What I hope they do for 6e DnD

[Lord Raziere]

First, that assumes that all gaming is "story", and these forums have had that debate before. At best, it's a subjective preference.

Second, the "fake" in question is this -- when you sit down at the table, is that a genuine thing you're doing with the other people at the table, or are you putting on the act/show of "gaming"?

If its subjective, then its useless to discuss and therefore I won't.

Second, that is a question for sociology that has yet to be answered and the subtleties of which are so slight that there is no real answer. all of society is a performance on some level, with a script, a procedure and so on. we just call them etiquette and manners and culture instead. I'm an introvert and diagnosed with autism, so repeating even simple things like compliments more than once is a performance for me. I'm not truly sure and have to deal with the fact to me, most of everything society puts out doesn't seem to be genuine at all. if your better at telling whats genuine, good on you.

[Max_Killjoy]

If its subjective, then its useless to discuss and therefore I won't.

Second, that is a question for sociology that has yet to be answered and the subtleties of which are so slight that there is no real answer. all of society is a performance on some level, with a script, a procedure and so on. we just call them etiquette and manners and culture instead. I'm an introvert and diagnosed with autism, so repeating even simple things like compliments more than once is a performance for me. I'm not truly sure and have to deal with the fact to me, most of everything society puts out doesn't seem to be genuine at all. if your better at telling whats genuine, good on you.

I think you answered before I expounded above -- when you eat a bowl of soup, are you genuinely eating a bowl of soup, or are you putting on the performance of eating a bowl of soup?

[Lord Raziere]

I think you answered before I expounded above -- when you eat a bowl of soup, are you genuinely eating a bowl of soup, or are you putting on the performance of eating a bowl of soup?

Whats the difference?

A performance of eating a bowl of soup can still actually eat the bowl of soup. a lot of little societies performances are to smooth out such things into a procedure that makes sense. is it any less real just because its artificial in its process? a lot of things we take for granted are artificial like that.

[Max_Killjoy]

Whats the difference?

A performance of eating a bowl of soup can still actually eat the bowl of soup. a lot of little societies performances are to smooth out such things into a procedure that makes sense. is it any less real just because its artificial in its process? a lot of things we take for granted are artificial like that.

We'll have to disagree -- personally I'm acutely aware of when I can just do something, and when I have to be aware of outside observation.

[olskool]

Simplicity, thematic consistency, broader individual classes...


Then you have the 4e problem, which admittedly 5e solves by not releasing any new content. But put simply, the more options you have the harder it is to balance them all. Now you could go the In Nomine route of not being too concerned with balance, but people keep telling me that the big strength of class-based games is them being more balanced.

But at the end of the day, I'm more likely to run BD&D than 5e, because I prefer how it fits together. And that's fine, I don't need 5e and can make do with just the Rules Cyclopedia.



Sounds like a great thing actually (although if you read my post I wasn't arguing against a race/class split. On the other hand, elf is totally a class). Clearly we have decided that your character's class, or broad archetype, takes precedence over their race. No it wouldn't feel the same, just like Basic D&D's Dwarf feels different to AD&D1e's Dwarf.

But let's take this example, where such things as dwarves and elves are variants of the classes and are introduced in splatbooks. They could be put in with thematically relevant books, such as one on underground complexes and one on forests, or we could have them in a book dedicated to races, or make a 'player's handbook 2' specifically for a wide variety of player options.



Yep, in my opinion the core rulebook had too many options when this new-fangled AD&D thing came out.

Although in all seriousness, I wouldn't have minded if they'd gone for a more 2e setup, where you take the Warrior class and pick the Paladin subclass. Which is what was originally promised. But apparently that wasn't enough like 3.X for people.

I also get that Hasbro wanted to focus more on core than supplements, and that's fine. Although I'd argue they're still incredibly slow, and I'm nostalgic for when Dungeon would give you new adventures every month (some stand alone, some as full campaigns, it was amazing!). But D&D now feels more like a Live Service where the product is being part of the Adventurer's League, rather than the product being contentas it is for most games. My problem is much more the areas I'd like to see getting support (more out there and original settings) not really doing so, although I guess I should pick up the Ravnica book.

