D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[Mercurius]

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.

Yes, basic agreement - kind of a different angle but quite compatible with what I was saying.

I suppose the big thing for 5E was bounded accuracy (and also adv/disadv), so maybe a "synthesis plus." But I agree that it was largely a synthesis of "the best of" 3E and 4E, or that was the intent and result (for the most part). But bounded accuracy, in a way, actually harkened back to a more old-school feel, if not re-embracing the deadliness of early forms of D&D.

If I were to guess how 6E "evolutionizes," it would be more of what we saw in Tasha's, with both an implicit and explicit element. The implicit would be to modernize the socio-cultural aesthetics, both in terms of the art presented but also deconstruction of some of the hard-written assumptions about race, emphasis on violence, etc. The explicit would be to provide a more customizable game, thus the implicit element will be more hidden and/or softened by the focus being on providing a greater range of options, rather than enforcing certain assumptions to all gamers. Meaning, I would think that while there will still likely be defaults, they'll try to cater to the range of folks from traditional ("shoot first"/"orcs are evil foes") to more contemporary ("negotiate first"/"orcs are PC race").

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Yes, basic agreement - kind of a different angle but quite compatible with what I was saying.

I suppose the big thing for 5E was bounded accuracy (and also adv/disadv), so maybe a "synthesis plus." But I agree that it was largely a synthesis of "the best of" 3E and 4E, or that was the intent and result (for the most part). But bounded accuracy, in a way, actually harkened back to a more old-school feel, if not re-embracing the deadliness of early forms of D&D.

If I were to guess how 6E "evolutionizes," it would be more of what we saw in Tasha's, with both an implicit and explicit element. The implicit would be to modernize the socio-cultural aesthetics, both in terms of the art presented but also deconstruction of some of the hard-written assumptions about race, emphasis on violence, etc. The explicit would be to provide a more customizable game, thus the implicit element will be more hidden and/or softened by the focus being on providing a greater range of options, rather than enforcing certain assumptions to all gamers. Meaning, I would think that while there will still likely be defaults, they'll try to cater to the range of folks from traditional ("shoot first"/"orcs are evil foes") to more contemporary ("negotiate first"/"orcs are PC race").

I think you are correct on most counts here.

I think 6e will be still called D&D without reference to any edition and backwards compatible.

I suspect you are right about anti tradition as well.

As it stands I have a hard time finding cool pseudo medieval warriors in the art. It’s easier to find a tiefling than say a man at arms footman or even Conan-ish presentations.

I think the disregard and active avoidance of most D&D tropes will be more consistent.

since I liked the aesthetics and imagery of pseudo medieval knights and barbarians from sword and sorcery fiction, I am less likely to plunk down the money.

but if I am right, my books will still “work” should I want to include a new supplement or module from the “new game.” It will be ok.

I just don’t think it’s a journey I will pay to take. But I also think if they are smart it won’t be necessarily divisive and people could still convers with some fluency about the game world without converting to new materials.

 

[Stalker0]

I have not found any class in 5e that has meaningful tactical options, at least without resorting to spellcasting..

The trick is that we are using an older school mentality. This is not the 3.5 mentality of "its not a specific option or rule you can't do it". Its "do what you want, and you and the dm work it out together."

So for example, grapple only consumes 1 attack. And while people snide it for being weak, its relatively simple and easy to do, and if you have two attacks only requires a bit of your offense.

The rules give some basic notes for bull rushes, disarms, and trips...no reason you can't attempt those.

In my last game, the barbarian fought a lich with a staff of power at one point. The barbarian rushes in, dashes past the guards, grabs the staff out of the lich's hands (a "disarm" attempt), and then with his second attack we used the "use an object rules" to have him break the staff in front of all of them. He happened to randomly have a ring of force resistance, so only took half from the massive explosion. The lich and all of his cronies were dead, and the barb stood strong.

5e allows for all of that, even encourages it, and gives basic mechanics (such as opposed athletics checks) to administer them. So don't think of it of "there are no options", think of it as "the rules don't say I can't....so!" You and the DM work out it out, and with a little bit of creativity and flexibility, you can absolutely make a fighter doing all sorts of tricks.

 

[Hatmatter]

The trick is that we are using an older school mentality. This is not the 3.5 mentality of "its not a specific option or rule you can't do it". Its "do what you want, and you and the dm work it out together."

