What I hope they do for 6e DnD

[Cluedrew]

It's easier to get people to play D&D than to play any other game system. I've tried for years to even get a Call of Cthulhu and Shadowrun game going, but everybody just wants to play D&D.

And this is the real reason I think some people would love some massive overhauls to D&D. When you are stuck with people who just want to play D&D (especially when they haven't really tried other things), the game completely changing is a good thing, because it gives you more completely different options. And maybe it will be towards something you like as well.

[Morgana]

I don't really see 5e's slower release making it higher quality honestly. Like, so many of the options are just extremely dull, especially the core ones. Like, they don't really have very interesting flavors or mechanics, and ultimately all feels very samey to me. I'd maybe be more accepting of a slower release if what they did go for was more consistent. But it just feels like some options were released in different stages of production if that makes sense? There are things such as divine strike and potent spellcaster that I just feel don't really work as the designers intended it to, and there's a lot of things that aren't very practical once you actually try to apply them to more realistic scenarios, I feel

[Rhedyn]

I don't really see 5e's slower release making it higher quality honestly. Like, so many of the options are just extremely dull, especially the core ones. Like, they don't really have very interesting flavors or mechanics, and ultimately all feels very samey to me. I'd maybe be more accepting of a slower release if what they did go for was more consistent. But it just feels like some options were released in different stages of production if that makes sense? There are things such as divine strike and potent spellcaster that I just feel don't really work as the designers intended it to, and there's a lot of things that aren't very practical once you actually try to apply them to more realistic scenarios, I feel

I can't speak to the splat books, but the 5e core books have interesting and flavorful class mechanics. My gripe is that they do not work right and create massively overpowered characters.

If 5e mechanics are boring, then I suggest going to games like Ars Magica, Mutants and Masterminds, or high point buy GURPS.

[Ignimortis]

I can't speak to the splat books, but the 5e core books have interesting and flavorful class mechanics. My gripe is that they do not work right and create massively overpowered characters.
.

5e and overpowered? 5e and interesting mechanics for most classes? I didn't expect to post in this thread after explaining my point of view, but your post contradicts everything I know about 5e. Would you explain how 5e characters are overpowered and mechanically interesting? Especially classes like Fighter or Rogue or (oof) Warlock.

Spoiler: On why I don't find 5e's mechanics engaging or interesting

Show

It's just that I recently had a small epiphany about why I dislike 5e - the edition is mostly combat mechanics, and yet 5e combat mechanics usually don't allow you to delete at least one opponent on your turn. That usually means that every enemy feels tough, even when they aren't really supposed to be tough.

I mean, a level 11 kensei monk does 2d10+2d8+28 (so 48 on average without crits) damage in 5e (+3 weapon and 20 DEX), while having a respectable 23 AC. But even CR5 opponents usually have more health than that, and that requires me to blow resources and hit all my attacks (which doesn't always happen, of course). So it takes me two turns to solo-kill one enemy that is not even supposed to be that much of a challenge.

Compare that to three other games I used to play extensively or currently play: 3.5/PF1e, VtM and Shadowrun. I have a soft spot for combat characters anyway, and all of these games actually allow me to utterly demolish at least a single enemy in one turn. Pathfinder, I had a Harbinger who did 100+ damage per round at level 9 if he went all out (and that "all out" usually recharged if he got a kill). VtM - Celerity is basically the "kill this whole room dead" discipline unless you're facing another combat-worthy vampire or werewolves. Shadowrun, well, Street Samurai are almost the epitome of what combat characters should be, IMO.

[Rhedyn]

5e and overpowered? 5e and interesting mechanics for most classes? I didn't expect to post in this thread after explaining my point of view, but your post contradicts everything I know about 5e. Would you explain how 5e characters are overpowered and mechanically interesting? Especially classes like Fighter or Rogue or (oof) Warlock.

Spoiler: On why I don't find 5e's mechanics engaging or interesting

Show

It's just that I recently had a small epiphany about why I dislike 5e - the edition is mostly combat mechanics, and yet 5e combat mechanics usually don't allow you to delete at least one opponent on your turn. That usually means that every enemy feels tough, even when they aren't really supposed to be tough.

