5.5e

[Tawmis]

Personally, I would rather have official 5e books that address it.

Think the Rangers have been under powered by the release of new things; maybe a Player's Handbook II that basically reworks the original classes slightly.

That way you're not forced to buy a new PHB, DMG, MM, etc etc. I'd rather just see an official book revisit original content and spice it up.

So that way the DM can determine on their own if say - for example the PHBII can be used in their campaign, allowing players to adjust.

[Christew]

I'm not so sure about that. The cheese stands alone with 5E D&D. The only TTRPG that even came close to competing with 5E D&D's numbers was Pathfinder 1.0E, and we know how that ended up.

4E, 3E, and especially 2E D&D faced some extremely stiff competition. But 5E D&D? Shadowrun, Hero/Champion, World of Darkness, *-World, Pathfinder -- drops in a bucket compared to 5E.

If 5E D&D wanted to experiment with a new setting or rules or even genre (i.e. d20 Modern) this would be the time to do it. No one in the past 20 years is making or made, say, an Urban Fantasy or Sci-Fi or even a Low Fantasy TTRPG that my sister-in-law would be able to name. And while she's not super plugged into nerd culture, she does play FFXIV and watched Game of Thrones from start to finish and is the kind of person D&D will probably want to think about targeting in a few years if it continues to grow.

A fair point, but I think it can be viewed as evidence to the contrary. The "my sister" test passed muster back in the day because everyone even remotely in touch with the culture knew of the handful of systems that were popular enough to be economically viable. With electronic communication and a renaissance in indie gaming, I would be hard pressed to name even a fraction of the creative options out there as a full on gamer, let alone "my sister."

[HolyDraconus]

Personally, I would rather have official 5e books that address it.

Think the Rangers have been under powered by the release of new things; maybe a Player's Handbook II that basically reworks the original classes slightly.

That way you're not forced to buy a new PHB, DMG, MM, etc etc. I'd rather just see an official book revisit original content and spice it up.

So that way the DM can determine on their own if say - for example the PHBII can be used in their campaign, allowing players to adjust.

Two issues with that. With this proposal there would be 2 legal versions of the Ranger, which would add more confusion, not actually stream line, and it was stated some time ago that one of the workers on 5e will not print a "revised Ranger" in this PHB or as an errata. So if its instead a 5.5, that should return the ability to make those edits.

[Daithi]

I'd stick with 5e for now, and "fix" perceived issues by providing options in new books similar to XGtE. For example, I'd really like to see the Class Features Variants UA become official.

[Deathtongue]

A fair point, but I think it can be viewed as evidence to the contrary. The "my sister" test passed muster back in the day because everyone even remotely in touch with the culture knew of the handful of systems that were popular enough to be economically viable.

The number of people who can name a Tabletop RPG other than D&D is tiny. I'm betting not one in thirty people who saw and enjoyed, say, the half-a-billion dollar grossing Bumblebee could do it. Which is not surprising. D&D making 50 million dollars in sales in 2017, one of its best years ever, is still chump change in the world of speculative fiction pop culture.

A new edition of D&D that literally alienated all of its current fans and was forced to pick up new fans from people who did things like play Final Fantasy XIV and watch the fantasy-themed episodes of South Park could be ten times as profitable as it currently did. Not saying that they should go this route, I'm just saying how small and weak our world is compared to a real money-maker fantasy franchise like Naruto or Game of Thrones.

[HolyDraconus]

The number of people who can name a Tabletop RPG other than D&D is tiny. I'm betting not one in thirty people who saw and enjoyed, say, the half-a-billion dollar grossing Bumblebee could do it. Which is not surprising. D&D making 50 million dollars in sales in 2017, one of its best years ever, is still chump change in the world of speculative fiction pop culture.

A new edition of D&D that literally alienated all of its current fans and was forced to pick up new fans from people who did things like play Final Fantasy XIV and watch the fantasy-themed episodes of South Park could be ten times as profitable as it currently did. Not saying that they should go this route, I'm just saying how small and weak our world is compared to a real money-maker fantasy franchise like Naruto or Game of Thrones.

Eh, profit wise, D&D doesn't outpace M:tG. In any form. In fact, its a given that the recent push for more Magic in DnD is to either get MORE players in Magic, or, which I think is most likely, get the "whales" in Magic to gain similar spending habits in DnD. As long as the materials stay low and stay rare, should I can say its just a possibility.. but when Theros is your next big book, as a campaign setting, mind you, I dunno.

[Ignimortis]

That said, if 6E D&D really wanted to capture a new market -- not just that of nerds who've read Harry Potter fanfiction and played Final Fantasy -- but of people like my mom who watched a couple of seasons of Three Kingdoms a decade ago and my stepbrother who hasn't played a video game more complex than Angry Birds in a similar time frame but really liked Ninja Gaiden 3 when it came out, they really would have to completely upend the edition because 5E wouldn't be sufficient. Whether that's a worthwhile endeavor is to be seen.