So for example, grapple only consumes 1 attack. And while people snide it for being weak, its relatively simple and easy to do, and if you have two attacks only requires a bit of your offense.

The rules give some basic notes for bull rushes, disarms, and trips...no reason you can't attempt those.

In my last game, the barbarian fought a lich with a staff of power at one point. The barbarian rushes in, dashes past the guards, grabs the staff out of the lich's hands (a "disarm" attempt), and then with his second attack we used the "use an object rules" to have him break the staff in front of all of them. He happened to randomly have a ring of force resistance, so only took half from the massive explosion. The lich and all of his cronies were dead, and the barb stood strong.

5e allows for all of that, even encourages it, and gives basic mechanics (such as opposed athletics checks) to administer them. So don't think of it of "there are no options", think of it as "the rules don't say I can't....so!" You and the DM work out it out, and with a little bit of creativity and flexibility, you can absolutely make a fighter doing all sorts of tricks.

Well said.

 

[JEB]

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.

Assuming they do get rid of half-orcs and half-elves, but retain the new lineage mechanics, I could perhaps see them making "half-orc" a lineage option for non-orcs and "half-elf" a lineage option for non-elves. (Maybe throw in "half-human" for non-humans as well.) Though I'm not sure you'd see that in the core rules, seems more like sourcebook territory.

Of course, they might also keep half-orcs and half-elves in the core, simply to keep 5.5E/6E additive rather than subtractive and avoid alienating fans of those races. Though half-orcs being absent from Tasha's, again, was noticeable, and there's still the other assorted issues with both races in the new environment. (FWIW, I didn't see any obvious half-elves in Tasha's either.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The trick is that we are using an older school mentality. This is not the 3.5 mentality of "its not a specific option or rule you can't do it". Its "do what you want, and you and the dm work it out together."

Again: everyone can always do that. But casters also get a bunch of cool things on top. Non-casters don't. That grates, hard.

5e allows for all of that, even encourages it, and gives basic mechanics (such as opposed athletics checks) to administer them. So don't think of it of "there are no options", think of it as "the rules don't say I can't....so!" You and the DM work out it out, and with a little bit of creativity and flexibility, you can absolutely make a fighter doing all sorts of tricks.

My experience with 5e has not reflected a particularly "open" DMing attitude like this.* But even if it did...again, what's stopping the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, or Bard from doing this (or other things more suited to their ability scores)? Everyone has precisely equal access to tricks and DM support (or at least they should, in principle--playing favorites is bad!), but all these others also get hard-coded stuff.

*It's part of why I have such a dim view of "DM empowerment." I see a lot more "Viking Hat" and a lot less "amazing creative potential" use. DMs are already nigh-infinite in power. Repeated reminders are rarely needed, and risk encouraging "A God Am I" as TVTropes puts it. Since it's so hard for me to find a game, even online, I am loath to leave one I've joined if it seems even remotely likely to offer what I want.

 

[dave2008]

@EzekielRaiden, I never got a response from you to my question in post #371, so I will ask again as I am truly curious:

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 wandering 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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@EzekielRaiden, I never got a response from you to my question in post #371, so I will ask again as I am truly curious:

Alrighty.

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.

I'll first state my problems with the Battle Master, then jump off that into what I'm looking for.

So. A major problem is that a lot of the maneuvers just...aren't very good. Feinting Attack (for yourself) and Distracting Attack (for allies), for example, expend a bonus action to get advantage...on only one attack. You'd be far better off just making two attacks in most cases, even with the Superiority Die adding extra damage, because static damage boosts are still where the real money is. Parry is likewise not great (is even 5+d12 really going to mitigate enough damage to matter?). The fact that several depend on the target failing a saving throw--usually Strength, a stat many monsters have in abundance--doesn't help, since you already had to hit the target anyway just to qualify to use them. That there are just a handful of good ones and a lot of either bad, mediocre, or ultra-niche ones is decidedly unhelpful, and makes the "ooh, I get to pick two new maneuvers" benefit feel pretty hollow when you already had the handful of good ones and could (almost) always know which one was best at a glance.

A further problem, above and beyond the above, is the paucity of Superiority Dice. You get--at most--six per short rest, and that only at 15th level. For most of the game, you get to do two, maybe three of these maneuvers per fight if you're lucky. And since it all draws from the same resource pool, and there's no delay or reuse timer or anything, you can just spam the handful of really good ones and forget the rest. There's no need to plan; very little need to think about position, maneuvering, or ally tactics; and no real benefit to choosing the right thing at the right time nor penalty for choosing the wrong thing other than "nothing happens." Simultaneously you get so few of them that it rarely matters, AND you can do every maneuver indefinitely with all of them, so it never really matters what you've chosen.

