# What do we call One D&D?



## hbarsquared (Aug 22, 2022)

With the first playtest document out for the next iteration of D&D, the most important question arises...

What do we call it?!?

There's also these important changes:

Capitalizing all rule names
Defining a d20 Test
Calling out "Repeatable" in every Feat
No half-races
No background "Features"
Only 3 spell lists
3 starting languages
Critical auto-success/failure on skill checks
Improvised now = furniture
Tool + Skill Proficiency grants Advantage
To name a few...


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 22, 2022)

D-Bone.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 22, 2022)

It's D&D 5.5.  I'm not going to call it the gimmicky name they came up with.


----------



## Stormonu (Aug 22, 2022)

6E.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 22, 2022)

5.5 really


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 22, 2022)

Yeah, it's 5.5e. Call a spade a spade. It's a revision of a previous ruleset, rather than a whole new ruleset attempting to do the same thing.


----------



## bedir than (Aug 22, 2022)

It's also still just the project codename to unify their print, digital and VTT under an updated version of 5e.

One D&D isn't the final name


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It's D&D 5.5.  I'm not going to call it the gimmicky name they came up with.



To be fair, 3.5 was also a BS gimmicky name in 2003.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 22, 2022)

This is going to be just like when they tried to get us to call 5e D&D Next/ Just Plain D&D.

Fetch isn't going to happen, WotC.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> This is going to be just like when they tried to get us to call 5e D&D Next/ Just Plain D&D.
> 
> Fetch isn't going to happen, WotC.



I mean, outside of the Forum world, WotC mostly succeeded on having people just call 5E "D&D" plain and simple. If they keep the trade dress and logo, and keep on just calling it D&D...the can probably keep that up. Same as Monopoly or Settlers of Catan, despite Edition shifts for those games.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> To be fair, 3.5 was also a BS gimmicky name in 2003.



Hmm.  My friends and I never interpreted it as gimmicky.  It just seemed appropriate for something that was not quite a new edition and too different from the old one to really be compatible.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Hmm.  My friends and I never interpreted it as gimmicky.  It just seemed appropriate for something that was not quite a new edition and too different from the old one to really be compatible.



Trying to claim that it was "not quite a new edition" was the BS part, making a software patch analogy was the gimmick.


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 22, 2022)

6e isn't an option, oddly.  So, per Chris Perkins' request, it's D&D.  Or DND: Do Not Discuss (that we're rendering your 5e books obsolete).


----------



## Medic (Aug 22, 2022)

OD&D
One-D&D State
Done&Done
One D&D to Rule Them All
Dungeons & Dragons One Edition


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 22, 2022)

D&D76


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 22, 2022)

hbarsquared said:


> With the first playtest document out for the next iteration of D&D, the most important question arises...
> 
> What do we call it?!?
> 
> ...




Wait...

They've removed background features?


----------



## overgeeked (Aug 22, 2022)

It's either 5.5 or 6E. We won't know until it's officially released.


----------



## overgeeked (Aug 22, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> Wait...
> 
> They've removed background features?



They don't appear in the playtest packet. You get a feat instead.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 22, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> They don't appear in the playtest packet. You get a feat instead.




That's disappointing.

While, yes, I do think there should be a few more opportunities to select feats; I very much enjoyed background features being a distinct character-building step that functioned in its own way. 

I'm seeing a lot of reports that people "forget" their features. I believe that. But it's odd to me because I find a lot of the features to be interesting and useful.


----------



## overgeeked (Aug 22, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> That's disappointing.
> 
> While, yes, I do think there should be a few more opportunities to select feats; I very much enjoyed background features being a distinct character-building step that functioned in its own way.
> 
> I'm seeing a lot of reports that people "forget" their features. I believe that. But it's odd to me because I find a lot of the features to be interesting and useful.



As much as I liked the idea of features, they were so utterly varied in usefulness and power that they were a nightmare. So easy for the player and the referee to have wildly differing ideas of what they mean and how they're supposed to play out. Like noble. A lot of players seem to want it to be a universal mind control of peasants. A lot of referees simply banned it in response. Or the acolyte's free healing at a temple associated with your deity. Or the hermit's discovery. Or the outlander's free food. Neat idea, terrible implementation.


