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

Status
Not open for further replies.

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.
It serves a totally different purpose. Essentials was a limited run set of options designed to be an easier and simpler entry point, that allowed people to play complex or simple characters at the same table.

The new core books are revisions of the core books.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
It serves a totally different purpose. Essentials was a limited run set of options designed to be an easier and simpler entry point, that allowed people to play complex or simple characters at the same table.

The new core books are revisions of the core books.
Revisions are designed to replace what they revise. These are not replacements, so they aren't revisions. They are additions with confusingly similar names to existing options still considered valid by the parent company.
 

mamba

Legend
It serves a totally different purpose. Essentials was a limited run set of options designed to be an easier and simpler entry point, that allowed people to play complex or simple characters at the same table.

The new core books are revisions of the core books.
I'd say the purpose is similar, because in both cases the claim is that you can continue playing the non-essential versions alongside the essential versions, if you so choose. This would not be true if this were intended to be a replacement without that option. At that point it would be intended as a new edition.
 

You look it up. Seriously, the Internet exists and the updated core rules will be available both officially and unofficially for free. The SRD and D&D Beyond will almost assuredly reflect the updated version and have the Basics for free.

Which is more likely?

DM: the taupe ooze spits a glob of slime at you. You take 12 acid damage and are... Slowed?
Player 1: what's slowed, that's not in the PHB?
Player 2: according to Google, it's -10 ft to your speed.
DM: ok. You take 12 acid and -10 ft move for this round

Vs


DM: the taupe ooze spits a glob of slime at you. You take 12 acid damage and are... Slowed?
Player 1: what's slowed, that's not in the PHB?
DM: WHAT!! I was told this module is compatible with 5th edition! That's it. Next week we start a new Pathfinder 2e game!!
Which will be even more hilarious when they buy a pre-remaster PF2e AP that references alignment.. lol
 

So, you think the difference that matters is "size" rather than kind? Okay, let's play this out. Someone sits down with two PHB's, different covers, and looks at two different warlocks with entirely different designs. Is their head going to melt? Are they going to be just so absolutely confused that two different versions of a class can possibly exist side by side that they won't know what to do with themselves?

I don't think so. I think they could handle that.

What if they sit down and see two druids, and are told this one on the left is more balanced for the game. Will it utterly destroy their understanding of all things DnD?

I don't think so. I think they could handle that.

Because they've handled it before. Sure, we haven't had an extensive errata like this in 5e before. This is going to offer changed versions of multiple classes, multiple spells, multiple feats, and the species. It is a sizable number of things.

That's great that you don't think so! I disagree. It's different to have two different versions of the PHB out there with two sets of classes with identical names but difference balances. It will absolutely cause confusion. You're going to get people arguing about which class in which PHB is better and it's going to be a mess for things like Adventurer's League where you'd still have to allow a more unbalanced Druid and someone playing with the 2024 Druid is going to be like "Wait, why do they get the more powerful Wildshape"?

It's not just that everyone is going to be confused, either, it is just going to cause bunches of problems because it allows people to not adopt the new rules but continue old rules that aren't balanced against the new stuff. It's just bad design, flat out.

But you want to know a secret?


If I look for 5e compatible Fighter, you can find dozens of class reworks, subclasses, there are entirely new classes. And I know what you are going to say "but that's homebrew, that's different." How?

You're right, and the simple answer is "That's not the official product that people are buying, that's a product one seeks out beyond the official product." Really, this is a terrible argument: official products are official products and are the biggest front-facing parts of the hobby. If you can't conceive the difference of scale between the two, then I'm not sure what to tell you other than "No, having two different PHBs is not like someone being able to download "Frank's Fantastic Fighter" from the Homebrewery.

And yes, many people are taking the 2024 book as a replacement of the 2014 book... Why is that a problem? Why is that bad? Because then in your mind it should be a different game? So what?

You've completely confused your argument here. I'm the one arguing that the 2024 book should be a replacement for the 2014 book. That's what I'm arguing for. As a replacement, it would replace the old book, thus meaning the old book can't be used. Hence replaced.

