Imagine a situation: you are a lead developer of D&D 6e. What will you change and create?

Bring back the core of 4e, and get it right from the start, make sure all the math is balanced, use the good version of skill challenges, etc, etc. Also give some more options for rituals, as well as making the ones the PCs get more viable to use (probably a budget of X GP per day of free rituals based on level), and experiment more with classes that can pull double duty on two roles, and such.

If levels are not equivalent in power, why bother having them?

>Will you power up martials or nerf wizards?
Little of both. Martials get fun toys to play around with, mages get a few more limitations. Mostly, I'd emphasize how the laws of physics in this world could allow Monks wrestling dragons or Fighters holding their wounds shut with sheer willpower.
>Will you replace ft by meters or grid cells?
I will use hexes as the default assumption. Each print DMG includes a stencil set and reusable map making tools and tips.
>Will you gravitate towards sandboxery or more rigid settings?
Sandboxier. Adventure paths' focus would be on groups and their goals, not predetermined events.
>What will you do with alignments?
Keep, but distance from morality. Angels are made from physical goodness, demons coalesce from clouds of Evil, the easiest way to make undead is two parts negative energy, one part elemental evil, one corpse, stir well.
>Will you add more races, monsters, weapons?
I'd add more unique ones. "+1 sword" would take a backseat to "If this sword doesn't hit anything, another attack is automatically made against whatever's in that square one turn later, regardless of the sword's position". If something's added just because it was there before, it should be looked at very carefully.
>Will you make combat more lethal or more power fantasy?
Less lethal, but faster to end. Fights would end in one side getting knocked unconscious or running away more often than total slaughter, except with large power disparities (mook hordes or final bosses)
>Will you finally make actual rules for things that don't involve mass murder?
Of course. Nonlethal takedowns are very important, after all.

Keep it coming, people, I need your butthurts and shitstorms to sustain my wretched trollpire body

Better questions.
Why should the wizard have cosmic powers?

You. I like you.

I would end up making it an expanded retroclone of B/X D&D, only updated for people familiar with the d20 system. I'd try to get it in regular stores by putting inexpensive books on bookshelves and starter sets in the board game aisles with the option to get higher quality color/hardback versions from hobby shops.
>And then WotC went bankrupt.

4th page bump because i'm a faggot

Asking here, does anyone have the screenshot of the user explaining why 3aboos hate martials?

>Less lethal, but faster to end. Fights would end in one side getting knocked unconscious or running away more often than total slaughter, except with large power disparities (mook hordes or final bosses)

That sounds like more of an issue with groups and play-styles than rules, unless you're talking about including a paragraph that goes "Hey dumbasses, things really don't tend to fight to the bitter end 100% of the time, have enemies run away or surrender when shit goes south; don't use it as an excuse cheat your players out of XP or have enemies ambush the party at a later date either, that just breeds bad blood."

Other than that, 10/10, preddy gub

Basically merge the best of OD&D (with supplements) and 5e.

>advantage/disadvantage on checks
>no feats
>a handful of skills you get better at based on your class and literally everything else is handled by one kind of roll with a DC determined by the GM
>ascending armor class
>EXP requirements as a balancing mechanism
>encouraging 3d6 down the line
>stats between 3 and 18 give a maximum of +2/-2
>players encouraged to run the fuck away from many encounters
>either reduce number of spells per day dramatically or ditch Gygaxian magic for something with a more "magic is scary shit" vibe to it
>return to a three-alignment system
>ditch tiefling as a core class, but don't re-add gnomes either
>publish shitloads of supplements, but not character option supplements; DM supplements that offer more stuff to shove in those scary holes with your players
>make combat more lethal
>I will not "finally make actual rules for things that don't involve mass murder" because D&D has had rules for those things from the beginning. Thieves picking locks and pockets and disarming traps, for example.
Oh, that reminds me!
>no rules for social interaction; just act that shit out. Jesus
>except bards may get some special abilities relating to social situations
>no more sorcerers and wizards; you're a magic user and you can flavor it either way or totally differently

Because levels indicate power relative to other individuals of the SAME class.

