Is D&D 2024e backwards compatible? Call me dubious.

The 2024e edition is a new set of rules. WotC doesn’t want you to believe that.

Or whatever it’s being called this week

WotC has been insistent, insistent I say, that the new edition of D&D is not, in fact, a new edition. This is not D&D 6e! This is not even D&D 5.5e! This is …

Well, they call it 2024e, because that is not at all confusing with what 5e is being called now (2014e).

But, of course if it were not a new edition, why would we need to refer to it differently?

Or, to look at it another way, why not just call it D&D with new optional rules like have shown up in things like Tasha’s, etc.?

Because then they wouldn’t sell new books, amirite?

But we’re not to call it a new edition. It is simply rule changes that are completely compatible with the older, um, previous, er, differently-numbered-year edition not-an-edition set of numbers.

A Caveat

Note: the changes in rules from 2014e / 5e to 2024e are not necessarily bad. In fact, a lot of them sound kind of interesting. But are they backwards-compatible? Do they not imbalance encounters and conflicts in earlier modules? Will players in a given campaign be able to change to 2024e without making any difference? Will 5e characters be as good against new 2024e campaigns? If some players want to switch but others do not, will that work well? Will various Virtual Tabletops handle mixed parties and/or modules?

Two examples that got a fair amount of play in my reading today:

Surprise in 2024e

In 5e / 2014e, when a group or individuals are Surprised, they roll Initiative as normal, but are unable to take any Actions or Reactions or movement through their first turn, after which they can only React until their next turn.

So that’s pretty harsh. Surprised foes (or friends) are at a serious deficit here. In an Action Economy,

In 2024e, Surprised individuals … roll Initiative at Disadvantage.

That’s a much simpler mechanic, but it’s also a lot easier mechanic. Rather than missing out on an entire turn, you just tend to come late in a turn.

Either alternative is arguable. But are they the same? Can you have a mix of players choosing a different version, for themselves or their opponents? Can you seamlessly change the rule to match previous challenges? Does it just become another option? Is it a significant enough change to actually alter how an encounter ends?

Inspiration in 2024e

Inspiration is an optional rule in 5e / 2014e. The DM (with input from the players) can give someone up to 1 point of Inspiration. That Inspiration can be turned in (in advance) for Advantage on an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check.

Okay, pretty straightforward. A D20 roll can be rolled with Advantage.

The 2024e version changes the mechanic and the name. It’s now “Heroic Inspiration,” and it allows instead a re-roll on any roll a player makes — an attack, a damage roll, a healing roll, whatever.

A key here, from the designers, was the sense that too much adds Advantage. That’s kind of ironic, as Advantage was intended as a way of simplifying the endless plusses/minuses of 3e, 3.5e, and 4e. But there was here a sense that too much was being simplified and rolled into a trinary Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.

In addition to that rather significant change, there are now a variety of mechanical ways to gain “Heroic Inspiration,” including a Fighter subclass that just basically gets their point refreshed every turn.

It’s an interesting design choice, and I can see a lot behind it. It can make for more ways to leverage Inspiration (through broader dice rolls, and also by taking out of the unstackable Advantage bucket). It also makes, through its expanded Inspiration, a more reliable way of getting it.

On the other hand, it introduces Yet Another Mechanic. And it weakens that RP focus of the current Inspiration mechanic.

Good? Bad? I can see arguments either way. But it’s a very distinct choice, and something a table will need to decide One Way or The Other. Unlike the Surprise mechanic, I don’t think it changes balance — but does that make it Backwards Compatible?

Just call it a new edition, fergoshsakes

People who have bought 5e, will have three choices.

Change to 2024e, either mid-campaign, or next time there’s a module change (and upgrade any 5e-era modules to use the new rules).
Stick with 5e, and hope they can “backwards compatible” the mechanics of 2024e-era modules into those rules.
Mix and match — in existing campaigns or in new ones, evaluate the 2024e rules that have changed and depending which ones to pull in and which to continue using (and where players can select different conclusions).

Option 1 is pretty standard for a new actual edition. Option 2 might be possible with an actual edition change, but it would be a bit of work. Option 3 only is possible if that “backwards compatible” notion is real.

These sneak peaks (the first 2024e volume only comes out in September) make me think that WotC has tried to come up with something better enough and different enough to justify getting a new set of books (or virtual add-ins to the VTT … or both!) while pretending that it’s just a set of optional improvements.

I resent that.

I will almost certainly get the new edition of books and rules and use them in the future. I will remain resentful that WotC has been playing games with the whole thing to make money and pretend like they aren’t.

The Once and Future D&D

WotC’s latest announcements on where the new D&D not-an-edition is going are … interesting.

If I read this article correctly …

Well, first, begone “One D&D”! Welcome “D&D 2024”! The concept is, I think, kind of the same, but now they are adding a year on there so that it will sound out of date at some point.

The new core books will be … a thousand pages long? Crikey.

The reason for that length? All the old stuff (“D&D 2014”) will still be in there, alongside the new stuff (“D&D 2024”). You don’t have to choose! You can mix and match and blend and use it all, because it will all be backwards compatible, in all directions! Fun for all, especially the GM (who has to keep all these things in mind) and various software systems that have to keep track of double the rules and selected options.

New DnD2024 Design Goals — Also, free puppies in every box!

WotC is trying to have it both ways: a new system to be excited about (and to buy books for), but not obsoleting the old stuff (though you’ll really want the new stuff because some players will want the new stuff). So all that money you invested in D&D 2014 stuff is still a good investment, except that you’ll want to buy the 1000-page core books for the new version because that’s what all the cool kids will be doing.

I’m fine with their sticking with the basic 5e mechanics, which are sound. But the forward-backward compatibility stuff is dodgy. I still would rather they just call it 6e or 5.5e and be honest about it.

D&D 5e Rules – Element vs Element!

When magic attacks “opposite” magic, things can get a little weird.

