D&D 5E (2024) How I would do 6E.

[TwoSix]

I wouldn't make every class a spell caster, but every character would get level based slots as a fungible resource that can be used for things other than spells.

After Book of Nine Swords, I really thought that was the model 4e was going to do. They pretty much did it, but I think it would have been better if they had kept the classic nine-tier system to do it.

 

[Minigiant]

Really if I were to do it, I would focus on the fantasy

The barbarian PC or NPC goes to an angry wildman (tier 1) to frenzied berserker (tier 2) to a brutal juggernaut (tier 3) to incredible hulk (tier 4) to worldbreaking force of rage (tier 5).

 

[Zardnaar]

I worked on my own edition of D&D during the D&D Next Playtest. I didn't have enough faith that they'd make a worthwhile game, and really liked some things from the playtest. I think the primary thing I would do is move back towards "Swingy" combat, rather than "slog" combat (where there's massive HP bloat).

Another big thing I want to see change is using BECMI's ability score modifiers, rather than the +/-1 per 2 ability modifier introducted in 3E. Probably means getting rid of ASI, but you can add direct modifiers without modifying the ability score itself. For example, something that normally gave +1 to strength might give +1 to strength checks and saving throws, but not attacks or DCs. Obviously there's a lot of detail to work out for this.


I'd probably like a 6 or 7. I like the fact that 5E doesn't try to have a rule for everything, allowing the DM to make rulings as needed. 3E tried to codify everything, and it made the game crawl when the DM had to look up a rule.


Uncapped levels, with limited benefits beyond 10th, similar to AD&D.


Archetypes are always going to exist, but I'm assuming you're referring to subclasses from 5E. I think they're a great addition, allowing two characters of the same class without having lots of overlap.


Spells are going to be revised in a new edition, regardless. Very few spells need to go away, but many need adjustment.


HP bloat has been a problem since 3E, and has just gotten worse with every edition. Having Con add HP using the +/-1 per 2 ability scores was a terrible idea. 4E was better since it capped the benefit to once, rather than every level, but it still massively bloated HP.


I personally love negative effects, even ones that are "unfun" like paralyze. However, I agree that most negative effects should have limited impact on the duration of the character, and should have ways to be negated. Old school energy drain worked for a time when you had different level characters in a group by default, but losing levels in a game like 3E became a death spiral (lower level characters would just die more often, causing more level loss). I think petrification and death are the only two "permanent" effects I'm a fan of, and both of which can be negated with powerful magic.


It really depends on what kind of game you want. I'm personally okay with 5E's bounded accuracy making saving throws largely passable by everyone. The only change I'd consider is allowing half proficiency for "untrained" saves. Well, and completely rewrite the common usage so that every ability score was useful for a saving throw. This would make having a low ability score a significant penalty for about 1/6th the saves.


I'm personally a fan of the old percentage magic resistance, where some creatures were potentially immune to spells (making martials matter a lot more). Personally, I'd like a "shake it off" ability that allows a Legendary creature to spend some number of legendary actions to remove debuffs, but it can't happen at the end of the turn it's created (allowing at least 1 turn where the debuff is in effect).


I think the concept of spell damage needs a massive overhaul, but not for the same reason. First, I think that scaling cantrips need to go away. Using a spell slot should be a limited resource that does impressive damage. If you reduce HP bloat, then you don't need to upgrade the damage dealt. If you don't really reduce the bloat, then yeah spells need to add multiple dice for upcasting. Dice based on caster level just leads to the linear fighter/quadratic wizard problem.


This already happens. They changed Stealth to become Invisibility during the One D&D Playtest without any input from the players. They do the survey to get an overall feel of how people think about things, but sometimes they've already made up their minds.

Spwll scaling sanahge wasnt tge LFQW problem. Became one rue to online discourse.

Remember fireball being good in 3E? Nope thevproblem was more save or dies and how spell leaves scaled.

5E also has a version of that. MM saves end up 17-27 range.bypure going to fail bad saves a lot. I had PCs flunking DC12 saves at level 12 and 13.

 

[Sorinth]

I don’t want them to start by redesigning the mechanics; I want them to start by examining, consolidating, and revising tropes. Have the game engine and rules transmit a coherent picture of what the game is supposed to be like. Then make the mechanics flexible enough for 3rd parties and homebrewers to tweak as needed.

The game needs to decide what it is and pick a lane. It is a tactical game? A strategy game? A game of character creation and trying out concepts? A game focused on dramatic moments and thespianism?

Once that path is decided, start examine the key concepts and shaping them to support that path. If the game is tactical, you build mechanics into the class system to support that. If it’s more dramatic or character building focused, lean harder into the conceptual imagery of the classes through abilities that demonstrate their core competencies.

Then fill your books with sidebars explaining why you made the decisions you made, and how the players could change them.

They are almost certainly going to want to be the system that supports any and every style of game.

 

[Eubani]

Pay greater attention to martial out of combat capabilities, reduce the caster/martial divide.

 

[Remathilis]

How I would do 6e.

Step 1: don't start thinking about it for 5 years. Instead, keep trying to innovate 5e.
Step 2: start incorporating good ideas from the last 5 years and what your competitors are doing.

 

[TwoSix]

They are almost certainly going to want to be the system that supports any and every style of game.

I'm sure they will. But this is a thread for how I think they should do it.

 

[HatWearingFool]

I'd identify CORE do not touch features first. IMO, it's the six primary ability scores ranging 3d6,

Why though? I get that this was one of the sacred cows the 3e team decided they had to keep, but can’t we finally get rid of these?

What is the point? They are just extra numbers on the character sheet that cause confusion. I have no problem keeping the 6 core stats if we must but why not cut out the middleman and just have the modifier?

 

[Minigiant]

Pay greater attention to martial out of combat capabilities, reduce the caster/martial divide.

Im a fan of separating out of combat by class groups.

Experts get Expertise and special movement

Warriors can spend their combat class resources for a one time skill boosts

Priests can give hard spell buffs to rolls

Mages can alter the situation in non nunerical manners

 

[Eubani]

Perception as a stat as all beings perceive in one way or another and it may as well be one preselected skill in nearly all cases.