A level 20 fighter is more powerful than a level 7 fighter.

Fighters should not be more powerful than wizards. This makes no sense.

Just have fighters level up faster. It's easier to learn to stab a dude than to harness the powers of the universe. That's also why NPC fighters are (or should be) far more common than NPC wizards.

That way you can have like a 9th level fighter and a 5th level wizard in a party, and it just works.

>why should a class that manipulates reality be able to manipulate reality

baka desu senpai

That's how it used to be in 2e.

I see no problem with this at all.

>Only give spells to wizards, druids and clerics

Explain.

That's how it was from od&d through to 2e, and I agree. I'm

More that there would be rules for not killing things besides "You do X damage, but nonlethally". Bringing back some form of Morale (and tying Intimidate into it), more nuanced Diplomacy rules, and specific spells/techniques that can knock enemies unconscious (or scare them away, or tie them up, or...) faster than killing them with damage in exchange for not working on some types of enemies (zombies, golems, etc.) would be good starting points.

Also, there would be optional (but recommended) rules for modifying XP gain based on how you defeat an encounter - solving everything one particular way reduces XP gain (something like a stacking 5% after the first encounter, capped at a 50% penalty.), and using a solution for the first time in a campaign increases the experience reward.

I'd also start free playtests at every optimization level and actually listen to the feedback (except for "X class is too weaboo, axe it", "X system/edition is/was better", or stylistic choices without appropriate explanation).

Of course, this theoretical perfect system would never work out in practice.

>That way you can have like a 9th level fighter and a 5th level wizard in a party, and it just works.

what's the advantage of that approach instead of just taking the features of the level 9 fighter and giving it to the fighter at level 5, and then having them level at the same rate?

Get rid of "mundane-magical" dichotomy.

Everything is fucking magic now - that wizard? Magic. That fighter? Weeaboo fightan Magic. That deer over there? Magic, but deers are dumb shits so the difference is just slight resistance to other magic and higher regeneration.

Magic courses through everything - it is no longer a weird plug on the universe, it's woven into universe's fabric itself. If D&D wants to be high fantasy, at least make it PROPER high fantasy.

you are a faggot
The magic system of DnD is broken. The 1st through 9th spell level system needs to be completely torn out and replaced, with spells being balanced against each other rather than constantly ramping up in raw power.
Wizards shouldn't get 40+ fucking spells automatically either, a high level magic caster should have between 10 and 20.

If the magic system is not replaced, high level martials should be able to cut mountains in half and grapple colossal monsters.

Ah now I see what you mean. Sounds good and not necessarily impossible to implement, seeing as those ideas exist, albeit separately, in one system or another; have you considered houseruling your would-be-6e rules into existing D&D editions?

I agree with some of this (morale used to be incredibly important in a fight) and emphatically disagree with others (changing xp because the players act to their strengths and not to their weaknesses).

D&D should be sword-and-sorcery, not high fantasy.

>angry martialfag detected

Explain to me again how a muscleman swinging a piece of metal should be nearly as powerful as a master of the elements and time and space.

You're free to make your setting as magical or as mundane as you wish user.

explain to me how a nerd in a bathrobe wiggling his fingers should be nearly as powerful as a trained warrior wearing armor and wielding a sword

Because making wizards masters of time and space is an arbitrary distinction.

If there were a group of people that could magically light 1 candle after chanting for 1 hour once per day, and upon leveling they got additional uses of that effect, and those people were called wizards, that would be just as valid, if not more valid than 'basically gods'

Magic is only as powerful as you want it to be, so saying wizards should be better because you decided magic should be strong is circular logic.

Agreed. Different rates makes the most sense.

Did we just solve the entire martial/magic argument?

Because that nerd can bend the very fabric of reality to his will.

