D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[Sacrosanct]

Just a small quibble here-

Dragonlance pre-dated even Unearthed Arcana (the first books and modules were in 1984). It was "mid" 1e.
Planescape was halfway through the 2e process; it was 1994.

Dragonlance campaign setting book, and Manual of the Planes both came out in 1987

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think the next iteration of the D&D rules will look a lot like the ones from Shadow of the Demon Lord in terms of mix-matching Ancestry, Heroic class, Paragon class and Epic class. It would allow a incredible array of archetypes and builds, remove the need for special multiclassing rules and allow fast type of play with not-too-high bonus and malus from stacking-but-not-really Advantage/Disadvantage.

 

[Scribe]

I agree that racial modifiers are probably gone in 6e. Good riddance.

I would assume that the plan is:

1. Races have no ASIs
2. Lineages will be equivalent to, and an alternative to, races. (So if you want to play an elf of a given lineage, the "elf" part is just fluff. You don't get any elf mechanics.)

That would mean, for example, that if you want to play a Drow, or Snirfveblin (did I spell that write) you would pick the same lineage, and then just describe yourself as either an elf or a gnome.

Which...works. Strangely. It only doesn't work if you simply can't fathom that you can be a Drow without hand crossbow proficiency, or some other ability that existed in previous editions.

So race is nothing but appearance in your scenario?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Dragonlance campaign setting book, and Manual of the Planes both came out in 1987

That's a little different than Dragonlance and Planescape.

They pumped out a fair number of hardcovers at the end; after Gygax, they managed to issue the DSG, the WSG, the MotP, DLA, and GHA in a span of two years.

I don't think that this is a very good example for an edition switch given that 1e/2e wasn't really much in the way of a change (everything still works), and that your specific example wasn't ... a great one? IMO.

 

[Oofta]

I think the future is hard to predict, especially when it hasn't happened yet.

I also think we don't need yet another thread on race, ASIs, what does "culture" even mean and so on.

 

[kenada]

If we see a 6e soon, I expect it to clean up the things they have been unwilling to touch (e.g., a ranger redesign) and integrate the changes made to races into the core. What I hope it doesn’t do is make sweeping changes for the sake of change. It should be possible to run 5e adventures mostly unchanged in 6e. I’d also like to see 5e material usable in 6e and mixed groups being viable, but that’d be more of a bonus.

If 6e is a long ways off, than it could be a bigger change. I don’t think that would happen until sales start lagging, which they show no sign of doing.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past. This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, but when it does, what changes do you expect to see based on what you've seen WoTC do in the past few years in regards to errata, rules changes, design directions, etc.

For me, I think Tasha's was a signal flare of sorts. And with the recent UA, I think the writing is clearly on the wall. We will see a 6e, because some of the most cherished sacred cows of D&D are going to go through big changes on how the rules are going to be written for them.

Well I think the changes we have seen hinted at so far are not enough to warrant a new edition. They could consolidate everything they have done so far and add a few tweaks, make a 5.1 and extend the edition quite a bit. You can still play the game RAW with all the current and hinted changes.

But a agree a 6th will come at some point. I just tend to think it will be more radical than what has been hinted at so far.

That leads me to my prediction of 6e and what we'll see and expect.

Races: Racial modifiers are gone. Caps won't make an appearance. The term "race" might even go away to something like Ancestry or Legacy (I think PF does something like this). Racial choices will have a few traits based on physiological aspects, and not cultural. A race like goliath will have a powerful build trait to represent how they are stronger. Gnomes will have magic resistance. Halfling will be lucky, etc.

Ability score modifiers and other traits will be based on culture/heritage options. Also like PF2 does I think (and a lot of indie games are doing it the same way going forward). Instead of getting a +1 bonus to strength for being an orc, perhaps you get a +1 bonus to strength for being a fighter, or choosing a warfare culture, etc. Or instead of ASIs, you get feats that are related to your culture/heritage.

This seems reasonable, but I bet it happens before a new edition is released. This doesn't change how the game is played, only how you make characters.

Alignment: We've already seen how humanoid races are no longer inherently evil. This continues. I think no intelligent species will have a default alignment any longer. That will be saved for monsters/fiends/undead. I would not be surprised to see a shift away from the 9 alignments and go back to the B/X version of general overviews of alignments. At least for PCs. Most PCs don't follow alignment anyway, but shift back and forth depending on what's going on in the game. I doubt that will happen, but I wouldn't be shocked if it did.

