D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Minigiant]

What do you think? What would your preferred hypothetical 6E look like?

1. Class, Species, Culture, (replacing Subrace or Subspecies), Specialty (replacing Subclasses) and Background would be your major choices.
2. Some Cultures and Specialty would be Species or Class locked as they would refer to specific features. Otherwise Culture and Specialty would be free to anyone.
3. The game would have 3 core subsystems
   1. Skill Tricks
   2. Spells
   3. Techniques
4. There would be additional secondary subsystems
   1. Infusions (including Runes)
   2. Psionics
   3. Focus
   4. Rage

Spells would be in their own book with magic items. In a Tome of Magic

The DMG only has the iconic magic items
The PHB only has the iconic magic spells

Monsters roles returns.

The core point is

Futureproofing​

 

[Brendan Byrd]

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.

There is much here that I agree with.

I am of the opinion that 5.x character generation is a sub-system that requires computer software.
I want a tabletop game. With math rocks.

Coming back to the game (from 3.0/d20) after a twenty year absence, my reaction to the subclasses of 5.x was Wizard Treant Fighter, am I being railroaded during character creation?!

Give this aging grognard some recognizable Core / Iconic / Legacy class(es) so I can play with the younger folks and their newer edition! I don't want to have to put in unenjoyable work just to play a game.
Obligatory exclaimation: "Get off my lawn!"

 

[Aurel Guthrie]

I would love for a next edition to be a little more... low power. Crank down the superhero feel of modern d&d characters into something more grounded.

I imagine something like, the max spell slot a caster could have could be 5th level. Higher level spells like, say, Teleport or Wish might need special rituals, or multiple powerful casters or artifacts to be able to be cast. (So you keep stuff like wish, but you need a ring of three wishes, or you need to perform a special, expensive ritual with other high level casters). This could also help with the balance between martials and casters, and it would help some monsters that are very iconic but end up falling behind, to stay relevant at higher levels, like Hydras which in 5e are kind of meh at around level 6.

A side effect is that high level play would receive more support because those "game-breaking spells" that DMs struggle to account for become instead something the DM allows the players to have through plot hooks, rather than players just obtaining something like Teleport through leveling up. Epic level play, which would give you back that superhero heroic fantasy feel of 5e with casters being walking nukes could be part of level 20+

I want more rules for crafting, exploration, and social encounters. Definitely a bigger focus on resource management and survival.

I kinda doubt my ideal of 6e is something most people would like lol.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would probably keep the 5E engine. But some things need a redo.

1. Saving throws. Lack of scaling.

2. Simple vs complex. Pick a direction. Head in B/X or 3.5/4E direction.

3. Feats probably stay jumbo feats maybe not.

4. Sacred cows stay. Classes, races, alignment etc.

5. Class design. Probably move away from 5.5 except on some classes. 5.5 Warlock or SWSE talent tree are good inspirations. 6.5 fighters actually good.

5. Archetypes. To many. Either 1/none if simple if complex build your own like 3E,4E or Warlock class.

6. Either way make it smaller. 5.5 phb is mammoth in size comparatively. Core rules are pain to carry.

7. Monsters need another overhaul.

8. Hit point bloat.

9. Character creation takes to long vs payoff.

10. Defenses vs spells. Greater spell resistance needs to be on more than one monster. Partly related to 1.

11. Pet classes don't work well/annoying. Dump the concept imho.

 

[Zardnaar]

I find this to be not positive while also being not true.

I and everyone who participated in the playtest ran 2024 D&D rules with 2014 adventures and campaigns. Insisting that such a reality didn't occur is bizarre.

Its not supported well. With power creep the 2014 adventure encounters are complete weak sauce in 5.5.

Im using Golden Vault. Final encounters 3 CR3 has and one CR 12 archemage. New rules RAW I made it a high encounter, 3 night bags (CR 5), the archemage and a CR 13 demon. Combat light adventure. A low encounter would probably cut the CR 13 demon.

Players steamrolled it still RAW encounter design with new buffed monsters.

 

[Reynard]

It sounds like you're envisioning them as something akin to the talent trees in Classic World of Warcraft:

As opposed to something like what's seen in Edge of the Empire:

Would that be accurate?

I never played EoE, but yes, like WoW or Diablo.

 

[CreamCloud0]

separate more avenues of post-character creation customization away from class level/progression, like, is there a good reason why your acquisition of ASI/feats is tied to your specific level of training as a ranger, warlock or whatever rather your character's competency(level) as a whole.

 

[Reynard]

I would probably keep the 5E engine. But some things need a redo.

1. Saving throws. Lack of scaling.

This is a little off topic, but I think about pre-3.0 saving throws A LOT in relation to what is being communicated.

The short version is: in TSR era D&D, saving throws were inherent to the PC, based on class and level, and very, very rarely modified in any way by the source of the thing being saved against. Couple this with fighters and half lines having such good saves and you can really see the influences on the game.

The 3.0+ saves are a different thing. I don't mind the consolidation into intuitive categories, but taking away the inherentness of saves really changed the way we look at that thing at the intersection of system and fiction.

So, in my 6E, that is another thing I would like: saving throws return to being inherently about your class fantasy being ablevto resist X, y or z. I wouldn't necessarily go back to the TSR categories, but I might find a middle ground between those and Fort, Reflex and Will. Ability score saves can just go.

 

[Minigiant]

I imagine something like, the max spell slot a caster could have could be 5th level. Higher level spells like, say, Teleport or Wish might need special rituals, or multiple powerful casters or artifacts to be able to be cast. (So you keep stuff like wish, but you need a ring of three wishes, or you need to perform a special, expensive ritual with other high level casters). This could also help with the balance between martials and casters, and it would help some monsters that are very iconic but end up falling behind, to stay relevant at higher levels, like Hydras which in 5e are kind of meh at around level 6.

What if spells above level 5 are assumed as treasure that you only get by finding them or taking a special subclass/species

If you want wish you need to do a quest for or kill a mage who has it.

 

[Merlecory]

A few scattered thoughts:

• I would like to see the return of features that actually interact with the world. Example I don't like - Current UA Druid who causes plant life to surge in an area, then instantly disappear. Why not have it stay there, or whither outside the druid's magic?
• I would like to see more effort in the mechanics of exploration, and relatedly, resting taking more effort/longer. I think a long rest restoring all resources for 8 hours rest anywhere is too potent to really enable exploration/attrition.
• Spells, especially lower level ones, need to be less capable of solving problems. Goodberry should not be a full day-s rations for an adventurer trekking/fighting.
  • I would like to see half casters combine class features, skills, and spells. E.I., A ranger in their favored terrain might be able to goodberry up a full days rations.
  • 5e rope tells you how to break out of rope if you are tied up (DC 17 strength to burst), but it should also include rules for how much rope can carry. Something like: Hempen Rope can carry a maximum of 300 lbs without risk of breaking. If you exceed that limit by less than 50lbs, roll a d6. on a 1, the rope breaks. For every 50 lbs above, the number that breaks the rope increases by 1 (301-305: 1, 351-400: 1 or 2).
• I am torn on classes: A fighter "is the best at fighting" doesn't really work, it's too generic. It raises questions about how good a class like a Barbarian can be at fighting. At least the Wizard's study and spell book has some thematic separation from the Sorcerer.
• Unlike others in this thread, I would seriously tear up the math underpinning the game. Bounded accuracy seems to work OK for attacks vs AC, but it hasn't worked well for saves (as mentioned up thread), and I don't think it works well for skills. How often have people complained that their supposed specialist fails a task only for some other party member to just roll better?
  • I get 5.24 tries to give a bunch of classes features to help, but I find that they are more of a band-aid solution. The Fighters second level Tactical Mind feature (on average) adds about the entire character progression from level 1 to level 20.
• I think the new edition should let players make important mechanical decisions as they level up. More frequent feats and skills allow for characters to organically grow/respond to the adventuring the are doing.