I like it as it is, because there are some really cool features in 5e that wou,d otherwise be lost forever! It also allows for fixing of the broken (bad) classes and mechanics, allowing for more balanced gameplay
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: “Who’s your patron?”
Warlock: “Ummm”
DM: “Hurry Up”
Warlock: “yOu”
*All other players look at each other with utter fear*
__________________________________________________________________________________ Check out my homebrew: My Homebrew
An inant understanding of how corporations pay code monkey's to make their products. They are not going to pay their coders to develop open ended software, that allows a product potentially superior to their own. They are going to pay them to build a VTT, then fire 90% of the staff, keeping a few on for updating/bug fixing. It's been that was since before John Carmack made Wolf3d engine. If you think the company that literally came out and said "We need to force everyone to buy the books..." is going to spend more money than they have to, I have a bridge I'd love to sell you.
An inant understanding of how corporations pay code monkey's to make their products. They are not going to pay their coders to develop open ended software, that allows a product potentially superior to their own. They are going to pay them to build a VTT, then fire 90% of the staff, keeping a few on for updating/bug fixing. It's been that was since before John Carmack made Wolf3d engine. If you think the company that literally came out and said "We need to force everyone to buy the books..." is going to spend more money than they have to, I have a bridge I'd love to sell you.
...So no source for "there will be no more homebrew, book sharing, or content unlocking" then?
Backward compatability is a huge burden to put on the designers, and they were already working on hard mode without Mearls on the design team. I'm a fan of many of the One D&D changes, but I would have been happier if they had more room (and time) to experiment as they would if we were getting a proper 5.5.
It's objectively not a new edition; the entire point of their big "backward compatibility" angle precludes that from the outset. It's most like the transition from 3rd edition to 3.5; numerous particular elements of the game are being changed, but we're still operating with the same skill list, the same general array of spells, and the same fundamental gameplay rules.
It's objectively not a new edition; the entire point of their big "backward compatibility" angle precludes that from the outset. It's most like the transition from 3rd edition to 3.5; numerous particular elements of the game are being changed, but we're still operating with the same skill list, the same general array of spells, and the same fundamental gameplay rules.
Though editions are a fuzzy concept, I wouldn't say the difference between AD&D 1e and 2e was larger than between 3.0 and 3.5, and then you have things that were pretty big changes to the game that didn't get called editions at all, such as Skills and Powers for AD&D or Essentials for 4e.
It's objectively not a new edition; the entire point of their big "backward compatibility" angle precludes that from the outset. It's most like the transition from 3rd edition to 3.5; numerous particular elements of the game are being changed, but we're still operating with the same skill list, the same general array of spells, and the same fundamental gameplay rules.
Though editions are a fuzzy concept, I wouldn't say the difference between AD&D 1e and 2e was larger than between 3.0 and 3.5, and then you have things that were pretty big changes to the game that didn't get called editions at all, such as Skills and Powers for AD&D or Essentials for 4e.
Retroactively, one could refer to Unearthed Arcana and Skills and Powers as 1.5 and 2.5, even though the distinction wasn't made at the time - both introduced new subsystems into the game that fundamentally altered play. I can't speak to Essentials, as I was a Pathfinder refugee during 4th.
It's a new edition of the rules irrespective of whether or not it's backwards compatible, and it remains to be seen as to just how 'compatible' it will actually be. If there are new versions of races, classes, sub-classes, spells, specific rules and such, that's a new edition as far as I'm concerned. Even if that weren't the case, having to incorporate two sets of concurrent rules sounds like a headache not worth having.
It's a new edition of the rules irrespective of whether or not it's backwards compatible, and it remains to be seen as to just how 'compatible' it will actually be. If there are new versions of races, classes, sub-classes, spells, specific rules and such, that's a new edition as far as I'm concerned. Even if that weren't the case, having to incorporate two sets of concurrent rules sounds like a headache not worth having.
You realize everything you've just described has already occurred in 5e, right? MotM gave us updates to a couple dozen races, new spells and subclasses have been coming out pretty much since the first supplement, Tasha's gave additional and alternative class features, and the DMG offered alternative rules from the outset and Xanathar's also included some alternative rules for things like crafting, sleep, spellcasting, etc. If you want to insist on calling it a new edition, we can't stop you, but you're gonna get a lot of people telling you you're wrong; this is really just a more comprehensive case of the kind of things they've been putting out in supplements the entire time.
