i was pointing out the player's handbook tells players repeatedly that the DM is in control of the rules, and moreso, in 5e the dm is actually expected to smooth things out and alter rules etc for the good of the game.
If the dm is jerk people will leave, but being a jerk is not really focused on whether you follow the rules, in fact some of the jerky stories people complain about is about DMs who are extremely rules focused, and even more horror stories have nothing to do with rules at all, but just attitudes, narrative, execution and various other things. So yeah a dm who abuses the rules to be a jerk sucks, but the main problem there is beinga jerk, not altering the rules.
and also, i will say if you have trouble finding the right balance, its usually better to follow the rules than not to.
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
This is kind of the universal mantra of modern gaming culture, and I would argue that 5e as a book of advice has actually done everything in its power to discourage this attitude, but I don't think it's been successful.
I think it's interesting that people make this claim that it's ok to change the rules however you see fit when this entire forum and every message in it is a direct contradiction to how this actually works in modern gaming culture.
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
If changing the rules doesn't make the game better, you shouldn't change the rules, and the primary metric for a game being better is people having more fun. Now, sometimes players don't realize that a change will make the game more fun, but for the most part, a change without player buy-in is a bad change.
i was pointing out the player's handbook tells players repeatedly that the DM is in control of the rules, and moreso, in 5e the dm is actually expected to smooth things out and alter rules etc for the good of the game.
If the dm is jerk people will leave, but being a jerk is not really focused on whether you follow the rules, in fact some of the jerky stories people complain about is about DMs who are extremely rules focused, and even more horror stories have nothing to do with rules at all, but just attitudes, narrative, execution and various other things. So yeah a dm who abuses the rules to be a jerk sucks, but the main problem there is beinga jerk, not altering the rules.
and also, i will say if you have trouble finding the right balance, its usually better to follow the rules than not to.
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
This is kind of the universal mantra of modern gaming culture, and I would argue that 5e as a book of advice has actually done everything in its power to discourage this attitude, but I don't think it's been successful.
I think it's interesting that people make this claim that it's ok to change the rules however you see fit when this entire forum and every message in it is a direct contradiction to how this actually works in modern gaming culture.
its not really a catch 22 because the idea is actually not the DM should change the rules however they want, its actually the DM should carefully determine how to apply the rules or alter them in ways that improve the game.
the paradigm you propose is not accurate, no game i have seen or played doesnt have the DM bending the rules, or deciding when to apply it, or some form of house rule/odd rule interpretation. In fact most players never even know how much stuff is altered. No one usually cares as long as the game is entertaining, or maybe they care a little but accept it in service of the overall game. The idea that dms are unable to interpret or change things is not something i commonly see in practice.
Major issues arise when the DM makes rules changes that worsen the game and generally disregard players, or just lead to a bad or hard to take seriously game
point being its a matter of execution, not absolutes. Its not, i can never change the rules or everyone gets mad, and its not i should do whatever i want as a DM and everyone should just accept it nd it will be always be good. Regardless of whether people actively oppose you, the game will suffer or end if people hate the way you DM.
Being a DM means finding the right balance for the table you are at. Which probably means you alter many things, but the players dont feel alienated, and the game feels consistent and believable instead of arbitrary.
People are talking past each other. I don't believe anyone claimed that house rules don't exist or that it's impossible to have them. The original claim was "if you don't like the new rules, just change them". The point made in return was that it's often not that simple or easy. Not that you can't change rules, but that you're limited in what you can and can't do, and doing so can often have ramifications far greater than how to resolve specific issues.
We shouldn't be so dismissive of people's concerns.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
If changing the rules doesn't make the game better, you shouldn't change the rules, and the primary metric for a game being better is people having more fun. Now, sometimes players don't realize that a change will make the game more fun, but for the most part, a change without player buy-in is a bad change.
You quite literally rephrased exactly what I said. Does saying the same thing differently make you right and me wrong?
Major issues arise when the DM makes rules changes that worsen the game and generally disregard players, or just lead to a bad or hard-to-take-seriously game
Which is the point I'm making. The hypothesis presented is that you can change the rules however you see fit as a DM, but the undertone is, you can't change the rules however a DM see's fit, you have to ask the player's permission.
