WotC D&D Comunity Update for June 8th.

[Morrus]

@Morrus

There's only so many times I can write a news items saying "WotC says it's not a new edition"! I get they have to keep repeating it, but it's not going to make the news every time they say it.

 

[Emberashh]

I wonder what prompted this wave of clarification. Has there been an upsurge in people complaining about the changes constituting a new edition? Like, more such complaints than there have been all along?

I suspect that they recently realized they're not going to be able to go as far as they intended without it being a disaster.

Rather than, as I suspect was their original plan, letting 1DND "morph" into being a new edition as all the changes get solidified, they're no longer going to be able to change as much so they can't be coy about what it actually is anymore.

I think it also warrants pointing out that regardless of how one percieves this issue, WOTC is prompting it all by being so overtly focused on avoiding it.

As the Kung Fu Turtle says, one often meets their destiny on the road they take to avoid it. I doubt these debates would be as intense or widespread if they didn't open their introduction of OneDND with a diatribe about it not being a new edition and didn't keep throwing fuel into the fire by constantly trying to argue back with the community.

They really need to just let it go and stop wasting their time and everyone elses by focusing so much on it, because that in turn means the community follows suit.

I saw a YT comment that put it pretty precisely: they spent 10s of minutes talking about edition wars instead of talking game mechanics and the neat things 1DND could be doing to jazz up the game.

 

[darjr]

There's only so many times I can write a news items saying "WotC says it's not a new edition"! I get they have to keep repeating it, but it's not going to make the news every time they say it.

Lol! Yea.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I suspect that they recently realized they're not going to be able to go as far as they intended without it being a disaster.

Rather than, as I suspect was their original plan, letting 1DND "morph" into being a new edition as all the changes get solidified, they're no longer going to be able to change as much so they can't be coy about what it actually is anymore.

I think it also warrants pointing out that regardless of how one percieves this issue, WOTC is prompting it all by being so overtly focused on avoiding it.

As the Kung Fu Turtle says, one often meets their destiny on the road they take to avoid it. I doubt these debates would be as intense or widespread if they didn't open their introduction of OneDND with a diatribe about it not being a new edition and didn't keep throwing fuel into the fire by constantly trying to argue back with the community.

They really need to just let it go and stop wasting their time and everyone elses by focusing so much on it, because that in turn means the community follows suit.

I saw a YT comment that put it pretty precisely: they spent 10s of minutes talking about edition wars instead of talking game mechanics and the neat things 1DND could be doing to jazz up the game.

I guess this could be true; but, this interpretation doesn’t really match what we’ve been told, the history of 5e, or the 2024 playtest.

 

[mamba]

I suspect that they recently realized they're not going to be able to go as far as they intended without it being a disaster.

Rather than, as I suspect was their original plan, letting 1DND "morph" into being a new edition as all the changes get solidified, they're no longer going to be able to change as much so they can't be coy about what it actually is anymore.

So they make less changes and can no longer be ‘coy’ about it being a new edition?

That makes no sense. If anything, making fewer changes would make it easier to not call it a new edition.

Also, given their latest statements they are very much still ‘coy about’ it being a new edition. They keep saying it is not…

 

[Kalmi]

To paraphrase a popular tweet: "My 'One D&D is not a new edition' t-shirt is raising a lot of questions already answered by my t-shirt."

I don't know if I fully subscribe to the idea that "If you're explaining, you're losing," but I feel the problem here is that the changes they've already presented are self-evidently in line with a revision of the rules. Perhaps not nearly enough to qualify for a new edition, as is typically thought of in D&D, but at least enough for the dreaded "X.5" moniker. It's understandable why they avoid that term-- another problem of their making, historically-- but trying to explain why their revision of the rules is not, in fact, a revision is going to be a tough sell in any context. And of course, the current context is a serious lack of trust in WotC leadership, which again, is a problem of their own making.

I personally would respect it more if they just came out and said this is 5.5, but they're trying to preserve as much compatibility as they can.

 

[Alzrius]

I guess this could be true; but, this interpretation doesn’t really match what we’ve been told, the history of 5e, or the 2024 playtest.

But it matches the history of 4th Edition, which (I think) is what WotC's worried is going to happen, and wants to avoid.

In Shannon Appelcline's product history for Player Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands (affiliate link), he says:

What a Difference an Edition Makes: The Compatibility. When Mearls began working on Essentials, one of his main priorities was keeping it totally compatible with previous 4e books. With the release of Heroes of the Fallen Lands, players could now see that changes were indeed pretty minimal, involving: errata; updated Feat and Magic Item systems; and updated philosophies for building characters. Of these, the difference between the character builds was the largest, and had the most possibility to be incompatible.

