D&D (2024) Out with the old, in with the new?

[jmartkdr2]

If we switch, we'll probably approach it the way we're handling the PF2 Remaster: anything not in the Remaster is now Uncommon and has limited access - ie produce flame is now an unusual spell generally considered outdated compared to the more modern ignition, but you might find it somewhere.

The meta reason is that we trust that Paizo is making these changes for a reason, but we also don't want to be forced to abandon any old ideas we still like. So, uncommon. PF2's rarity system works well for this.

To put it in 5e terms, "modern" rangers have learned that trying to tame actual animals to go on adventures with you is generally unsafe for the animals, so they've learned to summon animal spirits instead. Said spirits ay have once been real-animal friends, but now they just get unsummoned rather than dying.

 

[niklinna]

Well, 2014 lost me early and definitively. Level Up came this close to making me actually want to play D&D again, and if I'd heard of a group forming locally, I might well have joined it. (And by the way, I briefly tried Pathfinder 2e and might have liked it, but for the group I was in. It's got way more texture than flavor, though.)

2024 looks like it has some good changes, so I might be drawn in by that. I am not interested in any long prescripted adventure paths, though. A true sandbox, maybe. Something the group authors together, sure.

FWIW, I never bought any 2014 5e books personally, just used friends' copies. I did back Level Up, and bought the PF2e player handbook. No plans to buy 2024 D&D books, and certainly none to pay a subscription fee.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The results of this vote so far show that many people expect it to be, at least in some sense, a new edition. We each might use different language to represent that, but while there will be continuity from PHB 2014, the new PHB will become the default rules for most players, soon enough. Both PHBs are not going to remain in print.

My point. I know it's a new edition. Be nice if WotC labeled it as such, so we can separate it in discussion and so 3pp can decide which edition they're going to base their design on (if any).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Funny how people keep talking about this with the same language you'd use for a new edition...

Because it is a new edition for all intends and purposes. 3.5 was also a new edition. So lets call it 7e from now on.

 

[Parmandur]

Because it is a new edition for all intends and purposes. 3.5 was also a new edition. So lets call it 7e from now on.

9th Edition would make most sense, as it will represent the ninth ISBN for the PHB and DMG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because it is a new edition for all intends and purposes. 3.5 was also a new edition. So lets call it 7e from now on.

I'm down with any name a plurality of posters will accept that isn't simply "5e". 5.5e fits the bill best IMO.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm down with any name a plurality of posters will accept that isn't simply "5e". 5.5e fits the bill best IMO.

Nah. There is no such thing as half an edition.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Hard reset except adventures, which made it a bit tricky to answer the poll.

I'm curious as to what you mean. I assume you mean that you'll buy the three core books, but that you're either done with buying Adventures going forward, or that you're just saying that you'll be very choosy with them?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Funny how people keep talking about this with the same language you'd use for a new edition...

That's because it's the 9th time that the core books have been revised since Advanced Dungeons & Dragons came out in 1978 (and you have to ignore the D&D line before and concurrent to that in order to only arrive at 9). There have been many different naming conventions during that time.

What is an "edition" and what is not, is something of a muddled mess (which makes it "fun" to argue about!) But a DM has to decide to incorporate new rules (or not) whenever new rules arrive. Heck, that even includes errata!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah. There is no such thing as half an edition.

And yet we have 3.5 explicitly called out as such. It's a useful distinction, with precedent, and I see no reason (as I am not an agent of a massive maximum-profit-seeking corporation) not to use it.

We'll see how it shakes out.