• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

dave2008

Legend
Huh.

Maybe instead of 6e, they'll just finally make good on that ancient promise of modularity.
Did they promise that though? It has been a while since I have seen this debated, but most of what I remember was people thinking they promised that, but they never actually did. They discussed it and such, but it came down to people hearing what they wanted to hear and assuming WotC promised modularity, but they never really did. I could definitely be wrong (and I don't really care), but that was the outcome of the various debates about this if I remember correctly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
Funny. But still not accurate (as far as I know*).

"Hey, we are going to do X!" followed by "Hmm....X didn't really work out like we hoped." is neither a lie nor a promise broken.

*Caveat: I suppose it's possible they knew it wasn't true when they said it. :-/
Didn't Monte Cook leave the 5e development team somewhere in the middle? Not sure if it related to end of the discussions on modularity, but it was definitely not something they were discussing at the end of the playtest, IIRC.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Did they promise that though? It has been a while since I have seen this debated, but most of what I remember was people thinking they promised that, but they never actually did. They discussed it and such, but it came down to people hearing what they wanted to hear and assuming WotC promised modularity, but they never really did. I could definitely be wrong (and I don't really care), but that was the outcome of the various debates about this if I remember correctly.
That's my recollection, but I could be wrong. I seem to recall Mearls saying how they would see if they can work modularity into the game. I'm guessing they were initially wanting to take all the optional rules and put them into modules, but ended up scrapping the modularity idea and just left them as stand alone optional rules.

Putting on my designer hat, I would imagine it's because "if we put optional rule X, Y, and Z into module 1, and optional rule A, B, C into module 2, then people who want optional rule A and Y will feel like they have to use both modules, rather than just choosing the optional rules they want." or "if a player doesn't want to use C or D, they might assume they can't use A either." And from a client (player) standpoint, that's a bad thing.
 

Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
I'm more in the boat that sales of an edition is more important to WotC than rules clutter. Meaning, even if an edition is running out of rules material or is even creating too many inconsistent rules, if the product still makes huge sales you don't start from scratch.

Is simply doesn't make much business sense that they would kill the sacred cow of 5E when it sells so well. Almost all the $ people will scream at the rules people to not go near the subject of a 6E.

Now, I think it's maybe possible that a 5.5 edition is made in a couple years, that is essentially just 5E with some changes made for racial mechanics and maybe some other things like bonus actions. But I don't think it would hugely invalidate big swathes of published 5E rules either.
 

6th Edition will come with carbine action and 200 shots, with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

Didn't Monte Cook leave the 5e development team somewhere in the middle? Not sure if it related to end of the discussions on modularity, but it was definitely not something they were discussing at the end of the playtest, IIRC.

Cook began as lead designer in January 2012 and left in April 2012 before the public playtesting began. [Many of the reference links on those pages are dead, which is unsurprising given how long ago it was.] Cook was pretty adamant that his reasons for leaving had nothing to do with the design of the 5e and everything to do with a disagreement with the company. Beyond that I don't think he's ever made it clear what the issue was.
 

Hatmatter

Laws of Mordenkainen, Elminster, & Fistandantilus
Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past. This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, but when it does, what changes do you expect to see based on what you've seen WoTC do in the past few years in regards to errata, rules changes, design directions, etc.

For me, I think Tasha's was a signal flare of sorts. And with the recent UA, I think the writing is clearly on the wall. We will see a 6e, because some of the most cherished sacred cows of D&D are going to go through big changes on how the rules are going to be written for them. Also, when I look at the history of D&D, it seems more common than not that when you reach the point where there are a lot character options and most/all of the campaign settings are out there, we see a new edition in a year or so.

