What would you most like to see in 6e?

[Bosh]

Remembering back to the waning days of 3.5ed there was always a lot of discussion about the potential for 4e and a lot of dissatisfaction with things like 3.5e's class balance. While there is some grumbling in areas like this with a lot of older players (I started with Rules Cyclopedia myself), in the places with a lot of newer players people seem pretty satisfied and 6e doesn't come up much at all. With 5e doing well commercially and WotC's slow release schedule I think we're still a good way off from any 6e and once we get it it'll probably be a very conservative edition, with most of the changes being fairly small tweaks rather than overhauls like 3.0, 4, and 5 were.

In keeping with that expectation here's the sort of things I'd like to see in a potential 6e that don't stay relatively conservative instead of stuff like "nuke the social and exploration pillars from orbit and start over from scratch."

1. Bring Back Healing Surges

I don't much care for 4e (wrote an essay on the subject years ago: https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715) but healing surges were genius. In 5e hit dice are mostly a sad withered vestige of 4e healing surges, which is a shame because healing surges really had a lot going for them. They limited the amount you could heal per day by requiring that a healing surge be spent to heal someone, unlike in 5e where you have two completely separate baskets of healing (spells and hit dice).

While you're at it, bring back the bloodied condition and tie more player abilities to it rather than having it mostly be just a monster thing, it'd be fun to have character who dig deep and fight best when they're really hurt and gives a reason to not just nova right off the bat.

2. Bring Back Vancian Casting

In 5e non-warlock casters all work roughly the same: you have a basket of spells that you know how to use and spell slots to spend them on. I'd really like the see more variety in that and one way of doing that would be to bring back full-on Vancian casting with wizards (and ONLY wizards). Better yet, require each spell memorized to be unique so you can't be boring and fill up all of your third level spell slots with fireball or what have you. I love the kind of creativity that is required to make use of a Vancian Wizard's odds and ends of spells at the end of a day, which you just don't see in 5e. Also at-will cantrips? Bah! *waves cane at kids on his lawn*

To repeat this should only be for wizards so that people who hate Vancian casting have plenty of other options. Taken alone, this is a straight-up nerf for wizards but making sure that wizards aren't underpowered has never been much of a problem for D&D designers. For clerics maybe bring back 2e spheres? That'd do some good work towards making each full caster feel more unique.

3. Everybody Must Be MAD

In 5e dex/con/wis are useful for everyone and always hurt at least a bit to dump. Str/int/cha on the other hand are a lot easier to dump if you don't need those stats for your class. I remember being in a party in which the highest Int was the cleric with 12. Would really like for there not to be such obvious dump stats so some ideas for that:

Strength: put in place a proper slot-based encumbrance system with various useful items (such as certain bulky spell components) taking up a slot. Encumbrance, even when there are rules for it, is probably the most ignored rule in D&D across editions and I'd really like to see that change with a simple and clear system that isn't a hassle, with your equipment noted on a paper doll picture of your character on your character sheet so you can see how much you can carry and what you're carrying at a glance. Rework equipment rules to work well with a slot based encumbrance system to facilitate that.

Intelligence: 3*ed making intelligence give you more skills worked fine there, I don't see why that'd be a bad things for 6e. Have some rogue class features be tied to getting more mileage out of having proficiency (such as reliable talent) so that having an high Int as a rogue becomes a viable build.

Charisma: simplest way would be to have Charisma give Inspiration, other ways would require bigger changes to 5e's social rules.

Of course making those three stats more powerful would throw off 5e class balance but by having that be a part of of an overall set of changes in 6e shouldn't be too hard to work out.

Also pretty easy to make some of the SAD classes more MAD. Have spell attack rolls work off of strength (for touch attacks) or dex (for ranged attacks) like in 3.*ed or even split up casting itself into two stats. For example, Wisdom could give your spells higher DCs while Intelligence could give you more spells known.

4. Make Race Matter More

In most version of D&D race become mostly a rounding error at higher levels and the new 5e trend of flexible stat boosts isn't helping with this. A simple fix to this would be to give some powerful racial features that only kick in at higher levels. Some races in 5e already have features kick in at 3rd and 5th level, don't see why that couldn't be universal.

5. Back on the Trail

Probably my single biggest problem with 5e (and 4e) for that matter in how it's turn out in my own campaigns (making this very DM-dependent of course, but still a big issue for many people) is how hard it is to attrition down a 5e party compared to an OSR one. The simple amount of time spent in combat to drain away a party's resources can really take a while and often needs more than one session to accomplish. In general I'd prefer if attrition was more of a thing in 6e as that would help fix some of the issues in 5e such as the power of nova builds and how much casters can dominate out of combat if they're not worried about running out of spells constantly.

A few ideas towards this:
-Bringing back healing surges, this makes HP attrition more doable (also gives mundane classes an edge since they'd be easier to heal than wizards etc.).
-Less flexible casting (such as strict Vancian) makes it easier for casters to run out of spells that are useful in the given situation, even if they do have some spells left.
-Making more stringent rules for long rests core. Also make short rests easier relative to long, with a limited number of them per long rest so there isn't such a wildly varying ratio of short:long rests from table to table causing screwy class balance.
-Up monster damage and cut monster HP a bit to make combat faster.

6. Shed a Tear for the Fighter

Hard to write much here without going on a "nuke the social and exploration pillars from orbit" rant but the vast vast VAST gulf in out of combat utility between a fighter and a bard is just bad. Big changes might not be in the cards for 6e but I could at least see hitting the bard with a bit of an out of combat nerf bat (full caster AND amazingly good at skills, REALLY?) and tossing at least a few bones for the poor fighter. For the other non-casters, monks and barbarians should be easier to salvage with a few tweaks making ki and (especially) rages be more useful out of combat and rogues would have a good niche if bards weren't elbowing into it so forcefully.

Thoughts?

[Zevox]

I'd rather not see a 6e, honestly. At this point, I feel like if and when they announce a 6e, I'll have about the same reaction I did when they announced 4e: why would I want a new edition when I'm happy with the current one?

Of course, 4e had other things that ultimately kept me away from it besides just that, and I suppose in theory maybe they could do something with 6e that would catch my interest as worth trying over 5e. Can't say that I can think of what that would be though. Well, aside from maybe having Psionics in the PHB, as something unique and not just "magic, but with psychic damage," but that's never going to happen.

[Jerrykhor]

1. No. Healing Surges would devalue short rest, making warlocks and monks worse than before. Would also devalue magic healing and potions. But i agree, there should be more uses for Hit Dice.

2. Vancian casting is stupid, change my mind. No wait, you can't.

3. STR and INT could use some buffing, but IMO touch spells keying off STR would make them completely useless. Does anyone even bother with spells like Vampiric Touch?

4. I dunno, I imagine being high level means being a Super Fighter or Wizard, not being a Super Elf. So you have reached peak Elfiness and get to be the One True Elf at level 20? Maybe if you are blessed by Corellon, but that is incredibly specific and can be done by Boons.

5. Increase monsters damage generally works for what you want, but it might place more importance on HP and Con than it already is.

6. Give all Fighters some Maneuvers and Superiority Dice. Give them free Feats.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd rather not see a 6e, honestly. At this point, I feel like if and when they announce a 6e, I'll have about the same reaction I did when they announced 4e: why would I want a new edition when I'm happy with the current one?

Of course, 4e had other things that ultimately kept me away from it besides just that, and I suppose in theory maybe they could do something with 6e that would catch my interest as worth trying over 5e. Can't say that I can think of what that would be though. Well, aside from maybe having Psionics in the PHB, as something unique and not just "magic, but with psychic damage," but that's never going to happen.

I started (at the tabletop, had been playing the video games for years before that) in 4e. So I actually kinda like 4e. Not so much for an every-day driver, but...

But other than that, I agree with you. I'm happy with 5e as it is, and really don't want them putting effort into a new edition when there isn't anything fundamentally broken about 5e. There were lots of things fundamentally broken about the core of both 3e and 4e. The one had exponentially-increasing complexity and the core no longer fit how it was played in any way, the other had a worse problem. It wasn't selling, and was putting out tons of un-bought books. 5e has neither of those problems. It's a stable core on which to build and it's still selling well.

[Gurgeh]

6. Give all Fighters some Maneuvers and Superiority Dice. Give them free Feats.
To this day, I cannot understand why the Battle Master is a subclass and not just a base component of the Fighter's kit.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Here's what I'd like to see:

1. Keep combat feats and ASIs separate.

Give characters combat feats in addition to ASIs, but they must still trade an ASI for a non-combat feat. In this case feats that grant armor proficiency or save proficiency are non-combat feats. Feats like Great Weapon Master, War Caster, Crossbow Expert, Elemental Adept, etc. that directly affect attacks or actions in combat are the only ones considered combat feats. All classes should get a number of these automatically, and they should only be available when granted in such a way. No more races that grant a bonus feat at 1st level.

2. Reduce the number of spell slots and spells known/prepared each class gets, and grant more features that can be used instead of spells.

One of the biggest problems with balance is just how much versatility and power a given spellcaster has via their spells. If more of their abilities were class features that act as spells and spells are less important, that removes a huge portion of that quadratic advancement.

3. Make spellcaster archetypes grant more exclusive spells.

Wizards would have plenty of mediocre spells on their generalist list, but only an Evoker would get Fireball or Meteor Swarm, only a Transmuter would get Polymorph, only an Illusionist would get Greater Invisibility, etc. Same goes for Clerics, Druids, Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Paladins, Rangers, and whatever else. The generalist spell list for each class only includes mediocre spells for every area, and the focused class archetypes grant access to better versions in their specialized area. None of the archetype spells are available to gain as bonus spells from a feature like Magical Secrets.

4. The best out of combat utility is available to every character in some form, but at an opportunity cost.

For example, make Teleport and Plane Shift and similar only available via scrolls or other single-use, not-easy-to-accumulate items, which any character can use. Make access to the best out of combat divination spells cost a (noncombat) feat (or two, or three). Specific spells would be in a few specific archetype lists, but not on any generic class list. Many crowd control effects would be available as (expensive) alchemical items, such as a smoke bomb, a grease bomb, an item that explodes into a huge web effect, a flash bomb that blinds creatures, etc. These could be used by opponents and recovered as loot. Some non-spellcasting classes may gain the ability to create/use one of those per combat via an ability similar to the Starfinder Soldier's Grenade Expert feature. Keep Mage Hand limited to only Gith and the Telekinetic feat and maybe a few class archetypes. A glowing gem or similar item that's broken to summon a creature, rather than granting summoning via spell slots.

5. Give martial characters more special abilities.

There are plenty of examples of fun and useful special abilities in 5e, from the Rune Knight's 1/SR rune abilities, to the Monk's Ki abilities, to the Soulknife's and Psychic Warrior's psi die, even Arcane Archer's special shots. These classes should have more abilities like these, some may be usable a few times per short rest, some may be usable [proficiency bonus] times per long rest, some may even be usable at will. There should be area of effect attacks of some kind for martials, give Fighters and Barbarians a sweeping strike that hits multiple opponents, that upgrades to a sweeping charge that hits everyone on one side of their path.

6. Make characters more MAD by requiring ability scores for certain things.

A character with Str 8 who's carrying a shield and wearing medium armor is going to tire much faster than someone who's stronger, regardless of encumbrance. The above item 4 can tie into this, requiring Int to use class-neutral scrolls, Dex to throw alchemical weapons, Cha to use a summoning item without risk of the creature turning on you, etc. Make item 5 above require at least one stat that would have otherwise been a dump stat in order to use them effectively. Make better effects that attack the less-important saving throws.

[Dienekes]

To this day, I cannot understand why the Battle Master is a subclass and not just a base component of the Fighter's kit.

Playtesters complained that the version of the Fighter where everyone had some maneuvers was too complicated because Fighter was supposed to be an simple class for noobs. Not even joking.


Anyway, here's what I would like to see.

1) Take a bit more risks when it comes to refresh mechanics. Everything being Short Rest/Long Rest refreshing is a bit limiting. Or And on that note, make Short Rests 10 minutes or something. Basically Short Rest features are designed to be per encounter. Makes things easier to balance.

2) Warlord class.

3) All classes are designed to be effective both in and out of combat in some sphere of influence.

4) Fighter gets remade to be a bit more like the 3.5 Warblade as a base. If the class/subclass split is still in use (and I hope it remains) design their subclasses off of what style of warrior they're supposed to be. Knights, Soldiers, Samurai, Hunters, Gladiators, Guard, Fencer, etc. Dig deep, think of what makes them unique from each other rather than starting with Simple-Generic-Fighty-Guy and Less-Simple-Generic-Fighty-Guy as two of their starting subclasses.

5) While each class should be roughly as effective as each other, there should be simple and complex options available for most styles of play. You want to play a simple martial warrior? Pick the Barbarian, you go in a rage and you hit things. You want to play a complex warrior? Pick a Fighter, you have to figure out the best uses of shifting stances and maneuvers. Want to play a complex caster? Play the Wizard, and pour of spell lists and slots. Want a simple caster? Pick a Sorcerer and unleash devastating power that just comes from themselves.

6) Open up stat builds a bit. With the subclass system it seems trivially easy to design a subclass where a Wizard would want to have a Strength focus. Or a Barbarian would want a Charisma focus. Really there's a lot of potential in the subclass system that seems untapped.

7) Lower HP bloat past a certain point.

8) Redesign races from the ground up to have more of an emphasis on actual play. Even at the cost of making fewer playable races. When I pick a Dwarf I want it to be noticeable that I'm a doughty sturdy bearded cave dweller. Taking hits that no other race could possibly take. If I play an Orc I should be stronger than anyone else. If I'm an Elf I'm ancient and graceful. Really dig deep into what this stuff means and make it bleed into playing the character. If D&D takes some inspiration from games like Burning Wheel to put mechanics into how to actually roleplay the races differently, I'd be for it as well.

[YoungestGruff]

More difference among casters. Vancian Casting for Wizards, sure. Spell points for Sorcerers, Pact Magic for Clerics (strike Warlocks out entirely - I understand that they're supposed to fill the at-will caster niche, but flavorwise why can't a Wizard be taught by a demon, a Sorcerer be gifted instead of inherited, or a Cleric be reluctant?), Spells Known and/or Wildshape uses for Druids.

Put Bards put back in a niche, rather than being full-caster psuedo martial skill monkeys - I've heard the original plan was for them to be half-casters, and I like the trinity of half-casters being Bard/Paladin/Ranger.

Give Rangers a more focused niche. What it is is less important than it being something that can't be argued with.

Making ability scores more even. There's a lot of great ideas on how to do that already. I'm super interested in the idea that different types/portions of magic affect your ability preferences, not the class. Summoners want CHA to maintain control, Illusionists want INT to maintain verisimilitude, blasters want. . . WIS I guess? I don't know, it's a work in progress.

[GeneralVryth]

I am also another against Vancian casting. I do like the idea of increase differences by default amongst casters. Sorcerers being spell point based makes sense. Druids being more Warlock like would be solid.

Something I haven't seen anyone mention is better scaling for upcasting spells. That would make a huge difference in terms of being able to simplify and better balance spell casters (and likely make it easier to get by with fewer spells).

Better exploration and social support for martial characters.

[Pex]

Almost everything the OP wants I don't, so already they can't please everyone. Anyway, in no particular order except for the first mention . . .

1) Bring back skill DC tables. Show examples for what tasks are meant to be easy or hard. Show what a DC 10 means, a DC 15 means, etc. Be more explicit when players shouldn't have to roll the die they can just do what they want to do. 5E does mention this but personal experience has shown not forceful enough. Bring back player invoked Take 10/Take 20.

2) A Point Buy system where it's possible to have an 18 at first level, accepting if it takes a racial modifier to get there. If they get rid of racial modifiers to be replaced by class modifiers that's fine too. Having the 18 does not make you the Suck elsewhere. Not having an 18 should be an equivalent viable option because of alternative benefits based on character abilities.

3) Whatever is done with races, Humans MUST NOT suck. If they use racial modifiers Humans get them of equal significance. If it takes a racial modifier to get the 18, Humans can get the 18 too. Humans also gets racial abilities. Bonus skill and bonus feat is fine, but they get pertinent stuff.

4) Psionics as an official part of the 6E Player's Handbook. It exists.

5) Warriors get Nice Things. They can do powerful stuff relevant to their level. Spellcasters keep Cantrips. Do not punish spellcasters for the audacity of casting spells.

6) The rest mechanic is good. All classes get juicy stuff back on short rests. All classes get everything back on long rests.

7) All classes can be MAD to SAD. This means all classes are SAD, but the Ability Score they use can be any of them based on Subclass. For example, to get the Warlord people like there is the Fighter class with juicy stuff all Fighters get (Action Surge, multiattack, etc.), but the Warlord uses CH for his specific Warlord stuff and uses CH as his attack and damage modifier. If Ranger became a subclass of Fighter he would use WI. Spellcasters can do the same thing. Enchanter uses CH. Evoker uses DX. Knowledge Cleric uses IN. Summon Druid uses CH, etc. It may be necessary to divorce hit points from CO. I don't absolutely need this idea. It may not work in practice, but I find it a cool concept to think about. Whatever is done, no MAD classes.

8) Divorce Feats from ASI. They should be two separate resources.

[Tanarii]

Proper structures for dungeon and wilderness exploration.

Make everyone better at all saves as they level up, and let fighters get the quickest improvement rate again.

More special things for martials to do every round. At-will 4e powers would be a good place to start.

Make casting/archery in melee and casting/firing into melee harder/more dangerous. And no feats to easily remove that.

Make it hard for arcane casters to get armor (especially at low levels), and hard to not lose spells when casting/maintaining spells while taking damage.

Skill challenges.

Feats and multiclassing (and added complexity in general) remain optional.

Slower healing / make long term resource attrition a thing. Or at least an effective and balanced optional rule-set for it, but both standard and slow resource renewal should successfully tie into the exploration structures.

[Xervous]

Fighters, rogues, barbarians etc need to become classes that are more consistently defined by how they are awesome, rather than what awesome things they do. Something that’s awesome at level 1 can easily be irrelevant at level 6 or 10. So long as adventures broaden in scope as the levels go up, so long as Paladins, wizards and their adversaries gain stunning new capabilities, I don’t see a reason why certain classes should be locked in the same concept they had at level 1 when all classes are presented as equal and comparable.

An easier approach would be to acknowledge the differences between the various classes and offer guidance on how they need to be handled differently, but I don’t think people will react well to the fighter being labeled special needs.

[Gurgeh]

Playtesters complained that the version of the Fighter where everyone had some maneuvers was too complicated because Fighter was supposed to be an simple class for noobs. Not even joking.
Gosh. It doesn't sound like they had very good playtesters, especially if this is what led to the Champion - an option where the player needs to make a total of two (2) decisions in their character's progression (and one of those is from the base Fighter class).

[Bunny Commando]

- Separate ASIs and Feats (or make very Feat also give you an ASI);

- Make all the weapon enchantments affect all kind of weapons (way too many "any sword" right now);

- Remove the "Set ability score at 19" magic items, make them give flat boni (or make odd ability scores useful);

- Six Saving Throws are too much, IMHO (three was a good number);

- Less "once per short\long rest" and more at-will powers for everyone;

- Make certain Abilities much more useful (I'm looking at you STR/INT/CHA), dumping them should be a more meaningful choice;

- Remove the Expertise feature, give more proficiencies instead;

- Bring back Take 10\20.

[Hytheter]

1. No. Healing Surges would devalue short rest, making warlocks and monks worse than before. Would also devalue magic healing and potions. But i agree, there should be more uses for Hit Dice.

That seems kind of a short-sighted reaction to me. A new edition with new rules would (ideally) be overall written with those rules in mind. A 6E with healing surges may well have stronger or less SR-dependant warlock, or dispense with the concept of short rests altogether.

Rejecting a notion for a hypothetical 6E because of the way it would interact with highly specific facets of 5E is kind of missing the point.

[Eldariel]

While there's a lot wrong with 5e and I could probably write a book on the topic, I'll try and condense the biggest issues (and missing innovations) to 10 points:

1. Rework skill system entirely. It's currently at odds with bounded accuracy and class features that interact with it mostly work poorly if at all. It should have a magnitude check and a success check like the rest of the system.

2. +5/-5 critical success system. Four degrees works superbly under bounded accuracy and four degrees of success make for a much better magic system too.

3. Yeah, a proper system for martials. Complex martials need to be a thing. And they need stuff they can be decent at especially on Tier 3+.

4. Simple caster. Throw away current Warlock and replace it with a simple Eldritch Blast spammer that gets at-will stuff from invocations. If the current Warlock is desired, collapse its features with the Sorcerer.

5. Abandon the whole Short Rest framework and stick with encounter abilities and daily abilities. It's dysfunctional in so many campaigns and makes broader balancing impossible.

6. Write at least skeleton rules for exploration so it's easier for DMs to do. If it's supposed to be a pillar, it might be an interesting idea to actually support it.

7. Rework the action system. PF2e system is much more elegant among others, and reaction is a horrible way of modeling out-of-turn interaction (even Legendary Actions serve as a better framework). Hell, do away with turn-based combat entirely and go with round-based resolution instead: it fixes about a billion things (from players sitting out and waiting for others to play to chases and such functioning by default without requiring a separate set of rules) and is even faster to run once the players get a hang of it.

8. Magic item balance could possibly be a thing. At least robust guidelines for rating new magic items.

9. Fix/rewrite the ~15 broken spells in the game.

10. I agree that saving throws could be consolidated to 3. Even if not, saving throw scaling certainly needs addressing.

[Arkhios]

Personally, I would like to see 6e never happen.

If only in spite of everyone raving about it.

But that's just me.

[stoutstien]

Gosh. It doesn't sound like they had very good playtesters, especially if this is what led to the Champion - an option where the player needs to make a total of two (2) decisions in their character's progression (and one of those is from the base Fighter class).

There was a lot of fundamental changes to the game as well when they started shifting from the play testing next material to 5th edition. You can actually find a lot of the rules floating around online still if you're interested and seeing the extent of the changes. So why I agree they probably should have kept some kind of dice interaction mechanic for the fighter instead of putting it on a single subclass you can't really look at one single change without taking it as part of the whole.
On the subject on hand I don't think we're going to see a 6E anytime soon but the big change is I would like to see are actually more to do with formatting and presentation of the game rather than big changes in the mechanical features.

[Schwann145]

Honestly, with all I'd change the game wouldn't look like D&D anymore, so not sure how useful anything I say will be, lol.

But, off the top of my head:
•-Complete overhaul of magic: There's sooo much legacy bloat and redundancies that should really be cleaned/sorted out. Clean up the schools, re-balance them so you don't have the "there's more transmutation spells than all other schools combined/there's only 3 divination spells" situations happening, etc.
-Offer different types/styles of magic. By this I mean make the differences between schools really noticeable, give more mechanical consideration to some styles of casting (planar summoning, blood magic, elementalism, etc) rather than just "it's all Vancian-ish; good enough."
-Divine magic should also be pretty drastically changed. I think going back to the 2e Spheres would be a good idea, but more restrictive on what major spheres are accessible, based on your faith of choice. Clerics/Priests/whatever you call them really need to be much more specialized towards their god/domain(s) and not share 90% of their spells across faiths.
-Personally, I'd also be happy if the core system saw some redesign - make magic more simple and craftable, something a little closer to Skyrim where you can "make" more complex spells out of baseline magical effects (I know this one I'm prob on my own on, but I think it'd be way more interesting than everyone just knowing the same 15 spells).
•Build mechanics for non-combat pillars of the game: If something is a *pillar* of the game, such as social encounters or exploration, it deserves a LOT better than D&D has ever given it. Combat, even in editions where it's simplified like 5e, has a ton of mechanical interaction options that allow you a wide variety of choice and involve an assortment of dice. Social/Exploration is left entirely to a single d20 (+skill, sometimes) roll and that's it. That's embarrassing, WotC. Build "social combat" rules. Give exploration some actual teeth and purpose. Let the players do more, mechanically, than just swing a weapon.
•HP is a bad system by itself: Everything has too much health, and health has nowhere near enough meaning. Having over 100hp and all but 1 of it doesn't matter makes for really awkward storytelling. Giving everyone higher HP at the earliest levels was a good idea, as the "wizard trips and dies" joke is a longstanding one for a reason, but HP progression from tier2 onward needs to be reigned in, and something needs to be added so that players can engage with the health system more. 4e had a good idea with "Bloodied" - I'd start there and maybe design a little further.
•Stop letting "Rule of Cool" play favorites: 5e isn't terrible about this, but it is still an issue. For example, swords are always the best, even if only by a tiny margin. Spears are always weaker than other options. Stop it. Let every weapon shine, because someone finds it cool and fun and doesn't want to be punished for picking it.
•Every class needs to be able to meaningfully participate in every pillar of gameplay: Every class can do combat, but not every class can meaningfully participate in social encounters, or exploration/survival. That desperately needs to change.
•Make all ability scores matter: SAD needs to disappear as a playable concept. Group gaming should force you to rely on your fellow players to cover your weaknesses with their strengths - when you are equipped to do everything, the game suffers.
•Give adequate mechanical consideration to areas that need it; don't over-simplify everything: Mounted combat is the first example that comes to mind as mechanically inadequate. One of the best/most obvious uses for a horse is to ride an opponent down - something that doesn't exist in 5e mechanics, likely because it would have required more than bare minimum mechanical consideration. Don't let the goal of simplicity make you lazy - reducing unnecessary moving parts is a laudable goal, but not all moving parts are unnecessary.

I could go on and on, but I'm tired and that's already a wall of text. :smallsmile:

[Selion]

Despite having no idea on what it is possible to do to fix that, i have never liked the way HPs and damage pump up with levels in d&d.
When i fight i dragon, i would like to face a beast able to severely injure me with a swing of their talons, instead we got a barbarian tanking dozens of strike from something the size of a building, and the rest of the party burning legendary resistances (which is still an improvement in respect to battles ending in a couple of rounds in previous editions).
I'd like a fight with different hp pools, to injure the beast's wings, tail, eyes, and at the same time i want the brave warrior in melee with such a beast having their bones broken, or be at least temporary disabled at every hit, instead of just tanking hits over hits.


Also (this one is easier), i'd like the same rules for monsters and players (at least humanoid ones), i understand why they made this choice in 5e, it works and i like the way it works, but it's still unsatisfactory.

[GooeyChewie]

1. Bring Back Healing Surges
I wouldn't hate healing based on Hit Dice, but I'm not clamoring to get it back, either.


2. Bring Back Vancian Casting
While it would be nice to have a bit more differentiation between types of casters, I don't see Vancian Casting making a comeback. Nor do I really want to see it come back.


3. Everybody Must Be MAD
Reading your description, I don't think MAD is quite the right term for it. It's more of "make ability scores matter." I would prefer classes only care about one or two ability scores (even Monk!), but then do as you describe and make all ability scores matter such that there's no "easy" dump stat. You'd only depend on one or two scores, but your other scores would still matter.

[QUOTE=Bosh;25093731]4. Make Race Matter More
I totally agree. Sadly, I think WotC is moving in the complete opposite direction. Whenever we get 6e (which I think will be a long time, unless 5e sales suddenly jump off a cliff), I think race will be purely cosmetic.

[QUOTE=Bosh;25093731]5. Back on the Trail
You do mention in this one that it's DM dependent, and I agree with that part. A DM can wear down a party's resources in 5e; they just need to go into the session with that goal in mind. And of course, it's best to see if the players want that sort of game beforehand.

I believe part of the success of 5e has been that it is lenient on the players. A lot of players prefer to approach D&D as a shared narrative game, with more illusion of danger than actual danger.

[QUOTE=Bosh;25093731]6. Shed a Tear for the Fighter
I figure if we get 6e, all the classes will get changed and re-balanced. One thing I'd like to see is for martials to focus on individual niches. Let Rogues get finesse and Ranger get ranged weaponry; let Fighters focus on Strength-based weaponry.

[Amnestic]

More than any individual mechanical reason, what I'd want/need from 6e is enough changes that it would warrant being it's own edition. Small changes, little bits here and there, could just be optional/variant rules in future splatbooks. 6e would need to revisit the absolute core mechanics and pillars to warrant adopting.

[CapnWildefyr]

Hmmm.... I think some improvements will seem at first counterintuitive, but here goes:

1. If you want to keep the game playable, make it easier to die. It's hard to die in 5e unless you get buried by a mountain, and even then you probably get death saves. I think the idea was to keep players playing, instead of rolling up new characters, and that's nice, but healing should be harder than sleeping for 8 hours. After a long rest, roll half your HD (even if all used up you still get this). Now it's great you can keep playing, keep adventuring, but there is also less consequence for pushing too hard in a fight.

2. Sorcerers - I have an SR-based, spell-point based sorcerer design, haven't posted it yet but I think it's got promise. But that would distinguish between wizards and sorcerers.

3. I agree with scaling saves differently by class.

4. Bring back a few more saves. Don't want to bog things down, but wizards and even fighters should be afraid of dragon breath and fireballs, not just for HP damage. Stuff should be able to get destroyed. Armor should get annealed and spell books should get turned to goo. Nothing says "limit the power of wizards" like having to track down back-up spell books.

5. Re-institute some test for casting that permits interference. The balance is between casters doing nothing for a round vs martials being worthless vs casters. At least a concentration check before you can cast if you've taken damage since your last turn. To compensate, make it easier for wizards (only) to create one-shot magic items, almost like an artificer. That way you are more likely to always be able to do something useful.

6. Humans -- need some love. Make all feats -- except for specific and limited racial feats -- a human thing only, and give ASI + feat (but feats don't increase stats). Let's face it, humans get a few asi's at start, and that's it. Almost every other playable race sees in the dark, some get bonus actions, some get spells, etc. Humans get old and die. Give players a reason to play humans.

7. I agree with bringing back at least some type of encumbrance. You shouldn't be able to run full speed while casting a spell/swinging a sword with a Buick on your back. A spellcaster might need a concentration check because the weight is unbalancing, a martial might get a penalty on rolls.

The hard part is keeping it simple so the game stays playable.

[Dienekes]

Here’s one, mostly for rogues.

It is very strange to me, that the designers went through all the trouble of setting defenses, attacks, and saves all scaling at the same rate and then never did anything with it. Sure your warrior classes could get attacks that target saves, and that should happen, but really the biggest let down for me is the Rogue.

They’re supposed to be tricksters, dishonorable fighters, rakes, and thieves. And the best they can get to represent that is making one massive damage attack a turn? Let them use their skills in weird ways. Deception vs Wisdom to get enemies to lose a Turn. Persuasion checks to get opponents to switch sides. Knowledge checks vs Con Saves to grant allies bonuses on how to kill creatures. You could do so many cool things with this streamlined system, and they do so little.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think it is time for 6E yet.

1. Make more abilities be At-Will
Cunning Action is a great ability! If you are making an ability that recharges on a short rest, please take time to consider it being at-will instead. Warlocks used to be at-will partial caster. Battle master maneuvers would be better if not tied down to a superiority die.

2. Bring back skill points as a variant.
Many will still want to pick skills to fully invest in. However skill points allow a character to learn new skills or change their focus while they level up.

3. Bring back skill progression.
In 5E the 1st level character's bell curve on skills overlaps ~75% of the 20th level character's bell curve. That makes it feel like the character barely improved despite the large number of levels. I suggest either decreasing the overlap, or adding a second roll that determines magnitude of success, but is expected to increase significantly between 1st and 20th.

4. Non spell features that are level appropriate for 13th+ level.
As a rule, the features characters gain at 13th+ level do not feel level appropriate. Spells seem fine but other classes get unimpressive features. It really feels like the 13th+ level features are leftover Tier 1/Tier 2 features rather than Tier 3/Tier4 features.

5. Expand on the non combat pillars of D&D.
Please! 5E decreased the content on the non combat pillars by decreasing the content on skills. I had hoped it would expand the non combat pillars in some way.

6. Could Rogues opt out of Sneak Attack?
What could a rogue do if they did not have Sneak Attack. They are skilled. Can we see that be useful?

7. Could there be a non caster full mage?
I am curious what a mage class would look like if it had mostly passive, triggered, at-will abilities rather than spells and spell slots/spell points/mana.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd rather not see a 6e, honestly. Given the number of books on my shelf, I feel similarly.

1. No. Healing Surges would devalue short rest, making warlocks and monks worse than before. Would also devalue magic healing and potions. But i agree, there should be more uses for Hit Dice. Concur. Problem is, too many DM's and parties are having trouble with the short rest mechanic narratively.

2. Vancian casting is stupid
Hard disagree. Separate topic. And 5e doesn't really use Vancian casting - it's a muted version of it.

3. STR and INT could use some buffing
All that is needed is get rid of the Acrobatics skill proficiency.

6. Give all Fighters some Maneuvers and Superiority Dice. Give them free Feats. Yes to the first, no to the second, and if they still want the fighter to be 'noob class' then have the maneuvers/superiority dice show up at a later level, once the beginner player has gotten used to the game. (At level 4, for example, for the Champion).

I'm happy with 5e as it is, and really don't want them putting effort into a new edition when there isn't anything fundamentally broken about 5e. Concur.

To this day, I cannot understand why the Battle Master is a subclass and not just a base component of the Fighter's kit.

Playtesters complained that the version of the Fighter where everyone had some maneuvers was too complicated because Fighter was supposed to be an simple class for noobs. Not even joking. Well, that's what you get for asking players what they want (see also my rant on the INT Warlock being changed thanks to 'fan push back' ) :smallyuk:

Redesign races from the ground up to have more of an emphasis on actual play. Even at the cost of making fewer playable races. I agree with fewer races, not more races, and few sub races, not more.


More difference among casters. Vancian Casting for Wizards, sure. Spell points for Sorcerers, Pact Magic for Clerics (strike Warlocks out entirely - I understand that they're supposed to fill the at-will caster niche, but flavorwise why can't a Wizard be taught by a demon, a Sorcerer be gifted instead of inherited, or a Cleric be reluctant?), Spells Known and/or Wildshape uses for Druids. Hard no. Warlocks are a nice class as is. My one suggestion would be to dump the Druid and revamp nature cleric entirely to replace the druid. But that's never happening due to the momentum of Druid as a calss ...

Put Bards put back in a niche, rather than being full-caster psuedo martial skill monkeys - I've heard the original plan was for them to be half-casters, and I like the trinity of half-casters being Bard/Paladin/Ranger. Bard as rogue half caster works for me. But that's a serious revamp of the class.

Give Rangers a more focused niche. What it is is less important than it being something that can't be argued with. Prepared caster, domain spells (like paladin) would be a nice start. They are to druid as paladin is to cleric.

1) Bring back skill DC tables.
No. But you knew I'd say that. :smallsmile:

2) A Point Buy system where it's possible to have an 18 at first level, accepting if it takes a racial modifier to get there. If they get rid of racial modifiers to be replaced by class modifiers that's fine too. Having the 18 does not make you the Suck elsewhere. Not having an 18 should be an equivalent viable option because of alternative benefits based on character abilities. I could go either way on that.


3) Whatever is done with races, Humans MUST NOT suck. Hard agree.

5) Warriors get Nice Things. They can do powerful stuff relevant to their level. Spellcasters keep Cantrips. Do not punish spellcasters for the audacity of casting spells. Concur

Divorce Feats from ASI. They should be two separate resources. Disagree. I like all feats being available to all PCs. I like that a choice has to be made.

Gosh. It doesn't sound like they had very good playtesters, especially if this is what led to the Champion - an option where the player needs to make a total of two (2) decisions in their character's progression (and one of those is from the base Fighter class). They had 170,000 play testers, if you believe what you read in the PHB. You can argue that "none of us is a dumb as all of us collectively" if you'd like. :smallbiggrin:

- Separate ASIs and Feats (or make very Feat also give you an ASI) No. See above. I want to see all feats available to all PCs. Also, get rid of racial feats. :smallfurious:

- Make all the weapon enchantments affect all kind of weapons (way too many "any sword" right now); Concur.

- Remove the "Set ability score at 19" magic items, make them give flat boni (or make odd ability scores useful); For sure the latter. (I've seen a homebrew where the DM adds the extra +1 for ability checks ... it works).

- Remove the Expertise feature, give more proficiencies instead;
Hard no. It's what makes customization of PCs more attainable.

Bring back Take 10\20. Please, no. You don't need a mechanic for that.

Personally, I would like to see 6e never happen. Yeah.
To address the OP directly:

1. While you're at it, bring back the bloodied condition No. Death spiral. Healing surges I can listen to.

2. Bring Back Vancian Casting
I can live with that, but I don't see it getting much support. The current version is workable.

Also at-will cantrips? Bah! *waves cane at kids on his lawn* Sorry, I like them. If you want to limit them to 'a number of times per short rest based on proficiency' or something like that, that's a middle ground but it's also too fiddly. :smalltongue:

For clerics maybe bring back 2e spheres?
No. The cleric is fine in this edition. Don't fix what ain't broken.

3. Everybody Must Be MAD
Everyone already is. You can't dump CON in this edition.

Charisma: Needs to stop being a spell casting stat.

4. Make Race Matter More
Here's a novel idea: make race matter less (mechanically).

5. Back on the Trail
That's a matter of taste. A DM can do this without changing 5e's mechanics.

6. Shed a Tear for the Fighter
Just add a few skill proficiencies to Fighter at chargen. Done.

Here's my radical idea, the Fighter Class (and the Paladin) get the Mounted Combatant feat as a default at first level. :smallbiggrin: (I will also listen to arguments for Barbarian, favorably).

[Spiritchaser]

Skill DC tables would be great.

Spend significant effort in rationalizing strength and dexterity scores such that both are important, but such that being “good” at both is mathematically easier from a resource cost point of view. I feel that most rogues and rangers as well as a meaningful number of fighters “need” to spend a lot of points in both to do what they need to do. Notwithstanding those balance dependent slab climbs that the DM decided were a Dex check, a climbing rogue (over half of them in my experience) is going to need a pretty solid athletics check on what would otherwise be a Dex character. Most players I’ve encountered want their warrior to know how to use a bow… this can and should be easier than it is.

Spend some more effort on explaining what blindsight is and how it works. With a few exceptions, a DM is required to rule for each monster just how it’s blindsight functions and what can counter it. That’s a fair bit of effort that really should be in the manual.

Nice to have: I’ve only ever run one campaign over level 15 (or over 13 for that matter) and to be honest, I don’t see another happening soon, but: give high level non spellcasters strong, campaign shifting abilities on par with teleporting the entire party around the planet, telepathically communicating with a spy on a different continent.