Already exclude a lot from Tasha's in my games, for much the same reason. Avoided MotM altogether. They started to take the game in a new and undesirable direction that didn't mesh well with our group. But those were rules expansions, for the most part, rather than a revision of the core rulebook. There is no right or wrong, given it's one opinion against another, but I'm content to stay in the camp that considers it a new edition... call that new edition what you will. By your logic one could argue WH40k isn't up to 10th edition, since that game doesn't really change all that much from one edition to the next. I will stick with 5e as I have it now.
"One D&D" doesn't even deserve to be called an X.5 revision at this point, let alone a new edition. Wizards' rank cowardice, combined with the intransigence and incompetence of "The D&D 5e Playerbase" has turned this "update" into an updon't. They haven't changed a single goddamn thing. They haven't fixed a single goddamn thing. It is 100% the exact same rules, just with different art this time, because every time Wizards tried to actually change something grognards screamed at them until they caved and walked that change back. There's not even really any point in talking about "One D&D" anymore because it doesn't exist. Y'all killed it. They didn't do anything, and the year and a half of utter, absolute horribleness this entire process has been has ensured they never will again.
If someone wants a .5 version of 5e, they're going to have to do it their own damned self. Furthermore, DDB will be neither willing nor able to help them do it given this site's execrable homebrew systems.
The way I expect the update/new edition to be handled by my group (presuming they don't screw up D&D Beyond and send us to another game system) is that we will use the new rules set, but if a desired subclass hasn't been updated then the old one can still be used. Old adventures will still be useable for the most part (some minor tweaking might be needed based on the group in question, but that to my understanding that is normal anyways. I've never seen a published adventure run 100% as is), and perhaps unupdated feats can still be used, but that last one will likely be on a case by case basis. Feats seem to be undergoing the largest change as a whole, with the must-haves toned down and the weakest options being boosted up (even if it just adding the +1 stat boost to it). Spells have seen some bigger changes to individual spells, but (as of yet) it doesn't look like they are changing as drastically across the board.
While it seems highly unlikely that they haven't changed anything whatsoever, were that to be true it presents even less of a reason to bother with the new rulebook. I don't believe that will be the case though, otherwise why bother even releasing anything? Shameless cash grab?
"One D&D" doesn't even deserve to be called an X.5 revision at this point, let alone a new edition. Wizards' rank cowardice, combined with the intransigence and incompetence of "The D&D 5e Playerbase" has turned this "update" into an updon't. They haven't changed a single goddamn thing. They haven't fixed a single goddamn thing. It is 100% the exact same rules, just with different art this time, because every time Wizards tried to actually change something grognards screamed at them until they caved and walked that change back. There's not even really any point in talking about "One D&D" anymore because it doesn't exist. Y'all killed it. They didn't do anything, and the year and a half of utter, absolute horribleness this entire process has been has ensured they never will again.
If someone wants a .5 version of 5e, they're going to have to do it their own damned self. Furthermore, DDB will be neither willing nor able to help them do it given this site's execrable homebrew systems.
I missed these hyper-hyperbolic takes 😝
I wish the devs had changed/fixed more, particularly where the druid and warlock are concerned - but they did in fact do plenty, particularly for monks, rogues, and high-level Barbarians. And we haven't seen the final product(s) yet either.
The way I expect the update/new edition to be handled by my group (presuming they don't screw up D&D Beyond and send us to another game system) is that we will use the new rules set, but if a desired subclass hasn't been updated then the old one can still be used. Old adventures will still be useable for the most part (some minor tweaking might be needed based on the group in question, but that to my understanding that is normal anyways. I've never seen a published adventure run 100% as is), and perhaps unupdated feats can still be used, but that last one will likely be on a case by case basis. Feats seem to be undergoing the largest change as a whole, with the must-haves toned down and the weakest options being boosted up (even if it just adding the +1 stat boost to it). Spells have seen some bigger changes to individual spells, but (as of yet) it doesn't look like they are changing as drastically across the board.
This is more or less how we'll be handling it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Point !
Life's hard - get a helmet!
I like it as it is, because there are some really cool features in 5e that wou,d otherwise be lost forever! It also allows for fixing of the broken (bad) classes and mechanics, allowing for more balanced gameplay
DM: “Who’s your patron?”
Warlock: “Ummm”
DM: “Hurry Up”
Warlock: “yOu”
*All other players look at each other with utter fear*
__________________________________________________________________________________
Check out my homebrew: My Homebrew
An inant understanding of how corporations pay code monkey's to make their products. They are not going to pay their coders to develop open ended software, that allows a product potentially superior to their own. They are going to pay them to build a VTT, then fire 90% of the staff, keeping a few on for updating/bug fixing. It's been that was since before John Carmack made Wolf3d engine. If you think the company that literally came out and said "We need to force everyone to buy the books..." is going to spend more money than they have to, I have a bridge I'd love to sell you.
