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

[CreamCloud0]

Oh man can you imagine complaining?

there#s always complaining.

 

[M_Natas]

i mean, DnD's magic design has kind of created a system where you only really need a small handful of offensive spells to get you through all your combat situations and utility spells are so reliably efficient you don't actually need to dedicate casting mods to them like you do attacking spells, so you can just go all in on buffing your few damage spells and fill the rest of your spell list with utility and get the best of both, so no, i'd be drawing a line and say your either a damage caster or a utility one, pick a lane, because otherwise it just all ends up with casters being overpowered masters of all.

Thats why my system locks spells behind proficiency and expertise requirements.
The 5e Wizard has the big problem that, no matter what subclass you pick, any wizard player will pick the same 90% of spells and only like 10% of unique spells that fit that subclass. The base wizard class is so powerful, that, outside of a bladersinger, all the subclasses don't have enough power budget to make a wizard feel distinct. Abjuration Wizard, Necromancer, Divine- they all will run around with Mage Armor, Magic Missle, Fireball, detect magic, identify ... the spelllist makes the wizard. But because every wizard can pick every wizard spell, always the best 10 spells are picked.

But what if you make proficiency and expertise in a school of magic a necessity for being able to learn higher level spells of that school.
Like, a fireball can only be learned by a wizard who has expertise in evocation. Mage Armor and Shield require proficiency in abjuration.
Now wizards are distinct!
A necromancer will mainly pick necromancy spells, an abjurer abjuration spells and so on. You specialise in one or two schools of magic.
Of course we would need way more spells to bolster the arsenal. We would also turn certain subclass features into spells - which would allow us to get 8 subclasses for the page count of one:
At 1 level, pick two proficiencies for magic schools. At 3rd level pick an expertise for a magic school you are proficient in. Later class features build on top of that.
We lean into the "the spell list is the wizard" thing that is already happening and turning it into a feature instead of a bug.

 

[Tigris]

I hope 6e is closer to a Heroic shadowdark than 3rd or 4th edition.

WotC should aim for low friction, not system mastery. 6e should have fast onboarding, fewer rules interactions to memorize, minimal math and bonuses. It should adopt close, near, far from other systems to limit the need for a VTT. And it's math should be simple so as to enable homebrew to be easily balanced, and allow easy modularity.

If players wanted the mechanical depth and balance many in this thread suggest, PF2 would be gaining players at a much faster rate. Instead the fastest growing third party systems are almost all comparatively rules-lite, or heavily narrative focus. They should be looking to Daggerheart and Shadowdark, not prior editions.

PF2 has not a big depth, its build on illusion of choice mostly. It has 1 specific target audience, people who like system mastery, not ones who like real tactical combat. (You can see this as most people coming from boardgaming do not really like it since the choices feel too shallow).

Heroic shadowdark literally is 5E, since shadowdark is just a 5e clone but less heroic, thats why its so easy to learn, since its just 80% the game people know already. And the target audience is also 5E players, especially since the creator before made 5E material.

Daggerheart is a fast growing game because of the company behind. Critical role was the deciding factor of why 5E grew a lot, so the company behind making its own game is guaranteed to grow.


5E is easy enough to onboard new players. D&D It needs a certain complexity, else people will feel like its just a dumbed down game it needs to MECHANICALLY replicate the cool things from D&D movies, games and books.


More streamlined than 5E, sure, but what people critizize at 5E is rarely that its too complicated. And that people want to actually play narrative games, is something people talk about, but in reality most people still play D&D or D&D clones and there PF2 is still way bigger than Shadowdark.


I dont know why people think that the 100+ million dollar game D&D should try to be more like small games which try to be like D&D, especially when they rarely even reach double digit millions, that makes really no sense. If you are tiny, its a lot easier to grow, than when you are big.

 

[Sorinth]

Thats why my system locks spells behind proficiency and expertise requirements.
The 5e Wizard has the big problem that, no matter what subclass you pick, any wizard player will pick the same 90% of spells and only like 10% of unique spells that fit that subclass. The base wizard class is so powerful, that, outside of a bladersinger, all the subclasses don't have enough power budget to make a wizard feel distinct. Abjuration Wizard, Necromancer, Divine- they all will run around with Mage Armor, Magic Missle, Fireball, detect magic, identify ... the spelllist makes the wizard. But because every wizard can pick every wizard spell, always the best 10 spells are picked.

But what if you make proficiency and expertise in a school of magic a necessity for being able to learn higher level spells of that school.
Like, a fireball can only be learned by a wizard who has expertise in evocation. Mage Armor and Shield require proficiency in abjuration.
Now wizards are distinct!
A necromancer will mainly pick necromancy spells, an abjurer abjuration spells and so on. You specialise in one or two schools of magic.
Of course we would need way more spells to bolster the arsenal. We would also turn certain subclass features into spells - which would allow us to get 8 subclasses for the page count of one:
At 1 level, pick two proficiencies for magic schools. At 3rd level pick an expertise for a magic school you are proficient in. Later class features build on top of that.
We lean into the "the spell list is the wizard" thing that is already happening and turning it into a feature instead of a bug.

