D&D 5E So, I have been out of town for a few weeks, did I miss something?

[sgtscott658]

I do agree there are some differences between 1E and 2E but 2E is recognizable and familiar vs 3E to 4E you had two completely different versions. 4E was basically did not look or feel like D&D to me when I looked at the PHB. But once more different strokes for different volks.

Eh. There is some solid differences in 1e and 2e. The ranger and bard, nwps, dragon and giant math, initiative, thief skills, and specialist wizards and priests to name a few.

I think it's easier to justify 3e and 3.5 or all the basic editions as one the lump 1e and 2e together (ymmv and all that)

 

[Jer]

I would say 1E and 2E AD&D were pretty much the same,

That sound you hear? Echoing out in the distance?

Those are the wails of the 1st edition gamers who hated 2nd edition with the red hot passion of a thousand firey suns.

The arguments back in the day about people sticking with 1st edition because 2nd edition sucked WERE. EPIC. There were folks who took a decade to finally give up and just go with 2nd edition because they couldn't find 1st edition players. I know of one group that finally decided that 2nd edition was "good enough" right around the time 3rd edition was 3 years old.

 

[TarionzCousin]

So, I have been out of town for a few weeks, did I miss something?

Brad and Angelina got married.

 

[variant]

OD&D: 1974-77 [3 years]
Basic (Holmes): 1977-81 [4 years]
AD&D 1e: 1977-89 [12]
Basic (Moldvay/Cook): 1981-83 [2]
Basic (Metzer/BECMI):1983-96 [13]
AD&D 2e: 1989-2000 [11]
D&D 3e: 2000-03 [3]
D&D 3.5 2003-08 [5]
D&D 4e: 2008-14 [6]
D&D 5e: 2014-? [?]

I went by "core book" releases and ignored Essentials (4e was short enough).

You skipped over the 2nd edition black books.

 

[Remathilis]

You skipped over the 2nd edition black books.

Didn't change the rules. (Neither did the AD&D 1e "Orange Spine" reprints). Save for some text edits and a new introduction, the text is the same as the 1989 PHB/DMG.

 

[variant]

Didn't change the rules. (Neither did the AD&D 1e "Orange Spine" reprints). Save for some text edits and a new introduction, the text is the same as the 1989 PHB/DMG.

Yes they did... Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics, and Spells & Magic were all major changes the the rule system.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes they did... Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics, and Spells & Magic were all major changes the the rule system.

Those are supplements, not revisions to the Core rules. Thus optional. Same with Unearthed Arcana (1e), and Essentials (4e), though the latter is VERY close to being a separate thing.

Considering exactly ONE product ever bothered to reference the Player's Options line, I wouldn't call that a new "edition".

 

[Jhaelen]

Here it is in visual form. I'm sure someone, somewhere will find some way to be angry at this graph because - hey, internet! - but here it is!

Well, from my point of view OD&D and the various Basic Editions don't count (the latter were released in parallel to the 'advanced d&D' line).

3.5 isn't a new edition, especially considering it was originally intended to be just an update with some errata, similar to the second release of the 2e books (which were only different from the first version in artwork and layout, iirc). Also you didn't include 4e Essentials which included more changes than between 3.0 and 3.5.

So, for me, the cleaned-up graph looks like this:

1e - 2e: 12 years
2e - 3e: 11 years
3e - 4e: 8 years
4e - 5e: 6 years

Now, _this_ graph shows a clear trend. My guess: 6th edition to be released in 2018, maybe even 2017. They'll probably start working on it as early as next year...

 

[Mr Fixit]

So, for me, the cleaned-up graph looks like this:

1e - 2e: 12 years
2e - 3e: 11 years
3e - 4e: 8 years
4e - 5e: 6 years

Now, _this_ graph shows a clear trend. My guess: 6th edition to be released in 2018, maybe even 2017. They'll probably start working on it as early as next year...

Depends on what that new edition would entail, I guess. Maybe WotC goes along with the model of some other RPGs out there, publishing errata and smallish/moderate changes and tweaks and labeling that as a "new" edition. That way they could, perhaps, get the best of both worlds: providing essentially the same play experience across editions with as few players as possible left behind and still get to release new core books on a semi-short cycle to (theoretically) boost sales.

 

[Mercurius]

I love [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]' graph, but I think we need to differentiate between the two "streams" that came from OD&D - the Basic and Advanced lines.

My original list was tongue-in-cheek, but if you're going to include 3.5 then you might as well include "4.5" Essentials and "2.5" Skills & Powers. I know those are more like 4.2 and 2.2, but they're still revisions of sorts.