@@Lays-But-Not-The-Chips, I agree. There are a few TH-camrs, that need to be included in, at the very least playtesting, the development of the next edition. One thing that has really propped up this edition is DM's Guild and third-party content that fills in the gaps. Wizard's really needs to understand that the community almost seems to care more about this game than they do and actively include the community in the game's development. Starting with high-profile TH-camrs like Cody, Monty, and Kelly would be a huge boon to the game's future.
The Dungeon Coach has done some amazing things to make the rules better as well, and many people on the DM's Guild have created better rulesets for areas of the game. It'd be nice for Wizards (Hasbro?) to listen to fans AND these people.
I think it's just doubling down on the problem, which is that D&D is basically two game systems in one: a combat system and a non-combat system. Rather than intensifying the division between those two systems, the boundary should be eroded somewhat.
The non combat feats is a great idea but you can do more in that direction. Maybe professions could scale with level. In 5e it seems that the out of combat activities are now the exclusivity of bards and rogues. It sucks to be a fighter out of combat...
Yeah, it would be cool if we had something like "Attack Powers", and something else called "Utility Powers" that only dealt with out of combat abilities (or at most buffs). Of course, that was just off the top of my head: do *NOT* actually call them "powers", or the bumbling majority will just disregard them without even giving them a chance because the word "power" makes them think of Marvel and DC.
Would love to see some weapon choices that are more suited to creative play rather than strictly damage dealing get some actual mechanics that make them interesting. The net and the blowdart gun, for example. Would also love to see a clear path to becoming a martial character that can use grapples effectively -- or even shoves!
Grappler: I've seen it done by clever multiclassing of Barbarian and Rogue, but the character really depends on having allies who can take advantage (literally) of it.
Play a Rune Knight, with skill expert for athletics expertise and the unarmed fighting style and you can actually grapple quite well in 5e but I agree it would be good to not have to be quite so specific to have grapple and shove be useful
@@crimfan I had a fun grappler barb 5/ fighter 2/rogue X that was based on getting a hold of folks and running around the Perimeter of our Druid's spiked growth field. I got every movement bonus I could find (boots of speed, mobile feat, bonus action dash, action surge, etc). Those d4s add up like crazy when you're dragging 2 mobs through the grinder.
@@migueldelmazo5244 Yeah that would work. The Rogue/Barbarian I saw in action had Athletics expertise. When raging, advantage on Athletics meant basically nothing would win the opposed roll. Rage also meant being able to withstand the retaliation. A smart party will quickly learn to take advantage (figuratively and literally) of that. DPR wasn’t great but control was massive. Having something like Spike Growth as the equivalent of a cheese grater around would be even better. A Minotaur would be amazing at this build.
Agreed, especially about armor, but it shouldn't be something too extensive. I don't think that D&D needs something more complicated than we have now. Such simplicity is one of the main selling points of 5e. I've seen some homebrew on weapon reworks, and while it's cool to have few dozen different weapons each having 3-4 different properties, would most players actually be interested in memorizing and playing all that stuff?
@@antongrigoryev6381 Generally less is more. The issue is that some armors are just obsolete. What is the point of Padded Armor+1, it is as good as a 45 gold Studded Leather armor and that doesn't impose disadvantage. Some of the medium and heavy armors have the same issue.
@@antongrigoryev6381 I've seen the posts you're talking about and while I really like having additional options, when they add like 30 different weapons, shields, and armors that all have different properties and go beyond just dealing damage or increasing AC that's too much. I'd be fine with them adding a few weapons. Also improving armors, especially padded, which only gives 11 AC and disadvantage at stealth. Why even bother using it? It's dumb. And a weapon like the net, which I think could be fun to use, kind of just sucks. The DC to catch someone in it his really low and it only has 1 hit point.
@@GonthorianDX Never generally ! You can do much more with those if you know what you're doing as a player and DM. You can improve them into a much interesting armorsets that can be more defensive or having more utility-functions. Its never always " less is more " . Its often " more is more " . Taking out complexity can be more harmful instead of adding it. But that has its own costs.
@@antongrigoryev6381 Why would you need to memorize all that stuff? You pick the one you want and roll with it. As a Pathfinder Game Master, I've never seen my players have any problem with the fact that there's a wide variety of weapons with different damage, crit range, crit multipliers and special properties. They just find one that they want to use and use it.
Related to this, sucking up your bonus action to attack with an offhand weapon is something I don't really like. I guess WotC wanted to avoid penalties so they had to balance it somehow, but I really prefer 3.5e's -2 penalty to all attacks when using TWF as part of your attack action
@@clone_69 why not just let them have an extra attack as part of the attack action but keep all other rules? Dual wielding light weapons like shortswords at level five would let you attack three times, but they only do 1d6 damage, and you get no shield. One extra attack with a light weapon is not so crazy imo unless you go for some broken build( many which already exist). Maybe say they can't utilize heavy armor either with this fight style to balance ac and dam output. To get crazy damage output you would need either a really strong magical weapon, or to take all the right feats and asi upgrades, which already lead to broken builds. Just my opinion
@@Taking20 I feel like some Dex saves could quite easily be changed to Con - even Fireball for example makes little sense as Dex if you have no cover to hide behind it's more how well you can tank it than getting out of the way. I don't think there's the same risk of 'overloading' CON as it is not an attack or casting stat so you can never be SAD Con unlike Dex which can be used for AC, attacks, and a lot of saves. Another idea could be to make AC more reliant on equipment potentially by putting the baseline lower for light armour to stop high Dex characters equalling the AC of heavy armour so easily while also retaining all the benefits of high dex when strength has fewer incidental benefits.
@Naren Gurrier-Jones fair point - it’s just a really odd concept that you can ‘dodge’ a spherical explosion without even moving from the space. I feel like features like “Evasion” should have a rider effect that force-moves you to the nearest safe edge of the AOE.
really good point. i would love to see more options to interact with the world, perhaps in the form of governance. in fact, in 1e, most classes got a very real 'stronghold with followers' upgrade at a certain level, including ownership of a small plot of land.
@@dm_curt And one that doesn’t force you to cross reference something else! It’s just as easy to list the page number where the subject you are looking for is already listed!
For all the WotC talk of "inclusion", you would think that using a font size larger than microscopic would be a thing for their index. Not just making one that doesn't run you around in circles.
Ha. funny you say that. As someone with a digital design background I thought that was a real issue. It was a poor choice and a simple color change would of fixed that.
Great video! I agree with all these suggestions and would add this: ELIMINATE DEATH SAVES. The official rule should be you are dead at 0hp. Death Saves should be optional. The "I'm down, death save, Healing Word, pop-up" destroys suspense and needs to end
I'm more of the mindset that D&D 5e needs two sets of rules, rather than a bunch of "optional rules", like a hardcore set and a beginner set. The hardcore set would be more challenging and include more advanced mechanics that may or may not slow down gameplay. And in a hardcore ruleset, IMHO, you simply don't reset your failed saves. If you fail twice the first time you go down, your next life or death is a coin-toss.
I'd like non-magical weapons and armor to have more diversity, for instance, I have a character the uses scimitars however two rapiers would just be a straight upgrade so why ever use scimitars or any other weaker martial weapon?
I totally agree. Masterwork also helps with several things: PCs can save for masterwork weapons (which might just be the better options like Rapiers, etc.---see how armor works). It also means that many weapons *won't* be magical, which helps make spells like Magic Weapon actually worthwhile and helps preserve the threat of foes, such as undead or outsiders, that are resistant to weapon damage.
Non-magical bonuses would help fill that desert for bow and crossbow users. There is no need for a magical bow when the magical arrow is the item that determines if the enemy takes full (or any) damage.
@@mattf5935 Daggers are simple weapons, while shortswords and scimitars are martial. So it makes sense that the latter deals more damage. Plus daggers can be thrown. Weapons in 5e, while simple, are pretty well-thought-out, despite what people say. Their power follows clear rules, each with its upsides and downsides, almost no weapon within the same tier (simple/martial) is strictly better or worse than the other. Well, if we don't take feats into account. I personally don't think D&D really needs anything more complicated.
Make non magical weapons have more variety. Give them special effects or effects on crits. A warhammer shouldn't be a longsword that does bludgeoning damage.
Absolutely. Different damage types matter when damage resistance and vulnerability are very common ,like they were in 3.5, but DR and vuln are relatively uncommon in 5e
Different weapons should give you different attacks depending on the weapon. Example: a longsword would give you the ability to make a sweeping attack that hits two enemies. A spear would let you pierce enemies in a line. A shield lets you do a shove attack. Dual wielding swords lets you parry an attack as a reaction. You get the idea.
@@havokmusicinc This is a real pity and a missed opportunity, too. They really reward players' choices, too. I have a monk in the party of the game I DM and I make sure to throw in skeletons and such so he feels awesome when he's mowing them down due to bludgeoning damage vulnerability. The rogue is the zombie killer but he can only knock one down a turn. On the other hand, they can feel the danger ramping up against some other foes.
It’s could be a really bad move. dnd became popular again now because 5th edition is easy to play. If they start to make combat complex with the bunch of rules, they will lose newcomers with 6e. I am not saying complexity in combat is good or bad. But they can’t add lots of changes, especially to combat mechanics, after lots of new players(buyers) in the market.
@@ismailcanozdemir348 If they add a 6e, that doesn't make 5e suddenly nonexistent. People that want simple can play 5e and people that want more customization and variety could play 6e. Most of the things I've seen on TH-cam and Reddit to make 5e better is to add more customization for the players and to make character choices matter more.
I think the dark vision "penalty" made sense with variant humans (as a balance) . But Post-Tasha and the ability to pick and choose ASI bonuses I agree, it seems overbroad.
the problem her eis msot gamers who come into the game fele entitled to playing off the wall exotic races ALL THe TIME cuz Wizards likes to sell books andnew races, sublclasses is the easiest wya to sell books
I'm with you on reducing the magical super-powers, especially for 'none' spellcasters. One thing I would like to see is slowing down healing in some way. The heal all HP on a long rest rule is quick and neat, but it means you can never run attrition style sequences without penalising spell casters. Not saying I want to always punish my players, but a session of hardcore survival mode can be a cool change of pace.
As a Ranger fan I hate how half their kit gets tossed aside because exploration is "the boring part". Nevermind that half of LotR is just fucking finding their way to and from places and trying to get there before troops and armies.
@@TreeRaper Exactlly! What they need to do is figure out a way to make it fun. Other wise why even have classes and subclasses like the scout, fighter, ranger, barbarien and bard who have available to them exploration based skills?
I want a lot less animal based races. We don't need it to become a furry convention. We don't need five lizard races, three bird races, three cat races, bunny races, etc. Let Yuan Ti be as animal like as it gets.
Also 6e needs to be hands off in terms of trying to influence playstyles. ASI needs to be total level based, not per class level based. And yeah fix int as a dump stat. Unpopular opinion: Scrap Sage Advice. Crawford can keep his 2c to himself.
Exploration is kind of brutal to put into your game if you intend to play RAW anyway. Between the Outlander background and spells like Goodberry, being so low level. Even flight at level 5. Characters too easily stumble into making exploration trivial very early on, they don't have to make meaningful character decisions to be good at it. I'd want see the benefit of some of these spells and abilities as tuned down a bit so as a DM i could make exploration more meaningful, and maybe a player would have to make an effort to have those kinds of skills. Right now it just feels like any exploration challenge you put in front of players can be solved with one low level spell slot.
I highly agree on the too many magical abilities / avengers one. Reminds me of the Incredibles when the baddy says "if everyone is super than no one is".
Piggybacking off of your “less magic powers, more magic items” idea, I’d love to see the return of cost and ability to CREATE magic items. Sure, make the really powerful ones prohibitively expensive, and give them difficult requirements. But, set a value on the time, and resources needed to craft them. It was done very well in previous editions, and every DM I know uses those older versions as a guide for the “magic economy” in their worlds. I’d like to see it officially brought back into the game.
I would say the really powerful one's shouldn't be bouth nor should they have a prince. If you want them you have to go adventure for the materials and to make them and it should be HARD.
It kinda was done in 5e, in Xanatar to be precise. The rules are quite shallow, but it is assumed that the details are worked out by the DM depending on the campaign and situation. I actually like it, even if numbers could use some ajustments.
Magic item creation rules are in the DMG and Xanathars. Problem is they aren't written very clearly and the two sets are slightly different from each other
@@antongrigoryev6381 That's actually one of my biggest problems with 5e. So much stuff is super shallow then assumed to be "worked out" by the DM. With the nature of D&D today, where so many people are playing with strangers online, having barely any agreed upon baseline for stuff like this is challenging. I don't think it would be that crazy to add in one or two pages for some more fleshed out magic item creation/pricing rules.
I'd like a 6e rule book and then an additional book just on crafting. It could detail options for crafting mundane items as well as magical items and even include rare components that a DM could use to create an adventure like collecting magical creature parts or materials. I'd also like better pricing for magical items in case I do want a merchant to sell them. Giving me a range of 500-5,000 or 5,000-50,000 doesn't help.
"A bonus action has nothing to do with time" Except that part in the Players Handbook where it says the following "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift." (PhB Ch 10) This certainly suggests that bonus actions are faster than actions. You could argue that only applies to spells. But I definitely think the argument for bonus actions being shorter than actions is stronger than the other way.
I like the house rule suggestion made somewhere (this channel maybe?) that warlocks be EITHER a charisma or an intelligence class, decided upon character creation.
I have a request - can we have less emphasis on fire damage spells? Every time I take spells I say “I’m not going to be boring and take all the fire spells” but then I cave and do it anyway because they’re so good. Pyromancers are fun but it does get old seeing them everywhere - other damage types need some love.
The elements are pretty evenly balanced - fire does more damage, than cold, thunder,etc, but that's because way more creatures are resistant to fire than anything else.
I really wish they would make casters more "Build your own" or scale them back. The biggest question I get from new players and those who don't play casters is "What is the difference between Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, Bard..." I explain and their eyes glaze over and usually respond with "Who can shoot lightning?" and I explain all of them and try to get into nuances of each buy usually just push Sorcerer in front of them to move on with Character Creation. I've been playing a lot of OSR and older DnD and I really like the "Circle" system and always wanted a system to build your own spell list and theme it out. Like I want to be able to take a bunch of Lightening spells and ditch all the illusions and get a nice bonus for being so restricted. Or take a bunch of variety in lower level spells and ditch higher levels and theme it has a hedge witch or wizard who is very versatile but lacks higher power. Idk casters and their innumerable permutations seems bloated to me after 20 years of gaming and I'd like to see a more elegant system for them.
