[D&D] What's left for 6th edition?

[Endarire]

Yes, sixth edition.

Greetings, all!

D&D has experienced its roots (1E), its tremendous expansion of settings and rules (2E), its standardized structure with plenty of room for creativity and modularity (3.x, Pathfinder), its attempt to mimic WoW (4E), and now a reboot of 2E/3E with simpler, better tested, and more intuitive mechanics (5E).

Having played 5E, I don't see anything that obviously needs a major fix in a new edition, and, from what I've heard, WotC has no announced plans to release more pure rulebooks - just adventures and patches.

While 5E may be the last official edition of D&D (and I doubt it, because of how profitable D&D is, and, y'know, it's D&D), what do you think will be core features of 6E? At present, I don't know.

[Wartex1]

If there is a true 6th Edition, I don't have any idea what it would fix. I mean, the only thing that 5th edition is missing is extremely high-power gameplay and more combat complexity. Both could easily be done in patches and supplements, but I don't really see those as flaws at all. 5E is elegant in its simplicity, with only a few things needing fixing like the Beastmaster.

[JAL_1138]

Tangent: 2e arguably didn't get much more in the way of rules in its core; combat got somewhat simpler than 1e due to streamlining initiative and surprise while removing segments. Did get a bucketload more splats later, though. Its page count was much higher due more to writing style and duplicating some information between PHB and DMG, as well as (I think) quite a bit more spells.

I would say we'll get a 5.5 before we get a 6e. 5e is quite good--I personally favor 2e but I quite enjoy 5e--but it does have several poorly-written spells, class features, and feats, and one fairly poorly-designed (or at least nonsensically designed) subclass (Beastmaster). All of these are pretty clear candidates for errata, and it's likely that eventually it'll all be collected and worked into a Revised Version.

6e could go back to 4e levels of boardgaminess, or it could swing toward being even less crunchy and more Theater-of-the-Mind friendly than 5e is (with rough ballparks like "close range" or "long range" instead of 5' increments on measurement).

[Hiro Protagonest]

its attempt to mimic WoW (4E)

[Grinner]

Having played 5E, I don't see anything that obviously needs a major fix in a new edition...

Just give it a little more time. I'm sure we'll come up with something eventually.

[Mando Knight]

It was, as much as 3rd was an attempt to copy Diablo and 5th was obvious pandering to the people who left D&D for Pathfinder and other retro-clone style systems.

[Bard1cKnowledge]

make goblin a race maybe add two more classes, like a summoner or another ranged melee combatant

[woodlandkammao]

A damn crafting system

[goto124]

A damn crafting system

I read that as a Damned crafting system. As in, a crafting system for demons, devils, and other Infernal beings.

[SpectralDerp]

It was, as much as 3rd was an attempt to copy Diablo and 5th was obvious pandering to the people who left D&D for Pathfinder and other retro-clone style systems.

So, may I ask for the similarities between 4e and WoW? Does 4e feature massive multiplayer, grinding, PvP battlegrounds and arenas, a tool to find strangers that form a group to clear a dungeon, bosses that require groups of 10,20,25 or 40 players, travel via flying mounds, aggro tables and ranges for monsters, "kill a bunch of orcs and bring me their heads"-quests where only every other orc will have a lootable head, a focus on content for level-capped characters, starting areas for each race, two opposing factions to divide the playerbase, abilities that recharge during combat every X turns, repeatable daily content, regular raises to the level cap via splats that obsolete previous content, a crafting system with leveled professions, or any of the features typically found in WoW-clone MMORPGs?

What's that you say? No to all of these, but there are specialized roles like defenders which don't work like tanks work in WoW, leaders which don't work like healers do in WoW and were in the game since day one, controllers which don't exist in WoW and strikers which also exist in every rpg ever made? Yeah, that totally emulates WoW, it's like I'm back in my old raiding guild.

[BWR]

So, may I ask for the similarities between 4e and WoW? Does 4e feature massive multiplayer, grinding, PvP battlegrounds and arenas, a tool to find strangers that form a group to clear a dungeon, bosses that require groups of 10,20,25 or 40 players, travel via flying mounds, aggro tables and ranges for monsters, "kill a bunch of orcs and bring me their heads"-quests where only every other orc will have a lootable head, a focus on content for level-capped characters, starting areas for each race, two opposing factions to divide the playerbase, abilities that recharge during combat every X turns, repeatable daily content, regular raises to the level cap via splats that obsolete previous content, a crafting system with leveled professions, or any of the features typically found in WoW-clone MMORPGs?

