[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: Adventurers vs Goblins.jpg (298 KB, 1024x848)
298 KB
298 KB JPG
We all know D&D fans are to /tg/ what Transformers fans are to /co/ or Sonic fans are to /v/. So, naturally, people are already wishing for a 6th edition to "fix" what 5e did wrong. So, like the title says; how would you make D&D 6e in order to make it a better version of D&D?

For me? Honestly, I could sum it up as "make it more like 4e". Bring back the 1-30 leveling paradigm, bring back the AEDU System and Roles - or at least find some way to reinforce class identity the way that those two did, and go back to making Nentir Vale & the World Axis the default worlds.
>>
File: broken game.jpg (89 KB, 374x481)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
>>62906482
I agree, make it more like 4e so the game fucking dies and something else can be the main game for awhile. We've had 20 years of the DnD cancer already, enough is enough.
>>
>>62906482
Whatever Critical Role is doing.
>>
D&D is irredeemable as long as its design decisions are made targeting old men that hate change and don't value their own time.
>>
>>62906874
I'll never understand the meme that Modern DnD targets older players when 5E is antithetical to anything that the older editions stand for
>>
I'd make it Pathfinder 2.0
>>
File: 1495132584900.jpg (19 KB, 373x347)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>62906482
I don't think there's a reason for 6e. I think that 5e just needs more splatbooks and content. They are releasing new classes/etc at such a snails pace that it's frustrating.
>>
>>62906937
There's already a Pathfinder 2.0. And it's an amalgamation of every single thing that was badly designed about Pathfinder 1e, D&D 5e, and D&D 4e.
>>
>>62906506
You're gonna have to try harder than that, bub
>>
>>62906964
I haven't been following 2e PF, what specifically has been wrong with it?
>>
>>62906920
5e represents the ideal that older editions hold more sacred than anything. Anything fresh must fail, and anything stale must be disguised as an improvement.

IE: Healing surges in 4e were criticized. Healing surges are rebranded as "hit dice." D&D players are too retarded to notice that it's the same concept covered in old jargon. It's the RPG equivalent of when you're commissioned to design something, the customer has a retarded complaint, and you send it back after changing nothing and tell them "I changed it like you said" and they suddenly love it.
>>
>>62907052
The same thing that is wrong with 5E from a perspective of 3.5 - it's streamlined and has a flat progression targeted at a non-core audience.
>>
>>62907059
You don't know anything about the older editions honestly
>>
>fixing
Kek, not one of wotc politics, they have said many times they don't fix
>>
>>62907073
>Kek
It's nice to see an old fag from all the way back in 2016, guys like you really improve the quality of the site
>>
>>62907067
3.5 IS the older edition that middle-aged hipsters are defending.
>>
>>62907092
You're the newfag. kek became a popular meme in the vanilla wow era.
>>
>>62907052
Not him, it has good ideas, awfully implemented thought. Like for example crits, now you crit when you nat20 or if you pass the AC\DC by 10 or more, looks cool till you realize monks are even more fucked than ever because they for some reason have low AC as fuck and just 8 hps per level
/
>>
>>62907099
>Late 90s TRPG
>Old
>>
>>62907114
This is comparing cr appropriate monster's attack against a monk of that level, from level 7+ monsters crit 25% against monk, at 10+ shit is crazy with 50% hits being crits and it gets worse. Btw, you don't roll to confirm in pf2e
>>
>>62907112
That'ss common knowledge it doesn't mean that people that use kek aren't obvious election tourists
>>
>>62907143
>>62907114
They have been playtesting for the entire summer a no change has been made on that regard. You call it bad implementation, they call it working as imtended.
>>
>>62907139
I'd say that fans of 3.5 are even younger than that since a lot of people didn't change to 4E
>>
>>62907065
>>62907114
Thanks. Unfortunately that's pretty much what I expected from Paizo. Not that PF1 didn't need to be trimmed of some of its legacy fat from 3.5 or need some of its own garbage cleaned up (CMB/CMD, looking at you), but Starfinder made me a bit uneasy as to what future PF might look like.
>>
>>62906482
If I worked at WOTC? I'd have the sense to realise 5e is a golden goose that brought in thousands of RPG noobs who use the hobby as an identity touchstone and are too stupid to pick up a new rule set or move with a new edition. These people play 5e because it's fashionable.

If WOTC release 6e before they've completely milked 5e dry, it'll slash their profits.
>>
>>62906874
>>62907059
I've never seen such mental gymnastics. 5e is widely agreed to be extremely noob friendly, and simple to a fault.
Older players like the exclusivity and richness of a complex rule set. WOTC has even come out and attacked older players for hating women or some shit because in their progressive opinion women are too stupid for complex rules, so if you want a rule set with depth you must be a bigot who hates women and you're not welcome to play their game anymore.
>>
File: 1540778794116.jpg (273 KB, 800x1200)
273 KB
273 KB JPG
>>62906482
Decrease the amount of power you gain when you level up. Then, adjust enemies accordingly. This prevents enemies from being nothing but pushovers at higher levels, and prevents unstoppable enemies as well. Basically, it greatly expands the variety of creatures you will be able to encounter, because more of them will be viable encounter wise. As is, although there are many monsters, there is always a scarcity of interesting variety in them because so few of them will be a viable encounter for any particular level, and the stronger enemies will almost never see play.
>>
File: anna is french.png (431 KB, 720x720)
431 KB
431 KB PNG
>>62906482
Give the races bonuses that don't push them towards any one class. As is, roleplaying is inhibited by mechanics. Even if you say to ignore the mechanics to roleplay, you are naturally going to have the inclination to care about mechanics to some degree, so racial bonuses should be more general so you can focus on picking a race only based on roleplaying without having to worry about the mechanics. For instance, a bonus ac against opportunity attacks. Good for both casters that got caught off-guard, and to martials that want to rush past an enemy martial to strike at their caster.
>>
>>62907282
>Decrease the amount of power you gain when you level up
Even more than in 5e? so no level up at all?
>>
>>62907354
>that feel when I wanted to play a tiefling shadow monk for nightcrawler vive
>after 3 deaths I gave up
>>
>>62907354
Hello newfriend. I see you are blissfully unaware of the days when Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling were classes not races.
>>
>>62907382
That's retarded though. You're decreasing the appeal of races if it becomes an extension of class, which is what it today, just to a lesser degree.
>>
File: classes.png (65 KB, 1824x1114)
65 KB
65 KB PNG
>>62907052
>Teases a bunch of cool and useful options for non-casters
>Promises to make casters more balanced and focused on particular niches
>Instead all the cool martial options are like level 14+ and won't come online in 90% of campaigns
>Instead casters are even MORE overpowered and wizards can STILL do everything
>>
Stop being afraid to give martials tools. I don't even mean more damage or whatver, in fact just give them something that isn't a slightly higher number or extra actions.
>>
>>62906482
All casters can choose whether they want Intelligence, Charisma, or Wisdom as their casting stat. Or fuck it, just add a fucking "Spirit" stat or something for magical power. Sometimes I wana play a Wizard who has a life besides reading books, sometimes I want to play a cleric or druid who's young and inexperienced and doesn't have decades of wisdom, sometimes I wana be able to pick a class that's not Charisma based and still be able to fucking roleplay.

Incidentally, give Martials a use for these stats too, please. Playing a smart or charismatic fighter should have benefits, not just make your class such at what it's supposed to do.
>>
>>62907643
Stats shouldn't be that relevant, I'm tired of having to roll an 18 to be able to accomplish what my class is meant to do.

I miss older editions in where the game didn't revolve around stats, coincidentally it also helps with this >>62907354
>>62907377
>>
Fuse 4e and SotDL.
>>
>>62907156
>2012 babby attacking 2016 babby
cute.
>>
>>62907643
>Sometimes I wana play a Wizard who has a life besides reading books
then put points into cha as well?
>play a cleric or druid who's young and inexperienced and doesn't have decades of wisdom
wisdom isn't life experience nor age. at all.
>not Charisma based and still be able to fucking roleplay.
What the fuck are you talking about? you can even roleplay a low cha/int/wis construct and have more fun than playing a bard if you're smart
>>
>>62906482
Fix warlocks.
>>
>>62906482
Take a cue from video game developers and design the game from the ground up to be streaming-friendly. Try harder to break into the Twitch economy. That's what DnD needs.
>>
>>62907927
Points aren't limitless, you have already to put them into Int (to be able to cast and for your spells to be able to land reliabily), Con (to survive), Dex (to hit with your spells and to not being hit by others)...if you also want Cha/Wis that has to come from somewhere.
>>
>>62908140
>Dex to hit with your spells
Oh so you don't play the game. I figured
Also why do you pretend to be interested in role-playing when you only Powergame and all of this without even playing the game at all?
dump str and get enough con for +-0
rest into cha and int and a little wis. done.
>we need a 6th edition fo fix my inability to make character not tailored after some online meme """builds"""
LOL.
>>
>>62908140
>I want a character that's good at everything!
Yeah I bet 6e will do this.
>>
>>62907815
this to be honest familia
>>
>>62906482
Remove Vancian Casting
Remove Classes
Institute Point Buy
>>
File: 1525534095290.jpg (11 KB, 205x205)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>62906482
I wouldn't.
>>
File: ss rollfags.jpg (37 KB, 768x241)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>62908358
>Institute Point Buy
Isn't this already standard? I've never really encountered an unironic rollfag.
>>
>>62908638
Point buy for everything. Abilities, spells, feats, everything.
>>
>>62906482
I'd make classes as simple as possible and with only a few options. Modern DnD seems more about wanking off about character builds than role-playing. Id also add some charts with random positive or negative traits based on your initial starting stats. Low intelligence might mean you're illiterate, low charisma might mean you have haliotosis , high con might mean you you never get sick etc. This is to discourage min maxing and teach that life is unfair.

Likewise I'd make randomly generated backgrounds the default char gen method alongside 3d6 all the way down.

I'd make hp much lower(rolled d4 wizards) and healing much harder no short /long rest autoheal bullshit. Also injury tables.

I'd create clear procedures for dungeon crawling in the rules, with an emphasis on light, time , torches, rations and random encounters. D&D is a dungeon crawler so it's absurd there's little in the rules to show how to run a dungeon.

I'd also add clear procedures for hexcrawling and wilderness travel in the same vein as above. With random encounters also being variably difficult.

I'd add reaction tables for every encounter in the same vein.

I'd expand rules on hirelings and write the combat system to more fluidly handle larger amounts of combatants. To discourage the ‘My precious encounter ‘ design in the current system.

I'd either remove the skill system or rewrite the skill and tool system entirely so each skill and tool clearly actually does something mechanically with different degrees of success and failure from critical success to critical failure.

I'd remove perception in any respect to encourage players to actually explore their environments.

I'd add a social combat system as well like in Burning Wheel so players can actually have a clear mechanical way to deal with non combat encounters rather than freeform acting fiat bullshit or rolling a natty 20 and convincing the king he's actually your slave which is all the current system supports.
>>
>>62909242
>tables
>tables
>more tables
Yeah, that'd speed up the process and make the game about roleplaying.
>>
We'll probably get 5.5 before we ever get 6e, and that's probably for the best as 5e is a fine gateway product.
>>
>>62907265
They get 10 per level
>>
Remove Mearls and all the other cuck faggots at WOTC. I mean would public lynchings be out of the question?
>>
>>62909406
I've suggested adding reaction tables and random encounter tables and background tables which would only apply at chargen.

