D&D (2024) We’ll be merging the One D&D and D&D forums shortly

[Stalker0]

We'll be introducing a new rule soon. On this forum, people may only refer to the upcoming core rulebooks in full using the phrase "The 2024 Revisions of the 2014 Dungeons & Dragons Core Rulebooks Which Are Not A New Edition But Might Be A New Edition But Are Not, Honest, Guv, And Are Compatible With The 2014 Core Rulebooks Except For The Bits Which Aren't, But We'll Have A Document Somewhere But It Won't Be Called A Conversion Document As That Would Imply An Edition Which Needs Conversion From Or To And As We All Know Nobody Uses The Word Edition Any More Because That Stunts Sales During The Lead-Up Like How Pathfinder Says Remaster Not 2.5, As If You Thought It Was D&D 5.5 You Wouldn't Buy Curse Of Strahd Any More And We Like It When You Buy Curse Of Strahd (Let's Face It, It's Our Best Book, At Least So Far) But This Is Not a New Edition And Please Don't Call It 5.5 or 6E And Yes We Called It One D&D For A While But Don’t Call It That Either, That Was Just A Joke To Confuse You, We All Had A Good Laugh, And Really We'd Rather You Didn't Even Call It 5E To Be Honest As We Just Want People To Buy Everything Labelled 'D&D' Which Is Why We Don't Brand Things With Setting Labels Any More Which Is Good Business Sense Really So It's Just Dungeons & Dragons, Right? Got It? Stop With This Edition Nonsense, Editions No Longer Exist, This Is The Way [[I Is Mandalore]] (but please buy it you have to as it’s a new edition not really kthxbye love u)."

I hope that's clear.

You got a typo in there

 

[Stalker0]

My only two notes:

1) people arguing over how many people will convert. No one knows, because we don’t even know what the new edition looks like yet. You’ve seen a preview of a few changes. Once the books actually get press and people read some pages and xyz then you’ll start to see the hype train moving or never leave the station.

2) people equate this to the 3.5 switch. And while it could ultimately be as impactful, from what we have seen so far it’s not even close. People really underestimate how much was changed in 3.5.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

At least they did not bash 4e as hard as designers of 4e bashed 3e.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Mannahnin]

I've always used 3E or 3.0 to refer to that edition when I'm talking about that edition, 3.5 when I'm talking specifically about that one, and 3.x when I'm speaking more generally about stuff common to them both.

So far I've mostly used 5.5 to talk about the new books, in part because of the precedent (although I understand some folks don't think it's an important one). I think 5E Revised (5ER or 5Er) is starting to look more accurate, though, for two reasons. 1) The revisions I've seen so far seem a bit less extensive than 3E to 3.5. 2) WotC isn't actually printing "5.5" on the books like they did with 3.5.

I don't have any particular objection to D&D24 or the even shorter D24 or 5E24 or other brief variations either. I just want something compact and pithy. If it fits into the existing edition discussion numeric conventions (0E/OD&D, 1E, B/X, BEMI, 2E, RC, 3E, 3.5, 4E, 5E) aesthetically that's preferable.

how did i get quoted in this mess?

We were talking about the likely and preferred nicknames and shorthand terms for the edition.

 

[Morrus]

No one knows, because we don’t even know what the new edition looks like yet. You’ve seen a preview of a few changes.

And while it could ultimately be as impactful, from what we have seen so far it’s not even close.

Make your mind up! Either we know or we don't.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Tangent: I run an afterschool D&D club for middle-schoolers. Out of about 20 kids, I was only able to get ONE of them to use D&D Beyond. The rest prefer to use the physical books, even though we don't have enough to go round . . .

For this reason, as a club, we are NOT moving forward to the 2024 rules. Although since they will be fully compatible, if a kid brings their own PHB 2024, that's fine.

Matches my experience running D&D for kids at the library.

What else am I supposed to interpret "But he [William Wallace] wasn't shouting hands back on" as? It's outright mockery. If it had been said by a user on these forums, they'd have been infracted for it.

The only reason someone might get infracted for that is that it became a tiresome argument started. It isn’t mockery to express a preference against physical healing from non-magical characters.

I see a blog post in which the author specifically categorizes their own opinion of the topic as "unreasonable", highlights the appeal of unusual races to other members of their gaming group and argues for an inclusive approach to those races in 5e.

I understand that you were offended by it, so clearly you have every right to describe the post as offensive. But characterizing it as intentionally mocking your choices seems like a real stretch. If anything, I got the impression that the author was mocking their own limited view to make the point that an inclusive approach to 4e races was a good idea. If the post did offend, I have a really hard time believing that was the author's intention.​

You only see that because that’s what is on the “page”, to be fair.

I find the very idea of hater-appeasement offensive when it comes to including purely optional elements in a leisure activity. It is, explicitly, making the "unreasonable" those who get to define what is and isn't present. One must dance to their tune. As opposed to, y'know, just telling them that it's unreasonable to hate something because someone else can enjoy using it in a way you (generic) don't like, that doesn't cause any harm to you (generic) or anyone else.

Hater-appeasement should be actively repudiated. Instead, it is held up as a horrible conundrum: "How do we appease the haters, without just flipping the bird to folks who like this stuff? Oh, I know! We deprecate the things they like, so that the haters get official recognition, but the fans aren't actually excluded."

