2024 Player's Handbook Fireside Chat

[Psyren]

Todd Kenreck got Crawford and Perkins to sit down and talk about the new PHB today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6FqFFPASw8

Some interesting tidbits:

1) PHB is in the print-proofing/printout-review stage, i.e. last chance for text updates No change to the expected release date .

2) Confirmation on what the 4th Fighter Subclass will be (Psi Warrior. Called it (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25951648&postcount=7))

3) Confirmation that the Tasha Subclasses that are going to core went through their own internal round of playtesting and adjustments. (My guess is that this includes things like Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul Sorcerer having their bonus spells removed, but no details yet.)

4) Soulknife is going to be core now - not sure which of the other rogue subclasses it's replacing (my guess is Swashbuckler, but it could be Assassin too - I don't see them removing Thief or Arcane Trickster.)

5) In addition to every subclass getting its own piece of art, several spells will also. This includes spells that are tied to specific D&D characters, e.g. we will see Bigby casting Bigby's Hand, Melf casting his Acid Arrow, Tasha casting her Hideous Laughter etc.

5) New rules guidance that wasn't in the original PHB, such as adjudicating illusions and breaking objects (the latter of which previously required jumping back and forth between the PHB and DMG). Reiteration that the new PHB will have feats and spells that weren't present in core before, or may even be new to the game entirely.

[Oramac]

I am cautiously optimistic about the 2024 PHB. It still sounds like more of a 5.5e, but whatever. It's sounding like they're on a decent track.

Only time will tell.

[ZRN]

4) Soulknife is going to be core now - not sure which of the other rogue subclasses it's replacing (my guess is Swashbuckler, but it could be Assassin too - I don't see them removing Thief or Arcane Trickster.)

I feel like assassin has too long a pedigree to get cut. Thief might actually make the most sense mechanically, since most of what the thief does is "base rogue" stuff. The issue is, what if I want to play Bilbo Baggins or any other archetypical, nonmagical thief who isn't a badass trained assassin or swashbuckler?

Swashbuckler also has the issue that a lot of the subclass features kind of overlap with base rogue stuff and while "swashbuckler" is a cool and good archetype, the mechanical expression of that archetype here is basically "a rogue, but better at fighting."

[Psyren]

I am cautiously optimistic about the 2024 PHB. It still sounds like more of a 5.5e, but whatever. It's sounding like they're on a decent track.

Only time will tell.

I see no issue with considering it to be 5.5e.


I feel like assassin has too long a pedigree to get cut. Thief might actually make the most sense mechanically, since most of what the thief does is "base rogue" stuff. The issue is, what if I want to play Bilbo Baggins or any other archetypical, nonmagical thief who isn't a badass trained assassin or swashbuckler?

Swashbuckler also has the issue that a lot of the subclass features kind of overlap with base rogue stuff and while "swashbuckler" is a cool and good archetype, the mechanical expression of that archetype here is basically "a rogue, but better at fighting."

Assassin has issues too though - Either it implies a loner who spends their time eliminating high-value targets, arguably at odds with a team game - or it's just an opportunistic killer, which could describe just about every rogue. Say what you will about Swashbuckler, at least it has a very clear identity and niche.

As for Bilbo, he's just a Thief before the UMD stuff comes online I'd say.

[stoutstien]

I see no issue with considering it to be 5.5e.



Assassin has issues too though - Either it implies a loner who spends their time eliminating high-value targets, arguably at odds with a team game - or it's just an opportunistic killer, which could describe just about every rogue. Say what you will about Swashbuckler, at least it has a very clear identity and niche.

As for Bilbo, he's just a Thief before the UMD stuff comes online I'd say.

I think thief and assassin share a common issue in that they are tasks or jobs rather than a method or area of expertise. They are closer to backgrounds than subclasses. This leaves them feeling both too vague and oddly restricted at the same time.

It's like having a fighter who's subclass is gate guard.

[Psyren]

I think thief and assassin share a common issue in that they are tasks or jobs rather than a method or area of expertise. They are closer to backgrounds than subclasses. This leaves them feeling both too vague and oddly restricted at the same time.

It's like having a fighter who's subclass is gate guard.

Yeah I think this is fair. Maybe they'll roll Thief's stuff into the base class so they can all fiddle with magic items and get a bonus attunement! And then Assassin becomes the Basic rogue.

