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

[Azzy]

Words are defined by their usage, not by some objective meaning descending from on high.

Right. So, when most of the industry doesn't use the term the mean "a complete new system"...

 

[Justice and Rule]

Absolutely. If the existence of the Archives of Nethys having updated versions of the rules is an example of how Pathfinder Remastered isn't a .5 edition, I'm sure D&D Beyond can serve the same role.

I missed this, but I think most of us are onboard with something like PF2.25E as a reference, tbh.

Actually, I think it's kind of interesting to see the differences in the communities. PF2 people seems pretty damn jazzed about the idea of basically putting in a bunch of changes (or "errata", as Paizo is calling it in their book descriptions) that can make things better. Meanwhile 5E is apparently going to die if you add a ".5" to.

I think this comes from how the two have gone about changes so far: with 5E, there was a window where they were considering making changes (and I remember being excited for them!), but then they just... didn't. I think they said they didn't want to make anyone's PHB "obsolete", which... I mean, I was pretty okay with making that version of the Ranger "obsolete" because it was basically DOA already. But I think that created the expectation that they aren't ever going to make hard changes.

Meanwhile, the initial PF2 release was kind of rocky for the Alchemist class. However, Paizo has been adding and tweaking that class through Errata updates and new printings for a while now, as well as fixing a few other things. I think that largely has been okay with the Community because it makes them look like they are trying to make classes good and aren't going to let them die because it would require certain books to need errata.

we disagree on what is creating more confusion

I think people pretty much understand the idea of "5.5E", especially in the D&D community of all things. I think when you put everything in two different PHBs on the table, you are opening yourself up for a bunch of headaches.

Yes they are. Why do you think WotC keeps them compatible? So no one uses the 2014 versions afterwards? They know that some people will stick with the 2014 versions, whether they call One D&D 5.5, 6e or 5e. They do not want to leave the 2014 players behind, no split like 3e to 4e. By definition this means that the One D&D books are optional.

I mean, I think they are focused on keeping the adventures compatible so that even someone sticks with the old edition they can continue to buy adventures. That alone basically negates most of worries about regarding an edition change.

There wouldn't be a split like 3E to 4E, anyways, because nothing is being changed so fundamentally like that jump. The difference between 1D&D and 5E are much closer to redesigns/remasters/rebalances within the framework of 5E rather than something completely new. That's the benefit of a half-edition: you are changing things, but not so much to be unrecognizable. You also avoid having everything from before on the table muddling things, so that you can focus on creating and balancing the new material. I'd rather have my player focus on one version of Beastmaster that is properly built than say "Well, there are two different Rangers and there are like 3 versions of the Beastmaster, I think most of them suck but I'll let you be the judge".

 

[Chaosmancer]

Your point is rather undercut by the word you chose not to bold. Specifically:

"As an alternative"

Whereas for Eustace Clarence 5e, the things in it are not "optional" alternatives (which, as Justice and Rule says, are not revisions) for a significant chunk of players. Old books will be discontinued--not true of the 5e PHB in the wake of Tasha's. Organized play will not allow Original 5e Do Not Steal Only Copy With Attribution--IIRC, also not true of the 5e PHB Ranger. Existing subclasses likely won't work entirely right with it, given Ranger is being rewritten with the new "expert" class...category? Not sure what to call it.

Do you have an official statement declaring that organized play won't allow 5e material? I mean, they will obviously allow anything not in the PHB, that's just blatantly obvious. But do you have a press release that they will demand no one use 2014 PHB material in organized play? Or is this just your "obviously this is what is going to happen because I am correct" argument?

Eustace Clarence 5e is a revision. It is meant, over time, to fully and completely replace Original 5e Do Not Steal Only Copy With Attribution. Eustace Clarence 5e will be able to use most, if not all, adventures written for the replaced version without difficulty.

What does writing the adventures for the replaced version even mean? Also, they have explicitly stated that the adventures are written without taking the class designs in mind, so... how is this going to change anything?

