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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

lol this cracks me up, man.

The beastmaster would definately be back in a 6e. 0% chance of it not coming back. The idea of making the player choose between spellcasting and having a beast is a silly notion that Mearls toyed with, that will never become the mainstream representation of the archetype, because it doesn't allow the Ranger that a huge swath of ranger fans want. That is, a spellcasting ranger with a beast.

Not to mention, even what you want would be much, much, more elegantly acheived by simply including spells that beef up a creature you control, or even boost you and such a creature with one spell, OR simply allowing the ranger to burn spell slots in a manner similar to Divine Smite, and let BM ranger pets benefit whenever the ranger does so, in addition to simply burning a spell slot to heal the beast as a bonus action.

But the Beast Conclave beast works just fine. It accomplishes all of it's goals, even if you do like we did at my table to ditch the conclave specific extra attack back to normal extra attack. A wolf companion has HP simialr to a rogue, can wear barding to get similar AC or better, and the HP and proficiency based buffs scale with character level rather than ranger level, meaning that the beast doesn't become less powerful as an MC ranger levels up. Fixing the core class issues with the PHB ranger, and replacing the PHB BM with the Beast Conclave, is all that is needed.

 

[Parmandur]

lol this cracks me up, man.

The beastmaster would definately be back in a 6e. 0% chance of it not coming back. The idea of making the player choose between spellcasting and having a beast is a silly notion that Mearls toyed with, that will never become the mainstream representation of the archetype, because it doesn't allow the Ranger that a huge swath of ranger fans want. That is, a spellcasting ranger with a beast.

Not to mention, even what you want would be much, much, more elegantly acheived by simply including spells that beef up a creature you control, or even boost you and such a creature with one spell, OR simply allowing the ranger to burn spell slots in a manner similar to Divine Smite, and let BM ranger pets benefit whenever the ranger does so, in addition to simply burning a spell slot to heal the beast as a bonus action.

But the Beast Conclave beast works just fine. It accomplishes all of it's goals, even if you do like we did at my table to ditch the conclave specific extra attack back to normal extra attack. A wolf companion has HP simialr to a rogue, can wear barding to get similar AC or better, and the HP and proficiency based buffs scale with character level rather than ranger level, meaning that the beast doesn't become less powerful as an MC ranger levels up. Fixing the core class issues with the PHB ranger, and replacing the PHB BM with the Beast Conclave, is all that is needed.

We'll see how it goes when they test the variant features: we know from the Baldur's Gate 3 media tour that the video game Ranger is changed from the tabletop version in some (unrevealed) fundamental ways, and that Larian and WotC "were on the same page" as to the changes they were thinking about before speaking to each other (probably around the time Mearls was floating his Ranger ideason Twitch). Mearls has said changes similar to the upcoming video game will be tested later this year. It will be interesting.

But in the event of a 6E, the Beastmaster is toast, along with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. Particularly if the game is backwards compatible, and they can refer anybody who wants to play one back to the 5E version.

The Beastmaster works fine right now, working as designed: what they found is thst people who heard "Beastmaster" wanted something other than was designed, hence if they want to make that something else has to give.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I think the middle ground is best. I mean, whiffing 30 times isn't any more or less satisfying to me than hitting 30 times and being like, "It still looks fine!?" Better to be somewhere in the middle where you feel like you can hit a reasonable amount, and feel like when you hit you are accomplishing something.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We'll see how it goes when they test the variant features: we know from the Baldur's Gate 3 media tour that the video game Ranger is changed from the tabletop version in some (unrevealed) fundamental ways, and that Larian and WotC "were on the same page" as to the changes they were thinking about before speaking to each other (probably around the time Mearls was floating his Ranger ideason Twitch). Mearls has said changes similar to the upcoming video game will be tested later this year. It will be interesting.

But in the event of a 6E, the Beastmaster is toast, along with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. Particularly if the game is backwards compatible, and they can refer anybody who wants to play one back to the 5E version.

The Beastmaster works fine right now, working as designed: what they found is thst people who heard "Beastmaster" wanted something other than was designed, hence if they want to make that something else has to give.

The BG3 comments are entirely unrelated to a hypothetical 6e.

The middle part is literally just a thing you're making up with no backing of any kind.

The last is...honestly also that, so far as I can tell.

 

[Parmandur]

The BG3 comments are entirely unrelated to a hypothetical 6e.

The middle part is literally just a thing you're making up with no backing of any kind.

