D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[humble minion]

Few methods which allow for fixed rolls will result in this.

The homebrew method I use most often is adapted from a 1e method and you choose your class (but not race) before you roll. Depending on the class you choose you get a lot of dice on the prime requisite (in the case of cleric 9 dice for wisdom and drop 6). You will generally roll between 15 and 17 on that stat, occasionally 18, occasionally 14. I have never seen below a 13 and that is before race, so even then you can make it 15 pretty easy. Using this method, you always have a "Good" main stat but you won't be able to choose a dump stat. and other stats are very random. You don't get your fighter with a 8 str and 16 dex or the other fighter standing next to him that has those swapped the other way.

Regardless of the method you use, rolling is absolutely the best way to avoid dump stats and have randomized characters.

Depends on taste i suppose. I get where you're coming from, but it'd depend a bit how the system worked. A barbarian with 5 Con is damn near as hamstrung as the 5 Wis cleric, for instance and a low-Dex monk is a very sad panda, but i suppose a variant of the system that allocated different numbers of dice to multiple abilities in the case of MAD classes could work.

Having said that, the dice fall where they may. My first ever D&D game was 4d6 drop lowest, roll 7 times and discard the lowest result, then arrange as preferred. I rolled 11, 10, 8, 7, 7, 5, 4. Tell you what, as a keen youngster, that was deflating as hell, though my more-experienced DM was kind enough to let me throw those stats and re-roll.

Which is why I think stat generation methods will remain largely as they are in any future 6e. We allow players to pick every other aspect of their character, so why bind them to the whims of the dice for ability scores in particular? And this is especially relevant for new players, who are more likely to get discouraged if they feel underpowered at the table compared to someone who had better luck with the dice during chargen.

Though in reference to the original conversation, I agree I would love to see abilities being more relevant to classes even if they're not a prime requisite. Str in particular is wonderful for armoured frontline melee combatants and absolutely useless for anyone else. You can't even make a brutish Str-based rogue without being wildly suboptimal, given sneak attack is restricted to Dex weapons.

 

[Horwath]

I too belive that race and abilities will be decoupled.

I am all for it but simply for mechanics and having more character concepts being equal.

I would also like to see removal of 2 ability points for 1 ability modifier.
That means killing 3-18 sacred cow.
Ability modifier should go 1-for-1 with ability scores.

Keep average score of 10(+0) for legacy sake and have 11 be +1, 9 be -1 and etc...
Then having really tiny monsters with STR 1(-9) will have huge impact with contested ability checks.

point buy as default ability generation:

score 8(-2): -1 pt(optional)

score 9(-1): 0 pts
score 10(+0): 1 pt
score 11(+1): 2 pts
score 12(+2): 3 pts
score 13(+3): 5 pts

score 14(+4): 8 pts(optional)

score pool: 16 pts.

max ability score from later ASIs and before magic bonuses: 15(+5) or 14(+4) if more bounded math is wanted.


Now, as an OPTION, you can limit max STARTING scores for some races or have min STARTING score for some races.

I.E:
Humans: no limits

Elves: min dex 11, max con 12. high elves min int 10. Wood elves min wis 10.

Dwarves: min str 10, min con 11, max dex 12, max cha 12.

Orcs: min str 12, min con 11, max int 12, max wis 12, max cha 12.

Gnomes: min int 11, max str 12.

Halflings: min dex 11, max str 12.

Half elves: min dex 10

Half orcs: min str 11, min con 10

Half dwarves: min con 10

Aasimar: min int 10, min wis 11, min cha 11

Tiefling: min dex 11, min int 10, min cha 11

Dragonborn: min str 11, min con 10, min cha 11

"optional" option for Drow elves:
min str 10, min dex 12, min con 10, min int 11, min wis 11, min cha 12.
Use this only if you will run Drow as in FR, a completely evil society that culls any weakness in their children.
As now Drow's 12 out of 16 pts for point buy are "reserved in advance", consider giving Drow characters an extra point or two for having sunlight blindness and generally being hated and killed on sight by most races, especially other Elves.


For bounded accuracy, I feel that there is no need for change here.

I like flatter math and having low CR monsters a threat for medium level characters in large numbers.


Sub classes from Level 1.


ASI's, combat feats, exploration feats and social feats all in their separate resource pool.

3 feat categories will be different from class to class, and there should be "general" feat slot for any type of feats.

ASI's and general feats based on character level. 3 categories of feats given in class levels.


Adding 10th level spells.

Improving scaling of damaging/healing spells per increased spell level. Control spells are more or less good in current form.


Having ALL major class feature given by level 10.
Levels 11-20 should be just improvements of existing features and/or more usage per rest.


Removal of short rests.

Rest is a 12hr duration where at least 6hrs must be spend sleeping and other 6hrs in light activity like making camp, cooking, eating, standing watch, maintaining gear, washing up, etc...

Optional: you can only have 4 rest in wilderness in a row. Then you must take 3 night rest in a secure location. Inn, Tavern, Military camp or similar. Think of this as a weekday-weekend mechanics.


Removal of HDs and returning to 4E healing surges.

Every class gains a certain number of healing surges, they heal 25% of your health. Spent healing surges return on rest.

Using any number of healing surges takes 1 minute of non-combat activity. Only "short rest" mechanics left.

You can also use one healing surge while drinking any healing potion or receiving any healing spell.

 

[clearstream]

Nice write-up, @Sacrosanct. Race and Alignment seem like obvious contenders for changes in 6e.

