| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Aug 2022 : 23:41:26
|
https://www.dndbeyond.com/one-dnd
quote:
One D&D is the codename for the future of D&D and includes:
D&D Rules: We’re updating and expanding the rules of the game, and we’re looking for your feedback to help shape them.
D&D Beyond: The digital toolset joined the Wizards of the Coast family in 2022, and we want to make it even better.
Digital D&D Play Experience: Announced during Wizards Presents, D&D Digital is an immersive tabletop space that is in early development.
One D&D will take what we love from fifth edition and create an experience that is not only backwards compatible with the adventures and supplements you enjoy today but that will evolve the game for years to come. You’ll see updates to just about every facet of the game, from player classes to backgrounds and even to how we lay out books and present game information. Our goal is to improve on everything that has made D&D the best tabletop roleplaying game in the world. That’s where you come in.
The One D&D rules are in playtesting, with new books slated for release in 2024. Until then, we’ll drop new materials from them for you to dig into, roll with at your table, and turn inside-out at your local gaming store. We want to hear what you think so that we can make One D&D a critical success.
I guess Mystra's going to get nuked again...
Edit: Renaming the topic, to reflect that there's now a lot of chatter about the draconian new contract with Asmodeus GSL OGL.
Edit 2: Renaming the topic again, since WotC appears to have given up on getting rid of the OGL.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 27 Jan 2023 22:31:12
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2022 : 23:47:35
|
| Nah, they dropped the FR metaplot years ago. They'll just implement the changes to the races' lore and that will be it, lore-wise. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
 |
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 00:37:00
|
| Well, there is going to be a Phandelver Campaign, so, there is some form of metaplot. But maybe is just 5e's watered-down metaplot. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 00:45:21
|
Got the PDF. I think the changes are interesting. Races don't change stats but your background does, and that is customizable. Humans are basically back to their 3e/4e roots (extra Skill, bonus feat) so....yay! (Yes, I'm aware of the variant human). Dwarves also get Tremorsense with their Stonecunning which I think is cool.
Feats are eh? Ok or basically like they were before but now with level requirements (none above 1st thus far) |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 01:11:54
|
Interesting, it appears I can not participate because I do not have a google account.
Oh I could make a gmail account, however see no good reason to at this time. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 02:31:03
|
| So is this the end of settings? |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 02:40:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, there is going to be a Phandelver Campaign, so, there is some form of metaplot. But maybe is just 5e's watered-down metaplot.
By metaplot I mean large sweeping events that affect the whole world, or big parts or aspects of it. An introductory campaign (and in Phandelver again) doesn't really fit the bill. Looks like era of the metaplot events is indeed over, and maybe for the better. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 02:48:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
So is this the end of settings?
Looks like the setting are here to stay, but they'll probably be treated the same as they're already being treated. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 03:09:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
So is this the end of settings?
Well the Vid I watched indicated the new rules will be compatible an entire decade backward, so the settings should still exist/ At least anything that recent.
I did not hear any discussion about future of settings, the play testing might be what determines what the future holds. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 06:05:35
|
6E is getting kinda silly, I think.
Publishing ongoing editions for reference works - like, say, dictionaries or technical manuals - is sensible. Since the whole value of the work is the relevance of information it contains, need to include recent things, need to discard obsolete things.
But publishing yet another iteration of a game which has always been quite playable seems senseless. Just one more variation of dead/resurrected Mystra and one more generation of distance from the "old stuffy" game editions it was all built on top of.
I've always argued that rules-edition and setting-edition should be separated things. Mix and match whichever combo you prefer.
But then again, Wizbro seems to still be avoiding the bankruptcy they deserve so I guess they must know what they're doing. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 12:02:13
|
| The main premise behind One D&D is to get away from "editions" and instead have a basic rule set that can be updated as time goes on by specific book releases. Patches instead of updates. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 12:15:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
The main premise behind One D&D is to get away from "editions" and instead have a basic rule set that can be updated as time goes on by specific book releases. Patches instead of updates.
That was also the plan for what became known as 4th Edition.
We do know how well those plans went. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 16:30:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
The main premise behind One D&D is to get away from "editions" and instead have a basic rule set that can be updated as time goes on by specific book releases. Patches instead of updates.
