D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[tetrasodium]

Only think i've ever seen like that , was the damage types tables in 1st or 2nd edition. If you were stabbing a guy in chain mail you wanted piercing, if you were beating a guy in plate mail you wanted bludgeoning, ( i think). etc it had the affect you are going for but was more fiddly. but if you played that kind of game a fighter might carry multiple weapons or suits of armor. It did have the benefit of making special weapons useful instead of everyone going for the one with the biggest damage. I seem to recall weapons speed being a thing as well. Big two handed weapons hurt you in initiative. It's why all d&D rogues used daggers or darts. They were faster you got to attack first.

There were problems e with that beyond the picture oofta referenced. Specifically the fact that it put needless work on the GM's plate to track the armor for every creature in combat while varying it up enough to not just make certain damage types best. 3.x did a good job of avoiding that while preserving the function with useful depth for the GM to leverage with the way it handled flat DR & weapon material types.

Related to that though is the fact that being proficient in all weapon types doesn't matter in 5e because nobody actually feels limited due to oversimplification of weapons themselves* & the shift to almost everyone who might actually use a weapon tending to be proficient with "all martial all simple" or "all weapons"

*does this weapon allow my primary stat? [yes/no]. If yes, is there one that also allows it but has a larger damage die? [if no then this is the weapon to use. If yes then use that instead] without subjective elements like crit range & crit multiplier or even the 4e weapon tags it makes weapon choice an entirely objective thing with a right & wrong answer.

 

[CreamCloud0]

a short list of some of the most basic changes i'd make to the weapon table

add finesse to sickle (cause it provides simple finesse damage type options)
replace spear's versatile with reach (no simple weapons have reach)
move shortsword to simple weapons, remove light property (stronger than d4 finesse weapon for simple weapons)
change one of the d10 halberds to d8, finesse, 2-handed, reach (provides a melee finesse weapon with reach)
replace longsword's versatile with 2-handed, bump to d10, add finesse. (stronger 2-handed finesse weapon)
increase whip's reach to 10ft (is that already a thing? if not then it's the only 10ft reach melee weapon)

maybe bump the damage of some of the martial melee weapons in general? 2d8 as new highest possible weapon damage?

these changes increase diverity of unique weapon property combinations and reduces redundancy of very similar weapons in the existing groups.

 

[Hussar]

You say that like it's a bad thing!

But yeah, seriously, I don't think we really need to differentiate between Bohemian earspoon and glaive-guisarme. Hell, I'd be fine with combining some of the current weapons. But I think there should be some meaningful choices that would make different weapons preferable in different situations.

That's what their doing with 2024 isn't it? Adding in a bunch of weapon effects so there is a reason for taking this vs that weapon. Does add a smidgeon of complication - mostly on the DM's side because it gives me one more thing to track - do claws get this sort of add on effect as well? - but it does seem like a good thing to me.

 

[Faolyn]

There is no reasonable justification as to why someone can, any time they want, get passage on a boat anywhere in the world or the multiverse.

But there almost certainly is a reasonable justification as to why someone can get passage on a boat at this point in time.

You keep thinking that this ability is going to be used all the time, no matter where the PCs are--but that's not the case and has never been the case. Unless you, the DM, make it so that sea travel is commonly available and very useful in the first place, getting passage on a boat is not going to be particularly common no matter what the players' backgrounds are.

Plus, have you ever considered asking the player how the feature is justified? "We're on a different continent. Tell me how you expect your feature to work." Either the player will have a cool justification that you will accept, or they won't have a justification and the point is moot.

 

[Faolyn]

i wish martials collected way way more fighting styles, letting them really diversify their combat capabilities rather than locking them into a single choice, but then also add a 'weapon specialisation' fighting style that lets you really hone in on a single weapon.

That's why I like Level Up--all those maneuvers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem with differentiating weapons and giving them all special effects is that you end up looking like this guy
View attachment 362818

It's a look. I can see it.

 

[Faolyn]

Read the noble feature for example. You don't think that doesn't make pretty drastic assumptions about the nature of nobility and how the nobles are viewed in the setting?

I actually answered that a while ago. D&D does have a drastic assumption about the nature of nobility--a very Medieval/Renaissance Europe view on it. So you either have to assume that nobles of a type different (say, a hobgoblin warlord-type king) aren't really considered "noble" by D&D standards, or you say that nobles of any type are willing to see all other nobles as roughly equals and are willing to grant audiences to noble PCs. Which isn't realistic by real-world standards, but D&D has dozens of sentient species and completely different histories and religions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I actually answered that a while ago. D&D does have a drastic assumption about the nature of nobility--a very Medieval/Renaissance Europe view on it. So you either have to assume that nobles of a type different (say, a hobgoblin warlord-type king) aren't really considered "noble" by D&D standards, or you say that nobles of any type are willing to see all other nobles as roughly equals and are willing to grant audiences to noble PCs. Which isn't realistic by real-world standards, but D&D has dozens of sentient species and completely different histories and religions.

Right. So you admit the background forces assumptions about the world? And that part is just a half of it, it also assumes commoners who grovel before the nobles to avoid their displeasure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There were problems e with that beyond the picture oofta referenced. Specifically the fact that it put needless work on the GM's plate to track the armor for every creature in combat while varying it up enough to not just make certain damage types best. 3.x did a good job of avoiding that while preserving the function with useful depth for the GM to leverage with the way it handled flat DR & weapon material types.

Related to that though is the fact that being proficient in all weapon types doesn't matter in 5e because nobody actually feels limited due to oversimplification of weapons themselves* & the shift to almost everyone who might actually use a weapon tending to be proficient with "all martial all simple" or "all weapons"

*does this weapon allow my primary stat? [yes/no]. If yes, is there one that also allows it but has a larger damage die? [if no then this is the weapon to use. If yes then use that instead] without subjective elements like crit range & crit multiplier or even the 4e weapon tags it makes weapon choice an entirely objective thing with a right & wrong answer.

What work is "needless" is very subjective.

 

[tetrasodium]

What work is "needless" is very subjective.

While true, there is a point where the quest for simplicity stops making improvements in actual play at the table & shifts to simply chasing a slogan.