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

[Micah Sweet]

It is their game though. They bought it. Then developed it.

They allow other companies to sell products and profit from compatibility but it’s still WotC 5e.

Even where 3pp have released a cloned version of the game wholecloth that is 90% alike I still see it as WotC’s D&D because they’re still using WotCs licence and WotC rules at the core. Saying otherwise is smoke and mirrors.

I disagree. First of all, the OGL crisis showed that they're not really "letting" anyone use the 5e rules. For various reasons, they pretty much have to, and literally cannot change their mind at this point.

Secondly, since there are many other takes on 5e, why should WotC's version be assumed in discussion? What makes them special?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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!

But with 2014 MM, Volo's, Mordenkainen's, Bigby's, Fizban's, Tome of Beasts (x3), Creature Codex, Forge of Foes, Flee Mortals!, and countless others, do we really need more monster books for our hoards?

[pauses to give this 3 more seconds of thought]

Yes! Yes, we do!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Not a fan of gold for xp huh?

 

[CleverNickName]

D&D5.5One2024Redux​

Love the new forum tag, btw.

 

[jayoungr]

For me, resource attrition is a large part of play; and IMO the best way to achieve this is to make the resources somewhat harder to recover than 5e has them.

A single overnight rest, for example, should only get you back a small-ish portion of your hit points, not all of them. It should get you back all your spells but they should be limited in number (i.e. no at-wills), forcing you to either ration them or - with whatever consequences it might entail - spend 23+ hours out of every 24 resting.

I definitely wish to cause resource attrition to my players, but in my experience, for my group, this wouldn't really change anything at all about their playstyle. The only thing that would happen is that instead of saying "Okay, we leave the dungeon and rest for the night before going back in," they'd say "Okay, we leave the dungeon and rest for two days before going back in." In most circumstances, resting for two days isn't riskier than resting for one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I definitely wish to cause resource attrition to my players, but in my experience, for my group, this wouldn't really change anything at all about their playstyle. The only thing that would happen is that instead of saying "Okay, we leave the dungeon and rest for the night before going back in," they'd say "Okay, we leave the dungeon and rest for two days before going back in." In most circumstances, resting for two days isn't riskier than resting for one.

Of course, stuff can happen in the dungeon in those two days. Inhabitants can change, defenses can be shored up, traps reset, etc. But all of that's up to the DM.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

Forge of Foes

I don’t have that one yet, to the google search I go!

 

[MoonSong]

Not a fan of gold for xp huh?

I hadn't considered that... anyway not the same thing. One is "insert gold to gain new abilities", the other is "insert gold to play".

 

[TwoSix]

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.

What style of "D&D-type play" (which is what I'm talking about, here) isn't driven by the party somehow ending up traversing an increasing challenging series of linked encounters that often end up in combat? In which some sort of resource (whether that be a metagame currency like XP, or a diegetic resource like gold or spell reagents) wouldn't end up being required?

And to be clear, "D&D-type play" means a game of resource attrition. If resource attrition doesn't matter, then it's a different style of play which may use D&D-style trappings instead. If you object to the term "D&D-type play" because you feel it's too constraining, feel free to use "resource attrition management play" instead; I'm not a stickler for semantics.

I play and DM in many games, often using D&D as the engine, which I would not actually call "D&D-type play" because there's generally little resource attrition since there are generally only 1-2 encounters before a full rest and recharge. There's nothing wrong with that style of play, but it lacks the gameplay joys and challenges of resource management.

 

[TwoSix]

I definitely wish to cause resource attrition to my players, but in my experience, for my group, this wouldn't really change anything at all about their playstyle. The only thing that would happen is that instead of saying "Okay, we leave the dungeon and rest for the night before going back in," they'd say "Okay, we leave the dungeon and rest for two days before going back in." In most circumstances, resting for two days isn't riskier than resting for one.

Exactly this. The time period is immaterial (unless it matters to you for narrative/verisimilitude purposes). It might matter if the time period causes a change of state in the challenge site, which is just another use case of "attaching a cost to the recharge period", which is what I'm arguing for.