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

[Maxperson]

Do you have a citation on "... Will my roughly equal"? They have said they will be compatible, but they explicitly stated they are fixing broken elements (twin spell) and powering up weak ones. They have never claimed a 14 Sorc and a 24 Sorc will be equal, only that if you prefer the 14 Sorc you could still use them, 15 spells and all.

No. I'm not going to slog through all the threads and pages looking for the posters who have been telling me that it will be fine playing the two versions of the game simultaneously, because the new classes will be balanced with the old ones so one edition's classes won't be more powerful than the others. I'm certain that @Parmandur was one of them, but there have been several.

If they aren't balanced, though, then WotC is wrong about backwards compatibility. As I pointed out to someone else, I COULD use the 3.5 version of wish in a 2014 or 2024 game. It's not going to cause the game to melt down and stop if I do that and the rules are similar enough to be workable. Unbalanced, but workable.

 

[Emberashh]

I didn't read it that way. I read it as him saying that he was tempted to bookmark the posts to remind the posters arguing so hard for pro-compatibility that they got it wrong, not that they wouldn't acknowledge being wrong(if they are).

Its actually both lol. My prediction is that there will be numerous debates about how the 5E rules don't work with 1DND, and that at the center of it will be the class disparities brought on by two differently balanced versions of the same class clashing with one another.

And I fully expect most of these people to just conveniently forget that they insisted those problems will never crop up.

Has to be said, the writing was on the wall with 5e when it came to Martial/Caster disparities. Anyone who followed Next closely or just looked at how the classes were constructed relative to each other could have called it in 2014 that by now itd be a massive problem if it wasn't corrected.

This is literally no different, and the problem is even bigger.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

On the subject of suturing distinct systems together: Some DMs are up for doing so, but it's pretty rare, especially if you're actually looking at proper cross-edition integration. If it's technically "within" one edition, the odds go up, but not by a lot.

I say this because 3e produced a lot of third-party content and a metric butt-ton of homebrew, and innately has a little bit of "cross-edition integration" with some of its own content. Because, you see, there were books published for 3e that were never updated for 3.5e, which technically makes the 3e book the "definitive" book...except that much of that stuff is riddled with holes. The big stand-out here is Savage Species, which has some pretty cool stuff in it, but some of it reflects the even-more-broken nature of 3.0 vs 3.5. There's also sometimes interest in books that did get replaced with versions that folks consider inferior, like the psionics handbook.

As an example of the "within" edition game-surgery I've seen, I've played in games where:
Base system was PF1e, but wildshape is done by 3.5e rules, and you could import any content from 3.5e with DM approval (and 99% of the time it would get approved)
Base system was 3.5e, but 3.0 content was approved on a case by case basis (often required tweaks/alterations), and PF content could be converted if you asked very nicely and it passed a smell test for stinky cheese
Base system was PF1e, except that all characters had to take Spheres of Magic spellcasting instead of default, and some other 3PP content was available
Base system was...I guess theoretically PF1e, but literally all (and I mean literally, genuinely all) content from 3.0, 3.5e, PF1e, and ANYTHING published on the online Pathfinder stuff could be used, so long as the DM looked over it first. By far the most gonzo game I've ever seen, with PF's version of epic boons and a baseline of "tri-stalt" with a side of "feat-stalt" and.....yeah. It was nuts.

So, within the incredibly byzantine and extensive library of "stuff that can be seen as in some way belonging to 3rd edition D&D," such game-suturing is...not necessarily common, but a hell of a lot more common than any other form of game-suturing. Because usually, if you're going to be trying to staple two+ genuinely different systems together, it's often easier to either (a) actually use just one system, but create extensive homebrew inspired by the other system(s), or (b) actually use a third system that is capable of relatively conveniently expressing the other systems' contents without massive overhauls.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I didn't read it that way. I read it as him saying that he was tempted to bookmark the posts to remind the posters arguing so hard for pro-compatibility that they got it wrong, not that they wouldn't acknowledge being wrong(if they are).

They seemed to be sure hiwever that they are right. But I also say. Let time decide if optimism or pessimism was correct.
Probably something in between. And I agree with @mamba that working to have as much compatibility as possible is a better goal than either throwing the baby out with the bathwater (6e) or closing the eyes for existing shortcomings and expecting people who are coming to the hobby to buy phb 2014, xanathar, tasha and johnny and pauls and elsas x of everything and some sourcebooks to have halfway up to date rules.

 

[mamba]

No no no... it's not a continuation, it's a divergence. It is a fork from which you can choose 2014 or 2024. That's the point: it's not a continuation, where something is being rebalanced and changed, it's that you're putting out a second version of the class that exists concurrent with the old version. And that's also the problem.

They exist concurrently if you decide so

 

[Remathilis]

yes more then anythign

I would except that as a better answer

Well that's a fundamental difference. I still like 5e, but it could be better. I don't want another revolution. I'm tired of the edition treadmill and starting over again somewhere new. I want to still use Tasha and Van Richten's when the new books drop. I don't want to wait years until they reprint Eberron again to play a warforged. I want 5e, fixed.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And I fully expect most of these people to just conveniently forget that they insisted those problems will never crop up.

Which is quite some insulting and presumptuous statement.

 

[Emberashh]

They exist concurrently if you decide so

You may employ the logic to weasel out of acknowledging that problem by saying its a choice, but thats just being obtuse. No amount of "we chose to do this" is going to make somebody feel good when their Rogue or their Fighter or whatever sucks ass compared to the other persons who used different, unbalanced rules.

Which is quite some insulting and presumptuous statement.

When you spend 20+ years arguing on the internet you get a pretty good knack for asessing how people will behave based on how they communicate.

You may think its insulting, but all that indicates to me is a guilty conscience.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Well that's a fundamental difference. I still like 5e, but it could be better. I don't want another revolution. I'm tired of the edition treadmill and starting over again somewhere new. I want to still use Tasha and Van Richten's when the new books drop. I don't want to wait years until they reprint Eberron again to play a warforged. I want 5e, fixed.

Sure, sure. But I mean, that's an argument for a half-edition, or at least errata, rather than keeping the old with the new. I take it you'd be okay with whatever 1D&D is replacing the older material, right?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well that's a fundamental difference. I still like 5e, but it could be better. I don't want another revolution. I'm tired of the edition treadmill and starting over again somewhere new. I want to still use Tasha and Van Richten's when the new books drop. I don't want to wait years until they reprint Eberron again to play a warforged. I want 5e, fixed.

And I want new players to have an updated rules book I can wholeheartedly point to, instead of gringing my teeth if some new player buys only the phb and creates a ranger without tasha's fixes. Or if I want to play a bard with tasha's new spell list and the DM says no.

(Of course, the UA bard needs some fixong in that regard too, but we are not at the end of the playtest yet.)