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

[BookBarbarian]

Yes. I’m constantly in groups as a barbarian and the group memebers are always
‘Why aren’t your raging? You should always rage!’

To which I reply
‘Calm down, squishies.’

In truth, I save one Rage for a high attack/high AC boss fight (because if they are so likely to hit me I might as well just Reckless Attack and if they are hard to hit I need to reckless attack in which case I want to have a Rage use handy), then I burn though all the rest as often as combats happen.

I'm also trying to figure out if an enemy has a low enough AC to make using -5/+10 from GWM worth it, and if so should I Reckless Attack, and if so should I Rage. Making those decisions would paralyze some of my players.

 

[S'mon]

I wonder what his version of that story is.

Atherton would probably say he didn't like 5e and preferred 1e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If all goes well, future editions of D&D will be like special editions of other established properties, with art &c alluding to some tie-in or other marketing angle.

A 50th anniversary edition, for instance. With, at least, really cool cover art, maybe some commentary by surviving TSR alumni, downloadable pdfs of the original game, etc.

But, at this point, WotC, and others outside the deepest darkest die-hard-est hard-core of the fanbase (and I'm looking out from that little redoubt, so don't take anything I say too seriously) realize that the rules/mechanics/minutiae of D&D are unimportant to the brand beyond maintaining consistency and continuity of the brand experience. That is, the long unstable wild-west era of D&D, when the game was in constant flux, is likely over. 5e probably won't be called "5e" that much longer, either: it'll just be D&D. And 'e's will be dusted off only for erudite, increasingly obscure and irrelevant, factoids about the game's past.

 

[Parmandur]

If all goes well, future editions of D&D will be like special editions of other established properties, with art &c alluding to some tie-in or other marketing angle.

A 50th anniversary edition, for instance. With, at least, really cool cover art, maybe some commentary by surviving TSR alumni, downloadable pdfs of the original game, etc.

But, at this point, WotC, and others outside the deepest darkest die-hard-est hard-core of the fanbase (and I'm looking out from that little redoubt, so don't take anything I say too seriously) realize that the rules/mechanics/minutiae of D&D are unimportant to the brand beyond maintaining consistency and continuity of the brand experience. That is, the long unstable wild-west era of D&D, when the game was in constant flux, is likely over. 5e probably won't be called "5e" that much longer, either: it'll just be D&D. And 'e's will be dusted off only for erudite, increasingly obscure and irrelevant, factoids about the game's past.

WotC has never called 5E "5E". They literally have always called it "Dungeons & Dragons" in every media since 2014.

 

[Hurin70]

I find it interesting to see many posters in this thread suggest things for 6e that were in 4e. I hope that's the sign we're finally past the vigilante phase, when everything from 4e had to die in fire, and that we can finally, calmly, and rationally appreciate and accept what good ideas 4e had.

It did have some. I understand why many people disliked 4e, and some hated it, and I'm not expecting anyone who hated it to start loving it. But by the same token, 4e had some good ideas that can be of use in the future, even aside from the elements that 5e adopted but refused to call by their 4e names (like hit dice).

I personally would like to see the return of the Warlord. Playing one was the most fun I have ever had in a DnD campaign, and the 5e pseudo-versions just don't do it for me.

I would also like to see the return of clear rules (rather than 'rulings' and DM fiat), especially for things like Stealth.

I would also like to see the return of negative hit points from still earlier editions. The way characters currently keep popping up in battles, going from 0 hits to 1 hit and back again and again, makes 5e combat seem like a silly game of whack-a-mole.

I would also like to have something for my character to spend hismoney on, and magic items become more abundant. Yes, I know, that raises some balance issues, but 5e already has balance issues, at least judging from the published modules (which are TPK-fests). On the subject of balance, I'd like to see more of that too -- how about fewer Kobayashi Maru scenarios to start? And a decent Ranger? Is that too much to ask?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Except there is no necessity for them to show up independently in multiple regions in order to have separate cultures. After all, Humans aren't thought to have originated independently in separate areas of the word (whether created or evolved), are thought to have come from one "batch", and yet Humans do not all share the same culture. Even if you started with one batch of Elves, if one group settled in one type of terrain in one area of the world and the other settled in different terrain in a distant part of the world, you'd expect the two groups to diverge over time and not stay identical.

Also, the Irish weren’t going hard on the longbow when the English were, and they’re right the hell next to each other, and have had closely tied cultures since before the advent of writing.

 

[Lanefan]

I understand why many people disliked 4e, and some hated it, and I'm not expecting anyone who hated it to start loving it. But by the same token, 4e had some good ideas that can be of use in the future, even aside from the elements that 5e adopted but refused to call by their 4e names (like hit dice).

