So, there have been an ongoing thread discussing the one thing we would change in 5e, but that discussion very quickly broke the "one thing" rule (I'll admit that I am of the guilty party) and was derailed into multiple tangents and discussing what the game could be like next edition. I have decided to create this thread to discuss all and any of the changes and features to D&D that you would like to see in D&D 5.5e/6e. I will comment later in the thread with what I would like to see changed, and I have already made a few different posts on this topic on the other thread already, so I will leave it up to other members of the D&D Beyond forum community for now to generate ideas. 

Let's discuss and see where this discussion will take us. 

I mentioned this in the Sorcerer section of the forums but I would like the Sorcerer to be reworked, possibly going back to how they functioned in 4e as a tougher, close ranged nova blasters/bursters compared to the Wizards methods of utility, control and versatility. 

Also, if not increasing the spells they can learn, then at least give them sub-class specific spells added to their prepared list to give them more options. I don't have a problem with Wizards getting more prepared spell or that they can switch their spells out every long rest while a Sorcerer can't as they are not learned casters, there magic and spells comes from within. But 15 spells at level 20 is just too few. Their spell list should also be expanded. Sorcerers can be magically touched from just about anything from dragons and eldritch horrors to gods and fiends and everything in-between. At least let their spell lists expand in different ways depending on sub-class. 

Quote from Lyxen >>

Is it OK to say that I don't want a 6e ? 5e is not perfect, but it's by far the best that we've seen so far so I'm not eager to let it go...

 I agree with this and if they do release 6e they should probably playtest it to see if people enjoy it more than they enjoyed 5e and if the majority doesn't like 6e they can just go back to 5e.

Yeah, what I want in a 6e is a publishing date of, I dunno, 2028 or so?

It'll never happen, because it's all about marketing, but I would very much like to see them peel out each and every setting reference (other than to maybe give examples) from the Big Three books (PHB, DMG, and MM). I don't mind them doing something with the planes in an abstract way, but I don't like that peppered throughout the PHB in particular, are references to things from the Forgotten Realms primarily. Even things like "how magic works" are wrapped up in it. They name their gods (but I may not want to use their gods) and their settings' history, and if I don't want to use that I now have to rip it out. 

I shouldn't have to rip setting material out of the rules. The rules should stand on their own, separate and distinct from their settings. Yes, I say this because I don't actually like most of their settings (and especially, oh so especially FR). But whether I like them is irrelevant. The rules should be one thing, and the setting should be something else. 

I know they do this as a marketing ploy to get people to equate D&D with their main setting (FR) to sell more setting and adventure books. (They'll say it "makes things easier" for players but I'm sure it's entirely about sales.) So I know they won't ever stop including it. But if they have to, I wish they would put it at the back of the book like Champions did in 4th edition -- Rules in the first section of the book, and then campaign setting info entirely separate, in the back (which I could, and generally did, ignore). They could leave the setting stuff in there at the back of each chapter as an example of "how to do it" but keep it out of the text of the rules. So they could just say in the DMG that the DM should come up with a "magic system" of how the magic of the world works, where magic comes from, etc. And then at the back of the chapter have a section describing how magic works in FR if you want to use it. Many DMs would just use it, but for those of us who don't... we wouldn't have to even pay attention to it.

I would want a complete overhaul of the martial combat system, and how hit points work. I'll explain the HP change first. Instead of like current 5e, where you can get hundreds of HP, in my proposed changes Hp would be much more valuable. A fully leveled character would have around fifty on average. A much greater focus would be put on avoiding damage, unless you are a barbarian. A greater system of dodging, blocking, and parrying would be put into place. This would make combat more tactical, allowing you to choose between defending yourself or lunging for a kill. Damage can also cause wounds as you are hit, such as a broken arm or bruised ribs. 

Combat would also be expanded upon. You would get three actions on your turn, and there would be a much greater variety of actions you can take. Movement would consume actions, so you can't always be moving around. There would also be different types of attacks. A basic attack simply rolls against armour class. More advanced attacks might give your target a penalty to hit you if it hit them, or not even be an attack and be some sort of block or parry. Specific weapons might even get special attacks. For example, a cleaving attack with a glaive or greatsword that hits multiple targets. Certain weapons would also be more effective against different armours. 

Finally, spellcasting would be altered. It would still use the vancian system for arcane casters like Wizards, Warlocks, Bards, Eldritch Knights ect. but divine casters would use a different system, and primal and psionics would use yet another. Divine casting would be based around rare but very powerful miracles, that can restore someone to full health or smite an enemy. Sorcerers would use the arcane spell lists and actual spells, but would use points instead of slots.  Psions would do something different, and so would artificers, druids and rangers.

