D&D General How much do you care about rule change specifics?

[MonsterEnvy]

Multiclassing in 2014 was explicitly optional. A DM could say "no" and you didn't have a player throwing "RAW" in your face. As I understand it, that is not the case in 2024. Multiclassing is no longer "officially" (i.e. RAW) optional.

Wording is basically the same

Multiclassing allows you to gain levels in multiple classes. Doing so lets you mix the abilities of those classes to realize a character concept that might not be reflected in one of the standard class options.

With this rule, you have the option of gaining a level in a new class whenever you advance in level, instead of gaining a level in your current class. Your levels in all your classes are added together to determine your character level. For example, if you have three levels in wizard and two in fighter, you’re a 5th-level character.

Multiclassing allows you to gain levels in multiple classes. With this rule, you have the option of gaining a level in a new class whenever you advance in level instead of gaining a level in your current class. Doing so lets you mix the abilities of those classes to realize a character concept that might not be reflected in a single class.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I can't accept that the majority of survey respondents equals the majority of players. I know my group (with one exception) wouldn't even know there was a 5.5 if I hadn't told them.

And given that the books are selling well, the majority of players seem to like it anyway.

 

[AlViking]

It's funny. People complained loudly and endlessly that fighters were boring and need more options. Monks need an upgrade.

WOTC listens and gives people what they asked for and it's the worst thing ever. They can't win.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends. Errata don't care barely even aware that it exists. Generally don't use it unless old version is actually an issue.

5.0 to 5.5. See what it plays like first. I liked a lot of it but in play it's very high powered. Worse than 3.5 phb anyway.

It's an issue if it's something like 4E. If it's a zero sum game I'm coming down on the side of what I like vs what you like.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's funny. People complained loudly and endlessly that fighters were boring and need more options. Monks need an upgrade.

WOTC listens and gives people what they asked for and it's the worst thing ever. They can't win.

Different people saying different things remember.

I like the 5.5 fighter over 5.0. Even champion. For me it's about power not fighters gaining interesting things (that's subjective).

First time in 25 years dual wielding doesn't suck.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is in human nature to complain about stuff you don't like, but barely say anything about stuff you do like.

People don't go on forums to say they had a good session with the rules 9 times of 10. They go on the forums when that 1 out of 10. Or the 1 person who doesn't like it vs the 9 who do.

Happy people are quiet. As such, what you see is nearly always more negative than the truth.

Meanwhile, D&D is more popular than ever.

Last comments not accurate imho.

5E peaked few years ago,reception of 5.5 is mixed espicual cf vs 5.0 (mostly positive), and 5E (mostly negative).

It was selling well but we will see if it can keep it up.

 

[dave2008]

So I am just curious how much other folks actually care about rule changes between supplements and revisions and half editions. Does it actually bother you?

No. I am much like you in that regard.

 

[AlViking]

I and my group like the new revisions, even if my players don't always appreciate some of the monster upgrades.

Some of the little upgrades like the change to the sleep spell are appreciated and the nerf to sharpshooter was long overdue. I don't really see feats no longer being officially not optional being a huge issue, other than origin feat they can pretty much be ignored. Meanwhile that origin feat adds a little bit of customization we enjoy.

It's not perfect of course but nothing ever is.

 

[Zardnaar]

I and my group like the new revisions, even if my players don't always appreciate some of the monster upgrades.

Some of the little upgrades like the change to the sleep spell are appreciated and the nerf to sharpshooter was long overdue. I don't really see feats no longer being officially not optional being a huge issue, other than origin feat they can pretty much be ignored. Meanwhile that origin feat adds a little bit of customization we enjoy.

It's not perfect of course but nothing ever is.

I like the concept of origins execution not so much. Players who care want 2014 back grounds or DMG custom ones over the phb ones.

 

[AlViking]

Last comments not accurate imho.

5E peaked few years ago,reception of 5.5 is mixed espicual cf vs 5.0 (mostly positive), and 5E (mostly negative).

It was selling well but we will see if it can keep it up.

Due to changes in distribution and the growth of digital subscriptions we have no idea how well the new books are selling. It wouldn't surprise me if growth peaked during COVID.

All we do know is that based on their reports they exceeded expectations of sales for the 2024 books and had to do a second print run much earlier than expected.