Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1083770And the monsters were even worse on that front. They all felt very samey.

I thought 4E's monster design was far more varied and tactically interesting than 5E. One of my biggest gripes with 5E is combat feels like little more than hacking away at huge sacks of hits points. One of the things that's appealing to me about Pathfinder 2E is the creative monster design.

I would troll the community by having Frank Mentzer and Bill Web on the design team.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1083736I don't understand the mindset that massive changes are necessary with new editions. There was a time where you could offer a Basic and an Advanced D&D and everyone rejoiced, some even played both. Now it seems every few years they drop one game and create a new one sharing little but the name.

Edition treadmilling. Its a ploy to gouge the player base that bought the prior system as usually a new system also means tournament or equivalent play changes too. So if you want to keep playing that you have to buy in.

Problem is that every time you do this you lose a huge chunk of customers. Editions with small changes or just rules updates, expansions tend to go over alot better and you tend to not lose so many customers. 4e is the posterchild for this. It was such a huge change, on top of insulting advertising, that WOTC and D&D was in dire condition as Paizo picked up the slack by keeping 3e in print and showed that you can just keep printing the game and draw in new players while retaining the old ones with new modules and expansions.

I hope that 6E, whenever it happens; is successful.  I also hope that it is backwards compatible.

Complexity and accessibility - I think the core 5e engine is fine, but the spellcasting classes could stand to be a bit simpler, more like the old approach maybe. And there should be more non casting classes; that is the one real mistake in 5e design.

They could fix most of 5e's actual problems with rewrites of the magic item system and the monster manual.

A great 6e fix would be to make the 6 encounter 2 short rest day less mandatory (especially for 'Combat as Sport' DMs), or they could make "Combat as War" the default and actually explain how to do that.

My issue with 5e is that it's boring. You slog through 5 encounters before the last one is remotely challenging. Or you get hit with a silly hard encounter that is determined by the statistical equivalent of a coin flip (which is also boring).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1083803They could fix most of 5e's actual problems with rewrites of the magic item system and the monster manual.

A great 6e fix would be to make the 6 encounter 2 short rest day less mandatory (especially for 'Combat as Sport' DMs), or they could make "Combat as War" the default and actually explain how to do that.

It not mandatory now. And the 5e DMG spells alternative approach that many but not all ignore.

Quote from: S'mon;1083782Complexity and accessibility - I think the core 5e engine is fine, but the spellcasting classes could stand to be a bit simpler, more like the old approach maybe. And there should be more non casting classes; that is the one real mistake in 5e design.

I think the core classes should remain largely the way they are. However there should be one book supplements that takes the core engine and repackages aka Adventures in Middle Earth to support a specific subgenre or setting.

Under that scheme, the low fantasy supplements would be used in lieu of the PHB and feature an array of classes that are mostly non-magic users and magic is much more subtle with most of the supernatural effect found in specific abilities or options.

While a high fantasy version every classes would be tricked out like the fighter battlemaster with numerous options that interplay with each other.

You could mix and match or just use the core or just use the low fantasy book, etc, etc. It not a toolkit but since they all use the same basic mechanics they are interchangable.

Wrapping it up.
None of this need to equate to balance between supplements.

Quote from: estar;1083808It not mandatory now. And the 5e DMG spells alternative approach that many but not all ignore.

Changing the rest variant does not help.

Nor does the XP budgets handle mono-encounters per long rest well.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1083803They could fix most of 5e's actual problems with rewrites of the magic item system and the monster manual.

A great 6e fix would be to make the 6 encounter 2 short rest day less mandatory (especially for 'Combat as Sport' DMs), or they could make "Combat as War" the default and actually explain how to do that.

My issue with 5e is that it's boring. You slog through 5 encounters before the last one is remotely challenging. Or you get hit with a silly hard encounter that is determined by the statistical equivalent of a coin flip (which is also boring).

I think a hard fight runs much like a hard fight in other editions. Maybe late era 4e could do balanced hard fights slightly better if the GM knew what she was doing. (I say she since the 4e gearheads I knew were mostly female).

