I'm not sure it makes any sense to treat the 3 edition changes under WotC/Hasbro as anamolies, but the one AD&D edition change over 30 years ago under an entirely different company as the standard we should measure OneD&D by. Sure seems like that one is the odd one out, and 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e seem to be the common standard now.
WotC themselves are calling it a 5.5e not 6e. Sales and business factors indicate it's time for an update not full edition change. And in my 40 years of D&D experience, the changes so far are clearly an editon update rather than full edition change.
But, whichever. Either way, OneD&D will be what it will be, and will be called what WotC wants to call it, regardless of what us random fans think. ;)
I'm not sure it makes any sense to treat the 3 edition changes under WotC/Hasbro as anamolies, but the one AD&D edition change over 30 years ago under an entirely different company as the standard we should measure OneD&D by. Sure seems like that one is the odd one out, and 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e seem to be the common standard now.
WotC themselves are calling it a 5.5e not 6e. Sales and business factors indicate it's time for an update not full edition change. And in my 40 years of D&D experience, the changes so far are clearly an editon update rather than full edition change.
But, whichever. Either way, OneD&D will be what it will be, and will be called what WotC wants to call it, regardless of what us random fans think. ;)
It will officially be called whatever WotC want to call it. But only time will tell if most of us accept that labeling or if we reject it and refer to it as 5.5 or 6 or some other beast entirely.
4 had D&D on the cover. But many were those who said it wasn't D&D and who abandoned the game for others until we saw 5.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
I'm not sure it makes any sense to treat the 3 edition changes under WotC/Hasbro as anamolies, but the one AD&D edition change over 30 years ago under an entirely different company as the standard we should measure OneD&D by. Sure seems like that one is the odd one out, and 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e seem to be the common standard now.
WotC themselves are calling it a 5.5e not 6e. Sales and business factors indicate it's time for an update not full edition change. And in my 40 years of D&D experience, the changes so far are clearly an editon update rather than full edition change.
But, whichever. Either way, OneD&D will be what it will be, and will be called what WotC wants to call it, regardless of what us random fans think. ;)
It will officially be called whatever WotC want to call it. But only time will tell if most of us accept that labeling or if we reject it and refer to it as 5.5 or 6 or some other beast entirely.
4 had D&D on the cover. But many were those who said it wasn't D&D and who abandoned the game for others until we saw 5.
4e was a completely different ruleset that bore zero resemblance to 3.5e. It wasn't a continuation/extension of the popular edition with some changes the way PF1 was for 3.5, or the way 1DnD is looking to be for 5e. So I think predicting the same degree of schism that 4e had is unlikely.
4e was a completely different ruleset that bore zero resemblance to 3.5e. It wasn't a continuation/extension of the popular edition with some changes the way PF1 was for 3.5, or the way 1DnD is looking to be for 5e. So I think predicting the same degree of schism that 4e had is unlikely.
I understand perfectly well that 4e and 3e/3.5e bore little to no resemblance. I am not saying there is any sort of parallel between that shift and the shift now taking place. Only that it will up to us to determine whether or not One D&D makes for an update or a whole new edition or something else.
That shift now taking place however is as I said greater than what came before any of the above editions:
Every edition including when we had AD&D and Holmes Basic/B/X/BECMI running parallel released between 0e and 2e were much more compatible with one another than 2e and 3e were and much more than anything since 3e has been.
As someone else pointed out the changes being made are much more drastic than those made to switch from 1e to 2e.
3.5e was essentially errata. It didn't overhaul classes and races like "One D&D" is doing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
It might be hard to find copies of the 3rd edition PHB, but 3.5 absolutely overhauled some classes. I didtinctly remember the ranger got a significant rewrite.
It might be hard to find copies of the 3rd edition PHB, but 3.5 absolutely overhauled some classes. I didtinctly remember the ranger got a significant rewrite.
You are correct. Changes were made to the Ranger. But I'm not talking about making adjustments to a class (or race). I'm talking about changes to the class (or race) system. I'd say tossing out the latter word entirely and moving attribute bonuses or penalties to backgrounds (of which I am no critic as I think it does make more sense for one's labour to have determined such things) is a pretty big change and is one greater than anything you will find that took place between 0e and 2e as I said. Any changes between 0e and 2e were ultimately additions to the game. The expansion of alignments. New classes. New spells for those new classes. The inclusion of proficiencies. But those earlier editions were still compatible with one another. The biggest difference one might identify was the switch from using attack matrices to using THAC0 but the math was the same. (EDIT: I suppose one could argue race as class in B/X and BECMI and the separation of these in AD&D is probably the biggest difference to be found. But as Old-School Essentials has shown with Classic Fantasy and Advanced Fantasy which mimics how many of us played when we played B/X or BECMI but incorporated into our games whatever AD&D books we could get ahold of these work alongside one another just fine.) It was with 3e/3.5e that the game first went through dramatic changes. 4e was also then different. 5e was also then different. Now we arrive at a situation where we are going to see conflict at tables not only because some will want to use the Druid from 5e and some the one from "One D&D" but also because some will bring characters to tables where their chosen race will impact their ability scores and some will protest this and demand species play no part in this. Those holding on tightly to their 5e books will become pariahs at some tables and I'd say that in and of itself is enough to tell us it's a different edition.
