What's your wishes for D&D 6th edition Veeky Forums?

4e 2.0

That's because it's based on Pathfinder, not because it's sci-fi

youre an idiot

>what are your wishes
>reply with wishes
>some faggot is salty

No user, you are the idiot

I like it the way it is, I don't really want the rules to change much at all because I like them as they are and I don't want to risk them becoming sucky.

Design direction, innovation, and the like is best left to individual DMs as they create homebrew settings and stories. Never played an official module before and I don't plan on it.

Seeing what my DM friends can come up with in their games and showing them what I came up with in mine is what makes this hobby worth it to me. 5e being aggressively inoffensive is perfect for this because I want to come up with the cool stuff myself. If it had some crazy unique mechanics I wouldn't even bother with it/would only play one campaign and then drop it.

3e with a not shit skill system and no nerfing of the lords of hell to make them no longer epic level threats

I would honestly want a 5.5 before 6.

Just something that gets rid of a few rules that strain immersion (beast masters and casters with familiars having to give up their own attack so their helper can attack, multiclassing both divine and arcane pools your spells together despite that not making sense, etc. make some weaker archetypes like elemental monk stronger etc.) and re balancing the rules to make sure those changes don't unbalance play.

Anything but warlocks, shitty ass class I hate them

Oh man I love Warlocks, and I love the way they play in 5e. I hope they actually expand on that more, especially the Invocations.

A free pair of socks with ev-er-y purchase.

They were really trying to sell 5e as 'the definitive edition to unite everyone', but I think 6e would be cool if the core rulebooks were replaced with one big unearthed arcana toolbox book of different rules so each group could make the game what they wanted

It doesn't have to be high fantasy, in fact, I'd call it just med-fantasy (or whatever the middle is) in vanilla.

interesting character creation

leaving lore and flavor up to the players instead of imposing it on them

not making martial characters wait til level 17 to do the kind of interesting stuff that casters were doing months before

repackage everything as pokemon and charge us $120 per book. they can skip the plans to print the stuff with carcinogens + DMSO as the whole thing is cancer anyway.

Oh also make the prices of trade goods make a little more sense

>I like it the way it is

It's that kind of mindset that keeps the game stuck where it is.

But the sad thing is, appealing to it has worked. D&D's core fanbase have declared that they don't want new games with new ideas. They want the same old game with a slightly touched up coat of paint. And in terms of catering to that demographic they've been highly successful.

It's just a shame to me, the wasted potential of what 5e could have been. Some of the ideas in the early playtests were so fucking good.

Mah nigguh.

In TFT, I was initially put off by the fact that wizards really wanted to develop strength for casting capacity (you cast straight outta strength stat), because wizards are old and crotchety and wise.

But then I was like, "No, these wizards are bold, healthy motherfuckers."

I don't really care, OSR-tan is pure. Pure!

>Pure
>Letting Raggi and any other two bit 'designer' who can write ambiguous and imbalanced rules have their way with her

I'm sorry user.

For them to not make it and focus on more content for 5th

I hope 5th ends up like 3.5, where we get years of releases tbqh

It's never going to hit 3.5 tier option bloat.

The anaemic release schedule is never going to improve. Hasbro had vastly exaggerated sales expectations for 4e, and while it made money it wasn't the MtG level success they expected. 5e is very much a budget effort, occupying the brand, but the higher ups really don't care enough about it to give it extra funding.

Meanwhile third party support is limited by lack of an equivalent to the old OGL.

Then again, this might be a good thing. 3.5's option bloat was fucking awful, especially given how many of the options themselves were utter trash.

yeah and people have to realize a shitload of the content is online now

Internet changes the game a lot, they want big release books we'll actually buy, not the smaller editions they know we'll torrent

Star Wars Saga Edition 2.0 but fantasy. That was d20 at its finest. The Talent system was GOAT.

This is objectively the correct answer and cannot be refuted.

My 6e wish would be improvement and fixes to 5e rather than burn everything down and start again. 5e is also missing a sort janky oomph other editions had in them, so some capture that ethereal quality and put it back in.

The ability to make your primary casting stat Strength and/or Constitution.

Muscle Wizards for life.

tfw Dorf muscle wizard was murdered by a naked Gnome making drugs on a roof

"design direction and innovation has no place in the actual games being sold"
You are everything that is wrong with this hobby. Fuck you and your regressive thinking. Holy shit.

