2024 Player's Handbook Fireside Chat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crusher

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoutstien

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

"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...

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crusher

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodoxus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oramac

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuickLyRaiNbow

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuickLyRaiNbow

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oramac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuickLyRaiNbow

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luccan

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oramac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuickLyRaiNbow

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'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrum

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrum

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

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.