Considering the way WotC has handled the growth and expansion of the game, I think it's pretty clear that they are adamant about keeping the original PHB a relevant purchase. Many of the questionable things they've done (or not done) point to prioritizing the idea that the PHB you bought in the store is not considered obsolete or changed dramatically through errata. This hasn't gone over great in the modern world of living changing online documents and video games that get patched and updated on a regular cycle.
That being said, they did make a PHB 2.0 with 4th edition when they released the Essentials line. All the content was fully compatible with the rest of 4e, but it could also stand alone. It was basically an open beta for a lot of ideas for 5th edition.
The problem with that is the char creation junk in Tasha's and the grey box in the UA both run explicitly counter to char creation in the PHB. Yeah, WOTC can say it is backwards compatible, but now a DM at a tabletop game has to have both versions of char creation available. And if the DM does not, that will lead to a lot of unhappy players who sit down at that DM's table. Now, frankly, I will enjoy crushing the spirit of some min-maxer using Tasha's rules, but I am old school DM. I pity the AL DM.
So when this stuff comes up, and as Gvarayi just recently tried to start a thread jumping off for this one, I do see a 50th anniversary edition to include either relaunches or special editions of the core books, particularly the PHB that reconcile race and class in the PHB and the lineage and possible class feature mutability presented in Tasha's and the UA sidebar. Basically I feel the "going forward system" should keep and allow the existing races to be picked up, but also grant players the ability to construct custom lineages. The challenge is making the lineage system capable of producing the original races. I think this is doable, and Gvarayi certainly puts in a lot of effort in this space to try to see how it could be done, over the next year or two of UA and playtest and Sage advice. I think there's basically one Dwarven sub race that's particularly problematic, but otherwise I see future D&D products as something that can give everyone in these arguments want they want.
EDIT: by "anniversary edition" I don't mean edition as the ways folks tend to differentiate rule sets. Rather I see the work as a consolidation of the existing core with some of the systems that have been and are being developed within the rules established by the core.
Going by this I'd say that 2022 would be the earliest that a new Edition would come out, with 2024 being much more likely going by 5Es popularity.
As for a PHB 2.0 I don't think that such a thing would be done - right now they can milk people by getting them to buy multiple books that they "need", and I can't see that business practice changing at all.
Going by this I'd say that 2022 would be the earliest that a new Edition would come out, with 2024 being much more likely going by 5Es popularity.
As for a PHB 2.0 I don't think that such a thing would be done - right now they can milk people by getting them to buy multiple books that they "need", and I can't see that business practice changing at all.
2022 is only 11 months from now and 2024 is not that far off either, meaning that they would currently be in the process of writing and testing future system changes. Changes like those to Race for example.
Going by this I'd say that 2022 would be the earliest that a new Edition would come out, with 2024 being much more likely going by 5Es popularity.
As for a PHB 2.0 I don't think that such a thing would be done - right now they can milk people by getting them to buy multiple books that they "need", and I can't see that business practice changing at all.
The shift from 1e to 2e and 2e to 3e, is about 11 or 12 years.
5e is out in 2014. Hypothetically, 6e, if any, might arrive in 2025 or 2026.
This makes a consolidation, in the tradition of a "compendium", somewhat likely by 2024.
3e came out in 2000. 5e came out in 2014. Fourteen years later.
One can look at 3.0e as an evolution in the gaming engine of D&D. It consolidated the somewhat random ad-hoc growth of 1e-2e. Then 3.5e, 4e, and Essentials as experimentation with this 3e gaming system. 4e is important because it marks a breakthru in understanding how gaming engines work, as ecological systems, and how to measure and quantify the features within a gaming engine. The critique of 4e is its mechanical structure felt too inflexible.
5e, about 14 years after 3e, feels like a synthesis of the new gaming engine.
You can't ignore that there was an edition with a completely different engine between 3rd and 5th (no matter how much WotC may want to) so what I stated is fact. WotC has released a new edition every 7-8 years since acquiring the game.
Ya know, putting aside the fact that I doubt we'll see an actual D&D 6 for a long time yet, I'm kinda curious to know what they'd do differently enough to justify an entire new edition.