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
Now we arrive at a situation where we are going to see conflict at tables not only because some will want to use the Druid from 5e and some the one from "One D&D" but also because some will bring characters to tables where their chosen race will impact their ability scores and some will protest this and demand species play no part in this. Those holding on tightly to their 5e books will become pariahs at some tables and I'd say that in and of itself is enough to tell us it's a different edition.
Um… what? Someone can right now play a OneD&D playtest druid with a party of standard 5e characters. We are doing it with a playtest bard and all the rest being standard classes. Zero problems. The option to have race not impact ability scores has been around for years, and, again, they play perfectly fine with standard PHB races having ability score modifiers. I have no idea where they book clutching pariahs are because all these things are already happening smoothly with no issues whatsoever with thousands of groups.
There was also almost literally word for word the same fear mongering back when 3.5 was on the way, but it was in the minority and when the updated rules came out, everyone managed just fine without book clutching pariahs or any of that hyperbole actually happening. (Plus even with 3.5 every single class had changes, the skill list completely changed, and the 3.5 to PF1 even more radically changed every single class, etc. In both cases, they are right on par with the changes we are seeing so far with OneD&D.)
Um… what? Someone can right now play a OneD&D playtest druid with a party of standard 5e characters. We are doing it with a playtest bard and all the rest being standard classes. Zero problems. The option to have race not impact ability scores has been around for years, and, again, they play perfectly fine with standard PHB races having ability score modifiers. I have no idea where they book clutching pariahs are because all these things are already happening smoothly with no issues whatsoever with thousands of groups.
There was also almost literally word for word the same fear mongering back when 3.5 was on the way, but it was in the minority and when the updated rules came out, everyone managed just fine without book clutching pariahs or any of that hyperbole actually happening.
You are misrepresenting what I am saying. I am not saying they are not at all compatible. Mechanically speaking. I am saying some tables will strictly accept one or the other. That has always happened with the arrival of a new edition of the game even when compatibility was held intact—be it 1e to 2e or even just the jump from 3e to 3.5e. That therein lies the incompatibility we are going to see. The conflict won't necessarily arise from the rules conflicting with one another—but it might do—but ultimately between players.
You cannot pretend some tables simply will not allow a player to use certain changes. Or pretend others won't insist upon them. We are now talking about changes that are ostensibly moral or political in nature and discussion around these even here can divide people.
So no. That is not at all "fearmongering" or "hyperbolic."
That is inevitably going to happen.
And if it was enough to make for a new edition in the past when compatibility was held intact why are we pretending this time around it's not at all a new edition just because of the facile rhetoric coming out of the company about how "One D&D" is going to be this magical all-compatible wonder?
There were fewer changes between 1e and 2e. These essentially remained the same game but for the addition of proficiencies and the switch from attack matrices to THAC0 even though the math was the same for these.
What would you say is the more divisive? Telling a player you don't use proficiencies at your table so no he or she isn't proficient in swimming any more than anyone else's character or telling a player he or she is a monster for continuing to refer to a character's race and not its species or if he or she chooses to assign ability bonuses and penalties dependent on race and not on background?
I am willing to wager we are going to see the playerbase more divided than it already is.
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
You are misrepresenting what I am saying. I am not saying they are not at all compatible. Mechanically speaking. I am saying some tables will strictly accept one or the other. That has always happened with the arrival of a new edition of the game even when compatibility was held intact—be it 1e to 2e or even just the jump from 3e to 3.5e. That therein lies the incompatibility we are going to see. The conflict won't necessarily arise from the rules conflicting with one another—but it might do—but ultimately between players.
You cannot pretend some tables simply will not allow a player to use certain changes. Or pretend others won't insist upon them. We are now talking about changes that are ostensibly moral or political in nature and discussion around these even here can divide people.
So no. That is not at all "fearmongering" or "hyperbolic."
That is inevitably going to happen.
And if it was enough to make for a new edition in the past when compatibility was held intact why are we pretending this time around it's not at all a new edition just because of the facile rhetoric coming out of the company about how "One D&D" is going to be this magical all-compatible wonder?
There were fewer changed between 1e and 2e.
