# 50th Anniversary: 6E in 2024?



## Xeviat

The 50th anniversary of D&D is coming up in 2024. 5E came out in 2014 and is still going strong. I'm very interested to see if WotC is going to keep pushing on with 5E, give us a 6E, or do something different this time around. A big release for the 50th Anniversary seems like a no-brainer to me, though.

Here's my suspicion: I suspect a new PHB with updated ancestries, classes, and possibly other rules, bringing in improvements learned over the ten years. Improvements like smoothing out bonus actions, increasing options, while maintaining simplicity. But, what I also suspect is that it will still be compatible with existing material, that they're going to try to keep it to the same math, so that older adventures can still be played, since 5E has been driven so strongly by adventures.

Big picture, what are your suspicions for the 50th Anniversary?


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Maybe a 5.5. but I suggest the option to can buy separately the +0.5, the expansion with the update of the rules. 

I thought the 6Ed would be in 2030 because the 5Ed is being sold too well for the risk of a new edition war. Also I thought about the next edition would be designed to allow all the genres, even sci-fi and superheroes, but this is a serious challenge for the game designers who try to find the right power balance when PCs can use gadgets and modern technology.

What to offer in a 5.5? Modula creation, as in Pathfinder 2, the class features and the racial traits could be replaced with others from an optional list.


----------



## ART!

Semi-ideally, we get a good, successful D&D-branded movie by or in 2024, and that provides impetus to a) stick with 5E, but b) update it. Going to 6E any time soon is probably not in the cards at all, but some time soon they're going to need or want a revised PHB.


----------



## ccs

Xeviat said:


> The 50th anniversary of D&D is coming up in 2024. 5E came out in 2014 and is still going strong. I'm very interested to see if WotC is going to keep pushing on with 5E, give us a 6E, or do something different this time around. A big release for the 50th Anniversary seems like a no-brainer to me, though.
> 
> Here's my suspicion: I suspect a new PHB with updated ancestries, classes, and possibly other rules, bringing in improvements learned over the ten years. Improvements like smoothing out bonus actions, increasing options, while maintaining simplicity. But, what I also suspect is that it will still be compatible with existing material, that they're going to try to keep it to the same math, so that older adventures can still be played, since 5E has been driven so strongly by adventures.
> 
> Big picture, what are your suspicions for the 50th Anniversary?




 It's almost like you've read me making this very prediction sometime in the past 6 months - two years....


----------



## Bacon Bits

I think Tasha's is as close as we're likely to get to a 5.5e for quite awhile. Still, we've only worked our way through a quarter of the Circle of Eight, so there's a lot of room left.

6e will come out for the same reason every other edition came out: When WotC/Hasbro decides it makes business sense to invest the time in redeveloping content to sell to the same customers all over again. Developing the base game is much more time consuming and much more risky than supplemental content, so they'll likely do it after the brand has grown as much as 5e allows it to.

I wouldn't be too eager, either. 6e will likely choose to appeal to what has made 5e easy to grow faster: Streaming and online play. It may move the same direction as 4e tried to, with even more walled gardens than D&D Beyond offers. By then the FLGS might be a distant memory, killed by Amazon and COVID. They might decide against printed sales entirely.


----------



## Shardstone

What is the Circle of Eight?


----------



## NotAYakk

Prediction:
At the 50th anniversary, they'll release an updated version of a super-early version of D&D.

Maybe not chainmail era, but maybe including that as well.

Imagine a boxed product with a few eras of rules, from Chainmail up to (say) Red box, and then maybe a modernized Red box (no changes for "balance", just changes in formatting and presentation of the math; ie, replace THAC0 style tables with DC->modifier.)


----------



## Bacon Bits

Shardstone said:


> What is the Circle of Eight?



The eight Wizards who came together to rule the City of Greyhawk.

The original members were Mordenkainen, Bigby, Bucknard, Drawmij, Leomund, Nystul, Otto, and Rary. It was preceeded by the Citadel of Eight, which shared some members.






						Greyhawk - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Edit: I guess Tasha was never a member. I think I was misremembering Tenser, who later joined and left.


----------



## ccs

ART! said:


> Semi-ideally, we get a good, successful D&D-branded movie by or in 2024, and that provides impetus to a) stick with 5E, but b) update it. Going to 6E any time soon is probably not in the cards at all, but some time soon they're going to need or want a revised PHB.




I just don't get this player based obsession with a D&D movie & all the grand hopes that get pinned on it.
From the company side?  Sure.  It's more advertising & merchandising, etc etc etc.  $ $ $.  Every company ultimately wants that. 
But in case you haven't noticed?  D&D has done fantastic these past 5 years - without a branded movie goosing sales for a few months.

And yes, 6e is most definitely in the cards.  No matter what is currently said/not said by the powers that be.  
In fact, _right now_, 5e is following a very familiar & predictable path that leads to a new edition.  They are re-printing adventures (not just doing things inspired by or homages to previous versions of those adventures - for EX PotA, SKT) with cosmetic tweaks, releasing incredibly niche books (the MTG settings) and about to release a book of completely optional stuff.  And growing amounts of errata (not as bad as previously, but...)  These are things that often happen towards the end of an edition.
And now they're starting to make socially influenced changes to both lore & mechanics.
2024?  I 100% believe that that'd be a fantastic launch point for 6e & celebrate the 50th anniversary of our favorite game.
But at this rate I'll be surprised if they make it to that date.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

The longest-lasting D&D edition to date was twelve years. Unless you count Basic D&D, which lasted far longer as a parallel line. A ten-year lifespan for 5e isn't outside the realm of possibility. That being said, sales of 5e continue to be good, and the D&D fanbase continues to grow.

Wizards has talked about 5e being an evergreen edition, but whether they can pull that off or not, remains to be seen. So far they're doing pretty well. I'd be happy for the game to hop off of the edition treadmill, that's for sure. But an updated PHB could entirely be possible.

Outside of edition speculation, I could see Greyhawk's return - it would have a certain synergy. IMDB, for what it's worth, still has the D&D movie listed as a 2022 release.


----------



## ART!

ccs said:


> I just don't get this player based obsession with a D&D movie & all the grand hopes that get pinned on it.
> From the company side?  Sure.  It's more advertising & merchandising, etc etc etc.  $ $ $.  Every company ultimately wants that.
> But in case you haven't noticed?  D&D has done fantastic these past 5 years - without a branded movie goosing sales for a few months.
> 
> And yes, 6e is most definitely in the cards.  No matter what is currently said/not said by the powers that be.
> In fact, _right now_, 5e is following a very familiar & predictable path that leads to a new edition.  They are re-printing adventures (not just doing things inspired by or homages to previous versions of those adventures - for EX PotA, SKT) with cosmetic tweaks, releasing incredibly niche books (the MTG settings) and about to release a book of completely optional stuff.  And growing amounts of errata (not as bad as previously, but...)  These are things that often happen towards the end of an edition.
> And now they're starting to make socially influenced changes to both lore & mechanics.
> 2024?  I 100% believe that that'd be a fantastic launch point for 6e & celebrate the 50th anniversary of our favorite game.
> But at this rate I'll be surprised if they make it to that date.



Oh, I could take or leave a D&D movie, personally - unless it was great, of course. I was just trying to say that as a marketing tool, a successful movie would be a good thing to coordinate with some new editions, updates, and products. 

The more I think about it, the more I think 6E will come sooner than a lot of people expect, especially if 6E is designed and coordinated with a solid set of digital tools. An updated  - maybe backwards compatible with 5E? - game fully integrated into apps and VTTs would be hard to resist for...some? I guess backwards compatibility would be easier for the user with digital tools doing the work for you? Just thinking out loud...


----------



## Alzrius

Ralif Redhammer said:


> IMDB, for what it's worth, still has the D&D movie listed as a 2022 release.



Specifically May 27th, 2022.


----------



## Oofta

I don't see a 6E coming any time soon, sales are still going strong.  Special anniversary boxed sets and prints I see coming.  Cool boxed sets, maybe a special lines of minis, probably a "History of D&D" book.

That could all change of course if sales drop off.  But for now?  Why invest in a risky reboot when they don't have to?  As Yogi Berra said, the future is hard to predict especially when it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

6e (as an upgrade of 5e) will come. At this point I feel the core classes would benefit from a bit of rebalancing/straightlining and also opening up some options at higher levels. Not that 6e is needed at that point, but it would be a mistake not to upgrade it. 4 years is a lot of time, and noone would feel really bad if 5e got a roundup. It is important, that you could still use all the 5e material with little to no modification. So I really expect only improvements on the player side. Maybe only the PHB as a new entry point.