[Ettina]

6. Humans -- need some love. Make all feats -- except for specific and limited racial feats -- a human thing only, and give ASI + feat (but feats don't increase stats). Let's face it, humans get a few asi's at start, and that's it. Almost every other playable race sees in the dark, some get bonus actions, some get spells, etc. Humans get old and die. Give players a reason to play humans.

That sounds more like you want to kill every other PC race and have everyone playing humans only. Why would anyone play anything else except for very specific builds? You'd end up with parties consisting of five humans and one elf, with the elf always playing one of the 2-3 elf builds in existence.

I'd rather give humans some actual racials. Maybe advantage on saves against exhaustion because we evolved as persistence hunters, some kind of bonus to visual perception in sunlight to offset the lack of Darkvision (for example, what if most Darkvision races were red-green colorblind? IDK, could be too complicated in play to figure out what they actually see, but it'd be interesting), stuff like that.

[Sorinth]

Count me in as one of the people who don't think they need a 6e any time soon. That said it's always fun to reimagine things so here's a short list.

Quality of Rests: Being in the wilderness doesn't need to be punishing in terms of resource recovery but it should have an impact if you are out in the wilds long enough.

Druids: Should be SR casters like Warlocks.

LR Spellcasters: Should have less total spell slots at higher levels. This can be offset somewhat by an expanded ritual casting. Make most if not all spells ritual but have the time for the ritual scale with spell level.

Backgrounds: Should be expanded and come with stronger abilities that cover the cultural stuff that is currently part of many race abilities.

Alignment: Should be removed entirely.

General Subclass Design: Should mostly follow Hunter Ranger/Totem Barbarian where each subclass feature comes with several choices. That said having one simple subclass (Like Champion) for each class is also desirable.

EDIT: Oh and make to hit/save DC based purely on proficiency bonus and not attributes.

[Ionathus]

I am also tossing my two cents into the "WotC has no reason to even consider 6e right now, nor would I want them to" pot.

Also into the "Vancian casting is never coming back, nor should it" pot. Just going off my own infrequent experiences and my (tangential) experience with the 2e/proto-3e Baldur's Gate spellcasting mechanics, truly Vancian magic was both a barrier to entry for noobs who wanted to do magic, and a giant PITA.

I can see how it would be fun for someone who wanted to scrape by with only Protection from Cold and three Summon Monster IIs left over, and I'm always a fan of clever MacGyvering. But many people, especially new fans of the hobby, are drawn to spellcasters because they want to do cool crap, not because they want to run an actuarial analysis and risk forecast of the adventuring day every morning, and then get frustrated anyway when half their prepared slots are inevitably useless preparations for fringe cases that never happened.

At that point, I'd be more likely to fill every slot with Fireball and similar just to ensure my slots aren't wasted. Giving me Prepared Spells allows me to take that "risk" on more interesting spells, and only be very slightly disappointed when the situation doesn't come up - because even though I "wasted" a prepared spell, that useless spell isn't clogging up my slots, preventing me from doing anything actually productive.

I am not throwing any shade at the 3.5e magic system: it's fun, it's a unique challenge, and I would enjoy trying to solve that puzzle. Even so, switching every spellcasting class over to working basically like 3.5e sorcerers (with minor variations) might actually be the single best design choice Wizards made in 5e. Maybe even better than the Advantage/Disadvantage solution.

[Theodoxus]

I'd love to see Spheres of Power and Might utilized as the basis for 6E. It brings back the feel of Book of Nine Swords for martials while expanding options for exploration and social interactions. For casters, it allows for a level of customization that lets the individual player decide how their magic is based, how casting works and they can go as broad or as narrow as they want.

Also, I'd love every class to be built with an archetype chosen at 2nd level and a subclass chosen at 3rd.

For example, using 5E examples, Fighter would grant medium armor, shield and weapon profs; second wind and battlemaster maneuvers and d6 superiority dice.
Fighter Archetypes would be Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger. Subclasses would depend on Archetype (so, Berserker, Totem, etc for Barbarian).

Rogue would gain current rogue weapon and light armor profs; expertise and precision attack (1d6)
Archetypes would be Bard (cutting down to half caster), Monk and Thief
Subclasses would depend on Archetype as above.
Note: Precision attack functions like sneak but is modified by archetype. Instead of gaining 1d6 every odd level of rogue, it would instead increase every 4 levels. Thief's would then gain 1d6 at 3,7,11,15 and 19th levels. Monks would, instead of gaining martial arts dice, would use the precision attack dice instead. Their flurry of blows, instead of allowing multiple attacks, would allow them to split their precision attack dice among different opponents, getting up to 6 attacks at 17th level (1 primary and 5 precision).
This does allow Monks to wear light armor, but could still allow them the unarmored Wis bonus. Let the player decide if they want to boost Wis or seek out magic leather armor...

[KorvinStarmast]

Even so, switching every spellcasting class over to working basically like 3.5e sorcerers (with minor variations) might actually be the single best design choice Wizards made in 5e. Maybe even better than the Advantage/Disadvantage solution. The ability to cast the same prepared spell more than once as a cleric was a refreshing change when I started this edition. The inability to turn undead once each turn was a shock to the system. Original game clerics didn't have a limit on how many times they could try. I had to get used to that, and that is how I discovered short rests and what a hash of it our first DM made. :smallyuk:

[Dienekes]

I will say one thing for true vancian castings defense. It is a damn near perfect representation of matching mechanics to class identity… for the Wizard. And only the Wizard. A guy who needs to study and prepare their spells using their vast intelligence to figure out what tool they’ll need for the day? That’s great.

It utterly fails to represent someone that gets their power from gods, or nature, or some internal connection to the Weave though.

Part of why I want more differentiation in refresh mechanics in the game. I’d be all for letting Wizards have to use true Vancian casting. Provided there were fun and powerful mage class options that did not get anywhere near it.

[Theodoxus]

I will say one thing for true vancian castings defense. It is a damn near perfect representation of matching mechanics to class identity… for the Wizard. And only the Wizard. A guy who needs to study and prepare their spells using their vast intelligence to figure out what tool they’ll need for the day? That’s great.

It utterly fails to represent someone that gets their power from gods, or nature, or some internal connection to the Weave though.

Part of why I want more differentiation in refresh mechanics in the game. I’d be all for letting Wizards have to use true Vancian casting. Provided there were fun and powerful mage class options that did not get anywhere near it.

This is exactly why I made Wizardry a feat in my games. Any caster class could instead be learned via study. Yes, Clerics and Warlocks had it easier, being granted their power by an outside entity, but there was no reason (I surmised) that a sufficiently intelligent person couldn't 'crack the code' and be able to cast "divine" spells as a Wizard. So I tossed Wizard aside, created the Wizardry feat and made them true Vancian casters. For the trouble, I increase their spell slots by 1/3, so there was player incentive as well.

I'm also considering making all casters refresh on a short rest. I started by converting to spell points, dividing them by 3 and rebuilding the slots back. It basically boils down to 1 slot per level (with level 1 getting 2 slots starting at 3rd level). But I quickly realized why Warlocks get Mystic Arcanum. The points for 6th-9th level spells can't be divided by 3 - you only get 1 slot! So, I mapped Mystic Arcanum to the arcane casters and created "Holy Mysterium" for the divine casters and called it a day.

[Morty]

Rogue would gain current rogue weapon and light armor profs; expertise and precision attack (1d6)
Archetypes would be Bard (cutting down to half caster), Monk and Thief
Subclasses would depend on Archetype as above.
Note: Precision attack functions like sneak but is modified by archetype. Instead of gaining 1d6 every odd level of rogue, it would instead increase every 4 levels. Thief's would then gain 1d6 at 3,7,11,15 and 19th levels. Monks would, instead of gaining martial arts dice, would use the precision attack dice instead. Their flurry of blows, instead of allowing multiple attacks, would allow them to split their precision attack dice among different opponents, getting up to 6 attacks at 17th level (1 primary and 5 precision).
This does allow Monks to wear light armor, but could still allow them the unarmored Wis bonus. Let the player decide if they want to boost Wis or seek out magic leather armor...

What makes bards more suited to be a rogue subclass instead of a fighter subclass? Or a separate class altogether, since I'm not sure why music and limited magic has to be connected to stabbing people in a precise manner.

[CapnWildefyr]

That sounds more like you want to kill every other PC race and have everyone playing humans only. Why would anyone play anything else except for very specific builds? You'd end up with parties consisting of five humans and one elf, with the elf always playing one of the 2-3 elf builds in existence.

I'd rather give humans some actual racials. Maybe advantage on saves against exhaustion because we evolved as persistence hunters, some kind of bonus to visual perception in sunlight to offset the lack of Darkvision (for example, what if most Darkvision races were red-green colorblind? IDK, could be too complicated in play to figure out what they actually see, but it'd be interesting), stuff like that.

I'm not suggesting that others don't get feats, I'm just suggesting that if humans could get the most benefit from feats, that would be one way to keep humans relevant. Elves/dwarves/etc. would still get feats, just limited by race. Just a suggestion.

Thinking a little more about it, I like to see them make vhuman the standard but I'd give the human +4, not +2 for ability scores along with the feat and skill (just because after Tasha's, everyone gets to move their mods, so again that nerfs humans, who used to be the only ones who could do that).

Or following along with your thought, Ettina, maybe give humans advantage on one reasonably-narrow class of saves, based on chosen background? I wouldn't go with exhaustion - doesn't come up as often as, say poison saves for dwarves. Or maybe allow humans to gain more from multiclassing?

I'd also like to see them bring back the "eyes have to adjust" thing from earlier editions, where a lightning bolt underground in the dark makes darkvision characters have disadvantage on attacks and maybe even AC the next round. The old light source "ruins your darkvision" effect.

[quindraco]

I'm all-in on hating Vancian magic; it's why I never even considered playing a full caster in previous editions.

What I'd like to see most in a new edition is game terms that are actually defined, in a single rules document, so we don't need to get into weird rules discussions that go nowhere because the game developers had a certain definition in mind when they wrote a rule but neither PCs nor DMs have any access to what that definition was. Do soul knife blades look like stars or mirages? Why do I have to guess what the intent was, especially when the decision has a substantial impact on balance?

[Theodoxus]

What makes bards more suited to be a rogue subclass instead of a fighter subclass? Or a separate class altogether, since I'm not sure why music and limited magic has to be connected to stabbing people in a precise manner.

Mostly balancing of the archetypes. Bard in Fighter would make 4 archetypes; Bard not in Rogue would make 2 archetypes.

Also, Bard fits a little better in the 'skill monkey' motif of Rogue. But you're correct, in general Bard could fit nearly anywhere. I even contemplated putting under Priest (with Cleric and Druid), but that felt even more of a stretch.

[stoutstien]

I'm all-in on hating Vancian magic; it's why I never even considered playing a full caster in previous editions.

What I'd like to see most in a new edition is game terms that are actually defined, in a single rules document, so we don't need to get into weird rules discussions that go nowhere because the game developers had a certain definition in mind when they wrote a rule but neither PCs nor DMs have any access to what that definition was. Do soul knife blades look like stars or mirages? Why do I have to guess what the intent was, especially when the decision has a substantial impact on balance?

I'm not a fan of it either but it works very well for artificers on all fronts. Combining it with the spell point variant rules it's a interesting twist on the class.

I do agree on having a glossary of rules easily accessible and defined. Human prevent running into issues like when a barbarian grapples does it count as an attack to maintain rage or the hold economy of weapon attack versus melee attack and so on.

[Morty]

Mostly balancing of the archetypes. Bard in Fighter would make 4 archetypes; Bard not in Rogue would make 2 archetypes.

Also, Bard fits a little better in the 'skill monkey' motif of Rogue. But you're correct, in general Bard could fit nearly anywhere. I even contemplated putting under Priest (with Cleric and Druid), but that felt even more of a stretch.

To me this looks like a sign that the fighter/rogue/mage/priest setup isn't actually a very good way to divide classes. I'm all for changing up D&D classes - though I'm even more firmly convinced it will never happen - but why in this particular way?

[Bunny Commando]

No. See above. I want to see all feats available to all PCs. Also, get rid of racial feats. :smallfurious:

I do not understand why not having to give up an ASI to get a Feat would make those Feats unavailable for all PCs.


Hard no. It's what makes customization of PCs more attainable.

I do not believe Expertise gives PCs a higher degree of customization - it's just a straight bonus to some skills; the PCs with Expertise use that skill in the same way as anyone else, they just have bigger numbers. I would greatly prefer to have a feature that makes you use those same skills in a unique way (or it it's too much work, a simple "Expertise gives you advantage on some skill rolls").


Please, no. You don't need a mechanic for that.

I feel I do, even if it's just an optional rule.

[Telwar]

Bearing in mind at most we're likely to get a fresh coat of paint with no real changes...

My absolute non-negotiable would be removing the Six-Stat-Save-System. I'm sorry, but it's a relic of their failed design that stayed in. There's no good reason to have Charisma saves. That they knowingly built classes to have one rare save and one common save means they know the Str, Int, and Cha saves are more or less useless. It's be better to have Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves (or Defenses). Come to them however you please, it just makes more sense.

[Ettina]

Bearing in mind at most we're likely to get a fresh coat of paint with no real changes...

My absolute non-negotiable would be removing the Six-Stat-Save-System. I'm sorry, but it's a relic of their failed design that stayed in. There's no good reason to have Charisma saves. That they knowingly built classes to have one rare save and one common save means they know the Str, Int, and Cha saves are more or less useless. It's be better to have Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves (or Defenses). Come to them however you please, it just makes more sense.

I disagree. I like that there's common saves and rare saves. It offers interesting design space - eg spell A is better than spell B in most ways, but spell A is a Wisdom save and spell B is an Intelligence save. This allows for interesting decision-making about when to use spell A over spell B, given that most creatures have better Wisdom saves than Intelligence saves.

[quindraco]

Bearing in mind at most we're likely to get a fresh coat of paint with no real changes...

My absolute non-negotiable would be removing the Six-Stat-Save-System. I'm sorry, but it's a relic of their failed design that stayed in. There's no good reason to have Charisma saves. That they knowingly built classes to have one rare save and one common save means they know the Str, Int, and Cha saves are more or less useless. It's be better to have Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves (or Defenses). Come to them however you please, it just makes more sense.

If anything, the three common saves convey failed design more than anything else.

Constitution and Dexterity saves both suffer from an inability on WOTC's part to commit to a difference between saves and ability checks. As a result, if you look up the list of things a Constitution check should cover, everything in the list that has an actual rule handling it is instead a Constitution save. Dexterity isn't as bad since it has actual skills attached to it, but just look at the rules for military saddles and you'll immediately see the same problem - or look at what happens when a goat jumps into difficult terrain. Strength saves do have this a bit, in terms of Athletics checks vs Str saves, but simply due to being much less common, your face gets rubbed in the issue much less.

Meanwhile, Wisdom saves look like they're WOTC holding onto the sacred cow of Wisdom being used to resist mind control, even though nothing else it does has anything to do with willpower - it's the skill for intuition, as a reminder. The vast majority of Wisdom saves would clearly be more appropriate as an Intelligence or Charisma save.

Speaking of sacred cows, Dexterity saves have never made sense and still don't - why do Dex save traps ignore plate armor and lycanthrope immunity? How does that make any sense at all?

If you're fixing this as part of making a new edition, you should address the core difference between ability checks and saves (and for dex, AC), and take a much closer look at why so many Wisdom saves are Wisdom saves.

[ZRN]

Not that I think we'll see this anytime soon, but...

1. Decouple attack rolls and spell save DCs from ability scores. This would be really straightforward - in 5e you could just double proficiency bonus to those two things instead of adding an ability score modifier - but you'd need to do a lot of general rebalancing to make sure e.g. wizards still wanted a high Intelligence.

The idea here is that ability scores work pretty well in 5e... for skills and saving throws. But when most characters have a single ability score that determines whether 90% of their actions in combat succeed or fail, you lose a lot of the flexibility and variety that the system otherwise offers. A ranger that stays at 16 dexterity but boosts his Con and Wis to make him tougher and better at tracking seems fun to play, but in practice you're going to be rolling 1-3 Dexterity-based checks and attacks every round of combat, so you're going to be missing that extra Dexterity.

2. Decouple feats from ASIs. This becomes almost necessary with #1 in place, since now it'd be hard to make worthwhile feats balanced against +2 to ability scores. But it's a good idea anyway; almost nobody actually played a feat-free game, and if they wanted to make a simple option for newer or less crunch-focused characters, it's pretty straightforward to add a Simple Feats section for "simple" characters to automatically gain in place of selecting feats, much like the champion subclass.

3. Spell points for sorcerers. Look, an aberrant mind basically gets a more powerful version of the DMG spell point system for his favorite (enchantment) spells already, so at this point the spell slots are just extra bookkeeping.

4. Vancian spells for wizards. As others have said, Vancian spells are very flavorful for wizards - let them have it!

5. No spells for warlocks. Just make the invocations better and more frequent! If warlocks are going to be the weird casters, let's just go all in!

6. Nobody gets to prepare from their whole class list. It's just ludicrous that cleric and druid players are expected to master their entire class list if they want to prepare spells optimally each day. I'd say make them "spells known" casters like sorcerers and bards, but let them swap out as many spells as they want on level-up. Also, maybe a more restricted class list and more generous subclass lists, to help different kinds of clerics/druids/etc feel different.

[Mercurias]

I’d probably try to shuffle around the saves and checks so that Strength and Intelligence aren’t the meta’s designated dump stats. Specifically, I’d probably try and address two weapon fighting and fighters. Action Surges are good, and for classes like Rangers and Swords Bards, dual wielding is a nice way to add an extra 33% damage, but when you can swing four times in a turn at level 5 with an action surge, two weapon fighting rapidly develops diminishing returns.

I’d also try and put a touch more flavor or personality options into the basic fighter chassis.

5e is pretty solid overall, but there are a few kinks.

[Hytheter]

I'll toss my hat into the "full vancian spell in slot preparation seems good for wizards in particular" pile. You could achieve a similar feel with something like 4E's recharge system combined with a rotating selection as well, I'd say.

I'm not passionate about Spell Points (for sorcerers or in general) but if we do go down that route can we please, PLEASE have a sensible and intuituve "spell level=point cost" scaling?

[Sorinth]

I doubt very much they will go back to Vancian spellcasting. That said one way to make it work would be to allow the caster to re-prepare their spells during a SR.

[ZRN]

I doubt very much they will go back to Vancian spellcasting. That said one way to make it work would be to allow the caster to re-prepare their spells during a SR.

There are plenty of fun ways to ameliorate the harshness of "true" Vancian. To build on your suggestion, maybe you can re-prepare as part of a short rest, but ONLY spells from your subclass school - plus you get a very few "favored spells" from your school you can spontaneously cast in an unspent slot, like 3e clerics with Cure Wounds.

For spell points, definitely agreed. They'd have to Do Something about high-level spells; I'm thinking maybe everyone gets a warlock-style system with 1 of each spell slot per day for spells level 6-9.

[Morty]

I think it's pretty clear something has to be done about attributes and the way they work, because it's clunky and unbalanced. But I doubt anything will be done, because they've become a fixture. I can see rearranging saving throws, whether by returning to Fortitude/Reflex/Will or something else, but I don't know about anything beyond that.

[Dienekes]

I think it's pretty clear something has to be done about attributes and the way they work, because it's clunky and unbalanced. But I doubt anything will be done, because they've become a fixture. I can see rearranging saving throws, whether by returning to Fortitude/Reflex/Will or something else, but I don't know about anything beyond that.

Is it?

Honestly I find it usually fairly elegant, as far as base mechanics go.

D20 + attribute modifier + proficiency (if you have it) for just about everything. Simple and easy, and allows a new player to just think “yeah I want to be strong/agile/smart/etc.” And you’re off to the races.

Now it’s terrible at modeling reality in any real way. But, well, D&D’s always been terrible at that. Despite Gygax’ early attempts.

Now I’ll admit there are things about it I’d like to change. Like just removing the concept of modifier completely and just have stats go from -5 to +5 and be done with it. But that’s not all that high on my list of complaints.

[Morty]

Is it?

Honestly I find it usually fairly elegant, as far as base mechanics go.

D20 + attribute modifier + proficiency (if you have it) for just about everything. Simple and easy, and allows a new player to just think “yeah I want to be strong/agile/smart/etc.” And you’re off to the races.

Now it’s terrible at modeling reality in any real way. But, well, D&D’s always been terrible at that. Despite Gygax’ early attempts.

Now I’ll admit there are things about it I’d like to change. Like just removing the concept of modifier completely and just have stats go from -5 to +5 and be done with it. But that’s not all that high on my list of complaints.

I'm not talking about the method of rolling a D20 and adding stuff to it. I'm talking about the way attributes are spread out among skill proficiencies, attacks, spells and saves.

[MrStabby]

Remembering back to the waning days of 3.5ed there was always a lot of discussion about the potential for 4e and a lot of dissatisfaction with things like 3.5e's class balance. While there is some grumbling in areas like this with a lot of older players (I started with Rules Cyclopedia myself), in the places with a lot of newer players people seem pretty satisfied and 6e doesn't come up much at all. With 5e doing well commercially and WotC's slow release schedule I think we're still a good way off from any 6e and once we get it it'll probably be a very conservative edition, with most of the changes being fairly small tweaks rather than overhauls like 3.0, 4, and 5 were.

In keeping with that expectation here's the sort of things I'd like to see in a potential 6e that don't stay relatively conservative instead of stuff like "nuke the social and exploration pillars from orbit and start over from scratch."

OK... so lets see.




1. Bring Back Healing Surges

I don't much care for 4e (wrote an essay on the subject years ago: https://www.enworld.org/threads/very-long-combat-as-sport-vs-combat-as-war-a-key-difference-in-d-d-play-styles.317715) but healing surges were genius. In 5e hit dice are mostly a sad withered vestige of 4e healing surges, which is a shame because healing surges really had a lot going for them. They limited the amount you could heal per day by requiring that a healing surge be spent to heal someone, unlike in 5e where you have two completely separate baskets of healing (spells and hit dice).

While you're at it, bring back the bloodied condition and tie more player abilities to it rather than having it mostly be just a monster thing, it'd be fun to have character who dig deep and fight best when they're really hurt and gives a reason to not just nova right off the bat.

Interesting... I am open to this but with some reservations. I think that it would be nice if the game suppoerted a healing playstyle a bit better and this seems to get in the way. On the other hand putting in "rules" like neading a healing surge that can be broken by more dedicated healers might help differentiate the masterful healers from the amateur.


2. Bring Back Vancian Casting

In 5e non-warlock casters all work roughly the same: you have a basket of spells that you know how to use and spell slots to spend them on. I'd really like the see more variety in that and one way of doing that would be to bring back full-on Vancian casting with wizards (and ONLY wizards). Better yet, require each spell memorized to be unique so you can't be boring and fill up all of your third level spell slots with fireball or what have you. I love the kind of creativity that is required to make use of a Vancian Wizard's odds and ends of spells at the end of a day, which you just don't see in 5e. Also at-will cantrips? Bah! *waves cane at kids on his lawn*

To repeat this should only be for wizards so that people who hate Vancian casting have plenty of other options. Taken alone, this is a straight-up nerf for wizards but making sure that wizards aren't underpowered has never been much of a problem for D&D designers. For clerics maybe bring back 2e spheres? That'd do some good work towards making each full caster feel more unique.


So for the headline... hells yes! Vancian casting was an elegant way of curtailing the scope of casters, especially at high levels, without curtailing the power so much. When being able to cast a niche spell requires not only dedicating a spell prepared but also a spell slot it encourages leaving roles for other party members. That said, I disagree on the requirement for spells to be unique - this really squeezes out thematic characters.



3. Everybody Must Be MAD

In 5e dex/con/wis are useful for everyone and always hurt at least a bit to dump. Str/int/cha on the other hand are a lot easier to dump if you don't need those stats for your class. I remember being in a party in which the highest Int was the cleric with 12. Would really like for there not to be such obvious dump stats so some ideas for that:

Strength: put in place a proper slot-based encumbrance system with various useful items (such as certain bulky spell components) taking up a slot. Encumbrance, even when there are rules for it, is probably the most ignored rule in D&D across editions and I'd really like to see that change with a simple and clear system that isn't a hassle, with your equipment noted on a paper doll picture of your character on your character sheet so you can see how much you can carry and what you're carrying at a glance. Rework equipment rules to work well with a slot based encumbrance system to facilitate that.

Intelligence: 3*ed making intelligence give you more skills worked fine there, I don't see why that'd be a bad things for 6e. Have some rogue class features be tied to getting more mileage out of having proficiency (such as reliable talent) so that having an high Int as a rogue becomes a viable build.

Charisma: simplest way would be to have Charisma give Inspiration, other ways would require bigger changes to 5e's social rules.

Of course making those three stats more powerful would throw off 5e class balance but by having that be a part of of an overall set of changes in 6e shouldn't be too hard to work out.

Also pretty easy to make some of the SAD classes more MAD. Have spell attack rolls work off of strength (for touch attacks) or dex (for ranged attacks) like in 3.*ed or even split up casting itself into two stats. For example, Wisdom could give your spells higher DCs while Intelligence could give you more spells known.


Again agree with the principal, but less so the execution. Some of my own thoughts on this have just been shuffling around some of the roel of stats. make initiative key of intelligence for quick thinking (I know, not a perfect fit, but then neither is dexterity a shorthand for speed or reaction either, we are just used to it). Honestly, I think a lot could also be done simply by makeing more of these more relevant as saves. Also feats needing some prerequisites would be good.



4. Make Race Matter More

In most version of D&D race become mostly a rounding error at higher levels and the new 5e trend of flexible stat boosts isn't helping with this. A simple fix to this would be to give some powerful racial features that only kick in at higher levels. Some races in 5e already have features kick in at 3rd and 5th level, don't see why that couldn't be universal.

I would go further and make both race and background matter. But yes, I am broadly in agreement. Things like a free racial feat every X levels might fix this (with an appropriate menue of racial feats worth having).



5. Back on the Trail

Probably my single biggest problem with 5e (and 4e) for that matter in how it's turn out in my own campaigns (making this very DM-dependent of course, but still a big issue for many people) is how hard it is to attrition down a 5e party compared to an OSR one. The simple amount of time spent in combat to drain away a party's resources can really take a while and often needs more than one session to accomplish. In general I'd prefer if attrition was more of a thing in 6e as that would help fix some of the issues in 5e such as the power of nova builds and how much casters can dominate out of combat if they're not worried about running out of spells constantly.

A few ideas towards this:
-Bringing back healing surges, this makes HP attrition more doable (also gives mundane classes an edge since they'd be easier to heal than wizards etc.).
-Less flexible casting (such as strict Vancian) makes it easier for casters to run out of spells that are useful in the given situation, even if they do have some spells left.
-Making more stringent rules for long rests core. Also make short rests easier relative to long, with a limited number of them per long rest so there isn't such a wildly varying ratio of short:long rests from table to table causing screwy class balance.
-Up monster damage and cut monster HP a bit to make combat faster.


So absolutely agree on the diagnosis of this one as well. Again some uncertainty that the proposed solutions are the right ones. Well generally I think they are good, but upping damage and lowering HP seems to just favour offence over defence - nova builds get a boost.

Generally I would like to see combat take longer (in rounds) rather than be shorter. Now, too often, the best tactical option is to pump out resources early to end a combat quickly and the stratecic best option is to build a character that can nova-down a combat quickly. More abilities that benefit from an enemy already being damaged or exploiting a weakness you fidn during a combat would work well for me. Soemthing to make combat more than a cycle of Gauge Resources Needed, Expend Resource, Mop Up... that gives a bit more too and fro.

But absolutely, put resource management and attrition back in. I think that the needs to be something done about the abilities that avoid attrition being a problem - pass without trace, leomund's tiny hut etc.. Anything that makes players feel persecuted if the DM counters in an effort to give genuinely long adventuring days probably shouldn't appear in its current form.


6. Shed a Tear for the Fighter

Hard to write much here without going on a "nuke the social and exploration pillars from orbit" rant but the vast vast VAST gulf in out of combat utility between a fighter and a bard is just bad. Big changes might not be in the cards for 6e but I could at least see hitting the bard with a bit of an out of combat nerf bat (full caster AND amazingly good at skills, REALLY?) and tossing at least a few bones for the poor fighter. For the other non-casters, monks and barbarians should be easier to salvage with a few tweaks making ki and (especially) rages be more useful out of combat and rogues would have a good niche if bards weren't elbowing into it so forcefully.
Thoughts?

I think that being a bit more stingy on skills might help - or at least pushing some skills to cross class, so that there is more space for characters to shine at different things would be a small step forward - not enough but maybe in the right direction. Honestly, I think the fighter is a problematic class and could be removed. Barring a few subclasses it feels very light on flavour, but more importantly it feels stifling. It feels like any other martial class good at fighting will step on the fighter's toes. Eliminating the class that is just fighting might help. Some of the subclasses give a nod to this with other minor abilities but it is the smallest of gestures.





As for my own thoughts:

I want PCs to have an incentive to be more specialist. At the moment being a wizard and just picking all the best spells with no theme or focus is very powerful. Likewise sorcerer, bard and generally most casters. Having more abilities and feat support for a couple of themes for spells would let characters of the same class differentiate themselves better.

And on differentiation, subclasses should be more of a PC's power and the base class just a bit less. A Necromancer Wizard doesn't feel like a Necromancer from class abilities. A Whispers bard isn't really that different from a glamour bard. I think clerics kind of start off doing this well with a rich set of domain abilities and spells that really set different clerics appart... then they just stop.

Side note on clerics - go back to picking two domains. The scope and combination of these gives a much richer set of options than just picking one.

More abilities that sit in the middle ground between ribbon and use all the time wuld be nice. It feels cool to whip out a Turn Undead; having the right ability for the moment when it matches your character's theme is really cool.

Make weapons matter a bit more... or rather have a deeper and more subtle pool of differences. Honestly, my gripe is that so many different characters feel mechanically the same. Ranger archer feels like figher archer. Figher great-sword wielder feals like barbarian greatsword wielder. Weapon choice and feat support seems to eclipse class, race and subclass choice in terms of at table impact for many characters.

No more Iconic Spells. Ditch special privilages for fireball and lightning bolt and wish etc.. Is there anything still to be gained by just having some options be better than others?

On that note, consider (depending on other changes), making damage spells scale better. Any damage spell below the top two or three spell levels you have as a caster is probably not going to cut it. When you are level 14 your Aganazaar's Scorcher won't still be relavent in the way say, Web, might be. Eliminating some of these spells as a long term theme for characters is squeezing the expressive space a bit.

There are a bundle of classes that need a fix. Warlock and Ranger spring to mind first.

More spells and effects that DMs are not afraid to use. A DM is being an ass if they make a player sit out a 40 min fight by hitting them with banishment. Instead of seeing this as a reason to not dump charisma you see it as a reason to not expect any charisma saves... more options for softer control spells like Command or Slow, that players will feel but not ruin their fun would be good.

[Dienekes]

I'm not talking about the method of rolling a D20 and adding stuff to it. I'm talking about the way attributes are spread out among skill proficiencies, attacks, spells and saves.

Each attribute has a list of things they effect that’s not all that hard to understand. Since most character sheets I’ve seen list which skills are affected by each attribute, and saves are literally called by the attribute they’re effected by.

I’m still not seeing how this is clunky. Could you explain your reasoning?

Unbalanced I’d give you. With some attributes being far more generically useful than others.

Though as far as saves go, I’ll admit a personal preference for making them all static defenses, and have the caster roll for their spells. But that’s not really an issue with the attributes themselves.

[Sigreid]

Mostly I want them to hold off longer. I dont think their splats have wrecked 5e just yet.

[Kane0]

- Back to Fort/Ref/Will non-AC defenses
- Dial down the reliance on attrition, maybe even reduce the number of levels/spell levels
- Split ASIs from feats, even if feats are still optional
- Make the generic classes more specific
- Expand on noncombat pillars (exploration, interaction)
- Expand on martial options (especially beyond purely mundane stuff) and alternative casting (spell points, auto-scaling, rituals, etc). Break the thinking that magic = spellcasting.

But really, all this can be done in 5e so I'd rather it come in a Big Book of Options rather than a new edition (although that book containing proper re-dos of PHB stuff would be very welcome).

[Sigreid]

- Back to Fort/Ref/Will non-AC defenses
- Dial down the reliance on attrition, maybe even reduce the number of levels/spell levels
- Split ASIs from feats, even if feats are still optional
- Make the generic classes more specific
- Expand on noncombat pillars (exploration, interaction)
- Expand on martial options (especially beyond purely mundane stuff) and alternative casting (spell points, auto-scaling, rituals, etc). Break the thinking that magic = spellcasting.

But really, all this can be done in 5e so I'd rather it come in a Big Book of Options rather than a new edition (although that book containing proper re-dos of PHB stuff would be very welcome).

I would not be opposed to it if they moved from increasing HP to increasing defenses as you level. But then it would not be D&D enough for some, and I have RuneQuest. :)

[Telwar]

If anything, the three common saves convey failed design more than anything else.

Constitution and Dexterity saves both suffer from an inability on WOTC's part to commit to a difference between saves and ability checks. As a result, if you look up the list of things a Constitution check should cover, everything in the list that has an actual rule handling it is instead a Constitution save. Dexterity isn't as bad since it has actual skills attached to it, but just look at the rules for military saddles and you'll immediately see the same problem - or look at what happens when a goat jumps into difficult terrain. Strength saves do have this a bit, in terms of Athletics checks vs Str saves, but simply due to being much less common, your face gets rubbed in the issue much less.

Meanwhile, Wisdom saves look like they're WOTC holding onto the sacred cow of Wisdom being used to resist mind control, even though nothing else it does has anything to do with willpower - it's the skill for intuition, as a reminder. The vast majority of Wisdom saves would clearly be more appropriate as an Intelligence or Charisma save.

Speaking of sacred cows, Dexterity saves have never made sense and still don't - why do Dex save traps ignore plate armor and lycanthrope immunity? How does that make any sense at all?

If you're fixing this as part of making a new edition, you should address the core difference between ability checks and saves (and for dex, AC), and take a much closer look at why so many Wisdom saves are Wisdom saves.

To be honest, I think you put a lot more thought and effort into that than WotC did.

The problem with the current system is that while you have the three more-or-less traditional (3e/4e) saves as the common ones, the number of Str/Int/Cha saves in the game are a tiny fraction of the Con/Dex/Wis saves. If they actually had committed to converting more existing spells/traps/monsters to using Str/Int/Cha saves, and doubling down on new ones, so those saves were almost close to being as common as the more traditional saves, and ones you'd want to make reasonably often, I don't think I'd be as irritated with them. We'd also likely see more balanced stats on played characters, if Str/Int/Cha were commonly rolled, they wouldn't be dump stats.

Instead, we got a few that were half-heartedly applied, and now those saves are borderline useless; I can count the number of times my warforged cleric has had to roll an Int or Cha save, combined over ten levels of play, on one hand, and have fingers left over. I'd be interested to know how many actually played characters take Resilient (Charisma). I also recall a great deal of the pushback on the mystic was the number of Intelligence saves it forced onto monsters that didn't have proficiency in those; if Will saves were still a thing, or Int effects almost common, that wouldn't've been an issue.

[Ettina]

Those of you saying you prefer three saves to six:

How much of that preference is because you've played 3.5? If 5e was your first edition, do you think you'd still want fortitude/reflex/will saves?

[Tanarii]

- Dial down the reliance on attrition, maybe even reduce the number of levels/spell levels

Personally I'd prefer if they dialed up the reliance on attrition.

[PhantomSoul]

Personally I'd prefer if they dialed up the reliance on attrition.

Agreed; attrition not working right (at least in my experience) is better solved by actually making it matter -- I want it to matter... and it just doesn't. (Almost) Nothing sticks across days, and the actual adventuring day is basically never going to wear you doing either. It's disappointing, and it makes class imbalances even worse, and for me it breaks some immersion (and even more of the fun) for it to just be so easily to blast and use up all of your stuff basically for free (making balancing an encounter even tougher too).

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Regarding making multiple high ability scores useful, how about using two ability scores for everything in combat?

Saves will be a Con+Wis resilience, Str+Cha force, and Dex+Int finesse. You're only ever proficient in one of them.

Every character will add a second stat to AC, possibly by virtue of race, but maybe from the class they take their 1st level in. Most often this would be your spellcasting stat, Fighter would probably use Str (block/parry), Rogue would use Int, etc. Initiative would add Dex+Int+Wis to make it super-MAD.

DCs will use your spellcasting stat plus another stat modifier depending on the spell. Some would happen to add your spellcasting ability a second time, i.e. Cha-based casters and most enchantment effects.

Attacks would use two stats, depending on the weapon and/or depending on your class. Heavy two-handed weapons would likely use Str+Con (as swinging one is tiring), finesse weapons would use Dex+Cha, thrown and one-handed weapons Str+Dex, spell attacks would use the spellcasting ability plus Dex (ranged) or Str (melee), projectile weapons Dex+Wis (perception, leading the target), etc.

Yes, it would make the game a lot more complicated, but it would also make all the ability scores matter for every character, and no class would be SAD for just one primary stat.

[Bosh]

I'd rather not see a 6e, honestly. At this point, I feel like if and when they announce a 6e, I'll have about the same reaction I did when they announced 4e: why would I want a new edition when I'm happy with the current one?

Of course, 4e had other things that ultimately kept me away from it besides just that, and I suppose in theory maybe they could do something with 6e that would catch my interest as worth trying over 5e. Can't say that I can think of what that would be though. Well, aside from maybe having Psionics in the PHB, as something unique and not just "magic, but with psychic damage," but that's never going to happen.

Like I said in the OP I think it's going to be a long time until 6e. Am mostly having fun noodling about with my own ideas rather than demanding an immediate 6e, especially since 5e is pretty solid overall. To be honest my main ACTUAL problem with 5e is that it's so prevalent these days that its flaws are harder to ignore simply because everyone wants to play it. Back in 4e days we would play a different system every campaign and that made it easier to just let flaws in any one system slide.


1. No. Healing Surges would devalue short rest, making warlocks and monks worse than before. Would also devalue magic healing and potions. But i agree, there should be more uses for Hit Dice.

2. Vancian casting is stupid, change my mind. No wait, you can't.

3. STR and INT could use some buffing, but IMO touch spells keying off STR would make them completely useless. Does anyone even bother with spells like Vampiric Touch?

4. I dunno, I imagine being high level means being a Super Fighter or Wizard, not being a Super Elf. So you have reached peak Elfiness and get to be the One True Elf at level 20? Maybe if you are blessed by Corellon, but that is incredibly specific and can be done by Boons.

