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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

And yet they got rid of plenty of things that were popular (see: the playtest Sorcerer), while also refusing to get rid of things that were very unpopular (it took them forever to get rid of the "fistful of dice" mechanic that preceded Proficiency Bonus; I and others at the time suspected this was simply because Mearls loves slinging dice) and failed to back down from positions that were, at the very least, highly controversial (e.g. excluding Warlord as a class, even though there was an incredibly inconvenient poll that showed that Druid was less-popular than Warlord, because they actually deigned to include Warlord as an option. Druid was dead last, and not by a particularly narrow margin either.)

The playtest was a marketing ploy, and had very little to do with actually adjusting their preconceived notions or overall design intent.

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.

They actually did give a fair amount of detail, but you'd have to go through the Internet Archive to dig up the originals. They've deleted their website not once but twice since the D&D Next playtest began. The second deletion, for example, got rid of the aforementioned incredibly inconvenient poll.

And it was, very specifically, said that the intent of "modularity" was that one group could play with the 4e "tactical combat module" enabled and get a strongly 4e-like experience, while another group could have a different set of "modules" enabled and get a very much "old-school" game, and both would be strongly supported.

One of those statements came out kinda-sorta true. It's hard to play truly old-school style because of how ubiquitous magic is, and how much of it can easily destroy the logistics-and-attrition gameplay that many fans thereof desire. But you can cobble together something kinda-sorta workable. The other? They quietly stopped talking about modularity and the "tactical combat module" during the last 8-10 months of the playtest and pretty clearly hoped everyone would just forget about it. Much like how they quietly stopped talking about the "Warlord Fighter" after they had gone all-in for supporting it via Specialties, only to scrap the entire Specialties concept and thus leave nothing for the Warlord Fighter to hang on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

So, you think the difference that matters is "size" rather than kind? Okay, let's play this out. Someone sits down with two PHB's, different covers, and looks at two different warlocks with entirely different designs. Is their head going to melt? Are they going to be just so absolutely confused that two different versions of a class can possibly exist side by side that they won't know what to do with themselves?

I don't think so. I think they could handle that.

What if they sit down and see two druids, and are told this one on the left is more balanced for the game. Will it utterly destroy their understanding of all things DnD?

I don't think so. I think they could handle that.

Because they've handled it before. Sure, we haven't had an extensive errata like this in 5e before. This is going to offer changed versions of multiple classes, multiple spells, multiple feats, and the species. It is a sizable number of things.

But you want to know a secret?

If I look for 5e compatible Fighter, you can find dozens of class reworks, subclasses, there are entirely new classes. And I know what you are going to say "but that's homebrew, that's different." How? Having access to all this homebrew content hasn't caused any confusion for people. I myself offer revised versions of every class to my players, has there been moments of "wait... how exactly does this work?" Sure, but I've had that with people playing the baseline game too. There is no special confusion.

And yes, many people are taking the 2024 book as a replacement of the 2014 book... Why is that a problem? Why is that bad? Because then in your mind it should be a different game? So what? You don't NEED to take the 2024 books as a replacement. You can choose not to. Yeah, the moon druid is getting reworked to be more balanced, but people can still choose to use the unbalanced version, just like they have for the past 10 years. That doesn't make the revised version less valuable, it doesn't make the 2024 book worthless or pointless or confusing, because people were ALWAYS going to make that choice. The announcement that the new books are still 5e, are still compatible with 5e material isn't for the person who is going to analyze every possible version of the rules to make the most powerful "legal" version of the class. It is for the people who were worried that the things they had were going to become worthless, or that they shouldn't be allowed to buy the books that come after 2024.

You are setting standards that aren't required to be set, then demanding everything be one way or the other. And then when you realize it is more nuanced than that, claiming some calamitous confusion will take place when nothing like that has ever happened.

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?

Because if you don't make it an option, people are going to say that you can't play a Swashbuckler rogue, because that is 5e material and all 5e material is now invalid because you are using 5.2 materials. Or you can't play a Firbolg, because firbolg only exist in 5e, not in 5.2 revised edition. Or you can't use the spell Binding Ice, because that only exists in 5e and you are now playing 5.2 edition revised and fixed version.

The designers are basically saying "you can use either version of this class, but the 2024 version is better made" and doing so because the alternative is to kill 5th edition. You can hate it. You can think its stupid. You can think your way is superior in all ways because it makes the most sense to you. But they have the historical data that shows if they start talking about it as a new edition, people are going to stop buying 5e products, stop using 5e materials, and then demand reprints of all the things that they already have. It would be a disaster, because it was a disaster the last time they did it.

And the only people who seem to be confused are those who seem determined to be confused to call this plan a bad plan.

 

[Maxperson]

You are going to use one baseline and mix classes if you want to.

So if I want to use any 2024 rules, I have to completely invalidate 90% or more of 5e? That's not very compatible.

 

[mamba]

So if I want to use any 2024 rules, I have to completely invalidate 90% or more of 5e? That's not very compatible.

