D&D General D&D 2024 does not deserve to succeed

[AnotherGuy]

Spell slots, unless you MUST specifically prepare every spellslot (which no longer exists in D&D), absolutely does not force more variety compared to mana. You can do the same spell over and over with spellslots, using higher level slots to upcast it. DC20's "upcast" system is far more sophisticated than D&D's, and using mana as the system plays into facilitating a wider amount of variety, since there's more possibility of changing your spells depending on how much mana you want to spend.

In 3.5e the psion used points and the psionic powers were beautifully crafted in that they allowed a lot of flexibility.
A little of this was carried through to the 5e's sorcerer with his sorcery points and metamagic capabilities.

However what appears to be missing within your analysis of 5e is that the engine used by a 5e casting class enforces a particular theme.

• Wizards are bookish and thus their spells are structured and perfectly prepared with little room for flexibility. (We can certainly debate whether there should be more upcast capability or ritual casting); while
• Sorcerers are suited to a mana pool which they expend to twist and manipulate spells in weird and wonderful ways.

If everyone uses the same system - you have sacrificed the theme for flexibility.

Wrong. DC20 has penalties for trying to do certain things over and over, and the flexibility of the action economy already promotes more variety on its own. D&D does not encourage variety. It encourages building around cheesing your bonus action as much as you can.

Unfortunately in DC20 it appears your "cheesing your bonus action" has been replaced by "cheesing your action points".
It's not a fix but a replacement by those that don't enjoy the D&D method. Nothing was solved, instead you allowed for power gamers to power game more.

Very few things which I wanted addressed were addressed by DC20 and what I instead found was that DC20 created new unnecessary issues.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm not sure I'd say 2024 is materially more complex than 2014. Sure there are some aspects where you could make that argument, but it also simplifies a lot.

It’s definitely more complex in practice. Weapon mastery alone slows combat noticeably. That’s what we’ve found, anyway.

 

[cranberry]

What do you mean by new, and what do you mean by staying power? Are you expecting every game that's been released within a certain recent time frame that isn't 5.5 or Shadowdark to fail?

By new, I would say games created at or around the OGL scandal. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to fail, but my guess is that they will have a very tiny audience. Not because they aren't good, but because of lack of momentum as well as the fact that D&D has a robust infrastructure that onboards new players fairly easily, and it's easier to find more people willing to play D&D.

D&D enjoys what is essentially the snowball effect.

Not to mention they have an advertising and promotion budget that new TTRPGs can't compete with.

 

[Belen]

It’s definitely more complex in practice. Weapon mastery alone slows combat noticeably. That’s what we’ve found, anyway.

This was my biggest fear which is why I will refuse to allow weapon mastery.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To have a budget, you need to be popular.

You have to start somewhere. Level Up is a pretty new game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

By new, I would say games created at or around the OGL scandal. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to fail, but my guess is that they will have a very tiny audience. Not because they aren't good, but because of lack of momentum as well as the fact that D&D has a robust infrastructure that onboards new players fairly easily, and it's easier to find more people willing to play D&D.

D&D enjoys what is essentially the snowball effect.

Not to mention they have an advertising and promotion budget that new TTRPGs can't compete with.

And yet other games continue to exist, and put out new product.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It’s definitely more complex in practice. Weapon mastery alone slows combat noticeably. That’s what we’ve found, anyway.

Huh. I haven't found that. I didn't know that you found that - I'd thought that you'd said the opposite.

I would think that speeding up spellcasters would more than make up for Weapon Masteries!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This was my biggest fear which is why I will refuse to allow weapon mastery.

It's a really simple solution, for sure. If you feel the need to compensate your martial players (and you don't really need to) you could always give them a bonus Origin Feat in place of it. Or not! It's not a huge big deal.

 

[Corinnguard]

Only two more months and Level Up will be three years old.

What was D&D like when it was that age?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

This was my biggest fear which is why I will refuse to allow weapon mastery.

I'm thinking of changing mastery to be a + to hit and damage with specific weapons. Don't much how much of a bonus would be best.
Or maybe change mastery to be closer to the old Elven Accuracy feat (3d20 for advantage instead of 2d20) with a few weapons.

OR

boost martial weapons traits (reach, versatile, heavy etc). Reach= another +5 ft, versatile= +1 AC when used to hand-handed, heavy= Ignore damage reduction. Something like that.