D&D (2024) 50th Anniversary: 6E in 2024?

[Dire Bare]

B/X is not a D&D edition, it's a revival attempt. And honestly, I fail to see what, in the Master Set, prevents people from using it. OK, the levels are higher and the theme is less about exploration (and more about strongholds), but in terms of rules, it added what ? Unarmed combat ?

Huh?

The "basic" set most definitely went through at least three revisions, or editions, before we arrived at the Elmore-cover basic set that became the "B" in BECMI. We can argue exactly how much the rules changed over these successive boxed sets, and how compatible they were with each other . . . but they did change, and were significantly different.

We could argue, but why? To win a nerd-fight?

 

[Lyxen]

The "basic" set most definitely went through at least three revisions, or editions, before we arrived at the Elmore-cover basic set that became the "B" in BECMI. We can argue exactly how much the rules changed over these successive boxed sets, and how compatible they were with each other . . . but they did change, and were significantly different.

If you're playing B/X, you are playing the version of Basic that went with BECMI, since it's the only one that got an Expert Set... And therefore, it's exactly the one in BECMI...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Tasha is 5.1 at most. No changes to the mechanics and a few options for races and classes, all optional.



Again, no proof of that. 3.5 actually changed a lot of things, not only classes (some of them fairly much), but there were lots of changes to skills and feats and many spells, changes to damage reduction mechanics, none of that is in Tasha.

And it was no big problem in backwards compatibility. You could have a 3.5 character fight a 3.0 monster and not notice a big difference. You could combine most 3.0 prestige classes with 3.5 classes. The game was not changed so much, that any problem would arise.

 

[Nefermandias]

If you're playing B/X, you are playing the version of Basic that went with BECMI, since it's the only one that got an Expert Set... And therefore, it's exactly the one in BECMI...

You are wrong, though.
Moldvay's Basic and Mentzer's basic are indeed different.

 

[reelo]

B/X is not a D&D edition

Careful now, you're treading on dangerous ground!

If you're playing B/X, you are playing the version of Basic that went with BECMI, since it's the only one that got an Expert Set... And therefore, it's exactly the one in BECMI...

That is wrong. "Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X" is different from "Mentzer Basic and Expert".

 

[Marandahir]

If you're playing B/X, you are playing the version of Basic that went with BECMI, since it's the only one that got an Expert Set... And therefore, it's exactly the one in BECMI...

Sure. But there were tweaks with each republishing of Basic, to the point that RC looks quite different from the form of Basic we met in Isle of Dread.

My point was that these are all similar - iterative, compatible designs. Neither 1e nor Basic were compatible with OD&D, but 2e was iterative on 1e, and Basic’s variations were all iterative on what came before.

Player’s Option was iterative on 2e, but 3e was a hard break, using an entirely new core mechanic. 3.5e was iterative on 3e, and even Bo9S with its pocket ruleset that works more like 4e was iterative and built to be compatible with 3e d20 products. Pathfinder 1e too was iterative on 3e d20.

4e used the d20 system, but was a hard break from the 3e game mechanics in most ways. But each year of 4e showed how the system could accommodate subsystems that weren’t necessarily the standardised AEDU progressions from PH1.

5e was a hard break again, working to try to unify the player base (it mostly succeeded). And over at Paizo, Pathfinder 2e was a hard break from Pathfinder 1e as it used a system more akin to 4e than 3e.

They’ve already said this is not a hard break from 5e. It doesn’t matter what they call it - it’s going to be iterative upon 5e books. HOW iterative is an argument we really can’t come to a conclusion on because we can’t agree on how iterative the previous edition revisions were from their baseline editions.

So feel free to keep arguing that BECMI isn’t iterative on Basic but just the same thing. That’s literally proving my point. We can’t measure the iterativeness. So using terms like 5.25e based on a goalpost of Pathfinder = 3.75e is not really useful or provable, since Pathfinder’s differences from 3.5e aren’t “smaller” than 3.5e from 3e nor a halfway step between 3.5e and 4e. It was literally a fanon term created because they wanted to make the connection back to 3.5e and that was the only “decimal” edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

I predict a lot of disappointed "6E" hopefuls in the coming months...

Yeah, I don’t think the changes are going to be nearly as significant as a lot of people are hoping for. Bringing some stuff up to date with Tasha’s, yes. Some minor tweaks to improve classes/subclasses that perform poorly in player satisfaction, probably. Rebalancing, probably not. Changes to core systems, definitely not.

 

[Marc_C]

They did say, a while back, 5e was the last edition of D&D. Considering what was said yesterday the changes are more like 5.1 than 5.5 and not at all a 6e. Minor tweaks and no sweeping changes to the system.

 

[Nefermandias]

They did say, a while back, 5e was the last edition of D&D. Considering what was said yesterday the changes are more like 5.1 than 5.5 and not at all a 6e. Minor tweaks and no sweeping changes to the system.

Even if the official name never changes again, over time the system would have accumulated enough gradual changes to the point of being completely unrecognizable when compared to when it was first released in 2014.

 

[Lyxen]

You are wrong, though.
Moldvay's Basic and Mentzer's basic are indeed different.

And if you're playing the first, you are not playing B/X since it does not include an X.

That is wrong. "Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X" is different from "Mentzer Basic and Expert".

AFAIK, there is no Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X, these never produced an Expert Set as part of an official D&D edition.

Sure. But there were tweaks with each republishing of Basic, to the point that RC looks quite different from the form of Basic we met in Isle of Dread.

Except that the Isle of Dread is an Expert Module, so to play it, you need the Expert set that comes with the corresponding BECMI Basic, not another one.

They’ve already said this is not a hard break from 5e. It doesn’t matter what they call it - it’s going to be iterative upon 5e books. HOW iterative is an argument we really can’t come to a conclusion on because we can’t agree on how iterative the previous edition revisions were from their baseline editions.

Honestly, this is why most of the discussions these days are pretty pointless. It should not be a hard break, and considering their (understandable) reluctance in breaking something that works fine, it's a high probability

So feel free to keep arguing that BECMI isn’t iterative on Basic but just the same thing.

It's not what I'm arguing, the only thing I'm saying is that if you are really playing B/X, you are playing BECMI at low levels, and it's therefore not iterative. After that, that the Basic of BECMI was iterative on Moldway's, I don't think anyone disputes this.

That’s literally proving my point. We can’t measure the iterativeness. So using terms like 5.25e based on a goalpost of Pathfinder = 3.75e is not really useful or provable, since Pathfinder’s differences from 3.5e aren’t “smaller” than 3.5e from 3e nor a halfway step between 3.5e and 4e. It was literally a fanon term created because they wanted to make the connection back to 3.5e and that was the only “decimal” edition.

And this is why I don't like 5.5 either.