Will You Immediately Switch to One D&D or Wait?

They also weren't terribly transparent about publicizing this in a way that made it unmistakably clear even to people with neurodivergent issues.  Reading this thread is the first time I had any idea they were actualy talking about a whole new edition of D&D.

Well, color me going back to the World of Darkness.  That's where I went when they bungled the game so badly with second edition I didn't even dip my toe in again until this one.  Really liked it too, famn shame

I voted for choice 3 also, but unfortunately, I don't know that I will actually be able to.  I imagine D&DBEYOND will automatically phase out the old content and replace it with the new as they have been doing thus far since MMM was released if not before, and so I will have no choice but to use the new content unless I wish to play without this digitial support tool that I have otherwise become a bit reliant upon.

Pretty sure, at least for Euro users that's why there's the Legacy content.

Well, you're on 20 years late - no harm/foul, but that doesn't make me feel "better" about it.

Maybe an "age" thing, but Covid more/less synced with my retirement + a glut of free time too.

I see Fantasy Grounds comes with "Pogs" + I might be a bit long in the tooth for those.  Not bad pricing otherwise though, but I'm set now cheers.

Quote from OisinmacCameron >>

They also weren't terribly transparent about publicizing this in a way that made it unmistakably clear even to people with neurodivergent issues.  Reading this thread is the first time I had any idea they were actualy talking about a whole new edition of D&D.

 

 well, according to Wizards, it isn't exactly an entirely new edition:

"Is One D&D introducing a new edition of D&D?

It’s bigger than that. One D&D will usher in the next generation of D&D with new and more comprehensive versions of the core rulebooks that millions of players have enjoyed for the past decade. The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product."

it sounds more like they intend to 'build on' 5e with new sourcebooks that will update the rules, but because they'll be making significant changes to the rules and thus how the game functions - it's more or less a new edition. it feels that way to me, at least, who has spent years learning the mechanics of 5e and I'm not keen on writing over what I've already cemented in my mind and in my campaigns

I just really hope D&D Beyond will truly keep all the features of the site 'backwards compatible' and make the One D&D version optional until the time comes if/when players or DMs like myself plan to incorporate it

Quote from OkinDragonborn >>

Quote from OisinmacCameron >>

They also weren't terribly transparent about publicizing this in a way that made it unmistakably clear even to people with neurodivergent issues.  Reading this thread is the first time I had any idea they were actualy talking about a whole new edition of D&D.

 

 well, according to Wizards, it isn't exactly an entirely new edition:

"Is One D&D introducing a new edition of D&D?

It’s bigger than that. One D&D will usher in the next generation of D&D with new and more comprehensive versions of the core rulebooks that millions of players have enjoyed for the past decade. The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product."

it sounds more like they intend to 'build on' 5e with new sourcebooks that will update the rules, but because they'll be making significant changes to the rules and thus how the game functions - it's more or less a new edition. it feels that way to me, at least, who has spent years learning the mechanics of 5e and I'm not keen on writing over what I've already cemented in my mind and in my campaigns

I just really hope D&D Beyond will truly keep all the features of the site 'backwards compatible' and make the One D&D version optional until the time comes if/when players or DMs like myself plan to incorporate it

Well, it may just be the odd way I look at the world, but I'm also a writer and poet and it would seem to me that if you say, "...The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements and offer...", that that pretty clearly implies that the rules are something OTHER than fifth edition, otherwise it would not be necessary for them to be backwards compatible with fifth edition adventures and sourcebooks because they would BE fifth edition and they would BE, as you have said, a mega version of a fifth edition sourcebook.

As far as I'm cocnerned, until someone can parse this for me otherwise in a way that makes logical sense to me, Wizards has just not-so-tacitly admitted that this is 6e.  However, this was also crammed in with a whole lot of other stuff when it was first released, and that's one of the things the neurodivergent brain finds difficult.  It feels similar to me in a way to the problems I have actually physically perceiving small objects and details in the environment that would be obvious to others.  The light rays go into my eye, but my brain is literally unable to process them because of several things including how much other stuff it has to also process and actually SEE,  I don't expect people on the forums to know this, but Wizards certainly ought to have someone in their legal department, at the least, who is versed in disability issues and can keep them from getting sued TOO many times if they treat their staff with disabilities as cavalierly as they treat their PAYING CUSTOMERS with them.  And therefore THEY ought to have known and will have to prove to me they DIDN'T know when they did this

Quote from OisinmacCameron >>

Quote from OkinDragonborn >>

Quote from OisinmacCameron >>

They also weren't terribly transparent about publicizing this in a way that made it unmistakably clear even to people with neurodivergent issues.  Reading this thread is the first time I had any idea they were actualy talking about a whole new edition of D&D.

