Something will come on 2024, but my guess is that it's just going to be a "50th Anniversary Box Set" and special book/dice, or something like that. An anniversary will be celebrated, but not with a new edition (as long as the current edition is still thriving, that is).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Here's my thoughts on what I would like to see in 6th edition. My minds eye - 4th edition was an awful attempt to turn it into a MMO as you all know, 5e brought it back to being d&d but still was quite off in my mind but I do like some things and some things that I don't quite like I like the idea of but think implementation was flawed but hey that's just me or maybe others have similar thoughts?
Things to Change!:
1. Return to basic (1983) damage scaling. Hit dice d4 for wizard types , d6 for everything else, d8 for warriors. Go back to limiting HD to 10 total so after level 10 you don't get more. 3e started this crazy insane amount of hit points and thus began an arms race to "scale damage" with feats, scaling monsters(I mean come on, a 9th lvl goblin that does d8 damage from a sword, +d8 from some feat, + 8d from another thing, + this, + that....that ruined D&D). Look at what you have now with extreme player damage numbers in melee/missile. I'm not saying some bonuses do and should exist but there needs to be a cap like you did with proficiencies or something. Scaling back this damage and Hit Point treadmill that D&D has been on since 3e is terrible. Combats back in the day were not nearly as long because of the HP bloat we have now. Note that this doesn't apply to monster HD! What about us Barbarians and our d12 HD you cry?! Well there are better ways to simulate your toughness than making the combats slower with HP bloat.
2. If game balance is desired, as it should be, then this gentlemen (3rd edition balance blunders) makes a huge case in point about why D&D since 3e has Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards and agree with the gist of what he is saying. He lacks the understanding why the ability scores were standardized(a stat = this much bonus no matter the attribute or who you are) and the move to standardization of ability bonuses I think everyone loves but there is always the odd person out. Also while he makes a good point about armor wearing wizards and concentration checks combined means you go from a hit interrupting the spell to maybe interrupting. I think the biggest thing is that Warrior types need to have a larger prof bonus in combat than others. Some tweaking in these areas is needed. Keeping with a bounded accuracy and proficiencies but I think proficiencies for BAB and Saves is the perfect rule that feels right to me(YMMV). Having every class +2 TH at 1st level is plain wrong. Something like warrior types should be the only ones at 1st level with +2 BAB and it goes to +10 for them while wizards max at +4 and all others +6
3. Stop with the 5e spells being attack rolls. Please, its magic and always hits. That is what the saving roll is for and why limits on spells per day by slot are there to balance it already!
4. I always hated the invention of the CR but understand why and I think its ben refined more so maybe a non issue.
5. More of a curiosity here but seems most monsters greatly increased in HD since their basic/ad&d days. Why is that? Again, take them back to before 3rd edition for HD and stop the bloating.
6. A spell point system that works. You should not gain x points per level but that spells become cheaper to use as you level up. All start at a certain cost and then every level go down by some amount. See this post: Spell point system that works. I'd say one change to his suggestion is that a min of 1 for cost whereas he's showing 0 for some or maybe 1st and 2nd can eventually be 0 cost and at will but not able to be cast at a higher level. Lots of playtesting needed on any of it of course but sounds promising. Something like his idea I think is needed although the cost each level starts at and how much to reduce per level is crux of the balancing to it.
7. Do people want to keep the sacred cow of 9 spell levels or advance into modern thinking of either by rank(Apprentice, Adept, Journeyman, Master, Archmage). Or go to 20 levels of spells and spilt things up? This makes it so that you know a 13 level caster can cast up to 13th level spells :) Not that dividing by 2 rounding up = spell level is a challenge but going to 20 levels make smooth sense.
Things to Keep!
1. Love the proficiency bonus concept but maybe growing this rule to allow for customizations? IE I am a cleric and no rogue in the party so I've been the default lock picker, searcher and disable device "guy" in the group so I've gotten better than the others in the group at it....or what have you.
2. I do like the concept of bounded accuracy. But, as I eluded to above it is too "bounded" and I think the max should be +10, with +2 to start - if its stuff '"In Character" as it were. For stuff not normally considered part of your character(IE allow choosing "cross class" skills) then the bonus is only 1/2.
Anyway, thanks for any discussion in advance. I would love to see specific reasons why or why not on these. Of course, the proof is in the pudding(of heavy playtesting).
You are aware that magic spells that required attack rolls have been part of the game since at least 2nd Edition, right? And probably longer than that?
Going back to OD&D hitpoint limits is a terrible idea. Full stop. Combat rarely takes more than three rounds in 5E as it is, if it's taking longer than that for you, check your character builds and what actions you're doing in combat.
