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

[Velderan]

"In some cases, you might find an older Subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in the playtest version of a Class. If we publish the new version of the Class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy."

They've said with this quote that it's not forward compatible.

The thing is you have to keep in mind DDB is a thing, so whatever way they publish to resolve issues between versions has to be something you can easily do using a couple drop-down box selections on their digital platform. The quote is valid sure, but I can't imagine the resolution to any issues that arise being complicated to fix given the play methods they're currently supporting.

 

[mamba]

So this is an argument that a single orc as currently written becomes CR 15(a challenge for a 15th level group) if they write a CR 15 into the stat block. Just keeping the CR the same number and then altering the power level of the monster does not a same CR make.

no, it is an argument that CR 1 means the same in 2014 as 2024. They are a challenge for the same party, which is why you can use the 2014 CR 1 version or the 2024 CR 1 for the same situation.

They remain of equal power (slight fixes to better reflect the CR aside) and chars remain of comparable power, ie the difference between 2014 and 2024 is no bigger than that within 2014 itself. Which also is why you can play pure 2014 alongside pure 2024 chars, or mix.

My position, as backed up factually by every edition WotC has made, is that they are incapable of accurately judging CR. Just because they leave a CR 15 with a monster that they've changed, does not mean that it has the same power level as it had in the 2014 rules.

not sure how that helps at all. CR 15 is not a spot, it is a range, and it remains the same range in 2024 as it is in 2014. The same monster from 2014 and 2024 can be interchanged, what more do you need to acknowledge that they are of comparable power? You just try your very best to cling to incompatibility, if that takes twisting what WotC says, so be it

You can buy the 2024 MM, play LMoP with new 2014 chars and replace all monsters in it with their 2024 counterparts and it works. That is what this means.
You can instead use the 2025 starter adventure (assuming there is one) with new 2014 chars and that too still works

 

[Remathilis]

Why is a company doing something for financially motivated reasons so offensive to you? Why is it such a bad idea that a company chooses to do something to make money? That is literally the reason businesses exist in the first place. If they don't make money, the go out of business and all of their employees loose there jobs.

Because in media parlance, "financially motivated" is often used as the foil to "artistically motivated" as a way of saying the property "sold out" and isn't for the fans, but for the money. You see examples of this all the time...

"D&D was about the love of the game before Hasbro bought them, ever since it's about the money."
"Star Wars was one man's movie passion project, but when Disney bought them, it's been about the money."
"Phases 1-3 of the MCU were about a creative vision, but with phase 4 Marvel only cares about the money."
"Metallica's greatest albums were before they got a radio hit. After that, they made pop-rock and only cared about the money."

Generally, it's a mixture of TrueScotsmanism, hipster scene cred, and nostalgia used to explain why something they loved now sucks. It sets up the dynamic that you are either the struggling artist following your passion, or the corporate overlord chasing market trends and never allows the notion that the artist might want to make money and the corporate overlord might actually care about its product.

 

[AnotherGuy]

CR 15 is not a spot, it is a range, and it remains the same range in 2024 as it is in 2014.

That would be disappointing, IMO.
I feel it would be better if they came out and just admitted the errors they made with their MM math at the higher levels.
I seem to recall a cheat sheet which came out for the MM math for 4e for MM1 & MM2. They at least acknowledged the problem then.

 

[Cruentus]

How is 5.5e more confusing about compatibility with 5e than One D&D which makes no reference to 5e at all?

Because isn't 5e a "fan made" nomenclature? I don't think WOTC ever named it "5e". The playtest was DnD Next. The community calls it 5e, and 3PP companies refer to 5e.

There is nothing on WOTC's website about 5e either. DDB and WOTC mention "Dungeons and Dragons", that's it. Nothing about editions, or anything.

So if they continue to follow that pattern, OneDnd will just become "Dungeons and Dragons." And people will buy and play with the new books, and forget about the old books, like they do every edition. Because its just easier. And new players won't care and will play the new edition. And old players, who still play "5e" will also pick up the new edition because its "official".

