And if I had a Mr.Miller at my table, I'd probably think that the player is quite shy and unsure of himself to the point that he chose the safest, most vanilla character ever. To be honest, I'm about to start a campaign this month with few players who have never played and I fully expect some of the behavior you described to manifest at the table (particularly minimal participation, going where everyone goes, not declaring anything beyond actions during initiative etc.)
Fair enough. That could have been written more cleanly.
Lyxen, BigLizard, and a few notable others have made the claim that 5e is effectively flawless from a mechanical standpoint.
What are you talking about, BL shits on 5e every chance he gets :D Half his posts are about how 5e is flawed and how his mix of old and new D&D is superior :D
What I don't understand about the people who think that older versions are better is, why don't they just play an older version? Sure, there wont be as large of a player base, but the game exists and if you like it so much just play it.
Fair enough. That could have been written more cleanly.
Lyxen, BigLizard, and a few notable others have made the claim that 5e is effectively flawless from a mechanical standpoint.
What are you talking about, BL shits on 5e every chance he gets :D Half his posts are about how 5e is flawed and how his mix of old and new D&D is superior :D
What I don't understand about the people who think that older versions are better is, why don't they just play an older version? Sure, there wont be as large of a player base, but the game exists and if you like it so much just play it.
I mean, I don't judge here one way or the other, I was just surprised to see Lizard mentioned as one of those who supposedly think of 5e so highly when his posts (and as it happens I have read many in my limited time on the forums) indicate something else entirely :D
And if I had a Mr.Miller at my table, I'd probably think that the player is quite shy and unsure of himself to the point that he chose the safest, most vanilla character ever. To be honest, I'm about to start a campaign this month with few players who have never played and I fully expect some of the behavior you described to manifest at the table (particularly minimal participation, going where everyone goes, not declaring anything beyond actions during initiative etc.)
Agreed. Not every person who plays D&D has a hidden desire to be an actor. There are many who come to my table, or at other tables that I play at, that are plenty happy to be entertained by a DM's homebrew world, or whatever a module throws at them, or what other players do at a table. And in large tables ( I hate large tables for any number of reasons), freelancing RP really detracts from a game, as it slows the game down for everyone. But the ruleset, that is an absolute must. There is no D&D without everyone strictly adhering to the same set of rules.
For the record, since my name and "what I think" is being brought up, no I'm not a particularly big fan of 5th edition, but I do believe the system is heading in the direction in its approach to ruling over rules, a philosophy abandoned at 3rd edition finally making its way back into D&D.
To answer the question, why don't I play the edition I like... the answer is I do. I don't see why that would exclude me from conversations about modern versions of D&D, there is a lot of great stuff to pull from any edition and most conversations I get involved in are system agnostic, at least that is how they start out anyway. There is a tendency for forum discussions to swing widely in different directions, but generally to me, the edition you are using is usually pretty irrelevant to the discussions I participate in unless I can see a direct connection between the topic and the edition of the game.
Just to be clear, I never intended to suggest that anyone should be excluded from the conversation. Also, what version of D&D do you play? 2e?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Tbh I understand why some people would run a 'Sam Miller' if they're only into the mechanics side. My next character might be a 'Sam Millar Lite' as ToA doesn't exactly invite character development. More something which is just throw bodies at the problem until it's solved.
10/10 a module I never want to play again. It's basically designed to remove any notions of 'rp' or 'character development'.
Tbh I understand why some people would run a 'Sam Miller' if they're only into the mechanics side. My next character might be a 'Sam Millar Lite' as ToA doesn't exactly invite character development. More something which is just throw bodies at the problem until it's solved.
10/10 a module I never want to play again. It's basically designed to remove any notions of 'rp' or 'character development'.
Sam Miller is a type of character run by a type of player you would rarely see lasting particularly long in the role-playing hobby mainly because the basic premise is "I hate role-playing games, but I insist on playing one". It generally doesn't work because it directly opposes the premise of the game, likely opposes the DM's & other players desires for the game and the Sam Miller player will become frustrated himself with people taking session time to role-play. A Sam Miller is essentially what back in the day we used to call "retainers", NPC character's who served a particular purpose to fill in some functional gap you have in the group but are otherwise entirely ignored, which is likely what would happen to such a character at the table. If your not part of the story, you are irrelevant.
I've personally never experience such a player at the table, but I suppose they probably do exist.