Spell slots are pretty iconic to D&D, I don't see that changing in any new editions. If they did decide to switch over to a spellpoint system, it would make dramatically more sense to give spells fixed costs and grant casters an increased spellpoint pool size each level rather than having a fixed pool and dropping the casting cost of spells. That's just a silly amount of extra bookkeeping.
It's weird that you complain about bloat but half your proposed changes would add significantly more bloat.
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.
And because before 4th Edition, wizards had poor base attack bonuses/THAC0s, and thus expecting them to hit the same numbers as a fighter would have made such spells useless.
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.
Touch spells have always needed to hit rolls, although armor has not always counted with respect to them (since the caster is not expected to actually poke through plate amour with their finger).
Yes go back to touch AC with respect to low level touch spells but make all ranged attacks auto hits(played this way since 83 so no unbalanced)
Going back to OD&D hitpoint limits is a terrible idea. Full stop
Well have to agree to disagree on this on this but returning to cap hd and get rid of bloated damage they put in 5e and return to reasonable numbers as it flies in the face of "lower level monsters are a threat". No they are not, when your doing such high damage like a spell would and your melee that breaks the game.
You forget that damage was uncapped in 1st Edition: a wizard's spells kept getting better as they leveled up and they wound up getting more spells per day, plus there were magic items that could further boost the number of spells per day they could cast. With an overall effect that low level monsters were dramatically less of a threat than they are in 5E. And combat tended to devolve into "who can cast Fireball first."
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.
From stuff I heard that anymore monster books will be along the lines of Volo's and Mordenkainens book, consisting of Lore, Player info and such along the lines of those. Both of which I really enjoy and when can we as players not need more critters and such to meet, befriend or kill if we must. We cannot have to many of them, but for a 6th edition I myself do not want one as this edition is a bang up good job of rules for gaming. The only thing I see the need for is another book along the lines of the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide or Xanathar's Guide. I can see this book expanding on the new rules that are in the last few adventures, mainly ships and land vehicles (Ghosts of Saltmarsh/Baldur's Gate Descent) as well as the Follower/sidekick rules from the essentials kit. Then throw in some new subclasses, backgrounds, spells and magic items and poof a new book. Maybe even the Artificer and the Psion class hopefully.
I guess that is pretty simillar to what Tasha's provided.
I actually think that 5.5 or 6e is much closer than we originally thought.
The Lineage thing is pointing towards a major shift in the character creation system. I think we are seeing a testing of the waters as they look to see how receptive people are to more upcoming changes.
Edit: This is just speculation on my part of course.
That depends on what kind of feedback they get on Lineages and how well the first books that feature them actually sell.
Tasha's had some, let's say, controversial content. And some content some people didn't care about one way or another. And some repeat content. And it sold really well. Given the low frequency of WotC's releases (lower still if we disregard modules, even if some of the feature game mechanics too), I think a lot of people will buy just about anything that gets published. One single feature doesn't change much about that, if it even changes anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think the closest thing we are going to get to a quote on quote "new" version will be 5.5 and still, that will be a while. They want to let everyone start settling in before they throw anything too complicated out. I personally am fine with this, I like this version.
We all know the timetable below for the editions. Earlier editions had longer runs. Going by the trend it’s very possible 6e is currently being developed for a 2022/2023 release. Surprised we didn’t see a new edition in 2020. Most likely we didn’t due to its popularity over 4e. My only caution is AL needs to stop being so complicated and undergoing frequent changes. That’s the entry to the game for many players. Setting a high bar just understand how AL works instead of learning how to play D&D will begin to deter players. Then the reaction by WoTC is to fast track a new edition to create the artificial demand to sell books (I.e. boost sales figures for Hasbro).
AD&D 2nd's run length was determined by the timing of wotC taking over (april 1997, for the record) and how long it took them to create a new edition more than anything else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sure, of course. But even so it’s not possible to guess that 2e would have lasted longer if TSR never went bankrupt. The reality is once WoTC took over the trending timeline to the next edition was shrinking. Hopefully 5e will get 10 years. Nobody knows except for Chris Perkins and Co. ;)
I actually think that 5.5 or 6e is much closer than we originally thought.
The Lineage thing is pointing towards a major shift in the character creation system. I think we are seeing a testing of the waters as they look to see how receptive people are to more upcoming changes.
Edit: This is just speculation on my part of course.
I honestly consider Tasha's 5.5 myself as look at the expanded racial ASI's treatment we got it literally can change how you create a character. They did the same thing back in 1st edition with unearthed arcana, 2nd Edition with Player's Option & DM's Option books. All of it under the optional statement in each edition.
