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

[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.

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.

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

[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

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.



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.

[GooeyChewie]

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



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.