D&D (2024) What's Your Experience Like with '24?

[Mort]

Is it? I wouldn't be surprised if immunity to nonmagical weapon damage is gone, which IMHO is a good thing. It was always kind of annoying that I didn't feel like I could use wererats at a lower level unless I gave PCs silver or magic weapons. Gargoyles? Like them and they're an interesting monster. Rarely use them as written at levels that match their CR because most PCs won't be able to do anything against them.

Do you have a reason for believing it's entirely gone from new monsters? I don't have an issue if it is, it's always been a bit of a weird property because their CR really changes based on whether or not the group has magic weapons available.

Released 2024 monsters.

For example 2014 quasit:

Damage Resistances Cold, Fire, Lightning; Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks

2024 quasit:

Damage Resistances Cold, Fire, Lightning

Edit: And some circumstantial evidence.

Monks attacks upgrade to force damage, all reference to counting as magical gone.

The Heavy Armor Master feat no longer protects against only nonmagical damage. Could be just an upgrade, but with everything else known, unlikely.

 

[Oofta]

Released 2024 monsters.

For example 2014 quasit:

Damage Resistances Cold, Fire, Lightning; Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks

2024 quasit:

Damage Resistances Cold, Fire, Lightning

It will be interesting to see if that trend continues. I don't think it would be a bad choice, right now it feels like an equipment tax and something you have to give PCs most of the time.

 

[Will Brandiman]

We've been playing with the 2024 rules for a couple of months now and overall I'd say we're all pretty happy with how it's going. Players have a lot more options available to them but nothing is horrendously complicated so we've all managed to adapt pretty easily.

Only thing I would say is that we're playing a converted Pathfinder adventure and the monsters are generally a bit tougher than standard WotC monsters. This is probably negating a lot of the power creep that people were afraid of with the 2024 rules. If we played a WotC published adventure I suspect we'd be walking through it a lot easier.

 

[Laurefindel]

Only two or three games in, but the consensus at the table is that it looks like it's gonna be a positive gain from the 2014 edition once we gather some momentum, because at the moment it's slooooooow.

Many, many little modifications that do not drastically change anything but makes us doubt and double-check everything we used to know. "Is this spell still an action or is it a bonus action now?" "No, this is 2d8 instead of 1d8 now, look it up!" "Wait, I think it's a Charisma save instead now, isn't it?" We're always looking at the rules, to a point where it has become disruptive, but I'm sure it's progressively going to get better.

I'm still not sold on weapon masteries. Two of my veteran players love them, but they confuse the naughty word out of our two new players. Also, only after two games, I can see topple becoming very old very fast...

While I can admit that the art is top notch, visually and artistically, it's going in a significantly different direction from the styles, themes, and aesthetics I use for my campaigns. This has been trending for a while though, but by the sheer amount of art present, I find myself repeating more often "yeah, don't draw too much inspiration from the PHB art".

Subclasses at level 3 for Cleric is fine but feels weird for Warlocks. Generic cleric initiates work ok in a polythesitic religion where priests end up focusing on a patron god at a later point in their training. We don't have a Sorcerer but I guess it's ok to let the charatcer guess where they got that power from until they know themselves better, but Warlocks making a pact with an undefined entity until the players decides who it was at a later point in the game, is awkward from a character background and RP perspective.

Otherwise, the information is objectively better presented and consolidated, but since there is more of it, It's a bit of a wash. I'm of those who think that more options do not necessarily makes for a better game and that the 2024 PHB has added more material where I think they should have cut, but that's a personal opinion that I know isn't shared by many. So knowing that there cannot be a perfect game, the 2024 edition did ok by me.

 

[payn]

Only two or three games in, but the consensus at the table is that it looks like it's gonna be a positive gain from the 2014 edition once we gather some momentum, because at the moment it's slooooooow.

Many, many little modifications that do not drastically change anything but makes us doubt and double-check everything we used to know. "Is this spell still an action or is it a bonus action now?" "No, this is 2d8 instead of 1d8 now, look it up!" "Wait, I think it's a Charisma save instead now, isn't it?" We're always looking at the rules, to a point where it has become disruptive, but I'm sure it's progressively going to get better.