 

 well, according to Wizards, it isn't exactly an entirely new edition:

"Is One D&D introducing a new edition of D&D?

It’s bigger than that. One D&D will usher in the next generation of D&D with new and more comprehensive versions of the core rulebooks that millions of players have enjoyed for the past decade. The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product."

it sounds more like they intend to 'build on' 5e with new sourcebooks that will update the rules, but because they'll be making significant changes to the rules and thus how the game functions - it's more or less a new edition. it feels that way to me, at least, who has spent years learning the mechanics of 5e and I'm not keen on writing over what I've already cemented in my mind and in my campaigns

I just really hope D&D Beyond will truly keep all the features of the site 'backwards compatible' and make the One D&D version optional until the time comes if/when players or DMs like myself plan to incorporate it

 

Well, it may just be the odd way I look at the world, but I'm also a writer and poet and it would seem to me that if you say, "...The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements and offer...", that that pretty clearly implies that the rules are something OTHER than fifth edition, otherwise it would not be necessary for them to be backwards compatible with fifth edition adventures and sourcebooks because they would BE fifth edition and they would BE, as you have said, a mega version of a fifth edition sourcebook.

As far as I'm cocnerned, until someone can parse this for me otherwise in a way that makes logical sense to me, Wizards has just not-so-tacitly admitted that this is 6e.  However, this was also crammed in with a whole lot of other stuff when it was first released, and that's one of the things the neurodivergent brain finds difficult.  It feels similar to me in a way to the problems I have actually physically perceiving small objects and details in the environment that would be obvious to others.  The light rays go into my eye, but my brain is literally unable to process them because of several things including how much other stuff it has to also process and actually SEE,  I don't expect people on the forums to know this, but Wizards certainly ought to have someone in their legal department, at the least, who is versed in disability issues and can keep them from getting sued TOO many times if they treat their staff with disabilities as cavalierly as they treat their PAYING CUSTOMERS with them.  And therefore THEY ought to have known and will have to prove to me they DIDN'T know when they did this

 There’s quite a lot, from wizards, about their intentions. I’d suggest checking their YouTube page and reviewing the videos where they give explanations of what they want to do. Maybe try reviewing that information. I’m not trying to be combative, and believe you when you explain your personal challenges. I’m just saying the information is out there about their intent, and has been out there for some time now. So, perhaps review what they’ve said. Maybe your issues and questions will, or have been, addressed. 

@Xalthu and @OisinmacCameron

I think you both did a good job being polite and conversational which I fully agree can be difficult in the forums.  Personally I’m very excitable and prone to offense in my defense.  Trying to get better by reading the more level headed posts but it can be difficult as not everyone respects it.

Small aside, but I also am unhappy with the idea of current edition D&D not being just phased out but forcefully incorporated into the next generation.  Would it have been so hard to just create some kind of mirrored set of tools that weren’t functionally supported anymore but for the most basic bug updates?  This really jeapordizes my trust in WotC created digital content and thus in the company as a whole.  If it’s a matter of money, they still have paid subscriptions, not to mention the simple benefit of maintaining a player bases happiness which should not be discounted in value.

Compatible with the modules and adventures does not mean it will be compatible with the 5E rules or source books.

Do not read into a short statement what you want it to read. Do you trust politicians? Why do you trust a faceless corporation that just wants your money?
And I like corporations.
Its not an update that just adds to the old rules its a replacement for the old rules, you will just be able to use the old modules and adventures with very little adjustments. In other words they will give you the conversion charts and lists of differences as they find them for each module and adventure.

I didn't switch to 2E from 1E and only went to 5E because everyone I was going to play with had already switched.

