D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Rules Oddities (Kibbles’ Collected Complaints)

[Chaosmancer]

I wasn't opining on if power creep is occurring in 2024. Just that the term power creep was being grossly misused.

This is a hot take. But I think viability requires the community to care about the balance to that degree. And I think it's far from clear that the greater community does. My belief is that balance just has to be "kinda close" to satisfy most players, and I have a feeling 5e was already close enough to clear that bar. So we may never know the answer here.

The reason we saw mostly buffs is well known in video games. Buffs are far more popular than nerfs. So if the choice is presented, you will almost always see a buff out of a developer.

Also, while most people who see that buffs are more popular usually counter with "we don't care what is popular, we want what is good for the game!!" I'd argue that focusing on buffing under-performing content IS good for the game.

I've seen some people declare that the Caster/Martial divide could be overcome by essentially nerfing all casters into the ground and burying their corpse. But... people have fun playing casters as they are now. People play DnD, in part, for the experience of playing the caster. Making it so that wizards only know three spells and they take five turns to cast a single spell may be "more balanced" in some respects, but it would be boring and unsatisfying for the player base. Even the worst under-performing content isn't so much weaker than other content, as it feels bad to use for how ineffective it is. Bringing stuff more down to the level of "ineffective and feels bad to use" won't make a game better.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Most builds that will use Swift Quiver will do 4d10+4xdex+2xproficiency bonus using a heavy crossbow with 4xpush on top of that. At the level they get swift quiver this is usually going to be 4d10+20+12.

If they choose not to optimize and they don't get XBE they will do 4d8+4xdex+2xproficiency (4d8+32) using a longbow and cut 40 off of their movement.

The base damage from these are:
57 (heavy crossbow)
53 (longbow)

This is before they add any Ranger subclass damage.

This is my big problem with the class design, it discourages any sort of builds due to the reliance on Hunter's Mark

You don't get to count the entire attack action, then declare the spell does all that damage. Swift Quiver isn't doing 4d10+32 damage. Swift Quiver with a Heavy Crossbow is doing 2d10+10, because that is the section of the damage the spell is responsible for.

So, no, the base damage of Swift Quiver is either 21 or 19. Because the rest of it has nothing to do with Swift Quiver itself.

It is not higher than swift quiver unless you design that specific character to use dual wielder and if you do that you are doing less damage oveall (because your damage is much lower on your actions). Since we are talking about hit percentage, keep in mind the +2 you get from archery.

Using light weapons and dual wielding and the TWF feat and nick your damage is 48, which is less damage than will be done with heavy weapons using swift quiver and you don't get the +2 to for archery and you are getting much worse weapon mastery effects.

Also most light weapons are going to give you Vex, which makes this advantage you are getting largely redundant on dual wielding builds (and generally worse than a flat +2). This is a case where the advantage bonus for HM works best on builds that are NOT optimized to get the most damage out of HM.

Finally let's remember that even in your lower damage dual wielding white room this damage has to be against a single target and you need to give up an attack every single time you move your hunter's mark.

You are doing less damage if you are attacking 1 enemy and you are doing much less damage on turns you need to attack more than 1 enemy or move your mark.

I like how you want to criticize the "don't forget's" on my options, while ignoring things like the fact that the Dual-Wielding is using only a single feat, but to use a heavy Crossbow with GWM is going to require two feats (GWM and XBow Expert).

Vex may be redundant, but Nick isn't, and a character may choose to also have a ranged mastery. After all, there is nothing wrong with being a switch hitter.

But sure, if you have built to be a heavy crossbow ranger, taking two feats to make that viable, then at level 8 when you are dealing 2d10+4+6 damage, and the the Dual-Wielder is dealing 4d6+20... oh wait, that is more damage. So you actually need to build the ranger to take advantage of swift quiver, then spend a long time dealing less damage, until level 17. All to prove the "point" that Hunter's Mark won't be useful?

It is 3d10 to every enemy within 10 feet. It is usually going to be more damage than you will add with Hunter's Mark.

This is especially true when you combine it with attacks.

Below 20th level this is a dex save for 3d10 in addition to all the damage I do with my action. This is usually going to be better than what I would get from Hunter's Mark.

That isn't quite how I would characterize that. It is 3d10 to any enemies in the moving zone. You might be able to get multiple people with that, in which case sure, if multiple people fail the save it is more damage. Of course, if they make the save it is zero damage. And if you are dealing with a few scattered targets, the focus fire of Hunter's Mark might be more effective.

