With similar angst, as to how we look back and view the 3.0 to 3.5 transition?
It's just more stuff for the game you already own, and not really compatible?
Perhaps 5.0 is the true spiritual successor to 3.0?
I played very little 3.0 through 4.0 was too busy playing other good RPGs like Shadowrun and Earthdawn :)
My son owns the 5.0 books. I looked through them, but they seemed meh at best, so we played other RPGs instead.
I've only ever played 3.5. What changed between 3 and 3.5? Were they very different? I always assumed 3.5 was just errata for 3.
Quote from: Jam The MF on September 30, 2022, 11:06:01 PM
With similar angst, as to how we look back and view the 3.0 to 3.5 transition?
It's just more stuff for the game you already own, and not really compatible?
Perhaps 5.0 is the true spiritual successor to 3.0?
Maybe.
As someone who was playing 3.0 when the shift happened, many of the changes were things we had already homebrewed from spending 2-3 years with the system. Namely, combining skills together so that the less used skills were less of a tax. I remember at the time our group being mostly receptive to the update, but looking back, instead of nerfing the things that were OP, WotC just boosted the things that were "lacking." There definitely was an upward shift in power level, especially with feats.
In that sense, the update from 5e to "5.5" looks to be very similar. The game is shifting from
"feats are optional at DM's behest" to
"feats are now ways to truely customize your character." I haven't had time to really pour over the new content yet, but a cursary review seems to indicate that there is a further shift in power level. Which is shocking, since 5e had a monster jump in power from 3.5. For example, there's a feat now that lets you burn a hit die to recover HP whenever you want, which used to be an ability exclusive to Fighters. In exchange, it looks like Fighters will be getting huge bonuses to weapon-use (more details on that in the next UA release).
The "backward compatible" terminology is largely a misnomer. The update is a replacement, just like 3.5 was a replacement for 3e. "Backward compatibility" simply means "minimal conversion." If you had an old 3e adventure with an NPC using Read Lips, you had to convert that to Spot in 3.5. Thing is, you could run that same exact adventure in 5e; you just need to convert more things. Anyone that knows both systems to any reasonable degree can do this on the fly with no problem. But if you never played 3.0 and saw "make a Read Lips check," you'd probably be at a loss translating that to 3.5. It STILL requires some knowledge of the earlier system to convert things. "Compatibility" is an illusion; it's really just "minimal conversion."
Quote from: mightybrain on October 01, 2022, 03:08:14 AM
I've only ever played 3.5. What changed between 3 and 3.5? Were they very different? I always assumed 3.5 was just errata for 3.
First day on the internet?
Literally the first result on a search.
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/69772/what-are-the-major-differences-between-dd-3-0-and-dd-3-5
I stopped playing after 2e and didn't start again until 4e. I missed 3 entirely. Later, I went back and played a 3.5 game with a group that refused to play 4e.
Quote from: Effete on October 01, 2022, 03:35:23 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on October 01, 2022, 03:08:14 AM
I've only ever played 3.5. What changed between 3 and 3.5? Were they very different? I always assumed 3.5 was just errata for 3.
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/69772/what-are-the-major-differences-between-dd-3-0-and-dd-3-5
A long list of minor / cosmetic changes.
Quote from: Effete on October 01, 2022, 03:32:07 AM
Quote from: Jam The MF on September 30, 2022, 11:06:01 PM
With similar angst, as to how we look back and view the 3.0 to 3.5 transition?
It's just more stuff for the game you already own, and not really compatible?
Perhaps 5.0 is the true spiritual successor to 3.0?
In that sense, the update from 5e to "5.5" looks to be very similar. The game is shifting from "feats are optional at DM's behest" to "feats are now ways to truely customize your character." I haven't had time to really pour over the new content yet, but a cursary review seems to indicate that there is a further shift in power level. Which is shocking, since 5e had a monster jump in power from 3.5. For example, there's a feat now that lets you burn a hit die to recover HP whenever you want, which used to be an ability exclusive to Fighters. In exchange, it looks like Fighters will be getting huge bonuses to weapon-use (more details on that in the next UA release).
