THAC0 wasn’t really a rule change in 1e to 2e. It was more a simplification or the to-hit charts. The actual game worked the same, you just calculated your hit based on THAC0 rather than looking in the book.
And things like the Proficiency system were actually optional and predated 2e. They were in Oriental Adventures.
Most or 2e was just restricting the book, fixing the rules for Initiative, and revising a few classes. Mostly the bard and ranger.
Eh, Crawford disagrees with you. We'll see next month.
Crawford has said some dumb things, but previews have been pretty consistent that this is a "some conversion required" release, not a "conversion is impossible, best you can do is something thematically similar" release.
He didn't say that it wasn't backwards compatible (which he said it also was), he said that the differences were more significant than most of the other edition changes (he listed most but not all - which may or may not be a significant point). You can make significant, even massive changes while keeping it capable of supporting previous characters. I was addressing the "Wizards doesn't want to call this a new edition because people will think it means changes on the scale of the last three, and it most certainly does not", when Crawford explicitly disagrees.
And to be honest, I can see why he felt the need to address this. The reason why WotC doesn't want to call it a new edition change is in part the point you brought up - you can use essentially the same characters and not just thematically similar ones (and why I disagree with those calling it 6e). They also want to avoid the so-called edition wars (a futile exercise IMO, but whatever).
On the other hand though, listening to a lot of people here, you'd start to think that it's little more than $100 errata, which very few people want to buy. It got me quite pessimistic about having wasted my money, listening to it all, it was quite encouraging to hear Crawford say that no, actually, it is quite a substantial change that is worthwhile buying into, even if we already have 5e. Until people hears that though, I'm betting a lot of people came and still come to forums like this, Discord etc, see people claiming that the changes are pretty minor, decided it's not worth splashing out potentially hundreds on, and walked away. There was definitely a period where I had a lot of self-doubt about the money I splashed out, whether it would have been better spent elsewhere. If I hadn't have already pre-ordered, I probably have sat it out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
He didn't say that it wasn't backwards compatible (which he said it also was), he said that the differences were more significant than most of the other edition changes.
His metric seems to have been word count, which is... about the worst possible metric.
He didn't say that it wasn't backwards compatible (which he said it also was), he said that the differences were more significant than most of the other edition changes.
His metric seems to have been word count, which is... about the worst possible metric.
That wasn't his metric for that comment, that was just another factlet on the 2024 PHB.
He didn't say that it wasn't backwards compatible (which he said it also was), he said that the differences were more significant than most of the other edition changes.
His metric seems to have been word count, which is... about the worst possible metric.
That wasn't his metric for that comment, that was just another factlet on the 2024 PHB.
I assume we are talking about the Ginny Di video, or similar such comments? He spoke some what badly in that video… but cleaned up his own comments and Ginny even pointed out “this was confusing, let me clarify what he was trying to say.”
Anyone who watched the video - and has a basic grasp of English - got the message pretty clear: They put as much work into rebalancing 5e as they would have making a new edition, and perhaps more. After all, they were not starting from scratch - they had to start by combing through every element of current 5e and decide what was or was not working, and tweak accordingly. He also discussed that the format of the books and the information they conveyed was something that was not working, so they re-wrote the non-substantive “how to play” portions of the books from scratch.
Of course, this is the D&D community - the same community which apparently forgot what the word “draft” meant and threw a fit over their collective ignorance. They heard “this is as much work as a new edition would have been” and, inexplicably (or explicably for those who purposefully mishear to push an agenda), forgot how, under basic English construction, a simile does not mean “this is exactly that other thing.”
I look at edition changes first and foremost in terms of rules. If you know how to play 5e14, and you sit down at a table and are handed a character sheet from 5e24, you'll be able to sit down and play with almost no friction.
I would say if there's no single answer to a rules/mechanic question, you're dealing with two different editions. "What are the wizard subclasses in 5e?" has no single answer. You need to specifiy which 5e you're talking about, or provide two mutually-exclusive answers.
How are there two mutually exclusive answers to the question “what are the wizard subclasses”? Every subclass that’s been released in the last ten years can be used on a 2024 wizard with some very minor adjustments. The answer to that question today is still the answer in October, the only difference is there’ll be two versions of four of them and you’re probably better off taking the newer version
How are there two mutually exclusive answers to the question “what are the wizard subclasses”? Every subclass that’s been released in the last ten years can be used on a 2024 wizard with some very minor adjustments. The answer to that question today is still the answer in October, the only difference is there’ll be two versions of four of them and you’re probably better off taking the newer version
They're mutually-exclusive because there's no single answer to the question. Either the wizard breaks out into a bunch of subclasses at 1st level based on school, or there are four wizard subclasses that unlock at 3rd level. It isn't both. The only way for it to be both is if we're talking about two different rulesets, which of course we are.
You can play this with any of the rules changes. What's the suprise rule for initiative in 5e? How many leveled spells can you cast in a round in 5e? Sure, you can run a game with PCs from 5.14 and 5.24 and make it work, but so what? You could insert a 3e PC into a 5e game and it would work too, as long as the DM understood how to handle things. I mean if you wanted to do enough math and apply enough special-case rulings, you could play a 1e/2e PC in a 5e game.
THAC0 wasn’t really a rule change in 1e to 2e. It was more a simplification or the to-hit charts. The actual game worked the same, you just calculated your hit based on THAC0 rather than looking in the book.
As I recall, it did change things, because the tables weren't always linear. In particular, they usually had a stretch of "19 20 20 20 20 21".
Most or 2e was just restricting the book, fixing the rules for Initiative, and revising a few classes. Mostly the bard and ranger.
I admit, it felt like a cleaned up AD&D at the time, but it was more of a mechanical discontinuity than revised 5e seems to be. (Which included tossing out a bunch of mechanics that most people didn't use. Remember the weapon modifiers agains armor table?) If a 1e player sat down at a 2e table, there'd need to be some non-trivial explanation time. Whether it would really "count" as a new edition by modern standards is hard to say. They certainly treated it as one.
I look at edition changes first and foremost in terms of rules. If you know how to play 5e14, and you sit down at a table and are handed a character sheet from 5e24, you'll be able to sit down and play with almost no friction.
I would say if there's no single answer to a rules/mechanic question, you're dealing with two different editions. "What are the wizard subclasses in 5e?" has no single answer. You need to specifiy which 5e you're talking about, or provide two mutually-exclusive answers.
That's not rules, that's just available options. You weren't playing a different edition because you were using the Sword Coast guide, even though you now had a different number of wizard subclasses.
As I said, if you could play a Wizard-14, you can play a Wizard-24. The mechanics are almost unchanged. They're built slightly differently, but only slightly. If Wizard-24 was a new class called Magic-User, there'd be zero complaints except "why are these two classes almost identical?"
As it is, that hypothetical Magic-User is called Wizard, and the old Wizard is deprecated (but still playable under the revised rules). And you can use all the old-wizard subclasses with new-wizard, except for the ones that have also been updated.
It's still rules, though, since it's the rules that describe how wizards work. But that besides, I did include examples of other mechanics which impact how the game is played at the table. And there are more than I listed.
Again, yes, you could mix PCs from 5.14 and 5.24 in a single campaign/session. You could also do that with most other editions of the game if you wanted to. The biggest hassle would be balance issues rather than mechanical conversion, but that would be true with the 5es as well -- it looks like 5.24 represents some power creep for PCs, at least so far.
It's pretty clear that 5.14 and 5.24 are different versions of the game, even if the differences aren't all that great. Whether those differences are enough to justify the use of the word "edition" is a judgment call. WotC says no, they're the same edition. That's cool, they can say that, and officially it's true since they won't publish the 5.24 stuff under a "5.5e" label or anything like that (yet). But in the minds of many people, they are different editions and people will be using that distinction when they run games. And you can bet DnDBeyond will flag the pre-5.24 stuff as "legacy" or some other similar label. To avoid confusion if nothing else.
It's still rules, though, since it's the rules that describe how wizards work.
It's not. Most of what is in the books is not the rules. The rules tell you how you do things. They tell you how attacks work, how you cast a spell, how classes are put together. You can cut wizards out of the game entirely, and it's still the same game.