Like, putting aside 4e, each edition still had some rather major changes between them.
Ya know, putting aside the fact that I doubt we'll see an actual D&D 6 for a long time yet, I'm kinda curious to know what they'd do differently enough to justify an entire new edition.
Like, putting aside 4e, each edition still had some rather major changes between them.
Considering that they want to keep as many players as possible when they do switch, I think the difference will look a lot more like the changes between 3 and Pathfinder 1e (which was more of a D&D 3.75). They will be very similar but with a lot of corrections to perceived flaws with the current game.
I would expect a rebalancing of the classes for certain. I think some of the less popular subclasses will be changed completely or dropped all together. Race will be gone with a completed Lineage system in its place. Background would likely see a revamp to bring in line with those changes. Skills and tools may see some work if we are lucky.
I really think that 2024 would be a perfect time to release a new edition. Take advantage of the anniversary hype to help counter act the edition change backlash.
I really think that 2024 would be a perfect time to release a new edition. Take advantage of the anniversary hype to help counter act the edition change backlash.
I think you're right on timing for a significant and substantial release that year. A new edition is possible, however whether it's that or something else, I imagine it'll be more closely inline or derived from the present (and evolving rules) that past iterations. From a biz perspective 5e hit a success sales sweetspot no prior edition had. Consequently, while there may be designers and stakeholders inside and outside the production studio who really would like to do complete tear downs and build ups, I see a lot of biz-sense pressure to keep whatever comes more closely aligned with 5e than the radical break some of the posts are articulating in the "fix it" thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I suspect 2024 will be the year for a "5e compendium".
Before the 5e compendium comes out, we will probably see UA articles that preview the Players Handbook lineages in their new format, to ensure players are reasonably satisfied with it.
Considering the way WotC has handled the growth and expansion of the game, I think it's pretty clear that they are adamant about keeping the original PHB a relevant purchase. Many of the questionable things they've done (or not done) point to prioritizing the idea that the PHB you bought in the store is not considered obsolete or changed dramatically through errata. This hasn't gone over great in the modern world of living changing online documents and video games that get patched and updated on a regular cycle.
That being said, they did make a PHB 2.0 with 4th edition when they released the Essentials line. All the content was fully compatible with the rest of 4e, but it could also stand alone. It was basically an open beta for a lot of ideas for 5th edition.
The problem with that is the char creation junk in Tasha's and the grey box in the UA both run explicitly counter to char creation in the PHB. Yeah, WOTC can say it is backwards compatible, but now a DM at a tabletop game has to have both versions of char creation available. And if the DM does not, that will lead to a lot of unhappy players who sit down at that DM's table. Now, frankly, I will enjoy crushing the spirit of some min-maxer using Tasha's rules, but I am old school DM. I pity the AL DM.
Tasha's really doesn't cause that big of a stir if you allow it...
Why would you want to crush the spirit of players? Isn't the game about having fun
Considering the way WotC has handled the growth and expansion of the game, I think it's pretty clear that they are adamant about keeping the original PHB a relevant purchase. Many of the questionable things they've done (or not done) point to prioritizing the idea that the PHB you bought in the store is not considered obsolete or changed dramatically through errata. This hasn't gone over great in the modern world of living changing online documents and video games that get patched and updated on a regular cycle.
That being said, they did make a PHB 2.0 with 4th edition when they released the Essentials line. All the content was fully compatible with the rest of 4e, but it could also stand alone. It was basically an open beta for a lot of ideas for 5th edition.
The problem with that is the char creation junk in Tasha's and the grey box in the UA both run explicitly counter to char creation in the PHB. Yeah, WOTC can say it is backwards compatible, but now a DM at a tabletop game has to have both versions of char creation available. And if the DM does not, that will lead to a lot of unhappy players who sit down at that DM's table. Now, frankly, I will enjoy crushing the spirit of some min-maxer using Tasha's rules, but I am old school DM. I pity the AL DM.
Tasha's really doesn't cause that big of a stir if you allow it...
Why would you want to crush the spirit of players? Isn't the game about having fun
It's easier to alllow floating ASIs than to pick non-floating ones for new races. Other than that, it's homebrew/houserules either way and my players' spirits fortunately aren't that easily crushed, so I think my table will be fine regardless how it shakes out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It's easier to alllow floating ASIs than to pick non-floating ones for new races.
