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

[Lanefan]

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.

Only until you try to incorporate material (characters, adventures, etc.) from the version that hasn't been multiplied, without doing any conversion. This might happen if, say, you've got an existing campaign but want to overlay the new rules onto it.

At that point the power creep slaps you in the face.

If, howeve, the lower end increases while the higher end commensurately decreases then there's no overall power creep.

 

[Lanefan]

In this hypothetical, there are no unchanged subclasses. The entire system was, as per the hypothetical, inflated by 10.

Remember that the definition of power creep requires a change in viability to an unchanged unit. We discussed this recently, we discussed how you couldn't really measure that.

Sure you can. If the entire game is multiplied by 10 and yet is supposed to be directly backward-compatible with the unmultiplied game, then power has crept - well, leaped - by a factor of ten.

Heres the definition of power creep word for word;

"The situation where successive updates or expansions to a game introduce more powerful units or abilities, leaving the older ones underpowered."

Context is important here. The phrase "introduce more powerful units or abilities" excludes mere "buffs" to the existing.

That seems like a shady definition intentionally designed to end-run around most examples of in-game power creep.

If a spell originally did 2d6 damage and the new version of the same spell does 4d6 damage (or 20d6 damage) that's power creep all day long; and that it's a buff to something existing does not and cannot give it a free pass.

And the phrase "leaving the old ones underpowered" means that unchanged aspects must have a change in power level so as to "lack power" relative to the new stuff, per the definition of underpowered.

In the context of Chaosmancer's hypothetical, power creep isn't possible. The hypothetical fails multiple aspects of the definition.

Now, in the thread as a whole, people claim that a raise in average power constitutes power creep. That only works IF the relative viability of an unchanged aspect is negatively affected; it "becomes underpowered." And that change negatively impacts the relative power of an unchanged "unit." Under no reading is "higher average power level" sufficient by itself.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

What is being forgotten or ignored in Chaosmancer's example is that there is and always will be that "unchanged aspect", that being the game as it was before the change was applied. Irrelevant if the changed game is supposed to be a non-compatible new edition; highly relevant if - as is the case here - direct backward compatibility is the stated goal.

 

[Lanefan]

If the definition is "just increases in power over all" than any single buff of any thing within a game becomes power creep if not counteracted by an equal nerf. In that case, the phrase loses it's functional meaning and just becomes synonymous with "buff."

The bolded is exactly how I see it. "Buff" is the singluar. "Power creep" is the plural.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

not really… we are not talking about the hypothetical, there are unchanged parts, namely everything in 2014 that is not also in 2024, monsters in the various adventures, subclasses in other supplements, 3pp content, etc.. So given this, pointing out that a case that does not apply has a certain result does not really get us any closer to the answer of whether 2024 has power creep.

To me it very obviously does, some broken spikes like Smite were fixed, but that should have been done years ago, the vast majority of changes are buffs

I think it's a challenging question to answer within the scope of the definition I provided. This is because it is so difficult to assess viability, because power level isn't the sole determinate of what people play. We actually don't even know to what extent power level even matters to the average player. The data we have on usage is contradictory at best or very small samples.

So viability has other factors involved as well. Because mathematical power, just figuring our pure DPS, isn't always the same as "real world power." We see this in other games like many multiplayer video games. This is because there are non-quantifiable aspects to it. Supporting abilities being the obvious example. How do you measure the relative power of those?

Beyond that, we have other complications based on the DM that is running the game. In a game I run, different classes may have different levels of utility depending on what obstacles I present to players compared to one you run.

Just establishing a baseline from which to start. Just coming up with conditions of measuring viability, not even getting into disagreeing about the definition of the phrase, is difficult if it's possible at all.

The bolded is exactly how I see it. "Buff" is the singluar. "Power creep" is the plural.

This is, I feel, not in line with the common use of the word. But if that is your definition, the word is underutilized and does not deserve the negative connotation is carries in many circles.

The definition I cited, is far more in line with common use in video games, but its, as described above, impossible to apply to a ttrpg given available data.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

What is being forgotten or ignored in Chaosmancer's example is that there is and always will be that "unchanged aspect", that being the game as it was before the change was applied. Irrelevant if the changed game is supposed to be a non-compatible new edition; highly relevant if - as is the case here - direct backward compatibility is the stated goal.

This is factually, and demonstrably, untrue. Based on Chaosmancers hypothetical, the "entire" system was buffed. If we look at the definition of "entire" it reads:

"with no part left out; whole"

So no. under the hypothetical no part was left out, by definition. Claiming otherwise is warping the definition of the word "entire" to support a narrative.

Once you start getting into superseded aspects, as you do, you've effectively removed any objectiveness in favor of an ever changing make believe. An argument where we freely twist the bounds of reason and warp the definitions of words to support largely baseless claims. In said argument, any and ever reality is possible, as it just requires the redefining of core terms.

And it here I bow out, as see no point in discussing under such conditions. No correct answer is possible. No reality exists. Just the make believe each of us has in our head.

