D&D General 6e guesses

Clint_L · 2026-03-09T23:56:33+0000

The last time WotC substantially changed some D&D mechanics was 4e. That worked out well for Paizo. How did it work out for WotC?

That's why every statement WotC make about the current rules refers to "evolution" in some way. They have zero interest in breaking what they've built; they are more than happy to let significant innovation be undertaken by others. They won't even announce a 6e. They'll just keep adding to the rules, eventually will put out the ext set of updated core books, and folks might decide to start calling it 6e until WotC shrugs and once again goes, "whatever," while continuing to emphasize backwards compatibility on DnDBeyond.

Though I suspect that, without the impetus of the 50th anniversary and OneD&D project, WotC might just publish mildly updated books with some new art, much like when they combined Volo's Guide and Mordenkainen's Tome into Monsters of the Multiverse, and let us argue about what a new edition is.

bsss · 2026-03-10T00:04:11+0000

Zardnaar said:
You cant publish it though.

Its about attracting people vs making a knock off.

Either you're fretting about the names of things or you don't know how easy it is to make (and publish) an exact replica of a yuan-ti or beholder, even if you have to call it "snake-person" or "eyestalk monster". The D&Disms, the parts that makes D&D the game it is, are not the trademarks WotC owns.

As said,

Scribe said:
People want the name, or the appeal to authority, or even less useful things.

WotC has reproducible game stuff and recognizable names. I'm not discounting the value of owning those names, but there isn't some secret sauce in the game itself that make other games "jealous" "knock-offs".

mamba · 2026-03-10T00:11:07+0000

Jahydin said:
That's why I said more of a hope than a prediction. If I was purely predicting, my honest take is a new edition in 2027 with a few "grey beards" on the team or hired as advisors. If they're actively helping shape the new edition or just there for "grog" cred, I don't know.

wow, so you hope for it at some time in the unspecified future, but would predict it for 2027 (assuming they are not just there to give credibility to something that doesn’t deserve it). That is odd to me, I place the chance of there being any new edition of D&D in 2027, regardless of direction, at precisely 0.000%

Tigris · 2026-03-10T00:21:36+0000

Clint_L said:
The last time WotC substantially changed some D&D mechanics was 4e. That worked out well for Paizo. How did it work out for WotC?

Ok history lesson here:

4E had really strong numbers in the first year. The reason it "failed" was because WotC wanted to have 100 million a year (after 50+ millions first year), and especially after they killed the PDF sales this was unreachable. But 4E was at its time still the most successfull RPG of all time.

5Es release was WAY weaker, it was actually the weakest release of any wotc edition, only the PHB sold good, but D&D sales overall were awfull.

Only after the release of Critical Role and then stranger things the sales went up. That was after 2 years, in these 2 years before it had sold a lot less than 4E (and 4E was killed/changed after way better sales after less than 2 full years), the only difference was they were not panicking like in 4E, because they did not had anymore the pressure of reaching 100 million from Hasbro, because with their just 29 million sales with 5e they where not even close.

The sales of 5E in the second year was even soo bad, that WotC (re)released the PDFs of older D&D editions to boost overall D&D sales to even reach the 29 million of the first year of sales. (Compared to this 3.5 had 25 million sales at its end with no PDFs).

Also Pathfinder never outsold D&D that was just bad misinformation spread around by paizo fans /4E anti fans. here more info: (with links to sources).

So what did not work out was not 4E, but the idea to force in 2 years having 100 million sales, especially after killing PDFs and then just killing the edition. The huge drop in 4E sales was actually when Mike Mearls took over and they tried to be again more similar to older Editions.

Also 5.5 which again uses more 4E mechanics pretty much instantly outsold 5E in a single year.

Scribe · 2026-03-10T00:33:48+0000

Zardnaar said:
You cant use Baldur's Gate and D&Disms are things like Gith and Yuan Ti.

And the name as well. All the clones are essentially someones knock off

Nah, I disagree. Other games do D&D better than D&D.

AlViking · 2026-03-10T00:58:00+0000

Tigris said:
Ok history lesson here:

4E had really strong numbers in the first year. The reason it "failed" was because WotC wanted to have 100 million a year (after 50+ millions first year), and especially after they killed the PDF sales this was unreachable. But 4E was at its time still the most successfull RPG of all time.

It did have a good first year and then sales tanked. Just like every previous editions after D&D's initial growth.

Tigris said:
5Es release was WAY weaker, it was actually the weakest release of any wotc edition, only the PHB sold good, but D&D sales overall were awfull.

The release may have been weaker (people had been burned by 4e after all) but it sold better than expected and had sustained double digit growth for years.

Tigris said:
Only after the release of Critical Role and then stranger things the sales went up. That was after 2 years, in these 2 years before it had sold a lot less than 4E (and 4E was killed/changed after way better sales after less than 2 full years), the only difference was they were not panicking like in 4E, because they did not had anymore the pressure of reaching 100 million from Hasbro, because with their just 29 million sales with 5e they where not even close.

