As it came out recently, WotC are very clearly promoting the idea that this new release (with a new PHB, DMG, etc.) is actually not a whole new edition of D&D separate from 5th edition. I am personally having trouble with the idea of treating this as a continuation/extension of 5th Edition (or at best, Edition 5.5) rather than it being thought of as 6th Edition. I feel this will inevitably lead to issues and confusion, especially early on after release, with people coming to tables wanting to play the 5th Edition version of Orcs (instead of the new version) or 5th Edition version of Rangers or use 5th Edition Gloom Stalker subclass because they are "compatible".
I like the idea of saying the things from 5th Edition are compatible. I wouldn't even mind if this was called 6E but 5E stuff is compatible, because I feel this creates a clear delineation between the two and leaves it up to DM discretion what is allowed at the table. But trying to push the idea of this being more like an addition or revision to 5E creates all these weird scenarios where there are 2 versions of species/classes/subclasses/feats to choose from and all should be treated as valid. Not to mention the fact that only some things will have revised versions at the time of launch. I just know it'll feel weird rolling up a new Genasi character in One D&D (or 5.5E or whatever it ends up being called) using the old 5E rules and features when I know for certain that there's more than likely going to be a sourcebook with new/revised One D&D versions of the Genasi coming in probably the next year or two.
Am I alone in this concern? Do other people have similar issues with this approach that WotC are taking to One D&D?
Whenever you have a new version of a book or other published material, the new version is always referred to as an "edition". Whether or not WOTC wants to call the next version of the Player's Handbook a new "edition", this book will be the 2024 edition of the Player's Handbook; distinct from the 2014 edition of that same book. The new versions of the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual will also be new editions of these books. Players will want a shorthand for referring to the 2024 PHB, and will almost certainly refer to it as "5.5" to distinguish it from the prior edition. Some supplements like Tasha's Cauldron of Everything may be described as "compatible with both 5 and 5.5 Editions". Even if WOTC doesn't like the terminology, third party publishers will likely adopt it.
Let's be honest and spell out what most people are thinking: One DnD isn't different from 5e enough to justify calling it a whole new edition. It's based on 5e.
And the idea that you can make a new edition and never, ever subject it to any kind of radical change or redesign is... Well, Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate last Windows ever with updates every few months or something. We all know how this ended.
WotC is in a damned-if-they-do situation. Call it a new edition, we'd get inundated with threads gnashing their teeth over being forced into a cash grab of new books. Call it more of the current edition, people complain they're being disingenuous and they should just say it's 5.5e or 6e. Do nothing, 5e stagnates and gets stale, people move on anyway. "More of the current edition" is close enough to cover off on what people will actually be forced to do to keep playing, i.e. not much.
Really matters? I mean, it doesn't matter if they call it 5e revised, 5.5, 6e or whatever. What matters is how deep the changes are going to be. And from what is being seen, they will not be very deep. They are going to "make up" 5e, and that's it.
That they call it one way or another, frankly I don't mind. It's a business decision that has nothing to do with the actual game.
Anyone calling them putting out a new edition after a decade of 5e (not to mention all the content coming out in the last couple years of its life running up to 2024) would be ridiculous. They aren't damned if they just say to people, "5e still exists and has 10 years of support and content with which to play with. Nobody needs to feel like they immediately have to move to 6e or transfer their existing campaigns to the new edition. But we want to take advantage of what we've learned over the lifespan of 5e and start fresh without inheriting any of the flaws or balance issues or weird nuances of 5e's history."
And in response to what someone said about it not mattering what it's called, I just don't believe that. How can it not matter how they present and market this in relation to the existing edition? Do you actually think nothing about the game would be different if 3rd Edition had been called 2.5, or if 5th Edition had been called 4.5? The second film in a movie franchise is treated as its own thing because people would fundamentally interact with it different if the movie studio put out a bunch of marketing saying it was actually the second half of a previously incomplete first movie (and so the first movie is in reality an over 4hr long epic meant to be watched in one go)
My biggest issue with this whole idea is one simple thing; I am going to be constantly second-guessing what's coming next. I don't want to spend ages creating a Loxodon character using 5e rules only for them to soon after announce a revised/new Loxodon coming in the next sourcebook. I want sourcebooks to give us new things, whereas I feel like the next 5 years is just going to be WotC going back over everything that already exists and updating it (like they've been doing for all the species, classes, subclasses and feats in One D&D so far).
