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

[Velderan]

Honestly, for many people, yes. Dyscalculia is a thing.

Also, it's simply not as fast as addition is, even when dealing with numbers as small as are likely to be found at a gaming table.

It's worse when you look at how they explain it in the 2e PHB.

Here's a simple example: Rath has reached 7th level as a fighter. His THACO is 14 (found on Table 53), meaning he needs to roll a 14 or better to hit a character or creature of Armor Class 0. In combat, Rath, attacking an orc wearing chainmail (AC 6), needs to roll an 8 (14 -6 = 8) to hit the orc. An 8 or higher on Id20 will hit the orc. If Rath hits, he rolls the appropriate dice (see Table 44) to determine how much damage he inflicts.

Simple enough, right? Basic subtraction equation, maybe not as quick as addition for whatever reason but it's still straightforward. They then go on to give an example using modifiers..

Heres the same example, with some common modifiers thrown in: Ruth is still a 7thlevel fighter. He has a Strength of 18/80 (which gives him a +2 bonus to his attack roll). He fights with a long sword +l. His THACO is 14, modified to I2 by his Strength and to 11 by his weapon. If attacking the orc from the earlier example, Ruth would have to roll a 5 or higher on la20 in order to hit (I1 -6~5). Again, Table 44 would tell him how much damage he inflicts with his weapon (this information should also be written on his character sheet).

So a + to hit lowers my THAC0? Why wouldn't they explain a + to hit as just y'know adding to your roll?

 

[mamba]

If it was officially 5.5e it would tell me.

except that some of the changes you now want to be flagged already happened under officially 5e, like the monster stats

I understand that it would avoid spreading that ‘problem’, but even within 5e products you would already have to distinguish

To me this is an unreasonable level of granularity to define an edition. We can discuss if 1D&D changes enough to call it 5.1 or whatever (we can, but to me it is moot doing so), but you would never have gotten a 5.01 for Tashas, a 5.02 for MotM and a 5.03 when using both

 

[Velderan]

Weird. The 2e PHB addressed this indirectly in the "Attacking With Two Weapons" section. In the example given, it's 1 attack on the first round and two attacks on the second round (fighting with two weapons adds one additional attack each turn).

Yep! Page 96..

Thus a warrior able to attack 3/2 (once in the first round and twice in the second) can attack 5/2 (twice in the first round and three times in the second).

 

[Micah Sweet]

except that some of the changes you now want to be flagged already happened under officially 5e, like the monster stats

I understand that it would avoid spreading that ‘problem’, but even within 5e products you would already have to distinguish

To me this is an unreasonable level of granularity to define an edition. We can discuss if 1D&D changes enough to call it 5.1 or whatever (we can, but to me it is moot doing so), but you would never have gotten a 5.01 for Tashas, a 5.02 for MotM and a 5.03 when using both

I know. I'm hoping to hold back the tide, as it were. I already decided not to update my copies of the Monster Manual Expanded pdfs because I don't see any value in the MotM updates.

 

[JEB]

And they are implying this will be AL legal, too.

Considering DDAL requires you to use MOTM versions of player options that came from Volo's or Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, I would be incredibly surprised if DDAL permits folks to use 2014 options after the new core is released. At best, they may permit it for options that don't yet have a 2024 counterpart (and only until they do).

 

[Faolyn]

Considering DDAL requires you to use MOTM versions of player options that came from Volo's or Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, I would be incredibly surprised if DDAL permits folks to use 2014 options after the new core is released. At best, they may permit it for options that don't yet have a 2024 counterpart (and only until they do).

Would suggests that the 2014 version being on Creative Commons is probably going to be completely useless--3pp that uses it probably won't be all that useful.

 

[Remathilis]

Would suggests that the 2014 version being on Creative Commons is probably going to be completely useless--3pp that uses it probably won't be all that useful.

Considering that AL doesn't use 3pp (except for certain DMs Guild stuff anyway) I think it has no bearing.

WotC has also stated SRD 5.2 (aka the 24 rules) will also go CC. Obviously, we'll see what happens with the time comes.

 

[Warbringer]

Actually I think they left well before that. They're the ones who later created Pathfinder.

…. And Numenera, and 13th Age, and Shadow of the Demonlord…

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would suggests that the 2014 version being on Creative Commons is probably going to be completely useless--3pp that uses it probably won't be all that useful.

Another strike against AL in my book.

 

[mamba]

Would suggests that the 2014 version being on Creative Commons is probably going to be completely useless--3pp that uses it probably won't be all that useful.

not sure why the CC version is useless because of whatever AL does or doesn’t do. Nor is there an intention for this to be the last CC release, there should be one for 1DD as well.