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

[Azzy]

Let the Battle commence anew.

Honestly, if y'all like decimals, 5.14 and 5.24.

Huh. I'm actually rather partial to that. 5.14e and 5.24e seems like a good choice.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I strongly disagree

 

[Remathilis]

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

You found whole novels reading between those lines.

 

[mamba]

Hmm. I'm wondering if the 24 PHB might be closer to the 14 than the UA has so far implied.

looks like it, which I personally would find disappointing. Any step back towards 2014 from the changes they proposed is an actual step back. While some of the proposed changes needed tweaking, they all were improvements on what 2014 had.

Not the direction I want to see 2024 go in.

 

[mamba]

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.

maybe, but if that is the only difference you can bet you will get a lot fewer people upgrading to / buying the new books. At that point it is really only aimed at new customers, not the existing ones

 

[Aldarc]

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

Good.

 

[Remathilis]

looks like it, which I personally would find disappointing. Any step back towards 2014 from the changes they proposed is an actual step back. While some of the proposed changes needed tweaking, they all were improvements on what 2014 had.

Not the direction I want to see 2024 go in.

My real fear so far is that they are going to do what Next did in its waning months; cave to the loudest voices advocating for status quo. For example, this is the first time I really feel 2014 style wild shape will return in some type of "pick from these X options" rather than allowing PCs to decide if they are wolves or tigers or owlbears. That they will minimize or eliminate weapon mastery because people demanded it be 4e style ADEU powers for martials rather than riders to enhance fighter attacks. Its that kind of backtracking that took the best part of the Next Fighter (battle dice and maneuvers) and hid it in a single subclass. I guess we'll find in about a month.

 

[Remathilis]

Good.

Assuming, of course, TotV also has removed pact magic and redone wild shape. If they insist on keeping both these mechanics like the 2014 PHB, they're no better and we're back to where we began.

 

[tetrasodium]

You found whole novels reading between those lines.

Multiple people have noted the strong vibes towards being closer to 2014 than the UA has implied so far. I feel like there's no reason avoid mentioning the results of 2014d&d spending so many years telling the GM to fix it themselves rather than providing them with printed tools & support in the ruleset. If WotC is averse to discussion of catering to the needs of DMs in the 2024 version to such a degree that talking about it is a topic to avoid it seems very reasonable to name some of the upcoming systems when some of them have made GM needs a point of concern.

 

[Mistwell]

As Ive said before, you can't do a video game model of updating continuously without deprecation. If you're not deprecating whats already there, you're not updating anything,

Why not?

you're making a new game and bolting it onto the old game.

How is that different from any expansion material like Tashas?