I'd actually like to know what the designers think is important to D&D. If it's archetype emulation I wouldn't mind the wide variety of classes if they narrowed the Fighter and Rogue somewhat, but if it's say character emulation I'd much rather they focused their efforts on something that isn't 13 classes. In all honesty if, as I expect, the designers and fanbase at large consider class to be the defining character element I'd much rather see subraces and Feats removed from the game so more attention could be focused on them

Then again, I suspect that D&D should also change the 'standard' set of classes, probably to Bard/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard, due to the fact that I'm the only person I know who has ever chosen to play the Cleric (although I know people who have resigned themselves to it). In fact the most common class picks in my experience are Druid and Rogue, with Fighter and Barbarian following and the Cleric and Wizard at the bottom of the pile. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Anyway, I want to go back to basics, and I want archetypes to be stronger. I don't care about the Paladin of the Ancients, I'm not sure what archetype it's meant to represent, but both Devotion and Vengence are clear archetypes that look fun. They'd make great subclasses for a Fighter.

EDIT: at the same time, I should point out that I don't actually want 6e. I can serve my desires by simply running BD&D, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, or Basic Fantasy with a handful of houserules, or by just ruunning a GURPS or TDE game. I'm just trying to explain why 5e disappointed me.

I wish this forum had a like button because I'd give you one. To me, 5e builds "superheroes" NOT "adventurers." I wish the classes were more distinct from each other WITHOUT having to add a bunch of FEATS to do it. The classes also don't seem very "balanced" to me. Why would anyone ever play a beginning character who wasn't a Bard or a Paladin? AD&D balanced these types of classes by requiring so many different high stats (STR, DEX, CON) that such a class would only show up once in a blue moon. In 5e, a good "min-maxer" can build a character that is virtually a "superhero" in the first tier of Leveling. It only gets worse as they level up (which is pretty easy in 5e).

All of the above being said, There are several good things about 5e.

I like the ADVANTAGE/DISADVANTAGE mechanic a lot.

I also think the Task System is pretty good. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Standard DC roll could be used for everything. I still don't understand why they didn't just make Saves part of the Proficiency/Ability roll system. That way they could vary the DC of certain Saves like making certain snake venoms either more difficult or easier than the standard DC of 10. Likewise, I could see having a spell caster using their INT bonus for Informational spells, their CHA bonus for Charm spells, and their WIS bonus for Protection spells. Many of the classes abilities like Wildshape and Bardic Inspiration could require a Proficiency Check to perform. This would add a bit of "uncertainty" to the use of class abilities.

I too would also like to see variable Success Levels giving variable effects. This could allow the addition of Special Effects like Disarm, Sunder Weapon, Overextend Opponent for fighters. That could make combat much more interesting.

As it stands now, I guess I'll be using my "modded" BF/5e chimera game until something better comes along.

[Ignimortis]

I wish this forum had a like button because I'd give you one. To me, 5e builds "superheroes" NOT "adventurers." I wish the classes were more distinct from each other WITHOUT having to add a bunch of FEATS to do it. The classes also don't seem very "balanced" to me. Why would anyone ever play a beginning character who wasn't a Bard or a Paladin? AD&D balanced these types of classes by requiring so many different high stats (STR, DEX, CON) that such a class would only show up once in a blue moon. In 5e, a good "min-maxer" can build a character that is virtually a "superhero" in the first tier of Leveling. It only gets worse as they level up (which is pretty easy in 5e).

Superheroes? What? 5e is the least superhero-adjacent edition of D&D in 20 years. 3e and 4e both had a lot more superhero dynamics going on, especially in the later levels. 4e even had a dedicated "mook" mechanic that had severely outclassed old enemies (so goblins at level 10) die in one hit (even if it did 1 damage) because they were there to serve as fodder. 3e had level 15 characters be basically untouchable for level 5 characters or monsters. All of that doesn't work in 5e.

