What I hope they do for 6e DnD

[Quertus]

As compared to what? Earlier editions of D&D?

I had a "What do you want changed for 6th edition" thread planned. But since this is here I'll throw in my biggest (which is not to say most likely) hope for future editions of D&D. I want combat to be sped up even more. The best combats I have ever been in took 6 roles to resolve. That would be a very short combat in D&D. For all the great moments that have happened in combat, there seems to always be an excess of rounds of waiting for those moments to come. Maybe getting rid of the "you will fight multiple (usually meaningless) fights a day" culture that surrounds the game would help.

In the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty unlikely idea. Combat is part of the core of D&D and in my mind to its detriment in a few cases. But not everyone agrees with that.

My BHD party, we could complete combat in just a few rolls (initiative, a few PCs get to attack, done) and very little time (everybody knew the rules & their characters, and took their turns quickly). We'd breeze through combat so quickly, the limiting factor was how long it took the GM to set up the board. We could (probably, I never counted) have dozens of fights per session - which was good, because we often went several sessions of murdering monstrous civilizations like they were humans per in-game day / before we would stop to rest.

So, for us, 3e sounds like your dream of 6e.

Still, I agree with the post that I failed to quote, that moving away from x/day resources would be a good idea.

[Psyren]

The problem is that Cyber5e is just going to be a worse Cyberpunk game than Cyberpunk (which, if Red is released at the same time as 2077, might be seeing an upswing in popularity in the next year or so). Then there are the even more niche games that 5e clones aren't going to go into because it's not worth shaping the system to fit.

Uh... putting aside that I highly doubt you have a crystal ball knocking around, it doesn't have to be a better example of its genre than other games. Hell, even the thing D&D does best (pseudo-medieval fantasy), I find hard to believe that TTRPG connoisseurs would agree is the best example of that genre. What it is though is the most accessible, so any new genres they release are far more likely to get an audience interested than any number of forgettable obscura.

But here's the thing, I've never had a problem with people playing D&D (unless you're forcing me to play only it, I have hundreds of pounds invested in other games). I've had a problem with torturing the mechanics of D&D to play genre X when there's games right there which will do it perfect, and likely for less than you paid for D&D.

Yeah. D&D works, for a certain degree of "working", in its own narrow genre of fantasy. Trying to adapt those mechanics to other genres would be hammering a square peg into a round hole.

You two are thinking way too narrowly about the term "mechanics"

Literally all you need to make a game feel like 5e mechanically are attributes, classes, roll d20+modifier-and-compare-to-target-number as conflict resolution, bounded accuracy, and advantage/disadvantage. You can make any genre of TTRPG with those building blocks, including all of the ones I mentioned previously.

But those people who do 'D&D but X'? I don't think they'd go out and buy '5e space opera' instead of just sitting at home and trying to rework D&D. Even worse it runs the risk of getting into the 2e setting problems, just with a bunch of different genres instead of worlds. Would a Dungeons & Dragons ffan be interested in a Perils & Planets book? How about a Chrome & Copper one? Fairies & Firearms? Pistons & Petticoats? Knights & Knaves? Devils & Demiurges?

Starfinder outsold Pathfinder on release, and was the 2nd-most popular TTRPG at that time overall. I would say that reskinning a popular game to fit with a new niche is a fine strategy for a game company to pursue.

Eh, it's not going to make them any less attractive. Honestly the bit that disappoints me is that my local game store obviously puts the RPGs it expects to sell next to D&D (so that's where you can find the Middle Earth, Warhammer, and other big names), and yet whenever I go in I always see at least one person buying D&D (sometimes their second or third copy of the book) and nobody buying the other downstairs RPGs. Although I've seen those bought more than the upstairs ones.

Sounds like you've seen the problem with pushing obscure brands firsthand. Which makes your stance even more baffling to me, if I'm honest.

But the reality is, I don't care. I don't want WotC to stop selling D&D books, I don't want them to make more. I'm over buying more D&D, I don't care about it at all, and I almost have every D&D book I want anyway (just need to grab a PoD version of the Rules Cyclopedia to go with my pdf). If they stopped printing them and let it die I wouldn't care, if they printed a hundred next year I wouldn't care. I'll just try to get people to play In Nomine instead, I like the themes more.

Cool, good luck with that.

[Cluedrew]

I think condensing levels is a fine idea; martials keeping perfect parity with magic-users less so.