>5e is also missing a sort janky oomph other editions had in them
That's because WotC deliberately removed that oomph so that 5e sells better to grognards. And 6e certainly won't add it back in.

that it doesn't exist so they don't leave 5e content starved

More options for summons/wildshape, i.e. just expand 5e and don't release 6th edition

I see so often people tweaking their nipples about "muh playtest"-

What was so great in the early playtests that was so radically different from the released 5E? What was so astounding that it went from the best thing ever to lukewarm water?

Actually novel and interesting ideas. Every Martial character getting access to Expertise Dice every round and being able to make use of them in a variety of interesting ways from level one.

Actual variation among spellcasters- The fucking Dragon Sorceror was amazing. Casting from a spell point pool rather than spells per day, with passive draconic manifestations emerging after you spent certain amounts of points, by the time you'd expended all your spell points you were a decent second line fighter.

Those are the most prominent examples, but the game had so much more flavour and ideas and its own identity. And that was all stripped out in favour of being bland and boring and appealing to familiarity.

I want a bigger stable of abilities and feats, maybe like 1/3 as many as 4th had
I also want artificier to not suck dicks and alchemist or something similar to be added, crazy guy who throws potions like grenades etc

I can see why they changed the expertise dice, but that's a real shame about the sorcerer.

Although honestly if that's how they were going I'd more likely see that they changed it so it was less of a mechanical burden on more casual players.

It was a direct result of the playtest feedback forms. Which were dominated by old school D&D fans rating every single new idea zero. Every fucking time.

...

I would like for it not to be released as soon as possible, because DnD edition wars amuse me greatly.

What makes you think 6e would end edition wars?

For D&D 6e to drop the PHB/DMG/MM format and go for a Savage Worlds-esque structure: Core Rules, GM's Section / GM's Guide, Setting Rules.

I mean some settings in Savage Worlds do it the other way around, having a Player's Guide just including the pre-GM's section content and then the full book for the GM. But that's the way I'd like to see shit go, to allow for setting customisation.

For it to be so bad that WoC spends the next 5 years trying to fix it to appeal to it's core demographic

To die.

3 slices of out of date deli ham instead of pages.

I don't know, the conversions for boothill in ad&d seemed pretty legit.

I have an idea then. Maybe play the older ones. They tend not to change when a new edition comes out. Hell you could even port things you like from the new one into the old one instead of switching whole hog. But nah, the new edition should just be a tiny patch on the old one, fuck it.

>Lower power
>Harsher consequences for magic
>Money found = XP granted
>Removal of skills except for very niche ones that require lots of training
>Monsters that make a party stop in their tracks and say "This will kill us and it has no loot, let's avoid it"
>Interpretations of the rules that kill and end in your killing
>A note that says "You find it difficult? I'm sorry this isn't casual enough for you, fucking Pathfinder baby."

So you want it to stop being D&D, got it.

...

>It does the job but it does nothing to progress the hobby or add anything, it's just sorta... There.
D&D hasn't progressed the hobby in decades

I'd argue that 4e did. Its improvements in formatting, layout and ease of use were fantastic, as were its online tools (although sadly they died before ever really coming into their own.)

forget it. deendeefags will never get why their system is unsuitable for anything else. they think because it is d&d, the system must be especially good or flexible.

That it fails horribly so people return to older editions or try other games.

The fact that D&D is so many peoples first rpg experience just because of how much marketing money wizards has is one of the worst things for the hobby.

Alternatively that they just make a dungeoncrawler boardgame out of it and focus on what it's good for.

That's actually how the original DnD works, mate. You should've noticed at the "Money found = XP granted" point.

That's every edition of D&D though. D&D is the Disneyland version of fantasy with the sharp corners filed off and kid-safe.

At this point that IS the D&D brand identity, it's completely divorced from mainstream fantasy to the point where someone who read the biggest fantasy hits from the last 10 years would still feel completely lost in the D&D setting.

For the writers to completely ignore 3.5 Grognards who cry whenever an edition isn't exactly like their sacred cow.

A class-less system where you point buy features your stats qualify for.

Pick balance between magic and meat points.
Basically pcik a Mana Die and a HP die with one being proportionally larger.
Pick between:
1d10 Hp die + 1d4 Mana die,
1d8 Hp die + 1d6 Mana die,
1d6 Hp die + 1d8 Mana die,
1d4 Hp die + 1d10 Naba die.

For spellcasting pick a magic source which defines spell lists:
Patron for Divine and Warlock magic.
Arcane for inborn and trained magic.
Nature from being in tune with nature or your self.

