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

[Blue]

They are currently in the process of playtesting different subclass progressions and exploring ways to make levels 1 and 2 more meaningful for each class.

This, I'm not sure I'm buying for two reasons.

First, the lack of meaningfulness at levels 1 and 2 acted as an effective (albeit informal) break of multiclassing and "dips." You could certainly do it, but you had to commit resources to it.

Second, those levels go by so quickly that it really seems like a waste of time to try and make it meaningful. It reminds me of when AD&D tried to add level 0 characters .... why bother?

I'm with you. Because if this is just a continuation then all of the classes need to continue to work with all of the other books, such as Tasha's and Xanathar's. If those break, then it's not a continuation. And if they change subclass progression, those will break.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Me: “Back in my day, all we got for leveling up was more hit points and we liked it! We loved it.”

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I'm with you. Because if this is just a continuation then all of the classes need to continue to work with all of the other books, such as Tasha's and Xanathar's. If those break, then it's not a continuation. And if they change subclass progression, those will break.

In the 2014 PHB we have classes with different subclass progression. I would have no issue with compatibility if the ‘24 edition continued this trend and expanded it to the same class (ie, ‘14 cleric and ‘24 cleric having different subclass progressions.)

Note I said “I” would have no issue, YMMV.

 

[darjr]

Me: “Back in my day, all we got for leveling up was more hit points and we liked it! We loved it.”

You got more hit points!?!

 

[Remathilis]

You got more hit points!?!

Asked the halfling after 8th level and into Attack Ranks...

 

[Velderan]

Me: “Back in my day, all we got for leveling up was more hit points and we liked it! We loved it.”

And a lower THAC0! We did subtraction and liked it! We also rolled under our skill values, none of those big positive numbers you kids today are into.

 

[Blue]

In the 2014 PHB we have classes with different subclass progression. I would have no issue with compatibility if the ‘24 edition continued this trend and expanded it to the same class (ie, ‘14 cleric and ‘24 cleric having different subclass progressions.)

Note I said “I” would have no issue, YMMV.

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. So subclasses they haven't redone need to continue to work. Feats they haven't redone need to continue to work (including that they don't have level requirements on them), and the like.

You can not say "this thing which is in the game and hasn't been updated but no longer works" and say "this is just a continuation of the game" at the same time.

 

[Mistwell]

Im not talking about supporting the settings.

Im talking about the literal games themselves, intact and identical to their original releases, bolted onto Skyrim with no updates or meaningful changes to the original games.

Ie, no updated graphics or voice acting, no bug fixes or changes. Its just literally the old games laid over top of Skyrim, with the resulting Frankenstein treated as one "seamless" game.

That is the analogy that was made, and I would be surprised if you still don't get why that is not a good idea.



So you're agreeing that this isn't merely an update like WOTC is asserting.

How is an update not new material?

Tasha's had updates. Tasha's included new material. Nobody argued it had to be one or the other. What weird linguistic game are you trying to win here?

Im not concerned about whether or not I "win", and I think its rather cynical to assume what I think is going to turn out to be a mess just boils down to a childish internet cred thing.

Then stop arguing linguistics?

The fact of the matter is, if the old options are not deprecated then there will be much more severe class disparities, as 5e is not getting updated or corrected, and as such its unbalanced parts are not going to balance well against 1DND.

That's not fact, that's opinion. 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. Balance is not the only criteria for success here. In fact I'd say it's not even a top priority for success as 4e was the most balanced system and 1e the most unbalanced system and I think we can all agree 1e was more successful on many levels than 4e, right?

This the entire crux of why I said deprecation has to happen one way or another.

Why? It doesn't have to happen. It's what you would prefer but there is nothing about it which is a necessity for the game.

5e is not going to be updated so long as it remains intact as a valid option, and ergo, it will cause balance issues. And if it is to be updated, either 1DND replaces it wholesale, or 5e gets reprinted as a separate game with its own updated separate from 1DND.

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.

There is no other option here. Either you'll have an unbalanced mess or 5e gets deprecated.

I just named the other option. It's a matter of opinion and not fact. You think balance is way more important than I do, for example.

You cannot patch a bug and simultaneously keep it intact in the same system.

Yes, you really can. Stop trying to force a TTRPG into a programming analogy.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And a lower THAC0! We did subtraction and liked it! We also rolled under our skill values, none of those big positive numbers you kids today are into.

NEEDZ MOAR TABLEZ!

So sayeth the Gygax, so sayeth we all.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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. So subclasses they haven't redone need to continue to work. Feats they haven't redone need to continue to work (including that they don't have level requirements on them), and the like.

You can not say "this thing which is in the game and hasn't been updated but no longer works" and say "this is just a continuation of the game" at the same time.

I disagree.