Jeremy Crawford discusses what are the 2024 Fitfh Edition Core Rulebooks.

[Blue]

I disagree.

Okay, to what?

Are you saying that I can have a continuation of a game if it explicitly doesn't continue from what came before? Because that's all that short statement says.

Elucidate man! Where do you disagree?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Okay, to what?

Are you saying that I can have a continuation of a game if it explicitly doesn't continue from what came before? Because that's all that short statement says.

Elucidate man! Where do you disagree?

I was trying to politely disengage from the conversation. I don’t have anything more to say at this point, sorry.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I'm not making a judgement call if it's something someone would have a problem with. I'm making an observation that "as a continuation of the game", a cleric subclass should be a cleric subclass.

Basically, if there are things hasn't been replaced but no longer works, there's no valid way to call it a continuation.

yeah this is why I was told I was lying when I said in the 2014 phb warlock cantrip and cantrip a warlock can take meant the same thing, and if they put out warlock cantrips in 2024 that could be read honestly as a cantrip a warlock can choose at level up... but then I was told no one could ever read it that way.

 

[Blue]

I was trying to politely disengage from the conversation. I don’t have anything more to say at this point, sorry.

Got it. For future reference, "politely disengaging" from the conversation usually doesn't look like telling the other person they are wrong on everything. That fits neither "polite" nor "disengaging". Politely disengagement looks more like saying what you just did above, or even walking away without trying to get in a last word.

 

[Emberashh]

How is an update not new material?

What you quoted didn't say this, and Im not the one trying to twist linguistics around. Updates require deprecation by definition:

noun
/ˈəpˌdāt/
an act of bringing something or someone up to date, or an updated version of something.

verb
/ˌəpˈdāt/
make (something) more modern or up to date.

New content =/= update, even if video games erroneously conflate the two all the time.

If the old options are still optionally available for your game, it's OK if it doesn't balance as well as you'd prefer against the new stuff.

If WOTC says the content is compatible, a DM denying its use is homebrew. Oberoni says hello.

Balance is not the only criteria for success here.

Success isn't the concern here. DND is going to sell because its DND.

It doesn't have to happen.

It does if you're going to try and call the game an "update" rather than a new edition. You may or may not have missed that that question is the overall reason for why we're having this argument.

OR people don't care as much as you do about balance issues and have fun playing it that way despite you viewing it as not acceptable by your standards.

Whats funny is that in another topic Im currently being argued with for seemingly not caring about balance.

Its just that same cynicism rearing up again; someone does not need to be personally invested in something to still acknowledge its an issue and should be avoided. I don't have to care about balance to be considerate of those that do and argue accordingly.

Like, I literally don't play DND anymore and won't be in the future, and so final is that decision that Im writing my own game; doesn't mean I can't argue for what I think is going to be better for the long term health of the game, especially given for my own purposes I need to be considerate of preferences other than just my own.

I haven't spent hours working on streamlining my own games mechanics because I would have a problem juggling all its parts.

Stop trying to force a TTRPG into a programming analogy.

It was easy and breezy to make that analogy. No force required.

 

[Blue]

yeah this is why I was told I was lying when I said in the 2014 phb warlock cantrip and cantrip a warlock can take meant the same thing, and if they put out warlock cantrips in 2024 that could be read honestly as a cantrip a warlock can choose at level up... but then I was told no one could ever read it that way.

I must be "no one" then, because I think you have an absolutely valid point.

This whole "it's not an edition change" seems like such an odd hill to fight on. Maybe because they didn't want to impact their 2022 & 2023 sales of books. But regardless of the direction of OneD&D as a game, I feel they are trying to mince words about this continuation. It's like they put a definition of "backwards compatible" in the UA, but it doesn't actually meet the real world definition of backwards compatible. I wish they would just own up, say it's a half edition shift like 3ed to 3.5ed, and we could focus on it as a game instead of being distracted.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I must be "no one" then, because I think you have an absolutely valid point.

This whole "it's not an edition change" seems like such an odd hill to fight on. Maybe because they didn't want to impact their 2022 & 2023 sales of books. But regardless of the direction of OneD&D as a game, I feel they are trying to mince words about this continuation. It's like they put a definition of "backwards compatible" in the UA, but it doesn't actually meet the real world definition of backwards compatible. I wish they would just own up, say it's a half edition shift like 3ed to 3.5ed, and we could focus on it as a game instead of being distracted.

But ... the whole discussion (or argument) over whether it's an "edition change" is pointless. There's the actual publishing definition- which is entirely unhelpful, because no one has ever used that.

Beyond that? There has never been a single accepted and consistent use in the history of D&D for what is, or isn't, an edition change. It's literally all marketing speak. Even the "half edition" is just something that they happened to do once, because it occurred too soon for them to call it a new edition.

