In the next edition I surely need an accurate description of the weapon's metal,( I mean, in example, if an iron sword and a brass sword have the same Hit die & damage rolls ) and also types of shields ( its weight, dimensions and the type of cover they offer to the wearer= LOW/HALF/THIRD QUARTERS/FULL ). BECAUSE IT SEEMS ALL THE SHIELDS JUST WEIGHTENS 6 LBS . Really ??
In the next edition I surely need to see Wizards shouldn't be started with proficiency on Light crossbows and dice sets. ( Just tell me why do they need dices for ?? )
In the next edition I wouid see some kind of witches class, playable Syrenids race, and if possible, more of Formless mobs.
In the next edition I would like to see if there's a Magic school based in Neutral/Non-magical damage.
What Jenkens is saying, Kotath, is that if a 6e comes out, support for 5e will stop. No new books, no new subclasses, no new whatevers. 5e will become a dead game, unchanging and eternal. This would strike many as being exactly what many of the people arguing hardest against a Sixth Edition would desire - a perfectly stable game in which they are never again obligated to allow some new piece of content they don't like onto their table, or have to tell players that the latest D&D book is banned forever. The release of Sixth Edition would fossilize and finalize Fifth Edition, and those who detest anything new that happens in the game would gain their desire.
In the next edition I surely need an accurate description of the weapon's metal,( I mean, in example, if an iron sword and a brass sword have the same Hit die & damage rolls ) and also types of shields ( its weight, dimensions and the type of cover they offer to the wearer = LOW/HALF/THIRD QUARTERS/FULL ). BECAUSE IT SEEMS ALL THE SHIELDS JUST WEIGHTENS 6 LBS . Really ??
In the next edition I surely need to see Wizards shouldn't be started with proficiency on Light crossbows and dice sets. ( Just tell me why do they need dices for ?? )
In the next edition I wouid see some kind of witches class, playable Syrenids race, and if possible, more of Formless mobs.
In the next edition I would like to see if there's a Magic school based in Neutral/Non-magical damage.
Rules for each metal could be interesting, but might end up slowing the game down. Maybe four different choices, with various properties? Different shields would be very nice as well. Oozes are cool as well, and I hope we could get more of those.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
This doesn't really require a new addition, but I'd like to see more of a focus on exploration and social encounters. TCoE promises to do some of the former, but for players who struggle with social roleplaying (which is totally understandable), social encounters are like a pop quiz. I'd like to see more structured rules for social encounters, such as expanding on the "attitude" mechanic hidden in the DMG and never expanded on. This would help give more power to the ranger, which should be an exploration-focused class. If social encounters were a greater focus, I could imagine an entire class being designed to specialize more so than the bard. Consider that the Star Wars RPGs always had some form of noble class.
I considered using rules from some of PF1's Ultimate Intrigue, that give a combat-like structure to tense social interactions.
What Jenkens is saying, Kotath, is that if a 6e comes out, support for 5e will stop. No new books, no new subclasses, no new whatevers. 5e will become a dead game, unchanging and eternal. This would strike many as being exactly what many of the people arguing hardest against a Sixth Edition would desire - a perfectly stable game in which they are never again obligated to allow some new piece of content they don't like onto their table, or have to tell players that the latest D&D book is banned forever. The release of Sixth Edition would fossilize and finalize Fifth Edition, and those who detest anything new that happens in the game would gain their desire.
With ever fewer new players. You conveniently ignore all other aspects that come with release of a new edition.
If 5e is so much better than this next edition, wouldn't the new players just play 5e?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
5 pages in and we already have a discussion whether or not 6e is needed or not and whether or not 5e needs new classes or not. We even had BigLizard drop in with mandatory info on how the previous edition handled it better.
There is a lingering sense of deja vu here - the resilience to debate the same thing over and over again in reskinned threads is mostly impressive, I applaud the endurance :D
People will leave 5e if it becomes stagnant as well. 5e either has to continue to grow and keep up with the demand for new content or it will eventually bleed players and therefore money.
6e will come whether you like it or not and this thread is about what people would like to see when it does.
5 pages in and we already have a discussion whether or not 6e is needed or not and whether or not 5e needs new classes or not. We even had BigLizard drop in with mandatory info on how the previous edition handled it better.
There is a lingering sense of deja vu here - the resilience to debate the same thing over and over again in reskinned threads is mostly impressive, I applaud the endurance :D
Never underestimate the human being's capability to argue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
It's not just asking for new classes for 6e. That alone can be done for 5e (it won't be).
