D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[dave2008]

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)

OK, I am not explaining my point well. I don't really care about "editions" that is not what I am trying to distinguish. What I am trying to distinguish, for you, @Micah Sweet., @EzekielRaiden, and others are when we had new D&D games. So you basically have:

AD&D (1e and 2e)
3rd (.0, .5, errata, PF1, etc.)
4th (.0, essentials, errata, etc)
5th (.0, tasha's, errata, 1D&D, etc.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

really? I have to go back I could of sworse it said to go with the new one... but you may be right

no one race cahnge... not a new game...
concept of race (even the word race) alone might not... concept of backgrounrd and the background feature by itself being turned into a feat may not... heck the race/background togather but alone I would problably say you can suint and make it through.

the idea that all cassters are prep casters on it's own is most likely bigger of a stand alone change (and god I hope warlock doesn't get this treatment) but even it, stand alone maybe not.

changeing actions from "use a bonus action to free with an attack" for two weapon fighting with light weapons in and of it self is somewhere between the spell casting and the race/background more important then the least but less then the most.


changing a bunch of spells (depending on number of them it ends up changing) could fall not only into anywhere on that spectrum if it is 1 or 2 it would be less then either race/background let alone both, if it ends up being a dozen or more it might alone be more then the caster prep thing... but stand alone enough spell changes would feel like a new game to some


adding conditions would not... ever even if we added 10. It may be annoying depending on how it interacted but adding wont make it feel like a new game... changing WILL, and we have seen a few of those (exhaustion being the biggest)


changing the order/level you get somethngs (like rogue) in classes is pushing the limit but I doubt if they reprinted the 2014 class race feats spells stats BUT had the new unified progrsion of subclass you would get less pushback... but not none, that alrready makes issues for back compatability.


changing MECHANICs of a class (like bard and cleric to a lesser extent) is much bigger then race/background and can be bigger then almost anything here... depending I would say the cleric is pushing it but alone isn't (where the rogue is probably fine) but the bard with new inspiration mechanic feels like a whole new class... so alone this would be a maybe



rewriting every feat in the PHB+ alone is up there with rewriting every spell... it's pretty clear a new version, a new game... but if it was the ONLY change maybe you could argue errata.


now some of these changes are small and in and of themselves are not 'making it a new game' some are big and are boarder line themselves (and some we don't know how big they will be is it 10 spells being rewritten or 40?) but you add them all togather and you get 1e/2e and 3e/3.5

No, you don’t.

 

[dave2008]

I will raise that, if I have my 2014 PHB and get hit with a condition I can't use the book to look it up... there is no slow condition and exhaustion is completely different.

actually, they have removed the slow condition - much to my disappointment. Luckily I haven't filled out the most recent survey yet!

 

[dave2008]

I have no issue with calling 1DD a new edition of D&D 5E. Just like I don't actually have any issues with calling Essentials a new edition of D&D 4E. They are both the cumulative results of the changes made since the original edition was released wrapped up in a new package. Just like World of Warcraft: [Whatever expansion they're on now] vs release-date World of Warcraft. Broadly compatible, but so much has been tweaked from one to the other that they provide very different experiences. Not as different as, say, World of Warcraft and Call of Duty, but still different. And just like WoW, there's a lot of clones from other developers, many of which are better than the original product, but few with long-term staying power because they lack the branding and reach.

Honestly, if WotC's handling of the word edition wasn't such a mess I doubt this would even be a conversation. Nobody argues about what is and isn't an edition of Call of Cthulhu.

That is basically where I am at. I have come to more standard definition of "edition" and now thing of 1e/2e; 3e; 4e; & 5e/1D&D as different games.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

OK, I am not explaining my point well. I don't really care about "editions" that is not what I am trying to distinguish. What I am trying to distinguish, for you, @Micah Sweet., @EzekielRaiden, and others are when we had new D&D games. So you basically have:

AD&D (1e and 2e)
3rd (.0, .5, errata, etc.)
4th (.0, essentials, errata, etc)
5th (.0, tasha's, errata, 1D&D, etc.)

Then yes, I agree with this. I would also add that PF1e can be considered part of the "etc." in 3rd edition, while PF2e would be a separate branch, cousin to 4e (and it's no coincidence that PF2e is often compared to 4e; both were trying to fix the same problems.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why would they release a whole new edition? This one is still selling strong. People are buying it. Presumably because they are enjoying it. You seem to be implying we are all only buying them because we are sheep following the crowd, and if we were only as discerning as you are, we would realize the game was substandard and they were selling us a pig in a poke.

You don't like their work. You've jumped ship for Level Up. Which is great! I'm honestly glad you've found a game that does things the way you want. It's the wonderful thing about this time...there's more games out there than there ever has been before. But not everyone wants a Level Up. And while you keep using 'popular' as an insult, it makes perfects sense for WoTC to make the game that the largest number of their customers seem to want.

And while I don't have concrete proof that the majority of their customers are happy, and not agreeing with you, the fact that it does as well as it does after all this time means someone is buying these books. And unless we're all just 'hate buying', it must mean something.

Your last paragraph doesn't really refute the "sheep" argument you claim I am making, to be fair.

I told you that a new game that appeals to the modern gamer with a new, modern sensibility-driven setting would likely still not be to my taste. I know people like different things, and that's great. I still think it would be better for the health of the game if they made an honest attempt at that game, however, instead of pushing whatever is the easiest way to make the most money. The fact that they are not trying to make that game tells me they care more about being a money machine than a game company.

 

[dave2008]

not true for background or race... again lets go to dwarf bard noble... the noble gives me 3 retainers I just lost, the bard class has different way to do inspiration and spells, and no way to reconcile the +2str +2con at best I can take +2 to one an +1 to the other... oh and that is all before condition and actin changes

we all seem to have a different standard for "compatibility." I personally find yours to be unreasonable and you would probably find mine to be as well. We are both correct and wrong at the same time. I accept your definition for you, I would hope you accept my definition for me.

 

[dave2008]

Then yes, I agree with this. I would also add that PF1e can be considered part of the "etc." in 3rd edition, while PF2e would be a separate branch, cousin to 4e (and it's no coincidence that PF2e is often compared to 4e; both were trying to fix the same problems.)

Great! I was more clear this time. This is what I was trying to convey in the previous post.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, I am not explaining my point well. I don't really care about "editions" that is not what I am trying to distinguish. What I am trying to distinguish, for you, @Micah Sweet., @EzekielRaiden, and others are when we had new D&D games. So you basically have:

AD&D (1e and 2e)
3rd (.0, .5, errata, etc.)
4th (.0, essentials, errata, etc)
5th (.0, tasha's, errata, 1D&D, etc.)

right... and now we have a new 1D&D... and I (and others) feel it is at least as big a jump as 1e/2e or 3e/3.5 and we have always called both of those editions... changing the way we use the word edition is just making it more complex, but I have for a while tried to say "Version"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, you don’t.

you quoted an entire post full of diffrent points... no I don't what?