5. Increase monsters damage generally works for what you want, but it might place more importance on HP and Con than it already is.

6. Give all Fighters some Maneuvers and Superiority Dice. Give them free Feats.


1. No reason healing surges would NECESSARILY devalue short rests, especially if short rest healing was a lot more efficient than in-combat healing. Also with a new edition there'd be plenty of ways to tweak class balance so you could take with one hand and give with the other.

2. A lot of people don't like strict Vancian casting but some (certainly a minority at this point with all of the influx of new players) do. I don't see how it'd be a bad thing to give just one casting class Vancian casting, there are certainly still enough Vancian casting fans left for that, especially when there are so many other choices for casting classes for the majority who don't like Vancian casting. It's kind of like having a class that is dead simple. The majority of players don't want to play a class that just goes "I hit it with my axe" over and over and over but a minority of players (often younger kids playing with family members etc.) really like having a dead simple class so that should be an option as long as the majority gets plenty of other choices as well.

3. Would still be useful for many gish builds and gishes are very popular. 5e really doesn't have many touch spells. I'd like to see some more. Would love to play a strength gish who's more based on touch spells than self-buffs and smites personally.

4. Doesn't have to be big earth-shaking stuff, but some cool stuff like, say, Legolas not being impeded by difficult terrain in LotR that's probably too powerful (and too confusing for new players) to all lay out on level 1 would be fun.

5. Have played a bunch of 5e with kids alternating between using TSR-D&D modules converted on the fly and actual 5e monsters and have found that I enjoy the TSR-D&D modules mostly because the monsters have FAR fewer HPs and at least decent damage which keeps things moving. Lots lot little 5-10 minute skirmishes which you don't see much in 5e.

6. Don't have a biiiiiiiig problem with fighter in-combat utility (at least at lower levels) so much as most fighter ending up being clearly the worst member of the party at anything that ISN'T fighting.


I started (at the tabletop, had been playing the video games for years before that) in 4e. So I actually kinda like 4e. Not so much for an every-day driver, but...

But other than that, I agree with you. I'm happy with 5e as it is, and really don't want them putting effort into a new edition when there isn't anything fundamentally broken about 5e. There were lots of things fundamentally broken about the core of both 3e and 4e. The one had exponentially-increasing complexity and the core no longer fit how it was played in any way, the other had a worse problem. It wasn't selling, and was putting out tons of un-bought books. 5e has neither of those problems. It's a stable core on which to build and it's still selling well.

I think that since 3.0e, 4e, and 5e all pretty much rebuild D&D from the ground up a lot of people assume that 6e would do the same. But with most other games new editions are more about tweaking than rebuilding. You can mix and match books and adventures from different editions of, say, Call of Cthulhu without too much difficulty so I don't think that an edition of D&D that's mostly tweaking around the edges would be so terrible, especially if you could convert old adventures on the fly. In any case we'll get a 6e EVENTUALLY. It'll probably be the longest-standing edition of D&D to date and I'm guessing we won't see 6e for many more years but it'll come eventually. In any case this thread is more just noodling about for fun than a serious call for NEW EDITION NOW!


To this day, I cannot understand why the Battle Master is a subclass and not just a base component of the Fighter's kit.

Because a significant minority want a DEAD SIMPLE "I hit it with my axe" class. Having stuff like a champion fighter is useful when I'm roping my younger son into a game for example. There are enough classes in D&D that if a significant minority wants something there should be a class for it. One problem with 5e is that both fighter and barbarian are kinda sorta the dead simple "I hit it with my axe" class for newbies, when there really doesn't need to be more than one class for that niche.


Here's what I'd like to see:

1. Keep combat feats and ASIs separate.

Give characters combat feats in addition to ASIs, but they must still trade an ASI for a non-combat feat. In this case feats that grant armor proficiency or save proficiency are non-combat feats. Feats like Great Weapon Master, War Caster, Crossbow Expert, Elemental Adept, etc. that directly affect attacks or actions in combat are the only ones considered combat feats. All classes should get a number of these automatically, and they should only be available when granted in such a way. No more races that grant a bonus feat at 1st level.

2. Reduce the number of spell slots and spells known/prepared each class gets, and grant more features that can be used instead of spells.

One of the biggest problems with balance is just how much versatility and power a given spellcaster has via their spells. If more of their abilities were class features that act as spells and spells are less important, that removes a huge portion of that quadratic advancement.

3. Make spellcaster archetypes grant more exclusive spells.

Wizards would have plenty of mediocre spells on their generalist list, but only an Evoker would get Fireball or Meteor Swarm, only a Transmuter would get Polymorph, only an Illusionist would get Greater Invisibility, etc. Same goes for Clerics, Druids, Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Paladins, Rangers, and whatever else. The generalist spell list for each class only includes mediocre spells for every area, and the focused class archetypes grant access to better versions in their specialized area. None of the archetype spells are available to gain as bonus spells from a feature like Magical Secrets.

4. The best out of combat utility is available to every character in some form, but at an opportunity cost.

For example, make Teleport and Plane Shift and similar only available via scrolls or other single-use, not-easy-to-accumulate items, which any character can use. Make access to the best out of combat divination spells cost a (noncombat) feat (or two, or three). Specific spells would be in a few specific archetype lists, but not on any generic class list. Many crowd control effects would be available as (expensive) alchemical items, such as a smoke bomb, a grease bomb, an item that explodes into a huge web effect, a flash bomb that blinds creatures, etc. These could be used by opponents and recovered as loot. Some non-spellcasting classes may gain the ability to create/use one of those per combat via an ability similar to the Starfinder Soldier's Grenade Expert feature. Keep Mage Hand limited to only Gith and the Telekinetic feat and maybe a few class archetypes. A glowing gem or similar item that's broken to summon a creature, rather than granting summoning via spell slots.

5. Give martial characters more special abilities.

There are plenty of examples of fun and useful special abilities in 5e, from the Rune Knight's 1/SR rune abilities, to the Monk's Ki abilities, to the Soulknife's and Psychic Warrior's psi die, even Arcane Archer's special shots. These classes should have more abilities like these, some may be usable a few times per short rest, some may be usable [proficiency bonus] times per long rest, some may even be usable at will. There should be area of effect attacks of some kind for martials, give Fighters and Barbarians a sweeping strike that hits multiple opponents, that upgrades to a sweeping charge that hits everyone on one side of their path.

6. Make characters more MAD by requiring ability scores for certain things.

A character with Str 8 who's carrying a shield and wearing medium armor is going to tire much faster than someone who's stronger, regardless of encumbrance. The above item 4 can tie into this, requiring Int to use class-neutral scrolls, Dex to throw alchemical weapons, Cha to use a summoning item without risk of the creature turning on you, etc. Make item 5 above require at least one stat that would have otherwise been a dump stat in order to use them effectively. Make better effects that attack the less-important saving throws.

1. Only problem there is that it makes feats non-optional. I like how feats are optional in 5e especially if you're playing with kids.

2. Yes, casters are just too hard to attrition down after very low levels. A lot of them should get fewer spells and some nifty abilities to make up for that. However, I'd like to keep wizards (and ONLY wizards) with a lot of spell slots but bring back full-on Vancian casting for them as how inflexible strict Vancian casting is makes up for having a lot of spell slots.

3. Agreed here, casters can be too samey a lot of the time in 5e with a lot of different builds cherry picking the same good spells. I liked the old 2e sphere system for clerics to make clerics of different gods more unique.

4. For opportunity costs for non-casters you could also have incredible feats of strength cost a hit dice.

5. Should be a range here, some people want a gazillion abilities but that's not universal.

6. Tracking how long it takes for a guy with 8 str and medium armor and a shield to tire seems annoying. I think just having slot based encumbrance and a lot of useful items that you want to dedicate a slot to would be simpler.

[Kane0]

Those of you saying you prefer three saves to six:

How much of that preference is because you've played 3.5? If 5e was your first edition, do you think you'd still want fortitude/reflex/will saves?
I officially started with Baldur's Gate, but got far deeper into D&D with 3.0 and Neverwinter Nights (2000). So I can't say I am without bias, but I liked it in 3.x and found that 4e expanded on the concept better than 5e. 4e added a secondary stat to each one and flipped saves to function as a static defense like AC, 5e just has three strong/common saves (Con, Dex and Wis which is functionally Fort, Ref and Will) plus three weak/uncommon saves (Str, Int, Cha) that are significantly less utilized.
Plus I'm a sucker for the rule of 3s.

I can get that it's easy to have a save for each stat the same way there are checks for each stat and that way there are fewer secondary stats derived directly from them (Initiative is already just that though). So there is an argument there for ease of use by players but I also find it a little inelegant from the DM and design side. Quite often I DM using monster statblocks with Fort/Ref/Will numbers and don't bother with their 6 attributes anyways, haven't noted a significant difference yet and the players sure as hell haven't noticed.


Attrition not working right is better solved by actually making it matter... and it just doesn't. Nothing sticks across days, and the actual adventuring day is basically never going to wear you doing either.
Yeah that might be a more accurate representation of my thought.

[Bosh]

Agreed; attrition not working right (at least in my experience) is better solved by actually making it matter -- I want it to matter... and it just doesn't. (Almost) Nothing sticks across days, and the actual adventuring day is basically never going to wear you doing either. It's disappointing, and it makes class imbalances even worse, and for me it breaks some immersion (and even more of the fun) for it to just be so easily to blast and use up all of your stuff basically for free (making balancing an encounter even tougher too).

Yeah, attrition often not happening is probably the single biggest problem I've had with 5e in actual play. So so so so many things in 5e get wonky if you one big fight with the PCs all fresh and then a long rest and I've had those kind of 15 minute adventuring days crop up across a couple different campaigns. Some of them were from just bad DMing but a lot of the damage could be mitigated with things like:

-Having the default rules make long rests harder to pull off and short rests easier (with a limit of short rests per long rest) so the ratio of short to long rests is more consistent.

-Having magical healing cost hit dice (the Bring Back Healing Surges from my OP).

-Making monsters have fewer HP relative to their damage so fights are shorter and bloodier. As I've said elsewhere I'd done a lot of games with my sons in which I run TSR-D&D modules converted on the fly to 5e and they worked WONDERFULLY. SO many may fights per hour and faster attrition so the monsters hurt the PCs and then drop rather than having a long grind. Bringing back old school morale rules also helps with this.

-Merging Exhaustion rules with Hit Dice/Healing surges so that exhaustion can drain your ability to heal. Have getting KOed cost a hit dice/healing surge even if you get right back up against after you get hit.

-For DMing just having the PCs always be on the clock helps things. **** happens if you spend a lot of time resting. Watch any action or adventure movie, there's generally a reason for the protagonists to have to hurry and not be able to rest for a day after each fight.


Regarding making multiple high ability scores useful, how about using two ability scores for everything in combat?

Saves will be a Con+Wis resilience, Str+Cha force, and Dex+Int finesse. You're only ever proficient in one of them.

Every character will add a second stat to AC, possibly by virtue of race, but maybe from the class they take their 1st level in. Most often this would be your spellcasting stat, Fighter would probably use Str (block/parry), Rogue would use Int, etc. Initiative would add Dex+Int+Wis to make it super-MAD.

DCs will use your spellcasting stat plus another stat modifier depending on the spell. Some would happen to add your spellcasting ability a second time, i.e. Cha-based casters and most enchantment effects.

Attacks would use two stats, depending on the weapon and/or depending on your class. Heavy two-handed weapons would likely use Str+Con (as swinging one is tiring), finesse weapons would use Dex+Cha, thrown and one-handed weapons Str+Dex, spell attacks would use the spellcasting ability plus Dex (ranged) or Str (melee), projectile weapons Dex+Wis (perception, leading the target), etc.

Yes, it would make the game a lot more complicated, but it would also make all the ability scores matter for every character, and no class would be SAD for just one primary stat.

4e had similar saves that keyed off of two ability scores. I don't think it's necessary for every stat to be tied to an important save as long as each stat is useful in some other way. For example in 3.5e Int wasn't tied to any saves AT ALL but it was still useful since it made you better at skills and that worked out OK overall.

[Bosh]

Speaking of sacred cows, Dexterity saves have never made sense and still don't - why do Dex save traps ignore plate armor and lycanthrope immunity? How does that make any sense at all?


As far as sacred cows go if you go back to old TSR-D&D manuals then a lot of traps weren't saves at all, they were attack rolls with the various traps attacking as if they were a fighter of a set level vs. the AC of the players. In WotC-D&D your chance of passing a save remains at least roughly the same as you gain levels (at least in theory) while in TSR-D&D your chance of passing a save consistently increased which lead to some interesting differences like high level TSR-D&D fighters being incredibly resistant to most magic.


I will say one thing for true vancian castings defense. It is a damn near perfect representation of matching mechanics to class identity… for the Wizard. And only the Wizard. A guy who needs to study and prepare their spells using their vast intelligence to figure out what tool they’ll need for the day? That’s great.

It utterly fails to represent someone that gets their power from gods, or nature, or some internal connection to the Weave though.

Part of why I want more differentiation in refresh mechanics in the game. I’d be all for letting Wizards have to use true Vancian casting. Provided there were fun and powerful mage class options that did not get anywhere near it.

Yes, agreed completely Vancian mechanics are absolutely perfect for wizards and **** for everyone else, especially if you require that wizards not memorize more than one copy of any given spell so they're having to be clever rather than spamming fireball or what have you. The overall system in 5e that makes pretty much everyone work like 3.*e sorcerers is a fine system but having EVERY caster (bar warlocks) work in the same way is a real missed opportunity. Casting is the CORE of a whole lot of classes and those cores should be distinct.


Bearing in mind at most we're likely to get a fresh coat of paint with no real changes...

My absolute non-negotiable would be removing the Six-Stat-Save-System. I'm sorry, but it's a relic of their failed design that stayed in. There's no good reason to have Charisma saves. That they knowingly built classes to have one rare save and one common save means they know the Str, Int, and Cha saves are more or less useless. It's be better to have Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves (or Defenses). Come to them however you please, it just makes more sense.

I don't see why having some saves be more useful than the others is that big of a deal as long as the stats with sucky saves attached to them have other things that make them useful.


I am also tossing my two cents into the "WotC has no reason to even consider 6e right now, nor would I want them to" pot.

Also into the "Vancian casting is never coming back, nor should it" pot. Just going off my own infrequent experiences and my (tangential) experience with the 2e/proto-3e Baldur's Gate spellcasting mechanics, truly Vancian magic was both a barrier to entry for noobs who wanted to do magic, and a giant PITA.

I can see how it would be fun for someone who wanted to scrape by with only Protection from Cold and three Summon Monster IIs left over, and I'm always a fan of clever MacGyvering. But many people, especially new fans of the hobby, are drawn to spellcasters because they want to do cool crap, not because they want to run an actuarial analysis and risk forecast of the adventuring day every morning, and then get frustrated anyway when half their prepared slots are inevitably useless preparations for fringe cases that never happened.

At that point, I'd be more likely to fill every slot with Fireball and similar just to ensure my slots aren't wasted. Giving me Prepared Spells allows me to take that "risk" on more interesting spells, and only be very slightly disappointed when the situation doesn't come up - because even though I "wasted" a prepared spell, that useless spell isn't clogging up my slots, preventing me from doing anything actually productive.

I am not throwing any shade at the 3.5e magic system: it's fun, it's a unique challenge, and I would enjoy trying to solve that puzzle. Even so, switching every spellcasting class over to working basically like 3.5e sorcerers (with minor variations) might actually be the single best design choice Wizards made in 5e. Maybe even better than the Advantage/Disadvantage solution.

Having everything run on Vancian magic is good and having everyone run on 3.*ed sorcerer magic rather than old school wizard magic was a good idea but a sizable minority of the playerbase really really likes Vancian magic. And I think that anything that a sizable minority really wants should get a class (and only one class) that supports that. Vancian magic fans can play wizard and people who hate it would have a whole slew of other classes to choose from, just like people who love the warlord class should get something that caters to that niche since there are plenty of other classes for people who don't want to be a warlord. Of course there shouldn't be a class for EVERYTHING, but if at least (say) 15% of the playerbase really really REALLY wants X, then there should be an option in the game somewhere for X as long as it isn't something ludicrous.

[GeneralVryth]

The problem for everyone arguing for bringing back Vancian casting, is I am guessing a sizable population of players that play and like Wizards but don't want Vancian casting. I certainly suspect some people who want to see it applied to Wizards are doing it as a nerf to them.

The best I think you can hope for in Vancian returning would be as an archetype (like a Warlock Pact) for Wizards and maybe Clerics. It's unlikely to fly as the only spell casting method for a class. I think you are far more likely to see some classes (Sorcerers, and Druids if I had my way, and maybe Bards) move further away from a Vancian system using either something like spell points, or something more akin to Warlocks, or even maybe something brand new.

This thread already demonstrates the contention around a Vancian system. It does seem to find some agreement elsewhere though, I don't see any argument against expansion of mechanics for the exploration/social pillars, especially in terms of tools for some classes (Fighters especially).

One thing I do like is no one seems against Bounded Accuracy which is probably one of the high points of 5e.

[Tanarii]

In any case we'll get a 6e EVENTUALLY. It'll probably be the longest-standing edition of D&D to date and I'm guessing we won't see 6e for many more years but it'll come eventually.
To do that, 6e would have to come out in 2027. Depending on if you count AD&D from the MM or the PHB.

[Luccan]

Balancing out short and long rests for every class, if they keep them.

[hamishspence]

To do that, 6e would have to come out in 2027. Depending on if you count AD&D from the MM or the PHB.

If you rule that you need all 3 books (MM, PHB, and DMG) before the edition is "fully ready to play" then 1e began in 1979 instead of 1977 (and ended in 1989 when all 3 AD&D 2e core books had come out). So, 10 years between DMG 1e and DMG 2e.


In which case 2e rather than 1e lasted longer - with all three 3E core books coming out in 2000, 11 years after all three 2E core books had come out.

[Bunny Commando]

Those of you saying you prefer three saves to six:

How much of that preference is because you've played 3.5? If 5e was your first edition, do you think you'd still want fortitude/reflex/will saves?

I started playing with AD&D that had five Saving Throws, when 3e came out I greatly appreciated they took those down to three.
I am quite confident that if 5e was my first edition I would probably not like the six Saving Throws it has, as much as I didn't like the five Saving Throws of AD&D.

[Eldariel]

Those of you saying you prefer three saves to six:

How much of that preference is because you've played 3.5? If 5e was your first edition, do you think you'd still want fortitude/reflex/will saves?

My first edition was AD&D with its mess of saves (apparently a Fireball from a Wand is different to dodge than a Fireball cast by a Wizard go figure). I greatly appreciated the logic and simplification done in 3e and indeed, 4e kept it for a good reason (having each save keyed to two stats was a good idea though; this way you weren't forced to raise certain stats just to not be a mindslave).

In 5e, when I started the edition I actually kinda liked 6 saves. It made every stat more impactful. But the stupid part is, this just ensures that:
1) Wizards can always hit someone's weak point. Many creatures have 3 strong saves, but 6? Even if it's a Dragon or a Pit Fiend, there's always a weak point that's so weak you can hit the home run easily. Ancient Red Dragon? They've got a grand total of +4 Int saves (like most Dragons, stupidly enough; apparently this hyperintelligent alpha predator is weak to getting attacked at its int). Pit Fiend? Well, their Int is at least +6. DCs on this level are like DC 19 without magic items though, so tough luck, try again.

2) It's impossible for PCs to protect all their saves (unless there's a Paladin around or you are a Monk). You will face enemies that not only do you have poor chances to save against, but you veritably can't save against. PCs get 2-4 saves by default which still ensures there's 2 the enemies can hit. Even with Paladin, how often is your quaternary stat above 10? Which means you might just barely get to roll but it's still basically impossible to make the save. I much prefer a system where, yeah, you can be a dog to make the save (having a 30% chance to make the save is pretty bad already, but at least still a point where abilities like Indomitable, Magic Resistance, and Gnome Cunning matter) but by the gods don't make it critfishing (especially in a system where crits don't even autosucceed).

3) As I already touched upon, the advantage system is great for making mid range rolls more consistently. It's not great for making difficult rolls. Since it's the primary action success booster in the game, the existence of so many saves and thus the certainty of not being good at all of them devalues advantage. Who cares about my rerolls if I only succeed on 20s? It's just not worth bothering with, I'm basically certainly gonna get Mindblasted by the Elder Brain or whatever.


Ironically, WotC seems aware of this issue and thus they made Legendary Resistance. It's a "DC and bonuses don't matter, the save just succeeds"-mechanic - which basically makes save-or-X effects dysfunctional against legendarily resistant enemies in the first place. Ironically, the only real way to survive the high level saves is to shift shape into a monster statblock and get the Legendary Resistance for yourself.

Overall, out of all the combat mechanics in 5e, saves are easily the biggest mess. They're binary, many still just **** you over if you fail (Fail vs. Plane Shift? Have fun alone in Hell/Abyss/Negative Energy Plane!), most don't scale at all for PCs (but they do for monsters), and there are saves you're probably gonna fail even if you are proficient and have maxed stat (max personal bonus for non-Paladins is +11, there are plenty of DC 22+ abilities in the higher end). And then you have immunities to make those not matter either. If you're a dog to fail the save you have +11 in, that character with +0 obviously doesn't even get to play.

[Arkhios]

Ironically, WotC seems aware of this issue and thus they made Legendary Resistance. It's a "DC and bonuses don't matter, the save just succeeds"-mechanic - which basically makes save-or-X effects dysfunctional against legendarily resistant enemies in the first place. Ironically, the only real way to survive the high level saves is to shift shape into a monster statblock and get the Legendary Resistance for yourself.

Overall, out of all the combat mechanics in 5e, saves are easily the biggest mess. They're binary, many still just **** you over if you fail (Fail vs. Plane Shift? Have fun alone in Hell/Abyss/Negative Energy Plane!), most don't scale at all for PCs (but they do for monsters), and there are saves you're probably gonna fail even if you are proficient and have maxed stat (max personal bonus for non-Paladins is +11, there are plenty of DC 22+ abilities in the higher end). And then you have immunities to make those not matter either. If you're a dog to fail the save you have +11 in, that character with +0 obviously doesn't even get to play.

It's called bounded accuracy for a reason. It's been a fundamental feature of 5th edition ever since it's release that even the mightiest creature can actually sometimes fail. No single creature is above this chance, being able to simply handwave some rolls. IMHO, being omnipotent in regards to failure chances is something we really don't need back again.

[Eldariel]

It's called bounded accuracy for a reason. It's been a fundamental feature of 5th edition ever since it's release that even the mightiest creature can actually sometimes fail. No single creature is above this chance, being able to simply handwave some rolls. IMHO, being omnipotent in regards to failure chances is something we really don't need back again.

And yet, thanks to Legendary Resistance, those creatures are above that. I don't have an issue with them sometimes failing, I have an issue with them failing more than succeeding and many PCs basically only ever failing and never succeeding, even against things that can instantly kill them. The issue isn't with the concept, the issue is with how the numbers land and especially the fact that weak saves don't scale at all while save DCs do, and there are so many saves that there's always a save that's almost guaranteed to fail on high levels.

And WotC has an issue with this and thus they patchwork-patched it with Legendary Resistance, which ultimately means save-or-X effects grow obsolete on high levels and you only cast spells that don't offer saves instead.

Here's 4 ways to do legendary resistances better:
- Use a reroll system, perhaps with a bonus
- Use 4 degrees of success and just drop the degree of success by 1 instead of negating the effect
- Let the effect take place but let the legendarily resistant creature use their resistance to shake it off with a check (perhaps with their main casting stat or strongest stat instead)
- Let it enable the use of e.g. Con save instead of the requested save to resist the effect


If the secondary saves scaled at all (say, by ½ proficiency) you'd at least be in range to roll too and things like Indomitable would do something, and big bads wouldn't need Legendary Resistance as written since while they'd still have a significant chance of failure, that chance would be closer to 40-50% than 70%. As it stands, rerolls are pretty worthless for your bad saves - rerolling an Int-save as a Fighter with 10 Int isn't gonna help you much if you only succeed on 19-20. 90% of the time it's a wasted resource and you still get Mindblasted or whatever.

[Kane0]

Aye, just look at a fighter using indomitable against a save they're not proficient in. Feels bad man.

[MrStabby]

Those of you saying you prefer three saves to six:

How much of that preference is because you've played 3.5? If 5e was your first edition, do you think you'd still want fortitude/reflex/will saves?

I used to like the 3 saves. Now I have come round to the 6 saves. There isn't much lost by having the mechanism to have these other stats act as saves, and a lot to be gained. Having saves key of str, int and cha just helps ensure that there is a reason to not dump these stats.

Having things like illusions key off int and restraining spells key off int feels right. I get that illusions could be wisdom but I just don't see strength being needed to break free being replaced.


Regarding making multiple high ability scores useful, how about using two ability scores for everything in combat?

Saves will be a Con+Wis resilience, Str+Cha force, and Dex+Int finesse. You're only ever proficient in one of them.

Every character will add a second stat to AC, possibly by virtue of race, but maybe from the class they take their 1st level in. Most often this would be your spellcasting stat, Fighter would probably use Str (block/parry), Rogue would use Int, etc. Initiative would add Dex+Int+Wis to make it super-MAD.

DCs will use your spellcasting stat plus another stat modifier depending on the spell. Some would happen to add your spellcasting ability a second time, i.e. Cha-based casters and most enchantment effects.

Attacks would use two stats, depending on the weapon and/or depending on your class. Heavy two-handed weapons would likely use Str+Con (as swinging one is tiring), finesse weapons would use Dex+Cha, thrown and one-handed weapons Str+Dex, spell attacks would use the spellcasting ability plus Dex (ranged) or Str (melee), projectile weapons Dex+Wis (perception, leading the target), etc.

Yes, it would make the game a lot more complicated, but it would also make all the ability scores matter for every character, and no class would be SAD for just one primary stat.

I think I have played something similar before in the video game Drakensang. Some pros and cons: good bits are that it makes a lot of abilities just a bit more relevant. Bad bits are it kind of makes everything a bit smooshed together. Even fighters with different stats can end up being startlingly similar in some areas.

In terms of complexity, I don't think it's a big deal. It's one more term in an addition, but all of these things can be calculated before a session and don't need to be recalculated in play.

[Asmotherion]

A) More frequent feats.
B) Race and Backrounds that matter more, and somehow improve as you level up.
C) Classes that come online by level 1. No more waiting 3 levels to get a subclass.
D) Include some kind of heritage; For example, the Son of a Wizard may inherit a spellbook, while the daughter of a cleric may inherit some magic item.
E) Make Magic Items on the table. Less taboo, and more accessible. Don't blur the line between Magic items and Artifacts. (DM dependant, I know, but the current rules encourage no random magic items). Make crafting magic items more accessible to players, and limit the amount of them they can benefit from as normal.
F) Templates. Players love playing with weird templates, and DMs do too. Bring them back somehow.
G) Multiple Magic Systems. That's what I miss the most from 3.5e Psionics working diferent than Magic, and there was Vestiges, and Incarnates, even Martials were Magical with Initiators. It felt like every time I played something different, I was playing the system for the first time.
H) A more free access to the Monster Manuals with Planar Binding and Polimorph that scales with your level. I dislike polymorph allowing you only Animal Forms. I want my 10 str character to suddently turn into a dragon and beat the thugs that were looking down on him, not a bear. I also like summoning Dragons, Fay, or really, anything that fits the situation, like a swiss knife. PF2e has made both of those balanced in their own way, so Wizards can do the same.
I) More interesting Martials. I mentioned Initiators for a reason; Bring the concept back. I don't want my fighter's whole career to be "I attack with a big metal stick". Martials can have "Spells", or more preciesly martial arts that mechanically work like spells. As long as they don't they will be falling behind the curve.

[Morty]

Each attribute has a list of things they effect that’s not all that hard to understand. Since most character sheets I’ve seen list which skills are affected by each attribute, and saves are literally called by the attribute they’re effected by.

I’m still not seeing how this is clunky. Could you explain your reasoning?

Unbalanced I’d give you. With some attributes being far more generically useful than others.

Though as far as saves go, I’ll admit a personal preference for making them all static defenses, and have the caster roll for their spells. But that’s not really an issue with the attributes themselves.

In no particular order:


Illusion of choice. Your selection of attributes is largely locked in the moment you choose your class. This means some classes are pushed towards certain skills and makes branching out more difficult than it should be.
The whole strength/dexterity fiasco with melee weapons. It's not thematic, realistic or balanced.
Dump stats, which have been a thing since forever. Directly tied to the first point, in that which stats you can safely dump is determined by your class.
Wisdom. All of it, really.
Saves, as discussed by others.


And of course the lack of balance that makes what looks like a varied way to define your character anything but.

As far as resting and attrition are concerned, the entire concept seems to rest on a pacing method that just isn't the default in D&D anymore. Throwing encounters at players just to wear down their resources isn't something that will fit every adventure. I don't think balancing around it is a good idea, but nor do I expect D&D to stop doing it.

[Pex]

Count me against increasing attrition. The bad guys are at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day. I see no reason why it's an atrocity for the PCs to be as well. Healing already uses up resources. PCs at or near full health encourages continuing on. Make healing harder and find more 15 minute adventuring days because players won't want a second fight. As long as PCs are healthy and have cool fun buttons to push to do stuff players will continue on.

That's why it's important for all PCs to have something significant to contribute through out the day. Players do need to learn to conserve their stuff, but they are still supposed to use them and get them back. It's fine for PCs to have a once a day Big Boom I ROCK ability or limited Wow COOL things, but as long as they feel they are contributing when not at full power they won't stop after the first combat of the day. More likely their at will Thing has to be worth doing (weapon attack/cantrip) and/or they have a significant number of doodads that help (bardic inspiration).

[stoutstien]

Count me against increasing attrition. The bad guys are at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day. I see no reason why it's an atrocity for the PCs to be as well. Healing already uses up resources. PCs at or near full health encourages continuing on. Make healing harder and find more 15 minute adventuring days because players won't want a second fight. As long as PCs are healthy and have cool fun buttons to push to do stuff players will continue on.

That's why it's important for all PCs to have something significant to contribute through out the day. Players do need to learn to conserve their stuff, but they are still supposed to use them and get them back. It's fine for PCs to have a once a day Big Boom I ROCK ability or limited Wow COOL things, but as long as they feel they are contributing when not at full power they won't stop after the first combat of the day. More likely their at will Thing has to be worth doing (weapon attack/cantrip) and/or they have a significant number of doodads that help (bardic inspiration).

So 4e? The problem here with attrition is having the recovery of those features tied to a very flimsy rest mechanic. Players need some agency on when they recover resource pools.

[KorvinStarmast]

Mostly I want them to hold off longer. I dont think their splats have wrecked 5e just yet. +1. :smallsmile:

Regarding making multiple high ability scores useful, how about using two ability scores for everything in combat? Too fiddly. With that said, I like what 13th Age did by merging scores to come up with AC, Magic Defense, and some other defense. (Need to look that up again).


Saves will be a Con+Wis resilience, Str+Cha force, and Dex+Int finesse. You're only ever proficient in one of them. KISS principle violation for the rest of your combo platter.

Yes, it would make the game a lot more complicated More complication shrinks the player base. They figured that out and voila, they made 5e less complicated. Don't screw that up is my suggestion. Make complexity an option, not a requirement. :smallwink:

One thing I do like is no one seems against Bounded Accuracy which is probably one of the high points of 5e. Indeed a good feature. Don't lose this.

Balancing out short and long rests for every class, if they keep them. Concur.

C) Classes that come online by level 1. No more waiting 3 levels to get a subclass. Clerics and Sorcerers already do this.

Make crafting magic items more accessible to players, and limit the amount of them they can benefit from as normal. Magic items don't need to be boosted. Nor does crafting. Let that be table dependent.

G) Multiple Magic Systems. Hard no. More complexity shrinks player base, per my observation above. (Though I'd not mind seeing psionics finally get fixed)

H) That kind of power bloat isnt necessary.

Martials can have "Spells", or more preciesly martial arts that mechanically work like spells. As long as they don't they will be falling behind the curve. I'd like to see that done well; just curious, what about Eldritch Knight do you dislike? Do you think it should be a half caster rather than a 1/3 caster?

[Ettina]

As far as resting and attrition are concerned, the entire concept seems to rest on a pacing method that just isn't the default in D&D anymore. Throwing encounters at players just to wear down their resources isn't something that will fit every adventure. I don't think balancing around it is a good idea, but nor do I expect D&D to stop doing it.

Personally, I've found a good solution is to adjust CR of encounters based on how many encounters you expect PCs to face. Problem is, that results in mostly using encounters labeled "deadly", an intimidating label for new DMs that makes those encounters seem far more dangerous than they actually are. Also, the CR numbers make it seem like four level-4 PCs vs a CR 4 creature would be a fair fight, when in reality it's designed to be a curbstomp that's just barely difficult enough to be entertaining.

So I'd recommend changing how encounter difficulty is described to make the strategy of "adjust difficulty based on number of encounters expected in one day" more explicit and easier to implement for a new DM. And make it really easy to tell what CR of encounter is expected to have what probability of success for four PCs of a given level - I honestly don't know what CR of creature would be expected to have a 50% chance of winning against four level-4 PCs, for example.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I've found a good solution is to adjust CR of encounters based on how many encounters you expect PCs to face. Problem is, that results in mostly using encounters labeled "deadly", an intimidating label for new DMs that makes those encounters seem far more dangerous than they actually are. Also, the CR numbers make it seem like four level-4 PCs vs a CR 4 creature would be a fair fight, when in reality it's designed to be a curbstomp that's just barely difficult enough to be entertaining.

So I'd recommend changing how encounter difficulty is described to make the strategy of "adjust difficulty based on number of encounters expected in one day" more explicit and easier to implement for a new DM. And make it really easy to tell what CR of encounter is expected to have what probability of success for four PCs of a given level - I honestly don't know what CR of creature would be expected to have a 50% chance of winning against four level-4 PCs, for example.

I'm not sure where the "CR = Level => 50% chance" meme came from. Certainly not from anything they wrote in the books. In any edition.

For one thing, 50% chance of victory (ie TPK) is way above anything you could ever meaningfully use unless you only have 1-2 fights per game. Second, nothing in the text talks about that. Not even Deadly (where there is a chance that one PC might die unless they're careful, when used as part of a normal adventuring day, in which case there's little chance they'll die). And difficulty is only assessed for encounters, not for individual monsters.

Third, 50% chance of TPK is incalculable. Even given a fixed party composition, different terrain, different circumstances, different tactics, even different die results on initiative can swing that from small to large. So that's just not a meaningful calculation.

Instead, CR measures two things (averaged together). And it even says it measures these two things (and only these two things), assuming a baseline party[1]:
1) how hard is it to kill this monster--defensive CR = APL implies that the monster, given straightforward stand and fight tactics, will generally survive 3 rounds.
2) how hard does this monster hit--offensive CR = APL implies that, on a good round, the creature is capable of knocking a weak party member from 100% to 0% but is unlikely to outright kill them. It's why the Ogre is CR 2 (instead of CR 1 like the numbers generally suggest)--it can, if it crits, kill a level 1 wizard outright.

CR is designed to be a helper tool for new DMs, acting as a first-pass filter on "what monsters can my party survive". And explicitly is not designed to be the last word on encounter building--it's a first-pass filter, and then you adjust for the actual party. Which the rules cannot do, because parties differ too much. The encounter guidelines were back-filled based on playtesting, and are designed as crutches for new DMs. CR is expected to be ignored by experienced DMs, or those playing far from the baseline. There's just really no way of calculating a safe number for most play, unless everything's on rails at the system math level (like 4e's very tightly constrained character/monster math--either you were exactly where they expected you to be, or you were dead).

CR does its job just fine. But people try to use CR to mean way more than it actually claims to mean. And so it breaks.

[1] PHB, no multi-classing/feats, no optimization beyond following the quick build guidelines for the class, no combat magic items, no significant tactics beyond "do what's obvious for the class". Exactly as expected for people playing a boxed adventure straight from the books while totally new. Which fits the "CR is a guard rail for new DMs" theme.

[Xervous]

I find it peculiar how people point to 6 saves as something that heavily punishes dumping ability scores. An 8 vs a 10 is a single step on the D20. For 15 rolls against that save there’s a roughly 50% chance the 8 vs the 10 makes no difference on all the rolls. The numeric incentive to invest just for the defense is not at all compelling. That’s why people generally don’t do it.

[Willie the Duck]

To this day, I cannot understand why the Battle Master is a subclass and not just a base component of the Fighter's kit.

Gosh. It doesn't sound like they had very good playtesters, especially if this is what led to the Champion - an option where the player needs to make a total of two (2) decisions in their character's progression (and one of those is from the base Fighter class).

Because a significant minority want a DEAD SIMPLE "I hit it with my axe" class. Having stuff like a champion fighter is useful when I'm roping my younger son into a game for example.
Bosh undoubtedly has the right of it. Beyond that, it's helpful to remember that the post-5e release RPG boom wasn't a clear and obvious thing that was going to happen when it was in the design stages. WotC's goals seemed to maybe have been recapture the 3e crowd from Piazzo (without totally alienating the people that liked 4e), and maybe bring back some people who dropped D&D during the TSR era. Towards that goal, a fighter that at a quick glance resembled a BX or AD&D or early-peak 3e fighter (simple as can be, and for everything else, there are feats) probably made a lot of sense. So I don't know if it's bad playtesters, so much as playtesters who well-designed a product for an audience which did not turn out to be the one which turned out to be the biggest part of their buyer base.

Fundamentally, I don't think Champion vs. Battlemaster is the biggest issue with fighters (or martials), so much as this next point (and my #1 thing for a theoretical 6e) -- They need to figure out whether high-level play for casters is characters casually caging enemies in impenetrable (except to specific spells and effects) walls of force, traversing the planes, creating duplicates of themselves, and shapechanging themselves or allies into complete MM entries; and if so acknowledge that the high-level 'martials' in such a game are going to have to be fairly mythic and preternatural themselves -- or have the casters mostly just be creating bigger fireballs and healing bigger wounds and maybe making multiple people fly or be invisible at once; and then the martials can get by by dealing massively multiple times as much damage as they did at level one and/or having more skills used more reliably. That, plus figuring out how they want to do encounters-per-day/rest-recharges/attrition (this later of which they at least address in the DMG, even if the solutions is mostly 'figure out how to make it work for you, here are some options...') are, to my mind, the big places where I think the system breaks down (and where I think more rules guidance would actually help, and where I think there actually are good choices as opposed to no-wins for WotC). Beyond that, optional stuff like exploration pillar and more advanced skills systems would be nice, but could absolutely be part of 5e as an optional supplement rather than a new edition.