Part of an ongoing series of 5e Rules notes.

Okay, this is going to meander a bit.

Magical Water vs Magical Fire.

Can a magical water spell (or magical air/gust spell) drown (blow out) a magical fire spell?

The idea of this sort of encounter is natural, but the guidance from the rules is unclear.

Suggestion: Things can be countered unless it says they can’t be.

Take a Continual Flame spell:

The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered or hidden but not smothered or quenched.

There is explicit text here saying that such flames cannot be smothered or quenched (largely because it seems that this is not a true flame, but an illusory flame light source). Fine. If something is written with such an immunity, they are immune. If not, they are as quenchable as normal flames.

Suggestion: Things are only countered if it says they are.

Rules As Written (RAW) philosophy is pretty literal. If a spell has an effect, the spell spells that out in its description. If it’s not mentioned, it’s not an actual effect.

So, for example, Thaumaturgy, Gust, Windwall, Create/Destroy Water, and Prestidigitation all explicitly state they can snuff flame. Tidal Wave, too. If a spell doesn’t mention that as an effect, it doesn’t happen.

(Note that Tidal Wave and others often specify “unprotected flames” — not drawing a distinction between a magical vs natural flame.)

Suggestion: Things can be countered if the counter-spell is a higher level than the original spell.

This is inspired by the Light/Dark setup. Darkness (2nd level) notes:

Nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. … If any of this spell’s area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.

So there’s (in this case) some sort of “This quashing power is equal or greater to the power being quashed, so score” effect. This is a potential problem, though, because …

Curse you, Magic Items!

Magical items (or magical features of dungeon rooms) are often written without any indication of what spell effect they use, or what they are/aren’t immune to, or what level such a spell would be. Take the case of the magical burning spears wielded by Razorblasts in the Princes of the Apocalypse campaign. The Razorblasts can turn them on or off (though it isn’t indicated how), but there’s not even instruction on what would happen if a party member picked one up and wanted to use one. Some of the Earth Cult weaponry in that module is explicitly Earth Cult magic-specific, but that’s not the case with the fire effects noted. Are they flames an attribute of the Razorblasts, worship of Imyx, or the spears themselves? Only the DM know for sure (or guesses quickly).

There isn’t even a canonical weapon rule or example to draw from for something like those spears. The Flame Tongue weapons do more damage than the spears did. The Flame Blade 2nd level spell does as well (and is a weapon substitute, not enhancement).

Based on the above, the magical effect on the spears (which was +1d6 fire) is some sort of specialized elemental 1st level effect.

Okay, so it should be arguably easy to quench them, right?

But magic fire is not the same as physical fire. If you throw a bucket of water on a torch, the torch goes out, and trying to re-light it will be a pain because the fuel (the torch) is wet. But a blade that can have a magical fire turned on — well, the bucket of water will arguably quench it, but once the water is gone, it can be retriggered, unless the item’s rules have some weird “once a day” rule.

So what does this all mean?

It means doing some quick vamping as GM when someone creates one of these conflicts.

For example, you are in a room that has magical columns that, on a command word, begin to glow with a fiery heat, doing damage to anyone nearby. The amount of damage is spelled out. Nothing else is. (This, too, is from Princes of the Apocalypse). Jackie the Cleric casts a Big Wall of Water Spell (whatever) at the opponents in the in a room with magical columns.

It should have no direct effect on the magical columns, though, because those aren’t a flame source. Color text of special effects of steam and maybe therefore vision obscuring occurs. (Indeed, “I want to cover our withdrawal by shooting a big wall of water at the magma pillars” is a Rule-of-Cool clever idea that would probably net some Inspiration.)

It also knocks out the flames of the magical spears. But as of the opponents’ next turn start, they can reignite them because the water is not existing in perpetuity about their spearheads, and the momentary spell only overrides the permanent enchantment temporarily.

What, by the way, makes damage “magical”?

Slight digression, though it’s related to the topic. Let’s say William drops a Tidal Wave on people’s heads. Is that magical damage?

I mean, obviously, manifesting a huge block of water in the middle of a room is a magical effort (it’s a magical spell, in fact), but is the bludgeoning damage produced “magical”? Or is it effectively the same as produced by a mechanical trap that dumps a similar huge block of water over people?

5e goes with the following rubric to determine if something (including damage) is magical (via the Sage Advice Compendium):

Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

Is it a magic item?

Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?

Is it a spell attack?

Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?

Does its description say it’s magical?

If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

So is a Tidal Wave‘s attack is considered magical for purposes of “immune to bludgeoning damage not from a magical attack?” The answer is, it seems, “Yes,” because, for example, it is fueled by the use of spell slots. Even though, yes, there is no functional difference between it and a ceiling trap that drops a similar amount of water in a similar pattern.

What about the Infamous Tidal Wave vs Fire Elemental debate?

What happens if you cast a Tidal Wave at a Fire Elemental?

This is a debate only because

Tidal Wave has a calculable volume (but weird physics and dynamics to figure out impacts on surface areas, etc.) that mean you only take a fraction of that), and
Fire Elementals have a unique vulnerability / damage accrual measured by gallon and/or depth of water.

I have seen Reddit calculations from 6 hp damage to 25,000ish hp damage from such an attack, depending on the estimated surface area of a Fire Elemental and assertions as to how TW attacks work.

Rather than a bunch of crazy calculations (which are anathema to 5e), I as the DM would likely say, “It does its normal Bludgeoning damage (4d8), which the Fire Elemental Resists. However, it does double that amount (8d8) in Cold damage because the Fire Elemental is made of fire and is vulnerable to water. Also, the Fire Elemental doesn’t go Prone because they are immunite to that Condition.”

So probably no insta-kill for a 3rd level spell, sorry, but a butt-load of insta-damage, multiplied by every Fire Elemental in the area.

