D&D 5E (2024) If D&D 2024 Had Been Radically Different, Would You Have Stuck With 5E

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not entirely sure what this poll is intended to prove, but I voted the second option.

It's an EN World poll. It proves nothing. Just like every other EN World poll.

 

[Reynard]

Yep. Which also seems to render the question moot. Anyone wanting that novelty can already get it by looking at any one of the thousands of other RPGs. If something innovative but close to D&D is your jam, the OSR/NSR scenes have you well and truly covered. To say nothing of the mountain of not-quite-5E-clones.

This supposes that "D&D" being on the cover does not matter. For many, it in fact does.

 

[Reynard]

The poll assumes D&D is the only alternative. My group left the D&D fold when 4e came out. Switched to Pathfinder and others instead and so far we haven't looked back. So the selection is.... the non existing answer 6.

::looks at category tag:: looks at Koloth:: looks at category tag:: looks at Koloth::

Okay.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If it had been radically different from 5e, that would have been nothing but an improvement, so yeah, I'd have at least given it a shot with the hope that maybe it would stop actively crapping on my preferences as a gamer and player, with the hope that maybe this time the big tent would actually have a place for me in it.

Of course, I have infinite confidence in WotC's ability to ruin game design, so that is, as Sir Pratchett put it, "...a grim, thin hope, an Arthurian sword at sunset". But it would still have been hope.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

::looks at category tag:: looks at Koloth:: looks at category tag:: looks at Koloth::

Okay.

I mean, the bigger reason to glance back and forth is that Pathfinder 1st edition is simply a copied version of D&D.

You haven't "left the D&D fold". You've just jumped to a different creator making the exact same product under a slightly different name.

It's not even like switching from Coke to Pepsi. It's as if Coke released its secret formula, and then Keurig Dr Pepper came out with, "Okay, now we're going to make Noka-Nola, which has exactly the same formula as Coke, but with a purple can, and using pure cane sugar, no high-fructose corn syrup." You're still drinking Coke. It's just a different sweetener and bottled by a different company. Nothing meaningful has changed.

We often talk about things being X "with the serial numbers filed off". PF1e is precisely that. It's literally the same game, with a handful of canonized house-rules, and a bunch of supplemental extras. That would be the very reason why Jason Bulmahn gave a rather heartfelt and compelling (IMO, anyway) request for fans to give PF2e a shot, because they'd explored pretty much every thing one could possibly explore with that ruleset and couldn't do more, very specifically because of how horribly broken it is.

PF1e is 3rd edition D&D. It's just 3rd edition with a library of 3PP tacked on.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's not even like switching from Coke to Pepsi. It's as if Coke released its secret formula, and then Keurig Dr Pepper came out with, "Okay, now we're going to make Noka-Nola, which has exactly the same formula as Coke, but with a purple can, and using pure cane sugar, no high-fructose corn syrup." You're still drinking Coke. It's just a different sweetener and bottled by a different company. Nothing meaningful has changed.

Cane sugar is rather less harmful than corn syrup.

 

[mellored]

By your definition, if the changes where good to me, then it would be a better game for me, and I would of changed over.
Probably after I finished my campaigns though.

And really, the main changes i would make would be to choose one either ability scores or ability modifiers. And combine attack rolls and damage into the same roll.

 

[Remathilis]

Sorry, but you're getting the "it depends".

Moving from 2e to 3e was intuitive to me because much of what I had been house ruling into 2e was being added to 3e, and the stuff that wasn't looked interesting and in line with my expectations. I went to 4e because it promised to fix many of the issues I had with 3e, but ultimately didn't like their solutions and went to Pathfinder instead. I hopped back onto 5e because the system actually did fix the problems of 3e in a way I preferred. 5.24 is further refinement, even if I don't agree with all changes and sometimes wishes they went further.

So for me to buy a radically different 6e, it has to fix a bunch of problems that I have with 5e in a way that makes it worth rebuying Castle Ravenloft for the seventh time. That's a tall order because I feel 5e is the best chassis for D&D so far, so I don't know what could be done that is both a radical enough divergence from 5e that satisfies the OPs requirements but also wouldn't drag the game into some place I would still like. My preferred 6e would likely look closer to what the more radical OneD&D changes look like (especially rebalancing class progressions) rather than the more turbulent 2e to 5e change levels.

So unless WotC did something really radical that right now I cannot imagine but somehow was something I realized I wanted all along, I would prefer most future D&D to be iterations of 5e (with varying degrees of backwards compatibility) over a whole new D&D built from the ground up again.

To quote David Grohl "I'm getting tired of starting again somewhere new."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Cane sugar is rather less harmful than corn syrup.

And? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

For goodness' sake. Does this reply, in any way, address anything about the argument made?

 

[Corinnguard]

One other area I think WOTC dropped the ball with 2024 was not splitting culture from species as was done in Tales of the Valiant.

Level Up also did this by splitting race into heritage and culture.

PF1e is 3rd edition D&D. It's just 3rd edition with a library of 3PP tacked on

It's pretty much 3.75e D&D.