Lyxen. Please. Please. That ridiculous argument is truly getting tiresome.
Let me ask this. If one were to go to the theater and buy a movie ticket, sit down, and watch their movie only for it to abruptly cut off halfway through the plot with a message exhorting viewers to "use your imagination and your cell phone cameras to film the rest of the movie the way you want it to be!", would one not be entitled to disgruntlement?
If one were to purchase a book, read half of the story, and then find the remaining pages blank with a message from the author saying "Use these pages to fill in the rest of the story the way you want it to go!", would one not be entitled to disgruntlement?
Wizards of the Coast is attempting to make money by selling its products as a professional designer of games. Designing half a game, charging full price for that game, and then telling players to simply design the rest themselves is not acceptable. Not every dungeon master is capable of hacking the rules to high heaven just to fix all the numerous things Wizards did wrong or left undone. If one is expected to spend many hundreds of dollars on dozens and dozens of game books - twice, given the fact that we're all ostensibly here to make use of the only goddamned digital toolset on the entire Internet for tabletop gaming - is one not entitled to a full and complete game that does not require extensive homebrew hacking to make functional? 5e is not that game - it requires extensive homebrew hacking to make functional, and it wasn't even designed with that precept in mind. Wizards simply added the "make it yourself with Imagination(C)!" tagline to the game post-launch when they discovered their ruleset was grossly inadequate.
Nevertheless. In answerance to the original query, since this still counts as one of the very few posts I'm allowed on a given day:
I would like to see any prospective 6e designed with the active goal of incorporating optional advanced rules. We will never go back to the days of extensive charts for everything, and that's fine. But 5e took the pendulum too far the other direction; the game is too low-res and cannot handle any real degree of depth or complexity. One of the reasons extensive homebrew is such an inadequate solution is because the core 5e rules offer so few levers a DM can pull to modify and shape her game. Character customization is a sad joke, monster design is a pointless hassle, itemization effectively doesn't exist - virtually everything that isn't the core combat engine is given one paragraph of afterthought text before a DM is instructed to "make it up on the fly!" This is unacceptable.
An ideal 6e would be designed such that the core game - the SRD equivalent for the edition - is somewhere roughly in the 5e ballpark of gross oversimplification, simply because Wizards will never let go of that goal. Unlike 5e, a well and properly designed 6e would have attachment points within that core ruleset for expanded options that increase the game's resolution and depth. As one example, weapons.
The 6e SRD could be the thing that says there are two types of weapons - Basic weapons and Warrior weapons. A Basic weapon deals 1d6 weapon damage; a Warrior weapon deals 1d8 weapon damage. All characters are proficient in Basic weapons (which can be anything the player desires, since there's no difference between piercing/slashing/bludgeoning or damage die, ALL 'Basic' weapons simply deal 1d6 'weapon' damage). Only Warrior characters are proficient in Warrior weapons. And that is the entire extent of how weapons work in the 6e SRD, for people who cannot tolerate any degree of depth getting in the way of their engagement.
But in the books - the core books, not some add-on everybody complains about - there are rules for expanding this. The game is designed to take these rules into account. No rigid table of fixed weapons, either - instead, this theoretical 6e gives a systematic method for deriving the keywords and specifications of a specific weapon, allowing the DM to create her own table of weapons appropriate to her game, with an example table of common weapons using these rules available for DMs who don't care to do so. An 'Adventurer's Armory' expansion book released later could introduce new keywords, new methods of crafting gear, and exotic material modifiers, layering over the advanced rules in the book the same way those advanced rules layer over the oversimple SRD rules.
Proper design of 6e would resemble a big gaming onion - the game is made up of many layers, each one increasing resolution, focus, and depth. Tables could use individual pieces of a highly modular system like this as they saw fit, fine-tuning their experience the way a hotrodder fine-tunes their vehicle through swapping parts around. Wizards promised that Fifth Edition would be that highly modular, play-as-you-like game with many variant and optional rules, introducing new ones all the time, but they have categorically failed in every conceivable way to deliver on that promise.
If any theoretical 6e is to succeed, it needs to deliver this time. Because I already spent hundreds of dollars on half a product once, and I don't know as I can be hoodwinked into doing so again. I played role-playing games for almost twenty years without a single rule in sight and a single dime spent outside character art commissions - I can absolutely go back to doing exactly that if the tabletop industry keeps abusing my willingness to experiment with new formats the way Wizards has been.
I don't think its fair to judge something biased on what it is not. I agree that there are issues with 5e, but the nature of the game allows for people to adjust the game as they see fit for there table, so if there is something that you want to implement from an older system, nothing is stopping you from making that happen. Saying something is bad because it doesn't have something is a literal infinite spiral of unhelpful criticism, there will always be something that is missing. What is useful is taking what exists and judging it biased on the self maintained system. That being said, if something is lacking, if something doesn't feel quite right, its important to note that but anything more then that is just grasping at straws especially when the 'suggestion' goes against preestablished systems within the thing.