When people are arguing over this, they are really arguing over the underlying substance of the changes. But they are using the nomenclature of editions in order to argue this.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not, for marketing reasons, they decide to call this 5e24, or 5.1e, or 5.5e, or 5e Essentials, or 5e Super Errata'd, or 5e50 (for 5e 50th Anniversary), or 5e Plus Tasha's But Cleaned Up, or Advanced 5e, or BladeRunner 2049.

Instead of discussing the nomenclature of the game (which will be whatever they decide on), maybe focus on the changes? And since they've told us what they are naming it (based on the year), it really does seem strange to continue to have this discussion?

From my POV, YMMV, IMO, etc.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I must be "no one" then, because I think you have an absolutely valid point.

This whole "it's not an edition change" seems like such an odd hill to fight on. Maybe because they didn't want to impact their 2022 & 2023 sales of books. But regardless of the direction of OneD&D as a game, I feel they are trying to mince words about this continuation. It's like they put a definition of "backwards compatible" in the UA, but it doesn't actually meet the real world definition of backwards compatible. I wish they would just own up, say it's a half edition shift like 3ed to 3.5ed, and we could focus on it as a game instead of being distracted.

the worst part is I think they have at least hinted at if not out right said they mean the adventures and DM side of things will work mostly with minimal effort, not that player faceing options will work, let alone work with no effort to convert.

 

[Blue]

But ... the whole discussion (or argument) over whether it's an "edition change" is pointless. There's the actual publishing definition- which is entirely unhelpful, because no one has ever used that.

Beyond that? There has never been a single accepted and consistent use in the history of D&D for what is, or isn't, an edition change. It's literally all marketing speak. Even the "half edition" is just something that they happened to do once, because it occurred too soon for them to call it a new edition.

When people are arguing over this, they are really arguing over the underlying substance of the changes. But they are using the nomenclature of editions in order to argue this.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not, for marketing reasons, they decide to call this 5e24, or 5.1e, or 5.5e, or 5e Essentials, or 5e Super Errata'd, or 5e50 (for 5e 50th Anniversary), or 5e Plus Tasha's But Cleaned Up, or Advanced 5e, or BladeRunner 2049.

Instead of discussing the nomenclature of the game (which will be whatever the decide on), maybe focus on the changes? And since they've told us what they are naming it (based on the year), it really does seem strange to continue to have this discussion?

From my POV, YMMV, IMO, etc.

One of the points that has remained consistant between all editions of D&D was that older mechanical material was no longer just "drop in" to use. You could convert it, but it wasn't RAW to use.

And that's the point we are disucssing here. Is this a continuation, where we can continue to use all of the previous material? Is it a continuation where a large amount of the material has been replaced but we can continue to use the rest? Or is it a "continuation" where some/all unaddressed mechanical material doesn't continue forward? Because the last doesn't fit the definition of a continuation.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

But ... the whole discussion (or argument) over whether it's an "edition change" is pointless.

the point from where I am sitting is to discuss weather there will be a break of playing X and Playing Y and if enough of the people will allow BOTH X and Y together

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

One of the points that has remained consistant between all editions of D&D was that older mechanical material was no longer just "drop in" to use. You could convert it, but it wasn't RAW to use.

And that's the point we are disucssing here. Is this a continuation, where we can continue to use all of the previous material? Is it a continuation where a large amount of the material has been replaced but we can continue to use the rest? Or is it a "continuation" where some/all unaddressed mechanical material doesn't continue forward? Because the last doesn't fit the definition of a continuation.

That's not correct.

I went through this previously in the thread, but this whole edition mess started with the very first changeover. With the second edition- the one that explicitly was backwards compatible with the first edition, and allowed people to continue to use all of the old stuff (especially the modules and adventures) as mix-n-match.

Zeb Cook has talked about how a lot of the changes they wanted for 2e, like ascending AC, were nixed for that very reason.

 

[Blue]

They've been pretty clear about this in the past: the ".5" "half edition" BS was a marketing failure. That's why nobody else has ever used it for their game.

Sure, but if they call it a "continuation" and "the same edition" and then it invalidates previous books of what they claim is the same edition, then we have yet another breach of trust. And after the OGL debacle they don't need another one of them.

 

[OB1]

I think it's a good choice to push all subclass selection to 3rd while keeping the remaining subclass levels consistent with 2014. One of the things I really like about 2014 is the asymmetry of the classes both for the way it makes them feel more distinct when choosing and how it plays in a campaign. Keeping subclass at 3rd is a great concession for ease of onboarding new players (which I believe is important) and hopefully will allow them to keep later levels (especially Tier IV) much more complex (keeping the game interesting for long time players and DMs).

Super excited to get the Monk (they said soon, so maybe next week or the week after) and can't wait to see how the revised Experts and Priests turn out in July/August.