Totally agree - I always see newer players say things like "I want to be a necromancer" or "I want to be a earthbender". But in 5e, if you want to play an effective caster you are always going to be grabbing a couple spells from all kinds of different schools.
Hard agree here ~ Also, I feel like players get access to so many spells early on and then it kind of dwindles out over time. I wish there was a way to make playing a spellcaster feel more like they're learning one new spell at a time and it's a big, meaningful addition to their arsenal, rather than having so many low level spells to pick from all the time. Or at least perhaps a class where it works like this, for more RP heavy games.
That sounds like your idea will result in it being ridiculously complex as players who are not me generally don’t memorize all the spells that could be taken.
Odd to use the Druid for your bonus action example when I know it's one of the few instances in the game where you can choose to Wild Shape as either an Action or Bonus Action. The wording of Circle of the Moon is "you gain the ABILITY to Wild Shape as a bonus action".
@@timr6318 Nah, It says you gain the ability. So, now you have wildshape as an action from your class and wildshape as a bonus action from your subclass. It says nothing about replace or change the ability. You gain another ability.
Quick clarification of what I said, I would rule it as a choice between the two, do to how literal many of the things like that are, but it's still a rules interpretation, the Sage Advise Compendium probably has an answer for what the designers intended for it though. Also, quick was wrong for when I said "Quick clarification", his was a lot longer than my original comment.
3:27 Taking circle of the moon doesn’t remove your ability to wild shape as an action, it just adds the option of doing so as a bonus action. The key word there is “can.”
three things I would want are: 1: 5e and 6e work together. It will be sad if all my stuff are mostly useless in the new edition. 2: More choises between different levels. Not just strait progression. 3: Skills would not be associated with any ability score. I know this is an optional rule, but if it was a rule from the start VTT's would make them integrated and not hard to use.
That’s exactly what Xanathar’s guide and Tasha’s Cauldron did. Really if they make another big rules expansion I’d rather it came from another book like that
@@TylerBevanOfficial I would like 3-4 choices . Not just 1 or 2 for first 3 levels. Tashas was good. Xanathar less for these points. Tho I like Xanathar more as DM.
For 6E WotC needs to: 1) Fix Dual Wielding 2) Fix the broken classes and subclasses 3) Fix the broken Feats 4) Redesign Races so that the customizing introduced in Tasha’s is built in and balanced 5) Create more robust rules for Exploration and Social interaction 6) Create rules for high level play that include such things as strongholds, followers, etc.
I think 5e is too scared to try adding new classes. The mystic was trying to outclass every other class at the same time with way too many options and features. There's definitely a place to have more classes in D&D but most things that could be a class by itself just becomes one or more subclasses for the existing roster.
Nerd Immersion did an interview with Jeremy Crawford a few years back and you can find it on he's channel. The jist of it is that they will introduce new classes only if they fill theirs a niche in the game that isn't covered by the already existing classes. Which I agree.
@@TheBatch62 Ok, I don't think I expressed myself correctly. What I meant by ''niche'' was mechanical niche. As in, a niche in terms of a role in the party. As for the Mystic I agree that they should've made it a full class but the reason why they didn't was because they couldn't figure out a way to do it without makeing it OP so they just give up on it.
Honestly they should come out with a way to make your own classes; some kind of additional guideline of all the things needed to build 'a class', and then let people make games with their own custom classes. It could be entirely left out of games if people don't like it, but if there were a small addition book or something I'd buy it because my PC's often really have a 'specific vision' for a character and then try and find the most similar class to that, and sometimes it can feel a bit... shoe horned in. I always let them make little changes here and there but honestly if I could give them a class template and have them fill it out, let me double check it and approve/tweak whatever so it's not OP, that would work out really well for like half my players.
I would love to see a return of skill points, and size differences in combat. Like still keep proficiency but add some way to get extra skills or better at skills beyond proficiency
Yep. THe lack of customization with skills (really the game's only way for a character to interact with the world they live in outside of killing things) is one of the things that keeps me from playing 5E
Nop, they are fine as they are, they should just buff the martial classes and the enemies. Just remove Wish from normal progression. The amazing versatility that all offer is great, maybe they should just make the spell lists of each more defined (not that many spells that 3-5 classes have) and with less options for all.
Spellcasting is a design crutch that holds 5e back. Artificers, bards, rangers, and paladins should have more unique abilities instead of just copying the wizard, cleric, and druid.
Agreed. Tho Artificers and bards are in a weird spot there in which to make useful without spellcasting you'd basically need to create an entire pesudo-spell list just for "abilities" and I don't think it would change much in how they play as well "the artificer makes a ring that can make you invisible and-this is just a magic item and a spell" "the bard sings their heart out and their allies gain power-this is just bless". The other classes/subclasses for martial's I agree with. I think a great example of giving a unique ability that feels mystical but isn't just magic was echo knight.
I really hate how much EVERYTHING is magic i want alot more abilities. More difference between magic and martial classes while keeping both interesting
@@mondaysinsanity8193 agreed. It really seems that the design team just doesn't know what to do with pure martials, possibly because of the 4e backlash. Honestly, if I ever ran 4e, it would probably be martials only.
If you want to play those classes and have them play differently play 4e where Rangers, Paladins, Bards, and Artificers all kick a lot of ass and that group would be a truly viable group of classes.
My prediction is alignment will go away and there will be a lot more about role playing and non-combat gaming in the rules and DMG. However, I also predict 5e isn’t going anywhere soon, it’s too profitable and popular. Why would WOTC want to fix what isn’t broken?
So a book company to sell more books is why. Think about this they release an edition with minor to medium bad rules and limited class selection but also revised upon the previous one at the start of the edition. Then release new books i.e. xanathar and tasha that brings in "optional" rules for fixes but also might have pushback from dm's because it might be game breaking. More books later and then the edition finally breaks and you have players torn between which books to follow also the limit on how many books your DM will allow. Enter the 6th edition with revised rules here and there from all the books from 5th but oddly not fixing everything or including all the best stuff and then more add on books are announced to buy.
The alignment system will stay, mainly because of cosmology. But I wouldn't be surprised if they made an effort to be more flexible in the "born this way" alignments. Like Eberron does. Flaws, boons etc. are a much better way to define actions of NPC's.
3rd edition/3.5 was nearly flawless. Insanely popular and well loved. They scrapped it for 4th edition which was unplayable (wotc still owes me $100 for that nonsense.) But I wouldn't be surprised to see a "5.5" release instead of true 6th edition. Keep the same basic rules but tweak them.
@@unB10 3.5 was nearly flawless? As someone who cut their teeth on 3.5: WHAT?! 3.5 is unbelievably bloated and by RAW had the most unbelievably stupid things be possible. Drown Healing, Peasant Railgun, Locate City Bomb, Pun-Pun, The Infinite INT at lvl 5 Artificer build, Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards, the ERUDITE+ Spell to Power feat making you able to learn EVERY psionic power AND every arcane spell *in the game*. No. 3.5 was deeply, deeply flawed.
I completely agree with you that 5e is a great system that could be better. Perhaps my greatest frustration is this weird balance tension between "short rest classes" and "long rest classes" - like fighter vs paladin, or warlock vs wizards. For them to be balance, you need a certain pace or rythm of encounters per day. I don't like that class balance is so tied to how many encounters per day you have.
I think barbarians would get pretty smart, haha. The number of skill proficiencies could have a similar rule. X + Int mod. Always felt weird that the wizard smarty gets the least skills, tools, and languages.
@@blakereid5785 I've played with a dm that allows you to pick up a tool, language or skill proficiency based off your int mod up to an additional 5 proficiencies. It made sense and I liked it
@@blakereid5785 the reason is that most of the skills do not depend from your intelligence. I don't think that being more intelligent makes you more capable to learn a skill like stealth or persuasion.
@@MrReset94 That’s definitely true. “Im so smart, that’s why I’m so Athletic, Acrobatic, Stealthy, and good at Performing” haha. You would still need good stats in those relevant skills for them to be high, though. The issue with skill-less wizards could just be solved with giving them 1 or 2 extra proficiencies in the INT skills. Int is still an unfortunate dump stat, though.
I would absolutely love for them to include minions in 6e. I never actually played 4e, but I saw the Dungeon Dudes talk about minions in a video and I've since used them a couple times. One of my fondest memories from playing a cleric in 3.5 was vaporizing hordes of skeletons with my Turn Undead ability and Extra Turning feat, and anything that might simulate that feeling for my players is okay in my book. I'd also really like more fleshed out exploration rules, and for the Ranger to be good at it without just skipping it entirely like it largely does now.
I'm editioned out. 5e is "pinnacle" and I'm passing on any further while on a high note. And I always homebrewed no matter the edition, especially minions (players rolled damage and if not a "1" or "2" those designated minion-types were dead, but didn't tell them this was what I was doing and calculated XP appropriately. When a player complained they weren't getting the "right" amount of XP, I used the _well, you defeated weakened opponents since they went down so easily from those damage rolls you made, didn't they? And you got full XP for the main enemy that you all spent most of the combat fighting_ rationale. This satisfied all but the - ugh - die-hard _rules lawyer_ player), since AD&D-no-number-edition.
@Rage the Promised End If that player wants to play 6th or 7th or whatever-number-after edition, they can run it. I might even play it, but I'm not running it nor buying the books. I have enough rpg rules and sets lining my bookcases.
Is pretty much the same for my group. Pathfinder 1e and Star Wars Saga Edition are our main systems, and we're home brewing the Star Wars intro our own version of Starfinder, since the real one turned out to be a gear grind.
@@thedocklighter look at dis guy, "with enough rule systems and books on my shelf". What kind of schmuck just plays a few systems and doesn't want to explore and expand. This kind of chutzpah is why Pokémon has genwunners and Legacy format in MTG are still a thing. "I spent a bunch of money supporting the hobby 20 years ago and now I don't want to go outside my comfort zone."
@@meseattlequin Wow, you sound butthurt over something that doesn't even affect you. It shows you also have difficulty reading: I said _bookcases_ not "shelf", which means I been in ttrpg and the hobby since The Holmes edition of D&D, buying my first set, the boxed Moldvay basic in my early teens and making my way up the AD&D editions. I've played a fair share of other RPGs and GMed, DMed, Refereed, Director-ed, etc. more of them: fantasy, sci-fi, modern, post apocalyptic, psychic, horror, supers. I didn't pick up _Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft_ because I learned from experience horror isn't my thing. What I want to do with my money is my business, not yours. You want to toss your money at every new thing, that's your business. Your saying I can't have an opinion on what I choose to do speaks volumes about you and just how triggered and entitled you are. So pull your thumb outta yer puckerhole and grow up. And work on improving your reading comprehension. BTW chutzpah is largely a good thing, but only a real schmuck wouldn't know that.
@@mech45 I'm a 2E/3E guy which means I prefer slower natural healing, less "wack a mole" combat healing from unconsciousness, a dying mechanic that offers greater danger and requires more teamwork than is typical of 5E, and if a character does die, it should not be so easily reversed. I've already heavily house ruled my own game, meshing the flavor of older editions with the mechanics of 5E. As an example, I kept death saves as I actually like it conceptually over the older -10 rule as the older rule was less scalable with level. However, you can be killed outright the moment you go to 0 in older editions as is possible in my game with an immediate do or die saving throw that's separate from the 3 strikes and your out death saves. The DC is only 5, but it highly incentivizes player to avoid this. Also, when the characters are down and making death saves, the DC is more difficult at 12 in my game, meaning that you are slightly more likely than not to fail the save rather than the other way around. You never automatically stabilize in my game either. You always need a little help from your friends. I've omitted revivify from my game. I've also played with the idea of disallowing ranged bonus action healing from bringing downed team members to 1 hit point, but that's not currently implemented. Another change in my game is that I've dramatically reduced hit point recovery from short and long rests as well as differentiating between long rests in the field and total rest while being tended to in town. These changes help recapture the feel of older editions while in some cases utilizing the arguably superior mechanics of 5E.
@@MC-gj8fg Hey, so, don't know if you'll see this, but I would be interested in hearing how you changed short rest and long resting(town vs wilderness) if you don't mind explaining that is.
I love feats, really a great way to add extra flavor and richness, a few of them are super OP, which is fun. It’s great to build a min maxed pc, but that overshadows a lot of great feats that don’t do much. So my idea is to make two lists of feats. Major (mechanic based) and minor( flavor or role play based) and you can pick one from each list when taking a ASI or something like that.
Just for the records, a moon druid still can wild shape on an action. The Combat Wild shape feature says you gain the ability to wild shape as a bonus action, not that you lose your ability to wild shape as an action. There's a Sage advice clarifying this.
I agree. Less innate magic, more magic items. Something like 5 slots. Perhaps magic items that grow along the characters (yeah, I know - critical role). So they become more personalized.
Yes, completely agreed, also, for attunement, they could make the new one similar, with some changes, or, they could completely rework it, which has a possibility of being the better way of doing it.
That's a very neat point about separating combat and social encounter feats. I wonder if it could be separated one step farther into the third pillar of exploration. For example dungeon delver doesn't really fit into either social or combat. The classes or your ability scored could then determine when you pull from each of these lists of optional features.
I'd like to see more smaller, less impactful "feats" that can be taken every level or every other level. They'd be closer to flavor than power but would allow more interesting choices and more mechanical development of character. Perhaps they'd replace some of the features that are baked in to subclasses currently. Maybe it even replaces the subclass system through the use of dependencies or ability tiers.
Agreed, or more "+1 to a stat and some extra interesting stuff" and less "let's make this the dominant strategy you'll use over and over to do craptons of damage" feats. I do like the notion of having some combat and non-combat feats acquired at different times.
Honestly, feats should disappear all together as we know it, instead they should be "boons" that players earn through gameplay rather than the leveling process, with the boon being specific to the campaign at hand, decided together with the DM and player to make them more distinguished compared to other characters of the same race/class combo.
@@jk5385 i think it's not as good because less experienced dms and players would not do it as much, whereas the actual system is litterally forced on you and you get consistent upgrades Having it on top could be cool tho
Because I'm a big old pedanty pants: actually a Circle of the Moon Druid can still use Wild Shape as an action RAW because the text says "you gain the ability to use Wild Shape on your turn as a Bonus Action, rather than as an action". It does not say that this ability replaces your existing ability to do it as an action, or that Wild Shape is now a bonus action for you.
Controversial/Hot take: We don't need 6th edition, minions could be added with a simple new "rule" or suggestion. Just pump out new sourcebooks and make errata as needed 🤷♂️
Agreed. I use minions all the time in 5e. Play them more like a swarm, with player damage reducing the overall percentage, and the overall percentage generating a certain number of hits.. As the players reduce the percentage, they get hit less often. I use the player's AC to help determine the distribution of those hits.
