# WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."



## Iosue

This something I just have to get off my chest after watching too many D&D youtubers smugly saying, "WotC says it's not 6th Edition, but actually..."

In the RPG context, and particularly the D&D context, the word "edition" is a skunked term. It's skunking began with TSR's pretty drastic overhaul of the game in 1989, which probably should have been called something like "Revised Advanced Dungeons & Dragons", but no one knew at the time how tortured the term "edition" would become. WotC's initial strategy of planned obsolescence turned the word inside out. I can give them "3rd Edition", even though it was a good time to make a clean break with the "edition" terminology altogether. But "3.5" was a lexical abomination. By any normal definition of the term, 3.5 was really 4th Edition, but by combining the "edition" word with "version" numbers, the understanding of what an edition was became more and more muddied. Then 4th Edition came out, and the term was truly skunked. An edition was an entirely new game, not compatible with the one that came before it, an idea only reinforced with 5th Edition.

So now we come to the latest revision of the game. And there's confusion. No longer does "edition" have its straightforward publishing meaning of a new edit of an existing work; now it means "new ruleset." But does backwards compatibility mean it is 5.5? Is it 6th Edition? This by itself would be plenty of justification for abandoning the term "edition," but then there's the additional baggage the term brings from the "Edition Wars." Some of that baggage has been mitigated thanks to WotC releasing 5e and largely leaving it alone for eight years. But there's no benefit to bringing all of it back by grandly proclaiming "6th edition!"

Good-bye and good riddance to "edition" as some nebulous term of game design that only ever had any meaning as marketing pablum in the first place.


----------



## HammerMan

In D&D terms this is a new edition. 

If you want use version that’s fine too. This in a new set of rules.


----------



## Parmandur

Iosue said:


> This something I just have to get off my chest after watching too many D&D youtubers smugly saying, "WotC says it's not 6th Edition, but actually..."
> 
> In the RPG context, and particularly the D&D context, the word "edition" is a skunked term. It's skunking began with TSR's pretty drastic overhaul of the game in 1989, which probably should have been called something like "Revised Advanced Dungeons & Dragons", but no one knew at the time how tortured the term "edition" would become. WotC's initial strategy of planned obsolescence turned the word inside out. I can give them "3rd Edition", even though it was a good time to make a clean break with the "edition" terminology altogether. But "3.5" was a lexical abomination. By any normal definition of the term, 3.5 was really 4th Edition, but by combining the "edition" word with "version" numbers, the understanding of what an edition was became more and more muddied. Then 4th Edition came out, and the term was truly skunked. An edition was an entirely new game, not compatible with the one that came before it, an idea only reinforced with 5th Edition.
> 
> So now we come to the latest revision of the game. And there's confusion. No longer does "edition" have its straightforward publishing meaning of a new edit of an existing work; now it means "new ruleset." But does backwards compatibility mean it is 5.5? Is it 6th Edition? This by itself would be plenty of justification for abandoning the term "edition," but then there's the additional baggage the term brings from the "Edition Wars." Some of that baggage has been mitigated thanks to WotC releasing 5e and largely leaving it alone for eight years. But there's no benefit to bringing all of it back by grandly proclaiming "6th edition!"
> 
> Good-bye and good riddance to "edition" as some nebulous term of game design that only ever had any meaning as marketing pablum in the first place.



Absolutely to all of this. In any meaningful usage of the word, this is a new typical edition being worked on. But not a new _game_, which is what WotC tried to make the word mean (not that theybwrre consistent!). In reasonable terms, this is approximately the 15th Edition of D&D, including OD&D, the BD&D typical editions, 3.5, and 4E Essentials as what they are in publishing terms: distinct typical editions.


----------



## Parmandur

HammerMan said:


> In D&D terms this is a new edition.
> 
> If you want use version that’s fine too. This in a new set of rules.



That his point though, in D&D terms "Edition" is a skunked term that has no consistent meaning. They are avoiding it because it no longer has value for communicating information.


----------



## Sir Brennen

HammerMan said:


> In D&D terms this is a new edition.
> 
> If you want use version that’s fine too. This in a new set of rules.



But it's not an _entirely _new set of rules, just modifications of an existing one, with the intention of backwards compatibility.

3E, 4E and 5E _were_ entirely new sets of rules compared to their predecessors. So, should the term "edition" be equally applied to those instances as well as the final 2024 rules?


----------



## Parmandur

Sir Brennen said:


> But it's not an entirely new set of rules, just modifications of an existing one, with the intention of backwards compatability.
> 
> 3E, 4E and 5E were entir



We'll, we are getting a new DMG, PHB, and MM. Reasonably, thus is a new typical edition as the term "edition" means in publishing. Not a new game, though.


----------



## HammerMan

Sir Brennen said:


> But it's not an _entirely _new set of rules, just modifications of an existing one, with the intention of backwards compatibility.



Basic to 1e.  
1e to 2e 
3e to 3.5

5e to one d&d


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

I'm quite enjoying the idea that the desire by some not call this a new edition will eventually become an argument for there being only one edition of AD&D.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Parmandur said:


> We'll, we are getting a new DMG, PHB, and MM. Reasonably, thus is a new typical edition as the term "edition" means in publishing. Not a new game, though.



[You quoted me before I finished my post. My cat literally stepped on the keyboard and submitted before I was ready ]

Would you call reprints of a book that contains errata a new edition then?


----------



## Parmandur

Sir Brennen said:


> [You quoted me before I finished my post. My cat literally stepped on the keyboard and submitted before I was ready ]
> 
> Would you call reprints of a book that contains errata a new edition then?



No, that's a new printing: errata are changes applied to an established type-set when a new printing is issued. When a new type-set is made, that's a new edition. Which is why "3.5" was disingenuous corporate BS, it was a new type-set that was substantially rewritten and not the same type-set with minor corrections, that is, a new edition in normal publishing parlance.


----------



## Alzrius

Parmandur said:


> That his point though, in D&D terms "Edition" is a skunked term that has no consistent meaning. They are avoiding it because it no longer has value for communicating information.



I suspect WotC's avoidance of the term is more for economic reasons than issues of clarity.


----------



## Parmandur

Alzrius said:


> I suspect WotC's avoidance of the term is more for economic reasons than issues of clarity.



Well, it's primarily because using it doesn't work for marketing...primarily because it is meaningless and confusing, thanks largely to past WotC usage. It's a radioactive term now.


----------



## payn

It's not a horseless carriage, its a car!


----------



## Arilyn

It depends on the players though. 5e was also just supposed to be Dungeons and Dragons but 5e stuck. If enough people settle on calling it 5.5 or 6, WoTC will lose that battle.


----------



## MockingBird

Calling it a new edition could scare some people, I can see why they would want to avoid it. They don't want to fracture the player base and by looking at the playtest I'm afraid they may fracture it by some fraction (less than half). They had me sold with "compatability" but I'm starting to have my doubts.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Parmandur said:


> No, that's a new printing: errata are changes applied to an established type-set when a new printing is issued. When a new type-set is made, that's a new edition. Which is why "3.5" was disingenuous corporate BS, it was a new type-set that was substantially rewritten and not the same type-set with minor corrections, that is, a new edition in normal publishing parlance.



And I guess that's where the problem lies. Are we talking about "normal publishing parlance" or regarding changes in base rule sets?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

We could probably accept that this will be the (IIRC) _16th edition_ of D&D, but not that big of a change to the game this time. It might be changes that _you_ don't _want_, and that's okay! But how "big" it is is hardly worth arguing about (in particular because I don't think _anyone_, even the designers, know exactly how "big" it will be yet.

I think it depends on what they can get us to (seemingly) accept. Sure, they have a _plan_ about how big they want it to be. The playtest will not make the game for them. But anything that the community overall really cries foul about will be dropped for the extant 5e version of the rule. It's the safe way to go.

Of course, sometimes the community will cry foul about a change that would be really good for the game, but we'll have to live with that (again).


----------



## Oofta

I'm probably going to approach everything as an optional rule, and use what parts and pieces I want.  For example most half-anything are probably still going to be half orc* or half elf.  Others will probably be allowed if people really want them.  On the other hand I don't see adding ardlings that have animal heads any time soon.

Taking a wait-and-see stand on what the final rules are and what other changes they make.  I don't really have a problem moving stat bumps to background for example since I already let people use Tasha's.

So is it a new edition?  Time will tell, at most it sounds like (in software terms) 5.1 or 5.5 not 6.

_*most half orcs have a half orc parent, still debating if I'll change orcs from a race that is effectively manufactured similar to the clones in Star Wars._


----------



## HammerMan

Sir Brennen said:


> Would you call reprints of a book that contains errata a new edition then?



Me no but I know people who would. 

This isn’t errata either. It is whole sale changes of rules and concepts.


----------



## Parmandur

Sir Brennen said:


> And I guess that's where the problem lies. Are we talking about "normal publishing parlance" or regarding changes in base rule sets?



TSR and WotC used the word to mean several different things over the years. Hence why they don't want to confuse people with what was made into an ambiguous term.


----------



## Parmandur

HammerMan said:


> Me no but I know people who would.
> 
> This isn’t errata either. It is whole sale changes of rules and concepts.



New printing of a type-set getting small updates is errata (literally correcting errors from a previous printing).

Having to make a new type-set is a new addition.


----------



## HammerMan

Parmandur said:


> New printing of a type-set getting small updates is errata (literally correcting errors from a previous printing).
> 
> Having to make a new type-set is a new addition.



And again this is more edition and not anywhere near errata (unless the playtest bombs and they DO just go with updated errata)


----------



## Parmandur

HammerMan said:


> And again this is more edition and not anywhere near errata (unless the playtest bombs and they DO just go with updated errata)



Yes, exactly. But they won't call it that because they abused the term so badly in the past. It is not helpful selling D&D Beyojd subscriptions.


----------



## Lanefan

Doesn't matter what WotC wants to call it; it's almost certainly going to end up being called 5.5e in the wild anyway, and they're stuck with that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

HammerMan said:


> And again this is more edition and not anywhere near errata (unless the playtest bombs and they DO just go with updated errata)




You can call it cnew edition" But we have seen a tiny fraction of the rules being updated. 
And what I see is only a tiny fraction of characters heavily changed by those changes and in those cases I would speak of errata. The other characters as of now are largely unaffected and probably happy about easier rules.


----------



## Parmandur

Lanefan said:


> Doesn't matter what WotC wants to call it; it's almost certainly going to end up being called 5.5e in the wild anyway, and they're stuck with that.



On the other hand, WotC marketing horse hockey worked well enough that theybgotnpeople to use the garbage "3.5" to this day. Don't count them out yet.


----------



## bloodtide

Well, maybe not "right"...but it sure is a marketing bussiness ploy.  They don't want to put a big 6 on the books because then no one will buy the old 5 or less books.  But, with no number they might get people to accidentally buy any book.  Like a new gamer goes to books.com and knows her son wants a "dragons and dungeons " book.   They have some (not 6E ) books(with no number), and see a bunch of 5E books.  They might buy a bunch of 5, 4, 3, 2 or even 1 E D&D books "thinking" they can use their 6E books with them.


----------



## Nikosandros

Parmandur said:


> On the other hand, WotC marketing horse hockey worked well enough that theybgotnpeople to use the garbage "3.5" to this day. Don't count them out yet.



They mainly got people to call it 3.5, because they wrote it right on the cover of the manuals.


----------



## Jack Daniel

Nikosandros said:


> They mainly got people to call it 3.5, because they wrote it right on the cover of the manuals.
> 
> View attachment 259337




But they wrote it on the cover of the manuals because that's what everyone on the WizO forums was already calling it in the runup to the release.

Since the majority of gamers at the time had no idea how version numbers worked, they just called it "v3.5" because it was already in everybody's heads that it would be "edition 3½."


----------



## MockingBird

In the forward of the updated 2e (I think phb) didn't Zeb Cook call it 2.5?

Edit: nope, and Steve Winter wrote the forwards. Carry on.


----------



## payn

MockingBird said:


> Calling it a new edition could scare some people, I can see why they would want to avoid it. They don't want to fracture the player base and by looking at the playtest I'm afraid they may fracture it by some fraction (less than half). They had me sold with "compatability" but I'm starting to have my doubts.



I think more people will be confused when they think its the D&D they been playing, but it isnt.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

If WOTC broke down and called it 6E, I think that would help deskunkifying the term "edition" in regards to D&D and would make future transitions much easier in the future if they keep the compatability to about the level they pitched in the OneD&D introduction video.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Call it what you want and have a ribbon saying 5e and 6e compatible!  Anyone interested in one or the other would know they could buy it and use it!


----------



## Parmandur

Nikosandros said:


> They mainly got people to call it 3.5, because they wrote it right on the cover of the manuals.
> 
> View attachment 259337



Yes, and the new books will say "Dungeons & Dragons."


----------



## GMforPowergamers

The Myopic Sniper said:


> If WOTC broke down and called it 6E, I think that would help deskunkifying the term "edition" in regards to D&D and would make future transitions much easier in the future if they keep the compatability to about the level they pitched in the OneD&D introduction video.



yes "This is 6e, but still keeping the base system and trying to have adventures backwards compatible if not player options"


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes "This is 6e, but still keeping the base system and trying to have adventures backwards compatible if not player options"



"6E" wouldn't be fully honest, either, since there have been more than 6 Editions of D&D already. OneD&D is still less egregious than 3.5 pretending to be errata.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> "6E" wouldn't be fully honest, either, since there have been more than 6 Editions of D&D already. OneD&D is still less egregious than 3.5 pretending to be errata.



yes someone (maybe you) actually said 15e might be more honest.  I was useing 6 since the current is 5.

I think being forthright is best.

edit: and as i have said for the last 6 months it doesn't really matter what WotC calls it. 6e/5.5/anniversary edition or now we know it is 1 D&D as we now know... it will matter come 2024+ how people (us, but also alot of players not on this site) relate to it. If we all call it 6e, or 5.5 I don't think it really matters what they market it as.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes someone (maybe you) actually said 15e might be more honest.  I was useing 6 since the current is 5.
> 
> I think being forthright is best.



Yeah, maybe even 16. Their mainpo8jt in obfuscation here is pretty plainly tk make people comfortable that they can keep playing with what they have and to minimize any threat of edition warring or splitting the fanbase. It's WotC own fault for setting the expectation of an "edition" being an Earth shattering difference.


----------



## dave2008

HammerMan said:


> In D&D terms this is a new edition.
> 
> If you want use version that’s fine too. This in a new set of rules.



Which version of the D&D term? The original 1e - 2e version, or the 2e-3e version, or the 3e-3,5e version, or...? D&D has not been consistent on what an "edition" is.


----------



## Parmandur

dave2008 said:


> Which version of the D&D term? The original 1e - 2e version, or the 2e-3e version, or the 3e-3,5e version, or...? D&D has not been consistent on what an "edition" is.



Don't forget the nearby parallel universe of Basic D&D, and it's Editions!


----------



## dave2008

HammerMan said:


> This isn’t errata either. It is whole sale changes of rules and concepts.



Well they have proposed some changes in the playtest (more than I was expecting actually), but they haven't actually made any changes yet.  

I also don't necessarily agree that the playtest material represents "whole sale changes." Would you care to elaborate?


----------



## dave2008

Parmandur said:


> Don't forget the nearby parallel universe of Basic D&D, and it's Editions!



Yes, I was staying out of those waters because that whole situation was just odd.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

The Myopic Sniper said:


> If WOTC broke down and called it 6E, I think that would help deskunkifying the term "edition" in regards to D&D and would make future transitions much easier in the future if they keep the compatability to about the level they pitched in the OneD&D introduction video.



I don't think there's anything that can "deskunkify" the term "edition". It's a bad term and has been for a while. And, from what I've seen, most of the people insisting that this is an edition change are the ones that don't like the minor updates. I don't think explicitly calling it a new edition would help win any of those people over or help in the future at all.


----------



## Jahydin

Most of the frustration comes from a new edition that completely devalues product you already own. 

Funny, cause the worse offenders are the "editions" that claim to be fully compatible. Not only do they devalue the older core books dramatically (no one wants the worse version of similar rulesets), but they also hardly seem necessary at the same time since they're more or less just houserules.


----------



## MockingBird

Jahydin said:


> Most of the frustration comes from a new edition that completely devalues product you already own.
> 
> Funny, cause the worse offenders are the "editions" that claim to be fully compatible. Not only do they devalue the older core books dramatically (no one wants the worse version of similar rulesets), but they also hardly seem necessary at the same time since they're more or less just houserules.



Interesting take, care to divulge any further?


----------



## Mistwell

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, maybe even 16. Their mainpo8jt in obfuscation here is pretty plainly tk make people comfortable that they can keep playing with what they have and to minimize any threat of edition warring or splitting the fanbase. It's WotC own fault for setting the expectation of an "edition" being an Earth shattering difference.



You know, that might work if they called it 16e. Everyone would do a triple take at first. And I think editions would become nearly meaningless thereafter.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

C'mon everyone! It's going to be branded as 50th Anniversary Dungeons & Dragons (and everyone knows it!).

Let's just get used to calling it 50th already and be done with this "is it or isn't it an edition". It both is and isn't depending on what you think the word edition means and how much you think you should have to work to achieve backwards compatibility. 

Either way, it will be 50th An. D&D. Nothing will stop that.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

In a more sensible world OneD&D would be called the second edition of whatever unique name 5e D&D would go by (ie: D&D Next 2nd Edition). It is clearly an updated edition to the unique game that is 5e D&D.

But yes, given the way the word "edition" has been used with D&D to mean "new sequel game", it's best for it just to be buried until they come out with another completely incompatible sequel game.


----------



## Shiroiken

If they use the word edition, it will almost certainly be just "Anniversary Edition." They might go with Revised Dungeon & Dragons, but I find that unlikely.



