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

[Queer Venger]

Why would you have to stop unless you buy the new books? What does one have to do with the other?

nothing, we will keep playing!

 

[teitan]

Needs a maybe option. I plan to buy the core rules but we play DCC so it may or may not be adopted. We also have Dragonbane and Dungeon Dwellers come to us.

 

[Shardstone]

Do the best fantasy RPG games need to start with a "D" ?

 

[mamba]

One could also claim the other not 5Es are just knock offs so I wouldn't get to pedantic on calling them 5E when they're not.

that is exactly the point, does 5e stand for the 2014 D&D core books or does it include ‘close relatives’ like A5E, ToV, or C7D20 (whenever we actually get to see that one…)

They're based on 5E but they cant use the lore for starters.

so what, rulebooks do not need lore, so PHB and DMG are basically unaffected. The MM cannot use some monsters, but can use very similar ones under different names, overall that is not much of an issue for rulebooks

I might go with Tales of the Valiant but would vote no in this poll if I didn't buy 5.5 because of it.

rightfully so, as that is not the 2024 D&D the question is asking about

 

[Mistwell]

Referring to WotC's version of the game simply as "5e" is a pain point for me, whether I know what you mean or not. It's dismissive of all the great work on that game people who aren't WotC have done, and elevates them beyond what I believe they deserve.

Don't pretend you're confused and don't understand what people mean when you do fully understand what they mean because you're upset at an RPG company and feel like taking those feelings out on your peers.

 

[Yaarel]

Absolutely. I use milestone leveling right now, it is entirely possible to level without combat.

But for refreshing resources, combat encounters generally take up a lot more resources then other challenges, so counting non-combat scenes towards a refresh doesn't work.

Nobody I know who uses the 2014 Core actually ever has EIGHT encounters per long rest. Most players are accustomed to massive resources for Long Rest casters without anything resembling appropriate resource depletion.

When instead counting encounters, even if one did five social encounters and about three combat encounters before taking a Long Rest, that would moreorless be the same as for most players today.

However, the combat encounters must be tough and do deplete resources. They dont count if they are trivialized by heavy magic.

Moreover, combat counters intentionally include trivial encounters that are easy, and powerful encounters that players should run away from. One cant always assume how powerful the monster is. Picking a fight with these powerful monsters can drop caster resources quickly, without victory. A next combat encounter leaves the casters depleted and vulnerable. Fighters can and do shine.

 

[Echohawk]

On the issue of the updates being characterized as merely "errata", my Mac's dictionary says that errata is "a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal".

Based on that, it would be fair to say that the 2024/2025 updates are just errata if all of the updates can reasonably be reduced to just a list of corrections. From what we've been told so far, that's definitely not the case for the DMG or the MM, since those both have significant new content.

The PHB sounds like it has less restructuring and more updates. So I can maybe understand the new PHB being referred to as errata, even though that seems like it is stretching the meaning of "errata" quite a bit, since that list of changes would be a hefty document itself. Referring to all three new core books as errata definitely doesn't make sense.

And just to make sure that this post isn't entirely off topic, I will be buying the new books as soon as they are available. The speed at which our current Spelljammer campaign switches over will depend on how easy D&D Beyond makes it to convert 2014 characters to 2024 characters.​

 

[MoonSong]

While I could eventually be swayed, I'm not buying, nor adopting the new books. I'm not convinced I would keep playing/running 5e though. Without it being the current edition, I'm not that inclined to keep playing it, at least not as written. Would have to heavily houserule it, but I'm not sure I want to beat it into submission. If I'm investing time onto revising a ruleset anyway, I might as well go for one closer to my preferences, or even run it as written (like 2e or 3.5)

The new rules need something to really grab me and justify moving on. So far, all they have delivered is a more sanitized version with less stuff on it. (Granted, the new weapon masteries look interesting, but I fail to see them being that "must have" that would justify)

And well, if the DMG ends up having Greyhawk content, I might pick it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m leaning toward no. Most of the playtest stuff just hasn’t grabbed me either.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Can you objectively say most people believe that? Or is that your opinion too?

I have asked 3 persons. 2 of them thought so.

Actually I just asked one person. And he agrees.