I gotta say I’m not a fan of the ENWorld product. I didn’t like a lot of what they did from what I remember.
I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about something ENWorld put out, maybe back in the 3 or 3.5 days? I'm talking about a product ENWorld announced back in August with the working title Level Up. They weren't even sure exactly what was going to be in it at the time so I doubt it's out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
the third is keeping all the saves and the core dice rules of 5th
I prefer the old Fort/Will/Ref. Having 6 saves just feels insane and the flavour overlap between something like a Wis save and a Cha save is blurry. Advantage is cool but I think a few more +1 modifiers here and there wouldn't break the game. Rolling two dice and taking the highest is mechanically equivalent to like +5, which is a very steep yardstick for bonuses to have. I'm not saying we need tables of modifiers based on climbing in different levels of rain and sunlight but something more graded would be useful, if it was standardized.
fifth uncapping ability scores, skills, and reducing proficiency bonuses.
Why? Bounded accuracy has worked well. Raising the cap to 24/+7 might be nice, maybe above a certain level, but uncapping them completely just brings back the problems 3.5 had. If I wanted to keep things simple and raise the ability cap like this, I would make "proficiency" was just a flat +2 and "expertise" a flat +4.
fourth allowing for 1 ability score improvement every 4 levels and a feat at 1st, 3rd, and every third level after. adding back all the feats of 3.0 and 3.5 up to epic level
A lot of 3.5 feats were obsolete because they were ordinary things any sapient being should be able to do (like weapon finesse letting you use DEX for a rapier). 5e just consolidated them. So whereas 3.5 feats feel like microtransactions, 5e feats feel like expansion packs - I think that's more psychologically satisfying for players, and often a lot more flavorful.
example while every character can use metamagic as a feat like in 3.5 only the sorcerer as has sorcerer points that would benefit this.
Isn't that just making every other class step on the sorcerer's toes and making them pointless? They're already somewhat poorly distinguished from warlocks and wizards. That's not impossible for an RPG but why not make sneak attacks, barbarian rages, wild shape etc. feats too? Which would basically make it into a classless game.
and for certain class of the divine domains should be feats with the cleric being allowed two domains for free and a third by forsaking another domain also each domain should grant supernatural abilities.
Clerics are already good, this would make them broken. It doesn't really make sense in fluff either. If you worship the God of war and tempest and then pick up the light domain, does that mean your god is diversifying his supernatural operations? So why doesn't it apply to every other cleric? Or are you adding an extra god to your pantheon, because doing that just to expand your spell list doesn't really seem like something a devotee of higher powers would do.
I think you're focusing a bit too much on what you want in the mechanics, but it's very gamey and seems disentangled from unifying mechanics and lore.
Advantage is cool but I think a few more +1 modifiers here and there wouldn't break the game. Rolling two dice and taking the highest is mechanically equivalent to like +5, which is a very steep yardstick for bonuses to have.
Advantage isn't really a +5. At most it's statistically equivalent to a +5 spread out over a number of rolls, but only if you had a very low chance of success on the straight roll. If you have a high chance of success, advantage is more like a +1 (at most).
But importantly, advantage doesn't actually increase the value of your result by +5 or +1 or anything. It doesn't let you reach results you wouldn't be capable of without it. There's a big difference between advantage and an actual +5.
5e tries very hard to constrain attack bonuses and AC to avoid an arms race. Instead, the focus is on damage.
Clerics are already good, this would make them broken. It doesn't really make sense in fluff either. If you worship the God of war and tempest and then pick up the light domain, does that mean your god is diversifying his supernatural operations? So why doesn't it apply to every other cleric? Or are you adding an extra god to your pantheon, because doing that just to expand your spell list doesn't really seem like something a devotee of higher powers would do.
I think you're focusing a bit too much on what you want in the mechanics, but it's very gamey and seems disentangled from unifying mechanics and lore.
This is exactly why I dislike the whole domain concept. It is at best clumsy. Gods traditionally are a lot less generic in their domains. First of all, 5e limits you to one domain. So either a deity of war and tempest is impossible, or mortals are forbidden from worshiping both aspects. Second, why, exactly, must a cleric be limited to one deity? Why can't they be a promoter of the entire pantheon, or at least an allied faction within said pantheon?
