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

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad


You fix problems by making a new edition that fixes problems, not by making a half replacement, half confusing splatbook with different versions of the same-named things, including all the classes and the title, but still telling people they can use the fixed and un-fixed versions at the same time. That is marketing, not design.
That depends on the extent of or severity of the problems. If none of them are particularly severe, it's hardly necessary to spawn off a new edition if updates will do the trick (and yes, that includes not sweating it when using fixed and unfixed version at the same time).
 

When you spend 20+ years arguing on the internet you get a pretty good knack for asessing how people will behave based on how they communicate.

You may think its insulting, but all that indicates to me is a guilty conscience.

Mod Note:
After all the warnings to not make things personal going on around here, we expect you to understand you shouldn't do this.

You are done in this discussion.
 

It's worse than that, TSR made a dog's lunch of it before WotC ever got involved: twice versions of D&D predate "First Efition," and by normal publishing parlance, the 1989 books were the third typical edition of simply AD&D (the 1E refresh involved enough changes that they warranted a new ISBN, hence being a second edition). 2E was really the third, and 3E was really the fifth.
There was no edition of AD&D that predated 1e. 1e was the first such edition. So 2e was in fact the second edition of AD&D, and 3e being built off of 2e was the third, though it dropped the "advanced" portion from the name.

Basic was a separate version of the game, not an edition prior to 1e. It ran concurrently with 1e and 2e.
 

Case in point, pretending I (and others) haven't exhaustively engaged with every single word you've said in this topic.
likewise. You are not objectively correct, no matter how much you think you are. You just have a different opinion
 

Sure, but "as much compatibility as possible" doesn't necessarily mean backwards compatibility will be achieved. This is a truly binary thing. Either you achieve the backwards compatibility or you don't.

See. We had this discussion before. And I disagree here. I don't want to derail this thread. Lets say, I am ok with 90% backwards compatibility and the ability to emulate the remaining 10%.
 

Whoa there now. Wouldn't want someone to come along and harangue you for three days and 17 pages accusing you of calling Mighty WotC liars.

Mod Note:
However justified you may feel it is, this is not constructive. This is pretty clearly willfully targeted to annoy people. That's not acceptable.

Another person removed from the discussion.
 

That depends on the extent of or severity of the problems. If none of them are particularly severe, it's hardly necessary to spawn off a new edition if updates will do the trick (and yes, that includes not sweating it when using fixed and unfixed version at the same time).
Severity is just as relative a word as "tweak".
 

balance is not that different between 5e and 1DD that this will actually matter.
If they don't change 5.5e significantly enough to get the vast majority of players to buy the new books, they are making a colossal business blunder by doing this. If they do change it that much, compatibility is going to be a significant issue. You can't leave it pretty much the same so that you can mix and match as you please, and still have enough incentive to make the money that Hasbro needs WotC to make.

Why would I bother to buy any new books?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top