5.5E Is the 5E player base going to split?


log in or register to remove this ad

I was putting together a very similar post when I got ninja'ed here. But there are plenty of points of continuity that will indicate it's a flavor of D&D and not Rifts, Vampire, or Deadlands. That's pretty much a hyperbolic non-starter. Someone might confuse Pathfinder or another OGL-based clone but then the story is pretty easy to explain.
Rifts uses a d20 to attack has stats hp and classes and races and alignments. (Vampire and deadlands get more different but if all you are going for is 'make fatasy game')
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
I agree that the permanent Evergreen base seems to be working, but we're all treating 2024 as a new revision as a given. So there must be something to it, right?
For sure, and we have most of the pieces in play already, the big open question is how they are adjusting the Classes. The new Starter Set coming in August, which is for the 2024 revision, should be illuminating.
 


TwoSix

Unserious gamer
For sure, and we have most of the pieces in play already, the big open question is how they are adjusting the Classes. The new Starter Set coming in August, which is for the 2024 revision, should be illuminating.
Sure. My only major point is that while making changes can be risky, staying the same carries its own set of risks. There's no obvious choice where the game will definitely keep growing the way it has been. It's quite possible there's NO choice where the game can continue its rate of growth.
 

Sure. My only major point is that while making changes can be risky, staying the same carries its own set of risks. There's no obvious choice where the game will definitely keep growing the way it has been. It's quite possible there's NO choice where the game can continue its rate of growth.
there used to be a show on History called "man machine moment" and it was basically a theory that you needed all three of: the person with the idea, the technology to do it well, and the right timing for inventions to take off... I know in an episode of it or a related show someone showed when the first (mechanical) computers were made and that there were people who had a rudimentary knowledge of magnetism, and others with rudimentary know of electricity... basically all you need to make a pretty modern computer. IF it had all come together than, and advanced as it did post WW2 Shakespeare would have been writing on laptops or tablets more advanced than any of us have.

I said all that to say that we had a great growth... but it wasn't JUST the edition, there are alot of other factors. It might keep growing until D&D is as popular as video games. Or it might end at anytime. Without a high level diviner we just don't know
 

Reynard

Legend
Rifts uses a d20 to attack has stats hp and classes and races and alignments. (Vampire and deadlands get more different but if all you are going for is 'make fatasy game')
You're obviously married to the idea, and since we don't have a time machine we can't really test it, so there isn't much else to say other than I think you are way underestimating the average player in 1981.
 

You're obviously married to the idea, and since we don't have a time machine we can't really test it, so there isn't much else to say other than I think you are way underestimating the average player in 1981.
okay, maybe I just have very different experiences with players calling out the things as 'sooooo different' even here on enworld even WITH the time and slow adjustments
 

Oofta

Legend
they only feel progression if you take each step in the path... skipping 2e 2e player options (more of a leap but) 3e and 3.5 then 5e seems VERY off.

that is every RPG ever... so Rifts, Deadlands, and Vampire would all be recognized as D&D...
When I switched editions from 2E to 3E it didn't feel like a different game. I was just happy they changed the math to get rid of THAC0 and rolling high for saving throws. At the time discussed how I wished they had done those changes back in 2E. I don't see that much difference between 3E and 5E in the play loop or actual execution.

Skipping 4E, I've always been able to transfer over PCs from one edition to the next pretty easily. The details of the implementation changes a bit but the resulting character is much the same. I can't go back in time of course so it all just comes down to opinion. In my opinion, if I saw the 5E rules way back in 1981 I would have still recognized it as D&D. 🤷‍♂️
 


TwoSix

Unserious gamer
When I switched editions from 2E to 3E it didn't feel like a different game. I was just happy they changed the math to get rid of THAC0 and rolling high for saving throws. At the time discussed how I wished they had done those changes back in 2E. I don't see that much difference between 3E and 5E in the play loop or actual execution.

