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

[Campbell]

Classes that feel like the class from first level, including subclass choice. If I want to play a more Strength oriented Valor Bard I have to play through 2 levels with an atrocious AC and nothing to back up the intended feel of the subclass.

Less disjointed resource management. Classes like Monks and Paladins often have several different pools of resources to manage that it can be hard to keep track of some of which renew on short rests and some of which renew on long rests. Some like Channel Divinity and Ki are in a combined pool while things like Lay On Hands and Bardic Inspiration have their own pool for a single ability.

Clear templates and more precise design language. Lay out the book so it is easy to use in the middle of play if you need to look something up.

 

[gyor]

A massive FRCG, twice the size of Pathfinders PHB

 

[RSIxidor]

Bounded accuracy leading to an increase in HPs should become clear with a bit of thought. Bounded accuracy means they can't keep more powerful creatures alive through increased defenses, so HP is the knob they have left to do so.

I don't think that it had to, though. You still have incredibly hard to hit creatures with significant defensive abilities like legendary resistance. And HP and defense are only two knobs in a bigger machine. More powerful creatures could have other defensive abilities, or could be more deadly in combat than others. However, this might be too significant a change for a lot of tables compared to expectations.

 

[Blue]

I'm going to assume good faith here.

It's not that I don't know how to be a DM. It's that my players want to do things--a lot of things--that aren't covered in the rules. See my first comment in this thread. One of the most rudimentary examples: What does Intimidate do in combat? The rules have no answer. How do I run a system that doesn't tell me what to do with basic situations like that?

I think the issue is assuming that Intimidate does anything different in combat then it does out-of-combat. The results of the social skills have always been for the DM to adjudicate. In other words, combat/non-combat is an arbitrary distinction and it has the same effects in either.

Things like specific DCs and effects were done in earlier editions but dropped. Hard rules for social skills lead to things like "Diplomancers" from 3.5 where a hyper-focused build could make any NPC stop hostilities or agree to anything.

 

[Blue]

I don't think that it had to, though. You still have incredibly hard to hit creatures with significant defensive abilities like legendary resistance.

No, as a general rule you do not. Sure there are a few exceptions, but the average AC for high CR 15+ is easily reachable. Target AC by CR according the DMG is:

CR 10-12: 17 AC
CR 13-16: 18 AC
CR 17+: 19 AC

Saves are even lower. With only two saves being proficient, and that often overlapping a foe's good ability scores, there usually only have 2-4 good saves and 2 or more at minimal levels that are trivial for casters to overcome. A high level caster has a good number of known/prepared spells and should be able to target them.

And HP and defense are only two knobs in a bigger machine. More powerful creatures could have other defensive abilities, or could be more deadly in combat than others. However, this might be too significant a change for a lot of tables compared to expectations.

Other knobs: the ones I see are things like resistance and immunity. Those seem to be better applied where they fit, instead of just randomly given out to high CR creatures wholesale. And really, is there much difference to adding in a large number of resistances including B/P/S and just having more HPs?

"Could be more deadly in combat": I'm not sure how this addresses a creature's longevity in combat. I think you are saying they should be more glass-cannon-like - go down quicker but have done more damage in that time so everything evens out. shrug That would work, though likely would be more swingy and put more important on initiative because a single action more or less could be 50% of it's total damage output for the combat.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Dausuul]

I'm in the camp that would like to see 6E be largely backwards compatible with 5E; more of a 5.5. What I would like in 6E whenever it comes out:

1. Drastically scale back the use of bonus actions. You should never have an expectation of using your bonus action every round (two-weapon fighting, I'm looking at you), and you should not have to worry about bonus-action abilities "clashing" often unless you are multiclassing or doing something really exotic. Also, the bonus-action spells rule should be replaced with "You cannot cast more than one non-cantrip spell per turn."

2. Assorted class and subclass fixes. In many cases this would involve migrating features from 5E supplements into the PHB. For instance, some the hexblade's abilities should be incorporated into the Pact of the Blade.

3. Rework the stealth rules to be more intuitive and apply more cleanly to situations other than "rogue ducks behind a rock mid-combat." (Question: If you are invisible and standing in the area of a silence spell, what does an enemy have to do in order to detect your location? Answer: Nothing, they automatically know. But you can take the Hide action and then they might lose track of you.)

4. A few tweaks to the core races. Nonhumans should get more flexibility in their stat boosts. Humans need a happy medium in between the "+1 to all stats human," which sucks, and the "free bonus feat human," which is godlike.

5. Clean up and clarify how a lot of things work*. The Shield Master feat is the poster child for this - at one point the official ruling was that you could shove before your attack, and then it changed to you have to attack first, and Orcus alone knows what happens if you have Extra Attack. Maybe they could borrow somebody from the "Magic: The Gathering" side of the company to lend a hand--M:tG has gotten very good at boiling down complex mechanics into crystal-clear, unambiguous wording that fits on a playing card and leaves room for a picture.

6. Short rests should go back to being 5 minutes long. Perhaps add a limit of 2 short rests per day; that's the house rule I've been going with for a while, and I find it works well to ensure that classes with short-rest mechanics stay on par with their long-resting companions.

*Note that I don't believe everything needs to be codified in rules. That was the cardinal mistake of 3E, and I have no desire to go back to that. But anything that is codified in rules should be clear and unambiguous. DMs shoulder too much work as it is, we shouldn't have to be WotC's copy editors as well.

 

[Garthanos]

More guidance for the DM. What does Intimidate do in combat?

As for ideas about what might be achievable - Many of the fighters maneuvers could be couched as an effect achievable via intimidation pushing, distracting, menacing, goading for example maybe even a trip or commanders strike. (evasive footwork becomes menacing glare which darts from enemy to enemy as they attempt to hit you)

 

[Umbran]

I think the issue is assuming that Intimidate does anything different in combat then it does out-of-combat. The results of the social skills have always been for the DM to adjudicate. In other words, combat/non-combat is an arbitrary distinction and it has the same effects in either.

Perhaps.

Now, wouldn't it be super-cool if the people who designed the game might be able to give some suggestions - not hard rules, but suggestions - on working with that, seeing as the timescales we are talking about (seconds for combat, vs. minutes or hours out of combat) are not the same? Or maybe some thoughts about how you might have the skills have different effects in each realm?

It isn't like everyone is good with making rulings right out of the box. A lot of people haven't been playing for decades. Maybe having someone really experienced supply some ideas would be useful for folks, hm?

 

[vpuigdoller]

No.

First time we disagree, Haha! To each their own.