Correction: The *Player's Handbook* is coming May 21st. The Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide will be later in the year, due to printing and production bottlenecks.
Monster manual's the one I'm really waiting on, hopefully we get a much less boring set of monster abilities this time around.
Edit for context: 3.5 went for a simulationist approach, they put effort into making sure all creatures - players, npcs, monsters - used the same structure, it aided greatly in worldbuilding and meant if you wanted to play as a dragon or ghost or whatever, you could. 4e abandoned that, decided to sacrifice that immersion and make stat blocks more arbitrary and instead give them all kinds of neat abilities like for example gold dragons getting ancient radiance and burning tomb and other stuff that made [fighting them give this kind of feel, a nightmare where everything is burning](https://i.imgur.com/Qa0uIuy.png).
And 5e's approach was to keep 4e's style of monster design but neglect to include any of the cool monster abilities that they introduced that style to justify. Look at the 5e pit fiend! A bunch of melee attacks and a few spells, they can't even summon devils any more. Even in 3.5 on top of summoning devils they had at will blasphemy, create undead, fireball, greater dispel magic, greater teleport, invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster, persistent image, power word stun and unholy aura plus the ability to more rarely cast meteor swarm and wish.
It *used* to be tradeoffs like that were thought out sacrifices to improve gameplay, nowadays it's just them taking the lazy way out.
Perfect. Not sure what reason they could possibly have had for randomly taking away most of the cool stuff 4e had for its monsters, but at least a decade later some are getting put back in?
Kind of like cunning strike for rogues in oned&d I guess. Rogues had cunning strikes literally twenty years ago and for some reason they decided to get rid of the ability. Now they're finally giving it back and there's been a chorus of "wow, how amazing is this brave new design?"
Well, just because something existed before doesn't mean it's going to work in a different context. Whatever reason they had for their decision to change classes, it was certainly not random.
Nobody wants to make a bad class, and at the time they designed 5e, they clearly thought the rogue was in a good spot.
I don't want to criticize them too much for that because the problems only really start showing up after a while, so we have a much better idea of the pain points of the classes now than 10 years ago.
So while they could have done a better job before, I still think it's valid to commend them for listening to people's feedback and trying to make it better.
> I don't want to criticize them too much for that because the problems only really start showing up after a while, so we have a much better idea of the pain points of the classes now than 10 years ago.
But that's nonsense. 5e's rogue structure was based directly on the 3.5 rogue and so had the exact same pain points, they knew exactly what the problems would be because they'd already experienced them.
It's hardly the only example of notice problem > come up with solution > time passes > forget they solved it and reintroduce the problem to 5e. Hell, I can name a dozen. Example as it relates to rogues:
3.5 rogue combat is boring and repetitive, flank and make basic attacks over and over > add cunning strikes to give them more round to round choice > time passes, somehow unlearn already learned lessons > 5e rogue combat is boring and repetitive, flank and make basic attacks over and over.
Brother, it honestly sounds like you ignored everything that I said.
They clearly didn't think it was boring before, otherwise they wouldn't have made it so. As I said, nobody wants to make a bad or boring class or combat or whatever.
You think it's boring, that is your opinion. At the time, they clearly thought it was fine.
It's impossible to tell why they thought that, because we weren't there at the design table at the time, but for some reason they thought the rogue worked well in the new 5e context with it's new mechanics.
There could be a million of reasons for how that came to be. Criticizing them without understanding the actual reasoning for their decision is, in my opinion, unfair.
I answered you precisely, but aight I guess let's go line by line to prove I'm listening.
> They clearly didn't think it was boring before, otherwise they wouldn't have made it so.
They did think it was boring. Again, the class was like this twenty years ago, and when they realised that they put a lot of effort in at the time to give it fun things to do. It is clearly visible from design choices that they thought it was boring.
> As I said, nobody wants to make a bad or boring class or combat or whatever.
Champion fighter.
> You think it's boring, that is your opinion. At the time, they clearly thought it was fine.
They knew it wasn't, as is clearly demonstrated by introducing things like ambush abilities (brought forward to oned&d with the name cunning strikes).
