D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[jmartkdr2]

Overall, I agree with these.

8) HP/healing re-worked again. I think base HP will go up a bit, and I think the current "Heal to full on a Long Rest" and "Use Hit Dices to heal on a Short Rest" thing will be replaced. I don't know by what, but I do think it doesn't work great for really any groups.

If they're smart, they'll instead present variable rest times right in the PHB so it becomes more obvious that you can, and probably should, tweak these to meet the needs of your game, with more guidance in the DMG.

So, slightly less than a 50/50 chance.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Um, no. I mean, it's my projection of where it goes, but the alternative is that race/lineage becomes a patchwork system that works one way in some cases, and other ways in other cases. And maybe they maintain that distinction by calling it the "race/lineage" slot, and you can choose either a race or a lineage, but still, that's awkward.

No, it doesn’t. What on earth are you talking about?

Ok, some sometimes "background" means your job, and sometimes it means your biology? Again, awkward patchwork.

What. No. Forest dwellers is environment, not biology, and the cultural/environmental element would be added to/folded into the background layer, not replace it.

It's a change from what we're used to, for sure. But it's exactly what the new lineages do: you can be an elf Dhampir, but the "elf" part is not mechanical. (Although hopefully the DM supports it narratively.)

That’s an inherently different type of situation from “forest dweller” and elf, though. Dhampir is a magical state of being that narratively overwrites your mortal biology to make you a vampiric being.
Where you’re from doesn’t overwrite your biology.

So if you want it to "feel" like a variant elf, play like an elf.



You keep saying this, but you aren't being specific.

Yes, I have been. My entire post was spent explaining why it’s a bad system.

What this approach loses compared to the status quo is that (for example) Wood Elf and Forest Gnome would become mechanically identical. Which means that if it's important to you that your sub-race have mechanics of the base race, you would lose that. Except for the language.

You say that as if you aren’t literally proposing to effectively erase those peoples from the game world. For no reason.

What this approach gains is:

• Overall more consistent approach: instead of having some "races" (some of which have sub-races, and some of which do not) with mechanics and some "lineages" where you roleplay your race, it is just a single consistent layer
• It opens up more new and potentially interesting combinations, such as Dark Halfling or Forest Orc.

It opens up nothing, because you’re still just using flavor to be a forest Orc.
Consistency isn’t an improvement when it overly limits creativity and diversity of choice, which your proposal does. And you’re still failing to understand what the 3 new UA lineages even are.

Yes, that I understand. As with the psion, this system defies a lot of fixed expectations.

It’s not about expectations. Either actually engage with what I’m saying, or don’t reply. Dismissing what I’m saying in favor of a baseless assumption of what my objection is “really” about is contemptibly rude.

I despise traditionalism. This is about the actual game design principles and their gameplay and chargen outcomes, not whatever nonsense about expecting Drow to be proficient in hand crossbows or whatever the hell.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And they've got a lot of ore in the mine right now; a truly new edition is a long ways off at best. I could see a revised set of core books in a few years, maybe, but not more than that.

D&D has always had a "lot of ore in the mine", there's literally never been a time in D&D history where "ore in the mine" was the reason for an edition change. Edition changes happen because sales become slower, and/or companies see better ways to make money.

And I strongly suspect the latter will be a major angle with 6E. Right now, however much WotC are charging DNDBeyond, DNDBeyond (and to a lesser extent others) are eating profit that WotC could be making itself. Setting up something like Beyond is not really particularly hard. You don't need particularly amazing experience, tech, or people. It's pretty much just a fancy website of a kind people are pretty experienced in making - even with a full-integrated tabletop it's still pretty much that.

I very much doubt WotC will want to let those subscriptions, book sales, and so on go to a third-party in 6E, especially given they're expanding massively into the digital sphere, setting up AAA game studios and so on (those people aren't who you'd use for this, that's just an example). If they're smart, they'll probably let the other companies keep existing, keep licensing stuff to them and so on - that way, you don't massively offend a bunch of loyal customers - but when your own digital offering is slicker, faster, more integrated and so on, you're going to get people moving over.

Of course WotC have been absolute boneheads before on this kind of thing, like with 4E using licencing to try to ditch or severely limit 3PPs at a time when really, 3PPs were their major competition but also a major asset, which was profoundly Not Smart.

Combine that with desire to be more up-to-date rules-wise, more inclusive and long-term-popular with stuff like race, and I think we're a lot closer to a new edition than you suggest. As noted I think it's more likely to be a 1E-2E-type transition rather than a 2E-3E-type one, let alone 4E-5E, but I think it'll be significantly more than a 5.5E. I suspect it'll be low single-digit years. 5 would be my outside bet for hearing about something that is clearly 6E, even though WotC will probably just call it "D&D". I'd be very surprised if we haven't heard anything by end of 2024.

If they're smart, they'll instead present variable rest times right in the PHB so it becomes more obvious that you can, and probably should, tweak these to meet the needs of your game, with more guidance in the DMG.

