Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[Burt Baccara]

A historical retrospective around edition change marketing could be a fun read. WotC has tried a lot of quite different strategies over the years, from "this is better and solves all the problems!" to "this isn't actually a change at all!"

There is the perennial fav, "most streamlined, easiest to learn for new players edition ever."

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

You're technically right that they wouldn't all be the same people. But it's pretty apparent that there are people who want it all to crash and burn, so yeah, there are going to be people who will pounce if they smell blood, and try to hurt Wizards as much as possible no matter what happens. They aren't subtle about it. Wizards has had some blunders. And some people will never let that go.

this seems pretty much an attack on people that disagree with you. I am NOT reporting it hopeing I am reading it wrong. But are you saying that if we think this is middle ground waffeling we are trying to "hurt wotc"?

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

If Crawford had not doubled-down on the, "it's the same edition" claim he keeps making, sales of all books between now and 2024 might drop. It's just a money thing.

I wonder why we should buy ANY book that has subclass features at wrong levels and feats that will need to be updated? Isn't this why between 3e and 4e they put out system neutral books?

 

[mamba]

This makes sense, and were I to actually decide to play 1D&D Id probably do the same. Here's where I'm confused, has WotC ever clarified what their definition of backwards compatibility is? I interpreted it as if one player is playing a 2014 PC then they'd use the rules in the 2014 PHB, if another is playing a 2024 PC then they'd use the 2024 PHB. Am I wrong? Seems like its going to be using a little from both the 2014 and 2024 rules.

the only one I am familiar with is something like ‘can be used alongside each other’. There will be some more guidance coming I assume, once they are closer to a final version.

I expect that at some level you will have to decide on one or the other rather than ‘to each their own’, for example what conditions there are and what they do

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I just don't think it's all that confusing. Better than the class tables in the 1e DMG, and it still allows different classes to actually be better or worse at attacks, which 5e certainly doesn't do (nor did 4e before it, I believe).

there are plenty of ways to allow for different attacks without resorting to some things add some subtract do them in the right order then look at a negative target number.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Wait, yes to which? You get 2014 subclass levels 1-3 all at once at 1D&D level 3, or you don't get 2014 subclass levels 1-2 and just get options from level 3 forward?

Though now I'm wondering if there's a third interpretation, you ignore the One D&D subclass slots entirely and use the complete 2014 progression for your subclass.

Again, maybe they went into more detail in a video or something?


I certainly hope so.

I think if I read it right you take the 5e subclass remove the levels and instead line up as 1st 2nd 3rd ect (if you got multi ability's at a level you keep them grouped) then assign them at the new levels...

so a wizard would get all the 2nd level features at 3rd level

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

pretty sure WotC is clear about this not being the case with 1DD either

as clear as mud

 

[Parmandur]

My point is this. Will 1D&D be backwards compatible with 5E, probably, But with lineages, class features, feats, spells, weapon properties etc changing, will it be practical to do so probably not. If I understand correctly as of the last playtest aren't feats no longer considered optional? Hypothetically, if I was starting to DM a game of 1D&D and had 6 players excluding myself and 1 of those players decided "eh I'm just gonna play a 5E PC", I'd probably tell them to take a hike unless they made a real convincing argument. I wouldn't want to pull double duty reading/referencing 2 sets of books. The playtests and the community's feedback is not the be all and end all, I am certain that yes they will definitely take it all into consideration but OTOH I can almost guarantee that the final playtest and actual releases will be slightly different. At some point the playtests and surveys will close but that does not mean the final design is complete. Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I could be glaringly wrong.

Feats are now a core rule, but one of the Feats is am ASI boost, so nothing is changed.in practical terms. People are already playing with rules from 2014 at the same table as playtest packet rules, including things like a 2014 Druid next to a 2024 Druid, and nothing is going wrong. The Species, Feats and Classes are exception based rules, so nothing in the actual play is all that different from people trying a new Class.

The playtest process, based on 9 years of UA process, is likely to bring the proposals down from where they are now, closer to the 2014 baseline.

 

[Parmandur]

This makes sense, and were I to actually decide to play 1D&D Id probably do the same. Here's where I'm confused, has WotC ever clarified what their definition of backwards compatibility is? I interpreted it as if one player is playing a 2014 PC then they'd use the rules in the 2014 PHB, if another is playing a 2024 PC then they'd use the 2024 PHB. Am I wrong? Seems like its going to be using a little from both the 2014 and 2024 rules.

That's an area where DM interpretation will probably be necessary, but I would say for Spells, always the newer one applies, but old Class features are welcome. The new Class chassis all work with the 2014 Subclasses, even Warlock, just fine. So slapping a 2014 Subclass and Rave on a 2024 Class isn't a problem.

 

[mamba]

as clear as mud

nah, they are very clear, there just are people who try to muddy the water for whatever agenda of theirs

 

[Dire Bare]

Thats not what I was getting at, not that it was going to be evergreen only that they were going to use the name Dungeons & Dragons moving forward, and they weren't going to change that, but that was 23 years ago so my recollection may be faulty.

