D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[TwoSix]

No, sorry that doesn't seem like a a game that I'd like to play.I prefer my mages to not be powered by capitalism.

It does infringe on some fictions people prefer, that is true. It makes for a better gameplay loop, and has its own consistency. But if you like the narrative of internally powered magic, I will freely admit it does not provide that.

 

[Remathilis]

I'd probably include the dimension of having played 5e at all, so that you would have "lapsed" 5e players (i.e. people who have run or played 5e in the past, but are currently not running 5e or a variant). But that might complicate things a bit.

Basic market research. You control for past experiences with the product the best you can. If you're testing a change to, let's say, Coca-Cola, you want to isolate the opinion of people who are regular Coke drinkers from those who drink Pepsi, Sprite, or don't drink soda at all. That way, you can determine if your product is scoring well with regular users, users who don't interact as often with your product, and those who have never or rarely interacted.

WotC has those numbers. We never will. We can only make guesses based on polling like this which is imperfect but the best we got. Still, it'd be very enlightening to see if interest in the update is solely focused on current players who run 5e mostly as is or if there is any draw from outside as well.

 

[schneeland]

Basic market research. You control for past experiences with the product the best you can. If you're testing a change to, let's say, Coca-Cola, you want to isolate the opinion of people who are regular Coke drinkers from those who drink Pepsi, Sprite, or don't drink soda at all. That way, you can determine if your product is scoring well with regular users, users who don't interact as often with your product, and those who have never or rarely interacted.

I probably wasn't precise enough in the last post: when I said "might complicate too much", I was referring to setting up a poll here at ENWorld - because there's only so much you can practically fit into a single question. If you have a regular survey tool, then sure - you should be able to segment both playing history and current system easily enough. As you say: WotC probably has that data.

 

[Umbran]

I'd probably include the dimension of having played 5e at all, so that you would have "lapsed" 5e players (i.e. people who have run or played 5e in the past, but are currently not running 5e or a variant). But that might complicate things a bit.

It'd be complicated, and you might be tempted to interpret the meaning of "lapsed" - assuming whether there was some negative aspect of the game that drove the lapse or if the lapse was for some other reason.

Real market research is hard.

 

[Clint_L]

On the issue of the updates being characterized as merely "errata", my Mac's dictionary says that errata is "a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal".

Based on that, it would be fair to say that the 2024/2025 updates are just errata if all of the updates can reasonably be reduced to just a list of corrections. From what we've been told so far, that's definitely not the case for the DMG or the MM, since those both have significant new content.

The PHB sounds like it has less restructuring and more updates. So I can maybe understand the new PHB being referred to as errata, even though that seems like it is stretching the meaning of "errata" quite a bit, since that list of changes would be a hefty document itself. Referring to all three new core books as errata definitely doesn't make sense.

And just to make sure that this post isn't entirely off topic, I will be buying the new books as soon as they are available. The speed at which our current Spelljammer campaign switches over will depend on how easy D&D Beyond makes it to convert 2014 characters to 2024 characters.​

Referring to the PHB changes as errata is silly hyperbole and the people using the term know it. It’s just more conversational clickbait. It’s kind of you to take them in good faith, but it’s not even worth addressing.

As for switching over: we’ve been using the PT rules and it’s super easy, barely an inconvenience. In past, DDB has assimilated new rules seamlessly, with options for what to use and what to ignore.

Edit: and we did the swap mid-campaign, with players choosing whether to use new rules or not. It hasn’t been a problem, at all.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I will absolutely be getting the revised books when they come out. I only wish that the Monster Manual was coming out sooner, but I can wait.

I need more monster books for my hoard!

 

[Dausuul]

I will certainly buy the PHB. Based on what I have seen so far, and barring unexpected drastic revisions, I expect that I will want to make the switch, and I think the rest of my gaming table will either a) agree with my preference or b) not care either way.

 

[Blue]

Nobody I know who uses the 2014 Core actually ever has EIGHT encounters per long rest.

Correct. The designer calibration and the actual play by the majority are off. That's why we are looking for a solution.

And since the solution needs to address resource attrition, combat encounters are the primary resource usage and need to be weighed much more heavily than anything else.

If we want to fix X, putting in a fix that doesn't properly address X because... X needs a fix so it's not generally played with is circular logic. If we want a fix, we want an actual fix, not something that doesn't fix it either.