@@cptzoom1155 It’s inevitable that there will be another edition, the question is: when? Also, how compatible will it be with 5th Edition, that gets so much right and has a huge install base. I don’t think they’d ever call it 5.5, but maybe Advanced 5th Edition. Or better yet, 5th Edition: OLED version. :)
Circle of the Moon does not "turn your Wild Shape into a bonus action." "When you choose this circle at 2nd level, you gain the ability to use Wild Shape on your turn as a bonus action, rather than as an action." This means it becomes either. A rogue doesn't lose the ability to disengage as an action just because you gave them the ability to do so as a bonus action. Same with the druid. Circle of the Moon, specifically, can Wild Shape as either an action or a bonus action.
I actually love your idea of multi-attack for martial classes and I'll be using it in future games if any of my players multiclass like that. I see no reason for my barbarian who wants 3 levels in fighter for Battle Master maneuvers to need 5 levels in one or the other to get 2 attacks when they're both martial fighters
I would like to see more options when a character goes up in level. Once a character chooses their Archtype, have options for different features. Not just forcing a single feature. It would be nice to see not all swashbuckler rogues or moon druids be exactly the same. Also more feat options and opportunities to take feats that don't interfere with ability score improvements.
Yeah- we could handle something like skill trees for different classes like in video games. I want to make some kind of choice at every level up. As it is, every subclass is sorta a "combo pack" that has some things you want and some you don't, hence tons of homebrew adjustments and subclasses. That's very plug and play but considering how long it can take between levels, I think I can handle a minor choice each time. I have had at least 3 weeks as level 3, I won't be overwhelmed at level up time if I have to choose between e.g. +1 to marksmanship or +1 to dagger attacks or +1 to AC when I Dodge (and it won't be hard to track- I add the modifier/note to my weapon stats/below my AC box and move on).
It sounds like you want feat pools from PF2e. It doesn't sound like a bad idea, tbh, since since many classes and subclasses do have some choices to make while leveling. Choices such as spells or specific features like Battlemaster Manuevers, or fighting styles.
I would like a change to be made to armour and AC. Maybe some way that armour can have modifications rather that the usual, light armour wearers only wearing studded leather, medium armour wearers wearing half plate and all heavy armour characters wearing plate. Something to help make everyone feel unique when it comes to their class and role.
Adding some form of built-in damage reduction would be a good start, like, this armor has lower AC than that one, but provides better DR due to construction. Like chainmail being better at stopping slashing and bludgeoning attacks, but is less effective at stopping piercing attacks. But that would require more bookkeeping on damage types the enemy attack causes, so probably it won't see much use
i am not sure where i have seen this mechanic but give everyone three actions in a turn. this can be any combination of actions (move, attack, cast, or interact) up to 3. that way if you want to limit how many spells people cast then give the spell a greater action cost. in this system you can run allout or attack allout. then an extra attack would allow an attack action to improve the number of attack actions you can take.
I love minions, and still use them. I'd bring back the Minor Action for everybody, and put roles back in there too. 4E did a lot of good things. I think a lot of 5E players would love it.
Didn’t even know I was house ruling minor actions into 5e. When I switch “bonus” for “minor” it clicks in for every new player and they stop trying to do main actions “faster”
I’d like to see mid-combat healing changed. It’s frequently mentioned that healing is kind of pointless in combat (unless a character is down), which makes an entire set of spells pointless. However, just increasing the amount of healing from spells is a bad solution, as it just makes combat longer. There needs to be a change to hit points and healing to make it an important option. That said, we are NOWHERE NEAR a new edition, in my opinion. 5e is far too popular for WotC to ditch it, and most of the posts and videos about what needs to change don’t have a lot of real problems.
Maybe add injuries? That troll broke your arm; you have to swing your sword with your off hand, so no proficiency bonus on the damage. Or maybe, you got shot in the leg with an arrow. Your movement speed is half until you heal up. If damage affected more than whether or not you were alive, there would be more reason to heal in combat. Heck, maybe even 1/2 hit points causes 1 level of exhaustion, 1/4 causes 2.
Idk about healing being useless. My level 4 Monk has 23 max HP. We fought a Flameskull, I failed my Dex save (with +7 mind you) on its Fireball and took 30 damage. Before that turn I was just on 5 HP, our cleric healed me up. I would have died. This is also not even close to being the only incident like this, just the most recent one. Healing saves PC lives.
I had a DM who allowed you to learn more skills and languages due to your int score (+1 skill or language for each + for the int modifier). I think it’s a simple but effective way to make int actually useful.
I do this, but tweaked a little. On +1, +3, +5…. you gain one skill, language, or tool proficiency On +2, +4……. you gain a language or tool Main reason to not do skills at every level is because 5e to my knowledge has less skills so getting them so much more often makes any class that uses intelligence significantly stronger. For example, at level 8 most wizards could have 5 more skills than everyone where as with my way they are only 3 ahead which is still a lot
I really like the Int based skill and language system. In pathfinder your Int determines extra starting languages and how many skill points you get on level up. Makes intelligence a bit more useful as an attribute rather than an easy dump if you are not a wizard.
Yeah even if its just optional rules, I'd love to see one or two pages on this. However, I think changing the rest system and the availability of spells that make travel/survival trivial would also be needed in 6e for it to be interesting.
Well there are some kinda rules for this kind of thing, but there are abilities that make things like foraging nearly trivial anyway. Goodberry is a lvl 1 spell, Outlander background literally just handwaves foraging played as RAW. Create or destroy water is also a first level spell. Its hard to make 'survival' a meaningful challenge within RAW.
I agree that there should be more mundane classes but on the other hand, the classes we do have illustrate all the different ways to approach and possess magic, whether that be an altered state (barbarian), physical discipline (monk), a vow (paladin), or so many other kinds.
I know this one is talked about a lot, but, make superiority dice a base class feature for fighters. You don’t have to give them as many as Battlemaster, but just a few. There can still be a subclass like Battlemaster that expands on this even farther as well. But Fighters are supposed to be these unique versatile fighters that use all sorts of different weapons and fighting techniques, and yes they helped do this with fighting styles which are great, I just think Fighter should get 1 or 2 superiority dice at like level 3 or something to make each fighter even more distinct.
I'd say that BM could be an expansion on an entire system given to the fighter. Get rid of the x3 extrattack and add some manouvers as basic fighter mechanic (at certain levels ofc) with the sup-dices, then make the BM being an improvement on that.
Regarding innate magical abilities VS magic items, I think I prefer the current style. Not for any mechanical reason, but simply because it feels lame having the major thing that sets a player character apart being the stuff in their pockets. As for what I would want to see, more tactically interesting abilities for martial characters. Barbarian rages then roles to attack a couple times, and that's it. Fighter attacks, then attacks again, then maybe attacks some more and that's it. Currently the only way to make them interesting is with feat choices or getting spells through multiclassing or whatnot. Specific moves and techniques like the Battlemaster Fighter gets should be the baseline for all martial classes.
I know you have said you are not a fan of pathfinder anymore but I love that 3 action system, all actions are the same and you have 3 things you can do. Just seems to work
Check out 5 torches deep. It is a lot more nasty there are no dumb states or super powers. Combat is fast and scary. Spells per day are gone but magic is dangerous. What a couple vids on it.
@@Honkbs that is cool. I think they exist in 5e but then again I bought it played it for six months twice a week and then pitched in the sell pile. I found that I could just steal the very few things that it offered that. I like Advantage and Backgrounds maybe a couple of the feats and then put them in something less super hero like. Then I got into osr grim dark stuff and realized the death economy of TSR and WofC games are flat and unexciting. But I am glad that you are enjoying your gaming experience.
I think bonus actions are a very necessary thing. There needs to be a way to have things PCs can do in addition to an attack/important spell but that are more limited than a free action. Without cunning action, Rogues wouldn't work. Would a barbarian need to use an action to enter rage? Without bonus action heals and buffs, people will stop playing support casters because they'll be giving up their actions. There are simple fixes to this, and it's mostly going back to some things 4E did right (shocking, I know): - Call them "minor actions" again, or something like "swift action." Personally, I never found the wording difficult, but I've heard enough people complain that I'll concede it. - Let people "downgrade" their action to a minor action (like you could in 4E) - Give a couple of things that people can use their minor action for regardless of class (such as certain skill checks, additional object interactions, etc.) - Give more enemies minor actions
@@DaDunge Rumor has its infested with radical left ideology, you dont roll dice " because chance is raaacist" you just sit their as players talk about their monsterous race pcs feelings. Lol
@@underfire987 We know MAGA klowns aren't smart enough to follow the rules. Afterall they voted for a draft dodging serial cheater that had to declare bankruptcy 6x.
@@underfire987 The only leftist idea I've heard touted was to remove stats being linked to race. Race would be more descriptive than a requirement to get certain stats, then you link the stat increases to the class. While race discussions are a political hot potato, I don't think this is a bad idea.
@@Wertbag99 the problem with this is that the D&D definition of "race" is completely different than the real world definition. In real life, the differences between human races are minute and largely irrelevant, so assigning stat boosts/penalties to specific races is inaccurate and offensive. In D&D, the races might as well be different species. Why would anyone get offended by horses having higher STR than ducks? Or an elephant having lower DEX than a monkey? That's basically what people are offended about, and it's silly.
I'd want one design ethos for 6th Edition: Every level is an adventure. There's a very real and rewarding aspect of leveling up your character. Seeing new abilities each level. Some classes are able to express this. Most do not. For comparison sake only, Pathfinder 2e does this well. Doling out small but interesting choices spread across 20 levels. A sixth edition of DND could spread out ASIs. It could alternate between combat and noncombat feats every other level. Imagine if a three level cycle was: +2 to a stat Social Feat Encounter Feat Repeating 6 times. With first level and 20th offering up different things. You throw in class abilities every now and then. Casters getting more interesting spell selections and you have a very rewarding path of progression. I don't want added complexity. Just added excitement.
"You gain the ability to Wild Shape as a bonus action." I always took that to mean you now have the option of doing it as a bonus action. But you still retain the ability to do it as an action. It doesn't explicitly say it takes that ability away.
Sneak attack is capped as once per turn. And I think Cody means that Extra Attack should scale like the spell slot progression. So you add all your levels in Fighter / Paladin / Ranger / Monk / Barbarian / Valor Bard / Bladesinger / Batllesmith and whatnot together and divide it by five (rounding up) to get your number of attacks in one action. This list would obviously not include the Rogue or any full caster because those don't get extra attack
@@derboeseVlysher interesting. If you took that approach, the Fighter would be the only “full martial” class in the game, I guess? They’re the only ones who progress beyond 2 attacks. ::thinks:: You could say “If you have a combined total of 5 levels between any of the classes (Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk) or subclasses (Armorer Artificer, Battle Smith Artificer), 6 levels between any of the previously listed classes and subclasses in addition to College of Swords Bard, College of Valor Bard, and Bladesinger Wizard, or you have the Thirsting Blade Warlock Eldritch Invocation, you attack twice instead of once when you take the Attack action.” I’m not sure, though, if a 5th level Paladin/6th level Fighter should get to take advantage of the Fighter’s 3 attacks. That, to me, seems like a fighter-specialization benefit and should remain an 11th level Fighter feature. (And 4 attacks should be a 20th-level Fighter-exclusive feature.) There needs to be some benefit for specialization. Casters benefit from specialization by getting access to higher level spells. (You need at least 17 levels in Wizard or Sorcerer to get Wish, for instance.)
@@PaideumaSF it's nothing to be easily implemented in 5e, that's why it's here. You should probably rework all the classes to streamline it. I never really understood why Bladesinger and Valor Bard get Extra Attack at level 6 instead of level 5. The third and fourth attack could just be given to all the martial classes and fighters get something else instead. All attack cantrips get a buff at 5, 11 and 17 too, so why not extra attack for every martial class? But there needs to be general reworking for this to work out
@@derboeseVlysher There's a lot of ad hoc in 5E, which is why Bladesinger and Valor Bard get them then. I think the extra attacks would have to become weaker if there are that many. Upping the damage on one attack might work better.
I want weapons that require dex and strength to stop the desire to dump a stat. For example in real life a long bow requires dex to aim but a lot of strength and conditioning to actually fire consecutively. So in 6th edition I would say for long bows and certain other weapons dex should be used for to hit bonus but strength should be used for damage.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't entirely agree. You need strength to be able to use the weapon effectively, but making the damage dependent on your strength opens up an entire can of worms of "Should range be limited by strength too? What about crossbows? Does strength determine your reloading speed?" and other questions. I like that Dex determines your damage too, because I think it also makes a certain amount of sense to think that your aim increases your damage, because the better aim, the more likely you are to hit the vulnerable spots.
Well that would make so that you have to worry on at least 3 stats everytime you build a non magical class. I's argue that at best they should make many more weapon to be possibly used with either STR or DEX, rather than just STR for most of them and DEX for a few.
@@1Kapuchu100 Okay. How about dex still determines to hit and damage. But certain weapons have strength requirements. So long bows use dex to hit and do damage but you need, say 13 strength to get your proficiency bonus.
@@Twiska I think that makes more sense, but it still runs into the problem that Akuma pointed out, which is being forced to invest in another stat to use a weapon with any degree of effectiveness. It's not as bad, but it's not optimal, I don't think.
@@1Kapuchu100 Yes. But this would be implemented in a new edition of D&D. Which could of set that issue by reworking the feat/ASI system. And with desperately more needed strength based checks and skills. In 5e strength is bad. You rarely use it. This is a suggestion for an edition with more uses and requirements for strength. I think a martial character should have to worry about strength and dex. And they should be rewarded for that with more uses for it. Only one strength skill is horrible in my opinion. And out side grappling (which I have problems with) athletics is never even used in 5e. Edit: I think maybe strength and construction should be combined. Con doesn't have any skills anyway. So say strength and construction was combined into a singular "body" stat and more "body" skills and saves were added then it think it would work out. Then you could bring in a new mental stat to diversity the casters as too many use charisma in my opinion. (Also I hate how all those classes are by default charismatic) Perhaps a dedicated "faith" stat for paladins, clerics and warlocks.
You are right on having more Intelligence saves, but I don't want it to give extra proficiencies or the like, because that would make wizards more OP that they already are. I would also like to see that all martials get extra skills and expertise in 1 skill (similar to Tasha's Ranger) to make them more interesting out of combat without giving magical bonuses or requiring multiclass or feats to do so. Half casters could get an extra skill too.
Totally agree that magic is far to common in 5e classes. Playing a wizard in the early 1st and second editions meant you had fireball and chain lightning and no one else did. Wizards had a d4 for hit dice meaning that it was difficult to keep them alive at the early levels. But if you did survive and level up, you were rare and had unique and powerful abilities to bring to the table.
