D&D (2024) Wow, 5.5e characters are STRONG!

[Horwath]

If that was all that happened to its smite it'd be fine. The fact that it also takes a bonus action OTOH murders the class.

agree, putting smite on Bonus action was a hairbrain idea.
If the burst was the problem, then smite could just have been worded as usable once per round and every time you score a critical hit. because crits are rare and fun and you want to boost them as much as possible.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think anyone is arguing that they're doing all that. Why on earth would they not?

It's not some kind of evil plan (and TRUST me, I hate evil corporate plans!)

It's what EVERYONE (us included) would want out of a new rule book: Better rules. But hey, if you don't like Rule XYZ for whatever reason, use the ones you do like that you already know!

We're discussing different things.

I'm contesting the claim WotC genuinely wants people to (be able to) stick with the 2014 books. (Hint: they're not.)

I'm not trying to argue the new books are evil or whatever. I'm saying that if they genuinely meant "the new is compatible with the old" they would not have changed a million little things; they would have focused on identifying say 20 things that would have fundamentally improved the game.

And then left everything else the same.

But no. Just like with every other "rules update" before it, the 2024 edition makes sure enough things are different (even if only ever so slightly) that people will sooner or later realize it isn't worth the trouble of trying to use 2014 and 2024 together.

For example, WotC absolutely claimed 3.5 would be better and fix the issues of 3.0. It most definitely did not do that. What it did do, however, was to make you relearn a gazillion details, making absolutely sure nobody decided they could just cherrypick individual 3.5 improvements while largely staying with 3.0.

Then add how 2024 options (just like 3.5 options) are just plain better (than 3.0 or 2014 option), and... yeah.

But is this evil? No.

But is it naive not to see this clearly? Well...

 

[Clint_L]

So people who don't agree with you are naive?

As for sticking with the old rules and blending them with the new, I already do that, with Tasha's, MotM nd so on, not to mention this playtest, and it hasn't been a problem. So...shrug? I'll just do whatever works best at our table. If that means over time we wind up preferring newer material, then cool. If that means one of the older sub-classes sticks around, then that's cool too.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Not richer in GP, higher in clout & soft power within society. Instead of wealth the backgrounds with standing set players up to expect that their PC deserves undue clout & access when they choose a background with standing in society like noble spy guild artisan & so on after seeing 20 pages of blurbs & artwork misleading expectations. It makes for the difference between "is it reasonable that my character might have met xxx" & "I approach xxx to discuss his ties working for my family/guild/etc so we can [plotstuff]". When it's just only one player among many who is mislead it's no big deal for a dm "worth their salt" but when it's multiple players it turns into a regular disruption with the players reinforcing each other's bad expectations caused by 20 pages of overly spotlighted optional things making it a bit more work to counter gracefully without repelling player investment in the world.

I'm glad that I finally understand what you're talking about. Myself, I've found players playing Nobles to be an interesting feature to the story of the game, and not a flaw. I can see how it could be trouble in a case where the players have unreasonable expectations, the DM is not prepared for it, or the story being told has no place for it - but I don't think that's going to be a universal problem. That said, I'd absolutely back you that good advice (for both players and DMs) on how to work out that potential kink is important. I'm not sure that it's necessary to outlaw the Noble (or Peasant) backgrounds.

Part of the advice should, IMO, include toning down what a Noble IS in a fantasy setting. For example, on the Sword Coast, it's not like there's a single big country. Being a noble from Waterdeep doesn't necessarily give you a lot of clout when you're in Baldur's Gate. I mean, the other nobles will probably be more likely to speak to you than they would a peasant, but it's not like you can order around the Flaming Fist.

In fact, ALL the backgrounds essentially boil down to "You're part of THIS group. People from that group will see you as "one of their own". Other groups will see you as an outsider."

But I suspect that you and I have substantially different ideas on these things.

I feel like we've only exchanged a couple posts in a fairly brief time tonight & somehow the thread's page count has jumped by 3 pages since the start that I'm not really following though so I'm not sure if it's even relevant here anymore.