A 5e14 character drops into a 5e24 game without any significant friction. You can't play a 3e character in a 5e game -- you have to turn it into a 5e character first. 3e has fundamentally different assumptions about how stuff works. In a very abstract sense, you're still rolling a d20 plus bonuses against AC to hit, but the scales of the bonuses and AC are different. 3e doesn't have advantage. If it has a proficiency bonus, it works completely differently. Etc.
But that besides, I did include examples of other mechanics which impact how the game is played at the table. And there are more than I listed.
Yes, there are some changes in the rules. A few of them are even moderately significant. But they're all specific instantiations of the general mechanics. Casting a spell still works the same; they've just changed the "multiple spells in a single turn" rule. (And a good thing, too -- the old one was overly fussy and confusing.) They're the sorts of changes they might have made in a book like Xanathar's. They're not explicitly optional like the Xanathar's ones were -- they set the expected baseline going forwards. But the game still works if you stick with the 5e14 versions, or mix-and-match as you prefer.
You can't play a 3e character in a 5e game -- you have to turn it into a 5e character first.
You should convert to make things run smoother, but you don't have to. Just use 3e rules for whenever the 3e PC does something. It uses BaB to attack. It uses Fort/Will/Reflex for saves. It doesn't get advantage or disadvantage by virtue of any of its features, but it would if an outside feature caused it (such as fighting in the dark). It doesn't have spell slots, unless it's a sorcerer. It uses 3e skills. You'd want to work it all out ahead of time, and it would almost certainly be a balance nightmare, but it's not impossible. And frankly not all that hard.
Let’s get real, yes there are some things from 3.xe that convert to 5e without too much trouble. I’ve reworked the 2e/3e psionics rules without much difficulty, but there are other things that are more problematic, like magic items/armor/weapons and attunement. In 3.xe you had a lot of high magic worlds with a max of +5 and no attunement so high level PCs walked around with a ton of magic items they could use - a helm/crown, necklace, 2 pieces of jewelry, 2 rings (or more) a cloak, armor/robe, boots, cloak, etc. now your limited to 3 items attuned ( unless you’re an artificer) with a few potions and/or items from the limited list of non attuned items. Heck, even most of the “common” Magic items need attunement. Further, the max enchantment is a +3 for anything other than a few artifacts. That alone changes the character of how a PC plays fairly drastically. As I said in an earlier post, it’s not hugely hard to convert from any edition to any other (granted converting either way with 4e is the hardest). The ‘14 to ‘24 conversion actually looks to be fairly easy, at least if your L3 and up. Sure there are rules changes that will trip folks up now and again but they aren’t really major. It’s mostly tacking on the new stuff like weapon mastery for martials. Yes if your ‘14 PC is one of those class & subclasses that got a hefty makeover it will alter the play - generally for the better. I expect to wait till all 3 core books are out to switch my campaign giving me and my table plenty of time to rework things as the books come out.
This isn't really switching to a new edition like from 2e to 3e. 2024 PHB is more like going from 1e to 2e. I've never played 3e but I imagine going to 3.5e was about the same.
The 1e-2e transition was, IIRC, somewhat rougher than that, but it's been long enough that I don't remember most of the details. THAC0 may have been the most memorable, but there was a lot of adjustment in there. They eliminated at least one class from 1e, restructured some others, added a skill system, etc. It was probably at the level of "you mostly know how to play, but you can't just drop an old character in." Does that make it a "proper" new edition? I dunno.
There's a case to be made that 1e had at least one change within its lifespan that was bigger than what we're looking at now -- Unearthed Arcana added a bunch of new classes, changed how some of the old ones worked (paladin as subclass of cavalier is the one I remember), and added an entirely new stat.
There are probably cases to be made that 1e's adding a skill system and 2e's adding kits were also significant edition discontinuities, but neither are as disruptive as UA ought to have been.
Unearthed Arcana was no more "disruptive" than Xanathar's or Tasha's. The revisionism on display among those who cannot handle the idea that 2024 D&D may not be the same edition of the game as 2014 D&D is ridiculous.
The advent of AD&D 2nd. Edition saw the release of adventure modules perfectly compatible with both 2nd. Edition and 1st. Edition. A number of modules, as well as supplements, would even say as much on their covers. No conversion was required because the math behind THAC0—the complexity of which is overblown—and that of the matrices that had come before were identical.
The addition of skills/proficiencies actually arrived before 2nd. Edition. It would be in a 1st. Edition supplement where these would first be seen.
The changes between these two editions were so minimal I never owned a copy of the PHB for either and had no trouble grasping the rules for both despite at the time only owning the Mentzer red box Basic set and then supplements from each edition.
Can you really say the same for a player familiar enough with 2014 D&D being asked to make a character for a game at a table that will be using 2024 D&D?
The 1e-2e transition was, IIRC, somewhat rougher than that, but it's been long enough that I don't remember most of the details. THAC0 may have been the most memorable, but there was a lot of adjustment in there. They eliminated at least one class from 1e, restructured some others, added a skill system, etc. It was probably at the level of "you mostly know how to play, but you can't just drop an old character in." Does that make it a "proper" new edition? I dunno.
There's a case to be made that 1e had at least one change within its lifespan that was bigger than what we're looking at now -- Unearthed Arcana added a bunch of new classes, changed how some of the old ones worked (paladin as subclass of cavalier is the one I remember), and added an entirely new stat.
There are probably cases to be made that 1e's adding a skill system and 2e's adding kits were also significant edition discontinuities, but neither are as disruptive as UA ought to have been.
Unearthed Arcana was no more "disruptive" than Xanathar's or Tasha's. The revisionism on display among those who cannot handle the idea that 2024 D&D may not be the same edition of the game as 2014 D&D is ridiculous.
It's not revisionism. It's differences of opinion. What makes an edition transition in the absence of a blatant rules discontinuity is a matter of opinion and marketing. 2e was probably a new edition first and foremost because they wanted to sweep away the old cruft. 5e24 isn't because they don't. (The differences in how the players get information about and engage with the game may also be significant.)
Just by adding a new stat, UA was a major rules discontinuity. It didn't stick, because Comeliness was such a terrible, pointless, idea, but had it been something mechanically meaningful, it invalidates everything that comes before.
No conversion was required because the math behind THAC0—the complexity of which is overblown—and that of the matrices that had come before were identical.
The tables were nonlinear at at least one point (they consistently went 19 20 20 20 20 21), and I wouldn't want to guarantee they didn't have other quirks.
THAC0's not that hard, if you're OK at mental arithmetic and know the rules. That doesn't describe everybody. I can re-derive the rules and apply them standing on my head, but I'm unusually good at that sort of thing.
THAC0 and the lookup tables are differently awkward, and both would've been easier without the bass-ackwards AC system. (They could've had roll+bonuses >= AC fifty years ago. I have never understood why they did the thing they did.)
The changes between these two editions were so minimal I never owned a copy of the PHB for either and had no trouble grasping the rules for both despite at the time only owning the Mentzer red box Basic set and then supplements from each edition.
Can you really say the same for a player familiar enough with 2014 D&D being asked to make a character for a game at a table that will be using 2024 D&D?
It's hard to make a character without a PHB, regardless of edition. It was easier in 1/2e, because there were so many fewer choices to make. But that's a property of 5e, and hasn't changed with the revision. It may even be a little easier, because there's never a subclass choice for a level 1 character.
But if you give that player a character, or hand them the new PHB, they'll be fine, because the underlying system is unchanged.
It's not revisionism. It's differences of opinion. What makes an edition transition in the absence of a blatant rules discontinuity is a matter of opinion and marketing. 2e was probably a new edition first and foremost because they wanted to sweep away the old cruft. 5e24 isn't because they don't. (The differences in how the players get information about and engage with the game may also be significant.)
2e was a different edition because they re-wrote the core books. (In part to screw Gygax out of royalties.) 5e24 is doing the same but isn't a new edition 100% for marketing. It's spin. Because they don't want it to be a new edition, despite it being a different version of the game and not entirely compatible.
It is a revision of the base rules. More of a change than many other game's new editions. (Just reading through Star Trek Adventures 2e right now, which is compatible with 1e. It's an edition, just a compatible one.)
The tables were nonlinear at at least one point (they consistently went 19 20 20 20 20 21), and I wouldn't want to guarantee they didn't have other quirks.
True, but only for ACs below 0 or -1, which were rare. THAC0 would equate to the same hit roll for the vast majority of enemies. In actuallity, they weren't identical, but in practice and play they were.
