Quote from: DM_Curt on September 27, 2021, 08:16:47 PM
I skipped 3e, 3.5 and 4e.  By that pattern, I can skip 5.5e, 6e and 7e, right? 

See you for 8e.

Quote from: Marchand on September 27, 2021, 08:27:32 PM

Quote from: DM_Curt on September 27, 2021, 08:16:47 PM
I skipped 3e, 3.5 and 4e.  By that pattern, I can skip 5.5e, 6e and 7e, right? 

See you for 8e.

I'll need a large-print copy by then, but I'll throw some holo-cubes with you if ya visit me at the old folks home, lol!   

Quote from: DM_Curt on September 27, 2021, 08:16:47 PM
I skipped 3e, 3.5 and 4e.  By that pattern, I can skip 5.5e, 6e and 7e, right? 

No, by that pattern you need to play 5.5e.  Maybe even 6e if you included 0e in your play list.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 27, 2021, 08:14:49 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 27, 2021, 08:09:26 PMI am not claiming that my hatred is logical. 

And im not claiming your hate is illogical. It has PLENTY to hate. I just personally prefer flawed products with good or novel ideas (Star Wars Prequels) over shiny polished things with no new ideas (Star Wars Sequels).
There are many things from 4e I crib because their good ideas. There is precisely 1 idea I crib from 5e and everything else isn't even compitent.

QuoteI am sure that it has lots of good ideas and probably loves its mother too.

It does, but the house it bought for her was with money it got from selling drugs. =P

The problem for me is that it really feels like the type of game that you would get if it killed DnD and wore it like a skin suit.

I mean, sure it has some really good recipes for cooking brains and on the other hand it has recipes for cooking brains.

A little over a year ago I said:

"I think a 6e release for the 50th anniversary of D&D will be too hard for WOTC to pa$$ up."

I was right that the 50th anniversary of D&D was too much of a temptation for WotC to pass up.

I was wrong about an explicit 6th edition.

Instead it seems that they have opted for what I would call a Soft 5.X* edition of the game...

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 06:14:46 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 26, 2021, 11:15:35 PM
New edition, eh?  I knew Wizards could not resist that sweet sweet new edition money.

I remember when those WotC shills were drinking the ever green cool-aid.  Good times

How is "backwards compatible" not evergreen?

Define "backwards compatible"?

AD&D2e was "backwards compatible" to 1e.
3.5 was "backwards compatible" to 3.0.
PF1 was "backwards compatible" to 3.5.

The majority of people that played the previous edition seemed to have wholesale moved on to the .5 or 2e version when it was released.

Hardly evergreen by anyone's definition.

Yet all claimed they were "Fully backwards compatible"...


IMHO WotC is being very clever about their soft 5.X* edition of the game:

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 26, 2021, 09:53:18 PM...
I heard about this on Reddit. The talk was included in the Future of DnD panel (around eight hours in). As the redditor mentioned, "They used the words "new evolution" and "new version", but not "new edition". They also confirmed that it's going to be backwards compatible with 5e.".

Also "A living game that continues to grow and evolve." and "The next evolution of the game." ...

i.e. at least a 5.X* edition, but...

IMHO the 50th Anniversary of D&D in 2024 will be used to give them a lot of cover for this.

By just calling it: "50th Anniversary release of D&D" with no edition numbers; they are gonna get away with a ton of changes.

Just incorporating the errata and changes from the supplements to date will induce a cascade of small changes throughout the "50th Anniversary D&D" rules set.

And they have already said that they are going to do more survey's to see what the "fans" want in order to make the "50th Anniversary D&D Evolution" better...

In the preview of the upcoming: "Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse", Crawford has already stated that they flat out rebalanced all the monsters.

So yeah, nothing to see here folks...


* I deliberately use the .X, because as we all know trying to define the "50th Anniversary oh-so-special edition" of D&D by some filthy binary number would be wrong...

Quote from: Jaeger on September 27, 2021, 09:39:27 PM
A little over a year ago I said:

"I think a 6e release for the 50th anniversary of D&D will be too hard for WOTC to pa$$ up."

I was right that the 50th anniversary of D&D was too much of a temptation for WotC to pass up.

I was wrong about an explicit 6th edition.

Instead it seems that they have opted for what I would call a Soft 5.X* edition of the game...

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 06:14:46 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 26, 2021, 11:15:35 PM
New edition, eh?  I knew Wizards could not resist that sweet sweet new edition money.

I remember when those WotC shills were drinking the ever green cool-aid.  Good times

How is "backwards compatible" not evergreen?

Define "backwards compatible"?

AD&D2e was "backwards compatible" to 1e.
3.5 was "backwards compatible" to 3.0.
PF1 was "backwards compatible" to 3.5.

The majority of people that played the previous edition seemed to have wholesale moved on to the .5 or 2e version when it was released.

Hardly evergreen by anyone's definition.

Yet all claimed they were "Fully backwards compatible"...