----------



## Xeviat

UngeheuerLich said:


> 6e (as an upgrade of 5e) will come. At this point I feel the core classes would benefit from a bit of rebalancing/straightlining and also opening up some options at higher levels. Not that 6e is needed at that point, but it would be a mistake not to upgrade it. 4 years is a lot of time, and noone would feel really bad if 5e got a roundup. It is important, that you could still use all the 5e material with little to no modification. So I really expect only improvements on the player side. Maybe only the PHB as a new entry point.




More monster supplements would always be appreciated too.


----------



## R_J_K75

Bacon Bits said:


> Tenser, who later joined and left.



What a jerk, no one likes a quitter.


----------



## GreenTengu

Given that the core races and classes of the game have been pretty busted in terms of balance since release-- let alone things that have appeared in expansion books, I think a 5.5E or 6E is well overdue. The single entry of "rapier" in the weapons table alone is a major hindrance to proper power balance in the game. And then there is the general issue of just way too many things being dependent upon Dexterity so that everyone wants their favorite race to be a Dexterity race to make them as powerful as possible-- meanwhile Intelligence is pretty useless except to a couple caster classes, and even then only if they choose spells that utilize DCs.

Now-- granted-- everything I see as a major issue has to do with rejigging the mechanics associated with the numbers that appear on PC's sheets and has very little to do with the general construction of monsters or adventures. So I suppose what I would like to see is more of a 5.5E that just fixes up the races and classes and changes up some of the stat dependencies to make Intelligence and Strength more worthwhile attributes while pulling back on just how much mileage one gets out of Dexterity.

Then again-- my wishlist would be to change up the PC races so that Orc, Goblin, Hobgoblin and maybe Kobold and Lizardfolk get included as core races that are just assumed denizens of every D&D world and people are expected to play while maybe moving Half-Elf and Half-Orc (and maybe Tiefling and Aasimar) to sort of "human variant options", include some version of the Warlord, if by a different name, as a base class as a non-religious, non-musical support class people can play. And I have to imagine my ideas on such things wouldn't be particularly popular.

But-- man-- waiting 3 more years for an overhaul?


----------



## OB1

I don't see a 6e in 2024, but could see a reworked PHB that adds the most popular player options from Xanthar's and Tasha's (and perhaps other sources) into a single sourcebook as an entry point for new players, letting them get the best of 10 years of improvements without cleaning the slate and forcing existing players to invest in a whole new set of books.  Could possibly see them refreshing the DMG as well, but think it would be more likely to see an Advanced DMG instead.

And then the _Grognard's Guide to Greyhawk_ setting guide, with a set of optional rules for playing old school


----------



## Bacon Bits

R_J_K75 said:


> What a jerk, no one likes a quitter.



Well, he left because they kept killing him. He was on his second clone, and the last time only survived because he hid one of his clones on one of the moons. The job was a bit dangerous.


----------



## DND_Reborn

If 6E comes and continues the road 5E has traveled, I won't be getting into it myself.


----------



## Mercurius

I started a poll and thread on this topic earlier in the year and the consensus was something akin to 5.1 to 5.2 is most likely: revised core rulebooks with new art, and maybe a few added bells and whistles. With the game's popularity, I'm sticking with that.

That said, with the various controversies and WotC's proclivity to bend to a certain vocal minority (or concerns with inclusion, depending upon how you look at it), I think it is more likely that we see heavily revised books. It will be called the "anniversary revision" or some such, but not 5.x or 6E.

Less likely but still possible is some kind of Greyhawk box set, and/or some sort of commemorative product. They already did Art & Arcana, but maybe they can do something else more game oriented that still celebrates the history of D&D, like: _50 Years of Dungeons & Dragons Worlds._


----------



## Charlaquin

I think a re-release of the core books with some of the changes we’ve seen in Xanathar’s, Tasha’s, and the like is not a bad bet. I very much doubt they’ll do a 6e that soon, unless sales take a sudden nose dive between now and then, which would be quite unexpected.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> I think a re-release of the core books with some of the changes we’ve seen in Xanathar’s, Tasha’s, and the like is not a bad bet. I very much doubt they’ll do a 6e that soon, unless sales take a sudden nose dive between now and then, which would be quite unexpected.




Yeah, something like this makes sense. Other than that, there is very little reason for a 6E when you are still getting growth in sales year-after-year.

There is also nothing close to "rules bloat" yet, so not much need for a ruleset reset.

That said, 4 years out is a ways away, so predicting what they're planning then seems ill-advised. Though I think they at minimum plan adventures starting 2 years ahead of release.


----------



## CleverNickName

I doubt if anybody at WotC is even thinking about a new edition of the game.  The current edition has been, and continues to be, a huge success; they have no reason to tamper with the formula.

So my prediction for the 50th Anniversary in 2024:  they _might _release some collector's edition 5E rulebooks, something leather-bound and super fancy.  Or _maybe_ they will release a bunch of the old classic Greyhawk campaign settings and modules from 1974, updated to the 5th Edition rules.  But probably neither.  No, it's more likely they will release a new campaign setting or adventure path, like they do every year.


----------



## SkidAce

I'm starting to get tired of updating my campaigns to new editions.  Sure its years between versions, but I work retail now, and was in the military, so I'm slow to upgrade.  (Usually only change what we are using/or going to use soon).

I am certain I am an outlier, and whenever 6th comes (2024 or later I hope) I will probably jump on the wagon again.


----------



## Marandahir

Doubt it. 

WotC won't jump to 6E until 5E is no longer profitable or severe issues with 5E emerge that require a complete overhaul of the game. Even the most egregious complains re: 5E don't constitute a need for 5.5e, let alone a 6e. 

That said, the 50th Anniversary will be something really big. Almost certainly they're planning on a major expansion to the game's ruleset akin to Xanathar's Guide to Everything and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and that will be just one tiny piece of the puzzle. I'm guessing they're working on what the themes for that book will be right now, but design for the game material in it won't begin until 2022 at the earliest.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I'm betting on a new ''red box'' themed 50th anniversary starter box set for (slightly updated) 5e. Give it a nice LMoP-style adventure based in Greyhawk or Mystara, with a new take on Hommlet or Borderland. Add the basic rules + sidekicks + whatever rules that would benefit from being in the basic rules. Maybe a few hand-outs or memorabilia? 

I mean, I far from being a grog, but I'd buy that.


----------



## R_J_K75

Bacon Bits said:


> Well, he left because they kept killing him. He was on his second clone, and the last time only survived because he hid one of his clones on one of the moons. The job was a bit dangerous.



I was just joking and didnt know that, now I dont blame the guy.


----------



## Dausuul

Xeviat said:


> The 50th anniversary of D&D is coming up in 2024. 5E came out in 2014 and is still going strong. I'm very interested to see if WotC is going to keep pushing on with 5E, give us a 6E, or do something different this time around. A big release for the 50th Anniversary seems like a no-brainer to me, though.
> 
> Here's my suspicion: I suspect a new PHB with updated ancestries, classes, and possibly other rules, bringing in improvements learned over the ten years. Improvements like smoothing out bonus actions, increasing options, while maintaining simplicity. But, what I also suspect is that it will still be compatible with existing material, that they're going to try to keep it to the same math, so that older adventures can still be played, since 5E has been driven so strongly by adventures.
> 
> Big picture, what are your suspicions for the 50th Anniversary?



I think you pretty much nailed it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Unless 5e is no longer making money by 2024, which I highly doubt, then 6e will not be coming out, even if it happens to be the 50th anniversary of D&D. They will definitely do something special, like a red box starting set, and a metallic gemstone dice set (ruby?), but 6e is not coming in the foreseeable future, IMO.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Considering all the talk of 5E being an evergreen edition, and that WotC does not want to change the core books enough to make people buy them again, I do not see anything about the core of the game changing just for the 50th anniversary.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

We won't see a 6th edition until at least 2030, probably more like 2034 to coincide with the 60th anniversary. The current D&D team isn't large enough to design a game in anything less than "several years." Given the glacial pace of new content for 5e (which, yes, I know some like it, you don't have to remind me of that), they can probably spool things out for _at least_ another 6 years or so before enough people get antsy, and they can do an interim 5e Revised to fill the gap if necessary.

In fact, I suspect they _will_ at some point in the next six to eight years. They'll have enough content published that they can go through, touch on all the places they weren't happy with like Fighter subclass blandness, Beastmaster Ranger, Bladelocks vis-a-vis Hexblade patron, Sorcerer subclass stuff, etc. Further, they'll be able to put out content "faster" because it's all theoretically just updates/revamps/streamlining, keeping the brand fuelled long enough that, if something like a movie deal/TV show/whatever has gone well, they could persuade the corporate types that an investment in a new edition would drive sales and work well as a promotional effort for future entertainment media beyond the tabletop.


