D&D (2024) So IS it a new edition?

[FrogReaver]

I dislike them and I do not, for what that is worth

Good starting point, but not really enough evidence to debunk the idea.

 

[Belen]

Follow up question. Was 3.5e a new edition?

Yes.

 

[Maxperson]

Again I mean exceptions based.

5e has more exceptions based design than 3e.

3e has a more complex base but there are few ways in the PHB to "get around" the core rules.

In 5e core, your fighter can get 2 actions, reroll saves, and now reroll attacks.

Those are core rules. 5e just has different core rules. Simpler ones. Re-rolling isn't getting around the core. Or to put it another way, if that's getting around the core rules, so are turn undead, humans getting extra feats, humans getting extra skill points, stat bonuses, stat penalties, and on and on.

Basically, any ability, which is all of them, which makes an exception to the core rules, would be an exception to them. 3.5e had more exceptions than 5e by a lot. Feats would also be exceptions to the core rules.

In 3e core, it's 5ft and full attack or move and 1 attack or spell. No bonus action attack. No extra action. No rerolls. No reckless attack (heedless charge was a supplement feat), No cunning action. No Cantrips.

So what. It's also core to get 3-18 for stats, but elves have exceptions for +2 dex, -2 con. And so on.

You're also looking at it with tunnel vision. You get one OA. My 3.5e fighter with his 16 dex can get 3 of them with the feat exception combat reflexes, and get an out of turn reaction if I have an ability that does so. Further, he can take the charge feat exception and move double move and attack with a +2 to hit. Your 5e fighter can't do that. And he has many more feat exceptions to pick from.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK, so one example that springs to mind is if they had changed the proficiency bonus math (so it went from +1 to +10 or something) or had replaced it entirely with, say, 3e's BAB, with different mathematical progressions for different classes.

Are you trying to say mechanical systems that apply to each class?

Another example might be if they had altered the levels at which various class features came online -- I'm talking about more than just having all subclasses kick in at 3rd level. Imagine if they'd made it so all classes got ASIs/feats at every odd level. Or what if they had made it so classes used talent trees instead of set features at specific levels.

This one is odd to me. Moving subclass features to level 3 caused them to move level 1 and 2 features around to accommodate. It’s not clear why only class features above levels 1-3 and not subclass features count. Is it possibly that you don’t view enough of them as having moved around?

Those are the sort of fundamental mechanical / structural changes I'm talking about. Nothing in the 2024 rules is so drastically different from the 2014 rules as to make them incompatible with each other.

If the 2014 rules were a car, the 2024 rules would be a newer model with the same underlying chassis and engine and such but with newer bodywork and a better organized interior or something. Unlike 3e or 4e, which would be fundamentally different models of car with different bits under the hood.

Does that make more sense?

Yes. For you it’s about the degree of change.

2 thoughts there.
1) I think there are tons of significant changes between 2014 and 2024. Maybe that’s part of the difference in opinions.

2) I’d say edition is most comparable to car model in that analogy. It doesn’t matter if there’s a substantial overhaul in car model design from 1 year to another, regardless of the amount of difference they are different models. To me the same is true if editions.

 

[mamba]

Good starting point, but not really enough evidence to debunk the idea.

one more data point than you had before, never said it was sufficient

 

[Maxperson]

Can you be more specific. What kind of mechanics and what kind of assumptions?

Because almost all character creation options have changed quite a bit. Skills like stealth are totally rewritten.

I mean surely you don’t mean it’s a d20 game with skills and modifiers. So outside of that what kinds of changes do you have in mind.

He probably means things like 5e being balanced around the adventuring day and X encounters, while 3e is not. 5e being built around classes and built in subclasses that have to be taken, where 3e only has classes, but you can take prestige classes that are tacked onto the base class. Things like that.

 

[Minigiant]

Those are core rules. 5e just has different core rules. Simpler ones. Re-rolling isn't getting around the core. Or to put it another way, if that's getting around the core rules, so are turn undead, humans getting extra feats, humans getting extra skill points, stat bonuses, stat penalties, and on and on.

Basically, any ability, which is all of them, which makes an exception to the core rules, would be an exception to them. 3.5e had more exceptions than 5e by a lot. Feats would also be exceptions to the core rules.

So what. It's also core to get 3-18 for stats, but elves have exceptions for +2 dex, -2 con. And so on.

You're also looking at it with tunnel vision. You get one OA. My 3.5e fighter with his 16 dex can get 3 of them with the feat exception combat reflexes, and get an out of turn reaction if I have an ability that does so. Further, he can take the charge feat exception and move double move and attack with a +2 to hit. Your 5e fighter can't do that. And he has many more feat exceptions to pick from.

My point is the changes between 3.0 and 3.5 have more impact than the changes between 5.0 and 5.5 due to the amount of importance of exception based rules are between those two editions.

 

[FrogReaver]

My point is the changes between 3.0 and 3.5 have more impact than the changes between 5.0 and 5.5 due to the amount of importance of exception based rules are between those two editions.

I don’t see how it has anything to do with exception based design. 3e did exception based design. 5e does as well.

What we might say is 5e has less interdependent subsystems than 3e. And maybe that’s where you are trying to go?

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t see how it has anything to do with exception based design. 3e did exception based design. 5e does as well.

What we might say is 5e has less interdependent subsystems than 3e. And maybe that’s where you are trying to go?

That and 3e, especially the core PHB, had "simpler" classes.

Some classes were just the same feature over and over again getting almost nothing new after the first few levels. Races where simple too.

So if you change anything the impact was greater than if you change something in 5th edition where each class each race had multiple aspects to them.

 

[FrogReaver]

That and 3e, especially the core PHB, had "simpler" classes.

Some classes were just the same feature over and over again getting almost nothing new after the first few levels. Races where simple too.

So if you change anything the impact was greater than if you change something in 5th edition where each class each race had multiple aspects to them.

I find most 3e classes to be equally or more complex than their 5e counterparts.