----------



## Azzy (Aug 22, 2022)

A playtest. That's all.

Once the playtest is over, the new books published, and we've had a good look at it, then you all can fight over the semantics of what the published rules should be called. Personally, I find it a rather pointless and unnecessary endeavor to define the the playtest as anything but a playtest.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 22, 2022)

I wish they just called it "5e 2", but that would have required acknowledging that 5e is called "5e" by everyone outside of WotC, who use the term but rarely.

5.5 seems like something 3.X veterans will gravitate towards but I wasn't part of that scene and unless everyone else gets on that bandwagon and the term becomes ubiquitous it has no draw to me. There is no clear reason, without the creators calling it that, to call it 5.5 rather than 5.1, 5.2, or any other software-style versioning other than that ".5" was nomenclature for 3.5. If the edition that comes after OneD&D also more rejiggering rather than the typical "whole new game masquerading as a new edition" model, then what is it supposed to be called? 5.5.5e?

I'll probably call it the 2024 edition when I need to distinguish it from 2014 5e.

Or I'll just call it wrong when it relates to a change I disagree with.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 22, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> That's disappointing.
> 
> While, yes, I do think there should be a few more opportunities to select feats; I very much enjoyed background features being a distinct character-building step that functioned in its own way.
> 
> I'm seeing a lot of reports that people "forget" their features. I believe that. But it's odd to me because I find a lot of the features to be interesting and useful.



Half of them seem to just amount to free room and board, of limited consequence after the early levels, and what I find is that because most of them are of very limited use those that could be of greater use (such as the Outlander's Wanderer feature) tend to get construed narrowly by most DMs to not be as useful as they could be.

I think they are a neat idea, but I also think they are a serious barrier to people being able to construct a custom background without having system mastery or a lot of time to spend. Background feats kind of are too, incidentally, but at least those end up rewarding the effort with a mechanically impactful ability rather than a ribbon ability meant to help you get into character.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, outside of the Forum world, WotC mostly succeeded on having people just call 5E "D&D" plain and simple. If they keep the trade dress and logo, and keep on just calling it D&D...the can probably keep that up. Same as Monopoly or Settlers of Catan, despite Edition shifts for those games.



I don't know. All the people in my gaming circle (none of which hang in any forum/Discord/Reddit/etc) call it either "la quinta" (the fifth) or "5e".


----------



## SakanaSensei (Aug 22, 2022)

1DnD, because a lowercase n is easier for my lazy tuchus to type!


----------



## delericho (Aug 22, 2022)

"One D&D" for their whole "three pillars" thing - the package of the new rules, D&D Beyond, and the VTT.

The rules by themselves? 5.5e.


----------



## Baldurs_Underdark (Aug 22, 2022)

This poll really should include "ONE D&D" as an option.

ONE D&D really doesn't feel that long. I had to press seven keys including the spacebar. (Eight if you included the shift for caps).


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, outside of the Forum world, WotC mostly succeeded on having people just call 5E "D&D" plain and simple. If they keep the trade dress and logo, and keep on just calling it D&D...the can probably keep that up. Same as Monopoly or Settlers of Catan, despite Edition shifts for those games.



People have always called the current edition of D&D just "D&D." Or like how _World of Warcraft_ is only referred to by its overall name most of the time--e.g. "Do you play WoW?"--even though the current expansion is always the most relevant part of the game. Same for any other MMO.

It is the brand that matters in most discussions.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Aug 22, 2022)

Can we call it *D&D 5.1e*? It's a new iteration of 5e and they want us to call it One D&D, so that kinda combines those...


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 22, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Can we call it *D&D 5.1e*? It's a new iteration of 5e and they want us to call it One D&D, so that kinda combines those...



I suppose that's a reasonable compromise.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 22, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> People have always called the current edition of D&D just "D&D." Or like how _World of Warcraft_ is only referred to by its overall name most of the time--e.g. "Do you play WoW?"--even though the current expansion is always the most relevant part of the game. Same for any other MMO.
> 
> It is the brand that matters in most discussions.



