D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

... Ahahahahaha

Okay, so like 3 1/2 years ago I asked for advice/ideas on building a 5E Warlord on another board, and @EzekielRaiden basically ended up emailing me his general pitch that he gave only a few pages ago on how he would do it. It was a great idea (the Warlock is a pretty great chassis for the concept), though for me I was trying for something way, way more ambitious in trying to create a Fighter/Warlord class around a new framework that was basically built around class maneuvers, with three different subclasses:
  • the Champion, who was the classic fighter and picked exclusively from combat maneuvers,
  • the Warlord, who could pick from combat maneuvers and tactics maneuvers, but had to have a majority of their maneuvers be from tactics, and
  • the Eldritch Knight, who could pick from combat maneuvers and combat magic, where they could mix their attacks with magical effects (with a similar split for combat maneuvers and combat magic)
There were basic maneuvers (basically martial cantrips) along with advanced maneuvers that spent their own resource, based around the Grit concept Matt Mercer created for his Gunslinger class. You could even regain grit in different ways, like a Warlord being able to regain grit from his friends killing creatures if they did it as a result of one of his tactics maneuvers. You could also spend more grit on certain maneuvers to buff their effects, like their range, damage, etc... it was complicated and weird and I loved trying to make it work. I would go back to it every few months and chart out another part of the class, and I think got to around half-finished with it.

Then, for reasons I can't fully remember, I ended up looking at the Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebook, and I basically said "Well, I wasted a whole lot of time on this."

Pathfinder 2E is basically what I've wanted to mod 5E for years. Weapons with traits, specific uses and advantages? Check. Skill system that makes having a skill valuable, has skill gradations and is relatively easy on the bookkeeping? Double check. Effective, scary martials with lots of combat options?

View attachment 132302

The character building is so clean and wonderful comparatively speaking: the system of getting "boosts" (+2 bonuses to an ability score) through ancestry, background, and class are just intuitive and allow for characters who are broadly stat'd out and feel generally competent. Ability scores are better balanced, with Dexterity no longer being a complete god-stat and characters gaining benefits from underused stats: there are reasons to have better Intelligence even if it isn't your primary, and there are a bunch of Charisma-based combat options that are available so that martials don't just look at it as a dump-stat. Also classes largely gate off their combat stuff, not their non-combat options: all skills are open to everyone, and most out-of-combat advantages are picked up via general feats accessible to everyone, which opens up character options quite a bit.

Like @The-Magic-Sword and @kenada have already said, combat is very tactical, focusing on gaining advantages through positioning or inflicting the right buffs/debuffs. There are a lot of options open to martial classes, and they helped by how proficiency is done: Since there are gradations and it's not just tied to level, Fighters end up being the class that is most likely to hit a target and (given how criticals work) the most likely to cause crits, while Champions (the Paladin equivalent) actually have an AC bonus bigger than other classes which makes them tankier in combat.

Spells are also much better balanced: generally speaking spells are less powerful, with the "Critical Succeed/Failure on a hit/miss by 10" helping creating a bigger spectrum for spell effects rather than "Save and be alright, fail and suck". Paralyze is a good example: it's the counterpart to the classic Hold Person, but only gets a multiple-round hold on a critical failure: on a regular failure you are paralyzed for a single round, while on a success you lose one of your next three actions. Spells are now generally less spectacular, but you're more likely to get something out of a spell.

Also to say something that you might be interested in that hasn't been mentioned: Pathfinder 2E's framework makes it way easier to homebrew things, particularly when it comes to archetypes (subclasses) and classes. The a la carte method for just about everything and how feats are generally meant to not be gamechangers but options that progress and customize you makes it much easier to build something without completely unbalancing it.

I will say there's nothing quite on the level of a lazylord here: the Marshal archetype (basically 4E's multiclass feats but also for prestige classes) has some similar options, but at higher levels. But nothing quite to the same level of granting attacks to other party members.

You make pf2 sound great. But I played pf2 in both the playtest and in a few sessions after publication, and damn if it doesn't feel like the worst mix of fourth edition's "here's a bunch of computer code masquerading as an RPG" and third edition's "how many fiddly bonuses can we make you track at once?"

5e is elegant to me. I need to devote brainpower to stuff that matters to the narrative, not to a math chassis. And I never felt like my choices were balanced to death, as if it would ruin everyone's fun if the paladin was actually immune to disease, do instead he gets a tiny boost to disease saves if he picks a feat which he'll probably never take because it'll never come up in a real game so it may as well not even exist.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You make pf2 sound great. But I played pf2 in both the playtest and in a few sessions after publication, and damn if it doesn't feel like the worst mix of fourth edition's "here's a bunch of computer code masquerading as an RPG" and third edition's "how many fiddly bonuses can we make you track at once?"

5e is elegant to me. I need to devote brainpower to stuff that matters to the narrative, not to a math chassis. And I never felt like my choices were balanced to death, as if it would ruin everyone's fun if the paladin was actually immune to disease, do instead he gets a tiny boost to disease saves if he picks a feat which he'll probably never take because it'll never come up in a real game so it may as well not even exist.

I mean, I've played both. For me, PF2 just works in a way that 5E doesn't for me. I understand the idea of 5E's simplicity, but for me I don't see the elegance anymore; instead, I kind of see the mishmash of what they were doing, how some of it works and some of it doesn't. Spells, the action economy, classes... I've just seen too many problems with them in play for the last 6 or so years.

Maybe it's just because I've always been a bit hotter on crunch. The PF2 modifiers don't bother me too much when I GM, and I can just naturally calculate stuff on the fly while not losing the story. 5E is fun, but at the same time it also feels almost barren to me, and after a while I ended creating mods so I could create more mechanical distinction for my players to use instead of having to approve of everything they did myself.