Except that we're talking about D&D here. A high level wizard is basically a demi-god who can control time, space and will anything into existence.

A warrior is just a man with muscles and a big pointy stick.

Because it's not, and even Gygax went on to say that the purpose of levels was to demonstrate equivalent power/influence in the world, each in their own way, and then went on to say that, no, the different xp rates DID NOT WORK.
The only thing you did was try to front a backhanded way of justifying bad mechanics that even the creator admitted were flawed and didn't achieve their intended purpose..

I'm talking about how things should be, not how they are.
If there was no problem with how they worked, discussions like this would never pop up. They pop up all the time.

You are literally retarded.

>Because that nerd can bend the very fabric of reality to his will.
No he can't. Being able to create an explosion of fire or put some people to sleep, once or twice a day, doesn't make you a god.

>>no rules for social interaction; just act that shit out. Jesus
Stupid as hell. You are not your character.

>No rules for fights, act that shit out, beat up the DM

And this is talking about changing the system so Wizards are on par with pointy stick man instead of demi-gods, so you can actually have both in the same party like the game intends.

Again. Circular logic. You're saying wizards should be stronger because they are stronger

>A high level wizard is basically a demi-god who can control time, space and will anything into existence.
>A warrior is just a man with muscles and a big pointy stick.
Then why are the same level with the same experience? Why aren't we using a warrior demigod as inspiration for the warrior classes?

They pop up all the time because autists simply can't accept that their conan the barbarian muscleman power fantasy fighter can be defeated by an old man or a woman.

they pop up all the time because every class except a handful of tier 1 casters is commoner+ while the game advertises itself as a generalist system and not wizard duel stories

But why is that what a Wizard is?

>Because magic

And why does magic have to function that way to the detriment of the game?

High level wizards are basically gods. They can even create their own demiplanes. What can a high level fighter do? Buy a keep and hire some henchmen?

I'm not saying Wizards should be stronger at everything. Fighers will always be better at stabbing things with sharp objects. That's what they do. Working as intended.

People would rather play something magical in a fantasy setting.

Why is this surprising to you?

Of course playing a Wizard with access to hundred of cool and interesting spells is more appealing to a lot of people than a fighter who can only hit things with a stick?

That doesn't mean that fighters are broken. Some people like simplicity or want to roleplay a soldier/knight/merc/barbarian

Your character might be smarter than you. Better just have a rule system to see whether they figure out how to survive the dungeon completely independently of your input.

Combat rules exist as a way of making combat a challenge without requiring you to "beat up the DM" or go in a cave and fight a bear or something. Social interaction, despite what some may think, is relatively safe, and is something you're already doing if you're playing the game.

>I'm not saying Wizards should be stronger at everything. Fighers will always be better at stabbing things with sharp objects.

Except you are saying that, because you're arguing for 3.5 style caster supremacy. They type where a Wizard can simply transform into a giant dragon made of magical swords because 'lolmagic' and then be way better at stabbing.

Why should Wizards and magic encompass EVERYTHING on a single character when they could just as easily be restricted to being mediocre pyromancers or whatever.

Give a reason why Wizards have to be DnD style wizards instead of any other type of non-demigod wizard.

I would make martials feel more like Demi-Gods. 20th level Fighters should be able to pull off feats akin to Hercules, or fucking Kratos.

Yes, but I'm a lazy faggot who's bad at collecting my thoughts in one place.

Experience bonuses/penalties are an optional rule (so the DM could ignore it if they wanted a hack-and-slash murderfest or pure intrigue game) that mechanically encourages creativity and sharing the spotlight over just diplomancing/stealthing/blasting through an entire campaign; well-rounded characters (and parties) would become stronger faster than one trick ponies theorycrafted to hell and back.

>You are not your character.
Your character's mind is entirely in your hands, though. Unless you're saying that your character does things without human intervention.

