Which is the problem, right? I mean, I don't even know why we have a ranger any more. You could have a couple of subclasses with wilderness rogue and a fighter with pets.True, but nature of the changes are less "I would fix the ranger's favored enemy" and more "I would change the ranger a spell-less wildness warrior" or "we don't even need a ranger class at all" level of changes, which to me suggested that people want a 6e that is again more different than similar to 5e.
Maybe it's the nature of the speculation thread, but its a good thing the next edition isn't being designed by committee.
I'd like to see stat bonuses tied to a lifepath system, which is kinda like what you're saying, but not quite. Sadly, lifepath systems need to be bespoke by setting in order to really hum along. Or friggin' massive to cover most eventualities. Neither seems likely.Alternatively: Get rid of Stat Bonuses altogether.
Just make the Point Buy/Standard Array already include the attributes.
Though if we have to keep stat bonuses I'd rather see them tied to Class and Background rather than Race. Or Class and Culture. That way we avoid both racial essentialism and cultural essentialism as things.
Shhh: This is a simulator to see what a 2024 edition that's not a full 6E could potentially be, while maintaining what appear to be WotC's restrictions on 5E books.Yea, that's where I am. The requirement to keep it compatible with existing books (which means we can't really change class structure) is too much.
I suspect @vincegetorix knows about it, but for folks who want a Shadow of the Demon Lord take on more traditional D&D, keep an eye on Schwalb's Shadow of the Weird Wizard, coming at some point in the future.Grab Rob Shwalb and ask him: ''why did you keep all your best ideas for your own system instead of sharing them with the team when working on the 5e PHB?!''
I mean, take Shadow of the Demon Lord, make it a little more generic fantasy in terms of flavor and your all set:
- Ancestries with some weight behind it.
- Stackable Dis/Advantage that dont break the bounded accuracy.
- All combination of class/specialization/prestige class are possible. You can be a mage, specialized as a berserker with a diplomat mastery.
- Fast/Slow turn to make initiative a little less passive.
- Themed magic! You can now be a fire mage, or summoner or time traveler, or enchanter etc
- You Str score determines your proficiency with weapons and armors, not your class.
- Still remarkably close to DnD 5e.
I'm not sure who's big enough to step in, interested in D&D, and doesn't already have their own system. Necromancer/Frog God and Goodman Games are all that come to mind that are interested in D&D, other than Paizo. But post-4E, all three have their own systems they seem devoted to.Might be a different company next time. Pathfinder 2E sucks
I disagree. As it stands, the bard is half-a-thief, half-a-fighter, and a full caster to boot. My basic math skills tell me that's four halves. Reduce the bard to a half caster and you're still sitting at three halves. It's still a powerful character, it's just no longer laughably overpowered.Bard as a half-caster would work in a game with Burning Wheel-esque social mechanics, or different exploration mechanics. But Half-Caster Bard in current 5E is a complete dud.
Eat.You might be the first person I've run across with that level of enthusiasm for bugbears. What's the appeal?
Only a couple of bard subclasses can claim "half-a-fighter" at all, and calling the class "half-a-thief" as a whole is a massive stretch. The only rogue-type feature they really get is Expertise. And the one bard subclass that can somewhat claim to be "half-a-thief" is widely considered the weakest bard subclass.I disagree. As it stands, the bard is half-a-thief, half-a-fighter, and a full caster to boot. My basic math skills tell me that's four halves. Reduce the bard to a half caster and you're still sitting at three halves. It's still a powerful character, it's just no longer laughably overpowered.