We all know the timetable below for the editions. Earlier editions had longer runs. Going by the trend it’s very possible 6e is currently being developed for a 2022/2023 release. Surprised we didn’t see a new edition in 2020. Most likely we didn’t due to its popularity over 4e. My only caution is AL needs to stop being so complicated and undergoing frequent changes. That’s the entry to the game for many players. Setting a high bar just understand how AL works instead of learning how to play D&D will begin to deter players. Then the reaction by WoTC is to fast track a new edition to create the artificial demand to sell books (I.e. boost sales figures for Hasbro).
Yeah there was a more recent "what if 6e?" thread that got shut down. I've also seen this "timeline" before insinuity it as the basis of calculation, but it misses the big factor that WotC is now owned by Hasbro. In that shut down thread I wrote the following:
Just some food for thought about the new elevated position WotC occupies in the Hasbro infrastructure. When was the last time Hasbro changed the rules to Monopoly? As long as WotC can demonstrate they have strong sales of its entry rules sets (essentials, basic, or PHB and Cores) and those entry consumers continue buying new supplemental content, I don't see WotC design study having a strong case of saying "we need to change the rules to a new edition" to the business managers Hasbro installs with oversight over the design studio. Why take a new edition risk on a proven sales maker?
Now Hasbro does do well selling different editions of Monopoly, or Clue, but those editions are from our hobby's standpoint reskins or alternate/expanded lore than what in TTRPG is considered an edition. As Tasha's and Xanthar's become the way more and more folks say "the game is played" (and marketing proof supports it, "i.e. surveys say everyone plays with Xanathars and Tashas, but really both books only amount to 30% of our PHB sales") I do foresee different formats to the rules, consolidating some of the options of Xanathars and Tasha's into a deluxe core rule sets or what have,you; but given how WotC business is governed compared to the rules governed by smaller craft or boutiqued game studios where new editions are an essential aspect of continued existence/relevance (looking at you, Chaosism, and I see you R Talsorian, maybe Steve Jackson, though do they really TTRPG outside its nostalgia markets anymore?). 5e just occupies a very very different space than I'd say any TTRPG ruleset. And I write this as someone who runs 5e games because I'm asked to. D&D in all its iterations aren't actually my favorite rulesets, and until recently my favorite rule sets have actually been "dead rules" that haven't been supported by an actual publishers in a couple of decades. Also not saying I don't like playing 5e, I actually do.
Basically TSR produced content on a very different model that WotC. When Hasbro made WotC a subsidiary, and subsequently elevated them to a new unit within the Hasbro infrastructure, a totally different ballgame is being played now. Again, how often has the rules to Monopoly changed? I think rather than a truly new edition, you're much more likely to see a repackaging of the core, likely reconciled with Xanathar's and Tasha's and probably another book or two by the time of the 50th. WotC "We need to rebuild the rules." Hasbro (with sales data) "Excuse me?"
Arm chair analysts are better served educating themselves on the actual industry. Read Steve Jacksons Games Stakeholder Report (used to be written by Steve Jackson, these days I think it's mostly Phil Reed). Different animal than Wizards ever was but gives you a good sense. Pay attention to what's actually said at GAMA, and if you don't know what that is, find out. Look at the companies I mentioned in the report. Then check just Amazon and see the sales rankings of WotC 5e titles compared to anything else in the TTRPG sector. Then come back and tell us why a 6e is on the horizon for reasons beyond a calendar's symmetry says the stars are right. I mean astrology is fun to play around with, but I don't actually make plans based on it.
Something will come on 2024, but my guess is that it's just going to be a "50th Anniversary Box Set" and special book/dice, or something like that. An anniversary will be celebrated, but not with a new edition (as long as the current edition is still thriving, that is).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Here's my thoughts on what I would like to see in 6th edition. My minds eye - 4th edition was an awful attempt to turn it into a MMO as you all know, 5e brought it back to being d&d but still was quite off in my mind but I do like some things and some things that I don't quite like I like the idea of but think implementation was flawed but hey that's just me or maybe others have similar thoughts?