Parmandur said:


> "6E" wouldn't be fully honest, either, since there have been more than 6 Editions of D&D already. OneD&D is still less egregious than 3.5 pretending to be errata.



It really comes down to how you define an edition. We are currently playing the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. You have: OD&D, BECMI, 3E, 4E, and now 5E, as technically Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was a different game. If you want to break things down by major rule changes across all Dungeons & Dragons, it gets messy.


OD&D: 1-4 versions
At least Greyhawk made significant changes, and I believe the other supplements might have as well

1E AD&D: 2 versions
Unearthed Arcana made changes enough to be considered 1.5E

BECMI: 2-6 versions
Each set made significant changes, but arguably they were extensions of the rules like OD&D had. The Rules Compendium combined them all, which I'd consider a half edition at least

2E AD&D: 2 versions
The revised version would have been a half edition

3E : 2 versions
Everyone knows the half edition

4E: 2 versions
The Essentials set was a half edition change

5E: 1 version (plus probably 1 in 2024)
So at a minimum we've had 12 major rule systems, and at most 19 versions. The fact that there's some compatibility might be irrelevant, since a lot of material from BECMI, 1E, and 2E was usable in any of these editions.


----------



## Jahydin

MockingBird said:


> Interesting take, care to divulge any further?



Oh, just my observation of 3.5, and 4.Essentials. Both were certainly better written games that were backwards compatible with their core systems, but both caused confusion and frustration.

3.5 because the changes could have been released as free errata. Having to buy 3 new core books made a lot people angry, not to mention it made their 3.0 books drop in value instantly. And even though it was backwards compatible, customers still avoided 3.0 product, which caused problems for store owners. In hindsight, 3.5 probably caused more problems then it did good.

4.Essentials tried to avoid that by releasing new core books that were in "addition" to the 4E core. Once people got to looking at them though, it was pretty obvious this was 4.5 due to better designed classes and better monster math. This caused some confusion on what to do with them. Ditch the old books and just play this "edition"? Use both for characters, but use the updated Monster Manual? Again, it probably would have been better to not release them at all.

When a new edition comes out, I think it's important that it be obvious why a new edition is needed. Like with Pathfinder, in no way does the new edition devalue my 1st edition books because the systems are so different. No hurt feelings.

With "One", if the changes are going to be minor and the only reason to purchase it is to be let into the Beyond playground, I think there is going to be a lot of unhappy people.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head...


----------



## jasper

MockingBird said:


> Calling it a new edition could scare some people, I can see why they would want to avoid it. They don't want to fracture the player base and by looking at the playtest I'm afraid they may fracture it by some fraction (less than half). They had me sold with "compatability" but I'm starting to have my doubts.



THIS THIS THIS 
It is Market Evil Corporation Speak to avoid "EDITION". If 5.5 E is not fully backwards combatable then it will be 6E. 
Remember Waterdeep Dragon Heist contain no heist.
Remember all the bad marketing speech on the books which did not match what they promise.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MockingBird said:


> Interesting take, care to divulge any further?



from my POV I will use 3/3.5 BUT i heard this was true of 1e/2e to a lesser extent

About half of us (including me) bought the 3.5 books. The people who didn't quickly had to just stop bringing the 3.0 book. If we leveled or needed a rule looked up (because of dispute or just not remembering) no one would use the 3.0 book.

Gencon, Origins, and at least 5 local con's the year later all had 90+% games being 3.5 NOT 3.0. 

when the first splat came out (Complete Warrior) some amount of the page count was just updates to Sword and Fist... at that time almost all of us owned sword and fist... but if even 1 of us bought CW, it would mean THEY had the updates (and a lot were small) and again would force the group to ask "Do we use the old rule and trust it didn't change, or do we check the updated one"


----------



## CrashFiend82

I am curious how or if the Playtest, run up to 2024E will help assuage people. I remember they announced 3.5 in Dragon a few months ahead, but at the time a number of my group were taken by surprise an it made them angry. Also with 3.0 and 4e printing so many mechanical books it invalidated so much. Lastly it really hurt my local gaming store because they had shelves of now useless books and 3PP material. How many books would this new edition really invalidate the core 3, maybe Tasha's and Xanathar. I heard they all ready ended printings of Volo's and Morty's books making them Legacy, but that still leaves more than half of 5e books useful.


----------



## MockingBird

I don't really know how to feel about this "compatability". With feats not being optional it puts a bad taste in my mouth. I'm going to have to see how the playtest goes. If you can play a 2014 phb character at the same table of a 2024 phb character I'll be okay with that but I get the feeling that won't be the case. Another concern I have is D&D Beyond, I have the phb on there. Are they going to mark it "legacy"? I would assume so. Trying not to knee jerk but I'm feeling like I'll just stick to 5e. If the Adventures are compatible I might pick those up but that might be the extent. I was all in on 5e, I bought damn near every book.


----------



## beancounter

Ultimately, it will have an edition number, even if it's informal/unofficial.

This kind of reminds me of when Microsoft claimed Windows 10 would be the last version...


----------



## Corinnguard

And let's not forget that some people have been calling Pathfinder 1st Edition, 3.75 D&D.   

Has anyone who has gotten Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition seen or thought of it as 5.5 D&D?


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> from my POV I will use 3/3.5 BUT i heard this was true of 1e/2e to a lesser extent
> 
> About half of us (including me) bought the 3.5 books. The people who didn't quickly had to just stop bringing the 3.0 book. If we leveled or needed a rule looked up (because of dispute or just not remembering) no one would use the 3.0 book.
> 
> Gencon, Origins, and at least 5 local con's the year later all had 90+% games being 3.5 NOT 3.0.
> 
> when the first splat came out (Complete Warrior) some amount of the page count was just updates to Sword and Fist... at that time almost all of us owned sword and fist... but if even 1 of us bought CW, it would mean THEY had the updates (and a lot were small) and again would force the group to ask "Do we use the old rule and trust it didn't change, or do we check the updated one"



I started after 3.5 came out, and everyone was mixing willy-nilly. Convention usage doesn't really speak to normal usage at tables.

If they make the Edition set hat Beyond tools allow free mixing, people will need able to do so easily.


----------



## Parmandur

MockingBird said:


> I don't really know how to feel about this "compatability". With feats not being optional it puts a bad taste in my mouth. I'm going to have to see how the playtest goes. If you can play a 2014 phb character at the same table of a 2024 phb character I'll be okay with that but I get the feeling that won't be the case. Another concern I have is D&D Beyond, I have the phb on there. Are they going to mark it "legacy"? I would assume so. Trying not to knee jerk but I'm feeling like I'll just stick to 5e. If the Adventures are compatible I might pick those up but that might be the extent. I was all in on 5e, I bought damn near every book.



We already have evidence it will be the case, because we have already been mixing OneD&D designs in releases the past two years using the 2014 Core. Seems entirely reasonable it should work the other way around.


----------



## Mistwell

FitzTheRuke said:


> C'mon everyone! It's going to be branded as 50th Anniversary Dungeons & Dragons (and everyone knows it!).
> 
> Let's just get used to calling it 50th already and be done with this "is it or isn't it an edition". It both is and isn't depending on what you think the word edition means and how much you think you should have to work to achieve backwards compatibility.
> 
> Either way, it will be 50th An. D&D. Nothing will stop that.



50 AD&D. Yes let's go with that. 50 AD&D will confuse everyone. In a good way.


----------



## Mistwell

jasper said:


> THIS THIS THIS
> It is Market Evil Corporation Speak to avoid "EDITION". If 5.5 E is not fully backwards combatable then it will be 6E.
> Remember Waterdeep Dragon Heist contain no heist.
> Remember all the bad marketing speech on the books which did not match what they promise.



I mean, 3.5 was not fully backwards compatible with 3e but it was a half edition rather than a full edition. 

I remember being slightly bitter those soft cover expansion books from 3e (which were quite good) were no longer acceptable at any 3.5 table despite WOTC claiming they were still part of the game. Propose a character on a message board for 3.5e and use something from one of those 3e books and people would scoff and dismiss you. They could call it backwards compatible, but they couldn't make it practically compatible.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Put “Dungeons and Dragons” on the cover and have a bar that says (somewhere) also usable with 5e or “fifth edition”


----------



## Blue

Iosue said:


> Good-bye and good riddance to "edition" as some nebulous term of game design that only ever had any meaning as marketing pablum in the first place.



Question:  If I am considering purchasing D&D books this year and next, do I have a right to know if they will continue to be *fully usable* with the 2024 Anniversary edition?  Or am I buying books where parts will become obsolete even if I can salvage other parts of it.

I feel that is a valid question for the consumer.

Regardless of feelings on the word "edition", that knowledge should be made clear.  And if made clear in one way ("It's all the same edition") and the truth comes out another way ("These new character choices are obsolete, and I need to work to keep other mechanical aspects") I would feel cheated.

So this needs to be something that they communicate, and regardless if you call it an edition, a revision, or whatever wordplay is used, WotC needs to communicate this clearly.  And they have communicated clearly it's the same edition - let's hope that some customers, especially new ones who aren't on places like ENworld to see these discussions, aren't deceived or cheated.


----------



## Reynard

HammerMan said:


> Basic to 1e.



Point of order: AD&D was very specifically an entirely new game. To satisfy the entire reason it existed it had to be.


----------



## Alzrius

MockingBird said:


> I don't really know how to feel about this "compatability". With feats not being optional it puts a bad taste in my mouth. I'm going to have to see how the playtest goes. If you can play a 2014 phb character at the same table of a 2024 phb character I'll be okay with that but I get the feeling that won't be the case.



Owen K. C. Stephens has a great artice on his blog about what "compatible" can mean in the context of a new iteration of a tabletop RPG:









						One D&D: What Can “Compatible” Mean?
					

This is an editorial. It is not covered by the Open Gaming License. One of the things that’s being debated in the wake of the “One D&D” playtest release is how this is going t…




					owenkcstephens.com


----------



## Maxperson

Iosue said:


> This something I just have to get off my chest after watching too many D&D youtubers smugly saying, "WotC says it's not 6th Edition, but actually..."
> 
> In the RPG context, and particularly the D&D context, the word "edition" is a skunked term. It's skunking began with TSR's pretty drastic overhaul of the game in 1989, which probably should have been called something like "Revised Advanced Dungeons & Dragons", but no one knew at the time how tortured the term "edition" would become. WotC's initial strategy of planned obsolescence turned the word inside out. I can give them "3rd Edition", even though it was a good time to make a clean break with the "edition" terminology altogether. But "3.5" was a lexical abomination. By any normal definition of the term, 3.5 was really 4th Edition, but by combining the "edition" word with "version" numbers, the understanding of what an edition was became more and more muddied. Then 4th Edition came out, and the term was truly skunked. An edition was an entirely new game, not compatible with the one that came before it, an idea only reinforced with 5th Edition.
> 
> So now we come to the latest revision of the game. And there's confusion. No longer does "edition" have its straightforward publishing meaning of a new edit of an existing work; now it means "new ruleset." But does backwards compatibility mean it is 5.5? Is it 6th Edition? This by itself would be plenty of justification for abandoning the term "edition," but then there's the additional baggage the term brings from the "Edition Wars." Some of that baggage has been mitigated thanks to WotC releasing 5e and largely leaving it alone for eight years. But there's no benefit to bringing all of it back by grandly proclaiming "6th edition!"
> 
> Good-bye and good riddance to "edition" as some nebulous term of game design that only ever had any meaning as marketing pablum in the first place.



If as they promised we can use all of our 5e supplements with no modifications on our part, and those supplements are roughly equal to the new stuff, then 5e is backwards compatible with 5.5e and it's 5.5e.  If on the other hand they fail yet again to provide actual backwards compatibility(3.5 failed miserably), then it's 6e.  At no point, though, will I use the gimicky One D&D name to describe what comes out in 2024.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

Parmandur said:


> Yes, and the new books will say "Dungeons & Dragons."



Yes, just like they do today.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Maxperson said:


> If as they promised we can use all of our 5e supplements with no modifications on our part, and those supplements are roughly equal to the new stuff, then 5e is backwards compatible with 5.5e and it's 5.5e.  If on the other hand they fail yet again to provide actual backwards compatibility(3.5 failed miserably), then it's 6e.  At no point, though, will I use the gimicky One D&D name to describe what comes out in 2024.



You won't have to. It's the name of the playtest like "D&D Next" but with the added bonus of being the name of the initiative to integrate D&D design with their digital tools (a VTT and D&D Beyond.) 

"It's all One D&D" is their slogan.

But it WILL NOT be the branding on the 50th Anniversary Core books. Trust me.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Point of order: AD&D was very specifically an entirely new game. To satisfy the entire reason it existed it had to be.



That was even more egregious BS than 3.5 or OneD&D.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> On the other hand, WotC marketing horse hockey worked well enough that theybgotnpeople to use the garbage "3.5" to this day. Don't count them out yet.



Hard to unscramble an egg.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> That was even more egregious BS than 3.5 or OneD&D.



There was money involved. What can you say?


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> There was money involved. What can you say?



Sure, in all three cases.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> There was money involved. What can you say?



And actually, I will say after reading Jon Peterson's latest book, which makes both Gygax and Arneson look pretty bad, it does provide the cultural and legal context for why Gygax would feel that Srneson wasn't owed anything even if ideas of his were at the kernel of AD&D (the world of hobby gaming was extremely loose with IP prior to the 80's, and using other people's rules as an uncredited base was common.


----------



## Iosue

Parmandur said:


> And actually, I will say after reading Jon Peterson's latest book, which makes both Gygax and Arneson look pretty bad, it does provide the cultural and legal context for why Gygax would feel that Srneson wasn't owed anything even if ideas of his were at the kernel of AD&D (the world of hobby gaming was extremely loose with IP prior to the 80's, and using other people's rules as an uncredited base was common.



After reading that book, I didn’t fault Arneson for his lawsuits. D&D was created from his idea, and he had a contract. What I did come to understand, more than before, was that as innovative as Arneson (indeed, all the Twin Cities crew) was, his idea would never have become available to the wide world without Gygax.


----------



## Parmandur

Iosue said:


> After reading that book, I didn’t fault Arneson for his lawsuits. D&D was created from his idea, and he had a contract. What I did come to understand, more than before, was that as innovative as Arneson (indeed, all the Twin Cities crew) was, his idea would never have become available to the wide world without Gygax.



The actions of both sides make a lot more sense after it's all laid out in the book.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Jahydin said:


> 3.5 because the changes could have been released as free errata. Having to buy 3 new core books made a lot people angry, not to mention it made their 3.0 books drop in value instantly. And even though it was backwards compatible, customers still avoided 3.0 product, which caused problems for store owners. In hindsight, 3.5 probably caused more problems then it did good.




Two things:

1. There was a free document with (close to) all changes online for free: the SRD.
We played at least a year with 3.0 + SRD.

2. The changes were not minor. I could dive into it further if you want, but lets just say, in some ways, the change from 3.0 to 3.5 was bigger than the change from 2e (+skills and powers) to 3e.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Oh and another thing.

I don' like One D&D as OD&D sounds wrong somehow.
But Anniversary D&D could get the abbreviation ADnD, which has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Jahydin

UngeheuerLich said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. There was a free document with (close to) all changes online for free: the SRD.
> We played at least a year with 3.0 + SRD.
> 
> 2. The changes were not minor. I could dive into it further if you want, but lets just say, in some ways, the change from 3.0 to 3.5 was bigger than the change from 2e (+skills and powers) to 3e.



I agree; I was speaking from the casual consumer's perspective. I know my players couldn't have cared less if I played 3.0 or 3.5, it was the same game to them, haha.


----------



## MockingBird

UngeheuerLich said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. There was a free document with (close to) all changes online for free: the SRD.
> We played at least a year with 3.0 + SRD.
> 
> 2. The changes were not minor. I could dive into it further if you want, but lets just say, in some ways, the change from 3.0 to 3.5 was bigger than the change from 2e (+skills and powers) to 3e.



I played 3e when it was fairly new, stopped playing and didn't dabble again until 4e launched. Can you explain what the major differences were in 3.0 and 3.5? I played PF but I don't even know how different it is to 3.5. All I know is the general consensus seems to be it wasnt very compatible.


----------



## HammerMan

Reynard said:


> Point of order: AD&D was very specifically an entirely new game. To satisfy the entire reason it existed it had to be.



They all were just to one degree or another


----------



## HammerMan

dave2008 said:


> I also don't necessarily agree that the playtest material represents "whole sale changes." Would you care to elaborate?



You have feats being leveled (and no longer optional) 
Background features are gone
Backgrounds now GIVE feats
Races are completely diffrent 

We have new status and comditions

We have new crit rules (including the hint that something else will replace monster crits)


----------



## HammerMan

Blue said:


> Question:  If I am considering purchasing D&D books this year and next, do I have a right to know if they will continue to be *fully usable* with the 2024 Anniversary edition?  Or am I buying books where parts will become obsolete even if I can salvage other parts of it.
> 
> I feel that is a valid question for the consumer.



If you see feats without levels save your money. 

My money says subclasses will also change but that is TBD


----------



## UngeheuerLich

MockingBird said:


> I played 3e when it was fairly new, stopped playing and didn't dabble again until 4e launched. Can you explain what the major differences were in 3.0 and 3.5? I played PF but I don't even know how different it is to 3.5. All I know is the general consensus seems to be it wasnt very compatible.




I try to make it short:

3.0 retained a lot of the 2e structure. Spellists were close to ADnD. Spells themselves. Skills also. 