The whole ".5" edition isn't anything new, the first 3 versions of AD&D effectively had them under different names. In 1st Edition, they called it Unearthed Arcana, in 2nd Edition, it was Skills and Powers. They altered things for players quite a bit, but it wasn't until 3.5 that more than one book was needed to accommodate the amount of changed rules, and that the changes were done in re-issues of the core books rather than an optional supplement.
Which makes me wonder - will any classes change on the level of the 3.5 Bard and Ranger?
And in response to what someone said about it not mattering what it's called, I just don't believe that. How can it not matter how they present and market this in relation to the existing edition? Do you actually think nothing about the game would be different if 3rd Edition had been called 2.5, or if 5th Edition had been called 4.5? The second film in a movie franchise is treated as its own thing because people would fundamentally interact with it different if the movie studio put out a bunch of marketing saying it was actually the second half of a previously incomplete first movie (and so the first movie is in reality an over 4hr long epic meant to be watched in one go)
3e edition was completely different from 2.5 It would not have made sense to call it 2.5 (since that edition already existed), nor 2e revised, nor anything related to 2e. In fact, it was published by a different publisher (WoTC and not TSR) that also wanted to keep the IP as far away from the bad name of TSR as possible (one of the things they did to achieve this was the publication of the OGL). But in any case, it was a zero reset.
Something similar happened with the 5th edition, but without the change of publisher. 4e was a commercial failure, and WoTC wanted to get as far away from that reviled edition as possible. I never played 4e (I never went from 3.5 to 4e, I played Pathfinder like so many others), so I don't know firsthand. But from what I understand the changes from 4e to 5e were very deep. So there was no point in calling it 4.5 either. Not commercially, since they wanted to move the D&D IP away from that failure; nor for design reasons, since the system was different.
What is happening now is the complete opposite. 5e is the most successful edition of the game, and WoTC doesn't want to walk away from 5e's good name. In fact, after the OGL crisis, what they want is to move away from the One D&D name that has been tarnished by controversy. That's why in the last video about weapons and stuff, there's no One D&D anywhere.
In short, whether they call it 5.5, 5e revised or 6e, by itself doesn't matter. It is a business decision. It is how deep the changes are that matters. In my opinion, the changes are deep enough to talk about a 5.5, but not deep enough to talk about a 6e. However, if WoTC had wanted to move away from 5e for any reason, they would have called it 6e. But the content and depth of the changes would have been the same, since 5e has done so well and all they want to do is refine it.
The whole ".5" edition isn't anything new, the first 3 versions of AD&D effectively had them under different names. In 1st Edition, they called it Unearthed Arcana, in 2nd Edition, it was Skills and Powers. They altered things for players quite a bit, but it wasn't until 3.5 that more than one book was needed to accommodate the amount of changed rules, and that the changes were done in re-issues of the core books rather than an optional supplement.
Which makes me wonder - will any classes change on the level of the 3.5 Bard and Ranger?
What exactly do you mean starting with 3.5 it took more than one book? The PHB, DMG and MM triad has been around since AD&D, so I'm assuming that's not what you're referring to. And no edition of D&D has ever had as much official content released as AD&D 2e. So I don't quite understand what you mean.
On the other hand AD&D never had 3 editions as such. It had two editions (almost identical) that were 1e and 2e, and had one revision that was 2.5
Thanks for unnecessarily going into the history of each edition's release. My examples were more meant in the abstract than specifically "what if 3rd Edition was numbered as 2.5?", to highlight the difference in player/audience attitude and experience of a new numbered edition versus a ".5" version. I also don't really care about the business reasons, which do make sense to me and it is a smart business move, but mean nothing to me at my table when someone wants to multiclass into a 5e version of Warlock or Cleric cause they get their subclass at first level rather than the new One D&D standard of level 3.
I don't see the reason of carrying over all this baggage from an edition that came out a decade ago which doesn't fit nicely with the new balance and design of the new edition. I'm fine with them saying it's technically compatible and you can use 5e stuff in the new one (or vice-versa), but it needs a clearer separation so that it's up to DM discretion rather than encouraging players to assume/expect these things to be fine.
If you want a prime example of the problem with the "everything in 5e is compatible and should be normal/acceptable in the new edition" attitude, just look at the latest UA;
In the design notes for the new Sorcerer, the designers straight up say "the old version of twinned spell was broken as hell and we've re-designed it completely to stop it being stupidly overpowered". How can WotC talk about the new version being totally compatible with 5e while also saying this about features in the 5e PHB?
