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

[ECMO3]

It wouldn't really be D&D at that point though. You just described Pathfinder 2E!

I've never really played pathfinder so I would not know. As far as D&D though I would disagree.

D&D has changed a lot in the last 50 years. In today's game nearly everyone has spells. Not everyone plays a class with spells, but almost all of them have some sort of spells, whether it is through a species or a dip or subclass or a multiclass or a feat or magic items. It is almost always something.

In the 5 games I am currently playing, I think there are a total of 2 PCs without any spells at all. Both of them are Barbarians and they probably would have spells too if it the class mechanics made it easier.

 

[nevin]

So this is a how I would do 6E thread. An actual 6E not a revision of 5.5. That might be a 5.75 thread.

I woukd use the 5E engine. Perhaps with a stretched bounded accuracy going to +6 to +11. Why reinvent the wheel? Everything else would be up for consideration.

Basically I woukdld survey for certain things. Hard decisions need to be made and some have to be done early. Eg game engine and complexity level.

Question 1. Complexity level.
This is self explanatory. B/X is a 1 or 2, 3.5 and 4E are an 8 or 9. Clearly explain the difference and pros and cons of both.

Question 2. Should D&D be a 10 level game (at launch). Magic would top out at 5th level spells. CR 20 would be the new toughest monsters. Otherwise 20 levels.

3. Archetypes. Should they stay or go? Partly related to 1.

4. Some spell effects would be revised or go away. Simulacrum and wish get revised. True polymorphism, shadechange go away.

5. Hit point and damage totals. Point out that 5.5 characters might deal lots of damage but monsters have bloated HP.

6. Poll for nasty effects using energy drain as an example. I wouldnt bring back old school energy drain but using exhaustion levels instead could be used.

7. Saving throw revision. Poll on if players like the current set up or want better scaling saves. Also point out monsters get them as well. Use pre 3E and 4E as examples. 3E and 5E are the odd ones out here.

8. Potential overhaul of defenses vs magic. Expanded use of greater magic resistance and landing severe debuffs might require debuffing opponents first.

9. Overhall damage dealing spells. Potentially go back to 3.5 suto scaling damage dealing spells. Or upcasting +2d6 vs 1d6 damage. This will overlap with 5. If players vote for less hp spell damage may be reduced as well. Basically look at buffing damage and nerfing save or sucks with 8 and 9.

10. Be clear designers can veto a survey. But mostly if its an impossible or contradictory results.

So basically looking at some big mechanical changes that 5E added. However they may be popular enough you really want to poll about getting rid of them.

Could potentially end up with a simple or complex version of D&D. At first glance it nay look like 5E eg skills but fears, classes, spells, races may all be revised or even cut.

I.loved the ACT chart system of Gamma Worlds 2nd version. It put everything on the bell curve so when numbers started getting stupid thier strength of effect started slowing down. And to a mere mortal anything high up the bell curve was deadly. I'd use that and make all affects be done the same way on that chart. It's beautifully limiting to advanced power creep while still letting players have their big numbers to give them that dopamine hit. All rolls were percentile. One set of dice for everything

 

[Minigiant]

D&D has changed a lot in the last 50 years. In today's game nearly everyone has spells. Not everyone plays a class with spells, but almost all of them have some sort of spells, whether it is through a species or a dip or subclass or a multiclass or a feat or magic items. It is almost always something.

In the 5 games I am currently playing, I think there are a total of 2 PCs without any spells at all. Both of them are Barbarians and they probably would have spells too if it the class mechanics made it easier.

Causation Does Not Equal Correlation.

Every PC having spell does not mean fans want every character to have spells.

It like the will and resources thing i talked about.

Spells is the only fully support subsystem outside of Magic items. And its the only one common on the players side for agency.

Maneuvers, Techniques, Infusions, even Skills themselves arent fully invested, supported, or available for access in all PCs.

 

[nevin]

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.

I've tried similar things before. before and the best we came up with was flavor spells for each school that in effect had the same damage or similar effects. Because otherwise players all optimized and created very similar wizards

Not knowing what's coming almost always defaults to blowing things up , and protection spells being the safest choice.

I don't know how you fix that

 

[ECMO3]

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.

I don't really see a problem with players choosing spells that make their character better, why restrict them to one lane when they can have both?

The best offensive spells in most situations are control spells. That is not always the case but it usually is and there are powerhouse spells right from level 1 that are still very effective when cast at level 9 (Command and Tasha's Hideous Laughter). One thing I like to do is take a fighter, run one mediocre score (13-14) and one poor score (<10) in Strength/Dex, dump Intelligence, max Charisma, grab a couple Warlock levels for Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Hex and Pact of Blade and then go all in on Eldritch Knight.

