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

[Reynard]

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

That would be a weird way to spell "Earthdawn."

 

[Shardstone]

That would be a weird way to spell "Earthdawn."

Dawnearth. Uh...Deartheawn

 

[tetrasodium]

It's too early to say. Too much of the onednd UAs felt like they were exclusively dedicated to the player who feels like the point of d&dis to "win" by beating the meat computer behind the gm screen. The Perkins PowerPoint dmg q&a was promising, but I've not yet seen a meaning focus on any mindset other than the one in that video where Perkins had to keep pushing back against in order to shield or empower the hypothetical GM with options.

I don't know what I'll move to, but wotc's many years past assumed good rules aimed at players AND GMs. Out of the next generation of ttrpgs, wotc is the only one not showing those because what they did show was all the most player exclusive and player facing of player facing stuff. Even gm focused "pain points" feel like a mix of doubling down on the problem and "trust me".

 

[Oofta]

I dunno. Darthdawn has a ring to it.

 

[TwoSix]

For me, resource attrition is a large part of play; and IMO the best way to achieve this is to make the resources somewhat harder to recover than 5e has them.

A single overnight rest, for example, should only get you back a small-ish portion of your hit points, not all of them. It should get you back all your spells but they should be limited in number (i.e. no at-wills), forcing you to either ration them or - with whatever consequences it might entail - spend 23+ hours out of every 24 resting.

I mean, absolutely, what I'm proposing is about making recovery much more expensive than it is in a normal D&D game. The number one thing that needs to be tossed, what really is the core problem with D&D-style attrition, is the idea that sleeping it off restores all your magic.

At its core, magic should be about the transformation of acquirable resources into desired effects. Making healing potions requires reagents. A wand of fireballs costs reagents. Deific power requires sacrifices and tithes.

The amount of innate magic that caster character has, that bubbles up in them from some internal mana generator, and that regenerates like health, should be relatively small. No character should be recharging multiple 5th level spell slots in effect every single day. The point of a caster character should be to take the earned resources from adventuring them and converting them into the effects the party needs.

That said, sure there'll be times when they miss some treasure. But not-so-gently encouraging them into a disciplined para-military playstyle* isn't the answer - not for me, anyway; it's probably my least-favourite way to play the game.

* - this seems to be where you're going here; if I'm wrong on this, apologies - I've misread you again.

It doesn't have to be disciplined. Believe me, disciplined play at my table does not work.

It's simply this. A mage doesn't have 1 fireball a day. Instead, the mage used several hundred gp of their last haul to make a wand with 5 charges of fireball. If they choose to trivialize the first five encounters they face with 5 fireballs, that's great, but they probably haven't earned enough money back to rebuild that wand. Now they're going to walk into the rest of the dungeon without the backup of a fireball. Resting 24 hours won't change that. If they want fireball, they have to earn enough money to pay for it.

And if you don't want to pay money for your special powers, be a fighter! Of course, see how long you last without fireballs, or haste spells or stoneskins or, you know, anyone to cure you.

This is my core argument. Everything that people complain about in terms of encounters per day, 5 minute work days, class balance between casters and noncasters, between short rest and long rest characters in 5e, etc., all derives from the fact that recharging abilities is cost-free. When the core gameplay becomes "spend resources to adventure to acquire more resources", the entire game engine suddenly locks into place, AND the verisimilitude of the world increases, as a bonus.

 

[Stormonu]

Y'know it is funny. No plans to adopt the 2024 version, but I think the homebrew stuff I'm writing up is probably waaaay more extensive.

But, it does consists of the changes * I * want to make, not necessarily what the community/WotC wants to make. And it's digital, so no space taken up on the shelves.

 

[Umbran]

I don't have a plan one way or another.

I'm currently running Wild Beyond the Witchlight, using 5e rules. I am not going to change rules on that mid-flight. That group usually like to change genres when we stand up a new campaign, so I don't expect to run D&D as their next game. If/when they go back to D&D, I'll figure out which to run.

I am playing in an online campaign - I'll be fine with swapping that to new rules if the GM wants to, but if they don't, I'm fine with it too.

 

[Remathilis]

Realizing this is beyond the scope of a simple yes/no poll, but I legitimately wonder how answers would break down if you controlled for the following variables:

• People who are currently running stock (or near stock) 5e vs those who heavily modified it
• people who are running some variant of 5e or intend to (Level Up, TotV)
• People who are running other versions of D&D (such as older editions) or D&D adjacent games (Pathfinder)
• People who are players and have less say about what system their DM is using.

In essence, I wonder how the numbers would look if you controlled for the people who were not going to update regardless vs those who would be the target audience and have decided for or against it.

 

[MoonSong]

I mean, absolutely, what I'm proposing is about making recovery much more expensive than it is in a normal D&D game. The number one thing that needs to be tossed, what really is the core problem with D&D-style attrition, is the idea that sleeping it off restores all your magic.

At its core, magic should be about the transformation of acquirable resources into desired effects. Making healing potions requires reagents. A wand of fireballs costs reagents. Deific power requires sacrifices and tithes.

The amount of innate magic that caster character has, that bubbles up in them from some internal mana generator, and that regenerates like health, should be relatively small. No character should be recharging multiple 5th level spell slots in effect every single day. The point of a caster character should be to take the earned resources from adventuring them and converting them into the effects the party needs.


It doesn't have to be disciplined. Believe me, disciplined play at my table does not work.

It's simply this. A mage doesn't have 1 fireball a day. Instead, the mage used several hundred gp of their last haul to make a wand with 5 charges of fireball. If they choose to trivialize the first five encounters they face with 5 fireballs, that's great, but they probably haven't earned enough money back to rebuild that wand. Now they're going to walk into the rest of the dungeon without the backup of a fireball. Resting 24 hours won't change that. If they want fireball, they have to earn enough money to pay for it.

And if you don't want to pay money for your special powers, be a fighter! Of course, see how long you last without fireballs, or haste spells or stoneskins or, you know, anyone to cure you.

This is my core argument. Everything that people complain about in terms of encounters per day, 5 minute work days, class balance between casters and noncasters, between short rest and long rest characters in 5e, etc., all derives from the fact that recharging abilities is cost-free. When the core gameplay becomes "spend resources to adventure to acquire more resources", the entire game engine suddenly locks into place, AND the verisimilitude of the world increases, as a bonus.

No, sorry that doesn't seem like a a game that I'd like to play.I prefer my mages to not be powered by capitalism.

 

[schneeland]

Realizing this is beyond the scope of a simple yes/no poll, but I legitimately wonder how answers would break down if you controlled for the following variables:
...

I'd probably include the dimension of having played 5e at all, so that you would have "lapsed" 5e players (i.e. people who have run or played 5e in the past, but are currently not running 5e or a variant). But that might complicate things a bit.