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

[DigoDragon]

I will be reluctant to switch, but only because I have invested in a lot in 5e books and am having a difficult time find a local group willing to play 5e. Haven't been able to get into a forum PbP game that lasts either. No point spending money if I'm not able to use the material. ^^

[Keltest]

I personally am unlikely to even purchase most of the so-called 5.5 content, let alone a hypothetical 6e. The design direction theyre taking the game is drastically unappealing to me, and they seem to be making decisions based on placating the Twitter peanut gallery rather than just making a fun game and letting people do what they will with it.

I personally have spent a few hundred dollars on 5e stuff as it is, and I fully intend to have that last me decades if I can help it. I'm sure as heck not going to spend more money on stuff I already have (twice, if you count my AD&D stuff!), especially if the quality drop continues.

[KorvinStarmast]

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

I feel similarly, but the core + some of Xanathar's is pretty good. (The falling rules from Xanathar's are still rubbish and Hexblade is but one example of how badly wrong they can go in one direction, and the battle rager how garbagely they can go in another direction).

I will buy the core books. I will read them and enjoy them.

Probably, but I want to be in on the play test.

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.

I support this observation.

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.

Me too, I liked the upgrade.

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.

If they do to D&D what 4e did, they'll deserve the blood letting that will ensue.

If there is, in fact, a 6e, it will mean that WotC has really run out of ideas.

They have not run out of bad ideas, though, see a variety of the new UA offerings in the last three years.

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.

The DMG was high on page count and low on "how to be a good DM" advice. If nothing else, a better DMG for new DM's would be welcome.

To play anything but the current wotc d&d flavor I'll have to run it myself.

I think your best move is to develop new GMs and new DMs. Sometimes, I have had to say "no, not playing unless someone else is the DM/GM." In some cases, no game, in other cases, someone else was "next man up" as it were.

Whoever has owned D&D at any given time has always felt the need to burn everything down and start from scratch with every new edition.

Not true for the AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e change, and very much not true in the Basic (Holmes) to B/X (and then BECMI) editions. The latter was in particular an improvement.

So anyone 5e fan "excited for" 6e is probably in for a rude awakening if they expect it to meaningfully resemble 5e.

I worry that you are correct.

In fact, anyone who likes 5e is very likely to be disappointed in 6e, if historical trends hold.

Not to mention how many books I already have.

Reluctant because i made a point of collecting all the books i reasonably could for this edition. I can't justify doing that again

Yep. Me neither, and my wife is already not pleased with how many I do have.

I'm sure it'll be fine
It's not like there was some past precedence set with a WotC owned digital platform during an edition changeover

Indeed, that's the next piece of the problem.

To answer the OP: will you be reluctant or eager to switch from 5E to 6E?
Neither.

[Tanarii]

If I don't eagerly switch, it will be the first edition of D&D I have not done that. But "Tasha" design team currently in power has given me no reason to hope, and I've boycotted all of their products so far.

And it could still happen. I utterly ripped on Mearls for 4e Essentials, and even left the gaming world for a few years as a result. And then it turned out he did know what he was doing after all.

Even if I am still a little bitter about Martials losing Powers.

Not true for the AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e change, and very much not true in the Basic (Holmes) to B/X (and then BECMI) editions.

It felt a lot like a burning to me at the time, but it was my first edition change. Before that I'd been mashing up BECMI and AD&D, so I hadn't seen previous revisions.

But even the release of 2e C&T was enough to show me I'd been mistaken about it being a burning. And of course, then 3e. Now the AD&D -> 2e switch looks almost like clearing the clutter and tidying up.

[KorvinStarmast]

Now the AD&D -> 2e switch looks almost like clearing the clutter and tidying up.

That's how it seemed at the time, but I will say that I didn't really get into B/X and BECMI that much until I had a new group that started with BX. And I still ran that as a mish mash of AD&D 1e and B/X/C because most of my stuff was AD&D 1e heavy.