So, slightly less than a 50/50 chance.

Yeah less than 50/50 sounds about right to me, sadly. I do think they could come up with a better default, and simpler, more integrated mechanism than HD. I think again, if they do, people are going to probably squawk about 4E-ification, but that'll be further in the past, and I don't think it'll be as major of an issue.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think there's a common misunderstanding among long-term D&D players: that the new and very large D&D player base is as interested in endless splats and options, or rules minutiae, as many of them are.

I just don't think that's the case, but rather that the majority of the tens of millions of D&D players are far more casual in terms of how they play the game. The focus is on the next story, not endless crunchy options. In fact, I think crunch plays a third fiddle to adventures and worlds, which is reflected in the fact that of the thirteen hardcovers published from 2018 on--including Candlekeep Mysteries--only one of them (Tasha's) has been a player's option splat. The other twelve include one monster book, six adventure books, four setting books, and one campaign/rules hybrid (Acq Inc). Optional rules have been sprinkled throughout, but the point is that the focus is on worlds and stories (10 of the 13 being of that ilk).

This means that the edition cycle is not tied to running out of new options to print, in two ways: One, people don't care as much, as long as there are new worlds and stories to explore; and two, options have been more spread out, and generally lighter. DM's Guild fills the gaps for any kind of niche.

Couple that with the whole notion of an evergreen edition, and I think a true "6th edition" is not forthcoming anytime soon, if ever. I don't know how WotC plans their publications, but I imagine they've got a solid plan for the next few years, with strong notions of where they're going for the few years beyond that. I'd be surprised if "6E" is in either range.

So my guess is that the next few years, say 2021-23, will be more of the same: fleshing out the worlds and stories of D&D, throwing in some new options. We'll see expansions into the planes and other worlds, and maybe a surprise or two along the way.

2024 will be an important "taking stock" year. It is not only the 50th anniversary of D&D but the 10th anniversary of 5E. My prediction hasn't changed: I think we'll see revised core rule books that take into account the adjustments and expansions of the previous decade, but not an explicitly new edition. I previously predicted something akin to a "5.2," but I think 5.3 to 5.4 is more likely now, although still fully compatible with 5E. Meaning, whatever revisions are made, they'll stop short of "5.5." The revised core rulebooks will be published with the idea that you don't need them to play 5E products, old or new, but you're going to want them.

When might a truly new edition of 6E be published? Well that depends upon factors that are hard to predict from where we stand. When will D&D peak? And after it peaks, will it maintain most of its popularity in a long plateau or will it decline quickly? What about trends within TTRPGs - will some new idea or trend emerge that will force WotC to evolve (in a similar way that the indie revolution of the 90s led to the consolidated d20 system of 3E)? Will technological and entertainment factors (e.g. VR) play a part, and to what degree and when? And of course larger socio-cultural, health, economic, and environmental concerns; we live in troubled times.

But assuming some degree of stability, and a reasonable view on technological progression, I would guess that we won't see a new edition for a decade or more. We'll need to see D&D peak (maybe sometime in the 2021-24ish range?), plateau, and then start showing signs of decline (2026 or later, if at all?). And then it will still be a few years before we see that new edition, so I'm guessing 2030 at the earliest.

But again, not only is any such prediction impossible to make considering the current context (both of D&D's popularity and the complexity of factors involved, both within the industry and the world at large), I'm not sure WotC will ever explicitly speak of a "new edition." Or rather, "edition" will mean something different than it has for the last 45 years: not as much a new version of the game, but an evolution of the D&D game presented in a new way. Maybe that is somewhat semantic, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the shift from AD&D 1st to 2nd edition, than 3E to 4E or 4E to 5E. For that to occur again, I think we'd need to see a complete collapse of D&D's popularity, followed by a hibernation period as the property was sold and re-envisioned by a new company. But I just don't see that happening, at least from where we are today.

This here is probably exactly correct, and a great explainer of my own thoughts...

 

[Scribe]

I think the best system gives you a stat cap(s) for race, an ASI one for background (defined as part of that background) and one for Class.

I love stat caps, and negative modifiers. Most dont however.

 

[Jaeger]

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.

This is the logical conclusion of the trend. And IMHO clearly where they were headed from day 1 with the changes.

You say I exaggerate to make my case, but the new UA is headed in the exact direction I point to.

This does not effect my games, as I never do things RAW anyway. But I don't think this trend is good for the game in the long run.

We will see how this plays out.

 

[dave2008]

I love stat caps, and negative modifiers. Most dont however.

I was talking about the best system, not the mass-market system. Though I don't see any point to negative modifiers (or modifiers at all really).

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, it doesn’t. What on earth are you talking about?

The new Unearthed Arcana blurs the "race" definition. If you choose Dhampir you lose the racial modifiers from your former race. But you still get to choose a language and whether your are small or medium. In other words, your (former) race is relegated to pure roleplaying, not mechanics.