But if you give that player a character, or hand them the new PHB, they'll be fine, because the underlying system is unchanged.
The base rules of d20 + Ability Score + Modifier haven't changed since 3e. The underlying system of D&D has been the same for 25 years. That doesn't mean they're the same edition.
But the actual rules feature numerous small changes. They didn't just change the classes but included a number of rule changes: exhaustion, surprising, changing equipment, being Bloodied, limit of one spell slot per turn, etc.
I'd like to know a bit more about what it's going to be like when the new edition is widely available. What to expect . .
If you've been through an edition change before, I'd like to know about your experiences and predictions.
I've been playing since the Holmes Basic set (I actually had the white box set but never played it). Every upgrade has had its changes. Some have been more dramatic than others. The transition from Basic to Advanced was big. The change from 2nd to 3rd was pretty big. The change into and out of 4th was really big.
I've got the new book, and I think this upgrade is pretty tame. In a lot of cases things have just moved but you still have it, like ability score adjustments moving to Backgrounds. The most dramatic changes are in class and spell specifics. That feels more like I have bought an expansion book with new subclasses; the rules stay mostly the same, you just get some new class options. It feels like there have been some changes to pull in some of the big damage while providing more utility. For example, Cunning Strike for the Rogue. It feels like the design team is trying to encourage you to "explore the space a bit more". I don't know how better to put it.
Personally, I think you'd be best suited to just jump in the deep end. I don't think you're going to struggle at all.
But if you give that player a character, or hand them the new PHB, they'll be fine, because the underlying system is unchanged.
The base rules of d20 + Ability Score + Modifier haven't changed since 3e. The underlying system of D&D has been the same for 25 years. That doesn't mean they're the same edition.
System is way more than the resolution mechanic. With just d20 + bonuses vs target number, you can have 3e, 4e, 5e, and games much more different than those. (And those are all pretty different.)
But the actual rules feature numerous small changes. They didn't just change the classes but included a number of rule changes: exhaustion, surprising, changing equipment, being Bloodied, limit of one spell slot per turn, etc.
Yeah, they do. It's small rule changes. All the core parts of the system: advantage, the action economy, how you attack, how you cast a spell, how you do a skill check, etc. Those are all unchanged.
It's different this time, than in the past because of dependency on online tools and content (at least for some people). In the past, you and the people you played D&D with would decide for yourselves, when and how to switch. Now it would seem that outside forces are making it very hard not to switch (for some people).
Yeah, they do. It's small rule changes. All the core parts of the system: advantage, the action economy, how you attack, how you cast a spell, how you do a skill check, etc. Those are all unchanged.
Same could be said for 3e -> 3.5 and certainly is true for 1e -> 2e. I don't argue that you must consider 5.24 a new edition, but it's reasonable for people to see it that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
THAC0 wasn’t really a rule change in 1e to 2e. It was more a simplification or the to-hit charts. The actual game worked the same, you just calculated your hit based on THAC0 rather than looking in the book.
And things like the Proficiency system were actually optional and predated 2e. They were in Oriental Adventures.
Most or 2e was just restricting the book, fixing the rules for Initiative, and revising a few classes. Mostly the bard and ranger.
He didn't say that it wasn't backwards compatible (which he said it also was), he said that the differences were more significant than most of the other edition changes (he listed most but not all - which may or may not be a significant point). You can make significant, even massive changes while keeping it capable of supporting previous characters. I was addressing the "Wizards doesn't want to call this a new edition because people will think it means changes on the scale of the last three, and it most certainly does not", when Crawford explicitly disagrees.
And to be honest, I can see why he felt the need to address this. The reason why WotC doesn't want to call it a new edition change is in part the point you brought up - you can use essentially the same characters and not just thematically similar ones (and why I disagree with those calling it 6e). They also want to avoid the so-called edition wars (a futile exercise IMO, but whatever).
