# Revised 6E prediction thread



## Sacrosanct

Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past.  This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, but when it does, what changes do you expect to see based on what you've seen WoTC do in the past few years in regards to errata, rules changes, design directions, etc.

For me, I think Tasha's was a signal flare of sorts.  And with the recent UA, I think the writing is clearly on the wall.  We will see a 6e, because some of the most cherished sacred cows of D&D are going to go through big changes on how the rules are going to be written for them.  Also, when I look at the history of D&D, it seems more common than not that when you reach the point where there are a lot character options and most/all of the campaign settings are out there, we see a new edition in a year or so.  

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.
2e to 3e: The Player's Options books were clearly a look at revising the rules, (and of course WoTC would want their own edition rather than TSR's 2e)
3e to 4e: 4e was announced almost immediately after the Complete X books came out (complete champion was June 2007 and 2 months later 4e was announced, so they were clearly talking about 4e long before that).
4e to 5e: 4e churned out a lot of player's options and settings right out of the gate.  3 player's handbooks, 3 monster manuals, and 2 DMGs in a 2 year period.  By the time 2012 came and the Player's Options books (Feywild and Elemental Chaos), pretty much everything was covered.  5e was announced shortly after (actually announced before PO Elemental came out).  Yes, sales figures had a lot to do with it, but more to the overall point:_

When an edition has pretty much gone through all the core archetypes, and all of the most popular settings have been created, a new edition soon follows.  I'm guessing a large factor is because not as many people buy the outlier materials.  Complete book of fighters is gonna sell more copies than Complete book of gnomes.  Forgotten Realms campaign setting will sell more than Spelljammer.  Etc.  So from a business perspective, in order to increase sales, come out with a new edition.

5e sales are still really strong, and I suspect that's because of the slow release schedule so a lot of the popular material (like settings of Darksun and Dragonlance) is still yet to be addressed.  That's why it's currently one of the longest running edition of D&D ever (almost 10 years since announcement) with at least another year or two.  But it is starting to see the end of the tunnel re: archetypes.  With books like Tasha's we're starting to see some of the more weird and unusual class/subclass/race options.

The former point is the actual design changes we're seeing in Tasha's and the Gothic legacy UA.  Similar to the Player's Options books of 2e, we're seeing some significant changes to how character creation and advancement is being handled now.

That leads me to my prediction of 6e and what we'll see and expect.

*Races*: Racial modifiers are gone.  Caps won't make an appearance.  The term "race" might even go away to something like Ancestry or Legacy (I think PF does something like this).  Racial choices will have a few traits based on physiological aspects, and not cultural.  A race like goliath will have a powerful build trait to represent how they are stronger.  Gnomes will have magic resistance.  Halfling will be lucky, etc.

Ability score modifiers and other traits will be based on culture/heritage options.  Also like PF2 does I think (and a lot of indie games are doing it the same way going forward).  Instead of getting a +1 bonus to strength for being an orc, perhaps you get a +1 bonus to strength for being a fighter, or choosing a warfare culture, etc.  Or instead of ASIs, you get feats that are related to your culture/heritage.

*Alignment: *We've already seen how humanoid races are no longer inherently evil.  This continues.  I think no intelligent species will have a default alignment any longer. That will be saved for monsters/fiends/undead.  I would not be surprised to see a shift away from the 9 alignments and go back to the B/X version of general overviews of alignments.  At least for PCs.  Most PCs don't follow alignment anyway, but shift back and forth depending on what's going on in the game.  I doubt that will happen, but I wouldn't be shocked if it did.

*Classes*: A lot more subclass kits, but they will be less robust than they are now, and you may be able to choose more than one.  Something between a feat and a subclass as we see them in 5e.  And closer to as they appeared in the playtest docs.  The reason for this, is because I think it addresses the omission of classes like the warlord, shaman, and others.  For example, all fighters are good at fighting martially, but a warlord kit gives you abilities that you gain at various levels to inspire allies and enforce battlefield tactics.  While a battlemaster is all about maneuvers, and a champion gives you out of combat abilities, etc.  If they really want to make the change, they would get rid of subclasses/kits altogether and expand and expound backgrounds to fill that role.  However they do it, I strongly suspect they will have the class as a chassis with the core features, then a lot of options you can add for backgrounds or subclass kits, and those would largely be class agnostic (warlord background with a rogue class?  Why not?). 

Anywho, those are my predictions of a 6e.  Rather than driven by sales, I think a driving factor will be how the gaming community views design today.  I.e., things like race and alignment and the problematic issues therein.


----------



## Scribe

No offense intended, but I don't like a single one of those.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Scribe said:


> No offense intended, but I don't like a single one of those.



I'm not designing 6e, so no offense taken. These are simply predictions.  Honestly, I think the writing is on the wall here in regards to those changes (at least in terms of race and alignment).  Much of the gaming design community has been talking about the potential problems with how D&D (and other rpgs) have addressed race and alignment for a while now.  it seems to me a pretty clear consensus that going forward in rpg design, the approach is to avoid some of those problematic and loaded issues.  Just like how no self-respecting rpg would have a rule with gender ability score modifications (which AD&D 1e had).


----------



## CleverNickName

Future editions of the game will likely avoid the generic term "Race," and use the more accurate "Ancestry" or "Culture."  We're already seeing a shift in this direction, and it's long overdue.  I don't think this will be a "6th Edition" thing, I think this will be the expectation of all games going forward, including 5E.

I hope you're wrong about Alignment and Classes.  If you're right, and if I can't find an easy way to add them back into the game,  I'll likely skip the whole edition or revert back to BECM.  (I've skipped all other even-numbered editions; why stop now?)


----------



## Aldarc

Nice write-up, @Sacrosanct. Race and Alignment seem like obvious contenders for changes in 6e. 

I also suspect that 6e would rework a number of other major points of contention when it comes to rules interactions - e.g., Action Economy (i.e., bonus action), Short/Long Rest mechanics, Animal Companions/Familiars, etc. - that seem to regularly contribute to some of their dud designs or rough spots in the game.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I'd love to finally stop pretending alignment is a thing and binning it altogether.

If we're still doing subclasses, they should start at Level 1. Is that really so hard to let players play the character they chose without spending a session being generic.

Feats should be non-optional again. Customization should make a comeback.

Also, let's get rid of bounded accuracy. It was a terrible idea in the first place and while some people like flat math and fighting goblins forever, I'm pretty sure more people l think more people like to feel like they're advancing.

Eberron as the default campaign setting. Do it, you cowards.


----------



## Sacrosanct

CleverNickName said:


> I hope you're wrong about Alignment and Classes.  If you're right, and if I can't find an easy way to add them back into the game,  I'll likely skip the whole edition or revert back to BECM.  (I've skipped all other even-numbered editions; why stop now?)



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.  I am less certain about class design restructure, but I wouldn't be surprise to see some sort of system that allowed greater customization right out of the gate, and I think backgrounds are the obvious choice to do this.  Especially if you're shifting over traditional racial traits into a heritage/culture thing.  If you're moving racial traits to heritage/culture, why stop there?  Why not do the same for some features that traditionally were class based as well?


Aldarc said:


> Nice write-up, @Sacrosanct. Race and Alignment seem like obvious contenders for changes in 6e.
> 
> I also suspect that 6e would rework a number of other major points of contention when it comes to rules interactions - e.g., Action Economy (i.e., bonus action), Short/Long Rest mechanics, Animal Companions/Familiars, etc. - that seem to regularly contribute to some of their dud designs or rough spots in the game.




Yeah, I can see some revisions to how the action economy works, but only minor issues.  I think the companions rules will definitely shift from what we saw in the PHB to what we're seeing in Tasha's and ranger companions.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Vaalingrade said:


> Also, let's get rid of bounded accuracy. It was a terrible idea in the first place and while some people like flat math and fighting goblins forever, I'm pretty sure more people l think more people like to feel like they're advancing.



I think far more people dislike numbers bloat than they dislike bounded accuracy.  I think bounded accuracy was a pretty good success in reigning that in.  Who want's to go back to modifiers in the 20s, 30s, or even 40s?  Not the majority I suspect.  If the only way you (general you) feel like you're advancing is based on getting bigger modifiers, then something is wrong


----------



## Aldarc

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, I can see some revisions to how the action economy works, but only minor issues.  I think the companions rules will definitely shift from what we saw in the PHB to what we're seeing in Tasha's and ranger companions.



I'm not entirely sure, though this may depend on what we regard as "minor issues." Mike Mearls is on the record saying that he regretted how Bonus Action works and interacts with other rules (e.g., Two Weapon Fighting). They may seem minor actions, but a fair number mechanics are linked to bonus actions.


----------



## embee

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. 

5e has less than 20 pages of errata in the same amount of time. 20 pages. Across the core books, sourcebooks, and modules.

Nomenclature aside, what NEED is there for 6e right now? Put yourself in the shoes of WOTC. Why would they want to release 6e? Are sales lagging? No. 5e prints money. So why would they want to shut off that printing press? 

I'm just not seeing it. I'm thinking that WOTC might adopt the "Windows 10" model - no massive upgrade. Just regular incremental changes to address things that don't work.


----------



## CleverNickName

Sacrosanct said:


> 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

embee said:


> 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

Gladius Legis said:


> 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

Sacrosanct said:


> 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:

Races have no ASIs
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

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I predict:
> 
> I am not buying it.




Unnecessary snark removed.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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.



Dragonlance campaign setting book, and Manual of the Planes both came out in 1987


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I think the next iteration of the D&D rules will look a lot like the ones from Shadow of the Demon Lord in terms of mix-matching Ancestry, Heroic class, Paragon class and Epic class. It would allow a incredible array of archetypes and builds, remove the need for special multiclassing rules and allow fast type of play with not-too-high bonus and malus from stacking-but-not-really Advantage/Disadvantage.


----------



## Scribe

Elfcrusher said:


> I agree that racial modifiers are probably gone in 6e.  Good riddance.
> 
> I would assume that the plan is:
> 
> Races have no ASIs
> 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.



So race is nothing but appearance in your scenario?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Sacrosanct said:


> Dragonlance campaign setting book, and Manual of the Planes both came out in 1987




That's a little different than Dragonlance and Planescape.  

They pumped out a fair number of hardcovers at the end; after Gygax, they managed to issue the DSG, the WSG, the MotP, DLA, and GHA in a span of two years.

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.


----------



## Oofta

I think the future is hard to predict, especially when it hasn't happened yet.

I also think we don't need yet another thread on race, ASIs, what does "culture" even mean and so on.


----------



## kenada

If we see a 6e soon, I expect it to clean up the things they have been unwilling to touch (e.g., a ranger redesign) 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.


----------



## dave2008

Sacrosanct said:


> Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past.  This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, but when it does, what changes do you expect to see based on what you've seen WoTC do in the past few years in regards to errata, rules changes, design directions, etc.
> 
> For me, I think Tasha's was a signal flare of sorts.  And with the recent UA, I think the writing is clearly on the wall.  We will see a 6e, because some of the most cherished sacred cows of D&D are going to go through big changes on how the rules are going to be written for them.



Well I think the changes we have seen hinted at so far are not enough to warrant a new edition.  They could consolidate everything they have done so far and add a few tweaks, make a 5.1 and extend the edition quite a bit.  You can still play the game RAW with all the current and hinted changes.

But a agree a 6th will come at some point.  I just tend to think it will be more radical than what has been hinted at so far.


Sacrosanct said:


> That leads me to my prediction of 6e and what we'll see and expect.
> 
> *Races*: Racial modifiers are gone.  Caps won't make an appearance.  The term "race" might even go away to something like Ancestry or Legacy (I think PF does something like this).  Racial choices will have a few traits based on physiological aspects, and not cultural.  A race like goliath will have a powerful build trait to represent how they are stronger.  Gnomes will have magic resistance.  Halfling will be lucky, etc.
> 
> Ability score modifiers and other traits will be based on culture/heritage options.  Also like PF2 does I think (and a lot of indie games are doing it the same way going forward).  Instead of getting a +1 bonus to strength for being an orc, perhaps you get a +1 bonus to strength for being a fighter, or choosing a warfare culture, etc.  Or instead of ASIs, you get feats that are related to your culture/heritage.



This seems reasonable, but I bet it happens before a new edition is released.  This doesn't change how the game is played, only how you make characters.


Sacrosanct said:


> *Alignment: *We've already seen how humanoid races are no longer inherently evil.  This continues.  I think no intelligent species will have a default alignment any longer. That will be saved for monsters/fiends/undead.  I would not be surprised to see a shift away from the 9 alignments and go back to the B/X version of general overviews of alignments.  At least for PCs.  Most PCs don't follow alignment anyway, but shift back and forth depending on what's going on in the game.  I doubt that will happen, but I wouldn't be shocked if it did.



Again:_ "This seems reasonable, but I bet it happens before a new edition is released.  This doesn't change how the game is played, only how you make characters."_


Sacrosanct said:


> *Classes*: A lot more subclass kits, but they will be less robust than they are now, and you may be able to choose more than one.  Something between a feat and a subclass as we see them in 5e.  And closer to as they appeared in the playtest docs.  The reason for this, is because I think it addresses the omission of classes like the warlord, shaman, and others.  For example, all fighters are good at fighting martially, but a warlord kit gives you abilities that you gain at various levels to inspire allies and enforce battlefield tactics.  While a battlemaster is all about maneuvers, and a champion gives you out of combat abilities, etc.  If they really want to make the change, they would get rid of subclasses/kits altogether and expand and expound backgrounds to fill that role.  However they do it, I strongly suspect they will have the class as a chassis with the core features, then a lot of options you can add for backgrounds or subclass kits, and those would largely be class agnostic (warlord background with a rogue class?  Why not?).



This seems reasonable.  I don't have any bold predictions for class design in 6e.  I think it is likely that you will get more choices. Instead of just choosing your class and subclass, many class & subclass features will have a choice or two.


Sacrosanct said:


> Anywho, those are my predictions of a 6e.  Rather than driven by sales, I think a driving factor will be how the gaming community views design today.  I.e., things like race and alignment and the problematic issues therein.



My biggest prediction about 6e is that it will be more dangerous (for characters, not players) and more tactical.  I think PF2 has shown some good ways to do that and maintain balance.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Scribe said:


> So race is nothing but appearance in your scenario?




Only when you choose a "lineage" not a "race".  They will probably call them all lineages, but if you choose the "Elven" lineage it is the equivalent to choosing the current "Elf" race.  E.g., Fey Ancestry, Keen Senses, etc.  Just no ASIs in either case.

Alternatively, if you choose "Denizen of the Underdark" you will get Darkvision, the ability to cast _faerie fire_, etc.  If you want to then call yourself a Drow, or a Snirfneblin, or just a human who comes from a line that has lived in the Underdark for generations, that's all up to you.

The other possibility is that you choose both a race and a lineage, and get the abilities from both.  So you could pick "halfling" and "denizen of the underdark" and...presto...you've invented a new subrace of halfling that lives in the Underdark.  But I don't think they'll go this route because it's adding a step: race/lineage/background/class instead of just lineage/background/class.

I do wonder if they will have lineage-specific backgrounds or feats.  Hmmm.


----------



## dave2008

CleverNickName said:


> Future editions of the game will likely avoid the generic term "Race," and use the more accurate "Ancestry" or "Culture."  We're already seeing a shift in this direction, and it's long overdue.  I don't think this will be a "6th Edition" thing, I think this will be the expectation of all games going forward, including 5E.



Race as a substitute for "species" is actually more accurate in D&D where you can play a wide variety of creatures.  Ancestry is close, but IMO implies culture.  Your example my partner and I have different ancestry, but we are both humans.  Personally I would like to see additional options, so choose both a race / species and an ancestry / culture.  


CleverNickName said:


> I hope you're wrong about Alignment and Classes.  If you're right, and if I can't find an easy way to add them back into the game,  I'll likely skip the whole edition or revert back to BECM.  (I've skipped all other even-numbered editions; why stop now?)



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


----------



## Scribe

Elfcrusher said:


> Only when you choose a "lineage" not a "race".  They will probably call them all lineages, but if you choose the "Elven" lineage it is the equivalent to choosing the current "Elf" race.  E.g., Fey Ancestry, Keen Senses, etc.  Just no ASIs in either case.
> 
> Alternatively, if you choose "Denizen of the Underdark" you will get Darkvision, the ability to cast _faerie fire_, etc.  If you want to then call yourself a Drow, or a Snirfneblin, or just a human who comes from a line that has lived in the Underdark for generations, that's all up to you.
> 
> The other possibility is that you choose both a race and a lineage, and get the abilities from both.  So you could pick "halfling" and "denizen of the underdark" and...presto...you've invented a new subrace of halfling that lives in the Underdark.  But I don't think they'll go this route because it's adding a step: race/lineage/background/class instead of just lineage/background/class.
> 
> I do wonder if they will have lineage-specific backgrounds or feats.  Hmmm.



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.


----------



## darjr

A lot of character options? Says who?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Sacrosanct said:


> Anywho, those are my predictions of a 6e. * Rather than driven by sales*, I think a driving factor will be how the gaming community views design today.  I.e., things like race and alignment and the problematic issues therein.




On this, I also disagree.

I think we often tend to overlook both how successful the current iteration of D&D is, and how much D&D is just a "brand" for Hasbro.

We are three years away from the 50th anniversary of D&D. I am sure that they will have all sorts of events planned, and maybe some reprints of classic books, etc. (although with the prevalence of on demand .pdf publishing, maybe not ... perhaps just some deluxe "add-on" art editions).

In terms of a new edition, I truly believe that they intend to keep this as the default "evergreen" edition for as long as sales and cultural cachet permit. I am sure there will be a point, in the future, when a "6e" or a re-vamped 5e (or maybe they will do away with that and it will just be D&D) will be unleashed to goose sales, but we seem to be far from that point.

After all, with movies and TV shows and videogames on the horizon, why bother screwing with the ruleset?

TLDR; Hasbro is a corporation. It's always driven by sales.


----------



## Guest 6801328

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


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Elfcrusher said:


> Does that mean that when we are discussing racial sensitivity in the 6e forums you won't be contributing your usual _bon mots_?



What I would like is for you to not engage with me on any topic, please.


----------



## dave2008

Vaalingrade said:


> If we're still doing subclasses, they should start at Level 1. Is that really so hard to let players play the character they chose without spending a session being generic.



I agree with this.


Vaalingrade said:


> Feats should be non-optional again. Customization should make a comeback.



I somewhat disagree with this.  I don't mind requiring feats if we get rid of ASIs.  I don't want both.


Vaalingrade said:


> Also, let's get rid of bounded accuracy. It was a terrible idea in the first place and while some people like flat math and fighting goblins forever, I'm pretty sure more people l think more people like to feel like they're advancing.



Disagree.  BA was / is a great idea.  It hasn't been implemented as well as it could, but it is one of my favorite things about 5e.  If I play 4e again or PF2e I will revise them to make them more bounded.


Vaalingrade said:


> Eberron as the default campaign setting. Do it, you cowards.



No thanks, too niche or me


----------



## Guest 6801328

Scribe said:


> 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.




Any system where race can be nothing but appearance, or where it is nothing but appearance.  Because what I'm describing...and what is in the latest UA...is the former.  You can still be an elf mechanically.

Also, I don't buy the "nothing but appearance" just because there's no mechanics.  If you choose your lineage and say you're an elf, but your DM refuses to treat your character as an elf in the game, then your DM is just an @$$wipe.


----------



## dave2008

embee said:


> 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.



Why did you need to start with an edition war?  Also, having lots of errata =/= a "trainwreck of an edition."

If I remember correctly 3e needed a whole new PHB, DMG, & MM to be corrected


----------



## Guest 6801328

Warpiglet-7 said:


> What I would like is for you to not engage with me on any topic, please.



There's an app for that.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Given the material we have, I have barely been able to scratch the surface.

what my group has used has been generally well received.

I suspect that the decoupling or race and ability in anything will continue.  I also suspect that they will reduce the class based system and move toward more flexible multiclassing and maybe even some sort of gestalt construct for characters.

5e was good for my group because we liked the older editions and 1e particularly but did not like the strict limitations.

I think 6e will double down on reduction of limitations and even traditional fluff.


----------



## dave2008

Gladius Legis said:


> 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.



Maybe, personally I loved the "unaligned" option and felt 4e alignment in general was an improvement, but didn't go far enough.


----------



## dave2008

Aldarc said:


> 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

CleverNickName said:


> 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

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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

dave2008 said:


> 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 "BECM*I*" instead of just "BECM."  I won't be offended.


----------



## dave2008

kenada said:


> 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

Scribe said:


> 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

Elfcrusher said:


> 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

CleverNickName said:


> 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 "BECM*I*" 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.


----------



## Scribe

Decouple ASI and race all you like, we know that's where the wind is blowing.

A complete removal of any mechanical difference between races would be completely unacceptable to me.

Special rules are fine, but nothing but appearance? Unacceptable.


----------



## Guest 6801328

CleverNickName said:


> 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.




Depending on how far "lineage" bleeds into "culture", Barbarian could be a lineage.  Same with Ranger/Woodsman.

Actually, "Sorcerer" could be a cool lineage.  When applied to a spellcasting class, it could modify the basic rules of how you interact with magic.  It might not have much synergy with melee classes, but that's ok.


----------



## Vaalingrade

dave2008 said:


> I somewhat disagree with this.  I don't mind requiring feats if we get rid of ASIs.  I don't want both.



You sir have yourself a deal!

ASI's in the current edition seem to be a pacifier for the removal of so much customization... which frankly I blame on Bound Accuracy making people so thirsty for literally any positive number on their character sheet from level to level.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Scribe said:


> Decouple ASI and race all you like, we know that's where the wind is blowing.
> 
> A complete removal of any mechanical difference between races would be completely unacceptable to me.
> 
> Special rules are fine, but nothing but appearance? Unacceptable.



Agreed and suspect it’s where things are heading.  Fine if you like it but not for me.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Scribe said:


> Decouple ASI and race all you like, we know that's where the wind is blowing.
> 
> A complete removal of any mechanical difference between races would be completely unacceptable to me.
> 
> Special rules are fine, but nothing but appearance? Unacceptable.




I don't understand why you keep going back to this worry.  What suggests that they are going to keep going past the ASIs and get rid of all mechanical differences?


----------



## Sacrosanct

If I had my preference, I'd get rid of ASIs completely.  I admit my biases for old school D&D, so I'm not a fan of having abilities improve outside of magical means.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Vaalingrade said:


> You sir have yourself a deal!
> 
> ASI's in the current edition seem to be a pacifier for the removal of so much customization... which frankly I blame on Bound Accuracy making people so thirsty for literally any positive number on their character sheet from level to level.




Oh, yeah, I should have added to my wishlist (as a corollary to "more MADness") that I'd like to see ASIs either non-existant or much, much more rare.  The whole "20 in your primary stat by level 8" thing is just bad.

And I hate that I have to choose between that and feats, which are much more interesting and fun and differentiating.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Scribe said:


> Decouple ASI and race all you like, we know that's where the wind is blowing.
> 
> A complete removal of any mechanical difference between races would be completely unacceptable to me.
> 
> Special rules are fine, but nothing but appearance? Unacceptable.



Okay, we'll remove them entirely and just have an ala carte list of choices for a character's hereditary and cultural traits.

My guy picked Badger Claws, Keen Eye and Ukelele Proficiency


----------



## Sacrosanct

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Agreed and suspect it’s where things are heading.  Fine if you like it but not for me.



I disagree.  In fact, they've been pretty explicit in saying racial traits will remain based on physiology.  I don't ever see that going away.


----------



## dave2008

Scribe said:


> Decouple ASI and race all you like, we know that's where the wind is blowing.
> 
> A complete removal of any mechanical difference between races would be completely unacceptable to me.
> 
> Special rules are fine, but nothing but appearance? Unacceptable.



What if you picked a race and a lineage and each current subrace had a named lineage instead (with mechanical support). 

So at character creation you can pick elf (with all of the fluff) and then pick the high-elf lineage (with all of the mechanics).  It all says elf, would that work for you.


----------



## Scribe

Elfcrusher said:


> I don't understand why you keep going back to this worry.  What suggests that they are going to keep going past the ASIs and get rid of all mechanical differences?



People saying 'you just say your an elf or a deep gnome, no difference'.

There IS a push to remove race, just as there is one to remove alignment

These things are driven by people outside wizards.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Sacrosanct said:


> I disagree.  In fact, they've been pretty explicit in saying racial traits will remain based on physiology.  I don't ever see that going away.



Well, if it’s just Ability score modifiers I could live with that particularly if they include actual species specific feats


----------



## Scribe

dave2008 said:


> What if you picked a race and a lineage and each current subrace had a named lineage instead (with mechanical support).
> 
> So at character creation you can pick elf (with all of the fluff) and then pick the high-elf lineage (with all of the mechanics).  It all says elf, would that work for you.



If Race is nothing but fluff, then no.


----------



## Gladius Legis

dave2008 said:


> Maybe, personally I loved the "unaligned" option and felt 4e alignment in general was an improvement, but didn't go far enough.



Unaligned was fine (and carried over into 5e), but the combined "good" and "evil" alignments, which were still distinct from lawful good and chaotic evil, respectively, were all-time stupid.


----------



## Guest 6801328

dave2008 said:


> What if you picked a race and a lineage and each current subrace had a named lineage instead (with mechanical support).
> 
> So at character creation you can pick elf (with all of the fluff) and then pick the high-elf lineage (with all of the mechanics).  It all says elf, would that work for you.




I was sort of alluding to that earlier (and in other threads), but I'd rather see the sub-races be generic and not race-specific.  So you'd add the "Half-human lineage" to any race you chose.    (The only race-specific lineages would be the default ones: Elf with Elven lineage, Dwarf with Dwarven lineage, etc.)

That particular examples opens up a can of worms....why not "half-X" with one X for every base race.  But a better example is my "Denizen of the Underdark", where you make a Drow by adding that to Elf, but you could also add it to _any_ other race.


----------



## dave2008

Vaalingrade said:


> You sir have yourself a deal!
> 
> ASI's in the current edition seem to be a pacifier for the removal of so much customization... which frankly I blame on Bound Accuracy making people so thirsty for literally any positive number on their character sheet from level to level.



Well we play with feats only and I don't think my players thirsty for additional numbers to add to their attack / defense modifiers.  But then again we have played together since 1e and made an effort to remove modifiers form 4e, so perhaps we are different


----------



## Guest 6801328

Scribe said:


> People saying 'you just say your an elf or a deep gnome, no difference'.
> 
> There IS a push to remove race, just as there is one to remove alignment
> 
> These things are driven by people outside wizards.




Where I've said that, it's been in the context of choosing a non-race lineage, like the 3 that are in UA.  So you would have a choice between playing a Gnome mechanically (like you want), or playing a Vampire mechanically, that you also roleplay as a former gnome. 

Maybe others have been saying something different; I haven't noticed.

EDIT: Oh, I see, @dave2008 is saying something like that.  nvm.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Scribe said:


> People saying 'you just say your an elf or a deep gnome, no difference'.
> 
> There IS a push to remove race, just as there is one to remove alignment
> 
> These things are driven by people outside wizards.



Okay, so there is a push to remove the *word* race, not the concept. Everyone wants to still play fantasy critters like dragons, devilfolk, and cats. They just don't want the extra baggage that comes with the word race or implied monocultures or implied eugenic essentialism (All gnomes are inherently smart!)

That's the part that's just as garbage and as in need of excisement as alignment.


----------



## Vaalingrade

dave2008 said:


> Well we play with feats only and I don't think my players thirsty for additional numbers to add to their attack / defense modifiers.  But then again we have played together since 1e and made an effort to remove modifiers form 4e, so perhaps we are different



I've only ventured into 5e a a couple of times, but I constantly found myself struggling to be more than mediocre at things. And then there was the game where enemies stopped progressing and we just fought more of the same guys because the DM was in love with the fact that you 'don't outgrow enemy types'. So it was ghouls as far as the eye could see. Forever. Sometimes they would have weapons if she felt we deserved a special treat.


----------



## Scribe

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, so there is a push to remove the *word* race, not the concept. Everyone wants to still play fantasy critters like dragons, devilfolk, and cats. They just don't want the extra baggage that comes with the word race or implied monocultures or implied eugenic essentialism (All gnomes are inherently smart!)
> 
> That's the part that's just as garbage and as in need of excisement as alignment.



Call it Lineage, call it ancestry.

As long as I can point to an elf, and a dwarf, and see they are mechanically different, fine.

A human is not an elf is not a dwarf is not a halfling is not a Goliath.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Naturally, this is 110% pure IMNSHO. If you disagree, awesome, but we're talking opinions here, not objective factual things--keep that in mind.

It will be designed to fight the last war, not the current one--as every edition has done, AFAICT. 3e went "back to the dungeon" and wanted to break free of the weird esoterica of being bound to all those subsystems (the legacy of 1e still felt in 2e). It ended up being the most baroque, broken _mess_ of a system, but beloved for the perceived freedom and diversity of concepts. 

4e actually made good on the balance 3e sought (and completely failed to achieve), boldly challenging traditions rather than clinging to them--except in a few cases, particularly with "traditions" _started_ by 3e, like Fighters and Barbarians getting less skills. But its presentation was sorely lacking, and the bold new design elements (like Skill Challenges) were not properly worked out--and, on top of that, half or more of the official adventures written for it were _garbage_, despite it being a system specifically made to be easy to DM!

5e was made to respond to the presentation-centric backlash 4e received. So it went HAM on "flavor" (except for the Fighter and a few other things), and on "tradition" (which _mostly_ meant "copy 3e, but slightly less broken"). In pursuing simplicity and a "fundamentals" attitude, particularly with its "math is _easy_" and  "you're the DM, you figure it out" explicit design methods, it has run into a handful of problems, often due to trying to squeeze too many things into a single structure when they're fundamentally not compatible with doing that. Problems with the Hexblade (a rare _high_ power example), Beastmaster, Purple Dragon Knight, the Sorcerer in general, and multiple Monk flavors all fit this pattern. The serious over-use of Advantage without any other bonus options is another chronic problem.

Likely, 6e will swing just a little bit back toward a 4e-like seriousness about balance, as complaints regarding the lingering caster-martial disparities and "broken" (good or bad) classes begin to pile up, particularly if the ubiquity of Advantage becomes more obvious with time. The encounter- and monster-building tools will probably be a major focus; if 5e was the "grow the base" edition, 6e will be the "make more DMs" edition, replacing 5e's honestly kinda lackluster tools with much better ones. Likewise, the desire to have the OPTION of more complexity is, I think, an ongoing sticking point that will make games like Pathfinder (and ENWorld's own "Level Up"/A5E) attractive even to current 5e fans, especially once sales start to wane.

In an ideal world, they'll also hire an ACTUAL STATISTICIAN and an ACTUAL SURVEY EXPERT, both to help crunch their numbers so they design the game's mathematics well, and so they can make surveys that actually reveal information, not just bloody push polls that (intentionally or otherwise) just rubber-stamp the approach they already wanted to take.


----------



## dave2008

Vaalingrade said:


> I've only ventured into 5e a a couple of times, but I constantly found myself struggling to be more than mediocre at things.



Not sure what you mean here, but that has never been a worry for my players.  When you start out with a +5 and the commoner has a +0, they pretty much felt expectational right from the start.


Vaalingrade said:


> And then there was the game where enemies stopped progressing and we just fought more of the same guys because the DM was in love with the fact that you 'don't outgrow enemy types'. So it was ghouls as far as the eye could see. Forever. Sometimes they would have weapons if she felt we deserved a special treat.



Well that is certainly possible, but not how I DM personally.


----------



## dave2008

Scribe said:


> A human is not an elf is not a dwarf is not a halfling is not a Goliath.



True, but certain individuals of each of those races / lineages / whatever could have all of the same stats.


----------



## TwoSix

I'm not predicting an imminent 6e.  But if they do go in that direction, my expectation is that racial/lineage mechanics will NOT be a mandatory mechanical choice.  Rather, race/lineage will be something you describe your character as having, and there will be opt-in racial mechanics as part of an expanded background/starting feat mechanic.  

Instead of Sailor background, you can choice High Elven Culture.  Or instead of Polearm Master, you can choice Dwarven Fortitude.


----------



## Musing Mage

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I predict:
> 
> I am not buying it.




Curse you! You beat me to it.


----------



## Scribe

dave2008 said:


> True, but certain individuals of each of those races / lineages / whatever could have all of the same stats.



I believe we understand each other. A elf focused on Dex, should always start higher than a Dwarf, or should have special rules which make it clear they can always be better at a task that requires dexterity, than a dwarf.

If the system doesn't not support that, I'm not interested.


----------



## Oofta

I often wonder how much of an issue this really is or is it just internet echo chamber combined with D&D being a big target.  A lot of people who write a blog are looking for eyes so they'll magnify a minor issue until it appears to be a bonfire.

Is some of the wording in the PHB problematic?  Yes.  Should it be made clearer that the alignment for monsters in the MM are just the default?  Sure. 

Should all species have exactly the same abilities?  That I'm not so sure of.  A dwarf is not a human, a goliath is not a halfling.  I personally don't have a problem with the _default _goliath being stronger than a halfling. If you want rules for the exceptional PC of any race, I think Tasha's covers it.

Culture?  Same thing.  The _default_ culture is one thing, but we should make room for exceptions.  On the other hand, culture gives you proficiencies and training, not darkvision.

Anyway, that's my take on it.  I'm sure this post will be buried by the next 200 posts over the next 10 minutes or so.


----------



## TwoSix

Scribe said:


> I believe we understand each other. A elf focused on Dex, should always start higher than a Dwarf, or should have special rules which make it clear they can always be better at a task that requires dexterity, than a dwarf.
> 
> If the system doesn't not support that, I'm not interested.



My personal belief is that desire will be a nonstarter for any future 6e design.  I'm not saying it's a good or bad preference, but I don't think the conventional wisdom is moving that way.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

My house rule is spells and other powers with aligment key can enemies but same one but different allegiance (religion, race, tribe, nation, brotherhood).

If I was WotC I would try to create the ultimate d20 system for all the genres, even pulp detective, space opera and superheroes. 

For the anniversary they could publish a "vintage edition", this is the rules of 5th Ed, but with the look, and layout. of previous edition.

To avoid typecasting of raceancesty/class the racial attributes modifiers will be optional, like in Pathfinder 2. Then your half-orc can be a strong barbarian or a wise shaman. 

All subclasses will have a special feat or class features in the first level. Not too powerful, only to mark that PC is different from the begining. 

Background will have got its own leveling up (without XPs but by other thing, "storytelling points"), tiers of the paths, the character will be not more powerful, but only knowing more things, useful for crafting, investigation or social interactions, but useless in the battlefield.  

Primal and divine, ki and psionic, will be different power sources again.

The subraces will can be replaced with a bloodline/lineage. These will be available for all the races ancestries.

"Racial traits" not innate but linked with local nurture (for example training with weapons and armors) will can be easily replaced (for exaple bow with throwing knives). 

Challenge Rating/XPs reward will be affected by the "gear levels", this means when one or other faction is stronger than special item, for example modern firearms. 

In a future Unearthe Arcana sourcebook about optional rules two new abilities scores will be added, and available in the SRD: acuity (perception + astuteness) and spirit (luck/fate/karma/grace/divine blessing + courage). This will allow 3PPs games based in investigation, horror with psychological stress and social interactions, for example noir detectives against Lovecraftian cults. 

Pool of hit points will be accompanied with "health levels" (like a "twin brother" of Constitution), there are harder to be lost (for example by diseases, poisons or life-draining attacks by undeads) but also slower to be recovered (even with divine magic).


----------



## jmartkdr2

Scribe said:


> I believe we understand each other. A elf focused on Dex, should always start higher than a Dwarf, or should have special rules which make it clear they can always be better at a task that requires dexterity, than a dwarf.
> 
> If the system doesn't not support that, I'm not interested.



I feel like the most likely answer is elves will get a special feature called "Elven Grace" that gives them a bonus of some sort on one or more dexterity-related tasks (like advantage on saving throws to avoid falling down) rather than a simple +2 modifier to dexterity scores. 

And so on for other races.


----------



## Scribe

jmartkdr2 said:


> I feel like the most likely answer is elves will get a special feature called "Elven Grace" that gives them a bonus of some sort on one or more dexterity-related tasks (like advantage on saving throws to avoid falling down) rather than a simple +2 modifier to dexterity scores.
> 
> And so on for other races.



Yep, as long as there's something.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Scribe said:


> I believe we understand each other. A elf focused on Dex, should always start higher than a Dwarf, *or should have special rules which make it clear they can always be better at a task that requires dexterity, than a dwarf.*
> 
> If the system doesn't not support that, I'm not interested.



Eh, pass.

I'd give the elf a special ability that lets them do something super-dex-y, but I'm not going to design the elf specifically just to make the dwarf player feel bad about playing a rogue.


----------



## Aldarc

dave2008 said:


> Maybe, personally I loved the "unaligned" option and felt 4e alignment in general was an improvement, but didn't go far enough.



I liked 4e alignment (and still do), but that's mainly because it tapped IMHO far more accurately into the mythos of human storytelling tradition regarding how it viewed law as a good and chaos as a moral failing. 



Sacrosanct said:


> If I had my preference, I'd get rid of ASIs completely.  I admit my biases for old school D&D, so I'm not a fan of having abilities improve outside of magical means.



I can get on board with this. I don't think it's fun for players to have to choose between ASIs and flavorful character-realizing feats.


----------



## Scribe

Vaalingrade said:


> Eh, pass.
> 
> I'd give the elf a special ability that lets them do something super-dex-y, but I'm not going to design the elf specifically just to make the dwarf player feel bad about playing a rogue.



And that's fine. I'm not saying every task, but A task.

Something to reflect the trope of elves being 'other' and innately graceful.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Aldarc said:


> I liked 4e alignment (and still do), but that's mainly because it tapped IMHO far more accurately into the mythos of human storytelling tradition regarding how it viewed law as a good and chaos as a moral failing.



I accepted it because it codified my 'Leave Me Alone, I Don't Care' reaction in the Unaligned alignment.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Scribe said:


> I believe we understand each other. A elf focused on Dex, should always start higher than a Dwarf, or should have special rules which make it clear they can always be better at a task that requires dexterity, than a dwarf.
> 
> If the system doesn't not support that, I'm not interested.




Oh, that's a lot more specific than what you said upthread.

Fey Ancestry as Trance count as mechanics, so I thought we were getting somewhere when you said you wanted races to come with "mechanics" as opposed to just being fluff.

But I guess you meant one very specific, narrowly-defined mechanic.

EDIT: Oh, I see you added this:


> And that's fine. I'm not saying every task, but A task.
> 
> Something to reflect the trope of elves being 'other' and innately graceful.




So maybe we're closer, after all.  I read the originally "better at a task that requires dexterity" to mean "better at _any_ task..."


----------



## Vaalingrade

Scribe said:


> And that's fine. I'm not saying every task, but A task.
> 
> Something to reflect the trope of elves being 'other' and innately graceful.



Still don't know if that description should be Dex or Cha.

*Elven Grace [Elf, Half Elf]*
_Elves are known for their weird, alien fluid motion that other humanoids take to be graceful and sexified._

*Benefit:* Once per encounter, as a Free Action, you may add +1d4 to any one roll or check based on Dexterity or Charisma. The result of this check is never considered a Natural 1.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Vaalingrade said:


> Still don't know if that description should be Dex or Cha.
> 
> *Elven Grace [Elf, Half Elf]*
> _Elves are known for their weird, alien fluid motion that other humanoids take to be graceful and sexified._
> 
> *Benefit:* Once per encounter, as a Free Action, you may add +1d4 to any one roll or check based on Dexterity or Charisma. The result of this check is never considered a Natural 1.




I'd make it work like Halfling luck: when you roll a natural 1 on a Dexterity ability check, you may re-roll the result.

I'd specifically exclude attack rolls and saving throws.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Elfcrusher said:


> I'd make it work like Halfling luck: when you roll a natural 1 on a Dexterity ability check, you may re-roll the result.
> 
> I'd specifically exclude attack rolls and saving throws.



I specifically allowed both because in fantasy media, when do we explicitly see elves being all freaki… I mean graceful? When avoiding danger or when Legolasing.


----------



## TwoSix

Aldarc said:


> I can get on board with this. I don't think it's fun for players to have to choose between ASIs and flavorful character-realizing feats.



I could absolutely get on board with this.  Put stat increasers in the realm of magic items, which I think is a better fit.


----------



## TwoSix

Elfcrusher said:


> I'd make it work like Halfling luck: when you roll a natural 1 on a Dexterity ability check, you may re-roll the result.
> 
> I'd specifically exclude attack rolls and saving throws.



Actually, reroll all rolls using stat X is a nicely flavorful but not incredibly potent ability that would be pretty useful in a post ASI world.  (I mean, halfings get that for all 6 abilities now, and no one is saying halflings are too strong.  Except compared to goliaths.  )  Maybe combine that with that "add 1d4 to certain checks" they've been using for races in Ravnica and Eberron.  Adds flavor, but without the optimization constraints of the bonus ASI.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Elfcrusher said:


> 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



I agree with all these, but the first is the big one for me; I definitely want to see that. If ability scores are to stay (and I want them to) then there actually must be a meaningful choice about how to assign them instead of your class choice mostly dictating the placement. 

One big thing I would also want to happen in the next edition of is a reorganisation of classes and subclasses. I want each class to be relatively broad but thematically clear concept; I feel that there are currently too much muddiness and overlap. The subclasses could also be somewhat broader but more flexible; many of them are oddly specific now. Totem barbarian is a good example of a the sort of subclass I want to see; there is choices within the subclass, so it allows several builds and themes. I feel that many of the current subclasses could easily be combined into fewer, more flexible subclasses.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Scribe said:


> And that's fine. I'm not saying every task, but A task.
> 
> Something to reflect the trope of elves being 'other' and innately graceful.



Honestly, that's why I'd almost rather it be a saving throw bonus than something that applies to skills - it could even apply to non-dexterity saves in certain circumstances. Like, advantage on initial saves to impose a condition. 

Making it a bigger deal that comes up less often makes it more meaningful, and when it does happen it'll reinforce the idea that elves aren't like everyone else.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> I can get on board with this. I don't think it's fun for players to have to choose between ASIs and flavorful character-realizing feats.



I like to have the way to improve the ability scores, but it should not be competing with feats. Though I think the current way of allowing +2 with one ASI is a big mistake; it makes uneven starting scores almost always a bad choice.


----------



## tetrasodium

Alignment will be consigned to the rubbish bin of history as a mistake to forget  about but we might see some thematic alignment alternatives that describe a free willed mortal's morals & values in a word or two.
Artificer will be a core class
whatever they call them... Race (elf/shifter/warforged/dwarf/etc) & culture will be split & ability mods will no longer be tied to race.
The core races will cease to be exclusive to what fits greyhawk & FR just because it was always done that way before.  Some combination of gnomes halflings dwarves & elves of eberron darksun & possibly others will see racial options that represent them to some degree
One or more monstrous races will be elevated to being people.  My bets are (tuckers)Kobolds or the Dar as they both have a culture of some form other than being something to kill.  This _may_ include a golem derived race like warforged, but I doubt it & figure changeling or shifter more likely there.
With race no longer a vehicle for ability mods the benefits that come with any given race will be more significant in ways that make two members of the same class with a different race viscerally different on _some_ level.
The5e simplicity at all costs for the sake of simplicity will be scaled back allowing more room for things like differentiation through charop options (smaller more numerous feats & classes with more option selections as they progress).
The tactical game will make a return either directly in the core rules with a simple "variant: you can alternately choose to remove all AoOs  except moving out of reach without disengaging & making a ranged attack while in melee with a hostile opponent" for those who don't want it rather than the 5e style forced choice.
The limitations & gross shortfalls of "Natural language" will be accepted & reversed to some degree
The math of player characters vrs monsters will assume some level of magic items & feats again
If not by default there will be one or more well supported optional rest rules that restore a set number of HP similar to prior editions rather than _all_ spell slots abilities and HP 
Casters will be _dramatically_ squishier & LFQW will no longer be inverted  while caster roles like (de)buffing & battlefield control will be more fulfilling.
Cantrips will no longer be scaled by character level & get tied to items like wands & similar.
Something will change where either the default or a well supported variant option will exist to remove the obnoxious wackamole healing of 5e 
Advantage is _a _tool, It might even be a good one, but it's sure as heck not the _only _tool & will no longer be.
Subclasses will carry more weight to avoid "I'm a level 7 cavalier & now finally get something related to being one" type problems



EzekielRaiden said:


> In an ideal world, they'll also hire an ACTUAL STATISTICIAN and an ACTUAL SURVEY EXPERT, both to help crunch their numbers so they design the game's mathematics well, and so they can make surveys that actually reveal information, *not just bloody push polls that (intentionally or otherwise) just rubber-stamp the approach they already wanted to take.*



Now you're maybe talking crazy  I'd also be happy if they more often recognized that players  & gms will often have different concerns needs & goals but one group largely depends on the other for play to happen despite dramatically outnumbering it.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Crimson Longinus said:


> I like to have the way to improve the ability scores, but it should not be competing with feats. Though I think the current way of allowing +2 with one ASI is a big mistake; it makes uneven starting scores almost always a bad choice.



+2 every 4 levels.

It worked for 3e. It worked for 4e, and by god, it works for me.

Also, no more +X ASI items. Just like +X-and-then-nothing-interesting items, these need to go and be replaced with actual interesting abilities. Inherent bonuses, yo.

And a sidebar explicitly stating the magic is not inherently 'special', so there's no reason the DM should be bogarting that stuff themselves unless it is a specific campaign/world-building choice.

If we're going for hopes more then predictions: the Encumbrance section is replaced by a free bag of holding and the unit number for ammunition purchased is defaulted to the infinity symbol.


----------



## R_J_K75

embee said:


> Are sales lagging? No. 5e prints money. So why would they want to shut off that printing press?