The only thing even remotely superheroic about 5e is that characters don't die easily if the DM isn't actually trying to kill them.

And people don't want to play Bard or Paladin because there are other good classes for those levels. Rogue or Wizard or Sorcerer are all viable alternatives for Bard (depending on what you want to do), and Barbarian with some effort might blow the Paladin out of the water for the first 5-8 levels. And most people don't roll for stats these days anyway, so stat requirements would just shoehorn how point buy should go for these classes.

[AdAstra]

I have to agree with Ignimortis, and practically everything there makes very little sense, olskool. Like, 5e already has variable DCs for saves? I'm not sure where you got the idea that it doesn't. And Paladins have pretty lackluster progression in Tier 1 compared to say, Fighters or Rogues or the stronger Clerics (Tempest and War come to mind, though War trails off severely after Tier 1). Just about the only thing that even seems to have bearing on 5e is the desire for variable success/failure, which is indeed a good idea. There's even something like it with some poisons and other hazards, where failing by 5 or more causes a worse effect, so there's precedent for incorporating it further.

[Mordaedil]

Is this a bad time to point out that after watching some of it, I don't think it's "real". Like those aren't actual games. It's a show.

I know it's important for some people to maintain the illusion that it is a real game, but come on.

If you want some authentic D&D stories, go to YouTube and watch Puffin Forest. It's fun because you don't watch him actually play the game. He just tells stories about playing the game.

God, the example you draw up while critiqing Critical Role is Puffin Forest, the most toxic D&D player? I mean, I can't deny that his stories are "authentic", but if you put yourself into the shoes of anyone else at the table of his stories, they are just stories from that guy at the table.

Now, I get that Critical Role isn't exactly everyones taste, but lmao. They've dealt with this "fake" image since ****ing day one, people insisting they have scripts at the table and that it is all planned in advance and ****.

Despite there being like behind the scenes stuff as well where the DM and players tell you exactly how they do the game. My biggest issue with CR is that they give people kind of the wrong idea of what a table will look like when not everyone at it is a famous voice-actor and they fail to set their expectations accordingly. But that is honestly even something Matt Mercer really hates about his own show.

[noob]

I wish this forum had a like button because I'd give you one. To me, 5e builds "superheroes" NOT "adventurers." I wish the classes were more distinct from each other WITHOUT having to add a bunch of FEATS to do it. The classes also don't seem very "balanced" to me. Why would anyone ever play a beginning character who wasn't a Bard or a Paladin? AD&D balanced these types of classes by requiring so many different high stats (STR, DEX, CON) that such a class would only show up once in a blue moon. In 5e, a good "min-maxer" can build a character that is virtually a "superhero" in the first tier of Leveling. It only gets worse as they level up (which is pretty easy in 5e).

All of the above being said, There are several good things about 5e.

I like the ADVANTAGE/DISADVANTAGE mechanic a lot.

I also think the Task System is pretty good. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Standard DC roll could be used for everything. I still don't understand why they didn't just make Saves part of the Proficiency/Ability roll system. That way they could vary the DC of certain Saves like making certain snake venoms either more difficult or easier than the standard DC of 10. Likewise, I could see having a spell caster using their INT bonus for Informational spells, their CHA bonus for Charm spells, and their WIS bonus for Protection spells. Many of the classes abilities like Wildshape and Bardic Inspiration could require a Proficiency Check to perform. This would add a bit of "uncertainty" to the use of class abilities.

I too would also like to see variable Success Levels giving variable effects. This could allow the addition of Special Effects like Disarm, Sunder Weapon, Overextend Opponent for fighters. That could make combat much more interesting.

As it stands now, I guess I'll be using my "modded" BF/5e chimera game until something better comes along.

