D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I just don't think it's all that confusing. Better than the class tables in the 1e DMG, and it still allows different classes to actually be better or worse at attacks, which 5e certainly doesn't do (nor did 4e before it, I believe).

Functionally, THAC0 as seen in 2e is exactly the same as the additive to-hit calculation we've had since 3e. When attacking you want to roll high and have as high a positive modifier as possible.

To hit formula: [To-hit bonus on character sheet] + [dice roll] +[modifiers] = the AC you hit

THAC0 formula: [THAC0 written on character sheet] - ( [dice roll] + [modifiers] ) = the AC you hit.

We see that in both cases the final result scales linearly with the dice roll and the modifiers. So why is THAC0 harder to use than To-Hit?

• Doing both subtraction and addition involves more of the brain than only addition, especially once you have double-digit numbers
• With To-Hit, you can add the numbers you have in any order and get the correct result, but since THAC0 involves subtraction you either have to follow the exact order of operations in the formula, or you have to keep track of when to flip the sign.

All in all, THAC0 is just a more complicated way to reach the same result, with 0 benefits.

 

[TheSword]

There are a small number of people that are bothered about this issue in the universe. I think they’ve all posted in this thread.

 

[Yaarel]

I mean perhaps in the sense of each of them individually not wanting enough changes to merit a ".5" but once they all get their preferred tweaks it comes to a ".5". I can buy that as a possible explanation, but I think there must also be some contingent of the design team that very much wants a "5.5e" or even a "6e".

Yeah. The .5 seems inevitable, but they are striving for genuine compatibility with .0.


I suspect there were people at WotC who wanted a full-on 5.5 or 6.0. (Brink even implied 5.5 when comparing 3.0 to 3.5.)

But the fallout of the ap-OGL-ypse shook the D&D community. The fallout was two things.

First, WotC doesnt want to stress the community any further, so is playing it safer.

Second, the solution to salvage the relationship with the community was putting 5.0 into the Creative Commons license as the way to legally empower indy companies to contribute to 5e and work with WotC (and DnDBeyond etcetera).

Both of these things make 5.0 the foreseeable future − and ended any chance of 6.0, or even a daring 5.5e.


I suspect it will be 5.5, because any attempt to present 5e well must address various issues that appear within such a complex game over so many years while entering mainstream, with so many players with such different tastes.

And for WotC as a business the sweet spot is obviously having it be similar and compatible enough that people readily buy a book or two to use alongside their 5e materials (rather than avoid it because they don't want to have to get a whole new set of books), but then gradually find everything just different or incompatible enough to bit by bit rebuy everything in a slightly remixed variation.

Also, players today are more comfortable with digital resources, that make any updates easier to include.

There is a palpable need to balance "standardization" versus "innovation".

 

[mamba]

if I was starting to DM a game of 1D&D and had 6 players excluding myself and 1 of those players decided "eh I'm just gonna play a 5E PC", I'd probably tell them to take a hike unless they made a real convincing argument. I wouldn't want to pull double duty reading/referencing 2 sets of books.

why do you need to read both books, maybe the player does, but you?

 

[Yaarel]

These updates seem manageable to me.

My point is this. Will 1D&D be backwards compatible with 5E, probably, But

with lineages,

The 2014 races were mechanically uneven. One race was slightly less powerful than the next. But once you go from one extreme like Half Elf to the other extreme like Halfling, the difference between them is noticeably about a half-feat.

The 2024 species are about the same math, but more consistent. Because the ability boosts are now a separate part of the Character Creation process, the traits that some weaker species get are a solid upgrade, like for Dragonborn. The boost helps flavor. Survey responses tend to be happy with new and improved Dragonborn.

class features,

The math will be roughly the same. Standardizing when the subclasses happens is better for the game, but will require paying attention when mixing old and new.

feats ... If I understand correctly as of the last playtest aren't feats no longer considered optional?

D&D traditions are happy to accommodate many, many feats. (Albeit it is wise to make sure any new feats are truly beneficial, and avoid bloat with trap options.)

The first level feat is happening now, in settings like Thera, Strixhaven, and Richtens. The variant Human has been doing a level 1 feat since day one in 2014.

The default extra feat is a few more skills. There is no need to look for other feats unless one wants to.

spells,

Heh, here. I am hoping for a drastic vetting of all of the official spells, including many rewrites, level changes, and sometimes rethinking, for the sake of clarity, choosability, and balance appropriate to the level.

But spells are spells. Spells can come from different books. Like magic items, a DM can add new spells from anywhere.

weapon properties etc changing, will it be practical to do so probably not.

Weapon properties are like adding new weapons to choose from. It is simple to pick the ones that one likes.

Net looks like it will now be "Equipment" rather than "Weapon". This kind of tweaking is easy to accommodate and even ignore.

Fighter players seem happy with the new weapon properties, to make the choices feel more distinctive.

Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I could be glaringly wrong.

Personally, I am expecting 5.5, but I also expect updates to be intuitive and painless.

For example, the updates to Rules Glossary are helpful.

 

[mamba]

First, WotC doesnt want to stress the community any further, so is playing it safer.

have you seen the community? I don’t think this makes any difference…

Second, the solution to salvage the relationship with the community was putting 5.0 into the Creative Commons license as the way to legally empower indy companies to contribute to 5e and work with WotC (and DnDBeyond etcetera).

WotC can put 5.5 / 6e under CC too, just like they did for 5e

Both of these things make 5.0 the foreseeable future − and ended any chance of 6.0, or even a daring 5.5e.

what makes 5e the foreseeable future is that WotC wants no split. Unless I get my timeline wrong, WotC already had communicated that months before the OGL happened

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The 2e books were called "Player's Option". It was clear what their purpose was, and it wasn't to replace the core for everyone.

No. It was not but WotC was always clear in communicating about the 2024 books. Always. It is still people on the internets freaking out and jumping to false conclusions. Imagine the outrage those player option books would generate now.

"Wotc want to stealthily introduce a new edition. All my other books are incompatible. What should I do if some player decides to use those option and someone else not. Absolutely power creep. My old psionics book is useless now. What are they thinking to change proficiencies. I have to do math. The juggling proficiency is totally unbalanced with bonuses to thrown weapons. Why should I buy those books if LevelUP does the same thing and better?"

Should I go on?

 

[R_J_K75]

why do you need to read both books, maybe the player does, but you?

When I DM I like to keep up on the players characters as they progress through the campaign, know what class skills they have, spells, items etc. For example as the DM I if a player cast a spell I like to know what it does, but unfortunately, I'm not one to remember rules off the top of my head too well so I like to brush up between sessions. But yes I agree its also the players responsibility to, but that doesn't always happen.

 

[mamba]

For example as the DM I if a player cast a spell I like to know what it does, but unfortunately, I'm not one to remember rules off the top of my head too well so I like to brush up between sessions.

If I mix, then they all use the current version of the spell, just like they all encounter the current version of the monster. Same for items.

Might be different for feats, etc., but spells have an easy solution

I doubt the changes are big enough that you have to mentally track them regardless. Either a char has Fireball or it does not, which version will be pretty irrelevant

 

[R_J_K75]

If I mix, then they all use the current version of the spell

This makes sense, and were I to actually decide to play 1D&D Id probably do the same. Here's where I'm confused, has WotC ever clarified what their definition of backwards compatibility is? I interpreted it as if one player is playing a 2014 PC then they'd use the rules in the 2014 PHB, if another is playing a 2024 PC then they'd use the 2024 PHB. Am I wrong? Seems like its going to be using a little from both the 2014 and 2024 rules.