Then 3.5 made following changes:

1. Restructuring of some classes
2. Removal of some skills
3. Cover rules and concealment rules were boardgamified, instead of beong DM adjucation. -> Board game dependancy was introduced.
4. Feats changed. Much easier again to cast in melee. Or even casting spells in shapeshifted form.
5. Spell lists were changed completely. Opposing schools of specialists were simplified and chosable.
6. Some spells became butchered into pieces or lost their cool applications (command was changed to a list of options, ice wall could not be used as a horizontal plane anymore). 
7. Some weapons were removed/changed.
8. Prestige classes were now officially pure players material used to plug holes in the multiclass system instead of being rewards for the DM. (Although later, some cool prestige classes reappeared).
9. I think HP for monsters were inflated even more, making damage spells even more irrelevant. 

That was just out of my head. Maybe I misremember something. I surely forgot a few things. 

Somehow so many philosophies have changed, that somehow 3.0 books were incompatible with 3.5... Also every relevant book was somehow replaced with a newer option.


----------



## Parmandur

HammerMan said:


> If you see feats without levels save your money.
> 
> My money says subclasses will also change but that is TBD



Every book with Feats since Strixhaven has Levels.


----------



## MockingBird

UngeheuerLich said:


> I try to make it short:
> 
> 3.0 retained a lot of the 2e structure. Spellists were close to ADnD. Spells themselves. Skills also.
> 
> Then 3.5 made following changes:
> 
> 1. Restructuring of some classes
> 2. Removal of some skills
> 3. Cover rules and concealment rules were boardgamified, instead of beong DM adjucation. -> Board game dependancy was introduced.
> 4. Feats changed. Much easier again to cast in melee. Or even casting spells in shapeshifted form.
> 5. Spell lists were changed completely. Opposing schools of specialists were simplified and chosable.
> 6. Some spells became butchered into pieces or lost their cool applications (command was changed to a list of options, ice wall could not be used as a horizontal plane anymore).
> 7. Some weapons were removed/changed.
> 8. Prestige classes were now officially pure players material used to plug holes in the multiclass system instead of being rewards for the DM. (Although later, some cool prestige classes reappeared).
> 9. I think HP for monsters were inflated even more, making damage spells even more irrelevant.
> 
> That was just out of my head. Maybe I misremember something. I surely forgot a few things.
> 
> Somehow so many philosophies have changed, that somehow 3.0 books were incompatible with 3.5... Also every relevant book was somehow replaced with a newer option.



Thank you, would it be fair to say PF is more compatible to 3.5 than 3.5 to 3.0? 

*Not trying to derail this post, just trying to put things in perspective.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

MockingBird said:


> Thank you, would it be fair to say PF is more compatible to 3.5 than 3.5 to 3.0?
> 
> *Not trying to derail this post, just trying to put things in perspective.



I´d say, about the same. But this is just my point of view. I have never played pathfinder, and only studied the SRD. I think it was a consistent evolution OD&D->1e->2e->2e+player options->3.0->3.5->pathfinder1. At that point, I think however that the game needed a revolution instead of an evolution, as the ever increasing game mastery was a barrier for the game. 4e was a revolution, but it mad a few big mistakes.
5e for me is indeed convolutiion of 2e, 3e and 4e taking many good aspects from each of them. So not calling it 5e or 6e is consistent, as it is not the last link of the aforementioned chain.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> Absolutely to all of this. In any meaningful usage of the word, this is a new typical edition being worked on. But not a new _game_, which is what WotC tried to make the word mean (not that theybwrre consistent!). In reasonable terms, this is approximately the 15th Edition of D&D, including OD&D, the BD&D typical editions, 3.5, and 4E Essentials as what they are in publishing terms: distinct typical editions.



So I have a problem with this, because, maybe I'm misremembering, but my recollection of 4E Essentials is that there were literally no actual general rules changes (though I admit this may be difficult to track with 4E's constant updates).

At all.

And all that Essentials did was add yet more takes on classes/abilities. Some of them were further from the AEDU structure, but still not entirely alienated from it, and they worked literally 100% perfectly with existing material.

So that idea that the Essentials books were either a new "edition" or a new "version" kind of falls flat. It's actually just a pair of splatbooks _hyped_ as a new version/edition. That's been done before in games of various kinds, particularly board* and war games, where they have the "original" format, then later you get stand-alone add-ons, that either can be played by themselves, or are 100% compatible with the original game. I feel like even thinking it's an edition or version in a meaningful way is just buying into the hype.

If I'm wrong and there were general rules changes, please correct me.

That's a fundamentally different approach to 3.5E, which changed fundamental rules, revised existing classes (rather than providing new-but-compatible takes, which even had their own names to cleanly separate them and make them run well at the same table), and generally re-worked the game. It's also different form a lot of older ('70s and '80s) updates, where there was no clean intent to have an "edition change", just they kept changing/updating the rules and saw nothing wrong with doing that and not highlighting it, and just letting DMs deal with the consequences.

As an aside, I don't buy the OP's "skunked term" super-hot take (which is spicier than the very people he attempts to criticise), and is a pretty bad concept even in linguistics. Edition isn't changing in meaning. Edition in RPGs means what it's always mean, and this is clearly 6E (based on the current rate of change). The problem as you say, isn't this edition change at all, rather it's the 2E-3E, 3E-4E, and 4E-5E changes, all of which weren't mere "edition changes" in RPG parlance, but major re-writes, which with other games, ones less brand-reliant, might have even meant giving the product a new name. I don't really want to propose those names, because I'm not a name guy (and honestly I don't WotC are particularly good at names either), but 3E could easily have been called something like D&D 2000, or um, dare I say it "D&D: A New Era" (kill me now), if it was a lesser-known game. What was weird was trying to call THAT 3rd edition, not calling THIS 6th edition.

* = Tons of modern board games do this and it's actually a hot topic with board game fans. Dominion has a ton of stand-alone expansions, for example, which you can mix-and-match with the original Dominion set (indeed I first played it with one of these, and was severely confused when I got base Dominion and it didn't have any of those cards, but obviously played the same way!).


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> So I have a problem with this, because, maybe I'm misremembering, but my recollection of 4E Essentials is that there were literally no actual general rules changes (though I admit this may be difficult to track with 4E's constant updates).
> 
> At all.
> 
> And all that Essentials did was add yet more takes on classes/abilities. Some of them were further from the AEDU structure, but still not entirely alienated from it, and they worked literally 100% perfectly with existing material.
> 
> So that idea that the Essentials books were either a new "edition" or a new "version" kind of falls flat. It's actually just a pair of splatbooks _hyped_ as a new version/edition. That's been done before in games of various kinds, particularly board* and war games, where they have the "original" format, then later you get stand-alone add-ons, that either can be played by themselves, or are 100% compatible with the original game. I feel like even thinking it's an edition or version in a meaningful way is just buying into the hype.
> 
> If I'm wrong and there were general rules changes, please correct me.
> 
> That's a fundamentally different approach to 3.5E, which changed fundamental rules, revised existing classes (rather than providing new-but-compatible takes, which even had their own names to cleanly separate them and make them run well at the same table), and generally re-worked the game. It's also different form a lot of older ('70s and '80s) updates, where there was no clean intent to have an "edition change", just they kept changing/updating the rules and saw nothing wrong with doing that and not highlighting it, and just letting DMs deal with the consequences.
> 
> As an aside, I don't buy the OP's "skunked term" super-hot take (which is spicier than the very people he attempts to criticise), and is a pretty bad concept even in linguistics. Edition isn't changing in meaning. Edition in RPGs means what it's always mean, and this is clearly 6E (based on the current rate of change). The problem as you say, isn't this edition change at all, rather it's the 2E-3E, 3E-4E, and 4E-5E changes, all of which weren't mere "edition changes" in RPG parlance, but major re-writes, which with other games, ones less brand-reliant, might have even meant giving the product a new name. I don't really want to propose those names, because I'm not a name guy (and honestly I don't WotC are particularly good at names either), but 3E could easily have been called something like D&D 2000, or um, dare I say it "D&D: A New Era" (kill me now), if it was a lesser-known game. What was weird was trying to call THAT 3rd edition, not calling THIS 6th edition.
> 
> * = Tons of modern board games do this and it's actually a hot topic with board game fans. Dominion has a ton of stand-alone expansions, for example, which you can mix-and-match with the original Dominion set (indeed I first played it with one of these, and was severely confused when I got base Dominion and it didn't have any of those cards, but obviously played the same way!).



4E Essentials was a brand new presentation of the rules in a new format, that didn't need the core books. Sure, it was absolutely compatible on a game level with 4E plus errata (my understanding is that 4E got huge errata that never even made it into a full print run, but were considered "the rules" anyways). Still it was a new published edition of the game. TSR and WotC have done so many weird things (AD&D is a different game from OD&D, BD&D is a different game, B/X to BECMI, "Third Edition", "3.5", etc) that it really isn't helpful to say thisnis a new edition, though it is clearly a new edition in rational publishing terms (since they have mentioned a new Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual, my reckoning is thst this would be the 7th typical editions for books by those titles, or 6th for the MM if the Monstrous Manual isn't counted).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> 4E Essentials was a brand new presentation of the rules in a new format, that didn't need the core books. Sure, it was absolutely compatible on a game level with 4E plus errata (my understanding is that 4E got huge errata that never even made it into a full print run, but were considered "the rules" anyways). Still it was a new published edition of the game. TSR and WotC have done so many weird things (AD&D is a different game from OD&D, BD&D is a different game, B/X to BECMI, "Third Edition", "3.5", etc) that it really isn't helpful to say thisnis a new edition, though it is clearly a new edition in rational publishing terms (since they have mentioned a new Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual, my reckoning is thst this would be the 7th typical editions for books by those titles, or 6th for the MM if the Monstrous Manual isn't counted).



This meaning 4E Essentials or One D&D?

I think it's entirely helpful to characterize the latter as an edition, and frankly the OP's argument, which really _exactly_ the same kind of thing he's criticising from "smug Youtubers", falls extremely flat. It's unhelpful of WotC to have failed to have addressed their previous usage of the term, or be honest about it, and make an honest comparison (like 1E to 2E).

There's absolutely nothing weird about AD&D and D&D back in the day. That's perfectly normal. That's how most RPGs operate to this day - if you change the rules fundamentally, like more than 1E to 2E, you probably rename the game. If you look at oWoD games, you see that 1E and 2E are just not that different and semi-compatible. Revised had a different name than 3E to indicate it was "more differenter". 20th Anniversary could honestly be called 3E though (particularly as it largely ignored/reverted Revised stuff in favour of deriving more naturally from 2E). I believe the current edition refers to itself as 5th edition and that is a bit misleading, because it's a fundamental break, but that's a whole other discussion and more to do with marketing than being helpful.

When WW wanted to make a bigger break, they created the nWoD and Vampire: The Requiem and so on. The nWoD even got a 2nd edition, which is kind of an overlooked masterpiece in many ways (and had some truly great campaigns), but I digress.


Parmandur said:


> my understanding is that 4E got huge errata that never even made it into a full print run, but were considered "the rules" anyways



Sorta?

What 4E did was continually errata update everything, tweaking stuff, and made sure those errata were extremely accessible online (via PDFs etc.), and whatever they were doing, they got implemented _really_ quickly on the DDI (the digital version of the game, which was sub-based automatically had all published mechanical content), like in days if not virtually immediately.

But the important thing is there was no "big errata drop" with 4E. It wasn't like they held stuff back, then dropped a ton of changes. They just gradually made changes, of varying sizes, over the edition. Nothing about Essentials required any of those changes, that I'm aware. If you're thinking they laid the groundwork for Essentials then dropped it with changes, that didn't happen, to be clear.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> This meaning 4E Essentials or One D&D?
> 
> I think it's entirely helpful to characterize the latter as an edition, and frankly the OP's argument, which really _exactly_ the same kind of thing he's criticising from "smug Youtubers", falls extremely flat. It's unhelpful of WotC to have failed to have addressed their previous usage of the term, or be honest about it, and make an honest comparison (like 1E to 2E).



It would be honest, but if they feel it won't increase sales of Beyond subscriptions, theybwill avoid it.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Sorta?
> 
> What 4E did was continually errata update everything, tweaking stuff, and made sure those errata were extremely accessible online (via PDFs etc.), and whatever they were doing, they got implemented _really_ quickly on the DDI (the digital version of the game, which was sub-based automatically had all published mechanical content), like in days if not virtually immediately.
> 
> But the important thing is there was no "big errata drop" with 4E. It wasn't like they held stuff back, then dropped a ton of changes. They just gradually made changes, of varying sizes, over the edition. Nothing about Essentials required any of those changes, that I'm aware. If you're thinking they laid the groundwork for Essentials then dropped it with changes, that didn't happen, to be clear.



Right, but my understanding is that there was a significant amount of errata that was never available in a physical, bound copy of the PHB, DMG, or MM. So you would need to reference DDI, a PDF or Essentials to get the standard rule.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> It would be honest, but if they feel it won't increase sales of Beyond subscriptions, theybwill avoid it.



Fair lol.


Parmandur said:


> Right, but my understanding is that there was a significant amount of errata that was never available in a physical, bound copy of the PHB, DMG, or MM. So you would need to reference DDI, a PDF or Essentials to get the standard rule.



Yeah I believe that's correct. I assume (without digging them out) that the Essentials books had the updates up to that point in them, but they kept making errata of various sizes until late in 4E.

Honestly? For us it worked totally fine. I don't recall it causing any major problems and perhaps it's because we were all familiar with videogames which updated regularly, none of use were annoyed by it.

But I gather that some people absolutely hated it.

That said, if 5E had done the same thing, I think it would be in pretty incredible condition by now, balance-wise, so many classes, subclasses, and Feats and so on could have been tweaked into perfection.


----------



## Jahydin

Essentials was a new edition, but wasn't concerned with getting existing 4E players to convert over. It was to be the "Basic" version, appealing to new players because of the simplified classes and older players who weren't thrilled with 4E's AEDU mechanics. I don't think anyone was mixing and matching books, I could be wrong though?

That said, the Monster Manual was superior in everyway from what I remember, so I think it was worth it to everyone to buy that.

Anyway, what confused and frustrated players is, unlike Basic and AD&D, it seemed WotC was done with 4E and moving completely on to support only Essentials, very much giving the impression it was the new edition now. I remember quite a few people feeling like they were being gaslighted by the whole situation.

By this time, my group and I were very much happy playing Pathfinder, so never got a chance to actually play Essentials.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> It would be honest, but if they feel it won't increase sales of Beyond subscriptions, theybwill avoid it.
> 
> Right, but my understanding is that there was a significant amount of errata that was never available in a physical, bound copy of the PHB, DMG, or MM. So you would need to reference DDI, a PDF or Essentials to get the standard rule.



Yeah, 4th Ed's phantom corebook was "The Complete Errata Handbook".


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jahydin said:


> Essentials was a new edition, but wasn't concerned with getting existing 4E players to convert over. It was to be the "Basic" version, appealing to new players because of the simplified classes and older players who weren't thrilled with 4E's AEDU mechanics. I don't think anyone was mixing and matching books, I could be wrong though?
> 
> That said, the Monster Manual was superior in everyway from what I remember, so I think it was worth it to everyone to buy that.
> 
> Anyway, what confused and frustrated players is, unlike Basic and AD&D, it seemed WotC was done with 4E and moving completely on to support only Essentials, very much giving the impression it was the new edition now. I remember quite a few people feeling like they were being gaslighted by the whole situation.
> 
> By this time, my group and I were very much happy playing Pathfinder, so never got a chance to actually play Essentials.



Everything about how Essentials was presented pointed to them thinking of it as a new edition, even it wasn't by their previous standards.


----------



## dave2008

HammerMan said:


> You have feats being leveled (and no longer optional)
> Background features are gone
> Backgrounds now GIVE feats
> Races are completely diffrent
> 
> We have new status and comditions
> 
> We have new crit rules (including the hint that something else will replace monster crits)



IMO, the only one that borders on a whole sale change is if feats are no longer optional. Which we technically don't know yet, but it sure seems it is going that way.  The rest are minor revisions / tweaks IMO.


----------



## Parmandur

dave2008 said:


> IMO, the only one that borders on a whole sale change is if feats are no longer optional. Which we technically don't know yet, but it sure seems it is going that way.  The rest are minor revisions / tweaks IMO.



Even that isnend of the world material. "Here's, take a 1st Level Feat" is a super easy adjustment for a character sheet.


----------



## Branduil

Personally, in terms of marketing I dislike the obfuscated half-editions as opposed to just openly making it a new edition. I think ever since 3.5 and its false promises of full backwards compatibility, WotC has generally been terrified of calling something a half-edition, for understandable reasons. And really, since 4e they've been terrified of even calling 5e, 5e. I would be happier if they admitted up front that yes, this is a new edition, even if it's going to be very similar to 5e, and although a lot of material may be easily converted, not all of it will be. There's no law that a new edition has to upend the fundamental structure of the game, that's just what has happened so far with WotC's management of the brand for various reasons. I think it might be good to change that now.


----------



## Micah Sweet

One thing I believe most of us can agree on: how major or minor these changes are considered, and how much of an edition shift it is, will be determined far more by how we personally feel about the changes than by anything WotC says.


----------



## Parmandur

Branduil said:


> Personally, in terms of marketing I dislike the obfuscated half-editions as opposed to just openly making it a new edition. I think ever since 3.5 and its false promises of full backwards compatibility, WotC has generally been terrified of calling something a half-edition, for understandable reasons. And really, since 4e they've been terrified of even calling 5e, 5e. I would be happier if they admitted up front that yes, this is a new edition, even if it's going to be very similar to 5e, and although a lot of material may be easily converted, not all of it will be.



They should be terrified of calling something a "half-edition," because thst was raging corporate BS double-speak when they made it up.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> One thing I believe most of us can agree on: how major minor these changes are considered, and how of an edition shift it is, will be determined far more by how we personally feel about the changes than by anything WotC says.



