D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[Marandahir]

Nobody’s making a 5.25e. That’s just silly.

They likely won’t call it 5.5e as they want it to just be D&D as it is. But being fully compatible with 2014 5e puts this in the realm of the various Basic expansion/revisions, the Player’s Option revision to 2e, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.

 

[tetrasodium]

Nobody’s making a 5.25e. That’s just silly.

They likely won’t call it 5.5e as they want it to just be D&D as it is. But being fully compatible with 2014 5e puts this in the realm of the various Basic expansion/revisions, the Player’s Option revision to 2e, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.

It's a historical reference to show how minor tasha's changes were. Pathfinder was basically 3.5 with a bunch of minor tweaks & cleanup. As a result it got called 3.75 sometimes when describing it. Calling 5e+tcoe 5.5 or even 5.25 woud be a big stretch in that historical light

 

[Marandahir]

It's a historical reference to show how minor tasha's changes were. Pathfinder was basically 3.5 with a bunch of minor tweaks & cleanup. As a result it got called 3.75 sometimes when describing it. Calling 5e+tcoe 5.5 or even 5.25 woud be a big stretch in that historical light

No official source called Pathfinder 3.75e. That was a fanon term in order to emphasise that it was a further iteration on 3.5e, but it didn’t make any sense as it made it sound like it was a half step between 3.5e and 4.0e, when in reality these were two forks (to borrow from software development) off the game that took different lessons from 3.5e and catered to different audiences. Only D&D can use the edition terming because it’s specifically referring to the official published editions. So 3.5e was their half step off of 3e towards 4e. Pathfinder was not a half step again from 3.5e to 4e, it was a fork that preserved and iterated on elements that 4e threw to the wayside (while ignoring or de-emphasising other elements that arrived in 3.5e that were iterated on in 4e).

To this end, only 3rd Edition of D&D has ever used a decimal iteration system (beyond individual books, PDF’s, and reference documents having v1.1, V2.0 etc revisions). But nearly edition of D&D has had some sort of fully compatible revision halfway through its lifetime. One could even argue 2e began its life as this for 1e.

As this is not 3e, they will not use the decimal system unless they really want to revive it. But more to the point, whether this is a full step difference or a half step or a quarter step is really semantics and quibbling by pedants like you and me. All we know is that it’s a new printing of the core rules that will be fully compatible with 5e’s previous books but taking into account the decade of development and audience changes since the original publishing. This says that it’s an iterative change, not a full edition change (unless they’re considering it 6e in the same sense that 2e was compatible with 1e products). But whether that change is as marginal as 3.5e to Pathfinder or as substantive as 3e to 3.5e really is an argument we have no way of judging at this point nor could we agree on what is a .5 edition change versus what is a .25 or .75 edition change.

It’s just not fruitful to the discussion, methinks.

 

[ECMO3]

But nearly edition of D&D has had some sort of fully compatible revision halfway through its lifetime. One could even argue 2e began its life as this for 1e.

The 1E revision was when Gygax puyublished the hardcover book "'Unearthed Arcana" which at the time was official content (unlike how the term is used today). That introduced new player races (Drow, Duergar, wild elves, stout halflings .....), classes (Barbarian, Cavalier), weapon specialization, new rules for character creation, unarmed combat, spells and magic items. It was completely backwards compatible with 1E though.

2E was really a new game. While the PCs were to a degree backwards compatible the monsters were not and the combat system mostly was not.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Nobody’s making a 5.25e. That’s just silly.

They likely won’t call it 5.5e as they want it to just be D&D as it is. But being fully compatible with 2014 5e puts this in the realm of the various Basic expansion/revisions, the Player’s Option revision to 2e, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials.

Instead saying it's 5.1e-5.9e, I prefer to just use the broader term inor Edition change.

