D&D (2024) What Improvements Would You Want with 6E?

[robus]

I would like to see some changes in this recent thread of the same title, and would like to know that some of these changes never see the light of day

Now that I've referenced that recent thread, I've just saved a whole bunch of repeat discussion! Cuz I'm a helper like that

I was going to say, didn't we just do this topic??!

 

[Blue]

Top level goal: Grow the hobby by retaining existing customers and welcoming new ones.

Breakout: It must be recognizably D&D to the vast majority of existing players, and new players can jump into a game with their own level 1 character with minimal reading and time invested.

6E goals to help with this:
Power Sources
Bring back the concept of Power Sources, and affiliate them with ability scores (or multiple ability scores).

Ability scores
An issue both existing and new players have, for different reasons, is how some ability scores are vital and some aren't. For veteran players, there are concepts that just are sub optimal. A high INT tactical fighter should be reasonable, but the mechanics don't reward the INT and since it comes at an opportunity cost of other ability scores it leads to poor characters. For new players the ability score to class rubric hasn't been burnt into their brains, and their concept may be a high STR, low WIS druid. That won't serve them well at the table alongside more conventionally built characters.

There are a bunch of ways to improve this.

• Balancing ability scores so they all have flavorful things that will add to all characters.
• Allowing classes to be based off various ability scores might be interesting. Is your bard an INT-based loremaster or a CHR-based performer?
• Make chassis classes like "unarmored caster", "warrior/caster", "skirmish/invoker", "caster/invoker" that then pick a power source, which determines the ability scores for their magical aspect. ("Invoker" was a shorthand for a more warlock invocation type.)

Race/Class matchups
Because of ability scores mods from races, and needed ability scores for classes (though lessened from the first issue), take a page from 13th Age (it's d20 OGL) and have the races give out a +2 from a selection of race-appropriate abilities, and class give +2 from a selection of class-appropriate abilities, and they can't be the same. Heck, have background do the same - I'd love to see it become more of an integral part of a character.

Powerful Races
The 5e races don't have a lot that impacts mechanically (outside of ability scores). Make race choice more meaningful by having more features, including some that don't come online until later levels or activated by feat.

This increased design space will allow more powerful races then currently allowed, such as large races and flying races - and being so will have a real opportunity cost in not picking one of the other races.

Multiclassing
I'm a fan of 5e multiclassing, but a lot don't. It also is really easy for a new player to shoot themselves in the foot. So take away multiclassing and replacing it with feats that allow substitution of features from another class (so a "mostly one with a bit of another') as well as some hybrid classes (much like the paladin is now).

Will classes allowing Power Sources, you can have the skirmisher/caster picking Arcane for a INT based arcane trickster type goodness, or Primal (druid) for WIS based ranger-like goodness, etc.

Since there is no more need to caster levels to be able to add in some ways like in 5e (sadness - I like that design space), you can also step away from the "spellification" of classes and give back special abilities to classes without making them spells.

Customization
Existing players want customization, new player need a low-barrier-to-entry which does not include reading through a lot of customization options and making irrevocable choices based on theoretical knowledge.
A solution is to add in a lot of customization later in play, with 1st level giving strong foundation instead. (No more subclasses that grant foundational things at 3rd level.) What customization is granted at 1st should have options that get retrained. (Not saying everything can be retrained, but perhaps 1st level options can be trained when you gain 2nd or 3rd.)

So a new player picks race (who you were born as), background (who were were raised as) and class + Power Source (who you are now), plus arranges ability scores and picks skills.

Customization comes in for everyone at 2nd and onward, and at a "character level" point of view, not just for your class.

Recovery
Better balance between at-will and other resource recovery/management models, with more knobs for the DM to tweak depending on their game style.

Keep
Concentration, Upcasting, Bounded Accuracy

 

[Tony Vargas]

Most of these aren't just bugs with 5e, they've been "bugs" with D&D since the beginning.

And some bugs were intentionally brought back by 5e, because they'd been with D&D so long, it just wasn't D&D without 'em. ;P

 

[Tonguez]

As a former player of GURPS It does amuse me that eveytime these ‘make a better DnD’ threads comes out class customisation is always the big feature. I came back over to 3e because I liked the use of Feats and agree that having class features be Feats would be great but then why have Classes at all?

Is fixed Character Class the core feature that makes DnD?

 

[Blue]

No critiques, just questions expanding my understanding.

All class features are also feats.

How do you picture class features to scale?

For example, right now we have Martial Adept as a Battlemaster class feature. It gives less and does not scale.