Running 5e I mostly run unbalanced OTT fights with 1 week long rests, while being pretty lenient on fleeing PCs. Works well.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1083813Changing the rest variant does not help.

Nor does the XP budgets handle mono-encounters per long rest well.

Handle it if the setting has a life of it own and the player are there as their character. What happens, happens and whatever the PCS can do the NPCs of the setting can do as well.

As for XP award there not going to be a hard and fast rule, it has to be developed over multiple sessions and campaign tweaking things along the way. The examples in the DMG are good only for a narrow range of running a campaign. When you publish there is a point where the author has to make a decision about what the default is. But even then if you look at what been published you see Wizards tweaking thing to better suit the material.

For example I award milestone and monsters xp with the milestone based on the goals the players set for themselves as a group and as individual. I don't do anything formal other than just pay attention to their plans and desires. When one of those is achieved, I add it to the awarded xp for the session. Whether it major or minor depends on how difficult it was to achieve. As for monster xp it not just about death. I will award XP if a monster is turned into an ally through roleplaying and good planning, or nullified with a good plan.

I found it works with anything I use including with what wizard's published. It works this way because irregardless of what the authors of the adventure intended, I dissect published adventures into locales that can be visited and npcs with plans and motivations of their own. Then run it the way I run my own material.

Wrapping it up
The point of my description is not to advocate it is the best way. But to illustrate the process I used to come up with a way that is best for me. What best for you will be different. I can say for certain that in time won't be what the DMG 5e recommends. The DMG recommendations are a starting point not the finish line.

Quote from: Omega;1083778Edition treadmilling. Its a ploy to gouge the player base that bought the prior system as usually a new system also means tournament or equivalent play changes too. So if you want to keep playing that you have to buy in.

Problem is that every time you do this you lose a huge chunk of customers. Editions with small changes or just rules updates, expansions tend to go over alot better and you tend to not lose so many customers. 4e is the posterchild for this. It was such a huge change, on top of insulting advertising, that WOTC and D&D was in dire condition as Paizo picked up the slack by keeping 3e in print and showed that you can just keep printing the game and draw in new players while retaining the old ones with new modules and expansions.

I get the appeal to bean counters as a grab for more money, but this rarely works. I can think of many more cases where is was disaster than successful. I guess the saying those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it is true, even when that history is only about 10 years old.

Whatever happened to game companies supporting multiple product lines? In particular with the popularity of D&D of all flavors, you would think WOTC would want some piece of that.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1083813Changing the rest variant does not help.

Nor does the XP budgets handle mono-encounters per long rest well.

Just do what I do...

1) short rests are 5 min, not all PCs have to short rest at the same time.
2) max 2 short rests per long rest.
3) collect XP after a long rest according to the special XP multiplier.
4) XP = (Total number of encounters) * (Book XP) * (25%)

For some reason players don't long rest right before a suspected boss fight when they only get 25% of the XP.
They also seem to push themselves farther for the increasing multiplier..."Hey guys, if we can get through a seventh encounter, we will get 175% XP."

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1083770Nobody disliked 4e BECAUSE their classes were balanced. Myself - I disliked 4e because they balanced through symmetry - which is the absolute easiest/laziest way to balance. Symmetry works well in competitive 1v1 environments (chess/go etc.) but in a long-running co-op game with a bunch of players, I want me some variety in character styles.

There was actually lots of variety in character styles as well as options. Heck I'd say that 4E is the one edition, aside from maybe 3e-parading as GURPS, has the most options available to players. No other edition lets me play a wearbear Berserker at 1st level AND can be easily balanced with your human Fighter and elf Wizard of the same level. Also, lets just take three options right off the bat - the PHB Fighter and Paladin, plus the Swordmage from the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. All of them were produced in 2008, so as to illustrate early difference in design. All three of them are "Defenders" (that is, they're good at drawing fire from enemies and have decent defenses) but they're vastly different in what their capabilities are and how they apply their trade to the game.