This would, in fact, be exactly why a user on this very forum, genuinely without a trace of malice, explicitly said to me, "Be happy that you have rules for them at all." Because posts like this? Yeah, they were a very clear reminder, "If the haters had been vocal enough, we probably wouldn't have included dragonborn at all."

Edit: And evil_reverend--better known as Robert Schwalb--did not confine lopsided or inaccurate statements to just this post. See, for example, this ENworld thread from the time, reacting to a different post. One that, again, cast disparaging (and in this case, false) statements at 4e (in this case, the claim that people only started using focus-fire tactics because of 4e.)

That isn’t what is said in that blog post, and nothing in it disparages your preferences or 4e. This reaction is exactly why we get so much less chatter from wotc about the game now.

It’s no different than when JC referred to Ranger issues that they hadn’t gotta solid feedback on as potential “phantom issues” and some folks got offended and claimed they were being mocked.

 

[Maxperson]

Skills and powers changed the game drastically. More than 3.5, more than everything we have seen in OneD&D.

New psionics. Custom built races and classes.
A completeley new proficiency system (you could allocate skill points...)
Split stats. Flaws (IIRC) and traits (Ambidexterity)

The player options as a whole really did change very much and produced way more powerful characters and was a big step towards 3rd edition.

Sure and it was 2.5e. It was as you note, a STEP towards third edition and not enough to be a new edition on its own. We have had only 5 editions of AD&D. 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and now 5e. The rest have been half edition changes at most, and barely a change at all in some cases.

 

[Mistwell]

They literally used edition-war rhetoric, in dev podcasts, during the D&D Next playtest. It was active and intentional. They also had a blog post crapping on 4e races (dragonborn in particular), with a constant "I'm just joshing, you can have your weirdo preferences if you want them!" refrain.

This was not some hidden agenda. It was literally up-front.


What else am I supposed to interpret "But he [William Wallace] wasn't shouting hands back on" as? It's outright mockery. If it had been said by a user on these forums, they'd have been infracted for it.

You're still angry about a one time video from 12 years ago where devs (one of whom isn't even at that company anymore) were chatting about their ideas unfiltered and explained why they had trouble with one type of Warlord power because it reminded you of a fight others had on the internet concerning an edition war?

Damn dude. Just....damn.

[Edit: Here is the actual transcript of that dialog:
Mearls: We don't expect the sergeant of the guard or captain of the guard to heal downed warriors. That's not the default. That's kind of the thing. And then if you say, "Well, he can heal, because he's really this inspiring presence, well then you've just kind of described a bard. Because bards -- the entire schtick of bards -- is that they are really inspiring and they are charismatic. The bard is the guy with panache who -- "Onwward!" That's the bard's deal, isn't it?

Thompson: That's a big part of the bard, I would say. I think there's some desire for a, when you're playing that leader character, to be able to say, "Alright, men! Fight on!" and be the guy leading the charge. To be William Wallace from Braveheart. You want to be that guy. I would not describe a William Wallace-type character as a bard.

Mearls: But you also wouldn't say he's a healer. I wouldn't. I wouldn't think, if there's a guy whose been gutted, William Wallace gets the guys to freak out and charge and moon the British--

Thompson: Well...

Mearls: Healing? If the guy has a broken arm, does William Wallace--

Thompson: William Wallace clearly went and inspired the guy who got his hand cut off to keep fighting. There's that--

Mearls: But his hand didn't grow back. (laughter) Now I'm being a little ridiculous.

Thompson: That's literally a cut scene. Anyway, to bring it back to the warlord, there is a focus that we're trying to take about the warlord being in the fighter, being the tactical leader, and then I think that if you want to play very much the Fourth Edition warlord, we should have a way for you to build that character. Take the fighter. Take the tactical leader-y fighter and apply a specialty or--

Mearls: A Healer Specialty. Just like the one piece that's just not there.


___________________

Notice three things about that discussion. 1) Rodney Thompson, one of the two designers in this conversation, was advocating for non-bardish inspirational healing for martial characters, and 2) Mearls primary position in the debate was that he wanted to protect a Bard niche, 3) Mearls immediately conceded that it was ridiculous statement and they continued to discuss ways they might provided for a inspirational healing warlord-type character.

So even the original claim about what happened is false. And this was all in a side note discussion about one type of power one class had, from 12 years ago. And then, in 5e, they included non-magical martial healing as a core ability in the most popular martial class in the game.]

 

[TwoSix]

Sure and it was 2.5e. It was as you note, a STEP towards third edition and not enough to be a new edition on its own. We have had only 5 editions of AD&D. 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and now 5e. The rest have been half edition changes at most, and barely a change at all in some cases.

And really, 2e shouldn't count as an edition change. The engine didn't change nearly enough to count as anything more than a 1.5.

 

[Maxperson]

I see a blog post in which the author specifically categorizes their own opinion of the topic as "unreasonable", highlights the appeal of unusual races to other members of their gaming group and argues for an inclusive approach to those races in 5e.

I understand that you were offended by it, so clearly you have every right to describe the post as offensive. But characterizing it as intentionally mocking your choices seems like a real stretch. If anything, I got the impression that the author was mocking their own limited view to make the point that an inclusive approach to 4e races was a good idea. If the post did offend, I have a really hard time believing that was the author's intention.​

Yep. That blog post was about inclusivity and each table being able to make the game their own, not about appeasing haters.