[Arkhios]

...did anyone else pay attention to them referring to it as Revised Player's Handbook and not 5.5e?
(ok, I jest, now. I understand why people would consider it as such, and at this point, especially hearing them talk about the book, I'm starting to feel ok-ish about "5.5e" as an unofficial nickname. It's just hard for me personally to do so until WotC/D&D team acknowledge and name it as such; call it an OCD or whatever.

...or, what's more important than that, that it's going to be "thick". Like, they put an emphasis on its' thickness, repeatedly, both Jeremy and Chris. I'm beginning to paint a picture that we might be getting an "Absolute Unit" (I'm imagining a Thick Rulebook similar to "Pathfinder (1e) Core Rulebook Thick"; That's over an inch thick; one-and-a-half times - almost twice - as thick as the 2014 PHB).

[stoutstien]

Yeah I think this is fair. Maybe they'll roll Thief's stuff into the base class so they can all fiddle with magic items and get a bonus attunement! And then Assassin becomes the Basic rogue.

I think they missed a huge opportunity with the class subclass design because you don't really need a generic subclass. The class can be fairly basic in the subclasses could be folded in to each setting with ease. They experimented with it but I think things like the PBK made them reconsider but conceptually it's a great opportunity.

I'm not a fan of what they did with dragonlance and try to use feats to do it.

[Millstone85]

I'm starting to feel ok-ish about "5.5e" as an unofficial nickname. It's just hard for me personally to do so until WotC/D&D team acknowledge and name it as such; call it an OCD or whatever.Does WotC even refer to 5e as 5e?

[Psyren]

...did anyone else pay attention to them referring to it as Revised Player's Handbook and not 5.5e?
(ok, I jest, now. I understand why people would consider it as such, and at this point, especially hearing them talk about the book, I'm starting to feel ok-ish about "5.5e" as an unofficial nickname. It's just hard for me personally to do so until WotC/D&D team acknowledge and name it as such; call it an OCD or whatever.

Honestly, at this point call it whatever you like. Speaking personally, just about any name works for me except "6e," it's not nearly different enough of an underlying "engine" for that - so I settled on 5.5e.


Does WotC even refer to 5e as 5e?

They have in a couple of recent videos IIRC.

[KorvinStarmast]

If they drop assassin and keep soul knife, that will probably work out. Assassin had some lumps.

I also think that one of the best assassins in the game is Whispers bard. :smallwink:

[Snowbluff]

...did anyone else pay attention to them referring to it as Revised Player's Handbook and not 5.5e?
(ok, I jest, now. I understand why people would consider it as such, and at this point, especially hearing them talk about the book, I'm starting to feel ok-ish about "5.5e" as an unofficial nickname. It's just hard for me personally to do so until WotC/D&D team acknowledge and name it as such; call it an OCD or whatever.

DnD 3.5 was also referred to as a revised edition, which sound about right for what this printing is going for.

[Arkhios]

Does WotC even refer to 5e as 5e?
not specifically "5e" as written, but "5th edition"? All the time.


Honestly, at this point call it whatever you like. Speaking personally, just about any name works for me except "6e," it's not nearly different enough of an underlying "engine" for that - so I settled on 5.5e
And that's fine. My issues are my own, and I have to live with them. Can't change heads every time I get mad about myself, can I? :smallbiggrin:


DnD 3.5 was also referred to as a revised edition, which sound about right for what this printing is going for.
Yes, but 3.5 is written on the cover of the book literally as follows:


Core Rulebook I
v.3.5

So, if they don't actually write it out on the cover of the book in one way or another that is equivalent to the above, and talk about it as such, I will continue my lone watch on the wall, and it sure gets windy up here!

[Schwann145]

...or, what's more important than that, that it's going to be "thick". Like, they put an emphasis on its' thickness, repeatedly, both Jeremy and Chris. I'm beginning to paint a picture that we might be getting an "Absolute Unit" (I'm imagining a Thick Rulebook similar to "Pathfinder (1e) Core Rulebook Thick"; That's over an inch thick; one-and-a-half times - almost twice - as thick as the 2014 PHB).

I certainly hope so. The 2014 PHB is anemic for the most important rule book of a ttrpg.