The three action system allows for more balancing of spells. Most combat cantrips could know cost two to three actions, making you sacrifice your move or defense in favour of casting powerful magics. 

God no, leave it alone.

There again if they do come out with a new edition I've got the rules for 4e and 5e so I can just keep on playing them and not have to worry about how good/bad 6e is until I get the chance to play it.

I'm honestly really wanting a 6e. Either that or more classes for 5e such as warlord, swordmage, and psion. However as the 5e design direction is clear and that includes no more classes, 6e is what I'm rooting for.

5e had some great ideas which really do need keeping if there is a new edition, but many of my issues with the system as a whole are fundamental, and not really solvable with just flex tape and throwing out new subclasses. The class/character creation system is at the heart of this, and imo 5e has pretty downright awful character customisations compared to prior editions and pathfinder.

- Ok first for the things I like, and the reasons I still play 5e (apart from all my friends play it).

The simplification of the core rules compared to other editions has generally been done extremely well, making the entire game run incredibly smoothly while still maintaining a good amount of depth. Bounded accuracy and a standardised proficiency bonus keeps the world consistent and easy to remember, while the advantage/disadvantage system replacing the need to remember the god knows how many floating modifiers means you can actually go and focus on the game, rather than feeling like you're taking a maths exam once you reach high level. Things like removing volume and just reducing objects to weight makes inventory management less of a spreadsheet sim so you can just get on with playing.

The only change I'd make here is adding in pathfinder 2e's three action system, which turns the move action, bonus action, and action action into just three actions to split up however you want. This both makes things a lot more simple and easy to remember, while actually adding more depth as you can let certain abilities chain actions together for a greater end result.

- For ability scores I'd either let con govern some skills, or remove it altogether. In 5e it's just a point tax which everyone needs to just throw some points in and forget about. Just tying HP to the hit die, cutting con, and lowing the starting ASI to compensate would just be more logical at this point.

- Character creation.... Ok rant incoming, ere we go. This part is my problem with 5e. I'll get onto the species part later, for now I'm jumping straight to classes.

The choice to cut down on classes and switch the focus to subclasses seems logical at first glance, as it seemed like it would reduce the massive class bloat which plagued prior editions. Instead we've just ended up with subclass bloat. Heaps upon heaps of new subclasses, but that content doesn't actually add what's missing so we've ended up with both content bloat and lack of content at the same time.

Subclasses have been set up in such a minor way that they really fail to change the base class at all. A champion, battlemaster, or EK is always still a fighter, and an oath of devotion or oath of the ancients is still a paladin. As the main class provides 80% of the power and theme, the subclasses are limited with what they can do or else the end result will be overpowered. Swordmage got foldered under eldritch knight, and warlord got foldered under battlemaster. However as these subclasses are tied to 4 attacks, action surge, and a ton of ASI's, the features which made those stand alone classes are watered down and lost. As a result despite having a 'gish subclass' for pretty much every class at this point, all of them fail to live up to the original class.

I don't think the entire subclass thing is a lost cause, but imo it should be done differently for 6e.

• A single 'base class' for each class. A fighter or any other class is a class on its own, and doesn't even need a subclass. You can play it without being anything more than a fighter. It has a full suite of level 1-20 features.
• Each subclass then replaces certain abilities for the base class. A minor subclass might only replace 2 or 3 class features, while a major subclass could replace almost all of the class features. An Eldritch Knight subclass to fighter would be identical to how it is now, while a swordmage subclass of fighter would replace two attacks, action surge, and some of the ASI's in order to be a half caster with its own spell list and spellstrike.
• This allows there to still be the same number of classes and subclasses to what we have now (or even less), but they can be done in a much more complete and satisfying manner then 5e allows.

- Ok on to species or 'races'

I'm personally in the camp which wants each species to have one fixed and one floating ASI (which can't be put in the fixed one). This forms a nice compromise between mechanical differences and flexibility, so that orc wizard can still put a point in Int. However I think I'm going against the current here.

For racial features, I'd like to see them split into species traits and cultural traits, which Tasha's seems to be doing. A elf brought up among dragonborn has no reason to inexplicably know elvish, and would speak draconic instead. However their trance feature would not be swapped for the dragonborn's breath feature.

Certain species I'd like to see turned into archtypes like in pathfinder. Aasimar, tieflings and genasi could be of any species, and would be an additional template placed on the species after it was picked (maybe in exchange for not getting ASI's).

There are tons of smaller changes I'd talk about, but they're more class balance issues rather than anything innate to any one version of DnD.

I also would prefer a system where all of your proficiencies are granted by background. Maybe even Asi's as well, with just species traits like darkvision from species. 

