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

[Maxperson]

The Classes are the big change, but those are rules modules, the baseline rules are almost entirely the same. The Rules Glossary as of the May test is Hemingway closer and closer to 2014 every iteration, and will likely tack closer even further.

They said they would be making changes with the packets to see what we liked, not that they would start farther away and then move towards 2014, finishing close to 2014 rules no matter what we liked. We won't know what rules they've decided on and just how far away from 2014 they are until the books are released.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, I think I proved rather simply that the 2014 GWM is weaker than the 2024 version, unless you have advantage. So, you won't have any real balance issues. Might even make yourself weaker

I didn't see that. What was your proof?

 

[Parmandur]

They said they would be making changes with the packets to see what we liked, not that they would start farther away and then move towards 2014, finishing close to 2014 rules no matter what we liked. We won't know what rules they've decided on and just how far away from 2014 they are until the books are released.

The latest UA packet notes that the Rules Glossary replaces all the prior iterations, as has been the standard for all the packets, so that the existing core 2014 rules plus the Rules Glossary represent the current playtest iteration of the 2024 core rules. This latest iteration is 6 pages, as opposed to the 8 pages of the fourth packet. Not only is the total list of changes smaller this go around, the rules themselves are hewing closer to the 2014 status quo, and most of the controversial or substantial changes have already been dropped.

 

[Maxperson]

The latest UA packet notes that the latest Rules Glossary replaces all the prior iterations, as has been the standard for all the packets, so that the existing core 2014 rules plus the Rules Glossary represent the current playtest iteration of the 2024 core rules.

That doesn't negate their statement that they are just testing a bunch of different stuff to see what we like. Of course it will replace the prior packets. They want the new stuff tested to see if we like it.

At this point we don't know for sure if a rule from packet 1, 2, 4 or even one we don't ever see(like they did with 5e) makes the cut. There's nothing to indicate that the most recent packet contains rules more likely to be used than other packets.

This latest iteration is 6 pages, as opposed to the 8 pages of the fourth packet. Not only is the total list of changes 25% smaller this go around, the rules themselves are hewijg closer to the 2014 status quo, and moat of the controversial or substantial changes have already been dropped.

They MUST reduce the amount they show us or they will never complete in time. That's not an indication that they are finalizing with the stuff we are being shown.

 

[mamba]

That's the baseline of an edition? Not the combat rules, skill rules, spells, feats, etc? I disagree on your assessment of what the baseline rules for an edition are.

clearly, because otherwise you do not arrive at 90%

When I wrote baseline, that is what I meant, the handful of things that reside below class and for which it makes no sense to offer different versions by class. Things like conditions, inspiration, advantage / disadvantage.

Spells, feats, skills, … are above the class level and not part of what I meant by baseline.

I don’t care whether your 2014 sorcerer uses the 2014 spells or the 2024 spells. They are so similar, it doesn’t even register as a change (in the aggregate, individual spells might differ slightly). Personally I’d say everyone uses the 2024 ones, but it makes no difference.

 

[Parmandur]

That doesn't negate their statement that they are just testing a bunch of different stuff to see what we like. Of course it will replace the prior packets. They want the new stuff tested to see if we like it.

At this point we don't know for sure if a rule from packet 1, 2, 4 or even one we don't ever see(like they did with 5e) makes the cut. There's nothing to indicate that the most recent packet contains rules more likely to be used than other packets.

They MUST reduce the amount they show us or they will never complete in time. That's not an indication that they are finalizing with the stuff we are being shown.

We'll see. Any proposed changes to the core rules that they have dropped at this point, are probably just dropped, and any that they aren't testing...probavly aren't facing changes. Which makes sense with the business goal of not causing any disruption of the player base, and with how they just...started using the new style Monsters 2 years ago and we all just rolled with it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If D&D had kept using the normal definition of edition, like they did from 1e to 2e, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is that they didn't keep using it, and instead switch the edition to mean a completely new game that isn't compatible with the older "edition", and they have been using that definition for over twenty years.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't just a D&D thing, the entire tabletop gaming industry uses "edition" to mean "new version of the game".

Maybe it should have been a different word so people don't confuse it with book editions, but language evolves, and this usage is well-established by now.

 

[Maxperson]

We'll see. Any proposed changes to the core rules that they have dropped at this point, are probably just dropped, and any that they aren't testing...probavly aren't facing changes. Which makes sense with the business goal of not causing any disruption of the player base, and with how they just...started using the new style Monsters 2 years ago and we all just rolled with it.

That makes sense, but that only makes the wilder stuff they showed earlier in the test kinda dumb to even put there. Why waste valuable space and time on something that they already knew we wouldn't like and that they knew they wouldn't be using?

The inclusion of those things makes it look like they think that some of that wilder stuff is backwards compatible, and if that's the case we could very well see it appear in the final rules.

 

[mamba]

Why waste valuable space and time on something that they already knew we wouldn't like and that they knew they wouldn't be using?

how did they already know we would not like it?

 

[Maxperson]

how did they already know we would not like it?

They said after the first packet that an idea that we didn't like was one that they were pretty sure we wouldn't like.