But the designers felt they weren't

Mearls paraphrased designer Rich Baker when he said, "the choice between a traditional build and an Essentials build would basically reflect different play styles". Baker expanded on this, saying "It’s perfectly ok if, at the same table, Joe is playing a Fighter straight out of the Players Handbook, with all of the power selections that he would ordinarily have had, and Dave, sitting next to him, is playing a Slayer, out of Essentials. Those Characters, essentially, are built the same, and are transparent to each other".

But that's not at all how the D&D roleplaying community treated the new rules. Between late 2010 and early 2011, 4e players seemed to fracture into "traditional" gamers and "Essentials" gamers. At first there were edition wars over whether Essentials had replaced the core rules, then for the next year each new D&D book was scrutinized for whether it was Essentials or traditional.

So, there's no mechanical reason not to use core and Essentials products together, but you could similarly have said that 3e books could be used with D&D 3.5e (2003) with almost no problem. In both cases, the roleplaying community disagreed.

I'm of the opinion that WotC is very much aware of what happened with 4Essentials in this regard, and wants very badly to avoid it happening again with One D&D. But in that regard, they seem to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy; from what I can tell, people see a difference between a re-release of the Core Rulebooks and simply reprinting them with some errata applied, and that the former is viewed as being at least a "half-edition" update (that is, a ".5" edition change), whereas the latter isn't.

Now, we can debate where the difference lies between applying errata and a half-edition update, but I think that's the wrong conversation, because the difference isn't seen in a critical analysis of the new books' contents so much as it is in how WotC treats it prior to release. Which is to say, you don't actively market a reprint, even if it has errata; you do actively market a new product, and when the new product is the Core Rules, then it's a new edition, either in whole or point-five.

For WotC to then openly tell us otherwise smacks of being counterintuitive, which makes people skeptical; when there's a (perceived) mismatch between your actions and your claims, you're going to start receiving pushback.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

For WotC to then openly tell us otherwise smacks of being counterintuitive, which makes people skeptical; when there's a (perceived) mismatch between your actions and your claims, you're going to start receiving pushback.

I don't know why this has to be counterintuitive... Can't gamers just be happy people and be happy about fresh rules updates every 10 years?

It also boils down to the Idea that spending another 200 Dollars for somewhat new contend is ripping them off. One of the cheapest hobbies ever and then not wanting to spend money to support the people and companies creating that.
Maybe always fighting evil organizations in the RPG makes one prone to see evil everywhere...

 

[mamba]

I'm of the opinion that WotC is very much aware of what happened with 4Essentials in this regard, and wants very badly to avoid it happening again with One D&D. But in that regard, they seem to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy; from what I can tell, people see a difference between a re-release of the Core Rulebooks and simply reprinting them with some errata applied, and that the former is viewed as being at least a "half-edition" update (that is, a ".5" edition change), whereas the latter isn't.

Some insist on it being an edition change, yes. I guess the lesson here is no matter what WotC calls it, there will always be some people who disagree and insist on it being something else, contrary to everything WotC says and essentially all the evidence.

So all WotC can do is minimize the damage. Not calling it a new edition does that, because outside of a few hundred nerds on some forums, no one cares.

Calling it 5.5 would make everyone wonder whether the old and new books are compatible, whether 5e adventures can be played with 5.5 and vice versa. Still calling it 5e answers that for everyone.

From your quote “Between late 2010 and early 2011, 4e players seemed to fracture into "traditional" gamers and "Essentials" gamers. At first there were edition wars over whether Essentials had replaced the core rules, then for the next year each new D&D book was scrutinized for whether it was Essentials or traditional.”

This (separating the books into two editions) is what WotC wants to avoid. I don’t think they care if this is done with the core books, as long as it is not done with the rest.

 

[Velderan]

Maybe Jeremy lurks on this forum and noticed that every thread eventually devolved into "what is the true meaning of One D&D"?

Maybe he's been participating in the debate under an alias?

If he actually has to spend time on this forum as a part of his responsibilities, I hope WotC's benefits package includes a sizeable whiskey stipend..

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

But it matches the history of 4th Edition, which (I think) is what WotC's worried is going to happen, and wants to avoid.

In Shannon Appelcline's product history for Player Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands (affiliate link), he says:



I'm of the opinion that WotC is very much aware of what happened with 4Essentials in this regard, and wants very badly to avoid it happening again with One D&D. But in that regard, they seem to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy; from what I can tell, people see a difference between a re-release of the Core Rulebooks and simply reprinting them with some errata applied, and that the former is viewed as being at least a "half-edition" update (that is, a ".5" edition change), whereas the latter isn't.

