D&D (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[Eric V]

It wouldn't be the first time that they abandoned their goals for the edition.

No, but these are financial goals...different, no?

5e is a game designed expressly to be popular...a new edition would signify they failed to do that, no? And they have certainly not failed; if not the best version of the game it is easily the most popular one. Why deviate from that?

 

[Lanefan]

This would likely not be in 6e, since that's an intentional design point that D&D has moved away from save or die effects where a single bad roll can kill a character.

Yes, it has; and the question is whether or not this is a good thing (I say it's not).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've run quite a few groups through different editions of DnD for the first time, and I still think 4e is the best for new players. It gives everyone a moment in the spotlight and is remarkably easy to pick up.

Very true, IMX, as well.
The problem was, I suppose, just not that many folks showing up to try it - and even that didn't exactly fit my experience, since our FLGS saw plenty of new gamers and grew rapidly from 2010 through 2014 (and is still growing, moved into new digs with more space for the second time).

Moving books is just a different proposition from being accessible to new players when they sit down at the table for the first time. 4e was more accessible than any version of D&D since B/X, but, at the same time, it was 'controversial' and had a whacked 'shelf presence,' and just wasn't timed to the market. It was not innovative, player-focused, accessible D&D that the market was primed for in 2008, it was old-school revival.

But, on topic, unless something changes dramatically, the market shows no signs of being ready for anything other than very traditional takes on D&D. There's no impetus to a 6e, let alone a 6e as iconoclastic as 4e was.

I also liked the way it made martial characters fun to play (Warlord and Fighter in particular, but also Ranger too).

I found Ranger - strikers in general - a tad boring. DPR just not that engaging. But, /lots/ of players love just throwing out the big numbers, that way. In retrospect, the game could've used a few more options like the Elemental Sorcerer, a lot earlier.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed, but there's no reason why save-or-die must necessarily be one roll. Even if it is literally just one saving throw, with failure causing instant death, there's still everything that we do in response to the knowledge that such an ability exists.

Before you make the saving throw, you have to choose to look at the medusa. Assuming a proper set-up, that's a decision which should be made with full knowledge of the risks involved. It moves the game back a step, from normal swing-for-damage combat. The game aspect becomes your decision of whether or not to look, rather than the random outcome of the die roll.

Although, it's easy for the DM to get that one wrong, if the book doesn't explain how obvious this should be.

I see it that while you can choose not to look at the medusa you're still going to need a (very easy but not guaranteed) save; just in case you glanced anyway be it by mistake, distraction, or whatever.

And a 1 is a 1 is a 1...

 

[Nebulous]

No, but these are financial goals...different, no?

5e is a game designed expressly to be popular...a new edition would signify they failed to do that, no? And they have certainly not failed; if not the best version of the game it is easily the most popular one. Why deviate from that?

If sales start to sag eventually, which they will, that's how it works, I'm sure they will want to have a 6th edition in mind to reboot popularity. When that actually happens is unknown. I don't think a new edition after a highly successful 10 year run would indicate failure whatsoever.

 

[Eric V]

If sales start to sag eventually, which they will, that's how it works, I'm sure they will want to have a 6th edition in mind to reboot popularity. When that actually happens is unknown. I don't think a new edition after a highly successful 10 year run would indicate failure whatsoever.

I could see a big marketing push once sales go down, but not a new edition, at least not with their stated goals for the game.

I know that's how it was done in the past, for sure; I just think they are trying to not do as they have done before.

Obviously, I can't know this is true; I am just basing this on what they have stated. A sixth edition would go against their stated goals. They don't even call the current game 5th edition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If sales start to sag eventually, which they will, that's how it works, I'm sure they will want to have a 6th edition in mind to reboot popularity.

IMHO, the games' potential for evolution is past, at this point. When 5e's sales begin to flag, they /might/ finally open it up to some depth, selling supplements to the hard-core player-base, but, more likely, they'll start doing what other long-established brands do: marketing-driven 'editions' that are, really, the same game, just packaged & promoted in a fresh way.

I don't think a new edition after a highly successful 10 year run would indicate failure whatsoever.

Frankly, 5e could roll rev to 6e tomorrow, and it wouldn't make it any less successful.

 

[Nebulous]

IMHO, the games' potential for evolution is past, at this point. When 5e's sales begin to flag, they /might/ finally open it up to some depth, selling supplements to the hard-core player-base, but, more likely, they'll start doing what other long-established brands do: marketing-driven 'editions' that are, really, the same game, just packaged & promoted in a fresh way.

Frankly, 5e could roll rev to 6e tomorrow, and it wouldn't make it any less successful.

I would love to see a 5.5 edition. I don't mind buying all new core books. My monster manual is falling apart 5 years! And sigh, the layout of the PHB grieves me, it is so hard to find info, and that damn index that directs you to look at other entries to find the page you're looking for!

 

[Nebulous]

But I'm an oldhat DM running 5e for a newbie group of players and it is crazy easy to teach the game to them. Any flaws 5th edition has, attracting new players and teaching them the rules is NOT one of them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I see it that while you can choose not to look at the medusa you're still going to need a (very easy but not guaranteed) save; just in case you glanced anyway be it by mistake, distraction, or whatever.

And a 1 is a 1 is a 1...

In that case, I go back to the previous post, about save-or-die being a bad mechanic. Any time that you can lose all of your character investment through a single die roll, without having a chance to avoid that die roll, then it's a bad mechanic. If you always have a chance to fail, and there's no way to avoid those rolls, then probabilities will definitely catch up to you eventually and there's no point in even trying to stay alive.

Although, in this case, it might be sufficient to just game the DM. If there's a risk of looking at the medusa, even when you try to not do so, then you need to resort to blindfolds. And if the DM rules even a blindfold has a 5% chance of failure, then you need an actual Blindness spell (which can be trivially reversed with Lesser Restoration). As long as there's some viable way to avoid a save-or-die roll, then the existence of the mechanic can be justified.