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

[Lanefan]

It takes 8 hours to get the pet back. That’s also the same length as a long rest, right? Why are you saying it takes 16 hours?

Probably because the actions required to get the pet back don't fall under the definition of restful...

Man, your math skills are getting worse.

...therefore, like it or not, the math as presented is right: 8 plus 8 does come to 16.

But @SkidAce and others do have a good point: why not just revive the flippin' thing? It's automatic in 5e, and nowhere near as costly as earlier editions.

That said, my thoughts keep wandering back to this:

Pirates get to have parrots on their shoulders. Rangers get stirges on theirs; and I don't know 'bout you but I sure don't want a stirge that close to my neck all day no matter how well traied it is...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Probably because the actions required to get the pet back don't fall under the definition of restful...
...therefore, like it or not, the math as presented is right: 8 plus 8 does come to 16.

It doesn’t require a long rest, so it doesn’t take 16 hours. That’s why what he was saying makes no sense when he said no one has 16 hours to replace their pet.

But @SkidAce and others do have a good point: why not just revive the flippin' thing? It's automatic in 5e, and nowhere near as costly as earlier editions.

Yes that’s true. And another reason why it doesn’t make sense to keep claiming that is such a major drawback to the design.

 

[Blue]

Will I get shot if I just say adventuring pets of any kind are annoying and that I for one would be happy to see the end of them?

shields up!

Curious, why the dislike for pets?

A friend I've been gaming with for several decades feels the same way and always claims it's because it takes so much longer. But in truth pets have a very limited choice of actions, and when I run a pet class (over various editions and games) I take regularly take less time then the casters.

So I'm biased to feel that some of the disgruntlement against pets is not soundly based in fact, but I have him as most of my example so I'm wondering what other basis for feeling there are out .

 

[Parmandur]

It doesn’t require a long rest, so it doesn’t take 16 hours. That’s why what he was saying makes no sense when he said no one has 16 hours to replace their pet.


Yes that’s true. And another reason why it doesn’t make sense to keep claiming that is such a major drawback to the design.

I imagine the number of DMs who don't give their Beastmaster's pet the full gamut of death saves is close to nil.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

No thanks. I want off the edition treadmill entirely and forever. I recognize that might be asking too much, but that is what I want from 6e- it never to come around.

What I want from 5e is a better suite of options- more dials that can be tweaked to achieve various desired playstyles. I want more and better options for setting up different rates of recovery from resting. I want more and different methods of advancing with or without xp. I want a suite of options that brings back the feel of 4e combat. I want mass combat rules and domain management systems.



Just increasing the font size of the index and getting rid of every single entry that references another entry instead of just putting a page number on it, making the goddamn page numbers in the book readably dark instead of light enough that you can't see 'em in dim lighting, and putting a sort of "you are here" down the side of every page (like in PF2e) would pretty well fix this, IMHO.

Some of the index entries send you to another item in the index, which then just gives a single page number. Why would you do that instead of just listing the page number under the first entry? It makes no sense.

 

[ssvegeta555]

The example I gave in this thread. Skill use. There's very little guidance on how to adjudicate the skills, on what they actually do. Or even using ability scores in general. Or how to bring magic items into a game. The prices listed are several thousand gp wide, and the advice given on how many to give players is "use your judgement"--but there's no advice given on how to develop that judgement. A post earlier suggested that the issue is really with the DMG, where the guidance should be, but is absent. It's fine to say "use your judgement", but without helping the DM develop that judgement, it's useless advice.

Yep, I have the same preferences. I found 5e largely too loosey goosey for my tastes. I feel lost on what to do next and there's very little guidance provided. It's too open.

3.5 and other crunchy games have a nice sturdy foundation. While some feel it's stifling, I like the how things are spelled out and structured, to reference as a baseline and as a jumping off point for rulings as I run the game. I went back to 3.5 (stealing some 5e rules to backport) finding 5e just not to my tastes. I feel at home again and it feels great. And I also want more options and mechanics.

As for the topic of 6e. Hmm... A proper pet class would be nice.

 

[Lanefan]

Curious, why the dislike for pets?