I mean sure, that's definitely WotC's approach, and it is not unrealistic for how newer players will interact with the game and how veterans refer to it most of the time.

But everyone whose been through more than one edition sometimes feels the need (in fact quite often feels the need), to distinguish editions. And everyone who hasn't been through multiple editions but tries to discuss D&D outside their D&D group soon runs into the question of "what edition are you playing?", particularly if they ask someone for rules help. I doubt "OneD&D" a marketing (and internal corporate strategy) term, geared towards the transition period into the semi-new edition is going to be the term of choice _in those situations where edition is specified_ long after that transition is complete.

It's unfortunate that D&D has so much baggage of using "edition" to mean "totally different sequel game only broadly connected to predecessors in mechanics" rather than what edition means with say, an academic book, where you expect it to mostly be the same content with some revisions and updates (ie: the thing they are making here). Otherwise we could just call this 6th edition (or more accurately 2nd edition of D&D Next or whatever the distinct game that is 5e D&D would be called in this alternative timeline).


----------



## aco175 (Aug 22, 2022)

I'll likely call it the *new playtest* or *5.5 playtest*.


----------



## FarBeyondC (Aug 22, 2022)

How have all of you missed the obvious answer?!

Clearly, the new version of D&D 5e should have but one name:

*D&D 360*

_I'll... see myself out._


----------



## Mind of tempest (Aug 22, 2022)

the future/present insanity


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 22, 2022)

FarBeyondC said:


> How have all of you missed the obvious answer?!
> 
> Clearly, the new version of D&D 5e should have but one name:
> 
> ...



Let's pull a 360 and get the hell out of here!


----------



## Cadence (Aug 22, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Can we call it *D&D 5.1e*? It's a new iteration of 5e and they want us to call it One D&D, so that kinda combines those...



Should it have a cute name with that like some programs and operating systems?

5.1 'Owlbear'
5.2 'Grippli'
etc...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 22, 2022)

OD&D
AD&D
2e
3e
3.5e
4e
5e
50e  (50th Anniversary)


----------



## Cadence (Aug 22, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> OD&D
> AD&D
> 2e
> 3e
> ...



 4eE doesn't need one?


----------



## Mezuka (Aug 22, 2022)

It's the 50th anniversary.

D&D Gold
D&D 50
D&D 2024 (sounds too much like a Blade Runner version :-D )


----------



## jgsugden (Aug 22, 2022)

For me, it will be 6E for a bit, and if they stick to the 'no more editions' rule long enough, I'll frobably stop referencing it as an edition.  However, that would likely be 2030 or later.

It seems to be close enough to 5E that you could call it 5.5E, but as it is a major turning point in the game, I'll call it 6E.


----------



## South by Southwest (Aug 22, 2022)

I vote for "Anniversary Edition;" from a sales perspective, I still say that's a really good name.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 22, 2022)

Cadence said:


> 4eE doesn't need one?




OD&D
OD&D'Sup
Basic
AD&D
B/X
1eUA
BECMI
2e
2eK
RC
3e
3.5e
3e9S
4e
4eE
5e
5eTC
50e


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 22, 2022)

GMMichael said:


> 6e isn't an option, oddly.  So, per Chris Perkins' request, it's D&D.  Or DND: Do Not Discuss (that we're rendering your 5e books obsolete).



None of the 5e books are obsolete (as of now at least). I will be able use any and all of them with the 2024 books and plan to do so.  What you are saying is just FUD.


----------



## Galandris (Aug 22, 2022)

I am using "compatible" since it's the main point they are emphasizing. There is no reason to assume, so far, that we need to _drop_ anything from the books we own. If you want to double your damage when sneak attacking, just say "I am doing a regular crit". If you don't, say "I am doing a compatible crit, so only weapon damage is rolled and added again." Simple, easy.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 22, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> None of the 5e books are obsolete (as of now at least). I will be able use any and all of them with the 2024 books and plan to do so.  What you are saying is just FUD.