Things to Change!:
1. Return to basic (1983) damage scaling. Hit dice d4 for wizard types , d6 for everything else, d8 for warriors. Go back to limiting HD to 10 total so after level 10 you don't get more. 3e started this crazy insane amount of hit points and thus began an arms race to "scale damage" with feats, scaling monsters(I mean come on, a 9th lvl goblin that does d8 damage from a sword, +d8 from some feat, + 8d from another thing, + this, + that....that ruined D&D). Look at what you have now with extreme player damage numbers in melee/missile. I'm not saying some bonuses do and should exist but there needs to be a cap like you did with proficiencies or something. Scaling back this damage and Hit Point treadmill that D&D has been on since 3e is terrible. Combats back in the day were not nearly as long because of the HP bloat we have now. Note that this doesn't apply to monster HD! What about us Barbarians and our d12 HD you cry?! Well there are better ways to simulate your toughness than making the combats slower with HP bloat.
2. If game balance is desired, as it should be, then this gentlemen (3rd edition balance blunders) makes a huge case in point about why D&D since 3e has Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards and agree with the gist of what he is saying. He lacks the understanding why the ability scores were standardized(a stat = this much bonus no matter the attribute or who you are) and the move to standardization of ability bonuses I think everyone loves but there is always the odd person out. Also while he makes a good point about armor wearing wizards and concentration checks combined means you go from a hit interrupting the spell to maybe interrupting. I think the biggest thing is that Warrior types need to have a larger prof bonus in combat than others. Some tweaking in these areas is needed. Keeping with a bounded accuracy and proficiencies but I think proficiencies for BAB and Saves is the perfect rule that feels right to me(YMMV). Having every class +2 TH at 1st level is plain wrong. Something like warrior types should be the only ones at 1st level with +2 BAB and it goes to +10 for them while wizards max at +4 and all others +6
3. Stop with the 5e spells being attack rolls. Please, its magic and always hits. That is what the saving roll is for and why limits on spells per day by slot are there to balance it already!
4. I always hated the invention of the CR but understand why and I think its ben refined more so maybe a non issue.
5. More of a curiosity here but seems most monsters greatly increased in HD since their basic/ad&d days. Why is that? Again, take them back to before 3rd edition for HD and stop the bloating.
6. A spell point system that works. You should not gain x points per level but that spells become cheaper to use as you level up. All start at a certain cost and then every level go down by some amount. See this post: Spell point system that works. I'd say one change to his suggestion is that a min of 1 for cost whereas he's showing 0 for some or maybe 1st and 2nd can eventually be 0 cost and at will but not able to be cast at a higher level. Lots of playtesting needed on any of it of course but sounds promising. Something like his idea I think is needed although the cost each level starts at and how much to reduce per level is crux of the balancing to it.
7. Do people want to keep the sacred cow of 9 spell levels or advance into modern thinking of either by rank(Apprentice, Adept, Journeyman, Master, Archmage). Or go to 20 levels of spells and spilt things up? This makes it so that you know a 13 level caster can cast up to 13th level spells :) Not that dividing by 2 rounding up = spell level is a challenge but going to 20 levels make smooth sense.
Things to Keep!
1. Love the proficiency bonus concept but maybe growing this rule to allow for customizations? IE I am a cleric and no rogue in the party so I've been the default lock picker, searcher and disable device "guy" in the group so I've gotten better than the others in the group at it....or what have you.
2. I do like the concept of bounded accuracy. But, as I eluded to above it is too "bounded" and I think the max should be +10, with +2 to start - if its stuff '"In Character" as it were. For stuff not normally considered part of your character(IE allow choosing "cross class" skills) then the bonus is only 1/2.
Anyway, thanks for any discussion in advance. I would love to see specific reasons why or why not on these. Of course, the proof is in the pudding(of heavy playtesting).
Gib
Okay, in no particular order:
You are aware that magic spells that required attack rolls have been part of the game since at least 2nd Edition, right? And probably longer than that?
Going back to OD&D hitpoint limits is a terrible idea. Full stop. Combat rarely takes more than three rounds in 5E as it is, if it's taking longer than that for you, check your character builds and what actions you're doing in combat.
Spell slots are pretty iconic to D&D, I don't see that changing in any new editions. If they did decide to switch over to a spellpoint system, it would make dramatically more sense to give spells fixed costs and grant casters an increased spellpoint pool size each level rather than having a fixed pool and dropping the casting cost of spells. That's just a silly amount of extra bookkeeping.
It's weird that you complain about bloat but half your proposed changes would add significantly more bloat.
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.
And because before 4th Edition, wizards had poor base attack bonuses/THAC0s, and thus expecting them to hit the same numbers as a fighter would have made such spells useless.
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.
Yes go back to touch AC with respect to low level touch spells but make all ranged attacks auto hits(played this way since 83 so no unbalanced)
Well have to agree to disagree on this on this but returning to cap hd and get rid of bloated damage they put in 5e and return to reasonable numbers as it flies in the face of "lower level monsters are a threat". No they are not, when your doing such high damage like a spell would and your melee that breaks the game.
