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

[Parmandur]

I think the DMG gets Greyhawk, a backdoor way for Chris Perkins and crew to get the setting for the anniversary (and maybe released to dmsguild)

I feel that's what's being laid down: it would fit the te.platte/example model Perkims laid out for Adventures in Chapter 6, and Campaigns in Chapter 7...a template/ example of Greyhawk for Settings would make sense for Mystery Chapter 8, and the poster map. Greyhawk can go very minimalist because of it's origins and core identity to the game.

FR gets either a Campaign Book updating the setting since SCAG or a Slipcase like Planescape.

Neither possibility would surprise me.

I'll be surprised if the core books aren't released in order of playtesting.

Most likely, but who knows? Given the interoperability, it's not neccesary.

Also remember playtesting for the MM and DMG will be alot less then the PHB, I expect 2 or 3 playtests at most for each, I think the DMG will be released before winter, Spring, Summer (along with Vecna, but different Month), Fall, setting book Winter/Christmas.

I honestly don't know if they will even do that much UA for the MM and DMG!

 

[Blue]

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.

Please, no more word games. Which of these do you believe fits?

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]

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.

Modern D&D is not a highly tuned game, so yeah, that should work fine.

 

[Parmandur]

Please, no more word games. Which of these do you believe fits?

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.)

All evidence points to number 1.

 

[Blue]

Modern D&D is not a highly tuned game, so yeah, that should work fine.

Gotcha. So if full power 2014 feats are fine to take at 1st level, then isn't the level requirements for feats just cruft that doesn't add to the game?

 

[codo]

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.

No. 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. 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. How does that show that they don't care about the compatibility of player facing options again?

 

[tetrasodium]

They literally released a video on the DMG a month ago. Let me link it Incase you missed it.


The PHB has been the focus of the playtest because it's first and it's the one with the most changes. The DMG will get its updates, but the bulk of the work right now is on the player side. That is not evidence of conspiracy, only current areas of focus.

I did not miss it & commented on the video at the time when there were threads about it. That video existing is unrelated to the fact that it's too late to start considering DM needs in the core rules when the PHB is already set around exclusive player needs focused core rules & it's time to begin working on the DMG. At that point the mechanical hooks needed by the DM are missing & too much of the core rules are built depending on the assumption that whatever (sub)system is on a particular page of the PHB will be left as is.

 

[Parmandur]

Gotcha. So if full power 2014 feats are fine to take at 1st level, then isn't the level requirements for feats just cruft that doesn't add to the game?

If a DM wants to allow it, I doubt it would break anything. The designation seems more to be about helping provide appropriate Background options.

 

[Parmandur]

No. 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. 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. How does that show that they don't care about the compatibility of player facing options again?

Yes, I honestly don't see how Crawford could have made it more clear that mixing and matching options in a given character, let alone table, is an explicit design aim.

 

[Hatmatter]

Please, no more word games. Which of these do you believe fits?

Whoa there, friend. I do not at all get the impression that Snarf is playing "word games." Rather, I think Snarf is bringing some much needed perspective and nuance to this discussion that at times can appear embattled.