----------



## Raith5

I like 5e but I think I will be ready to move on to 6e by 2024. I would like the keep the core math of 5e - with some small tweaks (especially by marking it harder for low level PCs to get to 20 AC and making some high monsters have a slightly higher AC). 

But I think they will need to revise the race/ancestry space for starters, rethink higher level play in general, make some of the martial characters a touch more interesting, make monsters a bit more interesting, and create more opportunities for PCs to spend money.


----------



## Li Shenron

There will CERTAINLY be a 50th anniversary release. 

My guess is core books updated to include bits and pieces from supplements like a "best of". Not an enormous addition, maybe +5-10% (limited by printing constraints such as a specific number of pages). Sadly for me, I predict it will include Tasha's rules changes i.e. free "versatility" boosts to classes as default, effectively making it 5.5.

Second most probable is a limited-run "premium" version of core books (with additions, or simply with alternate covers, ribbon, box, or other easy bells and whistles) but without stopping printing regular core books.

I don't see 6e very probable yet, unless it ends up being 5e + additional material from supplements + a few more changes. But a core game rewrite? I think it would do WotC more harm than good this time.


----------



## Older Beholder

I think they're more likely to release a bunch of special '50th year edition' covers of books already out than they are to put out a whole new edition based on the games 50th birthday.


----------



## Horwath

Advanced 5th edition could be a trademark for 50th year edition.
And as some mentioned 6th edition could be projected for 2034 for 60th birthday.

But that is 4 and 14 years away;
and as we look now at 2020, we might have 6e in 2034 in VR/holodecks or on stone tablets as all electronics were fried with EMPs in WW3.


----------



## ART!

CleverNickName said:


> I doubt if anybody at WotC is even thinking about a new edition of the game.  The current edition has been, and continues to be, a huge success; they have no reason to tamper with the formula.
> 
> So my prediction for the 50th Anniversary in 2024:  they _might _release some collector's edition 5E rulebooks, something leather-bound and super fancy.  Or _maybe_ they will release a bunch of the old classic Greyhawk campaign settings and modules from 1974, updated to the 5th Edition rules.  But probably neither.  No, it's more likely they will release a new campaign setting or adventure path, like they do every year.




One approach might be a standard format revised PHB (and maybe MM and DMG) and then high-end, gussied-up, faux-leather, gilt-edged 50th anniversary slipcase edition, with a DM screen and maybe other whistles and bells.


----------



## glass

I do not think there will be a full-fledged sixth edition in 2024, simply because it would be a missed opportunity. Even if sales are starting to flag by then, an "aniversary edition" with new art, clarifications, and maybe an index like SR4A will give them a boost with considerably less investment. And keep the actual new edition in reserve for a later date.

_
glass.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Maybe a special anniversary edition, something like a revamped edition of Curse of the Strand, without nothing new about crunch or rules.

My theory is the 5.5-6th edition will not D&D brand yet, but something to can be used by the rest of publishers for all genres, even sci-fi and superheroes, but also the ultimate d20 system to be used by the videogame studios. Something like a new edition of d20 Modern, or a WotC's videogame using a variant of d20 system to test new ideas, and to try find the right balance power with the firearms and high-tech.


----------



## TarionzCousin

For the fiftieth anniversary WotC should put out a "Fiftieth Edition." Prove everyone wrong.


----------



## Laurefindel

I too think the 50th anniversary will play more on nostalgia than new content. Straight-up conversion of D&D modules, some digital content of everything they ever published, concept art books, collectors editions of things present and past, the obligatory 50th D&D monopoly board game edition etc. But nothing rule-related I’d say.

that said, 6th ed (or 5.5 or whatever) is bound to happen at some point. Ballpark-ish 2024 sounds about right, but I wouldn’t expect it to tie-in with the 50th edition.

there’s too much potential for an edition war of epic proportion. « 5e was rushed to be released in 2024 and that why it’s crap! ». « WotC HATES D&D and it’s fans; look at what they gave us for 50th anniversary ! ». « The fighter is totally gimped! How dare they do that to the oldest original core classes of D&D! »

So, my bet is on various nostalgia stuff...


----------



## MNblockhead

I would like to see them stick to 5e rules but clean up some of the language, maybe make some tweaks and errata corrections, and bring together content from multiple books into a consolidated set of core books.  I might buy that, especially if the content is better organized with useful cross-references and tips in the margins. 

But don't see myself buying a new edition. I have so much content for 5e that I can run games for years and there are other systems to play. 

I jumped from 1e to 5e.  Who knows, maybe 10e will get me to buy all new books and retire my 5e stuff, if I'm still alive at that time. Then again, with 5e, I pretty much had to buy all new stuff as I'd sold or given away all my gaming stuff in the early 90s when I stopped playing TTRPGs.

Whenever people talk about 6e, I have to ask what would it take for you to spend hundreds of dollars to buy all new materials for a "same" game?


----------



## Xeviat

MNblockhead said:


> Whenever people talk about 6e, I have to ask what would it take for you to spend hundreds of dollars to buy all new materials for a "same" game?




I've been playing since 3E, bought most of the 3E books, most of the 3.5E books, a lot of the 4E books, and a lot of the 5E books, except for adventures (I tend to run my own). I like new stuff, and I'm a completionist. 3E books were a lot cheaper ($20 each usually), and now 5E books are 1 or 2 a year.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

MNblockhead said:


> I would like to see them stick to 5e rules but clean up some of the language, maybe make some tweaks and errata corrections, and bring together content from multiple books into a consolidated set of core books.  I might buy that, especially if the content is better organized with useful cross-references and tips in the margins.
> 
> But don't see myself buying a new edition. I have so much content for 5e that I can run games for years and there are other systems to play.
> 
> I jumped from 1e to 5e.  Who knows, maybe 10e will get me to buy all new books and retire my 5e stuff, if I'm still alive at that time. Then again, with 5e, I pretty much had to buy all new stuff as I'd sold or given away all my gaming stuff in the early 90s when I stopped playing TTRPGs.
> 
> Whenever people talk about 6e, I have to ask what would it take for you to spend hundreds of dollars to buy all new materials for a "same" game?



I expect 6e to be backwards compatible. That would make me buy it.


----------



## DnD Warlord

Bacon Bits said:


> I think Tasha's is as close as we're likely to get to a 5.5e for quite awhile. Still, we've only worked our way through a quarter of the Circle of Eight, so there's a lot of room left.
> 
> 6e will come out for the same reason every other edition came out: When WotC/Hasbro decides it makes business sense to invest the time in redeveloping content to sell to the same customers all over again. Developing the base game is much more time consuming and much more risky than supplemental content, so they'll likely do it after the brand has grown as much as 5e allows it to.
> 
> I wouldn't be too eager, either. 6e will likely choose to appeal to what has made 5e easy to grow faster: Streaming and online play. It may move the same direction as 4e tried to, with even more walled gardens than D&D Beyond offers. By then the FLGS might be a distant memory, killed by Amazon and COVID. They might decide against printed sales entirely.



A 4e like game with video game tie ins and built on the 5e new frame work post Tasha... yes please


----------



## Zsong

Just because they create a new edition does not mean they have to create a whole new game like 3E and later did. The differences between editions can be minor like form 1E to 2E or 3.0 to 3.5. I can easily see a 6E that is very similar to 5E. It’s only in the last 20 years that they started throwing out the baby with bath water between editions.


----------



## teitan

At most it will be a slightly updated refresh of 5e. At most. I think wholesale redesigns for D&D are over... thank god.


----------



## tetrasodium

Tasha's cauldron seems to have a lot of phb2 style alternative class features going by the ToC for it.  I suspect seeing that will give us more of an idea what directions that a 5.5 or 6e will likely take.  Seeing A5e & how that does might have some influence as well


----------



## Argyle King

Hypothetically, if a 6E (or whatever it is to be called) is slated for 2024, I think it is reasonable to suspect that early ideas are already being contemplated and tested.


----------



## MNblockhead

Xeviat said:


> I've been playing since 3E, bought most of the 3E books, most of the 3.5E books, a lot of the 4E books, and a lot of the 5E books, except for adventures (I tend to run my own). I like new stuff, and I'm a completionist. 3E books were a lot cheaper ($20 each usually), and now 5E books are 1 or 2 a year.




I can understand if you are a collector, but for purposes of playing games, I just can't see myself doing that. I've moved off of one system to play a completely different system. Or I'll buy a new system and all its books for a second campaign when it is a completely different theme/experience. 

But if it was a cleaned up or expanded 5e, the kept the core of 5e so that I can use my existing adventures and settings with it, then maybe I would rebuy the core rules, especially since I'm using D&D Beyond more than physical books.


