or we just think it is a lot less messy than you make it out to be.
The only thing that makes it ‘messy’ is the same class names are being used, and maybe the same subclass names. If these were Mage instead of Wizard and so on, we would basically be back at 4e essentials.
Not just that, but that these "new classes" are meant as balance fixes to the old ones: the Wizard is meant to be a newly-balanced version of the Wizard, the new Druid is meant to replace the old Druid, etc. Not getting rid of the thing you are trying to fix makes everything that much more complicated. It's not just that you have these classes, but they are existing with the classes they are meant to fix, meaning that their changes might not even get adopted across the board and thus negate the point of the change.
On the other hand having two editions would mean you would have to constantly harp their compatibility when it comes to adventures and half the people still would not believe it because of something someone posted on the internet.
But you don't. In fact, it's way easier to say "This edition is compatible with all 5E adventures" because that's a much easier ask than trying to have two parallel versions of each class out there that anyone can use. I don't even see how this is comparable: you can just say "5.5E are player-facing changes, which mean your adventures will largely play the same or even better with the balance changes!"
this will get sorted out, and if some tables keep using the non-nerfed options, that isn’t really a problem either. They have been using that option for several years now, without much complaining.
Yeah, but it'd just be easier to do that with a half-edition change. If you want the old classes, you keep using them. The new classes will be what is supported now. This is basically what y'all are saying is already happening, but no one wants to be the person to say "2014 is no longer the PHB you need" and just want to do it through... peer pressure, I suppose?
How is that any different from some tables sticking with 5e while others switch to a theoretical 5.5? The only thing you maybe eliminate is some tables allowing both options.
It's not, but what happens is that people wouldn't mix two editions, while they are basically told they can totally mix 2014 and 2024 if they want.
That's the whole point of this.
Over time the 2014 books will get phased out as people adopt the 2024 ones. I don’t think the rate of adoption will differ much based on whether 1D&D is called 5e or 5.5
I mean, if it wouldn't be that different, why aren't we just cutting the cord now? I feel like this is just no one wanting to take the obvious step that would make things clear and prevent, say, some weird schism where a bunch of players continue to use the old Warlock because they made a bunch of drastic changes to the new one. Or they use the old style Druid because of how Wildshape works.
Oh? Holmes → B/X → BECMI → Rules Cyclopedia/Black Box → Classic D&D never were hailed as different editions by TSR unlike 2e AD&D vis-à-vis 1e AD&D. It's only through fan-made designations that these editions are differentiated. They also generally included less rules changes than 3e → 3.5e or 5e → OneD&D playtest and were generally interoperable.
I mean, okay, then I don't see how it's comparable to what we're talking about? What's the point of bringing up different minor editions compared to what are a set of absolutely
major revisions that are revising all classes in significant ways? What does this actually prove?
Well, WotC is going to differentiate them by date of publishing and I'm sure that fans will also create terms to differentiate them in the same way that they have with the "basic" D&D line.
But that's just an edition change without saying. It's just more confusing and less upfront for people coming in, and likely to cause problems as people try to hang on to the old stuff because they've been told they are allowed to. I do wonder how this will work with stuff like Adventurer's League and such.
Can you imagine the uproar of selling a new book with 12 renamed classes and other renamed options? "Buy 5.5 Essentials! Play as a Wildling, Troubadour, Warpriest, Warrior, Shaman, Mystic, Hunter, Guardian, Scoundrel, Witch, Channeler and Mage! Argue endlessly if Treeskin and Barkskin stack, if the shaman can use spells and subs for the druid in Tasha's, or if you can multi-class fighter and warrior to get action surge twice! Fight Azure or Crimson Dragons and other slight variants, or wield the power of a +1.5 sword! Pickup 5.5 Essentials on D&D Beyond today!"
I mean, that's why you just say "This is 5.5E, these are the new versions of the classes, hopefully we did a better job of balancing them this time".
Although I think it'd be pretty cool to just rename all the classes as a matter of course.
one man’s fix is another’s unwanted change. If you consider them a fix, use them. If you prefer the original, no one is forcing you to switch by pulling the edition rug out from under you
That is the whole point of maintaining compatibility. Either version can be used in any 2014 and 2024 adventure
WotC keeps on repeating that 2014 classes are not obsolete and can be mixed with the 2024 classes. Which is what 4e essentials did.
If you try to please everyone, you'll please no one. When you make changes, there are always winners and losers. There are always people who don't want the changes. But in these sorts of games, changes are meant to
fix things, and if you just let people keep using the broken stuff, then it really doesn't get fixed.
