I have not closely checked, particularly with respect to daily xp levels but in so far as I have checked encounters the ones I have sampled have all been medium to hard.
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D (2024) What is your oppinion of 5.24 so far?
- Thread starter Maenalis
- Start date
deadman1204
Explorer
Its pretty simple. WoTC has a bigger advertising budget than all other rpg companies put together. They also have famous actors playing dnd online like CR. We're ignoring how thats big money and they make many million per year doing so, much less what kickbacks are they getting from wotc too?
DnD is popular not because its the best system (very much not). Its popular because its well positioned and has a major corpoartions marketing team behind it.
deadman1204
Explorer
I'm not sure what you are referring to
The Problem With Warlocks In OneD&D
Shoutout to the Gigachads watching this not on the shorts feed so the ending makes no sense!
youtube.com
It has more upvotes than JC's relevant video said wotc got total for that packet. It singlehandedly invalidated the survey results for that packet by generating a non representative self selected avalanche of feedback and that remains true even if only a small percentage of those upvotes went on to bomb the survey
Advertising and name recognition gets you in the door, it doesn't give you staying power. It certainly doesn't get you double digit growth for years on end. If advertising budget and name recognition we're all that mattered we'd all be drinking new coke and the Edsel would have been a smash hit.
As far as I'm concerned? Given the alternatives I've looked into or played one shots of? It is the best system for me and the groups I play with.
Is it objectively the best system? Best system for everyone? I would never be so full of hubris to claim that.
mamba
Legend
per day, explicitly or because you run them like that? I don't think most adventures say anything about what happens on day 1 vs day 2.
Some are more clear, like Dragons of Icespire Peak, where one location frequently is one day. So let's take a look at DoIP:
Butterskull Ranch: 'place orcs as you see fit'
Circle of Thunder: 3 encounters
Dragon Barrow: 3 encounters
Dwarven Excavation: 3 encounters
Falcon’s Hunting Lodge: 0 encounters, not tied to a quest
Gnomengarde: 1 encounter, 2 traps
Icespire Hold: maybe 4, not all need to result in combat
Loggers’ Camp: 3 to 4 (one does not need to be combat)
Mountain’s Toe Gold Mine: 4 encounters
Shrine of Savras: 1 large encounter
Tower of Storms: to 4 (one does not need to be combat)
Umbrage Hill: 1 encounter
Woodland Manse: 5 encounters
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
The assumption of the pre-written Adventures does generally seem to be 1 dungeon, 1 day. Narratively, very few other than say Dungeon of the Mad Mage are really set up for multi-day dungeoneering.
DoIP is a book of small side Quests, so is on the easier side. And again, the Adventure Day is about what is the maximum to which a DM can tune to challenge players: the game works fine if the characters aren't pushed to that max. That's part of why it is not a problem thar WotC is looking to solve, and won't in the future.
Argyle King
Legend
Hard to tell.
I don't know much about what (if any) the differences are in how encounter design and monster design works.
The changes I've seen this far appear to be a mixed bag, but I don't really know without seeing how it all fits together.
My initial perception is that the '24 version of the game leans more toward wire-fu combat and a pew-pew aesthetic than is my default preference. My initial perception is also that I wish some changes to the core structures of the game were changed more radically than what they were; for example, I think ability score increases should be completely independent from feat selection.
Edit: Some quick second thoughts...
•not sure that I like the new versions of Orcs and Goliath. Orcs seem to have been steered more toward just being humans with bad teeth, and apparently the rest of the community loves giants way more than I do. I'm not opposed to changing orcs; I'm just not sure that I understand the chosen aesthetic.
•Getting some more Greyhawk content is (I think) cool
•The artwork has been hit or miss for me. None of it is "bad." Much of it is objectively well-made art. A lot of it simply feels geared toward a target audience that doesn't always include me or represent me.
•I won't really know what my views on the game are until I see how new things work in actual play.
I don't know much about what (if any) the differences are in how encounter design and monster design works.
The changes I've seen this far appear to be a mixed bag, but I don't really know without seeing how it all fits together.
My initial perception is that the '24 version of the game leans more toward wire-fu combat and a pew-pew aesthetic than is my default preference. My initial perception is also that I wish some changes to the core structures of the game were changed more radically than what they were; for example, I think ability score increases should be completely independent from feat selection.
Edit: Some quick second thoughts...
•not sure that I like the new versions of Orcs and Goliath. Orcs seem to have been steered more toward just being humans with bad teeth, and apparently the rest of the community loves giants way more than I do. I'm not opposed to changing orcs; I'm just not sure that I understand the chosen aesthetic.
•Getting some more Greyhawk content is (I think) cool
•The artwork has been hit or miss for me. None of it is "bad." Much of it is objectively well-made art. A lot of it simply feels geared toward a target audience that doesn't always include me or represent me.
•I won't really know what my views on the game are until I see how new things work in actual play.
Last edited:
grimmgoose
Adventurer
If I buy 5.5, it'll be on a deep sale. I'm just not interested in paying full price for a half-edition.
Similar Threads