By books, do you mean modules and supplements, or all three of the core three too?


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 22, 2022)

Cadence said:


> By books, do you mean modules and supplements, or all three of the core three too?



I mean all of them. There will be changes in the 2024, but I can mix and match them just like I do for our houserules.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 22, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> I mean all of them. There will be changes in the 2024, but I can mix and match them just like I do for our houserules.



I missed the emphasis on what "you"  would be able to do in the games you run.  I was picturing a random group of players and DMs getting together.

I'm imagining many folks on EN will navigate fine and smoothly.  I'm wondering how long the conversion document for others will be when it's all out.  If it's essentially an  "add a feat at level 1", "don't double dip starting ASI",  and "auto success on 20, auto fail on 1" sticker that gets slapped on the old PHB then it doesn't feel like it will be hard for anyone.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, outside of the Forum world,



...and at least the release video where even they were using 'The 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons' freely.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 22, 2022)

From what we've seen so far, they are clearly describing D&D 5.5E.  (Or a house-ruled 5E...but that's not a poll option.)


----------



## Baumi (Aug 22, 2022)

I voted 5.5 but I really like the Anniversary Idea, because of the 10 Year 5E and 50 Years DnD .. so DnD 5A would be awesome.

DnD 5.1 would be fitting, but I think One DnD will not stick when the finished Version is out.

ODnD is a no go, that is Reserved for the Original DnD.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I mean sure, that's definitely WotC's approach, and it is not unrealistic for how newer players will interact with the game and how veterans refer to it most of the time.
> 
> But everyone whose been through more than one edition sometimes feels the need (in fact quite often feels the need), to distinguish editions. And everyone who hasn't been through multiple editions but tries to discuss D&D outside their D&D group soon runs into the question of "what edition are you playing?", particularly if they ask someone for rules help. I doubt "OneD&D" a marketing (and internal corporate strategy) term, geared towards the transition period into the semi-new edition is going to be the term of choice _in those situations where edition is specified_ long after that transition is complete.
> 
> It's unfortunate that D&D has so much baggage of using "edition" to mean "totally different sequel game only broadly connected to predecessors in mechanics" rather than what edition means with say, an academic book, where you expect it to mostly be the same content with some revisions and updates (ie: the thing they are making here). Otherwise we could just call this 6th edition (or more accurately 2nd edition of D&D Next or whatever the distinct game that is 5e D&D would be called in this alternative timeline).



I agree 100%


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Cadence said:


> I missed the emphasis on what "you"  would be able to do in the games you run.  I was picturing a random group of players and DMs getting together.
> 
> I'm imagining many folks on EN will navigate fine and smoothly.  I'm wondering how long the conversion document for others will be when it's all out.  If it's essentially an  "add a feat at level 1", "don't double dip starting ASI",  and "auto success on 20, auto fail on 1" sticker that gets slapped on the old PHB then it doesn't feel like it will be hard for anyone.



Based on the UA, they might include those conversion documents in the PHB and DMG directly, as sidebars.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Aug 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It's D&D 5.5.  I'm not going to call it the gimmicky name they came up with.



That is just the play test, they have and will continue to call Dungeons and Dragons


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 22, 2022)

Azzy said:


> A playtest. That's all.
> 
> Once the playtest is over, the new books published, and we've had a good look at it, then you all can fight over the semantics of what the published rules should be called. Personally*, I find it a rather pointless and unnecessary endeavor to define the the playtest as anything but a playtest.*



But..........................................that's so much less fun!


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> None of the 5e books are obsolete (as of now at least). I will be able use any and all of them with the 2024 books and plan to do so.  What you are saying is just FUD.



I feel like this is not going to be what you are saying 2024 lol.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I feel like this is not going to be what you are saying 2024 lol.



We already have a couple years of 1D&D stealth releases on hand, and...there haven't been any problems so far.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 22, 2022)

Galandris said:


> I am using "compatible" since it's the main point they are emphasizing.* There is no reason to assume*, so far, that we need to _drop_ anything from the books we own. If you want to double your damage when sneak attacking, just say "I am doing a regular crit". If you don't, say "I am doing a compatible crit, so only weapon damage is rolled and added again." Simple, easy.