What I want to see is a complete overhaul in how subclasses/classes are done. Rather than having to pick a subclass, you can just pick 'fighter' or 'rogue' if you want for a 100% straightforward progression 1-20 and class features for each level. Absolutely no subclass needed at all to have a fully functional character at all.
Subclass then become an additional thing you can choose to use or not. An 'eldritch knight' subclass might just replace the 3rd, 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th features of the 'fighter' class, identical to how it is now. A 'champion' subclass might replace just the 3rd and 10th features of the 'fighter' class. A 'warlord' subclass might replace the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 20th features of the 'fighter' class.
5e's mistake is making the assumption that all subclasses are 100% equal with what they have to offer, when they're not.
Doing it this way doesn't complicate things any more, satisfies those wanting more customisation, and also gives people who don't like the 100s of subclasses a way to just use base classes without subclasses at all.
It's not just asking for new classes for 6e. That alone can be done for 5e (it won't be).
What I want to see is a complete overhaul in how subclasses/classes are done. Rather than having to pick a subclass, you can just pick 'fighter' or 'rogue' if you want for a 100% straightforward progression 1-20 and class features for each level. Absolutely no subclass needed at all to have a fully functional character at all.
Subclass then become an additional thing you can choose to use or not. An 'eldritch knight' subclass might just replace the 3rd, 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th features of the 'fighter' class, identical to how it is now. A 'champion' subclass might replace just the 3rd and 10th features of the 'fighter' class. A 'warlord' subclass might replace the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 20th features of the 'fighter' class.
5e's mistake is making the assumption that all subclasses are 100% equal with what they have to offer, when they're not.
I do not see that as an assumption so much as a goal. And balancing being out does not mean that if there were no subclasses the game would be perfectly balanced.
It's a flawed goal then, as it's simply a fact that not every subclass concept has a 100% equal amount of thematic and mechanical potential to offer.
Also 13 classes is a lot easier to balance than hundreds of subclasses, so surely the system I proposed is a bonus for both the less and more content people?
I'm not quite sure what you want from 5e/6e? Is 5e 100% perfect in every single way in your eyes, with not a flaw in any way at all? What do you want to see from 5e going forward if you don't want more classes/subclasses/variants, or anything at all? But also don't want 6e either?
Like sure I can pick a paladin and try to play it with whatever personality I want, but the game mechanics literally hold you to having an oath which directly limits what how you are able to build on the RP side. Not only that but many DM's still enforce paladins must follow a god and be lawful good, which even further limits what you can do with them. If I make a reddit thread asking 'can I be a chaotic neutral atheist paladin without an oath for rp purposes' the answer will be overwhelmingly 'nope'. Classes don't just have a mechanics impact. They directly force you to RP in a certain way.
That is the wrong question. You don't ask whether you can make chaotic neutral atheist paladin without an oath because that is not what a paladin is.
What you actually want to ask is "can I use the paladin chassis as a basis for a reflavored custom character class?" Once the name "paladin" which has certain connotations is striped and renamed as something else, people will be far more forgiving.
I mean - I am pretty strict when it comes to lore at my table. If you come to me and say that you want to play a paladin "but..." then I will say no. But if you ask whether you can take paladin class as a template, rename it as something else and remove the oath RP aspect then sure, why not. You will not be a paladin in my setting, no problem.
Godless paladins and clerics are something I have never really understood. I mean, sure, from an RP standpoint, it might be interesting, but what I have often seen is people wanting the "perks" of being a cleric or paladin, but don't like the gods, so they don't want to be "beholden" to them. A fallen paladin could be interesting for story purposes, but like you said, being a paladin, but not *really* being a paladin, has never made a lot of sense to me, though I can somewhat understand it from a purely RP perspective, but overall, paladins and clerics are as they are for a reason, imho.
Like sure I can pick a paladin and try to play it with whatever personality I want, but the game mechanics literally hold you to having an oath which directly limits what how you are able to build on the RP side. Not only that but many DM's still enforce paladins must follow a god and be lawful good, which even further limits what you can do with them. If I make a reddit thread asking 'can I be a chaotic neutral atheist paladin without an oath for rp purposes' the answer will be overwhelmingly 'nope'. Classes don't just have a mechanics impact. They directly force you to RP in a certain way.
That is the wrong question. You don't ask whether you can make chaotic neutral atheist paladin without an oath because that is not what a paladin is.
What you actually want to ask is "can I use the paladin chassis as a basis for a reflavored custom character class?" Once the name "paladin" which has certain connotations is striped and renamed as something else, people will be far more forgiving.