You don't NEED to take the 2024 books as a replacement. You can choose not to. Yeah, the moon druid is getting reworked to be more balanced, but people can still choose to use the unbalanced version, just like they have for the past 10 years. That doesn't make the revised version less valuable, it doesn't make the 2024 book worthless or pointless or confusing, because people were ALWAYS going to make that choice.

I'm sorry, but this is a lot of pleading without much point. Sure, you can use the old one and it'll still be unbalanced... and that's why they were making a new PHB in the first place, so it kind of immediately defeats the purpose of having the new one. What I wanted was the classes to be better built, to have better internal balance. Going back on that negates the point for producing a fix. If I'm going to a Mortal Kombat tournament, if someone has the choice of picking Pre-Patch Tanya or the patched version, then they'll pick the former because it's out-and-out better.

And no, that choice would not be there otherwise. The choice would be different: play one edition or the other. That's not the same as bringing two sets of classes to a game at once. The point of rebalancing the game is to fix things, not make a choice as to whether or not people want to go to what might be a fix or not.

The announcement that the new books are still 5e, are still compatible with 5e material isn't for the person who is going to analyze every possible version of the rules to make the most powerful "legal" version of the class. It is for the people who were worried that the things they had were going to become worthless, or that they shouldn't be allowed to buy the books that come after 2024.

No, it's not that people are going to "analyze every possible version of the rules", it's just for people who like the previous versions better. We've already seen plenty of pushback on some of the designs submitted. If they can go back to the old ones, then what's the point of having the new ones?

Further, there are an astounding amount of the old and new PHBs in the wild. You don't need to be a min-maxer to find a copy of the old book mistakenly, since it's also completely legal anyways. Or someone who sees the old Druid in action and says "Wow, that's better than what's in here." Really, when you tell someone they have a more effective or better option, people generally go to that. They find out about it. It's the nature of the internet. I have casuals in my group who at least look up how their class works and if they are building something right. They aren't on these forums, they don't have a DriveThruRPG account, but you don't need that to want to just see if you are doing something right. People look up guides all the time; it's very much part of the youth culture nowadays. Acting like this is some fringe thing misses how common it actually is.

You are setting standards that aren't required to be set, then demanding everything be one way or the other. And then when you realize it is more nuanced than that, claiming some calamitous confusion will take place when nothing like that has ever happened.

I'm simply requiring that there be one PHB and one set of classes. I think that's pretty reasonable by any standard. I think there is plenty of nuance to it, but I think your view that this simply will not be a problem eliminates most of it because it writes off most of the confusion that can be caused as "I don't think so. I think they could handle that."

Because if you don't make it an option, people are going to say that you can't play a Swashbuckler rogue, because that is 5e material and all 5e material is now invalid because you are using 5.2 materials. Or you can't play a Firbolg, because firbolg only exist in 5e, not in 5.2 revised edition. Or you can't use the spell Binding Ice, because that only exists in 5e and you are now playing 5.2 edition revised and fixed version.

I mean, this is basically negated by your own argument about homebrew anyways: if people want that, they'll be able to find it on Day 2 if they desire it. It's not like they didn't have to wait a year in 5E before they got a shot at it anyways (and are we sure it's not going to be an initial Rogue archetype?). Really, the idea that "You won't have all the things you had previously!" will kill this then 5E wouldn't have sold anyways because you wouldn't have had all the 4E material that fans wanted.

The designers are basically saying "you can use either version of this class, but the 2024 version is better made" and doing so because the alternative is to kill 5th edition.

Well, yes, moving on to a new half edition typically means moving away from the old. But more seriously, the idea that this will destroy D&D is kind of laughable. This is just scare tactics.

You can hate it. You can think its stupid. You can think your way is superior in all ways because it makes the most sense to you. But they have the historical data that shows if they start talking about it as a new edition, people are going to stop buying 5e products, stop using 5e materials, and then demand reprints of all the things that they already have. It would be a disaster, because it was a disaster the last time they did it.