Quote from XXXGammaRay >>

It is still 5e, so I do not see it as switching, but I will run old and new rules at the same time, for example letting my players mix and match old and new races, classes, backgrounds, etc.

 I think this is going to get really complicated. There will be two sets of rules for nearly everything. Not just classes and backgrounds and such but also basic mechanics like grappling or downtime activities. We can already see this with races - someone says "I'm a kobold," and you have to follow up with "legacy or new?" to know what they actually are.

To me its far simpler to just toss in a few houserules to 5e and call it good. I'd rather point to one customized set of rules than two opposing official sets.

I'm kinda "out" the debate at this stage, but will note that I think the problem is Transparency versus Playtest.  I get that it's "problematic" on both sides, I'll actually give WOTC some credit there.  Playtest by its nature is "leaky" it gets hopes up or dashed and people take it as carved in stone when it's "playtest", but without the Playtest we're almost certainly not going to get "as good" a new Edition as we could...  Swings/roundabouts.  If we could all see "Final d&Done"/6th Ed/whatever then we could give solid answers - but right now it IS just all speculation and that's certainly frustrating for us the consumers, but it does kinda need to be this way.
It's always a "difficult birth" for a new edition, this one seems no different to anything I've seen since AD&D - look at the Wikipedia history of ownership for a (mildly amusing) insight into the gestation of each Edition. 

What do I see different in this one?  I've already cast enough of a dim-gaze here and that being said - if there's a "good" new sourcebook or something that's back-compatible - "awesome", I'd really like Giants or the Planescape books to be Good - but I'm going to need to see people here and "trusted reviewers" to be bandying round terms like "return to the glory days" before parting with cash versus buying weird records instead.

* I will note though, at this stage I don't even care enough to feedback for playtest.

Quote from Appellion >>

As the topic title asks, will you immediately upgrade to ... (One D&D),...

Odds are No, I'll test it, give it my feedback, and I hope it's great. But I will not reward WotC/Hasbro for it's bad behavior.  And it's not just the loss of trust from the OGL, it's calling me someone who was born as two different ethnicities as "inherently racist" for just being born, and then they sent Pinkertons after a YouTube creator and illegally took his legally purchased products. Yes the warehouse messed up, but that was not his fault, and he was legally allowed to keep that product, and even film it, as he was not under any NDA with WotC. 

So yeah. I wouldn't even bother with DnDb anymore if I wasn't the DM. As it is I've been using other 5th edition sources. for my latest campaign, and frankly I'm really satisfied going with 5e compatible and not WotC published material anymore. 

And to any WotC employees, tell your bosses to work on public relationships, because this has been your worst year on record, even worse than TSR in 1999. 

WotC has never been good at the digital side and were best suited to delegating that to others.  My VTT will remain Foundry and while I currently use Dungeon Draft for maps, that may change.  Wizards trying to change themselves to the one stop shop and failing to meet expectations by even an inch will guarantee I ghost them for the next 5 to 10 years.

I want to wait until it changes, but with the current ua, I will never play it.I have a whole thread about it, but I like ranger hunter and don’t like the new one, it is without choice and only colossus slayer keeps good , the hunter’s lore, has one flaw; ever encountered a creature vulnerable to slashing and resistant/immune to piercing damage or reversed, even when using poison or bludgeoning, poisonous and undead creatures are immune to poison and skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning, it is simple, restistance/immunity and even vulnerability are easy to guess , superior defense requires you to be hit and multiattack is the worst of all, first it burns spellslots needed by spells like conjure animals,steel wind strike, swift quiver and more,

second, it has no synergy with sharpshooter and other weapon requiring skills,

third, it is a cone so when surrounded in melee you are in great danger,

fourth, the damage is higher, but still low for a spell, but instead of you the enemy adds proficiency and advantage, yeah,

fifth, people seem to think it has better range and covers more enemies, but like said in third it is a (60 feet)selfcone, and to equal a circle you must be within 40 feet, this means you are in a dangerous zone, (since the battlefield is cut into zones of reach) you are in reach for infantry to run and throw weapons , for cavalry to just ride and engage in melee, for flying creatures, fast infantry and navy(I guess) to do the same as cavalry, for hand crossbow arbalists to run and shoot and for all other archers/arbalists to just shoot. when using advantage to compensate long range(tip:strike in the dark, no matter you can’t see them) you can use volley 590 feet away from the enemy

the multiattack is a good way to keep up with fighter in fifth, but in sixth it doesn’t work well anymore.