[Snowbluff]

Yes, but 3.5 is written on the cover of the book literally as follows:


So, if they don't actually write it out on the cover of the book in one way or another that is equivalent to the above, and talk about it as such, I will continue my lone watch on the wall, and it sure gets windy up here!

Yep. Then you turn the page to the credits and it credits people for Revisions and as a Revision team. We'll see if they do the same for the 2024 PHB.

[Kurald Galain]

Honestly, at this point call it whatever you like. Speaking personally, just about any name works for me except "6e,"

We should call it Advanced Player's Essential Options Unchained.

[Psyren]

I think they missed a huge opportunity with the class subclass design because you don't really need a generic subclass. The class can be fairly basic in the subclasses could be folded in to each setting with ease. They experimented with it but I think things like the PBK made them reconsider but conceptually it's a great opportunity.

I'm not a fan of what they did with dragonlance and try to use feats to do it.

They do need to pick a fairly straightforward subclass to include in Basic though. Unless their plan is to broaden Basic to include all four... which I doubt, but isn't impossible.

I'm not sure I understand the second part of your post with the settings, PBK(?) and dragonlance though.


We should call it Advanced Player's Essential Options Unchained.

You forgot Complete II :smallbiggrin:

[Trask]

The fact that the new game is not so different from 5e actually signals to me that the game is healing. For example, AD&D 2e wasn't much different from AD&D 1e, but rather an elaboration on the previous game. 3e was very different from 2e, but that was mostly driven by the game being acquired by Wizards who wanted to make something new. And then Wizards had the urge to reinvent the game with 4e.

Next/5e's North Star for design was creating an edition of D&D that would bring back old players, 3e enjoyers and TSR enjoyers, as well as new players and it succeeded (these days Old Schoolers aren't as hot on 5e as they used to be, but when it came out there was a lot of excitement) and that success tells me that they found something that works, they found something that everyone can agree upon. Why change that? OneD&D will be the 2e to 5e's AD&D, and that's a good thing!

[stoutstien]

They do need to pick a fairly straightforward subclass to include in Basic though. Unless their plan is to broaden Basic to include all four... which I doubt, but isn't impossible.

I'm not sure I understand the second part of your post with the settings, PBK(?) and dragonlance though.


The purple dragon banner knight, and technically the battle rager, was them dipping toes into the idea of setting specific subclasses. The idea was solid but both were so far off the mark that I think they avoided that approach going forward.

Dragonlance using background to start feat chains to gate iconic setting faction based options rubs me wrong. Last thing we need is another way to nab shield(spell). Oh you get PWT as well...

[Psyren]

The purple dragon banner knight, and technically the battle rager, was them dipping toes into the idea of setting specific subclasses. The idea was solid but both were so far off the mark that I think they avoided that approach going forward.

I think their better option is to go in reverse:

"Here's a Fighter subclass that's so good at inspiring people it can actually heal and buff them, we'll call it Banneret. And in Faerun, there's a faction of warriors called Purple Dragon Knights that pretty heavily if not entirely consists of Banneret Fighters." For something to be worth the design and iteration time that a whole subclass requires, it shouldn't be designed to only work with a single setting.

As for Battlerager - honestly that was just a bad idea from the concept stage. (Did it even exist before?)



Dragonlance using background to start feat chains to gate iconic setting faction based options rubs me wrong. Last thing we need is another way to nab shield(spell). Oh you get PWT as well...

Eh, with the buff to Magic Initiate I don't think those other background/level 1 feats matter anymore. They might as well exist from a setting standpoint; them being weaker is offset by them being prereqs of a level 4+ feat later. And Dragonlance in particular expects you to take them since it gives out 2 bonus feats to everybody.

[Theodoxus]

We should call it Advanced Player's Essential Options Unchained.


You forgot Complete II :smallbiggrin:

"Advanced Player's Complete Essential Options Unchained II, electric boogaloo!"


I think their better option is to go in reverse:

"Here's a Fighter subclass that's so good at inspiring people it can actually heal and buff them, we'll call it Banneret. And in Faerun, there's a faction of warriors called Purple Dragon Knights that pretty heavily if not entirely consists of Banneret Fighters." For something to be worth the design and iteration time that a whole subclass requires, it shouldn't be designed to only work with a single setting.