The historical data doesn't show this. The most recent data doesn't indicate this, even, because 5E is the most successful edition of any D&D out there. You can try to spin different excuses as to how it's different, but that's the point: the context of every edition change is different. Acting like changing editions will kill the game misses that the game shouldn't be thriving like it is right now. Hinging your argument on it is just not going to work because we wouldn't be having this discussion right now if it were true.

And the only people who seem to be confused are those who seem determined to be confused to call this plan a bad plan.

Alternatively, those who want this to work seem to be determined to dismiss any reason that it could possible backfire. When your argument is focused around "You people won't listen!", it cuts both ways.
 

mamba

Legend
We've already seen plenty of pushback on some of the designs submitted. If they can go back to the old ones, then what's the point of having the new ones?
What is the point of Xanatahar's and Tasha's if I can play a PHB subclass instead? The point is that it is available for those who like the new version better.

WotC is saying 'Here are updated classes that we feel are better, if you agree, use them. If you don't, you can continue using the ones you already have instead. We support you either way'.

If you think the old ones are too OP, then don't allow them and replace them with the 2024 ones. Why do you have to try and force everyone else to do the same? Whoever prefers the 2014 version will stick with the 2014 version, whether you call 1D&D 5.5 or not. So what exactly would this accomplish?

I'm simply requiring that there be one PHB and one set of classes.
and WotC isn't, they leave that choice to us. You can still 'require' it at your table.

I think that's pretty reasonable by any standard.
Not really, why are you ok with Xanathar and Tasha but not a second PHB?
 

What is the point of Xanatahar's and Tasha's if I can play a PHB subclass instead? The point is that it is available for those who like the new version better.

That's not the same has having two competing Rogues, though. Adding new classes is not the same as having two versions of one thing at the same time.

WotC is saying 'Here are updated classes that we feel are better, if you agree, use them. If you don't, you can continue using the ones you already have instead. We support you either way'.

If you think the old ones are too OP, then don't allow them and replace them with the 2024 ones. Why do you have to try and force everyone else to do the same? Whoever prefers the 2014 version will stick with the 2014 version, whether you call 1D&D 5.5 or not. So what exactly would this accomplish?

No, my problem is that I think it divides the community in worse ways than an edition change, as well as making development for a game much more difficult because you have the 2014 classes in the mix and have to balance new stuff around them rather than just focusing on the new classes. Or... they don't balance around 2014 and hope the problem solves itself, which might also be something they are thinking of.

and WotC isn't, they leave that choice to us. You can still 'require' it at your table.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that I think that's a bad design choice. Just saying "You can use whatever" will create more difficult arguments than "I like the new edition more, we're moving to it" by making it "What do we want to mix and match out of these books?"

Not really, why are you ok with Xanathar and Tasha but not a second PHB?

Because the stuff I like in Xanathar's Guide aren't completely new editions of the same classes or even subclasses in the PHB. Putting in the Swashbuckler is not like them creating two different versions of the Assassin.

If they did put those out, I'd want them to issue guidance because I'd expect they made changes based on something, and I'd want them to tell me which one was more balanced. You know, I want them to actually make and curate the game instead of making me do more of it. It's like "Rulings not rules" to the worst degree.
 

mamba

Legend
That's not the same has having two competing Rogues, though. Adding new classes is not the same as having two versions of one thing at the same time.
Tasha is also revising some 5e stuff. We already have competing versions in 5e.

No, my problem is that I think it divides the community in worse ways than an edition change,
how so? At most it does it in the exact same way

as well as making development for a game much more difficult because you have the 2014 classes in the mix and have to balance new stuff around them rather than just focusing on the new classes. Or... they don't balance around 2014 and hope the problem solves itself, which might also be something they are thinking of.
because 5e is known for its perfect encounter balance... I don't think you could even tell whether an encounter was balanced for 2014 or 2024

Yes, but what I'm saying is that I think that's a bad design choice. Just saying "You can use whatever" will create more difficult arguments than "I like the new edition more, we're moving to it" by making it "What do we want to mix and match out of these books?
so instead of deciding whether you stay with 5e or move to 5.5, your players decide whether they want to play a 2014 class and otherwise use 2024 classes only. Doesn't seem too much of an issue. All that does is allow for a split vote to have no losers.

