D&D (2024) What Improvements Would You Want with 6E?

[Zardnaar]

I don't think encounter or daily type mechanics are a problem.

They don't play nice together though. I regard the fighter more shirt rest.

I like it when players design a party rather than play whatever.

Fighter
Monk
Warlock

There's your warrior, artillery, skirmisher roles covered throw in a light cleric or whatever and it's a short rest party.

 

[dave2008]

No critiques, just questions expanding my understanding.



How do you picture class features to scale?

For example, right now we have Martial Adept as a Battlemaster class feature. It gives less and does not scale.

Would an Sneak Attack feat be a set +1d6 per turn?

Or do you expect them to scale over time, just not as fast as the primary class?

In other words, does one feat taken at 12th give you all the sneak attack, or is that several feats worth so someone else might have a little sneak attack and a little rage. (Classic Conan from the books.)

I don't know exactly, this is a complete re-write concept. I am not talking about taking 5e class features and make them feats. I am saying when you design the game you make it so that class features a actually feats. However, I imagine some feats scale and some don't. So some feats have a fixed level and/or prerequisites (like PF2e) and others are general and always applicable (like 5e).

Are you picturing any multiclassing? For example is a paladin a Martial with feats, or multiclassing Martial and Divine?
(Can we add Primal for druids? And for the feats that could make a ranger.)

Generally speaking all feats are available to all classes (some feats may have level or prerequisite requirements). It is basically a classless system. You class is just a set group of feats you get a first level. Then it is modified at every level thereafter. A "paladin" might start as a martial a level one, then take the divine caster feat at level 2 or something similar. Or you could have the priest background (level 0) and decided your life as an adventure is to be a fighter so your level 1 class is Martial, but you would have some divine elements from your background. You can think pick and chose how much fighter and how much cleric you want at each level.

You mention Martial, are you envisioning one class that covers rogues, barbarians, knights, and archers? Would there be a benefit for more than one type of Martial class?

Yes, one class with options to modify the class via feats into a barbarian, a ranger, a rogue, etc.

 

[schneeland]

Oh, I have lots of ideas - I'm just not sure if it would still be recognizable as D&D afterwards. So unless they want to design the D&D to end all D&D, they probably better not base 6e on my ideas

Also, a) as @Sacrosanct mentioned, there was an idea collection/wish list thread not too long ago, b) independent of any mechanical stuff, I would mainly love to see WotC license out their worlds, spells and monsters on reasonable terms, so I can fight Beholders, Mind Flayers and Owlbears in the Forgotten Realms with systems other than D&D (probably not going to happen either).

 

[Zardnaar]

It would be a tweak to 5E.

Some classes and races buffed, tweaked feats and spells. Dex and Int looked at along with saving throws.

Damage scaling would be looked at as well or cantrips don't scale. Damage spells might scale like ye good old days or at the same rate as cantrips.

Or if you use a higher level slot you get 2 dice.

 

[Lanefan]

2nd edition improved on 1st, 3rd edition built on 2nd, 3.5 edition built on 3rd.

Those are all very debatable assertions...

They're each derived from the one(s) before, yes, but whether those derivations were improvements or faults is a very open question.

 

[Lanefan]

Whatever happens, my only hope is that for 6e they do the following:

Design an extremely basic but still playable framework;
Live up to the plug-in rules modularity idea that was originally promised for 5e;
Look over threads like these from here and other sources;
Take the most commonly-requested ideas* and design standalone rules modules around them; and then
Playtest the effing hell out of the whole lot in every combination before release.

That way everyone can build the game they want, more or less, via their choice of rules modules. Further, the game as a whole becomes or remains flexible enough to handle lots of different playstyles and preferences.

Oh, and provide complete conversion guides to all previous editions such that material from any prior edition can relatively easily be converted to 6e.

* - even if these ideas outright oppose each other e.g. some might want a more lethal and gritty game, others a non-lethal game; these can each be plug-in modules.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Making class features feats is the worse idea I ever heard. I want distinct class features. Only rogues sneak attack and have expertise. Only barbarians rage. And etc.

I would like to see meta magic go back to the wizard and sorcerers focus more on bloodline related abilities.

I would be happy for feats to go to hell and just develop the classes better.

That’s just my opinion. Skills and powers anyone !!! Worse book ever.

 

[5atbu]

Is PF2 really 6e?

 

[Lanefan]

Making class features feats is the worse idea I ever heard. I want distance class features. Only rogues sneak attack and have expertise. Only barbarians rage. And etc.

I would like to see meta magic go back to the wizard and sorcerers focus more on bloodline related abilities.

I would be happy for feats to go to hell and just develop the classes better.

That’s just my opinion. Skills and powers anyone !!! Worse book ever.

I think you mean 'distinct' class features.

Otherwise, I'm largely in agreement.

 

[Tony Vargas]

They're each derived from the one(s) before, yes, but whether those derivations were improvements or faults is a very open question.

1e through 3.5? 1e > 2e was mostly clean & polish. 2e > 3e was 'streamlining' (I wouldn't have put it that way before Tweet's post, I'd've said "consolidation").

You can like or dislike them, but 2e was a slicker product than 1e, and 3e a cleaner one, mechanically (and 4e, disastrously better-balanced). Each an improvement in it's own way...

What is the point of each edition if not fixing some of the bugs from the previous one?

Putting them back. That's what 5e did. For the sake of tradition and Big Tents &c.

So 5e was certainly better than it's predecessors - better positioned for the market.
And, let's face it, that's what pays the rent.