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

Parmandur

Legend
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.
So, imagine this:

A Subclass based around terrain, giving distinct abilities as appropriate: this could be easily 8-10 different archetypes.

Variant Features for Martial versus Magic versus Beastmaster.

24-30 basic varieties just for Ranger, not too shabby for design space and play.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
I would like it if they fixed HP bloat, but the only mandatory fix in a new edition is for healing.

It's ridiculous that anyone can survive taking twenty solid arrow hits, but it's insane that the wounds are gone after a nap.
When they announced bounded accuracy, I foolishly assumed this meant HP would also be in smaller numbers. Whoops.
 

Horwath

Explorer
I would like it if they fixed HP bloat, but the only mandatory fix in a new edition is for healing.

It's ridiculous that anyone can survive taking twenty solid arrow hits, but it's insane that the wounds are gone after a nap.
Remember HPs are an abstract thing.

You aren't really hit until you get below 25% or 0.
Anything else is just dodge, parry, glance or just dumb luck.

But I agree, there could be less HP in total. Or MOAR DAMAGE!
:LOL:
 

Nebulous

Adventurer
Just increasing the font size of the index and getting rid of every single entry that references another entry instead of just putting a page number on it, making the goddamn page numbers in the book readably dark instead of light enough that you can't see 'em in dim lighting, and putting a sort of "you are here" down the side of every page (like in PF2e) would pretty well fix this, IMHO.
That would greatly help the layout problems.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Anybody else noticed that no WotC product has had an Index at since 2014? I think indexes, like Beastmasters, might be dead letters in the future.
 

Nebulous

Adventurer
Remember HPs are an abstract thing.

You aren't really hit until you get below 25% or 0.
Anything else is just dodge, parry, glance or just dumb luck.

But I agree, there could be less HP in total. Or MOAR DAMAGE!
:LOL:
I've noticed that third party monster manuals like Tome of Beasts MASSIVELY upgrade monster damage and secondary effects.
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
A philosophy of "If its your thing, you should be doing it all the time, not just X per day."

It's kind of lackluster to be a low level Battlemaster, Monk, or whatever and have to sit on your stockpile of resources for an encounter because you have to save them for the entire day.

Kind of like how they adopted cantrips for casters because spellcasters are supposed to cast spells.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
I would like it if they fixed HP bloat, but the only mandatory fix in a new edition is for healing.

It's ridiculous that anyone can survive taking twenty solid arrow hits, but it's insane that the wounds are gone after a nap.
For my table I describe damage differently for PCs vs NPCs. For PCs it's always close but not severe - they reduce terrible damage to just a scratch or a bruise. That is until the last hit that takes them to 0 HP. That attack got through their guard and caused a bad injury.

For monsters and NPCs the damage from the PCs nearly always hits and causes damage. That's because I want to give visceral feedback for their attacks. And these monsters generally will not gain the benefit of a rest and come back fighting the next day :)

What I don't like is the popping up from 0 HP and getting stuck right back in. So I'd hope they'd come up with something a bit more crunchy there. I know there's a risk of a death-spiral - so it would need to avoid that.
 

Saelorn

Adventurer
Remember HPs are an abstract thing.

You aren't really hit until you get below 25% or 0.
Anything else is just dodge, parry, glance or just dumb luck.
As a more basic guideline for how HP must work in order for a game to be anything other than a joke:

If there are mechanics to determine whether an attack hits or misses, and you roll to see that the attack actually does hit, and then you roll to see how much damage is inflicted as a result of the attacker's strength and other tangible factors - and your interpretation of that is that such that the attack didn't actually hit - then something has gone horribly wrong with your procedure.

Fifth Edition took the diplomatic route, by reminding us that narration will vary from table to table, even though the rules are obviously biased. Sixth Edition needs to remove that bias, or bring it down in the other direction.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
What would I like to see in a hypothetical 6e?

--- The modularity of design* we were promised during 5e design that never appeared in the end.

* - by this I mean that the game isn't just one system but a whole lot of not-necessarily-similar subsystems, and that changes or kitbashes to one to one will not have much if any impact on the others.

--- Backwards compatibility with, and-or easy and clearly-explained conversion to-from, ALL previous editions, such that those still playing any previous edition can still benefit from (and thus be tempted to buy) the new material.

--- No built-in preconception of "this is the level where the game ends" - leave it open-ended, but with a disclaimer to the DM to the effect of "should your game get beyond about level [range x-y], you're largely on your own; though the tables and charts can largely be extrapolated to some extent". In other words, instead of saying the game goes from 1-20 or 1-30, just say it goes from 1-x where x can be whatever number you-as-DM feel comfortable with.

--- An end to jack-of-all-trades characters: no multiclassing, all characters have clear and unavoidable weaknesses as well as strengths

--- Flexibility enough to handle many different modes of play e.g. mixed-level parties, parties of 1 PC up to parties of 15 PCs, sandbox, hard-railroad, slow-pace and fast-pace, zero-to-hero, heroes from the start, etc.

--- Good stand-alone adventures - modules rather than hard-cover-book adventure paths, and lots of 'em - maybe even released before the core rules but at the very latest released side-along with them. And at least one example of each 'type' of adventure up front as well: a dungeon delve, a city adventure, a wilderness adventure, a sleuthing adventure, a war-front adventure, a courtly adventure, a maritime adventure, and so on; covering a reasonable range of levels right out of the gate. EDIT to add: and along with this, a how-to-design-adventures publication for DMs that draws on specific examples from these adventures in terms of how element-x and design-y are likely to affect play.

--- Emphasis on player-side simplicity, let the DM worry about the complex under-the-hood stuff.

I could go on for ages, but that's probably enough for now. :)
 

jgsugden

Adventurer
All this ranger hate... They should release a Warden class which is essentially a revised ranger just to .... how should I say this.... settle people down.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Related to my "passive" issue - I would also like to see a fresh approach to the "passive Perception" vs. "fixed DC" check when locating traps and secret doors etc.

I'd like to see something like:

* The secret door was installed by a skilled artisan: DC is d20 + 5 with Advantage to see how well it's stood the test of time.

* The trap was hastily set a few days ago: DC is d20 - 3

Some method to encourage DMs to creatively set DCs for static items.
 

cmad1977

Adventurer
I just came to read how many responses are basically "here's a list of things that when the WotC team thought about during the creation of 5e, they realized not enough people would buy the game if they were that way". ;)
This is basically a giant list of really bad ideas that WoTC has already considered and dismissed.

Edit: or really good ideas for very specific games.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
All this ranger hate... They should release a Warden class which is essentially a revised ranger just to .... how should I say this.... settle people down.
I think a lot of the problem people have with the ranger is that the game is built around three equal pillars, and those players don’t spend much time in the exploration pillar so the ranger looks weak by comparison.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
I think a lot of the problem people have with the ranger is that the game is built around three equal pillars, and those players don’t spend much time in the exploration pillar so the ranger looks weak by comparison.
While we've got three pillars and playing in all of those pillars is fun, it's always felt to me that one of those pillars gets a lot more attention in the rules. Not necessarily a bad thing but to me that means anything that works primarily in one of the other pillars needs to have more universally useful functions. What the ranger does in the exploration pillar doesn't feel that interesting to me.

I think the benefits based on what terrain you came from feels more interesting than the what terrain you like to be in model, outside of just the mechanics. Just in a flavorful way.
 

Advertisement

Top