I wonder if the combination of pushback on the Druid and then the Warlock (the classes with the most change, IMO) led them towards being more conservative overall. The 5e library of Adventures, Guides, and 3PP material is essential to selling the game to new players, who get to pick from a solid library of choices when deciding to play their first game. If those choices appear to be from a prior edition, PHB sales could slump while that library is built up again similar to the first couple of years of a new game console release, when the old console tends to outsell the new. In this case, though, I doubt WotC would continue to print 2014 PHBs, so not having a ready to go software library would be detrimental to sales.

 

[Hatmatter]

But ... the whole discussion (or argument) over whether it's an "edition change" is pointless. There's the actual publishing definition- which is entirely unhelpful, because no one has ever used that.

Beyond that? There has never been a single accepted and consistent use in the history of D&D for what is, or isn't, an edition change. It's literally all marketing speak. Even the "half edition" is just something that they happened to do once, because it occurred too soon for them to call it a new edition.

When people are arguing over this, they are really arguing over the underlying substance of the changes. But they are using the nomenclature of editions in order to argue this.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not, for marketing reasons, they decide to call this 5e24, or 5.1e, or 5.5e, or 5e Essentials, or 5e Super Errata'd, or 5e50 (for 5e 50th Anniversary), or 5e Plus Tasha's But Cleaned Up, or Advanced 5e, or BladeRunner 2049.

Instead of discussing the nomenclature of the game (which will be whatever they decide on), maybe focus on the changes? And since they've told us what they are naming it (based on the year), it really does seem strange to continue to have this discussion?

From my POV, YMMV, IMO, etc.

Very well said, Snarf. I agree.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that is probably true, but I have more fun playing 5e (and I like 4e and played it for its whole run) so it doesn’t really matter that much to me.

I also enjoy playing 5e more, which is why I switched to it. But I don’t think 4e is a good example of bold experimentation and willingness to make significant changes being bad for the game. On the contrary, we wouldn’t have the great game that 5e is, had it not been for 4e. You can’t achieve greatness without risking failure.

 

[Blue]

That's not correct.

I went through this previously in the thread, but this whole edition mess started with the very first changeover. With the second edition- the one that explicitly was backwards compatible with the first edition, and allowed people to continue to use all of the old stuff (especially the modules and adventures) as mix-n-match.

Zeb Cook has talked about how a lot of the changes they wanted for 2e, like ascending AC, were nixed for that very reason.

Whatever, it's correct since WotC has taken stewardship of D&D. Can we stay on the main topic instead of trying to dance around it on word choices or technicalities.

Are the 50th Anniversary books a continuation of 5e?

1. Is this a continuation, where we can continue to use all of the previous material, regardless if it's been reprinted differently? (Such as right now tables can play with MP:MM versions of monsters & races or from the previous published ones which are often mechanically different.)
2. Is it a continuation where a large amount of the material has been replaced but we can continue to use the rest? (Effectively saying the new books update anything they touch, but everything still works together.)
3. Or is it a "continuation" where some/all unaddressed mechanical material doesn't continue forward? (Which means that there are things that don't continue forward in any form, so can't be called a continuation.)

 

[Parmandur]

This whole "it's not an edition change" seems like such an odd hill to fight on.

WotC aren't fighting on any hills over this issue, they have the hill surrounded and control the supply lines.

And that's the point we are disucssing here. Is this a continuation, where we can continue to use all of the previous material?

Got it on the first try. Based on thUA tests, and what Crawford announced in tgr video in the OP, that's what we are getting.

 

[Parmandur]

Super excited to get the Monk (they said soon, so maybe next week or the week after) and can't wait to see how the revised Experts and Priests turn out in July/August.

I have good news: probably it's going to drop in the next two weeks, not July or August.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

.

Whatever, it's correct since WotC has taken stewardship of D&D. Can we stay on the main topic instead of trying to dance around it on word choices or technicalities.

Okay? I don’t think that ignoring a significant portion of the history of the game and massively reducing the sample size is “staying on topic,” (just as I would say that using more than 50% of the data isn‘t a technicality) but sure.

Since WoTC has taken over, editions have only been used to indicate when the rules were no longer compatible. 3e is not compatible with 2e. 4e is not compatible with 3e. 5e is not compatible with 4e. By that metric, a new edition means that there is a complete change in the underlying game and mechanics.

 

[Blue]

Got it on the first try. Based on thUA tests, and what Crawford announced in tgr video in the OP, that's what we are getting.

So it should be balanced against others characters if my character with a 2024 background is picking up a racial feat from Tasha's, a Xanathar's feat or one of the unaddressed 2014!PHB feats at 1st level?

Then it's really a continuation. And likely poorly balanced.