For 5e they've consistently defined backwards compatible as stuff from the older book can be played as written along side stuff from the new book. 

So you can play a monster from an old book along with a monster from a new book, but you might find the old monster is not as balanced as the new monster. Which should be no problem.

PF was never claimed to be backwards compatible with 3e. It was claimed that if you play 3e you will find it nearly seamless to pick up PF. They never claimed you could play a 3e PC along side a Pathfinder PC though. 5e does make that claim about this.

Same with 1e and 2e. They never made a claim you could play portions of both at the same table and have it work just fine...because it couldn't.

I think we're going to see things like, "You can play the old version of the Champion, or the new version of the Champion, or even have a PC of one of each, and you won't see any problems at your table." Because the basic rules will remain the same, they're just going to rebalance classes like that (in that case to give the Champion sub-class probably more abilities).

Quote from: Shasarak on September 27, 2021, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: DM_Curt on September 27, 2021, 08:16:47 PM
I skipped 3e, 3.5 and 4e.  By that pattern, I can skip 5.5e, 6e and 7e, right? 

No, by that pattern you need to play 5.5e.  Maybe even 6e if you included 0e in your play list.

Ah, shit. I played 0e, 1e, 2e....so I'll have to play those.

This gonna be so woke they might as well license Thirsty Sword Lesbians.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 27, 2021, 09:39:27 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 06:14:46 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 26, 2021, 11:15:35 PM
New edition, eh?  I knew Wizards could not resist that sweet sweet new edition money.

I remember when those WotC shills were drinking the ever green cool-aid.  Good times

How is "backwards compatible" not evergreen?

Define "backwards compatible"?

That reminds me of the old saying "Speaking of the WotC shills...."

Quote from: Shasarak on September 27, 2021, 08:53:40 PMThe problem for me is that it really feels like the type of game that you would get if it killed DnD and wore it like a skin suit.

My issue with this sort of argument is that everybodies opinion on what the 'Soul' of D&D is very different from person to person, and the reason as to their reasons are important also vary.

For me, it often feel like for grognards (not always but often), the 'One and True' D&D was that one session they had that summer of 1986 with their big brother Sam before he died in a car accident. And that everything outside that session is a perversion by stupid idiots that don't know what they are missing, and are weaker people for playing the game in any other way then that session.

And so much leeway is given to the blatant flaws of the earlier system that they would thrash in any newer system.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 27, 2021, 11:30:53 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 27, 2021, 08:53:40 PMThe problem for me is that it really feels like the type of game that you would get if it killed DnD and wore it like a skin suit.

My issue with this sort of argument is that everybodies opinion on what the 'Soul' of D&D is very different from person to person, and the reason as to their reasons are important also vary.

For me, it often feel like for grognards (not always but often), the 'One and True' D&D was that one session they had that summer of 1986 with their big brother Sam before he died in a car accident. And that everything outside that session is a perversion by stupid idiots that don't know what they are missing, and are weaker people for playing the game in any other way then that session.

And so much leeway is given to the blatant flaws of the earlier system that they would thrash in any newer system.

I guess you just dont know Sam the way I used to.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 27, 2021, 11:45:25 PMI guess you just dont know Sam the way I used to.

I can't but he seems like he was a good guy.

Would you say Stars/Worlds without number go against the spirit or soul of classic D&D?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 27, 2021, 05:49:35 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 27, 2021, 05:45:58 PMSecond worst for me

I know plenty of people hate 4e, but design wise its got allot of good ideas (including ones good for grognards otherwise so many of its ideas wouldn't have carried over to SWN & WWN). It was let down more by its bad ideas.

It was not only the design: the fluff was just dire.

3/3.5E had the best fluff D&D ever saw. I collected all the books I was interested in and the simple act of reading them was already a pleasure. Many a times I just wanted to use these new cool ideas/places in my campaign as soon as possible. It was in this era, for example, that the Forgotten Realms really came to age.

4E was written for 5 years old superheroes fans without even understanding that 5 years old are smarter than that. I remember thinking, back in the day, that I could use 4E's fluff as a source of ideas even if the system was dire, only to discover how, all of sudden, they were writing for first graders (and, again, badly at that).

4E was a failure no matter from what angle you considered it. I still have my 3/3.5E collection, I and my players consistently had a great time with it, and I don't see a reason to move away from it for my fantasy games. 5E was interesting and I'm happy that it was successful but it never really clicked with us like 3/3.5E did.

Quote from: Reckall on September 27, 2021, 11:04:31 AM
ICv2 seems to be of the same opinion.

https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/47054/rolling-initiative-a-case-possible-sale-wizards-coast-being-horizon

I can't resist this nitpick.

QuoteFor decades, Hasbro has focused on either developing its own lucrative product lines (My Little Pony) or acquiring the licenses to hot or long lasting properties (Star Wars, Transformers).

Transformers has been a Hasbro property since 1984.

Yeah but a lot of the early Transformers designs were licensed from Takara's Diaclone line and a few other manufacturers like the defunct Takatoku.