For example, I wish animal companion mechanics would be flushed out more. It is something that exists within the game but isn't really explored. I am currently working with one of my players to create a Homebrew Dragon Tamer Class with 5 subclasses. I don't think this should be added to the game in any legit way, but its a fun experiment and my player is really excited to have more dragon classes/subclasses in a game called Dungeons and Dragons.
However, the request of "This should exists because it did before and things are worse because its not around" is not a valid criticism because dnd 5e is NOT the other editions. Saying that something should exist in 5e because it did in an earlier edition is the same as saying something should exist in 5e because it does in any other TTRPG. Are all editions of dnd, dnd? Yes, are they all TTRPG? Yes, but they are different systems that are build and allow different things.
That being said, saying that you want something to exist in a game because you've seen it in another game is totally fine, its when you judge somethings value by the lack of something that causes problems. "I want there to be more classes" Valid "5e is terrible because there are not enough classes" Not valid.
Edit: I seem to have contradicted myself because of poor wording, my apologies.
I'm in the camp of "I'm playing 5e to play 5e [if I can find the opportunity]." If 6e comes out, I'll play 6e to play 6e. I've seen groups play 3.5e recently. So, other editions aren't just tossed in the bin (though I understand that a lot of people tossed 4e).
I'm also not a fan of "I want an official version of the way I want to play" while 5e gives the option to do so. D&D is not a story to be read from cover to cover or a movie to be watched from titles to credits. It never was. Every edition was always just a foundation. Different editions had different levels of definition to that foundation that some found daunting and exclusive. 5e is designed to be inclusive with fewer set-in-stone complications. It's designed to be open enough for people to add complications if they desire it at their tables (or even remove some).
If 6e comes out, I think it should offer something new as the foundation and not a republish of existing editions. The heavy use of d20 in 5e makes that one aspect lackluster, but I'm having trouble of thinking how to diversify the dice more without making it overly complicated to the layperson. I think a significant shake-up to the foundation would be necessary, and (just like some people say 5e isn't D&D) some people would say that 6e isn't D&D.
What would be new to me would be some IRL magic to provide time and space to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I mean you can make the argument that any complexity at all is just adding to bloat and poor balance.
5e would technically be much more balanced altogether if you removed everything but fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue and got rid of subclasses too. Just use your imagination to fill in the rest as those 4 archtypes combined with multiclassing can fill everything.
But no one would be happy with that. The barbarian players would complain they had no rage, the paladin players would complain they had no smite, the sorcerer players would complain that their natural mage had to cast from a spellbook and would have that book taken away.
It's the same reason swordmage players are complaining they have no spellstrike and the psion players are complain they have no will points innate power system.
As 5e has made it clear it never wants to add more classes and instead just wants to throw out hundreds of coats of paint in the form of subclasses, it's natural for the psion/warlord/swordmage players to eventually just give in and start rooting for a new edition.
And 'just go back to 3e' isn't an answer. Playing an arcane half caster doesn't force the game to suddenly re add 50 different +/- 1 modifiers, remove bounded accuracy, remove the advantage system, and add in things like volume to your inventory.
I want very little to change. Just tweak the classes a bit to fix Ranger and Sorcerer. Give Strength and Intelligence a slight buff to balance out the stats a bit. Maybe standardize the language of the rules so that they are a bit more clear. And if you want to get crazy add Artificer and Psion to the PHB and a few more weapon, armor and equipment options.
Specifically, I would like to see the list of Warlock Invocations expanded (including a number of UA Invocations that were rejected and have them re-worked), and I think a rebalance of them should also be considered. (Two invocations I am looking at allow for specific 2nd level spells to be cast at will, and another allows for a 4th level spell to be cast at will. All 3 Invocations are not available until the Warlock reaches 15th level)
Generally, I would like to see a section labelled as "Rules for those that play in a setting where real world politics are inserted in D&D", and a section labelled as "Rules for a setting that stays true to what D&D was about since its inception".
And also specifically, prior to 6e, I would suggest a serious discussion on the amount of spells known to a Sorcerer should be had.
If sorcerer at least had origin spells automatically known on top of the other spells it would be ok.
Yeah, I am not talking a massive expansion. Maybe start with an additional spell at 1st level, then a straight one additional spell / level gained, so at 14th level, a Sorcerer would have 16 known spells, instead of 13, and a 20th level Sorcerer would cap out at 22, instead of 15. That might be a tad high, but in the ballpark. (A standard wizard at 20th level can memorize 25, plus the 2 from the capstone feature). Conversely, I would scale the starting Cantrips back by one, and cap them at 5, instead of 6.
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.
(I'm not trying to pick you out, just using this as an example.)
