D&D (2024) What would change for you if Wizards started calling it 6E?

[Parmandur]

It really isn't. I can go into my DDB account right now and search for an orc. The first result is the current version, but scrolling down further I find a few different orcs before finding another creature called "orc" from Volo's with the legacy tag. Mousing over the legacy tag, it says "this doesn't reflect the latest rules and lore" with a learn more link that points here. Sounds like the type of thing you'd approve of; they didn't alter the old listing and instead have a note saying a more recent version is available.

I imagine they'd do something similar with all the 2014 material that gets a 2024 refresh.

No doubt in my mind that rolling out the legacy system for Volo's and Mordenkainen's was a dry run for the 2014 Core rules: leave them available in Legacy for people who already bought them.

 

[Professor Murder]

I'm curious. From other Forum-goers' perspectives, what would the fallout be if Wizards were to say with the next packet:

"Because of the feedback from a subsection of the Community, we're going to call this 6th Edition. We won't write that on the cover, but the books will be differentiated at a glance with new art. Now this 6th Edition is still pretty much an updated 5th Edition and is backwards compatible with minimal changes, as we've always said, so you can still use all your 5E books."

1. Would you accept calling it a 6th edition if the changes were close to what have been described and playtested so far?
2. Would this clarify expectations for the better, or confuse expectations more for the worse for you?
3. Would this change your plan to support or not support the product?
4. Would you see Wizards in a better, or worse light?
5. Would you further consider Wizards to be dishonest, disingenuous, weak to pressure, or admitting to lying compared to their original marketing pitch?

I would stop purchasing content until after 6th ed released.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'd be happy, since "6E" would indicate that WotC had abandoned the futile quest for "backwards compativbility" and were instead 100% focused on making the 2024 rules the best possible version of D&D they could.

If "6E" was still aiming for backwards compatibility with 5E I'd start questioning their sanity...

 

[Remathilis]

That's not confusing at all. So much better than giving classes with different mechanics "in the same edition" different names.

It worked for Monsters of the Multiverse races and monsters.

 

[ART!]

I'm curious. From other Forum-goers' perspectives, what would the fallout be if Wizards were to say with the next packet:

"Because of the feedback from a subsection of the Community, we're going to call this 6th Edition. We won't write that on the cover, but the books will be differentiated at a glance with new art. Now this 6th Edition is still pretty much an updated 5th Edition and is backwards compatible with minimal changes, as we've always said, so you can still use all your 5E books."

1. Would you accept calling it a 6th edition if the changes were close to what have been described and playtested so far?
2. Would this clarify expectations for the better, or confuse expectations more for the worse for you?
3. Would this change your plan to support or not support the product?
4. Would you see Wizards in a better, or worse light?
5. Would you further consider Wizards to be dishonest, disingenuous, weak to pressure, or admitting to lying compared to their original marketing pitch?

1. They can call it whatever they want, it wouldn't affect how I think about it, regardless of my interest level.
2. It would clarify my expectations, in that it would suggest that they're trying to create a clean break with their big One D&D initiative.
3. It might, in that it would suggest that they're making more changes than they're letting on. That said, unless they were pretty radically simplifying things, I have no interest in or plans to invest much more in D&D.
4. A better light, I think, because it would seem more honest?
5. It would contribute to the sense that WOTC can't decide what they want, how bad they want it, what they're prepared to do the industry to get it, etc.

Ultimately, I would be paying fairly close attention because of my interest in the hobby and the business side of things, but I'm never going to run D&D again and will only be buying a new book if no one else in my group is buying it and sharing it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It worked for Monsters of the Multiverse races and monsters.

Not for me it didn't.

 

[billd91]

I'd be happy, since "6E" would indicate that WotC had abandoned the futile quest for "backwards compativbility" and were instead 100% focused on making the 2024 rules the best possible version of D&D they could.

If "6E" was still aiming for backwards compatibility with 5E I'd start questioning their sanity...

See, for me, it would be more of a red flag because it would be indicating giving up on backward compatibility, and that would mean they're probably working on killing off their golden goose in a fit of hubris rather than easing the game into a new, evolutionary direction. The runaway success of 5e so far, as I see it, means it's in WotC's interest to focus on gradual evolution and substantial backward compatibility rather than shift gears into something really different that isn't compatible.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

See, for me, it would be more of a red flag because it would be indicating giving up on backward compatibility, and that would mean they're probably working on killing off their golden goose in a fit of hubris rather than easing the game into a new, evolutionary direction. The runaway success of 5e so far, as I see it, means it's in WotC's interest to focus on gradual evolution and substantial backward compatibility rather than shift gears into something really different that isn't compatible.

Good point! I may have unrealistic expectations for what the D&D team would be able to deliver.

 

[Remathilis]

Not for me it didn't.

I'm sure it would have worked better if it was a change you liked. That said, D&D Beyond was able to handle legacy and updated versions, regardless of if you could.

 

[Corinnguard]

The runaway success of 5e so far, as I see it, means it's in WotC's interest to focus on gradual evolution and substantial backward compatibility rather than shift gears into something really different that isn't compatible.

5e became a runaway success because WoTC learned the hard way of what happens when you don't make an edition backwards compatible with the edition that came before it. They came out with 4e, which was not backwards compatible at all with 3e. As a result, a number of people in the D&D community jumped ship and became fans of Pathfinder 1st edition, which was backwards compatible.

5e was a return of sorts to something that was familiar and somewhat different.