Personally, only glanced through the playtest documents. But it's still "optional" for Feats. Now, the "Ability Score Improvement" is a Feat as well, so if you level up and don't want to use Feats, you just pick the ASI feat. Some class abilities are now feats as well, or converted to spells. If anything, it's reminding me of 4th edition, how everything was a feat or spell. WOTC even mentioned that some magic items, etc will now have group keywords... again, more 4th edition stuff.
Not really a fan of D&D anymore. Rather just stick to the OSR.
Quote from: mightybrain on October 01, 2022, 04:10:40 AM
I stopped playing after 2e and didn't start again until 4e. I missed 3 entirely. Later, I went back and played a 3.5 game with a group that refused to play 4e.
So, how did you like it?
Quote from: mightybrain on October 01, 2022, 03:08:14 AM
I've only ever played 3.5. What changed between 3 and 3.5? Were they very different? I always assumed 3.5 was just errata for 3.
D&D 3.0 was written by people with 2nd Edition AD&D backgrounds, play styles, and assumptions. New players, didn't bring all of that into their gaming. Reading every single rule in the books, and power gaming, became the hot new way to play D&D.
3.0 was exploited by players, as written. 3 years later, many rules and many books got a fresh coat of paint. The page count increased in all 3 core books, for starters. Even more rules to play the same game people had just purchased. It didn't make the game easier. It added to the rules at the table.
Quote from: Jam The MF on October 01, 2022, 05:32:31 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on October 01, 2022, 04:10:40 AM
I stopped playing after 2e and didn't start again until 4e. I missed 3 entirely. Later, I went back and played a 3.5 game with a group that refused to play 4e.
So, how did you like it?
It was fine. We played it the same way we've played every edition. We weren't playing "optimized" characters so I guess we wouldn't even have noticed any differences. We usually drop rules that get it the way and the rest is just RP same as it always was.
I've been liking most of the changes in the two UA documents released so far. I had a lot of hangups about the rationale for getting rid of racial ability modifiers at first, but once I tried to look at what they were doing with an open mind and realized that those were only minor changes that you could effectively turn back anyways by using custom backgrounds to assign ASIs based on the old race modifiers if you wanted to, and that mechanically this approach was preferable as well, I was able to get over it. And a lot of the other changes were more to my taste, though, I have mixed feelings about some and I'm not entirely sold on some of the feats in the most recent document.
I prefer the consolidation of spell lists into just three groups, because it minimizes bookkeeping and I always felt that class specific lists were largely arbitrary anyway. And specific classes may still get access to some select spells from other lists, and/or have access gated by schools instead (Bards, for example, now get access to just Divination, Enchantment, Illusion and Transmutation spells, plus a few healing/restoration spells from the Divine list), so there's still some degree of distinctiveness between spellcasting classes, they just don't over complicate spell organization to achieve it.
I also like how everyone gets a feat as part of their Background now, which is something I've been thinking about doing anyways—now it's just official. I also like the feats covered in the Character Origins document, but I'm a bit iffy about the ones in the Expert classes document. The expert feats just seem arbitrarily gated to level 4 for no apparent reason other than to complicated feat access. I can sorta understand them gating Epic Boons to level 20 (they're supposed to be "epic" and are a bit over the top), but there's zero reason to gate any of the other stuff to level 4, that I can think of at least.
I also hate what they did to Dual Wielder. They effectively nerfed it by getting rid of the wimpy +1 to AC, and you're no longer able to use a weapon without the "light" property in each hand—the one in your off-hand HAS to be light now, cuz wielding a heavier weapon in each hand is apparently an impossible feat, I'm somehow able to pull off in real life (not that it's optimal, but it definitely is doable). You now get a +1 to Strength or Dexterity instead, which is the laziest workaround for handling weak feats I've always hated about 5e. It's like they have no clue WTF to do with dual wielding, so they had to make it worse than it already was. Meanwhile Great Weapon Masters now get a +1 to Strength on top of getting to keep their old Cleave ability, and also get to add their Proficiency Bonus to one attack per round without needing to take a penalty anymore.
There's probably other stuff I like or don't like, but that's what comes off the top of my head.
