D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford discusses what are the 2024 Fitfh Edition Core Rulebooks.

[Parmandur]

I guess I still don't understand why they just aren't adopting 5.5; they're basically doing the same thing they did with 3.5 except waiting four times as long to do it while obsoleting only a quarter of the amount of books.

They've been pretty clear about this in the past: the ".5" "half edition" BS was a marketing failure. That's why nobody else has ever used it for their game.

 

[Parmandur]

One more comment-

They are currently in the process of playtesting different subclass progressions and exploring ways to make levels 1 and 2 more meaningful for each class.

This, I'm not sure I'm buying for two reasons.

First, the lack of meaningfulness at levels 1 and 2 acted as an effective (albeit informal) break of multiclassing and "dips." You could certainly do it, but you had to commit resources to it.

Second, those levels go by so quickly that it really seems like a waste of time to try and make it meaningful. It reminds me of when AD&D tried to add level 0 characters .... why bother?

In practice, what that has meant in the tests is that they introduced major short circuits to dipping, so multiclassing isn't worth it if you aren't going for at least 5 Levels in each Class.

 

[Saracenus]

Going to call it 5e24 and 5e14. Maybe.

@darjr I found a leaked iconic for 5e24... I am digging the new wand design from the art department...

I have had some time to think about this leak and does WotC really want an iconic murder hobo, I mean... "Think of the children!"

 

[Parmandur]

Going to call it 5e24 and 5e14. Maybe.

I've been going with D&D'14 and D&D'24. Going by year has the advantage of being clear and objectively descriptive: no doubt books released in 2024 are 2024 rules, whether it's thr fifth and a half sixth, ninth, or twentieth "edition" of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

One more comment-

They are currently in the process of playtesting different subclass progressions and exploring ways to make levels 1 and 2 more meaningful for each class.

This, I'm not sure I'm buying for two reasons.

First, the lack of meaningfulness at levels 1 and 2 acted as an effective (albeit informal) break of multiclassing and "dips." You could certainly do it, but you had to commit resources to it.

Second, those levels go by so quickly that it really seems like a waste of time to try and make it meaningful. It reminds me of when AD&D tried to add level 0 characters .... why bother?

I think the quote from the Sly Flourish summary may have given you the wrong impression. What they actually said in the video was that the changes to subclass progression we’ve seen so far have been experimental, and those experiments were to test two design ideas at once:

1. Ensuring all classes get those two simple levels, and
2. Unifying subclass progression across classes.

1 proved successful, whereas 2 was met with neither excitement nor rejection. In light of that, in the next packet (which will feature a second pass at the expert and priest classes) will bring back 2014 subclass progressions, but with any 1st or 2nd level subclass features moved to 3rd level.

TLDR: Subclasses always starting at 3rd level is still in, unified subclass progression after 3rd level is out.

 

[Parmandur]

I am truly wondering now how much of the changes we saw are just wild "let's see how this flies" and how much is feedback based. I've gotten a sinking feeling that those 24 classes are going to look more similar than different.

Well, sure, we know that from the history of iterative UA: they start with the most out there version, and refine from there. As Crawford says in this video, if changes don't delight, then theybwill revert to the D&D'14 version people already know and like. No change for changes sake. He says that people liked standardizing Subclass to Level 3, but were apathetic about a universal Subclass progression, so they are reverting the Subclass progression to the D&D'14 version except all Subclasses stsrt at 3.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmm. I'm wondering if the 24 PHB might be closer to the 14 than the UA has so far implied. The discussion of subclasses implies that aside from moving 1st (and 2nd) level subclasses, we might be back to the older progression of subclass features, which is better for continuity for those older features but worse as the some classes got subclass features far too late (paladin and sorcerer for example) or got too few (bard). Based on this, I think it's possible to reread statements about wild shape and pact magic to imply that these features may yet resemble their 14 versions, with some tweaks rather than the wholesale change UA gave us. (For good or ill).

I am truly wondering now how much of the changes we saw are just wild "let's see how this flies" and how much is feedback based. I've gotten a sinking feeling that those 24 classes are going to look more similar than different.

If that means Warlocks can keep pact magic in some form, I’m back onboard.

 

[bedir than]

it actually makes the whole playtest into a joke if they pull the rug and say "Nope just 5e reprinted"

People testing something and not liking it isn't proof that the test is a joke. It's proof that the ideas didn't fit with what people wanted.

I'm glad that compatibility will be simpler with the subclass progression we've already used

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am kind of disappointed at the reverting to non standardised subclasses. I would hope that they keep classes in the same group on a standard chassis. I really liked that the standard subclass chassis gave the possibility of subclasses that could be taken by the group. Like a subclass that could be taken by any mage class or expert class.

 

[GMMichael]

What are the 2024 Fifth Edition Core Rulebooks?

Bigger question: what gym does that dragon go to? Nice delts, brah!