D&D 5E (2024) RD&D MM will have nearly 500 Monsters, and new NPCs.

[Emberashh]

(Again, foolish over foul; stupidity before malevolence)

The thing to keep in mind is that from my perspective, stupidity is markedly worse than malevolence.

If the Druid has to be sacrificed on the altar of VTT play (as the malevolent track might imply), that at least is understandable even if they aren't being honest about it.

But if they genuinely believe it was better all around, then that, as said, speaks to what the rest of the game is going to be like.

The former still allows for the rest of the game to still be pretty good if not better than what its replacing. The latter is unlikely to produce that same effect.

For example, I actually like the idea of a tested statblock over a "grab any beast" for wildshape

I don't think I would have even had an opinion on it if it had been done well, at least not until I got to designing my own take on it.

But that UA prompted me to think on it enough I shook up the plans for my game considerably, and for the better by my estimation.

Thats why I hopped on the "Druids shouldn't be shapeshifters at all" train pretty early and have been on it since.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

D&D 14 and D&D 24 in text, I have no problem with 5.1e (or 5.24) either

The latter two are unusable because they're brain-twisters and nerd-only. No normal human being will ever call the 2024 edition "5.24". That's Starfleet Battles levels of nerd (he said, looking over his shoulder at his copy of Starfleet Battles). And most people who play D&D now are not remotely in that category of nerd.

The other two are unusable because of similarity - they're one value different, so they won't catch on.

If we referred to "5E" and "D&D2024" that might work, but I don't think the latter is sustainable length-wise. And they need to be immediately obviously different, because otherwise people - especially disnumerate people - will be struggling to keep which one is being discussed in their head - DND2014 and DND2024 for example is not helpful. It's a real pity they didn't do it on a year with say different final character.

What you have to remember is, we don't decide. No matter how clever we think we are, ENworld is a bunch of ageing grogs with relatively little influence on the D&D community at large. So anything that's being suggested needs to be suitable for a much broader audience. In the end, really only two groups have control over this:

1) WotC. They went hard with marketing when launching the UAs, and managed to brand this 1D&D. Now, again, if they didn't mean to, that was a terrible plan because it absolutely happened. WotC are notoriously bad at PR so possibly it was unintentional.

2) The community at large, which is mostly people aged from late teens through early 30s. I.e. the youngest Millennials and Gen Z. People who will get info and discuss on YouTube, Twitter, TikTok and so on. Those people have made a choice - WotC's earlier choice - 1D&D.

Until WotC can beat 1D&D as a name, or another really snappy name emerges, WotC is stuck with it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

if we consider 4e and essentials to be separate and 3 and 3.5 then yes, but those were largely compatible too, so we are back to having an undefined term that is meaningless because it is used in different contexts

It's obviously not meaningless, or WotC wouldn't be so terrified of it that they're willing to, in public, outright lie about 3E > 3.5E, in a way that's entirely obvious to anyone familiar with this. It has some kind of meaning for them, that's for sure.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Until WotC can beat 1D&D as a name, or another really snappy name emerges, WotC is stuck with it.

Once the new books come out, I predict that it's going to work out exactly as WotC intended: People will just call it "Dungeons & Dragons."

There will, of course, be a forever thread on reddit and a forever thread here arguing about the nomenclature, but 99.9% of the audience just won't care. (Honestly, all the talk about it this week has pretty much maxed out my interest on the subject forever.)

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

To be fair it was in regards to people struggling with the game due to neuro issues or even just general preferences, but its still ultimately the same point.

DND doesn't need to be everything to everyone, and making it more accessible shouldn't be at the cost of making it less appealing. Theres a balance to be reached and sometimes the proverbial equation is only solved by playing something everyone can enjoy.

But thats a diatribe I don't see a point in resurrecting so I'll leave it at that.



Im not referring to stuff that gets approved. Im referring to things like the Druid, which if it somehow gets even close to 70% will tell me that either somethings screwy with the surveys or that theres a group of players distinct from the Online that aren't in-synch with each other.

Hi again, Ember! I'd like to respond about Druid stuff, and it is relevant to the MM mentioned in the OP! First, I do not believe that Monster stat blocks can, or even should be, balanced for player use. I want them to do their jobs as monsters. Second, how many druid players have the MM (or multiple monster books) as their 2nd+ PHBs? And how many use them efficiently and in a timely fashion during gameplay? Not many in my anecdotal experience. I was one of them. I had to bookmark a monster manual at the table and it was still slow. How many are not also looking up every monster the DM throws at them because the MM is in their hands (that has happened more than once in games I've played in. (Heck I was that player!)

I really love the idea of a nature loving druid character. But I stopped playing the 2014 druid because while the themes are wonderful, mechanically they are a nightmare, and their wildshape is so limited in the ways I like to play.