I think it will be determined by how well Beyond integrates mixing and matching. If they pull that off that means it will be easy enough for anyone to do at home.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> They should be terrified of calling something a "half-edition," because thst was raging corporate BS double-speak when they made it up.



And the video they just put out wasn't raging corporate BS double-speak?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> I think it will be determined by how well Beyond integrates mixing and matching. If they pull that off that means it will be easy enough for anyone to do at home.



But you're on the "everything's fine" side already.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> And the video they just put out wasn't raging corporate BS double-speak?



Sure, absolutely. Not as bad as 3.5 being a "half-edition" was, by a country mile, but it's definitely obscurationist. Thisnis definitely a new typical edition of the game. Obviously, it is a compatible one since they sneak it into print for use with the 2014 books years early, and their desire to join upset current subscribers or book sales makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is anyone decrying OneD&D while still buying the concept of a "half-edition" that WotC made up.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> But you're on the "everything's fine" side already.



It's a game, not world hunger, so yes it is "fine."

In terms of whether it is compatible, yes, everything so far is compatible.


----------



## Azzy

Regardless of how minimal or how great the changes are once the playtest is done and the new core books are released, it's going to be called an "edition" by just about everyone. If not for anything but for ease of communication. Whether it's called the revised edition, anniversary edition, 5.ONE, 5.5, 6e, or something else remains to be seen as the D&D community coalesces into some type of consensus (assuming it does).

It'll be okay, too.

In the meantime, I think WotC's corp speak is there just to try to minimize consumer fear of change (which is inevitable because humans generally hate change, no matter how minimal).

That's okay, too.


----------



## John R Davis

Call it 'D&D Onwards' then it will never have a number!


----------



## TheSword

It’s fine not going by edition numbers. In truth, RPG game editions don’t map to the colloquial use of the word edition anyway. Where a book gets updated. 3.5 was a new edition. 4e was a new book entirely.

It’s just a hella confusing to get wrapped up over terminology like this so I don’t blame them for walking away from it.

One D&D just sounds like a tinkering and codifying of 5e, with a couple of minor tweaks, otherwise it’s the same. Which is what the vast majority of people seem to want.


----------



## delericho

Parmandur said:


> We already have evidence it will be the case, because we have already been mixing OneD&D designs in releases the past two years using the 2014 Core. Seems entirely reasonable it should work the other way around.



They were trying out bits of 4e design in the late 3.5e books (notably "Book of 9 Swords"), and even Star Wars Saga Edition. That's probably not a good barometer of the compatibility of the finished works.


----------



## delericho

Mistwell said:


> You know, that might work if they called it 16e. Everyone would do a triple take at first. And I think editions would become nearly meaningless thereafter.



Could do. But if they're doing something like that, I'd advocate for calling it "2024 Edition". It still breaks the chain, but it's still obvious how the name came about.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Jahydin said:


> Essentials was a new edition, but wasn't concerned with getting existing 4E players to convert over. It was to be the "Basic" version, appealing to new players because of the simplified classes and older players who weren't thrilled with 4E's AEDU mechanics. I don't think anyone was mixing and matching books, I could be wrong though?



Essentials characters worked perfectly fine together with earlier 4E characters. Apart from class specific rules everything else worked the same, and you could happily take feats and other options from previous books for essentials characters, and vice versa. The rules were IIRC a bit different, but many 4E rules had changed over the years, so that wasn't a new thing.

There wasn't really any "conversion" needed to move an existing 4E game to Essentials, it was in many ways a huge splatbook, though a slightly confusing one as it reused a lot of class names from previous books.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> I think it will be determined by how well Beyond integrates mixing and matching. If they pull that off that means it will be easy enough for anyone to do at home.



I don't use Beyond. How does it handle revised races, etc from MotM if you own that as well as Volo's, for example?


----------



## MockingBird

Reynard said:


> I don't use Beyond. How does it handle revised races, etc from MotM if you own that as well as Volo's, for example?



I experimented with the Tashas character rules, it works great and super easy. Volos is legacy material but you can turn it on or off.


----------



## HammerMan

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Essentials characters worked perfectly fine together with earlier 4E characters. Apart from class specific rules everything else worked the same, and you could happily take feats and other options from previous books for essentials characters, and vice versa. The rules were IIRC a bit different, but many 4E rules had changed over the years, so that wasn't a new thing.
> 
> There wasn't really any "conversion" needed to move an existing 4E game to Essentials, it was in many ways a huge splatbook, though a slightly confusing one as it reused a lot of class names from previous books.



This was my experience too. I never saw a table say “we are only useing essentials” or “we aren’t useing essentials” although on here I do hear it happened. 

If I showed up to a new game after essentials came out with my PHB 1 warlord or PHB 3 battle mind I would resnobly be able to assume I could play it. 

I however not only didn’t see but can’t imagine showing up to a 3.5 or PF1 game with a 3.0 ranger and the dm just saying “okay”


----------



## TwoSix

HammerMan said:


> If you see feats without levels save your money.



I'm like 99% sure that there will be a sidebar saying that any feat printed without a level is a level 4 feat by default.  I'm also reasonably sure that most feats are going to be level 4, and higher level feats will be restricted to feats that give access to higher level spells or interact with higher level features.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MockingBird said:


> I experimented with the Tashas character rules, it works great and super easy. Volos is legacy material but you can turn it on or off.



Just to add to this, this is not DM-controllable, and like a lot of elements of D&D Beyond, it's not consistent.

DMs have _zero_ ability to control what options players see/have. If content is owned or shared, players see it. Even if you disable the sharing, it's still shared for character creation and so on (it just blocks them from reading the entire book), which is a little surprising though there is a note on Beyond carefully explaining it.

And the "show legacy content" toggle is in a weird place in character generation in Beyond. When you create a character initially, you get a giant page full of toggles, most of them controlling what content you see (this is for the player to pick, not the DM, surprisingly), like Eberron, Rick & Morty, Critical Role, etc. - and there are two Tasha's toggles, one for "customizing your origin", and the other for "optional class features", which default to off. One would expect "show legacy content" because literally everything else that controls content is - but in fact it's on the race choice screen, as a toggle there (and not entirely well-explained).

I personally wouldn't characterize the Tasha's origin customization as "super-easy" myself. If you know how it's_ supposed_ to work, it's easy with a little fiddling to get the right result, but I feel like a new player or one who didn't "get" it might be somewhat confused by it. Long-term that's not sticking around though, it'll be replaced by One D&D so not a huge deal I guess. The MotM races work good though.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TwoSix said:


> I'm like 99% sure that there will be a sidebar saying that any feat printed without a level is a level 4 feat by default.  I'm also reasonably sure that most feats are going to be level 4, and higher level feats will be restricted to feats that give access to higher level spells or interact with higher level features.



This seems very likely now you say, yeah I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case.


----------



## Mercurius

Iosue said:


> WotC's initial strategy of planned obsolescence turned the word inside out.



Is this actually true? Meaning, was 3.5 planned from the beginning, or was it the result of things learned in the first year or two of wide distribution of 3E?


----------



## delericho

Mercurius said:


> Is this actually true? Meaning, was 3.5 planned from the beginning, or was it the result of things learned in the first year or two of wide distribution of 3E?



A little of both. Apparently they'd always planned for a revision, but the intent was for it to be 5 years out, not 3. (And, I think, for it to include a lot less than was actually done.) Monte Cook used to have a good write-up of this on his site; I have no idea if it still exists.


----------



## Mercurius

delericho said:


> A little of both. Apparently they'd always planned for a revision, but the intent was for it to be 5 years out, not 3. (And, I think, for it to include a lot less than was actually done.) Monte Cook used to have a good write-up of this on his site; I have no idea if it still exists.



OK, thanks. I just don't like the pejorative implications of "planned obsolescence"...it implies more deception than I think was actually involved in WotC's decision-making process, as if they're a used car salesman trying to get a lemon out the door.

My sense is that they released the best game they could in 2000, and then quickly found tweaks they wanted to make. Any artist knows that "tweaking" can go on indefinitely, so most of those further changes were probably just that: "Well, we could also make this a bit better, and tighten this, oh and let's add a bit here..."


----------



## Parmandur

delericho said:


> They were trying out bits of 4e design in the late 3.5e books (notably "Book of 9 Swords"), and even Star Wars Saga Edition. That's probably not a good barometer of the compatibility of the finished works.



But in this case, the early crypto OneD&D books are meant to keep selling with the new Core books, such as Mosnters of the Multiverse.


----------



## Parmandur

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Essentials characters worked perfectly fine together with earlier 4E characters. Apart from class specific rules everything else worked the same, and you could happily take feats and other options from previous books for essentials characters, and vice versa. The rules were IIRC a bit different, but many 4E rules had changed over the years, so that wasn't a new thing.
> 
> There wasn't really any "conversion" needed to move an existing 4E game to Essentials, it was in many ways a huge splatbook, though a slightly confusing one as it reused a lot of class names from previous books.



I mean, not only can OneD&D characters work with 5E characters, they want us to mix the rules within a single character set by the eaybtheyndesigned the playtest.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I don't use Beyond. How does it handle revised races, etc from MotM if you own that as well as Volo's, for example?



I don't much use it either, but my understanding is that if you bought the old books you can keep on using those versions.


----------



## Parmandur

HammerMan said:


> This was my experience too. I never saw a table say “we are only useing essentials” or “we aren’t useing essentials” although on here I do hear it happened.
> 
> If I showed up to a new game after essentials came out with my PHB 1 warlord or PHB 3 battle mind I would resnobly be able to assume I could play it.
> 
> I however not only didn’t see but can’t imagine showing up to a 3.5 or PF1 game with a 3.0 ranger and the dm just saying “okay”



That doesn't mean that Essentials wasn't a new edition, people could use Basic PC in AD&D or 1E characters in 2E. That's actually.more historical precedent that WotC can make a compatible edition.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> I'm like 99% sure that there will be a sidebar saying that any feat printed without a level is a level 4 feat by default.  I'm also reasonably sure that most feats are going to be level 4, and higher level feats will be restricted to feats that give access to higher level spells or interact with higher level features.



Yes, it seems thar a series of sidebars explaining the proctor using older material sre likely going to be in the PHB. And having a transfer procedure does not break compatibility.


----------



## billd91

MockingBird said:


> Thank you, would it be fair to say PF is more compatible to 3.5 than 3.5 to 3.0?
> 
> *Not trying to derail this post, just trying to put things in perspective.



I think that's actually fair to say. PF was designed with the idea that you could take any 3.5 material and use them in PF with a few tweaks - and that was generally true and with fewer than were necessary to go from 3.0 to 3.5, in my experience. I used quite a few 3.5 adventures with my PF game. I usually had to add a combat maneuver bonus and defense and very little else.

Now I think UngeheuerLich's list ends up overstating the individual effect of a lot of specific changes. For example, reworking some of the classes wasn't a huge problem - most of them could be ported between 3.0/3.5 with a little reworking - extra skill points, some different bonus proficiencies, etc. Same with the changes in skills and feats.
Bigger changes, in my mind, included changes to damage resistance, weapon sizing, and spell durations. Those made a pretty noticeable impact, particularly on the behavior of players.
But the big issue was just the broad scope of changes overall and I don't think any of the player or 3PP communities really expected how far they'd go or how many changes there would be. Cumulatively, it really made for a lot of little changes all over the place that made it harder to use cross-edition materials and utterly killed a lot of 3rd party 3.0 materials marketability. Also, quite a few of the changes seemed strongly related to an idiosyncratic vision of D&D that may have been held by a few of the WotC staffers at the time. So while I think some of the updates were absolutely worthwhile (updated bards and rangers in particular), I can totally see how a lot of people felt burned by the experience.


----------



## Parmandur

Mercurius said:


> OK, thanks. I just don't like the pejorative implications of "planned obsolescence"...it implies more deception than I think was actually involved in WotC's decision-making process, as if they're a used car salesman trying to get a lemon out the door.
> 
> My sense is that they released the best game they could in 2000, and then quickly found tweaks they wanted to make. Any artist knows that "tweaking" can go on indefinitely, so most of those further changes were probably just that: "Well, we could also make this a bit better, and tighten this, oh and let's add a bit here..."



They had planned a 4E for 2005, but the 3E product line crashed and burned a bit after launch, which is why there were mass firings and heads rolled in the D&D department and they pushed their next edition up to 2003 and made up some BS about it being a "half-edition."


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> I don't much use it either, but my understanding is that if you bought the old books you can keep on using those versions.



You can indeed. Notably you CANNOT buy them now, though.









						Legacy Content
					

Legacy Content              The introduction of Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse to the Dungeons & Dragons game has revised old...




					www.dndbeyond.com
				




So Volo's and OG Mordenkainen's are just out of commission entirely. You cannot buy them. You cannot buy parts of them. You cannot buy the compendium material (i.e. text). You want anything from them? You gotta find a DM who has them and get them to share with you. So that's a pretty firm line the WotC-owned Beyond are drawing.



Parmandur said:


> That doesn't mean that Essentials wasn't a new edition, people could use Basic PC in AD&D or 1E characters in 2E. That's actually.more historical precedent that WotC can make a compatible edition.



That doesn't prove your claim re: Essentials being an edition at all. I dunno if you actually played 4E (esp. in the Essentials era), I'm getting the vibe that you didn't, but for something to be a new edition, there need to be rules changes, not merely rules additions. And Essentials only had rules additions - specifically new options, which they _went out of their way_ to make sit ALONGSIDE the existing options. Your comparisons so far on this have been very inapt and suggest you're not familiar with the context of the material you're attempting to describe.

There's a reason I don't argue stuff like this about BECMI - I'm ignorant about the period. I'm not saying that's the case with you here, maybe you know tons, but unless you do, maybe consider not arguing something you're unfamiliar with? Not that that ever stopped anyone on the internet!

As I've illustrated, the "stand-alone expansion" is a long tradition in board and video games. That what Essentials boils down to. Material that can stand alone or be used in the main game. It has no rules incompatibilities (literally none).


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Parmandur said:


> I mean, not only can OneD&D characters work with 5E characters, they want us to mix the rules within a single character set by the eaybtheyndesigned the playtest.



Just from the 1D&D playtest we know that certain older characters such as the grave cleric won't work seamlessly with the new rules, and we've only seen a tiny part of the rules so far. 1D&D is not "5E essentials".


----------



## Iosue

Here's the web archive of Cook's review of 3.5. The money quotes are,


> A few weeks ago, in an interview at gamingreport.com I said that 3.5 was motivated by financial need rather than by design need -- in short, to make money rather than because the game really needed an update. I said that I had this information from a reliable source.
> 
> That source was me. I was there.
> 
> See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning.
> 
> Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.
> 
> Here I sit, in 2003, with my reviewer's copies of the 3.5 books next to my computer, and that's not what I see.
> 
> . . . .
> 
> So, one has to surmise that the new business team determined that sales were slumping slightly earlier than predicted and needed 3.5 to come out earlier. One also has to surmise that someone -- at some level -- decided that it was to be a much, much more thorough revision than previously planned. Some of this is probably just human nature (two of the 3.0 designers were out of the way, and one would only work at Wizards of the Coast for about half the design time) and some of it is probably the belief that more revenue would be generated with more drastic changes. The philosophy of 3.5 has changed from being a financial "shot in the arm" into something with significant enough changes to make it a "must-buy." Perhaps they thought to strive for the sales levels of 2000. Perhaps there was corporate pressure to reach those sales levels again.



They jumped the gun for short term sales (both for 3.5 and 4e), but the original idea was 3e in 2000, 3.5 in 2005, and 4e in 2010. As they saw it, the Core Books were the main sellers (one reason why Dance urged the OGL, to let 3rd parties handle the lower performing adventures and supplementary material), so they would come out with new Core Books when sales started slumping.

I do not necessarily fault the strategy. If anything the history of D&D (and RPGs in general) has shown, it's that it's hard to be in the RPG business. I just think the idea of a "half-edition" is silly in the extreme. "Edition" is not really a term suitable to RPGs, at least not in the way WotC has historically used it.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> for something to be a new edition, there need to be rules changes, not merely rules additions.



I did play 4E, but Ibwas done with TTRPGs by the time Essentials was annoinced, and am only casually familiar with anything outside of the PHB 1. Just to narrow in on this for a bit, that's part of the definition problem here: in any normal usage of the publishing term "edition," it's a new edition if a different type-set is being used. By puttitogether a radically new presentation of core rules, it is a new "edition" in the same way that "3.5" and "1D&D" are. That you define an edition the way you do here is pretty much exactly why WotC is eschewing there term for marketing rather than publishing logic reasons.


----------



## Parmandur

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Just from the 1D&D playtest we know that certain older characters such as the grave cleric won't work seamlessly with the new rules, and we've only seen a tiny part of the rules so far. 1D&D is not "5E essentials".



The rules we've seen so far include sidebars to smooth out the seams. It is likely thst will continue. I'm not saying thst Innis Essentuals, but Essentials is precedent for WotC being able to maintain compatibility.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

billd91 said:


> I think that's actually fair to say. PF was designed with the idea that you could take any 3.5 material and use them in PF with a few tweaks - and that was generally true and with fewer than were necessary to go from 3.0 to 3.5, in my experience. I used quite a few 3.5 adventures with my PF game. I usually had to add a combat maneuver bonus and defense and very little else.
> 
> Now I think UngeheuerLich's list ends up overstating the individual effect of a lot of specific changes. For example, reworking some of the classes wasn't a huge problem - most of them could be ported between 3.0/3.5 with a little reworking - extra skill points, some different bonus proficiencies, etc. Same with the changes in skills and feats.
> Bigger changes, in my mind, included changes to damage resistance, weapon sizing, and spell durations. Those made a pretty noticeable impact, particularly on the behavior of players.
> But the big issue was just the broad scope of changes overall and I don't think any of the player or 3PP communities really expected how far they'd go or how many changes there would be. Cumulatively, it really made for a lot of little changes all over the place that made it harder to use cross-edition materials and utterly killed a lot of 3rd party 3.0 materials marketability. Also, quite a few of the changes seemed strongly related to an idiosyncratic vision of D&D that may have been held by a few of the WotC staffers at the time. So while I think some of the updates were absolutely worthwhile (updated bards and rangers in particular), I can totally see how a lot of people felt burned by the experience.