All these things are already in the game just not emphasised.

If you can't check 3 things in a game you're probably not mentally able to run or even play D&D.
>>
>>62906482
>D&D fans are to /tg/ what Transformers fans are to /co/

What? No they're the capeshit fans. Equally cancerous as they are numerous.

TF fans are a non-presence compared to D&D fags.
>>
>>62907099
fucking lol
>>
>>62909503
Yeah

I think 5e is solid enough to not really *need* another edition; 1e-through-3.5 were cobbled together and poorly designed and 4e wasn't the game for most people.

I could, however, imagine seeing something like a 'DnD 5e, Advanced Edition', giving more rules, game mechanics, character options and so on. Could add support for stuff like degrees of success on skill checks, and/or stuff like 'failure with advantage' (not the dnd type of advantage)

Could maybe see some sort of separation between fighting-stamina and actual wounds, where you can get actual cuts and lasting injuries with longer effects when fights go badly.
Maybe a more free-form magic system for sorcerers, where you can more organically shape a spell for the situation rather than using a 'Melf's Acid Arrow (tm).

>>62909242
Seems pretty antithetical to the modern approach of dnd, where people come up with, write, and imagine their character ahead of time. Like, if someone wants to play an illiterate character, then they'd choose to voluntarily. If anything it'd definitely have to be an optional thing for certain campaigns.

What do you mean by Reaction Tables?
>>
>>62907643
>Sometimes I wana play a Wizard who has a life besides reading books

Muscle Wizard. Fuck yeah
>>
>>62907052
>I haven't been following 2e PF, what specifically has been wrong with it?
It would be easier to list things that AREN'T wrong with it.
>>
>>62909689
>Seems pretty antithetical to the modern approach of dnd

That's exactly the point. Most players play mary sues not actual characters and so roleplay is incredibly shallow. Likewise adding weakness to your character is seen as bringing the group down. But if everyone is in the same boat then thats that.

It would also just be default chargen. Players can ignore it if they want.

Reaction tables are what the GM rolls to see how a monster or NPC reacts to the party as modified by any particularly charismatic characters and some context. Roleplay happens from there.

Encounter Reactions (AD&D DMG, p63)
01 (or less)-05 [Violently hostile, immediate attack]
06-25 [Hostile, immediate action]
26-45 [Uncertain but 55% prone toward negative]
46-55 [Neutral - uninterested - uncertain]
46-75 [Uncertain but 55% prone toward positive
76-95 [Friendly, immediate action]
96 (or greater) [Enthusiastically friendly, immediate acceptance]
>>
>>62908200
>>Dex to hit with your spells
>Oh so you don't play the game. I figured
Ranged touch attack in 3.5e scales on Dex. A number of spells that have a single target are ranged touch, pretty much everything with "ray" in the name comes to mind. AoE provoke saves to avoid having one person roll multiple times.

>>62908638
>Isn't this already standard? I've never really encountered an unironic rollfag.
I have, he was my DM last year, said it was "more fun that way"
>>
>>62909747
I guess nowadays it's the same situation with the monsters; the GM will already have decided how the monsters are going to react based on what would be fun/cool/dramatic/make sense, without so much rolling. Y'know, the GM makes the story and the PCs make the characters, rather than the system deciding these things.
Though I guess with 5e it does definitely require your GM and your players to be good.
>>
>>62909851
GM's are notoriously biased creatures. Removing such bias is always a good thing as it further encourages actual roleplay and emergent gameplay.

I dont really care for a GM's story in a game. I play D&D to roleplay a fantasy character in a fantasy world not to have someone read me their novel they can't be fucked to write.
>>
Fix fucking initiative. The fact that the DEXfags always go first over my strength character is fucking annoying especially since my character is always the one who starts the combat.
>>
>>62909902
It doesn't make any difference really. They've done algorithms and high initiative is not a useful factor at all.
>>
>>62906482
First off, I'd say we are probably the better part of a decade away from 6e (Assuming theres no 5.5)

But that aside, I really hope that they remember that they have the ability to be trend setters and that they don't just chase what ever is popular at the time.
One thing I really, really hope they avoid is the """rules lite""" craze going on right now.
Not to disparage actual rules light systems, but I have come to dislike the pseudo-lite systems that have cropped up recently. Stuff like the FFG Star Wars games or Wrath&Glory.
Games that pretend to be "rules light" but aren't really. Either give me the (cumbersome) reliability of Shadowrun and 3.5 or the free flow of Fate Accelerated, but not this half-baked shit in between.

Not to say they shouldn't trim any fat but please don't take out one number/rolling mechanics and replace it with two meta-mechanics.
>>
>>62909931
>One thing I really, really hope they avoid is the """rules lite""" craze going on right now.
>Not to disparage actual rules light systems, but I have come to dislike the pseudo-lite systems that have cropped up recently. Stuff like the FFG Star Wars games or Wrath&Glory.
>Games that pretend to be "rules light" but aren't really.

They aren't ""rules lite"" and don't pretend to be. ""Narrative"" is the word you're looking for.
>>
I actually like 5E, but I would perhaps reduce the amount of high level magic, make it more grounded and expand what characters can strive for at higher level beside getting stronger. Maybe bring Warlord or make Fighter more focused on a leadership role (not in a "main hero" way though, but more like an officer and eventually some sort of lord or king with his domain). Less "world ending magic and dragons" and more "low fable".
>>
>>62909994
True, 'Narrative' is the right word here. Should have said that.
But usually "Narrative" and "Rules Light" get lumped, for better of for worse.
Anyway, my problem with it is that it too often gets too meta, so even good RP can feel a bit tainted by earning a benny for it.
>>
>>62907052
Let me put it this way: 80% of the playtest reports on their own forums are of TPKs to fucked monster math or underpowered PCs.
>>
>>62907587
You are mentally ill buddy. Go outside.
None sane posts that pic.
>>
>>62910362
I'm not sure about that; I there's sort of a statistical anomaly of this one particular wargamer type who's run it like 50 times and managed to TPK on all of them, but with the median normal players not getting it.

Monster math *is* too high, but I think the reports of TPKs are slightly louder than they are common.
>>
>>62907643
>a Wizard who has a life
Does not compute.
>>
>>62906482
1- "spell" options are now much more limited... BUT spells are now organic "build your own". By that I mean, you don't have "fireball". You have "fire". Want it to be ranged? Add extra difficulty to cast. Want extra damage? Add extra difficulty to cast. Want an AoE? Extra difficulty to cast. Want to stretch the cast time from 1 round to 2 rounds? You just made it a little bit easier. If you are an evocation-specialist, perhaps you get a few low freebies as you level (ie., you can add 1 effect at 0 cost). Or perhaps some manipulations or enhancements are simply locked unless you are specialized in that school of magic, so an evocation specialist can cast a long range line with extra damage, but a non-specialist who attempts it can have the line, extra damage, or extra range, but not all 3. Fewer spells, but make specializing in them worth it. Spell casters now must make a roll "against" something, rather than the typical reverse.

2- The game now has 3 "tiers" of play. "Hero", "Legend", "Mythic". Hero play roughly corresponds to D&D 1-5 levels, and is focused around mortal heroes overcoming the supernatural. Campaigns are encouraged to be smaller areas, but not necessarily so. Examples of these can include (but aren't limited to): helping a small town overcome a corrupt lord, purging a city of a cult of necromancers, or killing a vampire and her vampire spawn thralls (a big task for lower level characters). Each 'tier' will have its own unique rules for characters. Example, at lower tiers a wizard may have to rely more on ritual magic, but at higher levels many of their spells are more improptu and on-the-fly, and there are fewer caps. Healing is slower (natural healing anyway) and spell slots are fewer. Parties are rewarded more for playing smart, since you aren't Simon Belmont and can't expect to just charge Dracula's castle.. but a Mythic character absolutely can.

1/2
>>
>>62910753
2/2

Mook rules from 4e become important here. monsters from "lower" tiers generally become more mook like. Monsters from higher tiers, even if proportional due to circumstance/GM fiat, get buffs. A Mythic lion (say, the Nemean lion) is MUCH tougher than a Heroic lion stat block, and gets its own ability pool by merit of being Mythic.

>>62909242
I'm not sure D&D has been an explicit dungeon crawler in quite some time anon.

>>62907999
I fear that this will somehow be the future, like a scan-code on the back of the book that will instantly log you into a guest-stream service hosted by WotC so anyone can just take a webcam, pop the code, and BOOM you're being streamed in a random room for people to watch. lik and sub and gibs patreons
>>
I'd start by re balancing the character creation.

Balance it for 3d6-in order, and expand the scores a bit, instead of just having a linearly scaling modifier have 2, max 3 derived modifiers
So Dex may have AC bonus/reaction time bonus, and an attack/coordination bonus. This gives a bit more finesse in making ability scores different.

Class HD should be recalculated:
d4 for full casters (Druid, Wizard, (Warlock if that class even exists))
d6 for 4/5 casters (Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer)
d8 for sneaky and half caster (Rogue, ranger paladin)
d10 for fighers

If monks and barbarians are included then a case could be made to place them at d8/d10 or d10/d12 HD respectively

Full casters basically get no class features (one major i.e. wild shape, and a few ribbons, i.e. landstride. Wizards would need some major/ribbon non spell abilities too), just spells.

Return clerics and bards to not quite full casters, maxing out at 7th level (maybe 6th) spells. this will let you broaden the class without having to worry as much about the impact of full casting (i.e. making it easier to have warrior clerics and caster clerics, lore bards and valor bards, be the same class). in exchange for less magic these classes get more armor prof, hit points, weapons, and more powerful class features (turn undead, counter song)

the class categories continue as you increase the hit dice you move features into the class. So Fighter would have basically all weapons and armor, some fighting styles, feats of strength, some leadership/follower abilities.


So more generally I think the classes should be described as "the more you can do with magic the less you can do without it"

I really do like the actual mechanics of 5e, just the classes are are a bit of a mess.
>>
>>62906482
Reduce the HP bloat, make dying actually possible outside a TPK and bring back a structured dungeon exploration gameplay. (Exploration turns, dungeon movement with risk of wandering monsters, treasure+kills for XP)

This way people would stop pretending that D&D can be anything but a dungeon crawler with roleplaying elements. There is nothing wrong with that.
>>
>>62906482

Delete Warlock entirely, and fire the faggots who keep making them overpowered.
>>
>>62910753
>2- The game now has 3 "tiers" of play. "Hero", "Legend", "Mythic". Hero play roughly corresponds to D&D 1-5 levels, and is focused around mortal heroes overcoming the supernatural.
What a fucking faggot.
Might as well remove HP entirely.
>>
>>62907265
>Older players like the exclusivity and richness of a complex rule set.

lol

Fucking false, simplicity is welcomed.
>>
>>62906482
I'd go the 1e -> 2e route. The game is mostly compatible with 5e but rules are fixed based on 5e errata and gameplay experience. The accumulated content of 5e by that time is reorganized so that some of the newer material now appears in the core rules. Incorporate more 4e-like Powers into every class but dressed up in different clothing. Make the game very modular like 2e - "build your own D&D." Have an honest-to-god Basic game that stands on its own two legs but which actually does lead to the Advanced game while being satisfying on its own.
>>
>>62910814
>I'm not sure D&D has been an explicit dungeon crawler in quite some time anon.