You can play a cleric who's devoted to a pantheon. You're still limited to a single domain for the same reason that a wizard is limited to a single magic school and a paladin is limited to a single divine oath: it's a game and there are limits to what your character can do. And in-universe, there are limits to how much power a mortal body can hold.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Advantage isn't really a +5. At most it's statistically equivalent to a +5 spread out over a number of rolls, but only if you had a very low chance of success on the straight roll. If you have a high chance of success, advantage is more like a +1 (at most).
But importantly, advantage doesn't actually increase the value of your result by +5 or +1 or anything. It doesn't let you reach results you wouldn't be capable of without it. There's a big difference between advantage and an actual +5.
5e tries very hard to constrain attack bonuses and AC to avoid an arms race. Instead, the focus is on damage.
I wasn't thinking of AC or permanent attack bonuses in the 3.5 BAB style so much as situational things like flanking (although the cover system does give modifiers to AC like +2 and +5). Flanking is an optional rule, but without a 5 foot step it's mechanically awkward and gives advantage very easily, which makes sneak attacks trivial and reduces the usefulness of knocking enemies prone or "when an ally is within 5ft" type abilities. But it seems tactically inaccurate that flanking should give no bonus at all. So a few groups houserule flanking as a +1 instead of advantage.
So long as you're not throwing out +4s/-4s think this logic works fine for a lot of *environmental* penalties and bonuses. This stacks with advantage, and I know 5e hates stacking - but I'm fine with that, because it makes rational sense that accumulating multiple tactical benefits will add up. Success in 5e combat is already very much about playing the right character the right way rather than adapting to your external surroundings, which is a bit of a shame to me.
This is exactly why I dislike the whole domain concept. It is at best clumsy. Gods traditionally are a lot less generic in their domains. First of all, 5e limits you to one domain. So either a deity of war and tempest is impossible, or mortals are forbidden from worshiping both aspects. Second, why, exactly, must a cleric be limited to one deity? Why can't they be a promoter of the entire pantheon, or at least an allied faction within said pantheon?
I agree, but I don't exactly have an alternative in mind.
For one thing, I do wish being a cleric was a bit more about "interacting" with your deity like the Warlock-patron relationship, or that this roleplay was more integral to how they operate mechanically. It's there, with spells like Commune, but they still feel a bit like generic vancian spell dispensers with more healing and less nova.
This stacks with advantage, and I know 5e hates stacking - but I'm fine with that, because it makes rational sense that accumulating multiple tactical benefits will add up.
I would say 5e hates runaway stacking, or those endless stack negotiations 3.x was infamous for, but not the simple fact of stacking itself. A number of feats and magic items provide stackable bonuses.
I think 5e is also just lower resolution than 3.x, so while multiple tactical benefits add up, they tend not to do so (in reality) in a linear way. Another way of saying it is there are diminishing returns on multiple simultaneous benefits, and 5e just assumes that after a point those benefits no longer confer a mechanical advantage. And that the advantage system is "large" enough to encompass it. After all, depending on how you look at it, getting advantage on a roll could functionally work as +18!
I think 5E will be around for some time. They could still release a ton of content for it. There are several campaign settings that they could release that I feel would do well. Planescape of even Dragonlance just to name some. Lets not forget Spelljammer. Sure there is something done by a 3rd party publisher that is close. Also if im not mistaken I think Wiz gets some royalties from 3rd party stuff. Not totally sure about that though so dont hold me to it. The could bring back the small adventures but I dont see this happening. New monster manuals would be cool to see. You know, books that are just that. Monster manuals. Also if they continue to release at the pace that they are, 5E could last a long time. If and when they do decide to release a 6th edition I think it will be more of a move to make more money. With 5th being so popular I kinda think that a switch to another edition would hurt them, or kill off a good bit of their fan base. I could be wrong though. When a 6th happens I just hope its compatible with 5E. I also hope its not a digital only thing. Or worse, sub only. As so many companies are switching to. Especially the bigger ones, and Hasbro is not small by any means. Im sure that the ones at the top simply think in $ signs and that about all they think about.
