D&D 5E 2024 D&D is 2014 D&D with 4E sprinkled on top

[Pedantic]

But you don't necessarily need it either. If I wanted, I have enough material to run 4e, probably the least supported edition, for the rest of my life. The issue is not the material, but finding people willing to play it.

You're right about players for sure, that's always a problem, but my issue is with design. We have and might get more content, stuff for the existing rules/structure, but we're not going to get any development.

4e, for example, could quite reasonable use a reworking of monster scaling that incorporated later math into the initial setup. It could make a decision about whether the accuracy scaling feats should be included or not, it could build a bank of monster abilities by role to draw from in creating new monsters...there's a lot of design/dev space still there, based on the game's existence to draw from.

Unfortunately, editions in D&D before 5.5 have an established tradition of blowing up the world, and no one is going to go and iterated on an older design (and if they did, they'd alienate the limited set of people still producing content for it). The closest we came to that sort of iteration was Pathfinder 1, and it was under a lot of external pressures for both the timeline it needed to be delivered in, and how different it could afford to be.

It's honestly such a shame these are all editions of D&D, instead of different games that could reasonably produce their own new editions over time. Instead, as soon as we move on to the next version, the previous editions become frozen as lines of development, outside of whatever influence carried over to the current edition.

 

[dave2008]

I had had some ideas for a truly simple caster as well. My main concept was to, more or less, have it built around an upgraded-to-full-spell prestidigitation of yesteryear. That is, a core magic "trick" you can do a certain number of times that can be applied in particular directions. Relatively constrained compared to the bag of tricks a Wizard can have, but still quite diverse compared to a Champion Fighter. (I don't expect a "truly simple caster" to be as simple as the simplest possible martial character, to be clear, but it's gotta be much closer than any current caster.)

The Warlock comparison I think is important but not quite perfect. Warlock's shtick in 5e is the "build your own class", to a degree even more pronounced than Bard. So, more or less, I'd probably interpret the "simple caster" (I called it "Mage") as having Bard-like subclasses--where each subclass sets you up for some pretty specific focus--but with expression more like what a Warlock is like when it's gotten all the invocations for a particular path. So the "Valor Bard"/"Blade Warlock" equivalent would still have that core magical action thing, but would also get a few specific ways to kick butt with weapons too (EA at 6 is traditional, for example). The "Lore Bard"/"Tome Warlock" equivalent would instead get some supportive and ritual-leaning stuff; perhaps Mages don't do rituals, but the Ritualist subclass gets access to a package of ritual-like effects at ritual-like cast times and durations. Etc.

Personally I think clerics should be the core simple caster class. I don't think they should have spells at all. Probably just different ways to "Channel Divinity."

 

[Clint_L]

I think the unspoken element to the discussion is that for a martial character to have parity with magical ones, you not only need to buff martials but nerf casters. Heavily.

Evidence that this is an actual problem that people are facing? Like, how are you even measuring "parity"?

This whole argument seems like it is founded on hypotheticals. Like, hypothetically, a wizard can create unlimited resources to feed an army. They could make a fortune running a luxury retreat via Magnificent Mansion.

But so what? Are these actual issues in games that people are playing?

They aren't. Not for the vast majority of people. Fighters are the most popular class because they are very effective in the games that people are actually playing, and they clearly scratch an itch.

You can make a case for magic being unbalanced in extremely high level games, but even there, I'm not seeing it. Not in my games, not in actual play games. I see high level fights where the BBEG has extremely high saving throws, legendary resistances, and a zillion tricks up their sleeve, and where the ability to deal and tank damage reliably is inevitably one of the deciding factors.

And that is at the top levels, where you actually see Wish and Mass Heal.

The overwhelming majority of games are played below level 10. Where melee classes are currently OP, especially below level 5.

 

[dave2008]

You're right about players for sure, that's always a problem, but my issue is with design. We have and might get more content, stuff for the existing rules/structure, but we're not going to get any development.

4e, for example, could quite reasonable use a reworking of monster scaling that incorporated later math into the initial setup. It could make a decision about whether the accuracy scaling feats should be included or not, it could build a bank of monster abilities by role to draw from in creating new monsters...there's a lot of design/dev space still there, based on the game's existence to draw from.

For me the essence of D&D is a DIY attitude. So, IMO, if you want that development - do it yourself! I am not saying it works for everyone nor is that is the nature of D&D for everyone. However, it is essential to what D&D is IMO. For me, using D&D RAW is borderline unethical! It is a game that is intended to be personally developed by the people playing it, not a company.

