Isn't that not allowed RAW? If it was, one could multiclass the same class for additional subclasses.
But that leads into an issue here.... are the 2024 versions really compatible with their 2014 counterparts?
I don't think he meant multiclassing the SAME class. It sounded more like 2014 class A + 2024 class B.
Not sure why it would have to be a 2014 class to have access to a 2014 spell, though... or else that is a lot less backwards compatible. Does a wizard have to check the copyright date on any 'wizard' spell they find a copy of, to see if they can understand it or not?
I did mean 2014 Class A into 2024 Class B and the notion operated under the assumption/simplification of "2014 phb classes use 2014 phb spells and 2024 phb classes use 2024 phb spells" which may very well not be the case. This wasn't that deep, just a fun little musing of turning the overlap of options into something entertaining.
Wait, didn't WotC say sub-classes go 5.14-->5.24 but cant go 5.14<--5.24? I've seen a couple of videos about that
"How to use 2014 subclasses in a 2024 campaign" and "how to use 2024 subclasses in a 2014 campaign" are logically distinct rules. There's no reason Wizards couldn't put out both rules... but I'm not sure why they'd want to, as the main point of the "how to use 2014 subclasses" rule is really "how to use subclasses that have not yet been reprinted for the 2024 rules".
When did Crawford or any company officer state it would be called 2024 Edition? That would be out of character given the pattern of how D&D revises numerically (eg AD&D 2e, D&D 3, D&D 3.5 etc.). Worst case scenario, they call it D&D 5.5.
When did Crawford or any company officer state it would be called 2024 Edition?
What they've said is that it's not a new edition. However, as a practical issue they need a way of tagging it, and they seem to have settled on (2014) for the older books, so (2024) is the obvious tag for newer books.
When did Crawford or any company officer state it would be called 2024 Edition?
What they've said is that it's not a new edition. However, as a practical issue they need a way of tagging it, and they seem to have settled on (2014) for the older books, so (2024) is the obvious tag for newer books.
They (wizbro) seem to be riding the fence on this, likely to appease shareholders for the short term. Time will tell if it works out for them or us in the short term. Time will tell, and their actions will speak volumes moving forward.
They (wizbro) seem to be riding the fence on this, likely to appease shareholders for the short term. Time will tell if it works out for them or us in the short term. Time will tell, and their actions will speak volumes moving forward.
Shareholders only care if it affect profits. Wizards' core goal is to get people to buy the new books... but not not tank their sales on other products. If there's a perception that a given adventure or supplement is incompatible with the 2024 rules, people who have invested heavily in sourcebooks for the 2014 rules will not want to buy the 2024 rules, and people who buy the 2024 rules will not want to go back and buy old supplements. Thus, they want to convince people "It's the same game... only better".
To give Wizards' credit... that's not just rhetoric, it's what they have actually tried to do. The work to use older adventures and supplements with the 2014 rules should be quite minimal.
In the software world, this would just be called a new edition, because software tries pretty hard to avoid breaking version compatibility, but for people used to RPG versions, where cross-version products are often nearly unusable, expectations are different.
They (wizbro) seem to be riding the fence on this, likely to appease shareholders for the short term. Time will tell if it works out for them or us in the short term. Time will tell, and their actions will speak volumes moving forward.
Shareholders only care if it affect profits. Wizards' core goal is to get people to buy the new books... but not not tank their sales on other products. If there's a perception that a given adventure or supplement is incompatible with the 2024 rules, people who have invested heavily in sourcebooks for the 2014 rules will not want to buy the 2024 rules, and people who buy the 2024 rules will not want to go back and buy old supplements. Thus, they want to convince people "It's the same game... only better".
To give Wizards' credit... that's not just rhetoric, it's what they have actually tried to do. The work to use older adventures and supplements with the 2014 rules should be quite minimal.
In the software world, this would just be called a new edition, because software tries pretty hard to avoid breaking version compatibility, but for people used to RPG versions, where cross-version products are often nearly unusable, expectations are different.
True, but they(wizbro) are/is adamant this is not a new or .5 edition, though the masses seem to disagree on that, time will tell and wizbro really doesn't have a a say outside of bans and deleting posts on this site and the discord they control; elsewhere is a different narrative completely. Only time will tell if they have chosen appropriately. For their sake I hope they have chosen well, though I have my doubts on the depths of the purses they seem to have banked the profits and investors returns on; time will tell. The game will not live nor die with the current IP holder (wizbro et al), it will just go stagnant if poorly managed as it has done before and will likely do moving forward IMHO, but again time will tell..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm pretty sure it's too late, but I think it's a miss oppurtinity not to make some reference to the 50th anniversary of D&D, in the name of this edition: Golden edition perhaps.
We don’t know for certain, but if you can play a 2014-based adventure with a 2024-based party, you ought to still be able to play a post-2024 adventure using 2014 rules. You might want to re-balance some encounters (but that’s true for pure 2014 adventures anyway) and it’s possible that there might be occasional magic items or monsters that don’t appear in the 2014 rules. It doesn’t sound insurmountable, but we shall see.
Any new subclasses will presumably be based on the 2034 classes henceforth. What we’re hearing from people who’ve had chance to use the new PHB (and our experience with the playtest) suggests that adapting 2014 subclasses to the 2024 classes is mostly straightforward; a reverse approach shouldn’t be impossible.
Thus, the indications are that, should you want to continue using the 2014 core books but use post-2024 material, that should be feasible, but might require a little work.
(Disclaimer: I play entirely in person on paper, so I can’t comment on how this will work if using DDB in-game.)
I’ve never heard of any previous publisher or fanbase ever being worried about ensuring 'backwards compatibility’ without actually making a new edition of a game, but here we are...
I’ve never heard of any previous publisher or fanbase ever being worried about ensuring 'backwards compatibility’ without actually making a new edition of a game, but here we are...
I think the constant stressing that it's backwards compatible is exactly to reassure people it's NOT a new edition. If it was a new edition we'd be looking at totally new systems that weren't in any way compatible with everything the last ten years
I’ve never heard of any previous publisher or fanbase ever being worried about ensuring 'backwards compatibility’ without actually making a new edition of a game, but here we are...
I think the constant stressing that it's backwards compatible is exactly to reassure people it's NOT a new edition. If it was a new edition we'd be looking at totally new systems that weren't in any way compatible with everything the last ten years
Building on the above, true edition changes are hard on the player base. They render old content invalid, upsetting people who heavily invested in the content. They split up groups, as some people want to play the new and some the old. They lead to edition wars, where players are fighting other players over what is the “right” way to play. They result in Wizards competing against its own products.
Anyone who has lived through an edition change is terrified of them - and that includes the developers. By stressing “these are the same underlying mechanics” and “you can use all your old content” they are trying to put to rest well documented fears.
This is also why a lot of the people you see pushing the false “this is 6e” narrative are doing so - you will notice, a lot of the people posting or upvoting these comments have a history of “burn everything wWizards” posting (not to mention a lot of them having a history of posting/upvoting “I hate Wizards for removing bigotry” messages). Like Wizards, they know that edition changes scare players and make them reluctant to buy new content - and a lot of people are intentionally spreading that message to try and hurt the least bigoted version of D&D the game has ever seen.
Wizards likely knows this is occurring as well (or they should - they often are woefully optimistic about their community). Fighting against this information - whether intentionally spread or spread just due to misunderstandings - is a large factor in why they keep hammering “this is still the same edition with the same core rules.”
We don’t know for certain, but if you can play a 2014-based adventure with a 2024-based party, you ought to still be able to play a post-2024 adventure using 2014 rules. You might want to re-balance some encounters (but that’s true for pure 2014 adventures anyway) and it’s possible that there might be occasional magic items or monsters that don’t appear in the 2014 rules. It doesn’t sound insurmountable, but we shall see.
Any new subclasses will presumably be based on the 2034 classes henceforth. What we’re hearing from people who’ve had chance to use the new PHB (and our experience with the playtest) suggests that adapting 2014 subclasses to the 2024 classes is mostly straightforward; a reverse approach shouldn’t be impossible.
Thus, the indications are that, should you want to continue using the 2014 core books but use post-2024 material, that should be feasible, but might require a little work.