I just looked last night and today because I was thinking of picking up an extra 5E PHB, its currently $42 on Amazon.  Probably the highest I've ever seen it priced there.


----------



## TwoSix

Crimson Longinus said:


> I agree with all these, but the first is the big one for me; I definitely want to see that. If ability scores are to stay (and I want them to) then there actually must be a meaningful choice about how to assign them instead of your class choice mostly dictating the placement.



The best way to allow for that is definitely broader classes, and less classes overall (as you mentioned.)  Give each class room to contain a broader array of features that are dependent on different stats to function.

Additionally, separate the progression of attack bonuses and saving throw DCs from ability score progression.  As an alternative, key the magnitude and frequency of the various class features mentioned above to the ability modifier.


----------



## Sacrosanct

embee said:


> Nomenclature aside, what NEED is there for 6e right now? Put yourself in the shoes of WOTC. Why would they want to release 6e? Are sales lagging? No. 5e prints money. So why would they want to shut off that printing press?
> 
> I'm just not seeing it. I'm thinking that WOTC might adopt the "Windows 10" model - no massive upgrade. Just regular incremental changes to address things that don't work.



I'm not saying 6e is coming out this year.  Or next.  For many of the reasons we all know and were mentioned: it still is profitable.

Only that comes a time when an edition has pretty much covered the vast majority of archetype options, has covered the big settings, and ends up putting out material just to put it out that doesn't appeal to the majority and thus doesn't sell as much.  I'll give the 5e team a lot of credit here, because the decision to go with a slow release schedule really helps mitigate this.

Then there also comes a time when a lot of the things in that edition become outdated or even problematic.  Strength caps for female PCs for instance.  Excessive nudity.  And agree or not, at the time, having demons, devils, and assassins.  There is precedence for having a new edition in part as a reaction to public perception.  While we've largely moved past the satanic panic state, we very much are right in the middle of the other problematic areas (stereotypes, racism, inclusiveness, etc).

And there comes a time when the supplemental material you're putting out pretty much overrides and/or replaces the core material, even if it's technically backwards compatible.  Is anyone playing a PHB ranger?  With Tasha's how many people will still use the defined racial modifiers?  It is AL after all.  I suspect more and more will use the changes from Tasha's than will not.

so the question is, where does 5e fall in those three areas?


----------



## DemoMonkey

6th Edition will come with carbine action and 200 shots, with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time.


----------



## Nebulous

I would hope they ditch bonus actions and interact with an object and go to a solid 3 action system.


----------



## cbwjm

If say we'd have a revision to 5e which is largely the same but with the current design paradigm (am I using that right?) Racial ASIs will be moved from race and into stat rolling, alignment which is mostly just a suggestion in 5e will be removed, or maybe hang on as suggestions for how you PC acts.

I don't think it will go full edition change due to their partnership with DnDbeyond, I think they'll want any changes to be largely compatible with the site.


----------



## embee

R_J_K75 said:


> I just looked last night and today because I was thinking of picking up an extra 5E PHB, its currently $42 on Amazon.  Probably the highest I've ever seen it priced there.



And this is why I take declarations of "Well, I won't buy 6e if it doesn't have X" with a grain of salt. WOTC has been in the business for three decades. They didn't just fall off of the turnip truck. They know (a) when an edition is tapped out and (b) scifi and fantasy fans talk a big game but they come around eventually.

They hit a real sweet spot with 5e. They put out a pair of really good beginner boxes and have been tracking gameplay data to see what players are actually playing. 5e falls apart at very high level play. But that doesn't really matter all that much as most PCs retire by level 15. There isn't a lot of that high level play. 

And the truth is that high level play doesn't sell PHBs. Starter boxes sell PHBs. They have a really nice machine running right now. The starter boxes grab entry level players. That sells the core three. And from there, they can sell that player a few modules and maybe a sourcebook or two. If that is all the player buys before putting away the game, that's fine. WOTC can turn a tidy profit off of that. And if not, each module has up to a year of gameplay in it. 

I'm not seeing a reason for WOTC to mess with 5e. A lot of newer players don't have a couple editions under their belt and might be turned off by the notion of needing to reinvest in a new edition. One thing that I suspect WOTC has learned from video games is that backwards-compatibility and future-proofing are key selling points. No one wants to buy into something that isn't going to be supported in a couple of years. 

If and when 6e comes out, it may very well just be Advanced 5e. Better to build onto than to rebuild.


----------



## TwoSix

embee said:


> If and when 6e comes out, it may very well just be Advanced 5e. Better to build onto than to rebuild.



That would be my expectation as well.  Same ship, but they'll rearrange the deck chairs.  (The deck chairs being character creation, in this case.)


----------



## GreyLord

I think the minority is always very loud and it can be very hard to see what is really desired.

Because of this, though it is not the best way, it is better than simply adding something willy nilly, is what they've done in the past.

I think before 6e or any new edition of D&D comes out, there will be a playtest.  People will be able to have a little say regarding their preferences there, and from that decisions will be made on what route to take regarding more or less controversial ideas that are floating out in the forums today.


----------



## R_J_K75

embee said:


> And the truth is that high level play doesn't sell PHBs. Starter boxes sell PHBs. They have a really nice machine running right now. The starter boxes grab entry level players. That sells the core three.



Right. First thing that crossed my mind when I saw the price hike was that there must be lots of new players, or people that have been playing for awhile that don't have one buying players handbooks.  But Amazons prices can fluctuate quite drastically within a matter of minutes at times so this might just be a fluke and mean nothing, but I doubt it.  Either way I'm going to keep my eye on it to see if it hits $20 soon.


----------



## embee

R_J_K75 said:


> Right. First thing that crossed my mind when I saw the price hike was that there must be lots of new players, or people that have been playing for awhile that don't have one buying players handbooks.  But Amazons prices can fluctuate quite drastically within a matter of minutes at times so this might just be a fluke and mean nothing, but I doubt it.  Either way I'm going to keep my eye on it to see if it hits $20 soon.



What? Do you think it's GameStop stonk or something?

Also, why are you buying the spare PHB? If it's just for a quick player reference at the table, consider buying a starter/essentials kit. They come with a condensed rulebook. Alternatively, WOTC has the Basic Rules as a free PDF on their site.


----------



## Dausuul

What I'd expect to see:

1. The Tasha's system for racial mods and proficiencies becomes the new standard. (This one is pretty much a gimme since WotC has made it very clear that's how they plan to move forward.)

2. A number of features migrate from later-printed subclasses to the base class. For example, the hexblade's ability to use Charisma for weapon attacks will become part of the Pact of the Blade.

3. Short rests are eliminated or reworked. "Once per short rest" becomes "proficiency bonus times per long rest."

4. Racial alignment tendencies will be eliminated. Otherwise, the Pact of the Grognard remains in force: "We will keep the classic nine alignments to make the grognards happy, but they will be packed away in a little corner of the rulebooks where they have no impact on anything and can be safely ignored."

5. A lot of spells, feats, and abilities will be tweaked to follow conventions developed in later books. Summoning spells will work like the ones in Tasha's rather than giving you carte blanche to pick a monster. Anything that gives you "cast a spell once per day" will allow you to cast that spell using spell slots. Et cetera.


----------



## CleverNickName

I know it's the elephant in the room, but all of these changes?  You can make them now in 5th Edition...you don't need to wait for a theoretical 6th Edition to validate your preferences.  The game is a wad of clay, and you are the sculptor.  Just write it all into an email and send it to your friends:

"Okay everyone, in this campaign you don't get ability score adjustments from your choice of race.  Instead, you get them from your choice of background.  Also, we won't call it 'race,' we will be calling it 'origin.'  

You should note that monsters will be of any alignment.  This means that angels aren't inherently good and demons aren't inherently evil because of Reasons that will be important later.  

Anyway, here's a list of the backgrounds you can use, and the ASIs that they will give you.  Feel free to e-mail me with any questions; I'm looking forward to seeing the characters you create this weekend!"


----------



## dave2008

Nebulous said:


> I would hope they ditch bonus actions and interact with an object and go to a solid 3 action system.



6 action system is the way to go.  3 action system does do enough to improve things. I think you can cover everything: actions, reactions, AoO, swift actions, movement, etc, in a 6 action system that you really can't in a 3 action system (see PF2e).


----------



## Sacrosanct

CleverNickName said:


> I know it's the elephant in the room, but all of these changes?  You can make them now in 5th Edition...you don't need to wait for a theoretical 6th Edition to validate your preferences.  The game is a wad of clay, and you are the sculptor.  Just write it all into an email and send it to your friends:
> 
> "Okay everyone, in this campaign you don't get ability score adjustments from your choice of race.  Instead, you get them from your choice of background.  Also, we won't call it 'race,' we will be calling it 'origin.'
> 
> You should note that monsters will be of any alignment.  This means that angels aren't inherently good and demons aren't inherently evil because of Reasons that will be important later.
> 
> Anyway, here's a list of the backgrounds you can use, and the ASIs that they will give you.  Feel free to e-mail me with any questions; I'm looking forward to seeing the characters you create this weekend!"



The same thing can be done to 1e.  And yet, not only have we had a 2e, we're all the way up to 5e


----------



## dave2008

Dausuul said:


> 3. Short rests are eliminated or reworked. "Once per short rest" becomes "proficiency bonus times per long rest."



Yes, this is the kind of thing I am expecting in an anniversary edition. Not really a new edition, but a reset with more unified mechanics.  Everything is still playable with Original 5e (O5e), but the Essentials 5e (E5e) will integrate everything learned up to that point.


Dausuul said:


> 5. A lot of spells, feats, and abilities will be tweaked to follow conventions developed in later books. Summoning spells will work like the ones in Tasha's rather than giving you carte blanche to pick a monster. Anything that gives you "cast a spell once per day" will allow you to cast that spell using spell slots. Et cetera.



Yep, I see this too.


----------



## CleverNickName

Sacrosanct said:


> The same thing can be done to 1e.  And yet, not only have we had a 2e, we're all the way up to 5e



Yes, but did we _need _a 2E?  I'd argue "no."  For all its popularity, I never played it.

TSR obviously needed it though, and I think that sales were probably the main driver for a new edition.  WotC/5th Edition doesn't have that problem, and likely won't any time soon.  So in the meantime, don't let those pesky rules-as-written prevent you from playing the game you want to play.


----------



## dave2008

embee said:


> They hit a real sweet spot with 5e. They put out a pair of really good beginner boxes and have been tracking gameplay data to see what players are actually playing. *5e falls apart at very high level play*. But that doesn't really matter all that much as most PCs retire by level 15. There isn't a lot of that high level play.



As my group is 15th level now and our game hasn't fallen apart, is there something I should expect from our games over the next 5 levels that I need to be prepared for?  FYI, I am the DM.


----------



## R_J_K75

embee said:


> What? Do you think it's GameStop stonk or something?



I have no clue what this means?



embee said:


> Also, why are you buying the spare PHB? If it's just for a quick player reference at the table, consider buying a starter/essentials kit. They come with a condensed rulebook. Alternatively, WOTC has the Basic Rules as a free PDF on their site.



Because I want one that has the errata in it, and I prefer not to bother with laptops or cell phones at the table while playing.  I find them more of a distraction for the players than a benefit.  The ones I have are 1st printing.  I have no use or desire for a condensed, essential, basic or starter kit.  But hey that's just me.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Vaalingrade said:


> I specifically allowed both because in fantasy media, when do we explicitly see elves being all freaki… I mean graceful? When avoiding danger or when Legolasing.



Ok, well you lost me with the implication that the movie version of Legolas is in any way a good thing.   

More seriously, I get the impetus, but when you start buffing combat...even if it's just one roll per encounter...it becomes awfully tempting from an optimization p.o.v..  Especially if it's an after-the-fact roll.  Depending on the length of the combat, adding 1d4 for a roll might actually be _better_ than an across the board +1.  Right?  The +1 only helps if you happen to roll just one too low, happens about 1/20 times, so probably won't even happen in a fight.  But expand that miss range to 2, or 3, and it's far more likely.

Of course, you wouldn't be buffing damage, so it would be less powerful for that reason, and missing out on all the other benefits of the increased stat, so for that reason I like it a lot more than a racial ASI.

(I'm also just not a fan of adding rolls to do the d20.  I always find Bless to be a nuisance.)


----------



## Stalker0

When I look at the numbers of books and options for 3e and 4e before a new edition came out....yeah not seeing that for 5e at the moment.

But if we are going a full new edition, it needs big changes...otherwise its not a new edition. Wotc may not go that route, but assuming they do...here is my speculation.

1) A relook at monster design. 4e did it right here, and 5e was a step back imo. The monster "types" in 4e really helped create interesting, dynamic challenges for your party to face. The monsters in 3e and pathfinder create more challenge right out of the box. 6e should return to some of that, but with its own improvements to design.

2) A true attempt to balance the game independent of encounters per day. There is a WIDE variance in how people play the game encounter wise, and its time we nipped the issue in the bud. I personally think short rest (aka encounter powers)....should just be per encounter. You get them every encounter...until you don't. Instead of "don't refresh until you rest" instead make it "get it back unless you can't". Give the DM leverage to say that a hard encounter or a special condition leaves the party "fatigued" and unable to recover. This allows for the draining of resources that is appropriate to certain stories, but not make it so core that we have to throw tons of encounters at a group to achieve actual balance. Aka refreshing your power is the default (which players tend to enjoy), and not refreshing is the special exception for "really hard encounters".

3) Another look at spellcasting. I still think they went too far with Concentration, its too overbearing, its too fiddly, there's too much tracking, and my players loathe it. I am all for reducing the spellcaster dominance at higher levels...but we can do better.

I also would love an attempt at more "automatic conditions". Lets delay the saving throws a bit, give the casters more automatic but weaker effects to allow the combat to go longer. Example, Dominate Person automatically charms you until the end of your turn, then you get a save. Pass the save and shake it off (which is how its often cinematically done in movies and books), or fail the save and succumb to full domination. Hold Person - automatically reduce your speed by 10, save to go full paralysis or shake it off at the end of your turn, etc etc. Casters get to enjoy more regular application of their spells...but the spells are not as big right off the bat...which gives the fight a little time to breathe instead of "okay monsters are all hit with the whammy, and 2 rounds later everything is dead".

4) Poisons: Poisons just never seem to feel right in any edition I've played. They are either ridiculously expensive for what they are, or the most powerful substance you can give someone. 5e has gotten a good bit closer, poisons are more reasonable than in 4e and definitely 3e, but we aren't there yet.

5) Stealth: I like 5e's approach to give things back to the DM, but sometimes something is so powerful, so difficult to understand, and so common in the game it really does need a bulletproof set of rules. Stealth is one of those. Its a mess in 5e, its scattered in the books, and if a DM doesn't understand how to use it right, a rogue turns into an invincible assassin. Stealth literally needs its own section of the book. I also really would love a good section in the DM guide for when "the rogue wants to scout all on their own" that helps allows the rogue to get some intel without spending the next hour of the game on the "rogue show".

6) Knowledges, especially Monster Knowledge: Again, the books are really vague on this, and its a major power difference. Some DMs will give you like 1 fact about a monster for a DC 30, and other DMs will tell you the creature's life story on a DC 20. That knowledge completely changes encounters, and there should be more guidance around it.

7) Monk: Can we finally get an edition where the Monk does not suck, or at least has the perception of not sucking? Now its a debate in 5e, but the fact that there are thread after thread after thread looking at DPR tables and Stun contributions and arguing whether the monk is good enough, is a problem in itself. Most classes are just cool enough on paper to be cool, they don't need stalwart "defense". But the monk continues to incite concern, so lets take a really hard look at this class and get it up to snuff.

8) Encounter Distance Table: Please give me back this beautiful little table from 3e. It gave you standard distances to start your fights at in different terrain (open field, thick forest, etc), and made accounts based on the party's perception (if one or both sides passed the DC, they encountered at distance, otherwise at half that distance....simple and easy). For people that focus on outdoor fights, this is a big deal and I would like to see that table reborn in 6e.


----------



## dave2008

R_J_K75 said:


> I have no clue what this means?



If you don't know the reference to GameStop stock you will have to google it. It is kinda crazy and not easy to explain (and it just happened last week).


----------



## Guest 6801328

CleverNickName said:


> I know it's the elephant in the room, but all of these changes?  You can make them now in 5th Edition...you don't need to wait for a theoretical 6th Edition to validate your preferences.  The game is a wad of clay, and you are the sculptor.  Just write it all into an email and send it to your friends:
> 
> "Okay everyone, in this campaign you don't get ability score adjustments from your choice of race.  Instead, you get them from your choice of background.  Also, we won't call it 'race,' we will be calling it 'origin.'
> 
> You should note that monsters will be of any alignment.  This means that angels aren't inherently good and demons aren't inherently evil because of Reasons that will be important later.
> 
> Anyway, here's a list of the backgrounds you can use, and the ASIs that they will give you.  Feel free to e-mail me with any questions; I'm looking forward to seeing the characters you create this weekend!"




I think I should make my .sig file: "If things that could be house-ruled were invalid as forum topics, these forums would be empty."


----------



## R_J_K75

dave2008 said:


> If you don't know the reference to GameStop stock you will have to google it. It is kinda crazy and not easy to explain (and it just happened last week).



I saw a few headlines but haven't paid much attention to it.


----------



## CleverNickName

Elfcrusher said:


> I think I should make my .sig file: "If things that could be house-ruled were invalid as forum topics, these forums would be empty."



...or completely overrun with edition wars.  Ugh, I don't miss those days.

I'm not advocating against house-rules.  I'm very much in favor of them!  I'm suggesting that people start doing it more, right now, instead of waiting for an edition that may never come.  (For all we know, 5E could be the "evergreen edition" of the game.  It's certainly successful enough.)


----------



## Dausuul

CleverNickName said:


> I know it's the elephant in the room, but all of these changes?  You can make them now in 5th Edition...you don't need to wait for a theoretical 6th Edition to validate your preferences.  The game is a wad of clay, and you are the sculptor.  Just write it all into an email and send it to your friends:



I could spend months writing an entire RPG from scratch just the way I like it.

Or I could pay someone else to build an RPG for me, and do it better, and print it up in a clear and organized way, and make deals to provide electronic tools to support it, and publish it to the world so I don't have to train every new player in my own homebuilt system.

I customize 5E to my needs, as I have with every edition, but there is a limit to the number of house rules I want to maintain. It is not a cost-free exercise.


----------



## dave2008

R_J_K75 said:


> I saw a few headlines but haven't paid much attention to it.



Well, if you have stock then you probably should look into it, the issue is potentially game changing.  Though I don't expect that, it could be.


----------



## dave2008

CleverNickName said:


> I'm suggesting that people start doing it more, right now, instead of waiting for an edition that may never come.  (For all we know, 5E could be the "evergreen edition" of the game.  It's certainly successful enough.)



Agreed.  Fortunately I have the knowledge that many of my house-rules will never be in the core of any edition of D&D, so I always start housing ruling after I read through the PHB.


----------



## TwoSix

dave2008 said:


> As my group is 15th level now and our game hasn't fallen apart, is there something I should expect from our games over the next 5 levels that I need to be prepared for?  FYI, I am the DM.



I've played up to 16th with no particular problems, although I think there are some 9th level spells that could cause structural problems.


----------



## dave2008

TwoSix said:


> I've played up to 16th with no particular problems, although I think there are some 9th level spells that could cause structural problems.



I guess we are 2 levels away from that.  We only have 1 spellcaster (wizard), so I am not to worried. I wonder what spell he will choose.


----------



## TwoSix

dave2008 said:


> I guess we are 2 levels away from that.  We only have 1 spellcaster (wizard), so I am not to worried. I wonder what spell he will choose.



Honestly, as a sorcerer, I found a lot of the 7th and 8th level choices somewhat... underwhelming?  Earthquake was fun.


----------



## CleverNickName

Dausuul said:


> I could spend months writing an entire RPG from scratch just the way I like it.
> 
> Or I could pay someone else to build an RPG for me, and do it better, and print it up in a clear and organized way, and make deals to provide electronic tools to support it, and publish it to the world so I don't have to train every new player in my own homebuilt system.
> 
> I customize 5E to my needs, as I have with every edition, but there is a limit to the number of house rules I want to maintain. It is not a cost-free exercise.



The way I see it, if you want to play D&D you have three options: (1) "play it the way it's written," (2) "write it better yourself" or (3) "have others to write it just the way you like it."  If option 1 is unacceptable, and option 3 isn't feasible, you're left with only one other option.


----------



## Nebulous

Stalker0 said:


> 5) Stealth: I like 5e's approach to give things back to the DM, but sometimes something is so powerful, so difficult to understand, and so common in the game it really does need a bulletproof set of rules. Stealth is one of those. Its a mess in 5e, its scattered in the books, and if a DM doesn't understand how to use it right, a rogue turns into an invincible assassin. Stealth literally needs its own section of the book. I also really would love a good section in the DM guide for when "the rogue wants to scout all on their own" that helps allows the rogue to get some intel without spending the next hour of the game on the "rogue show".



Stealth is a wreck.  Yes, it needs an ironclad set of rules that aren't so fiddly. I know some people are fine with it but I've always had issues.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Dausuul said:


> I could spend months writing an entire RPG from scratch just the way I like it.




Been there, did that.  More than once.  And man, while writing an RPG from ground up sounds like fun, writing spell and monster entries is _tedious_.  Feels like actual _*WORK*_.


----------



## embee

R_J_K75 said:


> I saw a few headlines but haven't paid much attention to it.



It's very easy to explain.

GameStop is a dying company. Has been dying for years. Mainly because their revenue depends on buying used video games at a heavily discounted rate and reselling them at a heavily inflated price. They did this for a long time and it pissed off their customers. Meanwhile, video games themselves switched over to digital distribution, ruining the market for used video games. 

Basically, what iTunes and Napster did to record stores like Tower Records and Sam Goody, Steam and Epic and the EA Store and the Sony and XBox marketplaces did to GameStop. 

So, as a result, it's stock price was sitting at around $20 a share. Probably a little bit overvalued but not by much. So, several hedge funds bought a bunch of GME stock and were going to short it for a bit of a profit. 

On Reddit, there is a subreddit called WallStreetBuys. It has a lot of day traders, especially furloughed, unemployed, or idling at home folk. One of them noticed that a couple of hedge funds bought a large amount of GME and figured that they were going to short it. So, on a lark, he suggested that folk buy up a bunch of the stock so that they - not the hedge fund - could turn a quick profit and wouldn't it be hilarious if the hedge funds had to keep buying more stock to avoid taking a loss. 

It was easy to do this because there is an app called Robinhood that has no-fee trading and allows folk to trade on margin (basically borrowed money). So you can do a lot of trades without racking up fees by borrowing money. Yeah, it's as shady as it sounds. 

This vicious cycle went on for a couple of days until it finally hit The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Then, it exploded. Lots of people downloaded the app and started doing no-fee trading. One hedge fund took a huge bath on it. Robinhood had to borrow a ton of money from its investors to pay for all of the trades (because trades do cost money, even if the brokerage doesn't charge the user the fee). Some people were able to turn a little profit on day trading. 

Elon Musk stupidly weighed in on Twitter, telling people to buy, which is stupid FOR HIM because that's how he has gotten charged with SEC violations in the past. 

And GME itself is starting to lose value again because, at the end of the day, it's a dying company. 

That's pretty much it.


----------



## Scribe

You left out the part where they blocked buying the stock to prevent further pumping in a clear move to interrupt the disruption. I found that an interesting step in the process.


----------



## tetrasodium

embee said:


> It's very easy to explain.
> 
> GameStop is a dying company. Has been dying for years. Mainly because their revenue depends on buying used video games at a heavily discounted rate and reselling them at a heavily inflated price. They did this for a long time and it pissed off their customers. Meanwhile, video games themselves switched over to digital distribution, ruining the market for used video games.
> 
> Basically, what iTunes and Napster did to record stores like Tower Records and Sam Goody, Steam and Epic and the EA Store and the Sony and XBox marketplaces did to GameStop.
> 
> So, as a result, it's stock price was sitting at around $20 a share. Probably a little bit overvalued but not by much. So, several hedge funds bought a bunch of GME stock and were going to short it for a bit of a profit.
> 
> On Reddit, there is a subreddit called WallStreetBuys. It has a lot of day traders, especially furloughed, unemployed, or idling at home folk. One of them noticed that a couple of hedge funds bought a large amount of GME and figured that they were going to short it. So, on a lark, he suggested that folk buy up a bunch of the stock so that they - not the hedge fund - could turn a quick profit and wouldn't it be hilarious if the hedge funds had to keep buying more stock to avoid taking a loss.
> 
> It was easy to do this because there is an app called Robinhood that has no-fee trading and allows folk to trade on margin (basically borrowed money). So you can do a lot of trades without racking up fees by borrowing money. Yeah, it's as shady as it sounds.
> 
> This vicious cycle went on for a couple of days until it finally hit The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Then, it exploded. Lots of people downloaded the app and started doing no-fee trading. One hedge fund took a huge bath on it. Robinhood had to borrow a ton of money from its investors to pay for all of the trades (because trades do cost money, even if the brokerage doesn't charge the user the fee). Some people were able to turn a little profit on day trading.
> 
> Elon Musk stupidly weighed in on Twitter, telling people to buy, which is stupid FOR HIM because that's how he has gotten charged with SEC violations in the past.
> 
> And GME itself is starting to lose value again because, at the end of the day, it's a dying company.
> 
> That's pretty much it.



Ironically gamestop probably helped fuel the push from game producers & publishers to switch over to digital distribution.  There were small local companies all over that bought & sold new & used video games prior to eb&gamestop doing it but they probably made less impact than piracy,  gamestop did it at a scale that reflected on quarterly reports


----------



## Micah Sweet

No


dave2008 said:


> Not sure what you mean here, but that has never been a worry for my players.  When you start out with a +5 and the commoner has a +0, they pretty much felt expectational right from the start.
> 
> Well that is certainly possible, but not how I DM personally.



Not if you never run into any commoners.  If everything you face is about as powerful as you, you're not going to feel exceptional.


----------



## dave2008

Scribe said:


> You left out the part where they blocked buying the stock to prevent further pumping in a clear move to interrupt the disruption. I found that an interesting step in the process.



And the part where it spread to other companies


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> No
> 
> Not if you never run into any commoners.  If everything you face is about as powerful as you, you're not going to feel exceptional.



I guess, but wouldn't that be the case in any edition from 3e on?

Personally, I've never run games where the PCs are always facing the next best thing. The typical progression for us is: from 1 orc to a few orcs to dozens of orcs, etc,, with a few more powerful beasties thrown in every once and a while.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Dausuul said:


> 3. Short rests are eliminated or reworked. "Once per short rest" becomes "proficiency bonus times per long rest."



Please be the opposite: everything is per encounter instead of per day. 

No More Vancian  charges design schema!


----------



## Mecheon

embee said:


> One of them noticed that a couple of hedge funds bought a large amount of GME and figured that they were going to short it. So, on a lark, he suggested that folk buy up a bunch of the stock so that they - not the hedge fund - could turn a quick profit and wouldn't it be hilarious if the hedge funds had to keep buying more stock to avoid taking a loss.



To be specific, last year DeepFuckingValue (that's him. that's the guy's name) noticed that Gamestop was under-value. It should have been around $20, but was pushed well under. There's a video floating around he did late last year talking about the whole scenario and him pointing out it was probably shorted, and that he'd be putting stuff into it. Not a rare thing, other stuff like AMC and Blackberry float around that sub as 'obviously shorted stocks'. The difference and what made Gamestonks what it is is how much it was shorted.

The kick-off event was one of the people from the hedge fund made this big video talking about how Gamestop was going to drop in value and was awful company you shouldn't invest in, and it was, well, a pretty blatent shorted stock and honestly, kind of verging on market manipulation. He's done this in the past, this person. Done a big video on why Company X is bad, its stocks subsequently drop, oops turns out they were shorted and now hedge fund gets the cash-money. Except, this time, it didn't work. Reddit's audience skews people who went to Gamestop a ton in their youths so, they weren't happy about being told Gamestop was basically going to die. DFV chose this moment to go "YOLO" and went all in, telling folks how blatently shorted the stocks were. Subsequently, other folks from WallstreetBets also went all in, whether through bad decision making or solidarity. And then the stocks started to rise as the hedge fund tried to buy the shorted stocks back. And then it kept rising. And then more people brought in. And here we are today.

The hedge fund's bet got absolutely called by WSB and now the hedge funds are complaining their free money scheme got called on, meanwhile WSB are buying billboards with their newfound profits to rub it in as they hold, because even with the price going down from its crazy heights, its still bad enough they're going to end up probably bankrupting at least one hedge fund.



embee said:


> Elon Musk stupidly weighed in on Twitter, telling people to buy, which is stupid FOR HIM because that's how he has gotten charged with SEC violations in the past.



While I've my problems with Elon, this is revenge. Tesla's stocks apparently got shorted by some hedge funds in the past, so he's basically revelling in their destruction at the moment. 


Anywho, as for 6E? I predict inbuilt stats will go, each race/lineage/whatever they'll be called will have a Thematic Ability that at least goes to the idea of what the stat would previously be. I also predict half-orcs will be replaced with just orcs, but I don't think goblins will sneak in


----------



## TheSword

@Sacrosanct 

Perhaps, though I see no evidence of the third point other than wishful thinking. I’d stake my wallet that over 50% of players today don’t even know what a Warlord is, let alone have a desire to play one.

Regarding the second point. Alignment has already been de-coupled from race so this is hardly a change. You’ve just stated a change that has already been made in 5e and then claimed it will stay. I don’t doubt it, about time. Though again no evidence that it will be removed other than some very loud peoples wishful thinking.

As for point one, well it follows the same vein. The change has been made. You actually are suggesting things that won’t be revised.

I am really surprised you think that racial ability stats and Orc alignment are sacred cows. Now if races were removed entirely, alignment or ability scores. Then those would be sacred cows... but then again there’s no evidence of that that I’ve seen. In fact 5e expressly repudiated a shift back to Chaos <=> Law.


----------



## Stormonu

2E was the longest-lived edition, and it was allowed to drag out far too long (12 years, I think).  A large portion of gamers and even the RPG industry had switched to more "modern" systems.

I don't think 5E will be allowed to linger so long that its producing content for content's sake.  I do have the feel that Tasha's has reached a point where it feels like designers are grasping for content AND attempting to change the paradigm of the game.  However, adventure and campaign content still has a lot of life left that could be used to keep 5E alive and well.

At most, I'd prefer a reorganization of the main 3 books - take the lessons learned from the last few years, bundle some content (say, like the ranger and fix/replace the PHB sorcerer subclasses) and rerelease the primary books.

I can say, when 6E comes out, I won't be tagging along.  I have enough 5E content to last me years to come and I find it very enjoyable.  I just sort of worry what will happen to my Beyond content when things change, as right now it really helps organize my game.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Vaalingrade said:


> Please be the opposite: everything is per encounter instead of per day.
> 
> No More Vancian  charges design schema!



Well that would be utterly terrible. Without any resource management there is no consequences to the encounters besides death.


----------



## R_J_K75

embee said:


> It's very easy to explain.
> 
> GameStop is a dying company. Has been dying for years. Mainly because their revenue depends on buying used video games at a heavily discounted rate and reselling them at a heavily inflated price. They did this for a long time and it pissed off their customers. Meanwhile, video games themselves switched over to digital distribution, ruining the market for used video games.
> 
> Basically, what iTunes and Napster did to record stores like Tower Records and Sam Goody, Steam and Epic and the EA Store and the Sony and XBox marketplaces did to GameStop.
> 
> So, as a result, it's stock price was sitting at around $20 a share. Probably a little bit overvalued but not by much. So, several hedge funds bought a bunch of GME stock and were going to short it for a bit of a profit.
> 
> On Reddit, there is a subreddit called WallStreetBuys. It has a lot of day traders, especially furloughed, unemployed, or idling at home folk. One of them noticed that a couple of hedge funds bought a large amount of GME and figured that they were going to short it. So, on a lark, he suggested that folk buy up a bunch of the stock so that they - not the hedge fund - could turn a quick profit and wouldn't it be hilarious if the hedge funds had to keep buying more stock to avoid taking a loss.
> 
> It was easy to do this because there is an app called Robinhood that has no-fee trading and allows folk to trade on margin (basically borrowed money). So you can do a lot of trades without racking up fees by borrowing money. Yeah, it's as shady as it sounds.
> 
> This vicious cycle went on for a couple of days until it finally hit The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Then, it exploded. Lots of people downloaded the app and started doing no-fee trading. One hedge fund took a huge bath on it. Robinhood had to borrow a ton of money from its investors to pay for all of the trades (because trades do cost money, even if the brokerage doesn't charge the user the fee). Some people were able to turn a little profit on day trading.
> 
> Elon Musk stupidly weighed in on Twitter, telling people to buy, which is stupid FOR HIM because that's how he has gotten charged with SEC violations in the past.
> 
> And GME itself is starting to lose value again because, at the end of the day, it's a dying company.
> 
> That's pretty much it.



Reading all this it sounds like someone took too many Lemmons and brings this image to mind.


----------



## TheSword

l


Sacrosanct said:


> Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past.  This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, ...






Sacrosanct said:


> I think the writing is clearly on the wall.  We will see a 6e, because some of the most cherished sacred cows of D&D are going to go through big changes on how the rules are going to be written for them.  Also, when I look at the history of D&D, it seems more common than not that when you reach the point where there are a lot character options and most/all of the campaign settings are out there, we see a new edition in a year or so.




And yet you do predict when it will come out. A 35% increase in sales in a single year and you think they would risk that on a new edition within the next one or two years.

You don’t shoot the prize cow for beef when it’s milking time.

Expect small changes that smooth D&D’s rough edges while protecting the brand.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Crimson Longinus said:


> Well that would be utterly terrible. Without any resource management there is no consequences to the encounters besides death.



Or, you know... RP consequences.

Actually, let's add that on here too: an exploration of stakes and consequences beyond Lazy Hack Writer 101 (Character Death) and how not to ruin the game just because the PCs were defeated once.

And an explanation of things like Failing Forward. Or at the very least 'don't connect something to a roll where you have no idea what you're going to do for the next two hours of session time if the PCs fail it'--AKA the Tracking The Plot-Bearing Minion Rule.


----------



## Oofta

Nebulous said:


> Stealth is a wreck.  Yes, it needs an ironclad set of rules that aren't so fiddly. I know some people are fine with it but I've always had issues.




There is no such thing as "ironclad rules for stealth" because you can't cover every scenario.  The more they try to clamp rules like this down, the more exceptions there are.  The more exceptions, the more clarification and further rules are needed.  It's a never ending rabbit hole.  Ultimately no matter how many rules you have unless you have board-game-like rules it will _always_ come down to a judgement call.  

There was a podcast on this here if you want to listen to the reason they did what they did.

Personally I like that I can set the tone and style of my campaign, I don't want to have my hands tied or to have to flip through books to find the specific rule for the specific scenario.  YMMV of course.


----------



## tetrasodium

Vaalingrade said:


> Or, you know... RP consequences.
> 
> Actually, let's add that on here too: an exploration of stakes and consequences beyond Lazy Hack Writer 101 (Character Death) and how not to ruin the game just because the PCs were defeated once.
> 
> And an explanation of things like Failing Forward. Or at the very least 'don't connect something to a roll where you have no idea what you're going to do for the next two hours of session time if the PCs fail it'--AKA the Tracking The Plot-Bearing Minion Rule.



I think that "everything is per encounter instead of per day." would be overcorrecting & going back to a known problem we saw with 4e to run screaming from the ones 5e created with recovery of _everything_ when the players say "nope nope we're done for the day & stopping here nope don't care we nova'd everything up"  Changing that to a week or whatever doesn't really avoid the problem so much as make it easier to slap a doom clock sized bandaid on it.  Back when you only got a small number of hit points back but still recovered spells & abilities the party faced actual risk if anything came up to take some hp away


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Per encounter is used less and less in tasha and in playtest. I expect it to mostly go away. Instead we see proficiency bonus per rest, which often replaces 1 or 2 per short rest.
I am really looking forward to a 6th edition mainly based on 5e rules, even though I heavily bought into 5e and still have quite some fun with it.


----------



## Sacrosanct

TheSword said:


> l
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you do predict when it will come out.



The thread is meant to be about what we predict what the game will be about, but if someone talks about when they expect it (if at all) is OK too.  I doubt any mod will sanction anyone for talking about either, only that I'd prefer if the bulk of the conversation is around what we expect the changes will be as opposed to dates when it will be here.  Just like the bulk of my posts are around what I expect it to look like, and one take away vague sentence about when it might be here doesn't take away from that.

I also said historically we saw a new edition after a year or so of most of the options being put out, not that I think 6e will be a year or so out.  You need to work on your reading comprehension instead of trying to search for any potential contradiction in my posts.

I don't know what your hang up or beef is in this thread in your desire to have your "gotcha" moment, but chill out.  This is the second passive aggressive shot you've taken at me and I don't care to have any discourse with you.  I ignored the first time but you're doing it again.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Oofta said:


> There is no such thing as "ironclad rules for stealth" because you can't cover every scenario.  The more they try to clamp rules like this down, the more exceptions there are.  The more exceptions, the more clarification and further rules are needed.  It's a never ending rabbit hole.  Ultimately no matter how many rules you have unless you have board-game-like rules it will _always_ come down to a judgement call.
> 
> There was a podcast on this here if you want to listen to the reason they did what they did.
> 
> Personally I like that I can set the tone and style of my campaign, I don't want to have my hands tied or to have to flip through books to find the specific rule for the specific scenario.  YMMV of course.



Indeed.  As anyone who has written an RPG would tell you, when you get to the part about how to handle stealth, it gets way more complicated than pretty much any other ability check.  And it's easy to have it get out of control fast.  You gotta be willing to let a lot of rules for stealth hit the cutting room floor for the sake of speed of play and simplicity.


----------



## Dausuul

Vaalingrade said:


> Please be the opposite: everything is per encounter instead of per day.
> 
> No More Vancian  charges design schema!



That would be my preference, but I'm predicting what I think 6E will actually look like, not what I want it to look like.


----------



## Scribe

So something thats come up here around the 'when' (and in other threads) is when there is just too much content, or the subclasses have been exhausted or whatever.

Looking at lists I can find of 3/3.5 prestige classes, and 4e/5e Subclasses (are these the same? I bailed out on 4e completely, 100% not my thing) it would seem we are nowhere close to the bloat of 3e (over 700!) , while 5e probably has more than 4e already based on the list I found.

That said 5e is bloated on its own, by having Domains and Schools inflate the counts for Cleric and Wizard when I dont really like that as a 'subclass' anyway.

Do people find issue with subclasses? While a few may be perhaps too strong, and there is some power creep, I personally love Prestige Class/Sub Class mechaics.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Scribe said:


> So something thats come up here around the 'when' (and in other threads) is when there is just too much content, or the subclasses have been exhausted or whatever.
> 
> Looking at lists I can find of 3/3.5 prestige classes, and 4e/5e Subclasses (are these the same? I bailed out on 4e completely, 100% not my thing) it would seem we are nowhere close to the bloat of 3e (over 700!) , while 5e probably has more than 4e already based on the list I found.
> 
> That said 5e is bloated on its own, by having Domains and Schools inflate the counts for Cleric and Wizard when I dont really like that as a 'subclass' anyway.
> 
> Do people find issue with subclasses? While a few may be perhaps too strong, and there is some power creep, I personally love Prestige Class/Sub Class mechaics.



When you have subclasses that step on the toes of other classes/subclasses, it's a pretty good sign you're starting to run out of concepts.  Is 5e there?  I personally think it's getting close (although I think there still needs to be a shaman and a warlord to please those fans), and I admit this is just my feeling and others have differing opinions.  As I've said a couple times upthread, I think by having a slow rollout has helped a lot to keep 5e going, and going strong for so long.  If it has the release calendar of earlier editions, we would have burned through everything a while ago and what would be left?


----------



## Scribe

Sacrosanct said:


> When you have subclasses that step on the toes of other classes/subclasses, it's a pretty good sign you're starting to run out of concepts.  Is 5e there?  I personally think it's getting close (although I think there still needs to be a shaman and a warlord to please those fans), and I admit this is just my feeling and others have differing opinions.  As I've said a couple times upthread, I think by having a slow rollout has helped a lot to keep 5e going, and going strong for so long.  If it has the release calendar of earlier editions, we would have burned through everything a while ago and what would be left?



They could explore outside the Sword Coast?

And honestly Planescape is just sitting there. Waiting. You want to see race diversity, class diversity, a reason to have alignment matter (I do! lol) you set up a nice year long expansion for the glorious Great Wheel, Outlands, and Sigil.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Scribe said:


> They could explore outside the Sword Coast?
> 
> And honestly Planescape is just sitting there. Waiting. You want to see race diversity, class diversity, a reason to have alignment matter (I do! lol) you set up a nice year long expansion for the glorious Great Wheel, Outlands, and Sigil.




Honestly I think that's where the future of sales is gonna lie with 5e.  Planescape, Darksun, and Dragonlance have enough fans that if you put out a setting book with some additional sublcasses for each, they will still sell pretty well.  But what happens after that?  That's where I see things getting dicey.  The more obscure and niche of a setting/class you go, the less overall interest there will be, and that's when sales numbers start to slip.

That said, at the rate of settings being release, those three book could take another 3 years lol


----------



## kenada

dave2008 said:


> 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



I liken it to the edition changes of Call of Cthulhu (where classic adventures can be run in newer editions). If WotC revs the core books, it’s worth calling it a new edition. They can (and should) fix problems, but it should retain the spirit of the existing system. Tying edition changes to major overhauls doesn’t strike me as good for the game. It risks alienating the existing playerbase, and it makes addressing actual problems more difficult (because you can’t just issue a revised edition to address them).


----------



## ccs

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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.




In real life?  My fellow grogs & I simply refer to all of this as "Basic".


----------



## Crimson Longinus

ccs said:


> In real life?  My fellow grogs & I simply refer to all of this as "Basic".



WotC does too.


----------



## jgsugden

We've reached a point where I would not mind a REVISED PHB that tweaked a few rules, feats, spells, etc..., I do not think it is necessary, nor do I feel that they've run out of places to go with 5E.  I'd be happy if it ran another decade.


----------



## humble minion

I don't expect to see 6e any time soon, for the 'goose laying the golden eggs' reason listed above.  And beside, while I haven't played all the way to level 20 in 5e, as far as i can see there's nothing _cripplingly _wrong with the system yet.  Part of this is obviously due to the slow release pace and resultant relatively small number of player options compared to previous editions, which reduces the scope for broken stuff to slip through the next and PC design becoming a separate system mastery minigame.  But the basic maths is holding up in a way that (for example) 3e failed to do at high levels.

There's stuff that I think 5e could do better, naturally.  Aside from issues with individual spells or subclasses (there's always going to be those), there's a few issues around bonus actions, Str is borderline worthless for anyone who's not a Str warrior, there's too few points at which you can make character customisation choices, the Warlock is too one-note, polymorph is painful to use (as it has been in every edition, to be fair), a few skills badly need tidying up (has anyone ever gotten meaningful use out of Medicine?), Inspiration is pretty wishy-washy and could use a boost and possibly alternate 'plot twist!' type uses alongside the +1d6 default, the race/lineage/etc issue needs to be resolved, and so on and so on.

But all this is pretty small bikkies, to be honest, and the cost of developing a 6e to address these issues is arguably higher than the cost of just leaving them alone.  WotC (if they're smart) are probably very wary of putting out a 6e which is just 5.5e (let alone an actual 5.5 or revised PHB...), after the ... controversial ... release and reception of 3.5e or 4e Essentials.  I reckon they'll probably just continue releasing optional rules in upcoming 'Everything' books for a while yet, and let individual groups take what they want.  I wouldn't be surprised, for example, to see a 5e Dark Sun iteration spawn a set of optional 'hard survival mode' optional rules which will then appear in some upcoming Everything book.  Or horror/corruption rules spun off a 5e Ravenloft.  Or even 'mercy mode' rules that cut down lethality and emphasise storytelling for something like a talking animal/fairy tale or kids-at-wizards-school setting.

I find it really bewildering to hear people saying that WotC have run out of subclass concepts though.  Jeez, I could think of a dozen off the top of my head.  And that's WITHOUT going into a very non-standard setting like Dark Sun or Planescape or Spelljammer which has its own set of archetypes, or going into game-mechanical places that WotC has thus far refused to tread, like subclasses that remove some of the base class features in exchange for better subclass features (a non-spellcasting implementation of the bard or ranger, for instance, or an unarmored cloistered cleric type), or subclasses that use things like hit dice or inspiration dice to fuel abilities.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Yeah I'll add to my wishlist something to provide more mechanical dis/incentives to take or not take rests.


----------



## Minigiant

Elfcrusher said:


> 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.




This is where I see it going.

Classes will get a class based mechanical benefit from 3 or more ablity scores. Classes from previous editions will be incorporated into the main classes to make them have less dependent on specific prechoice abilities. So Str wizard, Int rogues, and Cha fighters will have more advantages beside their base ability aspects.


----------



## tetrasodium

Minigiant said:


> This is where I see it going.
> 
> Classes will get a class based mechanical benefit from 3 or more ablity scores. Classes from previous editions will be incorporated into the main classes to make them have less dependent on specific prechoice abilities. So Str wizard, Int rogues, and Cha fighters will have more advantages beside their base ability aspects.



Would be nice if they keep the 3.x on standardization* of bonuses but go back to the 2e mark for +/-1 at 6 & 15 or so to somewhat deemphasize the weight on perfect stats too.
* prior to 3.0/3.5 each attribute got +/-1 & other stuff at different values  then 3.x standardized them all to the 8/12 we know.  The standardization was good but it made it so stats seemed so important to players that the proper distribution was practically set in stone


----------



## Stalker0

Oofta said:


> There is no such thing as "ironclad rules for stealth" because you can't cover every scenario.  The more they try to clamp rules like this down, the more exceptions there are.  The more exceptions, the more clarification and further rules are needed.  It's a never ending rabbit hole.  Ultimately no matter how many rules you have unless you have board-game-like rules it will _always_ come down to a judgement call.
> 
> There was a podcast on this here if you want to listen to the reason they did what they did.
> 
> Personally I like that I can set the tone and style of my campaign, I don't want to have my hands tied or to have to flip through books to find the specific rule for the specific scenario.  YMMV of course.



