D&D (2024) Did you make up your mind about 5.24?

[Seramus]

Accepting that there will be some unnecessarily vague wording and some unbalance in every edition, I like most of the changes in 5.5e. I especially love the thunderous amount of art. It's practically an art book!

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't like it.

Leaving aside my negative views of the parent corporation, and leaving aside my positive views of Chris Perkins, I was on the "cusp" of 5e fandom to begin with, with tastes leaning more OSR. So they don't really need me as a fan anymore.

The game was already plenty complex power-gaming for me (I didn't play much 3e and it shows). I find their 2024 player-facing changes an uneven mix of good/necessary and bad/questionable, their overall approach unfriendly to GMs (not in the onboarding sense, but in the ongoing play sense), the increased complexity not worth the "squeeze", and the monster changes that I've seen so far are too tepid for my tastes.

I'd rather either play my modded 5e or enjoy other RPGs - there are so many good ones out there.

I feel a bit glum saying that, as I really want to support Chris Perkins' work, having followed his work since Dungeon magazine, and I think he's a tremendous designer. If he separates from Hasbro/WotC someday, I'd definitely love to see what he does.

 

[Xeviat]

I voted Yes and I like it, as I like the class changes and some of the spell changes, but I also do not see much of a difference to the 2014 version. It is more clearly and cleanly laid out but the 2014 DMG has more in it. Now, much of that is written is a style that is difficult to get through and scattered about the place in little nuggets here and there.
I think that there is plenty of room for third parties to do blogs and video essays turning the bare bones in the DMG into more detailed breakdowns and how to's.

Same. I teased a lot about the whole "it's not a new edition", but it really is just a 5.5 revision with great presentation and some adjustments learned over the last 10 years. Considering the amount of houserules I make, it's something normal to me.

The DMG is less crunchy than I'd like, though.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm in the "not much different" camp, at least not yet. The classes I do think are improved, but there are other areas that feel like a step back. I think its a "one and a half steps forward, one step back" kind of thing.

The MM might change my mind though, as I do think monster design is a weakness of 5e (especially compared to 4e), so I await to see what they cook up.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Same. I teased a lot about the whole "it's not a new edition", but it really is just a 5.5 revision with great presentation and some adjustments learned over the last 10 years. Considering the amount of houserules I make, it's something normal to me.

The DMG is less crunchy than I'd like, though.

I think that the more I consider it, it is not the lack of crunch in the DMG that bothers me the most about but that the encounter and setting examples could have done with more tell along with the show.
The encounters in particular, give a single encounter and given a theme and a party, what monsters, how many and what location. How it might be varied for different parties and an example of play to show it in action.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Waiting for all the books to come out.

So far it hasn;t fixed any issues I have with the system and in fact made some parts worse.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Waiting for all the books to come out.

So far it hasn;t fixed any issues I have with the system and in fact made some parts worse.

I understand you.

I have some issues too. But then I remembered: downtime for example was fixed with xanathar's guide.

I think that book will stay with me for quite some time.

 

[tetrasodium]

I didn't feel any of the options fit right for me, I've played in a '24 game with '24 PCs.. was unimpressed & much of what I've seen of the DMG actively spotlights or exacerbates the reasons for that in concerning ways. There needs to be an option like "No I'm undecided but it's not catching me" or similar.

I'd be willing to play it or give it consideration down the line if there was strong evidence that wotc had recognized & published stuff that significantly raises the bar in ways I care for. As it is that bar wotc needs to meet seems to be pretty high after "frustrating for dungeon masters" & "off limits to DMs" comments made in hype of PHB & DMG set it much higher than I would have expected possible during the playtest a year or so back

 

[ninjayeti]

Voted Yes and I don't like it.

It isn't terrible. But a significant number of the changes are wildly broken, over powered, overly complex, or just dumb AF (I'm looking at you dragonborn sparkle wings!). It is far easier for me to houserule the stuff I like into 5.0 rather than trying to figure out how to make 5.5 work for the type of game I want to run.

 

[GnomeWorks]

My stance is informed by the fact that I run homebrew races, classes, and spell lists.

I don't like it. This feels to me like a cash-grab: everyone knows core books sell well, and most of the changes feel like they just make things worse. While the situation might feel akin to the 3.5 release, that at least had a wide variety of modifications that, in hindsight, feel like pretty much everyone agreed made things better.

Moving stat adjustments from races to backgrounds is, frankly, stupid, and is not something I'll be implementing.

Dragonborn flight at 5th is certainly a choice you can make. It's not one I'll be allowing at my table.