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

[Parmandur]

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?

If they design the new books to make the vast majority of existing players able to pick out new books they like is sound business sense. Same as console backwards compatibility.

 

[Velderan]

Incredibly naive question, I know, but are there any answers to these questions that don't revolve around making more money?

I've used published adventures as an example of compatibility because they're just examples of the game's mechanics.

If the 2024 Vecna adventure references characters needing to roll a check that doesn't exist in 2014, that's confusing. If it references giving characters a hypothetical super advantage described in the 2024 PHB, that's confusing for someone using the 2014 PHB. If the monsters have a stat that is new to the 2024 books, that's going to be confusing. If everything in the adventure is something you could run a 2014 or 2024 character in without needing to own the other version of the PHB to understand a mechanic presented in it, that's pretty darn compatible in my eyes.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

What you are referencing can be confusing but the examples you are referencing are so small that it doesn't become a larger problem. Having different versions of Deep Gnomes matters less than having two different versions of the Warlock built around two different ideas, or having a Druid that has Wildshape that is meant to be balanced while keeping the flawed older version. You're trying to pick away by picking small example of the coexistence of different versions of something (which, hey, I don't like anyways) when we are talking about doing an entire rework of feats, backgrounds, race/species, classes, and even some equipment. That's not at all on the same scale, especially when the latter is all part of a single unified push. Having a few different versions of Aasimar or Deep Gnome is not completely revising the 12 standard classes along with most things that go into character building.

But you also reference "errata", "revised", "edited"... in these cases, those are meant to replace something, not coexist with it. Something is changed. Now you might not know about the change, but the intent by the Devs is still there that the new is standard and the old is gone. What you are talking about with 1D&D is not errata, but rather an addition. And that's just bad design, in my opinion.

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.

No, that's not a homebrew issue. When the devs make the conscious choice to make two sets of classes available to your players as standard (which is the case), that's different than letting someone play with an Unearthed Arcana class. That's a design choice, and I shouldn't have to homebrew out the stuff they were basically meant to be errata-ing out with these new classes.

The whole point with the new classes is to fix balance. Even the arguments about adoption are largely based around the idea that the vast, vast majority of people are going to convert wholly to 2024 and not use 2014... so why even have the option? Why not make that the homebrew choice, to bring in old classes rather than to have it the standard?

 

[mamba]

You put all those changes in something called the Player's Handbook, including revised classes with the same names as a different Player's Handbook for the same edition, it starts to feel a lot less optional, no matter what they say in press releases.

maybe you should listen to what they say a bit more and your gut a bit less

It’s the same edition of the game, it’s a revision of the core books. Any revision is optional, no one can force you to upgrade, and I am pretty sure no one really cares whether you do either.

Tasha’s was optional, you did not go with MotM as far as I can tell. This is no different.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I've used published adventures as an example of compatibility because they're just examples of the game's mechanics.

If the 2024 Vecna adventure references characters needing to roll a check that doesn't exist in 2014, that's confusing. If it references giving characters a hypothetical super advantage described in the 2024 PHB, that's confusing for someone using the 2014 PHB. If the monsters have a stat that is new to the 2024 books, that's going to be confusing. If everything in the adventure is something you could run a 2014 or 2024 character in without needing to own the other version of the PHB to understand a mechanic presented in it, that's pretty darn compatible in my eyes.

See, this is how I see it, particularly the "Roll a check that isn't there". The thing is, for the life of me I honestly couldn't think of a roll or check they could have that wouldn't be there. I don't read many of the adventures, but from what I've seen they generally aren't ultra-specific with checks, or at least in such a way that what we've seen of 1D&D wouldn't currently run things just as well. As to writing new adventures, they could still do that with 1D&D as the lead without losing compatibility with the older stuff as long as they don't start saying "You need this specific 4th level Feat for this", which isn't really something they did anyways.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I have

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.

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)

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

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...

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

My statement about suggesting you are feeling defensive was absolutely inappropriate. I apologize and retract that. I had checked out of that other conversation a while ago, and had not realized that there had been personal attacks. While I was one of the people who strongly disagreed with your position in the past, I don't feel like I had attacked you, and I assumed that I was lumped in as someone who had. That was on me and I should never have assumed that you hadn't been attacked. It certainly sucked that I was dismissive in my recent post, and I will take responsibliity for responding defensively in literally the exact way I suggested you were. Hypocrisy really frustrates me, even more so when I'm the guilty party. Again, I do apologize. I will try to do better.

I will reiterate that I don't think you are stupid, or that you are wrong for reading it that way. I just saw the topic pop up here again and could not fathom why it was still a talking point rather that just a feedback issue, asking the designers to clarify it going forward, rather than continuing to bring it up as a big problem without a solution. I now understand there is a lot more to this particular debate for you. I'm sorry you've had to weather inappropriate behavior.

I do very much appreciate your insights. You've certainly made points that have made me rethink some of my positions.

 

[Justice and Rule]

maybe you should listen to what they say a bit more and your gut a bit less

It’s the same edition of the game, it’s a revision of the core books. Any revision is optional, no one can force you to upgrade, and I am pretty sure no one really cares whether you do either.

Tasha’s was optional, you did not go with MotM as far as I can tell. This is no different.

It not a revision. When you revise something, you replace what came before it with the old. This is not a revision, it's an addition. And what you say about "any revision is optional" goes for anything: any upgrade, new book, etc... that's optional. Edition switches are optional. Ultimately you have the choice of what you play with, but typically speaking the devs curate things so they don't have their revised classes existing alongside the stuff they were revising.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

They have, and frankly while I disagree with thier point, I have as well. To pretend it isn’t happening just comes across as gaslighting.

Kinda gross, my guy.

Considering how many pages of people finding every way possible to call @OldSchoolGamerGirl an idiot without technically doing so, while the offending poster literally attacked a strawman of her arguments…nah.

It’s also telling that of at least two people making the same point, only the one with “girl” in thier username got the intensely, aggressively, negative response.

I was 100% in the wrong in my response. I say so in a recent apology post. But it has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with our previous conversations in that old thread I had left behind, and assuming I was being targeted as an attacker.

I was tone-deaf and more defensive than I accused her of being.

I will try to do better.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Because when compatibility is questioned, the go-to argument is always, "It's compatible because old adventures will still work". Why are adventures so important? As I've said, a lot of people (perhaps even most people) don't even run them.

But it's not about those who don't buy them. It's about customers who do buy them. I would absolutely explore design that support the fans who buy more of my products.

 

[Velderan]

See, this is how I see it, particularly the "Roll a check that isn't there". The thing is, for the life of me I honestly couldn't think of a roll or check they could have that wouldn't be there. I don't read many of the adventures, but from what I've seen they generally aren't ultra-specific with checks, or at least in such a way that what we've seen of 1D&D wouldn't currently run things just as well. As to writing new adventures, they could still do that with 1D&D as the lead without losing compatibility with the older stuff as long as they don't start saying "You need this specific 4th level Feat for this", which isn't really something they did anyways.

Only thing that comes to mind is if they decided to borrow the luck as a stat concept that I'm pretty sure DCC has. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong there. If the 2024 book has that as a stat and a 2024 adventure has a mechanic tied to a player's luck stat, that's going to be confusing for a DM using 2014 books