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

[TwoSix]

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

I don't care what you label it on your character sheet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't care what you label it on your character sheet.

I care what they're called in the books, sorry but I do. If you publish another book with the same classes and the same name as the Player's Handbook, and yet insist it's somehow not a replacement, there will be confusion for some, and irritation for others. Far better to go the Essentials route and make thematically similar classes with different names.

At least, if keeping both fighters actually matters to you as a publisher.

 

[Corinnguard]

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

A 5e Fighter has Fighting Style, Second Wind, Action Surge, Martial Archetype, Extra Attack, Indomitable, Ability Score Improvement, and the optional Martial Versatility.

An A5e Fighter otoh has Fighting Style, Combat Maneuvers, Soldering Knacks, Steely Mien, Maneuver Specialization, Martial Archetype, Reserves, Ability Score Increase, Martial Lore, Indomitable, Reputation, War's Toil, Martial Legacy and the Warmaster capstone.

The classes in Level Up are sort of like the classes in PF1 in that they entice you to stick with a single class by offering up a lot of options. But if you want to multiclass into another class, Level Up has the synergy feat chains to make up for one of the drawbacks that comes with multiclassing.

 

[tetrasodium]

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

Sanity is gained. I even seem to recall a couple oots strips specifically about characters using more powerful versions of things from different editions.

 

[TwoSix]

I care what they're called in the books, sorry but I do. If you publish another book with the same classes and the same name as the Player's Handbook, and yet insist it's somehow not a replacement, there will be confusion for some, and irritation for others. Far better to go the Essentials route and make thematically similar classes with different names.

At least, if keeping both fighters actually matters to you as a publisher.

Sorry, I push against that. Pick a class with a much stronger diegetic identity, like a bard. What if you have a version of Bard that's a half caster, but with stronger utility functions, and another version that's a full caster? But those two mechanical frameworks are still supporting that same familiar bardic trope? And more importantly, you don't want them to be identifiable within the fiction as two distinct ideas? Both characters, within the fiction, are bards. What's gained by labeling the 2nd as a "troubador" or something when their diegetic identity should be the same?

 

[TwoSix]

Sanity is gained. I even seem to recall a couple oots strips specifically about characters using more powerful versions of things from different editions.

Sorry, but you're just wrong.

 

[TwoSix]

A 5e Fighter has Fighting Style, Second Wind, Action Surge, Martial Archetype, Extra Attack, Indomitable, Ability Score Improvement, and the optional Martial Versatility.

An A5e Fighter otoh has Fighting Style, Combat Maneuvers, Soldering Knacks, Steely Mien, Maneuver Specialization, Martial Archetype, Reserves, Ability Score Increase, Martial Lore, Indomitable, Reputation, War's Toil, Martial Legacy and the Warmaster capstone.

The classes in Level Up are sort of like the classes in PF1 in that they entice you to stick with a single class by offering up a lot of options. But if you want to multiclass into another class, Level Up has the synergy feat chains to make up for one of the drawbacks that comes with multiclassing.

And if player A wants to play a fighter, but doesn't want the complexity of maneuvers, they can play the PHB fighter. Player B, who wants to play a fighter but does like maneuvers, can play the A5E fighter. Nothing is lost, and player preference is supported.

I know, I must sound insane, right?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1st edition Pathfinder kept what worked in 3.5e D&D, fixed what didn't work,

This really is up to debate. 3.5 did not know what they did. Pathfinder designers doubled down on it. I could go into detail. I won't for peace's sake.

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.

The said it is compatible. The point is not far out.

As for details, you better ask a devil.

Good advice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sorry, I push against that. Pick a class with a much stronger diegetic identity, like a bard. What if you have a version of Bard that's a half caster, but with stronger utility functions, and another version that's a full caster? But those two mechanical frameworks are still supporting that same familiar bardic trope? And more importantly, you don't want them to be identifiable within the fiction as two distinct ideas? Both characters, within the fiction, are bards. What's gained by labeling the 2nd as a "troubador" or something when their diegetic identity should be the same?

What's gained is the ability to distinguish in the game rules "bard" from "troubodour". You can call them both by the same third name in setting if you want.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry, but you're just wrong.

I'm wrong about the braincell testing impact of doing things like you suggest and having players decide to mix-n-match stuff from different editions for power simply because that's the character they want to make? I must have missed where you demonstrated that this is a problem that the gm and everyone else deserves to juggle for a player who decides with any more depth than your than personal preference.