Would an Sneak Attack feat be a set +1d6 per turn?

Or do you expect them to scale over time, just not as fast as the primary class?

In other words, does one feat taken at 12th give you all the sneak attack, or is that several feats worth so someone else might have a little sneak attack and a little rage. (Classic Conan from the books.)

Two or 3 classes max (Martial and Arcane or Martial, Arcane, and Divine).
Other "classes" are just selecting the right feats to create whatever character you want.

Are you picturing any multiclassing? For example is a paladin a Martial with feats, or multiclassing Martial and Divine?
(Can we add Primal for druids? And for the feats that could make a ranger.)

You mention Martial, are you envisioning one class that covers rogues, barbarians, knights, and archers? Would there be a benefit for more than one type of Martial class?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is fixed Character Class the core feature that makes DnD?

Broken character classes are a core feature that makes D&D.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The only major issue I see with 5e from a design perspective is with some of the rest and recovery mechanics.

Fighter, Warlock, and Monk all heavily rely on short rests much more than the other classes. They need short rests to operate effectively in every combat. That requirement forces encounter design to increase the number of encounters per day so that short rests become more valuable, but to do that you've got to reduce the overall difficulty of encounters. Now you're running into a wall that makes the game feel less flexible to run as a DM.

If your game table likes 2-3 Deadly to Deadly+ encounters all the time, then Fighter, Warlock, and Monk begin to lag behind the other classes. This is an issue of game flexibility that hasn't been an issue before. The game should be able to accommodate that. In the past, the limitation on combat adventuring was always how much healing you had. It doesn't matter how fast or how slow it was, eventually you had to hole up and heal up and recover all your abilities. Now they've done two things: reduce how many abilities some classes get and link those classes' abilities to short resting. Now you've got natural conflict about how often to rest and what type of rest to take. I've seen tables argue about it. The Fighter wants to stop and rest because he has nothing cool to do for the rest of the day, while everyone else says, "the Cleric can heal you; let's keep going." It's like going on a car ride with 3 men and 1 pregnant woman: there's going to be an argument about stopping to pee.

It also means, somewhat paradoxically, that Fighters, Warlocks, and Monks are terrible at long chases or sustained time pressures! If you're in a situation where you're going to face a long series of encounters and you can't short rest due to time, those three classes are much more limited. Since short rests take so long and long rests are unavoidable due to exhaustion, these three classes have a significant disadvantage that isn't clear from first glance. Since one of those classes -- namely, Fighter -- is the most popular class in the game it's kind of a significant design issue. Fortunately, martial classes are very potent in 5e in relative terms, and Warlocks have the highest damage cantrip in the game, so it's a little easier to get past.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Make every class TAD (two attribute dependent), maybe even the class is based on 1 attribute, but each subclass is based on another. Then if you think one attribute is too good, don't match it up with the second best one (sorry dex classes don't get wis subclasses).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fighter, Warlock, and Monk all heavily rely on short rests much more than the other classes.

Well, BM fighter, particularly, with short-rest CS dice. EK has added daily resources. Champion at-will.

If your game table likes 2-3 Deadly to Deadly+ encounters all the time, then Fighter, Warlock, and Monk begin to lag behind the other classes. This is an issue of game flexibility that hasn't been an issue before.

Sure it has. It's a perennial issue, only slightly perturbed for a couple of years c2009. It's just in the past the it was between Vancian and all-at-will classes, rather than a three-way between Daily, short-rest, and long-rest. (Though, there were further complications in 3e, as there were both daily classes that needed rests, an daily classes that just dinged at a certain time each day.)

The game should be able to accommodate that.

In theory. In practice it's virtually never done so.

It also means, somewhat paradoxically, that Fighters, Warlocks, and Monks are terrible at long chases or sustained time pressures! If you're in a situation where you're going to face a long series of encounters and you can't short rest due to time, those three classes are much more limited. Since short rests take so long and long rests are unavoidable due to exhaustion,

Ouch. Yeah, you've got a point there. The 1hr "short" rest is problematic, it's just not that short, it doesn't fit narratively into many circumstances, and when it does, it's probably as practical - and more beneficial - to take a long rest.

these three classes have a significant disadvantage that isn't clear from first glance. Since one of those classes -- namely, Fighter -- is the most popular class in the game it's kind of a significant design issue.

There's no point making a trap that no one will ever walk into, now is there?

 

[Mistwell]

You: "What Improvements Would You Want with 6E"
Me: "Wait, we're already trying to improve on 6E? Before it's even written?"