Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

[MonochromeTiger]

Comparing AI and NFTs makes no sense to me. AI needs to be regulated, but it at least has a very clear value proposition for end users. NFT "value" meanwhile is/was purely speculative, constituting nothing more than a series of bigger-fool-scams like pump and dumps, ponzi schemes, wash trading etc.

The comparison is in presentation and potential issues.

Both are typically pitched as a future wonder that people need to get in on the ground floor of or they'll lose out. No effort in either case is made to explain why that's so or even what the actual benefit will be for the people it's being marketed to, mostly just the standard "I have money, you want more money, you should buy what I'm selling" that makes CEOs' eyes light up with dollar signs.

Both have significant ethical questions hanging around them that raise questions for their defenders. AI admittedly isn't a straightforward scam like NFTs but you'd be hard pressed to find an artist or a writer out there who doesn't have a hard stance on the matter. Justifiably so since many companies only bother hiding the motive of cutting their workforce when someone calls them out on it. The legality of it is in itself still an open question just waiting for something to show up that sets a precedent.

[Psyren]

Both are typically pitched as a future wonder that people need to get in on the ground floor of or they'll lose out.

Lose out on what exactly? People are adopting AI willingly, for its convenience and efficiency, not due to any kind of FOMO urgency.

When I use Microsoft Designer to make a faux Funko Pop of my D&D character, or ask ChatGPT about the origin of green-skinned orcs, I'm not doing so with any expectation of monetary gain or a line going up; it's purely because I think the tech and its output are cool/interesting and save me time.

Both have significant ethical questions hanging around them that raise questions for their defenders. AI admittedly isn't a straightforward scam like NFTs but you'd be hard pressed to find an artist or a writer out there who doesn't have a hard stance on the matter. Justifiably so since many companies only bother hiding the motive of cutting their workforce when someone calls them out on it. The legality of it is in itself still an open question just waiting for something to show up that sets a precedent.

It's still a very bad analogy. NFTs are purely an old con dressed up in the blockchain to look new; whether you do it on OpenSea or the NASDAQ, wash trading is wash trading. AI however is genuinely new territory. I look forward to the "precedent" that will be set; in the meantime though, WotC is sitting on a mountain of artwork they own the copyright for, so they should just train or license an AI model themselves and be done with it.

[Brookshw]

It's still a very bad analogy. NFTs are purely an old con dressed up in the blockchain to look new; whether you do it on OpenSea or the NASDAQ, wash trading is wash trading. AI however is genuinely new territory. I look forward to the "precedent" that will be set; in the meantime though, WotC is sitting on a mountain of artwork they own the copyright for, so they should just train or license an AI model themselves and be done with it.

It's also worth mentioning artist that could capitalize on their work being turned into nfts have gladly done so in certain cases, while nfts that infringe copyright have gotten smacked. I agree there's very little meaningful comparison at this point.

[Waazraath]

When starting this thread I hadn't imagined it would spread out to encompass the merit of trying to create LotR characters in D&D, the use of AI for art in the game industry and (of all things) the question on whether it is ok to drink wine in which a fly has landed (well done drinking it btw, wasting good wine is a shame!). Nice :)

These interessting side quests aside, I think I learned from the entire thread that I'm gonna check the new phb in my lgs to see if I can find anything interesting enough to use, and based on that assessment I just might gonna buy it to incorporate in the 5e games I'm gonna keep running. So still not inclined to switch entirely, but I guess I'm a little bit more open minded toward using parts of it.

[Arkhios]

When starting this thread I hadn't imagined it would spread out to encompass the merit of trying to create LotR characters in D&D, the use of AI for art in the game industry and (of all things) the question on whether it is ok to drink wine in which a fly has landed (well done drinking it btw, wasting good wine is a shame!). Nice :)

These interessting side quests aside, I think I learned from the entire thread that I'm gonna check the new phb in my lgs to see if I can find anything interesting enough to use, and based on that assessment I just might gonna buy it to incorporate in the 5e games I'm gonna keep running. So still not inclined to switch entirely, but I guess I'm a little bit more open minded toward using parts of it.

To be honest, that's a wise decision. As with any other new product you're wondering whether you should buy, you should always check it out before "buying a pig in a poke". Making decision to buy or not to buy based solely on hearsay and unfinished process won't serve you well.

