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

Celebrim

Legend
I would like D&D Next to basically be D&D Last.

I could see adding an Advanced Rules Supplement down the line that complexes up the game for people (who like me) find the 5e game a bit too much inspired by BECMI and a bit too little like a modern version of AD&D, but way too much of the hobby is invested in rule smithing up new approaches to existing approaches. It's complete narcissism and wasted effort. If you are good at rulessmithing, actually tackle hard problems for which the system doesn't have a good approach. And if your good at story telling, your efforts would be better spent telling good stories in existing systems rather than reinventing the wheel. Forty years into the hobby, we have a ton of systems that ought to work well enough for whatever story you are wanting to tell, and our hobby has gotten advanced enough that these rules engines come with licenses many of which allow you to drive for free.

I'm a rules smith myself. I'm currently in the process of rewriting or creating all the minigames and subsystems that back (or should be backing) the Skull & Shackles AP, so that they support the story better, because it's really obvious to the less experienced GM trying to run the AP that despite it being an AP it's less a how to guide than a rudimentary framework to inspire a highly experienced DM. It's kind of embarassing to the whole hobby how vague the text is or how little detail is actually there compared to the verbiage. But some of the ideas here are really good, and I haven't read the text yet (because I'm a player right now), but it feels like with some refinement this could have been a classic.

It's almost never the core engine that is really the problem with a system. (Unless you are doing something with dice pools and number of successes, which in practice tends to always be pretty terrible no matter how elegant it sounds.) I have some problems with the 5e core engine but I think mechanically its good enough that if your game isn't fun, it's probably not the core engines fault. It could be subsystems, in that your trying to tell a story that isn't focused on the expected core gameplay (in the same way S&S is focused on running a ship, ship to ship combat, mass combat, and a bunch of subsystems tangential to the Pathfinder core engine) and I think modern systems eschew subsystems to their detriment rather than trying to build them. But much more likely, any problems a game has now aren't in the science of gaming, but the art of it.

So tl;dr - D&D Next, D&D Last, D&D Forever, and whatever you do it ought to be modular plug ins for people who need that mechanical support because they've drifted from the core gameplay the core rules support. Much more than a new edition, I want to see companies putting out good examples of play.
 

ad_hoc

Adventurer
3. Monsters that are tougher out of the box, with appropriate skills themselves, that don't need houserules to be challenging
I hope not. We have already had plenty of TPKs at our table.

I have found the monsters to be very difficult as is. The system favours monsters as long as there isn't just 1.
 

pogre

Adventurer
Very satisfied with 5e, but I would like to see more codified reasons for PCs to push their resources before resting. Adventure structure largely does this for me now, but some mechanical benefits would be welcome.
 

Horwath

Explorer
1. 3d6 base instead of d20.

2. 4 base abilities instead of 4 or 6 abilities and for all checks at least 2 abilities are used.
I.E. melee attack roll str+dex, ranged dex+wis

3. Moving from default 3-18 ability range. Make ability 0 default value. -1 below average, +1 above average and move on from that point.

4. Splitting again ability increases from feats.

5. separate slots for combat feats and racial/skill/flavor feats.


6. Taking from PF2E 3 actions per round but making it 6 actions per round(for 6 seconds)

regular attack; 2 actions,

dual wield; 3 actions to attack with both weapons,

Spell casting: default spell 4 actions,

Cantrips: 3 actions,

Attack boosting spells(like smites, hex, mark); 1 action

Move; 1 action. Reduce all speeds to compensate

Draw and stove weapons: 1 action

Stand up; 1 action

Crossbow reload:1,2 or 3 actions

Rapid shot: 3 actions for 2 shots(via feat ofc)

Power attack: +1 action per attack

Cleave: 1 action

drinking potion: 1 action

Applying oil/poison: 1 action

Flurry of blows: 3 actions, 2 attacks or 5 actions, 4 attacks for 1 ki point.

Shift: 2 actions, 1 move without AoO

Run: 2 actions, 3 moves in a straight line

Hide: 1 action,

Move while hidden: 2 actions, 1 move speed,

Climb/swim(without natural speed): 2 actions, 1 move speed

Concentration on a spell: 1 spell=1 action. 2 spells=3 actions. 3 spells=6 actions.
For overland movement: 1 spell=no change, 2 spells=half movement, 3 spells=cannot move from the spot.

Ready: as much actions as readied action will take. Max 3 actions.
 

GlassJaw

Explorer
I certainly do NOT want a 6th edition. The game is too popular right now to even risk splitting the fan base.

That said, I am definitely in the camp of wanting systems expanded and some more customization options.

I'd like to see the feat system redone, an advanced skill system, expanded weapons and armor, among other things. I have my own list of class tweaks I'd like to see and the ranger is definitely top of the list.

However, there isn't anything that can't be houseruled/homebrewed. 5E is more homebrew friendly than even 3ed.
 

GlassJaw

Explorer
3. Remove Feats and 3E style multiclassing, but use the ASI slots for soemthing like the Pathfinder 2 Archetype system, so the player can choose a multiclass archetype or a thematic archetype like "pirate" or "knight of the realm."
I do like this. I wouldn't remove multiclassing but I definitely agree that a) the feat system needs a redo and b) multiclassing needs something to allow for more options aside from the few cherry-picked builds that are clear winners above the rest.

