D&D (2024) Why no new packs since late September?

[tetrasodium]

I have never seen exhaustion show up in any of my games. But this new version seems much more usable.

It is harder to waste (or forget), but you get less uses.

The old Barkskin was nearly useless. So replacing it didn't change anything.

The new one is effectively Heroism, which any cleric could of cast since 2014. No one thought it was overpowered before.

Not sure how that is a new problem. Healing word and Aura of vitality yo-yo has existed.

Though my personal house rule for this play test was going unconscious gave you a level of (new) exhaustion.

Worked really nicely IMO. It provided a slow ramp to more and more dangerous territory and some tense decisions. Do you push on to the final fight with -2, let the rogue the front line for a bit, or is discretion the better part of valor.

More powerful <---->over powered is a spectrum not the same thing. When excessive & unreasonable levels of risk insulation that might be called a moral hazard elsewhere gets stripped away it becomes justified in replacing the insulation with power. Without stripping the risk insulation some changes become.... Bewildering

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It is a terrible idea to put out any sort of survey (where you actually care about the results) around the holidays. Even more so if you want groups to make the assessments. Too many distractions and too much travel. Most likely, we will get the next one as a "12th day of Christmas" present in January.

 

[Kobold Stew]

They're releasing zero D&D editions, since it's all "Just D&D" according to their video.

Because they say it doesn't make it true. They are incentivized to minimize the difference, because, as has been said, they are rightly concerned about splitting the fanbase.

The changes we have seen proposed in the playtest documents so far are greater than the changes from 3.0 and 3.5. And their claims of "backwards compatibility" have not been specific enough to say anything with confidence. We have, however, seen a fundamental re-imagining of how races work, and how feats and ASIs are to be implemented. What, then does this mean?

Here is what I think will be the case:
* adventures from 5e can still be run with 1D&D characters. (= "backwards compatibility")

* 5e characters will be able to be played in new 1D&D adventures (new stat blocks for monsters will still be able to be fought with old characters). Players technically will not need to buy new PHBs (= "backwards compatibility")

* It will be possible for players to have 5e characters alongside 1D&D characters in a party, and for most players, it will run smoothly. They will not be at the same power level, and 5e players will sometimes wish they had the extra toys that 1D&D will have, but they can coexist (= "backwards compatibility").

* Rule expansions for 5e (esp. Tasha, Xanathar, MotM) will not be 100% compatible with the new PHB. Once they release 1D&D, there will be a market for ever more rules expansions, to fill the gaps for players (esp. for race and subclass options). It will not be possible to mix-and-match player options from 5e and 1D&D, without at-the-table adjustments and house rules.

For each of the first three of these, I think it is possible with a straight face to say that 1D&D is "the same game", and they are backwards compatible. It is the fourth point, however, where I feel they cannot succeed in making it backwards compatible, nor do they want to. They have a fiscal obligation to shareholders to continue to release new books, and the changes we have seen in the playtest appear to be premissed on changes that will leave a window for new subclass, feat, and race options for players. They also have a fiscal obligation to maintain this imprecision, so they can sell books in 2023.

It is also the fourth point that many players, particularly on these boards (based on what people discuss) care most about. If we hold out for backwards compatibility for all player options (something they have not said, again and again), we will be disappointed.

Do I know this? No -- no one does. But I have seen nothing that makes me think otherwise, and the result will still let them say they've fulfilled their promise. I will be happy if I am eventually shown to be mistaken.

 

[dave2008]

care to share your sources?

I'm pretty sure @UngeheuerLich was being sarcastic.

 

[dave2008]

The math isn't the only thing that matters. If you change the basic components of characters and rewrite the core books (including what I assume is a massive-rewrite of the Monster Manual), it's hard for anyone looking at it, especially newer players, to not see that as a new edition.

If MotM is a precedent (which it is supposed to be) then there will not be a massive rewrite of the Monster Manual. In fact, it could use a much bigger rewrite than it is likely to get, and that would still be 100% compatible.

 

[dave2008]

I'm talking about how they're portrayed in the lore write-ups, not the mechanics. We can't have humanoids portrayed as evil anymore, remember? Beyond that, culture is being drastically cut except in setting books, so what are they going to write about? Ohysical characteristics only? We may end up with a lore dearth similar to 4e's original MM.

Actually 4e had a good amount of lore. It often compared will to older editions. It just tended to be spread out more.

 

[mellored]

More powerful <---->over powered is a spectrum not the same thing.

Yes, there is a spectrum. But it goes from under powered <---->over powered.
And all the changes so far have pushed things towards the middle.

When excessive & unreasonable levels of risk insulation that might be called a moral hazard elsewhere gets stripped away it becomes justified in replacing the insulation with power. Without stripping the risk insulation some changes become.... Bewildering

I'm not entirely sure what your trying to say here.

But the death save rules hasn't changed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Actually 4e had a good amount of lore. It often compared will to older editions. It just tended to be spread out more.

In general over the course of the edition,, yes.. but the 4e MM sure didn't.

 

[Corinnguard]

Can't say I pay much attention to the lore. But culture (background) and race are kind of 2 different things now. That allows for more combinations, which is a good thing IMO. I can more easily make goblins wizards and tiefling barbarians.

Still don't see why the monster manual needs to change. The stereotypical sneaky evil goblin works just fine.

But I was more commenting on power creep. Which I just don't see. It looks more balanced, not less.

Culture and background aren't the same thing. Culture is the society you grew up in (ex. Mountain Dwarf, Hill Dwarf, Deep Dwarf, etc.). Background is the job you worked in prior to becoming an adventurer. Now some cultures and backgrounds can compliment one another. You could have grown up as part of a caravan culture, traveling from city to city while never really settling down and learned the ways of the merchant background. You could also be a member of a culture and choose a background that don't really compliment one another.

It all depends on which race/background/class combo you pick.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Culture and background aren't the same thing. Culture is the society you grew up in (ex. Mountain Dwarf, Hill Dwarf, Deep Dwarf, etc.). Background is the job you worked in prior to becoming an adventurer. Now some cultures and backgrounds can compliment one another. You could have grown up as part of a caravan culture, traveling from city to city while never really settling down and learned the ways of the merchant background. You could also be a member of a culture and choose a background that don't really compliment one another.

It all depends on which race/background/class combo you pick.

Welcome to Level Up.