mamba
Legend
they work alongside each other, the 2014 one was not replaced, that decision is yours to makethat doesn't work with the 2014 one it replaces it... like a new edition
they work alongside each other, the 2014 one was not replaced, that decision is yours to makethat doesn't work with the 2014 one it replaces it... like a new edition
yes, you do the opposite of that, you blow everything up to major problems and ignore anything about why they are not![]()
That depends on the extent of or severity of the problems. If none of them are particularly severe, it's hardly necessary to spawn off a new edition if updates will do the trick (and yes, that includes not sweating it when using fixed and unfixed version at the same time).You fix problems by making a new edition that fixes problems, not by making a half replacement, half confusing splatbook with different versions of the same-named things, including all the classes and the title, but still telling people they can use the fixed and un-fixed versions at the same time. That is marketing, not design.
When you spend 20+ years arguing on the internet you get a pretty good knack for asessing how people will behave based on how they communicate.
You may think its insulting, but all that indicates to me is a guilty conscience.
There was no edition of AD&D that predated 1e. 1e was the first such edition. So 2e was in fact the second edition of AD&D, and 3e being built off of 2e was the third, though it dropped the "advanced" portion from the name.It's worse than that, TSR made a dog's lunch of it before WotC ever got involved: twice versions of D&D predate "First Efition," and by normal publishing parlance, the 1989 books were the third typical edition of simply AD&D (the 1E refresh involved enough changes that they warranted a new ISBN, hence being a second edition). 2E was really the third, and 3E was really the fifth.
likewise. You are not objectively correct, no matter how much you think you are. You just have a different opinionCase in point, pretending I (and others) haven't exhaustively engaged with every single word you've said in this topic.
Sure, but "as much compatibility as possible" doesn't necessarily mean backwards compatibility will be achieved. This is a truly binary thing. Either you achieve the backwards compatibility or you don't.
Whoa there now. Wouldn't want someone to come along and harangue you for three days and 17 pages accusing you of calling Mighty WotC liars.
Severity is just as relative a word as "tweak".That depends on the extent of or severity of the problems. If none of them are particularly severe, it's hardly necessary to spawn off a new edition if updates will do the trick (and yes, that includes not sweating it when using fixed and unfixed version at the same time).
If they don't change 5.5e significantly enough to get the vast majority of players to buy the new books, they are making a colossal business blunder by doing this. If they do change it that much, compatibility is going to be a significant issue. You can't leave it pretty much the same so that you can mix and match as you please, and still have enough incentive to make the money that Hasbro needs WotC to make.balance is not that different between 5e and 1DD that this will actually matter.