D&D (2024) Reworked…revised…redone….but

[Micah Sweet]

I guess that's fine if my monkey brains game is a hobby/labor of love given to the world with no expectations of even recouping my losses, but if I have any inclination that I want to be reasonably compensated for my time and energy, I don't know if 3 or even 3000 will cut it. If one million people buy ham sandwiches and I get a 10th of that, I'm doing better than my CMB dinner.

Maybe when we reach post-scarcity Communism like Star Trek, people will make games regardless if they will be played or not.

So to be clear: for you WotC had the choice to make either some insanity game no one but the creators could be expected to like, or 5.5? One or the other?

 

[mamba]

New content has been delivered as new editions, supplements (optional), and errata (mandatory - for digital, at least). But 5.24 is being defined as something else like a supplemental errata. It's a bit of a paradox - it is both mandatory and optional. If a table is playing the 5.24 rules, those rules, including the class tables and class spell lists, become the default rules.

2024 is entirely optional, notice the IF in your sentence.

It is the same as the move from 4e to 5e, you can switch or not, but if you do, 5e is the new framework. The difference is 4e and 5e are not compatible, but that is irrelevant to the switching decision

5e characters are converted unless they're not in 5.24. For the earlier example of the bladesinger with booming blade - they couldn't have booming blade RAW because Wizard is in 5.24 but, from a comment I saw, booming blade is not. Yet it is also fine to play a 5e character made with 5e rules at a table playing 5.24, so you can have a bladesinger with booming blade RAW. Both of these bladesingers can play in the same game. That's great flexibility, but forgive me, it's chaotic. I think that for practicality's sake 5e and 5.24 may work best if treated as different editions.

what is chaotic about it. If something exists in 2024, use that. If it exists in 2014 only, you can use it but might need to adjust it a bit, as described in the 2024 PHB. No chaos whatsoever, unless you consider the decision what to in- and exclude in itself to be chaotic.

Of course you can leave behind anything from 2014, up to you, but it is not increasing order to do so, all it does is reduce available options

Naming is functional and communicates compatibility for characters between editions.

ah, I see, if there were a 2024 Bladesinger then no, you use that. From my understanding there isn’t, and that is why you can use the 2014 Booming Blade one, or did I misunderstand that case?

5.24 is backwards compatible in the way that the Borg are compatible with anyone. Just convert. It's funny, by stating 5.24 is backwards compatible, it defines 5.24 as a different edition.

2024 is not compatible with 4e, the Borg would be…

What it does is declare it compatible with 5e, just like Tasha’s is compatible with 5e or a 3pp supplement is. Compatibility does not imply a different edition

 

[Yaarel]

tl;dr I think the naming matters because it sets expectations and player perceptions of fair play are more important than how balanced the characters might be.

Yeah. That is the point.

If they called it 6e, then the name would be perceived as incompatible with 5e.

By calling it 5e, the name is perceived as compatible: the correct perception.


5.5 wouldnt really work because, the one edition that did do that, actually had 3.5 prove to be ultimately incompatible with 3.0. So people would perceive 5.5 as incompatible.


I think WotC made the right decision naming it, "5e 2024". It is distinct from 5e 2014, but still compatible. And. Appropriate for the "anniversary edition".

 

[Chaosmancer]

New content has been delivered as new editions, supplements (optional), and errata (mandatory - for digital, at least). But 5.24 is being defined as something else like a supplemental errata. It's a bit of a paradox - it is both mandatory and optional. If a table is playing the 5.24 rules, those rules, including the class tables and class spell lists, become the default rules. 5e characters are converted unless they're not in 5.24. For the earlier example of the bladesinger with booming blade - they couldn't have booming blade RAW because Wizard is in 5.24 but, from a comment I saw, booming blade is not. Yet it is also fine to play a 5e character made with 5e rules at a table playing 5.24, so you can have a bladesinger with booming blade RAW. Both of these bladesingers can play in the same game. That's great flexibility, but forgive me, it's chaotic. I think that for practicality's sake 5e and 5.24 may work best if treated as different editions.

