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

[Remathilis]

I think it bears repeating that thus far, only one person has expressed a specific reason to be resistant to the idea that this a new edition.

@Remathilis point about not wanting to start all over again is a good argument for not wanting this to be a new edition, but the things he points out are things I think are just missteps, and why I suggested the update-and-consolidate box. Instead of making people wait for things to be republished, roll them into the core game, that way, if nothing else, any future supplements will be genuinely brand new rather than rehashes of old content that should have just been core.

Plus, has to be said WOTC is already violating this by not including the Artificer as a core class, and I wouldn't be surprised if theres other examples.

I hate quoting people no longer in the conversation, but...

5e has plenty of books I don't want to rebuy. Modules I've yet to run like Witchlight. Settings like Planescape. I still want to use Mordenkainen races and monsters. I'm STILL patiently waiting for things that existed in 4e and older to return. I don't want to convert things over again. I just want 5e druids to be less of a pain to play. 5e is a generally good system, and I find the changes they have proposed have ranged from "thank Pelor" to "eh, not what I'd have done..." But no explicit deal breakers. So for me, a new set of 5e books that fix some of the problems with 5e is preferred to a wildly different 6e. I can convert something pre-24 a helluva lot easier than I can something from 4e or earlier and I have most of the stuff I need (if not all the stuff I want) currently.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I feel like the people haggling over the exact definition of "editions" is missing what people like @Emberashh and I are really pointing to: the fact that you have a second, older PHB out in the wild that is useable is just a messy thing. The whole point to revising something is to replace it, but we're not really getting a replacement as much as they are creating a rival and hoping it supersedes the original.

Just like they've done for Species options?

Again, look at the Aasimar, you have the DMG version, the DMG + Tasha's Version, The Volo's Version, the Volo's+Tasha's Version, And the Multiverse option. All useable, all competing... and no issues. No confusion that has been palpable in the community. Heck, we currently have the Deep Gnome as a subrace in Mordenkainen's and SCAG... but it's own racial option and not a subrace in Multiverse. And again... no confusion.

Feats? Feats have been revised before, edited, so what's the problem?

Spells? Same thing. We've had errata'd spells.

And I think that's likely for a lot of classes... but if they want to do some needed nerfs to certain classes and builds, I think it becomes much harder when you are giving players an exit to go and just continue to use the old ones.

Okay? But that is a completely different issue. That is a homebrew issue. That is "we don't want to play with these rules, we want those rules" and that is a choice. And if you declared that doing so was illegal, so say Wizards of the Coast.... they'd do it anyways.

 

[Maxperson]

no it translates to them wanting to keep the momentum going while not risking a split of the community, the way 4e did. Risking that split would be the foolishness

Right, which is why they should have left 5e alone and just put out quality books to improve it in other ways.

that is 50% upgrading, there also are sales to new players. In no way is this a reduction in overall sales

It is when you could sell even more by leaving things alone and making quality books to improve the game in other ways.

they raised the prices too, this is factored in.

And also into the books I was suggesting. Two books at 150-200 pages would also see increased prices, and with two books that would translate into even more profit than the one PHB or DMG.

Games do get long in the tooth, so working towards preventing that before it is too late is a good idea (in principle, the rest is a matter of execution).
If WotC only started worrying about what is next for D&D once the sales have fallen off a cliff, it would be too late

Printing more of the same, but slightly different is not a way to keep the game from getting long in the tooth. Introducing NEW stuff to the existing game is how you do that. Make the game more interesting, not the same with some slight changes(in order to be "backwards compatible").

 

[Marandahir]

Just like they've done for Species options?

Again, look at the Aasimar, you have the DMG version, the DMG + Tasha's Version, The Volo's Version, the Volo's+Tasha's Version, And the Multiverse option. All useable, all competing... and no issues. No confusion that has been palpable in the community. Heck, we currently have the Deep Gnome as a subrace in Mordenkainen's and SCAG... but it's own racial option and not a subrace in Multiverse. And again... no confusion.

Feats? Feats have been revised before, edited, so what's the problem?

Spells? Same thing. We've had errata'd spells.




Okay? But that is a completely different issue. That is a homebrew issue. That is "we don't want to play with these rules, we want those rules" and that is a choice. And if you declared that doing so was illegal, so say Wizards of the Coast.... they'd do it anyways.