As someone who's played Final Fantasy extensively and loves the feel, 5e certainly doesn't capture my attention. Thing is, 5e is the closest to what people outside the hobby have always thought what D&D was, and thus it's way easier to get into even from a cultural standpoint.

[Damon_Tor]

I don't think we need 5.5.

I do, however, like many of the changes in the "alternate class features" UA and if they released those as free "errata" and published an updated PHB with those options baked right into the classes, I would probably buy it.

I would not, however, call that "5.5". To me, the extra half an edition requires either substantial general rules changes (as we saw in 3.5) or it requires a major shift in design philosophy (as we saw in "essentials" for 4th edition)

[MaxWilson]

You could still use 3.0 in 3.5 though, like the fullblade for example. And since every edition has been sharply different from the others why would you want a 6e when a 5.5 would do what it is you ask?

AD&D 1st edition and 2nd edition are very closely related, so closely you can read right out of the 1st edition books to run a 2nd edition adventure. I don't think that's been true of any of the other editions that claim to be descended from AD&D (3E, 3.5E, 4E, 5E), though of course it's true of many other D&D editions like OD&D vs. BECMI vs. AD&D.

[Hael]

I personally hope we stick with 5e for a few more years, so that people will get bored of it and transition out of it for good once 6e hits. It’s one of my least favorite editions other than the 4e abomination.

There is just zero depth to combat in this game, and it really is pretty limited for people who enjoy builds, spell combat and wargaming.

There are quite a few good aspects to the game, like bounded accuracy and the streamlined rules, but ultimately there’s just too many things sacrificed on the altar of balance (which I don’t value as much as fun)

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think we need 5.5.

I agree. More published adventures, and a few more settings like Dark Sun and Planescape.

[diplomancer]

I personally hope we stick with 5e for a few more years, so that people will get bored of it and transition out of it for good once 6e hits. It’s one of my least favorite editions other than the 4e abomination.

There is just zero depth to combat in this game, and it really is pretty limited for people who enjoy builds, spell combat and wargaming.

There are quite a few good aspects to the game, like bounded accuracy and the streamlined rules, but ultimately there’s just too many things sacrificed on the altar of balance (which I don’t value as much as fun)

Can't compare with 3rd edition, as I've never played it; but builds-wise, 5th edition is far more complex than almost all of the TSR era (possible exception for the very late options of AD&D 2nd edition).

I'm playing a BECMI game right now with old friends, it's been fun, but the lack of complexity, both buildswise and combatwise, is painful.

A 3rd level PCs, 5th edition adventuring day against goblins and a merciless DM has been a very fun challenge.

[Joe the Rat]

I would really hope for something more akin to the original and 3.5 versions of Unearthed Arcana - an expansion of rules, options, and possibly classes.

Only without the sheer fudgery of Drow, Cavalier, and Barbarian - style "improvements." I'd also say without the original's propensity for binding problems, but WotC claimed that issue early on.

[Sigreid]

Everyone has their preferences. I respect that. I don't think that it should be focused solely on AL and I didn't think that having something that would make AL easier was a bad thing.

Yeah, I'm not in need of making things harder for AL, that's just not a reason for me to buy a new half edition and really, I don't have any issues with 5e that can't be patched live. I am in a different situation as I play with a single steady group that has been playing games together for decades.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I would really hope for something more akin to the original and 3.5 versions of Unearthed Arcana - an expansion of rules, options, and possibly classes.

Only without the sheer fudgery of Drow, Cavalier, and Barbarian - style "improvements." I'd also say without the original's propensity for binding problems, but WotC claimed that issue early on.

While 5e is *technically* the fifth edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, what if we had an Advanced 5e? Like, one with additional tools, rules, customization, and deeper simulationism that is still completely backwards compatible with Basic 5e?

I don't think there'd be as much wailing and gnashing of the teeth then.

EDIT: While I know this sounds almost the exact same as making a 5.5e, the difference is in support. Basic 5e doesn't go away, new material caters to both, and nothing gets invalidated. So, the way AD&D was to OD&D instead of the way 3.5 was to 3.0.

[Tes]

5.5e is not going to happen with the "Windows 10" approach for 5e.

But I'm all for a book with a big chunk of alternative rules designed to work as a set. A complete overhaul for all Feats to use in place of the existing once. Complete alternative for existing Classes (and Subclasses). Having another go at making every race a good or even just interesting choice, fixing Humans, Dragonborns etc.

The idea here is that the new Rules are still 5e, the existing rules aren't gonna be obsolete and we get to pick if we want to stick with the existing ones or the (hopefully mechanically better) "Alternative Ranger" etc.
Complete granularity isn't compatible with 5e and would be left for homebrew/houserules (as people already do). The new stuff needs to be coherent with itself and designed to be primarily used as a whole plug in.