A OneD&D Note

This isn’t actually confirmed, but looking at the materials released so far regarding race-based magic, it looks like those rules may address some of the above, not just because it’s all kind of confusing, but because rather than arbitrary magical effects, documented magical spells are being used instead. That’s actually a good thing. Hopefully they will follow through with clearer answers and mechanics for all this.

D&D 5e Rules – Cover!

Hiding behind things is natural in combat. The rules are sometimes not so natural.

Part of an ongoing series of 5e Rules notes.

Like all things 5e, WotC set out to simplify the mechanics of how people were protected out on the battlefield by various objects.

5e set up basically four conditions:

no cover / uncovered (the default)
half cover
three-quarters cover
total cover.

The first and last usually get treated separately. It’s the partial covers in the middle that are of most interest here.

It’s difficult to talk about cover separated from a battle-map. Or, rather, if you are just running Theater of the Mind, cover is a matter of the GM asserting it (or agreeing to player assertions about it) by fiat. A lot of the below will depend on working on a square grid (extensible to a hex grid, if one likes; check out the DMG pages referenced below).

How about a drawing and a table?

Half and Three-Quarters Cover — Cover diagram from the DMG, p. 250 (Source)

The key here as to what cover a target has is counting the points on any one of their squares from any of the points in your square to see how many are blocked.

So here are the effects of cover on attacks, based on the rules here. This most often comes into play with Ranged attacks (including Spells), but

Points Blocked	Cover Type	AC and DEX Saves	Examples
1-2	*Half*	+2	Low wall, large furniture, narrow tree trunk, or a creature* (friend or enemy) directly in front of them
3-4	*Three-Quarter*	+5	Portcullis, arrow slit, thick tree trunk. Any of the target visible.

^{*A creature at least half as large as the target standing next to them. But … see my House Rules below.}

Points Blocked: As in the diagram above, on a grid, choose a (most favorable) corner of the attacker’s space. Trace a line from that corner to each of the corners of a square (any one) the target occupies. Based on how many of those points are blocked, you can determine the level of cover.

So if any of the points are blocked, there is at least Half Cover. But also note that, even if the all the corners are blocked (e.g., the target is behind an arrow slit), if you can see any of the target, it’s in Three-Quarter cover.

Total Cover: A target that cannot at all be seen / is completely concealed cannot be targeted by an attack or spell (though some spells can reach it in an Area of Effect — Fireballs, for example). Total Cover also starts to invoke rules for Hiding and the like.

Sizes of the characters involved can affect this (Small creatures behind larger creatures, etc.).

Multiple Covers provide the most difficult cover level. Arguably shooting an arrow past four people is more difficult than shooting an arrow past one person, but the KISS principle applies. As GM you can rule a cluster of Half Covers equal a Three-Quarters Cover, but the Rules As Written say that it’s still only Half Cover.

Combat and Cover at Corners

Consider the case in the picture — Fighter and Kenku squaring off (so to speak) at an architectural corner. Do the have cover from each other?

It might seem so, especially since the Move rules for grids indicate you can’t move through such a corner (PHB 192):

Corners. Diagonal movement can’t cross the corner of a wall, large tree, or other terrain feature that fills its space.

But for combat purposes, there’s no cover, because the kenku can take his top two corners (or the fighter his right two) and see (allowing for map/grid irregularities) along the wall all the other points of the opponent’s square.

It seems counter-intuitive, but there you are. Similar rulings can be made around doorways (the three squares on the other side of a 5-foot door have no cover from someone standing in the doorway on the other side, treating walls has having no thickness).

House Rule: Proximity to the Obstacle

Proximity to the Obstacle: Rules as Written say that obstacle are obstacles. My House Rule is a little more nuanced:

The attacker can ignore Half or Three-Quarter Cover if the attacker is closer to the obstacle than the target.

It’s all a matter of perspective. If an ally is right in front of me, I can weave around in my 5-foot square to get a clear shot; if they are right in front of the target, they provide much better cover for that target.

Take three examples that I will, for no particular reason, label as William (W) and Moony (M) dealing with a Goblin (G).

1) W---------->MG
2) WM---------->G
3) W-----M----->G

The normal use case is #1, where Moony is up there whomping on the Goblin, and William is behind, shooting a bow at the Goblin. That’s pretty clear; the Goblin gets Half Cover from Moony against William’s bow shot.

Consider case #2, where Moony was right in front of William. The penalty shouldn’t count here; it’s easy in a 5-foot space for William to shoot past Moony at the Goblin, adjust to shoot over Moony’s shoulder or to one side or the other. Assuming Moony isn’t doing jumping jacks in front of William, and is of a comparable size, that makes sense.

Use case #3 — where Moony is midway between William and the Rat is a bit more dodgy (so to speak). The angle to shoot around Moony is more difficult, though not as difficult as when Moony is right in front of the Rat.

So, what’s the ruling here? 5e would treat all three circumstances as providing cover, but I don’t like that. So I’ll borrow from the 3.5e rules:

Attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

At least as applies to Half and Three-Quarter Cover. In case #1, cover rules apply; in case #2, they do not; in case #3, William would need to take a step forward to fire and ignore the cover.

Some Other Notes

Note this is one of the few cases were 5e bakes in simple bonuses (vs using Advantage/Disadvantage). Assuming Advantage gives you about a +4 on a roll (it varies), that becomes too crude a measure for this.
There is a Variant Rule (DMG 272) about the chances of hitting the cover if you miss your target. KISS, man. Also, we’ll assume that people are being particularly careful not hit their allies.
Note that the Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper feats basically do away with Cover for their user. That’s pretty cool.

Update: OneD&D

In “Unearthed Arcana 2022 – Expert Classes,” the Hide action is allowed when behind Three-Quarters or Total Cover. The Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper feats ignore Half and Three-Quarters Cover, as in 5e.

Reading through “Unearthed Arcana 2022 – Expert Classes”

Overall, good and/or interesting ideas. But let’s agree that it’s not 5e-compatible.