Quote from Kotath >>

A proficient level 1 PC is not merely a better craftsman than a non-leveled NPC, but better than an unlevelled NPC who has been working their craft their entire life, actually working at perfecting their skill rather than going out and 'doing great deeds,' which are indeed great deeds, but have nothing whatsoever to do with their craft.

 

 Just want to point out here that an NPC's crafting proficiency can be whatever you want it to be. There's nothing stopping you from giving that NPC a proficiency bonus of +5 or +20.

I see editions as more of a framework that you can work within. A lot of those "I wish they'd change X" posts baffle me because you can totally change X right now, at least at your own table.

Quote from Lyxen >>

Is it OK to say that I don't want a 6e ? 5e is not perfect, but it's by far the best that we've seen so far so I'm not eager to let it go...

I don't want a 6e soon at all. I love 5e and don't want to make a new edition until this one gets too bloated and less popular (it's bound to happen eventually) and it's clear that a new edition is needed. The same thing happens with TV shows. No matter how much you love it, an end to it is inevitable. This thread is merely to discuss changes that could/should happen in an edition that at this point is nowhere in sight. 

Hmm...one thing I would like to see...more adherence to each setting's flavor/lore/history, etc. I love FR, but they've messed with it a lot since making it the "default" setting. I would like to see more products for each specific setting (and while i myself am not familiar with them, I know many are clamoring for more Eberron and Dark Sun). WotC recently announced it would be releasing stuff for "3 classic settings". From a mechanics' standpoint, I can understand them perhaps making things setting-neutral, but I would love to see more products dedicated to specific settings. This includes FR, for even though it is the "default" setting, they have messed with it a lot (granted, this wouldn't be the first time), but my hope would be that with more dedication to each specific setting, things would feel more authentic. 

A 6e player's handbook with everything from 5e! Oh my goshness that would be awesome. Maybe they could add more sub-classes too, that would be cool...

Frequent updates to content (Every few months or so)

(Actually, this would only work on a digital phb.)

Having played Pendragon and own 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition rules, I'd like to see the optional rules for aging.  Pendgragon (by Gregg Stafford) is historically based.  Age played a factor into the game. Pendgraon starts around 480 A.D. and ends around 560 A.D.  About 80 years game time is all there is to play.  Each session is supposed to take a year, possibly half a year based on time.

I know D&D is built completely different.  Everything is stand alone so as many different adventures can be run and characters created because it all happens simultaneously.  That is why I say optional rule.  If someone wants to play the adventures and campaigns as if they happen in a chronological order, grandpa could be Horde of the Dragon Queen while grandkids are Storm Giants and great-grands can be Waterdeep.  It would add an option for creating a history in their world (hey, remember when grandpa or grandma beat Tiamet? - Sure do, I have [insert item here] that was passed down to me.)

There are several other things about Pendragon I liked - opposed roles in combat and how skills over 20 lowered what a critical hit was (have a 23 in sword means 17-20 was a critical hit).  I don't see how that'd work in D&D.  I could see the optional "If you'd like to create a long adventure and create a family tree, DMs can do this."

I don't want anything from a 6th edition, because I don't want a 6th edition. Simple as that. I don't want to buy all new books and learn new systems. This one works fine. If there's something you don't like in 5e you can change it. Homebrew. Table rules. Want new subclasses - do it! Want to alter racial traits - do it! Want new monsters - do it! We can already do all that and more in 5e, so why would we need a 6e ? No system will ever be perfect to everyone because there are millions of players who want millions of different things. If a 6e came out tomorrow and had everything you wanted, a whole slew of other people would complain and call it a step backwards. Let's just enjoy what we have, change what you want to change for your own game, and have some fun. 

What I want most is the removal of arbitrary restrictions like the level cap, inability to multiclass into the same class and subclass, and unable to stack multiples of the same effects (stacking Defense fighting style, Spell Sniper Feat, Temp HP, etc.).

Having a more modular set of rules would be nice, and I want Wizards to de-emphasis the focus on one core set of rules. I want Wizards to give optional game rules more attention and weight. For example, Beyond does not support levels higher than 20, and Wizards does not seem to care about providing more guidance on optional rules. On the other hand of an example that I do like, Wizards treats all 3 ways of generating ability scores relatively equally.

I want the Illusionist class brought back (a pox on Zeb Cook for obliterating the class back in 2E!) instead of the uninspiring "School of Illusion" option for Wizards.

Swordmage is the class I want brought back the most for a new edition. :(

Quote from Lyxen >>

But why do you need a new edition just to bring back a class ?

 Because 5e has made its design very clear and new classes are not part of that. At the very most there will be a psion as Dark Sun requires it, but I don't think we're even getting that. 5e's entire design is built around never adding classes.

Also a ton of other issues which I covered in my rant last page.