What would you most like to see in 6e?

[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.