Simply said there are enough things changed that 5e14 is a different beast than 5e24. You still need to decide what rule set you are going to be playing. At least we can still use existing adventure content, with a few tweaks, so at least that money isn't wasted. I just want to know how things will be handled with D&D Beyond tools.
Exactly, I will no longer be able to come to the table with a 2014 5e Druid and automatically expect everyone else is playing 2014 5e characters. I am not sure a 2014 5e Druid & 2024 5.5e Druid will work well at the same table as they have significantly different rulesets.
Personally I will continue to play the 2104 5e rules for the time being.
Exactly, I will no longer be able to come to the table with a 2014 5e Druid and automatically expect everyone else is playing 2014 5e characters. I am not sure a 2014 5e Druid & 2024 5.5e Druid will work well at the same table as they have significantly different rulesets.
Personally I will continue to play the 2104 5e rules for the time being.
They did say that a 2014 character would still work in a 2024 game, but a 2024 character probably wouldn't in a 2014 game. And some homebrew would likely be required to adapt a 2024 character to like, a Xanathar's or Tasha's subclass.
Exactly, I will no longer be able to come to the table with a 2014 5e Druid and automatically expect everyone else is playing 2014 5e characters. I am not sure a 2014 5e Druid & 2024 5.5e Druid will work well at the same table as they have significantly different rulesets.
Personally I will continue to play the 2104 5e rules for the time being.
They did say that a 2014 character would still work in a 2024 game, but a 2024 character probably wouldn't in a 2014 game. And some homebrew would likely be required to adapt a 2024 character to like, a Xanathar's or Tasha's subclass.
What they specifically said was that you can use 2014 and 2024 classes in the same game, but if you do it's recommended you use the 2024 Player's Handbook for the least amount of friction. However, you can also use the 2014 Player's Handbook.
One of the reasons is that the 2024 PHB has a much better layout, including a rules glossary apparently
It's a very substantial change to 2014e PHB. It's not one or two rules being changed or added here - everything has been revisited and most things have been changed. Every class has changed, abd we're having the subclasses changed in order to work properly with them. The rules have changed. You can't turn up with a 2014e PHB and not have confusion each session.
But what part of it is substantial though? Maybe 5e is my first D&D edition, so I do not have 3e to 3.5e as a reference point, but from my view, the changes in the 2024 rulebooks are really minor and surface level.
While classes and subclasses have lots of minor changes, I do not think the quantity of changes justify a new name, especially since you can still have both old and new PCs play together. From how I see it, it is closer to having OCF on a wider scale, or having 12 new classes, and the best part is that players have more choice. Having additions to the game does not justify a name change in my opinion.
It's not intercompatible, and "backwards compatible" is a misnomer. You can't just take a character built using one set of rules and play with the other. The dynamic is better describes as 2014e characters being forward compatible - they've said that you can't play a 2024e character in 2014 rules. If you want to play them alongside each other, you have to play 2024e rules. I'm sure that's not literally true and you can bodge them to work, but they will require bodging.
We do not have the books yet so we cannot say for certain, but I do not see how 2024 characters cannot work in a 2014 ruleset. We still roll the same dice, have the same action/bonus action/reaction system, initiative works the same, etc., and all the core mechanics are the same. I have not watched all the videos yet, but from the ones that I have seen, nothing prevents you from running 2024 characters in a 2014 framework.
Outside of choosing which primary character creation method to use, I do not see what rules we need to specify that we are using 2024 version versus 2014 version. Even in 2014 rules, we still have a lot of optional/variant rules that we need to specify at session zero (character progression [XP, milestone, etc.], initiative, rest variant, etc.), and I do not see anything so far in 2024 adding nor changing anything in that department. As far as I can tell, 2024 core mechanics and 2014 core mechanics are the same thing.