We have this "dilemma" right now in 5e as it presently exists. Remember how the monster races in Volo's had negative stat modifiers, but were errata'd away? And on the species front, remember how all the MMM races switched all the races therein (so all races that had bound modifiers except the PHB races) to a floating +1/+2? Some groups still adhere to the old Volo's modifiers. Other tables don't except MMM. Others, actually many others don't use anything in Tasha's Cauldron of everything. I'd say folks are more ambivalent about Fizbans and VGtR, but people get very passionate about embracing or rejecting the character options in the Dragonlance book or Strixhaven. Oh, let's not forget how some DMs don't allow the selection of feats presented in the PHB, the first book out of the gate. There's an edition with many options presented and tables pick and choose what they use. In the near future One D&D, at least per its backward compatibility claims, will allow options as to what version to run. As stated above, folks are running One D&D classes alongside the present core options. I think one thing WotC is likely learning from its various channels, including but not limited to "the survey," is that D&D players tend to be a pretty fluid and dynamic cohort to pin down with one common tool of satisfaction. They know players and DMs want options. They may not ultimately be successful, but One D&D seems to be reaching in that direction more than some sort of apocalyptic reset button.
And if it is a separate edition, people will still play 5e, just like people currently play every edition of D&D ever published, without even invoking any of the clones or derivatives. Might it be easier to find new people to play with via the latest publisher supported edition? That's probably the plan. But folks who want to keep their 5e aren't going to suffer whatever you're portending they'll suffer. The assertions otherwise are in fact hyperbolic fear-mongering.
I type this as someone on the fence as to whether I'll invest in whatever format the One D&D core eventually comes out as. I like my 5e game, my players who like it, most of them aren't even aware of One D&D, and really if I want to invest in new rulesets, it'll probably be something other than D&D, I like playing a lot of different games. If I do buy into 5e, it'll probably be at least a year after the core comes out so I can see if there's any worth to it.
We have this "dilemma" right now in 5e as it presently exists. Remember how the monster races in Volo's had negative stat modifiers, but were errata'd away? And on the species front, remember how all the MMM races switched all the races therein (so all races that had bound modifiers except the PHB races) to a floating +1/+2? Some groups still adhere to the old Volo's modifiers. Other tables don't except MMM. Others, actually many others don't use anything in Tasha's Cauldron of everything. I'd say folks are more ambivalent about Fizbans and VGtR, but people get very passionate about embracing or rejecting the character options in the Dragonlance book or Strixhaven. Oh, let's not forget how some DMs don't allow the selection of feats presented in the PHB, the first book out of the gate. There's an edition with many options presented and tables pick and choose what they use. In the near future One D&D, at least per its backward compatibility claims, will allow options as to what version to run. As stated above, folks are running One D&D classes alongside the present core options. I think one thing WotC is likely learning from its various channels, including but not limited to "the survey," is that D&D players tend to be a pretty fluid and dynamic cohort to pin down with one common tool of satisfaction. They know players and DMs want options. They may not ultimately be successful, but One D&D seems to be reaching in that direction more than some sort of apocalyptic reset button.
And if it is a separate edition, people will still play 5e, just like people currently play every edition of D&D ever published, without even invoking any of the clones or derivatives. Might it be easier to find new people to play with via the latest publisher supported edition? That's probably the plan. But folks who want to keep their 5e aren't going to suffer whatever you're portending they'll suffer. The assertions otherwise are in fact hyperbolic fear-mongering.
I type this as someone on the fence as to whether I'll invest in whatever format the One D&D core eventually comes out as. I like my 5e game, my players who like it, most of them aren't even aware of One D&D, and really if I want to invest in new rulesets, it'll probably be something other than D&D, I like playing a lot of different games. If I do buy into 5e, it'll probably be at least a year after the core comes out so I can see if there's any worth to it.
None of which goes anywhere towards answering whether or not "One D&D" ought to be considered a new edition of the game. Which is really what is being discussed here.
I've explained why it is as much a new edition as 2e was.
You are correct to point out this dilemma already exists.
You don't think it's only going to get worse when we see the publication of the new core rule books and some simply don't allow players to roll up characters using the current player's handbook they are so militant in their opposition to what has already been mentioned?
I wager money there are going to be players playing 5e. Others playing "One D&D." No matter how compatible. That is not at all saying I "portend" those who will stick to 5e are going to suffer anything.
I'm fully aware people can play whatever edition they want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
Um… what? Someone can right now play a OneD&D playtest druid with a party of standard 5e characters. We are doing it with a playtest bard and all the rest being standard classes. Zero problems. The option to have race not impact ability scores has been around for years, and, again, they play perfectly fine with standard PHB races having ability score modifiers. I have no idea where they book clutching pariahs are because all these things are already happening smoothly with no issues whatsoever with thousands of groups.
There was also almost literally word for word the same fear mongering back when 3.5 was on the way, but it was in the minority and when the updated rules came out, everyone managed just fine without book clutching pariahs or any of that hyperbole actually happening.
