I am certain I will get the new releases, although I may treat it a bit like new technology/software releases where I wait a bit for things to settle first.
yes, how many "patches" break more than they fix! I'm not anti DND, I just haven't been impressed with the fixes. To be honest I have decades of official published material to get through before I even need to think about 1DND!
see this is where i'm not too sure where to start with 5e i'd love to find more full adventures outside of starter sets to supliment my homebrew stuff but i only really know of sourcebooks
Kenku were significantly flawed, but imo most of the other lore is workable. Not every fictional culture presented in a fantasy setting needs to be a shining pillar of moral rectitude and civil equity.
I don't have a problem with inequitable cultures in fantasy. What I do have a problem with is biological destiny for playable creatures, who are supposed to have free will. By all means, have a Goliath tribe, or even all the Goliaths in a specific setting, be jerks to their elderly and infirm. But don't write lore implying that all Goliaths on every plane in the multiverse act that way.
And to drag this tangent back on topic, this is yet another reason why I see value in the 2024 core books, because they're more consciously avoiding the negative implications that kind of rigid lore can have.
I am certain I will get the new releases, although I may treat it a bit like new technology/software releases where I wait a bit for things to settle first.
yes, how many "patches" break more than they fix! I'm not anti DND, I just haven't been impressed with the fixes. To be honest I have decades of official published material to get through before I even need to think about 1DND!
see this is where i'm not too sure where to start with 5e i'd love to find more full adventures outside of starter sets to supliment my homebrew stuff but i only really know of sourcebooks
I am certain I will get the new releases, although I may treat it a bit like new technology/software releases where I wait a bit for things to settle first.
yes, how many "patches" break more than they fix! I'm not anti DND, I just haven't been impressed with the fixes. To be honest I have decades of official published material to get through before I even need to think about 1DND!
see this is where i'm not too sure where to start with 5e i'd love to find more full adventures outside of starter sets to supliment my homebrew stuff but i only really know of sourcebooks
That is a link to all the current adventures that are official.
There is also DMsguild, which has a whole lot of additional adventures for sale.
3rd party and homebrew to me are the core of D&D save the ease of buying books and parts of books post DDB. I play at far more of this table than any other! No citations needed!
I guess if adventure league is you're thing then RAW and where d&d is going may be of importance? For me not so much. love what i have both physical and digital.
Unless they make huge changes to dc,ac and stuff would the biggest change be races and creation?
I’d say to check out the playtest documents for ideas about the kinds of changes. But keep in mind many of the bigger changes from earlier versions get switched back in later documents.
I think the change to backgrounds and assumptions of a level 1 feat will be pretty big. All of the classes and 4 subclasses per class will be getting a tune-up. They’ve released a number of changes to spells, and there’s most certainly more of those coming. They’ve also talked about changes to monsters to make them better reflect their CR.
But the underlying math is planned to stay the same (no changes to dc and ac and stuff). And they say a goal is you’ll be able to play a 2014 and 2024 version of a character at the same table. How well that goal is achieved will likely end up being pretty subjective — with some people who will be happy no matter what, some who will never be happy, and most somewhere in between.
Here is the thing. Many of us never allowed the new Mord's at our table. The vast majority have not even looked at the new Dragonlance stuff. If you think that a DM (and even the players) is going to tolerate having some chars far more powerful at the table (free feat, tasha's moveable attributes, different feature list) alongside chars that have been around for years, you are mistaken.
Very true. You may well have already begun to learn One D&D, but I would say that as many as 90% of players have not purchased or utilized either of those sources, and a gargantuan amount of people were appalled by M3, so it had more attention but was likely enjoyed and allowed by less than it might seem.
I’ll have to keep current if I’m to continue publishing.
I wanna star publishing ultimately too, so this definitely is a factor for me. But ultimately, I'm able to afford the new books and I wanna see what cool new stuff happens, and overall am pretty satisfied with One D&D. Worst comes to worst, I read the books, steal a couple of ideas, and keep playing fifth. But the likelihood of that happening is about as low as the chance a tarrasque would appear in the real world, because it's a couple thousand times easier to find groups for the latest edition, and I generally enjoy updates and anticipate being pleased or at least somewhat appeased by the rules I've given input on.
--
There, me being a meandering and hard to read goofball is over... Until the next post! :)
Unless they make huge changes to dc,ac and stuff would the biggest change be races and creation?
I’d say to check out the playtest documents for ideas about the kinds of changes. But keep in mind many of the bigger changes from earlier versions get switched back in later documents.
