D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[GMforPowergamers]

As I see it, compatibility isn't about building a character with the 2014 PHB and then playing the entire game using the 2014 rules. It's about building a character with the 2014 PHB and having the abilities on the character sheet function under the 2024 rules.

okay well exhustion weather slow is a condition, the lucky feat all change. Heck race/type/species abilities change...

I make a 4th level dwarven bard with the lucky feat in 2014 book even if you house rule the class is okay as a throw back will you also allow my +2 str and +2 con instead? how about my background feature that doesn't exist in the 2024 book? what lucky are we useing?

If a player has 2014 bardic inspiration recorded on their character sheet, that ability continues to work as written. If the character suffers a level of exhaustion, it works according to the overall game's exhaustion rules.

so when I take a level of exhaustion and look it up I need to borrow your book because mine IS NOT COMPATABLE...

These are very simple questions for a conversion document or DM to address. And while I think some of the possible answers are better than others, none of them would keep the game from functioning.

and I can make a conversion doc (and people have) to play a 2e psion in 5e, or a 4e warlord in 5e...
At that ppoint every d20 book published since 2000 is compatible and there has not been a new edition since WotC started 3e

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think basically everyone would agree that the rules of class features run with the class granting them, not whatever class happens to be in the same PHB as the class of the character receiving them.

Okay so we are playing online I show up with a 5e book and you don't know what one I have... I can't just say "Um, in my book bardic inspiration says I can hold it and use it when I want..."
because the same reason I can't use the 4e condition list, or the 2014 onee in 2024... they are not the same. they have made whole sale changes (so far based on what I have seen in playtest that may change)

At least that's what people will generally agree until Jeremy Crawford tweets some counter-intuitive nonsense saying you use the Cleric's edition's rules.

again, we used to have a simple term for this... instead of both being 5e one would be 5e and the other would be 5.5 or 6e

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They're not going to make any given monster more or less powerful, so the statblock doesn't matter. That's why they said it was backwards compatible with adventures.

they said they are increasing the power of monsters more and more at higher levels

 

[UngeheuerLich]

again showing that you can take sections of one to replace those sections of the others but you can't just use both books... aka (IMO) not compatable... not any more then 1e/2e or 3e/3,5... and most likely not any more or less then every d200 game since 200 with each othe

That does not make sense...
If you can take sections of one and the other, that is compatibility.

If I use the subclass x of book y and replace subclass w of book z, and it works, it is compatible.
If I use the ranger optional ability and replace the phb ability, it is compatible.

If some 3pp or an UA offers a better ranger, and I use that ranger instead of the PHB one, it is compatible.

If I use exhaustion rules from 2024 and replace the 2014 rules with them, it is compatible.

If I use races from 2024 instead of 2014, it is no different than using goliath from mpmotm instead of eepc, so compatible.

If I use a 3pp usb cable instead of the one provoded by huawei, and I can load my smart phone with it (although a bit slower) it is still compatible...

The only thing that makes remotely sense is, that you can take some rules even from the AD&D rules (like rules for dying) and still see compatibility.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure. I just don't see it as a problem.

that's fine... I don't really see it as a problem as much as it's just what happens with edition changes, the problem is people insulting belittling or putting down the edition they choose not to play... aka the edition war.

But maybe I won't. I'm thinking my next campaign will be DCC Dying Earth. It won't be because One D&D drove me away, but rather I want to try running something else for a while.

again that's fine

I have been clear covid and switching to VTT is the only thing keeping us with 5e, if 1D&D doesn't make some systemic changes (like making a pure martial character that is as complex and overall powerful/useful as a full caster...or at least close) we will most likely move on like we did the last year before 4e was announced

Strictly speaking, if even one person sticks with an older version, there is a "split".

I'm not sure a rounding errorr counts... I would say if 1% of tables would be where the split would start.

I just don't see the updated books causing some major schism that will much of any negative impact for WotC, D&D, or the hobby as a whole.

and nobody has suggested this would

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Most players seem to have problems remembering one set of rules, I certainly wouldn't expect smooth play when everyone has to deal with two rulebooks where a lot of things have the same names but are subtly different.

over the last 5 years (so second half of 5e) I have had players remember (misremeber) rules they were SO SURE OF multi times and it turrns out it was a 2e or 3e or 3.5 or 4e rule that they missremembered thinking it was a 5e one...

Heck I have had a player swear mindflayers were from the future by default in the current edition multi times be proven wrong and STILL remember the damn Bruce Cordell book from 3.0. She isn't being a pain or trying to force older ideas on the groups, she just has a SUPER stressful job and doesn't spend time memorizing D&D stuff like she used to and older stuff still clicks with her.

I had a player in a game I am playing go nuts looking to see how much XP he lost cause his familar died, and when the DM told him "don't worry, even if you find it I wont make you lose XP for this" continued for a week trying to find the rule... I finally in a text said "Try the 3e PHB...that rule hasn't been a thing in 15ish years" (this is in 2022 not 2023 but still within a year of today)

In my games we'll be using either the 2024 books or the 2014 books, perhaps with some house rules inspired by the other books.

and THAT is all I hhave been saying for months... that is how MOST not just 50 or 60% but closer to 90% of tables will run... one or the other not both, maybe one with a smattering of 'house rules' porting from the other... NOT BOTH

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That does not make sense...
If you can take sections of one and the other, that is compatibility.

