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

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

More fuel to this fire; within days of the Creator Summit, Beyond confirmed and clarified that half-races were not being removed from the game, and instead is just a rules change.

Thats what an immediate correction and clarification looks like, and they're clearly capable of it.

That is why theres little trust to be had in the idea that OneDND was always just a "revision".

No, you again seem to be unaware of a great many things.

Step 1, WotC announced a revision to 5e

Step 2, WotC release a UA which clearly indicates it is fore a revised 5e.

Step 3, in a UA there is a change to “half-races.” This causes some waves (at least here it did). There was no reaction from WotC back then.

Step 4, we had the OGL fiasco and WotC committed to communicating better.

Step 5, half-races became in issue again and WotC made a quick clarification. Like the said the would do in step 4.

If you believe a quick response to an issue is anything more than them living up to the lessons they learned in step 4 above, well the.I think you are just not paying attention.

If people don’t trust what WotC says about 2024 D&D there are plenty of good logical reasons, this is not one of them.

 

[Emberashh]

No, you again seem to be unaware of a great many things

Is it unawareness or a different interpretation?

Don't project what you don't actually know about others onto them.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Here is how I see it.

1. Wizards is clearly telling us that they love the framework of the current edition of D&D and want to keep it. They are essentially asking the public to accept their new definition of "edition," in that refreshes/refinements of the rules on the same chassis is not an "edition change," especially when they assure us that using older content really shouldn't be a problem because it will be easy to kitbash, like books of previous decades.
2. They don't want to use the terms "5.5E" or "6E," because those are loaded terms. Rather they are acknowledging the differences between the books by calling them "the 2014 core books" and "the 2024 core books." I respect their intent and that is how I will differentiate these "versions" going forward. Not "5.1" or "5.5" or "6E", or "RD&D" and not even the project name "OneD&D." I am using the language they are using. Anyone not using the preferred language is still really struggling to make sense of it, or they think in a way that they need very specific labels (and as I am neurodivergent, I can totally see this being an honest need for someone), or is willfully fighting Wizards in their own way, or is maybe just straight up enjoying the edition war rhetoric and chaos. Yeah, some people are unhappy with Wizards or their direction and just want to fight it. But arguing over semantics of what it should be called is not helping the community.
3. I believe Wizards thinks that if they can get people to get on board with this new iterative process that the community can be an ally in the transition, using helpful language to educate new and returning players. (Of course it will only really work if the lion's share of the community like the refinements.) Here is one potential example of a supportive way to handle the transition into a new D&D campaign in 2024:

"Hey Barb! Thanks for your interest in joining our D&D game. To set the tone, As the DM, am choosing to use the new 2024 books as the baseline for this campaign. Will is excited about the Evoker Wizard and Steve is chomping at the bit to play the updated Champion Fighter (I think he wants to play with the new morningstar mastery. Something about a spiked club that he wants to twirl around in flourishes like a badass.) Frankly, I am looking forward to it as well as I really like what they've done with monsters, especially brain eating aberrations. I know you had questions or concerns about the new books, and that's ok. We're going to gather for a Session Zero to hammer out details and concepts next Saturday. I am baking a casserole if you are interested, but feel free to bring any food or snacks you want. Anyroad, we'll be happy to share the new books at the table, and DDB has the 2024 rules if you're interested in checking them out at home on your own time. The SRD is also available in the Creative Commons [here] if you like that layout. It's pretty much the same, with a few tweaks. I've already ran a campaign during the late playtest, so I found some proud nails that I'm going to clear up for everyone.​

​

I do recall Nancy saying that you really wanted to play the 2014 Circle of the Moon druid that you never got to play. While I'd encourage you to check out the 2024 Druid to see how the designers felt they could improve the play experience, as long as you are comfortable doing the research to have all the appropriate 2014 beast stat-blocks at hand, I don't have a problem with it. In the world, your character will just be from a slightly different Circle and essentially have a similar, though different subclass to some other druids. People don't assume all druids are exactly the same. Also, if you ever want to try something from the new books, let me know and we'll work it into the story. But if you wanted to play the 2014 Ranger, I am house-ruling to remove Primeval Awareness, as I personally don't like it. But I am happy letting you swap something in for it. Oh, did you want to use Level Up's Druid? I have to brush up on it to make sure there is nothing that breaks my campaign plans (like the 2014 Ranger's annoying Primeval Awareness), but if it looks good, I won't mind. And if we find small discrepancies between that ruleset and ours, we'll figure it out for our shared experience. It's just a storytelling game, we can smooth out any weirdness."
​

Would that be so hard to do our best to provide feedback to make it the best D&D we can, and get on board if we're going in the same direction?​

​

And would it be so hard to stop raging against it if you decide it's not for you? Everyone here has their favorite version of "D&D" and I bet many are homebrewed enough to not match any edition's core rules anyway. Why not play what you want? Play PF or Black Flag or Level Up if you want to. Stop trying make the next D&D books into other already existing games if you know in your heart that you already prefer those games and aren't going to play Wizards' D&D. You already have what you want.​

​

And do we have to bag on 3rd party products for being different? It's good that they are different. More options are good!​

​

Also, is there any way we can we be the generation that took control to stop the edition wars?​

 

[Emberashh]

Why not play what you want? Play PF or Black Flag or Level Up if you want to. Stop trying make the next D&D books into other already existing games if you know in your heart that you already prefer those games and aren't going to play Wizards' D&D. You already have what you want.

