D&D (2024) 2024 PHB - A much too early review

[mamba]

My solution is to put rules relevant to particular PH in that PH.

and a rule how to deal with older material is relevant in the new book…

 

[Shardstone]

My own quick review post running my first session with a mix of '24 and Legacy characters and spells, using the '24 rule adjustments for everything else. The session was run virtually in DDB and Discord. This was our second session in QftIS, the first having been played about six weeks ago.

The team at WotC succeeded in what they were trying to do. The game is absolutely fully compatible with 2014, and the changes, especially for martials with weapon masteries, are wonderful in play and result in completly fresh feeling combats (the '24 Ranger going on a Vex short sword roll of 6 attacks with advantage in a row against a Mummy was a highlight). My players, none of who followed the playtest, enjoyed the session, and the two who had not yet converted plan on doing so before our session next week, not because they felt underpowered, bur rather because the additional options the Ranger had made combat more dynamic. It took the player who did convert only minutes to make the changes in DDB prior to the session, and she really felt the changes to the Ranger made a huge impact in play.

It's only one session, but IMO, D&D is set up for the next decade with this rules refresh. Highly recommend making the switch!

This is my experience. I truly question why anyone would prefer 2014 martials over weapon masteries beyond unwillingness to change.

 

[Oofta]

My solution is to put rules relevant to particular PH in that PH.

If you're going to do that why stop at backgrounds? There are races we don't have species for, subclasses, spells. We can't include them all.

There seems to be an apparent assumption that if you're making modifications to the core game, that decision should be made by the DM. While I don't see an issue with a make-your-own background option, it's also going to largely be a non-issue in a couple of months. Every group is going to want access to at least 1 DMG like we always have. If you don't care about the 2014 version of the rules there's no reason to include them in the 2024 version.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

This is my experience. I truly question why anyone would prefer 2014 martials over weapon masteries beyond unwillingness to change.

Maybe its because I dont like the way they implemented those buffs to martial. I think masteries as presented in 2024 are dull and spammy. I think martials deserve way better than those meager ''masteries''; they are better than nothing I guess, but still far from a breath of fresh air from a design perspective.

I still think converting 4e martial at-wills and making them scale like cantrips would have been way better. I was hoping for something closer to Level Up maneuvers.

So no, its not because I dont like change. Its because I think they didnt change enough.

 

[Shardstone]

Maybe its because I dont like the way they implemented those buffs to martial. I think masteries as presented in 2024 are dull and spammy. I think martials deserve way better than those meager ''masteries''; they are better than nothing I guess, but still far from a breath of fresh air from a design perspective.

I still think converting 4e martial at-wills and making them scale like cantrips would have been way better. I was hoping for something closer to Level Up maneuvers.

So no, its not because I dont like change. Its because I think they didnt change enough.

Well if you made your own conversions and rules and subsystems, you have modded the system, so you arent who im thinking about with that post. Likewise someone playing A5E is also prob not gonna use masteries, cuz they have maneuvers etc.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Well if you made your own conversions and rules and subsystems, you have modded the system, so you arent who im thinking about with that post. Likewise someone playing A5E is also prob not gonna use masteries, cuz they have maneuvers etc.

I think something closer to BG3 ''encounter'' powers varying for each weapon type would have been the best for my table.
I think 5e lacks this layer of resources.

There's also the fact that in the end, its just ''moar damage, moar boom-boom-pow'' for martials, instead of more varied possibilties outside of combat

 

[Oofta]

I think something closer to BG3 ''encounter'' powers varying for each weapon type would have been the best for my table.
I think 5e lacks this layer of resources.

There's also the fact that in the end, its just ''moar damage, moar boom-boom-pow'' for martials, instead of more varied possibilties outside of combat

More complex is not an improvement for a lot of people. If you want more complex options, there are still plenty of options including 3PP. Some people like simple, I know I do at times.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is my experience. I truly question why anyone would prefer 2014 martials over weapon masteries beyond unwillingness to change.

I’m not a fan of weapon masteries. That said they are also not something I’d avoid playing 2024 over.

And besides, something was needed to boost martial power IMO. So if it wasn’t weapon masteries something else would have been added.

 

[Micah Sweet]

and a rule how to deal with older material is relevant in the new book…

They could have used that same space to suggest custome backgrounds, and not had to refer to a functionally out of print book.

 

[mamba]

They could have used that same space to suggest custome backgrounds, and not had to refer to a functionally out of print book.

they will do that in the DMG from my understanding, so that space would not be used for that regardless