D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[dave2008]

There would have been less errata had they gotten the math right the first time around rather than MM3 time.

Truth be told it wasn't correct, IMO, in the MM3 either. High end monsters don't hit hard enough. Unfortunately, this is a 5e problem too.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My guess: if they do 6e in the next few years:

1. It will be very similar to, probably even fully compatible with, the current edition.
2. They won't call it 5.X or something, that was a silly naming convention in the first place and only done because they though it was needed. The next edition will be called 6e, even if we grognards call it 5.5 among ourselves.
3. Race as a term is gone, and the rule that replaces it (probably lineage) will not include ASIs
4. They might move more meat t the backgrounds to make the lineages more flexible.
5. They might find a way to make alignment less relevant, but they won't drop it entirely. Maybe they'll just list it with other personality traits.
6. I don't see them restructuring classes in a way that creates more decision points - one of 5e's best selling features is how easy it is to dive into compared to previous editions. If they change it at all it will be finding ways to make character creation faster and easier.
7. The 6e PHB will include not only all the errata but a few adjustments to how certain currently wonky subsystems work, ie better two-weapon fighting rules or clearer instructions for handling stealth. But nothing big enough to force you to change your character sheet if you don't want to.

My only realistic hope is the return of Epic Destinies, but if they're going to do that they'll put them in a 5e supplement first.

Edit: as someone else mentioned, they might overhaul the ranger, but that's the only class I foresee getting a major change. They might (and should) tweak other classes to leave more room for subclasses to do cool new stuff, (ie if fighter subclasses had more room to play with warlord would be a fine subclass option, but the current core fighter is just too fighty to make it work) but I wouldn't say that's particularly likely.

 

[dave2008]

As for classes: I'd like to see the number of core classes reduced to the Core Four, and the number of subclasses increased to encompass all others. Artificers, Bards, Psions, and all other arcane subclasses like Arcane Archer and Trickster, should be subclasses of Wizard. Druids of all circles, Warlocks of all pacts, and Paladins of every oath should all be subclasses of Cleric. And so forth.

That would be my preference too. I could get down to fewer classes, but I think I could live with the core 4. I just see it as opening up so many options.

 

[dave2008]

I don't think that this is a very good example for an edition switch given that 1e/2e wasn't really much in the way of a change (everything still works), and that your specific example wasn't ... a great one? IMO.

Yep, I don't think we would call 2e, 2e now. It would be a 1.5e at most.

 

[CleverNickName]

Why did you leave out the "I" in BECMI?

My own personal history, mostly. You see, most of these boxed sets and modules were out of print by the time my pimply-faced teenage self was able to afford them, so I had to settle for the Rules Cyclopedia...which didn't include the Immortals Set. Thus, I never really associated Immortals with the rest of the boxed sets.

In the decades since, I've managed to find a digital copy on DriveThruRPG, and discovered that I don't really care for it. It feels a bit too much like a "comic book superhero" game to me, and doesn't really have that classic D&D flavor I like so much.

But that's just one moogle's opinion; don't let me rain on your parade. If anyone disagrees, and if anyone has fond memories of playing the Immortals Set, feel free to assume I meant to type "BECMI" instead of just "BECM." I won't be offended.

 

[dave2008]

If we see a 6e soon, I expect it to clean up the things they have been unwilling to touch (e.g., a ranger resdeign) and integrate the changes made to races into the core. What I hope it doesn’t do is make sweeping changes for the sake of change. It should be possible to run 5e adventures mostly unchanged in 6e. I’d also like to see 5e material usable in 6e and mixed groups being viable, but that’d be more of a bonus.

If 6e is a long ways off, than it could be a bigger change. I don’t think that would happen until sales start lagging, which they show no sign of doing.

While I agree with this, that is why I think such changes don't warrant a "6e," but a "5.5e" at most. To similar to be called an edition change IMO

 

[dave2008]

I understand it could be split up, but that's now what was said.

Any system where race is nothing but appearance will be an auto hard pass from me.

I would dislike it, but I would never auto pass. IMO, my character's racial modifiers have so little to do with playing the game it would never turn me off. As I have stated to you before (I believe), IMO every edition of D&D has gotten racial modifiers wrong. So if I took your stance I would have never played D&D at all and missed out of 30 years of gaming glory. I just don't see the value in such ignorant* declarations.

*I say ignorant because we literally do not know what the rest of the game would look like. It could otherwise be the greatest RPG ever.

 

[dave2008]

And here's my wish-list:

• Make all characters more MAD, to encourage/reward more varied attribute score assignment. That will require a combination of toning down the importance of primary stats (which they have taken steps toward in recent material), creating more subclasses that use alternate stats, and just generally making secondary/tertiary stats more useful.
• Rebalance the spell lists.
• Make Inspiration explicitly after-the-fact, rather than rolling with advantage
• Find new uses for hit dice, including subclasses that can spend them on features
• Add a few new melee combat moves to make Fighters' lives more interesting
• Flesh out some sub-systems for social interaction and exploration

That is pretty much my wish list too.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But that's just one moogle's opinion; don't let me rain on your parade. If anyone disagrees, and if anyone has fond memories of playing the Immortals Set, feel free to assume I meant to type "BECMI" instead of just "BECM." I won't be offended.

I think it's usually just a nomenclature thing.

Basic is Holmes (OD&D).

B/X refers to Moldvay/Cook.

BECMI refers to Mentzer and the separate Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, and Immortal rules.

And RC is the Rules Cyclopedia, which is a modified BECM + Gazetteers.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Agree that it probably won't be enough of a change to count as 6e.