D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[mellored]

Again, look at my reasons:

• Stronger characters

Not really. More versatile, more interesting, but not really more powerful. A lot of nova damage options where cut.

• New niche subclasses and shinier standard subclasses

Obviously people with 10 more years of experience will do a better job than before.

• Internet directs them to the new material

Well yea, they need to sell books to stay in business. They put a lot of time and effort into it.

When a company says that their product is backwards compatible and that no one will miss a beat mixing old characters with new,

I've litterally swapped old characters for new mid campaign without missing a beat.

The truth would be their sales pitch, which basically says: "You guys, we made these classes shinier and more interesting. There's no way you are going to want to go back to the old Champion when the new Champion is a million times better."

Did you expect them to make the Champion less interesting?

Buy the iPhone 17, with less colors, worse audio, and half the camera resolution as the old one!

 

[MichaelSomething]

Just because a person has a choice, does not mean they're really given a choice.

The 1st level party can get to the golden crown by fighting this low level goblin OR they can get to the crown by fighting an ancient red dragon?
The DM shrugs - "They had a choice? Just because they chose the goblin doesn't mean there was no choice."

Again, look at my reasons:

• Stronger characters
• New niche subclasses and shinier standard subclasses
• Internet directs them to the new material

When a company says that their product is backwards compatible and that no one will miss a beat mixing old characters with new, then there is an expectation set. When dozens (none of which were me) call them on this because they know it's just like Tasha's - players will always want what is better and stronger - then the company should say that.

But they didn't. Then they did a great pitch which I really, really like. I am excited for the new books. I will definitely want to use them. But despite that, it doesn't mean that the company was misleading about what they said.

Again, there is a nuance in what I am saying, and in what they said. They used the perfect terms to keep people excited, but not raise too many hairs. But it wasn't necessarily the truth. The truth would be their sales pitch, which basically says: "You guys, we made these classes shinier and more interesting. There's no way you are going to want to go back to the old Champion when the new Champion is a million times better."

That is what some people on here are arguing for. A bit of honesty. (Which doesn't work when you are a billion-dollar company trying to earn as much profits as possible.)

Then don't call it a compatibility issue? (You might not be though?)

Call it a planned obsolescence issue instead??

Compatibility means you can still use old material with new.

Planned obsolescence means they kill the old stuff so you have to use the new stuff. Though it's more like they make the new stuff so appealling you feel forced to use new material.

 

[Remathilis]

Then don't call it a compatibility issue? (You might not be though?)

Call it a planned obsolescence issue instead??

Compatibility means you can still use old material with new.

Planned obsolescence means they kill the old stuff so you have to use the new stuff. Though it's more like they make the new stuff so appealling you feel forced to use new material.

If they don't make changes, people complain the game isn't improving.

If they make changes, people complain that things didn't stay the same.

 

[mellored]

Planned obsolescence means they kill the old stuff so you have to use the new stuff. Though it's more like they make the new stuff so appealling you feel forced to use new material.

Planned obsolescence means they intentionally design the product to break after a certain period. Apple releasing a software update that slowed down all the old phones for instance.

It doesn't mean they can't make a better product.

Now you could claim some level planned obsolescence if they remove the old stuff from D&D beyond. Rather than say... just put a legacy tag on it. But we'll have to wait and see if that happens.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Just because a person has a choice, does not mean they're really given a choice.

The 1st level party can get to the golden crown by fighting this low level goblin OR they can get to the crown by fighting an ancient red dragon?
The DM shrugs - "They had a choice? Just because they chose the goblin doesn't mean there was no choice."

False analogy.

If I tell you that I'm bringing apple slices to the potluck like I do every year, but I'm also bringing brownies, then you can't claim I'm not really bringing apple slices just because everyone will want the brownies and won't eat the apple slices. I brought them, I said I would bring them, it is your choice to eat them or not.

Again, look at my reasons:

• Stronger characters
• New niche subclasses and shinier standard subclasses
• Internet directs them to the new material

When a company says that their product is backwards compatible and that no one will miss a beat mixing old characters with new, then there is an expectation set. When dozens (none of which were me) call them on this because they know it's just like Tasha's - players will always want what is better and stronger - then the company should say that.

You can mix old with new. There is no barrier to doing so. It doesn't matter that the new stuff is stronger, because you can still mix the old with the new, exactly like they said. They aren't liars just because people will want to play the fixed version of the characters.

But they didn't. Then they did a great pitch which I really, really like. I am excited for the new books. I will definitely want to use them. But despite that, it doesn't mean that the company was misleading about what they said.