Why did you play dnd at all?
Dnd after 3e is quite based on having superheroes that can fight giant monsters.
If you remove the giant monster fighting superheroes part of dnd then maybe you should have played another rpg that was not dnd: there is a lot of rpgs that are not about superheroes that fights giant monsters and works in ways that leaves more freedom while not being ambiguous or rule heavy(each edition of dnd is full of rules that are ambiguous although the earlier editions(basic and maybe dnd 2) had a bit less rules).
And if you like rule heavy stuff I did hear gurps was very modular and can allow to manage non superheroic people in a medieval era.

[Anonymouswizard]

Now, I get that Critical Role isn't exactly everyones taste, but lmao. They've dealt with this "fake" image since ****ing day one, people insisting they have scripts at the table and that it is all planned in advance and ****.

Despite there being like behind the scenes stuff as well where the DM and players tell you exactly how they do the game. My biggest issue with CR is that they give people kind of the wrong idea of what a table will look like when not everyone at it is a famous voice-actor and they fail to set their expectations accordingly. But that is honestly even something Matt Mercer really hates about his own show.

It's quite clearly 'scripted' and on rails, but not to the point people claim. MM clearly has a scripted adventure plan which features a bunch of 'stations'/encounters which link to each other in various ways, but the group has a say in which trains they get on and it's closer to 'quantum ogreing' than a classic railroad. There's a gentlemen's agreement that the party won't try to sail to the other side of the world and will follow the plot hooks.

In short it's a fairly standard setup, made a little bit more extreme to ensure that the audience sees a good amount of entertaining stuff and a more definite structure of highs and lows.

Why did you play dnd at all?
Dnd after 3e is quite based on having superheroes that can fight giant monsters.
If you remove the giant monster fighting superheroes part of dnd then maybe you should have played another rpg that was not dnd: there is a lot of rpgs that are not about superheroes that fights giant monsters and works in ways that leaves more freedom while not being ambiguous or rule heavy(each edition of dnd is full of rules that are ambiguous although the earlier editions(basic and maybe dnd 2) had a bit less rules).
And if you like rule heavy stuff I did hear gurps was very modular and can allow to manage non superheroic people in a medieval era.

Yeah, essentially this. Which is why E6 became fairly popular, it cut out the superhero levels.

[Ignimortis]

Yeah, essentially this. Which is why E6 became fairly popular, it cut out the superhero levels.

And also part of why 5e is popular, it seems. I hate to repeat things said a thousand times before, but 5e at times feels like E6 stretched over 20 levels. The only claim to superheroes it has left is the HP growth, and if that was reduced back to 2e principles of "you get proper HP during levels 1-10 and then at best a few points per level if any", it'd be back there again even at high levels.

I don't understand it and don't want this trend to continue, TBH. Double-digit levels should actually be closer to superheroes, anime or wuxia. A level 20 character should probably be somewhere around Exalted level, instead of "still the same Fighter, but with a slab of HP, four attacks and good equipment".

[Willie the Duck]

It's not badwrongfun, but a lot people get their hackles up when you don't believe CR is a "real game". It's a show. They are acting for the audience.

Honestly, the only person I know with a dog in that fight is Pundey, who is die-hard vitriolic in the other direction.

[Rhedyn]

God, the example you draw up while critiqing Critical Role is Puffin Forest, the most toxic D&D player? I mean, I can't deny that his stories are "authentic", but if you put yourself into the shoes of anyone else at the table of his stories, they are just stories from that guy at the table.

Now, I get that Critical Role isn't exactly everyones taste, but lmao. They've dealt with this "fake" image since ****ing day one, people insisting they have scripts at the table and that it is all planned in advance and ****.

Despite there being like behind the scenes stuff as well where the DM and players tell you exactly how they do the game. My biggest issue with CR is that they give people kind of the wrong idea of what a table will look like when not everyone at it is a famous voice-actor and they fail to set their expectations accordingly. But that is honestly even something Matt Mercer really hates about his own show.

What gets me is when people think CR is "professional D&D" and if the players/DM are good enough that it will be just like that.

No guys. It's a show. An actual table will never be like that. I've seen GMs try to mimic CR and they tank their campaigns because Matt Mercer's **** isn't that fun to actually play.

