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

[Arilyn]

It also adds in racial abilities for humans if you want to dump level limits.

I'm having fun with my duergar. He's always assuming the worst will happen, which may be contributing to him staying alive.

 

[JEB]

As an aside, an awful lot of people who actually run/play D&D are unaware of the 1D&D playtest right now, outside of the "extremely online" types. For example, my most rules-attentive and generally up-to-date-on-D&D player? He didn't know about it until last weekend when I told him. My friend who regularly runs D&D for his kids and their friends, and is a long-time player, and buys a lot of 5E stuff? He didn't know until even more recently, and again, only because I told him. These people are representative of more "typical" D&D players, I would suggest, and they know nothing about it.

Very true. Depending on just how different 2024 edition winds up being, this could create some dramatic reactions on release...

 

[Dwarf 007]

Wizards calling it a new edition or not, new rules always cause some division. The fact that these new rules are compatible with older ones will avoid a break like 3e to 4e, but there will be groups playing old and new rules and moving from one to another will require some adaptation, not to much different than conversion rules from edition to edition, just a little smoother.
In the end of the day, the new rules will be like a new edition.

Correct. New rules, always cause some division.

 

[ECMO3]

The more experience I get with one the answer is yes it will create a divide.

 

[Clint_L]

Wizards calling it a new edition or not, new rules always cause some division. The fact that these new rules are compatible with older ones will avoid a break like 3e to 4e, but there will be groups playing old and new rules and moving from one to another will require some adaptation, not to much different than conversion rules from edition to edition, just a little smoother.
In the end of the day, the new rules will be like a new edition.

I disagree. In the context of D&D, the word "edition" has a specific meaning that WotC is expressly abandoning: substantial changes that make the previous version obsolete. You had to buy new books or you were in effect playing a different game than new players. This is why we still have communities playing 1e, 3.5 e, 4e, etc.

So if OneD&D is truly backwards compatible, then that will not be like a new "edition" as that word is commonly understood in the context of D&D. Again for my example, I point to Monsters of the Multiverse, which I think we can all agree integrates quite seamlessly with 2014 books.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree. In the context of D&D, the word "edition" has a specific meaning that WotC is expressly abandoning: substantial changes that make the previous version obsolete. You had to buy new books or you were in effect playing a different game than new players. This is why we still have communities playing 1e, 3.5 e, 4e, etc.

So if OneD&D is truly backwards compatible, then that will not be like a new "edition" as that word is commonly understood in the context of D&D. Again for my example, I point to Monsters of the Multiverse, which I think we can all agree integrates quite seamlessly with 2014 books.

We definitely cannot all agree that MotM integrates perfectly. They cut out a ton of spells from soellcasting monsters across the board, for example.

I also expect 6e will not be nearly as backwards compatible as folks who care about more just the base math would like. Deciding to redefine a word to suit your purposes requires a good deal of buy-in to work. I can't speak for others, but I don't buy it.

 

[Clint_L]

We definitely cannot all agree that MotM integrates perfectly. They cut out a ton of spells from soellcasting monsters across the board, for example.

I also expect 6e will not be nearly as backwards compatible as folks who care about more just the base math would like. Deciding to redefine a word to suit your purposes requires a good deal of buy-in to work. I can't speak for others, but I don't buy it.

I don't follow your last point. What word is being redefined, and by whom?

The fact that some creatures in MotM are different isn't the point. The new books will have differences. All new books always have differences. The question is whether they still all work together, and that is what I meant when I said that MotM integrates seamlessly. You can use it in conjunction with the 2014 PHB with no challenges. This would not be the case with, say, the 4e Monster Manual.

OneD&D will bring changes. That is not in dispute. The question is whether those changes will create a break with what came before to the extent that players will feel forced to choose between one set of books or the other, as with previous editions, or will be able to gradually integrate new books into what they are already doing and update as desired. WotC is expressly aiming for the latter. We shall see if they are successful, but I see no reason why they can't be.

I only just bought MotM, and I still use Volo's and Mordenkainen's as well, depending on the version of the monster I want for an encounter (for example, I happen to prefer the spell lists in many cases). It all works. I honestly don't see what the problem is.

 

[leozg]

I disagree. In the context of D&D, the word "edition" has a specific meaning that WotC is expressly abandoning: substantial changes that make the previous version obsolete. You had to buy new books or you were in effect playing a different game than new players. This is why we still have communities playing 1e, 3.5 e, 4e, etc.

So if OneD&D is truly backwards compatible, then that will not be like a new "edition" as that word is commonly understood in the context of D&D. Again for my example, I point to Monsters of the Multiverse, which I think we can all agree integrates quite seamlessly with 2014 books.

I think I'll see dialogues like this:

• "Let's play D&D fifth edition?"
• "Sure! Can I use One D&D rules?"
• "No, just 5e."

Or posts like this:
"LFG 5e to play Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Tuesdays 8-10PM. Updated rules from D&D One only".

Call it different editions or not, the word doesn't matter, but the impact of the changes. That's what I meant.

 

[Malmuria]

Aah so - in example, is the BASIC thief class identical to the ADVANCED one? The ADVANCED just adds druids and illusionists and whatnot?

This video does a decent job of breaking it down. The current necrotic gnome webpage lays out the differences between their products as well. But yeah it could be simpler

 

[Scott Christian]

I honestly think the only divide it will bring up is someone complaining that they can't have a 16 in their starting trait because the background bonuses don't allow them. Outside of that, I think it'll be smooth sailing for WotC.