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

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
It’s almost as if the skills and attributes a person can have are impacted by more than just one of six total ability scores 😉
I would not be in favor of D&D going this direction, but I do have an appreciation for systems where the scores you actually use on a consistent basis are derived from two other "primary" scores. So maybe Strength and Dexterity are primary, but they combine into an "Athletics" score (or whatever) that actually gets used for things like attack rolls, climbing, etc.

Thought experiment: starting with the six classic D&D attributes, what six derived attributes would be most useful? How many cross the physical/mental boundary? (E.g., Dexterity and Intelligence for Defense?)

Or is six not enough?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
It’s almost as if the skills and attributes a person can have are impacted by more than just one of six total ability scores 😉
Its the reason I like having flexibility in this regards take a feat and get to use intelligence wisdom (or yes maybe that vivacious bubbly personality which decides without worries) for your initiative
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yes, that was the idea. I find Wisdom too fuzzy if it includes both awareness/perception and the spiritual power of a cleric (I got the impression @Lanefan did not share this assessment).
Let's break it down a bit - what does Wisdom (in game terms) include:

1. Intuition and instinct
2. Long-term reasoning and deduction (as opposed to immediate problem-solving; that's Int)
3. Willpower and-or spiritual strength
4. Awareness and-or perception (the actual act of noticing things)
5. Processing of perceptions (the mental realization of the meaning of what you perceive)
6. For Clerics, the ability to better channel spells given by a deity

Of those, AFAIC 1, 2, 5 and 6 are hardcore Wisdom, and would be left behind as such regardless - there'd still be a Wisdom stat.

3 should IMO get shifted into Charisma.

4 is a tough one. It doesn't belong under Wisdom, but where else to put it? The answer, at cost of some added complexity, is nowhere - it becomes kind of its own thing. Not a stat along with Str, Int, etc., but a number (or series of numbers?) arrived at by determining each character's inherent vision, hearing, and smell capabilities vs. an arbitrary average. Race* would play a big role here, and class** a lesser; along with a random die roll for each - say a d10 where 1-2 indicates poor, 3-8 indicates average, and 9-0 indicates particularly good at that sense for that race (this could be granularized even further, to allow for inherently blind or deaf PCs). Then situational factors like armour and environment come in.

* - Elves and Hobbits would be good at hearing, Gnomes at smell, etc., for example
** - Rangers and Rogues would be better at all simply via training

I don't think there's enough in Willpower by itself to justify giving it its own separate stat. And there needs to be some ongoing in-play importance to each stat, to avoid it just becoming a dump.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
** - Rangers and Rogues would be better at all simply via training
I dunno. You get trained to notice specific things. If you hang out with hunters, for example, they are often really good at noticing birds and animals a long way off. Cops will notice expired registrations. My wife notices (and remembers) gas station prices. Proofreaders notice subtle grammar and spelling errors.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I would not be in favor of D&D going this direction, but I do have an appreciation for systems where the scores you actually use on a consistent basis are derived from two other "primary" scores. So maybe Strength and Dexterity are primary, but they combine into an "Athletics" score (or whatever) that actually gets used for things like attack rolls, climbing, etc.

Thought experiment: starting with the six classic D&D attributes, what six derived attributes would be most useful? How many cross the physical/mental boundary? (E.g., Dexterity and Intelligence for Defense?)

Or is six not enough?
Now this is on to something!

First, I'll say it doesn't have to be symmetrical - there's no need to try to force multiples of 6 combinations, for example, when only maybe 4 or 7 or 13 make sense.

But here's a few ideas, starting with yours kind-of as quoted:

Strength-Dexterity - Athletics (climbing, jumping, etc. but not attack rolls)
Strength-Intelligence - Attack Rolls (you know how best to apply your force)
Intelligence-Dexterity - Martial Defense
Wisdom-Charisma - Mental/Spiritual Defense (e.g. vs psionics and charms)
Constitution-Charisma - Physical/Spiritual Defense (e.g. vs direct non-damage death effects, possession, etc.)
Constitution-Wisdom - Physical/Spiritual Resilience (e.g. revival from death)

And after all that, by sheer accident there just happens to be 6, with each stat used twice! :)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I dunno. You get trained to notice specific things. If you hang out with hunters, for example, they are often really good at noticing birds and animals a long way off. Cops will notice expired registrations. My wife notices (and remembers) gas station prices. Proofreaders notice subtle grammar and spelling errors.
Which is just what I'm getting at: Rangers and Rogues are trained to notice everything. Other classes might be good at noticing things specific to class e.g. a Fighter might notice something about her foe's armour that others would likely miss, but that comes under 'situational'. For Rangers and Rogues, it's blanket.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
Which is just what I'm getting at: Rangers and Rogues are trained to notice everything. Other classes might be good at noticing things specific to class e.g. a Fighter might notice something about her foe's armour that others would likely miss, but that comes under 'situational'. For Rangers and Rogues, it's blanket.
Why would a ranger notice a book that was unlike the other books in a library?

Why would a rogue notice birds flocking in irregular ways?