You are misrepresenting what I am saying. I am not saying they are not at all compatible. Mechanically speaking. I am saying some tables will strictly accept one or the other. That has always happened with the arrival of a new edition of the game even when compatibility was held intact—be it 1e to 2e or even just the jump from 3e to 3.5e. That therein lies the incompatibility we are going to see. The conflict won't necessarily arise from the rules conflicting with one another—but it might do—but ultimately between players.
You cannot pretend some tables simply will not allow a player to use certain changes. Or pretend others won't insist upon them. We are now talking about changes that are ostensibly moral or political in nature and discussion around these even here can divide people.
So no. That is not at all "fearmongering" or "hyperbolic."
That is inevitably going to happen.
And if it was enough to make for a new edition in the past when compatibility was held intact why are we pretending this time around it's not at all a new edition just because of the facile rhetoric coming out of the company about how "One D&D" is going to be this magical all-compatible wonder?
There were fewer changes between 1e and 2e. These essentially remained the same game but for the addition of proficiencies and the switch from attack matrices to THAC0 even though the math was the same for these.
What would you say is the more divisive? Telling a player you don't use proficiencies at your table so no he or she isn't proficient in swimming any more than anyone else's character or telling a player he or she is a monster for continuing to refer to a character's race and not its species or if he or she chooses to assign ability bonuses and penalties dependent on race and not on background?
I am willing to wager we are going to see the playerbase more divided than it already is.
Ok, so your problem here is that these changes are "moral and political" because race is being renamed and ability score bonuses are being moved, so that will divide the playerbase? Um, you might want to double check the 1e to 2e change because that edition had more "moral and political" based changes than every other edition change put together!! Relabeling races has got nothing on the volume of "moral and political" changes with 2e. No contest!
Also, I hope people can appreciate the irony of someone saying they aren't being hyperbolic and then literally two sentences later say the rest of us are just listening to "the facile rhetoric coming out of the company about how "One D&D" is going to be this magical all-compatible wonder." LOL!
Ok, so your problem here is that these changes are "moral and political" because race is being renamed and ability score bonuses are being moved, so that will divide the playerbase? Um, you might want to double check the 1e to 2e change because that edition had more "moral and political" based changes than every other edition change put together!! Relabeling races has got nothing on the volume of "moral and political" changes with 2e. No contest!
Also, I hope people can appreciate the irony of someone saying they aren't being hyperbolic and then literally two sentences later say the rest of us are just listening to "the facile rhetoric coming out of the company about how "One D&D" is going to be this magical all-compatible wonder." LOL!
What "moral and political" changes took place with 2e? The renaming of devils and demons? Was that silly and TSR just giving in to hysteria? Yes. Yes it was. But it was hardly "political" in nature and it was never going to drive a wedge betweenplayers.
You are comparing apples to oranges. What player was ever really going to lose his or her cool if a DM used the word "devil" or "demon" and not "baatezu" or "tanar'ri" at his or her table?
No one cared.
But you know as well as I do there are going to be players that won't stand for others not fully embracing the changes taking place with "One D&D." People have wasted entire threads arguing over the matter. People here can't get along if they disagree about it. You honestly believe there won't be players who will walk away from games that use the word "race" or tables that simply will not welcome players who wish to continue to use race-based ability score adjustments? Get real.
How is it hyperbole to say it is facile rhetoric for them to claim "One D&D" is some sort of "non-edition"? Have they or have not said they don't even see D&D in terms of editions anymore but instead see D&D as D&D? They have. And I'd call that pretty facile rhetoric on their part and argue that should be pretty obvious to anyone who has observed most of the game's history.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
I think both of you are talking past one another, not to one another.
Might I suggest taking a break? A thread insisting there shouldn't be another edition of the game, when one is currently being play-tested, inherently has a toxic atmosphere.
As someone that has been thru very edition switch, let me say this : “And the Band Played On” . For a game in which the local table regularly rewrites the rules as hey see fit edition changes are much less of a big deal in most cases. The only edition change that gave me any real pause was 3.5 to 4, it was sooo different that I had to step back and evaluate it on its own merits and not in comparison to anything that came before. What I found was that, while very different it was a functional, workable version of the game that wasn’t actually that hard to learn and play and run. Going from 4e to 5e wasn’t the shocker, as it was really a volition of 3.5 with a few bits of 4e (cantrips) included. So knowing both made the transition easy. WOtC has said the new version will be back compatible and so far in my own playtesting it is. Are things identical? No, but a playtest character can be played right along with 5e characters without any major problems and few minor ones. The playtest characters are a bit stronger early in T1 but not so much as to destroy the game balance. After T1 the differences in lay are generally moot - there but no more of a problem for a DM than having a different class/multiclass character would be. At this point n the playtest we are not ven half way through the first round of playtesting so it’s hard to say just what the final result will be but it’s already clear ( to me at least) tha it’s not going to be a 3.5 to 4 style transition but more of a basic to 1e to 2e to 3e to 3.5e to 5e transition. Will the fact that there is a transition anger some folks? Yes. Will some folks refuse to slip over? Yes. Will it matter to the game as a whole? NO! Time to move on folks.
