• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

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

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
I had a player tell me he wanted to use intimidate during a fight in 3.5. I told him the most intimidating thing he could probably do was keep swinging that greatsword at his foe. But if he wanted to stop that and run off at the mouth he could give that a shot. I have a hard time thinking it would be more effective though.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
4. A few tweaks to the core races. Nonhumans should get more flexibility in their stat boosts. Humans need a happy medium in between the "+1 to all stats human," which sucks, and the "free bonus feat human," which is godlike.
I've been testing out a Human that takes the Variant but, instead of +1 to 2 stats + bonus feat, it's just a flat +2 to any 2 stats with no bonus feat. It seems to be balanced pretty well. They still get the bonus skill proficiency.

And if a feat is worth +2 to a stat, the math is the same between the actual Variant and my Variant, er, variant. (Net +4.)
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
I'm in the camp that would like to see 6E be largely backwards compatible with 5E; more of a 5.5. What I would like in 6E whenever it comes out:

1. Drastically scale back the use of bonus actions. You should never have an expectation of using your bonus action every round (two-weapon fighting, I'm looking at you), and you should not have to worry about bonus-action abilities "clashing" often unless you are multiclassing or doing something really exotic. Also, the bonus-action spells rule should be replaced with "You cannot cast more than one non-cantrip spell per turn."
I'd honestly be okay with just removing bonus actions. Stuff that happens quickly can be reworded to work in addition to another action. Like Healing Word could be a regular action but allows you to do another action in the same turn. Two-weapon fighting (regardless of whether the BA goes away altogether) could just be made to be part of attacking (when you take the attack action, if you requirements make an additional attack as part of that action).
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
Perhaps.

Now, wouldn't it be super-cool if the people who designed the game might be able to give some suggestions - not hard rules, but suggestions - on working with that, seeing as the timescales we are talking about (seconds for combat, vs. minutes or hours out of combat) are not the same? Or maybe some thoughts about how you might have the skills have different effects in each realm?

It isn't like everyone is good with making rulings right out of the box. A lot of people haven't been playing for decades. Maybe having someone really experienced supply some idea sis useful for folks, hm?
There's a balance point of being inviting to new players by including lots of guidelines, and being inviting to new players by presenting them with less rules. I know size of book and amount of rules are not the same thing, but it can feel like it and intimidate players.

I hear what you are saying, but adding more guidelines to every bit of play, including breaking out every specific bit for different pillars of play, seems to be against the design philosophy of "More Rulings, Less Rules" that they followed.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
In general, I'm also in the camp that would want a 6e to be more of a 5.5, or an "Advanced" 5e. Things I've thought about that I'd like to see:

1) Every class, in addition to their class skills and proficiencies, gets to Expertise 1 proficient class skill at Lv. 1. And only 1. Rogues' and Bards' Expertise features stay as they are, that just means they get to Expertise many more skills than everyone else. That still allows the skill monkey classes their purpose, while also fixing certain iniquities such as Wizards not being the best at Arcana, or Clerics at Religion, Druids at Nature, Fighters and Barbarians at Athletics, and such.

2) All subclasses gained at Lv. 1. Adjust other early-level feature gains as necessary in all classes to accomodate that.

3) Things like Paladin Divine Smite and Battle Master Superiority Dice work like 4e Reliable powers. i.e., declare the Smite or maneuver before the attack, but if you don't hit you don't use up your spell slot or SD. Makes more sense narratively and eliminates the strategy of saving those resources for crits. (A strategy some find overpowered but I think is rather overrated, so meh, wouldn't miss it.)

4) Rogues being able to Sneak Attack with light weapons, even if they aren't finesse. A whack to the head with a club is as iconic a Sneak Attack as anything and should be allowed as such.

5) Rangers' favored terrain grants abilities based on the terrain they favor, but that can still be applied anywhere.

6) No Beast Master subclass. Just give Rangers a 2nd-level spell that allows them to bond with an animal and gives them a few bonuses, and if said animal dies, that same spell resurrects it.

7) Advanced and more powerful maneuvers for higher-level Battle Masters, perhaps those that take multiple dice to use.

8) Finesse weapons have a STR requirement to be used as finesse. For example, the dagger's finesse STR requirement could be fairly low (9), a shortsword somewhat higher (11) and the rapier taxing (13). It could even open the door for the longsword to be finessed, but the STR requirement could be made really steep (15).

9) Ranged weapons have a STR requirement. If your STR is below the requirement, your attacks are at disadvantage.

10) Maybe have an option to cast Concentration spells without Concentration, but to do so you have to cast it two spell levels higher? So apply the Bestow Curse model to general spellcasting. And that requirement would stack on top of a typical upcasting, so a non-Concentration 2nd-level Bless for example takes a 4th-level slot to cast.

11) Just bring back the proper surprise round. Seriously.