[druid91]

Frankly I've already mostly switched from 5e to Warhammer RPGs and WoD. I think the last book I bought was Fizbans Dragon book and that was a one-off because I always like to get the dragon book out of Nostalgia for my dads 'The Hobbit' inspired D&D campaigns when I was growing up that always had a dragon.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'd say largely reluctant.

Perhaps the only direction that designers seem to be going that I'd say is an improvement is balancing out short and long rests (if not removing SRs entirely).

Otherwise, I'd say there are a number of things that seem to be status quo or getting worse, mostly regarding published mods that we tend to use. In no particular order:

1. 'Races' effectively becoming skins. They really just need to do away with that word and use 'Species'.

2. No real attempt to balance the exploration pillar with the others. Though I will give credit and say RotF is a recent mod where there was a good amount of exploration required.

3. Mods that tend to end after tier 2. I liked some of the earlier published material. OotA comes to mind as one that supported play into later levels, though there were others.

4. Kind of goes with my #2, but newer material that's very role play (social pillar) heavy. I know Critical Role plays a part here, but it's not what our group enjoys.

5. Kind of overlaps with my #1, but almost everything that's added seems overlaping and 'samey' in a high fantacy setting.

I can't really see spending more $ to continue going in this direction. I've started collecting some of the material on the web for a Darksun setting and modifying some of my 2e mods for a campaign. I could also see doing that for some of the other settings from earlier editions. If I have to create stuff myself anyway I might as well spend the time for something that fits what our group likes to play.

[Segev]

Perhaps the only direction that designers seem to be going that I'd say is an improvement is balancing out short and long rests (if not removing SRs entirely).

I agree with many of your points, but sharply disagree on this one. If they were rebalancing it by leaning more into SRs so that everybody had reason to want to use them, that'd be good, but moving towards what could be the utter elimination of SRs entirely is a very bad move, to my mind. 3e and 4e both had problems with 15 minute adventuring days, especially as modules and powers PCs could get made it impossible to punish just holing up for 23 or so hours to get those daily-recharged abilities back. 5e modules have done nothing to help with that. Even wandering monsters are hard to justify in some of them, with the way the dungeons and their denizens are designed.

Punishing resting is always going to be an uphill battle, too, because it'll always war against allowing resting as also being required, and players will naturally seek ways to secure rests. Making short rests more attractive to everyone will help with that immensely. Eliminating them only exacerbates the problem.

[Jervis]

Depends. If they follow through with the short rest removal i’m worried about how the game is gonna go. To be honest i’m not extremely optimistic.

[Psyren]

I am 99% sure that the theoretical 6e will appeal to me even less than 5e, since 5e has enjoyed wild success and thus WotC is unlikely to try something new and radically different from 5e. IMO, though, they should, D&D-likes aside from 4e have been Frankensteining the 3e PHB over and over in an attempt to get it right, whereas it's quite possible that it has always been bad and salvaging it is impossible.

I'd say that has more to do with the OGL being extremely welcoming to third-party development than the inherent quality (perceived or actual) of 3e.

No one is forcing new purchases on you, but looking at the timeline.

Original D&D: 1974-1976 - 2 Years
Original AD&D: 1977-1988 - 11 years
AD&D 2e: 1989-1999 - 10 years
D&D 3.X: 2000-2007 - 7 years
D&D 4e: 2008-2013 - 5 years
D^D 5e: 2014-Present: 8 years.

None of WotC's editions have lasted as long as the TSR ones did. But given that 5e has been around longer now than either 4e or 3.X and given that even the failure that was 4th Edition still went 3 years longer than Gygax waited to revise. I don't think it's really right to claim they're rushing anything here.

Agreed though I will point out that they are not in fact skipping 5.5e, that's what we're getting in 2024.

The DMG was high on page count and low on "how to be a good DM" advice. If nothing else, a better DMG for new DM's would be welcome.

I think it could have been organized better certainly - but a lot of the time I find that folks (not saying you) who don't think it contains much "how to DM advice" haven't read as much of it as they should be.

