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

[Parmandur]

Ahh, ok. Fair enough. I do like that.

Seems like that could easily be incorporated into the base class or a single subclass though, a la Land Druid: choose a "land" and get the associated bonus. It could be a Ranger "Survivalist" subclass.

The suggestion arose out of the analysis of people's frustrations with the Ranger, which based on survey data apparently start with people getting anxious over their home terrain because they think it is important, when it is just a ribbon. Apparently this is big enough for people that Mearls thinks just making the Ranger "native to a terrain' would be the good base hook.

At any rate, any 6E will not have a Beastmaster. We have killed that one, for sure.

 

[jgsugden]

A 2030 release date.

The current edition is good and could run quite a while longer.

When it does come, I'd like it to consider ways to incoroprate technology better into the game. In the same way we can run Theater of the Mind vs Combat Grid games, we could run pure Pen and Paper vs Electronically Augmented (online, more complex/comprehensive math, etc...) games.

 

[robus]

They come up with a better term for "passive Perception" - the character is not bloody passive! They're just doing something repeatedly over time (like watching for traps etc).

My suggestions: "continual", "constant" or "steady", basically anything but "passive"

 

[Parmandur]

They come up with a better term for "passive Perception" - the character is not bloody passive! They're just doing something repeatedly over time (like watching for traps etc).

My suggestions: "continual", "constant" or "steady" anything but "passive"

But the player is passive, not actively declaring an action.

 

[robus]

But the player is passive, not actively declaring an action.

Then why is it on the character sheet?! I know what the intent is, but the amount of times people are confused by what passive means shows that the word choice is not ideal.

 

[Parmandur]

Then why is it on the character sheet?! I know what the intent is, but the amount of times people are confused by what passive means shows that the word choice is not ideal.

Never seen anybody confused by the mechanic??

 

[RSIxidor]

At any rate, any 6E will not have a Beastmaster. We have killed that one, for sure.

I actually hope that's not true. I like the flavor of some characters having a sidekick pet. They just can't seem to figure out the math of them very well.

They come up with a better term for "passive Perception" - the character is not bloody passive! They're just doing something repeatedly over time (like watching for traps etc).

My suggestions: "continual", "constant" or "steady", basically anything but "passive"

Sometimes I want to try out the hidden rolls thing that older editions had, where the DM rolled a die behind the screen to see if they notice stuff. But then I don't like the DM rolling dice for much anyway. I suppose it could have a different name but I really can't think of anything that works better.

 

[robus]

Never seen anybody confused by the mechanic??

Really, I feel certain there's been any number of threads on this forum where what "passive" means has had to be clarified, that's it's not just some freebie base line score (i.e. the always on radar idea that many have). But that's it simply replacing a lot of continuous rolling with an average for a declared ongoing action.

 

[Parmandur]

I actually hope that's not true. I like the flavor of some characters having a sidekick pet. They just can't seem to figure out the math of them very well.

Maybe the variant Class features will work out to replace half-casting with a more robust Beast (which is needed to get the math some people want). But the Beastmaster as a distinct archetype will not happen in a 6E: no way Crawford brigns it back.

Another one for 6E: variant core class features, separate from archetype, like spell casting versus martial feats versus a beast for Rangers.

 

[RSIxidor]

Maybe the variant Class features will work out to replace half-casting with a more robust Beast (which is needed to get the math some people want). But the Beastmaster as a distinct archetype will not happen in a 6E: no way Crawford brigns it back.

Another one for 6E: variant core class features, separate from archetype, like spell casting versus martial feats versus a beast for Rangers.

Oh yes! If we could choose to have spells or pets or some mix of the two instead of the expectation that rangers must have both, that would be far better.

I actually feel the same way about paladins. I don't feel that spellcasting is a necessary component of the class (especially when many slots are so often used for smiting). We could have features that support a spellcasting paladin, a sticky/defender paladin, and a damage-pumping paladin and let the player choose what combination fits their build best.