>Will you power up martials or nerf wizards?
Yes. Insert natural break points / tiers like 4e's heroic / paragon / epic. As a way of letting people know that past that point you can't even be "just a sword guy". Also offers a clear level cap for a low / mid power level game.

>Will you replace ft by meters or grid cells?
No.

>Will you gravitate towards sandboxery or more rigid settings?
Leave this to GMs and campaign writers.

>What will you do with alignments?
Supernatural only. Only priest characters (who just reflect their deity's alignment) and monsters have alignment at low levels. Normal people pick one up at a higher tier, once they've broken in their character's personality.

>Will you add more races, monsters, weapons?
No. Scale back magic items tremendously from 3e/4e, where you were obligated to by a bunch of shitty +bonus equipment.

>Will you make combat more lethal or more power fantasy?
Unless you play with a 1e/2e mindset, D&D / d20 does not do lethal combat well -- the d20 ends up with far too much influence over character success and failure. So the latter.

>Will you finally make actual rules for things that don't involve mass murder?
Yes.

But the game advertises a party of equals delving dungeons, not wizards solving everything.

Would nobody play a wizard if they just had nothing but 1000 incredibly specific cantrips? If all they want is fantasy and complexity...

Much of the most exciting fantasy is about warriors or people with limited access to magic. Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, etc.

>why do wizards in D&D have to be D&D style wizards

It sounds like you might be playing the wrong game or at least the wrong setting user.

D&D - generic D&D, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, Planescape, etc... - is high fantasy and high level wizards are viturally omnipotent.

As I said earlier, you're free to homebrew a world where all wizards can do is chant for hours to light a candle if you want but don't claim that the game itself needs to change to suit your personal playstyle preferences.

Stupid. As. Hell.

There still needs to be a system for social interaction, unless you want to go lift that fucking fridge.

As long as you can explain what it is you're trying to do socially, it translates into the dice on the table, you strawmanning fuckwit.

No, I'm playing the right setting. It's your pathetic ass that has to have the superdoanything wizards, least you cry. 5e was a step in the right direction, but there needs to be more. Out of combat utilities need to be more universal.

>But the game advertises a party of equals delving dungeons

No it doesn't. This isn't Communism: the RPG.

Enough of this "everything needs to be balanced because we're all equal" bullshit. There will always be characters that are more or less powerful than others.

I agree. But that's beside the point.

Martial classes can be just as enjoyable as casters to roleplay if that's your thing.

Power up martials, bring back the unlimited max level.

Except in 3.5, that isn't the case at all. Its literally 1 edition of the game that has had this problem, at least to the severity that Wizards are demi-gods.

Is it so wrong to want more parity between classes like other editions have? For wizards to have some actual limits so they don't threaten to snap the game in two with their mere existence?

See, everyone? This is the cancer 3.PF breeds.

I can't wait until it dies out at last, and we piss on the grave.

Except you are ignoring that parties are often made of diverse characters with diverse methods.
It is rare that you have a group that can only approach the world in a singular fashion, so I fail to see what such a thing adds outside trying to get the group to metagame in a different fashion (rather than approaching situations according to their character's mindset and skill set, they try to do things differently knowing they will be rewarded for essentially breaking character).
>talks about not changing the game in a thread all about changing the game
Dude, you can stop now. Even the most diehard 3aaboos would be rolling their eyes at you right now. Even in the examples you speak of, those casters clearly were beyond human limits, often being liches, divinely favored or supernatural beings.
This. While interaction is an absolute goal, a player should not be penalized because they are not as eloquent as their character.
On the other hand, they should not be given a pass because the PLAYER is eloquent as well, and I have been on the receiving end of this.

Yeah let's homogenise all the classes! What could possibly go wrong there?

I'm starting to think you're trolling.

Yes. That's what levels are for, denoting power, so that people can easily tell which characters are balanced or more or less powerful.

The level system fails at that right now because a level x fighter is significantly different power from a same level wizard.