I mean - I am pretty strict when it comes to lore at my table. If you come to me and say that you want to play a paladin "but..." then I will say no. But if you ask whether you can take paladin class as a template, rename it as something else and remove the oath RP aspect then sure, why not. You will not be a paladin in my setting, no problem.
Godless paladins and clerics are something I have never really understood. I mean, sure, from an RP standpoint, it might be interesting, but what I have often seen is people wanting the "perks" of being a cleric or paladin, but don't like the gods, so they don't want to be "beholden" to them. A fallen paladin could be interesting for story purposes, but like you said, being a paladin, but not *really* being a paladin, has never made a lot of sense to me, though I can somewhat understand it from a purely RP perspective, but overall, paladins and clerics are as they are for a reason, imho.
Sorry, a bit off-topic, but it caught my eye.
Some people want a godless paladin as they want to play a swordmage, which was removed this edition and the spellstrike type mechanics moved onto the paladins. Therefore the closest people can get to playing a magus/swordmage is a godless athiest paladin.
Like sure I can pick a paladin and try to play it with whatever personality I want, but the game mechanics literally hold you to having an oath which directly limits what how you are able to build on the RP side. Not only that but many DM's still enforce paladins must follow a god and be lawful good, which even further limits what you can do with them. If I make a reddit thread asking 'can I be a chaotic neutral atheist paladin without an oath for rp purposes' the answer will be overwhelmingly 'nope'. Classes don't just have a mechanics impact. They directly force you to RP in a certain way.
That is the wrong question. You don't ask whether you can make chaotic neutral atheist paladin without an oath because that is not what a paladin is.
What you actually want to ask is "can I use the paladin chassis as a basis for a reflavored custom character class?" Once the name "paladin" which has certain connotations is striped and renamed as something else, people will be far more forgiving.
I mean - I am pretty strict when it comes to lore at my table. If you come to me and say that you want to play a paladin "but..." then I will say no. But if you ask whether you can take paladin class as a template, rename it as something else and remove the oath RP aspect then sure, why not. You will not be a paladin in my setting, no problem.
Godless paladins and clerics are something I have never really understood. I mean, sure, from an RP standpoint, it might be interesting, but what I have often seen is people wanting the "perks" of being a cleric or paladin, but don't like the gods, so they don't want to be "beholden" to them. A fallen paladin could be interesting for story purposes, but like you said, being a paladin, but not *really* being a paladin, has never made a lot of sense to me, though I can somewhat understand it from a purely RP perspective, but overall, paladins and clerics are as they are for a reason, imho.
Sorry, a bit off-topic, but it caught my eye.
A godless paladin is one that swears to ideals, rather than gods. The idea is explored in this thread:
I have no trouble understanding the concept. I do have a trouble with fully supporting the concept since it always comes across to me as 'We want all the stuff with as few strings as possible.'
That and this idea that many seem to have that religion is automatically some sort of bad thing.
I linked the thread for a reason. If you want to discuss this topic, go to that thread and don't derail this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
In the next edition I surely need an accurate description of the weapon's metal,( I mean, in example, if an iron sword and a brass sword have the same Hit die & damage rolls ) and also types of shields ( its weight, dimensions and the type of cover they offer to the wearer= LOW/HALF/THIRD QUARTERS/FULL ). BECAUSE IT SEEMS ALL THE SHIELDS JUST WEIGHTENS 6 LBS . Really ??
In the next edition I surely need to see Wizards shouldn't be started with proficiency on Light crossbows and dice sets. ( Just tell me why do they need dices for ?? )
In the next edition I wouid see some kind of witches class, playable Syrenids race, and if possible, more of Formless mobs.
In the next edition I would like to see if there's a Magic school based in Neutral/Non-magical damage.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
What Jenkens is saying, Kotath, is that if a 6e comes out, support for 5e will stop. No new books, no new subclasses, no new whatevers. 5e will become a dead game, unchanging and eternal. This would strike many as being exactly what many of the people arguing hardest against a Sixth Edition would desire - a perfectly stable game in which they are never again obligated to allow some new piece of content they don't like onto their table, or have to tell players that the latest D&D book is banned forever. The release of Sixth Edition would fossilize and finalize Fifth Edition, and those who detest anything new that happens in the game would gain their desire.
Please do not contact or message me.
