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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
We’ve seen no evidence that they are going to revise any non-PHB subclasses. Those books aren’t outdated. 🤷‍♂️
Other than the levels at which you gain features now being wrong, but to be fair I'm sure they'll provide guidance for that.

Also, I think its reasonable to expect that many of those supplement subclasses will be revised in future books. Those supplements will become "outdated" eventually. They did the same in the 3.0 - 3.5 spectrum (although there they did call out the edition change).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
No, I really wouldn't. These are just minor changes. Instead of getting X at level Y, you now get it at level Z. It's exactly the same mechanically. You STILL get X. These aren't major revisions. Anyone looking at a 2014 character sheet and then looking at a 2024 character sheet would have any problem understanding anything on that sheet. Nothing. So you get a +1 to a stat instead of a +2 (or whatever). The point is, you are still raising a stat. It's not like you're getting a completely new stat (like Comeliness - oh, right, we're not supposed to call that an edition change. Or breaking up all the stats into two categories. That's not an edition change.)


No. I don't think so. Why should I respect this opinion that is obviously just ludicrous on its face? It's typical edition war naughty word that we've seen get trotted out over and over and over again every single time WotC tries to do something that is even remotely "new". So, no. Fifteen years of the same tired old arguments doesn't warrant a whole lot of respect anymore.
I'm trying to be the bigger person here. The fact that an opinion has been felt for a long time doesn't make it any more or less valid. Just insulting how someone feels about something isn't helpful in discussion, at least not as far as I can tell. If you don't think these differences matter, that's fine. Other people do.
 

My logic is that if you took everything being changed out of the game entirely, no replacements or return to 2014, you don't have a game. 5e without all these things that are changing isn't playable in any meaningful fashion.

Whatevers left in the wake of this hypothetical removal may indeed be identical between the two, but neither represents the playable game. Ergo, that they are identical has zero bearing on whether or not the two versions are merely revisions or outright editions.

But, the degree to which what has changed changes does, and at that point continuing to argue over it is just negotiating for who gets to be right. The changes in 1DND go beyond errata, and as noted, the fundamentals have no bearing on this, ergo, new edition.

And even besides that, ultimately 1DND is going to represent a new baseline for modern DND, and that alone is going to put it as the separate equal of all the others we recognize as outright editions.
 


Hussar

Legend
I guess, at the end of the day, it depends on whether you view a game as finished after it's published, or ongoing. I've never viewed D&D as "complete". It changes and shifts from book to book, campaign to campaign. There are FAR more differences between one table and the next table than there are between the 2014 PHB and the 2024 PHB. If you play Theater of the Mind, or if you play on a battlemat will have a much greater impact on the game than whether you get some power at 2nd level or you get it at 3rd. There are thousands of things that impact how the game is played.

As I said, comparing two tables, one that uses only the core 3 from 2014 to another table that uses all the supplements from the past 9 years to a third table that uses not only those supplements but also a half a dozen non-WotC books as well and it's laughable to claim that they are all playing the same "edition".

The tempest in the teacup really, really needs to go away.
 

Pedantic

Legend
No, I really wouldn't. These are just minor changes. Instead of getting X at level Y, you now get it at level Z. It's exactly the same mechanically. You STILL get X. These aren't major revisions. No one looking at a 2014 character sheet and then looking at a 2024 character sheet would have any problem understanding anything on that sheet. Nothing. So you get a +1 to a stat instead of a +2 (or whatever). The point is, you are still raising a stat. It's not like you're getting a completely new stat (like Comeliness - oh, right, we're not supposed to call that an edition change. Or breaking up all the stats into two categories. That's not an edition change.)
By this logic, 3.5 isn't sufficiently distinct from 3e to deserve calling out, and it really was the book of errata and minor updates it was originally announced as being. Or is it the adjustments to skills that would really be the line, as that's really all that's left (facing and changes to concealment maybe?) that you could otherwise call out.

I think the general premise is that this is more than errata or a new optional book, so it's got to be something, and there's a pretty established language for what that is. I don't think "5e 2024" is easier to say than 5.5, so my money is on the last one sticking.
 

No, I really wouldn't. These are just minor changes. Instead of getting X at level Y, you now get it at level Z. It's exactly the same mechanically. You STILL get X. These aren't major revisions. No one looking at a 2014 character sheet and then looking at a 2024 character sheet would have any problem understanding anything on that sheet. Nothing. So you get a +1 to a stat instead of a +2 (or whatever). The point is, you are still raising a stat. It's not like you're getting a completely new stat (like Comeliness - oh, right, we're not supposed to call that an edition change. Or breaking up all the stats into two categories. That's not an edition change.)

That's an interesting definition. I would say that the classes work distinctly differently given that you have things like integrated feats and other such things. Plus the classes differences feel stark in some cases: someone who is going from a 2014 Warlock to a 2024 Warlock will be able to figure out how the class works, but the class is fundamentally different.

I mean, certainly someone moving from 3.0 to 3.5 would know how the system works, but they still made a bunch of changes and put a decimal behind it because of the breadth of the changes. That's largely how I see 1D&D: most of the systems aren't changing as much as there are a lot of modifications around them. Combat isn't really changing, but how the classes interact with combat might.
 

Hussar

Legend
Even if that were so, it throws a monkey wrench in your attempt to discredit those who disagree with you.
I don't have to discredit anyone. They're doing a perfectly bang up job of it themselves. I mean, in this thread alone I've seen claims that 4e and 4e Essentials were effectively new editions. Which was completely false, you absolutely could play those and you were SUPPOSED to play those, side by side. Claims that D&D has always "clearly" marked edition a also easily disproven - BECMI is a perfect example. Never minding things like Unearthed Arcana (1e) and Players Option (2e). Or repeated claims that WotC is being dishonest or misleading, also quite prevalent in this thread, just like it is EVERY SINGLE TIME this gets brought up.

So, no, there's no monkey and there's no wrench. It's just the same old song and dance from people who've already decided that they want nothing to do with WOtC and just want to grind that axe just a little bit more and piddle in the pool so that no one else can possibly enjoy something that they don't like.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top