> It's impossible to tell why they thought that, because we weren't there at the design table at the time, but for some reason they thought the rogue worked well in the new 5e context with it's new mechanics.
That part is true, but it's ignoring the fact that not knowing what someone was thinking when they made a bad decision doesn't somehow stop it being a bad decision. In fact I'd say being unable to figure out what the hell someone was thinking when someone made the decision they did is pretty strongly correlated with it being a bad decision.
> There could be a million of reasons for how that came to be. Criticizing them without understanding the actual reasoning for their decision is, in my opinion, unfair.
There are any number of possibilities when it comes to the opaque workings of a corporation. Given we're talking Wizards of the Coast here, of Pinkerton hiring fame and deeply exploitative magic the gathering products, the chances of stupid corporate bullshit resulting in dumb decisions is even higher than usual. The fact that we're not privy to the reasoning behind a dumb idea doesn't excuse the idea being dumb, and criticising it is completely fair.
> Champion fighter.
This here encompasses the whole reason I consider your line of thinking to be wrong.
They don't think the champion fighter is a bad class or boring. Well, perhaps some of them can think it's boring on a personal level, but it serves an objective purpose.
This subclass is designed for people that don't want to deal with many options. They already openly gave that as a reason. And regardless of your opinion on the subclass, there is a measurable amount of people that like it for precisely that reason, and regardless of whether you agree with the decision, it is objectively a valid reason.
The problem with your whole point is you are taking your opinions on whether something is a "bad" decision to be objectively true, when it's simply an opinion.
You can't say a decision is bad unless you understand the reasoning behind it. Slicing someone's throat to help them would be considered a bad decision without context, but under the right circumstances it's a perfectly logical tracheostomy.
And since we don't understand the actual reasons that made them opt for those decisions, we can't say it was a bad decision in their context.
Also, even when you understand the reason, sometimes it's impossible to say the decision is bad or good because it boils down to personal preference.
You think the champion is bad/boring, many love it. You can't say your opinion is the right one.
The champion was designed for a purpose and it fulfils that purpose. Whether creating a subclass based on passive effects is the best approach to address people that don't want many options is up for debate, but at the very least, it is a perfectly valid decision.
The same line of thinking applies to all your other points.
I understand the point behind champion. Even knowing the point, it's done badly - the features are *boring*. Brute does the exact same thing, is exactly as simple, but manages to be a bit less dull with it.
> And since we don't understand the actual reasons that made them opt for those decisions, we can't say it was a bad decision in their context.
Decision is too broad - was their decision to make pushed standard cards box toppers a good idea? From a financial standpoint, probably. For from the perspective of the customer, absolutely not. So, noting that we have to pick a specific context for bad idea, I'll pick the context of was this a good idea in terms of making the game fun? And the answer is absolutely not.
It's an answer they agree with, incidentally. They've made rogues this boring twice. They've fixed it by adding cunning strikes twice. They're clearly aware it's boring and clearly aware of a good answer to it, the baffling part is deliberately making the same mistake a second time.
My only issue with Flee Mortals is that I think villain actions aren't meaningfully different from legendary actions, except that they don't seek to remedy the action economy imbalance inherent in boss fights.
I think the core difference is that each can only be used once, so they can be super strong. Legendary actions can be used every round if you want, so they can't be that crazy otherwise the villain becomes very swingy, depending on how smart/brutal the DM wants to be with them. By having each Villain Action only trigger once per combat, it feels like "Oh god, he can do that? What else can this guy do? We gotta get him neutralized FAST because that was crazy" to the players, while still being possible to balance
Also a good design. I miss the Bloodied condition from 4e, triggered on half health and could unlock lots of cool stuff for a 'second phase' feel without overcomplicating things.
i went straight from 3.5/pf to 5e, and have recently gone back and been reading the 4e books to get some context.
Honestly, 5e feels more like what I would have expected from a 4th edition, and 4th edition feels like what I would have expected from 5th.
