D&D (2024) WotC Fireside Chat: Revised 2024 Player’s Handbook

In this video about the upcoming revised Player’s Handnook, WotC’s Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins reveal a few new tidbits.

• The books are near final and almost ready to go to print
• Psionic subclasses such as the Soulknife and Psi Warrior will appear in the core books
• Named spells have art depicting their creators.
• There are new species in the PHB.

​

 

[Clint_L]

Oh, it absolutely is silly. For one thing Gandalf wields a sword and magic users didn't

But the underlying point is a serious one. Even back pre-1e D&D had much much more magic from its casters than Lord of the Rings did. D&D is not a generic game, and the primary casters are incompatible with a LotR aesthetic because they are overflowing with spells. I'm not joking when I suggest banning all primary casters if you want a low magic game and making rangers, paladins, and possibly warlocks your biggest casters.

Kinda yes, kinda no. It's really hard to draw direct parallels between a game like D&D, with a need for tactical game mechanics, and a work of art like LotR, IMO.

For instance, Gandalf's magical powers sometimes seem paltry, like the smoke bang he makes to escape a bunch of goblins. But then again he's also a literal demigod who can beat a balrog (also a demigod) that was powerful enough to singlehandedly overthrow a dwarf kingdom. And you have elves like Ecthelion who were essentially just fighters but also could take down a balrog 1v1.

As far as going for a low magic game, I say go for it, if that's your thing. I'm not having a problem with magic breaking the game, so I don't see a need. But then I consider a 20th level Echo Knight as fearsome a character as a 20th level evocation wizard. As I posted earlier, I'll take my 2024 Way of Mercy monk over a spell caster of similar level 9 times out of 10.

 

[Micah Sweet]

True, but... it's a magical world. Whose to say what's actually normal and mundane in such a world?

What matters is how the players see it.

 

[mamba]

I'm not joking when I suggest banning all primary casters if you want a low magic game and making rangers, paladins, and possibly warlocks your biggest casters.

I fully agree with that

 

[Micah Sweet]

Power source: badass.

I'm only joking a little bit. I can totally get behind a setting where medium-to-high-level "mundanes" absorb enough ambient magic to be able to perform feats that to us seem preposterous.

Would you be able to get behind the book saying that's what happening, or does it need to be obscured because we don't want to hear the "M" word?

 

[Clint_L]

Since our weekly magical/martials discussion seems to be cooling off, could we talk about how they describe the artwork as integral to the rules, rather than as an add-on? According to the video, for the first time they were able to develop the art alongside the text, with the idea that they would complement each other. I am very interested to see what that looks like.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I actually don't think they need to do the same things, any more than wizards and clerics need to do the same things. Ideally, wizards and psions would do different things. This would require nerfing quite large parts of the wizard spell list in order to give the psion a niche in which to excel without breaking the game.

Of course they need to be able to do some of the same things. If for no other reason than that is the history of D&D spellcasting and psionics. Spellcasting classes have a lot of overlap in that they have many of the same spells on their spell lists. The reason is that the D&D game has specific challenges, conditions, and status effects to overcome. Spells and Powers are among the rules objects that overcome those challenges. Rather than create a different version of Cure Wounds or Lesser Restoration, there is only 1 version of that spell that multiple classes use.

Should a Psion be able to use biometabolism to cure disease or the blinded, deafened, paralyzed, or poisoned conditions? If so, why create "Lesser Psionic Restoration" that does the same thing as Lesser Restoration? Even a variant that removes one thing it can restore and adds something else is unnecessarily complex to track.

Spellcasters and Psions each need access to a variety of powers like Teleportation, Telekinesis, Telepathy, Divination, Altering Self, Manipulating Energy/Matter in various ways, and way more. Some of them are just tweaked reskins. For instance, for pyrokinetic psions, the Whitefire power was pretty much a reskinned variant Fireball. Old school Psions had abilities like Psionic Levitate, Psionic Knock, etc.

The Psion needs to function parallel to Spellcasters, not remove Spellcasters' ability to cast spells they've had access to for 30+ years just so the Psion feels like it has something unique.

 

[Oofta]

Kinda yes, kinda no. It's really hard to draw direct parallels between a game like D&D, with a need for tactical game mechanics, and a work of art like LotR, IMO.

For instance, Gandalf's magical powers sometimes seem paltry, like the smoke bang he makes to escape a bunch of goblins. But then again he's also a literal demigod who can beat a balrog (also a demigod) that was powerful enough to singlehandedly overthrow a dwarf kingdom. And you have elves like Ecthelion who were essentially just fighters but also could take down a balrog 1v1.

As far as going for a low magic game, I say go for it, if that's your thing. I'm not having a problem with magic breaking the game, so I don't see a need. But then I consider a 20th level Echo Knight as fearsome a character as a 20th level evocation wizard. As I posted earlier, I'll take my 2024 Way of Mercy monk over a spell caster of similar level 9 times out of 10.

I still say that Gandalf was a charlatan that simply landed on top of a nice cushy balrog after setting off an explosive charge at a weak point on an ancient bridge that was far over it's carrying capacity. That or the "Balrog" was really an accomplice that owed Gandalf a favor.

 

[Raiztt]

That ibold bit is obvious. I was talking about players who behave in a certain way, you seem to be making an effort to reframe that to players who behave that way and also participate in online discussion and have not made any effort to clarify why the "participate in online discussion" secondary filter should be applied. That is a very strange leap simply to dismiss what was a stated observation about players who behave in a particular way... perhaps you confused my post with some other post by a different poster?

Again, at no point in the last 24 hours have I been talking to you, or even about the same thing as you. I literally do not know what you're on about.

I made a one-off statement about how if D&D was separated into two different 'tiers' it would calm down internet debates (probably not true) but that the devs don't care about the (almost certain) minority of people complaining on a forum about the logistics and metaphysics of a fantasy world.

You replied to me initially - I didn't reply to you.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Kinda yes, kinda no. It's really hard to draw direct parallels between a game like D&D, with a need for tactical game mechanics, and a work of art like LotR, IMO.

For instance, Gandalf's magical powers sometimes seem paltry, like the smoke bang he makes to escape a bunch of goblins. But then again he's also a literal demigod who can beat a balrog (also a demigod) that was powerful enough to singlehandedly overthrow a dwarf kingdom. And you have elves like Ecthelion who were essentially just fighters but also could take down a balrog 1v1.

You're avoiding the point. Gandalf was possibly the most powerful wizard in Middle Earth and who was seen to cast at most third level spells, putting his spell slot casting on a level with fifth level primary casters. And of the 12 classes in the D&D 5e PHB either five or six (depending on how you count the warlock) are full casters. Someone said they wanted to play a LotR style character - but by the time you hit fifth level you've about half the party casting more than Gandalf does, and he's the archetypal wizard.

Yes there's a case that in D&D terms Gandalf works better as a partial caster - but he's one of the inspirations and touchstones for the wizard class.

 

[Clint_L]

I still say that Gandalf was a charlatan that simply landed on top of a nice cushy balrog after setting off an explosive charge at a weak point on an ancient bridge that was far over it's carrying capacity. That or the "Balrog" was really an accomplice that owed Gandalf a favor.

South Park style? He placed a large bet on Gandalf?