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

[tetrasodium]

To be fair the DMG tells them that they can. The Immersive Storytelling playstyle on page 34 for example. On page 74 in the Find the Ideal Introduction section is suggests beginning with a social interaction encounter. On page 87 the Sylvan Forest Encounter table includes a magical plant with berries. The Urban Encounter table on page 114 includes multiple non-combat encounters on it. Most of the encounter tables do. And then there's the Noncombat Challenges section on 261 that suggests using the combat XP tables to award non-combat experience, but only if the encounter involved a meaningful risk of failure.

That's part of the problem. I included a spoiler with full text of the reddit post where it explains why that is not relevant to the six to eight medium to hard encounters to avoid just this kind of discussion.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

No it doesn't. I guarantee you will be able to run a post-2024 adventure with a mix of 2024 and 2014 builds, or even all 2014.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm pretty sure that some things will change in the new books, no matter what WotC says.

WotC has every motive to make interoperability smooth as butter in practice.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

You should not be requiring the players to buy new books because of stealth rules. That's all DM side, anyway, that doesn't impact character building options.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think many DMs will allow that. The vast majority of DMs I've played with over the years have wanted all the players on the same page regarding which books are being used.

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

 

[Mistwell]

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...

Because it's compatible with the old stuff. They've been extremely upfront about the nature of what's being published and they have not failed to admit anything. If you prefer to the 2014 monk you can still play that in the same game as the 2024 monk.

I am getting the sense you didn't follow the playtest? Which is fine. But then why did you just talk about it as if WOTC is "not admitting" they are putting out "replacement" material without reading what it looks like? Micah you've commented on this quite a lot to have not even spent 10 minutes reviewing the last couple of playtests.

 

[see]

3e to 4e is the wrong comparison I think. The changes 5.5e brings are on par with 3.5e. 3e to 3.5e is the change to look at. I wasn't around on the forums yet in 2003, was the much angst or toxicity posted about 3.5e from 3e fans?

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.)

 

[Parmandur]

Yea, that’s the attitude that doesn’t make sense to me. We’ve had the 2014 paladin and 2014 GWM for 10 years. They haven’t broken the game. Why would they somehow becomes problems just because a new book is out?

Exactly this: 5E is about exceptions based design. You can have a 2014 and a 2024 Paladin in the same party.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh my friend, you have no idea. The CharOp community is VERY strong for 5e. It's just not right here anymore. It moved to other places, like YouTube.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying thst it is a bit fringe and won't dictate general terminology used by D&D players.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Because some people own one book or ther other, and want to. This was normal with 3E and 3.5 material 20 years ago, in my experience, and they did not take as much care for compatibility then (probsvly why they are now).