I also don't really care about the business reasons, which do make sense to me and it is a smart business move, but mean nothing to me at my table when someone wants to multiclass into a 5e version of Warlock or Cleric cause they get their subclass at first level rather than the new One D&D standard of level 3.
And that's what I'm saying, it doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is the content.
If you want a prime example of the problem with the "everything in 5e is compatible and should be normal/acceptable in the new edition" attitude, just look at the latest UA;
In the design notes for the new Sorcerer, the designers straight up say "the old version of twinned spell was broken as hell and we've re-designed it completely to stop it being stupidly overpowered". How can WotC talk about the new version being totally compatible with 5e while also saying this about features in the 5e PHB?
In the case where they're replacing a feature entirely like this, it's no different than if they had simply issued errata, which they're allowed to do when they see something as being too powerful. They could have done this in 5e without a new edition as well.
Having said that, I disagree with them that Twin Spell was too powerful; the new version is essentially only useful for spells without concentration now. I don't mind breaking up the casting over two turns as long as they maintain the dual-concentration functionality.
Everything will be the same as the 40k/Warhammer books. It's all totally compatible until we say it's not, two weeks after we have your money". I am betting this will be done via the VTT. When attempting to add the "Warforged Echo Knight" you created using 5e Rules, the VTT will just flat out say no, not compatible. Does not compute. They don't care, they already have your sub money before you realized what you'd purchased.
[REDACTED] All those USD 60+ books become worthless the second the VTT doesn't allow them. There is no backwards compatibility in any of the editions. I can't suddenly demand to use THAC0, or force my party to accept that all wizards are now called "magic user, or that death is permanent, and there is no "death save" mechanic. 5th doesn't allow me to play a prestige class Red Dragon Disciple with 44 strength and a Great Cleave ability.
Stop spreading the rumor that backwards compatibility will be the standard. Just accept its a different game. It will hurt less in the future if you just accept it now.
Or just play homebrew, which again, I'm betting the VTT will not allow, based off the coding leaks I've heard about. VTT will only allow two things, content the player has purchased, and the content the DM allows. Both will be required. No more book sharing or content unlocking.
Or just play homebrew, which again, I'm betting the VTT will not allow, based off the coding leaks I've heard about. VTT will only allow two things, content the player has purchased, and the content the DM allows. Both will be required. No more book sharing or content unlocking.
To be honest, I won't be using one dnd at my table. The changes to warlock and cleric just seem terrible. The changes to spiritual weapon comes off as nerfing the spell to uselessness. The forcing of casters to not be able have flexible casting seems terrible. If people wanted to make noncaster characters better then take notes from 3.5 or echo knight subclass to add flair to a class. Truthfully the best way to resolve the class gap is to make the noncasters more viable both in and out of combat.
going to use rules that don't allow flexible casting, because the new rules, also do not allow flexible casting. Makes sense.
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.
This is the long game of WotC betting all their eggs on their pay pigs being dumb as rocks, and willing to buy anything shiny they drop. All those USD 60+ books become worthless the second the VTT doesn't allow them.
Correction: the VTT will fail spectacularly and those books will be fine. While Wizards would love it if everyone bought all the books again, getting a success in the VTT space requires a good VTT product, and that means homebrew is non-negotiable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As it came out recently, WotC are very clearly promoting the idea that this new release (with a new PHB, DMG, etc.) is actually not a whole new edition of D&D separate from 5th edition. I am personally having trouble with the idea of treating this as a continuation/extension of 5th Edition (or at best, Edition 5.5) rather than it being thought of as 6th Edition. I feel this will inevitably lead to issues and confusion, especially early on after release, with people coming to tables wanting to play the 5th Edition version of Orcs (instead of the new version) or 5th Edition version of Rangers or use 5th Edition Gloom Stalker subclass because they are "compatible".
I like the idea of saying the things from 5th Edition are compatible. I wouldn't even mind if this was called 6E but 5E stuff is compatible, because I feel this creates a clear delineation between the two and leaves it up to DM discretion what is allowed at the table. But trying to push the idea of this being more like an addition or revision to 5E creates all these weird scenarios where there are 2 versions of species/classes/subclasses/feats to choose from and all should be treated as valid. Not to mention the fact that only some things will have revised versions at the time of launch. I just know it'll feel weird rolling up a new Genasi character in One D&D (or 5.5E or whatever it ends up being called) using the old 5E rules and features when I know for certain that there's more than likely going to be a sourcebook with new/revised One D&D versions of the Genasi coming in probably the next year or two.
Am I alone in this concern? Do other people have similar issues with this approach that WotC are taking to One D&D?