And this is why dnd has been shit past ad&d
>>
>>62911516
Wait, how are 5e warlocks overpowered?
>>
File: 1393912640187.gif (590 KB, 300x254)
590 KB
590 KB GIF
>>62907643
>a Wizard who has a life
That's a paradox.
>>
>>62915360
I think the complaint is because warlock resources key entirely off of a short rest, so you can build a warlock who never needs more than a short rest to keep on adventuring?
>>
>>62915440
Yeah, that’s way worse than having to interrupt the game to sleep for 8 hours. Anyone who complains about that is fucked in the head.
>>
>>62915569
Honestly, it makes me miss 4e, where a short rest was only 5 minutes and an extended rest was explicitly a once per 24 hours thing that only took 6 hours.
>>
remember when 5e had interesting class design for Sorcerer and Warlock during the playtest until grognards complained that they were “too different”
>>
>>62907139

The late 90s was twenty years ago you fucking moron.
>>
Make monks not suck like in 4e and before 3e
>>
>>62915678
remember when all martials had martial dice to spend them on either cool stuff like maneuvers or jump higher/further or to deal an extra d6? that was awesome, but martials having nice things isn't allowed in d20
>>
>>62915845

desu 13th Age is the game 5e should’ve been
>>
>>62906482
>bring back the AEDU System
Why do people use the excuse of "narrative abstraction" to defend 4e's daily powers? It's hypocrisy at its finest. When you point out that there are no examples in literature of a power only being usable once per day, or ask why it is only usable once per day, they immediately switch to "w-w-w-well, it's a game mechanic, it doesn't have to make sense!" So, clearly not a "narrative abstraction." And the question is: an abstraction of what? Hit points are an abstraction of fighting skill and toughness. The five-foot grid is an abstraction of real physical space. What exactly are daily powers an abstraction of? Nothing. They do not exist in the game world at all. They are an arbitrary creation that exists entirely in a vacuum. They exist for a single reason: resource management mechanics, which have always been an important part of D&D. But as the game has gotten bloated and casualized, many of these resources have been chucked out. You no longer manage hit points, you manage healing surges. You no longer manage ammunition or rations, because that's boring. So instead you manage daily powers despite the fact that you can use them then rest immediately afterward and miss out on nothing. This makes no logical sense. "I did that big cool swing that made me heal randomly, so I have to rest now" makes absolutely no sense. There is no reason for the character to make that decision, only the player. Low on hit points? That makes sense, because the character is aware of being tired and a bit scratched up. Low on anything else? Again, character is aware of it. But a character cannot be aware that he has used up his powers. Thus from a NARRATIVE standpoint, his decision makes no sense. And neither does the concept of daily powers as a "narrative" mechanic.

Please explain.
>>
File: hedgehome.jpg (243 KB, 745x745)
243 KB
243 KB JPG
>>62906482
5e's problems as far as I can tell are:
>Tries to be streamlined AND granular, fails at both.
This is why I think people keep making the 'make it more like 4e' argument. 5e basically tries to have it both ways and it just... fumbles.
Its handling of equipment is actually a good example: given the choice between a flail or a longsword, why ever pick the flail? the longsword does the same damage and also gives the option of 2-handing for d10.
But you might say 'bludgeoning damage vs. slashing damage'. Problem with that is, the way the game's set up, you could just replace every instance of 'bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage' in the game with 'physical' and it would effect maybe 3 monsters (and that's being generous) and rules regarding breaking out of nets - a weapon so weirdly particular and restrictive in the RAW that it's a waste of time for any character level 5 or above to bother with them.
>Skewed ideas on character balance
Race balance is a mess.
For instance: It seems natural weapons that deal 1d4 damage are held to the same character power as 1 point in an ability score. Okay, that sounds reasonable- oh wait, nevermind, improvised weapons are generally assumed to be 1d6 clubs.
>Inconsistent class quality
What I mean is that not all classes are insensitivised properly. The game says you're supposed to get Wis as a Ranger (when Dex and Con are better investments).
Also, options during bonus action are treated as a big opportunity cost, but not all classes even have features that use them.
>An insistence on making new shit all the time rather than patching the old.
Xanathar's section on making use of tool proficiency was fantastic and addressed a gripe I had with the game... and then in Mordekainen's they lovingly inked the section on Eladrin with their own jizz.

So yeah, if I were making 6e, my focus would me on addressing these points. I'd make the game more granular though, every fucker under the sun has a streamlined system these days.
>>
>>62916411
>Race balance is a mess.
Yeah, tell me about it! Gods, how did we go from 4e's strong, consistently good races to 5e's bullshit? How the fuck is Powerful Build supposed to be "worth" anything - how often is "I can tote more stuff" actually going to be a vital, game-changing, overpowered ability?!

>Inconsistent class quality
Yep. I mean, seriously, Sorcerers went from weaker, gimmicky wizards in 3e to a strong and flavorful class in their own right in 4e to right back to being a lousier wizard in 5e. I mean, seriously, how do you fuck up giving a class a fundamental mana subsystem so badly? The fucking wizard can cast more spells per day than a sorcerer once it gets its Arcane Recovery feature!
>>
>>62916585

The Sorcerer was distinct and cool in Next and then retards complained. It could manifest special powers from their Origin; the Draconic Sorcerer could get claws, breathe fire, natural armor, and be a halfway decent melee combatant.

Don’t blame WotC for listening to their shitty fanbase.
>>
>>62916681
Oh, you're right, but the fact that sorcerers get pretty much fuck-all in the way of short rest-based goodies AND have a pitifully small pool of metamagic (which is used both for boosting spells they cast and replenishing spell-slots on the fly) completely foils their intended "I can't cast the variety of spells the wizard can, but I can cast more often than he can" theme.
>>
File: 1541068427774.jpg (87 KB, 1005x773)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>62916585
>Powerful Build
I've played a few games where a feature like that would be well worth the equivalent of an ASI, but that's because they mechanic out inventory management properly and PC survival can depend on getting that done right.
This is what I mean about the streamlined/granularity thing, they try and do both in the same ruleset.
>Sorcs
Oh I agree. I did a homebrew in 5eg ages back for that but I'm pretty sure everyone forgot about it, even though some people really liked it. Basically gave sorcs the following:
>Bard spell progression
>All metamagic by 20th
>Their capstone at level 6, scaled it off Cha
>New capstone that was just improved metamagic.
>Lesser Metamagic - basically Cha Mod charges per short rest to use metamagic on cantrips
>Expanded spell lists based on archetype, except for wild magic who got the ability to trigger wild magic surges as a bonus action (cha mod times/short rest), to refresh their tides of chaos feature.

>>62916681
WotC selectively listens to their fanbase (remember them getting pissy about all the Ranger complaints?). Either have full community engagement, or assert full creative control 'my way or the highway' time. Don't try to have it both ways.
... I'm sensing a pattern here.
>>
>>62915440
>>62915569

Get rid of Hexblade, Eldritch Blast, and make Warlock spell slots incompatible with sorcery spell points.
>>
>>62916585
>powerful build
Tell me about it
>Be bearbarian goliath
>manage to be able to lift 2 tons
>throw a 1ton boulder at a dude
>1d4+Str
Nowadays is a meme, but 4 years ago it was one of the first nails in the coffin of this shit
>>
>>62916788
>Get rid of Hexblade, Eldritch Blast, and make Warlock spell slots incompatible with sorcery spell points.
That literally leaves warlock with absolutely nothing, may as well just kill the class. People abuse EB because warlock doesn't have any other shit going on, people are now using Hexblade because is the only way of going melee warlock without sucking balls.

Multiclassing into Sorcerer is cheesy, I agree, but not really broken, being able to deal 80 damage when Fighter/Paladin/Barb/Ranger are dealing 150+ isn't much, you also don't have magic items that improve your EB while martials get at least +1 weapons (in precons is pretty easy to get a +2 weapon that also deals 1d6 extra)
>>
File: 1540274001685.jpg (41 KB, 480x445)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>62917189
>1 ton boulder
Yeah, nah, if I was DMing that I'd give you damage as if you were a huge creature and the target would be rolling Str saves for some condition at least, but I'd also make it a bit of a pain to hit on account of lobbing boulders that big would be a bit unwieldy.

Between this and replying to >>62916681 and >>62916764 I was just thinking, game design general is only a couple threads over. Should I just fucking make this '6e'?
>>
Could fixing warlocks be as easy as amending the resting cycles, or are more incisive fixes to the class itself needed?
>>
>>62906482
I'd focus on fleshing out the simplest, most "old school" elements of the game and put them at the for front. The rules themselves should care most about adventuring activities and the primary elements of classes should be build around actions everyone is capable of.
At the same time I'd consider that the way the game is played now has changed mostly in the for of adventure layout. So with that in mind most resource management as far as classes are concerned should be centred around the encounter rather than the day.

3rd edition gave the game a unified resolution system but fucked it up by so many of the spot and permission based special abilities. What the game needs is to compliment the core system with a handful of flexible sub-system that a GM can use to resolve different situations.

>Going from 5e the rules would actually need to be rules. That game is horrible at explaining itself and inconsistent in it's application of rules.
>Going from 4e the HP bloat would need to be reduced and the tactical options of combat should be handled by the core system rather than each individual class.
>Going from 3e just take what is needed. A simple, strong general rule that applies to multiple situations is better than 5 weirdly specific ones. Same goes for abilities and feats.
>Going from the core editions we'd actually need rules for general things that happen. They don't always need to be used but having systems available is useful so long accessible enough to make rulings from.

>From core we want simplicity, the ability to make judgement calls and a focus on actual adventuring activities such as exploration
>From 3 we want core rules that can apply across all characters and situations. Personally I also liked monster type as class
>From 4 we want the focus on encounters and I think in some ways the clarity of vision when writing rules. It's categorisation might be useful too
>From 5 we want to combine and condense the elements of before.
>>
Warlock in 3.5 was so fun to play. My fav char in the entirety of D&D was a claw lock who constatly short teleported and full attacked
>>
>>62917316
>2d4+Str
Woah, thank you. And that's why I just went with my 2 attacks with Greatsword and GWM for 4d6+2xStr+20 with advantage
>>
Too many spell require verbal, we fucked the Lich in ToA with just Silence.
>>
>>62917434
I don't get me wrong, is not about making the boulder a better option that a sword, is that the boulder is not even an option

Just like is not to fire at a keg full of oil to deal 1d4 fire damage when you can fire at the dude and deal 4d8+4xDex for the same action

Since 3e D&D removed any option that isn't full attacking for martials
>>
>>62917434
>2d4+Str
I need to crack open my monster manual for another read, I genuinely thought the bonus was bigger than that.
Either way, it should hit... well, like a lobbed boulder.