A million % agree. Like, I'm a little shocked that (was it Green Ronin)? The 3PP that put out SCAG didn't think along these lines... though I suppose WotC might have been micromanagers about it and said 'this book is specific to FR, any mention of other realms need to be 'in the margins' at best."


As for Battlerager - honestly that was just a bad idea from the concept stage. (Did it even exist before?) The artwork and armor design definitely did... I don't recall the Barbarian specific aspect being done in D&D prior - but it might have also been in the Complete Barbarian or Complete Dwarf or something. /shrug

[Witty Username]

The artwork and armor design definitely did... I don't recall the Barbarian specific aspect being done in D&D prior - but it might have also been in the Complete Barbarian or Complete Dwarf or something. /shrug

Alot of things in 5e existed in prior editions but got shoehorned into a particular class.
Metamagic is probably the one that most annoys me, but there are others scattered through the game, for better and for worse.

Battlerager I don't specificly remember but in 3.5 spiked guantlets and armor just existed without needing to be a class feature, and some of this existed as worldbuilding background prior to that.
As I recall bladesinger was contextually a fighter/mage multiclass back in AD&D but my memory is foggy.

[stoutstien]

I think their better option is to go in reverse:

"Here's a Fighter subclass that's so good at inspiring people it can actually heal and buff them, we'll call it Banneret. And in Faerun, there's a faction of warriors called Purple Dragon Knights that pretty heavily if not entirely consists of Banneret Fighters." For something to be worth the design and iteration time that a whole subclass requires, it shouldn't be designed to only work with a single setting.

As for Battlerager - honestly that was just a bad idea from the concept stage. (Did it even exist before?)



The issue with this approach is what already happens. You end up with super vague and wishy-washy mechanics to allow them to work on different settings. something something spectral intangible thingy.

It allows them to pump out uncommitted content because it's way easier then trying to come up with something whole cloth. Though subclasses are innately pretty easy to design because they are closed loops.

[Psyren]

The issue with this approach is what already happens. You end up with super vague and wishy-washy mechanics to allow them to work on different settings. something something spectral intangible thingy.

It allows them to pump out uncommitted content because it's way easier then trying to come up with something whole cloth. Though subclasses are innately pretty easy to design because they are closed loops.

I'd really rather not open this rusty/expired/stale/mummified can of worms yet again, so I'll just say I disagree with this "issue" completely and move on.


Alot of things in 5e existed in prior editions but got shoehorned into a particular class.
Metamagic is probably the one that most annoys me, but there are others scattered through the game, for better and for worse.

Battlerager I don't specificly remember but in 3.5 spiked guantlets and armor just existed without needing to be a class feature, and some of this existed as worldbuilding background prior to that.
As I recall bladesinger was contextually a fighter/mage multiclass back in AD&D but my memory is foggy.

Bladesinger was a prestige class in Complete Warrior back in 3.5. Back then, it seemed more aimed at bards (fittingly enough), as that was one of the few classes that could attain all the skill, BAB and spellcasting requirements in time. But it only progressed casting at half the rate, which for a Bard would be even worse as they were already 2/3 casters in that edition.

They retooled it to be a wizard subclass despite the name, and created College of Swords Bard for the Bard instead.

[Schwann145]

Battlerager I don't specificly remember but in 3.5 spiked guantlets and armor just existed without needing to be a class feature, and some of this existed as worldbuilding background prior to that.
As I recall bladesinger was contextually a fighter/mage multiclass back in AD&D but my memory is foggy.

Indeed.
Battlerager began as a Warrior Kit in AD&D 2nd Edition's Complete Book of Dwarves. Likewise, Bladesinger began as a Fighter/Mage Kit in Complete Book of Elves.

[Eldariel]

Alot of things in 5e existed in prior editions but got shoehorned into a particular class.
Metamagic is probably the one that most annoys me, but there are others scattered through the game, for better and for worse.

Battlerager I don't specificly remember but in 3.5 spiked guantlets and armor just existed without needing to be a class feature, and some of this existed as worldbuilding background prior to that.
As I recall bladesinger was contextually a fighter/mage multiclass back in AD&D but my memory is foggy.

So Battlerager was a Prestige Class in 3e Races of Faerûn and a Warrior kit in AD&D Complete Book of the Dwarves. Bladesinger was also a Prestige Class in Races of Faerûn but also Tome and Blood and Complete Warrior in 3.5. In AD&D 2e I recall it's in the Elf book though even 1e Elf-class is pretty much just Bladesinger.