On the other hand though, listening to a lot of people here, you'd start to think that it's little more than $100 errata, which very few people want to buy. It got me quite pessimistic about having wasted my money, listening to it all, it was quite encouraging to hear Crawford say that no, actually, it is quite a substantial change that is worthwhile buying into, even if we already have 5e. Until people hears that though, I'm betting a lot of people came and still come to forums like this, Discord etc, see people claiming that the changes are pretty minor, decided it's not worth splashing out potentially hundreds on, and walked away. There was definitely a period where I had a lot of self-doubt about the money I splashed out, whether it would have been better spent elsewhere. If I hadn't have already pre-ordered, I probably have sat it out.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
His metric seems to have been word count, which is... about the worst possible metric.
That wasn't his metric for that comment, that was just another factlet on the 2024 PHB.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I assume we are talking about the Ginny Di video, or similar such comments? He spoke some what badly in that video… but cleaned up his own comments and Ginny even pointed out “this was confusing, let me clarify what he was trying to say.”
Anyone who watched the video - and has a basic grasp of English - got the message pretty clear: They put as much work into rebalancing 5e as they would have making a new edition, and perhaps more. After all, they were not starting from scratch - they had to start by combing through every element of current 5e and decide what was or was not working, and tweak accordingly. He also discussed that the format of the books and the information they conveyed was something that was not working, so they re-wrote the non-substantive “how to play” portions of the books from scratch.
Of course, this is the D&D community - the same community which apparently forgot what the word “draft” meant and threw a fit over their collective ignorance. They heard “this is as much work as a new edition would have been” and, inexplicably (or explicably for those who purposefully mishear to push an agenda), forgot how, under basic English construction, a simile does not mean “this is exactly that other thing.”
How are there two mutually exclusive answers to the question “what are the wizard subclasses”? Every subclass that’s been released in the last ten years can be used on a 2024 wizard with some very minor adjustments. The answer to that question today is still the answer in October, the only difference is there’ll be two versions of four of them and you’re probably better off taking the newer version
They're mutually-exclusive because there's no single answer to the question. Either the wizard breaks out into a bunch of subclasses at 1st level based on school, or there are four wizard subclasses that unlock at 3rd level. It isn't both. The only way for it to be both is if we're talking about two different rulesets, which of course we are.
You can play this with any of the rules changes. What's the suprise rule for initiative in 5e? How many leveled spells can you cast in a round in 5e? Sure, you can run a game with PCs from 5.14 and 5.24 and make it work, but so what? You could insert a 3e PC into a 5e game and it would work too, as long as the DM understood how to handle things. I mean if you wanted to do enough math and apply enough special-case rulings, you could play a 1e/2e PC in a 5e game.
As I recall, it did change things, because the tables weren't always linear. In particular, they usually had a stretch of "19 20 20 20 20 21".
I admit, it felt like a cleaned up AD&D at the time, but it was more of a mechanical discontinuity than revised 5e seems to be. (Which included tossing out a bunch of mechanics that most people didn't use. Remember the weapon modifiers agains armor table?) If a 1e player sat down at a 2e table, there'd need to be some non-trivial explanation time. Whether it would really "count" as a new edition by modern standards is hard to say. They certainly treated it as one.
That's not rules, that's just available options. You weren't playing a different edition because you were using the Sword Coast guide, even though you now had a different number of wizard subclasses.
As I said, if you could play a Wizard-14, you can play a Wizard-24. The mechanics are almost unchanged. They're built slightly differently, but only slightly. If Wizard-24 was a new class called Magic-User, there'd be zero complaints except "why are these two classes almost identical?"
As it is, that hypothetical Magic-User is called Wizard, and the old Wizard is deprecated (but still playable under the revised rules). And you can use all the old-wizard subclasses with new-wizard, except for the ones that have also been updated.
It's still rules, though, since it's the rules that describe how wizards work. But that besides, I did include examples of other mechanics which impact how the game is played at the table. And there are more than I listed.
Again, yes, you could mix PCs from 5.14 and 5.24 in a single campaign/session. You could also do that with most other editions of the game if you wanted to. The biggest hassle would be balance issues rather than mechanical conversion, but that would be true with the 5es as well -- it looks like 5.24 represents some power creep for PCs, at least so far.
