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

[Maxperson]

My experience of the ad hoc chaos of 3.x suggests the opposite: more tables will be mixed than not.

I never got a single DM let me keep the 1 hour per level Bull's Strength duration from 3e. I had to use 3.5's 1 minute per level. And if a prestige class had a 3.5e update, we also had to use that. And so on. I played 3.5e with many DMs and players and kept playing it right up until 2019 and that held true the entire time.

 

[Maxperson]

Not much. Oh, it was derided as a too-soon cash grab by WotC, and there was definite criticism of WotC for "they fixed things that weren't broken", but approximately nobody sticking with 3rd called other members of the community who were switching to 3.5 traitors. But then, approximately none of the fans of the 3.5 changes attacked those that preferred 3rd for not switching, either.

The toxicity over 3.x vs. 4th edition was a two-way street, with anyone who simply expressed a preference for either game getting attacked by the more radical fans of the other, and often becoming radicalized in turn. If the 3.x fans were visibly more bitter about what was happening, it was for the same reason the 4th edition fans were visibly more triumphant; 4th edition was the version the owners of the D&D brand were printing.

I don't think you'll see that level of warring over 2014 versus 2024, because (at least in the PHB) there's nothing big enough to inspire it. D&D 2024 isn't different enough to cause fans of D&D 2014 to say "It's not D&D anymore", nor to cause fans of 2024 to respond by saying things like "Sacred cows make the best hamburgers."

(I reserve that "at least in the PHB" because we've only seen its playtests. It might be possible that the new Monster Manual will be different enough to provoke some actual edition-warring.)

Yeah. I remember the 3e/4e wars from the WotC website.

I think we will see more people arguing and upset over this change than the 3e to 3.5e change simply because there are tons more people online and playing the game, but I also very much doubt that it will be anything like the 3e/4e rumbles.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I don't mind a once per round limitation. It's making it a bonus action that I dislike.

I like that they are a suite of spells that are always prepared, and that it is fine that the spells require a bonus action (as opposed to a reaction or something). They just need to make sure they are worth the bonus action. I'm fine with having to choose between a bonus action combat buff and a bonus action heal or other buff. It's a valuable choice. If it is a non-action, there really isn't a choice to be made. Especially if in the final product they ultimately decide to give you 1 or more castings for free.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Plenty of people disagree with that, and say the Paladin and GWM have been broken from the start. And it's only gotten worse as Xanathar and Tashas have added more multiclass combos.

Paladins in my campaigns have always been dipped into by caster classes so they get way more smite slots. Because they are non-actions, they can use all these slots to deal smite damage on every attack and opportunity attack, and they can still use bonus action spells or abilities if they want. It's too much.

 

[el-remmen]

I never got a single DM let me keep the 1 hour per level Bull's Strength duration from 3e.

At my table we compromised and made all the 3.xE ability score enhancing spells last 10 minutes per level.

 

[Corinnguard]

You're probably right, but I'm going to continue to argue when posts present it as a binary "use/not use" option.

It ought to be seen more like a spectrum. You can't always reduce something down to two options just for simplicity's sake.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't see how getting the same amount of experience for 1 combat encounter, 3 social encounters and 3 explorations encounters as 7 combat encounters isn't relevant.

Like I quoted in 364...

Spoiler: I'll quote it again

So right there we have a rough outline of an "adventuring day." 6-8 medium or hard encounters, with two short rests, per long rest. And there are a lot of arguments about what this actually means.
"It says the party can handle it, not that they have to."
"Not every day is an adventuring day."
"It's not combat encounters."
And all of these are probably true to some extent, but if you read that section in context of how they're also talking about XP (which RAW is only granted by combat), and increasing encounter difficulty with things like "The whole party is surprised, and the enemy isn’t." or "The characters are taking damage every round from some environmental effect or magical source, and the enemy isn’t." these are clearly intended to be combat encounters. I mean maybe in your games you have "surprise" for Social Encounters, but I've certainly never seen it.
I don't think we should be trying to do mental gymnastics to justify what "6-8 encounters with 2 short rests" means. I think it's much easier to just admit WotC designed a game how most people don't want to play it. This also explains why there's so much class disparity

Your efforts are only demonstrating how terrible the 2014 dmg is at providing useless and downright misleading info.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

well, I am not interested in having different variants of the same spell at my table, so whoever has the 2014 or 2024 book is not in sync with the game being played, depending on which version I decide to use.

I assume I am not the only one either. So one version naturally falls by the wayside unless you make a concerted effort to keep it in

It's not just one version that universally falls by the wayside. DMs can stick with 2014 only and not pick up the 2024 books, or choose to drop the 2014 books and allow only the 2024 books, or allow them both. They are both valid sourcebooks. They both have character creation, and can be used or dropped like any other table preference. Just like DMs can use the Legacy* spellcaster monsters if they prefer those over the revised MoM versions. They are both still in the game.

Just adding another thought that is not a direct response to you, but many people WANT this revised version and are glad we're getting it, and it does not take away from those who already think that 2014 books are perfectly fine. It makes no sense to be upset about the 2024 books. If a person is not the target audience, they can play the stuff they have, and all the campaigns from Wizards and 3rd party designers will still be usable for everyone. If someone wants something quite different than 5E, they can get it from another company. Those options exist. Wizards does not have to be the source of those options.

 

[MoonSong]

We have no idea what portion of current 5e players is "not planning on going forward" with D&D 2024, since the poll never asked if they were playing D&D right now. Given a lot of comments in the thread, it sure seems like a disproportionately large number of the people saying they don't plan on buying D&D 2024 are also saying they stopped buying D&D books a while ago.

Still not the overwhelming "resistance is futile, everybody will switch sooner or later". Still room for a reasonable community to form. Unless all of the "no" are completely lapsed players (but I would ask why are people posting to a 5 community if they aren't playing it or interested in it?)

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I don't care what level you are, 50 damage per rocket seems reasonable to me!!

But seriously, I get what you are arguing for, but just like we SHOULD have world peace, DMs should allow 5e and 5.5e to intermix freely isn't something I see happening at most tables.

I will say that as a DM, if I really don't like the old druid's ablative hit points from Wildshape, or the multi-smite of multi-class paladins, I may choose to ban them from my tables if there is an option that I feel is better balanced for my table.

Yeah, some design is busted in some folks' opinion. A DM can ban/house-rule anything that doesn't work for their table. Is it bad that the alternatives are professionally designed by the original designers of the game? I say no.