Okay, I understand this, but the discussion on whether or not you want a 6e/5.5e is a discussion for another thread. Any post saying that such an edition should not come is off topic and will be reported for breaking the rules of the thread from now on. If 6e came out today, I would not transfer over. I only want a 6e/5.5e when it becomes absolutely apparent that we are in need of a new edition. Trust me, it is inevitable. The community will eventually tire of 5e, no matter how much we love it now. It's happened with every other edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, here's a list of things I want in 6e/5.5e (there's not really any particular order):
Make sure all the ability scores are balanced, as described here.
Get rid of racial ability score modifiers, as TCoE is doing, as well as making no mention of the alignment or culture of a race in their description unless it's clear that they are setting specific, possibly by listing what they're like in multiple worlds.
More balanced ranged and melee combat (kind of part of balancing Strength and Dexterity).
Balance all the classes and subclasses.
Giving martial characters more versatility in general, through combat tactics and positioning. Not to the extent that they did in 3e, though, mostly like 5e but with a few more options to make martial characters more interesting.
More classes in general (and lets be clear, 5e is not bad because it doesn't have more classes, no one claimed it was, but there are niches that are not possible/satisfying because of the lack of classes, and if 6e was less scared of making classes, this could fix this issue).
More customization options for characters, kind of like Pathfinder 2.0's character creation system.
Three action system like Pathfinder 2.0.
Make the majority of the Dungeon Master's Guide more useful.
Psionics in the core rules, not tacked on later like they don't matter.
That's mostly it. I'll continue commenting with more ideas and possible changes and to back up this one if anyone responds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, here's a list of things I want in 6e/5.5e (there's not really any particular order):
Make sure all the ability scores are balanced, as described here.
Get rid of racial ability score modifiers, as TCoE is doing, as well as making no mention of the alignment or culture of a race in their description unless it's clear that they are setting specific, possibly by listing what they're like in multiple worlds.
More balanced ranged and melee combat (kind of part of balancing Strength and Dexterity).
Balance all the classes and subclasses.
Giving martial characters more versatility in general, through combat tactics and positioning. Not to the extent that they did in 3e, though, mostly like 5e but with a few more options to make martial characters more interesting.
More classes in general (and lets be clear, 5e is not bad because it doesn't have more classes, no one claimed it was, but there are niches that are not possible/satisfying because of the lack of classes, and if 6e was less scared of making classes, this could fix this issue).
More customization options for characters, kind of like Pathfinder 2.0's character creation system.
Three action system like Pathfinder 2.0.
Make the majority of the Dungeon Master's Guide more useful.
Psionics in the core rules, not tacked on later like they don't matter.
That's mostly it. I'll continue commenting with more ideas and possible changes and to back up this one if anyone responds.
Yeah I agree with almost all of these. Though I'm not a fan of outright removing species ability scores. I think one fixed and one floating (floating can't be stacked with the fixed) would be best as it's a nice compromise between being different and being able to play any class with any species.
e.g. an orc would have a fixed asi in strength, and then a floating one to place anywhere but strength, so they can put it in int and play a wizard.
Also I don't think it's actually lack of classes which is causing the issue with 5e. It's trying to fit every concept into either a class, or a tiny subclass with absolutely no consideration for anything in between. It makes the assumption that all subclasses have exactly equal thematic and mechanical potential which is completely wrong. The full class concepts do well from it, and the minor flavour parts of subclasses do well from it.
And then it leaves everything which belongs in between a class and a subclass rotting.
I'm hoping that 6e gives a full base class for each concept which can be played completely stand alone (e.g. a paladin class), and then subclasses vary in size to have different strength overhauls of the class. Oath of devotion would overwrite only a few features and be similar to how it is now, while a 'death knight' would overwrite 50% of the class including its own spell list.
Okay, here's a list of things I want in 6e/5.5e (there's not really any particular order):
Make sure all the ability scores are balanced, as described here.
Get rid of racial ability score modifiers, as TCoE is doing, as well as making no mention of the alignment or culture of a race in their description unless it's clear that they are setting specific, possibly by listing what they're like in multiple worlds.
More balanced ranged and melee combat (kind of part of balancing Strength and Dexterity).
Balance all the classes and subclasses.
Giving martial characters more versatility in general, through combat tactics and positioning. Not to the extent that they did in 3e, though, mostly like 5e but with a few more options to make martial characters more interesting.
More classes in general (and lets be clear, 5e is not bad because it doesn't have more classes, no one claimed it was, but there are niches that are not possible/satisfying because of the lack of classes, and if 6e was less scared of making classes, this could fix this issue).
More customization options for characters, kind of like Pathfinder 2.0's character creation system.
Three action system like Pathfinder 2.0.
Make the majority of the Dungeon Master's Guide more useful.
Psionics in the core rules, not tacked on later like they don't matter.
That's mostly it. I'll continue commenting with more ideas and possible changes and to back up this one if anyone responds.
