New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 786
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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...
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    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.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    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.
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    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.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Delawhere?

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ettina View Post
    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.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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?

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    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.
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by quindraco View Post
    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.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Morty; 2021-06-21 at 10:52 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2020

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    No. See above. I want to see all feats available to all PCs. Also, get rid of racial feats.
    I do not understand why not having to give up an ASI to get a Feat would make those Feats unavailable for all PCs.

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    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").

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Please, no. You don't need a mechanic for that.
    I feel I do, even if it's just an optional rule.
    Last edited by Bunny Commando; 2021-06-21 at 11:22 AM.
    "Rabbit has Brain. That's why he never understands anything."

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Telwar View Post
    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.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Telwar View Post
    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.
    Last edited by quindraco; 2021-06-21 at 01:07 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Apr 2020

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2013

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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?

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Apr 2020

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    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.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Dienekes; 2021-06-21 at 06:36 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    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.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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...-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.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Dienekes; 2021-06-21 at 06:54 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Mostly I want them to hold off longer. I dont think their splats have wrecked 5e just yet.
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    - 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).
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    - 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. :)
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by quindraco View Post
    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.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    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?

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    - 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •