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

[Azzy]

But there would already be minimal conversion anyways because we've seen what 1D&D is doing and even if you called it a half edition it wouldn't change how adventures were built. It doesn't change mechanics in that way because adventures are generally not written to rely on specific class-based powers for obvious reasons.

Forgive me, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the particular response to Micha I made in regards to his querey as to why adventures are important. I'm not exactly following it.

 

[Azzy]

What conversion would they need to do? How different do you imagine they would make even a 6e? The adventures would likely still work regardless.

I'm honestly not sure how this follows from your post "Because when compatibility is questioned, the go-to argument is always, "It's compatible because old adventures will still work". Why are adventures so important?"

 

[Azzy]

It's pretty damn likely that any pre-24 adventures they still consider worth selling are going to get a revised release not long after the 2024 core, "enhanced" to encourage 2014-era players to buy them all over again. After all, Lost Mine of Phandelver, Curse of Strahd, and Tyranny of Dragons (twice!) got this treatment in the current era. I would expect the originals to go out of print with the 2014 books.

Lost Mines is getting expanded upon greatly. Curse of Strahd had a premium package re-release that didn't change anything (except to minor errata and stuff about the Vistani) and came with more stuff. Tyranny of Dragons was combined in one book (and released with two different covers at different times). Neither Curse of Strahd nor Tyranny of Dragons require being purchased again—there weren't any significant changes to them.

They might release premium versions (like they did with Curse of Strahd), but I doubt that any reprints they do will have substantial changes—definitely not enough to entice non-collectors/non-completionists to buy.

We can only wait and see.

 

[Parmandur]

Lost Mines is getting expanded upon greatly. Curse of Strahd had a premium package re-release that didn't change anything (except to minor errata and stuff about the Vistani) and came with more stuff. Tyranny of Dragons was combined in one book (and released with two different covers at different times). Neither Curse of Strahd nor Tyranny of Dragons require being purchased again—there weren't any significant changes to them.

They might release premium versions (like they did with Curse of Strahd), but I doubt that any reprints they do will have substantial changes—definitely not enough to entice non-collectors/non-completionists to buy.

We can only wait and see.

Yeah, given the centrality of Beyond...revisions aren't super likely.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's pretty damn likely that any pre-24 adventures they still consider worth selling are going to get a revised release not long after the 2024 core, "enhanced" to encourage 2014-era players to buy them all over again. After all, Lost Mine of Phandelver, Curse of Strahd, and Tyranny of Dragons (twice!) got this treatment in the current era. I would expect the originals to go out of print with the 2014 books.

As for the stuff Wizards doesn't consider worth updating, I'll be interested to see how many stay in print after the 2024 core is released. Post-Tasha stuff seems the most likely, since it was designed to be forward-compatible; but I bet a lot of pre-Tasha stuff will just disappear after 2024.

While the above doesn’t really matter because it’s no different from 2014 to 2022.

Beyond that, even if you’re right…you’ll be perfectly able to use the new printing with 2014 characters, or the old printing with 2024 characters.

Because same game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not sure that is as much a "me" thing as you're assuming.

We’ll see, but I’ve seen no evidence that anyone else shares your concern.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not like that at all, actually. Because every 2024 subclass is also a 2014 subclass, because they’re the same game.

Not so. Subclasses are getting features at different levels, in different ways. They hook into different baseline features. How is that possible to square with the idea that every 2014 subclass is a 2024 subclass and vice versa?

Consider, for instance, the shift to unified spell lists per source. There is no "Warlock" spell list anymore. There is just Arcane, which covers all Arcane casters. Some characters are explicitly allowed to pull stuff outside that list. Bard Spell Secrets are the biggest example of this. Changes to that feature mean you cannot just use the 2014 Lore Bard with the 2024 Bard chassis. They are actually incompatible.

This may grow with time, e.g. the 2024 Ranger is going to be an Expertise source, but the 2014 one isn't. Any feature which hinges on already having expertise would make 2024 Ranger subclasses incompatible with 2014 Ranger, and possibly vice-versa, depending on implementation. 2024 Warlocks abandoning their 2014 spellcasting model means, at the very least, that some of the Invocations are no longer appropriate, and possibly may not work in the first place.

These changes are not simply stuff one may blithely ignore. They have serious effects on compatibility between these versions. The spell list change in particular, since that affects huge swathes of the game all at once. Now every spell that used to be Paladin-exclusive would be available to every Cleric, Favored Soul, and Celestial Warlock, if we make naive translations across the gap. Now every Wizard can pick up eldritch blast at first level no problem. Etc.

I think the premise that D&D can meaningfully be compared to a video game in the context of development cycles. After which, what even is there in your post to engage with? AFAIC your entire stance in that post is egregiously fallacious from premise to conclusion.

Exactly because I am serious about discussing the topic, I’d like the topic to move past the spurious notion that D&D is like a video game when it comes to the age of a game and the development cycle of a series of games.

Okay but like...I want to know WHY it's fallacious. You've made the assertion plenty, and if you just flat don't want to discuss it, fine. But merely saying "that's a fallacy" and never ever explaining why or giving any reason further than that is a refusal to actually discuss. There is a name for this, argumentum ad lapidem, "appeal to (the) stone," where one simply rejects the claim as absurd or ridiculous and never actually gives a reason why.

So. You claim it is fallacious. What fallacies? Where have I erred? If you refuse to actually explain, then I reject your argument as fallacious, and will continue to claim that a useful analogy can be drawn between these things.

Yes. And the the Warlock (2014) does say that after level 1 you learn the warlock cantrips of your choice. Unless you really think that this easily fixed bit of confusion will make it to print, though, I’m not sure it’s an issue beyond exposing who likes to engage with perceived misunderstandings in a superior and even aggressive manner.

Given the confusions they actually published in extant 5e (such as the failure to state that eldritch invocation prereqs are Warlock levels, not character levels), yes, I'm quite willing to believe such confusions can make it to print. I don't have a lot of confidence in current WotC's ability to be clear, specific, and thorough.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not so. Subclasses are getting features at different levels, in different ways. They hook into different baseline features. How is that possible to square with the idea that every 2014 subclass is a 2024 subclass and vice versa?

Trivially. The level issue is literally nothing. You just gain the features in order. Or use the pretty bad suggestion in the first class document and just gain the subclass features when the subclass says regardless of what the base class says.

But so far there isn’t anything like monks losing flurry of blows, which would break at least two subclasses.

Heck as written it might be fun to use 2024 warlock patrons with the 2014 class. Extra Spellcasting right in the subclass starter features.

Consider, for instance, the shift to unified spell lists per source. There is no "Warlock" spell list anymore. There is just Arcane, which covers all Arcane casters. Some characters are explicitly allowed to pull stuff outside that list. Bard Spell Secrets are the biggest example of this. Changes to that feature mean you cannot just use the 2014 Lore Bard with the 2024 Bard chassis. They are actually incompatible.

Except that there are class exclusive spells in the most recent doc.

And no, it…doesn’t mean that. Lol what. As of the latest doc, it would mean, by the most nitpicking reading possible, that you can only choose spells that are exclusive to a class, such as hex, find steed, or modify spell.

I think it’s pretty wild to assume the language around spell lists won’t be cleaned up and made easier to use in a compatibility pass later in the process, anyway.

This may grow with time, e.g. the 2024 Ranger is going to be an Expertise source, but the 2014 one isn't. Any feature which hinges on already having expertise would make 2024 Ranger subclasses incompatible with 2014 Ranger, and possibly vice-versa, depending on implementation. 2024 Warlocks abandoning their 2014 spellcasting model means, at the very least, that some of the Invocations are no longer appropriate, and possibly may not work in the first place.

Irrelevant to subclass to class compatibility.

Also, if you are playing a 2024 warlock, you’re using yhe 2024 warlock’s class features.

Give an actual example. There aren’t theoretical existing subclasses.

A subclass giving expertise to a ranger is…fine? What implementation do you think is going to break soemthing, here?

These changes are not simply stuff one may blithely ignore. They have serious effects on compatibility between these versions. The spell list change in particular, since that affects huge swathes of the game all at once. Now every spell that used to be Paladin-exclusive would be available to every Cleric, Favored Soul, and Celestial Warlock, if we make naive translations across the gap. Now every Wizard can pick up eldritch blast at first level no problem. Etc.

Except Eldritch Blast isn’t on the arcane spell list as of the last doc, IIRC. Like, do you read the documents and watch the videos? They’ve addressed these concerns.

But they also have naught-all to do with compatibility. The cleric casting wrathful smite doesn’t make the new Paladin less compatible with older Paladin subclasses.

Okay but like...I want to know WHY it's fallacious. You've made the assertion plenty, and if you just flat don't want to discuss it, fine. But merely saying "that's a fallacy" and never ever explaining why or giving any reason further than that is a refusal to actually discuss. There is a name for this, argumentum ad lapidem, "appeal to (the) stone," where one simply rejects the claim as absurd or ridiculous and never actually gives a reason why.

So. You claim it is fallacious. What fallacies? Where have I erred? If you refuse to actually explain, then I reject your argument as fallacious, and will continue to claim that a useful analogy can be drawn between these things.

I do not care enough about your video game analogy to keep letting you insist on a debate I never agreed to have.

They aren’t like cases. If you really can’t fathom that, have fun making completely spurious and non-compelling arguments about it, I guess.

Given the confusions they actually published in extant 5e (such as the failure to state that eldritch invocation prereqs are Warlock levels, not character levels), yes, I'm quite willing to believe such confusions can make it to print. I don't have a lot of confidence in current WotC's ability to be clear, specific, and thorough.