A friend I've been gaming with for several decades feels the same way and always claims it's because it takes so much longer. But in truth pets have a very limited choice of actions, and when I run a pet class (over various editions and games) I take regularly take less time then the casters.

So I'm biased to feel that some of the disgruntlement against pets is not soundly based in fact, but I have him as most of my example so I'm wondering what other basis for feeling there are out .

There's three types of pets:

One, something that really is just a pet and nothing more - doesn't have a hope in hell of surviving the first AoE spell it gets caught in, so why bother? (I've had a couple of players try this over the years in my games, resulting in a rather fast 100% death rate for the poor pets)

Two, wizards' familiars - now not only do I have to worry about managing my own resources, I have to make sure I have enough cat food. Sure they provide some benefits to the wizard, but having played wizards with familiars in a few editions I just find them annoying to keep track of and constantly have to worry about keeping safe; and as DM or as someone playing in a party that has one there's always the back-of-mind concern about killing it.

Three, rangers' (and sometimes druids') animal companions - these are to me the worst offenders. If a druid needs an animal she can just wildshape into said animal and have done with it. Ranger animal companions just don't do it for me - it's just the awful Drizzt-ification of the class rearing its ugly head yet again. Does Aragorn wander around with a pet? No, horses and steeds notwithstanding. Does Robin Hood? No; he shoots them and feeds them to his merry men.

This is why the Figurines of Wondrous Power are so nice - bring out the Onyx Dog and (in 1e) you've got a dog for 12 hours; and if it dies it just reverts to statuette form so nobody need be too concerned about protecting it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you think animal companions suck in DND, don’t play wfrp1e lol. Took me forever to finally get the gold to buy a war horse for my knight PC, only to have it immediately die from a scaven attack.

Yes, I’m still bitter...

 

[The Green Hermit]

I'm rolling up a beastmaster for my next PC, so I guess I'm about to discover which side of the debate I am on.

 

[schneeland]

The question of pet companions aside (not a big fan of the current implementation - if anything, just allow everyone to have a loyal dog companion - but that's personal preference), there is a number of things I would like to see in a potential sixth edition.
However, I also have little hope for them to actually appear (also, I agree that 6e is not happening until the sales decline - the may do something in 2024 for the 50th anniversary of D&D, but that might as well be just a leather tome version of the basic books).
Still, since this is my chance, here's my thoughts:

Product policy:

• I would like to see a return of proper campaign setting books (like the 2e boxes or the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign guide) and also smaller books/"regional guides" with details. Not everything needs to be there in excessive detail (probably small soft cover books of ~100 pages would be enough), but I really would like to see modernized (and timeline-adapted) versions of books/boxes like "Waterdeep and the North", "Empires of the Sands", "Menzoberranzan", etc.
• Like someone a few pages back, I would like to see more independent adventures, not only adventure path-style campaign books.
• I really would like to have official (searchable and indexed) PDFs again like we have for 3/3.5e

Layout&Structure:

• The books would really benefit from a better index and, while were at it, also better layout that highlights rules parts more clearly (also, don't hide rule parts in plain text)
• As someone already noticed, a better index would also be much appreciated

Translation policy:

• Probably not relevant for people that only buy the English books, but for the love of god, the current nonsense of putting brand management before everything else and not translating so many words should stop. Iconic names like Waterdeep, Evermeet, etc. were translated in Germany for every edition since the first, and translators were allowed to come up with names that at least felt like an adequate use of the German language. The fact that we now have titles like "Waterdeep: Drachenraub" is one of my major dissatisfactions with 5e.

