D&D (2024) My wishes for 6e: less dark vision and spellcasting classes

[Skyscraper]

What I would love to see in the next version of D&D 6 is a much lower frequency of:

1) dark vision. The poor races that do not currently have it are at a disadvantage compared to the majority that have it. And in a dungeon, it's common for the party to have to light a torch for the human PC only, while the other 3 would be fine without it.

2) magic in the form of spells. All classes currently have access to magic in the form of spells. I would like the spells to be distinctive of rare classes that might use it. I imagine for example the classes of ranger, fighter, rogue and barbarians without magic; and even the paladin could easily be differently designed. Then monsters too could have some powers, but fewer spells.

Regarding this last point, from the 4th edition, I would like them to bring back interesting powers for monsters, which are not necessarily spells. That was cool.

 

[James Gasik]

Given the limitations of Darkvision (disadvantage on Perception checks that require sight), I never understood why people thought it was a big deal. I once had a party who thought they could not bother with light sources and rely on Darkvision, and they blundered into so many traps (disadvantage on Perception lowers passive Perception by 5) that they finally broke down and started using light spells. Sure you can see in dim light without penalty, but that's not really a huge advantage in my book.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm not too worried about darkvision, or spellcasting ability to be honest though I do think that non-casting versions of the paladin and ranger could exist, but that hasn't really been how they've been portrayed in DnD in any edition except 4e which was a fairly major departure from previous editions.

4e monster design was pretty awesome and I've used it for ideas in some of my homebrew monsters. Even something simple like swarms which dealt damage every round to other creatures in the swarm is a great addition to combat and the dragons had some cool effects that made them truly terrifying like an instant reaction breath weapon when bloodied. I'd say that 4e was the height of monster design for 4e. 5e doesn't quite hit those same highs though I've seen some 3rd party attempts at making more interesting monsters.

 

[Horwath]

Given the limitations of Darkvision (disadvantage on Perception checks that require sight), I never understood why people thought it was a big deal. I once had a party who thought they could not bother with light sources and rely on Darkvision, and they blundered into so many traps (disadvantage on Perception lowers passive Perception by 5) that they finally broke down and started using light spells. Sure you can see in dim light without penalty, but that's not really a huge advantage in my book.

this.

also expand the penalty to Insight, Investigation, most tools, Survival...

 

[James Gasik]

Darkvision is not the powerful ur-feature people think it is, really, it's a ribbon "hey what if my torch goes out/I don't have a light spell?" It's better than being blind in darkness or having to squint in dim light, and that's about it. What makes Darkvision strong is that a lot of people don't read what it actually does, they assume it works like old Darkvision, where you just see in darkness out to the range listed.

I know this, because I saw it in action, when I first started playing 5e, I didn't have darkvision, and it was annoying when I couldn't even get a light spell cast so I could see what I was doing (as an archer build no less). When I started DMing though, I took a closer look and realized- hey this doesn't do what people seem to think it does!

Now as for spellcasting classes, well the problem here is, what would you create? The way the Paladin is built, a non-casting version would have to have a totally reworked smite, and it would lose a ton of utility- most noncasting Paladins I've seen just give them the ability to replicate things they could do with spells x/day anyways.

The Ranger is in the same boat. And there's not a lot of conceptual design space for a new class that specifically doesn't use magic that isn't covered by something that already exists- scouts, duelists, rakes, hunters, assassins, acrobats, I think we could maybe get an alchemist, which is just a roundabout way to have non magic magic, and a warlord- but there's a lot of pushback against the idea of martial healing (though non-magical granting of temporary hit points seems kosher).

 

[Oofta]

What I would love to see in the next version of D&D 6 is a much lower frequency of:

1) dark vision. The poor races that do not currently have it are at a disadvantage compared to the majority that have it. And in a dungeon, it's common for the party to have to light a torch for the human PC only, while the other 3 would be fine without it.

For what it's worth, I agree. I know you have disadvantage on perception checks but depending on the campaign and DM style that can go from "holy **** we're dead" to "we have what now?" It's also one of the most ignored or forgotten penalties out there.

It goes both ways of course, DM's regularly ignore the limitation for their monsters as well.

2) magic in the form of spells. All classes currently have access to magic in the form of spells. I would like the spells to be distinctive of rare classes that might use it. I imagine for example the classes of ranger, fighter, rogue and barbarians without magic; and even the paladin could easily be differently designed. Then monsters too could have some powers, but fewer spells.