The adventures...ugh. Even with 2014e characters, I'm having to buff enemies to make encounters feel like a challenge. Now they've made 2024e characters generally more powerful again? I'll have to play them to be sure...but I think it's somewhat stretching the idea of compatibility, I'm going to have to a fair amount of bodging.
As a GM, I am not too worried about balance. I see the encounters in adventures more as guidelines, and it feels easier to address balance during actual play with additional reinforcements and/or retreating enemies.
If 2024 refers to date of publication rather than indicating a version, why is it being marketed as the "2024 Monster Manual?"
In order to make it clear it's part of the 2024 core rulebooks release. The 2024 doesn't refer to the individual years of publication, it refers to the release year of the revised core rulebooks as a whole (well, 2 out of 3)
I can’t understand how given the numerous threads and debates about the difference between the 2014 5e Rules and Mechanics and the 2024 Rules and Mechanics does not show how the “revised” version can still claim to not be a different version.
A significant number of differences have been found, and a number of those differences make a significant change to the actual mechanics of what was previously written in 2014.
[ and not to point out a “revision” of DDbeyond workforce but wasn’t a certain member of this conversation at one point a Moderator of the site? ] So as someone who, like others have also noted, the significant differences between the two sets of rules NOT make the claim that the 2024 dubbed Rules is a different edition from the 2014 Rules based on the evidence of the lengthy and heated debates between the differences between the two versions of the Rules?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I can’t understand how given the numerous threads and debates about the difference between the 2014 5e Rules and Mechanics and the 2024 Rules and Mechanics does not show how the “revised” version can still claim to not be a different version.
If you were here through the playtests for the new core books back when they called it One D&D, they discussed at length the idea of getting rid of edition changes completely and just having one ongoing edition that evolves over time. They kind of pulled back on that messaging, but that's still how they seem to be approaching it.
If you're an executive looking at the history of D&D, you see things like the jump to Pathfinder from 3/3.5 or the lost market share when 4e came out and many people kept playing older editions, you might understandably see an edition change as something you want to avoid. So you try to find a way to continue producing books that you want people to buy but not calling it a new edition.
One of the more insidious effects of this is that it can be harder for people who don't want to adopt 2024 to keep playing "legacy" 5e. Their old material is being updated and there's enough ambiguity and effort in specifying which rule you're referencing that a portion of us are moving to the new stuff just to avoid headaches. If there was a clean break between 5e and "5.5e," it would be easier to just keep playing 5e. As more new material comes out, expect the old stuff to get pushed further and further into the background. At some point, the character builder will probably be updated and any older stuff that breaks probably won't be fixed. In this way they can "soft push" everyone into buying into the new edition.
The 2024 rules are now called oneD&D officially. (this was not the case at the time this thread was created)
Wait, when did this happen?
I'm not sure when they began calling it that, but it's on the official wizards website. wotc website
One D&D was the code name they used during the playtest. It is not the name of the 2024 rules. Those are simply called D&D. WotC maintains this is not a new edition, so calling it something like 5.5 is purely us players calling it that for shorthand.
At one point, Crawford mentioned that, internally, they would call it 24 vs 14 to distinguish between the two. Some people have picked up on that.
The 2024 rules are now called oneD&D officially. (this was not the case at the time this thread was created)
This is not true, nor has it ever been true.
One D&D was a codename for an initiative that included but wasn't limited to the playtest for the 2024 rules. The other aspects were the incorporation of DDB into WotC, and the digital play experience aka Project Sigil.
I can’t understand how given the numerous threads and debates about the difference between the 2014 5e Rules and Mechanics and the 2024 Rules and Mechanics does not show how the “revised” version can still claim to not be a different version.
A significant number of differences have been found, and a number of those differences make a significant change to the actual mechanics of what was previously written in 2014.
"Revised version of the core rules" and "new edition are not synonyms". No one is denying that these are revised core rulebooks, they're just not a new edition.