I mean, a level 11 kensei monk does 2d10+2d8+28 (so 48 on average without crits) damage in 5e (+3 weapon and 20 DEX), while having a respectable 23 AC. But even CR5 opponents usually have more health than that, and that requires me to blow resources and hit all my attacks (which doesn't always happen, of course). So it takes me two turns to solo-kill one enemy that is not even supposed to be that much of a challenge.

Compare that to three other games I used to play extensively or currently play: 3.5/PF1e, VtM and Shadowrun. I have a soft spot for combat characters anyway, and all of these games actually allow me to utterly demolish at least a single enemy in one turn. Pathfinder, I had a Harbinger who did 100+ damage per round at level 9 if he went all out (and that "all out" usually recharged if he got a kill). VtM - Celerity is basically the "kill this whole room dead" discipline unless you're facing another combat-worthy vampire or werewolves. Shadowrun, well, Street Samurai are almost the epitome of what combat characters should be, IMO.

Oh man, I'm defending 5e right now.

Well first off I agree that combat is boring. The overpowered characters stem a lot from boring sacks-of-hp weak monsters. But I also disagree with the whole balance premise behind the game, 6-8 encounters per long rest. Lawl no, I'm not running that slog, so if you cut the game down to 1-3 encounters per long rest, now every character is OP and the game really can't handle what they are doing (and no, changing the rest variant time doesn't help the mechanics).

Now back when I read the mechanics and thought they looked cool, I looked at 1-20 builds. In practice, the good part of 5e is over by level 4 and campaigns end before 10 without a ton of work by the DM and players just rolling with character destroying houserules.

But with that in mind let's start with Fighter:
Champion is pretty boring until you realize that it is your non-cha focused skill monkey build.

Champion Human Guild Artisan
14 str 14 dex 14 con 14 int 14 wis 11 cha
Skills: Survival, Animal Handling, Insight, Persuasion, Alchemy
Languages: Common, Draconic
Fighting Styles: Dueling, Archery
ASI: +2 str, +2 str, +2str. +2 dex, +2dex, +2dex, +2 con

Aside from the skill system being crap Remarkable Athlete really rounds out the build (you can do things like play every instrument or be pretty good at every craft). Your good (not great) at both melee and range combat, you have tons of attacks, an action surge, second wind, and the ability to re-roll saves. Great stuff (crits are lame but you eventually regenerate health).

Battlemaster is where being mundane is interesting. I would basically always go variant human here and spam feats to go with maneuvers. The only builds I have on me focused on stats though

Vhuman Fighter 16 8 16 10 13 10
Great Weapon Master, +2 str, +2 str, Resilient(Wis), Mounted Combat, Sentinel, +2 con, +2 con

Vhuman(Great Weapon Master, Insight) Battlemaster (Animal Handling, Survival, Cartographer tool’s) Sailor (Athletics, Perception, Navigation tools, Water vehicles) 16 8 16 10 13 10
ASI: Mounted Combatant, +2 str, +2str, Resilient (wisdom), Martial Adept, +2 con, +2con
Maneuvers: Trip Attack, Precision Attack, Riposte, Goading Attack, Menacing Attack, Maneuvering Attack, Commander’s Strike, Distracting Strike, Pushing Attack, Feinting Attack, Evasive Footwork

I'm a big fan of mounted combat, but obviously GWM is essential for any proper DPR build 8d6+60 is a good amount of damage and hitting doesn't become that hard with advantage and a magic sword.

My vision of EKs were diet-wizards, also vhuman to get ritual caster, go defensive style, pick up warcaster, use a shield. Smash foes, spit fireballs, and rock that 21-26 AC before magic items.

For rogues assassin's were boring, but thieves getting that extra use object action was cool along with second story work, but obviously arcane trickers are cooler because they also get magic.

The Warlock is just well designed so I don't get your problem with it. Warlocks and monks are the only good classes in 5e D&D. My personal favorite was going bladelock with vhuman to pick up medium armor and then heavy armor by level 4. By then you have 18 str, 16 Cha and decent damage at both range and melee. The trick with bladelock is to keep your blade as good or better than your EB. Naturally I want with greatsword and dumped dex with heavy armor. Spells round out a good martial kit and cantrips are tons of utility, (minor image).

Nah man 5e read good, it sucked in play for me.

