• 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?

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
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.
Definitely a valid path. Low level creatures remain scary not because they still hit often, but because if they do hit it's for a sizable amount of your HPs. More powerful foes are scary because they hit A LOT, doing a good chunk of your HPs each time, and they are hard to hit in return.

Seems a bit more swingy than the direction 5e went because d20+mods has more variation then d12+8 (or whatever) damage dice. A few good rolls can make hits to bring down a powerful foe quickly - be it the dragon the PCs just effortless took out, or the gnolls taking down a PC in the first round. That's not a condemnation, just a comment on the difference.
 
Foks, if you think someone is trolling, facing of like this make you into a troll. Please resist the urge to make it a public accusation.
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.
There are 12 classes in one book, and color art is not bad. Wait, am I responding to a troll again...hmmm
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Oh, one other thing: even tho I'm not a big fan of psionics, I think the ''new phb'' should include most classes and subsystems required to play in the more popular settings. So, psionic caster and artificers should be base classes.
 

akr71

Explorer
Mearls has talked about keeping 5e as "evergreen", which pushes down thoughts of 6e some. Why spend resources (= money) several years before it can recoup those costs if the sales of the books stay high? And even in the gluts of 3.x and 4e, the core books sales stayed high.
^This. I don't expect to 6e any time soon, nor do I want it. I don't think 5e is the perfect game, but my players seem happy enough, and only one other (who occasionally DM's too), is a tinkerer.

That said, what I would like to see is a 'republishing' of the 3 core books, so all the 'official' player character options and spells were bundled into one book. All the treasure and maybe some of the lore, especially when it pertains to other planes bundled into a revised DMG. I don't know about one massive monster manual though - at least I don't have any ideas off the top of my head. This would keep the edition as an 'evergreen' product. Much of what I need, I can find through a third party or homebrew myself.

I would like more optional rules like a more robust skill system, weapons that feel unique (battleaxe vs longsword) and more shield options.

It will be interesting to see what WotC does after Essentials has been mass released for an extended period. What will happen to those new Sidekick and single person play rules?
 

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
I wouldn't mind seeing updates to classes such that they all gain their subclass at 1st level and each level where subclass abilities are gained are the same across each class. I want to be able to more easily mix and match subclasses, though I could do without the latter if it meant I could have 1st level subclasses for each class.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
I doubt we will see 6e within the next ten years, tbh.

But, if I had Mike's job, my priorities for a 6e would be:

1. Backward compatibility, and don't call it 6e.

2. Do not break apart the ranger, or rebuild it to use terrain as it's subclass, or any such conceptual overhaul. The ranger needs to do what it already does, but actually be effective at all levels, and for every choice to actually meaningfully impact the character.
[sblock] Natural Explorer should still include a favored terrain choice, which should give benefits to exploration in general, but particularly in stuff like movement, stealth, surviving hazards, etc, so that it is sometimes useful in combat as well. It should also have always on travel benefits for the whole team. If they can be tailored to a terrain but still useful anywhere, great.
Favored Enemy should stop being about choosing a species or similar grouping, and instead be things like "behemoths, hordes, outsiders, conjurations, spellcasters," etc. Dragons might be fine, but if things like Rocs and Griffons can be put in a group with them, that's better. Then, the benefit is to tracking, interacting with, evading, and fighting those types of creatures. Things like "when a flying creature that is larger than you leaves your threatened space, you can make an Opportunity Attack even if they Disengage or otherwise have an ability to move without provoking them." or the Hunter Ranger's Horde Breaker benefit. Basically consume the Hunter into the favored enemy class feature.
Also, Rangers would have known spells equal to their Wisdom mod+half level, and Favored enemy would give the ability to use Hunter's Mark without a spell slot against a creature that qualifies as your favored enemy, or something like that. I prefer to keep HM a spell, though. I wouldn't replace it with a class feature, as such. [/sblock]

3. Give monsters skills, and bring back thinks like "leader" and "elite" classifications as templates to add to monsters, also clean up the math of monsters so that they are easier to adjust, and experiment in playtesting with different ways to make monsters more dynamic without making them overwhelming.

4. Move further away from the idea that humanoid races can be born evil.

5. Experiment with giving Fighters Legendary Actions instead of more extra attacks.

6. Make Inspiration more front and center, in part by having characters automatically have inspiration when they gain a level, or maybe even at the start of an adventuring day, or something.

7. Experiment with Extended Rests, as an expansion on Downtime. Provide alternate rules for only recovering some of your resources with a Long Rest. Perhaps half your spell levels in slots, for instance. Basically model something similar to the Journey rules in The One Ring and Adventures in Middle Earth, where you have to rest in a place of true safety to fully get back to 100%. But also provide bonuses when you take an Extended Rest, especially if you do so in a place where you are very well regarded, or in your own stronghold, etc. See 6; maybe you gain Inspiration at the end of an Extended Rest, in addition to being able to gain it by doing cool stuff and playing your character well.