[ and not to point out a “revision” of DDbeyond workforce but wasn’t a certain member of this conversation at one point a Moderator of the site? ]
Not sure how that's at all relevant, but it's not a "revision of DDbeyond workforce". Yes, I had to step down from being a moderator for personal reasons. A very odd thing to bring up.
So as someone who, like others have also noted, the significant differences between the two sets of rules NOT make the claim that the 2024 dubbed Rules is a different edition from the 2014 Rules based on the evidence of the lengthy and heated debates between the differences between the two versions of the Rules?
No one is claiming they're not different versions of the core rules, they're just not different editions. The scope of changes are actually less than going from 3rd to 3.5 and if you go through the rules glossary you'll see that the vast majority of the changes are not actually functional changes but clarification of language.
I can’t understand how given the numerous threads and debates about the difference between the 2014 5e Rules and Mechanics and the 2024 Rules and Mechanics does not show how the “revised” version can still claim to not be a different version.
A significant number of differences have been found, and a number of those differences make a significant change to the actual mechanics of what was previously written in 2014.
"Revised version of the core rules" and "new edition are not synonyms". No one is denying that these are revised core rulebooks, they're just not a new edition.
[ and not to point out a “revision” of DDbeyond workforce but wasn’t a certain member of this conversation at one point a Moderator of the site? ]
Not sure how that's at all relevant, but it's not a "revision of DDbeyond workforce". Yes, I had to step down from being a moderator for personal reasons. A very odd thing to bring up.
So as someone who, like others have also noted, the significant differences between the two sets of rules NOT make the claim that the 2024 dubbed Rules is a different edition from the 2014 Rules based on the evidence of the lengthy and heated debates between the differences between the two versions of the Rules?
No one is claiming they're not different versions of the core rules, they're just not different editions. The scope of changes are actually less than going from 3rd to 3.5 and if you go through the rules glossary you'll see that the vast majority of the changes are not actually functional changes but clarification of language.
I’m Not implying or attempting to make any charge of inferment, only that as a former member of a select group of individuals that had possibly more information than others in what the company’s mentality was in attempting to refrain from just calling 5e24 what most now consider as D&D 5.5.
And the amount of changes that are slowly becoming more apparent as more people read and learn what changes have been made, makes the “revision” feel more like a different edition of the game than what was previously reported.
So far roughly, 40% of what was 5e14 has been changed and as more people and eyes go through both “versions” of the rules, it does beg the question of when does the “revisions made” fundamentally change the new version into what might be considered a new edition.
I mearly noticed the change of status in the hopes that the restrictions that possibly have been placed on you by having been an individual with “former insider knowledge” could be a factor in the continuing of stating that the new rules are nothing more than “revisions”, and that the possibility exists that you like others may feel the changes made might very well make the “revisions” feel more like a new edition. ( I understand that once released by a company like WotC, certain “guidelines of disclosure and discussions” are placed to both protect the company and former employee, but as a person who has a deeper understanding of the changes made, you can more easily understand why others feel that the new rules appear to them like a new edition. Also, sorry to hear that you unfortunately have become a victim of the company’s executive actions with regards to the insistent push towards maintaining a more profitable business. )
[ Edit: had to proofread the post as it seems as though certain words tend to be forgotten in the train of thought, and the context of which might be misunderstood. Mobile, is difficult to use in response to other comments especially when predictive text is getting in the way, sorry. ]
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
"Revised version of the core rules" and "new edition are not synonyms". No one is denying that these are revised core rulebooks, they're just not a new edition.
While edition naming in general is more of an art than a science, conventionally any revision that changes any functional elements (pretty much anything other than correcting typos) is at least a new minor version, it's just that RPGs are weird about calling things new versions because people assume that 'new version' means 'breaks compatibility', which isn't what it means in other fields.
And edition is even worse, because that's generally by printing, it doesn't even need changed text. Print the PHB in a fancy leather slipcoat and it's a new edition.
