D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Micah Sweet]

If they are able to keep the rules compatible (and right now I'm thinking it will be compatible in the same way 4e and 4e essentials were) why make a break from 5e's player base, risk market share losses, alienation of some of the fanbase and causing 3pp stock to suddenly become invalid... especially if its base engine is what you want to use and someone using the 5e books for all intents in purposes can move their character into a 2024 game and vice versa?

3pp is going to become borderline invalid anyway, because player-facing options are changing enough to mess with compatibility. My way, they are still compatible with 5e.

 

[Imaro]

3pp is going to become borderline invalid anyway, because player-facing options are changing enough to mess with compatibility. My way, they are still compatible with 5e.

Could you give an example of this type of change? I'm curious because that hasn't been my take at all so far.

 

[beancounter]

Also... why can't you just state your game is only using 2029 core rulebooks. How is that in practice any different than saying edition 6 or 7.

From what I gather, they won't be using/releasing rulebooks with any sort of time stamp. If they did that, they might as well stick with editions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Could you give an example of this type of change? I'm curious because that hasn't been my take at all so far.

The new bard, ranger and rogue are changed enough that existing subclasses are less compatible than they were (Bardic Inspiration being a reaction is an example). Several rules in the first UA, if implemented, affect player-facing option in 5e. The "no DM-side crits" rule is an example.

 

[Mistwell]

There isn't one you would ever accept, because this is the Internet and data standards are never equitable.

You gave an extremely specific answer in numerical percentages. Where did you get those from?

"There is no objective basis for this conclusion. If you believe there is, let's see it."

Goose, gander, etc.

I didn't give a specific numerical percentage like it came from some sort of hard data though, did I? All I said was I don't think they're that important. I didn't speak for anyone outside myself. I made it clear it was my subjective opinion and not some majority of players of the game.

Alright. To what degree?

You want me to put some specifics on my view when you previously stated a very specific appearing-objective number on a majority view like that and then tried to slide past being asked where it came from?

How about we resolve that important claim first before we move on. Because the answer hinges on whether we're having a legit conversation or not.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I think this is a big part of why the editions matter. Each has done some different things, and our familiarity or exposure to an edition will inform our expectations on another. So for someone who is familiar with (and enjoys) the inventory management and exploration elements of earlier D&D would find the absence of such in 5E to be a bit jarring. However, if someone played early D&D and didn't bother worrying about encumbrance and inventory and exploration turns, then 5E may not be jarring at all.

Haven't they been updating the rues since 5e was published? There are minor differences, corrections, errata, etc with each printing...

Also... why can't you just state your game is only using 2029 core rulebooks. How is that in practice any different than saying edition 6 or 7.

Some major, some minor.

System doesn't matter when, like hawkeyefan mentioned, there are sub-systems that you use little if not ignore.
System matters when a sub-system changes significantly, and it is a sub-system that you decidedly use or is part of the core.
We've had two editions in a row where core mechanics have changed significantly. 4e had AEDU, 5e has bounded accuracy. The big change here is that attributes are just as important as level. Before they were more or less useful as "talent", but eventually the benefits from level, "skill", would outshine them.

Even so, "system matters" is a phrase I think is more applicable to wholly different systems. D&D vs WoD vs RQ, &c. Excepting 4e, it is relatively easy to convert materials from one edition to another. 4e's engine is sufficiently different that I think conversion is quite a bit trickier, and system may matter more in that case.

 

[Umbran]

So why are we playing 5E?

If edition doesn't matter, then why are we all playing the newest edition of the game and not just playing an older version? Why is anyone converting anything when they could just play AD&D or 3E or whatever?

I cannot speak for "we". But for myself.... I will play virtually any game, D&D or otherwise, given a good GM and players at the table. There is no version of D&D that is a flat no, for me. However...

2e and earlier are all kinda clunky, imho, largely because they date from before the world knew much about RPG design. 3e got a handle on design, but there are too many fiddly bits. 4e is a decent enough design, but still has a lot of fiddly bits, and some assumptions (about map use, f'rex) that I'm not on board with, and find it a lot of work to remove.

5e is using design principles carefully, with fewer fiddly bits and assumptions I'm not happy with. It hits a pretty cool sweet spot that I enjoy.

 

[Imaro]

From what I gather, they won't be using/releasing rulebooks with any sort of time stamp. If they did that, they might as well stick with editions.

Wait... what do you mean timestamp... it's the year it was released. I mean it's not like the books are stamped with their actual editions either.

 

[Imaro]

The new bard, ranger and rogue are changed enough that existing subclasses are less compatible than they were (Bardic Inspiration being a reaction is an example). Several rules in the first UA, if implemented, affect player-facing option in 5e. The "no DM-side crits" rule is an example.

Why would you use the new class with an old subclass? If you're using the original bard wouldn't it be common sense to use the subclasses it had. How does the DM not criting make a 3pp book invalid? I guess there's a chance that a creature could rely on DM crits in some way but then doesn't that just become a one off power on a 20. I'm not seeing how these things invalidate entire books.

 

[Umbran]

There isn't one you would ever accept, because this is the Internet and data standards are never equitable.

If you give numbers like that, and are asked to give their source, "you wouldn't accept the source" is not a constructive response.

Please give your source. If you don't have one, please admit it and move on.