Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
it seems to depend on what you express interesting as I got few questions but I am 22 it was likely because I do not care for mtg
WotC New D&D survey from WotC
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Not likely, considering everyone else’s experiences. Questions about the two properties seem to be what shortens the survey, not age.
As I’ve said before, I will bet you 20$ USD that we do not get a 6e in 2024, and at most we will see a revised set of core books that collates errata, puts optional features in the PHB, maybe shuffles the races and/or classes, and maybe makes some simple changes that won’t invalidate even a single subclass from any 5e sourcebook.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
And people will try to call that "Five-point-five". (I honestly wish 3e had not called their early revision 3.5 - I get really tired of hearing people who are stuck on that edition calling everything "number-point-number". I've honestly heard people who call 5e "Five-point-oh" (they did the same for 4e). I don't know quite why it bugs me, but it does.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yeah me too. It’s weird and annoying.
Which was basically the scope of the changes from 1E to 2E - probably further than that, in fact. And you could generally use 1E and 2E stuff together as well.
I feel like some of this arguing - over whether or not the extremely likely 2024 revision of D&D will count as a new edition - depends on where you draw the line on "new edition"...
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
FitzTheRuke
Legend
I still find that assertion strange. I played 1e before 2e came out, and I adopted 2e right away (I'm pretty sure that I bought 2e on day of release). Now, I haven't played either system since then (I have always moved forward with editions without looking back) but I honestly don't remember 2e being remotely backwards compatible. Maybe I was too young at the time to understand how to kit-bash or reverse-engineer stuff to fit them together, but no one I knew ever allowed any 1e feature in their 2e games.
I've head the assertion a few times here, so I have to assume that we were wrong at the time and the editions were closer than they appeared.
Though I think the main difference will be that if they put out new 5e material like has been suggested it will be purposefully designed to be backwards compatible, as opposed to just being possible to mix together.
I'm 100% certain that 2e was never meant to use 1e rules, even if it was possible.
darjr
I crit!
I remember 2e distinctly and we blended 1e into 2e. We even used classes from 1e for a good long while.
Though I will add that we didn’t play 1e strictly by the book, nor 2e. But we did play much like everyone else played them, as far as I could tell, and I went to cons and played with different disparate groups. I think that makes most of the difference, by the book 1e and 2e look look like different games, but the way we played made them much closer to the same game, and we were far from alone, I think, and with 2020 rear vision and probably rose tinted glasses.
Though I will add that we didn’t play 1e strictly by the book, nor 2e. But we did play much like everyone else played them, as far as I could tell, and I went to cons and played with different disparate groups. I think that makes most of the difference, by the book 1e and 2e look look like different games, but the way we played made them much closer to the same game, and we were far from alone, I think, and with 2020 rear vision and probably rose tinted glasses.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
They were fairly close, and throw Basic in there too; but not so much from back-dialling 2e to include 1e/Basic but instead from taking 1e and including elements of both 2e and Basic as desired.
Adventure modules from those three are very easy to use with the other systems, with next to no conversion required. Contrast this with trying to use a later-edition adventure in any of the early systems, or vice-versa: conversion can be more of a headache than it's worth sometimes.
