RPG Evolution: The Half-Edition Shuffle

The next edition of Dungeons & Dragons is finally on the horizon, but it's not here just yet. So when do publishers makes the shift?

The next edition of Dungeons & Dragons is finally on the horizon, but it's not here just yet. So when do publishers makes the shift?

thehalfeditionshuffle.png

A Historical Model​

D&D has been through several editions in recent memory, but few match the recent transition between two compatible editions. Although backwards compatibility is often promised, it's rarely delivered. And there's also the consideration of the thousands of small press publishers created through the Open Game License movement, which didn't exist before Third Edition. Of all the edition shifts, the 3.0 to 3.5 transition seems closest to what D&D is going through right now, so it's a good place to start this thought experiment.

Compatible, Sort Of​

Fifth Edition's transition to Sixth involves tweaks to the game. Those tweaks seemed largely cosmetic, at first. With the release of Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, it's clear that the spellcasting section of monsters is going to be significantly changed. In short, while players may find their characters compatible with the latest edition of D&D, DMs may find their monsters aren't. And that's a problem for publishers. But mechanically, all of these issues can be addressed. What really matters is what customers think. And that's often shaped by branding.

What a Half-Edition Means​

The transition between Third Edition and 3.5 was more significant than many publishers were expecting. You can see a list on RPG Stack Exchange, which shows just how much the new edition changed the game.

This did not go unnoticed by consumers. The OGL movement was still developing but it caught many publishers by surprise, including the company I wrote for at the time, Monkeygod Publishing (they're no longer in business). When we released my hardcover book Frost & Fur, the only identifier was the D20 System logo. Little did we know that it was imperative to identify the book as 3.5-compatible (which it was), because stores wouldn't carry it and consumers wouldn't buy it if it wasn't.

There wasn't nearly as much communication from WIzards of the Coast back then as to how to prepare for the edition change, much less columns from the company explaining their strategy. More communication about the upcoming edition may mitigate its impact on third-party publishers.

Between the DM's Guild and DriveThruRPG, there is now an ecosystem that can more readily update itself without taking up shelf space or clogging up inventory. Digital products can be changed, covers can be rebranded, and newsletters can announce the update. Wizards of the Coast has also given considerable lead time on the coming changes by announcing the edition well in advance and updating books piecemeal so developers can see what changed. But there's still one important piece of the puzzle.

What Do Consumers Think?​

One of the ongoing concerns for supporting publishers of Third Edition was how the Open Game License would be updated and, at least as important, how to identify that compatibility.

Updating the OGL enables publishers to ensure their products are compatible. The OGL doesn't specify stat block structure, so it may not even be necessary to update the license much if at all.

Identifying compatibility will be even more critical. At some point, publishers will start identifying their products as Sixth Edition compatible. And that will happen when consumers shift their spending habits.

The Changeover​

But first, WOTC has to declare that Sixth Edition has officially arrived. Wizards was hesitant to put a number on Fifth Edition, preferring instead to indicate it was simply D&D to potentially head off edition controversy. Failure to do that in a timely fashion (or worse, failure to recognize a new edition at all and continue calling it Fifth Edition) will cause potential confusion in the marketplace, with both consumers and publishers.

At some point the tide will turn and consumers will expect compatibility with the new edition. That change is complicated by the fact that Sixth Edition should be largely compatible with Fifth Edition. But only consumers can decide that for sure; if they don't feel it is, there will be a sharp drop off in Fifth Edition buying habits. For smaller publishers, they'll stay close to the market to determine when that shift is happening and how to transition smoothly without harming their business model.

Getting it right can be lucrative. Getting it wrong can sink a company. The market convulsed massively when 3.5 came out, wiping out publishers and game store stock that were unprepared for the change. Here's hoping with enough foresight and planning, we don't have a repeat of the 3.0 transition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
AD&D was not complete until 1979 as it was missing the DMG, so shave 2 years, 10 years.
[.....]
It's a close call between 1e and 5e. We would have to check publication dates! 🙃
AD&D 1E
Monster Manual: December 1977
Players Handbook: August 1978
Dungeon Masters Guide: August 1979

AD&D 2E
Player's Handbook: April 1989
Dungeon Master's Guide: June 1989
Monstrous Compendium (Volume 1): July 1989

D&D 5E
Player's Handbook: August 2014
Monster Manual: September 2014
Dungeon Master's Guide: December 2014

1E to 2E
First Core Product to First Core Product: 11 years 4 months
Last Core Product to Last Core Product: 9 years, 11 months
PHB to PHB: 10 years, 8 months
DMG to DMG: 9 years, 10 months
MM to MM: 11 years, 7 months

So it will depend on:
1) When in 2024 the anniversary editions are published.
2) How one defines the "lifespan" of an edition.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
No? The going from 3 to 6 saves was the one point of his I did not address. :)

It did not seem relevant in whether 5e is closer to 4e or 3e mechanically, both of the old ones had the same three non AC defenses so it seems a point for a different argument.


