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

[g00se99994]

They are hyping how much better arranged they are, and how the CR rating are more accurate. So I strongly expect it to be more streamlined for the DM as well.

No idea on how much more. But better is better.

Again, expect Topple mastery. If they didn't change it, I probably will.

I'm open to house rules on Topple or any ability that you can effectively spam requiring a saving throw on each attack.

 

[jerryrice4949]

Nope, they never said a word about getting rid of Short Rests, that was all forumite speculation.

Agreed. I do not recall them saying that. Believe me I wish they had. One of my few dislikes of 5E is the Warlock build and short rests in general but I don’t recall them saying they were looking at replacing short rest across the board.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

At the start of 5e this was definitely the case.

However by Tasha’s and maybe even Xanathars this started to change. By level 7-8 there were a number of alternative paths to match the dpr an accuracy fix, SS/GWM and CBE/PAM could produce. (Something as simple as Summon Fey + EB with +cha mod damage is a good example).

The one thing SS and GWM still had is that with variant human you could have these online at level 4. Which is quite a bit earlier than alternative damage builds.

*I ignore extremely high level builds as play doesn’t typically happen at those levels.

 

[mellored]

Nope, they never said a word about getting rid of Short Rests, that was all forumite speculation.

They've expanded the number of things that come back on a short rest.

So it will feel less like the warlocks are begging when the barbarian gets to recover a rage as well.

 

[Oofta]

They've expanded the number of things that come back on a short rest.

So it will feel less like the warlocks are begging when the barbarian gets to recover a rage as well.

They've also introduced various ways for casters other than wizards to recover spells. Clerics for example can expend a channel divinity to regain an extended spell slot.

 

[Parmandur]

he said they would test bigger changes first to see what the appetite for change is, that they halfway through the UA decided to gut them all, even the ones that made the threshold made me lose all interest in the UA, and it has not returned with the new books either

I still maintain that they dropped all their best ideas and do not really care why they did it, but it means 2024 is deeply uninteresting to me. Maybe 6e in 2032 or so manages to move the needle forward, but I am not sure about that either.

They said from day one thst the first tests were maximal changes, not first steps, and most, over 75%, were likely to be dropped. That matches with rhe history of UA feedback.

I would expect future revisions to be similarly conservative.

 

[Vael]

Ultimately, yes, more conservative (as in the word, not the politics) designs won out. I get the disappointment, I was hoping for wildshape templates.

That said, there is an advantage, the more radical the changes, the less useful older content is and the more it's an actual edition change. This feels like a refresh instead of a ground up rebuild and I'm okay with that.

 

[mamba]

They said from day one thst the first tests were maximal changes, not first steps,

he also said they were testing the appetite for change. Getting rid of short rest was among those afaik, but finding the 30 seconds in several hours of video is not something I am interested in attempting

Yes, they were maximal changes in that the same changes would then be applied to all classes (unified subclass progression does not work if you do it for two classes only, same for getting rid of short rest skill recharges) and no changes beyond their scope would have been introduced

and most, over 75%, were likely to be dropped. That matches with rhe history of UA feedback.

no idea, was my first and last round of UA participation. I am thoroughly disappointed by how it is handled and in this case its outcome too. To me it was a lost opportunity and as a result I am more likely to abandon 5e than stick with either version

I would expect future revisions to be similarly conservative.

all the more reason to not stick around

 

[Parmandur]

Ultimately, yes, more conservative (as in the word, not the politics) designs won out. I get the disappointment, I was hoping for wildshape templates.

That said, there is an advantage, the more radical the changes, the less useful older content is and the more it's an actual edition change. This feels like a refresh instead of a ground up rebuild and I'm okay with that.

I think they are going to stealth wildshape templates in via the Ranger Beastmaster stat blocks being eligible, lol.

 

[Parmandur]

no idea, was my first and last round of UA participation.

Yup they've been doing this for a decade, and it pretty much always goes like this: that's why there are so few Wizard Subclasses past the Core books (so many went through UA, some great) no Mass Combat system (two failed UA!l), and only one new Class in a decade (Mearls did exactly what yoy suggested for the Myatic...to the point where it was print ready if it was just received well the third time...but it wasn't in Xanathar's Guide, so died on the vine).