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

[JEB]

I don't see how anything is different. In current 5e, you can pick a premade background or make your own custom one, you choose. In the 5.5e playtest, you could pick a premade background or make your own custom one, your choice. Looks the same to me

The difference is the lack of random prompts (the aforementioned traits, bonds, and flaws). I can tell you they certainly came in handy for our new-to-RPG players back in 2014-2015. (The rest of us liked them too.)

 

[Maxperson]

The difference is the lack of random prompts (the aforementioned traits, bonds, and flaws). I can tell you they certainly came in handy for our new-to-RPG players back in 2014-2015. (The rest of us liked them too.)

In my opinion the lack of those is a flaw of 5.5e.

 

[Lanefan]

Subclass is thematically defining, also for many classes it is also party-role enabling. The nice thing about first level subclass is that you can have a cleric that is a tank, or a warlock /sorcerer who is the primary healer in the group. That is gone. And that is a huge negative in my book.

Edit: Also, this in particular is bad for divine souls as it devalues the features the subclass has. One of the most potent abilities the subclass brings is the ability to choose cantrips from an extra list, and you gain this ability after you have chosen most of your cantrips. There's not character advancement there. That's just biding your time until you get to actually play the character you wanted to play.

So tweak it such that single-class characters get their subclass right away but in any second (or third, etc.) class you have to wait for several levels, or never get it at all.

Or just ban multiclassing and have done with it.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

WotC have been saying they'll be compatible, but they've said one thing and done another in the past (modularity in 5e, anyone?) so who knows? Given that the final form of the new books isn't out yet, I'd say the jury is still out on that bold(ed) proclamation.

 

[Lanefan]

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).

The 3e game I was in did a mid-campaign hard-switch to 3.5, and our 3e players' books pretty much became redundant on the spot.

 

[Lanefan]

And I'm making a normative statement saying that they shouldn't do that. Just include both!

People keep acting like it's an either/or choice between the two books. It's not.

Except it is an either-or choice at any point where the two versions contradict.

Making it an either-or choice between versions just shortcuts around having to make a whole bunch of either-or choices at every point where those versions conflict, which is required if one want to combine them somehow. And it's a binary choice at any scale, as using two different versions of the same thing in the same campaign is going to blow up internal consistency, if nothing else.

You don't have to pick between the calamari and the bruschetta as your appetizer; just order both of them! Let people eat what they want!

If one person eats the calamari, another eats the bruschetta, and a third person eats both, then no two of them are eating the same thing. The only commonality is that they're eating, as opposed to the fourth person (me) who's having a beer instead.

 

[Lanefan]

And while @Rystefn is technically correct with regard to 1e(and that's the best kind of correct!), the rewards were so tiny that nobody I played with ever bothered. When you need 100,000+ xp to level, getting that 100 isn't that meaningful.

By RAW most of your xp in 1e came from treasure, so it spectacularly fails the "all xp comes from killing monsters" test.

 

[tetrasodium]

The difference is the lack of random prompts (the aforementioned traits, bonds, and flaws). I can tell you they certainly came in handy for our new-to-RPG players back in 2014-2015. (The rest of us liked them too.)

That's a good thing if BIFTs are tossed in the dustbin of history. Without a compel type push component players tend to demonstrate a sense of self preservation & common sense and wisely ignore them when doing otherwise might cause problems for the player themself. That common sense goes out the window when those BIFTs provide a standin for "I'm a ROLEplayer and -MY- character" causes problems for others .

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The "Character Origins" UA covered backgrounds. It appears the background feature was to be replaced with the first-level feat, so instead of something that grounds the character in the setting, there's a minor mechanical benefit.

There's no mention of traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws, but the changes to inspiration in that document indicate they would no longer be tied in to that mechanic. I mostly lost interest and stopped paying attention to the playtest at that point.

I used my background feature last week and stopped an ongoing comnat with that... orher than that, it was usually forgotten.

Background features are one thing that hinders cuatomizing backgrounds. So if you want a new background you need to invent a new one or find some feature that still fits your character. Same goes for flaws.
Also background features are too strong. They just trivialize certain story challenges. You find water. You find passage. People help you.

I think those features should find a different place in the rules. Maybe combined with downtime activities.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

The difference is the lack of random prompts (the aforementioned traits, bonds, and flaws). I can tell you they certainly came in handy for our new-to-RPG players back in 2014-2015. (The rest of us liked them too.)

Never know, those could easily still be in the printed PHB. There was no reason to include them in Unearthed Arcana playtest since they don't impact gameplay.

I've literally never seen anyone use those though so wouldn't surprise me if they are removed. Complete waste of printed book space in my experience, others may differ though.