D&D General Does D&D (and RPGs in general) Need Edition Resets?

[R_J_K75]

given the position 5e is currently in, any really new edition was out of the question. I wish they would have stuck to their more ‘radical’ ideas from the early playtests however. That they did not is certainly reducing my interest.

I get it, but then again if they had done a 6th Ed. most of the new 5E players probably would have migrated, but that's my speculation. I'm in the same spot, will I "buy" into 5.x? Probably the cores but I really wanted to see some radical changes that changed how the game is played but not changed the game as 4E did. I doubt I'll play it. So, I don't think we'll play it.

ha, no half measures for you… I do not expect to see them move away from either during my lifetime, nor do I want them to

Just one more reason why IDC about D&D much anymore. D&D for all intents and purposes started the hobby and I want to see them lead the charge to taking TTRPG's to a new, next level.

 

[Staffan]

For example a new class might causes compatibility with the Player stuff and Setting stuff from before.
But a making a monster a higher level threat might make incompatible with everything but the DM books.

There's a difference between compatibility and having balance issues. Being compatible, to me, means that they speak the same language (though possibly with different dialects). Balance is a different issue. For example, I can use a beholder from the 3.0 Monster Manual in Pathfinder (1e) and it will work pretty much seamlessly. It will still have the same AC, attacks, eye rays, and so on. I'll need to add Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense, but that's like ten seconds of work. It would not be the same as a beholder built from the ground up for PF1, because PF1 makes some changes to how monsters are built (e.g. they get more feats), but it'll work.

If I instead try to use a beholder from 2e in Pathfinder, it will NOT work. The 2e beholder has AC 0 – worse than a gelatinous cube? And there's no attack bonus for anything, just this weird THAC0 thing. And it doesn't have any Fortitude, Reflex, or Will saves listed either, nor any skills. 2e stats make no sense in Pathfinder, so they are not compatible.

Adding a class generally doesn't impact compatibility, as evidenced by how 3.5 went from 11 classes to maybe 50 in the same edition. I would have no problem running a party with a psychic warrior, a scout, a dragon shaman, and a beguiler through the Sunless Citadel. I don't know if they'd do well, but the game would work.

YES!!!!!! Otherwise, the game will stagnate and devolve. The game needs to evolve, 5(20).x1.1(24) is not the way to go. Mild updates, just rearranging the layout etc is not what the doctor ordered IMO. I'm sure I'll get lambasted for this, but D&D needs to move away from the d20 system and classes need to go.

Classless D&D is likely never going to happen. Last time they tried even a modest change to the class system we had 4e, and we saw how that worked out. If you want a classless fantasy game, there are plenty to satiate your desire.

 

[Erdric Dragin]

An infinitely massive NO on my part.

 

[R_J_K75]

If you want a classless fantasy game, there are plenty to satiate your desire.

I want a classless D&D system is my oint

 

[Staffan]

I want a classless D&D system is my oint

And to many, a classless D&D would not be D&D.

 

[Minigiant]

There's a difference between compatibility and having balance issues. Being compatible, to me, means that they speak the same language (though possibly with different dialects). Balance is a different issue. For example, I can use a beholder from the 3.0 Monster Manual in Pathfinder (1e) and it will work pretty much seamlessly. It will still have the same AC, attacks, eye rays, and so on. I'll need to add Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense, but that's like ten seconds of work. It would not be the same as a beholder built from the ground up for PF1, because PF1 makes some changes to how monsters are built (e.g. they get more feats), but it'll work.

That is what I mean

The 1e, 3e, 4e, and 5e orc are completely different states and usages.

 

[mamba]

I want a classless D&D system is my oint

why not just a classless fantasy RPG? It would not really be similar to today’s D&D anyway.

There is at least one OSR based one, so probably as close to D&D as you will get

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/questingbeast/knave-rpg-second-edition/description/

 

[Minigiant]

And to many, a classless D&D would not be D&D.

IMHO, Classless RPGs aren't able to fulfill the mechanics of strong tropes. Tropes are watered down to balance the classlessness.

D&D is a game of bundled tropes. Classless D&D is only for people who don't care about PC accuracy.

 

[Minigiant]

but D&D needs to move away from the d20 system and .

The d20 system is best for D&D.

The issue is that D&D designers just do the modifiers, sets, and addition wrong every time because they design on looks and feels..

D&D has Ability Scores but D&D designers refuse to use them.

This is why an incremental D&D would have issues. It requires the designers to design to match the tropes and leave leeway for change. Something RPG designers still don't do.

 

[Parmandur]

I get it, but then again if they had done a 6th Ed. most of the new 5E players probably would have migrated

I mean, no, not really, based on the history of the game.