If we are discussing the rules then the rules DO matter and I find it disingenuos that you are now arguing that this was not intended or not the right way to play instead of simply admitting you are wrong.

I am not saying this now, I've always thought this about your exploit. I just didn't feel like bothering to argue with you about it, because it doesn't matter, and I knew you had debated this at length before and not changed your mind.

And your point is not factually, objectively true. ESPECIALLY at high levels like you are talking about.

Nope, "giving up" your 4th attack to cast hunter's mark nets you more damage, as I demonstrated

It does actually make a difference because it affects the chance to hit.

By the time you are making 3 attacks, a 4th is not going to make that much of a difference in your chance to hit once per turn.

Yes she used a dragontooth dagger that did 1d6+1d4+1 and had a gauntlet of Giant Strength that gave her a +6 strength bonus. So droping the bonus attack would have lost 1d6+1d4+7. If I put +6 that is because I forgot the magic bonus on the dagger.

So two homebrew magical items. Glad this is showing the failure of the design of the base game.

He had Druidic Warrior
attack 1 shillelage: 2d6+5
attack 2 shilleage: 2d6+5
nick: scimitar: 1d6 (no TWF fighting style)
dual wielding shillelagh: 2d6 (no TWF fighting style)
Fey Wanderer: 1d6

No I am using Wisdom exclusively on the attacks that get a bonus to damage and 16 dexterity on the nick attack that doesn't.


When I cast Shillelagh:

shillelagh: 2d6+5
Shillelagh: 2d6+5
Nick scimitar: 1d6

I did forget the fey Wanderer damage.

You do realize that it is awfully strange how you keep making these very specific characters, while also making them so utterly poorly. You are just meshing together an old build, applying the new things that were part of my discussion on why the design is good, then ignoring how a player might actually make this character if this was their goal.

I don't just think this is a bad design, I know it is a bad design and it has nothing to do with what I

I know exactly how it is going to work at the table.



Being effective does not make it a good class design.

Also you seem to be stuck in a paradigm where higher level players are running out of spell slots. That does not happen a whole lot at many tables, and tables that have a lot of spell slots left are not going to have a lot of uses for these class features when better spells are available.

Being effective is pretty key to good class design. The 2014 Monk had tons of flavor and aesthetic... and lacked effectiveness, making it widely disparaged. Sure, the opposite is also bad, but the Ranger doesn't actually lack aesthetics and flavor despite everyone freaking out over a few extra abilities.

Three of the four abilities tied to Hunter's Mark are a bad design. The first one (free casting) is ok. The others are really bad.

It would be different if they dropped the concentration requirement. If they did that instead of the damage concentration immunity it would actually be ok. The problem with it how it is now is that high level abilities are tied to a very weak spell that precludes the use of other, better spells if you want to use those abilities.

No it wouldn't. Half your arguments have nothing to do with concentration. And, if you want to say "but a bonus action to get a free stacking damage buff on top of all my other damage buffs..." yeah, that's why they don't do that. Stacking buffs are a dangerous game to start playing.

If you weren't acting like having access to Hunter's Mark meant you could do nothing else, I think you would be able to see that much more clearly.

 

[Chaosmancer]

if this were true for everything yes, I doubt monsters get buffed as much as characters however… when I said ‘the average’ I meant the PHB, and that is also what Crawford was talking about with ‘lots of buffs, very few nerfs’

You can doubt it, but largely what we've seen of higher CR monsters is that they got sizeable buffs. And since the PC spikes in damage are mitigated, but the baseline is higher, it likely doesn't take much on the monsters to buff them. A squad of mooks who all have +1 to hit and to damage adds up faster than you might think.

do you consider the weapon masteries power creep?

Largely... no. Even if I took them in isolation from the rest of the system (which is deeply, deeply silly) then they largely are not changing anything for what the strongest combos and classes in the game can do. Nick is perhaps one of the single most impactful masteries, and it doesn't really increase the power, as much as it smooths out the need for set-up and delays in using a combo. Which can be seen as power, but I am not convinced of that perspective.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The average going up for everything is the very definition of power creep.

You seem to be looking at power creep as a relative thing, i.e. if changed-element X now more powerful in relation to unchanged-element Y then that's power creep.

I'm looking at it as an absolute: if the average of all the changes is more powerful than before those changes were made then power has crept, even if everything's power has been boosted more or less evenly. Put another way, an arms race cannot be anything other than power creep.

If I took the entire math of the entire dungeon's and dragons system and multiplied everything by 10... there is no power creep.

