D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[Micah Sweet]

i only need to be reminded how the rules work differently if it affects how I’m DMing. So far very few of the changes (again, monsters not critting would be an example) fall into that category.

Personally I wouldn’t have any difficulty DMing a hybrid 5e/One game, at least not from what we have seen so far. Maybe others feel it would be hard.

See, that's my issue. How can it even be thought of as a "hybrid" if it's not an edition change?

 

[Bill Zebub]

See, that's my issue. How can it even be thought of as a "hybrid" if it's not an edition change?

You seem way too obsessed with the definition of 'edition'. But I think you should use whatever terminology makes you happy.

 

[leozg]

Ok, but the same could be said for using Tasha's. Or the UA Ranger. Or the Artificer.

Here's another way that conversation could go:

"Wanna play D&D 5e?"
"Sure. Can I use One D&D rules?"
"Um...we're using original 5e, but, yeah, go ahead, as long as you aren't counting on me to remember what your character does differently."

I haven't seen anything (yet) in One that would make that particularly difficult, even if it could be argued that the player using One is slightly more/less powerful, as long as that one player knows the rule changes well. The only thing I can think of that might even be slightly challenging for the DM is, if the "monsters don't crit" rule becomes a thing, remembering which PCs suffer crits and which don't.

New rules will cause some division, but not a significant division. In some contexts it will be the same, groups playing new OD&D rules and groups sticking to the original 5e, but due to the fact that they're compatible, it will not be a significant division.
Judging by what I've seen in the playtest docs, I think it will give 2-4 years more for this edition until players get bored. So far, and because Wizards is committed to keep compatibility, OD&D will not change a lot of stuff. Adding or fixing classes, races, feats, spells and so is more like applying some patches or installing DLCs than new rules.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't see it as a hybrid. Incorporating MotM doesn't feel like I am playing a hybrid game. The game has been gradually evolving with every new book anyway. I'm playing a Way of Mercy monk that wouldn't have been possible a few years ago.

Again, I think we have to look at what "edition" has always previously meant in the context of D&D, which was a whole new version of the game that necessitated buying all new books. Even adventure guides would often be rewritten for the new rules and re-released. That doesn't seem to be happening here, and WotC claims that it won't happen. So this won't be like 4e to 5e. It'll just be an updated PHB with some tweaks. I don't see this as a whole lot different from when Tasha's came out, etc.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Any player that joins our table - quickly accepts the version of the rules we follow and our homebrew rules.
1D&D will likely be quite similar 5e so I do not see this being an issue for our community. People will gravitate to their friends tables and tables of good DMs. Same as before. Rules will be secondary in this regard.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I don’t know.

I know that some of the Playtest material looks nice. Some I don’t like. We will see how it ends up.

Our group will likely play 5e with some one D&D tweaks. I am guessing if this really is compatible—-that there will be others that do this too.

As a result, the schism between 3.5e and 4e players will simply not be the same for 5e and One…if I am a betting man.

Did Tasha’s tear the player base apart? I don’t think so but some don’t use it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You seem way too obsessed with the definition of 'edition'. But I think you should use whatever terminology makes you happy.

That's why I call it 6e. Because I don't see it any other way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

New rules will cause some division, but not a significant division. In some contexts it will be the same, groups playing new OD&D rules and groups sticking to the original 5e, but due to the fact that they're compatible, it will not be a significant division.
Judging by what I've seen in the playtest docs, I think it will give 2-4 years more for this edition until players get bored. So far, and because Wizards is committed to keep compatibility, OD&D will not change a lot of stuff. Adding or fixing classes, races, feats, spells and so is more like applying some patches or installing DLCs than new rules.

I would actually love it if TTRPG development was  less like a videogame. A multitude of tiny adjustments across the board was one of the things that annoyed me about 4th ed, and the 3.5 shift. If you're going to update the core game, make a big update, own up to it, and let people stay with the current edition or move on to what you're offering. This half-measure does not work for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see it as a hybrid. Incorporating MotM doesn't feel like I am playing a hybrid game. The game has been gradually evolving with every new book anyway. I'm playing a Way of Mercy monk that wouldn't have been possible a few years ago.

Again, I think we have to look at what "edition" has always previously meant in the context of D&D, which was a whole new version of the game that necessitated buying all new books. Even adventure guides would often be rewritten for the new rules and re-released. That doesn't seem to be happening here, and WotC claims that it won't happen. So this won't be like 4e to 5e. It'll just be an updated PHB with some tweaks. I don't see this as a whole lot different from when Tasha's came out, etc.

The Tasha's release was a big deal too, and not everyone is down with it even now. WotC's whole design philosophy seemed to shift with Tasha's, to the point I think it's reasonable to split 5e into two eras right at that point.

 

[Gorck]

The Tasha's release was a big deal too, and not everyone is down with it even now. WotC's whole design philosophy seemed to shift with Tasha's, to the point I think it's reasonable to split 5e into two eras right at that point.

People don't like Tasha's? Aside from the additional subclasses, spells, and magic items (like Xanathar's had), it provided a bunch of optional rules that made the classes better (and vastly improved upon the Ranger), and it finally gave us an official Artificer.

Just don't get me started on the flexible +2/+1 ASI for character creation and their subsequent removal from the Races.