D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[Bill Zebub]

I think I'll see dialogues like this:

• "Let's play D&D fifth edition?"
• "Sure! Can I use One D&D rules?"
• "No, just 5e."

Or posts like this:
"LFG 5e to play Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Tuesdays 8-10PM. Updated rules from D&D One only".

Call it different editions or not, the word doesn't matter, but the impact of the changes. That's what I meant.

Ok, but the same could be said for using Tasha's. Or the UA Ranger. Or the Artificer.

Here's another way that conversation could go:

"Wanna play D&D 5e?"
"Sure. Can I use One D&D rules?"
"Um...we're using original 5e, but, yeah, go ahead, as long as you aren't counting on me to remember what your character does differently."

I haven't seen anything (yet) in One that would make that particularly difficult, even if it could be argued that the player using One is slightly more/less powerful, as long as that one player knows the rule changes well. The only thing I can think of that might even be slightly challenging for the DM is, if the "monsters don't crit" rule becomes a thing, remembering which PCs suffer crits and which don't.

 

[Lycurgon]

I honestly think the only divide it will bring up is someone complaining that they can't have a 16 in their starting trait because the background bonuses don't allow them. Outside of that, I think it'll be smooth sailing for WotC.

What? Custom and customizing backgrounds are part of the new rules. Anyone can have their bonuses wherever they want.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think I'll see dialogues like this:

• "Let's play D&D fifth edition?"
• "Sure! Can I use One D&D rules?"
• "No, just 5e."

Some DMs back in the 2E days refused to allow character kits from the PHBR books. That didn't make the PHBR books a seperate edition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't follow your last point. What word is being redefined, and by whom?

The fact that some creatures in MotM are different isn't the point. The new books will have differences. All new books always have differences. The question is whether they still all work together, and that is what I meant when I said that MotM integrates seamlessly. You can use it in conjunction with the 2014 PHB with no challenges. This would not be the case with, say, the 4e Monster Manual.

OneD&D will bring changes. That is not in dispute. The question is whether those changes will create a break with what came before to the extent that players will feel forced to choose between one set of books or the other, as with previous editions, or will be able to gradually integrate new books into what they are already doing and update as desired. WotC is expressly aiming for the latter. We shall see if they are successful, but I see no reason why they can't be.

I only just bought MotM, and I still use Volo's and Mordenkainen's as well, depending on the version of the monster I want for an encounter (for example, I happen to prefer the spell lists in many cases). It all works. I honestly don't see what the problem is.

The word they're trying to re-define is "edition".

 

[Fifth Element]

The word they're trying to re-define is "edition".

Only if you pretend that the meaning of the word "edition" in this context is clear-cut, which of course it is not. The vast majority of words in English have nuances and fuzziness to their meanings, and you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Worrying about whether the 2024 books are a "new edition" or not is a waste of time and energy. People can and will call them whatever they want, and it has no impact on anyone else.

All that matters is that in two years a new set of D&D books will be published that some players will buy and use, and others won't. However those people choose to identify and categorize those books is meaningless... they will will buy and use them based upon how much they find them useful-- not whether some people are calling it a "new edition" or an "update" or a "half-edition" or whatever other silly bug of a term they'll have stuck up their butt.

 

[Cadence]

Only if you pretend that the meaning of the word "edition" in this context is clear-cut, which of course it is not. The vast majority of words in English have nuances and fuzziness to their meanings, and you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

It feels like the context is either publishing (clearly is), games (certainly feels like it would get a new number in minecraft) , ttrpgs (feels like it?), or D&D (is this 4e to essentials? 1e to 2e? I guess we'll find out).

I'm not sure what the nuance of any other words has to do with it. Similarly I'm not sure what any other definitions of edition have to do with anything.

 

[Cadence]

Ok, but the same could be said for using Tasha's. Or the UA Ranger. Or the Artificer.

Here's another way that conversation could go:

"Wanna play D&D 5e?"
"Sure. Can I use One D&D rules?"
"Um...we're using original 5e, but, yeah, go ahead, as long as you aren't counting on me to remember what your character does differently."

RE: "Rules"

Will the person in your game picking 5e also get to use different rules for what a natural 1 and 20 mean, how inspiration works, rules for grappling, rules for recoveries, for the spells, for the spell lists, for the feats, etc*... as long as they remind you how they work differently?

* Depending on what rules finally get put in.

 

[Clint_L]

I think I'll see dialogues like this:

• "Let's play D&D fifth edition?"
• "Sure! Can I use One D&D rules?"
• "No, just 5e."

Or posts like this:
"LFG 5e to play Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Tuesdays 8-10PM. Updated rules from D&D One only".

Call it different editions or not, the word doesn't matter, but the impact of the changes. That's what I meant.

It's possible. If you are correct, then WotC will have failed at what they are expressly trying to do. I'm not seeing much thus far that makes me think it will be a problem for my campaign, but then I'm not particularly fussy about rules. For me, it looks like it'll be conversations like:

Player: "Which version of character generation should I use? Can I use the new custom background feature?"
Me: "I don't care. Pick one. They all basically work the same."

I'm just not seeing substantial changes in anything put out thus far, aside from the brief proposal to rob DMs of our critical hits, which I would have just ignored anyway had WotC been foolish enough to go forward with it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

RE: "Rules"

Will the person in your game picking 5e also get to use different rules for what a natural 1 and 20 mean, how inspiration works, rules for grappling, rules for recoveries, for the spells, for the spell lists, for the feats, etc*... as long as they remind you how they work differently?

* Depending on what rules finally get put in.

i only need to be reminded how the rules work differently if it affects how I’m DMing. So far very few of the changes (again, monsters not critting would be an example) fall into that category.

Personally I wouldn’t have any difficulty DMing a hybrid 5e/One game, at least not from what we have seen so far. Maybe others feel it would be hard.