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

[doctorbadwolf]

For me, it's clear that you need some conversion rules if you're going to take a 5e PHB character and use it in a One D&D game. Because there are rules you will be expected to be using--like the backgrounds with feats--that don't exist in 5e currently. Everyone recognizes this is an adaptation. As far as I can tell, everyone recognizes that this is some kind of conversion.

It’s explicitly clear that this is not the case. It is not an adaptation there is no conversion. Backgrounds with feats is literally just a new option. if all it takes to use a 2014 PHB character is to pick a bonus level 1 feat at level 1…that isn’t a conversion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's why you need a top-to-bottom revision, and not just an errata book and the occasional updated reprint.

That would be less evergreen than actually updating the rules based on a decade of feedback, while maintaining the same game.

Ten years of slightly different reprints with a whole separate book to check if your printing has the right rules or not isn’t evergreen, it’s just a mess.

A new core set that is fully compatible with all supplementary material, is an update. Evergreen does not mean “no updates ever”.

It means that the game remains the same game, and your expansion purchases aren’t wasted, because the update is compatible with the original printing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We'll see. I doubt that will end up being the case.

Why? It is the case, so far.

Yes, they literally asking you to do that in the playtest

Yep. And it works great.

I mean, of course it does since they want you to playtest it in pieces. Which is the dumbest possible way to do a playtest UNLESS the end goal is that these pieces are interchangeable. So we still need to wait and see.

Yeah I’m gonna go ahead and assume they aren’t complete idiots, and the playtest is set up the way it is because the goal is full backward compatibility, because it’s the same game.

 

[Aldarc]

That would be less evergreen than actually updating the rules based on a decade of feedback, while maintaining the same game.

Ten years of slightly different reprints with a whole separate book to check if your printing has the right rules or not isn’t evergreen, it’s just a mess.

A new core set that is fully compatible with all supplementary material, is an update. Evergreen does not mean “no updates ever”.

It means that the game remains the same game, and your expansion purchases aren’t wasted, because the update is compatible with the original printing.

I agree to an extent that the rules should be updated based on feedback, but I also can't help shake the feeling that the goal posts for what constitutes an "evergreen edition" keeps getting shifted to preserve the idea that WotC has held onto the idea that 5e is an evergreen edition rather than One D&D being a new edition.

 

[Shiroiken]

Apart from the very odd numbering, you missed out Holmes Basic, B/X and 3.5 are separate editions (and probably so will OneD&D be) so you cannot just include them in something else to fit your thesis, and B/X is part of the same edition family as BECMI, not OD&D.

Also, while you are correct that the AD&D was created at least in part to screw Arneson out of royalties, 3e was explicitly a new edition of the AD&D branch not the basic branch (the reason it was called third is that it was considered a direct successor to AD&D 2e).

I might have gotten B/X and Holmes Basic confused, as I haven't looked at either of them in many years, but one of them was designed as an intro to the OD&D game, while the other was the beginning of what became BECMI. There are 6 different fundamental mechanics: OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, 3E's d20, 4E, and 5E. B/X, 3.5E, and 1D&D all use the core mechanics of an existing editions, so they should be excluded as revisions rather than new editions. If you want to consider every revision a new edition, then we're closer to 17th Edition thanks to BECMI.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't follow. I have had no problem integrating both Tasha's and MotM into my ongoing campaigns. If that is what OneD&D releases continue to feel like, then that is fundamentally different than when they released new editions in the past.

It doesn't matter if you can integrate it. It matters that it replaces PHB and MM material. You should not have to go to 3+ books to get PHB and MM material. Once you get to this point, you need to remake the core books which is enough to warrant an edition change or at least a .5 tacked on. It's not remaining the same edition.

Someone earlier referred to D&D becoming more of a "Ship of Theseus" situation. I think that's exactly right, and is exactly what WotC means when they say that they are switching from the old "editions" model to a slow evolution model. Over time, you might get substantial change, but unlike with "editions" there will be no clean break between what are essentially different games.

Meh. Slowly making a new edition or doing it quickly still results in a new edition.

 

[Maxperson]

Did you have a Hoppy Thanksgiving?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It’s explicitly clear that this is not the case. It is not an adaptation there is no conversion. Backgrounds with feats is literally just a new option. if all it takes to use a 2014 PHB character is to pick a bonus level 1 feat at level 1…that isn’t a conversion.

It's not a "new option." If you take an existing 5e background, you must use a conversion document to do so, which includes a list of feats to pick from.

It is a conversion. It may be a small one. But a small amount of paint is not no paint.

And thus far, it is not just the feat. If you play a level 5 Bard, you have to convert your character. If you play almost any kind of Ranger, you have to convert your character. It isn't a huge change...BUT NEITHER WAS 3.5e. A converted Wizard was nearly identical, for example, while a Ranger was somewhat different, as was a Druid. This isn't complex. There's a small but meaningful conversion process, which puts this at approximately the level of gap between 3.5e and 3.0. Most people saw that as a significant design break—enough to get upset about it. Why should a clear 5.5e get a pass simply because WotC is doing damage control this time?

 

[Aldarc]

It's not a "new option." If you take an existing 5e background, you must use a conversion document to do so, which includes a list of feats to pick from.

It is a conversion. It may be a small one. But a small amount of paint is not no paint.

And thus far, it is not just the feat. If you play a level 5 Bard, you have to convert your character. If you play almost any kind of Ranger, you have to convert your character. It isn't a huge change...BUT NEITHER WAS 3.5e. A converted Wizard was nearly identical, for example, while a Ranger was somewhat different, as was a Druid. This isn't complex. There's a small but meaningful conversion process, which puts this at approximately the level of gap between 3.5e and 3.0. Most people saw that as a significant design break—enough to get upset about it. Why should a clear 5.5e get a pass simply because WotC is doing damage control this time?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

It's not a "new option." If you take an existing 5e background, you must use a conversion document to do so, which includes a list of feats to pick from.

It is a conversion. It may be a small one. But a small amount of paint is not no paint.

And thus far, it is not just the feat. If you play a level 5 Bard, you have to convert your character. If you play almost any kind of Ranger, you have to convert your character. It isn't a huge change...BUT NEITHER WAS 3.5e. A converted Wizard was nearly identical, for example, while a Ranger was somewhat different, as was a Druid. This isn't complex. There's a small but meaningful conversion process, which puts this at approximately the level of gap between 3.5e and 3.0. Most people saw that as a significant design break—enough to get upset about it. Why should a clear 5.5e get a pass simply because WotC is doing damage control this time?

It is just an option. We have played ‘14 characters without the 1sr level feat along side playtest characters with the new feat. Not an issue, they play just fine at the same table