D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Hussar]

Thank you. I appreciate the answer, especially from someone with your perspective. But, and I could be wrong, I remember them consistently stating that 3rd edition was compatible with 3.5. Am I remembering that wrong?

I think you are remembering wrong.

There was never really any attempt to claim that the books were backward compatible considering they virtually instantly replaces all the 3e books.

Time scales matter a lot too as well. 3.0 was only a bit over two years old by the time 3.5 was announced. It was really, really quick. And it was only a year or so after 3.5 was released that virtually every single 3.0 book was replaced.

There was never any attempt at backwards compatibility in the 3e model because the 3e model was based on boom/bust sales. Your books only really sold for about six months (with a tiny tail after that). So, you weren't cannibalizing any sales by replacing a book. In 5e, though, the sales tails are HUGE. The 5e modules are still selling in massive (for RPG books anyway) numbers. Hoard of the Dragon Queen has been rereleased TWICE. A module that has gotten not one, but two rereleases is absolutely unheard of. So, of course WotC is constantly stating that your books will still work perfectly fine with your new books.

Plus, one needs to remember scales as well. In 3e, while it was fantastic for the day, meant that you were talking a really small community compared to now. Plus the relative lack of social media penetration meant that there was far, far less scrutiny going on. The notion that you would have an audience of hundreds of thousands of fans, all online, all communicating with each other regularly, was still way beyond the horizon in 2002. To put it in perspective, the total number of Dragon plus Dungeon subscribers in 2002 was just a hair over 51000 (cite: https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-many-people-subscribe-to-d-d-stuff.308250/ ). People tend to forget how minuscule the community used to be.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The new books may or may not make the game better, by some metrics, for some people. Can't answer that for anyone but me.

Yeah, for sure. They almost certainly WILL make the game "better", like you say: By some metrics and for some people. Whether that is MOST players of D&D or not, time will tell. They're certainly TRYING to make that work.

But the reason they're being released the way they are is about making and/or saving as much money as possible.

Yes. Absolutely. I'm not sure that is or should be any surprise. There are money making schemes that corporations (including WotC through Hasbro) get up to that I am EXTREMELY critical of. (Don't get me started on recent attempts to "monetise" Magic!

However, the 2024 D&D Core books and how they're rolling them out is not one of them. YMMV.

Fair enough. They can do what they want.

True. Whether we like it or not.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This thread alone has demonstrated that environment. Sorry I need to get ready for my "authoritarian table" and wait for Alice to expect the option of using 2014 smite mechanics followed by Bob expecting the option of getting my most casual players to majority vote with him to allow stuff from some other edition since Alice simply did it.

What? Yikes. I assume that you enjoy exaggerating for effect and that most of this is sarcastic hyperbole, but this isn't the first time that I've had the impression that you've had some TERRIBLE experiences with people who fail to understand the #1 Rule of TTRPGS: "Play Nice With Others".

 

[Oofta]

Yup. They have to do this or they can't keep the lights on. They have no choice.

They have options. The 2014 version of the books are still selling. They decided that investing in a revision was worth it. The lights would have stayed on; after all the original plan was to just do minimal development to keep the IP alive.

The lights may shine a little brighter now. I'm hopeful that they improve some things and that the game is still just as successful a decade from now. But if you think they're just doing it as a money grab just vote with your wallet and don't buy the new books. Me? I accept that things change and I don't mind a revision after 10 years.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Thank you. I appreciate the answer, especially from someone with your perspective. But, and I could be wrong, I remember them consistently stating that 3rd edition was compatible with 3.5. Am I remembering that wrong?

No - you're probably right that they said that, and a lot of people here have said that they mixed-and-matched them, so I believe that it happened. I just don't remember ever seeing it myself. Keep in mind, that it was only two+ years worth of product, and those books went out of print or were updated to 3.5 pretty quickly (mostly OOP). So while it might have been intended to work similarly to what they're attempting now, it didn't happen that way in practice.

 

[MoonSong]

No - you're probably right that they SAID that, and a lot of people here have said that they mixed-and-matched them, so I believe that it happened. I just don't remember EVER seeing it myself. Keep in mind, that it was only TWO years worth of product, and those books went out of print or were updated to 3.5 pretty quickly (mostly OOP). So while it might have been intended to work similarly to what they're attempting now, it didn't happen that way in practice.

The Stronghold builders handbook was fairly compatible, and I didn't notice until later that Savage Species was 3.0. I think Draconomicon could be compatible with 3.0, unless it somehow was also 3.0....

 

[Maxperson]

I think you are remembering wrong.

There was never really any attempt to claim that the books were backward compatible considering they virtually instantly replaces all the 3e books.

Page 4 of the 3.5e DMG says this...

"This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with existing products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

 

[Micah Sweet]

They have options. The 2014 version of the books are still selling. They decided that investing in a revision was worth it. The lights would have stayed on; after all the original plan was to just do minimal development to keep the IP alive.

The lights may shine a little brighter now. I'm hopeful that they improve some things and that the game is still just as successful a decade from now. But if you think they're just doing it as a money grab just vote with your wallet and don't buy the new books. Me? I accept that things change and I don't mind a revision after 10 years.

I decided a while back I wasn't buying the new books. But I do like to speculate, and I have an opinion about the whole thing.

 

[Irlo]

Compromise on a binary yes/no? "Do we allow cross edition character" is a binary decision, not much room for"compromise" on yes/no. Compromise sounds very much like " the GM only denies Bob what he didn't want to use when engaging in cross edition play". It's also a bit late to say that it's a setup for discussion when wotc's marketing has already absolved. The players from feeling like they need to discuss anything about that nerf a gm might try to push on them. Discussion and compromise require some middle ground.

No, there are a lot more opportunities than a binary all or nothing. If you're running a game with the 2014 PHB rules and a player is disappointed about not being able to use a revised 2024 character class, you can find out what they like about the change and adopt part of it -- a different take on a class feature, a revised spell description, a new subclass -- that gets the player what they want and keeps things within acceptable tolerances for you. I mean, it will be the same next year as it is now if a player asks to use a new subclass or alternate class feature from Tasha's. The table doesn't have to accept everything or nothing. There's enormous middle ground.

And, no, you're mischaracterizing WoTC's marketing. There's nothing there that indicates that every game participant should expect to have access to every option from every book. (Point me to an example of that and I will eat my hat. But you won't be able to.) D&D has always been subject to amendment and curation by the DM and players. The current PHB has common and uncommon races, with clear indications that some options may be less frequently allowed by DMs and certainly limited by the setting and tone of the campaign. I guarantee that's not going to change.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Page 4 of the 3.5e DMG says this...

"This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with existing products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

You're both right. They said that it was compatible, but all the books went out of print or were replaced with 3.5 versions in no time. We have a very, very different situation this time (including a massively larger market to worry about).