Rolling a d200 and adding +110 to the roll to deal 1d80+50 damage to an enemy with 150 hp is essentially identical to d20+11 to deal 1d8+5 to an enemy with 15 hp. You can say that the game experienced power creep, but functionally that is not a true statement, it is an illusion.

If everything increases, and lower end increases more than the higher end, you have not actually experienced power creep within the game. Because all the pieces are still within the same band of power.

 

[mamba]

Largely... no. Even if I took them in isolation from the rest of the system (which is deeply, deeply silly) then they largely are not changing anything for what the strongest combos and classes in the game can do.

so because a Wizard was stronger than a Fighter in 2014, the Fighter in 2024 being stronger than the 2014 one makes no difference? I'd say as long as your group included a Fighter it now is stronger than before

 

[mamba]

If I took the entire math of the entire dungeon's and dragons system and multiplied everything by 10... there is no power creep.

tell that to the 2014 builds that want to play in your 2024 game they are compatible with

 

[DinoInDisguise]

tell that to the 2014 builds that want to play in your 2024 game they are compatible with

Going strictly by the definition of power creep, in that it requires the viability of unchanged aspects to be negatively affected, @Chaosmancer 's example is correct as long as all components are changed.

Maybe that's just me arguing semantics. But that seems to be what the cool kids are doing.

 

[mamba]

Going strictly by the definition of power creep, in that it requires the viability of unchanged aspects to be negatively affected, @Chaosmancer 's example is correct as long as all components are changed.

the unchanged aspects such as the 2014 builds / subclasses, how are they not negatively affected?

 

[Chaosmancer]

so because a Wizard was stronger than a Fighter in 2014, the Fighter in 2024 being stronger than the 2014 one makes no difference? I'd say as long as your group included a Fighter it now is stronger than before

But how are you defining "stronger"? That's the real noodly part of this.

A multi-classed Barbarian/Champion Fighter with GWM and PAM could potentially output: 3d10+1d6+1d4+70 damage, with a crit chance of 19-20 with advantage on every attack.

Now, that same character is going to be dealing 3d10+1d6+1d4+38, with the crit chance and advantage on all attacks. That isn't stronger. But, their minimum damage is 20, where the minimum damage of the old build was 0. That is... stronger, technically, but it isn't pushing it beyond what the old version could do.

One of the big take aways I've been seeing from reviewers is that melee combat is out-stripping ranged combat, which used to be the reverse, but that also the highest spikes of damage from the old combos are much smaller in both cases.

Are fighter's better at skills? Absolutely 100%. Is indomitable better? Absolutely 100%... but does that make power creep? Fighter's used to suck so hard at skills that many people considered it a joke. Now they can meaningfully contribute even on very difficult tests. Indomitable can have them succeed a single save, which is awesome, but also doesn't raise their theoritical power, because in theory they could have passed that save anyways with a high enough roll. So, it gets to be a complicated question of what you mean by strength.

And if you want to say "versatility is strength" then any party with a wizard still outstrips the fighter by a mile, even the fighter now is more versatile and LESS behind the caster. So power creep for the game as a whole would not be obvious.

tell that to the 2014 builds that want to play in your 2024 game they are compatible with

Compatible doesn't mean perfectly balanced. It means compatible. You also completely missed my entire point by trying to make it about the old rules. That wasn't the point I was making to Lanefan.

the unchanged aspects such as the 2014 builds / subclasses, how are they not negatively affected?

Who cares if they are? Seriously. Are we weeping over the fact that True Strike (which was never used) is now going to be used? Or that the 4 Elements Monk (which was garbage) is now really good? Or that resistance (which had no purpose) is now a viable option?

There was not a single expectation by anyone that just because the old rules were compatible that nothing would change in the new rules. Obviously things would change and be improved. THat was the entire point.

Also, the old subclasses can use the new class rules. And if you are going to argue about them being weaker than the new subclasses... 2014 Wild Sorcerer looks over at the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer and Clockwork Soul Sorcerer from Tashas. Beast Master Ranger looks at the Gloomstalker ranger. The Purple Dragon Knight looks at the Rune Knight.

Yeah, it happens. Wasn't the end of the world.

 

[ECMO3]

You don't get to count the entire attack action, then declare the spell does all that damage. Swift Quiver isn't doing 4d10+32 damage. Swift Quiver with a Heavy Crossbow is doing 2d10+10, because that is the section of the damage the spell is responsible for.