Thank you for filling in. Some feats wer huge: natural casting? The druid can now shapeshift and cast spells. 
That was huge. But of course, I agree with your assessment about the amount of changes which had the biggest impact.

Also: The game became even more codified and less adaptable. And it went further away from its ADnD roots.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> In terms of whether it is compatible, yes, everything so far is compatible.



I see no evidence of this. 

if you can walk into a AL game with a character made useing the 2014 PHB I will relent, but I doubt that will happen


----------



## GMforPowergamers

delericho said:


> They were trying out bits of 4e design in the late 3.5e books (notably "Book of 9 Swords"), and even Star Wars Saga Edition. That's probably not a good barometer of the compatibility of the finished works.



by his version of compatibility you would have to imagine someone taking a swordsage and someone else taking a jedi to a 4e table and saying "close enough right?"


----------



## GMforPowergamers

TwoSix said:


> I'm like 99% sure that there will be a sidebar saying that any feat printed without a level is a level 4 feat by default.  I'm also reasonably sure that most feats are going to be level 4, and higher level feats will be restricted to feats that give access to higher level spells or interact with higher level features.



I would love to see a "add this spell to your spell list" for higher level spells... but again I would much rather we have higher power and higher option/complexity martials first


----------



## TwoSix

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would love to see a "add this spell to your spell list" for higher level spells... but again I would much rather we have higher power and higher option/complexity martials first



Well, at least the "adding a spell to your spell list" is actually feasible.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> I see no evidence of this.
> 
> if you can walk into a AL game with a character made useing the 2014 PHB I will relent, but I doubt that will happen



AL is insignificant numerically for the game
 Statistically, that means no more than any random home game. Being compatible in Beyond is orders of magnitude more significant.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> AL is insignificant numerically for the game



but it shows how the company running it doesn't even allow the old book...


Parmandur said:


> Statistically, that means no more than any random home game. Being compatible in Beyond is orders of magnitude more significant.



no it isn't. What happens on a website doesn't matter, all that matters is if you can play the game that way or not.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would love to see a "add this spell to your spell list" for higher level spells... but again I would much rather we have higher power and higher option/complexity martials first



I don't see higher complexity martials coming from WotC...ever, really.  It's not in their business model, and their research doesn't support needing it enough.

Fortunately, there are plenty of 3rd party products to serve that desire out there.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> but it shows how the company running it doesn't even allow the old book...
> 
> no it isn't. What happens on a website doesn't matter, all that matters is if you can play the game that way or not.



Beyond is how 10 million people playbthe game. AL is a campaign of, last I heard, 100,000 people. And their rules are from the AL admins, not WotC. It's not the "official" waybtonplaybD&D, it's a nice big welcoming marketing home game, in essence.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't see higher complexity martials coming from WotC...ever, really.  It's not in their business model, and their research doesn't support needing it enough.
> 
> Fortunately, there are plenty of 3rd party products to serve that desire out there.



I'm not asking to make the game more complex... just to introduce a class that is similar to a full caster worth of complexity on a weapon wielder.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Beyond is how 10 million people playbthe game.



no it isn't.... there are 10 million people who signed up at least once to try it... no body in there right mind thinks everyone that tries a free trial is going to continue on and use the service  


Parmandur said:


> AL is a campaign of, last I heard, 100,000 people. And their rules are from the AL admins, not WotC. It's not the "official" waybtonplaybD&D, it's a nice big welcoming marketing home game, in essence.



AL is the official game


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not asking to make the game more complex... just to introduce a class that is similar to a full caster worth of complexity on a weapon wielder.



They don't need to make every class complex as long as wvery Class balances in the math.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> no it isn't.... there are 10 million people who signed up at least once to try it... no body in there right mind thinks everyone that tries a free trial is going to continue on and use the service
> 
> AL is the official game



No, it's just organized play. Organized play is neither normal nor normative to hownD&D gets played.

Besides which, there is a strong possibility theybwill still allow the usage of most 5E material. Right now, AL is opening up to be mostly community made material, with no official Adventures at all.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> They don't need to make every class complex as long as wvery Class balances in the math.



who are you kidding, this isn't a post about what they NEED to do, it was about what I WANTED


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> who are you kidding, this isn't a post about what they NEED to do, it was about what I WANTED



_shrug_

Prepare for disappointment, then, I guess.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> No, it's just organized play. Organized play is neither normal nor normative to hownD&D gets played.



citetion needed


Parmandur said:


> Besides which, there is a strong possibility theybwill still allow the usage of most 5E material. Right now, AL is opening up to be mostly community made material, with no official Adventures at all.



have to see


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> citetion needed
> 
> have to see



Low six figure players versus 8 figure people playing. It's an unrepresentative fraction of play. I'm sure it's great fun, but like convention attendance it is not normative for what people have done, are doing, or will do. That's just not the point of OP.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Low six figure players versus 8 figure people playing.



and that means what? 


Parmandur said:


> It's an unrepresentative fraction of play.



please show your work... 100 people selected correctly can represent the population of the US...


Parmandur said:


> I'm sure it's great fun, but like convention attendance it is not normative for what people have done, are doing, or will do.



what studies do you have to show this?


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> and that means what?
> 
> please show your work... 100 people selected correctly can represent the population of the US...
> 
> what studies do you have to show this?



Self-selection usually invalidates.

It's a small apart of the playerbase. It's not the norm.

For an example on the Magic side, Mark Rosewater has had to tell people multiple times that all organized store playbill dwarfed, in numbers and money, by people who but an occapack from WalMart or CVS pharmacy. Same is true of D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Self-selection usually invalidates.



it can... but not without evidence 


Parmandur said:


> It's a small apart of the playerbase. It's not the norm.



being a small part does not show it isn't the norm, you would have to show how people NOT in that small amount play diffrent. 


Parmandur said:


> For an example on the Magic side, Mark Rosewater has had to tell people multiple times that all organized store playbill dwarfed, in numbers and money, by people who but an occapack from WalMart or CVS pharmacy. Same is true of D&D.



this isn't magic


----------



## HammerMan

Ruin Explorer said:


> Just to add to this, this is not DM-controllable, and like a lot of elements of D&D Beyond, it's not consistent.
> 
> DMs have _zero_ ability to control what options players see/have. If content is owned or shared, players see it. Even if you disable the sharing, it's still shared for character creation and so on (it just blocks them from reading the entire book), which is a little surprising though there is a note on Beyond carefully explaining it.
> 
> And the "show legacy content" toggle is in a weird place in character generation in Beyond. When you create a character initially, you get a giant page full of toggles, most of them controlling what content you see (this is for the player to pick, not the DM, surprisingly), like Eberron, Rick & Morty, Critical Role, etc. - and there are two Tasha's toggles, one for "customizing your origin", and the other for "optional class features", which default to off. One would expect "show legacy content" because literally everything else that controls content is - but in fact it's on the race choice screen, as a toggle there (and not entirely well-explained).



So I’m general if I were to use beyond I would need to toggle on and off each option?


----------



## jasper

Parmandur said:


> Beyond is how 10 million people playbthe game. AL is a campaign of, last I heard, 100,000 people. And their rules are from the AL admins, not WotC. It's not the "official" waybtonplaybD&D, it's a nice big welcoming marketing home game, in essence.



hahahhahahhaha. AL DM. If rules were from the AL admins ONLY, the guidance would be lot quicker. My tables run from 3 to 7. I have DM 10.  But I will agree with on marketing the home game.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> this isn't magic



No, it's even more casual friendly, if anything. What reason do you have to believe that AL play is normal?


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> no it isn't.... there are 10 million people who signed up at least once to try it... no body in there right mind thinks everyone that tries a free trial is going to continue on and use the service



This.  There are tons like me who made an account just to see what was offered in the free version and then left because it was crap and they don't want to pay a second time for the same products.  I only log in to get the occasional free download I hear about and to get the new playtest UAs.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> This.  There are tons like me who made an account just to see what was offered in the free version and then left because it was crap and they don't want to pay a second time for the same products.  I only log in to get the occasional free download I hear about and to get the new playtest UAs.



That's more interaction than most players have with the AL.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> That's more interaction than most players have with the AL.



Yeah.  I wouldn't touch AL with the 20 foot pole that I probably can't buy because it's not on the list in the PHB.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> No, it's even more casual friendly, if anything. What reason do you have to believe that AL play is normal?



I am not sure if it is or isn't but you are putting out a point YOU believe in and I am asking for proof


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> This.  There are tons like me who made an account just to see what was offered in the free version and then left because it was crap and they don't want to pay a second time for the same products.  I only log in to get the occasional free download I hear about and to get the new playtest UAs.



Three in my group have accounts... none of us use it and none have paid for anything


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> Three in my group have accounts... none of us use it and none have paid for anything



I think all 5 of us have accounts that we don't use.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> I think all 5 of us have accounts that we don't use.



i  bet at least some major full % of those users are ones that tired and didn;t and/or duplicate accounts


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am not sure if it is or isn't but you are putting out a point YOU believe in and I am asking for proof



Do you believe that more people are playing in the AL than the AL isnreporting...?


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not asking to make the game more complex... just to introduce a class that is similar to a full caster worth of complexity on a weapon wielder.



Again, I'm sorry but I just don't see that happening. WotC decided a while back that fighter was the simple class, and their research seems to indicate that the majority agree with them on that.  They don't see it as a problem, so they won't fix it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Do you believe that more people are playing in the AL than the AL isnreporting...?



no but I think that without evidence to the contrary I am not willing to call out AL players as against the norm... by the time you get to 2-3 thousand players and they are spread across the country, I think they are a pretty good slice of many different players


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> Again, I'm sorry but I just don't see that happening. WotC decided a while back that fighter was the simple class, and their research seems to indicate that the majority agree with them on that.  They don't see it as a problem, so they won't fix it.



fighter can be simple... introduce a warlord, make that the complex weapon/non spell class


----------



## TwoSix

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not asking to make the game more complex... just to introduce a class that is similar to a full caster worth of complexity on a weapon wielder.



Personally, I'd love to see the ranger take on that role of "complex martial".  Give them dozens of selectable abilities that represent secret monster knowledge, ancient lore, and weapon techniques they've encountered on their wanderings.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> Again, I'm sorry but I just don't see that happening. WotC decided a while back that fighter was the simple class, and their research seems to indicate that the majority agree with them on that.  They don't see it as a problem, so they won't fix it.



It could be the Warlord, though.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

TwoSix said:


> Personally, I'd love to see the ranger take on that role of "complex martial".  Give them dozens of selectable abilities that represent secret monster knowledge, ancient lore, and weapon techniques they've encountered on their wanderings.



my only issue is ranger is a caster


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> no but I think that without evidence to the contrary I am not willing to call out AL players as against the norm... by the time you get to 2-3 thousand players and they are spread across the country, I think they are a pretty good slice of many different players



That's really out how sampling works.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Maxperson said:


> It could be the Warlord, though.



It could be, absolutely. I just don't think WotC is sufficiently motivated to make such a class.  Are their shiny new fans demanding a complex martial?  If they're not, they won't make one.


----------



## Jahydin

Micah Sweet said:


> Everything about how Essentials was presented pointed to them thinking of it as a new edition, even it wasn't by their previous standards.



I don't know about that.

Just pulling up the first interview I found with the creators:


> *Rich*: 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 – they have the same sorts of stats and same sorts of defenses.  The only difference, really, is that the guy playing the Players Handbook Fighter is thinking in terms of power usage, and what his encounter powers, daily powers, and at will powers are doing, while the guy playing the _Essentials_ Fighter is taking a step back and saying, ‘you know, I don’t want to manage that level of decision-making,  and I’m going to concentrate on doing what I think my guy should do – which is trying to wale on people with my sword, and be the tough guy for the party!’





> *Mike*: And that’s one of the nice things too for Players just coming in [to D&D], they only have to deal with one book to start with.  And then, at the right point, when they want to start adding in more options, they can maybe buy a Martial Powers or a Players Hand Book 1, and they are slowly adding more options.





> *Interviewer: *"So it really became clear to me that *the main purpose of the D&D Essentials was not to create a new version of the game*, but to provide a way to get new Players into 4E, whether they had no experience with D&D or if they had not played since a previous version"


----------



## Parmandur

Jahydin said:


> I don't know about that.
> 
> Just pulling up the first interview I found with the creators:



Sounds a lot like OneD&D talk.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think people will still call it an edition.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> That's really out how sampling works.



citation needed... 

nelson ratings aren't "Take every person that watches TV" its "Take a sample of each and every type and then interpret" 

When we poll for political reasons, we don't need to call all 100% of voters, but a subset. 

IMDB uses self selected people to rate movies and so does Rotten tomatoes...

if YOU want to prove that people that play at cons and at AL and at game stores is not representative then YOU have to show what makes the people that play in public different then those that play at home.

Most new Players I have interacted with have NOT been on tic tok or this page or twitter... the ones I have seen to go on to run home games, I met at stores, cons and AL events. 

Not every player I know goes to or plays public games (although I did know a couple that had a gaming store so we did try to support them) but I would say about 2 out of the 15 of us did somewhat pre covid (and we are starting to get back to it) 

Back during the big schism when some of us went to 4e, and some went to PF and some went to different non D20 games, there was at least 1 from each group that was going to 1+ con a year and at least some playing some form of organized play.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> It could be, absolutely. I just don't think WotC is sufficiently motivated to make such a class.  Are their shiny new fans demanding a complex martial?  If they're not, they won't make one.



I think they are (kind of) I don't think there is a big "Bring back the warlord" or "Bring back the swordsage" movement... but I am seeing more and more talk on social media (even new players that have never played pre 5e) and at stores about dissatisfaction with caster to non caster abilities.  

Back in 3e we called it LFQW, and I even see many old timers trying to shout down the new kids with "It used to be worse so don't complain"


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> citation needed...
> 
> nelson ratings aren't "Take every person that watches TV" its "Take a sample of each and every type and then interpret"
> 
> When we poll for political reasons, we don't need to call all 100% of voters, but a subset.
> 
> IMDB uses self selected people to rate movies and so does Rotten tomatoes...
> 
> if YOU want to prove that people that play at cons and at AL and at game stores is not representative then YOU have to show what makes the people that play in public different then those that play at home.
> 
> Most new Players I have interacted with have NOT been on tic tok or this page or twitter... the ones I have seen to go on to run home games, I met at stores, cons and AL events.
> 
> Not every player I know goes to or plays public games (although I did know a couple that had a gaming store so we did try to support them) but I would say about 2 out of the 15 of us did somewhat pre covid (and we are starting to get back to it)
> 
> Back during the big schism when some of us went to 4e, and some went to PF and some went to different non D20 games, there was at least 1 from each group that was going to 1+ con a year and at least some playing some form of organized play.



Your experience is with the organized play world, sure. Thst doesn't mean that it is representative. I've known tons of people who play, none of whom ever touched convention or in-store play. And even thosewho have, how many are going to pay attention to AL rules in their home game, at any rate...?

Based on the latest changes to AL (reeeeeaaaallly loosening up), it's likely to be used to beat the "OneD&D" in the future anyways, so I wouldn't be surprised if AL goes out of their way to accommodate mixing to help ease in amybody.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Your experience is with the organized play world, sure. Thst doesn't mean that it is representative.



okay so just simply explain what is different.  What is it about the sub section of people playing in public that makes it not representative? 

If I am trying to argue who has better burgers Mcdonalds or Burger King then polling people at a mall is 100% diffrent then polling people at Mcdonalds... I can SHOW the difference. can you show such a difference here?


Parmandur said:


> I've known tons of people who play, none of whom ever touched convention or in-store play. And even thosewho have, how many are going to pay attention to AL rules in their home game, at any rate...?



okay, so what you JUST said is that the people who DO go to conventions, or in store, or AL... ALSO play in home games.  So, in your experience what is the difference? 

in my game tonight we have a group of 5 right now (me DM 4 players) right now NONE of us are playing at in store BUT pre covid 2 of us were, and  2 of us (with 1 overlap) regularly (at least 1 every other year) went to cons...  All 5 of us (including the 2 that don't do store games, or COns) play and DM... what differences do you expect the 3 that DO fall into one category to have form the 2 that don't?


Parmandur said:


> Based on the latest changes to AL (reeeeeaaaallly loosening up), it's likely to be used to beat the "OneD&D" in the future anyways, so I wouldn't be surprised if AL goes out of their way to accommodate mixing to help ease in amybody.



maybe maybe not... none of us know the future


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> citation needed...
> 
> nelson ratings aren't "Take every person that watches TV" its "Take a sample of each and every type and then interpret"
> 
> When we poll for political reasons, we don't need to call all 100% of voters, but a subset.



Indeed, but there are a lot of techniques used to build those subsets so that they weed out selection biases as much as they can. And even then we've seen political polls to awry in recent years because of things that we're still learning (the tendency of supporters to avoid polls if they perceive their candidate is getting beat, thus undercounting the support) and changes in the electorate (fewer land lines for telephone polls, etc)



GMforPowergamers said:


> IMDB uses self selected people to rate movies and so does Rotten tomatoes...




Welcome to a significant problem with their ratings system. They are subject to things like rating bombings because of that self-selection power of participants.