In my original statement, I noted that for the vast majority of skills, I am glad WOTC went with a more freeform, "DM makes the call" kind of work. But I do feel Stealth is one of the exceptions.

While its true you can't cover every scenario, you could certain cover a lot of standard scenarios people are going to try.

1) Hide while in combat
2) Hide after attacking and other standard actions.
3) Effects of Invisibility
4) Moving while hidden, at what point is the person "no longer hidden".
5) Rules for aggressive looking for hidden character.
6) "Passive Stealth" (aka I teleported in fog or behind X, am I automatically hidden?)

So that took me a minute of brainstorming, and covers a lot of the areas my players and monster have used stealth. Yes its impossible to cover 100%, but its relatively easy to get 80%.


----------



## cbwjm

dave2008 said:


> I guess, but wouldn't that be the case in any edition from 3e on?
> 
> Personally, I've never run games where the PCs are always facing the next best thing. The typical progression for us is: from 1 orc to a few orcs to dozens of orcs, etc,, with a few more powerful beasties thrown in every once and a while.



That's how I run games. Currently my players are level 5 and they're annihilating dozens of gnolls, goblins, and hobgoblins, while also facing off against trolls, ogres, and hill giants as well as stronger versions of the gnolls and hobgoblins. The players are definitely feeling powerful.


----------



## embee

Scribe said:


> You left out the part where they blocked buying the stock to prevent further pumping in a clear move to interrupt the disruption. I found that an interesting step in the process.



Robinhood did it partly for that reason and partly because the trading was causing it to burn through cash. It owed the clearing houses a couple million dollars in fees. It was lucky to raise another round of funding from an emergency stock offering.


----------



## auburn2

Minigiant said:


> This is where I see it going.
> 
> Classes will get a class based mechanical benefit from 3 or more ablity scores. Classes from previous editions will be incorporated into the main classes to make them have less dependent on specific prechoice abilities. So Str wizard, Int rogues, and Cha fighters will have more advantages beside their base ability aspects.



There is an easy way to accomplish this in the current core rules - roll abilities and use a scheme that does not allow moving them.to different abilities.

If you roll a 17 Strength you have a 17 strength, not a 17 that you can move to wisdom because you want to be a cleric.  Still be a cleric and do it with a high strength!


----------



## humble minion

auburn2 said:


> If you roll a 17 Strength you have a 17 strength, not a 17 that you can move to wisdom because you want to be a cleric. Still be a cleric and do it with a high strength!




Problem is when you want to be a cleric and roll a 5 for wisdom, and therefore suck at being a cleric though your entire cleric-ing career.


----------



## auburn2

Stalker0 said:


> In my original statement, I noted that for the vast majority of skills, I am glad WOTC went with a more freeform, "DM makes the call" kind of work. But I do feel Stealth is one of the exceptions.
> 
> While its true you can't cover every scenario, you could certain cover a lot of standard scenarios people are going to try.
> 
> 1) Hide while in combat
> 2) Hide after attacking and other standard actions.
> 3) Effects of Invisibility
> 4) Moving while hidden, at what point is the person "no longer hidden".
> 5) Rules for aggressive looking for hidden character.
> 6) "Passive Stealth" (aka I teleported in fog or behind X, am I automatically hidden?)
> 
> So that took me a minute of brainstorming, and covers a lot of the areas my players and monster have used stealth. Yes its impossible to cover 100%, but its relatively easy to get 80%.



The rules cover these pretty clearly.  These are all right in the PHB.  Hide is an action, not a condition.  Either you take the action or you don't.  If you do not take the hide action you are not hidden.

1. Yes as long as you are obscured ... or have an ability that lets you hide being partially obscured (halfling, wood elf).  Being in combat does not change that (although it can be difficult to be obscured in combat).

2. Hide is clearly an action in the PHB.  If you are a fighter with action surge you can use it to hide after you attack with your normal action.  If you are hasted you can use it as your second action after you attack.  If you are a Rogue you can use it as a bonus action after you are attacked.  Other cases, no you can not hide, or take any action, on the same turn you take the attack action.   You can move and obscure yourself after taking the attack action, but that is different than taking the hide action.  You are obscured but you are not hidden.  If you are still obscured on your next turn you can take an action to hide if you want.

3. Invisible is a condition like frightened or prone.  Effects of the condition are clearly spelled out in the PHB on   p291.   and it adresses hiding specifically - "for the purposes of hiding the creature is heavily obscured".  This means a Rogue can drink a potion of invisibility and then immediately use his bonus action to hide right where he is standing.  A fighter could do the same and then use his action surge to hide.  Another character could turn himself invisible and hide on his next turn (assuming he is still invisible) but he would not be hidden for the round between the time he drank the potion and took the hide action.  People can not see him, but he is not hidden either.

4. Clear in the rules:  A. When you fail a hide check vs passive perception.  B. when someone takes a search action and beats your hide.  C. When you are no longer fully obscured (if you move out from behind what is obscuring you).  With respect to C - if you are hiding behind something and move out from it you are no longer obscured.  If you are being obscured by invisibility, darkness or fog cloud then you will still be obscured and hidden until you attack.

5. Search action p.193 PHB.  Enemy can take the search action to compare perception against your hide roll.   If successful you are no longer hidden.  How aggressive he is has nothing to do with it, either he takes the search action and tries to find you or he does not.  Alternatively he can launch an attack against where you might be (without knowing).  If you are not there it is a miss, if you are there he gets an attack roll with disadvantage.  There is even an example of  this in the PHB I believe.

6. If you did not take the hide action you are not hidden.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

ccs said:


> In real life?  My fellow grogs & I simply refer to all of this as "Basic".




Weird.
When I’m being imprecise and just say “Basic,” I am specifically excluding Holmes.

The others have a shared rule set that you can trace (a lineage); Holmes is arguably the bridge between OD&D and AD&D so despite the shared name is certainly not in the same category.


----------



## auburn2

humble minion said:


> Problem is when you want to be a cleric and roll a 5 for wisdom, and therefore suck at being a cleric though your entire cleric-ing career.



Few methods which allow for fixed rolls will result in this.  Even if you use the 3d6 6 times for every stat you only have a 6% chance of rolling lower than a 12.  The chance of rolling lower than an 8 is 4 in 100,000.

The homebrew method I use most often is adapted from a 1e method and you choose your class (but not race) before you roll.  Depending on the class you choose you get a lot of dice on the prime requisite (in the case of cleric 9 dice for wisdom and drop 6).  You will generally roll between 15 and 17 on that stat, occasionally 18, occasionally 14.  I have never seen below a 13 and that is before race, so even then you can make it 15 pretty easy.  Using this method, you always have a "Good" main stat but you won't be able to choose a dump stat.  and other stats are very random.  You don't get your fighter with a 8 str and 16 dex or the other fighter standing next to him that has those swapped the other way.

Regardless of the method you use, rolling is absolutely the best way to avoid dump stats and have randomized characters.


----------



## humble minion

auburn2 said:


> Few methods which allow for fixed rolls will result in this.
> 
> The homebrew method I use most often is adapted from a 1e method and you choose your class (but not race) before you roll.  Depending on the class you choose you get a lot of dice on the prime requisite (in the case of cleric 9 dice for wisdom and drop 6).  You will generally roll between 15 and 17 on that stat, occasionally 18, occasionally 14.  I have never seen below a 13 and that is before race, so even then you can make it 15 pretty easy.  Using this method, you always have a "Good" main stat but you won't be able to choose a dump stat.  and other stats are very random.  You don't get your fighter with a 8 str and 16 dex or the other fighter standing next to him that has those swapped the other way.
> 
> Regardless of the method you use, rolling is absolutely the best way to avoid dump stats and have randomized characters.



Depends on taste i suppose.  I get where you're coming from, but it'd depend a bit how the system worked.  A barbarian with 5 Con is damn near as hamstrung as the 5 Wis cleric, for instance and a low-Dex monk is a very sad panda, but i suppose a variant of the system that allocated different numbers of dice to multiple abilities in the case of MAD classes could work.

Having said that, the dice fall where they may.  My first ever D&D game was 4d6 drop lowest, roll 7 times and discard the lowest result, then arrange as preferred.  I rolled 11, 10, 8, 7, 7, 5, 4.  Tell you what, as a keen youngster, that was deflating as hell, though my more-experienced DM was kind enough to let me throw those stats and re-roll.

Which is why I think stat generation methods will remain largely as they are in any future 6e.  We allow players to pick every other aspect of their character, so why bind them to the whims of the dice for ability scores in particular?   And this is especially relevant for new players, who are more likely to get discouraged if they feel underpowered at the table compared to someone who had better luck with the dice during chargen.

Though in reference to the original conversation, I agree I would love to see abilities being more relevant to classes even if they're not a prime requisite.  Str in particular is wonderful for armoured frontline melee combatants and absolutely useless for anyone else.  You can't even make a brutish Str-based rogue without being wildly suboptimal, given sneak attack is restricted to Dex weapons.


----------



## Horwath

I too belive that race and abilities will be decoupled.

I am all for it but simply for mechanics and having more character concepts being equal.

I would also like to see removal of 2 ability points for 1 ability modifier.
That means killing 3-18 sacred cow.
Ability modifier should go 1-for-1 with ability scores.

Keep average score of 10(+0) for legacy sake and have 11 be +1, 9 be -1 and etc...
Then having really tiny monsters with STR 1(-9) will have huge impact with contested ability checks.

point buy as default ability generation:

score    8(-2): -1 pt(*optional*)

score    9(-1): 0 pts
score 10(+0): 1 pt
score 11(+1): 2 pts
score 12(+2): 3 pts
score 13(+3): 5 pts

score 14(+4): 8 pts(*optional*)

score pool: *16 pts.*

max ability score from later ASIs and before magic bonuses: 15(+5) or 14(+4) if more bounded math is wanted.


Now, as an OPTION, you can limit max STARTING scores for some races or have min STARTING score for some races.

I.E:
Humans: no limits

Elves: min dex 11, max con 12. high elves min int 10. Wood elves min wis 10.

Dwarves: min str 10, min con 11, max dex 12, max cha 12.

Orcs: min str 12, min con 11, max int 12, max wis 12, max cha 12.

Gnomes: min int 11, max str 12.

Halflings: min dex 11, max str 12.

Half elves: min dex 10

Half orcs: min str 11, min con 10

Half dwarves: min con 10

Aasimar: min int 10, min wis 11, min cha 11

Tiefling: min dex 11, min int 10, min cha 11

Dragonborn: min str 11, min con 10, min cha 11

"optional" option for Drow elves:
min str 10, min dex 12, min con 10, min int 11, min wis 11, min cha 12.
Use this only if you will run Drow as in FR, a completely evil society that culls any weakness in their children.
As now Drow's 12 out of 16 pts for point buy are "reserved in advance", consider giving Drow characters an extra point or two for having sunlight blindness and generally being hated and killed on sight by most races, especially other Elves.


For bounded accuracy, I feel that there is no need for change here.

I like flatter math and having low CR monsters a threat for medium level characters in large numbers.


Sub classes from Level 1.


ASI's, combat feats, exploration feats and social feats all in their separate resource pool.

3 feat categories will be different from class to class, and there should be "general" feat slot for any type of feats.

ASI's and general feats based on character level. 3 categories of feats given in class levels.


Adding 10th level spells.

Improving scaling of damaging/healing spells per increased spell level. Control spells are more or less good in current form.


Having ALL major class feature given by level 10. 
Levels 11-20 should be just improvements of existing features and/or more usage per rest.


Removal of short rests.

Rest is a 12hr duration where at least 6hrs must be spend sleeping and other 6hrs in light activity like making camp, cooking, eating, standing watch, maintaining gear, washing up, etc...

Optional: you can only have 4 rest in wilderness in a row. Then you must take 3 night rest in a secure location. Inn, Tavern, Military camp or similar. Think of this as a weekday-weekend mechanics.


Removal of HDs and returning to 4E healing surges.

Every class gains a certain number of healing surges, they heal 25% of your health. Spent healing surges return on rest.

Using any number of healing surges takes 1 minute of non-combat activity. Only "short rest" mechanics left.

You can also use one healing surge while drinking any healing potion or receiving any healing spell.


----------



## clearstream

Aldarc said:


> Nice write-up, @Sacrosanct. Race and Alignment seem like obvious contenders for changes in 6e.
> 
> I also suspect that 6e would rework a number of other major points of contention when it comes to rules interactions - e.g., Action Economy (i.e., bonus action), Short/Long Rest mechanics, Animal Companions/Familiars, etc. - that seem to regularly contribute to some of their dud designs or rough spots in the game.



Race goes. Alignment stays. Forced alignment goes.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> Perhaps, though I see no evidence of the third point other than wishful thinking. I’d stake my wallet that over 50% of players today don’t even know what a Warlord is, let alone have a desire to play one.
> 
> Regarding the second point. Alignment has already been de-coupled from race so this is hardly a change. You’ve just stated a change that has already been made in 5e and then claimed it will stay. I don’t doubt it, about time. Though again no evidence that it will be removed other than some very loud peoples wishful thinking.
> 
> As for point one, well it follows the same vein. The change has been made. You actually are suggesting things that won’t be revised.
> 
> I am really surprised you think that racial ability stats and Orc alignment are sacred cows. Now if races were removed entirely, alignment or ability scores. Then those would be sacred cows... but then again there’s no evidence of that that I’ve seen. In fact 5e expressly repudiated a shift back to Chaos <=> Law.





clearstream said:


> Race goes. Alignment stays. Forced alignment goes.



It seems that you both are quoting and replying to the wrong person.


----------



## clearstream

auburn2 said:


> Regardless of the method you use, rolling is absolutely the best way to avoid dump stats and have randomized characters.



For me, card methods are better for that. I've now playtested an 18 card deck and a 12 card deck. I like the latter because it is more swingy.

Draw two cards and sum - I use assign in order - no replacement. The deck is 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3.
Or draw three cards and sum. The deck I playtested is 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.

One advantage of using a deck is that all characters have the same total of scores: hugely reducing overshadowing and guaranteeing that if you have a low score you will have a better one in balance.


----------



## clearstream

Aldarc said:


> It seems that you both are quoting and replying to the wrong person.



I'm replying to "_Race and Alignment seem like obvious contenders for changes in 6e_". 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that, but suggesting that the change will be that alignment as a system remains, but that races won't have forced alignments (with limited exceptions, possibly). Regarding character races, they might go altogether, or it might be that just ASIs are moved out of them and they become less stereotyped.

If you intended something other than that race and alignment would be contenders for change, that's fine. Just let me know what that is.


----------



## Aldarc

clearstream said:


> I'm replying to "_Race and Alignment seem like obvious contenders for changes in 6e_".
> 
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that, but suggesting that the change will be that alignment as a system remains, but that races won't have forced alignments (with limited exceptions, possibly). Regarding character races, they might go altogether, or it might be that just ASIs are moved out of them and they become less stereotyped.
> 
> If you intended something other than that race and alignment would be contenders for change, that's fine. Just let me know what that is.



I was replying more generally to Sacrosanct's points, though not necessarily predicting or commenting on what those changes would likely be. My points on race and alignment are content sparse, so it surprised me that you would be responding to me on race and alignment rather than the actual person who actually said something meaningful about it.


----------



## ccs

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Weird.
> When I’m being imprecise and just say “Basic,” I am specifically excluding Holmes.
> 
> The others have a shared rule set that you can trace (a lineage); Holmes is arguably the bridge between OD&D and AD&D so despite the shared name is certainly not in the same category.



{shrugs} And I include Holmes when I'm being imprecise.  So what?


----------



## clearstream

Vaalingrade said:


> Please be the opposite: everything is per encounter instead of per day.
> 
> No More Vancian  charges design schema!



4e conducted that experiment. I suspect 6e will go with X uses per long rest (no more features recharging on short rests).

However, psionic energy dice represent another interesting experiment. They refresh per long rest, but you can get one back between short rests with a bonus action (which might be intended to imply that it can only happen in the heat of combat). So your number per long rest is PB*2+SR*1. Thus mildly scaling with whatever a group are doing for their short-to-long-rest ratio.


----------



## Jaeger

Vaalingrade said:


> Also, let's get rid of bounded accuracy. It was a terrible idea in the first place and while some people like flat math and fighting goblins forever, I'm pretty sure more people l think more people like to feel like they're advancing.




If you are just fighting the next level appropriate CR rated monster are you really advancing? The 'power bump' that Hit point inflation induces in D&D is an illusion IMHO, because the monsters just keep pace.

The E6 variants of 3.x were a step in the right direction. You got more powerful, but HP was capped. So with clever teamwork and planning you could take down the bigger monsters. But a pack of Orcs was still a threat.

IMHO the PC's got 'more powerful' in a meaningful way; while avoiding the "giants are the new orcs" problem that the scaling issues of HP inflation have induced in every edition.





Stalker0 said:


> While its true you can't cover every scenario, you could certain cover a lot of standard scenarios people are going to try.
> 
> 1) Hide while in combat
> 2) Hide after attacking and other standard actions.
> 3) Effects of Invisibility
> 4) Moving while hidden, at what point is the person "no longer hidden".
> 5) Rules for aggressive looking for hidden character.
> 6) "Passive Stealth" (aka I teleported in fog or behind X, am I automatically hidden?)
> 
> So that took me a minute of brainstorming, and covers a lot of the areas my players and monster have used stealth. Yes its impossible to cover 100%, but its relatively easy to get 80%.




All those are straight forward to adjudicate on the fly:

1) Hide while in combat
Not while fighting - kinda' hard.

2) Hide after attacking and other standard actions.
Are you moving to cover of some kind and no one can see you move there? Then Nope that would be Just silly.

3) Effects of Invisibility
Your invisible. Like the invisible man. (pick a tv/movie version and stick with it.)

4) Moving while hidden, at what point is the person "no longer hidden".
When you move to where people can see you.

5) Rules for aggressive looking for hidden character.
Standard perception checks with a bonus added for each area "cleared".

6) "Passive Stealth" (aka I teleported in fog or behind X, am I automatically hidden?)
In fog or right behind them where they can't see you? Yes.

A GM just needs to be consistent, and there is no problem.


----------



## Jaeger

If I was doing 6e:

-Streamlined rules:

Everything needs to be done so that the rulebooks are almost never need to be opened in play.

No looking up spells/powers for creature/ NPC stat blocks. And if you got a GM screen you are good for everything else!

Advantage/Disadvantage more integrated mechanically.

Inspiration expanded to a real ‘Hero Point’ mechanic and fully integrated into the game.

Backgrounds as skills similar to Barbarians of Lemuria, 13th age.

NO Feats no multiclass. Streamlined action economy.

Class progression similar to Shadow of the Demon Lord – class and subclass at level 1 – ability to switch to different ‘paths’ every 3 levels. With multiple options to choose per path.

The idea being that two characters can choose the same lvl 1-3 path progression but there are enough meaningful options that you can have two mechanically different characters starting at level 1. These choices are frontloaded to the character advancement side of the game.

The mechanics need to be streamlined and integrated so that you only need your character sheets at the table and magic sheets for magic users.

Can be run pure pen and paper, no apps or software needed. At all!

Double down on bonded accuracy; Embrace a E6 mechanical play paradigm.

The idea behind all this being that if you watch a D&D live stream like CR; what you see is what you get. Everything runs smooth and fast no need for the GM to handwave or fudge things to speed up play.


-Default Setting tied to Culture & Species:

D&D settings have always been tacked on affairs to established D&D “Lore”. Making them more incoherent over time as settings have had to absorb race and class additions from previous editions ad-hoc.

Conduct a survey of what the most popular Non-D&D medieval fantasy worlds/settings are in popular media: Tv, Film and books. And what features - Lore, Tone, and type of creatures/magic they found drew them to the worlds.

World build a new D&D setting to those criteria integrating classes to culture and species. This would mean a necessary reduction in playable races at core. But everything would be fully integrated into the Core default setting. Keeping the default setting relatable and accessible for new and casual players.

This would include rebalancing and trimming the spell lists to have them more reflect the new setting.

Different playable species options available with 2-3 alternate settings that would be gradually introduced. (Eberron, Dark Sun, Planescape, etc..) Settings that are an addition to the D&D game, but not taking up the same play space as the the Core Medieval Fantasy Setting.

Keeping the same book publishing schedule as 5e, but a few more “plug and play modules’ introduced to give groups more options outside of the big Adventure paths. Include a book that presents domain play rules within 1st year of launch.


-Dedicated VTT on launch: With integrated Simultaneous live streaming capability.

VTT facilitate ease of play, WOTC would not have to build one from scratch – They should finding the best one for our needs, buy and upgrading it with livestream tools. With through playtesting and more bandwidth added than we ever think we’ll need. Ready to go at playtest! With access given to all 6e playtest groups to iron out any unforeseen bugs.

All Books, modules, AP, and sourcebooks released to the D&D VTT simultaneous with print releases – available on no other platforms.

Possibly partner with 3d printed minis company to have a custom PC creator that you can have as both a physical mini, and virtual token on the VTT.


-None of this will ever happen. Not even a little bit.


----------



## Raith5

I really enjoy 5e and am about to start my fourth campaign, but I think its problems are getting bigger at my table and starting to drag. The big ones for us are stealth rules, Concentration, taking too many levels to get into and customize our PCs (I think 6e has to make feats core), and "high" level play (11+) where bounded accuracy seems to catch up with monsters with 20 AC and make combats somewhat trivial. I know high level is a general bugbear with D and D (except 4e) - but I hope they test and tease out higher level play in 6e.

There is also an issue in 5e that I am not sure is a general problem - but we really struggle to find things to spend gold on. In fact we dont always take treasure sometimes, which is weird and doesnt feel like D and D to me! I hope 6e has a few more options in this respect.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I guess before the 6th Ed will dare to publish sourcebooks with more risky options, for example a new "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords", "Tome of Magic: Pact, Shadow and Truename" or "Magic of Incarnum". If fandom like those new ideas then to be added to the next edition later.

The 6th Ed will be a videogame before a printed corebook. 

Racial attributes shouldn't be quited, only to be more optional or customizable.

Forget the idea of only four classes. Lots of players are willing to buy books by 3PPs with new base classes, even revivals from previous editions.


----------



## Stormonu

Honestly, the main thing I'm hoping that we will see Eldritch Knight taken out as a fighter subclass and we get a full-blown gish class of some kind (for my homebrew, I named it Eldritch Warror).

And that monks will be more ala carte.


----------



## Baldurs_Underdark

WotC have not even brought out the updated 5E map for all Faerun. 6E is very far away.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> It seems that you both are quoting and replying to the wrong person.



Cheers for that. Corrected.


----------



## TheSword

I think the challenge will be, when the 5e is selling this well and continually growing, what is the incentive to change it up. Earlier editions relied on new products to sell to the same people. They needed to keep releasing products and eventually ran out of products to make, bloat set in and 4e was born. The same with AD&Ds huge number of campaign settings.

Now to have 35% increase in revenues without a whole stream of additional products they must be recruiting millions of new players. New players wanting to buy core books and re-buy Campaign Books they have already published. New players, new blood buying existing ranges.

New players aren’t jaded, aren’t desperate for new products and don’t care about pushing the boundaries because it’s still all shiny and new for them. They don’t care about legacy classes, they aren’t annoyed because Greyhawk isn’t supported and they don’t agonize over how earlier editions handled rules.

The difference between 2e’s skills and powers and 5e. Is that 5e by any standard works at what it sets out to achieve. 2e was full of quite serious flaws. The 2e skills and powers system replaced normal character Gen, and Tome of Nine Swords replaced a set of classes. These weren’t tweaks they were attempts to replace whole systems. Tasha and Xanathar sit alongside the existing system. They are largely tweaks, conservative, cautious and aimed to cause the most benefit with the least stir. Tasha’s is simply a continuation in the style of Xanathars Guide. It doesn’t represent a shift in how the game is played (other than the sensitivity mentioned above).

I once thought an advanced rule set might be released as 6e but I don’t even think that will happen now. Not when they can keep tacking on X & T like books to tweak things. Why would they split their market share when their most crunchable competitor isn’t the success we hoped it would be.

I think there will be small changes over the next two years as books are released with a bit more consideration and concern to be more sensitive. We’ve seen how CoS was revised... in small ways. Otherwise I really think this will be an evergreen edition... at least until D&D growth stops. At which point expect to see an increase in product releases as they try to sell more to the same people. At that point, and only then, would I expect to see anything like a new edition on the scale of 2e, 3e, 4e or 5e


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

ccs said:


> {shrugs} And I include Holmes when I'm being imprecise.  So what?




Wow. Well, I’m sure you must be fun talking to other people. Just not me.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Boy, 10 pages in and I _JUST_ found out about this thread!

Come on, @Sacrosanct, how could you _not_ mention me in the OP to get me involved, after all, given my handle? (j/k) 

While I don't like the idea of the direction things will turn, I agree with the OP that is probably the way, with less defined races, less alignment, and more subclasses.   

I'll have to review all the comments when I have time, though. Nice to see so many responses in just a day.


----------



## Vaalingrade

tetrasodium said:


> I think that "everything is per encounter instead of per day." would be overcorrecting & going back to a known problem we saw with 4e



Why yes, I do want to go back to good game design.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Based on current trends, I think 6e will be a mobile app that gives you 3 classes and 5 levels for free, but requires microtransactions for anything above that.

OR 6e will be a Social Media site where you post from the perspective of your character, interacting with enemies and NPCs. However to get your post noticed by the DM you've got to figure out those viral hashtags!

OR 6e will be the next season on Fortnite!

OR 6e will be a Choose Your Own Adventure series on Netflix.

OR 6e D&D will require each group to produce a live play podcast, and players who post 20+ minute videos of analysis will gain bonus experience points.

OR 6e will be so streamlined and simulationist that it will wake us up to the fact that we are all living in an advanced computer simulation and humanity will finally be free!


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> I think the challenge will be, when the 5e is selling this well and continually growing, what is the incentive to change it up.



Again, I think that the likeliest case would be maintaining the base chassis of 5e (more or less) but then revising/updating/balancing the window dressing (e.g., classes, subclasses, races, etc.), possibly adjusting retroactively applying newer mechanics (e.g., proficiency bonus replacing short rest mechanics, etc.). I could even see a new PHB that incorporated the more popular subclasses, races, etc. that were created or replace some of the duds.


----------



## Oofta

So let's see

There will be no more classes
People will just do what they want for the sake of flexibility
Get rid of ability scores
Get rid of alignment along with the concept of good and evil.  
All monsters are now just "misunderstood victims of colonialism".
There are no penalties or benefits to playing specific races except for culture.
No more mono-cultures. In fact no more assumptions on behavior for any race or monster.
No more feats.
No more bonus actions, maybe have a 10 step program that starts with PCs apologizing to the monsters for invading their home.
Stealth rules will cover every possible situation and require 10 TB storage for all the options and rules.  People will still complain they're incomplete.
Dungeons will be renamed to "legal residence of indigenous peoples" and no longer an option for looting.
I think I covered most of it.    

P.S. Obvious sarcasm disclaimer.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Back to the topic of the OP:

1. I think that any release of a completely new edition will be driving by sales; as such, I don't think that it will happen for some time.

2. I also think that it is entirely possible that Hasbro/WoTC will move away from the idea of editions entirely. When they have referenced this as an "evergreen" edition, maybe they meant it? In other words, perhaps there will be a 6e, but not marketed as such. More of a streamlined 5e with increasing rules errata. Or maybe they will pump out different versions of 5e, like they do with Monopoly. Are you ready for [Insert Your Alma Mater Here] Dungeons & Dragons?????

3. That said, I do think that @Sacrosanct is mostly correct in his observations as to what 6e might entail. The fundamental issue most people have (including me!) is that when they think about what the next edition of 6e will have, they are wishcasting- they are thinking about the features that they want.

But that's not what is likely to happen. D&D is the "big tent" TTRPG. Which means that the people who want it to completely eschew the past (get rid of classes! get rid the standard six ability scores! use a Blades in the Dark inventory system!) will be disappointed, because a huge selling point of D&D is the legacy and the nostalgia.

By the same token, the people who demand more and more crunch will also be disappointed, because that's not the sweet spot of the mass market any more. 

It's going to muddle along, modernizing a little here and there, while keeping a tether to the past. Maybe untether race and bonuses, and continue to de-emphasize alignment for humanoids, but not get rid of alignment, and not get rid of the "standard" races. 

Plus ca change.


----------



## embee

Jaeger said:


> If I was doing 6e:
> 
> -Streamlined rules:
> 
> Everything needs to be done so that the rulebooks are almost never need to be opened in play.
> 
> No looking up spells/powers for creature/ NPC stat blocks. And if you got a GM screen you are good for everything else!
> 
> ...
> 
> NO Feats no multiclass. Streamlined action economy.
> ...
> 
> The mechanics need to be streamlined and integrated so that you only need your character sheets at the table and magic sheets for magic users.
> 
> Can be run pure pen and paper, no apps or software needed. At all!
> 
> Double down on bonded accuracy; Embrace a E6 mechanical play paradigm.
> 
> ....
> 
> All Books, modules, AP, and sourcebooks released to the D&D VTT simultaneous with print releases – available on no other platforms.



So you don't need to buy the rulebooks. You don't need to buy the Monster Manual. You don't have feats or multiclasses to fill up sourcebooks to buy. You don't need an app which would have a subscription and ads. You don't need to buy a software license. And there will only ever be one print version and one virtual version, as opposed to 4 or 5 virtual versions.

Congratulations!

You have run WOTC out of business.


----------



## Vaalingrade

What is even left the streamline?

At this point, the rules could be 'roll 1d20. If it is 11 or higher, you win' and people would be going 'TOO MUCH MATH'.

Of course then, they would just say 'you win' and people would be going 'WHY DOENS'T IT INVOLVE ROLLING A d20? THIS ISN'T D&D ANYMORE!'


----------



## Stalker0

Vaalingrade said:


> Why yes, I do want to go back to good game design.



Yeah, the criticism of 4e gets overblow around mechanics. The main problem was "packaging".

The idea in 4e of giving everyone encounter and daily abilities was fine, good even. But the way it was presented as "powers" and put in little boxes and everyone had the exact same amount and got them at the same levels....it just looks and feels incredibly "gamey". 5e still uses the same fundamental tenant of encounter and daily "powers" but the flavor and description is much more evocative. 

Design is important....packaging even more so.


----------



## Nebulous

I also wonder how Level Up will influence 6e.


----------



## Oofta

Vaalingrade said:


> What is even left the streamline?
> 
> At this point, the rules could be 'roll 1d20. If it is 11 or higher, you win' and people would be going 'TOO MUCH MATH'.
> 
> Of course then, they would just say 'you win' and people would be going 'WHY DOENS'T IT INVOLVE ROLLING A d20? THIS ISN'T D&D ANYMORE!'




Don't forget that for a lot of people the big complaint is that there's not enough complexity AKA tactical options.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oofta said:


> Don't forget that for a lot of people the big complaint is that there's not enough complexity AKA tactical options.



That's my complaint, actually.


----------



## tetrasodium

Snarf Zagyg said:


> By the same token, *the people who demand more and more crunch will also be disappointed,* because that's not the sweet spot of the mass market any more.



Your own post nicey illustrates why that bolded bit is probably off.  There might be degrees  of "I wanted more crunch than we got" or "I wanted crunch in other areas than we got", but the simplicity for the sake of simplicity excludes people who want crunch by removing the dials knobs & hooks needed


Snarf Zagyg said:


> But that's not what is likely to happen. *D&D is the "big tent" TTRPG.* Which means that the people who want it to completely eschew the past (get rid of classes! get rid the standard six ability scores! use a Blades in the Dark inventory system!) will be disappointed, because a huge selling point of D&D is the legacy and the nostalgia.



Yes to a degree it's a big tent, but that means the tent needs to include wide disparate groups.  In the case of people who want more crunch it's possible to include both people who want crunch as well as people who think that simplicity for the sake of simplicity is the best thing ever in one of a few ways

You include the crunch in the core & add a one sentence.  I'll use the tactical elements & AoOs as an example  "variant: Optionally for a $verb $adjective game you can can choose to ignore all Attacks of Opportunity other than making a ranged attack while within reach of a hostile opponent & leaving the reach of a hostile opponent without first using the disengage action" 
Include hooks for the crunch but hide the crunch itself  in a sidebar or table somewhere  such as "abilities with (Su) (Sp) tags will provoke an attack of opportunity as will making a ranged attack while threatened or moving more than 5 feet through threatened terrain without taking the disengage action"
The first one is going to be easier & more future proofed since people who don't want the AoOs in later additions can just ignore them while future additions could trivially require a complete rewrite of the sidebar or table.  A big tent philosophy and one true way drawing lines of exclusion to say crunch is bad so must be excluded are at odds with each other


----------



## auburn2

humble minion said:


> Depends on taste i suppose.  I get where you're coming from, but it'd depend a bit how the system worked.  A barbarian with 5 Con is damn near as hamstrung as the 5 Wis cleric, for instance and a low-Dex monk is a very sad panda, but i suppose a variant of the system that allocated different numbers of dice to multiple abilities in the case of MAD classes could work.
> 
> Having said that, the dice fall where they may.  My first ever D&D game was 4d6 drop lowest, roll 7 times and discard the lowest result, then arrange as preferred.  I rolled 11, 10, 8, 7, 7, 5, 4.  Tell you what, as a keen youngster, that was deflating as hell, though my more-experienced DM was kind enough to let me throw those stats and re-roll.
> 
> Which is why I think stat generation methods will remain largely as they are in any future 6e.  We allow players to pick every other aspect of their character, so why bind them to the whims of the dice for ability scores in particular?   And this is especially relevant for new players, who are more likely to get discouraged if they feel underpowered at the table compared to someone who had better luck with the dice during chargen.
> 
> Though in reference to the original conversation, I agree I would love to see abilities being more relevant to classes even if they're not a prime requisite.  Str in particular is wonderful for armoured frontline melee combatants and absolutely useless for anyone else.  You can't even make a brutish Str-based rogue without being wildly suboptimal, given sneak attack is restricted to Dex weapons.



If Characters are going to pick their scores they are naturally going to pick which score to make their lowest (say intelligence for the Barbarian or strength for the Rogue).  There is no way to eliminate this without taking away abilities all together.  No matter wheat you do some abilities will be worth dumping.  A high strength or expertise in athletics is required for any character to be effective at grappling or shoving. A high wisdom is required to be able to be able to stay in coontrol of your character against wisdom saves.  More hp helps everyone.  The reason these are dumped by certain classes is because they are less important, not becuse they are unimportant and players will always consider those tradeoffs if they are choosing what scores to make high and low.

Rolling and arranging them is no better than point buy in this regard, just brings an element of chance to it.  The only way to really do this right is to lock scores in place.

A str based rogue is very viable if you roll a high strength on your rogue and can't reduce it by putting another roll in its place or reducing the score in another ability and the strength-based rogue has the same attack and damage bonus as the dex-based rogue with the same score.

Most DMs don't allow below an 8 in any score, but if you do have an 8 build your character around it.  Barbarian with an 18 strength and 8 constitution - use finnesse weapons, take some levels in Rogue and get SA dice while also getting advantage every time you are in reckless rage .... or if you have a high wisdom take a few monk levels, or if you have high intelligence take 2 levels in wizard to get bladesong a couple shields to use when not raging.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

If I am being honest with myself:

I don’t think there will be a 6e per se.  much as I can play my Xbox series x with buddies and who have the Xbox one, I think the rules will mesh.  There will be new fluff and new options and certainly new language but I think they will keep the core mechanic and the current rules will be compatible if not a step behind.

they will count on people buying into the new art and new options.  I think bounded accuracy and the action economy will be roughly the same.

I think they will have a disclaimer about the new rules trumping the old where there is disagreement.

tashas will be core so to speak.  The whole lineage and species thing will certainly happen.  There will be lots of disclaimers and changes due to sensitivity issues. They will try to get rid of most narrative tropes but will keep the class based system.

it will be easily recognizable and usable for current 5e players.  As a result, being generally satisfied with the current edition (not completely but is that possible) I don’t predict much of a need for me or my group to purchase it.

75% of the changes will be cosmetic and driven by concerns other than game design.

they will clean up bonus actions I suspect.  I am thinking they include errata of course, many sage advice rulings and plaster coat and insert new disclaimers and narratives for reasons well telegraphed.

my big question is how long will this stay so popular?  Genuinely.  Now at my kids school they are playing at lunch and in clubs! like we did  at recess.

I wonder how long that will last.

broadly, the further forward we go the more the game will be divorced from its war game roots and skilled play imperative.  Not that this is inferior per se, just that even as the rules may not change a ton, play examples and media will focus more and more on narrative and story telling.

min my group story is frequently emergent based on in game decisions and then we improvise and roll with it based on what we think about our pc.

down the road I predict the encouragement will be for more shared world building, more realizing what the character has written for their background with dm being encouraged to not only use it but to her more closely to the player’s narrative.

mall that said, I don’t think the rules will change dramatically in any next iteration.


----------



## auburn2

Double post


----------



## Vaalingrade

Huh.

Maybe instead of 6e, they'll just finally make good on that ancient promise of modularity.


----------



## DnD Warlord

I would love to split the “background” “Linage” and “culture” all get fleshed out more to replace race/subrace.  
I would LOVE if all the classes had the warlock treatment.  2 sub classes (1st and 3rd level) plus lots of little choices (invocations) with your choices giving you daily at will and short rest abilities.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Vaalingrade said:


> Huh.
> 
> Maybe instead of 6e, they'll just finally make good on that ancient *promise* of modularity.




Posters keep using that word.  I do not think it means what they think it means.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Elfcrusher said:


> Posters keep using that word.  I do not think it means what they think it means.



Oh, I can't resist:


----------



## Vaalingrade

Elfcrusher said:


> Posters keep using that word.  I do not think it means what they think it means.



Yeah, should have said 'lie'.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Vaalingrade said:


> Yeah, should have said 'lie'.




Funny.  But still not accurate (as far as I know*).

"Hey, we are going to do X!" followed by "Hmm....X didn't really work out like we hoped."  is neither a lie nor a promise broken.

*Caveat: I suppose it's possible they knew it wasn't true when they said it.  :-/


----------



## dave2008

Vaalingrade said:


> Huh.
> 
> Maybe instead of 6e, they'll just finally make good on that ancient promise of modularity.



Did they promise that though?  It has been a while since I have seen this debated, but most of what I remember was people thinking they promised that, but they never actually did.  They discussed it and such, but it came down to people hearing what they wanted to hear and assuming WotC promised modularity, but they never really did. I could definitely be wrong (and I don't really care), but that was the outcome of the various debates about this if I remember correctly.


----------



## dave2008

Elfcrusher said:


> Funny.  But still not accurate (as far as I know*).
> 
> "Hey, we are going to do X!" followed by "Hmm....X didn't really work out like we hoped."  is neither a lie nor a promise broken.
> 
> *Caveat: I suppose it's possible they knew it wasn't true when they said it.  :-/



Didn't Monte Cook leave the 5e development team somewhere in the middle?  Not sure if it related to end of the discussions on modularity, but it was definitely not something they were discussing at the end of the playtest, IIRC.


----------



## Sacrosanct

dave2008 said:


> Did they promise that though?  It has been a while since I have seen this debated, but most of what I remember was people thinking they promised that, but they never actually did.  They discussed it and such, but it came down to people hearing what they wanted to hear and assuming WotC promised modularity, but they never really did. I could definitely be wrong (and I don't really care), but that was the outcome of the various debates about this if I remember correctly.



That's my recollection, but I could be wrong.  I seem to recall Mearls saying how they would see if they can work modularity into the game.  I'm guessing they were initially wanting to take all the optional rules and put them into modules, but ended up scrapping the modularity idea and just left them as stand alone optional rules.  

Putting on my designer hat, I would imagine it's because "if we put optional rule X, Y, and Z into module 1, and optional rule A, B, C into module 2, then people who want optional rule A and Y will feel like they have to use both modules, rather than just choosing the optional rules they want." or "if a player doesn't want to use C or D, they might assume they can't use A either."  And from a client (player) standpoint, that's a bad thing.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

I'm more in the boat that sales of an edition is more important to WotC than rules clutter. Meaning, even if an edition is running out of rules material or is even creating too many inconsistent rules, if the product still makes huge sales you don't start from scratch.

Is simply doesn't make much business sense that they would kill the sacred cow of 5E when it sells so well. Almost all the $ people will scream at the rules people to not go near the subject of a 6E.

Now, I think it's maybe possible that a 5.5 edition is made in a couple years, that is essentially just 5E with some changes made for racial mechanics and maybe some other things like bonus actions. But I don't think it would hugely invalidate big swathes of published 5E rules either.


----------



## Bacon Bits

DemoMonkey said:


> 6th Edition will come with carbine action and 200 shots, with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time.




You'll shoot your eye out, kid.



dave2008 said:


> Didn't Monte Cook leave the 5e development team somewhere in the middle?  Not sure if it related to end of the discussions on modularity, but it was definitely not something they were discussing at the end of the playtest, IIRC.




Cook began as lead designer in January 2012 and left in April 2012 before the public playtesting began. [Many of the reference links on those pages are dead, which is unsurprising given how long ago it was.] Cook was pretty adamant that his reasons for leaving had nothing to do with the design of the 5e and everything to do with a disagreement with the company. Beyond that I don't think he's ever made it clear what the issue was.


----------



## Hatmatter

Sacrosanct said:


> Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past.  This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, but when it does, what changes do you expect to see based on what you've seen WoTC do in the past few years in regards to errata, rules changes, design directions, etc.
> 
> For me, I think Tasha's was a signal flare of sorts.  And with the recent UA, I think the writing is clearly on the wall.  We will see a 6e, because some of the most cherished sacred cows of D&D are going to go through big changes on how the rules are going to be written for them.  Also, when I look at the history of D&D, it seems more common than not that when you reach the point where there are a lot character options and most/all of the campaign settings are out there, we see a new edition in a year or so.
> 
> 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.
> 2e to 3e: The Player's Options books were clearly a look at revising the rules, (and of course WoTC would want their own edition rather than TSR's 2e)
> 3e to 4e: 4e was announced almost immediately after the Complete X books came out (complete champion was June 2007 and 2 months later 4e was announced, so they were clearly talking about 4e long before that).
> 4e to 5e: 4e churned out a lot of player's options and settings right out of the gate.  3 player's handbooks, 3 monster manuals, and 2 DMGs in a 2 year period.  By the time 2012 came and the Player's Options books (Feywild and Elemental Chaos), pretty much everything was covered.  5e was announced shortly after (actually announced before PO Elemental came out).  Yes, sales figures had a lot to do with it, but more to the overall point:_
> 
> When an edition has pretty much gone through all the core archetypes, and all of the most popular settings have been created, a new edition soon follows.  I'm guessing a large factor is because not as many people buy the outlier materials.  Complete book of fighters is gonna sell more copies than Complete book of gnomes.  Forgotten Realms campaign setting will sell more than Spelljammer.  Etc.  So from a business perspective, in order to increase sales, come out with a new edition.
> 
> 5e sales are still really strong, and I suspect that's because of the slow release schedule so a lot of the popular material (like settings of Darksun and Dragonlance) is still yet to be addressed.  That's why it's currently one of the longest running edition of D&D ever (almost 10 years since announcement) with at least another year or two.  But it is starting to see the end of the tunnel re: archetypes.  With books like Tasha's we're starting to see some of the more weird and unusual class/subclass/race options.
> 
> The former point is the actual design changes we're seeing in Tasha's and the Gothic legacy UA.  Similar to the Player's Options books of 2e, we're seeing some significant changes to how character creation and advancement is being handled now.
> 
> That leads me to my prediction of 6e and what we'll see and expect.
> 
> *Races*: Racial modifiers are gone.  Caps won't make an appearance.  The term "race" might even go away to something like Ancestry or Legacy (I think PF does something like this).  Racial choices will have a few traits based on physiological aspects, and not cultural.  A race like goliath will have a powerful build trait to represent how they are stronger.  Gnomes will have magic resistance.  Halfling will be lucky, etc.
> 
> Ability score modifiers and other traits will be based on culture/heritage options.  Also like PF2 does I think (and a lot of indie games are doing it the same way going forward).  Instead of getting a +1 bonus to strength for being an orc, perhaps you get a +1 bonus to strength for being a fighter, or choosing a warfare culture, etc.  Or instead of ASIs, you get feats that are related to your culture/heritage.
> 
> *Alignment: *We've already seen how humanoid races are no longer inherently evil.  This continues.  I think no intelligent species will have a default alignment any longer. That will be saved for monsters/fiends/undead.  I would not be surprised to see a shift away from the 9 alignments and go back to the B/X version of general overviews of alignments.  At least for PCs.  Most PCs don't follow alignment anyway, but shift back and forth depending on what's going on in the game.  I doubt that will happen, but I wouldn't be shocked if it did.
> 
> *Classes*: A lot more subclass kits, but they will be less robust than they are now, and you may be able to choose more than one.  Something between a feat and a subclass as we see them in 5e.  And closer to as they appeared in the playtest docs.  The reason for this, is because I think it addresses the omission of classes like the warlord, shaman, and others.  For example, all fighters are good at fighting martially, but a warlord kit gives you abilities that you gain at various levels to inspire allies and enforce battlefield tactics.  While a battlemaster is all about maneuvers, and a champion gives you out of combat abilities, etc.  If they really want to make the change, they would get rid of subclasses/kits altogether and expand and expound backgrounds to fill that role.  However they do it, I strongly suspect they will have the class as a chassis with the core features, then a lot of options you can add for backgrounds or subclass kits, and those would largely be class agnostic (warlord background with a rogue class?  Why not?).
> 
> Anywho, those are my predictions of a 6e.  Rather than driven by sales, I think a driving factor will be how the gaming community views design today.  I.e., things like race and alignment and the problematic issues therein.