I think the change to backgrounds and assumptions of a level 1 feat will be pretty big. All of the classes and 4 subclasses per class will be getting a tune-up. They’ve released a number of changes to spells, and there’s most certainly more of those coming. They’ve also talked about changes to monsters to make them better reflect their CR.
But the underlying math is planned to stay the same (no changes to dc and ac and stuff). And they say a goal is you’ll be able to play a 2014 and 2024 version of a character at the same table. How well that goal is achieved will likely end up being pretty subjective — with some people who will be happy no matter what, some who will never be happy, and most somewhere in between.
The goal of having a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter, at the same table is merely marketese. It is impossible to do when the 6e version is clearly more powerful than the 5e version. The person playing a 5e char will be very annoyed when the 6e equivalent is vastly superior. And a DM is going to be tied up in knots trying to figure out how to either keep the 5e chars alive or the 6e chars from steam-rolling the table, when there is a mixed party at the table.
The goal of having a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter, at the same table is merely marketese. It is impossible to do when the 6e version is clearly more powerful than the 5e version. The person playing a 5e char will be very annoyed when the 6e equivalent is vastly superior.
Yeah, I don't think the playtest versions come close to "vastly superior". Are they better, in the raw damage numbers sense? Probably, at least if you try. But most people don't care that much about that. Optimizers are gonna optimize. (Also, isn't the 2014 ranger considered one of the weakest classes? Would the same comparison apply to a 2014 paladin?)
Are they better, as in they just generally play better, have more coherent mechanics, etc.? Time will tell, but that's certainly the goal.
And a DM is going to be tied up in knots trying to figure out how to either keep the 5e chars alive or the 6e chars from steam-rolling the table, when there is a mixed party at the table.
I'm not concerned about this. You already can have a broad range of effectiveness in a 5e group, depending on how much the players care about being murder machines. If before the likely range of combat effectiveness was, say 6-10 (on an arbitrary 1-10 scale), and it's now 6-11, it's not going to be a big deal, especially since the characters are going to be just as durable.
Since the playtest started, I have been DMing for a group with mixed 2014 players and UA players. Some wanted to give the playtest a try, others did not. Since that split months ago, it had caused balance problems exactly zero times.
OneD&D’s class changes do not make the classes more powerful - they change the classes. Take Monk, for example - more powerful across the board… but the nerf to Stunning Strike has drastically reduced its efficacy in other areas. But, even the things where there were improvements, those improvements are not so drastic as to really upset the balance of the game. Even an additional first level feat has not really tipped the balance of power - no more than things like Variant Human already have been doing for years.
Frankly, I am disappointed that 2014 and 2024 are not more incompatible—5e was always lacking in player customisation options, and OneD&D would have been a great time to expand them. But that is not the direction Wizards went and, if things continue on this trajectory, it looks like we’ll be seeing an updated edition that can easily be played alongside the old.
I will 100% be learning it, excited for this update actually. Been letting players test out the UA in our existing game and they like what they have been seeing. Ready for a bit of freshening up. Bring it on.
Unless they make huge changes to dc,ac and stuff would the biggest change be races and creation?
I’d say to check out the playtest documents for ideas about the kinds of changes. But keep in mind many of the bigger changes from earlier versions get switched back in later documents.
I think the change to backgrounds and assumptions of a level 1 feat will be pretty big. All of the classes and 4 subclasses per class will be getting a tune-up. They’ve released a number of changes to spells, and there’s most certainly more of those coming. They’ve also talked about changes to monsters to make them better reflect their CR.
But the underlying math is planned to stay the same (no changes to dc and ac and stuff). And they say a goal is you’ll be able to play a 2014 and 2024 version of a character at the same table. How well that goal is achieved will likely end up being pretty subjective — with some people who will be happy no matter what, some who will never be happy, and most somewhere in between.
The goal of having a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter, at the same table is merely marketese. It is impossible to do when the 6e version is clearly more powerful than the 5e version. The person playing a 5e char will be very annoyed when the 6e equivalent is vastly superior. And a DM is going to be tied up in knots trying to figure out how to either keep the 5e chars alive or the 6e chars from steam-rolling the table, when there is a mixed party at the table.
Um, done that.
Had a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger side by side, even.
Also, once again, you invent this whole 6e BS -- there is no 6e coming out for a minimum of at least six years, and there have been no UAs for 6e at all, so your imaginary ranger doesn't quite exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Unless they make huge changes to dc,ac and stuff would the biggest change be races and creation?
