D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[PsyzhranV2]

They know about beating stuff to death and looting.

They're not going to replace that anytime soon.

Most of the people I know who play D&D 5e, and a lot of people who like it and write about it online on sites other than this one, seem to be hooked primarily by the game's potential as an OC creator, rather than as a tactical combat game. Large overlap with the groups that can spend entire sessions without combat breaking out even once, and thus only minimally engaging with the mechanics of the game. Some of them like it exactly like that, while others wish for more robust mechanics for social and exploration encounters, something more they can do that's written down on the character sheet that isn't combat. But they all like D&D primarily because they get to make their OCs and have thsm do cool stuff.

 

[Justice and Rule]

To many moving parts, races felt incomplete at low levels, badly laid out, straight jacket structure, complicated just for the sake of complicated,pain to navigate.

I don't understand how anyone coming from 5E could describe PF2 as having a "straitjacket structure". It's like the complete opposite of that. We're comparing it to a game that generally doesn't give out subclass features until 3rd level.

Also weirded out by someone saying there's bad layout for creation: there are problems with some of the rules layout, but it's definitely not in the ABCs.

 

[Minigiant]

All the info is already in the books, and has always been, via skills and proficiencies, the ability to get audiences through your background, using Intelligence and Wisdom to bypass traps, etc. It's just never been given as much of a spotlight, because people like to think of D&D as a combat game.

All it really needs is an expansion.

When 5e came out, I really was expecting a whole bunch of optional official variant rules for exploration and social interrelation.

A whole buch of plugand play rules to gamerize and minigame traps, diplomacy, recon, and stuff. I'm surprised we still haven't got any of it.

 

[Reynard]

That's fine but if your game requires to much effort vs payoff......

Both PF2 and 5E went backwards in terms of easy to use core rules which peaked in 3.5/PF1.

Emphasis mine.

That's um... an opinion I have not heard expressed before.

 

[dave2008]

I don't understand how anyone coming from 5E could describe PF2 as having a "straitjacket structure".

I understand it as someone who has only been able to read the books and hasn't been able to play it. When I just read through the CRB I feel confined by all of the choices. I feel like I have to choose, and choose the right thing. For me, fewer choices means more freedom. I know it sounds oxymoronic, but that is how I operate. I think if I actually got to play it, I might feel different.

 

[Reynard]

I understand it as someone who has only been able to read the books and hasn't been able to play it. When I just read through the CRB I feel confined by all of the choices. I feel like I have to choose, and choose the right thing. For me, few choices means more freedom. I know it sounds oxymoronic, but that is how I operate. I think if I actually got to play it, I might feel different.

As someone just starting to run PF2, I think it works better when you think about it this way: the player still has freedom to choose whatever action, and the GM picks the closest fit among the list of defined actions so as to create consistent mechanical results. That consistency creates freedom because there are no guessing games with whether this time it is a +2 vs Advantage, as happens a lot in 5E because DM's are expected to adjudicate so much. Neither style is objectively superior, but people certainly have preferences. I like having lists of set skill DCs and well defined actions as a GM because it helps me improvise while also being consistent enough that players feel like their choices are meaningful and the outcomes at least somewhat predicatable.

 

[Mercurius]

Yes exactly.

I guess the question I'm asking is, can the base that 5e is built on be expanded to include other ways to solve problems and defeat enemies, or would it require a true 6e to accomplish? The Race/Lineage and Alignment issues are easy enough to change in an updated but still fully compatible 5e PHB/MM/DMG, but adding in a mini game as fun as combat that doesn't use violence to solve problems might be trickier.

I was hopeful after Dr. Strange that the MCU might look for more opportunities for their heroes to solve problems without violence, but (like D&D) that is so baked into the conceit at this point that it's hard to change (though WandaVision split it 50/50 in the end).

@Faolyn game a good, simple response. I don't think radical change needs to occur. They can offer more adventures which allow for and emphasize other ways to solve problems and use the already-existing rules to do so.

Don't get me started on MCU

WARgames are inherently violent. If you want to replace combat entirely in favor of some sort of social resolution system you risk alienating your base like 4th edition did for 'not being D&D enough'.

It isn't either/or, and I haven't seen anyone suggest replacing combat entirely, but offering alternate approaches and/or adventure situations that don't require violence in every instant.

I think the way forward is--or should be--a more customizable experience that offers more options, not less. It doesn't need to do away with traditional tropes and approaches, just offer a greater range of possible experiences to draw from and customize your own game to your liking.

This goes back to some of the hot-topic controversies that get argued endlessly. They are all-too-often locked in a polarized either/or dynamic. It is possible to thread the needle and offer both traditional forms and new versions of just about every classic D&D idea. It might not please extremists on both ends, but the vast majority of people will be fine-to-happy with it.

 

[Stormonu]

To many moving parts, races felt incomplete at low levels, badly laid out, straight jacket structure, complicated just for the sake of complicated,pain to navigate.

Conclusion we needed to buy the actual book ($100 here), not going to get the players even if we do.

My group mostly kinda new they're figuring 5E out. PF2 would bury them.

Have you considered looking at the PF2 beginner box? Might be an easier way to ease into PF2.

I haven’t been keeping up with PF2, but I know the PF1 rules were all available on a hyperlinked website. If the same is being done with PF2 the beginner box should get a group running, and once everyone is familiar with the base rules, you should be able to expand into the online rules for little to no cost.

Or, if you’re not in too much of a hurry, Savage Worlds Pathfinder should be available in April.

 

[dave2008]

As someone just starting to run PF2, I think it works better when you think about it this way: the player still has freedom to choose whatever action, and the GM picks the closest fit among the list of defined actions so as to create consistent mechanical results. That consistency creates freedom because there are no guessing games with whether this time it is a +2 vs Advantage, as happens a lot in 5E because DM's are expected to adjudicate so much. Neither style is objectively superior, but people certainly have preferences. I like having lists of set skill DCs and well defined actions as a GM because it helps me improvise while also being consistent enough that players feel like their choices are meaningful and the outcomes at least somewhat predicatable.

That wasn't what I was talking about, but that is part of it too. I was talking about character creation (though I never stated that).

However, with regard to your line of thought, I've come to realize as I player I perform better with less defined mechanics. I saw this in the difference between my old group that transitioned to 4e and a new group that started with 4e. The old group basically played 4e like we played 1e, lots of improvisation and description of intended actions. The new group would only take the actions the rules spelled out. So much so that I eventually ran a 1-shot for them were everything was improvised (I took away their powers). However, that didn't really stick.

 

[thebakeriscomingforu]

Not to further the discussion on PF2 but I saw there were questions and thought that I would answer them.
1. All of the material that Paizo publishes can be referenced via the website Home - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database . Those that run the website are an official partner to paizo. This website even has a section that is a player's guide.
2. Some find the website Pathfinder 2 | easy Actions Library | Beta to be useful as well.
3. The beginner box is a well done product. It contains completely revamped character sheets and player reference cards that I find useful for games post the beginner box adventures.
4. There is a android app called Pathbuilder that a lot of the community uses to build characters. It is primarily free to use and completely unlocks with a small one time payment. The developer behind it working on other os versions as well.
5. Paizo sells pdf versions of most of their product lines.
6. With regards to VVT most of the pathfinder2e community seems to be on Fantasy Grounds or Foundry. I know Foundry has a pdf importer that lets you upload information and maps from you pdfs.