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

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

That's probably true, but you should know by watching arguments here that there's NO WAY that "everyone" is going to agree on which one is better, and which one is worse. Either they're going to have to play whichever version their table chooses, or the table is going to have to let them play whichever one they like. The point of 2024 being backward compatible with 2014 is to make this possible.

(Well, the REAL point is to keep the Adventures in print without having to update them to a new "Edition" and without obsoleting any books that people already own or have stocked on store shelves or in Amazon warehouses - or in other words, so stuff can keep on selling without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)

 

[SkidAce]

Just old people. And we're not the market they particularly care about. Most 5e players don't care (or even know) about editions because they started with 5e, which they just call "D&D", and WotC understandably wants to keep it that way. That's the whole point, and what what most grognards can't seem to wrap our heads around: it's not about us. We'll probably go to our graves railing about editions. Fine.

Not just old people. The noobs in my area who started with 5e are having the same heated discussions about edition.

 

[SkidAce]

Are TTRPG players MMORPG players?

Some yes. Some not.

 

[Hriston]

call it DM independent then

Sure, it becomes mechanically reliable for the player, but disconnected from any decisions the player actually makes for their character. It certainly doesn't give the impression that personal characteristics would continue to have much relevance as a game element. As it happens, however, the final UA at least removed the language about gaining "Heroic Advantage" (which is what it calls Inspiration) by rolling a 20 and merely says "The DM can award Heroic Advantage to a player character who has done something that is particularly heroic or in character." Presumably, this is in the DM's opinion and gives players no indication of what they can do to gain Inspiration other than the vague notion of acting heroically or "in character".

Compare this from the 2014 PHB:

Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way.​

Here the players are told that by invoking certain defined game elements expressed on their character sheet they can expect to gain inspiration. That's much less DM dependent than trying to live up to someone else's idea of heroism.

 

[mamba]

As it happens, however, the final UA at least removed the language about gaining "Heroic Advantage" (which is what it calls Inspiration) by rolling a 20 and merely says "The DM can award Heroic Advantage to a player character who has done something that is particularly heroic or in character." [snip…]

Compare this from the 2014 PHB:
Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way.Here the players are told that by invoking certain defined game elements expressed on their character sheet they can expect to gain inspiration. That's much less DM dependent than trying to live up to someone else's idea of heroism.

but it is essentially the same as the ‘in character’ from above, just without emphasizing traits / bonds / …

My main point was that a die roll is objective however, rather than letting the DM decide what meets their standard. If they reverted back to DM judgement (by the last playtests I had lost interest) that is moot though, if that stays we are back where we started, seems to be a recurring theme…

 

[Maxperson]

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

I usually went longsword or two handed sword, short sword or dagger, longbow and either mace or morning star. The "ors" depended on my mood at the time of PC creation.

 

[Zardnaar]

I usually went longsword or two handed sword, short sword or dagger, longbow and either mace or morning star. The "ors" depended on my mood at the time of PC creation.

Short-sword if Elf.

Dagger rate of fire made them better than say short sword. Both are decent options with chance if magical variant.

 

[Maxperson]

Short-sword if Elf.

Dagger rate of fire made them better than say short sword. Both are decent options with chance if magical variant.

I know. I just got bored of the same weapons over and over and over. Occasionally I'd go rogue and take something like spear and scimitar.

 

[Zardnaar]

I know. I just got bored of the same weapons over and over and over. Occasionally I'd go rogue and take something like spear and scimitar.

Fair enough. Think the mace was for skeletons and common enough magical variants.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The trouble is, You (and a lot of us here, myself included) are very literal-minded. And yet, the reason that they are called the same thing is because they ARE "replacements" unless you don't want them to be. Then you CAN, if you so desire, play the older one. OR you can replace the old ones with the new ones.

WotC HAS been clear about this, it's just that a lot of people (this time I won't include me) don't LIKE that and sometimes pretend that it's confusing, rather than just saying "I don't like it."

I've been saying, "I don't like this" the whole time. One of many reasons I don't like it is that it's a commercial decision dressed up as creative freedom. They have never said that these books are intended as replacements for the existing ones, but they clearly are. I'm not confused, but I am irritated.