The default assumption you seem to be making is that if the DM changes the rules, they are clearly going to be bad changes. As if every DM that exercises the fundamental rule proposed by the book "the DM can change anything they want", automatically means that the change will be bad for the game as some sort of default.
Player permission is the undertone, and if as a DM you have to get permission, it means you do not have the freedom to do it.
People are talking past each other. I don't believe anyone claimed that house rules don't exist or that it's impossible to have them. The original claim was "if you don't like the new rules, just change them". The point made in return was that it's often not that simple or easy. Not that you can't change rules, but that you're limited in what you can and can't do, and doing so can often have ramifications far greater than how to resolve specific issues.
We shouldn't be so dismissive of people's concerns.
In a group setting, every choice we make and everything we do affects the others. Is it really necessary to specify “as long as everyone agrees and it makes the game more fun” in this discussion or is that amply and clearly implied throughout the rules? Does reminding us of a basic tenet of the game—heck, a basic tenet of life—add anything to the conversation or is it someone feeling the need to get in the last word? Do we really need to say, every time, that a DM can alienate players if they act arbitrarily? Is bristling at condescension dismissing a legitimate concern or does it indicate that stating the plainly obvious is unnecessary and possibly even insulting?
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
If changing the rules doesn't make the game better, you shouldn't change the rules, and the primary metric for a game being better is people having more fun. Now, sometimes players don't realize that a change will make the game more fun, but for the most part, a change without player buy-in is a bad change.
You quite literally rephrased exactly what I said. Does saying the same thing differently make you right and me wrong?
Major issues arise when the DM makes rules changes that worsen the game and generally disregard players, or just lead to a bad or hard-to-take-seriously game
Which is the point I'm making. The hypothesis presented is that you can change the rules however you see fit as a DM, but the undertone is, you can't change the rules however a DM see's fit, you have to ask the player's permission.
The default assumption you seem to be making is that if the DM changes the rules, they are clearly going to be bad changes. As if every DM that exercises the fundamental rule proposed by the book "the DM can change anything they want", automatically means that the change will be bad for the game as some sort of default.
Player permission is the undertone, and if as a DM you have to get permission, it means you do not have the freedom to do it.
So i think the thing is you keep saying or implying there is an undertone that i or others have of changing the rules will be bad, and thats not what i am saying.
What i am saying is that the way the game is, Every single DM has to make changes and alterations to the rules. That is the job of the DM, to take these rules in a book, and apply them and imagination the best way possible to make the best game for every one playing at the table.
Dms should not be afraid of making alterations to the rules as long as its in service to making the game better.
The concept of permission is a totally different concept, the DM doesnt need "permission" in fact many times the players are not aware of what you are changing, massaging or allowing.
They need buy in, or trust, that isnt really the same concept as permission, the DM doesnt need to ask players if they are ok with something every time they alter the rules, or when they choose what rules to use. As soon as people sit down to play the game, they are giving the DM broad lattitude to make the choice of when/if/how to use and interpret the rules. Its only if you make the game bad that it will be a problem. Its like being a judge, or official, you dont need permission to officiate, Some times people will actively disagree with you which is normal. but if you do it poorly people will stop playing. (poorly does not necessarily mean doing what the players want)
i understand you may mean permission in a looser sense, a general buy in, but people reading it might see it more as i defined the word, and thats why im trying to make clear what i am trying to get across
The reason people keep pointing back to the limits or bad DMing, is so that people reading these posts, outside of us, understand that even though we are saying the DM can do what they want, the buy in/trust is not absolute, and if you go too far you will not create good games. This has always been the case, however many DMs have issues understanding(going be internet anecdotes and various posts) that being a good DM is About running the game well, and what that looks like is not going to be a black and white trueism. Its not always follow the rules, get permission, and conversely its not do whatever you want without consideration
Sometimes you follow the rules, sometimes you dont, just make sure the game is good regardless.