GMforPowergamers said:


> if YOU want to prove that people that play at cons and at AL and at game stores is not representative then YOU have to show what makes the people that play in public different then those that play at home.




No, that's putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion that the AL group is actually representative of the broader D&D playing community rather than is subject to massive amounts of selection bias. The presumption is that they really are *NOT* and thus any generalization derived from them has a higher error value than a good random sample.


----------



## Deadstop

GMforPowergamers said:


> no but I think that without evidence to the contrary I am not willing to call out AL players as against the norm... by the time you get to 2-3 thousand players and they are spread across the country, I think they are a pretty good slice of many different players




Sure, they are a slice of different players, but they play the AL way, with all its rules and restrictions beyond what the rulebooks say, because that’s what AL requires. What evidence do we have that a significant number of them play with AL restrictions at home?

The argument is whether “what’s allowed in AL” is a good metric for what people will do in D&D at large when it comes to mixing 2014 and 2024 options.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

billd91 said:


> Indeed, but there are a lot of techniques used to build those subsets so that they weed out selection biases as much as they can. And even then we've seen political polls to awry in recent years because of things that we're still learning (the tendency of supporters to avoid polls if they perceive their candidate is getting beat, thus undercounting the support) and changes in the electorate (fewer land lines for telephone polls, etc)



okay, but again, you can SHOW what the difference is.  It isn't just "These people are abnormal cause I say so" 
if someone (anyone) can show a difference that we can test for (and plenty of us know both people that do and don't attend cons/organized play/store games) what we would expect to be different between the two, I will relent... but not "Trust me it's different" 


billd91 said:


> Welcome to a significant problem with their ratings system. They are subject to things like rating bombings because of that self-selection power of participants.



and if you point out "Hey, most of those down votes are X Y Z people little to none of them are type A or type B or type C" then you have an argument... so far the argument is "I don't want to tell you the difference" 


billd91 said:


> No, that's putting the burden of proof on the wrong side.



wait... no that's my argument, that HE is putting the burden of proof on the wrong side.


billd91 said:


> The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion that the AL group is actually representative of the broader D&D playing community rather than is subject to massive amounts of selection bias.



except that isn't what happened.. HE IS MAKING THE ASSERTION that they are not in fact representative... he is providing 0 evidence. just "Trust me they don't count"


billd91 said:


> The presumption is that they really are *NOT* and thus any generalization derived from them has a higher error value than a good random sample.



why is that the presumption (other then cause you say so, or it would hurt your argument if that wasn't true)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Deadstop said:


> Sure, they are a slice of different players, but they play the AL way, with all its rules and restrictions beyond what the rulebooks say, because that’s what AL requires.



that is what I started by saying... so yeah I agree.


Deadstop said:


> What evidence do we have that a significant number of them play with AL restrictions at home?



0, nor did I ever say that.  Infact I dare you to find that statement in any post i have made since 2014 when 5e came out... my only argument is you can't use something I said prior to 2014.


Deadstop said:


> The argument is whether “what’s allowed in AL” is a good metric for what people will do in D&D at large when it comes to mixing 2014 and 2024 options.



no it isn't


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> why is that the presumption (other then cause you say so, or it would hurt your argument if that wasn't true)



Because that's how statistical sampling works.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> no it isn't



OK, thst was the argument I was engaged in. "What flies in AL" is a weird subset of the game, not the official or normal way that itn is played.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Because that's how statistical sampling works.



no it isn't... again, if I take a poll of 5,000 people spread out over all 50 states (so 500 per state) with no more then 200 per mall... but my survey is outside of malls, and ask "Who do you think makes a better burger Mcdonalds, or Burger King" that would stand up to most review... it would not be perfect, you could argue the neighborhood of these malls, or the demographics (men/women race ect) but not that I sampled from everywhere...

now if I sample 5,000 people across 5 states all in big cities outside of Mcdonalds... even though it's still 5k people that is not even CLOSE to as accurate (although I bet BK still gets some small amount of votes) 



Parmandur said:


> OK, thst was the argument I was engaged in. "What flies in AL" is a weird subset of the game, not the official or normal way that itn is played.



except you included Cons, and homebrew store games and said that everyone that is in THOSE live environments are outliers without showing what makes them an outlier (Especially since you admitted to knowing groups that mix those that do and those that don't, so it should be easy to show what makes them different) 

NOBODY gets to just wholesale exclude everyone at Cons, Stores, or AL games from all feed back... but you are trying to


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> no it isn't... again, if I take a poll of 5,000 people spread out over all 50 states (so 500 per state) with no more then 200 per mall... but my survey is outside of malls, and ask "Who do you think makes a better burger Mcdonalds, or Burger King" that would stand up to most review... it would not be perfect, you could argue the neighborhood of these malls, or the demographics (men/women race ect) but not that I sampled from everywhere...
> 
> now if I sample 5,000 people across 5 states all in big cities outside of Mcdonalds... even though it's still 5k people that is not even CLOSE to as accurate (although I bet BK still gets some small amount of votes)
> 
> 
> except you included Cons, and homebrew store games and said that everyone that is in THOSE live environments are outliers without showing what makes them an outlier (Especially since you admitted to knowing groups that mix those that do and those that don't, so it should be easy to show what makes them different)
> 
> NOBODY gets to just wholesale exclude everyone at Cons, Stores, or AL games from all feed back... but you are trying to



Nobody is being "excluded," but most people who are playing are notnpkaying in those environments. That means they are exceprionw, not the rule.

It more like standing outside of McDonalds and king people coming outnifntheynprefer McDonalds or Burger King. A flawed sampbased on self-selection.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Nobody is being "excluded," but most people who are playing are notnpkaying in those environments.



please stop pretending I said things I didn't
I NEVER!!!!! said that most people are playing in that environment. 

is there one of those fancy bad faith argument things when someone changes what is being argued so they can be said to be right about something? 


Parmandur said:


> That means they are exceprionw, not the rule.



no it doesn't... nothing about playing in AL (or Cons or Store games that you seem to have dropped so do those count now?) make you diffrent. ESPECIALLY when you yourself know that some groups people DO play in both.


Parmandur said:


> It more like standing outside of McDonalds and king people coming outnifntheynprefer McDonalds or Burger King. A flawed sampbased on self-selection.



no it isn't... my analogy fits pretty well... AL is in every state, as far as I know every state has at least 1 gaming store as well (although I wont say I know that for sure)


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay, but again, you can SHOW what the difference is.  It isn't just "These people are abnormal cause I say so"



Nobody's saying "these people are abnormal". We're saying they may not be representative of the whole community and should not be considered representative of the whole community, at least not with great confidence.


GMforPowergamers said:


> if someone (anyone) can show a difference that we can test for (and plenty of us know both people that do and don't attend cons/organized play/store games) what we would expect to be different between the two, I will relent... but not "Trust me it's different"
> 
> and if you point out "Hey, most of those down votes are X Y Z people little to none of them are type A or type B or type C" then you have an argument... so far the argument is "I don't want to tell you the difference"
> 
> wait... no that's my argument, that HE is putting the burden of proof on the wrong side.
> 
> except that isn't what happened.. HE IS MAKING THE ASSERTION that they are not in fact representative... he is providing 0 evidence. just "Trust me they don't count"
> 
> why is that the presumption (other then cause you say so, or it would hurt your argument if that wasn't true)



Sample bias is a serious challenge in trying to make inferences about a broader population  with high degrees of confidence. In the case of using the AL player population, there may be characteristics of that population distinct from the population you're excluding - the Non-AL players. They may be more inclined to play the game without a lot of house rules, with a broader mix of player types, in public spaces, with a full array of in-book options rather than curated subsets of the game, etc than the players who aren't participating in AL. And any of those could affect the results you'd see on a play test survey.

Think of the old, premature headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" in the 1948 election. The Chicago Tribune published that because it relied on a telephone survey to predict the results of the close election. But telephones in 1948 were still kind of a luxury and overrepresented people with wealth and stable addresses - people more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. Because that sample was biased, the Trib got the headline wrong, got egg on their face, and made for a fabulous photo op for Truman.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> please stop pretending I said things I didn't
> I NEVER!!!!! said that most people are playing in that environment.
> 
> is there one of those fancy bad faith argument things when someone changes what is being argued so they can be said to be right about something?
> 
> no it doesn't... nothing about playing in AL (or Cons or Store games that you seem to have dropped so do those count now?) make you diffrent. ESPECIALLY when you yourself know that some groups people DO play in both.
> 
> no it isn't... my analogy fits pretty well... AL is in every state, as far as I know every state has at least 1 gaming store as well (although I wont say I know that for sure)



So what, McDonalds is in every state, too. But you aren't likely to find hardcore Burger King affficiandos exiting McDonalds for the survey. That's the point, the sampling size is skewed and more importantly _we don't know how thst effects the results_. That's why the assumption is thst it is not representative.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

billd91 said:


> Nobody's saying "these people are abnormal". We're saying they may not be representative of the whole community and should not be considered representative of the whole community, at least not with great confidence.



here is what we have

a subset that pays for beyond (not the full amount cause again not incognizant number are just free trials) 
a subset that plays in stores and cons
a subset that plays AL
a subset that answer surveys
a subset that post on here (or other social media)

and some of that is overlap (Me myself I am 4 of those 5)

and our own personal experience. 

NOBODY, not even WotC has a perfect set of information... BUT they do have the people who pay for beyond, people who post on here/other social media, and those that play AL and the people who answer surveys... BUT they don't have some scientific study. 

so discounting ANY of the samples for being not well rounded is to discount ALL of them... and then we are back to our own experience (that I am sure people will say doesn't count)


billd91 said:


> Sample bias is a serious challenge in trying to make inferences about a broader population  with high degrees of confidence.



correct, but again, nobody here has BETTER information... so when you ask for 'high degrees of confidence' you are just saying "SHUT UP STOP TALKING" in a nicer way... we don't have ANY high degree of confidence in ANY of this. 


billd91 said:


> In the case of using the AL player population, there may be characteristics of that population distinct from the population you're excluding - the Non-AL players.



okay so show that work... what is it?


billd91 said:


> They may be more inclined to play the game without a lot of house rules, with a broader mix of player types, in public spaces, with a full array of in-book options rather than curated subsets of the game, etc than the players who aren't participating in AL. And any of those could affect the results you'd see on a play test survey.



okay, and again this is disproved as soon as you say that they also play in home games...


billd91 said:


> Think of the old, premature headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" in the 1948 election.



so we are back to "nobody knows, so nobody can talk about it"


billd91 said:


> The Chicago Tribune published that because it relied on a telephone survey to predict the results of the close election.



intresting word there 'close race' there is a reason we have margins for error... but we have to stop this is 100% agains the rules to talk about


billd91 said:


> Republican than Democrat.



PLEASE do not use those words... they will get this thread closed


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> So what, McDonalds is in every state, too. But you aren't likely to find hardcore Burger King affficiandos exiting McDonalds for the survey. That's the point, the sampling size is skewed and more importantly _we don't know how thst effects the results_. That's why the assumption is thst it is not representative.



show me better results then. notice that you are again arguing that this is so biased... but you can't show HOW it is biased.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> show me better results then. notice that you are again arguing that this is so biased... but you can't show HOW it is biased.



Yes, exactly! That's my point.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Yes, exactly! That's my point.



except YOU are claiming they are biased without showing any reason to call them that


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> except YOU are claiming they are biased without showing any reason to call them that



We know that it is a skewed sample, by definition. As @billd91  pointed out, that's the default assumption, particularly when talking about a fraction of a percent of the total population. But more importantly, we don't know how the sample skews!

But the main point is thatbAL rules are not a good measure of the game, because they are artifical and rigid by nature.


----------



## Iosue

GMforPowergamers said:


> except YOU are claiming they are biased without showing any reason to call them that



They are biased because they are biased. They have an inherent selection bias. You can get results from such a sample, but that usually involves various statistical analyses to demonstrate that any differences are unlikely to be result of random chance. And even then, any study that involved such a sample would still note that there was a selection bias when noting the limitations of the study.

But we're not even really talking about obtaining results from a study that uses AL as a sample, are we?


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> fighter can be simple... introduce a warlord, make that the complex weapon/non spell class



Isn't this the battlemaster?


----------



## HammerMan

GMforPowergamers said:


> show me better results then. notice that you are again arguing that this is so biased... but you can't show HOW it is biased.





Parmandur said:


> Yes, exactly! That's my point.





GMforPowergamers said:


> except YOU are claiming they are biased without showing any reason to call them that





Parmandur said:


> We know that it is a skewed sample, by definition. As @billd91  pointed out, that's the default assumption, particularly when talking about a fraction of a percent of the total population. But more importantly, we don't know how the sample




Both of you are being the problem here, but I want to use this to show the bigger issue. 
As a community we stink at talking to each other (as someone into comics and movies I will not say we are the only ones) and this is a great time when we should be acting better. 

Don’t try to win arguments try to talk and this place (and others) will be better for it.  I am about to get back to game 3 of a playtest with 2 teenage new players and I would be embarrassed to show them this is how we talk here.


----------



## HammerMan

Reynard said:


> Isn't this the battlemaster?



No it isn’t. 
And you have been in enough threads where this has been argued.


----------



## Reynard

HammerMan said:


> No it isn’t.
> And you have been in enough threads where this has been argued.



And yet people can't ever seem to show what they want when they ask for a "complex martial" that isn't already provided by multiple 3PPs. At this point one can assume there is nothing that could possibly fill this "need."


----------



## Lanefan

Reynard said:


> And yet people can't ever seem to show what they want when they ask for a "complex martial" that isn't already provided by multiple 3PPs. At this point one can assume there is nothing that could possibly fill this "need."



The cynic in me says the call for a complex martial comes largely from those who would have their cake and eat it too; who want a character with all the capabilities of a full-on Fighter but which also has spells or other quasi-magical abilities baked in for those times when fighting isn't the best course of action.  Think Gish, or Warlord, or Swordsage; that type of thing, only leaning a bit toward the warrior side.

In other words, a jack-of-all-trades character that is in fact a master-of-all-trades - the type of character that is the bane of party play as it has no real weaknesses for the rest of the party to shore up.

Because otherwise, there's really only so much complexity you can put into a hit-it-till-it-falls-over warrior archetype before you either make it not a warrior any more or you make it something better suited to a supers game.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

HammerMan said:


> Both of you are being the problem here, but I want to use this to show the bigger issue.
> As a community we stink at talking to each other (as someone into comics and movies I will not say we are the only ones) and this is a great time when we should be acting better.
> 
> Don’t try to win arguments try to talk and this place (and others) will be better for it.  I am about to get back to game 3 of a playtest with 2 teenage new players and I would be embarrassed to show them this is how we talk here.



we are all in edition war mode... I admit it, but lets be honest you are effected by it too


HammerMan said:


> No it isn’t.
> And you have been in enough threads where this has been argued.



but part of it is the fact that we only get responses to things that enrage (funny how close to engage that is).

if I post 3 threads and 2 are positive about things I love and 1 about the problem I have with martial characters the only one that will get traction will be the martial one... and even then half of it will be likre this


Lanefan said:


> The cynic in me says the call for a complex martial comes largely from those who would have their cake and eat it too;



see only trying to pick at and try to fight about it.


Lanefan said:


> who want a character with all the capabilities of a full-on Fighter but which also has spells or other quasi-magical abilities baked in for those times when fighting isn't the best course of action.  Think Gish, or Warlord, or Swordsage; that type of thing, only leaning a bit toward the warrior side.



lol you mean a hexblade or a warrior cleric or bard, or the bladesinger.... you know the classes that are just that.


Lanefan said:


> In other words, a jack-of-all-trades character that is in fact a master-of-all-trades



again you are mistaken for "we want things as good as what others have" for "give us everything" but I can see how it's hard to see when the casters are pretty close to having it all


Lanefan said:


> Because otherwise, there's really only so much complexity you can put into a hit-it-till-it-falls-over warrior archetype before you either make it not a warrior any more or you make it something better suited to a supers game.



look to 4e to manage to not be a super game, not be a non warrior... but still have options and power.


----------



## HammerMan

Reynard said:


> And yet people can't ever seem to show what they want when they ask for a "complex martial" that isn't already provided by multiple 3PPs. At this point one can assume there is nothing that could possibly fill this "need."



Well you can start with official content and not 3pp


----------



## Parmandur

Iosue said:


> But we're not even really talking about obtaining results from a study that uses AL as a sample, are we?



Exactly, we are talking about whether AL usage is a barometer of compatibility, which it clearly isn't, unless we want to claim that Volo's Guide to Monsters was incompatible with Xanathar's Guide to Everything (until it was).


----------



## Reynard

HammerMan said:


> Well you can start with official content and not 3pp



I made a thread to talk about this specifically if you are interested.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> The cynic in me says the call for a complex martial comes largely from those who would have their cake and eat it too; who want a character with all the capabilities of a full-on Fighter but which also has spells or other quasi-magical abilities baked in for those times when fighting isn't the best course of action.  Think Gish, or Warlord, or Swordsage; that type of thing, only leaning a bit toward the warrior side.
> 
> In other words, a jack-of-all-trades character that is in fact a master-of-all-trades - the type of character that is the bane of party play as it has no real weaknesses for the rest of the party to shore up.
> 
> Because otherwise, there's really only so much complexity you can put into a hit-it-till-it-falls-over warrior archetype before you either make it not a warrior any more or you make it something better suited to a supers game.



How does the Warlord not lean into the Warrior side?


----------



## Lanefan

GMforPowergamers said:


> we are all in edition war mode... I admit it, but lets be honest you are effected by it too



I wouldn't say I'm in edition war mode; more I'm in the mode of "they're doing a new-ish edition of the game so now's the best opportunity to push - in whatever tiny way I can - for meaningful change toward a tougher, more warlike, dare I even say nastier style of game where the different characters all have significant weaknesses and thus need each other's strengths in order to survive, never mind thrive."


