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

[Velderan]

I feel like this is the "cutting the baby" sort of moment, where you really can't revise the rules without invalidating things. I also feel like that's more the argument for some of us than what it's being called: in trying to keep everything, you end up making it so that improvements might not take in the community because those improvements might be nerfs. It's less about calling it a new edition as much as calling a new edition makes a clear delineation compared to mess of trying to keep it all. I still feel that is where it's eventually going to lead, where it becomes too much hassle design-wise to keep everything together, so they should honestly get ahead of it.

I mean I hear what you're saying, because a lot of what's been proposed has been nerfs and a criticism I've made is just because you COULD run a 2014 paladin at the same table as a proposed UA 2024 paladin doesn't mean you SHOULD. Limiting them to 1 smite on their turn is a pretty big nerf and if you as the DM allow both versions as options, not many players will choose the lower power version. Should they get in front of it? Their thing all along on 5e has basically been "you'll figure it out" and the game seems popular enough with that game design philosophy. And if they wanted to, how do they? It's cost prohibitive to send Pinkertons to houses of people mixing rules, so probably the best they can do is just make the 2024 ruleset appealing to adopt. I know if I was running 5e still, I'd probably just switch to the new and leave all the old PHB stuff behind while taking Tasha's, Xanathar's, and such subclasses on a case by case basis.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I mean I hear what you're saying, because a lot of what's been proposed has been nerfs and a criticism I've made is just because you COULD run a 2014 paladin at the same table as a proposed UA 2024 paladin doesn't mean you SHOULD. Limiting them to 1 smite on their turn is a pretty big nerf and if you as the DM allow both versions as options, not many players will choose the lower power version. Should they get in front of it? Their thing all along on 5e has basically been "you'll figure it out" and the game seems popular enough with that game design philosophy. And if they wanted to, how do they? It's cost prohibitive to send Pinkertons to houses of people mixing rules, so probably the best they can do is just make the 2024 ruleset appealing to adopt. I know if I was running 5e still, I'd probably just switch to the new and leave all the old PHB stuff behind while taking Tasha's, Xanathar's, and such subclasses on a case by case basis.

I'm less worried about WotC sending people to enforce rules as much as allowing for a clean design space and less workload on the DM. You can play what you play, but what the Core rules should be is a solid ground to walk upon, not one that shifts depending on whether someone is bringing a decade-old book to the game table.

 

[Blue]

Fine. The 2024 PHB is 6th edition. Please proceed to burn all your 5th edition materials and begin the expansion treadmill again from ground zero. Consume! Consume! Consume!

Happy now?

You mischaracterize me as shooting for a particular solution, when what I'm shooting for is the truth of what is coming out.

The video says everything is valid. So I can, for example, pick a 2014 feat even if it's been replaced by a 2024 feat. Any books past the core is additional material, even if redoing material from earlier books.

Another still continuous is that the 2024 are updates - consider them errata. So I can still play a half-elf in organized play, and with my 1st level background feat pick Elven Accuracy since I meet it's requirements. Because those haven't been updated. But if I'm using a spell, rule, class or whatever with two different version I need to use the 2024 version in organized play. Any books past the core are also updates, so characters using material published before 2024 might find themselves having to change when a book is published. This is one of the places the UA is pushing, especially with their non-standard definition of "backward compatible" early in the recent one.

Then there is the "not continuous", where things like the half-elf or subclasses from other books or even a feat from 2014!PHB but not republished in the 2024!PHB aren't legal in organized play. Which we generally call another edition. The UAs could also be interpreted as going for here, much like the 3ed -> 3.5ed change.

I am not pushing for any of them. Well, that's not true - I am pushing for a balanced, playable set of rules, which I'm not sure if the 1st can provide. If there are ever two conflicting sets of RAW and the DM needs to use their authority to downcheck one, then there's de facto multiple editions even if that word is verboten.

 

[Mistwell]

Really, anyone applying critical thinking to the what they are putting out can see a disconnect.

This smacks of "anyone who disagrees with me just isn't thinking as clearly as I am," type analysis. You're leaving no room for the possibility you're wrong, or simply have a different perspective which isn't superior or inferior.

