D&D (2024) 6e? Why?

[AriochQ]

There are portions of 5e that could benefit from a new version. The ones that come to mind are: Grappling, vision, rest/encounters per day and, of course, the overpowered GWM and SS feats.

They don't make the game unplayable by any means, but I do find the above to be the weakest part of 5e.

Do I want to buy a whole new set of books to fix these warts? Probably not. Also, they would probably just mess up other portions of the ruleset that are working just fine at the moment.

 

[TwoSix]

I can see a re-release and re-imagining, but I think this is pretty much the evergreen version of D&D, as long as Hasbro holds the license. A new "PHB" might have new classes and races for a new setting, but the core rules will stay compatible with the 2014 PHB.

 

[Oofta]

Because "need" is not objective. Different people have different needs.

Edition wars are basically an Old-West conflict between cattle ranchers and sheep ranchers. They both use the land for similar things, but they're needs are slightly different, and mutually exclusive.

To be fair, the cattle ranchers did have a point. Sheep are much more destructive because they eat more of the plant. Of course the Native Americans also had a point because the cattle turned much of the southwest into the barren landscape it is now instead of savanna. Of course the mega-fauna that lived in the Americas before humans showed up also had a point ...

Let's just say all editions are flawed in some way or other, all have some ways in which some will claim they are better. I like 5E because it works well enough, and it's modular enough for me and my group.

 

[pogre]

I hope not. I seem to have better luck with odd-numbered editions.

 

[Gladius Legis]

It'll probably happen eventually a few years down the road, but no, it's not needed. And if (when?) it happens, I can't imagine it being a radical change from 5e. Unlike 3e, 5e isn't fundamentally broken, so there would be no need for a 6e to attempt the radical changes 4e tried to make. It would just have to address the moving parts of 5e that need to be addressed.

In other words, I'd expect 5e -> 6e to be MUCH more akin to 1e -> 2e than 3e -> 4e.

 

[PabloM]

I can see a re-release and re-imagining, but I think this is pretty much the evergreen version of D&D, as long as Hasbro holds the license. A new "PHB" might have new classes and races for a new setting, but the core rules will stay compatible with the 2014 PHB.

This would be really wonderful, but I think it´s an utopia. If an all-new-with-new-ruleset-PHB sells, then they will (eventually) repeat the formula.
The important thing here is that the bussines men ideas can merge with the rpg creative ideas.

 

[jgsugden]

On a completely related note: I wonder if Enworld should have an anti-clickbait policy on thread titles.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

I have no desire for a new edition right now.

 

[Charlaquin]

The thing is, a new edition is primarily going to be driven by a business need - to reinvigorate sales. I'm pretty sure a toolbox based on the same core won't achieve that end. Toolboxes are for gearheads, and I'm not sure the gearheads who want to build their own game out of parts is a large enough market to satisfy the business need.

I'm going to guess the growing business need will be around attracting and keeping a new generation of gamers.

You are absolutely right about that. That’s why I said it would be the ideal in my opinion, not the ideal business decision for WotC.

 

[Sunseeker]

Like 6E now? Heck no. 6E Eventually yeah, games advance, gamers move on, demands change.