Part of the issue with 3.5, which I believe took even the developers by surprise, was that the changes were minor, but wound up making a lot of characters and monsters 'illegal' by the new rules. And the game's culture had developed over the 3E era so that rules-legal was a much bigger deal than it had been at any point since the days of 1st Edition AD&D and the disputes over what was 'official.'
I'm not nearly familiar enough with 5E culture to know if that will make a difference in the present environment.
....and not care because 4.0 convinced me that WotC had nothing but contempt for their customers.
...as one with very little change, further degradation of art quality, and yet wildly successful.
I already hate 5e. Im at grognard point (despite not being a OD&D grognard) looking at the gorgnards that have given it a pass with a sneer.
The changes seem some of the most minor superficial junk ever.
Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2022, 02:45:51 PM
...as one with very little change, further degradation of art quality, and yet wildly successful.
All input is welcome.
Quote from: Jam The MF on October 01, 2022, 10:08:29 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2022, 02:45:51 PM
...as one with very little change, further degradation of art quality, and yet wildly successful.
All input is welcome.
I'm not sure that it is. If you're going to quote me, then nut up and say what you mean.
Quote from: FingerRod on October 02, 2022, 08:07:53 AM
Quote from: Jam The MF on October 01, 2022, 10:08:29 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2022, 02:45:51 PM
...as one with very little change, further degradation of art quality, and yet wildly successful.
All input is welcome.
I'm not sure that it is. If you're going to quote me, then nut up and say what you mean.
This is a prediction thread. Your prediction is another possible outcome. We don't have to echo each other.
I suppose I don't agree that there will be very little change. I believe it will be worthy of its own edition designation, whether WOTC gives it one or not. Half of the current player base, will just accept the "new" without question. The other half will scratch their heads, and ask why WOTC changed what they changed.
WOTC will say that D&D is whatever they say it is, because they own D&D. The OSR fan base, will march on regardless.
Quote from: Jam The MF on October 02, 2022, 11:05:46 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 02, 2022, 08:07:53 AM
Quote from: Jam The MF on October 01, 2022, 10:08:29 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2022, 02:45:51 PM
...as one with very little change, further degradation of art quality, and yet wildly successful.
All input is welcome.
I'm not sure that it is. If you're going to quote me, then nut up and say what you mean.
This is a prediction thread. Your prediction is another possible outcome. We don't have to echo each other.
I suppose I don't agree that there will be very little change. I believe it will be worthy of its own edition designation, whether WOTC gives it one or not. Half of the current player base, will just accept the "new" without question. The other half will scratch their heads, and ask why WOTC changed what they changed.
WOTC will say that D&D is whatever they say it is, because they own D&D. The OSR fan base, will march on regardless.
There ya go, bro. Now this is something I can respond to.
Yeah, it will remain to be seen on the change front. So far you could run any 5e adventure using the playtest rules and be just fine. Time will tell if they spin it up enough that it turns into a true edition. I think it will be rather vanilla, squeezing another 10 years out of a design that already has 10 successful years in the bag by launch.
The art hasn't been good for years now, so that was a safe prediction on my point.
And my best guess is that this new edition will fly off the shelves. This will be the first they they are launching a new edition in this type of market. The brand has never been bigger.
Quote from: Jam The MF on September 30, 2022, 11:06:01 PM
With similar angst, as to how we look back and view the 3.0 to 3.5 transition?
It's just more stuff for the game you already own, and not really compatible?
Perhaps 5.0 is the true spiritual successor to 3.0?
Weirdly, 5th edition is more like 2.5, then 3rd, 3.5, and 4th edition will probably be the closest version to mirror One D&D.
I like 5e. I won't give a dime to WotC due to their wokeness.
If a non-woke company does to 5e what Piazo did to 3.5 with Pathfinder, I wonder how popular that would be. I would check it out.
Quote from: Crusader X on October 02, 2022, 02:04:17 PM
I like 5e. I won't give a dime to WotC due to their wokeness.
If a non-woke company does to 5e what Piazo did to 3.5 with Pathfinder, I wonder how popular that would be. I would check it out.
I did that, to a degree, and then cut out the 95% of the ruleset that was unnecessary. It's called
Crimson Dragon Slayer D20, and it's FREE!!!
