Olaf the Stout
Legend
I can't comment on the Beastmaster Ranger, as I haven't played 5E yet, but I'd be happy enough for them to put the better version in the Basic Rules for now, rather than a new splatbook or a new PHB.
D&D 5E Would you rebuy all the books if they were updated?
- Thread starter Thank Dog
- Start date
I can't comment on the Beastmaster Ranger, as I haven't played 5E yet, but I'd be happy enough for them to put the better version in the Basic Rules for now, rather than a new splatbook or a new PHB.
Zaran
Adventurer
That's another way of saying having an Errata pdf though. A lot of people think having Errata makes the game subpar. I'm cool with putting it in the Basic rules as long as they don't keep reprinting the errors in the Core book.
Mercurius
Legend
The general answer is yes, partially because I approve of the "living edition" concept. I mean the simple fact of the matter is that "fit shappens" - no edition is born perfect and new ideas and issues come up. How to incorporate that? Errata is one thing, but that's mainly typos and rules clarifications - easily incorporated into future printings. But what about things like an improved Beastmaster Ranger? They can either offer it as a free download, in Dragon (if that will exist), in a splat (which they're not going to do many of), in Basic D&D, etc.
But we must be honest - at some point there are going to be enough small and moderate changes and additions to warrant a "revised edition," at least of the Player's Handbook.
Now if we assume that major, structural changes will be held off until a new edition, and that the general goal is for an edition to last about a decade, then I could see one, maybe two, moderate revisions before 6E arrives. So a revised PHB in 2017 or so, which includes errata and moderate changes like improved sub-classes, maybe one or two sections expanded or improved upon, but no new math or structural changes, and perhaps no new art beyond a new cover and halfling. Then some kind of "PHB 2" or Unearthed Arcana which might offer variants and new approaches in 2022 or so, that could also preview 6E in ~2025.
I'm also wondering if Mearls is under the (probably deluded) perception that 5E is the "edition to end all editions" and that further updates and revisions will just be that, and that we'll "never" see a new edition of the game. Certainly 5E was designed as sort of the "classic-yet-new" edition of D&D, both hearkening back tonally to TSR but with a 21st century, WotCian streamlined rules system. But at some point we're going to see 6E, even if they find a way not to call it that. The first revision will be called something between 5.2 and 5.5 by fans, and then a possible next 5.6 to 5.8--or maybe we'll have yearly small changes and get into the habit of saying 5.1, 5.2, etc--and then WotC (or whoever owns D&D 10-15 years from now) will offer a new version of the game that breaks the continuity enough to warrant it being considered a new edition. It is inevitable.
As a side note, it actually could be that 5E is the last official, traditional form of D&D, and that any future print versions will be variations and customizations, but that the next version of D&D will be more focused online or in a virtual space. A lot can happen with technology in the next 10-15 years.
I think as long as there are Gen Xers playing, there will be some demand for print books. But at some point the demand will lag behind the cost, and it won't be worth it. Or D&D could be released fully to the public domain in 2025, and we'll see a slew of fantasy heartbreakers and variants. Imagine that. But the point is, it is hard to speculate beyond the next 5-10 years.
This is either hyperbole or simply you conflated your own experience with everyone's experience. I mean, I agree that the PHB had issues and I ended up not using it much beyond 2010 or so, but that was mainly because of DDI, and secondarily because the Rules Compendium was so damn useful for rules reference at the table. A couple of my players still used their PHBs for character creation, but most used DDI. But the PHB wasn't completely "worthless." But this might have to do with the fact that our group wasn't super concerned about rules minutiae.
This is a tad rigid, don't you think? This follows a "you're either with us, or against us" mentality - and I think dooms you for disappointment and nerdrage because it is simply unrealistic to expect that there won't be some kind of revision, even if it is only "errata plus," which will probably be interpreted by you--based upon your post--as 5.1. In other words, it sounds like you've already decided to be mad at WotC.
I've been wondering if, or rather how, 5E will distance a segment of the community, as it seems like an inevitability with every new edition, but also that WotC has done a terrific job of minimizing collateral damage. Maybe what you're describing here is is a preview of how 5E will distance some fans?