I'm still not sold on weapon masteries. Two of my veteran players love them, but they confuse the naughty word out of our two new players. Also, only after two games, I can see topple becoming very old very fast...

While I can admit that the art is top notch, visually and artistically, it's going in a significantly different direction from the styles, themes, and aesthetics I use for my campaigns. This has been trending for a while though, but by the sheer amount of art present, I find myself repeating more often "yeah, don't draw too much inspiration from the PHB art".

Subclasses at level 3 for Cleric is fine but feels weird for Warlocks. Generic cleric initiates work ok in a polythesitic religion where priests end up focusing on a patron god at a later point in their training. We don't have a Sorcerer but I guess it's ok to let the charatcer guess where they got that power from until they know themselves better, but Warlocks making a pact with an undefined entity until the players decides who it was at a later point in the game, is awkward from a character background and RP perspective.

Otherwise, the information is objectively better presented and consolidated, but since there is more of it, It's a bit of a wash. I'm of those who think that more options do not necessarily makes for a better game and that the 2024 PHB has added more material where I think they should have cut, but that's a personal opinion that I know isn't shared by many. So knowing that there cannot be a perfect game, the 2024 edition did ok by me.

Yeah still working through what is growing pains learning new tricks and finding out what may not be a positive gain.So far, I think it’s all the former.

 

[Willie the Duck]

There has been some slowdown while people re-establish their muscle memory with the new rules, but overall it looks on track to play very similarly to 2014. Power/balance-wise, there are new winners and losers, but the max minus the min does not outscale the max minus min of the previous version of the game -- nor outpace a string of great/awful rolls (especially on rolled stats or level-up HP) or good/bad decisions.

Overall, particularly if you have played other editions of D&D (or better still completely different TTRPGs), the changes simply do not seem that significant.

 

[Dire Bare]

My group switched to . . . Lord of the Rings 5E for our next campaign, and that's going well!

However . . . when initially discussing the upcoming new 2024 rules, most of my group was all, "Bah humbug, new rules? I don't think so!"

But now, in the middle of our LotR 5E games . . . they all bought the new PHB and are asking questions about using the new rules! Hah!

The mood is positive so far, and we've implemented minor things here and there but haven't gone full 2024 yet.

 

[ezo]

Thank you for really constructively adding to the conversation.

Well, I doubt you're going to get much like:

"We've played it for a few months now but it sucks, it takes too long, PCs are OP compared to 2014, it sucks not having a MM to go along with new PC power bumps. So, yeah, we're dropping it. Wished we hadn't wasted money on this garbage. We're going back to 2014 and have 2024 books to sell if anyone is interested?"

Because the only people who are really going to play it already know what they are getting into and accept they will over all like it. Sure, some might find this little thing or that little thing annoying, but if you're trying it you're probably expecting to like it and you're just going to get mostly positive reports.

So, you're basically asking for "What is the new, great glory for the 2024 version that you really like and what annoys you?" and that's fine, but since you didn't make this a (+) thread can you expect people who aren't keen on the changes to at least chime in?

 

[Zaukrie]

I would say it's almost exactly the same, except in a few areas where it is better. WotC successfully performed an excellent turd polishing.

As far as pace of play goes, we have a couple players who were excruciatingly slow before, and they still are. Other players who were reasonably quick before, still are. Edition makes almost no difference compared to player preparedness.

Same. People seem happy with the updates.

 

[Mort]

Well, I doubt you're going to get much like:

"We've played it for a few months now but it sucks, it takes too long, PCs are OP compared to 2014, it sucks not having a MM to go along with new PC power bumps. So, yeah, we're dropping it. Wished we hadn't wasted money on this garbage. We're going back to 2014 and have 2024 books to sell if anyone is interested?"

Because the only people who are really going to play it already know what they are getting into and accept they will over all like it. Sure, some might find this little thing or that little thing annoying, but if you're trying it you're probably expecting to like it and you're just going to get mostly positive reports.

So, you're basically asking for "What is the new, great glory for the 2024 version that you really like and what annoys you?" and that's fine, but since you didn't make this a (+) thread can you expect people who aren't keen on the changes to at least chime in?

Possibly, but as a general trend, people with negative comments are MUCH more likely to air their thoughts than those who are ok with or happy with something.

So the fact that commentary has been overall positive is encouraging.