 

[Teemu]

I think the new direction and the revised core will most likely take a similar approach to the 4e Essentials products as opposed to the more thorough revision that 3.5 was. They said it’s going to be compatible with current 5e. Essentials was compatible with original 4e (currently running a 4e game with pre and post Essentials material), but 3.5 wasn’t really. 3.5 was partially compatible, but in practice all or most of the 3.5 games I was part of didn’t use 3.0 material (or if did, updated it, like monsters). Especially a couple of years into 3.5!

I doubt we’ll see a 5 minute short rest or anything else that drastic. Nothing that changes the core fundamentals of the rules to a great degree.

 

[Marandahir]

I think the new direction and the revised core will most likely take a similar approach to the 4e Essentials products as opposed to the more thorough revision that 3.5 was. They said it’s going to be compatible with current 5e. Essentials was compatible with original 4e (currently running a 4e game with pre and post Essentials material), but 3.5 wasn’t really. 3.5 was partially compatible, but in practice all or most of the 3.5 games I was part of didn’t use 3.0 material (or if did, updated it, like monsters). Especially a couple of years into 3.5!

I doubt we’ll see a 5 minute short rest or anything else that drastic. Nothing that changes the core fundamentals of the rules to a great degree.

I'd see that if they weren't republishing the core rulebooks three.

Essentials was kinda like Rule Cyclopedia in that it was bundling up the rules in a new package and have new variations on the classes, but everything was published with a new name for clarity's sake. So we have Player's Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Player's Essentials: Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, Rules Compendium, Dungeon Master's Kit, and Monster Vault. None of these had the same name and thus occupied the same position as the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide. But they served as a soft replacement.

2024 releases will be a harder reset, more like 3.5e, if only because it sounds like they're going to be republishing the PHB, MM, and DMG in new forms. But they intend for Xanathar's, Tasha's, and Mordenkainen Presents - at least in their 2022 republished incarnations - to be able to stand in companion with both the 2014 core rules and the 2024 core rules.

 

[Teemu]

I'd see that if they weren't republishing the core rulebooks three.

Essentials was kinda like Rule Cyclopedia in that it was bundling up the rules in a new package and have new variations on the classes, but everything was published with a new name for clarity's sake. So we have Player's Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Player's Essentials: Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, Rules Compendium, Dungeon Master's Kit, and Monster Vault. None of these had the same name and thus occupied the same position as the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide. But they served as a soft replacement.

2024 releases will be a harder reset, more like 3.5e, if only because it sounds like they're going to be republishing the PHB, MM, and DMG in new forms. But they intend for Xanathar's, Tasha's, and Mordenkainen Presents - at least in their 2022 republished incarnations - to be able to stand in companion with both the 2014 core rules and the 2024 core rules.

But if they do more drastic revisions, it’s not going to be compatible with the 2014 version. To be compatible, the rules have to support a game with characters made with both sets of books. That’s how 4e Essentials interacted with the 2008 books. 3.5 changed some core fundamentals that made a 3.0 character work differently from a 3.5 character, and the two sets of rules had pretty large deviations from one another.

If 2014 5e and 2024 5e are compatible, you should be able to have a dwarf (2024 race/lineage rules) fighter (2014 class) in the same party with a tiefling (2014 rules) cleric (2024 revision).

 

[Azzy]

2E was really a new game. While the PCs were to a degree backwards compatible the monsters were not and the combat system mostly was not.

What? 2e was mostly interoperable with 1e. Many of the monsters were exactly the same, just with new and longer presentation. Combat was largely the same, though some details changed and cleaned up. My groups were playing a mix of 1e and 2e since 2e's initial release until 3e was released.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What? 2e was mostly interoperable with 1e. Many of the monsters were exactly the same, just with new and longer presentation. Combat was largely the same, though some details changed and cleaned up. My groups were playing a mix of 1e and 2e since 2e's initial release until 3e was released.

2nd ed was my favorite edition (mostly because of the cleaned-up and expanded presentation and of course the amazing setting material), but mechanically it was far closer to 1st edition than any other D&D edition changes were to each other, even 3rd to 3.5.