Yeah I agree with almost all of these. Though I'm not a fan of outright removing species ability scores. I think one fixed and one floating (floating can't be stacked with the fixed) would be best as it's a nice compromise between being different and being able to play any class with any species.
e.g. an orc would have a fixed asi in strength, and then a floating one to place anywhere but strength, so they can put it in int and play a wizard.
Also I don't think it's actually lack of classes which is causing the issue with 5e. It's trying to fit every concept into either a class, or a tiny subclass with absolutely no consideration for anything in between. It makes the assumption that all subclasses have exactly equal thematic and mechanical potential which is completely wrong. The full class concepts do well from it, and the minor flavour parts of subclasses do well from it.
And then it leaves everything which belongs in between a class and a subclass rotting.
I'm hoping that 6e gives a full base class for each concept which can be played completely stand alone (e.g. a paladin class), and then subclasses vary in size to have different strength overhauls of the class. Oath of devotion would overwrite only a few features and be similar to how it is now, while a 'death knight' would overwrite 50% of the class including its own spell list.
I would prefer that Asi's would be added to backgrounds as apposed to species.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Yeah I agree with almost all of these. Though I'm not a fan of outright removing species ability scores. I think one fixed and one floating (floating can't be stacked with the fixed) would be best as it's a nice compromise between being different and being able to play any class with any species.
I understand that, and we should not discuss that here to not derail the thread. You can PM me, though.
Also I don't think it's actually lack of classes which is causing the issue with 5e. It's trying to fit every concept into either a class, or a tiny subclass with absolutely no consideration for anything in between. It makes the assumption that all subclasses have exactly equal thematic and mechanical potential which is completely wrong. The full class concepts do well from it, and the minor flavour parts of subclasses do well from it.
And then it leaves everything which belongs in between a class and a subclass rotting.
It causes an issue when a DM has to homebrew a class or subclass for an idea that could/should be a class in 5e, as discussed in your "lack of classes in 5e" thread. It isn't a major issue, and doesn't come up often for me, but it sometimes does and is a pain when you have to homebrew a swordmage or occultist class.
I'm hoping that 6e gives a full base class for each concept which can be played completely stand alone (e.g. a paladin class), and then subclasses vary in size to have different strength overhauls of the class. Oath of devotion would overwrite only a few features and be similar to how it is now, while a 'death knight' would overwrite 50% of the class including its own spell list.
I would like larger subclasses and smaller base classes in 6e as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't want D&D to become a rehash of Pathfinder. If you like the way Pathfinder does things, maybe go there and let the 2 systems remain distinct.
I can like certain things Pathfinder does without liking the game. The three action system, character creation, and customization of characters in Pathfinder 2.0 is great, but the game is not good. There are too many numbers and modifiers for my liking and it is overcomplicated. I would like some things to come from that game to D&D without turning D&D into Pathfinder.
I really hate it when people tell me that I would be better in a different game. That's rude, gatekeeping, and I would prefer if all of you who keep saying it stop doing so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
That probably came across as more rude than intended. Sorry. I just don't want the 2 games to start to blend together in any way.
It's fine. I probably came down on you too hard. There's just been a ton of people who have said similar things in multiple different recent threads.
I don't want them to blend together either, but taking some aspects from the game doesn't make it suddenly the same game. Some things the game does well would not harm D&D to have. I think it would improve D&D to have certain parts of it in the game, or take inspiration from some aspects of it. If a new system has a unique and good idea that a ton of people seem to like (PF 2e's character creation and 3 action system), to me it seems rational and smart to borrow from it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Thinking about it, I think the biggest thing I want is for D&D to STOP USING BAD MEDIEVAL RESEARCH! And don't give me that weaksauce "But this is how its always been!" Or "But this is a world of make-believe". Yes, dragons are fake. But swords, armor and accoutrements from the Medieval Period were and are real.
To whit:
There was no such thing as Studded Leather Armor. It was poor research from years ago that Mr.'s Gygax, Arneson and Crew made the mistake of not digging deeper about....which is ironic when you consider they were all Medieval/Renaissance Wargamers that replayed things like The War of the Roses, The English Civil War on tabletops for years before Blackmoor (let alone D&D) existed. What they thought of Studded Leather was in fact Brigandine (a refined version of the Coat-of-Plates/Plate & Mail armor).
Stop calling it Chain Mail. All maille (which is Old French for "mesh") is made from chained rings. Scale Mail (like Ring Mail, Splint Mail and Plate Mail) is stupidly wrong, as its just Scale and not Maille (unless we're talking the ultra-specific ceremonial Roman armor called "Feathered Mail" where bronze scales were affixed to a shirt of mail). Scale should in no way provide better protection than a Mail Corslet (since they cover about the same area of the torso, where one is made from steel and the other bronze). In fact, instead of "Chain Mail" the easiest way to differentiate the two forms is Mail Corslet/Shirt and Mail Hauberk (the latter generally to include mail chausses and so forth, making you look like a 13th Century Crusader Knight). Same with Plate Mail. Its just Plate (as in Coat-of-Plates and/or Brigandine). If its Plate & Mail (as in a coat-of-plates over a mail hauberk), then call it that. Splint Armor should be called Lamellar and there should be 2 different types: Metal, which provides good protection and Leather (really Rawhide/Horn) which provides less, but is cheaper.
