Are you going to learn one d&d

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

 Great. If the 5e and 6e PC's are the same, then there is no reason to move to 6e.

 "Not vastly more powerful" != "the same"

But you know that.

Fortunately, no one is moving to 6e; this is more like 5.5

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from Kirtchencadet >>

Unless they make huge changes to dc,ac and stuff would the biggest change be races and creation?

 I’d say to check out the playtest documents for ideas about the kinds of changes. But keep in mind many of the bigger changes from earlier versions get switched back in later documents. 

I think the change to backgrounds and assumptions of a level 1 feat will be pretty big. All of the classes and 4 subclasses per class will be getting a tune-up. They’ve released a number of changes to spells, and there’s most certainly more of those coming. They’ve also talked about changes to monsters to make them better reflect their CR.

But the underlying math is planned to stay the same (no changes to dc and ac and stuff). And they say a goal is you’ll be able to play a 2014 and 2024 version of a character at the same table. How well that goal is achieved will likely end up being pretty subjective — with some people who will be happy no matter what, some who will never be happy, and most somewhere in between. 

 The goal of having a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter, at the same table is merely marketese. It is impossible to do when the 6e version is clearly more powerful than the 5e version. The person playing a 5e char will be very annoyed when the 6e equivalent is vastly superior. And a DM is going to be tied up in knots trying to figure out how to either keep the 5e chars alive or the 6e chars from steam-rolling the table, when there is a mixed party at the table.

 So, I’m guessing I know which category you’ll fall in, in terms of always, sometimes, or never happy.

As above posters said, lots of people won’t even notice the difference. Sure, some will be annoyed, but nothing is perfect for everyone. I’m in a game right now where a couple people took strixhaven backgrounds, and got the feat that goes with it, while other did not. I’m not the did not part. I didn’t even realize they had an extra feat until they said so, around 5th level. It’s really not a big deal. 

And the DM should have no such knot-tying problems. The AC and HP numbers will be the same. The saving throws will be the same. 2024 characters will be no more durable than 2014.

 Great. If the 5e and 6e PC's are the same, then there is no reason to move to 6e.

 So, don't move. 

But maybe let the rest of us have productive conversations, instead of just throwing around angry half-truths.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 

Frankly, I am disappointed that 2014 and 2024 are not more incompatible—5e was always lacking in player customisation options, and OneD&D would have been a great time to expand them.  But that is not the direction Wizards went and, if things continue on this trajectory, it looks like we’ll be seeing an updated edition that can easily be played alongside the old.

 I think you can blame the polling for that... in the UA it seems any time they made a major change that would reduce compatibility with base 5e, it was hammered with negative feedback. So we're back to having subclass progression limited to the same levels, spellcasting kept as close to 5e as possible, etc. I'm sure if some of the early major gameplay changes were popular they probably would have went more in that direction, but now the goal seems to be to make the new rules as safely optional as possible.

Quote from Kirtchencadet >>

or are you keeping to 5e?

Seeing as i'm new i'll stick to 5e unless i get priced out of the 5e core books due to them being oop

If it's an expense thing, that makes perfect sense. Personally, I'll at least give it a shot. It's nice to have new material. I remember when 4E came out, I basically said, "Mmm... yeah... not for me... no," and then there was that 6 year dry spell. Let me tell ya, that was rooooooough! The fact that everything is new to you could mean that you still have a ton of materials to play through before you start jonesing for more. Enjoy it.

Quote from TransmorpherDDS >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 

Frankly, I am disappointed that 2014 and 2024 are not more incompatible—5e was always lacking in player customisation options, and OneD&D would have been a great time to expand them.  But that is not the direction Wizards went and, if things continue on this trajectory, it looks like we’ll be seeing an updated edition that can easily be played alongside the old.

 I think you can blame the polling for that... in the UA it seems any time they made a major change that would reduce compatibility with base 5e, it was hammered with negative feedback. So we're back to having subclass progression limited to the same levels, spellcasting kept as close to 5e as possible, etc. I'm sure if some of the early major gameplay changes were popular they probably would have went more in that direction, but now the goal seems to be to make the new rules as safely optional as possible.

I am pretty fine with all those things.  The worst part of updated rules is when your prior-purchased content no longer is useful.  The change to subclass progression felt arbitrary--it did not add anything to the complexity of classes or choices and thus did little to solve 5e's "lack of choices" problem, while increasing that problem by making prior subclasses less compatible.  Same goes for spells--they never planned on adding much in the way of spells, and a massive change could have reduced the pool of available options, not increased it. 

But we had the option to do more in other areas, particularly with feats.  Wizards easily could have divorced ASI and feats from one another.  This would have added a whole new layer to character creation (a layer prior editions had); would not render any prior content pointless, as all those prior-purchased feats could still be used (in fact, by making feats more common to pick, some otherwise dead content would become more viable); and would have solved the well-known problem of new players struggling when they have to choose between a feat or ASI. 

That is a change we should see in 5.5.  We are not.  Instead, we are getting a more complicated set of feats that encourage you to go deep into feats.... but a system which still punishes players who pick feats by denying them ASI. 

