D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Piperken]

...I think D&D, to be D&D, will always need some of its sacred cows: classes, hit points, and levels, some form of "Vancian" casting, and the baked in genre that is D&D (that constantly evolves). But I also think it can adopt other game subsystems to make it a better play experience even while retaining those sacred cows...but it could stand to embrace more modern approaches to some of its gameplay challenges. I also personally like "clean and concise" as design ethos and so I would like to see Shadowdark as a influence...

e.g.

I recently had the experience of taking a brand-new-to-roleplaying player into my 5th ed D&D campaign last year, creating a character from scratch.

It took them two hours for them roll up their 1st level character. That is, done in earnest, with the PHB, and they had the benefit of someone besides me who was versed in the basic rules sitting next to them to explain what they didn't understand or were confused over at each step.

It should not take that long.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't know about what should change, or whether or not it needs to change at all, or if/when/how a new edition were to come to pass...but assuming it does, here's a list of what I'd like to see.

1. A spell point system to replace the current spell level/spell slot system. The version in the 5E DMG is good, but I'd like to see it expanded and ensconced as the standard in the Player's Handbook.

2. A half-dozen "core classes" with feat trees, to replace the 13 classes/900 subclasses/multiclassing system. This would address some of my biggest gripes with 5E's power curve and player-side rules exploitation.

3. A new default D&D setting. I don't have a problem with Forgotten Realms or Ebberon or any of the other published ones; I just like new campaign settings and I want more of them. New edition should have a new campaign setting, IMO.

But really, that's all I can think of. I don't know if it's enough to merit an entirely new edition of the game, but there ya go.

It is interesting that the Plotweaver system Brotherwise Games has built for the Cosmere RPG does all of these things: Investiture is a "Magic points" system using an Attribute derived number similar to HP that is Encounter based resource to fuel Slipp tests (since magic is Skills), and tge career path tree is phenomenal: it fixes multiclassing (and nulti-subclassing) entirely.

I do like the suggestion upthread that the number of classes should be reduced and they could use "talent trees" rather than subclasses to allow folks to build the character they want. If you did it right, you could eliminate the need for multi-classing-- maybe by allowing a feat that gives you access to another classes talent tree?

In Plotweaver, a Level 7 character is a Level 7 character, the Feat-chaij based trees mean that single, double, or triple Classing are totally on par.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

I've been trying very hard to like 5e because I want to introduce a young relative to the game without the inconvenience of tracking down OOP books. Using the current edition would be easiest...but I've resigned myself to viewing 5e as an alternate prime material plane (0, 2, 0).
(Gloriously Gonzo Mystara: 0, 0, 0; d20 Modern: 5, -4, 5) ...

THE WISHLIST

A dedicated Campaign Setting / World, that is optimized to show the ruleset at its very best. What cool / fun things can you do with this ruleset? New options? Old options adapted to the new environment? This is a carrot that can offset ruleset changes (stick).
As a bonus, reserve some landscape for customization (beloved homebrews, importing nations from other settings, Gazetteers, etc...)

Optimize the print version for tabletop play.

I like the Advantage / Disadvantage mechanic in 5e, it's elegant, so I think that should stay.

Alignment is a useful toolset.
A convenient shorthand that provides in game guidance when role-playing a character.
In my opinion, it is also a subtly subversive way of making people think.
The "discussions" about it that occur "out of game", to me, are a feature, not a bug.
(Pre-emptive disclaimer: if the only tool you have is a hammer...yes indeed, everything starts looking like a nail.)

Allegiances: an elegant adjunct to Alignment. The distinction between the two is food for thought.

Four or five Core Classes, followed by their derivitives. State which class(es) the derivitive comes from, even if it's only on a chart somewhere in an appendix. (Nothing wrong with Gestalt goodness )
Sincere Question Asked in Ignorance: In 5e, is it even possible to play a 3e style wizard without being shoved into a specialist "sub-class"?

Attribute / Ability Scores: yes.
Levels: yes, but stop dancing around level limits.
State what levels a book covers, but do not state a level cap. (PHB's + Epic Level Handbooks...I'm looking at you.)
Core Species / Additional Species: What are the core species in this edition? Any new ones to play with go into the Core Species for this edition (PS 2e introduced Tiefling & Aasimar, IIRC).
Additional species: valid to play (with suggested regional backgrounds?).