What's that you say? No to all of these, but there are specialized roles like defenders which don't work like tanks work in WoW, leaders which don't work like healers do in WoW and were in the game since day one, controllers which don't exist in WoW and strikers which also exist in every rpg ever made? Yeah, that totally emulates WoW, it's like I'm back in my old raiding guild.

The feeling that 4e was a WoW was mostly due to the at-will/encounter/daily power use which is far more reminiscient of MMOs in general than the traditional combat and Vancian casting from previous editions. Classes were also designed with combat roles in mind rather than fantasy literature archetypes (another MMO element) and there was far less variation in classes (again, more MMO than earlier D&D) since they all basically worked the same way, and everything was made to be balanced against each other from the get go rather than accepting that some classes were better than others (more MMO mind-set than previous D&D editions). So yeah, it's a lot closer to an MMO than a lot of us like.
Oh, and it royally messed up thirty odd years of stuff (FR, elves-eladrin, etc.) removing it even more from earlier D&D.

[SpectralDerp]

The A/E/U system is nothing like having abilities with cooldowns outside of rare cases where abilities habe 10 minute cooldowns used during fights that don't last longer than that. There are no rotations and priority-systems are obly hinted at through abilities like hunter's quarry or warlock's curse.

While the combat abilities of classes were designed with combat roles in mid, this is not new to 4th edition. Groups without a character with the ability to heal are very much discouraged and the cleric, being the go-to class for many groups, was initially added to DnD not due to inspiration through literature (of which there is effectively none), but because the game was supposed to have a counterpart to the Vampire class, which exists in 4e together with dozens of others which did occured in previous editions and are common archetypes in fantasy literature. Roles were also far from strict in 4e and neitjer are they in MMOs, WoW classes have access to 1-4 specs that fill 1-4 roles and classes in a game like Rift are even more flexible than that.

"Classes were balanced" is also not a bad thing, not something you typically find in MMOs and something that definitely didn't happen in 4E. Similar things can be said about "they worked the same".

"Messing up existing lore" has also nothig to do with "ferling like a MMO".

As for the OP, I honestly don't see a place for DnD to go at all, I think it's a relic of the past that primarily stays alive through nostalgia rather than quality (altough having sucky competitors helps), ironically very much like a certain MMO.

[Cluedrew]

I think as long as people love the game, there will always be a sequel/new edition.

What's left? They may try something crazy (but then with what happened with 4th, that might not happen for a while), more likely it will be a rebalance with more and more fine tuning. Trying to get the classes balanced, easy to use and yet all unique and interesting. They will never get all of those things (not perfectly at least) but I expect them to try given their track record.

[Hawkstar]

I think D&D 6e, if there is one, will be a reiteration of D&D, taking and reinterpreting the rules in light of how the game changes and adapts from the new ruleset.

When D&D 3e was written, it was expected to play similar to AD&D. 4e was a reaction to accomodate the way 3e was played. And 5e was a reaction to try to go 'back' to older-school D&D.

I, for one, am hoping the Will/Fort/Reflex save system gets replaced with some sort of "Save Vs. X" again, because "Make a Save Vs. Exposition" is funnier and less wordy than "Will Save to Resist Exposition."

[Ashtagon]

D&D has experienced its roots (1E), its tremendous expansion of settings and rules (2E), its standardized structure with plenty of room for creativity and modularity (3.x, Pathfinder), its attempt to mimic WoW (4E), and now a reboot of 2E/3E with simpler, better tested, and more intuitive mechanics (5E).

It's more like...

0th edition (the white box): roots
1st edition: setting expansion
2nd edition: lawyers' coup against Gygax (seriously, the whole point of 2e was to get his name off the book covers)
3rd edition: standardisation and modularity
4th edition: Gainaxed
5th edition: reboot

[Psyren]

Controllers do exist in WoW, and there was a time in the past when you needed that role filled to survive a dungeon. Then they nerfed it so that you only needed that for heroics+, and then nerfed it further so that you only needed it for raids (and proper raids at that, not LFR.) This has led to the unfortunate/unintended scenario where entire swaths of players make it to maximum level without have any clue how to use their class' entire toolkit.

