That’s a pretty low bar for predictions. Everybody shares your prediction. Nobody thinks 6E is anywhere close.It's too easy of a way to lose that many customers and rapidly deflate the brand. As long as there is growth I don't see any 6th edition coming. I don't think they should even consider working on it until there are signs of decay or a downward trend. Even at half the numbers it has a customer base far greater than even 3e did at it's height. There's no guarantee a new edition would even be as successful as 3e, so with 5e doing as well as it is, why change things up?
My interpretation of the situation is that there will be no 6th edition for a LOOONG time. You'd have to have a major loss of numbers (players and money) to create a situation to release a new edition presently.
I don't think everyone does. I browse to see what thoughts are on Hasbro brands and other things and I find a surprising number of predictions about a 6th edition being created (everything for gambles on when it will be released to how it will look and other things).
I don't know how you got that I think 6th edition is on the horizon.The point still holds true though.
My guess would be that they have a file somewhere with "6E Ideas," and when they come up with an idea that requires a significant change to the base rules, they put it in there. While I doubt they are actively developing 6E, I expect they have at least a general sense of what it will look like at such time as they do start developing it.(I have been wrong in predictions before, so they could be making a new edition in stealth. I think it would be suicidal for the department to take that risk and do so, but I have been wrong other times. I just think it is VERY unlikely with the current growth).
Historically, editions have changed with design teams. Whoever makes 6E, it will be the designers coming up after Mearls and Crawford, etc.My guess would be that they have a file somewhere with "6E Ideas," and when they come up with an idea that requires a significant change to the base rules, they put it in there. While I doubt they are actively developing 6E, I expect they have at least a general sense of what it will look like at such time as they do start developing it.
I dunno, that seems like a hell of a dice to roll? Better to ask the current designers to make the adjustments needed to improve the current rule set? A 5.1e rather than a 6e. Three big improvements I can recommend off the bat: 1) make the starter set more new DM friendly, much more hand holding is needed. 2) reorg the PHB so that how to play the game comes first, not chargen. 3) reorg the DMG so that running the game is first, not bloody world building!Historically, editions have changed with design teams. Whoever makes 6E, it will be the designers coming up after Mearls and Crawford, etc.
He actually recognized that his actual problem was two weapon fighting, not the Bonus Action itself.Mike Mearls keeps pushing his “no bonus actions” idea here and there, but I’m worried it will leave WAAY too many corner-cases if it were to happen. Redesigning down to “move and action” only would mean a serious redesign task, I think. As it is, bonus action limits and the “manipulate” freebies give you just enough wiggle room to not need a laundry list of adjudications.
There never were any Strength penalties for female characters, even in 1st Edition AD&D. There was a Strength cap, however: female Humans were capped at 18/75, while male Humans could go up to 18/00. 18/75 was also the cap for male Elves.I don’t recall there being restriction like that in 2e.
I don't think we are in much danger of this now. You'll still have a segment of society that will have issues with some of the imagery or even any depiction of magic. Just corporate names with "Wizards" in it, much less Asmodee, will lead to some groups banning it. But society as a whole is big on fantasy. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones. We won. Most main stream churches (in the USA at least) are not going to be up in arms, beyond calling for parental involvement or suggesting more "family friendly" alternatives to more graphic games.Hmm... Noticed by the media. To my mind that's a bad thing. I'd rather remain under their radar.
Mind you I was playing AD&D in the 80's when that media attention led to my friend burning all of his AD&D books because his parents went all crazy on him. The only reason my books weren't taken away from me was my parents didn't give a damn if I jumped off a building assured that my Feather Fall spell would save me. We were gaming in secret. Most of our parents thought we were doing something athletic at someone else's home. Oddly it was the Catholic kid's parents were the ones who didn't care about the media assault on our hobby so we played at his house.
Hmm, when I think of hard-core gamers, I think of folks that are all about the games. In any event I think we are beyond cosplay being "weird." I doubt most people cosplay for their home games and those who mix cosplay with TTRPGs mainly dress up for streamed and convention games. But, if they want to dress up for their home games, the more power to them. It's a better image than the gamer who needs to be reminded to shower and change clothes at least every couple of days.That and most of the images are of the hard core type that costume for gaming sessions... People I find a bit on the weird side.
Oh wow! Jogged a memory! ThanksThere never were any Strength penalties for female characters, even in 1st Edition AD&D. There was a Strength cap, however: female Humans were capped at 18/75, while male Humans could go up to 18/00. 18/75 was also the cap for male Elves.