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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chaosmancer

Legend
And for some of us the argument of “it doesn’t matter I can fix it myself or pay for a book from 3rd party to fix it” falls flat like why not just ask them to fix it before it comes out?

Usually, I agree with you. The thing is... they are fixing it. What they AREN'T doing is saying "our fix is the only thing you are allowed to use."

To maybe bring this to a concrete example. Do I want WoTC to fix their crafting rules, even though I've purchased 3rd party crafting rules? Yes, their current official crafting rules suck and they should be better. But I also don't see the issue with having two different "rules legal" versions of a class, because I have over time found five or six crafting systems that are "rules legal" for me to use in my games. And it isn't an issue, because I just use the best one, or combine them where it makes more sense to combine them. And if WoTC made an official system... well that would be system #7 and unless it was better than what I was using, I wouldn't adopt it. Even though I'd be glad for its inclusion as a better option than what currently exists in the game.

I know it is maybe a weird position, because I do insist on WoTC fixing their stuff, but I just don't see any problem in their fixes not coming with a directive of the company that the only thing you are allowed to use is the new fixed version. Because I don't care what the company says I can use, per se.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mamba

Legend
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.
I'd love for them to not tie themselves into knots trying to maintain compatibility between 2014 subclasses and 2024 classes. I do not care one bit for that. Maintain power compatibility between pure 2014 classes and pure 2024 classes and by extension with adventures across both versions, and forget the '2014 subclass on a 2024 chassis' nonsense.

Unfortunately that will not happen, they rather hobble themselves
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
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.
IME from selling D&D since 1993, calling it a new edition would make it much, much harder to sell the existing 5e books. They'd have to start from "scratch" without the very, very lucrative backstock of books. They've discovered the same thing. This is why they're branding it this way, and why "backwards compatibility" is important to THEM. New books usually sell better than old books (this hasn't been true with 5e) but old books that keep selling make much better profits. They want to keep the old books alive and in-print as much as is possible. (Which is much more possible than ever before in history).

Like, 10 years for a gaming edition isn't bad at all. In fact, that's pretty damn long compared to, say, tabletop wargaming. If WotC were to actually put out an RCR or whatever, I feel like few would think of it as an "expansion treadmill" because the output rate of these things isn't the same, plus it doesn't really affect the most numerous product: adventures.
It does, though! As a FAN, I'd be happy with a 6e, but as a retailer - no thanks!

See, I feel like the reality is disagreeing with you right now, given how many times Wizards has to say that this isn't an edition change. If even if a small, vocal minority were saying that, I don't think they'd address it. Instead, I think people see a "playtest" and think "new rules".
This has been a huge problem with the Playtest in the online community. (Though I would say that it hasn't actually reached very much of the non-online community, which is far, far more important (and more relaxed) than us hardcore crazies.) Every new rule in the PLAYTEST (and it's simply that - a test) has been treated as if it is hard-etched in stone. A definite preview of what 2024 rules will look like. It was never meant to be that. It's a playtest. They've been doing this since 2012 (or maybe '13, I'm sure someone can correct me). Anyone who has been following along knows that MOST of the UA stuff NEVER SEES PRINT. This was always going to be true here, too.

I think they'd be better off leaning into just admitting it's a new edition and saying "Your adventures won't be invalidated by this" because it needs to do less work to actually guide people to where they want.
You might think so, but you'd be wrong, I'm afraid.

Also I think more experienced people are way more willing to make jumps, hack things, etc, than newer people to the hobby. In fact, especially newer people to the hobby. I don't think we should look at that as a good way to on-board GMs because I think most people, when they come into this sort of game, see rules as rules. It takes time to build up a knowledge of how things work to where you feel comfortable modifying things on the fly without mussing things up. At least, that's been my experience in teaching new GMs over the years. It's easy to feel like you can just jump into this stuff when you've been reading rules for years, but for many it isn't.
The situation is not without it's faults. People are going to have to decide what books they want to use. As the 2014 CORE books will almost certainly go out of print, eventually the choice will be 2024, unless you really want the "old" game. Yes, THAT part is like how you could start fresh with 4e now, but you'd need to buy OOP books. That'll probably happen to 5e core, but the rest of the books can remain in print, depending on sales - and whether they replace them - HotDQ and RoT are OOP, replaced by Tyranny of Dragons, and VGtM & MToF are still available, but probably not going back to press in favor of MMoM. I expect 2024 Core will be the same.

Most "new" players will just get and use the new books, simply due to availability.

Eh, I think there's a point for the game makers to curate things more firmly and then let GMs make their individual choices as they come. I think it's easier to have a strong baseline game and then hash out details rather than potentially picking and choosing between two books.

Sure, but I think that they are likely (in particular due to all the recent online misunderstandings) to make new-player FAQs and sidebars that explain all this.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
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.

But this does not logically follow.