It's pretty clear that 5.14 and 5.24 are different versions of the game, even if the differences aren't all that great. Whether those differences are enough to justify the use of the word "edition" is a judgment call. WotC says no, they're the same edition. That's cool, they can say that, and officially it's true since they won't publish the 5.24 stuff under a "5.5e" label or anything like that (yet). But in the minds of many people, they are different editions and people will be using that distinction when they run games. And you can bet DnDBeyond will flag the pre-5.24 stuff as "legacy" or some other similar label. To avoid confusion if nothing else.
It's not. Most of what is in the books is not the rules. The rules tell you how you do things. They tell you how attacks work, how you cast a spell, how classes are put together. You can cut wizards out of the game entirely, and it's still the same game.
A 5e14 character drops into a 5e24 game without any significant friction. You can't play a 3e character in a 5e game -- you have to turn it into a 5e character first. 3e has fundamentally different assumptions about how stuff works. In a very abstract sense, you're still rolling a d20 plus bonuses against AC to hit, but the scales of the bonuses and AC are different. 3e doesn't have advantage. If it has a proficiency bonus, it works completely differently. Etc.
Yes, there are some changes in the rules. A few of them are even moderately significant. But they're all specific instantiations of the general mechanics. Casting a spell still works the same; they've just changed the "multiple spells in a single turn" rule. (And a good thing, too -- the old one was overly fussy and confusing.) They're the sorts of changes they might have made in a book like Xanathar's. They're not explicitly optional like the Xanathar's ones were -- they set the expected baseline going forwards. But the game still works if you stick with the 5e14 versions, or mix-and-match as you prefer.
You should convert to make things run smoother, but you don't have to. Just use 3e rules for whenever the 3e PC does something. It uses BaB to attack. It uses Fort/Will/Reflex for saves. It doesn't get advantage or disadvantage by virtue of any of its features, but it would if an outside feature caused it (such as fighting in the dark). It doesn't have spell slots, unless it's a sorcerer. It uses 3e skills. You'd want to work it all out ahead of time, and it would almost certainly be a balance nightmare, but it's not impossible. And frankly not all that hard.
Let’s get real, yes there are some things from 3.xe that convert to 5e without too much trouble. I’ve reworked the 2e/3e psionics rules without much difficulty, but there are other things that are more problematic, like magic items/armor/weapons and attunement. In 3.xe you had a lot of high magic worlds with a max of +5 and no attunement so high level PCs walked around with a ton of magic items they could use - a helm/crown, necklace, 2 pieces of jewelry, 2 rings (or more) a cloak, armor/robe, boots, cloak, etc. now your limited to 3 items attuned ( unless you’re an artificer) with a few potions and/or items from the limited list of non attuned items. Heck, even most of the “common” Magic items need attunement. Further, the max enchantment is a +3 for anything other than a few artifacts. That alone changes the character of how a PC plays fairly drastically. As I said in an earlier post, it’s not hugely hard to convert from any edition to any other (granted converting either way with 4e is the hardest). The ‘14 to ‘24 conversion actually looks to be fairly easy, at least if your L3 and up. Sure there are rules changes that will trip folks up now and again but they aren’t really major. It’s mostly tacking on the new stuff like weapon mastery for martials. Yes if your ‘14 PC is one of those class & subclasses that got a hefty makeover it will alter the play - generally for the better. I expect to wait till all 3 core books are out to switch my campaign giving me and my table plenty of time to rework things as the books come out.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This isn't really switching to a new edition like from 2e to 3e. 2024 PHB is more like going from 1e to 2e. I've never played 3e but I imagine going to 3.5e was about the same.
Unearthed Arcana was no more "disruptive" than Xanathar's or Tasha's. The revisionism on display among those who cannot handle the idea that 2024 D&D may not be the same edition of the game as 2014 D&D is ridiculous.
The advent of AD&D 2nd. Edition saw the release of adventure modules perfectly compatible with both 2nd. Edition and 1st. Edition. A number of modules, as well as supplements, would even say as much on their covers. No conversion was required because the math behind THAC0—the complexity of which is overblown—and that of the matrices that had come before were identical.
The addition of skills/proficiencies actually arrived before 2nd. Edition. It would be in a 1st. Edition supplement where these would first be seen.
The changes between these two editions were so minimal I never owned a copy of the PHB for either and had no trouble grasping the rules for both despite at the time only owning the Mentzer red box Basic set and then supplements from each edition.