8. Make Travel more interesting. This would be a big goal, but I don't have any concrete ideas for it off the top of my head.

9. Include actual advice for crafting, running a business, leading an organization, etc. Doesn't need to be whole subsystems, but some degree of support for DMs that don't want to invent a whole system from scratch or spend the whole campaign playing "idk just...um...roll a thing. okay, that seems pretty good...XYZ happens".
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Very satisfied with 5e, but I would like to see more codified reasons for PCs to push their resources before resting. Adventure structure largely does this for me now, but some mechanical benefits would be welcome.
I'd love to see something like 4e's Action Points, here. A direct mechanical reward for pushing past the safe resource expenditure model.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Maybe the variant Class features will work out to replace half-casting with a more robust Beast (which is needed to get the math some people want). But the Beastmaster as a distinct archetype will not happen in a 6E: no way Crawford brigns it back.

Another one for 6E: variant core class features, separate from archetype, like spell casting versus martial feats versus a beast for Rangers.
lol this cracks me up, man.

The beastmaster would definately be back in a 6e. 0% chance of it not coming back. The idea of making the player choose between spellcasting and having a beast is a silly notion that Mearls toyed with, that will never become the mainstream representation of the archetype, because it doesn't allow the Ranger that a huge swath of ranger fans want. That is, a spellcasting ranger with a beast.

Not to mention, even what you want would be much, much, more elegantly acheived by simply including spells that beef up a creature you control, or even boost you and such a creature with one spell, OR simply allowing the ranger to burn spell slots in a manner similar to Divine Smite, and let BM ranger pets benefit whenever the ranger does so, in addition to simply burning a spell slot to heal the beast as a bonus action.

But the Beast Conclave beast works just fine. It accomplishes all of it's goals, even if you do like we did at my table to ditch the conclave specific extra attack back to normal extra attack. A wolf companion has HP simialr to a rogue, can wear barding to get similar AC or better, and the HP and proficiency based buffs scale with character level rather than ranger level, meaning that the beast doesn't become less powerful as an MC ranger levels up. Fixing the core class issues with the PHB ranger, and replacing the PHB BM with the Beast Conclave, is all that is needed.
 

Parmandur

Legend
lol this cracks me up, man.

The beastmaster would definately be back in a 6e. 0% chance of it not coming back. The idea of making the player choose between spellcasting and having a beast is a silly notion that Mearls toyed with, that will never become the mainstream representation of the archetype, because it doesn't allow the Ranger that a huge swath of ranger fans want. That is, a spellcasting ranger with a beast.

Not to mention, even what you want would be much, much, more elegantly acheived by simply including spells that beef up a creature you control, or even boost you and such a creature with one spell, OR simply allowing the ranger to burn spell slots in a manner similar to Divine Smite, and let BM ranger pets benefit whenever the ranger does so, in addition to simply burning a spell slot to heal the beast as a bonus action.

But the Beast Conclave beast works just fine. It accomplishes all of it's goals, even if you do like we did at my table to ditch the conclave specific extra attack back to normal extra attack. A wolf companion has HP simialr to a rogue, can wear barding to get similar AC or better, and the HP and proficiency based buffs scale with character level rather than ranger level, meaning that the beast doesn't become less powerful as an MC ranger levels up. Fixing the core class issues with the PHB ranger, and replacing the PHB BM with the Beast Conclave, is all that is needed.
We'll see how it goes when they test the variant features: we know from the Baldur's Gate 3 media tour that the video game Ranger is changed from the tabletop version in some (unrevealed) fundamental ways, and that Larian and WotC "were on the same page" as to the changes they were thinking about before speaking to each other (probably around the time Mearls was floating his Ranger ideason Twitch). Mearls has said changes similar to the upcoming video game will be tested later this year. It will be interesting.

But in the event of a 6E, the Beastmaster is toast, along with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. Particularly if the game is backwards compatible, and they can refer anybody who wants to play one back to the 5E version.

The Beastmaster works fine right now, working as designed: what they found is thst people who heard "Beastmaster" wanted something other than was designed, hence if they want to make that something else has to give.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
I think the middle ground is best. I mean, whiffing 30 times isn't any more or less satisfying to me than hitting 30 times and being like, "It still looks fine!?" Better to be somewhere in the middle where you feel like you can hit a reasonable amount, and feel like when you hit you are accomplishing something.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
We'll see how it goes when they test the variant features: we know from the Baldur's Gate 3 media tour that the video game Ranger is changed from the tabletop version in some (unrevealed) fundamental ways, and that Larian and WotC "were on the same page" as to the changes they were thinking about before speaking to each other (probably around the time Mearls was floating his Ranger ideason Twitch). Mearls has said changes similar to the upcoming video game will be tested later this year. It will be interesting.

But in the event of a 6E, the Beastmaster is toast, along with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. Particularly if the game is backwards compatible, and they can refer anybody who wants to play one back to the 5E version.