So we now have the second “OneD&D” playtest doc, UA 2022 Expert Classes. Interesting stuff, both because we see what they are doing with character classes (in this case, the group of classes titled “Experts”: Bard, Ranger, Rogue, and kinda, technically, Artificer).

As with my previous UA 2022 look, I’m going to break my notes up into three categories (not exclusive):

1. Huh. Not a bad idea.
2. Ugh. That is a bad idea.
3. Yeah, this is 5.5e

Just as an overview:

There are a lot of not-bad ideas in this UA. More importantly, there’s a lot of thoughtful reframing and stating of D&D concepts and rules from 5e that will help bring clarity to the game no matter where it goes.
There are still some bad ideas.
And, no, this is not a seamless backwards-compatible eternal edition of D&D. This is D&D 5.5e .

Huh. Not a Bad Idea

Class Groups: So now we’ll have Class Groups that mean more than just convenient generalizations. And that’s not a bad thing, as they actually use the idea within the rules — Feats with certain Class Groups as prerequisites, for example. It means when new Classes are introduced, they slot more easily into the rules (e.g., by knowing that Artificer is an “Expert” Class, we already know a bunch of rules that apply to it without having to write those rules out with it). And, yeah, it will also help starter groups cover all the bases.

It was an odd choice to start with the “Experts” Class Group (martials, er, “Warriors” would seem more straightforward). But, then, this lets them trot out the new Ranger, as the old one was generally considered underpowered by a lot of people.

Suggestions: I think it’s a good idea for a lot of things (e.g., Spell Lists) to be offered with suggestions as to what a given Class would most likely do with it. Especially Spell lists, I should say. Given the relative ease of swapping out a lot of those things (but even when you can’t), it reduces decision-making during character creation or leveling without actually forestalling options.

I’d recommend some guidance on Feats, too (including Attribute Bumps vs other Feat options).

Increasing Highest Level Powers: Class 20th level features are now moved to 18th Level, with new Epic Boon Feats opened up at 20th. Okay, that’s cool.

Better Bardic Inspiration: Rather than giving Bardic Inspiration to someone for 10 minutes and have them remember to use it and to do so before the GM says that a roll was a failure — the new rules suggest the Bard actively React to the failure and then give the character the extra die to roll.

This same kind of efficiency shows up in a number of places. For example, Guidance is now not a Concentration cantrip that you cast before someone makes a check, but a Reaction to cast afterward. The Bard’s Cutting Words similarly does away with the “use it before the GM announces the results” stuff, which is always a pain. This sort of thing will make these kind of bonuses easier.

Scaling on Proficiency: A number of spells and powers (e.g., again, Bardic Inspiration) use Proficiency Bonus as a modifier or a “how many times you get to use it” counter. That means the abilities will improve over time much more quickly than an Attribute modifier, though they may start out at lower numbers.

Use of Spells instead of Special Abilities: The Bard’s Song of Rest(oration) now provides access to specific healing spells (which trend upward, going from Healing Word up to Greater Restoration) that are considered permanently prepared, rather than specialized mechanics that have to be spelled out for the reader. This shows up in a number of places, and it’s a nice way of using an established effect (a spell) rather than making shit up.

Rangers and Hunter’s Mark: Favored Enemy was kind of weird and weak, much more focused on information than actual action. It helped you track, know stuff about, and understand the language of a given monster type. Now it gives the Ranger Hunter’s Mark for a specific enemy, always prepped, and without need of Concentrating. Nice, esp. when used by the Hunter subclass (which restores the lore component).

Clearer Writing: Even when rules aren’t changing, the UA present them in language that is clearer and easier to parse. There is also more Capitalization of Things to make them easier to see and key off of.

Expanded Actions: The new rules add additional Actions to the 5e list, drawing that whole Actions thing out of just being combat-focused, but providing a stronger framework. Some of these Actions won’t necessarily take place in the realm of an Initiative-based conflict (though they could),m but that’s all right.

That includes carving out “Actions” for Influence, Search, Study, even Jumping. They’re not all good, but I think it’s a cleaner way to present some of these rules.

Conditional Love: 5e had a pretty good framework for Conditions, and the new rules build on that, giving additional considerations as to how different Conditions might affect you, e.g., Incapacitation clearly breaking Concentration and impacting Initiative, which is especially important when you remember that when you Sleep you are Incapacitated. Similarly, the new Hidden condition clarifies a bunch of sealth-related things. The Slowed condition consolidates multiple places where the effect previously occurred to a single point of explanation. Overall, I applaud the effort.

Thief’s Reflexes: Rather than 17th Level Thieves adding an additional turn on the first round (which makes the whole Initiative backup even worse), 14th Level Thieves get an additional Bonus Action from the Cunning Action list.

Thieves and Magic: Rather than the vaguely-worded Use Magic Device abilities for Thieves at 13, now at there are a fixed set of bonus abilities given at 10 that make very little narrative sense, but are quite nice. (It also includes a Scrolls aspect which points to some clarification coming there.)

Double-Weapon Fighting Changes: The current rules on fighting with a weapon in each hand — which is a very cool thing that everyone wants to do sooner or later — are pretty complex, between the dual-handed and double-weapon and the etc. The pivot to having it all be enabled by using a Light weapon (or two) make it all work a bit more cleanly now, with or without the Feats that assist it. At the very least, giving it some thought is a positive in my book.

Nice bonus to the players, too, to have the second attack be part of the same Attack action, rather than a Bonus Action. I worry that’s going to create some higher-level imbalance, but it’s cool.

Searching and Studying: This is an effort to untangle the “Perception” vs “Investigation” perennial confusion. Since that baffles a lot of people (including some GMs), doing so is a good thing, especially as they formally bundle Insight / Medicine / Perception / Survival as “Search” actions and Arcana / History / Investigation / Nature / Religion as the “Study” items, pointing out their conceptual similarities and providing better guidance as to how to use them. Good.

