Not like that at all, actually. Because every 2024 subclass is also a 2014 subclass, because they’re the same game.
Not so. Subclasses are getting features at different levels, in different ways. They hook into different baseline features. How is that possible to square with the idea that every 2014 subclass is a 2024 subclass and vice versa?
Consider, for instance, the shift to unified spell lists per source. There is no "Warlock" spell list anymore. There is just Arcane, which covers all Arcane casters. Some characters are explicitly allowed to pull stuff outside that list. Bard Spell Secrets are the biggest example of this. Changes to that feature mean you
cannot just use the 2014 Lore Bard with the 2024 Bard chassis. They are
actually incompatible.
This may grow with time, e.g. the 2024 Ranger is going to be an Expertise source, but the 2014 one isn't. Any feature which hinges on already having expertise would make 2024 Ranger subclasses incompatible with 2014 Ranger, and possibly vice-versa, depending on implementation. 2024 Warlocks abandoning their 2014 spellcasting model means, at the very least, that some of the Invocations are no longer appropriate, and possibly may not work in the first place.
These changes are not simply stuff one may blithely ignore. They have serious effects on compatibility between these versions. The spell list change in particular, since that affects huge swathes of the game all at once. Now every spell that used to be Paladin-exclusive would be available to every Cleric, Favored Soul, and Celestial Warlock, if we make naive translations across the gap. Now every Wizard can pick up
eldritch blast at first level no problem. Etc.
I think the premise that D&D can meaningfully be compared to a video game in the context of development cycles. After which, what even is there in your post to engage with? AFAIC your entire stance in that post is egregiously fallacious from premise to conclusion.
Exactly because I am serious about discussing the topic, I’d like the topic to move past the spurious notion that D&D is like a video game when it comes to the age of a game and the development cycle of a series of games.
Okay but like...I want to know WHY it's fallacious. You've made the assertion plenty, and if you just flat don't want to discuss it, fine. But
merely saying "that's a fallacy" and never ever explaining why or giving any reason further than that is a refusal to actually discuss. There is a name for this,
argumentum ad lapidem, "appeal to (the) stone," where one simply rejects the claim as absurd or ridiculous and never actually gives a reason
why.
So. You claim it is fallacious. What fallacies? Where have I erred? If you refuse to actually explain, then I reject your argument as fallacious, and will continue to claim that a useful analogy can be drawn between these things.
Yes. And the the Warlock (2014) does say that after level 1 you learn the warlock cantrips of your choice. Unless you really think that this easily fixed bit of confusion will make it to print, though, I’m not sure it’s an issue beyond exposing who likes to engage with perceived misunderstandings in a superior and even aggressive manner.
Given the confusions they actually published in extant 5e (such as the failure to state that eldritch invocation prereqs are
Warlock levels, not
character levels), yes, I'm quite willing to believe such confusions can make it to print. I don't have a lot of confidence in current WotC's ability to be clear, specific, and thorough.