Bloodied. Best mechanic 4e gave us, and it's not even close: a mechanical reflection of how a creature might change as it gets more and more hurt.

And the 'bloodied' condition doesn't always have to kick in at strictly half a creature's h.p. total. It could happen as soon as the creature is damaged at all; or not until the creature is close to death...each one could be different. But the idea of a creature gaining (or losing!) abilities as its health gets worse is excellent.

I personally would like to see the return of the Warlord. Playing one was the most fun I have ever had in a DnD campaign, and the 5e pseudo-versions just don't do it for me.

As long as it doesn't have (1) non-magical and-or (2) ranged healing, as those concepts do need to die in a fire.

A fire which I'd be quite happy to light.

I would also like to see the return of clear rules (rather than 'rulings' and DM fiat), especially for things like Stealth.

The problem there with stealth is that no set of rules can possibly cover every situation that's going to arise during play at any given table (never mind every table!), so either the in-play situations have be unrealistically shoehorned to fit the rules somehow or the stealth rules have to be 58 pages long.

I would also like to see the return of negative hit points from still earlier editions. The way characters currently keep popping up in battles, going from 0 hits to 1 hit and back again and again, makes 5e combat seem like a silly game of whack-a-mole.

On this, however, you have my absolute support and agreement!

And if they don't bring back negative h.p., another answer is some sort of rule or system that severely limits what you can do for the first few rounds after being cured up from 0. Maybe a scaled and unmodified die roll, something like:

1-2 - you remain prone and cannot rise. You are defenseless.
3-5 - you remain prone and cannot rise; you get the benefits of your defenses, and attacks against you have advantage. You can do nothing other than defend.
6-10 - you can move at 1/4 rate, all attacks are at disadvantage, melee attacks against you have advantage, you have no reaction or bonus action this round, and you cannot cast spells of any kind (but can activate or use devices)
11-15 - you can move at 1/2 rate, you can cast a spell or activate or use a device, but you have no reaction or bonus action this round
16-20 - you are fully functional and can act as usual.

So if you got cured from 0 you'd roll against this table each round, at +1 for each previous roll, until you got into the 16-20 range; and a subsequent roll cannot make your situation worse (e.g. if you roll 12 in the first round of recovery then roll 1 in the second round, the 1 is ignored as your situation cannot get worse) until and unless you get hit back down to 0 again, which starts this process over.

Note this is an off-the-cuff shot at this; were I designing it for real it'd be a lot more granular - probably a different condition for each number below 16.

I would also like to have something for my character to spend hismoney on, and magic items become more abundant. Yes, I know, that raises some balance issues, but 5e already has balance issues, at least judging from the published modules (which are TPK-fests). On the subject of balance, I'd like to see more of that too -- how about fewer Kobayashi Maru scenarios to start?

I don't mind magic being more abundant as long as it's also made more fragile.

As for "TPK fests" - this rather goes against what I most often hear about 5e, that it's too forgiving on the PCs.

 

[S'mon]

As for "TPK fests" - this rather goes against what I most often hear about 5e, that it's too forgiving on the PCs.

When I switched to 5e from 1e/3e/4e I pretty much ceased slaughtering my parties. Still get the occasional PC death, but no full TPK since Jan 2015 when I started running 5e, and only one near-TPK when a level 4 group decided to take on a level 7 or 8 encounter. If they had waited one level they would likely have been ok.

 

[S'mon]

Personally I like Warlord 'morale healing' from 4e, and I find the heal-from-0 (borrowed from 4e) works well too, since it only kicks in when the party are in imminent danger of destruction and helps mitigate the squishiness of some PCs. Anyway as GM I can coup de gras PCs at 0 hp, I can target healers, etc.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Let me second the bloodied condition as something to bring to 6e from 4e. I think it could even be made backwards compatible with 5e: a dungeon master can give a creature that has suffered damage the bloodied condition. At that point the dungeon master can pick from or roll for an effect on the bloodied table for the creature's type or the dungeon master can use the bloodied condition effect contained in the creature's stat block. [With the tables, all monsters and NPC's might not have individual effects, and if you had a 5e monster that didn't {yet} have a 6e stat block, you could give it the bloodied condition.]

I would let the players give the PC the bloodied condition if the PC suffered half of their hp's in damage (or less if they use an inspiration point) with an effect based on class and level (multiclass PC's use their total level and pick one of their classes). I am not sure if this would work out, but I see each class having a 20 effect table, and you can pick an effect with a number equal to or less than your level. A player who doesn't want the PC to have the bloodied condition can choose not to invoke it.