That was also the plan for what became known as 4th Edition.
We do know how well those plans went.
Oh yes, we do. I love that there are a number of DMs and such on youtube that have spent the last 6 months telling everyone that there is no "next edition" coming because 5th edition is so popular and Hasbro/WotC wouldn't do that to their fans.  |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 16:32:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
The main premise behind One D&D is to get away from "editions" and instead have a basic rule set that can be updated as time goes on by specific book releases. Patches instead of updates.
5e was based on that very idea, an evergreen game and whatever other cool words they used for its marketing. It was said to be the D&D that would get away from editions, aid all playstyles, and so on... But it didn't. It doesn't aid all playstyles (but that's a problem with D&D being mostly about combat), it didn't get away from editions, and so on.
Thing is, WotC need to sell books. Once their main audience is satisfied with the amount of supplements they own and starts buying less books, WotC will kick in a new edition.
Maybe they'll just make slight changes here and there, as to have 6e actually be easily compatible with 5e (or even be basically the same game with some reskins), but the point is that they will sell that as some groundbreaking edition-unifying miracle, as something that it isn't, to get people to buy the books.
These companies will never actually embrace a model that favors the customer, like the patch thingy, because it's not convenient to them. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 19 Aug 2022 16:35:03 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 18:18:10
|
quote:
The main premise behind One D&D is to get away from "editions" and instead have a basic rule set that can be updated as time goes on by specific book releases. Patches instead of updates.
quote:
5e was based on that very idea, an evergreen game and whatever other cool words they used for its marketing. It was said to be the D&D that would get away from editions, aid all playstyles, and so on... But it didn't. It doesn't aid all playstyles (but that's a problem with D&D being mostly about combat), it didn't get away from editions ...
One Edition To Rule Them All. Forever.
3E was initially marketed as having the same design goal. Look what happened.
4E was initially marketed as having the same design goal. Look what happened.
5E was initially marketed as having the same design goal. Look what happened.
6E is being marketed as having the same design goal. What do you expect we'll see this time? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 18:35:37
|
I guess I'm an oddball in that I'm not too bothered by this...
Heck, at least they didn't point-blank lie, this time, like they did with 4E. I recall a WotC staffer, back in the day, stating "there is no 4th edition." And then they announced a few months later that 4E was coming out and that they'd been playtesting it for 18 months.
For RPGs, rulebooks sell. You can only go so far on one ruleset before sales fall off, and for any company, having sales fall off is a bad thing.
Sure, you can do other stuff with RPGs -- sourcebooks, novels (sigh), computer/video games, merchandising -- but it's those main rulebooks that support everything else and keep the income going for the company.
So it really doesn't matter if it's been 10 years since the last major revision to the rules, or if it's coming out next week -- you know there's going to be another, and another behind that, and so on, as long as the game exists. Some day our grandkids will be shaking their heads as they watch their grandkids argue about various editions.
I've heard very little negative commentary about the 5E ruleset, so I'm wondering what all they intend to change. I worry it could be another 3E-4E shift, but even if it is, it doesn't have much impact on me -- I'm playing a AD&D 2E game now, and the last game before that was Pathfinder.
I'm more concerned about setting impact than anything else.
With their claims of backward compatibility, though, there isn't likely to be a lot of impact (though it does bring those obelisks to mind).
Besides, the setting support we have right now is negligible, at best, and I am of the opinion that the current design team is interested in doing the least amount of work possible for a setting. This is backed up by a lot of things, including the recent Spelljammer release.
So there's not likely to be much that changes for the Realms. That would require work. This also makes it unlikely, however, that we'll get even as much of a setting book as the SCAG was. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 19 Aug 2022 18:38:17 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 18:47:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I guess I'm an oddball in that I'm not too bothered by this...
Heck, at least they didn't point-blank lie, this time, like they did with 4E. I recall a WotC staffer, back in the day, stating "there is no 4th edition." And then they announced a few months later that 4E was coming out and that they'd been playtesting it for 18 months.
For RPGs, rulebooks sell. You can only go so far on one ruleset before sales fall off, and for any company, having sales fall off is a bad thing.
Sure, you can do other stuff with RPGs -- sourcebooks, novels (sigh), computer/video games, merchandising -- but it's those main rulebooks that support everything else and keep the income going for the company.
