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

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, it is still possible they'll do something drastic in the final release. Assuming the final product is even roughly similar to the playtests, it'll be fine, though.


The idea that a named player-facing rules element needs to be identical for everyone playing is a pernicious myth that needs to die. 5e is about exception-based design. Every character can be its own exception. If player A uses a bespoke rules element that's been approved by the DM, then player B's familiarity with the rule is immaterial. You don't need to police other people's characters. You do your thing, the other player does their thing, and as long as the DM is good, it doesn't matter.


I know food metaphors always work wonderfully and never blow up in my face, so here we go.

If I order the cheeseburger and fries, and you also order the cheeseburger and fries, but swap out the beef patty for chicken, hold the tomatoes, add horseradish aioli, and have broccoli instead of fries, you aren't hurting my meal in any way. The DM is paying and picked the restaurant, but as long as your order isn't too expensive, why would the DM care?

Granted, if the DM is having a house party the menu might be more limited, but most games are at "restaurants".

If you're going to have three fighter classes, I want at least two of them not to be named "fighter". 4e got that right with Essentials and I don't even like that game. No reason for 5.5e to double up on the nomemclature.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, only some of them. That's why they said 'most'.

Fair enough, but dismissive of "most" of the people who voted no isn't great either.

 

[Scott Christian]

I said these words (or very similar) when 4e was about to come out.

Leave room for doubt.

I get it, and maybe I was a little too adamant in my phrasing. But it doesn't change my sentiment. Almost everyone will adopt the new structure. Will there be a lot of holdouts? Sure. But they will slowly change as players insist on something from the new and shiny. Then before you know it, almost everyone will have adopted the new rules.

 

[TwoSix]

If you're going to have three fighter classes, I want at least two of them not to be named "fighter". 4e got that right with Essentials and I don't even like that game. No reason for 5.5e to double up on the nomemclature.

All the fighter classes in 4e were named “fighter”, their division was generally indicated parenthetically. You were a fighter(slayer), not a slayer, in most use cases I’ve seen.

“Source A fighter” is good enough for most metagame discussion. If you want to skin a diegetic layer onto various options, that’s fine. Since class as a discrete diegetic element doesn’t occur in my games, adding that extra element would defeat the purpose for me.

 

[Maxperson]

We were assimilated. Same thing will happen here with this 5e to 5.5e edition.

Resistance is futile?

 

[Maxperson]

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

Yeah. I completely forgot about that since none of my 1e DMs used it.

 

[Scott Christian]

That just seems incredibly dismissive of anyone who voted no. "Say what you want, but WotC will get you in the end".

And they will because player bases for most people change as time goes on. You are sticking with that 2014 5e Champion? Great. A new player shows up at the table with the new and much more powerful 2024 Champion. Are you sticking to the old one?

That is why I am saying what I am saying. No player sticks with the weaker version. It is a form of power creep, and power creep outweighs all other game choices. If you would like an example, look at any MMORPG and the millions and millions of players. There is data on it, and the overwhelmingly majority (I think it was 99.6%) take the stronger option. (There is a caveat. The stronger of the two options needs to be clearly stronger.)

 

[mamba]

Making gaining inspiration dependent on rolling a 20 rather than playing to your character's personal characteristics (personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw) seems more random to me rather than less.

call it DM independent then

 

[Micah Sweet]

I get it, and maybe I was a little too adamant in my phrasing. But it doesn't change my sentiment. Almost everyone will adopt the new structure. Will there be a lot of holdouts? Sure. But they will slowly change as players insist on something from the new and shiny. Then before you know it, almost everyone will have adopted the new rules.

So why are you here? Just to tell people who disagree with the majority how little they matter?

 

[Scott Christian]

If this was true, how do you explain those players who continue to use and role-play in previous editions of D&D? Or who have taken a liking to RPGs based off of D&D2014 like Level Up or Tales of the Valiant?

I stated a bit earlier that there will be some holdouts. And most those holdouts will eventually change. And then you'll be left with a small handful of people that probably play with the same friends, at the same table, on the same day, for as long as they play D&D.

The other versions you mention are literally different games. It's the same as saying, "What about people who play Masquerade?" It is not a point, it is just an observation.