As someone that has been thru very edition switch, let me say this : “And the Band Played On” . For a game in which the local table regularly rewrites the rules as hey see fit edition changes are much less of a big deal in most cases. The only edition change that gave me any real pause was 3.5 to 4, it was sooo different that I had to step back and evaluate it on its own merits and not in comparison to anything that came before. What I found was that, while very different it was a functional, workable version of the game that wasn’t actually that hard to learn and play and run. Going from 4e to 5e wasn’t the shocker, as it was really a volition of 3.5 with a few bits of 4e (cantrips) included. So knowing both made the transition easy. WOtC has said the new version will be back compatible and so far in my own playtesting it is. Are things identical? No, but a playtest character can be played right along with 5e characters without any major problems and few minor ones. The playtest characters are a bit stronger early in T1 but not so much as to destroy the game balance. After T1 the differences in lay are generally moot - there but no more of a problem for a DM than having a different class/multiclass character would be. At this point n the playtest we are not ven half way through the first round of playtesting so it’s hard to say just what the final result will be but it’s already clear ( to me at least) tha it’s not going to be a 3.5 to 4 style transition but more of a basic to 1e to 2e to 3e to 3.5e to 5e transition. Will the fact that there is a transition anger some folks? Yes. Will some folks refuse to slip over? Yes. Will it matter to the game as a whole? NO! Time to move on folks.
You can't seriously be suggesting the transition from AD&D to 3e/3.5e was no big deal.
Up to and including 2e it had been the same game with only additions made to it: new classes, new races, proficiencies.
3e/3.5e changed things dramatically. Not just with introduction of the d20 system.
I recall well the aversion among many to its combat rules being built around the assumption battle maps were used to resolve combat at most tables. Many were those who said they were trying to turn it into a wargame. With combat now it's main focus.
The similarities between 3e/3.5e and 5e are undeniable. But there are whole other systems that more closely resemble AD&D than did 3e/3.5e. Than does 5e.
The OSR exists not only to capture a certain era as far as flavour goes but also to capture the sort of play we got out of earlier editions that didn't require a rule for everything, weren't as dependent on what was on one's character sheet or on the dice, or quite so built around combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
2e made significant differences over 1e. 3e was a mess, so badly so that 3.5e was expected as errata but then angered everyone when it was released as a separate edition.
5e is quite simplified over 3.5e,
The aversion to the need to play using combat maps was mostly 4e, which seemed to many written more for coding D&D based games than for practical play.
1e and 2e are so similar it requires little to no effort to run an adventure written for one using the other. The core mechanics and core concepts are identical.
Any differences are minimal: THAC0 replaced attack matrices but the math was the same, magic specialization made its first appearance, non-weapon proficiencies grew in number.
5e is definitely a simpler and much, much, much better streamlined system than 3e/3.5e was.
I was there and remember well how many thought 3e was turning the game into a wargame. I also remember well as you said the anger many felt when 3.5e then came out. Quite a few people kept on playing 2e or 3e or walked away from the game altogether and played others. That exodus was nowhere near as large as the one we would see for 4e. But it did happen.
5e similarly gets criticism about its being geared too much towards combat now that there are a slew of rules-wise identical spells that just do damage and entering combat no longer puts characters (shielded as they now are by hit point bloat, death saves, and long rest regenerative superpowers) in grave danger.
It's a very different game than AD&D and is clearly a descendent of 3e/3.5e and not one of 1e or 2e.
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
2e made significant differences over 1e. 3e was a mess, so badly so that 3.5e was expected as errata but then angered everyone when it was released as a separate edition.
5e is quite simplified over 3.5e,
The aversion to the need to play using combat maps was mostly 4e, which seemed to many written more for coding D&D based games than for practical play.
1e and 2e are so similar it requires little to no effort to run an adventure written for one using the other. The core mechanics and core concepts are identical.
Any differences are minimal: THAC0 replaced attack matrices but the math was the same, magic specialization made its first appearance, non-weapon proficiencies grew in number.
5e is definitely a simpler and much, much, much better streamlined system than 3e/3.5e was.
I was there and remember well how many thought 3e was turning the game into a wargame. I also remember well as you said the anger many felt when 3.5e then came out. Quite a few people kept on playing 2e or 3e or walked away from the game altogether and played others. That exodus was nowhere near as large as the one we would see for 4e. But it did happen.
5e similarly gets criticism about its being geared too much towards combat now that there are a slew of rules-wise identical spells that just do damage and entering combat no longer puts characters (shielded as they now are by hit point bloat, death saves, and long rest regenerative superpowers) in grave danger.