Why not? This is a serious question I'm curious about your reasons.

Like it or not, D&D introduced many folks to this hobby that wouldn't have otherwise even tried it. WotC stopping isn't going to make any of these more obscure systems suddenly attractive.

Not in the short term, but in the long term it frees up the slot of "iconic RPG" that something else could fill. Hopefully something more approachable, D&D may have introduced people to the hobby but the perception that all RPGs are like D&D has driven people away. I have had people refuse to play a system whose rules fit on an index card because RPGs are too complicated.

Possibly best of all would be if multiple systems were widely known. That might happen before the world ends.

Also this question is kind of irrelevant as D&D will continue to be published as long as it turns a profit.

To Quertus: I see. Although maybe I should of put that slightly differently. How many consecutive rounds of whipping out the opposition would you describe as interesting?

[Psyren]

Why not? This is a serious question I'm curious about your reasons.

Spoiler: Spoiler to avoid derail

Show

Because for me, magic being superior to/more capable overall than not-magic is the point of magic, even if there's a hefty cost to its use. There've been dozens and dozens of 50-page threads hashing that out further over the years (you can probably find a number of them by searching my post history) so I'll avoid derailing further here.

Well, except for this one addition - I'm actually fine with high-level martial classes gaining some forms of innate magic, so long as there are certain aspects of magic that only dedicated spellcasters can achieve. So for example, a high-level Rogue being able to do things like teleport through shadows, form items out of shadow, or disappear while being observed, I'd be okay with. But having them heal wounds, bind demons and raise the dead, not so much.

Not in the short term, but in the long term it frees up the slot of "iconic RPG" that something else could fill.

It won't. Even when D&D crapped the bed (4e) so badly that they lost the top spot, it took them all of one edition to reclaim their crown, and in the meantime the thing that held it was just D&D 3e + some stuff. There was certainly no vacuum or scramble for multiple replacements that resulted.

Hopefully something more approachable, D&D may have introduced people to the hobby but the perception that all RPGs are like D&D has driven people away. I have had people refuse to play a system whose rules fit on an index card because RPGs are too complicated.

My honest opinion is that the folks who consider 5e of all things to be too complicated may just not be possible to interest in TTRPGs at all. There are certainly some individuals at the center of that particular Venn diagram, but the sliver is so vanishingly small that I don't think it's worth the effort to get them on board.

Also this question is kind of irrelevant as D&D will continue to be published as long as it turns a profit.

Nah, it'll be published even if it doesn't. The brand is too valuable to let lay fallow for long.

[Cluedrew]

Spoiler: Continuing aside non-intrusively

Show

Spoiler: Spoiler to avoid derail

Show

Because for me, magic being superior to/more capable overall than not-magic is the point of magic, even if there's a hefty cost to its use. There've been dozens and dozens of 50-page threads hashing that out further over the years (you can probably find a number of them by searching my post history) so I'll avoid derailing further here.

Well, except for this one addition - I'm actually fine with high-level martial classes gaining some forms of innate magic, so long as there are certain aspects of magic that only dedicated spellcasters can achieve. So for example, a high-level Rogue being able to do things like teleport through shadows, form items out of shadow, or disappear while being observed, I'd be okay with. But having them heal wounds, bind demons and raise the dead, not so much.

OK than why have non-magic player characters at all? For people who want to play underdogs or something? (Sorry but this is way faster than trying to search your post history.)

To Psyren: Rapid fire replies:

• I understand, I was not kidding when I said LONG term. Or could for that matter.
• Its a matter of perception, the system I was offering was simpler still than 5e. And even if it is an excuse I think it is telling that it is the most obvious bad thing someone would reach for.
• Really? Even if 6th and 7th edition run red you think they would keep publishing it?

[Rhedyn]

I'm good thanks. I could have been clearer - I'm personally not interested in anything lighter than 5e.

Both Stars Without Number and Godbound have legal free versions. I think those games are both lighter than D&D 5e and much more interesting.

I also suggest looking at Savage Worlds for a game equal such but covers a lot more.

[Psyren]

Spoiler: Continuing aside non-intrusively

Show

OK than why have non-magic player characters at all? For people who want to play underdogs or something? (Sorry but this is way faster than trying to search your post history.)

