D&D (2024) Little changes for 5.5

[Blue]

You're welcome. They can change things while still being fully compatible and run any previous character or adventure without much conflict. They could for exemple revise some core rules on falling, reduce a number of creatures having darkvision, change how racial ASI works etc while still being compatible.

But i am fairly guaranteed when looking back closely not every little part of it will be as fully compatible as they pretend because they will want a revision over a new edition roll out, while incorporating many new changes they want in the game. It won't just be an errata to the 3 books, it entails more than that.

What makes you think so? After the blastback with 3.0 to 3.5, in 4e they just introduced Essentials, which was fully compatible in the way I am suggesting. What makes you guarantee that they will make revisions when they have both (a) already shown in the previous edition that is not how they do it anymore and (b) already put that to practice in Tasha's where nothing old is changed, just new options added.

In other words, please defend that they will break with the policy that they have had for both 4e and 5e to something else. We have what I am saying already established by their behavior, provide equally strong examples or discussion from WotC that they will break this behavior and do revisions as you are stating.

 

[HammerMan]

What makes you think so? After the blastback with 3.0 to 3.5, in 4e they just introduced Essentials, which was fully compatible in the way I am suggesting. What makes you guarantee that they will make revisions when they have both (a) already shown in the previous edition that is not how they do it anymore and (b) already put that to practice in Tasha's where nothing old is changed, just new options added.

In other words, please defend that they will break with the policy that they have had for both 4e and 5e to something else. We have what I am saying already established by their behavior, provide equally strong examples or discussion from WotC that they will break this behavior and do revisions as you are stating.

where I agree Essentials is/was just additive. However I don't see how arguing 2 of the WotC (so discounting TSR for the moment) edition mid breaks 1 did 1 way and the other did the other is a solid argument for knowing for sure what way they will go.

As someone that LOVES 4e, and would have to be PAID to play 3/3.5/PF again I will say the biggest argument against the essentials is 4e's revision came later in the edition and didn't last as long as 3.5.

Now having said that we are all guessing here, we are all hopeing. My hope that this would be a ground up rewrite for the anniversary and 6e have all ready been dashed/

 

[Plaguescarred]

What makes you think so? After the blastback with 3.0 to 3.5, in 4e they just introduced Essentials, which was fully compatible in the way I am suggesting. What makes you guarantee that they will make revisions when they have both (a) already shown in the previous edition that is not how they do it anymore and (b) already put that to practice in Tasha's where nothing old is changed, just new options added.

In other words, please defend that they will break with the policy that they have had for both 4e and 5e to something else. We have what I am saying already established by their behavior, provide equally strong examples or discussion from WotC that they will break this behavior and do revisions as you are stating.

IIRC Essentials was more like a parallel redux than a revision of the PHB, it introduced classes more simple and streamlined than the one originally printed ones.

I believe the rules were compatible though but the Fighter and the eFighter were different beast, not revised, of the other, they existed side by side. I remember them saying you could have the 2 in the same party without problem.

Essential was not what i'd consider a revision of the core rulebooks compatible with 4E the way they announced 5E's revision to the core rulebooks.

Do i believe you will still be able to play using older 5E books and adventures alongside revised ones? Yes. I have faith in their goals. But i have a gut feeling it may not be as smooth in some areas depending what changes they make to them. But changes must be significant enought to warrant a revision of the core rulebooks or people won't buy them if they're very similar.

 

[Blue]

where I agree Essentials is/was just additive. However I don't see how arguing 2 of the WotC (so discounting TSR for the moment) edition mid breaks 1 did 1 way and the other did the other is a solid argument for knowing for sure what way they will go.

As someone that LOVES 4e, and would have to be PAID to play 3/3.5/PF again I will say the biggest argument against the essentials is 4e's revision came later in the edition and didn't last as long as 3.5.

Now having said that we are all guessing here, we are all hopeing. My hope that this would be a ground up rewrite for the anniversary and 6e have all ready been dashed/

Actually, I'm not "guessing". I'm saying that we have a clear sign that (a) the revisionist change of 3.0 to 3.5 has been superceded with the additive change of 4e Essentials, which is true. They did one, and then change how they did it the next time. I'm also saying we have already seen that the same additive change is what they are already practicing between no revisions of existing classes so far and with how Tasha's handled it, specifically the Beastmaster ranger but also some of the optional adds to other classes.

So I am stating facts on what we have most recently seen. This is not guessing, this is established.

I am asking for the same level of actual facts in a rebuttle. Not "guessing" or "hoping".

 

[HammerMan]

Actually, I'm not "guessing". I'm saying that we have a clear sign that (a) the revisionist change of 3.0 to 3.5 has been superceded with the additive change of 4e Essentials, which is true. I'm also saying we have already seen that the same additive change is what they are already practicing between no revisions of existing classes so far and with how Tasha's handled it, specifically the Beastmaster ranger but also some of the optional adds to other classes.

So I am stating facts on what we have most recently seen. This is not guessing, this is established.

I am asking for the same level of actual facts in a rebuttle. Not "guessing" or "hoping".

