New WotC Vlog: "What are the 2024 Fifth Edition Core Rulebooks?"

[Zevox]

Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcvhggoCNcE).

Surprised nobody else has posted this yet. Brief video, but a short summary:
- They're referring to the new PHB/DMG/MM simply as the 2024 Fifth Edition core rulebooks now, and the existing 5E core books as the 2014 ones. They are now calling it a continuation of 5E. They don't officially say they're doing away with the "One D&D" moniker, but functionally, that's clearly what this is about (they never even use the name "One D&D" in the video at all). They also all pretty explicitly say that this is because 5E is still selling very well.
- They "started being very experimental" (their words, not mine), and are now going to be going back to things closer to the existing 5E rules. Specific example being that they'll no longer be universalizing subclass levels. They're still not going to have any subclasses at levels 1 or 2, but after that, they won't always come on the same levels for every class the way they did in the playtests we've had thus far.
- The new playtest that will include the Monk is "coming very soon."
- They will apparently be doing a bit less emphasizing of game terms through capitalization than in early play tests, but still a lot more than in the 5E books.

So, if it wasn't obvious enough, this is 5.5E in all but name, and they now want to just pretend it doesn't need a new name at all because 5E is popular. I will say I'm slightly happy to hear they're not longer going to force all classes to gain subclass levels at the same level, as that did lead to some things I wasn't fond of, mainly with the Paladin (i.e. delaying getting Aura of Protection because a subclass level got moved to 6th). Never had a very strong opinion on that, but it also didn't seem to bring any real benefits with it either, IMO.

[Kane0]

They'll no longer be universalizing subclass levels. They're still not going to have any subclasses at levels 1 or 2, but after that, they won't always come on the same levels for every class

So all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits, got it.



So, if it wasn't obvious enough, this is 5.5E in all but name, and they now want to just pretend it doesn't need a new name at all because 5E is popular.
Should've just called it PHB II if they wanted to keep up appearances.

[Atranen]

Not surprising they are backpedaling on 'new edition', but I suspect it will not work out in practice.

If it turns out you really can use the 2014 classes without change, then I will happily not buy anything new and keep playing as is :smallsmile:

[Dork_Forge]

5e is selling well? Then how about you keep making 5e instead of this new edition not a new edition nonsense?

[kazaryu]

5e is selling well? Then how about you keep making 5e instead of this new edition not a new edition nonsense?

i halfway agree with you.
i've long thought that if they were going to allow power creep, then at some point they should go back and update existing classes to match. one obvious example is that i think that battle masters should eventually get their maneuvers at-will in the same way a swords bard does. or pseudo at-will (i.e. 1/turn).

but just in general going back and updating previously subclasses to match the apparent shift in design philosophy.

[Dork_Forge]

i halfway agree with you.
i've long thought that if they were going to allow power creep, then at some point they should go back and update existing classes to match. one obvious example is that i think that battle masters should eventually get their maneuvers at-will in the same way a swords bard does. or pseudo at-will (i.e. 1/turn).

but just in general going back and updating previously subclasses to match the apparent shift in design philosophy.

Even if they want to boost PHB subclasses they... could just keep doing it. They boosted classes as a whole in Tasha's and Battlemasters got a boost in new maneuvers. Instead they're going for an entirely different design and claiming it's not a new edition.


I'd be very interested in how 5e could be if they actually spent time and energy on it instead of just using it as a paid playtest.

[Boverk]

They mentioned monk, but not artificer. Are they still considering Artificer for the core rule book? They said it was one of the experts, right?

[Kane0]

They mentioned monk, but not artificer. Are they still considering Artificer for the core rule book? They said it was one of the experts, right?

I doubt it will be in PHB 2024. Best bet would be a later supplement.

[Zevox]

So all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits, got it.
What benefits? Serious question; I don't see any, personally.


5e is selling well? Then how about you keep making 5e instead of this new edition not a new edition nonsense?
Would be nice, but I suspect they're already too deep into planning this to even consider backing out.


They mentioned monk, but not artificer. Are they still considering Artificer for the core rule book? They said it was one of the experts, right?
I thought they already confirmed long ago that the Artificer would not be a part of the 5.5e PHB? They did mention it would be considered an Expert under the new categories, but said that only the classes from the 5e PHB would be in the new one, IIRC.

[Kane0]

What benefits? Serious question; I don't see any, personally.


Primarily the ability to create subclasses applicable to multiple classes (see the Strixhaven UA, majority of feedback was 'this is a cool idea but uneven subclass distribution and breakpoints makes it really difficult), but also a bit more freedom to deal with multiclassing.

[Zevox]

Primarily the ability to create subclasses applicable to multiple classes (see the Strixhaven UA, majority of feedback was 'this is a cool idea but uneven subclass distribution and breakpoints makes it really difficult), but also a bit more freedom to deal with multiclassing.
Not sure what you mean with multiclassing, but on the former, I guess we just disagree that that's a benefit. Personally I just think that's a terrible idea. Making subclasses that can be used on multiple classes just means making more generic subclasses less tailored to a specific class to me, which would be a bad thing IMO.

[Foxhound438]

I doubt it will be in PHB 2024. Best bet would be a later supplement.

Please for the love of Pelor let it not have alchemist haphazardly rolled into it a second time. I want to throw potions at people, not be a magic sword dispensary! Four years of archaic psuedoscientific chemistry school and I end up selling +1 radiant weapons and goggles of night like everyone's magical trinket peddler!? It's an OUTRAGE!

[Silverblade1234]

What benefits? Serious question; I don't see any, personally.

I liked it for the uniformity and consistency, and I think it would have contributed to overall better class/subclass design (not just officially, but amongst 3PP and homebrew, both of which I use frequently, and I think the game benefits from). I think it's a very logical way of designing classes, and so if it's an arbitrary choice (which it is), I'd rather go with the one that I think makes sense. Using Crawford's language in the video, it genuinely did delight me. But ultimately, I don't really care if e.g. paladins get their subclass feature at 6 or 7, as long as we don't have nonsense progressions like the bard or sorcerer where you have giant gaps in between getting subclass features, or where subclass features happen so late you'll practically never see them.

[Boverk]

Please for the love of Pelor let it not have alchemist haphazardly rolled into it a second time. I want to throw potions at people, not be a magic sword dispensary! Four years of archaic psuedoscientific chemistry school and I end up selling +1 radiant weapons and goggles of night like everyone's magical trinket peddler!? It's an OUTRAGE!

I agree...this is one of the reasons I was hoping for the next UA to be Monk and Artificer.

[Arkhios]

- They're referring to the new PHB/DMG/MM simply as the 2024 Fifth Edition core rulebooks now, and the existing 5E core books as the 2014 ones. They are now calling it a continuation of 5E. They don't officially say they're doing away with the "One D&D" moniker, but functionally, that's clearly what this is about (they never even use the name "One D&D" in the video at all). They also all pretty explicitly say that this is because 5E is still selling very well.
Also, there's nothing new here. [Insert here "I told you so" if you wish]. "One D&D" moniker was never more than a working title for the process. People make assumptions too fast on their own, and make-believe something that isn't there.


- They "started being very experimental" (their words, not mine), and are now going to be going back to things closer to the existing 5E rules. Specific example being that they'll no longer be universalizing subclass levels. They're still not going to have any subclasses at levels 1 or 2, but after that, they won't always come on the same levels for every class the way they did in the playtests we've had thus far.
Again, not very surprising. It's a common procedure in game design. You start with over-the-top designs, and prune them out to meet the expected boundaries. It's somewhat easier to balance things by "nerfing" rather than by "boosting".


, if it wasn't obvious enough, this is 5.5E in all but name, and they now want to just pretend it doesn't need a new name at all because 5E is popular. I will say I'm slightly happy to hear they're not longer going to force all classes to gain subclass levels at the same level, as that did lead to some things I wasn't fond of, mainly with the Paladin (i.e. delaying getting Aura of Protection because a subclass level got moved to 6th). Never had a very strong opinion on that, but it also didn't seem to bring any real benefits with it either, IMO.
Eh, I guess you could call it 5.5, if you absolutely want to confuse everyone, but don't start with the tantrum that this is what it is because you feel strongly about it. Officially, it's "5.0 edition" until developers announce otherwise. Whether you like it or not.

[Zevox]

Also, there's nothing new here. [Insert here "I told you so" if you wish]. "One D&D" moniker was never more than a working title for the process. People make assumptions too fast on their own, and make-believe something that isn't there.
Oh please, they had an official logo designed for it that they were plastering all over promotions for it at first, and a specific explanation for why they were calling it that. It was very clearly their intention for that to be its official name.


Again, not very surprising. It's a common procedure in game design. You start with over-the-top designs, and prune them out to meet the expected boundaries. It's somewhat easier to balance things by "nerfing" rather than by "boosting".
If that was in reaction to my "their words, not mine" remark, I made that because I find the idea that they were doing anything "very experimental" to be something of a joke. They clearly were not deviating much from 5E to begin with. The biggest deviation was with Wild Shape, and that was just applying what they already did with new summoning spells in Tasha's to that feature.

Well, that or the weapon mastery stuff I guess, which is at least all new, even if kind of underwhelming.


Eh, I guess you could call it 5.5, if you absolutely want to confuse everyone, but don't start with the tantrum that this is what it is because you feel strongly about it. Officially, it's "5.0 edition" until developers announce otherwise. Whether you like it or not.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to confuse anyone. It's certainly much less confusing than pretending that this update to the game isn't an update to the game and refusing to give it its own name accordingly. And again, it's very clear they previously did not intend to just call this 5E like this.

[Unoriginal]

Can't wait for them to finally move to the Acceptance stage and admit it's a new, non-compatible edition actually and that it'll be $120-to-$180 to play-thank-you-very-much.

Took them a while to move from Denial to Bargaining.

[Dork_Forge]

Can't wait for them to finally move to the Acceptance stage and admit it's a new, non-compatible edition actually and that it'll be $120-to-$180 to play-thank-you-very-much.

Took them a while to move from Denial to Bargaining.

So the OGL drama was WotC acting in anger?

[Beelzebub1111]

So the OGL drama was WotC acting in anger?

Probably. Just anger at the previous team in charge who wrote in a clause in the license that makes it able to be used in perpetuity regardless of any future changes or updates. Just like with what caused the GSL. "Look at all these small companies getting paid to fix our product, WE should be getting paid for them to have them fix our product"

maybe if they produced their own thin book modules and adventures in the first place the OGL wouldn't need to exist to have a funcitoning product.. but I guess $60 campaign books have a better profit margin than a bunch of smaller projects.

[Sulicius]

I think the OGL topic has been discussed to death and has little to do with the topic of this thread.

Hearing that they are not implementing all of the playtest changes is not a surprise, but I am happy to hear they keep subclasses at 3. I like that change. Now they need to publish less adventures that start at level 1 unless they are for beginners. I really hope that Vecna adventure that is being hinted hits tier 3 and 4.

I can’t be bothered much about the name. A lot of people have a lot of opinions on it, all I care is whether it is an improvement to 2014.

[stoutstien]

They are probably slowly realizing only a small potential for "new" consumers with changes large enough to be considered a different edition but at the same time they need enough changes to try to make it a reasonable purchasing move to buy the core books a second time outside of whales.

I think in the end they will walk all the way back and it will just be a revised edition.

[Arkhios]

Oh please, they had an official logo designed for it that they were plastering all over promotions for it at first, and a specific explanation for why they were calling it that. It was very clearly their intention for that to be its official name.

This is the first time I ever hear anyone bringing this up. Care to provide an actual source for this? Because, from what I've heard and seen, they've said from the start that this is only a working title for the upcoming updates for the main three books planned for the 50th anniversary year of D&D, to be kept compatible with 5th edition through and through, replacing the 2014 books in their entirety. If they're going to replace three mandatory books with new versions of them but at the same time keep the other rules compatible, I find it very hard to believe they had at any point intended it as a new edition (or even a sub-edition); I'll stand corrected when I hear it from them.

[Dork_Forge]

This is the first time I ever hear anyone bringing this up. Care to provide an actual source for this? Because, from what I've heard and seen, they've said from the start that this is only a working title for the upcoming updates for the main three books planned for the 50th anniversary year of D&D, to be kept compatible with 5th edition through and through, replacing the 2014 books in their entirety. If they're going to replace three mandatory books with new versions of them but at the same time keep the other rules compatible, I find it very hard to believe they had at any point intended it as a new edition (or even a sub-edition); I'll stand corrected when I hear it from them.

Its worth noting, based on what you said, that their revisions are inherently incompatible with a lot/the majority of what we have for 5e. Whilst they promise backwards compatibility it'll likely just be 'you can use these adventures!' which I assume will still end up janky mechanically.

You can't fundamentally redesign core classes and have existing subclass options still function properly, nevermind the books they made 'legacy.'

[Unoriginal]

This is the first time I ever hear anyone bringing this up. Care to provide an actual source for this?

Official OneD&D logo:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/app/images/feature-pages/onednd/RedLogo.png



Because, from what I've heard and seen, they've said from the start that this is only a working title for the upcoming updates for the main three books planned for the 50th anniversary year of D&D, to be kept compatible with 5th edition through and through, replacing the 2014 books in their entirety. If they're going to replace three mandatory books with new versions of them but at the same time keep the other rules compatible, I find it very hard to believe they had at any point intended it as a new edition (or even a sub-edition)

It is very hard to believe it, indeed. Because they were lying.

You can't have backward compatibility when you change both the classes and the monsters and the basic rules as much as they've shown they did. And they haven't shown all the changes yet.

[Theodoxus]

Even if only a tiny portion of the UAs make it into the books, it'll be a larger departure than 3.5 was from 3.0. So calling it 5.5 wouldn't be problematic.

I'm curious if this back peddling is in part because of what Paizo is planning with their updated PF2. Both projects now look to be on par with what they're proposing to drop. If in the end, this is just a 'keeping up with the Jones' situation, I'm gonna laugh.

[Unoriginal]

Even if only a tiny portion of the UAs make it into the books, it'll be a larger departure than 3.5 was from 3.0. So calling it 5.5 wouldn't be problematic.

I'm curious if this back peddling is in part because of what Paizo is planning with their updated PF2. Both projects now look to be on par with what they're proposing to drop. If in the end, this is just a 'keeping up with the Jones' situation, I'm gonna laugh.

My current guess is that Wizards of the Hasbro is worried a significant chunk of the player base will *not* pay them $120-to-$180 to play their new edition. And they're already displeased by how only one person per group has to have paid the $120-to-$180 at some point in order for the group to play.

[KorvinStarmast]

They mentioned monk, but not artificer. Are they still considering Artificer for the core rule book? Hopefully not.

I doubt it will be in PHB 2024. Best bet would be a later supplement. Hopefully

Making subclasses that can be used on multiple classes just means making more generic subclasses less tailored to a specific class to me, which would be a bad thing IMO. Concur.

Took them a while to move from Denial to Bargaining. Cackled, I did.

They are probably slowly realizing only a small potential for "new" consumers with changes large enough to be considered a different edition but at the same time they need enough changes to try to make it a reasonable purchasing move to buy the core books a second time outside of whales.

I think in the end they will walk all the way back and it will just be a revised edition. As I think through their marketing challenge, how do you convince millions of people to buy the revised edition? Their original "5e is evergreen" idea was a pretty good idea. Rejecting that basic premise risks alienating a substantial number of potential customers.

With the Hasbro desire to improve the monetization of the brand by multiples, they need a hell of a good hook to place the D&Done into the "Must buy!" category of discretionary income.

So who is their target audience?

[Beelzebub1111]

So who is their target audience?
I'm not sure they even know.

I will say that I will have a lot more respect for them if they own up and call it 6e. Or maybe go tongue in cheek with it and call it "Advanced 5e, Skills and Powers Options"

[Unoriginal]

As I think through their marketing challenge, how do you convince millions of people to buy the revised edition? Their original "5e is evergreen" idea was a pretty good idea. Rejecting that basic premise risks alienating a substantial number of potential customers.

Well the issue with "5e is evergreen", according to the corporate suits, is that you can make more people pay $120-to-$180 to play once one person per group bought the core books. So, "obviously", they need to kill the edition that is still selling well in order to get people to re-pay $120-to-$180.

The problem is that you can't market "everything is backward compatible!" and "buy our new things!" at the same time, no matter how much they try.



So who is their target audience?

Anyone still willimg to give them money once they can't pretend the new edition is compatible with the old anymore.

[Silverblade1234]

It is very hard to believe it, indeed. Because they were lying.

You can't have backward compatibility when you change both the classes and the monsters and the basic rules as much as they've shown they did. And they haven't shown all the changes yet.

I don't think this is fair or accurate. I would argue that what we have seen is compatible (or will be once they add some pieces we're missing), precisely because they're tinkering with underlying mechanics but not terminology. If you have the 2024 PHB and pick up something like Monsters of the Multiverse and see a monster that grapples when it hits, that monster statblock still works perfectly well even if the mechanics for grappling have been updated. Old races still work perfectly well we've what we've seen so far, once you make a tiny note that racial ASIs were moved to backgrounds. Subclasses are the teensiest bit trickier, but even with the (apparently discontinued) 3/6/10/14 progression, it's easy to make a 1 page translation guide that includes things like: "To use an older bard subclass, add a new feature at 10th level that gives one additional bardic inspiration die"; "to use an older sorcerer subclass, move your 1st level subclass features to 3rd, your 14th level subclass features to 10th, and your 18th level subclass features to 14th", etc. And they did say in the video that they will be telling you in the rules how to use older content, so I'm fully expecting something like this. I'm sure there will be some outliers---how could there not be unless they intended to reprint absolutely everything?---but in general, I'm feeling extremely comfortable with the degree of compatibility shown thus far, and I think they're going to deliver on that promise.

I will agree that they could have done a better job upfront setting expectations and defining what they meant by compatible, what it will look like, and how it will be achieved.

[Sigreid]

Hopefully not.
Hopefully
Concur.
Cackled, I did.
As I think through their marketing challenge, how do you convince millions of people to buy the revised edition? Their original "5e is evergreen" idea was a pretty good idea. Rejecting that basic premise risks alienating a substantial number of potential customers.

With the Hasbro desire to improve the monetization of the brand by multiples, they need a hell of a good hook to place the D&Done into the "Must buy!" category of discretionary income.

So who is their target audience?
Funnily enough, I've played with a lot of groups over the years but I've never played with a group where each household (often multiple players were part of the same household) didn't pick up at least the core books.

But I'm cynical. I still think the current team doesn't actually like D&D but because it's the biggest thing out there they want to be attached to the name and are frustrated that they can't change it as much as they want because people resist change to things they enjoy.

[GooeyChewie]

What benefits? Serious question; I don't see any, personally.

Having all classes get their subclass features at the same levels would make it easier for players who enjoy trying out new classes to remember when they get what. On the other hand, it also makes classes less distinct from each other, so your mileage may vary on whether that's a benefit or not.

[kazaryu]

Even if they want to boost PHB subclasses they... could just keep doing it. They boosted classes as a whole in Tasha's and Battlemasters got a boost in new maneuvers. Instead they're going for an entirely different design and claiming it's not a new edition.


I'd be very interested in how 5e could be if they actually spent time and energy on it instead of just using it as a paid playtest.

oh yeah, that was the agree part of me half agreeing with you. im not terribly interested in 6e, regardless of what they call it.

[Anymage]

oh yeah, that was the agree part of me half agreeing with you. im not terribly interested in 6e, regardless of what they call it.

I have high hopes for 6e. After all, 5e was really good after they had to learn from 4e. (Which did have some good ideas and was a fun game in its own right, it was just a massive break from what D&D before it had been.) I just have a strong feeling that 5.5 will be where they make the mistakes they'll learn from to make 6e better.

[Sigreid]

I have high hopes for 6e. After all, 5e was really good after they had to learn from 4e. (Which did have some good ideas and was a fun game in its own right, it was just a massive break from what D&D before it had been.) I just have a strong feeling that 5.5 will be where they make the mistakes they'll learn from to make 6e better.
To me, 4e was just too tedious with a bunch of micro calculations and not enough distinction (to me) between classes.

[Arkhios]

Official OneD&D logo:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/app/images/feature-pages/onednd/RedLogo.png


Gee, I guess if it has a logo now, it must be a new edition even though the logo doesn't implicate any edition whatsoever. Maybe it's a whole new game entirely, divorced from all previous D&D iterations, only camouflaging itself as 5th edition!?

Seriously though, I'm not convinced. Even D&DBeyond has its own "logo", and it's not a separate edition either. Can you see my point yet?

[Pex]

Having all classes get their subclass features at the same levels would make it easier for players who enjoy trying out new classes to remember when they get what. On the other hand, it also makes classes less distinct from each other, so your mileage may vary on whether that's a benefit or not.

I think the pushback is players used to abilities appearing at particular levels and moving them to earlier or more likely later levels is off-putting. There's also the multiclassing factor. Particular people may hate multiclassing with a passion, but that doesn't make players who like doing it wrong. (Sub)Class features moved to later levels means multiclassing is that much more delayed gratification for when the synergy they want comes online. What they at 8th level as a 3/5 multiclass wanted was now maybe happening at 12th level at 5/7. If the game isn't over by the time they get what they want it soon will be.

Another possibility is balance is an ideal but not really desired once attained. It sounds fair every class getting their cool thing at the same time, but is Class A cool thing the same power level as Class B cool thing? Maybe Class A getting a Nice thing at level 3 and a Nice thing at level 6 together are worth the Wow Cool thing Class B now gets at level 6. Complete balance is everyone getting the same thing at the same time if differently labeled. That idea was proven not to work.

[Willie the Duck]

this new edition not a new edition nonsense

Gee, I guess if it has a logo now, it must be a new edition

The entire 'new edition' argument seems to me like such a misplaced obsession to me. There's no technical, universally-agreed-upon standards about what changes can occur without something being a new edition; nor what changes necessitate something being a new edition. Call of Cthulhu has had seven or eight editions with nominal changes; D&D has seen some of its largest shifts and changes (and relative incompatibility between the before and after states) within editions (notably beginning-state to end-state oD&D and AD&D 2nd edition, as examples). Starting from a basic-classic* background, we got games called D&D -- many of them with sets and books named the same thing -- with significantly different rules impossible to utilize together without DM arbitration.
*plus AD&D rules and products, as we saw fit

[KorvinStarmast]

The entire 'new edition' argument seems to me like such a misplaced obsession to me. There's no technical, universally-agreed-upon standards about what changes can occur without something being a new edition; nor what changes necessitate something being a new edition. Call of Cthulhu has had seven or eight editions with nominal changes; D&D has seen some of its largest shifts and changes (and relative incompatibility between the before and after states) within editions (notably beginning-state to end-state oD&D and AD&D 2nd edition, as examples). Starting from a basic-classic* background, we got games called D&D -- many of them with sets and books named the same thing -- with significantly different rules impossible to utilize together without DM arbitration.
*plus AD&D rules and products, as we saw fit
One of the things that I liked about 3rd edition is that it cleaned out a lot of stuff and reorganized this mountain of material that had accumulated over the years. While AD&D 2e did that for AD&D, the parallel Basic/BX/BECMMI line being fused with AD&D was a good idea.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One of the things that I liked about 3rd edition is that it cleaned out a lot of stuff and reorganized this mountain of material that had accumulated over the years. While AD&D 2e did that for AD&D, the parallel Basic/BX/BECMMI line being fused with AD&D was a good idea.

That's one of the key benefits for new editions. Clear out the cruft that accumulates, decide which of it matters, and reorganize it into a more cohesive unit.