It's a very different game than AD&D and is clearly a descendent of 3e/3.5e and not one of 1e or 2e.
I really feel like we have been playing different games... the usual claim is that 1e was all about hack and slash dungeon crawls. Skills were an afterthought and rather limited compared to 5e.
There is nothing about the 5e rules that is that geared towards combat. That is just how people seem to play it.
Lol. There were "no skills" beyond those of the thief and the rules and tables for perception-based skills because players would themselves have to ROLE-PLAY anything social. And did. Now a player has written on the character sheet what the Persuasion or Intimidation or Deception score is. They needn't even role-play the encounter unless they want to earn themselves Advantage on the roll.
1e had a ton of stuff for domain-level play with players obtaining titles and land and many were the games played FOR YEARS that were about court intrigue and not just hack and slash for loot.
I've already explained why 5e is a fighting game. Oodles of combat spells. And players rarely if ever die when they do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not sure it makes any sense to treat the 3 edition changes under WotC/Hasbro as anamolies, but the one AD&D edition change over 30 years ago under an entirely different company as the standard we should measure OneD&D by. Sure seems like that one is the odd one out, and 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e seem to be the common standard now.
WotC themselves are calling it a 5.5e not 6e. Sales and business factors indicate it's time for an update not full edition change. And in my 40 years of D&D experience, the changes so far are clearly an editon update rather than full edition change.
But, whichever. Either way, OneD&D will be what it will be, and will be called what WotC wants to call it, regardless of what us random fans think. ;)
It will officially be called whatever WotC want to call it. But only time will tell if most of us accept that labeling or if we reject it and refer to it as 5.5 or 6 or some other beast entirely.
4 had D&D on the cover. But many were those who said it wasn't D&D and who abandoned the game for others until we saw 5.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
4e was a completely different ruleset that bore zero resemblance to 3.5e. It wasn't a continuation/extension of the popular edition with some changes the way PF1 was for 3.5, or the way 1DnD is looking to be for 5e. So I think predicting the same degree of schism that 4e had is unlikely.
I understand perfectly well that 4e and 3e/3.5e bore little to no resemblance. I am not saying there is any sort of parallel between that shift and the shift now taking place. Only that it will up to us to determine whether or not One D&D makes for an update or a whole new edition or something else.
That shift now taking place however is as I said greater than what came before any of the above editions:
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
It might be hard to find copies of the 3rd edition PHB, but 3.5 absolutely overhauled some classes. I didtinctly remember the ranger got a significant rewrite.
You are correct. Changes were made to the Ranger. But I'm not talking about making adjustments to a class (or race). I'm talking about changes to the class (or race) system. I'd say tossing out the latter word entirely and moving attribute bonuses or penalties to backgrounds (of which I am no critic as I think it does make more sense for one's labour to have determined such things) is a pretty big change and is one greater than anything you will find that took place between 0e and 2e as I said. Any changes between 0e and 2e were ultimately additions to the game. The expansion of alignments. New classes. New spells for those new classes. The inclusion of proficiencies. But those earlier editions were still compatible with one another. The biggest difference one might identify was the switch from using attack matrices to using THAC0 but the math was the same. (EDIT: I suppose one could argue race as class in B/X and BECMI and the separation of these in AD&D is probably the biggest difference to be found. But as Old-School Essentials has shown with Classic Fantasy and Advanced Fantasy which mimics how many of us played when we played B/X or BECMI but incorporated into our games whatever AD&D books we could get ahold of these work alongside one another just fine.) It was with 3e/3.5e that the game first went through dramatic changes. 4e was also then different. 5e was also then different. Now we arrive at a situation where we are going to see conflict at tables not only because some will want to use the Druid from 5e and some the one from "One D&D" but also because some will bring characters to tables where their chosen race will impact their ability scores and some will protest this and demand species play no part in this. Those holding on tightly to their 5e books will become pariahs at some tables and I'd say that in and of itself is enough to tell us it's a different edition.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
Um… what? Someone can right now play a OneD&D playtest druid with a party of standard 5e characters. We are doing it with a playtest bard and all the rest being standard classes. Zero problems. The option to have race not impact ability scores has been around for years, and, again, they play perfectly fine with standard PHB races having ability score modifiers. I have no idea where they book clutching pariahs are because all these things are already happening smoothly with no issues whatsoever with thousands of groups.
There was also almost literally word for word the same fear mongering back when 3.5 was on the way, but it was in the minority and when the updated rules came out, everyone managed just fine without book clutching pariahs or any of that hyperbole actually happening. (Plus even with 3.5 every single class had changes, the skill list completely changed, and the 3.5 to PF1 even more radically changed every single class, etc. In both cases, they are right on par with the changes we are seeing so far with OneD&D.)