Simply said there are enough things changed that 5e14 is a different beast than 5e24. You still need to decide what rule set you are going to be playing. At least we can still use existing adventure content, with a few tweaks, so at least that money isn't wasted. I just want to know how things will be handled with D&D Beyond tools.
TO DEFEND: THIS IS THE PACT.
BUT WHEN LIFE LOSES ITS VALUE,
AND IS TAKEN FOR NAUGHT-
THEN THE PACT IS, TO AVENGE.
Exactly, I will no longer be able to come to the table with a 2014 5e Druid and automatically expect everyone else is playing 2014 5e characters. I am not sure a 2014 5e Druid & 2024 5.5e Druid will work well at the same table as they have significantly different rulesets.
Personally I will continue to play the 2104 5e rules for the time being.
They did say that a 2014 character would still work in a 2024 game, but a 2024 character probably wouldn't in a 2014 game. And some homebrew would likely be required to adapt a 2024 character to like, a Xanathar's or Tasha's subclass.
What they specifically said was that you can use 2014 and 2024 classes in the same game, but if you do it's recommended you use the 2024 Player's Handbook for the least amount of friction. However, you can also use the 2014 Player's Handbook.
One of the reasons is that the 2024 PHB has a much better layout, including a rules glossary apparently
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
But what part of it is substantial though? Maybe 5e is my first D&D edition, so I do not have 3e to 3.5e as a reference point, but from my view, the changes in the 2024 rulebooks are really minor and surface level.
While classes and subclasses have lots of minor changes, I do not think the quantity of changes justify a new name, especially since you can still have both old and new PCs play together. From how I see it, it is closer to having OCF on a wider scale, or having 12 new classes, and the best part is that players have more choice. Having additions to the game does not justify a name change in my opinion.
We do not have the books yet so we cannot say for certain, but I do not see how 2024 characters cannot work in a 2014 ruleset. We still roll the same dice, have the same action/bonus action/reaction system, initiative works the same, etc., and all the core mechanics are the same. I have not watched all the videos yet, but from the ones that I have seen, nothing prevents you from running 2024 characters in a 2014 framework.
Outside of choosing which primary character creation method to use, I do not see what rules we need to specify that we are using 2024 version versus 2014 version. Even in 2014 rules, we still have a lot of optional/variant rules that we need to specify at session zero (character progression [XP, milestone, etc.], initiative, rest variant, etc.), and I do not see anything so far in 2024 adding nor changing anything in that department. As far as I can tell, 2024 core mechanics and 2014 core mechanics are the same thing.
As a GM, I am not too worried about balance. I see the encounters in adventures more as guidelines, and it feels easier to address balance during actual play with additional reinforcements and/or retreating enemies.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
If 2024 refers to date of publication rather than indicating a version, why is it being marketed as the "2024 Monster Manual?"
In order to make it clear it's part of the 2024 core rulebooks release. The 2024 doesn't refer to the individual years of publication, it refers to the release year of the revised core rulebooks as a whole (well, 2 out of 3)
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I can’t understand how given the numerous threads and debates about the difference between the 2014 5e Rules and Mechanics and the 2024 Rules and Mechanics does not show how the “revised” version can still claim to not be a different version.
A significant number of differences have been found, and a number of those differences make a significant change to the actual mechanics of what was previously written in 2014.
[ and not to point out a “revision” of DDbeyond workforce but wasn’t a certain member of this conversation at one point a Moderator of the site? ]
So as someone who, like others have also noted, the significant differences between the two sets of rules NOT make the claim that the 2024 dubbed Rules is a different edition from the 2014 Rules based on the evidence of the lengthy and heated debates between the differences between the two versions of the Rules?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The 2024 rules are now called oneD&D officially. (this was not the case at the time this thread was created)
Wait, when did this happen?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If you were here through the playtests for the new core books back when they called it One D&D, they discussed at length the idea of getting rid of edition changes completely and just having one ongoing edition that evolves over time. They kind of pulled back on that messaging, but that's still how they seem to be approaching it.