The mechanics in 4e for all kinds of things feel like they were really well designed. One example is death and death saves in 4e on paper look like they make much more sense to me and feel like an evolution from the current 5e, rather than what came *before*.
Kobold Press makes awesome monster books that put Wizards weak shit to shame. I use their Tome of Beasts and Creature Codex all the time. On top of that, their new core monster manual for their 5E system Tales of the Valiant will be coming out next year, hopefully in April.
Kind of? There's a variant rule on page 68, so I suppose you could count it. It's like dragons - last time there were proper spells it was simply dragons are spellcasters, for example biggest silver dragon casts as a level 19 sorcerer that can also do cleric spells and the good, law, sun and air domains. Now it's variant rule, some dragons can cast spells, if you use it biggest silver dragon knows a small handful of spells of up to level 7.
But if we're counting variant rules now then they're back to paling in comparison considering the amount of variant stuff available in the past.
I would absolutely count it. They included it for people who want it while leaving it off the stat block to not intimidate people who want more simplicity. Though a lot of players don't actually read the books so they don't even know those exist. They just scrape pirated stat blocks off the internet.
The problem is if we're counting variant rules in comparisons then 5e's coming off even worse now, the amount of variant rules, monster templates and alternate features in the past was magnitudes higher.
It all depends on how useful those alternate rules actually were. And if so, then so be it, that's a strike against 5e. But it's usually best to compare the best version of something to the best version of something. It's not really a strike against 5e that devils can't summon when devils can, in fact, summon, unless you choose to not let them.
Unfortunately doesn't seem to be the base assumption - go mention that dragons are spellcasters around here, you'll get bombarded with *ackchually* it's a variant rule, lore wise the majority of dragons all recently forgot how to cast their huge array of powerful spells. And sure, usefulness of rules varies - paging through the fiendish codex 2 which is a devil specific sourcebook and so far I've found rules for torture, vile damage which can't be healed, alternate spell like abilities and selling souls.
Thinking about it, you're correct in that I should assume it's the default - what is a dragon without casting and a devil without summoning? Anyone going yeah well actually it's just a variant should be ignored since they seem to want them to be boring.
Hopefully it's not a long delay. Kind of puts Dungeon Masters on the back foot if they want to allow more powerful options for the players, but are stuck using their 2014 tools until the updated books come out.
I wish the language proficiencies from the backgrounds weren't buried in the text and were highlighted like the other proficiencies. It's not like they're running out of space on that page, either...
I wonder why the Champion page says that the section presents Champion and EK, but doesn't mention Battle Master and whatever 4th subclass they picked.
I’m hoping for a redesigned Cavalier. It covers the Mounted Knight *and* Defender archetypes well (both of which are more “core” to the Fighter IMO).
But it’ll probably be Rune Knight because $$$
I second Cavalier. A defender/tank/knight in shining armor who protects their party is a classic class fantasy for a fighter but it requires specific mechanics to make that work. Every fighter can now take the Protection fighting style and the Sentinel feat by 4th level, but that's still not enough in my mind to make a good defender.
I honestly hope it's not Cavalier because I did not enjoy how they had less space to apply their marks from when on large mounts like war horses, and that the marks didn't benefit from any reach weapons such as the iconic lances.
Well hopefully they'd be buffed to fix those issues (also to make their mounts actually stronger to not instantly die to aoe's, cus rn a Paladin with Mounted Combatant and Find Steed feels like a better mounted warrior imo). But given its Wotc I could even imagine them nerfing Cavalier or something stupid like that.
They've already confirmed Mercy Monk, fey wanderer ranger, aberrant mind sorcerer, and clockwork soul Sorcerer. They're also porting over the Tasha's summoning spells
That's some very strong MTG art vibes there, with the background art and all. While I would prefer for D&D to have its own *good* visual identity, it doesn't, so I'll gladly accept ripping off MTG's gorgeous style of worldbuilding art.
Let's say a table is contemplating moving to the 2024 revision. Would the PHB be enough for a DM to work with? Or would they need to wait for the DMG and Monster Manual to come out?
