D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[THEMNGMNT]

Not sure what you did, but the new paradigm appears to be a number of uses equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest. You would need to adjust for some classes. For example, I might give the battlemaster 2x profiencey bonus # of maneuvers per long rest.

I don't know that I agree with that. I've made a lot of custom monsters throughout 4e and 5e and am fairly familiar with both. I think we sometimes forget 4e monsters went through a number of redesigns before the hit their sweet spot in the MM3 and after (really the essentials line of monster books were the best IMO). We also forget there were a lot of fairly boring monsters in 4e too. Finally, there are actually a lot of interesting monsters in 5e (even more so after the MM). In fact, I would agree the legendary monsters are more interesting than their 4e equivalent 80% of the time.

For short rests, I made them 5 minutes long, and gave 2 short rests per long rests. I do like the simplicity and scaling of keying it off proficiency bonus, however. Would have been a great mechanic to have in the original PHB.

Regarding 4E monsters, I'll take your word for it. I've not played 4E. But I have the books. Looking at frost giants, for example, the 4E versions are much more varied and evocative than what 5E offers. In 5E, spellcasting monsters can be painful...especially those built on the warlock chassis. I really hate having to calculate mid-battle how many eldritch blasts a monster gets! I think this is part of why "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" has been so successful...because there's often an optimal way 5E monsters are meant to be played, but for complex monsters that way is obscured in the stat block.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Sale will start to dip when they stop coming out with new toys for the player base to buy - not only because you lose the direct sales, but you let the conversation die off, which creates a gap for competitors to fill and take away your audience. "Clutter" isn't the problem except in as much as it makes it harder to make new sourcebooks that account for all the existing optional rules.

But as the past several years have shown, you do not need a lot of content to keep us chatting. And chatter > people hearing about the game > new sales.

And they've got a lot of ore in the mine right now; a truly new edition is a long ways off at best. I could see a revised set of core books in a few years, maybe, but not more than that.

(The same thing happens with fandoms of all stripes. New show > fresh memes > people checking out the show. Unexpected wins > more people watching the games > more jerseys sold. Etc.)

Agreed. I'll add that the some WotC staff (I'm forgetting their names and jobs... Nathan Stewart?) have said on those big streams that they are planning on pumping out more settings. Campaign Setting Books seem like a really easy way to provide more rules for races and class options that extend the product life of 5E.

Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft... new Magic the Gathering settings, and probably others... all of these will make the life of 5E as long as people keep buying them.

 

[dave2008]

For short rests, I made them 5 minutes long, and gave 2 short rests per long rests. I do like the simplicity and scaling of keying it off proficiency bonus, however. Would have been a great mechanic to have in the original PHB.

Some of the newer subclass key abilities of proficiency. I think a refreshed 5e will probably unify classes / subclasses around this type of design.

Regarding 4E monsters, I'll take your word for it. I've not played 4E. But I have the books. Looking at frost giants, for example, the 4E versions are much more varied and evocative than what 5E offers.

First I want to clarify that I am not saying there were not more interesting versions of some monsters (or even most) in 4e. 4e had multiple versions of most monsters from the get go, where as 5e typical had one version, but had more different monsters. However, over time there have been increasing versions of the same monsters. Gnolls are a good example of this. Frost Giants; however, are not.

Also, one of the strengths when comparing 4e monsters to 5e monsters is all the movement and conditions they enforce. However, this was indicative of the system as whole. It didn't feel special when play 4e because every monster did it.

I also contend legendary monsters do a better job as solo creatures than the 4e "solos" did. And 5e mythic monsters even more so and even more evocative.

However, there are certain things I like a lot about 4e monsters:

1. Roles (brute, soldier, etc) where interesting, gave you a starting point, and initially had mechanical impact (this became less and less as monster design was revised throughout the edition
2. Tiers (minion, standard, elite, & solo): This design allowed a lot of flexibility and really appreciated it. I tried to impliment this in 5e, but it really isn't need with BA, you just use a higher CR monster or the ne mythic monster rules.

In 5E, spellcasting monsters can be painful...especially those built on the warlock chassis. I really hate having to calculate mid-battle how many eldritch blasts a monster gets! I think this is part of why "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" has been so successful...because there's often an optimal way 5E monsters are meant to be played, but for complex monsters that way is obscured in the stat block.

I used to agree with you, but I have since change my mind somewhat. My preference is a combination. When I design a 5e monster, i give it all of the traits, spells, and actions spelled out in its stat block to justify the CR. I then add spell casting (per typical 5e design) as needed to round out the monster and give stuff for those who want to do a deeper dive. I like this because I don't have to detail all the spells out in the statblock, but I know they are there if I need them. Official 5e monsters are moving this way too (including at least on spell spelled out in the stat block).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not entirely sure, though this may depend on what we regard as "minor issues." Mike Mearls is on the record saying that he regretted how Bonus Action works and interacts with other rules (e.g., Two Weapon Fighting). They may seem minor actions, but a fair number mechanics are linked to bonus actions.

He later said that he figured out his actual issue was with two weapon fighting using up the bonus action rather than just riding along on the attack action.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't know that I agree with that. I've made a lot of custom monsters throughout 4e and 5e and am fairly familiar with both. I think we sometimes forget 4e monsters went through a number of redesigns before the hit their sweet spot in the MM3 and after (really the essentials line of monster books were the best IMO). We also forget there were a lot of fairly boring monsters in 4e too. Finally, there are actually a lot of interesting monsters in 5e (even more so after the MM). In fact, I would agree the legendary monsters are more interesting than their 4e equivalent 80% of the time.

Eh, the 'sack full of SA's' thing is still a problem. And the guys that eat you max HP. And anything that requires a save because save proficiencies are the devil.

Also Legendary Resistance - AKA Frustration: the Design Element.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I’d rather just skip lineage as anything more than a flavorful ribbon and some fluff that the player can change as they like, than something like that.

What on earth would a lineage even be, in that scenario? Why bother?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Eh, the 'sack full of SA's' thing is still a problem. And the guys that eat you max HP. And anything that requires a save because save proficiencies are the devil.

Also Legendary Resistance - AKA Frustration: the Design Element.

I love Legendary Resistance, both as a player and a GM.

Frustration isn’t inherently bad.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anyway I have 2 predictions, in order of likelihood.

1) 6th Edition will not ever happen. Full stop. An anniversary reprint of the 3 core books might happen, but it won’t be anything we can honestly call a new edition in the sense D&D has always used the term.

2) Big playtest, with several times more participants than the last one, and we won’t accurately predict much of anything beyond that.

 

[Hatmatter]

He later said that he figured out his actual issue was with two weapon fighting using up the bonus action rather than just riding along on the attack action.

Yes, exactly. He later clarified that his issue was not with bonus actions per se.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I love Legendary Resistance, both as a player and a GM.

Frustration isn’t inherently bad.

My problems are twofold:

1) They exist because they brought the game-ruining spells back but don't want them to be used on bosses.
2) It makes mages have to pump fake for three round before actually getting to participate. Now I'm not saying mages need any more special attention and coddling than they already get--especially wizards and their damned niche protection--but three rounds it a lot of time to spent hating your life before getting to be part of the game. It's like being the fighter in every non-combat encounter.