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

[Scribe]

Step 1: Get Kelsey Dionne to create it.
Step 2: Profit

Better, just play Shadowdark, the Western Marches Kickstarter is still available folks.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Better, just play Shadowdark, the Western Marches Kickstarter is still available folks.

True, but as mentioned some people just like to stick to a brand name.

 

[Zardnaar]

working as intended, when you cast your spell, you want to make your spell slot worth, and Action that you used.


the more this debate is going on, the more I think that there should not be any saves vs spells. it works or it does not.

IE: hold person, you are affected for 5 rounds, minus your Wis bonus. So with 20 wisdom, you are immune, with 8 wisdom, you are affected for 6 rounds. or you can have a minimum duration of 1 round. So you have your Action worth.

"saves" proficiency can increase your effective attribute by 1 or 2 points.

Youre aware 5E and 3E are odd ones out in regards to defenses scaling very poorly?

Also kinda rushed last minute we have to do something in 5E playtest.

Proficiency bonus should be applied to all saves or removed from spell DCs.

I use a lot of spellcasters in my campaigns. Baddies are often cultists.

PCs dont fear damage they fear disabling effects like paralyzed.

Unless tge damage is getting over 20d6. I hit them with 40d6 DC 23 meteor swarm at q4th level.
DCs ove 17 were common. CR 2s coikd be used as mooks so an low/east fight could be 10 cultists each with hold person.

RAW you can spam this type of stuff and over load Indomitable and counterspells.

I didnt abusive to tgat extent but often had primary caster baddie, 2 henchmen, 4 cr 2-3 with the rest being mundane mooks and guards.

If DM wanted to you can easily throw lots of this stuff PCs.

Are you gappy with DMs uring multiple low CR dpellcasters vs PCs? Higher CR ones are CR6-12. Mages, archnages, priests and performers gone to mind.

Cone of cold vs PCs level 4 its only CR 6.....

Archmage. CR 12 (lvl 7ish) I'll swap out its level 9 spell for meteor swarm and its level 6 for a hold person lvl 6.

 

[TwoSix]

But does it need to pick a lane? You might like that on an aesthetic level? But maybe D&D is successful because it never picked a lane and gives everyone something. It might not be anywhere as good at that something than a game dedicated to it, but it means it appeals to more people and it's easier to build a group, everyone has to compromise a little, but you'll find someone to enjoy it.

I think there exists a path where D&D is made into a more focused, defined game while still retaining almost all of its current player base.

I'm not saying I know that path, or that I think it will be discovered, but I think the possibility exists.

 

[overgeeked]

Replicate 4E in almost every respect. The only real difference would be tear out the combat system and replace it with clocks and countdowns. Look to games like Daggerheart, BitD, and PbtA for pointers. Return to Nentir Vale, points of light, the Dawn War pantheon, and the World Axis cosmology.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think there exists a path where D&D is made into a more focused, defined game while still retaining almost all of its current player base.

I'm not saying I know that path, or that I think it will be discovered, but I think the possibility exists.

I think tgsts true as well.

Im not sure what tgat path is. Might be a direction ENworld would hate eg simple less complex.

A gritty 3.5/5E type system comes to mind. Hp bloat reigned in, simplified classes, monsters start getting nasty abilities back.

I doubt tgey woukd go more complex than 5.5.

Another path epukd be building on 5.5 but different direction coming out the other end.

Better monsters either way. I dont see them slowing things down a'la 4E so better defenses, lower hp, higher AC and other abilities vs more damage.

A 5.75 woukd build on 5.5. All the ingredients are there for sone kick ass monsters ad high level play. They would just need to move away from 5.0 design on monsters. Not backwards compatible.

Simpler, grittier or tougher 5.5 seem 3 obvious paths. No idea which one would appeal the most.

3.5 hp level serms to bridge the divide between glass canons (1E to 3.0) and hp bloat of 4E and 5E. The bloat has failed conceptually. Mearls has recognized this.

Playerbase might like easy mode though so might be stuck with it.

 

[Reynard]

I think there exists a path where D&D is made into a more focused, defined game while still retaining almost all of its current player base.

I'm not saying I know that path, or that I think it will be discovered, but I think the possibility exists.

I would love to see a new edition focused primarily on the dungeon. It won't happen though.

 

[Marc17]

My personal fantasy heartbreaker would be a return to 3E, but with math that more resembled 2E where saves, skills, and other rolls tend to just get better. Reduce the ability bonuses back to +3 for 18 so the dominate the game less. Balance the classes. Put some thought into the skills and how they interact with the game. Pay more attention to interaction and exploration and support and provide for play styles besides combat. Involve high level play move through having home base/bastion into "domain management" but have the management part be very simple. Acting as an answer of what to do with that money they get adventuring, but allow them to get something back also. Also starting with the assumption if not goal that the game can be reduced to a very simple B/X style game which could be a starter product.

