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

[Shardstone]

I'm not really understanding why you seem to think WotC is trying to hide that the new books will be replacements for the current core books. They've been pretty open about this. They have also been pretty open that the new books will not make your older 5e adventures incompatible. The new books replacing the 2014 core books should not be a surprise to anyone that has been following the playtest or who have halfway been paying attention.

I think a lot of people don't understand that making it backwards compatible was both mainly for adventures and only as a courtesy to people who prefer 2014 content or who have the 2014 books.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think a lot of people don't understand that making it backwards compatible was both mainly for adventures and only as a courtesy to people who prefer 2014 content or who have the 2014 books.

Well to be honest they didn't exactly make that clear in their statements.

 

[Parmandur]

I think a lot of people don't understand that making it backwards compatible was both mainly for adventures and only as a courtesy to people who prefer 2014 content or who have the 2014 books.

But both of those are vital for the primary design goal: keeping people.playimg D&D. People who play, in whatever form, are more likely to let themselves be monetized by the lifestyle brand, which is what WotC is really aiming at. They have no incentive to disrupt players, the only reason for WotC to adopt a change is overwhelming popularity of the change.

 

[Shardstone]

Well to be honest they didn't exactly make that clear in their statements.

Imo they did. They focused on adventures early on, and they've also said that you can use the classes together, but obviously if you're revamping the classes the intent is people default to the new ones but can opt into the old ones.

It just isn't that deep, no one is hiding anything, and you being confused is ok because they weren't ultra clear, but its really just weird that you keep harping on it man. Like, we know what they mean by backwards compatiable now, and no one releases an updated version of something with the intent that you'll default to the old version -- it is always a courtesy at best if the old version can still operate with the new version. That's the reality of development.

 

[Shardstone]

But both of those are vital for the primary design goal: keeping people.playimg D&D. People who play, in whatever form, are more likely to let themselves be monetized by the lifestyle brand, which is what WotC is really aiming at. They have no incentive to disrupt players, the only reason for WotC to adopt a change is overwhelming popularity of the change.

Yeah I know, that's why they are offering the courtesy in the first place.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah I know, that's why they are offering the courtesy in the first place.

Yeah, and you are right, they haven't been hiding anything or been confusing in their messaging. There was a brief window in August 2022 (!) where it wasn't yet clear how much they meant that, but the proof has been in the pudding through the UA playtests.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes. WotC WANTED to get off the Edition Bandwagon last time, but much like a lot of their good ideas, it was met with too much resistance. They eventually capitulated and put those captions on the books. And, eventually, called it "fifth" in interviews and such.

Clearly they were hoping that proving their intent to keep the game moving incrementally forward without an overhaul would allow them to get away with it THIS time, and clearly results are mixed.

They've HAD to talk about 2024 in terms of "Fifth Edition" precisely because they have already had so much "confusion" and "outrage" over trying g to get away with just calling it "D&D" for the second time.

That bold bit conflicted with the "evergreen" frozen rulset. The only real "incremental" changes we have seen in the last decade of 5e have been in the form of new player options new monsters for players to fight & new magic items for players to want/use. There has been nothing "incrementally" adjusted in the ruleset targeting the other side of the GM screen.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Imo they did. They focused on adventures early on, and they've also said that you can use the classes together, but obviously if you're revamping the classes the intent is people default to the new ones but can opt into the old ones.

It just isn't that deep, no one is hiding anything, and you being confused is ok because they weren't ultra clear, but its really just weird that you keep harping on it man. Like, we know what they mean by backwards compatiable now, and no one releases an updated version of something with the intent that you'll default to the old version -- it is always a courtesy at best if the old version can still operate with the new version. That's the reality of development.

I suppose at the end of the day, I'd really prefer that they called new core books for the same game with significantly different information by new names. The lack of distinct labeling bothers the heck of me. I cannot seem to get over it.

Additionally, when I run against strong resistance to caring about any of this from most of the community, it makes me more inclined to complain about it, not less, since I feel like I'm being dismissed.

 

[Hriston]

Yes. WotC WANTED to get off the Edition Bandwagon last time, but much like a lot of their good ideas, it was met with too much resistance. They eventually capitulated and put those captions on the books. And, eventually, called it "fifth" in interviews and such.

Clearly they were hoping that proving their intent to keep the game moving incrementally forward without an overhaul would allow them to get away with it THIS time, and clearly results are mixed.

They've HAD to talk about 2024 in terms of "Fifth Edition" precisely because they have already had so much "confusion" and "outrage" over trying g to get away with just calling it "D&D" for the second time.

I'm not familiar with the history you're describing, but I am aware of the "evergreen" rhetoric surrounding the original release of the edition. I was just clearing up an inaccuracy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You as player were able to stop the commoners from attacking the party because your feature states positively "commoners will extend you every courtesy and do their utmost to help you." If your feature were replaced by a first-level feat, I wonder how that interaction might have played out in a way that honors your choice of background as a Haunted One in the setting. Maybe you could have gained advantage on a Charisma check or a bonus to initiative.

Or it would just have played it exactly the same and the DM would have ruled in the same manner. But in this case it just worked by the rules, which was nice. Although the DM could have said: too late, a combat is already going on.