Skills were a good example of that: the difference between raw ability and a bit of skill is low, and the guidance of what constitute what you can do with a skill is almost minimal. My players just didn't want to use them because they didn't really know what they did and it would come down to my whims... so I outlined a rough guide of what skills could do based on the 4E rules, along with a trained/untrained system (If it was an untrained task and you had a skill, you got advantage; if it was a trained task and you didn't have it, you had disadvantage). It worked out alright, but it was me doing a lot of modification with the system.
 

Agree with the things jou mentioned. I was just wondering if this is enough to make a 6th edition. I also find it annoying that I have to use so many different books (unless you use dnd beyond) to make a character to look up alle the subclasses and spells etc. Id wish they would just stick to one book with all the spells and subclasses and feats but I guess people want new stuff over time and they want to sell new stuff.
 

Agree with the things jou mentioned. I was just wondering if this is enough to make a 6th edition. I also find it annoying that I have to use so many different books (unless you use dnd beyond) to make a character to look up alle the subclasses and spells etc. Id wish they would just stick to one book with all the spells and subclasses and feats but I guess people want new stuff over time and they want to sell new stuff.
you what the buy slight variations of the DMG, PHB and MM ever two years instead?
 

you what the buy slight variations of the DMG, PHB and MM ever two years instead?
I don't think that's the ask. I think the ask is that the edition gets revised core rulebooks every few (5-8?) years. I think the core math for 5th edition has been pretty strong (although I prefer the power curve of B/X a bit more), but revising parts that don't work well, or have become culturally unacceptable is something that's going to happen from time to time, and that's going to be a good opportunity to do an overall cleanup. At this point in the edition, I think a consolidated update would be great, and if it revises all the classes and subclasses to meet new guidelines, this would be about the best time for it to happen.

If they come up with new revisions of the core books, I'll welcome it.
 


You make pf2 sound great. But I played pf2 in both the playtest and in a few sessions after publication, and damn if it doesn't feel like the worst mix of fourth edition's "here's a bunch of computer code masquerading as an RPG" and third edition's "how many fiddly bonuses can we make you track at once?"

5e is elegant to me. I need to devote brainpower to stuff that matters to the narrative, not to a math chassis. And I never felt like my choices were balanced to death, as if it would ruin everyone's fun if the paladin was actually immune to disease, do instead he gets a tiny boost to disease saves if he picks a feat which he'll probably never take because it'll never come up in a real game so it may as well not even exist.

And it's worse to navigate than 5E. It somehow got the worst aspects of 3 editions.

Not sure how they pulled that off.
 

And it's worse to navigate than 5E. It somehow got the worst aspects of 3 editions.

Not sure how they pulled that off.

What are the worst aspects? It's got a fantastic action system, absolutely superior character-building, better combat, and more balanced action.

The biggest thing is that it's crunchier, but that's a style choice. If you want more crunch than 5E (which, given how many people houserule and create new systems onto 5E because the original lacks it, is pretty common), it's really good at doing that.
 

What are the worst aspects? It's got a fantastic action system, absolutely superior character-building, better combat, and more balanced action.

The biggest thing is that it's crunchier, but that's a style choice. If you want more crunch than 5E (which, given how many people houserule and create new systems onto 5E because the original lacks it, is pretty common), it's really good at doing that.

From 5E the layout is bad and index is useless. Bought the PDF and wife was enthusiastic but that died when she has to reference all sorts of things trying to put her bard togather. We both just gave up. The books just to big to much as well.

From 3E its just got a huge amount of feats, probably more than the initial 3.0 book. A lot are just more if the +1 here and there but then there's just more categories to learn.

From 4E it kind of has that layout, classes look samey and reads like an instruction manual. It's boring and awful to read.

Then there's things unique to it like the races. It's just more steps and complications for the sake of complications. Arts bad as well such as the cover.

It kinda played alright but for the amount of work required not worth it and houserulng early PF1 works.

No one's running it either so if we wanted to play it I have to GM it and probably buy everything then try and convince my players to give it a shot.

Both of us could probably figure it out but I don't see my current group handling it well or no group I've had since 2005 or so.

I would be willing to play it but not run it. Wife really wants to play the bard but need to buy the book I suppose vs pdf.

Doesn't really matter how well it runs if you can't get people to play or run it. For reasons entirely self inflicted.
 
Last edited:

From 5E the layout is bad and index is useless. Bought the PDF and wife was enthusiastic but that died when she has to reference all sorts of things trying to put her bard togather. We both just gave up. The books just to big to much as well.

From 3E its just got a huge amount of feats, probably more than the initial 3.0 book. A lot are just more if the +1 here and there but then there's just more categories to learn.

From 4E it kind of has that layout, classes look samey and reads like an instruction manual. It's boring and awful to read.

Then there's things unique to it like the races. It's just more steps and complications for the sake of complications. Arts bad as well such as the cover.

It kinda played alright but for the amount of work required not worth it and houserulng early PF1 works.

No one's running it either so if we wanted to play it I have to GM it and probably buy everything then try and convince my players to give it a shot.

Both of us could probably figure it out but I don't see my current group handling it well or no group I've had since 2005 or so.

I would be willing to play it but not run it. Wife really wants to play the bard but need to buy the book I suppose vs pdf.

Doesn't really matter how well it runs if you can't get people to play or run it. For reasons entirely self inflicted.

You could just use this; Fast Character | D&D Character Sheets Instantly For DnD 5e

Fill in the traits and stuff you want, then once it is done make further tweaks to meet the exact specifications you'd like. The reason the books are large is because some folks like poring over details minutely (a couple players of mine love combing over fine details), but there are plenty of programs online to speed the process.
 

Remove ads

Top