D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford discusses what are the 2024 Fitfh Edition Core Rulebooks.

[Parmandur]

If that means Warlocks can keep pact magic in some form, I’m back onboard.

Depends on the playtest results.

 

[Parmandur]

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 hear ya, but if it wasn't flying, making compatability more straightforward is an important goal. Based on what we had seen, the changeover wouldn't have been hard, particularly, but this means using older Subclasses will be a breeze.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the quote from the Sly Flourish summary may have given you the wrong impression. What they actually said in the video was that the changes to subclass progression we’ve seen so far have been experimental, and those experiments were to test two explore two design ideas at once:

1. Ensuring all classes get those two simple levels, and
2. Unifying subclass progression across classes.

1 proved successful, whereas 2 was met with neither excitement nor rejection. In light of that, in the next packet (which will feature a second pass at the expert and priest classes) will bring back 2014 subclass progressions, but with any 1st or 2nd level subclass features moved to 3rd level.

TLDR: Subclasses always starting at 3rd level is still in, unified subclass progression after 3rd level is out.

I'm less excited about this. I thought 3, 6, 10, 14 was a good rate of gain, and it fit nicely with ASI gains. I don't want to go back to classes getting features so late in the endgame they don't have a chance to use them.

For example, I'm playing a lunar sorcerer and half my subclass features don't come until very late in the campaign (and past the level of the module) which includes my major reasons to change lunar phase. If those features came at 10th and 14th per the UA Sorc, I'd actually get a chance to see them.

 

[Remathilis]

If that means Warlocks can keep pact magic in some form, I’m back onboard.

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

 

[Charlaquin]

The point was that the change from 3.0 to 3.5 came way faster and "obsoleted" more books than this new version of 5e will do, I don't really understand their hesitation to re-utilizing the same number system for 5.5/5.2024/whatever.

I can't say I've ever seen anybody look back on 3.5 and see the change in edition as a mistake. Like there'll always be naysayers but you did this before and it worked out fine, stop dancing around and go for it again

Edition has been a dirty word since 4e. And not just within WotC. Pathfinder is also doing a rules revision in the aftermath of the OGL fiasco and doing the same song and dance of calling it Pathfinder 2e revised or something like that, even though it’s clearly PF 2.5e

I remember Chronicles of Darkness (called World of Darkness at the time and “new” World of Darkness colloquially) first started releasing 2nd editions of their lines, they initially had to call the updated rules engine “The World of Darkness Rules Revision” (TWoDRR, or 2DRR for short) and had to sell new core books for each of the game lines as “campaign guides featuring the World of Darkness Rules Revision.” It wasn’t until CCP sold the IP to Paradox that Onyx Path was allowed to finally call the new edition what it was, and they actually re-released the Vampire book formerly titled Blood and Smoke: the Strix Chronicle as Vampire: the Requiem 2nd Edition. I have copies of both versions.

I fully expect RPG publishers to avoid the word edition if it’s even remotely possible to get away with doing so. It doesn’t matter how flimsy the justification is, the word has forever been tainted in the minds of the industry’s marketing people.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

TLDR: Subclasses always starting at 3rd level is still in, unified subclass progression after 3rd level is out.

it's all very wibbly wobbly. It may just not be set in stone one way or the other.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm less excited about this. I thought 3, 6, 10, 14 was a good rate of gain, and it fit nicely with ASI gains. I don't want to go back to classes getting features so late in the endgame they don't have a chance to use them.

For example, I'm playing a lunar sorcerer and half my subclass features don't come until very late in the campaign (and past the level of the module) which includes my major reasons to change lunar phase. If those features came at 10th and 14th per the UA Sorc, I'd actually get a chance to see them.

Yeah, I liked it too. Unfortunately, the design and testing ethos behind 5e is inherently conservative: favor keeping things as-is unless a significant portion of the open playtest participants are enthusiastic about a change. We’ve kinda known that all along, due to the 70% approval threshold. But maybe the naysayers who immediately decried the playtest as a sham and claimed WotC had clearly already made up their minds about what the revised rules would be may have fooled some of us into believing the changes would be bigger than they’re actually likely to end up.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I dont know how you can make 1st and 2nd level more significant when you pushed a bunch of 1st level archetype choice at 3rd level! Making sure those features are attainable at a level the game is actually played is a good idea, though.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to make the game friendlier to beginners other than messing with the archetype progression. Like...not making everything a spell instead of a plain-written feature in the class section?

 

[Charlaquin]

it's all very wibbly wobbly. It may just not be set in stone one way or the other.

I think it was quite clear from the video. I mean, unless they suddenly get a bunch of feedback on the next packet saying a higher portion of players desperately want unified subclass progression after 3rd level back. But I don’t expect that’s likely to happen.

 

[overgeeked]

D&D14 vs D&D24.