Drawing and Stowing Weapons: This is now called out as part of the Attack action, rather than casually in the generic Use an Object one. That aspect, at least, is good. (See below.)

It’s Magic!: Rather than the Cast a Spell action, we now have a Magic action that includes using magic items. Nice added clarity there.

Barkskin!: This was one of those spells that should have been better, and now is. Rather than merely giving you a basement AC of 16, it now gives Temporary HP (which cale) and is a Bonus Action, making it more likely someone will cast it in combat. Still a Concentration spell, though, which kinda sucks.

Inspiration Exploration!: I can’t take credit here (because according to the videos, this UA was built before they had closed and started reviewing the results of the first one), but I’m tickled to see that one of the ideas they are playing with for Inspiration is giving it on a Nat 1 rather than a Nat 20. I think it would take the sting out of a flat failure (“Well, at least I got Inspiration!”), and is perfectly RPish.

Also, when you receive Inspiration (or “Heroic Inspiration,” maybe to distinguish it from the Bardic type), you can, if you already have a point in it (still the max) pass it on to another player.

Not much Help: The new rules propose only allowing Help on an Skill check if you have Proficiency in the Skill in question. I.e., the Barbarian can’t offer the Rogue Help in picking a lock if they don’t have Proficiency in that skill as well. That’s net a restriction, but it’s a logical one. I might house-rule it to allow someone to convince me that how they are Helping.

Hiding and Hidden: Without parsing things here too carefully, it looks like they are trying to clarify how and when the Hide action works, and what the Hidden condition does for you. I don’t see any significant difference per se, just clarification, which is awesome.

Influence Actions: This was previously optional RP-related stuff in the DMG, but now it’s getting PHB treatment, which I think is net-net good. A lot of these sorts of CHArisma-based things (Deception, Intimidation, Persuasion, and, nice, Animal Handling) can and should be done through roleplay, usually, but illuminating mechanics for them is a good thing, too.

That said, some tuning is called for. As written, the rules use a flat DC regardless of whether you are talking to Wembly the Aggravated Kobold, or DreadLord EdgeBlack the Master of Demons; it draws a distinction in how Hostile the Hostile Attitude is, but if DreadLord EdgeBlack is willing to humor himself listening to your request, you might stand a shot. GMs need to keep hard control over this mechanic.

Jumping Jehozaphat: The new Jumping rules seem clearer and less fiddly than the old ones. That’s good. (But see below.)

Resting Revision: It’s now explicitly called out that the first hour of a Long Rest, if then interrupted, still counts as a Short Rest. That only makes sense.

Rituals: You don’t need a special feature on your character class to cast a Ritual spell. That’s a nice decomplication.

Ugh. That Is a Bad Idea

Poof! I’m Invisible: The current hiding-related things for Rangers in 5e are a bit goofy — Hide in Plain Sight has a bunch of specialized rules with practical restrictions related to them, and Vanish is set at 14th level when it should be a lot lower. But the replacement in the new rules of a one-turn Invisible spell for hand-waving magical reasons seems silly. I like the use of spells instead of customized powers, but this is less useful than the existing rules (one turn?) and a lot less colorful.

Feats and Prerequisites: One of the things that 5e did was really flatten out Feats. After the 3e/3.5e feat trees (I don’t recall how 4e ran them), this was a refreshing way to get cool stuff, character-concept stuff, early days. The introduction of additional pre-reqs — levels, Class Groups, etc. — is starting to complicate that some. I would want to actually see how that works out, and it does have the advantage of allowing more powerful feats for higher level characters, but I’m still a bit concerned. Maybe less of a bad idea than an idea I am wary of.

Drawing and Stowing Weapons: I think one of the biggest heartburns people have in play is juggling weapons, and the way the 5e and the new rules still work, you can’t trade off easily within a turn without dropping something on the ground. I’m sure there are all sorts of good verisimilitude reasons for this, but from a player/GM aspect, it’s Not Fun. (I remain about this close to house-ruling about this.)

Movement Muddling: So there are more explicit rules for different Speed types (Climb Speed, Fly Speed, etc.). That’s cool, but rather than being able to switch out between them on a given turn like you can now, you can now only use one speed type during a given Move. That seems like it will be potentially awkward and limiting, though I’m not sure I can articulate a reason for that off the top of my head. It may be, though, a reason why Dash now doesn’t increase your Speed, it gives you a second Move.

Also, Jumping is now an Action instead of part of Movement. That seems restrictive. If I’m charging that ogre and jumping over a five foot gap along the way, it shouldn’t interfere with my laying some some swordwork on his head.

Exhaustion: Now more clearly a Condition (it was previously in a sidebar of the Conditions appendix in the PHB), which is good, it is given 10 levels rather than 5 (making it much less of a threat, given the mechanics of when it’s imposed), and basically starts subtracting the level from your D20 rolls and the Save DCs on spells you throw. That’s conceptually easier than the different effects in the current rules, but feels, maybe, a bit too smooth (and there’s no movement reduction, which doesn’t seem quite right). Maybe okay, but could use some tuning.

Resting: Long Rests, it is suggested, restore all your Hit Dice, rather than half of them. Also, any reduced Ability Scores are returned to normal. Both of those seem over-powered. This is “balanced” by still canceling out any Long Rest that is interrupted by combat, which gives the GM too many opportunities to screw around with the characters. Blah.

But, Yeah, This is 5.5E

WotC continues to insist that this is all basically the current D&D (5th Edition), but better, and that everything is backwards compatible, and so “editions” are out, and that people can still use their 5e stuff, but that isn’t a 5th Edition PHB it’s the 2014 PHB, and this isn’t a playtest 5.5e, we’re all playing OneD&D now.

Except this is patently untrue.

Okay, it’s true to the extent that this new-and-improved system isn’t a scrape, but a massive remodel. The foundation, the basic structure, most of the plumbing, is all there; they’re just replacing most of the walls and flooring and appliances with bigger, brighter, better bits.