[Ignimortis]

I'd say that has more to do with the OGL being extremely welcoming to third-party development than the inherent quality (perceived or actual) of 3e.

If that was the main contributing factor, I doubt 5e and PF2e would've turned out the way they are. Neither is compatible with 3e content, but both, to me, seem to be attempts to get 3e's PHB to work in a different way with similar starting points.

[strangebloke]

"reluctant" implies I'm going to be forced to use the new stuff.

Nah. I have my players, most of them don't even follow new releases. They don't know where the radiant citadel is, or what a starjammer is, or why haste is good to cast on a rogue. If I like the new material? I will buy? If I don't? I will not. Nobody will care. At most one of the guys who DMs for me will use the new stuff in which case, meh.

I didn't buy SCAG. I will probably buy Theros at some point. I have Tasha's, Xanathar's, Volot's, Fizban's, MTOF. I will not be getting MMOM, since although I like the races everything else looks Dumb.

[Psyren]

If that was the main contributing factor, I doubt 5e and PF2e would've turned out the way they are. Neither is compatible with 3e content, but both, to me, seem to be attempts to get 3e's PHB to work in a different way with similar starting points.

PF2e IS based on the 3.5 OGL. And 5e doesn't have to be. The 3.5 OGL spawned the most third-party game systems.

[Ignimortis]

PF2e IS based on the 3.5 OGL. And 5e doesn't have to be. The 3.5 OGL spawned the most third-party game systems.

Not really at that point. PF1e, sure, it's basically 3.5 with houserules and a new wrapper. But PF2e probably has less things in common with 3.5 than 5e does, unless calling classes Fighter and Wizard and using stricter Vancian casting is somehow reliant on 3.5 OGL.

[Velaryon]

Like many in this thread, my opinions would be based at least partly on what the new edition looks like. I have no problem staying with the older edition if I don't like the new one, and the financial investment I've made into the editions I do play also makes me want to keep playing those editions. But if a hypothetical 6E looks like it caters to the kind of game I want to play, then I'd probably be willing to try it out.

Another consideration for me is the fact that I run a D&D club for teens at work, so after a certain point I'd most likely have to switch to the new edition at least for the work game.

[Eldariel]

If the recent releases and the direction the game has taken are any indication of the future, I will most likely disagree with many of the fundamental design choices. Then again, I disagree with much of 5e too (especially most things on the DM side of the screen) but I can still make it work by virtue of just DMing myself. I will of course try the next edition out and see how much I like it: much will depend on the company I keep though. If WotC finally manages to write enjoyable martial characters (even just one class) in the Core, I'm willing to forgive a lot of nonsense elsewhere but I'm not holding my breath: they've tried for over 20 years but we're still stuck in the "simple martial, complex caster"-framework for no reason (okay, they succeeded once towards the end of 3e but then failed to carry it over to 4e even though it was a supposed "beta product").

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I agree with many of your points, but sharply disagree on this one. If they were rebalancing it by leaning more into SRs so that everybody had reason to want to use them, that'd be good, but moving towards what could be the utter elimination of SRs entirely is a very bad move, to my mind. 3e and 4e both had problems with 15 minute adventuring days, especially as modules and powers PCs could get made it impossible to punish just holing up for 23 or so hours to get those daily-recharged abilities back. 5e modules have done nothing to help with that. Even wandering monsters are hard to justify in some of them, with the way the dungeons and their denizens are designed.

Punishing resting is always going to be an uphill battle, too, because it'll always war against allowing resting as also being required, and players will naturally seek ways to secure rests. Making short rests more attractive to everyone will help with that immensely. Eliminating them only exacerbates the problem.

Maybe I should clarify the point I was making.

I actually don't mind short rests, and probably my first choice would be to keep them in and balance classes so that everyone gets back roughly the same proportion of abilities on long and short rests. The other guy who DMs our group figures class abilities on a LR and subclass on a SR would be good design. I continue to think the biggest issue with 5e is that as a DM you can't really deviate too much or too often from the prescribed 'schedule' without playing favorites amongst a party. For that reason if I was given the choice between the status quo and eliminating SRs entirely I'd just eliminate them.