Those didn't hurt but you're also ignoring that CR was a home game originally. They played a 4e game as an event for a birthday, people liked it but didn't like the system so they switched to PF. Then they switched to D&D 5e because the play was more streamlined and less finicky. I think streaming has helped sales but other non-D&D games have the same opportunities for exposure. In addition, it took a while for CR to become popular and the upward trajectory of 5e had already started.

I know everyone wants to say that 5e's success was solely due to ST and CR. It helped gain recognition but recognition only gets people in the door. It doesn't keep them playing the game and it's not like D&D wasn't mentioned here and there in other TV shows. You don't get year after year double digit growth with a show (even a popular one) mentioning it for 15 minutes.

Tigris said:
The sales of 5E in the second year was even soo bad, that WotC (re)released the PDFs of older D&D editions to boost overall D&D sales to even reach the 29 million of the first year of sales. (Compared to this 3.5 had 25 million sales at its end with no PDFs).

LOL. Now you're just making things up.

Tigris said:
Also Pathfinder never outsold D&D that was just bad misinformation spread around by paizo fans /4E anti fans. here more info: (with links to sources).

So what did not work out was not 4E, but the idea to force in 2 years having 100 million sales, especially after killing PDFs and then just killing the edition. The huge drop in 4E sales was actually when Mike Mearls took over and they tried to be again more similar to older Editions.

Also 5.5 which again uses more 4E mechanics pretty much instantly outsold 5E in a single year.

There is only a small amount of carryover between 4e and 5e or 5.5e. Just like there was carryover from every other edition.

And ... none of this really matters. We don't know exact sales and we never will. So spin things any way you want if it makes you happy, it does nothing to support your opinion any more than your appeals to authority.

Zardnaar · 2026-03-10T01:19:14+0000

AlViking said:
It did have a good first year and then sales tanked. Just like every previous editions after D&D's initial growth.

The release may have been weaker (people had been burned by 4e after all) but it sold better than expected and had sustained double digit growth for years.

Those didn't hurt but you're also ignoring that CR was a home game originally. They played a 4e game as an event for a birthday, people liked it but didn't like the system so they switched to PF. Then they switched to D&D 5e because the play was more streamlined and less finicky. I think streaming has helped sales but other non-D&D games have the same opportunities for exposure. In addition, it took a while for CR to become popular and the upward trajectory of 5e had already started.

I know everyone wants to say that 5e's success was solely due to ST and CR. It helped gain recognition but recognition only gets people in the door. It doesn't keep them playing the game and it's not like D&D wasn't mentioned here and there in other TV shows. You don't get year after year double digit growth with a show (even a popular one) mentioning it for 15 minutes.

LOL. Now you're just making things up.

There is only a small amount of carryover between 4e and 5e or 5.5e. Just like there was carryover from every other edition.

And ... none of this really matters. We don't know exact sales and we never will. So spin things any way you want if it makes you happy, it does nothing to support your opinion any more than your appeals to authority.

Until we see hard numbers yeah.

3.0 sold gangbusters year one as well.

AlViking · 2026-03-10T01:37:29+0000

Zardnaar said:
Until we see hard numbers yeah.

3.0 sold gangbusters year one as well.

Unless there's some internally generated "History of D&D" I don't think we'll ever really know. Especially now that the entire sales process is different.

Clint_L · 2026-03-10T01:44:31+0000

Where are we getting this "the first year of 5e was really weak." My recollection of the numbers that we've seen and of interviews with developers is that 5e was strong out of the gate, and accelerated with Critical Role and Stranger Things. I'd like to see some actual numbers.

It is also pretty much undisputed that WotC saw 4e, at the time, as a failure, and even debated selling the rights to D&D. Again, I think we have some historians on the site who have the numbers and quotations at their fingertips; I'd love it if some weighed in, rather than we argue about it. Not in the context of which edition was better, or whatever, but so we are clear on their motivations for maintaining 5e as an "evergreen" version of the game that they will slowly evolve.

AlViking · 2026-03-10T02:34:25+0000

Clint_L said:
Where are we getting this "the first year of 5e was really weak." My recollection of the numbers that we've seen and of interviews with developers is that 5e was strong out of the gate, and accelerated with Critical Role and Stranger Things. I'd like to see some actual numbers.

It is also pretty much undisputed that WotC saw 4e, at the time, as a failure, and even debated selling the rights to D&D. Again, I think we have some historians on the site who have the numbers and quotations at their fingertips; I'd love it if some weighed in, rather than we argue about it. Not in the context of which edition was better, or whatever, but so we are clear on their motivations for maintaining 5e as an "evergreen" version of the game that they will slowly evolve.

I remember them saying that while the thought they were just releasing 5e to keep the IP alive, sales from day 1 greatly exceeded expectations. Then it saw double digit sales growth for at least several years.

There was no panic, they did not think it had failed, it was already growing quickly when ST was released in 2016. CR started streaming in 2015 but for quite a while it was still just some people thankful if someone ordered them pizza.

Those things absolutely helped, but it was selling well before they could have possibly had any impact.