But, let’s be real. You don’t remodel your house and put all the old furniture back in place. People with Rangers built with PHB 2014 will not want to play them as built, with the old rules. They just won’t, esp. if it’s in a shiny new campaign. And GMs probably won’t want them to, if it means one more rulebook to consult against.

And, in fact, they shouldn’t still use the old rules. New material will be written with the assumption that Rangers have Hunter’s Mark and this and that and the other thing. And it should be written that way.

Similarly, the new Feats structure only works one way or the other. Spells like Barkskin and Guidance (let alone others) are one or the other. Mixing and matching characters in an existing campaign, or bringing old characters into a new “OneD&D” game, simply won’t work.

That implies that people will update/rebuild those characters for ~~5.5~~ OneD&D. Character sheet designs will need to be changed / reprogrammed. Old modules will need errata for them to reflect that NPCs and various other challenges require updating, etc.

I get that WotC doesn’t want to scare people off by calling it a new edition. A new edition means learning new rules, new concepts, and forking over for new books. But, fergoshsakes, they’re going to be selling everyone new books in 2024 anyway, so what the heck? And in another 5-10 years, they’ll do it again.

(An interesting side note here is that the Artificer is considered an Expert class, but isn’t included in this write-up because they are only focusing on PHB 2014 material, and ignoring expansions in later books like Tasha’s and Xanathar’s. That both does and doesn’t make sense, but it makes me wonder what the final strategy is here: will the new OneD&D PHB include revisions of all the previous material? Or just the core three books? How “aged” does material have to be? Or will we then get updated TCE and XGE books, too (ch-ching)?)

(The question will always be “How does Hasbro think it can most maximize its profits?”)

Call it 5.5e and be done with it, people.

D&D 5e Rules – Athletics and Acrobatics!

Two valuable skills that sometimes get confused.

Part of an ongoing series of 5e Rules notes.

Part of the confusion is … they are sometimes interchangeable, mechanically. But let’s first talk about the differences.

Strength (Athletics)

Succeeding in difficult situations while climbing, jumping, swimming, or other physical exertions. E.g.,

Climbing a cliff, or clinging to one while someone is trying to knock you off.
Jumping a long distance, or pulling a stunt mid-jump.
Struggling to swim or stay afloat in treacherous currents, or with something trying to interfere with you.
Forcing your way through something in your way.

Dexterity (Acrobatics)

Staying on your feet in a tricky situation. E.g.,

Running on a sheet of ice.
Balancing on a tightrope.
Staying upright on a rocking ship deck.
Performing acrobatic stunts (dives, rolls, somersaults, flips, tumbles)
Avoiding damage when falling. [Old school D&D, but not in 5e]

Using Athletics vs Acrobatics

In many way, you can narratively figure out which one makes sense, and different characters might use one or the other for the same action. Consider how Aragorn (an Athlete) would do something, vs. how Legolas (an Acrobat) would do it. A crowd of orcs to get past? Aragorn bulls his way through, while Legolas tumbles and leaps and dodges past, but the final effect is the same.

In a couple of cases in the rules there are explicit options as to which you can use.

Grappling: The Grappler rolls an Athletics check vs. the Grapplee rolling either with either Athletics (think “breaking free”) or Acrobatics (“slippling free”). If the Grapple succeeds, the Grapplee can repeat the contest as their action on their turn.

Shoving: Same as Grappling, only with a push-back or push-down as the result.

At the same time, the two skills are also quite different, something blurred by the Real Life fact that most Acrobats are also Athletes, and many Athletes have Acrobatic skills. People often think of Gymnastics as acrobatic (rolls and tumbles, and amazing acts on the balance beam). But those activities are also highly athletic. As has been commented, “Raw athleticism lets them climb things and jump through the air. It’s being acrobatic that allows them to do it gracefully or maintain their balance.” Or, as another person put it, “Athletics is when you’re going up, and Acrobatics is when you’re coming down.” The gymnast’s leap from the balance beam is clearly Strength (Athletics), but sticking the landing is Dexterity (Acrobatics).

Or if gymnastics isn’t your thing, consider a parkour routine; there are clearly both STR and DEX things going on there. (And CON, and INT, if not WIS, for that matter.)

To complicate things further, Abilities and Skills are not fixed in their combination. One can imagine a Strength (Acrobatics) roll being legitimately allowed, or a Dexterity (Athletics). Indeed, there is technically in 5e no such thing as a Skill check; everything is an Ability check, potentially modified by proficiency in a given Skill set.)

No huge conclusions here, just an observation about similarities and differences and what the fundamentals of two ambiguously-named skill sets are. Again, using the guidelines described above as guard rails, narratively figure out what it is that you’re doing. And, of course, note that both of these skills are good candidates for an occasional invocation of the “Rule of Cool.”

A House Rule

As noted above, in previous editions of D&D, Acrobatics could help save you from a fall by reducing its damage. That was explicitly left out of 5e, so I’m reluctant to re-insert it.

I would house-rule, though, that a successful Dexterity (Acrobatics) role might keep you from going prone after a fall, vs a DC equal to the damage you took (stick the landing!).

Bonus OneD&D Note:

According to the Character Generation playtest document, Grappling and Shoving are now part of the Unarmed Strike action — hit the target with an Unarmed Strike (D20 + STR mod + Proficiency) vs their AC.

If you were going for a Grapple, the target becomes Grappled, with a STR or DEX check each turn vs a DC of (8 + STR Mod + Proficiency) to break free.
If you were going for a Shove, you succeed.

This reduces the number of contests, but also reduces the use of Athletics and Acrobatics.

Reading through “Unearthed Arcana 2022 – Character Origins”

UA 2022 Character Origins is the first of the “OneD&D” playtest docs. My reactions to reading through the doc it fall into three categories (not exclusive):

1. Huh. Not a bad idea.
2. Ugh. That is a bad idea.
3. Yeah, this is 5.5e.

So … let’s take a look.