Speaking for myself, I see no reason for a sixth edition. It’s fine for a game to have supplemental options. The problem with most of the proposed revisions is that they are either incidental ones that many DMs already do according to their taste, or they interfere with making it easier for a new player to step in and play. In other words, there are conflicting goals if one will attempt to integrate some of Tasha’s into the PHB...the more racial or subclass options are in PHB, the more difficult it is for a beginner to learn.

I would like to see Wizards continue to develop and grow the game by putting their resources into new adventures, rules for mass combat, for high level adventure, the exploration of settings and locations, and unexpected fun.

The proposition of yet _another_ PHB/DMG/MM series and the inevitable conversations to follow about updating this or that old book into sixth edition is so exhausting and tedious to me. I think D&D is at its best when the rules are a vehicle for fun rather than the subject of endless tinkering on the path to a vision of perfection that, rather than arriving, seems to engender louder and depressing complaints and divisions. In our era of poisonous divisiveness, 5th edition has been nearly miraculous in growing the hobby.


----------



## Oofta

dave2008 said:


> Did they promise that though?  It has been a while since I have seen this debated, but most of what I remember was people thinking they promised that, but they never actually did.  They discussed it and such, but it came down to people hearing what they wanted to hear and assuming WotC promised modularity, but they never really did. I could definitely be wrong (and I don't really care), but that was the outcome of the various debates about this if I remember correctly.




IIRC there was a single blog post back in 2012 or so that said something about it.  I also seem to remember that it was widely misinterpreted to mean something that was never meant.  Take a look at the DMG, there's sections like "roll of the dice", theater of the mind vs grids, and optional rules for resting, lasting injuries,  etc.  Then there's a bunch of stuff that's optional like feats and multi-classing. 

I think there is a fair bit of modularity already in the system.  Could there be more tactical rules for example?  Sure.  But none of those rules made the cut during playtesting.   Ultimately people wanted a relatively streamlined system, not a game that greatly rewards rules mastery or plays like GURPS.

Seems to me that we were never promised modularity in the sense that some people interpret it.  They tested various things, found out what seemed to work and created a game that has far exceeded their expectations.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

We are ready for a sourcebook as 3.5 Unearted Arcana, with lots of alternate rules and options. Other thing would be a d20 Modern 2.0. where WotC could allow herself to get rid off some sacred cows, such things as a different list of abilities scores for games with more investigations or social interactions, for example noir detective against Lovecraftian cults or palace intrigues at the fae court. 

The prototype of 6th Ed will be a not-fantasy ARPG videogame, maybe a sci-fi shooter. The goal would be a system where famous videogames franchises were easy to be adapted.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Oofta said:


> IIRC there was a single blog post back in 2012 or so that said something about it.  I also seem to remember that it was widely misinterpreted to mean something that was never meant.  Take a look at the DMG, there's sections like "roll of the dice", theater of the mind vs grids, and optional rules for resting, lasting injuries,  etc.  Then there's a bunch of stuff that's optional like feats and multi-classing.
> 
> I think there is a fair bit of modularity already in the system.  Could there be more tactical rules for example?  Sure.  But none of those rules made the cut during playtesting.   Ultimately people wanted a relatively streamlined system, not a game that greatly rewards rules mastery or plays like GURPS.
> 
> Seems to me that we were never promised modularity in the sense that some people interpret it.  They tested various things, found out what seemed to work and created a game that has far exceeded their expectations.



Seems like semantics to a degree.  We have feats and multiclassing for example.

I think to include them significantly changes things.

when you read the dmg—-really read it——there are lots of optional rules to include combat rules.

other than getting rid of races and classes, not sure how many more parts we can chop a core game into and still have a unified whole.  Especially true if we consider every player option outside of phb is a modular optional addition!


----------



## Jaeger

embee said:


> You don't have feats or multiclasses to fill up sourcebooks to buy. You don't need an app which would have a subscription and ads. You don't need to buy a software license. And there will only ever be one print version and one virtual version, as opposed to 4 or 5 virtual versions.




My aim would be to have a version that is between 5e an B/X in _running_ complexity.

But with more choices available to PC's during advancement.

TSR managed to turn out gobs of material for B/X somehow. And who said the dedicated VTT would be free?




Vaalingrade said:


> What is even left the streamline?




There are plenty of issues in play with 5e that could use a second look.

And _streamline_ does not = simplify.




Oofta said:


> I think there is a fair bit of modularity already in the system. Could there be more tactical rules for example? Sure. But none of those rules made the cut during playtesting.




That is one of the weaknesses of the system IMHO.

D&D needs 3-6 standard combat maneuvers/options that any PC can do. And they need no be complex multi roll affairs.

Just viable tactics that can be better options in certain situations other than _"I hit him with my best attack"_ over and over again.

They need not add more complexity than what 5e already does with its action economy.


----------



## tetrasodium

LuisCarlos17f said:


> We are ready for a sourcebook as 3.5 Unearted Arcana, with lots of alternate rules and options. Other thing would be a d20 Modern 2.0. where WotC could allow herself to get rid off some sacred cows, such things as a different list of abilities scores for games with more investigations or social interactions, for example noir detective against Lovecraftian cults or palace intrigues at the fae court.
> 
> The prototype of 6th Ed will be a not-fantasy ARPG videogame, maybe a sci-fi shooter. The goal would be a system where famous videogames franchises were easy to be adapted.



The runup to tasha's made it sound like it was going to have a lot of  very phb2/unearthed arcana type variant X  type stuff.  Sadly they stopped short after a brief glance in that direction & weren't really ready to take that step, hopefully with some feedback & the most recent lineages UA thing we will get there.  If not I'm looking forward to a5e


----------



## jmartkdr2

Urriak Uruk said:


> I'm more in the boat that sales of an edition is more important to WotC than rules clutter. Meaning, even if an edition is running out of rules material or is even creating too many inconsistent rules, if the product still makes huge sales you don't start from scratch.
> 
> Is simply doesn't make much business sense that they would kill the sacred cow of 5E when it sells so well. Almost all the $ people will scream at the rules people to not go near the subject of a 6E.
> 
> Now, I think it's maybe possible that a 5.5 edition is made in a couple years, that is essentially just 5E with some changes made for racial mechanics and maybe some other things like bonus actions. But I don't think it would hugely invalidate big swathes of published 5E rules either.



Sale will start to dip when they stop coming out with new toys for the player base to buy - not only because you lose the direct sales, but you let the conversation die off, which creates a gap for competitors to fill and take away your audience. "Clutter" isn't the problem except in as much as it makes it harder to make new sourcebooks that account for all the existing optional rules.

But as the past several years have shown, you do not need a lot of content to keep us chatting. And chatter > people hearing about the game > new sales.

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.

(The same thing happens with fandoms of all stripes. New show > fresh memes > people checking out the show. Unexpected wins > more people watching the games > more jerseys sold. Etc.)


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

I have mixed emotions about the way D&D seems to be going. Some of the changes I support, others I'm more uncertain about. I just hope they don't entirely do away with what it means to be of a certain species, at least culturally. Of course, just like in real life, each member of a species is an individual, and not the sum of their culture, but each species _does _have a culture. Just like in the real world, this adds to diversity, not depletes it. One of the reasons I didn't really like the changes made to the bladesinger was because it was a part of elven culture as much as it was a class.

Sure, the shifts have allowed for you to play a halfling raised by dwarves, so you would be "culturally" more dwarven, but I just hope they don't do away with certain cultural "identifiers" if you will of a given species. Elves have their own culture, dwarves have theirs, halflings, orcs, etc.


----------



## dave2008

Jaeger said:


> D&D needs 3-6 standard combat maneuvers/options that any PC can do. And they need no be complex multi roll affairs.



I could maybe get on bored with a few standard maneuvers, but I see no reason to make them complex multi roll options.


----------



## dave2008

SehanineMoonbow said:


> l.., but each species _does _have a culture.



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.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

I'm just about to wrap up my first level 1-20 campaign for 5E. I also have multiple active lower level campaigns. After over 150 sessions, I feel like I have a solid grasp of how the game plays. Here's the headline: 5E plays just fine at all levels. 

At 20th level, I can run monsters straight out of the book against player characters built straight out of the book. PCs are very powerful but not invulnerable. Combat is a bit slow and grindy. However, I have five PCs plus allied NPCs, so our sessions have always been somewhat slow. But it's not enough to kill the tension and I can still generate suspense.

One recurring point of friction is between short rest classes vs long rest classes. My group rarely takes shorts rests, in part because I like to put them on a ticking clock. The result is that short rest classes have felt underpowered. I've tweaked the rules to accommodate that, but it came late.

Monster design is also simply not as elegant or exciting as 4E. Related to that, I wish that 5E had taken 13th Age's approach to building dynamic combats without the requirement of a grid. 5E is distinctly tilted more toward an attrition model than a set piece encounter model -- and I prefer the latter as it supports more cinematic storytelling.

Overall, 5E has been a great D&D experience.


----------



## Oofta

dave2008 said:


> 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.




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.


----------



## dave2008

THEMNGMNT said:


> One recurring point of friction is between short rest classes vs long rest classes. My group rarely takes shorts rests, in part because I like to put them on a ticking clock. The result is that short rest classes have felt underpowered. I've tweaked the rules to accommodate that, but it came late.



Not sure what you did, but the new paradigm appears to be a number of uses equal to your proficiency bonus per *long* rest. You would need to adjust for some classes.  For example, I might give the battlemaster 2x profiencey bonus # of maneuvers per long rest.


THEMNGMNT said:


> Monster design is also simply not as elegant or exciting as 4E.



I don't know that I agree with that.  I've made a lot of custom monsters throughout 4e and 5e and am fairly familiar with both. I think we sometimes forget 4e monsters went through a number of redesigns before the hit their sweet spot in the MM3 and after (really the essentials line of monster books were the best IMO).  We also forget there were a lot of fairly boring monsters in 4e too.  Finally, there are actually a lot of interesting monsters in 5e (even more so after the MM). In fact, I would agree the legendary monsters are more interesting than their 4e equivalent 80% of the time.


----------



## Oofta

THEMNGMNT said:


> I'm just about to wrap up my first level 1-20 campaign for 5E. I also have multiple active lower level campaigns. After over 150 sessions, I feel like I have a solid grasp of how the game plays. Here's the headline: 5E plays just fine at all levels.
> 
> At 20th level, I can run monsters straight out of the book against player characters built straight out of the book. PCs are very powerful but not invulnerable. Combat is a bit slow and grindy. However, I have five PCs plus allied NPCs, so our sessions have always been somewhat slow. But it's not enough to kill the tension and I can still generate suspense.
> 
> One recurring point of friction is between short rest classes vs long rest classes. My group rarely takes shorts rests, in part because I like to put them on a ticking clock. The result is that short rest classes have felt underpowered. I've tweaked the rules to accommodate that, but it came late.
> 
> Monster design is also simply not as elegant or exciting as 4E. Related to that, I wish that 5E had taken 13th Age's approach to building dynamic combats without the requirement of a grid. 5E is distinctly tilted more toward an attrition model than a set piece encounter model -- and I prefer the latter as it supports more cinematic storytelling.
> 
> Overall, 5E has been a great D&D experience.



I've run one campaign to level 20, played in another.  I think things work at every level.  While the game does run a bit slower at high levels there are some things you can do to speed combat up.  But overall?  Even if I have to throw infinite dragons I can have level appropriate encounters and had fun at all levels.  

Having run and played 4th to level 30, and run/played previous editions up to higher levels I'd say 5E does better than any previous edition at high level play for me.


----------



## dave2008

Oofta said:


> 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.



I don't know, I think there might be a way to make most of the people happy.  Your never going to get the fringes (like me), so go with what works for most. I think there is a happy medium that most would be OK with.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

dave2008 said:


> Not sure what you did, but the new paradigm appears to be a number of uses equal to your proficiency bonus per *long* rest. You would need to adjust for some classes.  For example, I might give the battlemaster 2x profiencey bonus # of maneuvers per long rest.
> 
> I don't know that I agree with that.  I've made a lot of custom monsters throughout 4e and 5e and am fairly familiar with both. I think we sometimes forget 4e monsters went through a number of redesigns before the hit their sweet spot in the MM3 and after (really the essentials line of monster books were the best IMO).  We also forget there were a lot of fairly boring monsters in 4e too.  Finally, there are actually a lot of interesting monsters in 5e (even more so after the MM). In fact, I would agree the legendary monsters are more interesting than their 4e equivalent 80% of the time.



For short rests, I made them 5 minutes long, and gave 2 short rests per long rests. I do like the simplicity and scaling of keying it off proficiency bonus, however. Would have been a great mechanic to have in the original PHB.

Regarding 4E monsters, I'll take your word for it. I've not played 4E. But I have the books. Looking at frost giants, for example, the 4E versions are much more varied and evocative than what 5E offers. In 5E, spellcasting monsters can be painful...especially those built on the warlock chassis. I really hate having to calculate mid-battle how many eldritch blasts a monster gets! I think this is part of why "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" has been so successful...because there's often an optimal way 5E monsters are meant to be played, but for complex monsters that way is obscured in the stat block.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

jmartkdr2 said:


> Sale will start to dip when they stop coming out with new toys for the player base to buy - not only because you lose the direct sales, but you let the conversation die off, which creates a gap for competitors to fill and take away your audience. "Clutter" isn't the problem except in as much as it makes it harder to make new sourcebooks that account for all the existing optional rules.
> 
> But as the past several years have shown, you do not need a lot of content to keep us chatting. And chatter > people hearing about the game > new sales.
> 
> 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.
> 
> (The same thing happens with fandoms of all stripes. New show > fresh memes > people checking out the show. Unexpected wins > more people watching the games > more jerseys sold. Etc.)




Agreed. I'll add that the some WotC staff (I'm forgetting their names and jobs... Nathan Stewart?) have said on those big streams that they are planning on pumping out more settings. Campaign Setting Books seem like a really easy way to provide more rules for races and class options that extend the product life of 5E.

Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft... new Magic the Gathering settings, and probably others... all of these will make the life of 5E as long as people keep buying them.


----------



## dave2008

THEMNGMNT said:


> For short rests, I made them 5 minutes long, and gave 2 short rests per long rests. I do like the simplicity and scaling of keying it off proficiency bonus, however. Would have been a great mechanic to have in the original PHB.



Some of the newer subclass key abilities of proficiency.  I think a refreshed 5e will probably unify classes / subclasses around this type of design.


THEMNGMNT said:


> Regarding 4E monsters, I'll take your word for it. I've not played 4E. But I have the books. Looking at frost giants, for example, the 4E versions are much more varied and evocative than what 5E offers.



First I want to clarify that I am not saying there were not more interesting versions of some monsters (or even most) in 4e.  4e had multiple versions of most monsters from the get go, where as 5e typical had one version, but had more different monsters.  However, over time there have been increasing versions of the same monsters.  Gnolls are a good example of this.  Frost Giants; however, are not. 

Also, one of the strengths when comparing 4e monsters to 5e monsters is all the movement and conditions they enforce. However, this was indicative of the system as whole.  It didn't feel special when play 4e because every monster did it. 

I also contend legendary monsters do a better job as solo creatures than the 4e "solos" did. And 5e mythic monsters even more so and even more evocative.

However, there are certain things I like a lot about 4e monsters:

Roles (brute, soldier, etc) where interesting, gave you a starting point, and initially had mechanical impact (this became less and less as monster design was revised throughout the edition
Tiers (minion, standard, elite, & solo): This design allowed a lot of flexibility and really appreciated it. I tried to impliment this in 5e, but it really isn't need with BA, you just use a higher CR monster or the ne mythic monster rules.



THEMNGMNT said:


> In 5E, spellcasting monsters can be painful...especially those built on the warlock chassis. I really hate having to calculate mid-battle how many eldritch blasts a monster gets! I think this is part of why "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" has been so successful...because there's often an optimal way 5E monsters are meant to be played, but for complex monsters that way is obscured in the stat block.



I used to agree with you, but I have since change my mind somewhat.  My preference is a combination.  When I design a 5e monster, i give it all of the traits, spells, and actions spelled out in its stat block to justify the CR.  I then add spell casting (per typical 5e design) as needed to round out the monster and give stuff for those who want to do a deeper dive. I like this because I don't have to detail all the spells out in the statblock, but I know they are there if I need them. Official 5e monsters are moving this way too (including at least on spell spelled out in the stat block).


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Aldarc said:


> I'm not entirely sure, though this may depend on what we regard as "minor issues." Mike Mearls is on the record saying that he regretted how Bonus Action works and interacts with other rules (e.g., Two Weapon Fighting). They may seem minor actions, but a fair number mechanics are linked to bonus actions.



He later said that he figured out his actual issue was with two weapon fighting using up the bonus action rather than just riding along on the attack action.


----------



## Vaalingrade

dave2008 said:


> I don't know that I agree with that.  I've made a lot of custom monsters throughout 4e and 5e and am fairly familiar with both. I think we sometimes forget 4e monsters went through a number of redesigns before the hit their sweet spot in the MM3 and after (really the essentials line of monster books were the best IMO).  We also forget there were a lot of fairly boring monsters in 4e too.  Finally, there are actually a lot of interesting monsters in 5e (even more so after the MM). In fact, I would agree the legendary monsters are more interesting than their 4e equivalent 80% of the time.



Eh, the 'sack full of SA's' thing is still a problem. And the guys that eat you max HP. And anything that requires a save because save proficiencies are the devil.

Also Legendary Resistance - AKA Frustration: the Design Element.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> I agree that racial modifiers are probably gone in 6e.  Good riddance.
> 
> I would assume that the plan is:
> 
> Races have no ASIs
> 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.



I’d rather just skip lineage as anything more than a flavorful ribbon and some fluff that the player can change as they like, than something like that. 

What on earth would a lineage even be, in that scenario? Why bother?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vaalingrade said:


> Eh, the 'sack full of SA's' thing is still a problem. And the guys that eat you max HP. And anything that requires a save because save proficiencies are the devil.
> 
> Also Legendary Resistance - AKA Frustration: the Design Element.



I love Legendary Resistance, both as a player and a GM. 

Frustration isn’t inherently bad.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Anyway I have 2 predictions, in order of likelihood. 

1) 6th Edition will not ever happen. Full stop. An anniversary reprint of the 3 core books might happen, but it won’t be anything we can honestly call a new edition in the sense D&D has always used the term.

2) Big playtest, with several times more participants than the last one, and we won’t accurately predict much of anything beyond that.


----------



## Hatmatter

doctorbadwolf said:


> He later said that he figured out his actual issue was with two weapon fighting using up the bonus action rather than just riding along on the attack action.



Yes, exactly. He later clarified that his issue was not with bonus actions per se.


----------



## Vaalingrade

doctorbadwolf said:


> I love Legendary Resistance, both as a player and a GM.
> 
> Frustration isn’t inherently bad.



My problems are twofold:

1) They exist because they brought the game-ruining spells back but don't want them to be used on bosses. 
2) It makes mages have to pump fake for three round before actually getting to participate. Now I'm not saying mages need any more special attention and coddling than they already get--especially wizards and their damned niche protection--but three rounds it a lot of time to spent hating your life before getting to be part of the game. It's like being the fighter in every non-combat encounter.


----------



## Dausuul

dave2008 said:


> I think we sometimes forget 4e monsters went through a number of redesigns before the hit their sweet spot in the MM3 and after (really the essentials line of monster books were the best IMO).



Yep. Both 4E and 5E took a while to nail down the monster math. In both cases, the main problem was monsters having too many hit points and not enough damage, so fights degenerated into a boring grind.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> What on earth would a lineage even be, in that scenario? Why bother?




In which scenario, specifically?


----------



## Stalker0

Another one I'd like to see, are good on the fly ways to update encounters to handle 6 PCs instead of 4, without it being just "more monsters". The problem with that model is that with 6 PCs, combat is already slower than with 4. Than add on even more monsters on top, and its even slower.


----------



## Stalker0

dave2008 said:


> I don't know that I agree with that.  I've made a lot of custom monsters throughout 4e and 5e and am fairly familiar with both. I think we sometimes forget 4e monsters went through a number of redesigns before the hit their sweet spot in the MM3 and after (really the essentials line of monster books were the best IMO).



I will echo this, especially MM1 was grind city. One of the most popular threads I ever posted on Enworld was my "Guide to Anti-Grind" because it was so prevalent.

I will say though that I think 4e made more improvements with time than 5e has. If we consider Volo and Mordenkainen's the MM2 and 3 of 5e...while there have been improvements, I think 4e really nailed it with MM3, where as Volo and Morden still have some of my same issues with MM1 monsters. However, the flavor packaging they add around the mechanics is significantly better than what 4e had.

One of the things that Pathfinder did that I liked was it kept certain debilitating effects but removed the permanency. Negative levels for example, some of them last for an hour or so...but then they go away, as opposed to "you are screwed forever!". The fear is there when you get, the debilitation lasts for a fight or two...but no risk that your character is permanently maimed. It hit the sweet spot for me. Hehe now what I don't like in Pathfinder are the conditions that can last for minutes, being out of the entire combat is just not interesting.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> In which scenario, specifically?



The one you presented in the post I quoted?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vaalingrade said:


> My problems are twofold:
> 
> 1) They exist because they brought the game-ruining spells back but don't want them to be used on bosses.
> 2) It makes mages have to pump fake for three round before actually getting to participate. Now I'm not saying mages need any more special attention and coddling than they already get--especially wizards and their damned niche protection--but three rounds it a lot of time to spent hating your life before getting to be part of the game. It's like being the fighter in every non-combat encounter.



Neither of those is true, IMO/E. 

1) No spells in 5e are game-ruining, and they do get used on bosses. The DM running the “boss”, and the PCs fighting them, have to make tactical choices about resources based on the ability.
2) I have never seen 3 rounds of faking out happen, in hundreds of battles where LR was in play, and I add the feature to pretty much any “leader” or “solo” type critter. 
2a) I have seen fake outs, but it was hardly just from the mage
2b) Mages have powerful spells that don’t require a save, and save spells that are still good on a successful save. 
2c) Sometimes the boss just takes the fireball or whatever because they know there are worse spells out there to have to take

Now, I also have started rewriting the Fighter to get Legendary Actions and Resistance in place of Extra Extra Attack and Indomitable, and I also use both features for groups of baddies that work as a unit.


----------



## Raith5

dave2008 said:


> Did they promise that though?  It has been a while since I have seen this debated, but most of what I remember was people thinking they promised that, but they never actually did.  They discussed it and such, but it came down to people hearing what they wanted to hear and assuming WotC promised modularity, but they never really did. I could definitely be wrong (and I don't really care), but that was the outcome of the various debates about this if I remember correctly.




I remember the two posts where they set the idea of modularity out. I remember it was quite explicit and detailed - but very ambitious. I dont remember all the details but I think tactical play goals were set out in the advanced module. I would love to see those posts again.

At the end of the day, we got the basic rules module in the free rules set but much of more advanced module has never come. The problem here for (for me) is that they choose to make the modules 'stackable' so that you could play a basic fighter and a complicated fighter at the same table - but surely this is a huge drag on what advanced play could ever deliver. Consequently, they were never able to explore this space and this market of tactical play gamers moved elsewhere (and could be serviced by 4e, PF2 etc).


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> The one you presented in the post I quoted?




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.


----------



## dave2008

doctorbadwolf said:


> Now, I also have started rewriting the Fighter to get Legendary Actions



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


----------



## CleverNickName

I like what @Elfcrusher has posted above, except I would call it "Ancestry" instead of lineage, and I would limit them to only the things that a character would be "born with," like darkvision and size category (as opposed to something they would later learn or be trained to do, such as proficiencies).  Things your character trained for, that reflect your life experience and education since birth (including ability score increases) would fit best in Background and/or Class, I think.

Example:  a high elf Warlock.

Ancestry: High Elf (medium size, 30' speed, darkvision, trance, etc.)
Background:  Sage (+1 Intelligence and +1 Charisma, Arcana and History proficiency, two languages, etc.)
Class: Warlock (+1 Charisma, otherworldly patron, pact magic, etc.)


----------



## Jaeger

Oofta said:


> 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

dave2008 said:


> 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

Jaeger said:


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





Jaeger said:


> 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. 


Jaeger said:


> 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.



 


Jaeger said:


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






Jaeger said:


> 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. 


Jaeger said:


> 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. 


Jaeger said:


> 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

Elfcrusher said:


> 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

doctorbadwolf said:


> 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:

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.
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

Elfcrusher said:


> 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

Elfcrusher said:


> 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:
> 
> 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.
> 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

doctorbadwolf said:


> 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

Elfcrusher said:


> 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.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> 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.




Actually, it's a freakin' great idea.  

But to each his or her own!


----------



## Scribe

I still think the best system gives you an ASI for race (restricted unless human) one for background (defined as part of that background) and one for Class.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Hatmatter said:


> Yes, exactly. He later clarified that his issue was not with bonus actions per se.



Yep. I love the bonus action, so I was very happy for that. IMO it’s a great bit of design space, though in my own system UA instead have 2 quick actions per round, which combine bonus action and reaction into one thing you can use twice a round.


Elfcrusher said:


> Actually, it's a freakin' great idea.
> 
> But to each his or her own!



Sure. I don’t see how “choose between elf and forest folk” is better than being able to be both, and have both not just be cosmetic flavor, but okay.


----------



## Mercurius

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.


----------



## dave2008

Scribe said:


> I still think the best system gives you an ASI for race (restricted unless human) one for background (defined as part of that background) and one for Class.



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.


----------



## TheSword

THEMNGMNT said:


> For short rests, I made them 5 minutes long, and gave 2 short rests per long rests. I do like the simplicity and scaling of keying it off proficiency bonus, however. Would have been a great mechanic to have in the original PHB.
> 
> Regarding 4E monsters, I'll take your word for it. I've not played 4E. But I have the books. Looking at frost giants, for example, the 4E versions are much more varied and evocative than what 5E offers. In 5E, spellcasting monsters can be painful...especially those built on the warlock chassis. I really hate having to calculate mid-battle how many eldritch blasts a monster gets! I think this is part of why "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" has been so successful...because there's often an optimal way 5E monsters are meant to be played, but for complex monsters that way is obscured in the stat block.



It’s a bit of a tangent but I’m struggling to think of which monster is based on a warlock chassis?


----------



## dave2008

TheSword said:


> It’s a bit of a tangent but I’m struggling to think of which monster is based on a warlock chassis?



A custom monster I am guessing?  I can think of no good reason to do it myself.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t see how “choose between elf and forest folk” is better than being able to be both, and have both not just be cosmetic flavor, but okay.




It's a question of whether or not you try to anticipate every combination the players might want.  Sure, you can create a race/lineage for both elf and wood-elf.  But what if a player wants a wood halfling?  Do you just disallow that, or do you _also_ have a a lineage for generic "forest folk".  If the latter, there are now two very different ways of creating forest-folk.

I mean, one could solve it by adding a fourth option to chargen, so you choose elf as your race _and_ forest folk as your lineage, but we both agree that's not a good solution.

Alternately, background could be co-opted, but that changes the meaning of background.

I agree my solution* wouldn't give people what they're used to getting, but it's a good solution.

*It's not really "my" solution; it's the logical end-point of what we see in the lineage UA.  If WotC _doesn't_ do this, they're essentially going to have a weird hybrid system that only makes sense to people who have been playing for a long time.


----------



## Dausuul

TheSword said:


> It’s a bit of a tangent but I’m struggling to think of which monster is based on a warlock chassis?



Volo's has statblocks for Warlock of the Fiend, Warlock of the Archfey, and Warlock of the Great Old One. The blood witch, from "Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica," is warlock-ish. It doesn't follow the design as strictly as the Volo's ones, but it is still clearly designed to represent a warlock (Devil's Sight, _eldritch blast_, uses warlock spells like _hex_).


----------



## Hatmatter

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep. I love the bonus action, so I was very happy for that. IMO it’s a great bit of design space, though in my own system UA instead have 2 quick actions per round, which combine bonus action and reaction into one thing you can use twice a round.
> 
> Sure. I don’t see how “choose between elf and forest folk” is better than being able to be both, and have both not just be cosmetic flavor, but okay.



Yes, as someone who started with Basic (the Moldvay version from 1981) and 1st edition at around the same time, I thought the bonus action was a great addition, as was the notion of advantage/disadvantage. While I'm at it, I love the subclass system combined with backgrounds (seems to nicely balance prestige classes and kits) and the multi-classing option (in our play experience they hit a great way to provide options and also balance and it is preferable to the old multi-class/dual class options in 1st edition). Basically, I think 5th edition is the bee's knees...my hope is that they are still get started with it. I would love to see some creative publications that add elements to D&D that we have never seen before.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> It's a question of whether or not you try to anticipate every combination the players might want.  Sure, you can create a race/lineage for both elf and wood-elf.  But what if a player wants a wood halfling?  Do you just disallow that, or do you _also_ have a a lineage for generic "forest folk".  If the latter, there are now two very different ways of creating forest-folk.
> 
> I mean, one could solve it by adding a fourth option to chargen, so you choose elf as your race _and_ forest folk as your lineage, but we both agree that's not a good solution.
> 
> Alternately, background could be co-opted, but that changes the meaning of background.
> 
> I agree my solution* wouldn't give people what they're used to getting, but it's a good solution.
> 
> *It's not really "my" solution; it's the logical end-point of what we see in the lineage UA.  If WotC _doesn't_ do this, they're essentially going to have a weird hybrid system that only makes sense to people who have been playing for a long time.



It isn’t at all a logical end point for what wotc is doing, it’s very much your solution.

And Background can grow to encompass upbringing just fine, while it would be incredibly weird, jarring, counter-intuitive, and limiting, to have to choose between elf and Underdark dweller to make a Drow.

Your solution makes it so, to make a Drow, I can either pick Elf, and use backgrounds as they are now and class and maybe feats or whatever to hack together something that feels like a Drow, or choose Underdark (or evil matriarchy or whatever) and then use background and class and whatever else to kludge together something that feels like an elf.

That’s a bad system.

EDIT: okay, your idea has merit, just not in a D&D PHB. I’d enjoy a fantasy game where stuff like forest folk and seafarers and insular clan-holds and whatever else are the lineages available, with no stuff like “elf” available alongside. It’s just choosing between having a race or having a culture/regional adaptation set, effectively, that I don’t like.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Isn't the subrace thing already a fourth thing you're picking? Elf -> Drizz't-only-useless-in-sunlight -> Background -> Class?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vaalingrade said:


> Isn't the subrace thing already a fourth thing you're picking? Elf -> Drizz't-only-useless-in-sunlight -> Background -> Class?



Kinda, though it’s part of a race and thus less impactful on the feeling of being overwhelmed by too many choices, for most people. Like how some folks pick a car manufacturer and only buy cars from them, because otherwise they’re overwhelmed by the sheer number of options.

I think that it’s more likely that it will stay there, but if it changed I think the enviroment part would become part of background instead.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

TheSword said:


> It’s a bit of a tangent but I’m struggling to think of which monster is based on a warlock chassis?



Deathlock, neogi, shadar-kai....there's a few more. I used a fair number of shadar-kai in my campaign and those stat blocks will make your eyes cross.


----------



## Vaalingrade

doctorbadwolf said:


> Kinda, though it’s part of a race and thus less impactful on the feeling of being overwhelmed by too many choices, for most people.



I am constantly baffled by the 'too many choices' thing. 5e gives you like 5 decision points that matter and makes all customization elements optional (you can just get bigger numbers instead of taking a feat and actually making something of your character). Would making culture a thing really fry that many brains?

It's not like we're asking people at add +2 to a die roll or something.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vaalingrade said:


> I am constantly baffled by the 'too many choices' thing. 5e gives you like 5 decision points that matter and makes all customization elements optional (you can just get bigger numbers instead of taking a feat and actually making something of your character). Would making culture a thing really fry that many brains?
> 
> It's not like we're asking people at add +2 to a die roll or something.



It doesn’t “fry” anyone’s brains. It annoys people and makes them prefer to do something else with thier free time. 

Those of us who don’t experience that effect may not grok why it does that, but acting like it’s not legit is just silly.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> It isn’t at all a logical end point for what wotc is doing, it’s very much your solution.




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. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> And Background can grow to encompass upbringing just fine, while it would be incredibly weird, jarring, counter-intuitive, and limiting, to have to choose between elf and Underdark dweller to make a Drow.




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



doctorbadwolf said:


> Your solution makes it so, to make a Drow, I can either pick Elf, and use backgrounds as they are now and class and maybe feats or whatever to hack together something that feels like a Drow, or choose Underdark (or evil matriarchy or whatever) and then use background and class and whatever else to kludge together something that feels like an elf.




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.)

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



doctorbadwolf said:


> That’s a bad system.




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

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.

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. 




doctorbadwolf said:


> EDIT: okay, your idea has merit, just not in a D&D PHB. I’d enjoy a fantasy game where stuff like forest folk and seafarers and insular clan-holds and whatever else are the lineages available, with no stuff like “elf” available alongside. It’s just choosing between having a race or having a culture/regional adaptation set, effectively, *that I don’t like.*




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


----------



## Vaalingrade

doctorbadwolf said:


> Those of us who don’t experience that effect may not grok why it does that, but acting like it’s not legit is just silly.



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


----------



## Guest 6801328

Vaalingrade said:


> I am constantly baffled by the 'too many choices' thing.




I can only speak for myself of course...

I'm opposed to many proposed classes/subclasses because often (usually?) their flavor conflicts with my preferred imagery.  To make an extreme example, if somebody shows up in my adventuring party with a Clockwork Gunslinger, it kind of poops all over the world I'm trying to imagine.  Heck, even rapiers and hand-crossbows do that for me.

But when I say, "Yick, I don't like that option" it somehow is assumed that I'm not cognitively able to handle too many choices.  I mean, c'mon, I play wizards sometimes and that involves WAY more choices than all the classes and subclasses ever proposed.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Back on predictions, I suspect the OP is mostly right. My predictions would be:

1) Equivalent of DNDBeyond + battlemap is done by a WotC-owned or directly contracted studio, and launches with the game, and maintains better integration with the game.

1a) Some kind of paid "early access" period for 6E's online component, before the physical books are actually released.

2) Overall rules changes are more like 1E to 2E than other edition changes.

3) Monsters statblocks and how they work get seriously overhauled. I would expect a move towards something that's a bit more like 4E in some ways, in that the minimum number of "things a monster can do" goes up slightly, and the maximum number of spells, abilities, and so on for you to have to look up goes down a bit. I expect less thing to be expressed as X spell 1/day and more as actual, specific, lore-grounded abilities.

4) As noted, racial ASIs are likely to go away. I suspect they'll be replaced by class ASIs, not background/culture ones.

5) Race replaced with Lineage. Broader set of options to start with, too - and probably the "Basic" set will include default Lineage/Background combos.

6) Background probably expanded a bit. I'd personally like it if they made it a thing you could roll, but I dunno if they'll go that far. I actively dis-predict any "culture" thing being added on top of class/lineage/background (though within "Lineage" I think we'll see more formal options for some Lineages).

7) Be shocked if they don't keep Proficiency Bonus as a thing that scales with level and Advantage/Disadvantage as they seem to work so well.

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.

9) Classes re-designed to use Proficiency Bonuses instead of Stat Mods in a lot of cases (this is basically a gimme).

10) Inspiration re-worked to at the very least include re-rolls, probably made less optional and more an official part of the game, too.

11) Big re-works to some classes, some of which will seem really pointless and unwarranted. Wizards will be left unscathed and vaguely overpowered yet again.

12) 5E-Vancian-type spellcasting remains the dominant approach.

13) More "Warlock-style" classes where you make meaningful decisions regularly as you level up, rather than getting a big block of stuff early on. Some will see this as a "return to 4E", for better or worse, but I don't think that will be how it works, in practice.

14) No unified class/ability framework unlike 4E.

15) A bunch of combat rules being changed in mildly confusing ways for no apparent reason, ensuring people trip over them for years to come.

16) Surprise re-worked so it's even more confusing than 5E (anyone who says it isn't is playing their own specific vision of it or has never actually read the rules even, in some cases, as can be seen from the thousand+ posts on reddit discussions of it).

17) Some class random MIA and inexplicably replaced with Artificer in the core PHB.

18) No Psionics at launch.

19) Rangers underpowered and with no coherent design-concept (I mean, it's been true in every other edition, why not 6E?).

Now I'm getting cynical/sassy but I do tend to believe these predictions.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Overall, I agree with these.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 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

Elfcrusher said:


> 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?


Elfcrusher said:


> 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. 


Elfcrusher said:


> 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. 


Elfcrusher said:


> 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. 


Elfcrusher said:


> 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. 


Elfcrusher said:


> 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. 


Elfcrusher said:


> 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

jmartkdr2 said:


> 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.



jmartkdr2 said:


> 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

Mercurius said:


> 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

dave2008 said:


> 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

doctorbadwolf said:


> 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

Scribe said:


> 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

doctorbadwolf said:


> 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.



doctorbadwolf said:


> 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.



doctorbadwolf said:


> 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.


doctorbadwolf said:


> 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.



doctorbadwolf said:


> 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.



doctorbadwolf said:


> 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.



doctorbadwolf said:


> 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.



doctorbadwolf said:


> 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

Elfcrusher said:


> 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.


Elfcrusher said:


> 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,


Elfcrusher said:


> 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.


Elfcrusher said:


> 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.


Elfcrusher said:


> 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.


Elfcrusher said:


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






Elfcrusher said:


> 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.


Elfcrusher said:


> 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

Vaalingrade said:


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



That isn't the case.


----------



## Vaalingrade

doctorbadwolf said:


> That isn't the case.



Tell that to people who like satisfying martial characters.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


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




Well, they can.  But you seem really hostile to the idea, so I'll stop trying to persuade you.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vaalingrade said:


> Tell that to people who like satisfying martial characters.



I am one of them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> Well, they can.  But you seem really hostile to the idea, so I'll stop trying to persuade you.



They can, in the same way that elf and blacksmith can.


----------



## Stalker0

The notion of the racial changes also stems from the debate on how much the PC making rules are also "assumed" to be the way regular people of the world are created.

For example, in 3.5 everything was beholden to the system. Monsters, PCs, NPCs....everything cut from the same cloth, even to absurd terms. In 4e, almost completely divorced, to the point that some NPCs had abilities my players were super envious of. 5e seems to go into the middle, in general using similar rules as PCs but allowing for deviations (just because).

If the rules very intentional separate PCs from the rest of the world, than I am fine with the notion that race doesn't really affect your PC ability scores. You want to play an Elf with an 8 dex, go for it, PCs are weird.

But if the rules in any way inform the players that "humans and elves are just as dexterous as each other in the world"....that is where I would have a problem with removing the ability bumps and such.


----------



## Guest 6801328

doctorbadwolf said:


> They can, in the same way that elf and blacksmith can.




Honestly your objections just seem to me like a failure of imagination, but maybe I'm still not understanding your point.

Anyway, it's not important.  Just brainstorming for fun.

If you want to get the last word in, it's all yours.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Elfcrusher said:


> Honestly your objections just seem to me like a failure of imagination, but maybe I'm still not understanding your point.
> 
> Anyway, it's not important.  Just brainstorming for fun.
> 
> If you want to get the last word in, it's all yours.



lol "Here's a snide derision of your creativity, but it's not important, I'll just drop it as if I have some sort of high ground."


----------



## embee

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.



On the other hand, with DDB being done through licensing, WOTC doesn't have to worry about the logistics and infrastructure. They tried to roll their own with 4e and couldn't get it to work. It's just not in their wheelhouse.

What is in their wheelhouse is licensing. That's their bread and butter. 

When you say that putting out a VTT isn't all that hard because it's just a fancy website, it's kind of like saying that putting a man on the moon isn't that hard because all you have to do is stick a guy in a rocket and aim it at the moon. The trick is building a fancy website that actually works. Like I said, WOTC is in the licensing business, not the website business.

So, someone else does the heavy lifting. All WOTC needs to worry about is the Accounts Receivable. Think how it works now:

Player goes to Target. Sees the Starter Kit for $15 and picks it up. Likes it. *WOTC gets money from the sale*. Player goes onto Amazon and orders the the PHB. *WOTC gets money from the sale*. Player decides to try online play and signs up for Roll20. Buys some content on Roll20. *WOTC gets money from the licenses*. Player decides that, you know, FGU is getting a lot of good of mouth for the automation. Player buys FGU and content on FGU, which, even though s/he's buying the same content again, doesn't feel so bad because FGU has cheaper prices. *WOTC gets money from the licenses*. Foundry sounds good. And it has DDB integration. Player signs up for DDB and buys content on DDB. *WOTC gets money from the licenses.*

Sure. WOTC _could _develop their own platform. But they don't even know where to begin. Roll20 is the 800 lb gorilla in the VTT market and does a decent enough job. But it's far from perfect. And it's the dominant player. The other leading contender - the Mac to Roll20's PC - is FG and it too has trouble rolling out basic features. 

In order for WOTC to put out their own VTT, they have to win over Roll20 folks. And not just them. Also the FG and Foundry users. Keep in mind - these three have been fighting over the same group of users for years and their biggest hurdle is user investment. There's only so many times that you can keep selling the same content. 

If WOTC put out its own VTT tomorrow, would you sign up? Would you abandon your current campaign, your current content, your current knowledge of the platform, and then actively convince your players to go along too? Because that's the hurdle. That's why people dig in with their VTT of choice. Because they're invested in it.   

And let's say that WOTC does get over that hurdle. When you listen to a lot of VTT users, many say that they'll go back to in-person play as soon as possible. So that means that VTT goes back to being the alternate method of play with in-person (and paper books) being the default. Which begs the question of why WOTC should plow a bunch of capital into an already niche market to lock down the also-ran when they can let VTTs fight each other with their own money and passively collect revenue from all of them.


----------



## efenord

Sacrosanct said:


> Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past.  This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, but when it does, what changes do you expect to see based on what you've seen WoTC do in the past few years in regards to errata, rules changes, design directions, etc.
> 
> For me, I think Tasha's was a signal flare of sorts.  And with the recent UA, I think the writing is clearly on the wall.  We will see a 6e, because some of the most cherished sacred cows of D&D are going to go through big changes on how the rules are going to be written for them.  Also, when I look at the history of D&D, it seems more common than not that when you reach the point where there are a lot character options and most/all of the campaign settings are out there, we see a new edition in a year or so.
> 
> 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.
> 2e to 3e: The Player's Options books were clearly a look at revising the rules, (and of course WoTC would want their own edition rather than TSR's 2e)
> 3e to 4e: 4e was announced almost immediately after the Complete X books came out (complete champion was June 2007 and 2 months later 4e was announced, so they were clearly talking about 4e long before that).
> 4e to 5e: 4e churned out a lot of player's options and settings right out of the gate.  3 player's handbooks, 3 monster manuals, and 2 DMGs in a 2 year period.  By the time 2012 came and the Player's Options books (Feywild and Elemental Chaos), pretty much everything was covered.  5e was announced shortly after (actually announced before PO Elemental came out).  Yes, sales figures had a lot to do with it, but more to the overall point:_
> 
> When an edition has pretty much gone through all the core archetypes, and all of the most popular settings have been created, a new edition soon follows.  I'm guessing a large factor is because not as many people buy the outlier materials.  Complete book of fighters is gonna sell more copies than Complete book of gnomes.  Forgotten Realms campaign setting will sell more than Spelljammer.  Etc.  So from a business perspective, in order to increase sales, come out with a new edition.
> 
> 5e sales are still really strong, and I suspect that's because of the slow release schedule so a lot of the popular material (like settings of Darksun and Dragonlance) is still yet to be addressed.  That's why it's currently one of the longest running edition of D&D ever (almost 10 years since announcement) with at least another year or two.  But it is starting to see the end of the tunnel re: archetypes.  With books like Tasha's we're starting to see some of the more weird and unusual class/subclass/race options.
> 
> The former point is the actual design changes we're seeing in Tasha's and the Gothic legacy UA.  Similar to the Player's Options books of 2e, we're seeing some significant changes to how character creation and advancement is being handled now.
> 
> That leads me to my prediction of 6e and what we'll see and expect.
> 
> *Races*: Racial modifiers are gone.  Caps won't make an appearance.  The term "race" might even go away to something like Ancestry or Legacy (I think PF does something like this).  Racial choices will have a few traits based on physiological aspects, and not cultural.  A race like goliath will have a powerful build trait to represent how they are stronger.  Gnomes will have magic resistance.  Halfling will be lucky, etc.
> 
> Ability score modifiers and other traits will be based on culture/heritage options.  Also like PF2 does I think (and a lot of indie games are doing it the same way going forward).  Instead of getting a +1 bonus to strength for being an orc, perhaps you get a +1 bonus to strength for being a fighter, or choosing a warfare culture, etc.  Or instead of ASIs, you get feats that are related to your culture/heritage.
> 
> *Alignment: *We've already seen how humanoid races are no longer inherently evil.  This continues.  I think no intelligent species will have a default alignment any longer. That will be saved for monsters/fiends/undead.  I would not be surprised to see a shift away from the 9 alignments and go back to the B/X version of general overviews of alignments.  At least for PCs.  Most PCs don't follow alignment anyway, but shift back and forth depending on what's going on in the game.  I doubt that will happen, but I wouldn't be shocked if it did.
> 
> *Classes*: A lot more subclass kits, but they will be less robust than they are now, and you may be able to choose more than one.  Something between a feat and a subclass as we see them in 5e.  And closer to as they appeared in the playtest docs.  The reason for this, is because I think it addresses the omission of classes like the warlord, shaman, and others.  For example, all fighters are good at fighting martially, but a warlord kit gives you abilities that you gain at various levels to inspire allies and enforce battlefield tactics.  While a battlemaster is all about maneuvers, and a champion gives you out of combat abilities, etc.  If they really want to make the change, they would get rid of subclasses/kits altogether and expand and expound backgrounds to fill that role.  However they do it, I strongly suspect they will have the class as a chassis with the core features, then a lot of options you can add for backgrounds or subclass kits, and those would largely be class agnostic (warlord background with a rogue class?  Why not?).
> 
> Anywho, those are my predictions of a 6e.  Rather than driven by sales, I think a driving factor will be how the gaming community views design today.  I.e., things like race and alignment and the problematic issues therein.



