• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

🎨 Creative D&D 6E: what would you keep/ditch?

Artaud le momo

Slicey Bois FTW
Validated User
Two things I'd change a lot, Skills (different bonuses depending on class, race, and personal development) and Alignment, which I'd also change to Gumshoe / PbtA style Drives. One thing I'd keep would probably be advantage / disadvantage. If I had to change just one of those two I mentioned, it'd be skills I think, as I could easily house-rule Alignment to Drives without it affecting much else.
 

Alon

Registered User
Validated User
No I mean a normal Fireball would do 8d6 damage, a Chaotic Evil Wizards Fireball would do 10d6 and if they catch a friendly target in the AoE the fireball instead does 12d6. Their tie to the forces of Chaos and Evil empower their magic when they disregard their allies to better damage their foes. Alignment shouldn't be just your personality or outlook, its also your tie to the primal energies that empower the Planes that underpin D&D.
That sounds like a -4 to INT, sorry. Chaotic evil doesn't mean "enjoys friendly fire for lulz," it means "works in small packs of gang members who terrorize the population." There's a pecking order, but you don't shoot your friends in the gang.
 

Law Orc

Quasi-Possum
Staff member
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
That would be the same 1e alignments where True Neutral was the "constantly backstabbing team-switching jerk" alignment and killing humanoid babies was a Good thing to do because, and I quote, "lice make nits"?

No. Stuff that, no. I would sooner see D&D dead and buried before I saw that Gygaxian garbage brought into the front and center again. Let it stay lost in the shadows with the other cringy material that only the seedy underbelly of the OSR movement still champions.

Moderator Text:

Leave the thread. Don't do edition-warring in the future.
 

macd21

Registered User
Validated User
One thing I’d keep above all others is advantage/disadvantage, but there’s plenty of 5ed I’d keep. First thing I’d ditch is alignment. Sure, it’s a highly recognizable part of DnD, but not, I think, in a good way.

After that, I think my main priority would be to make fighters awesome.
 

Bira

Registered User
Validated User
I think my version would be mostly 4e with the following things taken from 5e: advantage/disadvantage, bounded math, and a handful of Big Meaningful Feats instead of hundreds of small ones.

I'd also eliminate attributes entirely. Everyone gets a general basic bonus instead that's roughly equivalent to that a score of 18 in your primary attribute would give you before. This means no more racial attribute adjustments either, though you still get racial powers. That way you perform as expected in your class specialty and don't need to feel bad about coloring outside the lines of your class cliche. Class skill lists would also be gone, you can distribute your trained skill slots among any skill in the list. Want to be a scholarly halfling fighter, a tricksy orc wizard, or an eagle-eyed pixie barbarian? Go ahead!

I'd allow traditionally "monstrous" humanoids as playable races, and describe them in terms that make it clear that they're as varied in ethical outlook as humans. The ones you fight are evil factions, which are not only composed of one race.
 

Artaud le momo

Slicey Bois FTW
Validated User
Oh! The second thing I would include would be backgrounds. Love them. I might even include those rather than Advantage / Disadvantage as the one thing I'd keep.
 

Terrible Tony

Member
Banned
Validated User
This isn't much of a contribution, but I think 5e is pretty well the platonic ideal of D&D. Sure, it's not doing everything as well as it could be done and I personally prefer B/X, but as a distillation of every previous edition into a coherent ruleset that still "feels" like D&D? It's there. The change from one edition to another in D&D-land has become so world-shattering WRT the ruleset, that they stand a better chance of screwing it up than keeping it "just right."
 

Quantum Bob

Fear and Loathing
RPGnet Member
Validated User
I'm one of those spoilsports who would get rid of the D20 and replace it with 2d10. That should work decently with bounded accuracy. Advantage/Disadvatange would mean rolling 3d10 and keeping the 2 highest/lowest.

I'd take a long hard look at HP escalation, and probably replace it with a system where you get a bunch of frontloaded HP.

Then I'd work on making non-spellcasters awesome.
 

Terhali

Weird and pissed off
Validated User
Limiting myself to just one thing, in the spirit of the OP:

Keep: 4e style monsters. The self-contained monster blocks were a dream to prep and run. If I can stretch "just one thing," I'll bundle that with having mechanically distinct monster subtypes. Having different styles of kobolds or whatevers to work together, with tactical hints included, enabled more dynamic, memorable fights than many DMs could manage on their own.

Ditch: Expanding lists for arms and armor. Have a handful of each, and give examples for each group. Distinguishing a dagger from a greatsword allows for meaningful choices, like damage versus portability and concealment. Distinguishing a katana from a longsword does not. D&D isn't really fine-grained enough for reality-based differences between the two, so you're just forcing a player to give up their aesthetic preference for a pretend mechanical benefit.
 

Terhali

Weird and pissed off
Validated User
The alignment grid is the single most widely recognized feature of D&D at this point. Stripping it down was a mistake in 4e, and it would be a mistake now.

Just go back to Gygax's description of alignments in the 1e DMG, and it works much better.
Alignment arguments go back to 1e. Early D&D did a better job of communicating that having an alignment didn't always mean a cartoonish extreme. Apart from that, the descriptions aren't clear.
 
Top Bottom