The last is...honestly also that, so far as I can tell.

The new tabletop game rules they test for 5E following the changes from the game will reflect the future direction of the game, including a 6E, if they are received well. The initial tests have to do with variant Ranger features similar to what Mearls has previously floated when the last batch of public surveys showed that XGtE had not raised Ranger satisfaction rates as they had hoped.

The second point is a prediction based on the principles of the modern D&D design cycle: if the Way of Four Elements and the Beastmaster don't get satisfactory marks, they'll be cut.

The third point is from Mearls dissection of the dissatisfaction with the Ranger in general, and the Beastmaster in particular: the Class and Subclass work, they have the math down, but they are not satisfactory to a large minority of players. Hence why Mearls floated the Variant Class features (the choice between spell/martial/beast). It'll be interesting to see where they take them, and if they are received well. As well as what BG 3 does with the Ranger on their end.

 

[Ratskinner]

Hmmm....I'm not looking for a 6e anytime soon. So I think I'll split my thoughts into two sections:

"Minor" revisions
Fix the resource recovery methods so all classes work on the same (or very similar) schedule. I've seen too many paladin novas for my taste.

More "martial" classes and options. Seems like everyone is a spellcaster...that seems odd to me.

Make skills and backgrounds more like 13th Age's

Make monsters and monster design work more like 4e, even if the combat system doesn't support all the detail.

"Major" revisions
Lower HP totals and progression. Including damage.
Key more spell effects to damage, like Sleep in 5e. If HP are supposed to be such an abstraction, use it more like one.
Bake damage factors into classes, rather than by weapon or spell. (see 13th Age)
Replace Wisdom with Perception, and make the three mental stats work in conjunction with each other like the physical stats do for combat. (some spells or actions working on each of the three, rather than having each class take one as their primary.
Replace Intelligence with Learning or Lore. Let the player's intelligence determine their ability to solve problems, puzzles, and traps. But the character can know a great deal about the world that the player might not.
Do a lot of the stuff that the Dungeon Craft Youtube channel suggests.
drop initiative
make spells less complicated
Shift to an overall less complicated system informed by Index Card RPGs innovations for DC, and conflict resolution, etc.
at the very least, institute some sort of countdown mechanics or clock for non-combat conflicts (see PbtA, BitD, and ICRPG).

dunno how much that would look like D&D when its done.

 

[The Green Hermit]

9. Include actual advice for crafting, running a business, leading an organization, etc. Doesn't need to be whole subsystems, but some degree of support for DMs that don't want to invent a whole system from scratch or spend the whole campaign playing "idk just...um...roll a thing. okay, that seems pretty good...XYZ happens".

This would be very, very nice. True, people can just wing it, but newer players could use a bit of scaffolding.

 

[Blue]

Oh, one other thing: even tho I'm not a big fan of psionics, I think the ''new phb'' should include most classes and subsystems required to play in the more popular settings. So, psionic caster and artificers should be base classes.

Would you mind a Starter Set that only has a subset of classes, to keep choices (and options to be understood) for new players to a more focused amount, and then the primary PHB has everything?

Trying to balance more starting options (which I want) with new player friendly (which I also want).

 

[jasper]

I love the old black and white art. And think it would save money. If it wouldn't then keep the art. And I think there are too many classes/races across too many books. Let me see. Correct me if I wrong
Volos gives monster races
Mordenkainen gives races and classes
Sword coast gives race, class and a few spells.
Elemental Evil companion gives races and spells.

 

[Blue]

The beastmaster would definately be back in a 6e. 0% chance of it not coming back. The idea of making the player choose between spellcasting and having a beast is a silly notion that Mearls toyed with, that will never become the mainstream representation of the archetype, because it doesn't allow the Ranger that a huge swath of ranger fans want. That is, a spellcasting ranger with a beast.

Question for you and @Parmandur, who seem to have opposite viewpoints on this. I have a third option I'd like to hear from people.

Would an invocation-based ranger (like a spell-less warlock) work in 6e for you. This would allow some rangers to take "woodlands magic" invocations (or whatever terrain), which also could mean some are at-will or have other usage-per-day that fits the ranger, as opposed to fits the caster system. Or not to be taken for those who don't want to get magic involved. It would also allow invocations for beasts to get scouting, then combat, then even-cooler-in-various-ways customization. Plus Invocations like Hunter's Mark and others that fit other ragner archetypes (archer, scout, bounty hunter, warden, etc.)