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

[The Crimson Binome]

5e brought from 4e the Dragonborn,, 4e-style Tieflings, Eladrin, and Warlock, the Shadowfell (with the Raven Queen and Shadar-Kai), the Feywild (with mention of a few specifically 4e Fey lords), the Elemental Chaos, Primordials (albeit only one stat block so far), the Dawn Pantheon, and a few of the monsters such as the Archons (renamed Myrmidons) and Star Spawn. You don't like a single one of those? I mean, that's your right, but...

Nothing on that list adds value to my campaign. I prefer things to be a little more Tolkien-esque.

Honestly, aside from the dragonborn, the rest of that list could be summarized as "crazy magic nonsense"; and even the dragonborn are a little far out there. It's fine if you're playing in an absurd ultra-magic setting, like the Forgotten Realms, but it doesn't fit with anything more mainstream.

IIRC, he's not a big fan of the Proficiency system and Hit Dice.

I like the proficiency system in 5E, and the half-level bonus that came before it. I have nothing against a wizard and a fighter having the same chance to hit, all else being equal, because those other things are rarely equal.

I hate the concept of Hit Dice and healing surges, along with any game mechanic which hinges on the idea that a hit (within the game mechanics) isn't really a hit (within the narrative). The whole reason I'm relying on a huge system of game mechanics is so that it can tell us what happens next, whenever we take an action; so game mechanics that exist primarily for their own sake, without codified meaning within the narrative, are kind of pointless. Likewise, I'm not a fan of the whole "change any fluff you want, because the mechanics are the only thing that matter" thing.

 

[Ash Mantle]

I'm not sure if this has been said or not, but having easier multiclassing integration would be excellent. This'll possibly mean the ASIs would need to be freed from their class features and tied back in with class level.

 

[Lanefan]

Does it bother you at all when a fighter says, “No, don’t heal me now. I’ll just take the next big hit, and then the Bard can use a bonus action to get me up. I won’t even miss a turn.”

That doesn’t happen. IF it does it’s not a rules issue it’s a table issue.

Sorry, but it's a rules issue.

If the rules didn't allow it, there'd be no issue.

 

[Lanefan]

And finally: If you're gonna have a HUGE spell list shared by every caster out there, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THE GODS organise it by LEVEL first and THEN alphabetically >< seriously, trying to pick spells in the PHB is a nightmare!

The problem, of course, arises when different classes share the same spell at different levels. If the spells were sorted first by level as you suggest then either a number of spell write-ups would have to be repeated (wasting column inches) or there'd be a lot of instances of "see write-up on page xxx" which is flat-out annoying.

 

[Campbell]

I prefer organizing spells alphabetically rather than by level because the primary use case should be referencing it in play.

For the purpose of choosing spells during level up a better solution is to have better summaries in the spell lists,

 

[Vael]

The problem, of course, arises when different classes share the same spell at different levels. If the spells were sorted first by level as you suggest then either a number of spell write-ups would have to be repeated (wasting column inches) or there'd be a lot of instances of "see write-up on page xxx" which is flat-out annoying.

That's a 3.5 ism that 5e abandoned. There's no "this class gets a 3rd level spell as a 2nd level spell" that I'm aware of.

 

[Undrave]

The problem, of course, arises when different classes share the same spell at different levels. If the spells were sorted first by level as you suggest then either a number of spell write-ups would have to be repeated (wasting column inches) or there'd be a lot of instances of "see write-up on page xxx" which is flat-out annoying.

Except that 5e spells have a level of their own that is independant on when a character gains access to it. Plant Growth is ALWAYS a 3rd Level Spell, regardless of the fact the Druid gets it earlier than the Ranger.

Heck, spell levels really should have been called something else (rank?) just to avoid confusion...

And the Spell List at the start of the section really should have included a mark denoting which spells are rituals.

 

[Hurin70]

I find the difficulty is largely dependent on what the DM does.

A lot of people's experience on the internet is far different from mine.
...

A common remark I see on forums is if PCs die or TPKs happen the DM is at fault. In their games PC death is against the rules. The idea that the weaker monsters in a fight would finish off PCs is outrageous for these people. There are also the people who only have 1 encounter per long rest. I've seen many tables be 6-8 players too which really skews things. Yes, a party of 8 PCs can take down a single high CR monster. That doesn't mean the CR system doesn't work though. And of course there is also the idea that it is rude for a DM to have monsters attack the lower AC party members.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

I try to play the monsters as I expect them to act, and with an appropriate amount of intelligence for their intelligence score. A mindless golem might attack players at random. But predatory creatures will try to isolate the weakest party member, disable him/her, and drag that prey away. Smart, trained soldiers like Hobgoblins know that healing spells can bring creatures back up, so they will try to finish downed opponents when it is easy to do. Chaotic evil death cultists don't go easy on characters just to be nice; they flay them alive and use their skins as jewelry. So I prefer a game that is better balanced, so I don't have to break immersion and try to devise some rational reason why the cave bear doesn't want to eat that nice, juicy, unconscious halfling lying at his feet.

 

[Hurin70]

Does it bother you at all when a fighter says, “No, don’t heal me now. I’ll just take the next big hit, and then the Bard can use a bonus action to get me up. I won’t even miss a turn.”

They may not say it, but I know that sometimes they are thinking it. And yes, it does bother me that this tactic works. It shouldn't.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Does it bother you at all when a fighter says, “No, don’t heal me now. I’ll just take the next big hit, and then the Bard can use a bonus action to get me up. I won’t even miss a turn.”

In the extremely unlikely event that ever happened, I’d simply take it as players talking tactics while their characters say things that accomplish the same goals, because the mechanics are abstractions that help us interact with a world we don’t inhabit.

But generally, the times where two healers go before the fight goes again, but only one dangerous monster, and the fighter is totally comfortable getting hit by the most dangerous enemy while at low health, and it wouldn’t be better for the party to have the fighter up the whole round, are so that I’m comfortable saying “that will never happen”.

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.

Why the high strength requirement?

16+ represents world championship competitive level strong man levels of strength. It’s within spitting distance of “literally as strong as it’s possible to be without magical aid”.

You don’t need that kind of strength to wear plate armor effectively.