D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[dave2008]

I agree with all of this and again will say the warlock frame would make a better fighter.
At 1st level choose half your sub class (instead of patron this would be eldritch knight for example) at 3rd you would drill down a bit more with second half of sub class. You get a good encounter/short rest recharge of abilities that can affect both combat and non combat (like the 2 spell slots) and every couple of levels you can pick up either daily or at will abilities (like invocations)

Sounds interesting. Have you given it a go?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fortunately you are in luck, there are two versions of D&D that give what you want: 4e and PF2e.

Sadly, what I have seen of PF2e has been....uninspiring, to say the least.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree with all of this and again will say the warlock frame would make a better fighter.
At 1st level choose half your sub class (instead of patron this would be eldritch knight for example) at 3rd you would drill down a bit more with second half of sub class. You get a good encounter/short rest recharge of abilities that can affect both combat and non combat (like the 2 spell slots) and every couple of levels you can pick up either daily or at will abilities (like invocations)

Sounds interesting. Have you given it a go?

This was also the idea I had, should I ever sit down to write a Warlord for 5e myself. I decided to make a Summoner instead (which, ironically, also uses the Warlock base--because Invocations are perfect fodder for "elective boosts you get a finite number of"), which is about 25% done, so it's nowhere near complete enough to properly share.

At least for the concept stage of the Warlock-style Warlord, my idea was:
1st level gives you your Leadership Style, which determines your Leadership Modifier and provides a set of baseline bonuses. E.g. Resourceful = Wis, gets more out of healing & extra uses of actions; Tactical = Int, gives initiative and movement buffs; Bravura = Cha, high-risk/high-reward play.

It also gives you Feints and Stratagems: Stratagems are more powerful (and generally more aggressive), but require a resource--Gambit--which is earned by your allies taking damage, or through successfully employing a Feint, so you have to "earn" Gambit to "spend" Gambit.

2nd level gives you Tactics, a collection of passive effects, one-off triggered effects (think "Fastball Special"), and at-will actions.

3rd level gives you your Strategic Focus, which is diverse and opens up new Tactics to exploit. E.g. Mage-Captain lets you do things that improve allies who cast spells, Battle Medic gives you great healing, Vanguard gives you the defenses to stand right in front, Skirmisher makes you part of the back line firing volleys, etc.

My only real sticking point was needing to find something really meaty to replace the normal Warlock Mystic Arcana with. Perhaps "Grand Stratagems" or something? Not really sure, never sat down to really give it the thought it needed.

Have you played it? Everyone I hear from raves about the in-game tactical choices and part synergy required. It is one of the reasons I am hesitant to give it a go myself! Now, it is much more deadly than 4e, so maybe that is not your thing (I think it was you that wanted characters to be heroic from the get go, but I could be wrong)

I have not, but I've heard exactly the opposite: that it flattens the strategy out. Which made me lose a lot of my interest. Would you have a link to something that says otherwise? I'm certainly willing to give a second look. (After all, I originally had to give 4e a second--and third!--look before I realized what it was really offering me.)

The fact that the "Synthesist" Summoner they offered (for playtesting) was...really really not good, as in "spending a resource to be worse than you were before" not good, definitely also dampened my spirits, unfortunately.

 

[dave2008]

Sadly, what I have seen of PF2e has been....uninspiring, to say the least.

Have you played it? Everyone I hear from raves about the in-game tactical choices and part synergy required. It is one of the reasons I am hesitant to give it a go myself! Now, it is much more deadly than 4e, so maybe that is not your thing (I think it was you that wanted characters to be heroic from the get go, but I could be wrong)

 

[SkidAce]

...In 1979, and into the early 80s (and even longer), people treated orcs as universally evil because that's what the game labeled them as. A one off exception that came out years later doesn't change that. Nor do rules changes in 1993 change how they were treated in 1979 or 1983 or whenever...

Your points have value, however, we understood that the book's entry on alignment was a broad descriptor showing tendencies.

