D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Lanefan]

1st edition is broadly compatible with 3.5, so yes. PF2 is thematically similar to D&D, but not especially compatible with any version of it, so no.

Having done some conversions, the word "broadly" is doing a stupendous amount of work in that claim.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Having done some conversions, the word "broadly" is doing a stupendous amount of work in that claim.

They're talking about 1st Edition Pathfinder. Definitely very similar to 3.5.

 

[Lanefan]

They're talking about 1st Edition Pathfinder. Definitely very similar to 3.5.

Ah. I thought he was trying to say 1e D&D and 3.5e D&D were broadly compatible...which while perhaps technically true in the most basic sense, isn't once you get into any detail.

 

[Corinnguard]

Ah. I thought he was trying to say 1e D&D and 3.5e D&D were broadly compatible...which while perhaps technically true in the most basic sense, isn't once you get into any detail.

1st edition Pathfinder kept what worked in 3.5e D&D, fixed what didn't work, and then added in a lot of new stuff. It's kind of how it earned it's nickname of 3.75e. It's compatible with 3.5e, but only to a certain point.

As for details, you better ask a devil.

 

[TwoSix]

OK, Player A is using a bespoke DM-approved rules element. One of three things then happens if Player B wants to use the rule in the manner in which she's familiar with it:

--- Player B gets shut down and has to adapt to the Player A version
--- Player A gets shut down and has to revert to the Player B version
--- you bake an inconsistency into your game, and an inherent unfairness if one version is clearly superior to another.

To me the third of these options is flat-out unacceptable, and the first two are poor as well. The only way to avoid getting to this point is to make a binary decision before play even starts as to which version you'll use, and stick to that throughout.

The bolded portion in the quote above is where I have strong disagreement, and is the attitude I'm arguing against.

You can have a fighter A and a fighter B that are distinct and yet roughly equivalent in power. (Certainly within less of a power delta than, say, rolling for stats would cause.)

There is no inherent value in having two characters with the same class be exactly the same. In fact, it's a net negative because it damages verisimiltude. I care about my settings being realistic (or at least fantasy realistic), and thousands of people having the same class with the exact same abilities isn't realistic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah. I thought he was trying to say 1e D&D and 3.5e D&D were broadly compatible...which while perhaps technically true in the most basic sense, isn't once you get into any detail.

Here's my thought. Any version of D&D published by TSR or WotC is D&D because...they own the IP and have the right to do so, despite some of those being very different games. Any product that is broadly compatible with any of those versions (like Pathfinder to 3.5, Level Up to 5e, or many OSR games to B/X or 1e) are also D&D as far as I'm concerned, even if those D&D-adjacent games are not compatible with each other (because those games are based on different D&D games). Basically, I want them to share real mechanical links to any official D&D game, past or present, for me to call them D&D. PF2E has IMO drifted too far off that signal for me to consider it D&D any longer.

Obviously all of this my opinion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The bolded portion in the quote above is where I have strong disagreement, and is the attitude I'm arguing against.

You can have a fighter A and a fighter B that are distinct and yet roughly equivalent in power. (Certainly within less of a power delta than, say, rolling for stats would cause.)

There is no inherent value in having two characters with the same class be exactly the same. In fact, it's a net negative because it damages verisimiltude. I care about my settings being realistic (or at least fantasy realistic), and thousands of people having the same class with the exact same abilities isn't realistic.

This is why you need more options within a class, like Level Up.

 

[Corinnguard]

You can have a fighter A and a fighter B that are distinct and yet roughly equivalent in power.

Fighter A can differ from Fighter B by:

1) Species
2) Background
3) the weapons they use in melee and ranged combat
4) the skills they are proficient in.
5) their ability scores.
6) how often they use Second Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable
7) whether they pick an ASI or a feat at 4th, 8th, 12th and so forth.
8) which archetype they pick up at 3rd level.
9) their fighting style
10) how they are role-played.

There a lot of things that can set the two Fighters apart. You just need to be creative about it all.

 

[TwoSix]

Fighter A can differ from Fighter B by:

1) Species
2) Background
3) the weapons they use in melee and ranged combat
4) the skills they are proficient in.
5) their ability scores.
6) how often they use Second Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable
7) whether they pick an ASI or a feat at 4th, 8th, 12th and so forth.
8) which archetype they pick up at 3rd level.
9) their fighting style
10) how they are role-played.

There a lot of things that can set the two Fighters apart. You just need to be creative about it all.

Or you can just have two, or more different versions of the fighter class. There's nothing gained by having just one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or you can just have two, or more different versions of the fighter class. There's nothing gained by having just one.

As long as at least one of them isn't called "fighter", I'm on board.