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

[cranberry]

If only books were available, then yes, it would have the potential to split the market. But with the push to digital, people won't have to think much about the rules, as they will be integrated into the mechanics done under the hood by the software.

OT: I may be cynical, but I'm guessing that the price increase of the physical books was intended to gently push the consumer onto the digital platform.

 

[mamba]

Probably because they keep getting pounced on like a game warden in a raptor pen whenever they try.

that is called a reply, and is how conversations generally work, in case you are not familiar

 

[codo]

Probably because they keep getting pounced on like a game warden in a raptor pen whenever they try.

Just because lots of people disagree with you it doesn't mean we are trying to shut you up. Maybe lots of people are disagreeing with you because your ideas just aren't that popular here. If you don't want people to argue your opinions, you don't have to post them to a public discussion forum.

 

[Alzrius]

didn't they sell more 4e books then 3e?

Can you clarify this? Because I can see at least three different ways of parsing this question:

1. Did Wizards of the Coast put more 4E books up for sale than 3E books?
2. Did WIzards of the Coast sell a greater quantity of 4E books than 3E books?
3. Did Wizards of the Coast make more money selling 4E books than 3E books?

 

[codo]

Can you clarify this? Because I can see at least three different ways of parsing this question:

1. Did Wizards of the Coast put more 4E books up for sale than 3E books?
2. Did WIzards of the Coast sell a greater quantity of 4E books than 3E books?
3. Did Wizards of the Coast make more money selling 4E books than 3E books?

Early in 4e one of the developers made a statement about how 4e sold better than 3e did, but they never actually clarified what they meant by it. I think the consensus view was that they were saying the the sales at launch of 4e was bigger than the launch sales of 3e, but nobody is sure. They never released any hard sales data for 4e.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I was going to share my store's sales numbers for 3.5, 4e, and 5e, but I can't find my old sales-tracking file from 4e days or earlier. Suffice to say, I can tell you that my store sold more of 4e than I did 3e, and much more of 5e than I did 4e, but I think that may be down to overall growth of my store, and in particular growth of my gaming section (we were more like 80% comics / 20% games until we moved ~9 years ago and had more space for games. Now we're about 60/40. I have all my 5e numbers if anyone is interested in how the 5e books have done relative to each other.

I'm disappointed that it's missing. I can find my sales for Magic sets back to 2005! But no 3e or 4e. I can find all my Pathfinder sales, but it's lumped into one number that includes core books and adventure paths, so it's kind of useless...

 

[Faolyn]

I'll be honest, I wasn't planning on buying this even before the OGL/Pinkerton issues. Why? Because they are marketing it as just a few changes and updates. In other words, wasn't going to be enough of a difference to justify spending another $150 or whatever on the books. Especially when I looked at the first playtest and was kind of meh on many those changes (not bad, just not that cool). I didn't get Mordenkainen's Monsters Multiverse whatever book for the same reason. A few monster updates isn't worth the cash, not when I generally do massive rewrites to monsters anyway.

If they had marketed this as 6e, with enough serious changes to actually justify it buying it, then even if it were still backwards compatible with 5e, I probably would have been far more interested in getting it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm disappointed that it's missing.

Those sneaky Pinkertons!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If they had marketed this as 6e, with enough serious changes to actually justify it buying it, then even if it were still backwards compatible with 5e, I probably would have been far more interested in getting it.

Imagine the uproar if they had called it 6e but then claimed backwards compatibility!

But I get what you mean - I'd have loved to see a totally different take on each of the classes, but designed to play alongside the 2014 ones interchangeably. I don't really care if you can mix-and-match elements between them (in that I'd be happy if that answer was "No") but it would be good for them to keep their primary goal of being able to run them at the same table and the same adventures as 2014.

Even more than PCs - I'd like to see a completely different take on Monsters, mechanically. If they kept the same (well, actually better would be good, but roughly the same) relative balance when it comes to Monster NAME to Monster THREAT, then the adventures would still work, too, even if the monsters "ran" differently.

But their current plan is much SAFER, which might lose people like you, who are more interested in experimentation for a chance of improvement, but it'll probably bring in higher numbers their way.

 

[Azzy]

Nothing.

As a matter of fact, I would be in favor of an edition designation.

Ever flowing/changing updates to 5E will only lead to confusion in the long run.

"So, are we playing by the 1/1/24 updated rules, the 6/12/25 updated rules, or the 9/27/26 updated rules?"...

So, like PHB (2024) vs. PHB (2014) as they plan to do?