I don't see any signs they're doing that with this "refactor". Instead they're just piling more cruft on top and trying to have it both ways.

[ZRN]

I think the pushback is players used to abilities appearing at particular levels and moving them to earlier or more likely later levels is off-putting. There's also the multiclassing factor. Particular people may hate multiclassing with a passion, but that doesn't make players who like doing it wrong. (Sub)Class features moved to later levels means multiclassing is that much more delayed gratification for when the synergy they want comes online. What they at 8th level as a 3/5 multiclass wanted was now maybe happening at 12th level at 5/7. If the game isn't over by the time they get what they want it soon will be.

Another possibility is balance is an ideal but not really desired once attained. It sounds fair every class getting their cool thing at the same time, but is Class A cool thing the same power level as Class B cool thing? Maybe Class A getting a Nice thing at level 3 and a Nice thing at level 6 together are worth the Wow Cool thing Class B now gets at level 6. Complete balance is everyone getting the same thing at the same time if differently labeled. That idea was proven not to work.

My guess is that they tried making it the same level for everyone, then figured out that some classes feel squeezed or stretched if they have to fit subclass abilities squarely at 3, 6, etc., and the (minimal) benefit of always knowing "level 6 = subclass stuff" didn't outweigh that awkwardness.

[Atranen]

Subclasses are the teensiest bit trickier, but even with the (apparently discontinued) 3/6/10/14 progression, it's easy to make a 1 page translation guide that includes things like: "To use an older bard subclass, add a new feature at 10th level that gives one additional bardic inspiration die"; "to use an older sorcerer subclass, move your 1st level subclass features to 3rd, your 14th level subclass features to 10th, and your 18th level subclass features to 14th", etc. And they did say in the video that they will be telling you in the rules how to use older content, so I'm fully expecting something like this.

With this level of change, perhaps they should reprint the 2014 PHB (tables updated for 2024 rules) in addition to PHB 2024 rulebook.

[Kish]

Eh, I guess you could call it 5.5, if you absolutely want to confuse everyone, but don't start with the tantrum that this is what it is because you feel strongly about it. Officially, it's "5.0 edition" until developers announce otherwise. Whether you like it or not.
In what universe is "this is the fifth edition Player's Handbook, and this is the other fifth edition Player's Handbook, with different rules, no it's not called anything different" the non-confusing option? (The wall-to-wall personal attacks in this post of yours aside.)

[Theodoxus]

To me, 4e was just too tedious with a bunch of micro calculations and not enough distinction (to me) between classes.

Not saying you're wrong, I just have a very different view of 4e. I don't recall a bunch of calculations - although I might be wearing rose colored glasses because I dove into 4e after a long stint of PF1 - wherein I was VERY tired of trying to remember all the status bonuses and penalties round to round. Now, 5e certainly streamlined it even more (although still keeping with the generic d20+mod+pb math problem for everything, on top of occasional bonuses like Bless or Fighting Styles and whatnot). But in that respect, I liked 4e's smoother transition.

What I can't grok though is the idea that there wasn't enough distinction between classes. While AEDU might create a patina of sameness, the actual powers and abilities of the individual classes were massively different. Even within the same subsets (Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller), classes in the same subset played differently. A Ranger and a Rogue felt different despite being both Strikers. Cleric and Warlord playstyles were very different outside of healing.

The most 'samey' feeling was in the epic tier, since there weren't many options... an Immortal Fighter wasn't horribly different than an Immortal Wizard when comparing god-tier abilities... but as far as I ever knew, that was just white room speculation. I never played above mid teens... kinda like now ;)

[Dork_Forge]

The entire 'new edition' argument seems to me like such a misplaced obsession to me. There's no technical, universally-agreed-upon standards about what changes can occur without something being a new edition; nor what changes necessitate something being a new edition. Call of Cthulhu has had seven or eight editions with nominal changes; D&D has seen some of its largest shifts and changes (and relative incompatibility between the before and after states) within editions (notably beginning-state to end-state oD&D and AD&D 2nd edition, as examples). Starting from a basic-classic* background, we got games called D&D -- many of them with sets and books named the same thing -- with significantly different rules impossible to utilize together without DM arbitration.
*plus AD&D rules and products, as we saw fit

I can understand the argument of 'there's no definition, ' but I don't see it as complete/good enough. If you alter the base rules and aspects of a game enough it's basically a new edition, or at least a half edition.

Pointing to the origins of D&D doesn't seem particularly useful in this regard, since not only was that a long time ago, it's an entirely different company and gaming landscape.

If you have a successful game and then turn around and sell a new version of that game with significant changes, that's a different game. A concept that is more easily apparent in video games, which the current playbase will have a much stronger touchstone with than the hectic history of D&D.

---------------------

Separately for those that point to WotC saying it isn't a new edition, that really doesn't matter. They'll call it whatever the players call it after a while, just like they started calling it 5E. People will need a way of distinguishing them in conversation and i really doubt they'd consistently go against what the community lands on in press briefing after influencer interview after article.

The only reason they're fighting it is because 5E sells well and they don't want to anger or put off the fan base.

What's really annoying is that they can monetize the anniversary out the wazoo without doing this.

Release a slipcase of limited editions covers for the updates 2014 books, they'd sell.

Release character sheet themes and dice on beyond, they'd sell.

Plushie and physical dice on their store... They'd sell.

Commission a bunch of skins of iconic characters for Fortnite and watch new interest peak.

Getting too greedy has a risk of biting them in the butt when it manifests as needless stealth edition changes.

[Schwann145]

In what universe is "this is the fifth edition Player's Handbook, and this is the other fifth edition Player's Handbook, with different rules, no it's not called anything different" the non-confusing option?
I would love to know this.
I should go into marketing. If it's this easy...


What I can't grok though is the idea that there wasn't enough distinction between classes. While AEDU might create a patina of sameness, the actual powers and abilities of the individual classes were massively different. Even within the same subsets (Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller), classes in the same subset played differently. A Ranger and a Rogue felt different despite being both Strikers. Cleric and Warlord playstyles were very different outside of healing.
The issue is that the actual powers and abilities are just fluff when you boil it down, and the playstyle was identical across every class - AEDU was the problem.
"I use Es first, then spam As until the fight ends. If it's the big-bad fight, I use Ds, then Es, then spam As until the fight ends." And every fight is identical to this. Doesn't matter what the Es or the As actually did; you follow the pattern regardless.
It's why the edition is compared to MMOs so often, because you can take the above quote and swap, "until the fight ends" with, "until they (D/E) are off cooldown" and it's basically an exact port for how an MMO plays.

[Silverblade1234]

Separately for those that point to WotC saying it isn't a new edition, that really doesn't matter. They'll call it whatever the players call it after a while, just like they started calling it 5E. People will need a way of distinguishing them in conversation and i really doubt they'd consistently go against what the community lands on in press briefing after influencer interview after article.

The only reason they're fighting it is because 5E sells well and they don't want to anger or put off the fan base.

What's really annoying is that they can monetize the anniversary out the wazoo without doing this.

Release a slipcase of limited editions covers for the updates 2014 books, they'd sell.

Release character sheet themes and dice on beyond, they'd sell.

Plushie and physical dice on their store... They'd sell.

Commission a bunch of skins of iconic characters for Fortnite and watch new interest peak.

Getting too greedy has a risk of biting them in the butt when it manifests as needless stealth edition changes.

I think this actually proves that they're doing this because they think it's good for the health of the game, that the designers do actually care and want to make improvements to a game that they genuinely love. If it was just about money or hype, there's a lot of easier, cheaper ways to make money off of the anniversary. There are also a lot more ways to make money off of an edition change (scrapping the idea of compatibility and making everyone buy all the old products again). They're not doing those things. The current actions are very ineffective from the point of view of making money, so I think they've got to be because the designers really love 5E, think it's great, but just want to polish and improve it within the context of the current edition's identity while not financially overburdening or alienating players.

As for why to not call it 5.5E, I think once you do so, you're soft committing to the idea that you do one round of such revisions, and then you have to do a new edition. Otherwise, what do you call a next round of revisions? 5.75E? Then 5.875E? I suppose one could argue that 15-20 years is long enough for a single edition and that you should restart then to keep things fresh and whatnot, but I also can't blame anyone for not wanting to commit to that.

[Willie the Duck]

I can understand the argument of 'there's no definition, ' but I don't see it as complete/good enough. If you alter the base rules and aspects of a game enough it's basically a new edition, or at least a half edition.

I mean, no (IMO). That's literally my point. Whether there are significant amounts of change in the game and whether something is a new edition are two separate distinctions with ambiguous relation to each other. You can have nominal change and call the change a new edition (each edition of CoC), massive changes to the ruleset but no new edition (oD&D vs oD&D w/ supplements), or release what is clearly a different physical game, but not a distinct edition (updates in new printings of a book, BX and BE both being basic and expert sets of 'Dungeons and Dragons' without specifying a concept like 'edition' in the first place).


Pointing to the origins of D&D doesn't seem particularly useful in this regard, since not only was that a long time ago, it's an entirely different company and gaming landscape.
I also mentioned completely different games. I'm not sure how that makes my points irrelevant.


If you have a successful game and then turn around and sell a new version of that game with significant changes, that's a different game. A concept that is more easily apparent in video games, which the current playbase will have a much stronger touchstone with than the hectic history of D&D.
Ah, here we can get some common frames of reference. Many games have had massive reworkings of gameplay within individual releases simply through updates, patches, and so forth. Others release expansions which massively change how the game is played between initial release and right before the next version will come out (I'm a Sid Meier Civilization fan, and in the last two 'editions,' Civ V:Gods & Kings and Civ VI: Gathering Storm each have changed both gameplay and winning strategies). Still other games can release edition after edition where the game is effectively the same and the largest changes have been improved graphics as computers have gotten stronger (or more portable, as many game boy Zelda games have been effectively the sessile Nintendo's Zelda game of X years prior).

And that's my point. There's no rhyme or reason to when these things become 'editions,' either based on what they are called or when you have* to spend money. That's why I think the hyper-focus on the question of whether this new thing is a new edition or not is a rabbit hole -- whether you want this update to happen or not, whether you intend to spend money on it or not, and honestly whether the game is changing or not** are all questions that exist regardless of whether edition nomenclature is stamped on the side of 2024's forthcoming new products.
*if you want to stay 'current.' Obviously you don't have to buy the latest thing.
**if they simply released another Xanathar's/Tasha's analog, the game would still change

[diplomancer]

This may be my own personal hobgoblin, but I can't help feeling amused that they're doing that right after their most offensive (to me, at least), UA. Let's see how powerful their reverse gears are.

[Arkhios]

The entire 'new edition' argument seems to me like such a misplaced obsession to me. There's no technical, universally-agreed-upon standards about what changes can occur without something being a new edition; nor what changes necessitate something being a new edition. Call of Cthulhu has had seven or eight editions with nominal changes; D&D has seen some of its largest shifts and changes (and relative incompatibility between the before and after states) within editions (notably beginning-state to end-state oD&D and AD&D 2nd edition, as examples). Starting from a basic-classic* background, we got games called D&D -- many of them with sets and books named the same thing -- with significantly different rules impossible to utilize together without DM arbitration.
*plus AD&D rules and products, as we saw fit

Thank you. At least one other person acknowledges this as "misplaced obsession" (couldn't have said it better myself).

[Willie the Duck]

Thank you. At least one other person in here is sane enough to acknowledge this as "misplaced obsession" (couldn't have said it better myself).

I'm not here to call anyone else not sane. I only believe that the arguments surrounding whether this change is 'an edition change' is fruitless.

[Arkhios]

I'm not here to call anyone else not sane. I only believe that the arguments surrounding whether this change is 'an edition change' is fruitless.

Okay, fair. That was harsh of me. I'll take it back. It's true it's fruitless. It's just so frustrating trying to talk sense to people precisely because how fruitless it is.

[ZRN]

Thank you. At least one other person acknowledges this as "misplaced obsession" (couldn't have said it better myself).

I think people worry about version nomenclature because they're worried about the larger issue of backward-compatibility and support.

Like, if they call this 6e that's a pretty clear signal that you can throw out your old books. If they called it 5.5 we could assume you'll need to make specific changes to older material to work with it. But they're being really vague and saying it's the same edition. So, okay - can I use my Tasha's book to play an aberrant mind sorcerer? Do I need to look at an online supplement or subscribe to D&D Beyond or something to make is work with the new rules? Are they going to print new physical books to match the new rules? How would you even convey to people that the books are new? "Now compatible with the current D&D rules as of January 2024"?

Version nomenclature doesn't answer these questions but maybe it gives an indication.

[Psyren]

The entire 'new edition' argument seems to me like such a misplaced obsession to me. There's no technical, universally-agreed-upon standards about what changes can occur without something being a new edition; nor what changes necessitate something being a new edition. Call of Cthulhu has had seven or eight editions with nominal changes; D&D has seen some of its largest shifts and changes (and relative incompatibility between the before and after states) within editions (notably beginning-state to end-state oD&D and AD&D 2nd edition, as examples). Starting from a basic-classic* background, we got games called D&D -- many of them with sets and books named the same thing -- with significantly different rules impossible to utilize together without DM arbitration.
*plus AD&D rules and products, as we saw fit

This. I don't understand portions of the community dying on this hill.


So all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits, got it.



Primarily the ability to create subclasses applicable to multiple classes (see the Strixhaven UA, majority of feedback was 'this is a cool idea but uneven subclass distribution and breakpoints makes it really difficult), but also a bit more freedom to deal with multiclassing.

This too. We could have had Prestige Classes back! And the people who don't like the standardadized progression are going to still be ticked off about losing subclasses at 1 and 2 anyway. They've found the perfect way to annoy both groups, as well as paladins effectively losing their subclass capstone again.

[Pex]

Not saying you're wrong, I just have a very different view of 4e. I don't recall a bunch of calculations - although I might be wearing rose colored glasses because I dove into 4e after a long stint of PF1 - wherein I was VERY tired of trying to remember all the status bonuses and penalties round to round. Now, 5e certainly streamlined it even more (although still keeping with the generic d20+mod+pb math problem for everything, on top of occasional bonuses like Bless or Fighting Styles and whatnot). But in that respect, I liked 4e's smoother transition.

What I can't grok though is the idea that there wasn't enough distinction between classes. While AEDU might create a patina of sameness, the actual powers and abilities of the individual classes were massively different. Even within the same subsets (Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller), classes in the same subset played differently. A Ranger and a Rogue felt different despite being both Strikers. Cleric and Warlord playstyles were very different outside of healing.

The most 'samey' feeling was in the epic tier, since there weren't many options... an Immortal Fighter wasn't horribly different than an Immortal Wizard when comparing god-tier abilities... but as far as I ever knew, that was just white room speculation. I never played above mid teens... kinda like now ;)

Powers are [X] Weapon damage of type (color) + (condition or someone moves). If condition = harmful save ends. Severity of harmful condition and value of X commiserate with level; X can be 0. Magic weapons change the color of the damage. If Magic Item is not a container of some kind it is a +1 use of a Daily Power. Color of the damage mostly irrelevant.

Exceptions can be found, especially with Wizard, but exceptions prove the rule.

[OldTrees1]

The problem is that you can't market "everything is backward compatible!" and "buy our new things!" at the same time, no matter how much they try.

Actually, one could market that. 3.5 was mostly backwards compatible but had enough drift AND enough new content that migrating from 3.0 to 3.5 was appealing to a large segment of the player base. It was sold, at least to me, as getting to use both. I could use 3.5 out of the box, and 3.0 material was similar enough to easily adapt. Meanwhile there was enough design space (Sword and Fist vs Complete Warrior) that I was not asked to repurchase anything beyond the updated core rules. Instead it was all new material.

Unfortunately that model would not work for 5E. There is less room for actually new content, and thus less room for a "somewhat backward compatible" extension. Combine with WotC asking to be paid more for doing less (based on recent books), and 5.5 stops sounding as appealing.

[MoiMagnus]

Their original "5e is evergreen" idea was a pretty good idea. Rejecting that basic premise risks alienating a substantial number of potential customers.

IMO, evergreen was doomed as soon as they released Xanathar. Not necessarily for the content of Xanathar itself, but because it shows that they still had peoples working on developing new rules.

Sure, it was a slow-paced death of "evergreen" since the new releases were slow-paced. But continuously releasing new "features" for a game will always call for a new edition down the line. One reason is that at some point it becomes a mess for the players/GMs, but the main reason is on the designer side: they start regretting their own decisions as they're forced to look at the work of their past self that they now consider irritating (either because they became better at designing, but often because their tastes changed) ; and that's when you keep the same designers, when you change of designers, the new peoples come with new eyes to see all the flaws in the initial design and have to battle with those flaws each time they want to add new features.

Maintaining a system require a totally different mindset. A totally different decision flow. And they didn't have it.
When money is on the side of "just maintain, don't break anything", then a good management can help to enforce a "better is the enemy of good" mentality. But here, I don't think money was on that side.

[Luccan]

For reasons completely unrelated to the rules changes I don't plan to buy more WotC products anyway, but even if I did this would not persuade me to be excited about it. Frankly, I think their messaging has been confused and they've constantly flip-flopped to the point I am surprised anyone is still hyped for the 2024 stuff. The whole design direction seems to be "50 is an Important Number, please give us money" at this point

[Kane0]

The whole design direction seems to be "50 is an Important Number, please give us money" at this point

Re-do the 2014 PHB with the Xan's and Tasha's stuff incorporated and a fancy throwback cover art. You can do the same with the MM and Volos/Mords and the DMG with new variant rules (and better layout).

Basically, update the 2024 50th anniversary corebooks to be complete bundles of the last decade worth of material. Its not like theres too much of it to do that.

[Vahnavoi]

Uh, yes there is an agreed-upon definition of an edition. It refers to identical copies within a printing. In case of a written work, any revision of text for a new printing warrants being called a new edition. 5th Edition D&D is not the actual fifth edition of D&D, the entire name of the game is a deliberately misleading marketing ploy - every name of WotC era D&D game has been. Stop drinking their kool-aid when you aren't paid to. :smalltongue:

[animorte]

5th Edition D&D is not the actual fifth edition of D&D, the entire name of the game is a deliberately misleading marketing ploy - every name of WotC era D&D game has been. Stop drinking their kool-aid when you aren't paid to. :smalltongue:
You mean, in the same way that Final Fantasy has so many off-shoots they've far passed the assumed XVI mark. In the same way my beloved Armored Core is releasing #6 later this year even though there's actually 15(?) installments already.

[Psyren]

Uh, yes there is an agreed-upon definition of an edition. It refers to identical copies within a printing. In case of a written work, any revision of text for a new printing warrants being called a new edition. 5th Edition D&D is not the actual fifth edition of D&D, the entire name of the game is a deliberately misleading marketing ploy - every name of WotC era D&D game has been. Stop drinking their kool-aid when you aren't paid to. :smalltongue:

By this wrong definition, the updated 3.5 core books from 2015 and 2022 that incorporated all the errata should have been new editions instead of being 3.5. Revised text, check, identical copies within the same printing, check. Haterade is just as pointless as koolaid :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

You mean, in the same way that Final Fantasy has so many off-shoots they've far passed the assumed XVI mark. In the same way my beloved Armored Core is releasing #6 later this year even though there's actually 15(?) installments already.

Yeah. And in the software (non-game) world, the marketing version and the code version are often wildly divergent. Chrome, for example, is just Chrome (marketing version). It's slightly-more-visible version number is in the 100s, after some other version schemes early on. But its actual build number is gigantic, because that increments at least whenever a new production build is made and likely includes testing builds.

Where you draw the lines, even with something like semantic versioning (semver, the good old major.minor.patch structure), is non-obvious.

And a new printing =/= new edition. Even with textbooks, new editions may be as simple as "we re-ordered the problems without changing any of them because we want you to rebuy the book fresh instead of being able to sell it back". Or as big as "everything changed".

So...it's basically marketing. Except that in this case, calling it a new edition would give them much more flexibility to change things. But they're afraid (rightly or wrongly, I'm not saying) to rock the very profitable boat. So the whole thing ends up being an exercise in doublespeak--trying to change as much as they think they can get away with, while paying lip service to backwards compatibility and at the same time trying to make it as attractive as possible so people will buy the new thing even if they have the old thing.

[animorte]

Where you draw the lines, even with something like semantic versioning (semver, the good old major.minor.patch structure), is non-obvious.
That's exactly the point I was going to make next. Literally anything that has any hope of staying relevant has consistent updates (patches) and look something like v1.203.69.

Naturally, printed material is impossible to maintain in this way. Several of us have touched on this exact conversation concerning how digital WotC want to go with DnDBeyond for this exact purpose. Instead of Tasha's release (et al), for hot-fixing the Ranger chassis, we would see update v5.503.01 or what-have-you. Again, this format isn't functional for the D&D we know that doesn't (and shouldn't) require internet access.

[Sigreid]

Not saying you're wrong, I just have a very different view of 4e. I don't recall a bunch of calculations - although I might be wearing rose colored glasses because I dove into 4e after a long stint of PF1 - wherein I was VERY tired of trying to remember all the status bonuses and penalties round to round. Now, 5e certainly streamlined it even more (although still keeping with the generic d20+mod+pb math problem for everything, on top of occasional bonuses like Bless or Fighting Styles and whatnot). But in that respect, I liked 4e's smoother transition.

What I can't grok though is the idea that there wasn't enough distinction between classes. While AEDU might create a patina of sameness, the actual powers and abilities of the individual classes were massively different. Even within the same subsets (Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller), classes in the same subset played differently. A Ranger and a Rogue felt different despite being both Strikers. Cleric and Warlord playstyles were very different outside of healing.

The most 'samey' feeling was in the epic tier, since there weren't many options... an Immortal Fighter wasn't horribly different than an Immortal Wizard when comparing god-tier abilities... but as far as I ever knew, that was just white room speculation. I never played above mid teens... kinda like now ;)

to me they felt the same. Lots of abilities with different names bot very the same effects. But I didn't get into it so it's entirely possible there's more to it than I picked up.

For me, the strength of 5e is something that there are people on this forum complain about. 5e is a good enough skeleton for everyone at the table to be playing the same game, but light enough that the table almost never needs to spend time looking up a rule. And it works great if everyone at the table just takes it at face value, trusts that the DM is ruling fairly and goes with it. I think were it breaks is when people are trying to game the system looking for edge cases and places where the wording can be twisted instead of take at their most basic meaning.

[Atranen]

Re-do the 2014 PHB with the Xan's and Tasha's stuff incorporated and a fancy throwback cover art. You can do the same with the MM and Volos/Mords and the DMG with new variant rules (and better layout).

Basically, update the 2024 50th anniversary corebooks to be complete bundles of the last decade worth of material. Its not like theres too much of it to do that.

I'd buy that. A PHB complete, MM complete? Sure.

[Snails]

to me they felt the same. Lots of abilities with different names bot very the same effects. But I didn't get into it so it's entirely possible there's more to it than I picked up.

Not only did the classes seem samey, but the magic items were even more samey. Just sucked the sense of fun out of things.

I would say the I thought 4e MM was really fabulous. The monsters were less cluttered and easier to play, while also have lots of variety. Furthermore, the concept of the tactical situation changing up in some fashion when Bloodied was great.

[Pex]

IMO, evergreen was doomed as soon as they released Xanathar. Not necessarily for the content of Xanathar itself, but because it shows that they still had peoples working on developing new rules.