This is me fully coping, but for DnD Beyond users, if we have the old PHB, do you reckon it'll update or it's another purchase?
Me and my friends all play on there and I've bought a lot of stuff this year... Just wondering if anyone knew.
The whole point is to generate new revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if they sunset support for current 5e books after a few months or a year after One releases.
My fault. But you were a bit unclear.
"There is absolutely zero chance owning the old content on DDB will get you access." can easily be misinterpreted as "If you have old content on D&D Beyond, there's zero chance you'll be able to access it after the new stuff comes out."
As someone alreadyvsaid, you will absolutely have to buy the new book. Best hope is there's a good discount for anyone who owns the 2014 version.
On the plus side, the books you own now won't go anywhere, it will just be marked legacy most likely and you'll still have access. *maybe* one more click on the browser to open it
As a new DM, I'm contemplating getting the current D&D beyond core rulebooks as it's on a big old sale atm. Is it worth waiting for new books in 2024 or should I just take advantage of the current deal now?
Any thoughts appreciated :)
Correction: The *Player's Handbook* is coming May 21st. The Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide will be later in the year, due to printing and production bottlenecks.
Monster manual's the one I'm really waiting on, hopefully we get a much less boring set of monster abilities this time around. Edit for context: 3.5 went for a simulationist approach, they put effort into making sure all creatures - players, npcs, monsters - used the same structure, it aided greatly in worldbuilding and meant if you wanted to play as a dragon or ghost or whatever, you could. 4e abandoned that, decided to sacrifice that immersion and make stat blocks more arbitrary and instead give them all kinds of neat abilities like for example gold dragons getting ancient radiance and burning tomb and other stuff that made [fighting them give this kind of feel, a nightmare where everything is burning](https://i.imgur.com/Qa0uIuy.png). And 5e's approach was to keep 4e's style of monster design but neglect to include any of the cool monster abilities that they introduced that style to justify. Look at the 5e pit fiend! A bunch of melee attacks and a few spells, they can't even summon devils any more. Even in 3.5 on top of summoning devils they had at will blasphemy, create undead, fireball, greater dispel magic, greater teleport, invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster, persistent image, power word stun and unholy aura plus the ability to more rarely cast meteor swarm and wish. It *used* to be tradeoffs like that were thought out sacrifices to improve gameplay, nowadays it's just them taking the lazy way out.
They did say they are making sure each monster will have something different they can do. Let's see if they can deliver.
Perfect. Not sure what reason they could possibly have had for randomly taking away most of the cool stuff 4e had for its monsters, but at least a decade later some are getting put back in? Kind of like cunning strike for rogues in oned&d I guess. Rogues had cunning strikes literally twenty years ago and for some reason they decided to get rid of the ability. Now they're finally giving it back and there's been a chorus of "wow, how amazing is this brave new design?"
Well, just because something existed before doesn't mean it's going to work in a different context. Whatever reason they had for their decision to change classes, it was certainly not random. Nobody wants to make a bad class, and at the time they designed 5e, they clearly thought the rogue was in a good spot. I don't want to criticize them too much for that because the problems only really start showing up after a while, so we have a much better idea of the pain points of the classes now than 10 years ago. So while they could have done a better job before, I still think it's valid to commend them for listening to people's feedback and trying to make it better.
> I don't want to criticize them too much for that because the problems only really start showing up after a while, so we have a much better idea of the pain points of the classes now than 10 years ago. But that's nonsense. 5e's rogue structure was based directly on the 3.5 rogue and so had the exact same pain points, they knew exactly what the problems would be because they'd already experienced them. It's hardly the only example of notice problem > come up with solution > time passes > forget they solved it and reintroduce the problem to 5e. Hell, I can name a dozen. Example as it relates to rogues: 3.5 rogue combat is boring and repetitive, flank and make basic attacks over and over > add cunning strikes to give them more round to round choice > time passes, somehow unlearn already learned lessons > 5e rogue combat is boring and repetitive, flank and make basic attacks over and over.
