Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
There are no "Editions" of D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8837709" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>And I see this as "so, we completely eliminated the section on astrology, rewrote the section on numerology from the ground up, and made massive alterations to several other core sections. The book is now 20% longer, contains none of the charts and figures it contained previously because all data therein was found to be manifestly in error, and more than half of the glossary has been rewritten by a new coauthor."</p><p></p><p>It's not necessarily a <em>completely new game.</em> But it's a hell of a lot more than the allegedly evergreen edition offered.</p><p></p><p>People <em>will</em> be expected to replace their PHB, DMG, and possibly their MM. Conversion documents may exist, but they'll be just that, <em>conversion</em> documents. You'll need to make various tweaks in order to get "5e classic" characters working alongside One D&D (God I hope it doesn't go by that name) characters. You won't be able to play One D&D characters in a "5e classic" game at all, or at least not without major difficulty.</p><p></p><p>By comparison, 4e Essentials did literally nothing to the rules of 4e. No options were deprecated. You didn't need to convert anything, because nothing had changed. You could play a Cavalier alongside an "original Paladin" and there would be zero problems (other than possibly being outshone on the net because Essentials classes were a little on the weak side.) You could drop an "original Paladin" into a group with a Skald, a Slayer, a Hexblade, and a Hunter and there would never be an issue in their mechanics. Likewise, a Cavalier could drop into a group comprised of a Warlord, a Dragon Magic Sorcerer, a Warlock, and an Invoker and have no difficulties either, needing zero conversion or adaptation.</p><p></p><p>That's a pretty clear distinction to draw here. Hence why I say that One D&D (again, hate the buzzwordy name) is already starting off at roughly a 3.5e level of change. Rewriting spells and several core classes, making previously optional content non-optional, and inventing new terminology and mechanics that employ that terminology (the "d20 test" terms, for instance, or the changes to crit rules.) Eliminating entire race options completely, explicitly deprecating half-elf and half-orc, and inventing unprecedented new things (the Egyptian deity style animal-headed people.) Yet most monsters and adventures will be usable pretty much exactly as written (hence why I'm not certain that replacing the MM will be expected), and <em>some</em> existing content (mostly spells) will remain usable in general, though figuring out exactly which spell list they should belong to will be a fraught exercise unless, as I said, one uses a conversion guide.</p><p></p><p>I was absolutely not someone who expected this to be a major rewrite. I expected this to be a very conservative, minor and purely incremental change. I wouldn't say I've been <em>blown away</em> by the changes they've proposed thus far, but I was certainly pretty surprised to see them alter so many things so heavily just from what they've shown.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8837709, member: 6790260"] And I see this as "so, we completely eliminated the section on astrology, rewrote the section on numerology from the ground up, and made massive alterations to several other core sections. The book is now 20% longer, contains none of the charts and figures it contained previously because all data therein was found to be manifestly in error, and more than half of the glossary has been rewritten by a new coauthor." It's not necessarily a [I]completely new game.[/I] But it's a hell of a lot more than the allegedly evergreen edition offered. People [I]will[/I] be expected to replace their PHB, DMG, and possibly their MM. Conversion documents may exist, but they'll be just that, [I]conversion[/I] documents. You'll need to make various tweaks in order to get "5e classic" characters working alongside One D&D (God I hope it doesn't go by that name) characters. You won't be able to play One D&D characters in a "5e classic" game at all, or at least not without major difficulty. By comparison, 4e Essentials did literally nothing to the rules of 4e. No options were deprecated. You didn't need to convert anything, because nothing had changed. You could play a Cavalier alongside an "original Paladin" and there would be zero problems (other than possibly being outshone on the net because Essentials classes were a little on the weak side.) You could drop an "original Paladin" into a group with a Skald, a Slayer, a Hexblade, and a Hunter and there would never be an issue in their mechanics. Likewise, a Cavalier could drop into a group comprised of a Warlord, a Dragon Magic Sorcerer, a Warlock, and an Invoker and have no difficulties either, needing zero conversion or adaptation. That's a pretty clear distinction to draw here. Hence why I say that One D&D (again, hate the buzzwordy name) is already starting off at roughly a 3.5e level of change. Rewriting spells and several core classes, making previously optional content non-optional, and inventing new terminology and mechanics that employ that terminology (the "d20 test" terms, for instance, or the changes to crit rules.) Eliminating entire race options completely, explicitly deprecating half-elf and half-orc, and inventing unprecedented new things (the Egyptian deity style animal-headed people.) Yet most monsters and adventures will be usable pretty much exactly as written (hence why I'm not certain that replacing the MM will be expected), and [I]some[/I] existing content (mostly spells) will remain usable in general, though figuring out exactly which spell list they should belong to will be a fraught exercise unless, as I said, one uses a conversion guide. I was absolutely not someone who expected this to be a major rewrite. I expected this to be a very conservative, minor and purely incremental change. I wouldn't say I've been [I]blown away[/I] by the changes they've proposed thus far, but I was certainly pretty surprised to see them alter so many things so heavily just from what they've shown. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
There are no "Editions" of D&D
Top