I get to decide what I get to count in my posts thank you.

So, no, the base damage of Swift Quiver is either 21 or 19. Because the rest of it has nothing to do with Swift Quiver itself.


I like how you want to criticize the "don't forget's" on my options, while ignoring things like the fact that the Dual-Wielding is using only a single feat, but to use a heavy Crossbow with GWM is going to require two feats (GWM and XBow Expert).

Sure but at high level you have plenty of room for this .... and a longbow is not far behind.

Vex may be redundant, but Nick isn't, and a character may choose to also have a ranged mastery. After all, there is nothing wrong with being a switch hitter.

Yes and that is 1 attack .... unless you are just giving up all your mastery for all your other attacks.

And if giving up weapon mastery on every attack except the one you nick is what you are doing to make HM better, then you are giving up a ton.

But sure, if you have built to be a heavy crossbow ranger, taking two feats to make that viable, then at level 8 when you are dealing 2d10+4+6 damage, and the the Dual-Wielder is dealing 4d6+20... oh wait, that is more damage.

To start with an 18 Dexterity you would be dealing 2d10+8+6 with GWM, but the incorrect math is not relevant.

Suggesting this changes anything at level 8 is what is wrong. At level 8 you can still be doing 4d6+20 with Dual Wielder.

And at the point were talking about above (Swift Quiver) you have gotten a minimum 4 feats. He can get Dual Wielder, XBE, GWM and still have a 20 Dexterity at 8th level.

So you actually need to build the ranger to take advantage of swift quiver, then spend a long time dealing less damage, until level 17. All to prove the "point" that Hunter's Mark won't be useful?

Just like you have to build a Ranger to take advantage of Hunter's Mark.

All your examples are at least as build-specific as mine, and you are hand waving things like multi target damage or switching hunters mark, which eats into that damage a lot.

That isn't quite how I would characterize that. It is 3d10 to any enemies in the moving zone. You might be able to get multiple people with that, in which case sure, if multiple people fail the save it is more damage. Of course, if they make the save it is zero damage. And if you are dealing with a few scattered targets, the focus fire of Hunter's Mark might be more effective.

It will be more effective some times, but it won't be a majority of the time unless you dumped Wisdom.

I am not saying this now, I've always thought this about your exploit. I just didn't feel like bothering to argue with you about it, because it doesn't matter, and I knew you had debated this at length before and not changed your mind.

Ok you just didn't think it was worth mentioning until I showed you that your position was incorrect. Convenient!

Nope, "giving up" your 4th attack to cast hunter's mark nets you more damage, as I demonstrated

no you demonstrated it did not do more at high level, it did less.

So two homebrew magical items. Glad this is showing the failure of the design of the base game.

They are not Homberwe

https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/9044-dragontooth-dagger

https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/5372-belt-of-giant-strength

You do realize that it is awfully strange how you keep making these very specific characters, while also making them so utterly poorly.

I am using actual characters I played from level 1 through high level and pointing out how those same builds would work using 2024 rules and I did it specifically because you said "no one plays like that"

You are the one throwing up these hypotheticals to try to prove your point.

You are just meshing together an old build, applying the new things that were part of my discussion on why the design is good, then ignoring how a player might actually make this character if this was their goal.

I am using the actual characters.

Being effective is pretty key to good class design. The 2014 Monk had tons of flavor and aesthetic... and lacked effectiveness, making it widely disparaged. Sure, the opposite is also bad, but the Ranger doesn't actually lack aesthetics and flavor despite everyone freaking out over a few extra abilities.

No it isn't. If that were true the most OP builds in the game would all be good class designs.

I am not freaking out, I am just pointing out that focusing on one concentration spell out of 40 and attaching 4 individual class abilities to it is poor class design.

No it wouldn't. Half your arguments have nothing to do with concentration.

And the other half do have to do with concentration.

Just because it is bad in more than one area, that does not make the argument on that area any less significant.

And, if you want to say "but a bonus action to get a free stacking damage buff on top of all my other damage buffs..." yeah, that's why they don't do that. Stacking buffs are a dangerous game to start playing.

Whatever. Tying 4 separate class abilities, including 3 high level abilities to Hunter's Mark, a weak 1st level spell, is bad class design.

If you weren't acting like having access to Hunter's Mark meant you could do nothing else, I think you would be able to see that much more clearly.

As I said earlier the 1st level feature on its own is not terrible and that is the only one of those 4 that gives access to HM.

The other 3 are terrible though and putting them in there is poor class design.