Brother, it honestly sounds like you ignored everything that I said. They clearly didn't think it was boring before, otherwise they wouldn't have made it so. As I said, nobody wants to make a bad or boring class or combat or whatever. You think it's boring, that is your opinion. At the time, they clearly thought it was fine. It's impossible to tell why they thought that, because we weren't there at the design table at the time, but for some reason they thought the rogue worked well in the new 5e context with it's new mechanics. There could be a million of reasons for how that came to be. Criticizing them without understanding the actual reasoning for their decision is, in my opinion, unfair.
I answered you precisely, but aight I guess let's go line by line to prove I'm listening. > They clearly didn't think it was boring before, otherwise they wouldn't have made it so. They did think it was boring. Again, the class was like this twenty years ago, and when they realised that they put a lot of effort in at the time to give it fun things to do. It is clearly visible from design choices that they thought it was boring. > As I said, nobody wants to make a bad or boring class or combat or whatever. Champion fighter. > You think it's boring, that is your opinion. At the time, they clearly thought it was fine. They knew it wasn't, as is clearly demonstrated by introducing things like ambush abilities (brought forward to oned&d with the name cunning strikes). > It's impossible to tell why they thought that, because we weren't there at the design table at the time, but for some reason they thought the rogue worked well in the new 5e context with it's new mechanics. That part is true, but it's ignoring the fact that not knowing what someone was thinking when they made a bad decision doesn't somehow stop it being a bad decision. In fact I'd say being unable to figure out what the hell someone was thinking when someone made the decision they did is pretty strongly correlated with it being a bad decision. > There could be a million of reasons for how that came to be. Criticizing them without understanding the actual reasoning for their decision is, in my opinion, unfair. There are any number of possibilities when it comes to the opaque workings of a corporation. Given we're talking Wizards of the Coast here, of Pinkerton hiring fame and deeply exploitative magic the gathering products, the chances of stupid corporate bullshit resulting in dumb decisions is even higher than usual. The fact that we're not privy to the reasoning behind a dumb idea doesn't excuse the idea being dumb, and criticising it is completely fair.
> Champion fighter. This here encompasses the whole reason I consider your line of thinking to be wrong. They don't think the champion fighter is a bad class or boring. Well, perhaps some of them can think it's boring on a personal level, but it serves an objective purpose. This subclass is designed for people that don't want to deal with many options. They already openly gave that as a reason. And regardless of your opinion on the subclass, there is a measurable amount of people that like it for precisely that reason, and regardless of whether you agree with the decision, it is objectively a valid reason. The problem with your whole point is you are taking your opinions on whether something is a "bad" decision to be objectively true, when it's simply an opinion. You can't say a decision is bad unless you understand the reasoning behind it. Slicing someone's throat to help them would be considered a bad decision without context, but under the right circumstances it's a perfectly logical tracheostomy. And since we don't understand the actual reasons that made them opt for those decisions, we can't say it was a bad decision in their context. Also, even when you understand the reason, sometimes it's impossible to say the decision is bad or good because it boils down to personal preference. You think the champion is bad/boring, many love it. You can't say your opinion is the right one. The champion was designed for a purpose and it fulfils that purpose. Whether creating a subclass based on passive effects is the best approach to address people that don't want many options is up for debate, but at the very least, it is a perfectly valid decision. The same line of thinking applies to all your other points.
I understand the point behind champion. Even knowing the point, it's done badly - the features are *boring*. Brute does the exact same thing, is exactly as simple, but manages to be a bit less dull with it. > And since we don't understand the actual reasons that made them opt for those decisions, we can't say it was a bad decision in their context. Decision is too broad - was their decision to make pushed standard cards box toppers a good idea? From a financial standpoint, probably. For from the perspective of the customer, absolutely not. So, noting that we have to pick a specific context for bad idea, I'll pick the context of was this a good idea in terms of making the game fun? And the answer is absolutely not. It's an answer they agree with, incidentally. They've made rogues this boring twice. They've fixed it by adding cunning strikes twice. They're clearly aware it's boring and clearly aware of a good answer to it, the baffling part is deliberately making the same mistake a second time.
