D&D (2024) DMs what do you think of the new PHB?

[DrJawaPhD]

Reading reviews and it's a lot of gushing over how many new options and powers the PCs have. Which is grand from a player perspective.

What do my fellow Forever DMs think?

I both play and DM (hopefully moving towards Forever DM though), and I think the new book looks awesome.

I can agree with complaints that it isn't enough of a change to warrant spending money on a new book, but to me there's no question that it's definitely a better book if you ignore the cost (which you absolutely can do, no one has to buy the book to play DnD).

What I don't understand are complaints about power creep. Feels like antagonistic "DM vs PCs" mentality to me. It doesn't matter how much power creep the PCs get, the DM can ALWAYS win without even trying. The real question for DMs is whether combats are easier or harder to balance now, and they are objectively easier to balance now that sustained damage is buffed but nova damage has been nerfed (notable exception of Conjure Minor Elementals needing each DM to determine their homebrew nerf)

I also can't comprehend all the complaints about increased complexity for Martial classes. For decades everyone has complained about the Martial/Caster divide, then WotC actually tries to do something about it and people complain about it. Increased complexity for martial classes is an awesome thing for the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Mostly that most species now have some sort of pseudo-magical inherent ability (i.e. tremorsense, Elemental infused heritage, etc) and that more subclasses grant easier access to things like teleportation, shape-shifting, and etc.

I passively listened to a few videos while doing other things.

Some of what I listened to talked about how the mindset behind the game took more steps toward supers rising to save the world/multiverse and mythic fantasy.

Allegedly, that is a different mindset than what a setting like Greyhawk was built around; I vaguely recall one of the YouTube videos pondering how the mentality behind 5e24 would mesh with something like Greyhawk (or Dark Sun).

To be fair, while I do believe that 5.5 has moved farther in the supers/mythic direction, WotC has been doing this for a while, at least since 4e (early 5e had a less supers tone, but the bones were there). Those who want a different game than what WotC has turned official D&D into (and you know I get it) should play one. There are many available, including earlier iterations of D&D, modern games based on them, and other versions of 5e.

 

[ninjayeti]

It really feels like a wash to me - for everything that was improved there is something else that is worse off. Lots of changes seem like game designers just needing to tinker with stuff for the sake of tinkering. Hiding and stealth is just as confusing and broken as it was before, but in a completely different way. Given that they have had 10 years of experience with 5.0 it seems like a shame that they couldn't have dialed it in a bit better.

Maybe the better organization will be helpful to new players - but the new version has a lot more complexity with first level feats, weapon masteries, etc. So I don't even think the new version will be better for onboarding new players.

 

[Zardnaar]

I both play and DM (hopefully moving towards Forever DM though), and I think the new book looks awesome.

I can agree with complaints that it isn't enough of a change to warrant spending money on a new book, but to me there's no question that it's definitely a better book if you ignore the cost (which you absolutely can do, no one has to buy the book to play DnD).

What I don't understand are complaints about power creep. Feels like antagonistic "DM vs PCs" mentality to me. It doesn't matter how much power creep the PCs get, the DM can ALWAYS win without even trying. The real question for DMs is whether combats are easier or harder to balance now, and they are objectively easier to balance now that sustained damage is buffed but nova damage has been nerfed (notable exception of Conjure Minor Elementals needing each DM to determine their homebrew nerf)

I also can't comprehend all the complaints about increased complexity for Martial classes. For decades everyone has complained about the Martial/Caster divide, then WotC actually tries to do something about it and people complain about it. Increased complexity for martial classes is an awesome thing for the game.

Because it either increases hit points or PCs steamroll everything.

I've been using an OSR game alternating with 5E and ran a 1992 BECMI adventure.

The difference in running it vs 5E was amazing.

I want easier to run if anything. Your character sheet or monster can fit on a business card.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except that everything PCs are capable of is a concern for their DM. How much of a "deal-breaker" that is will obviously vary, but PCs are clearly stronger, and that will affect the game.

Ok, but again, that stuff will have been covered in the player-focused reviews the OP was specifically asking for a DM’s perspective in contrast to. I trust from said reviews they’ve gathered enough information to decide how they feel about the PC options in the book, and as per their request, focused my feedback on other aspects of the book.

 

[Charlaquin]

Mostly that most species now have some sort of pseudo-magical inherent ability (i.e. tremorsense, Elemental infused heritage, etc) and that more subclasses grant easier access to things like teleportation, shape-shifting, and etc.

Heads-up, the “et” part of “etc” already means and. “And etc.” would mean “and and the rest.”

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Because it either increases hit points or PCs steamroll everything.

Which is a problem how? If damage doubles and HP doubles, this impacts nothing.

I've been using an OSR game alternating with 5E and ran a 1992 BECMI adventure.

The difference in running it vs 5E was amazing.

I want easier to run if anything. Your character sheet or monster can fit on a business card.

Well ok that's fine you just don't particularly like 5e and prefer previous editions / other games. That's totally fair but has nothing to do with the 2014 book vs 2024 book.

 

[guachi]

I think the organization and layout is better but overall the changes are worse. And I think they are worse if only because it made already powerful PCs even more powerful. I guess we'll have to see how the DMG and MM handle things but I worked in 5e games I ran to make PCs less powerful (mostly by changing rest rules).

I have purchased Tales of the Valiant and Level Up. Tales of the Valiant, though I haven't played it, adds cool things and, from what I can see, lots of power creep. Level Up, which I have played, adds cool things but no (or very little) power creep. And that's because a lot of what Level Up adds is cool things to do in the Social and Exploration pillars.

I don't see the "cool things in Exploration and Social pillars" from 5e24 yet.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I also can't comprehend all the complaints about increased complexity for Martial classes. For decades everyone has complained about the Martial/Caster divide, then WotC actually tries to do something about it and people complain about it. Increased complexity for martial classes is an awesome thing for the game.

Remember that, in cases like this, everyone doesn't always mean everyone. Sometimes it means "anecdotally, people I talk to or read opinions of." And that only really extends to what a person remembers which comes with it's own issues - assuming that person is human.

So there is a group of people on this forum, and some percentage of the overall community, that don't want an increase in complexity. I don't think this should be hard to comprehend when we realize that everyone doesn't actually mean everyone. And I don't think this should be unexpected given the number of threads, just this summer, that had extensive debates on rules vs rulings, and system complexity in general.

As for the push back on the complexity. Options, largely, equal time and so any increase in options has to be worth their cost in time. If a person doesn't see an issue with martials in their games, that increase in time might not be worth the increase in options.

I do find that the only discussions, I personally see, on this martial caster divide are on forums. I have never had a player hesitate to play a martial or complain when doing so. This is anecdotal, but it proves that everyone doesn't mean everyone.

Hopefully that helps clear the confusion you are having.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Hopefully that helps clear the confusion you are having.

Nope didn't help, I still can't comprehend why anyone would be against giving Martial classes more options.

You can explain it all day long, I'll still agree to disagree with your opinion and be baffled by it.