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

[TwoSix]

There are now several on-ramps thanks to last year's OGL brouhaha. There is the on-ramp heading to D&D2024, but there are also on-ramps for EN Publishing's Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition, and Kobold Press' Tales of the Valiant. Both of whom were based off of D&D2014. It all depends on which road you want to take.

That I agree with.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I disagree. It has been and is in an increasing amount driving terminology. The new generation of players grew up with video game optimization, and that bled over to D&D optimization discussions. With BG3 blurring the lines even more, a great deal of the terminology is now coming from the optimization influencers.

 

[Mistwell]

I have read what it looks like. It looks like replacement for a the core of WotC. Most compatible, true, but replacement material none the less. Not to say so is marketing spin.

They have said so? Again, NOTHING has been hidden about the nature of the changes.

I am really struggling to understand where you're coming from on this. We're talking about it because of the announcements about what those changes look like. That is in fact the marketing. What marketing can you point to that's spin in implying the new monk, for example, cannot be viewed as a replacement for the old monk?

 

[tetrasodium]

[normative]Sure, but they shouldn't want to. [/normative]


The DM is not the restaurant in this metaphor.

Metaphors aside, it's entirely on the DM to present a rationale why they're excluding either book, just like it would be if they wanted to exclude warlocks, or dragonborn, or all of Tasha's. There are certainly rationales I could accept, but "How can I have two versions of the same thing?" is an exceptionally weak one.

That bolded bit in your post is the toxic mindset wotc is encouraging players to continue channeling with righteous fury at GMs.
Dm:"because I said so, find a different GM if you don't like that."
It's also the same mindset that causes players to view it with skeptical disbelief and engage in a total refusal to adapt when the gm uses "hidden" variant nerfs to change the resting rules with little more than a shrug/ok at the time it was changed or declared.

 

[TwoSix]

well, I am not interested in having different variants of the same spell at my table, so whoever has the 2014 or 2024 book is not in sync with the game being played, depending on which version I decide to use.

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. If something seems unclear or slightly hinky, then I (as the DM) can look over the spell block.

And as a DM, I can just use whichever version seems relevant for any spellcasting NPC I use. Maybe I'll keep it to one book for bookkeeping purposes, but that's my choice.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

Well that wasn't intentional. I'm operating under the assumption that the majority of people who will buy the new books weren't involved in the playtest at all.

 

[el-remmen]

In my opinion, the practical roll out of 2024 D&D is going to look a lot like it did for both 1E/2E and 3E/3.5E in my circles (and beyond): The DM (with or without player input, depending on the individual table culture) will pick and choose what they want to include from each for their games with some occasional negotiation.

Something like, "We're using the 2024 Fighter, but keeping the 2014 Paladin and all the 2014 spells, except for Tiny Hut and Banishment. . ." or variations on that approach to varying degrees. Some will lean more one way and others the other. . .

Will there be groups that refuse to use any 2024 material? Sure.
Will there be groups that adopt 2024 as the only rules they want? Of course.

But my guess is there will be a lot more in-between.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't care what level you are, 50 damage per rocket seems reasonable to me!!

But seriously, I get what you are arguing for, but just like we SHOULD have world peace, DMs should allow 5e and 5.5e to intermix freely isn't something I see happening at most tables.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't see how getting the same amount of experience for 1 combat encounter, 3 social encounters and 3 explorations encounters as 7 combat encounters isn't relevant.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't care what level you are, 50 damage per rocket seems reasonable to me!!

But seriously, I get what you are arguing for, but just like we SHOULD have world peace, DMs should allow 5e and 5.5e to intermix freely isn't something I see happening at most tables.

You're probably right, but I'm going to continue to argue when posts present it as a binary "use/not use" option.

Be the change you want to see in the world.