----------



## TarionzCousin

UngeheuerLich said:


> I expect 6e to be backwards compatible. That would make me buy it.



So... 99% 5E but "modular"?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

UngeheuerLich said:


> I expect 6e to be backwards compatible. That would make me buy it.





TarionzCousin said:


> So... 99% 5E but "modular"?



Mike Mearls did say 6e should be backwards compatible.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

TarionzCousin said:


> So... 99% 5E but "modular"?



I think 5e is modular enough for my tastes. It is just that you get a standard version and can deviate by DMG optional rules and leaving out optional rules from the PHB.
Once I started using optional rules I liked (and modified to my tastes), those which I don't forget I am using all the time, 5e became really really fun for me.

Yes, I wish that short and long rests for example would have several options spelled out in the PHB, because for many people the PHB is the most common rules source and everything else is too often ignored. Also it could be more prominent that backgrounds are just examples of the (non optional but core) background rule.

So in 6e bringing some important options more into the foreground would help the game a lot.
What I also expect is a consolidation of the PHB. Maybe linking to alternate rules in the DMG. I know that for the first run cross references between books are difficult, but for my vision of 6e it should be easily possible. Especially with digital versions.
I would also expect a reorganisation of class and subclass. A bit more standard progression. I think 5e fell victim to the dogma, that it may not resemble 4e too much. I guess in 6e you can bring back things from 4e that were actually good (and were replaced in 5e by similar but sometimes inferior rules).


----------



## teitan

Honestly I see it as more of a chance for WOTC to re-release the special editions like they did to fill the gaps between 4e and 5e. Probably new printings of the OD&D rules at minimum with an attempt to restore at least the Cthulhu and Melnibone materials as well as a retrospective book covering the history of the game as a game as opposed to the way that D&D has redefined fantasy art. I am sure we will see yet another reprinting of 3.5. I am sticking by my artistic refresh, maybe even integrating the best art from all editions into the revised 5e core books. Then a new Greyhawk book, if they haven't released it yet of course. I really, really think we are going to get a new Greyhawk in the next 2 years.


----------



## Horwath

Also if we do not see any publishing Schedule with rule supplements for 2023, it will be a sign that 5.5 or 6th Ed is coming out.


----------



## Shiroiken

A few years back, I could have believed in a 6E for 2024, but not anymore. 5E is going way too strong for them to consider a 6E at this point, and to put out a 6E at this exact time, they'd have to start working on it pretty much now. I expect two things, one likely, one less so.

A revised PHB, but not a 5.5E. Like in 2E AD&D, a minor revision that is fully compatible with the earlier printings. Largely it will be a cleaned up version of the existing rules from the RAI sage advice answers. It will include some things from later books deemed worthy of inclusion into the PHB. Any revisions would be to improve existing things that are sub-par, not to nerf things as was largely done with 3.5E. New design and art, of course, for those interested in such things. While the most interesting item, I suspect this isn't exceptionally likely.

A History of D&D, giving an overall view of the game from conception in the early 70s to today's 5E. Comparisons between the various edition, a discussion of the campaign settings, notable content providers (especially a memorandum of those who have passed), and other similar type things. Photos of behind the scenes at WotC, TSR, and possibly even the original days with Gygax and Arnson (if the estates are willing to allow them). This is by far the most likely product, even if not quite as I've described.


----------



## ph0rk

MNblockhead said:


> Whenever people talk about 6e, I have to ask what would it take for you to spend hundreds of dollars to buy all new materials for a "same" game?




I usually use the SRD materials first and only buy official books later if there's something I want.

Once, long ago, reading through the old blue line art AD&D PHB cover to cover was something I enjoyed, but not now any more.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

ph0rk said:


> I usually use the SRD materials first and only buy official books later if there's something I want.
> 
> Once, long ago, reading through the old blue line art AD&D PHB cover to cover was something I enjoyed, but not now any more.



I used to read AD&D books for pleasure.  It seemed I always stumbled on some new gem...especially in the DMG.

The books now are more organized and better play manuals but they are lacking the mystery of the old dusty tomes for me...


----------



## ph0rk

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I used to read AD&D books for pleasure.  It seemed I always stumbled on some new gem...especially in the DMG.
> 
> The books now are more organized and better play manuals but they are lacking the mystery of the old dusty tomes for me...




I can remember how irked I was when the new red and black books came out and all my memorized page numbers were off.


----------



## Nefermandias

OB1 said:


> I don't see a 6e in 2024, but could see a reworked PHB that adds the most popular player options from Xanthar's and Tasha's (and perhaps other sources) into a single sourcebook as an entry point for new players, letting them get the best of 10 years of improvements without cleaning the slate and forcing existing players to invest in a whole new set of books.  Could possibly see them refreshing the DMG as well, but think it would be more likely to see an Advanced DMG instead.
> 
> And then the _Grognard's Guide to Greyhawk_ setting guide, with a set of optional rules for playing old school



Waiting excitedly for GGtG to be released.


----------



## Zsong

Nefermandias said:


> Waiting excitedly for GGtG to be released.



And there will always be reprints of 1E PHB


----------



## TheSword

Has there ever been a new edition on a major anniversary? Or is this all just pie in the sky?


----------



## Oofta

TheSword said:


> Has there ever been a new edition on a major anniversary? Or is this all just pie in the sky?



Speculation pie.


----------



## Zsong

Oofta said:


> Speculation pie.



Definitely a missed opportunity if they don’t make a 6E


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

TheSword said:


> Has there ever been a new edition on a major anniversary? Or is this all just pie in the sky?




Wizards' did a Silver Anniversary boxed set...

…and released 3rd edition the next year.


----------



## Stormonu

I'm through with edition churn, so I'm hoping against a 6E.

Would enjoy an Omnivolume that combined PHB, Sword Coast, Xanathar's and Tasha's content all in one volume though (with UA some new content).  Same goes for a an Ultimate Monster Manual that combines MM, Volo's, Mordenkainens and various monster blocks from adventures or other content in one massive tome.


----------



## Oofta

Zsong said:


> Definitely a missed opportunity if they don’t make a 6E



One person's missed opportunity is another person's unnecessary change for the sake of change.  The current edition continues to sell well, until and unless that changes pretty dramatically I don't expect a new edition.  Why would they?  No offense, but they don't care about a subset of people that would like a new edition.  All they care is whether they can continue selling books and accessories that maximize their profit.

I have no idea when or if there will be another edition.  They may decide that they won't make enough return on the investment a new edition would require in the foreseeable future, even if sales start to slow.  Which they have no sign of doing yet.

So speculation pie is all it is.


----------



## Marc_C

6e will happen at some point. 2024 makes sense. No one forces you to buy the new edition. I have friends, with whom I used to play, that continue to play AD&D1. I decided to move on to 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e. I have no plans to buy a 6e.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

My suggestion is a vintage or retro version, like the revamp Strand's curse module. It would be the (updated) 5th Ed, with all the fixed errata, but with the pictures and the layout of AD&D 2nd Ed (1989). It something like the miniarcades with videogames from 80's.

WotC shouldn't publish the next edition without testing new ideas for the last years, for example new classes with special games mechanics (Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum). If the tests fail then the complains about broken crunch would end soon.


----------



## TheSword

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Wizards' did a Silver Anniversary boxed set...
> 
> …and released 3rd edition the next year.



Interesting apparently 5e was launched on the 40th anniversary.

Everything I can see seems to be driving towards a slow release, milking the existing IP and stretching out the lifespan of products to hit as many people as possible. I feel like they have more than 3 years mileage left out of the edition but who knows.


----------



## Horwath

TheSword said:


> Has there ever been a new edition on a major anniversary? Or is this all just pie in the sky?



well, there is 5th edition on 40th anniversary...


----------



## TheSword

Horwath said:


> well, there is 5th edition on 40th anniversary...



I Ninja’d you lol by answering my own question lol.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Zsong said:


> Definitely a missed opportunity if they don’t make a 6E



It's only a missed opportunity if 5e is losing money at that time.


----------



## grimslade

New covers for the 5E rule books with updated errata. The game is still growing. WotC/Hasbro are not going to take risks. The Unearthed Arcana shows us that every month... I expect there will be a major setting release or a Beyond the Yawning Portal with updated sequels to original modules. A new rule set is not needed until the game starts to ramp down.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I dare to say the 5.5 edition will not be published in paper but in a videogame, for example in Baldur's Gate 3 where the favored enemy by the ranger is altered. WotC will use the videogames to test lots of different ideas, for example new classes with special game mechanics.