[Willie the Duck]

Spoiler: On why I don't find 5e's mechanics engaging or interesting

Show

It's just that I recently had a small epiphany about why I dislike 5e - the edition is mostly combat mechanics, and yet 5e combat mechanics usually don't allow you to delete at least one opponent on your turn. That usually means that every enemy feels tough, even when they aren't really supposed to be tough.

I mean, a level 11 kensei monk does 2d10+2d8+28 (so 48 on average without crits) damage in 5e (+3 weapon and 20 DEX), while having a respectable 23 AC. But even CR5 opponents usually have more health than that, and that requires me to blow resources and hit all my attacks (which doesn't always happen, of course). So it takes me two turns to solo-kill one enemy that is not even supposed to be that much of a challenge.

Compare that to three other games I used to play extensively or currently play: 3.5/PF1e, VtM and Shadowrun. I have a soft spot for combat characters anyway, and all of these games actually allow me to utterly demolish at least a single enemy in one turn. Pathfinder, I had a Harbinger who did 100+ damage per round at level 9 if he went all out (and that "all out" usually recharged if he got a kill). VtM - Celerity is basically the "kill this whole room dead" discipline unless you're facing another combat-worthy vampire or werewolves. Shadowrun, well, Street Samurai are almost the epitome of what combat characters should be, IMO.

Spoiler: well,...

Show

Being able to one-round-kill a single other opponent* is a rather specific definition of overpowered, or of engaging or interesting combat mechanics. Given that this is all in terms of personal opinion, it's certainly not wrong. However, again, it's a very specific bar to set. Do you have any specific reasoning behind this, or is it straight up just what you want in a system?
*let's say 'neither deliberate speed-bump nor BBEG'

Oh man, I'm defending 5e right now.

I know, right? I consider it the Honda Civic of RPG systems, yet I end up defending it all the time, simply because there is so much complaining about it not being <this other thing that is readily available and WotC trying to turn D&D into it would alienate huge swaths of D&D fans>. I have the same situation with GURPS -- I neither love it nor hate it, but I have this one friend with an irrational hatred of it and keeps dumping on it, so I end up coming up with defenses for a system on which I have no strong opinion.

[Ignimortis]

Oh man, I'm defending 5e right now.

Well first off I agree that combat is boring. The overpowered characters stem a lot from boring sacks-of-hp weak monsters. But I also disagree with the whole balance premise behind the game, 6-8 encounters per long rest. Lawl no, I'm not running that slog, so if you cut the game down to 1-3 encounters per long rest, now every character is OP and the game really can't handle what they are doing (and no, changing the rest variant time doesn't help the mechanics).

Now back when I read the mechanics and thought they looked cool, I looked at 1-20 builds. In practice, the good part of 5e is over by level 4 and campaigns end before 10 without a ton of work by the DM and players just rolling with character destroying houserules.

*snip*

Nah man 5e read good, it sucked in play for me.

Oh, in that sense, yeah, I would agree that characters are OP if you just let them nova the whole time. That's why I don't like "longer-term resource management" and "typical adventuring days". The best resource to build stuff around is actions - you get them all the time, you spend them all the time. It's active and engaging, IF you have cool actions to do.

That's why I said that 5e doesn't actually seem too interesting in mechanics - because there aren't really many good things to do with your actions. Fighter is 90% "I attack", so's Rogue (with interspersed Stealth rolls sometimes). Warlock is basically "I Eldritch Blast" when you're out of spells (and you're almost always out of spells). Sure, there are theoretically other things you can do with your actions...but they aren't as good. Monk is okay, because at least you can run on walls and ceilings, teleport if you're a shadowmonk, really abuse shove/grapple if you're open hand, etc. It's not far from other martials in "I attack" ratio, but you've got ways to use those things in unusual ways. Spellcasters are fine, of course, because spells are always fun and tactically complex. But I don't like spellcasters, at least not overtly magicky ones. So I'd want theoretical 6e to include a martial class that doesn't revolve around basic attacks. Maybe even something like martial adepts.

Spoiler: well,...

