D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford discusses what are the 2024 Fitfh Edition Core Rulebooks.

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
From a seller's perspective, they released a little TOO much material (at least too close together) last year. I don't like how it's bunching up at the end this year (but that was not intended, and happened by printer delays). 5 products per year is a REALLY good pace for maxing out most people's ability to keep up (with only skipping whatever they're less interested in, rather than having to make sorrowful cuts).
Yeah, the "releases are enemic" complaint feels kind of funny to me by now, when I look at my shelf full of 5E books.
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
It seems to me that early on, WotC was hoping to make products that near everyone would buy, so we had all of 3 books each in 2015-2016. Now, it's still possible for someone to buy them all, even kids on an allowance, but they have shifted more towards making books for various interests, without assuming that all the bazillion D&D fans will want all of the boosk, all of the time. So we have four books in four months coming up...but theybare crazy diverse. Plenty of people will only want 1 or 2 of them, I reckon.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
They probably did the work with internal play tests. That's why they said it would be compatible.
I mean, it wasn't hard to get a rough translation for a DM. But this change back will make compatability way smoother for the average user, I can see why WotC values that.
 

mamba

Legend
wait if it's just like 3e/3.5 did you just say this is an edition change (at least a half edition?)?
I am saying the choice to use one or the other, or to mix, is yours. This has nothing to do with editions. You could use Tasha’s to replace some PHB stuff or keep both as alternatives. This time it just is (a lot) more of that.

I have been pretty consistently saying that the changes (assuming they do not backtrack now…) are sufficient to justify calling it a new edition and compatible enough to not require it. So WotC is free to call it whatever they want and I do not care what it is.
Maybe you missed that because I argued against the position that it has to be a new edition.

It was marketing to call 3.5 that, it is marketing to not call it 5.5 now. I have no reason to favor one over the other. I do understand why WotC sticks with 5e however, and I have no reason to disagree with their decision.
 
Last edited:

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
I am saying the choice to use one or the other, or to mix is yours.

I have been pretty consistently saying that the changes (assuming they do not backtrack now…) are sufficient to justify calling it a new edition and compatible enough to not require it. So WotC is free to call it whatever they want and I do not care what it is.

It was marketing to call 3.5 that, it is marketing to not call it 5.5 now. I have no reason to favor one over the other, I do understand why WotC sticks with 5e however.

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.

For the matter, they kept the name "Dungeons and Dragons" from "OD&D" through "Holmes" through "Moldvay/Cook" through "BECMI" through "Rules Cyclopedia" without calling them new editions.

2e was explicitly backwards compatible with 1e- that was the whole remit (and why they didn't use ascending AC). That was a new edition (with apologies to Bobby Brown). But it was the only new edition that was also explicitly backwards compatible. Unless you count all of TSR D&D as one edition. In which case, sure?

On the other hand, 3e was explicitly NOT COMPATIBLE with 2e.

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?

4e was not backwards compatible with 3e or 3.5e. But 4e Essentials was backwards compatible with 4e. But it wasn't 4.5e.

5e was not backwards compatible with 4e.

So what have we learned? I can tell you what I've learned- ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING. It's all turtles marketing speak, all the way down.

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.
 

Remathilis

Legend
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.

For the matter, they kept the name "Dungeons and Dragons" from "OD&D" through "Holmes" through "Moldvay/Cook" through "BECMI" through "Rules Cyclopedia" without calling them new editions.

2e was explicitly backwards compatible with 1e- that was the whole remit (and why they didn't use ascending AC). That was a new edition (with apologies to Bobby Brown). But it was the only new edition that was also explicitly backwards compatible. Unless you count all of TSR D&D as one edition. In which case, sure?

On the other hand, 3e was explicitly NOT COMPATIBLE with 2e.

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?

4e was not backwards compatible with 3e or 3.5e. But 4e Essentials was backwards compatible with 4e. But it wasn't 4.5e.

5e was not backwards compatible with 4e.

So what have we learned? I can tell you what I've learned- ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING. It's all turtles marketing speak, all the way down.

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.
It really depends on if the designers wanted to keep continuity or if they wanted a clean break.

Basic wanted to keep continuity with Original D&D and with its own iterations.

AD&D wanted a clear break from Original for rights reasons.

2e wanted continuity with 1e to keep selling older material like OA or Forgetten Realms though the transition.

3e wanted a clean break from previous TSR editions to make their first WotC built version and incorporate many changes over the last 15 years.

3.5 wanted continuity with 3e to try to keep selling 3e stuff while it was being updated.

4e wanted a clean break to reboot the mechanics and lore.

Essentials wanted to course correct 4e while keeping continuity with it

5e wanted a clean break from the negative perception of 4e

5.24 wants to keep continuity with 5.14 to keep selling stuff between both versions.

Maybe 6e will want a clean break. Or it will want to further keep continuity. Let's talk again about it in 2034.
 

Alright, so the next UA is going to have the Priest and Expert Classes revisited, Subclass is still at 3rd Level, but they are restoring the distinction of different Subclass progressions for each Class, to match D&D'14 Classes more closely.

And the monk class.

I'm curious if it'll also have more spells, feats, and subclasses, or anything else, and if it'll have anything major experimental beyond the Monk?
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
And the monk class.

Seriously.

It would be nice if the powers that be could at least PRETEND to treat the Monk better than the help at a Hamptons party.

This far in and they are already retrenching on the playtest ... and they still haven't told us what the design goal for the Monk would have been.

It would have been nice to at least have had some dreams to be dashed!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top