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

[TwoSix]

And DR. 3.5 cut DR in half and got rid of specific +s needed to bypass it. That was pretty major. Spell duration changes were also pretty large.

I always found the DR change to be pretty minor. I used both types of DR, depending on what book I was sourcing the monster from. Sometimes I used them both in the same fight!

The spell duration change was a decent sized change, for sure, but it was trivial to implement and didn't impact character building. At worst, it shifted the meta on the spells' overall utility.

 

[Maxperson]

I always found the DR change to be pretty minor. I used both types of DR, depending on what book I was sourcing the monster from. Sometimes I used them both in the same fight!

Holy hell. That sounds nasty.

The spell duration change was a decent sized change, for sure, but it was trivial to implement and didn't impact character building. At worst, it shifted the meta on the spells' overall utility.

Fair enough. I guess we value the changes differently.

 

[TwoSix]

So basically, you just like the current nomenclature better than the old way? Can't argue personal preference i suppose.

I'm pretty agnostic about the nomenclature. If you want to call it "5.36 revised for 2024", go for it.

Right now, I just don't see a lot of the new material that's particularly worth the cost of the book(s), which is my only real concern.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm pretty agnostic about the nomenclature. If you want to call it "5.36 revised for 2024", go for it.

Right now, I just don't see a lot of the new material that's particularly worth the cost of the book(s), which is my only real concern.

 T hat I fully understand.

 

[codo]

So basically, you just like the current nomenclature better than the old way? Can't argue personal preference i suppose.

The preference for a .5 edition is also personal preference. The difference is those of arguing against a .5 edition aren't accusing WotC of lying and trying to trick us.

If you think 5.5 is a better name, fine, I am not going to ague with someone about their personal preference. Where I have a problem is when people are accusing WotC of dishonesty and being manipulative just because they chose a different name than the one they prefer. That is just toxic and poisons the discussion here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The preference for a .5 edition is also personal preference. The difference is those of arguing against a .5 edition aren't accusing WotC of lying and trying to trick us.

If you think 5.5 is a better name, fine, I am not going to ague with someone about their personal preference. Where I have a problem is when people are accusing WotC of dishonesty and being manipulative just because they chose a different name than the one they prefer. That is just toxic and poisons the discussion here.

You have no reason to accuse WotC of anything, because you and those on your side are generally getting what they want. People usually don't complain about a result that favors their preferences.

 

[Maxperson]

The preference for a .5 edition is also personal preference. The difference is those of arguing against a .5 edition aren't accusing WotC of lying and trying to trick us.

If you think 5.5 is a better name, fine, I am not going to ague with someone about their personal preference. Where I have a problem is when people are accusing WotC of dishonesty and being manipulative just because they chose a different name than the one they prefer. That is just toxic and poisons the discussion here.

WotC has a long history of dishonesty up to and including the recent OGL debacle. I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on things. If/when they go for a number of years without being dishonest, I will start giving them the benefit again.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You have no reason to accuse WotC of anything, because you and those on your side are generally getting what they want. People usually don't complain about a result that favors their preferences.

But if we are speaking of preferences, WotC is not lying. They are just not using your preferred words. That is a difference.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

WotC has a long history of dishonesty up to and including the recent OGL debacle. I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on things. If/when they go for a number of years without being dishonest, I will start giving them the benefit again.

That is a fallacious conclusion. They were lying once, now they are lying too.
It is ok to not trust every word if you found yourself betrayed by them recently. But that does not make a certain statement a lie.

 

[Maxperson]

That is a fallacious conclusion. They were lying once, now they are lying too.
It is ok to not trust every word if you found yourself betrayed by them recently. But that does not make a certain statement a lie.

It's not unfounded, though. They are claiming backwards compatibility, but the changes we've seen will require effort(maybe not a lot) on our part to mesh the two versions. That's not backwards compatibility. There's reason for my doubt here.