Show

Being able to one-round-kill a single other opponent* is a rather specific definition of overpowered, or of engaging or interesting combat mechanics. Given that this is all in terms of personal opinion, it's certainly not wrong. However, again, it's a very specific bar to set. Do you have any specific reasoning behind this, or is it straight up just what you want in a system?
*let's say 'neither deliberate speed-bump nor BBEG'

Spoiler: On one-hit kills

Show

One-hit-kills are more about characters feeling powerful than it being actually engaging mechanics - I'll be the first one to admit that my VtM combat strategies often were nothing unusual - pop Celerity 4, allocate one or two actions to dodging, go to town with basic attack rolls. The major considerations were mostly uncoupled from my own abilities and related to the circumstances - how much blood I can spend, how many enemies are there, what weapons they have (can I soak that somewhat reliably?), their positioning, etc. But making a room look like a meat blender just exploded was nice. Overpowered, of course - in a good way.

However, there's also a degree of underlying system motivation to do that. In all of those games, a lucky stray shot/spell could really mess you up. In 3.PF it's mostly save-or-die spells, so I have to get to the mage fast and kill him right now. Shadowrun/VtM, each attack is potentially lethal (even if my dodges and soak are through the roof, something can always slip by), so reducing the amount of people attacking you ASAP is also really important. 5e? There are very few save-or-suck spells and most monsters don't get those. They get attacks which probably can hit you on a 12 or so, and do about 1/8-1/4th of your HP in damage. You hit them on a 6 or an 8, and do 1/3-1/2 of their HP in damage. It's much closer to padded sumo and attrition tactics than rocket tag, and I'd prefer the combat to be on the taggier side (but not all the way there, I like long campaigns with developed characters).

As for engaging mechanics, it might be obvious by this point, I'm a huge fan of martial adepts in 3.5/PF. They combine some utility and tactical complexity of spellcasters with "hey, I'm swinging a giant sword", so that they're both martial and not reduced to just basic-attacking all the time.

[malachi]

First off, what I'd want 6e to do is give each race some active thing they can do to feel like their race actually mattered. +1 to all stats (standard human in 5e) is boring.
Granted, what counts as "active" is subjective - I think things like a dwarf's stonecunning is active, because it causes players to jump in and say "hey, this is stone. I know what it's like" and then lick the rocks. Other people might go so far as to say you need an active power like races got in 4e. But elves (trace only sort of counts), halflings, humans, and half-elves don't have anything you can actively do, and several races have either underwhelming things (dragonborn) or conditional things (dwarves, gnomes, half-orcs) to do.


Secondly, I'd want darkvision to change. Don't make a single feature so important that not having it is almost a penalty. It shouldn't let PCs see into darkness uninhibited, and should just let them see into dim light without penalties.
Alternately, tie all darkvision to some kind of light sensitivity: darkvision lets you see fine in dim light, but have disadvantage in bright light (without caring if it comes from the sun or not) or darkness.



Third, if D&D is going to claim that all three pillars (combat, exploration, social) are equally important, it should give each class something mechanically cool to contribute to each pillar, beyond just "you have bigger numbers when you do this". As it is, all classes seem to be intended to contribute roughly evenly to combat, while certain classes (rogue, ranger, bard, other spell-casters) are intended to also contribute to other pillars in interesting ways.

Additionally, if 6E is going to retain the "adventuring day" philosophy (which seems to be inherent in a Vancian / spell slot / spell point / daily use system), then it should give guidance to DMs on how to make non-combat encounters that actually interact with the party's depletable resources. In 5e, rogues are good skillmonkeys, but the only resource they expend when using their skills is HP when they accidentally set off a trap instead of disarming it.

Maybe, and this would be a huge stretch that would look a bit too much like 4e, every class should share a common resource pool of "spectacular points". Spellcasters would use spectacular pointsas spell slots. Non-spellcasters would use spectacular pointsfor things in combat can be more interesting than "I attack and deal damage", just like spellcasters have options for more interesting things than "I cast a spell and deal damage" (but have both as valid options). Non-spellcasters would use spectacular pointsout of combat for doing things that are more interesting than "I roll a d20+mod+prof", just like spellcasters have spells that can do things that are more interesting than that (but would still have the option of just rolling a skill check, just like in combat there is always the option of using cantrips or standard attacks).
As a corollary of this, that allows different levels of pacing beyond determining how long it takes to rest, but also impacting how much you get back on a rest. For instance, if a GM wants a grittier game, they could say that you only recover 1/2 of your spectacular points on a rest, or maybe get back 2x your spectacular points for a superhero game.