ETA: and canonically, we would also Tortles, but not Kender.

 

[MoonSong]

As for what would I do, were I in charge.

* Keep ability scores, de-emphasize the modifiers. Use the ability scores for passive benefits. AC, defenses, DCs. Keep the modifiers for active uses. So AC is based on Dexterity score, finesse attacks on the bonus.

* Debloat HP. Yes, we need more survivable early characters, we don't need them to gain HP every level. Make it like bounded accuracy, only gain HP at set levels, no faster.

* Add parries. Allow martials to attempt to parry enemy attacks. This way they gain another dimension where they can remain engaged. This enhances survivability and lowers the burden on hitpoints. And groups of enemies remain scary across the board. Also, solo bosses can be granted a number of reactions to keep them relevant without having to recur to metagaming constructs to compensate the advantage of sheer numbers.

* Make in-combat healing fun. Yes, healing is a chore and something that gets in the way of doing actually fun things. However that is only because designers have gone out of the way to make healing itself not-fun. Having less HP across the board already makes it easier to keep healers relevant. The other part is as simple as making proactive healing give bonuses (more damage, more accuracy, temporal hp, bonuses to saving throws, more parries, even more actions) and even work better on active characters rather than on already downed ones. We can keep boring "insert bonus action, get an ally to rejoin the fight" too because not everybody rolls the same way. The idea is not to take that away, but to expand the viable character types.

* Every class gets their archetype at first level. The most idiotic and dumb decision in 24 was to take away subclass choice at first level. Everybody should choose at first level and be able to play the character they want from day one, not having to wait for later levels. This is important for party dynamics. Everybody should be able to perform their party role from the very beginning. Now, to answer to the argument in favor of moving the choice away, (you can't expect noobies to handle so much choice at first level. We want people to have the time to experiment being just an x, before diverging), the answer is to have default archetypes that are explicitly dead simple and purely generic. This way you are not limited to just experimenting "just a sorcerer" for two levels, but you can do so for all of the game. And on the other hand, you aren't forced to pay your dues for two levels before you are allowed to play the character you actually want. This makes, for example, a scout rogue a more suitable spell-less ranger. Also can be a venue for simultaneous multiclassing.

* Stop dodging around Bonus action. Bonus actions are a resource. Stop pretending they aren't. That way you just force people to attain system mastery which slows down play. To make them having a cost, make it so your main action has advantage if you forego your bonus action.

* A fireball is a fireball is a fireball. Spells don't need to scale. HP isn't so big anymore, so damage doesn't need to keep growing.

* Maybe consider something like mana/essence that can be used for greater exploits. Unlike HP and accuracy, this can be gained every level.

* Bring back feats as mini-bonuses. Maybe call them something else, but we need something to customize characters in minor ways. I just want my PC to wield a certain weapon they don't get from class. I don't need to spend a full feat into the whole package. Bring back ways to gain small proficiencies that don't affect too much the power level.

* The way I see it, origin/kin/whatever should be purely cosmetic. You choose your origin -which can be open ended-, and your choice of something unique you tie to it. Be it darkvision or something equally valuable. Maybe tone it down to low-light vision. Nearly universal darkvision never sat well with me.

* Please bring back backgrounds as mostly fluff. Tying ability score bonuses and a feat to them makes them too mechanistic. Just give the choice of feat and score bonuses as free. -though with suggestions for the kids-

* Go to a happy medium between the extreme free-for-all of 5e and the needless codification of 24. More rules for the DMs that need them, but not that much.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Millions of People play D&D so why copy a game which copies D&D which only has 10% of its userbase?

If the amount of players is an argument, then there should be even less reason to copy the D&D copy PF2.

And if we have free movement, and simplify the 3 action economy, then we just have the 1 action economy D&D 5E has. (+bonus action, which is pretty much the same as "flurry" in PF2 a way to give a limited additional action). Sure the bonus action could be simplified or clarified.

If anything D&D should take inspiration from games not copying D&D. Computer games, boardgames, wargames, cardgames or also some narrative RPGs maybe, so new influences come into the traditional RPGs.


Well with all the feats yes, but the simplified Essential classes like the Slayer, but also the Elementalist Sorcerer are quite simple. And having also a simplified caster like the Elementalist for me was a big plust.

Essentials was probably too late (and within 4E concept of balance, I think they're problematic. The moment not everyone has encounters and dailies, you risk getting into balance issues between 1 combat per extended rest and 8 combats per extended rest. But personally, I'd ditch "daily" combat powers anyway.)