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

[TheSword]

A wizard with just scorching ray and conjure minor elemental upcast to a high level slot may not be the best but is still capable of killing most monsters in 1 turn after the buff is up.

Worth noting that Conjure Minor Elemental now specifically references attacks and pg 15 describes an attack as ‘an attack with a weapon or an unarmed strike.’

Hunters mark on the other hand references ‘attack rolls’ which is described as any time you try to beat someone’s AC.

As @mellored has pointed out in his other thread it’s still possible to get several attacks with light weapons etc but it’s much harder and less useful for a wizard or druid. So the spell goes from being outrageous to merely great.

 

[FrogReaver]

Worth noting that Conjure Minor Elemental now specifically references attacks and pg 15 describes an attack as ‘an attack with a weapon or an unarmed strike.’

Hunters mark on the other hand references ‘attack rolls’ which is described as any time you try to beat someone’s AC.

As @mellored has pointed out in his other thread it’s still possible to get several attacks with light weapons etc but it’s much harder and less useful for a wizard or druid. So the spell goes from being outrageous to merely great.

I think I found the text you are referencing, but it’s explicitly about the attack action. Pg 12?

If I go to pg 25 under the making an attack section spells are specifically called attacks here.

 

[TheSword]

I think I found the text you are referencing, but it’s explicitly about the attack action. Pg 12?

If I go to pg 25 under the making an attack section spells are specifically called attacks here.

That piece is talking about attack yes which is an action. Attack is also described as an action in the glossary.

As I said every other spell I’ve seen that also includes other attack rolls has the word ‘attack roll’ in description - Hex, Hunters Mark, Bless all say that. Even powers like Divine Strike say attack roll.

So the fact that this spell specifically calls out Attack and is the only spell to do so is good enough for me. Until they clarify otherwise when given the choice of one interpretation which seems grossly overpowered and one equally valid interpretation being merely very good - I’ll chose the newly very good one.

 

[FrogReaver]

That piece is talking about attack yes which is an action. Attack is also described as an action in the glossary.

As I said every other spell I’ve seen that also includes other attack rolls has the word ‘attack roll’ in description - Hex, Hunters Mark, Bless all say that. Even powers like Divine Strike say attack roll.

So the fact that this spell specifically calls out Attack and is the only spell to do so is good enough for me. Until they clarify otherwise when given the choice of one interpretation which seems grossly overpowered and one equally valid interpretation being merely very good - I’ll chose the newly very good one.

When your whole premise is saying that attack instead of attack roll means weapons/unarmed only, then that premise better stand up to the rest of the book. But pg 25 says spells can be attacks, thus premise disproven. Not really sure how you double down after that.

 

[sevenbastard]

How many PCs are you (and/or your players) going to make and play between now and the end of October?

Lots of player of the game never buy the DMG so will never have access. So having rules in the DMG isn't a fix.

Also page 177 of the PHB doesn't in any way direct players to the DMG or to talk to the DM about it.

The side bar in page 38 mixed in with ability score info and gives you permission to pick a 2014 background but you have to own the 2014 book.

Self containing all the rules and options in one book makes it easier for all players and especially new players who are less likely to understand that houserules are and option.

Yes I can figure it out, yes I have decades of play experience and understand rules are just guidelines. But in the interest of making a more versatile system and and easier in future printing they should add a sidebar to page 177 to help new players.

 

[TheSword]

When your whole premise is saying that attack instead of attack roll means weapons/unarmed only, then that premise better stand up to the rest of the book. But pg 25 says spells can be attacks, thus premise disproven. Not really sure how you double down after that.

As I said. There is enough doubt for me because of the distinctions in spell descriptions I detailed and the fact that the passage you quoted only mentioned spells in the context of spell attack rolls not the attack action. Where there is doubt I take the sensible version. As I’m DM it really is as simple as that, and for any DMs with similar concerns I suggest they take the same approach unless it’s clarified otherwise - at which point I ban the spell.

 

[TheSword]

Lots of player of the game never buy the DMG so will never have access. So having rules in the DMG isn't a fix.

Also page 177 of the PHB doesn't in any way direct players to the DMG or to talk to the DM about it.

The side bar in page 38 mixed in with ability score info and gives you permission to pick a 2014 background but you have to own the 2014 book.

Self containing all the rules and options in one book makes it easier for all players and especially new players who are less likely to understand that houserules are and option.

Yes I can figure it out, yes I have decades of play experience and understand rules are just guidelines. But in the interest of making a more versatile system and and easier in future printing they should add a sidebar to page 177 to help new players.

If you’re a new player you’re probably gonna be fine with one of the existing 16 options.

 

[sevenbastard]

If you’re a new player you’re probably gonna be fine with one of the existing 16 options.

Probably. but why gatekeep this one option? It's not one that is overly complicated or they can really do wrong.

 

[OB1]

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!

 

[Demetrios1453]

Probably. but why gatekeep this one option? It's not one that is overly complicated or they can really do wrong.

They're gatekeeping 16 options, not one.