Let me address the latter first. First, let's look at the actual list:

1e to 2e: Dragonlance and Planescape settings came out, and immediately 2e discussions were being made.
2e to 3e: The Player's Options books were clearly a look at revising the rules, (and of course WoTC would want their own edition rather than TSR's 2e)
3e to 4e: 4e was announced almost immediately after the Complete X books came out (complete champion was June 2007 and 2 months later 4e was announced, so they were clearly talking about 4e long before that).
4e to 5e: 4e churned out a lot of player's options and settings right out of the gate. 3 player's handbooks, 3 monster manuals, and 2 DMGs in a 2 year period. By the time 2012 came and the Player's Options books (Feywild and Elemental Chaos), pretty much everything was covered. 5e was announced shortly after (actually announced before PO Elemental came out). Yes, sales figures had a lot to do with it, but more to the overall point:


When an edition has pretty much gone through all the core archetypes, and all of the most popular settings have been created, a new edition soon follows. I'm guessing a large factor is because not as many people buy the outlier materials. Complete book of fighters is gonna sell more copies than Complete book of gnomes. Forgotten Realms campaign setting will sell more than Spelljammer. Etc. So from a business perspective, in order to increase sales, come out with a new edition.

5e sales are still really strong, and I suspect that's because of the slow release schedule so a lot of the popular material (like settings of Darksun and Dragonlance) is still yet to be addressed. That's why it's currently one of the longest running edition of D&D ever (almost 10 years since announcement) with at least another year or two. But it is starting to see the end of the tunnel re: archetypes. With books like Tasha's we're starting to see some of the more weird and unusual class/subclass/race options.

The former point is the actual design changes we're seeing in Tasha's and the Gothic legacy UA. Similar to the Player's Options books of 2e, we're seeing some significant changes to how character creation and advancement is being handled now.

That leads me to my prediction of 6e and what we'll see and expect.

Races: Racial modifiers are gone. Caps won't make an appearance. The term "race" might even go away to something like Ancestry or Legacy (I think PF does something like this). Racial choices will have a few traits based on physiological aspects, and not cultural. A race like goliath will have a powerful build trait to represent how they are stronger. Gnomes will have magic resistance. Halfling will be lucky, etc.

Ability score modifiers and other traits will be based on culture/heritage options. Also like PF2 does I think (and a lot of indie games are doing it the same way going forward). Instead of getting a +1 bonus to strength for being an orc, perhaps you get a +1 bonus to strength for being a fighter, or choosing a warfare culture, etc. Or instead of ASIs, you get feats that are related to your culture/heritage.

Alignment: We've already seen how humanoid races are no longer inherently evil. This continues. I think no intelligent species will have a default alignment any longer. That will be saved for monsters/fiends/undead. I would not be surprised to see a shift away from the 9 alignments and go back to the B/X version of general overviews of alignments. At least for PCs. Most PCs don't follow alignment anyway, but shift back and forth depending on what's going on in the game. I doubt that will happen, but I wouldn't be shocked if it did.

Classes: A lot more subclass kits, but they will be less robust than they are now, and you may be able to choose more than one. Something between a feat and a subclass as we see them in 5e. And closer to as they appeared in the playtest docs. The reason for this, is because I think it addresses the omission of classes like the warlord, shaman, and others. For example, all fighters are good at fighting martially, but a warlord kit gives you abilities that you gain at various levels to inspire allies and enforce battlefield tactics. While a battlemaster is all about maneuvers, and a champion gives you out of combat abilities, etc. If they really want to make the change, they would get rid of subclasses/kits altogether and expand and expound backgrounds to fill that role. However they do it, I strongly suspect they will have the class as a chassis with the core features, then a lot of options you can add for backgrounds or subclass kits, and those would largely be class agnostic (warlord background with a rogue class? Why not?).

Anywho, those are my predictions of a 6e. Rather than driven by sales, I think a driving factor will be how the gaming community views design today. I.e., things like race and alignment and the problematic issues therein.
Speaking for myself, I see no reason for a sixth edition. It’s fine for a game to have supplemental options. The problem with most of the proposed revisions is that they are either incidental ones that many DMs already do according to their taste, or they interfere with making it easier for a new player to step in and play. In other words, there are conflicting goals if one will attempt to integrate some of Tasha’s into the PHB...the more racial or subclass options are in PHB, the more difficult it is for a beginner to learn.

I would like to see Wizards continue to develop and grow the game by putting their resources into new adventures, rules for mass combat, for high level adventure, the exploration of settings and locations, and unexpected fun.