Again: "This seems reasonable, but I bet it happens before a new edition is released. This doesn't change how the game is played, only how you make characters."

Classes: A lot more subclass kits, but they will be less robust than they are now, and you may be able to choose more than one. Something between a feat and a subclass as we see them in 5e. And closer to as they appeared in the playtest docs. The reason for this, is because I think it addresses the omission of classes like the warlord, shaman, and others. For example, all fighters are good at fighting martially, but a warlord kit gives you abilities that you gain at various levels to inspire allies and enforce battlefield tactics. While a battlemaster is all about maneuvers, and a champion gives you out of combat abilities, etc. If they really want to make the change, they would get rid of subclasses/kits altogether and expand and expound backgrounds to fill that role. However they do it, I strongly suspect they will have the class as a chassis with the core features, then a lot of options you can add for backgrounds or subclass kits, and those would largely be class agnostic (warlord background with a rogue class? Why not?).

This seems reasonable. I don't have any bold predictions for class design in 6e. I think it is likely that you will get more choices. Instead of just choosing your class and subclass, many class & subclass features will have a choice or two.

Anywho, those are my predictions of a 6e. Rather than driven by sales, I think a driving factor will be how the gaming community views design today. I.e., things like race and alignment and the problematic issues therein.

My biggest prediction about 6e is that it will be more dangerous (for characters, not players) and more tactical. I think PF2 has shown some good ways to do that and maintain balance.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So race is nothing but appearance in your scenario?

Only when you choose a "lineage" not a "race". They will probably call them all lineages, but if you choose the "Elven" lineage it is the equivalent to choosing the current "Elf" race. E.g., Fey Ancestry, Keen Senses, etc. Just no ASIs in either case.

Alternatively, if you choose "Denizen of the Underdark" you will get Darkvision, the ability to cast faerie fire, etc. If you want to then call yourself a Drow, or a Snirfneblin, or just a human who comes from a line that has lived in the Underdark for generations, that's all up to you.

The other possibility is that you choose both a race and a lineage, and get the abilities from both. So you could pick "halfling" and "denizen of the underdark" and...presto...you've invented a new subrace of halfling that lives in the Underdark. But I don't think they'll go this route because it's adding a step: race/lineage/background/class instead of just lineage/background/class.

I do wonder if they will have lineage-specific backgrounds or feats. Hmmm.

 

[dave2008]

Future editions of the game will likely avoid the generic term "Race," and use the more accurate "Ancestry" or "Culture." We're already seeing a shift in this direction, and it's long overdue. I don't think this will be a "6th Edition" thing, I think this will be the expectation of all games going forward, including 5E.

Race as a substitute for "species" is actually more accurate in D&D where you can play a wide variety of creatures. Ancestry is close, but IMO implies culture. Your example my partner and I have different ancestry, but we are both humans. Personally I would like to see additional options, so choose both a race / species and an ancestry / culture.

I hope you're wrong about Alignment and Classes. If you're right, and if I can't find an easy way to add them back into the game, I'll likely skip the whole edition or revert back to BECM. (I've skipped all other even-numbered editions; why stop now?)

Why did you leave out the "I" in BECMI?

 

[Scribe]

Only when you choose a "lineage" not a "race". They will probably call them all lineages, but if you choose the "Elven" lineage it is the equivalent to choosing the current "Elf" race. E.g., Fey Ancestry, Keen Senses, etc. Just no ASIs in either case.

Alternatively, if you choose "Denizen of the Underdark" you will get Darkvision, the ability to cast faerie fire, etc. If you want to then call yourself a Drow, or a Snirfneblin, or just a human who comes from a line that has lived in the Underdark for generations, that's all up to you.

The other possibility is that you choose both a race and a lineage, and get the abilities from both. So you could pick "halfling" and "denizen of the underdark" and...presto...you've invented a new subrace of halfling that lives in the Underdark. But I don't think they'll go this route because it's adding a step: race/lineage/background/class instead of just lineage/background/class.

I do wonder if they will have lineage-specific backgrounds or feats. Hmmm.

I understand it could be split up, but that's now what was said.

Any system where race is nothing but appearance will be an auto hard pass from me.