D&D (2024) WotC Fireside Chat: Revised 2024 Player’s Handbook

In this video about the upcoming revised Player’s Handnook, WotC’s Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins reveal a few new tidbits.

• The books are near final and almost ready to go to print
• Psionic subclasses such as the Soulknife and Psi Warrior will appear in the core books
• Named spells have art depicting their creators.
• There are new species in the PHB.

​

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As it should be. We, as the fan base of before, have the honor and duty of preserving the essence of D&D so that future generations of players can experience the game the way it was meant to be played.

I genuinely can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

God's I hope not. Almost half my hatred of pact magic is tied to the poor interactions between pact magic and other casters, especially smite and spell point conversion. They let me down on removing pact magic, so the very least they can do is seal the SR cheese with these combos.

Well, all I can say is that I personally am fairly happy with what they've done with the Playtest 7 Warlock. I wish they'd done more than a (literal) half-measure on fixing the "Warlocks are shafted in groups that long rest too often" problem, but other than that, 5.5e Warlock is one of the few options I'm actually excited to play. Hence why I was very pleased that @Hussar allowed me to play one in his game. Between being able to pick up both Blade and Tome Pacts, the Celestial patron, and Custom Lineage, I have a well-rounded character who can mix it up in melee when needed, keep his distance when it's useful, heal and support, and provide ritual magic/utility stuff. I'm not as good at any given thing as a true expert would be. But there's basically no encounter where I don't have something worthwhile to do, and that's really quite nice.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As it should be. We, as the fan base of before, have the honor and duty of preserving the essence of D&D so that future generations of players can experience the game the way it was meant to be played.

Level caps for all non-humans!

 

[Azzy]

Yep this. I'm basically viewing 5.5e as a sidegrade. It's got some stuff I like more than 5e, and some stuff I like less than 5e.

This is how I feel, too. It's kinda like how I felt about the change from 1e to 2e.

 

[Kurotowa]

Not sure where the "Psionic Soul" thing came from. Maybe I was going through the older, Tasha-era UAs at the time and a wire got crossed somewhere...

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but as best I can reconstruct the Tasha's Cauldron UA process first proposed the Aberrant Mind, then trialed the less aberration flavored Psionic Soul as a revision, and when that proved less popular reverted to the Aberrant Mind for the official release.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but as best I can reconstruct the Tasha's Cauldron UA process first proposed the Aberrant Mind, then trialed the less aberration flavored Psionic Soul as a revision, and when that proved less popular reverted to the Aberrant Mind for the official release.

That may have been it - I did go through and reorganize the old UA pdfs I have on file to make it easier to find things a while back.

Can't say for certain, as I don't recall if the timeframe matches up, but it wouldn't surprise me. Crossed wires, et al.

 

[JEB]

During play testing after UA, they identified unexpected multiclass combinations and made changes to prevent undesirable combinations while protecting fun combinations.

I'm very curious which multiclass combinations they considered "undesirable", and why. (And what means they used to prevent them from happening.)

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

For what it's worth, I believe they've said the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer is going to be rebranded as the "Psionic Soul" Sorcerer in the '24PHB, so chances are pretty good that the Far Realm/Aberration flavoring of the subclass is going to be significantly more optional than it was as portrayed in Tasha's.

I would certainly prefer for them to be considered more of a "Psionic Soul" with "aberrant" being one of a variety of reasons they are psionic. But I haven't seen that specifically said.

 

[Reynard]

But we get back to the point "no one reads the DMG."

There's really no reason not to have that information in the PHB instead of tucked away where you have to deal with 5E's indexes to find it.

Hold on a second.

In D&D, the order of operations is that the DM describes the situation, the player declares an action, and the DM adjudicates the action using their judgement and the rules.

What in that makes it seem correct that the rules for destroying a wall, for example, should be in the PHB?

 

[Parmandur]

As I've said before, I hold the fanbase responsible for this.

Once they made the decision to be consultative with the public (in theory, a good thing), they became trapped by a fundamentally conservative bunch who didn't want or were afraid of change. They offered us lots, and most of it was rejected, time and again, by the majority.

Not necessarily a bad thing: indeed, probably healthy for the hobby and market.