That is indeed one reason - whether for pure challenge or to roleplay fantasy tropes like Conan - but there are other reasons too:

Spoiler

Show

- For starters. I see a clear difference between "casting" and "magic" - I think every character ends up being "magic" eventually, even if that's just through items. So I'm actually not of the opinion that "non-magic" player characters truly exist in the first place, at least at high levels.

- Assuming that by "magic" you meant spellcasting, it's worth pointing out that that requires learning a whole additional subsystem of the game - whether it's how to learn and prepare spells, how schools and descriptors work, how range and targeting work, how spell resistance and saving throws work, how line of sight and line of effect work, how buff and penalty stacking works, and so on. A not-insignificant portion of any TTRPG audience, especially those newer to a particular ruleset, would rather leave all that to their friends and just want to be a badass who swings a pointy stick around. Sure they'll end up playing casters eventually, but having options for the folks who don't want that is very important.

- As mentioned - while I'm fine with martial classes gaining access to specific thematically appropriate magical abilities at higher levels, like rogues having an affinity for shadow and barbarians having an affinity for emotion, blood, or fire magic - I think those dedicated to spellcasting should have a wider variety of abilities available, including some that are unique to their specific means of practicing magic. Nobody should be as good at healing other people as a cleric for instance, it's part of their class identity. For me it's a suspension of disbelief thing - if you could do all the things a cleric can do without being a cleric (and all the faith/piety/etc that entails) it begs the question of why anyone would bother with being a cleric and why are the gods themselves so special anyway.

To Psyren: Rapid fire replies:

• I understand, I was not kidding when I said LONG term. Or could for that matter.
• Its a matter of perception, the system I was offering was simpler still than 5e. And even if it is an excuse I think it is telling that it is the most obvious bad thing someone would reach for.
• Really? Even if 6th and 7th edition run red you think they would keep publishing it?

I do. Note that 5e has changed our definition of what "publishing" even means - they can survive and maintain the brand despite a paltry 1-3 rulebooks per year. So an edition can be actively printing and still have very little in the way of new mainline content. Of course WotC has a lot more freedom to do that than any other publisher since Daddy Magic is bringing in a more regular stream of bacon. Nobody can truly compete with that, not even Paizo.

Both Stars Without Number and Godbound have legal free versions. I think those games are both lighter than D&D 5e and much more interesting.

I also suggest looking at Savage Worlds for a game equal such but covers a lot more.

Your persistence is admirable.

[gooddragon1]

So, for us, 3e sounds like your dream of 6e.

3.5 still exists, so that's good, but not the best.

Imo, if done correctly, jjordan's suggestion could grant more options than 3.5 while retaining all 3.5 options and full reverse compatibility. That should lead to a strictly better version. I used to think 3.5 was the pinnacle, but jjordan's suggestion may lead to an even greater version than 3.5, imo.

3.5 has low as dirt power level (commoners with handguns), and epic Neutronium Golem power level and beyond, but this would potentially add more options with skill based options, fixed feature 3.5 classes, and hybrids in any direction perhaps even with each player using a different variant in the same campaign. Yes, a homebrew could be devised, but building a new system to accommodate all these might make things smoother and more interesting. With full reverse compatibility, all the previous material would also be usable.

[Anonymouswizard]

Both Stars Without Number and Godbound have legal free versions. I think those games are both lighter than D&D 5e and much more interesting.

I also suggest looking at Savage Worlds for a game equal such but covers a lot more.

I have the free version of Godbound, it's a weirdly good Scion/D&D mashing, and I like Scion in concept (although these days I'm more focused on In Nomine).

Not a fan of SWN though. It's not a bad game, but I dislike SF games which put such a focus on Psionics without them being the point (I like psi-punk, even working on some stories in the genre, but I'm not a fan if it's a secondary element). To me the science fiction Archetype triad is Soldier/Engineer/Scoundrel, so I'm more partial to Scum & Villainy's classes (Mechanics, Muscles, Mystics, Pilots, Scoundrels, Socialites, and Stitches/Doctors), I'm using a similar Archetype split in my home brew system (Brutes, Engineers, Faces, Scientists, and Shadows).

[Morty]

Both Stars Without Number and Godbound have legal free versions. I think those games are both lighter than D&D 5e and much more interesting.

I also suggest looking at Savage Worlds for a game equal such but covers a lot more.

I do need to finally look into Savage Worlds. It does sound like it hits on quite a few things I like in a system.

