TwoSix
Uncomfortably diegetic
Fortunately, 5e has always been unbalanced, so this is just a preservation of the status quo.There is no other option here. Either you'll have an unbalanced mess or 5e gets deprecated.
Fortunately, 5e has always been unbalanced, so this is just a preservation of the status quo.There is no other option here. Either you'll have an unbalanced mess or 5e gets deprecated.
Yeah, the "releases are enemic" complaint feels kind of funny to me by now, when I look at my shelf full of 5E books.From a seller's perspective, they released a little TOO much material (at least too close together) last year. I don't like how it's bunching up at the end this year (but that was not intended, and happened by printer delays). 5 products per year is a REALLY good pace for maxing out most people's ability to keep up (with only skipping whatever they're less interested in, rather than having to make sorrowful cuts).
They probably did the work with internal play tests. That's why they said it would be compatible.I wonder if it might have gone over better if they had put that work in first.
I mean, it wasn't hard to get a rough translation for a DM. But this change back will make compatability way smoother for the average user, I can see why WotC values that.They probably did the work with internal play tests. That's why they said it would be compatible.
I am saying the choice to use one or the other, or to mix, is yours. This has nothing to do with editions. You could use Tasha’s to replace some PHB stuff or keep both as alternatives. This time it just is (a lot) more of that.wait if it's just like 3e/3.5 did you just say this is an edition change (at least a half edition?)?
I am saying the choice to use one or the other, or to mix is yours.
I have been pretty consistently saying that the changes (assuming they do not backtrack now…) are sufficient to justify calling it a new edition and compatible enough to not require it. So WotC is free to call it whatever they want and I do not care what it is.
It was marketing to call 3.5 that, it is marketing to not call it 5.5 now. I have no reason to favor one over the other, I do understand why WotC sticks with 5e however.
It really depends on if the designers wanted to keep continuity or if they wanted a clean break.It's all marketing. None of it matters.
The changeover from OD&D to AD&D wasn't called an edition change. They just added "Advanced" to Dungeons & Dragons.
For the matter, they kept the name "Dungeons and Dragons" from "OD&D" through "Holmes" through "Moldvay/Cook" through "BECMI" through "Rules Cyclopedia" without calling them new editions.
2e was explicitly backwards compatible with 1e- that was the whole remit (and why they didn't use ascending AC). That was a new edition (with apologies to Bobby Brown). But it was the only new edition that was also explicitly backwards compatible. Unless you count all of TSR D&D as one edition. In which case, sure?
On the other hand, 3e was explicitly NOT COMPATIBLE with 2e.
3.5e was backwards compatible, but that was the only time in the 50 year history of D&D that they used the weird .5 thing. Seriously, what is that?
4e was not backwards compatible with 3e or 3.5e. But 4e Essentials was backwards compatible with 4e. But it wasn't 4.5e.
5e was not backwards compatible with 4e.
So what have we learned? I can tell you what I've learned- ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING. It's allturtlesmarketing speak, all the way down.
Personally, since we're using years, Ima call the new edition Bladerunner 2049, because it sounds cool. And also because most of the Northeast United States looks like the movie right now.
Alright, so the next UA is going to have the Priest and Expert Classes revisited, Subclass is still at 3rd Level, but they are restoring the distinction of different Subclass progressions for each Class, to match D&D'14 Classes more closely.
And the monk class.