D&D (2024) Reworked…revised…redone….but

[Charlaquin]

I am not sure how a 2024 char in a 2014 game would ‘grind’.

If a 2014 char in a 2024 game does not do the opposite of ‘grind’ but is viable, then I am not sure how the opposite could be true. You will have to check with the person making that statement.

The only thing I can guess at is that the weapon masteries might take the 2024 char’s turn a little longer compared to a 2014 martial, but that already excludes casters and should not make a huge difference even for martial chars

There are a lot of differences in operations for core functions. For example, 2014 and 2024 have different rules for unarmed strikes, shoves, and grapples, so a 2024 monk wouldn’t function as intended under the 2014 rules. Not that a DM couldn’t come up with house rules to resolve these sorts of friction points if they’re of a mind to, but at that point calling it compatible is saying “it’s not broken because I can fix it.”

 

[Demetrios1453]

I have to ask ... why are we still arguing over this?

The definition of "edition" in D&D is completely arbitrary, and designated by the company. Editions in publishing aren't the same thing.

And it's not about interoperability or compatibilty. OD&D and Basic (Holmes) and Basic (Moldvay/Mentzer/RC) and AD&D (1e) and AD&D (2e) are all interoperable. But they aren't all the same "edition."

See, e.g., my prior attempts to discuss interoperability of TSR-era D&D and trying to do a new taxonomy of it.

Heck, what even is a "half" edition (3.5e)?

Is this a New Edition? Well, speaking of new editions, Bobby Brown put it best when he said, "Whitney, let's go party!"

Um, no, when he said....

Everybody's talking all this stuff about 5e (now now)
Why don't they learn to forgive?
Hasbro don't need permission, make its own decisions
That's, that's Hasbro's prerogative

They say it's a new edition, Crawford really don't care
That's Hasbro's prerogative
They say Hasbro is lying
But we don't give a damn
Getting money is how corps live
Some ask Crawford questions, what do you want to conceal?
But they don't know history
They really don't know the deal about the past changes
Filled with anger and spite, from wars so long ago
But Hasbro will win this fight, sing

Everybody's talking all this stuff about 5e
That's, that's Hasbro's prerogative (I'll tell you why)
Hasbro don't need permission, make its own decisions
That's Hasbro's prerogative
It's Hasbro's prerogative (it's Hasbro's prerogative)

The definition of an edition is whatever WotC defines as an edition, as you say.

I can only assume that this keeps getting brought up over and over again is because the posters are trying to "prove" WotC wrong as some sort of gotcha.

 

[R_J_K75]

The whole "if someone at the table is using 2014 5E rules, PCs etc, but some features appear in 2024 5E then they need to use those rules" just seems odd to me, and more trouble than it's worth. If I was DMing a 2024 5E game, I would tell people either were using those rules or I'm not playing. I'm not going through the trouble of mix and matching portions of two versions of the "same" edition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wonder how DnDBeyond will handle the backwards compatibility...

Stop selling any non-adventures once the core books release?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So was 3.5. It was 3.0, with a lot of errata.

5.5 forever.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. But that isn't inherently a negative thing. They have chosen to NOT call it a new edition to be clear that the old books are still in play - so that us FLGSes (and the rest of the market) can safely continue to sell them. There are more books in print, and more "in the wild" then there EVER has been before when the "Edition" has changed.

And the word Edition has always been used very inconsistently. If there was an established standard, they'd probably have used it. But we'd be on 16th edition or so.



He meant it in the sense that the metaphorical GEARS would grind (there'd be the possibility of some things not lining up that might cause issues at the table) not in the video-game parlance of a combat grind.

It was a verb, not a noun.

They chose not to call it a new edition so that people wouldn't stop buying their books. That's the definition of a marketing reason, and not labeling clearly different things differently is a negative for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The whole "if someone at the table is using 2014 5E rules, PCs etc, but some features appear in 2024 5E then they need to use those rules" just seems odd to me, and more trouble than it's worth. If I was DMing a 2024 5E game, I would tell people either were using those rules or I'm not playing. I'm not going through the trouble of mix and matching portions of two versions of the "same" edition.

The fact that is even an issue is why WotC should have named them differently.

 

[R_J_K75]

The fact that is even an issue is why WotC should have named them differently.

I agree 100%. As I've said many times before in the past couple years, I'd have preferred 6E. It may work and I'm sure many people will embrace the backwards compatibly, but I think it was a strange design choice and, with choosing not to give the two versions distinctly different names will only cause confusion. But in their defense no matter what they did, whether that being creating a new edition or going this current route they were bound to alienate and lose fans and players.

 

[g00se99994]

The fact that is even an issue is why WotC should have named them differently.

As a DM, at your table, you are God. So well within your rights to run the game how you see fit. This can all be worked out at a session zero.

 

[g00se99994]

I agree 100%. As I've said many times before in the past couple years, I'd have preferred 6E. It may work and I'm sure many people will embrace the backwards compatibly, but I think it was a strange design choice and, with choosing not to give the two versions distinctly different names will only cause confusion. But in their defense no matter what they did, whether that being creating a new edition or going this current route they were bound to alienate and lose fans and players.

I think the lesser of two evils is to rename it 5.5 or 6th but either way a certain percentage would get pissed.