You are misrepresenting what I am saying. I am not saying they are not at all compatible. Mechanically speaking. I am saying some tables will strictly accept one or the other. That has always happened with the arrival of a new edition of the game even when compatibility was held intact—be it 1e to 2e or even just the jump from 3e to 3.5e. That therein lies the incompatibility we are going to see. The conflict won't necessarily arise from the rules conflicting with one another—but it might do—but ultimately between players.
You cannot pretend some tables simply will not allow a player to use certain changes. Or pretend others won't insist upon them. We are now talking about changes that are ostensibly moral or political in nature and discussion around these even here can divide people.
So no. That is not at all "fearmongering" or "hyperbolic."
That is inevitably going to happen.
And if it was enough to make for a new edition in the past when compatibility was held intact why are we pretending this time around it's not at all a new edition just because of the facile rhetoric coming out of the company about how "One D&D" is going to be this magical all-compatible wonder?
There were fewer changes between 1e and 2e. These essentially remained the same game but for the addition of proficiencies and the switch from attack matrices to THAC0 even though the math was the same for these.
What would you say is the more divisive? Telling a player you don't use proficiencies at your table so no he or she isn't proficient in swimming any more than anyone else's character or telling a player he or she is a monster for continuing to refer to a character's race and not its species or if he or she chooses to assign ability bonuses and penalties dependent on race and not on background?
I am willing to wager we are going to see the playerbase more divided than it already is.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
We have this "dilemma" right now in 5e as it presently exists. Remember how the monster races in Volo's had negative stat modifiers, but were errata'd away? And on the species front, remember how all the MMM races switched all the races therein (so all races that had bound modifiers except the PHB races) to a floating +1/+2? Some groups still adhere to the old Volo's modifiers. Other tables don't except MMM. Others, actually many others don't use anything in Tasha's Cauldron of everything. I'd say folks are more ambivalent about Fizbans and VGtR, but people get very passionate about embracing or rejecting the character options in the Dragonlance book or Strixhaven. Oh, let's not forget how some DMs don't allow the selection of feats presented in the PHB, the first book out of the gate. There's an edition with many options presented and tables pick and choose what they use. In the near future One D&D, at least per its backward compatibility claims, will allow options as to what version to run. As stated above, folks are running One D&D classes alongside the present core options. I think one thing WotC is likely learning from its various channels, including but not limited to "the survey," is that D&D players tend to be a pretty fluid and dynamic cohort to pin down with one common tool of satisfaction. They know players and DMs want options. They may not ultimately be successful, but One D&D seems to be reaching in that direction more than some sort of apocalyptic reset button.
And if it is a separate edition, people will still play 5e, just like people currently play every edition of D&D ever published, without even invoking any of the clones or derivatives. Might it be easier to find new people to play with via the latest publisher supported edition? That's probably the plan. But folks who want to keep their 5e aren't going to suffer whatever you're portending they'll suffer. The assertions otherwise are in fact hyperbolic fear-mongering.
I type this as someone on the fence as to whether I'll invest in whatever format the One D&D core eventually comes out as. I like my 5e game, my players who like it, most of them aren't even aware of One D&D, and really if I want to invest in new rulesets, it'll probably be something other than D&D, I like playing a lot of different games. If I do buy into 5e, it'll probably be at least a year after the core comes out so I can see if there's any worth to it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
None of which goes anywhere towards answering whether or not "One D&D" ought to be considered a new edition of the game. Which is really what is being discussed here.
I've explained why it is as much a new edition as 2e was.
You are correct to point out this dilemma already exists.
You don't think it's only going to get worse when we see the publication of the new core rule books and some simply don't allow players to roll up characters using the current player's handbook they are so militant in their opposition to what has already been mentioned?
I wager money there are going to be players playing 5e. Others playing "One D&D." No matter how compatible. That is not at all saying I "portend" those who will stick to 5e are going to suffer anything.
I'm fully aware people can play whatever edition they want.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
I think we should just skip an edition and call One D&D 7th edition.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
5.75e
It's half way between 5.5e and 6e, so surely that makes everyone happy right?
Plot twist!
They end up calling it 5F
Ok, so your problem here is that these changes are "moral and political" because race is being renamed and ability score bonuses are being moved, so that will divide the playerbase? Um, you might want to double check the 1e to 2e change because that edition had more "moral and political" based changes than every other edition change put together!! Relabeling races has got nothing on the volume of "moral and political" changes with 2e. No contest!
Also, I hope people can appreciate the irony of someone saying they aren't being hyperbolic and then literally two sentences later say the rest of us are just listening to "the facile rhetoric coming out of the company about how "One D&D" is going to be this magical all-compatible wonder." LOL!
What "moral and political" changes took place with 2e? The renaming of devils and demons? Was that silly and TSR just giving in to hysteria? Yes. Yes it was. But it was hardly "political" in nature and it was never going to drive a wedge between players.