Battlerager even featured in some of those Drizzt-books; that Thibbledorf Pwent or whatever.

[Schwann145]

After discussing the Assassin for the last couple days in the other thread, I'm convinced it's the one getting the axe.
Even if you love everything about the subclass (and who does?) it's just not built for group-friendly play.

[Theodoxus]

After discussing the Assassin for the last couple days in the other thread, I'm convinced it's the one getting the axe.
Even if you love everything about the subclass (and who does?) it's just not built for group-friendly play.

I mean, was it ever? The AD&D version as its own class was 'always evil' and basically amped up the PVP aspect. I would not be sad if it disappeared until it found a useful spot in an intrigue specific campaign book.

[Psyren]

A theory I've seen (totally unsubstantiated) is that they'll do a round of "dark/antihero" subclasses in the DMG, like Death Cleric, "Oathbreaker"/Oath of Corruption* Paladin, and Necromancer Wizard. Assuming it (a) still exists but (b) won't be in the PHB, I could definitely see Assassin Rogue being slipped into that group instead.

*Trying to manifest this rebrand into the universe

[Crusher]

A theory I've seen (totally unsubstantiated) is that they'll do a round of "dark/antihero" subclasses in the DMG, like Death Cleric, "Oathbreaker"/Oath of Corruption* Paladin, and Necromancer Wizard. Assuming it (a) still exists but (b) won't be in the PHB, I could definitely see Assassin Rogue being slipped into that group instead.

*Trying to manifest this rebrand into the universe

That is indeed how they did it last time around. Alternatively, it'd be a pretty snazzy new source book.

[Theodoxus]

That is indeed how they did it last time around. Alternatively, it'd be a pretty snazzy new source book.

My one hope, if they go that route instead of the DMG, is that WotC outsources it to a 3PP that can actually do evil facing subclasses properly and offer guidance on how to run an evil campaign (though I'm sure forums like this will be overrun with questions and opinions). But I don't trust WotC to do a decent job... they're too close to the source material :smallwink:

[KorvinStarmast]

The idea was solid but both were so far off the mark that I think they avoided that approach going forward. Battlerager was just bad.

Dragonlance using background to start feat chains to gate iconic setting faction based options rubs me wrong. I massively disliked that. (Also don't like what they did in the Giants book.

"Here's a Fighter subclass that's so good at inspiring people it can actually heal and buff them, we'll call it Banneret. And in Faerun, there's a faction of warriors called Purple Dragon Knights that pretty heavily if not entirely consists of Banneret Fighters." Wasn't it Green Ronin who put out SCAG? That book had a variety of issues...

Eh, with the buff to Magic Initiate I don't think those other background/level 1 feats matter anymore. They might as well exist from a setting standpoint; them being weaker is offset by them being prereqs of a level 4+ feat later. And Dragonlance in particular expects you to take them since it gives out 2 bonus feats to everybody. For those who like DL, how nice.

Great, the book is thicker. As Iggy Pop once pointed out, More is Better. :smallyuk:

[Oramac]

That is indeed how they did it last time around. Alternatively, it'd be a pretty snazzy new source book.


My one hope, if they go that route instead of the DMG, is that WotC outsources it to a 3PP that can actually do evil facing subclasses properly and offer guidance on how to run an evil campaign (though I'm sure forums like this will be overrun with questions and opinions). But I don't trust WotC to do a decent job... they're too close to the source material :smallwink:

I would definitely love to see a 5.5e version of the Book of Vile Darkness. Though I agree that WOTC is the wrong people to do it. On the other hand, I think they're unlikely to outsource anything any time soon, especially something on the evil end of the range.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I would definitely love to see a 5.5e version of the Book of Vile Darkness. Though I agree that WOTC is the wrong people to do it. On the other hand, I think they're unlikely to outsource anything any time soon, especially something on the evil end of the range.

I don't think they'd do either one. If they outsource, well... their name is still going to be on the product, and they're going to take the resulting heat for it. And there would definitely be heat. The playerbase has changed a lot since the early 2000s. The current development team isn't going to remove half-elves and half-orcs for sensitivity reasons and also commission a Big Book of Fantasy Racism.

