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

[Marandahir]

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.

But the point is that while they don't expect you to, they are maintaining it as an option. It increases the net of their sales demographics rather than alienating everyone who decided it wasn't time to buy new core rule books. If you're new to the game, you'll likely pick up the 2024 books. But if you're happy with your 2014 books, the rest of the new material will still be compatible.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

If you've been viciously attacked, please report people who are viciously attacking you. If there is nothing to report, you are not a victim who is being viciously attacked.

I have

You are just feeling defensive of your position and keep iterating the same argument because you think you're not getting your point across.

no I think I am being insulted for having the idea that a rule can be read either way AND still be read in good faith.

But I assure you that you are getting your point across. But while you are getting your point across, it is not wrong for people to disagree with your point. You aren't stupid for having your opinion or because other people disagree or think you are mistaken. And they are not stupid because they disagree. You are, however, beating a dead horse that your opposition believes is easily addressed as feedback that needs submitted.

you know except when I get PMed to shut up (reported) or when I am told I am just a WotC hater (you know the company that I support enough that it could be taken as a child on my taxes) or when I am told I am out right lying and that not only can I NOT have read it both ways but at least two other groups in the thread that said they were unsure are ALSO lying because no one can honestly hold our opinion.... (also reported)

It would be legitimate playtest feedback to say that you are experiencing some confusion as to whether (as written) the playtest pact cantrips would count as warlock cantrips for the old warlock, because you may choose to keep playing the old warlock post 2024.

and yet even when I said I did that I was told I was "wasteing time"

The playtest pact cantrips are being tested for the OneDnD playtest warlock. They have not yet been finalized to compare to the 2014 warlock because they aren't testing the 2014 warlock.

correct, and as a playtester I point out the issue... and repeatedly (by mostly the same 5 posters) get told to go away or shut up or that I am lying... and told that the game I play 99% of the time is a game I don't even like and am here just to badmouth...

They don't need to write the playtest to be that backward compatible yet. It doesn't matter yet. It's too early to assume that this is the final form. Again, the designers say they will make sure to tidy up language for backwards compatibility.

and again if we are to talk we must take what we have now and compare not some theoretical third option written later.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Man, I really need to get access to your sources that show you that every single adventure has been a financial failure because the majority of players never buy them. It would really help me understand why they keep making such failed products again and again and again.

I mean, you'd think they would learn, but they've made more adventure books than they have rule books!

 

[Azzy]

Not really, because 5e would still exist, and you can continue to make 3pp for it.

Sure, but not likely many will continue to do so because most 3PP for D&D will follow WotC's lead (for good or for ill). Some may jump on the Level Up (which is good for you) or Tales of the Valiant bandwagon as the fallout from the OGL incident.

 

[Corinnguard]

but they've made more adventure books than they have rule books!

5e seems to be doing the opposite of what was done in 3e. The latter came out with a glut of rule books, which contained new feats, new spells, new prestige classes, etc. 5e? More adventure books and very little in the way of rule books.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

On the subject of suturing distinct systems together: Some DMs are up for doing so, but it's pretty rare, especially if you're actually looking at proper cross-edition integration. If it's technically "within" one edition, the odds go up, but not by a lot.

I say this because 3e produced a lot of third-party content and a metric butt-ton of homebrew, and innately has a little bit of "cross-edition integration" with some of its own content. Because, you see, there were books published for 3e that were never updated for 3.5e, which technically makes the 3e book the "definitive" book...except that much of that stuff is riddled with holes. The big stand-out here is Savage Species, which has some pretty cool stuff in it, but some of it reflects the even-more-broken nature of 3.0 vs 3.5. There's also sometimes interest in books that did get replaced with versions that folks consider inferior, like the psionics handbook.

As an example of the "within" edition game-surgery I've seen, I've played in games where:
Base system was PF1e, but wildshape is done by 3.5e rules, and you could import any content from 3.5e with DM approval (and 99% of the time it would get approved)
Base system was 3.5e, but 3.0 content was approved on a case by case basis (often required tweaks/alterations), and PF content could be converted if you asked very nicely and it passed a smell test for stinky cheese
Base system was PF1e, except that all characters had to take Spheres of Magic spellcasting instead of default, and some other 3PP content was available
Base system was...I guess theoretically PF1e, but literally all (and I mean literally, genuinely all) content from 3.0, 3.5e, PF1e, and ANYTHING published on the online Pathfinder stuff could be used, so long as the DM looked over it first. By far the most gonzo game I've ever seen, with PF's version of epic boons and a baseline of "tri-stalt" with a side of "feat-stalt" and.....yeah. It was nuts.

So, within the incredibly byzantine and extensive library of "stuff that can be seen as in some way belonging to 3rd edition D&D," such game-suturing is...not necessarily common, but a hell of a lot more common than any other form of game-suturing. Because usually, if you're going to be trying to staple two+ genuinely different systems together, it's often easier to either (a) actually use just one system, but create extensive homebrew inspired by the other system(s), or (b) actually use a third system that is capable of relatively conveniently expressing the other systems' contents without massive overhauls.

This post implies that such things are comparable to using the 2014 Archfey Warlock subclass with the playtest Warlock base class, or similar.

It is not comparable. The 2024 PHB doesn’t represent a new game. It’s the same game.

 

[Marandahir]

If splat sold, we wouldn't have a 5e. Nor 4e, for that matter.

Adventures sell because the most time consuming part of the game is prepping to run it. DMs continue to be the primary sales demographic.

Splat competes with Splat. Unless you're CONSTANTLY starting over with new characters, you're only going to buy the splatbooks that support your character, and ignore everything else. It's also very time consuming and challenging to get right, design wise, because it has to balance with everything that came before it. And for good-faith's sake, they have to playtest the splat as well now. So they limit the splat, and what splat we end up getting is high quality splat that sells better than anything else, but they can't produce at the scales that they can with adventures.

Adventures also improve the health of the edition at large because they play with what exists, rather than adding more options. They stretch out the lifetime of an edition by giving a themed Season a la what they have with MMORPGs and their annual or seasonal expansions these days.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

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.

again, they really could clear it up, I have seen 3 diffrent ways to do it. I just am working on what we have now not assuming what will be then.

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

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

If splat sold, we wouldn't have a 5e. Nor 4e, for that matter.

Adventures sell because the most time consuming part of the game is prepping to run it. DMs continue to be the primary sales demographic.

my limited understanding (some one correct me if I am wrong) is that at the beginning of an edition cycle the splats sell some high % of what the PHB did but each year it drops. in 4e it dropped sooner then 5e but that could be a function of 1 per month as apposed to 2-3 per year.

 

[Azzy]

What's more, in my experience people generally don't like to mix different rule sets together.

Anecdotally, my gaming groups back in the day mixed 1e and 2e stuff all the time.