It will, likely, be able to use most (but definitely not all) feats from the previous version with little difficulty. It will not be able to cleanly use every subclass from the replaced version. I believe subclass issues will be just frequent enough that you cannot just rubber-stamp them, you'll need to do a full review each time to be sure you don't run into issues of the "merging two recipes together instructs you to put the salad in the oven" variety. Even if most subclasses work fine, the few that don't will ensure that you have to be more thorough than you would with other things. Likewise, I predict that differences in spells will cause plenty of headaches over time.

I already demonstrated this is not true the vast majority of the subclasses. Only three classes will have any difficulty at all. And only two of them will need minor guidance and at most a page of text to deal with.

More or less, I expect Eustace Clarence 5e to suffer from something akin to the Uncanny Valley problem. It is, truly, very like Original 5e Do Not Steal Only Copy With Attribution, in the same way that terrifying animated mannequins are very like living people. That it is so similar, but not quite perfectly matching, will be what causes people issues. Doubly so because the Kansas City Shuffle of trying to pretend nothing is replaced when...that's literally what it's for, to replace the old things with new (allegedly improved) things, will mean people will be continually grappling with the differences over time. PF1e avoided that by being a clean break--"switch to us, it's a real, real simple process, never look back!"

I doubt it, because people change the rules all the time. People are going to pick a rule set and stick with it, and 99% of the time, it won't even matter. There will be some, small hiccups, where former knowledge compete with new text, but that will be trivially handled.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There seems to be little reason for the 2014:2024 "compatibility" concerns aside from the fact that wotc wants to continue selling books for the next several months. Are there any reasonable reasons to explain or justify it that doesn't amount to making it harder for the gm to shut down overpowered and broken combos built across editions?

After pages and pages across multiple threads there seems to be a central core of overpowered combos are easier to make if "compatibility" makes it easier to overrule the gm.

This literally has not a single thing to do with any theoritical combos. It is literally about telling people they can keep using the books they bought in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 and telling those people that don't buy the 2024 books that they can still buy the adventures and books released in 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028 ect ect ect

Stop trying to make this about some crusade against DMs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I think allowing the legacy content does make it more similar than if they’d done what I expected at first, and made only the non-updated books still playable with the 2024 core books.

Still, i stand by my previous statement.

 

[mamba]

That's the benefit of a half-edition: you are changing things, but not so much to be unrecognizable. You also avoid having everything from before on the table muddling things, so that you can focus on creating and balancing the new material. I'd rather have my player focus on one version of Beastmaster that is properly built than say "Well, there are two different Rangers and there are like 3 versions of the Beastmaster, I think most of them suck but I'll let you be the judge".

You do not need a .5 for that. 2024 will do just that too, without the confusion about whether it is compatible with 5e adventures or whether new adventures are still compatible with 5e

 

[Justice and Rule]

No, it isn't going to cause confusion. No one who is going to be arguing about the rule changes is going to be confused, because they by definition have to understand that these are two different versions.

No, they are going to be arguing why they can't have what they feel is the better version of the Fireball spell because you let two of them exist because one is overpowered (As mentioned by the authors themselves) and the newly balanced one is, well, obviously worse because it is balanced.

Adventurer's League? In the absolutely RARE case that a person brings a 2014 Druid and ends up in the same game as a 2024 Druid... then maybe they might have an issue, but who is to say who has the more powerful version? Don't forget Wildshape isn't actually powerful for most druids at most levels. You'd need to have a 2014 Mood Druid and a 2024 Moon Druid, and if you have both, then the group can decide what to do with that. It isn't like there is going to be confusion, because, again, you are assuming someone involved who has full knowledge of the 2024 ruleset to explain the situation. "Why is my wildshape different?" "Because you are using the unrevised rules and I'm using the revised rules"

That's great, and how does that person feel when that Druid is just better? Because that's the point being made: when you leave the unbalanced stuff in, it defeats the point of creating the balanced stuff in the first place. Also I don't know how you are going to declare it "absolutely RARE" given the massive argument being had over the Druid right now.

And as for it being bad design... no, it isn't. Because a 2014 Moon Druid that is brought to the table in 2025... is no different than a 2014 Moon Druid being brought to the table today. Any "problems" caused by that are problems that we are well-versed in dealing with. And if it is truly an untenable situation... then the DMs or the coordinators at the Adventurer's League can deal with that by just talking to people. The vast majority won't really have an issue.

No, it will be bad design because they could have balanced the druid and chose not to. They could have had a better druid, one without the problems of original Wildshape, and instead they made a bad compromise.

But other than for Adventurer's League... yes, yes it is. Both are rule sets for the fighter, both can be at the table at the same time, and as long as we assume a level of quality from the design, then both are perfectly viable. In terms of practical effect like what you are trying to convince me is going to cause so much confusion and argumentation and problems.... this is the exact same thing. Two distinct, perfectly viable versions of the class, existing side by side. And home tables have dealt with this without problem.

I find that difficult to believe for all classes given the changes we've seen so far. I'm also not entirely convinced of the balance, but at the least the new stuff felt more in the right direction.

Any issue you can imagine coming up at a home table between the 2014 classes and the 2024 classes are the exact same issues that any table who has had homebrew classes has dealt with. And, as someone who has played at some of the those tables... there was no confusion. We all knew what was going on.

No, I don't see it as the same because something that is homebrew is something that explicitly needs to be okayed by a GM because it is homebrew. This is official content, and the GM telling a player they can't use official content is different: you're telling them they can't use something that was specifically approved of by Wizards, something they could use at a store with no problem. Comparing homebrew to official content is just not the same, no matter how much you try to equivocate it.

Okay, then do that. But Wizard's isn't going to say that the 2024 revision replaces 5e. Because that'd be stupid of them to do.

I mean, it wouldn't, but okay.

Two things.

1) Then are you saying there has been no point to the Fizban Dragonborn? They were released as a fix for the Dragonborn, but the 2014 Dragonborn still exist and are still a viable option. But you know what happened? The One DnD playtest reversed the Fizban version to the PHB version, and the species playtest showed that they bombed. So they put the Fizban version up in the repeat playtest... and the survey results shot up. It went from the low 60%'s to the 80's. A 20 pt jump in score. For something that, according to you, should have been pointless because they gave people a choice to use the fixed version or the unfixed version.

No, I'm saying the exact opposite: you just revise Dragonborn to be that, instead of letting players be an inferior version. Errata and such are a thing you can use rather than just saying "Well, this is just an option you can use." I'd rather they do that for more things because if they did, maybe we wouldn't be having this playtest as they'd have been actively curating the system over the last decade.

And I know, "but classes are bigger" but so what? Why should we assume that just because the size of the update is bigger, that it will have a different result?

YES. I hate to tell you this, but sometimes making bigger changes can have bigger effects! It's weird like that, I know, but putting two different versions of the PHB with all new stuff repeated all over and making it all selectable is not the same as putting out a different version of a race. It opens up to many more variables, especially when you are trying to make fixes and not removing what you are trying to fix.

2) Stop trying to use video games and code. It doesn't work. You physically cannot have two different versions of a video game running simultaneously. Also, Competitive fighting games are vastly different from cooperative games. You are literally saying that the DnD rules won't work because competitive tournaments don't do something that is impossible to do with digital media.

Actually, you can. Like, in Ultra Street Fighter IV you can do that for matches, where you can select, say, Vanilla Sagat. But they don't allow that in tournaments because every update means something. What you're trying to do here is ignore why people change things, and how people commonly do it in games.

If someone just likes the 2014 version better... then they might just be able to use it. So what? That doesn't make the 2024 version useless.

I mean, it totally can. If that class was nerfed to bring it more in line with the other classes, having the un-nerfed version is kind of not worth it, right?

Like, I don't understand this point of view that there can only ever be one legal version of a class or everything falls apart. That isn't how it works now, so why would it be how it works in the future?

I mean, right now there aren't two completely different competing skeletons of classes with their own subclasses. There are optional class features, but there aren't two versions of the Ranger. Hell, even Wizards basically shut that down when they took the UA Ranger away from D&D Beyond.

And let's think this out. Someone goes online, finds the 2014 rulebook by mistake, doesn't realize it, makes a character and brings it to the game and no one realizes it... then it isn't a problem. So rewind, they find a 2014 rulebook by mistake, don't realize it, bring their character to the game and someone realizes it... and then they talk about it, and decide what to do. Where's the problem?

Well, someone brought a character to a game that wasn't expecting it and they might not be able to use, precipitating an entire discussion about that. It's not going to kill anyone, but it's absolutely something you now have to waste time on. That kind of sucks for that player, doesn't it? To me, that's a problem.

Someone who can be confused by the 2014 rulebook and have no idea about the differences likely doesn't even know that the 2014 rulebook is still "legal" after the 2024 book, because they don't know the two books are even different. So what do you expect to happen? Some mild embarrassment of "oh, I found an old version of the rules?" They probably aren't going to be super angry and confrontational about using the old rules instead of the new. And if they really like something from the old rules, then the group can talk about mixing and matching, homebrewing and making new game content... which they are already allowed to do.

Actually, yeah, I do think some mild embarrassment is a problem when it's avoidable. We shouldn't be putting players in that position. We also shouldn't have them waste time on it. Just because they aren't life-threatening doesn't suddenly make it not a problem.

And you keep bringing up homebrewing, but the nature of homebrewing is bringing something that specifically has to be approved of because it's not official material. That's not the same as saying "Well, time to decide which classes from which books we are going to use".

You just keep assuming there will be a problem, but it could also just.. not be a problem.

And you just keep assuming there will be no problem when there could be a bunch. I'm basing my opinion on what I've already seen in this forum regarding discussions around class changes; if you're not going to force them, you're going to get this weird mix and I think that's just a bad idea.

Yeah, because this game has never truly existed in an environment where there was only one set of classes or one set of rules. There have always been dozens of options. If I'm not playing adventurer's league, what do I care about "official" or "legal" we change rules all the time in our games.

Options are different than completely different versions of classes existing at once. And it's great that you don't care about Adventurer's League, but that's part of how the game builds out. I don't play in it, either, but I recognize that it's part of the community.

Except how many times have DMs kiboshed that by saying that you can't use this or that because it isn't officially in the rules? You yourself argued that we can't count Unearthed Arcana content for alternative classes not causing confusion because it wasn't official content and so therefore didn't count.

Because that's explicitly not part of the rules. I can't just bring these in to a game and play them without permission.

I don't know how to say this any clearer, but there's an assumption that if it's in the official books, it's good to go. You can expect it to be there, and if the DM doesn't comment, it's okay. Now we are going into an environment where there is two of everything, built around differing design ideas. That creates a lot of chaos and confusion because, potentially, anything is allowed. It doubles the amount of stuff you have to watch out for, and I just don't see the need to have an argument over which version of the Warlock to let in. I'd rather Wizards just said "This is the new Warlock. It's balanced for the new classes. Use it." instead of trying to have it both ways and almost certainly inviting problems between people who disagree on the subject.

And yeah, losing all the 4e material hurt a lot of people. I haven't used a single one of my 4e books since the Next Playtest started. I have them in storage now because they were just collecting dust. It DID kill it. I never went out and bought another 4e book, even though there were plenty I didn't have. Because there was a new edition, and all the rules were changing, so why not wait and get those? And we aren't saying that breaking will kill One DnD, we are saying it will kill 5e, because it will. And there is no reason to kill 5e.

D&D 5E has 10 years worth of material and will have 3rd Party Content for years to come. Of all the editions to talk about something being "killed", this is the last one that has any room to talk. If they are collecting dust, that's just because you aren't using them: you can always use old stuff, even if there isn't new material.

No, it isn't scare tactics it is you not listening. I'm not saying it will destroy DnD, I'm saying it will destroy 5e.

Okay, then I was mistaken: I thought you were referring to D&D as a whole because that made more sense as a worry. This is even less of a problem for me because 5E has had 10 years and will have content long after that. I'd rather have an improved 5.5E than continue on with all the problems 5E currently has.

Except is absolutely shows what I'm talking about, because the change from 3 to 3.5 killed 3. Just because 5e is the most popular version of the game ever doesn't mean it will be immune to that impact. And even if it was... why create that impact unnecessarily? You seem to think a half edition change is nothing, but the historical data says you are wrong.

The shape of the market today is completely different than it was then. Trying to act like what happened 20 years ago will happen the same way today is just wrong. The historical data doesn't have things like the DM's Guild and a market that completely dwarfs what was around back then.

And honestly, I just don't mind that 5.0E fades back a bit. Editions can sprawl and get over-full. I think having a 5.5E is honestly a way better thing than trying to continue to include everything indefinitely. It's absolutely worth learning from your mistakes, correcting them, and making something better.

Because every reason you give for it backfiring anticipates the absolute worst-case scenario, then stacks that with no one talking to each other and finding a solution.

No, it just anticipates the most obvious ones. Having two versions of a PHB out there without having one errata the other is going to cause confusion unnecessarily. Having two versions of classes will make it harder to get balance because you aren't removing the stuff that's unbalanced. Having two sets of spells out there is going to cause weirdness because those, of all things, are going to be the hardest to tell apart online.

No one is going to die from those scenarios and I generally don't think anyone is going to lose friends over it. But causing confusion, frustration, even a little bit of embarrassment when it's not necessary feels like a bad move overall.

You do not need a .5 for that. 2024 will do just that too, without the confusion about whether it is compatible with 5e adventures or whether new adventures are still compatible with 5e

Look, I can't take the idea that people are able to figure out exactly which spells and classes are going to be good going forwards on instinct but won't have it in them to figure out adventures (of all things) are going to be compatible. Of all the arguments to have, this is the worst.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

yes they are. Why do you think WotC keeps them compatible? So no one uses the 2014 versions afterwards?

So they can try to have their cake and eat it too: perform both necessary and optional maintenance (e.g., replacing the flawed Ranger stuff would be the former, making backgrounds give feats would be the latter), while at the same time never ever actually telling people that that's what they're doing, so no one gets spooked and/or upset by an edition change. That's what I meant when I said, above:

"Which, to me, is honestly the worst option (other than sticking with 'One D&D,' because of how openly corp-speak-y that is.) Because both things--5e (YEAR) and 'One D&D'--are holding up what seems, to me, like a blatantly false pretense on the hope that customers are sufficiently pliant and unquestioning to never actually think about said pretense."

The pretense is that nothing whatsoever is changing, carry on citizen, nothing to see here. That they can reap all the benefits of publishing a genuine replacement, something that overwrites the old, while at the same time never telling people that's what they're doing, because actually saying it would upset people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You do not need a .5 for that. 2024 will do just that too, without the confusion about whether it is compatible with 5e adventures or whether new adventures are still compatible with 5e

This is not just about adventures (unless you're WotC, apparently).

I asked earlier if there was a reason they're doing it this way that doesn't revolve around making more money. So far, the answer still appears to be "no".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Right. So, when most of the industry doesn't use the term the mean "a complete new system"...

Again: Why is the usage based on number of games printed, rather than on something like market share? Demonstrably, the WotC usage is extraordinarily common, and likely more widely used by the average TTRPGer, because the average TTRPGer got started with D&D (and, lamentably, rarely looks anywhere else.)