D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[Aldarc]

I also like the Dungeonworld method of world-creation: the DM designs the first town, but then the DM and players collaborate to create the world as they play.

I would potentially go one further. In Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures, the starting town is created as part of character creation along with connections to the inhabitants. The DM also gets to put things in the town.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I am hoping for a more satisfactory monk as 5e's works but it is still very flawed that being said it works at least.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am hoping for a more satisfactory monk as 5e's works but it is still very flawed that being said it works at least.

It is my fervent hope that, if we do get an actual 6e, it will be more evolutionary than revolutionary in most respects. Synthesizing in parts that got left behind before (like the ephemeral "tactical combat module," or Warlords), while retooling those parts that they know got the most flak (e.g. Ranger and Monk). There are some conundrums they'll have to solve that I don't envy them for, like the "Fighter flavor" question. That is, some find the Fighter terribly boring and want it to have more flavor, while others are adamant that the Fighter MUST be a maximally blank slate. I don't know how to appease both groups simultaneously, unless they re-design the class to have more room in its subclasses.

 

[cavalier973]

It is my fervent hope that, if we do get an actual 6e, it will be more evolutionary than revolutionary in most respects. Synthesizing in parts that got left behind before (like the ephemeral "tactical combat module," or Warlords), while retooling those parts that they know got the most flak (e.g. Ranger and Monk). There are some conundrums they'll have to solve that I don't envy them for, like the "Fighter flavor" question. That is, some find the Fighter terribly boring and want it to have more flavor, while others are adamant that the Fighter MUST be a maximally blank slate. I don't know how to appease both groups simultaneously, unless they re-design the class to have more room in its subclasses.

I recommend watching Matt Colville's videos on "Making a Fighter in Every Edition of D&D". I think the series has a different name, now; something like, "The History of D&D One Fighter at a Time".

His latest offering is Third Edition, and he spends a lot of time discussing how Fighters compare in different editions.

With regards to 3rd Ed, he points out that every class gets a lot of neat things, except the fighter. What the fighter gets is a ton of feats, which allows the player to customize his fighter character to be what he wants it to be.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

The flip side to "If the DM agrees, I can attempt anything" is "If the DM says no, I can't attempt anything." One of the nice thing about codified spells is that the DM can't say no; when you cast Wall of Force, it goes off. It might not be as effective as you want, an NPC might counterspell it, etc., but the DM has no recourse via rules (or via most social contracts at D&D tables) to say "Nah, I don't think that works in this case."

The general desire with tactical module type stuff is to give martial characters some explicit permission powers, much like magical characters gain explicit permission powers via spells.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I recommend watching Matt Colville's videos on "Making a Fighter in Every Edition of D&D". I think the series has a different name, now; something like, "The History of D&D One Fighter at a Time".

His latest offering is Third Edition, and he spends a lot of time discussing how Fighters compare in different editions.

With regards to 3rd Ed, he points out that every class gets a lot of neat things, except the fighter. What the fighter gets is a ton of feats, which allows the player to customize his fighter character to be what he wants it to be.

Of course, if it weren't the case that most feats are really not very good, this would be a much more important feature than it is. But when you need 3 feats just to be able to move and attack, getting an extra feat every other level ceases to be "defining feature" and becomes more "crutch you need just to be able to keep limping."

As with many things in 3rd edition's design, the goal or concept was sound, but the execution was woefully lacking, and the absence of testing prevented anyone from discovering the problems.

 

[cavalier973]

That's almost exactly what Colville observed. He said when it first came out, they were excited by the options, but as time passed, system mastery became a real thing--knowing which feats were worthy and which worthless.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I am hoping for a more satisfactory monk as 5e's works but it is still very flawed that being said it works at least.

while retooling those parts that they know got the most flak (e.g. Ranger and Monk).

Wait, I really loved the Monk and while I concede it has some things I might want to change, does it really get as much flak as the Ranger? Is this in regards to being very MAD or something else?

 

[Aldarc]

Wait, I really loved the Monk and while I concede it has some things I might want to change, does it really get as much flak as the Ranger? Is this in regards to being very MAD or something else?

MAD, ki starved, and mostly ribbon abilities.

 

[Justice and Rule]

MAD, ki starved, and mostly ribbon abilities.

Okay, so I wasn't missing anything (I also allowed monks to add their proficiency to their ki pool). Again, they need to steal that damned Grit mechanic for martials so you can recover your resources on things like kills and crits (and maybe other stuff, if you can think of cool ideas) in the middle of combat instead of having to rest up every time.