When people stake their identities on something, saying that an aspect of it is "all semantics" is like saying that it doesn't matter whether you use a crucifix or an ankh, they're both symbols of life, associated with Middle-Eastern religious traditions, that have a vertical piece and a crossbar, and that were and are used as pendants or amulets.
Semantics matter when symbolism is important. And I don't think anyone can argue that symbolism isn't important for D&D, since so many have made such a big deal about "flavor" concerns. People STILL get nasty when claiming 4th edition D&D "isn't D&D," even though that is of its very nature a purely semantic argument.
Some people have claimed that, yes. Including designers early on in the D&D Next process. Yet a game cannot be all things to all people. Every design decision limits what games will be supported, automatically excluding some.
But maybe you're right. You're not the first person to tell me that 5e (in its design and its fanbase) being actively hostile to my preferences is something I should just meekly accept like a good little nerd.
I'm simply suggesting that you reach the understanding that 6th edition is not going to fix things for you, because A) 5th edition is already what the ask-the-fans process produced, and B) the sales success of 5th edition is such that WotC/Hasbro is not going to be tempted to bold experimentation.
6th edition will deal with things that the 5th edition fanbase considers problems, not what the people who preferred 4th edition do, because that's what makes sense for the sales-seeking publisher. Pinning your hopes on 6th edition is doing nothing but setting yourself up to be kicked in the teeth by what 6th edition is actually going to be.
claimed to want characters that weren't vulnerable. Being vulnerable DOES NOT mean "one crit could kill my character outright" or "two high ordinary damage rolls will leave my character dying." That you twisted my words into such an obvious strawman is proof enough that you're willing to read whatever malfeasant meaning you can find, no matter how tortured.
You're actively looking for hostility where none exists. "Vulnerable" is not an absolute, it's a comparative. You're opposed to starting characters being as vulnerable as they are in 5th. Call them "vulnerable characters", "highly vulnerable characters", "first level characters always at at death's door"; whatever label you like. Not wanting your characters to be that is a perfectly valid preference.
It's also one that you shouldn't expect 6th edition to fix for you. The fan-feedback playtests for both original Pathfinder and for D&D Next tested starting characters who couldn't be killed that easily, and decided against them. There's been no massive fanbase groundswell against it, and D&D sales have been doing so well there's no incentive for a sales-seeking publisher to strike out in the blind hope that a change will be more popular.
As someone who prefers tactical combat, a fair amount of crunch, not being forced to wait until level 3-5 before I get to start making good on my character concept, and not being afraid of losing my character in the early game, what exactly do you recommend? Because, believe me, if I could play a Dragonborn Warlord in 5e, I would. If I could play something that actually felt like a Censure of Pursuit Avenger, I would. If I could get the kind of incredibly-easy-to-use monster building and encounter building tools 4e had, I'd be all over that like the snow that just hit the eastern seaboard.
But I'm pretty sure that having the diversity (and balance) of character-building options, the classes I'd like to play, the level of depth to the tactics of combat I prefer, and being able to play at essentially any table (whether it starts at 1st level or 10th or anywhere in-between) without having to be paranoid that I'd lose my character, is a set of things collectively that can't really be "dealt with with the kind of customizations that take place at most tables."
Hello my friend, I appreciate the question, but I am not really the person to answer. I haven't been that been picky with the game. I started playing 1980 and have had great times with the stories that have resulted. I like game design to the extent that I create spells, classes, etc., like most other people, but much of the hyper design theory that I see on this board I cannot truly relate to. I like Call of Cthulu, I like D&D, I liked Marvel Super Heroes, I liked Middle Earth Role-Playing. I tend to either enjoy what I am playing or simply not play it.
I suppose if I had a character concept that I required I reach 3rd or 5th level, I would either ask my DM if we could start at 3rd or 5th level, or I would be patient and build up to it. But, that is me. I suppose that doesn't help you.
I will say this...in the early years, I tend to recall the much of the early levels of D&D was precisely dealing with the terror of a character easily being killed in the early levels. That was part of the game. I guess we have moved so far away from that that people don't want to play the game if they have to endure that fear. That's cool. Different strokes and all that. Happy gaming! Maybe they will come up with an amazing 6th edition that will satisfy you and bring everyone even more together in the community, but the idea of going through another 5 years of "when are they going to update this book, or that book, etc." instead of publishing new material that pushes us forward is tedious to me. But, that's just me. I got your back. I mean no ill will or anything.