>>62917475
>removed not fully attacking things for martials
Yeah, I noticed that in 5e. I sat out of both 3e and 4e but I remember AD&D well, and sometimes hitting with your sword was a really stupid idea back then and had to think outside the box a bit.
>>
>>62906482
>how would you make D&D 6e in order to make it a better version of D&D?
I can't speak for what would make "a better edition of D&D" because I don't understand the D&D player demographic, but personally the only way I'm even touching D&D 6e is if they add RNG mitigation mechanics
More shit like taking 10, enabled by spending resources or taking a penalty on future rounds or some shit, idk how it should be implemented I'm not a game designer
but full-splatbook 3e had Hardened Criminal for easy skill mastery and even in core you could just pile modifiers onto a skill to ensure your success, 4e had power effects happen whether or not you hit, etc
5e threw all of that out the window because lol RPGs are about rolling dice, to the point where most of the (very fucking few) sessions I've attended are completely immersion breaking because characters who are supposed to have experience with certain things get outperformed by amateurs at least 10x more often than they ever would in reality
it's ludicrous and leads to a play experience I would never preferentially pick compared to playing board games with people, or playing video games with people, or even staying home to get mad at the internet
>>
>>62906482
Bring back 3e, but do an extensive revision to correct anything that can be construed as contradictory or redundant, then streamline it.
>>
File: read nigga.jpg (42 KB, 500x572)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>62907059
>Healing surges are rebranded as "hit dice."
Except that 5e's hit dice aren't tied to all healing like the healing surges in 4e were. When a Cleric uses Healing Word on you in 5e, it's doesn't use one of your hit dice.

I don't think you know anything about D&D, honestly.
>>
>>62911592
No one said remove HP, its more about having rules tailored to different power levels, and mechanisms to facilitate that. But a level 20 fighter/rogue/cleric/whatever should be able to easily do shit that a level 5 fighter/cleric/rogue shouldnt. That is, special rules exist to codify that they can just DO some things, no roles, and can ignore certain physical or practical limits. A low fighter may be able to run from Marathon fields to the city and yell "Victory!" and die. A legendary fighter can do it and, though winded, survive and be ready for a fight after a rest. A mythic hero can do it carrying a wounded friend. Just an example, and a rather impromptu one. But find where i said get rid of HP. In fact, im rather of the opinion that HP is probably bloated.
>>
>>62920630
They are, however, a non-magical pool of healing resources spent during short rests to reinvigorate player HP between encounters and replenished daily, a mechanic that (AFAIK) did not exist prior to 4e.

5e hit dice are pretty clearly what happens when someone says "try and make 4e Healing Surges and 3e's "hit dice" into one mechanic". And they take a lot more after 4e's side of the equation than 3e's.

>>62920481
I think, you could look at something kind of like the training mechanic in PF 2.0, but closer to Zir'an's Hand of Fate skill, a game no one played.

Since no one played it, a quick overview:
you can have 'Ranks' of training: Basic, Advanced, Expert and Elite.
The core of the thing was that if your rank in a skill was higher than the rank of the task, you didn't roll for it. You did it, no problem.

So like, while exploring a Dungeon, you might find a Door with an Advanced Lock. If the Rogue has Advanced/Basic Lockpicking, they roll to overcome it. But if they have Expert/Elite Lockpicking, they just succeed and move on.
>>
File: big think.jpg (54 KB, 540x443)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>62907815
>Stats shouldn't be that relevant
They're relevant, but not that big of a deal if you look at the math. Each +1 modifier from your primary stat only gives a +5% chance of success. That's pretty small. The difference between an average 16 in a primary stat and an 18 or 20 is only 5-10%.
>>
>>62906482
Reprint B/X but with race and class instead of race as class
>>
>>62921170
Except there is fuck all other ways to improve your chances, other then levels, and for most characters each +1 in primary stat is also bonus to damage. In some cases, it's also a bonus to AC.

Hell, some builds let you add your primary stat to saves, damage and attack (twice).
>>
>>62907156
hot take
>>
>>62917189
>1d4+Str
>playing with a DM this shitty
It's pretty obvious from the rules on improvised weapons that they're meant for fairly normally-sized items held in the hands, not tossing boulders. The table for improvised damage lists getting hit by falling rubble as 4d10, so probably something around there depending on the size of the boulder. This is the exact kind of thing Rule 0 is around for - small exceptions to rules so that you can avoid the 3.5e splat problem of 10 pages of tables.

>Nowadays is a meme, but 4 years ago it was one of the first nails in the coffin of this shit
It's still a meme. It's not something that would hinder any normal group. It's just another autistic mental exercise by the kind of people that frequent GITP.

>>62916585
>How the fuck is Powerful Build supposed to be "worth" anything
By playing with the variant encumbrance rules. Outside of that, it's a literal non-issue for people who don't minmax.
>>
>>62916585
>how often is "I can tote more stuff" actually going to be a vital, game-changing, overpowered ability?!
When you have enough strength to lift boulders and can, at-will, create full cover and block any 5ft passageway completely
Problem being, a lot of DMs are cunts and even if the rules support doing something like that they will fiat around it because it's not a spell or explicitly mentioned in the rules as something you can do.
>>
>>62907500
That was done by design. Gary Gygax didn't want humans to be overshadowed by demihumans, who were supposed to be rare and not the dominant race of the world. So every non-human race was locked into one archetype. They also couldn't level past 12 while humans could theoretically go to like 36.
>>
>>62920481

Fucking this
>>
Id take out classes and make a gurps dnd hybrid
>>
File: dccrpg4th04.jpg (226 KB, 816x612)
226 KB
226 KB JPG
Don't care, fuck DnD. I got everything I'll ever need here.
>>
>>62922318
Eh, you're mixing up your AD&D with your BECMI there, anon. Most races in BECMI could reach the same level 36 cap as humans. Some races couldn't, and their return benefits for levelling tended to fall, but race limiting your level was an AD&D concept.
>>
>>62921851
Wait a minute. How heavy is a boulder? What are other things I can do with my strength?
>>
File: grr2525_451_1024x1024.jpg (65 KB, 450x584)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
>>62906482
>So, like the title says; how would you make D&D 6e in order to make it a better version of D&D?
I would make it M&M 2e
>>
>>62921851
>DM fiat because it's not specifically in the book
I've found the way the spell list is written is the main culprit to this line of thinking, as it's set up in a 'unless it specifically says so, you can't do it' kind of way.
It's why I'll endlessly bang my drum about the granularity/streamline thing I posted above: either it's the DM's job to work that shit out, or its the game's job to have RAW for every potential use. Instead we've got 5e half-assing it, leading to this shit.

>>62924511
Way 5e is built? uhh... Greatsword or Halberd?
>>
>>62921170
Yeah, I played a monk tiefling with 14 AC at 1st level several times, and for some reason I died always, but as you say is only a 5%, how can this be?
>>
>>62928492
Yeah, I also picked non stat feats and also died a lot, I don't get it, aren't stats not relevant?
>>
>>62916134
its fun
>>
>>62907059
I think the thing people *disliked* about healing surges were changed, with the things people didn't mind about them being kept.
>>
>>62906964
>>
File: 1534857991980.png (353 KB, 612x408)
353 KB
353 KB PNG
>>62907587
>That last panel
>I've had that conversation
You make one comment about how 20th fighters should be less 'swing sword good' and more 'Hector from The Illiad' and next thing you know you're perma-banned from the local gaming club.
>>
>>62931146
>and next thing you know you're perma-banned from the local gaming club.
they did you a favor
>>
Default setting is Planescape, I don't care about anything else.
>>
>>62910393
Not really, again as someone mentioned, criting is now on a nat20 or if you pass the AC by 10, some classes (monk's specially) have low AC compared to monsters of their indended CR's attack. If you get crit and drop to 0 due that crit you're essentially DEAD unless someone heals you literally in that turn.

9'0% of the TPKs are due rogues, monks, or other low AC martials dying of multiple crits that drop them to 0 and then can't be healed back because either their turn goes next or the healer can't reach them fast.
>>
>>62931146
Not from a LGS but from a group
>GM asks us to do fun things for a high level (15) game
>I make Sanic. A dude able to run at mach3 with some extraordinary, supernatural abilities
>GM comes up with some bullshit explanations on why I should trip against anything, take damage, etc just so I have to move at normal pace...when I literally spent everything on that idea
>When I ask why the wizard shouldn't die when he teleports into the unknown he goes with "well, because it's magic"
>When I tell him technically my powers are supernatural he goes with "well, but you're a monk/martial class you shouldn't have that power and therefore is dangerous to you"
>Argument about how that's bullshit, we're both 15th level, we both have the same amount of experience (both mechanically and lorewise), we both are out of the ordinary and heroes of our own
>Kicked out
D&D causes brain damage
>>
>>62931760
>Did me a favour
Already beat you to that thought, it forced me to confront just how much money I'd spent on Mt:G. Life's better now that I've kicked that game entirely.

>>62931926
>"Monk shouldn't have that ability!"
I mean... There's only the entire genre of Wuxia which is all about martial artists and the like pulling absurd supernatural shit like this off due to superior training. It's not like Monks are supposed to emulate those characters at all.
Should have just made a fighter who's whole shtick is breaking wizard jaws.

>>62931861
>Monks
>Rogues
>Low AC martials
Wait, what? does Dex not up AC in PF anymore?
Wouldn't put it past them after what I heard about the whole goblin thing people were bitching about

So I'm keeping the topic going - If someone in this thread were to build this hypothetical 'D&D 6e':
>What lessons should be learnt from other editions?
>What lessons should be learnt from other, non D&D games?
>What is the most critical thing they have to get right the first time?

I may or may not seriously be considering trying my hand at this
>>
>>62932279
>Wait, what? does Dex not up AC in PF anymore?
10+dex(limited by armor)+prof+item bonus
attacks are d20+stat+prof+item bonus
monks are trained expert in unarmored defense, which means their prof is level+1
so at level one their AC is 12+dex, this is equivalent to someone being trained (level+0) in leather armor [10+dex+1(prof)+1(item AC bonus)]

unless i've misunderstood something, which is possible because the PF2 layout is utter shit
>>
>>62906482
>roll d20
>11 and above = success
>10 and below = failure
>"nat 20/1 results in crit" on all rolls
>freeform literally everything else

That's it, that's the whole 6e system
>>
>>62932643
>Layout is shit
I can believe that, took me several reads to parse what you were trying to explain.
So a Monk with 16 Dex out the gate should have 15 AC?
In 5e terms that's average, or at the very least 'not shit'. Do PF monsters just have monstrous +hit or something?
>>
>>62932279
>Wait, what? does Dex not up AC in PF anymore?
It's because they don't have as much armour.
>>62932711
>Do PF monsters just have monstrous +hit or something?
That too, although pf2 is undergoing playtesting, so the devs have stated that the monsters are gonna get nerfed a bunch in the final release.
>>
>>62907815
>I miss older editions in where the game didn't revolve around stats,

That's your DM's fault man. I'm DMing for the first time tonight and sure as hell won't make everything about stats, if something seems plausible I'll just have them roll and if they roll more than 10-15 then they do it simple as that.
>>
>>62931146
>>62931760
socially inept aspies confirmed
>>
>>62908638
what's wrong with rolling? I think it's more fun and less prone to meta-powergaming your character
>>
>>62920481
I make it so unless you have prof you can't use most skills which helps.
>>
>>62906482
I'd streamline the combat even further.
Even in 5e, almost no one ever knows what their character's abilities actually do. We don't need every ability to be a rules exception, the bard shouldn't have to check the rulebook every level to see when he can & can't use bardic inspiration. You get an ability, and it works how it works, with a simple explanation that takes less than a paragraph. As you advance, your numbers go up, and maybe you get another ability. You don't need a dozen different special feats & abilities, maybe 3 of which you can remember how they work. And to anyone who says "just read it again & again until you memorize it, " I should not have to study to play my game. Everyone should be able to pull out their character sheets 2 minutes before the game starts & just play.