I said it before, but I'll say it again, from my perspective I don't think there's going to be much of a "switch" between the current and the new phb's.

[Waazraath]

I said it before, but I'll say it again, from my perspective I don't think there's going to be much of a "switch" between the current and the new phb's.

Probably my own experience colouring my view here: when my groups played 3.0 and 3.5 came out, we switched completely and never looked back, neither used core books, supplements or adventures. Combination of 3.5 being superior in our view, as well as not wanting the hassle of combining systems who might be very much alike but also not exactly the same.

[Theodoxus]

Probably my own experience colouring my view here: when my groups played 3.0 and 3.5 came out, we switched completely and never looked back, neither used core books, supplements or adventures. Combination of 3.5 being superior in our view, as well as not wanting the hassle of combining systems who might be very much alike but also not exactly the same.

That was my experience too. Though I suspect the timing of 3 -> 3.5 had a lot more to do with the general universal switch from one to the other. There were internet boards for the truly geeky, but nearly everything I knew was word of mouth from the FLGS patrons; my gaming crew at the time just switched and ditched the old stuff, selling it to the store for pennies on the dollar on the stores recommendation. Couldn't just google 'should I switch to 3.5 or just stick with 3rd edition D&D'.

[Rukelnikov]

That was my experience too. Though I suspect the timing of 3 -> 3.5 had a lot more to do with the general universal switch from one to the other. There were internet boards for the truly geeky, but nearly everything I knew was word of mouth from the FLGS patrons; my gaming crew at the time just switched and ditched the old stuff, selling it to the store for pennies on the dollar on the stores recommendation. Couldn't just google 'should I switch to 3.5 or just stick with 3rd edition D&D'.

I'm a bit confused by this, sure there were changes, Damage Reduction, Level Adjustment, and many Feats and PrCs were reprinted eventually, but you could still use much of what was printed in the 3.0 books when "playing 3.5"

[Arkhios]

I'm a bit confused by this, sure there were changes, Damage Reduction, Level Adjustment, and many Feats and PrCs were reprinted eventually, but you could still use much of what was printed in the 3.0 books when "playing 3.5"

I'm more in line with the others, to be honest. Granted, my journey through D&D began just before the 3.5 was released (a friend of mine who introduced me to D&D told me not to buy the 3.0 PHB but instead the 3.5 PHB. At the time, I didn't notice much differences between the two, but in time, I have noticed a great deal of huge difference between the two. With that said, the amount of changes between 2014 and 2024 PHB's is much less. That's why I don't think this causes much problems, if at all, to use the rules interchangeably, still calling the edition same as it already is.

[Saelethil]

I’m expecting to pick up the new PHB but our current game is already a primordial soup of homebrew and official 5e. I’m sure we’ll just throw the parts of 5.5 we like into the metaphorical pot.

[Waazraath]

I'm a bit confused by this, sure there were changes, Damage Reduction, Level Adjustment, and many Feats and PrCs were reprinted eventually, but you could still use much of what was printed in the 3.0 books when "playing 3.5"

Oh, I'm sure you are right about the could, it was about the should. The changes seemed improvements at that time, and having several features with the same name but doing something different just didn't seem worth the trouble.

[KorvinStarmast]

the question on whether it is ok to drink wine in which a fly has landed (well done drinking it btw, wasting good wine is a shame!).

A pleasure to serve.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I will be picking up the new books and using them as a baseline for games I run, because the UA has given me a fair amount of confidence in the update's value from a DM and game design perspective.

Improvement to underperforming classes and subclasses, normalization of levels 1 and 2 for newbs, Stratified feats, and a stronghold system that eliminates the economics research I used to feel I had to do to let players operate businesses.

[prototype00]

The monk and warlock slap (and I’m a ride or die fan of both) and I play AL mostly (which tends to “encourage” usage of the latest ruleset), so I’m more or less locked in to 5.5 at the moment (no bad thing, I’m really looking forward to playing the monk especially).