Now, we can debate where the difference lies between applying errata and a half-edition update, but I think that's the wrong conversation, because the difference isn't seen in a critical analysis of the new books' contents so much as it is in how WotC treats it prior to release. Which is to say, you don't actively market a reprint, even if it has errata; you do actively market a new product, and when the new product is the Core Rules, then it's a new edition, either in whole or point-five.

For WotC to then openly tell us otherwise smacks of being counterintuitive, which makes people skeptical; when there's a (perceived) mismatch between your actions and your claims, you're going to start receiving pushback.

I disagree with you, but I’m tired of arguing about it and I honestly don’t care what WotC or s as Niobe else calls it. All I know is we used playtest characters right with PHB characters and it worked great. So if that continues I’m happy.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

To paraphrase a popular tweet: "My 'One D&D is not a new edition' t-shirt is raising a lot of questions already answered by my t-shirt."

I don't know if I fully subscribe to the idea that "If you're explaining, you're losing," but I feel the problem here is that the changes they've already presented are self-evidently in line with a revision of the rules. Perhaps not nearly enough to qualify for a new edition, as is typically thought of in D&D, but at least enough for the dreaded "X.5" moniker. It's understandable why they avoid that term-- another problem of their making, historically-- but trying to explain why their revision of the rules is not, in fact, a revision is going to be a tough sell in any context. And of course, the current context is a serious lack of trust in WotC leadership, which again, is a problem of their own making.

I personally would respect it more if they just came out and said this is 5.5, but they're trying to preserve as much compatibility as they can.

They have said it is a revision many, many times - how have you missed that?

Just because they don’t call it 5.5 or 6 (which I prefer over 5.5, but prefer just 5 more) doesn’t mean they haven’t be completely honest about describing it as a revision.

 

[Emberashh]

So all WotC can do is minimize the damage

Then they should stop signal boosting the issue by acknowledging it constantly.

 

[jerryrice4949]

Except I'm not confused at all, nor have I been at any point along the way. And I suspect that most players don't even know about the update rulebooks, nor particularly care. At this point, I feel that the only folks who are upset and complaining are the same folks who are upset and complain about anything WotC does.

As for what will happen when the new books are out on the VTT, whenever that becomes a thing? The same thing that already happens on DnDBeyond: it defaults to the new book, but if you own an earlier version (e.g. Volo's) you can toggle it on. In fact, I have both Volo's and Multiverse toggled on, so I can compare both versions of monsters and choose the one I like for each encounter. It's not hard - if I can do it, I'm pretty sure the 95% of the player base who are younger and smarter than me can manage it.

This. I was never really confused about the plan and I have never been concerned about mix and matching the old subclasses and new.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I think the people who play confused have caused a lot of harm now. We could have gotten a real cool new version. I guess that is over...

I hate the internet. I wish WotC had just dropped the bomb and release an aniversary edition and see how it went.

Maybe they release a companion book with more drastical changes in the near futute. One can hope.

Yeah I was looking forward to some do the changes like weapon masteries and changes to the Warlock but am concerned they will be dropped.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure, but I’d imagine that’s been going on since the first packet. What I wonder I’d why now are they making a concerted effort to respond to such comments? I mean, maybe it’s just a matter of big corporations being slow to act, but I’m curious if something may have happened recently that motivated this big push.

They are planning their marketing strategy now, and they are seeing a lot of confusion about what the 24 books are. They are trying to convince people this is the same game they know and love, but in this printing of the books, we're taking an opportunity to fix 10 years of design SNAFUs. They are basically trying to assure us that you can continue to buy with confidence and you are not obligated to buy the updated books to play 5e in the future.

 

[Parmandur]

I think the people who play confused have caused a lot of harm now. We could have gotten a real cool new version. I guess that is over...

I hate the internet. I wish WotC had just dropped the bomb and release an aniversary edition and see how it went.

Maybe they release a companion book with more drastical changes in the near futute. One can hope.

Gosh, no, that would be a foolish way ro approach change.

 

[mamba]

Then they should stop signal boosting the issue by acknowledging it constantly.

they keep communicating what 1DD is, that you prefer to ignore that and cause a mess instead is not on WotC.

What are they supposed to do? Not say anything and let the ‘crazies’ create the only narrative?

 

[HammerMan]

Finally I also think there are folks that are not arguing in good faith. Not many thankfully.

Wouldn’t be an enworld article submission without someone insulting people who disagree by pretending they are lying. (You know but not many)

 

[HammerMan]

I wish they would ask "Tell us what changes breaks compatibility for you and why".

I further wish people would approach this in that way.

Loseing pact magic
Rewriting bard inspiration
Changing spell lists (although mostly this is bard and Druid/ranger issues… but also makes wizard less unique)
Removing subclass choices.