One of the things that, in my opinion, damaged 3E badly and continues to haunt PF1E was the skill system.
Way, way too fucking many skills, and not NEAR enough skill points.
Quote from: Crusader X on October 02, 2022, 02:04:17 PM
I like 5e. I won't give a dime to WotC due to their wokeness.
If a non-woke company does to 5e what Piazo did to 3.5 with Pathfinder, I wonder how popular that would be. I would check it out.
As a system, I don't mind 5e. I just don't like the power creep and bloat.
I had thought about taking the 5e SRD, stripping out feats, and slimming down the classes to just 3 or 4. I might not need to though if Venger already did that.
Quote from: VengerSatanis on October 02, 2022, 05:30:12 PM
Quote from: Crusader X on October 02, 2022, 02:04:17 PM
I like 5e. I won't give a dime to WotC due to their wokeness.
If a non-woke company does to 5e what Piazo did to 3.5 with Pathfinder, I wonder how popular that would be. I would check it out.
I did that, to a degree, and then cut out the 95% of the ruleset that was unnecessary. It's called Crimson Dragon Slayer D20, and it's FREE!!!
I think Crimson Dragon Slayer D20 is great! 8) So much so that I actually created a very basic character sheet for it today, in anticipation of introducing the game to my gaming group soon.
I wouldn't really compare it to 5e though. I guess you can say its a very very very light version of 5e, but I consider CDS to be its own thing. I would expect a Paizo'ed version of 5e to be an extremely different beast.
You feel real angst from WOTC? Get help.
It's a game like UNO. If your experiencing real.emotional issues from what a game company does ---
Find a friend.
You're too dailed in. Find something else to do inbetween gaming.
Quote from: VengerSatanis on October 02, 2022, 05:30:12 PM
Quote from: Crusader X on October 02, 2022, 02:04:17 PM
I like 5e. I won't give a dime to WotC due to their wokeness.
If a non-woke company does to 5e what Piazo did to 3.5 with Pathfinder, I wonder how popular that would be. I would check it out.
I did that, to a degree, and then cut out the 95% of the ruleset that was unnecessary. It's called Crimson Dragon Slayer D20, and it's FREE!!!
CrimsonDragonSlayerD20 is cool, but I agree with CrusaderX that it's not exactly what I'd think of as a Pathfinder'd 5E.
As someone who has been toying with the idea of Pathfinder'd 5E, what I often find is that it's difficult to limit the scope of changes. There's a lot of problems that 5E has that get papered over simply because it's the 500lb gorilla brand. But once you start pulling the strings you end up with something different enough that the existing playerbase won't see it the same.
I guess the solution is probably the Paizo approach: Do a clone, then in your next edition you do your own thing.
I imagine that 1D&D will be "backwards-compatible" with 5E material, at least in concept, but in practice it will be completely unbalanced to the point of it feeling like they didn't even bother to play test it.
5E already suffers from Race, Class, and Subclass bloat, and it seems 1D&D is just codifying that and "pushing the splinter deeper".
Quote from: Tasty_Wind on October 03, 2022, 09:35:14 AM
I imagine that 1D&D will be "backwards-compatible" with 5E material, at least in concept, but in practice it will be completely unbalanced to the point of it feeling like they didn't even bother to play test it.
5E already suffers from Race, Class, and Subclass bloat, and it seems 1D&D is just codifying that and "pushing the splinter deeper".
One man's "bloat" is another man's "necessary features."
What's especially annoying about the "bloat" argument is it invariably defines bloat as "every player option that isn't the Tolkein Cargo Cult + Moses the Vampire Hunter."
Not everyone wants to play a LotR fanfic expy.
our gaming group has looked over the new 5.5E changes and decided they are mostly streamling systems across the board to make it simpler for players to pickup a PC and game as well as DM's not having to hunt down what spells monsters can cast and giving them abilities that mimic spells instead. The feats were changed so you don't need sharpshooter as the most OP feat ever with Crossbow expert to shoot into combat, other "exploitable" tricks of the trade to make it so you WANT To stick with a class from 1-20 instead of dipping into Cleric for Armor feats, Sorcerer for 1 level of arcane parts, etc.
