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

[Maxperson]

Actually, no it wouldn't. the 3.5 e version of Wish has an Xp cost. There is no corresponding mechanic for that in 5e.

The game would still work. 5e isn't going to break if I introduce an XP cost.

And the xp tables are completely different. A 5000 xp cost in 3.5 is completely different than the same cost in 5e.

Which is perfect! You use wish very sparingly rather than risking the loss of ever being able to cast it again. I'd much rather have the xp cost than the weakness and risk of loss of the wish spell.

Additionally, 3.5 Wish that duplicates spells invokes the 3.5 Spell Resistance which doesn't exist in 5e.

How? It would only be able to duplicate 5e spells and none of them use that mechanic.

Additionally, any effect created by a 3.5 Wish that had a saving throw would be incompatible with the 5e rules, since you can't calculate the DC and the saving throw values flat out don't exist in 5e. There is no comparable Will save in 5e.

The DC and save wouldn't use 3.5 rules. Only the how wish functions. Since it can only duplicate 5e spells since I only introduced wish, only 5e DCs and saves would be used.

What is the xp cost to create a magic item in 5e? After all, a 3e Wish allows me to create magic items at double the XP cost.

That can also be paid out of the 5e class without breaking the game. I'm guessing that players wouldn't opt to use that ability, but they could.

So, flat out no, you can't play a 3.5 wizard using 3.5 spells in 5e. It actually won't work.

Sure I could. I'd have to do a little bit of work, just like I will if I want to use 2014 classes with the 2024 rules, but it's easily doable without breaking the game. The game would in fact not halt if I introduced a 3.5 wizard. It would continue on which = "would still work."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I guess you like insulting people

Ok. That came over wrong. Sorry.

I think people people are playing an interesting game here.
People pretend to be confused about one thing that is cristal clear but then claim that other things are not confusing at all, just to prove their point of view about what is compatible and what is an edition change.

So if anyone can figure out that Reflex Safe and Dexterity Safe is more or less the same, the same people could figure out that Warlock Cantrip of UA arcana is different than Warlock cantrip of 2014 PHB.
I really assue everyone here is capable of understanding the difference or sameness.

 

[delericho]

It is 5.5e. The One D&D gimmick they are using in an attempt to avoid the stigma of a half edition isn't something I'm going to entertain. I will be referring to it as 5.5e from here on out, regardless.

That's your prerogative, of course.

However, it's worth noting that the "half edition" nomenclature was itself a gimmick used to avoid the stigma of releasing a new edition so soon after 3e launched.

Not to mention that "3e" itself is something of a nonsense - there were at least four previous editions of D&D, and that doesn't count the two editions of AD&D (which, for legal reasons, were an absolutely and completely different game...).

Basically, those who say that "edition" has been abused into uselessness have a point.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's your prerogative, of course.

However, it's worth noting that the "half edition" nomenclature was itself a gimmick used to avoid the stigma of releasing a new edition so soon after 3e launched.

Not to mention that "3e" itself is something of a nonsense - there were at least four previous editions of D&D, and that doesn't count the two editions of AD&D (which, for legal reasons, were an absolutely and completely different game...).

Basically, those who say that "edition" has been abused into uselessness have a point.

3rd edition was an iteration of AD&D. So i can see why they called it 3e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is 5.5e.

No. It is 5.463e

You might round up to 5.5e though.

 

[delericho]

3rd edition was an iteration of AD&D. So i can see why they called it 3e.

I can entirely understand why they went with that name.

It's just not technically correct. And as Futurama reminds us, that's the best kind of correct.

 

[Hussar]

That's your prerogative, of course.

However, it's worth noting that the "half edition" nomenclature was itself a gimmick used to avoid the stigma of releasing a new edition so soon after 3e launched.

Not to mention that "3e" itself is something of a nonsense - there were at least four previous editions of D&D, and that doesn't count the two editions of AD&D (which, for legal reasons, were an absolutely and completely different game...).

Basically, those who say that "edition" has been abused into uselessness have a point.

This is a good point. 3e was replaced after 2 years. And it was replaced because sales had absolutely tanked.

They couldn’t call it 4e because that would mean admithow badly they had screwed up with 3e and people were still pretty unhappy with how things had gone after 2e had been completely replaced.

The situation now really is entirely different. Heck this is actually unprecedented that they are doing any sort of revision of the rules which isn’t being driven by the fact that they would go bankrupt if they didn’t start selling phb’s again.

In other words, this is the first rules revision that isn’t being 100% driven by desperation.

 

[HammerMan]

Gygax was quoted as saying "to save 2.5 percent they wrecked the company",

Did 2e take any kind of hit in sales? I was under the impression that 2e did well?

 

[HammerMan]

D&D naming conventions have never been consistant for 50 years. What ever name they choose will cause some confusion, because they have never used the same system twice.

Again I can’t imagine many people who think “it is still 5e” is misleading would say the same if it was 5.5 or 5e essential or 5e red or 5e Felix.

My understanding (and my issue) is not “they didn’t name it what I wanted” it s “we need a break from the 2014 PHB so people understand it isn’t exactly the same.

Honestly just sticking with 5e is probably going to cause the least amount of confusion of any name they could choose.

Cause having 2 PHBs with different race(not even race anymore) background class and feats BUT having them share the same name is better?!?

Calling it 5.5, or 6e, or what ever else they could come up with, would actually cause more confusion and lead people to believe that the old 5e adventures are not compatible with the new version.

Why?

 

[HammerMan]

it’s a new edition.

Yes it is (from what we have seen)

Eventually it starts to come across as simply a very strong negative confirmation bias.

Both sides seem to suffer from “no matter what I am right”