I’d say to check out the playtest documents for ideas about the kinds of changes. But keep in mind many of the bigger changes from earlier versions get switched back in later documents.
I think the change to backgrounds and assumptions of a level 1 feat will be pretty big. All of the classes and 4 subclasses per class will be getting a tune-up. They’ve released a number of changes to spells, and there’s most certainly more of those coming. They’ve also talked about changes to monsters to make them better reflect their CR.
But the underlying math is planned to stay the same (no changes to dc and ac and stuff). And they say a goal is you’ll be able to play a 2014 and 2024 version of a character at the same table. How well that goal is achieved will likely end up being pretty subjective — with some people who will be happy no matter what, some who will never be happy, and most somewhere in between.
The goal of having a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter, at the same table is merely marketese. It is impossible to do when the 6e version is clearly more powerful than the 5e version. The person playing a 5e char will be very annoyed when the 6e equivalent is vastly superior. And a DM is going to be tied up in knots trying to figure out how to either keep the 5e chars alive or the 6e chars from steam-rolling the table, when there is a mixed party at the table.
So, I’m guessing I know which category you’ll fall in, in terms of always, sometimes, or never happy.
As above posters said, lots of people won’t even notice the difference. Sure, some will be annoyed, but nothing is perfect for everyone. I’m in a game right now where a couple people took strixhaven backgrounds, and got the feat that goes with it, while other did not. I’m not the did not part. I didn’t even realize they had an extra feat until they said so, around 5th level. It’s really not a big deal.
And the DM should have no such knot-tying problems. The AC and HP numbers will be the same. The saving throws will be the same. 2024 characters will be no more durable than 2014.
Unless they make huge changes to dc,ac and stuff would the biggest change be races and creation?
I’d say to check out the playtest documents for ideas about the kinds of changes. But keep in mind many of the bigger changes from earlier versions get switched back in later documents.
I think the change to backgrounds and assumptions of a level 1 feat will be pretty big. All of the classes and 4 subclasses per class will be getting a tune-up. They’ve released a number of changes to spells, and there’s most certainly more of those coming. They’ve also talked about changes to monsters to make them better reflect their CR.
But the underlying math is planned to stay the same (no changes to dc and ac and stuff). And they say a goal is you’ll be able to play a 2014 and 2024 version of a character at the same table. How well that goal is achieved will likely end up being pretty subjective — with some people who will be happy no matter what, some who will never be happy, and most somewhere in between.
The goal of having a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter, at the same table is merely marketese. It is impossible to do when the 6e version is clearly more powerful than the 5e version. The person playing a 5e char will be very annoyed when the 6e equivalent is vastly superior. And a DM is going to be tied up in knots trying to figure out how to either keep the 5e chars alive or the 6e chars from steam-rolling the table, when there is a mixed party at the table.
So, I’m guessing I know which category you’ll fall in, in terms of always, sometimes, or never happy.
As above posters said, lots of people won’t even notice the difference. Sure, some will be annoyed, but nothing is perfect for everyone. I’m in a game right now where a couple people took strixhaven backgrounds, and got the feat that goes with it, while other did not. I’m not the did not part. I didn’t even realize they had an extra feat until they said so, around 5th level. It’s really not a big deal.
And the DM should have no such knot-tying problems. The AC and HP numbers will be the same. The saving throws will be the same. 2024 characters will be no more durable than 2014.
Great. If the 5e and 6e PC's are the same, then there is no reason to move to 6e.
Unless they make huge changes to dc,ac and stuff would the biggest change be races and creation?
I’d say to check out the playtest documents for ideas about the kinds of changes. But keep in mind many of the bigger changes from earlier versions get switched back in later documents.
I think the change to backgrounds and assumptions of a level 1 feat will be pretty big. All of the classes and 4 subclasses per class will be getting a tune-up. They’ve released a number of changes to spells, and there’s most certainly more of those coming. They’ve also talked about changes to monsters to make them better reflect their CR.
But the underlying math is planned to stay the same (no changes to dc and ac and stuff). And they say a goal is you’ll be able to play a 2014 and 2024 version of a character at the same table. How well that goal is achieved will likely end up being pretty subjective — with some people who will be happy no matter what, some who will never be happy, and most somewhere in between.
The goal of having a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter, at the same table is merely marketese. It is impossible to do when the 6e version is clearly more powerful than the 5e version. The person playing a 5e char will be very annoyed when the 6e equivalent is vastly superior. And a DM is going to be tied up in knots trying to figure out how to either keep the 5e chars alive or the 6e chars from steam-rolling the table, when there is a mixed party at the table.
So, I’m guessing I know which category you’ll fall in, in terms of always, sometimes, or never happy.
As above posters said, lots of people won’t even notice the difference. Sure, some will be annoyed, but nothing is perfect for everyone. I’m in a game right now where a couple people took strixhaven backgrounds, and got the feat that goes with it, while other did not. I’m not the did not part. I didn’t even realize they had an extra feat until they said so, around 5th level. It’s really not a big deal.
And the DM should have no such knot-tying problems. The AC and HP numbers will be the same. The saving throws will be the same. 2024 characters will be no more durable than 2014.
Great. If the 5e and 6e PC's are the same, then there is no reason to move to 6e.
So, don't move.
But maybe let the rest of us have productive conversations, instead of just throwing around angry half-truths.
Frankly, I am disappointed that 2014 and 2024 are not more incompatible—5e was always lacking in player customisation options, and OneD&D would have been a great time to expand them. But that is not the direction Wizards went and, if things continue on this trajectory, it looks like we’ll be seeing an updated edition that can easily be played alongside the old.
I think you can blame the polling for that... in the UA it seems any time they made a major change that would reduce compatibility with base 5e, it was hammered with negative feedback. So we're back to having subclass progression limited to the same levels, spellcasting kept as close to 5e as possible, etc. I'm sure if some of the early major gameplay changes were popular they probably would have went more in that direction, but now the goal seems to be to make the new rules as safely optional as possible.
Seeing as i'm new i'll stick to 5e unless i get priced out of the 5e core books due to them being oop
If it's an expense thing, that makes perfect sense. Personally, I'll at least give it a shot. It's nice to have new material. I remember when 4E came out, I basically said, "Mmm... yeah... not for me... no," and then there was that 6 year dry spell. Let me tell ya, that was rooooooough! The fact that everything is new to you could mean that you still have a ton of materials to play through before you start jonesing for more. Enjoy it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
see this is where i'm not too sure where to start with 5e i'd love to find more full adventures outside of starter sets to supliment my homebrew stuff but i only really know of sourcebooks
in a hole in the ground you notice a halfling
I wasn't aware that my response was somehow unplugging their router and keeping them from venting 🤨
I don't have a problem with inequitable cultures in fantasy. What I do have a problem with is biological destiny for playable creatures, who are supposed to have free will. By all means, have a Goliath tribe, or even all the Goliaths in a specific setting, be jerks to their elderly and infirm. But don't write lore implying that all Goliaths on every plane in the multiverse act that way.
And to drag this tangent back on topic, this is yet another reason why I see value in the 2024 core books, because they're more consciously avoiding the negative implications that kind of rigid lore can have.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources#Adventures
That is a link to all the current adventures that are official.
There is also DMsguild, which has a whole lot of additional adventures for sale.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
3rd party and homebrew to me are the core of D&D save the ease of buying books and parts of books post DDB. I play at far more of this table than any other! No citations needed!
I guess if adventure league is you're thing then RAW and where d&d is going may be of importance? For me not so much. love what i have both physical and digital.
Though I do love a GOOD debate.
I’d say to check out the playtest documents for ideas about the kinds of changes. But keep in mind many of the bigger changes from earlier versions get switched back in later documents.
I think the change to backgrounds and assumptions of a level 1 feat will be pretty big. All of the classes and 4 subclasses per class will be getting a tune-up. They’ve released a number of changes to spells, and there’s most certainly more of those coming. They’ve also talked about changes to monsters to make them better reflect their CR.
But the underlying math is planned to stay the same (no changes to dc and ac and stuff). And they say a goal is you’ll be able to play a 2014 and 2024 version of a character at the same table. How well that goal is achieved will likely end up being pretty subjective — with some people who will be happy no matter what, some who will never be happy, and most somewhere in between.
Very true. You may well have already begun to learn One D&D, but I would say that as many as 90% of players have not purchased or utilized either of those sources, and a gargantuan amount of people were appalled by M3, so it had more attention but was likely enjoyed and allowed by less than it might seem.
I wanna star publishing ultimately too, so this definitely is a factor for me. But ultimately, I'm able to afford the new books and I wanna see what cool new stuff happens, and overall am pretty satisfied with One D&D. Worst comes to worst, I read the books, steal a couple of ideas, and keep playing fifth. But the likelihood of that happening is about as low as the chance a tarrasque would appear in the real world, because it's a couple thousand times easier to find groups for the latest edition, and I generally enjoy updates and anticipate being pleased or at least somewhat appeased by the rules I've given input on.