Abilities/Skills/Checks:

• On the one hand, I like the simplicity of advantage/disadvantage, but a) it is too coarse-grained and b) there is an awful lot of rules that dictate when you should get advantage. I would very much prefer a system that leans more into DM judgement, but allows at least one, maybe two more levels for the relative fictional position. Theoretically this could be done by introducing major advantage/disadvantage and rolling 3d20. Beyond three dice, though, this might start to be too slow at the table (and the probability distribution shifts a little too much towards the higher end of the spectrum)
• I would like a more fine-grained skill system - that's probably the only thing I really like about PF2. In 5e, characters of the same subclass often fill rather "samey", and I really would like to have the option for a little more customization here.
• Related to the previous point: I am not a big fan of the current progression system where you become better just by levelling up. I would rather like to see skill increases for that.
• I would like to also see skills for combat and magic (probably an even bigger step for D&D than some other stuff in my list)
• Go back to roll under attribute (probably: +skill) or drop the 3d6 / 3-18 attribute scores. If we are just using the bonus, then we can also skip the old stuff that is now devoid of mechanical meaning.
• Split Wisdom into Willpower and Perception
• Split Dexterity into Agility/Speed and Nimbleness; use agility to determine movement rate

Character Classes:

• Generally I feel, there is a lot of potential to weed out classes here and sharpen the concept for the remaining ones, e.g.
  • Sorcerers and warlocks could be merged - you either go the long and hard way to learn magic (Wizard) or you bargain with a power of questionable morality or alien motives to gain power quicker.
  • Druids stop being full casters and are now only shapeshifting nature-lovers
  • While we're at it: current clerics can go away - healing works much better in 5e without constant cure XXX spell spamming, and if you want to play a religious warrior, you can play a Paladin. Maybe introduce a new Priest class for religious scholars that can exorcize evil things and maybe also commune with their god for divine intervention - but that should be a new subsystem that does not work like wizardly magic
  • Generally: no one gets access to the full spell list all the time (too much time wasted picking the right spells for the next day) - you learn a number of spells (receive it from your patron) and choose only from those
  • Rogues are in a weird space right now where they feel like DEX-based warriors - I don't have a good idea on what to do with them right now
  • On the other hand: rename Monk into Martial Artist/Ninja, actual monks like Little John could be a subclass of the Priest class
  • Rangers become lightly armoured scout types - no one gets an animal companion (see initial comment)
• Multi-classing could go away completely - rather allow people to adopt additional (mechanically represented) traits with feats or something like that
• Currently a lot of the "powers" characters gain through level progression are combat-related - replace them with more options that support the other pillars of play

Hit Points/Combat:

• Limit hit point inflation or come up with an alternative system, where hit points only represent level of exhaustion and will to fight, and there is a (low) number of actual wounds characters can take.
  • Probably critical hits should always deal actual wounds then.
  • Actual wounds shouldn't heal without treatment on rests
• Encourage tactical play through situational bonuses/penalties (see more fine-grained advantage/disadvantage system); also: add more examples on what people could do in combat and maybe also offer advice to DMs on how to adjudicate the respective difficulties
• Introduce some sort of success level for attacks that carries over to damage
• Consider modelling combat/conflict as opposed rolls instead of flat AC/stat-based checks; armour then does damage reduction instead of making you harder to hit (this is, admittedly, a pretty major change); maybe only allow defence against ranged attacks if you have a shield

Magic Items:

• Allow special fighting techniques, fancy rune tattoos or something like that as alternative to magic items

Races/Backgrounds:

• Consider tying ability score increases to backgrounds instead of sub-races; maybe consider also moving race ASIs there (I have become so used to them, though, that I don't mind the either - but making an elfen black smith a little stronger than a dwarven scholar seems only logical to me)
• Following a sentiment uttered before: Halflings go away and are merged into Gnomes.

General Tone/Settings:

• Having started with 2e, the plethora of player races in 5e does not really match my mental image of the D&D fantasy world - this is, of course, highly subjective, and people seem to love their Tieflings, Dragonborn, Aasimar, etc., but I would really like to see a variant of the game with a more classical feel.
• Generally: I feel, there is room for a few campaign settings that branch off the main line and offer a different perspective.

Tiers of Play:

• For the most part of my D&D history, my characters never went much beyond level 12 (I think, I have a handful of characters that go up to 14), and the current adventure modules also seem to live in that range. So maybe consider two lines, where "basic" 6e goes up to level 12, and "advanced" 6e goes up to higher levels (maybe even beyond 20)

I could come up with a few more things, but I really think I have written enough by now. Sorry for the wall of text, guys