Opinion: will you be reluctant or eager to switch from 5E to 6E?

[Necrosnoop110]

I realize this is a stretch because not all the facts are available but how do you think you and your gaming group will handle a full-on new edition? Assuming we get one. Are you a "5E for life" kind of D&Der? Do you think 5E will have as much inertia as 3E did? I still know tables that have no intention of moving beyond 3E as a forgone conclusion.

Just curious of your general thoughts here...

[Dienekes]

Depends on what changes are made to the edition.

I have a growing list of gripes with 5e, but if 6e solves none of them, then why would I care?

[RSP]

Depends on what it looks like. We played Pathfinder and 5E, but not 4E.

If it looks interesting and fun, I imagine we’d try it at least.

[clash]

I'm don't like all of the new changes 5e has been making but it's biggest problem in my opinion is the current lack of consistency. You have backgrounds and subclasses of wildly and intentionally different power levels. Races that were never built to be modular. My biggest hope for 5.5 or 6e is that it had the strengths of 5e but brings back consistent design of core. If I see that I'll switch right away.

[Necrosnoop110]

I'm don't like all of the new changes 5e has been making but it's biggest problem in my opinion is the current lack of consistency. You have backgrounds and subclasses of wildly and intentionally different power levels. Races that were never built to be modular. My biggest hope for 5.5 or 6e is that it had the strengths of 5e but brings back consistent design of core. If I see that I'll switch right away.

Interesting. I get the disparate power level critique especially with the power level/option creep as more rule-books appear. I largely agree with this other than to say that most of the new stuff is truly optional.

But most of the feedback overall, that I've seen, seem to say that 5E is too consistent to core and doesn't allow for mechanical subsystems. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Also, what do you mean by "Races that were never built to be modular"?

Thoughts?

[truemane]

I will buy the core books. I will read them and enjoy them. Good or bad, I always enjoy reading new rulebooks. I am always especially interested in new D&D rulebooks since, as the hobby's lingua franca, a new set of rules always represents a significant cultural moment.

Whether or not I switch over in RL will depend entirely on my players )both my regular group and my semi-regular rotating tables of new people). If I had to guess, I suspect I'll be running 5E tables for some time to come, regardless of how good or bad 6E is.

5E has dug itself deeply into popular culture in a way no RPG has done since I started gaming. So many people play 5E that have never played (and don't play) any other RPG. So the culture shift of a new edition is going to look more a new version of Microsoft Windows than any previous RPG shift.

We live in a bubble here, where it's taken as a given that most of us care deeply about all this. But I play almost entirely with randos and it's not the same out there as it is in here.

A full-blown 6E will be very interesting, in terms of what WOTC thinks we all want and in terms of what the (now very massive and very diverse and very balkanized) player base actually does want.

(on a lesser note, I own more 5E books than I do for any other edition, which will make me a little reluctant to move on)

[Amnestic]

It depends on a) if I like it and b) if other people like it. I like 5e enough that if there's no audience for 6e, even if I like it, I'll probably just stick to 5e - just as many people did with 3.5e vs 4e.

I hope it's good, since I like good things. I'm certainly not married to 5e but if there's not widespread adoption of 6e then it's hard to argue for change (and isn't that just a self-looping situation? \o/)

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Are sales dropping or something that a 6e is needed? Were they skipping a 5.5 mod?

Me, I'd be slightly annoyed and feel like they were forcing new book purchases on me.

Far as trying 6e, if it seemed reasonable I would.

Is this the same company that couldn't figure out how to make money off War At Sea miniatures but shapeways could?

[OldTrees1]

Will I be eager to switch from 5E? A bit, yes. I see room for improvement. Although some of the low hanging fruit can be solved with 5.5E.

Will I be eager to switch to 6E? Depends on which mistakes they double down on and what other mistakes they make. I don't think I will get 6E if it is as incomplete a product as 5E.

