D&D (2024) PHB 2024 Is Hilariously Broken. Most OP of All Time?

[Ashrym]

Instead, you can get two extra attacks if you do use your bonus action. That seems... not right.

I'd rule that you can't attack a second time with your off-hand weapon as a bonus action.

Normally it's 1 attack either way. Nick states that the attack can only be made once per turn. What Nick does is saves the bonus action for something else.

Monks, however, keeping the bonus action for something else includes an unarmed strike (or Flurry of Blows) separate from the attack using Nick, which is why it works.

 

[Ancalagon]

That one definitely isn’t right, and also isn’t allowed by RAW as far as I can tell

to be clear, I meant with nick and the feat

 

[Charlaquin]

to be clear, I meant with nick and the feat

Oh. Yeah, that’s RAI according to Treantmonk’s account of what Jeremy Crawford told him at Gen Con.

 

[pukunui]

It's 15 gp to make one, and the rules to do so are in the PHB. It's possible the GM will say no, but the basic rules allow it.

Hence why I added "if the party can afford to buy/craft them". My argument isn't that it shouldn't be allowed but rather that I don't see it as being OP since it costs resources to do.

If you want to rule it this way sure, but I think the change in writing is convincing IMO. The old wording stated that the spell ended when you ran out of these temp hp. The one one simply states that the spell ends when you run out of temp hp. Why change the wording?

They changed the wording to a bunch of things for no apparent reason. Look at the argument about OAs and whether you can use War Caster to cast spells on allies because of the removal of the word "hostile". We'll be arguing about both of these and other bizarre word changes until such time as JC sees fit to issue sage advice clarifications (and possibly even after).

 

[mamba]

I'm withholding judgement until I see the MM: Can't judge how powerful something is without a basis for comparison.

the base is 2014, if everything doubled in power, including monsters, the two still would not be compatible. Compatibility requires comparable power

 

[dave2008]

the base is 2014, if everything doubled in power, including monsters, the two still would not be compatible. Compatibility requires comparable power

Not really. If the monsters in the 2024 MM were 2x as powerful (and they will not be), that doesn't make them incompatible with 2014 players, it just makes them harder to defeat. It would mean you can't swap them for the same monster in a 2014 adventure though.

 

[pukunui]

Just want to address the OP's list directly here:

1. Warcaster feat. Reaction casting to buff allies.

I am fairly certain this change is deliberate, and I'm not entirely sure why it's considered OP. How is using your reaction to cast cure wounds on an ally more OP than using your reaction to cast inflict wounds on an enemy?

2. Grappler feat
Lots of potential builds mostly abusing spike growth and spirit guardians. Basic idea drag opponents through spike growth edge or run around with a cleric and have multiple characters do it.

Personally I wouldn't allow someone to drag another creature through something like spike growth without going through it themselves. The word "drag" implies that you are pulling the person behind you, not pushing/pulling them along bside you.

The changes to spirit guardians are more concerning to me. I have discussed them previously. I'm inclined to rule that the spell can only affect each enemy once per round.

3. Conjure Minor Elemental. Not 100% sure it's fine at 7 but from 9+ there's some crazy numbers.

Yeah, this one is a problem and needs to be fixed, but as I said above, I think WotC has put it in their "wait and see if it's actually a problem at the table or not" basket.

4. Some sort of Monk weapon mastery abuse with daggers and unarmed strikes. Still work in progress. Looks like more damage than the -5/+10 feats without the -5 part.

I don't think know that this is necessarily OP either.

5. Some sort of turn yourself into a Kraken build. Work in progress.

I haven't heard of this one before! Can you elaborate?

6. Level 10 cleric abuse with spells like hallow.

This one definitely needs some clarification.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I am fairly certain this change is deliberate, and I'm not entirely sure why it's considered OP. How is using your reaction to cast cure wounds on an ally more OP than using your reaction to cast inflict wounds on an enemy?

Because you cannot depend on enemies triggering OAs, but you can trust a wounded ally to shimmy 5ft to the side, and then you heal them for, at least, 2d8+Wismod hitpoints. I know they wanted to buff in-combat healing, but this happening every round (per caster) seems like an insane multiplier to health totals.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Eh. It's always been up to the DM and the group do decide how dangerous the game will be. There have always been exploits and edge cases. This isn't anything new.

So by that definition, no edition is OP? Awesome! Skills and Powers, here I come!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not really. If the monsters in the 2024 MM were 2x as powerful (and they will not be), that doesn't make them incompatible with 2014 players, it just makes them harder to defeat. It would mean you can't swap them for the same monster in a 2014 adventure though.

Which if I remember correctly was from WotC's point of view the whole point of backwards compatibility. They really just cared about the published adventures.