Sure, it was a slow-paced death of "evergreen" since the new releases were slow-paced. But continuously releasing new "features" for a game will always call for a new edition down the line. One reason is that at some point it becomes a mess for the players/GMs, but the main reason is on the designer side: they start regretting their own decisions as they're forced to look at the work of their past self that they now consider irritating (either because they became better at designing, but often because their tastes changed) ; and that's when you keep the same designers, when you change of designers, the new peoples come with new eyes to see all the flaws in the initial design and have to battle with those flaws each time they want to add new features.

Maintaining a system require a totally different mindset. A totally different decision flow. And they didn't have it.
When money is on the side of "just maintain, don't break anything", then a good management can help to enforce a "better is the enemy of good" mentality. But here, I don't think money was on that side.

What happened was they purged most of the 5E original creators. When they got rid of the old guard so went their business model. It is the reason why after originally so few 5E books/modules it became plenty.

Power creep is not inherently a bad thing. It's not unusual for something that looks good on paper to not work in practice and needs improvement. They also did errata to nerf things and a few became official in further printings. Even accepting some new thing is more powerful than the original product, it would have been fine if they updated the original product. Give PHB Sorcerers bloodline spells. Give War Priest Extra Attack as their 8th level Thing perhaps. They chose not to do that. We don't know if they meant for a new edition all along for more money, but now they're finally updating the original product but as to overhaul everything into a new edition. They won't call it that because they still want people to buy the original product.

WOTC is not wrong to want to make money/profit. They need to so we can still enjoy the hobby. The crux is how they're doing it and whether the customers are ok with it.

[Kane0]

I'd buy that. A PHB complete, MM complete? Sure.
I think the trick is not to call it complete, final, etc. Just a catch-up update or most recent bundle. So you can keep making more 5e rather than this rigmarole of is it a new edition or not.

[Vahnavoi]

By this wrong correct definition, the updated 3.5 core books from 2015 and 2022 that incorporated all the errata should have been new editions instead of being 3.5. Revised text, check, identical copies within the same printing, check. Haterade is just as pointless as koolaid :smalltongue:

Yes, they were new editions of the corebooks - Nth reprintings of Yth edition of a game called "D&D 3.5 edition" for marketing reasons. Did you think I'd have some intellectual problems owning up to that? It's not a matter of hate, it's a very basic observation using the normal definition of edition as it applies to print media.

---


And a new printing =/= new edition.

To wit, the difference is whether the main type's altered or not.

Fundamentally, to go along with your notes about version numbering in software, this is about how to count. A person can simply observe the main text was changed, regardless of magnitude of those changes, and count up in whole numbers - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.. Or they can start to invent increasingly convoluted and arbitrary schemes to measure exactly how much was changed.

Neither is wrong. The important thing to realize is that what WotC is doing is neither. "5th edition D&D" is name of a game and entirely non-indicative of which edition of D&D it is or how much it differs from older ones.

[GooeyChewie]

I think people worry about version nomenclature because they're worried about the larger issue of backward-compatibility and support.


Agreed. The concern regarding the version nomenclature is that it should match what's actually happening. In the videos, WotC has pointed out that when they say "backwards-compatible" they mean that you can use 2024 characters and monsters in existing 5e adventures. You cannot easily mix elements of the 2024 core rules with elements of the 2014 core rules in the same character. For example, the subclass structure change means you cannot play a 2024 Cleric with a 2014 Cleric subclass. Claiming that the 2024 core rules are a simply continuation of 5e does not seem to match reality.


EDIT: To be clear, I'd be okay with WotC calling it 5e if the new books simply folded in some of the updates from later 5e books. And I'd be okay with them calling it 5.5 on the basis that it is designed to be balanced towards existing 5e adventures. I'd also be fine with them calling it 6e and dropping any pretense that the 2024 books are the same edition as the 2014 books in any way. Just so long as how they market the product matches how the product actually works.

[Psyren]

Yes, they were new editions of the corebooks - Nth reprintings of Yth edition of a game called "D&D 3.5 edition" for marketing reasons. Did you think I'd have some intellectual problems owning up to that? It's not a matter of hate, it's a very basic observation using the normal definition of edition as it applies to print media.

That's a 'basic observation', but "they want to convey that all your 5e adventure paths and supplements will work with this" somehow isn't?


You cannot easily mix elements of the 2024 core rules with elements of the 2014 core rules in the same character. For example, the subclass structure change means you cannot play a 2024 Cleric with a 2014 Cleric subclass.

Except you can; the playtest documents tell you how to do this explicitly, and those aren't even a full conversion guide.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1117122221245206619/image.png

This would mean your 2014 cleric subclass would gain two features at 3rd level (one being the domain-specific channel use), then the rest at 6th, 8th, and 17th respectively.

[Garfunion]

If they really wanted to try and make money. Without creating new players handbookÂ’s. I would create five separate optional books. Dungeon MasterÂ’s Guides 2 featuring all the rule changes with additional random charts and lists, and maybe a more appropriate magic item cost list. Plus additional creation tools.
Then, I would create books for each class group. These books will contain the updated classes and archetypes as well as probably two or three new ones. These books will also contain additional rules, if necessary to help integrate them into your group.

This way DMs/groups can implement the books as they wish to.

[Psyren]

I assume they not only want to sell updated 2024 core books, but also stop selling the outdated 2014 ones. So if they were only to make a bunch of supplementary books that go alongside the existing core they would have to continue selling / proliferating those books. There are multiple reasons for them to not want to do that.

[Vahnavoi]

That's a 'basic observation', but "they want to convey that all your 5e adventure paths and supplements will work with this" somehow isn't?

Nowhere am I denying their aspirations to convince people that their new edition will be backwards compatible with their previous edition. I'm pointing out them not saying it in those exact words doesn't make their attempt something else. :smalltongue:

[GooeyChewie]

Except you can; the playtest documents tell you how to do this explicitly, and those aren't even a full conversion guide.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1117122221245206619/image.png

This would mean your 2014 cleric subclass would gain two features at 3rd level (one being the domain-specific channel use), then the rest at 6th, 8th, and 17th respectively.

As you point out, that’s not a full conversion guide. I expect it exists only to facilitate playtesting, as the 2024 classes will have their own subclasses. But even if they do end up putting out a full conversion guide, the point remains that you’d have to go through a conversion to get the 2014 material to work with the 2024 material, which makes the marketing of “it’s 5e” rather tenuous.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The existence of a conversion A and B does not mean that B is backwards compatible with A. If it were, A could be used within B without modification--B would handle the differences internally. In this case, there are breaking changes to things with the same name (ie classes, feats, even rules). That precludes more than the most limited amount of backward compatibility. All they've promised is that you can take a pre-existing adventure, replace all the rule elements with the matching 2024 elements, and use it with 2024 characters and it will work. Mostly.

But by that standard, you can take many, if not most 2e modules, perform the same conversion, and have it work fairly well. And no sane person would say 5e is backwards compatible with 2e.

[Psyren]

As you point out, that’s not a full conversion guide. I expect it exists only to facilitate playtesting, as the 2024 classes will have their own subclasses. But even if they do end up putting out a full conversion guide, the point remains that you’d have to go through a conversion to get the 2014 material to work with the 2024 material, which makes the marketing of “it’s 5e” rather tenuous.

Which is a goalpost shift on your part, because your original claim was "cannot." You can.


The existence of a conversion A and B does not mean that B is backwards compatible with A. If it were, A could be used within B without modification--B would handle the differences internally.

Why is "without modification" the standard? PF1 was compatible with 3.5, but you definitely had to modify some things. That didn't stop PF1 from selling like gangbusters due to 3.5 players wanting to continue their ongoing 3.5 campaigns or use their existing 3.5 material. Same goes here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why is "without modification" the standard? PF1 was compatible with 3.5, but you definitely had to modify some things. That didn't stop PF1 from selling like gangbusters due to 3.5 players wanting to continue their ongoing 3.5 campaigns or use their existing 3.5 material. Same goes here.

Because if you include modifications...just about anything is compatible with anything else. PF1 is not actually fully backwards compatible.

In this case, the only "compatibility" they've claimed for is utterly vacuous--by their standards (a conversion exists and you can use the non-mechanical elements of adventures), 3e and 5e are compatible!

[Psyren]

Because if you include modifications...just about anything is compatible with anything else. PF1 is not actually fully backwards compatible.

In this case, the only "compatibility" they've claimed for is utterly vacuous--by their standards (a conversion exists and you can use the non-mechanical elements of adventures), 3e and 5e are compatible!

The only way to need no modifications at all would be for System A and B to be identical. What actually matters is how easy it is for the average table to convert their modules and supplements over. I expect that One and 5e will be similar to 3.5 and PF1 in complexity, which is to say, not a big deal.

[paladinn]

I would love to see a current PHB with the appropriate stuff from XGtE and TCoE. Some of the 2014 PHB stuff is just flat-out obsolete (cough:ranger:cough); and a number of subclasses have been redone (better) as new/er subclasses.

That said, I'm not crazy about shelling-out for (yet) another hardback book for "not a new edition." I had enough of that with 3.5. I'd be fine with a softbound splatbook of some sort. I'm liable to just settle for a PDF this time.

[Silverblade1234]

Because if you include modifications...just about anything is compatible with anything else. PF1 is not actually fully backwards compatible.

In this case, the only "compatibility" they've claimed for is utterly vacuous--by their standards (a conversion exists and you can use the non-mechanical elements of adventures), 3e and 5e are compatible!

Again, I don't think this is true. Right now, you can pretty much use any monster stat block with the UA rules because they are keeping the vocabulary the same, even when the mechanics are different*. For example, the balhannoth statblock from Monsters of the Multiverse still works perfectly fine with UA rules, where you get grappled when it hits with a tentacle attack, even though the mechanics of being grappled have changed. It plays slightly differently whether you're using 2024/UA rules or 2014 rules, but the statblock works just fine in either case. Similarly, the choldrith statblock refers to the guidance cantrip, so the statblock still works perfectly well even though the spell's mechanics are different. It's compatible, not identical. I'm sure there are going to be some isolated exceptions---5E is big with a lot of content---but in general, right now I think they're on track to fulfill the promise of saying that you can use previous monsters/adventures with 2024/UA rules just fine. I also think the translation of other content (e.g., using old subclasses with the new rules) is going to achieved pretty easily, but we're still missing pieces there.

* I'd love to see examples where someone thinks this isn't true. I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[False God]

Cool, cool, cool.

So, uh, I have a 5th edition PHB. Why do I need to buy this product? Sounds like a reprint with extra steps.

[Psyren]

Cool, cool, cool.

So, uh, I have a 5th edition PHB. Why do I need to buy this product? Sounds like a reprint with extra steps.

You don't need to. Great, right?

[Keltest]

You don't need to. Great, right?

No, not really. If the best thing you can say about a product is "its literally pointless!" then its a bad product.

[Psyren]

No, not really. If the best thing you can say about a product is "its literally pointless!" then its a bad product.

There's a big gulf between "you don't need to buy this" and "it's literally pointless." D&D is a hobby, you don't need any of it.

[animorte]

D&D is a hobby, you don't need any of it.
Speak for yourself. It changes and saves lives!

[Keltest]

There's a big gulf between "you don't need to buy this" and "it's literally pointless." D&D is a hobby, you don't need any of it.

Ok, but like, you could at least try to justify its use as a product within the context of that hobby instead of dismissing the argument outright.

So lets try again. What is the point of the product? Why should anybody who already has the 5e books want to buy it?

[Psyren]

Ok, but like, you could at least try to justify its use as a product within the context of that hobby instead of dismissing the argument outright.

So lets try again. What is the point of the product? Why should anybody who already has the 5e books want to buy it?

How is "it's literally pointless" not a dismissal itself? Why would I waste time engaging with that? Clearly if you feel that way, your satisfaction with the existing 2014 books is airtight.

If instead you do have some dissatisfaction with the 2014 core, we can discuss that and how 2024 might address it.

[Dienekes]

On the conversation of editions:

The only issue I have with any of this was the statement Crawford made in one of these videos about how 3e to 3.5 really was an edition change because things weren't backwards compatible, but this game totally will be. Which is a weird statement to me, as I definitely remember incorporating 3e things into my 3.5 games. Really the only issue was that some skills were combined but it was trivial to adjust that.

The distinction that this change isn't like that change, when what I'm reading really makes these changes look pretty darn similar just feels like corporate double speak, which is what I have a problem with far more than actually caring if this is 5.5 or 5R or a new edition.

I legitimately don't care what they call it. And actually would probably have found this product more interesting if they made more daring changes. Which, admittedly, made me hear him call this first batch of UA their "very experimental" period somewhat jarring. I'd call this UA many things, very experimental is not one of them.

Regardless, the subclass thing of everything being pushed back to 3rd level, but then not matched up feels like the actual worst of both worlds. It doesn't fix that some classes fluff really does focus on subclass choice being important right away. But after that point I don't really care that much about the levels. Yeah, Paladin capstones are awesome but I can count on one hand how many times my campaigns have reached that level so I'm not worried about it. This method actually makes things much easier to implement the old 5e subclasses into 5.5 games. So, that actually is showing them taking the backward compatibility thing seriously. But, unfortunately leaves certain classes in the lurch because they have bad subclass progressions currently: Rogue and Bard being the obvious ones.

The capitalization thing: Honestly, this is probably a good change. Boring to talk about, sure. But these boring little changes are the things that turns formatting from illegible, to passable, to good.

Overall, I'm still leaning toward passing on this product. Nothing so far has wowed me. The things I like I can pretty easily steal if I want to keep playing 5e. Which may not even be the case. There's a lot of interesting games out there.

[Silverblade1234]

Ok, but like, you could at least try to justify its use as a product within the context of that hobby instead of dismissing the argument outright.

So lets try again. What is the point of the product? Why should anybody who already has the 5e books want to buy it?

Assuming this is a question asked in good faith: the UA currently being playtested are leading up to a remastered, polished update of 5E, based on 10 years of experience and playing and a comprehensive, sweeping community-involved playtest experience. They attempt to smooth out the rough spots of 5E, address common issues experienced at the table, make playing easier for players and DMs, and generally lay the foundation for another successful, wonderful decade of adventures in 5E. The updated PhB features updated classes and player options, and the DMG is being heavily revised to be a better resource for both new and experienced DMs. We haven't heard much about the MM yet, but presumably it will take the lessons learned from recent releases like Monsters of the Multiverse, and apply them to the core monsters we know and love from the original MM. I think there was also mention of adding more monsters at different CRs, especially high CRs, across monster types that were previously lacking at those levels.

If you think 5E is perfect as-is, no, you probably shouldn't buy this stuff. If you don't happen to agree with the problems they're trying to fix, or don't like their solutions, you also probably shouldn't buy this stuff (just like I hope you weren't buying 5E stuff if you didn't like the game in the first place). But if you like 5E and are interested in an updated, polished, remastered version of 5E based on a decade of lessons learned and the results of this ambitious, comprehensive playtest, then you might just want to buy it.

[Pex]

The only way to need no modifications at all would be for System A and B to be identical. What actually matters is how easy it is for the average table to convert their modules and supplements over. I expect that One and 5e will be similar to 3.5 and PF1 in complexity, which is to say, not a big deal.

Ideally compatibility is to be able to use the same monsters in the same number without having to change their statistics. The only difference is in the abilities of the PCs. Adjusting monster statistics might be annoying but ok if kept to minimum. Incompatibility is the need to rewrite the module.


Ok, but like, you could at least try to justify its use as a product within the context of that hobby instead of dismissing the argument outright.

So lets try again. What is the point of the product? Why should anybody who already has the 5e books want to buy it?

For the sake of having it as a collector. Having it is the thrill.

Or

They like the changes that are made and would prefer to use them.

Or

It doesn't matter if you don't want to buy it, and WOTC is banking on new customers. However, WOTC is at least giving lip service to old customers in keeping the game familiar and not making drastic changes such that even if one old customer won't buy it another old customer will. They don't want a repeat of 4E.

Also, in general, games becomes stale. There are still die hards around who play 1E/2E/3E. They won't play the newer games. This product is not for them. Just being new rules is enough in itself to give it a try.

[Unoriginal]

I assume they not only want to sell updated 2024 core books, but also stop selling the outdated 2014 ones. So if they were only to make a bunch of supplementary books that go alongside the existing core they would have to continue selling / proliferating those books. There are multiple reasons for them to not want to do that.

I would bet that one of those reasons is "deter/discourage/make things impractical for third-party publishers who published content for 2014!5e and who may not publish content for 2024!5e".

How many third-party bestiaries and adventures won't work without additional efforts and a detailed explanation, once 5e stays 5e but the core books fundamentally change, I wonder?

[stoutstien]

I would bet that one of those reasons is "deter/discourage/make things impractical for third-party publishers who published content for 2014!5e and who may not publish content for 2024!5e".

How many third-party bestiaries and adventures won't work without additional efforts, once 5e stays 5e but the core books fundamentally change, I wonder?

I have a standing bet with my tables that after WoTC move on from 5E(pre DND 1) the already active 3rd party scene will explode.
5e is ridiculous easy to write small focused projects for and the market is still growing regardless of what they do for the 50th.

[Silverblade1234]

I would bet that one of those reasons is "deter/discourage/make things impractical for third-party publishers who published content for 2014!5e and who may not publish content for 2024!5e".

How many third-party bestiaries and adventures won't work without additional efforts and a detailed explanation, once 5e stays 5e but the core books fundamentally change, I wonder?

I don't think we've seen seen any evidence in this direction, from the actual content of the revisions (minimal, incremental, compatible) to the explicit promise of continuing/expanding of putting core content in CC.

[GooeyChewie]

Which is a goalpost shift on your part, because your original claim was "cannot." You can.

The goalpost is "You cannot easily mix elements of the 2024 core rules with elements of the 2014 core rules in the same character". This goalpost has not shifted. Having to go through a conversion means the elements are not easily mixed, even if the conversion can technically be made.

[Brookshw]

The goalpost is "You cannot easily mix elements of the 2024 core rules with elements of the 2014 core rules in the same character". This goalpost has not shifted. Having to go through a conversion means the elements are not easily mixed, even if the conversion can technically be made.

Without ever having read the rules for PF I could convert characters from it to 3.5 and back again for use in a game, by all indications 5e and OneD&D will be similar. I feel that the case here of there being any 'conversion' that needs to be done is being overstated. Mountains and molehills sorta thing.

[Dienekes]

Without ever having read the rules for PF I could convert characters from it to 3.5 and back again for use in a game, by all indications 5e and OneD&D will be similar. I feel that the case here of there being any 'conversion' that needs to be done is being overstated. Mountains and molehills sorta thing.

And again, I could do the same between 3e and 3.5. Which just makes Crawford's comment that this change is not equivalent to that one feel weird. When from my view it is really the same, and the insistence that this is a something different and dancing around the topic feels wrong.

Now, I'm not going to speak for everyone. I know personally I don't care how backwards compatible it truly is. With enough elbow grease it's pretty trivial to adjust things so long as the base numbers are about the same.

But that just all makes all the dancing around the subject by WotC so weird to me. Just call it something. If they don't we will, so long as there are things that we're going to want to compare between the two products. But the one thing I don't think anyone is going to bother doing is make distinctions such as 2014 5e and 2024 5e. They're just gonna call it 5.5 or 5R or something. So own it.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I suspect that WotC is pushing the narrative that “All will be One, and One is 5e” less for the sake of the revised Core Set, and more to try to salvage the potential for sales of their current slate of releases.

If someone views One D&D as an edition change, then their is very little incentive to purchase Bigby’s Hand of Cash Grabbing: Now With Giants!

The book is ‘obsolete’ before even being released, if One D&D is an edition change.

Instead of rambling 20 to 30 minute interviews with Todd Kendrick and Jeremy Crawford, WotC should have, and now needs to have a clear and concise presentation on the Design Goals for the Revision.

Essentially, WotC has spent most of their U/A Playtest time, licking their finger and sticking it in the wind just to see which way the winds blow!

Rewriting the DMG and the PHB to make those books more intelligible and clearer, is not a trivial undertaking, and I wonder if they have allotted sufficient time to do this task well.

Instead of pissing away their time…perhaps they should have been testing samples of their revised text.

The topic of Attack Rolls is a good example of something that needs clarification.

If one reads the Attack Roll section of the PHB, (pg 194), the text is written in such a way that it is unclear if an Attack Roll is just the actual number rolled on the twenty sided die, or the Sum of all modifiers and the die roll.

Indeed that section is written in such a way, that both interpretations are supported, which makes abilities like Cutting Words somewhat vexing to adjudicate.

Nothing from the history of 5E’s prior releases would indicate that this design team is able to quickly produce clearly written game rules text. Perhaps instead of playing around with giving all Clerics access to Smite abilities and Noble Steeds…..they should be showing us what their editors are up to, in terms of fixing the text.

[Psyren]

The goalpost is "You cannot easily mix elements of the 2024 core rules with elements of the 2014 core rules in the same character". This goalpost has not shifted. Having to go through a conversion means the elements are not easily mixed, even if the conversion can technically be made.

"Cannot easily" was your subjective claim, which was followed by the objectively wrong claim "for example, the subclass structure change means you cannot play a 2024 Cleric with a 2014 Cleric subclass."


Without ever having read the rules for PF I could convert characters from it to 3.5 and back again for use in a game, by all indications 5e and OneD&D will be similar. I feel that the case here of there being any 'conversion' that needs to be done is being overstated. Mountains and molehills sorta thing.

And there are people determined to (metaphorically) die on said molehills.

[Unoriginal]

"Cannot easily" was your subjective claim, which was followed by the objectively wrong claim "for example, the subclass structure change means you cannot play a 2024 Cleric with a 2014 Cleric subclass.".

Imagine a clay cylinder. Is the cylinder still the same item if you had to cut it or add to it to make it fit a square hole?

It can be argued the square-based clay solid is made out of the cylinder's clay, so there is a continuity of identity. But it would be wrong to call it a cylinder, factually speaking.

The 2014!Cleric is not the 2024!Cleric. But the 2014!Cleric is not the 2014!Cleric-modified-to-fit-the-2024-rules either.

[Thunderous Mojo]

And there are people determined to (metaphorically) die on said molehills.

I think this is a bit dismissive.
The quoted statement seems to be implying that instead of having authentic emotional responses to One D&D, ‘those people’ are just electing, nah actively choosing to be dissatisfied and not persuaded by WotC’s press releases.

Is that what you intended ? I would welcome some clarification.

If we imagine the perspective of a casual player, an update might mean they have to buy another Player’s Handbook and read it.

Another casual player, might have never read the rules, owns no books, and never really learned the rules, and has to have their hand held every session.

(For that particular type of casual player, certainly nothing will have changed.🃏)

Regardless of whatever title you wish to bestow or withhold, 2024 5e D&D is going to be different than 2014 5e (10th printing) D&D. Names will be created to make referencing those differences easier.

There is no avoiding that players Players that update are going to have homework.

After, Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse, I will not buy a revised Monster Manual. The ‘changes’ are deleterious and too minor, to justify the expense.

At this point One D&D is a slightly revised Class Advancement schedule, with a weak weapon type power system tacked on, and backgrounds grant feats.

Seems like it could be a “Everything” style splat book, like XGE or TCoE.
WotC went out of it’s way at the beginning of the process to emphasize that One D&D was something more than a splat book.

3.5 owned that it was 3.5.

We now have two videos in which WotC is plaintively pleading for the audience to remember that One D&D is still 5e.

If the changes are so minor, that essentially nothing has changed, then why purchase it?

Either own that One D&D is different, or scrap it.

My personal take, as a consumer, is I am confused regarding what One D&D is.
As such, I am not buying anything D&D related until, I know more.

That might not be until 2024 when One D&D is released and I check out the final product.

