Jeremy Crawford discusses what are the 2024 Fitfh Edition Core Rulebooks.

[Azzy]

Let the Battle commence anew.

Honestly, if y'all like decimals, 5.14 and 5.24.

Huh. I'm actually rather partial to that. 5.14e and 5.24e seems like a good choice.

 

[Charlaquin]

That slow and cautious approach to change is good for the game and the hobby, IMO.

I strongly disagree

 

[Remathilis]

Couple big takeaways I got from the video. "Focusing on the design needs of the players seems like the focus of all this" >"absolutely" then mentioning the other books for the second time in the video and avoiding mention of the DM or the DM's needs... When I'm running D&D I am not "playing" d&d because I'm "running" d&d. That exchange & the fact that DMs aren't even mentioned in the entire video very strongly tells me that 2024d&d will continue the 2014d&d focus of ignoring the DM's needs while going all in on empowering the biggest munchkin player at the table. Somehow I don't think it's a positive development in being so obvious in telling DMs that DMs will need to look towards Daggerheart, the upcoming MCDM thing, & perhaps Tales of the Valiant if they as a DM want the system to consider their needs

You found whole novels reading between those lines.

 

[mamba]

Hmm. I'm wondering if the 24 PHB might be closer to the 14 than the UA has so far implied.

looks like it, which I personally would find disappointing. Any step back towards 2014 from the changes they proposed is an actual step back. While some of the proposed changes needed tweaking, they all were improvements on what 2014 had.

Not the direction I want to see 2024 go in.

 

[mamba]

As far as the question whether the game is going to change "enough stuff"... the simple fact of the matter is that they were going to change the books and produce "new versions" even if there was only the one single thing they wanted to change... the word 'Race' to 'Species'. That was happening at some point regardless. So yeah, at minimum a book change was happening to get that swap in.

maybe, but if that is the only difference you can bet you will get a lot fewer people upgrading to / buying the new books. At that point it is really only aimed at new customers, not the existing ones

 

[Aldarc]

The dread of having another 10 years of coffeelocks and dino druids is enough to make me actually consider Tales of the Valiant...

Good.

 

[Remathilis]

looks like it, which I personally would find disappointing. Any step back towards 2014 from the changes they proposed is an actual step back. While some of the proposed changes needed tweaking, they all were improvements on what 2014 had.

Not the direction I want to see 2024 go in.

My real fear so far is that they are going to do what Next did in its waning months; cave to the loudest voices advocating for status quo. For example, this is the first time I really feel 2014 style wild shape will return in some type of "pick from these X options" rather than allowing PCs to decide if they are wolves or tigers or owlbears. That they will minimize or eliminate weapon mastery because people demanded it be 4e style ADEU powers for martials rather than riders to enhance fighter attacks. Its that kind of backtracking that took the best part of the Next Fighter (battle dice and maneuvers) and hid it in a single subclass. I guess we'll find in about a month.

 

[Remathilis]

Good.

Assuming, of course, TotV also has removed pact magic and redone wild shape. If they insist on keeping both these mechanics like the 2014 PHB, they're no better and we're back to where we began.

 

[tetrasodium]

You found whole novels reading between those lines.

Multiple people have noted the strong vibes towards being closer to 2014 than the UA has implied so far. I feel like there's no reason avoid mentioning the results of 2014d&d spending so many years telling the GM to fix it themselves rather than providing them with printed tools & support in the ruleset. If WotC is averse to discussion of catering to the needs of DMs in the 2024 version to such a degree that talking about it is a topic to avoid it seems very reasonable to name some of the upcoming systems when some of them have made GM needs a point of concern.

 

[Mistwell]

As Ive said before, you can't do a video game model of updating continuously without deprecation. If you're not deprecating whats already there, you're not updating anything,

Why not?

you're making a new game and bolting it onto the old game.

How is that different from any expansion material like Tashas?

 

[mamba]

That slow and cautious approach to change is good for the game and the hobby, IMO.

I am not so sure. There is too slow a pace as well.

