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

[Chaosmancer]

I have a hard time believing that they got it right in the one edition that I didn't play, then screwed it up again in the next edition.

I mean.... that describes SO MUCH of 4e...

 

[Velderan]

WotC doesn't admit errors (the OGL Crisis being the exception that proves the rule).

You haven't seen Chris Perkins talk about the 2014 DMG I take it?

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I have a hard time believing that they got it right in the one edition that I didn't play, then screwed it up again in the next edition.

I mean.... that describes SO MUCH of 4e...

4e had many problems... in many ways I think it was like 1e or even basic, it had GREAT ideas that needed years to grow... but instead we got 5e.

4e didn't have the CR system perfect (I can list problems if you like) but of 3e,3.5,PF1,5e and 4e it was the closest to working.

To be honest going back to 4e design (so types like soldier, lurker, controller ect) with the 5e legendary and mythic system replaceing elite and solo and bringing back minions I think would be the best we can hope for.

 

[SteveC]

But... none of that cares about the word "edition" at all.

I'm not thinking that I'm being unclear, so let me try again. This thread is about Crawford saying "it's not a new edition of the game, it's just a new edition of the books!" Quite frankly I find that to be an incredibly disingenuous thing to say, with the goal of continuing to sell existing books. The upset about the word comes from what Crawford is trying to do with the words as the apply to the books versus the Edition.

What I'm saying is that if this game is a new Edition or not matters to me. Not what it's called. You can call it "reloaded" or "remastered" or, as is currently in fashion, nothing at all. I've explained that right now I'd call it an Edition change akin to 3.0-->3.5, with changes made to classes, feats and spells, but the core rules being the same. That kind of change to an Edition means I don't necessarily need new books.

If it's the kind of change to Editions that's more than that, that changes the underlying rules of how you play the game, it makes me more likely to buy the new books because I'd need them to learn to play the game.

The reason I'm discussing in this thread is because of what Crawford said about the term. And how that's frustrating to me. He's playing a semantic game. I find it likely as we get close to launch, we'll hear about all these awesome new things about the game that you really will need the new books to experience.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

if they give the orc more HP and more to hit is it the same CR?

If the designers say that the old Orc didn't hit the CR properly, and the new one does, then yeah.

Can we agree that some 2014 stat-blocks don't meet the the CR as expected? Or is the 2014 MM perfect?

 

[TwoSix]

The reason I'm discussing in this thread is because of what Crawford said about the term. And how that's frustrating to me. He's playing a semantic game. I find it likely as we get close to launch, we'll hear about all these awesome new things about the game that you really will need the new books to experience.

I find this a little difficult to parse, as Crawford's statement is literally addressing a semantic issue!

"Edition" means more than one thing; it has a particular meaning in book publishing, but historically has had a much more specific meaning in TTRPG, especially D&D, publishing. He's clarifying that the 2024 books are new editions in the former sense rather than the latter. That's a semantic issue worth clarifying.

Is he also saying that because he wants people to buy the Bigby book in 2023 AND the new PHB in 2024? Of course! That doesn't mean he's wrong.

Right now, they seem to be pushing the idea that the 2024 versions are a value add, with lots of new toys, but not strictly "necessary" to play unless you really want the new toys. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Remathilis]

4e had many problems... in many ways I think it was like 1e or even basic, it had GREAT ideas that needed years to grow... but instead we got 5e.

4e didn't have the CR system perfect (I can list problems if you like) but of 3e,3.5,PF1,5e and 4e it was the closest to working.

To be honest going back to 4e design (so types like soldier, lurker, controller ect) with the 5e legendary and mythic system replaceing elite and solo and bringing back minions I think would be the best we can hope for.

If 4e had looked more like Essentials when it came out, I think it would have done much better. Essentials felt like a mix of older style sensibilities and updated design, and I feel it would have grabbed hesitant players far more than PHB1/MM1 did.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I think the idea of CR needs to be dropped entirely. It's a broken concept that can't be made to work. What is a challenge to a 15th level group that consists of 2 wizards, a fighter and a paladin won't be the same challenge to a group of a fighter, a rogue, a cleric and a bard.

They need to teach DMs how to assess the group strengths and weaknesses compare those to a monster's strengths and weaknesses.

Are you saying that because party mix and encounter mix vary so wildly, that there can be no guidelines?

For GMs of LevelUp or other 5E clones... do those rules get CR right for encounter design?

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

What I'm saying is that if this game is a new Edition or not matters to me. Not what it's called. You can call it "reloaded" or "remastered" or, as is currently in fashion, nothing at all. I've explained that right now I'd call it an Edition change akin to 3.0-->3.5, with changes made to classes, feats and spells, but the core rules being the same. That kind of change to an Edition means I don't necessarily need new books.

thank you well said

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

If the designers say that the old Orc didn't hit the CR properly, and the new one does, then yeah.

Can we agree that some 2014 stat-blocks don't meet the the CR as expected? Or is the 2014 MM perfect?

100% they are not correct in the basics