D&D General 5.5E--new edition or not?

[the Jester]

I mean, it's as easy as picking which version of healing you (collectively) prefer at your table & write that number on your character sheet where you usually place how many dice your healing does. A player playing a non-healer will not notice. You will simply tell them, "I heal you for 9 hp!" instead of "I heal you for 13 HP!" or vice-versa.

But you also have to do this with, well, basically everything. Do you really want to go spell by spell and pick a version? Feat by feat? Which style of backgrounds do you want to keep? Which version of each class, or even each class ability?

I was a massive fan of keeping the revisions as backwards compatible as possible, and I think 5.5 failed pretty hard at that. Hard enough that it is, in fact, a new game- a new edition.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Regardless of where the balance sits, it is different. The fact the classes from 5, are also different from 5.5? The monsters?

No one, not even WotC, ever claimed that they weren't "different". Of course they're different.

I mean its clear, its been clear the whole time, its not the same,

Yeah, of course.

and the claims at compatibility were a desperate attempt by Wizards, to avoid exactly what has come to pass, with books from 5, being either ignored, or seen as less than, compared to 5.5.

Sort-of. I mean, you're right that WotC was trying to head off the collapse with spin. They also tried to make it as backwards compatible as possible while making changes. An "impossible task", depending on how much one considers any changes at all as too many, as you seem to imply.

IMO, they did "okay" at finding a balance. Not perfect, but that's to be expected.

I dont know, I'm shocked this shocks people honestly.

I'm not sure that anyone is "shocked". It's always expected. It's the degree that is being discussed. Morrus found it to be a higher degree than expected, or at least hoped for. WotC will probably find the same, but maybe not. It all really depends on expectations.

I guess that's probably why I find the two editions to be reasonably compatible. I don't expect them to line up perfectly. Heck, I don't think that either of them line up perfectly within themselves. I feel that way about every edition. So, for me, it's all a big shrug.

They're imperfectly compatible. So what else is new?

 

[jasper]

not a new edition, but like video games, it's a patch for the 5E, IMHO a good patch, but not so expansive as they 1st announced and playtested, and it should have been even bigger patch.

call it D&D 5.1 Edition.

A huge patch. If 5E was 250 megs, the 5.5 E was 212 megs. and that is before you bought the DLC of Eberron Forgery of the ages, the Raven Loft Hurl of Horror.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

But you also have to do this with, well, basically everything.

No. You only have to do it with things that you care about. If you're worried about everything, then yeah, I guess you'll have problems.

Do you really want to go spell by spell and pick a version?

Nope. I would never bother with any of that.

Feat by feat? Which style of backgrounds do you want to keep? Which version of each class, or even each class ability?

Again, I've had PCs built with one or the other at the same table. Most players haven't noticed. The character just does what it says it does on the sheet.

The answer can be "both". But it doesn't even have to be that complicated. You just pick when it comes up. You don't have to go through it ahead of time.

It's the same as when someone at the table doesn't know the rule off by heart. Make a ruling or look it up. It doesn't matter (to me) if it's perfect.

I was a massive fan of keeping the revisions as backwards compatible as possible, and I think 5.5 failed pretty hard at that. Hard enough that it is, in fact, a new game- a new edition.

I think, for the most part, that they did keep it as backward compatible "as possible" while making new books that were worth buying. I agree that it's a "new edition" by reasonable definitions of the word. But I do think that's it's compatible. Compatible enough, at any rate. YMMV, obviously!

 

[Retreater]

A month? You mean of solid 8 hour days, 5 days a week? Because there's about that, sure.

And that's not including that there's really nothing stopping you from running a 5e Adventure, of which there is more than I can imagine having time for. And that's before you look elsewhere, where there's more than a lifetime's worth.

That quote was in response to a post saying they would only use 5.5 branded material and that I was doubting there would be enough material to play for a month of D&D 5.5 (tm).
If we breakdown what's actually available. Dragon Delves, a collection of one-shots. The campaign setting books (which you're going to pick one of those right, not string together Forgotten EberronLoft) - those have like 20 pages of half-baked adventure outlines each. The starter set - yeah, that's like a solo play Choose Your Own Adventure thing.
It's not just me. Numerous Dungeon Tubers have complained at the anemic release calendar for 5.5.
I could finish a campaign like Rime of the Frostmaiden or Curse of Strahd in 3-4 months.
I'm sure that WotC basically having to restructure the whole D&D team and losing Crawford and Perkins means they don't have much to work with.
This has been the most disappointing edition release I've seen since getting in the hobby.

 

[Dire Bare]

I just got an email from Monte Cook Games for my digital copy of the new edition Cypher Character Rulebook . . . and it addresses this right in the introduction, what is a new edition of a game?

Just to throw it into the conversation . . .

A new edition of a roleplaying game is one that isn’t just revised. The contents have been written from the ground up. Some original text might be reused, but only after it’s been thoroughly examined and tested to make sure it works with the new material. All the material has been presented based on extensive experience playing the prior edition to make it easier to learn and reference in a game. While the game’s overall vibe may or may not be significantly different, the gameplay is significantly altered. There might be some attempts to make the new edition compatible with the prior one (usually referred to as “backward compatibility”), but any player of the old edition who plays the new one should realize almost immediately that things are quite different. And, ideally, better.

For context, this new edition of Cypher is the third iteration of the core books, but MCG considers it the second edition of the game, and the previous set of core books as the revised version of the original game.

 

[Morrus]

This has been the most disappointing edition release I've seen since getting in the hobby.

I mean, I think we've established over and over again that you don't actually like roleplaying games.

 

[Morrus]

I just got an email from Monte Cook Games for my digital copy of the new edition Cypher Character Rulebook . . . and it addresses this right in the introduction, what is a new edition of a game?

Just to throw it into the conversation . . .

A new edition of a roleplaying game is one that isn’t just revised. The contents have been written from the ground up. Some original text might be reused, but only after it’s been thoroughly examined and tested to make sure it works with the new material. All the material has been presented based on extensive experience playing the prior edition to make it easier to learn and reference in a game. While the game’s overall vibe may or may not be significantly different, the gameplay is significantly altered. There might be some attempts to make the new edition compatible with the prior one (usually referred to as “backward compatibility”), but any player of the old edition who plays the new one should realize almost immediately that things are quite different. And, ideally, better.

For context, this new edition of Cypher is the third iteration of the core books, but MCG considers it the second edition of the game, and the previous set of core books as the revised version of the original game.

Well, he's marketing his own new edition. His definition will be what works for his company's game.

 

[Dire Bare]

Well, he's marketing his own new edition. His definition will be what works for his company's game.

Sure!

I don't mean to say, hey folks, Monte figured it out and the debate is settled! In fact, I bet both "sides" could use that blurb in support of their arguments . . .

I just found it interesting.

I wonder how Cypher fans argue about the various iterations of that particular game.

 

[Morrus]

Sure!

I don't mean to say, hey folks, Monte figured it out and the debate is settled! In fact, I bet both "sides" could use that blurb in support of their arguments . . .

I just found it interesting.

I wonder how Cypher fans argue about the various iterations of that particular game.

I think it's just further evidence that the word is meaningless when it comes to game systems. WotC has effectively destroyed the word. It has a definition for books, but not for game systems. We need new terminology.