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

[Marandahir]

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



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



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



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.



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.

And again, in Essentials nothing replaced the PHB subclasses. Essentials IS 4e. 3.5 IS 3rd Edition. Player’s Option is a 2e set of rules expansions. The fact that they covered territory already explored in earlier books matters little.

These were different iterations on similar themes with entirely different class feature structures. The Battle Cleric, Paladin, Runepriest, Warpriest Cleric, and Cavalier Paladin all freely existed side by side and the only people worried were the people who had already been crying foul since Psionics broke the symmetry of 4e’s At-Will/Encounter/Daily power lattice. But those of us who continued to play the game found no real reason to disallow earlier builds.

If anything it was akin to getting the 5e Hexblade when we already have Pact of the Blade in the PHB. Is the Hexblade a better implementation of the Martial Warlock? Sure! Does it replace having Pact of the Blade for other patrons? Not at all. Should it be rethinked for the 2024 PHB? I think so. If Pact Boon had more umph to it and incorporated the best elements of Hexblade I would just say cut Hexblade as a separate subclass.

 

[darjr]

People will call it everything from 5 evolved to 5.5 to 6e. I dint care. As long as it’s backward compatible I’m all good.

 

[darjr]

People will call it everything from 5 evolved to 5.5 to 6e. I dint care. As long as it’s backward compatible I’m all good.

The tricky part will be the adjustment of the monsters and the PC power curve. But considering we’ll see most of the new monster math before the new core books it looks like it’ll be a ok

 

[ersatzphil]

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

"Optional".

I'm not saying they weren't good changes - in general I think they were - but the Tasha's changes are very much how things seem to be working going forward.

 

[Dausuul]

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

Well, but which one? There is a big difference between, say, 4E Essentials and 3.5E. Essentials was just another splatbook; it experimented with new mechanics but did not touch what already existed. 3.5E, on the other hand, made no big changes but ten thousand little ones. It was backwards compatible in the sense that you could still use all your 3E material... but lots of things would not work the way they used to.

"Backwards compatible" can mean a lot of things, and we don't know yet where the 50th anniversary release will fall on that spectrum. At this stage, I suspect even the designers don't know for sure. If I had to guess, I'd say something a little more aggressive than Essentials but not nearly as comprehensive as 3.5E; targeted rules changes to fix specific pain points, rather than a general overhaul. But that's just my gut feeling and not based on any particular evidence.

 

[Marandahir]

Well, but which one? There is a big difference between, say, 4E Essentials and 3.5E. Essentials was just another splatbook; it experimented with new mechanics but did not touch what already existed. 3.5E, on the other hand, made no big changes but ten thousand little ones. It was backwards compatible in the sense that you could still use all your 3E material... but lots of things would not work the way they used to.

"Backwards compatible" can mean a lot of things, and we don't know yet where the 50th anniversary release will fall on that spectrum. At this stage, I suspect even the designers don't know for sure. If I had to guess, I'd say something a little more aggressive than Essentials but not nearly as comprehensive as 3.5E; targeted rules changes to fix specific pain points, rather than a general overhaul. But that's just my gut feeling and not based on any particular evidence.

I’m sorry for the confusion. I was implying 3.5e versus 3e, Essentials vs 4e, BECMI versus Basic, etc.

 

[Dausuul]

I’m sorry for the confusion. I was implying 3.5e versus 3e, Essentials vs 4e, BECMI versus Basic, etc.

Yes, I got that. My point was that 3E --> 3.5E was a much bigger change than 4E --> Essentials*.

Both can be considered "backwards compatible," depending on how you define the term, but 4E --> Essentials allows you to define it much more stringently.

*I skipped Skills and Powers, and I came straight into BECMI without first playing Basic, so I can't speak to how big those changes were.

 

[bmfrosty]

That it's going to use the same math is all that I care about. Hopefully they change the character classes to have fewer moving parts. That's the biggest problem that I have DMing, I can't keep all of the classes in my head, and often enough I have a couple of players that can't keep track of their own class.

I liked when the Fighter's power was having a higher to-hit bonus and better armor choices than spellcasters and thieves.

And also, 5e's flat math isn't flat enough for me.

But yeah, I like flatter math than what 5e has.

 

[Umbran]

It’s 5.5e.
If they call it 6e, it’s in name only.

As others have noted - they won't call it anything. WotC doesn't use the term "5e" except when it cannot be avoided. Look at your books - it is just "D&D".

We, the fans, are the ones who call it "5e".

 

[Marandahir]

Yes, I got that. My point was that 3E --> 3.5E was a much bigger change than 4E --> Essentials*.

Both can be considered "backwards compatible," depending on how you define the term, but 4E --> Essentials allows you to define it much more stringently.

*I skipped Skills and Powers, and I came straight into BECMI without first playing Basic, so I can't speak to how big those changes were.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood your question there.

Yes, iterative changes have different gradations. But all are roughly compatible. This 2024 revision will be roughly compatible with the 2014 5e core rules, but will be its own revised printing of core rules.

My point is that this isn’t 6E unless WotC calls it that, and if they do so, it would follow the 2e precedent. It is a gradation rather than a hard break, by definition of “fully compatible” claims. Meanwhile, quibbling about degrees of gradation isn’t very productive. That’s all I was saying.

The claims of Pathfinder being 3.75e was a fanon term that was quibbling about the degrees of gradation, when fans just as well could have called it 3.51e or 3.5e Extended or 4e (Pathfinder Fork). Trying to use it as a baseline for judging the degrees of gradation of other compatible but iterative revisions to other editions of the game is comparing apples and oranges. 5e’s rules are fundamentally different from 3e and any iteration on it will look different than any iteration on 3e.

My measurement of the differences could be vastly different from yours, because we have different experiences with the game’s editions. That’s ok. It’s just worth recognising that there’s a lot we don’t know.