Rules for Crafting/Enchanting. Mines and Caves are common to use in campaigns, so it would make sense for players to collect ores and gems they find down there. They could use that to create armor. Then, if one can enchant, have rules on making runes and enchanting weapons/armor. This stuff could easily benefit exploration
@@derboeseVlysher I don't think the level should make a difference, since you would normaly not get that many magic items in lower levels. An ability score might be good, but if the base value is too low that would not work, since that score would be a must-have.
It worked really well for (de)buffs in anarchy online where it was NCU memory. You had a deck with given amount of space for memory chips with better decks being able to hold more memory chips. Trouble is that balancing everything in 5e for such system would be a nightmare anarchyonline.fandom.com/wiki/NCU_Memory
I'd like to see a tiered system for grappling akin to the exhaustion system. It's ridiculous that while being grappled (=grabbed), pinned/restrained (=grappled), and prone, by any number of creatures, you can still do any action. There should be some control that can be gained from grappling equivalent to parts of the paralyzed condition, in addition to being able to move an enemy. The Grappler feat could stand to be buffed as well, and a tiered system for grappling would open up some design space. Grappled characters should share the same 5' space as the grappler, depending on size. And Heated Body should be clarified/improved for/against grappling. It's a part of 5e that feels half-developed.
I'm _fairly_ confident we're still a couple years away from 6e, but it wouldn't surprise me if the designers were already taking notes and having conversations about it.
@@wjbiv75 Like the other 2 comments stated, probably not for a couple of years. I would suspect that they are already starting alpha testing of rules. If they want to release in a couple of years, they will need to start testing the alpha rules now to fine tune them, get artists to start creating images, if they are going to have any type of software in place they will need to get those rules to programmers, etc. I would suspect they are well on their way to doing 6e.
@@Scott-ig6nx, awesome! I invested in the Starter Set, Essentials Kit, DM Guide, Monster Manual and Players Handbook and I’ve yet to begin my first campaign with my family from the Starter Set. This now motivates me to get the ball rolling and start adventuring again!(It will be my first time playing since the eighties! lol)
I love these types of vidoes. I would love to see a round-table sort of video with you and a few other TH-camrs where you all workshop ideas for the next edition. How to improve D&D for the entire community. And not even come to a full agreement or solution on all points, but really show that there is a conversation to be had about what the community wants from the next edition when it eventually happens.
I miss the width and breadth of magic items from previous editions. You had dozens of magical rings, pendants, amulets, tools, robes, etc. that you could obtain without them being just a quest reward or random drop. Surely a world as vast would have traders or merchants who specialize in curios and artifacts and you could find a ring that gives you advantage on a save once or a robe that simply makes your short rest take half as long if you use it as a blanket. It would also be nice if you could have a simple magic item as part of your background. Why wouldn't a Sage have say an enchanted pair of glasses that makes it take slightly less time to scribe a spell or attune to a magic item?
As a DM, I would love more special abilities for monsters so they feel a little more unique. I often add my own because even some Big baddies end up being boring. Hey I want to have fun trying to kill my players too!
I have always thought 2024 would be when we might see a new edition of some type. It would be the 50th anniversary of D&D and it seems like a wasted opportunity to not release a 50th anniversary edition.
What I want is for players to die easier. I mean, being downed, just to be healed and downed again with NO downside is really broken. That would fix so many problems, like healimg word and such
Super easy homebrew fix: every time a character stands up from 0, they take a level of exhaustion. Coming back from the brink is not an easy experience
I also homebrew this. Usually with a Con save with a DC that increases (fast!) if you're downed more than once to avoid exhaustion. It would be nice if it was official rather than homebrew tho.
I love that you mentioned combat versus non-combat feats. I ran a game a while ago where I allowed my players to each pick a free feat at first level, with the caveat that it had to be a feat that did not affect combat (so what you more succinctly call a non-combat feat). Those characters were incredibly interesting and unique.
The moon circle doesn't turn the wild shape into a bonus action, it guves you the ability to use it as a bonus action. You'd still be able to wild shape using your action.
I feel like because of 5e's slower release schedule it will actually have a larger life expectancy. Look at other editions, by year 7 they all had tons and tons of books. Which (IMO) is the main reason for a new edition. Since book bloat scares away new people who want to try it and tires out people who have been playing for a while because content gets increasingly niche and incremental as the developers grow tired of the game.
Number one: Don't lose the accessibility of 5e that made D&D as popular as it is now! Also don't balance around an adventuring day mechanic no one uses, and add more customization and power for martials at high levels. I really like the direction they're going in many ways. Tasha's Ranger and summoning spells are a hundred times better for the game and more fun than the previous Ranger and summoning spells. Rune Knight and the like are a great way to add optional complexity to simpler classes.
one thing you touched on was making spell casting and magic as a whole feel more diverse, while I agree with this your argument that we need more magical items while interesting and would help a lot with this...personally I think the biggest issue is the lack of diversity in spell list (especially with wizard and sorcerers) the fact that the only real class with very unique spells is the paladin is I think a big miss step in the design process, and while there are certainly those spells, there very few and far between.
As a pathfinder 2e player, while he’s going through this list, I keep thinking, Pathfinder already solved most of these. Minions- either enemies 3 levels less than the party, or use the rules for troops. Less magical characters- all martial characters excluding the champion can run a version with no magic. More attunement slots- 10 invested magical items Intelligence matters- recall knowledge, crafting, languages, extra trained skills Multiclassing/multiattack - you get 3 actions. Use them how you want. You don’t have to “get” multiple attacks.
@@brianparker1438 what I really want is a hybrid between 5e and pathfinder 2e because as cool as some of the ideas behind pathfinder 2e are I just don’t enjoy playing it and I can’t put my finger on why
They need to knock dexterity down a peg. Everyone knows Intelligence got the short end of the stick, but Dexterity got the 10 foot pole. I mean, seriously, why play a martial class and not use a one hander other than the rapier? It’s literally just as good as a longsword expect you can use the same AS that bumps your AC, Init, and saves for it. Strength has nothing going for it other than minor traversal and some 2 handed weapons.
One way to make equipment matter at least a little bit is taking the second best armor and making it adamantine, mithril etc., giving the player the choise to either take the 1 less AC for the perk of ignoring stealth penalty or for the perk of ignoring critical hits. I think it creates more interesting armors.
A suggestion: make certain features be based on overall class rather than specific class So if you take a total of 5 martial class levels, you get an extra attack, regardless if you took 2 barb, 2 ranger, 1 fighter Kinda similar to how spellcasting in multiclassing works You could also go even deeper, make it so if you take from a class like barbarian after being a lvl 4 fighter (since they are pretty similar), you count as having 2 levels of barbarians already in and you could get some of their features ahead of time based on that (this merely means that you get features sooner, NOT that you count as having 2 extra levels nor that you get 2 extra hit dice of hit points) Another similar one would be druid and ranger, or cleric and paladin This also means that some of the "less interesting" classes get easier multiclassing as a bonus, but it's obviously not mandatory and you still need a reason to take the other class like always (you can't be a heavily religious cleric and suddenly go "i wanna go warlock cuz i want eldritch blast")
Warlocks, please give them more spell slots, or like, spell points even, I don’t care man I just wanna see them cast something besides eldritch blast more
Cody, I’d like to go back to one item per body location. But you’re right, magic items have been minimized to a point by attunement. I’d rather see players fighting over a Smoldering Armor or Armor of Gleaming from Xanathar’s just for storytelling sake and immersiveness into their characters and backstory. Cool magic items don’t need to be overpowered, they need to be fun and interesting. But I believe one slot per location fixes the need of attunement. Great post, thank you.
One item by body part is not something I would like to see personally. I find it changes the game into a more BIS video game, mini-game of equipment. But moving to 5 attunement slots, moving to more attunement slots as you level... something like that, would be cool IMO.
@@Taking20, I’m not sure if I saw that way in an excel character sheet or where it was back in 3.5e or 4e, the layout was clean though. And it didn’t allow for spamming of items. I’m sure DnD Beyond is similar in that regard. Personally, I’d rather see them overhaul what items truly require attunement then go to 5 items. But that’s just me. Then the Artificer is still really cool but doesn’t get overshadowed by other already strong classes. All good points from your side. Thank you. Keep up the good work. PS: No matter what they decide, more magic items, even of lesser power and greater options for utility, is a good thing.
I’d also like to see a lot more urgency around being knocked out. Getting knocked unconscious in a fight feels like it should have so much more weight, but it doesn’t. A character can go down and get back up multiple times even in the span of a ROUND, and as long as someone is there to heal them, they’re still able to proceed as if nothing happened. Having characters take a point of exhaustion (or some other negative debuff, especially one that could stack) every time they get knocked out would add a lot of weight to combat and make brushes with death feel a lot more real. It would also incentivize people to try a lot harder to stay up during a fight- Healing more when health gets low instead of waiting for the knockout. Sort of like Dragon Age’s “injury” system. Getting knocked around so hard that you lose consciousness should mean something. 5E is really great in that it’s very forgiving to new players- But I would like to see some of the rules in 6th edition take just a little bit of a step towards having more consequences and making combat require a little bit more brain power. Almost like 6E is what you naturally progress towards once you’ve gotten used to the basics with 5E.
One more crazy idea: I’d love to see the return of adding GP amounts back into calculating XP. That might change gameplay from the killfest we currently see to something more strategic. Traps still need to be reworked, and providing an XP value to them would help.
@@DaDunge That’s a good idea as well, as it gives gold something to do outside the dungeon… but by awarding GP to XP, it encourages players to explore a dungeon more strategically, focusing on larger encounters where the GP reward is higher and try to avoid combats with trash mobs. It’s a way for players to pay more attention to their resources instead of killing everything in sight.
Agree with a lot of what you are saying (especially minions and magic) but I have to disagree on the bonus action. My group has always really liked it and I've always house ruled it that you could trade down an action to a bonus action. I generally consider the bonus actions to be quicker actions and whatever the developers say about it be damned! The only way I'd be ok with them removing the bonus action is if they changed it to some kind of action point system such as giving you a certain number of action points per turn and you could use them how you saw fit. Perhaps start with 3 AP per turn, attack costs 2 AP, move costs 1 for so many feet of movement, and have spells or other abilities cost varying amounts depending. I think a system like that, while possibly being a little more cumbersome, would be a lot more flexible.
WotC are you listening? Can you please give this man a job in the design team?
Cody, and Monty and Kelly from the Dungeon Dudes NEED to have some contacts within the Wizards’ team.
@@Lays-But-Not-The-Chips, I agree. There are a few TH-camrs, that need to be included in, at the very least playtesting, the development of the next edition.
One thing that has really propped up this edition is DM's Guild and third-party content that fills in the gaps. Wizard's really needs to understand that the community almost seems to care more about this game than they do and actively include the community in the game's development. Starting with high-profile TH-camrs like Cody, Monty, and Kelly would be a huge boon to the game's future.
I mean…really? They haven’t yet?
The Dungeon Coach has done some amazing things to make the rules better as well, and many people on the DM's Guild have created better rulesets for areas of the game. It'd be nice for Wizards (Hasbro?) to listen to fans AND these people.
I would love a huge more amount of magic items
Your non-combat feat comments are dead on.
Just make the players earn the non combat feats as down time activities and through role play.
I think it's just doubling down on the problem, which is that D&D is basically two game systems in one: a combat system and a non-combat system. Rather than intensifying the division between those two systems, the boundary should be eroded somewhat.
I’d love to see these as “background perks” that help expand on role play.
The non combat feats is a great idea but you can do more in that direction. Maybe professions could scale with level. In 5e it seems that the out of combat activities are now the exclusivity of bards and rogues. It sucks to be a fighter out of combat...
Yeah, it would be cool if we had something like "Attack Powers", and something else called "Utility Powers" that only dealt with out of combat abilities (or at most buffs).
Of course, that was just off the top of my head: do *NOT* actually call them "powers", or the bumbling majority will just disregard them without even giving them a chance because the word "power" makes them think of Marvel and DC.
9:29 man didn't just "attune to more than 3 items." Man attuned to so many items he struck a man blind who had the gall to cast detect magic on him.
only 3 item attunement annoys me. As well as limitation on ability scores.
Would love to see some weapon choices that are more suited to creative play rather than strictly damage dealing get some actual mechanics that make them interesting. The net and the blowdart gun, for example. Would also love to see a clear path to becoming a martial character that can use grapples effectively -- or even shoves!
Grappler: I've seen it done by clever multiclassing of Barbarian and Rogue, but the character really depends on having allies who can take advantage (literally) of it.
Play a Rune Knight, with skill expert for athletics expertise and the unarmed fighting style and you can actually grapple quite well in 5e but I agree it would be good to not have to be quite so specific to have grapple and shove be useful
@@crimfan I had a fun grappler barb 5/ fighter 2/rogue X that was based on getting a hold of folks and running around the Perimeter of our Druid's spiked growth field. I got every movement bonus I could find (boots of speed, mobile feat, bonus action dash, action surge, etc). Those d4s add up like crazy when you're dragging 2 mobs through the grinder.
@@migueldelmazo5244 Yeah that would work. The Rogue/Barbarian I saw in action had Athletics expertise. When raging, advantage on Athletics meant basically nothing would win the opposed roll. Rage also meant being able to withstand the retaliation. A smart party will quickly learn to take advantage (figuratively and literally) of that. DPR wasn’t great but control was massive. Having something like Spike Growth as the equivalent of a cheese grater around would be even better. A Minotaur would be amazing at this build.
@@crimfan yup. That was the premise. You're not failing any expertise athletics checks and you can shred bad guys. It was fun.
Agreed in separating out RP feats from combat feats. I’ve literally never picked an RP feat with any character.
A little expansion on gear would be nice, 5e suffers a lot from obsolete weapons and armor like Padded Armor, one shield type is also super basic
Agreed, especially about armor, but it shouldn't be something too extensive. I don't think that D&D needs something more complicated than we have now. Such simplicity is one of the main selling points of 5e. I've seen some homebrew on weapon reworks, and while it's cool to have few dozen different weapons each having 3-4 different properties, would most players actually be interested in memorizing and playing all that stuff?
@@antongrigoryev6381 Generally less is more. The issue is that some armors are just obsolete. What is the point of Padded Armor+1, it is as good as a 45 gold Studded Leather armor and that doesn't impose disadvantage. Some of the medium and heavy armors have the same issue.
@@antongrigoryev6381 I've seen the posts you're talking about and while I really like having additional options, when they add like 30 different weapons, shields, and armors that all have different properties and go beyond just dealing damage or increasing AC that's too much. I'd be fine with them adding a few weapons. Also improving armors, especially padded, which only gives 11 AC and disadvantage at stealth. Why even bother using it? It's dumb. And a weapon like the net, which I think could be fun to use, kind of just sucks. The DC to catch someone in it his really low and it only has 1 hit point.
