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

[Mistwell]

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?)

Absolutely there are people who will continue with the 2014 edition. I just have no real sense for what portion that is, and didn't find the poll all that helpful in answering that particular question. Frankly it's hard to tell anything about the wider community from a message board.

 

[Maxperson]

Like I quoted in 364...

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.

Actually, RAW is that you get experience for combat and noncombat challenges. The experience point section says experience is most often gained from combat, which means you get it for noncombat as well. And then the noncombat challenges section says the DM decides when XP is granted.

Now, I will agree with you that it is mostly useless, because it only tells the DMs to rate it like an equivalent monster, but gives absolutely no guidance on how to do that. It's not entirely useless, because it does let DMs know that the rules allow XP outside of combat encounters and in significant amounts(same as combat).

The solution is better guidance in the DMG, not trying to ignore a relevant portion of the game and say that only combat XP matters.

 

[tetrasodium]

Actually, RAW is that you get experience for combat and noncombat challenges. The experience point section says experience is most often gained from combat, which means you get it for noncombat as well. And then the noncombat challenges section says the DM decides when XP is granted.

Now, I will agree with you that it is mostly useless, because it only tells the DMs to rate it like an equivalent monster, but gives absolutely no guidance on how to do that. It's not entirely useless, because it does let DMs know that the rules allow XP outside of combat encounters and in significant amounts(same as combat).

The solution is better guidance in the DMG, not trying to ignore a relevant portion of the game and say that only combat XP matters.

It gives no guidance on that because they rarely ever lead to meaningful resource attrition and can't be quantified as a result. You are just pointing out wishy washy rulings not rules text that serves the exclusive purpose of arming players with a club to support squeezing extra experience from the GM. It was never an issue in past editions when the GM gave out experience for noncombat stuff that felt particularly worthy but 2014 5e takes extra pains to spell it out in a way that has actual negative consequences as this back & forth demonstrates. With any luck 2024 5e will avoid aiming such caltrops at the GM's path.

 

[mamba]

But why not? That's exactly the attitude I'm trying and failing to see validity for. Spells are generally player facing. They're only going to have one version at a time. It's the player's job to implement and explain the spell when casting.

because the spell was revised for a reason, why would I want to keep something inferior around when I do not have to (let’s just assume the 2024 version is the better one for argument’s sake, I would always use whichever version I prefer, or homebrew one)

 

[Maxperson]

It gives no guidance on that because they rarely ever lead to meaningful resource attrition and can't be quantified as a result. You are just pointing out wishy washy rulings not rules text that serves the exclusive purpose of arming players with a club to support squeezing extra experience from the GM. It was never an issue in past editions when the GM gave out experience for noncombat stuff that felt particularly worthy but 2014 5e takes extra pains to spell it out in a way that has actual negative consequences as this back & forth demonstrates. With any luck 2024 5e will avoid aiming such caltrops at the GM's path.

It would be a mistake to go back to killing monsters being the only way to gain XP by RAW. They need to provide better guidance with the noncombat methods.

 

[mamba]

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

yes, I was not saying everyone moves to 2024, I said I only want one version of the spell, not two, and I assume many others will too. Which version that ends up bring depends on the table, I am just not expecting a lot of mixed tables. There might be some initially, but I think that sorts itself out within a year or two

 

[mamba]

It would be a mistake to go back to killing monsters being the only way to gain XP by RAW. They need to provide better guidance with the noncombat methods.

while I agree with this, non-combat encounters rarely cause attrition, so they also need to address that in their 6-8 encounters rule.

Either these are meant to be all combat, or 5-7 combat, or something like that, they cannot all be non-combat and lead to meaningful attrition

 

[Rystefn]

It would be a mistake to go back to killing monsters being the only way to gain XP by RAW. They need to provide better guidance with the noncombat methods.

What edition do you think had killing monsters are the only RAW way to gain xp? I'm pretty sure that's like "orcs are always evil" in that it's literally never been a thing.

On topic, though, no I'm not planning to use the new rules. Given how WotC has been acting, I'm strongly disinclined to give them any of my money. Unless and until something pretty significant happens over there, I strongly suspect that I'll be bowing out here. Maybe if they were doing something really exciting with the rules, I'd consider it, but everything I've seen so far has been basically "slightly different 5e." Which, to their credit, they aren't advertising it as something new and different, so at least there's that.

 

[James Gasik]

What edition do you think had killing monsters are the only RAW way to gain xp? I'm pretty sure that's like "orcs are always evil" in that it's literally never been a thing.

On topic, though, no I'm not planning to use the new rules. Given how WotC has been acting, I'm strongly disinclined to give them any of my money. Unless and until something pretty significant happens over there, I strongly suspect that I'll be bowing out here. Maybe if they were doing something really exciting with the rules, I'd consider it, but everything I've seen so far has been basically "slightly different 5e." Which, to their credit, they aren't advertising it as something new and different, so at least there's that.

2e. Noncombat xp awards were optional in the DMG.

EDIT: well, kind of. Individual xp rewards were. There are Group Awards, but it's a commonly missed section of the DMG, and it's still vague about how much xp should be given for completing an adventure.

 

[Hriston]

I voted "Nope" because, from what I've seen of the playtest, the 2024 books back-pedal away from the best innovations of 5E: background features and traits, bonds, and flaws. I would have liked to see the game more fully embrace these elements rather than discard them. So I'm sticking with the current rulebooks.

edited for spelling