 

[mamba]

I think it's a challenging question to answer within the scope of the definition I provided. This is because it is so difficult to assess viability, because power level isn't the sole determinate of what people play. We actually don't even know to what extent power level even matters to the average player. The data we have on usage is contradictory at best or very small samples.

eh, I am ok with 'is objectively more powerful' in case people do not consider power level is relevant enough to make the old version non-viable.

So viability has other factors involved as well. Because mathematical power, just figuring our pure DPS, isn't always the same as "real world power." We see this in other games like many multiplayer video games. This is because there are non-quantifiable aspects to it. Supporting abilities being the obvious example. How do you measure the relative power of those?

That, and power creep / buffing is not just strictly a matter of mathematical power / the same skill doing more damage or a new skill being added that does more damage. A character with more versatile options and a larger set of viable options is also more powerful than one without those, even if it does not apply in every situation

 

[mamba]

This is factually, and demonstrably, untrue. Based on Chaosmancers hypothetical, the "entire" system was buffed. If we look at the definition of "entire" it reads:

"with no part left out; whole"

but that is clearly not the case here, it is impossible for WotC to buff the entire system, even if they actually tried, they do now own the entire system

 

[ECMO3]

No, not when you are trying to show the impact of the spell.

Yes, I do. further more you included the action attacks when you talked about the impact of HM AND you included a bonus action attack which you don't even get when you cast the spell or generally about half the turns you are concentrating on it.

No, you are giving up Vex, as you said. That isn't "a ton" to me, compared to the ability to have a weapon mastery when I switch to my bow.

The HM bonus is largely redundant with the only weapon mastery you can use with dexterity weapons and the light property.

Is that better for you

O, you propose starting with one set of spells and abilities at one level, then changing at a later level

Actually IMO I would like a choice of spells to choose to get free castings of and to buff, like there is with the Fighting Style Feats, and the weapon masteries. Then let me change which spell the ability is based on during level up.

That would be good class design and guys like you could still get all those Hunter's Mark buffs.

. Fascinating. You know that sort of perspective would lead to someone perhaps using the right tool for the job, and not just casting Hunter's Mark all the time, but only casting it when it is relevant and helpful.

And given other spell options (and subclass abilities) it is not going to be relevant and helpful very much at high level .... but you are still getting all these class abilities focused on it.

So what was the problem again? Oh right, that because of a level 17 and level 20 ability you are forced to always cast Hunter's Mark at all levels of play and never use the right tool for the job, that was your claim. Weird how that directly opposes your own argument here...

I think you are finally starting to get it, you are almost there.

Not exactly right so I will say it again so you understand completely before your next post:
The problem is having 4 class abilities tied to Hunter's Mark and you are forced to either use Hunter's Mark or get nothing out of those four abilities.

I think you will understand it completely by the next time you post..

I'm not handwaving multi-target damage. You want to cast Conjure Barrage and hit a lot of enemies? Hunter's Mark doesn't prevent that, in fact with the new casting rules the Ranger can cast BOTH spells on the same turn if they felt it was useful.

It wouldn't be useful because you would get no damage out of your Hunter's Mark. Most of the time it will be a waste to cast it that turn and have no mechanical advantage.

you likely aren't using your bonus action for damage unless you are specifically using Hand Crossbows, and then you have a few options ...... I've already shown that 4d6+modx4 < 6d6+modx3, so even switching doesn't actually lower your damage compared to not having the spell cast at all.

This is complete nonsense. You have a ton of options with Hand Crossbows. The new rules are far more permissive for using hand crossbows and you can dual wield them as easily as a Shortsword.

The 4d6+20 build you are talking about above would use hand crossbows and a Scimitar!

With the new rules you have a ton of options with most builds.

And not everyone plays a Spellcasting Ranger, as we have discussed.

If they are using Hunter's Mark they are playing a spellcasting Ranger.

If they are not casting Hunter's Mark then most of your commentary on Hunter's Mark is not relevant.

I knew this would be a bitter and fraught discussion anyways, no need to go catching myself on fire before hand just so that later you couldn't accuse me of ignoring it.

Who is bitter?

You are using the actual characters, except modifying them using specific rules, but not all the rules only the ones you like.

I am not "modifying" the characters.

I am converting those characters to 2024 and comparing what they had then and what they have now.

I am using actual characters and applying the 2024 rules to those characters and giving up the lost 2014/TCE rules .... because you know that is what this post was supposed to be about.

While I am at it though, I found another example of bad design - Based on early wording of the new Ranger the expertise from Deft explorer only applies to skills you get from the Ranger list, so no getting it on abilities you get from your background, the skilled feat or your species. So yeah those two characters would have also had to give up expertise in Persuasion and Deception respectively due to the new Ranger class.

Yet another example of bad class design!

I would use actual characters, but the only Ranger whose character sheet I have was level 6 or so when that game died, the high level rangers were played by other people, and were made before any revised ranger or tashas. Or were multi-classed, people at my tables tended to like rogue/ranger

One of the examples I used was a Rogue/Ranger (one level Rogue dip).