Other option would be not the same book with different cover but a "videogame", something like a virtual tabletop.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

LuisCarlos17f said:


> for example in Baldur's Gate 3 where the favored enemy by the ranger is altered.



You know, the good favored enemy/foe. 

I don't think WotC will do a 5.5e in video game style. They (hopefully) learned from 4e that catering towards video game players instead of the community that was already there is a bad idea.


----------



## ppaladin123

Dungeons and Dragons 5e: Turbo Championship Edition.  Changes to races, more fully integrating the new proficiency bonus approach, revisting some of the original material (e.g. sorcerer subclasses with no bonus spells), clean-up on aisle Monk, etc. Fully comptaible with existing material since the underlying math is basically the same.


----------



## Weiley31

I don't care if we get or don't get a 6E. If we do, it better be backwards compatible with 5E materials.


----------



## TerraDave

Pretty close, and close to a year out. 

Not bad.


----------



## Marandahir

It’s 5.5e.
If they call it 6e, it’s in name only. 
This is more like BECMI, Player’s Option, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.


----------



## Charlaquin

Marandahir said:


> It’s 5.5e.
> If they call it 6e, it’s in name only.
> This is more like BECMI, Player’s Option, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.



I don’t think they’ll give it an edition number. They don’t even call 5e, 5e if they can avoid it. If they have to call it anything, maybe they’ll call it 50th anniversary edition. More likely though, I think they’ll just call it D&D, and refer to the 50th anniversary books as the revised core rules or something.


----------



## Lyxen

Marandahir said:


> It’s 5.5e.




You have no proof that it is.



Marandahir said:


> If they call it 6e, it’s in name only.




They won't, want to bet ?



Marandahir said:


> This is more like BECMI, Player’s Option, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.




BECMI ? Compared to what ?

As for the others, they were not fully compatible with the previous game. I agree that it might change until the release, but if we trust the declaration, it should be less of a shake up.


----------



## Horwath

Lyxen said:


> You have no proof that it is.



Tasha's is already "soft" 5.5e

Maybe it wont be called liked that, but I will be similar to 3.0->3.5 thing.


I expect to see all races without ability boosts, just racial features that will be offered for 2 or 3 choices per feature.
Or 3 or 4 features total out of a pool of 10 or so.

The, either a modified point buy pool or 3 or 4 points added as bonus to pool/rolls. 
+2/+2, +2/+1/+1, +1/+1/+1/+1 for 4 pts extra or,
+2/+1, +1/+1/+1 for 3 pts extra.
Maybe with an option to "sacrifice" bonus points for "bonus" feat-


----------



## Charlaquin

Lyxen said:


> As for the others, they were not fully compatible with the previous game. I agree that it might change until the release, but if we trust the declaration, it should be less of a shake up.



Essentials was fully compatible with earlier 4e. It worked great standalone (and was cleaner that way IMO), but you could use it with any material you wanted from before Essentials without causing any issues at all.


----------



## Lyxen

Horwath said:


> Tasha's is already "soft" 5.5e




Tasha is 5.1 at most. No changes to the mechanics and a few options for races and classes, all optional.



Horwath said:


> Maybe it wont be called liked that, but I will be similar to 3.0->3.5 thing.




Again, no proof of that. 3.5 actually changed a lot of things, not only classes (some of them fairly much), but there were lots of changes to skills and feats and many spells, changes to damage reduction mechanics, none of that is in Tasha.


----------



## Marandahir

Lyxen said:


> You have no proof that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> They won't, want to bet ?
> 
> 
> 
> BECMI ? Compared to what ?
> 
> As for the others, they were not fully compatible with the previous game. I agree that it might change until the release, but if we trust the declaration, it should be less of a shake up.




BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, etc compared to Basic, B/X, etc. Each were iterative “edition” changes, but they were all compatible, just needed some tweaks here or there.

2e books and adventures were fully compatible with Player’s Option. I ran 3e products during 3.5e all the time. And I did the same with 4e and Essentials products. I think you’re making the differences out to be more substantive than they actually were.

Was there a vastly different way of presenting classes in the iterations? Sure. Would you say that Bo9S and 3.5e PHB2 are incompatible with 3.5e Player’s Handbook because they introduced completely new ways to play the noble Paladin figure? Or is it that the class was reprinted with revised mechanics but the same name that makes your claim they’re incompatible? There was no reason one could not run a 4e PHB Paladin alongside an Essentials Cavalier etc in a single game crossing between H1 Keep on the Shadowfell and Monster Vault 2 packed in adventure “Reavers of Harkenwold” without any trouble.


----------



## Charlaquin

Guys. What it’s called really doesn’t matter. They’re revising the rules. The changes to spellcasting monsters in the new Mordenkainen book prove that they’re not afraid to make some mechanical changes to existing rules, but the statement of full backwards compatibility means they aren’t planning to change anything so much that you won’t be able to comfortably use old material alongside new. Call it 5.5e, call it 5Essentials, call it 5e revised, call it 50AE, call it Advanced 5e (ok, maybe not that one), it doesn’t really matter. Whatever you call it, it’s going to be a revision significant enough to merit new core books, but not significant enough that material from the first 10 years of 5e won’t be usable with it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Actually, I kinda like the abbreviation 50AE.


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> Guys. What it’s called really doesn’t matter. They’re revising the rules. The changes to spellcasting monsters in the new Mordenkainen book prove that they’re not afraid to make some mechanical changes to existing rules, but the statement of full backwards compatibility means they aren’t planning to change anything so much that you won’t be able to comfortably use old material alongside new. Call it 5.5e, call it 5Essentials, call it 5e revised, call it 50AE, call or Advanced 5e (ok, maybe not that one), it doesn’t really matter. Whatever you call it, it’s going to be a revision significant enough to merit new core books, but not significant enough that material from the first 10 years of 5e won’t be usable with it.



Hey man, we're nerds. We like to get hung up on the small stuff!


----------



## Lyxen

Marandahir said:


> BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, etc compared to Basic, B/X, etc. Each were iterative “edition” changes, but they were all compatible, just needed some tweaks here or there.




BECMI is Basic Expert amongst other, and the Rules Cyclopaedia is just everything combined, it's not compatibility, it's the same game.



Marandahir said:


> 2e books and adventures were fully compatible with Player’s Option.




And yet the player's options resulted in completely different characters, not something that we saw in most cases.



Marandahir said:


> I ran 3e products during 3.5e all the time.




No, the changes were much more profound than Tasha, I have summarised them in another post, they changed a number of game mechanics, the list of skills and feats, and spells very significantly, in addition to classes.



Marandahir said:


> And I did the same with 4e and Essentials products.




And, as with the Player's Options, the characters created were simply not the same.



Marandahir said:


> I think you’re making the differences out to be more substantive than they actually were.




Just make a factual comparison to Tasha, which were relatively minor tweaks and all optional, and I think you'll see that we are not talking the same magnitude at all.



Marandahir said:


> Was there a vastly different way of presenting classes in the iterations? Sure. Would you say that Bo9S and 3.5e PHB2 are incompatible with 3.5e Player’s Handbook because they introduced completely new ways to play the noble Paladin figure? Or is it that the class was reprinted with revised mechanics but the same name that makes your claim they’re incompatible? There was no reason one could not run a 4e PHB Paladin alongside an Essentials Cavalier etc in a single game crossing between H1 Keep on the Shadowfell and Monster Vault 2 packed in adventure “Reavers of Harkenwold” without any trouble.




Compatibility is something else again, what I was reacting to was already calling Tasha a revised edition, as well as the claim that the differences might reach the level of 3/3.5 which were actually very significant.


----------



## Marandahir

Lyxen said:


> BECMI is Basic Expert amongst other, and the Rules Cyclopaedia is just everything combined, it's not compatibility, it's the same game.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the player's options resulted in completely different characters, not something that we saw in most cases.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the changes were much more profound than Tasha, I have summarised them in another post, they changed a number of game mechanics, the list of skills and feats, and spells very significantly, in addition to classes.
> 
> 
> 
> And, as with the Player's Options, the characters created were simply not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Just make a factual comparison to Tasha, which were relatively minor tweaks and all optional, and I think you'll see that we are not talking the same magnitude at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Compatibility is something else again, what I was reacting to was already calling Tasha a revised edition, as well as the claim that the differences might reach the level of 3/3.5 which were actually very significant.



And again, in Essentials nothing replaced the PHB subclasses. Essentials IS 4e. 3.5 IS 3rd Edition. Player’s Option is a 2e set of rules expansions. The fact that they covered territory already explored in earlier books matters little. 