You forget that damage was uncapped in 1st Edition: a wizard's spells kept getting better as they leveled up and they wound up getting more spells per day, plus there were magic items that could further boost the number of spells per day they could cast. With an overall effect that low level monsters were dramatically less of a threat than they are in 5E. And combat tended to devolve into "who can cast Fireball first."
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 guess that is pretty simillar to what Tasha's provided.
I actually think that 5.5 or 6e is much closer than we originally thought.
The Lineage thing is pointing towards a major shift in the character creation system. I think we are seeing a testing of the waters as they look to see how receptive people are to more upcoming changes.
Edit: This is just speculation on my part of course.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That depends on what kind of feedback they get on Lineages and how well the first books that feature them actually sell.
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.
Tasha's had some, let's say, controversial content. And some content some people didn't care about one way or another. And some repeat content. And it sold really well. Given the low frequency of WotC's releases (lower still if we disregard modules, even if some of the feature game mechanics too), I think a lot of people will buy just about anything that gets published. One single feature doesn't change much about that, if it even changes anything.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah, we'll just have to wait and see.
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 think the closest thing we are going to get to a quote on quote "new" version will be 5.5 and still, that will be a while. They want to let everyone start settling in before they throw anything too complicated out. I personally am fine with this, I like this version.
We all know the timetable below for the editions. Earlier editions had longer runs. Going by the trend it’s very possible 6e is currently being developed for a 2022/2023 release. Surprised we didn’t see a new edition in 2020. Most likely we didn’t due to its popularity over 4e. My only caution is AL needs to stop being so complicated and undergoing frequent changes. That’s the entry to the game for many players. Setting a high bar just understand how AL works instead of learning how to play D&D will begin to deter players. Then the reaction by WoTC is to fast track a new edition to create the artificial demand to sell books (I.e. boost sales figures for Hasbro).
1977 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D 1e) [12 years]
1989 AD&D 2nd edition [11 years]
2000 D&D 3rd edition (2003 D&D 3.5e) [8 years]
2008 D&D 4th edition [6 years*]
2014 D&D 5th edition [? years]
202? D&D 6th edition [2022/23 release?]
*D&D Next was in development by 2012
AD&D 2nd's run length was determined by the timing of wotC taking over (april 1997, for the record) and how long it took them to create a new edition more than anything else.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sure, of course. But even so it’s not possible to guess that 2e would have lasted longer if TSR never went bankrupt. The reality is once WoTC took over the trending timeline to the next edition was shrinking. Hopefully 5e will get 10 years. Nobody knows except for Chris Perkins and Co. ;)
I honestly consider Tasha's 5.5 myself as look at the expanded racial ASI's treatment we got it literally can change how you create a character. They did the same thing back in 1st edition with unearthed arcana, 2nd Edition with Player's Option & DM's Option books. All of it under the optional statement in each edition.
I think you're assuming there's a pattern that isn't there.
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.
IF there is a pattern it's not about arbitrary year span between editions.
It's about when they look at the $ numbers and see that they need to inject fresh cash that comes from new PHB/MM/DMG sales.
Yeah there was a more recent "what if 6e?" thread that got shut down. I've also seen this "timeline" before insinuity it as the basis of calculation, but it misses the big factor that WotC is now owned by Hasbro. In that shut down thread I wrote the following:
Basically TSR produced content on a very different model that WotC. When Hasbro made WotC a subsidiary, and subsequently elevated them to a new unit within the Hasbro infrastructure, a totally different ballgame is being played now. Again, how often has the rules to Monopoly changed? I think rather than a truly new edition, you're much more likely to see a repackaging of the core, likely reconciled with Xanathar's and Tasha's and probably another book or two by the time of the 50th. WotC "We need to rebuild the rules." Hasbro (with sales data) "Excuse me?"
Arm chair analysts are better served educating themselves on the actual industry. Read Steve Jacksons Games Stakeholder Report (used to be written by Steve Jackson, these days I think it's mostly Phil Reed). Different animal than Wizards ever was but gives you a good sense. Pay attention to what's actually said at GAMA, and if you don't know what that is, find out. Look at the companies I mentioned in the report. Then check just Amazon and see the sales rankings of WotC 5e titles compared to anything else in the TTRPG sector. Then come back and tell us why a 6e is on the horizon for reasons beyond a calendar's symmetry says the stars are right. I mean astrology is fun to play around with, but I don't actually make plans based on it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't think you can compare D&D to Monopoly. They are not even close to the same category of product.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master