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

[mamba]

Fun. Now we're pretending that wanting a clear delineation of iteration of the game is 'tearing down' -- another poplar means of attack.

Not even mad, just disappointed at the transparency.

hey, I consider transparency a good thing

And no, I did in no way say that ‘wanting a clear delineation of iteration of the game is 'tearing down'’. What I am saying is that I do feel some people complain just to tear down. They would find something else if it weren’t this.

 

[Emberashh]

I can rule out the trying part for you. I never try to obfuscate anything, it is not helpful


agenda has a negative connotation to me, that is why I preferred the word goal here. I did not disagree with what their intent is, it obviously is that


and if this were an objective evaluation I’d have no problem with that. Then we can discuss why you think it differs (not that we need to). It’s when it is not that it turns into an agenda.

I am not convinced that everyone here is just to the best of their ability evaluating what WotC says and comparing it against the playtest. I think some have other motives or may simply be upset about the OGL still and now try to ‘get back’ at WotC

I think assigning ulterior motives to the posters here is just a cynical way of saying "no u" to the people you think are assigning ulterior motives to WOTC.

 

[mamba]

so are we complety abandoning the 'don't make it personal' and the 'address the argument not the poster' so we can read minds and assign agendas to one another?

This was not directed at a particular poster, so I do not see it as personal.

Is saying something like ‘some people believe X’ personal? To me it is not

 

[mamba]

I think assigning ulterior motives to the posters here is just a cynical way of saying "no u" to the people you think are assigning ulterior motives to WOTC.

maybe I am a bit jaded in this, I do not mean to imply that everyone is, but if there are the same 5 guys complaining about everything WotC does in every single thread, whether it fits or not, then I have a hard time viewing them as objective

 

[OB1]

It's not only that, though. It's this:

1) You will be able to purchase and run the 5e Adventures with no work to convert.
2) You can use old monsters alongside new ones.
3) You can play exclusively 2014 characters at the same table as exclusively 2024 ones.
4) You can mix-and-match 2014 & 2024 PC options. IF you (and your DM) are willing to do the "work" to convert whatever mismatches occur. They have explicitly said two things on this subject: A) Before press, they will do a final review of the 2024 rules with an eye on compatibility. This means that they will look to see if the new version is adding anything of substance, and if it is not, or if it is too confusing for no real gain, they will revert to 2014 versions. B) They will print side-bars on how to make any necessary conversions that remain.

The only thing a table needs to decide is if they can handle 4, or if they feel that it will be too open to exploitation, at which point, your DM can simply not allow it; which is essentially the same thing that happens any time that there is errata or splatbooks anyhow. Maybe this will be a little more complicated than that, but I don't think it will be by more than a degree or two, tops.

Exactly this.

As for changes to the rules themselves (like the Search action or condition changes or the proposed and dropped new Crit Rules or Exhaustion Rules) I'm guessing that will be a DM decision as to what the entire table uses. But we're already seeing many of the core rule changes dropped in later UAs, and I'm betting even the ones they keep will end up being options in the DMG rather than core rules in the PHB. Heck, I've already implemented the no monster crit rule (they auto recharge abilities on a 20 instead) in my latest campaign, and have thought to change to the new exhaustion rule (but haven't because it doesn't implement easily on DDB & Roll20).

 

[Emberashh]

, but if there are the same 5 guys complaining about everything

This was not directed at a particular poster,

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I'm not attacking anyone.

okay good I am glad I misread it then (and even more glad I didn't report it)

I'm stating an observation that there are some people who are doing exactly what I said. (My observation includes the umbrage and hate that can be seen in social media commentary, in addition to forums.) The only people that I am describing are the people who do those things. If a person identifies as Never-Wizards (which may be from legit anger and frustration), then sure, I am acknowledging their existence. It's not my place to try and deny them their frustration.

okay, that is something I run into other places but I only know of 1 poster here that is close to a 'never wizards'.

And finally, there are many things that are crystal clear to some of us that others might call "muddled" and if the forums efforts to provide clarification are dismissed, it feels like an agenda without an open mind.

if it was a normal game I would agree... for a playtest if I have two readings of a rule (see warlock cantrips) even if I think 1 is right and 1 is wrong, if more then 1 person says they don't get it, then it doesn't matter how well someone on here 'explains it' because the playtest is 'muddy' it's not clear.
especially since we on here are a subset of gamers I think are MORE not less used to reading the text.

Yes, I have an agenda too. I want to feel joy in my community.

I am pretty sure that is everyone on enworld.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

First day?

no, been here since 3e, but I keep hopeing things will become more friendly and less adversarial.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

agenda has a negative connotation to me, that is why I preferred the word goal here. I did not disagree with what their intent is, it obviously is that

if agenda has such a bad connotation, maybe YOU shouldn't use it to describe what people are doing here on this board (that again in theory has an address the post not the poster rule)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This was not directed at a particular poster, so I do not see it as personal.

Is saying something like ‘some people believe X’ personal? To me it is not

maybe I am a bit jaded in this, I do not mean to imply that everyone is, but if there are the same 5 guys complaining about everything WotC does in every single thread, whether it fits or not, then I have a hard time viewing them as objective

so are you singling out 5 people to personally assign them an attack, what 5 by chance? Do you think if you name them THAT makes it personal? A good rule of thumb is if you can't name them you shouldn't say it.

What is the difference between "Jon stinks" and "Someone in here stinks" while looking at jon ? both are personal attacks, one is a bit more obfuscated (you know that thing you don't like).