 These were different iterations on similar themes with entirely different class feature structures. The Battle Cleric, Paladin, Runepriest, Warpriest Cleric, and Cavalier Paladin all freely existed side by side and the only people worried were the people who had already been crying foul since Psionics broke the symmetry of 4e’s At-Will/Encounter/Daily power lattice. But those of us who continued to play the game found no real reason to disallow earlier builds.

If anything it was akin to getting the 5e Hexblade when we already have Pact of the Blade in the PHB. Is the Hexblade a better implementation of the Martial Warlock? Sure! Does it replace having Pact of the Blade for other patrons? Not at all. Should it be rethinked for the 2024 PHB? I think so. If Pact Boon had more umph to it and incorporated the best elements of Hexblade I would just say cut Hexblade as a separate subclass.


----------



## darjr

People will call it everything from 5 evolved to 5.5 to 6e. I dint care. As long as it’s backward compatible I’m all good.


----------



## darjr

darjr said:


> People will call it everything from 5 evolved to 5.5 to 6e. I dint care. As long as it’s backward compatible I’m all good.



The tricky part will be the adjustment of the monsters and the PC power curve. But considering we’ll see most of the new monster math before the new core books it looks like it’ll be a ok


----------



## ersatzphil

Lyxen said:


> Tasha is 5.1 at most. No changes to the mechanics and a few options for races and classes, all optional.



"Optional".

I'm not saying they weren't good changes - in general I think they were - but the Tasha's changes are very much how things seem to be working going forward.


----------



## Dausuul

Marandahir said:


> This is more like BECMI, Player’s Option, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.



Well, but which one? There is a big difference between, say, 4E Essentials and 3.5E. Essentials was just another splatbook; it experimented with new mechanics but did not touch what already existed. 3.5E, on the other hand, made no big changes but ten thousand little ones. It was backwards compatible in the sense that you _could_ still use all your 3E material... but lots of things would not work the way they used to.

"Backwards compatible" can mean a lot of things, and we don't know yet where the 50th anniversary release will fall on that spectrum. At this stage, I suspect even the designers don't know for sure. If I had to guess, I'd say something a little more aggressive than Essentials but not nearly as comprehensive as 3.5E; targeted rules changes to fix specific pain points, rather than a general overhaul. But that's just my gut feeling and not based on any particular evidence.


----------



## Marandahir

Dausuul said:


> Well, but which one? There is a big difference between, say, 4E Essentials and 3.5E. Essentials was just another splatbook; it experimented with new mechanics but did not touch what already existed. 3.5E, on the other hand, made no big changes but ten thousand little ones. It was backwards compatible in the sense that you _could_ still use all your 3E material... but lots of things would not work the way they used to.
> 
> "Backwards compatible" can mean a lot of things, and we don't know yet where the 50th anniversary release will fall on that spectrum. At this stage, I suspect even the designers don't know for sure. If I had to guess, I'd say something a little more aggressive than Essentials but not nearly as comprehensive as 3.5E; targeted rules changes to fix specific pain points, rather than a general overhaul. But that's just my gut feeling and not based on any particular evidence.



I’m sorry for the confusion. I was implying 3.5e versus 3e, Essentials vs 4e, BECMI versus Basic, etc.


----------



## Dausuul

Marandahir said:


> I’m sorry for the confusion. I was implying 3.5e versus 3e, Essentials vs 4e, BECMI versus Basic, etc.



Yes, I got that. My point was that 3E --> 3.5E was a much bigger change than 4E --> Essentials*.

Both can be considered "backwards compatible," depending on how you define the term, but 4E --> Essentials allows you to define it much more stringently.

*I skipped Skills and Powers, and I came straight into BECMI without first playing Basic, so I can't speak to how big those changes were.


----------



## bmfrosty

That it's going to use the same math is all that I care about.  Hopefully they change the character classes to have fewer moving parts.  That's the biggest problem that I have DMing, I can't keep all of the classes in my head, and often enough I have a couple of players that can't keep track of their own class.

I liked when the Fighter's power was having a higher to-hit bonus and better armor choices than spellcasters and thieves.

And also, 5e's flat math isn't flat enough for me.

But yeah, I like flatter math than what 5e has.


----------



## Umbran

Marandahir said:


> It’s 5.5e.
> If they call it 6e, it’s in name only.




As others have noted - they won't call it anything.  WotC doesn't use the term "5e" except when it cannot be avoided.  Look at your books - it is just "D&D".

We, the fans, are the ones who call it "5e".


----------



## Marandahir

Dausuul said:


> Yes, I got that. My point was that 3E --> 3.5E was a much bigger change than 4E --> Essentials*.
> 
> Both can be considered "backwards compatible," depending on how you define the term, but 4E --> Essentials allows you to define it much more stringently.
> 
> *I skipped Skills and Powers, and I came straight into BECMI without first playing Basic, so I can't speak to how big those changes were.



Ah sorry, I misunderstood your question there.

Yes, iterative changes have different gradations. But all are roughly compatible. This 2024 revision will be roughly compatible with the 2014 5e core rules, but will be its own revised printing of core rules. 

My point is that this isn’t 6E unless WotC calls it that, and if they do so, it would follow the 2e precedent. It is a gradation rather than a hard break, by definition of “fully compatible” claims. Meanwhile, quibbling about degrees of gradation isn’t very productive. That’s all I was saying.

The claims of Pathfinder being 3.75e was a fanon term that was quibbling about the degrees of gradation, when fans just as well could have called it 3.51e or 3.5e Extended or 4e (Pathfinder Fork). Trying to use it as a baseline for judging the degrees of gradation of other compatible but iterative revisions to other editions of the game is comparing apples and oranges. 5e’s rules are fundamentally different from 3e and any iteration on it will look different than any iteration on 3e.

My measurement of the differences could be vastly different from yours, because we have different experiences with the game’s editions. That’s ok. It’s just worth recognising that there’s a lot we don’t know.


----------



## Marandahir

Umbran said:


> As others have noted - they won't call it anything.  WotC doesn't use the term "5e" except when it cannot be avoided.  Look at your books - it is just "D&D".
> 
> We, the fans, are the ones who call it "5e".



Agreed!
And WotC will want to keep it that way. They don’t want confusion.
But on DMs Guild, they will have to refer to products by edition for clarity’s sake of what you’re buying - so I don’t buy the 4e PHB by mistake when I want the 5e one.
In this case, they will want to whole scale replace the 2014 version on the shelves of stores. You can still use the earlier books but there may not be any nomenclature differences. Prob a different cover, tho!


----------



## CleverNickName

I predict a lot of disappointed "6E" hopefuls in the coming months...


----------



## Bolares

It would be a reeeeeally bad idea for them to call it any other thing than just "D&D". Let your branding and marketing be consistent. Let your consumer base understand you are still selling the same product, don't confuse your audience for no real benefit.


----------



## Horwath

CleverNickName said:


> I predict a lot of disappointed "6E" hopefuls in the coming months...



nah, 

revised 5E(or whatever) for 50th anniversary, 6E in *2034* for 60th anniversary.


----------



## Bolares

Horwath said:


> nah,
> 
> revised 5E(or whatever) for 50th anniversary, 6E in *2034* for 60th anniversary.



nah,

in 2034 it will be a revised revised 5e (or 5.5.5)!


----------



## Nefermandias

Lyxen said:


> You have no proof that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> They won't, want to bet ?
> 
> 
> 
> BECMI ? Compared to what ?
> 
> As for the others, they were not fully compatible with the previous game. I agree that it might change until the release, but if we trust the declaration, it should be less of a shake up.



BECMI compared to B/X obviously.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

The best way to put it is is this a Major or Minor edition change? The answer is It's more the rest of the game catching up with Tasha's which was the minor edition change, this is just the core set playing catchup.


----------



## tetrasodium

Henadic Theologian said:


> The best way to put it is is this a Major or Minor edition change?bThe answer is It's more the rest of the game catching up with Tasha's which was the minor edition change, this is just the core set playing catchup.



If_ that_ is  what the big 50th anniversary edition winds up being... that livestream was the most epic example of a full on meeting when a text or email would have done.   Even a tweet mentioning that there would be a refresh where the core books were going to ne refreshed to catch up to tashas would happen in three years might have still been rather excessive.


----------



## Lyxen

Nefermandias said:


> BECMI compared to B/X obviously.




B/X is not a D&D edition, it's a revival attempt. And honestly, I fail to see what, in the Master Set, prevents people from using it. OK, the levels are higher and the theme is less about exploration (and more about strongholds), but in terms of rules, it added what ? Unarmed combat ?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

tetrasodium said:


> If_ that_ is  what the big 50th anniversary edition winds up being... that livestream was the most epic example of a full on meeting when a text or email would have done.   Even a tweet mentioning that there would be a refresh where the core books were going to ne refreshed to catch up to tashas would happen in three years might have still been rather excessive.