You are deeply misunderstanding the situation, if you think that a Wizard from 5.24 cannot use Booming Blade. They absolutely can. Booming Blade is still a legal spell to be used. It is simply that if you open the 2024 PHB and see a NEW version of Booming Blade, then you should use that version.

The thing with it being "mandatory but optional" I think is also just making this far more complicated than it needs to be. It is actually brutally simple.

If you sat down at a table using the 2014 rules run by a machine, and tried to play a 2024 Fighter, the machine would spit an error message. The machine has no reference in its database to "Weapon Mastery", so your ability to use this is nonsensical to the machine. However, if you sat down at a 2024 table and ran a completely by the book 2014 fighter... that machine would have no problems utilizing the 2014 fighter. Everything referenced in the 2014 fighter makes sense to the machine and it would run smoothly. This is literally the only point on the mixing of the rules that matters.

Do the designers WANT you to run the 2014 Fighter? No. They made a better version of the Fighter, they think you should use that. Do you want to play a Rune Knight which isn't in 2024? That's fine, just like Booming Blade, the Rune Knight slots in without any problems into the 2024 rules.

Do they WANT you to take the 2024 Fighter and use the 2014 GWM Feat? Nope, they want you to use the new feat. But you CAN CHOOSE to ignore that advice. The game functions with either, they just want you using the new material when it is provided to you.

Naming is functional and communicates compatibility for characters between editions. A lot of what I'm seeing is a broad handwaving about balance to state there's compatibility. But I think players' perception of balance can be pretty important. I would want at least a heads up if I was going to be playing a 5e monk, paladin, fighter, ranger, what have you at a table with a similar 5.24 character, or vice versa. We can play across versions, but that doesn't mean we should.

5.24 is backwards compatible in the way that the Borg are compatible with anyone. Just convert. It's funny, by stating 5.24 is backwards compatible, it defines 5.24 as a different edition. Because you don't state that a supplement or errata is backwards compatible. The linguistic gymnastics to say the books are backwards compatible instead of the new edition is backwards compatible is impressive.

tl;dr I think the naming matters because it sets expectations and player perceptions of fair play are more important than how balanced the characters might be.

If you are sitting down at the table with someone playing a Verdant Soul Sorcerer, do you know what to expect? What if I told you it was from a supplement focused on plant-themed characters and not from the PHB? Does that help you figure out if you should be playing at that table with that character? Is it compatible if you are playing an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer?

What if I go further and you are playing with an Inventor from the Crafting Compendium, which is a fully 5e compatible book? Do you know, just from that, if the Inventor is more or less powerful than the Artificer?

The issue here is you are thinking that there must be a clear, bright line drawn because these 2024 versions of the classes might be stronger and therefore it should be a new edition. But if I'm sitting down with an Oath of the Coven Paladin, a Gunslinger Fighter, a Way of the Leaden Crown Monk, and an Order of the Ghostslayer Blood Hunter... should I declare that a new edition of the game? All of those subclasses are officially printed in official 5e compatible books and materials. What if I wanted to use them in a 2024 game, would that suddenly make them sixth edition materials?

You are making this a big deal, when the reality is, it isn't any different than sitting down with any other rules changes from any other source.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah. That is the point.

If they called it 6e, then the name would be perceived as incompatible with 5e.

By calling it 5e, the name is perceived as compatible: the correct perception.


5.5 wouldnt really work because, the one edition that did do that, actually had 3.5 prove to be ultimately incompatible with 3.0. So people would perceive 5.5 as incompatible.


I think WotC made the right decision naming it, "5e 2024". It is distinct from 5e 2014, but still compatible. And. Appropriate for the "anniversary edition".

Given the degree of change between 5.0 and 5.5 in a lot of areas, I'm not sure people won't eventually come to the same conclusion: that they're not really compatible with each other either.

The whole narrative of this change looks to me a lot more like the 3.0/3.5 shift than anything else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are deeply misunderstanding the situation, if you think that a Wizard from 5.24 cannot use Booming Blade. They absolutely can. Booming Blade is still a legal spell to be used. It is simply that if you open the 2024 PHB and see a NEW version of Booming Blade, then you should use that version.

