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

[MechaTarrasque]

I think I would be more interested in "what you notice" coming from background than from class.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Which is just what I'm getting at: Rangers and Rogues are trained to notice everything. Other classes might be good at noticing things specific to class e.g. a Fighter might notice something about her foe's armour that others would likely miss, but that comes under 'situational'. For Rangers and Rogues, it's blanket.

Why would a ranger notice a book that was unlike the other books in a library?

Why would a rogue notice birds flocking in irregular ways?

EDIT: On the other hand, if "You get to add (some bonus) to all Perception checks that rely on (insert some senses)" were designed as a class bonus for rangers or rogues, I could see hand-waving it in the same way that we hand-wave so many things in an RPG. I succumbed to arguing about realism...which I despise anyway...instead of game mechanics.

 

[Blue]

It’s almost as if the skills and attributes a person can have are impacted by more than just one of six total ability scores

While I wouldn't want it for D&D 6e because it doesn't fit my mental box of "D&D", 13th Age (a d20 OGL game that came out a bit before 5e and is similarly streamlined) does this. Several things are calculated as the middle score of three. For example your Mental Defense (a 4e type defense-instead-of-save) is based on your class, but the bonus is the middle value of Int, Wis and Chr modifiers. Your AC modifier is the middle of Con, Dex, and Wis.

 

[delph]

bestcrafted/overcrafted (call it like you want) weapons and armors giving +1(+2?) without magic and be best base for enhancing

 

[Garthanos]

While I wouldn't want it for D&D 6e because it doesn't fit my mental box of "D&D", 13th Age (a d20 OGL game that came out a bit before 5e and is similarly streamlined) does this. Several things are calculated as the middle score of three. For example your Mental Defense (a 4e type defense-instead-of-save) is based on your class, but the bonus is the middle value of Int, Wis and Chr modifiers. Your AC modifier is the middle of Con, Dex, and Wis.

I think I get what you mean about being D&D but its a subtle one. I am now a days quite on board with single attributes affecting actions. To me attribute in use sort of defines the style of the actions being used.... I seen that type of mechanic in RuneQuest where attributes were merged together and distinctions were lost. A fighter using strength and a rogue using dex and a ranger sometimes using either is defining a style, In RQ it would be an amalgam for everyone. I like 4es pick your best as to me that fills the trope of playing to ones strengths and is a better expression of the characters style.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh, I wasn't trying to argue for the removal or change to the 6 D&D stats. I was arguing that they are what they are, and it's part of D&D, so don't waste time trying to shoehorn or force those abilities into a skill where they might not fit, and just go with what was assigned, otherwise it's a hole that has no end.

 

[Nebulous]

This is a fairly brilliant idea, though I'm sure it would ruffle some feathers. Sell D&D as levels 1-10 and then later publish D&D for levels 11-20 (D&D Advanced?) after those rules have been appropriately playtested. The major issue I would foresee is that people may feel like they are only getting "half a game" if WotC sold the game this way.

Agreed, it would anger a lot of people as "half a game" and probably WON'T happen, but I would personally love to see that. Of course, you'd also have the split of spells according to what you can cast by level, so at some point you'd need both books at least for the spell list.

 

[Aldarc]

Agreed, it would anger a lot of people as "half a game" and probably WON'T happen, but I would personally love to see that. Of course, you'd also have the split of spells according to what you can cast by level, so at some point you'd need both books at least for the spell list.

Honestly though, there are more intuitive ways that D&D could do spell level progression. Spreading spells across 10 spell levels (not including cantrips) in 20 levels seems much easier.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed, it would anger a lot of people as "half a game" and probably WON'T happen, but I would personally love to see that. Of course, you'd also have the split of spells according to what you can cast by level, so at some point you'd need both books at least for the spell list.

The DM would, anyway; as 90% of the times those spells come into use are in figuring out what high-level opposition can do.

The rest of the use comes from working out what spells might have been used to generate funky magic effect xyz that you want to stick into a dungeon somewhere.

Honestly though, there are more intuitive ways that D&D could do spell level progression. Spreading spells across 10 spell levels (not including cantrips) in 20 levels seems much easier.

Works fine if you don't want anyone to have spells before 2nd level. But the casting progression starts at 1st, so either it finishes before 20th (thus an every-other-level 10-spell-level progression would end at 19th) or there's got to be some gaps in it.

And a 9-level progression, for example, could gain spell levels at 1st-3rd-5th then 8th-10th-12th then 15th-17th-19th. Or if you want to keep it strictly tier-based, 1st-3rd then 5th-7th then 10th-12th then 15th-17th then 20th; though I think I prefer the former.

 

[bmfrosty]

The core rules are great. I wouldn't do much more to them than restate them and reorganize them slightly.

I'd turn feats and multiclassing off by default. Make them very distinctly an optional rule to the point of having them not available or restricted in AL play.

I'd also work in more optional rules and give them distinct names. For example we have a rule for Critical Hits. I could see two more variations on that - one being the max dice + dice version - call that the "Perkins Crit" (or whatever) - and I could see also having a crit table to roll a d20 on - call that a "Table Crit". Having specific names for them would give a universal shorthand to it.

I'd include a glossary of terms and keywords as well. The rules have rules for how to read them, but I haven't run into them while reading the book.

I'd work out a way to deduplicate proficiencies given by class, race, and background.

The math in the game is pretty great, so I wouldn't mess with it.

I think the biggest thing that I would want worked on would be the classes themselves. Every class could use some rework. Not necessarily major, but often minor. Take this rule for the Monk:

"At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property."

Change that to:

"At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are weapons that you are proficient with that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property."

And it means that your Monk can use Darts as Monk Weapons. You can use a Sun Sword as a monk weapon.

All it does is add some D8 weapons to the list which is a small change in the math in levels 1-10, but opens up the opportunities for flavor.