Being honest, I hope the 5e would be the definitive edition. Make no sense relaunch the entire system because of important but minor adjustments in rules. I think the core of the rules are robust and far from be broken. I would say the way they approached the things in TCoE is perfect as it was presented as optional. Even the problematic use of terms like races could be addressed through a revised PHB edition instead of force everyone to acquire everything new. The 5e just started to be published in Portuguese, the books are expensive for us down of the south border. I know the main audience for DnD is the US, but the hobby is more global then ever and don't take in consideration the markets from poor and in development countries is also a kind of descrimination.


----------



## Umbran

Elfcrusher said:


> Honestly your objections just seem to me like a failure of imagination, but maybe I'm still not understanding your point.






doctorbadwolf said:


> lol "Here's a snide derision of your creativity, but it's not important, I'll just drop it as if I have some sort of high ground."




*Mod Note:*

Hey!  You two!  Stop it!

I'm getting reports from folks who are sick of your sniping at each other.  You are both eroding your own credibility with folks reading the thread.  Or did you think this back and forth looked... mature, or something?  Rhetorical question.

Treat each other respectfully.  If you choose not to do that, you'll be removed from the conversation without further discussion.


----------



## TheSword

THEMNGMNT said:


> Deathlock, neogi, shadar-kai....there's a few more. I used a fair number of shadar-kai in my campaign and those stat blocks will make your eyes cross.



Okay. But it tells you the level of the caster so working out cantrips is pretty straightforward isn’t it? 1, 5, 11, 17 are the thresholds for every cantrip.

I agree that if something is expected to be used as a standard attack putting it in the stat block makes sense. As they have started to do.

Though to be honest Roll20 makes running all monsters a dream. Even when you want to modify them.


----------



## dave2008

THEMNGMNT said:


> Deathlock, neogi, shadar-kai....there's a few more. I used a fair number of shadar-kai in my campaign and those stat blocks will make your eyes cross.



Yep, they could do better on those stat blocks. Though the warlock mechanic is tricky (and would be tricky in 4e too). I personally wouldn't use that mechanic for a monster.  

I do like that WotC has been adding one spell to the monster's actions on recent monsters.  I hope that becomes the new standard.


----------



## Hatmatter

efenord said:


> Being honest, I hope the 5e would be the definitive edition. Make no sense relaunch the entire system because of important but minor adjustments in rules. I think the core of the rules are robust and far from be broken. I would say the way they approached the things in TCoE is perfect as it was presented as optional. Even the problematic use of terms like races could be addressed through a revised PHB edition instead of force everyone to acquire everything new. The 5e just started to be published in Portuguese, the books are expensive for us down of the south border. I know the main audience for DnD is the US, but the hobby is more global then ever and don't take in consideration the markets from poor and in development countries is also a kind of descrimination.



I entirely concur. I don't see any problem with 5th edition. The points that people are bringing up can be completely legitimate, but they are all challenges that can be dealt with with the kind of customizations that take place at most tables. I am failing to see how a new edition is going to do anything but introduce more division in a division-saturated climate. But, I am totally biased because I really like the game as it is...I think they knocked it out of the park...and I love how the game can be easily customized by DMs.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Hatmatter said:


> I entirely concur. I don't see any problem with 5th edition. Everything that people are bring up can be completely legitimate, but they are all challenges that can be dealt with with the kind of customizations that take place at most tables.



As someone who prefers tactical combat, a fair amount of crunch, not being forced to wait until level 3-5 before I get to start making good on my character concept, and not being afraid of losing my character in the early game, what exactly do you recommend? Because, believe me, if I could play a Dragonborn Warlord in 5e, _I would_. If I could play something that actually felt like a Censure of Pursuit Avenger, _I would_. If I could get the kind of incredibly-easy-to-use monster building and encounter building tools 4e had, I'd be all over that like the snow that just hit the eastern seaboard.

But I'm pretty sure that having the diversity (and balance) of character-building options, the classes I'd like to play, the level of depth to the tactics of combat I prefer, and being able to play at essentially _any_ table (whether it starts at 1st level or 10th or anywhere in-between) without having to be paranoid that I'd lose my character, is a set of things collectively that can't really be "dealt with with the kind of customizations that take place at most tables."


----------



## Flamestrike

Sacrosanct said:


> *Alignment: *We've already seen how humanoid races are no longer inherently evil.



They never were.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

EzekielRaiden said:


> As someone who prefers tactical combat, a fair amount of crunch, not being forced to wait until level 3-5 before I get to start making good on my character concept, and not being afraid of losing my character in the early game, what exactly do you recommend?



Super easy: start at level 3-5. Seriously.

I didn't like how in 4e it was literally impossible have that classic D&D low level experience as even the first level characters felt heroic an powerful. A lot of people actually like the starting characters being simple and weak and then growing to become more complex and powerful. And sure, you might not always want that: in 3e we sometimes started at the third level. A game that has relatively weak and simple characters at first allow starting with more powerful and complex characters just by adjusting the starting level, however the inverse is not true.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

embee said:


> On the other hand, with DDB being done through licensing, WOTC doesn't have to worry about the logistics and infrastructure. They tried to roll their own with 4e and couldn't get it to work. It's just not in their wheelhouse.




This is misleading and is confusing the state of WotC in 2000-2015 with the more recent WotC.

From about 2000-2015 or so, WotC were "digitally incompetent". In pretty much all ways. I don't know what was going on there, but anything digital they touched kind of turned to excrement (albeit slightly less so with MtG), with the only real exceptions I can immediately think of being NWN1/2, and that was because the company had been working on D&D games since before WotC acquired D&D, so wasn't chosen by WotC. They sold rights to the wrong people, then got into massive legal battles that went on for years to get them back. They chose the wrong third-party companies to use, and so on.

The DDI in-house version was ruined by an actual murder, that's a whole other story not for these boards imho. WotC then desperately grabbed a third-party to make a stop-gap version, whilst seemingly trying to reform an in-house team to make a successor with a VTT. Had 4E lasted longer, that might have worked - probably not though due to the "anti-Midas" WotC was with digital products.

5E started off the same way. Bad decisions. Bad, bad, bad decisions that lead to Sword Coast Legends existing, and IIRC first (first two?) attempt at the DDB (not in-house) flaming out, before finally WotC made the right decision and got some competent people to make it (not people who'd ever done anything like it before, note - people who were used to working with/creating custom databases).

Since then, WotC's digital strategy has improved and the whole "anti-Midas" thing has gone away. They've got Larian working on BG3, DDB is going great, huge even, they've bought one AAA studio and created another (largely from ex-Bioware employees), and other digital products seem to be much more successful (like the more recent MtG products, though they always had some success there).



embee said:


> When you say that putting out a VTT isn't all that hard because it's just a fancy website, it's kind of like saying that putting a man on the moon isn't that hard because all you have to do is stick a guy in a rocket and aim it at the moon. The trick is building a fancy website that actually works. Like I said, WOTC is in the licensing business, not the website business.




No. This "out of our wheelhouse so licence it out!" is an outdated and ridiculous idea, frankly. I mean, I work at a major international law firm. We're not "in digital product business", but the idea that we can just _not have_ self-owned digital law products is beyond ridiculous and deeply stuck in the '00s, intellectually. We may use third-party technologies, or even pay third parties to maintain certain stuff, but we're not going to outsource stuff wholesale and only take a percentage or something. Having our own products is demonstrably significantly more profitable and helps the brand more (I'm directly involved with this kind of thing).

I'm absolutely familiar with people who think they like you're suggesting WotC must here. They're wrong, and we're seeing that in various sectors (obviously I'm most familiar with legal, but similar stuff is happening in finance and other sectors).

Also, the "moonshot" comparison is utterly ridiculous. It's like building a shopping mall, or modern office building or a stadium. This isn't some risky, difficult thing that might suddenly blow up. This is pretty standard operation. It's fancy because it's expensive and requires more investment of time/effort than a normal website, not because it's tricky/unreliable - it might go somewhat over-budget, but it'll get finished, unlike a moonshot which could just fail indefinitely. At my law firm we've implemented stuff considerably more technologically and conceptually complex than what is a glorified database + mouse-driven GUI for moving simple objects around. Your moonshot comparison is like saying building a house is a "moonshot" because you personally don't know how to do it.

I guess you could do a "moonshot" VTT, like, if you wanted it to seriously 3D, with great graphics, detailed character models, VR integration, and other ridiculous Nice-To-Haves _right from day 1_. That is kind of what 4E tried, sorta. But why...? Why not just do something that works, is heavily-branded, and has a simple-but-slick/branded look? You're aiming at the broad audience now, not just rich nerds.



embee said:


> Sure. WOTC _could _develop their own platform. But they don't even know where to begin. Roll20 is the 800 lb gorilla in the VTT market and does a decent enough job. But it's far from perfect. And it's the dominant player. The other leading contender - the Mac to Roll20's PC - is FG and it too has trouble rolling out basic features.




/facepalm

I think this shows the problem in your thinking. You think Roll20 is an "800lb gorilla". It's a freaking spider monkey next to DDB. It's also the product of zero investment, and little apparent effort to keep the design and functionality modern, probably as the result of a legacy codebase and attempting to support dozens of games and custom stuff.

To be clear, the VTT part is perhaps the least important thing here. The fully-integrated digital character sheets and rulebooks are. The VTT wouldn't even be worth mentioning if it wasn't for the pandemic and generally changing attitudes about playing digitally (i.e. it is way more acceptable/attractive now). Also, WotC wouldn't be trying to supplant Roll20 generally - just for D&D. By focusing on one game, one ruleset, and not on custom stuff, it's vastly more straightforward.



embee said:


> If WOTC put out its own VTT tomorrow, would you sign up? Would you abandon your current campaign, your current content, your current knowledge of the platform, and then actively convince your players to go along too? Because that's the hurdle. That's why people dig in with their VTT of choice. Because they're invested in it.




Again, It's not primarily about the VTT, it's about the DDB functionality. Roll20 and FG are niche because they're painful to use. You're not going directly after that audience. You want the people who use DDB. You also want to pick up the increasing audience who play via Zoom etc. and either would like to use a VTT but find Roll20/FG too difficult, or half-arsedly use a VTT via stuff like Beyond 20. By focusing on a single game, a single ruleset, you can make your product slick and easy to use in a way that's literally not possible with something like Roll20. The main goal of your VTT has to be accessibility/usability. You put that ahead of functionality, especially custom functionality. That's the opposite of the Roll20/FG approach.

If your product works well enough, yes, some Roll20/FG experts/grogs will also move to it, but as you, they're niche. What isn't niche is DDB, and a D&D-specific slick VTT doesn't need to be niche.

And you're completely missing that this is a 5E to 6E thing. Yeah it would be dumb to try and compete with DDB after it's been running for 3+ years. However, when a 6E comes out, and you are offering "early access" and so on, and old characters aren't compatible, so need to be re-created etc. anyway, then you have a point where you can take over. So tomorrow is missing the point - this thread is about 6E and what happens with that.


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> Super easy: start at level 3-5. Seriously.
> 
> I didn't like how in 4e it was literally impossible have that classic D&D low level experience as even the first level characters felt heroic an powerful. A lot of people actually like the starting characters being simple and weak and then growing to become more complex and powerful. And sure, you might not always want that: in 3e we sometimes started at the third level. A game that has relatively weak and simple characters at first allow starting with more powerful and complex characters just by adjusting the starting level, however the inverse is not true.



I think you are strangely conflating @EzekielRaiden's discussion of "character concept" with "character power level," because they are not synonymous. For example, there may be people who want to start playing their character at level 1 so they can be "simple and weak" and then grow "more complex and powerful," but they probably want to be able to play that character concept at level 1 instead of having to wait 2-4 levels just to have a rudimentary version of the character concept, especially since most D&D play rarely gets above 8-10th level.


----------



## embee

Ruin Explorer said:


> Since then, WotC's digital strategy has improved and the whole "anti-Midas" thing has gone away. They've got Larian working on BG3, DDB is going great, huge even, they've bought one AAA studio and created another (largely from ex-Bioware employees), and other digital products seem to be much more successful (like the more recent MtG products, though they always had some success there).



Their digital strategy hasn't improved because their digital strategy hasn't changed. What changed is that they improved in selecting licensing partners. It's still the same strategy - by your own admission. Larian is a game developer with a license to make D&D games, just like BioWare, Obsidian, and Cryptic. DDB is owned jointly by a gaming site network (Curse/Twitch/Amazon). That's the exact same strategy (license the brand to digital partners), just with better results (so far).

And neither Tuque nor Archetype have released a single game. Sure, they could put out a great game. Or they could put out Kingdoms of Amalur.  BG3 is a good start, but it's only in beta. Dark Alliance isn't even that far along, as it's being retooled completely. 



Ruin Explorer said:


> And you're completely missing that this is a 5E to 6E thing. Yeah it would be dumb to try and compete with DDB after it's been running for 3+ years. However, when a 6E comes out, and you are offering "early access" and so on, and old characters aren't compatible, so need to be re-created etc. anyway, then you have a point where you can take over. So tomorrow is missing the point - this thread is about 6E and what happens with that.



So it hinges on making sure that 6E is completely different from 5E.

Great plan. Spend years doing outreach to bring in new players and developing a system that onboards those players quickly and then, after a couple of years, tell them that all of their stuff is completely obsolete and that they'll have to shell out more money.

If I'm a player, I have a choice. 

(1) Abandon 5E, which I am already familiar with, and buy into 6E, knowing that anything I pay in will be worthless in a couple of years.

(2) Keep using 5E, which I am already familiar with and which I already own content for, and NOT buy into 6E because I know that anything I pay in will be worthless in a couple of years.

(3) Abandon D&D (and maybe the hobby) altogether because I know that anything I pay in will be worthless in a couple of years.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Flamestrike said:


> They never were.



Since at least 1979 they were (as they appear in the MM), with alignments defined as variations of evil


----------



## Ruin Explorer

embee said:


> Their digital strategy hasn't improved because their digital strategy hasn't changed. What changed is that they improved in selecting licensing partners. It's still the same strategy - by your own admission. Larian is a game developer with a license to make D&D games, just like BioWare, Obsidian, and Cryptic. DDB is owned jointly by a gaming site network (Curse/Twitch/Amazon). That's the exact same strategy (license the brand to digital partners), just with better results (so far).
> 
> And neither Tuque nor Archetype have released a single game. Sure, they could put out a great game. Or they could put out Kingdoms of Amalur. BG3 is a good start, but it's only in beta. Dark Alliance isn't even that far along, as it's being retooled completely.




This is an impossible thing to suggest. Buying a game studio and creating, from the ground up, another, is evidence of a massive and profound change in their digital strategy. It's a huge investment with big long-term consequences. Especially as both studios are explicitly AAA, so have a minimum per-game budget of tens of millions. And they're in-house, not third parties. Trying to frame that as "nothing has changed!" is just... counter-factual and really weird.

Whether the studios put out good stuff or not isn't really material to that. Additionally the anti-Midas deal is certainly over for choosing partners.

So we have two things:

1) A big change to digital strategy.

2) A change from largely dismal failure with obviously bad choices made over and over to one which is successful re: licencing.

This shows some pretty big difference in both what they're deciding to do, and the quality of those decisions.



embee said:


> So it hinges on making sure that 6E is completely different from 5E.




No. Did you even read my posts on what 6E might look like?

I ask because this sort of strawman which relies on me not knowing what's in my own posts is kind of weird and confusing.

A 1E to 2E-style change is more than sufficient.

The choices you outline are the same choices people at going from 1E to 2E, 2E to 3E, 3E to 4E, and 4E to 5E. Why you either think they're novel or that the outcome will be different is a question only you can answer, and that you've not expanded upon. Are you going to explain?

I'm not sure what this "couple of years" stuff is about. I mean, I presume you're referring to 5E's lifespan? Or something? It seems like hyperbole either way. The 6E I'm looking at here would probably land somewhere between late 2022 and 2024, maybe even a year or two later. In 2022, 5E will have existed for eight years, so longer than 4E, and the same length as 3E. How long would it need to last for it to not be "a couple of years" in hyperbole-speak, are you thinking?


----------



## Flamestrike

Sacrosanct said:


> Since at least 1979 they were (as they appear in the MM), with alignments defined as variations of evil




An alignment listed for a creature does not make it _inherently _evil. That's just the alignments most of them are due to external factors.

Good aligned Orcs for example have been around since at least AD&D and BECMI, and maybe even before then.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Flamestrike said:


> An alignment listed for a creature does not make it _inherently _evil. That's just the alignments most of them are due to external factors.
> 
> Good aligned Orcs for example have been around since at least AD&D and BECMI, and maybe even before then.




Yup. I can literally remember having an argument in like 1990/1991 with DM who was insistent all orcs were inherently and unavoidably Evil (in the Forgotten Realms, to be specific, not a homebrew setting), and me giving him counter-examples that I had even back then (no memory of what they were, sadly).

Also the Complete Book of Humanoids in 2E, from 1993, explicitly and unarguably states alignments for most of these being (including Orcs) are merely tendencies (and specifically calls out that PC versions can be of any alignment or limits them only on the Law/Chaos axis - Ogre Magi must be LG/LN/LE for example - at least in all the entries I just flicked though). It's also kind of super-racist but the alignment thing was at least facing broadly in the right direction. In 1993.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Flamestrike said:


> An alignment listed for a creature does not make it _inherently _evil. That's just the alignments most of them are due to external factors.
> 
> Good aligned Orcs for example have been around since at least AD&D and BECMI, and maybe even before then.



Semantics.  The 1e MM defines a monsters alignment as the "characteristic bent towards law/chaos...good/evil".  And the definition of inherent means a characteristic of something.  

But the point being, is that humanoids like orcs or drow are assumed to be evil, and are treated as evil, are described as evil, and defaulted to evil races for all intents and purposes.  And that's now changed and will remain changed going forward.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Sacrosanct said:


> Semantics.  The 1e MM defines a monsters alignment as the "characteristic bent towards law/chaos...good/evil".  And the definition of inherent means a characteristic of something.
> 
> But the point being, is that humanoids like orcs or drow are assumed to be evil, and are treated as evil, are described as evil, and defaulted to evil races for all intents and purposes.  And that's now changed and will remain changed going forward.



I'd agree it was semantics if it didn't come up so much as a real issue in actual games and so on. But it has, in my experience. Also, dude, you know what D&D players mean by inherent, too, so it doesn't matter what the "dictionary definition" is here. They mean innate and unalterable.

I agree that what they're doing here is a change, because they're basically ruling out the possibility of saying "Oh they're inherently evil", together with the extremely unfortunate implications (like "they're not worthy to live"/"genociding sapient beings is okay if their alignment code ends in E!" etc.). That's good for the game, for sure, though might make some of the more... unfortunate... adventures out there look bad. But they already looked bad. I knew it was wrong to genocide orcs when I was 12 in frickin' 1990. But clearly some people didn't, and from the boards we know some people still don't (and indeed, some 3PP adventures seem to have this issue from time to time).


----------



## Warpiglet-7

@Sacrosanct Your point about alignment is well taken and I largely agree.  However, in many modules there are exceptions. There are certainly neutral drow in modules fairly early on and prominently.

I also believe that there are statements about exceptions and such.  I will actually grab my dusty tomes From the vault of fun and take a look what EGG said!

not to derail the topic but just a quick aside: we always played exceptions going back to high school.  We had good drow PCs. We had good half orcs...we definitely felt that there were exceptions.

I look at it this way: maybe not all Spartans were inherently warlike.  But if we made a stat block of someone from their society, it would be probably fitting to note that focus.

I predict the new books which might be more like revisions than a new edition will have prominent disclaimers about this fact (I.e. this is the most commonly encountered example in adventuring settings but monsters may be of any alignment as individuals).

save perhaps those tied to the planes though I don’t even think that sacred cow will make the cut (repentant demons) fir too well with the newfound love/popularity of tieflings


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Warpiglet-7 said:


> newfound love/popularity of tieflings



TFW when something that's been increasingly the case since 1994 gets called "newfound".


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Ruin Explorer said:


> TFW when something that's been increasingly the case since 1994 gets called "newfound".



Ok.  So they are not more popular than before as PC options?  That’s what I meant.

is there not a lot more fan art than before?

aside from unpopular 4e is not their inclusion in PHB indicative of more use and popularity?

the fact that they existed and some people liked them is not synonymous with the widespread popularity they enjoy now.

how many tables have them now compared to the 10 years ago (much less 94)?


----------



## Sacrosanct

I know there are exceptions, but that doesn't take away the problem issues, which is the point I'm trying (perhaps badly) to make.

If I describe Jews as "lawful evil" in the rules, but then have one Jew who isn't evil in a book or module, that doesn't make it any less problematic or functionally different than saying that "Jews are inherently evil."  Arguing the difference is semantic and ignoring the point of why labeling Jews as "lawful evil" is a bad thing to begin with, because when people read that stat entry, they assume that Jews as a default, and the vast majority, are evil.

_edit_  Perhaps this analogy might work better.  When a creature has a defined stat block feature, like being chaotic evil, then people will treat that trait as being inherent to that race.  Having extremely rare exceptions doesn't change that.  Just like it's an inherent trait that humans have two eyes even though some humans might not (birth defect, or other reason).  If a DM doesn't want an orc to be evil, they have to intentionally make that exception to the stat block because it goes against the assigned characteristic.  And that's the problem.  People read the descriptions of orcs/goblins/whatever and see that as a default, they are evil unless the GM makes it a point to not make them evil.  That's the problem.  We don't say Nazis weren't inherently bad because John Rabe was a good fella.  If someone is identified as a nazi, we make assumptions that they are not a good thing.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Sacrosanct said:


> I know there are exceptions, but that doesn't take away the problem issues, which is the point I'm trying (perhaps badly) to make.
> 
> If I describe Jews as "lawful evil" in the rules, but then have one Jew who isn't evil in a book or module, that doesn't make it any less problematic or functionally different than saying that "Jews are inherently evil."  Arguing the difference is semantic and ignoring the point of why labeling Jews as "lawful evil" is a bad thing to begin with.



Understood.  I won’t rehash them whole species vs culture argument!  

I am ok with there being generally evil creature personally.

however, the purpose of the thread is predictions.  And you are correct, I think in that alignment for species will get softened or done away with.

Its really where things stand now and I think it will only get more emphasis.

part of it is the shift in the purpose of the game.  Exploring and plundering a dungeon and focus on skill in doing so is waning.  There is more focus in “telling your story” than ever before.  Conveniences like clear barriers to objectives (e.g. clearly evil humanoids) is just less a need for some groups.

we play old school in that regard.  We generally assume goblins are wicked unless proven otherwise.  I understand why the game and many players want to move away from it.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Sacrosanct said:


> I know there are exceptions, but that doesn't take away the problem issues, which is the point I'm trying (perhaps badly) to make.




Very much agree with this.  There's too much history (in the sense of decades of D&D products) to unwind to believe that a smattering of counterexamples solves the problem.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Ok.  So they are not more popular than before as PC options?  That’s what I meant.
> 
> is there not a lot more fan art than before?
> 
> aside from unpopular 4e is not their inclusion in PHB indicative of more use and popularity?
> 
> the fact that they existed and some people liked them is not synonymous with the widespread popularity they enjoy now.
> 
> how many tables have them now compared to the 10 years ago (much less 94)?



I don't think there has been much change in the popularity of tieflings over the last 20 years. Even when they where not a core race they where one of the most popular non-core races. And if you look at D&D CRPGs, their is a tiefling companion in Planescape: Torment (1999), Baldur's Gate 2 (2000), and NWN2 (2006).


----------



## TwoSix

Aldarc said:


> I think you are strangely conflating @EzekielRaiden's discussion of "character concept" with "character power level," because they are not synonymous. For example, there may be people who want to start playing their character at level 1 so they can be "simple and weak" and then grow "more complex and powerful," but they probably want to be able to play that character concept at level 1 instead of having to wait 2-4 levels just to have a rudimentary version of the character concept, especially since most D&D play rarely gets above 8-10th level.



This.  Specifically, you can put all the character defining decisions and necessary mechanics right up front at level 1.  Your maneuvers, your smites, your rages, any mechanical trick that drives the baseline utility of the character concept. (Spells would be an outlier here, but they always are in D&D.)  Then simply let them grow in potency with level.

Ironically, this would be even more like 1E and (especially) 2E, where all your character building choices (race, class and multiclass, kits, and class options with Skills and Powers) were done at character creation, and leveling simply granted you the options you had already preselected.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Paul Farquhar said:


> I don't think there has been much change in the popularity of tieflings over the last 20 years. Even when they where not a core race they where one of the most popular non-core races. And if you look at D&D CRPGs, their is a tiefling companion in Planescape: Torment (1999), Baldur's Gate 2 (2000), and NWN2 (2006).



I've seen it noted that the reason tieflings are in the 4e PHB is they were consistently found to be the most popular non-phb race in 3e. (form the 4e preview book Wizards Presents: Races and Classes)


----------



## Sacrosanct

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Understood.  I won’t rehash them whole species vs culture argument!
> 
> I am ok with there being generally evil creature personally.




I am too.  Mostly abhorrent monsters, undead, fiends, etc.  


Warpiglet-7 said:


> we play old school in that regard.  We generally assume goblins are wicked unless proven otherwise.  I understand why the game and many players want to move away from it.



I also have no problems with people making goblins evil as a default in their games.  For me, it's a table preference thing, and I think that as presented at a game rules level (i.e., to _every _player, not just those at my table), it's problematic because there are a lot of messy tie-ins to real world cultures, and one thing I don't want to do is make other players who don't look like me feel uncomfortable about picking up and playing the game I love.

I am a CIS white guy who loves old school D&D.  So I totally get how it may feel uncomfortable with people saying, "Hey man, the game you love has some issues.  Particularly with how it's presented because there are elements of racism and sexism and bigotry there."  Most people assume that criticisms like that are an indictment on _them _personally, for enjoying the game.  However, if we step back, that's not what's being said.  It doesn't make you or me a bad person for enjoying old school D&D because for the most part, we weren't even aware of these issues (part of the privilege for being a white male and thus the target demographic for those old versions).  We weren't the ones being objectified, or not having representation, or having pejorative aspects of our culture represented.

So yes, it can be hard pill to swallow, but here's the thing.  IMO, worrying about offending me for telling me that the game I love has issues is far less important than taking into account the feelings of those who _have _been offended for decades.  So it's a pill I need to accept without complaint, and work to do better and be more aware of my fellow gamers who are the ones who have been offended by these issues that have existed for a long time.  What would make me a bad person is if I tell someone who has been affected by these issues that their feelings matter less than mine because I don't want to feel uncomfortable to admit there were issues in the early games I love.  I tend to think that the people who are targets or the victims of sexism/racism/bigotry, even if unintentional, should be listened to and not kept quite for fear of making a white guy feel uncomfortable.


----------



## see

EzekielRaiden said:


> As someone who prefers tactical combat, a fair amount of crunch, not being forced to wait until level 3-5 before I get to start making good on my character concept, and not being afraid of losing my character in the early game, what exactly do you recommend?



My recommendation is that you accept reality; 6th edition is not going to recapitulate 4th edition. Hasbro wants to make money, not satisfy your desires, and they've got the relative sales numbers for 4th and 5th to look at.


----------



## see

Aldarc said:


> I think you are strangely conflating @EzekielRaiden's discussion of "character concept" with "character power level," because they are not synonymous. For example, there may be people who want to start playing their character at level 1 so they can be "simple and weak" and then grow "more complex and powerful," but they probably want to be able to play that character concept at level 1 instead of having to wait 2-4 levels just to have a rudimentary version of the character concept, especially since most D&D play rarely gets above 8-10th level.



Go look at EzekielRaiden's post again, particularly the lines "not being afraid of losing my character in the early game" and "being able to play at essentially _any_ table (whether it starts at 1st level or 10th or anywhere in-between) without having to be paranoid that I'd lose my character".

Noboody's doing any conflating, EzekielRaiden explicitly said he doesn't want vulnerable characters.


----------



## Aldarc

see said:


> Go look at EzekielRaiden's post again, particularly the lines "not being afraid of losing my character in the early game" and "being able to play at essentially _any_ table (whether it starts at 1st level or 10th or anywhere in-between) without having to be paranoid that I'd lose my character".
> 
> Noboody's doing any conflating, EzekielRaiden explicitly said he doesn't want vulnerable characters.



He also talks about being able to play his character concept from the get-go. Just because he also discusses character vulnerability - as it is one factor among a handful - does not mean that "character concept" and "character power level" are synonymous.


----------



## Guest 6801328

I do have a preference for RPGs in which new characters can adventure with very experienced characters.  It's ok if it's riskier, and you feel like can't contribute as much, and the veterans have to actively protect the newbies, as long as the delta isn't too great.

D&D isn't that game, though, nor do I ever expect it to be.  A first level character, if it doesn't get one-shot by a monster, is going to die to a breath weapon or fireball...even if they make their saving throw.

That's ok, though.  D&D can't be everything.


----------



## TwoSix

Elfcrusher said:


> That's ok, though.  D&D can't be everything.



Any D&D game, like most things in life, is much more fun when you accept it as it is rather than regretting what it could have been.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Ok.  So they are not more popular than before as PC options?  That’s what I meant.
> 
> is there not a lot more fan art than before?
> 
> aside from unpopular 4e is not their inclusion in PHB indicative of more use and popularity?
> 
> the fact that they existed and some people liked them is not synonymous with the widespread popularity they enjoy now.
> 
> how many tables have them now compared to the 10 years ago (much less 94)?



I was just being silly, I wouldn't take me too seriously. 

I feel like they've steadily gained popularity since 1994 but were immediately popular, at least in the groups I saw - and they immediately started appear in other settings, like the Forgotten Realms, whilst 2E was still going. In 2017 they were just behind dragonborn with only humans, elves, half-elves and dwarves above them, and I suspect they'll have passed dragonborn by now, given the huge number of tiefling variants (rivaled only by elves).

Re: "10 years ago", I dunno, I suspect they're more popular now, but less drastically so than the 1994-2008 climb which lead to them being a core race in 4E. I was actually slightly surprised they weren't in 3.XE, but their eventual 3.XE implementation was kind of terrible, implying they were all evil as hell, or struggling not to be, and giving them a very questionable LA (ooooh Darkness 1/day and crummy resistances, that's totally the same as being a level higher, guys!). I feel like the terrible-ness of the 3E implementation probably limited their popularity there for a while.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Ruin Explorer said:


> I was just being silly, I wouldn't take me too seriously.
> 
> I feel like they've steadily gained popularity since 1994 but were immediately popular, at least in the groups I saw - and they immediately started appear in other settings, like the Forgotten Realms, whilst 2E was still going. In 2017 they were just behind dragonborn with only humans, elves, half-elves and dwarves above them, and I suspect they'll have passed dragonborn by now, given the huge number of tiefling variants (rivaled only by elves).
> 
> Re: "10 years ago", I dunno, I suspect they're more popular now, but less drastically so than the 1994-2008 climb which lead to them being a core race in 4E. I was actually slightly surprised they weren't in 3.XE, but their eventual 3.XE implementation was kind of terrible, implying they were all evil as hell, or struggling not to be, and giving them a very questionable LA (ooooh Darkness 1/day and crummy resistances, that's totally the same as being a level higher, guys!). I feel like the terrible-ness of the 3E implementation probably limited their popularity there for a while.



 That’s good perspective.  My questions are partially due to my lack of engagement with 3.5 and 4.  So I missed some things  for sure.

when I came back to the game so to speak I was shocked about the apparent ubiquity of tieflings! Other would be less so if they saw it earlier!

thanks for the education.  I just did not know.  My experience with devil people was more with cambions from the old days!  Mm2?

early on I had a pc married to a chaotic good 1/2 succubus.  We’re talking 1e as a kid!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Warpiglet-7 said:


> That’s good perspective.  My questions are partially due to my lack of engagement with 3.5 and 4.  So I missed some things  for sure.
> 
> when I came back to the game so to speak I was shocked about the apparent ubiquity of tieflings! Other would be less so if they saw it earlier!
> 
> thanks for the education.  I just did not know.  My experience with devil people was more with cambions from the old days!  Mm2?
> 
> early on I had a pc married to a chaotic good 1/2 succubus.  We’re talking 1e as a kid!



Yeah I think it was a case of unmet demand suddenly finding an actual outlet.

I think there was always a bit of a demand, because being like, the son of the devil but a good guy has been a thing since what, at latest the early 1970s? Marvel had a "Son of Satan" comic back then. And I heard a lot of stories from 1E players that involved PC cambions or cambion-like beings.

But then the 1990s really ratcheted that whole deal up a notch, with tons of varying levels of "seems like they'd conventionally be evil but is actually good or at least a heroic badass" comic books, whether it's Gaiman's Death or Spawn from the Image comics, and god like, the whole White Wolf World of Darkness phenomenon was huge with all sorts of scary supernatural beings suddenly being playable (indeed there are a lot of smaller RPGs with similar themes from that era). Even stuff like RIFTS had a lot of scary monsters who were actually potentially friendly (even scary psychic worms who were actually good guys!). And I think it was serving that largely unmet demand I mentioned.

Planescape itself felt like a (successful) "please come back to AD&D, it's cool again now!" product for groups like mine which had largely shifted to other games, and Tieflings were certainly part of that.

I think the only other race which has been remotely as successful since then has been Dragonborn, but I always wonder how much of that is down to being the only corebook race with a +2 STR bonus (I am aware some Dwarves also do in 5E).

I mean, that's something actually that might impact 6E - the removal of racial ASIs is likely to shift weight from the ASIs to both theme and other abilities, but I think theme is going to be big. It'll be very interesting to see if certain races/lineages get less or more popular after that becomes standard or more common. I would expect Dragonborn to slip a bit further, because they don't nail the "dragonman" fantasy with their lack of tails or wings (and I imagine they're already drastically less popular than 2017, as so many people will now have access to other +2 STR races). Tieflings may slip or even become more popular, given they'll now be applicable to all classes. I'm particularly interested to see what happens with elves, esp. if they balance them so they don't have objectively better racials than most others.

As stuff shifts around over the rest of 5E and in the 6E playtest I think we may see some different races in the PHB for 6E. I suspect we'll just see more though, because the lineage approach is potentially more compact and easier to balance.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah I think it was a case of unmet demand suddenly finding an actual outlet.
> 
> I think there was always a bit of a demand, because being like, the son of the devil but a good guy has been a thing since what, at latest the early 1970s? Marvel had a "Son of Satan" comic back then. And I heard a lot of stories from 1E players that involved PC cambions or cambion-like beings.
> 
> But then the 1990s really ratcheted that whole deal up a notch, with tons of varying levels of "seems like they'd conventionally be evil but is actually good or at least a heroic badass" comic books, whether it's Gaiman's Death or Spawn from the Image comics, and god like, the whole White Wolf World of Darkness phenomenon was huge with all sorts of scary supernatural beings suddenly being playable (indeed there are a lot of smaller RPGs with similar themes from that era). Even stuff like RIFTS had a lot of scary monsters who were actually potentially friendly (even scary psychic worms who were actually good guys!). And I think it was serving that largely unmet demand I mentioned.
> 
> Planescape itself felt like a (successful) "please come back to AD&D, it's cool again now!" product for groups like mine which had largely shifted to other games, and Tieflings were certainly part of that.
> 
> I think the only other race which has been remotely as successful since then has been Dragonborn, but I always wonder how much of that is down to being the only corebook race with a +2 STR bonus (I am aware some Dwarves also do in 5E).
> 
> I mean, that's something actually that might impact 6E - the removal of racial ASIs is likely to shift weight from the ASIs to both theme and other abilities, but I think theme is going to be big. It'll be very interesting to see if certain races/lineages get less or more popular after that becomes standard or more common. I would expect Dragonborn to slip a bit further, because they don't nail the "dragonman" fantasy with their lack of tails or wings (and I imagine they're already drastically less popular than 2017, as so many people will now have access to other +2 STR races). Tieflings may slip or even become more popular, given they'll now be applicable to all classes. I'm particularly interested to see what happens with elves, esp. if they balance them so they don't have objectively better racials than most others.
> 
> As stuff shifts around over the rest of 5E and in the 6E playtest I think we may see some different races in the PHB for 6E. I suspect we'll just see more though, because the lineage approach is potentially more compact and easier to balance.



I am thinking I might like to play one.  I like the stories behind the varieties such as mammon tiefling and Zariel.  Lots of fun story options and potentially cool aesthetics.  A greedy fat tiefling from mammon stock could be fun(ny).


----------



## Flamestrike

Sacrosanct said:


> Semantics.  The 1e MM defines a monsters alignment as the "characteristic bent towards law/chaos...good/evil".  And the definition of inherent means a characteristic of something.
> 
> But the point being, is that humanoids like orcs or drow are assumed to be evil, and are treated as evil, are described as evil, and defaulted to evil races for all intents and purposes.  And that's now changed and will remain changed going forward.



Thats as ridiculous as saying 'because all Orcs are listed witth 15HP and Greataxes and Strengths of 17, all Orcs have 15HP, Great-axes and Strengths of 17 as inherent traits.

We've had canonical Good aligned Orcs since the early 80's in DnD. The alignment section on monster entries has only ever been a generalization based on typical behaviors, not some kind of 'moral and ethical hardwiring'.

Orcs are usually evil, because they mostly worship Gruumsh, engage in rape and pillage and violence, and culturally tend to view mercy and compassion as weaknesses.

Its not due to some inherent biological hardwiring, and it never has been.


----------



## Flamestrike

Ruin Explorer said:


> Also the Complete Book of Humanoids in 2E, from 1993,




You can go further back to AD&D for an entire culture of Lawful Good aligned Orcs called the Ondonti. They would actually adopt orphaned Orc children from barbaric Orc tribes, and raise them to embrace peace and harmony (and be Good aligned as well).

Pretty sure Orcs of Thar for BECMI stated that Lawful (BECMI's 'Good' alignment) were entirely possible as well.

Orcs have never been 'inherently' evil. Quick to anger (which would give them a tendency towards violence and thus Evil alignments) but entirely capable of being LG aligned.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Um...weird.  I think my post just appeared in a different thread than the one I thought I was posting in.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Flamestrike said:


> Thats as ridiculous as saying 'because all Orcs are listed witth 15HP and Greataxes and Strengths of 17, all Orcs have 15HP, Great-axes and Strengths of 17 as inherent traits.




The old 1e era days didn't call out 15 hp, great axes, or str 17.  You're making up false claims that didn't exist.  They did have 1 HD, and you can be sure that people assumed they had 1 HD for a typical orc, and not something different just because there did exist orcs somewhere that had a different value.  Just like when they were assigned "lawful evil" as an alignment, people assumed orcs in general to be evil.



Flamestrike said:


> We've had canonical Good aligned Orcs since the early 80's in DnD. The alignment section on monster entries has only ever been a generalization based on typical behaviors, not some kind of 'moral and ethical hardwiring'.
> 
> Orcs are usually evil, because they mostly worship Gruumsh, engage in rape and pillage and violence, and culturally tend to view mercy and compassion as weaknesses.
> 
> Its not due to some inherent biological hardwiring, and it never has been.




I can see you're completely missing my point for...whatever reason, I'm not sure at this point.  Whether or not a good orc existed somewhere in no way removes the problems of having the official alignment for a particular race as evil, and for people to assume "orc = evil" whenever they run into one.


----------



## Flamestrike

Sacrosanct said:


> The old 1e era days... Just like when they were assigned "lawful evil" as an alignment, people assumed orcs in general to be evil.



In the 1E Monster Manual, Elves are listed as Chaotic Good.

Are you arguing that Elves are all 'inherently' CG, or that this was just a cultural tendency, and generalization, and individual Elves could be of any alignment?

It it's the latter, apply the same reasoning to Orcs.



Sacrosanct said:


> I can see you're completely missing my point for...whatever reason, I'm not sure at this point.  Whether or not a good orc existed somewhere in no way removes the problems of having the official alignment for a particular race as evil, and for people to assume "orc = evil" whenever they run into one.




People _can _assume Orcs are evil when they meet one, for no other reason other than they're Orcs. Those people would be racists. It's also called judging a book by its cover.

The correct assumption would be that (as Orcs can be of any alignment) you take each Orc as they come.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Flamestrike said:


> In the 1E Monster Manual, Elves are listed as Chaotic Good.
> 
> Are you arguing that Elves are all 'inherently' CG, or that this was just a cultural tendency, and generalization, and individual Elves could be of any alignment?
> 
> It it's the latter, apply the same reasoning to Orcs.




Yes, someone picking up the MM and seeing the elf entry would assume any non-PC elf to be CG. Because that's what the book told them.


Flamestrike said:


> People _can _assume Orcs are evil when they meet one, for no other reason other than they're Orcs. Those people would be racists. It's also called judging a book by its cover.
> 
> The correct assumption would be that (as Orcs can be of any alignment) you take each Orc as they come.



totally wrong.  When that book came out in 1979, people assumed orcs to be evil because that's what they were literally described as in the book.  They didn't assume they were evil because they were racist, they assumed they were evil because we were all _told _they were evil.  As part of the rules.

You're arguing the absurd, and at the very least arguing from a disingenuous position of using today's modern lens to apply to gamers in 1979.  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.

You're arguing that the only reason gamers back then treated orcs to be evil was because they were racist, and it is nonsense.  And if that's your position, then we have nothing to discuss going forward.


----------



## Nebulous

dave2008 said:


> Yep, they could do better on those stat blocks. Though the warlock mechanic is tricky (and would be tricky in 4e too). I personally wouldn't use that mechanic for a monster.
> 
> I do like that WotC has been adding one spell to the monster's actions on recent monsters.  I hope that becomes the new standard.



I've used devil imps from Kobold Press in two encounters now.  They're low CR, but cast heat metal, and that has had really interesting combat consequences. The first time the heavily armored cleric had no water source to douse himself and the imps were hiding in a burning building, so it was a race against time to kill the caster before his own armor cooked him.  There wasn't time to take it off, even with help the hit point damage would drop him.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Crimson Longinus said:


> Super easy: start at level 3-5. Seriously.
> 
> I didn't like how in 4e it was literally impossible have that classic D&D low level experience as even the first level characters felt heroic an powerful. A lot of people actually like the starting characters being simple and weak and then growing to become more complex and powerful. And sure, you might not always want that: in 3e we sometimes started at the third level. A game that has relatively weak and simple characters at first allow starting with more powerful and complex characters just by adjusting the starting level, however the inverse is not true.



And for the number of DMs (incredibly enormous, certainly vast majority in my experience) who adamantly refuse to never start characters before first level, ever, no matter how many bad experiences people have had or how sweetly you ask them?

You act as though I as a player have any control over this at all.

And as an aside, there is (and always has been) a way for us to have our cake and eat it too: "zero levels," "novice levels," whatever you want to call them, an OPT-IN zero-to-hero approach so that it isn't forced on every single newbie that comes along, but is fully supported and emphatically not ghettoized or deprecated. Of course, that's another thing that cannot be added to 5e as it is...



see said:


> My recommendation is that you accept reality; 6th edition is not going to recapitulate 4th edition. Hasbro wants to make money, not satisfy your desires, and they've got the relative sales numbers for 4th and 5th to look at.



I thought 5e was supposed to be the big tent, that everyone could come to and get a pretty good shot at the style of D&D play they like best?

But maybe you're right. You're not the first person to tell me that 5e (in its design and its fanbase) being actively hostile to my preferences is something I should just meekly accept like a good little nerd.



see said:


> Go look at EzekielRaiden's post again, particularly the lines "not being afraid of losing my character in the early game" and "being able to play at essentially _any_ table (whether it starts at 1st level or 10th or anywhere in-between) without having to be paranoid that I'd lose my character".
> 
> Noboody's doing any conflating, EzekielRaiden explicitly said he doesn't want vulnerable characters.



I never

*NEVER*

claimed to want characters that weren't vulnerable. Being vulnerable DOES NOT mean "one crit could kill my character outright" or "two high ordinary damage rolls will leave my character dying." That you twisted my words into such an obvious strawman is proof enough that you're willing to read whatever malfeasant meaning you can find, no matter how tortured. I won't be discussing it any further, because (as usual) the so-called "big tent" of 5e immediately becomes _ever_ so small and confining as soon as someone asks for anything even vaguely 4e-like...exactly in contravention of what the original poster I quoted said.


----------



## Sacrosanct

EzekielRaiden said:


> But maybe you're right. You're not the first person to tell me that 5e (in its design and its fanbase) being actively hostile to my preferences is something I should just meekly accept like a good little nerd.




Not catering to your (general you) wants does not mean something is actively hostile to your preferences.  That's a disingenuous comparison. My preference is to go back to AD&D 1e hit dice, levels, and titles, but 5e's exclusions of those doesn't mean 5e is "actively hostile" to my preferences any more than pistachio ice cream is actively hostile to my ice cream preference.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

EzekielRaiden said:


> And for the number of DMs (incredibly enormous, certainly vast majority in my experience) who adamantly refuse to never start characters before first level, ever, no matter how many bad experiences people have had or how sweetly you ask them?
> 
> You act as though I as a player have any control over this at all.



Rules cannot fix people issues. If you and the GM don't want to play the similar game that's not a rule issue.


