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

[Arnwolf666]

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!

Someone that reads the book and understands hit points. Thank you.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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".

 

[ScuroNotte]

A ranger that is playable and enjoyable.

And a better written Sorcerer.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.