If you want to play a level 5 fighter in a party of level 15 wizards, great. But don't try to force everyone else to by breaking the game's mechanics.

Not the guy you were talking to but, I don't like it when GMs have social situations that are just people talking most of the time, but then randomly have one NPC who is arbitrarily belligerent and will not care about anything the players say until they all start rolling their charisma and then the NPC starts cooperating.
I think if the game's dialogue consists of things like "I tell the bar maiden a funny joke", have players roll. But if people are actually saying their dialogue out loud, in-character, they shouldn't have to roll.

He's a troll, user, not an actual player.
Just ignore him, he's derailed the whole fucking thread.

>actually responding to the "pathetic nerd that got bullied by stronger kids so now he jerks off over his wizard" bait

Don't give him the attention he wants

Not perfectly equal, but also not unbalanced to the degree where half the party could be replace by a pack mule and a large doh without any significant difference.

Would you rather I say a party of Peers? Or Team-mates? Whatever world you want to use, everyone should bring something meaningful to the table, and need the others present.

...

>crying about 3.PF
>not realising that 5e is basically the same thing

wew lad

Yeah, because that's at all what I said, you brain damaged little shit.

Your system and way of thinking is dying, and I couldn't be more happy.

remove initiative and replace it with something better

Thank you, yes.

That's the worst shit. "Oh, my cha 6 int 5 barbarian is super-smart and highly eloquent because I, the player am."

Utter dogshit.

No, that's the worst thing. I've MET PEOPLE LIKE THAT. 3.PF literally induces brain fucking damage in people, so they think horseshit like that is actually how it should fucking work.

Why? Why should you get to bypass the system just because you're good at talking out of character? You can talk and talk and talk, but in the end, it comes down to the dice, ALONG WITH WHAT YOU SAID. If you spew some shit about wanting to fuck the princess to her father, yes, that's going to be some really big negs.

So instead of having each class do something special, you'd rather have one class do everything and one class do one thing poorly?

>raise magic resistance with each level gained
>powerful beings become god's anchors of reality keeping the world in one piece
>mages can bend reality and fuck shit up for smelly peasants with high level warriors walking through magic flames and easily slashing magical steel walls
would make a nice world

Classes will never be balanced. It's never happened in any RPG ever.

D&D is not competitve. There's no need for it to be balanced as long as it's fun. If you can't have fun without your weeaboo fighter teleporting behind every wizard he sees and slicing him into a thousand pieces with his masamune katana then I guess you're playing the wrong game.

The classes are not fundementally unbalanced to any significant degree. Each class is useful in its own way.

>That's the worst shit. "Oh, my cha 6 int 5 barbarian is super-smart and highly eloquent because I, the player am."
Good point. If you make a good choice, let's have you make a roll based on INT or WIS to see if your character is smart enough not to do it.

>"Okay, I'm going to stay back because the rogue said there's a trap over there."
>the DM rolls a dice
>"No you aren't. You're too stupid. Make a dexterity saving throw to see if you die."

>The classes are not fundementally unbalanced to any significant degree. Each class is useful in its own way.

Have you never heard of the tier system and/or the last 15 years of d20, or are you just enjoying ostrich-head syndrome?

>There's no need for it to be balanced as long as it's fun
>The classes are not fundementally unbalanced to any significant degree. Each class is useful in its own way.
Ok, you can play the 3.PF monk in a part with a druid, cleric, and wizard, then.

Also, who's up to start checking down Bingo?

Except it isn't.

5e is closer to 3.5 than anything else.

How mad are you?

>Let me strawman because I don't have an actual argument!
Fuck right off. Unless you actually have a response, don't expect another reply.

And yet, here we are, with you screaming and crying about how there's any restrictions on wizards at all.

It needs more utility effects for other classes, yes, but 5e is a great step in the right direction.

It's hilarious how pissed martialfags are at Pathfinder.