EzekielRaiden said:


> And as an aside, there is (and always has been) a way for us to have our cake and eat it too: "zero levels," "novice levels," whatever you want to call them, an OPT-IN zero-to-hero approach so that it isn't forced on every single newbie that comes along, but is fully supported and emphatically not ghettoized or deprecated. Of course, that's another thing that cannot be added to 5e as it is...



They're called levels 1-3. Playing them is not forced to you any more than any other content.


----------



## Stalker0

EzekielRaiden said:


> And as an aside, there is (and always has been) a way for us to have our cake and eat it too: "zero levels," "novice levels," whatever you want to call them, an OPT-IN zero-to-hero approach so that it isn't forced on every single newbie that comes along, but is fully supported and emphatically not ghettoized or deprecated. Of course, that's another thing that cannot be added to 5e as it is...



Realistically that is a question of semantics. Whether I say 1st level is the "hero level" compared to a "0" level, or I say 3rd is the hero level and 1st-2nd are your novice levels....its all the same thing. Now I can appreciate the book noting for new DMs that you do not have to start PCs at 1st level, and could even give suggestions on what level to start based on what kind of campaign they want to run.

The only way a person truly gets "shorted" is if the 1st level is already full hero and there is no zero level, as then there is no by the book way for a DM to run a novice campaign. In 5e, I personally feel that 1st level is still pretty novice, and 3rd level is the true "coming into your own", so I think it is offering the cake and eating it too.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Crimson Longinus said:


> Rules cannot fix people issues. If you and the GM don't want to play the similar game that's not a rule issue.
> 
> They're called levels 1-3. Playing them is not forced to you any more than any other content.



I come from old school D&D (literally going directly from 1e to 5e in 2012 playtest), and I would make the argument that in 5e, first level is _already _a hero level, and zero to hero doesn't exist in 5e.  I mean, look at 1e's classes (especially casters and thieves) and compare them to their 5e counterparts.  It's not even close


----------



## Nebulous

Stalker0 said:


> The only way a person truly gets "shorted" is if the 1st level is already full hero and there is no zero level, as then there is no by the book way for a DM to run a novice campaign. In 5e, I personally feel that 1st level is still pretty novice, and 3rd level is the true "coming into your own", so I think it is offering the cake and eating it too.



I totally agree. 1st and 2nd is training wheels and then come 3rd the truly dangerous stuff starts.  Low level D&D is my favorite to run, I love love love 1st to 3rd level heroes and adventures. I also greatly dislike 12th+ level D&D, but that's just a matter of opinion.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

Sacrosanct said:


> I come from old school D&D (literally going directly from 1e to 5e in 2012 playtest), and I would make the argument that in 5e, first level is _already _a hero level, and zero to hero doesn't exist in 5e.  I mean, look at 1e's classes (especially casters and thieves) and compare them to their 5e counterparts.  It's not even close



I am NOT trying to insert myself into this fight, but...1st level plays more like an old school experience. It's not an old school experience. But it somewhat resembles one. PCs are capable, but fragile. From 2nd level onward they're fairly heroic.


----------



## Nebulous

Sacrosanct said:


> I come from old school D&D (literally going directly from 1e to 5e in 2012 playtest), and I would make the argument that in 5e, first level is _already _a hero level, and zero to hero doesn't exist in 5e.  I mean, look at 1e's classes (especially casters and thieves) and compare them to their 5e counterparts.  It's not even close



Oh they're for sure heroic at 1st, compared to old D&D and any commoner in the world.  The only thing that makes them squishy is low hit points, where a crit can actually easily kill you straight out, no saving throw.  So it's more level fledging hero to super hero in 5e.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Sacrosanct said:


> I come from old school D&D (literally going directly from 1e to 5e in 2012 playtest), and I would make the argument that in 5e, first level is _already _a hero level, and zero to hero doesn't exist in 5e.  I mean, look at 1e's classes (especially casters and thieves) and compare them to their 5e counterparts.  It's not even close



Valid. Then again it is much closer to that than 4e was.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Crimson Longinus said:


> Valid. Then again it is much closer to that than 4e was.



I won't argue that.  I'm just saying that for every person who feels like 5e doesn't allow you to start as a hero, you'll have someone who says they start too heroic.  So the truth is probably in the middle.


----------



## Morrus

EzekielRaiden said:


> As someone who prefers tactical combat, a fair amount of crunch, not being forced to wait until level 3-5 before I get to start making good on my character concept, and not being afraid of losing my character in the early game, what exactly do you recommend?



www.levelup5e.com


----------



## Stalker0

Crimson Longinus said:


> Valid. Then again it is much closer to that than 4e was.



Yeah I think that is where my perspective comes from. When I compared 5e to 4e, I noted that 1st level felt more "back to basics" than 4e's 1st level did. But I can respect that for 1e players it never got to "schlep level"


----------



## dave2008

EzekielRaiden said:


> You act as though I as a player have any control over this at all.



It is to bad that is your experience.  D&D at its best, IMO, is a collaborative group effort.  The players absolutely should have a say in such things. That is how I DM at least.


----------



## dave2008

Sacrosanct said:


> I come from old school D&D (literally going directly from 1e to 5e in 2012 playtest), and I would make the argument that in 5e, first level is _already _a hero level, and zero to hero doesn't exist in 5e.  I mean, look at 1e's classes (especially casters and thieves) and compare them to their 5e counterparts.  It's not even close



Me too. We actually started our 5e campaign at level 0.  You make the character the same, but you don't chose a class. You just get your race and background, no class benefits at all.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

dave2008 said:


> Me too. We actually started our 5e campaign at level 0.  You make the character the same, but you don't chose a class. You just get your race and background, no class benefits at all.



Cool. How you determine the hit points?


----------



## dave2008

Crimson Longinus said:


> Cool. How you determine the hit points?



Well we use to pools: Hit Points (HP) and Bloodied Hit Points (BHP). At level 0, you only get your BHP, no HP. So every hit is bloody

FYI, HP are figured and applied normally and BHP are applied on critical hits and after HP gets to 0. BHP are determined by size, STR, & CON.  Medium = 1.  SO your BHP = 1 x (Str mod + Con mod).

There are more rules involved if your interested.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Crimson Longinus said:


> Rules cannot fix people issues. If you and the GM don't want to play the similar game that's not a rule issue.
> 
> They're called levels 1-3. Playing them is not forced to you any more than any other content.



So where do I go to find these mythical DMs that are willing start at the level I might possibly like to play? It would definitely make a difference in my interest.

I have literally found ZERO DMs thus far who were willing to even momentarily consider it. One had the patience to let me make an argument for it, and then said (essentially) "no, this is what's going to happen, it will be fine." (Spoiler alert: it was *not* fine.)



Stalker0 said:


> Realistically that is a question of semantics. Whether I say 1st level is the "hero level" compared to a "0" level, or I say 3rd is the hero level and 1st-2nd are your novice levels....its all the same thing. Now I can appreciate the book noting for new DMs that you do not have to start PCs at 1st level, and could even give suggestions on what level to start based on what kind of campaign they want to run.
> 
> The only way a person truly gets "shorted" is if the 1st level is already full hero and there is no zero level, as then there is no by the book way for a DM to run a novice campaign. In 5e, I personally feel that 1st level is still pretty novice, and 3rd level is the true "coming into your own", so I think it is offering the cake and eating it too.



I grant that a lack of "schlub" support was a flaw of 4e. I have never said otherwise. But I think you are far, far too quick to dismiss the "semantic" problem. Many many many many DMs see "1st level" and automatically--even reflexively--treat that as the necessary starting point for 100% of games. That may be simply an "error" of many DMs conflating this numeral value with an efficacious or procedural value. However, the error is so widespread, it seems much more practical (_since we're already talking about a hypothetical 6e_) to just accept that humans are silly in this particular way and design the game to short-circuit it.

The even bigger problem though? Newbie players and newbie DMs. I've seen three different novice DMs give up on DMimg 5e because of the incredible swinginess of the game, having one party punch three levels above its weight while another gets 1 death saving throw shy of a TPK on a merely slightly difficult fight. (I was, unfortunately, in the near-TPK group. This has happened 3 out of 4 times I've tried 5e where we had to start at 1st level.) New players benefit from a smoother and simpler introduction, yet also from getting to play a cool concept right away, and from not being horribly punished for errors made while they're still learning. Brutal lethality at lower levels is, yes, (somewhat) supportive of the older-school playstyle, but anti-supportive of newbie players, unless it's specifically opted into by the group and the new player is made aware that that is what they're getting. Bumping up to 3rd or even 5th level is anti-supportive for newbie players because they now have far more THINGS to figure out, pushing the already-high barrier of entry even higher. 



Sacrosanct said:


> I won't argue that.  I'm just saying that for every person who feels like 5e doesn't allow you to start as a hero, you'll have someone who says they start too heroic.  So the truth is probably in the middle.



I agree, and think the best way to address this is to make rules for each thing, that are well-supported and neither deprecated nor pushed, rather each getting its use cases discussed and advice offered for how to make each sing.



Morrus said:


> www.levelup5e.com



I am extremely cautiously optimistic, yes. But again, this would be significantly more than the "customization usually present at the table" idea (paraphrased) from the poster I quoted earlier.



Stalker0 said:


> Yeah I think that is where my perspective comes from. When I compared 5e to 4e, I noted that 1st level felt more "back to basics" than 4e's 1st level did. But I can respect that for 1e players it never got to "schlep level"



Which is why, as I said above, I advocate explicit, well-supported, and (ideally) indefinitely extensible zero-level rules. That way, any variation along the line between "schlub" and "competent adventuring hero" is covered, including "schlub to super-schlub," for those who never want to become "heroic" _at all!_



dave2008 said:


> It is to bad that is your experience.  D&D at its best, IMO, is a collaborative group effort.  The players absolutely should have a say in such things. That is how I DM at least.



It's how I do as well. But we live in the age of "DM empowerment," where the rules are suggestions, and the actual suggestions and advice are like the Imperial Senate: remnants to be swept away.


----------



## bmfrosty

Whether they call it 5.1e or 5.5e or 6e or 5e Revised is all semantics.

I like the idea of them keeping the math the same keeping chapters 5+ of the PHB mostly unchanged (except for cleaning up clunky rules like underwater and dual wielding).  Character creation where all the important changes seem to be likely coming from.  I think that they're going to have to do something with races and backgrounds most importantly.

Races at bare minimum need to be renamed.  Tasha's probably points the direction that they're taking.
Backgrounds could be broken up to make the back and forth a little less onerous.

Classes will be rewritten to some end I'm sure.  Maybe something to make bonus actions unneeded.  Mostly just to mix it up for players, I'm sure.


----------



## DnD Warlord

jmartkdr2 said:


> Overall, I agree with these.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.



One of my favorite camapaigns I had short rests take 9hours with at least 6 hours of sleep/rest and enough food for a meal and someplace realitivly safe.
Long rests took a week in a bed with food and safety.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

bmfrosty said:


> Whether they call it 5.1e or 5.5e or 6e or 5e Revised is all semantics.



When people stake their identities on something, saying that an aspect of it is "all semantics" is like saying that it doesn't matter whether you use a crucifix or an ankh, they're both symbols of life, associated with Middle-Eastern religious traditions, that have a vertical piece and a crossbar, and that were and are used as pendants or amulets.

Semantics matter when symbolism is important. And I don't think _anyone_ can argue that symbolism _isn't_ important for D&D, since so many have made such a big deal about "flavor" concerns. People STILL get nasty when claiming 4th edition D&D "isn't D&D," even though that is _of its very nature_ a purely semantic argument.


----------



## see

EzekielRaiden said:


> I thought 5e was supposed to be the big tent, that everyone could come to and get a pretty good shot at the style of D&D play they like best?



Some people have claimed that, yes. Including designers early on in the D&D Next process. Yet a game _cannot_ be all things to all people. Every design decision limits what games will be supported, automatically excluding some.



EzekielRaiden said:


> But maybe you're right. You're not the first person to tell me that 5e (in its design and its fanbase) being actively hostile to my preferences is something I should just meekly accept like a good little nerd.



I'm simply suggesting that you reach the understanding that 6th edition is _not_ going to fix things for you, because A) 5th edition is already what the ask-the-fans process produced, and B) the sales success of 5th edition is such that WotC/Hasbro is not going to be tempted to bold experimentation.

6th edition will deal with things that the 5th edition fanbase considers problems, not what the people who preferred 4th edition do, because that's what makes sense for the sales-seeking publisher. Pinning your hopes on 6th edition is doing nothing but setting yourself up to be kicked in the teeth by what 6th edition is actually going to be.



EzekielRaiden said:


> I never
> 
> *NEVER*
> 
> claimed to want characters that weren't vulnerable. Being vulnerable DOES NOT mean "one crit could kill my character outright" or "two high ordinary damage rolls will leave my character dying." That you twisted my words into such an obvious strawman is proof enough that you're willing to read whatever malfeasant meaning you can find, no matter how tortured.



You're actively looking for hostility where none exists. "Vulnerable" is not an absolute, it's a comparative. You're opposed to starting characters being _as_ vulnerable as they are in 5th. Call them "vulnerable characters", "highly vulnerable characters", "first level characters always at at death's door"; whatever label you like. Not wanting your characters to be that is a _perfectly valid_ preference.

It's _also_ one that you shouldn't expect 6th edition to fix for you. The fan-feedback playtests for both original Pathfinder and for D&D Next tested starting characters who couldn't be killed that easily,  and decided _against_ them. There's been no massive fanbase groundswell against it, and D&D sales have been doing so well there's no incentive for a sales-seeking publisher to strike out in the blind hope that a change will be more popular.


----------



## Flamestrike

Sacrosanct said:


> Yes, someone picking up the MM and seeing the elf entry would assume any non-PC elf to be CG. Because that's what the book told them.



Your PCs cant pick up the Monster manual and see that entry can they?



Sacrosanct said:


> totally wrong.  When that book came out in 1979, people assumed orcs to be evil because that's what they were literally described as in the book.



But they weren't all evil, inherently or otherwise though were they?


----------



## Hatmatter

EzekielRaiden said:


> As someone who prefers tactical combat, a fair amount of crunch, not being forced to wait until level 3-5 before I get to start making good on my character concept, and not being afraid of losing my character in the early game, what exactly do you recommend? Because, believe me, if I could play a Dragonborn Warlord in 5e, _I would_. If I could play something that actually felt like a Censure of Pursuit Avenger, _I would_. If I could get the kind of incredibly-easy-to-use monster building and encounter building tools 4e had, I'd be all over that like the snow that just hit the eastern seaboard.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure that having the diversity (and balance) of character-building options, the classes I'd like to play, the level of depth to the tactics of combat I prefer, and being able to play at essentially _any_ table (whether it starts at 1st level or 10th or anywhere in-between) without having to be paranoid that I'd lose my character, is a set of things collectively that can't really be "dealt with with the kind of customizations that take place at most tables."



Hello my friend, I appreciate the question, but I am not really the person to answer. I haven't been that been picky with the game. I started playing 1980 and have had great times with the stories that have resulted. I like game design to the extent that I create spells, classes, etc., like most other people, but much of the hyper design theory that I see on this board I cannot truly relate to. I like _Call of Cthulu_, I like D&D, I liked Marvel Super Heroes, I liked Middle Earth Role-Playing. I tend to either enjoy what I am playing or simply not play it.

I suppose if I had a character concept that I required I reach 3rd or 5th level, I would either ask my DM if we could start at 3rd or 5th level, or I would be patient and build up to it. But, that is me. I suppose that doesn't help you.

I will say this...in the early years, I tend to recall the much of the early levels of D&D was precisely dealing with the terror of a character easily being killed in the early levels. That was part of the game. I guess we have moved so far away from that that people don't want to play the game if they have to endure that fear. That's cool. Different strokes and all that. Happy gaming! Maybe they will come up with an amazing 6th edition that will satisfy you and bring everyone even more together in the community, but the idea of going through another 5 years of "when are they going to update this book, or that book, etc." instead of publishing new material that pushes us forward is tedious to me. But, that's just me. I got your back. I mean no ill will or anything.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> I thought 5e was supposed to be the big tent, that everyone could come to and get a pretty good shot at the style of D&D play they like best?



You can though? Assuming you find a DM and group interested in the same experience can 5e (I can't even remember the Warlord debate, I skipped 4e completely) not manage the experience you want?


----------



## Guest 6801328

Hatmatter said:


> I suppose if I had a character concept that I required I reach 3rd or 5th level, I would either ask my DM if we could start at 3rd or 5th level, or I would be patient and build up to it. But, that is me. I suppose that doesn't help you.




I recently decided to play a Kensai Monk as a disciple of a sword-fighting tradition.  Problem is, you don't actually get sword proficiency until 3rd level.  So I had her use a staff, re-fluffed as a wooden practice sword, for the first two levels, under the premise that she hadn't yet earned the privilege of using a real sword.  

Worked out well. It made the character's story more fun than I think it would have been otherwise.


----------



## JEB

Ruin Explorer said:


> Tieflings may slip or even become more popular, given they'll now be applicable to all classes.



One thing I noticed in Tasha's - there were more tieflings depicted as example characters than in previous books. (I actually counted, out of curiosity - they were #3 behind elves and humans, and #2 if you broke elves up into subraces like drow.) I suspect you're right that Wizards has decided they're a selling point - surely helped by now-iconic tiefling PC Jester, from Critical Role - and will push them more in future products.



Ruin Explorer said:


> As stuff shifts around over the rest of 5E and in the 6E playtest I think we may see some different races in the PHB for 6E.



I expect orcs to be a core race in 6E, possibly at the expense of half-orcs. (In Tasha's there were orc example characters but not a single half-orc. Also, it'll be tough to give them a distinctive niche with orcs in the core.) I suspect half-elves are also in danger, since their niche of "elf with more versatility" loses its oomph when that versatility is standard for all races at character creation. Not sure if there will be other new additions to the core lineup, though goblin might be a possibility (unless they're worried it'll look like they're ripping off PF 2e).


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Hatmatter said:


> Hello my friend, I appreciate the question, but I am not really the person to answer.



While this is a somewhat frustrating answer, I appreciate it nonetheless. "I can't help you" (or other related answers like "I don't know") is all too often stigmatized. I appreciate your willingness to give it, even if it's not what I'd like to hear.



Hatmatter said:


> I suppose if I had a character concept that I required I reach 3rd or 5th level, I would either ask my DM if we could start at 3rd or 5th level, or I would be patient and build up to it. But, that is me. I suppose that doesn't help you.



Not really. A major part of it is that I basically cannot get in-person gaming. Nearly all of my gaming experience is electronic--which counts well over a decade before Covid-19 reared its ugly head. It is substantially harder to find a DM willing to do things the way you want to when they aren't a friend you can appeal to personally.



Hatmatter said:


> I will say this...in the early years, I tend to recall the much of the early levels of D&D was precisely dealing with the terror of a character easily being killed in the early levels. That was part of the game. I guess we have moved so far away from that that people don't want to play the game if they have to endure that fear.



Yeah. I gave OSR gaming a genuine shot. It...wasn't for me. Even _with_ a DM pretty willing to do whatever I was interested in playing. I live with enough fear in my regular life; making it an ongoing part of my leisure time is literally the antithesis of fun.



Scribe said:


> You can though? Assuming you find a DM and group interested in the same experience can 5e (I can't even remember the Warlord debate, I skipped 4e completely) not manage the experience you want?



I have not found any class in 5e that has meaningful tactical options, at least without resorting to spellcasting...which is a big problem for me. (I'm okay with spellcasters having cool tools; I like Sorcerers, for example. But I'm not okay with spellcasters being _the_ choice if you ever want to have real tactical options you didn't extract from the DM via negotiation, since EVERYONE can extract options from the DM via negotiation.) Even for many casters, you do your One Obvious Thing, unless you can't, in which case you do your Backup Thing. It strongly reminds me of playing Dungeon World, where I was able to mentally generate a flowchart to handle essentially every combat ever. I had a wonderful DM, but I _had_ to do other things to keep my mind occupied or I would've gone _crazy_ during combats, and my experience with 5e has not been a whole lot better than that. Better, I will admit, but of the "I don't know which of the three flowcharts I'm on yet" variety, rather than "wow, I really need to be paying attention and planning ahead and thinking about what resources I _might_ have two turns from now" stuff.

As for the Warlord debate...well. 


Spoiler: Warlord stuff not directly relevant to the thread at large



Repeatedly in the Next playtest, the devs voiced support for fans of the 4e Warlord, a non-spellcasting class capable of pretty much all essential party-support-role stuff.* Mearls himself even explicitly tweeted that they were cool with martial healing being in the game, and if people didn't like it, they could just ban that option at their tables. But they did three things, which not-fully-intentionally ended up torpedoing any chance of playing a Warlord character in (at-launch) 5e. Then, because the devs have been (with rare exceptions e.g. Hexblade) pretty cautious about any moves that make a big splash in terms of altering underlying mechanics (frex: the ongoing Ranger and specifically Beastmaster issues), they were effectively trapped by the choices of the PHB, unable to really push beyond that.

Notably, those three things _each individually_ probably wouldn't have been a problem. All three together killed any hope of an official 5e Warlord. The things, in chronological order, were:
1. Deciding that the Warlord didn't make sense as its own unique class. They were very explicit (frustratingly so, since they openly joked about it using actual edition-war arguments in a podcast) that the Warlord was _actually_ either some kind of Bard, or some kind of Fighter, or both. They chose to mostly do the latter, so the Warlord had to fit into the Fighter chassis.
2. Making the Fighter a "tanky bruiser," to use the MOBA term--a character that can both take hits and dish them out very well. Sort of the middle-ground between "glass cannon" and "stone wall"--not quite what TVTropes would call a "mighty glacier," but close. All Fighters, no matter their subclass, have high defense, high personal offensive power, and high personal utility. By itself, not a problem, except...
3. Making the Warlord option the poster child for their "Specialties" subsystem. Long story short, originally, you would've selected a _package_ of themed feats (or created your own package), which were your Specialty (possibly with some other minor goodies). And then it turned out they couldn't make Specialties work the way they wanted, so they had to silently just...drop them and hope no one noticed.

As a result of all three--not doing any work to make Warlord its own class, making Fighters strong AND tough AND self-supportive, and going all-in for Warlord-as-Specialty and then having to drop it not very long before they needed to hit publication--there just wasn't anywhere for a Warlord to _go_, and every subsequent attempt (such as the Purple Dragon Knight) has been a non-starter. Mearls and co. almost certainly still believe the Warlord isn't appropriate as its own class, but there isn't an existing class you could add that level of depth and support to without risking it being overpowered, and anything you could add to the Fighter ends up being so anemic it won't satisfy Warlord fans. They accidentally painted themselves into a corner, and now have no option but to just hope Warlord fans stop caring. (Of course, the legions of _haters_ could never have been more pleased; they're certain 5e actually does support the Warlord and anyone who says otherwise is just demanding that their needs be perfectly 100% catered to all the time forever. Yes, I may be somewhat bitter about this.)

*Keep in mind, character resurrection was a Ritual in 4e, meaning anyone with the Ritual Caster feat, and enough money to learn and cast the ritual, could resurrect the dead. So "party-support-role" stuff _mostly_ meant healing, buffs, repositioning, granting saving throws, and granting extra attacks. Non-combat utility was something everyone got, and Rituals covered a huge swathe of all utility magic previously only accessible to spellcasters. Warlords were really good at buffs and granting attacks, which was part of why they were popular; they had very _proactive_ support.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

JEB said:


> One thing I noticed in Tasha's - there were more tieflings depicted as example characters than in previous books. (I actually counted, out of curiosity - they were #3 behind elves and humans, and #2 if you broke elves up into subraces like drow.) I suspect you're right that Wizards has decided they're a selling point - surely helped by now-iconic tiefling PC Jester, from Critical Role - and will push them more in future products.
> 
> 
> I expect orcs to be a core race in 6E, possibly at the expense of half-orcs. (In Tasha's there were orc example characters but not a single half-orc. Also, it'll be tough to give them a distinctive niche with orcs in the core.) I suspect half-elves are also in danger, since their niche of "elf with more versatility" loses its oomph when that versatility is standard for all races at character creation. Not sure if there will be other new additions to the core lineup, though goblin might be a possibility (unless they're worried it'll look like they're ripping off PF 2e).



Orc does seem plausible, even likely as a core race for 6E, I hadn't considered that. I doubt they'll do Goblin as core, because it's basically PF branding. It's not like it would cause legal issue or anything, it just might look a bit bandwagon-y (even though D&D has had playable goblins since 1989's Taladas setting for 2E). Instead I think playable Kobolds, which are much more on-brand for D&D are quite likely. They've had some popularity since Dragon Mountain and people starting to draw them as little dragon-men in 2E, and have steadily gained over the years. I suspect if they are in 6E as core they'd be more popular than gnomes, possibly halflings.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Deekin sing the Doom song now?


----------



## dave2008

EzekielRaiden said:


> I have not found any class in 5e that has meaningful tactical options, at least without resorting to spellcasting...which is a big problem for me.



What do you consider "meaningful tactical options?" As I big fan of 4e, I find the battlemaster has most of what I want in a tactical fighter, even more so with the new Tasha's options.  I can only assume your opinion differs, so I am just wondering how or to what degree?

Now, the issue I see with 5e and tactics is that not enough of the classes and monsters support this style of play when comparing to 4e. The thing with 4e was not just individual PC tactics, but group synergy/tactics and of course monster tactics too.  Now some DM's can make up for the lack of tactics on the monster side, but it is harder, IMO, to add it back in on the plater side.  I do feel like this is a place were A5e will shine though.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> As a result of all three--not doing any work to make Warlord its own class, making Fighters strong AND tough AND self-supportive, and going all-in for Warlord-as-Specialty and then having to drop it not very long before they needed to hit publication--there just wasn't anywhere for a Warlord to _go_, and every subsequent attempt (such as the Purple Dragon Knight) has been a non-starter. Mearls and co. almost certainly still believe the Warlord isn't appropriate as its own class, but there isn't an existing class you could add that level of depth and support to without risking it being overpowered, and anything you could add to the Fighter ends up being so anemic it won't satisfy Warlord fans.



Appreciate the response. For my own sake trying to put it into context I think of the Man-at-Arms in Darkest Dungeon (Man-at-Arms) would seem to be where my mind goes if thinking of a physical (non-caster) support class.

I can see how the balance may be wrong, with making that a fighter build, and the battlemaster comes online later.

I dont want to derail the thread with what could be a contentious issue still but thanks for the explanation all the same.


----------



## Hatmatter

EzekielRaiden said:


> While this is a somewhat frustrating answer, I appreciate it nonetheless. "I can't help you" (or other related answers like "I don't know") is all too often stigmatized. I appreciate your willingness to give it, even if it's not what I'd like to hear.



Imagine what it is like for my wife! 


EzekielRaiden said:


> Not really. A major part of it is that I basically cannot get in-person gaming. Nearly all of my gaming experience is electronic--which counts well over a decade before Covid-19 reared its ugly head. It is substantially harder to find a DM willing to do things the way you want to when they aren't a friend you can appeal to personally.



That is very unfortunate. I wish it was not that way. Speaking for myself, I have bent over backwards for players who I have not DMed before merely so that they can realize their character concept...even at the expense of some of the unique aspects of my world (for the record, I regretted it later...but I don't _truly_ regret letting people play the kind of character they want...as you can tell, I am conflicted).


EzekielRaiden said:


> Yeah. I gave OSR gaming a genuine shot. It...wasn't for me. Even _with_ a DM pretty willing to do whatever I was interested in playing. I live with enough fear in my regular life; making it an ongoing part of my leisure time is literally the antithesis of fun.



I remember a veteran player (who has since passed on...I _loved_ that guy) who played a magic-user (transmuter specialist from 2nd edition actually) in one of our campaigns and the character would pathologically stay well behind all the other characters for like the first five levels (I mean he started with 3 hit points or something) and just do _everything_ from a distance. But, as the campaign progressed, he became mighty and we would feature him in short stories that we co-authored and have great fun with the character. That player had a lot of patience and never complained and I think, for him, getting that character to 12th and higher level was very sweet indeed.


EzekielRaiden said:


> I have not found any class in 5e that has meaningful tactical options, at least without resorting to spellcasting...which is a big problem for me. (I'm okay with spellcasters having cool tools; I like Sorcerers, for example. But I'm not okay with spellcasters being _the_ choice if you ever want to have real tactical options you didn't extract from the DM via negotiation, since EVERYONE can extract options from the DM via negotiation.) Even for many casters, you do your One Obvious Thing, unless you can't, in which case you do your Backup Thing. It strongly reminds me of playing Dungeon World, where I was able to mentally generate a flowchart to handle essentially every combat ever. I had a wonderful DM, but I _had_ to do other things to keep my mind occupied or I would've gone _crazy_ during combats, and my experience with 5e has not been a whole lot better than that. Better, I will admit, but of the "I don't know which of the three flowcharts I'm on yet" variety, rather than "wow, I really need to be paying attention and planning ahead and thinking about what resources I _might_ have two turns from now" stuff.



I appreciate you sharing this. It is understandable that you would be pushing for a new version of the game that would let you scratch the itch you have. We all want to have fun, so I understand.

So, I do not have any good ideas. I will just say this, my concern would be that a new edition would not be able to satisfy everyone; that for everyone it placated, it would contribute to divisions elsewhere. But, so that you know where I am coming from, I have never really been a fan of the approach where the game itself is continuously tinkered with. That's just my bias. When I play Monopoly, I like using the same rules no matter the decade I am playing it, whether I am playing it with my parents or playing it with my daughter. But, to be fair, if game designers maintained that attitude, we would not have reached such a fantastic version of D&D that I acknowledge 5th edition is. So, what do I know?

I also acknowledge that it would not be helpful for me to suggest you try a different game, because then you would likely run into trouble finding people to play it, given that there are so many people willing to play D&D, but relatively few who play other games.

I genuinely wish you the best in your search! Maybe your situation will result in you either designing your own game or customizing D&D in a way that not only makes you happy, but makes others happy as well. I wish for that also!


----------



## Hatmatter

Guest 6801328 said:


> I recently decided to play a Kensai Monk as a disciple of a sword-fighting tradition.  Problem is, you don't actually get sword proficiency until 3rd level.  So I had her use a staff, re-fluffed as a wooden practice sword, for the first two levels, under the premise that she hadn't yet earned the privilege of using a real sword.
> 
> Worked out well. It made the character's story more fun than I think it would have been otherwise.



Love it!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

EzekielRaiden said:


> As for the Warlord debate...well.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warlord stuff not directly relevant to the thread at large
> 
> 
> 
> Repeatedly in the Next playtest, the devs voiced support for fans of the 4e Warlord, a non-spellcasting class capable of pretty much all essential party-support-role stuff.* Mearls himself even explicitly tweeted that they were cool with martial healing being in the game, and if people didn't like it, they could just ban that option at their tables. But they did three things, which not-fully-intentionally ended up torpedoing any chance of playing a Warlord character in (at-launch) 5e. Then, because the devs have been (with rare exceptions e.g. Hexblade) pretty cautious about any moves that make a big splash in terms of altering underlying mechanics (frex: the ongoing Ranger and specifically Beastmaster issues), they were effectively trapped by the choices of the PHB, unable to really push beyond that.
> 
> Notably, those three things _each individually_ probably wouldn't have been a problem. All three together killed any hope of an official 5e Warlord. The things, in chronological order, were:
> 1. Deciding that the Warlord didn't make sense as its own unique class. They were very explicit (frustratingly so, since they openly joked about it using actual edition-war arguments in a podcast) that the Warlord was _actually_ either some kind of Bard, or some kind of Fighter, or both. They chose to mostly do the latter, so the Warlord had to fit into the Fighter chassis.
> 2. Making the Fighter a "tanky bruiser," to use the MOBA term--a character that can both take hits and dish them out very well. Sort of the middle-ground between "glass cannon" and "stone wall"--not quite what TVTropes would call a "mighty glacier," but close. All Fighters, no matter their subclass, have high defense, high personal offensive power, and high personal utility. By itself, not a problem, except...
> 3. Making the Warlord option the poster child for their "Specialties" subsystem. Long story short, originally, you would've selected a _package_ of themed feats (or created your own package), which were your Specialty (possibly with some other minor goodies). And then it turned out they couldn't make Specialties work the way they wanted, so they had to silently just...drop them and hope no one noticed.
> 
> As a result of all three--not doing any work to make Warlord its own class, making Fighters strong AND tough AND self-supportive, and going all-in for Warlord-as-Specialty and then having to drop it not very long before they needed to hit publication--there just wasn't anywhere for a Warlord to _go_, and every subsequent attempt (such as the Purple Dragon Knight) has been a non-starter. Mearls and co. almost certainly still believe the Warlord isn't appropriate as its own class, but there isn't an existing class you could add that level of depth and support to without risking it being overpowered, and anything you could add to the Fighter ends up being so anemic it won't satisfy Warlord fans. They accidentally painted themselves into a corner, and now have no option but to just hope Warlord fans stop caring. (Of course, the legions of _haters_ could never have been more pleased; they're certain 5e actually does support the Warlord and anyone who says otherwise is just demanding that their needs be perfectly 100% catered to all the time forever. Yes, I may be somewhat bitter about this.)
> 
> *Keep in mind, character resurrection was a Ritual in 4e, meaning anyone with the Ritual Caster feat, and enough money to learn and cast the ritual, could resurrect the dead. So "party-support-role" stuff _mostly_ meant healing, buffs, repositioning, granting saving throws, and granting extra attacks. Non-combat utility was something everyone got, and Rituals covered a huge swathe of all utility magic previously only accessible to spellcasters. Warlords were really good at buffs and granting attacks, which was part of why they were popular; they had very _proactive_ support.



Really good post and it reminded me of one of the most interesting things about 5E, or specifically, D&D Next, which was that it very clearly showed D&D's designers were both kind of scrambling to get stuff done, and had feet of clay. I mean, 4E, love it or loathe it, appeared incredibly competently designed in terms of the classes/roles and how combat functioned and so on. Whilst there were some issues that emerged (monster math, skill challenges), it just felt like they knew what they were doing, for my money, anyway. Of course the marketing was next-level unimaginably incompetent (yeah let's have a snooty sounding dude with a Euro-accent telling you your previous version of D&D suck ass whilst showing you video footage of an imaginary bit of software which never actually came into being!)

Whereas 5E, they kinda showed you how the sausage was made and unfortunately showed you they were going to make a way better kind of sausage and even let you taste it, before they decided it was just largely unseasoned chipolatas for everyone because that's what the grogs demanded and they didn't have time to make various kinds of sausages for both the grogs and everyone else.


----------



## Mercurius

Whatever form "6E" actually takes, I do think we can be reasonably certain that it will be a continuation of--and evolution from--5E, but not a break from it as we have seen a few times in the past. Let me explain.

I kinda like to look at D&D as having several relatively distinct "sub-species." OD&D was the "proto-type" which spawned two lines; one, B/X and BECMI, stayed relatively close to the prototype. The second was, of course, AD&D, both 1E and 2E.

So from OD&D, you have two "lineages" or sub-species: B/X/BECMI and AD&D. These two lineages came together in the third sub-species: WotC's 3E, which somewhat unexpectedly ended and gave rise to a fourth sub-species: 4E (so in this context, a lot of the ire towards 4E was because many folks wanted to see a continuation of the 3E sub-species, which of course arose as Pathfinder). 4E proved not to be able to survive adequately in its environment, so also ended and, a couple years later, a fifth sub-species arose: 5E.

6E will be to 5E what 2E was (roughly) to 1E: a continuation and evolution, but not a new sub-species. 

IMO, of course.

What that actually means, well, that's where the endless speculation can take place. But since my post a few days ago, I have warmed to the possibility that we shall, indeed, see a new "edition" - if buy that we mean a new iteration of the same sub-species. But it is important to recognize the context in which new sub-species arose in the past:

B/X and AD&D arose due to the rising popularity of D&D. It was the natural expansion and evolution of the game.

3E arose because of two decades of game design that had made the existing sub-species rather anachronistic (one of which, BECMI, had ceased publication 6-7 years before 3E, so was essentially "dead"), and because of a massive publication schedule in the 90s that led to the necessity to wipe the slate clean in an "apocalyptic event."

4E arose because the edition treadmill and rules bloat had led to diminishing sales, and an overall decline--or at least stagnancy--in the popularity of the game.

5E arose because the relatively experimental previous sub-species didn't survive well in the D&D eco-system.

There is no significant reason for a new sub-species to arise in the foreseeable future: the game is thriving like never before and there's no issue with rules or product bloat. 

But this doesn't exclude the possibility of a new iteration of the same sub-species to reflect a decade (by 2024) of play, rules options, and to fine-tune, tweak, revise and re-package the sub-species to take those into account. In fact, 2024 would pretty much be the perfect time for such an event.


----------



## Mercurius

Delete. Duplicate.


----------



## Nebulous

Ruin Explorer said:


> Orc does seem plausible, even likely as a core race for 6E, I hadn't considered that. I doubt they'll do Goblin as core, because it's basically PF branding. It's not like it would cause legal issue or anything, it just might look a bit bandwagon-y (even though D&D has had playable goblins since 1989's Taladas setting for 2E). Instead I think playable Kobolds, which are much more on-brand for D&D are quite likely. They've had some popularity since Dragon Mountain and people starting to draw them as little dragon-men in 2E, and have steadily gained over the years. I suspect if they are in 6E as core they'd be more popular than gnomes, possibly halflings.



The Midgard setting has kobolds as core, and they are pretty integral in some ways, especially in a world with clockwork magic and devices, where their small hands are adept at crafting intricate items. We have one in our group, a wizard, but he had to finagle something to avoid the sunlight sensitivity penalty, which would have crippled the character.


----------



## Dausuul

Mercurius said:


> I kinda like to look at D&D as having several relatively distinct "sub-species." OD&D was the "proto-type" which spawned two lines; one, B/X and BECMI, stayed relatively close to the prototype. The second was, of course, AD&D, both 1E and 2E.
> 
> So from OD&D, you have two "lineages" or sub-species: B/X/BECMI and AD&D. These two lineages came together in the third sub-species: WotC's 3E, which somewhat unexpectedly ended and gave rise to a fourth sub-species: 4E (so in this context, a lot of the ire towards 4E was because many folks wanted to see a continuation of the 3E sub-species, which of course arose as Pathfinder). 4E proved not to be able to survive adequately in its environment, so also ended and, a couple years later, a fifth sub-species arose: 5E.



I agree with your post, but I would describe it slightly differently. D&D has had several "origin events," where major new ideas were introduced. Each of them eventually merged into the trunk of D&D, contributing their distinctive elements to the whole. The origin events as I see them were:

*OD&D: *The original "white box" that started the whole thing.
*AD&D 1st Edition:* Introduced most of the classes, races, and monsters we use today, nine-point alignment, and most of the spells.
*BD&D: *Introduced unified stat bonuses and mechanically distinct tiers of play. _(Debatable whether this is enough to qualify as an "origin event," but I'm fond of BD&D so I'll put it in.)_
*3E: *Introduced the unified d20 mechanic, spontaneous spellcasting, feats, level-based stat increases, and a ton of standardization.
*4E: *Introduced short rests, rapid nonmagical healing, at-will spellcasting, extensive tactical options for martial classes*, and a systematic approach to game balance.
Origin events tend to be driven by crises. AD&D and BD&D came about because the white box was woefully inadequate once the audience expanded beyond wargamers. 3E rose from the ashes of TSR's collapse. 4E was a desperate effort to get D&D up to Hasbro's "core brand" standard of $100 million/year, which was the only way Wizards could justify its large staff.

Conversely, when things are going smoothly, you get evolutionary change rather than revolution. Thus AD&D gave rise to 2E, which was a cleaned-up version of 1E but basically the same system. BD&D went through several iterations with Moldvay, Mentzer, and the Rules Cyclopedia. 3E had 3.5 (and later Pathfinder) and 4E had Essentials.

5E is an odd case: There was a crisis, but it arose from the split between 4E fans and 3E/Pathfinder fans. So instead of another "origin event," the designers responded with a synthesis, melding elements of 3E and 4E, with a sprinkling of AD&D thrown in. There were new ideas, but they were minor improvements, not big fundamental changes.

As you say, things are going smoothly now with 5E, so it makes sense that 6E would be evolutionary change along the lines of 2E.

*Strictly speaking, this appeared in late 3E, most notably in the Book of Nine Swords. But that book was a trial run for 4E, which was under active development at the time.


----------



## Shadow Over Mystara

JEB said:


> I expect orcs to be a core race in 6E, possibly at the expense of half-orcs. (In Tasha's there were orc example characters but not a single half-orc. Also, it'll be tough to give them a distinctive niche with orcs in the core.) I suspect half-elves are also in danger, since their niche of "elf with more versatility" loses its oomph when that versatility is standard for all races at character creation. Not sure if there will be other new additions to the core lineup, though goblin might be a possibility (unless they're worried it'll look like they're ripping off PF 2e).



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.



Ruin Explorer said:


> Instead I think playable Kobolds, which are much more on-brand for D&D are quite likely. They've had some popularity since Dragon Mountain and people starting to draw them as little dragon-men in 2E, and have steadily gained over the years. I suspect if they are in 6E as core they'd be more popular than gnomes, possibly halflings.



I love this idea. If half-elves are removed, kobolds have my vote to be their replacement. They're to the Dragonborn lineage what gnomes/halflings are to dwarves/elves, and D&D having 2 core dragon races makes all the sense in the world.


----------



## Mercurius

Dausuul said:


> I agree with your post, but I would describe it slightly differently. D&D has had several "origin events," where major new ideas were introduced. Each of them eventually merged into the trunk of D&D, contributing their distinctive elements to the whole. The origin events as I see them were:
> 
> *OD&D: *The original "white box" that started the whole thing.
> *AD&D 1st Edition:* Introduced most of the classes, races, and monsters we use today, nine-point alignment, and most of the spells.
> *BD&D: *Introduced unified stat bonuses and mechanically distinct tiers of play. _(Debatable whether this is enough to qualify as an "origin event," but I'm fond of BD&D so I'll put it in.)_
> *3E: *Introduced the unified d20 mechanic, spontaneous spellcasting, feats, level-based stat increases, and a ton of standardization.
> *4E: *Introduced short rests, rapid nonmagical healing, at-will spellcasting, extensive tactical options for martial classes*, and a systematic approach to game balance.
> Origin events tend to be driven by crises. AD&D and BD&D came about because the white box was woefully inadequate once the audience expanded beyond wargamers. 3E rose from the ashes of TSR's collapse. 4E was a desperate effort to get D&D up to Hasbro's "core brand" standard of $100 million/year, which was the only way Wizards could justify its large staff.
> 
> Conversely, when things are going smoothly, you get evolutionary change rather than revolution. Thus AD&D gave rise to 2E, which was a cleaned-up version of 1E but basically the same system. BD&D went through several iterations with Moldvay, Mentzer, and the Rules Cyclopedia. 3E had 3.5 (and later Pathfinder) and 4E had Essentials.
> 
> 5E is an odd case: There was a crisis, but it arose from the split between 4E fans and 3E/Pathfinder fans. So instead of another "origin event," the designers responded with a synthesis, melding elements of 3E and 4E, with a sprinkling of AD&D thrown in. There were new ideas, but they were minor improvements, not big fundamental changes.
> 
> As you say, things are going smoothly now with 5E, so it makes sense that 6E would be evolutionary change along the lines of 2E.
> 
> *Strictly speaking, this appeared in late 3E, most notably in the Book of Nine Swords. But that book was a trial run for 4E, which was under active development at the time.



Yes, basic agreement - kind of a different angle but quite compatible with what I was saying.

I suppose the big thing for 5E was bounded accuracy (and also adv/disadv), so maybe a "synthesis plus." But I agree that it was largely a synthesis of "the best of" 3E and 4E, or that was the intent and result (for the most part). But bounded accuracy, in a way, actually harkened back to a more old-school feel, if not re-embracing the deadliness of early forms of D&D.

If I were to guess how 6E "evolutionizes," it would be more of what we saw in _Tasha's, _with both an implicit and explicit element. The implicit would be to modernize the socio-cultural aesthetics, both in terms of the art presented but also deconstruction of some of the hard-written assumptions about race, emphasis on violence, etc. The explicit would be to provide a more customizable game, thus the implicit element will be more hidden and/or softened by the focus being on providing a greater range of options, rather than enforcing certain assumptions to all gamers. Meaning, I would think that while there will still likely be defaults, they'll try to cater to the range of folks from traditional ("shoot first"/"orcs are evil foes") to more contemporary ("negotiate first"/"orcs are PC race").


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Mercurius said:


> Yes, basic agreement - kind of a different angle but quite compatible with what I was saying.
> 
> I suppose the big thing for 5E was bounded accuracy (and also adv/disadv), so maybe a "synthesis plus." But I agree that it was largely a synthesis of "the best of" 3E and 4E, or that was the intent and result (for the most part). But bounded accuracy, in a way, actually harkened back to a more old-school feel, if not re-embracing the deadliness of early forms of D&D.
> 
> If I were to guess how 6E "evolutionizes," it would be more of what we saw in _Tasha's, _with both an implicit and explicit element. The implicit would be to modernize the socio-cultural aesthetics, both in terms of the art presented but also deconstruction of some of the hard-written assumptions about race, emphasis on violence, etc. The explicit would be to provide a more customizable game, thus the implicit element will be more hidden and/or softened by the focus being on providing a greater range of options, rather than enforcing certain assumptions to all gamers. Meaning, I would think that while there will still likely be defaults, they'll try to cater to the range of folks from traditional ("shoot first"/"orcs are evil foes") to more contemporary ("negotiate first"/"orcs are PC race").



I think you are correct on most counts here.

I think 6e will be still called D&D without reference to any edition and backwards compatible.

I suspect you are right about anti tradition as well.

As it stands I have a hard time finding cool pseudo medieval warriors in the art.  It’s easier to find a tiefling than say a man at arms footman or even Conan-ish presentations.

