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

[AlViking]

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.

We prefer the new alternative which is what the OP asked. Some of the old backgrounds were either practically pointless or incredibly overpowered based on GM interpretation. We prefer feats that give you simple and clear bonuses, not the fluffy bonuses that may or may not ever apply.

 

[overgeeked]

It seems to bother people who insist on RAW more than those who are comfortable making house rules. But it is annoying to have to write up and discuss / argue about house rules with players. Yes, I know an easy answer is find different players, but outside of 5E that’s a bit hard to do, and outside of D&D-likes it’s generally not practical.

 

[mellored]

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.

The majority of responded statistically represents the majority of players.

Have 1000 people taste 2 pies. If 80% of them like one pie over the other, then you can expect the majority of other people will as well.

And the 20% that liked the other pie are going to make up the majority of the comments.

Not that their complaints are invalid or anything, I like pistachios but rarely get them because no one else does.

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

5e was a big upgrade for most people over 4e, or 3e. $50 gave you a whole new experience.
Vs
5.24 is a small upgrade. $50 for a slightly better experience, isn't as good of a value proposition.

Similarly
Casting barkskin to increase a 13AC wizard to 17 AC is a decent use of a slot.
Vs
Casting barkskin to increase a 16AC barbarian to 17 AC is probably not the best use of the slot, unless you have extra.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

If you need a new PH, what are you going to buy?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I prefer how other games handle complex martials. Level Up is my benchmark in that regard.

 

[Umbran]

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?

In short: Nope. Doesn't bother me a whit.

Admittedly, I'm not dedicated to one game, one ruleset. I was just running 5e, The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, next I'm going to run a Savage Worlds Deadlands: Lost Colony campaign, while running a series of one-shots that so far has had a Fate-based game, a narrative-version of Shadowrun, and a Gumshoe game.

With the diversity of games I am willing to play, being bothered by rules changes wouldn't make much sense.

 

[ezo]

Wording is basically the same

You're really missing the point?

2014:

Multiclassing, along with feats, are presented as OPTIONAL and at the DM's discretion. A player cannot whine "But it isn't an option, it's in the book as part of the rules as written."

In 2024, not only are feat baked into system, such as with backgrounds, etc. but multiclassing is just there to be used.

Now, of course a DM in 2024 can choose to not allow it, but the difference is forbidding something baked in and something that was "optional" from the beginning.

To be clear: THERE IS NO BENEFIT FROM DOING THIS. The change made in 2024 serves no purpose other than to make things more difficult for DMs who don't want multiclassing in their games. (Yes "their games" because they run them... it isn't just about "player fun.").

As an option in 2014, the DM has the (more obvious--less tyrannical) choice to say yes or no. If the group likes using it, no issue. A new player joins and can use it or not. If the group doesn't, and a new player joins who wants multiclassing, they can discuss it with the DM or accept the DM's decision.

Ten years later in 2024, there's no "choice" for the DM. Banning multiclassing would be akin to banning a class or race or spell which is presented as part of the default system and RAW from the get go. The DM has lost the "easy out" as it was optional.

 

[ezo]

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.

They overkilled it.

2024 classes and 2014 classes were supposed to be playable together. Technically you can, but due to the power creep you're nerfing yourself 9 times out of 10 if you choose the 2014 option.

Monks are great in 2014 and IMO never needed an upgrade. Now they are considered OP by many players who even like more OP-style games.

Weapon masteries added another level of complexity which some people have been complaining slow things down from the beginning.

It wasn't that they didn't make the attempt, which hey, yes, great, they did, but they went about it the wrong way for some people, and those are the one who'll complain about it.

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

<snip>

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

Exactly. A lot of people do like it, but a number of people don't. Fortunately, nothing is stopping them (including myself) from just sticking with 2014 material. It does, however, mean we aren't likely to get new material for our games from WotC--and that is a problem IMO.

It sucks for myself and others like me, but such is life. Hey, I've been dealing with it for over two decades now.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Yeah that's to be expected though.

Personally I'm expecting a more 2E trajectory. Could be wrong.

Covid peak may have been a suger rush.

I don't subscribe to D&D doomerism but the peak may be over and jury is still out on 5.5 ultimate reception.

 

[Zardnaar]

They overkilled it.

2024 classes and 2014 classes were supposed to be playable together. Technically you can, but due to the power creep you're nerfing yourself 9 times out of 10 if you choose the 2014 option.

Monks are great in 2014 and IMO never needed an upgrade. Now they are considered OP by many players who even like more OP-style games.

Weapon masteries added another level of complexity which some people have been complaining slow things down from the beginning.

It wasn't that they didn't make the attempt, which hey, yes, great, they did, but they went about it the wrong way for some people, and those are the one who'll complain about it.


Exactly. A lot of people do like it, but a number of people don't. Fortunately, nothing is stopping them (including myself) from just sticking with 2014 material. It does, however, mean we aren't likely to get new material for our games from WotC--and that is a problem IMO.

It sucks for myself and others like me, but such is life. Hey, I've been dealing with it for over two decades now.

I suspect once new and Shiney glows wears off more people will pick ip on this.

On paper new class design is great. My PCs have reached level 8 and yeah it'd getting rough. They haven't even powerfamed that much.

5.5 is very high powered. Perhaps exceeding 3.5 (less complex).

In effect I suspect they've made my job harder.
It's not impossible we will stick with 5.0 treating 5 5 as errata to use as a buffet.