12) Designate an "off-hand" property on certain 1d4 weapons like daggers. Allowing an off-hand attack even if the main weapon isn't light. Thus actually allowing the classic rapier or longsword + dagger combination to function without a feat.
 

77IM

Explorer!!!
OK, here's my dream list for 5.5. (Actually I'd rather call it 5.1 because that's how version numbers work; .5 isn't supposed to represent a decimal half-way to the next full version.)

1. Largely backwards-compatible with 5e.

2. Balance/playability/clarity tweaks to certain feats, spells, classes (ranger), etc. Especially FEATS -- I like the design of choosing between an ASI and a feat, but most feats are just too weak (except for a few that are just too strong!).

Compatibility: This could almost certainly be done in a backwards-compatible way; for example, the way the revised ranger has special abilities with the same names as the regular ranger, they just do something slightly different.

3. Eliminate bonus actions. They are used for too many different things, including extra damage. This leads to min-maxers attempting to optimize their use of bonus actions, which is really bad. I've also seen WAAAAAAAY too many new players confused by bonus actions.

I think they could solve this by recategorizing and rephrasing all the things which currently take a bonus action. For example, anything that gives you a bonus action attack should just become part of Extra Attack, with some wording that doesn't allow stacking. Cunning Action has really got to go.

Compatibility: This would be tricky because some magic items in some published modules and supplements use the "bonus action" language. I think a sidebar about the old language and how to handle it would probably be sufficient to clear things up.

4. Nerf Expertise. I hate that Expertise breaks bounded accuracy. It's totally unnecessary. After much thought, I favor making Expertise a flat +2. This way it still "breaks" bounded accuracy but only by a mere +2, which is not nothing, but won't cause problems at higher levels.

Compatibility: Published supplements that include "double your proficiency bonus" would have to change to +2, but there aren't very many of them. This could probably be handled by a conversion guide. Some monsters also have Expertise in certain skills, but monster math is weird, so I think we can just ignore that (plus, most of those monsters are CR 4 or lower, so it's already effectively a +2).

5. Inspiration needs work. Its problems and potential fixes have been discussed to death. My preference is to allow Inspiration to stack, and to collapse the traits/bonds/ideals/flaws into fewer characteristics. I'd say, one Motivation (bond or ideal) one Quirk (trait or flaw) and maybe one more of either if you feel like it.

Compatibility: Easy, since Inspiration is largely detached from the rest of the rules. Modularity FTW! The old non-stacking Inspiration could be kept as a variant.

6. Magic Items need a better and more-granular power ranking. The current "rarity" system is poor. We need something like CR or spell levels, but for items. (We all know CR is imprecise, but imagine if monsters were rated only by Tier; encounter-building would be a mess.)

I would NOT include magic item prices in the core books. The power ranking could be used to derive prices if you want to allow commerce, but would primarily be used to rate items against each other for balance purposes.

Compatibility: There would need to be some guideline to rank items that have been published in 5e supplements. Other than that, this would be a purely additive change that needs literally a single sentence to explain.

7. Monster XP needs to go. Just make XP values free-form based on encounter/adventure difficulty, with some simple guidelines. Or ditch XP altogether in favor of milestones, or move to a simplified system (e.g. 100 XP per level or 5 XP per level or whatever).

Compatibility: Well, if you like XP, this is not backwards-compatible at all. I think this change might be worth it though.

8. Make point-buy/array the default for ability scores, and rolling the variant. I know rolling is a time-honored tradition beloved by many, but for most purposes, it's really terrible game design.

Compatibility: Full. Literally just swapping which option is presented first.

9. Detach skills from ability scores, reduce the size of the skill list, and give skills a little more meat in the form of special options that you can only use if you are proficient. These would have to be "special" options, not generic things that anybody would try.

Alternatively, they could vastly increase the skill list, and make individual skills relatively less important. This would allow the designers and the DMs to phrase things in terms of ability scores only without even thinking about skills: the player can chime in with any skill proficiencies they might have. This is kind of the way tool proficiencies work now, and I think it could be expanded to non-tool areas.

This is a VERY difficult line to walk, and I think the current skill design sits right in the unhappy medium between "skills don't really matter; it's all about ability scores" and "skills matter a lot; pay attention to them."

Compatibility: Sketchy at best. This is the change I'm least confident could be done in a backwards-compatible manner. A cleaner option might be to simply give each skill a slightly better definition and detach them from ability scores; give each skill examples of being used with at least two different abilities.
 

Jer

Adventurer
Despite 5e not being perfect - and heck not even being my favorite edition of D&D to play or run - I really don't want them to make any massive changes to it. IMO the game is now "mature" and it's time to stop worrying about being innovative with D&D and start viewing it as a stable rules system. There should be about as many changes to D&D between editions as there are between editions of Monopoly or Risk.

