D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Oofta]

Yeah, this matches my experience...and I went into 4E extremely positive and excited with the enthusiasm of youth, so it's not just drama or being crusty and old. 4E simply didn't function for many people's playstyle.

I was a big supporter at first as well. There were just aspects that never worked, and we could never decide exactly what it was that caused it.

For us, the "magic" came back with 5E, even if it's not perfect.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, of course we will, and we have seen most of them already. The 2024 revisions have been tested and implemented piece by piece for a couple of years now, before they do the major core consolidation.

Whereas I think it's...pretty obvious that if they were only going to do a "collect up what we've already shown" thing, they wouldn't be doing this weird hybrid thing of simultaneously saying as little as they can, while also low-key hyping that it's going to be A Big Thing in 2024. Frankly, I'd expect them to do exactly the reverse, speak about it a lot (to manage public response) while high-key downplaying that it will be a big deal at all, to avert the "this is just a cash grab" response that 3.5e got.

Instead, I think the stuff we've seen is the tip of the iceberg. The stuff they can easily implement, that doesn't rock the boat too much, that will work seamlessly with the existing stuff. The fact that they've been so clearly wanting to rework/replace the Ranger for...nearly 5e's entire existence, but haven't done so, is proof enough (as far as I'm concerned) that there's going to be several more-significant changes coming.

 

[Parmandur]

Whereas I think it's...pretty obvious that if they were only going to do a "collect up what we've already shown" thing, they wouldn't be doing this weird hybrid thing of simultaneously saying as little as they can, while also low-key hyping that it's going to be A Big Thing in 2024. Frankly, I'd expect them to do exactly the reverse, speak about it a lot (to manage public response) while high-key downplaying that it will be a big deal at all, to avert the "this is just a cash grab" response that 3.5e got.

Instead, I think the stuff we've seen is the tip of the iceberg. The stuff they can easily implement, that doesn't rock the boat too much, that will work seamlessly with the existing stuff. The fact that they've been so clearly wanting to rework/replace the Ranger for...nearly 5e's entire existence, but haven't done so, is proof enough (as far as I'm concerned) that there's going to be several more-significant changes coming.

It's two years away. They only hype up products for a few months in advance. Right now they are working on the next year's products, and testing and iterating bits of the minor adjustments for the revision, currently Background featsare the focus. Probably we will get the Class adjustments in the next year, and then they will put the new products together. Theybare talking about it so far ahead because they are already testing for the changes now.

I could see some serious updates in Classes, bit other than class specifics I think we have seen e wruthing: Proficiency bonus a day replacing Ahort Rest rechargeable, Background Geats, Tasha's Rave rules (maybe retire the word Race, it we'll see), dropping Inspiration, etc. Important changes, to be sure, but we've mostly seen the shape of the revision.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's two years away. They only hype up products for a few months in advance. Right now they are working on the next year's products, and testing and iterating bits of the minor adjustments for the revision, currently Background featsare the focus. Probably we will get the Class adjustments in the next year, and then they will put the new products together. Theybare talking about it so far ahead because they are already testing for the changes now.

I could see some serious updates in Classes, bit other than class specifics I think we have seen e wruthing: Proficiency bonus a day replacing Ahort Rest rechargeable, Background Geats, Tasha's Rave rules (maybe retire the word Race, it we'll see), dropping Inspiration, etc. Important changes, to be sure, but we've mostly seen the shape of the revision.

They've already said they want to retire "Race" and refer to it as Ancestry, as I understood it.

Again, I think you're just having undue confidence in your knowledge about what's coming. We know the shape of some changes. It is, I think, quite likely that other changes in the pipeline as well. Spell tweaks, for example.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

others must not be allowed to even criticize it without the kind of data set you'd use to prove the existence of a previously-unknown subatomic particle.

