That is kinda a good point.
Fair enough, but they really tried to avoid the phrase "fifth edition", and it was indies using "5e" as a circumlocution since the OGL prevented them from saying "D&D". WotC wanted it to be called "D&D" only, and moreorless pretend that it inherited all of the earlier editions − which in practice it kinda did.
From the start of the D&DNext playtests before 5e even came out they have been saying that are done with editions, and will just refer to it as D&D. They have been referring to the game as evergreen from the start. I know there was a quote from Mearls or maybe Crawford in one of old youtube videos where he lays it all out and says they will have a revised or updated books "every decade or two" just like Monopoly or Clue.
I haven't read all 9 pages of the thread, in case someone has already said this, but my problem is that what they're saying sounds like they included errata, fixed typos, etc. Not that they made actual rules changes that could seriously change or possibly disrupt your game.
I mean perhaps in the sense of each of them individually not wanting enough changes to merit a ".5" but once they all get their preferred tweaks it comes to a ".5". I can buy that as a possible explanation, but I think there must also be some contingent of the design team that very much wants a "5.5e" or even a "6e".
Subtraction is confusing?
I just don't think it's all that confusing. Better than the class tables in the 1e DMG, and it still allows different classes to actually be better or worse at attacks, which 5e certainly doesn't do (nor did 4e before it, I believe).
I think that you've demonstrated that you don't know what THAC0 was because you are light years away from talking about what thac0 actually was.
line on sheet -> [player says number above the box for that roll] & the game continues onI think that you've demonstrated that you don't know what THAC0 was because you are light years away from talking about what thac0 actually was.
Thac0 was not the ascending/descending ac. It started from GM's trying to put pertinent info on the character sheet for pregens at con games. On the character sheet you had a THAC0 box for each weapon In it you would place the precalculated math for d20 rolls with that weapon. It's literally the difference between
- [d20 roll] -> Player
insteadthat has been "simplified" to the current:
The player didn't even need to do the math themselves like in 5e unless they had a bonus from a high attrib or a magic weapon because
- [d20 roll]->player:"uhh 16 plus 5 from [attrib] [GM:"that's a hit"]plus prof bonus of... umm.. gotta find it... [GM:"that's a hit"] 4 for
um[GM:"that's a hit"] twentythree [GM:"that's a hit"] oh plus one for my weapon[GM:"that's STILL a hit.. I SAID IT'S AHIT, YOU HIT"]does a twenty four hit?"[GM:"yes that's still a hit"]If a player did have a bonus from attrib or weapon they just adjusted it if they had a bonus from the relevant attribute (ire high strength usually) or the weapon itself (ie +1 weapon) & that usually only happened if your level went up/down or you were changing to a new weapon. Doing it every attack roll is in no way easier or more straightforward than doing it once & using that for every attack roll to follow till you have reason to adjust it.
How do you say new edition without actually saying new edition...
You are still missing what changes. That bold bit is what the THAC0 chart on the sheet removed the need to do every roll by shifting the actual math to only doing once when the player changes levels or gains a new weapon. The 5e version of doing the math every roll is the worst possible way.
Idk seems more like hey changed the menu a bit and people are claiming it isn’t the same restaurant, to me.
But you can tho
The math of the game should work the same on a basic level, not be additive in some places and subtractive in others.
Should it? I like subsystems. The right tool for the job and all that. Do you remember the part where different classes are actually better or worse at attacking?