With so many UAs and Subclasses out there already, I never saw people complaining about too many options. Too much content is only a problem when it's essential contents so you have to learn it all, it's too complicated to use or if it's a nerfbat for player options.
Adding a second official versions for self contained game modules like Classes, Races or Feats can be safely ignored or easily added.
Ofc there would likely be a clear winner, either the existing or the new version. But the other one would still not be obsolete, it's still official, the books they're in remain valid and buying the new book isn't mandatory, just more content. Official Class, Race or Feat Variants also don't require ongoing support. Same as their PHB versions they can be abandoned in their existing state after release.
It's a free line of content to sell book with and minimal effort required to design at this point in time. Honestly think we have something like this coming. Wild guess is WotC want it to come out together with something big like a new Class (hi Psion), which would definitely drive sales for everyone not interested in the Variant Rules.

This would also open up straight up new options. Like removing Extra Attack and Spellcasting from Rangers and readding it to the majority of Subclasses, while also enabling Beastmaster with stronger Features tied to his companion.
Removing Spellcasting or Extra Attack from base class in general opens up options for the more diverse subclasses of previous editions.
Moving Subclasses to level 2 would open up designspace for Rogue/Warrior 1/2 Casters on top of Spell less Rangers and Paladins (man they tried so many things with Rangers in UA...).

Might also open up to incorporate whatever Larian is changing for Baldurs Gate 1:1 into DnD. They arguably have a better track record at balancing and designing mechanically sound classes than the DnD team, I'd make use of that given the chance.
But heck what do I know.

[Nifft]

5.5e is not going to happen with the "Windows 10" approach for 5e.

5e is spying on me!?

[Waterdeep Merch]

5e is spying on me!?

What do you think those UA feedback thing are? Better delete your cookies.

[Tes]

5e is spying on me!?

You never found the lack of PDFs and need to sign into digital platforms suspicious? Don't tell me you didn't swipe your books for bugs...

[HolyDraconus]

5.5e is not going to happen with the "Windows 10" approach for 5e.

But I'm all for a book with a big chunk of alternative rules designed to work as a set. A complete overhaul for all Feats to use in place of the existing once. Complete alternative for existing Classes (and Subclasses). Having another go at making every race a good or even just interesting choice, fixing Humans, Dragonborns etc.

The idea here is that the new Rules are still 5e, the existing rules aren't gonna be obsolete and we get to pick if we want to stick with the existing ones or the (hopefully mechanically better) "Alternative Ranger" etc.
Complete granularity isn't compatible with 5e and would be left for homebrew/houserules (as people already do). The new stuff needs to be coherent with itself and designed to be primarily used as a whole plug in.

With so many UAs and Subclasses out there already, I never saw people complaining about too many options. Too much content is only a problem when it's essential contents so you have to learn it all, it's too complicated to use or if it's a nerfbat for player options.
Adding a second official versions for self contained game modules like Classes, Races or Feats can be safely ignored or easily added.
Ofc there would likely be a clear winner, either the existing or the new version. But the other one would still not be obsolete, it's still official, the books they're in remain valid and buying the new book isn't mandatory, just more content. Official Class, Race or Feat Variants also don't require ongoing support. Same as their PHB versions they can be abandoned in their existing state after release.
It's a free line of content to sell book with and minimal effort required to design at this point in time. Honestly think we have something like this coming. Wild guess is WotC want it to come out together with something big like a new Class (hi Psion), which would definitely drive sales for everyone not interested in the Variant Rules.

This would also open up straight up new options. Like removing Extra Attack and Spellcasting from Rangers and readding it to the majority of Subclasses, while also enabling Beastmaster with stronger Features tied to his companion.
Removing Spellcasting or Extra Attack from base class in general opens up options for the more diverse subclasses of previous editions.
Moving Subclasses to level 2 would open up designspace for Rogue/Warrior 1/2 Casters on top of Spell less Rangers and Paladins (man they tried so many things with Rangers in UA...).

Might also open up to incorporate whatever Larian is changing for Baldurs Gate 1:1 into DnD. They arguably have a better track record at balancing and designing mechanically sound classes than the DnD team, I'd make use of that given the chance.
But heck what do I know.

This right here is what I was thinking. Doesn't have to completely push, just call it a Patch or Add On or even DLC lol.

[Tanarii]

3E 2000 (8 Years) }
3.5E 2003 [5 Years] } 14 years of 3rd edition, including the update, and the 6 years afterwards that it continued to be the mainstay of D&D players.
4E 2008 ( 6 Years) - Outlier due to how universally reviled it was.

Shenanigans. 4e years aren't also 3e years.

Now if you want to count them as Pathfinder years instead go right ahead.