D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[UngainlyTitan]

I heard a lot of the same complaint with 4e and 5e14. So what is different with 5e24 IYO? Personally, I am not seeing any real difference in play. I let my players chose whichever book they want to use for their characters. It doesn't matter to me as a DM. I don't feel the 24 PCs are more difficult to challenge then 14 PCs (though my experience is obviously limited).

PS - I do want to clarify that we use a modified ruleset in that we have a lot of houserules. However, we apply these equally to both 5e14 and 5e24 characters so I am not sure it makes a difference (thought it may).

It the reading aspect of the rules and not actually giving it a try. I do not think, that the characters are really stronger in 20204 as compares to 2014 but that the base character performance is higher.
That is, a powerbuilt 2014 character may actually outshine its 2024 equivalent, particularly if one is ignoring the 6 - 8 fights per day thing. Which I tend to do.
The power spread is tighter in 2024, in my opinion and based on my current experience.
Now, I believe that 2024 monster design is better and makes it easier to gauge the challenge of a fight. At least within the limitations that I have run the system.
I would also recommend that if running older material to use the updated statblocks where possible.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the disconnect remains that somehow we want characters who are both good but not great. A good example IMHO is the 2014 ranger. It's a great example of a fiction first class with skills for survival, combat and magic but people always dogged on it for being weak. If the problem was PC power levels, we wouldn't have want to fix the ranger, we would want to drag the other classes back to match it. But that's not what happened because that's not what sold. People didn't want less power. They wanted a ranger with no concentration hunters mark and then they whine when it can take a monster down in one round. The few nerfs 2024 did force (to moon druid, twin spell and paladin smite for example) were fought tooth and nail.

So I got zero sympathy for the community who championed moar power for D&D classes and then get shocked pikachu when the 2024 books balanced around that.

 

[TwoSix]

There is so much power creep. SO MUCH.

Every class is powered up. You could argue that martials need more oomph; but if that's the case, why bump up wizards and sorcerers too?

Pc choices have lost a lot of significance. You don't have to manage when to use your (allegedly limited) rages when you regain one when you roll initiative.

A lot of changes were made solely to make it easier to optimize your character.

One person's "optimize" is another person's "playable".

 

[Parmandur]

One person's "optimize" is another person's "playable".

Yeah, complaining that characters are more balanced and there aren't traps wiating for players is odd. 2014 was pretty difficult to mess up at character creation, but 2024 is even more streamlined while retaining differences and choice for the players.

 

[billd91]

So he likes the monster power of MM25, but doesn't like how they executed it, giving guard captains 18 strength and the like. Actually, I've had this problem as well, in that in order to present a proper, believable challenge to PCs I've had to use unbelievable methods: upping NPCs and other creatures stats to levels that seem crazy in the context of the world, but they end up working satisfactorily on a mechanical level. This is largely how the MM25 operates.

Well, that's the rub isn't it? If you need to increase the power of the opposition to the PCs, in a systematic way, you use the system to do so - and that may very well mean raising the stats of the NPCs to appropriate levels for their estimated CR. I am utterly non-fussed at this. The Guard Captain can pack a punch and isn't a pushover to shove around the battlefield because his Strength is on a par with the fighter PCs? Works for me!
Now, maybe this is people ultimately taking some issue with how stat-based D&D is now. If so, I don't disagree that it is pretty heavily based on them and I have some reservations about that. But that's a far more root problem than worrying that an NPC's stats are a couple of standard deviations away from the mean (assuming rolling on 3d6).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

There is so much power creep. SO MUCH.

Every class is powered up. You could argue that martials need more oomph; but if that's the case, why bump up wizards and sorcerers too?

Pc choices have lost a lot of significance. You don't have to manage when to use your (allegedly limited) rages when you regain one when you roll initiative.

A lot of changes were made solely to make it easier to optimize your character.

I do not see this, not really, the paladin was nerfed, at least with respect to its nova capabilities and the casters were nerfed in the spells. Though some new spells have issues but the only caster that unambiguously buffed in my opinion is the sorcerer.
I do not want to get into a big argument about where we both try to convince the other we are right because those generate more heat and smoke than light but as posting just to register that there are other perspectives on this matter.

Ask me again in a couple of years when I have seen more characters in action and perhaps some high level play.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, complaining that characters are more balanced and there aren't traps wiating for players is odd. 2014 was pretty difficult to mess up at character creation, but 2024 is even more streamlined while retaining differences and choice for the players.

I mean, there's an argument that allowing for suboptimal and weak choices is necessary to allow for more character concept visualization, and also as a way for system mastery to shine.

I don't agree with those arguments, but I can't say they have no validity.

 

[TiQuinn]

wasn’t it the other way around? It supported a wider variety in 2014 than it does in 2024, and that is what he is complaining about

My point is he’s still lashing out. Cries of MOAR POWER as if that’s an argument that everyone will simply nod and agree with just seem childish to me.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, there's an argument that allowing for suboptimal and weak choices is necessary to allow for more character concept visualization, and also as a way for system mastery to shine.

I don't agree with those arguments, but I can't say they have no validity.

Well, considering it was a design goal.of 2014 as well, the fact that 2024 is simply more successful at the stated design goals seems pretty unambiguous positive from a 5E perspective.

 

[TwoSix]

My point is he’s still lashing out. Cries of MOAR POWER as if that’s an argument that everyone will simply nod and agree with just seem childish to me.

For me, it was more the statements of "They're making changes for the game first, and not basing it on the STORY!"

That's been the cri de coeur of frustrated simulationists for decades now.