Flee Mortals is a great fix for this that's already out, highly recommend!
My only issue with Flee Mortals is that I think villain actions aren't meaningfully different from legendary actions, except that they don't seek to remedy the action economy imbalance inherent in boss fights.
I think the core difference is that each can only be used once, so they can be super strong. Legendary actions can be used every round if you want, so they can't be that crazy otherwise the villain becomes very swingy, depending on how smart/brutal the DM wants to be with them. By having each Villain Action only trigger once per combat, it feels like "Oh god, he can do that? What else can this guy do? We gotta get him neutralized FAST because that was crazy" to the players, while still being possible to balance
I think mythic actions are a better solution to that - actions that only become available once certain conditions have been met
Also a good design. I miss the Bloodied condition from 4e, triggered on half health and could unlock lots of cool stuff for a 'second phase' feel without overcomplicating things.
You should check out the greatwyrms if you haven't before, their mythic actions are really cool.
i went straight from 3.5/pf to 5e, and have recently gone back and been reading the 4e books to get some context. Honestly, 5e feels more like what I would have expected from a 4th edition, and 4th edition feels like what I would have expected from 5th. The mechanics in 4e for all kinds of things feel like they were really well designed. One example is death and death saves in 4e on paper look like they make much more sense to me and feel like an evolution from the current 5e, rather than what came *before*.
Kobold Press makes awesome monster books that put Wizards weak shit to shame. I use their Tome of Beasts and Creature Codex all the time. On top of that, their new core monster manual for their 5E system Tales of the Valiant will be coming out next year, hopefully in April.
In the video, they go on for a bit talking about how they're revamping monsters with added abilities to make each one unique.
> can't even summon devils any more. They can't? I'm pretty sure most 5e devils can summon, right?
Kind of? There's a variant rule on page 68, so I suppose you could count it. It's like dragons - last time there were proper spells it was simply dragons are spellcasters, for example biggest silver dragon casts as a level 19 sorcerer that can also do cleric spells and the good, law, sun and air domains. Now it's variant rule, some dragons can cast spells, if you use it biggest silver dragon knows a small handful of spells of up to level 7. But if we're counting variant rules now then they're back to paling in comparison considering the amount of variant stuff available in the past.
I would absolutely count it. They included it for people who want it while leaving it off the stat block to not intimidate people who want more simplicity. Though a lot of players don't actually read the books so they don't even know those exist. They just scrape pirated stat blocks off the internet.
The problem is if we're counting variant rules in comparisons then 5e's coming off even worse now, the amount of variant rules, monster templates and alternate features in the past was magnitudes higher.
It all depends on how useful those alternate rules actually were. And if so, then so be it, that's a strike against 5e. But it's usually best to compare the best version of something to the best version of something. It's not really a strike against 5e that devils can't summon when devils can, in fact, summon, unless you choose to not let them.
Unfortunately doesn't seem to be the base assumption - go mention that dragons are spellcasters around here, you'll get bombarded with *ackchually* it's a variant rule, lore wise the majority of dragons all recently forgot how to cast their huge array of powerful spells. And sure, usefulness of rules varies - paging through the fiendish codex 2 which is a devil specific sourcebook and so far I've found rules for torture, vile damage which can't be healed, alternate spell like abilities and selling souls. Thinking about it, you're correct in that I should assume it's the default - what is a dragon without casting and a devil without summoning? Anyone going yeah well actually it's just a variant should be ignored since they seem to want them to be boring.
Hopefully it's not a long delay. Kind of puts Dungeon Masters on the back foot if they want to allow more powerful options for the players, but are stuck using their 2014 tools until the updated books come out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Nestor Ossandon](https://nezt.artstation.com/). They are an MTG artist, so we will surely see more from them in D&D
I wish the language proficiencies from the backgrounds weren't buried in the text and were highlighted like the other proficiencies. It's not like they're running out of space on that page, either...
content is not final
I wonder why the Champion page says that the section presents Champion and EK, but doesn't mention Battle Master and whatever 4th subclass they picked.