All base classes should be qualitatively different. Sorcerers are glass cannons, wizards are utility casters. No more Warlocks. And if rangers can't figure out their own identity, instead of being part rogue, part fighter, and part druid, then they're gone too.

Wotc wants more chicks, and chicks tend to like the storytelling more than combat. That means we should either embrace freeform, or have actual rules for parts of the game other than combat. This is difficult, and requires an actual game designer, so I doubt they'll try it.

Lastly, the DMG needs guidelines on how to actually build complex encounters, not just how to plop the right number of monsters down.
>>
>>62933005
>I should not have to study to play my game.
You should also not being retarded but here we are
>>
>>62931146
>>I've had that conversation
Nah, you really didn't.
>>
>>62931926
>monk can't have magic
Your DM hasn't heard about Dragon Ball I assume?
>>
>>62932909
It starts the game off with your players unbalanced compared to each other. Mostly because it leads to situations of Amazo the 14+ Average and his pansy-ass helpers, but also moreso because most games use Feats and Feats take up a Stat Increase. So if you roll even slightly shittier than someone with good stats and suffer because of it, you're discouraged from taking Feats while they aren't.
>>
>>62933184
cringe
>>
>>62907982
You're telling me you DON'T enjoy using one single cantrip over and over?
>>
>>62933311
>Eldritch Blast
Worst idea ever to tie an entire class to a single cantrip like that, sounds cool in theory, in practice it's a tax that has to be paid if you want to be useful.
unless you go full bladelock, but even then you need it for the flying monsters the DM will inevitably throw at you
I could understand an archetype. Maybe.
>>
>>62933398
>not going improved pact weapon and eldritch smite
>literally exploding dragons out of the sky with your magic bow
>>
>>62906482
5e but with weaboo fighting magic and Warlord
>>
>>62923285
>14 pages of tables about the PCs screwing up and dying
>>
>>62906482
Remove classes, make it point buy.

In other words make it non D&D anymore.
>>
>>62933413
You seem to be under the impression that what people want out of martials is dragonball and bleach, when in actuallity we want Grappler Baki and Master of Kung Fu
>>
>>62907059
Imagine someone being so buttmad about D&D that he literally starts talking out of his ass after being called out for being a retard.
>>
>>62933487
based retard
>>
>>62933507
Barbarian in 5e literally is baki just shove then grab with advantage on all your strength checks as your team wails on the prone monster who cant stand up.
grappling is so op even if they get out of it by using a spell or somehow beating an enraged barbarian's strength checks they waste their entire action to do so and it works on creatures 1 size larger
All it would take for grappling to be undoubtedly the best build in the game would be some way to directly do damage instead of just giving everyone on your team advantage and giving whatever you pin to the ground disadvantage
>>
>>62933235
Well I haven't had much problem with rolling, if the rolls are to dispaired between chars we just re roll and see if it makes it more balanced. Yeah that can lead to having an OP lvl 1 party (for lvl1 standards) but also if the most overpowered player is just average 13s and 15s then we'll try to make everyone average, but hey every group is different, also our GM just balances shit accordingly on the fly, if we have too many hitpoints for example he just makes monsters have more or make 1 point more damage or something like that.

Might not feel bad for us because we do a very freeform type of play and don't really care about the meta stuff, we just have fun and get drunk
>>
Bring back the good thing from 4e.
>fort, ref, will defenses
Put all the dice in the hands of the attacker.
>>
>>62906482
>For me? Honestly, I could sum it up as "make it more like 4e".
That would kill the game, I'm sure that would make a lot of people here happy.

What they should do is go back to the roots. DnD has tried too much to fit all kinds of playing styles and now we're just left with a mess. If you actually read the older games (before 3.0) you'd see that they're way more focused and coherent.
Newer editions kept much of the old editions but removed aspects of the game that made those things they kept actually work. There used to be a heavy focus on sandbox gaming with random encounters, resource management and hirelings. Encounters didn't need to be balanced, puzzles and traps were solved by interacting with them as opposed to rolling dice. The game was a lot simpler and you could make up new shit on the fly if you needed to.
I'm playing mostly b/x at the moment so the only thing I hope for 6e is that they make it easily compatible and that they bring out good adventures and setting books, but I seriously doubt they will if their current stuff is anything to go by.
>>
>>62909689
>1e-through-3.5 were cobbled together and poorly designed
You've never actually read the older pre-3e stuff, have you? B/X is one of the tightest dungeoncrawling rulesets you can find. It's also a far better introductory sytem to roleplaying than 5e, which teaches a lot of new DM's and players bad habits.
>>
>>62933966
>>62934171

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. OD&D and AD&D were a fucking MESS of systems piled on sub-systems, and some of the most incoherent, unplayable-out-of-the-box dreck I've ever had the misfortune to read.

They only "worked" because good DMs cherry-picked the good stuff from the dross and used house-rules to hold everything together with string, bubblegum and prayer.
>>
>>62906482
Fallow it longer.

Go back to basics. Ability scores, backgrounds, saves, and attacks dont all modify each other and theres maybe 20 total. There are class feats only, no class features, spells, or floating feats.

Rewire the resources to be more conditional and less scheduled. Not AEDU, but not far from it. I'm big into stances, and you can do a lot with those, at-wills, rituals, and big stuff that "spends" stances.

Popcorn initiative that starts with the first person who called it. You can steal the initiative if you haven't taken your turn yet, to defend or interrupt, but you dont get to move. Theres a run action with randomized speed so chase scenes dont suck, but you dont get to attack if you use it.

Do something so encumbrance tracks easier and affects speed. Lugging heavy things and ditching them to run is fun.

Test in house with a particular audience and experience in mind. Release alongside a kid show with both in and out of character stories. Dont hype it up with old nerds like us years in advance.
>>
>>62934205
Can you not fucking READ. I said B/X!
How can you be this objectively wrong? The old editions were laserfocused on dungeon crawling and sandbox and the rules for it reflected this, unlike 5e that doesn't even know what specific kind of playstyle it's encouraging.
>>
>>62934293
>Do something so encumbrance tracks easier
In starfinder and pathfinder 2e, they track stuff with arbitrary units of 'bulk', with stuff like swords and armour weighing 1 to 4 units, and most stuff counting as 'Light bulk', which is a tenth of a bulk.

Makes it all a lot easier to track, and also factors in how difficult something is to carry, not just how heavy it is.
>>
File: 1529093804855.png (395 KB, 554x1218)
395 KB
395 KB PNG
>>62906482

5e seem to be doing pretty good. I'd say they should focus on that instead.

With that said, if there was something I'd add for a 6e, it would be to further merge the "rogue" and the "warrior" archetypes into one, so you only have a single separation of archetypes. Fighters-Rogues and Casters.

Actual rogues become on par with the martial classes to fight. Actual Fighters become more on par with rogues at non-combat utility (let their utility niche be bending bars, lifting gates, climbing walls and commanding men and lightly clad damsels in distress).

Then, I would also work on expanding the options that branch out from attacks. The stuff that the Fighters get to do from superiority dice should be stuff that you just DO using your ordinary attacks. It should be natural options for the character.

Finally I'd slightly curb HP growth, but I would also make meat points the canon definition of what HP is. Yes, a high level fighter can be punched through a wall without also getting his chest crushed.
>>
>>62934171
>B/X is one of the tightest dungeoncrawling rulesets you can find
I adore older D&D but this is a shameless lie.
>>
>>62934402
>How can you be this objectively wrong?
Except he's right. Most old schools rules are weird patchworks.
>>
>>62933036
She isn't wrong, though
>>
>>62934708
Not a she, only someone that does not interact with women would think they want necessarily more narrative stuff from this kind of game.
>>
>>62908358
All these
>>
>>62908358
>>62934820
Next on /tg/: why 6e was an even worse shitshow than 4e?
Protip: D&D is not for you. And that's fine BTW. Probably a sign of good tastes.
But this does not make this suggestion less retarded. You are dumb people with good tastes.
>>
File: 1507920194252.png (121 KB, 532x516)
121 KB
121 KB PNG
>>62934582

Oh, and you could also probably force casters to specialize more without hurting the dnd caster flavor. The schools of magic has been there forever, just force those mages actually STICK to their school.

Also, if you got magic, you shouldn't get anything but magic. Mages get utility through their spells, which are flexible at the cost of being resource based. Non-casters are more "locked" into their utility but pay no price to use said utility.

In other words, Casters should be shit at skills and physical feats (picture related, it's an useless elf)
>>
>>62934862
I just kinda hate the classic class system
>>
>>62934456
I'd probably just do a minecraft style grid, with both squares and heavy items having fixed penalties. You take the highest one from any source. Small items are measured in multiples. Quivers of arrows. Coin measured in purses, bags, chests, etc. Instead of gold thru platinum. That sort of thing.
>>
Man why don't you just go play something else instead of whining about what other people like? You're legitimately probably autistic
>>
>>62935071
Imagine thinking that people ITT are socialized enough to have a group.
You have an example above, couple of spergs kicked out telling their version of the story.
>>
>>62934907
This but also rebalance the spell list and/or provide interesting drawbacks/side-effects for relying too heavily on magic. The majority of the spells in even the core books would push their settings into post-scarcity by themselves, evich is just silly.
>using fly too often can irreversibly turn the caster into a bird
>roll a d20 to see which kind of bird
>>
>>62935071
>Whining about what other people like
>Other
Oh no anon, you completely misunderstand. We whine because we genuinely like it - we just want to see it improved.
>>
>>62935152
That's a slightly silly one, but I could definitely see them doing stuff for Ressurections and Teleportations that require you to, say, physically teleport to the afterlife and fight hordes of spirits in order to bring an ally back to life. Or, when you teleport, you physically go through the Astral Plane or whatever, and have to navigate it (with the stipulation that one mile in the astral plane is a hundred miles in real life, or hour is one minute or something.

Similarly, stuff like Scry requires you to have a lock of hair, a set of toenail clippings, or an item of personal sentimental value to the target to work.
>>
>>62935369
Different schools of magic have subcategories of spells, with some being considered forbidden or mythical. This affects where and how casters can learn spells. If a caster has a mentor, they may not be willing to teach spells they see as abusable until the caster proves responsibility. A caster knowing forbidden spells affects how NPCs interact with them. Mythical spells are known by few living people, if any, and must be sought after to use - maybe even as the caster's primary motivation.
>>
Fixing fucking spells and their spell schools, instead of putting shit in evocation that doesn't need to be there.

Make necromancy the healing school.
>>
>>62935773
They're doing that in Pathfinder 2.0, which is effectively DnD.
>>
Honestly, I see 6th edition basically being a streamline update kinda like 2nd from 1st was.

