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

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Also the AD&D 1st vs 2nd edition wars are kinda notorious and still going on.

Surely you meant to say AD&D '77 vs AD&D '89.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

No.

yes, I remember it was an earlier video, I will see after work if I can find it.

In the video we are discussing in this thread, Crawford said that they are not changing the subclass level progression because it makes the two versions too incompatible.

funny, that is one of the things I said would make it incompatible and I kept getting told I was wrong.

The change is subclass levels is the biggest change that makes the two versions not compatible, and they are getting rid of it in the next playtest package.

I would say the change to pact magic was equal level of change, the idea of all casters being prep is close...

How does that show that they don't care about the compatibility of player facing options again?

 

[Velderan]

Also the AD&D 1st vs 2nd edition wars are kinda notorious and still going on.

The forces of 2e were well on their way to victory when they were betrayed by the 2.5e brigade, who splintered off on their own. Truly a dark day no one saw coming in the edition wars..

 

[Henadic Theologian]

The monk is coming in the next couple of weeks, but the way I heard it is that Experts/Priests would be the next packet after that. Are we getting Monk and Expert/Priest in 2 weeks?

Yes, that means it will have Cleric, Paladin, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Rogue and Monk in it, but for most of those classes I'm expecting mostly tweaks, rather then alot if radical changes, and maybe more spells, feats, fighting styles, weapon mastery, and subclasses, with the Monk an exception.

Outside chance of a couple more species if they choose to go that route, probably last chance to do so as after this playtest they movie past the experimental phase mostly and go to refining things mostly.

 

[Parmandur]

Surely you meant to say AD&D '77 vs AD&D '89.

A rational designation.

 

[mamba]

Basically, if there are things hasn't been replaced but no longer works, there's no valid way to call it a continuation. So subclasses they haven't redone need to continue to work.

what prevents you from using them as is? WotC also said they will include a conversion guide if needed, so they should continue to work, even if you make minor changes for that

 

[Parmandur]

what prevents you from using them as is? WotC also said they will include a conversion guide if needed, so they should continue to work, even if you make minor changes for that

And now they are removing the barrier completely l, by maintaining the Subclass progression. Nothing to convert.

 

[mamba]

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.

No one is forcing you to harp about how this is an edition change instead of focusing on the game itself

 

[mamba]

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

I am not sure why this is even a worthwhile discussion. You can continue to play X, you can start to play Y. Who cares that X <> Y? You can play X alongside someone playing Y, and both will be fine, so the whole issue is moot. None of us know how many people will allow both, so discussing that is moot too.

All I can say is the more I hear about this, the less I want 2014 in my 2024 game.

 

[mamba]

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

It does not invalidate them.

 

[Clint_L]

Chaosium and Call of Cthulhu actually use "edition" in the traditional and normal way. Their editions are just small incremental changes, that are fully compatible with older editions. It maybe coincidental, but Chaosium is the only one of the original RPG publishers, that started in the 70's that hasn't gone out of business. Looks like small incremental changes and backwards compatible may be a successful business model. Slow and steady wins the race.

I recently ran a short CoC campaign for the first time in years and I can concur: it was shockingly familiar. There is something to be said for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If WotC can stick the landing with OneD&D and maintain continuity with 5e, I think that is a win for most players. I, for one, look forward to not feeling pressure to immediately replace over $1000 worth of books.

 

[Parmandur]

I recently ran a short CoC campaign for the first time in years and I can concur: it was shockingly familiar. There is something to be said for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If WotC can stick the landing with OneD&D and maintain continuity with 5e, I think that is a win for most players. I, for one, look forward to not feeling pressure to immediately replace over $1000 worth of books.

Yeah, it feels weird to me that people are openly nostalgic for anti-consuner practices...?

 

[Justice and Rule]

5e14 and 5e24 are completely different!

5e14 got the PHB, 5e24 is the PHB 50th Anniversary. They got subclasses, 5e24 got the sub-classes. We both got the same fighters, wizards, monks, barbarians and clerics, but our sorcerers have sesame seeds.

For a second I thought this was a McDowell's reference. Or maybe it is and the sesame seed joke is reversed.

 

[Parmandur]

Hey @darjr this may be relevant to the OP:

"As we continue playtesting and discussing materials for the upcoming Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual, and even release updates on the D&D Virtual Tabletop and evolving D&D Beyond toolset, it's important to clarify the language we use around these projects. One D&D is the overarching initiative shaping the future of the game. The updated fifth edition rulebooks, VTT, and D&D Beyond updates are housed under this initiative. When talking specifically about the revised fifth edition core rulebooks and their predecessors, we'll identify them by their year of publication. So, if we're talking about the barbarian class in the upcoming Player's Handbook, we'll refer to the book as the “2024 Player's Handbook.”"

"When the 2024 core rulebooks release, we'll drop the “2024” and simply refer to them by their title. (e.g., the 2024 Player's Handbook will just be the Player's Handbook). At that point, we will only clarify the publication date of the books when we're comparing the 2014 and 2024 versions, or simply referring back to the older version."

