2024 Player's Handbook Fireside Chat

[Psyren]

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



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)

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.

[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?

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

[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

"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.