WoW informing 4e's design is not an insult to 4e, any more than Diablo's influence on 3e was an insult there. At the end of the day they're a business, and keeping up with trends is how businesses survive.

[Frozen_Feet]

Speaking as a person who all but ignored 4th edition and only has passing interest in the 5th, I feel the question is more than a bit pointless to ask at this point. Nevermind that 5th Ed only just go out, Pathfinder and OSR would've filled (and to extent, do fill) the niches of D&D-like gaming even in its absence. What 5th Ed has going for it at this point is mostly brand name and an air of officiality. I think we could easily go 10, even 20 years before a new version of D&D is in the slightest bit required.

[Hawkstar]

What 5th Ed has going for it at this point is mostly brand name and an air of officiality.

And ease of play, and a blend of old-school and contemporary feel, and...

[Frozen_Feet]

And ease of play, and a blend of old-school and contemporary feel, and...

Compared to 3rd and 4th editions, maybe.

Compared to a lot of OSR products? Hah.

[Milo v3]

Maybe something like 5e, but where you can do different playstyles rather than just lower scale power. I doubt they'd go back to the giant amounts of crunch of previous editions immediately.

5th was obvious pandering to the people who left D&D for Pathfinder.

Actually it seems like the opossite. I mean... pathfinder is super rules everywhere crunchy-ness.

[Psyren]

While 5e is not my personal cup of tea, it is very robust and a great mainstream rules-light product. There's just enough complexity to make it interesting while not being off-putting to DMs without the kind of encyclopedic memory needed for a fast rules-heavy experience. Anyone who felt looking things up or tracking multiple conditions in 3.5 was burdensome will not be any more satisfied with PF, but 5e will scratch that itch quite well. Bounded accuracy and the advantage/disadvantage mechanics, for all my issues with them, are ultimately much more streamlined ways to handle conflict resolution than anything previous editions provided, including 4e.

I could personally see myself playing 5e if my IRL friends insisted on it (thankfully they are still as fond of PF as I am, at least for now) and enjoying it. I still prefer rules-heavy because my brain is wired for it, but 5e has just enough variety in its crunch to keep me interested.

My issue with rules-light games is that there's no real room for them to grow. It's all in our imaginations/"theater of the mind," and that arena has stayed pretty much constant over the decades. Rules-heavy meanwhile will only get better as technology improves, because more and more you can use computers and platforms like roll20 to aid you with tracking all the nuts and bolts that rules-heavy games provide. By clearly defining things like how lightning and vision, cover and concealment, altitude and leverage etc. work, you make those things easier to standardize and thus to program.

Actually it seems like the opossite. I mean... pathfinder is super rules everywhere crunchy-ness.

That. 5e was aimed at (I dislike the pejorative term "pandering") folks who either didn't like Pathfinder, or who only turned to it out of desperation because they didn't like 4e and 3.5 was out of print/not being updated. I think targeting that segment was the smartest thing WotC has done in a long while.

[Amphetryon]

Speaking as a person who all but ignored 4th edition and only has passing interest in the 5th, I feel the question is more than a bit pointless to ask at this point. Nevermind that 5th Ed only just go out, Pathfinder and OSR would've filled (and to extent, do fill) the niches of D&D-like gaming even in its absence. What 5th Ed has going for it at this point is mostly brand name and an air of officiality. I think we could easily go 10, even 20 years before a new version of D&D is in the slightest bit required.

Required? What does 'required' mean in regards to the release of a new version of a game, exactly? 2e wasn't required; 3e wasn't required. . . heck, the version generally called 1e wasn't required. There was no requirement that the game progress beyond Chainmail.

[Flickerdart]

There will be a new edition of D&D for the same reason there will be more of everything any business puts out - growth. WotC knows they need to do better than just "recapture the people that jumped ship with 3rd and 4th edition" so 6th will come out as a response to whatever they perceive the next demographic they want to capture likes.