Having said that - what I'd like to see eventually is them market variants of the core ruleset that don't have to be 100% compatible with the current edition but speak to particular needs. Like a version of the game that has more choices for characters without having to worry about how it remains balanced with the more minimalist 5e framework, or a version of the game that requires a grid and is designed to give a more tactical combat experience. That's what I'd rather see happen instead of an actual 6th edition personally.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
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 know why, no one likes anyone in dressy blues and wearing a mask. In fact he shot my uncle joe just for herding cattle.
...
....
....
...
We ain't going to mention they weren't our cattle.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Get rid of the colors and just go with black and white text and art. Less classes! How many are they now and how many books do they cover? Less feats or rework the current ones where they are just ok, not great and not bad. Some spells need to be nerfed, I leave up to you to decide. Death due to max age, yes bring back that golden ole from 1E.

Random replies
Ad_hoc …In 5e players don't say 'I use X skill' they instead describe what they are doing. This may be 1st or 2nd person (a description of what the character is doing)…… hahaha Your players do. My players either say I use X skill or if I lucky give me a description.
Vpuigdoller …I would love if they removed sub classes. The more time passes the more I hate them….. Yea forget midget or diesel, Nuke and guided missiles classes rule!

Random thoughts…
Each Deluxe DMG should come with a sharp sword and 10 get out of jail free cards. DMS can then legally lop the heads off of rules lawyers or Min Maxers. DM is responsible for cleaning up the carpet.
 

Saelorn

Adventurer
That's actually intentional in 5e. Due to bounded accuracy, they can't just keep increasing defenses (AC & saves). So increasing HPs is the way to keep foes alive. It's supposed to keep them up for the same amount of time as if they had lesser HPs but a lot more misses/saves.
Bounded Accuracy was a bad idea. It's better to not hit, than to hit for trivial damage. It's also far more straightforward to understand what's happening within the narrative when that happens.

If you swapped the advancement rates of hit/AC and HP, the game would make much more sense. That is something I would like to see in 6E.
 

Nebulous

Adventurer
More guidance for the DM. What does Intimidate do in combat? How am I supposed to handle magic items? How does a transmuter wizard's transmutation ability actually work? How can a character craft a normal nonmagical weapon? All those "use your judgement / discretion" sections in the DMG need to go. They don't help anyone, especially new DMs. There are so many holes in the rules that I've found running just the starter module that I've determined 5e to be unusable. I seriously don't understand how people actually play 5e given how many holes there are in the rules.
Did you prefer 3.5? Taht
They almost did use "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" for the core books in 5E, to contrast with the Basic PDF, but found in marketing studied that it was a terrible idea that confused customers: which probably happened in the 70's & 80''s, too, but TSR was clueless.
It DID confuse me in the 80s. I avoided basic D&D because I thought AD&D was clearly superior, but never even got a chance to play it.
 

Nebulous

Adventurer
If someone at WotC could figure out how to write a proper index that would be great. That and a better way to know what part of the book you're in. I mean, there's dozens and dozens of books (not just RPG books, but travel books, etc.) that have found great ways to make their material as accessible as possible, so WotC really have no excuses there.
I know, the organization of the book is pretty awful compared to other big companies who put out similar product.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
-Separate ASI and feats. ASI are too important to miss out on, but feats add uniqueness and specialty. Even/odd number ability scores from feats and their usefulness could be worked on.
-Half (3/6) of the caster classes use charisma, yet only two feats that isn't race specific adds charisma. In comparison, only one caster class uses intelligence, yet there are four non race specific feats that add intelligence. Are they even trying?
-Add more feats, and not just race specific. Some races have many feats, others have none. They add more variety in builds.
-Classes and more importantly sub classes need to be way more unique. Better balance, and more variety and options. Beast master, wild magic, berserker, four elements, cough, cough... Really bad execution of concepts.
-Balance classes for refreshed abilities on short rests. Every class should benefit from short rests besides healing, or no one. It's a really awkward mechanic for a party as it exists now.
-Spell overhaul. Remove redundancy, and balance the rest. There are a lot of bad spells in every spell list, and a few jems. Faerie fire is insane, and no official errata for healing spirit, really?
-Marital classes like battle master are great but flawed. Manoeuvres should be like spells, better ones are locked by level advancement. You take the best manoeuvres at level 3, then picking lesser ones later.
-Most classes need more bonus and reaction spells and abilities. Valor bard bonus action attack is a step in the right direction.
-More options for character creation that gives more opportunities to do variable things both on the battle field and for role playing that are class specific.
-More skills and abilities that add advantage or disadvantage. Faerie fire adds an AOE, save or suck, 25% hit probability increase to an entire party with a 1st level spell only available to two classes.
-Also the way D&D material is written has always sucked in relation to rules. An example: Advantage or disadvantage. Almost no skill or ability plainly says it adds advantage or disadvantage, they'll say it's adds a condition. Then you need to know what that condition does, which is advantage or disadvantage. D&D material is famously bad for this.
-Things like unlimited cantrips, manoeuvres, metamagic, fighting styles, and invocations are great. They add variety to class builds and play style. More of this please.
All of this in effect just adds up to one request: more complexity, more complication, more rules, more reward for system mastery, and more time spent on mechanics rather than role-play.