 There are obviously going to be other compatible changes and additions given they are going to be doing surveys. We will have a better idea next year.


----------



## Dire Bare

Lyxen said:


> B/X is not a D&D edition, it's a revival attempt. And honestly, I fail to see what, in the Master Set, prevents people from using it. OK, the levels are higher and the theme is less about exploration (and more about strongholds), but in terms of rules, it added what ? Unarmed combat ?



Huh?

The "basic" set most definitely went through at least three revisions, or editions, before we arrived at the Elmore-cover basic set that became the "B" in BECMI. We can argue exactly how much the rules changed over these successive boxed sets, and how compatible they were with each other . . . but they did change, and were significantly different.

We could argue, but why? To win a nerd-fight?


----------



## Lyxen

Dire Bare said:


> The "basic" set most definitely went through at least three revisions, or editions, before we arrived at the Elmore-cover basic set that became the "B" in BECMI. We can argue exactly how much the rules changed over these successive boxed sets, and how compatible they were with each other . . . but they did change, and were significantly different.




If you're playing B/X, you are playing the version of Basic that went with BECMI, since it's the only one that got an Expert Set... And therefore, it's exactly the one in BECMI...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Lyxen said:


> Tasha is 5.1 at most. No changes to the mechanics and a few options for races and classes, all optional.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof of that. 3.5 actually changed a lot of things, not only classes (some of them fairly much), but there were lots of changes to skills and feats and many spells, changes to damage reduction mechanics, none of that is in Tasha.



And it was no big problem in backwards compatibility. You could have a 3.5 character fight a 3.0 monster and not notice a big difference. You could combine most 3.0 prestige classes with 3.5 classes. The game was not changed so much, that any problem would arise.


----------



## Nefermandias

Lyxen said:


> If you're playing B/X, you are playing the version of Basic that went with BECMI, since it's the only one that got an Expert Set... And therefore, it's exactly the one in BECMI...



You are wrong, though.
Moldvay's Basic and Mentzer's basic are indeed different.


----------



## reelo

Lyxen said:


> B/X is not a D&D edition




Careful now, you're treading on dangerous ground! 



Lyxen said:


> If you're playing B/X, you are playing the version of Basic that went with BECMI, since it's the only one that got an Expert Set... And therefore, it's exactly the one in BECMI...




That is wrong. "Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X" is different from "Mentzer Basic and Expert".


----------



## Marandahir

Lyxen said:


> If you're playing B/X, you are playing the version of Basic that went with BECMI, since it's the only one that got an Expert Set... And therefore, it's exactly the one in BECMI...



Sure. But there were tweaks with each republishing of Basic, to the point that RC looks quite different from the form of Basic we met in Isle of Dread.

My point was that these are all similar - iterative, compatible designs. Neither 1e nor Basic were compatible with OD&D, but 2e was iterative on 1e, and Basic’s variations were all iterative on what came before.

Player’s Option was iterative on 2e, but 3e was a hard break, using an entirely new core mechanic. 3.5e was iterative on 3e, and even Bo9S with its pocket ruleset that works more like 4e was iterative and built to be compatible with 3e d20 products. Pathfinder 1e too was iterative on 3e d20.

4e used the d20 system, but was a hard break from the 3e game mechanics in most ways. But each year of 4e showed how the system could accommodate subsystems that weren’t necessarily the standardised AEDU progressions from PH1.

5e was a hard break again, working to try to unify the player base (it mostly succeeded). And over at Paizo, Pathfinder 2e was a hard break from Pathfinder 1e as it used a system more akin to 4e than 3e.

They’ve already said this is not a hard break from 5e. It doesn’t matter what they call it - it’s going to be iterative upon 5e books. HOW iterative is an argument we really can’t come to a conclusion on because we can’t agree on how iterative the previous edition revisions were from their baseline editions. 

So feel free to keep arguing that BECMI isn’t iterative on Basic but just the same thing. That’s literally proving my point. We can’t measure the iterativeness. So using terms like 5.25e based on a goalpost of Pathfinder = 3.75e is not really useful or provable, since Pathfinder’s differences from 3.5e aren’t “smaller” than 3.5e from 3e nor a halfway step between 3.5e and 4e. It was literally a fanon term created because they wanted to make the connection back to 3.5e and that was the only “decimal” edition.


----------



## Charlaquin

CleverNickName said:


> I predict a lot of disappointed "6E" hopefuls in the coming months...



Yeah, I don’t think the changes are going to be nearly as significant as a lot of people are hoping for. Bringing some stuff up to date with Tasha’s, yes. Some minor tweaks to improve classes/subclasses that perform poorly in player satisfaction, probably. Rebalancing, probably not. Changes to core systems, definitely not.


----------



## Marc_C

They did say, a while back, 5e was the last edition of D&D. Considering what was said yesterday the changes are more like 5.1 than 5.5 and not at all a 6e. Minor tweaks and no sweeping changes to the system.


----------



## Nefermandias

Marc_C said:


> They did say, a while back, 5e was the last edition of D&D. Considering what was said yesterday the changes are more like 5.1 than 5.5 and not at all a 6e. Minor tweaks and no sweeping changes to the system.



Even if the official name never changes again, over time the system would have accumulated enough gradual changes to the point of being completely unrecognizable when compared to when it was first released in 2014.


----------



## Lyxen

Nefermandias said:


> You are wrong, though.
> Moldvay's Basic and Mentzer's basic are indeed different.




And if you're playing the first, you are not playing B/X since it does not include an X.



reelo said:


> That is wrong. "Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X" is different from "Mentzer Basic and Expert".




AFAIK, there is no Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X, these never produced an Expert Set as part of an official D&D edition.


Marandahir said:


> Sure. But there were tweaks with each republishing of Basic, to the point that RC looks quite different from the form of Basic we met in Isle of Dread.




Except that the Isle of Dread is an Expert Module, so to play it, you need the Expert set that comes with the corresponding BECMI Basic, not another one.



Marandahir said:


> They’ve already said this is not a hard break from 5e. It doesn’t matter what they call it - it’s going to be iterative upon 5e books. HOW iterative is an argument we really can’t come to a conclusion on because we can’t agree on how iterative the previous edition revisions were from their baseline editions.




Honestly, this is why most of the discussions these days are pretty pointless. It should not be a hard break, and considering their (understandable) reluctance in breaking something that works fine, it's a high probability 



Marandahir said:


> So feel free to keep arguing that BECMI isn’t iterative on Basic but just the same thing.




It's not what I'm arguing, the only thing I'm saying is that if you are really playing B/X, you are playing BECMI at low levels, and it's therefore not iterative. After that, that the Basic of BECMI was iterative on Moldway's, I don't think anyone disputes this.



Marandahir said:


> That’s literally proving my point. We can’t measure the iterativeness. So using terms like 5.25e based on a goalpost of Pathfinder = 3.75e is not really useful or provable, since Pathfinder’s differences from 3.5e aren’t “smaller” than 3.5e from 3e nor a halfway step between 3.5e and 4e. It was literally a fanon term created because they wanted to make the connection back to 3.5e and that was the only “decimal” edition.




And this is why I don't like 5.5 either.


----------



## Marc_C

Lyxen said:


> And if you're playing the first, you are not playing B/X since it does not include an X. AFAIK, there is no Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X, these never produced an Expert Set as part of an official D&D edition.



Cook and Marsh did publish an Expert (1981) box for TSR, compatible with Basic (1981) Moldvay which I bought.






They never published the promised *Companion* box because of the switch (relaunch) to BECMI Mentzer


----------



## Nefermandias

Marc_C said:


> Cook and Marsh did publish an Expert (1981) box for TSR, compatible with Basic (1981) Moldvay which I bought.
> 
> View attachment 144547
> 
> They never published the promised *Companion* box because of the switch (relaunch) to BECMI Mentzer



Cook/Marsh Expert deniers are a new thing for me...


----------



## Charlaquin

Marc_C said:


> They did say, a while back, 5e was the last edition of D&D.



What? Who said that? When?


Marc_C said:


> Considering what was said yesterday the changes are more like 5.1 than 5.5 and not at all a 6e. Minor tweaks and no sweeping changes to the system.



Agreed. I think they’re going to incorporate some of the changes from Tasha’s like having features that grant inherent spellcasting also allow you to cast them with your spell slots, racial ASIs being floating, etc. and maybe some small tweaks to bring some of the more maligned classes and subclasses up to par, but no major changes to subsystems.