I have no idea how you arrive at 90%, I’d have said maybe 1%, namely stuff like which conditions there are (and what they do), how inspiration works, the very basics

 

[Maxperson]

I have no idea how you arrive at 90%, I’d have said maybe 1%, namely stuff like which conditions there are (and what they do), how inspiration works, the very basics

You said, "You are going to use one baseline and mix classes if you want to."

So one edition's rules and then mix in classes. So I have to use the 5e rules and can then only use classes from the two editions OR I can use 5.5e rules and then only use classes from the two editions.

 

[mamba]

You said, "You are going to use one baseline and mix classes if you want to."

and the baseline is what conditions there are, how inspiration works, advantage/disadvantage etc. The stuff that is the same for all classes. Yes. Still 1% only

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think the problem is, something like 3.5e->PF1e (at launch) is what people are gonna expect from the term "backwards compatible." Doubly so because that term really does get used in video games, and there...I mean, it literally means you can use everything from before with zero modifications or workarounds. That's going to bias people toward having very high expectations of what "backards compatibility" means.

And it's not like WotC is a stranger to saying things that resulted in "over-promised, under-delivered," even if they didn't intend it to be understood that way. Remember when "modularity" was the watchword for well over half of the D&D Next playtest? Remember when they spoke of trying to make a game that one table could play heavy-tactics 4e-style, and another could play heavy-sim 3e-style, and a third could play rules-light OSR style, and all of them could still talk with each other and fit under one umbrella? I sure do.

But the issue is that you've listed, as far as I can tell, only about one real subclass incapability. The Lore Bard. And that... well... the lore bard is in the 2024 book. So, if you insist on using the 2024 Bard, but the 2014 Lore Bard you're just self-inflicting wounds.

I mean, frankly, this is the current breakdown I'm seeing.

2014 vs 2024 Bard -> The 2024 Bard gets four subclass features, while the 2014 bard gets three. This is clearly an issue, and they have acknowledged it and said they will offer a solution. Likely they will offer a generic bard feature to snap in where needed

2014 vs 2024 Barbarian -> Four subclass abilities for both. No real compatibility problems.

2014 vs 2024 Cleric -> Only really tricky if you aren't paying attention. The level 1 feature gets moved to level three. the level 2 channel divinity moves to level 6. The level 8 feature gets cut and moved to the 7th level feature (they were all the same thing anyways, just different damage types). It takes paying attention to how they did the Life Domain, but it isn't DIFFICULT.

2014 vs 2024 Druid -> Four subclass abilities for both. No real compatibility problems.The biggest thing is replacing wild shape with channel nature

2014 vs 2024 Fighter -> Four subclass abilities vs five for the 2014 version. Could be tricky, but the Champion just combines the level 7 ability in with the level 3 stuff. And, if memory serves, the majority of fighter subclasses got a ribbon at 7th level, so that should be fine. Could be tricky, but like with the bard they will likely have guidance.

2014 vs 2024 Paladin -> Four subclass abilities for both. No real compatibility problems.

2014 vs 2024 Ranger -> Four subclass abilities for both. No real compatibility problems.

2014 vs 2024 Rogue -> Four subclass abilities for both. No real compatibility problems.

2014 vs 2024 Sorcerer -> Four subclass abilities for both. No real compatibility problems.

2014 vs 2024 Warlock -> Four subclass abilities for both. No real compatibility problems.

2014 vs 2024 Wizard -> Four subclass abilities for both. No real compatibility problems.


So... that's it. You need +1 subclass abilities for the Bard, which they will likely give a generic one to snap in. You need to combine the fighter's ribbons into another feature. And you need to pay attention to how the Cleric was reaaranged. Not as simple as plug and play for those three classes, but for the other ten classes, there isn't going to be any significant problems.

 

[Chaosmancer]

All I know is that since it all balanced just the same, I'm going to use the 2014 versions of feats that the 2024 rules are gimping, like Great Weapon Master. One roughly the same power the same as the other, right?

Actually, I think I proved rather simply that the 2014 GWM is weaker than the 2024 version, unless you have advantage. So, you won't have any real balance issues. Might even make yourself weaker

 

[Parmandur]

You said, "You are going to use one baseline and mix classes if you want to."

So one edition's rules and then mix in classes. So I have to use the 5e rules and can then only use classes from the two editions OR I can use 5.5e rules and then only use classes from the two editions.

The Classes are the big change, but those are rules modules, the baseline rules are almost entirely the same. The Rules Glossary as of the May test is Hemingway closer and closer to 2014 every iteration, and will likely tack closer even further.

 

[Maxperson]

and the baseline is what conditions there are, how inspiration works, advantage/disadvantage etc. The stuff that is the same for all classes. Yes. Still 1% only

That's the baseline of an edition? Not the combat rules, skill rules, spells, feats, etc? I disagree on your assessment of what the baseline rules for an edition are.