The Beastmaster works fine right now, working as designed: what they found is thst people who heard "Beastmaster" wanted something other than was designed, hence if they want to make that something else has to give.
The BG3 comments are entirely unrelated to a hypothetical 6e.

The middle part is literally just a thing you're making up with no backing of any kind.

The last is...honestly also that, so far as I can tell.
 

Parmandur

Legend
The BG3 comments are entirely unrelated to a hypothetical 6e.

The middle part is literally just a thing you're making up with no backing of any kind.

The last is...honestly also that, so far as I can tell.
The new tabletop game rules they test for 5E following the changes from the game will reflect the future direction of the game, including a 6E, if they are received well. The initial tests have to do with variant Ranger features similar to what Mearls has previously floated when the last batch of public surveys showed that XGtE had not raised Ranger satisfaction rates as they had hoped.

The second point is a prediction based on the principles of the modern D&D design cycle: if the Way of Four Elements and the Beastmaster don't get satisfactory marks, they'll be cut.

The third point is from Mearls dissection of the dissatisfaction with the Ranger in general, and the Beastmaster in particular: the Class and Subclass work, they have the math down, but they are not satisfactory to a large minority of players. Hence why Mearls floated the Variant Class features (the choice between spell/martial/beast). It'll be interesting to see where they take them, and if they are received well. As well as what BG 3 does with the Ranger on their end.
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
Hmmm....I'm not looking for a 6e anytime soon. So I think I'll split my thoughts into two sections:

"Minor" revisions
Fix the resource recovery methods so all classes work on the same (or very similar) schedule. I've seen too many paladin novas for my taste.

More "martial" classes and options. Seems like everyone is a spellcaster...that seems odd to me.

Make skills and backgrounds more like 13th Age's

Make monsters and monster design work more like 4e, even if the combat system doesn't support all the detail.

"Major" revisions
Lower HP totals and progression. Including damage.
Key more spell effects to damage, like Sleep in 5e. If HP are supposed to be such an abstraction, use it more like one.
Bake damage factors into classes, rather than by weapon or spell. (see 13th Age)
Replace Wisdom with Perception, and make the three mental stats work in conjunction with each other like the physical stats do for combat. (some spells or actions working on each of the three, rather than having each class take one as their primary.
Replace Intelligence with Learning or Lore. Let the player's intelligence determine their ability to solve problems, puzzles, and traps. But the character can know a great deal about the world that the player might not.
Do a lot of the stuff that the Dungeon Craft Youtube channel suggests.
drop initiative
make spells less complicated
Shift to an overall less complicated system informed by Index Card RPGs innovations for DC, and conflict resolution, etc.
at the very least, institute some sort of countdown mechanics or clock for non-combat conflicts (see PbtA, BitD, and ICRPG).

dunno how much that would look like D&D when its done.
 
Last edited:
9. Include actual advice for crafting, running a business, leading an organization, etc. Doesn't need to be whole subsystems, but some degree of support for DMs that don't want to invent a whole system from scratch or spend the whole campaign playing "idk just...um...roll a thing. okay, that seems pretty good...XYZ happens".
This would be very, very nice. True, people can just wing it, but newer players could use a bit of scaffolding.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
Oh, one other thing: even tho I'm not a big fan of psionics, I think the ''new phb'' should include most classes and subsystems required to play in the more popular settings. So, psionic caster and artificers should be base classes.
Would you mind a Starter Set that only has a subset of classes, to keep choices (and options to be understood) for new players to a more focused amount, and then the primary PHB has everything?

Trying to balance more starting options (which I want) with new player friendly (which I also want).
 

jasper

Rotten DM
I love the old black and white art. And think it would save money. If it wouldn't then keep the art. And I think there are too many classes/races across too many books. Let me see. Correct me if I wrong
Volos gives monster races
Mordenkainen gives races and classes
Sword coast gives race, class and a few spells.
Elemental Evil companion gives races and spells.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
The beastmaster would definately be back in a 6e. 0% chance of it not coming back. The idea of making the player choose between spellcasting and having a beast is a silly notion that Mearls toyed with, that will never become the mainstream representation of the archetype, because it doesn't allow the Ranger that a huge swath of ranger fans want. That is, a spellcasting ranger with a beast.
Question for you and @Parmandur, who seem to have opposite viewpoints on this. I have a third option I'd like to hear from people.

Would an invocation-based ranger (like a spell-less warlock) work in 6e for you. This would allow some rangers to take "woodlands magic" invocations (or whatever terrain), which also could mean some are at-will or have other usage-per-day that fits the ranger, as opposed to fits the caster system. Or not to be taken for those who don't want to get magic involved. It would also allow invocations for beasts to get scouting, then combat, then even-cooler-in-various-ways customization. Plus Invocations like Hunter's Mark and others that fit other ragner archetypes (archer, scout, bounty hunter, warden, etc.)
 

Advertisement

Top