Ahh, memories of 1983. I just had a flashback to pulling my Deities & Demigods out of my backpack during recess and pouring over it with friends. Those were the days.
But we must be honest - at some point there are going to be enough small and moderate changes and additions to warrant a "revised edition," at least of the Player's Handbook.
Now if we assume that major, structural changes will be held off until a new edition, and that the general goal is for an edition to last about a decade, then I could see one, maybe two, moderate revisions before 6E arrives. So a revised PHB in 2017 or so, which includes errata and moderate changes like improved sub-classes, maybe one or two sections expanded or improved upon, but no new math or structural changes, and perhaps no new art beyond a new cover and halfling. Then some kind of "PHB 2" or Unearthed Arcana which might offer variants and new approaches in 2022 or so, that could also preview 6E in ~2025.
I'm also wondering if Mearls is under the (probably deluded) perception that 5E is the "edition to end all editions" and that further updates and revisions will just be that, and that we'll "never" see a new edition of the game. Certainly 5E was designed as sort of the "classic-yet-new" edition of D&D, both hearkening back tonally to TSR but with a 21st century, WotCian streamlined rules system. But at some point we're going to see 6E, even if they find a way not to call it that. The first revision will be called something between 5.2 and 5.5 by fans, and then a possible next 5.6 to 5.8--or maybe we'll have yearly small changes and get into the habit of saying 5.1, 5.2, etc--and then WotC (or whoever owns D&D 10-15 years from now) will offer a new version of the game that breaks the continuity enough to warrant it being considered a new edition. It is inevitable.
As a side note, it actually could be that 5E is the last official, traditional form of D&D, and that any future print versions will be variations and customizations, but that the next version of D&D will be more focused online or in a virtual space. A lot can happen with technology in the next 10-15 years.
I think as long as there are Gen Xers playing, there will be some demand for print books. But at some point the demand will lag behind the cost, and it won't be worth it. Or D&D could be released fully to the public domain in 2025, and we'll see a slew of fantasy heartbreakers and variants. Imagine that. But the point is, it is hard to speculate beyond the next 5-10 years.
This is either hyperbole or simply you conflated your own experience with everyone's experience. I mean, I agree that the PHB had issues and I ended up not using it much beyond 2010 or so, but that was mainly because of DDI, and secondarily because the Rules Compendium was so damn useful for rules reference at the table. A couple of my players still used their PHBs for character creation, but most used DDI. But the PHB wasn't completely "worthless." But this might have to do with the fact that our group wasn't super concerned about rules minutiae.
This is a tad rigid, don't you think? This follows a "you're either with us, or against us" mentality - and I think dooms you for disappointment and nerdrage because it is simply unrealistic to expect that there won't be some kind of revision, even if it is only "errata plus," which will probably be interpreted by you--based upon your post--as 5.1. In other words, it sounds like you've already decided to be mad at WotC.
I've been wondering if, or rather how, 5E will distance a segment of the community, as it seems like an inevitability with every new edition, but also that WotC has done a terrific job of minimizing collateral damage. Maybe what you're describing here is is a preview of how 5E will distance some fans?
Ahh, memories of 1983. I just had a flashback to pulling my Deities & Demigods out of my backpack during recess and pouring over it with friends. Those were the days.
Last edited:
I'd honestly be OK with that.
I got excited for 3e because I was tired of 2e and thought that more rules was a good thing but it came with a lot of problems as well which turned me off it. I got excited for 4e because I thought that more consistent, streamlined rules and combat options was a good thing, but again it came with a lot of problems which eventually turned me off it. And I am now excited that 5e has both of these things but seemingly without the pitfalls and flaws of either. If 5e can maintain that balance, somehow, then I honestly won't be interested in another edition. At the same time, I would like to see it be revised for errors or any major issues that crop up.
Plus, I've mainly DM'd and I've found that having a spare copy of a PHB is always a good thing. If the old version can still be used as a reference but with some errata stuck in the back, then it can still be used at the table. Whereas I'm happy to have the updated copy as a primary rules source.
