There has been talks about 6e for many years, with the general consensus being its not likely to occur for a very long time if ever (if it ain't broke don't fix it). One thought was what about releasing a more technical, more detailed system that could work alongside 5e?
I've heard of tons of homebrew ideas from expanded skill trees, to locational armour, lingering wounds, skills for individual weapons or a spell point system. If such ideas were combined, expanded, balanced and worked well then perhaps a new AD&D would be a more logical step than 6e? It would appeal to a different market than 5e but if modular enough, features could be incorporated into 5e games.
Potentially different combat mechanics, different magic mechanics, different healing mechanics and the like, while retaining the races, classes, d20, spells, and basically the feel of D&D.
Obviously nothing that is currently on the books, just an idea that seems a better fit of where the next edition could go while not cancelling their golden goose 5e.
This is what Unearthed Arcana used to be, kind of, before that became the official name for playtest stuff. A whole bunch of alternate mechanics and systems too different to fit into the official D&D ruleset, but potentially cool and useful to sift through. Not a complete ruleset, but options to replace relatively fundamental blocks of the current edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I feel like Pathfinder/Pathfinder 2 are the closest we'll get to an AD&D type of ruleset for this generation. I havent used it, but I know it's more technical and crunchy
Pathfinder is absolutely nothing like AD&D. Pathfinder is based on the 3/3.5e rules, not AD&D.
Two possible AD&D substitutes are:
Old School Essentials - right now it is B/X based, but they are working on an AD&D version and the B/X version might tide you over.
Dungeons Deep and Dark - this is billed as "what 3e would have looked like if Gary Gygax had written it." Seems pretty close to 2e, but I have not bought the books so I can't say for sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think it's clear from the OP that they're not advocating revisiting the actual AD&D system, which evidently the Old School Rennaissance is actually developing (I honestly thought they had by now). Rather they seem to be working off a conjecture between B/X D&D and AD&D. Basically advocating for the perpetuation of 5e, and then allow a crunchier system to be built over it. Which is precisely what ENWorld claims to be developing. I guess some folks would rather see such a direction controlled by WotC.
To the proposal I say "meh." Officially, everything produced outside the core books is optional (and I believe is probably how D&D is played by many if not a majority of players on the casual to semi-regular players). This why, while never really a fan of AL in the first place, I'm not exactly impressed with some of AL's recent decisions since it forces players who want to engage in "official play" or however AL promotes itself to be "completionists" in terms of book ownership. Of course AL is as much a promotional brand rep as they are a organized play group so it is what it is. But really, 5e has its base layer, all the books snowballing on top of it are just that, snowballing further options. Sure a lot of folks wanting the latest and greatest and allergic to homebrew see the new content as corrections to flaws in the core, but for many those glitches just aren't glitches.
Unearthed Arcana in AD&D were optional rules sure. I think a better precedent are the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides. That allowed for grittier more "advanced" considerations of the environments in which PCs would be active. I'd like to see more optional consideration content like that (and both of those books were a healthy mix of crunch and world building guides). There's no need to brand such supplements as something different from present D&D. So, sure I'd like to see optional layers provided, but I don't see the OP's need to call it anything besides D&D.
A spell point system is not a crunchier system on top of the existing ruleset. That's an overhaul of magic. That's why I referenced UA, which had that kind of alternative mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A spell point system is not a crunchier system on top of the existing ruleset. That's an overhaul of magic. That's why I referenced UA, which had that kind of alternative mechanics.
So you say overhaul, but it's really not. It's more a take it or leave it alternative to what exists. Like an optional layer of crunch. It may transform "your game," but it doesn't govern the way "the game" must be played. And this seems to be what the OP wants, but they also want an additional branding to make distinctions that I don't feel are necessary. Overhauls correct and streamlines a systems operations permanently. Everything we're talking about were provided as options. At best we're talking more hot rodding than true overhauls from a systems thinking or engineering analogy. We're in a world of muscular language fetishization and folks tend to like power words when we're really talking about expanding the available options for consideration.
And yes, I've heard the ENWorld stuff is meh too, but I'm just re-iterating their hype.
FWIW, all I remember in the AD&D UA hardback was Barbarian, Cavalier, Comelines, new spells and I think that's where Sunblades showed up. Don't remember spell points. Not saying they weren't there, but also not sure if you were talking same title for a different edition.