Some Sub-systems Tied to Feats: if the DM allows a feat, the attached sub-system is operating in this game.
Leadership / Sidekick etc. = Hirelings / Followers / Henchmen / etc...
Holding = Guilds / Strongholds/ (Bastions?) / Dominions etc...
(Psionic / Arcane / Divine) Abilities = "Spellcaster" classes...

Playing the game is a journey.
(But what is the system endgame goal? Rulership? Immortality? System Mastery?)

 

[Davinshe]

I'd really love to say something with the robust mathematics and easy combat design of 4e, but the things that gave 4e these qualities are the same things that made that edition despised: explicit mmo-style combat roles for both player's and monsters, a power system that meant that most attacks were "damage plus an effect", and a certain amount of "same-ness". I'm not sure you can have a truly robust and easy encounter system like 4e had and still make something that will feel like D&D to people.

The other main thing I'd like to see is more "dramatic" abilities in class design. The warlock class is the worst offender in my book. There is not a single mechanical effect anywhere in the class that would indicate a slow corruption from a powerful patron even though the Faustian pact is what inspired the whole class. I loved Baldur's Gate 3, but I think we should lean into the fact that a human is running the game in D&D and use more powers that are cool and dramatic from a story point of view.

 

[sevenbastard]

Less magical more grounded.

 

[JConstantine]

5e2014 is my favourite version of D&D to date, but I share a few of the already stated desires.

If WotC are going to continue insisting there are three pillars of play, then I'd like to see the exploration and social pillars get a similar level of mechanical support to combat. One of my earliest critiques of 5e2014 was how the ranger basically circumvented the exploration pillar - a ranger should give you an edge, without completely invalidating the challenge. The 2024 version addressed that in way I do not find satisfying.

I like the way Tales of the Valiant handles separating abilities innate to one's race/species/ancestry, vs those that are learned from culture, and would like to see it adopted. Things like an aarakocra's flight or a dwarf's resilience should be baked in, while things like weapon proficiencies should come from elsewhere.

I'd like to see the optional rule of decoupling skills from attributes made core. Being able to mix and match attributes with skills is more true to life while also opening up options for players who feel pigeonholed. That moment the wizard makes an Int (persuasion) check to convince a misanthropic sage of a course of action using a logical argument, instead of the bard making a Cha check for the thousandth time, is so much more enjoyable because of its appropriateness.

I generally prefer "rulings over rules", but I'd like to see the use (or I guess return) of keywords. Trying to explain the difference between "a melee weapon attack" and "an attack with a melee weapon", for example, could feel like pulling teeth with some players. I think keywords would go a long way to help dealing with those sorts of confusions, while also providing scaffolding for certain pieces of design (we see this to a degree already with conditions).

If the 8 spell schools stay, I'd like to see spells belong to multiple schools where appropriate (here's an area where the aforementioned keywords can be utilised), rather than being shoehorned into one. For example, Wall of Fire could be both evocation and abjuration.

 

[Reynard]

I find it interesting that so many folks really only want tweaks to 5E, rather than an actual new edition.

 

[Scribe]

I find it interesting that so many folks really only want tweaks to 5E, rather than an actual new edition.

What would you wholesale cut or replace?

When I look at an iterative edition, I'm not looking to replace the whole thing, otherwise I can just play a different game.

 

[Reynard]

What would you wholesale cut or replace?

When I look at an iterative edition, I'm not looking to replace the whole thing, otherwise I can just play a different game.

D&D has had five structural lineages: Basic, Advanced, 3.x, 4E and now 5E. There is no real reason to suggest a 6E should be an iterative edition of 5E.

I think subclasses can go and be replaced with talent trees.
I think the loot motivation can be overhauled or even eliminated, depending on how you wanted to treat it.
I think the need for walls of talky prose can be wastebinned forever.
I think D&D can actively incorporate non-binary tests, robust metacurrency and some narrative tools.

It can do all that and still be a new edition of D&D with clear ties to earlier editions, in the same way that 3.x was a major shift in design principles but still very clearly D&D.

 

[TiQuinn]

I find it interesting that so many folks really only want tweaks to 5E, rather than an actual new edition.

I think that’s because the flaws of previous systems were much more glaring after a few years of play and it created a rebound effect. 5e may not be perfect but it’s generally palatable to a lot of players and that’s after 10 years of play.