Using the name "Dungeons & Dragons" only was in reference to the previous edition, "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons". WotC was very clearly telling us at the time they were moving beyond the split between D&D (BECMI) and AD&D. Starting with 3E, there is only one version of the D&D game, not two simultaneously supported versions.

 

[Dire Bare]

I just don't think it's all that confusing. Better than the class tables in the 1e DMG, and it still allows different classes to actually be better or worse at attacks, which 5e certainly doesn't do (nor did 4e before it, I believe).

You may not find THACO confusing. You're certainly not alone.

But there is a reason why practically the entire RPG industry, including most OSR games, have left THACO in the rear-view mirror. Most of us do find it unnecessarily confusing.

I'm old-school, started playing in the 80s . . . and I hated THACO back then. As did every kid I played with. All of my old dudes I play with now also have less than fond memories of some of those old-school rules, especially THACO. I'm pretty confident most D&D gamers, old and new alike, are not eager for a return to that subsystem.

 

[Vaalingrade]

nah, they are very clear, there just are people who try to muddy the water for whatever agenda of theirs

Obfuscating the idea of new editions and accusing people of having an agenda is also an agenda.

 

[R_J_K75]

People are already playing with rules from 2014 at the same table as playtest packet rules

That's an area where DM interpretation will probably be necessary, but I would say for Spells, always the newer one applies, but old Class features are welcome.

In full disclosure as I have said in other threads that I've not play tested any of the new 1D&D stuff I'm just going off what I've read of the packets which isn't everything, and what I've read here on EN World. I'm willing to give the final books a read through and if the game is actually easier to play and run, the books are better organized I might consider switching back and eat crow. But as a DM I think Id run that over 2014. don't think I'd want to mix and match versions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But as a DM I think Id run that over 2014. don't think I'd want to mix and match versions.

And that is exactly the point of the dance right now.

They want to convince people that they're not 'losing' their old books, or the ones coming out right now that need to turn a profit, so they're going all in on 'this is not a new edition, this is just a revamp.'

As soon as those books drop though? Those old books are trash. What are you even doing with those, you scrub? Why aren't you joining these official games that are 5.5 only? Why isn't you home game 5.5 only?

Happened in 3.5, happened with 4Essentials, will happen with 3.5 Jr.5.

 

[Velderan]

Functionally, THAC0 as seen in 2e is exactly the same as the additive to-hit calculation we've had since 3e. When attacking you want to roll high and have as high a positive modifier as possible.

To hit formula: [To-hit bonus on character sheet] + [dice roll] +[modifiers] = the AC you hit

THAC0 formula: [THAC0 written on character sheet] - ( [dice roll] + [modifiers] ) = the AC you hit.

We see that in both cases the final result scales linearly with the dice roll and the modifiers. So why is THAC0 harder to use than To-Hit?

• Doing both subtraction and addition involves more of the brain than only addition, especially once you have double-digit numbers
• With To-Hit, you can add the numbers you have in any order and get the correct result, but since THAC0 involves subtraction you either have to follow the exact order of operations in the formula, or you have to keep track of when to flip the sign.

All in all, THAC0 is just a more complicated way to reach the same result, with 0 benefits.

You're being far too reasonable for this thread. I'm going to have to ask you to stop so we can get back to our regularly scheduled edition warring.

 

[Dire Bare]

And that is exactly the point of the dance right now.

They want to convince people that they're not 'losing' their old books, or the ones coming out right now that need to turn a profit, so they're going all in on 'this is not a new edition, this is just a revamp.'

As soon as those books drop though? Those old books are trash. What are you even doing with those, you scrub? Why aren't you joining these official games that are 5.5 only? Why isn't you home game 5.5 only?

Happened in 3.5, happened with 4Essentials, will happen with 3.5 Jr.5.

It did?

When the 3.5 books came out, my group continued to use our older 3.0 books. Not the core books, but the supplements. If we went through the bother to purchase the new books, why use the old core books?

And there were folks who decided to stick with 3.0 and not buy the new books . . . although eventually most folks moved up "editions".

With 4E, using the entire 4E run at the same time, including "Essentials" was ridiculously easy. The shift from 4.0 to "4.1" was even smaller than the upcoming rules shift.

When the new 5E books come out next year . . . I'll be purchasing the new books and probably using all of the newer rules updates. But I'm keeping all of my existing 5E books, and I will continue to use them. And it will be ridiculously easy.

Some folks just seem to want things to be difficult, when really they aren't.

Next year . . . continue using the 2014 rules if you want. Or pick up the 2024 rules. Or pick up one of the upcoming alternate 5E rulesets. It's all going to be easily compatible.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Anecdote is not the plural of datum.

 

[Dire Bare]

Anecdote is not the plural of datum.

Yup.

 

[Micah Sweet]

pretty sure WotC is clear about this not being the case with 1DD either

Of course it is. They're releasing new core books, which they will referring to moving forward. You really think they don't care whether or not you buy them?