You can though? Assuming you find a DM and group interested in the same experience can 5e (I can't even remember the Warlord debate, I skipped 4e completely) not manage the experience you want?
I suppose if I had a character concept that I required I reach 3rd or 5th level, I would either ask my DM if we could start at 3rd or 5th level, or I would be patient and build up to it. But, that is me. I suppose that doesn't help you.
I recently decided to play a Kensai Monk as a disciple of a sword-fighting tradition. Problem is, you don't actually get sword proficiency until 3rd level. So I had her use a staff, re-fluffed as a wooden practice sword, for the first two levels, under the premise that she hadn't yet earned the privilege of using a real sword.
Worked out well. It made the character's story more fun than I think it would have been otherwise.
One thing I noticed in Tasha's - there were more tieflings depicted as example characters than in previous books. (I actually counted, out of curiosity - they were #3 behind elves and humans, and #2 if you broke elves up into subraces like drow.) I suspect you're right that Wizards has decided they're a selling point - surely helped by now-iconic tiefling PC Jester, from Critical Role - and will push them more in future products.
I expect orcs to be a core race in 6E, possibly at the expense of half-orcs. (In Tasha's there were orc example characters but not a single half-orc. Also, it'll be tough to give them a distinctive niche with orcs in the core.) I suspect half-elves are also in danger, since their niche of "elf with more versatility" loses its oomph when that versatility is standard for all races at character creation. Not sure if there will be other new additions to the core lineup, though goblin might be a possibility (unless they're worried it'll look like they're ripping off PF 2e).
While this is a somewhat frustrating answer, I appreciate it nonetheless. "I can't help you" (or other related answers like "I don't know") is all too often stigmatized. I appreciate your willingness to give it, even if it's not what I'd like to hear.
I suppose if I had a character concept that I required I reach 3rd or 5th level, I would either ask my DM if we could start at 3rd or 5th level, or I would be patient and build up to it. But, that is me. I suppose that doesn't help you.
Not really. A major part of it is that I basically cannot get in-person gaming. Nearly all of my gaming experience is electronic--which counts well over a decade before Covid-19 reared its ugly head. It is substantially harder to find a DM willing to do things the way you want to when they aren't a friend you can appeal to personally.
I will say this...in the early years, I tend to recall the much of the early levels of D&D was precisely dealing with the terror of a character easily being killed in the early levels. That was part of the game. I guess we have moved so far away from that that people don't want to play the game if they have to endure that fear.
Yeah. I gave OSR gaming a genuine shot. It...wasn't for me. Even with a DM pretty willing to do whatever I was interested in playing. I live with enough fear in my regular life; making it an ongoing part of my leisure time is literally the antithesis of fun.
You can though? Assuming you find a DM and group interested in the same experience can 5e (I can't even remember the Warlord debate, I skipped 4e completely) not manage the experience you want?
I have not found any class in 5e that has meaningful tactical options, at least without resorting to spellcasting...which is a big problem for me. (I'm okay with spellcasters having cool tools; I like Sorcerers, for example. But I'm not okay with spellcasters being the choice if you ever want to have real tactical options you didn't extract from the DM via negotiation, since EVERYONE can extract options from the DM via negotiation.) Even for many casters, you do your One Obvious Thing, unless you can't, in which case you do your Backup Thing. It strongly reminds me of playing Dungeon World, where I was able to mentally generate a flowchart to handle essentially every combat ever. I had a wonderful DM, but I had to do other things to keep my mind occupied or I would've gone crazy during combats, and my experience with 5e has not been a whole lot better than that. Better, I will admit, but of the "I don't know which of the three flowcharts I'm on yet" variety, rather than "wow, I really need to be paying attention and planning ahead and thinking about what resources I might have two turns from now" stuff.
As for the Warlord debate...well.