It does feel sometimes like every edition is more and more "Dungeons and Spellcasters". I get it, people like the idea of flexibility even if most people end up relying on a handful of spells in my experience. You can do cool stuff with magic. But when at least 5 out of 6 PCs is a spell caster of some sort in every game it does seem excessive.

Look at the MM for manual for monsters above CR 8 or so that are not some kind of caster and the pickings are slim to none other than dragons.

Regarding this last point, from the 4th edition, I would like them to bring back interesting powers for monsters, which are not necessarily spells. That was cool.

There were some aspects of 4E I didn't care for, but I agree that monsters could use more variety. Looks like they might be going that direction a bit based on what they're doing with the monsters of the universe.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have never had an issue with spells, because to me spells are just class features slots with multiple options you can select from each day.

The Ranger COULD just give out an increase in speed, allow you to tell wild animals you mean them no harm, and a better way of helping the party sneak through the woods. Basically give out Longstrider, Animal Friendship, and Pass Without Trace as class features that are unchangeable. But what if you don't wish to play that specific archetype of Ranger? Spell slots allow you to go with a different playstyle by having multiple options of "class feature" to select from.

I mean really... what are Battlemaster Maneuvers? They're basically spells! You get four "spell slots" every short rest and using them gives you a damage bonus and does a neat trick. Exactly like normal spells can do. But of course those "don't count", because they don't appear in the book in the section headed as "Magic" and don't appear on any "Spell List". And too many people are just incapable of separating the description from the mechanic. The game could give out the exact same mechanic with the exact same refresh functionality to two different classes... and so long as one of them was identified and named as a "Spell"... that class is now a spellcasting class and causes all this consternation about too much magic. But you just rename the mechanic and call it a "class feature"? That's completely fine.

It's all ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given the limitations of Darkvision (disadvantage on Perception checks that require sight), I never understood why people thought it was a big deal. I once had a party who thought they could not bother with light sources and rely on Darkvision, and they blundered into so many traps (disadvantage on Perception lowers passive Perception by 5) that they finally broke down and started using light spells. Sure you can see in dim light without penalty, but that's not really a huge advantage in my book.

Because players don't use darkvision as a cool but limited back up to having light, they use it as a replacement for having light. And then get surly when you enforce the difference. Eventually, it gets exhausting and you start to feel like the bad guy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have never had an issue with spells, because to me spells are just class features slots with multiple options you can select from each day.

The Ranger COULD just give out an increase in speed, allow you to tell wild animals you mean them no harm, and a better way of helping the party sneak through the woods. Basically give out Longstrider, Animal Friendship, and Pass Without Trace as class features that are unchangeable. But what if you don't wish to play that specific archetype of Ranger? Spell slots allow you to go with a different playstyle by having multiple options of "class feature" to select from.

I mean really... what are Battlemaster Maneuvers? They're basically spells! You get four "spell slots" every short rest and using them gives you a damage bonus and does a neat trick. Exactly like normal spells can do. But of course those "don't count", because they don't appear in the book in the section headed as "Magic" and don't appear on any "Spell List". And too many people are just incapable of separating the description from the mechanic. The game could give out the exact same mechanic with the exact same refresh functionality to two different classes... and so long as one of them was identified and named as a "Spell"... that class is now a spellcasting class and causes all this consternation about too much magic. But you just rename the mechanic and call it a "class feature"? That's completely fine.

It's all ridiculous in my opinion.

I have no interest in separating the description from the mechanic. It breaks my sense of immersion, and is the main reason I gave up on 4th ed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have no interest in separating the description from the mechanic. It breaks my sense of immersion, and is the main reason I gave up on 4th ed.

Well, then (general) you have to accept the fact that all classes will have at least one spellcasting subclass version because "multiclass subclasses" are a thing WotC does for those tables that don't want to use the multiclassing rules. And if (general) you want "less magic" in your game, you have to assert your authority as DM and world-builder and just not use or allow the "multiclass subclasses" in the game so that your barbarians, fighters, rogues and monks aren't "spellcasting classes".

Those are your choices-- either you pick and choose which parts of the game you use, or you allow the use of everything and just stop caring how the game identifies everything and you identify them differently yourself.