D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Scott Christian]

With the extreme devoted to PHB122-141 (BIFTS & backgrounds) the player who hasn't read it in detail arrives actually expecting to get what the ads look like without any of this or this and the GM has an incredibly poor footing with little to back them up right from the getgo if they try to push back in an effort to aim the player expectations towards reality. That solid footing is what the GM lost through the shift in tone & pagecount. "well bob you need to read the entire PHB & to be honest probably the DMG too, why not do that while I'm talking to Alice about $thing" is not really a solution for the GM.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. They should read the entire PHB. If they don't or can't, The DM should simply say, read the introduction. It's four pages. That right there will set the tone. If they won't or can't do that, then I would ask why they are playing a game with a 300+ page rulebook?

And none of this even considers a session zero, which immediately solves the problem as well.

I understand your concern over DM footing. And you are correct, the PHB character creation does put an enormous amount of language as if the player owns everything. I really don't think anyone denies that. But, in my opinion, it should be that way? Which is why the Introduction is so important.

It's not just noble, any of the backgrounds with notable social clout carries these sorts of problems. Guild artisans styled as guildmasters & the like, criminals who expect to be mafia boss adjacent, soldiers written like general Brittish, soldiers who expect to be taken as The legendary Captain Jack Sparrow, etc.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here, again. Those tropes are popular and fun for a lot of players. If the DM can't figure out a way to make them work over the course of a campaign, then that is on the DM. I realize that some DMs have a unique world, and that some of those tropes won't work. But again, if you are playing in one of those worlds, I would assume you need a session zero to tell the players about how your setting differentiates from the common Forgotten Realms setting.

 

[Maxperson]

First, let's get rid of the pesky noble background. It literally states in the PHB (pg. 125) "... if you come from a wealthy background, why don't you have more money?" This implies to the reader (player) that they shouldn't overreach. Because they are a noble does not mean they have tons of coin. The second is customization literally tells the player to work with their DM.

Players roll their social status in my game. The noble background is not pickable. This is because if a PC is noble, it comes with everything that a noble would get, which is far more than the half-assed background in the PHB. I've only had one noble so far in 5e.

 

[tetrasodium]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. They should read the entire PHB. If they don't or can't, The DM should simply say, read the introduction. It's four pages. That right there will set the tone. If they won't or can't do that, then I would ask why they are playing a game with a 300+ page rulebook?

And none of this even considers a session zero, which immediately solves the problem as well.

I understand your concern over DM footing. And you are correct, the PHB character creation does put an enormous amount of language as if the player owns everything. I really don't think anyone denies that. But, in my opinion, it should be that way? Which is why the Introduction is so important.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here, again. Those tropes are popular and fun for a lot of players. If the DM can't figure out a way to make them work over the course of a campaign, then that is on the DM. I realize that some DMs have a unique world, and that some of those tropes won't work. But again, if you are playing in one of those worlds, I would assume you need a session zero to tell the players about how your setting differentiates from the common Forgotten Realms setting.

You are basing pretty much this entire post on a misinterpretation of something I wrote about a specific problem caused by time and presentation.

Players should absolutely be expected to read the book and I never said otherwise. However that does not change the fact that "read" is not the same as "study every word of it as if preparing for their doctoral degree in phb" or something and players will often come away with bad expectations... They will especially be likely to if they already thought or even hoped that those expectations would be what they see because through page count and misleading passive/active voice the phb reinforces those expectations.

The phb actively makes it difficult for those bad expectations to be corrected by the gm and "read the entire book for deeeper meaning" is not a thing capable of being done within the time a group allocates to things like session zero or a chargen interaction. That's an especially unreasonable thing for the GM to be expected to fix now when the problem is created by the 2014phb making efforts to shift PC backgrounds out of the background where they were once omitted or clearly and explicitly explained as a secondary thing to more important stuff and into the foreground.

 

[ECMO3]

Quick straw poll. What are your intentions right now?

Yes or no only. If you are undecided go with which way you are leaning—-like if you HAD to pick which would you pick? If you’re exactly 50/50 then don’t worry I guess!

I said yes. I personally prefer 5E over the various UAs that have come out for D&D 24. I particularly detest the new Monk and don't like the weapon mastery. There are a few other things I don't like too, changes to the Ranger, changes to some spells, changes to some races. But weapon mastery and the new Monk are the main ones.

So if it was up to me I would not switch.

That said, most of the people in one of my gaming groups seem eager to switch. Especially the DM. When it comes down to it I would rather game with them in a new slightly less fun ruleset than stick to 5E and find a new group.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I said yes. I personally prefer 5E over the various UAs that have come out for D&D 24. I particularly detest the new Monk and don't like the weapon mastery. There are a few other things I don't like too, changes to the Ranger, changes to some spells, changes to some races. But weapon mastery and the new Monk are the main ones.