As to your point about short adventuring days, well that's just going to be an issue with some DMs/ groups no matter what you do so long as there are expendable resources. I'm not sure when characters get resources back is going to change the way some people clearly prefer to play. My personal view is that short days continues to be the source of many groups' issues and threads about perceived imbalance, but I'm not sure of the solution.

[Asmotherion]

I used to think 5e was the best thing that happened to D&D. Then it hit me: The oversimplicity effectivelly meant that I can create a limited amount of characters before I've played everything. And since I have specific concepts that I like, it effectivelly means I have even less options.

So, by now, yeah, I'm eager for a 5.5e or an 6e, whichever comes.

[Psyren]

Not really at that point. PF1e, sure, it's basically 3.5 with houserules and a new wrapper. But PF2e probably has less things in common with 3.5 than 5e does, unless calling classes Fighter and Wizard and using stricter Vancian casting is somehow reliant on 3.5 OGL.

It IS the point. We were talking about which edition lent itself to the most prominent third-party creations and spinoffs, and 3e still has that crown. They have yet to develop an OGL that is robust enough to create the next Pathfinder, and that could very well be a selling point for 6e (albeit potentially a problem for WotC in the long term.)

Maybe I should clarify the point I was making.

I actually don't mind short rests, and probably my first choice would be to keep them in and balance classes so that everyone gets back roughly the same proportion of abilities on long and short rests. The other guy who DMs our group figures class abilities on a LR and subclass on a SR would be good design. I continue to think the biggest issue with 5e is that as a DM you can't really deviate too much or too often from the prescribed 'schedule' without playing favorites amongst a party. For that reason if I was given the choice between the status quo and eliminating SRs entirely I'd just eliminate them.

As to your point about short adventuring days, well that's just going to be an issue with some DMs/ groups no matter what you do so long as there are expendable resources. I'm not sure when characters get resources back is going to change the way some people clearly prefer to play. My personal view is that short days continues to be the source of many groups' issues and threads about perceived imbalance, but I'm not sure of the solution.

I think 5.5e should be LR-focused with some (much smaller) benefit on an SR that could be skipped if a group wants to skip SRs without making any given class feel useless, but makes games that keep them do feel at least a little different.

[Sigreid]

I used to think 5e was the best thing that happened to D&D. Then it hit me: The oversimplicity effectivelly meant that I can create a limited amount of characters before I've played everything. And since I have specific concepts that I like, it effectivelly means I have even less options.

So, by now, yeah, I'm eager for a 5.5e or an 6e, whichever comes.

That's largely a weakness of the class system. It sounds like you might be happier with one of the many build a bear systems that give you a point (power) budget to create whatever you like from the bits and pieces available.

[EggKookoo]

I used to think 5e was the best thing that happened to D&D. Then it hit me: The oversimplicity effectivelly meant that I can create a limited amount of characters before I've played everything. And since I have specific concepts that I like, it effectivelly means I have even less options.

It's funny what people look for in TTPRGs. To me, the character as far as mechanics go is nothing (or virtually nothing). What matters is the adventure. I'd be perfectly happy with a D&D that had no classes, just three or four "roles" (spellcaster, martial, healer/support, rogue/scout/stealth), explicit freedom to reflavor things as I like, and a rules system that accommodated any action I can think of.

One thing I dislike about modern D&D is the loadout of class features. I want fewer of them, please, or at least have them built like spells where there may be a ton to choose from, but I only get to pick a small number for a given PC.

Honestly I think I would prefer a new D&D that eschewed class/subclass features in favor of gear-based progression.

[Psyren]

You don't need to ditch the class system to have functionally unlimited* character build potential. You just can't wait around for WotC to design every concept you might want to play. If you truly run out of ideas in first party, and you don't want to design new ones yourself, that's what third-party is for.

