D&D 5E Living Rules System?

[Nebulous]

They've said in the past that the fixes will be less "Here's the fixed Ranger" and more "Here's an optional Ranger for those who want it."

/shrug

Take that for what it's worth.

I think the living rules system is a good idea. In a few years it might be nice to have a revamped core book with community voted updates.

 

[ranger69]

My recall may be faulty but I seem to think that a living rules system was discussed at the start of play-testing.
I think that fixes for classes will come in the form of new subclasses, new subraces for races.

I do not think that the rules will undergo a huge revision, but rather have clarifications.

I think that there will be optional modular rules, such as for psionics, but possibly in players books for AP's.

 

[Wolfskin]

I'll welcome sporadic online updates to some of the core content, as long as most of the published books do not need extensive errata. Hell, I'd even buy a revised PHB in three or four years if that makes edition last up to almost a decade.

That is probably just wishful thinking, though.

 

[shadow]

They've said in the past that the fixes will be less "Here's the fixed Ranger" and more "Here's an optional Ranger for those who want it.

I don't mind so much if variant classes were printed in a book like the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana so long as they are clearly a different take on the core classes (e.g. an urban druid, a non-spellcasting ranger, a paladin of slaughter, etc.). However, if they are just 'rebalanced' versions of the PHB classes, you can bet that before long everyone will demand that the 'variant' classes become the new core, effectively invalidating your copy of the PHB.

I am a little cynical, but it has been my experience that when a new version of the rules comes out the majority of players demand to have an immediate switch to the new version, even in the middle of an ongoing campaign. When 3.5 came out suddenly I had people complaining how 'broken and unbalanced' 3.0 was (even though we had been playing it for sometime without complaint). When Pathfinder came out, people suddenly had reason to talk about how broken and unbalanced 3.5 was. I don't have much experience with 4e, but I assume that the same thing happened to a lot of players when the essentials came out.

 

[77IM]

Savage Worlds comes out with a new edition every 3 years or so and the players love it. Why?

1. It's 99% compatible with existing material because the changes are very minor (often just rewordings and clarifications)
2. The designers keep very close contact with the player base so the changes are things they know a lot of people want (things people often do as house rules or often mess up, for example)
3. The new edition only costs $10

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I think it's a great idea. Yearly broad-reaching surveys can do a lot to give specific information to the developers in how D&D is being played, where the weak points are, what needs clarification, and potential avenues of expansion.

Hopefully, the form of any updates or extensions will be better integrated than dry lists of errata and not as costly as new core books.

I'd much rather get a 5.1 in a year, 5.2 in two years and so on; then require a radical revision up to 5.5 or 6E in 5 years. Slow, incremental tweaks and improvements are far easy to analyze and implement then massive system-wide changes.

 

[Wrathamon]

I don't have much experience with 4e, but I assume that the same thing happened to a lot of players when the essentials came out.

my experience with this was no it didn't. The classes in essentials weren't new classes but new builds or sub classes for the same class, so you can play the original PHB fighter or an essential fighter in the same game. So it basically was what you said you would be okay with. New take on the same class that doesn't invalidate the old one. Essentials didnt really replace anything (as far as content went) but was additions to. The things that changed were rule updates but those had pretty much already been part of the errata.

I don't think they would do what they did in 3e to 3.5 and I think they would do something akin to essentials in spirit. Adding new stuff to the game that doesn't invalidate the old.

 

[Authweight]

It's weird to me that so many responses come down to, "I don't want it because all my players get into it and then I have to fight them about sticking with the old rules."

If your players are really into rules updates, that indicates to me that rules updates are probably a good thing. You as a DM may not see the issues, but if your players are/have been excited for it, then maybe you should reconsider your stance. Isn't the point to put on a fun game for the players?

 

[Warunsun]

3. The new edition only costs $10

And generally in the past they have provided minor rules changes from the new edition concerning older printings for free on the web. You may not get a newer race or whatnot but you would be able to see some of the focused minor changes.

 

[Wrathamon]

so if they add it for free to basic whats the issue?