If I want to play a Moon Cougar druid, I can't wildshape into a cougar and still be effective in a game (even at lower levels). The Beast stat blocks are limiting and Beasts don't scale unless someone creates a new stat block. I would have to research all kinds of other stat blocks and ask the DM if I can reskin, and even then the special abilities are not going to match up. I was told to "just use the bear stat block and call it a cougar." How is that advice any different than the Playtest reskinning, which does scale for effectiveness for whatever form you want?

Sure the Playtest Druid is not ready for print. It needs a LOT of work. But I strongly believe that the scaling stat block is the way to go because the base effectiveness of that druid will never be in question. Here are some things that don't yet work and I provided feedback on as potential solutions.

1. I want there to be a pretty decent list of possible beast abilities to choose from when I wildshape. Do I want be a cougar so I can pounce on my prey? I can just choose the pounce ability from the list. Do I want to be a wolf for pack tactics? Just select pack tactics. The free unarmed strike already lets you grapple if you want to represent a wolf dragging someone to the ground, or a constrictor snake, or a bear hugging someone with extreme prejudice. But maybe there is an ability to select that enhances that grapple or offers a better one? This will help the player better represent the animal in their minds. I also have no problem with all wildshape forms having darkvision. It's a magic world. Your primal connection gives it to you. That works.
2. I dislike the ablative HP as designed in 2014. That is not how any shapechanging fiction works. Using the 2014 rules you get dropped as a bear and you are still hale and hearty. I don't buy it. That said I don't mind getting some temporary hit points with the wildshape to make yourself a little tougher.
3. I want wildshape to be a duration that does not require concentration and you can change into any appropriate available form while under that singular wildshape use. It's not borken if you don't get the 2014 ablative armor every time you shift. Also, in my vision, you only get any temporary hit points the first time you spend the use of wildshape, not each time you shift while under that wildshape duration. Do I want to be an Owlbear to beat someone into the ground, then spend a bonus action to turn into a deer and run away? That is fine! (This design also supports the way Doric wildshapes in DADHAT, and how Merlin does it in the Sword and the Stone, and who doesn't want to do that!?)
4. I want tiny noncombat forms at lower level. I don't think you need to assume that the Tiny form can tank or something because they still have lots of hit points. While your hit points don't have to change, just include in the ability or stat block that if you take damage, you get knocked out of wildshape. And while you could still use your next action to get back into a new form, your cover is blown. What a story as to try to fight or run! (See Doric)
5. I don't need flying at level 1, but I don't want to wait too long to get it.

For anyone defending the 2014 druid, are my ideas remotely interesting if they were in the 2024 rules?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The thing to keep in mind is that from my perspective, stupidity is markedly worse than malevolence.

It can be, sure.

If the Druid has to be sacrificed on the altar of VTT play (as the malevolent track might imply), that at least is understandable even if they aren't being honest about it.

I suppose. Often things are "both" (in this case, it's probable that they're trying to rework the Druid for ease of the VTT, but that can look like a great many things).

But if they genuinely believe it was better all around, then that, as said, speaks to what the rest of the game is going to be like.

I don't think that they thought that what they presented was better all around. I think they thought it was good enough to get feedback on, with the details to be worked out later. They were wrong. They should have gotten more of the details right first.

The former still allows for the rest of the game to still be pretty good if not better than what its replacing. The latter is unlikely to produce that same effect.

Yeah, but I doubt that it's the case. I suspect that it's... messier than that. Not as cut-and-dried.

I don't think I would have even had an opinion on it if it had been done well, at least not until I got to designing my own take on it.

You've got to recognise that you're somewhat biased. You're working on your own game, so you are looking at everything with the lens of "how can I do this better?" Which is likely to make your range of appreciation very narrow. (I know! I did the same 25 years ago when I got sick of 2e! We played my game exclusively for decades. OMG it was that long ago? Yikes!)

But that UA prompted me to think on it enough I shook up the plans for my game considerably, and for the better by my estimation.

Yeah, I mean, if you don't like your own game, you'll just keep working on it until you do. If you don't like theirs... you can complain about it here! You have the benefit of not having to share it with people who will trash it.

Thats why I hopped on the "Druids shouldn't be shapeshifters at all" train pretty early and have been on it since.

I've never felt that druids should be shapeshifters. Shapeshifters should be shapeshifters. It could be a whole class to itself. Both it and druids would be better for it. But D&D gets hung up on "tradition". You don't have to. Lucky you!

 

[mamba]

The latter two are unusable because they're brain-twisters and nerd-only. No normal human being will ever call the 2024 edition "5.24".

not that different from 5.5, just a different version number really, not conceptually different

The other two are unusable because of similarity - they're one value different, so they won't catch on.

because 1e, 2e, 3e., ... were so different

What you have to remember is, we don't decide. No matter how clever we think we are,

not alone, no, I'd just call it D&D 24 or 5.1e and be done with it. Not sure how many other options than the ones I had are out there though, or why you would like any of them better

1) WotC. They went hard with marketing when launching the UAs, and managed to brand this 1D&D.

that was the codename for the playtest, never understood it as anything other than this version's 'D&D Next'

Until WotC can beat 1D&D as a name, or another really snappy name emerges, WotC is stuck with it.