1. Decouple attack rolls and spell save DCs from ability scores. This would be really straightforward - in 5e you could just double proficiency bonus to those two things instead of adding an ability score modifier - but you'd need to do a lot of general rebalancing to make sure e.g. wizards still wanted a high Intelligence.

The idea here is that ability scores work pretty well in 5e... for skills and saving throws. But when most characters have a single ability score that determines whether 90% of their actions in combat succeed or fail, you lose a lot of the flexibility and variety that the system otherwise offers. A ranger that stays at 16 dexterity but boosts his Con and Wis to make him tougher and better at tracking seems fun to play, but in practice you're going to be rolling 1-3 Dexterity-based checks and attacks every round of combat, so you're going to be missing that extra Dexterity.
I think de-emphasizing attributes (particularly for combat and spell effects) would be doable. Moving your Str from 16 to 18 certainly is the least interesting way to make someone better at their existing role.



Each attribute has a list of things they effect that’s not all that hard to understand. Since most character sheets I’ve seen list which skills are affected by each attribute, and saves are literally called by the attribute they’re effected by.

I’m still not seeing how this is clunky. Could you explain your reasoning?

Unbalanced I’d give you. With some attributes being far more generically useful than others.
I think you two are violently agreeing. The system as it stands is simple, elegant*, and highly imperfect.
*Excepting a bunch of corner cases, like when a attribute check is to be used vs. and attribute save, etc.

[Ionathus]

The best I think you can hope for in Vancian returning would be as an archetype (like a Warlock Pact) for Wizards and maybe Clerics. It's unlikely to fly as the only spell casting method for a class. I think you are far more likely to see some classes (Sorcerers, and Druids if I had my way, and maybe Bards) move further away from a Vancian system using either something like spell points, or something more akin to Warlocks, or even maybe something brand new.

One thing I do like is no one seems against Bounded Accuracy which is probably one of the high points of 5e.

The problem with including Vancian casting as an optional subclass/archetype for Wizards or Clerics is that it would add a bunch of kludge to the class description and require lots of reworking to integrate. I'd much rather just introduce an entirely new homebrew class -- call it the Magician or the Thaumaturge -- and give that class all the unique Vancian casting mechanics and tradeoffs, rather than bolting it on to the base classes. Goodness knows we could use another INT full caster anyway.


I started playing with AD&D that had five Saving Throws, when 3e came out I greatly appreciated they took those down to three.
I am quite confident that if 5e was my first edition I would probably not like the six Saving Throws it has, as much as I didn't like the five Saving Throws of AD&D.

I really like 5e's saving throws: they make perfect sense to me, and lots of sense to the newbies who play at my tables. There's something intuitive about "you have 6 ability scores, they each govern certain abilities, and each one can be targeted by magical effects. Choosing to be a tanky paladin means you're more likely to take Fireballs to the face."

And "certain saving throws become impossible at higher levels" only becomes a problem once you're actually at those higher levels. By which point, you have more abilities and hit points and magic items that give you a higher threshold to mitigate, negate, avoid, or endure that negative effect or damage. If you even get there in the first place! Remember, most campaigns never reach monsters who use Save DCs above 18 or 19.

But more than that, having 6 saves can help players think about targeting weaknesses. Realizing that the Fire Giant in front of you probably has lower DEX than CON, and that you have an ability that targets DEX, is a cool strategic moment. Especially for new players, that can help ease them into the tactical mindset when other tactics seem more obscure.

[Pex]

So 4e? The problem here with attrition is having the recovery of those features tied to a very flimsy rest mechanic. Players need some agency on when they recover resource pools.

5E borrows from 4E of getting stuff back during the day and everything the next day. 4E's chassis of "sameyness" I would not want, but credit where it's due for the idea. 3E gave us feats. For some 5E handles feats better. I have no issue borrowing ideas of previous editions, but the new edition provides a better game mechanic implementation of it.

[Eldariel]

But more than that, having 6 saves can help players think about targeting weaknesses. Realizing that the Fire Giant in front of you probably has lower DEX than CON, and that you have an ability that targets DEX, is a cool strategic moment. Especially for new players, that can help ease them into the tactical mindset when other tactics seem more obscure.

That occurs with 3 or 6 saves equally. Whether you call them Reflex and Fortitude or Dex saves and Con saves, it's obvious Giant or Dragon or whatever is gonna have worse quickness than sturdiness. Indeed, the predictability kinda suffers with more saves as while physical stats are largely predictable, particularly Int/Wis/Cha can feel kinda random, especially where stat is good but there's a lack of save proficiency. For example, by what logic do Dragons and Pit Fiends have relatively weak Int-saves? With just Will-saves as a mental save, you can figure that overall their mental defenses are probably good but trying to figure out what's their worst of mental alacrity, durability, and force? Well, good luck with that.

I do agree, there's nice simplicity to having a save for each stat but that does bring about its share of issues especially with only 2 proficiencies per class.

[Ettina]

That occurs with 3 or 6 saves equally. Whether you call them Reflex or Fortitude, it's obvious Giant or Dragon or whatever is gonna have worse Reflex than Fortitude. Indeed, the predictability kinda suffers with more saves as while physical stats are largely predictable, particularly Int/Wis/Cha can feel kinda random, especially where stat is good but there's a lack of save proficiency. For example, by what logic do Dragons and Pit Fiends have relatively weak Int-saves? With just Will-saves as a mental save, you can figure that overall their mental defenses are probably good but trying to figure out what's their worst of mental alacrity, durability, and force? Well, good luck with that.

Dragons and Pit Fiends don't make intuitive sense, but having Int saves makes it really intuitive to target the weakest save of some other foes such as beasts or Hill Giants. The fact that Hill Giants are extremely weak to illusions, more so than to just straight-up mind control, feels intuitive to someone who's just had enough verbal interaction to tell that they're really dumb and kinda stubborn.

And the problem with weak saves not always making intuitive sense is still there with three saves, too. For example, oozes have always had terrible Dexterity, which doesn't necessarily make intuitive sense given how flexible they are. Shouldn't an amorphous being be slippery?

[KorvinStarmast]

3E gave us feats. For some 5E handles feats better. I have no issue borrowing ideas of previous editions, but the new edition provides a better game mechanic implementation of it. There were some feats in AD&D 1e UA and in AD&D 2e (Tumbling comes to mind since it added mechanical bonuses to defense and offense) but for sure 3e took that idea and made more of it.

One would prefer that a feature is improved when the following edition comes out, which seems to be what our whole conversation's 'wish list' is about. :smallsmile:

So let's talk about grappling ... :smallbiggrin:

[Asmotherion]

+1. :smallsmile:

I'd like to see that done well; just curious, what about Eldritch Knight do you dislike? Do you think it should be a half caster rather than a 1/3 caster?
I think he could be a full caster with his own spell list, that will be martially inspired, just like ToB in 3.5
What I dislike is that he has to choose every turn if he's going to act as a caster or as a fighter, instead of a sweet combination of both; Casting spells that are thematically martial arts.

About classes coming online sooner; The problem is that the rest don't. Not the lack of options. I want to play my class from level 1-20, with a power that scales as I level up, not go through 3-5 introductory levels. The new edition could include Lv0 rules for people who want to start as nobodies though.

About summons/polymorph; I'm pretty possitive this is one of the worst problems of 5e. I dislike how your summon is RNG based, and I don't want my Sorcerer turning into a Bear. This can be properly handled with new summon/polymorph spells.

About Psionics: I think introducing more systems into the game isn't going to thin out the player base, as they are options, and the system can be handled as core only. It just gives a richer way to play the game. Psionics needed to be it's own system for example, and not an expansion on the current spellcasting system.

[Eldariel]

Dragons and Pit Fiends don't make intuitive sense, but having Int saves makes it really intuitive to target the weakest save of some other foes such as beasts or Hill Giants. The fact that Hill Giants are extremely weak to illusions, more so than to just straight-up mind control, feels intuitive to someone who's just had enough verbal interaction to tell that they're really dumb and kinda stubborn.

And the problem with weak saves not always making intuitive sense is still there with three saves, too. For example, oozes have always had terrible Dexterity, which doesn't necessarily make intuitive sense given how flexible they are. Shouldn't an amorphous being be slippery?

Well, Hill Giants are dumb and have weak Int but they also have weak Will in other systems so it's kinda wash. Beasts are probably the one exception; there hitting their Int separately is a significant advantage. Overall, I'm not sure enough is gained for the added issues with having to boost so many saves for characters. Though if characters got like 3 proficiencies by default and non-proficient saves progressed by ½ prof, that might work a bit better.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think he could be a full caster with his own spell list, that will be martially inspired, just like ToB in 3.5 Bladesinger and Pact of the Blade already exist. :smallcool:

[ZRN]

The problem for everyone arguing for bringing back Vancian casting, is I am guessing a sizable population of players that play and like Wizards but don't want Vancian casting.

Look, at some point if you want to make a game where the mechanics are supposed to evoke the differences between classes/characters, you have to accept that you can't represent every playstyle with every class.

5e spellcasting is a happy medium in that they sanded down the rough edges of 3e sorcerers and did enough balance testing that (a few notable issues aside) it actually feels fairly fun and balanced in 5e. But the core system still sucks and doesn't make sense. It's difficult for a party past maybe 4th level to have a strategy discussion without dipping into mechanics discussions that make no in-character sense.

Like, okay, a wizard can only remember so many spells at a time (based on his Int), and he has to study every morning to refresh his memory. That's what "spells memorized" represents. But what do spell slots represent? Why can my level 17 wizard potentially be able to cast Wish, but not be able to cast Detect Magic twice, when he supposedly still has both memorized?

Vancian spellcasting at least made sense in-game, and it allows for a lot more distinct gameplay as a wizard. If you want to play an arcane scholar but don't want to deal with Vancian preparation, well, there can be a subclass for that! Make a "improviser/hacker" subclass for wizard that uses spell points like a sorcerer, but has other restrictions to make up for that added flexibility (even if that just means fewer other subclass benefits). And as I said above, there's no reason we couldn't "soften" a Vancian approach overall.


I certainly suspect some people who want to see it applied to Wizards are doing it as a nerf to them.


If we're talking about a new system it's pointless to talk about "nerfing" classes, because we have no idea in advance which classes will seem the most powerful. And in any case, I'm not actually that bothered by wizards' overall power level in 5e.

[Asmotherion]

Bladesinger and Pact of the Blade already exist. :smallcool:
It's not what I mean. Those are Gish options; Spellcasters that double in Melee Combat.

What I mean is a pseudo-caster Fighter that has access to his own spells that are thematically inspired as Techniques. For example, a Blade furry spell that deals Fireball damage to everyone within it's AoE, a Bow Shot that acts similarly to Scorching Ray, or a "stance" that gives your weapon elemental damage dice.


The problem for everyone arguing for bringing back Vancian casting, is I am guessing a sizable population of players that play and like Wizards but don't want Vancian casting. I certainly suspect some people who want to see it applied to Wizards are doing it as a nerf to them.

The best I think you can hope for in Vancian returning would be as an archetype (like a Warlock Pact) for Wizards and maybe Clerics. It's unlikely to fly as the only spell casting method for a class. I think you are far more likely to see some classes (Sorcerers, and Druids if I had my way, and maybe Bards) move further away from a Vancian system using either something like spell points, or something more akin to Warlocks, or even maybe something brand new.

This thread already demonstrates the contention around a Vancian system. It does seem to find some agreement elsewhere though, I don't see any argument against expansion of mechanics for the exploration/social pillars, especially in terms of tools for some classes (Fighters especially).

One thing I do like is no one seems against Bounded Accuracy which is probably one of the high points of 5e.

There's the Sorcerer who was never truely vancian to begin with for people who want to play a wizard with non-vancian casting. Vancian casting is not a Nerf, if handled properly (see PF2e). I believe prepared Casters should be handled with the Vancian system, while the "Spells Known" classes should have more freedom with how to use the limited spells they know.

Finally, I agree than Bounded accuracy is one of the best high points of 5e and latter systems should be based around it.

[Willie the Duck]

It's not what I mean. Those are Gish options; Spellcasters that double in Melee Combat.
What I mean is a pseudo-caster Fighter that has access to his own spells that are thematically inspired as Techniques. For example, a Blade furry spell that deals Fireball damage to everyone within it's AoE, a Bow Shot that acts similarly to Scorching Ray, or a "stance" that gives your weapon elemental damage dice.
I think some of the ranger spells (Hail of Thorns, in particular) were supposed to track as this. It seems like an abortive or truncated theme that never got fleshed out.

[Kyovastra]

Dragons and Pit Fiends don't make intuitive sense, but having Int saves makes it really intuitive to target the weakest save of some other foes such as beasts or Hill Giants. The fact that Hill Giants are extremely weak to illusions, more so than to just straight-up mind control, feels intuitive to someone who's just had enough verbal interaction to tell that they're really dumb and kinda stubborn.

And the problem with weak saves not always making intuitive sense is still there with three saves, too. For example, oozes have always had terrible Dexterity, which doesn't necessarily make intuitive sense given how flexible they are. Shouldn't an amorphous being be slippery?
It's confusing, but remember that the definitions for what ability scores represent and what the saving throws do are different. An ooze doesn't really have any "physical agility, reflexes, balance, or poise", but it does kind of fit the description of Dexterity saves, "dodging out of harm's way", by being slippery.

I think this problem with saving throws feeling unintuitive is less so an issue with how many there are, but instead a problem with them being unclear with what they represent. Clarity seems like it's the problem rather than less or more, since if you have less, it can potentially not be enough and blend together to the point it's too abstract, but if you have more, they have to be clear or they'll blend together and be confusing the same way.

5e's physical saving throws seem generally clear and intuitive. The mental saving throws seem less so, especially if we look at the DMG on p. 238:



Intelligence
Disbelieving certain illusions and resisting mental assaults that can be refuted with logic, sharp memory, or both.


Wisdom
Resisting effects that charm, frighten, or otherwise assault your willpower.


Charisma
Withstanding effects, such as possession, that would subsume your personality or hurl you to another plane of existence.



Wisdom's description is the most clear and well-written. The other two have some issues, which make me wonder if that's why they're the least used saving throws.

Intelligence is for illusions, but only certain ones, since most Illusion school spells actually rely on wisdom if they use saves at all! Illusion spells also use Intelligence (Investigation) checks to actively try to determine if they are real or not. If an Intelligence save was the passive response, that'd be internally consistent, but due to most of them using Wisdom, it seems pretty unintuitive to me, mostly because it feels like they couldn't decide on a unified mechanic for illusions; if you can refute the breath weapon of an illusory dragon with logic to the point you take half damage from it, why can't you resist the mental assault of the fear spell? In past editions I believe fear was enchantment, which seems consistent with these descriptions, almost as if someone changed the school at the last minute thinking it seemed more like an illusion without the saving throw being changed to back it up. There seems to be a lack of coordination in the design here.

Charisma seems a bit confusing, like there's a distinction of some kind, but they couldn't define it in words well enough. What exactly is the difference between your willpower being assaulted, and something subsuming your personality? The latter seems like a very specific example of the former. The only difference I can think of is one sounds more physical than the other. If your willpower is being assaulted, you're still the same person, but being controlled or influenced by magic against your will. If your personality is being "subsumed", it sounds a bit like it's being physically replaced, and of course possession is taking over your body. Hurling you to another plane is very physical, too. So, I see a distinction here, but it feels like it's wandering off to be a bit too philosophical for a game mechanic and is unintentionally getting into the mind-body problem, since other than the specific examples it gives, it's tough to think of what else would fall under it.

---

The above is probably why dragon, pit fiend, etc saves are unintuitive - if saving throw descriptions are confusing and internally inconsistent, how are they supposed to be represented by the DM in-game and communicated with or figured out by players? It's tough to think of a narrative way to do that with the mental saving throws compared to the physical ones. It's easy to think of specific situations where you could communicate a strong Intelligence or Wisdom save, but not general ones. The communication can break down quickly from the inconsistency and seem arbitrary, especially if something has strong Intelligence saves and weak Wisdom saves or vice versa. Charisma is even more confusing, it's like, a saving throw there just for things like demon lords so they can't be easily banished or planar bound...?

The main issue I run into with 5e is how it presents information, and sometimes that causes a narrative disconnect or makes it hard for players to make informed decisions when things can seem like they're the way they are for no reason but game ones. I think this problem is most noticeable in 5e monster design, which this saving throw problem ties right into. I don't mind things being a certain way for game reasons, since after all, it's a game, and it can make a game a lot better to play, but when you go too far with it and forget what you are trying to represent with the game mechanics, it can do the opposite and make it feel really unnatural. I guess that's what I'd like to see improved on in a 6e, which is a bit tough to explain, since I think it's a problem with game design approach and philosophy that affects some areas of the game more than others.

[GeneralVryth]

Look, at some point if you want to make a game where the mechanics are supposed to evoke the differences between classes/characters, you have to accept that you can't represent every playstyle with every class.

5e spellcasting is a happy medium in that they sanded down the rough edges of 3e sorcerers and did enough balance testing that (a few notable issues aside) it actually feels fairly fun and balanced in 5e. But the core system still sucks and doesn't make sense. It's difficult for a party past maybe 4th level to have a strategy discussion without dipping into mechanics discussions that make no in-character sense.

Like, okay, a wizard can only remember so many spells at a time (based on his Int), and he has to study every morning to refresh his memory. That's what "spells memorized" represents. But what do spell slots represent? Why can my level 17 wizard potentially be able to cast Wish, but not be able to cast Detect Magic twice, when he supposedly still has both memorized?

Vancian spellcasting at least made sense in-game, and it allows for a lot more distinct gameplay as a wizard. If you want to play an arcane scholar but don't want to deal with Vancian preparation, well, there can be a subclass for that! Make a "improviser/hacker" subclass for wizard that uses spell points like a sorcerer, but has other restrictions to make up for that added flexibility (even if that just means fewer other subclass benefits). And as I said above, there's no reason we couldn't "soften" a Vancian approach overall.




There's the Sorcerer who was never truely vancian to begin with for people who want to play a wizard with non-vancian casting. Vancian casting is not a Nerf, if handled properly (see PF2e). I believe prepared Casters should be handled with the Vancian system, while the "Spells Known" classes should have more freedom with how to use the limited spells they know.


I really don't want to represent every class the same. But rather than bring back Vancian casting to differentiate Wizards (and probably Clerics), I would rather go the other direction on the issue and continue to increase the differentiation of the other caster classes by increasing their flexibility in some respect. Personally, I would make every caster besides the Wizard, Cleric, and Paladin spell point casters. I would convert the Druid and Ranger to a short rest recovery time frame. And I would significantly overhaul the Sorcerer so it derived a lot more of its power from its sub-classes with a more limited set of spell effects (maybe half or more of the spells known come from a hard sub-class list or something) in exchange for a lot flexibility with those spell effects and a fair amount of special abilities from their sub-class. Or perhaps setting the Sorcerer up as something similar to the UA mystic if there isn't going to be a true Mystic/Psionic class using that system. Like I said earlier I could still see Vancian existing in some form as an Archetype (not a subclass) for Wizards/Clerics, but it should in essence be completely optional.

Separate but related to the above I think WotC had the right idea with how to scale spells in 5e, they just didn't go far enough. Spells in general should scale better (a Fireball cast with a 9th level slot should feel a lot closer to a 9th level spell), and every spell should scale. Over all this should bring down the number of spells by a fair amount, and assuming they are properly balanced (instead of making intentionally good spells like Fireball) provide more real choice in spell selection even if you prepared/knew fewer spells. Which will just help the spell casting system overall

As for what "spell slots" represent in a non-Vancian system, if I thought about it hard enough I could come up with some lore based thing, but really I don't think it matters. It's kind of like asking what does spell level mean in a Vancian system (especially those where you can't by default prepare a lower level spell in a higher level slot). The important thing is how the mechanics evoke a feel for the class. If Wizards/Clerics have the largest varieties of effects they can choose from, but that comes at a cost in terms of limitations of deploying them. Then the issue is relative, as long as the other caster classes are more flexible in deployment (likely at the cost of effect variety) you have the desired theme. The implementation then becomes a question of creating an enjoyable experience for all of the classes. I think in general spell slots versus spell points is going to be more enjoyable for a larger variety of people than making the difference Vancian versus spell slots.

[Asmotherion]

I really don't want to represent every class the same. But rather than bring back Vancian casting to differentiate Wizards (and probably Clerics), I would rather go the other direction on the issue and continue to increase the differentiation of the other caster classes by increasing their flexibility in some respect. Personally, I would make every caster besides the Wizard, Cleric, and Paladin spell point casters. I would convert the Druid and Ranger to a short rest recovery time frame. And I would significantly overhaul the Sorcerer so it derived a lot more of its power from its sub-classes with a more limited set of spell effects (maybe half or more of the spells known come from a hard sub-class list or something) in exchange for a lot flexibility with those spell effects and a fair amount of special abilities from their sub-class. Or perhaps setting the Sorcerer up as something similar to the UA mystic if there isn't going to be a true Mystic/Psionic class using that system. Like I said earlier I could still see Vancian existing in some form as an Archetype (not a subclass) for Wizards/Clerics, but it should in essence be completely optional.

Separate but related to the above I think WotC had the right idea with how to scale spells in 5e, they just didn't go far enough. Spells in general should scale better (a Fireball cast with a 9th level slot should feel a lot closer to a 9th level spell), and every spell should scale. Over all this should bring down the number of spells by a fair amount, and assuming they are properly balanced (instead of making intentionally good spells like Fireball) provide more real choice in spell selection even if you prepared/knew fewer spells. Which will just help the spell casting system overall

As for what "spell slots" represent in a non-Vancian system, if I thought about it hard enough I could come up with some lore based thing, but really I don't think it matters. It's kind of like asking what does spell level mean in a Vancian system (especially those where you can't by default prepare a lower level spell in a higher level slot). The important thing is how the mechanics evoke a feel for the class. If Wizards/Clerics have the largest varieties of effects they can choose from, but that comes at a cost in terms of limitations of deploying them. Then the issue is relative, as long as the other caster classes are more flexible in deployment (likely at the cost of effect variety) you have the desired theme. The implementation then becomes a question of creating an enjoyable experience for all of the classes. I think in general spell slots versus spell points is going to be more enjoyable for a larger variety of people than making the difference Vancian versus spell slots.

I get what you mean, but I kinda like the Vancian System, and would love to see it reincarnated somehow. It's a nostalgia thing I guess, and I feel it's cool to imagine Casters performing a small ritual in order to get each of their spells every day. I get that some people don't like it though.

[Tanarii]

One thing I'd like to see is a move away from 3e/5e style Multiclassing. Classes are too front-loaded and it makes dipping too powerful. 4e and Pathfinder 2 handle it much better IMO. Have some way to pick up the core functions players are likely to want to mix in from other classes, without e.g. getting easy armor or save proficiencies as well. Feats are traditional for that. But also hybrids are a good way to handle someone that wants to be half-and-half, which is something 3e/5e style doesn't do well at all.

I'd still want feats and Multiclassing to be optional, but they shouldn't be as out of whack an option.

[Asmotherion]

One thing I'd like to see is a move away from 3e/5e style Multiclassing. Classes are too front-loaded and it makes dipping too powerful. 4e and Pathfinder 2 handle it much better IMO. Have some way to pick up the core functions players are likely to want to mix in from other classes, without e.g. getting easy armor or save proficiencies as well. Feats are traditional for that. But also hybrids are a good way to handle someone that wants to be half-and-half, which is something 3e/5e style doesn't do well at all.

I'd still want feats and Multiclassing to be optional, but they shouldn't be as out of whack an option.
Not familiar with 4e multiclassing, but admitingly, Pf2e handles multiclassing better that 5e. I think 6e should draw a lot of inspiration from PF2e, as it "fixes" most 5e's problems.

[Tanarii]

Not familiar with 4e multiclassing, but admitingly, Pf2e handles multiclassing better that 5e. I think 6e should draw a lot of inspiration from PF2e, as it "fixes" most 5e's problems.
Yeah, but I'd still never actually play it. Far too much complexity, with feats galore.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not familiar with 4e multiclassing, but admitingly, Pf2e handles multiclassing better that 5e. I think 6e should draw a lot of inspiration from PF2e, as it "fixes" most 5e's problems.

It "fixes" most of the "problems"...for values of "fixes" and "problems" that vary tremendously from person to person. Personally, the "problems" it "fixes" weren't problems to begin with (features, not bugs) and the "fixes" show a mentality completely opposed to 5e's mentality (which I happen to like). YMMV.

That said, I don't like 5e's multiclassing for a bunch of reasons. Just not the reasons that Pf2e didn't like.

[Asmotherion]

Yeah, but I'd still never actually play it. Far too much complexity, with feats galore.
IDK, Personally that's exactly what I like in PF2e. 5e bores me, because of it's simplicity.

[Pex]

I find it peculiar how people point to 6 saves as something that heavily punishes dumping ability scores. An 8 vs a 10 is a single step on the D20. For 15 rolls against that save there’s a roughly 50% chance the 8 vs the 10 makes no difference on all the rolls. The numeric incentive to invest just for the defense is not at all compelling. That’s why people generally don’t do it.

The problem is those saves don't increase for the player but the DCs increase for the foes. Eventually even a Natural 20 fails the save. With bias perhaps, but 3E for/ref/wis works best of the various D&D saving throw systems. It did share the same problem with 5E, at higher levels your weakest save can't make except for the Natural 20 always saves rule. However, that was due to inflated numbers. Bringing back the Trio while keeping Bounded Accuracy I think will work. The weak save is your vulnerability, which is absolutely fine to have one, but it's not near impossible to make the save.

[Corsair14]

1. Multi-classing going back to the way it was. You pick your 1 2 or 3 classes at level one and your exp is divided between them. None of this stupid suddenly becoming a wizard equal to a level 1 who has been an apprentice for years, while in the middle of a jungle or dungeon having never talked to a wizard in your life.

2. Weapon proficiencies- you pick your weapons you are proficient with. None of this stupid being able to pick up any weapon and being good with it. Thats not how it works, being good with a guitar doesnt mean you know how to play bag pipes or a hurdy gurdy, weapons are the same.

[KorvinStarmast]

IDK, Personally that's exactly what I like in PF2e. 5e bores me, because of it's simplicity. Is there not a Pathfinder 2e sub forum here?

As Oddball said: "Always with the negative waves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncbEucjsNFU), Moriarty!"

[Kane0]

1. Multi-classing going back to the way it was. You pick your 1 2 or 3 classes at level one and your exp is divided between them. None of this stupid suddenly becoming a wizard equal to a level 1 who has been an apprentice for years, while in the middle of a jungle or dungeon having never talked to a wizard in your life.

That doesn't work if you don't use XP.

I get the concept though, we just have to find some way for it to work with milestone levelling.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is those saves don't increase for the player but the DCs increase for the foes. Eventually even a Natural 20 fails the save. With bias perhaps, but 3E for/ref/wis works best of the various D&D saving throw systems. It did share the same problem with 5E, at higher levels your weakest save can't make except for the Natural 20 always saves rule. However, that was due to inflated numbers. Bringing back the Trio while keeping Bounded Accuracy I think will work. The weak save is your vulnerability, which is absolutely fine to have one, but it's not near impossible to make the save.

Except...the number of creatures that have save DCs that you can only make with a weak save on a natural 20 is miniscule[0] unless you have negative Wisdom/CON (and no Wisdom/CON save proficiency). And most of those are CRs > 20[1], which means they're boss monsters you might face once in a campaign. Or, you know, you can take Resilient X. Although heaven forfend you have to give up some precious deeps to do so.

[0] 45 out of 684 "big monster book" monsters have any save DCs at 20+, and mostly those also have lower save DCs on their more hurty things. And a huge chunk of those are named, unique monsters (like demon princes/archdevils). 58 have any DCs of 19+. By comparison, about 200 have no save DCs at all (only attacks). The median DC is 12.

[1] The few exceptions are for abilities that only do damage, which occur at lower CRs and are generally Con/Dex saves, which are much less frequently "low", since every class has 1 of the big 3, plus most people don't dump Con.

[Tanarii]

The problem is those saves don't increase for the player but the DCs increase for the foes. Eventually even a Natural 20 fails the save. With bias perhaps, but 3E for/ref/wis works best of the various D&D saving throw systems. It did share the same problem with 5E, at higher levels your weakest save can't make except for the Natural 20 always saves rule. However, that was due to inflated numbers. Bringing back the Trio while keeping Bounded Accuracy I think will work. The weak save is your vulnerability, which is absolutely fine to have one, but it's not near impossible to make the save.
A quicker fix would be to just give everyone proficiency in all saves.

Might need to increase some low level saves in response, but it'd remove the higher level problem. Because as you say, even with 3 saves it was still an issue in 3e.


IDK, Personally that's exactly what I like in PF2e. 5e bores me, because of it's simplicity.
I'd rather play a game than spend time reading how to make characters and actually making characters. Like, if it takes more than 15 minutes to make a character (once I've learned the rules), it's too long.

And there's no way I'm interested in teaching people who have never gamed before how to make a PF2 character. So definitely not DMing it.

[MrStabby]

There were some feats in AD&D 1e UA and in AD&D 2e (Tumbling comes to mind since it added mechanical bonuses to defense and offense) but for sure 3e took that idea and made more of it.

One would prefer that a feature is improved when the following edition comes out, which seems to be what our whole conversation's 'wish list' is about. :smallsmile:

So let's talk about grappling ... :smallbiggrin:

Not so much grappling... but on this point in any 6th edition I would like rules for a much broader selection of skills checks in combat. I would love feinting, slight of hand, knowledge of anatomy etc. to be able to be used effectively.


Count me against increasing attrition. The bad guys are at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day. I see no reason why it's an atrocity for the PCs to be as well. Healing already uses up resources. PCs at or near full health encourages continuing on. Make healing harder and find more 15 minute adventuring days because players won't want a second fight. As long as PCs are healthy and have cool fun buttons to push to do stuff players will continue on.

That's why it's important for all PCs to have something significant to contribute through out the day. Players do need to learn to conserve their stuff, but they are still supposed to use them and get them back. It's fine for PCs to have a once a day Big Boom I ROCK ability or limited Wow COOL things, but as long as they feel they are contributing when not at full power they won't stop after the first combat of the day. More likely their at will Thing has to be worth doing (weapon attack/cantrip) and/or they have a significant number of doodads that help (bardic inspiration).

I don't see attrition as an end in itself. If there is a way to achieve what attrition, when done well, achieves wihtout it then I don't care.

For me attrition is a way to ensure everyone gets a chance to shine. Some classes get resources they can use to showcase their capabilities and on those encounters where they do their cool thing they rightly get to shine and others take a back seat. Other classes are more consistant; attrition is needed such that baseline consistancy of a class - that high at will, resource free damage - has its chance to shine as well. If any 6th edition were to drop classes less reliant on resources or were to reduce the frequency of encounter trivializing spells to one per weak or so and emphasise lower level spells then attrition is less important.

Of course there are other benefits - if HP is a genuine limitation then healing becomes a worthwhile thing to do and healing as an ability is a viable use of a resource for those that wish to play that type of character.





My first edition was AD&D with its mess of saves (apparently a Fireball from a Wand is different to dodge than a Fireball cast by a Wizard go figure). I greatly appreciated the logic and simplification done in 3e and indeed, 4e kept it for a good reason (having each save keyed to two stats was a good idea though; this way you weren't forced to raise certain stats just to not be a mindslave).

In 5e, when I started the edition I actually kinda liked 6 saves. It made every stat more impactful. But the stupid part is, this just ensures that:
1) Wizards can always hit someone's weak point. Many creatures have 3 strong saves, but 6? Even if it's a Dragon or a Pit Fiend, there's always a weak point that's so weak you can hit the home run easily. Ancient Red Dragon? They've got a grand total of +4 Int saves (like most Dragons, stupidly enough; apparently this hyperintelligent alpha predator is weak to getting attacked at its int). Pit Fiend? Well, their Int is at least +6. DCs on this level are like DC 19 without magic items though, so tough luck, try again.

2) It's impossible for PCs to protect all their saves (unless there's a Paladin around or you are a Monk). You will face enemies that not only do you have poor chances to save against, but you veritably can't save against. PCs get 2-4 saves by default which still ensures there's 2 the enemies can hit. Even with Paladin, how often is your quaternary stat above 10? Which means you might just barely get to roll but it's still basically impossible to make the save. I much prefer a system where, yeah, you can be a dog to make the save (having a 30% chance to make the save is pretty bad already, but at least still a point where abilities like Indomitable, Magic Resistance, and Gnome Cunning matter) but by the gods don't make it critfishing (especially in a system where crits don't even autosucceed).

3) As I already touched upon, the advantage system is great for making mid range rolls more consistently. It's not great for making difficult rolls. Since it's the primary action success booster in the game, the existence of so many saves and thus the certainty of not being good at all of them devalues advantage. Who cares about my rerolls if I only succeed on 20s? It's just not worth bothering with, I'm basically certainly gonna get Mindblasted by the Elder Brain or whatever.


Ironically, WotC seems aware of this issue and thus they made Legendary Resistance. It's a "DC and bonuses don't matter, the save just succeeds"-mechanic - which basically makes save-or-X effects dysfunctional against legendarily resistant enemies in the first place. Ironically, the only real way to survive the high level saves is to shift shape into a monster statblock and get the Legendary Resistance for yourself.

Overall, out of all the combat mechanics in 5e, saves are easily the biggest mess. They're binary, many still just **** you over if you fail (Fail vs. Plane Shift? Have fun alone in Hell/Abyss/Negative Energy Plane!), most don't scale at all for PCs (but they do for monsters), and there are saves you're probably gonna fail even if you are proficient and have maxed stat (max personal bonus for non-Paladins is +11, there are plenty of DC 22+ abilities in the higher end). And then you have immunities to make those not matter either. If you're a dog to fail the save you have +11 in, that character with +0 obviously doesn't even get to play.

Mostly to your 2nd point - I see this as a feature not a bug. So you can't create an impregnible Superman immune to everything. Forcing characters to have weaknesses because you can't cover all the gaps seems good to me. I agree with you on the actual probabilities though - anything below about a 15% chance of success feels a bit harsh; within the context of a new edition I would see this as not being about number of different saves but more about a narrower range of DCs (or even just a rule that 18+ is a success).

[Zevox]

1. Multi-classing going back to the way it was. You pick your 1 2 or 3 classes at level one and your exp is divided between them. None of this stupid suddenly becoming a wizard equal to a level 1 who has been an apprentice for years, while in the middle of a jungle or dungeon having never talked to a wizard in your life.
Blech. I don't have much experience with that particular mechanic, granted, just saw it the one time I played through the first Icewind Dale video game, but it seemed like the most undesirable form of "multiclassing" I could imagine, personally. And granted I don't even use multiclassing anymore, since subclasses pretty much tend to cover what I used to like to do with it back in 3E, but the current version of it seems far more interesting and fun to me.

Also, the problem you describe has nothing to do with the mechanics, it's about the DM deciding that they won't require an in-universe justification for the multiclass.


That doesn't work if you don't use XP.

I get the concept though, we just have to find some way for it to work with milestone levelling.
This too, yeah. Anything that relies on XP is kind of a suspect idea when ditching XP entirely has become a thing.

[Theodoxus]

That doesn't work if you don't use XP.

I get the concept though, we just have to find some way for it to work with milestone levelling.

XP still exists as a meta concept with milestone leveling. Just because the DM says "ok, you've hit a milestone, you're now level 4" doesn't mean you don't have 2700 XP... a multiclassed character would just take the amount of xp you've just "earned" and divide it by the number of classes you have. So, a Fighter/Mage/Thief would have 900 XP when the party got their 3rd milestone, so they'd be 3rd level in each class. Heck, if you want to forego the math, just generate a chart of levels for milestone leveling:



Milestones
1 Class
2 Classes
3 Classes
4 Classes
5 Classes
6 Classes


0
1
1
1
1
1
1


1
2
1
1
1
1
1


2
3
2
2
1
1
1


3
4
3
3
2
2
2


4
5
4
3
3
3
3


5
6
5
4
4
4
3


6
7
5
5
4
4
4


7
8
6
5
5
5
4


8
9
7
6
5
5
5


9
10
7
6
6
5
5


10
11
8
7
6
6
6


11
12
9
7
7
6
6


12
13
9
8
7
7
7


13
14
10
8
8
7
7


14
15
10
9
8
7
7


15
16
11
10
9
8
7


16
17
12
10
9
8
8


17
18
13
11
10
9
8


18
19
14
12
10
9
9


19
20
15
12
11
10
9







I'd probably limit it to 3 classes max, but figured I should provide an extreme example. So, when characters get their 9th milestone, a single classed character will be 10th level, a multiclass with two classes would be 7th in each, 3 classes would be 6 in each, etc. Provided XP gains are static by class (not like 1E and 2E where classes leveled at different rates), milestones work just fine. If they resorted to disparate xp totals by class, you'd have to go back to converting the milestones by some baseline XP amount (probably the Fighter track). But we'll just hope and assume they don't do that...

[Kane0]

Ah OK that appears almost like some gestalt rules actually. If you're working on a new edition you could fit that in like 'dual classed characters progress levels at 3/4 the speed as those that are single classed, and triple classed characters progress at 1/2'

Personally I do like the 'I took a major in mage and a minor in lockpicking' approach though, it still achieves the same staggered progression without making you actually level up slower (which was ditched after AD&D for a couple reasons IIRC)

[Dienekes]

So if I’m getting this right, if you multiclass 3 classes, you’d have all the abilities of 3 level 1 classes. The you don’t level until you jump up to second level in every class?

I kinda hate it. This would make the effectiveness of leveling incredibly wonky.

Maybe if I felt like limiting multiclassing I’d force the player to cycle through the classes in a set pattern. Class 1 then 2 then 3, repeat.

But even that feels too limiting to me. I’ve had plenty of characters that developed past my original concept. And take classes I never thought I would at the start. Seems wrong to restrict that.