Oh and I agree that Puffin's stories are mostly about how he is a terrible GM/player and that's the authentic part. We've all had sessions like that, few of us decided to animate the experience and tell everyone about it.

Edit: This isn't a complete tangent because I think CR will influence a potential 6e. They'll try to design the game so that it plays more like what you watch. And that's why 6e will do poorly.

[Morty]

And also part of why 5e is popular, it seems. I hate to repeat things said a thousand times before, but 5e at times feels like E6 stretched over 20 levels. The only claim to superheroes it has left is the HP growth, and if that was reduced back to 2e principles of "you get proper HP during levels 1-10 and then at best a few points per level if any", it'd be back there again even at high levels.

I don't understand it and don't want this trend to continue, TBH. Double-digit levels should actually be closer to superheroes, anime or wuxia. A level 20 character should probably be somewhere around Exalted level, instead of "still the same Fighter, but with a slab of HP, four attacks and good equipment".

3E's (and to a lesser degree 4E's) power curve might have been more of an anomaly than anything else. Neither edition knew what to do with it, certainly, though 4E at least tried. 3E scales very poorly from "mostly-realistic hero" to "low-key superhero" and then beyond. Many of the balance problems come from it.

To say nothing of the conceptual problems with your character going through completely different genres of fiction just by beating up progressively tougher enemies. There's a reason that other high-powered games, such as Exalted, generally pick a power level and stick with it.

[Rhedyn]

5e PCs are stronger than 3e PCs for the system. Most GMs aren't going to run 6-8 Encounters per long rest so 5e PCs function like super heroes. The system basically has 4 good levels, gets bonkers at 7, and is all but unplayable after level 10.

People have had success by making custom monsters or using 3rd bestiaries. That helps patch the fundamental problems with the system, but just because a 5e fighter may never find 100 orcs a non-threat doesn't mean high level 5e fighters are relatively super heroes.

[Max_Killjoy]

The power curve, and the resulting "progression" through a series of different "genres", has always been one of my peeves about D&D. It's like Joseph Campbell on crack. Having to start out a minnow and ending up Leviathan is not really interesting to me. If I'm setting out to play Leviathan, then just give me a system and a balance point that lets me do that. It's telling that so much build advice for any addition from 3e forward seems to consist of "and then when you get to level X..."

