GreenTengu
Adventurer
I understand that most are fairly happy with 5E, but at the same time 6E is fairly inevitable. Several years in, what improvements would you like to see with 6E?
A few I have.
* Actively work to make sure there are no utter god stats or dump stats. No stat should utterly be able to functionally substitute for another in 90% of situations the way Dexterity does for Strength or be the stat that is used for most of the common skill rolls AND initiative AND ranged attacks AND AC AND the most commonly used save as Dexterity is currently. On the other hand, don't let any stat be so utterly worthless that one has to wonder why anyone playing a class whose class abilities to not directly derive from it would ever sink a single point into it like Intelligence is in the current edition. Even if it takes changing the ancient sacred cow of Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma from which to derive characters for a new set of attributes that the designers find it possible to make equally viable-- all characters from all classes ought to be able to functionally benefit from each of the attributes in a way that would be meaningful and rewarding. That could mean that Fighters with high Intelligence can execute battle tactics or Wizards with high strength can channel that strength into ranged force attacks, but actively work to see that any range of stats matched up with any class could result in something good but different.
* Make sure all classes in the core rulebook are viable, even (or maybe especially) if it means giving a lot of classes similar mechanics or the number of functional "classes" gets reduced and former classes become aspects or paths within other classes. For example, Warlock and Sorcerer could easily become types of Wizards who come by their power by different means which may have a number of different alternations to the class, but still ultimately draw from the same base pool of abilities.
* Give characters more options for customization even if it means their character could mechanically become similar to a character of another class/race or a lot of the customization options are rather situational. In the current edition it seems rare that any real choices are made when leveling up.
* Have a general template of how races function when launching the edition. The current edition has some base races that clearly a lot of consideration has gone into while later additions feel like little or no care has gone into their design and functionality rendering them almost functionally unplayable-- or alternatively, playable exclusively as classes that their description suggests they would virtually never specialize as. Just as much care should go into making sure that one can play and contribute and have fun as an Orc, Hobgoblin, Lizardfolk or Kobold as one can playing an Elf, Dwarf or Halfling. In fact-- in general-- write the whole game with the understanding that sentient, breeding, free-willed humanoids of all sorts are simply races in the world even if they are antagonistic 90% of the time. And allow for the traditional races to also take the antagonistic role (where are the unique stat blocks for when I fight against a group of evil Dwarfs or evil Elves in the Monster Manual?!)
* Have the animals included in the monster manual make even the slightest bit of sense. Don't have a house cat that is very capable of killing a level 1 PC and don't make hyenas way weaker than wolves simply because you are too unimaginative to think of a ranger taking anything but a wolf as a companion and thus designed the wolves specifically to be way stronger than any other similarly sized animal specifically to be the singular functional animal companion choice while utterly neglecting how they sized up to every other animal you put in the book.
* Don't put any weapon that functionally breaks the entire game balance on the standard weapons table like has done with the rapier in 5E. By all means, include flintlock, black powder weapons as options-- but don't let any weapon be so good that the very inclusion of the weapon the game allows a non-standard build of a class to be insanely more powerful than the standard build as in the current edition.
* At the same time, shields should not be nothing but an AC boost. Shields absolutely can and should be used offensively without necessitating any sort of feat or drawing an attack of opportunity or anything of the sort. Dual-wielding and great weapons should not be the only two viable combat options in the game, especially since they were never the ideal ways to fight historically. And somewhat similarly, spears should not be trash next to swords as they have been in basically every edition-- spears have won far more fights in history than swords ever have and are far better except when it comes to drawings/readying them and close quarters. Warhammers and other heavy, blunt weapons should also be much more viable, particularly against armored opponents. Perhaps instead of determining damage die by weapon, it should be determined by the class and just posit that a Fighter is generally going to be able to use the same weapon more effectively than a Cleric and a Thief can absolutely sneak attack someone with a club to the back of the head as they can a dagger to the kidney and they shouldn't be at a massive penalty for using a weapon not on the preapproved list. Should a Wizard really be fighting at a massive penalty because they are attacking with a sword instead of a "simple weapon" instead of simply doing the same damage as they would have if they were using a 1-handed "simple weapon"?