[GooeyChewie]

Without ever having read the rules for PF I could convert characters from it to 3.5 and back again for use in a game, by all indications 5e and OneD&D will be similar. I feel that the case here of there being any 'conversion' that needs to be done is being overstated. Mountains and molehills sorta thing.

I think you’re making my point for me. The ability to convert characters between PF and 3.5 doesn’t make them the same edition. Likewise, the ability to convert characters between 2014 D&D and 2024 D&D doesn’t make them the same edition. To continue the metaphor, the conversion process may be a molehill, but WotC is going to great lengths to tell us that it’s perfectly flat.


"Cannot easily" was your subjective claim, which was followed by the objectively wrong claim "for example, the subclass structure change means you cannot play a 2024 Cleric with a 2014 Cleric subclass."

Which brings my back to my prior response:

As you pointed out, the conversion guide is not a full guide. It exists to facilitate playtesting, and we have no indication that it will be included in the 2024 core books. It is possible that I am wrong and that full conversion rules will be included in those books. But even if that’s the case, it would not mean that you can easily play the 2014 Cleric subclasses with the 2024 class, because you have to put it through a conversion process.

And because I can already see where it’s going, let me clarify that even if you think the conversion process is easy, it’s objectively harder to process even an easy conversion than it is to not need a conversion at all.

[Psyren]

I think this is a bit dismissive.
The quoted statement seems to be implying that instead of having authentic emotional responses to One D&D, ‘those people’ are just electing, nah actively choosing to be dissatisfied and not persuaded by WotC’s press releases.

Is that what you intended ? I would welcome some clarification.

I have no trouble believing the emotional response is authentic. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with it, nor do I have to consider it justified.


Imagine a clay cylinder. Is the cylinder still the same item if you had to cut it or add to it to make it fit a square hole?

It can be argued the square-based clay solid is made out of the cylinder's clay, so there is a continuity of identity. But it would be wrong to call it a cylinder, factually speaking.

The 2014!Cleric is not the 2024!Cleric. But the 2014!Cleric is not the 2014!Cleric-modified-to-fit-the-2024-rules either.

You're not cutting or adding anything. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz8ssH7LiB0) The features just come online at different levels. I don't think that's in any way complicated.



Which brings my back to my prior response:

As you pointed out, the conversion guide is not a full guide. It exists to facilitate playtesting, and we have no indication that it will be included in the 2024 core books. It is possible that I am wrong and that full conversion rules will be included in those books. But even if that’s the case, it would not mean that you can easily play the 2014 Cleric subclasses with the 2024 class, because you have to put it through a conversion process.

And because I can already see where it’s going, let me clarify that even if you think the conversion process is easy, it’s objectively harder to process even an easy conversion than it is to not need a conversion at all.

Which brings me back to "the only way to not need a conversion at all is for them to leave the system unchanged." That's a non-starter.

[GooeyChewie]

Which brings me back to "the only way to not need a conversion at all is for them to leave the system unchanged." That's a non-starter.

I totally agree. And that’s why the marketing of “it’s 5e” doesn’t make sense to me. They aren’t leaving the system unchanged.

[Silverblade1234]

As you pointed out, the conversion guide is not a full guide. It exists to facilitate playtesting, and we have no indication that it will be included in the 2024 core books. It is possible that I am wrong and that full conversion rules will be included in those books. But even if that’s the case, it would not mean that you can easily play the 2014 Cleric subclasses with the 2024 class, because you have to put it through a conversion process.

And because I can already see where it’s going, let me clarify that even if you think the conversion process is easy, it’s objectively harder to process even an easy conversion than it is to not need a conversion at all.

Except that they have explicitly said, "the books will tell you how to use your previous stuff with the new rules." As for the ease of conversion, right now all evidence suggests that it's going to be quite easy to nonexistent (e.g., existing monster statblocks fully work with the new rules). But keep in mind that objectively harder doesn't mean hard: if I told you that the conversion to use a 2014 race with the 2024 rules is to ignore the racial ASIs, while that is objectively harder than no conversion, I think it's fair to say it's not hard. Obviously there's a scale here, and we don't know where the new classes will be yet because they're not done yet. But I don't think it's fair to claim that any conversion at all is this tremendous dealbreaker or betrayal or deception or whatever.

[Brookshw]

And again, I could do the same between 3e and 3.5. Which just makes Crawford's comment that this change is not equivalent to that one feel weird. When from my view it is really the same, and the insistence that this is a something different and dancing around the topic feels wrong. Agreed. Heck, there were bigger changes within the scope of 3.5's run a'la the introduction of swift actions. This isn't like the 2e to 3e shift which required extensive work to move something, this is zero effort it looks like.


Now, I'm not going to speak for everyone. I know personally I don't care how backwards compatible it truly is. With enough elbow grease it's pretty trivial to adjust things so long as the base numbers are about the same.

But that just all makes all the dancing around the subject by WotC so weird to me. Just call it something. If they don't we will, so long as there are things that we're going to want to compare between the two products. But the one thing I don't think anyone is going to bother doing is make distinctions such as 2014 5e and 2024 5e. They're just gonna call it 5.5 or 5R or something. So own it.
Eh, corporation gonna corporate. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it one way or another. Marketing tactics shouldn't drive purchase decisions.

Edit:
I think you’re making my point for me. The ability to convert characters between PF and 3.5 doesn’t make them the same edition. Likewise, the ability to convert characters between 2014 D&D and 2024 D&D doesn’t make them the same edition. To continue the metaphor, the conversion process may be a molehill, but WotC is going to great lengths to tell us that it’s perfectly flat.


If your point is people are overhyping conversion requirements, sure. How flat the process is, I could try and get out a lazer level to tell you, but that seems like more effort than any conversion would require.

As to what they call it, and is it a new edition....eh, kinda meaningless semantics. I worked in publishing for about a decade, and in that time I saw authors given two weeks to do minimal revisions before a new edition went into production, and authors given 6-12 months (or more) to do extensive rewrites for new editions. What qualifies as 'edition' is a moving target and subjective (just wait til you start asking if it's a derivative of your current edition that's just called something like 'international edition's or some such, or actually a new edition, makes a big difference if you're licensing 3rd party content). I'll leave it to others to debate the semantics, my concern is only in the shape of the end product and if it'll be worth spending money on.

[Psyren]

I totally agree. And that’s why the marketing of “it’s 5e” doesn’t make sense to me. They aren’t leaving the system unchanged.

Of course they're not, no edition stays unchanged. Errata, updates, new releases...



As to what they call it, and is it a new edition....eh, kinda meaningless semantics. I worked in publishing for about a decade, and in that time I saw authors given two weeks to do minimal revisions before a new edition went into production, and authors given 6-12 months (or more) to do extensive rewrites for new editions. What qualifies as 'edition' is a moving target and subjective (just wait til you start asking if it's a derivative of your current edition that's just called something like 'international edition's or some such, or actually a new edition, makes a big difference if you're licensing 3rd party content). I'll leave it to others to debate the semantics, my concern is only in the shape of the end product and if it'll be worth spending money on.

This is all I care about at the end of the day.

[Dienekes]

Eh, corporation gonna corporate. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it one way or another. Marketing tactics shouldn't drive purchase decisions.



Now this I will disagree with. If I think the marketing decisions are particularly scummy I will not buy a product on principle.

That said, this example isn’t scummy. It’s silly, a bit perplexing, and over showing the hand of corporate. But not scummy.

[Atranen]

"Cannot easily" was your subjective claim, which was followed by the objectively wrong claim "for example, the subclass structure change means you cannot play a 2024 Cleric with a 2014 Cleric subclass."

It's objectively right. You aren't playing with a 2014 subclass. You're playing with a modified version of a 2014 subclass that gets its features at different levels.


I totally agree. And that’s why the marketing of “it’s 5e” doesn’t make sense to me. They aren’t leaving the system unchanged.

Agree with this. The way I see it, either:

1) There are substantial changes in OneD&D which go beyond Xanathar's or Tashas's --> it should be called out explicitly as a new iteration.

2) There are not substantial changes going beyond Xanathar's or Tasha's --> it should be classified as those books.

All this is sort of fuzzy and based on subjective interpretation of how big a difference is enough. For me the important question remains: if I want to participate in organized play, am I going to need to buy new core books? I didn't need Xanathar's or Tasha's (I still don't own Tasha's).

I'm guessing I will. In that case, it should be treated as categorically different than 5e.

[Psyren]

It's objectively right. You aren't playing with a 2014 subclass. You're playing with a modified version of a 2014 subclass that gets its features at different levels.

No, if you pick a 2014 subclass its features come online at the same levels as before, per the quote I posted upthread.

And even if they didn't, so what? A minor reshuffling doesn't stop a Twilight Cleric from being a Twilight Cleric.

[Unoriginal]

You're not cutting or adding anything. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz8ssH7LiB0) The features just come online at different levels. I don't think that's in any way complicated.

What happens when a Storm Cleric uses the Attack action to do an unarmed strike?

The answer to this question is different, depending on if you are using 2014!5e or 2024!5e.

Therefore, the Storm Cleric who does this, or has the possibility to do this, is different depending on if you are using 2014!5e or 2024!5e.

Therefore, the 2014!Storm Cleric is not the Storm-Cleric-adapted-according-to-the-playtest-guideline-to-fit-2014!5e.

It's not because it's uncomplicated that it does not need to be acknowledged.

That's just one rule. Making jumping an action would have had a *significant* impact on the Storm Cleric. The Magic action has an impact on the Cleric base class, making the Storm subclass work differently from its 2014 counterpart.



Which brings me back to "the only way to not need a conversion at all is for them to leave the system unchanged." That's a non-starter.

There is nothing wrong with changing the system and needing conversion for things that came from the previous iteration.

There is wrong with changing the system and needing conversion, but declaring the system is unchanged, yet things that came from the previous iteration still need conversion.



And even if they didn't, so what? A minor reshuffling doesn't stop a Twilight Cleric from being a Twilight Cleric.

A reshuffling does stop the 2020!Twilight Cleric from being the 2020!Twilight Cleric.

[Psyren]

There is nothing wrong with changing the system and needing conversion for things that came from the previous iteration.

There is wrong with changing the system and needing conversion, but declaring the system is unchanged, yet things that came from the previous iteration still need conversion.

"It's still 5e" is not the same as saying "it's unchanged." Errata is change. Does errata mean new edition?



A reshuffling does stop the 2020!Twilight Cleric from being the 2020!Twilight Cleric.

Close enough for me.

[MoiMagnus]

"It's still 5e" is not the same as saying "it's unchanged." Errata is change. Does errata mean new edition?


Which make me think, if they really don't want to call this "a new edition" anymore, will they treat them as errata instead?

I can totally see "compatibility" being dealt with by some quick guidance in the new books + a whole lot of detailed errata for the tiny details.

(And by "errata" I mean that new printings of the old adventures/etc will include those changes as if they were corrected typos)

[Atranen]

No, if you pick a 2014 subclass its features come online at the same levels as before, per the quote I posted upthread.

If I play a 2014 Cleric subclass, what level do I get my channel divinity at?


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1117122221245206619/image.png

This would mean your 2014 cleric subclass would gain two features at 3rd level (one being the domain-specific channel use), then the rest at 6th, 8th, and 17th respectively.

Oh, I get it at third, not at second? Then the features are not coming on at the same level.


And even if they didn't, so what? A minor reshuffling doesn't stop a Twilight Cleric from being a Twilight Cleric.

It means that your claim that GooeyChewie was objectively wrong:


"Cannot easily" was your subjective claim, which was followed by the objectively wrong claim "for example, the subclass structure change means you cannot play a 2024 Cleric with a 2014 Cleric subclass."

is incorrect. GooeyChewie has it right. You cannot play a 2024 Cleric with a 2014 Cleric subclass. You can play a 2024 Cleric with a modified version of a 2014 Cleric subclass with an alternate progression.

It may not be a big deal for you, subjectively. But these things matter, especially for people who like playing at low levels. If you're going to throw terms like "objectively wrong" around, be sure you can back them up. Otherwise you are presenting your own subjective view as objective.


What happens when a Storm Cleric uses the Attack action to do an unarmed strike?

The answer to this question is different, depending on if you are using 2014!5e or 2024!5e.

Therefore, the Storm Cleric who does this, or has the possibility to do this, is different depending on if you are using 2014!5e or 2024!5e.

Therefore, the 2014!Storm Cleric is not the Storm-Cleric-adapted-according-to-the-playtest-guideline-to-fit-2014!5e.

It's not because it's uncomplicated that it does not need to be acknowledged.

That's just one rule. Making jumping an action would have had a *significant* impact on the Storm Cleric. The Magic action has an impact on the Cleric base class, making the Storm subclass work differently from its 2014 counterpart.

Correct. Even if the level progression were identical, the subclass would work differently. In practice, it is a different subclass.

[Psyren]

Oh, I get it at third, not at second? Then the features are not coming on at the same level.

All the rest of them are. I thought small changes didn't bother you folks?


But these things matter, especially for people who like playing at low levels.

At low levels, they're getting Divine Spark and Holy Order. They'll be fine, and so will you.

[Atranen]

All the rest of them are. I thought small changes didn't bother you folks?

At low levels, they're getting Divine Spark and Holy Order. They'll be fine, and so will you.

In your subjective opinion. Please don't act as if that's objective.

[Psyren]

In your subjective opinion. Please don't act as if that's objective.

"You cannot play a 2014 subclass with the 2024 cleric" is objectively wrong. If you subjectively think doing so will be a worse experience, that's fine, you're entitled to feel that way, but you can do it. Are we done?

[Atranen]

"You cannot play a 2014 subclass with the 2024 cleric" is objectively wrong. If you subjectively think doing so will be a worse experience, that's fine, you're entitled to feel that way, but you can do it. Are we done?

Can a cleric with the 2014 light cleric subclass cast Faerie fire at level 1?

[Psyren]

Can a cleric with the 2014 light cleric subclass cast Faerie fire at level 1?

They're not a "light cleric" until level 3. After that they are.

[Atranen]

They're not a "light cleric" until level 3. After that they are.

Ok, that demonstrates my point. Cheers.

[paladinn]

They're not a "light cleric" until level 3. After that they are.

Honestly this makes no sense to me. There are some classes where the subclass isn't quite essential to the character's identity. A fighter can be "just a" fighter till s/he chooses a path/subclass. Same with a wizard being a "generalist" until s/he selects a school specialization. A cleric is absolutely defined by his/her relationship with a deity/philosophy/immortal/etc. A light cleric, storm cleric, and life cleric are all very different, and should be different from L1.

Just my $.02

[Psyren]

A cleric is absolutely defined by his/her relationship with a deity/philosophy/immortal/etc. A light cleric, storm cleric, and life cleric are all very different, and should be different from L1.

I think there can be an "acolyte/neophyte" period of proving yourself before the full domain is granted. But I'm fine agreeing to disagree on that.

[Silverblade1234]

Honestly this makes no sense to me. There are some classes where the subclass isn't quite essential to the character's identity. A fighter can be "just a" fighter till s/he chooses a path/subclass. Same with a wizard being a "generalist" until s/he selects a school specialization. A cleric is absolutely defined by his/her relationship with a deity/philosophy/immortal/etc. A light cleric, storm cleric, and life cleric are all very different, and should be different from L1.

Just my $.02

This is easily remedied with a slight change in perspective. Sure, you're a faithful worshipper of Pelor from the very beginning, but you needn't choose the light domain until later. Every deity can lend itself to multiple domains, so it makes sense that you wouldn't choose a specific path to walk until you've grown in faith, experience, and power. I actually think this enhances worldbuilding-through-mechanics, and makes that domain choice at 3rd level a really meaningful character milestone.

[Arkhios]

Can a cleric with the 2014 light cleric subclass cast Faerie fire at level 1?

They're not a "light cleric" until level 3. After that they are.

Ok, that demonstrates my point. Cheers.

The "issue" being "demonstrated" above is abysmally small, and the quote below encapsulates this perfectly:

They'll be fine, and so will you.

Assuming this part of the rules won't change, it takes 300 EXP to reach 2nd level, and another 600 EXP after that to reach 3rd level.

That's literally nothing (for example compared to 4th level which requires additional 1,800 EXP to reach). During that time as a player you won't have enough time* to feel any different whether you have the ability to cast one additional spell or not.

Besides, the first two levels are good for learning the ropes of your class by default, and at 3rd level you can branch out for something more detailed. This is also why many people I know prefer to start at 3rd level (and IMHO that's not a flaw of the system, but rather an elegant way to emphasize difference between a complete novice and an already seasoned adventurer, even if they're still starting their adventuring career.)

*unless your DM is being stingy with meaningful encounters and/or Experience Rewards and makes you work your butt off for every bit of EXP.

[Ortho]

Honestly this makes no sense to me. There are some classes where the subclass isn't quite essential to the character's identity. A fighter can be "just a" fighter till s/he chooses a path/subclass. Same with a wizard being a "generalist" until s/he selects a school specialization. A cleric is absolutely defined by his/her relationship with a deity/philosophy/immortal/etc. A light cleric, storm cleric, and life cleric are all very different, and should be different from L1.

Just my $.02

I disagree. I think a cleric can be "just" an acolyte before they gain their god-specific abilities.

At any rate, I think it's clear that this is a decision that's been made from a game design perspective, in that having levels 1 & 2 be de facto tutorial/introductory levels is probably best for new players. A subclass is a pretty big decision; let new players get some experience with the game before they choose one.

[Unoriginal]

I think everyone agree that a conversion is both possible and needed in order to play a 2014!Cleric subclass with the 2024playtest!Cleric class.

What people are disagreeing on is if the conversion makes the 2014!subclass stop being the 2014!subclass.

Let's imagine, if you don't mind, a detective novel where a man called James is killed. The detective asks various people about the last time they saw James, and one of them states: "James got pissed at Sam's birthday party, two of his friends had to drive him home."

That sentence can have several meanings, and without context one can't say if the witness means James got angry or if James got drunk.

If someone change the sentence to have "drunk" instead of "pissed", it may make it clearer for the US reader.

But, it is no longer the same sentence, and the character who says that is no longer exactly the same character.

[Vahnavoi]

"It's still 5e" is not the same as saying "it's unchanged." Errata is change. Does errata mean new edition?

It does when you issue a new print run. Indeed, fixing errors in the main type is perhaps the most common reason to issue a new edition, and the result is perhaps the most common example of a new edition.

The only reason WotC has to pretend otherwise is that they named their game "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" despite that fact that it's not a fifth edition of anything and was not going to remain as fifth edition.

[MoiMagnus]

It does when you issue a new print run. Indeed, fixing errors in the main type is perhaps the most common reason to issue a new edition, and the result is perhaps the most common example of a new edition.

The only reason WotC has to pretend otherwise is that they named their game "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" despite that fact that it's not a fifth edition of anything and was not going to remain as fifth edition.

If I look at my boardgame collection that's definitely not what the word "edition" is used for.

Arkham horror boardgame for example has 3 editions all being fully different game in everything but their theme and overhaul concept. And within the same "edition" there are sometimes some significant change through errata or expansions that are reflected in latter printing (for example, there was significant revisions of the translation of some keywords at the middle of the 2nd edition in French).

It seems pretty much accepted in the boardgaming context that "new edition" can be used to refer to the equivalent of a "video game sequels". And same in the TTRPG context.

The numbering of D&D edition is pretty similar in meaning to the numbering of Civilization videogames.

[Vahnavoi]

Yes, it's similar to a number you might find on a board game or video game sequel. As in, it's part of a game's name and not indicative of its actual edition. Don't let a company's ability to stick arbitrary words on their product to mislead on the fact that edition does have a clear-cut technical meaning. "Edition" on the cover of game books is frequently non-indicative.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, it's similar to a number you might find on a board game or video game sequel. As in, it's part of a game's name and not indicative of its actual edition. Don't let a company's ability to stick arbitrary words on their product to mislead on the fact that edition does have a clear-cut technical meaning. "Edition" on the cover of game books is frequently non-indicative.

It still needs to indicate *something*, and if there are significant changes between two products, that fact needs to be indicated.

A concrete example: the adventure module "Storm King's Thunder" has a passage mentioning how two Hill Giants will fight with unarmed strikes if the PCs confront them after they lost access to their clubs, but that their unarmed strikes does 3d4+STR damages due to their size and training (instead of the default 3+STR due to their size).

If someone buys the 5e core books after spring 2024, plus this module because they like giants, decides to run it because it's by all account a 5e adventure you can run with the 5e system, and the players they're DMing for reach that point in the module, the DM would logically conclude you can look in the core books how unarmed strikes work and apply those rules to this encounter.

Except that encounter was created using the 2014 unarmed strikes rules, which differ significantly from the 2024 ones if the playtest is any indication. In consequence, running that encounter with the 2024 rules make the encounter significantly different.

And the buyer won't know that the module they bought needs conversion to fit the core books they bought, because both 2014!5e and 2024!5e will just be "5e" on the books.

[paladinn]

I disagree. I think a cleric can be "just" an acolyte before they gain their god-specific abilities.

I get why WotC is doing this mechanically. It seems they are going the 4e-route of homogenizing everything. All characters pick their subclass at 3rd level because.. well.. just because.

In this case it just doesn't work thematically. Even with the idea of clerics starting as acolytes, would acolytes of different deities, with vastly different (or opposite) domains, really all look and work the same? I don't think so. Acolytes of Tyr and Loki wouldn't function in any way the same.

Back in BECMI, one of the big controversies was reimagining druids as a high-level cleric option. So you could be a cleric of Odin wearing chain-mail and using a spear; then at L9 you suddenly abandon your old allegiance and lose the ability to wear any armor or weapons that involved metal, as well as a lot of your spells. That didn't make sense then and, IMO, the new subclass model doesn't now.

[Vahnavoi]

@Unoriginal: See, that's the thing. WotC could've named their game, say, "Classic D&D" and the upcoming books "Classic D&D, Compiled Errata", or billion other things that would be more indicative and avoid arguing over which edition this is. But because of a brand marketing decision they made over 20 years ago, they're either unwilling or unable to do that.

[Unoriginal]

@Unoriginal: See, that's the thing. WotC could've named their game, say, "Classic D&D" and the upcoming books "Classic D&D, Compiled Errata", or billion other things that would be more indicative and avoid arguing over which edition this is. But because of a brand marketing decision they made over 20 years ago, they're either unwilling or unable to do that.

That's not because of a brand marketing decision made over 20 years ago, it's because of a brand marketing decision they made a couple years ago.

Precisely, the one of marketing their anniversary rework as "retro-compatible".

[Atranen]

I disagree. I think a cleric can be "just" an acolyte before they gain their god-specific abilities.

Who are they an acolyte of?


The "issue" being "demonstrated" above is abysmally small, and the quote below encapsulates this perfectly:


Assuming this part of the rules won't change, it takes 300 EXP to reach 2nd level, and another 600 EXP after that to reach 3rd level.

That's literally nothing (for example compared to 4th level which requires additional 1,800 EXP to reach). During that time as a player you won't have enough time* to feel any different whether you have the ability to cast one additional spell or not.

According to WoTCs data, (and their interpretation thereof), 62.8% of active characters are at Tier 1. I haven't seen a level by level breakdown, but even if levels 1 & 2 represent 25% of all Tier 1 play, that puts ~15% of all playtime taking place at those levels. This is substantially more than occurs at Tiers 3 and 4, combined!

So I don't find the idea that these levels are so rare as to not matter compelling.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/90-of-d-d-games-stop-by-level-10-wizards-more-popular-at-higher-levels.666097

[Unoriginal]

That's literally nothing (for example compared to 4th level which requires additional 1,800 EXP to reach).



