D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[dave2008]

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.

What do you consider "meaningful tactical options?" As I big fan of 4e, I find the battlemaster has most of what I want in a tactical fighter, even more so with the new Tasha's options. I can only assume your opinion differs, so I am just wondering how or to what degree?

Now, the issue I see with 5e and tactics is that not enough of the classes and monsters support this style of play when comparing to 4e. The thing with 4e was not just individual PC tactics, but group synergy/tactics and of course monster tactics too. Now some DM's can make up for the lack of tactics on the monster side, but it is harder, IMO, to add it back in on the plater side. I do feel like this is a place were A5e will shine though.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Appreciate the response. For my own sake trying to put it into context I think of the Man-at-Arms in Darkest Dungeon (Man-at-Arms) would seem to be where my mind goes if thinking of a physical (non-caster) support class.

I can see how the balance may be wrong, with making that a fighter build, and the battlemaster comes online later.

I dont want to derail the thread with what could be a contentious issue still but thanks for the explanation all the same.

 

[Hatmatter]

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.

Imagine what it is like for my wife!

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.

That is very unfortunate. I wish it was not that way. Speaking for myself, I have bent over backwards for players who I have not DMed before merely so that they can realize their character concept...even at the expense of some of the unique aspects of my world (for the record, I regretted it later...but I don't truly regret letting people play the kind of character they want...as you can tell, I am conflicted).

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.

I remember a veteran player (who has since passed on...I loved that guy) who played a magic-user (transmuter specialist from 2nd edition actually) in one of our campaigns and the character would pathologically stay well behind all the other characters for like the first five levels (I mean he started with 3 hit points or something) and just do everything from a distance. But, as the campaign progressed, he became mighty and we would feature him in short stories that we co-authored and have great fun with the character. That player had a lot of patience and never complained and I think, for him, getting that character to 12th and higher level was very sweet indeed.

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.

I appreciate you sharing this. It is understandable that you would be pushing for a new version of the game that would let you scratch the itch you have. We all want to have fun, so I understand.

So, I do not have any good ideas. I will just say this, my concern would be that a new edition would not be able to satisfy everyone; that for everyone it placated, it would contribute to divisions elsewhere. But, so that you know where I am coming from, I have never really been a fan of the approach where the game itself is continuously tinkered with. That's just my bias. When I play Monopoly, I like using the same rules no matter the decade I am playing it, whether I am playing it with my parents or playing it with my daughter. But, to be fair, if game designers maintained that attitude, we would not have reached such a fantastic version of D&D that I acknowledge 5th edition is. So, what do I know?

I also acknowledge that it would not be helpful for me to suggest you try a different game, because then you would likely run into trouble finding people to play it, given that there are so many people willing to play D&D, but relatively few who play other games.

I genuinely wish you the best in your search! Maybe your situation will result in you either designing your own game or customizing D&D in a way that not only makes you happy, but makes others happy as well. I wish for that also!

 

[Hatmatter]

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.

Love it!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As for the Warlord debate...well.

Spoiler: Warlord stuff not directly relevant to the thread at large

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.

Really good post and it reminded me of one of the most interesting things about 5E, or specifically, D&D Next, which was that it very clearly showed D&D's designers were both kind of scrambling to get stuff done, and had feet of clay. I mean, 4E, love it or loathe it, appeared incredibly competently designed in terms of the classes/roles and how combat functioned and so on. Whilst there were some issues that emerged (monster math, skill challenges), it just felt like they knew what they were doing, for my money, anyway. Of course the marketing was next-level unimaginably incompetent (yeah let's have a snooty sounding dude with a Euro-accent telling you your previous version of D&D suck ass whilst showing you video footage of an imaginary bit of software which never actually came into being!)

Whereas 5E, they kinda showed you how the sausage was made and unfortunately showed you they were going to make a way better kind of sausage and even let you taste it, before they decided it was just largely unseasoned chipolatas for everyone because that's what the grogs demanded and they didn't have time to make various kinds of sausages for both the grogs and everyone else.

 

[Mercurius]

Whatever form "6E" actually takes, I do think we can be reasonably certain that it will be a continuation of--and evolution from--5E, but not a break from it as we have seen a few times in the past. Let me explain.

I kinda like to look at D&D as having several relatively distinct "sub-species." OD&D was the "proto-type" which spawned two lines; one, B/X and BECMI, stayed relatively close to the prototype. The second was, of course, AD&D, both 1E and 2E.

So from OD&D, you have two "lineages" or sub-species: B/X/BECMI and AD&D. These two lineages came together in the third sub-species: WotC's 3E, which somewhat unexpectedly ended and gave rise to a fourth sub-species: 4E (so in this context, a lot of the ire towards 4E was because many folks wanted to see a continuation of the 3E sub-species, which of course arose as Pathfinder). 4E proved not to be able to survive adequately in its environment, so also ended and, a couple years later, a fifth sub-species arose: 5E.