Also, maybe you could create patchwork characters (which might go against the archetype model of D&D) where you choose: Race, Background, Combat class, Exploration class, Social class. So you could, theoretically, have someone who uses all types of magic, or someone who only used combat magic, or only used social magic.



6e should make sure that all classes have fluff and mechanics that are interesting and match (unlike 5e beastmaster rangers who have a beast that feels less alive than the familiar or mount created by wizard or paladin spells).

[Rhedyn]

Oh, in that sense, yeah, I would agree that characters are OP if you just let them nova the whole time. That's why I don't like "longer-term resource management" and "typical adventuring days". The best resource to build stuff around is actions - you get them all the time, you spend them all the time. It's active and engaging, IF you have cool actions to do.

That's why I said that 5e doesn't actually seem too interesting in mechanics - because there aren't really many good things to do with your actions. Fighter is 90% "I attack", so's Rogue (with interspersed Stealth rolls sometimes). Warlock is basically "I Eldritch Blast" when you're out of spells (and you're almost always out of spells). Sure, there are theoretically other things you can do with your actions...but they aren't as good. Monk is okay, because at least you can run on walls and ceilings, teleport if you're a shadowmonk, really abuse shove/grapple if you're open hand, etc. It's not far from other martials in "I attack" ratio, but you've got ways to use those things in unusual ways. Spellcasters are fine, of course, because spells are always fun and tactically complex. But I don't like spellcasters, at least not overtly magicky ones. So I'd want theoretical 6e to include a martial class that doesn't revolve around basic attacks. Maybe even something like martial adepts.

Spoiler: On one-hit kills

Show

One-hit-kills are more about characters feeling powerful than it being actually engaging mechanics - I'll be the first one to admit that my VtM combat strategies often were nothing unusual - pop Celerity 4, allocate one or two actions to dodging, go to town with basic attack rolls. The major considerations were mostly uncoupled from my own abilities and related to the circumstances - how much blood I can spend, how many enemies are there, what weapons they have (can I soak that somewhat reliably?), their positioning, etc. But making a room look like a meat blender just exploded was nice. Overpowered, of course - in a good way.

However, there's also a degree of underlying system motivation to do that. In all of those games, a lucky stray shot/spell could really mess you up. In 3.PF it's mostly save-or-die spells, so I have to get to the mage fast and kill him right now. Shadowrun/VtM, each attack is potentially lethal (even if my dodges and soak are through the roof, something can always slip by), so reducing the amount of people attacking you ASAP is also really important. 5e? There are very few save-or-suck spells and most monsters don't get those. They get attacks which probably can hit you on a 12 or so, and do about 1/8-1/4th of your HP in damage. You hit them on a 6 or an 8, and do 1/3-1/2 of their HP in damage. It's much closer to padded sumo and attrition tactics than rocket tag, and I'd prefer the combat to be on the taggier side (but not all the way there, I like long campaigns with developed characters).

As for engaging mechanics, it might be obvious by this point, I'm a huge fan of martial adepts in 3.5/PF. They combine some utility and tactical complexity of spellcasters with "hey, I'm swinging a giant sword", so that they're both martial and not reduced to just basic-attacking all the time.

I feel like you would enjoy the trick/support system in Savage Worlds Adventure Edition. Granted "martials"* do spend a lot of time attacking, but they do that because they can one shot the foe if the situation is set up right. And that's where most the game is against tougher foes, setting up the big attacks.


*Martial meaning a character that doesn't interact with the power system, even though the trappings (flavor) of those powers don't have to be magical.

[oxybe]

Someone mentioned SotDL.

Our Shadow of the Demon Lord game just got hiatus'd because the GM "Has started uni again" and "Engineering is a studious subject". Sigh.

The system scratches a lot of itches for me (makes sense looking at the author).

