D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[Dausuul]

I think we sometimes forget 4e monsters went through a number of redesigns before the hit their sweet spot in the MM3 and after (really the essentials line of monster books were the best IMO).

Yep. Both 4E and 5E took a while to nail down the monster math. In both cases, the main problem was monsters having too many hit points and not enough damage, so fights degenerated into a boring grind.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What on earth would a lineage even be, in that scenario? Why bother?

In which scenario, specifically?

 

[Stalker0]

Another one I'd like to see, are good on the fly ways to update encounters to handle 6 PCs instead of 4, without it being just "more monsters". The problem with that model is that with 6 PCs, combat is already slower than with 4. Than add on even more monsters on top, and its even slower.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't know that I agree with that. I've made a lot of custom monsters throughout 4e and 5e and am fairly familiar with both. I think we sometimes forget 4e monsters went through a number of redesigns before the hit their sweet spot in the MM3 and after (really the essentials line of monster books were the best IMO).

I will echo this, especially MM1 was grind city. One of the most popular threads I ever posted on Enworld was my "Guide to Anti-Grind" because it was so prevalent.

I will say though that I think 4e made more improvements with time than 5e has. If we consider Volo and Mordenkainen's the MM2 and 3 of 5e...while there have been improvements, I think 4e really nailed it with MM3, where as Volo and Morden still have some of my same issues with MM1 monsters. However, the flavor packaging they add around the mechanics is significantly better than what 4e had.

One of the things that Pathfinder did that I liked was it kept certain debilitating effects but removed the permanency. Negative levels for example, some of them last for an hour or so...but then they go away, as opposed to "you are screwed forever!". The fear is there when you get, the debilitation lasts for a fight or two...but no risk that your character is permanently maimed. It hit the sweet spot for me. Hehe now what I don't like in Pathfinder are the conditions that can last for minutes, being out of the entire combat is just not interesting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In which scenario, specifically?

The one you presented in the post I quoted?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My problems are twofold:

1) They exist because they brought the game-ruining spells back but don't want them to be used on bosses.
2) It makes mages have to pump fake for three round before actually getting to participate. Now I'm not saying mages need any more special attention and coddling than they already get--especially wizards and their damned niche protection--but three rounds it a lot of time to spent hating your life before getting to be part of the game. It's like being the fighter in every non-combat encounter.

Neither of those is true, IMO/E.

1) No spells in 5e are game-ruining, and they do get used on bosses. The DM running the “boss”, and the PCs fighting them, have to make tactical choices about resources based on the ability.
2) I have never seen 3 rounds of faking out happen, in hundreds of battles where LR was in play, and I add the feature to pretty much any “leader” or “solo” type critter.
2a) I have seen fake outs, but it was hardly just from the mage
2b) Mages have powerful spells that don’t require a save, and save spells that are still good on a successful save.
2c) Sometimes the boss just takes the fireball or whatever because they know there are worse spells out there to have to take

Now, I also have started rewriting the Fighter to get Legendary Actions and Resistance in place of Extra Extra Attack and Indomitable, and I also use both features for groups of baddies that work as a unit.

 

[Raith5]

Did they promise that though? It has been a while since I have seen this debated, but most of what I remember was people thinking they promised that, but they never actually did. They discussed it and such, but it came down to people hearing what they wanted to hear and assuming WotC promised modularity, but they never really did. I could definitely be wrong (and I don't really care), but that was the outcome of the various debates about this if I remember correctly.

I remember the two posts where they set the idea of modularity out. I remember it was quite explicit and detailed - but very ambitious. I dont remember all the details but I think tactical play goals were set out in the advanced module. I would love to see those posts again.

At the end of the day, we got the basic rules module in the free rules set but much of more advanced module has never come. The problem here for (for me) is that they choose to make the modules 'stackable' so that you could play a basic fighter and a complicated fighter at the same table - but surely this is a huge drag on what advanced play could ever deliver. Consequently, they were never able to explore this space and this market of tactical play gamers moved elsewhere (and could be serviced by 4e, PF2 etc).

 

[Guest 6801328]

The one you presented in the post I quoted?

That post had a couple of different scenarios. I think what you meant was how it would work for one lineage to create Drow, Snirfveblin, or other underdark-specific races.

But I'm imagining a lineage that has something like
- 120 ft. darkvision
- cast faerie fire 1/day
- advantage on survival checks in the underdark
- etc.

(Please don't pick that apart for balance/mechanical reasons; it's just an illustrative example.)

So you could play an Elf and take the Elven lineage and have mechanics that everybody (who has played D&D) would recognize as representing elves. But, if you want to play a Drow you would take this lineage, and then just say, "Oh, and I'm a drow elf." So you don't get any of the normal Elven bonuses; instead you get these.

Same thing with a Gnome. Take the Gnomish lineage to get standard gnome-like mechanics, or take this lineage and call yourself a Svirfneblin.

Now, for this to work, you have to let go of some precedent. If you're going to insist that, because the current version of Svirfneblin has "Stone Camouflage", then any future player Svirfneblin race must also have a similar ability. Or, as I mentioned in the original thread, hand crossbow proficiency for Drow. Likewise, you have to let go of "but drow are elves and therefore I if I don't have all those mechanics then it blows my immersion."

I know that for some people this would be completely unacceptable. That if a Drow, for example, doesn't have features X, Y, and Z then it's simply not a drow. In the same way that any attempt at psionics is completely unacceptable because doesn't have features X, Y, and Z.

In the same way that a Dhampir does not have every ability of a vampire.

 

[dave2008]

Now, I also have started rewriting the Fighter to get Legendary Actions

I like that idea. Would keep the fighter more engaged. May get a little cumbersome in my group with 3 fighters though.

 

[CleverNickName]

I like what @Elfcrusher has posted above, except I would call it "Ancestry" instead of lineage, and I would limit them to only the things that a character would be "born with," like darkvision and size category (as opposed to something they would later learn or be trained to do, such as proficiencies). Things your character trained for, that reflect your life experience and education since birth (including ability score increases) would fit best in Background and/or Class, I think.

Example: a high elf Warlock.

Ancestry: High Elf (medium size, 30' speed, darkvision, trance, etc.)
Background: Sage (+1 Intelligence and +1 Charisma, Arcana and History proficiency, two languages, etc.)
Class: Warlock (+1 Charisma, otherworldly patron, pact magic, etc.)