Or ya know, just back up claims that should be falsifiable with literally anything at all, which some folks in this discussion have utterly ignored any request that they do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was a big supporter at first as well. There were just aspects that never worked, and we could never decide exactly what it was that caused it.

For us, the "magic" came back with 5E, even if it's not perfect.

Yeah, on the flip, my group was quite skeptical of 5e until one of my buddies got the phb and wanted to run a shot game after being in Alaska for a couple years.

I made a classic Beastmaster ranger with a bow and a wolf (my first pc in every edition I’ve played has been a ranger), and we had fun.

Idk. System matters. 4e, as much as I love it, wouldn’t have blown up as much as 5e has, in such a sustained way. Nor would any other edition, IMO. Maybe one of the more streamlined OSR retro-clones, but the actual older edition? I really don’t think so.

5e works for people who don’t want to learn systems in order to have fun, and for people who do, and IMO no other edition did that.

 

[Parmandur]

5e works for people who don’t want to learn systems in order to have fun, and for people who do, and IMO no other edition did that.

Good summary. Gets right to the heart of 5E's success succinctly.

 

[Parmandur]

They've already said they want to retire "Race" and refer to it as Ancestry, as I understood it.

Again, I think you're just having undue confidence in your knowledge about what's coming. We know the shape of some changes. It is, I think, quite likely that other changes in the pipeline as well. Spell tweaks, for example.

The errata for Spells has been slowly rolled out over the years already. I do expect the Sage Advice rulings to get baked into the ruleset, one way or another.

They have said that they are aiming for total backwards compatibility, and that jibes with what they are actually publishing and testing. An evolution of what works well already.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The errata for Spells has been slowly rolled out over the years already. I do expect the Sage Advice rulings to get baked into the ruleset, one way or another.

They have said that they are aiming for total backwards compatibility, and that jibes with what they are actually publishing and testing. An evolution of what works well already.

Did they really say "total backwards compatibility"?

Because I think you may be falling prey to exactly the same thing that people fell prey to back in the D&D Next playtest: taking mildly-worded statements as being much stronger than intended, and taking the moderately stronger statements at their strongest possible interpretation, when weaker meanings could be intended (or, well, finagled, as was clearly the case with the D&D Next playtest.)

Remember that "modularity" was initially described as allowing, at the very least, a new edition that could be calibrated solely with official rules options to match 1st edition preferences and style, or 3e preferences and style, or 4e preferences and style, all smoothly, with the quickly walked-back implication that you could carry characters from one such table to another and not experience any issues or even have multiple different styles in play at the same table at the same time. As I said, they very quickly walked that one back because they realized that that was almost certainly not possible, but it's quite clear that they wanted people to understand "modularity" in a strong and expansive sense, and a lot of people, myself included, felt they fell rather short of that goal.

So: Did they actually say, in exact words, "total backwards compatibility"? Or did they say something else?

 

[Parmandur]

Did they really say "total backwards compatibility"?

Because I think you may be falling prey to exactly the same thing that people fell prey to back in the D&D Next playtest: taking mildly-worded statements as being much stronger than intended, and taking the moderately stronger statements at their strongest possible interpretation, when weaker meanings could be intended (or, well, finagled, as was clearly the case with the D&D Next playtest.)

Remember that "modularity" was initially described as allowing, at the very least, a new edition that could be calibrated solely with official rules options to match 1st edition preferences and style, or 3e preferences and style, or 4e preferences and style, all smoothly, with the quickly walked-back implication that you could carry characters from one such table to another and not experience any issues or even have multiple different styles in play at the same table at the same time. As I said, they very quickly walked that one back because they realized that that was almost certainly not possible, but it's quite clear that they wanted people to understand "modularity" in a strong and expansive sense, and a lot of people, myself included, felt they fell rather short of that goal.

So: Did they actually say, in exact words, "total backwards compatibility"? Or did they say something else?

They did all books being published now will work with the revision, and yes they said backwards compatibility. What we are seeing now are the revisions being iterated out.