Deep Gnome were their own full species option as early as Elemental Evil Player's Guide. It was only later that they parsed it out to show what elements of the stat-block were Svirf-cific and which ones were uGnomeversal.

 

[Corinnguard]

This is what 5e always was.

In this corner of the D&D Multiverse. While WoTC has produced a number of campaign adventures over the years, they are not role-played in quite the same way with each role-playing group out there in RL. Each DM runs their players each scenario in the campaign adventure, but the make-up of the party differs from group to group. And each party takes the adventure down a different path with a different outcome, some expected and some very unexpected. As a result, there is more than one ship of Thesus setting sail.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But it would be nice to get more than a fancy version of "nuh-uh!!" in response.

Why do you disagree? What is wrong with the claim? A simple no-sale, without actually engaging with any part of the claim, comes across as not really being serious about discussing the topic.

I think the premise that D&D can meaningfully be compared to a video game in the context of development cycles. After which, what even is there in your post to engage with? AFAIC your entire stance in that post is egregiously fallacious from premise to conclusion.

Exactly because I am serious about discussing the topic, I’d like the topic to move past the spurious notion that D&D is like a video game when it comes to the age of a game and the development cycle of a series of games.

are they? because I have been attacked (more then a little viscously) for suggesting that a warlock cantrip = a cantrip any warlock can take.

Yes. And the the Warlock (2014) does say that after level 1 you learn the warlock cantrips of your choice. Unless you really think that this easily fixed bit of confusion will make it to print, though, I’m not sure it’s an issue beyond exposing who likes to engage with perceived misunderstandings in a superior and even aggressive manner.

I also don’t think that being able to mix and match between the two versions of the base class is needed for what I said to be true, however.

 

[Remathilis]

That translates into "The primary goal of WotC is not to make money off of this." which is business foolishness.

Even if you don't buy the core books, there is always a chance you buy a new supplement, module or sourcebooks made for 2024. And with little or no work, you can use it with your 2014 books. You might still buy the Venger adventure or the Venca one, or The Greyhawk Guide or the new Realms Guide. And it will mostly work.

That's a brilliant strategy. It's not even one that 3.5 could do well. If it works (IF) then WotC might be able to sell sourcebooks to people playing the current AND former version of the rules.

 

[Chaosmancer]

one man’s fix is another’s unwanted change. If you consider them a fix, use them. If you prefer the original, no one is forcing you to switch by pulling the edition rug out from under you

That is the whole point of maintaining compatibility. Either version can be used in any 2014 and 2024 adventure

WotC keeps on repeating that 2014 classes are not obsolete and can be mixed with the 2024 classes. Which is what 4e essentials did.

You know, I understand that that is an option. But I don't think the designers actually expect that to happen.

When they are saying the new books are compatible, they are talking about Xanathars, Volos, Tashas, Fizbans, ect. No one I think actually expects the 2014 PHB to be used alongside the 2024 PHB. You CAN if you really want to, but that's just like you CAN use the SCAG Bladesinger beside the Tasha's Bladesinger. It is allowed, but no one actually expects you to do it.

 

[Maxperson]

Even if you don't buy the core books, there is always a chance you buy a new supplement, module or sourcebooks made for 2024.

How is that different than the chance of my buying a new supplement, module or sourcebooks made for 2014?

And with little or no work, you can use it with your 2014 books. You might still buy the Venger adventure or the Venca one, or The Greyhawk Guide or the new Realms Guide. And it will mostly work.

That's a brilliant strategy. It's not even one that 3.5 could do well. If it works (IF) then WotC might be able to sell sourcebooks to people playing the current AND former version of the rules.

That's a really big if. I think it more likely to cause a split. This is anecdotal, but in my experience DMs are very hesitant to merge different rules together, just in case they or WotC missed something abusable, or even just because it feels wrong. That certainly won't be everyone, but I think it will be significant enough to cause issues among the players and DMs

 

[doctorbadwolf]

no longer adding no longer supporting, and making it confusion (wait there are warlock cantrips warlocks can't take?)

I still think that confusion would be extremely rare overall, if the non-clarified version even made it to print, which we have no reason to think it will.

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

Not like that at all, actually. Because every 2024 subclass is also a 2014 subclass, because they’re the same game.