D&D (2024) What would change for you if Wizards started calling it 6E?

[payn]

2014 5e is quite profitable, as far as I know. I'm actually not sure why 1dnd came about, at least in the form we've seen. They could just as easily have made a "5e Essentials" style release, creating a new starting point for the game and creating new classes that re-worked existing concepts.

It's to have a new shiny product available for the big 5-0.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's to have a new shiny product available for the big 5-0.

My 5e Essentials proposal would have accomplished that goal.

 

[payn]

My 5e Essentials proposal would have accomplished that goal.

Sounds like splitting hairs to me. Isnt the new edition essentially essential like? What is the difference I'm missing here?

 

[DEFCON 1]

My 5e Essentials proposal would have accomplished that goal.

But then again... what exactly are the cut-off points in updates/rules changes that separate 2014E from '5E Essentials', or '5E Essentials' from 2024E?

What exactly would have to happen to make a leap of the 2014E book from an 'Errata update' (like we've already had many times) to what we'd call '5E Essentials'? And then who/how/what would evolve that 'Essentials' book into 2024E? This is why I think we are all just quibbling over terms, and all of our opinions merely come down to what each of us personally want to see in a new book-- anything we want becomes the proper version of 5E that is called whatever whackadoo name we give it... and anything MORE than we think is necessary becomes a 'money grab' (or whatever other derogatory concept people keep throwing about for 2024E.)

There's absolutely NO exact point of what these new books "should have been". And anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves or driven purely by ego that they think THEIR changes are the only right ones that should be done. But that's just silly, and WotC is right to ignore those people's opinions-- because as hard as it might be for some to accept... none of our opinions are any more right than anyone else's.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sounds like splitting hairs to me. Isnt the new edition essentially essential like? What is the difference I'm missing here?

Essentials was never presented as a replacement for core 4e, and didn't remake core classes in the same edition with the same names.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But then again... what exactly are the cut-off points in updates/rules changes that separate 2014E from '5E Essentials', or '5E Essentials' from 2024E?

What exactly would have to happen to make a leap of the 2014E book from an 'Errata update' (like we've already had many times) to what we'd call '5E Essentials'? And then who/how/what would evolve that 'Essentials' book into 2024E? This is why I think we are all just quibbling over terms, and all of our opinions merely come down to what each of us personally want to see in a new book-- anything we want becomes the proper version of 5E that is called whatever whackadoo name we give it... and anything MORE than we think is necessary becomes a 'money grab' (or whatever other derogatory concept people keep throwing about for 2024E.)

There's absolutely NO exact point of what these new books "should have been". And anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves or driven purely by ego that they think THEIR changes are the only right ones that should be done. But that's just silly, and WotC is right to ignore those people's opinions-- because as hard as it might be for some to accept... none of our opinions are any more right than anyone else's.

That's true, which is why I presented my proposal as what I would have liked to see for an anniversary release, not what is objectively best. I believe it would have largely accomplished their goals, and perhaps caused less (though of course not no) acrimony. I could of course be wrong.

And you're right about another thing too: no one's opinions are more "right" than anyone else's. Including WotC's. They just have more power to enforce theirs.

 

[payn]

Essentials was never presented as a replacement for core 4e, and didn't remake core classes in the same edition with the same names.

I'd get used to it. I'd bet you in 10-20 years time the game will play a bit differently but still just be called D&D. Folks will talk about things like the "lich king" update back in X year changing the game. You wont see any specific modifier like .5 or 6E again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd get used to it. I'd bet you in 10-20 years time the game will play a bit differently but still just be called D&D. Folks will talk about things like the "lich king" update back in X year changing the game. You wont see any specific modifier like .5 or 6E again.

I expect you're right. One of the reasons I got off WotC's train.

 

[mamba]

This is what I'm saying. I would have bought 5e Essentials, if only to see what I could add to my Frankenstein 5e game.

what stops you from adding 1DD pieces to your Frankenstein? Content wise there is little difference between a theoretical 5e essentials and what we are getting

 

[Micah Sweet]

what stops you from adding 1DD pieces to your Frankenstein? Content wise there is little difference between a theoretical 5e essentials and what we are getting

I likely will. But I strongly dislike their presentation choices and how they talk about 1D&D, and I don't agree with many of the changes they seem intent on making, so the books themselves won't be worth buying to me. I am looking at the playtests for stuff I can use though.