[Theodoxus]

In elder editions, only demi-humans could multiclass - and yeah, it's basically gestalt. Humans had the option to dual class, but those rules were REALLY wonky. You level up in one class as far as you want to go, then, you dual class to a second class. You keep your hit points... and that's basically it. If you use any ability from your first class, you didn't get any XP for that encounter. Now, if you're going from say, 5th level Fighter to 1st level Wizard, with the party taking on appropriate foes for 6th level, and you can't use your armor or swords? You're basically a very buff 1st level Wizard? You might fall back on your training just to survive! Then, once your 2nd class outpaces your first, you can use all your abilities without XP loss... wonky.

I could see using the 5E multiclassing rules in that instance. So, someone who wants the power of two or three 'gestalt' classes can do it (a lot of power in the beginning trading off for less power at the end), someone else who prefers the new style multiclassing can do that too.

[Bosh]

The problem for everyone arguing for bringing back Vancian casting, is I am guessing a sizable population of players that play and like Wizards but don't want Vancian casting. I certainly suspect some people who want to see it applied to Wizards are doing it as a nerf to them.

The best I think you can hope for in Vancian returning would be as an archetype (like a Warlock Pact) for Wizards and maybe Clerics. It's unlikely to fly as the only spell casting method for a class. I think you are far more likely to see some classes (Sorcerers, and Druids if I had my way, and maybe Bards) move further away from a Vancian system using either something like spell points, or something more akin to Warlocks, or even maybe something brand new.

This thread already demonstrates the contention around a Vancian system. It does seem to find some agreement elsewhere though, I don't see any argument against expansion of mechanics for the exploration/social pillars, especially in terms of tools for some classes (Fighters especially).

One thing I do like is no one seems against Bounded Accuracy which is probably one of the high points of 5e.

No complaints with bounded accuracy. Good stuff there. Although give monsters some more proficiencies so that everyone and their dog can't grapple them down.

As for as people who want to play a wizard but hate Vancian casting, well the original whole freaking point of sorcerers in 3.0ed was basically "a wizard class for people who don't like Vancian casting" which is fine. Sorcerers got a bit of the short end of the stick in 5e but overall wizards and sorcerers work similarly enough in 5e that it seems a waste to have two classes that work so similarly and have the same basic casting system with slightly different bells and whistles layered on top of it. One issue I DO have with 5e is how unfocused a lot of class design is. Would like each class to have one central unique shtick that their class revolves around (ki, rage, casting, etc.) and having all of the full casters except warlocks have such similar casting systems feels off to me.


To do that, 6e would have to come out in 2027. Depending on if you count AD&D from the MM or the PHB.

2027 is a potential year for 6e since it's the 50th anniversary of AD&D. Tasha's seems to indicate that there's at least some back-burner noodling about changing some of the assumptions of core 5e.



2) It's impossible for PCs to protect all their saves (unless there's a Paladin around or you are a Monk). You will face enemies that not only do you have poor chances to save against, but you veritably can't save against. PCs get 2-4 saves by default which still ensures there's 2 the enemies can hit. Even with Paladin, how often is your quaternary stat above 10? Which means you might just barely get to roll but it's still basically impossible to make the save. I much prefer a system where, yeah, you can be a dog to make the save (having a 30% chance to make the save is pretty bad already, but at least still a point where abilities like Indomitable, Magic Resistance, and Gnome Cunning matter) but by the gods don't make it critfishing (especially in a system where crits don't even autosucceed).

The other patch that WoTC puts on the issue of some saves being WILDLY better than others is all kinds of things you can do with a reaction that up your save a bit but having that moment between when the dice rolls and when you resolve whether that action succeeds or not when you have to call out that you're going to add some kind of bonus can be annoying in actual play.


A) More frequent feats.
C) Classes that come online by level 1. No more waiting 3 levels to get a subclass.
G) Multiple Magic Systems. That's what I miss the most from 3.5e Psionics working diferent than Magic, and there was Vestiges, and Incarnates, even Martials were Magical with Initiators. It felt like every time I played something different, I was playing the system for the first time.
H) A more free access to the Monster Manuals with Planar Binding and Polimorph that scales with your level. I dislike polymorph allowing you only Animal Forms. I want my 10 str character to suddently turn into a dragon and beat the thugs that were looking down on him, not a bear. I also like summoning Dragons, Fay, or really, anything that fits the situation, like a swiss knife. PF2e has made both of those balanced in their own way, so Wizards can do the same.
I) More interesting Martials. I mentioned Initiators for a reason; Bring the concept back. I don't want my fighter's whole career to be "I attack with a big metal stick". Martials can have "Spells", or more preciesly martial arts that mechanically work like spells. As long as they don't they will be falling behind the curve.

C: the problem with this is how easy it makes dipping which can lead to a lot of overpowered builds (paladin with a dip in warlock for hexblade etc. etc.). 5e seems to be going towards having it easier to pick up a bit of other classes with feats which would make it possible to deep six multiclassing but if the current form of multiclassing exists it can be a problem to have a lot of things come online at level 1. Maybe we could see TSR-style multiclassing being given a shot again (basically let someone have a gestalt character at the cost of slower levelling).

G: yes, please god yes, casting in 5e is way too damn samey. Give me spell points, bring back real Vancian, give me some freaking options.

H: that can bring in some balance problems since you can always cherry pick something nasty. Tasha's standardization of summons and pets seems to be moving away from this.

I: more interesting martials are good, giving martials spells I'm a bit more "eh" about. I'm brainstorming some ideas about that personally based on martial maneuvers that can be chained together to lead up to very powerful moves rather than "spells" with limited slots.


In no particular order:


Illusion of choice. Your selection of attributes is largely locked in the moment you choose your class. This means some classes are pushed towards certain skills and makes branching out more difficult than it should be.
The whole strength/dexterity fiasco with melee weapons. It's not thematic, realistic or balanced.
Dump stats, which have been a thing since forever. Directly tied to the first point, in that which stats you can safely dump is determined by your class.
Wisdom. All of it, really.
Saves, as discussed by others.


And of course the lack of balance that makes what looks like a varied way to define your character anything but.

As far as resting and attrition are concerned, the entire concept seems to rest on a pacing method that just isn't the default in D&D anymore. Throwing encounters at players just to wear down their resources isn't something that will fit every adventure. I don't think balancing around it is a good idea, but nor do I expect D&D to stop doing it.

Don't mind so much your highest attribute getting locked in by your class selection. I DO mind when your dump stats get locked in so heavily as well.

For strength/dexterity with melee weapons I think the old 3.*ed system could work OK: dex can be used with some weapons to hit but strength ALWAYS modifies damage. If you combine that by hitting ranged attacks in general with a bit of a nerf bat it could work out OK.


Count me against increasing attrition. The bad guys are at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day. I see no reason why it's an atrocity for the PCs to be as well. Healing already uses up resources. PCs at or near full health encourages continuing on. Make healing harder and find more 15 minute adventuring days because players won't want a second fight. As long as PCs are healthy and have cool fun buttons to push to do stuff players will continue on.

That's why it's important for all PCs to have something significant to contribute through out the day. Players do need to learn to conserve their stuff, but they are still supposed to use them and get them back. It's fine for PCs to have a once a day Big Boom I ROCK ability or limited Wow COOL things, but as long as they feel they are contributing when not at full power they won't stop after the first combat of the day. More likely their at will Thing has to be worth doing (weapon attack/cantrip) and/or they have a significant number of doodads that help (bardic inspiration).

This is fine as long as you don't make it so that some classes are FAR FAR FAR better at novaing than others.

Having a system that works OK with one fight per long rest or 10 is good. Having a system that only really functions at intended when you're hitting X fighters per long rests and gives wonky results if you deviate too far from X is less good. And that less good is probably the single biggest problem I've had with 5e in actual play (a lot of things that are problems with it on paper haven't come up at my table for various reasons).


Bosh undoubtedly has the right of it. Beyond that, it's helpful to remember that the post-5e release RPG boom wasn't a clear and obvious thing that was going to happen when it was in the design stages. WotC's goals seemed to maybe have been recapture the 3e crowd from Piazzo (without totally alienating the people that liked 4e), and maybe bring back some people who dropped D&D during the TSR era. Towards that goal, a fighter that at a quick glance resembled a BX or AD&D or early-peak 3e fighter (simple as can be, and for everything else, there are feats) probably made a lot of sense. So I don't know if it's bad playtesters, so much as playtesters who well-designed a product for an audience which did not turn out to be the one which turned out to be the biggest part of their buyer base.

And I don't think that the playtesters were really in the wrong here, with such an influx of newbies into D&D there really IS a need for simple characters. I'm just not sure that the design does a good job of signposting this. Having a newbie play moon druid who does a lot of summoning can be very frustrating for example...


Fundamentally, I don't think Champion vs. Battlemaster is the biggest issue with fighters (or martials), so much as this next point (and my #1 thing for a theoretical 6e) -- They need to figure out whether high-level play for casters is characters casually caging enemies in impenetrable (except to specific spells and effects) walls of force, traversing the planes, creating duplicates of themselves, and shapechanging themselves or allies into complete MM entries; and if so acknowledge that the high-level 'martials' in such a game are going to have to be fairly mythic and preternatural themselves -- or have the casters mostly just be creating bigger fireballs and healing bigger wounds and maybe making multiple people fly or be invisible at once; and then the martials can get by by dealing massively multiple times as much damage as they did at level one and/or having more skills used more reliably. That, plus figuring out how they want to do encounters-per-day/rest-recharges/attrition (this later of which they at least address in the DMG, even if the solutions is mostly 'figure out how to make it work for you, here are some options...') are, to my mind, the big places where I think the system breaks down (and where I think more rules guidance would actually help, and where I think there actually are good choices as opposed to no-wins for WotC). Beyond that, optional stuff like exploration pillar and more advanced skills systems would be nice, but could absolutely be part of 5e as an optional supplement rather than a new edition.


TSR-D&D had an interesting solution to this conundrum that isn't commented on much: namely making high level martials really really REALLY good at saving throws. A 20th level 1e fighter can pretty much laugh at the idea of failing a saving throw. It wasn't a perfect solution and it doesn't solve this problem by itself but having martials (on average) have a higher chance of making saving throws vs. CR-appropriate monsters when they're at higher levels would help a lot.


IDK, Personally that's exactly what I like in PF2e. 5e bores me, because of it's simplicity.

With how many newbies start with D&D having that simplicity is really important. It's always been the simpler iterations of D&D that have done the best at bringing in new blood.


1. Multi-classing going back to the way it was. You pick your 1 2 or 3 classes at level one and your exp is divided between them. None of this stupid suddenly becoming a wizard equal to a level 1 who has been an apprentice for years, while in the middle of a jungle or dungeon having never talked to a wizard in your life.

2. Weapon proficiencies- you pick your weapons you are proficient with. None of this stupid being able to pick up any weapon and being good with it. Thats not how it works, being good with a guitar doesnt mean you know how to play bag pipes or a hurdy gurdy, weapons are the same.

I do have a soft spot for TSR-D&D multiclassing. How 5e sets up the XP chart would make that a bit wonky though with multiclass characters being really powerful at low levels and then falling badly behind at high levels.


A quicker fix would be to just give everyone proficiency in all saves.

You don't even need to give everyone proficiency in all saves right off the bat either. Monks have diamond soul, other classes could have similar things that kick in in different ways for different classes.


In elder editions, only demi-humans could multiclass - and yeah, it's basically gestalt. Humans had the option to dual class, but those rules were REALLY wonky. You level up in one class as far as you want to go, then, you dual class to a second class. You keep your hit points... and that's basically it. If you use any ability from your first class, you didn't get any XP for that encounter. Now, if you're going from say, 5th level Fighter to 1st level Wizard, with the party taking on appropriate foes for 6th level, and you can't use your armor or swords? You're basically a very buff 1st level Wizard? You might fall back on your training just to survive! Then, once your 2nd class outpaces your first, you can use all your abilities without XP loss... wonky.

I could see using the 5E multiclassing rules in that instance. So, someone who wants the power of two or three 'gestalt' classes can do it (a lot of power in the beginning trading off for less power at the end), someone else who prefers the new style multiclassing can do that too.

Whatever 6e decides to go with they really need to pick one lane and stick to it. If they want to go the style of multiclassing that started with 3e they have to take a really strong line against dipping and go over overpowered combos with a fine tooth comb. If they don't do that they need to provide other ways of multiclassing (either via feats or by TSR-D&D style multiclassing) not just have a pretty half-assed version of multiclassing that's vulnerable to all kinds of cheesey dips.

[Witty Username]

I would like to see a proper race builder in the core rules. I find myself bored with the standard picks and want a greater range of options without stabbing in the dark or relying on supplemental materials.

Even if just use it to make a Jack Skelington PC.

[Tanarii]

In elder editions, only demi-humans could multiclass - and yeah, it's basically gestalt.
It's worth noting that due to the XP curve, most multiclass combinations were only a level or two behind in each individual class until after Name Level. And since that took a LOT of XP (and thus recovered treasure), it was basically the entire game.

[Pex]

Except...the number of creatures that have save DCs that you can only make with a weak save on a natural 20 is miniscule[0] unless you have negative Wisdom/CON (and no Wisdom/CON save proficiency). And most of those are CRs > 20[1], which means they're boss monsters you might face once in a campaign. Or, you know, you can take Resilient X. Although heaven forfend you have to give up some precious deeps to do so.

[0] 45 out of 684 "big monster book" monsters have any save DCs at 20+, and mostly those also have lower save DCs on their more hurty things. And a huge chunk of those are named, unique monsters (like demon princes/archdevils). 58 have any DCs of 19+. By comparison, about 200 have no save DCs at all (only attacks). The median DC is 12.

[1] The few exceptions are for abilities that only do damage, which occur at lower CRs and are generally Con/Dex saves, which are much less frequently "low", since every class has 1 of the big 3, plus most people don't dump Con.

That's only the extreme end. It's still a problem you get weaker at non-proficient saving throws as you gain levels in 5E. It is still a problem if only a Natural 20 makes the save or even Natural 18. To be fair I'm hard pressed to say what is the minimum acceptance. What X for a roll of Natural X is the minimum needed to make the save satisfactory? For the weak save maybe Natural 15. Maybe Natural 16. I can say I'm not a fan of 18, and I don't know what to think about 17. Call it Natural 16 to make the save to put a number on it for a generic opponent. For the iconic BBEGs I can likely get over it for a higher number given class abilities that provide buffs/protections/readily available remedies against failure.

[Hytheter]

The problem is those saves don't increase for the player but the DCs increase for the foes. Eventually even a Natural 20 fails the save. With bias perhaps, but 3E for/ref/wis works best of the various D&D saving throw systems. It did share the same problem with 5E, at higher levels your weakest save can't make except for the Natural 20 always saves rule. However, that was due to inflated numbers. Bringing back the Trio while keeping Bounded Accuracy I think will work. The weak save is your vulnerability, which is absolutely fine to have one, but it's not near impossible to make the save.

That's an issue of Save DCs though, not the number of saves that can be targeted. Whether you're using the classic three saves or one per attribute is basically a wash; you can engineer the system to work out more or less the same either way. I don't understand why it's such a sticking point for people.

[Pex]

This is fine as long as you don't make it so that some classes are FAR FAR FAR better at novaing than others.

Having a system that works OK with one fight per long rest or 10 is good. Having a system that only really functions at intended when you're hitting X fighters per long rests and gives wonky results if you deviate too far from X is less good. And that less good is probably the single biggest problem I've had with 5e in actual play (a lot of things that are problems with it on paper haven't come up at my table for various reasons).



Right. As I wrote earlier I'd want all classes to get stuff back on short rests and long rests, given they keep the rest mechanic.


That's an issue of Save DCs though, not the number of saves that can be targeted. Whether you're using the classic three saves or one per attribute is basically a wash; you can engineer the system to work out more or less the same either way. I don't understand why it's such a sticking point for people.

You still need a means you don't get worse at saving throws than as you gain levels. Not wanting every ability score be a saving throw is to relieve the pressure on ability scores. It's tied to not wanting MAD classes. Though I didn't care for 4E's rolling against fortitude, I did like its application where it kept the Trio saving throws of 3E but had the applicable modifier be one of two scores. I don't remember which two went with each save. In 3E if your class didn't need DX your reflex save suffered. In 4E even if you don't need DX you may need the other score that helped with reflex. The DCs do matter, but I find the less MAD the better.

[GeneralVryth]

You still need a means you don't get worse at saving throws than as you gain levels. Not wanting every ability score be a saving throw is to relieve the pressure on ability scores. It's tied to not wanting MAD classes. Though I didn't care for 4E's rolling against fortitude, I did like its application where it kept the Trio saving throws of 3E but had the applicable modifier be one of two scores. I don't remember which two went with each save. In 3E if your class didn't need DX your reflex save suffered. In 4E even if you don't need DX you may need the other score that helped with reflex. The DCs do matter, but I find the less MAD the better.

I think it's important to note your weak saves are not actually getting worse as you level up. Part of the point of bounded accuracy is weaker enemies can stay relevant for longer, so whether you fought a goblin shaman (or whatever is triggering the save) at level 1 or 10, your odds of success for your weaker saves haven't changed (assuming you haven't spent any resources to address the weakness). The only thing that actually changes is you tend to fight stronger enemies as you level up, and the relative difference between your strong and weak points change. I know that can be viewed as a distinction without a difference but it actually is a pretty important difference and part of the point of bounded accuracy.

An interesting solution may actually be a feat or a magic item that sets a minimum bonus for a save or group of saves. That way you can actually choose to efficiently address your weak saves without going against the tenants of bounded accuracy.

[Jerrykhor]

I think it's important to note your weak saves are not actually getting worse as you level up. Part of the point of bounded accuracy is weaker enemies can stay relevant for longer, so whether you fought a goblin shaman (or whatever is triggering the save) at level 1 or 10, your odds of success for your weaker saves haven't changed (assuming you haven't spent any resources to address the weakness). The only thing that actually changes is you tend to fight stronger enemies as you level up, and the relative difference between your strong and weak points change. I know that can be viewed as a distinction without a difference but it actually is a pretty important difference and part of the point of bounded accuracy.


But when you fight stronger enemies, their abilities' DC increased while your own weak Saves stay the same. That means your saves are effectively getting worse.

[Hytheter]

But when you fight stronger enemies, their abilities' DC increased while your own weak Saves stay the same. That means your saves are effectively getting worse.

I don't see why this is a problem. Stronger enemies are more effective? Oh no, how awful! I much prefer that to playing numerical treadmill where defenses all rise in lockstep with offenses thus defeating the entire point.

I do think un-passable saves is a problem. I don't think saves being harder if you aren't specialised to be a problem.

[LudicSavant]

6. Shed a Tear for the Fighter

Hard to write much here without going on a "nuke the social and exploration pillars from orbit" rant but the vast vast VAST gulf in out of combat utility between a fighter and a bard is just bad. Big changes might not be in the cards for 6e but I could at least see hitting the bard with a bit of an out of combat nerf bat (full caster AND amazingly good at skills, REALLY?) and tossing at least a few bones for the poor fighter. For the other non-casters, monks and barbarians should be easier to salvage with a few tweaks making ki and (especially) rages be more useful out of combat and rogues would have a good niche if bards weren't elbowing into it so forcefully.

Thoughts?

The problem is that for non-casters, there's this mindset that "Skills are for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters." And this mindset is, IMHO, harmful for the game. And every edition, that mindset erodes just a little bit more (example: you won't hear people freaking out about the idea that "what?! Fighters can climb now!? That's stealing the Rogue's job!!"). But the remnants of that mindset are still there, casting a long shadow.

For casters, this problem doesn't exist. You're just expected to be good in all 3 pillars. It should be the same for martials!

The place to differentiate roles isn't to make some people get to play a pillar and others not. It's to make people good in those pillars in different ways (e.g. a tank and a healer and an AoE damage dealer all contribute to the combat pillar in different ways, but they're all contributing to the combat pillar).

[Jerrykhor]

I don't see why this is a problem. Stronger enemies are more effective? Oh no, how awful! I much prefer that to playing numerical treadmill where defenses all rise in lockstep with offenses thus defeating the entire point.

I do think un-passable saves is a problem. I don't think saves being harder if you aren't specialised to be a problem.

The problem is when you roll low on your strong save but still fail, and roll high on your weak save but not high enough, or worse, will 100% fail anyway. It defeats the point of leveling up because you feel weaker. And its true, you have 4 saves that never increase, and only 2 proficient saves.

Numerical treadmill is what you signed up for with the scaling HP on level up. Why is saving throws an exception? You might say, 'but your own spell DC increases too'. True, but monsters aren't bound by Point Buy rules, get Legendary Resistances and other immunities. Some monsters look like they are proficient in 4 or 5 saves.

[LudicSavant]

But when you fight stronger enemies, their abilities' DC increased while your own weak Saves stay the same. That means your saves are effectively getting worse.

While you might not be scaling up your weak save via proficiency or stat increases, you are scaling up the party's ability to deal with the problem. You've got stronger buffs, counters, cures. More ways to play around the problem. Maybe you failed the save, but your ally could remove the status effect. Maybe you failed the save but you could just Misty Step out. Maybe you failed the save but you could just face-tank the consequences. Maybe your save still sucks but the Paladin is dropping a +5 aura on you, plus another teammate is giving you Advantage on mental saves. Maybe your mental save sucks but someone just cast Mind Blank on you. That sort of thing. In all of these cases your base save didn't actually improve, but your ability to overcome the scenario certainly did.

It also means that at higher level you need to more actively address your weaknesses rather than just continue hoping to the dice, which I think is a cool progression. By the time you're at high level you know that you're going to fail that bad save and should have figured out some way to adapt.

[Gurgeh]

The problem is when you roll low on your strong save but still fail, and roll high on your weak save but not high enough, or worse, will 100% fail anyway.
emphasis mine - how often does this scenario happen to you? DCs of 19 or 20 are not common in 5e. PhoenixPhyre's post (#109) lays out some numbers, for what it's worth.

[Eldariel]

Mostly to your 2nd point - I see this as a feature not a bug. So you can't create an impregnible Superman immune to everything. Forcing characters to have weaknesses because you can't cover all the gaps seems good to me. I agree with you on the actual probabilities though - anything below about a 15% chance of success feels a bit harsh; within the context of a new edition I would see this as not being about number of different saves but more about a narrower range of DCs (or even just a rule that 18+ is a success).

Oh, I have absolutely no problem with a character having weaknesses. I just have a problem with the weakness being so extreme that it isn't even worth rolling, especially in a system where the primary success chance booster mechanic is a reroll. And of course, 6 saves exacerbates the problem since every character is going to have one save they basically won't be making.


I don't see why this is a problem. Stronger enemies are more effective? Oh no, how awful! I much prefer that to playing numerical treadmill where defenses all rise in lockstep with offenses thus defeating the entire point.

I do think un-passable saves is a problem. I don't think saves being harder if you aren't specialised to be a problem.

Generally saves get "harder" in effect too: on higher levels, there's way more saves that can just end your character. So your success chance is dropping while the effects are getting more dangerous. It seems to me like one or the other would be plenty: the effects getting to the point of being frequently fatal or worse, or the success rate of an appropriate character dropping to the point that they're going to eat up every effect thrown their way. This is the kind of quadratic scaling that isn't really necessary.

Remember bounded accuracy: the idea is that success rate stays similar throughout levels but the magnitude of effects (damage, effect power, etc.) scales. In the case of saves, this just isn't the case: success rate drops while the magnitude of effects scales for almost all characters (okay, yes, there are abilities on specific spell lists and classes that address this but the most generic save defense abilities do nothing here). The "only" counter to this is to have proficiency and preferably high stat in all attributes, but that just isn't realistic (the better counter is of course to just become immune or steal Legendary Resistance from a monster or some such). If the "basic savers" like Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue & Ranger want to have a chance at these, there needs to be something more to the table.

The easiest solution is ½ proficiency scaling for bad saves, but there are other ways to go of course. It wouldn't be massive but it would help.

[Mork]

emphasis mine - how often does this scenario happen to you? DCs of 19 or 20 are not common in 5e. PhoenixPhyre's post (#109) lays out some numbers, for what it's worth.

if it happens a lot is very table dependend. Many tables stop playing at level 13 and start over again. I prefer going all the way to 20,and its at higher levels that this becomes a problem. At my table since hitting level 18 we haven't fought a battle without a CR20+ monster in it. That is still months of playing with a certains saves being auto failures. And that just sucks.
They made the game last to level 20, so I expect it to work till 20.

But the game at higher levels falling apart can be seen at other points as well.. so maybe for 6e level 16 -20 should be cut. Maybe make a supplement, or another game that is compatiable with DnD where you can port your charachters to if you want to play at higher levels, with adjusted rules that make epic play possible.

[GeneralVryth]

Oh, I have absolutely no problem with a character having weaknesses. I just have a problem with the weakness being so extreme that it isn't even worth rolling, especially in a system where the primary success chance booster mechanic is a reroll. And of course, 6 saves exacerbates the problem since every character is going to have one save they basically won't be making.


The re-roll point is actually a good one. Indomitable being a primary example, that should have just been Legendary Resistance, or maybe a lesser form where you can increase a save roll by X, Y times per short or long rest.



Generally saves get "harder" in effect too: on higher levels, there's way more saves that can just end your character. So your success chance is dropping while the effects are getting more dangerous. It seems to me like one or the other would be plenty: the effects getting to the point of being frequently fatal or worse, or the success rate of an appropriate character dropping to the point that they're going to eat up every effect thrown their way. This is the kind of quadratic scaling that isn't really necessary.

Remember bounded accuracy: the idea is that success rate stays similar throughout levels but the magnitude of effects (damage, effect power, etc.) scales. In the case of saves, this just isn't the case: success rate drops while the magnitude of effects scales for almost all characters (okay, yes, there are abilities on specific spell lists and classes that address this but the most generic save defense abilities do nothing here). The "only" counter to this is to have proficiency and preferably high stat in all attributes, but that just isn't realistic (the better counter is of course to just become immune or steal Legendary Resistance from a monster or some such). If the "basic savers" like Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue & Ranger want to have a chance at these, there needs to be something more to the table.

The easiest solution is ½ proficiency scaling for bad saves, but there are other ways to go of course. It wouldn't be massive but it would help.

This assumes monsters are always targeting your weak defense with their scaling effects. I imagine (I would love to know the real stats) that most monsters only ever target a single save, and of those that have a choice it's not going to be large one. The exception being spell caster monsters, which is where things like counter-spell and other various active defenses matter more. The issue is non-casters being able to access them in some capacity which is a legitimate concern. The higher levels, especially for martials aren't fleshed at as well as they could be.

[Tanarii]

if it happens a lot is very table dependend. Many tables stop playing at level 13 and start over again. I prefer going all the way to 20,and its at higher levels that this becomes a problem. At my table since hitting level 18 we haven't fought a battle without a CR20+ monster in it.That sounds like an encounter design problem. Either that or you guys are intentionally gunning for them.

Periodically fighting solos higher than your level? Sure. Every battle, especially at high levels? The game math isn't designed for that. It's designed to keep (larger numbers of) lower level enemies relevant longer.


But the game at higher levels falling apart can be seen at other points as well.. so maybe for 6e level 16 -20 should be cut. Maybe make a supplement, or another game that is compatiable with DnD where you can port your charachters to if you want to play at higher levels, with adjusted rules that make epic play possible.Yes. One thing they really need to do is design the PHB from levels 1-10 (with slower leveling). The 1-20 spread gives the impression that it should be both normal and expected that high level play will be a thing.

[Jerrykhor]

emphasis mine - how often does this scenario happen to you? DCs of 19 or 20 are not common in 5e. PhoenixPhyre's post (#109) lays out some numbers, for what it's worth.

Those numbers don't mean anything because they include monsters of all CR range. IME once we reach level 10, DC20 is more common. And that's just entering tier 3. Once you are high level, you are always high level. No monster worth a damn will have DC lower than 18. Not to say you will never face weak monsters, but hordes of minions usually dont have special abilities anyway.

It might not happen often, but its the kind of thing that 'Once is bad enough'. Nobody wants to be permanently Dominated, Stunned, Charmed by vampires. It also defeats the point of spells with repeated saves.

[LudicSavant]

It might not happen often, but its the kind of thing that 'Once is bad enough'. Nobody wants to be permanently Dominated, Stunned, Charmed by vampires. It also defeats the point of spells with repeated saves.

Which is why you should cover those things when you build your party. Rolling a save is just one of many ways to deal with these sorts of things (and often not the best ones).

Characters advance their ability to deal with any given save along more than one axis (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25096413&postcount=128), base saving throw modifiers are but one.

[Gurgeh]

Those numbers don't mean anything because they include monsters of all CR range. IME once we reach level 10, DC20 is more common. And that's just entering tier 3. Once you are high level, you are always high level. No monster worth a damn will have DC lower than 18. Not to say you will never face weak monsters, but hordes of minions usually dont have special abilities anyway.

There's a difference between "high save dc" and "impossible even with a natural 20"; if you're using Point Buy then only DC 20 or higher can be unbeatable, since you can't have an ability modifier worse than -1 and ties favour the defender.

Also not sure what you mean with the monster data being meaningless, since PhoenixPhyre explicitly listed the number of monsters with DC 20 and DC 19 saves:

45 out of 684 "big monster book" monsters have any save DCs at 20+, and mostly those also have lower save DCs on their more hurty things. And a huge chunk of those are named, unique monsters (like demon princes/archdevils). 58 have any DCs of 19+

---


The re-roll point is actually a good one. Indomitable being a primary example, that should have just been Legendary Resistance, or maybe a lesser form where you can increase a save roll by X, Y times per short or long rest.
Adding a superiority die to the re-roll from Indomitable would have a reasonable impact and be flavourful; it's a shame that's only a practical possibility for the Battle Master.

[Eldariel]

This assumes monsters are always targeting your weak defense with their scaling effects. I imagine (I would love to know the real stats) that most monsters only ever target a single save, and of those that have a choice it's not going to be large one. The exception being spell caster monsters, which is where things like counter-spell and other various active defenses matter more. The issue is non-casters being able to access them in some capacity which is a legitimate concern. The higher levels, especially for martials aren't fleshed at as well as they could be.

Well, that's of course true. Cha-saves are very rare and Int-saves are quite rare too. I'm more operating under the assumption that having your "almost can't succeed"-save targeted even once is going to potentially end the character, at which point I'd like to get some kind of...like 20-30% chance of success at least. Going for that 5-10% play just doesn't feel good. Of course there are other ways to deal with this but again, I don't think that's the base level the game should operate on. I think if there's to be checks, there should be at least some kind of chance of success for high level characters, if not good ones.

[stoutstien]

TBH they could just readjust, reformat, and reindex all of the DM oriented material and have a "new" edition without making any big changes to player options besides polishing some rough spots.

[Bosh]

I would like to see a proper race builder in the core rules. I find myself bored with the standard picks and want a greater range of options without stabbing in the dark or relying on supplemental materials.

Even if just use it to make a Jack Skelington PC.

The problem with a race builder is that even if each of a set of racial abilities are fine by themselves they might be a problem if combined together due to synergy. My personal taste is for sets of racial abilities are are actively ANTI-synergistic. For example how mountain dwarves have stat boosts that are GREAT for the heavy armor proficiency classes and then some of their racial abilities are completely redundant for those classes. That way they're good at being a tanky class and also bring a bit of tankiness to the squishy classes. Nice overall design that's harder to do with a race builder.


Right. As I wrote earlier I'd want all classes to get stuff back on short rests and long rests, given they keep the rest mechanic.

Fine with that as long as we don't go back to 4e levels of standardization.


I don't see why this is a problem. Stronger enemies are more effective? Oh no, how awful! I much prefer that to playing numerical treadmill where defenses all rise in lockstep with offenses thus defeating the entire point.

I do think un-passable saves is a problem. I don't think saves being harder if you aren't specialised to be a problem.

Getting away from that kind of treadmill where higher levels are exactly the same as lower levels but with bigger numbers across the board is a good thing but treadmills are a hell of a lot easier to design than systems that slowly shift gameplay with rising levels. I think 5e is on the right path but needs some tweaking to get to where we want it to be.


The problem is that for non-casters, there's this mindset that "Skills are for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters." And this mindset is, IMHO, harmful for the game. And every edition, that mindset erodes just a little bit more (example: you won't hear people freaking out about the idea that "what?! Fighters can climb now!? That's stealing the Rogue's job!!"). But the remnants of that mindset are still there, casting a long shadow.

For casters, this problem doesn't exist. You're just expected to be good in all 3 pillars. It should be the same for martials!

The place to differentiate roles isn't to make some people get to play a pillar and others not. It's to make people good in those pillars in different ways (e.g. a tank and a healer and an AoE damage dealer all contribute to the combat pillar in different ways, but they're all contributing to the combat pillar).

Agreed. I actually wouldn't mind that much if different classes were better at different pillars. But it's not that fighters are clearly the best at the combat pillar and that's made up for by sucking at the other pillars. They're just terrible at the other pillars and that's balanced by them being kinda... adequate? at the combat pillar. Still far better than 3.*ed but it just feels wrong. No reason why you can't have fighters and rogues be good at different out of combat things.

Keeping the boot of attrition on the necks of the party DOES help with this a bit. If the casters can spend spell slots like water out of combat they're going to overshadow the mundanes to a ridiculous extent but if they're having to hoard every last spell slot because long rests are hard to come by then things get more balanced (although still out of wack and in need to fixing) out of combat.


While you might not be scaling up your weak save via proficiency or stat increases, you are scaling up the party's ability to deal with the problem. You've got stronger buffs, counters, cures. More ways to play around the problem. Maybe you failed the save, but your ally could remove the status effect. Maybe you failed the save but you could just Misty Step out. Maybe you failed the save but you could just face-tank the consequences. Maybe your save still sucks but the Paladin is dropping a +5 aura on you, plus another teammate is giving you Advantage on mental saves. Maybe your mental save sucks but someone just cast Mind Blank on you. That sort of thing. In all of these cases your base save didn't actually improve, but your ability to overcome the scenario certainly did.

It also means that at higher level you need to more actively address your weaknesses rather than just continue hoping to the dice, which I think is a cool progression. By the time you're at high level you know that you're going to fail that bad save and should have figured out some way to adapt.

This is a really good point that really needs to be emphasized. So much analysis of D&D is done in terms of individual characters rather than parties, which can lead people to overlook things like this.

It's just that bounded accuracy DOES start to break down at extreme high levels in 5e. But then D&D gets wonky at extreme high levels in EVERY edition.


Which is why you should cover those things when you build your party. Rolling a save is just one of many ways to deal with these sorts of things (and often not the best ones).

Characters advance their ability to deal with any given save along more than one axis (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25096413&postcount=128), base saving throw modifiers are but one.

Yup. "We really need a way to boost the saving throws of other party members" should be thought about in the same sort of way that "a tank would be useful" or "we could really use a healer."

[stoutstien]

Which is why you should cover those things when you build your party. Rolling a save is just one of many ways to deal with these sorts of things (and often not the best ones).

Characters advance their ability to deal with any given save along more than one axis (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25096413&postcount=128), base saving throw modifiers are but one.

In theory I agree. Only issue I have is 9 out of 10 times the abilities to help the party at being better at handing challenges are either spell based or on a spell casting class chassis. Tasha hinted at addressing this but plenty of room for improvement.

[Corsair14]

"In elder editions, only demi-humans could multiclass - and yeah, it's basically gestalt. Humans had the option to dual class, but those rules were REALLY wonky. You level up in one class as far as you want to go, then, you dual class to a second class. You keep your hit points... and that's basically it. If you use any ability from your first class, you didn't get any XP for that encounter. Now, if you're going from say, 5th level Fighter to 1st level Wizard, with the party taking on appropriate foes for 6th level, and you can't use your armor or swords? You're basically a very buff 1st level Wizard? You might fall back on your training just to survive! Then, once your 2nd class outpaces your first, you can use all your abilities without XP loss... wonky."

Yeah I hated dual classing, it was silly. In my games then and now, I allow humans to multiclass so I don't have to deal with it. Generally even in the golden ages of 2e, it was rare to see more than two classes on a multiclass character. You have the restrictions holding true for all classes, wizards generally couldn't cast in armor even if they multi-ed with a fighter(there were exceptions as there always are) and if you remember, each class had its own exp chart since some classes are just easier to learn the basic skills than others. A rogue would be level three when a wizard hit 2 for example but then it leveled out pretty much at 4 or 5. So a elf wizard1, thief 2 was fairly common. Then again, 2e was meant to encourage low to mid level gaming, learning how to play your character at those levels was part of the experience. A 5th level wizard was actually a very impressive character.

I just know as 5e gets more and more convoluted and retconned, I find myself planning and running 2e/Oe campaigns more often. Its literally no fun for me as a DM when the characters reach 12th level in 5e. They for sure need in 6e to discourage dips. I would play PF2 since their system is great for multiclassing from what I have read but it still has the modifier bloat that PF1 and 3.5 had which was annoying.

[Composer99]

Which is why you should cover those things when you build your party. Rolling a save is just one of many ways to deal with these sorts of things (and often not the best ones).

Characters advance their ability to deal with any given save along more than one axis (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25096413&postcount=128), base saving throw modifiers are but one.

Most complaints about the phenomenon of weak PC saves in 5e are treating it as a design problem.

Insisting that folk approaching the problem from that viewpoint "solve" it via character-building is unsatisfactory and unconvincing.

[carnomancy]

I think priority one for me would be getting psionics in on the ground floor. 5e has been kind of a failure to thrive edition for me. It's struggled for seven years to bring any psionics to the table. 5e has also been a very successful edition, so I expect that slow pace to come to dominate further efforts. So I'd rush to get the things I love into the PHB. Might even be an opportunity to throw in wild new ideas like a conglomeration of monster like abilities in a class or other new ideas. It's hard to devote the energy to think up new ideas though in an edition that's actively avoiding adding any new ideas to itself though.

Really though, just getting out of the idea drought of 5e would be nice, even if there's no guarantee that the next edition will be better.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's an issue of Save DCs though, not the number of saves that can be targeted. Whether you're using the classic three saves or one per attribute is basically a wash; you can engineer the system to work out more or less the same either way. I don't understand why it's such a sticking point for people. In the original game, 0 Edition, through AD&D, no matter what your class was your ability to make a save improved as you went up in level. An example from AD&D, using Fighting Man. All classes had a similar treatment. Five save kinds(Wands/Rods/Staff; Stone/Polymorph; Dragon Breath; Spells; Poison/Paralyzation/Death magic)
Level // Poison/Death; Petrify/Polymorph; Rod/Staff; Breath; Spell
1-2 // 14; 15; 16; 17; 17
3-4 // 13; 14; 15; 16; 16
5-6 // 11; 12; 13; 13; 14
(skip a bit)
11-12 // 7; 8; 9; 8; 10

Higher level PCs were harder to influence by any of those kinds of supernatural effects. Each class was better at some saves than others.