My solution for this would be to limit the highest level spells to your specialization. So only the Evoker could get Fireball at level 5, but a non-evoker could still get it at 7. But this requires the schools to actually be balanced.

I'd probably also want the subclasses to reward casting from your chosen school(s), Abjurer is an example of this, they reward you for casting Abjuration spells so you would look for ways to do that. If Enchanters got a carrot for selecting Hypnotic Pattern over Fireball, well they are more likely to pick and cast Hypnotic Pattern over Fireball.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nah.

People want D&D fights to be 3-6 rounds.

The problem is that the base is addicted to overpowered magic and taking complex options.

"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game"

Fans want fast turns and 5 round combats. But they also want slow drags or OP BS.

I almost think they should go back to having the Next idea if specialties. But go further.

You only get 3 power feats.

• 1 Origin Feat
• 1 General Specialization feat
• 1 Epic Boon

All other "feats" are optional. Go back to only ASI. Extra Origin, Specialization, or Epic Boon are bonuses from the DM, alternative treasure, downtime or stronghold bonuses, or setting assumptions (bonus Origin feat in Dark Sun. Dragon mark feats in Eberron.)

Classes, subclasses, and species are streamlined and sped up. If you want to have tons of options on your turn, there are High Complexity classes like wizard or druid for those who can handle it.

Let's stop handing the slow player the complex wizard if they want to be a magic person dangnabbit. Let's make a cantrip caster. Let's put the pressure on the slot caster to know their stuff and be fast. Thats how I'd design the game.

Based on your opinion for rounds of combat? 2-4 is typical imho.

This is an areas the designers probably need to pick a direction. Polling said 6-8 encounters last time apparently its closer to 4 rounds per day atm.

You miss that thread?

 

[Reynard]

I don't think 6E should be either Shadowdark or Daggerheart (even though I believe that if 6E came out as one of those 2 rulesets people would love the new D&D). Those games exist. 6E should do something only WotC can do. That means scale and reach and broad appeal.

Imagine if 6E actually launched with a Basic Set, followed by some adventures and supplements that expanded it (maybe even an expert set). And it wasn't until a year later that the actual "advanced" rules started coming out.

Note that I am not saying 6E should look like B/X or OSE, only that the Basic-Expert-Advanced model might ake for a good reboot strategy.

 

[Minigiant]

Based on your opinion for rounds of combat? 2-4 is typical imho.

This is an areas the designers probably need to pick a direction. Polling said 6-8 encounters last time apparently its closer to 4 rounds per day atm.

You miss that thread?

Rounds of combat per encounter vs encounters per adventure day.

D&D was designed assuming you'd end your session when it ends and keep at the same resources next session. But people made excuses to long rest at the end of sessions to start each session at 100%.

I think 5e was going for 25-30 combat rounds per long rest. Whether that was 5-5-5-5-5 or 2-2-2-6-6-6 or 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 or the classic 5-3-3-5-2-10. 4e and DS went more defensive scheduling instead of balancing based on offence.
.
If it were up to me, i'd do neither. I'd make it item based.
If you have potions, wand charges, and class feature recharging consumables left, you can continue to the next fight. If not, you should search for a place to rest. This puts resting in the hands of the DM. IF the DM is drops healing potions and spell pearls, that's a signal that you can keep going. If consumables dry up, go home.

Yes.
I want magic items to be assumed in the base way to play. No more designing for a no magic world.

Not +X items.

I want my fighters guzzling healing potions. My wizards squigging mana potions. My priests tossing holy water. And my thieves tossing oils. And all of them managing item charges.

 

[Yaarel]

My solution for this would be to limit the highest level spells to your specialization. So only the Evoker could get Fireball at level 5, but a non-evoker could still get it at 7. But this requires the schools to actually be balanced.

An other way to formulate this: the highest slots available can only be used for specializations (school, domain, college, etc.). The lower slots can be used generally for any spell.

This helps the various casters feel different from each other when their big spells are thematic.

 

[ECMO3]

I’d make every class a half-caster, but not use the budget for just spells so fighters can use it for ‘generic abilities’, including somewhat supernatural ones. I don’t want everything that isn’t a sword swing to narratively be a spell

Everyone should be able to swing a sword without it being a spell. Don't gate those kind of mechanics behind a class.

Instead of having a class that can swing a sword and do nothing else (fighter), take those mechanics you would give to that class and give it to the other ones.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

I am not a big fan of "resources". I don't particular like constructs like Action Surge or Indomitable or Flurry of Blows. I have no problem with PCs doing that stuff, but it should not be "once a day" or "once a short rest" or "use a ki", it should just be at will. Meanwhile spells should have that resource cost.