D&D 5E (2024) How I would do 6E.

[aco175]

I would split 6e in basic and advanced.

Basic would be 4-5 classes, with few simple options, you get them at levels 1-3 and that's it, they just scale with level. FE simple wizard - magic offense, magic defense, magic utility. Magic offense would be 1d8 single target/1d4 to two target then 2d8/2x1d8/4x1d4 at level 5 and so on. Cap at level 10. Defense would be similar, think combining shield with counterspell/dispell. Utility would be expanded use Prestidigitation mixed with Mage Hand. Skill lists also shortened - lore, survival, athleticism, social skill. Maybe one or two more, but keep it as broad as possible. Stat bonuses apply situationaly by DMs discretion and depending on what approach character takes.

Whay simple? It's for people that want easy and fast character creation, leveling and to avoid choice paralysis in combat.

Advanced - now you add subclasses, full vancian casting, combat manouvers a la Bo9S for martials, levels 11-20, skill specializations, feats, multiclassing rules etc. This is for people who like it more crunchy, more char op, more tactical, more choices. Basic has barebone class structures, advanced is module that adds complexity on top.

Could this be a basic/advanced system based on levels as well? Levels 1-7 are basic with classes and systems, levels 8-13 would blend basic and advanced, and level 13+ is more advanced. Not sure if I like it more or less. I might like the core 4 classes to be more basic and be able to advance to level 20 on one path and the others to be as complex as people like, but also be balanced with the core 4.

There is also a way to make the classes a subclass and everyone more or less becomes a multiclassed character. You want to become an eldritch knight, then you take fighter and subclass with wizard. You can take wizard and subclass with fighter and be more a bladedancer or something. You can also subclass in your class to keep things simple.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah they need to stop making games for the lowest common denominator and trust players to handle more complexity we are not dimwits.

As much as I agree with you--and I agree very strongly--we do need to recognize that, just as simplification is not an unalloyed good, complexity is not an unalloyed good either. Rather the opposite; it only has value when it achieves something worth the cost.

The game needs to trust that players can handle reasonable complexity that achieves depth and texture. The game needs to recognize players that favor simplicity when complexity achieves too little of value. Those two are in tension, but it's a solvable problem, it's just challenging.

 

[Horwath]

Could this be a basic/advanced system based on levels as well? Levels 1-7 are basic with classes and systems, levels 8-13 would blend basic and advanced, and level 13+ is more advanced. Not sure if I like it more or less. I might like the core 4 classes to be more basic and be able to advance to level 20 on one path and the others to be as complex as people like, but also be balanced with the core 4.

There is also a way to make the classes a subclass and everyone more or less becomes a multiclassed character. You want to become an eldritch knight, then you take fighter and subclass with wizard. You can take wizard and subclass with fighter and be more a bladedancer or something. You can also subclass in your class to keep things simple.

dnd needs to be simple and complex from level 1.
it should be players choice on how complex their PC should be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would split 6e in basic and advanced.

Important question:

Would fans of either game be on board for having support for said game cut in half, due to the company having to maintain both lines more or less equally?

Or would it be possible for the company to minimally support one (presumably Basic, given its...intentionally basic structure), while most, but NOT all, of the support went to the other? E.g., going off my parenthetical, Basic gets a book specifically to expand its options every, maybe, three years? Two years? While Advanced gets at least one book a year, and possibly more.

Setting and adventure books, as long as they cover similar level ranges, could be made to work with either one, and Basic could genuinely be more or less the "kernel" around which the rest of Advanced is built. But if you're going to split lines, you're going to have to have a plan for how to distribute resources between them--and how to get your player base on board for such splitting.

 

[Minigiant]

problem with spells is that so much of them is so binary.

do you make encounters where you count on them to land or to fail on target?

There's the other issue

Casters have a lot of spell slots

Lots of spell slots
High success rate
Debilitating effects
Low encounters
Reliable casting
No interruption

Thats a recipe for disaster

 

[Minigiant]

Important question:

Would fans of either game be on board for having support for said game cut in half, due to the company having to maintain both lines more or less equally?

Or would it be possible for the company to minimally support one (presumably Basic, given its...intentionally basic structure), while most, but NOT all, of the support went to the other? E.g., going off my parenthetical, Basic gets a book specifically to expand its options every, maybe, three years? Two years? While Advanced gets at least one book a year, and possibly more.

Setting and adventure books, as long as they cover similar level ranges, could be made to work with either one, and Basic could genuinely be more or less the "kernel" around which the rest of Advanced is built. But if you're going to split lines, you're going to have to have a plan for how to distribute resources between them--and how to get your player base on board for such splitting.

Forest though the trees

Just make simple classes and complex classes.

Don't combine the Champion and Berzerker with the Battlemaster and Wildheart

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Forest though the trees

Just make simple classes and complex classes.

Don't combine the Champion and Berzerker with the Battlemaster and Wildheart

This means not actually having a "Basic" line that is genuinely separate from the "Advanced" line. I was taking @GrimCo seriously when they said they want to separate D&D into two lines again.

 

[GrimCo]

Important question:

Would fans of either game be on board for having support for said game cut in half, due to the company having to maintain both lines more or less equally?

Maintain in what way? Basic is basic for a reason. Sure, maybe add class or two down the line, but point of that whole line is that classes are simple, elegant, streamlined. Think of basic as a skeleton. That "line" is for part of players that wants fast, easy, streamlined, more old school vibe ("you don't need mechanics for everything" crowd).

Or would it be possible for the company to minimally support one (presumably Basic, given its...intentionally basic structure), while most, but NOT all, of the support went to the other? E.g., going off my parenthetical, Basic gets a book specifically to expand its options every, maybe, three years? Two years? While Advanced gets at least one book a year, and possibly more.

Most stuff would be for advanced. That is modular, add on line, one where more mechanics and player options are. Basic gets one book with new basic classes, FE ranger, artificer, sorcerer etc. But that's it. As i said, point of basic is low (for d&d) crunch, very few choices, but fast and easy to build characters.

Setting and adventure books, as long as they cover similar level ranges, could be made to work with either one, and Basic could genuinely be more or less the "kernel" around which the rest of Advanced is built. But if you're going to split lines, you're going to have to have a plan for how to distribute resources between them--and how to get your player base on board for such splitting.

We already kind of have a split when it comes to d&d. This would be attempt to recapture players that play older editions and put them under one edition. Basic is core, advanced is modularity that was promised in 5e and never delivered.

Splitting the lines is best compromise for a game that wants to capture widest possible audience and be one game that does it all, like D&D tries to do.

 

[Minigiant]

This means not actually having a "Basic" line that is genuinely separate from the "Advanced" line. I was taking @GrimCo seriously when they said they want to separate D&D into two lines again.

2 lines can use the same mechanical benchmarks.

 

[CreamCloud0]

There's the other issue

Casters have a lot of spell slots

Lots of spell slots
High success rate
Debilitating effects
Low encounters
Reliable casting
No interruption

Thats a recipe for disaster

if i were the one to put some limiters on casting i think i'd pick the first and last of these to remove: moderate the amount of spell slots casters get and make casting interruption a threat again, magic would be powerful, but you'd need to pick your moments to use it otherwise you risk losing your spell.