@@GonthorianDX Never generally ! You can do much more with those if you know what you're doing as a player and DM. You can improve them into a much interesting armorsets that can be more defensive or having more utility-functions.
Its never always " less is more " . Its often " more is more " . Taking out complexity can be more harmful instead of adding it. But that has its own costs.
@@antongrigoryev6381 Why would you need to memorize all that stuff? You pick the one you want and roll with it.
As a Pathfinder Game Master, I've never seen my players have any problem with the fact that there's a wide variety of weapons with different damage, crit range, crit multipliers and special properties. They just find one that they want to use and use it.
Really agree on putting extra attacks in a general martial multiclass.
Related to this, sucking up your bonus action to attack with an offhand weapon is something I don't really like. I guess WotC wanted to avoid penalties so they had to balance it somehow, but I really prefer 3.5e's -2 penalty to all attacks when using TWF as part of your attack action
@@clone_69 why not just let them have an extra attack as part of the attack action but keep all other rules? Dual wielding light weapons like shortswords at level five would let you attack three times, but they only do 1d6 damage, and you get no shield. One extra attack with a light weapon is not so crazy imo unless you go for some broken build( many which already exist). Maybe say they can't utilize heavy armor either with this fight style to balance ac and dam output.
To get crazy damage output you would need either a really strong magical weapon, or to take all the right feats and asi upgrades, which already lead to broken builds. Just my opinion
Int needs a little love, but Dex needs to not be so massively overloaded
That's a REALLY tough one to balance L B
@@Taking20 I feel like some Dex saves could quite easily be changed to Con - even Fireball for example makes little sense as Dex if you have no cover to hide behind it's more how well you can tank it than getting out of the way. I don't think there's the same risk of 'overloading' CON as it is not an attack or casting stat so you can never be SAD Con unlike Dex which can be used for AC, attacks, and a lot of saves. Another idea could be to make AC more reliant on equipment potentially by putting the baseline lower for light armour to stop high Dex characters equalling the AC of heavy armour so easily while also retaining all the benefits of high dex when strength has fewer incidental benefits.
I'll never forget the awkward feeling I got when I came to the realization than Intelligence is a dump stat in 5e.
@Naren Gurrier-Jones fair point - it’s just a really odd concept that you can ‘dodge’ a spherical explosion without even moving from the space. I feel like features like “Evasion” should have a rider effect that force-moves you to the nearest safe edge of the AOE.
@@samw5924 you literally evade from fireball, that is relate to dex
As the rules are written, there is no incentive for characters to level up in xp outside of combat. Making murder hobo more a thing
Exactly why milestone became popular with the rise of roleplay-loving parties
This is tradition. This is every edition.
really good point. i would love to see more options to interact with the world, perhaps in the form of governance. in fact, in 1e, most classes got a very real 'stronghold with followers' upgrade at a certain level, including ownership of a small plot of land.
@@FMD-FullMetalDragon Thats not true at all. The bulk of experience prior to 3.0 came from collecting treasure.
@@Jake7inchnails that sounds like a DM issue, not the actual game
If sixth edition had readable page numbers, that'd be good enough for me.
And a readable index.
@@dm_curt And one that doesn’t force you to cross reference something else! It’s just as easy to list the page number where the subject you are looking for is already listed!
@@dm_curt oh my god, yes. And a consistant index system between source books
For all the WotC talk of "inclusion", you would think that using a font size larger than microscopic would be a thing for their index. Not just making one that doesn't run you around in circles.
Ha. funny you say that. As someone with a digital design background I thought that was a real issue. It was a poor choice and a simple color change would of fixed that.
Great video! I agree with all these suggestions and would add this: ELIMINATE DEATH SAVES. The official rule should be you are dead at 0hp. Death Saves should be optional. The "I'm down, death save, Healing Word, pop-up" destroys suspense and needs to end
Definitely. I like 1 CON save at 0 HP, personally.
I'm more of the mindset that D&D 5e needs two sets of rules, rather than a bunch of "optional rules", like a hardcore set and a beginner set. The hardcore set would be more challenging and include more advanced mechanics that may or may not slow down gameplay.
And in a hardcore ruleset, IMHO, you simply don't reset your failed saves. If you fail twice the first time you go down, your next life or death is a coin-toss.
I'd like non-magical weapons and armor to have more diversity, for instance, I have a character the uses scimitars however two rapiers would just be a straight upgrade so why ever use scimitars or any other weaker martial weapon?
I totally agree. Masterwork also helps with several things: PCs can save for masterwork weapons (which might just be the better options like Rapiers, etc.---see how armor works). It also means that many weapons *won't* be magical, which helps make spells like Magic Weapon actually worthwhile and helps preserve the threat of foes, such as undead or outsiders, that are resistant to weapon damage.
Because for "two Rapiers" you would need a feat. Of course, it will be a straight upgrade compared to two scimitars, for which you need nothing.
Non-magical bonuses would help fill that desert for bow and crossbow users. There is no need for a magical bow when the magical arrow is the item that determines if the enemy takes full (or any) damage.
@@antongrigoryev6381 the better example would have been contrasting two daggers vs two short swords or scimitars, etc.
@@mattf5935 Daggers are simple weapons, while shortswords and scimitars are martial. So it makes sense that the latter deals more damage. Plus daggers can be thrown.
Weapons in 5e, while simple, are pretty well-thought-out, despite what people say. Their power follows clear rules, each with its upsides and downsides, almost no weapon within the same tier (simple/martial) is strictly better or worse than the other. Well, if we don't take feats into account. I personally don't think D&D really needs anything more complicated.
More shields for sure, not +2 only, and i'd like to see prestige classes back
Make non magical weapons have more variety. Give them special effects or effects on crits. A warhammer shouldn't be a longsword that does bludgeoning damage.
Absolutely. Different damage types matter when damage resistance and vulnerability are very common ,like they were in 3.5, but DR and vuln are relatively uncommon in 5e
Different weapons should give you different attacks depending on the weapon. Example: a longsword would give you the ability to make a sweeping attack that hits two enemies. A spear would let you pierce enemies in a line. A shield lets you do a shove attack. Dual wielding swords lets you parry an attack as a reaction. You get the idea.
@@havokmusicinc This is a real pity and a missed opportunity, too. They really reward players' choices, too. I have a monk in the party of the game I DM and I make sure to throw in skeletons and such so he feels awesome when he's mowing them down due to bludgeoning damage vulnerability. The rogue is the zombie killer but he can only knock one down a turn. On the other hand, they can feel the danger ramping up against some other foes.
It’s could be a really bad move.
dnd became popular again now because 5th edition is easy to play. If they start to make combat complex with the bunch of rules, they will lose newcomers with 6e.
I am not saying complexity in combat is good or bad. But they can’t add lots of changes, especially to combat mechanics, after lots of new players(buyers) in the market.
@@ismailcanozdemir348
If they add a 6e, that doesn't make 5e suddenly nonexistent. People that want simple can play 5e and people that want more customization and variety could play 6e. Most of the things I've seen on TH-cam and Reddit to make 5e better is to add more customization for the players and to make character choices matter more.
One of my homebrew rules is that characters get additional languages per Intelligence bonus (stolen from past editions).
Dark vision is waaaaay too prevalent among races. It almost feels like not having darkvision as a rogue is a massive weakness when dungeon delving.
I think the dark vision "penalty" made sense with variant humans (as a balance) . But Post-Tasha and the ability to pick and choose ASI bonuses I agree, it seems overbroad.
Yep dark vision needs to outright go for anything that doesnt live underground.
Dark Vision is terrible though. You should technically just be getting disadvantage on everything that relies on sight when it’s “pitch black”.
Dark vision is really not as powerful as most people think
the problem her eis msot gamers who come into the game fele entitled to playing off the wall exotic races ALL THe TIME cuz Wizards likes to sell books andnew races, sublclasses is the easiest wya to sell books
I'm with you on reducing the magical super-powers, especially for 'none' spellcasters.
One thing I would like to see is slowing down healing in some way. The heal all HP on a long rest rule is quick and neat, but it means you can never run attrition style sequences without penalising spell casters. Not saying I want to always punish my players, but a session of hardcore survival mode can be a cool change of pace.
if you want weak wizards go play pf2e and leave dnd alone
@@colorpg152 Erm, never said I want weak wizards. Kinda the opposite. And PF is not my cup of tea...
Re: Feats - consider making something available for EACH of the 3 tiers of play. Stop neglecting exploration.
As a Ranger fan I hate how half their kit gets tossed aside because exploration is "the boring part". Nevermind that half of LotR is just fucking finding their way to and from places and trying to get there before troops and armies.
@@TreeRaper Exactlly! What they need to do is figure out a way to make it fun. Other wise why even have classes and subclasses like the scout, fighter, ranger, barbarien and bard who have available to them exploration based skills?
I want a lot less animal based races. We don't need it to become a furry convention. We don't need five lizard races, three bird races, three cat races, bunny races, etc. Let Yuan Ti be as animal like as it gets.
Also 6e needs to be hands off in terms of trying to influence playstyles. ASI needs to be total level based, not per class level based. And yeah fix int as a dump stat.
Unpopular opinion: Scrap Sage Advice. Crawford can keep his 2c to himself.
Exploration is kind of brutal to put into your game if you intend to play RAW anyway. Between the Outlander background and spells like Goodberry, being so low level. Even flight at level 5. Characters too easily stumble into making exploration trivial very early on, they don't have to make meaningful character decisions to be good at it. I'd want see the benefit of some of these spells and abilities as tuned down a bit so as a DM i could make exploration more meaningful, and maybe a player would have to make an effort to have those kinds of skills. Right now it just feels like any exploration challenge you put in front of players can be solved with one low level spell slot.
I highly agree on the too many magical abilities / avengers one. Reminds me of the Incredibles when the baddy says "if everyone is super than no one is".
Piggybacking off of your “less magic powers, more magic items” idea, I’d love to see the return of cost and ability to CREATE magic items. Sure, make the really powerful ones prohibitively expensive, and give them difficult requirements. But, set a value on the time, and resources needed to craft them. It was done very well in previous editions, and every DM I know uses those older versions as a guide for the “magic economy” in their worlds. I’d like to see it officially brought back into the game.
I would say the really powerful one's shouldn't be bouth nor should they have a prince.
If you want them you have to go adventure for the materials and to make them and it should be HARD.
It kinda was done in 5e, in Xanatar to be precise. The rules are quite shallow, but it is assumed that the details are worked out by the DM depending on the campaign and situation. I actually like it, even if numbers could use some ajustments.
Magic item creation rules are in the DMG and Xanathars. Problem is they aren't written very clearly and the two sets are slightly different from each other
@@antongrigoryev6381 That's actually one of my biggest problems with 5e. So much stuff is super shallow then assumed to be "worked out" by the DM. With the nature of D&D today, where so many people are playing with strangers online, having barely any agreed upon baseline for stuff like this is challenging. I don't think it would be that crazy to add in one or two pages for some more fleshed out magic item creation/pricing rules.
I'd like a 6e rule book and then an additional book just on crafting. It could detail options for crafting mundane items as well as magical items and even include rare components that a DM could use to create an adventure like collecting magical creature parts or materials. I'd also like better pricing for magical items in case I do want a merchant to sell them. Giving me a range of 500-5,000 or 5,000-50,000 doesn't help.
"A bonus action has nothing to do with time"
Except that part in the Players Handbook where it says the following "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift." (PhB Ch 10)
This certainly suggests that bonus actions are faster than actions. You could argue that only applies to spells. But I definitely think the argument for bonus actions being shorter than actions is stronger than the other way.
Re: Intelligence. Artificers made a step in the right direction here. Don’t forget them!!
INT needs a major boost. I just isn’t fun to play a high INT character who isn’t a INT caster (artificer or wizard.) I find this very limiting.
@@Now_Its_Orange I’d love an INT martial. Combat tactician or something like that.
Bladesinger rings any bell?
@@ThiagoSilvaHpsombra nope. I don’t want a Gish, just an intelligent fighter / Barbarian that outsmarts their opponents
I like the house rule suggestion made somewhere (this channel maybe?) that warlocks be EITHER a charisma or an intelligence class, decided upon character creation.
I have a request - can we have less emphasis on fire damage spells? Every time I take spells I say “I’m not going to be boring and take all the fire spells” but then I cave and do it anyway because they’re so good. Pyromancers are fun but it does get old seeing them everywhere - other damage types need some love.
The elements are pretty evenly balanced - fire does more damage, than cold, thunder,etc, but that's because way more creatures are resistant to fire than anything else.
I really wish they would make casters more "Build your own" or scale them back. The biggest question I get from new players and those who don't play casters is "What is the difference between Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, Bard..." I explain and their eyes glaze over and usually respond with "Who can shoot lightning?" and I explain all of them and try to get into nuances of each buy usually just push Sorcerer in front of them to move on with Character Creation.
I've been playing a lot of OSR and older DnD and I really like the "Circle" system and always wanted a system to build your own spell list and theme it out. Like I want to be able to take a bunch of Lightening spells and ditch all the illusions and get a nice bonus for being so restricted. Or take a bunch of variety in lower level spells and ditch higher levels and theme it has a hedge witch or wizard who is very versatile but lacks higher power. Idk casters and their innumerable permutations seems bloated to me after 20 years of gaming and I'd like to see a more elegant system for them.
Totally agree - I always see newer players say things like "I want to be a necromancer" or "I want to be a earthbender". But in 5e, if you want to play an effective caster you are always going to be grabbing a couple spells from all kinds of different schools.
The OSR is the way to go man, dont support people who hate you ie wotc. Lots of cool ideas the OSR os were rpg gaming is at.
Hard agree here ~ Also, I feel like players get access to so many spells early on and then it kind of dwindles out over time. I wish there was a way to make playing a spellcaster feel more like they're learning one new spell at a time and it's a big, meaningful addition to their arsenal, rather than having so many low level spells to pick from all the time. Or at least perhaps a class where it works like this, for more RP heavy games.
That sounds like your idea will result in it being ridiculously complex as players who are not me generally don’t memorize all the spells that could be taken.
Odd to use the Druid for your bonus action example when I know it's one of the few instances in the game where you can choose to Wild Shape as either an Action or Bonus Action. The wording of Circle of the Moon is "you gain the ABILITY to Wild Shape as a bonus action".
That feels like a Rules as Written/ Rules as Intended issue to me.
@@timr6318
Nah,
It says you gain the ability. So, now you have wildshape as an action from your class and wildshape as a bonus action from your subclass. It says nothing about replace or change the ability. You gain another ability.