so summarized, I am not gonna use one dnd because its ranger hunter is too bad

Quote from PJtheACHER >>

Quote from Betbadandbeyond >>

I want to wait until it changes, but with the current ua, I will never play it.I have a whole thread about it, but I like ranger hunter and don’t like the new one, it is without choice and only colossus slayer keeps good , the hunter’s lore, has one flaw; ever encountered a creature vulnerable to slashing and resistant/immune to piercing damage or reversed, even when using poison or bludgeoning, poisonous and undead creatures are immune to poison and skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning, it is simple, restistance/immunity and even vulnerability are easy to guess , superior defense requires you to be hit and multiattack is the worst of all, first it burns spellslots needed by spells like conjure animals,steel wind strike, swift quiver and more,

second, it has no synergy with sharpshooter and other weapon requiring skills,

third, it is a cone so when surrounded in melee you are in great danger,

fourth, the damage is higher, but still low for a spell, but instead of you the enemy adds proficiency and advantage, yeah,

fifth, people seem to think it has better range and covers more enemies, but like said in third it is a (60 feet)selfcone, and to equal a circle you must be within 40 feet, this means you are in a dangerous zone, (since the battlefield is cut into zones of reach) you are in reach for infantry to run and throw weapons , for cavalry to just ride and engage in melee, for flying creatures, fast infantry and navy(I guess) to do the same as cavalry, for hand crossbow arbalists to run and shoot and for all other archers/arbalists to just shoot. when using advantage to compensate long range(tip:strike in the dark, no matter you can’t see them) you can use volley 590 feet away from the enemy

the multiattack is a good way to keep up with fighter in fifth, but in sixth it doesn’t work well anymore.

so summarized, I am not gonna use one dnd because its ranger hunter is too bad

 i wont either, but i hate to break it to ya: the ranger is one of the worst classes anyway.

 that is subjective, but there always is worse than one of the worst when there comes out new stuff, so

Keep in mind that what comes out next year is not the UA, the reality is none of us actually know what the revised PHB will have - for any class. As far as I am concerned both of you are wrong about the ranger ( both the PHB and the UA) but that is a discussion for another thread not here. I have liked the some of the UA changes (sorceror and ranger(overall) and disliked others (Druid). I will keep trying the UAs and giving my feedback and will wait and see what the revision brings before making any decisions. There are a lot of things I think should be changed but then there have always been lots of things I thought should have been done differently. Each version is really a different game but with similar features ( the devil is in the details) and each has been playable and enjoyable - yes even 4e. Hasbro/WOtC are a for profit corporation, they are not a nonprofit and expecting them to act like one is a lost cause IMO. On the other hand they don’t want to alienate the population to the point that folks leave faster than new players come in and they will always welcome ways to ncrease their revenue streams. The reality today is that you don’t need dice, don’t need figurines, don’t even need a tabletop to play the game. At least half the campaigns out there are homebrew to official worlds, even those are mostly static settings unlike FR that has always progressed through its own history so it’s got a regular flux of new lore that you need to to keep up with (welcome to the lore books revenue stream) so they are scrambling to see what they can do that the market will bare in a rapidly changing environment. They are going to ( and have) made mistakes by listening to different parts of their own teams. It happens, they reversed and changed direction based on our ( the playing/writing community) input - that’s actually a good thing.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

Quote from XXXGammaRay >>

It is still 5e, so I do not see it as switching, but I will run old and new rules at the same time, for example letting my players mix and match old and new races, classes, backgrounds, etc.

 I think this is going to get really complicated. There will be two sets of rules for nearly everything. Not just classes and backgrounds and such but also basic mechanics like grappling or downtime activities. We can already see this with races - someone says "I'm a kobold," and you have to follow up with "legacy or new?" to know what they actually are.

To me its far simpler to just toss in a few houserules to 5e and call it good. I'd rather point to one customized set of rules than two opposing official sets.

Instead of seeing it as two sets of rules, I see it as one set of rules with more options. It is not complicated. The base game alone already have lots of variant sets of rules and options, and no one is confused (except maybe by alignment). Adding more is not going to change anything.