1. Huh. Not a Bad Idea

Simplifying Tool Proficiency and tool kits: This has always felt a bit fussy in 5e to me, to the extent that most folk I know engaged in these a little as possible. Sure, it’s unrealistic, but it smooths a bumpy area.

Orcs as Player Characters: I’m okay with that. I mean, at some point the number of intelligent races in the world starts to get a bit ridiculous, esp. if they can now all interbreed, but, hey, whatevs.

Making Backgrounds more important: I think that makes a lot of sense. I like getting a Feat out of it, at least. And getting a Language (with suggestions) makes some sense. Except … shifting the Ability bumps to this seems a bit weird, at least 3 points worth.

Level-associated Feats: Probably a good idea. While it begin to smack of feat trees from 3.5e, it does mean that trying to make Feats all fit the same level of power can be given more nuance. At the very least, it shakes up all of those “These are the best Feats to take” articles, but represents another awkward moment for backwards compatibility.

Natural 20s: I don’t think it was necessary to make nat 20s and nat 1s auto-successes/failures for everything (I know people have said it was a common house rule, but it wasn’t at our house). But it’s not necessarily a bad thing, either, so fine. (As noted below, I’d be inclined to house rule that a nat 1 gets you Inspiration, rather than a nat 20.)

Having crits only double damage on weapon and unarmed attacks (but not attack spells) is … also okay. It balances Martials vs Spellcasters a bit.

Spell groups: Narrowing the groups of spells (Arcane, Divine, Primal) is a nice bit of efficiency, at least on the face of it.

Grappling: The Grappled condition changes are interesting. I like the Disadvantage for non-Grappler attacks. It’s interesting that they’ve shifted to a Saving Throw with Dex or Str vs the Athletics/Acrobatics skill roll.

Unarmed Strikes: I haven’t done a lot with fisticuffs in the past, but the expansion here (combined with the Tavern Brawler feat) looks like some added detail that will be useful and handy.

2. Ugh. That’s a Bad Idea.

Half-races. “But I don’t wanna be a half-orc or a half-elf. I want to be an Orc-Gnome. I want to be an Ardling-Tiefling. I want to be a Halfling-Ent!” Ugh. I mean, maybe just as well that they came up with a standardized mechanic for it, but it just seems kind of silly to me. It’s not like there’s a shortage of races and demi-races already.

And, of course, that begs the question of quarter-races (“My character has a human-elf hybrid father and an orc-dwarf hybrid mother”), and how to handle them in the rules. “And so, ad infinitum.”

Muddying racial differences. This one is contentious, I know. I am very aware (admittedly from my cis-het-white-male perspective) of the very powerful arguments behind getting rid of race-based Ability Point tweaks. Human history is full of ugliness where different “races” of humans were (and by some still are) assumed to be fundamentally different from “normal,” physically and mentally. Tropes in the game that resonate to that should be examined critically, if not discouraged.

At the same time, it’s one thing to say that Black humans and White humans and Asian humans and whatever pseudo-racial classifications you want to come up with (because we are all, after all, one species) are really the same, and quite another to continuously grind away the differences to say that Dwarves = Humans = Elves. In that case, why bother having those distinctions at all? (“Bob is a sentient who happens to have pointed ears, high cheekbones, and celebrated his 147th birthday last week.”)

Or, as one consders it, why keep the distinctions you are keeping or adding (lifespan, size, appearance, old and new innate abilities) vs. getting rid of the ones you aren’t (stat increases and decreases). Especially since a number of those special innate abilities are just stat bumps in disguise (lookin’ at you, Dwarves).

Or, put another way, nobody seems to have a problem with Vulcans being stronger and smarter than Humans in Star Trek, as long as there are countervailing disadvantages. Why is it wrong for an Elf to be more Dexterous than a Human, or even, given their ages, have a higher Intelligence. I mean, nothing in the old rules actually prevented a Half-Orc from becoming a powerful wizard; it was just a bit more difficult to min-max the stats that way. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. People can do anything, but the Halfling basketball player is going to have some special, epic challenges.

In short, I’m quite fine with backing away from dictating cultural-biological absolutes (“Orcs are all evil! Evil, evil, evil! And they eat human babies, too!”), even with creatures of demonic origin (the convolutions over Tieflings are fascinating, even if they inadvertently let an actual alignment show up in one of the Lineages). But I’m also okay with saying “The physical differences we’re literally describing here are reflected in the Ability stats of characters of those races.” (Mental stats are a bit more dodgy; I’d be okay with leaving them out of the picture for races.)

Character Sizes: Small (2-4 foot) Humans? Even when we are talking about Pygmies or people with Dwarfism, that’s below average. I don’t object, it just seems an oddly specific call-out. (They also show up as an option only with Humans, Ardlings, and Tieflings; all other races are other Medium or Small only, which seems … racist? What about tall Halflings? What about diminutive Elves?)

Racial Spells: More races have literal spells that they get to use on a dailyish basis (once per Long Rest if you don’t have additional spell slots). That seems to muddy the magic waters some, giving spells to all classes. Especially with Feats that do the same thing. I’m not sure creating a more magic-rich environment is actually needed.

Ubiquitous Inspiration: Inspiration is a mechanic that seems to be quite underutilized in 5e by too many DMs. The “solution” to this in OneD&D is to make it pop up all over the place, robbing it of its RP-supporting intent.

True, it gets lost after a Long Rest now — except for uber-versatile Humans. But PCs get Inspiration from rolling a nat 20 (i.e., after 5% of all rolls). Players can get Inspiration as a group from someone with the Musician Feat. In short, everyone’s going to have and use plenty of Inspiration to gain Advantage on rolls.

That’s not necessarily bad, but I’m not sure it’s good. It certainly waters down the “Wow, that was an awesome bit of character play, so take an Inspiration,” because it increases the chance they already have some.

