Quote from: ForgottenF on June 18, 2024, 11:44:30 AMYou can really tell that a lot of the people in the business/marketing end of WOTC now are people with more experience in videogames than in tabletop. "So many features, subclasses, spells, options!", as opposed to a concern for streamlining or ease of play. No stated concern for compatibility, and even this hybrid approach to editions strikes me as video-gamey. "Of course we don't do editions! D&D is an evergreen game (because we don't use the words 'live service' anymore); we wouldn't want you to think you have to change to a new game (because then you might think about changing to someone else's game); We want to reward all the effort you've put into your 5e campaigns (that is, encourage a sunk-cost fallacy). This is just like a big patch (that you have to pay for) for the game your already love!"

In material terms: Yeah, it looks like they're just compiling material from prior supplements into the Player's Handbook with some minor revisions and additions. If so, then depending on what they're charging, that's actually not a bad value proposition for the narrow market of new 5e players who haven't already bought Tasha's and Xanathar's. If this wasn't current year WOTC --and therefore guaranteed to F*** it up somehow--, I'd say it looks like doing a 5e version of the Rules Cyclopedia, which isn't a terrible idea.

Yeah, I just read the article Chris linked.  It looks like these folks don't know the difference between an RPG and a vido game.  That doesn't bode well for the rest of the design

Classes changed, races changed, backgrounds changed.

This reads like they really are implimenting nearly all the changes seen in the playtests. Which will make it very not backwards compatible with 5e without alot of hassle. Which is likely intentional.

People forget that wotc touted 3e as "backwards compatible" with 2e. Yeah. That was sooooooooo true.

The new art is /meh.  It looks like for 6E the art is:

-Only central part of art will be in focus, everything else will be blurred to save time and money

-Focus on cuteness

-Do not use defined lines

-Beauty is the enemy of Hasbro, keep the characters ugly

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 18, 2024, 11:10:45 AMhttps://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1745-whats-new-in-the-2024-players-handbook

Other than switching where the attribute buffs come from to the backgrounds it sounds like this stuff will be useable at the same table as 5e c.2014. They shuffled where the numbers come from to appease the Current Year Woke, but it sounds like the final numbers will be the same as 5e.

Basically a giant "Meh" excuse to resell all the core books to those who "need" the latest thing to feel special.

Quote from: Omega on June 18, 2024, 02:01:31 PMClasses changed, races changed, backgrounds changed.

This reads like they really are implimenting nearly all the changes seen in the playtests. Which will make it very not backwards compatible with 5e without alot of hassle. Which is likely intentional.

People forget that wotc touted 3e as "backwards compatible" with 2e. Yeah. That was sooooooooo true.

I'd agree that 3E wasn't backwards compatible with 2E.

But the question for backwards compatibility is whether I can use a new module in my campaign using 5E rules; or conversely whether I can use an old module in my campaign using the new rules.

It's not clear to me from reading the article whether it's backwards-compatible or not. One can change around a lot of stuff about races and classes, and still be able to use modules interchangeably.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on June 18, 2024, 02:14:19 PMThe new art is /meh.  It looks like for 6E the art is:

-Only central part of art will be in focus, everything else will be blurred to save time and money

-Focus on cuteness

-Do not use defined lines

-Beauty is the enemy of Hasbro, keep the characters ugly

Remember the current attitude about art. If a female is depicted as pretty, no matter how modestly dressed, then the piece is overly sexualized. That is what you get when a gaggle of ugly lesbians have all the say in art direction.

Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2024, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 18, 2024, 11:10:45 AMhttps://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1745-whats-new-in-the-2024-players-handbook

Other than switching where the attribute buffs come from to the backgrounds it sounds like this stuff will be useable at the same table as 5e c.2014. They shuffled where the numbers come from to appease the Current Year Woke, but it sounds like the final numbers will be the same as 5e.

Basically a giant "Meh" excuse to resell all the core books to those who "need" the latest thing to feel special.

Quote from: Omega on June 18, 2024, 02:01:31 PMClasses changed, races changed, backgrounds changed.