[Mindflayer_Inc]

I'm a bit confused by this, sure there were changes, Damage Reduction, Level Adjustment, and many Feats and PrCs were reprinted eventually, but you could still use much of what was printed in the 3.0 books when "playing 3.5"

There was some sort of 3.5 rule or blurb from the devs that said something like

"if it wasn't updated, you can use it"

Which, I think was more of fringe cases like with feats or whatever, for the most part at least.

Been a while.

That being said, OneDND feels more like 4e to Essentials. Yeah, you can use them in the same game but one is going to outclass the other so like, why would you?

Like, playing a Binder is just a downgrade to the Warlock.

[Psyren]

The monk and warlock slap (and I’m a ride or die fan of both) and I play AL mostly (which tends to “encourage” usage of the latest ruleset), so I’m more or less locked in to 5.5 at the moment (no bad thing, I’m really looking forward to playing the monk especially).

Having seen it in action (Treantmonk played a pure Monk in a level 15 one-shot a few weeks back alongside other optimizers) I have to concur.

The Warlock I'm less excited about, since they didn't really solve any of its core issues, but it got QOL improvements... at least they didn't make it worse, which I consider passable.

There was some sort of 3.5 rule or blurb from the devs that said something like

"if it wasn't updated, you can use it"

Which, I think was more of fringe cases like with feats or whatever, for the most part at least.

Been a while.

That being said, OneDND feels more like 4e to Essentials. Yeah, you can use them in the same game but one is going to outclass the other so like, why would you?

Yeah I don't understand anyone who would want to stick with the 2014 Monk, Fighter, Barbarian, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue, and Warlock over 2024.

Paladin I kinda get if you're really wanting to nova or use your BA but I'd personally rather have the new smite spells and WMs.
For Cleric and Ranger I think it's too early to tell, I need to see the final product, but I'm leaning towards 2024 also.
Wizard ultimately didn't change much.

[TheHalfAasimar]

As for me? I'm probably too broke to get them. And if I want to play another edition, I'd probably play 3.5 or PF2e, so probably not.

[Solamnicknight]

I'm going to pick them up, use what I like from them in my games and discard or homebrew and houserule out what I don't like. When I started with 5e there wasn't even much setting information, so I made my own setting for my game. It was an amazingly fun campaign with ups and downs and twists and turns, with players joining and leaving! I played in another campaign run with my friend that was brilliant, as the over the top justice-seeking good hearted but sometimes harsh half-drow bard Elise Esperanza-Baenre from level 1-20! I expect much the same from the new ruleset! I say raise a tankard to 50 more years of D&D and TTRPGs in general! Until those of us who started with AD&D or like me with 3.5 have gone on to the greatest adventure of all, let us keep gaming and creating and adventuring as much as we can! Huzzah!

[Rukelnikov]

There was some sort of 3.5 rule or blurb from the devs that said something like

"if it wasn't updated, you can use it"

Which, I think was more of fringe cases like with feats or whatever, for the most part at least.

Been a while.

That being said, OneDND feels more like 4e to Essentials. Yeah, you can use them in the same game but one is going to outclass the other so like, why would you?

Like, playing a Binder is just a downgrade to the Warlock.

Well, mainly because there were some cool PrCs that weren't officially updated for many years or ever. I'm not saying, use 3.0's Sacred Fist even when you have 3.5's Sacred Fist*, but until 3.5's version came around, there's little to nothing in the game's mechanics preventing you from using the 3.0 one, you could just lift it as it was in Defenders of the Faith and that's it. The Forsaker, for instance, wasn't as easy since the change in how DR works meant there was indeed a mechanical barrier to lifting it, and each group would have to determine how they were gonna run its DR.

Personally, one of the main antagonists of a very long campaign I DMed (and in the view of my players probably THE main antagonist), was a Ghostwalker, which was a PrC from Sword and Fist, a 3.0 book, and there was no trouble whatsoever when 3.5 came around, I just kept using him the same as before, no prob.

*And tbh, maybe even then you can still use 3.0s, my first 3e character was a bladesinger, bladesingers main schtick was being able to cast a spell and attack on the same turn, the kind of feature that's character defining, when the 3.5 version came around, the didn't have that feature anymore, could only do it I think once or twice a day, my DM said **** that, so we ended up with pretty much the 3.5 version, but with the ability to cast and attack like the 3.0 version, still a nerf over the 3.0 version, but retaining the core identity.