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

[Demetrios1453]

I keep getting the feeling that people don’t quite understand the definition of update.

Or are purposely pretending they don't.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Are they going to keep the 2014 books in print, then?

We don't know, but I think we can assume that the books with the same names are out, of course.

If not, then the 2024 books are a replacement no matter how you define it; 'cause once the 2014 books sell through, a new player coming into a store will only have the one option.

Yes. That has been one of my many points.

That's just it: the 2014 PH and DMG very likely will become obsolete, in short order. Maybe the MM too, though monsters are more evergreen and easier to convert.

Yes. I said that in the post you quoted. The point is, and always has been, to keep the large back catalogue (IE THE ADVENTURES) in print and viable. The very reason the books that are named the same are named such is because they are the ones being replaced, but NOT THE OTHER ONES.

Unless they keep both versions in print and sell them side-along a la BX and 1e in the 1980s, that is. Not holdng my breath on that one.

Yes. I'm pretty sure I've made it clear that I agree with you about that?

the new book a different name. Distinguish it by title from the 2014 book.

Nah. They'll be the same classic three core books going forward, like D&D has "always" had. Again (I've posted this before) - I understand why you have trouble with something being BOTH one thing AND another at the same time (I often do too - it's very human!) but reality has it as a possibility. The new books DO "replace" the old books, as you've been saying (WotC HAS NOT DENIED THIS!)

They simply allow, that IF YOUR GROUP WANTS TO, you can still use the old one instead and play the same game. Is every rule exactly the same? Of course not. But do they broadly work together? YES, except for us gamers who have a really hard time with imperfection (a lot of us!) They line up imperfectly (though, again, I repeat, not ALL that different from how something like Level-Up is not exactly the same as 5e, but 2024 5e (grrrr.... 5.5 if you must!) will line up CLOSER than A5e, even if not exactly perfectly.

Many, many people who play D&D don't need things to line up quite so perfectly - this is why you hear people who mixed 1e and 2e or 3.0 and 3.5. Or heck, if you need another example of "Not An Edition" change, the 2e Black PHB with the 2e brown PHB (though those were broadly the same thing but with quite a bit of errata - they were smart then to put their new material in the "Skills and Powers" book instead of the main PHB) Or were they? It all sold terribly, and they went out of business. (Though I would say that those are two different issues).

Point is, they DO combine. IF YOU LET THEM. But you don't have to! You can do what you like.

 

[tetrasodium]

We don't know, but I think we can assume that the books with the same names are out, of course.



Yes. That has been one of my many points.



Yes. I said that in the post you quoted. The point is, and always has been, to keep the large back catalogue (IE THE ADVENTURES) in print and viable. The very reason the books that are named the same are named such is because they are the ones being replaced, but NOT THE OTHER ONES.



Yes. I'm pretty sure I've made it clear that I agree with you about that?


Nah. They'll be the same classic three core books going forward, like D&D has "always" had. Again (I've posted this before) - I understand why you have trouble with something being BOTH one thing AND another at the same time (I often do too - it's very human!) but reality has it as a possibility. The new books DO "replace" the old books, as you've been saying (WotC HAS NOT DENIED THIS!)

They simply allow, that IF YOUR GROUP WANTS TO, you can still use the old one instead and play the same game. Is every rule exactly the same? Of course not. But do they broadly work together? YES, except for us gamers who have a really hard time with imperfection (a lot of us!) They line up imperfectly (though, again, I repeat, not ALL that different from how something like Level-Up is not exactly the same as 5e, but 2024 5e (grrrr.... 5.5 if you must!) will line up CLOSER than A5e, even if not exactly perfectly.

Many, many people who play D&D don't need things to line up quite so perfectly - this is why you hear people who mixed 1e and 2e or 3.0 and 3.5. Or heck, if you need another example of "Not An Edition" change, the 2e Black PHB with the 2e brown PHB (though those were broadly the same thing but with quite a bit of errata - they were smart then to put their new material in the "Skills and Powers" book instead of the main PHB) Or were they? It all sold terribly, and they went out of business. (Though I would say that those are two different issues).

Point is, they DO combine. IF YOU LET THEM. But you don't have to! You can do what you like.

I think that the important difference between this & previous edition changes is all of the time wotc has spent talking up compatibility and offhand comments about platers using PCs from different editions at the same table combined with complete silence on the GM's role in (dis)allowing such one offs.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Micah Sweet said:
2e was a tuneup of 1e. 3.5e was a tuneup of 3e. Both were labeled as such, and both were intended as replacements. What's different in this situation besides marketing?