I also suspect that 6e would rework a number of other major points of contention when it comes to rules interactions - e.g., Action Economy (i.e., bonus action), Short/Long Rest mechanics, Animal Companions/Familiars, etc. - that seem to regularly contribute to some of their dud designs or rough spots in the game.

Race goes. Alignment stays. Forced alignment goes.

 

[Aldarc]

Perhaps, though I see no evidence of the third point other than wishful thinking. I’d stake my wallet that over 50% of players today don’t even know what a Warlord is, let alone have a desire to play one.

Regarding the second point. Alignment has already been de-coupled from race so this is hardly a change. You’ve just stated a change that has already been made in 5e and then claimed it will stay. I don’t doubt it, about time. Though again no evidence that it will be removed other than some very loud peoples wishful thinking.

As for point one, well it follows the same vein. The change has been made. You actually are suggesting things that won’t be revised.

I am really surprised you think that racial ability stats and Orc alignment are sacred cows. Now if races were removed entirely, alignment or ability scores. Then those would be sacred cows... but then again there’s no evidence of that that I’ve seen. In fact 5e expressly repudiated a shift back to Chaos <=> Law.

Race goes. Alignment stays. Forced alignment goes.

It seems that you both are quoting and replying to the wrong person.

 

[clearstream]

Regardless of the method you use, rolling is absolutely the best way to avoid dump stats and have randomized characters.

For me, card methods are better for that. I've now playtested an 18 card deck and a 12 card deck. I like the latter because it is more swingy.

Draw two cards and sum - I use assign in order - no replacement. The deck is 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3.
Or draw three cards and sum. The deck I playtested is 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.

One advantage of using a deck is that all characters have the same total of scores: hugely reducing overshadowing and guaranteeing that if you have a low score you will have a better one in balance.

 

[clearstream]

It seems that you both are quoting and replying to the wrong person.

I'm replying to "Race and Alignment seem like obvious contenders for changes in 6e".

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that, but suggesting that the change will be that alignment as a system remains, but that races won't have forced alignments (with limited exceptions, possibly). Regarding character races, they might go altogether, or it might be that just ASIs are moved out of them and they become less stereotyped.

If you intended something other than that race and alignment would be contenders for change, that's fine. Just let me know what that is.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm replying to "Race and Alignment seem like obvious contenders for changes in 6e".

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that, but suggesting that the change will be that alignment as a system remains, but that races won't have forced alignments (with limited exceptions, possibly). Regarding character races, they might go altogether, or it might be that just ASIs are moved out of them and they become less stereotyped.

If you intended something other than that race and alignment would be contenders for change, that's fine. Just let me know what that is.

I was replying more generally to Sacrosanct's points, though not necessarily predicting or commenting on what those changes would likely be. My points on race and alignment are content sparse, so it surprised me that you would be responding to me on race and alignment rather than the actual person who actually said something meaningful about it.

 

[ccs]

Weird.
When I’m being imprecise and just say “Basic,” I am specifically excluding Holmes.

The others have a shared rule set that you can trace (a lineage); Holmes is arguably the bridge between OD&D and AD&D so despite the shared name is certainly not in the same category.

{shrugs} And I include Holmes when I'm being imprecise. So what?

 

[clearstream]

Please be the opposite: everything is per encounter instead of per day.

No More Vancian charges design schema!

4e conducted that experiment. I suspect 6e will go with X uses per long rest (no more features recharging on short rests).

However, psionic energy dice represent another interesting experiment. They refresh per long rest, but you can get one back between short rests with a bonus action (which might be intended to imply that it can only happen in the heat of combat). So your number per long rest is PB*2+SR*1. Thus mildly scaling with whatever a group are doing for their short-to-long-rest ratio.

 

[Jaeger]

Also, let's get rid of bounded accuracy. It was a terrible idea in the first place and while some people like flat math and fighting goblins forever, I'm pretty sure more people l think more people like to feel like they're advancing.

If you are just fighting the next level appropriate CR rated monster are you really advancing? The 'power bump' that Hit point inflation induces in D&D is an illusion IMHO, because the monsters just keep pace.

The E6 variants of 3.x were a step in the right direction. You got more powerful, but HP was capped. So with clever teamwork and planning you could take down the bigger monsters. But a pack of Orcs was still a threat.

IMHO the PC's got 'more powerful' in a meaningful way; while avoiding the "giants are the new orcs" problem that the scaling issues of HP inflation have induced in every edition.

While its true you can't cover every scenario, you could certain cover a lot of standard scenarios people are going to try.

1) Hide while in combat
2) Hide after attacking and other standard actions.
3) Effects of Invisibility
4) Moving while hidden, at what point is the person "no longer hidden".
5) Rules for aggressive looking for hidden character.
6) "Passive Stealth" (aka I teleported in fog or behind X, am I automatically hidden?)

So that took me a minute of brainstorming, and covers a lot of the areas my players and monster have used stealth. Yes its impossible to cover 100%, but its relatively easy to get 80%.

All those are straight forward to adjudicate on the fly:

1) Hide while in combat
Not while fighting - kinda' hard.

2) Hide after attacking and other standard actions.
Are you moving to cover of some kind and no one can see you move there? Then Nope that would be Just silly.

3) Effects of Invisibility
Your invisible. Like the invisible man. (pick a tv/movie version and stick with it.)

4) Moving while hidden, at what point is the person "no longer hidden".
When you move to where people can see you.

5) Rules for aggressive looking for hidden character.
Standard perception checks with a bonus added for each area "cleared".

6) "Passive Stealth" (aka I teleported in fog or behind X, am I automatically hidden?)
In fog or right behind them where they can't see you? Yes.

A GM just needs to be consistent, and there is no problem.