D&D has been, and always will be, a balance, perhaps even a conflict, between "story-telling" and rules to provide guardrails for that story. Some want to upend those rules entirely, and strip the game down to a thin set of said rules, others are comfortable with vast compendiums of rules. There will always be a drive to change the core rules, because some subset of players are not happy with them. I for one, am happy with a standard that has endured, but at the same time, find 5e has added some neat stuff.
I really had a good time with 1e but personally would want those things adjusted to 5e. Maybe.
I'd love to go back to AD&D only I'd need to convert AC to the way it works now, with high = good and low = bad, instead of the old way where the good ACs were (-) numbers. I want to be able to know my to-hit based on the AC, rather than having to cross-reference the AC on a table to look up what the to-hit of a -5 AC would be. And no, I don't mean THAC0. I mean doing it the way we have done it it the last couple of editions - you roll d20, add the appropriate modifiers, and compare to the raw AC of the target. I think a bunch of the "OSR" games have made this concession, and I probably wouldn't play a form of "AD&D" without it.
Most of the rest of AD&D is perfectly fine in my opinion, and I'd happily play a more hardcore AD&D game with the above-listed adjustment, over 5e. I don't think any of my players would, though.
It's more a take it or leave it alternative to what exists. Like an optional layer of crunch.
Agree to disagree, but for me an alternative isn't an optional layer. It's a one or the other thing. Everything in UA was optional but not everything in UA was something you could slot in without removing something else, the standard mechanic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I like some of the things that Level Up is doing - like more out-of-combat-but-still-flavor-appropriate features for classes like Fighter that often get kind of shafted in that regard. But taken as a whole it's... a lot. More than I think is necessary if I'm being honest - and I love crunch.
I am really trying to reconcile the AD&D method of certain classes needing more XP to level up with the Milestone method used by so many DM's today. That becomes a lot more accounting for a DM.
I am really trying to reconcile the AD&D method of certain classes needing more XP to level up with the Milestone method used by so many DM's today. That becomes a lot more accounting for a DM.
Every class needs the same amount of exp to level now so milestone works. If you're doing accounting, then you're not using milestone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I really had a good time with 1e but personally would want those things adjusted to 5e. Maybe.
I'd love to go back to AD&D only I'd need to convert AC to the way it works now, with high = good and low = bad, instead of the old way where the good ACs were (-) numbers. I want to be able to know my to-hit based on the AC, rather than having to cross-reference the AC on a table to look up what the to-hit of a -5 AC would be.
The table was the way to show the difference between the fighting abilities of the different classes. It was a clear indication that Fighters were better fighters than anybody else. The proficiency system streamlined that but it also removed the gap. If their stats are the same, a level X wizard will hit the same as a level X fighter.
THAC0 needs to be buried and forgotten.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I am really trying to reconcile the AD&D method of certain classes needing more XP to level up with the Milestone method used by so many DM's today. That becomes a lot more accounting for a DM.
Every class needs the same amount of exp to level now so milestone works. If you're doing accounting, then you're not using milestone.
Yeah, I get that about 5e. But if there is a push back to AD&D, that was part of it, with unequal XP needed with the varying classes. Now imagine the DM trying to reconcile using Milestones and the AD&D XP leveling. "OK, Mr Rogue, you level up this week, but Mr Wizard, you are going to have to wait another week or two."
Frankly I do like the fact that the AD&D developers tacitly recognized that not all classes were created equal. I love playing a Halfling Scout Rogue, which has zero inherent magical abilities, ever. At low levels, that Rogue is far more powerful, or at least more fun to play, than a Wizard of equal level. But in 5e, even given the huge effort to equalize the classes, and sub-classes, by about 5th level, that Wizard has far more firepower and options than my Scout Rogue. Now, if I was entirely unhappy with that, I would just play a Wizard.
But it would be nice of 5e at least made some kind of nod to say "yeah, we know that casters in the end outstrip others".
I am really trying to reconcile the AD&D method of certain classes needing more XP to level up with the Milestone method used by so many DM's today. That becomes a lot more accounting for a DM.
Every class needs the same amount of exp to level now so milestone works. If you're doing accounting, then you're not using milestone.
If you are using the common XP table like later editions then you are correct. I think Vince is saying if you kept separate XP tables like in AD&D then milestone does not work.
