D&D (2024) Reworked…revised…redone….but

[Micah Sweet]

Why didn't they upgrade to 2e, if I may ask?

No one saw a need, unless 2e had material that wasn't otherwise available. We just treated 2e as a source of new 1e content mostly. By the time 2e came out everyone was used to the attack matrices from 1e. We even wrote down the Weapon vs. Armor tables for proficient weapons.

 

[Maialideth]

I dont see any issues with 2014 in a 2024 DnDBeyond. DDB already handles "legacy" content. You can specify which content your setting is using or not.



Crawford also said, it is better to use a 2014 character in a 2024 game, than the other way around. 2014 couldnt predict the future. But 2024 can address issues with 2014 in hindsight.

What I mean is, how will DnDBeyond specifically handle old sub-classes for 2024 classes like Cleric or Wizard that chose sub-class before level 3 in 2014...
If I wanted to play a Necromancer wizard using the 2014 necromancer and the 2024 wizard, will that be implemented in DnDBeyond...? Jeremy Crawford has stated that the PHB says how to handle this situation (I assume with pen and paper), but I wonder how it will work digitally.

 

[Parmandur]

Personally, I think that WotC realizes that they had poisoned the well long ago with their "editions" being incompatible with the previous edition (unlike the 1e to 2e transition). Now, because the word "edition" carries a context of being incompatible with what's come before, they are eschewing the term.

100% agred.

 

[Parmandur]

What I mean is, how will DnDBeyond specifically handle old sub-classes for 2024 classes like Cleric or Wizard that chose sub-class before level 3 in 2014...
If I wanted to play a Necromancer wizard using the 2014 necromancer and the 2024 wizard, will that be implemented in DnDBeyond...? Jeremy Crawford has stated that the PHB says how to handle this situation (I assume with pen and paper), but I wonder how it will work digitally.

No big mystery there, thus is precisely the sort of thing computers can track well. We know exactly how the PHB is handling that, and it is programming language friendly. The book says that a Subxlass grants you all traits at a given Level and lower. So Level 1 Cleric or Sorcerer, or Level 2 Wizard or Dryid features, simply kick in at Level 3. A computer can handle that.

 

[mamba]

No big mystery there, thus is precisely the sort of thing computers can track well. We know exactly how the PHB is handling that, and it is programming language friendly. The book says that a Subxlass grants you all traits at a given Level and lower. So Level 1 Cleric or Sorcerer, or Level 2 Wizard or Dryid features, simply kick in at Level 3. A computer can handle that.

any rules a human can handle for that, a computer can handle as well. The question is more whether DDB offers these converted subclasses for people who own both PHBs

 

[Blue]

Speak for yourself. I've had no trouble wrapping my head around it not being a new edition in the way that term has previously been used. At all. It seems obvious to me. I've been using the UA for around a year. It feels like the same game with some upgrades that are mostly intuitive.

Would you agree an edition is internally compatible? Because you can't mix and match the 2014 and 2024 character building parts freely.

And if you don't agree, please justify that against what the majority of the industry is doing in terms compatibility within a single edition as well as what Wizard's has done before.

 

[Blue]

The industry as a whole, huh?

Nope, that's not what I said. Please don't try to set up a strawman arguement, it just shows that you can't make your point fairly.

The majority of the industry. There will always be outliers from standards.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Since Wizard's has purchased it, we have a fairly consistent meaning of edition that matches what a majority of the industry does when it issues a new edition (or does not), as well a clear example of what Wizard's considers a half edition. We also have clear views on what are changes that aren't an edition change, such as essentials for 4e, which while being a significant change did not invalidate any earlier material. I could take races or feats from the 4e PHB with an Essentials class and any other mix-and-match allowed.

Since you snipped the rest of the post, I will just reiterate what I said and implied.

Editions are totally arbitrary. In publishing, they have a meaning, but that isn't followed by anyone in the industry. Instead, an edition in TTRPGs (and especially in D&D) is whatever they call it.

