D&D (2024) Toward a Theory of 6th Edition

[Xeviat]

I feel like the base 12 classes in 5E are too entrenched in the identity of D&D to really be altered. 4E changed a lot of these around, and I think that’s part of the reason it didn’t resonate with people. Pulling things out and making them modular could lead to that “sameism” that people complained about back then.

I for one want to see the classes looked at in a way that ensures each class plays differently than other classes, even classes that are trying to do the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I wouldn't worry too much about trends for 6e, because the most important trend of all, the D&D movie, hasn't come out yet. If the movie is popular, then 6e will be designed around making D&D more like the movie. If Vin Diesel's character says "outlanders make good barbarians", then half the barbarian stuff will move into the outlander background.

That being said, I could see a lot of value of grouping subclasses around themes (5e already has the 1/3 casters, the nature guys for classes that aren't au natural, the religious guys for nondivine classes, the feywild, and the Shadowfell, with "touch o' mystic" likely in the future), which could fit the goals of the abandoned warrior/caster/trickster/priest idea (everyone with a subclass in this theme can use this item). It also wouldn't hurt to move some race stuff (like elves being good with longswords) into backgrounds. I liked 4e's theme, paragon path, epic thing, so I would be good with picking subclasses at certain points in the game (say rangers can be beast masters until level 8, and then they can pick the fey beast master subclass at level 9...... chainlocks get a familiar until level 9, then they pick the bodyslave subclass and get a more formidable minion.....wizards pick a school of magic until level 9 when they go generalist.....)

 

[robus]

They are starting to sound like Backgrounds.

Background already is a dimension, although it's currently a shallow dimension. So one option might be to simply make Backgrounds beefier, with more significant abilities that have a greater impact on mechanics. The thing I don't like about this is that I think there would probably be far fewer total backgrounds...but maybe not? I'm honestly torn on whether I think it's better to combine them, or keep Backgrounds as they are.

I think that backgrounds should absolutely get more attributes. Some things that are tied to race are really things that are acquired through experience.

Race should be limited to genetic advantages only: darkvision, speed, things like that.

Other skill based attributes should be moved into backgrounds. Having three things to mix and match will make for more interesting character creation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I want to start with a 4e frame work of balance, so a epic level fighter can do as much as an epic level mage... you choose a background, a race, a class and a theme at 1st level and all of them go up as you level, at level 3 of a class you gain subclass abilities...

I would also bring back prestige classes... lots of choices.

 

[Satyrn]

I would ask for two changes, and two changes only, to make me perfectly happy.

1. Less magic, but better magic. I want magic to be awesome, and rare. No 1/3 spellcasters, few (if any) 1/2 spellcasters, and spells should be infrequent and amazing.

2. Go back to a system where most things (including to hit and saving throws) improve with level, not ability score. I know, bac to the dark ages. Sort of a super proficiency bonus or something.

My ideas have a snowball's chance in Baator of being implemented, but that's my two cents.

Not the 2 changes I was expecting.

 

[Mephista]

I could keep going, but I'm interested in your responses.

Fundamentally, I think you're confusing a character's history and culture for their class.

Race is a mix of your genetics and cultural upbringing.
Backgrounds are your personal life. Where you a noble? Farmer? Have to live on the streets for a living?
Class is a lot like your current profession. Your job. What you do for a living NOW.

Your discussion of how "barbarians" have shamans and the like? That has nothing to do with the CLASS barbarian. In fact, the name barbarian is really a misnomer, and more of a callback to some rather questionable decisions in the past. Currently, the barbarian class is a primal warrior that relies on some bits of mysticism and/or lots of adrenaline to push their bodies beyond the normal limits, rather than focusing on technique. That's your job within your culture - you're a warrior with a specific style of fighting. Someone else in your culture would be the shaman (druid, cleric or bard), they'd have a different role than yours.

Likewise, with Ranger. There's more than just being a "stealthy woodsman." You're a HUNTER. Hunters stalk prey, thus they get the stealthy bits. Hunters need to locate their prey and track them down. Thus the woodsman angle as well as the survival bits. Even the bits of druid magic revolve around things like setting traps and hunting techniques, with a dash of Beast Mastery (another extension of being a kind of hunter). Hunting is what you do. Fighters, even if they're aware of how to survive in the wilderness, aren't hunters. That's not their shtick. Even a "druid knight" isn't the same thing. None of them are professional hunters like the Ranger.

While I'm sure the mechanics of race and background will shift around, I'm fairly sure they're going to remain the same three differences. We'll probably see more variety of backgrounds, but I dont' think they'll be merging them or getting rid of them. That's a step back from what people want. Its moving towards 3e, not towards 6e.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

We're going to get rid of the paladins and gnomes in 5.5e.

Trade the paladin for a warlord? I can't wait for 5.5 now!

 

[Mephista]

Getting the warlord as a fighter subclass is definitely something I expect in 5.5. Actually, making the Fighter's subclasses each have more of a story behind them would probably be a first step.

Fixing TWFing is another

 

[Oofta]

I could see having more of an a-la-cart approach to building classes, but there's always going to be a balance between flexibility and simplicity.

So while I could see backgrounds having more mechanical impact for example, it's tough. Right now it helps a little bit (my wizard knows how to open locks because he grew up in the streets), but where do you draw the line before you're creating a new game?

I think this version is successful because it gives enough flexibility to build most archetypes while still being simple enough to grasp the basic concepts.