People are talking past each other. I don't believe anyone claimed that house rules don't exist or that it's impossible to have them. The original claim was "if you don't like the new rules, just change them". The point made in return was that it's often not that simple or easy. Not that you can't change rules, but that you're limited in what you can and can't do, and doing so can often have ramifications far greater than how to resolve specific issues.
We shouldn't be so dismissive of people's concerns.
In a group setting, every choice we make and everything we do affects the others. Is it really necessary to specify “as long as everyone agrees and it makes the game more fun” in this discussion or is that amply and clearly implied throughout the rules? Does reminding us of a basic tenet of the game—heck, a basic tenet of life—add anything to the conversation or is it someone feeling the need to get in the last word? Do we really need to say, every time, that a DM can alienate players if they act arbitrarily? Is bristling at condescension dismissing a legitimate concern or does it indicate that stating the plainly obvious is unnecessary and possibly even insulting?
you might think everyone understands this, but going by many DM questions, and internet anecdotes, many DMs arent sure about this. The reason this whole line of talk came about is because various DMs have different levels of comfortability with how much they can change rules, and some people wanting a more formal system with less DM lattitude because it makes it hard for them to know when they are doing it right. And others wanting a looser system or more powerful DM, or rather want the players to trust the DM more, rather than less in the service of a good game.
and its not malicious its an actual debate
There are many people who think: The Dms best job is to follow the rules and be a simulation with as little changes as possible, and if there is something they have to decide themselves or alter it is a flaw in the design of the game.
there are also many people who think, The DM is the one making the decisions, and does what needs to be done, and if players or the rules are getting in the way of that, its a player/rule issue.
and just for me personally, i think saying as long as everyone agrees is not actually how it goes or good advice, the truth is sometimes as a DM you have to make a choice that someone doesnt agree with, and sometimes as a player you need to put aside your personal preferences in service of the game the DM is running. its also true that some times as a DM you may have to bend the rules, or do something you wouldnt prefer in service of letting the players have a good experience.
These things are not absolutes, its a gray area, and thats why you probably need a human with (good) human judgement to do it.
The main reason i got into this discussion is because i wanted to make it clear that 5E specifically is a game designed to have a fairly powerful DM by design, and tells them in this game more than others, you are allowed to, and supposed to use human judgement, with a big caveat that if you do it poorly there will be issues.
Not all games are like that, many games have a lot less room for judge/offical/DM to do that, 5e kind of expects/depends on it.
People are talking past each other. I don't believe anyone claimed that house rules don't exist or that it's impossible to have them. The original claim was "if you don't like the new rules, just change them". The point made in return was that it's often not that simple or easy. Not that you can't change rules, but that you're limited in what you can and can't do, and doing so can often have ramifications far greater than how to resolve specific issues.
We shouldn't be so dismissive of people's concerns.
In a group setting, every choice we make and everything we do affects the others. Is it really necessary to specify “as long as everyone agrees and it makes the game more fun” in this discussion or is that amply and clearly implied throughout the rules? Does reminding us of a basic tenet of the game—heck, a basic tenet of life—add anything to the conversation or is it someone feeling the need to get in the last word? Do we really need to say, every time, that a DM can alienate players if they act arbitrarily? Is bristling at condescension dismissing a legitimate concern or does it indicate that stating the plainly obvious is unnecessary and possibly even insulting?
you might think everyone understands this, but going by many DM questions, and internet anecdotes, many DMs arent sure about this. The reason this whole line of talk came about is because various DMs have different levels of comfortability with how much they can change rules, and some people wanting a more formal system with less DM lattitude because it makes it hard for them to know when they are doing it right. And others wanting a looser system or more powerful DM, or rather want the players to trust the DM more, rather than less in the service of a good game.
and its not malicious its an actual debate
There are many people who think: The Dms best job is to follow the rules and be a simulation with as little changes as possible, and if there is something they have to decide themselves or alter it is a flaw in the design of the game.
there are also many people who think, The DM is the one making the decisions, and does what needs to be done, and if players or the rules are getting in the way of that, its a player/rule issue.
and just for me personally, i think saying as long as everyone agrees is not actually how it goes or good advice, the truth is sometimes as a DM you have to make a choice that someone doesnt agree with, and sometimes as a player you need to put aside your personal preferences in service of the game the DM is running. its also true that some times as a DM you may have to bend the rules, or do something you wouldnt prefer in service of letting the players have a good experience.