However, the combat encounters must be tough and do deplete resources. They dont count if they are trivialized by heavy magic.

This is only half the issue. You can definitely adjust encounters to make them more challenging. However, that doesn't address how fewer encounters affect the balance between classes.

I don't want to get into the weeds arguing the already proven case that number of encounters affects at-will and long-rest-recovery classes differently. Here's a quick thing I posted before to refresh on the idea.

Spoiler: Less rounds throws off balance between classes

There are two very different aspects that need to be met by number of encounters per day.

One of them is challenge. And yes, you can have fewer, deadlier encounters and reach your goals for this. This isn't really debated, and it's the primary - on only - one that most people think about.

The other one is balance between the at-will classes like rogue or the EB-focused warlock, and the long-rest recovery classes like full casters plus hybrids like the barbarian or the paladin.

If you took your average full caster and took away all slots, they would be less effective on average than at-will classes like the rogue. At-will > cantrip. (This doesn't include EB boosted with invocations.)

On the other hand, if you gave casters unlimited of their highest level slots, they would do more than at-will characters. A fireball with multiple opponents, etc. Slots of the highest few levels > at-will.

Putting them together, we get, in generic terms for the average character:

Slots of the highest few levels > at-will > cantrip

So in order to balance these, we need some number of spells cast using highest level slots, and some cantrips or low-impact spells (like 1st level offensive spells in T2+). Some above and some below will average out to the same as an at-will.

Let's examine that. If you run a few encounters and run the party's casters all the way out of spells - you are STILL not balancing the classes unless you also are forcing them to have a good number of rounds at less than at-will effectiveness.

An easy way to work this out is average effectiveness per action, over the course of the adventuring day.

Ah, so if you have fewer encounters, as long as the last as long as more encounters we're good, right?

Well, no. It's moving in the right direction, but duration is a thing. If an encounter is 3-4 rounds and you can a spell lasting 1 minute, you only get 3-4 rounds of it at most. But if the combat lasts 9 rounds, then you are getting 2-3 times the effect from the same slot and the same action. It's more powerful. So you need to offset it with even more rounds of lower than at-will efficiency.

A easy way to see this is the barbarian. Say you've got 3 rages per day. Assuming the encounters total to the same deadliness, is there any case where you are worse off if you can rage for every encounter instead of half of them? That's one of the things that decreasing the number of encounters does - allows duration effects to be even more powerful.

To sum up:

1. Can balance danger and challenge in fewer encounters by having tougher encounters.

2. Need to have more total rounds fighting in fewer encounters that all of the more encounters in order to maintain balance between classes.

And that second one does not often get met. Fewer encounters per day is usually fewer total rounds then if we did all of the encounters per day, and that definitely is mathematically biased in terms of the long-rest-recovery classes like casters as well as a big boost for hybrids like the barbarian and the paladin.

Moreover, combat counters intentionally include trivial encounters that are easy, and powerful encounters that players should run away from. One cant always assume how powerful the monster is. Picking a fight with these powerful monsters can drop caster resources quickly, without victory. A next combat encounter leaves the casters depleted and vulnerable. Fighters can and do shine.

Leave that to the DM. A trivial encounter may not count at all, while a drop-dead all-out might count for multiple. The 13th Age solution with 4 combat encounters per full-heal-up explicitly gives the DM that judgement. (13th Age grants less daily powers for the characters at all levels, it's calibrated around 4 encounters, unlike D&D 5e).

 

[jayoungr]

It makes for a better gameplay loop

Only if your gameplay is also driven by material acquisition. Which does have a long history as well, of course, going back to the gold-for-XP days. But again, it narrows down a lot of story options if the party requires a constant stream of valuables to power its magic.

 

[Remathilis]

I probably wasn't precise enough in the last post: when I said "might complicate too much", I was referring to setting up a poll here at ENWorld - because there's only so much you can practically fit into a single question. If you have a regular survey tool, then sure - you should be able to segment both playing history and current system easily enough. As you say: WotC probably has that data.

Oh for sure. Which is why I started with the notion it's beyond the scope of an Internet poll. It's more a waxing on how many people responding to the simple question of "are you going to buy the 24' edition" have reasons to buy it or not that aren't indicative of the product itself.