I'd say maybe not hates the game but doesn't particularly care for it. Essentially treats character creation as a necessary tax to be invited to a social event at the table.
New edition = new game, not republish of previous editions or simply adding onto existing editions. Go play a previous edition or keep playing this edition if that's what you want in the next edition.
I would play 6e for 6e and not 5e, not 3.5e, not AD&D...
So, come up with a new system we've never seen before, and let's see if it'll sell well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I mean I'd intentionally run a 'sam miller' for certain modules. (namely ToA). Why bother spending days thinking of a backstory and trying to hype my social anxiety into a state where I can get in a character when an instigib trap will kill you 15 mins in anyway? And then I have to spend another week trying to work over my social anxiety to get into a new character.
If I'm playing a module like lost mines, I'll go into plenty of detail and really make the effort with the character, as there is tons of opportunity for RP, and the dungeons are both challenging and fair.
Not everyone has the capability to just snap into a new character in 6 seconds flat, so when the recommendation is roll 4 characters and be ready to burn through 3 of them in a single dungeon I just can't get invested.
That doesn't mean I hate DnD. It just means that modules intentionally designed as meat grinders aren't for what I'm looking for.
Ah, yes. Deception. That makes 3 skills for "sneakiness." Acrobatics is the "flippity-dodging and balancing on top of a slanted tight-rope while doing a somersault all the way down" skill while Athletics is the "climbing/swimming/jumping, physical strength, and judo-kicking that 10-ton boulder onto an ogre tribe" skill. Acrobatics is indeed an "athletic" skill, but it's not really a "physical fitness" skill. Being able to run a long time has little to do with running fast. Endurance would be long-distance running, while Athletics/Mobility would be high-speed running. There's a reason why Usain Bolt isn't a long-distance runner, even if he has beaten several world records for how fast he can run.
And Barbarians need Athletics, Fighters need Athletics, and Paladins need Athletics, and everyone else who likes Strength needs Athletics. On the other hand, Monks need Acrobatics, Rogues need Sleight of Hand/Thieves' Tools, and everyone wants or has stealth. See a problem there?
I don't see Strength or Constitution being used for Acrobatics. I've never seen someone do a backflip using their biceps, have you? Sure, acrobats are pretty fit, but it's Dex based more than Strength. Also, I am aware that Insight and Perception both use Wisdom. Doesn't that help my argument more than yours? If there are different skills for actions as similar as "Noticing a sneaky person" and "Noticing a person is lying," why shouldn't there be different skills for actions like "Running quickly," "Running/holding weights a long time," and "Lifting a portcullis/breaking down a door/shoving a heavy object?"
1) So you are saying that if Usain Bolt had simply trained differently, he would have been a record breaking marathoner instead of sprinter? As Iam said, the bigger difference is Str (sprinting) vs Con (marathon). Both involve similar movement.
2) As for who needs what, pardon? Monks actually train in running. So much so that they get bonus movement directly, even without any extra proficiency. Rogues often need to move quickly and frankly every class wants to run as fast as they can when running away. "Need" is very overstated. Rogues automatically get Thieves Tool training. Not all rogues are pickpockets. They do not all need slight of hand.
3) Watch American Ninja (or country-of-your-choice ninja) parkour competitions and try to say with a straight face that acrobatics does not need strength. In theory, though, could go to a system where skills use averages of relevant stats, but Rolemaster is typically considered too complex for most players.
Meanwhile, perception is normally used to sense things conventionally, like spot something, or hear something. Insight is used to intuit things. The latter is relevant for lie detection but the former, not really. Nor does one intuit that the book they are looking for is right there on the 2nd shelf or that the two people the person is eavesdropping on are talking about the price of tea. They are very different types of 'noticing.'
But when I say that, keep in mind that I would like to see a much deeper skill system. I do not think that separate skills for sprinting and marathon are really needed, but there is at least something resembling a valid argument there.
1) I was using Usain Bolt as an example of how running quickly is different enough from running for a long time to warrant different skills for it, just like Stealth and Sleight of Hand are similar, but different enough to have two different skills for them. I can make no claims about whether or not Usain Bolt could have been a long distance runner, as that is a hypothetical "what if" not entirely relevant to this discussion. Sure, both running a long time and running quickly use similar body movements, but so do Acrobatics and Athletics.
