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

[Umbran]

I don't have to discredit anyone. ...

It's just the same old song and dance from people ...

Mod note:
Check that again, please. So, you don't have to, but you're doing it anyway?

How about you stop talking about your personal assessments of people's motives, please and thanks.

You didn't have to. You could have just not posted, but then you just had to come in this the 'they're not REAL fans' junk anyway.

Look, I get it, but since you don't have authority to back this up, it is best engaging in a posturing ego-display. This lands somewhere between chest-thumping and outright bullying. So how about you stand down, now, okay? Thanks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

except they have to update them in someway, at least for the classes that change what level they get subclass features at.

They really don’t. They just have to bake into 2024 how you determine what subclass feature levels work. I’d bet it’s mostly just “when you class tells you to gain a subclass feature, you do so”.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm pretty sure that someone looking at a 4e character sheet would have some difficulty being able to parse it without reading the 4e rules. If all you knew was 3e, or 2e for that matter, a 4e character sheet is pretty different. And I say that as someone who is a massive fan of 4e. Going from 3e to 5e, where's your Touch AC? Flat Footed AC? What is your Fortitude saving throw? What do you roll when someone drops a fireball on your PC?


I would absolutely LOVE to leave this alone. But, it comes up EVERY FREAKING week. Every time WotC makes even a whisper of an announcement, the same comments come out of the woodwork over and over and over again. Every time I try to engage with the playtest, I have to wade through the cess pit of vitriol of people constantly piddling in the pool. Every change is a catastrophe. Every word from anyone who is even tangentially connected to WotC is a bald faced lie.

It's been FIFTEEN YEARS of this. Aren't you folks tired of it by now?

Would you feel that way if you weren't a huge fan of 4e? If you weren't feeling generally positive about the changes WotC has made in recent years and moving forward to 5e? Your irritation with public commentary, I suspect, has a lot to do with you liking what you're currently getting. Other people don't, or are at least unsure. We all deserve respect for our feelings and concerns, whether you think so or not.

 

[Remathilis]

wait so you agree we need a name for the edition?

There are 22 different versions of Street Fighter 2 alone. If each one was a new edition, Capcom would be releasing Street Fighter 40 this week. A name =/= edition.

That said, if WotC didn't call 5e "D&D Next" despite using that code word all through the playtest. They called it Dungeons & Dragons. One D&D will follow suit. They aren't going to give it a surname or moniker nor an edition number because they want to keep continuity with the previous edition (something they didn't want with Next).

A name will be given eventually by the community, but I don't see any reason for WotC to do it. Much like the Basic debate above, every change does need acknowledgement as a new edition.

 

[Parmandur]

so then why change it if it isn't a difference?

Because the restriction of which ability gets the bonus was unnecessarilyrestricting, and tying it to Species was problematic.

so if I take a +10 to my str that is the same as a +1?

No, the number matters, but which Ability gets the bonus does not. +1 Stregnth is the same difference as +1 Intelligence, or Constitution, or Dexterity, or Charisma, or Wisdom. Changing from "you have to get +2 in this and +1 in that" to "choose a +2 in whatever you want, and + 1 in a different Ability" are mathematically identical in terms of game function. The older model was fluff holding mechanics back.

How would you play 5e with no race and no class?

Species and Class are juat bundles of features. One could make a 5E compatible game that is pure point buy like GURPS (people have reverse engineered how WotC costs features), but the bundles are helpful to avoid traps and help people get started.

 

[Parmandur]

They really don’t. They just have to bake into 2024 how you determine what subclass feature levels work. I’d bet it’s mostly just “when you class tells you to gain a subclass feature, you do so”.

Yeah, a sidebar or two isn't a dealbreaker.

 

[Emberashh]

But, it comes up EVERY FREAKING week.

Then don't engage with it?

You can lament your asserted assessment of peoples motivations but at the end of the day continuing to engage means you're enjoying the topic for one reason or another.

Speaking for myself, I don't have an issue admitting I enjoy arguing on the internet. Ive been at it for nearly as long as there's been an internet and its the core reason why I wasn't bullied out of my topic on Rests; people aggressively disagreeing with me isn't a cause for me to start acting like Im under some egregious burden.

But there's a dearth of topics I don't post in, namely because they don't interest me, but theres more than a few I don't bother with precisely because I dislike the particular conversation on principle.

I don't go into those topics, though, and start complaining about disliking the very concept of whatever the topic is.

 

[SteveC]

I think one big problem with discussing what/if this is a new edition comes from the history of the game where a new edition can mean very different things. I've written that I think so far this is a ".5" edition, but I was discussing with some old grognard friends who pointed out second edition to me.

I call it a .5 edition because the core rules of D20 + proficiency versus a target and bounded accuracy are still in place. The "core rules" of the game are staying mostly the same as far as what I've seen. What is changing, to a varying degree are classes and spells. And that kind of summarized 3.0-->3.5 very well. But, it also describes AD&D1 to AD&D2 as well. The core rules of play really didn't change that much but classes were tweaked and added or removed too. I would call 2E a sort of 1.5 E as well, but TSR didn't.

I think it's fair to say that then next D&D will be as different from 5E as both of those editions were, so you can be correct to call it either way. Unless you're saying the final and only authority on what an edition is ... is whatever the publisher says, I don't see how you can call it the same edition.

Why does this matter? It's because a lot of us are considering whether or not we're buying new books. Ironically, for me, the people who are saying "it's the same!" are also the ones most on board with the changes. They're making the argument for me not buying new books, and that doesn't fit with what they seem to want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think one big problem with discussing what/if this is a new edition comes from the history of the game where a new edition can mean very different things. I've written that I think so far this is a ".5" edition, but I was discussing with some old grognard friends who pointed out second edition to me.

I call it a .5 edition because the core rules of D20 + proficiency versus a target and bounded accuracy are still in place. The "core rules" of the game are staying mostly the same as far as what I've seen. What is changing, to a varying degree are classes and spells. And that kind of summarized 3.0-->3.5 very well. But, it also describes AD&D1 to AD&D2 as well. The core rules of play really didn't change that much but classes were tweaked and added or removed too. I would call 2E a sort of 1.5 E as well, but TSR didn't.

I think it's fair to say that then next D&D will be as different from 5E as both of those editions were, so you can be correct to call it either way. Unless you're saying the final and only authority on what an edition is ... is whatever the publisher says, I don't see how you can call it the same edition.

Why does this matter? It's because a lot of us are considering whether or not we're buying new books. Ironically, for me, the people who are saying "it's the same!" are also the ones most on board with the changes. They're making the argument for me not buying new books, and that doesn't fit with what they seem to want.

Those two groups (those who don't see this as any sort of edition change and those who are generally positive about the changes we've seen and are seeing) do seem to have a lot of overlap.

 

[codo]

I doubt it... it's rolld20 add mod compaire to DC, it has attacks skills and the same stats.
what on a 4e sheet looks diffrent? I guess bloodied value and Healing Surge Value?

how?

it has saving throws just different labels on them... I bet ANYONE looking for what to roll against a fire ball and doesn't see Ref save but sees Dex save can figure that out.

15 years? of the playtest? what am I tired of? I upgraded from 3.5 to 4 to 5? now I am considering updating to the new one, but I think not giving it a proper label makes that upgrade harder?

If you had only played 1 of those 3 editions and had no idea how the others worked, there is no way you would just figure it out.
Look at casting a fireball in the 3 editions.

In 3.5 creatures are making a reflex saving throw against you spell DC(Scaling with the level of the spell slot used).

In 4 you make an attack roll vs a creatures reflex save.

In 5 creatures make a dexterity saving throw vs your spell DC(Scaling with your total casting level)

There is no way players are just going to intuitive understand the difference between the editions.