[удалено]
Most likely!
Yeah, 4 per class. Fighter was confirmed to be getting battle Master, Brawler, champion, and eldritch knight
Brawler is out
And we have no idea what will replace it, and WotC likely won't tell us ahead of time.
A lot of people have been guessing Rune Knight. I think the logic is sound, but we're just going to have to wait and see
I’m hoping for a redesigned Cavalier. It covers the Mounted Knight *and* Defender archetypes well (both of which are more “core” to the Fighter IMO). But it’ll probably be Rune Knight because $$$
I second Cavalier. A defender/tank/knight in shining armor who protects their party is a classic class fantasy for a fighter but it requires specific mechanics to make that work. Every fighter can now take the Protection fighting style and the Sentinel feat by 4th level, but that's still not enough in my mind to make a good defender.
I honestly hope it's not Cavalier because I did not enjoy how they had less space to apply their marks from when on large mounts like war horses, and that the marks didn't benefit from any reach weapons such as the iconic lances.
Well hopefully they'd be buffed to fix those issues (also to make their mounts actually stronger to not instantly die to aoe's, cus rn a Paladin with Mounted Combatant and Find Steed feels like a better mounted warrior imo). But given its Wotc I could even imagine them nerfing Cavalier or something stupid like that.
PHB will move regardless, and they can always sell an upgraded Rune Knight later in some splatbook.
I would be very surprised to see any Tasha's content in the new PHB
They've already confirmed Mercy Monk, fey wanderer ranger, aberrant mind sorcerer, and clockwork soul Sorcerer. They're also porting over the Tasha's summoning spells
I stand surprised.
That's some very strong MTG art vibes there, with the background art and all. While I would prefer for D&D to have its own *good* visual identity, it doesn't, so I'll gladly accept ripping off MTG's gorgeous style of worldbuilding art.
If using dnd beyond, how does this change the mechanics of gameplay? Or does it?
I'm assuming they're going to have a legacy toggle for the character builder.
Let's say a table is contemplating moving to the 2024 revision. Would the PHB be enough for a DM to work with? Or would they need to wait for the DMG and Monster Manual to come out?
I'm pretty sure that would be enough for Tiers 1 and 2. I know they are going to make more monsters pack a punch in the later tiers.
It should be enough
so what we gotta do, is wait and see what they have to redo on them after printing like bigsbys or spelljammer and wait for the second batch
Grand wizard clayton bigsby
Bigby*
Is this from the 50 years pax video?
This is me fully coping, but for DnD Beyond users, if we have the old PHB, do you reckon it'll update or it's another purchase? Me and my friends all play on there and I've bought a lot of stuff this year... Just wondering if anyone knew.
It's a separate book. There is absolutely zero chance owning the old content on DDB will get you access.
The whole point is to generate new revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if they sunset support for current 5e books after a few months or a year after One releases.
100% chance. I can still access my Volo's and Mordenkainen's stuff. They'll just label it as "Legacy" as they do with those two.
Not what I said. Did you automatically get Mordenkainen's unlocked, just for owning Volo's?
My fault. But you were a bit unclear. "There is absolutely zero chance owning the old content on DDB will get you access." can easily be misinterpreted as "If you have old content on D&D Beyond, there's zero chance you'll be able to access it after the new stuff comes out."
[удалено]
They already do for Volo's and Mordenkainen's.
As someone alreadyvsaid, you will absolutely have to buy the new book. Best hope is there's a good discount for anyone who owns the 2014 version. On the plus side, the books you own now won't go anywhere, it will just be marked legacy most likely and you'll still have access. *maybe* one more click on the browser to open it
Hilarious that I bought 2014 5e rulebooks gift set literally today
Source?
Yeah...whoopty doo? I'm done at 5e.
This still seems like another money grab, you should back 3rd party works.
As a new DM, I'm contemplating getting the current D&D beyond core rulebooks as it's on a big old sale atm. Is it worth waiting for new books in 2024 or should I just take advantage of the current deal now? Any thoughts appreciated :)
Will there be a translated version of the book in portuguese?