And AD&D also had separate saving throw tables for different classes and different categories, like poison or death magic. Proficiency in saving throws helps differentiate between classes that are good at some and not so good at others. Proficiency bonus also could help make fighters better at fighting (instead of tables for each class), maybe fighters get something like Expertise in a weapon/weapon class that allows them to use double their PB on attacks. Where a wizard would not. But that might be too much. Don’t want to go back to BAB of 3E though.
Edit: Unearthed Arcana had weapon specialization and double specialization to help boost fighters since they fell behind in later levels. This is kind of what I am referring to above but using PB instead.
There has been talks about 6e for many years, with the general consensus being its not likely to occur for a very long time if ever (if it ain't broke don't fix it). One thought was what about releasing a more technical, more detailed system that could work alongside 5e?
I've heard of tons of homebrew ideas from expanded skill trees, to locational armour, lingering wounds, skills for individual weapons or a spell point system. If such ideas were combined, expanded, balanced and worked well then perhaps a new AD&D would be a more logical step than 6e? It would appeal to a different market than 5e but if modular enough, features could be incorporated into 5e games.
Potentially different combat mechanics, different magic mechanics, different healing mechanics and the like, while retaining the races, classes, d20, spells, and basically the feel of D&D.
Obviously nothing that is currently on the books, just an idea that seems a better fit of where the next edition could go while not cancelling their golden goose 5e.
Thoughts?
This is what Unearthed Arcana used to be, kind of, before that became the official name for playtest stuff. A whole bunch of alternate mechanics and systems too different to fit into the official D&D ruleset, but potentially cool and useful to sift through. Not a complete ruleset, but options to replace relatively fundamental blocks of the current edition.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Enworld is working on a third party "Advanced" D&D. I believe they are calling it "Level Up."
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
I feel like Pathfinder/Pathfinder 2 are the closest we'll get to an AD&D type of ruleset for this generation. I havent used it, but I know it's more technical and crunchy
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Pathfinder is absolutely nothing like AD&D. Pathfinder is based on the 3/3.5e rules, not AD&D.
Two possible AD&D substitutes are:
Old School Essentials - right now it is B/X based, but they are working on an AD&D version and the B/X version might tide you over.
Dungeons Deep and Dark - this is billed as "what 3e would have looked like if Gary Gygax had written it." Seems pretty close to 2e, but I have not bought the books so I can't say for sure.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think it's clear from the OP that they're not advocating revisiting the actual AD&D system, which evidently the Old School Rennaissance is actually developing (I honestly thought they had by now). Rather they seem to be working off a conjecture between B/X D&D and AD&D. Basically advocating for the perpetuation of 5e, and then allow a crunchier system to be built over it. Which is precisely what ENWorld claims to be developing. I guess some folks would rather see such a direction controlled by WotC.
To the proposal I say "meh." Officially, everything produced outside the core books is optional (and I believe is probably how D&D is played by many if not a majority of players on the casual to semi-regular players). This why, while never really a fan of AL in the first place, I'm not exactly impressed with some of AL's recent decisions since it forces players who want to engage in "official play" or however AL promotes itself to be "completionists" in terms of book ownership. Of course AL is as much a promotional brand rep as they are a organized play group so it is what it is. But really, 5e has its base layer, all the books snowballing on top of it are just that, snowballing further options. Sure a lot of folks wanting the latest and greatest and allergic to homebrew see the new content as corrections to flaws in the core, but for many those glitches just aren't glitches.
Unearthed Arcana in AD&D were optional rules sure. I think a better precedent are the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides. That allowed for grittier more "advanced" considerations of the environments in which PCs would be active. I'd like to see more optional consideration content like that (and both of those books were a healthy mix of crunch and world building guides). There's no need to brand such supplements as something different from present D&D. So, sure I'd like to see optional layers provided, but I don't see the OP's need to call it anything besides D&D.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To be honest, I’m not a fan of what I’ve seen of Enworld’s project.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A spell point system is not a crunchier system on top of the existing ruleset. That's an overhaul of magic. That's why I referenced UA, which had that kind of alternative mechanics.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So you say overhaul, but it's really not. It's more a take it or leave it alternative to what exists. Like an optional layer of crunch. It may transform "your game," but it doesn't govern the way "the game" must be played. And this seems to be what the OP wants, but they also want an additional branding to make distinctions that I don't feel are necessary. Overhauls correct and streamlines a systems operations permanently. Everything we're talking about were provided as options. At best we're talking more hot rodding than true overhauls from a systems thinking or engineering analogy. We're in a world of muscular language fetishization and folks tend to like power words when we're really talking about expanding the available options for consideration.