2) I was illustrating that there are multiple skills for Dexterity based characters that accomplish different things, but there is only one for Strength based characters. Exactly who needs what skill may differ from table to table, but that is besides my point. If there are 3 Dexterity skills, why is there only one Strength skill, especially when the current Strength skill is very vague and could be split up?
3) You are correct. That specific type of acrobatics in American Ninja Warrior in D&D terms would be Strength (Acrobatics) checks. I was possibly to dismissive on that point. However, my main point still stands, and half of my claim as well. Constitution doesn't make sense to be used for Acrobatics, in the majority of circumstances. I don't know what Rolemaster's skill system is or why you and others consider it complicated, so I can't really comment there. I don't think adding a few extra skills for Strength and Constitution would overcomplicate the next edition.
They are different types of noticing, but they still generally use the same two senses, sight and hearing. Perception is using sight, hearing, and very rarely smell to typically notice hidden objects and creatures, while Insight is using sight and hearing to notice hidden expressions from a creature.
I don't want a huge change to our current skill system, I think it mostly works well, but I do think that there should be more Strength and Constitution skills. I do not want different skills for Marathon Running and Sprinting, that was just an example of how Endurance could be shown in real world terms. Endurance would have many more uses than just running/swimming/climbing for an extended time, that is just part of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would still rather have Athletics be your Pushing/Lifting Skill, then have a Climbing Skill and Swimming Skill. Should also move Jumping under Acrobatics.
That's fine. We can agree to disagree, then. Jumping could fall under Acrobatics, or be a Strength or Dexterity (Mobility) check of the player's choice. Since there are Climbing and Swimming speeds in the game, I don't really see the point of making skills for each of them, as it would be a bit redundant. I just proposed Mobility as a broad umbrella for those to fall under, along with walking/hiking. IMO, one "movement" skill would simplify that a bit, making just one skill that a character needs in order to proficiently use their physical fitness for movement.
A Concentration skill? I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'll think it over. It's probably a better idea than Health and would allow any caster to take proficiency in it without a feat or being a Sorcerer/Artificer, so that might help them a bit with concentration. Thanks for the suggestion!
I don't care for it because being a strong swimmer does not make a person a strong climber, so a blanket mobility skill is no different than Athletic to me. I don't really feel that strongly (lol) about it though.
Concentration was a Skill in 3/3.5 that did the same thing as Concentration saves do now. I think it worked better as a skill since most casters don't get Constitution as a saving throw.
I know that, which is why I would keep swimming, climbing, and walking speeds in D&D 5.5e/6e. I do think that being able to have the energy to continue swimming/running/climbing are mainly based off of the same ability score (Constitution). It's different from Athletics because then being good at running/jumping/moving in general wouldn't still cover grappling, shoving, and general musculature.
I wasn't aware that Concentration was a skill in previous editions. That probably makes it less likely to come back, but I like the concept.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I agree that Endurance would cover all forms of prolonged exertion. I am just saying that Mobility covering Climbing and Swimming doesn't work to me because they are unrelated skills that use different muscle groups. The skills themselves are also unrelated to movement speed. If you have a swim speed, the Athletic Skill kind of becomes irrelevant for swimming.
Since magic was brought up, that would be my biggest change, I think.
Only "studious" spellcaster classes (namely wizard and cleric, and any subclass that uses wizard and cleric spells) would use prepared spells. These classes would still use spell slots much like they work in 5e.
A wizard's spell book would function differently. More like an item of spell storing -- the wizard can pre-cast spells into it, which last until cast out of it. The wizard's number of known spells and spell slots would be adjusted to compensate. The wizard can still also store ritual spells in it.
All other spellcaster classes would go with a "spells known" mechanism. But these would function more like innate spellcasting for monsters. Meaning the class gets certain spells of certain levels, which it can cast X times per long rest. No spell slots.
Some capacity to recover some small number of castings (or slots for wizards and clerics) after a short rest, perhaps at some kind of resource cost.
Spells themselves would get a makeover. Fewer redundant spells, and that functionality gets wrapped into upcasting. By that I mean, for example, rather than burning hands, flaming sphere, fireball, etc. all being separate spells, the wizard has a single "produce flame" spell that mimics them when upcast. At 1st level, it works like burning hands. If the wizard casts it at 2nd, the spell can optionally work like flaming sphere. This would condense a lot of spells, so more variety of spells could be introduce.