[Theodoxus]

Not sure what is racist about necromancers, death clerics, or oathbreakers... Though I definitely have an issue with the pick and choose style of what constitutes 'true evil' in D&D such that some things are now off limits (half-anything being unique, calling anything a race), and others (killing sentient creatures for profit and sport, mind controlling same for same) aren't. Then there's the whole 'is slavery bad' that seems to get pushed into True Neutral territory. "Depends on context". Ok, sure, Jan. How about from the context of the enslaved?

[Oramac]

Not sure what is racist about necromancers, death clerics, or oathbreakers... Though I definitely have an issue with the pick and choose style of what constitutes 'true evil' in D&D such that some things are now off limits (half-anything being unique, calling anything a race), and others (killing sentient creatures for profit and sport, mind controlling same for same) aren't. Then there's the whole 'is slavery bad' that seems to get pushed into True Neutral territory. "Depends on context". Ok, sure, Jan. How about from the context of the enslaved?

Yup. WOTC has been wildly inconsistent with their definition of "evil". I can't really say more without breaking forum rules.

But IMO even the 3.5 and 4e Books of Vile Darkness were more of an in-depth DMG than anything. Basically just a really detailed guide for the DM on how to play the antagonists in a story, and ideas for use in those stories. Sure, there was player focused content, but considering the rarity of any actual evil campaigns, it's effectively a book for the DM (which is its own separate can of worms on whether or not to make it).

[Psyren]

I don't know how we jumped off the deep end here to reprinting BoVD of all things. All I said was that a round of "antihero subclasses" in the DMG could work as interesting bonus content and that the Assassin Rogue would fit among them; antihero doesn't mean evil, let alone vile.

[Pex]

5) New rules guidance that wasn't in the original PHB, such as adjudicating illusions

This is key to me. I tire of DMs who nerf illusions down to uselessness. Hopefully they'll be guidance for being charmed and Suggestion spell as well. I'm fine if that's in the DMG. Some DMs need ink on paper directions on how to handle such things.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

This is key to me. I tire of DMs who nerf illusions down to uselessness. Hopefully they'll be guidance for being charmed and Suggestion spell as well. I'm fine if that's in the DMG. Some DMs need ink on paper directions on how to handle such things.

I think if there is guidance it'll be the kind that nerfs illusions and charms down to uselessness. I don't have a lot of faith in this development team to do much beyond 'at level 3 you can add 1d6 damage of a common type or 1d4 of a less-common type to an attack once per round'.

[Luccan]

I think if there is guidance it'll be the kind that nerfs illusions and charms down to uselessness. I don't have a lot of faith in this development team to do much beyond 'at level 3 you can add 1d6 damage of a common type or 1d4 of a less-common type to an attack once per round'.

Yeah, they already nerfed charm spells this edition, I don't see their illusion rules fixing much of anything. But if what you care about is having a rule, it will have a rule now.

[Beelzebub1111]

I would like some info on monster manual updates. Without them the stuff in the PHB is only being measured against itself which does little outside of white room theory-crafting.

[Skrum]

This is key to me. I tire of DMs who nerf illusions down to uselessness. Hopefully they'll be guidance for being charmed and Suggestion spell as well. I'm fine if that's in the DMG. Some DMs need ink on paper directions on how to handle such things.

This is 100% coming from someone who favors and plays rules-heavy, "combat simulator" hi-op games, but I heartily dislike illusion spells and their ilk. It's the implied control over someone else's actions that bugs me. A player casts an illusion of whatever, and the expectation is the NPC will react in a certain way. If I'm the DM, I now face either 1) doing that and giving the PC's unprecedented control over NPC's, probably with no save, or 2) don't listen and the player feels like they wasted a slot, action, and spell selection.

I get that illusions are a legacy spell type, but I would love to see the end them in favor of defined, easy to use (and balance) spells with clear rules.

[Psyren]

This is 100% coming from someone who favors and plays rules-heavy, "combat simulator" hi-op games, but I heartily dislike illusion spells and their ilk. It's the implied control over someone else's actions that bugs me. A player casts an illusion of whatever, and the expectation is the NPC will react in a certain way. If I'm the DM, I now face either 1) doing that and giving the PC's unprecedented control over NPC's, probably with no save, or 2) don't listen and the player feels like they wasted a slot, action, and spell selection.

