PDA

View Full Version : 6e: Some Predictions from nobody special



BerzerkerUnit
2020-12-26, 02:35 PM
Note: I've only really read WotC's books, so if any of this looks like PF or 13th Age etc, it's just cognitive parallels. I'm sure anything that looks similar those games have already done better, though I think Wizards with its Hasbro money and crowd sourcing playtesting, might be able to improve further.

1. We're 2-5 years out from an announcement for 6e. I'd expect a DarkSun campaign book, full psionic rules, or definitive Modern book to be the phoenix immolation of 5e preceding a 6e.

2. Races will be almost entirely fluff with standardized modifiers players can assign as desired and racial features like Darkvision and Trance relegated to more generically sourced feat analogs. So an Elven Warrior might take the Trance feature bc he's an elf while a Dwarven one might take it bc they were a soldier in a guerrilla war and slept with one eye open and human might have grown up on a Monastery. Initial Class choice may or may not inform these assignments as defaults. Kits may assign such, like Trance being the default choice for Monks or Rangers, etc.

3. Classes will exist, however they will be more modular in nature. The 4 primary classes: Warrior, Priest, Mage, Rogue will be defaults any goon can play out of the box. Alternate class features and subclass features will be largely interchangeable. Prefab "builds" (called kits to raise the specter of nostalgia) of those 4 will be included in the core to fill out Ranger, Monk, Paladin, etc.
So a paladin might be X Warrior levels, Y Priest levels, and some unique ala carte features. Ranger might be Warrior X, Rogue Y, and yet other ala carte features that have X/Y levels as prereqs.

The key is, they won't be mandatory, so you can be Warrior/Rogue/Mage, call yourself a Ranger and throw fireballs or stick to the Kit and be an iconic out of the box archetype.

4. Spellcasting will get an overhaul with scaling being based on some manner of casting action economy rather than spell slots. So quick cast, standard cast, full cast will all have different effects and determine whether or not the spell costs a slot. Spells may have no slot cost for quick or standard cast making them functionally at will abilities. Possibly you might be able to prepare such spells as Quick/Standard only to create the Cantrip versatility lacking in 5e or Fire/Forget may make a return with Free Cast only available as long as you retain the option of slot casting it as well.
Example: Fireball may normally cost a slot for a Standard cast with 8d6 damage. Full casting may cause creatures and objects to catch fire on a failed save, quick cast may create a smaller 2d6 AoE (ala melfs meteors). Once you cast Fireball or exhaust your slots, you may lose the quick 2d6 AoE option as well and be stuck with weaker no slot cantrips.

5. Overall level of spell casting will come from Total Priest or Mage levels and each priest or mage level will come with a predetermined # of Slots. A generic and optional "spellcasting" trait will be included so your Warrior or Rogue levels can grant additional slots instead of their normal features. Spell damage and effect will be based on Priest or Mage levels and aforementioned casting action economy. Slot level will disappear.

6. Damage will be streamlined with average values as default and rolling normally added to crits. The minion will return as a creature modifier with Criticals auto KOing them and some kind of Minion Mulcher element for spells and class features intended to lay hordes of mooks low.

7. Warrior damage will scale via # of attacks and # of dice allowing for more even damage #s between casters and martials.

8. Rogue will be less sneak attack focused and more stealth, infiltration, debilitation focused. An Assassin Kit of Warrior X, Rogue Y will fill the niche of big single hit killer, but I expect the standard sneak attack feature to focus on some form of Debilitating effect like blood loss, Blinding, partial paralysis, etc from their precision strikes.

9. Advantage/Disadvantage will become a flat +/-5 to reduce rolling.

10. Combat will assume "here and there" or "near and far" as the default play space with attack and Spell ranges being defined as hard numbers with a clear division of anything beyond ~30 feet as "there or far." Move speeds will generally refer to Close and Far, Reactions will be available to creatures "Near or Here." etc. Something Reactive Shooter might allow you to react with an arrow to creatures taking actions from "there" as if you were There as well. Polearm Master might allow you to do the same provided you move "there" as part of the reaction.

11. Action Economy might return to 4E's more straightforward description with the exception of movement staying separate. Your movement may be divided up among your Quick Action and Standard Action. You'll also have your Reaction which may limit the amount you can move to a short distance. Class features/feats may change this to extend the distance you can move when reacting.

Bonus. Players that were introduced to Dnd through 4e will feel nostalgic, players introduced through OG and Redbox types will too. Everyone else will initially hate it out loud, claim the sky is falling, then play it anyway for a few years until the next edition is out. PF will loot 5e via OGL and their 3e will cause a surge in sales of PF.