Right. As I wrote earlier I'd want all classes to get stuff back on short rests and long rests, given they keep the rest mechanic. Making that more consistent might would be useful for game pacing.

You still need a means you don't get worse at saving throws than as you gain levels. Not wanting every ability score be a saving throw is to relieve the pressure on ability scores. It's tied to not wanting MAD classes. What I suspect the 5e decision rested on was the idea that at high levels, you could still fail and not just rofl stomp encounters. Not sure if I am right. It took me a while to get used to my higher level character having some real suck chances at saving against a variety of hazards.

I think it's important to note your weak saves are not actually getting worse as you level up. Part of the point of bounded accuracy is weaker enemies can stay relevant for longer, so whether you fought a goblin shaman (or whatever is triggering the save) at level 1 or 10, your odds of success for your weaker saves haven't changed (assuming you haven't spent any resources to address the weakness). It puts a premium on teamwork, and accessing spells or class features that provide boosts to saving throws or resistance to condition. (My bard often cast Freedom of Movement on our warlock since his Wis save stinks and I don't want him paralyzed. There are some cleric spells that boost all saves, bless, or mitigate the problems of fear, calm emotions . With teamwork, a lot of the issues are mitigated, particularly if you have a paladin in the group. :smallbiggrin:

But when you fight stronger enemies, their abilities' DC increased while your own weak Saves stay the same. That means your saves are effectively getting worse. Agreed. That's the inverse of the OD&D/AD&D scheme.

For casters, this problem doesn't exist. You're just expected to be good in all 3 pillars. It should be the same for martials! Proposed solution: add skill proficiencies to fighter (give him three like Ranger at level 1) and as they level up, add one or two more during the arc from levels 4-20. Pick a spot where another skill proficiency fits in.

It defeats the point of leveling up because you feel weaker. And its true, you have 4 saves that never increase, and only 2 proficient saves. I noticed this when we first started playing this edition and I didn't like it. I am still in the 'not like' camp, but I have gotten used to it.

Generally saves get "harder" in effect too: on higher levels, there's way more saves that can just end your character.
Which takes us back to "chance to die needs to remain present" as a design goal, unless you use teamwork/synergy to overcome these problems.

Remember bounded accuracy: the idea is that success rate stays similar throughout levels but the magnitude of effects (damage, effect power, etc.) scales. While I kind of like this

The easiest solution is ½ proficiency scaling for bad saves, but there are other ways to go of course. It wouldn't be massive but it would help. since I have an affinity for the old school scheme, I have found that careful spell selection and good teamwork can mitigate a lot of the save weaknesses, but not all of them. And if you roll a 1 or 2, you are still going to fail that save.

Yeah I hated dual classing, it was silly. It was clunky, as you describe, so most of the tables I played at didn't bother with it.

Its literally no fun for me as a DM when the characters reach 12th level in 5e. They for sure need in 6e to discourage dips. I agree, but multi classing does fill in some of the blanks that that prestige classes left (and I do not like prestige classes), and archetypes fill in others, so it needs to remain a feature I think.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Pex, just to check, you'd be ok with saying (as a matter of system math) that no PC can ever, under any circumstances, have an AC above 19 so that weak monsters can always hit them on a 15+, right? Because that's the equivalent. Except that
1) monster-generated saves are rare (compared to attack rolls). Most of those monsters listed don't rely on their saves to deal damage, and might use saving-throw abilities 1x/fight.
2) monster save-or-suck (or worse) tend to use much lower DCs than monster damage abilities. In addition to being saves that are less-frequently dropped
3) Characters have tons of resources to boost their saving throws or gain immunity. More than any other thing. There are few ways to increase accuracy, lots of ways to increase defense. You choosing not to use them, choosing to only boost your strengths and ignore your weaknesses is a character design problem, not a system problem. And doing anything like giving everybody all save proficiencies shatters bounded accuracy[1].

Getting proficiency to saving throws is a bonus not a system expectation. It's something that sets you apart from others. It produces team play, not selfish "I only wanna do the biggest deeps. Mechanics? What are those. Healers adjust" toxic MMO play. You're (impersonal you) choosing not to use build resources to shore up defenses. That's your choice. But if that choice is to have meaning, there must be consequences. You chose to dump CON or WIS without having a save proficiency in one of them? Well, that's gonna suck for you. But you brought it on yourself I don't mention DEX, because those DEX saves are basically all damage, which means you can just face tank that.


Most complaints about the phenomenon of weak PC saves in 5e are treating it as a design problem.

Insisting that folk approaching the problem from that viewpoint "solve" it via character-building is unsatisfactory and unconvincing.

When someone has the wrong (objectively) viewpoint, or their fixes would break the system entirely, I think that's totally appropriate. I mean we don't re-design pitchforks to be better soup spoons just because someone thinks they're lousy at being soup spoons, do we?

[1] bounded accuracy is not the idea that numbers won't go up. It's that the system math does not assume that target numbers go up with level. This is not to say that they won't go up, but that the math is ok if they don't. Specifically, that save DCs, AC (including monsters), and ability check DCs are kept within the range of the d20. And they are, with the exception of "end of game" bosses. Which is what those CR 20+ creatures are designed to be. Not "fight this every time", because that makes hash out of any sane world (oh, we killed that devil prince 4 times last session. WAT?).

[Hytheter]

How do you feel about this idea: make gaining additional saving throws part of standard progression, or bake it into classes more thoroughly. Rather than all saves growing, your defenses progress by you gaining more proficiencies.

Take it a step further and do the same with skills, you can pick a new skill at certain levels. That allows branching out and taking new skills without compromising your existing like a skill point system would and gives a little more customisation.

[Morty]

In theory I agree. Only issue I have is 9 out of 10 times the abilities to help the party at being better at handing challenges are either spell based or on a spell casting class chassis. Tasha hinted at addressing this but plenty of room for improvement.

It's more than just saves, really. If there's one thing that could use a new edition to solve, it's the dearth of ways to do anything without spells that was enshrined in 5E during development.

[Ettina]

The problem is that for non-casters, there's this mindset that "Skills are for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters." And this mindset is, IMHO, harmful for the game. And every edition, that mindset erodes just a little bit more (example: you won't hear people freaking out about the idea that "what?! Fighters can climb now!? That's stealing the Rogue's job!!"). But the remnants of that mindset are still there, casting a long shadow.

For casters, this problem doesn't exist. You're just expected to be good in all 3 pillars. It should be the same for martials!

The place to differentiate roles isn't to make some people get to play a pillar and others not. It's to make people good in those pillars in different ways (e.g. a tank and a healer and an AoE damage dealer all contribute to the combat pillar in different ways, but they're all contributing to the combat pillar).

What are some distinct ways to contribute to social and exploration pillars?

A lot of the examples I'm thinking of are essentially "you get to be the only one contributing to this particular subset of challenges" such as speaking a language no one in your party speaks, or being the only one in your party who can fly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How do you feel about this idea: make gaining additional saving throws part of standard progression, or bake it into classes more thoroughly. Rather than all saves growing, your defenses progress by you gaining more proficiencies.

Take it a step further and do the same with skills, you can pick a new skill at certain levels. That allows branching out and taking new skills without compromising your existing like a skill point system would and gives a little more customisation.

That would break bounded accuracy. Defenses growing with level is the exception, not the norm. That's the very definition of bounded accuracy. If you did this, you'd completely remove from the game all those weaker monsters who have interesting abilities other than "hit him". Because they have (almost uniformly) low DC saving throws. Wolves (and dire wolves) stay relevant in pouncing on weak people and knocking them prone for a lot longer than expected.

5e's basic math is premised on hit chances staying bounded between ~25% and ~75% in the baseline case. Monsters hit PCs anywhere between 75% (low AC) and 25% (high AC). This also means that PCs should fail saving throws between 25% and 75% (depending on what they're weak to) of the time. And the reverse is true, although monsters tend to have lower AC defenses and slightly higher (in the case of high-CR monsters) saves so that the (much more prevalent) PC-wielded save-or-sucks aren't as killer.

The average monster save bonus (except for named monsters) doesn't actually grow significantly. There are high CR monsters with really crappy (as in negative) Dex save mods. And PCs have way more ability to tailor their attacks to the monster they're facing--the number of monsters who can hit anything but CON (generally poison, which is easily resisted/immune), WIS (often fear, which is also trivial to negate), or DEX (pure damage) is miniscule. You should fear if you're going up against mind flayers and you've dumped INT. Because their mind blasts are basically the only thing that makes them a threat. Low HP, low saves, low damage output otherwise.

[KorvinStarmast]

That would break bounded accuracy. Defenses growing with level is the exception, not the norm. That's the very definition of bounded accuracy. If you did this, you'd completely remove from the game all those weaker monsters who have interesting abilities other than "hit him". Because they have (almost uniformly) low DC saving throws. Wolves (and dire wolves) stay relevant in pouncing on weak people and knocking them prone for a lot longer than expected.

5e's basic math is premised on hit chances staying bounded between ~25% and ~75% in the baseline case. Monsters hit PCs anywhere between 75% (low AC) and 25% (high AC). This also means that PCs should fail saving throws between 25% and 75% (depending on what they're weak to) of the time. And the reverse is true, although monsters tend to have lower AC defenses and slightly higher (in the case of high-CR monsters) saves so that the (much more prevalent) PC-wielded save-or-sucks aren't as killer.

The average monster save bonus (except for named monsters) doesn't actually grow significantly. There are high CR monsters with really crappy (as in negative) Dex save mods. And PCs have way more ability to tailor their attacks to the monster they're facing--the number of monsters who can hit anything but CON (generally poison, which is easily resisted/immune), WIS (often fear, which is also trivial to negate), or DEX (pure damage) is miniscule. You should fear if you're going up against mind flayers and you've dumped INT. Because their mind blasts are basically the only thing that makes them a threat. Low HP, low saves, low damage output otherwise. There are also some monsters with very high saves: Ancient Bronze Dragon being one of them.

Saving Throws Dex +7, Con +15, Wis +10, Cha +12 One needs to target STR or INT on such a creature...or have something like Bane or Bestow Curse active on them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are also some monsters with very high saves: Ancient Bronze Dragon being one of them.
One needs to target STR or INT on such a creature...or have something like Bane or Bestow Curse active on them.

Yes. But ancient dragons are boss monsters. Designed to be fought like once per campaign. And (as with anything above CR 20), you're really supposed to have to prepare. And as a solo, being vulnerable to save-or-lose spells makes for bad combat. Let me tell you (as you and I know from personal experience :smallbiggrin:), having an "epic" fight that gets shut down by a single spell just ain't that much fun for the DM.

The issue comes up with people thinking that the system norm is facing things of CR = level + 4-5 on a daily (or even multiple times a day) basis. They're using the pitchfork as a soup spoon and complaining.

[PhantomSoul]

Let me tell you (as you and I know from personal experience :smallbiggrin:), having an "epic" fight that gets shut down by a single spell just ain't that much fun for the DM.

It's also pretty disappointing as a player when it's supposed to be a big deal. If you're the player with the spell you get a "HAH, YES!" and then, well, it's over. If you're another player, it's likely just been confirmed you either (a) didn't pick the right class/spell, or (b) are window dressing (maybe just from lower initiative). At least if the HAH! moment comes later it could feel like a reward or achievement for being strategic and/or surviving, but even then, it could just be disappointing.

[Dienekes]

It's also pretty disappointing as a player when it's supposed to be a big deal. If you're the player with the spell you get a "HAH, YES!" and then, well, it's over. If you're another player, it's likely just been confirmed you either (a) didn't pick the right class/spell, or (b) are window dressing (maybe just from lower initiative). At least if the HAH! moment comes later it could feel like a reward or achievement for being strategic and/or surviving, but even then, it could just be disappointing.

That does bring up something.

It'd take a bit of effort to do, and probably wouldn't even work on some more powerful spells. But I wish they'd remove Legendary Resistance and replace it with a way to make the effects of spells lesser against the bosses.

Would this spell normally stun the big boss? Well it instead just makes them dazed.
Would this spell dominate them? Instead they loose their next action fighting off the effects.

Stuff like that so the players can cast their big spells without ruining boss fights.

Also all magic walls should be able to be destroyed by hitting them hard enough.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes. But ancient dragons are boss monsters. Designed to be fought like once per campaign. Good point.

And as a solo, being vulnerable to save-or-lose spells makes for bad combat. (Hence legendary saves)

Let me tell you (as you and I know from personal experience :smallbiggrin:), having an "epic" fight that gets shut down by a single spell just ain't that much fun for the DM.
I think it was shut down by an anomalous group of save fails; I've not seen that kind of streak in a long while.
The bard instrument's rating (cittern as "uncommon" is IMO a minor mistake. I think that "rare" would have been a closer fit. We have another game with a bard using one Anstruth Harp(very rare); that thing is scary good (has wall of thorns as one of its daily spells, and he just rediscovered hypnotic pattern during last session. Cue ROFL stomp by the party as none of the enemy were immune to charm ... against charm immune enemies, however, that feature won't be of any help)

The issue comes up with people thinking that the system norm is facing things of CR = level + 4-5 on a daily (or even multiple times a day) basis. They're using the pitchfork as a soup spoon and complaining. Yes. Fighting mixed groups of foes, while a bit more effort for the DM, offers the party more challenges and makes the action economy's impact more widely felt. When your tank/frontliner just got held, having three enemies, not one, whacking on him with advantage/auto crit can melt your ally quickly. One of the party needs to get that condition (paralyzed) off of him NOW!
I recently had a fight with Hold Person working on two PCs recently, in salt marsh, and then as DM my attackers (sahuagin) rolled horribly. I only manage three hits before the condition ended and had four attackers going at it. (The dice are indeed fickle).

[Telok]

Thing that should die in a fire (all heard rl at games):

"Someone needs to play a paladin so our saves don't suck."

"I'll npc a healer if no one plays a cleric."

"Don't use a skill, this is important. That's why we're all casters."

"How does my feat work this week? Any new tweets?"

"Invisibility doesn't matter, you didn't take the hide action. They walk through the screaming crowd, around the tent and start punching you."

"There's a climb DC in the book so you have to roll. If you didn't have to roll there wouldn't be a DC in the book."

"Let the fighter roll, his dice are hot tonight. My wizard hasn't made an arcana check in two weeks."

"I'll go get food. I wrote a script for combat on my phone, just hit the 'enemy near' or 'enemy far' buttons while I'm gone."

[stoutstien]

Thing that should die in a fire (all heard rl at games):

"Someone needs to play a paladin so our saves don't suck."

"I'll npc a healer if no one plays a cleric."

"Don't use a skill, this is important. That's why we're all casters."

"How does my feat work this week? Any new tweets?"

"Invisibility doesn't matter, you didn't take the hide action. They walk through the screaming crowd, around the tent and start punching you."

"There's a climb DC in the book so you have to roll. If you didn't have to roll there wouldn't be a DC in the book."

"Let the fighter roll, his dice are hot tonight. My wizard hasn't made an arcana check in two weeks."

"I'll go get food. I wrote a script for combat on my phone, just hit the 'enemy near' or 'enemy far' buttons while I'm gone."

So better DM resources?

[LudicSavant]

This is a really good point that really needs to be emphasized. So much analysis of D&D is done in terms of individual characters rather than parties, which can lead people to overlook things like this.

Yeah. When people over-focus on only one variable, they often lose sight of the larger game design principles at work. In the game we got, the ability of people to overcome challenges that target their "bad save" increases as they level up, even if the save bonus stays the same. Which I happen to think is pretty neat.

One of the ways game designers can avoid a sense of a 'stat treadmill,' as well as encourage players to engage with deeper systems as you level up/progress, is by making the way you solve problems subtly change as you level up. For example, a hypothetical game might have squishies be not-really-that-squishy at low levels, then get increasingly passively squishy (relative to the rest of the team) as they increase in level, while active abilities to compensate for those weaknesses also increase. Basically shifting the focus from "just muddle through" to "I have to more actively engage with these systems as I grow in experience."


What are some distinct ways to contribute to social and exploration pillars?

A lot of the examples I'm thinking of are essentially "you get to be the only one contributing to this particular subset of challenges" such as speaking a language no one in your party speaks, or being the only one in your party who can fly.

Let's say characters are scouting ahead.

One character might be stealthy and go ahead. Another might cast a spell to buff their stealth, like Guidance or Enhance Ability. Another character might give them a telepathic bond to keep in silent contact with the party. Another character might roll knowledge and Investigation checks based on information that's relayed back. Another character might improve their ability to traverse the terrain. And so forth)

Let's say the characters are in a social encounter.

One character might gather information on the character you want to persuade (you get massive bonuses from appealing to someone's bond, trait, flaw, or other motivation in the DMG social encounter rules. As in, it can take the DC of the final persuasion check from "impossible" to "20" or from "20" to "10" or the like). Another character might make the Persuasion check. Another character might raise a point that gives Advantage on the Persuasion check (also in the DMG skill rules, if two or more people contribute something to a conversation, the party face gets Advantage. It's very explicitly and intentionally not 'tell everyone who isn't Charismatic to shut up while just the face talks')

Different roles include insight checks, charisma checks, knowledge checks, infiltration abilities, various kinds of divinations, mind reading, enchantments, languages, connections and influence, etc.

The DMG social rules already are set up for a "division of labor" style. It's just that martials are often worse than others at all of the roles it establishes.

[KorvinStarmast]

"How does my feat work this week? Any new tweets?"
As a shield master sufferer, I feel that one quite keenly. (Your list got a few laughs out of me) :smallsmile:

[Xervous]

Thing that should die in a fire (all heard rl at games):

"Someone needs to play a paladin so our saves don't suck."
The needs part is potentially problematic. Depends on group

"I'll npc a healer if no one plays a cleric."
agreed, game shouldn’t assume healbots are necessary. Oh look let’s bring back healing surges.

"Don't use a skill, this is important. That's why we're all casters."
Not sure where the last part creeps in. If everyone is indeed a caster this seems like a reasonable start to a debate on how critical a choice is for the party. Though it admittedly needs more context.


"How does my feat work this week? Any new tweets?"

Agreed, delete Twitter

"Invisibility doesn't matter, you didn't take the hide action. They walk through the screaming crowd, around the tent and start punching you."

yeah, non kludge rules please

"There's a climb DC in the book so you have to roll. If you didn't have to roll there wouldn't be a DC in the book."

Context dependent

"Let the fighter roll, his dice are hot tonight. My wizard hasn't made an arcana check in two weeks."

somewhat context dependent? Who says the wizard has to roll all the arcana checks? Is this accompanied by any RP?

"I'll go get food. I wrote a script for combat on my phone, just hit the 'enemy near' or 'enemy far' buttons while I'm gone."

Script? That sounds like ‘deck of many things’ effort level. That’s insulting, that might as well be a screensaver



Responses in bold

[LudicSavant]

"Invisibility doesn't matter, you didn't take the hide action. They walk through the screaming crowd, around the tent and start punching you."

So fun fact, there are actually rules guidelines for hearing distance. They just hid them on the official DMG screen. They're not actually in the DMG. Or the PHB. For some reason.

[Composer99]

When someone has the wrong (objectively) viewpoint, or their fixes would break the system entirely, I think that's totally appropriate. I mean we don't re-design pitchforks to be better soup spoons just because someone thinks they're lousy at being soup spoons, do we?


Absolutely, unambiguously, and completely false. Since we are speculating about features we would like to see for a potential 6e, you are the one who is objectively wrong.

Every single edition except 5e has had across-the-board improved saving throws for PCs (albeit in the form of F/R/W defences in 4e). The only reason that did not lead to PCs becoming better at saves/defences across the board in 3.X and 4e is because monster save DCs/attacks targeting those defences improved faster.

Also, I would encourage you to dispense the disrespectful analogies. This isn't engineering a bridge, this is a question of "what numbers do you like to have in your elfgames?"

[Misery Esquire]

Responses in bold

The last part in the Skill Checks joke/complaint is that noone should use a skill because a skill can fail, a spell cannot. There are spells for (almost) every occasion. So why play things that will use skills when you could play something that uses spells.

[Telok]

So fun fact, there are actually rules guidelines for hearing distance. They just hid them on the official DMG screen. They're not actually in the DMG. Or the PHB. For some reason.

Yeah, just not hiding important how-to-run-the-game stuff in general would be nice. Most DMs don't scrape forums looking for how to make the game work, they read the DMG once and reference a few monster sections or tables after that. Important things need emphasis, repetition, and preferably their own section/paragraph.

I did always appreciate the 1e DMG discussion on probability, even though it didn't go very far. Most DMs don't have the math background to intuit that d20+2 vs d20+6 is a 30/65 split, they see the +4 as the difference between average bob lifts 100lbs and Olympic weight lifter lifts 500lbs.

[ZRN]

The DMG social rules already are set up for a "division of labor" style. It's just that martials are often worse than others at all of the roles it establishes.

Yeah, I think a baseline 6e expectation would be that they start out where they've basically gotten to with the most recent 5e subclasses, etc., which is the expectation that each martial build will have some meaningful, explicit bonuses to non-combat skills and abilities.

[KorvinStarmast]

So fun fact, there are actually rules guidelines for hearing distance. They just hid them on the official DMG screen. They're not actually in the DMG. Or the PHB. For some reason. OK, now I have to go and dig out the DM screen I never got out of its package and see what's in there.

The last part in the Skill Checks joke/complaint is that noone should use a skill because a skill can fail, a spell cannot. There are spells for (almost) every occasion. So why play things that will use skills when you could play something that uses spells. Make spell failure possible. Problem solved. :smallbiggrin:

[Amnestic]

OK, now I have to go and dig out the DM screen I never got out of its package and see what's in there.


For the curious-
Audible Distance
"Trying to be quiet" - 2d6 x 5 feet
"Normal noise level" - 2d6 x 10 feet
"Very loud" - 2d6 x 50 feet

Also I don't recall seeing these in the DMG and they seem relevant
Encounter Distance by terrain
Arctic/desert/farmland/grassland - 6d6 x 10 feet
Forest/swamp/woodland - 2d8 x 10 feet
Hills/Wastelands - 2d10 x 10 feet
Jungle - 2d6 x 10 feet
Mountains - 4d10 x 10'

Visibility Outdoors
Clear day, no obstructions - 2 miles
Rain - 1 mile
Fog - 100 to 300'
From a height - x20

Though how high isn't specified. Does 10' up get you 40 mile sight instead of 2 miles? I doubt it...

[Asmotherion]

Is there not a Pathfinder 2e sub forum here?

As Oddball said: "Always with the negative waves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncbEucjsNFU), Moriarty!"

Not yet, to my knowlage.

Not trying to bring negative vibes, just constructive feedback of what I want to see in a future edition of D&D.

[Pex]

I don't see why this is a problem. Stronger enemies are more effective? Oh no, how awful! I much prefer that to playing numerical treadmill where defenses all rise in lockstep with offenses thus defeating the entire point.

I do think un-passable saves is a problem. I don't think saves being harder if you aren't specialised to be a problem.

It's a relative problem. While it is possible to face a foe at level 15 you faced at level 3 but in greater numbers, you are still facing level 15 foes. Their DCs are higher. The negative affect of failing the save is more severe. You still only need a Natural 11 to make the save against the foe you faced at level 3, but it's a huge difference you need a Natural 18 to save against that level 15 foe. Your percentage chance to make the save diminishes. You're getting effectively weaker relative to the enemy you face as you gain levels. That is what some people aren't liking and would prefer changed. It's accepted to have a weak save, and it's likely ok that given they fix it it's still a higher number than Natural 11 to make the save for the level 15 foe than it is the level 3 foe, but if for sake of argument 18 is too high there needs to be a number 11 < X < 18 that is acceptable. I acquiesced to 16.

[Menji]

Lack of 6E, and/or backward compatibility. So 5.5 if anything.

And also fixing the crossbow/longbow disparity.

[Pex]

@Pex, just to check, you'd be ok with saying (as a matter of system math) that no PC can ever, under any circumstances, have an AC above 19 so that weak monsters can always hit them on a 15+, right? Because that's the equivalent. Except that
1) monster-generated saves are rare (compared to attack rolls). Most of those monsters listed don't rely on their saves to deal damage, and might use saving-throw abilities 1x/fight.
2) monster save-or-suck (or worse) tend to use much lower DCs than monster damage abilities. In addition to being saves that are less-frequently dropped
3) Characters have tons of resources to boost their saving throws or gain immunity. More than any other thing. There are few ways to increase accuracy, lots of ways to increase defense. You choosing not to use them, choosing to only boost your strengths and ignore your weaknesses is a character design problem, not a system problem. And doing anything like giving everybody all save proficiencies shatters bounded accuracy[1].



That's where I'm not in total agreement with Bounded Accuracy. It was never a problem for me that PCs outgrew foes. If the 3E ogre can never hit a level 16 PC except for the Natural 20 always hits rules. I was perfectly fine with that. Here is where PCs and monsters follow different rules work in my favor. It only matters that PCs have a reasonable chance to hit the enemy and save against their affects at the relative power level of the enemy compared to the level of the PCs, accepting the weaker save has a bit harder chance to make. I don't object to Bounded Accuracy where a 5E ogre can still hit a level 16 PC, but if my hypothetical fix for 6E means the 6E level 16 Fighter is forever after immune to the 6E Intellect Devourer, I won't be crying over it. The Fighter has dragons and beholders to worry about.

[MrStabby]

I like bounded accuracy (and saves) from a world building perspective. 3rd edition got to the point where heroes obviated armies and power ramped up so fast that if you were king it made as much sense from a military power perspective to have most of your armies fight each other as the leveled up heroes were more powerful than the army would have been... OK slight exageration there.

In 5th edition though, it feels like armies matter. It feels like politics and social elements to the game matter because getting a few peasants to help is still something that can make a difference at higher levels. It lets me, as a DM, telegraph challenge more easily when I want to - having 8 guards turn up matters more than 4 guards and 30 guards should signal a problem for most parties and so on.

I wouldn't mind a rule that a creature always passed a save on an 18+ and always fails on a 3- (or whaever values are desired); but it would have some serious balance implications.

[luuma]

In general I think the game works well as a storytelling structure, and I wouldn't really want that much changed.

The DMG could do with some better rules for chase scenes, for fudging distances, and especially for exploration

It'd be nice to see encounters balanced out properly - they're perfect between about 5th and 9th, but early levels are noticeably more lethal and past 11th things go a little haywire. I'd also like a big table that just tells me a few well-balanced sets of CRs that I can hand to a party of characters of identical level. XGtE is good, but something even more in-depth than that would be great.

Saving throws at higher levels become a bit of a mess - as DCs get higher, you get better in the saves you're proficient in, and the rest of them stay the same, and this is a real pain in the ass that can lock players out of combat completely for multiple turns in a row. There are plenty of ways to fix that in this edition though - a well designed spell would probably do it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not trying to bring negative vibes, just constructive feedback
You rolled a 1 on that ability check.

[GeneralVryth]

I am also a big fan of bounded accuracy and its world building implications. That's why I think most things that just passively scale with level should die in fire (5e has mostly done that which was the point of bounded accuracy, and one of the biggest successes of the system in my mind). There is really only 3 places where you still have that passive scaling with level for PCs:
1. Proficiency (which is really just a short hand for something like actively investing skill points so it makes sense to let it slide, though I could absolutely see a "skill point" system as an optional replacement for those that miss that)
2. Health (which is actually a source of weirdness at times, but is combines well with the active scaling to distinguish the powerful from the lesser, so it works to a point)
3. Damage cantrips (which is actually another source of potential problems and weirdness and arguably should be re-designed or replaced, extra attack can also show up here when multi-classing is involved for opposite reasons)

I guess that is something else I would like to see a 6e figure out, a better system system for attack/cantrip scaling that plays well with multi-classing.

[Asmotherion]

You rolled a 1 on that ability check.
you rolled a 20 on {scrubbed}. Want a cake with it?

[OldTrees1]

You rolled a 1 on that ability check.


you rolled a 20 on {scrub the post, scrub the quote}. Want a cake with it?

May I take 10 to distract you two from this analogy / argument?


Different people will have different preferences for 6E. Especially since 6E's target audience includes some players that have criticisms of 5E. Remember 5E tried to win over some AD&D and 3E players. Those different opinions can be jarring and can "harsh the mellow" even when not intended. However we can accept different opinions existing.


For example I did not say "I really want 6E to keep level by level multiclassing because it is a very powerful design tool to allow a greater audience to be able to create satisfying characters than the current alternatives.". However maybe I should have mentioned some of the things I like that I want to see kept.

[LudicSavant]

You know what I think I would like to see most in 6e?

A better implementation of magic items. As is they're just totally all over the place to the point that some DMs are afraid to give out much in the way of treasure at all, and there's the whole "gold is worthless" memes. And magic item prices are well known for being silly. And DMs are given basically no advice for how much magic items impact the power level of characters (after all, CR is basically assuming you don't have any magic items). Which can be troublesome given that they impact it quite a lot.

And no, I don't mean a return to the 3.5e or 4e way of doing it. I still want something that frees the DM from having to track WBL. But this is one of those cases where you can have your cake and eat it too (how do I know? Because I've designed game systems that do it before).

The way you can do that is by taking better advantage of the attunement system, which I feel was a missed opportunity in 5e.

Basically, with a few tweaks to the attunement system, you could have it so that the power level of players getting magic items is kept roughly in check regardless of whether the DM gives them a lot or a little. It's still more beneficial to have more, but it's more of a logarithmic curve so it doesn't go crazy.

5e doesn't accomplish this, because so many of the vertical scaling magic items (like say, +X weapons, armor, and shields) don't take attunement slots. And yet, things that introduce vertical scaling (getting better at actions you already do) rather than horizontal scaling (more options for how to spend your actions) are exactly the ones that are most in need of an attunement cap. Heck, in a high magic item game, they even discourage you from taking more interesting items (because why have an attunement sword with an interesting power when you could have a +3 sword and a separate item that gives an interesting power?)

It could have instead been the case that a character with X attunement slots filled is roughly as strong as another with X attunement slots filled (you'd still get the benefits of finding more or better options for your character, but there's a difference between "this is a better way to fill my attunement slot" and "I have 3 attunement slots... and a +3 magic plate, and a +3 magic shield, and a +3 magic sword, and a whole bunch of other non-attunement items.")

I also would shift magic items in general more towards horizontal scaling than vertical (e.g. more interesting magic items rather than just stronger ones).

Other things I would like to see
- Better thought-out minionmancy. I think 5e got the worst of both worlds here -- they sacrificed a lot of the more interesting aspects of minionmancy in order to make it easier to balance... and then arguably made it less balanced anyways. Oof. Here's an example of me complaining about one of 5e's forms of minionmancy in more detail. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623982-Reworking-Animate-Dead) But they've tried like a dozen different ways and basically mucked it up in... all of them in some form or other. Whether it's the Beast Master Ranger, the Shepherd Druid, Animate Objects, Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, or even the Tasha's summons (which are just overly generic).

- Martials that are comparably useful in the social and exploration pillars as casters, and scale more properly into high levels. The death of the "skills are for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters" mindset. All pillars are for all characters (they just fill different roles within said pillars).

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm likely in the minority on this, but I wish there was some degree of variance in equipment even in similar types. This is something that should probably be exclusive to magic items or high end (specifically purchased) mundane items.

Something like the beneficial or detrimental effects that show up on Artifacts. Even between campaigns (or between characters who attuned to it, if your DM is so inclined) and artifact will have a varying degree of effects beyond what they all share. I think it would be cool if there were a level of rules support for having those kinds of quirks in items, perhaps you find a set of Winged Boots that give you a greater flying speed at the cost of active time, or they leave a trail of faintly glittering dust behind you as you fly.

So I guess to summarize that: Give rules to make some items truly unique.

I think I'd also like to see a meaningful difference as far as the sources of magic go, for Divine and Arcane. That might have less to do with an edition though and more to do with setting expectations, so perhaps just a small section of "the magic of your world" in the DMG that is thorough enough to leave room for that.

[Hytheter]

I'm likely in the minority on this, but I wish there was some degree of variance in equipment even in similar types. This is something that should probably be exclusive to magic items or high end (specifically purchased) mundane items.

Something like the beneficial or detrimental effects that show up on Artifacts. Even between campaigns (or between characters who attuned to it, if your DM is so inclined) and artifact will have a varying degree of effects beyond what they all share. I think it would be cool if there were a level of rules support for having those kinds of quirks in items, perhaps you find a set of Winged Boots that give you a greater flying speed at the cost of active time, or they leave a trail of faintly glittering dust behind you as you fly.

So I guess to summarize that: Give rules to make some items truly unique.

I like this. Could be as simple as listing some roll tables for specific items and/or groups thereof. Though it would hurt the page count to item ratio.

[Veldrenor]

I'm likely in the minority on this, but I wish there was some degree of variance in equipment even in similar types. This is something that should probably be exclusive to magic items or high end (specifically purchased) mundane items.

Something like the beneficial or detrimental effects that show up on Artifacts. Even between campaigns (or between characters who attuned to it, if your DM is so inclined) and artifact will have a varying degree of effects beyond what they all share. I think it would be cool if there were a level of rules support for having those kinds of quirks in items, perhaps you find a set of Winged Boots that give you a greater flying speed at the cost of active time, or they leave a trail of faintly glittering dust behind you as you fly.

So I guess to summarize that: Give rules to make some items truly unique.


Technically 5e already has this: on page 143 of the DMG there's a table for random minor properties that can be applied to magic items. Admittedly there aren't many options, they're not unique to the different items or item types (you could totally have a folding boat that glows faintly in the presence of orcs), but the fact that they exist at all sets a precedent supporting DMs in creating further customizations.

[Duff]

For surges, I like having a surge value for healing. So healing spells heal tanks better. It’s part of what helps them do their job. But having a limit on the number of times a character can be healed aside from the healer’s supply of spells I can take or leave. It adds a challenge to the party tactics to make sure the damage gets spread around, not just during a fight but across the whole day. But I think it’s a complication which adds more administration than fun.

I’m also a fan of Vancian casting. Picking the right spells gives me the same kick that having a character play perfectly in a situation gives. (That can be mechanical, but can also be but can also be my character being the right person in the right place at the right time to do the thing).
But leave the cantrips. There’s few things more boring than being a low level spell slinger who’s out of spells.
Or better yet, have a large but limited supply of low level spells so you do run out sometimes and have to try other options
Or include a basic wand in a wizard’s starting kit.
On a related note, make up at least a basic spell

No universal dump stats. Like it. In fact I’d go so far as to say I’d like every stat to be a viable secondary stat for each class and every stat except the primary to be a viable dump. And if you do dump a stat hard, that will limit your character’s abilities. “I don’t have a dump stat” should be compatible with an optimized build

Race – I don’t mind if it’s pure flavour as long as there’s enough other ways to customize a character. OTOH, as another independent variable, it does have a multiplying effect on the options. And if there’s race specific bonuses for each (or most classes) that’d be great. Roll on “Savage casting” to make an orcish Wizard perfectly functional! (I know, lots of table don’t need the level of optimization where the Orc wizard won’t work just fine. But I’d like there to be more options which work just fine at the other tables as well.

Attrition = record keeping. It can be great. I ran an “adventure” drawing huge amounts of inspiration from “The retreat from Kandahar” which left such an impression on my players that my inattentive wife saw video footage of Afghanistan years later and recognized the terrain as “Farqaduk Territory”. But it adds to the workload. Probably aim for a system which doesn’t need that sort of record keeping as long as everyone gets a full night’s sleep. Then if you want to run attrition, you simply make a couple of encounters happen at night.

Fighters need more out of battle work. Always have. Or if you really don’t want to give them that, you need to make them the best class in a fight. But don’t do that. Make them the skills generalist. Heaps of skill points, low caps, then nudge rogues and bards more firmly into their own lanes. Or go the other way. Let a fighter be a master of whichever skill area they go for. Give them feats or subclasses or whatever for “Social fighter” (Maybe call them the knight?) and “Wilderness Fighter” who looks a fair bit like a ranger but with less magic or “Sneaky fighter” who can out sneak the rogue but gets stopped by locked doors). You could take this in either direction and still have it play differently to any other class.
Y’know what, just giving a fighter bonuses on athletics checks would do wonders to make their physicality seem real.
I don’t just mean it’s a skill they are allowed to train in, I mean an athletic fighter is probably the best at it, and even a fighter that isn’t putting extra resources in will beat any other class that hasn’t invested heavily

Biffoniacus_Furiou Wants more spells limited to archetypes. It might be a cool way to differentiate archetypes (or whatever we want to call them in the new edition). But will also make balance more unpredictable, especially as supplements are added.

The suggestion of special abilities for martial characters seems good. But Simple classes for simple people is the opposite of this.
Dienekes- As someone with children and who plays with a person who’s health issues give them limited ability to concentrate and fucus, simple classes are really valuable. 2 decisions in the whole build is fine. “I shoot it with my bow or hit with may axe” as the decisions that get made each round is perfect.

Pex wants Psionics. I do too.
But specifically, what I want is psionics which is not magic. There’s spells for “Dispel psionics” Dispel magic either doesn’t work at all or is much less effective against a psionic effect. Have lands and settings and stories where both are common, but also allow ones where different cultures meet for the first time and have to learn how to deal with the other type of power. Some monsters are immune or resistant to one, some to the other, some to both (and of course, most resist neither)

Re the other Pillars as Schwann145 said, there could be more minigame to them, at least as an option.
“I try to scare her off.” “Roll intimidate” is a bit limited. Maybe have a “Will” as hitpoints for social combat.

Or just encourage GMs to play out the dialogue and be liberal with circumstance bonuses/penalties.

And if you wanted to make a minigame out of exploration, maybe move away from mapped dungeon/landscape layouts.
“We march over the mountains”. “OK, you need food, shelter, navigation and to avoid landslides, how are you doing that”
“My barbarian will use her find shelter ability, The mage is casting locate avalanche, the cleric is praying to the storm god for kind weather, the ranger is hunting for wild sheep and the rogue has direction sense as racial ability”. Suddenly everyone can contribute. Or rolls are made and cost paid for unsuccessful rolls. The ranger failed? Dip into rations. The Barb failed? Everyone take a fatigue level from the cold

Theodoxus likes the idea of class>archetype>subclass. I think that’s an unnecessary complication, especially for multiclassing.
If a 10th level fighter wanted to dip into Assassin and shadow Monk, would they be Fighter 4, rogue3 Thief 2/Assassin 1, Rogue 3 Monk 2/Shadow 1.
I’d rather see classes customised with feats and skills, or if you feel the need, have power choices at specific levels.
And if I had my option, most feats would be available for any class, but have feat trees and give relevant feats at level up.
So My Hypothetical fighter at 10th level might have completed the 5 feat “Precision fighting” tree, the 3 feat “mobile fighter” tree and the first 2 of the “Accurate” tree. They’ve also taken 2 “assassin” feats and 2 “Way of shadows” feats or might have multiclassed to get more shadowy assassinations

[Hytheter]

For surges, I like having a surge value for healing. So healing spells heal tanks better. It’s part of what helps them do their job.

