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

[dave2008]

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

I disagree, and would have appreciated if they leaned even more into short rests. I am glad they at least made the move to give more classes short rest benefits.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

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.

Oh ok maybe I misunderstood that. I thought the point was that damage ceiling (i.e. optimized damage) is going up for martials (per post #122), specifically due to GWM and weapon masteries. I'd totally agree that this change helps non-optimizers by nerfing an overpowered Must Have feat, and that this nerf is a great thing for the game. I will love not being required to use this stupid feat anymore

 

[dave2008]

Are you really trying to claim that 5th ed is not based around 6-8 encounters per day? Seriously? lol

What does that mean to you? I know the 6-8 story, but my group averages 2-3 (we have hit 6-7 before too) and it works great. So what does it matter if it is designed for 6-8? It sill works at 3-4 or 1-2!

Actually, I think the ideal balance is 3-4 encounters if you really look into the math, but the game works great outside the ideal range.

 

[dave2008]

I will love not being required to use this stupid feat anymore

It was never required. Most of my group is fighters and none of them have taken that feat (and we are an all feat group - no ASI). The game rolls on just fine without it!

 

[dave2008]

I think we disagree here. No one plays games with 6-8 encounters per day, thats pretty obvious from every post about this topic since 2014. So wotc is trying to force an obnoxious style of gameplay on people that NO ONE does.
I understand how they tried to have a balance between short/long rests, but the very concept of needing short rests and ability recharges to fuel 6-8 encounters per day is the crux of the utterly craptastic design fail. Its an utter failure because no small tweak can fix it, balancing around a style of gaming no one will EVER participate in means its a miserable failure.

I sometimes wonder if people are playing the same game we are!

 

[DrJawaPhD]

It was never required. Most of my group is fighters and none of them have taken that feat (and we are an all feat group - no ASI). The game rolls on just fine without it!

Obviously there is no wrong way to enjoy DnD, but for anyone who enjoys optimizing their damage output, GWM / SS were required feats, which was very bad for the game and I'm glad to see them nerfed.

 

[dave2008]

Obviously there is no wrong way to enjoy DnD, but for anyone who enjoys optimizing their damage output, GWM / SS were required feats, which was very bad for the game and I'm glad to see them nerfed.

I've never played with optimizers, so not a problem I've encountered.

 

[Stormonu]

I've never played with optimizers, so not a problem I've encountered.

Same. In the 10 or so years I’ve played, haven’t had one person with GWM or SS.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Most people using GWM on the other hand use it because on a lot of builds it is genuinely good. GWM, by increasing the damage per attack, multiplies the effect of any accuracy buff the character has. On a stock fighter, for example, GWM is mid. So don't take it. On a barbarian you get advantage with every attack when reckless attacking.

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.

Nope. Not a DPR increase for casters or ranged characters. Barbarians and melee rogues should have advantage anyway. Not calling it useless - but you are overhyping it.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

In addition to what was already noted, we saw a long rest based warlock. Treantmonk played and talks about it positively in one of his videos. After a different YouTuber known for making videos about broken/op builds murdered that the next warlock was broken AF with best in class melee and spellcasting on top of all the usual invocations like areb devils sight etc to make it curve setting in all things simultaneously