D&D (2024) We’ll be merging the One D&D and D&D forums shortly

Parmandur

Book-Friend
At any rate, sadly, 4e Essentials was ultimately unsuccessful as a product, whereas D&D2024 probably WILL be successful. (I mean, we'll have to see, but signs point to yes, IMO).
The open and public research and development phase for the '24 rules is as long as the entire existence of 4E prior to Essentials. And we know they were planning and thinking about it for a good year and a half longer: it's almost as if Essentials was the first drop for 4E after 7 years of 3.5 instead of 5.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
get why there is a comparison, but the fact is, "2024 5e" is actively trying to replace the original rules with new rules that do a better job, or fix customer complaints, or improve performance. The claims of backwards compatibility are primarily about (a) emphasizing that old adventures and monsters will still work fine, (b) assuring players that the underlying math isn't changing, and (c) pretending that the classes being replaced aren't actually being replaced.
The insistence on making it about the belief that wotc are just lying about what they’re doing is getting weird.

The classes aren’t being replaced. There will essentially exist a larger set of optional variant features. 🤷‍♂️
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
The insistence on making it about the belief that wotc are just lying about what they’re doing is getting weird.

The classes aren’t being replaced. There will essentially exist a larger set of optional variant features. 🤷‍♂️
So...the explicit admission that the classes don't fit how players play 5e and need to be redesigned so they do fit how players play 5e is...irrelevant? Crawford just joshing us?
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So...the explicit admission that the classes don't fit how players play 5e and need to be redesigned so they do fit how players play 5e is...irrelevant? Crawford just joshing us?
I don’t have the energy for the logical leaps you’re going on.

Please extrapolate the reasoning at play here, because nothing that you are saying in reply to me in this thread follows from what I posted.
 

Echohawk

Shirokinukatsukami fan
At any rate, sadly, 4e Essentials was ultimately unsuccessful as a product, whereas D&D2024 probably WILL be successful. (I mean, we'll have to see, but signs point to yes, IMO).
Speaking of 4e Essentials, I sincerely hope we eventually get a 5e version of the Rules Compendium. That book was by far the most used in-game reference of any edition. I realize that 3e also had a Rules Compendium, but somehow the digest-sized 4e version saw way more use.
 


EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I don’t have the energy for the logical leaps you’re going on.

Please extrapolate the reasoning at play here, because nothing that you are saying in reply to me in this thread follows from what I posted.
Alright. Just want to be clear, you asked for the long-form explanation!

Crawford has, explicitly and publicly (on film, even!), admitted that the existing Warlock is unable to keep up with other classes, specifically long-rest-based ones, because it was designed presuming a certain minimum number of short rests before each long rest (somewhere around 2.5 average SR per LR), but actual player practice does not match this assumption. He explicitly said that part of the reason for doing the "One D&D" playtest was to find ways to address this problem, so that Warlocks in general would better match other classes in play. Likewise, he explicitly discussed the problems folks have had with other classes, like Ranger, and how these playtest efforts are, in part, to fix those problems. All of this was quite clearly laid out before they produced the first playtest packet, so folks would know what the goals of the playtest were. The original versions of these classes, in multiple cases, are not forwards-compatible with the new ones. At the very least, subclasses can't be ported between them, whether because their features have changed or because the levels at which you get features have changed. Druid, for example, is getting a pretty major overhaul due to the uneven and spiky power of wild shape.

You cannot address these problems by providing an alternative. Anyone not using the alternative is still at risk of those problems. Hence, as one of the explicit purposes was to address these design shortfalls, to make the design of this system more effectively conform to how people actually use it, it is necessarily a replacement, not an augmentation. It does, I freely admit, also contain augmentations of the existing rules, as well as integrating already extant errata into the text itself.

The "this is a replacement" effect is also distinctly visible with backgrounds. The official stance on backgrounds, from here on out, is that they provide feats. If you want to use a prior background, it will need to be altered so that it provides a feat, unless you just aren't using the "2024" rules. If you're going to play with anyone using the new-style backgrounds, then purely for fairness, everyone will need to. Old backgrounds (well, the vast majority of them) are not forwards-compatible; new backgrounds, however, are backwards-compatible, since a few current backgrounds do in fact provide a feat, e.g. the Strixhaven student one.

I cannot parse these changes as anything other than replacements, based on the actual words and intent of the designers. Yet they insist that such changes absolutely are not replacements, in defiance of both their own intent and words. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that at least one of those things is false. Either they truly aren't replacements and the explicit intent has been false the whole time, or they are replacements and the insistence that they are not is insincere. Given the changes they have implemented do work toward their stated intent (IMO often only partial measures, but partial is better than nothing), I cannot reject their explicit statements of intent as having been false; they appear to genuinely see these things as problems and want to fix them.

That leaves me no choice but to treat their insistence that this is absolutely not a replacement in any form as being insincere. This, then, forces me to ask why. What is gained from such denial of what is demonstrably true? And the answer is quite simple; not only that, but even implied by what WotC has said both recently and in prior years. The thing gained is that WotC does not perturb (offend, confuse, etc.) customers who might buy new things other than the new core books, or old things prior to the new core books. Remember, they had toyed with the idea of just calling 5e "D&D," without any edition at all, but (IMO quite wisely) avoided doing so. They're hoping to have their cake and eat it too: they can say they are taking steps to address problems, but they dodge the backlash and controversy that surrounded 3.5e (e.g. the claims of "cash grab" or "taking books away" etc.), and any hypothetical lost sales from the possibility that a confused customer avoids products across the divide due to thinking they are incompatible.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I cannot parse these changes as anything other than replacements, based on the actual words and intent of the designers.
I and others can. The Warlock isn’t being replaced with a new warlock, there is a new warlock that will work a bit better for many tables.

I don’t know how you got your takeaway from the videos in question, frankly. JC said that some warlock players experience dissatisfaction with the warlock because of differences in rests per day vs encounters per day among different groups, and LR casters not wanting to take short rests as much.

He didn’t say that it was universal, he didn’t say that the playtest was happeneing to replace a non-functional class, he didn’t say anything that necessarily means what you’ve decided it all means.
That leaves me no choice but to treat their insistence that this is absolutely not a replacement in any form as being insincere.
You absolutely have a choice. You’ve chosen to call people liars. You could choose not to do that.

It isn’t a replacement. It’s new options, somewhere between optional variant features (the player options) and reprint errata (general rules updates).

Also, the Druid isn’t that different. Wild Shape works a bit differently, but the biggest difference is that if you play a 2024 Druid with circle of The Shephard, you wait one extra level to get your first subclass feature.

And your impression that they are denying any incompatibility is false, because they have said that you may not be able to mix and match on a single character, but you will be able to play 2014 and 2024 characters in the same party. There is an implied “without some mild conversion”, but they’re being cautious to not make the claim you are saying they are making, because people keep hurling insulting verbal abuse at them when they talk about the playtest and the new core books.
 

And your impression that they are denying any incompatibility is false, because they have said that you may not be able to mix and match on a single character, but you will be able to play 2014 and 2024 characters in the same party. There is an implied “without some mild conversion”, but they’re being cautious to not make the claim you are saying they are making, because people keep hurling insulting verbal abuse at them when they talk about the playtest and the new core books.
In other words, it's not 100% compatible, so it's not the same game, but a new variant. A new "edition" of sorts.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top