D&D (2024) Summary for the uninitiated?

[Benjamin Olson]

I think that in the final version, classes (or subclasses) will have recommended feats (just like the recommended prepared spells) to make it less complicated for beginners. I suspect that when you level up in DDB, there will be an option to do a 'standard' level up that adds those recommendations to your character. That way if you want to dig in to the possibilities, you can, but you can also just take the recommendations and be sure to have an effective character.

I think where you and WotC differ with me is that while I think recommendations and default options are great to have, I don't believe they will do the heavy lifting in terms of accessibility that WotC thinks they will. The majority of new players, in my experience, come to the game partly out of desire to build a unique character, which they know is an integral part of rpgs, and aren't particularly interested in official recommendations. Official recommendations give the impression of being "the absolutely standard" version of that character, which most people don't want theirs to be. Often they want the character to be basically standard, but with their own twist at least. Few people want to play "the man's" rogue, or whatever.

It's great to have defaults and recommendations for the players who want those, but they are going to be a minority. I think they would do better in terms of accessibility with recommending several particularly good options at each juncture, such that new players know what the typically good options are, but still feel like they are putting their own twist on the character build. It's still not as good, from an accessibility standpoint, as just having a system that intrinsically introduces complexity gradually, but it's more likely to see widespread use than a single recommended starting spell-loadout or whatever.

But just because I personally don’t see the need, or agree with the need, to change something does not mean WotC is considering changing it “for change’s sake.” In fact I very much doubt they are changing anything just for the heck of it. I’m sure their goal in each case is a better game, at least in the view of the majority of their customers.

With the second playtest I started to worry that they realized they will sell more product if they make sure to change enough things that playing at a 5.5 book with a 5e PHB is unfeasible, and are hence going to introduce just enough arbitrary changes to the areas that were otherwise fine to bring that about. Thus a certain number of changes are required for the sake of having changes. Hopefully that's not the case.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think that there are two things going on, one is a greater codification of the rules along 4e lines. Without changing the core gameplay much and without using the codification to poison the well for anyone wanting to clone the game in the way that 4e tried with named powers and proper nouns everywhere.
This tightening of the rules will reduce but not eliminate the need for rulings because I think that would make more change to the basic game than they are willing to risk.
The other thing they are doing is (as someone up thread noted) A/B testing of certain features, rules and mechanics to check to boundaries of the acceptable.

 

[TerraDave]

I think that there are two things going on, one is a greater codification of the rules along 4e lines....

4e may be strong (3.5 was also pretty codified) but it is certainly a theme so far.

Not too many arguments here around it. I guess another thread could always be started...

 

[Parmandur]

So I heard that there's a new edition of D&D in the work and that people are already getting peeks at the proposed changes.

For the completely uninitiated, who haven't been following any of that, what's the main differences that there appear to be to the default 5th edition rules? Do they seem like improvements or fixes, or more different for the sake of being different? Anything that might make the game more appealing to people who haven't been huge fans of the system already?

Who knows how it will shake out, but so far:

• ASI tied to Background instead of Race
• Feats are mandatory, and the standard 5E ASI bump is now a Feat
• Everyone gets a Feat at 1st Level
• Feats ate gated by Oevel, and occasionally need other Feats or are Class specific
• Orcs are in, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are out: hybrid characters are covered by reflecting instead
• Classes organized by Group, which grants access to certain Feats and other things: Expert (Rogue, Bard, Ranger), Warrior (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk), Priest (Paladin, Druid, Cleric), and Mage (Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer).
• Some fiddling with Conditions and Inspiration

 

[TerraDave]

Who knows how it will shake out, but so far:

• ASI tied to Background instead of Race
• Feats are mandatory, and the standard 5E ASI bump is now a Feat
• Everyone gets a Feat at 1st Level
• Feats ate gated by Oevel, and occasionally need other Feats or are Class specific
• Orcs are in, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are out: hybrid characters are covered by reflecting instead
• Classes organized by Group, which grants access to certain Feats and other things: Expert (Rogue, Bard, Ranger), Warrior (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk), Priest (Paladin, Druid, Cleric), and Mage (Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer).
• Some fiddling with Conditions and Inspiration

There is a new fury/celestial race
All classes and races presented so far have been tweaked or more then tweaked. e.g. rogue probably changed the least, but changed, thief changed a lot.
Most (all?) feats so far tweaked or changed, and many more coming. E.g. no -5 hit +10 dmg feats.
Bard and ranger now prepare spells, including cantrips. ("flex vancian" is the term the cool kids are using). Paladin almost certainly also prepping.
Just a few spells presented so so far. Barkskin now good, guidance can't be spammed.
A d20 "test" is now a thing.

 

[Parmandur]

There is a new fury/celestial race
All classes and races presented so far have been tweaked or more then tweaked. e.g. rogue probably changed the least, but changed, thief changed a lot.
Most (all?) feats so far tweaked or changed, and many more coming. E.g. no -5 hit +10 dmg feats.
Bard and ranger now prepare spells, including cantrips. ("flex vancian" is the term the cool kids are using). Paladin almost certainly also prepping.
Just a few spells presented so so far. Barkskin now good, guidance can't be spammed.
A d20 "test" is now a thing.

Probably most Spells won't even be changed, honestly.

 

[TerraDave]

Probably most Spells won't even be changed, honestly.

We will see.

But speaking of spells, I didn't explain "flex vancian".

As in vancian, its one prepared spell per slot--versus say level+mod, and maybe some bonus from a subclass, which is what prep caster are now in 5e. But presumably, you can cast a prepared spell more than once. Hence flex.

Finally, while prep casting adds a lot of choice, to keep things easy, there is a list of default prep spells for the bard and ranger.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that there are two things going on, one is a greater codification of the rules along 4e lines. Without changing the core gameplay much and without using the codification to poison the well for anyone wanting to clone the game in the way that 4e tried with named powers and proper nouns everywhere.
This tightening of the rules will reduce but not eliminate the need for rulings because I think that would make more change to the basic game than they are willing to risk.
The other thing they are doing is (as someone up thread noted) A/B testing of certain features, rules and mechanics to check to boundaries of the acceptable.

Alongside that codification is a trend of normalizing options and mechanics, which is a shame IMO. The fiddly little ribbons and things like gnomes being able to communicate with small and smaller beasts at will are just better IMO than “all magical races get this format of spells” type stuff.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Alongside that codification is a trend of normalizing options and mechanics, which is a shame IMO. The fiddly little ribbons and things like gnomes being able to communicate with small and smaller beasts at will are just better IMO than “all magical races get this format of spells” type stuff.

Agreed, though I think that some of this is motivated by editorial considerations. They are using the spell writeups to save word count.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Agreed, though I think that some of this is motivated by editorial considerations. They are using the spell writeups to save word count.

Ugh. I can see it when it really is the same exact thing, but speak with animals once a day is not the same as the Forest Gnome’s ability to speak to small beasts at will.