Sorcerers probably would keep sorcery points.
Warlocks would function the same way as they do now, just with castings per short rest instead of long.
Anyway, that's my ridiculous and probably broken mindset around it.
Sounds good. If they did prepared spells for Wizards, Clerics, Artificers and other casters that specifically should get it, and something along the lines of Spell Versatility from the CFV UA for the other casters, that would seem like a good change for a next edition.
I'm not sure how I would feel about that. I dislike spellbooks simply because Wizards are limited to preparing from their spellbook while Druids and Clerics have their whole spell lists to choose spells from each long rest. I think the more studious caster should be more versatile than the other casters, but I don't think the way you mentioned would be a beneficial change for the game. Sorcerers should be able to cast more often than Wizards, IMO, and that combined with Arcane Recovery and Signature Spells make Wizards better at frequent spellcasting than Sorcerers.
I don't like that recommendation, personally. I like spell slots as they currently are, and am fine with variant types of it (Pact Magic, Spell Points), but would like the base spellcasting mechanic to be the most common way of casting.
So, everyone becomes Warlocks, then?
So, everyone becomes Mystics, then? I understand wanting to simplify things, but that would make things unnecessarily more complex, IMO. Making sub-groups of spells wouldn't simplify the spellcasting system, it would just categorize it more.
If I were to change spellcasting to further differ Warlocks, Wizards, and Sorcerers, I'd have Sorcerers use Spell Points (called Sorcery Points).
Warlocks already do that. . .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
One potential thing I'd like from 6e is redo multiclassing. Rather than just levelling in two classes and feeling like two characters mashed into one.
Instead have certain thematic and important features picked as multiclass features, which are brought on at certain levels instead of the main class features (maybe as a choice between ASI, feat, or multiclass level). Pathfinder 2e has done the multiclassing in a much more intuitive way than dnd 5e.
So once you get to ranger 4, you can pick up druid 1 instead of an ASI or feat. Then level 5 is still ranger 5 and not ranger 4.
Once you hit level 8, you can opt to pick up druid 2 instead of an ASI or feat.
Of course if classes, levels, and abilities are restructured for 6e it wouldn't look like that and I'm just trying to project 5e terms onto it. Essentially I'd want multiclassing to feel more like a single character which doesn't cripple you with 90% of the options.
With the explosion of content in the game, I'm a little concerned for what the next Edition will bring us. Consider the number of additional races, classes (subclasses), feats, boons, and even some of the magic items that have been adopted as normative in the D&D universe. Will the next Player's Handbook have to be a three volume set to cram everything in? I was thinking on this subject some time ago, and it seems you could reorganize the basic rules into four books by removing the magic items and spells from the PHB and DMG and make a single reference book on magic, which might even include alchemy. I don't know how big a book you would need for the PHB with all the new classes and races, but if you removed the spells from the PHB then I bet the new PHB would still be just as big. The "space" created in the DMG might allow a more significant exposition on the Lore of D&D as it seems I am always hearing of Lore I don't know because I don't have this book or that module. I would just appreciate the basic content to be available in two books for players, The next PHB and a Book of Magics.
Does anyone know how Wizards will address this point? I don't think they could abandon a lot of the races and classes they have now created.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
With the explosion of content in the game, I'm a little concerned for what the next Edition will bring us. Consider the number of additional races, classes (subclasses), feats, boons, and even some of the magic items that have been adopted as normative in the D&D universe. Will the next Player's Handbook have to be a three volume set to cram everything in? I was thinking on this subject some time ago, and it seems you could reorganize the basic rules into four books by removing the magic items and spells from the PHB and DMG and make a single reference book on magic, which might even include alchemy. I don't know how big a book you would need for the PHB with all the new classes and races, but if you removed the spells from the PHB then I bet the new PHB would still be just as big. The "space" created in the DMG might allow a more significant exposition on the Lore of D&D as it seems I am always hearing of Lore I don't know because I don't have this book or that module. I would just appreciate the basic content to be available in two books for players, The next PHB and a Book of Magics.
Does anyone know how Wizards will address this point? I don't think they could abandon a lot of the races and classes they have now created.
