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

[Tigris]

I'm of the opinion all those should be at will, including spells which have the material component as a cost.
BUT
They should be tied to HD spending and the exhaustion track for attempting to use beyond the acceptable limit.

HD spending is ressources. Exhaustion track is also a ressource.

i think they're implying delete the basic fighter as it only 'just fights with weapons' and spread the toys you would give to the fighter among the other classes that fight with weapons but have more aspects besides that.
like
the rogue is 'sneaky fights with weapons'
the barbarian is 'angry fights with weapons'
the paladin is 'divine fights with weapons'
but the fighter is just 'fights with weapons' to them so why have it?

Thats why I liked the 4E Fighter. You are "fighting with weapons to protect characters/space". Paladin needs divine stuff to protect allies, fighter can do it alone with his fighting skills.

Narrow the fighter more down, not a general "I hit with weapons", but something more defined like "I protect"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The exact same balance issues 5e has already as well. Just that casters have 3 daily powers from level 1 not 9.

Also there is only 1 concept of balance, you can judt care about (4e) or not (5e)

Sure, but I wanted to point out that Essentials introduced that problem into 4E, and 6E designers need to keep that in mind. If they care.

 

[Minigiant]

Apologies I made an error originally. The jump from Small to Medium should be 3HD so it should read
Tiny (1HD), Small (3HD), Medium (6HD), Large (10HD), Huge (20HD)...etc
But I'm not married to Large and Huge. The idea was its based on size with roots on the old model of e6 - hence 6 HD cap but unlike e6 this only applies to HD not the abilities.

How does my correction work with your numbers? Obviously all races with the small (goblin, halfling and kobold) would receive other commensurate abilities to account for the lesser HD and allow them to survive in combat with the few hit points.
Uncanny Dodge (1/encounter) is one method.

Well if a 16 str martial still swings a longsword for 1d8+3 with no specialization,

Thats 2 HD of damage unoptimized pet hit.
Maybe 3HD or 4HD of damage at level 5 per hit depending on optimization.

Then you have multiple hits.

Thats why the HP bloat complaint is irrational. HP amount should be base on assumed offence, not look.

We got DM who don't factor in base, regulated, and nova DPR complaining about numbers too big.

 

[Tigris]

Sure, but I wanted to point out that Essentials introduced that problem into 4E, and 6E designers need to keep that in mind. If they care.

Ah sure! Here I agree. Mike Mearls brought that problem into 4e.

It was not as bad as it is in 5e but of course, having classes ehich have daily ressources, while having other classes ehich do not have daily ressources is in general not a good idea in gamedesign since it makes a really strict x encounters per day necessarily else there is interclass imbalance

 

[AnotherGuy]

HD spending is ressources. Exhaustion track is also a ressource.

Sure, but I believe the issue with Action Surge etc was the 1/per time period silliness and not strictly the resource. It should be at-will.
If you have the ability being at-will and then tie it to HD and then the exhaustion track then you have solved the silly 1/day or 1/short rest or 1/encounter nonsense.

 

[mamba]

i think they're implying delete the basic fighter as it only 'just fights with weapons' and spread the toys you would give to the fighter among the other classes that fight with weapons but have more aspects besides that.
like
the rogue is 'sneaky fights with weapons'
the barbarian is 'angry fights with weapons'
the paladin is 'divine fights with weapons'
but the fighter is just 'fights with weapons' to them so why have it?

oh, I would consolidate classes in general. Barbarian and Fighter get merged, Rogue and Ranger get merged, Paladin is the chassis for Cleric and Druid as well (since everyone is a half-caster), Warlock is the chassis for Wizard and Sorcerer in the same way. Any distinctions between them would be at the subclass level. Bard gets dropped.

 

[Horwath]

but the fighter is just 'fights with weapons' to them so why have it?

my ideal fighter is 3.5e fighter, with added ability to take more class features of other classes.

5E fighter could have just been:
second wind, action surge, extra attack at levels 5,9,13,17,20.
feats at levels 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,19
subclasses or just more feats at levels 3,7,10,15,18

 

[AnotherGuy]

Well if a 16 str martial still swings a longsword for 1d8+3 with no specialization,

Thats 2 HD of damage unoptimized pet hit.
Maybe 3HD or 4HD of damage at level 5 per hit depending on optimization.

Then you have multiple hits.

Thats why the HP bloat complaint is irrational. HP amount should be base on assumed offence, not look.

We got DM who don't factor in base, regulated, and nova DPR complaining about numbers too big.

Thank you for the constructive criticism.

You do realise that the same argument you're making for opponents would work exactly the same for characters, right?
Level 7 Wizard 30 hit points (6 + 6x4)
Level 7 Fighter 46 hit points (10 + 6x6)

To be clear, I view hit points as Stamina, Skill and Providence not Wounds.

I would allow the player to reduce mitigate 5 hit points for the destruction of shield, 10 hit points for a Level of Exhaustion (2014) or 20 hit points for a Lingering Injury (by die roll). Of course there are limitation and consequence for this. Make no mistake the game would change drastically, but I believe for the better.

You want creatures to matter for longer, this works toward that.
You want opponents aimed with a bow threatening PCs with death and injury, this works towards that.
You want to weaken the shape-changing druid and the resistance to damage by the barbarian, this works toward that.
You want to make fireballs scary again, this works towards that.

To be fair, I have been playing at high-levels the last few years, so I admit my perspective is likely different to yours.

 

[Minigiant]

Thank you for the constructive criticism.

No problem.

You do realise that the same argument you're making for opponents would work exactly the same for characters, right?
Level 7 Wizard 30 hit points (6 + 6x4)
Level 7 Fighter 46 hit points (10 + 6x6)

I actually have that same criticism.

I would have 1st level PCs have 3 HD.

PCs have the benefit of not being often outnumbered

 

[AnotherGuy]

I actually have that same criticism.
I would have 1st level PCs have 3 HD.
PCs have the benefit of not being often outnumbered

I agree with you the starting hit points should be higher to counter those 1st-2nd level TPK horror stories.

I would be in favour of
1st Level = Max Hit Points + Constitution Score (if your Constitution Score ever increases so do your hit points).