4. Design the Ranger around favored terrain as the Subclass: Highlander Rangers from the Mountains, Steppe Nomad Rangers fro mthe Grasslands, Robin Hood Rangers from the Forrest, Moody Dark Elf Rangers fro mthe Underdark, etc. Give it some actual flavor.
I would specifically NOT do this. One of the biggest issues with the current Ranger is that many of its abilities are dependent on the type of campaign the DM is running. Attaching their subclass to a terrain type would further exacerbate this problem.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I do like this. I wouldn't remove multiclassing but I definitely agree that a) the feat system needs a redo and b) multiclassing needs something to allow for more options aside from the few cherry-picked builds that are clear winners above the rest.



I would specifically NOT do this. One of the biggest issues with the current Ranger is that many of its abilities are dependent on the type of campaign the DM is running. Attaching their subclass to a terrain type would further exacerbate this problem.
Mearls proposed this in his Ranger Happy Fun Hour: the idea isn't that the terrain-as-subclass Ranger gets an advantage in their home turf, but that they bring an advantage gained in their home wherever they go: a climb speed for a Mountain Ranger, Swim Speed for a Coastal Ranger, etc. Making it not tied to being in the terrain anymore., but providing the framework for the character's unique abilities.
 

GlassJaw

Explorer
Mearls proposed this in his Ranger Happy Fun Hour: the idea isn't that the terrain-as-subclass Ranger gets an advantage in their home turf, but that they bring an advantage gained in their home wherever they go: a climb speed for a Mountain Ranger, Swim Speed for a Coastal Ranger, etc. Making it not tied to being in the terrain anymore., but providing the framework for the character's unique abilities.
Ahh, ok. Fair enough. I do like that.

Seems like that could easily be incorporated into the base class or a single subclass though, a la Land Druid: choose a "land" and get the associated bonus. It could be a Ranger "Survivalist" subclass.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
Mearls proposed this in his Ranger Happy Fun Hour: the idea isn't that the terrain-as-subclass Ranger gets an advantage in their home turf, but that they bring an advantage gained in their home wherever they go: a climb speed for a Mountain Ranger, Swim Speed for a Coastal Ranger, etc. Making it not tied to being in the terrain anymore., but providing the framework for the character's unique abilities.
This sounds like a reasonable way to do favored terrain. I'd be fine with this. Reminds me of how the land druid gets spells based on their land but more generically usable.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Ahh, ok. Fair enough. I do like that.

Seems like that could easily be incorporated into the base class or a single subclass though, a la Land Druid: choose a "land" and get the associated bonus. It could be a Ranger "Survivalist" subclass.
The suggestion arose out of the analysis of people's frustrations with the Ranger, which based on survey data apparently start with people getting anxious over their home terrain because they think it is important, when it is just a ribbon. Apparently this is big enough for people that Mearls thinks just making the Ranger "native to a terrain' would be the good base hook.

At any rate, any 6E will not have a Beastmaster. We have killed that one, for sure.
 

jgsugden

Explorer
A 2030 release date.

The current edition is good and could run quite a while longer.

When it does come, I'd like it to consider ways to incoroprate technology better into the game. In the same way we can run Theater of the Mind vs Combat Grid games, we could run pure Pen and Paper vs Electronically Augmented (online, more complex/comprehensive math, etc...) games.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
They come up with a better term for "passive Perception" - the character is not bloody passive! They're just doing something repeatedly over time (like watching for traps etc).

My suggestions: "continual", "constant" or "steady", basically anything but "passive" :)
 

Parmandur

Legend
They come up with a better term for "passive Perception" - the character is not bloody passive! They're just doing something repeatedly over time (like watching for traps etc).

My suggestions: "continual", "constant" or "steady" anything but "passive" :)
But the player is passive, not actively declaring an action.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
At any rate, any 6E will not have a Beastmaster. We have killed that one, for sure.
I actually hope that's not true. I like the flavor of some characters having a sidekick pet. They just can't seem to figure out the math of them very well.

They come up with a better term for "passive Perception" - the character is not bloody passive! They're just doing something repeatedly over time (like watching for traps etc).

My suggestions: "continual", "constant" or "steady", basically anything but "passive" :)
Sometimes I want to try out the hidden rolls thing that older editions had, where the DM rolled a die behind the screen to see if they notice stuff. But then I don't like the DM rolling dice for much anyway. I suppose it could have a different name but I really can't think of anything that works better.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Never seen anybody confused by the mechanic??
Really, I feel certain there's been any number of threads on this forum where what "passive" means has had to be clarified, that's it's not just some freebie base line score (i.e. the always on radar idea that many have). But that's it simply replacing a lot of continuous rolling with an average for a declared ongoing action.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I actually hope that's not true. I like the flavor of some characters having a sidekick pet. They just can't seem to figure out the math of them very well.
Maybe the variant Class features will work out to replace half-casting with a more robust Beast (which is needed to get the math some people want). But the Beastmaster as a distinct archetype will not happen in a 6E: no way Crawford brigns it back.

Another one for 6E: variant core class features, separate from archetype, like spell casting versus martial feats versus a beast for Rangers.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
Maybe the variant Class features will work out to replace half-casting with a more robust Beast (which is needed to get the math some people want). But the Beastmaster as a distinct archetype will not happen in a 6E: no way Crawford brigns it back.

Another one for 6E: variant core class features, separate from archetype, like spell casting versus martial feats versus a beast for Rangers.
Oh yes! If we could choose to have spells or pets or some mix of the two instead of the expectation that rangers must have both, that would be far better.

I actually feel the same way about paladins. I don't feel that spellcasting is a necessary component of the class (especially when many slots are so often used for smiting). We could have features that support a spellcasting paladin, a sticky/defender paladin, and a damage-pumping paladin and let the player choose what combination fits their build best.
 

Advertisement

Top