Will see what the next months bring, but if they backtrack, then I am not sure why I should bother with the 2024 PHB. No point spending $60 on different art

 

[DEFCON 1]

maybe, but if that ie the only difference you can bet you will get a lot fewer people upgrading to / buying the new books. At that point it is really only aimed at new customers, not the existing ones

Depends entirely on how honest all the players from 2014-2017 were when they kept saying WotC HAD HAD HAD to fix all these issues with things like Stealth, overpowered feats, under-powered classes etc. If they were being truthful... then every single one of them should be chomping at the bit to buy these new books that finally get down onto ink all the corrections to the game they thought the game needed all along. If they don't... then we all know their complaints were for naught.

But even beyond that... you are correct that the 5E24 books are a "fresh start" for new players. To get these new players and all players going forward used to the idea of call Elves, Dwarves, Humans etc. 'Species' rather than 'Races'. They know full well that a large number of us Olds have used 'Race' for so long that it'll be exceedingly difficult to get us to change our word usage. But at least the next gen of players can get in on the ground floor for this change. It was going to start sooner or later, and the 50th Anniversary was a great place to do it from.

 

[MNblockhead]

The whole point of the way level 1 and 2 are designed was to nod towards those who wanted zero to hero instead of starting out as a superhero. Apparently they are tossing that idea.

Yeah...

They could, however, still placate folks like me by giving optional level-zero rules in the DMG.

I mean, I can simply continue with my homebrew level-zero character funnel and back-bench character rules, but it would be nice to a nod to this style of play in the new DMG.

 

[mamba]

Depends entirely on how honest all the players from 2014-2017 were when they kept saying WotC HAD HAD HAD to fix all these issues with things like Stealth, overpowered feats, under-powered classes etc. If they were being truthful... then every single one of them should be chomping at the bit to buy these new books that finally get down onto ink all the corrections to the game they thought the game needed all along. If they don't... then we all know their complaints were for naught.

the complaints can be valid and the changes still not worth $60 at the same time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Depends entirely on how honest all the players from 2014-2017 were when they kept saying WotC HAD HAD HAD to fix all these issues with things like Stealth, overpowered feats, under-powered classes etc. If they were being truthful... then every single one of them should be chomping at the bit to buy these new books that finally get down onto ink all the corrections to the game they thought the game needed all along. If they don't... then we all know their complaints were for naught.

What if they find these 'fixes' not to actually be fixes to them?

Like, I wanted an upgrade for my Samsung and the one they put out exploded. Am I obligated to still by the exploding one because I complained?

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah...

They could, however, still placate folks like me by giving optional level-zero rules in the DMG.

I mean, I can simply continue with my homebrew level-zero character funnel and back-bench character rules, but it would be nice to a nod to this style of play in the new DMG.

No they cant, 5e requires much more to support zero to hero because the system currently fights against almost any style of game aside from the movie diehard or shallow one dimensional totally interchangeable isekai MCs

 

[Emberashh]

Why not?

Its like expecting Skyrim to simultaneously support Oblivion, Morrowind, Daggerfall, and Arena as all one big seamless game.

You could only get away with it in a TTRPG because just saying a book is compatible is effortless.

How is that different from any expansion material like Tashas?

Because supplements add new material to the game, or, as Tasha did, effectively deprecate old unwanted options.

Thats not going to work with 1DND because not everything from 5e is unwanted, especially compared to their nerfed counterparts.

 

[mamba]

Because supplements add new material to the game, or, as Tasha did, effectively deprecate old unwanted options.

Thats not going to work with 1DND because not everything from 5e is unwanted, especially compared to their nerfed counterparts.

Tasha deprecates just as effectively as the 2024 PHB does. Whether the 2014 version is unwanted is entirely in the eye of the beholder in both cases

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I am kind of disappointed at the reverting to non standardised subclasses. I would hope that they keep classes in the same group on a standard chassis. I really liked that the standard subclass chassis gave the possibility of subclasses that could be taken by the group. Like a subclass that could be taken by any mage class or expert class.

I'm going to provide feedback that I hope for standardized subclass progression. That opens up cross-class and cross-subclass design space.

Why not a "Harper" or a "Harper Expert" or "Harper Mage" subclass that can be taken by any of the relevant classes?

 

[Emberashh]

Tasha deprecates just as effectively as the 2024 PHB does. Whether the 2014 version is unwanted is entirely in the eye of the beholder in both cases

You have the 2024 PHB?