D&D (2024) You're not planning on getting 2024 D&D? Why is that?

[Micah Sweet]

Even then. I doubt even a majority of player know of or look at the errata. Then there's the fact that errata aren't rules. They're clarifications of what was intended, but don't have the weight of a rule.

They did in 4e, pretty definitively. The errata was practically it's own sourcebook.

 

[Stoutstien]

What does the new book have to say on the subject?

Talkingfrom both sides of their mouth for garbled things that spawn 400 page threads about specific wording that *can't, be addressed with simple means.

 

[The Ghost]

1. I am content with older editions of the game.
2. No compelling product (e.g., introductory set, 50th anniversary set) offered.

 

[ThrorII]

We moved back to B/X-OSE back in 2018 and haven't looked back. We were burned out on D&D 5E. We felt it was too magic-heavy for PC classes, life on "Easy Mode" for PCs, and even with DMG options like Gritty Realism, Lingering Injuries, and Slow Rests, we couldn't get the Old School feelings we remembered.

 

[GothmogIV]

You had to have completely misread what I posted to come up with that. Nowhere did I say or imply that you need mechanics in order to have a chance of success.

You said you were concerned about the whims of a DM making unfair to players, and that a roll is fair. So...?

 

[Voadam]

I switched from not interested in any to using a gift certificate to order the 2024 PH. I expect a lot of games to switch over for future games as a default. I have no current plans to get the 2024 DMG or MM because I have the existing 5e ones and expect to be able to use those with a game where the PCs use the 2024 PH.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I honestly can't see a single reason to actually get 2024 5.5e. Having to put out full price for a new set of core rulebooks, when in reality it's glorified errata which doesn't fix any of the issues I had with the system (while introducing new issues).

And even if I did want to switch, both my groups have said they're not going to switch so it wouldn't happen anyway.

 

[R_J_K75]

The more I read about this revision the more I don't think it's for me. At one point I considered buying it, but I realized again why I don't play 5E anymore and I doubt this revision will fix any of that. The being able to reload a crossbow without a free hand is dumb and I don't trust them to make a well thought out revision. Even if I bought the revision, I doubt we'd play it very long so I'm not wasting my money

 

[clearstream]

Or the rope above you snapping. I see what you are saying, but I don't think the 5e rules are exactly fail forward. The DMG includes an optional rule for failing forward. I believe they call it success with a consequence where if you fail by I think it's 3 or less, you still succeed but there is a consequence like the falling vase.

In the DMG are "optional" and "variant" rules, and just rules. DMG 237 is of the latter sort.

You could be thinking of 242, which extends that to extra consequences on specific numbers.

 

[clearstream]

This is the point i disagree with many gms and the DMG. Failing forward, partial successes, degrees of success, and all those concepts are just unnecessary noise that hurt the game and conflict with an eloquent process.

They have their benefits, although as I said I find this to be less about binary versus trinary outcomes, and more about consequential outcomes.

The GM should always know what failure means before rolling. If they don't know that there no reasonable reason for the check to occur. The dice are meant to be a neutral method to decide an outcome not a tool to inject randomness to the world for the sake of it.

This means that failure needs to be defined at the same time as determining if the roll is needed and the DC after adjusting for situational modifiers.

Agree, and the PHB text doesn't guide to it.

Where WoTC shat the bed is they gloss over the vast range of possibilities when your talking about failure. If you ask most GMs what failing means they talk about roll results rather than anything else.

A signal failing was not putting the words in DMG 237 into the PHB.

It'll be interesting to see what the 5.5 DMG contains.