Push everything into Charisma, pick up Wrathful Smite (and Invisibility) through Shadow Touched, and use your Eldritch Knight slots to fuel Warlock, Feat and species spells and your Eldritch Knight known spells for defense and utility. Do all this and you have great spell options (albeit limited slots/levels) and you can attack on Charisma and still get 3-4 attacks a round and indomitable and great AC and a ton of weapon masteries .....

The thing is though you can't just do that with a fighter without really butchering it up and you should be able to IMO.

 

[ECMO3]

Causation Does Not Equal Correlation.

Every PC having spell does not mean fans want every character to have spells.

I firmly believe players want to play the characters they build. IMO if they did not want spells they would not play characters with them.

- Note - I think you mean correlation does not mean causation.

 

[Minigiant]

I've tried similar things before. before and the best we came up with was flavor spells for each school that in effect had the same damage or similar effects. Because otherwise players all optimized and created very similar wizards

Not knowing what's coming almost always defaults to blowing things up , and protection spells being the safest choice.

I don't know how you fix that

The best wizard spells are specialization only.

Or you can only prepare X specialization spells.

So only the evoker gets the best blasty spells. And only the abjurer gets the best protection spells.

Imagine if there was some overturned radiant lazer spell but only Evoker wizards, Light clerics, Stars druids, Favored Soul sorcerers, and Celestial warlocks got it.

 

[ECMO3]

we had more AoO in 3E for any movement past 5ft and multiple AoOs per round vi Combat reflexes feat, but it was deemed to complicated for us 5E players.

It wasn't too complicated IMO, it just sucked and wasn't very fun.

 

[Minigiant]

I firmly believe players want to play the characters they build. IMO if they did not want spells they would not play characters with them.

- Note - I think you mean correlation does not mean causation.

I firmly belive players build only what they are allowed to build.

A5E has maneuvers that scale to level 20.

So if you wanted a paladin that scales with maneuvers instead of spells, you can in A5E but not in 5e.

A5E displays that if 5e offered maneuvers based paladins existed in 5e, some players would make nonspelled paladins.

This issue is the option isn't there.

In 5e. Especially the 2024 version, not having spell is hard because spells are both strong and the one and only supported outbranch to power.

 

[M_Natas]

I've tried similar things before. before and the best we came up with was flavor spells for each school that in effect had the same damage or similar effects. Because otherwise players all optimized and created very similar wizards

Not knowing what's coming almost always defaults to blowing things up , and protection spells being the safest choice.

I don't know how you fix that

This is my proposed solution to the wizard class:

D&D General Thread 'The Specialist Wizard - the Wizard 2.0'

Oct 25, 2023

Ladies and Gentleman,

I present to you the Wizard 2.0!
He comes with three subclasses: The Specialist, the Generalist and the Bard (okay, the last one is an even bigger experiment, because I my mind, the Bard is an arcane magic user that is basically a wizard who went to Arts school ... if you don't like the bard as a Wizard Subclass, please ignore that and concentrate on the new Design Concept of Wizard Specialist and Generalist).
It comes with:

• 3 Subclasses (Specialist, Generalist and Bard)
• Proficiency and Expertise for Schools of Magic, walling of access to higher spells
• A...

• M_Natas
• Replies: 8
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 

I firmly believe players want to play the characters they build. IMO if they did not want spells they would not play characters with them.

- Note - I think you mean correlation does not mean causation.

The problem is, that they basically don't have much choice. When you go tona burger restaurant, you will pick one of 10 different kind of burgers (classes with spells), yeah, there is the one option that is only fries (thief rogue) or pizza (champion fighter), but not picking a burger when being jn that burger restaurant is kind of silly.
So, now players may be fine with picking characters with spells, but only because that is what is on the menu.
If you broaden the menu players would pick different things.

I firmly belive players build only what they are allowed to build.

A5E has maneuvers that scale to level 20.

So if you wanted a paladin that scales with maneuvers instead of spells, you can in A5E but not in 5e.

A5E displays that if 5e offered maneuvers based paladins existed in 5e, some players would make nonspelled paladins.

This issue is the option isn't there.

In 5e. Especially the 2024 version, not having spell is hard because spells are both strong and the one and only supported outbranch to power.

Yeah, I hate the "everything and their mother are a spell" approach of 5e, even for like classes like the Psion which would really feel distinct, if their powers where not spell (slot) based.