And yes, I've heard the ENWorld stuff is meh too, but I'm just re-iterating their hype.
FWIW, all I remember in the AD&D UA hardback was Barbarian, Cavalier, Comelines, new spells and I think that's where Sunblades showed up. Don't remember spell points. Not saying they weren't there, but also not sure if you were talking same title for a different edition.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Spell points are an optional rule now.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I find it interesting that there is so much passion to play older versions of D&D.
I really had a good time with 1e but personally would want those things adjusted to 5e. Maybe.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
D&D has been, and always will be, a balance, perhaps even a conflict, between "story-telling" and rules to provide guardrails for that story. Some want to upend those rules entirely, and strip the game down to a thin set of said rules, others are comfortable with vast compendiums of rules. There will always be a drive to change the core rules, because some subset of players are not happy with them. I for one, am happy with a standard that has endured, but at the same time, find 5e has added some neat stuff.
I'd love to go back to AD&D only I'd need to convert AC to the way it works now, with high = good and low = bad, instead of the old way where the good ACs were (-) numbers. I want to be able to know my to-hit based on the AC, rather than having to cross-reference the AC on a table to look up what the to-hit of a -5 AC would be. And no, I don't mean THAC0. I mean doing it the way we have done it it the last couple of editions - you roll d20, add the appropriate modifiers, and compare to the raw AC of the target. I think a bunch of the "OSR" games have made this concession, and I probably wouldn't play a form of "AD&D" without it.
Most of the rest of AD&D is perfectly fine in my opinion, and I'd happily play a more hardcore AD&D game with the above-listed adjustment, over 5e. I don't think any of my players would, though.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Agree to disagree, but for me an alternative isn't an optional layer. It's a one or the other thing. Everything in UA was optional but not everything in UA was something you could slot in without removing something else, the standard mechanic.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I like some of the things that Level Up is doing - like more out-of-combat-but-still-flavor-appropriate features for classes like Fighter that often get kind of shafted in that regard. But taken as a whole it's... a lot. More than I think is necessary if I'm being honest - and I love crunch.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I am really trying to reconcile the AD&D method of certain classes needing more XP to level up with the Milestone method used by so many DM's today. That becomes a lot more accounting for a DM.
Every class needs the same amount of exp to level now so milestone works. If you're doing accounting, then you're not using milestone.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The table was the way to show the difference between the fighting abilities of the different classes. It was a clear indication that Fighters were better fighters than anybody else. The proficiency system streamlined that but it also removed the gap. If their stats are the same, a level X wizard will hit the same as a level X fighter.
THAC0 needs to be buried and forgotten.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yeah, I get that about 5e. But if there is a push back to AD&D, that was part of it, with unequal XP needed with the varying classes. Now imagine the DM trying to reconcile using Milestones and the AD&D XP leveling. "OK, Mr Rogue, you level up this week, but Mr Wizard, you are going to have to wait another week or two."
Frankly I do like the fact that the AD&D developers tacitly recognized that not all classes were created equal. I love playing a Halfling Scout Rogue, which has zero inherent magical abilities, ever. At low levels, that Rogue is far more powerful, or at least more fun to play, than a Wizard of equal level. But in 5e, even given the huge effort to equalize the classes, and sub-classes, by about 5th level, that Wizard has far more firepower and options than my Scout Rogue. Now, if I was entirely unhappy with that, I would just play a Wizard.
But it would be nice of 5e at least made some kind of nod to say "yeah, we know that casters in the end outstrip others".
If you are using the common XP table like later editions then you are correct. I think Vince is saying if you kept separate XP tables like in AD&D then milestone does not work.
And AD&D also had separate saving throw tables for different classes and different categories, like poison or death magic. Proficiency in saving throws helps differentiate between classes that are good at some and not so good at others. Proficiency bonus also could help make fighters better at fighting (instead of tables for each class), maybe fighters get something like Expertise in a weapon/weapon class that allows them to use double their PB on attacks. Where a wizard would not. But that might be too much. Don’t want to go back to BAB of 3E though.
Edit: Unearthed Arcana had weapon specialization and double specialization to help boost fighters since they fell behind in later levels. This is kind of what I am referring to above but using PB instead.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?