You could potentially achieve this by having the healing dice be based on the target's hit dice instead of being defined by the spell. May need a provision for multiclass characters though - perhaps base it on whichever dice they have the most of?

[Telok]

One last thing, then I'm out.

Counterspell. It needs to end. From 1st to 4th editions people have waited until someone else started casting a spell and cast Dispel Magic, waited until the dragon opened its mouth to chuck the dwarf in, waited until someone charged past to trip them. Now, in 5e, four plus decades into this, you can't. Because apparently the initative system breaks or the developers have brain parasites or something. Now you have to have a totally new spell to do something you always just did with Dispel Magic before.

[Eldariel]

One last thing, then I'm out.

Counterspell. It needs to end. From 1st to 4th editions people have waited until someone else started casting a spell and cast Dispel Magic, waited until the dragon opened its mouth to chuck the dwarf in, waited until someone charged past to trip them. Now, in 5e, four plus decades into this, you can't. Because apparently the initative system breaks or the developers have brain parasites or something. Now you have to have a totally new spell to do something you always just did with Dispel Magic before.

This ties to the bigger problem of 5e Initiative being a trainwreck as written. I don't even consider it playable for anything but one-shots. So much of combat is decided by whether the guy you wanted to buff you or CC enemy acts before the damage dealer. And unlike in previous editions, there's no way to fix bad Initiative: you can't delay, ready action sucks (unless you're specifically Rogue), etc. This leads to all kinds of absurd problems (whole 3esque Initiative, where turns are taken sequentially after rolling Initiative, sucks since it leaves many players just waiting for others to act for the majority of combat and causes the whole "enemy walks past Fighter who can't move because it's not his turn"-issue, but 5e has taken it to a new low).

Ready action is the worst. Up until level 4, no problem. But once you get Extra Attack, you're paying not only your Reaction but your Extra Attack if you ready an attack. And if you're readying a spell? You're paying your concentration spell. The only class that can use ready action without problems 1-20 is Rogue. Every single other damn class pays two actions (Reaction and Action) and gets a lesser (for high level Fighters, far lesser) version of their action. And since e.g. Shield Master, PAM, TWF, and XBE are tied to attacking with your action, you often lose your bloody bonus action too! That's just ridiculous. Why should a character have to pay that much for just wanting to act a bit later in turn order?

Of course, it's easy to fix: throw the dysfunctional system out of the window and use one of its predecessors instead. But that doesn't speak highly for 5e Initiative. It's funny, apparently these sacrifices were made on the altar of simplicity and yet, on what planet is having to concentrate on a spell you're readying simplicity (especially since that means you have to drop your Concentration spell)? That's just a random unnecessary extra mechanic, not quite as bad as "non-material somatics can't be done with implement hand but material somatics can", but up there.

[Bosh]

For surges, I like having a surge value for healing. So healing spells heal tanks better. It’s part of what helps them do their job. But having a limit on the number of times a character can be healed aside from the healer’s supply of spells I can take or leave. It adds a challenge to the party tactics to make sure the damage gets spread around, not just during a fight but across the whole day. But I think it’s a complication which adds more administration than fun.

One big advantage of healing surges vs. hit dice for me is that it reduces the gap between the amount of downtime healing a party with and without a dedicated healer can do which makes it easier to play a party without a dedicated healer.

If you're going to have hit dice AND healing spells, then just crossing one out when you get hit by a healing spell doesn't add too much administration.



I’m also a fan of Vancian casting. Picking the right spells gives me the same kick that having a character play perfectly in a situation gives. (That can be mechanical, but can also be but can also be my character being the right person in the right place at the right time to do the thing).
But leave the cantrips. There’s few things more boring than being a low level spell slinger who’s out of spells.
Or better yet, have a large but limited supply of low level spells so you do run out sometimes and have to try other options
Or include a basic wand in a wizard’s starting kit.
On a related note, make up at least a basic spell

Prefer not having unlimited cantrips for wizards (and only wizards) but wouldn't be outraged if they are included. Personally don't see how zapping someone with a simple boring damage cantrip over and over is any more interesting than plugging someone with a crossbow over and over when they do more or less the same thing.

However losing flexibility and cantrip IS a nerf and wouldn't mind that being made up for with more spell slots. My preference would be more narrow or strange spells for wizards that take some McGyvering to apply but give wizards enough of them to make them a powerhouse if used intelligently.




Going that far would be hard to implement but if they managed to pull that off I wouldn't complain. Just wouldn't want some kind of standardization to make that sort of thing possible.

[quote]Race – I don’t mind if it’s pure flavour as long as there’s enough other ways to customize a character. OTOH, as another independent variable, it does have a multiplying effect on the options. And if there’s race specific bonuses for each (or most classes) that’d be great. Roll on “Savage casting” to make an orcish Wizard perfectly functional! (I know, lots of table don’t need the level of optimization where the Orc wizard won’t work just fine. But I’d like there to be more options which work just fine at the other tables as well.

My preference for races and classes is to make races good at being off brand classes by giving them abilities that don't synergize well with their stat bumps.

For example for half-orcs Relentless Endurance is MORE useful for half-orc wizards than beat sticks, high elf free cantrips are MORE useful for non-casters than casters and mountain dwarf proficiencies are really useful for casters rather than people who need strength. Just these bonuses aren't seen as being as useful as the +2 stat bump. Would like to see these things being useful enough that a lot of off-brand classes become really useful, kind of like how goblins are useful in giving a big added dollup of sneakiness to a lot of classes that normally aren't too sneaky.


Attrition = record keeping. It can be great. I ran an “adventure” drawing huge amounts of inspiration from “The retreat from Kandahar” which left such an impression on my players that my inattentive wife saw video footage of Afghanistan years later and recognized the terrain as “Farqaduk Territory”. But it adds to the workload. Probably aim for a system which doesn’t need that sort of record keeping as long as everyone gets a full night’s sleep. Then if you want to run attrition, you simply make a couple of encounters happen at night.

Good night's sleep = back to full doesn't work well with adventures based on long journeys (like LotR and stuff inspired by that) as any encounter that isn't an immediate and obvious threat of death can mostly be shrugged off. Prefer to have long rests at the end of a "mission" whatever that mission may be.

[Kane0]

You know what I think I would like to see most in 6e?

A better implementation of magic items

Like for example all magic items require some amount of attunement, say from 1 to 3 slots), which scale by their power and you get a number of attunement slots equal to your prof bonus so that also scales?

So you could end up with one high level char using a half dozen +1 equivalent items and another using just two +3 equivalent ones.

[Arkhios]

Like for example all magic items require some amount of attunement, say from 1 to 3 slots), which scale by their power and you get a number of attunement slots equal to your prof bonus so that also scales?

So you could end up with one high level char using a half dozen +1 equivalent items and another using just two +3 equivalent ones.

If it were for me, I'd simply ditch every magic items that grant any flat bonuses. Even in 5th edition.

[Amnestic]

Prefer not having unlimited cantrips for wizards (and only wizards) but wouldn't be outraged if they are included. Personally don't see how zapping someone with a simple boring damage cantrip over and over is any more interesting than plugging someone with a crossbow over and over when they do more or less the same thing.

Ignoring that a number of cantrips do more than just boring damage (eg. ray of frost slows, vicious mockery debuffs, control bonfire is a concentration repeat-damage option), it's not necessarily about it being 'interesting', it's about it feeling right and satisfying the class fantasy - that being a spellcaster instead of "guy in robes with crossbow".

Now for you that might not be an issue, but personally as someone who did find it kinda lame that casters had to default to physical weapons like a pleb either once they were out of leveled spells or if one was simply not appropriate, infinite cantrips are good.

There's certainly balance questions around cantrips (eg. scaling off char level instead of caster level, SCAGtrips) but that doesn't mean the core concept is wrong. At least in my eyes, it's one of the better changes 5e made (...well, 4e, really).

[Morty]

Ignoring that a number of cantrips do more than just boring damage (eg. ray of frost slows, vicious mockery debuffs, control bonfire is a concentration repeat-damage option), it's not necessarily about it being 'interesting', it's about it feeling right and satisfying the class fantasy - that being a spellcaster instead of "guy in robes with crossbow".

Now for you that might not be an issue, but personally as someone who did find it kinda lame that casters had to default to physical weapons like a pleb either once they were out of leveled spells or if one was simply not appropriate, infinite cantrips are good.

Also, cantrips can scale with your casting stat, instead of dexterity, which is going to be your secondary attribute at best. A spellcaster with a crossbow would miss a lot.

[Xervous]

Designing with the intent of removing all dump stats, if taken to the extreme, yields a state that is indistinguishable from scheduled numeric advancement and an absence of ability scores. Obviously it won’t go that far which brings us to the question of what we are hoping to accomplish.

As a simple, heavily constrained system there will be optimal ability score allocations for a given concept. The problem to be addressed is giving each ability score a reason to be taken. Classes will determine some ability score or scores that matter. Options in the given class may call for other ability scores, as will choices external to class like feats or skills.

The small numbers involved in advancing low ability scores for d20 rolls makes them generally unrewarding if the field is not already being focused. This is the fault of the advancement system where using an ASI to take an 18->20 is weighted the same as taking an 8->10. Without any sort of incentive there will never be a point at which a dump stat is worth considering. If the choice was between 18->20 or 8->14 the fighter is looking at tuning up his combat effectiveness, which he gets to use frequently, or a 15% swing on his CHA saves and social rolls, which he has determined come up less frequently. Extend the point buy chart just for the purpose of tracking an ability score’s cost, then progress by awarding extra point buy points. We can’t see less than the current assumed zero investment in dump stats, so if you accept the assumption that there is zero investment this change can only increase the frequency of investment. (It also helps races play catch up if they are missing a desired high starting ability score)

[Sorinth]

If they wanted to encourage no dump stats they could go back to the old ability score tables and simply front load the bonuses so that you get most of the bonus by say 14, and 15-20 does very little.

But I think a lot of the success 5e has had is attributed to keeping things simple so I would think they will want to keep things simple in a 6e as well.

[Theodoxus]

That's where I'm not in total agreement with Bounded Accuracy. It was never a problem for me that PCs outgrew foes. If the 3E ogre can never hit a level 16 PC except for the Natural 20 always hits rules. I was perfectly fine with that. Here is where PCs and monsters follow different rules work in my favor. It only matters that PCs have a reasonable chance to hit the enemy and save against their affects at the relative power level of the enemy compared to the level of the PCs, accepting the weaker save has a bit harder chance to make. I don't object to Bounded Accuracy where a 5E ogre can still hit a level 16 PC, but if my hypothetical fix for 6E means the 6E level 16 Fighter is forever after immune to the 6E Intellect Devourer, I won't be crying over it. The Fighter has dragons and beholders to worry about.

Seems the easiest fix for that is to create horde rules. A lone wolf has a DC 11 knock down. 3 wolves increase to DC 12; every two wolves increases the DC by +1. As the wolves are thinned out, the DC lowers.

At 20th level, a party of 6 without AOE magic (laughable, but assume it's the end of a very long combat day and the caster's are wiped out and the wolves attack just before dawn (7 hours into a long rest) - and a 20 member wolf pack is charging down on them for 'easy pickings'. Those wolves will have DC 21 knock downs, until they start getting thinned out. That could be a cakewalk or a deadly encounter depending on party makeup and left over resources.

Bounded Accuracy doesn't have to mean something never improves so others remain relevant... Horde rules can work for HP, to hit, damage, ability DCs... whatever you think will help keep lower CR foes a threat outside of just sheer numbers. Yeah, it's a bit more work to build the encounter, but if done right (not just 'napkin math' by the DM, but on a spreadsheet - thanks modern DMing!) it's not hard at all to make the adjustments on the fly. Heck, a simple formula in Excel would do the trick.

[stoutstien]

If it were for me, I'd simply ditch every magic items that grant any flat bonuses. Even in 5th edition.

Agreed. Outside of player specific options like infusions or forge clerics I've removed them from my game.

[Xervous]

Bounded Accuracy doesn't have to mean something never improves so others remain relevant... Horde rules can work for HP, to hit, damage, ability DCs... whatever you think will help keep lower CR foes a threat outside of just sheer numbers. Yeah, it's a bit more work to build the encounter, but if done right (not just 'napkin math' by the DM, but on a spreadsheet - thanks modern DMing!) it's not hard at all to make the adjustments on the fly. Heck, a simple formula in Excel would do the trick.

Quite clearly good math is illegal, or at least they didn’t bother to correct the devs understanding on that.

On a more serious note the votes have been in, D&D sells better with rounded rubber clad edges and fewer pointy numbers. If you want to sell the car to everyone you need the warning about drinking the battery acid. To you it might seem excessive, but they’re taking a broad aim. If you can look at the product and say “eh, good enough”, they’ve met their design intent.

[Kane0]

Designing with the intent of removing all dump stats, if taken to the extreme, yields a state that is indistinguishable from scheduled numeric advancement and an absence of ability scores. Obviously it won’t go that far which brings us to the question of what we are hoping to accomplish.

As a simple, heavily constrained system there will be optimal ability score allocations for a given concept. The problem to be addressed is giving each ability score a reason to be taken. Classes will determine some ability score or scores that matter. Options in the given class may call for other ability scores, as will choices external to class like feats or skills.

The small numbers involved in advancing low ability scores for d20 rolls makes them generally unrewarding if the field is not already being focused. This is the fault of the advancement system where using an ASI to take an 18->20 is weighted the same as taking an 8->10. Without any sort of incentive there will never be a point at which a dump stat is worth considering. If the choice was between 18->20 or 8->14 the fighter is looking at tuning up his combat effectiveness, which he gets to use frequently, or a 15% swing on his CHA saves and social rolls, which he has determined come up less frequently. Extend the point buy chart just for the purpose of tracking an ability score’s cost, then progress by awarding extra point buy points. We can’t see less than the current assumed zero investment in dump stats, so if you accept the assumption that there is zero investment this change can only increase the frequency of investment. (It also helps races play catch up if they are missing a desired high starting ability score)

Implement some additional diminishing returns? Point buy ready does this at creation with high scores costing more, but say for example when you get an ASI you can spend it by increasing a high stat by 1 or a low stat by 2, with 'low' being defined as having a modifier lower than your prof bonus or something.

[Xervous]

Implement some additional diminishing returns? Point buy ready does this at creation with high scores costing more, but say for example when you get an ASI you can spend it by increasing a high stat by 1 or a low stat by 2, with 'low' being defined as having a modifier lower than your prof bonus or something.

This will just further incentivize feats IMO. Remember the 8->10 is also competing with a feat or secondary stats. Or in a feat free game you’re just shunting investment off to a secondary stat. The wizard upon capping INT at L4, going 17-18, will not look to CHA or STR when there’s CON and DEX he can push to 16. Enforcing a soft cap will merely incentivize pushing multiple relevant ability scores up to it. A soft cap does nothing for the dump stats if it does not impact everything that has higher priority than them.

Basing it off proficiency bonus is terrifying. That’s inviting build nonsense where the same inputs at different times can yield differing outputs. 3.5e skills were atrocious because of this. We don’t need that kind of bookkeeping headache.

[Hytheter]

build nonsense where the same inputs at different times can yield differing outputs...We don’t need that kind of bookkeeping headache.

Definitely agree that anything involving this kind of thing should be avoided wherever possible.

[MrStabby]

That’s inviting build nonsense where the same inputs at different times can yield differing outputs. 3.5e skills were atrocious because of this. We don’t need that kind of bookkeeping headache.

Like your first level of rogue gets you different numbers of skills if you take it at your first level or your first level of fighter gets different armour proficiencies...

[Dienekes]

There is one method where advancing attributes costs more the higher they go.

It’s a step more complicated than the current design, but let’s say instead of just getting a +2 to any attribute they instead gave out the 4ish point buy points to add to your attributes. The exact number to be determined after math and balancing of course.

This would encourage diversifying your stat spread as focusing down one attribute gets you less points to play with overall. And makes those who do focus down one stat to get the best boost impressive rather than the norm.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Like your first level of rogue gets you different numbers of skills if you take it at your first level or your first level of fighter gets different armour proficiencies...

Both of which are part of what was designed as optional, so of course it adds more complexity.

Your ability scores are not optional.

[Amnestic]

This would encourage diversifying your stat spread as focusing down one attribute gets you less points to play with overall. A

I'm not sure it would. Chances are if I'm a wizard, bumping Int from 18 to 19 is still worth more to me than bumping strength from 8 to 12 even when Int 19 gets me nothing other than being a step closer to Int 20. Ditto for vice versa with a fighter.

Investment cost in stats isn't the only issue, they need a reason to do so.

[Xervous]

I'm not sure it would. Chances are if I'm a wizard, bumping Int from 18 to 19 is still worth more to me than bumping strength from 8 to 12 even when Int 19 gets me nothing other than being a step closer to Int 20. Ditto for vice versa with a fighter.

Investment cost in stats isn't the only issue, they need a reason to do so.

STR admittedly has the fewest allures outside its narrow primary use case. CHA tied to social rolls, WIS nails perception and frequent saves. INT... yeah same deal. Given this is only 2/6 ability scores we are looking at a fix to make INT / STR potentially desirable and a separate fix to give people a reason to look at dump stats.

[Amnestic]

Lets make strength the initiative score.

You become so muscular you react faster.

[KorvinStarmast]

Counterspell. It needs to end. Hard disagree. The action economy (which includes reactions) allows this to fit within the system. Was your suggestion that Dispel Magic be either an action or a reaction to cast, and thus render counterspell unnecessary?

Ready action is the worst. Up until level 4, no problem. But once you get Extra Attack, you're paying not only your Reaction but your Extra Attack if you ready an attack. Easily fixed. When you ready an action, you get to take that action. The Fighter's or the Monk's Action to Attack includes both attacks. Not hard to fix. Don't need a new edition for that.

Of course, it's easy to fix: throw the dysfunctional system out of the window and use one of its predecessors instead. Not necessary. It works well enough for small groups.

Like for example all magic items require some amount of attunement, say from 1 to 3 slots), which scale by their power and you get a number of attunement slots equal to your prof bonus so that also scales?

So you could end up with one high level char using a half dozen +1 equivalent items and another using just two +3 equivalent ones. Neat idea.

[color=blue] If you can look at the product and say “eh, good enough”, they’ve met their design intent. Successful one.

[Morty]

I don't think it's possible to make all attributes useful to all classes with the way attributes and classes look like now. Not without some logical contortions. Either attributes or classes would need to change, and that's not going to happen.

[Telok]

Hard disagree. The action economy (which includes reactions) allows this to fit within the system. Was your suggestion that Dispel Magic be either an action or a reaction to cast, and thus render counterspell unnecessary?

Gonna be honest, I don't understand the whole sacred cow-ness of action economy stuff that's come up in D&D recently. For flipping decades some variation of "I prepare to cast dispel magic to interrupt the enemy caster's spell" worked just fine. Now you need a special new spell because... "mustn't <something> action economy".

If you absolutely had to write another random exception into something to let basic tactics work like they always have, you could have tacked "You can cast this spell as a reaction to <events>" onto Dispel Magic. But instead we have two dispel magic spells now to help kick sorcerers, and other spells-known casters, in the face a bit more.

[Oramac]

A few things I'd love to see in 6e (I'm sure I'm forgetting some things; this is off the top of my head).

1. Ability scores are just one number. I think it's stupid to have the score and a modifier. Currently you roll/buy/choose your Ability Scorers and then pretty much forget they exist for the rest of the campaign. There's no reason 6e couldn't just use one freaking number and base everything on that.

2. Spell points. Personally, I'd love to see this for all casters, but would be ok with it even if it was only for sorcerers.

3. Initiative. Something has to be done. One thing I like the idea of it group initiative. For example (and this would need a LOT more iteration, of course), Party & monsters roll initiative. Top 2 party members discuss actions and go, top 2 monsters go, next 2 party members discuss and go, next 2 monsters, etc. etc. Obviously it would need some work, but I've used this system even in 5e and it works SOOOOO much better than the standard initiative system.

4. Ability Score Bonuses tied to class, not race. Give races some neat in- or out-of-combat features, but keep the ability modifiers tied to classes.

[Pex]

Prefer not having unlimited cantrips for wizards (and only wizards) but wouldn't be outraged if they are included. Personally don't see how zapping someone with a simple boring damage cantrip over and over is any more interesting than plugging someone with a crossbow over and over when they do more or less the same thing.

However losing flexibility and cantrip IS a nerf and wouldn't mind that being made up for with more spell slots. My preference would be more narrow or strange spells for wizards that take some McGyvering to apply but give wizards enough of them to make them a powerhouse if used intelligently.



It's aesthetics. I'm a spellcaster, not a warrior. I want to be casting spells. It sounds and feels better to say "I cast Fire Bolt" instead of "I fire my crossbow".

[KorvinStarmast]

Gonna be honest, I don't understand the whole sacred cow-ness of action economy stuff that's come up in D&D recently. For flipping decades some variation of "I prepare to cast dispel magic to interrupt the enemy caster's spell" worked just fine. Now you need a special new spell because... "mustn't <something> action economy". You can thank WoTC for that; it's not a matter of what's sacred, it's the tools we have to work with since they took over. Most of my D&D play before 5e was TSR stuff, so this 'action economy' thing took a while to get used to. But in a turn based game, how you do stuff in each turn and what you can do during your turn need to be clear. The never ending quest for the balance between 'verisimilitude' and 'realism' and easy to apply mechanics will likely see another tweak in the future. So far, this framework is effective if not perfect.

If you absolutely had to write another random exception into something to let basic tactics work like they always have, you could have tacked "You can cast this spell as a reaction to <events>" onto Dispel Magic. But instead we have two dispel magic spells now to help kick sorcerers, and other spells-known casters, in the face a bit more. OK, if that errata/exception was made for Dispel Magic, you could certainly do away with counterspell as it's function would be taken care of.

3. Initiative. Something has to be done. One thing I like the idea of it group initiative. We had that in the original game. Honestly, nothing has to be done. The current method works, and for small groups (3 to 5 PCs) is very usable. When I have crowds, I clump them into initiative clumps of 3-5. That's kind of like 'group initiative' without going back to OD&D "all 15 bandits fire their bows before any of you gets to do anything" stuff that group initiative creates.


Ability Score Bonuses tied to class, not race. Give races some neat in- or out-of-combat features, but keep the ability modifiers tied to classes. Not a bad idea. (13th Age offers a +2 from your class and a +2 from your race, and from each you can pick from one of two options; no reason not to adapt to something like that).

[Oramac]

We had that in the original game. Honestly, nothing has to be done. The current method works, and for small groups (3 to 5 PCs) is very usable. When I have crowds, I clump them into initiative clumps of 3-5. That's kind of like 'group initiative' without going back to OD&D "all 15 bandits fire their bows before any of you gets to do anything" stuff that group initiative creates.

That's fair. And true. Really, they don't even have to make a 6e at all. But being that this is a wish list, I wished for stuff. :D

[KorvinStarmast]

Really, they don't even have to make a 6e at all. Given how many books I have for this edition, I feel that very keenly. Tanarii has mentioned the promise of 'this is to be an evergreen edition' and I'd like to see that pan out.

[OldTrees1]

Given how many books I have for this edition, I feel that very keenly. Tanarii has mentioned the promise of 'this is to be an evergreen edition' and I'd like to see that pan out.

I think there is too much space to innovate on 5E compared to within 5E. So eventually we will see a 6E. However I do think 5E will be a long edition and is likely to survive even after a newer version comes out.

[jaappleton]

More classes.

I know you can encapsulate the feeling of most classes that aren't in 5E with multiclassing.

Want a Warpriest? Go Fighter/Cleric, as far as 5E is concerned.

I don't want that in 6E.

I'd much prefer more classes so that I progress more naturally with my character as opposed to having to pick what bonuses from what class I want at each level up.

[Theodoxus]

I think there is too much space to innovate on 5E compared to within 5E. So eventually we will see a 6E. However I do think 5E will be a long edition and is likely to survive even after a newer version comes out.

I can definitely see that... the trend so far is the even numbered editions innovate radically away from the previous edition (4 far more than 2, but 2 was quite the deviation at the time). While the odd remains played and maintained via 3rd party devs long after the next even comes out. OSR for 1st, Piazo for 3rd... I'm sure someone like Kobold Press could keep 5 running for a long time...


More classes.

I know you can encapsulate the feeling of most classes that aren't in 5E with multiclassing.

Want a Warpriest? Go Fighter/Cleric, as far as 5E is concerned.

I don't want that in 6E.

I'd much prefer more classes so that I progress more naturally with my character as opposed to having to pick what bonuses from what class I want at each level up.

What is a warpriest though? How is it different than a Cleric of War?

I'm not against more classes, per se, but when the difference comes down to "Full caster with 1 attack but a cool kit that helps combat" [War Cleric] vs "1/2 caster with 2 attacks and the ability to smite" [Paladin] vs "1/3 caster with 4 attacks and a smattering of mostly defensive spells to assist in bringing the wrath of his god to bear" [theoretical Divine Knight/Holy Warrior/whatever]. What exactly are you missing in this plan? Do you really need a full class or just an archetype that brings the feel of 'Warpriest'? (which harkens back to my question on what is a Warpriest).

I really don't see the need for many niche chassis on which to build unique classes. Build a unique mechanic: Pact magic vs Spontaneous vs Learned for instance; or Full attack (aka Fighters 4 attacks) vs Half attack. Based on that sole differentiation, there's no reason that Barbarians, Monks, Paladins and Rangers couldn't be based on the same class chassis. But you add Rage or Martial Arts into the equation and you do need a unique baseline - or hold off on those specific abilities until a later level. If you had a "fighting man" base class, that provided the minimum proficiencies for each of the specialized types of fighting men (medium armor, all weapons) along with probably Str and Con saves (if we're keeping the 6 saves), and then each level you gained a basic fighting attribute (feat, asi, fighting man 'trick') and hit points, then at 2nd level, you'd differentiate into your subclass: Barbarian (gaining Rage attributes), Paladin (gaining divine spells), Ranger (gaining nature spells) etc. You might even add a 3rd saving proficiency - Dex for Barbarian, Cha for Paladin, Wis for Ranger. Barbarians might gain +1 HP per level as well... You could even do something like granting the base fighting man class 4 attacks, but then let each subclass trade in extra attacks for something special. Like Smite for a Paladin might do 1d8 extra damage for each extra attack you swap, but doesn't use a spell slot. So, from 2nd to 4th level, you have to use a slot to smite. From 5th on, you could make 1 attack with a d8 rider 'for free' or make 2 attacks, and use spell slots to smite with. At 11th, you could make 1 attack with 2d8 extra, no slot, or 2 attacks, 1 with a d8 rider, no slot and a second with a slotted smite, etc.

Ranger might get something similar, but with an animal companion attacking instead. Or maybe some kind of 'arcane archer' ranged smite type attack.

Barbarians I could see capitalizing on reckless attack by exchanging extra attacks for lowering the crit chance by 1 for each swapped. At 5th, they could make 1 attack with a crit range of 19-20; at 11th, 1 attack with a crit range of 18-20 or 2 attacks, one with a 19-20 and the other with a base 20 crit.

It all depends on where you want to put the specializations. But IMO, if the base class isn't bringing a brand new aspect that can't be replicated or delayed, it shouldn't be a base class. I really don't want 400 base classes to try to keep track of because someone wants a Holy Warrior and someone else wants a BattlePriest and a third wants a WarGod and the only differences is one extra attack or a slightly slower spell progression.

[KorvinStarmast]

I can definitely see that... the trend so far is the even numbered editions innovate radically away from the previous edition (4 far more than 2, but 2 was quite the deviation at the time). While the odd remains played and maintained via 3rd party devs long after the next even comes out. OSR for 1st, Piazo for 3rd... I'm sure someone like Kobold Press could keep 5 running for a long time...AD&D 2e was in a lot of ways a clean up of AD&D 1e. Or are you referring to Basic/BX/BECMI as two?

[Dienekes]

I'm not sure it would. Chances are if I'm a wizard, bumping Int from 18 to 19 is still worth more to me than bumping strength from 8 to 12 even when Int 19 gets me nothing other than being a step closer to Int 20. Ditto for vice versa with a fighter.

Investment cost in stats isn't the only issue, they need a reason to do so.

Probably true because Wizard is one of the most single attribute focused classes. I'm not certain about Fighter, as they'll at least want Con reasonably high as well.

But i am not claiming this solves everything. Just a method of emphasizing diversification in build.

Step 2 would be giving reasons why each class would want to use other abilities.

Perhaps touch spells can use Strength to use, so you can get some Muscle Wizards. Perhaps there's a Tactician subclass that makes Fighter want to use Intelligence for a few boosts to allies. That sort of thing.

[Tanarii]

Given how many books I have for this edition, I feel that very keenly. Tanarii has mentioned the promise of 'this is to be an evergreen edition' and I'd like to see that pan out.
I remember carrying my BECMI books in my school backpack vs taking my AD&D books with me on vacation. Even with smaller books than now, and leaving out the coffee-table-sized DMG, taking 5 hardcovers (PHB, MM, DSG, WSG, OA) was plenty.

With 5e, I can get away with 3: PHB, MM, XgtE

[Theodoxus]

I remember carrying my BECMI books in my school backpack vs taking my AD&D books with me on vacation. Even with smaller books than now, and leaving out the coffee-table-sized DMG, taking 5 hardcovers (PHB, MM, DSG, WSG, OA) was plenty.

With 5e, I can get away with 3: PHB, MM, XgtE

back in '83 when I started gaming, I would have killed for something like PDFs. I carry all my books on my iPad now. Saves the back pain.

[jaappleton]

back in '83 when I started gaming, I would have killed for something like PDFs. I carry all my books on my iPad now. Saves the back pain.

CTRL + F alone makes it so much easier.

[Morty]

More classes.

I know you can encapsulate the feeling of most classes that aren't in 5E with multiclassing.

Want a Warpriest? Go Fighter/Cleric, as far as 5E is concerned.

I don't want that in 6E.

I'd much prefer more classes so that I progress more naturally with my character as opposed to having to pick what bonuses from what class I want at each level up.


I can definitely see that... the trend so far is the even numbered editions innovate radically away from the previous edition (4 far more than 2, but 2 was quite the deviation at the time). While the odd remains played and maintained via 3rd party devs long after the next even comes out. OSR for 1st, Piazo for 3rd... I'm sure someone like Kobold Press could keep 5 running for a long time...



What is a warpriest though? How is it different than a Cleric of War?

I'm not against more classes, per se, but when the difference comes down to "Full caster with 1 attack but a cool kit that helps combat" [War Cleric] vs "1/2 caster with 2 attacks and the ability to smite" [Paladin] vs "1/3 caster with 4 attacks and a smattering of mostly defensive spells to assist in bringing the wrath of his god to bear" [theoretical Divine Knight/Holy Warrior/whatever]. What exactly are you missing in this plan? Do you really need a full class or just an archetype that brings the feel of 'Warpriest'? (which harkens back to my question on what is a Warpriest).

I really don't see the need for many niche chassis on which to build unique classes. Build a unique mechanic: Pact magic vs Spontaneous vs Learned for instance; or Full attack (aka Fighters 4 attacks) vs Half attack. Based on that sole differentiation, there's no reason that Barbarians, Monks, Paladins and Rangers couldn't be based on the same class chassis. But you add Rage or Martial Arts into the equation and you do need a unique baseline - or hold off on those specific abilities until a later level. If you had a "fighting man" base class, that provided the minimum proficiencies for each of the specialized types of fighting men (medium armor, all weapons) along with probably Str and Con saves (if we're keeping the 6 saves), and then each level you gained a basic fighting attribute (feat, asi, fighting man 'trick') and hit points, then at 2nd level, you'd differentiate into your subclass: Barbarian (gaining Rage attributes), Paladin (gaining divine spells), Ranger (gaining nature spells) etc. You might even add a 3rd saving proficiency - Dex for Barbarian, Cha for Paladin, Wis for Ranger. Barbarians might gain +1 HP per level as well... You could even do something like granting the base fighting man class 4 attacks, but then let each subclass trade in extra attacks for something special. Like Smite for a Paladin might do 1d8 extra damage for each extra attack you swap, but doesn't use a spell slot. So, from 2nd to 4th level, you have to use a slot to smite. From 5th on, you could make 1 attack with a d8 rider 'for free' or make 2 attacks, and use spell slots to smite with. At 11th, you could make 1 attack with 2d8 extra, no slot, or 2 attacks, 1 with a d8 rider, no slot and a second with a slotted smite, etc.

Ranger might get something similar, but with an animal companion attacking instead. Or maybe some kind of 'arcane archer' ranged smite type attack.

Barbarians I could see capitalizing on reckless attack by exchanging extra attacks for lowering the crit chance by 1 for each swapped. At 5th, they could make 1 attack with a crit range of 19-20; at 11th, 1 attack with a crit range of 18-20 or 2 attacks, one with a 19-20 and the other with a base 20 crit.

It all depends on where you want to put the specializations. But IMO, if the base class isn't bringing a brand new aspect that can't be replicated or delayed, it shouldn't be a base class. I really don't want 400 base classes to try to keep track of because someone wants a Holy Warrior and someone else wants a BattlePriest and a third wants a WarGod and the only differences is one extra attack or a slightly slower spell progression.


"Keep classes the same" and "pile up more classes" are hardly the only way forward. There could be a different set of classes. But, sadly, the existing batch has become such a fixture that I can't see a hypothetical 6E replacing any.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Leaning in to the question a bit (despite my own feelings), I want them to say very clearly "This is a game with support for specific archetypes. If you want to play fantasy build-a-bear, this may not be the game for you." And then follow through. 5e isn't a generic fantasy character simulator, but it does have a split-brain between "I want to accommodate all sorts of characters (even ones that don't really fit the archetypes well)" and "I want characters with strong fictional backing." Personally (and I know this is unpopular), I prefer the second. If I wanted a generic game, I'd play something else, probably point-buy. Doing "generic with classes" kinda misses the entire point and ends up making neither a good point-buy game or a good class-based game.

[Ettina]

The last part in the Skill Checks joke/complaint is that noone should use a skill because a skill can fail, a spell cannot. There are spells for (almost) every occasion. So why play things that will use skills when you could play something that uses spells.

Do they have infinite spell slots? Spending a limited resource to auto-succeed a skill check is a decent trade-off.


Like for example all magic items require some amount of attunement, say from 1 to 3 slots), which scale by their power and you get a number of attunement slots equal to your prof bonus so that also scales?

So you could end up with one high level char using a half dozen +1 equivalent items and another using just two +3 equivalent ones.

That sounds like way more bookkeeping, and there's plenty of good magic items that wouldn't be worth even 1/3 of an attunement slot. Plus, it means you can't pass around magic items to benefit the whole party - stuff like alchemy jug is really best when shared.

I do like attunement slots = proficiency bonus. We use that houserule at our table.

[Theodoxus]

"Keep classes the same" and "pile up more classes" are hardly the only way forward. There could be a different set of classes. But, sadly, the existing batch has become such a fixture that I can't see a hypothetical 6E replacing any.

Oh, totally. It's why when you get past the "big 13" (plus the missing psionic ones), class names from 3rd parties start getting pretty weird and/or niche.


Leaning in to the question a bit (despite my own feelings), I want them to say very clearly "This is a game with support for specific archetypes. If you want to play fantasy build-a-bear, this may not be the game for you." And then follow through. 5e isn't a generic fantasy character simulator, but it does have a split-brain between "I want to accommodate all sorts of characters (even ones that don't really fit the archetypes well)" and "I want characters with strong fictional backing." Personally (and I know this is unpopular), I prefer the second. If I wanted a generic game, I'd play something else, probably point-buy. Doing "generic with classes" kinda misses the entire point and ends up making neither a good point-buy game or a good class-based game.

At its crux, I'm not really proposing a PB/Build-a-class concept. All I'm asking is if there are two base classes that utilize the exact same baseline mechanics, offer up the mechanic as the base class and then create archetypes that modify that base to how you want it to differentiate. Seriously, Paladin and Ranger are the same bloody class. They have the exact same build structure. The only differences are starting proficiencies (which can either be improved for the Paladin at x level or medium armor is emphasized for the Ranger much like it is for Barbarians) and... well, divine sense/natural enemy could easily become the same feature that gets differentiated by subclass, then Lay on Hands and Natural Explorer, you could move to the subclasses, or let the base class have both, but Paladins gain more points in LOH and Rangers get additional abilities for NE. (maybe base has only a few bullet points and Ranger gets the rest).

Bards and Sorcerers behave the same way with their spellcasting method. You have Inspiration vs Sorcery Points/Metamagic, but otherwise, the base classes are the same - learned arcane spellcasting. Take the spells common to both classes and call that good - then the subclasses get to chose from bonus spells taken from their current respective spell lists.

Clerics and Druids also behave the same way for spellcasting. Start with a generic Priest, medium armor prof, simple weapons, like above, only spells in common with both classes. At second level, Clerics gain a domain and all the normal rights, Druids gain their archetype feature right away.

Monks are fairly unique - I still argue they could easily be placed under the Rogue/Scoundrel/Striker whatever you want to name it, base class and not have to alter its mechanics much at all (and I'd argue that using a form of sneak attack dice to split up attacks reflects flurry of blows way better than just getting a flat +2 attacks for all time). But one could argue they're stand alone.

Fighter is also stand alone, though I'd rather see Barbarian get rolled up, but I like the idea of Barbarians going into a true frenzy and doing a dance of death with 4 attacks like the fighter. But I'm ok with both being unique.

Warlock is certainly unique - though I think their chassis is actually the most versatile to create new classes with - in this case, it would necessitate sterilizing the base Patron aspect and turning it from strictly an arcane/witch-ish focus to something that could be broadened out - it would also necessitate changing the class name from Warlock to something else... If I were to build an Inquisitor styled class with the chassis, I wouldn't want the base class to be called a Warlock..