I understand your feeling. I also think that the monk pendulum has swung too far to the other side. And I hope weapon masteries get reined in a bit and switching weapons mid attack action needs to be adressed too.

So if it was up to me I would not switch.

I think it will be possible to mix and match.

That said, most of the people in one of my gaming groups seem eager to switch. Especially the DM. When it comes down to it I would rather game with them in a new slightly less fun ruleset than stick to 5E and find a new group.

We have nkt seen the final rule set. There is quite a good chamce that the books don't look exactly like the UA.

The onednd playtest was different than the dnd next playtest.

 

[Clint_L]

I said yes. I personally prefer 5E over the various UAs that have come out for D&D 24. I particularly detest the new Monk and don't like the weapon mastery. There are a few other things I don't like too, changes to the Ranger, changes to some spells, changes to some races. But weapon mastery and the new Monk are the main ones.

Almost everyone loves the new monk - it scored the highest of all the class revisions, at over 90% approval. I think it's so much more fun to play. What's your beef with it?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Almost everyone loves the new monk - it scored the highest of all the class revisions, at over 90% approval. I think it's so much more fun to play. What's your beef with it?

I'm curious too, because if it's that it's "unbalanced" - the print version will probably be toned down a notch. I hope by only a notch, because it's a LOT of fun as it is, but probably a little too "powerful" overall.

I'm not as impressed by Weapon Masteries as a lot of people seem to be (they're fine - I just don't find them all that inspiring) but there's no doubt that they're very popular and I can't see why anyone would be particularly offended by them.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm curious too, because if it's that it's "unbalanced" - the print version will probably be toned down a notch. I hope by only a notch, because it's a LOT of fun as it is, but probably a little too "powerful" overall.

I'm not as impressed by Weapon Masteries as a lot of people seem to be (they're fine - I just don't find them all that inspiring) but there's no doubt that they're very popular and I can't see why anyone would be particularly offended by them.

Yeah, WotC often puts out a powerful proof of concept option ti gadgets interest, and tunes it after they know how it did in UA.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm curious too, because if it's that it's "unbalanced" - the print version will probably be toned down a notch. I hope by only a notch, because it's a LOT of fun as it is, but probably a little too "powerful" overall.

I'm not as impressed by Weapon Masteries as a lot of people seem to be (they're fine - I just don't find them all that inspiring) but there's no doubt that they're very popular and I can't see why anyone would be particularly offended by them.

I tend to dislike anything that pigeonholes martials even further.

 

[ECMO3]

Almost everyone loves the new monk - it scored the highest of all the class revisions, at over 90% approval. I think it's so much more fun to play. What's your beef with it?

I hate the new Monk. It is WAY OP with multiclassing on a 2-level dip, especially on a caster because the 2nd level ki abilities are OP and you get way too many Ki Points with the recharge on an initiative roll once a day. (Note: I know they are not called ki any more but it is a lot easer to write)

Even on a single class build, where multiclassing is not allowed you can both dodge and attack every single turn starting from 1st level without using any ki at all. This blows away every other build out there at 1st level and it doesn't get any better. The only thing that happens is as you level you can work some ki in to work in to disengage too in addition to your attack and dodge, or you can use a ki to make 2 attacks instead of 1 while dodging or at higher levels work in a stunning strike. All the way to level 20 though you can dodge and attack completely resource free.

Pick up 2 levels of Monk on your Wizard or Sorcerer and for about 20% of turns you can both dodge and disengage as a bonus action. and when you are not doing that you can either disengage for free or make a bonus action attack using dexterity after you cast your leveled spell. Your AC should be a minimum of 13 on point buy without any mage armor and 15 is easily doable and that is before you cast shield. You might say well that is Wizard and Sorcerer, but a Cleric-Monk can't do that. On a Cleric or Druid it is worse, go without Armor and max wisdom and dexterity. Then on top of that all of these things would work while wildshaped RAW. Right now you can play into this but you are very limited in ki and you can't both disengage and dodge.

The old Monk was pretty weak in tier 2, but it was still viable and it made up for that in tier 1 and tier 4+ where it was the best non-caster class. People complained about a 5E Monk being weak compared to other martials .... those people obviously never played a 1E Monk that was atrocious weak.

The only change I really wanted to see on the old Monk was to give them Glaive (Naginta), Longsword (Kantana) and Blowgun proficiency. I think it is kind of wierd that three of the weapons most associated with eastern martial arts are not on their list.