Gambeson (aka Padded) should in fact be better armor than regular Leather Armor. And there is no reason for it to have a Disadvantage on Stealth.
Short Bows should be called Bows, Long Bows should be called War Bows (since that is basically what they're based on: the Welsh War Bow) and all Composite Bows are Short and should just be called Composite Bows (since its basically the Steppes Bow favored by groups like the Scytho-Sarmatians, Huns, Mongols, etc). And for crying out loud, a bow should NOT cost more than a Crossbow of ANY size (the latter requiring much more time and materials to construct, such as steel and composite laminated parts). Nor should a Bow cost more than a Sword (bowstaves are made from wood, a replenishable resource that is far easier to harvest than iron to turn into steel).
A Longsword is not the same thing as an Arming Sword. A Longsword is what was in previous editions called a Bastard Sword. Rename the Longsword to Arming Sword and make the Longsword its own thing. If you have to differentiate it from the Arming Sword, just make it 2d4/1d10 for 1-handed/2-handed and the Arming Sword is 1d8.
And please...for the love of Ogg, talk to someone about Medieval Economics and FIX THE STUPID ECONOMY IN THE GAME! The increased cost of most things make NO SENSE compared to earlier editions, especially OD&D/AD&D1E where PCs at 1st lvl were walking around with a couple thousand GP after an adventure. After a few levels, they should be swimming in a vault like Scrooge McDuck. Make different coins, there were plenty of real world medieval currencies to look at other than Gold Pieces (and Platinum coins shouldn't be a thing unless you're going with the idea of D&D being a futuristic Dying Earth setting). Either fix the economy or scrap it and go with something more abstract where PCs don't have to worry about counting their coppers and just have a Standard of Living that can be improved (or downgraded) after an adventure.
And only laterally related, the Barbarian should just be called the Berserker, cause that is what it is and not an actual Barbarian. The idea of the berserk fury in myth wasn't limited to uncivilized brutes (aka Barbarians). Cú Chulainn could enter a fury in combat and wasn't an uncivilized outlander.
I would also like for Religion, Nature, Arcana, and History be grouped up into one "Lore" skill as well as making another "Lifting" skill based on Strength and an Endurance skill based on Constitution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Lyxen. Please. Please. That ridiculous argument is truly getting tiresome.
Let me ask this. If one were to go to the theater and buy a movie ticket, sit down, and watch their movie only for it to abruptly cut off halfway through the plot with a message exhorting viewers to "use your imagination and your cell phone cameras to film the rest of the movie the way you want it to be!", would one not be entitled to disgruntlement?
If one were to purchase a book, read half of the story, and then find the remaining pages blank with a message from the author saying "Use these pages to fill in the rest of the story the way you want it to go!", would one not be entitled to disgruntlement?
Wizards of the Coast is attempting to make money by selling its products as a professional designer of games. Designing half a game, charging full price for that game, and then telling players to simply design the rest themselves is not acceptable. Not every dungeon master is capable of hacking the rules to high heaven just to fix all the numerous things Wizards did wrong or left undone. If one is expected to spend many hundreds of dollars on dozens and dozens of game books - twice, given the fact that we're all ostensibly here to make use of the only goddamned digital toolset on the entire Internet for tabletop gaming - is one not entitled to a full and complete game that does not require extensive homebrew hacking to make functional? 5e is not that game - it requires extensive homebrew hacking to make functional, and it wasn't even designed with that precept in mind. Wizards simply added the "make it yourself with Imagination(C)!" tagline to the game post-launch when they discovered their ruleset was grossly inadequate.
Nevertheless. In answerance to the original query, since this still counts as one of the very few posts I'm allowed on a given day:
I would like to see any prospective 6e designed with the active goal of incorporating optional advanced rules. We will never go back to the days of extensive charts for everything, and that's fine. But 5e took the pendulum too far the other direction; the game is too low-res and cannot handle any real degree of depth or complexity. One of the reasons extensive homebrew is such an inadequate solution is because the core 5e rules offer so few levers a DM can pull to modify and shape her game. Character customization is a sad joke, monster design is a pointless hassle, itemization effectively doesn't exist - virtually everything that isn't the core combat engine is given one paragraph of afterthought text before a DM is instructed to "make it up on the fly!" This is unacceptable.
An ideal 6e would be designed such that the core game - the SRD equivalent for the edition - is somewhere roughly in the 5e ballpark of gross oversimplification, simply because Wizards will never let go of that goal. Unlike 5e, a well and properly designed 6e would have attachment points within that core ruleset for expanded options that increase the game's resolution and depth. As one example, weapons.
