D&D 5E Vecna: Eve of Ruin Coming 2024

Just revealed by WotC, a multiverse spanning adventure which goes up to level 20 and features cameos from famous D&D characters. More info when we have it!

Update--WotC has taken down the promo image and replaced it with one without a release date. See more here.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Lol. Ok. I've only been running 5e and writing for it for years. But ok. Your DM taking every effort to ensure you have a good time is definitely evidence that the system as designed is perfect.

It's not that you're wrong, it's that you're stating your case too absolutely. There are problems with solo monsters. So they are trying to beef them up. There are problems with Encounter rules, so they are rewriting them.

The point is that the 2014 Adventures will run using the 2024 rules without change. The hope (of course!) is that they will run better.

The Vecna adventure should run fine if you use either 2014 or 2024. Hopefully it will be better with 2024 though!

 

[Parmandur]

It's not that you're wrong, it's that you're stating your case too absolutely. There are problems with solo monsters. So they are trying to beef them up. There are problems with Encounter rules, so they are rewriting them.

The point is that the 2014 Adventures will run using the 2024 rule without change. The hope (of course!) is that they will run better.

The Vecna adventure should run fine if you use either 2014 or 2024. Hopefully it will be better with 2024 though!

The question also becomes: "better" in what metrics?

From what the designers are laying down, the better theybare aiming for is predictably and reliability.

 

[Reynard]

The point is that the 2014 Adventures will run using the 2024 rules without change. The hope (of course!) is that they will run better.

Here's the thing I am asking about.

To what degree do I, as a GM, need to modify Storm King's Thunder when running it for a 2024 party?

If the answer is "not at all" then the 2024 changes are all wasted effort. If the answer is "X amount to bring it in line" then the idea of inherent compatibility is undermined.

Here's a thing I want to be clear about: I am not one of those people that thinks 2024 should be absolutely compatible with 2014. 10 years is a long time and we have learned a lot during that time. I just think WotC should be honest about the stuff you are going to have to change to make it all work. It's okay to include a conversion doc and admit you didn't quite have it down 10 years ago.

 

[Shardstone]

I don't really care about monster CR. I'd rather monsters just have no CR at all to be honest, and instead stronger monsters are given more engaging weaknesses that higher level players don't have to rely on to face them. That being said, I'm most interested in fun monsters to use. I want creative monsters that can do interesting things that make encounters really shine. A nightmare should feel completely unique, and a death knight riding a nightmare should be awesome, not just Hoof Attacks and Death Slash.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The question also becomes: "better" in what metrics?

From what the designers are laying down, the better theybare aiming for is predictably and reliability.

Also being more interesting.

Dragons I expect to get changed a fair amount as indeed don't work by the current system.

Like lets take the Young Dragons. The young white is stronger than it's CR of 6 suggests (By current DMG standards it's a CR 9 monster), the young black and young green are not even different enough to be calculated a different CR than the white despite being a 7 and 8 to it's 6. (All three are calculated are 9) The Blue Dragon is the first to be outright stronger than the other 3 (getting to CR 10 more than it's CR 9) the Red Dragon also gets a CR above the Blue (and over it's supposed to be CR of 10) but it's mainly because it's more durable, the actual damage it deals is a mere 4 higher averaged.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Here's the thing I am asking about.

To what degree do I, as a GM, need to modify Storm King's Thunder when running it for a 2024 party?

If the answer is "not at all" then the 2024 changes are all wasted effort. If the answer is "X amount to bring it in line" then the idea of inherent compatibility is undermined.

Here's a thing I want to be clear about: I am not one of those people that thinks 2024 should be absolutely compatible with 2014. 10 years is a long time and we have learned a lot during that time. I just think WotC should be honest about the stuff you are going to have to change to make it all work. It's okay to include a conversion doc and admit you didn't quite have it down 10 years ago.

You don't have to change Storm King at all, you can use either 2024 monsters or 2014 monsters when prompted, and it should run fine. The 2024 monsters should be more interesting and fun to fight however.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Here's the thing I am asking about.

