D&D (2024) The 2024 Core D&D Rulebooks Are Coming In May

21st May 2024 is the official release date!

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

 

[Maxperson]

On the one hand...maybe. On the other hand, going against that grain isn't "how editions work", particularly when the deviations are inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Even the broadest "stream of game" interpretation of Editions that I can think of, 5E still isn't the fifth edition of the game...I can see whybWotC tried to avoid the term "5E" by and large, it's also BS.

I mean, they put 5e on the core book covers. That's hardly avoiding it.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, they put 5e on the core book covers. That's hardly avoiding it.

In one spot, on the back cover. They usually just say "D&D".

Point is, I don't see why TSR's old weird spite for Dave Arneson marketing BS or WotC turn of the century not wanting to make 3E look like a bust marketing BS need to be enshrined particularly.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

it is an evolution of AD&D, not D&D, classes and races are separate

Who says that is the benchmark? The core mechanic of the game, the d20 mechanic and how it interacts with attacks, skills, and saving throws are different throughout the editions. How is it not a different game like "Advanced" was different from the "Basic" games? 4th Edition was a completely different game, but was called D&D.

It is meaningless to try and pin it down as an evolution of one particular edition over another. There are enough differences in the mechanics, compared to every edition, that it is subjective opinion and not objective truth. The current edition borrows from EVERY edition.
Overall, because of the forward progression of time and due to the different perspectives of historical design and marketing teams, the incoherent, edition-naming has failed the accuracy test and contributed to the edition wars. It's not worth trying to pin down an exact "edition" convention because the definition of "edition" has changed for over 40 years. No one can be right about this because there isn't an objectively right answer. It's not technically the 5th edition of the game, even if the designers had their hands tied by the flawed designations of previous design and marketing teams.

I claim the following is true.

1. There have been many different versions of D&D rulebooks, way more than 5 editions worth. Especially if you count the dictionary definition of "edition" where different printings where errata has changed the rules in later printings in the same edition.
2. The current edition borrows mechanics and themes from every edition of the game. It is not a linear evolution of specific editions and not others, despite the existence of linear time and the desire to argue.
3. The designers want to stop the numerical edition-naming paradigm. They are calling the current edition the 2014 books and 2024 books, which are true statements. (Subjectively, I think they are a better "edition"-naming paradigm than the prior nebulous numeric naming convention.)
4. The current edition is D&D. That is what is says on the cover. That is what the designers have been telling us they are calling it.
5. Next year's books will be the 2024 revision of the D&D game that is fully backwards compatible with the 2014 printing of the game, which include a bunch of errata to the modular aspects and rules objects of the game, to hammer down some errors and proud nails and to broaden and enhance the options. Love it.

Let's please stop the worthless edition-warring over outdated naming conventions. None of us can be right. Not me. Not you. Please let it go and let's focus on the nature of the content.

 

[mamba]

Who says that is the benchmark? The core mechanic of the game, the d20 mechanic and how it interacts with attacks, skills, and saving throws are different throughout the editions. How is it not a different game like "Advanced" was different from the "Basic" games? 4th Edition was a completely different game, but was called D&D.

fine, but it still follows the numbering pattern from AD&D on while BX / BECMI died out, so it is not an evolution of those either way, regardless of there not being an 'A' in the title or not.

Let's please stop the worthless edition-warring over outdated naming conventions

not seeing it as edition warring to point out that 5e is the successor to 4e, which was the successor to 3e, which was the successor to 2e, that is just how the numbering works, but I agree, it is not particularly important. I already said that 2024 is 5e to me, no 5.5, it changes too little to justify that

 

[Remathilis]

I also believe that the Artificer needs to be overhauled maybe to be more like the Warlock with just a few spell slots that refresh at a short rest.

I'm already saddened that warlock kept pact magic. Let's not let the virus spread to other classes.

 

[Horwath]

That would be Harm(the opposite of Heal) that set hit points to 1d4 remaining. Not maximum. So healing could bring the target back up.

And was that really worse than the 3.5 version that did 10 damage per level to a max of 150 points of damage? At the upper end sure it hit dragons harder than the 150 hit points save for half, but at the lower end that 1d8 hit point kobold was almost completely unharmed by the 6th level harm spell. The 3.5 version, though, could automatically kill anything 75 hit points or lower if you were 15th level, and up to 150 hit points if it failed the save. It was give and take.

The biggest spell change. The one that made the most difference in my opinion, was dropping the duration of the stat buffing spells from 1 hour per level to 1 minute per level. Prior to 3.5 once you hit mid levels, everyone pretty much walked around in every encounter with +4 to their prime stat and maybe dex and con as well.

remember 3.0 Haste?

extra Standard action per round?
for min of 5 rounds?
and extra 4 AC as gravvy.

talk about broken spell.
Haven't seen sorcerer or wizard without it.

 

[Maxperson]

remember 3.0 Haste?

extra Standard action per round?
for min of 5 rounds?
and extra 4 AC as gravvy.

talk about broken spell.
Haven't seen sorcerer or wizard without it.

Very good =/= broken. Most wizards and sorcs with it =/= broken. Broken = subjective in the eye of the beholder.

 

[WanderingMystic]

I'm already saddened that warlock kept pact magic. Let's not let the virus spread to other classes.

I would also be completely fine if they got spells at a normal rate of every other level but never got more than 5th level spells. However I do not mind pact magic but I do understand that those who do usually vehemently despise it.

 

[Horwath]

Very good =/= broken. Most wizards and sorcs with it =/= broken. Broken = subjective in the eye of the beholder.

if somethings doubles your effectiveness in battle, then you 100% need it whenever you can get it.
There is no competition in 3rd level spells in 3.0.
There is haste, then there is nothing, then every other spell.

 

[Maxperson]

if somethings doubles your effectiveness in battle, then you 100% need it whenever you can get it.
There is no competition in 3rd level spells in 3.0.
There is haste, then there is nothing, then every other spell.

At low and mid level it didn't double anything. It boosted you, but you used one of your few 3rd level slots just casting it. Then if you cast two spells for even two more rounds you were out of just about everything good and were useless in every other combat you might have before you rested. And that's if 100% of your spells were combat and didn't mix combat and utility like you had to in 3e. 3e required you to pick the exact spells you had memorized. None of this easy street 5e stuff where you could use slots wherever you liked among memorized spells.