@@ODDnanref This is a weird thing of interpretation of the rules, but, I do agree to see that it is a choice, not a replacement.
Quick clarification of what I said, I would rule it as a choice between the two, do to how literal many of the things like that are, but it's still a rules interpretation, the Sage Advise Compendium probably has an answer for what the designers intended for it though. Also, quick was wrong for when I said "Quick clarification", his was a lot longer than my original comment.
Yh in my games we read it as a choice aswell
3:27 Taking circle of the moon doesn’t remove your ability to wild shape as an action, it just adds the option of doing so as a bonus action. The key word there is “can.”
three things I would want are:
1: 5e and 6e work together. It will be sad if all my stuff are mostly useless in the new edition.
2: More choises between different levels. Not just strait progression.
3: Skills would not be associated with any ability score. I know this is an optional rule, but if it was a rule from the start VTT's would make them integrated and not hard to use.
That’s exactly what Xanathar’s guide and Tasha’s Cauldron did. Really if they make another big rules expansion I’d rather it came from another book like that
@@TylerBevanOfficial I would like 3-4 choices . Not just 1 or 2 for first 3 levels. Tashas was good. Xanathar less for these points. Tho I like Xanathar more as DM.
You mean like all my 3.5 stuff?
@@billnolte8644 can't say I have never played 3.5
If character choice is what you want, Pathfinder has that in spades. But, Pathfinder has it's own flaws.
For 6E WotC needs to:
1) Fix Dual Wielding
2) Fix the broken classes and subclasses
3) Fix the broken Feats
4) Redesign Races so that the customizing introduced in Tasha’s is built in and balanced
5) Create more robust rules for Exploration and Social interaction
6) Create rules for high level play that include such things as strongholds, followers, etc.
I like Tasha, but so many PHB classes are now just horribly underpowered. Spot on.
I think 5e is too scared to try adding new classes. The mystic was trying to outclass every other class at the same time with way too many options and features. There's definitely a place to have more classes in D&D but most things that could be a class by itself just becomes one or more subclasses for the existing roster.
The Mystic was so crazy with its options that they've made a new subclass out of one of its orders which is wild. That class made my brain hurt.
Nerd Immersion did an interview with Jeremy Crawford a few years back and you can find it on he's channel.
The jist of it is that they will introduce new classes only if they fill theirs a niche in the game that isn't covered by the already existing classes. Which I agree.
@@TheBatch62 Ok, I don't think I expressed myself correctly. What I meant by ''niche'' was mechanical niche. As in, a niche in terms of a role in the party.
As for the Mystic I agree that they should've made it a full class but the reason why they didn't was because they couldn't figure out a way to do it without makeing it OP so they just give up on it.
I liked the idea but yeah it was a bit much
Honestly they should come out with a way to make your own classes; some kind of additional guideline of all the things needed to build 'a class', and then let people make games with their own custom classes. It could be entirely left out of games if people don't like it, but if there were a small addition book or something I'd buy it because my PC's often really have a 'specific vision' for a character and then try and find the most similar class to that, and sometimes it can feel a bit... shoe horned in. I always let them make little changes here and there but honestly if I could give them a class template and have them fill it out, let me double check it and approve/tweak whatever so it's not OP, that would work out really well for like half my players.
I would love to see a return of skill points, and size differences in combat. Like still keep proficiency but add some way to get extra skills or better at skills beyond proficiency
Yep. THe lack of customization with skills (really the game's only way for a character to interact with the world they live in outside of killing things) is one of the things that keeps me from playing 5E
The less magic classes and more magic items is something i really agree with.
then go play pathfinder 2e and stop ruining dnd
Nop, they are fine as they are, they should just buff the martial classes and the enemies. Just remove Wish from normal progression. The amazing versatility that all offer is great, maybe they should just make the spell lists of each more defined (not that many spells that 3-5 classes have) and with less options for all.
Spellcasting is a design crutch that holds 5e back. Artificers, bards, rangers, and paladins should have more unique abilities instead of just copying the wizard, cleric, and druid.
Agreed. Tho Artificers and bards are in a weird spot there in which to make useful without spellcasting you'd basically need to create an entire pesudo-spell list just for "abilities" and I don't think it would change much in how they play as well "the artificer makes a ring that can make you invisible and-this is just a magic item and a spell" "the bard sings their heart out and their allies gain power-this is just bless". The other classes/subclasses for martial's I agree with. I think a great example of giving a unique ability that feels mystical but isn't just magic was echo knight.
Not to mention that there is a lot of work that could be put into pure martials to make them more competitive.
I really hate how much EVERYTHING is magic i want alot more abilities. More difference between magic and martial classes while keeping both interesting
@@mondaysinsanity8193 agreed. It really seems that the design team just doesn't know what to do with pure martials, possibly because of the 4e backlash.
Honestly, if I ever ran 4e, it would probably be martials only.
If you want to play those classes and have them play differently play 4e where Rangers, Paladins, Bards, and Artificers all kick a lot of ass and that group would be a truly viable group of classes.
My prediction is alignment will go away and there will be a lot more about role playing and non-combat gaming in the rules and DMG. However, I also predict 5e isn’t going anywhere soon, it’s too profitable and popular. Why would WOTC want to fix what isn’t broken?
So a book company to sell more books is why.
Think about this they release an edition with minor to medium bad rules and limited class selection but also revised upon the previous one at the start of the edition. Then release new books i.e. xanathar and tasha that brings in "optional" rules for fixes but also might have pushback from dm's because it might be game breaking. More books later and then the edition finally breaks and you have players torn between which books to follow also the limit on how many books your DM will allow.
Enter the 6th edition with revised rules here and there from all the books from 5th but oddly not fixing everything or including all the best stuff and then more add on books are announced to buy.
The alignment system will stay, mainly because of cosmology. But I wouldn't be surprised if they made an effort to be more flexible in the "born this way" alignments. Like Eberron does. Flaws, boons etc. are a much better way to define actions of NPC's.
3rd edition/3.5 was nearly flawless. Insanely popular and well loved. They scrapped it for 4th edition which was unplayable (wotc still owes me $100 for that nonsense.) But I wouldn't be surprised to see a "5.5" release instead of true 6th edition. Keep the same basic rules but tweak them.
I think alignment needs to stay the game and players need to stop being so stereotypical about it.
@@unB10
3.5 was nearly flawless? As someone who cut their teeth on 3.5:
WHAT?!
3.5 is unbelievably bloated and by RAW had the most unbelievably stupid things be possible.
Drown Healing, Peasant Railgun, Locate City Bomb, Pun-Pun, The Infinite INT at lvl 5 Artificer build, Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards, the ERUDITE+ Spell to Power feat making you able to learn EVERY psionic power AND every arcane spell *in the game*.
No. 3.5 was deeply, deeply flawed.
I completely agree with you that 5e is a great system that could be better. Perhaps my greatest frustration is this weird balance tension between "short rest classes" and "long rest classes" - like fighter vs paladin, or warlock vs wizards. For them to be balance, you need a certain pace or rythm of encounters per day. I don't like that class balance is so tied to how many encounters per day you have.
No need for 6th ed I think we just need a 5.5E.
What if attunment slots = Intelligence modifier + 1 per 5th level?
I think barbarians would get pretty smart, haha. The number of skill proficiencies could have a similar rule. X + Int mod. Always felt weird that the wizard smarty gets the least skills, tools, and languages.
@@blakereid5785 I've played with a dm that allows you to pick up a tool, language or skill proficiency based off your int mod up to an additional 5 proficiencies. It made sense and I liked it
That... actually sounds like a fairly good idea. I think it would favour Wizards a little too much, but overall it sounds like a good idea.
@@blakereid5785 the reason is that most of the skills do not depend from your intelligence. I don't think that being more intelligent makes you more capable to learn a skill like stealth or persuasion.
@@MrReset94 That’s definitely true. “Im so smart, that’s why I’m so Athletic, Acrobatic, Stealthy, and good at Performing” haha. You would still need good stats in those relevant skills for them to be high, though. The issue with skill-less wizards could just be solved with giving them 1 or 2 extra proficiencies in the INT skills. Int is still an unfortunate dump stat, though.
I would absolutely love for them to include minions in 6e. I never actually played 4e, but I saw the Dungeon Dudes talk about minions in a video and I've since used them a couple times. One of my fondest memories from playing a cleric in 3.5 was vaporizing hordes of skeletons with my Turn Undead ability and Extra Turning feat, and anything that might simulate that feeling for my players is okay in my book.
I'd also really like more fleshed out exploration rules, and for the Ranger to be good at it without just skipping it entirely like it largely does now.
I'm editioned out. 5e is "pinnacle" and I'm passing on any further while on a high note.
And I always homebrewed no matter the edition, especially minions (players rolled damage and if not a "1" or "2" those designated minion-types were dead, but didn't tell them this was what I was doing and calculated XP appropriately. When a player complained they weren't getting the "right" amount of XP, I used the _well, you defeated weakened opponents since they went down so easily from those damage rolls you made, didn't they? And you got full XP for the main enemy that you all spent most of the combat fighting_ rationale. This satisfied all but the - ugh - die-hard _rules lawyer_ player), since AD&D-no-number-edition.
@Rage the Promised End If that player wants to play 6th or 7th or whatever-number-after edition, they can run it. I might even play it, but I'm not running it nor buying the books. I have enough rpg rules and sets lining my bookcases.
Is pretty much the same for my group. Pathfinder 1e and Star Wars Saga Edition are our main systems, and we're home brewing the Star Wars intro our own version of Starfinder, since the real one turned out to be a gear grind.
@@thedocklighter look at dis guy, "with enough rule systems and books on my shelf". What kind of schmuck just plays a few systems and doesn't want to explore and expand. This kind of chutzpah is why Pokémon has genwunners and Legacy format in MTG are still a thing. "I spent a bunch of money supporting the hobby 20 years ago and now I don't want to go outside my comfort zone."
@@meseattlequin Wow, you sound butthurt over something that doesn't even affect you. It shows you also have difficulty reading: I said _bookcases_ not "shelf", which means I been in ttrpg and the hobby since The Holmes edition of D&D, buying my first set, the boxed Moldvay basic in my early teens and making my way up the AD&D editions. I've played a fair share of other RPGs and GMed, DMed, Refereed, Director-ed, etc. more of them: fantasy, sci-fi, modern, post apocalyptic, psychic, horror, supers. I didn't pick up _Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft_ because I learned from experience horror isn't my thing.
What I want to do with my money is my business, not yours. You want to toss your money at every new thing, that's your business. Your saying I can't have an opinion on what I choose to do speaks volumes about you and just how triggered and entitled you are. So pull your thumb outta yer puckerhole and grow up. And work on improving your reading comprehension.
BTW chutzpah is largely a good thing, but only a real schmuck wouldn't know that.
Addressing the healing and dying mechanics alone would address 90% of the concerns I have with 5E.
What do you think needs changed?
@@mech45 I'm a 2E/3E guy which means I prefer slower natural healing, less "wack a mole" combat healing from unconsciousness, a dying mechanic that offers greater danger and requires more teamwork than is typical of 5E, and if a character does die, it should not be so easily reversed. I've already heavily house ruled my own game, meshing the flavor of older editions with the mechanics of 5E. As an example, I kept death saves as I actually like it conceptually over the older -10 rule as the older rule was less scalable with level. However, you can be killed outright the moment you go to 0 in older editions as is possible in my game with an immediate do or die saving throw that's separate from the 3 strikes and your out death saves. The DC is only 5, but it highly incentivizes player to avoid this. Also, when the characters are down and making death saves, the DC is more difficult at 12 in my game, meaning that you are slightly more likely than not to fail the save rather than the other way around. You never automatically stabilize in my game either. You always need a little help from your friends. I've omitted revivify from my game. I've also played with the idea of disallowing ranged bonus action healing from bringing downed team members to 1 hit point, but that's not currently implemented. Another change in my game is that I've dramatically reduced hit point recovery from short and long rests as well as differentiating between long rests in the field and total rest while being tended to in town. These changes help recapture the feel of older editions while in some cases utilizing the arguably superior mechanics of 5E.
@@MC-gj8fg Hey, so, don't know if you'll see this, but I would be interested in hearing how you changed short rest and long resting(town vs wilderness) if you don't mind explaining that is.
Circle of the moon druids can wild shape as a normal action. It says "gain the ability" not "wildshape is now a bonus action"
I love feats, really a great way to add extra flavor and richness, a few of them are super OP, which is fun. It’s great to build a min maxed pc, but that overshadows a lot of great feats that don’t do much. So my idea is to make two lists of feats. Major (mechanic based) and minor( flavor or role play based) and you can pick one from each list when taking a ASI or something like that.
I LOVE your idea of splitting the feats in two categories! Im for sure gonna try to homebrew something out of that for my games.
Just for the records, a moon druid still can wild shape on an action. The Combat Wild shape feature says you gain the ability to wild shape as a bonus action, not that you lose your ability to wild shape as an action. There's a Sage advice clarifying this.
I agree. Less innate magic, more magic items. Something like 5 slots. Perhaps magic items that grow along the characters (yeah, I know - critical role). So they become more personalized.
Yes, completely agreed, also, for attunement, they could make the new one similar, with some changes, or, they could completely rework it, which has a possibility of being the better way of doing it.
I dont watch CR but my DM in a CoS does, and he gave us some of these items (vestige I believe?). I loved It.
LEAVE MY WIZARD ALONE AND GO TO 2E WHERE YOU BELONG WIZARD HATER
That's a very neat point about separating combat and social encounter feats. I wonder if it could be separated one step farther into the third pillar of exploration. For example dungeon delver doesn't really fit into either social or combat. The classes or your ability scored could then determine when you pull from each of these lists of optional features.
I'd like to see more smaller, less impactful "feats" that can be taken every level or every other level. They'd be closer to flavor than power but would allow more interesting choices and more mechanical development of character. Perhaps they'd replace some of the features that are baked in to subclasses currently. Maybe it even replaces the subclass system through the use of dependencies or ability tiers.
Agreed, or more "+1 to a stat and some extra interesting stuff" and less "let's make this the dominant strategy you'll use over and over to do craptons of damage" feats.
I do like the notion of having some combat and non-combat feats acquired at different times.
Honestly, feats should disappear all together as we know it, instead they should be "boons" that players earn through gameplay rather than the leveling process, with the boon being specific to the campaign at hand, decided together with the DM and player to make them more distinguished compared to other characters of the same race/class combo.