5th has proved pretty damn popular with general audiences. (Especially after the fuck up that was 4th. And before anyone jumps down my throat, 4th should have been its own independent tabletop system.)
>>
I want sunder/grapple rules in the core books, but designed in a way that they aren't exploitable like in 3.5.

Monks and fist fighting boxers are archetypes that are sadly underused.
>>
It's clear from this thread that it's an impossible task to please everyone with a single product so I think it'd be best if it were extremely modular and in the form of cheaper booklets that you can combine as you please.
You start with a set of booklets:
- basic rules
- basic races and race creation rules
- classes (fighter, mage, rogue) with very limited options
- vancian magic system rules and traditional magic spells

Building on this framework, they can then publish small booklets so you can mix and match whatever you want. Possible examples:

- spell points magic system
- nature races and classes (druid/ranger)
- extended fighting rules and maneuvers
- ritualistic/superscience and weird magic
etc.
- domain management rules
- gritty ruleset with e.g. death/dismemberment and insanities.

The advantage of having such a modular system is that it necessitates the mechanics to be less interdependent, making everything easier to balance and homebrew.
In any case, one thing they definitely need to do is to cut down on all the fucking magic. Why does everyone have to be a caster?
>>
>>62934635
>>62934611
Please enlighten me, what in B/X is confusing or a "patchwork"? Otherwise, I'm just going to assume you haven't read, let alone played it.
If it's the layout, then you have a small point, but just get B/X essentials then and you have all the same rules in a more modern layout.
>>
>>62936061
>turn d&d into lotfp
Nice
>>
>>62936162
Dude, I have played BECMI extensively. These games were awesome but numbers were eyeballed.
Does not matter because none gave a shit about balance back then.
>>
>>62915703
Jesus fuck your young
>>
>>62906501
>something else can be the main game for awhile
Let's be honest here: Something else in this case would probably be Pathfinder and i am pretty sure that wouldn't be an improvement.
>>
>>62936646
no, but the clergy does
>>
File: 1494739573967.png (49 KB, 142x340)
49 KB
49 KB PNG
>>62935152
>>62935369

I think it's reasonable to put some limits on "plot breaker" spells such as scrying or teleport.

>You can only scry persons with the "Scry Person" spell. You need an item of the person to scry on them. The item is consumed when scrying.
>You can only teleport to a position you currently can see (through scrying if necessary)"
>Scry Location lets you scry a location you have previously visited within 7 days

For instance.

Anyway, for spell specialization, I'd suggest that every Wizard has to pick a Major and Minor spell school they've learned. So you can be a major evocer who minored in transmutations for instance. There are also universalist spells accessible to all wizards (for instance dispel magic could be such a spell). Wizards are free to set memorize any spells from his major and minor college, and the wizard also get some archetype benefits associated with his major school.
>>
>>62936604
>Does not matter because none gave a shit about balance back then
Exactly! And actually I don't feel the balance for the usual levels of play (1-6) is all that bad except for the thief being pretty shitty. The overall power variability between classes was a lot lower than what it is in 5e, where an unoptimized character vs. an optimized one is a world of difference. This, coupled with an emphasis on building appropriate encounters can make the life of a new DM unnecessarily hard. For the next edition, they should strip a lot of the options so it's a bit quicker to run and easier to prepare for. It's always easier to add more options than to take them away.
>>
>>62936904
I figure wizards could take non-major spells later on at lower levels. Like, your first and second and maybe 3rd highest level spells slots would be constrained to stuff that's relevant to you.
>>
>>62937121
Dude, again, I played BECMI up to late M and I still think the WMastery rules are the best of that genre in DnD.
But it's really a patchwork and how much it works for you is kinda subjective. As you said the Rogue often sucks and that's bad if is one class out of 4, discounting the humanoids.
Also sorry but
>For the next edition, they should strip a lot of the options
This appeals only to you. Many people would be turned off.
>>
>>62934611
>>62934635
>t. obvious samefag

B/X is nothing but an easy and straightforward dungeoncrawl game with an incentive to think rather than brawl. The entire rules you can read and grasp in an hour and they just work.

Personally I prefer more crunchy systems, but anyone interested in gaming would benefit from looking at how game design should function and how mechanics should be presented.
>>
Alright, 200 posts, have we reached a consensus yet?
>>
>>62937411
group A wants an oldschool pure dungeoncrawler based mostly on 1e/2e/aD&D/whatever

group B wants a more complicated and advanced 5e with better balance and more tactical combat and more mechanics.
>>
>>62937446
Group A: Dungeon
Group B: Dragon

There you go, problem solved, we split the game in half.
>>
>>62937298
>B/X is nothing but an easy and straightforward dungeoncrawl game with an incentive to think rather than brawl. The entire rules you can read and grasp in an hour and they just work.
This does not make them less wonky.
I really don't understand why you are so defensive. It's fine, but it makes seldom sense.
>>
>>62937577
>explains his opinion
>why are you defensive
Ok? Enjoy your projections
>>
>>62937779
You are excessively mad, man.
And talking about projection does not make sense in this context.
That old style D&D has percentages, level XP organization and all shit that is really arbitrary if you break it down and not always functional (see Rogue). They are fantastic games that i strongly recommend but you are overselling them.
>>
>>62937858
>mad
You could open a cinema with that degree of projection
>>
>>62937892
Anon, I am sorry but I have to inform you that answering
>p-projection!
to anything that you don't like an argument does not make, and for sure you are looking like an insecure retard in this moment.
It's also quite useless because you are using all this energy with a guy that is essentially saying that the game is great anyway, just that le ebin tight design it's over-sold.
Rethink your fucking life.
>>
>>62937943
>writes lengthy diatribes about how everyone else is insecure
lmao ok retard
>>
>>62937971
Calling few lines of text a diatribe does not make you look very good, I am afraid. It's just a small little fun for me to expose how much of an over-sensitive, socially impaired imbecile you are.
Not going to work buddy. I think you only managed to look like a tool.
Next time, just let it go and perhaps people will focus on the game (that is actually good, criticism notwithstanding).
>>
>>62938012
You really are desperate for those yous, here's your last one, don't spend it all in one place
>>
>>62938049
Cry more faggot. Posting that it's the only thing that you could have.
>>
>>62932279
I've said it before and I'll say it again: monk's entire problem is that dnd is thematically incoherent, and they try to make monk the sole vessel for the entire wuxia genre, ignoring the fact that wuxia makes a truckload assumptions about how the world works at a fundamental level. If dnd were a wuxia setting, wizards would be taoists practicing alchemy and wuxing sorcery, and every fighter, rogue, warlord, and barbarian would have the same qi powers as monks do.
>>
ITT: retarded autists who have never played a good RPG try to “fix” D&D. Why don’t you idiots branch out past your shitty D&D clones and try a game that doesn’t suck ass? Seriously, there are so many interesting and well-designed games out there, but you are basically identical to the retards who have only played 3.PF and refuse to try anything else.

Here, let me give you a list:

>Fate
Narrative RPG that emphasizes storytelling over number crunching.

>Apocalypse World
Post-apocalyptic RPG that has a strong GM presence while blending rules light gameplay and storytelling mechanics.

>Savage Worlds
Medium crunch pulp action-adventure game that handles modern D&D-style gameplay better than D&D. BALANCES MARTIALS AND CASTERS.

>The One Ring
It’s Tolkien: the RPG. Just play it.

>Blades in the Dark
A game designed to simulate heist movies.

>Burning Wheel
>Torchbearer
>Mouseguard
Etc.

There’s a whole world of RPGs out there.
>>
>>62937446
Theres also group c
The guy thay posts dont play dnd on every thread and is just seething at dnd 24/7
>>
>>62938539
>play a better rpg!
>lists only narrativist garbage
>>
>>62938539
Thanks you man. Waiting for the list of good games.
Whenever you want, take your time.
>>
>>62907587
As a GM, fuck stunning strike.
>>
>>62933036
You sound like your neckbeard looks like it joined ISIS.
>>
>>62939022
In english doc
>>
>>62937296
Yea, I'm not disputing your play history, nor am I really contradicting you. You just seem to have a different definition of patchwork. I'm honestly not really sure what you mean by it? Do you mean there's no unified mechanic for everything (saves, percentage skills, roll under, thac0)?

>This appeals only to you. Many people would be turned off.
I agree, but it's clear from this thread that you can't please everyone and it's far, far easier to add stuff than to remove it. Supplements exist for a reason.
>>
>>62937858
I think you're talking to 2-3 people here anon, and nobody seems to be mad about anything unless that's how you want to read it.
>>
>>62939255
>patchwork
in short, no unified mechanics but it goes beyond. Some stuff is diversified with no rhyme or reason.
>far easier to add stuff than to remove it.
Nope. 4ed shows that people get pissed if you remove shit from the core, if such shit is considered vital. I think it would be great for many to try the old rules because there is a lot to learn from them, but I am afraid it would not work commercially.
>>
>>62939314
Aren't you tired? Fuck off m8.
>>
Easy, just keep going the way WotC wants it to go: Down the fucking drain.
No more numbers. Numbers are for losers. Stats being tied to numbers is too complicated for our core audience. We already don't use the stat numbers, just the modifiers so let's remove everything altogether.
From now on stats are done in the matter of
"Your character is X and Y but Z."
So two strengths and one weakness. A paladin is "Strong and Charming but Foolish", a wizard is "Intelligent and Quick but Frail". You have advantage on your strengths, disadvantage on your weakness. Done. That's the game right there. Just add bullshit combat abilities for every PC and we're done.
>>
>>62907282

>5e
>Amount of power you gain when you level up

You barely progress in 5e, from a cap of +5 to a cap of +12ish, and you want to slow that down?
>>
>>62938658
>>62938689
>t. D&Drones
>>
>>62939779
>Everyone who doesn't like what I like is a drone
>Th-that'll show 'em!
>>
>>62939779
I mean the guy called Savage Worlds a medium crunch balanced game instead of a feast or famine rules light game. Its clear his view on things is a bit skewed.
>>
>>62938539
>Apocalypse World

You can probably strike that one off. At least Fate knows its a narrative game and sticks to that, PbtA games think their narrative but include random unintuitive clunky garbage mechanics. Blades in the Dark is barely palatable.

Anyway, I've played every game on your dumb fucking list and then some, none are better or worse than 5e because they all accomplish something different in different ways.
>>
>>62939925
>Savage Worlds
>feast or famine
>Wild die creates a system where every PC has a chance to succeed and doesn’t create a flat probability
>min/maxing not necessary and diminishing returns are built into the system
Lmao, D&Drone angry about a superior system that has fewer rules yet better gameplay. How does it feel to be cucked by lmaonat20?