As someone (and a group of 50 somethings) who played 5e for several years, and stopped, and now play OSE, any desire for "backward compatibility" is nonexistent in our group. We don't care. Its super rare to actually use old material (classes, spells, etc.) in new editions, because we're using the "new edition." Everything else gets modified as needed for our homebrew settings anyway, even official stuff.

I personally, and my group, could care less what its ultimately called.

 

[Parmandur]

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

Even them, by normal publishing industry standards, there had been 4 typical editions of AD&D (ISBNs) prior to 3E, and the 1989 2E books were the third edition. Absurdity every direction.

 

[Parmandur]

That would be disappointing, IMO.
I feel it would be better if they came out and just admitted the errors they made with their MM math at the higher levels.
I seem to recall a cheat sheet which came out for the MM math for 4e for MM1 & MM2. They at least acknowledged the problem.

That's definitely what they are doing: they've actually switched to the new Monster style for new books for a while, they can be mixed and matched eaaily.

 

[Velderan]

Because isn't 5e a "fan made" nomenclature? I don't think WOTC ever named it "5e". The playtest was DnD Next. The community calls it 5e, and 3PP companies refer to 5e.

There is nothing on WOTC's website about 5e either. DDB and WOTC mention "Dungeons and Dragons", that's it. Nothing about editions, or anything.

The PHB does have the phrase fifth edition on the back cover. It may be somewhere else, I'd need to look when I get home but it's definitely there at least once.

 

[SteveC]

I guess this is where I'm utterly confused on the discourse. Why does if it is a new edition or not matter for if you buy the books?

I didn't buy Tasha's because it was a new edition of the game. I bought it because I wanted the rules in it, I liked the rules I saw previews of. I've bought Matt Colville's rules because I like them (even if I need to change them fairly consistently) not because they are official DnD 5e products.

So... why does the decision for buying the 2024 books rest on whether or not they are a new edition? Shouldn't it rest on whether or not you like the rule changes being presented and the direction they are going?

This is a good question: I bought the 5E rules to learn how to play the game. At this point, I have my 5E books put away while I'm actively playing a campaign. What I need are the character class rules, and they are online. I just leveled up the character I'm playing in Roll20 and I didn't need to crack a book.

When we get the next edition, if the rules are the same, I can play the old classes, and the new class material is online ... there's no need for me to pick up the books. That's the question I have: what's different and what's going to be the same? I initially thought there would be some significant rules changes to the game to prompt me to pick up the books. I'm still convinced we are going to see some of that, really, but WotC isn't showing much of that. Yet. If that's the case, I'd pick up those new books to learn the game. If that's not the case, if there aren't any significant changes to game play, buying the books is a harder sell for me. That's why it matters to me.

I still buy a fair number of rpg books and materials because I'm actively engaged with the hobby and care about it, not to mention having some friends who I can support by buying their books. Those are games I feel I have stakes in. I don't feel that same connection with WotC and haven't felt it for a while. In the past, new books would have been a no-brainer for me and I would have ignored this discussion. Now, I consider "do I need this to play the game? What am I getting for it?" And so I'm here discussing the edition.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I think people people are playing an interesting game here.

maybe you just don't like what we came up with... The only 'game' I want to play is D&D

People pretend to be confused about one thing that is cristal clear

no one is pretending... I said I could read it both ways but think I know the intent... then people attacked me for having the ability to understand the confusion.

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.

maybe you should look at what we actually are saying.

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.

except that isn't even remotely the same.
I have never played 1e. If you gave me a 1e sheet and no 1e book I bet I could figure out the basics.
MY buddy joined after 5e started, he could look at a 3e or 4e statement and get it.
the thing is you have to look at them as "NOT THE SAME" the problem comes in if you gave me a 1e sheet and wrote 5e on it and told me it was based on the 5e PHB I would NOT be looking for similar and different I would be working off the (faulty) assumption that it was 5e.

when I am told "This is a new edition" then yeah warlock cantrip doesn't mean what it did in 5e. When I am told it is "the same edition" it is SUPER easy to miss read those cantrips.

I really assue everyone here is capable of understanding the difference or sameness.

and I assure you that you are miss understanding what we are telling you.