I get that illusions are a legacy spell type, but I would love to see the end them in favor of defined, easy to use (and balance) spells with clear rules.

I don't understand this at all; open-ended rules where we get to apply judgement, like illusions and enchantments (and improvised actions/contests for that matter), are where tabletop shines relative to other gaming media. If all I wanted were clearly defined spells that don't need any subjective adjudication, I'd be playing a video game instead.

Moreover, there is quite a lot of middle ground between "the PC has unprecedented control over NPC actions" and "they wasted their spell slot and action." This isn't to say that one of these two extremes isn't sometimes appropriate, but most of the time you should be striving to land in between them - rewarding clever illusions without them becoming a universal I-Win button or punching way above the power level of their spell slot.


I would like some info on monster manual updates. Without them the stuff in the PHB is only being measured against itself which does little outside of white room theory-crafting.

Honestly, we already have a pretty good idea about current monster design because of MPMM, Bigby's etc. There's plenty of modern stuff to compare 2024 classes to at various tiers and get a sense for how a party will perform. You can even run them through some of the anthology encounters like Golden Vault, Radiant Citadel, or the upcoming Infinite Staircase. So I can see why the MM is the book they chose to focus on last (and it will very likely be the book with the most art to boot.)

So long as we get Basic 2024 alongside or around the PHB we'll have plenty of updated monsters to throw at the updated PCs I'd say.

[KorvinStarmast]

The current development team isn't going to remove half-elves and half-orcs for sensitivity reasons and also commission a Big Book of Fantasy Racism. Like the Monster Manual? :smallbiggrin: (J/K)

WOTC has been wildly inconsistent with their definition of "evil". That someone needs a definition is a part of the problem. As usual, L/N/C as a framework disposes of the need to address that mechanically ... but I suppose that ship has sailed. Of all the things 5.5e needs, BoVD isn't one of them.

All I said was that a round of "antihero subclasses" in the DMG could work as interesting bonus content and that the Assassin Rogue would fit among them; antihero doesn't mean evil, let alone vile. I am pretty sure that each of the beings whose soul was consumed by Stormbringer, when wielded by Elric, held that Elric was both vile and evil. (Michael Moorcock ref...)

I don't have a lot of faith in this development team to do much beyond 'at level 3 you can add 1d6 damage of a common type or 1d4 of a less-common type to an attack once per round'. For a number of times per long rest equal to your proficiency bonus.

Yeah, they already nerfed charm spells this edition, I don't see their illusion rules fixing much of anything. But if what you care about is having a rule, it will have a rule now. More rules which trip over each other must be better! (Bad misquote of Iggy Pop).

I would like some info on monster manual updates. Without them the stuff in the PHB is only being measured against itself which does little outside of white room theory-crafting. The MM is the last book they will be revising. You can use the Monsters in the current MM out of the box when 5.5e shows up ... well that was their original story. But I am pretty sure that you can.

[Oramac]

That someone needs a definition is a part of the problem. As usual, L/N/C as a framework disposes of the need to address that mechanically ... but I suppose that ship has sailed.

I don't need the definition. If I could wave the magic wand I'd remove alignment entirely. I hate it. But it's a thing that's been around so long it's unlikely to go away any time soon. Which means WOTC has to deal with it in their book design.


Of all the things 5.5e needs, BoVD isn't one of them.

Eh. Like I said, it's basically just DMG-on-steroids. It's certainly not a high priority, but also not completely useless.

[Psyren]

I don't need the definition. If I could wave the magic wand I'd remove alignment entirely. I hate it. But it's a thing that's been around so long it's unlikely to go away any time soon. Which means WOTC has to deal with it in their book design.

For the most part they did though. It still exists for monsters as a very general indication of their values/likely behavior, but for PCs it's now completely optional, and PCs are what got us on this tangent in the first place.

The closest they've come to mechanical alignment are the Paladin Oaths, and even those are open to interpretation in a lot of cases as far as which alignments they support. Conquest for example is a fairly straightforward LE/LN, and Devotion seems aimed at the stereotypical LG shining knight who defends the downtrodden, but something like Vengeance or Glory could be almost any of them.

[Schwann145]

I think if there is guidance it'll be the kind that nerfs illusions and charms down to uselessness. I don't have a lot of faith in this development team to do much beyond 'at level 3 you can add 1d6 damage of a common type or 1d4 of a less-common type to an attack once per round'.