But that's not something that's ever going to change about D&D in any edition ever.

~~~~

5e seems to be so based on a specific set of assumptions about encounter rate and difficulty, vs short and long rest rates, that it gets really wobbly once you leave those bounds. The whole idea of "per X" abilities that reset on rests probably just needs to go.

[Ignimortis]

3E's (and to a lesser degree 4E's) power curve might have been more of an anomaly than anything else. Neither edition knew what to do with it, certainly, though 4E at least tried. 3E scales very poorly from "mostly-realistic hero" to "low-key superhero" and then beyond. Many of the balance problems come from it.

To say nothing of the conceptual problems with your character going through completely different genres of fiction just by beating up progressively tougher enemies. There's a reason that other high-powered games, such as Exalted, generally pick a power level and stick with it.

Then 6e needs to get rid of spells, say, higher than level 5 or 6. It doesn't mesh in any way to have Wish Wizards and Same Ole Fighters at high levels. Cap the progression at the current 12th or 13th level, give martials something to keep up after level 7-8 (on the ToB/PoW power-level, which does good stuff at lower levels, like see invisibility, blindsight, spider climb, etc - interesting and useful level 1-2 spells usable at will, basically).

Because 5e has gone halfway there. You have Fighters who are firmly in the level 1 to 7 paradigm, while casters have lost quite a bit since 3e, but their capstone spells are pretty much as insane as they were before.

[Rhedyn]

Then 6e needs to get rid of spells, say, higher than level 5 or 6. It doesn't mesh in any way to have Wish Wizards and Same Ole Fighters at high levels. Cap the progression at the current 12th or 13th level, give martials something to keep up after level 7-8 (on the ToB/PoW power-level, which does good stuff at lower levels, like see invisibility, blindsight, spider climb, etc - interesting and useful level 1-2 spells usable at will, basically).

Because 5e has gone halfway there. You have Fighters who are firmly in the level 1 to 7 paradigm, while casters have lost quite a bit since 3e, but their capstone spells are pretty much as insane as they were before.

OSR games exist. Most stop at level 10 and leave 6th+ spells to GM fiat. You could also try out Savage Worlds. You can't really mimic 6th+ spells without using the Superpowers companion, and then everyone gets super powers not just casters. One of our Super Brutes clapped an enemy storm away, it was cool and will never happen in D&D.

High levels aren't actually meant to be played in D&D 5e, you are only suppose to think about them and how cool it would be to get there. So the balance at that level is irrelevant.

[Mordaedil]

What gets me is when people think CR is "professional D&D" and if the players/DM are good enough that it will be just like that.

No guys. It's a show. An actual table will never be like that. I've seen GMs try to mimic CR and they tank their campaigns because Matt Mercer's **** isn't that fun to actually play.

It's not that it is "professional D&D", it's that the players are professional actors and that is a bit much to expect from your fellow players and that's where I feel like a lot of people miss-step. They come from the show expecting a D&D table to be all about doing goofy voices in character very convincingly, when that is almost never going to happen.

But like, I recognize a lot of stuff I've seen in games over 25 years of playing D&D in CR. I think it's incredibly disingenious to dismiss it as "just a show", even if I agree that it's a mistake to mimic it (everybody has their own style of DMing to be fair).

Spoiler

Show

I mean, of things I've seen in just this season, they stole a boat and decided to go on a maritime adventure after a side-quest that went wrong sideways, they switched sides from the empire good guys to working with the evil drow faction. That is some PC shenanigans right there.

[Rhedyn]

It's not that it is "professional D&D", it's that the players are professional actors and that is a bit much to expect from your fellow players and that's where I feel like a lot of people miss-step. They come from the show expecting a D&D table to be all about doing goofy voices in character very convincingly, when that is almost never going to happen.

But like, I recognize a lot of stuff I've seen in games over 25 years of playing D&D in CR. I think it's incredibly disingenious to dismiss it as "just a show", even if I agree that it's a mistake to mimic it (everybody has their own style of DMing to be fair).

Spoiler

Show

I mean, of things I've seen in just this season, they stole a boat and decided to go on a maritime adventure after a side-quest that went wrong sideways, they switched sides from the empire good guys to working with the evil drow faction. That is some PC shenanigans right there.

We're coming at this from different angles. I think it's wrong to try to mimic the show because even if you succeed, it wouldn't be all that fun.

Sure you can steal elements that you think might work in an actual campaign, but it's a show and works as a show. They are all acting.

[Pelle]

The power curve, and the resulting "progression" through a series of different "genres", has always been one of my peeves about D&D.
[...]
But that's not something that's ever going to change about D&D in any edition ever.

~~~~

[...] The whole idea of "per X" abilities that reset on rests probably just needs to go.

