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

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I strongly disagree
OK, let's review in ten years and see how the game stands. No need to be hasty, haroon harum.
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
Well, they have said that's the goal: if people can keep playing with old books and not feel undue pressureto upgrade, that'sworking as designed. If people are interested enough to mix and match, say buying only the new Monster Mnaual, but keep playing with old PHB options, still as designed. OR if only some players upgrade their PHB and keep playing...

The important part to WotC isn't upgrading to new books, it's that people keep playing.
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
Not gonna lie, new art is probably more important than a specific threshold of new rules.
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
agreed, but I thought they’d at least try to get people to upgrade ;)
Oh, they are: the unambiguous upgrades are more the MM and DMG, it seems to me. And they said the new Ranfer was a massive hit compared to any prior survey on the 2014 version, so most Ranger players are going to want to upgrade. If they can get that reaction from 70-80% of people who like each Class...
 

One more comment-

They are currently in the process of playtesting different subclass progressions and exploring ways to make levels 1 and 2 more meaningful for each class.

This, I'm not sure I'm buying for two reasons.

First, the lack of meaningfulness at levels 1 and 2 acted as an effective (albeit informal) break of multiclassing and "dips." You could certainly do it, but you had to commit resources to it.

Second, those levels go by so quickly that it really seems like a waste of time to try and make it meaningful. It reminds me of when AD&D tried to add level 0 characters .... why bother?
We started with 0 level characters in 5e!
 

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
IDK, everything they said in in earlier video about the 24 DMG seemed to be really helpful to the DM. And the monster changes are DM centered as well.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
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 class of the relevant classes?
Yeah, I personally thought it was a pretty great change that opened up some real potential design space. But, it was at the cost of creating the biggest barrier to interoperability in what we have seen, ao if the player base wasn't enthusiastic in general, it makes sense to me that the guiding principle of making compatability easy and seamless would have militated against it. And at this point they've made it clear backwards compatibility is an enormous design value to them.

Getting all Aubclasses at 3, however, gets about a quarter of the way there, so maybe in a future rules revision if people warm up to the idea.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
IDK, everything they said in in earlier video about the 24 DMG seemed to be really helpful to the DM. And the monster changes are DM centered as well.
I saw a lot of people say in response to that Perkins video that they weren't sure about the new PHB, bit would pick up the new DMG. And I'm sure the siren call of new stat blocks will call to many who won't go for the PHB.

And that mixing and matching is something WotC wants.
 
Last edited:


tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
IDK, everything they said in in earlier video about the 24 DMG seemed to be really helpful to the DM. And the monster changes are DM centered as well.
Monster changes aren't a thing that exists in isolation though. A GM can make their own monsters or use monsters from any number of third party products already, that immediately starts to crash into the fact that the GM lacks much in the way of real mechanical hooks for those monsters without system alterations before you start winding up with monsters that are changing the function of specific PC abilities or whatever because all attacks are made with the same bonus and things like flat DR/Resist rather than half damage from magical sources (ie any cantrip & any +N weapon). The GM can do things along the lies of making changes to blunt clubs like legendary resist like some of the levelup monsters sure, but that only gets so far before the lack of hooks on the PC side nudges it into irrelivance unusability or Bob's heartbreaker fork of 5e.

Improving monster math as previously mentioned is good sure, but it's a continuation of 2014's you're the gm, you fix it status quo & even the "very experimental" rule changes were things like limiting monster crits rather than focusing on the needs of the DM. We saw an influence action that would have left even those NPCs with the most favorable statblock conditions possible hilariously vulnerable to diplomancy beyond anything possible in the old days when diplomancer builds were a thing. The most recent packet finally did something about wackamole/yoyo healing, but we also saw a past packet with a hit point recovery cantrip.
 
Last edited:

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I mean, I’m sure the game will be fine. The question is if it could have been even better had it spent that time experimenting, innovating, and iterating in bold ways instead of conservatively trying to change as little as possible at a time.
I mean, they are iterating and innovating here: but not everything tested in a lab is going ontonthe street. Nor should it.

Slow and steady makes for effective progress, long term.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I mean, I’m sure the game will be fine. The question is if it could have been even better had it spent that time experimenting, innovating, and iterating in bold ways instead of conservatively trying to change as little as possible at a time.
I'm with you, but I'm afraid that we're wrong and WotC is right (when it comes to creating a sustainably-selling, constantly growing game).

I mean, it's not IMPOSSIBLE that with crazy innovation one could create the best, most interesting, easy to learn, and potentially popular D&D EVER. (I wouldn't want change like I do if I thought it was impossible to achieve!)

BUT... they're more likely to do more harm then good if they go for drastic change, I'm afraid.
 

I'm with you, but I'm afraid that we're wrong and WotC is right (when it comes to creating a sustainably-selling, constantly growing game).

I mean, it's not IMPOSSIBLE that with crazy innovation one could create the best, most interesting, easy to learn, and potentially popular D&D EVER. (I wouldn't want change like I do if I thought it was impossible to achieve!)

BUT... they're more likely to do more harm then good if they go for drastic change, I'm afraid.
Basically. They've found something that sells extremely well and has widespread adoption, so why mess with it too much? Jeremy Crawford said so.

Luckily there are plenty of other publishers making games to cater to different tastes, so people should give those a try if WotC D&D isn't doing it for them.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Basically. They've found something that sells extremely well and has widespread adoption, so why mess with it too much? Jeremy Crawford said so.

Luckily there are plenty of other publishers making games to cater to different tastes, so people should give those a try if WotC D&D isn't doing it for them.
Innovation is better accomplished by new games, at any rate. The Creative Commons move should prove fruitful.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I'm with you, but I'm afraid that we're wrong and WotC is right (when it comes to creating a sustainably-selling, constantly growing game).
🤷‍♀️ as a player and not a publisher, I have the luxury of not caring if the game sells substantially or grows constantly; on the contrary, I think the pursuit of those things only hurts the quality of the art. I’m on the side of art.
BUT... they're more likely to do more harm then good if they go for drastic change, I'm afraid.
The cool thing about being willing to change is that if a change does more harm than good, you can just… you know, change it again.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
🤷‍♀️ as a player and not a publisher, I have the luxury of not caring if the game sells substantially or grows constantly; on the contrary, I think the pursuit of those things only hurts the quality of the art. I’m on the side of art.

The cool thing about being willing to change is that if a change does more harm than good, you can just… you know, change it again.
But business failures like that hurt players and the community, too.
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
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?
Yes.

(Ask a silly question, get a silly response.) ;)
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
Failures like what? Hurt how? No game system is without flaws, but not every system is truly great. Experimentation and innovation is how greatness is achieved.
Fourth Edition nearly killed D&D as a going concern, mostly because of bold own-goals that could have been avoided. Which is what they are working to avoid by only making changes if they delight and excite the audience.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top