As for online or digital tools, I think that things like tablets need to come down in price before they're adopted by every table. I can't justify the massive expense of an iPad or even a laptop when it's only use would be at the table.
Really great points. Some thoughts:
1) Given D&D's standing within Hasbro it may be that 5e really is at risk of being the last D&D ever. And telling the design team to write "the edition to end all editions" seems like a really great goal -- I mean, why shoot for anything less?
2) 10-15 years seems like a healthy time frame for 6e. The modular nature of 5e should allow it to survive on expansions, errata, and revisions until then.
3) Savage Worlds has been around for 11 years and seen like 4 editions, and the fans love it. Why? Because the changes are minor -- your old supplements and adventures still "work" with minimal conversion. Also, the core book is $10. D&D may never be that cheap, but if the new edition came as part of your Dungeonscape subscription...?
Nivenus
First Post
I feel like rules updates should be treated like patches: free and an expected component of customer service.
Now, obviously, some rules updates are larger than others. In some cases, a substantial rewriting of the core rulebooks may be in order. But that hardly seems to be the norm and I think most rules changes can be handled through online updates and errata documents.
Were a 5.5e to come out, I would definitely hesitate before purchasing the core rulebooks. The PHB, DMG, and MM aren't cheap as it is and I'm not too keen on repurchasing them after a couple of years. Basically, it would depend on how essential the rules changes turned out to be and how much difficulty my group would have adapting future material without them.
Now, obviously, some rules updates are larger than others. In some cases, a substantial rewriting of the core rulebooks may be in order. But that hardly seems to be the norm and I think most rules changes can be handled through online updates and errata documents.
Were a 5.5e to come out, I would definitely hesitate before purchasing the core rulebooks. The PHB, DMG, and MM aren't cheap as it is and I'm not too keen on repurchasing them after a couple of years. Basically, it would depend on how essential the rules changes turned out to be and how much difficulty my group would have adapting future material without them.
Authweight
First Post
I would, provided I was actively playing the game at the time, and I thought the edits were decent. I like buying new rpg books, and I like well-polished rules.
In fact, in my perfect world there would be a new serious update roughly similar to 3.0 to 3.5 about once a year. I think the rules for every edition of d&d have been far away from perfect, and if they focused on incremental improvements every year instead of new content, the game would be much better for it. One thing I liked about 4e was the way it was a living game, with major updates, errata, etc fixing a lot of problems the game had. I want to see more of that moving forward.
In fact, in my perfect world there would be a new serious update roughly similar to 3.0 to 3.5 about once a year. I think the rules for every edition of d&d have been far away from perfect, and if they focused on incremental improvements every year instead of new content, the game would be much better for it. One thing I liked about 4e was the way it was a living game, with major updates, errata, etc fixing a lot of problems the game had. I want to see more of that moving forward.
hbarsquared
Quantum Chronomancer
A "5.5e" version similar to a 3.5e would be my absolute upper limit.
I would buy a revised PHB (naybe even MM and DMG) every two years if it included:
Corrected typos
Format issues
Rules clarifications
Even smll rules changes, based on actual in-play feedback.
At least ~30% new art
Any version with better halfling art
Partly, I have disposable income - granted. The other part, however, is that I genuinely enjoy giving my books away to prospective players/oblivious nerds/nine-year-olds. Our hobby is one of word-of-mouth, passing ancient knowledge from one elder to the younger, of tradition that shall not be forgot.
I would be more than happy to buy a revised version every 2-4 years, and hand my older, completely viable, copy to my co-worker's 12-year-old . Absolutely.
I would buy a revised PHB (naybe even MM and DMG) every two years if it included:
Corrected typos
Format issues
Rules clarifications
Even smll rules changes, based on actual in-play feedback.
At least ~30% new art
Any version with better halfling art
Partly, I have disposable income - granted. The other part, however, is that I genuinely enjoy giving my books away to prospective players/oblivious nerds/nine-year-olds. Our hobby is one of word-of-mouth, passing ancient knowledge from one elder to the younger, of tradition that shall not be forgot.