So it really doesn't matter if it's been 10 years since the last major revision to the rules, or if it's coming out next week -- you know there's going to be another, and another behind that, and so on, as long as the game exists. Some day our grandkids will be shaking their heads as they watch their grandkids argue about various editions.
I've heard very little negative commentary about the 5E ruleset, so I'm wondering what all they intend to change. I worry it could be another 3E-4E shift, but even if it is, it doesn't have much impact on me -- I'm playing a AD&D 2E game now, and the last game before that was Pathfinder.
I'm more concerned about setting impact than anything else.
With their claims of backward compatibility, though, there isn't likely to be a lot of impact (though it does bring those obelisks to mind).
Besides, the setting support we have right now is negligible, at best, and I am of the opinion that the current design team is interested in doing the least amount of work possible for a setting. This is backed up by a lot of things, including the recent Spelljammer release.
So there's not likely to be much that changes for the Realms. That would require work. This also makes it unlikely, however, that we'll get even as much of a setting book as the SCAG was.
I remember being at GenCon as they had a countdown timer going on all their internets, claiming that it was NOT a new edition. Then it hit 0 and they announced the new edition. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 19:27:58
|
I don't mind that they keep publishing new editions. For my money they have all progressively gotten worse since 2E :P
My problem is that they are so uncreative, they just publish the same base material, re-written with rules changes. The old D&D had like 20 writers who wrote dozens of books, each with hundreds of new ideas. Now they have like 50 writers and editors and can't even write 1 new book. Just look at the MCs over the years. Same monsters over and over. Ohh I know, we'll do the same monsters, but now they will be demonic and a little meaner - people will buy that! Or how about we call things "Aberations" if they seem like weird monsters! Genius. It blows my mind that they are surprised they have sales issues. |
|
|
|
ericlboyd
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
2067 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 22:43:00
|
You need to buy a Player's Handbook every five years. That's been true since the late 70s. Whenever you go longer before buying your next PHB, D&D sales lag. If they have to change the edition to force you to do it, so be it.
--Eric |
--
http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/ |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2022 : 23:26:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've heard very little negative commentary about the 5E ruleset, so I'm wondering what all they intend to change. I worry it could be another 3E-4E shift, but even if it is, it doesn't have much impact on me -- I'm playing a AD&D 2E game now, and the last game before that was Pathfinder.
Going just from the PDF that was released, here are some changes that I saw:
• Races don't have attributes attached to them. So they get a slew of features from bonus feats to spell-like abilities when they hit certain levels. Some of these allow multiple use prior to taking a Long rest (see the Ardling, one who's ancestor is from the Upper Planes, so their version of the Aasimar/Deva, that can fly in a limited capacity).
• Attributes are associated with your Background and that's highly customizable. Really, from the PDF it's expected that most people will have custom backgrounds to put the +2 to one stat, +1 to another into their desired spots. They do have suggestions and sample ones - like the Soldier who gets +2 Strength, +1 Constitution or the Acolyte who gets +2 Wisdom, +1 Intelligence.
• Feats have level attachments. So far, the ones in the PDF are all 1st level and they have a Repeatable tag: meaning you can take it multiple times or not. Some of them also have Requirements but so far they all say None. I'm assuming that will change for others.
• The D20 Test. Here's one of the BIG Changes. Basically it describes that Ability Checks, Attacks, and Saves can "crit" or "fail" based on a natural 20 or 1 (respectively). This means should the DM say "You can shoot the moon with your arrow" and ascribe a DC 30 check, the player theoretically could achieve this with a nat. 20. Of course, I think that part is sorta stupid and I don't require checks unless a failure adds something to the game.
• Critical Hits. Another big change shows that only Player Characters can score Critical Hits and only with Weapon and Unarmed Strike attacks. So this means spells that target a monster (like Ray of Frost) have no added effects. It also describes that the "Weapon" damage die is doubled instead of all damage die. This is a HUGE nerf to your Paladin who can drop his smite on a Critical hit and double all the smite damage die.
• Spell Designation Changes. Spells are now either Arcane (accessed by your bards, sorcerers, wizards, warlocks), Divine (paladins and clerics) and Primal (druids and rangers).