According to WoTCs data, (and their interpretation thereof), 62.8% of active characters are at Tier 1. I haven't seen a level by level breakdown, but even if levels 1 & 2 represent 25% of all Tier 1 play, that puts ~15% of all playtime taking place at those levels. This is substantially more than occurs at Tiers 3 and 4, combined!

So I don't find the idea that these levels are so rare as to not matter compelling.



Not to mention:

If it is "literally nothing", then why are they changing it?

If the impact from getting your subclass at lvl 3 rather than lvl 1 is so small it doesn't matter, then the impact of getting your subclass at lvl 1 rather than lvl 3 is equally small and equally doesn't matter.

[Silverblade1234]

It still needs to indicate *something*, and if there are significant changes between two products, that fact needs to be indicated.

A concrete example: the adventure module "Storm King's Thunder" has a passage mentioning how two Hill Giants will fight with unarmed strikes if the PCs confront them after they lost access to their clubs, but that their unarmed strikes does 3d4+STR damages due to their size and training (instead of the default 3+STR due to their size).

If someone buys the 5e core books after spring 2024, plus this module because they like giants, decides to run it because it's by all account a 5e adventure you can run with the 5e system, and the players they're DMing for reach that point in the module, the DM would logically conclude you can look in the core books how unarmed strikes work and apply those rules to this encounter.

Except that encounter was created using the 2014 unarmed strikes rules, which differ significantly from the 2024 ones if the playtest is any indication. In consequence, running that encounter with the 2024 rules make the encounter significantly different.

And the buyer won't know that the module they bought needs conversion to fit the core books they bought, because both 2014!5e and 2024!5e will just be "5e" on the books.

The point is not that things play identically, it's that previous content is still usable as written. It totally is. There's nothing in that passage that doesn't work. You meet these giants, they have a new attack option ("unarmed attack"), and the book tells you what "unarmed attack" means for these creatures. You're good to go.

Even if you wanted to use the full extent of the 2024 rules and treat these as unarmed strikes (with all the accompanying rules), this is still fine. You know that means 3 things: they can deal damage, they can grapple, or they can shove. In this case, the damaging option deals more damage than normal because of the creatures' size, but the adventure spells this out for you so that's fine. For grappling or shoving, you do a quick search for the monster stats (or just make an educated guess from the attack stats) to find out that the resist DC is 16. Now you have a fun encounter with some giant wrestlers.

Either way, the point is that all of your previous content works within the context of the new rules, because they're changing mechanics but not changing mechanically. It might work slightly differently in play, but the statblocks still function in the new rules. If a creature says it grapples on a successful hit, that is still valid and functional in the new rules, even if the mechanics for grappling have changed. It's still compatible.

I suppose a statblock that wouldn't work would have something that existed previously but doesn't exist anymore. Like reference to a condition that explicitly no longer exists. I can't find anything like this, but I'd love examples if anyone has them.

[Unoriginal]

The point is not that things play identically, it's that previous content is still usable as written. It totally is. There's nothing in that passage that doesn't work. You meet these giants, they have a new attack option ("unarmed attack"), and the book tells you what "unarmed attack" means for these creatures. You're good to go.

Except what "unarmed attack" means for those creatures is *not* the same depending if you have the old book or the new book.

So no, you *cannot* use the previous content as written. "Two Giants using unarmed strikes" is a different encounter depending on the rules used, so it is not the same content.



Either way, the point is that all of your previous content works within the context of the new rules, because they're changing mechanics but not changing mechanically. It might work slightly differently in play, but the statblocks still function in the new rules. If a creature says it grapples on a successful hit, that is still valid and functional in the new rules, even if the mechanics for grappling have changed. It's still compatible.

If the mechanics for grappling have changed, then all creatures which used to grapple on a successful hit are fundamentally not the same creatures anymore.

They literally do not follow the same rules.

"If A, then B" becomes "If A, then C".

That is not compatibility.

[Brookshw]

It does when you issue a new print run. Indeed, fixing errors in the main type is perhaps the most common reason to issue a new edition, and the result is perhaps the most common example of a new edition.

The only reason WotC has to pretend otherwise is that they named their game "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" despite that fact that it's not a fifth edition of anything and was not going to remain as fifth edition.

Huh? It's completely standard industry practice to issue updated print runs and minor revisions while treating it as the same 'edition'. Most major publishers will have a reprint team that makes correction, changes 3rd party assets that had licensing issues, etc. when a title is up for reprints of that edition. The more I'm hearing of what people think an edition is, the more I'm realizing what a difference there is between the industry practice and dictionary definition.

[Unoriginal]

Huh? It's completely standard industry practice to issue updated print runs and minor revisions while treating it as the same 'edition'. Most major publishers will have a reprint team that makes correction, changes 3rd party assets that had licensing issues, etc. when a title is up for reprints of that edition. The more I'm hearing of what people think an edition is, the more I'm realizing what a difference there is between the industry practice and dictionary definition.

Minor updates and revisions are not what they are cooking for 2024.

[MoiMagnus]

Except what "unarmed attack" means for those creatures is *not* the same depending if you have the old book or the new book.

So no, you *cannot* use the previous content as written. "Two Giants using unarmed strikes" is a different encounter depending on the rules used, so it is not the same content.

You can use the same product/book as written and obtain a play experience that is still within the usual range of WotC quality of "out of the box" campaigns.

Which is in the end the main reason why WotC talked about retro-compatibility in the first place, it was "don't wait for OneD&D to buy books, please keep buying them because we want the money right now, don't worry the old books will still be useable with the new rules".

The actual content of a game session migh technically change, but probably much less than if you changed of GM, or even changed of team of PCs.

The only point where I would consider this change of content actually relevant is if it changed the quality of the game experience significantly (for example turning a fair encounter into a ln unnanounced deadly trap) to the point it is no longer within the range of quality that WotC product have.

[Arkhios]

Not to mention:

If it is "literally nothing", then why are they changing it?

If the impact from getting your subclass at lvl 3 rather than lvl 1 is so small it doesn't matter, then the impact of getting your subclass at lvl 1 rather than lvl 3 is equally small and equally doesn't matter.

Because it "makes sense" to streamline the progress among all classes. Also, because it's fair that everyone, regardless of their class, are on the same line when it comes to options chosen at certain levels.


Who are they an acolyte of?



According to WoTCs data, (and their interpretation thereof), 62.8% of active characters are at Tier 1. I haven't seen a level by level breakdown, but even if levels 1 & 2 represent 25% of all Tier 1 play, that puts ~15% of all playtime taking place at those levels. This is substantially more than occurs at Tiers 3 and 4, combined!

So I don't find the idea that these levels are so rare as to not matter compelling.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/90-of-d-d-games-stop-by-level-10-wizards-more-popular-at-higher-levels.666097

Statistics tell only one side of the story, though. I know from personal experience from having played a lot of shared world campaigns (Living Greyhawk for 5 years, and Pathfinder Society for 10 years after that) that there is a certain appeal of trying and making new 1st level characters after another, so this could be part of the reason why Tier 1 makes the majority of this.

[Silverblade1234]

Except what "unarmed attack" means for those creatures is *not* the same depending if you have the old book or the new book.

So no, you *cannot* use the previous content as written. "Two Giants using unarmed strikes" is a different encounter depending on the rules used, so it is not the same content.



If the mechanics for grappling have changed, then all creatures which used to grapple on a successful hit are fundamentally not the same creatures anymore.

They literally do not follow the same rules.

"If A, then B" becomes "If A, then C".

That is not compatibility.

This is compatible. You can use old content with the new rules. The play experience might be different, but you can buy the 2024 rules, buy Storm King's Thunder, and use it perfectly well. What's under the hood has changed, but the old hood still works.

It's compatible, not identical. But if you're going to incorrectly equate the two, then sure, everyone has different combat options, nothing is the same anymore, everything they've been saying is a lie, burn it all down, and we're done here.

[Unoriginal]

Which is in the end the main reason why WotC talked about retro-compatibility in the first place, it was "don't wait for OneD&D to buy books, please keep buying them because we want the money right now, don't worry the old books will still be useable with the new rules".

I know why they're lying about it, yes, it doesn't make it true.



The actual content of a game session migh technically change, but probably much less than if you changed of GM, or even changed of team of PCs.

Imagine: new gaming group is formed, GM says they'll be DMing 5e, and half the group shows up prepared for the 2014 rules and the other half prepared for the 2024 rules.


Because it "makes sense" to streamline the progress among all classes. Also, because it's fair that everyone, regardless of their class, are on the same line when it comes to options chosen at certain levels.

Then it is not "literally something" and does matter.

[Dork_Forge]

Because it "makes sense" to streamline the progress among all classes. Also, because it's fair that everyone, regardless of their class, are on the same line when it comes to options chosen at certain levels.

The argument of streamlining and making a level playing field only hold up if subclass progression is identical across the board. That means same levels, same number of subclass features, same impact of a subclass on the core chassis.

If everyone starts subclasses at 3rd but then have mixed progression... Then the standardisation argument loses a lot of weight.

If subclasses have differed weighting (like they do in 5e design) then standardisation of levels is a shallow thing that's probably mostly for appearances.

Either way, I'm not seeing a significant enough difference to bother changing what was in 2014. Since they're trying to cram all, of this into '5e', the more unnecessary changes they make the more they just fracture the false notion of backwards compatibility.






Statistics tell only one side of the story, though. I know from personal experience from having played a lot of shared world campaigns (Living Greyhawk for 5 years, and Pathfinder Society for 10 years after that) that there is a certain appeal of trying and making new 1st level characters after another, so this could be part of the reason why Tier 1 makes the majority of this.


There's plenty of reasons for Tier 1 play, I imagine games falling apart, new players, and such a massive amount of content starting at 1st level are probably considerable factors.

Then there's all the 3rd party one shots for those low levels.

That said, what's your point? You seemed to handwave tier 1 (1-3) as being so brief it doesn't matter, but then agree a lot of play can happen there?

And frankly, the game should be as well designed as possible throughout the level progression. It's one thing when people point at tier 4 and say people don't go that far anyway, but it's another thing entirely when it's the beginning of that progression.

[Hurrashane]

Imagine: new gaming group is formed, GM says they'll be DMing 5e, and half the group shows up prepared for the 2014 rules and the other half prepared for the 2024 rules.


Imagine: New gaming group is formed and half the group show up with stuff from tasha's but the DM doesn't use that and didn't communicate that.

Like "I'm going to DM a 5e game" "Oh, is it 2014 or 2024?" "It's 2014, sorry I should have specified on my post."
or, you know. They'll probably talk about what version they're using, what content is available, and what houserules are in play in session frickin' zero. You know, like normal people.

Like, this isn't hard or confusing.

[Keltest]

Imagine: New gaming group is formed and half the group show up with stuff from tasha's but the DM doesn't use that and didn't communicate that.

Like "I'm going to DM a 5e game" "Oh, is it 2014 or 2024?" "It's 2014, sorry I should have specified on my post."
or, you know. They'll probably talk about what version they're using, what content is available, and what houserules are in play in session frickin' zero. You know, like normal people.

Like, this isn't hard or confusing.

Regardless of any other concerns, is there some reason you feel its OK to be less clear and make communication harder?

[Atranen]

Imagine: New gaming group is formed and half the group show up with stuff from tasha's but the DM doesn't use that and didn't communicate that.

Like "I'm going to DM a 5e game" "Oh, is it 2014 or 2024?" "It's 2014, sorry I should have specified on my post."
or, you know. They'll probably talk about what version they're using, what content is available, and what houserules are in play in session frickin' zero. You know, like normal people.

Like, this isn't hard or confusing.

I guess "compatible" to me implies that you will all be using the same core book. If you have to specify which core book you're using, you're functionally playing different editions.

Are there any examples of RPGs where core books with markedly different sets of rules (to the extent that they must be specified in a posting) are marketed as compatible, rather than new editions?

[Hurrashane]

Regardless of any other concerns, is there some reason you feel its OK to be less clear and make communication harder?

How is this any less clear and makes communication harder than say someone using 5th but nothing from Xanathars and beyond? It's pretty easy for someone to say running 5th 2024 or running 5th 2014. Like, I don't know all the various granular things people had to state when running like, 3.5; 3.5 but phb only, 3.5 but with tome of battle, 3.5 but only the complete books, 3.5 but no psionics. This is standard D&D stuff. If you're looking for a group or looking to form a group you make what your playing known and possibly all the various houserules and such. like, having to say 5th 2014 is no different than having to say 5th but with gritty realism rest rules.


I guess "compatible" to me implies that you will all be using the same core book. If you have to specify which core book you're using, you're functionally playing different editions.

Are there any examples of RPGs where core books with markedly different sets of rules (to the extent that they must be specified in a posting) are marketed as compatible, rather than new editions?

I dunno, for me it's no different than trying to get people together to play a card game. What format is being used? What cards are banned? Like, if I was to get people together to play some Yu-gi-oh I'd probably want nothing past like, synchros. And I'd look or advertise fittingly. But it's all still the same card game. Just with differing allowances.

Like people have to communicate how they play 5e -now- so I don't see how this is some sort of drastic change. Some play 5e with or without tasha's rules, for example. Some with no homebrew, some with UA content allowed, etc.

Same with 5e. Like, we'll have to wait and see how compatible it is. Going from 2014 to 2024 seems like a relatively painless conversion thus far, though I don't know how well trying to convert 2024 stuff into 2014 would work.

[Atranen]

I dunno, for me it's no different than trying to get people together to play a card game. What format is being used? What cards are banned? Like, if I was to get people together to play some Yu-gi-oh I'd probably want nothing past like, synchros. And I'd look or advertise fittingly. But it's all still the same card game. Just with differing allowances.

Like people have to communicate how they play 5e -now- so I don't see how this is some sort of drastic change. Some play 5e with or without tasha's rules, for example. Some with no homebrew, some with UA content allowed, etc.

Same with 5e. Like, we'll have to wait and see how compatible it is. Going from 2014 to 2024 seems like a relatively painless conversion thus far, though I don't know how well trying to convert 2024 stuff into 2014 would work.

Extend this line of thought: how is what you describe different from having to organize a D&D game and say "I'm running 2e" vs "I'm running 3.5" vs "I'm running 4e"?

[Hurrashane]

Extend this line of thought: how is what you describe different from having to organize a D&D game and say "I'm running 2e" vs "I'm running 3.5" vs "I'm running 4e"?

It's no different, that's my point? Like, how are you running those other games, what content is allowed? Is 3.5 using all of 3.5 or just some of 3.5 what books are allowed and what aren't. You're running 4e? regular or essentials?

Like with -any- game you advertise for and look for players you either need to spell out for people what kind of game it is what content is allowed or you get all that done during session zero.

This even extends beyond just games. Oh you're advertising for a guild in a game? is it pve? pvp? rp? etc.

like having to state 5e 2014 or 5e 2024 is really small potatoes. Possibly even small tater tots.

[Keltest]

How is this any less clear and makes communication harder than say someone using 5th but nothing from Xanathars and beyond?

Because its two different things using the same name. Was that not pretty self explanatory? Once this launches I will no longer be able to tell people I play 5th edition and have them immediately understand the basic ruleset I use.

[Unoriginal]

Imagine: New gaming group is formed and half the group show up with stuff from tasha's but the DM doesn't use that and didn't communicate that.

Like "I'm going to DM a 5e game" "Oh, is it 2014 or 2024?" "It's 2014, sorry I should have specified on my post."
or, you know. They'll probably talk about what version they're using, what content is available, and what houserules are in play in session frickin' zero. You know, like normal people.

Like, this isn't hard or confusing.

That's assuming the different people playing know there are different versions.

Not everyone is looking online for or keeping up with WotC announcements. I'd wager most of the current playebase does not do that.

[Kish]

In my day, "they're charging for errata" was a criticism of a company, not a defense.

[GooeyChewie]

like having to state 5e 2014 or 5e 2024 is really small potatoes. Possibly even small tater tots.

Agreed, it is small potatoes to clarify which one you mean when they have two different designations. Even WotC refers to them as the 2014 rules and the 2024 rules. The part that gets confusing is branding them both 5e when there’s clearly a need to be able to distinguish between the two.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It's no different, that's my point? Like, how are you running those other games, what content is allowed? Is 3.5 using all of 3.5 or just some of 3.5 what books are allowed and what aren't. You're running 4e? regular or essentials?

The splintering of the Marketplace is commonly ascribed as one of the factors that lead to TSR’s demise in the 2e AD&D era.

Even with the same base mechanics, people did not cross the streams as it were….Planescapers did not buy Ravenloft products, and many people just outright rejected Kits as unbalanced garbage, while others enthusiastically embraced Kits.

The entire notion of an ‘Evergreen’ edition for an RPG, strikes me as silly.
RPG players tend to like a bit of novelty.

In effect WotC is putting up barriers of entry. While some people are fine with oddles of houserules, and a mix match of Mechanics…..others are very much turned off by this.

[Atranen]

It's no different, that's my point? Like, how are you running those other games, what content is allowed? Is 3.5 using all of 3.5 or just some of 3.5 what books are allowed and what aren't. You're running 4e? regular or essentials?

Like with -any- game you advertise for and look for players you either need to spell out for people what kind of game it is what content is allowed or you get all that done during session zero.

This even extends beyond just games. Oh you're advertising for a guild in a game? is it pve? pvp? rp? etc.

like having to state 5e 2014 or 5e 2024 is really small potatoes. Possibly even small tater tots.

So why do we have different edition labels at all? Why not just say "I'm playing Dungeons and Dragons (1989)" vs "I'm playing D&D (2003)" vs "I'm playing D&D (2008)"?

It seems to me that "new set of core books = new edition", functionally, and that's how it will work out in play. So this marketing strategy of 'oh, you actually are playing the same edition, just with different rules' strikes me as dishonest and confusing given the standards of the industry.

[Thunderous Mojo]

So why do we have different edition labels at all? Why not just say "I'm playing Dungeons and Dragons (1989)" vs "I'm playing D&D (2003)" vs "I'm playing D&D (2008)"?

It seems to me that "new set of core books = new edition", functionally, and that's how it will work out in play. So this marketing strategy of 'oh, you actually are playing the same edition, just with different rules' strikes me as dishonest and confusing given the standards of the industry.

This is true. I’ve had a conversation on this very board in which I and another poster was discussing AD&D. It was not until I made a reference to Double Weapon Specialization, and the other poster had no clue what that even was, that I realized we were not talking about the same AD&D as each other.

There is a reason why the D&D community came up with the various Monikers for the different versions of the game….seems silly for WotC to fight human nature…One D&D is going to have a name to distinguish it from what came before.

[Hurrashane]

So why do we have different edition labels at all? Why not just say "I'm playing Dungeons and Dragons (1989)" vs "I'm playing D&D (2003)" vs "I'm playing D&D (2008)"?

It seems to me that "new set of core books = new edition", functionally, and that's how it will work out in play. So this marketing strategy of 'oh, you actually are playing the same edition, just with different rules' strikes me as dishonest and confusing given the standards of the industry.

I mean you could say that?

I mean you're welcome to feel about it however you like. Like, would you have this level of apparent confusion if they released it as like, 5e Re-tuned? or 5e Enhanced, or Advanced 5e, or something? Like some people are already of the opinion that Tasha's makes the game so fundamentally different from 5e that it might as well be a new edition. Like there's already so many variants of how 5e is played that adding new core books is simply just a drop in the bucket. 5e no tasha's except beastmaster, 5e but volo's not MotM, 5e all official content including UA, etc.

It's just really not that big of a deal. And the majority of the rules are similar or simplified versions of rules already there. Like, 2024 isn't an entirely different game (at this point at least) than 2014. I don't think there's enough change in there to warrant it being a new edition. Like, maybe a 5.5? but It's probably not even that, 5.25? 5.2.0? Like, saying the terminology is confusing is a really weak point. We have movies and television shows with the same name and yet people don't really have a problem with saying like Robocop 1987. Is it more effort to have to specify? Sure. But like, fractionally more. and again, people had to specify how they were playing 5e anyway, so this is just another descriptor to throw on the pile.

[stoutstien]

The splintering of the Marketplace is commonly ascribed as one of the factors that lead to TSR’s demise in the 2e AD&D era.

Even with the same base mechanics, people did not cross the streams as it were….Planescapers did not buy Ravenloft products, and many people just outright rejected Kits as unbalanced garbage, while others enthusiastically embraced Kits.

The entire notion of an ‘Evergreen’ edition for an RPG, strikes me as silly.
RPG players tend to like a bit of novelty.

In effect WotC is putting up barriers of entry. While some people are fine with oddles of houserules, and a mix match of Mechanics…..others are very much turned off by this.

Evergreen just means that you have pre set "limits" and once you add something that falls outside that it's no longer that thing. It's actually a great idea of you stick to your guns.it doesn't mean no new content or expansion just not vertical growth outside the set cap. You can have "more" content with this approach because you never lose the old when you add the new.

5e hasn't broken this point but they definitely stretched the limits of those edges and it noticable.

[paladinn]

I mean you could say that?

I mean you're welcome to feel about it however you like. Like, would you have this level of apparent confusion if they released it as like, 5e Re-tuned? or 5e Enhanced, or Advanced 5e, or something? Like some people are already of the opinion that Tasha's makes the game so fundamentally different from 5e that it might as well be a new edition. Like there's already so many variants of how 5e is played that adding new core books is simply just a drop in the bucket. 5e no tasha's except beastmaster, 5e but volo's not MotM, 5e all official content including UA, etc..

"Advanced 5e" isn't an option. ENWorld has published a game called "Level-Up: Advanced 5e" It claims to be completely 5e-compatible, but is not, and nothing I would play. Kind of a Pathfinder 2e for D&D 5e. I wonder if that was a portent..

[Unoriginal]

5e hasn't broken this point but they definitely stretched the limits of those edges and it noticable.

IMO, WotC is trying to Weekend At Bernie's-ing 5e while it's still alive.

[Atranen]

I don't think there's enough change in there to warrant it being a new edition. Like, maybe a 5.5? but It's probably not even that, 5.25? 5.2.0? Like, saying the terminology is confusing is a really weak point. We have movies and television shows with the same name and yet people don't really have a problem with saying like Robocop 1987. Is it more effort to have to specify? Sure. But like, fractionally more. and again, people had to specify how they were playing 5e anyway, so this is just another descriptor to throw on the pile.

Well this is the heart of the question. It's subjective, which is why there's so much disagreement.

I think the current standard in the rpg community is "need a new core book? You have a new edition". Maybe I'm wrong about that.

(I recall the WEG d6 had a "2e Revised and Expanded" edition. That's one model 2024 could take. I never played the standard 2e for that system, so I don't know how similar they were)

But if I'm right, then I think WoTC should follow that standard. It serves a purpose.

[stoutstien]

IMO, WotC is trying to Weekend At Bernie's-ing 5e while it's still alive.

Lol. Yea and in the end they will start an edition war without even a half edition or *revised edition* move. Actually impressive like a car stuck in a tree

[Beelzebub1111]

(I recall the WEG d6 had a "2e Revised and Expanded" edition. That's one model 2024 could take. I never played the standard 2e for that system, so I don't know how similar they were.
Don't forget the womp rat press "2e Revised, Expanded, and Updated" version.

Honestly the changes presented so far, given the WEG example, seems like the difference between 1st and 2nd edition of that game.

The real problem I forsee with the "not new edition" is a bit of a catch 22, if they say that $60 book with the broken subclass and spells you just bought are no longer valid players who bought that book will want to use it. If it is valid than what do the rule revisions actually end up fixing?