I guess we will see. 95% of players have not even heard of it yet, or at least are not stuck to a name yet. Most of those will probably hear of it from WotC marketing for the first time. So WotC still can shift that name, but the longer they wait / the wider it spreads, the harder it will be.

 

[mamba]

It's obviously not meaningless, or WotC wouldn't be so terrified of it that they're willing to, in public, outright lie about 3E > 3.5E, in a way that's entirely obvious to anyone familiar with this. It has some kind of meaning for them, that's for sure.

The term 'edition' clearly is meaningless (in that it has no defined meaning) given the different uses we had over time. This does not mean that there is no reaction to it in the community or that a different edition does not automatically imply incompatibility, whether it exists or not. This is what WotC wants to avoid, the impression of drastic changes and incompatibility that an edition change comes with, which will exist regardless of the facts

 

[tetrasodium]

I really have never experienced, or even heard a second-hand account of such an experience. Do you have personal experience having the problem you described? Or is this internet observation and theorizing? I feel for you if you have problems with session 0s. However they are amazing for me, being neurodivergent, as they help people understand the social contract of the table. For instance I would not play in a GoT-style game with that world's level of... nonconsensual interactions. I would politely decline to play at a table if that came up as a possible theme in the session 0.

One of the most important unspoken things about session 0 is to determine if the group has the chemistry to enjoy gaming together.

Yes I have.but not prior to 5e.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Those are obviously wildly impractical and the result of desperately trying to not identify this as a new edition, rather than a serious attempt to be helpful or come up with a name.

They're far too long to use, verbally and in text - because WotC isn't serious about using them. They're essentially placeholders whilst they try and figure out if they can "make fetch happen" and convince everyone to refer to the new edition as just "D&D". History relates that they will not be able to, but as we saw with the OGL, just because something is obviously stupid, that is absolutely not going to stop WotC trying it!

Furthermore, they don't address the actual issue we're discussing, which is that, by the standards of most other RPGs, and most editions of D&D, this is absolutely an edition-level change, and trying to say it isn't is pure PR of a cheap and unhelpful kind.


This is correct, and it's absolutely not a reasonable position to say it's "not an edition" and "not a X.5", because their logic was absolutely offensively false. As a fellow neurodiverse person you should be able to appreciate that using offensively bad logic as obvious PR is quite triggering for some of us. By WotC's logic most recently expressed, then they shouldn't have called 3.5E anything, and 2E shouldn't have been called anything either. But by the real use of the term "edition", over the last 50 years of RPGs, this is an absolutely an edition, and so was 2E - hell for some games, 3.5E would have just been 4E. Likely the only reason it wasn't was PR.

It's actively unhelpful to their cause to behave this way.

Even if we take the most positive spin on what you're claiming, they're attempting disingenuous manipulation, rather than being honest and simply saying "Yeah, it's comparable to the 1E > 2E change, but we'd prefer not to refer to it that way". Instead we get dishonest claims like it's "not even a change like 3.5E", which just absolutely untenable as claim on any level whatsoever. That's not how you act if you want to transparently work with the community.

Yet you are engaging in exactly that an unhelpful way by suggesting we adopt obviously unusable terminology merely because WotC liked it this week. Will they like those terms in six month? A year? Hard to say. If they can stop lying about previous editions, and come up with a sensible, very short acronym, then we can work with that. It has to be them, if they want it to stick - otherwise it'll be the community, and the community has picked "variants of 1D&D" as the name. Nothing they've said so far will change that.

What's funny is D&D2024/DND2024 was kind of popular when the edition was purely theoretical, but instead of calling it that, WotC introduced the 1D&D branding, and hard-associated it with the new edition. If they intended not to, they screwed up completely - you can see on reddit for example, how quickly that became the new name (whether expressed as 1D&D, 1dnd, OneDnd or whatever).

You're encouraging edition warring, frankly, with your patronising and somewhat contemptuous tone in your post towards anyone who is not 100% on board with you (the one I'm quoting from). If you don't mean to be patronising or sneer, you language is ill-chosen and should be reconsidered. Your "piss off and play other games if you disagree with me" attitude is not the one of a peacemaker. Again, I get you're also neurodiverse, so maybe you've screwed up here, but you are not achieving your goals if so.

Interesting. Do you even see your own hostility and patronization? I've been a lurker for a while, so I've been watching, and you are certainly one of the people that makes me feel unwelcome to engage with you.

I'm sorry if I offended or triggered you. But to be honest, your vitriol triggers me in almost every thread I see you post in. Maybe I should go back to lurking. I can't play in whatever sandbox you are trying to dominate.

Thank you for your thoughts and critiques. I will consider them in my introspection on how to better present myself. I'm obviously not doing a good job.