• Grappled changed too. Initially it was a Strength Contest by the person trying to escape vs. the person holding him. Now it's a DC set by your Strength modifier + 8 + Proficiency bonus. So if an Orc with a Strength 18 and a +3 Proficiency bonus grapples the Wizard, the Wizard will need to make a Strength (Athletics) DC check of 15 to break free.
Some changes I like. The build your own Background vibes with how 13th Age does Skills, so simply adding where your +2/+1 bonuses go makes sense to me. Also, it sort of stops the meta of "well I'm a wizard so naturally High Elf's +1 Intelligence is a *must*." Instead it can be any race for the right background. An orc who picked up Wizardry in an old abandoned tower or actually applied to a college can work and not screw with stats. I also like the Grappled DC check. Makes things smoother and easier to do and less opposed rolls - which to me takes more time. I also like that Dwarves get Tremorsense with their Stonecunning ability! Also, I like that spells are divine, arcane, or primal (yay 4E-isms)
Some changes I don't like. Monsters not getting Critical Hits. To me, that's kinda dumb. Nat.20 always "wins" is also problematic, if you're in a group that the DM ascribes a d20 roll to really dumb or ridiculous things that make it really...whimsy. Not my cup of tea, but I can easily adjust for that or not include it.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
With their claims of backward compatibility, though, there isn't likely to be a lot of impact (though it does bring those obelisks to mind).
Going from the PDF, most of the stuff is pretty easy to incorporate. I'd say that the races sort of invalidate the PHB ones (such as the normal +1 to all stats Human) but that was already occurring with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything so meh there. I'm going to assume that there will be class changes too as things roll out. But I could take this PDF, add in the Backgrounds/Races and keep everything else in the PHB without little issues. |
Edited by - Diffan on 19 Aug 2022 23:27:09 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2022 : 02:22:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But I could take this PDF, add in the Backgrounds/Races and keep everything else in the PHB without little issues.
You can bet that WotC will provide these (and other) options in future publications. Some for free (as web content) and some for a price (at your local game & hobby store).
They invariably release a slew of rulebooks, splatbooks, and expansions with each edition. Stuff which seems better than the basic rules but also too complicated, specialized, or distracting to include in the basic rules. They don't design RPGs to just require a PHB, DMG, some monsters, and an adventure module - I don't think they ever did, to be honest - they design them to piecemeal a mixture of compelling and changing new content in every release. Every player wants the latest edge or advantage at the table. Every DM wants the "complete" set of references on his side of the screen. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2022 : 02:50:45
|
| ^ I mean, tha's obviously the whole point of their business. There's nothing inherently bad to it, but maybe, since they're investing more and more in vidoegames and other "big money" avenues, in the future they won't need to make a new edition every 5-8 years or so to get money. Maybe D&D will be merely backdrop/branding for more profitable sources of income. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2022 : 03:33:12
|
I wasn't trying to condemn WotC for selling such products. Many of us have eagerly purchased such products.
That is indeed the whole point of their business.
What I was attempting to criticize was their pattern of arbitrarily releasing new editions to stimulate these sales.
Do we really need a sixth edition on top of five previous editions? All of which are quite playable with little change. We have examples of "between editions" (2.5E, 3.5E, etc) which supplemented, expanded, and augmented core rulesets instead of entirely overwriting them.
I personally would've preferred "One D&D" decades ago, with all the subsequent publications devoted towards setting, characters, and lore instead of to reinventing corners on the same old spinning wheel. But sadly this was never meant to be in the real world.
quote:
You need to buy a Player's Handbook every five years. That's been true since the late 70s. Whenever you go longer before buying your next PHB, D&D sales lag. If they have to change the edition to force you to do it, so be it.
|
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2022 : 03:57:52
|
That depends on whom you ask. Personally, I don't need any D&D edition or supplement, but some people may need it (or at least think that they need it), some may believe that they don't need it but still want it. The thing is, how do you keep selling books without changing editions? I personally an't see an alternative to it, like it's their only option. WotC has a main audience, and once that audience is satisfied with the options they have for a given edition, they'll start buying less and less. How to make people buy more for the next 5-8 years? New edition.
