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.
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.
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.
There was no dry spell for me because I played Pathfinder 1E during that time 😁
I think if 4e was positioned as a spin-off game, say "D&D Tactics" or something, it would have fared a lot better.
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.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Skyrim!
Also I will cripple your bank accounts.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
There was no dry spell for me because I played Pathfinder 1E during that time 😁
I think if 4e was positioned as a spin-off game, say "D&D Tactics" or something, it would have fared a lot better.
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.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I think it’s almost every feat. The level 1 feats will not include an asi.
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.
This is what happens when you let a nothic onto the forums. Longtime mapmaker and forever GM.
Resident map-fiend. Writer, storyteller, worldbuilder. Lover of music & food; hater of elves & numbers. Threads I enjoy:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Spider Guild | The Wonderful Roleplay Guild | Anything BUT the OGL 2.0 | The Tower of Lore | The Universe Smorgasbord | The Afterglow
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.
Skyrim!
Also I will cripple your bank accounts.