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

[Micah Sweet]

It damages verisimilitude that every fighter, of which there are presumably thousands in the world, all learn to be proficient in heavy armor and every weapon known to man, and then learn an ability to attack super fast once during a fight once they train a little more.

You can't seriously be arguing that strict classes enhance verisimilitude? That's, like, the #1 reason that people started point-buy and skill-based games.

Back in the old days, fighters were trained in many weapons, but not all weapons.

 

[Zardnaar]

Back in the old days, fighters were trained in many weapons, but not all weapons.

Basically you had 4. Mostly longsword, dagger, longbow and maybe a mace. If you were meta gaming.

 

[Corinnguard]

Fighters in PF1 were proficient in simple and martial weapons, but you could choose a weapon group for your Weapon Training feature and learn special techniques with Advanced Weapon Training. Weapon training gave you a bonus to hit and damage opponents with any weapon from your chosen weapon group.

In Unchained Fighter by Everyman Games, you were proficient with any exotic weapon that was in your weapon group. You no longer had to pick up the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat for them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a business decision- it's not best for the game, it's best for the business. But to be fair, it's not the first time that such a decision's been made. They don't want to alienate existing audiences, they don't want to piss off retailers that still have stock of the old stuff... it's been the same decision that's been made time and time again, edition to edition, even back in TSR days.

When have TSR or WotC ever previous denied that replacement material was in fact replacement material, particularly on such a scale? 2e was 2e. 3.5 was 3.5.

 

[Distracted DM]

When have TSR or WotC ever previous denied that replacement material was in fact replacement material, particularly on such a scale? 2e was 2e. 3.5 was 3.5.

2e revised was compatible with 2e material, and 2e was also largely compatible with 1e. It wasn't til 3e that we got really DIFFERENT editions that would require serious conversions. 3e material was still largely usable with 3.5.

They made their revised material compatible with the previous for the reasons that 5.5/5e2024/whatever is "not a new edition." I couldn't tell you what's different this time around, though, why WotC's not calling it a new edition... I guess it's their "we're happy with 5e, OneD&D is an evolution but not a new edition" stance. Whatever it's called, we assume that we know what it is based on previous edition iterations: 5.5

 

[Clint_L]

2e revised was compatible with 2e material, and 2e was also largely compatible with 1e. It wasn't til 3e that we got really DIFFERENT editions that would require serious conversions. 3e material was still largely usable with 3.5.

They made their revised material compatible with the previous for the reasons that 5.5/5e2024/whatever is "not a new edition." I couldn't tell you what's different this time around, though, why WotC's not calling it a new edition... I guess it's their "we're happy with 5e, OneD&D is an evolution but not a new edition" stance. Whatever it's called, we assume that we know what it is based on previous edition iterations: 5.5

No, "we" don't. I'm not confused by it at all, I think their message has been clear and direct. I think some folks refuse to accept paradigm change.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am the DM, power creep might be the reason to not run a certain game…

For most DMs, it is not an authoritarian table. It is a group game, and everyone gets a vote. So while you may not want to deal with power creep, the players might want to have a (fill in the class) that they consider better.

 

[Scott Christian]

I would like the forum to know that in a few years after 2024 comes out, they will only use the 2024 version on the official D&D site. This will make the adoption even more widespread, as so few young players seem to own the books. They just look stuff up online. D&D Beyond and whatever VTT they go with will only have 2024 classes.

 

[Distracted DM]

No, "we" don't. I'm not confused by it at all, I think their message has been clear and direct. I think some folks refuse to accept paradigm change.

I didn't say anyone was confused- could you clarify what you mean? And state said message clearly? And what "paradigm change" you're referring to?

 

[Scott Christian]

Mmmhmmm... They just want to do things along the lines of decide the character they like needs to be combos like using 2014 Paladin smites 2014 -5/+10 gwm & 2024 bladelock purely for "roleplaying" and "story" reasons right?

Players will choose what is right for them. Some players that want to be great in combat will choose any broken combo they can. Others won't dive deep enough to figure out the broken combos. And others will actively avoid them and instead play based off the story and their roleplay. None of those are wrong.

What will not happen though is a player won't say: There are two rangers here. One is clearly better. I am going to choose the one that is worse.