>>62939981
>PbtA
>clunky mechanics
Does little d20babby have trouble rolling 2d6+mods? Does he cry when he rolls a 6-? Is he mad that he doesn’t have a 9th-level spell to solve an encounter? Poor thing. :(
>>
File: bait.png (6 KB, 319x319)
6 KB
6 KB PNG
>>62940294
You made the bait to obvious anon
>>
>>62915396
>>
>>62939577
Eh 5th ed power spikes at certain levels, specifically when martials gain 2+ attacks and spells roll multiple of their dice.
>>
>>62906482
Heavy focus on character creation.
Replace leveling up with skill points and make classes be represented by skill trees instead of just choosing a subclass and being stuck with it.
Make it so every class benefits from every stat, so picking a dump stat is an actual decision, but at the same time, a newbie can just give their character random stats and still make a character who isn't dead weight. That way, it rewards knowledge of the system without punishing a lack of knowledge.
Have mechanics based around things other than combat, especially social mechanics that aren't tied to a stat used in combat.
Basically, the way I'd fix D&D is by making it not be D&D anymore. Sacred cows and trying to appease grognards is the biggest thing holding D&D back.
>>
File: illustriouschilde.jpg (143 KB, 540x960)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>62906482
4e but with some streamlining. or OSR but with AC and a million classes/races.
>>
>>62939779
At least list gurps m8 then i can take you seriously. Otherwise you just look like a hipster that hates crunch
>>
>>62938361

I mean, you've more or less described LOTW at that point where 'Shoots Fireball' and 'Is a Spellcaster' are two distinct things that don't need to overlap on a character at all.
>>
>>62942381
GURPS is not a good game, though, and it is inherently unbalanced.
>>
>>62942416
Legends of the the Wulin is a system that does high-powered wuxia right, yes. But even at the lower end, when shooting fireballs is still the province of sorcerers, non-sorcerers can still use wire-fu, simultaneously block the strikes of dozens of mooks, shatter stone with their fists, and perform other legendary feats. Because those things aren't magical-- that's just how the world works. Even dirt-farming peasants have qi, however poorly cultivated, because it's a property of the universe and the human body simply works that way.

But dnd assumes that the setting is "real world plus magic on top", so monks therefore have to be magical when they perform incredible feats, and fighters and their ilk are not magical and therefore cannot do the same. This disconnect between what each class assumes is true about the universe is part of what makes dnd so incoherent.
>>
File: 1540683200962.jpg (655 KB, 1565x2063)
655 KB
655 KB JPG
4th ed overall but...
Pull back majorly on HP bloat
Less encounters per adventuring day
5th ed's Class/sub class system
Seperate ribbon feat track
Exploration and social pillars reinforced.
>>
>>62942739
You're not wrong.
>>
>>62937267

I thought about it, but honestly it just seemed needlessly complicated. Most of the really good 3e caster classes (Beguilers, Dread Necros) had what amounted to two spell schools.

It's more intuitive to just make their major subject their archetype. It also makes the wizard more fun to level up "so I play a wizard with the necromancer archetype so I get one free zombie boy at level 3"
>>
File: familiar_by_zarathul.jpg (84 KB, 600x750)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
>>62942739
I love 4th ed, but even I think its got waaaaay to many classes. To the point that some overlap and bleed over into each other. A set of archetype or main class ability (such as the fighter's brawler option) would do wonders.
>>
>>62906482
I make 4.5e and increase butthurt to world-ending levels.
>>
>play another game
>4th edition with changes
The thread is for people that don't like D&D.
>>
>>62936676
Honestly I think the idea of a 'main game' is wrong. For most people RPGs are D&D. If D&D 'dies' (somehow, it's not like I'm going to stop running B/X and 5e games) nothing will take its place for regular folks. People who are already deep into RPGs will probably slowly drift away to other games, sure, but most people won't start playing Shadowrun or Traveller more.
>>
>>62911684
Yeah, what the shit is this. Us grognards are still playing B/X and think ACKS is FOE.
>>
>>62924388
Here's Gygax on AD&D's race-level-limiting. I agree with him FWIW. We should bring it back for 6e.

"The character races in the AD&D system were selected with care. They give variety of approach, but any player selecting a non-human (part- or demi-human) character does not have any real advantage. True, some of those racial types give short-term advantages to the players who choose them, but in the long run, these same characters are at an equal disadvantage when compared to human characters with the same number of experience points. This was, in fact, designed into the game. The variety of approach makes role selection more interesting. Players must weigh advantages and disadvantages carefully before opting for character race, human or otherwise. It is in vogue in some campaigns to remove restrictions on demi-humans — or at least relax them somewhat. While this might make the DM popular for a time with those participants with dwarven fighters of high level, or eleven wizards of vast power, it will eventually consign the campaign as a whole to one in which the only races will be non-human. Dwarves, elves, et al will have all the advantages and no real disadvantages, so the majority of players will select those races, and humankind will disappear from the realm of player character types. This bears upon the various hybrid racial types, as well."
>>
>>62917407
Because in 3.5 you had the tools to make everything work, regardless of what the spergs here will say.
>>
>>62949352
In principle I see his point but some of the caps were too harsh.
Is the usual arbitrariness of the old systems.
>>
>>62949352
Yeah... no, fuck that. Fuck that idiot ideology up the ass with a cactus full of fire ants.
>>
>>62921326
That should be "lest", not "less".
>>
>>62907587
I need some D&D archaeologist to find out for me why monks were included as a base class in 3.0e. I actually rather like most of the OA classes but I can't figure out for the life of me how monk snuck into core.

>>62938902
Man, I remember when 5e came out and people were bitching about monks being weak. It really confirms for me that /tg/ is just awful at identifying (im)balance.
>>
>>62924388
>Most races in BECMI could reach the same level 36 cap as humans
That was optional. Defaul, Elves stopped at 10th, Dwarves at 12th, Halflings at... 9th? Don't remember.
They would advance with their "attack class" or something (better to-hit, quite decent actually), and being more resitant to spells (Dwarves, Halflings ) and Dragon Breath (Elves, Halflings).

You can advance them in Rules Cyclopedia, optional rule. Good luck advancing an Elf to 36th (albeit in that case an elf with spells above 6th (up to 9th) is a literal rapetrain if the character has also access to weapon mastery).

With the splats, you would find alternatives and some weird advancement. Elves specifically could choose to advance in melee, spells or both with the elven splat.

t. played BECMI up to Master
>>
>>62949407
t. Dragonborn player
>>
>>62906482
I'd like to see a real return to old school gaming, not 5e's lukewarm pretend attempt with hit dice and death saving throws.

I'd start with a base of B/X, reverse AC since going up as it gets better is slightly more intuitive, keep race-as-class, and stress the importance of rulings over rules.
>>
>>62949352
He was right.
The only thing stopping humans from being unplayable in 5e is that a free feat is strong enough to compete with other race features.
>>
>>62906482
>"make it more like 4e".

We don't need another "Babby's first RPG" edition of D&D
>>
>>62949750
Why do people keep insisting race-as-class was good? It was shit! It was THE number one reason why we kept getting so many damn varieties of elves and dwarves and orcs and whatever, because settings would want to do unusual and interesting stuff with races, and then would have to rewrite the race from scratch because the original version was pigeonholed into some arbitrary niche!

Fuck race-as-class, fuck racial level limits, and FUCK anyone who thinks they weren't the stupidest fucking crap to come out of TSR.
>>
File: 12f2d03743.jpg (146 KB, 421x652)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
>>62949751
The only person more correct than Gygax was Bill from Lakehurst, who wrote into Dragon Magazine with his fears about 3e. The man was a goddamn prophet.
>>
>>62949860
>It was THE number one reason why we kept getting so many damn varieties of elves and dwarves and orcs and whatever, because settings would want to do unusual and interesting stuff with races
Maybe if you dumb entitled niggers weren't faggots, you would realize those unusual and interesting things have no problem being implement for an NPC.
The problem begins when you want to PLAY those races, then they need balanced mechanics and rules.
Of course, dumb faggot that you are (evidence by you thinking race as class is shit), you want to play random bullshit race X because it's "interesting", instead of making an actually interesting character.
>>
>>62950150
Fuck off, HFYfags. Race-as-class is DEAD and may it stay buried. This is why OSR is a dying genre.
>>
>>62949860
It wasn't shit, it was different. I can see good arguments for both. If you want a setting which is human-centric or where other races are very culturally distinct, then race-as-class makes sense. You could also go the ACKS way and have classes within the race so they still feel culturally distinct (e.g. the dwarven craftpriest and dwarven vaultguard).
However, most people don't like it so they should just do race and class separate, I really don't care that much.
>>
>>62950215
>This is why OSR is a dying genre.
OSR seems to only have gotten popular over the years, or am I wrong?
>>
>>62950270
It's doing pretty well for itself. I've heard the Black Hack is selling quite well.
>>
>>62949763
I've heard a lot on 4th, but never this. To bad most online discourse boils down to "I dont like thing" with little in the way of explanation or evidence.
>>
>>62907354

Easy fix to this in 5e is to just remove the stat bonuses from races and then say that everyone can put a +2 in one stat and a +1 to another at creation.
>>
>>62907815
In the old days you just could not even try a given combination, you oblivious imbecile.
>>
>>62952133
Why have races in the first place then?
This is bullshit.
>>
File: c0RapmrfqOc.jpg (61 KB, 500x500)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>62909689
>Seems pretty antithetical to the modern approach of dnd, where people come up with, write, and imagine their character ahead of time. Like, if someone wants to play an illiterate character, then they'd choose to voluntarily. If anything it'd definitely have to be an optional thing for certain campaigns.

The modern approach is wrong because it puts people into their own heads thinking about their special snowflake background, instead of pulling them out of their heads and onto the table by allowing them to discover characters as they play; as they roll to find out what stats the character has, figure out a race/class that matches it, as they get into scrapes and make decisions, etc. This way characters are primarily defined by what they do at the table, not what you wrote down before you got to the session.
>>
File: 1508305405964.gif (1.65 MB, 500x500)
1.65 MB
1.65 MB GIF
>>62952211

For the numerous other options that become available upon choosing one race or another, you fucking dolt?
>>
>>62933062

Wizard fag detected.
>>
>>62952285
And then retards like you would complain because those other options would lend to an unfair advantage/disadvantage toward a specific class.
Do you think I don't know your kind? You are a min-maxer with a paint of RP.
>>
>>62952349
Retard detected. Also nice spacing buddy
>>
>>62952232
>The modern approach is wrong
I wouldn't say any of these are 'wrong'. I mean, the important thing is which one they have more fun with.
There's definitely something to playing something you know you're interested in, than something that may or may not be for you.
It's like... I'd rather play an RPG with a story that somebody wrote than a procedurally generated survival open world crafting where I'll putter around with faceless, generated systems *hoping* that something narratively interesting will happen.

>>62952211
For roleplaying reasons. And, I guess, the more flavourful perks, like spell-likes if you're a tiefling or whatever.
>>
File: 1530522407022.jpg (41 KB, 604x376)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
If I was in charge I would throw everything out. Abilities, skills and the D20.

Then I would replace it with a dot based system ala Scion or Exalted.
>>
>>62952387
>For roleplaying reasons.
If it's for RP reason, you should not care that much. At least not for an additional 5% to a roll.
You fucking hypocrite.
>>
>>62952371
Heh you got me this time kid, I'll catch you next time on Reddit.
>>
>>62952426
Is this supposed to be a decent comeback over there?
>>
>>62952460

It's more do to do with how you are clearly upset by the layout of my post. Ass-blasted by the assembly of pixels.
>>
>>62952420
No need to get angry.

