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

[jasper]

Get rid of the colors and just go with black and white text and art. Less classes! How many are they now and how many books do they cover? Less feats or rework the current ones where they are just ok, not great and not bad. Some spells need to be nerfed, I leave up to you to decide. Death due to max age, yes bring back that golden ole from 1E.

Random replies
Ad_hoc …In 5e players don't say 'I use X skill' they instead describe what they are doing. This may be 1st or 2nd person (a description of what the character is doing)…… hahaha Your players do. My players either say I use X skill or if I lucky give me a description.
Vpuigdoller …I would love if they removed sub classes. The more time passes the more I hate them….. Yea forget midget or diesel, Nuke and guided missiles classes rule!

Random thoughts…
Each Deluxe DMG should come with a sharp sword and 10 get out of jail free cards. DMS can then legally lop the heads off of rules lawyers or Min Maxers. DM is responsible for cleaning up the carpet.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's actually intentional in 5e. Due to bounded accuracy, they can't just keep increasing defenses (AC & saves). So increasing HPs is the way to keep foes alive. It's supposed to keep them up for the same amount of time as if they had lesser HPs but a lot more misses/saves.

Bounded Accuracy was a bad idea. It's better to not hit, than to hit for trivial damage. It's also far more straightforward to understand what's happening within the narrative when that happens.

If you swapped the advancement rates of hit/AC and HP, the game would make much more sense. That is something I would like to see in 6E.

 

[Nebulous]

More guidance for the DM. What does Intimidate do in combat? How am I supposed to handle magic items? How does a transmuter wizard's transmutation ability actually work? How can a character craft a normal nonmagical weapon? All those "use your judgement / discretion" sections in the DMG need to go. They don't help anyone, especially new DMs. There are so many holes in the rules that I've found running just the starter module that I've determined 5e to be unusable. I seriously don't understand how people actually play 5e given how many holes there are in the rules.

Did you prefer 3.5? Taht

They almost did use "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" for the core books in 5E, to contrast with the Basic PDF, but found in marketing studied that it was a terrible idea that confused customers: which probably happened in the 70's & 80''s, too, but TSR was clueless.

It DID confuse me in the 80s. I avoided basic D&D because I thought AD&D was clearly superior, but never even got a chance to play it.

 

[Nebulous]

If someone at WotC could figure out how to write a proper index that would be great. That and a better way to know what part of the book you're in. I mean, there's dozens and dozens of books (not just RPG books, but travel books, etc.) that have found great ways to make their material as accessible as possible, so WotC really have no excuses there.

I know, the organization of the book is pretty awful compared to other big companies who put out similar product.

 

[Lanefan]

-Separate ASI and feats. ASI are too important to miss out on, but feats add uniqueness and specialty. Even/odd number ability scores from feats and their usefulness could be worked on.
-Half (3/6) of the caster classes use charisma, yet only two feats that isn't race specific adds charisma. In comparison, only one caster class uses intelligence, yet there are four non race specific feats that add intelligence. Are they even trying?
-Add more feats, and not just race specific. Some races have many feats, others have none. They add more variety in builds.
-Classes and more importantly sub classes need to be way more unique. Better balance, and more variety and options. Beast master, wild magic, berserker, four elements, cough, cough... Really bad execution of concepts.
-Balance classes for refreshed abilities on short rests. Every class should benefit from short rests besides healing, or no one. It's a really awkward mechanic for a party as it exists now.
-Spell overhaul. Remove redundancy, and balance the rest. There are a lot of bad spells in every spell list, and a few jems. Faerie fire is insane, and no official errata for healing spirit, really?
-Marital classes like battle master are great but flawed. Manoeuvres should be like spells, better ones are locked by level advancement. You take the best manoeuvres at level 3, then picking lesser ones later.
-Most classes need more bonus and reaction spells and abilities. Valor bard bonus action attack is a step in the right direction.
-More options for character creation that gives more opportunities to do variable things both on the battle field and for role playing that are class specific.
-More skills and abilities that add advantage or disadvantage. Faerie fire adds an AOE, save or suck, 25% hit probability increase to an entire party with a 1st level spell only available to two classes.
-Also the way D&D material is written has always sucked in relation to rules. An example: Advantage or disadvantage. Almost no skill or ability plainly says it adds advantage or disadvantage, they'll say it's adds a condition. Then you need to know what that condition does, which is advantage or disadvantage. D&D material is famously bad for this.
-Things like unlimited cantrips, manoeuvres, metamagic, fighting styles, and invocations are great. They add variety to class builds and play style. More of this please.

