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

[Aldarc]

I would like to see less reliance on advantage/disadvantage. It's elegant and simple, but I find that it's a bit too ubiquitious of a "solution," which I find takes away from the charm.

Clean up the action economy and interaction with other rules.

Rework ASIs and feats.

General Class Balance: Clean up the balance between short rest and long rest dependent (sub)classes. Plus, some general polish on classes that typically have mixed reviews (e.g., ranger, druid, sorcerer), even if they are more popular than other classes. This includes things like casters attempting to snipe the Warlock's EB, since it scales independently of the Warlock. Some capstones are more beneficial for other subclasses than others (e.g., Druid Capstone with the Circle of the Moon Druid).

Druid: I would also rework Druid Wildshape so people can pick a general form that scales better (e.g., Hunter, Predator, Guardian, Wings, etc.) and then slap on the aesthetic they want instead of having to memorize the animal catalogue of forms and upgrading them.

A spell-less Ranger and Paladin as default.

Warlord. (ducks)

 

[Imaro]

I'm going to assume good faith here.

It's not that I don't know how to be a DM. It's that my players want to do things--a lot of things--that aren't covered in the rules. See my first comment in this thread. One of the most rudimentary examples: What does Intimidate do in combat? The rules have no answer. How do I run a system that doesn't tell me what to do with basic situations like that?

What are your players trying to accomplish by using Intimidate in combat?

 

[Blue]

I would like it if they fixed HP bloat, but the only mandatory fix in a new edition is for healing.

It's ridiculous that anyone can survive taking twenty solid arrow hits, but it's insane that the wounds are gone after a nap.

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.

I'm not saying it's the right or only way to do it, but it's designed to fit a need, so it would have to be replaced by something else if removed.

 

[Blue]

When they announced bounded accuracy, I foolishly assumed this meant HP would also be in smaller numbers. Whoops.

Bounded accuracy leading to an increase in HPs should become clear with a bit of thought. Bounded accuracy means they can't keep more powerful creatures alive through increased defenses, so HP is the knob they have left to do so.

 

[Blue]

That would greatly help the layout problems.

Can we also get 6E in bookmarked and searchable PDFs? With a linked index.

 

[Eric V]

Easy. Make it up. Make rulings. You're the DM - you tell the game what to do, rather than the reverse.

It's the opposite philosohy from 3e or PF, where there's a rule for everything.

Is it possible this is a false binary, though? I am not sure @anahata is asking for stone tablet rules, but maybe some examples of how some of this might work in play for some DMs would be helpful? It's a DM Guide, after all.

No one's infringing on "DM decides;" just asking for things to make a better decision.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Can we also get 6E in bookmarked and searchable PDFs? With a linked index.

No.

 

[Blue]

A philosophy of "If its your thing, you should be doing it all the time, not just X per day."

It's kind of lackluster to be a low level Battlemaster, Monk, or whatever and have to sit on your stockpile of resources for an encounter because you have to save them for the entire day.

Kind of like how they adopted cantrips for casters because spellcasters are supposed to cast spells.

I have a different feel on this.

I don't want to see the same manuever time after time after time. It's boring. But by the same reason, the idea of "why can I only riposte three times a short rest" makes little sense.

Personally, in a homebrew I'm playing with the idea that at the beginning of each round a die is rolled to indicate "opportunities" that round. And each character that has special features as maked each with one or more numbers from 1-12 (or whatever the die size is). So this round may be a "6", which is no special abilities for Brandar the Barbarian, an opponent leaving themselves open to beign tripped for Fredik the Fighter, and an ability to stab in the vitals for Relin the Rogue. Of course, Relin has that ability on four different numbers out of the 12, and Brandar has 8 different feats of fury on his opportunity list, just none happened to be on a 6.

My biggest problem is getting in the way of player creativity. If there's sand on the floor, can they scoop it up to try to temporarily blind at any time, or do I have a die number for environment - i.e. the time when everything comes together to do so. But there's other parts of player creativity that aren't so easily dependant on external factors. The second biggest is if I do it for monsters they all do the same thing at the same time which is odd, but lots of rolls is slowing, etc.

Getting back to uses per X - resource management doesn't always make the most narrative sense, but it can work from a gamist point of view as a balance. Because if you can do something all the time it can't be better then any other option otherwise it will always displace those lesser options. Having some ability to go above and beyond is good for the game, and there needs to be a way to manage it that doesn't get in the way. I'm open for other things, but I am for characters having more powerful but use-restricted abilities.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think I would like paladins to have a warlock matrix: pick an oath (to hit something, to guard something, or to find something) and pick an oath taker (celestial, fiend, fey, ancestor spirit). Oaths make you good at something particular, as does oath takers. [For the white roomers, hit something oath fiend oath taker would be the best damage dealer, but don't waste your time trying to heal anything, a barbarian with a medical kit is twice the healer you will be].

I would pick a different mechanical identity for warlocks. Warlocks can change into one thing, that gets better as they level up (and even better if they spend invocations on it). Druids can change into a bunch of things, but a druid's wolf at level 20 will be about the same as the one at level 3, while the warlock's dark wolf will be considerably more powerful at level 20 than at level 3. I could see something like a shadow form being good for stealth, not combat, so 'locks wouldn't have to change in a fight.

I haven't figured out what this would look like, but I would like fighters to have a mechanism for getting better the longer the fight goes (maybe related to con). Make them "main event" fighters.

I would add spiritual damage (like psychic damage). Paladin's smites and some cleric spells would use it (also angels/devils/demons/etc. would do some spiritual damage when they hit).

 

[Blue]

The other pillars are really built around one character taking control of the situation, while everyone else sits back and waits for them to finish. While the fighter is running the obstacle course up to the lever to open the door, the other three players are just sitting back and waiting for them to finish.

This is a really good observation. I don't think it's a "problem" from how we want RPGs mimic reality - there are times in RL when one person does the talking, or one person reads the maps, or fixes the technical problem. And mechanically doing something that mut involve everyone at times when it's not needed might foster the opposite result. If, for example, we make everyone involved in a negotiation, then the uncouth barbarian may be lowering everyone's choices and decide next time not to go witht he party at all which even further isolates that player.

Hmm, what do we expect in this case from an RPG mechanically? Is there a different goal we should be shooting for?