As long as their main business is just TTRPG rules, this will remain a problem. Rules and story ideas aren't exactly the most sustainable business, because once people have a bunch of rules/options, they can feel like they have a foundation to come up with stuff themselves. Most people play their own settings and campaings, not WotC's stuff, that emerged from their own surveys. That's why WotC will eventually come to a point where they need to shake the rules up (or pretend they're making some significant renovation), so that people feel that they no longer have the base tools to build their own stuff, and will buy again.
This is why I said that since they're currently investing in other areas, like videogames, this might really be the last "new edition" we see, because after this it might be more profitable for WotC to spend their money on developing digital tabletops, new videogames, new movies, etc... That's assuming that their investments go well.
The point is: are there ways to keep reliably making money on TTRPG rules, without coming up with a new edition every so often? I could picture releasing versions of the rules geared towards different kind of settings or time periods (like "steampunk", "classic age", "sea exploration", "modern", etc...) and they have kinda done that, AFAIK, but even then you're eventually going to run out of things to publish. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 20 Aug 2022 04:00:02 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2022 : 08:30:39
|
Hard to answer the question.
Pathfinder and White Wolf had two core editions, decades apart.
They seem to be doing okay. Arguments could be made that Pathfinder consistently outperforms D&D.
Shadowrun and Earthdawn have seen many editions. They seem happy to follow D&D's pace.
They still have some diehards. But fewer and fewer every time I hear about them.
Palladium, Gurps, and the rest of those oldies each had basically "one" core edition, though they fragmented themselves across many alternate genres.
They were each formative entries which held strong for a time then basically faded away.
And then you have classic games like SWD6 and Cyberpunk which effectively "publish" more fan material every year than the originals ever printed. The official versions still exist, whatever editions they might be now, but nobody shows any interest in these products (aside from collectors who don't intend to ever unwrap the things). |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2022 : 14:05:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Hard to answer the question.
Pathfinder and White Wolf had two core editions, decades apart.
They seem to be doing okay. Arguments could be made that Pathfinder consistently outperforms D&D.
Shadowrun and Earthdawn have seen many editions. They seem happy to follow D&D's pace.
They still have some diehards. But fewer and fewer every time I hear about them.
Palladium, Gurps, and the rest of those oldies each had basically "one" core edition, though they fragmented themselves across many alternate genres.
They were each formative entries which held strong for a time then basically faded away.
And then you have classic games like SWD6 and Cyberpunk which effectively "publish" more fan material every year than the originals ever printed. The official versions still exist, whatever editions they might be now, but nobody shows any interest in these products (aside from collectors who don't intend to ever unwrap the things).
Pathfinder's first edition was a reskin of 3.5, where they didn't change much besides the setting. The second edition was a rebuild of everything, using their own rules they designed (although, they still have to use the OGL because of some basic mechanics from 3.5).
White Wolf seems to be having problems due to people associated with the games, so they did a recent relaunch of edition to distance themselves from those people.
Shadowrun... le sigh. I love the setting, but the editions have caused much heart-ache among the fans. And Earthdawn has just a weird history regarding the game and rules.
Would I love to see the games all have a single edition and never need updating (oh hi, BattleTech!)? I would, but the reason BattleTech's mech rules don't need updating is because they work perfectly for a stompy robot war game. RPG's are just tough, because you want unique rules that only your game uses, that cover the most they possibly can in regards to a gamer's imagination, and makes enough money on a regular basis that the designers don't have to look at the game as their second job. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2022 : 16:00:09
|
I was a huge BattleTech fan until the Jihad happened and then they went Dark Ages. I didn't touch anything BattleTech-related for years, after that. I'm slowly getting back into it now, but my interest is nowhere near what it once was. (And I'm sticking more with the Invasion-era stuff than the ilClan stuff)
I knew the Shadowrun rules had changed multiple times, but I have never been a part of that community, so I didn't know there was any issue there. I'm a huge fan of the setting, but I've only played a couple of times, and it was just demo games. (I've got a lot of the material, mostly 5E and 6E, though I've a couple of 4E sourcebooks, and even the original 1E rulebook and Virtual Realities, the latter of which I got for that awesome fiction that's in there)
Pathfinder actually was outperforming D&D for a while, when 4E was going on -- which to me said a lot about how well the 4E rules were received. No one had ever outperformed D&D, up until that point.