I think the disregard and active avoidance of most D&D tropes will be more consistent.

since I liked the aesthetics and imagery of pseudo medieval knights and barbarians from sword and sorcery fiction, I am less likely to plunk down the money.

but if I am right, my books will still “work” should I want to include a new supplement or module from the “new game.”  It will be ok.

I just don’t think it’s a journey I will pay to take.  But I also think if they are smart it won’t be necessarily divisive and people could still convers with some fluency about the game world  without converting to new materials.


----------



## Stalker0

EzekielRaiden said:


> I have not found any class in 5e that has meaningful tactical options, at least without resorting to spellcasting..



The trick is that we are using an older school mentality. This is not the 3.5 mentality of "its not a specific option or rule you can't do it". Its "do what you want, and you and the dm work it out together."

So for example, grapple only consumes 1 attack. And while people snide it for being weak, its relatively simple and easy to do, and if you have two attacks only requires a bit of your offense.

The rules give some basic notes for bull rushes, disarms, and trips...no reason you can't attempt those.

In my last game, the barbarian fought a lich with a staff of power at one point. The barbarian rushes in, dashes past the guards, grabs the staff out of the lich's hands (a "disarm" attempt), and then with his second attack we used the "use an object rules" to have him break the staff in front of all of them. He happened to randomly have a ring of force resistance, so only took half from the massive explosion. The lich and all of his cronies were dead, and the barb stood strong.

5e allows for all of that, even encourages it, and gives basic mechanics (such as opposed athletics checks) to administer them. So don't think of it of "there are no options", think of it as "the rules don't say I can't....so!" You and the DM work out it out, and with a little bit of creativity and flexibility, you can absolutely make a fighter doing all sorts of tricks.


----------



## Hatmatter

Stalker0 said:


> The trick is that we are using an older school mentality. This is not the 3.5 mentality of "its not a specific option or rule you can't do it". Its "do what you want, and you and the dm work it out together."
> 
> So for example, grapple only consumes 1 attack. And while people snide it for being weak, its relatively simple and easy to do, and if you have two attacks only requires a bit of your offense.
> 
> The rules give some basic notes for bull rushes, disarms, and trips...no reason you can't attempt those.
> 
> In my last game, the barbarian fought a lich with a staff of power at one point. The barbarian rushes in, dashes past the guards, grabs the staff out of the lich's hands (a "disarm" attempt), and then with his second attack we used the "use an object rules" to have him break the staff in front of all of them. He happened to randomly have a ring of force resistance, so only took half from the massive explosion. The lich and all of his cronies were dead, and the barb stood strong.
> 
> 5e allows for all of that, even encourages it, and gives basic mechanics (such as opposed athletics checks) to administer them. So don't think of it of "there are no options", think of it as "the rules don't say I can't....so!" You and the DM work out it out, and with a little bit of creativity and flexibility, you can absolutely make a fighter doing all sorts of tricks.



Well said.


----------



## JEB

ShadowOverMystara said:


> 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.



Assuming they do get rid of half-orcs and half-elves, but retain the new lineage mechanics, I could perhaps see them making "half-orc" a lineage option for non-orcs and "half-elf" a lineage option for non-elves. (Maybe throw in "half-human" for non-humans as well.) Though I'm not sure you'd see that in the core rules, seems more like sourcebook territory.

Of course, they might also keep half-orcs and half-elves in the core, simply to keep 5.5E/6E additive rather than subtractive and avoid alienating fans of those races. Though half-orcs being absent from Tasha's, again, was noticeable, and there's still the other assorted issues with both races in the new environment. (FWIW, I didn't see any obvious half-elves in Tasha's either.)


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Stalker0 said:


> The trick is that we are using an older school mentality. This is not the 3.5 mentality of "its not a specific option or rule you can't do it". Its "do what you want, and you and the dm work it out together."



Again: everyone can always do that. But casters _also_ get a bunch of cool things on top. Non-casters don't. That grates, _hard_.



Stalker0 said:


> 5e allows for all of that, even encourages it, and gives basic mechanics (such as opposed athletics checks) to administer them. So don't think of it of "there are no options", think of it as "the rules don't say I can't....so!" You and the DM work out it out, and with a little bit of creativity and flexibility, you can absolutely make a fighter doing all sorts of tricks.



My experience with 5e has not reflected a particularly "open" DMing attitude like this.* But even if it did...again, what's stopping the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, or Bard from doing this (or other things more suited to their ability scores)? Everyone has precisely equal access to tricks and DM support (or at least they should, in principle--playing favorites is bad!), but all these others _also_ get hard-coded stuff.

*It's part of why I have such a dim view of "DM empowerment." I see a lot more "Viking Hat" and a lot less "amazing creative potential" use. DMs are _already_ nigh-infinite in power. Repeated reminders are rarely needed, and risk encouraging "A God Am I" as TVTropes puts it. Since it's so hard for me to find a game, even online, I am loath to leave one I've joined if it seems even remotely likely to offer what I want.


----------



## dave2008

@EzekielRaiden, I never got a response from you to my question in post #371, so I will ask again as I am truly curious:


dave2008 said:


> What do you consider "meaningful tactical options?" As I big fan of 4e, I find the battlemaster has most of what I want in a tactical fighter, even more so with the new Tasha's options.  I can only assume your opinion differs, so I am just wandering how or to what degree?
> 
> Now, the issue I see with 5e and tactics is that not enough of the classes and monsters support this style of play when comparing to 4e. The thing with 4e was not just individual PC tactics, but group synergy/tactics and of course monster tactics too.  Now some DM's can make up for the lack of tactics on the monster side, but it is harder, IMO, to add it back in on the plater side.  I do feel like this is a place were A5e will shine though.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

dave2008 said:


> @EzekielRaiden, I never got a response from you to my question in post #371, so I will ask again as I am truly curious:



Alrighty.



dave2008 said:


> What do you consider "meaningful tactical options?" As I big fan of 4e, I find the battlemaster has most of what I want in a tactical fighter, even more so with the new Tasha's options.  I can only assume your opinion differs, so I am just wondering how or to what degree?
> 
> Now, the issue I see with 5e and tactics is that not enough of the classes and monsters support this style of play when comparing to 4e. The thing with 4e was not just individual PC tactics, but group synergy/tactics and of course monster tactics too.  Now some DM's can make up for the lack of tactics on the monster side, but it is harder, IMO, to add it back in on the plater side.  I do feel like this is a place were A5e will shine though.



I'll first state my problems with the Battle Master, then jump off that into what I'm looking for.

So. A major problem is that a lot of the maneuvers just...aren't very good. Feinting Attack (for yourself) and Distracting Attack (for allies), for example, expend a bonus action to get advantage...on only one attack. You'd be far better off just _making two attacks_ in most cases, even with the Superiority Die adding extra damage, because static damage boosts are still where the real money is. Parry is  likewise not great (is even 5+d12 really going to mitigate enough damage to _matter?_). The fact that several depend on the target failing a saving throw--usually Strength, a stat many monsters have in abundance--doesn't help, since you already had to hit the target anyway just to qualify to use them. That there are just a handful of good ones and a lot of either bad, mediocre, or ultra-niche ones is decidedly unhelpful, and makes the "ooh, I get to pick two new maneuvers" benefit feel pretty hollow when you already had the handful of good ones and could (almost) always know which one was best at a glance.

A further problem, above and beyond the above, is the _paucity_ of Superiority Dice. You get--at most--six per short rest, and that only at 15th level. For most of the game, you get to do two, _maybe_ three of these maneuvers per fight if you're lucky. And since it all draws from the same resource pool, and there's no delay or reuse timer or anything, you can just spam the handful of really good ones and forget the rest. There's no need to plan; very little need to think about position, maneuvering, or ally tactics; and no real benefit to choosing the right thing at the right time nor penalty for choosing the wrong thing _other than_ "nothing happens." Simultaneously you get so few of them that it rarely matters, AND you can do every maneuver indefinitely with all of them, so it never really matters what you've chosen.

I want stuff where coordination, planning, positioning, predicting future moves, etc. is actually relevant, beyond (as already said before) the "extracting options from your DM," because everyone can do that. I want stuff where, sure, you have basic tricks you can pull out whenever, but you can go beyond that and pull out some real big stuff too. E.g. giving two or even more allies movement, having everyone roll extra damage for attacking a specific target, letting others (or joining with them to) take risks to reap higher rewards, heck even something as simple as repositioning an enemy more precisely than "fling them away."


----------



## DnD Warlord

EzekielRaiden said:


> Alrighty.
> 
> 
> I'll first state my problems with the Battle Master, then jump off that into what I'm looking for.
> 
> So. A major problem is that a lot of the maneuvers just...aren't very good. Feinting Attack (for yourself) and Distracting Attack (for allies), for example, expend a bonus action to get advantage...on only one attack. You'd be far better off just _making two attacks_ in most cases, even with the Superiority Die adding extra damage, because static damage boosts are still where the real money is. Parry is  likewise not great (is even 5+d12 really going to mitigate enough damage to _matter?_). The fact that several depend on the target failing a saving throw--usually Strength, a stat many monsters have in abundance--doesn't help, since you already had to hit the target anyway just to qualify to use them. That there are just a handful of good ones and a lot of either bad, mediocre, or ultra-niche ones is decidedly unhelpful, and makes the "ooh, I get to pick two new maneuvers" benefit feel pretty hollow when you already had the handful of good ones and could (almost) always know which one was best at a glance.
> 
> A further problem, above and beyond the above, is the _paucity_ of Superiority Dice. You get--at most--six per short rest, and that only at 15th level. For most of the game, you get to do two, _maybe_ three of these maneuvers per fight if you're lucky. And since it all draws from the same resource pool, and there's no delay or reuse timer or anything, you can just spam the handful of really good ones and forget the rest. There's no need to plan; very little need to think about position, maneuvering, or ally tactics; and no real benefit to choosing the right thing at the right time nor penalty for choosing the wrong thing _other than_ "nothing happens." Simultaneously you get so few of them that it rarely matters, AND you can do every maneuver indefinitely with all of them, so it never really matters what you've chosen.
> 
> I want stuff where coordination, planning, positioning, predicting future moves, etc. is actually relevant, beyond (as already said before) the "extracting options from your DM," because everyone can do that. I want stuff where, sure, you have basic tricks you can pull out whenever, but you can go beyond that and pull out some real big stuff too. E.g. giving two or even more allies movement, having everyone roll extra damage for attacking a specific target, letting others (or joining with them to) take risks to reap higher rewards, heck even something as simple as repositioning an enemy more precisely than "fling them away."



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)


----------



## dave2008

Thank you for the reply.  Honestly, you lost me when you said the BM maneuvers "aren't very good." That mindset just doesn't jive with me and my group.

However, this is what I was really interested in:


EzekielRaiden said:


> I want stuff where coordination, planning, positioning, predicting future moves, etc. is actually relevant, beyond (as already said before) the "extracting options from your DM," because everyone can do that. I want stuff where, sure, you have basic tricks you can pull out whenever, but you can go beyond that and pull out some real big stuff too. E.g. giving two or even more allies movement, having everyone roll extra damage for attacking a specific target, letting others (or joining with them to) take risks to reap higher rewards, heck even something as simple as repositioning an enemy more precisely than "fling them away."



OK, a lot of that is just 4e, which as I mentioned I was a fan of. However, I don't expect the great success of 5e to lead 6e down that path again. It might add some more tactical depth, but I wouldn't expect the amount you want.

Personally, my group switched to 5e because we didn't really have a need for all of the tactical bells and whistles of 4e.  They didn't make the game more fun or exciting for us, but everyone wants different things.

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


----------



## dave2008

DnD Warlord said:


> 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

dave2008 said:


> 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

DnD Warlord said:


> 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)





dave2008 said:


> 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.



dave2008 said:


> 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

EzekielRaiden said:


> 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

Sacrosanct said:


> ...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

EzekielRaiden said:


> 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

dave2008 said:


> 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

EzekielRaiden said:


> 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

ShadowOverMystara said:


> 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.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Stalker0 said:


> The trick is that we are using an older school mentality. This is not the 3.5 mentality of "its not a specific option or rule you can't do it". Its "do what you want, and you and the dm work it out together."
> 
> So for example, grapple only consumes 1 attack. And while people snide it for being weak, its relatively simple and easy to do, and if you have two attacks only requires a bit of your offense.
> 
> The rules give some basic notes for bull rushes, disarms, and trips...no reason you can't attempt those.
> 
> In my last game, the barbarian fought a lich with a staff of power at one point. The barbarian rushes in, dashes past the guards, grabs the staff out of the lich's hands (a "disarm" attempt), and then with his second attack we used the "use an object rules" to have him break the staff in front of all of them. He happened to randomly have a ring of force resistance, so only took half from the massive explosion. The lich and all of his cronies were dead, and the barb stood strong.
> 
> 5e allows for all of that, even encourages it, and gives basic mechanics (such as opposed athletics checks) to administer them. So don't think of it of "there are no options", think of it as "the rules don't say I can't....so!" You and the DM work out it out, and with a little bit of creativity and flexibility, you can absolutely make a fighter doing all sorts of tricks.



Ah the old "Non-casters have got meaningful tactical options if the DM lets you have them".
And of course spells give the spellcasters tactical options whether the DM lets them or not.
It's not great design.

To be clear, most groups I play with play the same way as you, but some DMs are much better at this kind of thing than others, and more codified options for non-casters would be helpful, frankly. Not tedious lists of Feats like 3.XE though I agree.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Hatmatter said:


> 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.



That...has some legs, actually. I'll have to chew on it more, and as noted I've already got Summoner to finish first. Still, that's a seed to start from, which is more than I had yesterday. Thanks!

And if course I don't mind a signal boost, though it's harder to find games than that most of the time I'm afraid. Still, when it happens, it happens. For now I focus on DMing for my DW group.


----------



## dave2008

EzekielRaiden said:


> 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.



You check out the pathfinder forums on this site. That is where I get most of my information.  If I get time I may look up some specific post buyt maybe @Campbell , @The-Magic-Sword , @Justice and Rule, @kenada could discuss the tactical and strategic benefits of PF2e game play.


----------



## Hatmatter

EzekielRaiden said:


> That...has some legs, actually. I'll have to chew on it more, and as noted I've already got Summoner to finish first. Still, that's a seed to start from, which is more than I had yesterday. Thanks!
> 
> And if course I don't mind a signal boost, though it's harder to find games than that most of the time I'm afraid. Still, when it happens, it happens. For now I focus on DMing for my DW group.



If you finish either of them, feel free to share them with me...I always like perusing what people come up with. I hope someone here ends up inviting you to a game! It sounds like your DW group in is in the hands of a good DM!


----------



## The-Magic-Sword

dave2008 said:


> You check out the pathfinder forums on this site. That is where I get most of my information.  If I get time I may look up some specific post buyt maybe @Campbell , @The-Magic-Sword , @Justice and Rule, @kenada could discuss the tactical and strategic benefits of PF2e game play.




Appreciate the ping.

So basically @EzekielRaiden , pathfinder 2e doesn't flatten the strategic curve. It limits the power growth from character optimization to an extent, and then provides tools for gaining more advantages in the actual fight. Inflicting conditions, applying buffs, positioning, using special techniques that play with action cost for number of strikes, or provide benefits by circumventing the penalty for attacking multiple times, offering repositioning, and other fringe benefits, that can add up to major advantages.

The game still rewards system mastery in character building mind you, just not as much as say the first edition of pathfinder-- you get diminishing returns from trying to get direct power increases, so you pick up a lot of utility and versatility. Your barbarian, to name an intuitive example, might have a high intimidate and be able to use it to demoralize in combat to inflict frightened, which lowers the target's ac (which increases both hit chance AND crit chance because the rule that 10 above or below the target number is a critical hit) they can pick feats to support that, including some class unique ones, but its not a crazy delve into other rulebook to make it work, its pretty straightforward. 

You'd want to do that instead of just attacking, because every attack gets progressively more likely to miss, encouraging you to find a better use for your third action. Some builds can mitigate that with feats to be able to attack with all three effectively (flurry ranger blenders go brrr) but overall this dynamic heavily favors tactical decisions that create advantages for you and the other players to take advantage of, whether you're a high damage build doing the capitalizing, the person doing the setup, or flexing between the two (or doing a little of both.)

Attacks of Opportunity are an ability some creatures have, but it isn't ubiquitous, so you can also use those actions to move around, and since you're using the same action resource to move as you are to attack, this forces you and your foes to consider the cost and benefits as ot who has to move when to do what, and what advantages they gain from it. 

Casters are full vancian, featuring both prepared (I have to decide how many slots to prep fireball in) and spontaneous casting (I learned a fourth level fireball spell, so i can spend any fourth level slot to cast it) so they're as strategically complex as ever, spells with varying actions costs for stronger or 'faster' effects are interesting as well.

Finally, out of combat, they have a dedicated exploration mode with all sorts of neat things you can do while crawling through the wilderness/dungeon, giving you a strategic role in your party's marching order.


----------



## kenada

@The-Magic-Sword Does a pretty good job of describing the tactical element, so I’m not going to dig into that too much. I think it’s fair to say that generally your class chassis provides the vertical growth while your feat choices provide horizontal. You’re not really going to be able to stack things to stack things up to give a major advantage compared to working better with your party.

Expanding on @The-Magic-Sword ’s example, you can use Bon Mot to impose a status penalty to a target’s Will saving throw. This can reduce the Will DC for the barbarian’s Demoralize by 2 or 3 (depending on the result), which makes it even easier to impose a status penalty to AC and attacks. A fighter with Snagging Strike can then effectively increase this penalty to AC by making the target flat-footed. On top of this, a cleric with _bless_ or a bard with _inspire courage_ can give you a status bonus to attack. By working together, the party can gain an effective +5 or +6 to attack rolls. In addition to boosting your chance to hit, this also boosts your chance of critting, which doubles the roll rather than rolling twice the dice. And that’s just attack rolls. Bon Mot also helps casters who target Will DCs. If you get it low enough, then characters with Assurance in an appropriate skill succeed automatically regardless of any penalties they have.

In PF2, a party that fights together as a team is way more effective than one that doesn’t. Even if some of the actions in that example fail, just having some of them succeed will still be really helpful. It’s the difference between a party that has no problem with moderate- or even higher-threat fights and one that struggles with purportedly easy ones. My players generally didn’t bother to leverage those kinds of synergies, so they struggled with moderate-threat encounters. I did one that was between moderate- and severe-threat, and they TPK’d (which was entirely unnecessary because they could have just walked around it).

I can’t speak to the issues with the summoner. I haven’t been following the post-launch playtests Paizo has done very closely. From what I understand, the way it worked was pretty unpopular. I expect there will be changes in the final version published in _Secrets of Magic_.


----------



## Justice and Rule

dave2008 said:


> You check out the pathfinder forums on this site. That is where I get most of my information.  If I get time I may look up some specific post buyt maybe @Campbell , @The-Magic-Sword , @Justice and Rule, @kenada could discuss the tactical and strategic benefits of PF2e game play.




... Ahahahahaha

Okay, so like 3 1/2 years ago I asked for advice/ideas on building a 5E Warlord on another board, and @EzekielRaiden basically ended up emailing me his general pitch that he gave only a few pages ago on how he would do it. It was a great idea (the Warlock is a pretty great chassis for the concept), though for me I was trying for something way, _way _more ambitious in trying to create a Fighter/Warlord class around a new framework that was basically built around class maneuvers, with three different subclasses: 

the Champion, who was the classic fighter and picked exclusively from combat maneuvers,
the Warlord, who could pick from combat maneuvers and tactics maneuvers, but had to have a majority of their maneuvers be from tactics, and
the Eldritch Knight, who could pick from combat maneuvers and combat magic, where they could mix their attacks with magical effects (with a similar split for combat maneuvers and combat magic)
There were basic maneuvers (basically martial cantrips) along with advanced maneuvers that spent their own resource, based around the Grit concept Matt Mercer created for his Gunslinger class. You could even regain grit in different ways, like a Warlord being able to regain grit from his friends killing creatures if they did it as a result of one of his tactics maneuvers. You could also spend more grit on certain maneuvers to buff their effects, like their range, damage, etc... it was complicated and weird and I loved trying to make it work. I would go back to it every few months and chart out another part of the class, and I think got to around half-finished with it.

Then, for reasons I can't fully remember, I ended up looking at the Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebook, and I basically said "Well, I wasted a whole lot of time on this."

Pathfinder 2E is basically what I've wanted to mod 5E for years. Weapons with traits, specific uses and advantages? Check. Skill system that makes having a skill valuable, has skill gradations and is relatively easy on the bookkeeping? Double check. Effective, scary martials with lots of combat options?






The character building is so clean and wonderful comparatively speaking: the system of getting "boosts" (+2 bonuses to an ability score) through ancestry, background, and class are just intuitive and allow for characters who are broadly stat'd out and feel generally competent. Ability scores are better balanced, with Dexterity no longer being a complete god-stat and characters gaining benefits from underused stats: there are reasons to have better Intelligence even if it isn't your primary, and there are a bunch of Charisma-based combat options that are available so that martials don't just look at it as a dump-stat. Also classes largely gate off their combat stuff, not their non-combat options: all skills are open to everyone, and most out-of-combat advantages are picked up via general feats accessible to everyone, which opens up character options quite a bit.

Like @The-Magic-Sword and @kenada have already said, combat is very tactical, focusing on gaining advantages through positioning or inflicting the right buffs/debuffs. There are a lot of options open to martial classes, and they helped by how proficiency is done: Since there are gradations and it's not just tied to level, Fighters end up being the class that is most likely to hit a target and (given how criticals work) the most likely to cause crits, while Champions (the Paladin equivalent) actually have an AC bonus bigger than other classes which makes them tankier in combat.

Spells are also much better balanced: generally speaking spells are less powerful, with the "Critical Succeed/Failure on a hit/miss by 10" helping creating a bigger spectrum for spell effects rather than "Save and be alright, fail and suck". Paralyze is a good example: it's the counterpart to the classic Hold Person, but only gets a multiple-round hold on a critical failure: on a regular failure you are paralyzed for a single round, while on a success you lose one of your next three actions. Spells are now generally less spectacular, but you're more likely to get _something _out of a spell. 

Also to say something that you might be interested in that hasn't been mentioned: Pathfinder 2E's framework makes it way easier to homebrew things, particularly when it comes to archetypes (subclasses) and classes. The _a la carte_ method for just about everything and how feats are generally meant to not be gamechangers but options that progress and customize you makes it much easier to build something without completely unbalancing it.

I will say there's nothing quite on the level of a lazylord here: the Marshal archetype (basically 4E's multiclass feats but also for prestige classes) has some similar options, but at higher levels. But nothing quite to the same level of granting attacks to other party members.


----------



## JEB

Anyone care to predict what additional subclasses might make it into the core rules of a 5.5/6E? Ones from existing 5e products I could easily see them adding:

Cleric: Grave Domain (fills that "non-evil death god" niche)
Rogue: Swashbuckler (reprinted twice, fairly popular, and a major genre archetype)
Warlock: Hexblade (due to sheer popularity, unless they decide to integrate elements into the core warlock)


----------



## cavalier973

This may be in the 5e DM guide already, but I think that having a concrete, practical method for creating an adventure--specifically, a dungeon--should be included in the next iteration, like what is in the Moldvay/Mentzer Basic rules.

Creating a dungeon in Basic DnD has a very similar feel to creating a character, what with rolling for monsters, traps, and treasures to populate the dungeon. I created one for the first time for my kids not too long ago, and I found it very entertaining. You roll separately for each room, and stories about the dungeon emerged as you build. "Why are these monsters here? I rolled for a magic sword +1/+3 versus dragons; why is it in the toilet?" Etc.

Contra the Basic DnD philosophy, though, I think the first dungeon should be loaded with treasure and XP. Get the players to 2nd level as soon as possible. Then, slow the pace down.

The 4e core DMG had a method for randomly creating dungeons, rolling for different rooms and hallways, and using a stack of cards for monster encounters.


----------



## cavalier973

I also like the Dungeonworld method of world-creation: the DM designs the first town, but then the DM and players collaborate to create the world as they play.

Also, here is Matt Colville creating a dungeon: 
It sort of gives an idea of what I think should be included in the DM guide.


----------



## Aldarc

cavalier973 said:


> I also like the Dungeonworld method of world-creation: the DM designs the first town, but then the DM and players collaborate to create the world as they play.



I would potentially go one further. In _Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures_, the starting town is created as part of character creation along with connections to the inhabitants. The DM also gets to put things in the town.


----------



## Mind of tempest

I am hoping for a more satisfactory monk as 5e's works but it is still very flawed that being said it works at least.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Mind of tempest said:


> I am hoping for a more satisfactory monk as 5e's works but it is still very flawed that being said it works at least.



It is my fervent hope that, if we do get an actual 6e, it will be more evolutionary than revolutionary in most respects. Synthesizing in parts that got left behind before (like the ephemeral "tactical combat module," or Warlords), while retooling those parts that they know got the most flak (e.g. Ranger and Monk). There are some conundrums they'll have to solve that I don't envy them for, like the "Fighter flavor" question. That is, some find the Fighter terribly boring and want it to have more flavor, while others are adamant that the Fighter MUST be a maximally blank slate. I don't know how to appease both groups simultaneously, unless they re-design the class to have more room in its subclasses.


----------



## cavalier973

EzekielRaiden said:


> It is my fervent hope that, if we do get an actual 6e, it will be more evolutionary than revolutionary in most respects. Synthesizing in parts that got left behind before (like the ephemeral "tactical combat module," or Warlords), while retooling those parts that they know got the most flak (e.g. Ranger and Monk). There are some conundrums they'll have to solve that I don't envy them for, like the "Fighter flavor" question. That is, some find the Fighter terribly boring and want it to have more flavor, while others are adamant that the Fighter MUST be a maximally blank slate. I don't know how to appease both groups simultaneously, unless they re-design the class to have more room in its subclasses.



I recommend watching Matt Colville's videos on "Making a Fighter in Every Edition of D&D". I think the series has a different name, now; something like, "The History of D&D One Fighter at a Time".

His latest offering is Third Edition, and he spends a lot of time discussing how Fighters compare in different editions.

With regards to 3rd Ed, he points out that every class gets a lot of neat things, except the fighter. What the fighter gets is a ton of feats, which allows the player to customize his fighter character to be what he wants it to be.


----------



## TwoSix

Stalker0 said:


> The trick is that we are using an older school mentality. This is not the 3.5 mentality of "its not a specific option or rule you can't do it". Its "do what you want, and you and the dm work it out together."
> 
> So for example, grapple only consumes 1 attack. And while people snide it for being weak, its relatively simple and easy to do, and if you have two attacks only requires a bit of your offense.
> 
> The rules give some basic notes for bull rushes, disarms, and trips...no reason you can't attempt those.
> 
> In my last game, the barbarian fought a lich with a staff of power at one point. The barbarian rushes in, dashes past the guards, grabs the staff out of the lich's hands (a "disarm" attempt), and then with his second attack we used the "use an object rules" to have him break the staff in front of all of them. He happened to randomly have a ring of force resistance, so only took half from the massive explosion. The lich and all of his cronies were dead, and the barb stood strong.
> 
> 5e allows for all of that, even encourages it, and gives basic mechanics (such as opposed athletics checks) to administer them. So don't think of it of "there are no options", think of it as "the rules don't say I can't....so!" You and the DM work out it out, and with a little bit of creativity and flexibility, you can absolutely make a fighter doing all sorts of tricks.



The flip side to "If the DM agrees, I can attempt anything" is "If the DM says no, I can't attempt anything."  One of the nice thing about codified spells is that the DM can't say no; when you cast Wall of Force, it goes off.  It might not be as effective as you want, an NPC might counterspell it, etc., but the DM has no recourse via rules (or via most social contracts at D&D tables) to say "Nah, I don't think that works in this case."

The general desire with tactical module type stuff is to give martial characters some explicit permission powers, much like magical characters gain explicit permission powers via spells.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

cavalier973 said:


> I recommend watching Matt Colville's videos on "Making a Fighter in Every Edition of D&D". I think the series has a different name, now; something like, "The History of D&D One Fighter at a Time".
> 
> His latest offering is Third Edition, and he spends a lot of time discussing how Fighters compare in different editions.
> 
> With regards to 3rd Ed, he points out that every class gets a lot of neat things, except the fighter. What the fighter gets is a ton of feats, which allows the player to customize his fighter character to be what he wants it to be.



Of course, if it weren't the case that most feats are really not very good, this would be a much more important feature than it is. But when you need 3 feats just to be able to move _and_ attack, getting an extra feat every other level ceases to be "defining feature" and becomes more "crutch you need just to be able to keep limping."

As with many things in 3rd edition's design, the _goal_ or _concept_ was sound, but the execution was woefully lacking, and the absence of testing prevented anyone from discovering the problems.


----------



## cavalier973

That's almost exactly what Colville observed. He said when it first came out, they were excited by the options, but as time passed, system mastery became a real thing--knowing which feats were worthy and which worthless.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Mind of tempest said:


> I am hoping for a more satisfactory monk as 5e's works but it is still very flawed that being said it works at least.






EzekielRaiden said:


> while retooling those parts that they know got the most flak (e.g. Ranger and Monk).




Wait, I really loved the Monk and while I concede it has some things I might want to change, does it really get as much flak as the Ranger? Is this in regards to being very MAD or something else?


----------



## Aldarc

Justice and Rule said:


> Wait, I really loved the Monk and while I concede it has some things I might want to change, does it really get as much flak as the Ranger? Is this in regards to being very MAD or something else?



MAD, ki starved, and mostly ribbon abilities.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Aldarc said:


> MAD, ki starved, and mostly ribbon abilities.




Okay, so I wasn't missing anything (I also allowed monks to add their proficiency to their ki pool). Again, they need to steal that damned Grit mechanic for martials so you can recover your resources on things like kills and crits (and maybe other stuff, if you can think of cool ideas) in the middle of combat instead of having to rest up every time.


----------



## RangerWickett

Justice and Rule said:


> ... Ahahahahaha
> 
> Okay, so like 3 1/2 years ago I asked for advice/ideas on building a 5E Warlord on another board, and @EzekielRaiden basically ended up emailing me his general pitch that he gave only a few pages ago on how he would do it. It was a great idea (the Warlock is a pretty great chassis for the concept), though for me I was trying for something way, _way _more ambitious in trying to create a Fighter/Warlord class around a new framework that was basically built around class maneuvers, with three different subclasses:
> 
> the Champion, who was the classic fighter and picked exclusively from combat maneuvers,
> the Warlord, who could pick from combat maneuvers and tactics maneuvers, but had to have a majority of their maneuvers be from tactics, and
> the Eldritch Knight, who could pick from combat maneuvers and combat magic, where they could mix their attacks with magical effects (with a similar split for combat maneuvers and combat magic)
> There were basic maneuvers (basically martial cantrips) along with advanced maneuvers that spent their own resource, based around the Grit concept Matt Mercer created for his Gunslinger class. You could even regain grit in different ways, like a Warlord being able to regain grit from his friends killing creatures if they did it as a result of one of his tactics maneuvers. You could also spend more grit on certain maneuvers to buff their effects, like their range, damage, etc... it was complicated and weird and I loved trying to make it work. I would go back to it every few months and chart out another part of the class, and I think got to around half-finished with it.
> 
> Then, for reasons I can't fully remember, I ended up looking at the Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebook, and I basically said "Well, I wasted a whole lot of time on this."
> 
> Pathfinder 2E is basically what I've wanted to mod 5E for years. Weapons with traits, specific uses and advantages? Check. Skill system that makes having a skill valuable, has skill gradations and is relatively easy on the bookkeeping? Double check. Effective, scary martials with lots of combat options?
> 
> View attachment 132302
> 
> The character building is so clean and wonderful comparatively speaking: the system of getting "boosts" (+2 bonuses to an ability score) through ancestry, background, and class are just intuitive and allow for characters who are broadly stat'd out and feel generally competent. Ability scores are better balanced, with Dexterity no longer being a complete god-stat and characters gaining benefits from underused stats: there are reasons to have better Intelligence even if it isn't your primary, and there are a bunch of Charisma-based combat options that are available so that martials don't just look at it as a dump-stat. Also classes largely gate off their combat stuff, not their non-combat options: all skills are open to everyone, and most out-of-combat advantages are picked up via general feats accessible to everyone, which opens up character options quite a bit.
> 
> Like @The-Magic-Sword and @kenada have already said, combat is very tactical, focusing on gaining advantages through positioning or inflicting the right buffs/debuffs. There are a lot of options open to martial classes, and they helped by how proficiency is done: Since there are gradations and it's not just tied to level, Fighters end up being the class that is most likely to hit a target and (given how criticals work) the most likely to cause crits, while Champions (the Paladin equivalent) actually have an AC bonus bigger than other classes which makes them tankier in combat.
> 
> Spells are also much better balanced: generally speaking spells are less powerful, with the "Critical Succeed/Failure on a hit/miss by 10" helping creating a bigger spectrum for spell effects rather than "Save and be alright, fail and suck". Paralyze is a good example: it's the counterpart to the classic Hold Person, but only gets a multiple-round hold on a critical failure: on a regular failure you are paralyzed for a single round, while on a success you lose one of your next three actions. Spells are now generally less spectacular, but you're more likely to get _something _out of a spell.
> 
> Also to say something that you might be interested in that hasn't been mentioned: Pathfinder 2E's framework makes it way easier to homebrew things, particularly when it comes to archetypes (subclasses) and classes. The _a la carte_ method for just about everything and how feats are generally meant to not be gamechangers but options that progress and customize you makes it much easier to build something without completely unbalancing it.
> 
> I will say there's nothing quite on the level of a lazylord here: the Marshal archetype (basically 4E's multiclass feats but also for prestige classes) has some similar options, but at higher levels. But nothing quite to the same level of granting attacks to other party members.




You make pf2 sound great. But I played pf2 in both the playtest and in a few sessions after publication, and damn if it doesn't feel like the worst mix of fourth edition's "here's a bunch of computer code masquerading as an RPG" and third edition's "how many fiddly bonuses can we make you track at once?" 

5e is elegant to me. I need to devote brainpower to stuff that matters to the narrative, not to a math chassis. And I never felt like my choices were balanced to death, as if it would ruin everyone's fun if the paladin was actually immune to disease, do instead he gets a tiny boost to disease saves if he picks a feat which he'll probably never take because it'll never come up in a real game so it may as well not even exist.


----------



## Justice and Rule

RangerWickett said:


> You make pf2 sound great. But I played pf2 in both the playtest and in a few sessions after publication, and damn if it doesn't feel like the worst mix of fourth edition's "here's a bunch of computer code masquerading as an RPG" and third edition's "how many fiddly bonuses can we make you track at once?"
> 
> 5e is elegant to me. I need to devote brainpower to stuff that matters to the narrative, not to a math chassis. And I never felt like my choices were balanced to death, as if it would ruin everyone's fun if the paladin was actually immune to disease, do instead he gets a tiny boost to disease saves if he picks a feat which he'll probably never take because it'll never come up in a real game so it may as well not even exist.




I mean, I've played both. For me, PF2 just works in a way that 5E doesn't for me. I understand the idea of 5E's simplicity, but for me I don't see the elegance anymore; instead, I kind of see the mishmash of what they were doing, how some of it works and some of it doesn't. Spells, the action economy, classes... I've just seen too many problems with them in play for the last 6 or so years.

Maybe it's just because I've always been a bit hotter on crunch. The PF2 modifiers don't bother me too much when I GM, and I can just naturally calculate stuff on the fly while not losing the story. 5E is fun, but at the same time it also feels almost barren to me, and after a while I ended creating mods so I could create more mechanical distinction for my players to use instead of having to approve of everything they did myself.

Skills were a good example of that: the difference between raw ability and a bit of skill is low, and the guidance of what constitute what you can do with a skill is almost minimal. My players just didn't want to use them because they didn't really know what they did and it would come down to my whims... so I outlined a rough guide of what skills could do based on the 4E rules, along with a trained/untrained system (If it was an untrained task and you had a skill, you got advantage; if it was a trained task and you didn't have it, you had disadvantage). It worked out alright, but it was me doing a lot of modification with the system.


----------



## Bendak Starkiller

Agree with the things jou mentioned. I was just wondering if this is enough to make a 6th edition. I also find it annoying that I have to use so many different books (unless you use dnd beyond) to make a character to look up alle the subclasses and spells etc. Id wish they would just stick to one book with all the spells and subclasses and feats but I guess people want new stuff over time and they want to sell new stuff.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Bendak Starkiller said:


> Agree with the things jou mentioned. I was just wondering if this is enough to make a 6th edition. I also find it annoying that I have to use so many different books (unless you use dnd beyond) to make a character to look up alle the subclasses and spells etc. Id wish they would just stick to one book with all the spells and subclasses and feats but I guess people want new stuff over time and they want to sell new stuff.



you what the buy slight variations of the DMG, PHB and MM ever two years instead?


----------



## bmfrosty

Mind of tempest said:


> you what the buy slight variations of the DMG, PHB and MM ever two years instead?



I don't think that's the ask.  I think the ask is that the edition gets revised core rulebooks every few (5-8?) years.  I think the core math for 5th edition has been pretty strong (although I prefer the power curve of B/X a bit more), but revising parts that don't work well, or have become culturally unacceptable is something that's going to happen from time to time, and that's going to be a good opportunity to do an overall cleanup.  At this point in the edition, I think a consolidated update would be great, and if it revises all the classes and subclasses to meet new guidelines, this would be about the best time for it to happen.

If they come up with new revisions of the core books, I'll welcome it.


----------



## bmfrosty

accidental double-post.


----------



## Zardnaar

RangerWickett said:


> You make pf2 sound great. But I played pf2 in both the playtest and in a few sessions after publication, and damn if it doesn't feel like the worst mix of fourth edition's "here's a bunch of computer code masquerading as an RPG" and third edition's "how many fiddly bonuses can we make you track at once?"
> 
> 5e is elegant to me. I need to devote brainpower to stuff that matters to the narrative, not to a math chassis. And I never felt like my choices were balanced to death, as if it would ruin everyone's fun if the paladin was actually immune to disease, do instead he gets a tiny boost to disease saves if he picks a feat which he'll probably never take because it'll never come up in a real game so it may as well not even exist.




 And it's worse to navigate than 5E. It somehow got the worst aspects of 3 editions. 

 Not sure how they pulled that off.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Zardnaar said:


> And it's worse to navigate than 5E. It somehow got the worst aspects of 3 editions.
> 
> Not sure how they pulled that off.




What are the worst aspects? It's got a fantastic action system, absolutely superior character-building, better combat, and more balanced action.

The biggest thing is that it's crunchier, but that's a style choice. If you want more crunch than 5E (which, given how many people houserule and create new systems onto 5E because the original lacks it, is pretty common), it's really good at doing that.


----------



## Zardnaar

Justice and Rule said:


> What are the worst aspects? It's got a fantastic action system, absolutely superior character-building, better combat, and more balanced action.
> 
> The biggest thing is that it's crunchier, but that's a style choice. If you want more crunch than 5E (which, given how many people houserule and create new systems onto 5E because the original lacks it, is pretty common), it's really good at doing that.




 From 5E the layout is bad and index is useless. Bought the PDF and wife was enthusiastic but that died when she has to reference all sorts of things trying to put her bard togather. We both just gave up. The books just to big to much as well. 

 From 3E its just got a huge amount of feats, probably more than the initial 3.0 book. A lot are just more if the +1 here and there but then there's just more categories to learn. 

 From 4E it kind of has that layout, classes look samey and reads like an instruction manual. It's boring and awful to read. 

 Then there's things unique to it like the races. It's just more steps and complications for the sake of complications. Arts bad as well such as the cover. 

  It kinda played alright but for the amount of work required not worth it and houserulng early PF1 works. 

 No one's running it either so if we wanted to play it I have to GM it and probably buy everything then try and convince my players to give it a shot. 

 Both of us could probably figure it out but I don't see my current group handling it well or no group I've had since 2005 or so.

 I would be willing to play it but not run it. Wife really wants to play the bard but need to buy the book I suppose vs pdf.

 Doesn't really matter how well it runs if you can't get people to play or run it. For reasons entirely self inflicted.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Zardnaar said:


> From 5E the layout is bad and index is useless. Bought the PDF and wife was enthusiastic but that died when she has to reference all sorts of things trying to put her bard togather. We both just gave up. The books just to big to much as well.
> 
> From 3E its just got a huge amount of feats, probably more than the initial 3.0 book. A lot are just more if the +1 here and there but then there's just more categories to learn.
> 
> From 4E it kind of has that layout, classes look samey and reads like an instruction manual. It's boring and awful to read.
> 
> Then there's things unique to it like the races. It's just more steps and complications for the sake of complications. Arts bad as well such as the cover.
> 
> It kinda played alright but for the amount of work required not worth it and houserulng early PF1 works.
> 
> No one's running it either so if we wanted to play it I have to GM it and probably buy everything then try and convince my players to give it a shot.
> 
> Both of us could probably figure it out but I don't see my current group handling it well or no group I've had since 2005 or so.
> 
> I would be willing to play it but not run it. Wife really wants to play the bard but need to buy the book I suppose vs pdf.
> 
> Doesn't really matter how well it runs if you can't get people to play or run it. For reasons entirely self inflicted.




You could just use this; Fast Character | D&D Character Sheets Instantly For DnD 5e

Fill in the traits and stuff you want, then once it is done make further tweaks to meet the exact specifications you'd like. The reason the books are large is because some folks like poring over details minutely (a couple players of mine love combing over fine details), but there are plenty of programs online to speed the process.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Zardnaar said:


> From 5E the layout is bad and index us useless. Bought the PDF and wife was enthusiastic but that died when she has to reference all sorts of things trying to put her bard togather. We both just gave up. The books just to big to much as well.




Yeah, I don't think the layout is great, though I found it incredibly easy to make a character. In fact, I found it a lot quicker than 5E simply because I'm not trying to squeeze out as much as I can from backgrounds and such to get a proper character concept at 1st Level.



Zardnaar said:


> From 3E its just got a huge amount of feats, probably more than the initial 3.0 book. A lot are just more if the +1 here and there but then there's just more categories to learn.




I mean, there's 4 categories, really: Ancestry feats, Class feats, General feats, and the General Feat subdivision Skill feats. Not sure how hard this is.



Zardnaar said:


> From 4E it kind of has that layout, classes look samey and reads like an instruction manual. It's boring and awful to read.




I dunno, I found having a consistent layout made it pretty easy to comprehend and follow. And honestly, it's not like 5E is blindingly exciting to read in the book: it's what you get on the tabletop. And that's where it works best: the classes have plenty of actual differentiation while still being relatively balanced, so you don't have the problem of the 5E Sorcerer feeling like barely its own class, or martials constantly being outdone by casters. It also doesn't have like a dozen halfcasting classes, which is a _huge _plus.



Zardnaar said:


> Then there's things unique to it like the races. It's just more steps and complications for the sake of complications.




At this point it feels like you are making things up because you didn't think anyone would actually call you out. Having unique races makes it too difficult for your to comprehend or something? What sort of complaint is this?



Zardnaar said:


> Arts bad as well such as the cover.




I'm not huge on Wayne Reynolds, but I think the art is generally fine. I don't think there are any "5e Halfling" scale fumbles in it, at least.



Zardnaar said:


> It kinda played alright but for the amount of work required not worth it and houserulng early PF1 works.




lmao









Zardnaar said:


> No one's running it either so if we wanted to play it I have to GM it and probably buy everything then try and convince my players to give it a shot.
> 
> Both of us could probably figure it out but I don't see my current group handling it well or no group I've had since 2005 or so.
> 
> I would be willing to play it but not run it. Wife really wants to play the bard but need to buy the book I suppose vs pdf.
> 
> Doesn't really matter how well it runs if you can't get people to play or run it. For reasons entirely self inflicted.




I dunno, seems like the third-most played game on Fantasy Grounds and fourth-most on Roll20. Seems like it'd be pretty hard to find a lot of games if you can't find this being played, but to be honest with these sorts of reasons, feels like you're not looking particularly hard.



Urriak Uruk said:


> You could just use this; Fast Character | D&D Character Sheets Instantly For DnD 5e
> 
> Fill in the traits and stuff you want, then once it is done make further tweaks to meet the exact specifications you'd like. The reason the books are large is because some folks like poring over details minutely (a couple players of mine love combing over fine details), but there are plenty of programs online to speed the process.




I think he's talking about Pathfinder 2, but this is available with Pathbuilder as well. I can make a character in a few minutes with it.


----------



## Zardnaar

Urriak Uruk said:


> You could just use this; Fast Character | D&D Character Sheets Instantly For DnD 5e
> 
> Fill in the traits and stuff you want, then once it is done make further tweaks to meet the exact specifications you'd like. The reason the books are large is because some folks like poring over details minutely (a couple players of mine love combing over fine details), but there are plenty of programs online to speed the process.




 It's easy enough now just the index is useless and the spell descriptions worse than 3.5.


----------



## Zardnaar

Justice and Rule said:


> Yeah, I don't think the layout is great, though I found it incredibly easy to make a character. In fact, I found it a lot quicker than 5E simply because I'm not trying to squeeze out as much as I can from backgrounds and such to get a proper character concept at 1st Level.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, there's 4 categories, really: Ancestry feats, Class feats, General feats, and the General Feat subdivision Skill feats. Not sure how hard this is.
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, I found having a consistent layout made it pretty easy to comprehend and follow. And honestly, it's not like 5E is blindingly exciting to read in the book: it's what you get on the tabletop. And that's where it works
> 
> 
> 
> At this point it feels like you are making things up because you didn't think anyone would actually call you out. Having unique races makes it too difficult for your to comprehend or something? What sort of complaint is this?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not huge on Wayne Reynolds, but I think the art is generally fine. I don't think there are any "5e Halfling" scale fumbles in it, at least.
> 
> 
> 
> lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, seems like the third-most played game on Fantasy Grounds and fourth-most on Roll20. Seems like it'd be pretty hard to find a lot of games if you can't find this being played, but to be honest with these sorts of reasons, feels like you're not looking particularly hard.
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's talking about Pathfinder 2, but this is available with Pathbuilder as well. I can make a character in a few minutes with it.