Standaradizing and Streamling.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2022, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: Tasty_Wind on October 03, 2022, 09:35:14 AM
I imagine that 1D&D will be "backwards-compatible" with 5E material, at least in concept, but in practice it will be completely unbalanced to the point of it feeling like they didn't even bother to play test it.
5E already suffers from Race, Class, and Subclass bloat, and it seems 1D&D is just codifying that and "pushing the splinter deeper".
One man's "bloat" is another man's "necessary features."
What's especially annoying about the "bloat" argument is it invariably defines bloat as "every player option that isn't the Tolkein Cargo Cult + Moses the Vampire Hunter."
Not everyone wants to play a LotR fanfic expy.
Nah, I argue against bloat all the time and I have zero issue with options, as long as they're meaningful ones. The problem with a lot of these classes and subclasses is that they're endless variations of the original core four (three if it were up to me)—Warrior, Specialist/Rogue, Mage and Priest (which can be folded along with Mage into just "Mystics")—with a bunch of fiddly features that don't add much, other than extra bookkeeping and filler to justify a 20 level progression that the vast majority of campaigns never come even halfway to reaching.
And this problem is further compounded by the fact that most of the current "core" classes are themselves variants of the original four (three), and should be treated as subclasses themselves, but they're not. Meaning that when it comes to making up subclasses for them they have to resort to these made up hyper-specialized variants, like Draconic Sorcerers, Elemental Monks or Snowflake Oath Paladins, that often have no basis in mythology or common archetypes and are just filler material to ensure all these already specialized "core" classes have even more specialized subclasses, cuz every class needs at least two of them.
And since subclasses are really just preset templates you don't even get real customizability in the long run, cuz all the options are already preselected for you. All you get is just ONE choice, then leveling does the rest for you. Reducing everything to just four (three!) actual core classes, then giving you a Feat every time you level (with every decent and iconic class or subclass ability, like Wild Shape and Rage, treated as a Feat), would be far more efficient, and involve less bookkeeping, while giving more meaningful options at the same time.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 01, 2022, 09:33:52 AM
I also hate what they did to Dual Wielder. They effectively nerfed it by getting rid of the wimpy +1 to AC, and you're no longer able to use a weapon without the "light" property in each hand—the one in your off-hand HAS to be light now, cuz wielding a heavier weapon in each hand is apparently an impossible feat, I'm somehow able to pull off in real life (not that it's optimal, but it definitely is doable). You now get a +1 to Strength or Dexterity instead, which is the laziest workaround for handling weak feats I've always hated about 5e. It's like they have no clue WTF to do with dual wielding, so they had to make it worse than it already was. Meanwhile Great Weapon Masters now get a +1 to Strength on top of getting to keep their old Cleave ability, and also get to add their Proficiency Bonus to one attack per round without needing to take a penalty anymore.
Huh. Miyamoto Musashi talked about using two katanas, and how it was a good way to train. Maybe WoTC never heard of him. No wait, they'll come out with some dumb feat for that.
Who is this "we" that is doing the viewing? ;D
I'm off the WotC train permanently--and might have been even if they hadn't gone woke. It's been a steady diet of uneven quality since they got the license. Yeah, some good stuff mixed in with the bad, but they really don't reward their people with talent very well. A committee is not the way to do game design. A schizophrenic committee running surface fluff and no concept of design off of the result of a bipolar committee design is even less appealing.
In general, my experience is that early editions are typically the most interesting, with crazy reboots being an outlier. Sometimes a flawed gem really benefits from rework, but for the most part the only reason to get on the edition treadmill is because everyone else is doing it. This effect is hardly limited to D&D, but we see a lot more ups and downs with them because of the different slants that have been taken, never mind all the derivative stuff from each slant. Arguably, we've had 6 different "editions" in 10-12 'versions".
That is why, for example, I find AD&D 1 better than 2, early BEMCI/RC stuff better than the collected RC bits (even if the one book is handy), 3E better than 3.5, and core 5E and nothing else the best way to play it. 4E Essentials is the exception that proves the rule. I expect 5.0 to One to be even worse due to decreased competence, but I doubt it would get my attention absent that problem.