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

[mamba]

just like they don't release new options for the 3.5 warlock or the 4e warlock

except that those cannot play in a 5e party, while a 2014 warlock can play in a 2024 party.

You are trying to turn this into two editions of warlocks when it is a continuation of one Warlock class with tweaks.
If someone wants to play a Warlock, they can choose from the 2014 subclasses and the 2024 subclasses. The 2014 version does not suddenly disappear the way a 4e one did - unless the table decides to move to 2024 and abandon 2014

 

[Micah Sweet]

how is that any different if it were a new edition? You cannot force anyone onto 5.5, so the 5e version will continue to be played.

Each table decides for themselves, whether you call both 5e or not. The only thing calling both 5e makes clear is that future adventures will keep in working with 5e chars.

They really seem obsessed with this whole adventure compatibility thing. Many players don't even buy or use 5e adventures. For them to be the crux of this whole compatibility question seems an odd hill to die on.

 

[mamba]

it's the exact same thing with a new edition EXCEPT by placing the new name (6e 5.5 whatever) you make it so no one accidentally looks at two version and confuses them.

yeah, instead you confuse them elsewhere (‘this is a 5e adventure, I don’t think we can play that with 5.5’)

I think the confusion this may cause is vastly overrated.

 

[mamba]

and will be balanced around the new version and make sense around the new version, just like an edition change.

balance is not that different between 5e and 1DD that this will actually matter.

 

[Maxperson]

Don't like the 2024's version of the newly-balance druid? Well, time to go back to the 2014 druid with all its Circle of the Moon problems.

And they're claiming here that both versions will be roughly equal. You can't nerf an overpowerful class or raise up an underpowered class and have all the versions be on par with one another.

You can try and handwave the idea away, but the fact that people can just bring the old rules to the table if they don't like the new ones and try to play them is going to happen, and almost certainly more than you think. We've already seen some rough feedback for things like the Warlock. You don't think a bunch of people aren't just going to play the 2014 version?

Also, I find the conceit of "Everyone is going to buy the new rules" doesn't really play with the conceit of "You're going to cause a split in the community with a new edition", because I don't think a bunch of people are suddenly going to buy the rules only because they have a "5E" next to them. People are interested in the new rules because they are new, and I suspect that more people than you'd think would be up for an edition change right now. Instead, we're going to try and do a weird mixture of editions, where we have opposing designs competing. You're going to have people who ban old classes, or at least certain versions.

What's more, in my experience people generally don't like to mix different rule sets together. In the past I've tried to bring in things from other editions, but even if I modify them for the new edition, DMs hem and haw at allowing it, usually just saying no. It was worse with 3e and 3.5e where you could bring in a 3e subclass or class without much or any change, because the older one was automatically met with suspicion. Why did they change things? What could this class have that would break or not fit with the new rules?

That's not going to change just because they label the rules 2014 and 2024. People are still going to see a myriad of changes made in the 2024 rules and be leery of allowing 2014 rules into the game that they run.

 

[Emberashh]

except that those cannot play in a 5e party, while a 2014 warlock can play in a 2024 party.

They can actually. You can mix and match literally anything from any system.

The issues that causes, of course, are not insignificant, and as said repeatedly, class disparities are going to be a significant problem between the editions when they're expected to be played together.

You may employ the logic to weasel out of acknowledging that problem by saying its a choice, but thats just being obtuse. No amount of "we chose to do this" is going to make somebody feel good when their Rogue or their Fighter or whatever sucks ass compared to the other persons who used different, unbalanced rules.

If the company you buy this game from says a book is legal, your DM banning it is not always going to go over well either, and ESPECIALLY SO if they intend to keep selling 5e alongside the new edition.

And if they intend to eventually stop selling 5e, well, guess what, we've got a new edition folks.

 

[mamba]

They really seem obsessed with this whole adventure compatibility thing. Many players don't even buy or use 5e adventures. For them to be the crux of this whole compatibility question seems an odd hill to die on.

they definitely are obsessed with compatibility, the last thing they want is a repeat of 4e with 1DD

 

[Maxperson]

that cuts both ways…

It literally can't cut both ways. Either you are going to be right and it's backwards compatible or we are going to be right and it's not. It's not going to be both backwards compatible and not backwards compatible simultaneously.

 

[Micah Sweet]

except that those cannot play in a 5e party, while a 2014 warlock can play in a 2024 party.

You are trying to turn this into two editions of warlocks when it is a continuation of one Warlock class with tweaks.
If someone wants to play a Warlock, they can choose from the 2014 subclasses and the 2024 subclasses. The 2014 version does not suddenly disappear the way a 4e one did - unless the table decides to move to 2024 and abandon 2014

"Tweak" is an extraordinarily relative term, and I think everyone here should understand that by now.

 

[Emberashh]

they definitely are obsessed with compatibility, the last thing they want is a repeat of 4e with 1DD

"A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it." - Jean de la Fontaine/Master Oogway