Again, there is a nuance in what I am saying, and in what they said. They used the perfect terms to keep people excited, but not raise too many hairs. But it wasn't necessarily the truth. The truth would be their sales pitch, which basically says: "You guys, we made these classes shinier and more interesting. There's no way you are going to want to go back to the old Champion when the new Champion is a million times better."

That is what some people on here are arguing for. A bit of honesty. (Which doesn't work when you are a billion-dollar company trying to earn as much profits as possible.)

They constantly said they were improving the classes, making them better than ever. They never once said that there is no way you will want to use the old version, they never once said anything about the old version except that you can still use it if you want to.

Which is 100% true.

If you keep looking at 2024 and thinking "there is no way I would ever want to use a 2014 version of this" then... they did a great job? There is literally nothing wrong with that at all. It doesn't break their promise in the slightest. Because all they promised was that you COULD use the old version. And you can. And many people WILL, because they HATE the 2024 versions of the rules. I have a player who is currently taking the stance that they will never play a 2024 paladin and will only play a 2014 paladin. And they can. It will still work. I think they are making a poor choice, but it IS a choice.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Now you could claim some level planned obsolescence if they remove the old stuff from D&D beyond. Rather than say... just put a legacy tag on it. But we'll have to wait and see if that happens.

Depending on how the entire thing is coded... They likely CAN'T delete it and fulfill their stated promises. Because they have promised that anything not reprinted is still useable from 2014. That means they need to keep the Tempest Domain and the Forge Domain and Grave Domain, ect. So, they can't delete the 2014 cleric if that would mean deleting all the domains.

A legacy content tag makes loads more sense.

 

[Iosue]

What do people want out of backwards compatibility??? Do you just want to ignore the 2024 versions of stuff and keep playing the 2014 forever???
Edit: typo

It is not my position, but allowing for the maximum degree of good faith, I think what some people considered as backwards compatible was essentially switching out the 2014 PHB classes/species with later, improved versions from Tasha's and Xanathar's, plus a healthy smattering of errata for problem rules/spells/features. In other words, greater continuity between the 2014 rules and the 2024 rules.

WotC has not done that. They have revised just about every facet of the game, to the degree that, say, even the 2014 Champion Fighter and the 2024 Champion Fighter are two distinct things now. And so now, a player and/or a group has to make a distinct decision: 2024 rules or 2014 rules? And if the former, are 2014 options still available?

That said, from the beginning, WotC's definition of backwards compatible has always been consistent. From the One D&D FAQ:

What does backwards compatible mean?​

It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D.

So, your Curse of Strahd book? Use it with the 2024 rules with no problem. Your Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide? Use it with the 2024 rules with no problem.

Since that announcement, they have talked about how they recommend mixing 2014 player options with 2024 player options, to various degrees of success, but as far as I'm concerned, that's gravy. All that we could expect was that the adventurers and supplements from 2014-2024 would work with the 2024 rules, as near as I can see, that promise was fulfilled.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If they don't make changes, people complain the game isn't improving.

If they make changes, people complain that things didn't stay the same.

They didn't make enough changes for it to be worth getting. I would have seriously considered an actual new edition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

False analogy.

If I tell you that I'm bringing apple slices to the potluck like I do every year, but I'm also bringing brownies, then you can't claim I'm not really bringing apple slices just because everyone will want the brownies and won't eat the apple slices. I brought them, I said I would bring them, it is your choice to eat them or not.



You can mix old with new. There is no barrier to doing so. It doesn't matter that the new stuff is stronger, because you can still mix the old with the new, exactly like they said. They aren't liars just because people will want to play the fixed version of the characters.



They constantly said they were improving the classes, making them better than ever. They never once said that there is no way you will want to use the old version, they never once said anything about the old version except that you can still use it if you want to.

Which is 100% true.

If you keep looking at 2024 and thinking "there is no way I would ever want to use a 2014 version of this" then... they did a great job? There is literally nothing wrong with that at all. It doesn't break their promise in the slightest. Because all they promised was that you COULD use the old version. And you can. And many people WILL, because they HATE the 2024 versions of the rules. I have a player who is currently taking the stance that they will never play a 2024 paladin and will only play a 2014 paladin. And they can. It will still work. I think they are making a poor choice, but it IS a choice.

But the 2024 paladin is arguably the only straight nerf. Why wouldn't you play the 2014 one instead?

 

[Sulicius]

But the 2024 paladin is arguably the only straight nerf. Why wouldn't you play the 2014 one instead?

Because not everyone cares about doing nova damage? Because a player is fine with moving to the 2024 rules with the rest of the group?

I understand that it feels like it was a nerf, but as a DM I very much welcome paladins being given more flexibility and not just a smite button.