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

[mamba]

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

I am not so sure. There is too slow a pace as well.

Will see what the next months bring, but if they backtrack, then I am not sure why I should bother with the 2024 PHB. No point spending $60 on different art

 

[DEFCON 1]

maybe, but if that ie 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

Depends entirely on how honest all the players from 2014-2017 were when they kept saying WotC HAD HAD HAD to fix all these issues with things like Stealth, overpowered feats, under-powered classes etc. If they were being truthful... then every single one of them should be chomping at the bit to buy these new books that finally get down onto ink all the corrections to the game they thought the game needed all along. If they don't... then we all know their complaints were for naught.

But even beyond that... you are correct that the 5E24 books are a "fresh start" for new players. To get these new players and all players going forward used to the idea of call Elves, Dwarves, Humans etc. 'Species' rather than 'Races'. They know full well that a large number of us Olds have used 'Race' for so long that it'll be exceedingly difficult to get us to change our word usage. But at least the next gen of players can get in on the ground floor for this change. It was going to start sooner or later, and the 50th Anniversary was a great place to do it from.

 

[MNblockhead]

The whole point of the way level 1 and 2 are designed was to nod towards those who wanted zero to hero instead of starting out as a superhero. Apparently they are tossing that idea.

Yeah...

They could, however, still placate folks like me by giving optional level-zero rules in the DMG.

I mean, I can simply continue with my homebrew level-zero character funnel and back-bench character rules, but it would be nice to a nod to this style of play in the new DMG.

 

[mamba]

Depends entirely on how honest all the players from 2014-2017 were when they kept saying WotC HAD HAD HAD to fix all these issues with things like Stealth, overpowered feats, under-powered classes etc. If they were being truthful... then every single one of them should be chomping at the bit to buy these new books that finally get down onto ink all the corrections to the game they thought the game needed all along. If they don't... then we all know their complaints were for naught.

the complaints can be valid and the changes still not worth $60 at the same time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Depends entirely on how honest all the players from 2014-2017 were when they kept saying WotC HAD HAD HAD to fix all these issues with things like Stealth, overpowered feats, under-powered classes etc. If they were being truthful... then every single one of them should be chomping at the bit to buy these new books that finally get down onto ink all the corrections to the game they thought the game needed all along. If they don't... then we all know their complaints were for naught.

What if they find these 'fixes' not to actually be fixes to them?

Like, I wanted an upgrade for my Samsung and the one they put out exploded. Am I obligated to still by the exploding one because I complained?

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah...

They could, however, still placate folks like me by giving optional level-zero rules in the DMG.

I mean, I can simply continue with my homebrew level-zero character funnel and back-bench character rules, but it would be nice to a nod to this style of play in the new DMG.

No they cant, 5e requires much more to support zero to hero because the system currently fights against almost any style of game aside from the movie diehard or shallow one dimensional totally interchangeable isekai MCs

 

[Emberashh]

Why not?

Its like expecting Skyrim to simultaneously support Oblivion, Morrowind, Daggerfall, and Arena as all one big seamless game.

You could only get away with it in a TTRPG because just saying a book is compatible is effortless.

How is that different from any expansion material like Tashas?

Because supplements add new material to the game, or, as Tasha did, effectively deprecate old unwanted options.

Thats not going to work with 1DND because not everything from 5e is unwanted, especially compared to their nerfed counterparts.

 

[mamba]

Because supplements add new material to the game, or, as Tasha did, effectively deprecate old unwanted options.

Thats not going to work with 1DND because not everything from 5e is unwanted, especially compared to their nerfed counterparts.

Tasha deprecates just as effectively as the 2024 PHB does. Whether the 2014 version is unwanted is entirely in the eye of the beholder in both cases

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

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.

I'm going to provide feedback that I hope for standardized subclass progression. That opens up cross-class and cross-subclass design space.

Why not a "Harper" or a "Harper Expert" or "Harper Mage" subclass that can be taken by any of the relevant classes?

 

[Emberashh]

Tasha deprecates just as effectively as the 2024 PHB does. Whether the 2014 version is unwanted is entirely in the eye of the beholder in both cases

You have the 2024 PHB?