GMforPowergamers said:


> lol you mean a hexblade or a warrior cleric or bard, or the bladesinger.... you know the classes that are just that.



Yes, that sort of thing - classes that IMO while sometime fun and interesting in and of themselves maybe aren't necessarily good for the bigger picture.


GMforPowergamers said:


> again you are mistaken for "we want things as good as what others have" for "give us everything" but I can see how it's hard to see when the casters are pretty close to having it all



Then rein back the casters!  As the design level there's many very easy means of doing this, if the designers had the gumption to dare try any:
--- make casting take time within a round, during which time the caster is defenseless
--- make casting extremely easy to interrupt (and get rid of combat casting in the process), any jostling or disturbance and your spell is lost
--- limit or even get rid of at-will cantrips
--- make magic dangerous and risky e.g. interrupted spells can go wild, casters have to roll to aim AoE spells and can much more easily clip their allies on a poor roll, etc.

And that's just a start.

The main balance point between warriors and casters at one time was that casters could only do their thing so many times a day, and in a quite restricted manner, where warriors could keep going all afternoon as long as they didn't run out of hit points.


GMforPowergamers said:


> look to 4e to manage to not be a super game, not be a non warrior... but still have options and power.



Not in edition war mode so not touching this with my handy 10' pole.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Lanefan said:


> Yes, that sort of thing - classes that IMO while sometime fun and interesting in and of themselves maybe aren't necessarily good for the bigger picture.



as long as we have those class/subclasses I just can't take serious any push to no increase the fighter. 


Lanefan said:


> Then rein back the casters!



that is well beyond hope... maybe in 6e


Lanefan said:


> The main balance point between warriors and casters at one time was that casters could only do their thing so many times a day, and in a quite restricted manner, where warriors could keep going all afternoon as long as they didn't run out of hit points.



but that has become less and less true each edition


Lanefan said:


> Not in edition war mode so not touching this with my handy 10' pole.


----------



## Lanefan

GMforPowergamers said:


> but that has become less and less true each edition



My point exactly!  It's a trend that IMO needs to be turned around 180 degrees.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Lanefan said:


> My point exactly!  It's a trend that IMO needs to be turned around 180 degrees.



I will 100% support 2e wizards with some 5e innovations (concentration, spell slot level up) as the 6e wizard... even with max at 20th level 12d4+10 hp


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> We know that it is a skewed sample, by definition. As @billd91  pointed out, that's the default assumption, particularly when talking about a fraction of a percent of the total population. But more importantly, we don't know how the sample skews!



All polls are a fraction of the total population.  A Gallup poll is 1000 people with a margin of error of +/- 4%.  That's for a population of 329 million.  D&D only has a population of 50 million, yet you're saying a spread out sample size of multiple thousands is skewed an inaccurate.


Parmandur said:


> But the main point is thatbAL rules are not a good measure of the game, because they are artifical and rigid by nature.



That much is true.  AL doesn't play the game like most of the rest of us do, which does put things in doubt, not because of the number polled vs. population size.


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is well beyond hope... maybe in 6e



You don't have to change the rules to rein in casters. You just have to follow them.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> That much is true. AL doesn't play the game like most of the rest of us do



Right, which is the point.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> That much is true.  AL doesn't play the game like most of the rest of us do, which does put things in doubt, not because of the number polled vs. population size.



I run AL. I run a home game. I run them pretty much the same.
The fact that people who play in or run AL may not have the same options to curate material and are self-selectively fine with that may contribute to why the AL population may not be representative of the whole D&D community, but it's not like we're Australian football compared to American football.
I feel there's a *BIG* misconception at work here.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> I run AL. I run a home game. I run them pretty much the same.
> The fact that people who play in or run AL may not have the same options to curate material and are self-selectively fine with that may contribute to why the AL population may not be representative of the whole D&D community, but it's not like we're Australian football compared to American football.
> I feel there's a *BIG* misconception at work here.



I think there is a significant difference between most home games and AL games. You may run them pretty much the same, but my experience is that there are a lot of house rules used in home games and the rulings DMs come up with often break or bend rules when they think it's necessary.  My understand of AL is that house rules and breaking/bending rules isn't allowed.


----------



## Deadstop

billd91 said:


> I run AL. I run a home game. I run them pretty much the same.
> The fact that people who play in or run AL may not have the same options to curate material and are self-selectively fine with that may contribute to why the AL population may not be representative of the whole D&D community, but it's not like we're Australian football compared to American football.
> I feel there's a *BIG* misconception at work here.




There are two different issues being discussed here.

The original claim was that one could judge “compatibility” between 2014 and 2024 material based on whether AL allows both to be used together. The argument against that was that AL play is already different and more restrictive than home play, and so AL policy may not be the relevant measure of compatibility for most players.

The slightly different argument that has been dominating the discussion is whether AL _players_ constitute a statistically representative sample of D&D players. Which then kinda got turned into the weirder question of whether there is something that makes AL players significantly different from other D&D players.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> And yet people can't ever seem to show what they want when they ask for a "complex martial" that isn't already provided by multiple 3PPs. At this point one can assume there is nothing that could possibly fill this "need."



I think a lot of people have the unfortunate impression that their gaming wants for D&D can only be filled by WotC.  All those 3PPs don't count apparently.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Micah Sweet said:


> I think a lot of people have the unfortunate impression that their gaming wants for D&D can only be filled by WotC.  All those 3PPs don't count apparently.




Depending on whether those people are players or GMs, that may not be an inaccurate read.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Thomas Shey said:


> Depending on whether those people are players or GMs, that may not be an inaccurate read.



How so?


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> I think there is a significant difference between most home games and AL games. You may run them pretty much the same, but my experience is that there are a lot of house rules used in home games and the rulings DMs come up with often break or bend rules when they think it's necessary.  My understand of AL is that house rules and breaking/bending rules isn't allowed.



What isn't really known is how closely WotC monitor AL play - i.e. the version of play that is in theory completely by the book - for use as a guide to whether the game is "working" or not.

Because that's the perception even if not the reality, and has been since 1e's RPGA days: that organized play is the "official" version, and due to this has an outsized influence over what revisions and tweaks etc. might occur during an edition's run regardless of what percentage of the gaming community is actually playng AL vs a home game or something else.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Micah Sweet said:


> How so?




Players don't routinely get to choose whether third party material is acceptable in a campaign, and they're far less likely on the whole to get access to it than material from the company producing the game in use.  Neither is an absolute, but as a generalization its pretty sound.


----------



## Marandahir

Shiroiken said:


> If they use the word edition, it will almost certainly be just "Anniversary Edition." They might go with Revised Dungeon & Dragons, but I find that unlikely.
> 
> 
> It really comes down to how you define an edition. We are currently playing the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. You have: OD&D, BECMI, 3E, 4E, and now 5E, as technically Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was a different game. If you want to break things down by major rule changes across all Dungeons & Dragons, it gets messy.
> 
> 
> OD&D: 1-4 versions
> At least Greyhawk made significant changes, and I believe the other supplements might have as well
> 
> 1E AD&D: 2 versions
> Unearthed Arcana made changes enough to be considered 1.5E
> 
> BECMI: 2-6 versions
> Each set made significant changes, but arguably they were extensions of the rules like OD&D had. The Rules Compendium combined them all, which I'd consider a half edition at least
> 
> 2E AD&D: 2 versions
> The revised version would have been a half edition
> 
> 3E : 2 versions
> Everyone knows the half edition
> 
> 4E: 2 versions
> The Essentials set was a half edition change
> 
> 5E: 1 version (plus probably 1 in 2024)
> So at a minimum we've had 12 major rule systems, and at most 19 versions. The fact that there's some compatibility might be irrelevant, since a lot of material from BECMI, 1E, and 2E was usable in any of these editions.



1977 Basic was more intended as the Starter Set for 1977 AD&D with somewhat different rules (note that the 4e Essentials Red Box has somewhat different rules from the 4e Essentials Core Rulebooks, too; this is the precedence for that). It’s MOSTLY compatible with the 1977 AD&D set, which was intended for if you completed the Basic Set and wanted to keep going. The ‘77 Basic Set also shares remarkable compatibility with the ‘74 OD&D rules; both it and 1e are iterative improvements on OD&D, much like 2e was over 1e or Player’s Option and 90s errata revisions over 1989’s core rules.

The 1980/81 B/X sets were definitely intended to be successors to the ‘77 Basic, but were incompatible with it, and similarly incompatible with AD&D - that’s why the Expert Box exists, since you’re no longer expected to convert your Basic character to AD&D rules upon hitting the upper level limit.

The 1983+ BECMI sets, the 1991 Black Box set, the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia, and the 1994 Classic Set were all essentially errata to the 1980 B/X game, though plenty of things changed. This is more akin to 4e Essentials over 4e than say, 2e over 1e, though even the first two editions of AD&D are relatively compatible.

AD&D is not a separate game from 3.0 D&D onward. They just dropped the Advanced because the Basic line had been retired. If anything, Basic was the separate game with its own editions.


----------



## Sabathius42

UngeheuerLich said:


> I try to make it short:
> 
> 3.0 retained a lot of the 2e structure. Spellists were close to ADnD. Spells themselves. Skills also.
> 
> Then 3.5 made following changes:
> 
> 1. Restructuring of some classes
> 2. Removal of some skills
> 3. Cover rules and concealment rules were boardgamified, instead of beong DM adjucation. -> Board game dependancy was introduced.
> 4. Feats changed. Much easier again to cast in melee. Or even casting spells in shapeshifted form.
> 5. Spell lists were changed completely. Opposing schools of specialists were simplified and chosable.
> 6. Some spells became butchered into pieces or lost their cool applications (command was changed to a list of options, ice wall could not be used as a horizontal plane anymore).
> 7. Some weapons were removed/changed.
> 8. Prestige classes were now officially pure players material used to plug holes in the multiclass system instead of being rewards for the DM. (Although later, some cool prestige classes reappeared).
> 9. I think HP for monsters were inflated even more, making damage spells even more irrelevant.
> 
> That was just out of my head. Maybe I misremember something. I surely forgot a few things.
> 
> Somehow so many philosophies have changed, that somehow 3.0 books were incompatible with 3.5... Also every relevant book was somehow replaced with a newer option.



The only two changes from 3.0 to 3.5 that stick in my head were spreading the ranger abilities over a number of levels instead of everything at 1st and changing the stat increasing spells (Bulls Strength, etc) from lasting all adventure to lasting one combat.

I think the differences were noticable, but it was still the same game.  Listening in on a session and pinpointing if it was 3.0 or 3.5 would be difficult for many  and I suspect the same situation will happen with 5e or 5.5/6/One/360/SeriesX/Anniversary/50th.


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> The cynic in me says the call for a complex martial comes largely from those who would have their cake and eat it too; who want a character with all the capabilities of a full-on Fighter but which also has spells or other quasi-magical abilities baked in for those times when fighting isn't the best course of action.  Think Gish, or Warlord, or Swordsage; that type of thing, only leaning a bit toward the warrior side.



I mean, yes, kind of?  

I think the whole point is that the full-on Fighter, the "hit-it-till-it-falls-over" concept, can't by definition really match up with a spellcaster in terms of overall utility and power.  But there's a hole, both in provided game mechanics and in fictional trope, for a warrior-type character who's predominantly strong and tough (or possibly agile and evasive) but also has a bag of preternatural and/or supernatural tricks to call on.

It is, essentially, a Fighter++ compared to most editions of D&D (4e is the one edition that really nailed the complex Fighter).  3.5 did it with the Warblade and Swordsage, but those classes are definitely upgrades compared to the mediocre 3e Fighter.  

In AD&D or B/X terms, if Fighters took 2000 XP to get to level 2, the "complex Fighter" class would probably need to be about a 2800 to 3000 XP to level, and also have a smaller Hit Die and attack progression.


----------



## Lanefan

TwoSix said:


> I mean, yes, kind of?
> 
> I think the whole point is that the full-on Fighter, the "hit-it-till-it-falls-over" concept, can't by definition really match up with a spellcaster in terms of overall utility and power.  But there's a hole, both in provided game mechanics and in fictional trope, for a warrior-type character who's predominantly strong and tough (or possibly agile and evasive) but also has a bag of preternatural and/or supernatural tricks to call on.
> 
> It is, essentially, a Fighter++ compared to most editions of D&D (4e is the one edition that really nailed the complex Fighter).  3.5 did it with the Warblade and Swordsage, but those classes are definitely upgrades compared to the mediocre 3e Fighter.
> 
> In AD&D or B/X terms, if Fighters took 2000 XP to get to level 2, the "complex Fighter" class would probably need to be about a 2800 to 3000 XP to level, and also have a smaller Hit Die and attack progression.



So multiclass, then.  If you want a warrior with tricks or spells to call upon, multiclass a Fighter with a Cleric or Mage or Bard or whatever.

Getting what amounts to the benefits of a multiclass in a single class without the drawbacks of multi-classing seems wrong somehow.


----------



## Marandahir

Lanefan said:


> So multiclass, then.  If you want a warrior with tricks or spells to call upon, multiclass a Fighter with a Cleric or Mage or Bard or whatever.
> 
> Getting what amounts to the benefits of a multiclass in a single class without the drawbacks of multi-classing seems wrong somehow.




Why should something as complex as martial arts be relegated to simple weapon attack rolls while magic gets its own subsystem?

Or put it another way, why should complex and fun subsystems be locked behind particular flavour? And conversely, why should simple and easy one trick pony class design be locked behind a non-magical but martial flavour?

I get that in 3.5e they attempted to creat simple blaster magic users like Sorcerers and Warlocks, but both have complex and interesting subsystems now. Why should the only class who’s level up bonuses are primarily passive improvements to basic actions and rely entirely on theatre of the mind and DM-May-I - why should that be the Fighter, unless for some reason you’re an Eldritch Knight?

I think there’s room for simple and complex versions of many classes. I want Champion vs Battle Master to be a non-subclass choice, but rather a dial you can swap between as the game and player demands, with subclasses instead tied to Fighting Styles (which should be developed and made more robust with higher level features, some of which might also be accessible as feats).


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> So multiclass, then.  If you want a warrior with tricks or spells to call upon, multiclass a Fighter with a Cleric or Mage or Bard or whatever.
> 
> Getting what amounts to the benefits of a multiclass in a single class without the drawbacks of multi-classing seems wrong somehow.



The bard is a single class that once required multiclassing to achieve, but now it's a single class. Even as far back as 1e, there are classes that were created so that single-class characters could be more flexible without multiclassing. The fighter having more flexibility in areas outside of combat is not going to break the game anymore than the wizard does, who already has tremendous flexibility and power over combat, exploration, and potentially social encounters all wrapped up in a single class.


----------



## Parmandur

Marandahir said:


> Why should something as complex as martial arts be relegated to simple weapon attack rolls while magic gets its own subsystem?
> 
> Or put it another way, why should complex and fun subsystems be locked behind particular flavour? And conversely, why should simple and easy one trick pony class design be locked behind a non-magical but martial flavour?
> 
> I get that in 3.5e they attempted to creat simple blaster magic users like Sorcerers and Warlocks, but both have complex and interesting subsystems now. Why should the only class who’s level up bonuses are primarily passive improvements to basic actions and rely entirely on theatre of the mind and DM-May-I - why should that be the Fighter, unless for some reason you’re an Eldritch Knight?
> 
> I think there’s room for simple and complex versions of many classes. I want Champion vs Battle Master to be a non-subclass choice, but rather a dial you can swap between as the game and player demands, with subclasses instead tied to Fighting Styles (which should be developed and made more robust with higher level features, some of which might also be accessible as feats).



Largely this is down to the combat system in D&D being highly abstract.


----------



## Marandahir

Aldarc said:


> The bard is a single class that once required multiclassing to achieve, but now it's a single class. Even as far back as 1e, there are classes that were created so that single-class characters could be more flexible without multiclassing. The fighter having more flexibility in areas outside of combat is not going to break the game anymore than the wizard does, who already has tremendous flexibility and power over combat, exploration, and potentially social encounters all wrapped up in a single class.



This. 

Also, to my understanding, most players avoid the Multiclass system like the plague. It’s got it’s narrative uses - ie, you WERE a fighter for the last 5 levels, but now became an apprentice to an Arch-Mage during this last adventure, and thus took your most recent level up as a Wizard instead. 

But that’s not a replacement for “I want to be a magic knight who does sword stuff and wizardry stuff from the start.” Eldritch Knight is a subclass and Paladin is a class for a reason; these are character archetypes that are common enough that it’s worth making base class or subclass level versions of them, rather than forcing a player to go through the multiclass system as a back door to developing who they are. 

5e multiclassing is not feat-based like 4e (though there’s dabbler feats), nor is it like 3e’s Gestalt or 4e’s Hybrid Classes that allowed leveling up in two classes at the same time. It’s working for a different master than the concept of build your own Lego creation by mixing the Star Wars and Day at the Zoo Lego sets.


----------



## Sabathius42

HammerMan said:


> This was my experience too. I never saw a table say “we are only useing essentials” or “we aren’t useing essentials” although on here I do hear it happened.
> 
> If I showed up to a new game after essentials came out with my PHB 1 warlord or PHB 3 battle mind I would resnobly be able to assume I could play it.
> 
> I however not only didn’t see but can’t imagine showing up to a 3.5 or PF1 game with a 3.0 ranger and the dm just saying “okay”



In your 3e example you picked the most changed class.  If you showed up to a 3.5 game with most of the other classes it wouldnt be noticable.  I used my 3.0 monster books all the time for 3.5.


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> So multiclass, then.  If you want a warrior with tricks or spells to call upon, multiclass a Fighter with a Cleric or Mage or Bard or whatever.



