D&D 5E Vecna: Eve of Ruin Coming 2024

Just revealed by WotC, a multiverse spanning adventure which goes up to level 20 and features cameos from famous D&D characters. More info when we have it!

Update--WotC has taken down the promo image and replaced it with one without a release date. See more here.

 

[Echohawk]

To what degree do I, as a GM, need to modify Storm King's Thunder when running it for a 2024 party?

If the answer is "not at all" then the 2024 changes are all wasted effort.

Why does not needing to modify old adventures imply that changes to the game are wasted effort?

Let's use an example. The PCs are in Ironslag, the fire giant area of Storm King's Thunder, and they run into 1 fire giant and 8 orcs (one of the random encounters). Using PCs and monster stats from the 2014 books, the encounter works fine. If the same encounter is run, as is, using PCs and monster stats from the 2024 books it still works fine, but is also more fun because the monsters have more interesting abilities and the group's monk feels as effective as the rest of the party. Ergo the changes were not wasted effort for that group.

 

[Hussar]

Here's the thing I am asking about.

To what degree do I, as a GM, need to modify Storm King's Thunder when running it for a 2024 party?

If the answer is "not at all" then the 2024 changes are all wasted effort. If the answer is "X amount to bring it in line" then the idea of inherent compatibility is undermined.

Here's a thing I want to be clear about: I am not one of those people that thinks 2024 should be absolutely compatible with 2014. 10 years is a long time and we have learned a lot during that time. I just think WotC should be honest about the stuff you are going to have to change to make it all work. It's okay to include a conversion doc and admit you didn't quite have it down 10 years ago.

How much do you have to rewrite Storm King's Thunder if the party includes material published after September, 2016?

After all, everything in Tasha's didn't exist in D&D until 2020. Does an Artificer in the party require you to rewrite anything? Do the thirty-ish subclasses added to the game require you to modify the module? Do the changes to character generation - floating ability score changes for example - require you to modify the module?

I mean, good grief, there have been SO many changes to 5e in the past 10 years. Like... a lot. New spells, new classes, new items, new mechanics (ship to ship combat, running businesses, I'm sure there are others) have been added to the game. Never minding the number of new monsters.

Yet, I can run Hoard of the Dragon Queen just fine.

Look, I get wanting some bigger changes. Believe me, I do. But, again, we LOST this argument. The fandom rejected any larger changes. It's just not going to happen. Buy the 2024 books or don't. These are more just a clean up of the mechanics than a new edition. So, take a deep breath and repeat after me, "2024 is not a new edition". They've been ABSOLUTELY clear on this. This is a general house cleaning of the books with a few bits and bobs added on.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I am expecting more notable changes in the 24 MM than Monsters of the Multiverse.

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago how the stat blocks for the Medusa Hierophant and Euryale (which is just the former with a few extra bits) in The Book of Many Things are different from the 2014 Medusa by making the petrification gaze attack a 4 - 6 recharge instead of something that's always on (and that potential victims can use their reaction to close their eyes to counter the attack, although they have the blinded status until the end of their next turn). I'm wondering if that change will carry over to other petrification attacks in the 2024 MM.

 

[Retros_x]

honestly it sounds like it will be a terrible adventure, but a fun read. So just like many 5e adventures, but even worse because now we get all the fanservice and that multiverse naughty word that takes over every franchise.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

honestly it sounds like it will be a terrible adventure, but a fun read. So just like many 5e adventures, but even worse because now we get all the fanservice and that multiverse naughty word that takes over every franchise.

Kind of much to judge so early.

 

[Azzy]

I'm glad we have another thread stray from its topic so that the same people can re-litigate the topic of the revised rules being a new edition and what not.

 

[Kurotowa]

I'm glad we have another thread stray from its topic so that the same people can re-litigate the topic of the revised rules being a new edition and what not.

Some people have strong opinions they feel the need to share at every opportunity. Other people feel compelled to try and rebut those opinions every time, even though they've had the same arguments with the same people before to no effect. At this point, when it happens I either start skimming the thread, abandon it entirely, or occasionally deploy my Ignore list to try and filter out the noise.

 

[Retros_x]

Kind of much to judge so early.

Its not a judgement, its a foreboding, based on the description and general contemporary adventure design. I mean I will be the first who will celebrate if its actually a good adventure, but doesn't "multiverse spanning adventure [...] features cameos from famous D&D characters." sound like railroad full of fanservice and "marvelism" to you?

 

[michaeljpastor]

I'm glad we have another thread stray from its topic so that the same people can re-litigate the topic of the revised rules being a new edition and what not.

Well this one was low-hanging fruit for the Edition Blood War, since the topic was new edition versions of classic adventures in the anniversary edition year.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Its not a judgement, its a foreboding, based on the description and general contemporary adventure design. I mean I will be the first who will celebrate if its actually a good adventure, but doesn't "multiverse spanning adventure [...] features cameos from famous D&D characters." sound like railroad full of fanservice and "marvelism" to you?

No.