Anecdotal is anecdotal, several of our homebrews had communities or races of neutral/good orcs. My friend's nautical campaign had "Star Wars" like rebel pirate orc clans, fighting against the evil kingdom of humans. The beastman campaign against the evil humans was also fun.

Yes, the standard (or default) was evil for orcs...but...(I'm having a hard time with words...)

My point: Some species were labeled evil, the game need opponents after all. But we understood it was their society, nurture that made them that way, and that there could/would always be exceptions. As a toolkit, you build your world with friends, foes, and allies. Yes most/all would use orcs as villains. Because behavior.

 

[dave2008]

nothing to see here

 

[Hatmatter]

This was also the idea I had, should I ever sit down to write a Warlord for 5e myself. I decided to make a Summoner instead (which, ironically, also uses the Warlock base--because Invocations are perfect fodder for "elective boosts you get a finite number of"), which is about 25% done, so it's nowhere near complete enough to properly share.

First, I would like to make a public appeal on behalf of EzekielRaiden...is there anyone out there running some games exclusively online looking for a tactically-minded, creative player? If so, unless ER is opposed, reach out to him with a PM. ER, I would invite you to my game right now, but I don't play online. We are a community, and here is a creative person with lots of ideas who is having trouble finding enough online game options...I am sure someone here can help him out.

Second, I am so glad to hear that you are designing your own class. It is precisely this kind of "the game is not working for me yet" dilemma that leads to the satisfaction of making your own creative contribution to the game.

This sounds awesome!

 

[SehanineMoonbow]

But different species could share a culture. It is the Tarzan phenomenon. Until meeting, Jane Tarzan was ape culture.

And just the opposite, creatures of the same species can have a different cultures. I mean there are hundreds if not thousands of different human cultures in RL. Heck even different groups of chimpanzee or prides of lions have different cultures.

That's a fair point, though the different human cultures RL was part of my point in that just as in the real world, different cultures help bring diversity. And it is true that the same species doesn't all have to have the exact same culture--wood elf culture is a bit different than high elf culture, for example, so it isn't a complete mono-culture, but there are still enough similarities to call it "elven culture", if you will (as opposed to dwarven or halfling culture). No one is the sum of their culture, of course, as everyone is an individual, but I suppose my fear is that they will dispense with it entirely, to the point where a dwarf is just a short, bearded human, rather than having cultural distinctions that help make the dwarves a people with beliefs, history, and culture. Ie, there will be no more cultural diversity because they want to get rid of non-inherent racial/species traits that make an elf an elf, a dwarf a dwarf, etc. That is my concern.

Of course, you could make the argument the dwarves who live in X area have a different culture than those who live in Y, which is like the RL human cultures you pointed out, so there is that, I suppose. But this also goes back to the wood and high elves, where there are some differences, but it's still "elven". Idk, I can see it both ways. I just don't want them to be like: an elf is an elf only because of physical appearances, and there is nothing else "elven" about it (which would be hypocritical if they kept the various languages but got rid of cultures).

 

[Hatmatter]

My only real sticking point was needing to find something really meaty to replace the normal Warlock Mystic Arcana with. Perhaps "Grand Stratagems" or something? Not really sure, never sat down to really give it the thought it needed.

I am not as tactically-minded as you, ER, so I hesitate to expose my ignorance, but simply because you got a great concept for a class here, how about replacing Mystic Arcana with some high-level ability to alter terrain, not through actual transmutation of the field of battle, but through maximizing the use of the terrain. The net result could be penalizing opponents with a range of penalties that could affect a large enough area with significant and creative-enough penalties that the effect could rival or exceed high-level spells that alter terrain.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I always liked the idea of half-elves having to choose the path of humans or the path of elves, and having that choice define them mechanically. I think the same could be done with half-orcs.

That is definitely not going to happen, because it is straight up the alley a whole bunch of severely racist tropes. In fact it is a classic racist trope - the idea that you can't live in two worlds, you have to pick one and be defined by that identity. It's been applied to mixed-race people for a very long time, often in attempts to erase part of their identity. Sorry. I know that's not how you mean it, but that's how it is, unfortunately.