D&D (2024) What is your oppinion of 5.24 so far?

[Azzy]

More bloat which will slow the game. To much player power that will vex the DM. If you want more of a story game with little actual threat, this seems the thing to have. Which if that's what floats your boat, more power and fun to you.

Perhaps the DMG and MM will change my opinion, but I doubt it.

I'm sure I'll end up running it or playing it or both because it's what the modern gamers know. Easier to find a 5E (5.5) game than an OSE game (or anything else).

By the by, where I think WotC really needs to focus next is turning out top tier adventures because most have serious issues. I had plan to run Vecna but all I hear it bad things.

And this is why you (collective grognardia you) get pushback? Well, here it is in one tidy package!

 

[DarkCrisis]

And this is why you (collective grognardia you) get pushback? Well, here it is in one tidy package!

Thread asked my opinion. I said it’s bloated but as long as you are having fun more power to you.

What do you see wrong there to label it as “Grognards” needing pushback?

 

[jerryrice4949]

I worry they added too much, making the game more complex with longer turns and more decisions. Non-optional feats at 1st level, weapon masteries, sneak attack options, and so on. This was clearest to me when they described the rogue who now gets a free off-hand attack when using a dagger, more options on their bonus action, and choices about how to spend sneak attack dice. It’s a lot of extra stuff and I see no way it won’t make combat take longer. Having seen what long combat can do to the rest of the game in 4e, I’m not excited for that.

It’s not clear to me if weapon masteries are limited to once per turn – I don’t think they are – and that seems like a problem after they said that it was a problem with stunning strike and divine smite. The idea of a fighter trying to knock a boss prone four to six times in a turn doesn’t excite me as a DM, that’s for sure.

Twice now WOTC made remarks on D&D Beyond and on their YouTube videos like “frustrating for DMs” and “monsters will hate this” and avoiding “mother may I” (or, as I see it, GM agency over the situation) which makes me think they steered it towards a game where the DM is the adversary. I have no desire for a game like that. Again, they tried to do this in the 4e days and many DM, myself included, felt like we could go down stairs and play PlayStation while the players ran the monsters themselves. I’m not eager to return to that.

So we’ll see but, for me, it feels like a big bag of candy handed to players with no consideration to how DMs have to deal with it when all this new stuff hits the table and we have to build a fun game for everyone out of it.

None of these changes matter if DMs don’t want to run it.

I’m happy to have a lot of options though. I’m enjoying my Level Up Advanced 5e game right now and Tales of the Valiant looks great with many similar changes to D&D 2024 but more restraint (they have weapon masteries but they can only be used once per attack action). When WOtC puts out the 2024 rules into the 5.2 SRD other creators can build more new versions as well so we can fix it if we need. Houseruling is also an option but it feels like a failure if we have to house rule it right away.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

I think some of the comments they made about making the game more difficult for DMs were made tongue in cheek.

 

[Azzy]

Thread asked my opinion. I said it’s bloated but as long as you are having fun more power to you.

What do you see wrong there to label it as “Grognards” needing pushback?

Oh, please!

 

[the Jester]

I guess I would describe my attitude as "largely likes most of the individual changes, but strongly dislikes the overall power creep and sees a lot of it".

I'm not just talking about improved martial pcs, which I can live with for sure, but things like almost doubling the value of healing spells. If they bump up all the cantrips as we saw in the playtests, that's another good example of what I am talking about. OTOH, if they reign in some of the more abusable or OP spells, I would appreciate it, but so far we haven't seen much of that.

EDITED TO ADD: I know the new DMG and MM might adjust my view of this to a certain extent, but if everything has more hps and does more damage, nothing has really changed, if you catch my meaning.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't see how anyone can argue that GWM is improved - can you link the math on that? I'm looking thru Treantmonk videos but only found one old one using some bad assumptions (Champion fighter, no advantage). GWM currently adds WAY more than 3-6 damage per round under most builds, which is the max you can get with the new GWM (if the UA I'm looking at is still correct...)

Also how do you figure that weapon mastery substantially increases DPR? Increased utility is obvious, but only Nick really helps DPR and that's specifically for underpowered two-weapon fighting (which needs a big buff to even be worth considering). Cleave is awesome in rare situations but most of the time will do nothing. Graze brings up average DPR a bit, but doesn't help ceiling damage at all. And then all the rest of the masteries are utility only with no damage - you could argue that some help gain advantage more easily, but advantage is already guaranteed in any build that is properly designed.