The 6e SRD could be the thing that says there are two types of weapons - Basic weapons and Warrior weapons. A Basic weapon deals 1d6 weapon damage; a Warrior weapon deals 1d8 weapon damage. All characters are proficient in Basic weapons (which can be anything the player desires, since there's no difference between piercing/slashing/bludgeoning or damage die, ALL 'Basic' weapons simply deal 1d6 'weapon' damage). Only Warrior characters are proficient in Warrior weapons. And that is the entire extent of how weapons work in the 6e SRD, for people who cannot tolerate any degree of depth getting in the way of their engagement.
But in the books - the core books, not some add-on everybody complains about - there are rules for expanding this. The game is designed to take these rules into account. No rigid table of fixed weapons, either - instead, this theoretical 6e gives a systematic method for deriving the keywords and specifications of a specific weapon, allowing the DM to create her own table of weapons appropriate to her game, with an example table of common weapons using these rules available for DMs who don't care to do so. An 'Adventurer's Armory' expansion book released later could introduce new keywords, new methods of crafting gear, and exotic material modifiers, layering over the advanced rules in the book the same way those advanced rules layer over the oversimple SRD rules.
Proper design of 6e would resemble a big gaming onion - the game is made up of many layers, each one increasing resolution, focus, and depth. Tables could use individual pieces of a highly modular system like this as they saw fit, fine-tuning their experience the way a hotrodder fine-tunes their vehicle through swapping parts around. Wizards promised that Fifth Edition would be that highly modular, play-as-you-like game with many variant and optional rules, introducing new ones all the time, but they have categorically failed in every conceivable way to deliver on that promise.
If any theoretical 6e is to succeed, it needs to deliver this time. Because I already spent hundreds of dollars on half a product once, and I don't know as I can be hoodwinked into doing so again. I played role-playing games for almost twenty years without a single rule in sight and a single dime spent outside character art commissions - I can absolutely go back to doing exactly that if the tabletop industry keeps abusing my willingness to experiment with new formats the way Wizards has been.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't think its fair to judge something biased on what it is not. I agree that there are issues with 5e, but the nature of the game allows for people to adjust the game as they see fit for there table, so if there is something that you want to implement from an older system, nothing is stopping you from making that happen. Saying something is bad because it doesn't have something is a literal infinite spiral of unhelpful criticism, there will always be something that is missing. What is useful is taking what exists and judging it biased on the self maintained system. That being said, if something is lacking, if something doesn't feel quite right, its important to note that but anything more then that is just grasping at straws especially when the 'suggestion' goes against preestablished systems within the thing.
For example, I wish animal companion mechanics would be flushed out more. It is something that exists within the game but isn't really explored. I am currently working with one of my players to create a Homebrew Dragon Tamer Class with 5 subclasses. I don't think this should be added to the game in any legit way, but its a fun experiment and my player is really excited to have more dragon classes/subclasses in a game called Dungeons and Dragons.
However, the request of "This should exists because it did before and things are worse because its not around" is not a valid criticism because dnd 5e is NOT the other editions. Saying that something should exist in 5e because it did in an earlier edition is the same as saying something should exist in 5e because it does in any other TTRPG. Are all editions of dnd, dnd? Yes, are they all TTRPG? Yes, but they are different systems that are build and allow different things.
That being said, saying that you want something to exist in a game because you've seen it in another game is totally fine, its when you judge somethings value by the lack of something that causes problems. "I want there to be more classes" Valid "5e is terrible because there are not enough classes" Not valid.
Edit: I seem to have contradicted myself because of poor wording, my apologies.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I'm in the camp of "I'm playing 5e to play 5e [if I can find the opportunity]." If 6e comes out, I'll play 6e to play 6e. I've seen groups play 3.5e recently. So, other editions aren't just tossed in the bin (though I understand that a lot of people tossed 4e).
I'm also not a fan of "I want an official version of the way I want to play" while 5e gives the option to do so. D&D is not a story to be read from cover to cover or a movie to be watched from titles to credits. It never was. Every edition was always just a foundation. Different editions had different levels of definition to that foundation that some found daunting and exclusive. 5e is designed to be inclusive with fewer set-in-stone complications. It's designed to be open enough for people to add complications if they desire it at their tables (or even remove some).
If 6e comes out, I think it should offer something new as the foundation and not a republish of existing editions. The heavy use of d20 in 5e makes that one aspect lackluster, but I'm having trouble of thinking how to diversify the dice more without making it overly complicated to the layperson. I think a significant shake-up to the foundation would be necessary, and (just like some people say 5e isn't D&D) some people would say that 6e isn't D&D.
What would be new to me would be some IRL magic to provide time and space to play.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I mean you can make the argument that any complexity at all is just adding to bloat and poor balance.
