D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Scott Christian]

A, B, C, and D do not erase the fact that the rules are backwards compatible, and that you could easily take a character built with the 2014 rules and play at a table where they are running the 2024 rules.

Do they recommend you use the updated material? Of course they do. If they didn't think it was better updated, they wouldn't have updated it.

Can you ignore them and run it how you like? Of course you can. You always could.

If you read my post closely, you'll notice there is nuance there about the term backwards compatibility. I agree with everything you said. My point is, it might not be backwards compatible because of power and player use. Could you just port your old wheelbarrow from 1980's Monopoly on over to a new modern Monopoly. Sure. You roll the same dice and see the same spaces. But why would you when the new car and dog start with three properties and $2,000 extra in cash. The truth is, you wouldn't. And neither will new players.

 

[Remathilis]

Everyone has different tolerances for “won’t work.” I expect a great number of threads about 2014 rules vs 2024 rules and how things don’t work quite right with X adventure in the years to come.

I mean, people complain about that now. And I certainly think adventures from Witchlight on will need less work than the earlier ones. But I doubt it would be any more work than your average 3pp module.

 

[Remathilis]

I expect that it's using divine intervention to cast Hallow.

Which is a no-save mass vulnerability.

Chris specifically calls that out and suggests that be a house rule or discussion with your players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A, B, C, and D do not erase the fact that the rules are backwards compatible, and that you could easily take a character built with the 2014 rules and play at a table where they are running the 2024 rules.

Do they recommend you use the updated material? Of course they do. If they didn't think it was better updated, they wouldn't have updated it.

Can you ignore them and run it how you like? Of course you can. You always could.

They want money, so they absolutely would have updated anyway. Improving anything in 5.5 is very much a secondary consideration for WotC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Chris specifically calls that out and suggests that be a house rule or discussion with your players.

And it still is unclear if he interprets it correctly.

 

[Oofta]

They want money, so they absolutely would have updated anyway. Improving anything in 5.5 is very much a secondary consideration for WotC.

That makes no sense. If there were no improvements no one would buy the updates. It's in their self-interest to improve things. But yes, businesses want money. Shocking.

 

[Charlaquin]

WotC didn't want to start over from scratch, and they wanted to assure people this wasn't a 3e-4e-5e type transition. The fact you can't use 2014 wild shape with the 2024 druid isn't proof of dishonest intent. They wanted to let you know you can still use Glory of the Giants or Shadow of the Dragon Queen (complete with kender or lunar sorcerer) and not wait for new versions. That's all I wanted and that's apparently what I'm getting.

They’re never going to say it out loud, but I’m confident they also wanted to reassure 3rd party publishers and content creators that players who switch to the new rules will still be interested in their content. While the OGL fiasco may have given the impression that they don’t care about 3rd party, I think that couldn’t be further from the truth; the backlash from 3rd party was a huge part of why they backed down. The ones who are dialed-in recognize that D&D’s market dominance is reinforced by the fact that so many 3rd party publishers make content for their game. The less dialed-in ones (like Chris Cox) just thought they had grown dominant enough that they could get away with charging those 3rd party publishers for the privilege.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That makes no sense. If there were no improvements no one would buy the updates. It's in their self-interest to improve things. But yes, businesses want money. Shocking.

Some people seem to think new art and layout are improvements worth paying for.

 

[Oofta]

Some people seem to think new art and layout are improvements worth paying for.

If that's all they needed, they would have just done a reprint of the old rules with art. But only a minority of people would have bought it.

I fail to see your point. They decided to do a revision because they felt it was the best option going forward.

 

[MockingBird]

Some people seem to think new art and layout are improvements worth paying for.

And those people have every right to feel that way.