Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
One of my points. By now, that's a lot of noobs.
D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?
Zardnaar
Legend
I find tgeybe been a bit meh around claiming backwards compatibility. It's not except at a superficial level eg skills.
There's going to be big power differences between 2014 and 24 material. That's before we have seen the monsters.
Its not a 5.5 but more than a 5.25 imho.
Last edited:
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Regardless, its not really WotC 5e as it has been, and pretending that it is and the differences are just neutral choices is, on some level, disingenuous.
Zardnaar
Legend
Yup. They seemed to have toned this down/gone silent.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
I really don't think they're pretending it is "5e as it has been" - their goal (and they've been pretty clear about this, IMO) is that it is "5e, but with some quality of life improvements".
Whether we (generally) agree that they've succeeded or not is going to take time (and I'm sure that we'll argue about it for years to come!) But they've certainly NOT claimed that it's exactly the same as 5e 2014. That would make no sense.
OTOH, I've played playtest characters at otherwise entirely 2014 tables (with the DM's permission) and NO ONE NOTICED. I'm serious. The playtest characters are far less disruptive at the table than any of the existing CharOp builds. They play a little "better", sure, but hardly noticeably so.
In my experience, they're better for the player, but NOT worse for the DM - which is about right. Similar, in fact, to playing a Level-Up character, but without the extra little expertise dice and other rules subsets.
It's exactly what they've been saying all along - it's 5e "adjusted for 2024". Which is fine. I'll say again, as a retailer, it's exactly what I'd want out of a new group of core books. As a player, I'd rather they overhauled the game a little more, but I recognise that it's not about just ME. This is what is good for the health of the game, as best as we can get.
Last edited:
Echohawk
Shirokinukatsukami fan
I find your "D&D-adjacent" term here to be a much more intuitive way of describing Pathfinder and Level Up than lumping them together with WotC's stuff to all just be called "D&D" as you previously suggested.
As far as I know, Pathfinder and Level Up products don't describe themselves as D&D products; instead they indicate compatibility with 5th Edition. Given that, referring to those products as D&D seems like a confusing strategy, while referring to them as D&D-adjacent seems spot on and unlikely to confuse anyone.
As far as I know, Pathfinder and Level Up products don't describe themselves as D&D products; instead they indicate compatibility with 5th Edition. Given that, referring to those products as D&D seems like a confusing strategy, while referring to them as D&D-adjacent seems spot on and unlikely to confuse anyone.
I think the "it's still 5e" had to come from wizards marketing. It will be compatible in that you will be able to steal pieces you like from 5.5ed. I think in the end if you run 2 different fighters, one using 5e and one using 5.5, one of those players is going to be falling behind
Corinnguard
Hero
While I can't recall what I equipped my 2e Fighter, I do remember developing an obsession on wanting to equip my 3e Fighter with a Two-Bladed Sword (or Swordstaff as it was called in the Arcana Unearthed RPG) thanks to a certain character in Star Wars episode one.
It's pretty clear that the edition mixing as chosen by players thing being discussed is so far beyond made by tinkerer gnome standards when its defense needs to tip toe around it by using more reasonable looking abstract descriptions like "great in combat" or that bolded bit of the quote.
That's still not quite what we've been discussing though and it's still dancing around it. I'll quote the meat & potatoes of 506 to brush away the flowery wording and efforts to villainize the dm not allowing literally anything as some sort of "authoritarian table" though "Metaphors aside, it's entirely on the DM to present a rationale why they're excluding either book". Calling a refusal to allow edition mixing without a vote between 3-5 wolves and a sheep an "authoritarian table" is quite an example of the sort of toxic entitlement I described in 514.
Yeah, but that's only because you just want WotC to "be honest with you" and you've said many, many times and keeping saying it. You have this fascination with WotC "coming clean" and telling you exactly what you believe is going on... and if they don't, then it's just "marketing spin" or whatever other phrases you've been throwing around for the entire time One D&D has been a thing.
You KNOW what WotC is doing because you are a smart individual and can read between the lines. But you have this need to be "proven right" by having WotC saying it to you directly. You want that pat on the back. Which is... I dunno... fine, I guess... you do you... but you know you aren't going to get it because WotC has better things to do than to pat random internet people on the back with a "Yes, yes, you guessed our motives right, good for you."
So sure... it's what you want. And sure, you're going to keep saying you want it in the various 5E24 threads. That's cool. The rest of us will have to accept that. Just like you'll have to accept that you're going to constantly get people responding back questioning why you think it's such a big deal.
Similar Threads
- Poll