True.
Including earlier editions, I remember getting uncomfortable with the glut of Dex-Cha races.
When there are only four or five races for the players to choose from, the abilities improvements can feel like salient differences between the lineages.
But when there are forty or fifty lineages to choose from, the ability improvements become overdone, feel more accidental, become mainly useful for impersonal statistics for char-op, and even start to conflict with more-salient narrative differences.
Considering the way WotC has handled the growth and expansion of the game, I think it's pretty clear that they are adamant about keeping the original PHB a relevant purchase. Many of the questionable things they've done (or not done) point to prioritizing the idea that the PHB you bought in the store is not considered obsolete or changed dramatically through errata. This hasn't gone over great in the modern world of living changing online documents and video games that get patched and updated on a regular cycle.
That being said, they did make a PHB 2.0 with 4th edition when they released the Essentials line. All the content was fully compatible with the rest of 4e, but it could also stand alone. It was basically an open beta for a lot of ideas for 5th edition.
The problem with that is the char creation junk in Tasha's and the grey box in the UA both run explicitly counter to char creation in the PHB. Yeah, WOTC can say it is backwards compatible, but now a DM at a tabletop game has to have both versions of char creation available. And if the DM does not, that will lead to a lot of unhappy players who sit down at that DM's table. Now, frankly, I will enjoy crushing the spirit of some min-maxer using Tasha's rules, but I am old school DM. I pity the AL DM.
You know there's this great online tool for character creation that makes that a complete non-issue. Maybe you've heard of it? :)
I'm not entirely sure past edition cycles can predict what will happen to 5e. They blundered during 3e and lost a lot of players to Pathfinder, and 4e saw backlash relatively early that drove a very different development structure for 5e.
D&D is more popular than it has ever been and 5e has largely succeed in its goal to appeal to both old and new players, and we aren't at the point where a new edition would be able to target some demographic that 5e doesn't already cover (without doing something radically different and losing a large chunk of the existing demographic). I just don't think it makes sense right now to abandon 5th edition for something else. I could see a 5.5 "Gold Edition" or something in 2024 that has a whole new line of Core books, but I expect it would be entirely backwards-compatible with what we have now.
So when this stuff comes up, and as Gvarayi just recently tried to start a thread jumping off for this one, I do see a 50th anniversary edition to include either relaunches or special editions of the core books, particularly the PHB that reconcile race and class in the PHB and the lineage and possible class feature mutability presented in Tasha's and the UA sidebar. Basically I feel the "going forward system" should keep and allow the existing races to be picked up, but also grant players the ability to construct custom lineages. The challenge is making the lineage system capable of producing the original races. I think this is doable, and Gvarayi certainly puts in a lot of effort in this space to try to see how it could be done, over the next year or two of UA and playtest and Sage advice. I think there's basically one Dwarven sub race that's particularly problematic, but otherwise I see future D&D products as something that can give everyone in these arguments want they want.
EDIT: by "anniversary edition" I don't mean edition as the ways folks tend to differentiate rule sets. Rather I see the work as a consolidation of the existing core with some of the systems that have been and are being developed within the rules established by the core.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Going by this I'd say that 2022 would be the earliest that a new Edition would come out, with 2024 being much more likely going by 5Es popularity.
As for a PHB 2.0 I don't think that such a thing would be done - right now they can milk people by getting them to buy multiple books that they "need", and I can't see that business practice changing at all.
#OpenDnD
2022 is only 11 months from now and 2024 is not that far off either, meaning that they would currently be in the process of writing and testing future system changes. Changes like those to Race for example.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
2e from 1e made changes to class, mostly reformating, and both remained compatible, moreorless.
he / him
The shift from 1e to 2e and 2e to 3e, is about 11 or 12 years.
5e is out in 2014. Hypothetically, 6e, if any, might arrive in 2025 or 2026.
This makes a consolidation, in the tradition of a "compendium", somewhat likely by 2024.
he / him
I would not use TSR's release schedule as a model for what WotC will do. WotC has released a new edition every 7-8 years thus far.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
3e came out in 2000. 5e came out in 2014. Fourteen years later.