What. No. Forest dwellers is environment, not biology, and the cultural/environmental element would be added to/folded into the background layer, not replace it.

You state that as a definite truth, but it can go either way.

Svirfneblin aren't just elves who grew up in the Underdark.

Likewise, "Forest Dweller" could, by definition, mean that you are of a sub-race that has lived in the forest so long that your branch has adapted. Or magically changed themselves. Or ate the wrong mushroom. Whatever.

That’s an inherently different type of situation from “forest dweller” and elf, though. Dhampir is a magical state of being that narratively overwrites your mortal biology to make you a vampiric being.
Where you’re from doesn’t overwrite your biology.

See above.

Yes, I have been. My entire post was spent explaining why it’s a bad system.

Huh. All I was able to discern is that you don't like it.

You say that as if you aren’t literally proposing to effectively erase those peoples from the game world. For no reason.

Ah, this gets back to the "must have mechanics or it's not real" argument.

It opens up nothing, because you’re still just using flavor to be a forest Orc.

Using flavor (and other chargen choices, if you so choose) for the Orc. Mechanics for the forest dweller.

Consistency isn’t an improvement when it overly limits creativity and diversity of choice, which your proposal does. And you’re still failing to understand what the 3 new UA lineages even are.

Actually, it would increase creativity and diversity of choice (assuming equal numbers of choices). It's simple combinatorics. Multiply all possible races times all possible lineages. You can't currently play a Dark Hobbit for example.

It’s not about expectations. Either actually engage with what I’m saying, or don’t reply. Dismissing what I’m saying in favor of a baseless assumption of what my objection is “really” about is contemptibly rude.

I despise traditionalism. This is about the actual game design principles and their gameplay and chargen outcomes, not whatever nonsense about expecting Drow to be proficient in hand crossbows or whatever the hell.

You should re-read how you phrased some of your responses before you start accusing other people of being "rude".

If your objection is not that race must come with mechanics in order to count as race, then I genuinely do not understand what your objection is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The new Unearthed Arcana blurs the "race" definition. If you choose Dhampir you lose the racial modifiers from your former race. But you still get to choose a language and whether your are small or medium. In other words, your (former) race is relegated to pure roleplaying, not mechanics.

Because that makes narrative sense for that specific "lineage". Being from the forest doesn't narratively make you any less biologically an elf. The two cases are not remotely alike.

You state that as a definite truth, but it can go either way.

Svirfneblin aren't just elves who grew up in the Underdark.

They aren't elves at all, in fact. That aside,

Likewise, "Forest Dweller" could, by definition, mean that you are of a sub-race that has lived in the forest so long that your branch has adapted. Or magically changed themselves. Or ate the wrong mushroom. Whatever.

That only works if Forest Dweller is something you choose alongside Elf or Gnome or Human. Making it replaces your actual species is absurd, and limits the game for no reason.

Huh. All I was able to discern is that you don't like it.

That's what is known as a you problem. I literally described what is wrong with the proposed system in every single post I've made replying to it.

Ah, this gets back to the "must have mechanics or it's not real" argument.

Or, you could deal with a person's arguments individually, instead of trying to throw people into bins with other people so you can ignore individual arguments and instead reply to a sort of amalgamated simplification of a group of arguments.

But yes, if a rapier and a longsword exist, and both have different mechanics, it is not satisfying at all to reflavor a rapier as a longsword that just doesn't work any differently in two hands. We all know it isn't a longsword, because if it was, it would have different rules.

However, that isn't the whole of the argument, quite obviously.

Using flavor (and other chargen choices, if you so choose) for the Orc. Mechanics for the forest dweller.

Actually, it would increase creativity and diversity of choice (assuming equal numbers of choices). It's simple combinatorics. Multiply all possible races times all possible lineages. You can't currently play a Dark Hobbit for example.

You wouldn't be able to play a "dark hobbit" in your system either. You'd be able to play a person from the underdark. Or, put a different way, it's more possible now as it would be under your proposal, because halfling is harder to treat as cosmetic flavor than "from the underdark". Either way, half of the concept is flavor, but under your proposal, Underdark literally stands in the same place that halfling would, and thus replaces it. That fundamentally is nonsensical.

You should re-read how you phrased some of your responses before you start accusing other people of being "rude".

If your objection is not that race must come with mechanics in order to count as race, then I genuinely do not understand what your objection is.

Then you haven't been reading my posts. Simple as that. I've been quite clear, several times, that the problem is that elf and "from the forest" are separate types of things, and thus that if "from the forest" becomes a game element of it's own, it must be separate from species, because it is nonsensical to choose between two un-like cases. You might as well propose choosing between elf and blacksmith.

If species is entirely removed from the game, your idea of environmental lineages could work. They cannot fill the same space.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It becomes and issue when their proclivities keeps forcing bad design on my game.

That isn't the case.