The proposition of yet another PHB/DMG/MM series and the inevitable conversations to follow about updating this or that old book into sixth edition is so exhausting and tedious to me. I think D&D is at its best when the rules are a vehicle for fun rather than the subject of endless tinkering on the path to a vision of perfection that, rather than arriving, seems to engender louder and depressing complaints and divisions. In our era of poisonous divisiveness, 5th edition has been nearly miraculous in growing the hobby.
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Legend
Did they promise that though? It has been a while since I have seen this debated, but most of what I remember was people thinking they promised that, but they never actually did. They discussed it and such, but it came down to people hearing what they wanted to hear and assuming WotC promised modularity, but they never really did. I could definitely be wrong (and I don't really care), but that was the outcome of the various debates about this if I remember correctly.

IIRC there was a single blog post back in 2012 or so that said something about it. I also seem to remember that it was widely misinterpreted to mean something that was never meant. Take a look at the DMG, there's sections like "roll of the dice", theater of the mind vs grids, and optional rules for resting, lasting injuries, etc. Then there's a bunch of stuff that's optional like feats and multi-classing.

I think there is a fair bit of modularity already in the system. Could there be more tactical rules for example? Sure. But none of those rules made the cut during playtesting. 🤷‍♂️ Ultimately people wanted a relatively streamlined system, not a game that greatly rewards rules mastery or plays like GURPS.

Seems to me that we were never promised modularity in the sense that some people interpret it. They tested various things, found out what seemed to work and created a game that has far exceeded their expectations.
 

We are ready for a sourcebook as 3.5 Unearted Arcana, with lots of alternate rules and options. Other thing would be a d20 Modern 2.0. where WotC could allow herself to get rid off some sacred cows, such things as a different list of abilities scores for games with more investigations or social interactions, for example noir detective against Lovecraftian cults or palace intrigues at the fae court.

The prototype of 6th Ed will be a not-fantasy ARPG videogame, maybe a sci-fi shooter. The goal would be a system where famous videogames franchises were easy to be adapted.
 

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
IIRC there was a single blog post back in 2012 or so that said something about it. I also seem to remember that it was widely misinterpreted to mean something that was never meant. Take a look at the DMG, there's sections like "roll of the dice", theater of the mind vs grids, and optional rules for resting, lasting injuries, etc. Then there's a bunch of stuff that's optional like feats and multi-classing.

I think there is a fair bit of modularity already in the system. Could there be more tactical rules for example? Sure. But none of those rules made the cut during playtesting. 🤷‍♂️ Ultimately people wanted a relatively streamlined system, not a game that greatly rewards rules mastery or plays like GURPS.

Seems to me that we were never promised modularity in the sense that some people interpret it. They tested various things, found out what seemed to work and created a game that has far exceeded their expectations.
Seems like semantics to a degree. We have feats and multiclassing for example.

I think to include them significantly changes things.

when you read the dmg—-really read it——there are lots of optional rules to include combat rules.

other than getting rid of races and classes, not sure how many more parts we can chop a core game into and still have a unified whole. Especially true if we consider every player option outside of phb is a modular optional addition!
 

Jaeger

That someone better
You don't have feats or multiclasses to fill up sourcebooks to buy. You don't need an app which would have a subscription and ads. You don't need to buy a software license. And there will only ever be one print version and one virtual version, as opposed to 4 or 5 virtual versions.

My aim would be to have a version that is between 5e an B/X in running complexity.

But with more choices available to PC's during advancement.

TSR managed to turn out gobs of material for B/X somehow. And who said the dedicated VTT would be free?


What is even left the streamline?

There are plenty of issues in play with 5e that could use a second look.

And streamline does not = simplify.


I think there is a fair bit of modularity already in the system. Could there be more tactical rules for example? Sure. But none of those rules made the cut during playtesting.

That is one of the weaknesses of the system IMHO.

D&D needs 3-6 standard combat maneuvers/options that any PC can do. And they need no be complex multi roll affairs.

Just viable tactics that can be better options in certain situations other than "I hit him with my best attack" over and over again.

They need not add more complexity than what 5e already does with its action economy.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top