I want stuff where coordination, planning, positioning, predicting future moves, etc. is actually relevant, beyond (as already said before) the "extracting options from your DM," because everyone can do that. I want stuff where, sure, you have basic tricks you can pull out whenever, but you can go beyond that and pull out some real big stuff too. E.g. giving two or even more allies movement, having everyone roll extra damage for attacking a specific target, letting others (or joining with them to) take risks to reap higher rewards, heck even something as simple as repositioning an enemy more precisely than "fling them away."

 

[DnD Warlord]

Alrighty.


I'll first state my problems with the Battle Master, then jump off that into what I'm looking for.

So. A major problem is that a lot of the maneuvers just...aren't very good. Feinting Attack (for yourself) and Distracting Attack (for allies), for example, expend a bonus action to get advantage...on only one attack. You'd be far better off just making two attacks in most cases, even with the Superiority Die adding extra damage, because static damage boosts are still where the real money is. Parry is likewise not great (is even 5+d12 really going to mitigate enough damage to matter?). The fact that several depend on the target failing a saving throw--usually Strength, a stat many monsters have in abundance--doesn't help, since you already had to hit the target anyway just to qualify to use them. That there are just a handful of good ones and a lot of either bad, mediocre, or ultra-niche ones is decidedly unhelpful, and makes the "ooh, I get to pick two new maneuvers" benefit feel pretty hollow when you already had the handful of good ones and could (almost) always know which one was best at a glance.

A further problem, above and beyond the above, is the paucity of Superiority Dice. You get--at most--six per short rest, and that only at 15th level. For most of the game, you get to do two, maybe three of these maneuvers per fight if you're lucky. And since it all draws from the same resource pool, and there's no delay or reuse timer or anything, you can just spam the handful of really good ones and forget the rest. There's no need to plan; very little need to think about position, maneuvering, or ally tactics; and no real benefit to choosing the right thing at the right time nor penalty for choosing the wrong thing other than "nothing happens." Simultaneously you get so few of them that it rarely matters, AND you can do every maneuver indefinitely with all of them, so it never really matters what you've chosen.

I want stuff where coordination, planning, positioning, predicting future moves, etc. is actually relevant, beyond (as already said before) the "extracting options from your DM," because everyone can do that. I want stuff where, sure, you have basic tricks you can pull out whenever, but you can go beyond that and pull out some real big stuff too. E.g. giving two or even more allies movement, having everyone roll extra damage for attacking a specific target, letting others (or joining with them to) take risks to reap higher rewards, heck even something as simple as repositioning an enemy more precisely than "fling them away."

I agree with all of this and again will say the warlock frame would make a better fighter.
At 1st level choose half your sub class (instead of patron this would be eldritch knight for example) at 3rd you would drill down a bit more with second half of sub class. You get a good encounter/short rest recharge of abilities that can affect both combat and non combat (like the 2 spell slots) and every couple of levels you can pick up either daily or at will abilities (like invocations)

 

[dave2008]

Thank you for the reply. Honestly, you lost me when you said the BM maneuvers "aren't very good." That mindset just doesn't jive with me and my group.

However, this is what I was really interested in:

I want stuff where coordination, planning, positioning, predicting future moves, etc. is actually relevant, beyond (as already said before) the "extracting options from your DM," because everyone can do that. I want stuff where, sure, you have basic tricks you can pull out whenever, but you can go beyond that and pull out some real big stuff too. E.g. giving two or even more allies movement, having everyone roll extra damage for attacking a specific target, letting others (or joining with them to) take risks to reap higher rewards, heck even something as simple as repositioning an enemy more precisely than "fling them away."

OK, a lot of that is just 4e, which as I mentioned I was a fan of. However, I don't expect the great success of 5e to lead 6e down that path again. It might add some more tactical depth, but I wouldn't expect the amount you want.

Personally, my group switched to 5e because we didn't really have a need for all of the tactical bells and whistles of 4e. They didn't make the game more fun or exciting for us, but everyone wants different things.

Fortunately you are in luck, there are two versions of D&D that give what you want: 4e and PF2e.