[Hurrashane]

Well this is the heart of the question. It's subjective, which is why there's so much disagreement.

I think the current standard in the rpg community is "need a new core book? You have a new edition". Maybe I'm wrong about that.

(I recall the WEG d6 had a "2e Revised and Expanded" edition. That's one model 2024 could take. I never played the standard 2e for that system, so I don't know how similar they were)

But if I'm right, then I think WoTC should follow that standard. It serves a purpose.

I mean even if they did a revised and expanded 5e, then you'll still have to specify what version of 5e you're playing. Which was the crux of this issue, no? Like, I'm pretty sure they've reprinted versions of core books with errata that then people making groups had to put in like, "3.5 pre-errata" or whatever.

Like, I definitely don't feel that 2024 is enough for a new edition. I feel like if they released it as 6e people would just be like, "This is just 5e with a couple changes. This could have just been errata." like, I don't think there's any way they can "win" this in everyone's eyes. Is it enough changes for a .5 edition? Maybe, maybe not. Would the modern consumer be ok with it being a .5 edition? Doesn't that communicate more that their old stuff isn't compatible, which isn't their design or marketing intent?

Like, as we get closer to the 2024 release we'll have a better picture of how compatible the new version is to the old and if there'll be good conversion guides and how easy and well those worked. Likely this question wont be settled until after 2024 comes out and we can see in it's entirety if it should have been a new edition, a half edition, or whatever. The books they release could be a lot closer to the 2014 versions than what we've seen in UA, or they could be a lot further. There's not really a way to tell at this time.

[Keltest]

I mean even if they did a revised and expanded 5e, then you'll still have to specify what version of 5e you're playing. Which was the crux of this issue, no? Like, I'm pretty sure they've reprinted versions of core books with errata that then people making groups had to put in like, "3.5 pre-errata" or whatever.

Like, I definitely don't feel that 2024 is enough for a new edition. I feel like if they released it as 6e people would just be like, "This is just 5e with a couple changes. This could have just been errata." like, I don't think there's any way they can "win" this in everyone's eyes. Is it enough changes for a .5 edition? Maybe, maybe not. Would the modern consumer be ok with it being a .5 edition? Doesn't that communicate more that their old stuff isn't compatible, which isn't their design or marketing intent?

Like, as we get closer to the 2024 release we'll have a better picture of how compatible the new version is to the old and if there'll be good conversion guides and how easy and well those worked. Likely this question wont be settled until after 2024 comes out and we can see in it's entirety if it should have been a new edition, a half edition, or whatever. The books they release could be a lot closer to the 2014 versions than what we've seen in UA, or they could be a lot further. There's not really a way to tell at this time.

Well, thats really the crux of the issue isnt it? None of what theyre doing is worth re-buying the books for people who already own them.

If it was explicitly a PHB 2 with rules variants and erratas and clarifications and alternate rules, I might at least be interested, but "Buy something you already own, but with a new design direction a lot of people disagree with!" is not a good product. And 5e could certainly use a DMG 2 with more specific advice and such.

[Hurrashane]

Well, thats really the crux of the issue isnt it? None of what theyre doing is worth re-buying the books for people who already own them.

If it was explicitly a PHB 2 with rules variants and erratas and clarifications and alternate rules, I might at least be interested, but "Buy something you already own, but with a new design direction a lot of people disagree with!" is not a good product. And 5e could certainly use a DMG 2 with more specific advice and such.

That's entirely subjective. So far I am liking what I'm seeing with the direction of the UAs and it's different enough to warrant a new purchase. I don't know if I'll buy the books, as usually (and hopefully this practice continues), thanks to D&D beyond, any books our DM gets is shared with us. So I may not need to. And our current long running game is going to be switching up to use the Genesys system of games for our next campaign so if the group really enjoys that system we might not come back to D&D for a while or at all, we'll see. Though I imagine at some point we'll return to it like an old friend, though if that's during 5e's continued life or a later edition we shall see.

[Atranen]

I mean even if they did a revised and expanded 5e, then you'll still have to specify what version of 5e you're playing. Which was the crux of this issue, no? Like, I'm pretty sure they've reprinted versions of core books with errata that then people making groups had to put in like, "3.5 pre-errata" or whatever.

Right--but there'd be more clear delineation that there are different versions. That's typical for the industry and helps people who are new learn about the options available.


Like, I definitely don't feel that 2024 is enough for a new edition. I feel like if they released it as 6e people would just be like, "This is just 5e with a couple changes. This could have just been errata." like, I don't think there's any way they can "win" this in everyone's eyes. Is it enough changes for a .5 edition? Maybe, maybe not. Would the modern consumer be ok with it being a .5 edition? Doesn't that communicate more that their old stuff isn't compatible, which isn't their design or marketing intent?

I don't think it should be 6e either. The design intent question seems to be where the most confusion is. We've seen varying degrees of compatibility expressed so far. If it turns out not to be acceptably compatible for some people, but it is marketed as such, that will be a big problem.

[Hurrashane]

Right--but there'd be more clear delineation that there are different versions. That's typical for the industry and helps people who are new learn about the options available.

I don't see it being any more clear than what they're planning. Running a 5e game, oh is that enhanced 5e? Like, how is that less confusing than saying 5e (2024)? Especially as, if the new version proves popular, the number of folks playing 5e (2014) should decrease over time so most people when they say 5e will be talking about 2024. Also calling it like, enhanced 5e will have new players or unfamiliar players asking "well what's non-enhanced 5e?" and as the new version becomes the standard it becomes more odd with time.



I don't think it should be 6e either. The design intent question seems to be where the most confusion is. We've seen varying degrees of compatibility expressed so far. If it turns out not to be acceptably compatible for some people, but it is marketed as such, that will be a big problem.

So far I've gotten the impression that 2014 adventures should be usable out of the box, though unsure if that's with their old 2014 version of monsters or if you'll have to replace like, a hill giant 2014 with a hill giant (2024 MM). Any previous races, subclasses, and the alchemist will require a bit of tweaking to work with the new rule changes, but at this time it doesn't seem too much for most of them, the subclasses that don't have enough subclass abilities would be the hardest ones to convert. But as I said we'll need to wait to see if there's conversion guides to really know how easy it will be if it's at all possible.

[Keltest]

That's entirely subjective. So far I am liking what I'm seeing with the direction of the UAs and it's different enough to warrant a new purchase. I don't know if I'll buy the books, as usually (and hopefully this practice continues), thanks to D&D beyond, any books our DM gets is shared with us. So I may not need to. And our current long running game is going to be switching up to use the Genesys system of games for our next campaign so if the group really enjoys that system we might not come back to D&D for a while or at all, we'll see. Though I imagine at some point we'll return to it like an old friend, though if that's during 5e's continued life or a later edition we shall see.

So if we complain about how the changes are too different, its small potatoes and were making a mountain of a molehill, and if we complain about how they arent different enough, its just our opinion and its actually fine?

[Arkhios]

That said, what's your point? You seemed to handwave tier 1 (1-3) as being so brief it doesn't matter, but then agree a lot of play can happen there?

My point is that the time spent at 1st and 2nd level is but a fleeting moment. The real game basically begins at 3rd level, which also lasts a good while longer than the first 2 levels did.

Does it really matter if everyone gets their subclass choice at 3rd level? No. It does not.

[Hurrashane]

So if we complain about how the changes are too different, its small potatoes and were making a mountain of a molehill, and if we complain about how they arent different enough, its just our opinion and its actually fine?

What are you talking about?

I said that it "not being worth buying" was subjective. It could "not be worth buying" because it's too different or too similar in someone's opinion to be worth purchasing.

Splitting hairs on what they call it is small potatoes.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's one of the key benefits for new editions. Clear out the cruft that accumulates, decide which of it matters, and reorganize it into a more cohesive unit.

I don't see any signs they're doing that with this "refactor". Instead they're just piling more cruft on top and trying to have it both ways. so far, that's the impression I have.

In what universe is "this is the fifth edition Player's Handbook, and this is the other fifth edition Player's Handbook, with different rules, no it's not called anything different" the non-confusing option? not in the universe that I live in.

IMO, evergreen was doomed as soon as they released Xanathar. Not necessarily for the content of Xanathar itself, but because it shows that they still had peoples working on developing new rules. Options, just as the DMG had and just as Tashas has. That spelled it out in the first few pages in both supplements. (My problem was power creep and Hex blades, but I'll not go into that rant again).

Maintaining a system require a totally different mindset. A totally different decision flow. And they didn't have it.
When money is on the side of "just maintain, don't break anything", then a good management can help to enforce a "better is the enemy of good" mentality. But here, I don't think money was on that side. Well said, and I agree.

5th Edition D&D is not the actual fifth edition of D&D, the entire name of the game is a deliberately misleading marketing ploy - every name of WotC era D&D game has been. Stop drinking their kool-aid when you aren't paid to. :smalltongue: Heh, I think 5th edition is something like the tenth version ... but it's somewhere between the 8th and the 12th based on this, (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/563/22566) that (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/343/22566), these (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/343/22566) and those (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/499/22566).

That's exactly the point I was going to make next. Literally anything that has any hope of staying relevant has consistent updates (patches) and look something like v1.203.69. I am reminded of how Guild Wars started a trend of micro patching on computer games where there were long intervals between patches in similar games before that. ... arena.net, man, that's a while ago.

What happened was they purged most of the 5E original creators. When they got rid of the old guard so went their business model. Fair point.

If someone views One D&D as an edition change, then their is very little incentive to purchase Bigby’s Hand of Cash Grabbing: Now With Giants!

The book is ‘obsolete’ before even being released, if But I am getting it since I am pretty sure that D&Done may not be something any of my groups want to switch to.

One D&D is an edition change. It sure changes a lot.

Rewriting the DMG and the PHB to make those books more intelligible and clearer, is not a trivial undertaking, and I wonder if they have allotted sufficient time to do this task well. In Vegas, the betting money is against this.

Nothing from the history of 5E’s prior releases would indicate that this design team is able to quickly produce clearly written game rules text. Perhaps instead of playing around with giving all Clerics access to Smite abilities and Noble Steeds…..they should be showing us what their editors are up to, in terms of fixing the text. I don't think they can show us what doesn't happen, though. :smallyuk:

The only reason WotC has to pretend otherwise is that they named their game "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" despite that fact that it's not a fifth edition of anything and was not going to remain as fifth edition. As noted above, somewhere between the 8th and 12th edition ...

[Atranen]

My point is that the time spent at 1st and 2nd level is but a fleeting moment. The real game basically begins at 3rd level, which also lasts a good while longer than the first 2 levels did.

Does it really matter if everyone gets their subclass choice at 3rd level? No. It does not.

It matters to many people, as the discussions on this forum have indicated. And that "fleeting moment" quite plausibly accounts for more playtime than levels 11-20 combined.

[Unoriginal]

Does it really matter if everyone gets their subclass choice at 3rd level? No. It does not.

It if doesn't really matter if everyone gets their subclass choice at 3rd level, then it doesn't matter whether or not everyone gets their subclass choice at 3rd level or at 1rst level or at different level depending on which class you are.

If it's important enough to be changed, then it matters.

[GooeyChewie]

I don't see it being any more clear than what they're planning. Running a 5e game, oh is that enhanced 5e? Like, how is that less confusing than saying 5e (2024)? Especially as, if the new version proves popular, the number of folks playing 5e (2014) should decrease over time so most people when they say 5e will be talking about 2024. Also calling it like, enhanced 5e will have new players or unfamiliar players asking "well what's non-enhanced 5e?" and as the new version becomes the standard it becomes more odd with time.


It would be less confusing because the marketing would match the name. The front of the book would say “Enhanced 5e.” If the new version becomes popular, then it’ll be good to be able to say “get the one that says ‘enhanced’” instead of “check to see if it was published in 2024.”

[Hurrashane]

It would be less confusing because the marketing would match the name. The front of the book would say “Enhanced 5e.” If the new version becomes popular, then it’ll be good to be able to say “get the one that says ‘enhanced’” instead of “check to see if it was published in 2024.”

You mean instead of just "Get the one that they're currently selling"? Cause they're not planning to continue sales of the 2014 version. Like, on D&D beyond you won't be able to purchase the 2014 version. I'm not sure how bookstores and other stores operate when it comes to this kind of thing, but I imagine you won't be able to get them in most places. Like, I don't know when the last time I saw Volos on a shelf.

[Atranen]

You mean instead of just "Get the one that they're currently selling"? Cause they're not planning to continue sales of the 2014 version. Like, on D&D beyond you won't be able to purchase the 2014 version. I'm not sure how bookstores and other stores operate when it comes to this kind of thing, but I imagine you won't be able to get them in most places. Like, I don't know when the last time I saw Volos on a shelf.

There are a lot of old PHBs floating around though. I suspect you'll be able to find the 2014 one on Amazon and ebay at least. When I got into D&D in 2003, '3.0 vs 3.5' was a difficult question.

My FLGS still sells Volo's.

[Unoriginal]

You mean instead of just "Get the one that they're currently selling"? Cause they're not planning to continue sales of the 2014 version. Like, on D&D beyond you won't be able to purchase the 2014 version. I'm not sure how bookstores and other stores operate when it comes to this kind of thing, but I imagine you won't be able to get them in most places. Like, I don't know when the last time I saw Volos on a shelf.


Maybe the officially-affiliated bookstores will pull the 2014 core books off the shelves and accept it's a loss to have bought them because WotC is giving them a good deal for the 2024 core books, but outside of those it's quite unlikely bookstores would do that.

I mean, I've seen D&D 5e books being sold in supermarkets' book sections. And specialized hobby shops generally can't really afford to simply remove merchandise they've invested non-insignificant amount of money in.

[GooeyChewie]

You mean instead of just "Get the one that they're currently selling"? Cause they're not planning to continue sales of the 2014 version. Like, on D&D beyond you won't be able to purchase the 2014 version. I'm not sure how bookstores and other stores operate when it comes to this kind of thing, but I imagine you won't be able to get them in most places. Like, I don't know when the last time I saw Volos on a shelf.

You’re probably fine on D&D Beyond. But just because WotC stops selling the 2014 core books doesn’t mean the copies already on the shelf disappear. A good FLGS should double-check that you are getting the right version, but larger, non-gaming-focused stores won’t care. And of course, Amazon will continue selling it, which could easily lead to “I searched 5e and sorted to get the cheapest” problems. So yes, I would like to see the 2024 core books clearly differentiated from the 2014 ones, rather than simply hoping the old ones aren’t available.

[Psyren]

You can use the same product/book as written and obtain a play experience that is still within the usual range of WotC quality of "out of the box" campaigns.

Which is in the end the main reason why WotC talked about retro-compatibility in the first place, it was "don't wait for OneD&D to buy books, please keep buying them because we want the money right now, don't worry the old books will still be useable with the new rules".

The actual content of a game session migh technically change, but probably much less than if you changed of GM, or even changed of team of PCs.

The only point where I would consider this change of content actually relevant is if it changed the quality of the game experience significantly (for example turning a fair encounter into a ln unnanounced deadly trap) to the point it is no longer within the range of quality that WotC product have.

Right.


Imagine: New gaming group is formed and half the group show up with stuff from tasha's but the DM doesn't use that and didn't communicate that.

Like "I'm going to DM a 5e game" "Oh, is it 2014 or 2024?" "It's 2014, sorry I should have specified on my post."
or, you know. They'll probably talk about what version they're using, what content is available, and what houserules are in play in session frickin' zero. You know, like normal people.

Like, this isn't hard or confusing.

Indeed, it's not.


Who are they an acolyte of?

...Their deity? You do know you can worship a deity without having a domain right?


In my day, "they're charging for errata" was a criticism of a company, not a defense.

If you stick with 2014 + the conversion guide you'll have something playable without spending any extra if that's your concern.

[Keltest]

If you stick with 2014 + the conversion guide you'll have something playable without spending any extra if that's your concern.

Why do I need to convert anything if I'm sticking with the 2014 books?

[Brookshw]

Why do I need to convert anything if I'm sticking with the 2014 books?

You don't? :smallconfused:

Unrelated, have we heard any definitive statement on what open licensing they're using for the update?

[Keltest]

You don't? :smallconfused:

That would be the point yes.

[Psyren]

That would be the point yes.

I'm not sure what you're wanting from people. If you're demanding we sell you on something you've clearly made up your mind to not be sold on, I think our time is better spent elsewhere.



Unrelated, have we heard any definitive statement on what open licensing they're using for the update?

Kyle Brink openly stated the new SRD will be Creative Commons just like 5.1 is.

[Brookshw]

I'm not sure what you're wanting from people. If you're demanding we sell you on something you've clearly made up your mind to not be sold on, I think our time is better spent elsewhere. +1.




Kyle Brink openly stated the new SRD will be Creative Commons just like 5.1 is.
Thanks!

[Atranen]

I'm not sure what you're wanting from people. If you're demanding we sell you on something you've clearly made up your mind to not be sold on, I think our time is better spent elsewhere.

I think folks here are looking for a "yes, it is a new edition/iteration of the game that has many incompatibilities with previous versions". The line you WoTC is selling is "it's different and new and better but also totally compatible and will not cause any problems". We want WoTC to be forthright about the consequences of changes they are making.

[Psyren]

I think folks here are looking for a "yes, it is a new edition/iteration of the game that has many incompatibilities with previous versions". The line you WoTC is selling is "it's different and new and better but also totally compatible and will not cause any problems". We want WoTC to be forthright about the consequences of changes they are making.

They never promised "will not cause any problems." What they promised from the beginning was that it will be playable with your existing books:

"When we say building on top of this edition, what we mean is that all the adventures and supplements that have been released in the past 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpI7J9vtbnw)

[Keltest]

They never promised "will not cause any problems." What they promised from the beginning was that it will be playable with your existing books:

"When we say building on top of this edition, what we mean is that all the adventures and supplements that have been released in the past 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpI7J9vtbnw)

Right. Theyre promising backwards compatibility but not really. Just say its a new edition with its own rules, but the 5e modules arent actually married to the 5e rules so you can use them if you dont want to buy modules again.

[diplomancer]

They never promised "will not cause any problems." What they promised from the beginning was that it will be playable with your existing books:

"When we say building on top of this edition, what we mean is that all the adventures and supplements that have been released in the past 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpI7J9vtbnw)

I see. They're speaking lawyerese. Because any adventure is "playable" with enough grease work from the individual adapter.

[Silverblade1234]

They never promised "will not cause any problems." What they promised from the beginning was that it will be playable with your existing books:

"When we say building on top of this edition, what we mean is that all the adventures and supplements that have been released in the past 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpI7J9vtbnw)

See also the FAQ: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-2024-core-rulebooks-d-d-digital-and


What do you mean by 'compatible?'

It means that your collection of D&D adventures and supplements will work with the 2024 core rulebooks. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd, that book will work with the 2024 versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.

Again, it doesn't mean that the play experience is unchanged or doesn't require any level of conversion (even minimal). And I do think there's a conversation to be had eventually (once we see the 2024 rules in a more final form) about how much conversion might be too much. But right now, they seem on track to deliver on this promise, with monster stats as a great example of how the content is still perfectly usable with the new rules, even if the mechanics executing that content are different.

[Psyren]

Just say its a new edition with its own rules, but the 5e modules arent actually married to the 5e rules so you can use them if you dont want to buy modules again.

No, they're not going to say that. So at some point you need to decide if them not saying that is a dealbreaker for you or not.


Because any adventure is "playable" with enough grease work from the individual adapter.

What matters is where that line of "too much 'grease work'" falls for you as a person, and how that informs your decision to purchase or not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right. Theyre promising backwards compatibility but not really. Just say its a new edition with its own rules, but the 5e modules arent actually married to the 5e rules so you can use them if you dont want to buy modules again.

Exactly. They're trying to eat their cake and have it too--proclaim backwards compatibility but introduce breaking changes[1]. That, not introducing the breaking changes, is what's annoying people. Because, like so much of WotC's public presence lately, it's a lie. A self-serving, bald-faced lie.

TTRPG rule systems are like API contracts. Promises that, given certain inputs you'll get certain outputs back (subject to randomness). Things like "a class named X is unique and only has one representation (one level-up table)" are fairly core contractual pieces. Changing that is a breaking change 100%, even if it's "small" and "only requires a small conversion". Or even if it's "better off that way".

A software company that published a library that promised it was using semver and didn't bump the major version but introduced breaking changes would rightly get excoriated and most sane developers would drop it like a hot rock. Because it means you can no longer trust anything they do. Apple doesn't promise backwards compatibility in their dev tooling...and then breaks it. And devs only put up with it because they have (and abuse) a monopoly. It's an actively user-and-developer-hostile action.

Adding breaking changes isn't bad. In fact, it's good in many cases--fixing core things that are "broken" (YMMV as to whether they're actually broken) usually requires breaking changes. Lying about not introducing breaking changes when you are, for selfish PR purposes...that's bad. And no one can convince me otherwise.

[1] If the clients require conversion, it's a breaking change. Backwards compatibility means, definitionally, that the other packages using it can use it as before and don't know the difference. Everything they feed the system should operate exactly as before, maybe with some internal, hidden changes. New things can be added without causing breaking changes, but you can't remove or alter the contract of the old stuff without creating breaking changes for your consumers.

Someone who wrote a subclass for the 2014 cleric cannot simply apply it to the 2020 cleric without changes. Therefore, breaking changes occurred.

[OldTrees1]

I think folks here are looking for a "yes, it is a new edition/iteration of the game that has many incompatibilities with previous versions". The line you WoTC is selling is "it's different and new and better but also totally compatible and will not cause any problems". We want WoTC to be forthright about the consequences of changes they are making.

Agreed I think folks here are looking for:
1) WotC being honest rather than trying to spin things. If it is a 5.5, don't try to call it a new OneD&D edition, nor revert and try to call it 5E.
2) WotC offering a product that has value to the consumers. To be fair, an honest sales pitch of 5.5 is going to struggle because 5E is not designed to facilitate a 5.5 edition being worthwhile.

So we are left with, those with low standards are disappointed, and those with lower standards are being apologists.


Exactly. They're trying to eat their cake and have it too--proclaim backwards compatibility but introduce breaking changes[1]. That, not introducing the breaking changes, is what's annoying people. Because, like so much of WotC's public presence lately, it's a lie. A self-serving, bald-faced lie.
Yep. That is what is annoying.

If they fixed that annoyance, then there is the additional critique. Is the honest sales pitch persuasive? It might not be and that is a disappointment in the offered product.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed I think folks here are looking for:
1) WotC being honest rather than trying to spin things. If it is a 5.5, don't try to call it a new OneD&D edition, nor revert and try to call it 5E.
2) WotC offering a product that has value to the consumers. To be fair, an honest sales pitch of 5.5 is going to struggle because 5E is not designed to facilitate a 5.5 edition being worthwhile.

So we are left with, those with low standards are disappointed, and those with lower standards are being apologists.

Strong agree. I'd be fine with #1--there are things I think should be fixed that would warrant a new edition. Heck, even just a "hey, we're going to clean up the language a lot, flesh out some options, and refactor some of the monsters" would be worth at least some new books. But it'd definitely be an edition change.

[OldTrees1]

Strong agree. I'd be fine with #1--there are things I think should be fixed that would warrant a new edition. Heck, even just a "hey, we're going to clean up the language a lot, flesh out some options, and refactor some of the monsters" would be worth at least some new books. But it'd definitely be an edition change.
Agreed.