It was a tangent in the first place, but I am glad to come to an understanding with you, even if we don't agree. I at least see your point!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

We're discussing different things.

I don't think we are.

I'm contesting the claim WotC genuinely wants people to (be able to) stick with the 2014 books. (Hint: they're not.)

I just think you're partly wrong. I mean, yes, I agree with you that they want people to adopt the new books. But the MAIN thing they want is for everyone to stick with their brand (Hint: Keep Buying). So they're "happy" if you keep using your 2014 books, but keep buying new Adventures. They don't ultimately care WHAT you buy, as long as you keep buying. Your "good will" is more important than your purchasing of the 3 new core books. They WANT you to want those too, of course!

I'm not trying to argue the new books are evil or whatever. I'm saying that if they genuinely meant "the new is compatible with the old" they would not have changed a million little things; they would have focused on identifying say 20 things that would have fundamentally improved the game.

It's just simpler than that - they need it to be functionally backwards compatible so that the old Adventure books (that they plan to keep in print) still work with the new rules. That's the whole thing - they have 20+ books that they regularly sell. If they make a fully new edition, the sales of those fall off a cliff and they have to start "from scratch". It's not more complicated than that.

And then left everything else the same.

But no. Just like with every other "rules update" before it, the 2024 edition makes sure enough things are different (even if only ever so slightly) that people will sooner or later realize it isn't worth the trouble of trying to use 2014 and 2024 together.

For example, WotC absolutely claimed 3.5 would be better and fix the issues of 3.0. It most definitely did not do that. What it did do, however, was to make you relearn a gazillion details, making absolutely sure nobody decided they could just cherrypick individual 3.5 improvements while largely staying with 3.0.

I don't disagree with you.

Then add how 2024 options (just like 3.5 options) are just plain better (than 3.0 or 2014 option), and... yeah.

I mean, why would anyone buy the new books if they were objectively worse? (As "objective" as anything can be, at least). No, we ALL benefit (D&D players and WotC both) if the new books are BETTER than the old ones. Otherwise it's not worth making them.

But is this evil? No.

But is it naive not to see this clearly? Well...

Again, you seem to think that you see this more clearly than others do. I don't think that's the case.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I think that is just your experience at your tables. While the wizard can do things the paladin can't dream of, they should not use them to outshine the paladin. In my experience you are not good at playing the wizard class if you waste your resources for trivial things.

The Wizard really doesn't have to try hard to outshine a Paladin. Cast Hypnotic Pattern and shut a whole encounter down. Done. Cast Conjure Minor Elementals and instantly fill the battlefield with more obstacles and rack up damage well beyond what a Paladin's smite adds. Done. Cast Animate Objects and do more damage than a Paladin's smite round. Done.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The Wizard really doesn't have to try hard to outshine a Paladin. Cast Hypnotic Pattern and shut a whole encounter down. Done. Cast Conjure Minor Elementals and instantly fill the battlefield with more obstacles and rack up damage well beyond what a Paladin's smite adds. Done. Cast Animate Objects and do more damage than a Paladin's smite round. Done.

Did you notice that conjure minor elementals has a casting time of 1 minute?
Also, all spells are concentration. So depending on the encounter, all can be gone very fast.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Did you notice that conjure minor elementals has a casting time of 1 minute?

Did YOU notice that it lasts 1 hour?

Also, all spells are concentration. So depending on the encounter, all can be gone very fast.

Do you realize how trivially a Wizard can boost their chances to succeed at concentration saves, or make it so attacks miss and they don't have to make them to begin with?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Did YOU notice that it lasts 1 hour?

Then don't say they summon them in an instant.
Might get your facts straight beforehand.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Then don't say they summon them in an instant.

I didn't. A Wizard who cast it before hand already has 8 creatures at the start of combat to instantly fill the battlefield with.

The point is that it's utterly trivial for a Wizard to outshine any Paladin.