Can you really say the same for a player familiar enough with 2014 D&D being asked to make a character for a game at a table that will be using 2024 D&D?
It's not revisionism. It's differences of opinion. What makes an edition transition in the absence of a blatant rules discontinuity is a matter of opinion and marketing. 2e was probably a new edition first and foremost because they wanted to sweep away the old cruft. 5e24 isn't because they don't. (The differences in how the players get information about and engage with the game may also be significant.)
Just by adding a new stat, UA was a major rules discontinuity. It didn't stick, because Comeliness was such a terrible, pointless, idea, but had it been something mechanically meaningful, it invalidates everything that comes before.
The tables were nonlinear at at least one point (they consistently went 19 20 20 20 20 21), and I wouldn't want to guarantee they didn't have other quirks.
THAC0's not that hard, if you're OK at mental arithmetic and know the rules. That doesn't describe everybody. I can re-derive the rules and apply them standing on my head, but I'm unusually good at that sort of thing.
THAC0 and the lookup tables are differently awkward, and both would've been easier without the bass-ackwards AC system. (They could've had roll+bonuses >= AC fifty years ago. I have never understood why they did the thing they did.)
It's hard to make a character without a PHB, regardless of edition. It was easier in 1/2e, because there were so many fewer choices to make. But that's a property of 5e, and hasn't changed with the revision. It may even be a little easier, because there's never a subclass choice for a level 1 character.
But if you give that player a character, or hand them the new PHB, they'll be fine, because the underlying system is unchanged.
2e was a different edition because they re-wrote the core books. (In part to screw Gygax out of royalties.)
5e24 is doing the same but isn't a new edition 100% for marketing. It's spin. Because they don't want it to be a new edition, despite it being a different version of the game and not entirely compatible.
It is a revision of the base rules. More of a change than many other game's new editions. (Just reading through Star Trek Adventures 2e right now, which is compatible with 1e. It's an edition, just a compatible one.)
True, but only for ACs below 0 or -1, which were rare. THAC0 would equate to the same hit roll for the vast majority of enemies. In actuallity, they weren't identical, but in practice and play they were.
The base rules of d20 + Ability Score + Modifier haven't changed since 3e. The underlying system of D&D has been the same for 25 years. That doesn't mean they're the same edition.
But the actual rules feature numerous small changes. They didn't just change the classes but included a number of rule changes: exhaustion, surprising, changing equipment, being Bloodied, limit of one spell slot per turn, etc.
I've been playing since the Holmes Basic set (I actually had the white box set but never played it). Every upgrade has had its changes. Some have been more dramatic than others. The transition from Basic to Advanced was big. The change from 2nd to 3rd was pretty big. The change into and out of 4th was really big.
I've got the new book, and I think this upgrade is pretty tame. In a lot of cases things have just moved but you still have it, like ability score adjustments moving to Backgrounds. The most dramatic changes are in class and spell specifics. That feels more like I have bought an expansion book with new subclasses; the rules stay mostly the same, you just get some new class options. It feels like there have been some changes to pull in some of the big damage while providing more utility. For example, Cunning Strike for the Rogue. It feels like the design team is trying to encourage you to "explore the space a bit more". I don't know how better to put it.
Personally, I think you'd be best suited to just jump in the deep end. I don't think you're going to struggle at all.
System is way more than the resolution mechanic. With just d20 + bonuses vs target number, you can have 3e, 4e, 5e, and games much more different than those. (And those are all pretty different.)
Yeah, they do. It's small rule changes. All the core parts of the system: advantage, the action economy, how you attack, how you cast a spell, how you do a skill check, etc. Those are all unchanged.
Whatever you want to call it, this is what it will be like, this time, at least for me: https://www.dndbeyond.com/changelog#UpdatingtheDDBeyondToolsetforthe2024CoreRulebooks
It's different this time, than in the past because of dependency on online tools and content (at least for some people). In the past, you and the people you played D&D with would decide for yourselves, when and how to switch. Now it would seem that outside forces are making it very hard not to switch (for some people).
Same could be said for 3e -> 3.5 and certainly is true for 1e -> 2e. I don't argue that you must consider 5.24 a new edition, but it's reasonable for people to see it that way.