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

[SteveC]

The PF Remasters certainly feel an awful lot like 2.5e to me. Just as the 2024 D&D books feel an awful lot like 5.5e. YMMV, of course.

I just wanted to mention this: I think that the Remaster is very much a 2.5 and it gets further and further as we learn more about it. I play PF2 and ... this doesn't make me happy. I'm involved in a lot of discussion about this other places and there are a ton of PF2 fans who want to burn all the bridges they can with D&D. That isn't me, and I think there are a lot of PF players in the same boat. The removal of spell schools is a big deal to me because that's a bridge between the games that I enjoy, and one that makes it easier for me to sell to my players. And don't get me started on Drow.

I have posted a fair bit about not being happy on the next edition plans for D&D but Paizo has managed to use up a lot of my good will and interest with them too.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

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.

if they give the orc more HP and more to hit is it the same CR?

 

[Maxperson]

they are not calling it One D&D, that is the name of the playtest. The published books simply are revised 5e core books

I know, but they can't leave it at 5e and if it doesn't have a 5 in it, like say 5.5e, then it will be as confusing as One D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

How does that fix pen and paper, though? The whole player base isn't going digital, so they need to fix both.

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.

Sure. I never said it would be complicated, just that if they have to fix it so that we need the 2024 rules to run the class/subclass, it's not forward compatible.

 

[Azzy]

I know, but they can't leave it at 5e and if it doesn't have a 5 in it, like say 5.5e, then it will be as confusing as One D&D.

I dunno. Hero System had a 5e and a revised 5e and there was no mass confusion.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Then you're saying that WotC is great at calculating CR? Because their entire history including 5e speaks volumes against that position.

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.

This isn't something you can say with confidence. If they are making changes, the power levels will change as well.

 

[Velderan]

How does that fix pen and paper, though? The whole player base isn't going digital, so they need to fix both.

Sure. I never said it would be complicated, just that if they have to fix it so that we need the 2024 rules to run the class/subclass, it's not forward compatible.

Pen and paper will always have the advantage over digital since you can just write whatever you want on your sheet, so going by that assumption anything that can quickly be distilled down to a couple drop box options in the digital platform shouldn't be hard to figure out what to write on your sheet IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes it is (from what we have seen)

It’s petulant, childish, and rude, to take someone’s words and make them say the opposite of what the person used them to say. Please don’t do this with me again.

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

No. Only one side is doing this.

 

[zedturtle]

I know, but they can't leave it at 5e and if it doesn't have a 5 in it, like say 5.5e, then it will be as confusing as One D&D.

We have known for a long while now that '2024 Player's Handbook' and '2014 Player's Handbook' will be the official messaging.

Sure, Paizo just showed how it is done with much better communication about what is happening, but for the majority of folks in 2024, D&D will be what they bought at the store (or the flea market or the website) and they won't care

 

[mamba]

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.

they probably will refine the encounter building rules a bit, but as far as CR is concerned this is it, because anything else would break compatibility.

I’d prefer a fixed encounter logic too, but they won’t create it for 1DD if it breaks compatibility.