• Paladins are the BEST as AC (easy AC 20 with no thought to stats at 1st level) and their mark just instant-damage, but they struggle moving about (plate and shield are heavy and they're slow) plus their marking ability isn't usable much unless they're right up in the enemies face. They also make great secondary healers with Lay on Hands and being the party's face with usually good Charisma. Their utility powers put more emphasis on diplomacy and healing and protecting allies than damage out-put.

• Swordmages usually have a starting AC of 19 (or 20 if they sacrifice a bit in their other stats for that INT 20), but their mark varies from negating damage (Shielding Aegis) or hurting the attacker (Aegis of Assault) PLUS they have a lot more range with their abilities. They can teleport next to their foe from across the room and have a lot more movement aspects to their arsenal. Because they focus on arcane magic, they made decent secondary wizards and get a lot out of multi-classing wizard too.

• Fighters vary a lot in terms of AC (from 17 with a big ol' two-handed weapon) to 19 with a shield. Despite being lower in the AC department than the other two, their defender ability is pretty amazing. They mark anyone they attack (hit or miss), making them extremely versatile with ranged or melee attacks. They also usually have the BEST attack modifier regardless of what the Paladin or Swordmage does, especially with Opportunity Attacks (they add their Wisdom to the attack rolls). Their Opportunity Attacks halt enemies in the place, forcing them to face the Fighter rather than just running past them.

So the three, having the same role, play vastly different at the table. TDR: Paladins (tanky healer, but slow and punishment is 'meh'); Swordmage (agile and versatile, but their mark ability is OK); Fighter (best defender ability, best attack rolls; kinda low on the AC spectrum). Having played all three of varying amounts, I always felt their differences were pretty prominent at the table. You can rely on the Paladin to give you a needed heal or the Swordmage to figure out what that arcane rune might be, and the Fighter is going to kick ass when he picks up that fallen minotaur's greataxe. Their skill set, their prayers or spell or exploits are all different, applying their effectiveness to make the best of the class's features. Multi-mark exploits are exceptionally awesome for Fighters because they mark everyone, or if the Fighter uses Two-Weapon Fighting. The paladin is great at single-target damage and keeping that one big-baddie at bay, and you can count of the Swordmage making sure the ranged enemy sorcerer isn't dealing much damage at all OR teleport next to him the next time he lets off a volley to stab him in the back.

Yes, I realize this won't change people's minds and yes, I'm going on and on about the system many don't like. I just feel like a lot of people see that they get the same green amount of green cards, red cards, and gray cards and because the cards look the same, every class is just a different variation of vanilla. That's never been my experiences (YMMV tho).  

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1083770And the monsters were even worse on that front. They all felt very samey.

With monster roles (minions, skirmishers, brutes, etc) and things like Solo monsters, I had the opposite feeling. When I converted this older 3.5 free adventure (A Dark and Stormy Knight), the end BBEG was supposed to be this undead zombie bugbear with a club (a masterwork weapon was still in it's tomb) that would make the PCs quiver in fear. I think the battle lasted 3 players as the first two hit it with weapons and the cleric came in and hit it with Greater Turning and *poof* done. Very anti-climatic. The monster didn't even go and one player just sort of sat there. The 4E version, I made the Bugbear a Solo soldier and I think two of the PCs nearly died before the cleric blasted him away with his only daily prayer left and the battle was pretty fun. I guess the variation in roles and what they're supposed to represent just gels with me and our group *shrugs*.

The thread asked people what changes they'd make if there were a 6e, so they made suggestions. Some folks mentioned aspects of 4e, but I didn't see any sort of "trash the game!" movement implied by the OP (though there were some who rec'd huge changes). I know I made my suggestions knowing full well they'd never happen (namely, no default finesse weapons, and 4 Stats instead of 6). I honestly feel this edition is very good, though I do not currently run it.

Of the suggestions offered at TBP, the one I liked was to use backgrounds in place of skills. I think you can houserule that, though, if you want to, and leave the base system alone.