I would be more than happy to buy a revised version every 2-4 years, and hand my older, completely viable, copy to my co-worker's 12-year-old . Absolutely.
Mercule
Adventurer
I hope we don't see a splintering. I really do. It's probably worth clarifying that I'm not opposed to the game evolving. That's totally normal and should be expected. If I wanted 1E to be definitive, I wouldn't be excited about running a 5E game.
What I'm opposed to is unbounded drift within an edition, for lack of a better way of putting it. What actually constitutes "an edition"? In D&D, it would seem to be the PHB, MM, and DMG. You can tack on a psionics book or a book of fighter kits, whatever, but those aren't really foundational. The big three books are the edition. If they change, you're playing a new edition. There's some gray in there: if they patched up the beastmaster ranger and did a 5E Revised PHB, I could live with it. If they did that in 2016 and then patched wild sorcerers in a 2018 PHB Rev 2, that would be annoying. Likewise, if every class got tweaked for the PHB Rev 1, it would be substantive drift and could warrant a new edition.
Where's the line? I don't know. I sound inflexible because I'm extremely cautious about throwing the door wide. I don't want something that requires constant "patching". I also want to be able to give a straight-forward answer if asked what edition I play. If there's a range of RAW for 5E, it's no better than not telling a new player what my house rules are. I expect them to be able to show up with a PHB labeled for 5E and just go to town. It's the willingness to put me in that position that I consider unprofessional. If there's that much wrong with the system, just increment the edition, already. If not, then hold your horses and/or put it in a splat book or Dragon (I used to love all the odd "fixes", classes, and options that were published in the Dragon of the 1980s).
I guess I'm also getting a bit fatigued by the scope of change between editions. I could use 1E and 2E sources more-or-less interchangeably. 3E wasn't 100% compatible, but I accepted that the game needed to "modernize". 4E was almost 180 from the changes made in 3E and maybe more extreme. 5E is closer to the roots, but still fundamentally different, in some ways. I don't want any more new systems, whole cloth.
I like 5E. It's not perfect and I'm sure it'll change. I just hope 6E looks as much like 5E as 2E did 1E, give or take. If that happens in 5 years, I'll buy it. If it's an ongoing, unnumbered revision, I'm out. If it's another radical change, I'm probably out, but I'll consider.
Mercurius
Legend
[MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION], I appreciate your candor (thus the XP!). I can understand how "edition drift" would be frustrating; I personally don't find it frustrating, but that's largely because I tend to take a rather loose approach to the rules.
I think we see an edition slightly differently. For instance, it sounds like you'd consider the Players Options phase of 2E to be a new edition, while I wouldn't. Same with 3.5. I think a new Holy Trinity is one hallmark, but that backwards compatibility is at least as important. Of course then there's a range as to what people would consider compatible. I see it as whether or not a quick eyeball conversion is easily possible, like using the first 4E Monster Manual after improved math a couple years later.
Actually, that's a good example. With the 4E MM it was clear that the math wasn't good so WotC improved it. Is that edition drift? If so, isn't it necessary?
I think it just comes down to choosing between two problematic options: One, you keep the mechanics the same and let the game gradually topple and fall over, but deal with it until you create a new edition 8-10 years later. Two, you adjust things as you go, improving the game in little ways, and then revise the core rules every few years. I'd greatly prefer the latter.
I think we see an edition slightly differently. For instance, it sounds like you'd consider the Players Options phase of 2E to be a new edition, while I wouldn't. Same with 3.5. I think a new Holy Trinity is one hallmark, but that backwards compatibility is at least as important. Of course then there's a range as to what people would consider compatible. I see it as whether or not a quick eyeball conversion is easily possible, like using the first 4E Monster Manual after improved math a couple years later.
Actually, that's a good example. With the 4E MM it was clear that the math wasn't good so WotC improved it. Is that edition drift? If so, isn't it necessary?
I think it just comes down to choosing between two problematic options: One, you keep the mechanics the same and let the game gradually topple and fall over, but deal with it until you create a new edition 8-10 years later. Two, you adjust things as you go, improving the game in little ways, and then revise the core rules every few years. I'd greatly prefer the latter.