(Disclaimer: I play entirely in person on paper, so I can’t comment on how this will work if using DDB in-game.)
Crawford has said if you have a 14 and 24 character at the same table, you should use the 24 rules. There are things in 24 that weren’t envisioned 14, so the older rules can’t quite accommodate the newer characters. Kind of like 24 is backwards compatible but 14 isn’t fully forwards compatible. At least that’s the impression I get.
Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, necessarily. People update 1e and 2e content to 5e, after all. It’s just a question of how much work it would take and if it’s worth it to you.
It... Can be a new edition and backwards compatible everyone acting like such a concept is literally impossible.
Not even a new concept in D&D see 1st edition, AD&D, and 2nd Edition.
However, the last two edition changes weren’t forwards or backwards compatible. Hence, “new edition” has a particular baggage that they didn’t want this version to carry and therefore they have decided not to call this a new edition.
There is no universally agreed definition of an edition change in table-top role-playing games. My definition, your definition and old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh’s definition might all be completely different. Thus, the only definition which matters here is the definition of the people who publish the game.
There’s no point continuing to argue whether to call this a new edition or not. The only point of interest is how far they achieve their goal of backwards compatibility.
It... Can be a new edition and backwards compatible everyone acting like such a concept is literally impossible.
Of course it's not impossible. But generally speaking, the folks who insist it's a new edition have an axe to grind or some other ulterior motive to gain from amping up confusion around the concept, because every headline saying "new edition!" is going to cause more people to come to the incorrect conclusion that their existing 5e stuff (supplements, adventurers, accessories etc) won't work with it, and therefore that the new stuff isn't worth giving a try.
Not saying you're one of those people of course, but there are some unsurprising handles in the upvotes.
It... Can be a new edition and backwards compatible everyone acting like such a concept is literally impossible.
Not even a new concept in D&D see 1st edition, AD&D, and 2nd Edition.
However, the last two edition changes weren’t forwards or backwards compatible. Hence, “new edition” has a particular baggage that they didn’t want this version to carry and therefore they have decided not to call this a new edition.
There is no universally agreed definition of an edition change in table-top role-playing games. My definition, your definition and old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh’s definition might all be completely different. Thus, the only definition which matters here is the definition of the people who publish the game.
There’s no point continuing to argue whether to call this a new edition or not. The only point of interest is how far they achieve their goal of backwards compatibility.
I'm not arguing any point. I'm just stating facts some might not know. Hells, after some of the reveals at this point, the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 might have been less significant than the changes from 2014 to 2024. But my opening question wasn't this should be thought of as a new edition or not, but what is the easiest way to communicate which DMG/PHB is being used.
IMO the debate this a different edition or not is deflection of the real point, what should we call it. Me I'm calling it "five point five" or "five by five" when feeling silly. I'm however still considering calling it "five two four" simple is what I want to use, and what the community chooses will inevitably be the best choice.
Just because some marketing guy/gal/pal wants to call it "the twenty twenty four players hand book" because WotC had a bad experience with 4th edition, is no matter to me.
Not saying you're one of those people of course, but there are some unsurprising handles in the upvotes.
I am an advocate for calling it a new edition but I'm not trying to do anything bad about it and just feel not calling it a new edition is causing as many problems as calling it a new edition. And it'dve been easier to just simply call it 'the first edition we designed to be backwards compatible'
Not saying you're one of those people of course, but there are some unsurprising handles in the upvotes.
I am an advocate for calling it a new edition but I'm not trying to do anything bad about it and just feel not calling it a new edition is causing as many problems as calling it a new edition. And it'dve been easier to just simply call it 'the first edition we designed to be backwards compatible'
What, pray tell, are the “problems” of calling it a revised version of 5e?
The problems of calling it a new edition are manifold. It causes unnecessary fear in the hearts of individuals who think their content will become invalid. It implies there is some kind of fundamental rules update, even though the core mechanics are exactly the same. It brings to mind “edition wars” sentiments which often fracture the community. It implies you will have to learn a new system to play, even though the system is the same as it has been for the past decade. It plays into the hands of the folks who are trying to make the least racist version of D&D fail by stoking these fears. Etc.