To what degree do I, as a GM, need to modify Storm King's Thunder when running it for a 2024 party?

Not at all. That's the whole point.

If the answer is "not at all" then the 2024 changes are all wasted effort.

No. The idea is you don't have to change anything yourself because all the changes are done for you. The intent is that the encounters will be more fun because the PCs and Monsters both work better than they did before. By better I mean in quality of life ways.

If the answer is "X amount to bring it in line" then the idea of inherent compatibility is undermined.

You won't have to change SKT. (I mean any more than you'd already have to change it to make it work for your table. I would never run any adventure 100% by the book myself).

Here's a thing I want to be clear about: I am not one of those people that thinks 2024 should be absolutely compatible with 2014.

It won't be. You probably won't want to mix old feats with new ones. Or too many old subclasses on new class chassis. I mean, you could but it will probably be clunky. I think the intent will be that you won't want to use old classes or old monsters, but you can do it if you DO want to. It just might be messy. But no, you won't have to modify adventures!

10 years is a long time and we have learned a lot during that time.

Yes, that again is the point of new core books.

I just think WotC should be honest about the stuff you are going to have to change to make it all work.

They have been.

It's okay to include a conversion doc and admit you didn't quite have it down 10 years ago.

That would be... complicated. It's a LOT of little tweaks. Far better to just play with it than "convert" it. You don't need to.

As far as "admitting they're wrong" - I think they've done as close to that as they are going to. They've said that they're fixing things that "don't work as intended". They've admitted that the DMG was poorly organized. They are nerfing things that were too powerful and buffing things that were weak.

What more do you need? They're not going to grovel. Some stuff wasn't very good. They're trying to make it better. We will have to see if they succeed. I have no idea, but it looks likely ATM (to me).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The question also becomes: "better" in what metrics?

From what the designers are laying down, the better theybare aiming for is predictably and reliability.

Yeah, exactly. I think that what I mean by better is the results of that: a better experience at the table. Encounters that are fun and dynamic. Characters that are fun to play. PCs and Monsters that do what you want them to do. That sort of thing. Oh, and that it is easier to accomplish those things.

I think it will be a matter of degree, too. I doubt it will be "the greatest thing evah!" Just (if all goes well) it will be an improvement compared to before. It'll still have faults, of course!

 

[mamba]

Here's the thing I am asking about.

To what degree do I, as a GM, need to modify Storm King's Thunder when running it for a 2024 party?

If the answer is "not at all" then the 2024 changes are all wasted effort. If the answer is "X amount to bring it in line" then the idea of inherent compatibility is undermined.

if the players like their new classes / subclasses better, then the effort was not wasted, even if you make no changes to the adventures.

If the monsters are more varied and more reliably match their CR, then the effort was not wasted, whether you use them for your SKT session or stick with the 2014 ones for ‘tradition’

If the DMG has better encounter building rules, better guidelines for how to DM / run a session / prep an adventure / …, then the effort was not wasted, whether you ignore them for your SKT session or not

Thinking that ‘unless I need to adjust adventures, there is no point in the new version’ is simply wrong

Here's a thing I want to be clear about: I am not one of those people that thinks 2024 should be absolutely compatible with 2014. 10 years is a long time and we have learned a lot during that time. I just think WotC should be honest about the stuff you are going to have to change to make it all work. It's okay to include a conversion doc and admit you didn't quite have it down 10 years ago.

I think it will be compatible and not require more adjustments of SKT than it needs with the current game already, I wish they would not prioritize compatibility that much, but they are

 

[Parmandur]

To what degree do I, as a GM, need to modify Storm King's Thunder when running it for a 2024 party?

That's the thing: nothing. The inherent math of the gsme isn't changing, and all the PC options and Monsters are in the same bands, so the DM shouldn't have to make any adjustments, just plug in the stat blocks from the new book.

The difference the new Monster math should play is to flatten the bell curve of potential outcomes: fewer unexpected TPKs and fewer PC blowout victories.

The PC option changes are about giving the PCs better feelings of fulfilling their fantasy archetype: the math is the same.