Anyway, hopefully that makes more sense. And if you don't want to go this route, which is totally fine with me, at the very least, make the mechanics for each class be unique! Maybe Paladins end up 1/3 casters, but with more slots - so a lot more smiting, but with lower powered slots... Maybe Rangers end up spell-less but with "natural alchemy" and "empowered archery" and a companion that doesn't eat action economy.

Maybe Clerics have to actually pray for their spells into their spell slots, but like 3rd Ed can convert any spell into a Domain spell (not just healing). While Druids are the 'sorcerers of the natural world' and just cast any spell they have access to until they run out of slots.

Just different, and ideally, fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh, totally. It's why when you get past the "big 13" (plus the missing psionic ones), class names from 3rd parties start getting pretty weird and/or niche.



At its crux, I'm not really proposing a PB/Build-a-class concept. All I'm asking is if there are two base classes that utilize the exact same baseline mechanics, offer up the mechanic as the base class and then create archetypes that modify that base to how you want it to differentiate. Seriously, Paladin and Ranger are the same bloody class. They have the exact same build structure. The only differences are starting proficiencies (which can either be improved for the Paladin at x level or medium armor is emphasized for the Ranger much like it is for Barbarians) and... well, divine sense/natural enemy could easily become the same feature that gets differentiated by subclass, then Lay on Hands and Natural Explorer, you could move to the subclasses, or let the base class have both, but Paladins gain more points in LOH and Rangers get additional abilities for NE. (maybe base has only a few bullet points and Ranger gets the rest).

Bards and Sorcerers behave the same way with their spellcasting method. You have Inspiration vs Sorcery Points/Metamagic, but otherwise, the base classes are the same - learned arcane spellcasting. Take the spells common to both classes and call that good - then the subclasses get to chose from bonus spells taken from their current respective spell lists.

Clerics and Druids also behave the same way for spellcasting. Start with a generic Priest, medium armor prof, simple weapons, like above, only spells in common with both classes. At second level, Clerics gain a domain and all the normal rights, Druids gain their archetype feature right away.

Monks are fairly unique - I still argue they could easily be placed under the Rogue/Scoundrel/Striker whatever you want to name it, base class and not have to alter its mechanics much at all (and I'd argue that using a form of sneak attack dice to split up attacks reflects flurry of blows way better than just getting a flat +2 attacks for all time). But one could argue they're stand alone.

Fighter is also stand alone, though I'd rather see Barbarian get rolled up, but I like the idea of Barbarians going into a true frenzy and doing a dance of death with 4 attacks like the fighter. But I'm ok with both being unique.

Warlock is certainly unique - though I think their chassis is actually the most versatile to create new classes with - in this case, it would necessitate sterilizing the base Patron aspect and turning it from strictly an arcane/witch-ish focus to something that could be broadened out - it would also necessitate changing the class name from Warlock to something else... If I were to build an Inquisitor styled class with the chassis, I wouldn't want the base class to be called a Warlock..

Anyway, hopefully that makes more sense. And if you don't want to go this route, which is totally fine with me, at the very least, make the mechanics for each class be unique! Maybe Paladins end up 1/3 casters, but with more slots - so a lot more smiting, but with lower powered slots... Maybe Rangers end up spell-less but with "natural alchemy" and "empowered archery" and a companion that doesn't eat action economy.

Maybe Clerics have to actually pray for their spells into their spell slots, but like 3rd Ed can convert any spell into a Domain spell (not just healing). While Druids are the 'sorcerers of the natural world' and just cast any spell they have access to until they run out of slots.

Just different, and ideally, fun.

But then you either have to drop a lot of pieces that the classes get or have overstuffed sub-classes. Because the class budget just doesn't stretch that far. A current sub-class gets 3-5 features, spread out over 20 levels. That's it. You can't replicate even most of a current base class (except fighters) with that. And you'd be getting most of your pieces very late.

Honestly, I don't care about unique mechanics at all. Scratch that--I'm relatively opposed to unique mechanics. Because then you get bloat or uneven support. It's why I'm against adding new subsystems in non-core material--you don't get proper support for them going forward. I like having nice, predictable mechanics with single (or low numbers of) resource pools, where those resource pools are shared across multiple classes. Having lots of different sub-systems means you're learning a different rule-set per class, and increases the DM overhead combinatorially.

Personally, I want strong class fiction. Mechanical underpinnings can be similar, for all I care. But abilities should be thematic and set one archetype apart from others in theme, with most of the power and thematicity coming from the class features. It's why (soap box alert) I believe wizards are the hands-down worst designed class in 5e--"my spell list is my class feature" is crappy design on so many levels.

Edit: I guess I mainly want mechanics that get out of my way and let me engage with the fiction, using the mechanics to resolve the things that would be painful or to enable cool things. I don't want to play the rules, I want to play a character. I don't want a UI I have to learn in detail, I want the UI (the rules) to fade into the background and be absorbable at a glance even if that comes at a price for diversity of builds. I don't want the Blender or Photoshop of games.

[Dienekes]

Edit: I guess I mainly want mechanics that get out of my way and let me engage with the fiction, using the mechanics to resolve the things that would be painful or to enable cool things. I don't want to play the rules, I want to play a character. I don't want a UI I have to learn in detail, I want the UI (the rules) to fade into the background and be absorbable at a glance even if that comes at a price for diversity of builds. I don't want the Blender or Photoshop of games.

I think a lot of us want this. But I don’t think we can all agree on what that fiction is, and whether or not the current class’ mechanics do that.

I know for my part, looking at the Bard class I don’t see how any of the mechanics fit the concept of a guy that plays music. At all. Maybe Song of Rest, that does represent an entertainer playing soothing music to help calm their allies. But that’s pretty much it.

Then there’s Sorcerers who are supposed to have barely contained magic bursting out of them. And they’re saddled with the same spells a Wizard has to learn, done for the most part the exact same way. With the same strangely ritualistic method of preparing the spells and using arcane focuses, and material components. And I don’t think any of that fits for the narrative the Sorcerer is trying to convey.

Anyway, I’m personally fine with more mechanics. More than fine really. Provided those mechanics enhance the way it feels to play the class.

It’d be amazing if a Paladin’s adherence to their Oath tied directly to their powers, for example. That’d be hard to do, but awesome if you get it right.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think a lot of us want this. But I don’t think we can all agree on what that fiction is, and whether or not the current class’ mechanics do that.

I know for my part, looking at the Bard class I don’t see how any of the mechanics fit the concept of a guy that plays music. At all. Maybe Song of Rest, that does represent an entertainer playing soothing music to help calm their allies. But that’s pretty much it.

Then there’s Sorcerers who are supposed to have barely contained magic bursting out of them. And they’re saddled with the same spells a Wizard has to learn, done for the most part the exact same way. With the same strangely ritualistic method of preparing the spells and using arcane focuses, and material components. And I don’t think any of that fits for the narrative the Sorcerer is trying to convey.

Anyway, I’m personally fine with more mechanics. More than fine really. Provided those mechanics enhance the way it feels to play the class.

It’d be amazing if a Paladin’s adherence to their Oath tied directly to their powers, for example. That’d be hard to do, but awesome if you get it right.

I'm not actually making any statements about the current classes. I personally think that they're highly uneven at having a strong class fiction. I'm making future-looking statements--"when they design new stuff, I want them to focus on the fiction first and find the simplest, most-shared mechanics that allow that. I'll fill in the details." I don't need (or even want) to have mechanics pushing the fiction around. I want to take fictional actions and then use the mechanics to resolve any lingering uncertainty.

Mechanics, in my mind, exist only to resolve questions that aren't obvious from the fiction. Mainly "did <action> succeed?" That's all I really need mechanics for--to keep the narrative from bogging down. All the rest of it, I can handle myself. I don't want to play a game where I'm piloting some mechanical construct (playing the rules). I want to use the rules to help me engage deeply with the fiction itself and then get the heck out of the way. Simplicity >>>>> fidelity in my mind.

[Dienekes]

I'm not actually making any statements about the current classes. I personally think that they're highly uneven at having a strong class fiction. I'm making future-looking statements--"when they design new stuff, I want them to focus on the fiction first and find the simplest, most-shared mechanics that allow that. I'll fill in the details." I don't need (or even want) to have mechanics pushing the fiction around. I want to take fictional actions and then use the mechanics to resolve any lingering uncertainty.

Mechanics, in my mind, exist only to resolve questions that aren't obvious from the fiction. Mainly "did <action> succeed?" That's all I really need mechanics for--to keep the narrative from bogging down. All the rest of it, I can handle myself. I don't want to play a game where I'm piloting some mechanical construct (playing the rules). I want to use the rules to help me engage deeply with the fiction itself and then get the heck out of the way. Simplicity >>>>> fidelity in my mind.

Then I suppose I just straight disagree then. The call for simplicity above all is what got us to the point where warrior types say “I attack” every round. Which has always been the worst, least accurate, most boring way to design martial combat in TTRPGs and I wish it died out decades ago.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then I suppose I just straight disagree then. The call for simplicity above all is what got us to the point where warrior types say “I attack” every round. Which has always been the worst, least accurate, most boring way to design martial combat in TTRPGs and I wish it died out decades ago.

I'd say that if your warrior types are only saying "I attack", the likely cause is that they're looking at their character sheet as being buttons to press/focused on playing the rules instead of leaning into the fiction. Instead of a way to resolve uncertain actions. They can do anything; some things have more detailed mechanics to resolve uncertainty. But 90% of the time, the mechanics shouldn't come into play at all if they're taking actions that the fiction points out as the obvious ones. And in return, DMs shouldn't require uncertainty-resolution mechanics (ie dice rolls) for things that are in line with the fiction. Rules are a tool, nothing more.

Certainly they could do a better job of showing that mentality--5e is not perfect. But I've found that breaking the challenge treadmill and focusing everything at the fictional level (with, gasp, people taking actions based on their characterization rather than a game-level optimality calculation) goes a real long way.

In addition, I strongly prefer when individual combat turns are as quick as possible. Do one thing (and possibly move) and let the next person go. Turn optimization (ie taking forever to figure out what the "best" thing to do, which is partially inevitable as mechanics become more complex) is obnoxious. I've given up running full spellcasters as NPCs--I give them 3-4 things they can do. One big thing, one defensive tool, possibly one control tool, and one "if nothing else to do" (ie cantrip-like) action. That's it.

[LudicSavant]

back in '83 when I started gaming, I would have killed for something like PDFs. I carry all my books on my iPad now. Saves the back pain.

CTRL + F alone makes it so much easier.

Sometimes I have horrible nightmares. Nightmares of a brutal, primeval world where ancient cave-people, bent-backed from the weight of their burdens and bleached white from never seeing the sun, had to flip through thin carved pieces of wood. And there was not even an F button press! They had to squint in the dim light, for the wood provided no backlighting of its own!

Screams

(Heh, but really though, I still love my meatspace books)

[Dienekes]

I'd say that if your warrior types are only saying "I attack", the likely cause is that they're looking at their character sheet as being buttons to press/focused on playing the rules instead of leaning into the fiction. Instead of a way to resolve uncertain actions. They can do anything; some things have more detailed mechanics to resolve uncertainty. But 90% of the time, the mechanics shouldn't come into play at all if they're taking actions that the fiction points out as the obvious ones. And in return, DMs shouldn't require uncertainty-resolution mechanics (ie dice rolls) for things that are in line with the fiction. Rules are a tool, nothing more.

Certainly they could do a better job of showing that mentality--5e is not perfect. But I've found that breaking the challenge treadmill and focusing everything at the fictional level (with, gasp, people taking actions based on their characterization rather than a game-level optimality calculation) goes a real long way.

In addition, I strongly prefer when individual combat turns are as quick as possible. Do one thing (and possibly move) and let the next person go. Turn optimization (ie taking forever to figure out what the "best" thing to do, which is partially inevitable as mechanics become more complex) is obnoxious. I've given up running full spellcasters as NPCs--I give them 3-4 things they can do. One big thing, one defensive tool, possibly one control tool, and one "if nothing else to do" (ie cantrip-like) action. That's it.

And that is certainly one way to play. Not one I would consider D&D ever being particularly good at, admittedly. There are a bunch of other games that put much more of a focus on creating narratives and story first gameplay. Whereas D&D gives hundreds of pages on discrete tactical mechanics.

But do understand, there are people who actually quite enjoy looking through rules to find optimal play within the mechanics of the game.

[Theodoxus]

But then you either have to drop a lot of pieces that the classes get or have overstuffed sub-classes. Because the class budget just doesn't stretch that far. A current sub-class gets 3-5 features, spread out over 20 levels. That's it. You can't replicate even most of a current base class (except fighters) with that. And you'd be getting most of your pieces very late.

But that's the beauty, we don't have to work with the constraints of 5E. Just because (you think) it would be kludgy to do doesn't mean it has to be. You can make a theoretical 6E's class budget as big or small as you'd like. The base class might have one or two things every level like most current classes do. Or maybe you only get something at 1st, that kinda defines what the class does, and then it improves that one thing every few levels as well as grants ASI and/or Feats.

Taking the first way, "gaining something every level" approach, your archetypes are going to be more akin to current ones, where you get 4 or 5 subclass defining abilities scattered around the levels. But the second way, your subclass would fill in the gaps every level.

Heck, compromise, and have the base class provide something every odd level and the subclass provides something else every even level. The design space is currently wide open! Go crazy - both provide something every level!

Really, the only drawback I see is that smashing multiple 5E class concepts in a single 6E base class means you wouldn't be able to multiclass a Paladin/Ranger, or something. And I guess that's bad? But maybe an archetype could be the Holy Ranger or the Natural Paladin. I think if multiclassing was tossed out, but basically any MC you would want to do could be replicated with an archetype? And maybe even have a "building archetypes" section in the DMG so if a player comes up with an idea that mashes two or more classes or subclasses together, you can work together to get just the right feel for what you want to accomplish and build your own based on the base premise and which class comes closest to fulfilling that need.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But that's the beauty, we don't have to work with the constraints of 5E. Just because (you think) it would be kludgy to do doesn't mean it has to be. You can make a theoretical 6E's class budget as big or small as you'd like. The base class might have one or two things every level like most current classes do. Or maybe you only get something at 1st, that kinda defines what the class does, and then it improves that one thing every few levels as well as grants ASI and/or Feats.

Taking the first way, "gaining something every level" approach, your archetypes are going to be more akin to current ones, where you get 4 or 5 subclass defining abilities scattered around the levels. But the second way, your subclass would fill in the gaps every level.

Heck, compromise, and have the base class provide something every odd level and the subclass provides something else every even level. The design space is currently wide open! Go crazy - both provide something every level!

Really, the only drawback I see is that smashing multiple 5E class concepts in a single 6E base class means you wouldn't be able to multiclass a Paladin/Ranger, or something. And I guess that's bad? But maybe an archetype could be the Holy Ranger or the Natural Paladin. I think if multiclassing was tossed out, but basically any MC you would want to do could be replicated with an archetype? And maybe even have a "building archetypes" section in the DMG so if a player comes up with an idea that mashes two or more classes or subclasses together, you can work together to get just the right feel for what you want to accomplish and build your own based on the base premise and which class comes closest to fulfilling that need.

I don't entirely disagree, but it means that you're not going to get "class defining" mechanics (like Rage). I definitely agree that there's room to change.

[Hytheter]

But then you either have to drop a lot of pieces that the classes get or have overstuffed sub-classes. Because the class budget just doesn't stretch that far. A current sub-class gets 3-5 features, spread out over 20 levels. That's it. You can't replicate even most of a current base class (except fighters) with that. And you'd be getting most of your pieces very late.

Sure, that's the current system. What if going forward subclasses had a more substantial impact, with more levels devoted to them?

[GeneralVryth]

Sure, that's the current system. What if going forward subclasses had a more substantial impact, with more levels devoted to them?

I think a general trend of sub-classes having a larger impact would be a good thing. Sub-class features should probably come on 5 to 8 levels. Sorcerers and Fighters in particular really should have a lot more of their power coming from their sub-class than they do now.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, that's the current system. What if going forward subclasses had a more substantial impact, with more levels devoted to them?


I think a general trend of sub-classes having a larger impact would be a good thing. Sub-class features should probably come on 5 to 8 levels. Sorcerers and Fighters in particular really should have a lot more of their power coming from their sub-class than they do now.

That could work. It does feel a bit weird to me, because I tend to default to feeling like the sub-classes are modulations on a pretty heavy base, but there's value in adjusting that, now that I think about it more. Although I'm much less concerned about power (as long as it's not particularly out of whack) and more about thematic balance.

[Pex]

But then you either have to drop a lot of pieces that the classes get or have overstuffed sub-classes. Because the class budget just doesn't stretch that far. A current sub-class gets 3-5 features, spread out over 20 levels. That's it. You can't replicate even most of a current base class (except fighters) with that. And you'd be getting most of your pieces very late.

Honestly, I don't care about unique mechanics at all. Scratch that--I'm relatively opposed to unique mechanics. Because then you get bloat or uneven support. It's why I'm against adding new subsystems in non-core material--you don't get proper support for them going forward. I like having nice, predictable mechanics with single (or low numbers of) resource pools, where those resource pools are shared across multiple classes. Having lots of different sub-systems means you're learning a different rule-set per class, and increases the DM overhead combinatorially.

Personally, I want strong class fiction. Mechanical underpinnings can be similar, for all I care. But abilities should be thematic and set one archetype apart from others in theme, with most of the power and thematicity coming from the class features. It's why (soap box alert) I believe wizards are the hands-down worst designed class in 5e--"my spell list is my class feature" is crappy design on so many levels.

Edit: I guess I mainly want mechanics that get out of my way and let me engage with the fiction, using the mechanics to resolve the things that would be painful or to enable cool things. I don't want to play the rules, I want to play a character. I don't want a UI I have to learn in detail, I want the UI (the rules) to fade into the background and be absorbable at a glance even if that comes at a price for diversity of builds. I don't want the Blender or Photoshop of games.

That's the slippery slope of "sameyness" many people didn't like about 4E. Your idea doesn't have to lead to it, but it's a careful line not to cross. It does no good for two classes to do the same thing where the only significant difference is the label.


I'd say that if your warrior types are only saying "I attack", the likely cause is that they're looking at their character sheet as being buttons to press/focused on playing the rules instead of leaning into the fiction. Instead of a way to resolve uncertain actions. They can do anything; some things have more detailed mechanics to resolve uncertainty. But 90% of the time, the mechanics shouldn't come into play at all if they're taking actions that the fiction points out as the obvious ones. And in return, DMs shouldn't require uncertainty-resolution mechanics (ie dice rolls) for things that are in line with the fiction. Rules are a tool, nothing more.

Certainly they could do a better job of showing that mentality--5e is not perfect. But I've found that breaking the challenge treadmill and focusing everything at the fictional level (with, gasp, people taking actions based on their characterization rather than a game-level optimality calculation) goes a real long way.

In addition, I strongly prefer when individual combat turns are as quick as possible. Do one thing (and possibly move) and let the next person go. Turn optimization (ie taking forever to figure out what the "best" thing to do, which is partially inevitable as mechanics become more complex) is obnoxious. I've given up running full spellcasters as NPCs--I give them 3-4 things they can do. One big thing, one defensive tool, possibly one control tool, and one "if nothing else to do" (ie cantrip-like) action. That's it.

Game mechanics is part of the game. Pushing buttons is the point. Without them you're LARPing only sitting at the table. There can be game sessions now where everyone just talks and not a die is rolled. They are fun but for that one session. Players want to be doing stuff and that means using cool abilities playing with the game mechanics. Players want to play a game, not just narrate a story.

[Eldariel]

Easily fixed. When you ready an action, you get to take that action. The Fighter's or the Monk's Action to Attack includes both attacks. Not hard to fix. Don't need a new edition for that.

Still the bonus action and caster issues remain; Monk can't offhand, Fighter is can't PAM/Shield Master, etc. Casters still lose any spell they are concentrating on for readying even Booming Blade, and of course Reaction itself grows into a significant cost: Counterspell, Shield, Riposte, Brace, etc. are also lost. So I do not think this is enough, at any rate if Ready is to make up for missing on Delay like function.

[Morty]

I'd say that if your warrior types are only saying "I attack", the likely cause is that they're looking at their character sheet as being buttons to press/focused on playing the rules instead of leaning into the fiction. Instead of a way to resolve uncertain actions. They can do anything; some things have more detailed mechanics to resolve uncertainty. But 90% of the time, the mechanics shouldn't come into play at all if they're taking actions that the fiction points out as the obvious ones. And in return, DMs shouldn't require uncertainty-resolution mechanics (ie dice rolls) for things that are in line with the fiction. Rules are a tool, nothing more.

They can do anything, and nine times out of ten that'll be "I attack". Because this is the most efficient way of resolving combat available to them. Everything else has to be judged against depleting enemy HP and bringing the combat to a quicker end. If you want a game where players can improvise actions and be creative, maybe try one that doesn't have a) a rules-heavy combat based on HP attrition and disabling effects, b) an elaborate spellcasting system with a wide array of reliable spells c) little to no guidance or allowance for non-codified actions.


I think a general trend of sub-classes having a larger impact would be a good thing. Sub-class features should probably come on 5 to 8 levels. Sorcerers and Fighters in particular really should have a lot more of their power coming from their sub-class than they do now.

The problem with taking the fighter class and attaching subclasses to it is that if you want these subclasses to have an impact, you've essentially created several new classes with an extra step in front of them. The "fighter" chassis becomes questionably relevant. If you keep it relevant, you risk making those subclasses several shades of the same general beatstick with bits and bobs glued on, as is the case now.

Then again, I think the D&D fighter is a dead end of a class and nothing can be done with it. 4E came the closest to doing something worthwhile and even then some problems remained. Ironically, for all the claims of 4E's "sameyness", a fighter played much more differently from, say, a paladin, than they would in 5E.

[jaappleton]

Then again, I think the D&D fighter is a dead end of a class and nothing can be done with it. 4E came the closest to doing something worthwhile and even then some problems remained. Ironically, for all the claims of 4E's "sameyness", a fighter played much more differently from, say, a paladin, than they would in 5E.

I think you make an excellent point.

Fighter is the baseline, vanilla warrior. How do you make that better, more unique, more exciting

While at the same time not making it quasi-Barbarian, Paladin, Wizard, etc

How do you keep it vanilla without just…. Adding toppings?

SHOULD IT be kept vanilla? Or should it be made much more exciting?

Curious if, going forward, the Battlemaster is the more baseline Fighter and there’s things slapped on to the top of that?

I don’t have any sort of solution but I agree it’s most certainly an issue. Every single time I want to make any sort of weapon wielder, I stare at Fighter for a moment before saying, “….nope.” and moving on.

[CapnWildefyr]

Sometimes I have horrible nightmares. Nightmares of a brutal, primeval world where ancient cave-people, bent-backed from the weight of their burdens and bleached white from never seeing the sun, had to flip through thin carved pieces of wood. And there was not even an F button press! They had to squint in the dim light, for the wood provided no backlighting of its own!

Screams

(Heh, but really though, I still love my meatspace books)

Yeah. Oftentimes I find things faster in the paper, because I can scan 'nonsequentially' if that makes sense. PDFs/html are not always better.

Oh, and with books, you can play when the power's out.

But one thing: would it be too much to ask that they create a USABLE index? I've made indices before, there is an art to it, but they didn't hire an artist.

[stoutstien]

Yeah. Oftentimes I find things faster in the paper, because I can scan 'nonsequentially' if that makes sense. PDFs/html are not always better.

Oh, and with books, you can play when the power's out.

But one thing: would it be too much to ask that they create a USABLE index? I've made indices before, there is an art to it, but they didn't hire an artist.

A sizable portion of my complaints with this edition can boil down to formatting and indexing.

It has gotten better as the game has evolved and they put out more material but it's still frustratingly not intuitive. I literally bought an extra copy of the players handbook and butchered it and put it back together in a way that makes more sense. To be fair the copy I bought was already falling apart because it was part of the early runs that had really bad binding.

[Dienekes]

I think you make an excellent point.

Fighter is the baseline, vanilla warrior. How do you make that better, more unique, more exciting

While at the same time not making it quasi-Barbarian, Paladin, Wizard, etc

How do you keep it vanilla without just…. Adding toppings?

SHOULD IT be kept vanilla? Or should it be made much more exciting?

Curious if, going forward, the Battlemaster is the more baseline Fighter and there’s things slapped on to the top of that?

I don’t have any sort of solution but I agree it’s most certainly an issue. Every single time I want to make any sort of weapon wielder, I stare at Fighter for a moment before saying, “….nope.” and moving on.

Personally, I’d make the base Fighter more similar to the Battlemaster, or more hopefully the Warblade, then use the subclass system to make distinct subclasses for types of Warriors. Knights with a focus on tanking and courtly etiquette, Soldier for support abilities, Duelist for fencing weaponry and deception/fast talking, etc.

Make the subclasses incredibly flavorful with a focus on fighting style and out of combat utility. And I think Fighter could be a very good class.

[MrStabby]

I think you make an excellent point.

Fighter is the baseline, vanilla warrior. How do you make that better, more unique, more exciting

While at the same time not making it quasi-Barbarian, Paladin, Wizard, etc

How do you keep it vanilla without just…. Adding toppings?

SHOULD IT be kept vanilla? Or should it be made much more exciting?

Curious if, going forward, the Battlemaster is the more baseline Fighter and there’s things slapped on to the top of that?

I don’t have any sort of solution but I agree it’s most certainly an issue. Every single time I want to make any sort of weapon wielder, I stare at Fighter for a moment before saying, “….nope.” and moving on.

Yeah, fighter is bland.

They even went out of their way to make it more bland byt giving it abilities that are duplicates of others - extra attack, but the fighter gets it 3 times not once. ASIs, but insead of something new, fun and fighter specific they just get more of them. I mean they are fine as abilities and mechanically there is some fun to be had, but they are almost written to avoid flavour.

I think this is why I like rune knights so much - there is flavour in the subclass, in how it feels and how it plays. Samurai, battlemaster, champion seem devoid of flavour. Eldritch knight seems to just pick up wizard flavour rather than having its own. Arcane archer has a bit of flavour (for a handful of rounds each day) and the bannaret has a bit, but generally the fighter class is a bit sad.

[Xervous]

Personally, I’d make the base Fighter more similar to the Battlemaster, or more hopefully the Warblade, then use the subclass system to make distinct subclasses for types of Warriors. Knights with a focus on tanking and courtly etiquette, Soldier for support abilities, Duelist for fencing weaponry and deception/fast talking, etc.

Make the subclasses incredibly flavorful with a focus on fighting style and out of combat utility. And I think Fighter could be a very good class.

Could you detail, if even only in vague terms, what sort of progression your fighter design would have that gives it tools for conceptual relevance at higher levels? What noteworthy capabilities would it be picking up that separate a high level fighter from a low one?

[Morty]

I think you make an excellent point.

Fighter is the baseline, vanilla warrior. How do you make that better, more unique, more exciting

While at the same time not making it quasi-Barbarian, Paladin, Wizard, etc

How do you keep it vanilla without just…. Adding toppings?

SHOULD IT be kept vanilla? Or should it be made much more exciting?

Curious if, going forward, the Battlemaster is the more baseline Fighter and there’s things slapped on to the top of that?

I don’t have any sort of solution but I agree it’s most certainly an issue. Every single time I want to make any sort of weapon wielder, I stare at Fighter for a moment before saying, “….nope.” and moving on.


Personally, I’d make the base Fighter more similar to the Battlemaster, or more hopefully the Warblade, then use the subclass system to make distinct subclasses for types of Warriors. Knights with a focus on tanking and courtly etiquette, Soldier for support abilities, Duelist for fencing weaponry and deception/fast talking, etc.

Make the subclasses incredibly flavorful with a focus on fighting style and out of combat utility. And I think Fighter could be a very good class.

The core paradox of the D&D fighter is that it's a generic class surrounded by classes that are anything but. D&D uses a uniquely constraining and defining class lineup. But in a system that also has warlocks, barbarians and druids, the fighter says "there's nothing unique or special about you". A fighter is a person with a weapon. In an action-oriented, magic-heavy heroic fantasy system, this tells us approximately nothing that's not defined by its mechanics (which are also designed to be as bland as possible).

4E made it better by giving them a clear-cut job. They were a martial defender. And very good at being one, to boot. But their severe lack of non-combat applications remained a problem.

[jaappleton]

Yeah, fighter is bland.

They even went out of their way to make it more bland byt giving it abilities that are duplicates of others - extra attack, but the fighter gets it 3 times not once. ASIs, but insead of something new, fun and fighter specific they just get more of them. I mean they are fine as abilities and mechanically there is some fun to be had, but they are almost written to avoid flavour.

I think this is why I like rune knights so much - there is flavour in the subclass, in how it feels and how it plays. Samurai, battlemaster, champion seem devoid of flavour. Eldritch knight seems to just pick up wizard flavour rather than having its own. Arcane archer has a bit of flavour (for a handful of rounds each day) and the bannaret has a bit, but generally the fighter class is a bit sad.

I once made a topic here, asking people to sell me on Fighter.

And what I came away with was this:

1. People are very passionate about Fighter
2. Many think it can be improved
3. Fairly tough to pick Fighter in a game without Feats
4. In a game WITH Feats, consider Feats to be customizable subclass features

Number 4 was my biggest takeaway. Normally I look at a feature from, say, Swashbuckler. Alright, they get a bonus to Initiative? That's pretty cool. I like that feature. But I was looking at Fighter and thinking "Oh... ANOTHER Feat, what the heck can I put here?" when I should have been thinking "I could go with Alert, I could take Lucky, etc"

[MrStabby]

I once made a topic here, asking people to sell me on Fighter.

And what I came away with was this:

1. People are very passionate about Fighter
2. Many think it can be improved
3. Fairly tough to pick Fighter in a game without Feats
4. In a game WITH Feats, consider Feats to be customizable subclass features

Number 4 was my biggest takeaway. Normally I look at a feature from, say, Swashbuckler. Alright, they get a bonus to Initiative? That's pretty cool. I like that feature. But I was looking at Fighter and thinking "Oh... ANOTHER Feat, what the heck can I put here?" when I should have been thinking "I could go with Alert, I could take Lucky, etc"

My issue isn't that feats are mechanically bad... but they are nothing a different class couldn't get. They don't sell me on the fighter really; the fighter can be mechanically beter than another class due to more feats but they don't add flavour - that thing that seperates them from other characters.

[KorvinStarmast]

"I want characters with strong fictional backing." Personally (and I know this is unpopular), I prefer the second. I find that more appealing as well, but that's a matter of taste.
Clerics and Druids also behave the same way for spellcasting. Druids began as a sub class of cleric. Going back to that baseline would not harm the class.

Monks are fairly unique -
Yes: I'd like them to stay unique. Them being, originally, a sub class of cleric (OD&D Supplement 2, Blackmoor) is no longer a good framework.

Fighter is also stand alone, though I'd rather see Barbarian get rolled up,
Yep.

Warlock is certainly unique -
Yes, and I'd like them to stay that way.

I guess I mainly want mechanics that get out of my way and let me engage with the fiction, using the mechanics to resolve the things that would be painful or to enable cool things. Writing rules that elegant, and 'rules light' is actually quite difficult as many RPG authors have found. :smallcool:

I know for my part, looking at the Bard class I don’t see how any of the mechanics fit the concept of a guy that plays music. That's not what the D&D bard is. D&D bard is a fusion of three distinct archetypes: the Norse Skald; the Renaissance troubador/minstrel, and the druidic lore master of old Celtic myth and legend. Not just a guy or gal playing music.
From Doug Schwegmann's original Strat Review article, Feb 1976:
I believe it is a logical addition to the D & D scene and the one I have composed is a hodgepodge of at least three different kinds, the norse ‘skald’, the celtic ‘bard’, and the southern european ‘minstrel’. The skalds were often old warriors who were a kind of self appointed historian whose duty was to record the
ancient battles, blood feuds, and deeds of exceptional prowess by setting them to verse much like the ancient Greek poets did...The Celts, especially in Britain, had a much more organized structure in which the post of Barbs as official historians fell somewhere between the Gwelfili or public recorders and the Druids who were the judges as well as spiritual leaders. In the Celtic system Bards were trained by the Druids for a period of almost twenty years before they assumed their duties, among which was to follow the heroes into battle to provide an accurate account of their deeds, as well as to act as trusted lntermediaries to settle hostilities among opposing tribes. By far the most common conception of a Bard is as a minstrel who entertained to courts of princes and kings in France, Italy and parts of Germany in the latter middle ages. Such a character was not as trust worthy as the Celtic or Nordic Bards and could be compared to a combination Thief-Illusionist. These characters were called Jongleurs by the French, from which the corrupt term juggler and court jester are remembered today . . .

I wanted to put the Bard into perspective so that his multitudinous abilities in Dungeons and Drageons can be explained. I have fashioned the character more after the Celtic and Norse types than anything else, thus he is a character who resembles a fighter more than anything else, but who knows something about
the mysterious forces of magic and is well adept with his hands, etc. A Bard is a jack-of-all-trades in Dungeons and Dragons, he is both an amateur thief and magic user as well as a good fighter. He is supposedly able to extract himself from delicate situations through the use of diplomacy, but since this does not always work he is given the innate ability to charm creatures.
If you look at how 5e's various archetypes are built, particularly Lore, Valor, Whispers, and Glamour, that same framework fits. (College of Creation is, IMO, a load of rubbish and looks a lot more like a sorcerer to me, conceptually)


Then there’s Sorcerers who are supposed to have barely contained magic bursting out of them. And they’re saddled with the same spells a Wizard has to learn, done for the most part the exact same way. With the same strangely ritualistic method of preparing the spells and using arcane focuses, and material components. And I don’t think any of that fits for the narrative the Sorcerer is trying to convey. If they had gotten Wild Magic sorcerer right, it sure would have been nice.

It’d be amazing if a Paladin’s adherence to their Oath tied directly to their powers, for example. That’d be hard to do, but awesome if you get it right. It is also rife with the risk of Gotcha DMing... but I agree, if they could get that right it would enrich an already good class.

[Dienekes]

Could you detail, if even only in vague terms, what sort of progression your fighter design would have that gives it tools for conceptual relevance at higher levels? What noteworthy capabilities would it be picking up that separate a high level fighter from a low one?

Yeah sure.

Personally, I can see high level Fighters getting maneuvers that do area effects with their weapons that impose some kind of large status effect. Possibly some insta-kills that require a minor hoop to work. Attacks that remove buffs on their target, or cut through force effects. Permanent disfigurement like cutting off hands and legs that prevent actions the enemy can perform semi-permanently (at least until they get a Regeneration cast their way or something).

Non-maneuvers would have some things like being incredibly athletic to the point they can leap over chasms, and up mountains. Subclasses would get abilities to fit their archetype a bit. Knights can have their growing renown that gives them a passive charm-like effect to those they interact with. Tacticians may be able to rearrange a battlefield. Gladiators can get people to start rooting for them perhaps even to the point of changing sides.

That’s all just spitballing really.

Now, I’ll admit, I’m also kinda of the opinion that a lot (but not necessarily all) of the powerful near game breaking 8th and 9th level spells should be relegated to weird ritual things that require a whole lot of set up to cast. Perhaps even a group of Mages working together. But that’s just me.




That's not what the D&D bard is. D&D bard is a fusion of three distinct archetypes: the Norse Skald; the Renaissance troubador/minstrel, and the druidic lore master of old Celtic myth and legend. Not just a guy or gal playing music.
From Doug Schwegmann's original Strat Review article, Feb 1976:
I believe it is a logical addition to the D & D scene and the one I have composed is a hodgepodge of at least three different kinds, the norse ‘skald’, the celtic ‘bard’, and the southern european ‘minstrel’. The skalds were often old warriors who were a kind of self appointed historian whose duty was to record the
ancient battles, blood feuds, and deeds of exceptional prowess by setting them to verse much like the ancient Greek poets did...The Celts, especially in Britain, had a much more organized structure in which the post of Barbs as official historians fell somewhere between the Gwelfili or public recorders and the Druids who were the judges as well as spiritual leaders. In the Celtic system Bards were trained by the Druids for a period of almost twenty years before they assumed their duties, among which was to follow the heroes into battle to provide an accurate account of their deeds, as well as to act as trusted lntermediaries to settle hostilities among opposing tribes. By far the most common conception of a Bard is as a minstrel who entertained to courts of princes and kings in France, Italy and parts of Germany in the latter middle ages. Such a character was not as trust worthy as the Celtic or Nordic Bards and could be compared to a combination Thief-Illusionist. These characters were called Jongleurs by the French, from which the corrupt term juggler and court jester are remembered today . . .

I wanted to put the Bard into perspective so that his multitudinous abilities in Dungeons and Drageons can be explained. I have fashioned the character more after the Celtic and Norse types than anything else, thus he is a character who resembles a fighter more than anything else, but who knows something about
the mysterious forces of magic and is well adept with his hands, etc. A Bard is a jack-of-all-trades in Dungeons and Dragons, he is both an amateur thief and magic user as well as a good fighter. He is supposedly able to extract himself from delicate situations through the use of diplomacy, but since this does not always work he is given the innate ability to charm creatures.
If you look at how 5e's various archetypes are built, particularly Lore, Valor, Whispers, and Glamour, that same framework fits. (College of Creation is, IMO, a load of rubbish and looks a lot more like a sorcerer to me, conceptually)


Sure, but even with that accurately telling tales of history and Celtic Druidism’s key role in surviving myths has little at all to do with charming people. They were prophets with occasionally a touch of animal transformation/nature magic of calling upon storms and fires.

The subclasses might be named as such to draw inspiration from those legends but I still don’t see minstrel and skald looking at the mechanics. Especially when one of skalds key roles in actual history was just a court advisor with a poetic bent. And troubadours were just traveling performers until they landed a job at a court or such. Again, performance was what they did. And I don’t see any performance in the 5e Bard.

[KorvinStarmast]

And I don’t see any performance in the 5e Bard. Really?
Take the Entertainer Background, and the take expertise in that skill, and Bob's your uncle.
With any bard. :smallsmile: Things like Countercharm mechanize that for combat. Glamour Bard does a few things with performance with one of their class features.

But with all of my nit picks, I do agree in at least one regard: they seem to have a lot of overlap with sorcerer.
(Have seen any number of recommendations that bard ought to be a half caster the way that paladin and ranger are, and while it would take a class rebuild from the bottom up, I like that idea)

...I’m also kinda of the opinion that a lot (but not necessarily all) of the powerful near game breaking 8th and 9th level spells should be relegated to weird ritual things that require a whole lot of set up to cast. Perhaps even a group of Mages working together. But that’s just me.
And me.