And I do agree with OP that an edition of D&D that tries to intentionally introduce varied power levels could be interesting and impressive. I just can't see WotC doing it. Paizo might have, but they decided to do... something with PF2E instead.

[Quertus]

To Quertus: I see. Although maybe I should of put that slightly differently. How many consecutive rounds of whipping out the opposition would you describe as interesting?

For the BDH party? They had character. Combat - wading through their foes like they were humans - was the backdrop, the "you see a 10'x10' stone corridor, 60' long, ending in a set of double doors". It was the ambiance. The real gameplay for that party - the real challenges they faced - were convincing the townsfolk, quest-givers, and various "friendly" NPCs that we were the good guys. Or, at least, the lesser of two evils. It was dealing with a party that didn't map, whose first priority was going through any secret doors - even if they led out of the secret area that they were already in. It was the innuendo and double entendre that that party practically breathed. How much combat would be interesting? As much as describing dungeon layout in a normal game - ie, more or less infinite.

Every combat was another opportunity for every character who actually got to go to shine. Normally, I'm all about optimizing for "participation", but I've never seen a party as shiny as this one, able to share the shine at the speed of initiative. Getting to shine, over and over, never got old.

Those combats that did last more than half a round before they were over in all but name? Those were the monsters that got our attention, that felt awesome - I mean, they stood up to these guys, who waded through such and such threat like it was human, so this encounter that is actually lasting / threatening this party must be pretty cool.

Does that answer the question you want to ask, or will we go a third round?

[Rhedyn]

I have the free version of Godbound, it's a weirdly good Scion/D&D mashing, and I like Scion in concept (although these days I'm more focused on In Nomine).

Not a fan of SWN though. It's not a bad game, but I dislike SF games which put such a focus on Psionics without them being the point (I like psi-punk, even working on some stories in the genre, but I'm not a fan if it's a secondary element). To me the science fiction Archetype triad is Soldier/Engineer/Scoundrel, so I'm more partial to Scum & Villainy's classes (Mechanics, Muscles, Mystics, Pilots, Scoundrels, Socialites, and Stitches/Doctors), I'm using a similar Archetype split in my home brew system (Brutes, Engineers, Faces, Scientists, and Shadows).

Yeah SWN takes the approach that engineering is a skill not a class. The psionics are optional, but I like them. Hell, I like Codex of the Black Sun too which makes traditional magic more psychic.

I do need to finally look into Savage Worlds. It does sound like it hits on quite a few things I like in a system.

The current Savage Worlds Adventure Edition is great and remains backwards compatible. The whole RPG ecosystem scratches a lot of 3.5 D&D itches I have without being more crunchy than D&D 5e.

And you can play the Rifts setting with it via official first party support. Damn flexible system, but very much not D&D. No HP, no classes, basically no d20 rolls.

[Telok]

For 6e I'd like them to actually test and develop the add-on subsystems that they promised for 5e. Strongholds, domains, sea adventures, planar adventuring, etc., instead of wanting me to pay WotC for downloads of fan made materials.

I'd like a system where 20th level, super genius, archmages didn't fail an average 'know something about magic' check 15% of the time. Where a 6 Int ape can't make that same roll 20% of the time. Where high level characters make all their saving throws more often than they did at first level, rather than just one or two saves getting better.

I'd like for it to be a system where we don't still get 12+ page threads on different interpretations of stealth and invisibility rules three years and several errata versions after release. Where I never feel like getting to roll a check is some sort of failure. Where a melee weapon attack, a melee attack with a weapon, and an attack with a weapon in melee aren't mechanically different and I don't have to care if the word 'attack' is capitalized or not.

I'd like for there to be honest and useful sections for DMs in the adventures that tell them if the adventure is good for beginner DMs and/or players. That tell the DM how much work they'll have to do to make the adventure usable. That at least some of the adventures are made to be usable outside of one world setting without massive rewrites.

[Cluedrew]

That is indeed one reason - whether for pure challenge or to roleplay fantasy tropes like Conan - but there are other reasons too: [...]

Cool, for an off topic tangent that is good enough. Thanks.

Does that answer the question you want to ask, or will we go a third round?

In a way you were perhaps not expecting, but yes it did.

Inspired by Telok's post in a weird inverse way. I wouldn't mind seeing a system for horizontal growth. Either as something you can do instead of a level up or maybe only at the transition between tiers? Also I think breaking the game into explicate tiers with a "class change" between them. I think that would solve a lot of problems, give more direction in shaping a character while keeping to the class system.