If that’s the level of confusion we end up with, I’ll call it a win and roll my eyes at anyone who cries foul.

 

[Remathilis]

Not so. Subclasses are getting features at different levels, in different ways. They hook into different baseline features. How is that possible to square with the idea that every 2014 subclass is a 2024 subclass and vice versa?

Consider, for instance, the shift to unified spell lists per source. There is no "Warlock" spell list anymore. There is just Arcane, which covers all Arcane casters. Some characters are explicitly allowed to pull stuff outside that list. Bard Spell Secrets are the biggest example of this. Changes to that feature mean you cannot just use the 2014 Lore Bard with the 2024 Bard chassis. They are actually incompatible.

This may grow with time, e.g. the 2024 Ranger is going to be an Expertise source, but the 2014 one isn't. Any feature which hinges on already having expertise would make 2024 Ranger subclasses incompatible with 2014 Ranger, and possibly vice-versa, depending on implementation. 2024 Warlocks abandoning their 2014 spellcasting model means, at the very least, that some of the Invocations are no longer appropriate, and possibly may not work in the first place.

These changes are not simply stuff one may blithely ignore. They have serious effects on compatibility between these versions. The spell list change in particular, since that affects huge swathes of the game all at once. Now every spell that used to be Paladin-exclusive would be available to every Cleric, Favored Soul, and Celestial Warlock, if we make naive translations across the gap. Now every Wizard can pick up eldritch blast at first level no problem. Etc.

Okay but like...I want to know WHY it's fallacious. You've made the assertion plenty, and if you just flat don't want to discuss it, fine. But merely saying "that's a fallacy" and never ever explaining why or giving any reason further than that is a refusal to actually discuss. There is a name for this, argumentum ad lapidem, "appeal to (the) stone," where one simply rejects the claim as absurd or ridiculous and never actually gives a reason why.

So. You claim it is fallacious. What fallacies? Where have I erred? If you refuse to actually explain, then I reject your argument as fallacious, and will continue to claim that a useful analogy can be drawn between these things.


Given the confusions they actually published in extant 5e (such as the failure to state that eldritch invocation prereqs are Warlock levels, not character levels), yes, I'm quite willing to believe such confusions can make it to print. I don't have a lot of confidence in current WotC's ability to be clear, specific, and thorough.

It is completely possible that WotC will address using 24 material with 14 at some point (either in the PHB or in the first post PHB supplement). But to address some current compatibility concerns, let's look at trying to use some hypothetical new Everything Guide in the current rules.

1. Species. The bones of this change already exist in all post Tasha's races. Give them what's species traits, floating ASI and a language.

2. Background. Most newer settings have been giving PCs a bonus feat, and I would advise doing that. Otherwise, use the new background to inspire a 2014 custom background.

3. Feats. Leveled feats and feat chains have also appeared post Strixhaven. Treat epic boons as they are in the 2014 DMG.

4. Spells. If the spell is on the Arcane list, allow a 2014 sorcerer, wizard and warlock to pick it. If it's primal, allow the druid and divine the cleric and paladin. You might need to watch the school choice to allow a bard or ranger to pick a new spell. I assume artificer will be arcane spell list as well. Everything else is the same.

4. Magic items: no indication these are changing.

5. Subclasses. Yeah, this is the one that will need some work. However, it's not undoable. Most classes get four Sub features, just at different levels. Only bards and fighters have more or less features and the Strixhaven UA hinted at how to handle that: they get the feature next in line and don't get the final feature. In the fighter 's case, give them a bonus feat.

Sometimes a base class mechanic will be referred to. Some should be easy to do (a use if channel nature uses a 14 wild shape use) some might need work (a sorcerer sub requiring use of those God awful sorcerer spells is trickier). Some might be underpowered (cleric domains no longer granting free proficiencies). But much of the meat is there. It won't be off the shelf usable, but that is the price for actually fixing player complaints and rebalancing.

6. Monsters. Assuming no major unseen changes, they should look the MotM monsters.

So yeah, subclasses will need work to make them compatible but everything else is dead simple. I'm not going to lie, subs are not 100% compatible, but they can be made to be if the DM wants. It will be far easier to convert a 24 sub than to convert a 3e prestige class or 4e paragon path. Hard, but not impossible.

 

[HammerMan]

I've used published adventures as an example of compatibility because they're just examples of the game's mechanics.

If the 2024 Vecna adventure references characters needing to roll a check that doesn't exist in 2014, that's confusing. If it references giving characters a hypothetical super advantage described in the 2024 PHB, that's confusing for someone using the 2014 PHB. If the monsters have a stat that is new to the 2024 books, that's going to be confusing. If everything in the adventure is something you could run a 2014 or 2024 character in without needing to own the other version of the PHB to understand a mechanic presented in it, that's pretty darn compatible in my eyes.

Okay so when a 2024 adventure references mastery or a new condition/altered condition how does this work?