D&D 5E (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[Nebulous]

Id actually like to see armor as damage reduction. Plate mail and a shield would give you the best protection naturally, but you have to be VERY strong to wear/wield it effectively, like 16+. Your actual AC would derive from Dexterity and maybe class bonuses or feats.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Vael]

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

I want to see Roman Numerals. If the Super Bowl gets 'em, so should D&D.

I play D&D VI. How you doin'?

Save that for DnD X. The most extreme of DnDs

 

[Guest 6801328]

Save that for DnD X. The most extreme of DnDs

That will be when they abandon backward compatibility and rebuild D&D on a Unix core.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Apologies for not reading all the thread, and perhaps repeating an idea, but I would have just quoted it and replied anyway.

I'd rework bonus actions. In concept they are a thing that should feel like a bonus. In reality if you can reliably get one every turn they are so advantageous as to be almost necessary. Besides that they are the clunkiest thing for my new players to get their heads around.

Scrap them and remap existing ones to work without bonus actions, or give the equivalent of reactions IE Attacks of Opportunity to Bonus Action and no TWF is not it.

PS. This would also help with TWF
PPS. This would also help with the bonus action spell/action cantrip rule which new players also have a hard time wrapping their heads around.

 

[abirdcall]

I'd rework bonus actions. In concept they are a thing that should feel like a bonus. In reality if you can reliably get one every turn they are so advantageous as to be almost necessary. Besides that they are the clunkiest thing for my new players to get their heads around.

FWIW Mike Mearls agrees with you.

I get the feeling that design-wise it is the thing he regrets most.

He said he would rather it be a combined action than to have separate bonus actions.

I agree with him, it would make for a smoother more streamlined game.

 

[Parmandur]

FWIW Mike Mearls agrees with you.

I get the feeling that design-wise it is the thing he regrets most.

He said he would rather it be a combined action than to have separate bonus actions.

I agree with him, it would make for a smoother more streamlined game.

He actually walked that back after further consideration.

 

[BookBarbarian]

FWIW Mike Mearls agrees with you.

I get the feeling that design-wise it is the thing he regrets most.

He said he would rather it be a combined action than to have separate bonus actions.

I agree with him, it would make for a smoother more streamlined game.

He actually walked that back after further consideration.

I'd love to see his reasoning on the walk back.

 

[Parmandur]

I'd love to see his reasoning on the walk back.

It was in the course of the Happy Fun Hour. He decided that bonus actions were fine, it was two weapon fighting that he disliked.

 

[abirdcall]

It was in the course of the Happy Fun Hour. He decided that bonus actions were fine, it was two weapon fighting that he disliked.

What was his demeanour about it?

It sounds like acceptance now that it is the way it is. I mean, I definitely don't want to change Bonus Actions now that we have them, I can just envision a game without them.

Speaking of two-weapon fighting, I really dislike that one of the attacks doesn't use your modifier as damage. It's just so fiddly. I guess I don't know any other way to do it though.

The big issue I see is that every 'fix' I've seen doesn't work once the Rogue is introduced to the situation. The 2nd attack needs to be a Bonus Action as Rogues gain a huge advantage to have 2 chances to land Sneak Attack. Giving up their Cunning Action though is a significant enough trade-off so it works as is.