Whenever you have a new version of a book or other published material, the new version is always referred to as an "edition". Whether or not WOTC wants to call the next version of the Player's Handbook a new "edition", this book will be the 2024 edition of the Player's Handbook; distinct from the 2014 edition of that same book. The new versions of the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual will also be new editions of these books. Players will want a shorthand for referring to the 2024 PHB, and will almost certainly refer to it as "5.5" to distinguish it from the prior edition. Some supplements like Tasha's Cauldron of Everything may be described as "compatible with both 5 and 5.5 Editions". Even if WOTC doesn't like the terminology, third party publishers will likely adopt it.
Let's be honest and spell out what most people are thinking: One DnD isn't different from 5e enough to justify calling it a whole new edition. It's based on 5e.
And the idea that you can make a new edition and never, ever subject it to any kind of radical change or redesign is... Well, Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate last Windows ever with updates every few months or something. We all know how this ended.
WotC is in a damned-if-they-do situation. Call it a new edition, we'd get inundated with threads gnashing their teeth over being forced into a cash grab of new books. Call it more of the current edition, people complain they're being disingenuous and they should just say it's 5.5e or 6e. Do nothing, 5e stagnates and gets stale, people move on anyway. "More of the current edition" is close enough to cover off on what people will actually be forced to do to keep playing, i.e. not much.
Really matters? I mean, it doesn't matter if they call it 5e revised, 5.5, 6e or whatever. What matters is how deep the changes are going to be. And from what is being seen, they will not be very deep. They are going to "make up" 5e, and that's it.
That they call it one way or another, frankly I don't mind. It's a business decision that has nothing to do with the actual game.
Anyone calling them putting out a new edition after a decade of 5e (not to mention all the content coming out in the last couple years of its life running up to 2024) would be ridiculous. They aren't damned if they just say to people, "5e still exists and has 10 years of support and content with which to play with. Nobody needs to feel like they immediately have to move to 6e or transfer their existing campaigns to the new edition. But we want to take advantage of what we've learned over the lifespan of 5e and start fresh without inheriting any of the flaws or balance issues or weird nuances of 5e's history."
And in response to what someone said about it not mattering what it's called, I just don't believe that. How can it not matter how they present and market this in relation to the existing edition? Do you actually think nothing about the game would be different if 3rd Edition had been called 2.5, or if 5th Edition had been called 4.5? The second film in a movie franchise is treated as its own thing because people would fundamentally interact with it different if the movie studio put out a bunch of marketing saying it was actually the second half of a previously incomplete first movie (and so the first movie is in reality an over 4hr long epic meant to be watched in one go)
My biggest issue with this whole idea is one simple thing; I am going to be constantly second-guessing what's coming next. I don't want to spend ages creating a Loxodon character using 5e rules only for them to soon after announce a revised/new Loxodon coming in the next sourcebook. I want sourcebooks to give us new things, whereas I feel like the next 5 years is just going to be WotC going back over everything that already exists and updating it (like they've been doing for all the species, classes, subclasses and feats in One D&D so far).
The whole ".5" edition isn't anything new, the first 3 versions of AD&D effectively had them under different names. In 1st Edition, they called it Unearthed Arcana, in 2nd Edition, it was Skills and Powers. They altered things for players quite a bit, but it wasn't until 3.5 that more than one book was needed to accommodate the amount of changed rules, and that the changes were done in re-issues of the core books rather than an optional supplement.
Which makes me wonder - will any classes change on the level of the 3.5 Bard and Ranger?
3e edition was completely different from 2.5 It would not have made sense to call it 2.5 (since that edition already existed), nor 2e revised, nor anything related to 2e. In fact, it was published by a different publisher (WoTC and not TSR) that also wanted to keep the IP as far away from the bad name of TSR as possible (one of the things they did to achieve this was the publication of the OGL). But in any case, it was a zero reset.
Something similar happened with the 5th edition, but without the change of publisher. 4e was a commercial failure, and WoTC wanted to get as far away from that reviled edition as possible. I never played 4e (I never went from 3.5 to 4e, I played Pathfinder like so many others), so I don't know firsthand. But from what I understand the changes from 4e to 5e were very deep. So there was no point in calling it 4.5 either. Not commercially, since they wanted to move the D&D IP away from that failure; nor for design reasons, since the system was different.
What is happening now is the complete opposite. 5e is the most successful edition of the game, and WoTC doesn't want to walk away from 5e's good name. In fact, after the OGL crisis, what they want is to move away from the One D&D name that has been tarnished by controversy. That's why in the last video about weapons and stuff, there's no One D&D anywhere.