I can take weapons vs armor table from 2e and drop it into 4e, 5e, or the playtest... by your account that means 2e is compatable and the same edition.

I can take the background rules from WoD (we did it with vampire but I am sure mage and WW at least work as well) and drop them into 4e, so the d10 White wolf games are compatiable with 4e... and 4e is compatable with 2e and 2e is compatable with 5e 2014 or 2024...

at that point all TTRPG are compatible and there is no need to distinguish between them edition or game

If I use the subclass x of book y and replace subclass w of book z, and it works, it is compatible.
If I use the ranger optional ability and replace the phb ability, it is compatible.

already there is an issue, subclasses (as we have seen so far) already don't port over for every class... the bard still being my go to example... they are close but you will need some house rules to do it, by default the systems are NOT compatible... (Just some issues is the levels you get them at, how they effect a now wildly different set of spells, how they effect a wildly different inspiration mechanic)

If some 3pp or an UA offers a better ranger, and I use that ranger instead of the PHB one, it is compatible.

if you pop out the PHB ranger and drop in "GMforpowergamers new improved ranger for 5e" sure... but if "GMforpowergamers new improved ranger for 5e" comes with new rules for conditions, spells, feats, race... those rules are NOT compatible if the book you buy of mine has all of them tied together as much as you cna pull out a class and drop it in, by default the books are NOT compatible

If I use exhaustion rules from 2024 and replace the 2014 rules with them, it is compatible.

that is the exact opposite of compatoble becuse I can't bring either book and use it, I have to make a note that some or all of my PHB is just not useable

If I use races from 2024 instead of 2014, it is no different than using goliath from mpmotm instead of eepc, so compatible.

If I use a 3pp usb cable instead of the one provoded by huawei, and I can load my smart phone with it (although a bit slower) it is still compatible...

if you break open your PS4 you can add a chip to it that lets you play PS1 games... I would not call a PS4 backward compatible with PS1 (this may be an urban legend but I have heard it from multi sources... then again in the 90s I also heard about the cheat code to take laura crofts cloths off from multi sources too)
I can down load an emulator on my computer and boot up the original legend of zelda from my NES... my computer is not compatible with the NES

being able to house rule and hack something into working just shows it DOESN'T work by default

me and you sit down to play 1 has a 2014 book the other has a 2024book (using what we know now) we need to come to compromise on what rules we are using for what... cause the books themselves do not by default work together.

The only thing that makes remotely sense is, that you can take some rules even from the AD&D rules (like rules for dying) and still see compatibility.

so there is no such thing as edition... and every D&D ever published is compatible... heck I could take the rifts or TORG dying rules too... so every TTRPG ever is compatible...
and when everyone is super no one is... when everything is compatible, the word has no meaning

 

[UngeheuerLich]

and when everyone is super no one is... when everything is compatible, the word has no meaning

Probably. There is no such things as grey. It is either black or white. No shades.
It is only compatible if it is exactly the same. Else everything is compatible.
Since our opinions are not the same, they are incompatible too.
My fault to engage with you again about that matter.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Probably. There is no such things as grey. It is either black or white.

no grey is were most of us live... black and white is for movies books and games.

It is only compatible if it is exactly the same.

no... then it isn't compatible it is just the same.

So complete warrior isn't a reprint of the PHB it isn't the exact same, but it is compatible with the 3.5 PHB.
XXXX guide to XXXX is teh basic new splat book title theme... so they are NOT reprints or 'the exact same' they expand on the PHB from 2014 (what I would call OG 5e)
some books that are compatible add expansions and some add optional rules and some add both.

the PHB from 2014 (and the DMG I would add) is the base of the system and the books that come out after are compatible.
the 2024 book isn't adding to the 2014 book it is replacing it... makeing a new baseline. that new baseline isn't just "not exactly the same" but it's replacing wholesale classes races feats, feat progression, weapon info, action types, spells, conditions...

Else everything is compatible.

again... no. However if you say that a new PHB with new rules that are very diffrent buyt along the same lines IS COMPATIBLE, then yes every (atleast) wotc version of the game is... they all are roll d20 you want high, they all have increasing AC, they all have the same set up for what a class is... it's only the specifics that change.

Since our opinions are not the same, they are incompatible too.
My fault to engage with you again about that matter.

now you are being inulting for no reason...

is there a reason we don't just address the argument not the poster anymore? is that not the rules around here?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

now you are being inulting for no reason...

is there a reason we don't just address the argument not the poster anymore? is that not the rules around here?

This was not meant to be insulting. I just don't want to engage with you on this matter anymore. I don't see us having common ground. So I said it was my mistake to answer to a post of yours knowing that our opinions differ too much. So I back out.