*Or at least, limits a given player is unlikely to reach in their lifetime

[PhoenixPhyre]

You don't need to ditch the class system to have functionally unlimited* character build potential. You just can't wait around for WotC to design every concept you might want to play. If you truly run out of ideas in first party, and you don't want to design new ones yourself, that's what third-party is for.

*Or at least, limits a given player is unlikely to reach in their lifetime

I agree. And I think the community would be better off ditching the special status that gets attached to the word "official". Wotc stuff isn't special or even better balanced or written than a lot of the better homebrew or 3P stuff. Or even more in keeping with the rest of the system. CF hexblade, peace and twilight clerics.

Tables should, imo, dump the idea that RAW or 1st party content is any different than anything else and evaluate all content on its merits, not source. And be comfortable homebrewing content to fit individual tables. To me "playing strictly by RAW and official content only" is a big warning that I'm not going to like the game.

[Sigreid]

I agree. And I think the community would be better off ditching the special status that gets attached to the word "official". Wotc stuff isn't special or even better balanced or written than a lot of the better homebrew or 3P stuff. Or even more in keeping with the rest of the system. CF hexblade, peace and twilight clerics.

Tables should, imo, dump the idea that RAW or 1st party content is any different than anything else and evaluate all content on its merits, not source. And be comfortable homebrewing content to fit individual tables. To me "playing strictly by RAW and official content only" is a big warning that I'm not going to like the game.

I think whether it's official or third party a DM needs to be cautious about what they let in their game. Unless you're just going for a beer and popcorn campaign that you're ok with being varying degrees of ridiculous, then just go with whatever seems amusing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think whether it's official or third party a DM needs to be cautious about what they let in their game. Unless you're just going for a beer and popcorn campaign that you're ok with being varying degrees of ridiculous, then just go with whatever seems amusing.

Right. Not "default accept anything 1st party and deny anything else." Set standards for what works for your table and scrutinize everything accordingly. And your standards and my standards don't have to match.

[Sigreid]

Right. Not "default accept anything 1st party and deny anything else." Set standards for what works for your table and scrutinize everything accordingly. And your standards and my standards don't have to match.

Hell, even if we both choose to just use core RAW, your table and mine are going to look and operate completely differently most likely.

[Segev]

I think 5.5e should be LR-focused with some (much smaller) benefit on an SR that could be skipped if a group wants to skip SRs without making any given class feel useless, but makes games that keep them do feel at least a little different.

Why do you feel this to be superior design? Specifically, the preference for LR with SR being entirely optional, over SR being something that benefits everyone sufficiently that you don't have people pushing for LR whenever an SR would do on basis that SR doesn't do enough for them?

[Dienekes]

If we're going over the SR/LR divide, I honestly think the best method of differentiation was in 4e. Perhaps dress it up as short and long rests, if you want. Because apparently people really dislike stuff being called Daily or Encounter powers. But having your abilities refresh either per encounter or per day seems much easier to understand and to balance around than having abilities that refresh based on per day and per three-ish encounters, maybe, depending on what the players and DMs are feeling. And used if the players correctly guess the difficulty of the encounter before it has even played out.

[Sigreid]

If we're going over the SR/LR divide, I honestly think the best method of differentiation was in 4e. Perhaps dress it up as short and long rests, if you want. Because apparently people really dislike stuff being called Daily or Encounter powers. But having your abilities refresh either per encounter or per day seems much easier to understand and to balance around than having abilities that refresh based on per day and per three-ish encounters, maybe, depending on what the players and DMs are feeling. And used if the players correctly guess the difficulty of the encounter before it has even played out.

I think what people really disliked, especially me, was the samieness. You had lots of classes with lots of powers except it was really only a few powers with lots of different names for the same thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think what people really disliked, especially me, was the samieness. You had lots of classes with lots of powers except it was really only a few powers with lots of different names for the same thing.

I think lots of people disliked lots of different things, including the fact that things had changed at all (who moved my cheese/every change breaks someone's workflow syndrome). Many of which were that wizards were no longer the most powerful, versatile, and special things out there.