-it effectively borrows 4e's heroic/paragon/epic class structure but condenses it to 10 levels. these aren't tied to any particular requirements so you could have a Warrior/Witch/Miracle Worker.
-it borrows the level progression from 4e-derived Gamma world, in that each level you gain a feature from one of your chosen classes. so at level 1 & 2 you gain heroic abilty, then a paragon one at 3, a racial ability at 4, heroic at 5, paragon at 6, epic at 7...
-it's ditched the 14(+2) stat structure. a 14 is a +4 to stat checks. an 11 is a +1. ability checks are all made vs static dc 10.
-there are no skills. You have "professions". these give bonus d6's to your ability roll if thematically applicable.
-number progression are even tighter then 5e.
-etc.

it's not ideal IMO, tastes being what they are, but it does do a lot of what I would've wanted from an alternative universe 5e D&D.

I do like a more focused skill list over the more open to interpretation professions and progressively bigger numbers over a flattened curve. the grimdarker aspects of the overall tone does guide the rules: while healing is present (and it's percentile relative to the character!) it's very easy to get hurt and spend a long time recuperating without healing magic. I prefer a more "i bandage my wounds, clench my teeth and keep fighting" John McClane/action movie protagonist type adventurer that modern D&D portrays.

Again it's not that SotDL does these things badly, it's just not my personal preference. I'm just more of a "In defiance of the demon lord" then a "shadow of the demon lord" guy, if that makes sense.

[malachi]

Oh, and I forgot to mention: do something to remove the pass/fail or affected/immune state of things. For instance, hold person could do something like the following:
- If the target fails their save by 6 or more, the target is paralyzed.
- If the target fails their save by up to 5, the target is stunned.
- If the target passes their save by 0 - 5, the target is restrained.
- If the target passes their save by 6 or more, the target is unaffected.

This way, the method to make it hard for legendary bosses to be stunlocked and killed to death, but still allow for effects other than HP damage to resolve the conflict, could be to give it an ability like "3/day: If this creature fails it's save, treat it as if it had barely passed", instead of 5e's "3/day: If this creature fails it's save, it instead passes".

[Velaryon]

The main thing I want WotC to do with 6e is wait until at least 2025 (or better yet, 2030) before even seriously discussing it. 5e isn't perfect, but it delivers a D&D-like experience well enough, brings in tons of people who didn't used to play, and doesn't have any glaring problems big enough to require reinventing the wheel to fix.

[Rhedyn]

The main thing I want WotC to do with 6e is wait until at least 2025 (or better yet, 2030) before even seriously discussing it. 5e isn't perfect, but it delivers a D&D-like experience well enough, brings in tons of people who didn't used to play, and doesn't have any glaring problems big enough to require reinventing the wheel to fix.

Could Monopoly be better? Sure. Will Hasbro clear another edition? No.

If WotC doesn't do an edition change at the 10 year mark, then I wouldn't expect another one.

[Pleh]

Could Monopoly be better? Sure. Will Hasbro clear another edition? No.

If WotC doesn't do an edition change at the 10 year mark, then I wouldn't expect another one.

Worth remembering College Textbook effect. There is motive to publish new editions as it boosts sales. It's not the only factor to consider, but it's a powerful one. I would be very surprised if we never get a 6e.

[Anonymouswizard]

Worth remembering College Textbook effect. There is motive to publish new editions as it boosts sales. It's not the only factor to consider, but it's a powerful one. I would be very surprised if we never get a 6e.

Sure, but I don't own Digital Logic Techniques: Star Wars Edition. Also sometimes authors of textbooks cab be loathe to write a new edition, my digital logic lecturer refused to until they agreed to pay him.

[Rhedyn]

Worth remembering College Textbook effect. There is motive to publish new editions as it boosts sales. It's not the only factor to consider, but it's a powerful one. I would be very surprised if we never get a 6e.

College Textbooks only make money through corruption and scams now. That industry should be dead since no one wants to buy their crap.

[Pleh]

College Textbooks only make money through corruption and scams now. That industry should be dead since no one wants to buy their crap.

True, but it doesn't change the essential principle at work.

[Rhedyn]

True, but it doesn't change the essential principle at work.

Kind of does. If an edition isn't needed people get made if it changes.

[Pleh]

Kind of does. If an edition isn't needed people get made if it changes.

No, that's just adding a different principle into play.

Principle 1) publishing new editions revitalizes their profits, encouraging them to do it.

Principle 2) people dislike the practice, discouraging them from doing it.