I would say 5e hates runaway stacking, or those endless stack negotiations 3.x was infamous for, but not the simple fact of stacking itself. A number of feats and magic items provide stackable bonuses.
I think 5e is also just lower resolution than 3.x, so while multiple tactical benefits add up, they tend not to do so (in reality) in a linear way. Another way of saying it is there are diminishing returns on multiple simultaneous benefits, and 5e just assumes that after a point those benefits no longer confer a mechanical advantage. And that the advantage system is "large" enough to encompass it. After all, depending on how you look at it, getting advantage on a roll could functionally work as +18!
I'm just saying an actual +5 can get you a result of 20 + mods + 5, whereas advantage can't get you above 20 + mods, even though advantage in some cases can function as a statistical +5. This is completely intentional as part of 5e's design goal of reining in attack rolls and AC. If they start adding in too many stackable bonuses, even the small 3.x-style +2/-2 thing, they run the risk of sabotaging the design.
I'm just saying an actual +5 can get you a result of 20 + mods + 5, whereas advantage can't get you above 20 + mods, even though advantage in some cases can function as a statistical +5. This is completely intentional as part of 5e's design goal of reining in attack rolls and AC. If they start adding in too many stackable bonuses, even the small 3.x-style +2/-2 thing, they run the risk of sabotaging the design.
It doesn't sometimes equivocate to +5. +5 is what Advantage averages out to as a mechanic, factoring in the finite 400 possible combinations of 2d20 dice you can roll with the higher one taken, compared to a single d20. The fact that it has a lower possible floor than modifiers alone isn't statistically relevant to this because it has a higher chance of hitting a lower ceiling, although I bet it certainly feels more psychologically infuriating when you roll double 1s. Granted, it doesn't raise your maximum possible total the way flat modifiers do, but in a system where degrees of success for ability checks generally aren't a thing and critical hits on nat 20 attack rolls are, I would argue advantage is not inherently more balanced in this respect.
Most of those really broken modifiers in 3.5 came from things under control of the players, like equipment, buff spells, skills and abilities etc. Bonuses from your environment are a lot harder to consistently "rig" in the players' favour and are basically at DM discretion. Since DnD uses d20s for ability checks, attacks, and saves - and a d20 is the largest dice it uses - you basically have a one very blunt bonus or penalty you're handing out which feels the same for everything. This isn't always balanced either because lacking a gradient in your bonuses means methods that give Advantage easily are inherently more desirable than methods that should be riskier with a higher payoff, leading to convergent behaviour from players - I mentioned Flanking, which is an optional rule, but a lot of DMs have this complaint about the Help action and assisted ability checks giving very easy Advantage to almost everything a PC does. A discretionary lesser bonus would remedy this if it's not infinitely stackable.
I don't think Adv/Dis is a bad mechanic, it's one of the best mechanics 5e introduced imo. The important thing I'm saying is +Xs simply allow higher fidelity for bonuses to your chance of success than Advantage as it stands. Stacked modifiers can be capped just like Advantage currently is (which is what stops 5e from being a "roll x keep 1" d20 system), or you can integrate the two mechanically with something like "other than ability scores, any stacked modifiers which add up to more than +2 become advantage on a roll".
Also, if I've screwed up my understanding of probability somewhere, anyone can feel free to correct me. It's not something the human brain does well.
To be honest, as a new(ish) player, I kind of hope that a sixth edition isn't released anytime soon, so that I actually have time to fully learn the rules and play to the game's full extent.
To be honest, as a new(ish) player, I kind of hope that a sixth edition isn't released anytime soon, so that I actually have time to fully learn the rules and play to the game's full extent.
The probability of a 6th edition coming out within the next 3 years is practically zero. 5e is the most popular edition so far, and it isn't showing any signs of losing popularity any time soon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
To be honest, as a new(ish) player, I kind of hope that a sixth edition isn't released anytime soon, so that I actually have time to fully learn the rules and play to the game's full extent.
if a 6e is releases (probably won't, at least in the foreseeable future), you can still play 5e.
To be honest, as a new(ish) player, I kind of hope that a sixth edition isn't released anytime soon, so that I actually have time to fully learn the rules and play to the game's full extent.