I think, though, that the way Pathfinder has avoided the "gotta have a new edition" thing is that they've kept up a steady flow of product -- especially the Adventure Paths. They're working to develop their setting, they're staying internally consistent and maintaining continuity, they're putting out solid products with good information and quality production -- and aside from the production, WotC's not doing any of those things. The people at Paizo clearly care about what they're doing and put some effort into it; as much as I hate to say it, I'm not convinced that this is the case at WotC. I'm certainly not convinced they're putting effort into it and would argue otherwise.
And Paizo's regular Adventure Paths are huge. WotC -- and TSR before them -- have done linked adventures, but the "here's an entire campaign" approach has been rare for them. Pathfinder's done two of them a year for years now, and that's while supporting a setting, putting out other adventures, and in general making sure DMs have all the material they need.
I think, more than anything else, it's the Adventure Paths that have kept Paizo from having to keep updating the rules. Giving players and DMs a pre-built campaign in a well-supported setting makes things easier on the DM and gives them more options, and that makes for happy players.
Plus, the playtesting for Pathfinder was a big deal -- to the point that WotC is now copying them (and did with 5E, too). When WotC playtested 4E, they kept it all secret (to the point of actively lying about it), used a small(ish) number of playtesters, and those playtesters were under an NDA to not say anything negative, publicly. Paizo, on the other hand, put the rules online, invited everyone who was interested to try them, and then listened to the feedback and made changes. You can't buy the kind of PR that generated.
(I know this makes me sound like a Paizo fanboi, and while I do like their stuff -- especially Pathfinder -- I'm actually more interested in Kobold Press stuff, at the moment) |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2022 : 03:44:35
|
Also, I'm hearing that WotC is going out of their way to say this isn't 6E, and that it's not even a new edition.
But when you talking about revising all the rules and printing new books to go with those revised rules, that sure sounds like a new edition to me. You can tell me it's not a duck, but if it walks like one and quacks like one... |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2022 : 12:15:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Also, I'm hearing that WotC is going out of their way to say this isn't 6E, and that it's not even a new edition.
But when you talking about revising all the rules and printing new books to go with those revised rules, that sure sounds like a new edition to me. You can tell me it's not a duck, but if it walks like one and quacks like one...
So by that measure, Revised 3rd Edition (aka 3.5) should've been 4th because they changed rules like spells, feats, class features, classes themselves and then printed books with those revised rules in them, thus invalidating "3.0" in the process. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2022 : 14:26:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Also, I'm hearing that WotC is going out of their way to say this isn't 6E, and that it's not even a new edition.
But when you talking about revising all the rules and printing new books to go with those revised rules, that sure sounds like a new edition to me. You can tell me it's not a duck, but if it walks like one and quacks like one...
So by that measure, Revised 3rd Edition (aka 3.5) should've been 4th because they changed rules like spells, feats, class features, classes themselves and then printed books with those revised rules in them, thus invalidating "3.0" in the process.
Technically, yes. The reason it was called 3.5 was because the base mechanics of the game weren't changed, just how some specific things worked. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2022 : 14:41:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Also, I'm hearing that WotC is going out of their way to say this isn't 6E, and that it's not even a new edition.
But when you talking about revising all the rules and printing new books to go with those revised rules, that sure sounds like a new edition to me. You can tell me it's not a duck, but if it walks like one and quacks like one...
So by that measure, Revised 3rd Edition (aka 3.5) should've been 4th because they changed rules like spells, feats, class features, classes themselves and then printed books with those revised rules in them, thus invalidating "3.0" in the process.
Technically, yes. The reason it was called 3.5 was because the base mechanics of the game weren't changed, just how some specific things worked.
So by all circumstances thus far, this should be considered 5.5 considering that the base mechanics - things like how Proficiency is scaled by level (+2 to +6), Saving Throws based on Ability Modifiers, the base DC of any check being 8 + Prof. + Mod, and assuming ASI's will still be equivalent to Feats - remain unchanged that we know of.
I'm merely pointing out the similarities from how 3.5 differed from 3.0 but was an "upgrade" and that this seems to be the direction they're going and should be too considered an "upgrade". |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"One D&D" is coming
