D&D (2024) RD&D MM will have nearly 500 Monsters, and new NPCs.

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've been in the "wait and see" camp, myself.

MADNESS!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not an Edition the same way 3.5 was, even.

Yes it is.

Absolutely it is. Everything they've said about 5E>1D&D was true of both 3E>3.5E and 1E>2E and it was genuinely incredibly gaslight-y for them to claim otherwise. I know 90% of the people there were too young to remember 1E>2E but the comments about 3E>3.5E should be obviously nonsensical to anyone who played 3E from the start.

No 3E adventure needed tweaking for 3.5E. Anyone who has it did is a liar. Barely any 1E adventures, if any, needed tweaking for 2E. I know this because we did it all the time without even thinking about it or questioning it. You just ran them. Depending on the DM you either used the stats for monsters printed in the adventure or the ones in MC/MM. And so on.

EDIT - fine if we want to divide D&D editions into two camps lol

1) "Not really an edition" - 1E & 2E, 3E & 3.5E, and 5E & 1D&D

2) "Really an edition" - 2E & 3E, 3E & 4E.

 

[mamba]

The problem with that is is that DND Next was explicitly always going to be a new edition regardless of what they called it, so invoking the same idea while, as said, going out of their way to distinguish between OneDND and 5e as separate things, is what results in people seeing it as a new edition.

eh, it was clear D&D Next would be a new edition because they said so. It should have been clear that One D&D was a codename for the 5e revision for the same reason, WotC said it would be compatible with 5e and not a new edition.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

EDIT - fine if we want to divide D&D editions into two camps lol

1) "Not really an edition" - 1E & 2E, 3E & 3.5E, and 5E & 1D&D

2) "Really an edition" - 2E & 3E, 3E & 4E.

That is the way I see it. The two groups are different and calling them the same thing (editions) seems disingenuous to me. Though you forgot 4e & 5e in the 2nd group

 

[Parmandur]

Yes it is.

Absolutely it is. Everything they've said about 5E>1D&D was true of both 3E>3.5E and 1E>2E and it was genuinely incredibly gaslight-y for them to claim otherwise. I know 90% of the people there were too young to remember 1E>2E but the comments about 3E>3.5E should be obviously nonsensical to anyone who played 3E from the start.

No 3E adventure needed tweaking for 3.5E. Anyone who has it did is a liar. Barely any 1E adventures, if any, needed tweaking for 2E. I know this because we did it all the time without even thinking about it or questioning it. You just ran them. Depending on the DM you either used the stats for monsters printed in the adventure or the ones in MC/MM. And so on.

EDIT - fine if we want to divide D&D editions into two camps lol

1) "Not really an edition" - 1E & 2E, 3E & 3.5E, and 5E & 1D&D

2) "Really an edition" - 2E & 3E, 3E & 4E.

Admittedly, when learning D&D in the 3.5 era it was a weird mishmash of both older and newer material at our table, though we never used pre-written adventure material then.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Yes it is.

Absolutely it is. Everything they've said about 5E>1D&D was true of both 3E>3.5E and 1E>2E and it was genuinely incredibly gaslight-y for them to claim otherwise. I know 90% of the people there were too young to remember 1E>2E but the comments about 3E>3.5E should be obviously nonsensical to anyone who played 3E from the start.

No 3E adventure needed tweaking for 3.5E. Anyone who has it did is a liar. Barely any 1E adventures, if any, needed tweaking for 2E. I know this because we did it all the time without even thinking about it or questioning it. You just ran them. Depending on the DM you either used the stats for monsters printed in the adventure or the ones in MC/MM. And so on.

EDIT - fine if we want to divide D&D editions into two camps lol

1) "Not really an edition" - 1E & 2E, 3E & 3.5E, and 5E & 1D&D

2) "Really an edition" - 2E & 3E, 3E & 4E.

I prefer the term Minor edition for your first groupings to " not really an edition" and Major edition for your second grouping. Both are edition changes, but it acknowledges the vast difference severity of the edition change.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That is the way I see it. The two groups are different and calling them the same thing (editions) seems disingenuous to me. Though you forgot 4e & 5e in the 2nd group

I mean, I can see that argument Uni, that's why I presented it. But you need a new terminology if you want to differentiate them, because, as OLD PERSON, to me this is exactly an edition, because for the first half of my life, this is what D&D editions looked like - further, it's more extreme than the edition of a lot of games, like say, CoC.

 

[Emberashh]

Oh im aware. I still don't believe that their assertions now are what they were thinking originally, and their terrible communication is only further confirmed by them leaning on it to get out of controversy.

More fuel to this fire; within days of the Creator Summit, Beyond confirmed and clarified that half-races were not being removed from the game, and instead is just a rules change.

Thats what an immediate correction and clarification looks like, and they're clearly capable of it.

That is why theres little trust to be had in the idea that OneDND was always just a "revision".

 

[CM]

Hoping to see a lot more variants of humanoid type monsters with pseudoclasses in 4e style - a berserker orc, a soldier orc, an archer orc, a hunter orc, a shaman orc, etc.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I mean, I can see that argument Uni, that's why I presented it. But you need a new terminology if you want to differentiate them, because, as OLD PERSON, to me this is exactly an edition, because for the first half of my life, this is what D&D editions looked like - further, it's more extreme than the edition of a lot of games, like say, CoC.

I was agreeing with BTW.

I don’t know how you define old, but at 49 I’m feeling my age! I still feel like clarity would be good, but I don’t know that we can reach a consensus on how to achieve that. If I can think of good terms for the two (and one could or could not be edition) I think I will start using them