@@jk5385 i think it's not as good because less experienced dms and players would not do it as much, whereas the actual system is litterally forced on you and you get consistent upgrades
Having it on top could be cool tho
@@shigekax true, and i guess I may just have feat fatigue from PF and 3.5. lol
@@jk5385 time to make your own rules :)
Because I'm a big old pedanty pants: actually a Circle of the Moon Druid can still use Wild Shape as an action RAW because the text says "you gain the ability to use Wild Shape on your turn as a Bonus Action, rather than as an action". It does not say that this ability replaces your existing ability to do it as an action, or that Wild Shape is now a bonus action for you.
Controversial/Hot take: We don't need 6th edition, minions could be added with a simple new "rule" or suggestion. Just pump out new sourcebooks and make errata as needed 🤷♂️
Agreed. I use minions all the time in 5e. Play them more like a swarm, with player damage reducing the overall percentage, and the overall percentage generating a certain number of hits.. As the players reduce the percentage, they get hit less often. I use the player's AC to help determine the distribution of those hits.
5.5? 🤣
@@cptzoom1155 It’s inevitable that there will be another edition, the question is: when? Also, how compatible will it be with 5th Edition, that gets so much right and has a huge install base. I don’t think they’d ever call it 5.5, but maybe Advanced 5th Edition. Or better yet, 5th Edition: OLED version. :)
Yeah thats what happened to pathfinder 1e thats how you get 100+ source books
I also seen them used in Old School Emulators
Circle of the Moon does not "turn your Wild Shape into a bonus action."
"When you choose this circle at 2nd level, you gain the ability to use Wild Shape on your turn as a bonus action, rather than as an action."
This means it becomes either. A rogue doesn't lose the ability to disengage as an action just because you gave them the ability to do so as a bonus action. Same with the druid. Circle of the Moon, specifically, can Wild Shape as either an action or a bonus action.
Oh pog, am using this for a build
funny thing about that is that dropping wild shape was always a bonus action so you can’t drop is as an action no matter what druid you are
I actually love your idea of multi-attack for martial classes and I'll be using it in future games if any of my players multiclass like that. I see no reason for my barbarian who wants 3 levels in fighter for Battle Master maneuvers to need 5 levels in one or the other to get 2 attacks when they're both martial fighters
I would like to see more options when a character goes up in level. Once a character chooses their Archtype, have options for different features. Not just forcing a single feature. It would be nice to see not all swashbuckler rogues or moon druids be exactly the same.
Also more feat options and opportunities to take feats that don't interfere with ability score improvements.
Yeah- we could handle something like skill trees for different classes like in video games. I want to make some kind of choice at every level up. As it is, every subclass is sorta a "combo pack" that has some things you want and some you don't, hence tons of homebrew adjustments and subclasses. That's very plug and play but considering how long it can take between levels, I think I can handle a minor choice each time. I have had at least 3 weeks as level 3, I won't be overwhelmed at level up time if I have to choose between e.g. +1 to marksmanship or +1 to dagger attacks or +1 to AC when I Dodge (and it won't be hard to track- I add the modifier/note to my weapon stats/below my AC box and move on).
It sounds like you want feat pools from PF2e. It doesn't sound like a bad idea, tbh, since since many classes and subclasses do have some choices to make while leveling. Choices such as spells or specific features like Battlemaster Manuevers, or fighting styles.
I would like a change to be made to armour and AC. Maybe some way that armour can have modifications rather that the usual, light armour wearers only wearing studded leather, medium armour wearers wearing half plate and all heavy armour characters wearing plate. Something to help make everyone feel unique when it comes to their class and role.
Adding some form of built-in damage reduction would be a good start, like, this armor has lower AC than that one, but provides better DR due to construction. Like chainmail being better at stopping slashing and bludgeoning attacks, but is less effective at stopping piercing attacks. But that would require more bookkeeping on damage types the enemy attack causes, so probably it won't see much use
i am not sure where i have seen this mechanic but give everyone three actions in a turn. this can be any combination of actions (move, attack, cast, or interact) up to 3. that way if you want to limit how many spells people cast then give the spell a greater action cost. in this system you can run allout or attack allout. then an extra attack would allow an attack action to improve the number of attack actions you can take.
I love minions, and still use them. I'd bring back the Minor Action for everybody, and put roles back in there too. 4E did a lot of good things. I think a lot of 5E players would love it.
Didn’t even know I was house ruling minor actions into 5e.
When I switch “bonus” for “minor” it clicks in for every new player and they stop trying to do main actions “faster”
Happy to have you back, man! Hope your schedule allows you to keep the content flowing.
I’d like to see mid-combat healing changed. It’s frequently mentioned that healing is kind of pointless in combat (unless a character is down), which makes an entire set of spells pointless. However, just increasing the amount of healing from spells is a bad solution, as it just makes combat longer. There needs to be a change to hit points and healing to make it an important option.
That said, we are NOWHERE NEAR a new edition, in my opinion. 5e is far too popular for WotC to ditch it, and most of the posts and videos about what needs to change don’t have a lot of real problems.
Maybe add injuries? That troll broke your arm; you have to swing your sword with your off hand, so no proficiency bonus on the damage. Or maybe, you got shot in the leg with an arrow. Your movement speed is half until you heal up.
If damage affected more than whether or not you were alive, there would be more reason to heal in combat. Heck, maybe even 1/2 hit points causes 1 level of exhaustion, 1/4 causes 2.
Idk about healing being useless. My level 4 Monk has 23 max HP. We fought a Flameskull, I failed my Dex save (with +7 mind you) on its Fireball and took 30 damage. Before that turn I was just on 5 HP, our cleric healed me up. I would have died. This is also not even close to being the only incident like this, just the most recent one. Healing saves PC lives.
I had a DM who allowed you to learn more skills and languages due to your int score (+1 skill or language for each + for the int modifier). I think it’s a simple but effective way to make int actually useful.
I do this, but tweaked a little.
On +1, +3, +5…. you gain one skill, language, or tool proficiency
On +2, +4……. you gain a language or tool
Main reason to not do skills at every level is because 5e to my knowledge has less skills so getting them so much more often makes any class that uses intelligence significantly stronger. For example, at level 8 most wizards could have 5 more skills than everyone where as with my way they are only 3 ahead which is still a lot
I really like the Int based skill and language system. In pathfinder your Int determines extra starting languages and how many skill points you get on level up. Makes intelligence a bit more useful as an attribute rather than an easy dump if you are not a wizard.
So basically a 3/3.5 ed. convention.
I really hope they’ll add some rules to travelling and foraging, because now it’s mostly getting skipped.
Yeah even if its just optional rules, I'd love to see one or two pages on this. However, I think changing the rest system and the availability of spells that make travel/survival trivial would also be needed in 6e for it to be interesting.
Well there are some kinda rules for this kind of thing, but there are abilities that make things like foraging nearly trivial anyway. Goodberry is a lvl 1 spell, Outlander background literally just handwaves foraging played as RAW. Create or destroy water is also a first level spell. Its hard to make 'survival' a meaningful challenge within RAW.
I agree that there should be more mundane classes but on the other hand, the classes we do have illustrate all the different ways to approach and possess magic, whether that be an altered state (barbarian), physical discipline (monk), a vow (paladin), or so many other kinds.
I know this one is talked about a lot, but, make superiority dice a base class feature for fighters. You don’t have to give them as many as Battlemaster, but just a few. There can still be a subclass like Battlemaster that expands on this even farther as well.
But Fighters are supposed to be these unique versatile fighters that use all sorts of different weapons and fighting techniques, and yes they helped do this with fighting styles which are great, I just think Fighter should get 1 or 2 superiority dice at like level 3 or something to make each fighter even more distinct.
I'd say that BM could be an expansion on an entire system given to the fighter. Get rid of the x3 extrattack and add some manouvers as basic fighter mechanic (at certain levels ofc) with the sup-dices, then make the BM being an improvement on that.
YES!!! Ive been saying this too.
I would love to see some love for the sword and shield characters. Maybe some feats or new rules for shied users or even a new class.
Regarding innate magical abilities VS magic items, I think I prefer the current style. Not for any mechanical reason, but simply because it feels lame having the major thing that sets a player character apart being the stuff in their pockets.
As for what I would want to see, more tactically interesting abilities for martial characters. Barbarian rages then roles to attack a couple times, and that's it. Fighter attacks, then attacks again, then maybe attacks some more and that's it. Currently the only way to make them interesting is with feat choices or getting spells through multiclassing or whatnot. Specific moves and techniques like the Battlemaster Fighter gets should be the baseline for all martial classes.
I know you have said you are not a fan of pathfinder anymore but I love that 3 action system, all actions are the same and you have 3 things you can do. Just seems to work
5e is all I know. I'm hoping 6e doesn't come out for a LONG time. I've dumped a lot of time and money into 5e 😅
Also, it is just now being released in other languages. Please don't rush things, Hasbro
Soon would be a good time to start working on 6e, with a nice long development period, 5 years or so.
Check out 5 torches deep. It is a lot more nasty there are no dumb states or super powers. Combat is fast and scary. Spells per day are gone but magic is dangerous. What a couple vids on it.
@@Honkbs that is cool. I think they exist in 5e but then again I bought it played it for six months twice a week and then pitched in the sell pile. I found that I could just steal the very few things that it offered that. I like Advantage and Backgrounds maybe a couple of the feats and then put them in something less super hero like. Then I got into osr grim dark stuff and realized the death economy of TSR and WofC games are flat and unexciting. But I am glad that you are enjoying your gaming experience.
welcome to the tabletop scene
I think bonus actions are a very necessary thing. There needs to be a way to have things PCs can do in addition to an attack/important spell but that are more limited than a free action. Without cunning action, Rogues wouldn't work. Would a barbarian need to use an action to enter rage? Without bonus action heals and buffs, people will stop playing support casters because they'll be giving up their actions.
There are simple fixes to this, and it's mostly going back to some things 4E did right (shocking, I know):
- Call them "minor actions" again, or something like "swift action." Personally, I never found the wording difficult, but I've heard enough people complain that I'll concede it.
- Let people "downgrade" their action to a minor action (like you could in 4E)
- Give a couple of things that people can use their minor action for regardless of class (such as certain skill checks, additional object interactions, etc.)
- Give more enemies minor actions
If Wizards of the Cash thinks I'm gonna drop hundreds of dollars on another edition any time soon they can lick my dice.
Rumor has it 6e is going to be backward compatible. Old books will only be outdated when a new book replace them.
@@DaDunge Rumor has its infested with radical left ideology, you dont roll dice " because chance is raaacist" you just sit their as players talk about their monsterous race pcs feelings. Lol
@@underfire987 We know MAGA klowns aren't smart enough to follow the rules. Afterall they voted for a draft dodging serial cheater that had to declare bankruptcy 6x.
@@underfire987 The only leftist idea I've heard touted was to remove stats being linked to race. Race would be more descriptive than a requirement to get certain stats, then you link the stat increases to the class. While race discussions are a political hot potato, I don't think this is a bad idea.
@@Wertbag99 the problem with this is that the D&D definition of "race" is completely different than the real world definition. In real life, the differences between human races are minute and largely irrelevant, so assigning stat boosts/penalties to specific races is inaccurate and offensive. In D&D, the races might as well be different species. Why would anyone get offended by horses having higher STR than ducks? Or an elephant having lower DEX than a monkey? That's basically what people are offended about, and it's silly.
I'd want one design ethos for 6th Edition:
Every level is an adventure.
There's a very real and rewarding aspect of leveling up your character. Seeing new abilities each level. Some classes are able to express this. Most do not.
For comparison sake only, Pathfinder 2e does this well. Doling out small but interesting choices spread across 20 levels.
A sixth edition of DND could spread out ASIs. It could alternate between combat and noncombat feats every other level. Imagine if a three level cycle was:
+2 to a stat
Social Feat
Encounter Feat
Repeating 6 times. With first level and 20th offering up different things. You throw in class abilities every now and then. Casters getting more interesting spell selections and you have a very rewarding path of progression.
I don't want added complexity. Just added excitement.
100% agreed on minions. It was my favorite 4e mechanic, and I still put them in my games
"You gain the ability to Wild Shape as a bonus action."
I always took that to mean you now have the option of doing it as a bonus action. But you still retain the ability to do it as an action. It doesn't explicitly say it takes that ability away.
Yes. Yes. The extra attack timing in multi classing is stupid.
Are they afraid that it will give rogues the potential to make two sneak attacks per turn? And three times in the case of the scout?
Sneak attack is capped as once per turn.
And I think Cody means that Extra Attack should scale like the spell slot progression. So you add all your levels in Fighter / Paladin / Ranger / Monk / Barbarian / Valor Bard / Bladesinger / Batllesmith and whatnot together and divide it by five (rounding up) to get your number of attacks in one action.
This list would obviously not include the Rogue or any full caster because those don't get extra attack
@@derboeseVlysher interesting. If you took that approach, the Fighter would be the only “full martial” class in the game, I guess? They’re the only ones who progress beyond 2 attacks. ::thinks::
You could say “If you have a combined total of 5 levels between any of the classes (Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk) or subclasses (Armorer Artificer, Battle Smith Artificer), 6 levels between any of the previously listed classes and subclasses in addition to College of Swords Bard, College of Valor Bard, and Bladesinger Wizard, or you have the Thirsting Blade Warlock Eldritch Invocation, you attack twice instead of once when you take the Attack action.”
I’m not sure, though, if a 5th level Paladin/6th level Fighter should get to take advantage of the Fighter’s 3 attacks. That, to me, seems like a fighter-specialization benefit and should remain an 11th level Fighter feature. (And 4 attacks should be a 20th-level Fighter-exclusive feature.) There needs to be some benefit for specialization. Casters benefit from specialization by getting access to higher level spells. (You need at least 17 levels in Wizard or Sorcerer to get Wish, for instance.)
@@PaideumaSF it's nothing to be easily implemented in 5e, that's why it's here.
You should probably rework all the classes to streamline it. I never really understood why Bladesinger and Valor Bard get Extra Attack at level 6 instead of level 5.
The third and fourth attack could just be given to all the martial classes and fighters get something else instead.
All attack cantrips get a buff at 5, 11 and 17 too, so why not extra attack for every martial class? But there needs to be general reworking for this to work out
@@derboeseVlysher There's a lot of ad hoc in 5E, which is why Bladesinger and Valor Bard get them then.
I think the extra attacks would have to become weaker if there are that many. Upping the damage on one attack might work better.
pleas add not giving dark-vision to almost every race if you do a part two.
I want weapons that require dex and strength to stop the desire to dump a stat. For example in real life a long bow requires dex to aim but a lot of strength and conditioning to actually fire consecutively. So in 6th edition I would say for long bows and certain other weapons dex should be used for to hit bonus but strength should be used for damage.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't entirely agree. You need strength to be able to use the weapon effectively, but making the damage dependent on your strength opens up an entire can of worms of "Should range be limited by strength too? What about crossbows? Does strength determine your reloading speed?" and other questions. I like that Dex determines your damage too, because I think it also makes a certain amount of sense to think that your aim increases your damage, because the better aim, the more likely you are to hit the vulnerable spots.