Because the stuff I like in Xanathar's Guide aren't completely new editions of the same classes or even subclasses in the PHB. Putting in the Swashbuckler is not like them creating two different versions of the Assassin.
they certainly did revise and update some in Tasha's. like the Beast Master Ranger. So yes, there sometimes are new versions

If they did put those out, I'd want them to issue guidance because I'd expect they made changes based on something, and I'd want them to tell me which one was more balanced. You know, I want them to actually make and curate the game instead of making me do more of it. It's like "Rulings not rules" to the worst degree.
I guess we can operate from the assumption that they consider all the 2024 subclasses to be improved and better balanced, or they would not publish them in this form.

For argument's sake let's just say that WotC wants you to use 2024 and drop 2014. What difference does that make? People will still decide what they like better and stick with it, or even mix it because the two are compatible. Nothing really changes, except that this time WotC said 'we want you to do X' instead of 'we do not care whether you do X or Y'.
 
Last edited:

Tasha is also revising some 5e stuff. We already have competing versions in 5e.

No, it doesn't revise, it adds. You can add things from Tasha's. That is not meant to be a revision. I can use the Optional Class Features if I like because they are not revisions but optional class features.

The new PHB is not the same. It is not the "Optional Player's Handbook", it's the new Player's Handbook going forwards. It's not going to be optional when they stop selling the old one. Acting like these are the same is so wild to me because I think if you were to ask anyone out there, having two competing PHBs is not the same as things that are specifically outline as "optional" in their own work.

how so? At most it does it in the exact same way

No, because it creates arguments as to what to include and what to not, from classes to races to spells to feats. That's way worse.

because 5e is known for its perfect encounter balance... I don't think you could even tell whether an encounter was balanced for 2014 or 2024

You shouldn't be making my argument for me: the point of updating things is to make things better, hence removing the bad stuff.

so instead of deciding whether you stay with 5e or move to 5.5, your players decide whether they want to play a 2014 class and otherwise use 2024 classes only. Doesn't seem too much of an issue. All that does is allow for a split vote to have no losers.

No, that's not how that last part is going to be looked at. It's going to start arguments because it's something that is technically allowed, but now a GM will say no. It's easier to not have the "mix-and-match" discussion than to have to debate why something should or shouldn't be in the game we are playing. And again, it's terrible for design, too, since you now have to balance around two sets of classes rather than one.

they certainly did revise and update some in Tasha's. like the Beast Master Ranger. So yes, there sometimes are new versions

princess-bride-you-keep-using-that-word.gif


That's not a revision, that's an "alternative". Stop saying things are revisions when they don't revise things, but rather add to them.

And honestly, yes, I have a problem for that. That if you have a broken class or subclass, you should fix it, not produce a mealy-mouthed "Oh look, here's an alternative!" As I said previously, the UA Ranger was the canary in the coalmine for this: they had a chance to really improve what the Ranger was and then they abandoned it.

I guess we can operate from the assumption that they consider all the 2024 to be improved and better balanced, or they would not publish them in this form.

I mean, I'd like to think that 10 years of experience would mean that they know how to make things better, but I suppose we can't know that with exact certainty. But that's not an argument for mudding the waters so that we can say "Oh look, some of these new classes are bad, but you can still use the old classes!", that's an argument for actually improving your game design.

For argument's sake let's just say that WotC wants you to use 2024 and drop 2014. What difference does that make? People will still decide what they like better and stick with it, or even mix it because the two are compatible. Nothing really changes, except that this time WotC said 'we want you to do X' instead of 'we do not care whether you do X or Y'.

It makes it so that we don't have to worry about what people bring to the table, that the designers can focus on balancing around a single set of classes rather than two, that they can move on in design instead of making motions to old stuff.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top