"We recognize that the term “One D&D” has caused confusion around the updated rulebooks. The 2024 core rulebooks aren't ushering in a new edition of the game; the books you enjoy today will be compatible with the updated core rulebooks, because it's all the same edition of D&D. If you're a casual reader, though, this may not have been clear with how we've used the One D&D term in the past. That said, we'll be updating the language we use here on D&D Beyond and elsewhere so as to eliminate confusion around our continuing support for fifth edition."

D&D Community Update

D&D Beyond - Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Tools, Rules, Races, Classes, Items, Spells, Monsters, and More

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[darjr]

Hey @darjr this may be relevant to the OP:

"As we continue playtesting and discussing materials for the upcoming Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual, and even release updates on the D&D Virtual Tabletop and evolving D&D Beyond toolset, it's important to clarify the language we use around these projects. One D&D is the overarching initiative shaping the future of the game. The updated fifth edition rulebooks, VTT, and D&D Beyond updates are housed under this initiative. When talking specifically about the revised fifth edition core rulebooks and their predecessors, we'll identify them by their year of publication. So, if we're talking about the barbarian class in the upcoming Player's Handbook, we'll refer to the book as the “2024 Player's Handbook.”"

"When the 2024 core rulebooks release, we'll drop the “2024” and simply refer to them by their title. (e.g., the 2024 Player's Handbook will just be the Player's Handbook). At that point, we will only clarify the publication date of the books when we're comparing the 2014 and 2024 versions, or simply referring back to the older version."

"We recognize that the term “One D&D” has caused confusion around the updated rulebooks. The 2024 core rulebooks aren't ushering in a new edition of the game; the books you enjoy today will be compatible with the updated core rulebooks, because it's all the same edition of D&D. If you're a casual reader, though, this may not have been clear with how we've used the One D&D term in the past. That said, we'll be updating the language we use here on D&D Beyond and elsewhere so as to eliminate confusion around our continuing support for fifth edition."

D&D Community Update

D&D Beyond - Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Tools, Rules, Races, Classes, Items, Spells, Monsters, and More

www.dndbeyond.com

Started a thread.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/wotc-d-d-comunity-update-for-june-8th.698165/

 

[Mistwell]

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.

None of this says you need to deprecate. I just says you're publishing something which is an updated version. You can have an updated version and a non-updated version exist in the same simultaneously without anything bad happening. It's not a video game and does not operate by video game standards.

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

No? If it's labelled as optional, the DM is the one making the option.

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



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.

We're back to semantics.

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

OK. Why are you having this discussion then? I accused you earlier of behaving like you're here to win a linguistics argument, you denied it, but here you are explaining you have no interest in the game we're discussing anymore. Consider for a moment I might be right - you're here playing a different game.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's all marketing. None of it matters.

The changeover from OD&D to AD&D wasn't called an edition change. They just added "Advanced" to Dungeons & Dragons.
3.5e was backwards compatible, but that was the only time in the 50 year history of D&D that they used the weird .5 thing. Seriously, what is that?

It's the weirdest thing, IMO that people get fixated on: "Is this a half edition?" A what, now? That's not even really a thing, gang! I mean, I don't fault you if you have it in your head that it is, but it's really no more indicative of anything than calling it anything else. Worse, even, IMO.

Personally, since we're using years, Ima call the new edition Bladerunner 2049, because it sounds cool. And also because most of the Northeast United States looks like the movie right now.

I apologize on behalf of all of Canada for letting our smoke cross the border without dual citizenship. Or even a green card.

 

[Parmandur]

It's the weirdest thing, IMO that people get fixated on: "Is this a half edition?" A what, now? That's not even really a thing, gang! I mean, I don't fault you if you have it in your head that it is, but it's really no more indicative of anything than calling it anything else. Worse, even, IMO.

For real: nobody other than WotC in 2003 has ever released a "half-edition," cuz it ain't a thing!

 

[Charlaquin]

Chaosium and Call of Cthulhu actually use "edition" in the traditional and normal way. Their editions are just small incremental changes, that are fully compatible with older editions. It maybe coincidental, but Chaosium is the only one of the original RPG publishers, that started in the 70's that hasn't gone out of business. Looks like small incremental changes and backwards compatible may be a successful business model. Slow and steady wins the race.

I’d say D&D is winning the race, and they have historically not restricted themselves to small incremental changes only. Slow and steady might keep you in the race, but it takes a willingness to break into a sprint to actually win.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

For me, 4 is the sweet spot, one book per Quarter: always something new on hand, always something coming up, but not overwhelming.

Four books is perfect, plus one specialty product (like a boxed set). It really hits a perfect sweet spot. Anything more breaks people. Seriously. I mean, obviously everyone buys only the books they want, but there's a lot of people who want "them all, except for one or two that really don't do it for me, or if I can't afford them all, then I'll only get my top few."

What happens there is that the middle gets cut out. I call this the "Crossgen Effect" because I first noticed the phenomenon with a startup comicbook company called Crossgen. What happened was: Crossgen published four comics per month, and very nearly everyone who liked Crossgen bought them all. Then they launched four more books, and very nearly everyone bought them all. Then they launched four more books (total 12 per month) and very nearly everyone cut back to their favorite three (on average) but now spread out across the whole line of books. The whole company survived something like three or four years.

They had them at four. They had them (but shakily) at eight. They totally lost them at twelve. A rotating six would probably have been the sweet spot.