----------



## Dire Bare

Marc_C said:


> Cook and Marsh did publish an Expert (1981) box for TSR, compatible with Basic (1981) Moldvay which I bought.
> 
> View attachment 144547
> 
> They never published the promised *Companion* box because of the switch (relaunch) to BECMI Mentzer



Yep, thanks. I was beginning to think I was crazy . . . .

That there's the "X" in B/X.

I started with the Elmore cover Basic Set, and never really looked backwards (closely, anyways) . . . . is this B/X Expert Set identical with the later BECMI Expert Set, other than the cover? I'm pretty sure they are different, but haven't read through the older one. Heck, it's been a while since I've read through any of those older rulesets, even the ones I owned as a kid.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Marandahir said:


> It’s 5.5e.
> If they call it 6e, it’s in name only.
> This is more like BECMI, Player’s Option, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.



5ssentials? 


Horwath said:


> Tasha's is already "soft" 5.5e



Not at all. It isn’t even quite on the level of late 3.5 vs early 3.5. It’s just some new stuff and some minor errata. 


Charlaquin said:


> Essentials was fully compatible with earlier 4e. It worked great standalone (and was cleaner that way IMO), but you could use it with any material you wanted from before Essentials without causing any issues at all.



Yep. Once Essentials came out, every 4e game we played had “E+” and pre “E+” material. 


Charlaquin said:


> Actually, I kinda like the abbreviation 50AE.



Yeah that works. Way better than D&D Ultimate, my dumb 5ssentials above!


----------



## overgeeked

Lyxen said:


> BECMI is Basic Expert amongst other, and the Rules Cyclopaedia is just everything combined, it's not compatibility, it's the same game.



Not according to the designers and writers of those editions of those games.

Cook Expert: “The following is a summary of new material in the 2nd edition of D&D Basic not found in this book...”

Mentzer Basic: “This edition has been completely revised to introduce the game to you, step by step...”

And just check the differences between the Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic, and Mentzer Basic sets to see how much thry differ. Check thief skills as a great place to see how identical they are. Or skills. Or weapon proficiencies. RC is a collection of BECM stuff, with I rewritten, but RC is not the same as B/X nor is it the same as Holmes’ Basic.


----------



## overgeeked

Lyxen said:


> And if you're playing the first, you are not playing B/X since it does not include an X.
> 
> AFAIK, there is no Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X, these never produced an Expert Set as part of an official D&D edition.



You’d be really, really wrong. Like a simple Google search away from knowing. 


Lyxen said:


> Except that the Isle of Dread is an Expert Module, so to play it, you need the Expert set that comes with the corresponding BECMI Basic, not another one.



Except the one in Cook’s Expert set. The X in B/X.


Lyxen said:


> It's not what I'm arguing, the only thing I'm saying is that if you are really playing B/X, you are playing BECMI at low levels, and it's therefore not iterative. After that, that the Basic of BECMI was iterative on Moldway's, I don't think anyone disputes this.



LOL. Try reading up on the editions of D&D you haven’t played before posting about them.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep. Once Essentials came out, every 4e game we played had “E+” and pre “E+” material.



I really liked E+ only, but yeah, there was absolutely no reason you couldn’t use them together.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> I really liked E+ only, but yeah, there was absolutely no reason you couldn’t use them together.



Yeah. I mean I guess if you really stuck to the adventuring day guidelines and like, _really_ paid attention to the nitty gritty balance between characters in an optimized games, the differences were maybe an issue? 

But yeah our games were improved dramatically by being able to show the guy who gets burned out by crunchy complexity options like the Slayer, Hunter, Thief, etc.  

Honestly E+ with bounded accuracy and a decreased HP treadmill, and 5e style feats (not 5e style ASI levels, just fewer and bigger feats), and just…almost no stacking numerical bonuses outside of the effects of powers and class features in play, and you’d have the best tradition TTRPG ever, IMO.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah. I mean I guess if you really stuck to the adventuring day guidelines and like, _really_ paid attention to the nitty gritty balance between characters in an optimized games, the differences were maybe an issue?



E+ was definitely less tightly balanced than pre-E+, so I suppose it _might_ have been a bit of an issue for highly optimized groups. But really, it wasn’t such a big disparity as to cause issues for the vast majority. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> But yeah our games were improved dramatically by being able to show the guy who gets burned out by crunchy complexity options like the Slayer, Hunter, Thief, etc.



Oh, absolutely!


doctorbadwolf said:


> Honestly E+ with bounded accuracy and a decreased HP treadmill, and 5e style feats (not 5e style ASI levels, just fewer and bigger feats), and just…almost no stacking numerical bonuses outside of the effects of powers and class features in play, and you’d have the best tradition TTRPG ever, IMO.



YES! I agree 100%.


----------



## pming

Hiya!

While it is true that there was no "C" for the "B/X" series, one Jonathan Becker created one ( B/X Companion - Running Beagle Games | DriveThruRPG.com ), which I bought (two dead-tree versions...or maybe three, would have to check) for myself and table. It's actually pretty well done and I have no problems including it with any B/X game I run.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Marc_C

Dire Bare said:


> Yep, thanks. I was beginning to think I was crazy . . . .
> 
> That there's the "X" in B/X.
> 
> I started with the Elmore cover Basic Set, and never really looked backwards (closely, anyways) . . . . is this B/X Expert Set identical with the later BECMI Expert Set, other than the cover? I'm pretty sure they are different, but haven't read through the older one. Heck, it's been a while since I've read through any of those older rulesets, even the ones I owned as a kid.



They are not identical. Moldvay mentions using miniatures while Mentzer omits mentioning them. There are other small changes and corrections. The biggest difference is Mentzer introduced the solitary adventure to teach how to play - because TSR was receiving too many letters from buyers who didn't understand how to play D&D.


----------



## Marc_C

Charlaquin said:


> What? Who said that? When?
> 
> Agreed. I think they’re going to incorporate some of the changes from Tasha’s like having features that grant inherent spellcasting also allow you to cast them with your spell slots, racial ASIs being floating, etc. and maybe some small tweaks to bring some of the more maligned classes and subclasses up to par, but no major changes to subsystems.




I was also surprised. Can't recall when and where but it was at the beginning. Probably Mearls. Called it an evergreen edition. The inferred was that they wanted to refine rather than star from scratch ever 5-6 years.


----------



## wicked cool

Ancient history here but back in the day there was a point you could go to say toysrus and buy the basic/expert and Advanced books (all three were on the shelves at that moment) . i remember not having my own copies and purchasing all 3 (at the time i knew it was silly and my friend who introduced me to the game told me so ). Even scarier i can remember where in the store the D&d section was     

My question is will we actually need these 5.1 books? If i go to pax or gencon or even local league play will i notice the edition change?


----------



## Charlaquin

Marc_C said:


> I was also surprised. Can't recall when and where but it was at the beginning. Probably Mearls. Called it an evergreen edition. The inferred was that they wanted to refine rather than star from scratch ever 5-6 years.



Oh, ok. Yeah, I vaguely remember that. It was a naive idea then and we’re beginning to see why. While it’s probably not time for 6e yet, 5e is clearly starting to show its age and to strain under the weight of its own optional rules. The devs have recognized this and are planning a rules revision for 2024. It may not be a full new edition, but it’s going to bring some changes to the base game. And that kind of thing will always be necessary. No RPG can go unchanged forever, or at least not without falling out of the spotlight. Evergreen is an appealing idea for game companies, but it doesn’t work in the RPG space.


----------



## Aldarc

Charlaquin said:


> Oh, ok. Yeah, I vaguely remember that. It was a naive idea then and we’re beginning to see why. While it’s probably not time for 6e yet, 5e is clearly starting to show its age and to strain under the weight of its own optional rules. The devs have recognized this and are planning a rules revision for 2024. It may not be a full new edition, but it’s going to bring some changes to the base game. And that kind of thing will always be necessary. No RPG can go unchanged forever, or at least not without falling out of the spotlight. *Evergreen is an appealing idea for game companies, but it doesn’t work in the RPG space.*



A bit like the idea of an “evergreen MMORPG.”


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> E+ was definitely less tightly balanced than pre-E+, so I suppose it _might_ have been a bit of an issue for highly optimized groups. But really, it wasn’t such a big disparity as to cause issues for the vast majority.



Exactly. 


Charlaquin said:


> Oh, absolutely!
> 
> YES! I agree 100%.



My own game has no treadmill, partly because I got tired of having to rework NPCs math because what I want doesn’t have a tier appropriate iteration, and other treadmill problems.  

Back on topic, one thing I like about pbta games in general is that they rarely have this forced “0 to hero” aspect of traditional games. Even Monster of The Week just kinda allows you to become more durable individually and you get better at succeeding at things, but it doesn’t feel at all like the progression of D&D and It’s derivatives.


----------