I feel like this is a very fair sentiment. It, at the very least, should be acknowledged, and then answered if possible. I personally do not know the answer, so I am curious.

I can answer this, having been in the business of selling D&D books since 1993. I didn't see the 1e-2e changeover, but I saw the 2e black books, the 3e books, the 3.5 books, the 4e books, the 4e Essentials books, and the 5e books, and now this. Is that enough to weigh in?

I mean, ultimately it IS marketing - but the difference is SMART marketing VS FOOLISH marketing. The big difference as I see it is: EVERY SINGLE previously published book was made obsolete by those "Edition Changes" and went out-of-print until a "compatible" replacement was made, or if it was never made, the book was just discarded. Worthless (until collectors came in many years later). When 3e came out, our 2e books were garbage. Blowout stock. When 3e came out, our 3.0 books were garbage, blowout. When 4e came out, our 3.5 books were garbage, blowout (until the 4e backlash that made them HIGHLY SOUGHT out-of-print collectibles selling on Ebay for BIG BUCKS!). 4E essentials did not harm 4e, because it was compatible (their first attempt at doing so) AND YET, the community wanted to call it "Four-Point-Five" (familiar?). When 5e came out, our 4e books were garbage. Blowout.

Now there are ~20 (I'd have to count them) 5e products IN PRINT that WotC DOES NOT WANT to ruin their chances of selling MORE of. They're happy to let the 3x 2014 core books go OOP for their new books. Replacements they ARE - that's why they have the same name! BUT - they don't want you to think that the other books are not compatible with them! They want you to be able to buy them! AND if you don't buy their new core (for example, because you don't want to buy new Core books, or you're happy with your 5e 2014 books, they want you to buy THE NEXT ADVENTURE in 2025, or whatever they have going forward after the core are out.

It's as simple as that.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think that the important difference between this & previous edition changes is all of the time wotc has spent talking up compatibility and offhand comments about platers using PCs from different editions at the same table combined with complete silence on the GM's role in (dis)allowing such one offs.

They haven't done their DMs advice yet. Keep in mind that we're all "Early Adopters" to even KNOW ANYTHING about ANY OF THIS at this point. Complain about that after you read the DMG.

 

[mamba]

I think that the important difference between this & previous edition changes is all of the time wotc has spent talking up compatibility and offhand comments about platers using PCs from different editions at the same table combined with complete silence on the GM's role in (dis)allowing such one offs.

why would they, the role is no different than in (dis)allowing anything else

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5.5? 5e revised? 5e 2024? Any label on the book that is not just "Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook".

You take the easy way out. Which one exactly?

 

[Clint_L]

How can there be compromise, though, on what is clearly a binary yes-no decision as to whether something will be included or not?

It does matter that much to some people, like it or not. I know this from long experience.

Simplest way IME and IMO is, when disagreements arise and heels get dug in, for the DM to lay down the rules as she wants them to be and let the players vote with their feet if they feel that strongly about it.

I agree with you in principle - ultimately, someone has to decide, and it should be the person putting in all the work to run the game, if a compromise can't be reached.

But it is hard for me to imagine being so bent out of shape over a ruling that I quit a game over it. Unless the ruling was reflective of deeper issues, I guess.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You mean if you didn't have any sort of feature from your background on which to rely? I was under the impression you had invoked the feature in some way and that the DM had agreed it applied to the situation.

Yes, it was exactly this.

Without that, it's hard to imagine a player declaring such an action or on what basis a DM would decide it works. I think it's more likely the DM would have called for a Charisma check of some kind.

Maybe or maybe not. Sometimes thing just work. If there was not such a feature, you would not invalidate it by just letting it slide.
That is the problem with features that work automatically. If someone tries it without that feature, you have to penalize them by rollig, because otherwise the feature would be useless.

The situation is unclear to me, but, IMO, the DM's judgment here should rely on whether the utmost courtesy or helpfulness towards your character call for ending/not starting the fight.

Some DMs rule that noncombat features only work outside combat.

 

[Clint_L]

I just do not understand the suggestions that WotC have been anything but aboveboard about the nature of the OneD&D project. They announced their intentions and methodology right up front, and have consistently stuck to that announcement. It's more like people don't want to or can't accept that WotC really meant what they said.

Like the concept of not calling it a new edition is impossible to process, even though from a business perspective it makes all the sense in the world. What was confusing was the way TSR originally starting using "edition" to mean a whole new version of the game. I'm glad that WotC is finally abandoning that weird practice.