They have indicated there will be guidelines and there will probably have to be some 5e errata. some of the new rules make stuff incompatible. That is why I can only see two options 1."Planned Obsolescence" of 5e via errata by limiting the interesting stuff OR 2. "split edition" the light/5eR characters and the 2014 5e characters.
the split concept worked kind of well for the ranger community. When we got tasha's and PHB working there were Options for most reasonable minded players. However, when they stopped supporting the 2014 ranger design trouble started up again. (stopped support via type manipulation of stat blocks, refusing to answer Ranger RAW or RAI questions, updating and simplifying/clarifying features(races and spells) but ignoring rangers non-standard language ). in the end the spit added to the discourse complexity and allowed for confusion and strawman/goalpost complaints. Now they are indicating a third option thrown on top. I don't really think it will help ranger and now other classes will be in a similar spot. there's a way to make it work (just like we had with early Tasha's release) but it would require them to actively put decent effort towards their "guidelines". But the track record isn't that great.
My understanding (and I don't recall where it came from to be honest) was that there would be guidelines provided to blend/convert 5.0 with 5.5 content when necessary
Kyle Brink mentioned that. Essentially it would be a conversion guide that says things like "if you're using the SRD 5.1, anywhere it says "race", we call that "species" now (or whatever they end up landing on.)
They have indicated there will be guidelines and there will probably have to be some 5e errata. some of the new rules make stuff incompatible. That is why I can only see two options 1."Planned Obsolescence" of 5e via errata by limiting the interesting stuff OR 2. "split edition" the light/5eR characters and the 2014 5e characters.
the split concept worked kind of well for the ranger community. When we got tasha's and PHB working there were Options for most reasonable minded players. However, when they stopped supporting the 2014 ranger design trouble started up again. (stopped support via type manipulation of stat blocks, refusing to answer Ranger RAW or RAI questions, updating and simplifying/clarifying features(races and spells) but ignoring rangers non-standard language ). in the end the spit added to the discourse complexity and allowed for confusion and strawman/goalpost complaints. Now they are indicating a third option thrown on top. I don't really think it will help ranger and now other classes will be in a similar spot. there's a way to make it work (just like we had with early Tasha's release) but it would require them to actively put decent effort towards their "guidelines". But the track record isn't that great.
Why would they keep supporting 2014 ranger when that's now been obsoleted twice? Of course they're not going to burn design cycles on it, especially when half the features are ribbons that can be obsoleted by a good skill check anyway.
There's a difference between supporting and continuing To develop And then There's the third option of actively disruption. Certain errata activity disrupts (like healing spirit even if deemed necessary for reasons).
And the real problem is phb ranger was never obsolete as there are plenty of players and builds that use it still. The people who hate it are loud but the satisfaction was still around a 50/50 split for tasha's vs phb.
But in the endpmy point is the claim of supporting 2014 design and the development path they are on seems almost impossible. Making its compatible claims suspect.
One thing I do remember from the video I saw on the content creator summit is that it appears shortsword is going back to the martial list. Probably a good change, though it makes me sad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They have indicated there will be guidelines and there will probably have to be some 5e errata. some of the new rules make stuff incompatible. That is why I can only see two options 1."Planned Obsolescence" of 5e via errata by limiting the interesting stuff OR 2. "split edition" the light/5eR characters and the 2014 5e characters.
the split concept worked kind of well for the ranger community. When we got tasha's and PHB working there were Options for most reasonable minded players. However, when they stopped supporting the 2014 ranger design trouble started up again. (stopped support via type manipulation of stat blocks, refusing to answer Ranger RAW or RAI questions, updating and simplifying/clarifying features(races and spells) but ignoring rangers non-standard language ). in the end the spit added to the discourse complexity and allowed for confusion and strawman/goalpost complaints. Now they are indicating a third option thrown on top. I don't really think it will help ranger and now other classes will be in a similar spot. there's a way to make it work (just like we had with early Tasha's release) but it would require them to actively put decent effort towards their "guidelines". But the track record isn't that great.
Kyle Brink mentioned that. Essentially it would be a conversion guide that says things like "if you're using the SRD 5.1, anywhere it says "race", we call that "species" now (or whatever they end up landing on.)
Why would they keep supporting 2014 ranger when that's now been obsoleted twice? Of course they're not going to burn design cycles on it, especially when half the features are ribbons that can be obsoleted by a good skill check anyway.
There's a difference between supporting and continuing To develop And then There's the third option of actively disruption. Certain errata activity disrupts (like healing spirit even if deemed necessary for reasons).
And the real problem is phb ranger was never obsolete as there are plenty of players and builds that use it still. The people who hate it are loud but the satisfaction was still around a 50/50 split for tasha's vs phb.
But in the endpmy point is the claim of supporting 2014 design and the development path they are on seems almost impossible. Making its compatible claims suspect.
One thing I do remember from the video I saw on the content creator summit is that it appears shortsword is going back to the martial list. Probably a good change, though it makes me sad.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha