D&D 5E For those playing 2014 5e, how are you reacting to the 2024 update?

[Shadowdweller00]

Also from the 2024 MM: Higher CR pirate officers get a very significant base weapon damage multiplier on each attack...for no in-game rational, explicable reason. Which incidentally means that the pistol attacks of a CR 12 Pirate Admiral NPC deal exactly as much damage on average as the enormous claw attacks of a gargantuan sized CR 24 Ancient Gold Dragon....(though admittedly with a much smaller attack bonus). Don't worry, though, any of the CR 12 Questing Knight NPC's three weapon attacks outdamage both of those previous fools; as well as the claws of any other enormous, centuries-old, 20+ CR ancient dragon. Largely because the questing knight's weapons are secretly lasers.

Yay... "verisimilitude" !!?!???

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Don't worry, though, any of the CR 12 Questing Knight NPC's three weapon attacks outdamage both of those previous fools; as well as the claws of any other enormous, centuries-old, 20+ CR ancient dragon. Largely because the questing knight's weapons are secretly lasers.

Yay... "verisimilitude" !!?!???

can't believe dnd got a pelinal whitestrake statblock before bethesda made elder scrolls 6

 

[KentHusker]

We started our current campaign 5.0e, and transitioned to 5.5e without any issues, and have enjoyed 5.5 and have enjoyed it more, from spell updates, to masteries, to even character creation (we kept our characters be re-did backgrounds/species.

 

[pukunui]

* Ghouls / ghasts paralyze victims ONLY for a single round.

Yeah, this one isn't great. Makes it harder for them to drag their victims away to eat them in peace and solitude. Base ghouls also do less damage, although they do get to bite twice now - and they get to add their proficiency bonus to their bite attacks now, which is something they didn't get to do previously. (I remember asking Jeremy if it was an error, and he said no, ghouls just aren't very good at biting.)

 

[Starmaster]

When the new books first came out, I was annoyed at the more widely-known controversial changes (dropping orcs from MM, dropping half-races from PHB, no ability bonuses for races, etc.), but I figured I could live with that so I'd go ahead and use 5.5 so I can stay up-to-date with things. As I learn more about the new rules, though, I keep finding more and more annoying little things that I didn't know about before. None of these are earthshaking changes, but there are just so many bothersome little things that keep cropping up. Here is just a sample of the new changes I keep discovering that I dislike:

1) Claw/claw/bite now just 3 generic rend attacks that all do the same damage (Is this bit of added realism really too hard to deal with?).

2) Dragon tail swipes, while a classic form of dragon attack, apparently also need to be eliminated in order to make combat even more generic and therefore more boring.

3) Strange reclassification of monster types just to help balance out how many monsters there are in each category. As one example, lizardfolk are now earth elementals. I know the designers gave the reasons for this and I've listened to that video when it was released, but to me the explanation seems nothing more than rationalization for re-balancing. Lizardfolk have a torso, 2 legs, 2 arms, a head with a brain, they're alive and pump blood. Pretty much seems humanoid to me. Then again, reptiles like to lie on top of rocks to warm themselves in the sun during the day so . . . maybe that means that all reptiles really are earth elementals?

4) Classic human appearance removed from Marilith and other monsters.

5) Silvered weapons no longer needed to harm lycanthropes and other monsters, so silvered weapons removed from PHB. This was a biggie for me, since it removes one of the classic (and fun) aspects of lycanthropes.

6) I'm not a fan of spreading out groups of monsters so that everything is in alphabetical order. It may be useful to help new DMs find critters for their first month, but after that I think it just becomes a headache to have all the demons, dragons, elementals, devils, and such scattered all through the book rather than gathered together to help in assessing which ones to use when constructing an adventure. As I see things, it would have been better if new DMs had to look up the monsters in an alphabetical index for the first few weeks, after which they would have pretty much figured out where everything was located. I can understand making some design concessions to new players, but this has to be balanced against the long-term utility of the books. In my experience, it really doesn't take all that long for players/DMs to get the hang of things.

It seems like almost every new change I see is for the worse, with a few exceptions (such as buffing the deadliness of dracoliches). I suppose there are a lot of other annoying changes that I've yet to find given enough time.

So, I was originally planning on using 5.5 and just keeping the bits I like from 5.0, but it looks like now I'll probably keep using 5.0 while just adding in the bits of 5.5 that I like. I've discovered enough of the insidious new changes that the balance has switched hard in the other direction. I guess I'd better take good care of my old books. Copies of the 5.0 books are still available at big retailers, but I doubt any more will be printed.

I do realize that others may like these changes, considering them to be improvements. I'm happy for those gamers and hopefully they won't mind my jocularity. These are merely my views on the matter.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I'm not changing systems mid-campaign. After we finish, we could. I will propose several option and 5e 2024 is on that list, but so are Tales of the Valian, Level Up and Pathfinder 2e nd various other systems.

As for the 2024 update...it's a mixed bag. Some things are good - Monk, Monsters actually having more cool abilities - some are horrible - Bastions are a middle finger to good storytelling and demand you treat the game as a video game, not collaborative storytelling, College of Dance Bard spit in the face of anyone who wanted to play a Monk. If I could I wish I could run campaigns in 5.24, ToV and A5E and then mash up best rules from each.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ran two sessions of 5E24 these past two Mondays. Went fine. No real change for me from running 5E14. Did like the Rules Glossary at the back of the PHB as it made finding the bits a bit faster when we needed to know some of the new rules and changes (like how certain conditions are ruled.) Found the change to the Sleep spell interesting. Not better, not worse, just different. Classes all seem fine. Our Monk player was happy to be able to do a few extra bits without needing to spend Ki, and our Fighter and Ranger have only barely dipped their toe into the Weapon Mastery waters. As far as monsters, I ended up buying Flee, Mortals on DDB rather than the 5E24 MM, as these two initial sessions were going to involve mainly a goblinoids plotline and I appreciated MCDM's expanded creature line take of statblocks-- I had probably six different goblin types on the field at once. The 5E24 MM will be one I'll probably buy in hardcover book form, which is why I didn't feel the need to get it on DDB as of yet.

These two sessions of a "new campaign" were just done while our standard Pathfinder DM was on vacation in South America, so I don't know when the group will come back to these characters (or 5E24). But from what we experienced it was standard and typical D&D.

 

[Belen]

Ran two sessions of 5E24 these past two Mondays. Went fine. No real change for me from running 5E14. Did like the Rules Glossary at the back of the PHB as it made finding the bits a bit faster when we needed to know some of the new rules and changes (like how certain conditions are ruled.) Found the change to the Sleep spell interesting. Not better, not worse, just different. Classes all seem fine. Our Monk player was happy to be able to do a few extra bits without needing to spend Ki, and our Fighter and Ranger have only barely dipped their toe into the Weapon Mastery waters. As far as monsters, I ended up buying Flee, Mortals on DDB rather than the 5E24 MM, as these two initial sessions were going to involve mainly a goblinoids plotline and I appreciated MCDM's expanded creature line take of statblocks-- I had probably six different goblin types on the field at once. The 5E24 MM will be one I'll probably buy in book form, which is why I didn't feel the need to get it on DDB as of yet.

These two sessions of a "new campaign" were just done while our standard Pathfinder DM was on vacation in South America, so I don't know when the group will come back to these characters (or 5E24). But from what we experienced it was standard and typical D&D.

DDB with 5.5 bites....hard. If you search "incapacitated" then the first entries are for 5.0. The first 5.5 entry is the 5th link. This takes you to the glossary where you are forced to run a second search to get to the condition.

Why? Because they did not make it searchable as a separate entry in DDB.

 

[DEFCON 1]

DDB with 5.5 bites....hard. If you search "incapacitated" then the first entries are for 5.0. The first 5.5 entry is the 5th link. This takes you to the glossary where you are forced to run a second search to get to the condition.

Why? Because they did not make it searchable as a separate entry in DDB.

When using DDB I don't usually use the search bar, I tend to just go to the respective book or the section of 'Game Rules' that has what I'm looking up.

But I also don't find taking the one or two seconds to look down the list of options when making a search bar 'Incapacitated' search to find the Free Rules entry to be such a hardship that it matters to me. I never need my information that fast that having to go past some 5E14 compendium entries actually irritates me. YMMV.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When using DDB I don't usually use the search bar, I tend to just go to the respective book or the section of 'Game Rules' that has what I'm looking up.

But one should be able to search and bring it up immediately, even that's not your personal preference.

And one can't.

And what's funny is, one could with the old DDI for 4E. There's no earthly (or programming) reason this should be difficult.

I never need my information that fast that having to go past some 5E14 compendium entries actually irritates me. YMMV.

It's not as simple as that though. You have to first realize that the initial entries are wrong, which a lot of people won't do, or won't do until after they've clicked into them.

Most people who are using DDB for reference are using it at the table, I would suggest, and as per YMMV, their mileage varies considerably from yours, because it is important to them to have the right info come up. Plus, it should be trivial for that to happen, and should have been a design priority with DDB for that to happen.

But DDB's search has always been trash. They "improved" it a couple of times, but it's still very bad in an impressive number of different ways.