The last time I suggested this I got ragged on by countless amounts of people for "gatekeeping".

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Is it unawareness or a different interpretation?

Don't project what you don't actually know about others onto them.

Sure, my apologies. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would think differently of you if you were unaware. If you are aware of the facts and arrived at the conclusion you did, then I don’t think I can have constructive conversation with you.

 

[Emberashh]

If you are aware of the facts

Conflating your interpretation of events with being factual isn't going to be a constructive avenue, no.

We can only know what WOTC is trying to assert even if it contradicts their actions, and given their behavior during the OGL debacle, I have little reason to afford them any benefit of the doubt that this was just an oopsie, because they're doing the same fundamental things they did there.

Fool me once and all that, but this isn't the first time they tried asserting after the fact that something most people understood one way was actually always some other way, nor is it the first time they've tried to act as though it just wasn't important enough to clarify until their hand was forced by backlash.

You may find it egregious to be over-willing to condemn, but that goes both ways with being over-willing to forgive.

Either way its spun, WOTC isn't inspiring confidence and has not recovered from their missteps at all, which gets further compounded by what we've gotten in these playtests that have thus far, much of which has been wildly out of synch with the player base.

I don't think WOTC Designers were ready to start this kind of an update, new edition or something else, but they didn't have a choice. Thats a leadership problem and it exacerbates every issue subordinate to them.

 

[mamba]

The last time I suggested this I got ragged on by countless amounts of people for "gatekeeping".

pretty sure ‘countless’ is a number close to two, never see many people saying stuff like this.

Not sure how saying ‘play the game you like and exists, don’t try to make 1DD like that game’ is gatekeeping in the first place

 

[mamba]

Either way its spun, WOTC isn't inspiring confidence and has not recovered from their missteps at all, which gets further compounded by what we've gotten in these playtests that have thus far, much of which has been wildly out of synch with the player base.

not sure how >70% approval rate for most things is out of sync with the player base.

Given the size and diversity of the base there is basically nothing that everyone would agree with, so you will always have someone complaining loudly somewhere

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

"Hey Barb! Thanks for your interest in joining our D&D game. To set the tone, As the DM, am choosing to use the new 2024 books as the baseline for this campaign. Will is excited about the Evoker Wizard and Steve is chomping at the bit to play the updated Champion Fighter (I think he wants to play with the new morningstar mastery. Something about a spiked club that he wants to twirl around in flourishes like a badass.) Frankly, I am looking forward to it as well as I really like what they've done with monsters, especially brain eating aberrations. I know you had questions or concerns about the new books, and that's ok. We're going to gather for a Session Zero to hammer out details and concepts next Saturday. I am baking a casserole if you are interested, but feel free to bring any food or snacks you want. Anyroad, we'll be happy to share the new books at the table, and DDB has the 2024 rules if you're interested in checking them out at home on your own time. The SRD is also available in the Creative Commons [here] if you like that layout. It's pretty much the same, with a few tweaks. I've already ran a campaign during the late playtest, so I found some proud nails that I'm going to clear up for everyone.

I do recall Nancy saying that you really wanted to play the 2014 Circle of the Moon druid that you never got to play. While I'd encourage you to check out the 2024 Druid to see how the designers felt they could improve the play experience, as long as you are comfortable doing the research to have all the appropriate 2014 beast stat-blocks at hand, I don't have a problem with it. In the world, your character will just be from a slightly different Circle and essentially have a similar, though different subclass to some other druids. People don't assume all druids are exactly the same. Also, if you ever want to try something from the new books, let me know and we'll work it into the story. But if you wanted to play the 2014 Ranger, I am house-ruling to remove Primeval Awareness, as I personally don't like it. But I am happy letting you swap something in for it. Oh, did you want to use Level Up's Druid? I have to brush up on it to make sure there is nothing that breaks my campaign plans (like the 2014 Ranger's annoying Primeval Awareness), but if it looks good, I won't mind. And if we find small discrepancies between that ruleset and ours, we'll figure it out for our shared experience. It's just a storytelling game, we can smooth out any weirdness."

I'd like more details on the casserole, please.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I mean, I can see that argument Uni, that's why I presented it. But you need a new terminology if you want to differentiate them, because, as OLD PERSON, to me this is exactly an edition, because for the first half of my life, this is what D&D editions looked like - further, it's more extreme than the edition of a lot of games, like say, CoC.

Hi Ruin! Are you open to accepting Wizards' apparent preferred nomenclature?

Project Name for the 2024 Initiative to refine and combine the D&D, DDB, and VTT: One D&D
5E 2014 rulebooks: 2014 rulebooks
5E 2024 rulebooks: 2024 rulebooks

Why or why not?

I for one think it is VERY clear language, and it conveys what is necessary to know to identify them.