If you're an executive looking at the history of D&D, you see things like the jump to Pathfinder from 3/3.5 or the lost market share when 4e came out and many people kept playing older editions, you might understandably see an edition change as something you want to avoid. So you try to find a way to continue producing books that you want people to buy but not calling it a new edition.
One of the more insidious effects of this is that it can be harder for people who don't want to adopt 2024 to keep playing "legacy" 5e. Their old material is being updated and there's enough ambiguity and effort in specifying which rule you're referencing that a portion of us are moving to the new stuff just to avoid headaches. If there was a clean break between 5e and "5.5e," it would be easier to just keep playing 5e. As more new material comes out, expect the old stuff to get pushed further and further into the background. At some point, the character builder will probably be updated and any older stuff that breaks probably won't be fixed. In this way they can "soft push" everyone into buying into the new edition.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I'm not sure when they began calling it that, but it's on the official wizards website. wotc website
One D&D was the code name they used during the playtest. It is not the name of the 2024 rules. Those are simply called D&D. WotC maintains this is not a new edition, so calling it something like 5.5 is purely us players calling it that for shorthand.
At one point, Crawford mentioned that, internally, they would call it 24 vs 14 to distinguish between the two. Some people have picked up on that.
This is not true, nor has it ever been true.
One D&D was a codename for an initiative that included but wasn't limited to the playtest for the 2024 rules. The other aspects were the incorporation of DDB into WotC, and the digital play experience aka Project Sigil.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
"Revised version of the core rules" and "new edition are not synonyms". No one is denying that these are revised core rulebooks, they're just not a new edition.
Not sure how that's at all relevant, but it's not a "revision of DDbeyond workforce". Yes, I had to step down from being a moderator for personal reasons. A very odd thing to bring up.
No one is claiming they're not different versions of the core rules, they're just not different editions. The scope of changes are actually less than going from 3rd to 3.5 and if you go through the rules glossary you'll see that the vast majority of the changes are not actually functional changes but clarification of language.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I’m Not implying or attempting to make any charge of inferment, only that as a former member of a select group of individuals that had possibly more information than others in what the company’s mentality was in attempting to refrain from just calling 5e24 what most now consider as D&D 5.5.
And the amount of changes that are slowly becoming more apparent as more people read and learn what changes have been made, makes the “revision” feel more like a different edition of the game than what was previously reported.
So far roughly, 40% of what was 5e14 has been changed and as more people and eyes go through both “versions” of the rules, it does beg the question of when does the “revisions made” fundamentally change the new version into what might be considered a new edition.
I mearly noticed the change of status in the hopes that the restrictions that possibly have been placed on you by having been an individual with “former insider knowledge” could be a factor in the continuing of stating that the new rules are nothing more than “revisions”, and that the possibility exists that you like others may feel the changes made might very well make the “revisions” feel more like a new edition.
( I understand that once released by a company like WotC, certain “guidelines of disclosure and discussions” are placed to both protect the company and former employee, but as a person who has a deeper understanding of the changes made, you can more easily understand why others feel that the new rules appear to them like a new edition. Also, sorry to hear that you unfortunately have become a victim of the company’s executive actions with regards to the insistent push towards maintaining a more profitable business. )
[ Edit: had to proofread the post as it seems as though certain words tend to be forgotten in the train of thought, and the context of which might be misunderstood. Mobile, is difficult to use in response to other comments especially when predictive text is getting in the way, sorry. ]
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
While edition naming in general is more of an art than a science, conventionally any revision that changes any functional elements (pretty much anything other than correcting typos) is at least a new minor version, it's just that RPGs are weird about calling things new versions because people assume that 'new version' means 'breaks compatibility', which isn't what it means in other fields.
And edition is even worse, because that's generally by printing, it doesn't even need changed text. Print the PHB in a fancy leather slipcoat and it's a new edition.