Rules for each metal could be interesting, but might end up slowing the game down. Maybe four different choices, with various properties? Different shields would be very nice as well. Oozes are cool as well, and I hope we could get more of those.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
This doesn't really require a new addition, but I'd like to see more of a focus on exploration and social encounters. TCoE promises to do some of the former, but for players who struggle with social roleplaying (which is totally understandable), social encounters are like a pop quiz. I'd like to see more structured rules for social encounters, such as expanding on the "attitude" mechanic hidden in the DMG and never expanded on. This would help give more power to the ranger, which should be an exploration-focused class. If social encounters were a greater focus, I could imagine an entire class being designed to specialize more so than the bard. Consider that the Star Wars RPGs always had some form of noble class.
I considered using rules from some of PF1's Ultimate Intrigue, that give a combat-like structure to tense social interactions.
If 5e is so much better than this next edition, wouldn't the new players just play 5e?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
If 5e wasn't getting new content because new content is bad and bloat, people would gradually drift away to other systems even if 6e didn't come out.
5 pages in and we already have a discussion whether or not 6e is needed or not and whether or not 5e needs new classes or not. We even had BigLizard drop in with mandatory info on how the previous edition handled it better.
There is a lingering sense of deja vu here - the resilience to debate the same thing over and over again in reskinned threads is mostly impressive, I applaud the endurance :D
- Making a new edition will cause people to move away from 5e.
- Staying on 5e, but no longer adding new content will cause people to move from 5e.
- Staying on 5e, but continuing to add more content will keep people in 5e, but cause bloat making the people who don't want more content unhappy.
There is not a single realistic situation where things stay exactly how the anti new content people want it to.
People will leave 5e if it becomes stagnant as well. 5e either has to continue to grow and keep up with the demand for new content or it will eventually bleed players and therefore money.
6e will come whether you like it or not and this thread is about what people would like to see when it does.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Never underestimate the human being's capability to argue.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Anyways, the game developers have said that 6e will be backwards compatible with 5e. So they can't change that much.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
It is not guaranteed to be bad either. Why choose to be negative about the future when no one knows what the outcome will be?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's not just asking for new classes for 6e. That alone can be done for 5e (it won't be).
What I want to see is a complete overhaul in how subclasses/classes are done. Rather than having to pick a subclass, you can just pick 'fighter' or 'rogue' if you want for a 100% straightforward progression 1-20 and class features for each level. Absolutely no subclass needed at all to have a fully functional character at all.
Subclass then become an additional thing you can choose to use or not. An 'eldritch knight' subclass might just replace the 3rd, 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th features of the 'fighter' class, identical to how it is now. A 'champion' subclass might replace just the 3rd and 10th features of the 'fighter' class. A 'warlord' subclass might replace the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 20th features of the 'fighter' class.
5e's mistake is making the assumption that all subclasses are 100% equal with what they have to offer, when they're not.
Doing it this way doesn't complicate things any more, satisfies those wanting more customisation, and also gives people who don't like the 100s of subclasses a way to just use base classes without subclasses at all.
I'm not pessimistic about 5e. I have played 1e thru 5e and 5e is easily the best so far. That is why I want more.
That being said, I can still think ahead to what might be.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
A more in depth skill system would be pretty cool. I would like more effort put into tools and crafting.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's a flawed goal then, as it's simply a fact that not every subclass concept has a 100% equal amount of thematic and mechanical potential to offer.
Also 13 classes is a lot easier to balance than hundreds of subclasses, so surely the system I proposed is a bonus for both the less and more content people?
I'm not quite sure what you want from 5e/6e? Is 5e 100% perfect in every single way in your eyes, with not a flaw in any way at all? What do you want to see from 5e going forward if you don't want more classes/subclasses/variants, or anything at all? But also don't want 6e either?
Godless paladins and clerics are something I have never really understood. I mean, sure, from an RP standpoint, it might be interesting, but what I have often seen is people wanting the "perks" of being a cleric or paladin, but don't like the gods, so they don't want to be "beholden" to them. A fallen paladin could be interesting for story purposes, but like you said, being a paladin, but not *really* being a paladin, has never made a lot of sense to me, though I can somewhat understand it from a purely RP perspective, but overall, paladins and clerics are as they are for a reason, imho.
Sorry, a bit off-topic, but it caught my eye.
Some people want a godless paladin as they want to play a swordmage, which was removed this edition and the spellstrike type mechanics moved onto the paladins. Therefore the closest people can get to playing a magus/swordmage is a godless athiest paladin.
A godless paladin is one that swears to ideals, rather than gods. The idea is explored in this thread:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/paladin/75030-atheist-or-non-devout-paladins
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I linked the thread for a reason. If you want to discuss this topic, go to that thread and don't derail this one.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System