--
There, me being a meandering and hard to read goofball is over... Until the next post! :)
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The goal of having a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter, at the same table is merely marketese. It is impossible to do when the 6e version is clearly more powerful than the 5e version. The person playing a 5e char will be very annoyed when the 6e equivalent is vastly superior. And a DM is going to be tied up in knots trying to figure out how to either keep the 5e chars alive or the 6e chars from steam-rolling the table, when there is a mixed party at the table.
Yeah, I don't think the playtest versions come close to "vastly superior". Are they better, in the raw damage numbers sense? Probably, at least if you try. But most people don't care that much about that. Optimizers are gonna optimize. (Also, isn't the 2014 ranger considered one of the weakest classes? Would the same comparison apply to a 2014 paladin?)
Are they better, as in they just generally play better, have more coherent mechanics, etc.? Time will tell, but that's certainly the goal.
I'm not concerned about this. You already can have a broad range of effectiveness in a 5e group, depending on how much the players care about being murder machines. If before the likely range of combat effectiveness was, say 6-10 (on an arbitrary 1-10 scale), and it's now 6-11, it's not going to be a big deal, especially since the characters are going to be just as durable.
Since the playtest started, I have been DMing for a group with mixed 2014 players and UA players. Some wanted to give the playtest a try, others did not. Since that split months ago, it had caused balance problems exactly zero times.
OneD&D’s class changes do not make the classes more powerful - they change the classes. Take Monk, for example - more powerful across the board… but the nerf to Stunning Strike has drastically reduced its efficacy in other areas. But, even the things where there were improvements, those improvements are not so drastic as to really upset the balance of the game. Even an additional first level feat has not really tipped the balance of power - no more than things like Variant Human already have been doing for years.
Frankly, I am disappointed that 2014 and 2024 are not more incompatible—5e was always lacking in player customisation options, and OneD&D would have been a great time to expand them. But that is not the direction Wizards went and, if things continue on this trajectory, it looks like we’ll be seeing an updated edition that can easily be played alongside the old.
I will 100% be learning it, excited for this update actually. Been letting players test out the UA in our existing game and they like what they have been seeing. Ready for a bit of freshening up. Bring it on.
Um, done that.
Had a 2014 Ranger and a 2024 Ranger side by side, even.
Also, once again, you invent this whole 6e BS -- there is no 6e coming out for a minimum of at least six years, and there have been no UAs for 6e at all, so your imaginary ranger doesn't quite exist.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'll try it for sure, i hope to migrate the current game i'm DMing in a smooth way to the new rulesets as soon as possible.
I don’t plan to purchase anything new for D&D anymore.
So, I’m guessing I know which category you’ll fall in, in terms of always, sometimes, or never happy.
As above posters said, lots of people won’t even notice the difference. Sure, some will be annoyed, but nothing is perfect for everyone. I’m in a game right now where a couple people took strixhaven backgrounds, and got the feat that goes with it, while other did not. I’m not the did not part. I didn’t even realize they had an extra feat until they said so, around 5th level. It’s really not a big deal.
And the DM should have no such knot-tying problems. The AC and HP numbers will be the same. The saving throws will be the same. 2024 characters will be no more durable than 2014.
Great. If the 5e and 6e PC's are the same, then there is no reason to move to 6e.
"Not vastly more powerful" != "the same"
But you know that.
Fortunately, no one is moving to 6e; this is more like 5.5
So, don't move.
But maybe let the rest of us have productive conversations, instead of just throwing around angry half-truths.
I think you can blame the polling for that... in the UA it seems any time they made a major change that would reduce compatibility with base 5e, it was hammered with negative feedback. So we're back to having subclass progression limited to the same levels, spellcasting kept as close to 5e as possible, etc. I'm sure if some of the early major gameplay changes were popular they probably would have went more in that direction, but now the goal seems to be to make the new rules as safely optional as possible.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
If it's an expense thing, that makes perfect sense. Personally, I'll at least give it a shot. It's nice to have new material. I remember when 4E came out, I basically said, "Mmm... yeah... not for me... no," and then there was that 6 year dry spell. Let me tell ya, that was rooooooough! The fact that everything is new to you could mean that you still have a ton of materials to play through before you start jonesing for more. Enjoy it.