One can look at 3.0e as an evolution in the gaming engine of D&D. It consolidated the somewhat random ad-hoc growth of 1e-2e. Then 3.5e, 4e, and Essentials as experimentation with this 3e gaming system. 4e is important because it marks a breakthru in understanding how gaming engines work, as ecological systems, and how to measure and quantify the features within a gaming engine. The critique of 4e is its mechanical structure felt too inflexible.
5e, about 14 years after 3e, feels like a synthesis of the new gaming engine.
he / him
You can't ignore that there was an edition with a completely different engine between 3rd and 5th (no matter how much WotC may want to) so what I stated is fact. WotC has released a new edition every 7-8 years since acquiring the game.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ya know, putting aside the fact that I doubt we'll see an actual D&D 6 for a long time yet, I'm kinda curious to know what they'd do differently enough to justify an entire new edition.
Like, putting aside 4e, each edition still had some rather major changes between them.
Considering that they want to keep as many players as possible when they do switch, I think the difference will look a lot more like the changes between 3 and Pathfinder 1e (which was more of a D&D 3.75). They will be very similar but with a lot of corrections to perceived flaws with the current game.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Fingers crossed for fixing ranger, sorcerer, and the short rest classes.
I would expect a rebalancing of the classes for certain. I think some of the less popular subclasses will be changed completely or dropped all together. Race will be gone with a completed Lineage system in its place. Background would likely see a revamp to bring in line with those changes. Skills and tools may see some work if we are lucky.
CR might get some work as well
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I really think that 2024 would be a perfect time to release a new edition. Take advantage of the anniversary hype to help counter act the edition change backlash.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think you're right on timing for a significant and substantial release that year. A new edition is possible, however whether it's that or something else, I imagine it'll be more closely inline or derived from the present (and evolving rules) that past iterations. From a biz perspective 5e hit a success sales sweetspot no prior edition had. Consequently, while there may be designers and stakeholders inside and outside the production studio who really would like to do complete tear downs and build ups, I see a lot of biz-sense pressure to keep whatever comes more closely aligned with 5e than the radical break some of the posts are articulating in the "fix it" thread.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If 3e is the thesis, 4e is the antithesis, and 5e is the synthesis.
Despite 5e making an effort avoid the appearance of 4e cosmetically, 5e continues many of the 4e innovations mechanically.
he / him
I suspect 2024 will be the year for a "5e compendium".
Before the 5e compendium comes out, we will probably see UA articles that preview the Players Handbook lineages in their new format, to ensure players are reasonably satisfied with it.
he / him
Tasha's really doesn't cause that big of a stir if you allow it...
Why would you want to crush the spirit of players? Isn't the game about having fun
It's easier to alllow floating ASIs than to pick non-floating ones for new races. Other than that, it's homebrew/houserules either way and my players' spirits fortunately aren't that easily crushed, so I think my table will be fine regardless how it shakes out.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
True.
Including earlier editions, I remember getting uncomfortable with the glut of Dex-Cha races.
When there are only four or five races for the players to choose from, the abilities improvements can feel like salient differences between the lineages.
But when there are forty or fifty lineages to choose from, the ability improvements become overdone, feel more accidental, become mainly useful for impersonal statistics for char-op, and even start to conflict with more-salient narrative differences.
he / him
You know there's this great online tool for character creation that makes that a complete non-issue. Maybe you've heard of it? :)
I'm not entirely sure past edition cycles can predict what will happen to 5e. They blundered during 3e and lost a lot of players to Pathfinder, and 4e saw backlash relatively early that drove a very different development structure for 5e.
D&D is more popular than it has ever been and 5e has largely succeed in its goal to appeal to both old and new players, and we aren't at the point where a new edition would be able to target some demographic that 5e doesn't already cover (without doing something radically different and losing a large chunk of the existing demographic). I just don't think it makes sense right now to abandon 5th edition for something else. I could see a 5.5 "Gold Edition" or something in 2024 that has a whole new line of Core books, but I expect it would be entirely backwards-compatible with what we have now.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm