D&D (2024) So IS it a new edition?

[Chaltab]

I think that has obviously been the case all along. I also think the permutations in between are what makes this change different from 3.Xe to 4e or 4e to 5e.

not just 5E and 5.24, but also you have Level Up, Tales of the Valiant, Nimble 5E, DC20, etc that all kind of exist in the same space and have elements that are mutually compatible and elements that aren't.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Howso? For all its missteps 4E was a remarkably well-designed game.

That's entirely debatable in base of what one wants from a game.

 

[Minigiant]

It has for the past 3 editions, but I’m not sure it must mean that and only that.

I think it does because...

Dang so its just in D&D that people can't grasp the concept.

D&D is the only game seriously attempting to be and capture the mainstream.

Most TTRPGs are too niche and/or have community so small they aren't allowed to do major changes outside outright fixes.

 

[Minigiant]

I was just watching a video with one of the designers, Makenzie De Armas. When discussing concerns that the extra dice added to basic Cleric spells might make healing too powerful she said "Don't worry the monsters will hit harder. You're going to want those extra dice."

Admittedly, 2014 monsters are a bit on the weak side if you play with fewer than the recommended daily 6 - 8 encounters, but you might not want to use those 2024 monster with a table of 2014 characters and expect the same results.

Well that's more fixing monsters to match the CRs the game says they have.

Is a errata a new edition.

Because this really feels like big errata and new art. ESPECIALLY what they say about the DMG and MM.

 

[Chaltab]

That's entirely debatable in base of what one wants from a game.

Except not really? I do not like Pathfinder 2E but I acknowledge that for the type of rules heavy tactical game it wants to be it is a very well designed game. You may not like what 4E does but it does that thing very well.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Except not really? I do not like Pathfinder 2E but I acknowledge that for the type of rules heavy tactical game it wants to be it is a very well designed game. You may not like what 4E does but it does that thing very well.

Unsure about that. There are parts of 4e that were rewritten over and over and the difference between the first and later monster manuals are striking. I also don't consider the execution of several powers well made at all for what I expect from a fantasy RPG.

 

[Maxperson]

If you look at the monsters in the newer books, my impression is that they've already been using slightly different calculations. But CR is just a general guideline, it's not like the skeleton suddenly doubled their HP or changed their AC.

It always seemed to me like the monsters in the MM were a bit underpowered so I don't mind them getting a bit of extra oomph.

@mamba brushed up against something that I was thinking about while my dogs were getting their nails clipped. There may have been some that were too weak for their CR like he suggested, but I also remember Crawford saying that the old creature format had a lot of DMs failing to see the optimal fighting ability for monsters, so the DMs were causing them to swing under their CR. I think a lot of the Monsters of the Multiverse changes were to help DMs choose the optimal fighting abilities so that the monsters swing at the appropriate difficulty. That would allow for the new monsters to be "deadlier" as you stated, while still allowing them to remain the same CR.

Otherwise those are mutually exclusive positions. I can't build an 11 CR encounter under the 2014 rules and then use the exact same monsters from the 2024 MM and have the latter be deadlier. Either the latter is deadlier and the CR is higher, or it's not deadlier.

 

[Maxperson]

I say "3e" for all of three whether 3.0 or 3.5. If I need to specify, I use the decimals. But I pretty much never need to distinguish. So 3e it is.

For AD&D, I usually refer to 1e. I rarely refer to 2e except for the origins of some settings. Meanwhile when I am referring to all of the traditions inclusively, I say "old school" and at this point include OSR and similar.

For 4e, I refer to every thing as "4e" − especially since "everything is core". I consider 4e Essentials more like a Tashas.

I do the same thing. I don't say, "I started playing 3e when it came out, then switched to 3.5e until 2020." Instead I just say that I played 3e until 2020. I only really differentiate between the two if I'm talking about something that is 3.5e specific and I don't want to confuse people.

 

[Oofta]

@mamba brushed up against something that I was thinking about while my dogs were getting their nails clipped. There may have been some that were too weak for their CR like he suggested, but I also remember Crawford saying that the old creature format had a lot of DMs failing to see the optimal fighting ability for monsters, so the DMs were causing them to swing under their CR. I think a lot of the Monsters of the Multiverse changes were to help DMs choose the optimal fighting abilities so that the monsters swing at the appropriate difficulty. That would allow for the new monsters to be "deadlier" as you stated, while still allowing them to remain the same CR.

Otherwise those are mutually exclusive positions. I can't build an 11 CR encounter under the 2014 rules and then use the exact same monsters from the 2024 MM and have the latter be deadlier. Either the latter is deadlier and the CR is higher, or it's not deadlier.

But that's true if I use monsters of the same CR from different books now, so I don't see how an issue. But this is off-topic and something we won't really know much about until next February.

 

[Yaarel]

2024 seems to be inching closer to 4e again, not sure that is a good idea

There are things that 4e did that 5e wont, and probably 4e shouldnt have either. Like, separating combat spells and utility spells into separate levels.

On the other hand, some things 4e did right, like the Bloodied condition. Super useful and narratively clarifying. 5e can happily poach these things.

Some things 4e did that 5e probably should have done, but can no longer do, like the way 4e determines most of the hit points at level 1.

Happily, the ultra minimalist 2014 levels made it easy to add a free background feat, a 4e-ism, first during 2014 settings to see how it goes and now part of 2024 core.

For 2024, the new ultra minimalist character builds will probably be "origin only" before taking levels in any class.