Search results

Yeah, and at the end I think they'll settle on the first three rather than needing to include all four that you mention. Trying to keep up class support, especially with subclasses being fitted across two different chassis, seems very optimistic even in the short-term, let alone the long-term. I...

I mean, alternatively can you continue to say that 2014 is going to be supported while design completely moves away from it? No, you won't be able to. It's a lie to say that it will continue indefinitely and I would expect it to actually be phased out eventually. Alternatively, you can say that...

I do understand and respect the idea of "I want lower-level minions to still be a threat", but I think my take on it is if I want goblins and kobolds fighting my higher-level adventures, they'll simply be higher-level kobolds and goblins. You're not fighting regular goblins, you're fighting the...

But there would already be minimal conversion anyways because we've seen what 1D&D is doing and even if you called it a half edition it wouldn't change how adventures were built. It doesn't change mechanics in that way because adventures are generally not written to rely on specific class-based...

Sure, but do we actually see incompatibility with old adventures with 1D&D? Do we see likely incompatibility with new adventures with old 5E? The way I see things, I don't see WotC's class designs changing how the game functions at a base level as much as balancing things out across the classes...

It not a revision. When you revise something, you replace what came before it with the old. This is not a revision, it's an addition. And what you say about "any revision is optional" goes for anything: any upgrade, new book, etc... that's optional. Edition switches are optional. Ultimately you...

See, this is how I see it, particularly the "Roll a check that isn't there". The thing is, for the life of me I honestly couldn't think of a roll or check they could have that wouldn't be there. I don't read many of the adventures, but from what I've seen they generally aren't ultra-specific...

What you are referencing can be confusing but the examples you are referencing are so small that it doesn't become a larger problem. Having different versions of Deep Gnomes matters less than having two different versions of the Warlock built around two different ideas, or having a Druid that...

The UA Ranger was the canary, honestly. They flirted with the idea of making a major change (One I felt was needed) and got cold feet. Wish they had pulled the trigger on some of those revisions.

They exist concurrently because Wizards says they do. If I don't want them to, then I have to have a whole discussion with my players about what to keep or not to keep. I'd rather it be a simpler binary choice of 5E or whatever 1D&D would be called as an edition shift/change/half-change.

Sure, sure. But I mean, that's an argument for a half-edition, or at least errata, rather than keeping the old with the new. I take it you'd be okay with whatever 1D&D is replacing the older material, right?

Yeah, I don't get why this isn't obvious: you can write adventures to be largely system agnostic "5.X" or whatever. Any monster you need specific stats for you can just put in the back and they'll largely work the same. What needs to be separated are the player-facing class changes. No no...

Because you aren't going to have a table where people are playing two different versions of the Warlock, or mixing different Druids. The point would be that you actually get proper internal balance changes, rather than making everything more chaotic by keeping everything while rebalancing within...

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...

I feel like the people haggling over the exact definition of "editions" is missing what people like @Emberashh and I are really pointing to: the fact that you have a second, older PHB out in the wild that is useable is just a messy thing. The whole point to revising something is to replace it...

It didn't cause any confusion because they weren't meant to be the same edition anyways. The point is that you're calling them both 5E, but they are not the same while covering the same material. That's the point. I mean, this is substantially new (especially in regards to classes so far)...

Oh yeah. Giants, in particular, were really fun when I started modding them out. I took away their extra attacks and just turned them into legendary actions with a bunch of different kinds of attacks. But as written, they are lame as hell.

They'll know 5E is not 5.5E. Again, this is a way more confusing way of doing things. I understand the idea of not trying to upset the fanbase by saying "No, we aren't changing editions!", but I find it to really muddle things when it comes to how things actually interact.

Dude, people buy stuff second hand and it's not like there won't be stock of these PHBs out there. They might borrow an old PHB from someone they know plays the game because you're just saying the 5E Player's Handbook. The idea that "New players will just buy the new one" misses that these are...

I'm sorry, but having an edition number immediately tells you what you get. Just having a new PHB with the same classes but different from the other PHB that also contains the same classes is way more confusing than something that says "Oh, this is from a different edition". Like, one way or...