I am sure there are many other bugs with 5E that I am sure people would like to see fixed in another edition.
A few I have.
* Actively work to make sure there are no utter god stats or dump stats. No stat should utterly be able to functionally substitute for another in 90% of situations the way Dexterity does for Strength or be the stat that is used for most of the common skill rolls AND initiative AND ranged attacks AND AC AND the most commonly used save as Dexterity is currently. On the other hand, don't let any stat be so utterly worthless that one has to wonder why anyone playing a class whose class abilities to not directly derive from it would ever sink a single point into it like Intelligence is in the current edition. Even if it takes changing the ancient sacred cow of Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma from which to derive characters for a new set of attributes that the designers find it possible to make equally viable-- all characters from all classes ought to be able to functionally benefit from each of the attributes in a way that would be meaningful and rewarding. That could mean that Fighters with high Intelligence can execute battle tactics or Wizards with high strength can channel that strength into ranged force attacks, but actively work to see that any range of stats matched up with any class could result in something good but different.
* Make sure all classes in the core rulebook are viable, even (or maybe especially) if it means giving a lot of classes similar mechanics or the number of functional "classes" gets reduced and former classes become aspects or paths within other classes. For example, Warlock and Sorcerer could easily become types of Wizards who come by their power by different means which may have a number of different alternations to the class, but still ultimately draw from the same base pool of abilities.
* Give characters more options for customization even if it means their character could mechanically become similar to a character of another class/race or a lot of the customization options are rather situational. In the current edition it seems rare that any real choices are made when leveling up.
* Have a general template of how races function when launching the edition. The current edition has some base races that clearly a lot of consideration has gone into while later additions feel like little or no care has gone into their design and functionality rendering them almost functionally unplayable-- or alternatively, playable exclusively as classes that their description suggests they would virtually never specialize as. Just as much care should go into making sure that one can play and contribute and have fun as an Orc, Hobgoblin, Lizardfolk or Kobold as one can playing an Elf, Dwarf or Halfling. In fact-- in general-- write the whole game with the understanding that sentient, breeding, free-willed humanoids of all sorts are simply races in the world even if they are antagonistic 90% of the time. And allow for the traditional races to also take the antagonistic role (where are the unique stat blocks for when I fight against a group of evil Dwarfs or evil Elves in the Monster Manual?!)
* Have the animals included in the monster manual make even the slightest bit of sense. Don't have a house cat that is very capable of killing a level 1 PC and don't make hyenas way weaker than wolves simply because you are too unimaginative to think of a ranger taking anything but a wolf as a companion and thus designed the wolves specifically to be way stronger than any other similarly sized animal specifically to be the singular functional animal companion choice while utterly neglecting how they sized up to every other animal you put in the book.
* Don't put any weapon that functionally breaks the entire game balance on the standard weapons table like has done with the rapier in 5E. By all means, include flintlock, black powder weapons as options-- but don't let any weapon be so good that the very inclusion of the weapon the game allows a non-standard build of a class to be insanely more powerful than the standard build as in the current edition.
* At the same time, shields should not be nothing but an AC boost. Shields absolutely can and should be used offensively without necessitating any sort of feat or drawing an attack of opportunity or anything of the sort. Dual-wielding and great weapons should not be the only two viable combat options in the game, especially since they were never the ideal ways to fight historically. And somewhat similarly, spears should not be trash next to swords as they have been in basically every edition-- spears have won far more fights in history than swords ever have and are far better except when it comes to drawings/readying them and close quarters. Warhammers and other heavy, blunt weapons should also be much more viable, particularly against armored opponents. Perhaps instead of determining damage die by weapon, it should be determined by the class and just posit that a Fighter is generally going to be able to use the same weapon more effectively than a Cleric and a Thief can absolutely sneak attack someone with a club to the back of the head as they can a dagger to the kidney and they shouldn't be at a massive penalty for using a weapon not on the preapproved list. Should a Wizard really be fighting at a massive penalty because they are attacking with a sword instead of a "simple weapon" instead of simply doing the same damage as they would have if they were using a 1-handed "simple weapon"?
I am sure there are many other bugs with 5E that I am sure people would like to see fixed in another edition.