You are comparing apples to oranges. What player was ever really going to lose his or her cool if a DM used the word "devil" or "demon" and not "baatezu" or "tanar'ri" at his or her table?
No one cared.
But you know as well as I do there are going to be players that won't stand for others not fully embracing the changes taking place with "One D&D." People have wasted entire threads arguing over the matter. People here can't get along if they disagree about it. You honestly believe there won't be players who will walk away from games that use the word "race" or tables that simply will not welcome players who wish to continue to use race-based ability score adjustments? Get real.
How is it hyperbole to say it is facile rhetoric for them to claim "One D&D" is some sort of "non-edition"? Have they or have not said they don't even see D&D in terms of editions anymore but instead see D&D as D&D? They have. And I'd call that pretty facile rhetoric on their part and argue that should be pretty obvious to anyone who has observed most of the game's history.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
I think both of you are talking past one another, not to one another.
Might I suggest taking a break? A thread insisting there shouldn't be another edition of the game, when one is currently being play-tested, inherently has a toxic atmosphere.
As someone that has been thru very edition switch, let me say this : “And the Band Played On” . For a game in which the local table regularly rewrites the rules as hey see fit edition changes are much less of a big deal in most cases. The only edition change that gave me any real pause was 3.5 to 4, it was sooo different that I had to step back and evaluate it on its own merits and not in comparison to anything that came before. What I found was that, while very different it was a functional, workable version of the game that wasn’t actually that hard to learn and play and run. Going from 4e to 5e wasn’t the shocker, as it was really a volition of 3.5 with a few bits of 4e (cantrips) included. So knowing both made the transition easy. WOtC has said the new version will be back compatible and so far in my own playtesting it is. Are things identical? No, but a playtest character can be played right along with 5e characters without any major problems and few minor ones. The playtest characters are a bit stronger early in T1 but not so much as to destroy the game balance. After T1 the differences in lay are generally moot - there but no more of a problem for a DM than having a different class/multiclass character would be. At this point n the playtest we are not ven half way through the first round of playtesting so it’s hard to say just what the final result will be but it’s already clear ( to me at least) tha it’s not going to be a 3.5 to 4 style transition but more of a basic to 1e to 2e to 3e to 3.5e to 5e transition. Will the fact that there is a transition anger some folks? Yes. Will some folks refuse to slip over? Yes. Will it matter to the game as a whole? NO! Time to move on folks.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
You can't seriously be suggesting the transition from AD&D to 3e/3.5e was no big deal.
Up to and including 2e it had been the same game with only additions made to it: new classes, new races, proficiencies.
3e/3.5e changed things dramatically. Not just with introduction of the d20 system.
I recall well the aversion among many to its combat rules being built around the assumption battle maps were used to resolve combat at most tables. Many were those who said they were trying to turn it into a wargame. With combat now it's main focus.
The similarities between 3e/3.5e and 5e are undeniable. But there are whole other systems that more closely resemble AD&D than did 3e/3.5e. Than does 5e.
The OSR exists not only to capture a certain era as far as flavour goes but also to capture the sort of play we got out of earlier editions that didn't require a rule for everything, weren't as dependent on what was on one's character sheet or on the dice, or quite so built around combat.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
1e and 2e are so similar it requires little to no effort to run an adventure written for one using the other. The core mechanics and core concepts are identical.
Any differences are minimal: THAC0 replaced attack matrices but the math was the same, magic specialization made its first appearance, non-weapon proficiencies grew in number.
5e is definitely a simpler and much, much, much better streamlined system than 3e/3.5e was.
I was there and remember well how many thought 3e was turning the game into a wargame. I also remember well as you said the anger many felt when 3.5e then came out. Quite a few people kept on playing 2e or 3e or walked away from the game altogether and played others. That exodus was nowhere near as large as the one we would see for 4e. But it did happen.
5e similarly gets criticism about its being geared too much towards combat now that there are a slew of rules-wise identical spells that just do damage and entering combat no longer puts characters (shielded as they now are by hit point bloat, death saves, and long rest regenerative superpowers) in grave danger.
It's a very different game than AD&D and is clearly a descendent of 3e/3.5e and not one of 1e or 2e.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
Lol. There were "no skills" beyond those of the thief and the rules and tables for perception-based skills because players would themselves have to ROLE-PLAY anything social. And did. Now a player has written on the character sheet what the Persuasion or Intimidation or Deception score is. They needn't even role-play the encounter unless they want to earn themselves Advantage on the roll.
1e had a ton of stuff for domain-level play with players obtaining titles and land and many were the games played FOR YEARS that were about court intrigue and not just hack and slash for loot.
I've already explained why 5e is a fighting game. Oodles of combat spells. And players rarely if ever die when they do.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.