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

[mamba]

I'm specifically arguing that the two books are compatible, and that the community standard should be that both books are equally usable at the table.

I expect most tables to use one or the other, not both, and I see no reason why they should either.

Compatibility matters for the adventures, not so you run a game with two sets of core books. If you like 2014 better, use that, if you do not, then don’t.

 

[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.

Buying is not playing, paying is not buying.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'm specifically arguing that the two books are compatible, and that the community standard should be that both books are equally usable at the table.

But they're not the same. We don't know exactly how different they will be, but from the UAs it seems that for example stealth will be handled significantly different in 5.5. If you look up a rule in a rulebook at the table, you want to find the same rule regardless of which PHB you grab.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

But the DM does. The DM owns balance. If a player thinks they're over or underpowered, petition the DM.

Or you can play a new version that doesn't have the problem

 

[TwoSix]

And just to be clear, I agree with you that it can be done, but in my experience it takes a confident and open minded DM for it to happen.

I guess that's what I'm arguing for? Be open-minded, be confident! I sincerely doubt there's going to be some sort of awkward synergy between a 2014 rules piece and a 2024 rules piece that let's you do 50 DPR at level 2, or something like that.

 

[Mistwell]

I see a lot of people switching to the new books for no other reason than "new edition smell". Our society has ingrained in us this strange idea that old things are somehow "bad". Hollywood won't let us simply enjoy classic movies on their own merits, there's always a reboot around the corner that's "new and improved" (but almost always, for everything improved, there's a lot of perfectly fine things changed for no real reason).

It's probably the largest TTRPG playtest in history, where they are changing specifically the pain points for people with the game, and testing changes multiple times inhouse and then in public, working through the issues people have with the game. THAT is not just a motive of "new edition smell" nor is it a societal ingrained idea that "old = bad." When people say "I don't like this part of the existing rules but I do like this new version of that rule" that really is in fact "old = bad" in a direct feedback way.

Druid (Moon) was not "perfectly fine" for a large number of people. Ranger Beastmaster was not "perfectly fine" for a large number of people. Monk (all subclasses) was not "perfectly fine" for a large number of people. Certain spells which essentially did nothing like True Strike was not "perfectly fine" for a large number of people.

The feedback players gave, by the thousands, was not "everything is perfectly fine." And the motives for people to change are not fairly characterized as a simple "new edition smell." We can argue about having to pay for errata, but many changes being made are meaningful and were in fact portions of the game people were not fine with, for years now (and with at least one of those I mentioned above, they had feedback way back in 2014 people were not perfectly fine with it even then). They're not being "changed for no real reason" but are being changed because an extreme overwhelming majority voted with their feedback that they really wanted that change. For some of these topics at over 90%.

To dismiss all of that as just "new edition smell" is frankly a tad flippant concerning the opinions of thousands who have been providing feedback for a year or more now.

 

[Mistwell]

Buying is not playing, paying is not buying.

You know what I mean in the context of this thread and being pedantic doesn't move the conversation forward.

The question was never asked if people were playing 5e 2014 right now when they answered they don't plan to adopt the 2024 rules going forward. A large number have given their opinion this thread and said they stopped playing 5e 2024, often quite some time ago. That seems really relevant to your comment that 1/3 will not adopt the rules "going forward" which implies they were currently playing D&D up until now but will not go forward with playing D&D using the new rules.

At some point, if nobody else runs it, I will run a poll asking with a lot more specificity where people are at on this. I'd like to know if they were playing 2014 D&D up until now, and if they plan to switch to 2024 within the first year, within several years after finishing their current games, or likely never. That's probably at least 6 poll options there, 7 for a lemon curry with an explanation, and I think it would be a lot more informative that this poll. But I think it best to give it a fair bit of time before asking that. The board doesn't need multiple polls on the same topic at the same time.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I got tired of 5E about three years ago and dove into dozen of other games. My interest was, and is still gone. Nothing against the game, it's just not the game that's going to hold my attention long-term.

 

[TwoSix]

So we should go along with WotC's party line on the matter? That's your argument?

I don't really think of it as a party line, but I'm not reflexively anti-WotC either. Although, keep in mind, I personally am not buying the books, so I'm not a pro-WotC partisan either.

I'm simply saying that nothing in the playtests looks like the new rules are going to be on some different playing field than the old rules. The power curves might be slightly different, the meta choices of best feats/spells/subclasses might change somewhat, but it's basically going to be around the same overall power level.

There's simply no reason to think some combination of 2014 class/subclass/feat with 2024 class/subclass/feat will create some kaiju monstrosity of a PC. Worst case, you step in with some targeted house rules or targeted magic items to make the character power delta not so steep, just like you should be doing now in you have a PHB beastmaster ranger and a Paladin/Hexblade/Sorcerer in the same party.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's probably the largest TTRPG playtest in history, where they are changing specifically the pain points for people with the game, and testing changes multiple times inhouse and then in public, working through the issues people have with the game. THAT is not just a motive of "new edition smell" nor is it a societal ingrained idea that "old = bad." When people say "I don't like this part of the existing rules but I do like this new version of that rule" that really is in fact "old = bad" in a direct feedback way.

Druid (Moon) was not "perfectly fine" for a large number of people. Ranger Beastmaster was not "perfectly fine" for a large number of people. Monk (all subclasses) was not "perfectly fine" for a large number of people. Certain spells which essentially did nothing like True Strike was not "perfectly fine" for a large number of people.

The feedback players gave, by the thousands, was not "everything is perfectly fine." And the motives for people to change are not fairly characterized as a simple "new edition smell." We can argue about having to pay for errata, but many changes being made are meaningful and were in fact portions of the game people were not fine with, for years now (and with at least one of those I mentioned above, they had feedback way back in 2014 people were not perfectly fine with it even then). They're not being "changed for no real reason" but are being changed because an extreme overwhelming majority voted with their feedback that they really wanted that change. For some of these topics at over 90%.

To dismiss all of that as just "new edition smell" is frankly a tad flippant concerning the opinions of thousands who have been providing feedback for a year or more now.

Given the changes you just described, it sure seems like they are about to publish replacement material. Now why wouldn't they just admit that? Hmm...