- We have literally three ways to generate characters: monster stat blocks, character sheets, and sidekicks. People loved sidekicks despite it being a whole different system. If people can love that, they can love having more options when playing with their character sheets. One reason I like being a GM is because monster stat blocks have no rules, and I like having infinite options to create the NPC I want to make.
- While there are a few outliers out there who complain about the variety of elves, most people who play elves love having so many options. No one is confused with having to specify high elf, dark elf, wood elf, etc., and I have not seen anyone complain about having additional versions of Aereni and Valenar high and wood elves. Having legacy and non-legacy versions of races is not going to be a big deal, if anything it lets players pick and choose which option they prefer.
- Besides Artificers, all other classes got OCFs, and each table and even player can choose whether they use it or not, and for classes that got multiple OCFs, they can pick and choose which OCFs they want to use. Having more versions of classes gives players to further fine tune their fantasy. In my ideal world, D&D would have no classes and players are able to progress however they want, but if I cannot have that, the next best thing is to offer a bunch of classes with a bunch of customization options.
- Backgrounds are customizable by RAW, but it seems like lots of people are okay with just sticking with presets most of the time.
- Alignment is a whole can of worms, and while some of us want it to be excised from general statblocks, we are not looking for its removal as an option from the game. Having "typically" in front of alignment in statblocks is enough of a compromise for me at least.
- There are three ways to generate stats, and if people are rolling, it seems like most people add their own homebrew twist to it rather than strictly follow what is outlined in the PHB.
- Feats are optional.
- We have two different magic resource system: spell slots and spell points.
- We have three different rest systems.
- We have XP and non-XP based progression. Non-XP based progression can be further divided into session based and story based. XP based progression can be distributed like at least a dozen different ways depending on the options you choose.
- We can decide whether we want to incorporate lifestyle expense, downtime activities, and/or encumberance.

Any complexity that the updated core books can add are negligible.

No one is saying those options are bad.

What we are saying is that changing those options and changing the basic rules  is bad and basically creates a new version.

Options does not mean basic rules change. And none of those options change the basic written rules.

Quote from Soniti254 >>

I voted "I might actually sit this next edition out" for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I've been thoroughly unimpressed with One D&D as a whole.  I couldn't even be bothered to fill out the surveys for the past couple of UA documents.  They already have one of the most successful iterations of D&D ever with 5e, all they had to do was fine tune some of the system's shortcomings and they'd be golden; they're instead trying to reinvent the wheel and make massive and pointless changes to the system that only make it more complicated then it really needs to be.  With how convoluted and all over the place the "updated" rules are, it's only become more and more clear to me that the current design team has no idea what they're doing with this game.  All things considered, my group has no interest in switching over to One D&D, and we'll probably just keep playing 5e for the time being.

Secondly, I no longer trust WotC as a company after all the blunders its brought us the past couple of years.  I've been very disappointed with the past few 5e books I've purchased from them, as they contain half-baked ideas at best and downright nonsense at worst.  Add in the OGL debacle and how they sent hired goons after a longtime Magic the Gathering fan over a mistake WotC themselves made and I simply cannot in good faith continue to support WotC anymore.  If anything, all of these things have led me to look towards other game systems made by companies that actually respect their customers, such as Old School Essentials and Savage Worlds.

^^^^^
This.

I think 5e is a fairly good system, and intend to keep playing it for as long as I have people wanting to play it with me. The changes in One D&D that I've seen to this point haven't been enough to persuade me it's "better." That said, *especially* after the two fiascos this year, I still have zero interest in supporting WotC any further. Negative interest, actually. At the very least they will never get another dime from me directly. Ever.

Their corporate behavior and mindset is by far my bigger concern over the quality of the product; even if I thought One D&D was good, I wouldn't be moving toward using it. And apparently the people who hire Pinkertons and are incapable of just being straightforward and direct with the community also like to play fast-and-lose with considering a new system to not be a new edition. Who'd have thought? (I've seen the intended changes from some of the One D&D previews. It's close to 5e, but the differences are enough that IMO it's fairly deceptive to NOT just call it a new edition.)

Sooo..... yeah. DEFINITELY "sitting this next edition out."