Why dragons have proficiency in dex and not int is an oddity.

However for comparison between 5e and 3.5 we have, Con +15, Wis, +10, Dex +7 to match up to 3e's fortitude, reflex, will.

So A big blue dragon has +8 more to save against a con save poisoning over dex save dodging a fireball. That seems significant and matches up to the expectations of big and tough and low dex.

Matching up int save spells to guessing high level int proficiency saves seems the oddity here.

So the 3.5 dragon also has +8 more to save against a fortitude save flesh to stone than a reflex save fireball. Which also matches expectations for the big tough dragon with a low dex.
Yes there is an 8 point difference in the 5e one on paper, but the odds are still very much in its favor now in ways they were not before that gave casters meaningful options. flesh to stone was SR yes, it would be stupid to use against a high SR creature. By contrast entangle web & solid fog/acid fog are all sr No while acid arrow is sr no and touch attack making for some very serious difference given the SR29. The way spell save DCs were calculated for save or x spells was also different in meaningful ways with 10 + spell level + relevant feats/equipment/etc so The big blue dragon had a 4 point more difficult dc against energy drain than enervation & that might be important for a caster specialized in spell penetration while another caster with a different specialization will be looking to make meaningful choices among their SR:no spells
 

ctorus

Explorer
There seems to be confusion about the difference between detailed mechanics and overall approach when it comes to editions. For my part, I don't think 5e is particularly closer at a low level to 3e or other previous editions than it is to 4e - and as this discussion has shown it's not easy to make this comparison anyway. I think on balance at that level 5e is its own thing, some similarities to previous editions, some new things.

But it's mistaken to talk about a '3e-style presentation' as if that was a superficial thing. The presentation of an RPG and the approach and play style it encourages is crucial. 5e deliberately abandoned that aspect of 4e's design and returned to what was (in my view) a presentation which often tries to obfuscate the fact that it is a game. Rules and mechanisms are submerged in text and described in real-world terms that the DM has to reinterpret at the table. Thus, talking about how one can sort of see 4e elements 'under the hood' is precisely the point: whereas 4e was explicit about how to play and how its elements interlocked (in a way that put some people off), 5e puts players into the position of having to work these things out for themselves.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I'm not sure if backwards compability even matters. While you could have quite simply used 3.0 Material with 3.5 or 3.5 for Pathfinder, I personally never witnessed someone actually mixing them.

As soon as we started a new Edition, we used the Sourcebook from the new one exclusively. Even old Settingbooks (which are quite universal) are usually ignoried if a Book for the new Edition comes out.
I dragged multiple books from pathfinder into my 3.5 game. The biggest was when I was going to run a campaign with the PCs all be offspring of various gods. I borrowed heavily from Mythic Adventures book for their abilities.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No. That is a minor upgrade. As I said, there are already feats to add at level 1. So just telling everyone, they can chose an appropriate feat(ure) like militia training when taking an old background would work and be compatible enough.

Actually, you just need to allow soldiers to replace their gaming set proficiency and vehicle land with light armor and simple weapon proficiency.
If you have to convert to the new thing, the new thing is not backwards compatible. To be backwards compatible, the changes have to be lateral, such that new characters D, E and F created under 5.5 are roughly equal to characters A, B and C from before the changes.
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
AD&D 1E
Monster Manual: December 1977
Players Handbook: August 1978
Dungeon Masters Guide: August 1979

AD&D 2E
Player's Handbook: April 1989
Dungeon Master's Guide: June 1989
Monstrous Compendium (Volume 1): July 1989

D&D 5E
Player's Handbook: August 2014
Monster Manual: September 2014
Dungeon Master's Guide: December 2014

1E to 2E
First Core Product to First Core Product: 11 years 4 months
Last Core Product to Last Core Product: 9 years, 11 months
PHB to PHB: 10 years, 8 months
DMG to DMG: 9 years, 10 months
MM to MM: 11 years, 7 months

So it will depend on:
1) When in 2024 the anniversary editions are published.
2) How one defines the "lifespan" of an edition.
That has always irritated the hell out of me. They should release the core books at the same time so people can actually play the game.
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
That has always irritated the hell out of me. They should release the core books at the same time so people can actually play the game.
I think 3.5 and 4th are the only editions that did simultaneous core book releases: 3.5 in July 2003 and 4th in June 2008.
 

If you have to convert to the new thing, the new thing is not backwards compatible. To be backwards compatible, the changes have to be lateral, such that new characters D, E and F created under 5.5 are roughly equal to characters A, B and C from before the changes.

I disagree. I have seen errata that were a lot more than generally swapping 1/short rest by prof bonus/long rest.
Actually we already see this in place in the goliath entry and the dragonborn entry. I'd wager that if you change second wind or action point to that new recharge timer, the fighter will still be roughly balanced.
Probably even if you just put a limit on prof bonus/long rest for shor rest recharges and leave it as is.
If you change nothing, it is not backwards compatible but just the same.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top