No thanks.
-Remove rangers favoured enemies, it's junk. I know it's a staple, but it's time to pull that staple.
Rangers are already ruined, yet you'd pull one of the few things they have left going for them?
 

Stalker0

Adventurer
I like 5e a lot, but of course could always want more. There are a lot of small things, but for me there are 3 conceptual pieces:

1) more support for 1-2 encounter per day adventuring. I’m just not going to run 6 encounters per day...never will, and I would like more support for this style

2) Intelligence not a dump stat. Some more general mechanics to make it relevant to more classes.

3) A new form of concentration.

The new concentration solved several problems...but it created some new ones as well. I have watched my spell casting players really chaff under the restriction, and I think it’s also greatly reduced the variety of spells used. Concentration is too precious of a resource.

I am not sure what the answer is...but another try at this mechanic to see if a better middle ground can be found.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
@77IM - you were going great through your first 5 points (see post 128), though for point 5 a case might also be made to just ditch Inspiration entirely.

Compatibility: as you note above, except ditching Inspiration would require removing anything that refers to or relies on its existence...which isn't much.

For point 6: I would include magic item pricing in the DMG, along with a note to DMs
  • the list is optional
  • the list is just a guideline and a DM is free to change pricing as she likes
  • it's the DM's choice whether or not to allow players access to the list

Compatibility: full, it's an add-on

For point 7: having monster xp already listed does save the DM some time...but I'd rather see it be more granularly done, rather than always rounded to the nearest 100, and that the formula for calculating xp be provided in the DMG so DMs can a) accurately work out xp for their own homebrew monsters and b) tweak said formula if they so desire. (corollary: obviously the expectation would be that the xp amounts given for monsters in modules follow the same formula)

For various reasons I'd want to keep xp as the primary means of advancement, with milestone or ad-hoc advancement mentioned only as a non-supported option.

Compatibility: full.

For point 8: No. Just no.

And in your post you even hit the reason why - you mention rolling as being "awful game design"; but the question then arises as to whether the focus should be on just designing a game for its own sake (which was the tack taken by 4e; at least they were up-front about it) or on also helping to design a realistic and believable setting - because in the reality of any form of life the things reflected by the ability scores are rather random.

There's also an even more basic design question ahead of all that: within the game, how much of a role should sheer luck play? The very fact that the game mechanics are largely based on dice rolls tells me that luck is intended to be, if not front-and-centre, certainly a very important element.

Compatibility: almost full; though as a corollary effect I'd want to slow down (and somewhat randomize) ASIs - you choose which stat(s) are going to advance but it's uncertain when or how often that advancement will occur; done via cumulative dice rolls toward a target (see 1e Cavalier stat increments as an example).

For point 9: I've yet to be sold on any skill system beyond some very basics, and not at all on "social" skills, thus I'm neutral here.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
3) A new form of concentration.

The new concentration solved several problems...but it created some new ones as well. I have watched my spell casting players really chaff under the restriction, and I think it’s also greatly reduced the variety of spells used. Concentration is too precious of a resource.

I am not sure what the answer is...but another try at this mechanic to see if a better middle ground can be found.
Maybe make a lot of spells a bit weaker but fully fire-and-forget, thus leaving concentration as something required for just a few specific spells?
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
Having said that - what I'd like to see eventually is them market variants of the core ruleset that don't have to be 100% compatible with the current edition but speak to particular needs. Like a version of the game that has more choices for characters without having to worry about how it remains balanced with the more minimalist 5e framework, or a version of the game that requires a grid and is designed to give a more tactical combat experience. That's what I'd rather see happen instead of an actual 6th edition personally.
This is exactly what I want. Any new edition of D&D should be a fork, not a reboot.
 

GreyLord

Adventurer
Only really one big thing, that Fighters (and perhaps all Warriors) advance more quickly in weapon proficiency than anyone else. The idea that a bookworm will be equal to a highly trained soldier or warrior is one of the big things that I really think is hard to stretch one's imagination around in 5e.

Make Warrior's Weapon Proficiencies like Rogues with their Skill proficiencies, they can double their Proficiency with a weapon. Sure, it will make them hit far more often, but at higher levels they still need a little oomph to balance out with the high level spellcasters anyways...

Other than that, keep it as it is. Maybe a tweak here or there, but overall, keep it very compatible with 5e...

so I guess that would the #2...

Compatible.

don't throw out the baby with the dishwater.
 

Advertisement

Top