 

[mamba]

Really, anyone applying critical thinking to the what they are putting out can see a disconnect.

then explain the disconnect, because I see a lot of compatibility already, and they always said that whatever gap remains will be clarified how to bridge once the classes are final

 

[Velderan]

I'm less worried about WotC sending people to enforce rules as much as allowing for a clean design space and less workload on the DM. You can play what you play, but what the Core rules should be is a solid ground to walk upon, not one that shifts depending on whether someone is bringing a decade-old book to the game table.

And I'd expect some form of how to use this book alongside existing books guidance either in the book when it releases or online. For now, the UA have just been about taking the new class changes for a test drive and see how they work. I agree with what you're saying, I just think it's a bit early to expect anything out of WotC on the subject just yet. Once we're closer to having a release date, I'd expect their marketing videos to address that.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And I'd expect some form of how to use this book alongside existing books guidance either in the book when it releases or online. For now, the UA have just been about taking the new class changes for a test drive and see how they work. I agree with what you're saying, I just think it's a bit early to expect anything out of WotC on the subject just yet. Once we're closer to having a release date, I'd expect their marketing videos to address that.

Sure, I would expect some back-of-the-book guidance on such stuff. I just... I have disagreements with continuing this sort of thing because I think the game would benefit from a cleaner start here. A decade is a long time for games rules, I'd love to see Wizards be able to more freely use what they've learned from the last 10 years of game design triumphs and failures.

 

[Parmandur]

I do listen. Including to the subtext of what the UAs are saying. Which is different from what they are claiming on video.

Your statement is only true is the outreach videos are the only truth and the mechanics of what they are putting out, including what their own definition of "backwards compatible" is in the UA, is absolute lies that they have no intention of doing.

Really, anyone applying critical thinking to the what they are putting out can see a disconnect.

The subtext of the UA articles is "these options can be mixed and matched with 2014 options, please do so and tell us if that works for you." What Vrawford said in this video exactly matches the playtest packets.

 

[Parmandur]

You mischaracterize me as shooting for a particular solution, when what I'm shooting for is the truth of what is coming out.

The video says everything is valid. So I can, for example, pick a 2014 feat even if it's been replaced by a 2024 feat. Any books past the core is additional material, even if redoing material from earlier books.

Another still continuous is that the 2024 are updates - consider them errata. So I can still play a half-elf in organized play, and with my 1st level background feat pick Elven Accuracy since I meet it's requirements. Because those haven't been updated. But if I'm using a spell, rule, class or whatever with two different version I need to use the 2024 version in organized play. Any books past the core are also updates, so characters using material published before 2024 might find themselves having to change when a book is published. This is one of the places the UA is pushing, especially with their non-standard definition of "backward compatible" early in the recent one.

Then there is the "not continuous", where things like the half-elf or subclasses from other books or even a feat from 2014!PHB but not republished in the 2024!PHB aren't legal in organized play. Which we generally call another edition. The UAs could also be interpreted as going for here, much like the 3ed -> 3.5ed change.

I am not pushing for any of them. Well, that's not true - I am pushing for a balanced, playable set of rules, which I'm not sure if the 1st can provide. If there are ever two conflicting sets of RAW and the DM needs to use their authority to downcheck one, then there's de facto multiple editions even if that word is verboten.

"Organized play" is a corner case, ot the norm. Any special rules for AL amount to DM discretion, a ruling and not a rule. They have openly said that this is am edition in nor.al publishing parlance, or like how Call of Cthulu uses the term. But it's not an incompatible new game, as rhe word has been misused.

 

[Velderan]

Sure, I would expect some back-of-the-book guidance on such stuff. I just... I have disagreements with continuing this sort of thing because I think the game would benefit from a cleaner start here. A decade is a long time for games rules, I'd love to see Wizards be able to more freely use what they've learned from the last 10 years of game design triumphs and failures.

That ship pretty well sailed when they announced One D&D, because either they're liars telling you all your books would remain valid or they stick to a design that doesn't invalidate all your books. There really isn't a middle ground for them at this point.

That's good news for 5e fans who just want more of what they like and it's good news for publishers making games that people can try if they're bored with 5e.