[nickl_2000]

If my DMs and group want it, I'll switch if not I won't. I won't be rushing it myself because I like the 5e tools I use

[Sigreid]

I've not been happy with the direction the dev team has been taking 5e for the past few years, so I would not be excited about 6e. That said, the most important component to enjoying an RPG is the people you play with, so if my friends want to switch, I'll probably go along.

[EggKookoo]

I will always try out the new edition. If it's bad, I can go back to the old one. But in general I'm kind of rules-agnostic. Meaning I don't have a preference for any particular edition. It's more important to me that a given edition knows what it is and is true to itself. I found that to be true for 5e.

Each edition solves problems and creates new ones, but usually more solving than creating. I think 3e was the "worst" in terms of solving vs. creating -- it solved a lot but it also created a lot of problems (still more solving than creating in the end, IMHO). And I've never played 4e so I don't know how that shook out from personal experience.

[clash]

Interesting. I get the disparate power level critique especially with the power level/option creep as more rule-books appear. I largely agree with this other than to say that most of the new stuff is truly optional.

But most of the feedback overall, that I've seen, seem to say that 5E is too consistent to core and doesn't allow for mechanical subsystems. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Also, what do you mean by "Races that were never built to be modular"?

Thoughts?

So for your first question about consistency it's things like how the new sorcerers have a subclass spell list and the old ones don't or how a lot of backgrounds now have powerful features built in and can't possibly be used alongside core backgrounds.

As far as races go, each of the core races was built and balanced as a kit. This may be controversially but I love the pick your racial stat bonuses change. I've made much more diverse characters since then. But certain races definitely shine above others because they were balanced as a kit. Like mountain dwarf armor proficiency was never a problem because the stat bonuses were most optional on characters that already had armor proficiency.

I think the next edition is a good chance to go back to core and bring it inline with the new assumptions and design.

[Necrosnoop110]

I don't think I will get 6E if it is as incomplete a product as 5E.

Please elaborate on the incompleteness of 5E. Not that I necessarily disagree (my biggest disappointment for 5E is the lack of robust psionics), I just want to hear your take.

Thanks,
Necro

[Pex]

2024 is still a ways to go. Even then it's colloquially if not officially 5.5E. I suspect when a new campaign starts it will use 5.5E. Any current 5E game will continue, maybe adopting changes on a case by case basis if it's a significant improvement. In a game I run now I did allow the dragonborn to switch to Fizzban version as well as the DM in a game I play.

A hypothetical 6E means a new game engine even if adopts ideas from previous editions. As long as it's not a radical difference like 4E I see no reason not to play it when a new game starts. That will be what, 2026? 2030? I'm more perturbed by the idea of playing with people who didn't exist in the 20th century.

[Necrosnoop110]

I'm more perturbed by the idea of playing with people who didn't exist in the 20th century.

Me right now.

[paladinn]

Like many here I'll be pragmatic and say, "Let's see what it looks like."

I would sooner see a 5.5 than a 6e. The main need, IMO, is to consolidate all the changes from Xanathar's and Tasha's into the core. There are a lot of new/improved/different mechanics and concepts that have been introduced that have a tenuous relationship to what's gone before. WotC needs to step back and look at the whole thing and say, "How can all of this be applied across the board to make things consistent?"

{Scrubbed}

If there is, in fact, a 6e, it will mean that WotC has really run out of ideas. I get the same vibe from them now that I got when 3e was winding down. An actual 6e should be pretty revolutionary in terms of game mechanics, and I have No idea what that would look like.

[Demonslayer666]

We will likely try it, we did 4th.

I am hopeful that they will improve upon 5th and not try reinventing the wheel.

[OldTrees1]

Please elaborate on the incompleteness of 5E. Not that I necessarily disagree (my biggest disappointment for 5E is the lack of robust psionics), I just want to hear your take.