In more board strokes
>Bring back pcs being built with the same system as npcs and monsters
>xp costs for the most powerful spells
>remove advantage fuck advantage
>clerics no longer the favoured souls they are fluffed as in 5e

One major change i would want is to take the dervish dancer (it always amuses me that wizards fucking nailed the dervish and paizo could not get it right despite 2 attempts) prestige classes ability and make it a core fighter feature. I never really thought there was any major caster supremecy outside the skill system but it would be a neat thing to give the fighter although it would make balance a lot harder.

I hate this mind set.
D&D is usually the first rpg people play because of brand recognition that has nothing to do with marketing money. If normies think about role playing games that use dice and pencils and shit they think D&D, so most people start there.

I'd love to see more choices for character race/class but that's about it. As long as it doesn't slide into the abortion that was 4e I don't care.

>xp costs for the most powerful spells

Good fucking god no. Any mechanics which let you trade permanent progression for a temporary effect are fucking cancerous and should be avoided at all costs.

>If normies think about role playing games that use dice and pencils and shit they think D&D

And why exactly is it that it's DnD they think of?

Marketing money.

Yes, normies think about D&D because that's the most well-known brand, just like most people think of Warhammer games when they think about war games. Both were huge when there was no competition and has been able to leverage this into a big enough share of the market that they keep going on inertia, and get so many players for free just because that's what people already play, and those that already play don't want to switch because they have a gorillion bucks invested in a hobby that really doesn't need much beyond imagination and some dice.

D&D is absolutely shit at modeling anything except D&D superhero with swords or spells type games, which is completely divorced from mainstream fantasy, and too bogged down trying to be a videogame running on a rulebook that it's never going to be anything else.

If you list the 10 most popular fantasy books among people who don't buy all their literature at the same place as their magic cards, D&D would be suitable for playing campaigns in 0 of those settings.

I have about a million heartbreaking stories about people who wanted to try role-playing and got completely turned off when it turned out to be world of warcraft instead of Game of Thrones or even Lord of the Rings.

>setting=system

kys

i like saga but it didn't solve force user/caster supremacy

>>Removal of skills

system isn't setting, all you have to do is completely overhaul these core mechanics, all of these items, that class entirely, and it's totally setting neutral.

and which major RPG did adopt?

>backpedalling this hard after writing a few hundred words on why in your opinion setting is the same as system

brand recognition due to history, mostly based on D&D's spread in the 80s.

>
If you list the 10 most popular fantasy books among people who don't buy all their literature at the same place as their magic cards, D&D would be suitable for playing campaigns in 0 of those settings.
this is correct but i don't fault gygax/arnesson for it. they tried to emulate the fantasy literature of their time (they explicitly said so) and did a reasonable job for the time being. however, D&D never got better at doing it and that's why it's system has to be considered fairly obsolete when it comes to genre simulation in 2016 - in spite of its popularity.

4E 2.0.

>Everyone who disagrees with me is one person
d&d has a setting and that setting is called d&d, fucktart.

More lethal combat, martials that didn't have to worry about being reduced to autoattacking robots until they take an hour-long nap the second they run out of their tiny resource pools, spellcasters with more interesting features.

It was still worse than T3 3.5 or 4E but at least it was something I'd actually play.

>he doesn't understand genre simulation
no you

>What's your wishes for D&D 6th edition Veeky Forums?

Many versions of the same edition.
>WUT?

How it works.

1-They make a website with polls that ask what people liked at d&d games and what they hates, what they think d&d is/is about....
2-Then they make more polls and etc....
3-With this poll info they split those users into groups, AS MANY GROUPS AS NEEDED are created and each user has now a number that tell the group he is on.
4-An wip edition is made TO EACH ONE OF THOSE GROUPS, and is released at the website.
5-People are able to download the wip of THEIR OWN GROUP ONLY and try it
6-Then they go back to the site and answers more polls about it (ONLY THEIR OWN GROUP).
7-The company continue to edit the edition based on the group imput. And players continue answering polls about and trying new wips.
8-After enought wips, they create and release the core book of each new group.
8.1-The cover of the core edition variants, tell the group they are aimed for at the cover with BIG LETTER, telling the user to not buy it if they are from another group.
>But your idea.........
Its this or NOTHING. Pick your choice
>But....
THIS OR NOTHING

>That it fails horribly so people return to older editions or try other games.
Yes, this worked with 4E right?

I know that in theory the system isn't the setting, but if the system makes trying other settings a fucking joke without modding the system beyond recognition, then yes, in practice it is the fucking setting.

Well... yes? That fuckup made a lot of people that were on the fence about how combat focused D&D already was branch out and actually try other games, which is the best thing that could happen.

>I would like it to have a clear design direction and actual creative vision.
IMPOSSIBLE

You are all those guys that should be playing different things ( since they have different tastes) but are playing the same bullshit, since they have different wants and needs. Its impossible to please all.

