D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[CleverNickName]

I am almost positive about the changes re: races and alignment in regards to how humanoids are treated (no more inherently evil orcs). Because we've already seen them lol.

Yes, we've already seen them. But the mechanics for the "original style" of alignment are still in place, so the changes are easy to ignore. If that changes in future editions to where it is no longer easy to add it back in, I'll give it a pass.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The last time they messed with the traditional 9 alignments (4e), it went over like a lead balloon. I really do not see this change happening.

 

[Aldarc]

4e was a mess. A huge mess. There are over 130 pages of errata in its 7 year history. There was a definite need to get rid of that trainwreck of an edition.

A lot of that had to do with playtesting/development time as well as problems with the initial math. There would have been less errata had they gotten the math right the first time around rather than MM3 time. Not to get into the issue too deeply, but 4e could have used a year or two more of development time as well as public playtesting.

 

[Krachek]

Speculative prediction!

no more bonus action and thus a more fluid way to manage features.

Classes with different resting pace is still bugging a lot of people. So maybe a go back to a unique resting pace.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

Sadly, I don't see this happening. The trend is to create more classes AND more subclasses, thereby creating a desire for more books, which generate more sales. I get it; they gotta make that money and I want them to be successful. But as long as I'm dreaming about the future editions of the game, I might as well dream big.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I predict:

I am not buying it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The last time they messed with the traditional 9 alignments (4e), it went over like a lead balloon. I really do not see this change happening.

Basic D&D was pretty popular for a long time...

And of all the complaints I've heard about 4e, alignment doesn't seem to come up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Let me address the latter first. First, let's look at the actual list:

1e to 2e: Dragonlance and Planescape settings came out, and immediately 2e discussions were being made.

Just a small quibble here-

Dragonlance pre-dated even Unearthed Arcana (the first books and modules were in 1984). It was "mid" 1e.
Planescape was halfway through the 2e process; it was 1994.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I agree that racial modifiers are probably gone in 6e. Good riddance.

I would assume that the plan is:

1. Races have no ASIs
2. Lineages will be equivalent to, and an alternative to, races. (So if you want to play an elf of a given lineage, the "elf" part is just fluff. You don't get any elf mechanics.)

That would mean, for example, that if you want to play a Drow, or Snirfveblin (did I spell that write) you would pick the same lineage, and then just describe yourself as either an elf or a gnome.

Which...works. Strangely. It only doesn't work if you simply can't fathom that you can be a Drow without hand crossbow proficiency, or some other ability that existed in previous editions.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I predict:

I am not buying it.

Unnecessary snark removed.