They pay programmers to make a product that they think people will buy, and a VTT without UGC isn't that product.
...So no source for "there will be no more homebrew, book sharing, or content unlocking" then?
Backward compatability is a huge burden to put on the designers, and they were already working on hard mode without Mearls on the design team. I'm a fan of many of the One D&D changes, but I would have been happier if they had more room (and time) to experiment as they would if we were getting a proper 5.5.
It's a new edition despite any attempts to label it otherwise. Won't be touching any of it.
It's objectively not a new edition; the entire point of their big "backward compatibility" angle precludes that from the outset. It's most like the transition from 3rd edition to 3.5; numerous particular elements of the game are being changed, but we're still operating with the same skill list, the same general array of spells, and the same fundamental gameplay rules.
Though editions are a fuzzy concept, I wouldn't say the difference between AD&D 1e and 2e was larger than between 3.0 and 3.5, and then you have things that were pretty big changes to the game that didn't get called editions at all, such as Skills and Powers for AD&D or Essentials for 4e.
Retroactively, one could refer to Unearthed Arcana and Skills and Powers as 1.5 and 2.5, even though the distinction wasn't made at the time - both introduced new subsystems into the game that fundamentally altered play. I can't speak to Essentials, as I was a Pathfinder refugee during 4th.
It's a new edition of the rules irrespective of whether or not it's backwards compatible, and it remains to be seen as to just how 'compatible' it will actually be. If there are new versions of races, classes, sub-classes, spells, specific rules and such, that's a new edition as far as I'm concerned. Even if that weren't the case, having to incorporate two sets of concurrent rules sounds like a headache not worth having.
You realize everything you've just described has already occurred in 5e, right? MotM gave us updates to a couple dozen races, new spells and subclasses have been coming out pretty much since the first supplement, Tasha's gave additional and alternative class features, and the DMG offered alternative rules from the outset and Xanathar's also included some alternative rules for things like crafting, sleep, spellcasting, etc. If you want to insist on calling it a new edition, we can't stop you, but you're gonna get a lot of people telling you you're wrong; this is really just a more comprehensive case of the kind of things they've been putting out in supplements the entire time.
Already exclude a lot from Tasha's in my games, for much the same reason. Avoided MotM altogether. They started to take the game in a new and undesirable direction that didn't mesh well with our group. But those were rules expansions, for the most part, rather than a revision of the core rulebook. There is no right or wrong, given it's one opinion against another, but I'm content to stay in the camp that considers it a new edition... call that new edition what you will. By your logic one could argue WH40k isn't up to 10th edition, since that game doesn't really change all that much from one edition to the next. I will stick with 5e as I have it now.
"One D&D" doesn't even deserve to be called an X.5 revision at this point, let alone a new edition. Wizards' rank cowardice, combined with the intransigence and incompetence of "The D&D 5e Playerbase" has turned this "update" into an updon't. They haven't changed a single goddamn thing. They haven't fixed a single goddamn thing. It is 100% the exact same rules, just with different art this time, because every time Wizards tried to actually change something grognards screamed at them until they caved and walked that change back. There's not even really any point in talking about "One D&D" anymore because it doesn't exist. Y'all killed it. They didn't do anything, and the year and a half of utter, absolute horribleness this entire process has been has ensured they never will again.
If someone wants a .5 version of 5e, they're going to have to do it their own damned self. Furthermore, DDB will be neither willing nor able to help them do it given this site's execrable homebrew systems.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
The way I expect the update/new edition to be handled by my group (presuming they don't screw up D&D Beyond and send us to another game system) is that we will use the new rules set, but if a desired subclass hasn't been updated then the old one can still be used. Old adventures will still be useable for the most part (some minor tweaking might be needed based on the group in question, but that to my understanding that is normal anyways. I've never seen a published adventure run 100% as is), and perhaps unupdated feats can still be used, but that last one will likely be on a case by case basis. Feats seem to be undergoing the largest change as a whole, with the must-haves toned down and the weakest options being boosted up (even if it just adding the +1 stat boost to it). Spells have seen some bigger changes to individual spells, but (as of yet) it doesn't look like they are changing as drastically across the board.
While it seems highly unlikely that they haven't changed anything whatsoever, were that to be true it presents even less of a reason to bother with the new rulebook. I don't believe that will be the case though, otherwise why bother even releasing anything? Shameless cash grab?
I missed these hyper-hyperbolic takes 😝
I wish the devs had changed/fixed more, particularly where the druid and warlock are concerned - but they did in fact do plenty, particularly for monks, rogues, and high-level Barbarians. And we haven't seen the final product(s) yet either.
This is more or less how we'll be handling it.