Magus, Slayer, any of the ToB classes, any of the PoW classes, Sorcerer, Warmage, Beguiler, maybe even Warlock or Scout. That's more than 10 classes already. Most of these could be built in 2-3 different ways, too.

    In 5e, out of the box I like...Monk (Shadow or Kensei), Paladin (Vengeance or Ancients), maybe straight archer Hunter Revised Ranger (but not further than level 8). Fighters are lame, Rogues as well, Wizards, Clerics and Druids can go soak, Bards aren't my style, and Sorcerer needs some love to be actually fun instead of "sometimes fun".

    Edit: I forgot Warlocks. But it's not surprising, considered how butchered they are.
    Last edited by Ignimortis; 2019-09-10 at 06:39 AM.
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).
    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What I hope they do for 6e DnD

    Quote Originally Posted by Ignimortis View Post
    For me personally? Yes. In 3.PF, I could play Magus, Slayer, any of the ToB classes, any of the PoW classes, Sorcerer, Warmage, Beguiler, maybe even Warlock or Scout. That's more than 10 classes already. Most of these could be built in 2-3 different ways, too.

    In 5e, out of the box I like...Monk (Shadow or Kensei), Paladin (Vengeance or Ancients), maybe straight archer Hunter Revised Ranger (but not further than level 8). Fighters are lame, Rogues as well, Wizards, Clerics and Druids can go soak, Bards aren't my style, and Sorcerer needs some love to be actually fun instead of "sometimes fun".

    Edit: I forgot Warlocks. But it's not surprising, considered how butchered they are.
    So your problem isn't lack of options. You just don't like the choices. So less a problem of design and more a matter of preference
    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

    Everyone has their own jam.

Posting Permissions

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