I don't really understand what you are saying. While their have been a good amount of new species, there have been only a single new class. 5e is one of the least bloated editions by far.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Well, if you consider sub-classes, then there are a lot of player content you can't get from the PHB. Heck, Bards, started with two sub classes, for example, and I think they have added four or more subclasses. Rangers have also started with two sub classes but now have six or more. The list of playable species have doubled, I think.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Well, if you consider sub-classes, then there are a lot of player content you can't get from the PHB. Heck, Bards, started with two sub classes, for example, and I think they have added four or more subclasses. Rangers have also started with two sub classes but now have six or more. The list of playable species have doubled, I think.
Races have done far more than doubled. There's only 9 original races in the PHB, and there's 43 total. It's 2 short of non-PHB races being 4 times the PHB racess
Well, if you consider sub-classes, then there are a lot of player content you can't get from the PHB. Heck, Bards, started with two sub classes, for example, and I think they have added four or more subclasses. Rangers have also started with two sub classes but now have six or more. The list of playable species have doubled, I think.
I guess that is true, but for me D&D doesn't feel bloated. You don't really need to know what someone else's subclass does to play the game, and species are extremely simple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
And if I had a Mr.Miller at my table, I'd probably think that the player is quite shy and unsure of himself to the point that he chose the safest, most vanilla character ever. To be honest, I'm about to start a campaign this month with few players who have never played and I fully expect some of the behavior you described to manifest at the table (particularly minimal participation, going where everyone goes, not declaring anything beyond actions during initiative etc.)
What I don't understand about the people who think that older versions are better is, why don't they just play an older version? Sure, there wont be as large of a player base, but the game exists and if you like it so much just play it.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I mean, I don't judge here one way or the other, I was just surprised to see Lizard mentioned as one of those who supposedly think of 5e so highly when his posts (and as it happens I have read many in my limited time on the forums) indicate something else entirely :D
Agreed. Not every person who plays D&D has a hidden desire to be an actor. There are many who come to my table, or at other tables that I play at, that are plenty happy to be entertained by a DM's homebrew world, or whatever a module throws at them, or what other players do at a table. And in large tables ( I hate large tables for any number of reasons), freelancing RP really detracts from a game, as it slows the game down for everyone. But the ruleset, that is an absolute must. There is no D&D without everyone strictly adhering to the same set of rules.
Just to be clear, I never intended to suggest that anyone should be excluded from the conversation. Also, what version of D&D do you play? 2e?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
BigLiz plays a homebrewed mashup of bits and pieces from all 5&1/2 editions all Frankensteined together like a ratrod.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Tbh I understand why some people would run a 'Sam Miller' if they're only into the mechanics side. My next character might be a 'Sam Millar Lite' as ToA doesn't exactly invite character development. More something which is just throw bodies at the problem until it's solved.
10/10 a module I never want to play again. It's basically designed to remove any notions of 'rp' or 'character development'.
I'd say maybe not hates the game but doesn't particularly care for it. Essentially treats character creation as a necessary tax to be invited to a social event at the table.
New edition = new game, not republish of previous editions or simply adding onto existing editions. Go play a previous edition or keep playing this edition if that's what you want in the next edition.
I would play 6e for 6e and not 5e, not 3.5e, not AD&D...
So, come up with a new system we've never seen before, and let's see if it'll sell well.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I mean I'd intentionally run a 'sam miller' for certain modules. (namely ToA). Why bother spending days thinking of a backstory and trying to hype my social anxiety into a state where I can get in a character when an instigib trap will kill you 15 mins in anyway? And then I have to spend another week trying to work over my social anxiety to get into a new character.
If I'm playing a module like lost mines, I'll go into plenty of detail and really make the effort with the character, as there is tons of opportunity for RP, and the dungeons are both challenging and fair.
Not everyone has the capability to just snap into a new character in 6 seconds flat, so when the recommendation is roll 4 characters and be ready to burn through 3 of them in a single dungeon I just can't get invested.
That doesn't mean I hate DnD. It just means that modules intentionally designed as meat grinders aren't for what I'm looking for.
1) I was using Usain Bolt as an example of how running quickly is different enough from running for a long time to warrant different skills for it, just like Stealth and Sleight of Hand are similar, but different enough to have two different skills for them. I can make no claims about whether or not Usain Bolt could have been a long distance runner, as that is a hypothetical "what if" not entirely relevant to this discussion. Sure, both running a long time and running quickly use similar body movements, but so do Acrobatics and Athletics.
