D&D (2024) Wrapping up first 2-20 2024 campaign this week, some of my thoughts

[MonsterEnvy]

@MonsterEnvy Is this list based on the DMG, per character, or number of in the entire party? :3

It’s from the DMG and is for the whole party.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why should it be legendary, it’s no different than a Flame Tongue adding 2d6 fire damage and it’s also rare.

Doesn't require attunement and it's not fire damage.

 

[ECMO3]

I am not sure anyone knows how to do this. From what I have heard Vecna did not do this well either

We played Vecna right before Where Evil Lives. That was not well balanced either and the final fight against Vecna was rather anti-climatic, but that was with weaker 5E characters.

We transitioned to 2024 rules near the end of Vecna (still using 5E characters though).

 

[ECMO3]

Doesn't require attunement and it's not fire damage.

In addition you don't need to use a Bonus action to turn on a Vicious Weapon like you do a Flame Tongue and you don't have the problem of emitting a big beacon of light if you want to do extra damage.

The hit to action economy is a pretty big deal and makes the Vicious weapons quite a bit more effective than a Flame Tongue in play.

 

[ECMO3]

Most of the party wearing 10 rings of resistances (all rare). I think that is nowhere near the recommended amount of magic items.

The DMG table is per party, not per PC...

The recommended is 100 magic items total at this level for the party. We do not have that many, even with about 40 Rings of Resistance in the party.

I am not saying we don't have a lot of magic, or even that we don't have more magic power overall than is recommended considering the large number of rare items, but we don't have a lot more than is recommended, and we have much less Legendary items than recommended. As such it is not "nowhere near" the recommended, it is actually pretty close to being in line, give or take.

I think the bigger problem is some of the magic items (Vicious Weapons and Rings of Resistance in particular) are more powerful than they should be at that rarity level and if those were Legendary and Very Rare respectively (as they should be considering their power), then yes we would have "nowhere near" the recommended.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The recommended is 100 magic items total at this level for the party. We do not have that many, even with about 40 Rings of Resistance in the party.

I am not saying we don't have a lot of magic, or even that we don't have more magic power overall than is recommended considering the large number of rare items, but we don't have a lot more than is recommended, and we have much less Legendary items than recommended. As such it is not "nowhere near" the recommended, it is actually pretty close to being in line, give or take.

I think the bigger problem is some of the magic items (Vicious Weapons and Rings of Resistance in particular) are more powerful than they should be at that rarity level and if those were Legendary and Very Rare respectively (as they should be considering their power), then yes we would have "nowhere near" the recommended.

Yes, vicious weapons do more damage. But don't add to hit.

But yeah. Being resistant to all damage is ice. But you said, half the monsters are dead before they acted. So it does not make a difference anyway.

 

[ECMO3]

Yes, vicious weapons do more damage. But don't add to hit.

The don't, but you are rolling with advantage a lot in 2024 due to topple and vex.

 

[mearls]

1. The combat takes a lot longer at lower level, but is quicker at high level because enemies fall quickly (too quickly TBH)

2. Combat balance is worse at high level than in 5E. By the end of the campaign most fights were lasting only 1 round. Bosses went down without a turn at all about half the time. This is an MCDM adventure with a bunch of buffed monsters too, it would be worse using 5E or 2024 standard monsters.

Breaking down the math in the Monster Manual, this is my biggest worry. The general trend I see is that at low levels, monsters rely on sticking around for a long time to be a threat. Their attacks aren't too threatening, but after 5 or 6 rounds they wear down the party. The haunted house revenant is the poster child for this.

At high levels, monsters don't seem to have the defenses or HP to stand up for long against characters. Their damage has been scaled up, but they don't seem like they can handle the party's high level abilities.

 

[Zardnaar]

Breaking down the math in the Monster Manual, this is my biggest worry. The general trend I see is that at low levels, monsters rely on sticking around for a long time to be a threat. Their attacks aren't too threatening, but after 5 or 6 rounds they wear down the party. The haunted house revenant is the poster child for this.

At high levels, monsters don't seem to have the defenses or HP to stand up for long against characters. Their damage has been scaled up, but they don't seem like they can handle the party's high level abilities.

Even at low levels they don't stick around long. And I often buff hit points. 3 or 4 rounds are typical for longer fights.

 

[Oofta]

Sorry if I have little sympathy for someone who 5 PCs with experienced players and with magic items up the wazoo (I've never seen a +3 shield in 5E and don't expect to) along with 10 rare ring each and then doesn't change the module at all from what I understand. Then apparently allow the party to get long rests on demand(?). No surprise it's a cakewalk.

This is not a problem with the rules of the game. I will never, ever let a level 20 group have as much magic as the OP has, but if I did I would just crank the target XP for encounters up and use tactics that are effective against the group on a regular basis. But it's like handing someone a chainsaw and then complaining when it's easy for them to chop down a tree in an open field.