The probability of a 6th edition coming out within the next 3 years is practically zero. 5e is the most popular edition so far, and it isn't showing any signs of losing popularity any time soon.
Yes, but _something_ will come out in 2024 for the 50th. Whether that is truly a 6e "new game" or some sort of consolidated edition of 5e probably won't be known till at least 2022 I'd guess. By consolidated edition, I mean a product that puts the content of for example PHB/XGtE/TCoE in one place so new players won't be intimidated by the impression of having to track down multiple books to "really play" and older players get a potential buy in by having a new format of the core rules.
To be honest, as a new(ish) player, I kind of hope that a sixth edition isn't released anytime soon, so that I actually have time to fully learn the rules and play to the game's full extent.
if a 6e is releases (probably won't, at least in the foreseeable future), you can still play 5e.
This is true too. The 3.5 community is lively and heck there's the whole old school rennaissance stuff. There's no real reason to migrate from one edition to another, especially after playing long enough where a group's campaign has likely developed into its own thing and doesn't really require much external support from an outside publisher. That said, a lot of people will nevertheless migrate because they want all the "support" that comes from playing a "current" edition ... new adventure content, more zeitgeist in social media, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This is true too. The 3.5 community is lively and heck there's the whole old school rennaissance stuff. There's no real reason to migrate from one edition to another, especially after playing long enough where a group's campaign has likely developed into its own thing and doesn't really require much external support from an outside publisher. That said, a lot of people will nevertheless migrate because they want all the "support" that comes from playing a "current" edition ... new adventure content, more zeitgeist in social media, etc.
I don't know if it's just a matter of support. Sometimes there are legitimate improvements between editions that make a good case for switching. I spent my formative years with 3.5. it still holds a special place in my heart. But when I first cracked the 5e PHB, it made a true convert out of me. It indicated that they had learned from 3e/4e and used the best parts of each. If 6e is good enough, I imagine my whole group will be happy to convert.
There's also something to be said for 'fresh' content. In 3.5 you had an absurd number of classes, prestige classes, and other options. With the number of characters I have played in 5e, I'm growing bored with the mechanical aspects. When we see a next edition, I think a lot of people will adopt it for the sake of fresh content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Another medical problem. Indefinite hiatus. Sorry, all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about something ENWorld put out, maybe back in the 3 or 3.5 days? I'm talking about a product ENWorld announced back in August with the working title Level Up. They weren't even sure exactly what was going to be in it at the time so I doubt it's out.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I believe that the source is known as "making things up."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I prefer the old Fort/Will/Ref. Having 6 saves just feels insane and the flavour overlap between something like a Wis save and a Cha save is blurry.
Advantage is cool but I think a few more +1 modifiers here and there wouldn't break the game. Rolling two dice and taking the highest is mechanically equivalent to like +5, which is a very steep yardstick for bonuses to have. I'm not saying we need tables of modifiers based on climbing in different levels of rain and sunlight but something more graded would be useful, if it was standardized.
Why? Bounded accuracy has worked well. Raising the cap to 24/+7 might be nice, maybe above a certain level, but uncapping them completely just brings back the problems 3.5 had.
If I wanted to keep things simple and raise the ability cap like this, I would make "proficiency" was just a flat +2 and "expertise" a flat +4.
A lot of 3.5 feats were obsolete because they were ordinary things any sapient being should be able to do (like weapon finesse letting you use DEX for a rapier). 5e just consolidated them. So whereas 3.5 feats feel like microtransactions, 5e feats feel like expansion packs - I think that's more psychologically satisfying for players, and often a lot more flavorful.
Isn't that just making every other class step on the sorcerer's toes and making them pointless? They're already somewhat poorly distinguished from warlocks and wizards. That's not impossible for an RPG but why not make sneak attacks, barbarian rages, wild shape etc. feats too? Which would basically make it into a classless game.
I think most groups will just ignore them.
Clerics are already good, this would make them broken. It doesn't really make sense in fluff either. If you worship the God of war and tempest and then pick up the light domain, does that mean your god is diversifying his supernatural operations? So why doesn't it apply to every other cleric? Or are you adding an extra god to your pantheon, because doing that just to expand your spell list doesn't really seem like something a devotee of higher powers would do.