Let's take a simple rule. How long is a Long Rest? Right now, in 5e, officially and by RAW the answer is... either 1 hr, 8 hrs, or 7 days. All three options are 100% RAW, 100% legal, and 100% supported by WoTC as something you can do. But at the table... that is three different, conflicting RAW's.

By your logic, that would mean that 5e is already, de facto, three different editions. One where the long rest is 1 hr, one where the long rest is 8hrs, and one where the long rest is 7 days. Now, I know, many times people turn around and say "optional rules are different than classes/feats/Species/ECT.... but I don't see the difference. Like, I'm not being facetious or anything else. I don't see the qualitative difference between there being three different definitions of a long rest (which all can have different rules from restoring half HD, full HD, or no HD) and there being two different versions of The Cleric, or two different Great Weapon Master feats. It is the same thing.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
This is one of the places the UA is pushing, especially with their non-standard definition of "backward compatible" early in the recent one.

To be fair, that same UA talks about how they will work out how to handle these sorts of hiccups, in the future, when what is going to change and what isn't is ACTUALLY NAILED DOWN. We're just being impatient. They will write about how to deal with this sort of thing when it makes sense to do so.

It occurs to me, that something has happened this playtest that I don't think has happened before: I think only really, truly Hardcore D&D people Playtested D&DNext and probably 5e UAs. But the OneD&D Playtest has had so many more eyes on it, that there's two types of people that are having a hard time understanding that This Is Not How Things Will Be (Yet): 1) Hardcore D&D fans who are naturally stubborn and opinionated (me! me!); and 2) New fans who don't really understand what a Playtest is for.

Oh, and YouTubers looking for RAGECLICKS. But that's another issue.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
But this does not logically follow.

Let's take a simple rule. How long is a Long Rest? Right now, in 5e, officially and by RAW the answer is... either 1 hr, 8 hrs, or 7 days. All three options are 100% RAW, 100% legal, and 100% supported by WoTC as something you can do. But at the table... that is three different, conflicting RAW's.

By your logic, that would mean that 5e is already, de facto, three different editions. One where the long rest is 1 hr, one where the long rest is 8hrs, and one where the long rest is 7 days. Now, I know, many times people turn around and say "optional rules are different than classes/feats/Species/ECT.... but I don't see the difference. Like, I'm not being facetious or anything else. I don't see the qualitative difference between there being three different definitions of a long rest (which all can have different rules from restoring half HD, full HD, or no HD) and there being two different versions of The Cleric, or two different Great Weapon Master feats. It is the same thing.
There IS one difference: 99% of people play with the default. But that doesn't invalidate your position: Most people will wind up playing with the new version, as it will become the default. Anyone who choses to use the old version CAN, but it will definitely be considered the "optional rule".

Some people think that that makes it somehow not backward-compatible, but like you say, I don't see how it's different than choosing to use any other optional rules. Even less than optional rests, as they change the "feel" of the game by a LOT more than a group having one 2014 Warlock in the party, because the player preferred that version; or only owned a 2014 PHB with which to make their character; OR because the DM decided that "in my world, 2014 Warlocks are what Warlocks look like".
 

Remathilis

Legend
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.
So let me ask you a question.

If I go to make a character in your game and I choose orc as my race, how do you handle the fact there are three distinct versions of the orc race: the Volo version, the Eberron/Wildmount version, and the MotM version? Do you let me pick any of them or restrict me to just one? If one, are you only allowing the most recent one? Does it matter that the Volo version was literally eratta'd out of existence by the Eberron version (so that any printing of Volo afterwards replaced the orc with the updated one)? What if I bring my PC I made using the original Volo rules to a game where you only use the MotM one? Do I keep my PC as is (-2 Int and all) or do I redo my PC?

If you can answer the above questions: Congratulations. You can handle the differences between the 14 and 24 PHB.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Whatever, it's correct since WotC has taken stewardship of D&D. Can we stay on the main topic instead of trying to dance around it on word choices or technicalities.

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.)
1. Pretty solidly.

Even the most extreme stuff they have put out for feedback hasn’t invalidated anything, and we all knew from day one that the playtest would be at its least conservative in the first handful of documents, because that is how they’ve been doing it since the Next playtest.

“OneD&D” isn’t a game. It’s a refresh point for the entire brand, and that’s it. The 2024 books will still be the 5e core rulebooks.
 

Hussar

Legend
Nobody thinks anyone started but the other side.
Et tu?

I mean, good grief, WotC has been as bloody crystal clear as they could possibly be right from day one. And right from day one people have been twisting their words right around the corner. "AHA! You have dangled a participle!! YOU MUST BE LYING TO EVERYONE!!! LOOK HOW THEY ARE LYING!!!!"

Yeah, it's all WotC's fault. :erm:
 

Hussar

Legend
I do listen. Including to the subtext of what the UAs are saying. Which is different from what they are claiming on video.
"I don't like what they are actually saying, so I'll invent new things that I think they are saying, which gives me something to argue about."

I dunno. How about actually dealing with the things they are directly saying and not inventing messages that they haven't actually said?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top