5e would technically be much more balanced altogether if you removed everything but fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue and got rid of subclasses too. Just use your imagination to fill in the rest as those 4 archtypes combined with multiclassing can fill everything.
But no one would be happy with that. The barbarian players would complain they had no rage, the paladin players would complain they had no smite, the sorcerer players would complain that their natural mage had to cast from a spellbook and would have that book taken away.
It's the same reason swordmage players are complaining they have no spellstrike and the psion players are complain they have no will points innate power system.
As 5e has made it clear it never wants to add more classes and instead just wants to throw out hundreds of coats of paint in the form of subclasses, it's natural for the psion/warlord/swordmage players to eventually just give in and start rooting for a new edition.
And 'just go back to 3e' isn't an answer. Playing an arcane half caster doesn't force the game to suddenly re add 50 different +/- 1 modifiers, remove bounded accuracy, remove the advantage system, and add in things like volume to your inventory.
I want very little to change. Just tweak the classes a bit to fix Ranger and Sorcerer. Give Strength and Intelligence a slight buff to balance out the stats a bit. Maybe standardize the language of the rules so that they are a bit more clear. And if you want to get crazy add Artificer and Psion to the PHB and a few more weapon, armor and equipment options.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Specifically, I would like to see the list of Warlock Invocations expanded (including a number of UA Invocations that were rejected and have them re-worked), and I think a rebalance of them should also be considered. (Two invocations I am looking at allow for specific 2nd level spells to be cast at will, and another allows for a 4th level spell to be cast at will. All 3 Invocations are not available until the Warlock reaches 15th level)
Generally, I would like to see a section labelled as "Rules for those that play in a setting where real world politics are inserted in D&D", and a section labelled as "Rules for a setting that stays true to what D&D was about since its inception".
And also specifically, prior to 6e, I would suggest a serious discussion on the amount of spells known to a Sorcerer should be had.
If sorcerer at least had origin spells automatically known on top of the other spells it would be ok.
Yeah, I am not talking a massive expansion. Maybe start with an additional spell at 1st level, then a straight one additional spell / level gained, so at 14th level, a Sorcerer would have 16 known spells, instead of 13, and a 20th level Sorcerer would cap out at 22, instead of 15. That might be a tad high, but in the ballpark. (A standard wizard at 20th level can memorize 25, plus the 2 from the capstone feature). Conversely, I would scale the starting Cantrips back by one, and cap them at 5, instead of 6.
(I'm not trying to pick you out, just using this as an example.)
Okay, I understand this, but the discussion on whether or not you want a 6e/5.5e is a discussion for another thread. Any post saying that such an edition should not come is off topic and will be reported for breaking the rules of the thread from now on. If 6e came out today, I would not transfer over. I only want a 6e/5.5e when it becomes absolutely apparent that we are in need of a new edition. Trust me, it is inevitable. The community will eventually tire of 5e, no matter how much we love it now. It's happened with every other edition.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Okay, here's a list of things I want in 6e/5.5e (there's not really any particular order):
That's mostly it. I'll continue commenting with more ideas and possible changes and to back up this one if anyone responds.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah I agree with almost all of these. Though I'm not a fan of outright removing species ability scores. I think one fixed and one floating (floating can't be stacked with the fixed) would be best as it's a nice compromise between being different and being able to play any class with any species.
e.g. an orc would have a fixed asi in strength, and then a floating one to place anywhere but strength, so they can put it in int and play a wizard.
Also I don't think it's actually lack of classes which is causing the issue with 5e. It's trying to fit every concept into either a class, or a tiny subclass with absolutely no consideration for anything in between. It makes the assumption that all subclasses have exactly equal thematic and mechanical potential which is completely wrong. The full class concepts do well from it, and the minor flavour parts of subclasses do well from it.
And then it leaves everything which belongs in between a class and a subclass rotting.
I'm hoping that 6e gives a full base class for each concept which can be played completely stand alone (e.g. a paladin class), and then subclasses vary in size to have different strength overhauls of the class. Oath of devotion would overwrite only a few features and be similar to how it is now, while a 'death knight' would overwrite 50% of the class including its own spell list.
I would prefer that Asi's would be added to backgrounds as apposed to species.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I understand that, and we should not discuss that here to not derail the thread. You can PM me, though.
It causes an issue when a DM has to homebrew a class or subclass for an idea that could/should be a class in 5e, as discussed in your "lack of classes in 5e" thread. It isn't a major issue, and doesn't come up often for me, but it sometimes does and is a pain when you have to homebrew a swordmage or occultist class.
I would like larger subclasses and smaller base classes in 6e as well.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't want D&D to become a rehash of Pathfinder. If you like the way Pathfinder does things, maybe go there and let the 2 systems remain distinct.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I can like certain things Pathfinder does without liking the game. The three action system, character creation, and customization of characters in Pathfinder 2.0 is great, but the game is not good. There are too many numbers and modifiers for my liking and it is overcomplicated. I would like some things to come from that game to D&D without turning D&D into Pathfinder.