I think you're focusing a bit too much on what you want in the mechanics, but it's very gamey and seems disentangled from unifying mechanics and lore.
Advantage isn't really a +5. At most it's statistically equivalent to a +5 spread out over a number of rolls, but only if you had a very low chance of success on the straight roll. If you have a high chance of success, advantage is more like a +1 (at most).
But importantly, advantage doesn't actually increase the value of your result by +5 or +1 or anything. It doesn't let you reach results you wouldn't be capable of without it. There's a big difference between advantage and an actual +5.
5e tries very hard to constrain attack bonuses and AC to avoid an arms race. Instead, the focus is on damage.
You can play a cleric who's devoted to a pantheon. You're still limited to a single domain for the same reason that a wizard is limited to a single magic school and a paladin is limited to a single divine oath: it's a game and there are limits to what your character can do. And in-universe, there are limits to how much power a mortal body can hold.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I wasn't thinking of AC or permanent attack bonuses in the 3.5 BAB style so much as situational things like flanking (although the cover system does give modifiers to AC like +2 and +5). Flanking is an optional rule, but without a 5 foot step it's mechanically awkward and gives advantage very easily, which makes sneak attacks trivial and reduces the usefulness of knocking enemies prone or "when an ally is within 5ft" type abilities. But it seems tactically inaccurate that flanking should give no bonus at all. So a few groups houserule flanking as a +1 instead of advantage.
So long as you're not throwing out +4s/-4s think this logic works fine for a lot of *environmental* penalties and bonuses. This stacks with advantage, and I know 5e hates stacking - but I'm fine with that, because it makes rational sense that accumulating multiple tactical benefits will add up. Success in 5e combat is already very much about playing the right character the right way rather than adapting to your external surroundings, which is a bit of a shame to me.
I agree, but I don't exactly have an alternative in mind.
For one thing, I do wish being a cleric was a bit more about "interacting" with your deity like the Warlock-patron relationship, or that this roleplay was more integral to how they operate mechanically. It's there, with spells like Commune, but they still feel a bit like generic vancian spell dispensers with more healing and less nova.
I would say 5e hates runaway stacking, or those endless stack negotiations 3.x was infamous for, but not the simple fact of stacking itself. A number of feats and magic items provide stackable bonuses.
I think 5e is also just lower resolution than 3.x, so while multiple tactical benefits add up, they tend not to do so (in reality) in a linear way. Another way of saying it is there are diminishing returns on multiple simultaneous benefits, and 5e just assumes that after a point those benefits no longer confer a mechanical advantage. And that the advantage system is "large" enough to encompass it. After all, depending on how you look at it, getting advantage on a roll could functionally work as +18!
I think 5E will be around for some time. They could still release a ton of content for it. There are several campaign settings that they could release that I feel would do well. Planescape of even Dragonlance just to name some. Lets not forget Spelljammer. Sure there is something done by a 3rd party publisher that is close. Also if im not mistaken I think Wiz gets some royalties from 3rd party stuff. Not totally sure about that though so dont hold me to it. The could bring back the small adventures but I dont see this happening. New monster manuals would be cool to see. You know, books that are just that. Monster manuals. Also if they continue to release at the pace that they are, 5E could last a long time. If and when they do decide to release a 6th edition I think it will be more of a move to make more money. With 5th being so popular I kinda think that a switch to another edition would hurt them, or kill off a good bit of their fan base. I could be wrong though. When a 6th happens I just hope its compatible with 5E. I also hope its not a digital only thing. Or worse, sub only. As so many companies are switching to. Especially the bigger ones, and Hasbro is not small by any means. Im sure that the ones at the top simply think in $ signs and that about all they think about.
Just because the probabilities for advantage have wider range doesn't mean it can't be quantified compared to modifiers if you average out all possible rolls.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/99p61r/the_full_guide_to_advantage_vs_flat_modifiers/
I'm just saying an actual +5 can get you a result of 20 + mods + 5, whereas advantage can't get you above 20 + mods, even though advantage in some cases can function as a statistical +5. This is completely intentional as part of 5e's design goal of reining in attack rolls and AC. If they start adding in too many stackable bonuses, even the small 3.x-style +2/-2 thing, they run the risk of sabotaging the design.