For a number of times per long rest equal to your proficiency bonus.


I don't understand this at all; open-ended rules where we get to apply judgement, like illusions and enchantments (and improvised actions/contests for that matter), are where tabletop shines relative to other gaming media. If all I wanted were clearly defined spells that don't need any subjective adjudication, I'd be playing a video game instead.

Quoted for truth.

[Skrum]

I don't understand this at all; open-ended rules where we get to apply judgement, like illusions and enchantments (and improvised actions/contests for that matter), are where tabletop shines relative to other gaming media. If all I wanted were clearly defined spells that don't need any subjective adjudication, I'd be playing a video game instead.

Moreover, there is quite a lot of middle ground between "the PC has unprecedented control over NPC actions" and "they wasted their spell slot and action." This isn't to say that one of these two extremes isn't sometimes appropriate, but most of the time you should be striving to land in between them - rewarding clever illusions without them becoming a universal I-Win button or punching way above the power level of their spell slot.


Like I said, the games I play in (especially the current table) are pretty combat-simulator. We sweat every 5 ft square, every action, etc. "Soft" rules and ambiguous stuff aren't not allowed in any formal sense, but they're shied away from - at least in combat.

[Oramac]

Like I said, the games I play in (especially the current table) are pretty combat-simulator. We sweat every 5 ft square, every action, etc. "Soft" rules and ambiguous stuff aren't not allowed in any formal sense, but they're shied away from - at least in combat.

So use them outside of combat? Illusions and charms are both incredibly useful outside of combat. Arguably more so. Of course, if you don't have any non-combat story beats, then it totally makes sense. Play your game and don't let us tell you you're wrong. :D

[Witty Username]

It still exists for monsters as a very general indication of their values/likely behavior

I thought that was cut by MotMV?
I'm not surprised if I am wrong, I never got the book.

[Millstone85]

It still exists for monsters as a very general indication of their values/likely behavior
I thought that was cut by MotMV?
I'm not surprised if I am wrong, I never got the book.All MotM did was put the word "typically" in front of alignment.

Some exceptions:

When it is a specific individual. For example, a bulezau demon is "typically chaotic evil" but the demon lord Graz'zt is "chaotic evil".
When the creature is "any alignment" or "unaligned".

[Psyren]

Like I said, the games I play in (especially the current table) are pretty combat-simulator. We sweat every 5 ft square, every action, etc. "Soft" rules and ambiguous stuff aren't not allowed in any formal sense, but they're shied away from - at least in combat.

There are illusions/enchantments that need adjudication and are specifically intended for combat use though, like Phantasmal Force and Enemies Abound.


I thought that was cut by MotMV?
I'm not surprised if I am wrong, I never got the book.

Its still there in MotM/MPMM, for exactly the reason I described; alignment remains a useful tool for monsters. Even knowing a given monster is Unaligned or Any is useful for a DM to know.

[P. G. Macer]

I thought that was cut by MotMV?
I'm not surprised if I am wrong, I never got the book.

Others have answered the main thrust of this point, but you probably thought that because post-Tasha’s there were a handful of books where monster/NPC alignment was omitted entirely, namely Candlekeep Mysteries and Van Richter’s Guide to Ravenloft. Wizards of the Coast later explained in a blog post on the old D&D website that this was a temporary “time-out” while the dev team figured out what to do with alignment, eventually settling on the “Typically X” for generic statblocks and restoring alignment to statblocks representing unique individuals.

[Witty Username]

Its still there in MotM/MPMM, for exactly the reason I described; alignment remains a useful tool for monsters. Even knowing a given monster is Unaligned or Any is useful for a DM to know.

Eh, kinda sorta. I don't disagree, so much as I don't find it very different from PC alignment. Its more of a vibe check to be used with other things anyway. For monsters it is a little on the back seat since monsters tend to need more shorter term goals than alignment normally contributes to, since monsters tend towards one encounter done.

[Psyren]

Eh, kinda sorta. I don't disagree, so much as I don't find it very different from PC alignment. Its more of a vibe check to be used with other things anyway. For monsters it is a little on the back seat since monsters tend to need more shorter term goals than alignment normally contributes to, since monsters tend towards one encounter done.

That's exactly why it's more valuable for them than for PCs.