I really hate it when people tell me that I would be better in a different game. That's rude, gatekeeping, and I would prefer if all of you who keep saying it stop doing so.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That probably came across as more rude than intended. Sorry. I just don't want the 2 games to start to blend together in any way.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's fine. I probably came down on you too hard. There's just been a ton of people who have said similar things in multiple different recent threads.
I don't want them to blend together either, but taking some aspects from the game doesn't make it suddenly the same game. Some things the game does well would not harm D&D to have. I think it would improve D&D to have certain parts of it in the game, or take inspiration from some aspects of it. If a new system has a unique and good idea that a ton of people seem to like (PF 2e's character creation and 3 action system), to me it seems rational and smart to borrow from it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Since they are competitors I hope that WotC sees that those things are popular and it inspires and pushes them to do something better.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Thinking about it, I think the biggest thing I want is for D&D to STOP USING BAD MEDIEVAL RESEARCH! And don't give me that weaksauce "But this is how its always been!" Or "But this is a world of make-believe". Yes, dragons are fake. But swords, armor and accoutrements from the Medieval Period were and are real.
To whit:
There was no such thing as Studded Leather Armor. It was poor research from years ago that Mr.'s Gygax, Arneson and Crew made the mistake of not digging deeper about....which is ironic when you consider they were all Medieval/Renaissance Wargamers that replayed things like The War of the Roses, The English Civil War on tabletops for years before Blackmoor (let alone D&D) existed. What they thought of Studded Leather was in fact Brigandine (a refined version of the Coat-of-Plates/Plate & Mail armor).
Stop calling it Chain Mail. All maille (which is Old French for "mesh") is made from chained rings. Scale Mail (like Ring Mail, Splint Mail and Plate Mail) is stupidly wrong, as its just Scale and not Maille (unless we're talking the ultra-specific ceremonial Roman armor called "Feathered Mail" where bronze scales were affixed to a shirt of mail). Scale should in no way provide better protection than a Mail Corslet (since they cover about the same area of the torso, where one is made from steel and the other bronze). In fact, instead of "Chain Mail" the easiest way to differentiate the two forms is Mail Corslet/Shirt and Mail Hauberk (the latter generally to include mail chausses and so forth, making you look like a 13th Century Crusader Knight). Same with Plate Mail. Its just Plate (as in Coat-of-Plates and/or Brigandine). If its Plate & Mail (as in a coat-of-plates over a mail hauberk), then call it that. Splint Armor should be called Lamellar and there should be 2 different types: Metal, which provides good protection and Leather (really Rawhide/Horn) which provides less, but is cheaper.
Gambeson (aka Padded) should in fact be better armor than regular Leather Armor. And there is no reason for it to have a Disadvantage on Stealth.
Short Bows should be called Bows, Long Bows should be called War Bows (since that is basically what they're based on: the Welsh War Bow) and all Composite Bows are Short and should just be called Composite Bows (since its basically the Steppes Bow favored by groups like the Scytho-Sarmatians, Huns, Mongols, etc). And for crying out loud, a bow should NOT cost more than a Crossbow of ANY size (the latter requiring much more time and materials to construct, such as steel and composite laminated parts). Nor should a Bow cost more than a Sword (bowstaves are made from wood, a replenishable resource that is far easier to harvest than iron to turn into steel).
A Longsword is not the same thing as an Arming Sword. A Longsword is what was in previous editions called a Bastard Sword. Rename the Longsword to Arming Sword and make the Longsword its own thing. If you have to differentiate it from the Arming Sword, just make it 2d4/1d10 for 1-handed/2-handed and the Arming Sword is 1d8.
And please...for the love of Ogg, talk to someone about Medieval Economics and FIX THE STUPID ECONOMY IN THE GAME! The increased cost of most things make NO SENSE compared to earlier editions, especially OD&D/AD&D1E where PCs at 1st lvl were walking around with a couple thousand GP after an adventure. After a few levels, they should be swimming in a vault like Scrooge McDuck. Make different coins, there were plenty of real world medieval currencies to look at other than Gold Pieces (and Platinum coins shouldn't be a thing unless you're going with the idea of D&D being a futuristic Dying Earth setting). Either fix the economy or scrap it and go with something more abstract where PCs don't have to worry about counting their coppers and just have a Standard of Living that can be improved (or downgraded) after an adventure.
And only laterally related, the Barbarian should just be called the Berserker, cause that is what it is and not an actual Barbarian. The idea of the berserk fury in myth wasn't limited to uncivilized brutes (aka Barbarians). Cú Chulainn could enter a fury in combat and wasn't an uncivilized outlander.
I would also like for Religion, Nature, Arcana, and History be grouped up into one "Lore" skill as well as making another "Lifting" skill based on Strength and an Endurance skill based on Constitution.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms