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

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think it was quite clear from the video. I mean, unless they suddenly get a bunch of feedback on the next packet saying a higher portion of players desperately want unified subclass progression after 3rd level back. But I don’t expect that’s likely to happen.

I havent watched the video. What was said about progression, exactly ? I you dont mind.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I think it was quite clear from the video. I mean, unless they suddenly get a bunch of feedback on the next packet saying a higher portion of players desperately want unified subclass progression after 3rd level back. But I don’t expect that’s likely to happen.

I don't know. It sounds (to me) like they are still feeling out what they can change and what they can't.
I just hope to god warlock gets pact magic back

 

[Parmandur]

The dread of having another 10 years of coffeelocks and dino druids is enough to make me actually consider Tales of the Valiant...

Nah, I think that the measures to short circuit multiclass abuse will get throito the final product.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, I liked it too. Unfortunately, the design and testing ethos behind 5e is inherently conservative: favor keeping things as-is unless a significant portion of the open playtest participants are enthusiastic about a change. We’ve kinda known that all along, due to the 70% approval threshold. But maybe the naysayers who immediately decried the playtest as a sham and claimed WotC had clearly already made up their minds about what the revised rules would be may have fooled some of us into believing the changes would be bigger than they’re actually likely to end up.

That slow and cautious approach to change is good for the game and the hobby, IMO.

 

[Azzy]

The point was that the change from 3.0 to 3.5 came way faster and "obsoleted" more books than this new version of 5e will do, I don't really understand their hesitation to re-utilizing the same number system for 5.5/5.2024/whatever.

Presumably, if they are going to continue iterating on 5e after this, then 5.5e makes no sense—what would the next iteration after 2024 be called? 5.75e? 5.5.5e? If we're going to be using version numbers, wouldn't it make more sense to start with something smaller than x.5 (which is a mid point between 5e and 6e)?

 

[Parmandur]

I havent watched the video. What was said about progression, exactly ? I you dont mind.

Pretty straightforward: they are going back to the 2014 Subclass progression for all Classes, except for all Subclasses being chosen at 3rd Level.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've been saying 2014E and 2024E for the two book sets or a while now, so it's funny to hear that's how the designer team have also been identifying them. And changing the naming convention to 5E14 and 5E24 here on the boards works for me too.

As far as the question whether the game is going to change "enough stuff"... the simple fact of the matter is that they were going to change the books and produce "new versions" even if there was only the one single thing they wanted to change... the word 'Race' to 'Species'. That was happening at some point regardless. So yeah, at minimum a book change was happening to get that swap in.

Now of course on top of that there were all the small bits and bobs that players have been railing against these past 9 years that of course the design team was finally going to get around to create "errata" for... now that they were making this "new version" of 5E. The Great Weapon Fighter and Sharpshooter feats, the spear/trident weapon issue, the Ranger plus Beastmaster, the 4 Elements Monk, Stealth not being clear enough for some players, True Strike and Barkskin being crap spells etc. Even if the entire rest of the book was exactly the same... they were going to print a new version that fixed all of these things. And because these changes were all big enough to be actually noticeable to players and not just number fixes or re-wording (like we get with normal "errata")... these warrant a "new version of the book", rather than just the next reprint like we got with said errata.

The fact that they are actually going deeper than just fixing the top-level complaints and seeing what else could be adjusted makes the decision to publish this "new version" even more worthwhile. But overall... the game itself is going to be pretty much the same. The foundation of the entire ruleset won't look any different in 5E24 than it did in 5E14.

 

[Parmandur]

Presumably, if they are going to continue iterating on 5e after this, then 5.5e makes no sense—what would the next iteration after 2024 be called? 5.75e? 5.5.5e? If we're going to be using version numbers, wouldn't it make more sense to start with something smaller than x.5 (which is a mid point between 5e and 6e)?

Yeah, that would get silly after a few decades.

 

[tetrasodium]

Couple big takeaways I got from the video. "Focusing on the design needs of the players seems like the focus of all this" >"absolutely" then mentioning the other books for the second time in the video and avoiding mention of the DM or the DM's needs... When I'm running D&D I am not "playing" d&d because I'm "running" d&d. That exchange & the fact that DMs aren't even mentioned in the entire video very strongly tells me that 2024d&d will continue the 2014d&d focus of ignoring the DM's needs while going all in on empowering the biggest munchkin player at the table. Somehow I don't think it's a positive development in being so obvious in telling DMs that DMs will need to look towards Daggerheart, the upcoming MCDM thing, & perhaps Tales of the Valiant if they as a DM want the system to consider their needs

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know. It sounds (to me) like they are still feeling out what they can change and what they can't.
I just hope to god warlock gets pact magic back

Well, yeah, but this specific thing - subclass progression - they have felt out, and determined that there’s enough interest in starting at 3rd level to be worth doing, and there’s not enough interest in unifying the progression thereafter to be worth doing. Like, they explicitly said that.