D&D (2024) Based upon what we currently know, what degree of "edition update" is 5.5?

What degree of update is 5.5?

  • 5.1 - Just cosmetic changes, clarifications, and errata

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • 5.2 - As above, plus a few rules updates

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • 5.3 - As above, plus moderate revisions

    Votes: 22 36.7%
  • 5.4 - As above, but more significant rules revisions

    Votes: 8 13.3%
  • 5.5 - As above, plus something new and significant

    Votes: 19 31.7%
  • 6.0 - A fully new edition with new underlying rules structures

    Votes: 4 6.7%

A stat is a stat. Speaking as someone who played a Standard Human Wizard, it was really nice to get 6 bumps.
It may be "nice", but it is not as powerful as getting larger boosts to the stats that help you kill the enemy before they force that tertiary save you were talking about.

Friend, I loved classic 4e and Essentials, and I used them both together. I’m not an edition warrior lying to discredit either edition. I still think Essentials is best described as a new edition of the game that was 4e - in contrast to 5th edition, which was a different game.
You were literally just saying:
Yeah, Essentials had different design and structure than classic 4e, but was entirely backwards-compatible with and usable alongside classic 4e.
(Although you missed the part that really shoots the "separate edition" claim in the head - that 4e continued after Essentials while remaining fully compatible with it).

You may not actually be an edition warrior, and @Marandahir may not be one either. You may both really love 4e. But that does not alter the fact that they repeated an edition-warrior talking point with no basis in reality, it just makes it more odd.

ETA:
Entirely, the OneD&D document explains how to do it and we already see live reports online of people doing so.
Not the AU, the actual 2024 PHB. Do you honestly believe that still using 2015 PHB humans will still be a things that is expected and supported say 5 years from now?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

.1, .2. Or .5 don’t matter much to me.
For now old monsters, npc, adventures will still be usable.
Old characters will still fit in the new game.
so that is a sweet sweet revision.
 

You were literally just saying:
The two comments of mine you quoted here were not in any way at odds with each other.
(Although you missed the part that really shoots the "separate edition" claim in the head - that 4e continued after Essentials while remaining fully compatible with it).
I didn’t miss that at all. Like I said, the two lines were entirely compatible and usable together. If you don’t want to call them different editions, fine; it’s a semantic difference. We are not disagreeing on the actual substantial details, just on what word to use to describe them. However you prefer to describe the relationship between Essentials and classic 4e, that’s what I think the relationship between 1D&D and classic 5e will be.
You may not actually be an edition warrior, and @Marandahir may not be one either. You may both really love 4e. But that does not alter the fact that they repeated an edition-warrior talking point with no basis in reality, it just makes it more odd.
I think you have some baggage with the word “edition” that @Marandahir and I do not. We are in agreement about what the relationship between 4e and Essentials was like. We just have different words we prefer to use to describe that relationship.
 

This is a fair point, and I've seen plenty of people profess happiness at the +1 tertiary bumps.


It's not good, though. It's a 5% difference (if the DC is even within your bad save's reach at higher levels).


Just a nitpicky detail: you cannot actually have 6 odd scores using point-buy, just 5. So it's down to just random rolling to make the most of the 2014 basic human... or for that Human option to make rolling all odds feel better.
An odd score at Level 1 can still playbintona +1 Feat latter one.

It's a mathematically viable choice, which is one of the reasons it is such a successful choice.
 

Not the AU, the actual 2024 PHB. Do you honestly believe that still using 2015 PHB humans will still be a things that is expected and supported say 5 years from now?
Yes, I do. Based on prior UA to final publication examples, everything written here is a draft foe what they are going to include in the PHB. Including that sidebar. And they have clearly signaled their desire to make 5E material usable, so that sidebar serves that function, and will make it in. It’s more likely to make it in than any of the rule changes in the glossary, frankly.
 

THIS. IS. AN. EDITION. WARRIOR. LIE.

Sorry, but this particular bit of misinformation has been repeated at least three time in the last couple of days, and I am done being polite about it.
Let me be absolutely clear: I did not describe the shift from 2008 4e to 2010 4e as an edition change. I said that it was a change, and indeed specifically gave it as an example of a smaller change than the upcoming 2024 revision will bring.

See:
Less than 3e -> 4e, less even than 3e -> 3.5e. But more than 4e Classic -> Essentials.

So maybe 5.3?
And, for completeness:
4e was the edition of Theseus, so I'll leave the question of whether Essentials counts as a change or not to the reader. Certainly, comparing the core rulebooks as published in 2008 with the books as published in 2010 would show significant revisions.
I do not appreciate being called a liar.
 