I don't even play 3.PF and I suggest that if you hate the system so much, that you don't either!

>tier system

I'm sorry, I play D&D to tell stories and have a blast with my friends. I'm not some powergaming neckbeard who thinks that it's some kind of pissing contest.

Tier list? What is this, Street Fighter? League of Legends? Fuck outta here with that MLG bullcrap.

>Why should you get to bypass the system just because you're good at talking out of character?
Player: Hey npc, *completely innocuous request or factual statement*
NPC: HMMMM... NO.
Player: but *more detailed explanation to assuage doubts about statement or request*
NPC: NO NO NO, NOT HAPPENING
Player: but why? *explains why there's no reason not to*
NPC: DON'T TALK TO ME OR MY WIFE'S SON EVER AGAIN
Player: *rolls charisma, gets a 12*
NPC: Oh yeah sure that's fine, come on in.

>The classes are not fundementally unbalanced to any significant degree. Each class is useful in its own way.

In 3.5? Yes, they are extremely unbalanced. A Druid gets a free 'fighter' to follow them around at first level, and it only gets worse from there.

"Casters are supposed to be better than fighters because magic is better than nonmagic!" never explains why in 3.X and Pathfinder, monks (supernatural) have always been complete shit compared to the likes of barbarians (purely extraordinary except for a few optional abilities).

Projecting much?

I'm perfectly happy with wizards in 5e. You're the one crying about how martial classes should be able to do everything that wizards can do for no reason.

I don't play it anymore, little idiot. It's clear you do, otherwise you wouldn't be defending one of it's mistakes so hard. Brain damaged retard.

My point is simply that your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that player ability should have no bearing on success or failure. How strong the player is has no bearing on whether the character is good at lifting things, true, but that's for practical reasons.

D&D is a game at which you can do well or poorly. It's not a storygame. It's a game about being a crazy asshole who goes into crypts with liches and shit and tries to take their stuff.

There's no need to have more than basic rules (i.e., a single dice roll) determining how competent your character is at persuading someone for the same reason there's no need to have more than basic rules (one dice roll) for determining whether you successfully pick a lock.

The fact is, D&D has always had rules for dealing with non-combat encounters, attempting to talk your way past guards, and so on, since the days of OD&D, and the reason they aren't as expansive as combat is that these interactions tend to be more fun to actually roleplay out rather than just "I try to talk my way past the guard." "Okay, roll diplomacy." And the rules it has had from the beginning through to now haven't changed much, aside from during 3.5 when you could be level one with a diplomacy of +8 and absurd shit like that.

There is no need to add more rules for those kinds of things, or they'll start getting in the way of roleplay and turning the game into a TV show with dice rolling, as I was trying to suggest in the example you called a strawman.

IT'S BAIT, user

YOU KEEP RESPONDING TO BAIT

No, I'm pretty sure the best solution would be for no single class to be able to do everything wizards do, including wizards.

But the moment you suggest restricting wizards in some way the retards crawl out of the woodwork to explain how magic should never have any limits ever

Because the West is superior to the East.

You're an idiot. I've been playing D&D since AD&D 1st edition. I'm currently playing 5e.

High level wizards have ALWAYS been more powerful than fighters. They start out weak but they end up as demi gods. That's always been part of the appeal of playing them.

Why do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is some 3.5 fanboy?

>My point is simply that your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that player ability should have no bearing on success or failure.

Like I said, jackass. Fucking. Strawman.

Let me re-link the text, since thinking is so hard for you. Here, I'll highlight the important part.

Why? Why should you get to bypass the system just because you're good at talking out of character? You can talk and talk and talk, but in the end, it comes down to the dice, ALONG WITH WHAT YOU SAID. If you spew some shit about wanting to fuck the princess to her father, yes, that's going to be some really big negs.
>it comes down to the dice, ALONG WITH WHAT YOU SAID
>ALONG WITH WHAT YOU SAID

Going to pull your head out of your ass, now?