D&D (2024) Out with the old, in with the new?

[UngeheuerLich]

And yet we have 3.5 explicitly called out as such. It's a useful distinction, with precedent, and I see no reason (as I am not an agent of a massive maximum-profit-seeking corporation) not to use it.

We'll see how it shakes out.

Yes. That was a marketing ploy as I read it here on this forum.
You can't half edit something. Either you edit or you don't (except for some errata).
Let .5 rest where it was: 20 years ago.
I have players that were not born when 3.5 happened. Why should you put that ancient nomenclature on books? It does not carry any weight for them.

Not everyone is as old as we.

 

[Distracted DM]

Yes. That was a marketing ploy as I read it here on this forum.
You can't half edit something. Either you edit or you don't (except for some errata).
Let .5 rest where it was: 20 years ago.
I have players that were not born when 3.5 happened. Why should you put that ancient nomenclature on books? It does not carry any weight for them.

Not everyone is as old as we.

I guess that's an interesting viewpoint- the ".5" is tradition, and not all tradition holds use.

Would it be fair to call it "revised?"
I guess part of the issue is that originally called the whole thing "OneD&D," the "final evolutionary state of D&D." Something in that vein. It was a placeholder name, but it was a placeholder name for... something. But we have yet to be given that something. Now we have to come up with our own way of differentiating the original 5e core books from the new ones, because AFAIK WotC hasn't.

 

[Lanefan]

I find this fascinating. Have you done tht with any previous books? Seen them published but only allowed the use of them bit by bit? I don't think I've ever heard of anyone doing that.

It's been almost 40 years and I'm still doing just this with 1e's Unearthed Arcana.

 

[ART!]

I picked "soft reset" because my group loves them some D&D Beyond, and I imagine DDB will be pushing the new stuff, so we'll probably segue in whatever way DDB demands.

I'm not crazy about this, but whatevs.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I picked the one with flowers because, well, I like flowers

(And also, I have all these ding dang books already, why not continue to use them)

 

[Kurotowa]

It occurs to me that another way to look at this question is to say, "Exactly which book are we talking about?"

So for a start, everything in the 2014 PHB/DMG/MM is replaced by the 2024 PHB/DMG/MM. Sometimes with something different, sometimes with exactly the same thing, but you always use the new book. Then when we look at player options in supplements, not only are they easier to judge piecemeal, but the ease of import generally scales with reverse chronological order.

What I mean is, the player races in MotM were made with the Revised PHB changes in mind, so those should be usable with zero issue. The subclasses in Tasha's Cauldron might need a few tweaks, and in the cases where they were updated for the Revised PHB you use that version instead. The subclasses and feats in Xanathar's Guide are the oldest, and thus the most likely to have issues with the design and balance principles of the Revised PHB.

So for my part at least, I'm very much going to be looking at pre-2024 material with this metric as my guide. I'd be happy to use a race from MotM or subclass from Tasha's Cauldron, but I'd hesitate to use a subclass from Xanathar's Guide and anything that got replaced from the 2014 PHB is right out.

 

[Kobold Stew]

So for my part at least, I'm very much going to be looking at pre-2024 material with this metric as my guide. I'd be happy to use a race from MotM or subclass from Tasha's Cauldron, but I'd hesitate to use a subclass from Xanathar's Guide and anything that got replaced from the 2014 PHB is right out.

This is pretty much where I'm at as well - in the second post in the thread, I picked out stuff that I'd like to keep from Tasha (a small selection), Xanathar (despite fondness, probably nothing), and MotM (all of it, until a new races book comes out).

 

[Distracted DM]

I picked "soft reset" because my group loves them some D&D Beyond, and I imagine DDB will be pushing the new stuff, so we'll probably segue in whatever way DDB demands.

I'm not crazy about this, but whatevs.

A few of my players switched from DDB to paper sheets when there was a big hiccup with the service last year- if your annual sub expired, you couldn't renew it.. and it locked out all my players from my campaigns. Took a month til DDB fixed it. GREAT way to get my players to move to paper, and they (happily) learned how character creation and the system actually works.

I don't REQUIRE players to abandon DDB but for my in-person games, I do encourage making your character on paper. I'm actually thinking of doing it online too via video :'D

tldr: your mileage may vary, but if your players have to detach from DDB they might actually be grateful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because the title of the current books don't include an edition number. This is a really weird hill, with an obvious answer, that you've chosen to die on.

"Revised Player's Handbook" would work. No edition number needed, but not the same title.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. That was a marketing ploy as I read it here on this forum.
You can't half edit something. Either you edit or you don't (except for some errata).
Let .5 rest where it was: 20 years ago.
I have players that were not born when 3.5 happened. Why should you put that ancient nomenclature on books? It does not carry any weight for them.

Not everyone is as old as we.

As I said, "Revised Player's Handbook" works just fine.