D&D 5E Revisiting revised core rulebooks

[TwoSix]

Sure, they can come out with a class features variants book. I'm expecting one, probably sooner. That's not a change to the core rules, not changing the version any more than Xanathar's or SCAG did coming out with some more options.

My personal feeling is that the next big rule book or two are going to give fairly modular options for class feature swaps, almost as aggressive as 3.5's Unearthed Arcana, but without the disclaimers of being all optional house rules that only the DM can implement. In terms of how it presents its expectation of use, I think it'll look like Xanathar's.

In other words, big, modular rule changes presented as "just more options for everyone."

 

[Blue]

Sure. Then if they come out a new PHB that includes stuff from those books... it isn't a change to the core rules. It just adds to them.

And if those options make the original ones obsolete for rangers, well, then, so be it.

You could even include optional (aka improved) bonus action rules.

I think that this is a difference in terminology. Adding to the existing edition is, wait for it, adding to the existing edition. In other words, it's still 5e. What I have been arguing about is against a 5.1, 5.15, 5.3 which would require changing an edition. Where something from before are no longer legal characters, etc.

We can and have been adding options and rules since the Elemental Evil players option came out with Genasi and spells and stuff. That's not a new edition, just new choices in the existing edition.

But you do bring up an interesting point - will they publish a 5e core books that includes some of the additions in addition to everything that is in there now. That's not as cut and dried.

Okay, speaking on keeping it 5e but adding to core books, I am not so sure. I would deem it moderately unlikely, but that leaves plenty of room for it to happen. And if it's going to happen, 50th Anniversary would be the logical time for it. Call it 60/40. The reasoning behind that is the core books are the gateway for new players, and having too many options, especially contradictory ways to achieve the same thing where one is weaker (a trap option) I don't think is something they will do. That gets to the interesting point of do they change the Starter Set (which means two starter sets might not be compatible with each other). It also touches on AL's PHB+1 a bit, but I hope that's not a consideration.

To sum up: I am still absolutely sure they will not advance slightly beyond 5e. "5e" includes what we have done so far - adding new options without expiring or replacing old, and issuing errata that corrects problems. They may turn the crank and come out with a whole 5.5e or 6e.

In terms of adding new rules material to the core books, I think it unlikely but possible. Adding new covers and other things that don't affect play I think are very likely.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I would love a 6E that borrowed liberally from Shadow of the Demon Lord.

Indeed.

Racial levels are super cool.
Mixing freely class + Subclass + specialization enable a boatload of build options,
2 defenses + armor is enough, you dont need 6 saves + AC.
Weapon and armor proficiencies being based on a character STR is brilliant.
Fast turn vs Slow turn is a good system that can be borrowed easily to do something different than cyclic initiative.

The fun part is that you could totally takes those things and it would ''still be D&D''. You dont need to go with only 3 stats, use corruption and sanity rules etc like SotDL does.

 

[CubicsRube]

I would love a 6E that borrowed liberally from Shadow of the Demon Lord.

Once Shadow of the Mad Wizard comes out I'll be a day one customer.

 

[CubicsRube]

Indeed.

Racial levels are super cool.
Mixing freely class + Subclass + specialization enable a boatload of build options,
2 defenses + armor is enough, you dont need 6 saves + AC.
Weapon and armor proficiencies being based on a character STR is brilliant.
Fast turn vs Slow turn is a good system that can be borrowed easily to do something different than cyclic initiative.

The fun part is that you could totally takes those things and it would ''still be D&D''. You dont need to go with only 3 stats, use corruption and sanity rules etc like SotDL does.

Plus the modularity of the spell schools.

I love it for creating spellcasting NPCs. I can just say that this is a "storm priest" and give him storm school spells.

 

[Staffan]

I played a lot of 3.0 which originally didn't have bonus actions, and it was just fine. At some point they introduced swift actions and I hated them, as they complicated an already complex and fiddly action economy.

Swift actions were pretty neat as first presented: primarily a way to activate buffs without spending a whole action on them. For example, taking a round to cast Expeditious Retreat to get +30 ft speed for the rest of the fight is a little iffy – will you really get enough use out of it to spend a round on that? But spending a swift action and a spell to get +30 ft speed for a round? Now that's a neat ability.

Problem was that once swift actions existed, the temptation became too great to figure out other things to do with them, and that's where things became complex.

 

[TwoSix]

Once Shadow of the Mad Wizard comes out I'll be a day one customer.

Same, I just wish I had seen more than vague hints about it. Open up the Kickstarter and take my money!