Its like you tried to make a rpg to please people that like fatal, traveller, basic roleplaying, Dogs in the Vineyard....
Obviously you dont need to do that since they can just search for rpg they would like to play and play them

If that worked we wouldnt have 5e

>I NEED MUH SKILLS TO DO THINGS
I'm sorry old D&D wasn't casual enough for you.

Nothing. They got money what they wanted from 5th. Now they plan to do 6th so they can sell more stuff...

the dead horse to die. Every edition of D&D is worse than the last one, I have no hope for the next one. I just want it to be bad enough no one fucking buys it.

It reached equilibrium.

>I have about a million heartbreaking stories about people who wanted to try role-playing and got completely turned off when it turned out to be world of warcraft instead of Game of Thrones or even Lord of the Rings.

What?
I mean, I will be the first to accept D&D isn't an optimal ruleset by any means, be it for fantasy roleplaying or roleplaying as a whole, but this shit is ridiculous.

Right now I only DM 5e because its the system I'm most familiar with and which I already know well, without having to look up the rules and the one which my current player pool knows best, however, I've also tried other kinds of games (both crunch-heavy and story games, FATE, Deathwatch, Technoir, Cyberpunk 2020, Mutant City Blues, etc...), and I've learned one single thing: if your players are shit at roleplaying, it's because they are shit at roleplaying, if your players are min-maxing shitheads, it's because they are min-maxing shitheads and can't stand losing on a game of pretend.

I've had players (both Novice and Veteran) trying to CHEAT in a game, while I've had others going out of their way, using "sub-optimal" options just to provide good roleplaying (grappling and shoving without Feats, doing unarmed strikes instead of just dropping the enemy's HP to 0 and saying 'I want to leave them unconscious')

I've had WoD players raving on how many d10s they got to throw with their enraged Werewolf, or boasting how a certain combination of Spheres made them unstopabble mages, even players wanting to be goddamn Marauders and acting like the equivalent of D&D's murderhobos because "my character would do so".

If players aren't roleplaying properly it's because either they or the DM aren't giving their best in setting the tone of the game and enforcing it. Stop worrying about the numbers and the technical terms and start working on how you describe things, how you keep track of time and how your NPCs behave, and what makes them unique.

I want an official VTT that lets me build beautiful 3D dungeons with fully animated monsters, automatic and pretty-looking fog of war, that handles floors and height differences with ease, and that does all the combat math and condition tracking for me.

Honestly, I don't even care if it's still playable with paper and pencil. Just go full vidya for it if you have to. As long as I can design my own custom dungeons and towns and roleplay my NPCs and what not for my players I will be 100% on board.

I need muh skills to fine-tune and more distinctly differentiate my character, faggot

D&D's HPs for example are like WoW but nothing like GoT or LotR

Come on, you know WoW's RPGs are like D&D HPs, not the other way.

Also, HP isn't at all like Star Wars or Asimov's Foundation or Dune, yet you can emulate those genres using Traveller, which features a health stat.

Agreed, players being shitty is a problem no matter what system you use, but there's no arguing that a lot of role-playing games are needlessly rules-heavy on the combat side, and that this skews the entire game in the direction of dungeoncrawling/combat heavy sessions where differentiating between characters is very focused on what specific skills and abilities related to combat it has.

A LOT of people actually want to try role-playing for the role-playing aspect, and when a big chunk of the rules are related to combat that kind of throws a wet blanket on immersion.

It's not like any of the systems you mention end up with particularly realistic combat even when being as rules heavy as some of them are.

And lets be honest here, D&D is probably the game with the biggest segment of players who mainly treat it as a boardgame with theatre of mind combat, 90% of threads about it are either
"how do we fix X? (because combat)
"How do you fix casters being better in combat?"
or "how do I make X work (and be good at combat.)

That said, I think you kind of missed my point, which was that D&D is, on a system level, geared towards characters and sessions that are very, very different from what a lot of people hope for when they get into role-playing, and to a lot of people who hasn't been exposed to D&D before, it can really come off as a videogame translated into pen and paper.

The way a lot of D&D players feel about 4th edition is how a lot of roleplayers feel about D&D as a whole.

I believe the same, but how about stat damage when casting, more likely to con, it heals at a rate of one point per day, and it have a direct impact on what you are currently doing.

Maybe casting a spell of level 7+ gives you one con damage.

Is 6th edition coming out already?

I was a big fan of points of light and the dawn war. I felt like it gave an interesting history and dynamic landscape to the multiverse. I'd like to see them bring that back.