All of this in effect just adds up to one request: more complexity, more complication, more rules, more reward for system mastery, and more time spent on mechanics rather than role-play.

No thanks.

-Remove rangers favoured enemies, it's junk. I know it's a staple, but it's time to pull that staple.

Rangers are already ruined, yet you'd pull one of the few things they have left going for them?

 

[Stalker0]

I like 5e a lot, but of course could always want more. There are a lot of small things, but for me there are 3 conceptual pieces:

1) more support for 1-2 encounter per day adventuring. I’m just not going to run 6 encounters per day...never will, and I would like more support for this style

2) Intelligence not a dump stat. Some more general mechanics to make it relevant to more classes.

3) A new form of concentration.

The new concentration solved several problems...but it created some new ones as well. I have watched my spell casting players really chaff under the restriction, and I think it’s also greatly reduced the variety of spells used. Concentration is too precious of a resource.

I am not sure what the answer is...but another try at this mechanic to see if a better middle ground can be found.

 

[Lanefan]

@77IM - you were going great through your first 5 points (see post 128), though for point 5 a case might also be made to just ditch Inspiration entirely.

Compatibility: as you note above, except ditching Inspiration would require removing anything that refers to or relies on its existence...which isn't much.

For point 6: I would include magic item pricing in the DMG, along with a note to DMs

• the list is optional
• the list is just a guideline and a DM is free to change pricing as she likes
• it's the DM's choice whether or not to allow players access to the list

Compatibility: full, it's an add-on

For point 7: having monster xp already listed does save the DM some time...but I'd rather see it be more granularly done, rather than always rounded to the nearest 100, and that the formula for calculating xp be provided in the DMG so DMs can a) accurately work out xp for their own homebrew monsters and b) tweak said formula if they so desire. (corollary: obviously the expectation would be that the xp amounts given for monsters in modules follow the same formula)

For various reasons I'd want to keep xp as the primary means of advancement, with milestone or ad-hoc advancement mentioned only as a non-supported option.

Compatibility: full.

For point 8: No. Just no.

And in your post you even hit the reason why - you mention rolling as being "awful game design"; but the question then arises as to whether the focus should be on just designing a game for its own sake (which was the tack taken by 4e; at least they were up-front about it) or on also helping to design a realistic and believable setting - because in the reality of any form of life the things reflected by the ability scores are rather random.

There's also an even more basic design question ahead of all that: within the game, how much of a role should sheer luck play? The very fact that the game mechanics are largely based on dice rolls tells me that luck is intended to be, if not front-and-centre, certainly a very important element.

Compatibility: almost full; though as a corollary effect I'd want to slow down (and somewhat randomize) ASIs - you choose which stat(s) are going to advance but it's uncertain when or how often that advancement will occur; done via cumulative dice rolls toward a target (see 1e Cavalier stat increments as an example).

For point 9: I've yet to be sold on any skill system beyond some very basics, and not at all on "social" skills, thus I'm neutral here.

 

[Lanefan]

3) A new form of concentration.

The new concentration solved several problems...but it created some new ones as well. I have watched my spell casting players really chaff under the restriction, and I think it’s also greatly reduced the variety of spells used. Concentration is too precious of a resource.

I am not sure what the answer is...but another try at this mechanic to see if a better middle ground can be found.

Maybe make a lot of spells a bit weaker but fully fire-and-forget, thus leaving concentration as something required for just a few specific spells?

 

[TwoSix]

Having said that - what I'd like to see eventually is them market variants of the core ruleset that don't have to be 100% compatible with the current edition but speak to particular needs. Like a version of the game that has more choices for characters without having to worry about how it remains balanced with the more minimalist 5e framework, or a version of the game that requires a grid and is designed to give a more tactical combat experience. That's what I'd rather see happen instead of an actual 6th edition personally.

This is exactly what I want. Any new edition of D&D should be a fork, not a reboot.

 

[GreyLord]

Only really one big thing, that Fighters (and perhaps all Warriors) advance more quickly in weapon proficiency than anyone else. The idea that a bookworm will be equal to a highly trained soldier or warrior is one of the big things that I really think is hard to stretch one's imagination around in 5e.

Make Warrior's Weapon Proficiencies like Rogues with their Skill proficiencies, they can double their Proficiency with a weapon. Sure, it will make them hit far more often, but at higher levels they still need a little oomph to balance out with the high level spellcasters anyways...

Other than that, keep it as it is. Maybe a tweak here or there, but overall, keep it very compatible with 5e...

so I guess that would the #2...

Compatible.

don't throw out the baby with the dishwater.