(Frankly, I’d house-rule-tweak at least one thing there, if nothing else: you gain Inspiration on a nat 1 — anger and determination to do better — rather than on a nat 20! That’s a very non-D&D idea, to be fair.)

Backgrounds and Ability Bumps: Are Acolytes really that much Wiser than the average person? Are Cultists that much more Intelligent? Not in my gameplay experience. I know the Ability Bumps need to somewhere if you can’t baldly do it with races, but allocating 3 points here seems a bit extreme.

Multi-Lingualism: I guess maybe it makes life easier, but everyone knowing three languages (Common, a Standard Language, and a language from your Background) does seem to be a lot of linguistic lore (and, if players cooperate in chargen, allows for covering pretty much all the languages they might need).

Long Rests: These are so baked into the game at present (even if they do ridiculous amounts of healing) that having it be interrupted by any Combat feels like a major shift.

3. Yeah, this is 5.5e.

There is a qualitative difference between characters generated under the present 5e rules, and characters generated under these rules. The two will not mesh well together, and efforts to run both types in any given campaign will lead to madness. If nothing else, automated character sheets and tools will have to choose one or the other (whether from WotC or a third party like Roll20).

By extension, that implies a difficult fit between existing 5e modules and the new system. That’s already true to a degree (just as the Genasi), but will continue to grow over time.

That does not mean the 5.5e changes are, per se, a disaster. There are a lot of good changes in the system already that have evolved it from the baseline 5e of 2014 to where it is today. All those changes in supplemental tomes (Volo’s, Tasha’s, Xanadar’s, Mordenkainen’s, etc.) have changed the game in mostly good ways.

And, to be fair, the changes discussed are not the 3.5 to 4, or 4 to 5, full-edition levels of significance. The basic underlying systems, action economy, etc., are there. But this is more than just “5e Forever, man!”

So why not bite the bullet and admit this is a new (or distinct sub-) edition? If WotC’s plans involve you buying a new set of hardcover books for “OneD&D” (and they do), then why not just call it 5.5e and be done with it? For the sake of marketing?

Because, really-truly, I guarantee that more supplemental books will come out after that. And every 5-10 years they’ll do a true-up of new PHB/DMG/MM tomes, “backwards-compatible” claims or not. If “OneD&D” in 2024 is not comfortably compatible with 5e, what will it be in 2028?

(Which argues the intent to pivot to a new direction and go to all-digital rules that you license on a regular basis. Want access to Xebulon’s Big Bucket o’ Game Mods? That’ll be $2/mo, or $20/year if you want it to plug into your official WotC modules and official WotC character generator. But I digress.)

I’ll continue to read the feedback (which is all over the map), and when 1 September rolls around, I’ll provide my feedback. If 5.5e came out like this, I would suck it up and play with it that way. But I would want WotC to admit this is not a backwards-compatible seamless evolution of 5e, from 2014 or 2022. This is something new that deserves to be recognized as such — and identified as such to WotC’s customers.

“One D&D” to rule them all (maybe)

So WotC has announced what they’re doing with D&D 6e. Or 5.5e. Or, maybe … no e.

Instead, they say, we will have “One D&D,” with the whole concept of “editions” becoming instantly obsolete, because WotC believes 5e doesn’t need complete revamping, just evolution. Sort of like an OS being constantly patched, the baseline ruleset will be updated over time so that there is just “D&D the way it is today” and no need to ever, ever, roll out a new version.

How that will work with books isn’t clear. Will they keep coming out with “patch” books like Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything? Or will the core ruleset be republished (and rebought) every X number of months/year. In either case, that’s different from what we have now because …?

Of course, maybe the idea is that we won’t have “books” at all, but online rules that can be slipstreamed electronically to the current text (with some sort of versioning so that you figure out what’s going on), but that you have to subscribe to …

None of that was really discussed, just three broad pillars for “One D&D”:

Ongoing updates to the current baseline 5e (ssshhh!) rules.
Expansion of D&D Beyond, the compendium toolset they recently bought.
Creating D&D Digital, apparently a 3D VTT, the pre-alpha version pictures for which look pretty impressive, and which will be both a content delivery tool (“Here’s the dungeon for this game”) and content creation tool.

Now, just because they are dealing with the rules on a patch basis doesn’t mean there are potentially significant things coming out beyond additional content. For example, Backgrounds are being completely revamped, to give Ability score modifiers and feats, which does sound kind of keen.

Other changes already raised: simplification of spell lists, and making a Nat 1 a miss for any roll, not just attacks.

Color me … somewhat dubious.

I get the idea that completely revamping the rules every several years is increasingly more difficult. I even buy the idea that 5e is a pretty decent platform to build on, with caveats.

But one reason why D&D is still with us, several editions on, is because audiences and tastes change. What people want in terms of crunchiness vs simplicity, hack-and-slashery vs role-playing, not only changes with an individual over time, but with the industry.

If D&D doesn’t change, in its bones, every now and then, those changes in society and audience will lead people to go elsewhere.

Here are the dates for rule releases:

1974 – original
1977 – AD&D 1e
1989 – AD&D 2e
1995 – AD&D 2e Revised
2000 – D&D 3e
2003 – D&D 3.5
2008 – D&D 4e
2014 – D&D 5e

5e is already 8 years old — older than any except the longevity from the original AD&D to 2e, when the audience was much smaller. It’ll be a decade old 2024 when One D&D is planned for release.

At what point will everything start to feel a little creaky, no matter how many patches and content packages are released?

So maybe — and if how rules changes are handled is well-planned and -executed — this extends the 5e platform another 5+ years, with the homebrew variations that we have today multiplied as various rules continue to evolve and change (and the similarity on the surface to the 5e of 2014 continues to dwindle, without, somehow, breaking the “backward compatibility that WotC has promised). When will whoever owns Hasbro decide what the world needs is to put out One D&D 2nd Edition?

Playtesting for the rule updates can be found here.