[Telok]

You could do horizontal growth through feats. Just lay down a rule that feats never add or change numbers, they can only add new options or allow new combos of abilities. Neatly avoids the sharp shooter / great weapon master / power attack problems, makes it so you can't haff-ass the saves math and rely on feat taxes to fix it, and prevents skill focus / toughness traps. It won't save you from 'air breathing mermaid' type feats, but I'm not sure how to avoid that sort of problem except by having a clear vision for the game before writing the rules.

Thinking about it, something else I'd like for 6e is built in support for stunts and awesome. Currently, for the last few editions, if you wanted to try a stunt or something you'd better have the skill/training, a decent bonus, and roll high on a d20 to boot. In exchange you might get a +2, or advantage, or do regular attack damage, in exchange for all your multiple attacks and your bonus damage and none of your class features applying or helping.

[Morty]

I do think an official edition of D&D could benefit a lot from taking a page off E6, in terms of letting players "cut off" or slow down progression at a certain point. If you want to keep playing after level 6 without becoming significantly more powerful than people around you, or past level 10 without crossing from the "fantasy superhero" tier to the "low-key demigod" one. And so on.

[Pleh]

I'd like a system where 20th level, super genius, archmages didn't fail an average 'know something about magic' check 15% of the time.

Isn't this just saying, "I hate bounded accuracy"?

Honestly, I find it weirder that people expect experts in a field to therefore be omniscient in their field.

"I got to level 20 by casting and studying Fireball exclusively, but now that I've become a wizard legend, I understand all magic I see." There will always be gaps in an academic's study, even in their field of expertise.

Honestly, I like bounded accuracy in 5e. When I see arguments that this high level wizard should be more knowledgable than the bounded accuracy allows, that tells me the players were rolling dice when it wasn't necessary.

"How could my fireball specialist fail to identify a fireball?" I think it's a fair argument for high level, high intelligence wizards to identify many sorts of simpler magics without rolling. You should only have to roll when there's a reasonable chance of failure. Say, 15% for example.

[Rhedyn]

Isn't this just saying, "I hate bounded accuracy"?

Honestly, I find it weirder that people expect experts in a field to therefore be omniscient in their field.

"I got to level 20 by casting and studying Fireball exclusively, but now that I've become a wizard legend, I understand all magic I see." There will always be gaps in an academic's study, even in their field of expertise.

Honestly, I like bounded accuracy in 5e. When I see arguments that this high level wizard should be more knowledgable than the bounded accuracy allows, that tells me the players were rolling dice when it wasn't necessary.

"How could my fireball specialist fail to identify a fireball?" I think it's a fair argument for high level, high intelligence wizards to identify many sorts of simpler magics without rolling. You should only have to roll when there's a reasonable chance of failure. Say, 15% for example.

A good chunk of the problems with the D&D 5e skill system are fixed if you replace the d20 roll with 3d6 for skills and only skills.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You should only have to roll when there's a reasonable chance of failure. Say, 15% for example.

I agree. But I'll add, you should only have to roll (even if there's a reasonable chance of failure) if there are interesting consequences for failure. That condition removes most of the odd situations.

Oh, and if people remember that the DM calls for rolls, not the player, then that archmage knows lots of stuff that the common man doesn't. Because the DM doesn't call for a roll from either--one just knows it, the other just doesn't.

But I also agree with your puzzlement re: specializations. I'm a hard-science PhD (Computational Quantum Chemistry). Ask me something about, say, high-energy physics or QED or other slightly related subfields, and I'm not going to be much better than an informed layperson. If I attend[1] talks by those guys on their stuff, I could catch...maybe 20%? Maybe? And adventuring wizards aren't academics--they're very much hands-on applied types. And having known lots of hands-on applied types, their knowledge of theory is exactly as much as they need to do what they consider much more interesting (which is to say not very big at all). The idea that "magic" is a single topic that someone could know about globally instead of mastering little tiny specialties and a bunch of applied techniques is rather odd to me.

[1] or attended, I'm nearly 8 years out from my PhD and haven't kept up with it much because I'm out of that field mostly now.

[Pleh]

A good chunk of the problems with the D&D 5e skill system are fixed if you replace the d20 roll with 3d6 for skills and only skills.

