Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[Emberashh]

No. I called tasha and so on band aids. Probably I misunderstood you that you said you wanted just a compilation of previous changes.

One would hope that by rolling the supplements into the core that they would be updated and corrected for their own issues.

While one could easily assume that that isn't what would happen, as far as the hypothetical goes its what you'd want to do. Update everything and consolidate into a spiffy box set, make bonkers moneys. Its a win all around.

I am not even sure you agree with that… or we have a very different understanding of what a genuine update is

If there is no deprecation, it is by definition not an update.

then why do you hound me for acknowledging that?

Im not the one making you keep replying to this topic. Im also not the one ignoring big problems when they don't suit my arguments that there are no problems.

So flip your script, if a DM was only using the UA spellless ranger and you just wanted to play the bog-standard PHB one, what should happen?

Do keep in mind that in this case its the DM imposing this on the game, not WOTC. Key difference.

There are, in fact, already DMs who only play with the core books and nothing else. These DMs are few and far between for a reason, so assuming that becUzw DMs can pick and choose what books will go into their games that this will have any bearing on the fact that there will be two separate games worth of books is just faulty.

After all, while I wasn't there for it, Ive read stories about the nightmare that was 3e when it came to book selection.

Its one thing to have that when all those books, at least for some of its life, all comprise one edition and one single ruleset. Its another when you have all those books and they comprise two entirely separate games, one of which is a well known and well quantified unbalanced mess.

 

[Maxperson]

There will be issues. The question is if they will be so egregious as to render previous material unusable. Of course things won't be 100% compatible. No one is claiming that because for it to be true they would have to reprint the 2014 books verbatim. Not everything will fit together perfectly, but it will fit together well enough to be usable, unlike my massive collection of 3e, 4e, and AD&D books which can only be used as inspiration.

Right now, I don't foresee a problem with allowing a warforged artificer from RftLW in a game using the 24 PHB. Some adjustments will be made, but it's far more doable than trying to make a 4e warlord work.

I don't think the bar is "so egregious as to render the previous material unusable." With enough effort you can make even that 3e, 4e and AD&D stuff usable. The bar is "does it require more work for me than I'm willing to put in?" If the answer to that for enough people is yes, then there will be major compatibility issues.

And birds are totally not real.

Are too!

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

They can exist concurrently because WotC designs them that way.

in these threads I have been told that
A) these are improvements that are needed, and the warlock not useing short rest and the druid and the ranger overall improvements are all needed to keep the game going
AND
B) these classes do not replace the old ones you can use the old ones next to the new ones.
AND
C) you can intermix feats spells and race/backgrounds
AND
D) you can't intermix feats spells and race

do you understand now how it is both a new edition and not a new edition makes this confuseing?

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

because the continuation is the 2024 Warlock

that doesn't work with the 2014 one it replaces it... like a new edition

 

[Maxperson]

they will, not everywhere and not all at once, but they will.

But...

 

[Emberashh]

I think it bears repeating that thus far, only one person has expressed a specific reason to be resistant to the idea that this a new edition.

@Remathilis point about not wanting to start all over again is a good argument for not wanting this to be a new edition, but the things he points out are things I think are just missteps, and why I suggested the update-and-consolidate box. Instead of making people wait for things to be republished, roll them into the core game, that way, if nothing else, any future supplements will be genuinely brand new rather than rehashes of old content that should have just been core.

Plus, has to be said WOTC is already violating this by not including the Artificer as a core class, and I wouldn't be surprised if theres other examples.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Prior to Tasha, I used the UA ranger for a while. I got no problem replacing things that don't work.

The UA Ranger was the canary, honestly. They flirted with the idea of making a major change (One I felt was needed) and got cold feet. Wish they had pulled the trigger on some of those revisions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So flip your script, if a DM was only using the UA spellless ranger and you just wanted to play the bog-standard PHB one, what should happen?

I'd try to talk my DM into it if it mattered to me, and abide by whatever they decide. It's their game after all.

 

[mamba]

Im not the one making you keep replying to this topic.