Most people think the current iteration of GWM is good because most people are bad at math. Sorry, but it's true. It's good in the way that slot machines are good: occasionally there's a big, memorable payoff, but mostly you'd be better off doing something else. It's bad because the penalty (-5 to hit) is multiplicative, while the bonus is additive.

I'll defer to @ECMO3 for the real details, but here's a basic example. Imagine a level 20 fighter taking on an Ancient Red dragon. We'll assume the fighter has +5 strength and a +3 weapon, because level 20. The dragon is AC22.

In this basic example, the fighter using GWM does 10 average damage per attack ((2d6=7+3+5+10)x.4). I won't bother with criticals; they don't change the math much. Without GMW, that same fighter does 11.25 damage per attack ((2d6=7+3+5)x.75)).

And the thing is, because the penalty is multiplicative but the bonus additive, the more additional damage sources that fighter can add to each hit, the worse GWM becomes. Let's say the party cleric casts holy weapon on the great sword. With GWM, the fighter now does 13.6 damage per attack ((2d6=7+2d8=9+3+5+10)x.4)). Without, they do 18 damage per attack ((2d6=7+2d8=9+3+5)x.75)).

If they action surged to do 8 attacks in the crucial first round, GWM just cost them 35.2 damage.

The new version of the feat gives a +1 strength bonus, which helps all martial classes that would choose this feat, and is always a damage increase, in every situation. Overall, it's a much better feat. The current GWM is just fun for gamblers.

As for weapon masteries, most of those "utility" properties add up to straight damage increases. For example, being able to knock an enemy prone with your attack is usually a massive DPR increase for your entire party.

Have you play tested with the new abilities? I have, extensively, and so have plenty of others, such as Treantmonk, and show their math. Martial DPR goes WAY up using the 2024 rules.

 

[Distracted DM]

they should have gotten rid of short rest, like they initially planned. Not doing so is among the biggest failures of the 2024 books

What was the original idea here, how did they plan on ditching short rests? Did we get examples?

I'm disappointed that they didn't just decouple long rests from sleeping. It's the best house rule I adopted. Up to GM taste, whether it's 2 days or a week, try separating sleep from rests. It's very helpful.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

I'll defer to @ECMO3 for the real details, but here's a basic example. Imagine a level 20 fighter taking on an Ancient Red dragon. We'll assume the fighter has +5 strength and a +3 weapon, because level 20. The dragon is AC22.

In this basic example, the fighter using GWM does 10 average damage per attack ((2d6=7+3+5+10)x.4). I won't bother with criticals; they don't change the math much. Without GMW, that same fighter does 11.25 damage per hit ((2d6=7+3+5)x.75)).

Well yeah of course the math looks bad if you give the target a huge AC and ignore Advantage. If you built a Level 20 character without guaranteed Advantage on demand then you are doing it very wrong, with or without GWM. Even against 22 AC, that should be 16 damage per attack with GWM and 13.2 without GWM

The new version of the feat gives a +1 strength bonus

I completely missed this! That is a huge deal, I'm over here comparing a half-feat to a full-feat like they ought to be the same damage output

As for weapon masteries, most of those "utility" properties add up to straight damage increases. For example, being able to knock an enemy prone with your attack is usually a massive DPR increase for your entire party.

Anyone optimizing properly will already have advantage on demand - all you're really doing with Topple (at least damage-wise) is screwing over your ranged attackers who now have to straight roll

 

[dave2008]

Anyone optimizing properly will already have advantage on demand - all you're really doing with Topple (at least damage-wise) is screwing over your ranged attackers who now have to straight roll

I think the point is to bring it up for people who are not optimizers. Narrow the gap between the haves and have nots so to speak.

My group of mostly martials is definitely not optimizers and definitely will see a boost from the 2024 rules.

 

[dave2008]

What was the original idea here, how did they plan on ditching short rests? Did we get examples?

For a while WotC did away with shorts rest and made things that would normally recharge on a short rest available a number of times per day equal to your proficiency bonus. At the time we assume this would be how the 2024 rules would go, we were wrong.