The thing with it being "mandatory but optional" I think is also just making this far more complicated than it needs to be. It is actually brutally simple.

If you sat down at a table using the 2014 rules run by a machine, and tried to play a 2024 Fighter, the machine would spit an error message. The machine has no reference in its database to "Weapon Mastery", so your ability to use this is nonsensical to the machine. However, if you sat down at a 2024 table and ran a completely by the book 2014 fighter... that machine would have no problems utilizing the 2014 fighter. Everything referenced in the 2014 fighter makes sense to the machine and it would run smoothly. This is literally the only point on the mixing of the rules that matters.

Do the designers WANT you to run the 2014 Fighter? No. They made a better version of the Fighter, they think you should use that. Do you want to play a Rune Knight which isn't in 2024? That's fine, just like Booming Blade, the Rune Knight slots in without any problems into the 2024 rules.

Do they WANT you to take the 2024 Fighter and use the 2014 GWM Feat? Nope, they want you to use the new feat. But you CAN CHOOSE to ignore that advice. The game functions with either, they just want you using the new material when it is provided to you.



If you are sitting down at the table with someone playing a Verdant Soul Sorcerer, do you know what to expect? What if I told you it was from a supplement focused on plant-themed characters and not from the PHB? Does that help you figure out if you should be playing at that table with that character? Is it compatible if you are playing an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer?

What if I go further and you are playing with an Inventor from the Crafting Compendium, which is a fully 5e compatible book? Do you know, just from that, if the Inventor is more or less powerful than the Artificer?

The issue here is you are thinking that there must be a clear, bright line drawn because these 2024 versions of the classes might be stronger and therefore it should be a new edition. But if I'm sitting down with an Oath of the Coven Paladin, a Gunslinger Fighter, a Way of the Leaden Crown Monk, and an Order of the Ghostslayer Blood Hunter... should I declare that a new edition of the game? All of those subclasses are officially printed in official 5e compatible books and materials. What if I wanted to use them in a 2024 game, would that suddenly make them sixth edition materials?

You are making this a big deal, when the reality is, it isn't any different than sitting down with any other rules changes from any other source.

Replacing the core rules and all the information in them is a bigger deal than using a 3pp supplement with your game. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Yaarel]

Given the degree of change between 5.0 and 5.5 in a lot of areas, I'm not sure people won't eventually come to the same conclusion: that they're not really compatible with each other either.

The whole narrative of this change looks to me a lot more like the 3.0/3.5 shift than anything else.

When D4 D&D Deep Dive and Treantmonk say 2024 is compatible with 2014, and "no worries", I believe them. These are optimizers who scrutinize abusable mechanics and are highly aware of what works and what doesnt. Both of them have had an early copy of the 2024 Players Handbook for a while now, and have been crunching it since then.

2024 is genuinely compatible with 2014.

That was one of the goals, and it look like WotC achieved it.

 

[Remathilis]

So to be clear: for you WotC had the choice to make either some insanity game no one but the creators could be expected to like, or 5.5? One or the other?

You're the one who thinks WotC designed the new books solely to make money and with no love or art in it. I assume you only view rpg design as either passion projects or corporate slop. So you tell me which it was.

 

[Remathilis]

Given the degree of change between 5.0 and 5.5 in a lot of areas, I'm not sure people won't eventually come to the same conclusion: that they're not really compatible with each other either.

The whole narrative of this change looks to me a lot more like the 3.0/3.5 shift than anything else.

Using that measure, I would say AD&D 1e and 2e are not compatible with each other either.

 

[mamba]

Replacing the core rules and all the information in them is a bigger deal than using a 3pp supplement with your game. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

let’s see, the PHB gets me 12 classes and 48 subclasses plus whatever else changed. Valda’s Spire of Secrets gives me another 10 classes and 150 subclasses across both sets of classes, new feats and spells too.

I am not sure I consider adding that a smaller change.

In case you are not familiar with it

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/magehandpress/spire-of-secrets