Okay, the most resent changes (the races) are completely different style and as such will ripple change through out making backwards compatibility hard to say the least.

WoTC has already launched 1 survey about how we do or don't like class features (including subclass and base class features) that if they change will ALSO hurt backwards compatibility.

Now it is possible to change class features, modify sub classes and redo races from the ground up but not to do those things AND make it just addative.

I will also add 4e had a robust errata through out it's life. So by the time essentials came around we ALREADY had dozens of pages of errata.


That should all stand up as good of evidence as you have.

Having said that we STILL are ALL (yes you too) just guessing.

 

[Blue]

Okay, the most resent changes (the races) are completely different style and as such will ripple change through out making backwards compatibility hard to say the least.

WoTC has already launched 1 survey about how we do or don't like class features (including subclass and base class features) that if they change will ALSO hurt backwards compatibility.

Now it is possible to change class features, modify sub classes and redo races from the ground up but not to do those things AND make it just addative.

I will also add 4e had a robust errata through out it's life. So by the time essentials came around we ALREADY had dozens of pages of errata.


That should all stand up as good of evidence as you have.

This is good. Strong, actual facts.

Having said that we STILL are ALL (yes you too) just guessing.

We're all speculating on what the future will bring. However, the details I brought up on why I was making that call were not guesses but true. Now you've brought up other information that helps counter it - this is where real debate comes from. What you have here is solid, not handwaving away trends we have observed but solid why we think those trends are changing.

 

[Greg K]

back in the day there was a superhero D20 game called mutants and masterminds.

it was supposed to be balanced to have batman and superman in the same 'party'
in theory you made batman super hard to hit and a little tough... you did this by giving him the equivalent of a huge dex bonus.

Sort of I guess as, in M&M, Dex and Defense (the equivalent of AC mod for Dex) were two unrelated things.

You make superman by ditching AC all together and being really hard to hurt. You have superman hit really strong/hard, and you have batman hit just right to do more damage...

Yeah, in 2e, Superman will have be doing high damage based off Strength (maybe, witht the feat(s) that trade off for more damage). Batman will have a low base damage, several martial arts related feats.

this was pulled off with caps. You would set a power level (lets take 12) and as such AC bonus maxed at 12, to hit maxed at 12, damage bonus maxed at 12, tougness (negate damage) maxed at 12 and super powers (each had a rank) maxed at 12. However there were trade offs.

so in above example batman would trade 2 toughness max for 2 AC bonus max and have a 24AC and +10 toughness as max,

Is that a typo? How is he getting 24 AC and +10 Toughness? I know that in 2e, Tradeoffs on maximums were on a 1-to-1 basis. if he trades two Toughness for two Defense ("AC") , His max Defense ("AC") is only 14. To get 24 Defense, his max Toughness would be reduced to 0 (This, of course, assumes that the GM is willing to accept that trade-off).

BUT!!!!! Big But, they both start with same number of points, and yeah batman may spend more on skills (not nescarlary being a detective and being a reporter has a lot of overlap) but when they start they both could end up with batman having +4 to hit (+6 with flank/suprise) +3 damage (+5 with flank/suprise) and superman having +5 to hit and +4 to damage, batman having a 16 AC (dodgey and armor) and superman having a 16 AC (tough hide) and batman having +15 toughness (dodgy roll withit plus body armor) and superman having +15 toughness (invunrable) and both having +4 initative...

I am a little lost here. How is Batman getting 16 AC and 15 Toughness in a PL 12 game? How is Superman getting a 16 AC (Tough Hide) and 15 Toughness? In both 2e and 3e (and I am assuming you are talking about 2e or 3e, as you keep mentioning Toughness and trade-offs), the combined max cannot be more than 24.

 

[HammerMan]

Sort of I guess as, in M&M, Dex and Defense (the equivalent of AC mod for Dex) were two unrelated things.

yes, again like i said it was a quick exmaple not an indepth look at M&M

Is that a typo? How is he getting 24 AC and +10 Toughness? I know that in 2e, Tradeoffs on maximums were on a 1-to-1 basis. if he trades two Toughness for two Defense ("AC") , His max Defense ("AC") is only 14. To get 24 Defense, his max Toughness would be reduced to 0 (This, of course, assumes that the GM is willing to accept that trade-off).

Base AC 10 +14= AC24 and +10 touchenss 14+10=24 24/2=12 power level 12 allows for 24 AC and +10 toughness

I am a little lost here. How is Batman getting 16 AC and 15 Toughness in a PL 12 game? How is Superman getting a 16 AC (Tough Hide) and 15 Toughness? In both 2e and 3e (and I am assuming you are talking about 2e or 3e, as you keep mentioning Toughness and trade-offs), the combined max cannot be more than 24.

those should have both been +5 not 15

 

[Greg K]

Base AC 10 +14= AC24 and +10 touchenss 14+10=24 24/2=12 power level 12 allows for 24 AC and +10 toughness

Ok, so you were talking about overall Defense total and not the bonus. got it.

 

[HammerMan]

Ok, so you were talking about overall Defense total and not the bonus. got it.

and again it wasn't an excusive look at the game (witch I like) it was just how sometimes things can feel the same.