In short, whether they call it 5.5, 5e revised or 6e, by itself doesn't matter. It is a business decision. It is how deep the changes are that matters. In my opinion, the changes are deep enough to talk about a 5.5, but not deep enough to talk about a 6e. However, if WoTC had wanted to move away from 5e for any reason, they would have called it 6e. But the content and depth of the changes would have been the same, since 5e has done so well and all they want to do is refine it.
What exactly do you mean starting with 3.5 it took more than one book? The PHB, DMG and MM triad has been around since AD&D, so I'm assuming that's not what you're referring to. And no edition of D&D has ever had as much official content released as AD&D 2e. So I don't quite understand what you mean.
On the other hand AD&D never had 3 editions as such. It had two editions (almost identical) that were 1e and 2e, and had one revision that was 2.5
Thanks for unnecessarily going into the history of each edition's release. My examples were more meant in the abstract than specifically "what if 3rd Edition was numbered as 2.5?", to highlight the difference in player/audience attitude and experience of a new numbered edition versus a ".5" version. I also don't really care about the business reasons, which do make sense to me and it is a smart business move, but mean nothing to me at my table when someone wants to multiclass into a 5e version of Warlock or Cleric cause they get their subclass at first level rather than the new One D&D standard of level 3.
I don't see the reason of carrying over all this baggage from an edition that came out a decade ago which doesn't fit nicely with the new balance and design of the new edition. I'm fine with them saying it's technically compatible and you can use 5e stuff in the new one (or vice-versa), but it needs a clearer separation so that it's up to DM discretion rather than encouraging players to assume/expect these things to be fine.
If you want a prime example of the problem with the "everything in 5e is compatible and should be normal/acceptable in the new edition" attitude, just look at the latest UA;
In the design notes for the new Sorcerer, the designers straight up say "the old version of twinned spell was broken as hell and we've re-designed it completely to stop it being stupidly overpowered". How can WotC talk about the new version being totally compatible with 5e while also saying this about features in the 5e PHB?
Since they are insisting on using the 2024 moniker, I'm referring to it as 5.24.
Check out my books on Amazon - Jon R. Osborne
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-YXqOMcVirc
And that's what I'm saying, it doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is the content.
In the case where they're replacing a feature entirely like this, it's no different than if they had simply issued errata, which they're allowed to do when they see something as being too powerful. They could have done this in 5e without a new edition as well.
Having said that, I disagree with them that Twin Spell was too powerful; the new version is essentially only useful for spells without concentration now. I don't mind breaking up the casting over two turns as long as they maintain the dual-concentration functionality.
Everything will be the same as the 40k/Warhammer books. It's all totally compatible until we say it's not, two weeks after we have your money". I am betting this will be done via the VTT. When attempting to add the "Warforged Echo Knight" you created using 5e Rules, the VTT will just flat out say no, not compatible. Does not compute. They don't care, they already have your sub money before you realized what you'd purchased.
[REDACTED] All those USD 60+ books become worthless the second the VTT doesn't allow them. There is no backwards compatibility in any of the editions. I can't suddenly demand to use THAC0, or force my party to accept that all wizards are now called "magic user, or that death is permanent, and there is no "death save" mechanic. 5th doesn't allow me to play a prestige class Red Dragon Disciple with 44 strength and a Great Cleave ability.
Stop spreading the rumor that backwards compatibility will be the standard. Just accept its a different game. It will hurt less in the future if you just accept it now.
Or just play homebrew, which again, I'm betting the VTT will not allow, based off the coding leaks I've heard about. VTT will only allow two things, content the player has purchased, and the content the DM allows. Both will be required. No more book sharing or content unlocking.
What is your source for this information?
To be honest, I won't be using one dnd at my table. The changes to warlock and cleric just seem terrible. The changes to spiritual weapon comes off as nerfing the spell to uselessness. The forcing of casters to not be able have flexible casting seems terrible. If people wanted to make noncaster characters better then take notes from 3.5 or echo knight subclass to add flair to a class. Truthfully the best way to resolve the class gap is to make the noncasters more viable both in and out of combat.
going to use rules that don't allow flexible casting, because the new rules, also do not allow flexible casting. Makes sense.
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
Correction: the VTT will fail spectacularly and those books will be fine. While Wizards would love it if everyone bought all the books again, getting a success in the VTT space requires a good VTT product, and that means homebrew is non-negotiable.