D&D (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[Nebulous]

Bonus actions are fantastic, to the point that more monsters almost need them mandatory to keep up. Goblins are vicious little f**** at 1st level, but even they get that bonus disengage which is so annoying to PCs.

 

[Parmandur]

What was his demeanour about it?

It sounds like acceptance now that it is the way it is. I mean, I definitely don't want to change Bonus Actions now that we have them, I can just envision a game without them.

Speaking of two-weapon fighting, I really dislike that one of the attacks doesn't use your modifier as damage. It's just so fiddly. I guess I don't know any other way to do it though.

The big issue I see is that every 'fix' I've seen doesn't work once the Rogue is introduced to the situation. The 2nd attack needs to be a Bonus Action as Rogues gain a huge advantage to have 2 chances to land Sneak Attack. Giving up their Cunning Action though is a significant enough trade-off so it works as is.

He was sanguine about it: determined that he wouldn't want to change the action economy, but rather change two-weapon fighting on the level of Equipment rules.

 

[teitan]

What I would want to see in a possibly 6e is an emphasis on backwards compatibility. When 2e came around, 1e modules etc were still very usable. The stat blocks didn't change so much that it was really noticeable. Even when 3E first came around I could still run 1e or 2e modules with no problem... at first. Then 3.5 flipped the script a great deal. While it was still 3rd edition some of the micro changes impacted large parts of the game. It even made recent releases, within months before 3.5 came out, totally incompatible due to the micro changes like the changes to Harm. I'm looking at City of the Spider-Queen, the much hyped storyline for the Realms that year, was all of the sudden not compatible with 3.5 rules as written so conversion was a huge pain. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil required a conversion document half the length of the module. Was 3.5 a superior product overall? Yes. It was amazing, forward thinking in how people had started to play the game. 4E was a forget about it moment with backwards compatibility. Also a brilliant, forward thinking game.

But man, I would love to see WOTC not keep doing these massive overhauls with every edition. Pathfinder succeeded because it was backwards compatible with 3.5. I'd like a possible 6e to essentially be handled the same way as 1-2e or 3.5 to PF1. Clarification and tweakage to classes. Maybe less than 3.5 to PF1. Enough that it is a good thing to upgrade but not so much that I need to spend a couple hours converting a module for a time when I didn't even have enough time to prep my own adventures. I like that 5e is easily compatible with 1-2e and Basic. I like that 3e can be converted to 5e with some patience. Let's keep that in 6e.

 

[The Green Hermit]

This. I am still bitter that PlayStation stopped making their consoles backwards compatible. And that only takes the effort of plugging in a new machine, not figuring out all the different mechanics.

 

[Lord of Nessus]

If Sorcerer's had the spell number of spells known as a Wizard I would play them every time. I would never play a Wizard again because a Warlock's meta magic is that powerful.

I think the number of spell slots at for 7th, 8th and 9th level spells is perfect. Who wants to play a game where the arcane class is casting Wish three times a day. We did that before and it wasn't fun for everyone else at the table.

Um, in 3rd Edition Sorcerers were much closer to the Wizard in those terms, and it wasn't the case that everybody played a Sorcerer and abandoned the Wizard. And I wasn't asking for more slots per se, just that all Arcane classes get the same number - which can be limited to avoid overpowered casters, as with the Wish situation you mentioned. (Warlocks were late to the scene, and since I didn't see what they looked like in 3.5, I can't really comment on them.)

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I agree with the people saying it should be a semi-minor step up that is fully compatible with 5e, if only because of how popular it is and making a completely new version would anger all the new fans they got.

For an actual addition to this thread, I think they should revisit the idea of all fighters having Superiority Dice, because having a "braindead" option for the newbies isn't that necessary nowadays, and even if it is, you kinda have the Barbarian for that.

 

[ad_hoc]

For an actual addition to this thread, I think they should revisit the idea of all fighters having Superiority Dice, because having a "braindead" option for the newbies isn't that necessary nowadays, and even if it is, you kinda have the Barbarian for that.

That's insulting to people who like the Champion.

 

[Parmandur]

That's insulting to people who like the Champion.

Yeah, the Champion is great.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

That's insulting to people who like the Champion.

Wasn't meant to be insulting, sorry. If it's any consolation, I like the Champion.

I was just using it as another tern for super simple class that doesn't take a lot of mental energy to use effectively.

 

[BookBarbarian]

That's insulting to people who like the Champion.

Insulting to those that like Barbarians too.

When to reckless Attack and When to rage are more tactical decisions than most people give them credit for.