They are still feeling the incentive to publish new editions for the profits. They just now have to balance it against consumer displeasure. My point is that the incentive doesn't magically vanish. It's a matter of at what point do they think they could get away with publishing a new edition.

The only difference for textbook publishers is that those publishers have a captive audience, a third principle coming into play.

[Rhedyn]

No, that's just adding a different principle into play.

Principle 1) publishing new editions revitalizes their profits, encouraging them to do it.

Principle 2) people dislike the practice, discouraging them from doing it.

They are still feeling the incentive to publish new editions for the profits. They just now have to balance it against consumer displeasure. My point is that the incentive doesn't magically vanish. It's a matter of at what point do they think they could get away with publishing a new edition.

The only difference for textbook publishers is that those publishers have a captive audience, a third principle coming into play.

You aren't looking at long term cost of new editions, they make your product worth less over time.

Like if new D&D editions came out every year, who would buy them? How would you even talk about it online?

It's also a bad idea to look at the results of other companies in the RPG hobby. Every WotC D&D Edition has been a different game and compared to 5e every other RPG combined is a very small niche. Other companies in the hobby see a surge in profits with a new edition because there is a good chance most of the buyers had never heard of the game before. Some groups do Kickstarters not for the money but to promote their game.

[Pleh]

You aren't looking at long term cost of new editions, they make your product worth less over time.

Like if new D&D editions came out every year, who would buy them? How would you even talk about it online?

Dude, it just adds another principle. #4, you saturate the market moving too quickly. It doesn't negate the fact that publishing companies are motivated by profit and new editions are a way to do that. Everything you are talking about only slow the inevitable progression towards publishing a new edition.

By the same vein of thought, you always want to update over the years as the product gets stale and outdated, especially when your competitors are publishing content after you.

There will never be a point at which there isn't incentive for publishers to republish popular content. You're right that there are other things to consider, but they only change the timeline, not the end result.

Did you notice we have no real trouble talking about previous editions on this forum? How much has the property lost valie over new editions? The worst step was 4e, but that sold well enough. It was mostly a PR misstep.

[Dienekes]

You aren't looking at long term cost of new editions, they make your product worth less over time.

Like if new D&D editions came out every year, who would buy them? How would you even talk about it online?

It's also a bad idea to look at the results of other companies in the RPG hobby. Every WotC D&D Edition has been a different game and compared to 5e every other RPG combined is a very small niche. Other companies in the hobby see a surge in profits with a new edition because there is a good chance most of the buyers had never heard of the game before. Some groups do Kickstarters not for the money but to promote their game.

They can also revitalize the product to make it viable in existing markets. Never updating the product for a conceptual entertainment one, such as D&D runs the risk of the game dying completely. For every Monopoly or Chess there are hundreds of John Bulls and Hell, Chess went through a ton of updates and “editions” before we got the Chess we have today.

Anyway, were I to get my dream 6e.

I’d have the mechanics for mundane combat as varied, fleshed out, and impactful as magic. With options for people who want to just say “I cast fireball.” Or “I power attack” every round. Because otherwise they’d likely complain.

[Rhedyn]

They can also revitalize the product to make it viable in existing markets. Never updating the product for a conceptual entertainment one, such as D&D runs the risk of the game dying completely. For every Monopoly or Chess there are hundreds of John Bulls and Hell, Chess went through a ton of updates and “editions” before we got the Chess we have today.

Anyway, were I to get my dream 6e.

I’d have the mechanics for mundane combat as varied, fleshed out, and impactful as magic. With options for people who want to just say “I cast fireball.” Or “I power attack” every round. Because otherwise they’d likely complain.

There no is "RPG market". D&D is a moderately popular tabletop game that would gain very little by making a new edition.

It's business model is just like Monopoly or Chess, wait until people need to buy their first set or a replacement.

[Pleh]

There no is "RPG market". D&D is a moderately popular tabletop game that would gain very little by making a new edition.

It's business model is just like Monopoly or Chess, wait until people need to buy their first set or a replacement.

I think the success of their past several editions begs to differ.

[Rhedyn]

I think the success of their past several editions begs to differ.

4e nearly killed the product line and 2e did end up killing that company (at least partially).