Thanks,
Necro

There are several sections where 5E decided to slack off and tell the GMs to write the rules instead. Understanding and emphasizing the GM can change the rules is one thing. Using that as an excuse to save labor and not provide a complete default is another.

The 5E ability check system is my biggest disappointment. If it were a robust system that empowered GMs, then it could also be a powerful tool for fleshing out high level characters' level appropriate out of combat utility. Instead we were given bad math, mislabeled DCs, and told to go fix it.

The 2nd biggest disappointment is the dearth of support for the 2 non combat pillars. Yes, they are harder to write content for as a game dev. But that is not an excuse to leave them this bare.

My 3rd biggest disappointment is the relative lack of diversity in PC species. When I was starting GMing, one of the new players had no concept of what was possible and wanted to play a dragon. The party was 6th level and they started as a level appropriate Wyrmling. D&D is incomplete without optional rules and guidance helping the GM let players play monstrous PCs that feel like those monsters (while also having a reasonable divide between PC and NPC creation rules).

5E was a good experiment but some of its tests didn't work. "Ruling not rules" only works if not used as an excuse by the developers to forget to print rules.

[LudicSavant]

I realize this is a stretch because not all the facts are available but how do you think you and your gaming group will handle a full-on new edition?

Depends if the new edition is good or not.

[EggKookoo]

My 3rd biggest disappointment is the relative lack of diversity in PC species. When I was starting GMing, one of the new players had no concept of what was possible and wanted to play a dragon. The party was 6th level and they started as a level appropriate Wyrmling. D&D is incomplete without optional rules and guidance helping the GM let players play monstrous PCs that feel like those monsters (while also having a reasonable divide between PC and NPC creation rules).

I would disagree here. I don't think D&D is under any obligation to allow you to play whatever you want. Certainly not as part of the core rules. A later "Play as an Actual Dragon" supplement? Sure. But not out of the gate.

Encouraging new players to take it slow at the start is a way to build a lasting relationship with the game. If the cooler/weirder stuff comes later, after learning the basics, it creates a sense of progression and mastery. It feels earned. If you just give the kid the keys to the Lamborghini as soon as he gets his license he's never going to appreciate what it means to have it. It takes a certain amount of responsibility and self-discipline to play an Actual Dragon PC without disrupting the game for everyone else.

[Segev]

Depends if the new edition is good or not.

Same here.

I am disturbed by the direction a lot of the choices the designers seem to be taking right now, as they seem to be making the game lose flavor in the (alleged) name of "balance" (this time defined by "variety of choice" that amounts to "everything will be the same but you can call it whatever you like")... and, more fundamentally, I feel they're making an enormous mistake by leaning away from short rest mechanics and into long rest mechanics. If there was a balance problem between the two, it would be better resolved by leaning more heavily into short rest mechanics, thereby helping ameliorate the 15-minute adventuring day, rather than encouraging it more strongly.

[OldTrees1]

I would disagree here. I don't think D&D is under any obligation to allow you to play whatever you want. Certainly not as part of the core rules. A later "Play as an Actual Dragon" supplement? Sure. But not out of the gate.

I too would not place it in the core 3 books. The DMG needs room for other things. It would be a supplement that gives the GM support and guidance for handling reasonable desires to play a monstrous PC.

PS: "Obligated" is poor word choice because D&D is not obligated to do anything. I think D&D aspires to be a generic fantasy RPG. Part of that position is providing support or guidance for handling monstrous PCs.

Encouraging new players to take it slow at the start is a way to build a lasting relationship with the game. If the cooler/weirder stuff comes later, after learning the basics, it creates a sense of progression and mastery. It feels earned. If you just give the kid the keys to the Lamborghini as soon as he gets his license he's never going to appreciate what it means to have it. It takes a certain amount of responsibility and self-discipline to play an Actual Dragon PC without disrupting the game for everyone else.

Good wisdom.

However if everyone involved can handle it, there is merit in letting the player have their creativity rather than restrict the new player to a more regimented experience.

