D&D (2024) Pie in the Sky 6E

[Vaalingrade]

That's why It's pie in the sky

I'm sure that spells being 25% of the PHB is why so many things are missing, shortened, weaken, or trivialized in the book.

Then the EEPC comes out to add the spells the PHB is missing.

Imagine if the PHB had 80 more pages to put most race, class, skill, equipment, and background stuff in it.

Delete the Wizard?

I'm trying to get a movement started.

 

[Cadence]

Delete the Wizard?

I'm trying to get a movement started.

I bet if each person could delete their one least favorite thing we could have a really streamlined game at the end...

 

[Malmuria]

I am not paying for 5 books to Core any game.

Buy 1 core book that presents a complete game. Basically, the SRD with better presentation, more character options, and only a selection of most used spells/treasure/monsters.

Buy 2+ more optional books to expand the game in a particular direction:

• Tier 3+4 play, with high level spells, and increased character options (prestige classes?), and high level magic items, advice for running high level games
• Monster books with more info (tactics, lairs, lore), higher CR monsters, and specific thematic foci
• Optional rules: crafting, strongholds, hirelings/sidekicks, pets and companions, low magic games, high magic games, etc.
• World building and adventure creation - expands on basic advice in the core book
• Books with character options

I think they were sort of trying to do this the past decade. A good example would be the Saltmarsh book, that has all the rules for ship campaigns. Does that need to be in the core book? Probably not, since ship combat and underwater adventuring doesn't come up that much. But it works well in an expansion book.

The advantage of this model is that people who are content with the "basic" game can get everything they need in one book, and the people who want a more "advanced" game can expand it.

 

[not-so-newguy]

Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?

For me, I think they should abandon the 3 book format and instead go with a Rule Book that is relatively slim and focuses entirely on characters and the processes of play, which you then couple with either an adventure (of the scale of Rime of the Frostmaiden or whatever) OR a setting book (Eberron, Ravenloft, whatever) which has new subclasses and spells and whatever. On top of that, you can do Genre Books for everything from high fantasy to gothic horror (but these work just as well as setting books).

The 5E chassis is pretty robust, and if you thin down the base options you can really focus it at a specific milieu, tone, mood, or whatever with a relatively small number of additions and changes.

Like I said, pie in the sky. But that's what I would want if it were up to me.

The three alignment system with alignment being baked into play.
Examples of "baked into play"
spells that target creatures of certain alignment, class restrictions, a skill dedicated to the knowledge of a specific alignment (instead of alignment languages).

 

[lingual]

More cowbell

 

[James Gasik]

More cowbell

FREEBIRD!!!!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Go ahead. Let it out. What do you REALLY want from a 6E that you know you aren't going to get?

Subclass roles, Warlord, actual martial/caster balance, Warlord, an official return of Skill Challenges, Warlord, better ritual rules, Warlord, more feats in terms of both number acquired and options to choose from (and separating feats from ASIs), Warlord, reworking hit dice so they're a limit on daily healing, Warlord, Avenger, Warlord, Shaman, Warlord...oh, and Warlord, can't forget that.

I don't, strictly speaking, want "4e mark 2, electric boogaloo." The ship has sailed on certain things in that regard. But I would very much have preferred...let's say "4.(3.5)e," if that makes sense, rather than the "3.75e with some bug fixes" that we actually got.

 

[Reynard]

Subclass roles, Warlord, actual martial/caster balance, Warlord, an official return of Skill Challenges, Warlord, better ritual rules, Warlord, more feats in terms of both number acquired and options to choose from (and separating feats from ASIs), Warlord, reworking hit dice so they're a limit on daily healing, Warlord, Avenger, Warlord, Shaman, Warlord...oh, and Warlord, can't forget that.

I don't, strictly speaking, want "4e mark 2, electric boogaloo." The ship has sailed on certain things in that regard. But I would very much have preferred...let's say "4.(3.5)e," if that makes sense, rather than the "3.75e with some bug fixes" that we actually got.

As a person who only very lightly played 4e, what is the intense draw of the Warlord?

 

[DND_Reborn]

As a person who only very lightly played 4e, what is the intense draw of the Warlord?

In that light, how can you be a "Warlord" at 1st level...

Seems like something that should be a 3E Prestige class.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As a person who only very lightly played 4e, what is the intense draw of the Warlord?

Warlord was a heavy tactics class with emphasis on positioning and sacrificing your actions to either buff/heal allies or to give allies actions.

For example, my favorite at-will was Wolfpack Tactics. It let me move an ally while I make an attack, positioning both of us into flanking positions, or getting them out of harm's way. And that was just one of my two at-wills.