[Dienekes]

4e nearly killed the product line and 2e did end up killing that company (at least partially).

And Advanced, 3e, and 5e all spread the popularity far higher than the previous editions.

What I’m getting from that is that edition cycles should be twice as long, not never ending.

[Pleh]

4e nearly killed the product line and 2e did end up killing that company (at least partially).

4e didn't come close to killing the product line. Just the one edition. They went back to the drawing board and knocked it out of the park. Just a misstep, not a step back, much less a total loss.

[Anonymouswizard]

4e didn't come close to killing the product line. Just the one edition. They went back to the drawing board and knocked it out of the park. Just a misstep, not a step back, much less a total loss.

Yeah, 4e caused a leakage of players due to a not overly popular design direction and a lack of time for playtesting, but it went nowhere near killing the line. There's many of us who consider 4e the better designed game compared to 5e*, but there's not deny that 5e is more popular due to 'feeling like D&D', whatever that means. But 4e was a massive change that decided to re-evaluate the core assumptions of D&D, which was something that was needed after 3.X lost focus and sometimes felt like it was introducing a new subsystem in every book, but im doing so it changed a lot of things and people didn't like it.

In fact, my main annoyance with 5e is that every time it seemed like the designers were going back to basics, and dialing back so that they could smoothly build it back up later peopl cried out that it wasn't like 3.X, and they put the complexity back in. Remember how subclasses originally were about going back to the Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard setup and then customising it? Because that was how they were originally presented, but moaning caused the classes to go back to the 3.X spread.

So yeah, I've decided exactly what I want for 4e. I want Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. I want Fighters, Clerics, Mages, and Thieves. And I want very little else, I want D&D to go back and find it's core before it adds in seven different spellcasting classes. The Paladin, Ranger, and everything else can come back in supplements.

Until then I'll stick with Low Fantasy Gaming. It might not be perfect, but I at least feel like it's classes are equally broad. It might be nine classes, but I don't feel like there's any of the stupid Cleric/Druid/Warlock overlap.

* Notably they have incredibly similar 'skill systems', but I find 4e's less annoying because it's open about it's combat focus.

[Quertus]

In fact, my main annoyance with 5e is that every time it seemed like the designers were going back to basics, and dialing back so that they could smoothly build it back up later peopl cried out that it wasn't like 3.X, and they put the complexity back in. Remember how subclasses originally were about going back to the Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard setup and then customising it? Because that was how they were originally presented, but moaning caused the classes to go back to the 3.X spread.

So yeah, I've decided exactly what I want for 4e. I want Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. I want Fighters, Clerics, Mages, and Thieves. And I want very little else, I want D&D to go back and find it's core before it adds in seven different spellcasting classes. The Paladin, Ranger, and everything else can come back in supplements.

Until then I'll stick with Low Fantasy Gaming. It might not be perfect, but I at least feel like it's classes are equally broad. It might be nine classes, but I don't feel like there's any of the stupid Cleric/Druid/Warlock overlap.

So, I'm not understanding the nature of your complaint. How is less more? It sounds like you're saying you'd rather just have Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard, rather than adding additional options. Those other options make some people happy; what is to be gained by removing such lateral versatility?

Like, imagine if all you had was Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard, and "dwarf" was an option on "Fighter" (that shows up in some random splat book). That wouldn't feel the same as having different races built into the system, would it?

[Rhedyn]

So, I'm not understanding the nature of your complaint. How is less more? It sounds like you're saying you'd rather just have Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard, rather than adding additional options. Those other options make some people happy; what is to be gained by removing such lateral versatility?

Like, imagine if all you had was Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard, and "dwarf" was an option on "Fighter" (that shows up in some random splat book). That wouldn't feel the same as having different races built into the system, would it?

He's complaining about the compromised nature of 5e. He wanted a back to basics core with the rest added later.

What he neglected to realize is that isn't what Hasbro wanted. They wanted an evergreen edition where the vast majority of revenue came from the core books while maybe releasing some splat books for enthusiasts later if they thought that would make money. And Hasbro big-wig corporate idea turned out to make tons of money. I imagine the 5e splat books sell a tad better than 4e/3e books, but the drop off has to be a crazy amount or they would be churning out more books. 5e just isn't going to cater to people that need at least 10+ RPG books a year.