Search results

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...

I mean, it feels like that's what they were already doing? The class changes they were making don't affect the adventures because the adventures aren't really built around specific classes being able to do specific stuff. NPCs don't use classes, either, so there's no problem with that...

They're just going to call the book itself "Dungeons & Dragons"? No title or name? ... I mean, actually, I kind think the forwardness of that works. :D

You know, I hadn't even thought of what they are actually going to call the book. Would it just be PHB with a different cover? The "Essential" PHB? I think people were pushing back on "Advanced" recently... Maybe they reach back to their Star Wars memories and go Revised Core? :P

No, there's a difference between a PHB and an Adventure. The PHB contains mechanics, adventures are implementations of those. They're not quite the same. Adventures typically are easier to transfer over, and I think you can maintain a decent level of compatibility with those compared to actual...

What? No, what stops the interchangeability of adventures is mechanical differences, not a little number. 1D&D doesn't need to change everything to fix a bunch of problems, and it can still stay relatively compatible to the adventures that came before. The important thing would be to change the...