Well that would make so that you have to worry on at least 3 stats everytime you build a non magical class. I's argue that at best they should make many more weapon to be possibly used with either STR or DEX, rather than just STR for most of them and DEX for a few.
@@1Kapuchu100 Okay. How about dex still determines to hit and damage. But certain weapons have strength requirements. So long bows use dex to hit and do damage but you need, say 13 strength to get your proficiency bonus.
@@Twiska I think that makes more sense, but it still runs into the problem that Akuma pointed out, which is being forced to invest in another stat to use a weapon with any degree of effectiveness. It's not as bad, but it's not optimal, I don't think.
@@1Kapuchu100 Yes. But this would be implemented in a new edition of D&D. Which could of set that issue by reworking the feat/ASI system. And with desperately more needed strength based checks and skills. In 5e strength is bad. You rarely use it. This is a suggestion for an edition with more uses and requirements for strength. I think a martial character should have to worry about strength and dex. And they should be rewarded for that with more uses for it. Only one strength skill is horrible in my opinion. And out side grappling (which I have problems with) athletics is never even used in 5e.
Edit: I think maybe strength and construction should be combined. Con doesn't have any skills anyway. So say strength and construction was combined into a singular "body" stat and more "body" skills and saves were added then it think it would work out. Then you could bring in a new mental stat to diversity the casters as too many use charisma in my opinion. (Also I hate how all those classes are by default charismatic) Perhaps a dedicated "faith" stat for paladins, clerics and warlocks.
You are right on having more Intelligence saves, but I don't want it to give extra proficiencies or the like, because that would make wizards more OP that they already are.
I would also like to see that all martials get extra skills and expertise in 1 skill (similar to Tasha's Ranger) to make them more interesting out of combat without giving magical bonuses or requiring multiclass or feats to do so. Half casters could get an extra skill too.
Totally agree that magic is far to common in 5e classes. Playing a wizard in the early 1st and second editions meant you had fireball and chain lightning and no one else did. Wizards had a d4 for hit dice meaning that it was difficult to keep them alive at the early levels. But if you did survive and level up, you were rare and had unique and powerful abilities to bring to the table.
then they realized its fun but because people are too suborn to stop playing human fighters they had to bake it into the classes
Rules for Crafting/Enchanting.
Mines and Caves are common to use in campaigns, so it would make sense for players to collect ores and gems they find down there. They could use that to create armor. Then, if one can enchant, have rules on making runes and enchanting weapons/armor. This stuff could easily benefit exploration
What is your opinion on an attunement system with like 10 slots, but some magic items take up more slots than other magic items?
Ohhhhhhhhhhh
That's interesting! Really interesting!
You have a number of attunement slots equal to your character level plus your INT modifier.
@@derboeseVlysher I don't think the level should make a difference, since you would normaly not get that many magic items in lower levels.
An ability score might be good, but if the base value is too low that would not work, since that score would be a must-have.
It worked really well for (de)buffs in anarchy online where it was NCU memory. You had a deck with given amount of space for memory chips with better decks being able to hold more memory chips. Trouble is that balancing everything in 5e for such system would be a nightmare anarchyonline.fandom.com/wiki/NCU_Memory
@@jamesm2577 That is why it is only a good idea for 6e. DnD Versions are often quite different.
I'd like to see a tiered system for grappling akin to the exhaustion system. It's ridiculous that while being grappled (=grabbed), pinned/restrained (=grappled), and prone, by any number of creatures, you can still do any action. There should be some control that can be gained from grappling equivalent to parts of the paralyzed condition, in addition to being able to move an enemy. The Grappler feat could stand to be buffed as well, and a tiered system for grappling would open up some design space. Grappled characters should share the same 5' space as the grappler, depending on size. And Heated Body should be clarified/improved for/against grappling. It's a part of 5e that feels half-developed.
Completely agree. The idea that the grappled can attack the grappler with no penalty always seemed especially wrong to me.
Oh no! Are there actual talks of the 6th edition coming to be??
I sure hope not anytime soon!
I'm _fairly_ confident we're still a couple years away from 6e, but it wouldn't surprise me if the designers were already taking notes and having conversations about it.
Probably not for another year or two. As long as the supplements continue to make money, I don’t see them changing it.
@@RIVERSRPGChannel, thanks for the response. I certainly hope you are correct.
@@wjbiv75 Like the other 2 comments stated, probably not for a couple of years. I would suspect that they are already starting alpha testing of rules. If they want to release in a couple of years, they will need to start testing the alpha rules now to fine tune them, get artists to start creating images, if they are going to have any type of software in place they will need to get those rules to programmers, etc. I would suspect they are well on their way to doing 6e.
@@Scott-ig6nx, awesome! I invested in the Starter Set, Essentials Kit, DM Guide, Monster Manual and Players Handbook and I’ve yet to begin my first campaign with my family from the Starter Set.
This now motivates me to get the ball rolling and start adventuring again!(It will be my first time playing since the eighties! lol)
I love these types of vidoes. I would love to see a round-table sort of video with you and a few other TH-camrs where you all workshop ideas for the next edition. How to improve D&D for the entire community. And not even come to a full agreement or solution on all points, but really show that there is a conversation to be had about what the community wants from the next edition when it eventually happens.
I miss the width and breadth of magic items from previous editions. You had dozens of magical rings, pendants, amulets, tools, robes, etc. that you could obtain without them being just a quest reward or random drop.
Surely a world as vast would have traders or merchants who specialize in curios and artifacts and you could find a ring that gives you advantage on a save once or a robe that simply makes your short rest take half as long if you use it as a blanket.
It would also be nice if you could have a simple magic item as part of your background. Why wouldn't a Sage have say an enchanted pair of glasses that makes it take slightly less time to scribe a spell or attune to a magic item?
As a DM, I would love more special abilities for monsters so they feel a little more unique. I often add my own because even some Big baddies end up being boring. Hey I want to have fun trying to kill my players too!
Yup. I use 4e and other monster manuals for ideas for cool monster abilities and use those...
I have always thought 2024 would be when we might see a new edition of some type. It would be the 50th anniversary of D&D and it seems like a wasted opportunity to not release a 50th anniversary edition.
Ditto. I can't see them not cashing in on that in some way.
At the very least, they will republish the existing books with alternative art covers by Hydro74.
Yup I've been saying this for a couple of years now. If not a brand new edition, at list some sort of special edition.
Some really great ideas here I never considered. Great job Cody, I'll need to work in some solutions for some of these things
What I want is for players to die easier.
I mean, being downed, just to be healed and downed again with NO downside is really broken.
That would fix so many problems, like healimg word and such
Agreed, if you're talking about characters, because usually, not always, killing your players doesn't go to well.
Super easy homebrew fix: every time a character stands up from 0, they take a level of exhaustion. Coming back from the brink is not an easy experience
@@superultragamer8245 I've used this in some of my 5e games, and my player's have loved it!
I also homebrew this. Usually with a Con save with a DC that increases (fast!) if you're downed more than once to avoid exhaustion. It would be nice if it was official rather than homebrew tho.
That would be nice, if there weren't so many monsters that deal gynormous damage with a single hit (or turn for the ones with multiattack as well)
I love that you mentioned combat versus non-combat feats. I ran a game a while ago where I allowed my players to each pick a free feat at first level, with the caveat that it had to be a feat that did not affect combat (so what you more succinctly call a non-combat feat).
Those characters were incredibly interesting and unique.
Make the ranger's role relevant again! Fix Travel & Exploration.
The moon circle doesn't turn the wild shape into a bonus action, it guves you the ability to use it as a bonus action. You'd still be able to wild shape using your action.
I would love for Minions to make a comeback. Minions and Skill challenges were my favorites from 4th edition
I feel like because of 5e's slower release schedule it will actually have a larger life expectancy. Look at other editions, by year 7 they all had tons and tons of books. Which (IMO) is the main reason for a new edition. Since book bloat scares away new people who want to try it and tires out people who have been playing for a while because content gets increasingly niche and incremental as the developers grow tired of the game.
Number one: Don't lose the accessibility of 5e that made D&D as popular as it is now!
Also don't balance around an adventuring day mechanic no one uses, and add more customization and power for martials at high levels. I really like the direction they're going in many ways. Tasha's Ranger and summoning spells are a hundred times better for the game and more fun than the previous Ranger and summoning spells. Rune Knight and the like are a great way to add optional complexity to simpler classes.
one thing you touched on was making spell casting and magic as a whole feel more diverse, while I agree with this your argument that we need more magical items while interesting and would help a lot with this...personally I think the biggest issue is the lack of diversity in spell list (especially with wizard and sorcerers) the fact that the only real class with very unique spells is the paladin is I think a big miss step in the design process, and while there are certainly those spells, there very few and far between.
the action economy is something that pathfinder 2e got right. I also miss that learning languages and skills is no longer based on intelligence.
As a pathfinder 2e player, while he’s going through this list, I keep thinking, Pathfinder already solved most of these.
Minions- either enemies 3 levels less than the party, or use the rules for troops.
Less magical characters- all martial characters excluding the champion can run a version with no magic.
More attunement slots- 10 invested magical items
Intelligence matters- recall knowledge, crafting, languages, extra trained skills
Multiclassing/multiattack - you get 3 actions. Use them how you want. You don’t have to “get” multiple attacks.
@@brianparker1438 what I really want is a hybrid between 5e and pathfinder 2e because as cool as some of the ideas behind pathfinder 2e are I just don’t enjoy playing it and I can’t put my finger on why
They need to knock dexterity down a peg. Everyone knows Intelligence got the short end of the stick, but Dexterity got the 10 foot pole. I mean, seriously, why play a martial class and not use a one hander other than the rapier? It’s literally just as good as a longsword expect you can use the same AS that bumps your AC, Init, and saves for it. Strength has nothing going for it other than minor traversal and some 2 handed weapons.
I would like to see equipment matter outside of plate armor, and something more like AD&D's non-weapon and weapon proficiencies brought back.
One way to make equipment matter at least a little bit is taking the second best armor and making it adamantine, mithril etc., giving the player the choise to either take the 1 less AC for the perk of ignoring stealth penalty or for the perk of ignoring critical hits. I think it creates more interesting armors.
A suggestion: make certain features be based on overall class rather than specific class
So if you take a total of 5 martial class levels, you get an extra attack, regardless if you took 2 barb, 2 ranger, 1 fighter
Kinda similar to how spellcasting in multiclassing works
You could also go even deeper, make it so if you take from a class like barbarian after being a lvl 4 fighter (since they are pretty similar), you count as having 2 levels of barbarians already in and you could get some of their features ahead of time based on that (this merely means that you get features sooner, NOT that you count as having 2 extra levels nor that you get 2 extra hit dice of hit points)
Another similar one would be druid and ranger, or cleric and paladin
This also means that some of the "less interesting" classes get easier multiclassing as a bonus, but it's obviously not mandatory and you still need a reason to take the other class like always
(you can't be a heavily religious cleric and suddenly go "i wanna go warlock cuz i want eldritch blast")
I'm on board with toning down the magic.
Warlocks, please give them more spell slots, or like, spell points even, I don’t care man I just wanna see them cast something besides eldritch blast more
Hear me out though. Give them more incentive to not choose Eldritch Blast. Melee weapon Warlock / ranged weapon warlock needs more support.
Cody, I’d like to go back to one item per body location. But you’re right, magic items have been minimized to a point by attunement. I’d rather see players fighting over a Smoldering Armor or Armor of Gleaming from Xanathar’s just for storytelling sake and immersiveness into their characters and backstory. Cool magic items don’t need to be overpowered, they need to be fun and interesting. But I believe one slot per location fixes the need of attunement. Great post, thank you.
One item by body part is not something I would like to see personally. I find it changes the game into a more BIS video game, mini-game of equipment. But moving to 5 attunement slots, moving to more attunement slots as you level... something like that, would be cool IMO.
@@Taking20, I’m not sure if I saw that way in an excel character sheet or where it was back in 3.5e or 4e, the layout was clean though. And it didn’t allow for spamming of items. I’m sure DnD Beyond is similar in that regard. Personally, I’d rather see them overhaul what items truly require attunement then go to 5 items. But that’s just me. Then the Artificer is still really cool but doesn’t get overshadowed by other already strong classes. All good points from your side. Thank you. Keep up the good work.
PS: No matter what they decide, more magic items, even of lesser power and greater options for utility, is a good thing.
I’d also like to see a lot more urgency around being knocked out. Getting knocked unconscious in a fight feels like it should have so much more weight, but it doesn’t. A character can go down and get back up multiple times even in the span of a ROUND, and as long as someone is there to heal them, they’re still able to proceed as if nothing happened.
Having characters take a point of exhaustion (or some other negative debuff, especially one that could stack) every time they get knocked out would add a lot of weight to combat and make brushes with death feel a lot more real. It would also incentivize people to try a lot harder to stay up during a fight- Healing more when health gets low instead of waiting for the knockout. Sort of like Dragon Age’s “injury” system. Getting knocked around so hard that you lose consciousness should mean something.
5E is really great in that it’s very forgiving to new players- But I would like to see some of the rules in 6th edition take just a little bit of a step towards having more consequences and making combat require a little bit more brain power. Almost like 6E is what you naturally progress towards once you’ve gotten used to the basics with 5E.
One more crazy idea: I’d love to see the return of adding GP amounts back into calculating XP. That might change gameplay from the killfest we currently see to something more strategic. Traps still need to be reworked, and providing an XP value to them would help.
I would rather have a system where in order to level up you needed training which costs gold in addition to the xp.
@@DaDunge That’s a good idea as well, as it gives gold something to do outside the dungeon… but by awarding GP to XP, it encourages players to explore a dungeon more strategically, focusing on larger encounters where the GP reward is higher and try to avoid combats with trash mobs. It’s a way for players to pay more attention to their resources instead of killing everything in sight.
Agree with a lot of what you are saying (especially minions and magic) but I have to disagree on the bonus action. My group has always really liked it and I've always house ruled it that you could trade down an action to a bonus action. I generally consider the bonus actions to be quicker actions and whatever the developers say about it be damned!
The only way I'd be ok with them removing the bonus action is if they changed it to some kind of action point system such as giving you a certain number of action points per turn and you could use them how you saw fit. Perhaps start with 3 AP per turn, attack costs 2 AP, move costs 1 for so many feet of movement, and have spells or other abilities cost varying amounts depending. I think a system like that, while possibly being a little more cumbersome, would be a lot more flexible.