There is no set definition of what an edition is. Especially for D&D. There are exactly five (FIVE) total examples of "editions" in D&D. And one half edition (whatever that is).

You say that you want to restrict yourself to using the clear examples of what Wizards has done? Great, you now have a sample size of three.

So if we look at what an edition is in the WoTC era, we see that there is 3e, 4e, and 5e. So a new edition is whenever they completely change the mechanics such that there is no compatibility at all. Right? Because you can't just use material from 3e in 4e. And you can't just use material from 4e in 5e.

Look, I'm not the boss of you, and I can't tell you what to do. If it makes you feel good to call this a new edition, I'm not going to stop you from getting your Bobby Brown on and killing Whitney ... um ... saying whatever you want.

But I will say two things-
1. There is no objective measure of a new edition. None.
2. I would prefer if you don't keep saying "we" and implying that there is some giant majority that is in accord with you. Even among the small minority of people that actually care about this, that isn't true.

In the end, the sun will rise, the sun will set, and people can call it whatever they want. But WotC is calling it Dungeons & Dragons, not a new edition.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nope, that's not what I said. Please don't try to set up a strawman arguement, it just shows that you can't make your point fairly.

The majority of the industry. There will always be outliers from standards.

On top of Snarf's excellent point about how, if we limit ourselves to simply WoTC, we have three entirely incompatible systems [and 5e24 is not incompatible], what other groups in the industry are we measuring?

Paizo? PAthfinder 2e is using an entirely new system of actions that was never in place for 1e, they are incompatible. Warhammer? They barely do editions, and when they do it seems to be largely tweaks and changes, the same as Savage Worlds.

So I'm honestly puzzled who this majority is, because if I start looking at Shadowrun and we decide that is largely tweaks... then WoTC atarts looking like the outlier!

 

[Hatmatter]

View attachment 374833

Since you snipped the rest of the post, I will just reiterate what I said and implied.

Editions are totally arbitrary. In publishing, they have a meaning, but that isn't followed by anyone in the industry. Instead, an edition in TTRPGs (and especially in D&D) is whatever they call it.

There is no set definition of what an edition is. Especially for D&D. There are exactly five (FIVE) total examples of "editions" in D&D. And one half edition (whatever that is).

You say that you want to restrict yourself to using the clear examples of what Wizards has done? Great, you now have a sample size of three.

So if we look at what an edition is in the WoTC era, we see that there is 3e, 4e, and 5e. So a new edition is whenever they completely change the mechanics such that there is no compatibility at all. Right? Because you can't just use material from 3e in 4e. And you can't just use material from 4e in 5e.

Look, I'm not the boss of you, and I can't tell you what to do. If it makes you feel good to call this a new edition, I'm not going to stop you from getting your Bobby Brown on and killing Whitney ... um ... saying whatever you want.

But I will say two things-
1. There is no objective measure of a new edition. None.
2. I would prefer if you don't keep saying "we" and implying that there is some giant majority that is in accord with you. Even among the small minority of people that actually care about this, that isn't true.

In the end, the sun will rise, the sun will set, and people can call it whatever they want. But WotC is calling it Dungeons & Dragons, not a new edition.

This is entirely sane and reasonable...as has been Snarf's expressions along the line of "why is this still a conversation topic?"

Arguing about what the new books are called (especially when there is an obvious motivation to make it clear that third party material and earlier material published by Wizards of the Coast from 2014 on still work with the new books) is such a low-level use of the mind...categorization being one of the least interesting uses of the intellect.

The naming of the new books also appears to be an easy target for those with a penchant for obsessing over categorization. Their intellect is on display here, especially when compared to other (far more stimulating) topics that people discuss on these boards. I was convinced that one particularly obsessed person was probably a teenager and that is why he or she posts scores of posts daily reiterating the same complaint about categorization and naming, only to read in one of this person's own posts that he or she is much older than being an adolescent. It made me sad.

Thanks for your clarity of expression and thinking, Snarf. I have appreciated your post here as well as your other (more intellectually-stimulating) topics and contributions.