There is one reason.  They said the same thing about 3e to 3.5 and it turned out not to be true.  The difference was too pronounced for backward compatibility.  To make 3e stuff work with 3.5 took a lot of work.  As much as making 2e stuff work with 3.5.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> There is one reason.  They said the same thing about 3e to 3.5 and it turned out not to be true.  The difference was too pronounced for backward compatibility.  To make 3e stuff work with 3.5 took a lot of work.  As much as making 2e stuff work with 3.5.



3.x lacked the modular system design at the core of 5E. It is very easy to unplug rule elements and replace them without disruption.


----------



## Lakesidefantasy (Aug 22, 2022)

Improvised now = furniture

What is this? What does it refer to?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> We already have a couple years of 1D&D stealth releases on hand, and...there haven't been any problems so far.



LOL. Let's see man, I just don't see it happening. The changes in this one thing alone are about as big as all the "stealth releases" imho.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 3.x lacked the modular system design at the core of 5E. It is very easy to unplug rule elements and replace them without disruption.



5E isn't modularly designed.

It was initially proposed that it would be, but that wasn't actually followed through. So this isn't the case. It has modular elements (like Feats), but we're not talking about a system like FUZION where it's fundamentally modular.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL. Let's see man, I just don't see it happening. The changes in this one thing alone are about as big as all the "stealth releases" imho.



This is the big test, though: per Crawford in the video, the further tests are going to be much smaller and more focused (probably mainly Classes, honestly, though he did say we would see more Feats).


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> 5E isn't modularly designed.
> 
> It was initially proposed that it would be, but that wasn't actually followed through. So this isn't the case. It has modular elements (like Feats), but we're not talking about a system like FUZION where it's fundamentally modular.



It is modular in that it is made up of elements that can plug in or out of the game. What they didn't deliver on was delivering a huge variety of modules, like 4E style material. They could have, but they didn't. You can remove the Race rules and replace them, and it doesn't break classes or Skills. That's modularity.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Based on the UA, they might include those conversion documents in the PHB and DMG directly, as sidebars.




Having many of them scattered throughout feels really inelegant to me (with it getting worse as time goes on).  I can see the one about only getting 1st level ASIs from one source though.  

Having them put something up front (like B/X did about Basic) seems good to me.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 3.x lacked the modular system design at the core of 5E. It is very easy to unplug rule elements and replace them without disruption.



I disagree.  5e is modular only in that it has optional rules in the DMG that you can use.  This is no different from the 3.5 UA that was released with options.  And had 3e had a UA, there would have been options for that as well.  Yet 3.5 wasn't compatible with 3e.  

I'm not going to believe WotC on the compatibility issue until I see the final product and can assess myself.  They failed to deliver on this promise once already.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I disagree.  5e is modular only in that it has optional rules in the DMG that you can use.  This is no different from the 3.5 UA that was released with options.  And had 3e had a UA, there would have been options for that as well.  Yet 3.5 wasn't compatible with 3e.
> 
> I'm not going to believe WotC on the compatibility issue until I see the final product and can assess myself.  They failed to deliver on this promise once already.



The modularity is in the ability of the system math to allow for elements to be replaced or added. Even Adventure modules in the game have added entire rules systems handily.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Aug 22, 2022)

DnDone
ODD
5.5e
6e

Either I call it what it really is, or I call it something which mocks their marketing buzzword name.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> You can remove the Race rules and replace them, and it doesn't break classes or Skills. That's modularity.



Yeah, but I think in analysis of the proposed 5E rules change we're already seeing breakdowns to modularity. For example, the change to Grappling rules means literally everything you can do to be good at Grappling right now, including class features seemingly designed for that (Barbarian STR check Advantage, for example) no longer function to do that. To fix this, they'd need to change the Barbarian to add say, applying Disadvantage to saves to break his Grapples during Rage.

That's showing how the combat rules in D&D are not modular. You can't change them without changing class rules.


