D&D (2024) 50th Anniversary: 6E in 2024?

[Charlaquin]

It’s 5.5e.
If they call it 6e, it’s in name only.
This is more like BECMI, Player’s Option, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.

I don’t think they’ll give it an edition number. They don’t even call 5e, 5e if they can avoid it. If they have to call it anything, maybe they’ll call it 50th anniversary edition. More likely though, I think they’ll just call it D&D, and refer to the 50th anniversary books as the revised core rules or something.

 

[Lyxen]

It’s 5.5e.

You have no proof that it is.

If they call it 6e, it’s in name only.

They won't, want to bet ?

This is more like BECMI, Player’s Option, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.

BECMI ? Compared to what ?

As for the others, they were not fully compatible with the previous game. I agree that it might change until the release, but if we trust the declaration, it should be less of a shake up.

 

[Horwath]

You have no proof that it is.

Tasha's is already "soft" 5.5e

Maybe it wont be called liked that, but I will be similar to 3.0->3.5 thing.


I expect to see all races without ability boosts, just racial features that will be offered for 2 or 3 choices per feature.
Or 3 or 4 features total out of a pool of 10 or so.

The, either a modified point buy pool or 3 or 4 points added as bonus to pool/rolls.
+2/+2, +2/+1/+1, +1/+1/+1/+1 for 4 pts extra or,
+2/+1, +1/+1/+1 for 3 pts extra.
Maybe with an option to "sacrifice" bonus points for "bonus" feat-

 

[Charlaquin]

As for the others, they were not fully compatible with the previous game. I agree that it might change until the release, but if we trust the declaration, it should be less of a shake up.

Essentials was fully compatible with earlier 4e. It worked great standalone (and was cleaner that way IMO), but you could use it with any material you wanted from before Essentials without causing any issues at all.

 

[Lyxen]

Tasha's is already "soft" 5.5e

Tasha is 5.1 at most. No changes to the mechanics and a few options for races and classes, all optional.

Maybe it wont be called liked that, but I will be similar to 3.0->3.5 thing.

Again, no proof of that. 3.5 actually changed a lot of things, not only classes (some of them fairly much), but there were lots of changes to skills and feats and many spells, changes to damage reduction mechanics, none of that is in Tasha.

 

[Marandahir]

You have no proof that it is.



They won't, want to bet ?



BECMI ? Compared to what ?

As for the others, they were not fully compatible with the previous game. I agree that it might change until the release, but if we trust the declaration, it should be less of a shake up.

BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, etc compared to Basic, B/X, etc. Each were iterative “edition” changes, but they were all compatible, just needed some tweaks here or there.

2e books and adventures were fully compatible with Player’s Option. I ran 3e products during 3.5e all the time. And I did the same with 4e and Essentials products. I think you’re making the differences out to be more substantive than they actually were.

Was there a vastly different way of presenting classes in the iterations? Sure. Would you say that Bo9S and 3.5e PHB2 are incompatible with 3.5e Player’s Handbook because they introduced completely new ways to play the noble Paladin figure? Or is it that the class was reprinted with revised mechanics but the same name that makes your claim they’re incompatible? There was no reason one could not run a 4e PHB Paladin alongside an Essentials Cavalier etc in a single game crossing between H1 Keep on the Shadowfell and Monster Vault 2 packed in adventure “Reavers of Harkenwold” without any trouble.

 

[Charlaquin]

Guys. What it’s called really doesn’t matter. They’re revising the rules. The changes to spellcasting monsters in the new Mordenkainen book prove that they’re not afraid to make some mechanical changes to existing rules, but the statement of full backwards compatibility means they aren’t planning to change anything so much that you won’t be able to comfortably use old material alongside new. Call it 5.5e, call it 5Essentials, call it 5e revised, call it 50AE, call it Advanced 5e (ok, maybe not that one), it doesn’t really matter. Whatever you call it, it’s going to be a revision significant enough to merit new core books, but not significant enough that material from the first 10 years of 5e won’t be usable with it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Actually, I kinda like the abbreviation 50AE.

 

[Dire Bare]

Guys. What it’s called really doesn’t matter. They’re revising the rules. The changes to spellcasting monsters in the new Mordenkainen book prove that they’re not afraid to make some mechanical changes to existing rules, but the statement of full backwards compatibility means they aren’t planning to change anything so much that you won’t be able to comfortably use old material alongside new. Call it 5.5e, call it 5Essentials, call it 5e revised, call it 50AE, call or Advanced 5e (ok, maybe not that one), it doesn’t really matter. Whatever you call it, it’s going to be a revision significant enough to merit new core books, but not significant enough that material from the first 10 years of 5e won’t be usable with it.

Hey man, we're nerds. We like to get hung up on the small stuff!

 

[Lyxen]

BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, etc compared to Basic, B/X, etc. Each were iterative “edition” changes, but they were all compatible, just needed some tweaks here or there.

BECMI is Basic Expert amongst other, and the Rules Cyclopaedia is just everything combined, it's not compatibility, it's the same game.

2e books and adventures were fully compatible with Player’s Option.

And yet the player's options resulted in completely different characters, not something that we saw in most cases.

I ran 3e products during 3.5e all the time.

No, the changes were much more profound than Tasha, I have summarised them in another post, they changed a number of game mechanics, the list of skills and feats, and spells very significantly, in addition to classes.

And I did the same with 4e and Essentials products.

And, as with the Player's Options, the characters created were simply not the same.

I think you’re making the differences out to be more substantive than they actually were.

Just make a factual comparison to Tasha, which were relatively minor tweaks and all optional, and I think you'll see that we are not talking the same magnitude at all.

Was there a vastly different way of presenting classes in the iterations? Sure. Would you say that Bo9S and 3.5e PHB2 are incompatible with 3.5e Player’s Handbook because they introduced completely new ways to play the noble Paladin figure? Or is it that the class was reprinted with revised mechanics but the same name that makes your claim they’re incompatible? There was no reason one could not run a 4e PHB Paladin alongside an Essentials Cavalier etc in a single game crossing between H1 Keep on the Shadowfell and Monster Vault 2 packed in adventure “Reavers of Harkenwold” without any trouble.

Compatibility is something else again, what I was reacting to was already calling Tasha a revised edition, as well as the claim that the differences might reach the level of 3/3.5 which were actually very significant.