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

[Zardnaar]

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

This is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and going la la la.

I havet seen it abused for a while but I was one of the earliest to call them out as broken and saw them in action 2014/15.

They bad design because they over shadow everything else if someone's so inclined. The -5 is almost irrelevant in the right builds.

They're worse than persistent spell in 3E.

 

[mellored]

It does raise the question about whether 5.24 will still be as accessible for new players. I have doubts, because it does seem like the added player options are more for 5e veterans than for players new to ttrpgs. But then maybe other quality of life improvements will make things easier.

Many little things are streamlined. Removing disease and resistance to non-magical weapon for instance.

Other than weapon mastery. But i think most people would agree that martials needed something besides damage.

And even then, only Topple would be that much slower. And it's possible they adjusted to be rolling a 15 or higher on the d20 or something.

 

[SlyFlourish]

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

And yet, in their context, we can clearly see how these things can frustrate GMs. And so did they.

 

[mamba]

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

the early UA gave us a Warlock that was not short rest based, but since it didn’t ‘delight’ enough people they scrapped it

 

[DEFCON 1]

In other words... the long-rest Warlock stunk and everyone told WotC so...

 

[Neonchameleon]

the early UA gave us a Warlock that was not short rest based, but since it didn’t ‘delight’ enough people they scrapped it

That's because they took a half-assed approach and made it a generic half-caster.

If they'd e.g. retained pact magic but given you a minute long ritual you could use proficiency times per day to recover a pact slot it would have done way better. A big part of the point of the warlock is being able to bring it magically when it's an emergency (half casters can't) while not faffing with multiple types of spell slot at multiple levels (as half casters have to).

Far from delighting people, most of those that actually like the current warlock were outright disgusted by that travesty. And taking it off a short rest cycle wasn't the problem.

 

[Oofta]

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.

You mean the alternate gritty realism recovery rules that we already have in the DMG that I use? I get that nobody reads the DMG and I'd like more option suggestions, but it's already there.

 

[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 the DM were made tongue in cheek.

And yet, in their context, we can clearly see how these things can frustrate GMs. And so did they.

I disagree. I am a DM and I just don’t see these as big deal. Having DMed 4 editions of D&D during my life time and various other games a lot is being made of nothing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You mean the alternate gritty realism recovery rules that we already have in the DMG that I use? I get that nobody reads the DMG and I'd like more option suggestions, but it's already there.

Coupled with the fact that players have had 10 YEARS to find and come up with an alternative to short rests and playtest their ideas completely and fully to finally get a method they would prefer to use and install into their own games. Goodness knows posters here had invented dozens of short rest alternatives over the past decade that any single person could have yoinked for their own game if they really wanted.

But if no one ever did that and instead just kept using the standard rules (all the while just complaining and complaining and complaining about it) for these full 10 years, never bothering to even attempt an alternative (or convince their DM to try an alternative for even a short campaign)... I have little to no sympathy for them.

 

[mellored]

If they'd e.g. retained pact magic but given you a minute long ritual you could use proficiency times per day to recover a pact slot it would have done way better.

They retained pact magic and gave you a minute long ritual you could use once a day to recover muliple pact slots.

So close to what you want.