Parmandur said:


> Even Adventure modules in the game have added entire rules systems handily.



This also happened in 2E, 3E, and 4E note. Do you need specific examples? 4E is particularly easy if so, because I refer you to my favourite 4E adventure, Blood Money by Logan Bonner.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah, but I think in analysis of the proposed 5E rules change we're already seeing breakdowns to modularity. For example, the change to Grappling rules means literally everything you can do to be good at Grappling right now, including class features seemingly designed for that (Barbarian STR check Advantage, for example) no longer function to do that. To fix this, they'd need to change the Barbarian to add say, applying Disadvantage to saves to break his Grapples during Rage.
> 
> That's showing how the combat rules in D&D are not modular. You can't change them without changing class rules.
> 
> This also happened in 2E, 3E, and 4E note. Do you need specific examples? 4E is particularly easy if so, because I refer you to my favourite 4E adventure, Blood Money by Logan Bonner.



Well, this is the test where they are going to measure if people want those changes. If they don't, roll 'em back. Either way, the Class redesigns can be based off of that, and they're already including "conversion documents" in sidebars.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Well, this is the test where they are going to measure if people want those changes. If they don't, roll 'em back. Either way, the Class redesigns can be based off of that, and they're already including "conversion documents" in sidebars.



Sure, but regardless of the ultimate fate of the grappling changes, my point re: modularity of the combat system stands. It's not modular. You cannot change or replace it without re-working classes.


----------



## Stormonu (Aug 22, 2022)

If I can't buy future supplements or adventures without doing a bunch of conversions, I'll be calling it THE END.

For now, I'm sticking with 6E because like 1E -> 2E, it looks like it is going to be a consolidation + update with all-new "Core" books, but you can still "grandfather" what you want into it.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Stormonu said:


> If I can't buy future supplements or adventures without doing a bunch of conversions, I'll be calling it THE END.
> 
> For now, I'm sticking with 6E because like 1E -> 2E, it looks like it is going to be a consolidation + update with all-new "Core" books, but you can still "grandfather" what you want into it.



Yeah, that does seem to be one of their central design goals.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I feel like this is not going to be what you are saying 2024 lol.



Not likely me personally, buy maybe others.  All books are a kit-of-parts for out home game. So we will use whatever we want from any 5e book.  I mean, I seriously doubt the 2024 books will depart as much as LevelUp did from 2014 5e, but I still use my LevelUp books right along side of my 2014 books.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 22, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> DnDone
> ODD
> 5.5e
> 6e
> ...



How do you know what something really is when it doesn't exist yet?


----------



## Lakesidefantasy (Aug 22, 2022)

@hbarsquared 

Improvised now = furniture

No, really! What is this? I need to know...now!


----------



## Negflar2099 (Aug 22, 2022)

I voted OD&D just because I would pronounce it Oh D&D, as in oh D&D there you go again starting edition wars.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 3.x lacked the modular system design at the core of 5E. It is very easy to unplug rule elements and replace them without disruption.



You say that, but PF1 made a fair number of modular design changes to the 3e engine for how many years? Pretty impressive for a game built on broken math and busted classes. 



Parmandur said:


> It is modular in that it is made up of elements that can plug in or out of the game. What they didn't deliver on was delivering a huge variety of modules, like 4E style material. They could have, but they didn't.* You can remove the Race rules and replace them, and it doesn't break classes or Skills. That's modularity.*



I'm not sure how this doesn't equally apply to 3e?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 22, 2022)

Medic said:


> Done&Done



Done&Donner


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> You say that, but PF1 made a fair number of modular design changes to the 3e engine for how many years? Pretty impressive for a game built on broken math and busted classes.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how this doesn't equally apply to 3e?



Well, sure, obviously, we did it. But they didn't design 3E with that in mind. 5E, they did from the start.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 22, 2022)

Currently, I'm referring to it as "6th edition." If it proves to be mostly backwards compatible but replacing the existing books,  I'll call it 5.5.
If it ends up being something that can be added as options (like Essentials was to 4e), then I'll find something else (maybe "NewCore?")


----------