Recognizing reality and calling it a revised version of 5e does, what exactly? I mean, it is a bit harder to type than “6e” - but that is not a real problem. Real problems are the ones caused by incorrectly referring to it as 6e.
I did mean 2014 Class A into 2024 Class B and the notion operated under the assumption/simplification of "2014 phb classes use 2014 phb spells and 2024 phb classes use 2024 phb spells" which may very well not be the case. This wasn't that deep, just a fun little musing of turning the overlap of options into something entertaining.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
"How to use 2014 subclasses in a 2024 campaign" and "how to use 2024 subclasses in a 2014 campaign" are logically distinct rules. There's no reason Wizards couldn't put out both rules... but I'm not sure why they'd want to, as the main point of the "how to use 2014 subclasses" rule is really "how to use subclasses that have not yet been reprinted for the 2024 rules".
When did Crawford or any company officer state it would be called 2024 Edition? That would be out of character given the pattern of how D&D revises numerically (eg AD&D 2e, D&D 3, D&D 3.5 etc.). Worst case scenario, they call it D&D 5.5.
What they've said is that it's not a new edition. However, as a practical issue they need a way of tagging it, and they seem to have settled on (2014) for the older books, so (2024) is the obvious tag for newer books.
They (wizbro) seem to be riding the fence on this, likely to appease shareholders for the short term. Time will tell if it works out for them or us in the short term. Time will tell, and their actions will speak volumes moving forward.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Shareholders only care if it affect profits. Wizards' core goal is to get people to buy the new books... but not not tank their sales on other products. If there's a perception that a given adventure or supplement is incompatible with the 2024 rules, people who have invested heavily in sourcebooks for the 2014 rules will not want to buy the 2024 rules, and people who buy the 2024 rules will not want to go back and buy old supplements. Thus, they want to convince people "It's the same game... only better".
To give Wizards' credit... that's not just rhetoric, it's what they have actually tried to do. The work to use older adventures and supplements with the 2014 rules should be quite minimal.
In the software world, this would just be called a new edition, because software tries pretty hard to avoid breaking version compatibility, but for people used to RPG versions, where cross-version products are often nearly unusable, expectations are different.
True, but they(wizbro) are/is adamant this is not a new or .5 edition, though the masses seem to disagree on that, time will tell and wizbro really doesn't have a a say outside of bans and deleting posts on this site and the discord they control; elsewhere is a different narrative completely. Only time will tell if they have chosen appropriately. For their sake I hope they have chosen well, though I have my doubts on the depths of the purses they seem to have banked the profits and investors returns on; time will tell. The game will not live nor die with the current IP holder (wizbro et al), it will just go stagnant if poorly managed as it has done before and will likely do moving forward IMHO, but again time will tell..
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm pretty sure it's too late, but I think it's a miss oppurtinity not to make some reference to the 50th anniversary of D&D, in the name of this edition: Golden edition perhaps.
We don’t know for certain, but if you can play a 2014-based adventure with a 2024-based party, you ought to still be able to play a post-2024 adventure using 2014 rules. You might want to re-balance some encounters (but that’s true for pure 2014 adventures anyway) and it’s possible that there might be occasional magic items or monsters that don’t appear in the 2014 rules. It doesn’t sound insurmountable, but we shall see.
Any new subclasses will presumably be based on the 2034 classes henceforth. What we’re hearing from people who’ve had chance to use the new PHB (and our experience with the playtest) suggests that adapting 2014 subclasses to the 2024 classes is mostly straightforward; a reverse approach shouldn’t be impossible.
Thus, the indications are that, should you want to continue using the 2014 core books but use post-2024 material, that should be feasible, but might require a little work.
(Disclaimer: I play entirely in person on paper, so I can’t comment on how this will work if using DDB in-game.)
I’ve never heard of any previous publisher or fanbase ever being worried about ensuring 'backwards compatibility’ without actually making a new edition of a game, but here we are...
I think the constant stressing that it's backwards compatible is exactly to reassure people it's NOT a new edition. If it was a new edition we'd be looking at totally new systems that weren't in any way compatible with everything the last ten years
Building on the above, true edition changes are hard on the player base. They render old content invalid, upsetting people who heavily invested in the content. They split up groups, as some people want to play the new and some the old. They lead to edition wars, where players are fighting other players over what is the “right” way to play. They result in Wizards competing against its own products.