 

[Queer Venger]

When 5E came out in 2014, some people bemoaned that the best parts of 4E hadn't been brought forward.

Well, it's now ten years later. And guess what? Bloodied is back. Martials have weapon masteries that give them at-will powers. Many monsters impose conditions on a hit.

My hot take is that the biggest changes to 5E in the 2024 version are mostly borrowed from 4E.

What do you think?

ha. ha, Ive been sprinkling 4e into our 5e game for almost a decade (skill challenges, bloodied condition) so nothing new. Hell, Im still using many 3e books

 

[TwoSix]

For me the essence of D&D is a DIY attitude. So, IMO, if you want that development - do it yourself! I am not saying it works for everyone nor is that is the nature of D&D for everyone. However, it is essential to what D&D is IMO. For me, using D&D RAW is borderline unethical! It is a game that is intended to be personally developed by the people playing it, not a company.

I think there are two different issues contrasting here. I, certainly, do plenty of my own DIY stuff for my own tables and enjoy it.

But, there's also a different kind of enjoyment that comes from being a part of an active community and seeing what kind of creative energy is unleashed, and just being part of the discussions. That's why so many people participate in 5e threads who aren't even fans of 5e or aren't currently playing it.

And ultimately, that community energy is often more important than actually playing something closer to your preferences.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think it was 2e's creative campaigns (I might be wrong) that gave the D&D multiverse magic ratings. They determined how magical a world is. I think it went 0-10, with your typical D&D setting at the time being a 6-7. Earth was a 0. And if a D&D character ended up on Earth, everything you said would happen, effectively. Magic would stop functioning, magical creatures would die/disappear, magical items rendered inert, etc.

However, such things would happen only if people moved from world to world. A beholder's anti-magic cone wouldn't cause a dragon to fall out of the sky, but a dragon that ended up in Portland would.

High Level Campaign book maybe Spells and Magic had that.

 

[Remathilis]

High Level Campaign book maybe Spells and Magic had that.

That sounds like it might be possible too. Not Spells and Magic, but HLC might have been it...

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem with this answer, naturally, is that the people who want everyone to forget 4e ever existed are the ones who won the Edition War, the ones who demanded an apology and got one, and (at least in my not-so-humble opinion) led the creation of 5e. (Yes, I'm saying it: I think Mike Mearls is or at least was an edition warrior, and that he and I were not on the same side.)

Hence why I make the joke "The Edition That Must Not Be Named." Those "purely 'martial' classes that managed to be mundane, powerful and effective through [the whole level range]" were what the edition warriors smeared as "all classes are casters now", as "Fighters shooting lightning bolts from their arses", as "shouting limbs back on" (an edition war claim that Mike Mearls himself """"jokingly"""" repeated...but still meant it as the reason why the Warlord didn't deserve to exist as a class), and more.

And then we got 5e. Which made nearly every class a literal actual spellcaster, something people do actually complain about every now and then...and yet they do not do so anywhere near as much as the edition that never actually did that.

Yes, I'm more than a little bitter at the double standard that forgives 5e for actually doing the things 4e was merely accused of but didn't actually do.

4E fighter wasn't that powerful and still couldn't alter reality in any significant way.

They nerfed the other classes and the monsters. It's basically a 10th level fighter in any other edition at level 29.

Comparatively it's one of the weaker D&D fighters. 2E would be top of the heap. I saw one of them solo a lich, dragon and marilith in 3 rounds each one lasted 1 round.

4E fighter basically sucked and was pigeon holed into being a defender. It was a better defender than a fighter.

1E fighter (with UA).and 5.5 or B/X probably next best.

 

[Zardnaar]

Since I'm currently playing Civilization 7, I'm noticing some similarities between those games and how D&D is released. Each version of Civ has its adherents, because they're all very distinct despite their outward similarities (much like D&D). Plenty of people loved 5, but didn't like 6. Plenty of people like 6, but aren't fans of 7. And even earlier editions like 4 still have adherents.

Which, I mean, is kind of what we have now. Each edition of D&D has its adherents, and all of them are still available to play. The only people who really need to battle for the "soul of D&D" are those who never got a version of the game that really spoke to their needs. And 4e is the one version that's still locked down and can't really be built upon, which also needs to change.

First 3 or 4 civs were evolutions from each other. CivV onwards are basically reimaginings.

Civ4 generally considered the best 1. I like 3 and SMAC myself.