Base Human, Half-Elf, and Mountain Dwarf are all perfectly balanced with the other options. All of them are operating off of the same point buy system of 3 ASI's. That's why there is no problem with using Tasha's swapping with Half-Elf or Mountain Dwarf per Crawford, that's why Standard Humans do so well in actual play.
so what you are saying is that they were broken BEFORE... because they had +6(+1all) and +4(+2cha +1 any other two) and +4 (+2 str +2 con) because they were REALLY balanced as if they had +2/+1?!?!?
that's insane. the story right up until the Tasha books came out was that they got those because there other features lagged behind (and even when complaints were made on these boards people defended them)
Tasha's makes the design more apparent, and OneD&D moves +3 to Background, making every Race in OneD&D an ASI and a half in power...same as every 2014 Race if you follow the sidebar in the Backgrounds section.
if that is true then why are there 4 examples in 2014 book (remember variant human was 2 +1s)that are NOT +2/+1
 


The two comments of mine you quoted here were not in any way at odds with each other.

I didn’t miss that at all. Like I said, the two lines were entirely compatible and usable together. If you don’t want to call them different editions, fine; it’s a semantic difference. We are not disagreeing on the actual substantial details, just on what word to use to describe them. However you prefer to describe the relationship between Essentials and classic 4e, that’s what I think the relationship between 1D&D and classic 5e will be.

I think you have some baggage with the word “edition” that @Marandahir and I do not. We are in agreement about what the relationship between 4e and Essentials was like. We just have different words we prefer to use to describe that relationship.

I agree substantively with everything Charlaquin the Goblin-Queen said above.

For what it’s worth, I do think WotC has baggage with the term edition too, and that’s why they didn’t call Essentials 4.5e. This is the exact thing they did in 2010, only giving us a D&D Next style playtest to make sure we want all of it, first.

It’s a continuation of the current game, republished with all the errata they would add today, with substantive changes where need be, allowing for usage of old materials with the new to some extent, though the balance may be off because of changing assumptions. There were updates to the 4e 2008 PHB classes given but they were locked behind D&D Insider Class Compendium articles that updated their formatting to the Essentials wordings, and they didn’t reprint the 2010+ 4e PHB with the errata once Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms were the new thing to buy.

Monsters were rebalanced, Themes were considered an option for everyone instead of something only Athasian characters got, higher level passive class features were a now thing. Cleric (Templar) and Wizard (Arcanist) did indeed show how they could exist side by side with Warpriest and Mage respectively (and Witch and Sha’ir, for Wizards), but there was no attempt to show how Seeker fit with the base Ranger, the Scout, or the Hunter. IS it another Ranger subclass or completely it’s own thing? Narratively it’s essentially a fully magical Ranger, the opposite end of the spectrum from the 2008 Ranger, with Scout and Hunter occupying middle positions.

Some builds and subclasses were narratively stepping on each other’s shoes, because Essentials was designed to share narrative space only with other Essentials, not with the 2008 PHB. Mechanically you could Def pick and choose and I often did. But this was the big thing 4e promised not to do: present splat books that didn’t recognise each other, since everything was now core. 3.5e had a dozen iterations on the same concepts, but with different mechanics. 4e promised consolidation and simple elegance. Essentials muddied the water - for good reasons - but to do so meant to mostly ignore anything that wasn’t Essentials. The idea was that you’d have a lot of DMs saying, Essentials Rules Only, much akin to how AL used to say PHB+1.

The only real difference with One D&D and Essentials is the Playtest to make sure enough of us want to use what the designers want to make, or if they need to change things up. 4e and Essentials were excellent refinements of the concepts from Tome of Battle, and I’d happily play in that Sandbox again if I had a group deadset on it. But it wasn’t what the player base of the time wanted, and each iteration broke the player base further.

They don’t want a plurality of us going off to play Level Up instead of One D&D because we decided it was a better refinement of 5e. And they don’t want a plurality to stop buying books because we’re happy with the 2014 game and have enough DM’s Guild products compatible with it to last a lifetime. They want to create new books that will not only carry over a majority of their players but will also grow their player base. And that means they learned the lesson of not acting like they’re changing the edition, and making sure any changes they do make are things a majority of the player base and target demographics want.
 

so what you are saying is that they were broken BEFORE... because they had +6(+1all) and +4(+2cha +1 any other two) and +4 (+2 str +2 con) because they were REALLY balanced as if they had +2/+1?!?!?
that's insane. the story right up until the Tasha books came out was that they got those because there other features lagged behind (and even when complaints were made on these boards people defended them)
Imnot even sure what you are saying in the first paragraph, but it is not what I said. The bolded part is what I said just now. Each Race is a point buy build for a value of +6 to attributes. Mountain Dwarves, Half-Elves, and Standard Humans are built a little differently, but the balance is still in play. All Racial features that are not ribbons are part of the ASI/Feat point buy balance.
if that is true then why are there 4 examples in 2014 book (remember variant human was 2 +1s)that are NOT +2/+1
Because they are balanced around the Feat like features versus ASI bonuses. It's all the same mathematically.
 

Remove ads

Top