D&D (2024) What Should D&D 2024 Have Been +

[Meech17]

Another change I would make in a proper 6E is eliminate the arcane overlap. You don't need wizard, sorcerer and warlock. In a perfect world, you could have a single arcane class and use something like subclasses to illustrate their path to power. In fact, I would probably just do that across the board with fighters, clerics and rogues too. It would help with the broadly applicable subclass idea, too.

I've been thinking about this lately. There's way too much overlap here. I mentioned in a post further up about perhaps just having four main classes and then tons of subclasses,

but at the very least I would combine the sorcerer and warlock. Leave the Wizard as is.. Being the "Developed Magic through knowledge" class.. Have the different schools of magic, the ability to scribe new spells, etc.

Then have the SorLock be the natural magic class. Warlock could be a subclass just like the Dragon Heritage one. You've developed magical abilities and powers through various, non-trained means. Perhaps that's the dragon blood running through your veins, or the deal you made with a dragon a hundred years ago.

I would also totally separate their spell lists. Maybe allow them share a couple of simple spells, but for most part they'd be entirely unique.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another change I would make in a proper 6E is eliminate the arcane overlap. You don't need wizard, sorcerer and warlock. In a perfect world, you could have a single arcane class and use something like subclasses to illustrate their path to power. In fact, I would probably just do that across the board with fighters, clerics and rogues too. It would help with the broadly applicable subclass idea, too.

If players actually wanted most classes to merely be subclasses of others, the Nature Domain Cleric and Scout Rogue would be way more popular than they are. But they aren't even close to equaling the Druid or the Ranger.

Most players do not think condensing the classes down to a smaller amount to be a net benefit for the game.

 

[Reynard]

If players actually wanted most classes to merely be subclasses of others, the Nature Domain Cleric and Scout Rogue would be way more popular than they are. But they aren't even close to equaling the Druid or the Ranger.

Most players do not think condensing the classes down to a smaller amount to be a net benefit for the game.

D&D players seem to hate making choices after 3rd level.

 

[Laurefindel]

Do you think they did not do these things? I don't know about the Tasha's pet thing, but they seem to be working on rebranding spells and feats.

"Tasha's pet thing" is just the format they seem to utilize now for all secondary characters now (be they artificer steel defender, druid spirit companion, revised ranger animal companion etc.) whereas "pet" acts on its own, on your turn immediately after you, but requires your bonus action to perform its main action.

Indeed they are reworking a few feats. As for spells they seem to have rationalized and standardized the various conjure spells and tweaked a few cantrips but not much beyond that (but I admit I haven't been following very closely).

I keep going back and forth between "they should have gone further" and "they have gone too far" with the changes. Ultimately, I'm pretty indifferent however. I'm certainly not going to rage-quit over this, I'm happy for those who enjoy the changes, and I'll keep enjoying my hobby with my friends regardless. But to stay within the spirit of the thread, I think the new edition should have been a mechanical revisit of feats and spells because they are the biggest "moving parts" of D&D, and leave the rest as it were.

 

[DEFCON 1]

D&D players seem to hate making choices after 3rd level.

I do not know what you intended to say with this statement. Players make choices after 3rd level whether they are Clerics or Druids / Rogues or Rangers.

 

[Reynard]

I do not know what you intended to say with this statement. Players make choices after 3rd level whether they are Clerics or Druids / Rogues or Rangers.

Subclass at 3rd is the last major choice 5e allows, as opposed to other versions of the game that give you meaningful choices throughout advancement.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Subclass at 3rd is the last major choice 5e allows, as opposed to other versions of the game that give you meaningful choices throughout advancement.

Okay? But that seems a separate issue than what you said you wanted above about turning all Arcane classes combined into one class with a bunch of subclasses (the post that I had responded to). So why was your response to me about that then about this different thing? That's why I was confused.

If you just want both... all Arcane classes condensed into one class and more choices at more levels for the classes the remain... that's fine.

 

[Corinnguard]

D&D players seem to hate making choices after 3rd level.

Subclass at 3rd is the last major choice 5e allows, as opposed to other versions of the game that give you meaningful choices throughout advancement.

I don't think every D&D player hates making choices after 3rd level when it comes to developing their character. Some players will certainly want something more than what 5e is offering atm, and if they do, they can always switch over to Level Up or Tales of the Valiant. But if they are content with what 5e is offering, they'll continue to advance as far as they please.

 

[mamba]

Most players do not think condensing the classes down to a smaller amount to be a net benefit for the game.

in the current class / subclass structure I agree, but if you loosen that I see no problem with narrowing it down to four archetypes (wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue), you could even go further (magic user, martial)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Subclass at 3rd is the last major choice 5e allows, as opposed to other versions of the game that give you meaningful choices throughout advancement.

Meaningful choices aren't simple. Simple good.

Therefore we should have just one class...

The Wizard. Because it's the only class that's apparently untouchable.