I suppose people treat combat with a certain degree of separation to the narrative and roleplay; the amount of combat mechanics makes it feel a lot more like a standardised videogame which is separate from the story and roleplaying.
Which, most of the time, it *is*. It's kind of the point of Dungeons and Dragons, as opposed to pretty much any other RPG. You roleplay for a bit, then you videogame for a bit. You speak to the king and his daughter, then you roll dice and fight goblins.

And the videogame portion is big enough that you really don't want to have a character who's BAD at combat.

Not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's sort of a DnD thing, so if you want it different then maybe you're better off with another game, like, i dunno, fate or GURPs or genesys or whatever dungeon world is.
>>
>>62952558
I think that there is one ass-blasted person my projecting friend, and it's you, because you bothered to answer to a post old HOURS because your bullshit has been called out.
Now please, go and start some falseflag trolling thread about "your" D&D group having problem X. Vent some more.
>>
>>62952603
>No need to get angry.
Don't confuse contempt and anger, anon.
I don't care about the rest of your post, not going to read it.
>>
Limit Wizard spell selection to school of choice. (If you want that cool spell you will have to learn it from another Wizard or find it on adventures)

Remove spells that that ruin mystery, intrigue,etc. Remove skill based spells that make other classes irelevant.

Give martials more options in and out of combat.

Don't give every damn race Darkvision.
>>
>>62952647
No need to get contemptuous, then.
>>
>>62952661
Then try to don't write completely retarded stuff.
>>
>>62952659
>Remove spells that that ruin mystery, intrigue,etc. Remove skill based spells that make other classes irelevant
You do want spells that let you gain information, but you want them to be more like... a tool, rather than a solution.
Like you're tracking a murderer, and you cast 'Speak with Dead', but they can only give riddles or partial information. Enough to give you clues, but not enough to solve the mystery.

I always feel like the way to keep up narratively with wizards casting Mass Teleports and Scrys and Stoneshape and such, would be to make them in charge of a lot of people. The wizard can summon earthquakes, but the King can summon armies.

And yeah, It'd be a lot more cool if a given wizard was more of a Fire Mage, or an Illusionist, or a Necromancer, or an Enchantress, rather than all wizards being basically the same.

>>62952719
How would you know if you don't read it?
>>
>>62906482
6e's terrible, but I'm pretty excited for the proposed 7e changes.
>General weapon proficiency is replaced with weapon skill, which has its own experience tables and special attacks
>Vancian magic is replaced with MP
>Four wizard schools, specializing in one closes off the opposite school
>Sorcs have unique spell list based on fire, water, wind, wood, and metal
>Clerics are merged with Bards
>Exploding damage dice
>Armor pieces possess soak/deflection values for individual body parts
>Levels go to fifty
>Race-as-class levels confer race-specific bonuses and ability boosts
>Multi-classing can only be done if a character has enough synergy points between their existing classes and the class they want to take (race-as-class is the exception)
>Mermaids, thri-kreen, and ratmen are core races
>Fairy Princess class looks hella OP
>>
>>62952232
Step.out of your own ass for a bit. People can play and develop PCs however they want, self delusional social architects like you that think they know what's the best can choke on a dick.
>>
>>62952351
Ow, shut it. Removing restrictions does nothing to promote powergaming. You play the wrong game of you think D&D won't always be a wargame with weak roleplay rules tacked on.
>>
>>62952782
That's a lot of stuff to tack on to spells. Like how do you even write out a spell that gives you partial info or riddles? Just move those spells to higher levels. Lowe level casters having problem solving spells is the true bane of the social and exploration pillars.
>>
>>62953264
Dude, why you want to fix D&D if you hate it and you don't understand it?
>>
>>62952782
>How would you know if you don't read it?
Clearly a reference to what written before that, my brain-damaged friend.
>>
>>62952387
> I'd rather play an RPG with a story that somebody wrote than a procedurally generated survival open world crafting where I'll putter around with faceless, generated systems *hoping* that something narratively interesting will happen.
The usual random generation in sandbox play comes from random encounter tables, which are tailor-made to emphasize the theme of the setting and the place you're currently in. The rest of the sandbox should be full of interesting locales which adventurers can hear rumors of or get sent to. And trust me, unless you have the most boring, unimaginative players or DM, a story will emerge. And besides, sandbox play doesn't preclude a premade story. You could have important timed events which have ripples in the world that the adventurers ultimately find difficult to ignore.
Honestly, the most enduring and influential moments and characters in any of my rp games have been the ones I prepared the least amount of stuff for. That's just how player minds work.
>>
>>62952232
This one of the big reasons I like Traveller. You get to choose an input at the beginning (homeworld and initial career you want to try to enter) and then you get to go along for the ride. You either die or come out the other side with an interesting and unique character.

I wish there was such a thing for nu-D&D. I don't mind OSR not having it so much since they don't have a ton of player options anyway and tend to keep people away from playing stupid shit like tieflings and dragonborn.
>>
>>62906482
This is the worst bait I've seen in some time
>>
>>62950270
It peaked a while back and probably isn't going to recover.
>>
>>62907052
Imagine if you took the worst of editions 3-5, put them into a blender, and then garnished the resulting slurry with a sort of alright take on the action economy.

Caster supremacy still reigns supreme, but now they're kings of nothing. Everyone gets things that are supposed to be exciting to use, but they're so few and far between (and for non-casters, too high up the level tree) in order to actually create a fun experience. And then to top it all off, the game's math is just fundamentally broken. PCs are weak as hell, while monsters are incredibly strong.
>>
>>62953496
>I wish there was such a thing for nu-D&D.
They've tried it, you can't have mechanically unique systems with character paths like you can with classes which people come to expect from D&D.
>>
File: download.jpg (12 KB, 191x264)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
Roll CON into STR
Each stat has some application for each class (there's a difference between a charismatic fighter and an intelligent fighter)
To-hit roll removed
Exploding damage dice
HP per level removed
Distinction between arcane, and divine casting
Reinforce distinct combat roles for subclasses
Expand backgrounds to function as a secondary class for social and exploration (can be ignored/dropped to allow pure dungeon crawl game)
Heavier distinction between tiers of play; gritty, heroic, legendary.
2 sets of combat options, one for theater of the mind, other for tactical grid based gameplay.
Less spells, but more varied application
Universal "Stamina" dice pool in place of spell slost, once per short/long rest abilities, bardic die, etc. Which deferring classes use in unique ways (wizards charge up, martials recover slowly, etc)
Remove X combats per adventuring day; emphasize danger from encounter to encounter instead of the "5 minute work day nuke and rest"
5 minute short rests.
Healing uses target's hit dice

Guess that it for me...
>>
>>62953678
Oh, and races have stat requisites instead of stat boots (you must have at least a +2 Con to choose Dwarf etc)
>>
>>62953602
>And then to top it all off, the game's math is just fundamentally broken. PCs are weak as hell, while monsters are incredibly strong.
To be fair, it *is* a playtest.
>>
>>62953705
You wrote a lot of retarded shit but this is brilliant
>>
>>62953749
Yea, but like a lot of things in life, its to my tastes and I don't expect it all to sit well with everybody.
>>
>>62953739
You know what? I'd believe you but I remember the first pathfinder playtest. Where people pointed out that their game still had some fundamental problems, and that several of the "fixes' didn't actually fix the problems they were aiming to solve.

And how Paizo completely ignored it.

I have no reason to believe that this playtest is a playtest. I have every reason to believe it's a marketing strategy that has blown up in it's face.
>>
>>62953359
Different anon but, racial buffs are hardly integral to D&D, the way they are implemented changes almost from editon to edition. And for the record stating that somebody "doesn't understand D&D" puts you on par with a angsty teen that says the same of themselves.
>>
>>62953827
Well, updates 1.1-1.6 of the playtest have all done stuff, and there are a lot of things that were broken when it first landed that have since been fixed, and the monster math has definitely been acknowledged. The idea is that they originally wrote the playtest monster manual while working with a different set of PC math and they didn't want to completely redo the entire book since it'd put them behind schedule.

Also, wasn't that like 10 years ago? Not saying to 'forgive' or anything, but it was probably mostly different staff members.
Before anyone calls me a shill, I'm not a paizo 'fan' (I loathe first edition pathfinder) but I think a lot of the 4chan vitriol is overblown or inaccurate.
>>
>>62953891
See this?
>You play the wrong game of you think D&D won't always be a wargame with weak roleplay rules tacked on.
Posting this disqualifies that poster. Because it means he just wants to stir some shit and/or has no idea what he's talking about.
If he posted something like "too focused on combat and exploaration" I COULD listen.
Post something applicable at best to Chainmail means no serious discussion is possible.
No go to eat some shit, you dumb asshole.
>>
>>62954114
Disregarding that's poster's comparison does nothing to contradict my main point. D&D is a different game to different people. Some lean more on role play, others more on the combat rules. You speak in absolutes, inevitably you are thus wrong.
>>
>>62954247
Nope. You would be right if we were talking about opinion but "that poster" clearly stated misleading lies, probably with an agenda.
Stop being an intellectually dishonest dipshit.
>>
>>62954294
Calling a RPG with 80% of its rules geared towards combat a wargame is not a stretch. Especially when the roleplay mechanics are so anemic (which I enjoy, combat should be the main thing quantified in my opinion)
>>
>>62949352
Gygax really knew what he was doing.
There is definitely something jarring about having everyone be a weirdo.
>>
>>62955079
>Calling a RPG with 80% of its rules geared towards combat
Typical fallacy. The fact that combat needs more detail to be resolved fairly (it's also the most common way the PCs can die) means jack shit about how much total time is supposed to take.
You are the same type of stupid dumb asshole that scream le caster focus citing the number of pages dedicated to spells, ignoring (because dishonest or stupid) that the level of detail is greater because is needed for something that risks to be too arbitrary with no real-world counterpart.
But we both know your are not believing in what you post, you just want to stir shit.
>>
File: slappy the clown.png (5.06 MB, 2320x3728)
5.06 MB
5.06 MB PNG
>>62952232
This.
Making a blank slate joke character and improvising their development into a deep, well-rounded character and most beloved member of the party is an absolute joy that everyone should get to experience.
Hell, I don't even write backstories for my characters half the time. I just do what feels right in the moment and justify it retroactively.
>>
>>62955284
Combat does not need to be as granular as it's made in D&D, see other simple systems with a bigger emphasis on narrative and roleplay. The amount of time its suppose to take in your mind is irrelevant as some groups could span several sessions in combat and some might not have any in a session.
>>
>>62949434

Monks were core in 1E.
>>
>>62956368
Bad old days, huh?

I'm familiar with B/X, AD&D 2e, and onwards so I seem to have missed it for the most part.
>>
>>62949918
A designer of 5e knew, too.

https://stuffershack.com/not-the-gold-standard/

"The seeds were there all along. The mechanical-minded played spellcasters—who dominated—while the rest plodded along with fighters. As the game evolved, it was no longer sufficient for the fighter to become more accurate or to attack more often: the fighter had to do things beyond swing a sword or loose an arrow from a bow. The game needed rules for every situation, for every scenario, and with each new rule came a new exploit, a new opportunity to bend the game into something terrifying."

Of course, no one in the world could convince Mearls to reign in spellcasters.
>>
File: mearls.jpg (35 KB, 572x780)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>62957765
>convince Mearls to reign in spellcasters.
Did somebody say give wizard more metamagics?





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.