Skipping 4E, I've always been able to transfer over PCs from one edition to the next pretty easily. The details of the implementation changes a bit but the resulting character is much the same. I can't go back in time of course so it all just comes down to opinion. In my opinion, if I saw the 5E rules way back in 1981 I would have still recognized it as D&D. 🤷‍♂️
I think as long as you have the level, stats, race, and class, you can transfer between any D&D edition pretty easily, although you might have some differences in overall ability. But it's really the character that matters, not the build, so those abilities seem pretty secondary.
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
Sure. My only major point is that while making changes can be risky, staying the same carries its own set of risks. There's no obvious choice where the game will definitely keep growing the way it has been. It's quite possible there's NO choice where the game can continue its rate of growth.
The rate of growth is not sustainable, no, but creating a stable rhythm with multimedia tie-ins is their stated plan. The movie is more important for driving revenue than cleaning up the rules.
 


James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
I don't know, I have a friend, Guy, who still to this day calls 3e "that horrible WotC edition" and insists that they should have stuck to making a card game. The way he talks, you might think he was somehow personally betrayed by 3e's existence. He still plays and runs his 1e/2e mashup with tons of custom rules, and he seems barely cognizant that we're up to 5e D&D.

When you ask him what the big deal is, he always starts with "why did they change Thac0, there was no reason to do that". He actually likes rolling high to attack and rolling low for ability checks! He likes the random d100 subsystems- I've tried for two decades now to even get him to try a newer iteration of D&D (or even Pathfinder), and he turns up his nose like it's limburger!

So yeah, I don't think you could have seamlessly ported 5e to the 80's. People playing regular D&D would be like "uh, why is everything so complicated and weird?" Also, 5e has demons and devils and let's not forget how that went...

And come on, AD&D without Gygaxian hyperbole and purple prose? Without arcane and profound rules densely packed into the DMG?

Blasphemy! People would riot in the streets saying "where's mah rules, TSR?!"
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
I don't know, I have a friend, Guy, who still to this day calls 3e "that horrible WotC edition" and insists that they should have stuck to making a card game. The way he talks, you might think he was somehow personally betrayed by 3e's existence. He still plays and runs his 1e/2e mashup with tons of custom rules, and he seems barely cognizant that we're up to 5e D&D.

When you ask him what the big deal is, he always starts with "why did they change Thac0, there was no reason to do that". He actually likes rolling high to attack and rolling low for ability checks! He likes the random d100 subsystems- I've tried for two decades now to even get him to try a newer iteration of D&D (or even Pathfinder), and he turns up his nose like it's limburger!

So yeah, I don't think you could have seamlessly ported 5e to the 80's. People playing regular D&D would be like "uh, why is everything so complicated and weird?" Also, 5e has demons and devils and let's not forget how that went...

And come on, AD&D without Gygaxian hyperbole and purple prose? Without arcane and profound rules densely packed into the DMG?

Blasphemy! People would riot in the streets saying "where's mah rules, TSR?!"
Yet still I doubt that a bunch of random kids in 1981 would have trouble understanding that they were looking st a D&D variant.
 

dytrrnikl

Explorer
Idle curiosity about how folks feel. I don't really have a dog in the race and haven't been paying super close attention to things, but it appears that we are in the early stages of a "renovation" of the 5E rules, and we know we have revised core books coming.

So what I am curious about is how folks feel. Do you think that "5.5" is going to split the 5E player base such that there are 2 camps of 5E players -- 5.0 and 5.5? I know that some people felt that way about 4E essentials, and some folks stuck with 3.0 rather than go to 3.5.

What do you think?

Also, be nice.

EDITED for grammar.
If you look at past history, yes, the player base will split. Change is not something that is ever accepted without someone grousing about it. It happened with 1E to 2E, 2E to 3E, 3E to 4E which actually spawned Pathfinder 1E, and 4E to 5E. People like what they like. I still prefer 2E AD&D over other versions. With Star Wars, if it’s not the d6 West End Games version, it’s just not something I enjoy. YMMV.
 


Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top