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

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### Chaosmancer

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

It was a different thread. Just did the math.

2d6+4 = 11
11 x 2 = 22 x 0.6 = 13.2
0.4x0.4 = 0.16 (chance of both attacks missing)
1-0.16 = 0.84 (chance of at least one attack hitting)
0.84x3 = 2.52 + 13.2 = 15.72 average damage

2d6+14 = 21
21 x 2 = 42
0.6-0.25 = 0.35
42 x 0.35 = 14.7 average damage.

#### Maxperson

##### Morkus from Orkus
It was a different thread. Just did the math.

2d6+4 = 11
11 x 2 = 22 x 0.6 = 13.2
0.4x0.4 = 0.16 (chance of both attacks missing)
1-0.16 = 0.84 (chance of at least one attack hitting)
0.84x3 = 2.52 + 13.2 = 15.72 average damage

2d6+14 = 21
21 x 2 = 42
0.6-0.25 = 0.35
42 x 0.35 = 14.7 average damage.
What strength did you use and how do magic weapons play into it? And what AC is being used there?

#### Parmandur

##### Book-Friend
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.
Well, first, you never know if people like something if you don't ask. Second, they were pretty clear that they were engaged in some A-B testing to get a feel for baseline responses. As the test has gone on, the changes in the Rule Glossary have become smaller and more tame: and those are all the core rules we're likely to see changed, and it ain't much. Modules like Class and Feats are plug and play, and crunching the numbers on the proposals suggests they haven't changed any balance guidelines, so...mixing and matching will remain line with what we have already, from a balance perspective.

##### Legend
Just to provide some important context from the paragraphs preceding the quotes in the OP to make it clear how Crawford laid out the issues very clearly:

“One of the reasons why this word ‘edition’ is loaded is currently it has two different meanings,” said Wizards’ game design architect Jeremy Crawford at the event. “In broader publishing, edition is a pretty neutral term that simply means ‘a new version of the book.’ Now, in D&D the term has over the years gained much greater weight, because the term also came to mean a new version of the game.""

"Those editions — those new versions of D&D — have always been fractious for the larger D&D community. Folks like to keep using the rules that they’re familiar with, and with every new edition of the game Wizards has left a significant portion of its player base behind. For a ready example, look no further than the transition to fourth edition that took place in the early 2000s. The transition from D&D 3.5 to fourth edition was a clean break with almost nothing but lore shared between the two systems. That huge change greatly splintered the player base, giving rise to Paizo’s Pathfinder and other upstart competitors. The fact that fourth edition played more like a tabletop miniatures game than a traditional RPG didn’t help matters at all, but the damage to the larger brand was not fully undone until 5th edition’s incredible surge in popularity prior to the COVID-19 pandemic."

"For those reasons, Wizards said, 5th edition is here to stay... even though its core rulebooks are changing."

"“We are releasing new editions of the books,” Crawford emphasized. “We are not releasing a new edition of the game. And so that, I think, is a really important distinction — that it is still 5th edition, but yes, we are releasing revised versions of the books, which anywhere else in the publishing world would be called new editions.”"

"The proposed solution, then, for differentiating between 5th edition and what comes next? To append the year of publication to the end of the core rulebooks’ names. That way, Wizards said, going forward there will have been a Player’s Handbook (2014) and there will also be a Player’s Handbook (2024). While they are fundamentally different books, Crawford said, they can both be used to play the same game. And, most importantly, they will both be compatible with every other 5th edition book that has come before."

"“The other books aren’t changing,” Crawford said. “These are new versions of these three books. It’s the same game.”"

So first it was 1D&D (One Dungeons and Dragons), then RD&D (Revised D&D), and now its 5e 2024 D&D (or for short 24D&D vs 14D&D?).

You know what, I'm not changing what I call it every time the marketing department has a new idea, I change it when its published, till then its RD&D.

#### Parmandur

##### Book-Friend
So first it was 1D&D (One Dungeons and Dragons), then RD&D (Revised D&D), and now its 5e 2024 D&D (or for short 24D&D vs 14D&D?).

You know what, I'm not changing what I call it every time the marketing department has a new idea, I change it when its published, till then its RD&D.
The year of publication is a pretty brilliant move: itan objective measure outside of marketing considerations, and sidesteps the accumulated layers of corporate nonsense that prior irrational Edition designations represent. '24 rules and '14 rules, they are what they are.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a number of years, our discourse on older evolves to adapt that terminology: '89 rules versus '03 rules, etc.

#### Chaosmancer

##### Legend
What strength did you use and how do magic weapons play into it? And what AC is being used there?

Strength is obvious, the modifier is right there. Also, it doesn't matter. You are looking at the impact of the feat, which is identical no matter the strength. After all, giving one character a higher strength score than the other is going to create an obvious imbalance.

Magic weapons don't matter, they would have the same impact regardless. After all, you create an unbalanced scenario if you give one character a magical weapon and the other one a non-magical weapon.

Whatever AC gives a 60% chance to hit. Kind of obvious considering the math is right there. And sure, I get where you are going if you assume a lower AC, the old GWM gets better. But if you assume a higher AC then the new GWM gets better. And if you have an increase that you don't use in high AC situations, but do use in low Ac situations, you are likely to be getting less out of the feat than something you apply in ALL situations.

#### Micah Sweet

##### Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I still like, "5e Essentials". Seems descriptive of how they should be marketing it, and I can imagine them not needlessly using the same names for everything while still telling people to use both.
So first it was 1D&D (One Dungeons and Dragons), then RD&D (Revised D&D), and now its 5e 2024 D&D (or for short 24D&D vs 14D&D?).

You know what, I'm not changing what I call it every time the marketing department has a new idea, I change it when its published, till then its RD&D.

#### mamba

##### Legend
I still like, "5e Essentials". Seems descriptive of how they should be marketing it, and I can imagine them not needlessly using the same names for everything while still telling people to use both.
I certainly like it a lot better than 5.5

#### The Myopic Sniper

##### Hero
"5e Essentials" sounds like an anti-aging body cream to me.

Unless, it was a particularly paired down version of the ruleset, it also seems deceptive... at least for what I think a 5e Essentials should be.... a printed version of the Basic Rules with a bit more style and focus on teaching the game rather than being a reference.

#### Micah Sweet

##### Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
"5e Essentials" sounds like an anti-aging body cream to me.

Unless, it was a particularly paired down version of the ruleset, it also seems deceptive... at least for what I think a 5e Essentials should be.... a printed version of the Basic Rules with a bit more style and focus on teaching the game rather than being a reference.
It is compared to 4e Essentials, which despite the different name seems to serve a similar purpose to what WotC wants out of OneD&D, minus the confusing naming convention of the future product.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
190
Views
14K
Replies
1K
Views
88K
Replies
355
Views
26K
Replies
55
Views
6K