And while I might have phrased it that way once, I have been more than clear that the larger point is the majority of people do not play rangers in your highly specific and as far as I can tell utterly unique style.

A lot of people don't use Hunter's Mark though. So while every single character I have ever played in D&D is unique, the idea of not using Hunter's Mark is not unique and others posted on this board about that being a problem when it was first published about two months ago.

Also I will point out, while my exact characters were unique, plenty of people play Wisdom first Rangers and several Ranger subclasses are built around this paradigm (Fey Wanderer being one of them).

The Fey Wanderer subclass is designed to spam Summon Fey at high level. That is what Beguiling Twist and Fey Reinforcements subclass abilities are centered around and it is not just me that plays that subclass that way. Everyone I have seen play at high level plays it that way.

You claim very few Rangers play that way, I think you believe that because you have seen very few Fey Wanderers, Drakewardens or Horizon Walkers in play at high levels. FW and HWs are constantly casting at high levels and Drakewardens are spamming dragon attacks with their bonus action and I have never seen one of those that played at high level and used Hunters Mark-Attack as a regular action ... (or at low level for HWs and DWs).

If you believe that the only way Rangers play is to attack all the time with a free bonus action, I suspect that is because you have not seen people play those subclasses and if that is the case you really can't claim to have a grasp of how people play Rangers in general.

And your best way of doing so is has been to show that other spells are still better or to show highly specific level 20 builds.

There is nothingh highly specific about those builds. Those subclasses are DESIGNED to do things other than using Hunter's Mark.

So... what is the end goal here? Conjure Woodland Beings is a better spell, so should the Ranger's 13th level ability be that they can't lose concentration on that spell? SHould it be that they get a +1 to hit and damage when using a Heavy crossbow?

Ok I've said this several times on this thread. Have different spell options and allow you to change at level up (or maybe with a Long Rest

If you are going to use spells offer different options to use. For example instead of Hunter's Mark

I could pick fog cloud:
level 1: you get 1 free casting of fog cloud, when you cast fog cloud you can see through it and in it.
Level 13: damage can not break concentration on fog cloud
Level 17: You get advantage attacking enemies inside your fog cloud even if they can see you.
Level 20: You get +1d10 damage to enemies inside your Fog Cloud.

or Maybe you could pick Cure Wounds:
Level 1: You get 2 free castings of Cure Wounds.
LEvel 13: When you cast Cure Wounds you get 20 temporary hit points.
Level 17: When you cast Cure Wounds the creature you target has resistance to all damage for a round
Level 20: When you cast Cure Wounds the creature you cast it on is also cured of all paralyzation, poison and disease.

Or maybe I could pick entangle:
Level 1: You get 2 free casts of entangle a day
Level 13: Cretures in the area of your entangle spell must make a save at the end of every turn they are in the AOE or they become restrained.
Level 17: You can move the AOE of the entanglement 20 feet at the start of your turn
Level 20: Creatures restrained by a spell you cast take an additional 1d10 damage at the end of their turn.

Those just three quick examples, but there are many more.

Any "better design" you seem likely to propose due to your focus is purely going to make other, more powerful options, even more powerful. You've done nothing but try and prove that Hunter's Mark is bad damage at high levels.

That is not true. I have proposed another design several times on this thread alone, one where it gives you a choice of 1st level spells to get buffs on.

That way you could blend you know

Hunter's Mark is not a weak 1st level spell. Not by a wide, wide margin. It is just a highly efficient spell.

It is a weak 1st level spell. It is nowhere near as good as the best 1st level spells. It has a long duration and it is a bonus action to cast, but other than that it is mechanically weak, even compared to 2014 spells.

Spells like Shield, Bless, Cause Fear, THL, sleep (old one at low levels, new one all the time), Bless, Wrathful Smite, Ray of Sickness (new), Healing Word, Dissonant Whispers .... Those are all good, strong 1st level spells. Hunter's Mark is not.

Additionally hunter's mark does not upcast well

Which is perfectly fine as your opinion.

That part is not opinion. It is fact that putting four class abilities that rely on a single spell that requires concentration ispoor class design.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

but that is clearly not the case here, it is impossible for WotC to buff the entire system, even if they actually tried, they do now own the entire system

We were discussing the hypothetical, and false claims made about it. In the post that my quoted statement was about, they made a claim that, in the hypothetical, there had to be unchanged aspects. That is factually untrue and in stark opposition to the words used in the hypothetical.

That said. I am simply going to leave the discussion. I made my argument on the hypothetical and that argument only applies only to the stated hypothetical. Unilaterally, changing the facts of the hypothetical is beyond the scope of my argument.

 

[mellored]

I could pick fog cloud:
level 1: you get 1 free casting of fog cloud, when you cast fog cloud you can see through it and in it.

Any ranger can do that.
Get blind fighting at 2
And at level 3 cost fog cloud.