I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a new edition. It's not a half edition. It's more options for 4e. It is literally, actually the same game in every possible sense, not an edition. Offering new, slightly different options that do not replace anything is not a half-edition. Not even close.
Because some people would appreciate the option, and it's not hurting the people who don't care to have the option available.
I was a big fan of 4E, and I distinctly remember there being a ton of confusion about this at the time. In hindsight, yeah, it was a bunch of fully compatible options to expand the base game (similar to Bo9S), but at the time, I put off buying them for months because I couldn't figure out if they were a new .5 edition that would require work to integrate at my table. Sadly, they're similar to Bo9S in another way, in that they were one of my favorite sets to come out for their respective editions, but I got into them too late to ever really use them.
Really? More people have downloaded the playtest documents in the first few months than in the entire D&D Next playtest. The surveys are getting something like 40 THOUSAND responses.
www.enworld.org
In the first week alone, more of you have playtested One D&D than in the entirety of 5e playtesting!
Thank you to everyone who has helped shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons!
I get what your saying, but I am trying to re-center what we call "edition." So through the life of 4e through errata and onto essentials there were significant revisions. They tweaked the math* on the player side and DM site throughout its run and completely revised how classes might be represented. This is why I went with 4.5e, though it could be 4.2 or 4.8 or whatever. The important part is the 4. Original 4e and essentials are both D&D 4.something. They are the same game; however, they represent changes. There were also many changes to 4e between the original 4e and essentials. These changes would also be considered "editions" of 4e for the purposes of my point.
Yes. You are totally correct. But people like to slab a lable on something they don't like to show their disdain. Facts come second if at all.
I don't think anyone said or even implied an obligation... they just said that they wanted them too
I mean it wasn't just the new class options. They revised Skill Challenges, altered the monster math, etc. The game changed a bit between 4e's initial offerings, and pretty quickly.
someone was working on (I don't know if they ever fully did it) a PHB1 from 4e PDF that was the orginal with hyperlink openable boxes that had all the errata at a click
Hey, I liked Essentials! It solved a lot of problems that I had with 4th edition (in play, not in theory; theory was pretty sound). I actually ran a little bit of it for my then-7 year old.
didn’t they provide new cleric/fighter/… classes in the essentials, thereby theoretically replacing the 4e ones (unless you let them exist side by side).
pretty sure I have seen that argument made
the math base is the same for 24 years... take d20 add the mod from a stat (take stat subtract ten and divide by 2) then add any proficiency you have (in 3e it was different skill ranks or base attack, in 4e it was 1/2 level or 1/2 level +2, in 5e it's the prof bonus) then maybe a magical bonus... roll high is better vs a DC
The real questions is what percentage of their market would even care about this... I don't think it's significant enough to even justify the storage costs (and yes I realize they would be minimal).
if I can look at two copies of the same class and not need to change anything to make them work togather... so some minor tweeks would be one thing, but my go to example (and something I HAVE to play pre 2024) a mtn dwarf bard with a 2014 background needs to do as much to remake the character as someone has to do if they showed up with NO character... I guess the stats can stay the same, but your class is completely different (different way of casting, different spells you can even know, and different way your main class feature works) your race no longer gives you stat mods... and the NEW stat mods from background are not able to be made into the races +2 str +2 con. You get a feat you now need to pick, and you lost your background feature. If you picked your background FOR that feature (not unheard of) you might just pick a new one entirely.
yeah and it is amazing how people claim that the thing THEY want MUST be the thing most do
no it doesn't...
I know my group is not sold on it yet, but is that a common thought?
the only one of these I disagree with is essentials... but lets go with it and say that is true (for the sake of your argument) that makes 1D&D 5.5, and by D&D standard a new edition (weather you like how the word was used up till now or not)
could not say it better... in offical sanction Adventures at cons you could play a phb1 fighter and the guy next to you play an essentials fighter and it didn't involve any work... nothing was replaced
I always find this argument weird... it's been booming since 2014... that's almost 10years without slowing down and in fact steadily picking up. To claim it's only a result of a zeitgeist of popular culture seems to be simplifying to a point that doesn't line up with reality. IMO 5e has allowed the creation of a true D&D zeitgeist vs the 80's nostalgia zeitgeist that allowed it to gain a foothold but in no way accounts for it's continued success.
