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

[codo]

To be fair, WotC has already got their money from all those books sitting on store shelves. I'm not sure how much they really care about FLGSs either.

If nothing else FLGSs are where most people play and buy magic cards. Which is actually wizards real cash cow. Killing your cash cow for a small boost in revenue for a much smaller game, is really stupid and shortsighted.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that warlock even existed until complete arcane or complete mage added it.

That's completely beside the point, though. The question was, "What 5e to 5.5e change is equivalent to the 3e to 3.5 change of the ranger class?" The answer is Warlock.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How was pathfinder "precisely the same"? They made changes to literally every class, and added several more. They also heavily changed a lot of feats and spells.

They sure did, but they also didn't call that game, "Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e" calling it a different game creates that separation that allows for changes of that magnitude.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If nothing else FLGSs are where most people play and buy magic cards. Which is actually wizards real cash cow. Killing your cash cow for a small boost in revenue for a much smaller game, is really stupid and shortsighted.

One could argue they've already taken steps toward killing Magic.

 

[Parmandur]

If nothing else FLGSs are where most people play and buy magic cards. Which is actually wizards real cash cow. Killing your cash cow for a small boost in revenue for a much smaller game, is really stupid and shortsighted.

We we'll, no...actually, WalMat, Target, Walgreens, and CVS are all bigger venues for selling Magic cards than FLGS are. Per Mark Rosewater, the overwhelming majority of Magic players have never set foot in a FLGS, or played an organized game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They sure did, but they also didn't call that game, "Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e" calling it a different game creates that separation that allows for changes of that magnitude.

It was often called 3.75... So it was only 0.25 more than 3.5...

 

[Micah Sweet]

It was often called 3.75... So it was only 0.25 more than 3.5...

That's just fan stuff though. Official labels matter too.

 

[mamba]

Yup. Just as much marketing now as it was then.

never said otherwise

One D&D is different enough to justify a different number, and it is similar enough to not require it. Whatever WotC chooses is what makes the most sense for them / marketing.
I am ok with that, I don’t need for it to be one or the other. I do understand why they do not want a 5.5 or whatever however.

 

[mamba]

It could get very wonky, though. If my 2014 PC is rolling a 1 on the die and succeeding at a roll that your 2024 character is failing with his 1, because the 2024 rules include auto failure on a 1, that's going to be very weird. Same with you gaining inspiration on a roll of 20 and me not gaining it on a 20. Mixing the 2014 rules with the 2024 rules is going to be very weird.

You are going to use one baseline and mix classes if you want to. You won’t be playing with two different sets of conditions, etc. That is just nonsense. If that is your big concern, then sorry, I am not seeing it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but I think you are asking how Tasha's don't work seamlessly.

“How so” got autocorrected.

It isn't seamless in the same way 1D&D isn't. You seem to think that having 2 different option for the same class available isn't seamless, because it could cause confusion, but how is that any different than the 5e ranger and Tasha's alternate ranger?

You’ve confused me with someone else.

They stated that at the start of a large public playtest. They entire point of the public playtest is to see if players like your design goals and rules. Changing your goals and rules is the entire point of the playtest. If they talk about something at the start of the playtest and don't end up including it in the final game, it is probably something that most players didn't want.

I also think you are reading way to much into the original statement. I can play a simple champion fighter with no feats, where you just do a basic attack every round, or I can play a battlemaster fighter with lots of feats and have a character with lots of tactical options. They seem like a rules-lite OSR character and a 4e style character to me.

It's not like they gave a lot of detail when they first talked about it. It was litterally a couple of sentences in an interview before the playtest even started.

What on earth are you even talking about? Do you look at who you’re replying to?