Anyone who has lived through an edition change is terrified of them - and that includes the developers. By stressing “these are the same underlying mechanics” and “you can use all your old content” they are trying to put to rest well documented fears.
This is also why a lot of the people you see pushing the false “this is 6e” narrative are doing so - you will notice, a lot of the people posting or upvoting these comments have a history of “burn everything wWizards” posting (not to mention a lot of them having a history of posting/upvoting “I hate Wizards for removing bigotry” messages). Like Wizards, they know that edition changes scare players and make them reluctant to buy new content - and a lot of people are intentionally spreading that message to try and hurt the least bigoted version of D&D the game has ever seen.
Wizards likely knows this is occurring as well (or they should - they often are woefully optimistic about their community). Fighting against this information - whether intentionally spread or spread just due to misunderstandings - is a large factor in why they keep hammering “this is still the same edition with the same core rules.”
Crawford has said if you have a 14 and 24 character at the same table, you should use the 24 rules. There are things in 24 that weren’t envisioned 14, so the older rules can’t quite accommodate the newer characters. Kind of like 24 is backwards compatible but 14 isn’t fully forwards compatible. At least that’s the impression I get.
Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, necessarily. People update 1e and 2e content to 5e, after all. It’s just a question of how much work it would take and if it’s worth it to you.
It... Can be a new edition and backwards compatible everyone acting like such a concept is literally impossible.
Not even a new concept in D&D see 1st edition, AD&D, and 2nd Edition.
However, the last two edition changes weren’t forwards or backwards compatible. Hence, “new edition” has a particular baggage that they didn’t want this version to carry and therefore they have decided not to call this a new edition.
There is no universally agreed definition of an edition change in table-top role-playing games. My definition, your definition and old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh’s definition might all be completely different. Thus, the only definition which matters here is the definition of the people who publish the game.
There’s no point continuing to argue whether to call this a new edition or not. The only point of interest is how far they achieve their goal of backwards compatibility.
Of course it's not impossible. But generally speaking, the folks who insist it's a new edition have an axe to grind or some other ulterior motive to gain from amping up confusion around the concept, because every headline saying "new edition!" is going to cause more people to come to the incorrect conclusion that their existing 5e stuff (supplements, adventurers, accessories etc) won't work with it, and therefore that the new stuff isn't worth giving a try.
Not saying you're one of those people of course, but there are some unsurprising handles in the upvotes.
I'm not arguing any point. I'm just stating facts some might not know. Hells, after some of the reveals at this point, the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 might have been less significant than the changes from 2014 to 2024. But my opening question wasn't this should be thought of as a new edition or not, but what is the easiest way to communicate which DMG/PHB is being used.
IMO the debate this a different edition or not is deflection of the real point, what should we call it. Me I'm calling it "five point five" or "five by five" when feeling silly. I'm however still considering calling it "five two four" simple is what I want to use, and what the community chooses will inevitably be the best choice.
Just because some marketing guy/gal/pal wants to call it "the twenty twenty four players hand book" because WotC had a bad experience with 4th edition, is no matter to me.
I am an advocate for calling it a new edition but I'm not trying to do anything bad about it and just feel not calling it a new edition is causing as many problems as calling it a new edition. And it'dve been easier to just simply call it 'the first edition we designed to be backwards compatible'
What, pray tell, are the “problems” of calling it a revised version of 5e?
The problems of calling it a new edition are manifold. It causes unnecessary fear in the hearts of individuals who think their content will become invalid. It implies there is some kind of fundamental rules update, even though the core mechanics are exactly the same. It brings to mind “edition wars” sentiments which often fracture the community. It implies you will have to learn a new system to play, even though the system is the same as it has been for the past decade. It plays into the hands of the folks who are trying to make the least racist version of D&D fail by stoking these fears. Etc.
Recognizing reality and calling it a revised version of 5e does, what exactly? I mean, it is a bit harder to type than “6e” - but that is not a real problem. Real problems are the ones caused by incorrectly referring to it as 6e.