Fair, though advantage/disadvantage might become a headache, adding dice over and over.

[Rhedyn]

Fair, though advantage/disadvantage might become a headache, adding dice over and over.

Pff now it has 3 tiers

Roll 4d6 take 3 highest/lowest
Roll 5d6 take 3 highest/lowest
Roll 6d6 take 3 highest/lowest

In fact, now I want to replace the combat d20 with 3d6 and make all the situational modifiers stack but lead to an Xd6 roll where you take the 3 highest/lowest. That way there could be a difference between flanking a blind dude who has the high ground and charging downhill against braced spearmen. The system could stay simple by saying everything is just +1 die of advantage/disadvantage.

[Ignimortis]

You should check out DCCRPG and/or The Black Hack 2e.

The max is level is 10 and a level 1 Fighter is nothing compared to a level 10 fighter. The mighty deed die in DCCRPG is like if a battle master could use on of his superiority die maneuvers every attack. While in The Black Hack 2e, a level 10 fighter can attack 10 separate enemies (or less for bigger hits) and with the way the system works, they are just much more dangerous to stronger monsters than a level 1.

I think a lot of you guys would find the D&D you want in OSR games. My recommendation is Stars Without Number, until the author makes his traditional fantasy game for next year (though SWN plus Codex of the Black Sun is all you need for a fantasy game). I recommend that system because it has customization bits like foci (feats on roids) that would keep a more modern gamer entertained.

Thing is, I'm mostly thinking about differences that are "actual new abilities" instead of "more numbers\attacks per turn\hp". And OSR has consistently proved to be not my thing, since those games tend to be crunchy in all the wrong places and kinda hollow in places I actually like to be crunchy.

I think condensing levels is a fine idea; martials keeping perfect parity with magic-users less so.

It's not about perfect parity. It's more about Fighters getting sword beams, super-jump powers, AoE attacks, fantastic inspiration or intimidation (you can turn a mob of scared peasants into a small army of valiant heroes without actually transforming them physically, just through being an impossibly inspiring leader). Something that isn't "I swing my sword one more time now". Barbarians can get ancestral spirits and some magic from them, Rangers can find portals to other planes in the world, Rogues can hide in plain sight and teleport through shadows, etc.

[Telok]

I don't hate bounded accuracy, I just think the 5e model is terrible. Mostly because I kept seeing sessions turn into Three Stooges skits when DMs followed the written adventures and called for bunches of checks.

I have a Paranoia edition that's bounded accuracy, but it's supposed to be a Three Stooges skit with lasers and grenades. Plus it does degrees of success and failure. Call of Cthulhu and BRP are bounded by being d100 roll under. Hero system skills are bounded and don't have D&D 5e tendency to make the die more important than the character and the player. If 5e was supposed to be a comedy game it's bounded accuracy would be near perfect.

The physics example would work if there were subcategories of arcana to specialize in, runes, wards, summons, etc. Then you could equate mastery of a specific subset of physics to mastery of a specific subset of arcana. You would also need some chunk of physics that an Int 6 ape could succeed at 1/5th the time.

I don't hate the concept of bounded accuracy, some of my favorite games implement it. It's just that 5e ability checks turn out Paranoia style results and that's usually not what people want in D&D.

[Ignimortis]

Isn't this just saying, "I hate bounded accuracy"?

Bounded accuracy has its' place, and, IMO, its' place is not in the heroic fantasy genre, which D&D strives to emulate above all others. Heroic fantasy should push characters' own capabilities to the forefront, and 5e pushes the RNG instead.

Most 5e numbers would be much better if they were doubled. A proficiency bonus of 2 at 1st level is fine. What's not fine is that it's +4 at level 9, halfway through the game (and usually at the end of a campaign). A better distribution would be +1 for every two levels, so +3 at 3rd, +4 at 5th, etc.

Stats could also benefit from a PF 2e-style change - each 4 levels you get +2 to four of your stats, independent of class levels and feats, stats cap out at 30 instead of 20, and a typical character gets to 26-28 in their main stat by 20. This keeps the dice relevant at low levels and allows heroes to supercede the RNG when they've gone past the normal bounds.

[Pleh]

Pff now it has 3 tiers

Roll 4d6 take 3 highest/lowest
Roll 5d6 take 3 highest/lowest
Roll 6d6 take 3 highest/lowest

In fact, now I want to replace the combat d20 with 3d6 and make all the situational modifiers stack but lead to an Xd6 roll where you take the 3 highest/lowest. That way there could be a difference between flanking a blind dude who has the high ground and charging downhill against braced spearmen. The system could stay simple by saying everything is just +1 die of advantage/disadvantage.

Wait, so if you have multiple sources of disadvantage, you roll fewer dice (fewer chance of success) or more (more chance of failure)? Or is disadvantage only telling you to keep the lowest dice?

I admit I'm confused by your simple mechanic.

[Mordante]

I'd like to see D&D 6e go to a skill-based system with standard templates for the classes, implement a robust e-publishing system to reduce costs and production times as well as allow for periodic content updates and errata, and leverage the creativity of the community with online tools that allow the community to connect and share their creativity while strengthening the WotC brand.

I like your ideas.

Also I would like get rid of Hit Points increase and get rid of Character Levels.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like your ideas.

Also I would like get rid of Hit Points increase and get rid of Character Levels.

Translation--

"I want D&D 6e to be nothing like D&D and instead be a GURPS-clone." Class/level system, d20s, and increasing HP are some of the hallmarks of the mechanics of D&D.

This topic makes me sad. What I see is a bunch of people, many of whom self-admittedly don't like D&D saying that D&D should stop being D&D and be more like <favored game>. Which is fine, but it's neither useful nor plausible. Even 4e, which got hammered for "not feeling like D&D" didn't do anything nearly that radical.

And there are plenty of other systems you can use if that's what you want. But some people (myself included) like the core of D&D and don't want it ruined by making it just another skill/point-buy system.
----------------
For me, personally, I hope that if 6e is ever released, it's a long time from now. Barring tinkering around the edges, 5e does everything I want from a D&D system. And a slow release pace (for player options) is a plus for me, not a minus. Reasons:
* It helps keep quality higher. TSR (and lots of 3e) showed that a fast pace means massive quality control problems.
* It lets them focus on things they do well, namely adventures.
* It doesn't fragment the landscape or force people to buy dozens of books for that one EPIC COMBO.
* It helps keep power creep somewhat under control while not flooding the market with trap options.
* It leaves a larger landscape for 3pp and private homebrew work.

And it's hard to argue that the slow pace is a bad business decision, considering that the (very much smaller) 5e team is selling more books than ever before, with more active players than ever before.

[Rhedyn]

Wait, so if you have multiple sources of disadvantage, you roll fewer dice (fewer chance of success) or more (more chance of failure)? Or is disadvantage only telling you to keep the lowest dice?

I admit I'm confused by your simple mechanic.

Baseline 3d6
Advantage 4d6 keep highest 3
Disadvantage 4d6 keep lowest 3

5 advantages, 3 disadvantages 5d6 keep highest 3.

You would probably want to cap advantage or disadvantage at 6d6.

And OSR has consistently proved to be not my thing, since those games tend to be crunchy in all the wrong places and kinda hollow in places I actually like to be crunchy.

I feel that. I ignore OSR games with to-hit tables or other BS.

DCCRPG can have that problem with sheer random table boat, but the Purple Crawler app can handle that.

The Black Hack 2e is just really simple. I would say the Fighters get to do cool things, but Casters tend to be weaker too. That's forgivable to me since the game is simple. If I'm learning tons of crunch, then I better be doing some crazy cool things (*cough not PF2e).

But those games tend to lean on sandbox play and not many characters making it to higher levels. You might retire a level 5 wizard because you only rolled 7 hp so far and feel like his skills would be better used running a tavern than getting stabbed.

[Anonymouswizard]

I like your ideas.

Also I would like get rid of Hit Points increase and get rid of Character Levels.

To everybody who clearly wants GURPS/The Dark Eye: just buy those games. You'll have fun with them even though they aren't called D&D.

Actually, if D&D failed then The Dark Eye could in theory take over here, they emulate very similar genres (although TDE is much lower powered).

[Morty]

I feel like there's a lot of ground between "D&D stays exactly as it is" and "D&D becomes a GURPS clone". Whatever 'GURPS clone' is even supposed to mean; I get the impression GURPS is mostly thrown around as a generic bad thing, or at least one D&D shouldn't become. In practice, of course, D&D will stay exactly as it is even if there's a sixth edition in a few years' time. But there's nothing wrong with speculating about what could be.