6E will be to 5E what 2E was (roughly) to 1E: a continuation and evolution, but not a new sub-species.

IMO, of course.

What that actually means, well, that's where the endless speculation can take place. But since my post a few days ago, I have warmed to the possibility that we shall, indeed, see a new "edition" - if buy that we mean a new iteration of the same sub-species. But it is important to recognize the context in which new sub-species arose in the past:

B/X and AD&D arose due to the rising popularity of D&D. It was the natural expansion and evolution of the game.

3E arose because of two decades of game design that had made the existing sub-species rather anachronistic (one of which, BECMI, had ceased publication 6-7 years before 3E, so was essentially "dead"), and because of a massive publication schedule in the 90s that led to the necessity to wipe the slate clean in an "apocalyptic event."

4E arose because the edition treadmill and rules bloat had led to diminishing sales, and an overall decline--or at least stagnancy--in the popularity of the game.

5E arose because the relatively experimental previous sub-species didn't survive well in the D&D eco-system.

There is no significant reason for a new sub-species to arise in the foreseeable future: the game is thriving like never before and there's no issue with rules or product bloat.

But this doesn't exclude the possibility of a new iteration of the same sub-species to reflect a decade (by 2024) of play, rules options, and to fine-tune, tweak, revise and re-package the sub-species to take those into account. In fact, 2024 would pretty much be the perfect time for such an event.

 

[Mercurius]

Delete. Duplicate.

 

[Nebulous]

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.

The Midgard setting has kobolds as core, and they are pretty integral in some ways, especially in a world with clockwork magic and devices, where their small hands are adept at crafting intricate items. We have one in our group, a wizard, but he had to finagle something to avoid the sunlight sensitivity penalty, which would have crippled the character.

 

[Dausuul]

I kinda like to look at D&D as having several relatively distinct "sub-species." OD&D was the "proto-type" which spawned two lines; one, B/X and BECMI, stayed relatively close to the prototype. The second was, of course, AD&D, both 1E and 2E.

So from OD&D, you have two "lineages" or sub-species: B/X/BECMI and AD&D. These two lineages came together in the third sub-species: WotC's 3E, which somewhat unexpectedly ended and gave rise to a fourth sub-species: 4E (so in this context, a lot of the ire towards 4E was because many folks wanted to see a continuation of the 3E sub-species, which of course arose as Pathfinder). 4E proved not to be able to survive adequately in its environment, so also ended and, a couple years later, a fifth sub-species arose: 5E.

I agree with your post, but I would describe it slightly differently. D&D has had several "origin events," where major new ideas were introduced. Each of them eventually merged into the trunk of D&D, contributing their distinctive elements to the whole. The origin events as I see them were:

• OD&D: The original "white box" that started the whole thing.
• AD&D 1st Edition: Introduced most of the classes, races, and monsters we use today, nine-point alignment, and most of the spells.
• BD&D: Introduced unified stat bonuses and mechanically distinct tiers of play. (Debatable whether this is enough to qualify as an "origin event," but I'm fond of BD&D so I'll put it in.)
• 3E: Introduced the unified d20 mechanic, spontaneous spellcasting, feats, level-based stat increases, and a ton of standardization.
• 4E: Introduced short rests, rapid nonmagical healing, at-will spellcasting, extensive tactical options for martial classes*, and a systematic approach to game balance.

Origin events tend to be driven by crises. AD&D and BD&D came about because the white box was woefully inadequate once the audience expanded beyond wargamers. 3E rose from the ashes of TSR's collapse. 4E was a desperate effort to get D&D up to Hasbro's "core brand" standard of $100 million/year, which was the only way Wizards could justify its large staff.

Conversely, when things are going smoothly, you get evolutionary change rather than revolution. Thus AD&D gave rise to 2E, which was a cleaned-up version of 1E but basically the same system. BD&D went through several iterations with Moldvay, Mentzer, and the Rules Cyclopedia. 3E had 3.5 (and later Pathfinder) and 4E had Essentials.

5E is an odd case: There was a crisis, but it arose from the split between 4E fans and 3E/Pathfinder fans. So instead of another "origin event," the designers responded with a synthesis, melding elements of 3E and 4E, with a sprinkling of AD&D thrown in. There were new ideas, but they were minor improvements, not big fundamental changes.

As you say, things are going smoothly now with 5E, so it makes sense that 6E would be evolutionary change along the lines of 2E.

*Strictly speaking, this appeared in late 3E, most notably in the Book of Nine Swords. But that book was a trial run for 4E, which was under active development at the time.

 

[Shadow Over Mystara]

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).

I always liked the idea of half-elves having to choose the path of humans or the path of elves, and having that choice define them mechanically. I think the same could be done with half-orcs.

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.

I love this idea. If half-elves are removed, kobolds have my vote to be their replacement. They're to the Dragonborn lineage what gnomes/halflings are to dwarves/elves, and D&D having 2 core dragon races makes all the sense in the world.