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from TransmorpherDDS >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 

Frankly, I am disappointed that 2014 and 2024 are not more incompatible—5e was always lacking in player customisation options, and OneD&D would have been a great time to expand them.  But that is not the direction Wizards went and, if things continue on this trajectory, it looks like we’ll be seeing an updated edition that can easily be played alongside the old.

 I think you can blame the polling for that... in the UA it seems any time they made a major change that would reduce compatibility with base 5e, it was hammered with negative feedback. So we're back to having subclass progression limited to the same levels, spellcasting kept as close to 5e as possible, etc. I'm sure if some of the early major gameplay changes were popular they probably would have went more in that direction, but now the goal seems to be to make the new rules as safely optional as possible.

 

I am pretty fine with all those things.  The worst part of updated rules is when your prior-purchased content no longer is useful.  The change to subclass progression felt arbitrary--it did not add anything to the complexity of classes or choices and thus did little to solve 5e's "lack of choices" problem, while increasing that problem by making prior subclasses less compatible.  Same goes for spells--they never planned on adding much in the way of spells, and a massive change could have reduced the pool of available options, not increased it. 

But we had the option to do more in other areas, particularly with feats.  Wizards easily could have divorced ASI and feats from one another.  This would have added a whole new layer to character creation (a layer prior editions had); would not render any prior content pointless, as all those prior-purchased feats could still be used (in fact, by making feats more common to pick, some otherwise dead content would become more viable); and would have solved the well-known problem of new players struggling when they have to choose between a feat or ASI. 

That is a change we should see in 5.5.  We are not.  Instead, we are getting a more complicated set of feats that encourage you to go deep into feats.... but a system which still punishes players who pick feats by denying them ASI. 

 

 
How bad the punishment is depends on how common half feats are. You can still hit 18 at level 4 with point buy taking a half feat, although it does pinch hard if you’ve got a second stat you want at 16 from the outset. Plus only Rogues and Fighters got at more than two ASI to begin with for the most common play range. This could be more of a lateral move in feat relevance, depending on how the higher level feats look.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr>>

I am pretty fine with all those things.  The worst part of updated rules is when your prior-purchased content no longer is useful.  The change to subclass progression felt arbitrary--it did not add anything to the complexity of classes or choices and thus did little to solve 5e's "lack of choices" problem, while increasing that problem by making prior subclasses less compatible.  Same goes for spells--they never planned on adding much in the way of spells, and a massive change could have reduced the pool of available options, not increased it. 

But we had the option to do more in other areas, particularly with feats.  Wizards easily could have divorced ASI and feats from one another.  This would have added a whole new layer to character creation (a layer prior editions had); would not render any prior content pointless, as all those prior-purchased feats could still be used (in fact, by making feats more common to pick, some otherwise dead content would become more viable); and would have solved the well-known problem of new players struggling when they have to choose between a feat or ASI. 

That is a change we should see in 5.5.  We are not.  Instead, we are getting a more complicated set of feats that encourage you to go deep into feats.... but a system which still punishes players who pick feats by denying them ASI. 

 I was really hoping classes, especially martial classes, would be getting more ASIs in OneD&D for this very reason. The 1st-level feat isn't enough imo. But that's an easy enough thing for me to add at my table too.

The feats question is interesting... I think that the attempt to "fix" feats vs. ASI is to make every single feat into a half-feat, so you always at least get a +1 to one stat even if you also take another useful feature. As I recall, they even changed it so that an ASI is, itself, just a feat that you can take multiple times.

Quote from TransmorpherDDS >>

The feats question is interesting... I think that the attempt to "fix" feats vs. ASI is to make every single feat into a half-feat, so you always at least get a +1 to one stat even if you also take another useful feature. As I recall, they even changed it so that an ASI is, itself, just a feat that you can take multiple times.

 I think it’s almost every feat. The level 1 feats will not include an asi. 

Quote from TransmorpherDDS >>

The feats question is interesting... I think that the attempt to "fix" feats vs. ASI is to make every single feat into a half-feat, so you always at least get a +1 to one stat even if you also take another useful feature. As I recall, they even changed it so that an ASI is, itself, just a feat that you can take multiple times.

 This is good because it means they've opened up design space. Now they can print feats that aren't half-feats that are even stronger than the full feats we have now. It also means lackluster half-feats from before, like Keen Mind, needed to be buffed to keep up.

I’ll be checking out the books (the monster manual especially) out of curiosity. As everyone else transitions away from 5e, I’ll likely be forced to as well if I want to continue playing online and whatnot. No hard feelings there — the games, after all, will be very similar.

I‘ve also been trying out lots of new RPGs — not to replace D&D, but to give me a better understanding of the hobby as a whole. I’ve had some really positive experiences so far, but there are always very few people playing these smaller systems. In the end, I’ll probably just grumble a little and buy the books like everyone else.

I’ll slowly transition from 5e to one dnd, thats if there are online pdfs for them so that’ll probably take some time. I also don’t feel like learning new ru,es but if they are just revisions then I’m fine with that.