Thanks for reading!

noob
2020-12-26, 02:57 PM
I think your casting system increase complexity which is not what is wanted.
What you do with classes is not bad but you should also provide a game-mode where there is nearly 0 choices like in 5e where you can play with no feats and no multi-classing at which point you only have to pick a subclass, a class and a race exactly one time
I think 4e system of casting was probably the best one for streamlining casting and putting it in line with the rest of the things and the only reason for it not becoming the norm in 5e is the bad reaction people had against 4e.

khadgar567
2020-12-26, 03:13 PM
Things we definetly get. Warlock and artificer with 9th level casting, psychic magic, more balant wizard buffs.

noob
2020-12-26, 03:17 PM
Things we definetly get. Warlock and artificer with 9th level casting, psychic magic, more blatant wizard buffs.
Shhh do not tell the truth: let the people hope.

BerzerkerUnit
2020-12-26, 03:48 PM
I think your casting system increase complexity which is not what is wanted.
What you do with classes is not bad but you should also provide a game-mode where there is nearly 0 choices like in 5e where you can play with no feats and no multi-classing at which point you only have to pick a subclass, a class and a race exactly one time
I think 4e system of casting was probably the best one for streamlining casting and putting it in line with the rest of the things and the only reason for it not becoming the norm in 5e is the bad reaction people had against 4e.

As stated, the Warrior/Priest/Rogue/Mage will be defaults, IE meaning you can play them out of the box as is, no options unless you want them. The optional Kits like Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Druid etc would also get full write-ups, so again, no additional reading or choice unless you want it, meaning you could also play those directly out of the box, however you'd always have the option of breaking down any class or kit and mix and matching to create something unique.

Example (variable features in Bold):
Basic 1st level Warrior Features
D10 hd, Light, Medium Armor and Shields. Heavy Armor Proficiency

Barbarian Kit
D10 hd, Light, Medium Armor, Shields. Rage- quick action, while not wearing heavy armor: Damage Resistance and bonus melee damage=1/2 Warrior level for 1 minute 1/rest

Both Warrior, but the first is the default. And if you wanted a raging Paladin, the second would work since Paladin is just X levels of Warrior and Y levels of Priest even though they'd get full write ups so you can play them out of the box.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-27, 08:25 AM
(2) I can also see a more central role of "background" and having effect coming from your culture/education rather than just race.

(3) I don't think this will happen, at least not upfront. I think they will double down in the mindset "here is a very straightforward system, and then here some personalisation options for advanced players" rather than "here is a modular system, and then here are some prebuild kits for beginners".

(4) I'm honestly unsure how far they will go for spellcasting. But I really don't think they will add so much modularity.

(6) Rolling ton of dice is attractive to some players, I don't think this will happen, though this might be an option.

(8) Assuming they go with your Mage/Rogue/Priest/Fighter minimalistic approach, then I disagree. Rogue would probably be the "skill class", not the "furtive class" (though stealth will be one of its major options).

(10) I don't think they will go that far. However, I agree that we might see a standardisation, with only very few values that come back often.

(11) If they touch the action economy, I think they will rather get rid of the BA (so one action + movement), or convert it into an action (so two actions + movement). Alternatively, the number of actions per turn could scale with the level (with high level spell costing multiple actions).

Segev
2020-12-27, 04:52 PM
If and when they do a 6e, they’ll need to have a design goal and paradigm in mind. 3E, this was all about cleaning up the mess of tangled legacy rules that 2E had become, and unifying around the d20 concept. 4e, it was “balance uber alles” and sacrificed a lot to achieve that (to at best mixed reception by the fan base). 5e was a return to basics and a focus on “rulings, not rules” with things being simplified by having more exception-based mechanics than even 3e while repeating them whenever they showed up to minimize cross-referencing.

The trouble with a 6e is that there is no clear need for it, yet, in the sense that there is not yet a core concept that 5e isn’t addressing that a 6e could be the central refocus and fox for. 4e, for all its issues, was directly addressing the perceived balance problems of 3e. 5e tries to bring back the “D&D feel” that many felt 4e lost, while still streamlining the game.

Maybe 6e would focus on beginner-friendliness? But 5e sort-of did that, and many of the complaints about it stem from this goal being pursued.

Going back for deeper crunch would be a step back towards 3e, and may be a hard sell for some (while those who feel abandoned by PF1 being left fallow might welcome it). It would need something to stand apart from 3e, though, while capturing the same mechanical depth. “Balance” seems like a good goal in general, but not pursued to the manic level 4e did.

Maybe they’ll focus on “player freedom,” though that risks again losing the D&D flavor if it goes too far towards feeling like mechanics and fluff are entirely divorced and you are just using a disguised points-buy system.