I was specifically referring to the quote that followed, where you essentially said that me calling what I say a guess is an excuse.
That was not a generic ‘why do you reply to me’…

Im also not the one ignoring big problems when they don't suit my arguments that there are no problems.

yes, you do the opposite of that, you blow everything up to major problems and ignore anything about why they are not

 

[mamba]

in these threads I have been told that
A) these are improvements that are needed, and the warlock not useing short rest and the druid and the ranger overall improvements are all needed to keep the game going
AND
B) these classes do not replace the old ones you can use the old ones next to the new ones.
AND

none of this has anything to do with whether they are designed to be compatible

C) you can intermix feats spells and race/backgrounds
AND
D) you can't intermix feats spells and race

do you understand now how it is both a new edition and not a new edition makes this confuseing?

that just means we are operating from incomplete information and try to fill in the gaps. I expect this to be clear once we have a full 1D&D and not just variations of bits and pieces as they get tested

 

[mamba]

that doesn't work with the 2014 one it replaces it... like a new edition

they work alongside each other, the 2014 one was not replaced, that decision is yours to make

 

[Emberashh]

yes, you do the opposite of that, you blow everything up to major problems and ignore anything about why they are not

Case in point, pretending I (and others) haven't exhaustively engaged with every single word you've said in this topic.

 

[billd91]

You fix problems by making a new edition that fixes problems, not by making a half replacement, half confusing splatbook with different versions of the same-named things, including all the classes and the title, but still telling people they can use the fixed and un-fixed versions at the same time. That is marketing, not design.

That depends on the extent of or severity of the problems. If none of them are particularly severe, it's hardly necessary to spawn off a new edition if updates will do the trick (and yes, that includes not sweating it when using fixed and unfixed version at the same time).

 

[Umbran]

When you spend 20+ years arguing on the internet you get a pretty good knack for asessing how people will behave based on how they communicate.

You may think its insulting, but all that indicates to me is a guilty conscience.

Mod Note:
After all the warnings to not make things personal going on around here, we expect you to understand you shouldn't do this.

You are done in this discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

It's worse than that, TSR made a dog's lunch of it before WotC ever got involved: twice versions of D&D predate "First Efition," and by normal publishing parlance, the 1989 books were the third typical edition of simply AD&D (the 1E refresh involved enough changes that they warranted a new ISBN, hence being a second edition). 2E was really the third, and 3E was really the fifth.

There was no edition of AD&D that predated 1e. 1e was the first such edition. So 2e was in fact the second edition of AD&D, and 3e being built off of 2e was the third, though it dropped the "advanced" portion from the name.

Basic was a separate version of the game, not an edition prior to 1e. It ran concurrently with 1e and 2e.

 

[mamba]

Case in point, pretending I (and others) haven't exhaustively engaged with every single word you've said in this topic.

likewise. You are not objectively correct, no matter how much you think you are. You just have a different opinion

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure, but "as much compatibility as possible" doesn't necessarily mean backwards compatibility will be achieved. This is a truly binary thing. Either you achieve the backwards compatibility or you don't.

See. We had this discussion before. And I disagree here. I don't want to derail this thread. Lets say, I am ok with 90% backwards compatibility and the ability to emulate the remaining 10%.

 

[Umbran]

Whoa there now. Wouldn't want someone to come along and harangue you for three days and 17 pages accusing you of calling Mighty WotC liars.

Mod Note:
However justified you may feel it is, this is not constructive. This is pretty clearly willfully targeted to annoy people. That's not acceptable.

Another person removed from the discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That depends on the extent of or severity of the problems. If none of them are particularly severe, it's hardly necessary to spawn off a new edition if updates will do the trick (and yes, that includes not sweating it when using fixed and unfixed version at the same time).

Severity is just as relative a word as "tweak".

 

[Maxperson]

balance is not that different between 5e and 1DD that this will actually matter.

If they don't change 5.5e significantly enough to get the vast majority of players to buy the new books, they are making a colossal business blunder by doing this. If they do change it that much, compatibility is going to be a significant issue. You can't leave it pretty much the same so that you can mix and match as you please, and still have enough incentive to make the money that Hasbro needs WotC to make.

Why would I bother to buy any new books?