Because their abilities aren't spells.  That defeats the whole point of the trope.

"Magic spells" are, in D&D narratives, a very specific type of supernatural effect.  There are plenty of supernatural abilities that don't make sense as spells.


----------



## Marandahir

TwoSix said:


> Because their abilities aren't spells.  That defeats the whole point of the trope.
> 
> "Magic spells" are, in D&D narratives, a very specific type of supernatural effect.  There are plenty of supernatural abilities that don't make sense as spells.



And plenty of non-supernatural abilities that amount to more than “I make an attack roll with advantage, and have crit 19-20 bc of my fighting style.”

If Monk can differentiate interesting martial arts, why can’t Fighter? Martial Adepts of the 9 Swords are FUN. 

Oh wait; they can. It’s called Battle Master, and it’s in the 2014 PHB. I want that as an option for all Fighters, separate from subclass, in 2024.


----------



## TwoSix

Marandahir said:


> And plenty of non-supernatural abilities that amount to more than “I make an attack roll with advantage, and have crit 19-20 bc of my fighting style.”
> 
> If Monk can differentiate interesting martial arts, why can’t Fighter? Martial Adepts of the 9 Swords are FUN.
> 
> Oh wait; they can. It’s called Battle Master, and it’s in the 2014 PHB. I want that as an option for all Fighters, separate from subclass, in 2024.



There's good 3pp that does it (all of Laserllama's martial classes, and Level Up), but it would be great to see in the 2024 PHB for fighters.  It doesn't even impact backwards compatibility for any fighter subclass EXCEPT battle master, and that can be redone in the same book.


----------



## Marandahir

TwoSix said:


> There's good 3pp that does it (all of Laserllama's martial classes, and Level Up), but it would be great to see in the 2024 PHB for fighters.  It doesn't even impact backwards compatibility for any fighter subclass EXCEPT battle master, and that can be redone in the same book.



Exactly. This is what Mearls and others actually wanted in hindsight, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they take this opportunity to push for that dial-based approach to Fighters, where Superiority Dice isn’t locked behind a single subclass or optional feats / fighting styles. Superior Technique Style + Martial Adept feat very much feels like a work around. 

I feel about as strongly towards this fix happening here as I do for them actually fixing the Ranger baseline and the Way of the Four Elements.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Aldarc said:


> The bard is a single class that once required multiclassing to achieve, but now it's a single class. Even as far back as 1e, there are classes that were created so that single-class characters could be more flexible without multiclassing. The fighter having more flexibility in areas outside of combat is not going to break the game anymore than the wizard does, who already has tremendous flexibility and power over combat, exploration, and potentially social encounters all wrapped up in a single class.




As I always feel the need to point out the very _earliest_ bard was a single class; it just wasn't official (or as much as anything there was) because it appeared in the Strategic Review.  The weird sort of proto-prestige class that the AD&D bard was was pretty much otherwise unprecedented.


----------



## Lanefan

Marandahir said:


> This.
> 
> Also, to my understanding, most players avoid the Multiclass system like the plague. It’s got it’s narrative uses - ie, you WERE a fighter for the last 5 levels, but now became an apprentice to an Arch-Mage during this last adventure, and thus took your most recent level up as a Wizard instead.



Yes, the 3e-4e-5e way of doing multiclass is crap, I agree there.

The 2e (and 1e demi-human) way, where you independently advanced both classes side-along and they weren't additive, is the way to go here.


Marandahir said:


> But that’s not a replacement for “I want to be a magic knight who does sword stuff and wizardry stuff from the start.”



No, it isn't.  I'm not trying to replace that, I'm trying to say either pick one or the other - or expect to be bad at both.

Not accusing you of such, but far too often it seems these requests come from players who expect or want their PCs to be (for example) as good at combat as a Fighter while also being as good at casting as a Mage, thus leaving single-class characters in the component classes behind and at the same time ending up with a character with few if any real weaknesses.  (I'm thinking here of all the "Gish" attempts and similar that I've seen over the long run)

What I'm after instead - at least in the strongly-lean-toward sense -  is a system where you-as-PC do the thing you do, be it fighting or casting or healing or sneaking or whatever, and you do it very well while leaving the others of those things for someone else to do.  Strong niche proection.  No jacks of all trades, no one-man bands, no good-at-everything characters.  Mediocre at everything via multiclassing, maybe, but characters like that would ideally be secondary or support characters in a party of specialists.


----------



## Marandahir

Lanefan said:


> Yes, the 3e-4e-5e way of doing multiclass is crap, I agree there.
> 
> The 2e (and 1e demi-human) way, where you independently advanced both classes side-along and they weren't additive, is the way to go here.
> 
> No, it isn't.  I'm not trying to replace that, I'm trying to say either pick one or the other - or expect to be bad at both.
> 
> Not accusing you of such, but far too often it seems these requests come from players who expect or want their PCs to be (for example) as good at combat as a Fighter while also being as good at casting as a Mage, thus leaving single-class characters in the component classes behind and at the same time ending up with a character with few if any real weaknesses.  (I'm thinking here of all the "Gish" attempts and similar that I've seen over the long run)
> 
> What I'm after instead - at least in the strongly-lean-toward sense -  is a system where you-as-PC do the thing you do, be it fighting or casting or healing or sneaking or whatever, and you do it very well while leaving the others of those things for someone else to do.  Strong niche proection.  No jacks of all trades, no one-man bands, no good-at-everything characters.  Mediocre at everything via multiclassing, maybe, but characters like that would ideally be secondary or support characters in a party of specialists.



I getcha. I think the 1e Demi-Human, 2e, 3e UA Gestalt (and special combined progress Prestige classes), and 4e Hybrid Classing method was fundamentally trying to tell a different narrative than the feat dabbler method (4e PH1 MC and 5e initiate feats) which is fundamentally trying to tell a different narrative from 3e and 5e MCing where you choose one class or the other to level up. 

And I think niche protection is an ideal for many groups, but I don't think it should be the be-all and end-all for all groups, nor do I think Jack-of-Trades classes like Bards should be nerfed into oblivion like they were in 3e. Maybe less powerful than they are in 5e where they're sort of a Master-of-All-Trades, more akin to the power level balance they had in 4e where they were really good with the supportive buffer role but were reasonably good with everything else and could fill in those other roles in a pinch.

Perhaps having one major role and several secondary roles a class can take on, while highlighting the roles that they really shouldn't be attempting to take on without multiclassing or some other sort of crap-mitigation, might be a good way to emphasize all this.


----------



## SkidAce

Weird.  I like 5e multiclassing. 

I guess I look at each level as a building block.

Some characters have been for example, level 3 monk, level 1 barbarian (the rage was a state of fighting zen like whats her name in the firefly movie)

Agree that if you split levels evenly (wizard 10/cleric 10) that you are shooting yourelf in the foot, thats no where near as effective as in 2e.


----------



## Lanefan

Marandahir said:


> I getcha. I think the 1e Demi-Human, 2e, 3e UA Gestalt (and special combined progress Prestige classes), and 4e Hybrid Classing method was fundamentally trying to tell a different narrative than the feat dabbler method (4e PH1 MC and 5e initiate feats) which is fundamentally trying to tell a different narrative from 3e and 5e MCing where you choose one class or the other to level up.
> 
> And I think niche protection is an ideal for many groups, but I don't think it should be the be-all and end-all for all groups, nor do I think Jack-of-Trades classes like Bards should be nerfed into oblivion like they were in 3e.



I don't see Bards as a JoaT class, though - just a poorly-designed specialist class whose specialty (and niche!) should be sonic magic.  Ideally, Bards would have their own system for sound-based and sound-transmitted magic that no other class could access, ever.


Marandahir said:


> Perhaps having one major role and several secondary roles a class can take on, while highlighting the roles that they really shouldn't be attempting to take on without multiclassing or some other sort of crap-mitigation, might be a good way to emphasize all this.



OK; as long as the classes' main niches stay fairly well protected, sure.


----------



## Lanefan

SkidAce said:


> Weird.  I like 5e multiclassing.
> 
> I guess I look at each level as a building block.



Which is fine if you're looking at characters as being something to "build".  However...


SkidAce said:


> Some characters have been for example, level 3 monk, level 1 barbarian (the rage was a state of fighting zen like whats her name in the firefly movie)
> 
> Agree that if you split levels evenly (wizard 10/cleric 10) that you are shooting yourelf in the foot, thats no where near as effective as in 2e.



...that 10-10 character makes much more sense in the narrative, as somebody who does two things somewhat well but neither of them as well as a single-class character of the same experience; and more importantly IMO, whose skills at both classes get better on an evenly-progressive basis (as abstracted by the xp put into each class) rather than in fits and starts a level at a time.

The stair-step method where you have to take a level in one class then stop advancing that one while you take a level in another might be fine for character building at the meta-level but makes almost no sense in the narrative or fiction.

The 3e-4e-5e idea that classes are additive (e.g. where a Fighter-5/Wizard-3 is considered an 8th level character) is what causes problems, I think.  That 10-10 character above should be considered as about equal to an 11th or 12th single-class, not to a 20th.


----------



## Iosue

My rank linguistic pedantry has led to a discussion on caster/martial disparity and multiclassing. This is certainly one of the D&D threads.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Lanefan said:


> The 3e-4e-5e idea that classes are additive...




That kind of multiclassing didn't exist in 4e, IIRC.


----------



## glass

Lanefan said:


> Doesn't matter what WotC wants to call it; it's almost certainly going to end up being called 5.5e in the wild anyway, and they're stuck with that.



Exactly. They may not call it an "edition" or "5.5" or "6e", but that cannot stop us doing so. After all, they (almost?) never refer to the current edition as 5e, but that does not stop any of us!



Parmandur said:


> On the other hand, WotC marketing horse hockey worked well enough that theybgotnpeople to use the garbage "3.5" to this day. Don't count them out yet.



That is not my recollection. IIRC, the online community started calling it 3.5 first, and WotC's marketting saw it and thought "That's a good idea!" _(Narrator: "It was not a good idea.)_



dave2008 said:


> Which version of the D&D term? The original 1e - 2e version, or the 2e-3e version, or the 3e-3,5e version, or...? D&D has not been consistent on what an "edition" is.



I believe "new edition" has pretty consistently meant "new version of the game_*line*_, inspired by but not fully compatible with its predecessors". The degree of incompatibility has varied, which has given rise to "edition families", and the numbering has been inconsistent: I started with 2e, but AFAICT the 1e => 2e changes were of the same order as 3 => 3.5, so on that basis 2e should really have been called 1.5, and the basic branch had no numbers at all.



Mistwell said:


> I mean, 3.5 was not fully backwards compatible with 3e but it was a half edition rather than a full edition.



No such things as a "half edition".



MockingBird said:


> Thank you, would it be fair to say PF is more compatible to 3.5 than 3.5 to 3.0?



Yes, but not by a wide margin. The biggest things is probably PF1 has the same action economy as 3.5 (with the exception of swift actions being core), whereas in 3.0 you could do roughly the same amount of things on your turn but how you arrived at that was rather different.



Mercurius said:


> Is this actually true? Meaning, was 3.5 planned from the beginning, or was it the result of things learned in the first year or two of wide distribution of 3E?



According to Monte Cook, revision of the core books was planned from the beginning (although IIRC it was originally planned for 5 years out, rather than 3). But originally it was to have new art, incorporate errata, and have some extra content, but probably not the scope of changes that 3.5 ended up having.



Jahydin said:


> I don't know about that.
> 
> Just pulling up the first interview I found with the creators:



Thank you for digging that up. Sadly I fear our efforts are in vain; the edition warriors have been so successful that even some 4e fans repeat their talking points as if they had some basis in reality, But I will keep trying, even if I am tilting at windmills.



Lanefan said:


> So multiclass, then. If you want a warrior with tricks or spells to call upon, multiclass a Fighter with a Cleric or Mage or Bard or whatever.



"I want a complex martial". "So play a spellcaster". 


Regarding the "D&D edition" vs "publisher's edition" thing. AIUI, the latter typically applies to individual books, while the former applies to entire gamelines. So it would be perfectly correct to call the 1995 2e PHB a new edition of that book, despite its not being new edition of D&D. (In many contexts it would probably be a mistake to call it that, if avoiding confusion is a goal, but it would not be factually wrong.)


----------



## roger semerad

Lanefan said:


> Which is fine if you're looking at characters as being something to "build".  However...
> 
> ...that 10-10 character makes much more sense in the narrative, as somebody who does two things somewhat well but neither of them as well as a single-class character of the same experience; and more importantly IMO, whose skills at both classes get better on an evenly-progressive basis (as abstracted by the xp put into each class) rather than in fits and starts a level at a time.
> 
> The stair-step method where you have to take a level in one class then stop advancing that one while you take a level in another might be fine for character building at the meta-level but makes almost no sense in the narrative or fiction.
> 
> The 3e-4e-5e idea that classes are additive (e.g. where a Fighter-5/Wizard-3 is considered an 8th level character) is what causes problems, I think.  That 10-10 character above should be considered as about equal to an 11th or 12th single-class, not to a 20th.






FitzTheRuke said:


> That kind of multiclassing didn't exist in 4e, IIRC.




Yeah, people who dislike the 3rd and 5th edition style multiclassing should probably take a second look at 4th's implementations.  4th's multiclassing options protect niches really well and make more balanced and useful multi-class characters on average.

The first option is feat multi-classing.  Using this method you pick a class as normal and then take some feats to get basic class features from another class, with additional feats to swap your some of your powers( spells and attack options ) with the other class.  Using this method a fighter multi-classing a wizard is no less a fighter for doing so.  With full access to fighter abillities and defender features.  This fighter doesn't step on the wizard's niche because it's still a full defender.  This method is also very newbie friendly, as it's impossible to make a gimped build with it.  This method depicts a fighter that learns some wizard stuff at a later date, or one who just dabbles in magic.  This option actually creates a character very similar to a 5th edition multi-class that dips only a few levels into another class, just with no trap options at all.

The second option is hybrid multi-classing.  In this method each class is given a half-class write up and you pick any two and combine them.  This option is a little more complex and could result in less powerful charaters if you're not carefull, but is still less trap laden than 3rd and 5th's style.  Each half-class only gives you the most basic class features.  Requiring you to take feats to gain the more in depth features from a class.  The hybrid character then takes his powers from either class, but must have at least one power from each class.  Niche protection comes from the fact that the class role abillities are limited.  A defender can only mark one enemy at a time, strikers can only add extra damage to striker powers, leaders can only heal half as often, and controllers need to pick controller powers to effect the battlefield.  How well you perform as each half is determined by your power selection and the feats you spend on class features.  This method depicts the true equal 1-1 multi-class that 3rd and 5th's 10-10 even split method does so poorly.  It actually creates a character more close to the 1st and 2nd edition's multiclass options.  Although I personally think 4th's create a more balanced and useful character on average.

Both of these methods are feat heavy, so single class characters also have more tricks and versatillity in their own niche.

I wouldn't expect anything like this for the One D&D main books.  The developers could adapt these concepts for latter books however, increasing the multi-class options in the future.

*Edit*:

I was doing a little thinking on how these concepts could be adapted.  The hybrid concept wouldn't be too difficult, just make some half-class write ups and figure when and how to dole out various class features.  The feat multi-classing wouldn't work in 5th.  There are just not enough feats going around to support it.  One D&D might increase the overall feats some, but if they want any compatibility with legacy products it can't be much.  There is one place with the necessary design space though, subclasses.  This would be very similar to the hybrid model, but more stripped down.  You'd make subclass versions of every class and when it's time to pick a subclass you could pick the multi-class subclass version instead.  Just like with the feat version in 4th you wouldn't have to delay or give up on class features from your starting class.  The only real problem to smooth over is class combinations that are very M.A.D..  Two attribute dependancy isn't a problem, but three or more would be.  So they'd have to come up with some rules in these half-and-subclass versions to account for it.  None of this would be a quick or easy thing to implement.  They'd have to devote some real time to playtesting and balancing for it, but I think it would be worth it to expand the multi-classing options.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Parmandur said:


> The rules we've seen so far include sidebars to smooth out the seams. It is likely thst will continue. I'm not saying thst Innis Essentuals, but Essentials is precedent for WotC being able to maintain compatibility.



So finally you admit there are seams that need smoothing out.


----------



## Marandahir

glass said:


> "I want a complex martial". "So play a spellcaster".




Yeah, these feels are REAL. 

Battle Master is essential, and insufficient as is.


----------



## Parmandur

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> So finally you admit there are seams that need smoothing out.



Barely: "take a free Feat at first Level" is not rocket science. I understand many groups who use Feats do that already anyways.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

I really doesn't matter if WotC call it a new edition, .5 or some kind of neutral name with intended longevity.

On forums such as this one it will still be a new edition, and edition war...edition war never changes.


----------



## Marandahir

Parmandur said:


> Barely: "take a free Feat at first Level" is not rocket science. I understand many groups who use Feats do that already anyways.



I've ALWAYS given my players a free feat (humans get 2). I also always play with Nat-1 Critical Failures. The new grappling as Unarmed Strikes is the most streamlined grappling mechanic I've seen thus far, and will be implementing immediately into otherwise 2014-2022 5e material games.

A lot of these are just taking common house rules and making them RAW.


----------



## Parmandur

Marandahir said:


> I've ALWAYS given my players a free feat (humans get 2). I also always play with Nat-1 Critical Failures. The new grappling as Unarmed Strikes is the most streamlined grappling mechanic I've seen thus far, and will be implementing immediately into otherwise 2014-2022 5e material games.
> 
> A lot of these are just taking common house rules and making them RAW.



For sure: which is what WotC had said since the beginning of 5E they would do with any future revision, look at what people actually do in the wild and incorporate that into the rules.


----------