 We don't play online. May as well not exist for us. 

 Main point is there's to many feats with to many steps that's laid out badly. 

 If you like it great but that's our experience with it.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Zardnaar said:


> We don't play online. May as well not exist for us.




If you don't play online, it'd be pretty dang hard regardless. As it stands, before we got to lockdown I saw Society games being played at a _wargames _convention. I feel like this says more about your bubble than the game.



Zardnaar said:


> Main point is there's to many feats with to many steps that's laid out badly.




I mean, the ABC stuff is pretty damn easy. I mistook what you were saying before and _really _disagree: I think some rules can be difficult to find, but actual _character creation _is incredibly smooth. It needs a better index and organization, but how to make a character is done incredibly easily. It's not like I have to look in a weird place to find feats like 5E, or have to look in an odd spot to find out how my skills work out.


----------



## Zardnaar

Justice and Rule said:


> If you don't play online, it'd be pretty dang hard regardless. As it stands, before we got to lockdown I saw Society games being played at a _wargames _convention. I feel like this says more about your bubble than the game.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, the ABC stuff is pretty damn easy. I mistook what you were saying before and _really _disagree: I think some rules can be difficult to find, but actual _character creation _is incredibly smooth. It needs a better index and organization, but how to make a character is done incredibly easily. It's not like I have to look in a weird place to find feats like 5E, or have to look in an odd spot to find out how my skills work out.




Don't game at conventions either and if I did I wouldn't be picking PF2. 

 As I said would be willing to play it but not run it.


----------



## ClamShack

cavalier973 said:


> This may be in the 5e DM guide already, but I think that having a concrete, practical method for creating an adventure--specifically, a dungeon--should be included in the next iteration, like what is in the Moldvay/Mentzer Basic rules.
> 
> Creating a dungeon in Basic DnD has a very similar feel to creating a character, what with rolling for monsters, traps, and treasures to populate the dungeon. I created one for the first time for my kids not too long ago, and I found it very entertaining. You roll separately for each room, and stories about the dungeon emerged as you build. "Why are these monsters here? I rolled for a magic sword +1/+3 versus dragons; why is it in the toilet?" Etc.
> 
> Contra the Basic DnD philosophy, though, I think the first dungeon should be loaded with treasure and XP. Get the players to 2nd level as soon as possible. Then, slow the pace down.
> 
> The 4e core DMG had a method for randomly creating dungeons, rolling for different rooms and hallways, and using a stack of cards for monster encounters.



The 5E DMG appendices have all this. I'm surprised that such a classic & staple feature of the game is relatively unknown, but I suppose this is deliberate in order to sell more pre-made campaigns.


----------



## OB1

Mercurius said:


> If I were to guess how 6E "evolutionizes," it would be more of what we saw in _Tasha's, _with both an implicit and explicit element. The implicit would be to modernize the socio-cultural aesthetics, both in terms of the art presented but also deconstruction of some of the hard-written assumptions about race, emphasis on violence, etc.




Really want to focus on your last point here about the emphasis on violence in 5E.  I think you're hitting on something that is right on the cusp of a trend evolutionizing and modernizing entertainment in general and that we are seeing in D&D as well.  Whether it's Tasha's section regarding parlaying with monsters or recent episodes of Critical Roll that may see 8+ hours of game time go by without combat as conflict resolution it feels like this concept is being explored more and more in response to changing tastes of the younger generations.

Yet 5e is heavily geared towards using violence as resolution to conflict in it's very rule structure.  Sure it's possible to use the presented rules to run a combatless game, but at this point, it requires a major investment from the DM to pull off, and will likely leave many classes feeling somewhat useless.

Could an adventure path that focuses almost entirely on the social and exploration pillars work in 5e?  Something that evokes a more Star Trek: TNG feel?  Imagine Naturalists of Gia, where the premise is a small outpost in a distant magical land whose explorers are dedicated to understanding the world rather than fighting it.  Where the use of violence is an absolute last resort and one that carries with it real consequences for the party.  If such a book proved successful, could it lead to a 5E CSG companion for players and DMs that expands on that premise and gives rules as clear as the Combat pillar for overcoming Social and Exploration challenges that is just as much fun as the combat mini-game is?  That adds sub-classes specifically designed for every Class that lean into this premise.

And if so, would that be the strongest reason yet to launch a '6E'?  Will it be required to keep D&D relevant to the next generation of players?

Please note that I'm not saying D&D will tomorrow get rid of combat, or even assume that a game would be played that way.  I expect for as long as I am playing (hopefully another 40 years, well into my 80s) that will be an option.  What I am suggesting is that combat may become just one of many ways to play the game, rather than the assumed default.


----------



## Mind of tempest

OB1 said:


> Really want to focus on your last point here about the emphasis on violence in 5E.  I think you're hitting on something that is right on the cusp of a trend evolutionizing and modernizing entertainment in general and that we are seeing in D&D as well.  Whether it's Tasha's section regarding parlaying with monsters or recent episodes of Critical Roll that may see 8+ hours of game time go by without combat as conflict resolution it feels like this concept is being explored more and more in response to changing tastes of the younger generations.
> 
> Yet 5e is heavily geared towards using violence as resolution to conflict in it's very rule structure.  Sure it's possible to use the presented rules to run a combatless game, but at this point, it requires a major investment from the DM to pull off, and will likely leave many classes feeling somewhat useless.
> 
> Could an adventure path that focuses almost entirely on the social and exploration pillars work in 5e?  Something that evokes a more Star Trek: TNG feel?  Imagine Naturalists of Gia, where the premise is a small outpost in a distant magical land whose explorers are dedicated to understanding the world rather than fighting it.  Where the use of violence is an absolute last resort and one that carries with it real consequences for the party.  If such a book proved successful, could it lead to a 5E CSG companion for players and DMs that expands on that premise and gives rules as clear as the Combat pillar for overcoming Social and Exploration challenges that is just as much fun as the combat mini-game is?  That adds sub-classes specifically designed for every Class that lean into this premise.
> 
> And if so, would that be the strongest reason yet to launch a '6E'?  Will it be required to keep D&D relevant to the next generation of players?
> 
> Please note that I'm not saying D&D will tomorrow get rid of combat, or even assume that a game would be played that way.  I expect for as long as I am playing (hopefully another 40 years, well into my 80s) that will be an option.  What I am suggesting is that combat may become just one of many ways to play the game, rather than the assumed default.



we are more likely to see tacked on slightly disconnected exploration and social systems before a 6e as 6e will more likely be a streamlining edition more than anything else.


----------



## Jack Daniel

OB1 said:


> Really want to focus on your last point here about the emphasis on violence in 5E. I think you're hitting on something that is right on the cusp of a trend evolutionizing and modernizing entertainment in general and that we are seeing in D&D as well. Whether it's Tasha's section regarding parlaying with monsters or recent episodes of Critical Roll that may see 8+ hours of game time go by without combat as conflict resolution it feels like this concept is being explored more and more in response to changing tastes of the younger generations.
> 
> Yet 5e is heavily geared towards using violence as resolution to conflict in it's very rule structure. Sure it's possible to use the presented rules to run a combatless game, but at this point, it requires a major investment from the DM to pull off, and will likely leave many classes feeling somewhat useless.
> 
> Could an adventure path that focuses almost entirely on the social and exploration pillars work in 5e? Something that evokes a more Star Trek: TNG feel? Imagine Naturalists of Gia, where the premise is a small outpost in a distant magical land whose explorers are dedicated to understanding the world rather than fighting it. Where the use of violence is an absolute last resort and one that carries with it real consequences for the party. If such a book proved successful, could it lead to a 5E CSG companion for players and DMs that expands on that premise and gives rules as clear as the Combat pillar for overcoming Social and Exploration challenges that is just as much fun as the combat mini-game is? That adds sub-classes specifically designed for every Class that lean into this premise.
> 
> And if so, would that be the strongest reason yet to launch a '6E'? Will it be required to keep D&D relevant to the next generation of players?
> 
> Please note that I'm not saying D&D will tomorrow get rid of combat, or even assume that a game would be played that way. I expect for as long as I am playing (hopefully another 40 years, well into my 80s) that will be an option. What I am suggesting is that combat may become just one of many ways to play the game, rather than the assumed default.






			
				The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (D&D Book 3—1974) said:
			
		

> *Random Actions by Monsters:* Other than in pursuit situations, the more intelligent monsters will act randomly according to the results of the score rolled on two (six-sided) dice:
> 2–5       negative reaction
> 6–8       uncertain reaction
> 9–12     positive reaction
> The dice score is to be modified by additions and subtractions for such things as bribes offered, fear, alignment of the parties concerned, etc.






			
				D&D Basic Set (1977) said:
			
		

> Obviously, some of these creatures will not always be hostile.  Some may offer aid and assistance.  To determine the reaction of such creatures, roll 2 dice:
> HOSTILE/FRIENDLY REACTION TABLE
> Score     Reaction
> 2        Attacks immediately!
> 3-5     Hostile reaction
> 6-8     Uncertain, make another offer, roll again
> 9-11   Accepts offer, friendly
> 12      Enthusiastic, volunteers help
> The Dungeon Master should make adjustments if the party spokesman has high charisma or offers special inducements.




Look at those odds. 5 or lower on 2d6 is about 28%, and even then, monsters only attack first on (Charisma-unmodified) snake-eyes. Violence was not originally D&D's default conflict resolution method, and it didn't become so until… well, when did reaction tables go away and XP for killing monsters of a certain Challenge Rating become a thing?


----------



## tetrasodium

Mind of tempest said:


> we are more likely to see tacked on slightly disconnected exploration and social systems before a 6e as 6e will more likely be a streamlining edition more than anything else.



I don't think that it's possible to "streamline" 5e much further.  What would they do?  remove movement weapon ranges & damage dice to just roll a d20 to decide if you kill a creature you see or not based on if the result is 1-4 miss or 5-20 kill?


----------



## Argyle King

Maybe we'll see Magic and D&D combine more.

Creating a character will take a form which is akin to building a deck.


----------



## JEB

tetrasodium said:


> I don't think that it's possible to "streamline" 5e much further.  What would they do?  remove movement weapon ranges & damage dice to just roll a d20 to decide if you kill a creature you see or not based on if the result is 1-4 miss or 5-20 kill?



Funny enough, the core dice mechanic of Quest RPG (which some folks were trying to push last summer as a D&D alternative) is pretty close to this idea.


----------



## Aldarc

Jack Daniel said:


> Look at those odds. 5 or lower on 2d6 is about 28%, and even then, monsters only attack first on (Charisma-unmodified) snake-eyes. Violence was not originally D&D's default conflict resolution method, and it didn't become so until… well, when did reaction tables go away and XP for killing monsters of a certain Challenge Rating become a thing?



Basically when combat gravitated towards being "sport" rather than "war." Though IME one of the biggest hurdles when it comes to such new paradigms surrounding combat often comes from the designers themselves, who sometimes don't even understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own system, so they design adventures not with the current edition in mind but for the prior one. This was a problem for both early 3e and 4e adventures.


----------



## Mind of tempest

tetrasodium said:


> I don't think that it's possible to "streamline" 5e much further.  What would they do?  remove movement weapon ranges & damage dice to just roll a d20 to decide if you kill a creature you see or not based on if the result is 1-4 miss or 5-20 kill?



I suggested the current direction of 5e will be to build the pillars up and set things up were 6e or 5.5 will be making it run together properly and fixing mistakes like the ranger.


----------



## thebakeriscomingforu

This is coming from someone who is playing a different game(PF2) and just outside observations. I don't see a 6th ed D&D to be announced for several years(maybe 2024) and even then it would come with a playtest period and plenty of announcements. Until then I expect the designers at Wotc to put out more setting books and explore different mechanics within the 5th ed chassis. A 6th ed would likely only be a more polished version of 5th ed updating some nomenclature, some revisions on the classes, and maybe better guidance and inclusion of modular rules.


----------



## Stalker0

Argyle King said:


> Maybe we'll see Magic and D&D combine more.
> 
> Creating a character will take a form which is akin to building a deck.



Arkham Horror the Living Card Game (which for those board game/card game officiandos out there, I think is the best version of Arkham, better than both Arkham Horror and Eldritch Horror). In this game, each character is a deck. You draw X cards, and you use those abilities to handle whatever scene your in. And sometimes you draw flaw cards which really shake things up!

I don't think 6e will go that route mainly because of 4e. 4e already went that way a little bit, they even sold "power cards", which were the class powers printed on physical cards people could have. After the backlash and the return to more traditional roots in 5e, I really don't think they are going to tempt that again anytime soon.


----------



## Faolyn

Zardnaar said:


> From 5E the layout is bad and index is useless. Bought the PDF and wife was enthusiastic but that died when she has to reference all sorts of things trying to put her bard togather. We both just gave up. The books just to big to much as well.



While I agree that the index is useless, what on earth were you trying to reference to build a bard? The bard and its archetypes are in one section, spells are in another section, equipment in a third, and other archetypes are in other books. You can't expect the class, spells, and equipment to be in a single section, and since the other archetypes came out one or more years afterwards, you can't expect them to also be in the printed PH.


----------



## Mercurius

OB1 said:


> Really want to focus on your last point here about the emphasis on violence in 5E.  I think you're hitting on something that is right on the cusp of a trend evolutionizing and modernizing entertainment in general and that we are seeing in D&D as well.  Whether it's Tasha's section regarding parlaying with monsters or recent episodes of Critical Roll that may see 8+ hours of game time go by without combat as conflict resolution it feels like this concept is being explored more and more in response to changing tastes of the younger generations.
> 
> Yet 5e is heavily geared towards using violence as resolution to conflict in it's very rule structure.  Sure it's possible to use the presented rules to run a combatless game, but at this point, it requires a major investment from the DM to pull off, and will likely leave many classes feeling somewhat useless.
> 
> Could an adventure path that focuses almost entirely on the social and exploration pillars work in 5e?  Something that evokes a more Star Trek: TNG feel?  Imagine Naturalists of Gia, where the premise is a small outpost in a distant magical land whose explorers are dedicated to understanding the world rather than fighting it.  Where the use of violence is an absolute last resort and one that carries with it real consequences for the party.  If such a book proved successful, could it lead to a 5E CSG companion for players and DMs that expands on that premise and gives rules as clear as the Combat pillar for overcoming Social and Exploration challenges that is just as much fun as the combat mini-game is?  That adds sub-classes specifically designed for every Class that lean into this premise.
> 
> And if so, would that be the strongest reason yet to launch a '6E'?  Will it be required to keep D&D relevant to the next generation of players?
> 
> Please note that I'm not saying D&D will tomorrow get rid of combat, or even assume that a game would be played that way.  I expect for as long as I am playing (hopefully another 40 years, well into my 80s) that will be an option.  What I am suggesting is that combat may become just one of many ways to play the game, rather than the assumed default.



I would imagine that they would never launch 6E as the "less violence" edition, but instead offer products going forward to allow options other than kill the problem to solve it. I think the key, though, is "more options and approaches to customize your game" and _not _"we're changing how D&D works, and now you have to play it this way."

Let's face it, combat is fun - in RPGs, that is. It is central to D&D and has always been so. Furthermore, fantasy isn't reality. We role-play to experience things that we wouldn't normally experience (hopefully not!). We want to play mighty thewed heroes, powerful wizards, crafty rogues, etc.

On the other hand, we're deluged with stories via Hollywood (see "MCU") in which heroes mostly solve problems through violence. This has a propagandizing effect, I would say. It would be nice to see more depictions of heroes finding other ways to solve problems and defeat enemies, even recognizing that the "enemy" isn't necessary that. But, I think, there will always be a place--probably a central place--for wading into battle, crushing your enemies and seeing them driven before you. But it doesn't have to be the _only _way.


----------



## Zardnaar

Faolyn said:


> While I agree that the index is useless, what on earth were you trying to reference to build a bard? The bard and its archetypes are in one section, spells are in another section, equipment in a third, and other archetypes are in other books. You can't expect the class, spells, and equipment to be in a single section, and since the other archetypes came out one or more years afterwards, you can't expect them to also be in the printed PH.




 From memory she didn't know what the magic type was (ocult iirc) then she had to look up spell effects and every single feat, figure out how the boosts worked etc. 
 Probably not the best class to use in a new game but she loves skill based type classes and bards in particular.

  And she had to figure out the action system either as well. Lists of criss referencing using the pdf or her phone. 

  It's something I prefer to sit down and digest with a book vs pdf personally. Once you know what you're doing PDFs are fine.


----------



## Faolyn

Zardnaar said:


> From memory she didn't know what the magic type was (ocult iirc) then she had to look up spell effects and every single feat, figure out how the boosts worked etc.



Oh, wait, you meant PF, not D&D. D&D has class spell lists, not magic type spell lists.


----------



## Reynard

Zardnaar said:


> From memory she didn't know what the magic type was (ocult iirc) then she had to look up spell effects and every single feat, figure out how the boosts worked etc.
> Probably not the best class to use in a new game but she loves skill based type classes and bards in particular.
> 
> And she had to figure out the action system either as well. Lists of criss referencing using the pdf or her phone.
> 
> It's something I prefer to sit down and digest with a book vs pdf personally. Once you know what you're doing PDFs are fine.



It sounds like you are criticizing a game for achieving its design goals rather than catering to your preferences.


----------



## Zardnaar

Reynard said:


> It sounds like you are criticizing a game for achieving its design goals rather than catering to your preferences.




 That's fine but if your game requires to much effort vs payoff...... 

 Both PF2 and 5E went backwards in terms of easy to use core rules which peaked in 3.5/PF1.


----------



## Faolyn

Zardnaar said:


> That's fine but if your game requires to much effort vs payoff......
> 
> Both PF2 and 5E went backwards in terms of easy to use core rules which peaked in 3.5/PF1.



It just looks like she had to do what everyone has to do when they start a game--look up what everything does.


----------



## tetrasodium

Zardnaar said:


> From memory she didn't know what the magic type was (ocult iirc) then she had to look up spell effects and every single feat, figure out how the boosts worked etc.
> Probably not the best class to use in a new game but she loves skill based type classes and bards in particular.
> 
> And she had to figure out the action system either as well. Lists of criss referencing using the pdf or her phone.
> 
> It's something I prefer to sit down and digest with a book vs pdf personally. Once you know what you're doing PDFs are fine.



I'm not too sure if the implied "can play this using a pdf on my phone" & maybe ""can do character creation at the table using a pdf on my phone" points were  high on the pf2 list of design goals


----------



## OB1

Mercurius said:


> I would imagine that they would never launch 6E as the "less violence" edition, but instead offer products going forward to allow options other than kill the problem to solve it. I think the key, though, is "more options and approaches to customize your game" and _not _"we're changing how D&D works, and now you have to play it this way."
> 
> Let's face it, combat is fun - in RPGs, that is. It is central to D&D and has always been so. Furthermore, fantasy isn't reality. We role-play to experience things that we wouldn't normally experience (hopefully not!). We want to play mighty thewed heroes, powerful wizards, crafty rogues, etc.
> 
> On the other hand, we're deluged with stories via Hollywood (see "MCU") in which heroes mostly solve problems through violence. This has a propagandizing effect, I would say. It would be nice to see more depictions of heroes finding other ways to solve problems and defeat enemies, even recognizing that the "enemy" isn't necessary that. But, I think, there will always be a place--probably a central place--for wading into battle, crushing your enemies and seeing them driven before you. But it doesn't have to be the _only _way.




Yes exactly.  

I guess the question I'm asking is, can the base that 5e is built on be expanded to include other ways to solve problems and defeat enemies, or would it require a true 6e to accomplish?  The Race/Lineage and Alignment issues are easy enough to change in an updated but still fully compatible 5e PHB/MM/DMG, but adding in a mini game as fun as combat that doesn't use violence to solve problems might be trickier.  

I was hopeful after Dr. Strange that the MCU might look for more opportunities for their heroes to solve problems without violence, but (like D&D) that is so baked into the conceit at this point that it's hard to change (though WandaVision split it 50/50 in the end).


----------



## Faolyn

OB1 said:


> Yes exactly.
> 
> I guess the question I'm asking is, can the base that 5e is built on be expanded to include other ways to solve problems and defeat enemies, or would it require a true 6e to accomplish?  The Race/Lineage and Alignment issues are easy enough to change in an updated but still fully compatible 5e PHB/MM/DMG, but adding in a mini game as fun as combat that doesn't use violence to solve problems might be trickier.



All the info is already in the books, and has always been, via skills and proficiencies, the ability to get audiences through your background, using Intelligence and Wisdom to bypass traps, etc. It's just never been given as much of a spotlight, because people like to think of D&D as a combat game.

All it really needs is an expansion.


----------



## Zardnaar

Faolyn said:


> It just looks like she had to do what everyone has to do when they start a game--look up what everything does.




 To many moving parts, races felt incomplete at low levels, badly laid out, straight jacket structure,  complicated just for the sake of complicated,pain to navigate. 

 Conclusion we needed to buy the actual book ($100 here), not going to get the players even if we do. 

 My group mostly kinda new they're figuring 5E out. PF2 would bury them.


----------



## Aarkvard

WARgames are inherently violent.  If you want to replace combat entirely in favor of some sort of social resolution system you risk alienating your base like 4th edition did for 'not being D&D enough'.


----------



## PsyzhranV2

Aarkvard said:


> WARgames are inherently violent.  If you want to replace combat entirely in favor of some sort of social resolution system you risk alienating your base like 4th edition did for 'not being D&D enough'.



D&D isn't a wargame though, and its roots as a fantasy spinoff of Chainmail are 5 editions behind it. Doubt the current generation of players and target market even knows or cares about that.


----------



## Zardnaar

PsyzhranV2 said:


> D&D isn't a wargame though, and its roots as a fantasy spinoff of Chainmail are 5 editions behind it. Doubt the current generation of plahers and targwt market even knows or cares about that.




 They know about beating stuff to death and looting. 

 They're not going to replace that anytime soon.


----------



## PsyzhranV2

Zardnaar said:


> They know about beating stuff to death and looting.
> 
> They're not going to replace that anytime soon.



Most of the people I know who play D&D 5e, and a lot of people who like it and write about it online on sites other than this one, seem to be hooked primarily by the game's potential as an OC creator, rather than as a tactical combat game. Large overlap with the groups that can spend entire sessions without combat breaking out even once, and thus only minimally engaging with the mechanics of the game. Some of them like it exactly like that, while others wish for more robust mechanics for social and exploration encounters, something more they can do that's written down on the character sheet that isn't combat. But they all like D&D primarily because they get to make their OCs and have thsm do cool stuff.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Zardnaar said:


> To many moving parts, races felt incomplete at low levels, badly laid out, straight jacket structure,  complicated just for the sake of complicated,pain to navigate.




I don't understand how anyone coming from 5E could describe PF2 as having a "straitjacket structure". It's like the complete opposite of that. We're comparing it to a game that generally doesn't give out subclass features until 3rd level.

Also weirded out by someone saying there's bad layout for creation: there are problems with some of the rules layout, but it's definitely not in the ABCs.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> All the info is already in the books, and has always been, via skills and proficiencies, the ability to get audiences through your background, using Intelligence and Wisdom to bypass traps, etc. It's just never been given as much of a spotlight, because people like to think of D&D as a combat game.
> 
> All it really needs is an expansion.



When 5e came out, I really was expecting a whole bunch of optional official variant rules for exploration and social interrelation.

A whole buch of plugand play rules to gamerize and minigame traps, diplomacy, recon, and stuff. I'm surprised we still haven't got any of it.


----------



## Reynard

Zardnaar said:


> That's fine but if your game requires to much effort vs payoff......
> 
> *Both PF2 and 5E went backwards in terms of easy to use core rules which peaked in 3.5/PF1.*



Emphasis mine.

That's um... an opinion I have not heard expressed before.


----------



## dave2008

Justice and Rule said:


> I don't understand how anyone coming from 5E could describe PF2 as having a "straitjacket structure".



I understand it as someone who has only been able to read the books and hasn't been able to play it. When I just read through the CRB I feel confined by all of the choices.  I feel like I have to choose, and choose the right thing. For me, fewer choices means more freedom.  I know it sounds oxymoronic, but that is how I operate. I think if I actually got to play it, I might feel different.


----------



## Reynard

dave2008 said:


> I understand it as someone who has only been able to read the books and hasn't been able to play it. When I just read through the CRB I feel confined by all of the choices.  I feel like I have to choose, and choose the right thing. For me, few choices means more freedom.  I know it sounds oxymoronic, but that is how I operate. I think if I actually got to play it, I might feel different.



As someone just starting to run PF2, I think it works better when you think about it this way: the player still has freedom to choose whatever action, and the GM picks the closest fit among the list of defined actions so as to create consistent mechanical results. That consistency creates freedom because there are no guessing games with whether this time it is a +2 vs Advantage, as happens a lot in 5E because DM's are expected to adjudicate so much. Neither style is objectively superior, but people certainly have preferences. I like having lists of set skill DCs and well defined actions as a GM because it helps me improvise while also being consistent enough that players feel like their choices are meaningful and the outcomes at least somewhat predicatable.


----------



## Mercurius

OB1 said:


> Yes exactly.
> 
> I guess the question I'm asking is, can the base that 5e is built on be expanded to include other ways to solve problems and defeat enemies, or would it require a true 6e to accomplish?  The Race/Lineage and Alignment issues are easy enough to change in an updated but still fully compatible 5e PHB/MM/DMG, but adding in a mini game as fun as combat that doesn't use violence to solve problems might be trickier.
> 
> I was hopeful after Dr. Strange that the MCU might look for more opportunities for their heroes to solve problems without violence, but (like D&D) that is so baked into the conceit at this point that it's hard to change (though WandaVision split it 50/50 in the end).



@Faolyn game a good, simple response. I don't think radical change needs to occur. They can offer more adventures which allow for and emphasize other ways to solve problems and use the already-existing rules to do so.

Don't get me started on MCU 


Aarkvard said:


> WARgames are inherently violent.  If you want to replace combat entirely in favor of some sort of social resolution system you risk alienating your base like 4th edition did for 'not being D&D enough'.



It isn't either/or, and I haven't seen anyone suggest _replacing _combat entirely, but offering alternate approaches and/or adventure situations that don't require violence in every instant. 

I think the way forward is--or should be--a more customizable experience that offers more options, not less. It doesn't need to do away with traditional tropes and approaches, just offer a greater range of possible experiences to draw from and customize your own game to your liking.

This goes back to some of the hot-topic controversies that get argued endlessly. They are all-too-often locked in a polarized either/or dynamic. It is possible to thread the needle and offer both traditional forms and new versions of just about every classic D&D idea. It might not please extremists on both ends, but the vast majority of people will be fine-to-happy with it.


----------



## Stormonu

Zardnaar said:


> To many moving parts, races felt incomplete at low levels, badly laid out, straight jacket structure,  complicated just for the sake of complicated,pain to navigate.
> 
> Conclusion we needed to buy the actual book ($100 here), not going to get the players even if we do.
> 
> My group mostly kinda new they're figuring 5E out. PF2 would bury them.



Have you considered looking at the PF2 beginner box?  Might be an easier way to ease into PF2.

I haven’t been keeping up with PF2, but I know the PF1 rules were all available on a hyperlinked website.  If the same is being done with PF2 the beginner box should get a group running, and once everyone is familiar with the base rules, you should be able to expand into the online rules for little to no cost.

Or, if you’re not in too much of a hurry, Savage Worlds Pathfinder should be available in April.


----------



## dave2008

Reynard said:


> As someone just starting to run PF2, I think it works better when you think about it this way: the player still has freedom to choose whatever action, and the GM picks the closest fit among the list of defined actions so as to create consistent mechanical results. That consistency creates freedom because there are no guessing games with whether this time it is a +2 vs Advantage, as happens a lot in 5E because DM's are expected to adjudicate so much. Neither style is objectively superior, but people certainly have preferences. I like having lists of set skill DCs and well defined actions as a GM because it helps me improvise while also being consistent enough that players feel like their choices are meaningful and the outcomes at least somewhat predicatable.



That wasn't what I was talking about, but that is part of it too.  I was talking about character creation (though I never stated that). 

However, with regard to your line of thought, I've come to realize as I player I perform better with less defined mechanics.  I saw this in the difference between my old group that transitioned to 4e and a new group that started with 4e. The old group basically played 4e like we played 1e, lots of improvisation and description of intended actions.  The new group would only take the actions the rules spelled out.  So much so that I eventually ran a 1-shot for them were everything was improvised (I took away their powers).  However, that didn't really stick.


----------



## thebakeriscomingforu

Not to further the discussion on PF2 but I saw there were questions and thought that I would answer them.
1. All of the material that Paizo publishes can be referenced via the website Home - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database . Those that run the website are an official partner to paizo. This website even has a section that is a player's guide.
2. Some find the website Pathfinder 2 | easy Actions Library | Beta to be useful as well.
3. The beginner box is a well done product. It contains completely revamped character sheets and player reference cards that I find useful for games post the beginner box adventures.
4. There is a android app called Pathbuilder that a lot of the community uses to build characters. It is primarily free to use and completely unlocks with a small one time payment. The developer behind it working on other os versions as well.
5. Paizo sells pdf versions of most of their product lines. 
6. With regards to VVT most of the pathfinder2e community seems to be on Fantasy Grounds or Foundry. I know Foundry has a pdf importer that lets you upload information and maps from you pdfs.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I would probably power up fighting styles, make a lot more of them, but have them take concentration.  Fighter's big gimmick would be Martial Secrets (they have access to all fighting styles) and they get a few more than other classes.  Versatility becomes the fighter's gig.

I always figured warlocks should be about things being easy for the PC.  Transformations seem like the easiest thing:  use your cha modifier for your strength modifier if you have a fiend patron and change into a fiend shape, cha modifier for dex modifier if you have a fey patron and change into fey shape, cha modifier for con modifier (plus temp hit points) for undead patron/undead form, cha modifier for int modifier (plus prof in one int skill and telepathy) for goo patrons/aberration form, and cha for wisdom (plus once a day commune without using a spell slot) for celestial patrons/celestial form.  Invocations would be more about boosting your form.  The downside (since I figure patrons want to be paid) is that bad stuff happens if you use the abilities too often during the day when you aren't fighting (and dedicated the pain you cause to your patron):  grow tentacles for the goo patron, bad temper for the fiend/undead patrons, easily distractible by music or pretty nature scenes for the fey patron, urge to give away your gold to widows and orphans for the celestial patron.

Barbarians' big gimmick has two parts:  the rage fighting style doesn't require concentration for them, and they can cast one specific concentration spell when they rage (fear for berserker).  They have advantage on concentration checks for the specific spell, and they can keep it going if the rage fighting style ends before the spell does (no advantage on concentration without rage).  Alternatively, they can use a second fighting style instead of the spell (ditto advantage on the concentration checks for the spell).

Monks would be full casters who can deliver touch spells with an unarmed strike (which they can automatically attempt with any spell with range touch).  The basic monk spell list would be touch spells and transformation spells with range self.  Subclasses would get other spells, so the elemental monk can toss fireballs and sword monks can cast elemental weapon.  Monks would have fighting styles.

I will think on the other classes.


----------



## Zardnaar

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> That's um... an opinion I have not heard expressed before.




 Yeah I worded that wrong. I meant in terms of book layout, indexing etc not gameplay.


----------



## Stormonu

Giving martial characters something to do with concentration would be a nice mechanic.  Maybe something like stances or improved fighting styles?


----------



## Faolyn

Stormonu said:


> Giving martial characters something to do with concentration would be a nice mechanic.  Maybe something like stances or improved fighting styles?



Aiming/called shots, perhaps.


----------



## Stormonu

Faolyn said:


> Aiming/called shots, perhaps.



That’s a bag of rats in itself.

I’m thinking more along an enhanced fighting style, something on par with the power of a 1st level spell, but nonmagical in nature and “at will”.  By confining it to Concentration, you can ensure only one “stance“ is active at any given time.

For example:

Defensive Stance:  While this stance is active, you add your proficiency modifier to your AC.

Dueling Stance:  While this stance is active, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on your opponents next melee attack.  If the opponent misses with the attack, you can immediately make one melee attack attack against the opponent.

Offensive Stance: While this stance is active, you add 1d6 damage to your weapon attacks.

And so on.  Abilities likely would get stronger at higher levels.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Stormonu said:


> That’s a bag of rats in itself.
> 
> I’m thinking more along an enhanced fighting style, something on par with the power of a 1st level spell, but nonmagical in nature and “at will”.  By confining it to Concentration, you can ensure only one “stance“ is active at any given time.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Defensive Stance:  While this stance is active, you add your proficiency modifier to your AC.
> 
> Dueling Stance:  While this stance is active, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on your opponents next melee attack.  If the opponent misses with the attack, you can immediately make one melee attack attack against the opponent.
> 
> Offensive Stance: While this stance is active, you add 1d6 damage to your weapon attacks.
> 
> And so on.  Abilities likely would get stronger at higher levels.



that could work, will more powerful options be available over time or will they grow in power with level up?


----------



## Minigiant

I wonder... Since "a future version" wont need to introduce D&D from nothing to many of its fans and likely wont be so focused on expanding the net of potential fans, it wont need to be as simplistic as 5e. And another discussion on this forum got me thinking.

And one thing I could possibly see is more categorization of features and properly naming them much like 3e and 4e. 5e made a lot of stuff spells to recapture old feelings and make understanding the system easier. In possible 6e, this wont be necessary. We could possibly have the 5e way off writing effects the same way, the 4e method of naming and categorizing terms, and the 3e style of having multiple subsystems in the same game.


*Cantrips*
*Spells*
*Rituals*
*Maneuvers*
*Smites*
*Divine Channels*
*Acton Surges*
*Rages*
*Hunter's Marks*
*Etc*

It would be not as offputting to formally name and make all these subsystems as standalone rather than class features. Then new ones could invented like *Tricks* and *Signature Attacks*, or return like *Orisons* and *Exploits, * or formalized like *Songs* and *Sorceries*.


----------



## Stormonu

Mind of tempest said:


> that could work, will more powerful options be available over time or will they grow in power with level up?



Both, I think.  The structure of the warlock’s invocations could be used as a basis for how to dole out the ability/stance/style.  It shouldn’t invalidate the Battlemaster or make the Champion more complex - in the latter you might just choose one stance and keep it “on”, whereas a battlemaster might flit between different stances as needed.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Stormonu said:


> Both, I think.  The structure of the warlock’s invocations could be used as a basis for how to dole out the ability/stance/style.  It shouldn’t invalidate the Battlemaster or make the Champion more complex - in the latter you might just choose one stance and keep it “on”, whereas a battlemaster might flit between different stances as needed.




I think something closer to the Monk, where they have a spendable resource that can be doled as needed would work. Use Matt Mercer's Grit system for recharging (On a critical hit or a kill you get it back) and it works fairly well. You could even let martials have "techniques" that they could switch in and out.

But the Warlock chassis should be used to help eliminate all the half-casters, and maybe decrease the number of full casters. A Paladin with various "blessings" similar to invocation, a few choice spells, and maybe a number of Smites equal to their proficiency or their Charisma modifier would work. Rangers... I mean, I'm more for a spell-less version, but invocations-style powers would certainly allow for interesting options. And if I want to be controversial, I'd love to see Bards get similar treatments, where they have a few powerful spells but most of their stuff is meant to be "songs".

And someone needs to figure out a niche for the Sorcerer because man they need one.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Minigiant said:


> I wonder... Since "a future version" wont need to introduce D&D from nothing to many of its fans and likely wont be so focused on expanding the net of potential fans, it wont need to be as simplistic as 5e. And another discussion on this forum got me thinking.
> 
> And one thing I could possibly see is more categorization of features and properly naming them much like 3e and 4e. 5e made a lot of stuff spells to recapture old feelings and make understanding the system easier. In possible 6e, this wont be necessary. We could possibly have the 5e way off writing effects the same way, the 4e method of naming and categorizing terms, and the 3e style of having multiple subsystems in the same game.
> 
> 
> *Cantrips*
> *Spells*
> *Rituals*
> *Maneuvers*
> *Smites*
> *Divine Channels*
> *Acton Surges*
> *Rages*
> *Hunter's Marks*
> *Etc*
> 
> It would be not as offputting to formally name and make all these subsystems as standalone rather than class features. Then new ones could invented like *Tricks* and *Signature Attacks*, or return like *Orisons* and *Exploits, * or formalized like *Songs* and *Sorceries*.



I think it would actually be easier and less confusing to give each class it's own set of names for ability types, and only copy names when you copy mechanics as well. Because at the end of the day, a player only needs to understand one class at a time.

It might look like more work on the part of the dm, but most dms can and do lean on player to know their own stuff. Those of us who dig in will see the patterns, but that's only really useful when you're looking to homebrew new content - something that doesn't need to be obvious.


----------



## Minigiant

jmartkdr2 said:


> I think it would actually be easier and less confusing to give each class it's own set of names for ability types, and only copy names when you copy mechanics as well. Because at the end of the day, a player only needs to understand one class at a time.
> 
> It might look like more work on the part of the dm, but most dms can and do lean on player to know their own stuff. Those of us who dig in will see the patterns, but that's only really useful when you're looking to homebrew new content - something that doesn't need to be obvious.




Well that's how it would look anyway.

The Babarbian only one with Rages by default. The Fighter would be the Manuever user. The Monk would have Martial Arts. etc. The default would _mostly_ attach one power/feature type to a single or pair of classes. Only a few of them would break the rules likehow their wouldbe several spell users. Or how Wizards have Cantrips, Spells, and Rituals.

Only later via variants, DM houserules, and future books would they really combine. When Xanatar's 2 comes out with the Kensei that uses Martial Arts and Manuevers or a Swashbuckler with Maneuvers and Tricks, then a player would have to truly know both.


----------



## CleverNickName

Argyle King said:


> Maybe we'll see Magic and D&D combine more.
> 
> Creating a character will take a form which is akin to building a deck.



No lie, this sounds like something I'd see on Kickstarter.  Probably with a banner underneath it saying that it was fully-funded in like an hour and new stretch goals have already been added.

And knowing me, I'd take one look and say "Oooo, a new way to build a character in 5E?  Heck yeah I've got ten bucks, let's see what you can do with it!"


----------



## JEB

Minigiant said:


> Since "a future version" wont need to introduce D&D from nothing to many of its fans and likely wont be so focused on expanding the net of potential fans, it wont need to be as simplistic as 5e.



I sincerely doubt Wizards of the Coast will ever move away from a D&D that's highly accessible to new fans. So I'd be very surprised if they did anything to make it more complicated, at least in the core rules. If anything, I expect future editions to become even more streamlined (something that the recent moves on character races will actually enable).


----------



## Minigiant

JEB said:


> I sincerely doubt Wizards of the Coast will ever move away from a D&D that's highly accessible to new fans. So I'd be very surprised if they did anything to make it more complicated, at least in the core rules. If anything, I expect future editions to become even more streamlined (something that the recent moves on character races will actually enable).




There are different approaches of accessibility.

If 75% of your classes are *spell*casters and each of them use *spells* a different way, new fans only have to learn the *spell* system but it's a complicated subsystem that warrants it's only big chapter in the PHB.

If your new players decide to be a barbarian, bard, and paladin and those classes use the *rage*, *cantrip and song*, and *channel and* *smite* subsystems respectively, then they don't need to learn the *spell *subsystem to play. Just a streamlined magic chapter.

Artificer

Cantrips
Infusions

Barbarian
Rages

Bard
Cantrips
Songs

Cleric
Channels
Orisons
Prayers

Druid
Orisons
Prayers

Fighter
Strikes
Maneuvers

Monk
Techniques

Paladin
Smites

Ranger
Marks

Rogue
Tricks

Sorcerer
Cantrips
Sorceries

Warlock
Cantrips
Invocations

Wizard
Cantrips
Spells


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Minigiant said:


> There are different approaches of accessibility.



True.


Minigiant said:


> If 75% of your classes are *spell*casters and each of them use *spells* a different way, new fans only have to learn the *spell* system but it's a complicated subsystem that warrants it's only big chapter in the PHB.
> 
> If your new players decide to be a barbarian, bard, and paladin and those classes use the *rage*, *cantrip and song*, and *channel and* *smite* subsystems respectively, then they don't need to learn the *spell *subsystem to play. Just a streamlined magic chapter.
> 
> Artificer
> 
> Cantrips
> Infusions
> 
> Barbarian
> Rages
> 
> Bard
> Cantrips
> Songs
> 
> Cleric
> Channels
> Orisons
> Prayers
> 
> Druid
> Orisons
> Prayers
> 
> Fighter
> Strikes
> Maneuvers
> 
> Monk
> Techniques
> 
> Paladin
> Smites
> 
> Ranger
> Marks
> 
> Rogue
> Tricks
> 
> Sorcerer
> Cantrips
> Sorceries
> 
> Warlock
> Cantrips
> Invocations
> 
> Wizard
> Cantrips
> Spells



But this absurdly incomprehensible approach aint one of them.

Here is a clue - at least one player needs to know and understand ALL the rules, so taking a compartmentalised "you don't need to know that" approach won't work. In practise it's a team game, so everyone needs to have at least a rough idea of how the other classes work so they can cooperate effectively.


----------



## Minigiant

Paul Farquhar said:


> True.
> 
> But this absurdly incomprehensible approach aint one of them.
> 
> Here is a clue - at least one player needs to know and understand ALL the rules, so taking a compartmentalised "you don't need to know that" approach won't work. In practise it's a team game, so everyone needs to have at least a rough idea of how the other classes work so they can cooperate effectively.




How so? You are making a judgment without knowning the difference between a prayer and a spell.

Wizard casting and Cleric/Druid casting are not that much different. The point is to codify the differences in proper names so player can learn and use the ideas in easy to understand lingo. 

Spells are prepared from spellbooks, users can have multiple spellbooks, and they are Intelligence based. They use magic slots that are recharged on long rest.  
Prayers are gifted from dieties, users have access the whole list of the magic level they are, and they are Wisdom based. They use magic slots that are recharged on long rest.  
Songs are known from memory, users have a limit of songs known, and they are Charisma based. They use magic slots that are recharged on long rest.  
Invocations are known from memory, users have a limit of invocations known, and they are Charisma based. They use magic slots that are recharged on short or long rest.  
Sorceries are known from memory, users have a limit of sorceries known, and they are Charisma based. They use magic slots or sorcery points that are recharged on long rest.  

Almost the same rules as now but now you don't have to read a different SPELLCASTING sections for each class and subclass.

"Eldritch knights cast spells. Got it."
"My fey heritage lets me cast _misty step _as an invocation, song, or sorcery."
"As a level 5 kensei, i get 3 maneuvers and 5 techniques."
"The orc cheiftan has Bear Totem Rage and Menacing Attack Maneuver. I will swap it to Sweeping attack since the party has sidekicks in it."


----------



## Mind of tempest

Minigiant said:


> How so? You are making a judgment without knowning the difference between a prayer and a spell.
> 
> Wizard casting and Cleric/Druid casting are not that much different. The point is to codify the differences in proper names so player can learn and use the ideas in easy to understand lingo.
> 
> Spells are prepared from spellbooks, users can have multiple spellbooks, and they are Intelligence based. They use magic slots that are recharged on long rest.
> Prayers are gifted from dieties, users have access the whole list of the magic level they are, and they are Wisdom based. They use magic slots that are recharged on long rest.
> Songs are known from memory, users have a limit of songs known, and they are Charisma based. They use magic slots that are recharged on long rest.
> Invocations are known from memory, users have a limit of invocations known, and they are Charisma based. They use magic slots that are recharged on short or long rest.
> Sorceries are known from memory, users have a limit of sorceries known, and they are Charisma based. They use magic slots or sorcery points that are recharged on long rest.
> 
> Almost the same rules as now but now you don't have to read a different SPELLCASTING sections for each class and subclass.
> 
> "Eldritch knights cast spells. Got it."
> "My fey heritage lets me cast _misty step _as an invocation, song, or sorcery."
> "As a level 5 kensei, i get 3 maneuvers and 5 techniques."
> "The orc cheiftan has Bear Totem Rage and Menacing Attack Maneuver. I will swap it to Sweeping attack since the party has sidekicks in it."



I would simplify your system to spells for arcane casters and something else for divine casters make the difference simple but obviuse.


----------



## Minigiant

Mind of tempest said:


> I would simplify your system to spells for arcane casters and something else for divine casters make the difference simple but obviuse.



That's defeats the point at now the arcane casters don't cast magic the same anymore.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Minigiant said:


> How so? You are making a judgment without knowning the difference between a prayer and a spell.



Having *any* difference is poor design. It's complication for the sake of complication. Anything that can use the same rules_ should _use the same rules, so players only have one rule to learn.


----------



## Minigiant

Paul Farquhar said:


> Having *any* difference is poor design. It's complication for the sake of complication. Anything that can use the same rules_ should _use the same rules, so players only have one rule to learn.



It's not "just one rule". That's the issue.
Every caster uses the rule differently. And the rule is already huge.

So you might as well named them different things, streamline them, and teach them individually.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Minigiant said:


> streamline them, and teach them individually.



This is an oxymoron. "Streamlining" would involve _removing_ differences. Not that I see what you are getting at, in 5e a spell is a spell, it follows the same rules no matter the class. Which is fine, doing anything else is complication for the sake of complication.


----------



## Minigiant

Paul Farquhar said:


> This is an oxymoron. "Streamlining" would involve _removing_ differences. Not that I see what you are getting at, in 5e a spell is a spell, it follows the same rules no matter the class. Which is fine, doing anything else is complication for the sake of complication.




The point is every class has its own delivery, recharge, and maintenance system despite all of them being called a spell and spellcasting.

So to streamline it, you either make everyone use the same rule or you rename all the different rules into different terms.


----------

