D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford discusses what are the 2024 Fitfh Edition Core Rulebooks.

[Parmandur]

WotC is, by causing the confusion I was talking about.

No, WotC has been extremely upfront about what they are doing, and shown ot in concrete action through the playtest packets.

What I've been told by people by two people on this very thread is that everything will be active. I can pick an choose the rules I want where they vary, and we can have conflicting RAW. That the 2014 feats, without requisites will be just as valid as a 2024 feat with the same name. That I can pick the 2014 or 2024 version of a spell or race or subclass. It's like right now there's a version of races that's live in a number of books and the same races live in MP:MM which didn't (for the first time) errata the previous so both are valid choices.

Yes,I'm not sure how this could be more obvious...?

 

[codo]

I’d say D&D is winning the race, and they have historically not restricted themselves to small incremental changes only. Slow and steady might keep you in the race, but it takes a willingness to break into a sprint to actually win.

When you start on the 95th meter in a hundred meter dash, and everyone else starts at the beginning, then yes, slow and steady will win the race. It's not like D&D is behind and needs to catch up. They are already miles ahead of the competition. They have already had explosive, exponential growth. They just need to keep on track.

 

[HammerMan]

This is fun.

In trying to avoid saying the E word, they started a weird culture war over even considering what is an edition.

Like it's not enough to just say one doesn't think this is an edition or increment of one. Nope, people need to just steamroll in the moment anyone says anything of the like accusing them of all sorts of stuff and gaslighting about how nothing of the like has ever really been the case. Just slinging blood and mud and bile.

But hey, at least it's not an edition war; it's just the continuation of all the other edition wars.

100%

 

[HammerMan]

They started it? As in WotC started this? You have a very different view of how things went down than I do.

Nobody thinks anyone started but the other side.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Honestly, what this seems to come down to is the near deified status some people give to concepts like "core" and "official".

The common example I keep seeing is people claiming that you can't have a fixed version of the moon druid (published in 2024) if the 2014 moon druid is still officially allowed as part of the game. And, I can technically see the logic... but only if you define the game as only including and considering what WoTC considers official.

And so, for some of us, who don't necessarily CARE if something is official... the argument almost doesn't make sense. Because the stamp of "official" doesn't carry very much weight compared to the stamp of "quality material"

 

[HammerMan]

Honestly, what this seems to come down to is the near deified status some people give to concepts like "core" and "official".

And so, for some of us, who don't necessarily CARE if something is official... the argument almost doesn't make sense.

And for some of us the argument of “it doesn’t matter I can fix it myself or pay for a book from 3rd party to fix it” falls flat like why not just ask them to fix it before it comes out?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Honestly, what this seems to come down to is the near deified status some people give to concepts like "core" and "official".

The common example I keep seeing is people claiming that you can't have a fixed version of the moon druid (published in 2024) if the 2014 moon druid is still officially allowed as part of the game. And, I can technically see the logic... but only if you define the game as only including and considering what WoTC considers official.

And so, for some of us, who don't necessarily CARE if something is official... the argument almost doesn't make sense. Because the stamp of "official" doesn't carry very much weight compared to the stamp of "quality material"

Yup. It ultimately comes down to "use what you (and/or your DM) want."

If you like the old one better, use that. If you like the new one, or think it's "better balanced" (which, I mean, we ought to all hope that they'll improve on SOMETHING, right?) or whatever, use the new one.

Most people will probably move on to the newest versions of things (better or not) just to play with the shiny. And that's okay. But I don't think WotC is creating "confusion" by making mixing it possible. They're just acknowledging that IT DOESN'T MATTER that much if things aren't "perfectly" squared. Many of us are just too fussy to agree with that.

And I personally understand (and relate to) that fussiness. For example, I would NEVER have mixed 1e and 2e stuff back in the day, or 3.0 and 3.5 for that matter. I'm quite a bit more easy-going about it now.

5e is so softly (some might say "poorly") balanced in the first place, that nothing is really broken by, for example, giving a 2014 feat for "free" to a background. It's also easy enough for a DM to "fix" even that slight imbalance - by only allowing half-feats (and removing the ASI), using the level one playtest feats only, or frankly just making up (homebrewing) feat-equivalents. All of those options (and presumably more) are "fine", as long as the group is comfortable with them.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Which one of those doesn't invalidate your existing books, because they've been pretty clear all along it's that one.

I feel like this is the "cutting the baby" sort of moment, where you really can't revise the rules without invalidating things. I also feel like that's more the argument for some of us than what it's being called: in trying to keep everything, you end up making it so that improvements might not take in the community because those improvements might be nerfs. It's less about calling it a new edition as much as calling a new edition makes a clear delineation compared to mess of trying to keep it all. I still feel that is where it's eventually going to lead, where it becomes too much hassle design-wise to keep everything together, so they should honestly get ahead of it.

Fine. The 2024 PHB is 6th edition. Please proceed to burn all your 5th edition materials and begin the expansion treadmill again from ground zero. Consume! Consume! Consume!

Happy now?

Why does this have to be so dramatic? We're 10 years into an edition. Bloat happens, built on top of ideas that maybe weren't the best but were the ones they were taking. When things the lawn is starting to get overgrown, adding new flowers isn't the greatest solution.

Like, 10 years for a gaming edition isn't bad at all. In fact, that's pretty damn long compared to, say, tabletop wargaming. If WotC were to actually put out an RCR or whatever, I feel like few would think of it as an "expansion treadmill" because the output rate of these things isn't the same, plus it doesn't really affect the most numerous product: adventures.

Yup. It ultimately comes down to "use what you (and/or your DM) want."

If you like the old one better, use that. If you like the new one, or think it's "better balanced" (which, I mean, we ought to all hope that they'll improve on SOMETHING, right?) or whatever, use the new one.

Most people will probably move on to the newest versions of things (better or not) just to play with the shiny. And that's okay. But I don't think WotC is creating "confusion" by making mixing it possible. They're just acknowledging that IT DOESN'T MATTER that much if things aren't "perfectly" squared. Many of us are just too fussy to agree with that.

See, I feel like the reality is disagreeing with you right now, given how many times Wizards has to say that this isn't an edition change. If even if a small, vocal minority were saying that, I don't think they'd address it. Instead, I think people see a "playtest" and think "new rules". I think they'd be better off leaning into just admitting it's a new edition and saying "Your adventures won't be invalidated by this" because it needs to do less work to actually guide people to where they want.

Also I think more experienced people are way more willing to make jumps, hack things, etc, than newer people to the hobby. In fact, especially newer people to the hobby. I don't think we should look at that as a good way to on-board GMs because I think most people, when they come into this sort of game, see rules as rules. It takes time to build up a knowledge of how things work to where you feel comfortable modifying things on the fly without mussing things up. At least, that's been my experience in teaching new GMs over the years. It's easy to feel like you can just jump into this stuff when you've been reading rules for years, but for many it isn't.

And I personally understand (and relate to) that fussiness. For example, I would NEVER have mixed 1e and 2e stuff back in the day, or 3.0 and 3.5 for that matter. I'm quite a bit more easy-going about it now.

5e is so softly (some might say "poorly") balanced in the first place, that nothing is really broken by, for example, giving a 2014 feat for "free" to a background. It's also easy enough for a DM to "fix" even that slight imbalance - by only allowing half-feats (and removing the ASI), using the level one playtest feats only, or frankly just making up (homebrewing) feat-equivalents. All of those options (and presumably more) are "fine", as long as the group is comfortable with them.

Eh, I think there's a point for the game makers to curate things more firmly and then let GMs make their individual choices as they come. I think it's easier to have a strong baseline game and then hash out details rather than potentially picking and choosing between two books.

 

[HammerMan]

Back in the 90s I was useing vampire and mage rules to house rule into 2e.

 

[Blue]

I don’t buy it. WotC is not creating confusion, they have been very clear from the start. One D&D is not a new edition, compatible with 5e and can be mixed with it.

The only ‘confusion’ I see is people willfully ignoring this.


this has been clear from day one, for everyone who wanted to listen

I do listen. Including to the subtext of what the UAs are saying. Which is different from what they are claiming on video.

Your statement is only true is the outreach videos are the only truth and the mechanics of what they are putting out, including what their own definition of "backwards compatible" is in the UA, is absolute lies that they have no intention of doing.

Really, anyone applying critical thinking to the what they are putting out can see a disconnect.