Repeatedly in the Next playtest, the devs voiced support for fans of the 4e Warlord, a non-spellcasting class capable of pretty much all essential party-support-role stuff.* Mearls himself even explicitly tweeted that they were cool with martial healing being in the game, and if people didn't like it, they could just ban that option at their tables. But they did three things, which not-fully-intentionally ended up torpedoing any chance of playing a Warlord character in (at-launch) 5e. Then, because the devs have been (with rare exceptions e.g. Hexblade) pretty cautious about any moves that make a big splash in terms of altering underlying mechanics (frex: the ongoing Ranger and specifically Beastmaster issues), they were effectively trapped by the choices of the PHB, unable to really push beyond that.
Notably, those three things each individually probably wouldn't have been a problem. All three together killed any hope of an official 5e Warlord. The things, in chronological order, were:
1. Deciding that the Warlord didn't make sense as its own unique class. They were very explicit (frustratingly so, since they openly joked about it using actual edition-war arguments in a podcast) that the Warlord was actually either some kind of Bard, or some kind of Fighter, or both. They chose to mostly do the latter, so the Warlord had to fit into the Fighter chassis.
2. Making the Fighter a "tanky bruiser," to use the MOBA term--a character that can both take hits and dish them out very well. Sort of the middle-ground between "glass cannon" and "stone wall"--not quite what TVTropes would call a "mighty glacier," but close. All Fighters, no matter their subclass, have high defense, high personal offensive power, and high personal utility. By itself, not a problem, except...
3. Making the Warlord option the poster child for their "Specialties" subsystem. Long story short, originally, you would've selected a package of themed feats (or created your own package), which were your Specialty (possibly with some other minor goodies). And then it turned out they couldn't make Specialties work the way they wanted, so they had to silently just...drop them and hope no one noticed.
As a result of all three--not doing any work to make Warlord its own class, making Fighters strong AND tough AND self-supportive, and going all-in for Warlord-as-Specialty and then having to drop it not very long before they needed to hit publication--there just wasn't anywhere for a Warlord to go, and every subsequent attempt (such as the Purple Dragon Knight) has been a non-starter. Mearls and co. almost certainly still believe the Warlord isn't appropriate as its own class, but there isn't an existing class you could add that level of depth and support to without risking it being overpowered, and anything you could add to the Fighter ends up being so anemic it won't satisfy Warlord fans. They accidentally painted themselves into a corner, and now have no option but to just hope Warlord fans stop caring. (Of course, the legions of haters could never have been more pleased; they're certain 5e actually does support the Warlord and anyone who says otherwise is just demanding that their needs be perfectly 100% catered to all the time forever. Yes, I may be somewhat bitter about this.)
*Keep in mind, character resurrection was a Ritual in 4e, meaning anyone with the Ritual Caster feat, and enough money to learn and cast the ritual, could resurrect the dead. So "party-support-role" stuff mostly meant healing, buffs, repositioning, granting saving throws, and granting extra attacks. Non-combat utility was something everyone got, and Rituals covered a huge swathe of all utility magic previously only accessible to spellcasters. Warlords were really good at buffs and granting attacks, which was part of why they were popular; they had very proactive support.
One thing I noticed in Tasha's - there were more tieflings depicted as example characters than in previous books. (I actually counted, out of curiosity - they were #3 behind elves and humans, and #2 if you broke elves up into subraces like drow.) I suspect you're right that Wizards has decided they're a selling point - surely helped by now-iconic tiefling PC Jester, from Critical Role - and will push them more in future products.
I expect orcs to be a core race in 6E, possibly at the expense of half-orcs. (In Tasha's there were orc example characters but not a single half-orc. Also, it'll be tough to give them a distinctive niche with orcs in the core.) I suspect half-elves are also in danger, since their niche of "elf with more versatility" loses its oomph when that versatility is standard for all races at character creation. Not sure if there will be other new additions to the core lineup, though goblin might be a possibility (unless they're worried it'll look like they're ripping off PF 2e).
Orc does seem plausible, even likely as a core race for 6E, I hadn't considered that. I doubt they'll do Goblin as core, because it's basically PF branding. It's not like it would cause legal issue or anything, it just might look a bit bandwagon-y (even though D&D has had playable goblins since 1989's Taladas setting for 2E). Instead I think playable Kobolds, which are much more on-brand for D&D are quite likely. They've had some popularity since Dragon Mountain and people starting to draw them as little dragon-men in 2E, and have steadily gained over the years. I suspect if they are in 6E as core they'd be more popular than gnomes, possibly halflings.