If WotC was honest with their sales pitch to you, you would be fine rather than annoyed.
If WotC was honest with their sales pitch to you, and it was something you valued, you would consider buying at least some new books.
PhoenixPhyre is part of the consumer base for a 5.5 edition, and the dishonest sales pitch is failing.

[Keltest]

Agreed.

If WotC was honest with their sales pitch to you, you would be fine rather than annoyed.
If WotC was honest with their sales pitch to you, and it was something you valued, you would consider buying at least some new books.
PhoenixPhyre is part of the consumer base for a 5.5 edition, and the dishonest sales pitch is failing.

Ditto. I too am being turned off by the sales pitch, in part because I still dont even know what it is they want it to be.

[Atranen]

Strong agree. I'd be fine with #1--there are things I think should be fixed that would warrant a new edition. Heck, even just a "hey, we're going to clean up the language a lot, flesh out some options, and refactor some of the monsters" would be worth at least some new books. But it'd definitely be an edition change.

Agreed. I mentioned (maybe in the other thread?) already, that I would buy new versions of the PHB with cleaner editing and adjudication of some common disputes. Take the most important Sage Advice, put it in blurbs, and add some explanation of why they made those decisions. Absolutely, sign me up.

Heck, add a fancy special edition "50th anniversary" cover and add the best Xanathar's/Tasha's content, and I'd pay extra.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. I mentioned (maybe in the other thread?) already, that I would buy new versions of the PHB with cleaner editing and adjudication of some common disputes. Take the most important Sage Advice, put it in blurbs, and add some explanation of why they made those decisions. Absolutely, sign me up.

Heck, add a fancy special edition "50th anniversary" cover and add the best Xanathar's/Tasha's content, and I'd pay extra.

Agreed. That's exactly the sort of thing that, while it technically would be a new edition, wouldn't bug me at all and I'd pay for gladly. Especially the "developer commentary" parts.

[False God]

Looking back on it, this is very 1984 of WotC, after getting rid of the old PHB and printing the new one, the attitude of "this is the PHB and this has always been the PHB" is very 1984, that kind of "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." vibe.

[Psyren]

So we are left with, those with low standards are disappointed, and those with lower standards are being apologists.

The resort to namecalling is expected as always. But "dismissal", gasp, that's the evil!


I do think there's a conversation to be had eventually (once we see the 2024 rules in a more final form) about how much conversion might be too much. But right now, they seem on track to deliver on this promise, with monster stats as a great example of how the content is still perfectly usable with the new rules, even if the mechanics executing that content are different.

They'd have to change a lot more than I've seen so far for conversion to be too much.

[Unoriginal]

Let's say Sony Interactive Entertainment announces a new version of zhe PS5, and tell people that it's totally compatible with games that works on the old version of PS5.

So you buy it, and try playing your copy of God of War: Ragnarok on it. A message appears on your screen telling you you need to download a patch to play this game with PS5-new-version. Fine, that's not so bad. So you download it and starts playing.

Except... the game isn't like you remember. Changes to the User Interface aren't too weird, they're welcome in some cases, but the more you play the weirder it gets. The attack patterns of many enemies changed, as did the way they react to damage (some of them being easier to staggers, others are harder, as you can notice on the first group of enemies),or even the ammount of resistance they had to each weapon. Kratos's skill trees are different, some buffs last longer or can be re-used after a shorter recovery time, some unlockable options have the same names but another effect compared to the one you're used to, one of the weapon is faster while another is faster, there are more option for attack moves, and there is more healing items but each heals less individually than before. And so on.

That game could very well be entirely playable. It could even be better either on some points or as a whole.

But it is not the same God of War: Ragnarok, is it?

[Amnestic]

But it is not the same God of War: Ragnarok, is it?

It's not the same, but it is undeniably GoW:R.

Patches and expansions which fundamentally change swaths of the 'base' game are absolutely commonplace in video games these days, even when they're not online games.

To take a current real-case example, the upcoming expansion/DLC for Cyberpunk 2077 is going to be changing huge amounts of the base content (with anything affecting it coming as a free patch).

It will be different. But it will still be 2077.

[Unoriginal]

It's not the same, but it is undeniably GoW:R.

Patches and expansions which fundamentally change swaths of the 'base' game are absolutely commonplace in video games these days, even when they're not online games.

True, but those changes aren't dependants on if you bounght your game console in 2022 or in 2023.

The Volo's, Xanathar's, etc. were patches and expansions or DLCs that changed swaths of the base game, but they were advertised as such and identifiable as such.



To take a current real-case example, the upcoming expansion/DLC for Cyberpunk 2077 is going to be changing huge amounts of the base content (with anything affecting it coming as a free patch).

It will be different. But it will still be 2077.

But it won't be called just "Cyberpunk 2077" without any indication that there was an expansion/DLC.

[Amnestic]

But it won't be called just "Cyberpunk 2077" without any indication that there was an expansion/DLC.

It will be if you buy a boxed copy in the store. Digital storefronts will probably advertise the DLC alongside it (because they want you to purchase it as well) but any physical copies will have the same case as they did at initial release.

[Kane0]

Skyrim vs Anniversary Edition?

[Unoriginal]

It will be if you buy a boxed copy in the store. Digital storefronts will probably advertise the DLC alongside it (because they want you to purchase it as well) but any physical copies will have the same case as they did at initial release.

How do you know if the copy you're buying at the store has the DLC or not, then?

[Amnestic]

How do you know if the copy you're buying at the store has the DLC or not, then?

The DLC is...additional content. If it has it, it'll say so. There might be boxed copies that include it, idk. It might be digital-only as an option.

But the gameplay changes - the change to how levelling works, how gearing works, how AI has been changed - those are all patched in, for free, exactly like in your GoW example. The copy you will buy off the shelf (assuming you patch it) will be radically different from the one you bought off the shelf, but it will still be sold as the original 2077.

[Unoriginal]

The DLC is...additional content. If it has it, it'll say so.

So we are not in a situation where there were changes without the company indicating there were changes.

Nor in a situation where the changes are mandatory if you buy a version of the game published after a certain date.

[Amnestic]

So we are not in a situation where there were changes without the company indicating there were changes.

Nor in a situation where the changes are mandatory if you buy a version of the game published after a certain date.

The changes are mandatory assuming you patch the game, which is pretty likely given that the release 2077 at initial launch was a broken mess of bugs. Also mandatory if you buy it digitally rather than physically.

And this is all just on the one example of 2077. It's certainly not the only case where significant changes get put in place via patches without any sort of indication otherwise, often without a corresponding DLC. Compare No Man's Sky at release to now, as another example.

Or, hell, Fortnite. It's free to play, but if you picked it up years ago and then picked it up again today? Completely different beasts. It's still Fortnite though.

[Vahnavoi]

Huh? It's completely standard industry practice to issue updated print runs and minor revisions while treating it as the same 'edition'. Most major publishers will have a reprint team that makes correction, changes 3rd party assets that had licensing issues, etc. when a title is up for reprints of that edition. The more I'm hearing of what people think an edition is, the more I'm realizing what a difference there is between the industry practice and dictionary definition.

I thought to leave this alone, but the continued discussion over hypothetical consumer confusion makes this worth blowing up.

Let's start by splitting "standard industry practice" to "industry standards" and "industry practice".

Industry standards are like definitions in a dictionary, as in, put down and codified and sometimes legally enforced. Industry practice, like real speech by people, sometimes lives up to these standards and sometimes does not.

If a major publisher is sending their type to numerous sub-contractors, sequential numbering of prints and editions might become inconvenient or impossible, increasingly so the more independence those sub-contractors have. So, for reasons of marketing and book keeping convenience, you can have products that are nominally of the same edition, despite being printed at different places, different times and with different texts.

But when a major publisher does this, they better be sure they won't end up with products within the same nominal edition that have significant variance in material quality and content. Because in that case, they would start running against legally enforced industry standards and open themselves up for lawsuits due to aforementioned customer confusion.

This is why, if I open up a copy of virtually any book printed by a major publisher in my country, there will be standard blurb on a standard page that read "Name of product, Xth edition, Yth printing, place of printing", so on and so forth. If the maker doesn't want to up the sequential edition number for whatever reason, they'll still have to note the changes to prior products somehow, so maybe the blurb will read "Name of product, Xth edition (Revised), Yth printing (Hard covers)" or some such. But if I wanted to, I could, just from my own books, make a stack up to the ceiling of books of 2nd or 3rd editions (so on and so forth) where the only changes to previous editions are fixing of typing errors and maybe addition of an author's pre- or afterword.

The talk after your post, about how it won't be such a big deal to specify "5e D&D 2014" versus "5e D&D 2024", is a neat case of missing the forest for the trees. The fact that the distinction can, and has to, be made is good litmus for them being two different editions. The standard blurb on the standard page will at minimum read "5th edition (revised 2024)" to set it apart from earlier products. No amount of chanting "but it's the same edition, for realz, guys" will change the basic observation that it's a new printing with new text.

Now, you might go and open some book and notice the standard blurb on the standard page isn't there. It happens. At best, it means you are dealing with a work that isn't up to standard (and possibly didn't have to be). At worst, it means there is no-one supervising and reinforcing such standards in a way that would protect you, as a customer, from confusion. Sucks to be you, in the latter case.

All of this is a longwinded way of telling you to stop making excuses for the people who want your money. WotC could also tell you black is really white and the sun is just the moon at night, and if enough people bought into it, the dictionary definitions would change too. That's no reason to be happy about it.

[paladinn]

I'm becoming soo glad I'm playing Castles & Crusades now..

[Brookshw]

Let's start by splitting "standard industry practice" to "industry standards" and "industry practice". Let's not, because I didn't say 'industry standards', I said "standard industry practice' which are practices that are standard within the industry, not standards for an industry. Yes, industry standards, e.g., pallet dimensions, form factors, etc., are defined (incidentally, some definitions are ranges rather than specifics). No one is talking about standards. My point here is that they don't exist as far as what's an "edition" in publishing. The notion of an "edition" was further eroded after a SJC case in 2012 with many "editions" now have more and more expanding "versioning" occurring.


But when a major publisher does this, they better be sure they won't end up with products within the same nominal edition that have significant variance in material quality and content. Because in that case, they would start running against legally enforced industry standards and open themselves up for lawsuits due to aforementioned customer confusion. As a lawyer who spent a decade in publishing I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you proposing that there's a false advertising issue? A contractual formation issue where the offer and acceptance were for different subject matter, or an issue of unilateral vs. mutual mistake? Are you implicating the UCC? No, people order a product from the range you offer, you deliver that product. Its a catalogue they pick from, you don't ring up a publisher and say "I want the players handbook", you go online and place an order from the range of options available. Usually their will be an ISBN so you know exactly what the product is (and the 2014 and 2024 will have different ISBNs). Doesn't matter if you're an end user, distributor, or retailer, the process is effectively the same.


This is why, if I open up a copy of virtually any book printed by a major publisher in my country, there will be standard blurb on a standard page that read "Name of product, Xth edition, Yth printing, place of printing", so on and so forth. If the maker doesn't want to up the sequential edition number for whatever reason, they'll still have to note the changes to prior products somehow, so maybe the blurb will read "Name of product, Xth edition (Revised), Yth printing (Hard covers)" or some such. But if I wanted to, I could, just from my own books, make a stack up to the ceiling of books of 2nd or 3rd editions (so on and so forth) where the only changes to previous editions are fixing of typing errors and maybe addition of an author's pre- or afterword. Nope, that's just a historical practice with no legal implication today. The closest you're going to get is a (c) notice, but that's not actually a legal requirement, its a factor for proving intentional infringement so you include it to get more damages later if someone copies your work.


The talk after your post, about how it won't be such a big deal to specify "5e D&D 2014" versus "5e D&D 2024", is a neat case of missing the forest for the trees. The fact that the distinction can, and has to, be made is good litmus for them being two different editions. The standard blurb on the standard page will at minimum read "5th edition (revised 2024)" to set it apart from earlier products. No amount of chanting "but it's the same edition, for realz, guys" will change the basic observation that it's a new printing with new text. Sounds like you missed my point a few pages ago, personally, I don't care what they call it or see it as a substantive point, whether the end product offers value to me, as a consumer, is the only metric I care about. I don't see the value in worrying about the marketing.

That said, the complaints about the marketing are strange. The playtest material is making it VERY clear to people what and how things are changing, if people couldn't tell there were changes then this whole conversation would be meaningless and no one would have any basis (correctly or incorrectly) to claim something is "broken"; toss in the videos, interviews and other communications WoTC is providing and I don't think you could ask for more transparency. I've noticed Psyren ask for years for someone to produce the 'evergreen promise' that nothing would ever change, to date no one has and no quotes have been offered that One D&D isn't going to change anything. It seem


Now, you might go and open some book and notice the standard blurb on the standard page isn't there. It happens. At best, it means you are dealing with a work that isn't up to standard (and possibly didn't have to be). At worst, it means there is no-one supervising and reinforcing such standards in a way that would protect you, as a customer, from confusion. Sucks to be you, in the latter case. They're showing everyone how the sausage is made and giving people opportunity to comment on the ingredients, kinda hard to think people are confused if they're paying attention.


All of this is a longwinded way of telling you to stop making excuses for the people who want your money. WotC could also tell you black is really white and the sun is just the moon at night, and if enough people bought into it, the dictionary definitions would change too. That's no reason to be happy about it. Oh, no, I'm not telling you to be happy about it, I was explaining how the publishing industry actually works because a lot of people haven't spent a decade in it and are speculating. If you don't like what they're selling, then don't buy it. If it further helps clarify my position, to date I'm not planning on purchasing One D&D once its released.

[Psyren]

My own purchasing decision will have nothing to do with whether they call it 5e, 5.5e, OneD&D, 2024-5e, 5e Zero/Caffeine-Free or 6e. I couldn't care less about the marketing label; I care about whether there will be beneficial new mechanics I can easily use, and how much work I'll have to do to run my existing books with said new mechanics; that's it. It's the exact same concern I'll have about whether I'll buy Black Flag/Valiant.

[Vahnavoi]

@Brookshw: Consider International Standard Book Number, since you brought it up. Is a work legally required to have one? No. Do two books with the same number need to be exactly identical? Also no.

Has a publisher screwed up if they have two substantially different books under same ISBN? Yes. Because now someone ordering X can get Y, and that's what can get them in hot water in multiple different ways. Equivalent on computer software front is when undocumented or under-documented version difference breaks backwards compatibility.

Everything about the word "edition" is just a lesser version of the same. It's all fine and dandy untill someone gets caught with their pants down. That's the synthesis of our respective arguments. The only topic of disagreement that ought to be left is whether you think WotC has their pants up or down.

[OldTrees1]

Let's not, because I didn't say 'industry standards', I said "standard industry practice' which are practices that are standard within the industry, not standards for an industry. Yes, industry standards, e.g., pallet dimensions, form factors, etc., are defined (incidentally, some definitions are ranges rather than specifics). No one is talking about standards. My point here is that they don't exist as far as what's an "edition" in publishing.

@Brookshw: Consider International Standard Book Number, since you brought it up. Is a work legally required to have one? No. Do two books with the same number need to be exactly identical? Also no.

@Vahnavoi, Brookshw is right that there is a difference.

As a relevant example: Semantic versioning (semver) is a standard in some industries. In those same industries the standard industry practice generally hews closely to the concept of semver without following it exactly.

Although, we can choose the scope of the industry. Is the entire publishing industry too large to be relevant to the industry of publishing RPG editions? In this narrower industry, is there a standard industry practice of changing the edition when there are breaking changes, but only bumping the major* version when the breaking changes are too much for easy adaptation?
*In 3.5 the 3 is the major version and the 5 is the minor version in this context. A 3E - Revised edition would have been similar where the major version (3E) was kept the same but the edition was changed (3E -> 3E Revised).


personally, I don't care what they call it or see it as a substantive point, whether the end product offers value to me, as a consumer, is the only metric I care about. I don't see the value in worrying about the marketing.


That said, the complaints about the marketing are strange. The playtest material is making it VERY clear to people what and how things are changing, if people couldn't tell there were changes then this whole conversation would be meaningless

It is fallout from WotC's OGL incident. (not to relitigate that)
The tolerance for WotC not being honest in their communication has decreased. You personally might not care, but some see unforced bouts of dishonesty as a valid criticism of the product

In that light it is not strange to see complaints about the consistent choice to be dishonest in the marketing.
5.5E has been pitched as totally new eternal OneD&D edition (a 6E that will last forever)
5.5E has been pitched as totally backwards compatible
5.5E has been pitched as totally still 5E and totally not a revised edition
The people in the know (large group that has seen the playtest materials directly/indirectly) can tell there were changes and the scope of those changes. That is the evidence that reveals the marketing's dishonesty.

So, you might not personally care. However you can understand how a company that needs to earn back trust is going to be critiqued when they are dishonest, and how that might affect some consumer's purchases.

[Brookshw]

So, you might not personally care. However you can understand how a company that needs to earn back trust is going to be critiqued when they are dishonest, and how that might affect some consumer's purchases.

If whatever they're doing is bothering you then don't buy One D&D; "trust" isn't a factor for me, either an end product meets my purchasing objectives or it doesn't (I mean, I'd probably feel differently if there was some kind of human rights abuse going on with the manufacturing, but that's outside of the scope of this discussion). I still think its a strange thing to be bothered by whether this fits whatever subjective definition of "edition" you happen to prescribe to.

[Psyren]

5.5E has been pitched as totally new eternal OneD&D edition (a 6E that will last forever)
5.5E has been pitched as totally backwards compatible
5.5E has been pitched as totally still 5E and totally not a revised edition

None of these are true statements.

- No one at WotC ever said One would be "eternal." In fact, Kyle Brink publicly stated that he expects D&D to look different 10 years after OneD&D's release, just like 2024 D&D will have differences compared to 2014 D&D. It's just not a rational expectectation for any game that isn't an archaeological mainstay like chess to stay static for a decade or more.

- No one at WotC ever said "totally backwards compatible." Their backwards compatibility promise was specifically that OneD&D would be playable with 2014 materials. That's it. "Playable" does not mean "totally devoid of even an iota of effort at the table."

- No one at WotC ever said "not revised." In fact, in the announcement trailer for OneD&D from last year they explicitly state the following: "we're revising the major core rulebooks that every player uses; the player's handbook, the dungeon master's guide, the monster manual." They also outright use the word "revised" multiple times in all of the playtest documents. It's a revision.


@Brookshw: Consider International Standard Book Number, since you brought it up. Is a work legally required to have one? No. Do two books with the same number need to be exactly identical? Also no.

Has a publisher screwed up if they have two substantially different books under same ISBN? Yes. Because now someone ordering X can get Y, and that's what can get them in hot water in multiple different ways. Equivalent on computer software front is when undocumented or under-documented version difference breaks backwards compatibility.

Everything about the word "edition" is just a lesser version of the same. It's all fine and dandy untill someone gets caught with their pants down. That's the synthesis of our respective arguments. The only topic of disagreement that ought to be left is whether you think WotC has their pants up or down.

You can get two different books with the same title too. How many books out there are called "Player's Handbook?" Or "Core Rulebook?" Or "Secret Garden?" It's 2023; if you order book X and it doesn't meet your expectations, all you have to do is return it. Neither the consumer nor the publisher will immolate as a result.

[OldTrees1]

If whatever they're doing is bothering you then don't buy One D&D; "trust" isn't a factor for me, either an end product meets my purchasing objectives or it doesn't.
This thread is about thoughts on One D&D, including what bothers some consumers, including the dishonesty that bothers some consumers.

Some of the thoughts in this thread will be about concerns that don't impact you but do impact others.

[Atranen]

I still think its a strange thing to be bothered by whether this fits whatever subjective definition of "edition" you happen to prescribe to.

For me, it's more than that. It's the combination of a few things:

1) The shift to digital tools that I have no interest in and would prefer not to see at the table.
2) The attempt to wall themselves off from the community with the OGL.
3) The implementation of new rules that I think are bad for the game.
4) My perception that there is not a real reason why a new edition is needed, and that OneD&D doesn't have a clear vision.

Any complaints about One are based around this. My concern is that they're making changes without a clear purpose and will shift the games I play to a new ruleset that I like less. That's pretty disappointing, regardless of what they call it. But if they at least clearly differentiated between "5e" and "One", I think it would be easier to find a game and community that would run 5e. As it is, they're muddying the waters to get more people to buy their new product. It makes sense for them, but is bad for me.

[Psyren]

For me, it's more than that. It's the combination of a few things:

1) The shift to digital tools that I have no interest in and would prefer not to see at the table.
2) The attempt to wall themselves off from the community with the OGL.
3) The implementation of new rules that I think are bad for the game.
4) My perception that there is not a real reason why a new edition is needed, and that OneD&D doesn't have a clear vision.

I don't recall anyone complaining about any of these issues. While I don't agree on any of them except #2, compared to the ad nauseam litigation over whether it deserves to be marketed as 5e or something else, these concerns actually do matter.

[Atranen]

I don't recall anyone complaining about any of these issues. While I don't agree on any of them except #2, compared to the ad nauseam litigation over whether it deserves to be marketed as 5e or something else, these concerns actually do matter.

Likely because they've been discussed in other threads on this forum. This iteration of the OneD&D thread is focused on the naming, for whatever reason.

[Brookshw]

This thread is about thoughts on One D&D, including what bothers some consumers, including the dishonesty that bothers some consumers.

Some of the thoughts in this thread will be about concerns that don't impact you but do impact others.

Whether there's a 'dishonesty' aspect is still very much unclear, there are a lot of expectations but so far they don't seem to be rooted in what WoTC has actually said. Unlike, say, buying a house, its not like WoTC is trying to hide a termite infestations behind some new fascia you can't remove to find it, they're handing people sledgehammers and saying 'go at it with destructive testing to find out anything you want'.

Naturally people will have different concerns from me, that doesn't mean I have to think their concerns are valid or well founded (unlike Atranen's list here).


For me, it's more than that. It's the combination of a few things:

1) The shift to digital tools that I have no interest in and would prefer not to see at the table.
2) The attempt to wall themselves off from the community with the OGL.
3) The implementation of new rules that I think are bad for the game.
4) My perception that there is not a real reason why a new edition is needed, and that OneD&D doesn't have a clear vision.

Any complaints about One are based around this. My concern is that they're making changes without a clear purpose and will shift the games I play to a new ruleset that I like less. That's pretty disappointing, regardless of what they call it. But if they at least clearly differentiated between "5e" and "One", I think it would be easier to find a game and community that would run 5e. As it is, they're muddying the waters to get more people to buy their new product. It makes sense for them, but is bad for me.

All substantive points, whether I agree with them or not I appreciate these are founded in substantive issues rather than retreating to 'well they aren't calling it an edition'. Atranen, take this +1 internet. :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Whether there's a 'dishonesty' aspect is still very much unclear, there are a lot of expectations but so far they don't seem to be rooted in what WoTC has actually said. Unlike, say, buying a house, its not like WoTC is trying to hide a termite infestations behind some new fascia you can't remove to find it, they're handing people sledgehammers and saying 'go at it with destructive testing to find out anything you want'.

Naturally people will have different concerns from me, that doesn't mean I have to think their concerns are valid or well founded (unlike Atranen's list here).


My concerns around the new edition or not issue specifically aren't immediate--sure, people right now will realize there's a difference. At least...if they're paying attention.

But I play with new players. And am active in getting new people into it. Including people who have no clue. They go and buy whatever's in the store, or their parents give them books for presents. In this environment two issues manifest.