It doesn't sometimes equivocate to +5. +5 is what Advantage averages out to as a mechanic, factoring in the finite 400 possible combinations of 2d20 dice you can roll with the higher one taken, compared to a single d20. The fact that it has a lower possible floor than modifiers alone isn't statistically relevant to this because it has a higher chance of hitting a lower ceiling, although I bet it certainly feels more psychologically infuriating when you roll double 1s. Granted, it doesn't raise your maximum possible total the way flat modifiers do, but in a system where degrees of success for ability checks generally aren't a thing and critical hits on nat 20 attack rolls are, I would argue advantage is not inherently more balanced in this respect.
Most of those really broken modifiers in 3.5 came from things under control of the players, like equipment, buff spells, skills and abilities etc. Bonuses from your environment are a lot harder to consistently "rig" in the players' favour and are basically at DM discretion. Since DnD uses d20s for ability checks, attacks, and saves - and a d20 is the largest dice it uses - you basically have a one very blunt bonus or penalty you're handing out which feels the same for everything. This isn't always balanced either because lacking a gradient in your bonuses means methods that give Advantage easily are inherently more desirable than methods that should be riskier with a higher payoff, leading to convergent behaviour from players - I mentioned Flanking, which is an optional rule, but a lot of DMs have this complaint about the Help action and assisted ability checks giving very easy Advantage to almost everything a PC does. A discretionary lesser bonus would remedy this if it's not infinitely stackable.
I don't think Adv/Dis is a bad mechanic, it's one of the best mechanics 5e introduced imo. The important thing I'm saying is +Xs simply allow higher fidelity for bonuses to your chance of success than Advantage as it stands. Stacked modifiers can be capped just like Advantage currently is (which is what stops 5e from being a "roll x keep 1" d20 system), or you can integrate the two mechanically with something like "other than ability scores, any stacked modifiers which add up to more than +2 become advantage on a roll".
Also, if I've screwed up my understanding of probability somewhere, anyone can feel free to correct me. It's not something the human brain does well.
I heard it from the official website. D&D 5e was, no, is very popular so 6e isn’t going to be that different.
What official site?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There's been no official announcement of a 6e.
I'm aware of that.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To be honest, as a new(ish) player, I kind of hope that a sixth edition isn't released anytime soon, so that I actually have time to fully learn the rules and play to the game's full extent.
The probability of a 6th edition coming out within the next 3 years is practically zero. 5e is the most popular edition so far, and it isn't showing any signs of losing popularity any time soon.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
if a 6e is releases (probably won't, at least in the foreseeable future), you can still play 5e.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Yes, but _something_ will come out in 2024 for the 50th. Whether that is truly a 6e "new game" or some sort of consolidated edition of 5e probably won't be known till at least 2022 I'd guess. By consolidated edition, I mean a product that puts the content of for example PHB/XGtE/TCoE in one place so new players won't be intimidated by the impression of having to track down multiple books to "really play" and older players get a potential buy in by having a new format of the core rules.
This is true too. The 3.5 community is lively and heck there's the whole old school rennaissance stuff. There's no real reason to migrate from one edition to another, especially after playing long enough where a group's campaign has likely developed into its own thing and doesn't really require much external support from an outside publisher. That said, a lot of people will nevertheless migrate because they want all the "support" that comes from playing a "current" edition ... new adventure content, more zeitgeist in social media, etc.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't know if it's just a matter of support. Sometimes there are legitimate improvements between editions that make a good case for switching. I spent my formative years with 3.5. it still holds a special place in my heart. But when I first cracked the 5e PHB, it made a true convert out of me. It indicated that they had learned from 3e/4e and used the best parts of each. If 6e is good enough, I imagine my whole group will be happy to convert.
There's also something to be said for 'fresh' content. In 3.5 you had an absurd number of classes, prestige classes, and other options. With the number of characters I have played in 5e, I'm growing bored with the mechanical aspects. When we see a next edition, I think a lot of people will adopt it for the sake of fresh content.
Another medical problem. Indefinite hiatus. Sorry, all.