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

[Micah Sweet]

Something like the Adventurer's Guide in Level Up?

The AG sure as heck isn't the Player's Handbook, yeah.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sigh. Again, they are only to replace the old ones if that's what your group WANTS to do. IF your group (obviously not YOUR group) wants to play with a mix, or stick to 2014 but buy new Adventure books, or whatever, WotC is still happy to take your money.

As you say, they want and expect most groups to make the switch, but they ALSO want you to be able to keep buying new books (even OLD 5e books that you don't yet own - this is the most important bit - they don't want you to think that you can't still pick up Out of the Abyss and run it). They want to keep their large back catalogue viable!

Calling it a new edition or even a revision makes it sound like the old books are obsolete. (Which is SORT OF true for the PHB, unless you Frankenstein it, which YOU and I might not do, but ALOT of people do!)

They don't want people to think that they can't combine them, and they don't want people to think that they can't buy old or new books.

With that in mind: What else can they do? Because they HAVE been explicit about the above, they just haven't said what you want to hear. Because they don't agree with what you want to hear.

Give the new book a different name. Distinguish it by title from the 2014 book.

 

[Corinnguard]

The AG sure as heck isn't the Player's Handbook, yeah.

It is a more appropriate name since the players are role-playing characters who are on an adventure.

 

[TwoSix]

The bolded are very important here. It's a bad reason to you because you don't understand it. That doesn't make it a bad reason in general, though. Aesthetics are important to people and only having one class can and is a good reason for those to whom it's not foreign.

Again, finding people who want what you want is the best way to go about playing this, and probably every RPG.

I’d love for someone to explain it. Because it feels to me like something people do because it’s familiar, not because it’s better.

 

[MockingBird]

Give the new book a different name. Distinguish it by title from the 2014 book.

Eventually it'll be the only D&D PHB. I think it if they labeled it differently and stopped producing the 2014 PHB it could possibly be more confusing to new players.

 

[Corinnguard]

Eventually it'll be the only D&D PHB. I think it if they labeled it differently and stopped producing the 2014 PHB it could possibly be more confusing to new players.

Only if they make a Perception and an Investigation check and fail at either one. To be honest, anyone new to D&D is more likely to accept a new name for the PHB than someone who has been playing a previous edition. We're use to it being called the PHB.

 

[MockingBird]

Only if they make a Perception and an Investigation check and fail at either one. To be honest, anyone new to D&D is more likely to accept a new name for the PHB than someone who has been playing a previous edition. We're use to it being called the PHB.

You have a point. It would be prime time to call it whatever they like. Although if it wasn't called PHB that would break "tradition" and probably upset some folks. I'm not saying either is right or wrong just thinking out loud so to speak.

 

[Umbran]

From my perspective, you are bringing negativity to the boards in multiple threads for absolutely no reason.

Mod Note:
And, from my perspective, you are making this discussion about another poster, rather than about adopting the new ruleset.

It is time to stop doing that. If you don't like what he has to say, try using the Ignore function.

 

[Lanefan]

I usually went longsword or two handed sword, short sword or dagger, longbow and either mace or morning star. The "ors" depended on my mood at the time of PC creation.

My 1e Fighters often start with longsword, mace, a bow of some sort, and something weird or unusual (e.g. flail, pick, a polearm, whatever) for flavour. At the first opportunity they'll pick up dagger or some other in-close tight-quarters weapon.

 

[Lanefan]

They compromise, although the default approach should be acceptance, not rejection.

How can there be compromise, though, on what is clearly a binary yes-no decision as to whether something will be included or not?

No one should feel so strongly over a game element that they bail on a game or force someone out of the group over it. It simply doesn’t matter that much.

It does matter that much to some people, like it or not. I know this from long experience.

Simplest way IME and IMO is, when disagreements arise and heels get dug in, for the DM to lay down the rules as she wants them to be and let the players vote with their feet if they feel that strongly about it.