1. If I have no intent of using the new rules (as is the case), it makes my job as game organizer exponentially harder if the new rules are not obviously, openly, on the front of the packaging marked as different. Someone asks "what do I need" and I have to either tell them "don't buy anything at all, only use what I have" (which is bad experience for all) or I have to tell them how to dig down and find the old stuff...if it's even available. Replacing SKUs here is ultra bad practice, since that means that Amazon (etc) will treat them as the same product, just like they do different printings of the existing books. That exponentially increases the probability (nay certainty) of confusion and bad purchases.

And drastically increases the chances of miscommunication. And WotC doesn't bear this cost, I do.

And WotC's communications here have been utterly two-faced--their general-public facing stuff is all "totally backward compatible, still 5e, nothing to see here." Their communication to people in the know is much more realistic and toned down.

Communicating with people buying things as gifts is even worse. They already struggle(d) to buy 4e vs 5e stuff when 4e was still available in stores. And buying things like Tasha's/etc.

2. These misunderstandings can crop up like buried landmines. If two people think they have the same ruleset but don't, that can go hidden for quite a while. I've seen that happen even with wording changes (stealth errata) included between printings. And the bigger the changes, the more likely to bite someone and cause conflict. Again, WotC doesn't bear this cost. The people at the table do, and their first reaction is going to be that someone's cheating. This is corrosive to a high-trust environment. And avoided trivially by changing the marking on the books so it's not reasonable to mistake them. And the cost for doing that is minimal.

[Psyren]

Likely because they've been discussed in other threads on this forum. This iteration of the OneD&D thread is focused on the naming, for whatever reason.

To quote a pithy post I read once - that demonstrates my point (in this one). Cheers.



All substantive points, whether I agree with them or not I appreciate these are founded in substantive issues rather than retreating to 'well they aren't calling it an edition'.

Exactly. I'm happy to discuss the stuff that's actually substantive.

[Xervous]

My general impression from the playtest process is that we’re seeing ingredients for a meal paraded around for commentary just to watch them disappear back into the kitchen to re-emerge in some new arrangement. People say yes to fresh tomatoes and then the next showcase emphasizes ketchup. They also appear overly concerned with low value add items such as Paladins smiting with unarmed. Overall it’s coming across as an appeal to the community’s emotions while the devs Marco-Polo their way towards topics that get good engagement in the short term. I don’t get a sense that they’re going to end up addressing deeper issues of the system, which leaves the playtest as a tumble towards a fresh coat of paint on roughly the same function of vehicle.

[Willie the Duck]

My general impression from the playtest process is that we’re seeing ingredients for a meal paraded around for commentary just to watch them disappear back into the kitchen to re-emerge in some new arrangement. People say yes to fresh tomatoes and then the next showcase emphasizes ketchup. They also appear overly concerned with low value add items such as Paladins smiting with unarmed. Overall it’s coming across as an appeal to the community’s emotions while the devs Marco-Polo their way towards topics that get good engagement in the short term. I don’t get a sense that they’re going to end up addressing deeper issues of the system, which leaves the playtest as a tumble towards a fresh coat of paint on roughly the same function of vehicle.

Given that what we've seen is mostly changes to the character race and class granted abilities (along with a smattering of spells and the occasional full on rule like the two-weapon-fighting change), that almost was going to be the case. As much as I have strong opinions on druid Wild Shape or which casters get which spells or giving the fighter some nice class features and skill access, it's all rearranging the orchestra rather than improving the venue. Big issues like the rest cycle (as a whole, not just which classes get SR recharges), the exploration and social pillars, a non-vestigial skill system, and so forth* are the ones I think really need significant addressing.
*pick your own favorites.

[Brookshw]

My concerns around the new edition or not issue specifically aren't immediate--sure, people right now will realize there's a difference. At least...if they're paying attention.

But I play with new players. And am active in getting new people into it. Including people who have no clue. They go and buy whatever's in the store, or their parents give them books for presents. In this environment two issues manifest.

1. If I have no intent of using the new rules (as is the case), it makes my job as game organizer exponentially harder if the new rules are not obviously, openly, on the front of the packaging marked as different. Someone asks "what do I need" and I have to either tell them "don't buy anything at all, only use what I have" (which is bad experience for all) or I have to tell them how to dig down and find the old stuff...if it's even available. Replacing SKUs here is ultra bad practice, since that means that Amazon (etc) will treat them as the same product, just like they do different printings of the existing books. That exponentially increases the probability (nay certainty) of confusion and bad purchases.

And drastically increases the chances of miscommunication. And WotC doesn't bear this cost, I do.

And WotC's communications here have been utterly two-faced--their general-public facing stuff is all "totally backward compatible, still 5e, nothing to see here." Their communication to people in the know is much more realistic and toned down.

Communicating with people buying things as gifts is even worse. They already struggle(d) to buy 4e vs 5e stuff when 4e was still available in stores. And buying things like Tasha's/etc.

2. These misunderstandings can crop up like buried landmines. If two people think they have the same ruleset but don't, that can go hidden for quite a while. I've seen that happen even with wording changes (stealth errata) included between printings. And the bigger the changes, the more likely to bite someone and cause conflict. Again, WotC doesn't bear this cost. The people at the table do, and their first reaction is going to be that someone's cheating. This is corrosive to a high-trust environment. And avoided trivially by changing the marking on the books so it's not reasonable to mistake them. And the cost for doing that is minimal.

I had a player in 3.5 that showed up with a 3e PHB, we didn't notice for a few sessions and only realized when we caught that the cover was different. At a certain point this is just the cost of doing business for consumers, someone upthread already addressed the value of resolving these things in session 0 as you would every other matter that comes up (e.g., which splats are permitted, etc). Misunderstandings are just par for the course, people read rules wrong or differently, etc. If someone's first reaction to a rule being different than they thought it was is to think someone's cheating, that sounds like a deeper issue.


Given that what we've seen is mostly changes to the character race and class granted abilities (along with a smattering of spells and the occasional full on rule like the two-weapon-fighting change), that almost was going to be the case. As much as I have strong opinions on druid Wild Shape or which casters get which spells or giving the fighter some nice class features and skill access, it's all rearranging the orchestra rather than improving the venue. Big issues like the rest cycle (as a whole, not just which classes get SR recharges), the exploration and social pillars, a non-vestigial skill system, and so forth* are the ones I think really need significant addressing.
*pick your own favorites.

No idea yet whether they'll address some of the issues you mention regarding the pillars and rest cycles etc., but they've been pretty upfront about mechanical changes, you may recall the big kerfuffle about the revised rolled a 20 rule they floated in the first play test packet, and that they're incorporating their further re-revisions into subsequent playtest packets.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I had a player in 3.5 that showed up with a 3e PHB, we didn't notice for a few sessions and only realized when we caught that the cover was different. At a certain point this is just the cost of doing business for consumers, someone upthread already addressed the value of resolving these things in session 0 as you would every other matter that comes up (e.g., which splats are permitted, etc). Misunderstandings are just par for the course, people read rules wrong or differently, etc. If someone's first reaction to a rule being different than they thought it was is to think someone's cheating, that sounds like a deeper issue.


I've had this happen with subtle things that were stealth errata'd in 5e. And it caused 10+ minutes of "wait, what? What's the rule?" Because all 3 printings were different in material ways. Sure, it didn't cause extra acrimony...but it did completely disrupt that session.

And doing this at session 0 just isn't possible, because there could be unmarked differences everywhere. You'd have to text-diff the entire set of all paper copies and figure out what the actual rules are. At which point you've done most of the work of making your own edition entirely. It's one extra thing.

Is it a killer problem in and of itself? No, not for me. Is it a problem? Yes. It's not my only problem with the "revamp"--those are legion. But it is a legitimate problem that shouldn't be discarded as "works on my machine". Especially since the costs to WotC to prevent it are literally trivial--add a new marking to the books.

[Brookshw]

Especially since the costs to WotC to prevent it are literally trivial--add a new marking to the books.

I will bet you one quintaloon the 2024 will have a non-identical cover.

[Psyren]

Especially since the costs to WotC to prevent it are literally trivial--add a new marking to the books.

Except that's not the only cost, and I think you very well know it. If they put an asterisk on the new books or called them 5.5e or 6e or New Coke or anything else other than 5e, not only would the howls of cash-grab-they're-making-us-buy-all-our-books-all-over-again be 100x louder than they are now, but even the folks who didn't mind that prospect would be loath to purchase this year's stuff like Bigby's or Golden Vault or Deck of Many Things etc. That's a cost. And it would go way beyond disgruntled people on a message board, you'd have a much larger casual audience going "hold on, isn't this stuff for the previous game? The version's different" and leave it on the shelf.

The folks looking for a reason to be angry at WotC can claim they would all be happier if WotC were to just come out and call it 6e; sorry, but I refuse to believe that to be the case. Those folks would just find a different reason to be mad. Because the real problem is that they don't think there need to be new books at all, and all this haranguing over whether said new books should be marketed this way or that way is just a smokescreen.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I will bet you one quintaloon the 2024 will have a non-identical cover.

But there have already been a bunch of different covers for the 2014 books. So that's not a distinguishing mark.

You need at minimum
1) a new SKU+ISBN identifier. This prevents retailers from confusing the issue more than it needs to be.
2) A visible change that uniquely identifies a 2024 book from a 2014 one. Preferably something added to the title itself. No, changing the logo (cf 2e) doesn't count. Looking at the publish date doesn't count. This needs to be visible to someone who knows nothing about D&D, even if they don't know what the differences are. Something that a no-nothing parent can ask the kid "hey, did you want the Dungeons & Dragons (Extra Magic Special) Players Handbook or the one that just says Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook?"

Anecdotally, I ran a D&D club in a high school. I had a parent hear "hey, <kid> is into D&D" and buy them a 4e book. This was well into 5e's run. Adding extra confusion here is both bad business and bad for customers.


Except that's not the only cost, and I think you very well know it. If they put an asterisk on the new books or called them 5.5e or 6e or New Coke or anything else other than 5e, not only would the howls of cash-grab-they're-making-us-buy-all-our-books-all-over-again be 100x louder than they are now, but even the folks who didn't mind that prospect would be loath to purchase this year's stuff like Bigby's or Golden Vault or Deck of Many Things etc. That's a cost. And it would go way beyond disgruntled people on a message board, you'd have a much larger casual audience going "hold on, isn't this stuff for the previous game? The version's different" and leave it on the shelf.


AKA they want to deceive people into thinking that it's all compatible when it's really not. Not selling it very well, now, are you.



The folks looking for a reason to be angry at WotC can claim they would all be happier if WotC were to just come out and call it 6e; sorry, but I refuse to believe that to be the case. Those folks would just find a different reason to be mad. Because the real problem is that they don't think there need to be new books at all, and all this haranguing over whether said new books should be marketed this way or that way is just a smokescreen.

I'll thank you to not mind read. I've articulated my objections to the whole business over and over. This is one issue among many, not a smokescreen.

[Psyren]

AKA they want to deceive people into thinking that it's all compatible when it's really not. Not selling it very well, now, are you.

All marketing involves some deception, or at least framing - focusing on the selling points of a thing and downplaying any potential negatives. That's literally it's purpose.


I'll thank you to not mind read. I've articulated my objections to the whole business over and over. This is one issue among many, not a smokescreen.

I don't recall referring to you or your objections in that part at all.

[Kane0]

TSR and 3rd edition books used to have identifying codes on the spine. My Draconomicon is 176680000 for example.

[stoutstien]

Except that's not the only cost, and I think you very well know it. If they put an asterisk on the new books or called them 5.5e or 6e or New Coke or anything else other than 5e, not only would the howls of cash-grab-they're-making-us-buy-all-our-books-all-over-again be 100x louder than they are now, but even the folks who didn't mind that prospect would be loath to purchase this year's stuff like Bigby's or Golden Vault or Deck of Many Things etc. That's a cost. And it would go way beyond disgruntled people on a message board, you'd have a much larger casual audience going "hold on, isn't this stuff for the previous game? The version's different" and leave it on the shelf.

The folks looking for a reason to be angry at WotC can claim they would all be happier if WotC were to just come out and call it 6e; sorry, but I refuse to believe that to be the case. Those folks would just find a different reason to be mad. Because the real problem is that they don't think there need to be new books at all, and all this haranguing over whether said new books should be marketed this way or that way is just a smokescreen.

You don't have to look hard for reasons to be disappointed with the direction they are taking the brand and surprisingly they can get more than one thing wrong at a time.

[Silverblade1234]

AKA they want to deceive people into thinking that it's all compatible when it's really not. Not selling it very well, now, are you.

It is compatible, by the very clear and reasonable definition they've communicated. They're currently on track to meet that definition, though obviously we're missing some final pieces. If you insist on a different definition of compatibility, and they don't meet that standard, that's not deception, that's an issue with your expectations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It is compatible, by the very clear and reasonable definition they've communicated. They're currently on track to meet that definition, though obviously we're missing some final pieces. If you insist on a different definition of compatibility, and they don't meet that standard, that's not deception, that's an issue with your expectations.

By no sane definition is "requires some manual conversion steps" "compatible" without explicit, at purchase time statements. Not statements on a blog, somewhere, or buried in a Vlog somewhere. Anything else is the worst kind of skuzzy marketing tricks. Illegal? No. Scummy behavior that should get them shunned? Absolutely.

If a manufacturer says "compatible with MacOs" and it turns out you have to download the source code for the driver and hack something in place to get it to run...the manufacturer lied. And that's the case here--to use a 2014 element with 2024 rules, you have to hack the actual rules. That's not compatibility by any reasonable definition. And no, WotC doesn't get to make their own definition here. This is truth in advertising (or the moral equivalent).

[Psyren]

You don't have to look hard for reasons to be disappointed with the direction they are taking the brand and surprisingly they can get more than one thing wrong at a time.

And if you have a laundry list, more power to you, that's your right. I'm just questioning the value in focusing on this one thing.


It is compatible, by the very clear and reasonable definition they've communicated. They're currently on track to meet that definition, though obviously we're missing some final pieces. If you insist on a different definition of compatibility, and they don't meet that standard, that's not deception, that's an issue with your expectations.

Exactly.


By no sane definition is "requires some manual conversion steps" "compatible" without explicit, at purchase time statements. Not statements on a blog, somewhere, or buried in a Vlog somewhere. Anything else is the worst kind of skuzzy marketing tricks. Illegal? No. Scummy behavior that should get them shunned? Absolutely.

If a manufacturer says "compatible with MacOs" and it turns out you have to download the source code for the driver and hack something in place to get it to run...the manufacturer lied. And that's the case here--to use a 2014 element with 2024 rules, you have to hack the actual rules. That's not compatibility by any reasonable definition. And no, WotC doesn't get to make their own definition here. This is truth in advertising (or the moral equivalent).

They're giving you the drivers, i.e. a conversion guide. That you then have to go install them is not morally repugnant.

[Silverblade1234]

By no sane definition is "requires some manual conversion steps" "compatible" without explicit, at purchase time statements. Not statements on a blog, somewhere, or buried in a Vlog somewhere. Anything else is the worst kind of skuzzy marketing tricks. Illegal? No. Scummy behavior that should get them shunned? Absolutely.

If a manufacturer says "compatible with MacOs" and it turns out you have to download the source code for the driver and hack something in place to get it to run...the manufacturer lied. And that's the case here--to use a 2014 element with 2024 rules, you have to hack the actual rules. That's not compatibility by any reasonable definition. And no, WotC doesn't get to make their own definition here. This is truth in advertising (or the moral equivalent).

They have told us they will tell us in the new books how to use the old books with them. Right now it looks pretty minimal: monsters stat blocks work as they are, I haven't seen any issues with adventures. Old races require a sentence ("don't use racial ability bonuses"). Subclasses will probably take a page at most when all is said and done. Right now, it looks like far less work than a lot of other projects I've seen called compatible, and which no one ever made a stink about. By normal definitions of compatible, it's totally fine, even if it doesn't meet the most rigorous definition of compatible in an unrelated technical context. You will be able to use old content with new rules, with either no or minimal adjustment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They're giving you the drivers, i.e. a conversion guide. That you then have to go install them is not morally repugnant.

That's...not what drivers are. Drivers are the pieces that interop between what they sold you and the operating system it's supposedly compatible with. They're effectively a downloadable part of the new product itself. And don't require manual intervention.

To use a slightly different (but still software) analogy--Windows 11 claims backwards compatibility with software made for Windows 10. If I have to modify my (working) windows 10-based software to get it to successfully run on windows 11...that claim is false. The new system, the one that claims compatibility bears the entire burden of handling old clients. It can't say "go modify your old client to make it work." Because if it does, it's not compatible. By the accepted definition of those words.

If I have an API that accepts a particular shape of input on version 1.0, and version 1.1 breaks that...the developer of the API screwed up and I should file a bug report. Because non-major-version changes are definitionally compatible. And this wasn't.

Compatible, without explicit, visible, purchase-time disclaimers (and I'd say in this case disclaimers on the package before you open it), means that no conversion is required or that the new thing will handle any conversion internally without bugging you. That is not the case here. Therefore, it is not compatible. It may be "compatible*", but that's not how they're selling it. So morally, they're acting scuzzy.

[Psyren]

That's...not what drivers are.

I don't particularly care about making the bad analogy work. The point is that they're not simply tossing the new books at you and telling you to figure things out by yourself, they're creating a guide. Call it drivers, an API, a patch, whatever.

[Brookshw]

But there have already been a bunch of different covers for the 2014 books. So that's not a distinguishing mark.

You need at minimum
1) a new SKU+ISBN identifier. This prevents retailers from confusing the issue more than it needs to be.
2) A visible change that uniquely identifies a 2024 book from a 2014 one. Preferably something added to the title itself. No, changing the logo (cf 2e) doesn't count. Looking at the publish date doesn't count. This needs to be visible to someone who knows nothing about D&D, even if they don't know what the differences are. Something that a no-nothing parent can ask the kid "hey, did you want the Dungeons & Dragons (Extra Magic Special) Players Handbook or the one that just says Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook?"


Very well, a side bet for a second quintaloon that there will be a new ISBN.

As to your kid thing, that's always the case for someone not familiar with what they're purchasing, it's no different from a parent buying their kid a pokemon game and later finding out that specific game isn't the current pokemon hotness. Thankfully, most stores have reasonable return policies. Caveat emptor or something.

Tangentially, different covers don't prevent confusion. I ordered a copy of Death on the Reik the other week, they sent Death on the Reik Companion by mistake, despite extremely different covers and titles. Confusion is always going to happen.


By no sane definition is "requires some manual conversion steps" "compatible" without explicit, at purchase time statements. Not statements on a blog, somewhere, or buried in a Vlog somewhere. Anything else is the worst kind of skuzzy marketing tricks. Illegal? No. Scummy behavior that should get them shunned? Absolutely. If someone ignores the definition of compatible that accompanies the statement, it's not the speakers sanity I'm going to question.

[PhoenixPhyre]

.

Tangentially, different covers don't prevent confusion. I ordered a copy of Death on the Reik the other week, they sent Death on the Reik Companion by mistake, despite extremely different covers and titles. Confusion is always going to happen.

If someone ignores the definition of compatible that accompanies the statement, it's not the speakers sanity I'm going to question.

Confusion will happen, sure. But we don't need to take extra steps to make it worse. Which is what they're doing.

And you're still focused on now. What about when it comes out and all those statements are lost in the noise? That's why you need those extra statements at purchase time. On every product. Otherwise saying that it's the same thing is intentionally deceptive and promoting confusion. All for crass marketing purposes (ie sell products that otherwise people wouldn't buy).

[Atranen]

The folks looking for a reason to be angry at WotC can claim they would all be happier if WotC were to just come out and call it 6e; sorry, but I refuse to believe that to be the case. Those folks would just find a different reason to be mad. Because the real problem is that they don't think there need to be new books at all, and all this haranguing over whether said new books should be marketed this way or that way is just a smokescreen.

This sort of accusation of bad faith is uncalled for. People are being straight with you. I've described a particular product WoTC could put out in 2024 that I would pay a premium for. Other people have done the same.

If OneD&D moved the game in a direction that I liked I would thank them and give them my money.

[Psyren]

And you're still focused on now. What about when it comes out and all those statements are lost in the noise? That's why you need those extra statements at purchase time. On every product. Otherwise saying that it's the same thing is intentionally deceptive and promoting confusion. All for crass marketing purposes (ie sell products that otherwise people wouldn't buy).

I think your approach would result in far more confusion. And worse, lost sales of every product they release(d) between 2022 and 2024. It's bad business, shockingly so.


This sort of accusation of bad faith is uncalled for. People are being straight with you. I've described a particular product WoTC could put out in 2024 that I would pay a premium for. Other people have done the same.

I never said there wasn't a possible/particular product they could put out that you wouldn't buy. But what you've said is that you don't want digital tools at the table, you think the rules they're working on are bad for the game, and you don't see a reason for the new books. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657031-New-WotC-Vlog-quot-What-are-the-2024-Fifth-Edition-Core-Rulebooks-quot&p=25800483&viewfull=1#post25800483) In other words, all the things they're committed to doing. And you have every right to feel the way you do, but with your fundamental goals so clearly and irreconcilably divergent from theirs, how they choose to market said books is even more pointless a concern than it already might be.

[Brookshw]

Confusion will happen, sure. But we don't need to take extra steps to make it worse. Which is what they're doing. I'm not convinced they are, especially if you already have people trying to use 4e content for 5e. What's more relevant is that if a group sits down to play a 2014 adventure, one person uses a 2014 character, one uses a 2024 character, the game will still work fine.


And you're still focused on now. What about when it comes out and all those statements are lost in the noise? That's why you need those extra statements at purchase time. On every product. Otherwise saying that it's the same thing is intentionally deceptive and promoting confusion. All for crass marketing purposes (ie sell products that otherwise people wouldn't buy).

Now's a good time, it's where we are. If you want to talk about then, then they gave us conversion guides and everyone was able to work through rules changes with no major hiccups. Then too. And then as well. And that time you didn't bother looking at the guide? Then too. And the future then? Yeah, it'll be the same. Want to bet a third quintaloon? :smallwink:

[Atranen]

I never said there wasn't a possible/particular product they could put out that you wouldn't buy. But what you've said is that you don't want digital tools at the table, you think the rules they're working on are bad for the game, and you don't see a reason for the new books. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657031-New-WotC-Vlog-quot-What-are-the-2024-Fifth-Edition-Core-Rulebooks-quot&p=25800483&viewfull=1#post25800483) In other words, all the things they're committed to doing. And you have every right to feel the way you do, but with your fundamental goals so clearly and irreconcilably divergent from theirs, how they choose to market said books is even more pointless a concern than it already might be.

You're free to think my concerns are pointless. It is unfair for you to decide that I therefore must be dishonest or otherwise misrepresenting my concerns.

[Psyren]

You're free to think my concerns are pointless. It is unfair for you to decide that I therefore must be dishonest or otherwise misrepresenting my concerns.

I never said you were dishonest.



Now's a good time, it's where we are. If you want to talk about then, then they gave us conversion guides and everyone was able to work through rules changes with no major hiccups. Then too. And then as well. And that time you didn't bother looking at the guide? Then too. And the future then? Yeah, it'll be the same. Want to bet a third quintaloon? :smallwink:

And it's definitely more on the 3e->3.5e end of the spectrum than 3.5e->4e at that.

[Saelethil]

And it's definitely more on the 3e->3.5e end of the spectrum than 3.5e->4e at that.

I’ve seen very few people say that this should be called 6e. Most of the chatter I’ve seen has it at 5.x.
I’ve liked a fair bit of what’s been put out in the playtest and will probably end up buying it but I would prefer the clarity of a changed name. Hell, even “5e Revised” would do the trick.