This reads like they really are implimenting nearly all the changes seen in the playtests. Which will make it very not backwards compatible with 5e without alot of hassle. Which is likely intentional.

People forget that wotc touted 3e as "backwards compatible" with 2e. Yeah. That was sooooooooo true.

I'd agree that 3E wasn't backwards compatible with 2E.

But the question for backwards compatibility is whether I can use a new module in my campaign using 5E rules; or conversely whether I can use an old module in my campaign using the new rules.

It's not clear to me from reading the article whether it's backwards-compatible or not. One can change around a lot of stuff about races and classes, and still be able to use modules interchangeably.

Easily convertible is not the same as compatible. The real question is can one player create a "classic" 5E character and play in the same group with others who have created characters with the new rules?

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 18, 2024, 02:50:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2024, 02:44:30 PMBut the question for backwards compatibility is whether I can use a new module in my campaign using 5E rules; or conversely whether I can use an old module in my campaign using the new rules.

It's not clear to me from reading the article whether it's backwards-compatible or not. One can change around a lot of stuff about races and classes, and still be able to use modules interchangeably.

Easily convertible is not the same as compatible. The real question is can one player create a "classic" 5E character and play in the same group with others who have created characters with the new rules?

That seems like an edge case to me. I don't think I've ever played any RPG with mixed-edition rules like that, where one player was referencing one edition's rules and the other players were referencing new edition rules. Normally, all players would be using the same core rules. If you want to do that, no judgement -- but I don't think it's a common want.

The big question for GMs for a new edition is "Will I still be able to use the adventures and setting books and other material that I have for the old edition?"

I have commonly used material across different editions, like Call of Cthulhu 1st - 5th, or GURPS 2nd-3rd, or AD&D 1E / 2E, and a few others. I'd use an adventure or setting book for one edition, even though the game was being run for a different edition. But everyone playing the game used the same core rules.

Quote from: Omega on June 18, 2024, 01:47:16 AMWell this is supposed to go live today.

Just this little preview before that speaks volumes about how much wotc and Perkins have lied. Still 5e my ass.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8VFYzoIKhs/

Quote from: jhkim on June 18, 2024, 02:44:30 PMBut the question for backwards compatibility is whether I can use a new module in my campaign using 5E rules; or conversely whether I can use an old module in my campaign using the new rules.

It's not clear to me from reading the article whether it's backwards-compatible or not. One can change around a lot of stuff about races and classes, and still be able to use modules interchangeably.

One of the things about 5E was they just put Orc or Goblin in the module instead of a stat block. If 6E includes the same categories (even if they change the fluff and stats) the modules will be as usable as they were for 5E (thus claims of compatibility).

Quote from: blackstone on June 18, 2024, 03:22:40 PM

Quote from: Omega on June 18, 2024, 01:47:16 AMWell this is supposed to go live today.

Just this little preview before that speaks volumes about how much wotc and Perkins have lied. Still 5e my ass.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8VFYzoIKhs/

Unfortunately "Failure is the only option!" is wotc's company motto and apparently laser etched into every employees frontal lobes.

What is it with Wizard fawning over Black women so much?  They are a microscopic % of the gaming market place and they ALL LOOK THE DAMN SAME! Same curly affro hair, same strong male jaw line, same physical appears as they stripped down a man and threw some tits on him, but small tits because big boobies are not PC

  How Stunning and Brave of Wizards....

Instagram for a reveal? How much did Zuckerfuck pay for this bullshit?

The new official DM screen.  Which I think looks hideous.

Quote from: Crusader X on June 18, 2024, 07:17:26 PMThe new official DM screen.  Which I think looks hideous.

That's a pitiful looking DM screen.

After viewing the preview, I have this image in my mind.

An adventuring party flees up a sloping incline. A band of ravenous orcs pursues. They reach a rickety bridge that they can only cross one at a time. They need to buy time.

Adventurer: "If only we had something to roll into the orcs' path!"

Other Adventurers: [look at wheelchair guy]

More new art.  Does this overweight elf inspire you?