EDIT: On the other hand, if "You get to add (some bonus) to all Perception checks that rely on (insert some senses)" were designed as a class bonus for rangers or rogues, I could see hand-waving it in the same way that we hand-wave so many things in an RPG. I succumbed to arguing about realism...which I despise anyway...instead of game mechanics.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
It’s almost as if the skills and attributes a person can have are impacted by more than just one of six total ability scores 😉
While I wouldn't want it for D&D 6e because it doesn't fit my mental box of "D&D", 13th Age (a d20 OGL game that came out a bit before 5e and is similarly streamlined) does this. Several things are calculated as the middle score of three. For example your Mental Defense (a 4e type defense-instead-of-save) is based on your class, but the bonus is the middle value of Int, Wis and Chr modifiers. Your AC modifier is the middle of Con, Dex, and Wis.
 

delph

Explorer
bestcrafted/overcrafted (call it like you want) weapons and armors giving +1(+2?) without magic and be best base for enhancing :D
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
While I wouldn't want it for D&D 6e because it doesn't fit my mental box of "D&D", 13th Age (a d20 OGL game that came out a bit before 5e and is similarly streamlined) does this. Several things are calculated as the middle score of three. For example your Mental Defense (a 4e type defense-instead-of-save) is based on your class, but the bonus is the middle value of Int, Wis and Chr modifiers. Your AC modifier is the middle of Con, Dex, and Wis.
I think I get what you mean about being D&D but its a subtle one. I am now a days quite on board with single attributes affecting actions. To me attribute in use sort of defines the style of the actions being used.... I seen that type of mechanic in RuneQuest where attributes were merged together and distinctions were lost. A fighter using strength and a rogue using dex and a ranger sometimes using either is defining a style, In RQ it would be an amalgam for everyone. I like 4es pick your best as to me that fills the trope of playing to ones strengths and is a better expression of the characters style.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Oh, I wasn't trying to argue for the removal or change to the 6 D&D stats. I was arguing that they are what they are, and it's part of D&D, so don't waste time trying to shoehorn or force those abilities into a skill where they might not fit, and just go with what was assigned, otherwise it's a hole that has no end.
 

Nebulous

Adventurer
This is a fairly brilliant idea, though I'm sure it would ruffle some feathers. Sell D&D as levels 1-10 and then later publish D&D for levels 11-20 (D&D Advanced?) after those rules have been appropriately playtested. The major issue I would foresee is that people may feel like they are only getting "half a game" if WotC sold the game this way.
Agreed, it would anger a lot of people as "half a game" and probably WON'T happen, but I would personally love to see that. Of course, you'd also have the split of spells according to what you can cast by level, so at some point you'd need both books at least for the spell list.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
Agreed, it would anger a lot of people as "half a game" and probably WON'T happen, but I would personally love to see that. Of course, you'd also have the split of spells according to what you can cast by level, so at some point you'd need both books at least for the spell list.
Honestly though, there are more intuitive ways that D&D could do spell level progression. Spreading spells across 10 spell levels (not including cantrips) in 20 levels seems much easier.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Agreed, it would anger a lot of people as "half a game" and probably WON'T happen, but I would personally love to see that. Of course, you'd also have the split of spells according to what you can cast by level, so at some point you'd need both books at least for the spell list.
The DM would, anyway; as 90% of the times those spells come into use are in figuring out what high-level opposition can do.

The rest of the use comes from working out what spells might have been used to generate funky magic effect xyz that you want to stick into a dungeon somewhere.

Aldarc said:
Honestly though, there are more intuitive ways that D&D could do spell level progression. Spreading spells across 10 spell levels (not including cantrips) in 20 levels seems much easier.
Works fine if you don't want anyone to have spells before 2nd level. :) But the casting progression starts at 1st, so either it finishes before 20th (thus an every-other-level 10-spell-level progression would end at 19th) or there's got to be some gaps in it.

And a 9-level progression, for example, could gain spell levels at 1st-3rd-5th then 8th-10th-12th then 15th-17th-19th. Or if you want to keep it strictly tier-based, 1st-3rd then 5th-7th then 10th-12th then 15th-17th then 20th; though I think I prefer the former.
 

bmfrosty

Explorer
The core rules are great. I wouldn't do much more to them than restate them and reorganize them slightly.

I'd turn feats and multiclassing off by default. Make them very distinctly an optional rule to the point of having them not available or restricted in AL play.

I'd also work in more optional rules and give them distinct names. For example we have a rule for Critical Hits. I could see two more variations on that - one being the max dice + dice version - call that the "Perkins Crit" (or whatever) - and I could see also having a crit table to roll a d20 on - call that a "Table Crit". Having specific names for them would give a universal shorthand to it.

I'd include a glossary of terms and keywords as well. The rules have rules for how to read them, but I haven't run into them while reading the book.

I'd work out a way to deduplicate proficiencies given by class, race, and background.

The math in the game is pretty great, so I wouldn't mess with it.

I think the biggest thing that I would want worked on would be the classes themselves. Every class could use some rework. Not necessarily major, but often minor. Take this rule for the Monk:

"At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property."

Change that to:

"At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are weapons that you are proficient with that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property."

And it means that your Monk can use Darts as Monk Weapons. You can use a Sun Sword as a monk weapon.

All it does is add some D8 weapons to the list which is a small change in the math in levels 1-10, but opens up the opportunities for flavor.
 

Advertisement

Top