These things are not absolutes, its a gray area, and thats why you probably need a human with (good) human judgement to do it.
The main reason i got into this discussion is because i wanted to make it clear that 5E specifically is a game designed to have a fairly powerful DM by design, and tells them in this game more than others, you are allowed to, and supposed to use human judgement, with a big caveat that if you do it poorly there will be issues.
Not all games are like that, many games have a lot less room for judge/offical/DM to do that, 5e kind of expects/depends on it.
I appreciate you clarifying your position. To be more clear myself, perhaps I should have said if a DM acts too arbitrarily for their players’ liking rather than arbitrarily at all.
Players agree to a DM’s house rules and gamestyle explicitly during session zero if one was held and implicitly by returning to a game session after session. When they no longer agree, they (possibly after some amount of protest and/or negotiation but not always) stop returning. All a DM needs to change anything in the game in any fashion that they like—which, as you point out, is entirely condoned by RAW—is to find the players who consent. I feel that bringing up that there are players out there who might not consent is terribly redundant and I don’t feel choosing not to mention that fact dismissive; it seems plainly obvious to me because group settings in which one person gets to do exactly what they want, all others be damned are the the exceedingly rare exceptions rather than the normal course of things.
You have given me some food for thought, though. I’ve been recruiting and playing for so long that I admit there’s a danger I’m out of touch with what it’s like to be new to the hobby. Cheers!
I don't usually like revisions, but the 2024 rules are much better. The art work is lame, but the rules on how class abilities and spells work get a A from me. For example, I was disappointed how they nerfed Monk's Stunning Strike and Quivering Palm, but they more than made up for it with the reassignment of Ki (focus points) and the removal the need for those points in many cases. And the capstone at 20th level gives you an automatic +4 points to Wisdom and Dexterity!
Another example was the restriction on Fighters using both an attack action and a magic action using Action Surge. I thought that was really needed.
Those are just a few examples. Is it perfect? Nope. No game is perfect and no game will ever be.
Personally I wish WoTC would just name it, so we wouldn't have to; but since they have chosen not to do so.......
They have also referenced it as 5.14 and 5.24 in official communications when referring to them as well.
They who? Crawford? The Change log? Crawford, until he formally resigns, is the only one who can make any official statements. Did he call it 5.24 somewhere? I looked through the Changelog and the 2024 edition is only mentioned as Dungeons and Dragons (2024). The only time I've seen 5.24 from someone who works for Beyond, is the moderators on DnD Reddit
Personally I wish WoTC would just name it, so we wouldn't have to; but since they have chosen not to do so.......
They have also referenced it as 5.14 and 5.24 in official communications when referring to them as well.
They who? Crawford? The Change log? Crawford, until he formally resigns, is the only one who can make any official statements. Did he call it 5.24 somewhere? I looked through the Changelog and the 2024 edition is only mentioned as Dungeons and Dragons (2024). The only time I've seen 5.24 from someone who works for Beyond, is the moderators on DnD Reddit
Crawford left the company in April. He was never "the only one who can make any official statements", but you're right that he didn't use the "5.14" or "5.24" terminology.
regardless he and wotc still refer to them as the 2014 ruleset and the 2024 ruleset. which is still an official nameing strtucture. 5E 2014 and 5E 2024. its still 5E.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
This is kind of the universal mantra of modern gaming culture, and I would argue that 5e as a book of advice has actually done everything in its power to discourage this attitude, but I don't think it's been successful.
I think it's interesting that people make this claim that it's ok to change the rules however you see fit when this entire forum and every message in it is a direct contradiction to how this actually works in modern gaming culture.
If changing the rules doesn't make the game better, you shouldn't change the rules, and the primary metric for a game being better is people having more fun. Now, sometimes players don't realize that a change will make the game more fun, but for the most part, a change without player buy-in is a bad change.
its not really a catch 22 because the idea is actually not the DM should change the rules however they want, its actually the DM should carefully determine how to apply the rules or alter them in ways that improve the game.
the paradigm you propose is not accurate, no game i have seen or played doesnt have the DM bending the rules, or deciding when to apply it, or some form of house rule/odd rule interpretation. In fact most players never even know how much stuff is altered. No one usually cares as long as the game is entertaining, or maybe they care a little but accept it in service of the overall game. The idea that dms are unable to interpret or change things is not something i commonly see in practice.
Major issues arise when the DM makes rules changes that worsen the game and generally disregard players, or just lead to a bad or hard to take seriously game
point being its a matter of execution, not absolutes. Its not, i can never change the rules or everyone gets mad, and its not i should do whatever i want as a DM and everyone should just accept it nd it will be always be good. Regardless of whether people actively oppose you, the game will suffer or end if people hate the way you DM.
Being a DM means finding the right balance for the table you are at. Which probably means you alter many things, but the players dont feel alienated, and the game feels consistent and believable instead of arbitrary.
People are talking past each other. I don't believe anyone claimed that house rules don't exist or that it's impossible to have them. The original claim was "if you don't like the new rules, just change them". The point made in return was that it's often not that simple or easy. Not that you can't change rules, but that you're limited in what you can and can't do, and doing so can often have ramifications far greater than how to resolve specific issues.
We shouldn't be so dismissive of people's concerns.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You quite literally rephrased exactly what I said. Does saying the same thing differently make you right and me wrong?
Which is the point I'm making. The hypothesis presented is that you can change the rules however you see fit as a DM, but the undertone is, you can't change the rules however a DM see's fit, you have to ask the player's permission.
The default assumption you seem to be making is that if the DM changes the rules, they are clearly going to be bad changes. As if every DM that exercises the fundamental rule proposed by the book "the DM can change anything they want", automatically means that the change will be bad for the game as some sort of default.
Player permission is the undertone, and if as a DM you have to get permission, it means you do not have the freedom to do it.
In a group setting, every choice we make and everything we do affects the others. Is it really necessary to specify “as long as everyone agrees and it makes the game more fun” in this discussion or is that amply and clearly implied throughout the rules? Does reminding us of a basic tenet of the game—heck, a basic tenet of life—add anything to the conversation or is it someone feeling the need to get in the last word? Do we really need to say, every time, that a DM can alienate players if they act arbitrarily? Is bristling at condescension dismissing a legitimate concern or does it indicate that stating the plainly obvious is unnecessary and possibly even insulting?
So i think the thing is you keep saying or implying there is an undertone that i or others have of changing the rules will be bad, and thats not what i am saying.
What i am saying is that the way the game is, Every single DM has to make changes and alterations to the rules. That is the job of the DM, to take these rules in a book, and apply them and imagination the best way possible to make the best game for every one playing at the table.
Dms should not be afraid of making alterations to the rules as long as its in service to making the game better.
The concept of permission is a totally different concept, the DM doesnt need "permission" in fact many times the players are not aware of what you are changing, massaging or allowing.
"permission =formal consent : authorization"
They need buy in, or trust, that isnt really the same concept as permission, the DM doesnt need to ask players if they are ok with something every time they alter the rules, or when they choose what rules to use. As soon as people sit down to play the game, they are giving the DM broad lattitude to make the choice of when/if/how to use and interpret the rules. Its only if you make the game bad that it will be a problem. Its like being a judge, or official, you dont need permission to officiate, Some times people will actively disagree with you which is normal. but if you do it poorly people will stop playing. (poorly does not necessarily mean doing what the players want)
i understand you may mean permission in a looser sense, a general buy in, but people reading it might see it more as i defined the word, and thats why im trying to make clear what i am trying to get across
The reason people keep pointing back to the limits or bad DMing, is so that people reading these posts, outside of us, understand that even though we are saying the DM can do what they want, the buy in/trust is not absolute, and if you go too far you will not create good games. This has always been the case, however many DMs have issues understanding(going be internet anecdotes and various posts) that being a good DM is About running the game well, and what that looks like is not going to be a black and white trueism. Its not always follow the rules, get permission, and conversely its not do whatever you want without consideration
Sometimes you follow the rules, sometimes you dont, just make sure the game is good regardless.