[Vitruviansquid]

3.5 and earlier editions are kind of like Street Fighter 2; they were deeply flawed in the sense that a lot of design decisions in them resulted in accidental consequences, or "exploits," (combos weren't originally intended to be a thing in Street Fighter 2). Earlier DnD also didn't adhere really tightly to game design philosophies that would today be considered sort of standard and objectively good. However, both games ended up popular because those accidental consequences and design "failures" ended up opening a lot of room for player creativity and raising the skill ceiling.

4e, on the other hand, is a very tightly designed game. Everything in it is pretty clearly and obviously purposive: each spell does exactly this effect in order to make players feel like their class when they use it, each power boost you unlock has exactly some amount of benefit that is countered exactly by the monster level formula, each feat and perk is mathematically made as close to the others as possible, and so on. Sure, there are flaws here and there with some options, but by and large it meant 4e games had more competing options to choose from, had more instances of decision-making, had more tolerance for skilled and unskilled players in the same game, and all that good stuff. This made a game that was fun on its own, but kind of unrecognizable to earlier DnD players, because 3.5 players have learned to see evidence of that skill ceiling where you can take a spell and crack most encounters wide open whereas 4e players see it where you get many options of similar virtue that you have to pick between. Then, 3.5 players see variety in different resource systems (I've never understood why folks have gotten attached to this as a major virtue of 3.5, it seems quite pointless to me) while 4e players see variety in different viable options.

So 5e being philosophically more like 3.5 probably indicates that the Dungeons and Dragons brand is done with 4e's philosophy for good. If 6th, 7th, 8th editions ever come out, they will probably be significantly less different from previous editions than 4e was from 3.5. This is kind of a shame, in my opinion, because 4e did what it did extremely well, and in the realm of RPG's, there are few developers large enough to make a project resembling 4e.

Aside: Anyone who thinks 4e copied WoW either hasn't read 4e or hasn't played WoW.

[Psyren]

Aside: Anyone who thinks 4e copied WoW either hasn't read 4e or hasn't played WoW.

I've done both, and while I think "copied" might be a bit strong, the influence of the MMO surge that was taking place during 4e's design is undeniable.

Required? What does 'required' mean in regards to the release of a new version of a game, exactly? 2e wasn't required; 3e wasn't required. . . heck, the version generally called 1e wasn't required. There was no requirement that the game progress beyond Chainmail.

New editions are required. Without 2e, 3e and 4e to keep things fresh and experiment, D&D - and with it, perhaps the entire hobby - wouldn't have had the exposure needed to garner mainstream attention or been able to attract the talent it needed to iterate on the formula. We wouldn't be able to afford dedicated designers or developers who can write and playtest rules as full-time jobs, and wouldn't have been able to afford the most talented artists, mathematicians and wordsmiths that benefit new and old players alike. The industry as a whole would have suffered.

[SpectralDerp]

Controllers do exist in WoW, and there was a time in the past when you needed that role filled to survive a dungeon.

The existence of control abilities is not the same as the existence of a dedicated controller spec. So no, the role "controller" does not exist and has never existed in WoW.

[Vitruviansquid]

Well if you want to switch the word to "influence," sure. A lot of stuff is influenced by a lot of other stuff. What I'm finding silly is people saying stuff like "its attempt to mimic WoW," and "4e was a WoW."

[Tengu_temp]

attempt to mimic WoW (4E)

Woosh, there goes all attempt at keeping this a neutral discussion.

Considering that since Essentials, every DND product panders more and more to oldschool grognards, I won't be surprised if 6e will have Elf as a class and -4 strength for female characters.

[Psyren]

The existence of control abilities is not the same as the existence of a dedicated controller spec. So no, the role "controller" does not exist and has never existed in WoW.

You're wrong - it was a dedicated role you needed in the party at one time. I remember the days when DPS shamans, paladins and warlocks had trouble getting groups because they didn't have any control abilities back then (spells like Hex didn't exist yet) and non-Paladin tanks had difficulty maintaining aggro on more than two mobs.

The fact that those controllers could DPS when their control wasn't needed is irrelevant, because they can do that in 4e too.

Considering that since Essentials, every DND product panders more and more to oldschool grognards, I won't be surprised if 6e will have Elf as a class and -4 strength for female characters.

As amusing as this would be, about the only way this could work would be as some kind of ploy to make 5e even more popular.

[Tengu_temp]

Show of hands - is there anyone who compares DND 4e to WoW and doesn't mean it in a derogatory way? Be honest.