D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[Jaeger]

Right. Like I said earlier we can't have any attribute differences in species because lack of a bonus is viewed as a penalty. We can't have any cultural differences because we can't have mono-cultures. We can't emphasize that either of those is just a default because that's what Tasha's does and for some reason it doesn't go far enough. You can't have race specific feats because then you're penalizing every non-elf because they can't have the elven accuracy feat.

So I don't know what's left. At some point you're just left with what costume your human is wearing.

That's all it is now. Re-skinned humans all around.

In my opinion this trend is a case of removing a pillar of game play without fully understanding why it was put there in the first place. This lack of understanding is somewhat understandable due to gradual the watering down of the traditional mythological archetypes due to the explosion of made up PC races that have been gradually introduced to D&D "Lore".

If all you play is a typical 5e D&D gonzo, kitchen-sink, Flintstones settings like Forgotten Realms, then ok, who cares. It makes no difference there.

But if you have a setting designed to convey specific tones of immersion and verisimilitude. Then having those mechanical game play differences is necessary.

You are highlighting that the different races are there because they represent archetypal examples of different exaggerated aspects of human traits represented in myths and legends. And when you chose to play a Dwarf, or Elf you are explicitly playing to those mythological archetypes. Those exaggerated physical and cultural traits you are playing to is exactly what makes a Dwarf or Elf different.

And if you are not going to play to the archetype - then there is no difference between that and just playing a human PC.

Its like playing the latest Star Trek RPG, choosing to be a Vulcan, then ignoring all the Vulcan cultural and physical traits, and playing the character the exact same way you would a human PC. At that point, why didn't you just start out with a human PC?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Ouch! Yeah, I’m a group like that, perhaps the sweet spot might be to put Legendary Actions in place of Action Surge. That way, it’s 1-3 actions (rules as Haste’s extra action, probably) per short rest, rather than per round, and the bulk of thier action economy is still on turn.

Another idea, that could be combined with either one, is to allow the use of a Reaction ability as a Legendary Action, potentially eating them up with more predictable uses like Opportunity attacks and Protection Fighting Style Reactions.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's all it is now. Re-skinned humans all around.

That's all it is now. Re-skinned humans all around.

I think that exaggerates the case a bit. I do think Dwarves could use a rewrite though. +2 Con is so broadly useful that I think some minor endurance trait is called for.

In my opinion this trend is a case of removing a pillar of game play without fully understanding why it was put there in the first place. This lack of understanding is somewhat understandable due to gradual the watering down of the traditional mythological archetypes due to the explosion of made up PC races that have been gradually introduced to D&D "Lore".

If all you play is a typical 5e D&D gonzo, kitchen-sink, Flintstones settings like Forgotten Realms, then ok, who cares. It makes no difference there.

But if you have a setting designed to convey specific tones of immersion and verisimilitude. Then having those mechanical game play differences is necessary.

You are highlighting that the different races are there because they represent archetypal examples of different exaggerated aspects of human traits represented in myths and legends. And when you chose to play a Dwarf, or Elf you are explicitly playing to those mythological archetypes. Those exaggerated physical and cultural traits you are playing to is exactly what makes a Dwarf or Elf different.

Which can be modeled by things like Stones Endurance and Powerful Build.

And if you are not going to play to the archetype - then there is no difference between that and just playing a human PC.

No. The archetypal Elf isn’t the only character that is an elf and not just a human in disguise. See; elves in Eberron.

Its like playing the latest Star Trek RPG, choosing to be a Vulcan, then ignoring all the Vulcan cultural and physical traits, and playing the character the exact same way you would a human PC. At that point, why didn't you just start out with a human PC?

This is also an exaggeration. What the mew direction does is say that a genius human isn’t actually behind a genius Vulcan, even if the average human chef is behind the average Vulcan chef, in the things represented by the game score “Intelligence”.
The bad part is where it (in the new UA) goes a step past, and says, “also Vulcans aren’t smarter in general, either, anymore”, which is bad and dumb.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I think what you’re not anticipating here is actually that people won’t like the change to the story of what a svirfneblin is. A svirfneblin doesn’t have faerie fire or anything like it, that’s a totally new addition to the idea of a svirfneblin, and a total loss of what made them svirfneblin, which was enhanced facility hiding underground, affinity with stone on a magical level, etc.

Making svirfneblin and Drow mechanically the same thing makes no sense on literally any level.

Also the wording of your post suggested that this what part of a larger design philosophy, not a separate idea from the rest of the lineage related parts of the post. I was responding to the whole thing.

Now, if Elf is a Lineage, and Drow City is an option as part of a new background framework, relating to where you come from/where you were trained, then I could be okay with that, as long as they don’t foolishly bar lineage from including bonuses to skills or other related checks, and drop the nonsense idea of elfs not having any meaningful traits in common in general.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think what you’re not anticipating here is actually that people won’t like the change to the story of what a svirfneblin is. A svirfneblin doesn’t have faerie fire or anything like it, that’s a totally new addition to the idea of a svirfneblin, and a total loss of what made them svirfneblin, which was enhanced facility hiding underground, affinity with stone on a magical level, etc.

Making svirfneblin and Drow mechanically the same thing makes no sense on literally any level.

The goal is to nail down the overlap in features. "What things do (or would) denizens of the Underdark have in common?"

Maybe faerie fire isn't one of them (I don't know...I've never been into Svirfneblin but it sounded good as I was writing my post.). But:

1. Maybe it should be. Like I said, for this to work, people who insist that nothing changes from edition to edition are not going to get what they wish for.
2. And if it isn't, but a player still insists that Drow must have faerie fire, that's easily accomplished through other character decisions.

And maybe this particular example, Denizen of the Underdark, meant to cover Drow and Snirfneblin and even that "Dark Hobbit" you've been wanting to play, isn't a viable example. It was meant to illustrate the concept, not be a perfect example.

I expect a lot of the Enworld audience would kick and scream if they actually did what I'm proposing, but I'd be 100% behind it.

 

[see]

So, er, is this a prediction thread, or a wishlist? Because people sure seem to be treating it as the latter.

My prediction is simple enough. There will be a 50th Anniversary Edition in 2024 (because it's an obvious marketing date on its own and the 10th anniversary of the current edition).

It will mostly modify character creation options, particularly race. Rangers, monks, and warlocks are likely to see the most revision as classes. It might shuffle some Xanthar's/Tasha's DM rules into the DMG. There'll be a brush through the Monster Manual to revise stats and rework some evil humanoids.

In order to build on the unprecedented commercial success of 5e, it will be highly compatible with 5e. Indeed, it will be so compatible with 5th edition mechanically that new DMs who have never so much as seen the 5e rules will be able to run previously-published 5th edition adventures under the 50th Anniversary Edition rules smoothly without so much as an update document to assist them. It will make the 1e-2e transition look utterly radical in comparison, disappointing everyone who doesn't basically like 5th already.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I’ll also say, and sorry for the second quote but I figured the other was hella long already, that stuff like Drow Weapon Training absolutely should be in the game.

As much as I like heavy customization, I don’t think it’s good for the game unless it’s an optional variant, so I don’t want to choose Class, Lineage, Culture, and Background at level 1, much less a system with more choices than that. Perhaps we could add a couple extra feature points to Background, and just erase lineage from the game as anything more than a cosmetic choice, idk.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The goal is to nail down the overlap in features. "What things do (or would) denizens of the Underdark have in common?"

Maybe faerie fire isn't one of them (I don't know...I've never been into Svirfneblin but it sounded good as I was writing my post.). But:

1. Maybe it should be. Like I said, for this to work, people who insist that nothing changes from edition to edition are not going to get what they wish for.
2. And if it isn't, but a player still insists that Drow must have faerie fire, that's easily accomplished through other character decisions.

And maybe this particular example, Denizen of the Underdark, meant to cover Drow and Snirfneblin and even that "Dark Hobbit" you've been wanting to play, isn't a viable example. It was meant to illustrate the concept, not be a perfect example.

I expect a lot of the Enworld audience would kick and scream if they actually did what I'm proposing, but I'd be 100% behind it.

My point is to illustrate that I don’t think that it’s a good idea in general, not just in the case of the given example.

If you want to add an Upbringing segment to Background, then fine, but I don’t think that things like “Forest Dweller” and “Seafaring Folk” are good as a layer of character creation, rather than a part of another layer of chargen.

If we run through all the classic “environments you could come from” as well as “broad types of societies”, we will always find traits that mark the association between that element and a fantasy people, that isn’t appropriate for other folk from the same type of society or environment. In the end, it will restrict more than it will add to the game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My point is to illustrate that I don’t think that it’s a good idea in general, not just in the case of the given example.

If you want to add an Upbringing segment to Background, then fine, but I don’t think that things like “Forest Dweller” and “Seafaring Folk” are good as a layer of character creation, rather than a part of another layer of chargen.

If we run through all the classic “environments you could come from” as well as “broad types of societies”, we will always find traits that mark the association between that element and a fantasy people, that isn’t appropriate for other folk from the same type of society or environment. In the end, it will restrict more than it will add to the game.

Just FYI, it's not another layer. Still 3 choices: Lineage/Background/Class, where lineage is effectively "race" if you choose something "Elven" or "Gnomish" or "Human", but other lineages (as in the UA) are orthogonal to race.

That make sense?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just FYI, it's not another layer. Still 3 choices: Lineage/Background/Class, where lineage is effectively "race" if you choose something "Elven" or "Gnomish" or "Human", but other lineages (as in the UA) are orthogonal to race.

That make sense?

Right, I was making two points. Firstly, that stuff like “[Enviroment or Society Type]” alongside stuff like Elf is a bad idea, and that while I’d be fine with including stuff like that in the game, I’d not accept it as it’s own layer (nor as a lineage options alongside actual lineages), but would enjoy it as part of soemthing like Background.