D&D General There are no "Editions" of D&D


log in or register to remove this ad


Clarifying statement: I was primarily trying to say that the different "editions" of D&D are in fact each different games. This includes 3.5. You can't have different people at the table simultaneously and seamlessly using different edition PHBs. This will be the real test for OneD&D, as to whether it qualifies as a different "edition" than 5E.
I suspect the big issue there is going to come down to how you define "seamless."

Because, from what we've seen, there will almost surely be a relatively short list of errata for using 5e PHB content with One D&D content, when it hits its final published form. Backgrounds, for example, are one of the bigger shifts we've seen thus far. But the shift isn't some massive world-upheaval kind of thing. Some changes to where stats come from and getting a feat. That's a significant shift, but I can absolutely see people arguing that the shift is "seamless" because it doesn't require any mechanics that don't exist in the 5e PHB, just providing more of those mechanics than was previously available.

So...what does "simultaneously and seamlessly" mean?
 


Reynard

Legend
Do you argue that in a specific domain, the word CANNOT have another, slightly different, meaning?

If not, then your argument is "You should all stick with my definition, despite decades of other use, because... something." That's not terribly persuasive.
Probably don't tell another poster what they mean and instead ask for clarification. Or, you know, keep reading.
 





Micah Sweet

Legend
Clarifying statement: I was primarily trying to say that the different "editions" of D&D are in fact each different games. This includes 3.5. You can't have different people at the table simultaneously and seamlessly using different edition PHBs. This will be the real test for OneD&D, as to whether it qualifies as a different "edition" than 5E.
They never said 6e's core books would be compatible with the 2014 core books, just adventures and supplements (and that second claim is  very salty to me). That alone counts against any claim that it's not a new edition.
 



Xanathar's I don't think so, but Tasha's is a big shift, in that it was clearly intended to modify significant portions of the PH preparatory to the move they're making now. One could reasonably divide 5e design at the point of Tasha's. So in a way, yes.
Ok, good to understand where you stand.

I guess what, in your opinion, is allowed to be changed without if being a new edition? What is the trigger point?
 

Why do think it didn’t happen? This is exactly what is happening. This is how you modify 5e and keep it evergreen. IMO, 1D&D is them delivering on that promise of 5e being the end of editions.
It wasn't supposed to need rewrites this heavy. Just new published options.

Ok, good to understand where you stand.

I guess what, in your opinion, is allowed to be changed without if being a new edition? What is the trigger point?
PHB classes that are never rewritten at a fundamental level--new subclasses are fine, but altering the core of the subclass, no.

Making Backgrounds provide a feat. And, from what I remember, having Backgrounds that give stat bonuses.

Major math alterations would be a really obvious break, but I don't think that's happening.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Ok, good to understand where you stand.

I guess what, in your opinion, is allowed to be changed without if being a new edition? What is the trigger point?
If you start making significant changes to how classes in the PH work, you have crossed that line IMO. This is why Essentials wasn't an edition change, but rather a big supplement or a new corebook to play from, depending on your perspective.
 


If you start making significant changes to how classes in the PH work, you have crossed that line IMO. This is why Essentials wasn't an edition change, but rather a big supplement or a new corebook to play from, depending on your perspective.
Excellent comparison. 3.5e was a partial new edition, in that it rewrote a couple of classes in constrained ways, and certain spells and such, but otherwise kept a lot of the game perfectly identical. Essentials was not at all a new edition, because it was just...more options. You could choose to use only the new options, or only the old options, or mix and match to your heart's content (within the already-existing "you can't multiclass with your own class" rules.) It didn't really make any difference on the whole.

One D&D is absolutely showing up as a rewrite of most classes in a pretty substantial way, which is intended to genuinely replace those old classes, even though you can still play them if you really want to. Hence, it looks like it will fall somewhere between a "half-edition" like 3.5e and a thin but meaningful full edition change, depending on whether it is relatively modest with its rewrites, or quite substantial.

IIRC, the playtest Rogue we've seen is a pretty hefty rewrite. If it's emblematic of the coming changes, I would absolutely say the One D&D stuff is explicitly showing that 5e-as-originally-published wasn't evergreen.

Edit: For example, the fact that the One D&D Ranger now gets Expertise and, I quote, "elements from other classes," is a pretty major change. So is the unification of spell lists into just three (arcane, divine, primal) that all classes of a particular type will share. The whole idea of class-specific spells is getting chucked out the window, unless they're specially-granted features. That's huge. In principle, that means eldritch blast is either gone, a special bonus Warlock feature, or something any Arcane spellcasting class can learn. Likewise for things like find steed, find familiar, etc. That's at least as big a change as the kinds of changes 3.5e made to the 3e spell list.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Excellent comparison. 3.5e was a partial new edition, in that it rewrote a couple of classes in constrained ways, and certain spells and such, but otherwise kept a lot of the game perfectly identical. Essentials was not at all a new edition, because it was just...more options. You could choose to use only the new options, or only the old options, or mix and match to your heart's content (within the already-existing "you can't multiclass with your own class" rules.) It didn't really make any difference on the whole.

One D&D is absolutely showing up as a rewrite of most classes in a pretty substantial way, which is intended to genuinely replace those old classes, even though you can still play them if you really want to. Hence, it looks like it will fall somewhere between a "half-edition" like 3.5e and a thin but meaningful full edition change, depending on whether it is relatively modest with its rewrites, or quite substantial.

IIRC, the playtest Rogue we've seen is a pretty hefty rewrite. If it's emblematic of the coming changes, I would absolutely say the One D&D stuff is explicitly showing that 5e-as-originally-published wasn't evergreen.
Exactly. You and I don't agree on a lot of things, but it's always nice when we do.
 

It wasn't supposed to need rewrites this heavy. Just new published options.
First, we don’t know what the final rewrites will be.

2nd, says who? Who determines what amount of rewriting is needed to make it a new edition?

Everything I’ve seen so far still feels I the realm of 5th edition to me.
PHB classes that are never rewritten at a fundamental level--new subclasses are fine, but altering the core of the subclass, no.
That doesn’t bother me. What if they simply gave them new class names? Would that change your opinion? So they would technically be new classes, not rewritten classes.
Making Backgrounds provide a feat. And, from what I remember, having Backgrounds that give stat bonuses.
Both of those feel evolutionary to me, not revolutionary. I.e. the same edition. If that was the only thing that changed, would you consider it a new edition?
Major math alterations would be a really obvious break, but I don't think that's happening.
That is the one that get me. If there was major math changes that would IMO
 

It wasn't supposed to need rewrites this heavy. Just new published options.
First, we don’t know what the final rewrites will be.

2nd, says who? Who determines what amount of rewriting is needed to make it a new edition?

Everything I’ve seen so far still feels I the realm of 5th edition to me.
PHB classes that are never rewritten at a fundamental level--new subclasses are fine, but altering the core of the subclass, no.
That doesn’t bother me. What if they simply gave them new class names? Would that change your opinion? So they would technically be new classes, not rewritten classes.
Making Backgrounds provide a feat. And, from what I remember, having Backgrounds that give stat bonuses.
Both of those feel evolutionary to me, not revolutionary. I.e. the same edition. If that was the only thing that changed, would you consider it a new edition?
Major math alterations would be a really obvious break, but I don't think that's happening.
That is the one that would get me. If there was major math changes that would IMO
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top