With 20:20 hindsight, I think I made the right call. I appreciate the support and guidance D&D provided at the time in that earlier edition.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would disagree here. I don't think D&D is under any obligation to allow you to play whatever you want. Certainly not as part of the core rules. A later "Play as an Actual Dragon" supplement? Sure. But not out of the gate.

Encouraging new players to take it slow at the start is a way to build a lasting relationship with the game. If the cooler/weirder stuff comes later, after learning the basics, it creates a sense of progression and mastery. It feels earned. If you just give the kid the keys to the Lamborghini as soon as he gets his license he's never going to appreciate what it means to have it. It takes a certain amount of responsibility and self-discipline to play an Actual Dragon PC without disrupting the game for everyone else.

I agree with this.

Same here.

I am disturbed by the direction a lot of the choices the designers seem to be taking right now, as they seem to be making the game lose flavor in the (alleged) name of "balance" (this time defined by "variety of choice" that amounts to "everything will be the same but you can call it whatever you like")... and, more fundamentally, I feel they're making an enormous mistake by leaning away from short rest mechanics and into long rest mechanics. If there was a balance problem between the two, it would be better resolved by leaning more heavily into short rest mechanics, thereby helping ameliorate the 15-minute adventuring day, rather than encouraging it more strongly.

Yeah. On both accounts.

I too would not place it in the core 3 books. The DMG needs room for other things. It would be a supplement that gives the GM support and guidance for handling reasonable desires to play a monstrous PC.

PS: "Obligated" is poor word choice because D&D is not obligated to do anything. I think D&D aspires to be a generic fantasy RPG. Part of that position is providing support or guidance for handling monstrous PCs.

5e does not, in any way, aspire to be a generic fantasy rpg, except in the minds of people who are stuck in 3e. Which did aspire to that, stupidly. As time goes on, 5e has become even less generic.

[Psyren]

I'm in no rush for 6e, I think 5.5e has a lot of potential to improve and refresh the current edition. At the very least, I want to see what gaps remain before theorizing about what 6e could do.

For me, the open-endedness of this edition is a strength; they just need to (a) lay out the thought process DMs should go through when calling for an ability check more clearly, and (b) give a few broad examples of what sorts of challenges might become automatic or at least unchallenging as you advance through tiers.

[Segev]

(a) lay out the thought process DMs should go through when calling for an ability check more clearly, and (b) give a few broad examples of what sorts of challenges might become automatic or at least unchallenging as you advance through tiers.

These would both be very welcome, I agree.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm in no rush for 6e, I think 5.5e has a lot of potential to improve and refresh the current edition. At the very least, I want to see what gaps remain before theorizing about what 6e could do.

For me, the open-endedness of this edition is a strength; they just need to (a) lay out the thought process DMs should go through when calling for an ability check more clearly, and (b) give a few broad examples of what sorts of challenges might become automatic or at least unchallenging as you advance through tiers.

These would both be very welcome, I agree.

I third this.

[OldTrees1]

5e does not, in any way, aspire to be a generic fantasy rpg, except in the minds of people who are stuck in 3e. Which did aspire to that, stupidly. As time goes on, 5e has become even less generic.

You disagreed with something inside a decreasingly relevant tangent, therefore you decided to label any who disagree with you as "people who are stuck in <insert something here>".

You could have left my clarifying post alone inside its decreasingly relevant tangent. Instead you could have focused on the thread's topic.

I think it is best if we end it here.

[False God]

I don't really "switch" editions. I just end up repurposing them for specific styles of games.

Will I try it? Sure probably.

[Telok]

My group, in fact 90% of all gamers in this city, will blindly ditch the 5e books for the official wotc approved next best thing without any consideration of... well... anything. Because most of them are basically consumer sheep who only ever see marketing & ads for d&d. To play anything but the current wotc d&d flavor I'll have to run it myself.