2) I was illustrating that there are multiple skills for Dexterity based characters that accomplish different things, but there is only one for Strength based characters. Exactly who needs what skill may differ from table to table, but that is besides my point. If there are 3 Dexterity skills, why is there only one Strength skill, especially when the current Strength skill is very vague and could be split up?
3) You are correct. That specific type of acrobatics in American Ninja Warrior in D&D terms would be Strength (Acrobatics) checks. I was possibly to dismissive on that point. However, my main point still stands, and half of my claim as well. Constitution doesn't make sense to be used for Acrobatics, in the majority of circumstances. I don't know what Rolemaster's skill system is or why you and others consider it complicated, so I can't really comment there. I don't think adding a few extra skills for Strength and Constitution would overcomplicate the next edition.
They are different types of noticing, but they still generally use the same two senses, sight and hearing. Perception is using sight, hearing, and very rarely smell to typically notice hidden objects and creatures, while Insight is using sight and hearing to notice hidden expressions from a creature.
I don't want a huge change to our current skill system, I think it mostly works well, but I do think that there should be more Strength and Constitution skills. I do not want different skills for Marathon Running and Sprinting, that was just an example of how Endurance could be shown in real world terms. Endurance would have many more uses than just running/swimming/climbing for an extended time, that is just part of it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I know that, which is why I would keep swimming, climbing, and walking speeds in D&D 5.5e/6e. I do think that being able to have the energy to continue swimming/running/climbing are mainly based off of the same ability score (Constitution). It's different from Athletics because then being good at running/jumping/moving in general wouldn't still cover grappling, shoving, and general musculature.
I wasn't aware that Concentration was a skill in previous editions. That probably makes it less likely to come back, but I like the concept.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree that Endurance would cover all forms of prolonged exertion. I am just saying that Mobility covering Climbing and Swimming doesn't work to me because they are unrelated skills that use different muscle groups. The skills themselves are also unrelated to movement speed. If you have a swim speed, the Athletic Skill kind of becomes irrelevant for swimming.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
One potential thing I'd like from 6e is redo multiclassing. Rather than just levelling in two classes and feeling like two characters mashed into one.
Instead have certain thematic and important features picked as multiclass features, which are brought on at certain levels instead of the main class features (maybe as a choice between ASI, feat, or multiclass level). Pathfinder 2e has done the multiclassing in a much more intuitive way than dnd 5e.
So once you get to ranger 4, you can pick up druid 1 instead of an ASI or feat. Then level 5 is still ranger 5 and not ranger 4.
Once you hit level 8, you can opt to pick up druid 2 instead of an ASI or feat.
Of course if classes, levels, and abilities are restructured for 6e it wouldn't look like that and I'm just trying to project 5e terms onto it. Essentially I'd want multiclassing to feel more like a single character which doesn't cripple you with 90% of the options.
With the explosion of content in the game, I'm a little concerned for what the next Edition will bring us. Consider the number of additional races, classes (subclasses), feats, boons, and even some of the magic items that have been adopted as normative in the D&D universe. Will the next Player's Handbook have to be a three volume set to cram everything in? I was thinking on this subject some time ago, and it seems you could reorganize the basic rules into four books by removing the magic items and spells from the PHB and DMG and make a single reference book on magic, which might even include alchemy. I don't know how big a book you would need for the PHB with all the new classes and races, but if you removed the spells from the PHB then I bet the new PHB would still be just as big. The "space" created in the DMG might allow a more significant exposition on the Lore of D&D as it seems I am always hearing of Lore I don't know because I don't have this book or that module. I would just appreciate the basic content to be available in two books for players, The next PHB and a Book of Magics.
Does anyone know how Wizards will address this point? I don't think they could abandon a lot of the races and classes they have now created.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I don't really understand what you are saying. While their have been a good amount of new species, there have been only a single new class. 5e is one of the least bloated editions by far.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Well, if you consider sub-classes, then there are a lot of player content you can't get from the PHB. Heck, Bards, started with two sub classes, for example, and I think they have added four or more subclasses. Rangers have also started with two sub classes but now have six or more. The list of playable species have doubled, I think.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Races have done far more than doubled. There's only 9 original races in the PHB, and there's 43 total. It's 2 short of non-PHB races being 4 times the PHB racess
I guess that is true, but for me D&D doesn't feel bloated. You don't really need to know what someone else's subclass does to play the game, and species are extremely simple.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System