Yeah. I actually suspect few people play D&D specifically because of the zero to god progression. A lot of people really like leveling though, and want to feel very noticable improvements to their character's abilities regulary. That kind of necessitate this progression of genres in order achieve that. So it's more that people play D&D in spite of the genre progression, in order to get the "new stuff" experience.

~~~~

That would require at-will abilities only and abandoning the whole resource management game, no? IMO, the resource management game can be quite fun if the scenarios are designed for it. What I would like to see in another edition is that the resource management game was designed so that it is feasible to get through a "long rest cycle" (adventuring day, i.e. all of the resources) in one session.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah. I actually suspect few people play D&D specifically because of the zero to god progression. A lot of people really like leveling though, and want to feel very noticable improvements to their character's abilities regulary. That kind of necessitate this progression of genres in order achieve that. So it's more that people play D&D in spite of the genre progression, in order to get the "new stuff" experience.

Since we're talking about a theoretical 6th edition. I think people would be fine with losing the zero-to-god progression, so long as they got the levelling and very noticeable improvements. Mind you, that's vaguely what 4e was, although that also had a bunch of other things (like abandoning/minimizing the resource management game), so maybe the two can't happen in the same edition-change. Still, I can see a 6e where you still go from 1st level spells to 9th level spells, just without 9th level including Gates and Simulacrums and the other spells that have never not blown up the game.

[Pelle]

I think people would be fine with losing the zero-to-god progression, so long as they got the levelling and very noticeable improvements.

To me, those seem mutually exclusive. If you don't go from zero-to-god, it probably won't be noticeable enough for what most people enjoy about leveling.

[Willie the Duck]

To me, those seem mutually exclusive. If you don't go from zero-to-god, it probably won't be noticeable enough for what most people enjoy about leveling.

And yet the worst offender spell levels are those that (supposedly) most games never get to. Is it then just because you theoretically could get there that is an incentive?

[Max_Killjoy]

That would require at-will abilities only and abandoning the whole resource management game, no? IMO, the resource management game can be quite fun if the scenarios are designed for it. What I would like to see in another edition is that the resource management game was designed so that it is feasible to get through a "long rest cycle" (adventuring day, i.e. all of the resources) in one session.

There are other ways to do "resources", that don't end up with "per unit time" issues, or conflicts in rest schedules, or disconnects with the "fiction" situation at hand.

[Pelle]

And yet the worst offender spell levels are those that (supposedly) most games never get to. Is it then just because you theoretically could get there that is an incentive?

I have no idea. I personally don't care for it myself, but notice that players love leveling and get twitchy if they don't level ever so often. As I don't like the superhero genre, I would be perfectly happy with capping the levels at 10 (which is about where I've ended campaigns in the past).

I think it's mostly the regular incremental noticeable boost of power that people get addicted to. Where it ends up I don't think matters so much, but players tend to want to keep playing with the same characters, and thus the game "have" to offer higher levels to continue with the same power boost experience. Haven't really seen high level spells and capstone abilities be something players particularily looking forward to. It's more "leveling is fun" and "this character is cool, I want to keep playing it". And then suddenly you have a different genre without realizing it, and people start to lose interest...

[Pelle]

There are other ways to do "resources", that don't end up with "per unit time" issues, or conflicts in rest schedules, or disconnects with the "fiction" situation at hand.

Could you expand a little on how, any examples? Making recovery of resources per unit time or rest based seems quite well suited for connecting it to the fiction.

[Max_Killjoy]

Could you expand a little on how, any examples? Making recovery of resources per unit time or rest based seems quite well suited for connecting it to the fiction.

Apologies, I'm sleep deprived and buried in work at the moment, so specific examples aren't clicking... we've had a lot of discussions around here of examples where the rest structure of 5e got really wonky when gameplay left the dungeon and got into other things.

My first suggestion to replace rest-reset abilities is to run things off "resource points" and have those points recharge per rest, can even prorate it to recovery for a short or long rest, nap vs full sleep, whatever.

[Pelle]

My first suggestion to replace rest-reset abilities is to run things off "resource points" and have those points recharge per rest, can even prorate it to recovery for a short or long rest, nap vs full sleep, whatever.

That is still recovery of resources by time spent or rest based, and doesn't really change much.

[Max_Killjoy]

That is still recovery of resources by time spent or rest based, and doesn't really change much.

It removes the "short rest" vs "long rest" disconnect entirely, which is one of the big problems reported with 5e's rest system -- if the "day" isn't artificially constrained to a particular ratio of rests, it throws off the balance between classes. Long-rest classes are impacted by "days" with a lot of activity as they get stretched thin... short-rest classes are impacted by "days" that only give them one or no chances to reset their abilities.

So ditch the idea that abilities or spells are reset by "rests", just give them balanced "resource points" costs, and recharge everyone's "RPs" at the same rate regardless of class as they get in various amounts of rest.