you might think everyone understands this, but going by many DM questions, and internet anecdotes, many DMs arent sure about this. The reason this whole line of talk came about is because various DMs have different levels of comfortability with how much they can change rules, and some people wanting a more formal system with less DM lattitude because it makes it hard for them to know when they are doing it right. And others wanting a looser system or more powerful DM, or rather want the players to trust the DM more, rather than less in the service of a good game.
and its not malicious its an actual debate
There are many people who think: The Dms best job is to follow the rules and be a simulation with as little changes as possible, and if there is something they have to decide themselves or alter it is a flaw in the design of the game.
there are also many people who think, The DM is the one making the decisions, and does what needs to be done, and if players or the rules are getting in the way of that, its a player/rule issue.
and just for me personally, i think saying as long as everyone agrees is not actually how it goes or good advice, the truth is sometimes as a DM you have to make a choice that someone doesnt agree with, and sometimes as a player you need to put aside your personal preferences in service of the game the DM is running. its also true that some times as a DM you may have to bend the rules, or do something you wouldnt prefer in service of letting the players have a good experience.
These things are not absolutes, its a gray area, and thats why you probably need a human with (good) human judgement to do it.
The main reason i got into this discussion is because i wanted to make it clear that 5E specifically is a game designed to have a fairly powerful DM by design, and tells them in this game more than others, you are allowed to, and supposed to use human judgement, with a big caveat that if you do it poorly there will be issues.
Not all games are like that, many games have a lot less room for judge/offical/DM to do that, 5e kind of expects/depends on it.
I appreciate you clarifying your position. To be more clear myself, perhaps I should have said if a DM acts too arbitrarily for their players’ liking rather than arbitrarily at all.
Players agree to a DM’s house rules and gamestyle explicitly during session zero if one was held and implicitly by returning to a game session after session. When they no longer agree, they (possibly after some amount of protest and/or negotiation but not always) stop returning. All a DM needs to change anything in the game in any fashion that they like—which, as you point out, is entirely condoned by RAW—is to find the players who consent. I feel that bringing up that there are players out there who might not consent is terribly redundant and I don’t feel choosing not to mention that fact dismissive; it seems plainly obvious to me because group settings in which one person gets to do exactly what they want, all others be damned are the the exceedingly rare exceptions rather than the normal course of things.
You have given me some food for thought, though. I’ve been recruiting and playing for so long that I admit there’s a danger I’m out of touch with what it’s like to be new to the hobby. Cheers!
I don't usually like revisions, but the 2024 rules are much better. The art work is lame, but the rules on how class abilities and spells work get a A from me. For example, I was disappointed how they nerfed Monk's Stunning Strike and Quivering Palm, but they more than made up for it with the reassignment of Ki (focus points) and the removal the need for those points in many cases. And the capstone at 20th level gives you an automatic +4 points to Wisdom and Dexterity!
Another example was the restriction on Fighters using both an attack action and a magic action using Action Surge. I thought that was really needed.
Those are just a few examples. Is it perfect? Nope. No game is perfect and no game will ever be.
They who? Crawford? The Change log? Crawford, until he formally resigns, is the only one who can make any official statements. Did he call it 5.24 somewhere? I looked through the Changelog and the 2024 edition is only mentioned as Dungeons and Dragons (2024). The only time I've seen 5.24 from someone who works for Beyond, is the moderators on DnD Reddit
Crawford left the company in April. He was never "the only one who can make any official statements", but you're right that he didn't use the "5.14" or "5.24" terminology.
pronouns: he/she/they
regardless he and wotc still refer to them as the 2014 ruleset and the 2024 ruleset. which is still an official nameing strtucture. 5E 2014 and 5E 2024. its still 5E.