D&D 5E (2024) A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes (and loser fanboys)

[Sulicius]

So I'm going to point out that seven people thumbs-up'd this post before I reply to it. Seven people.

Part of the reason I decided to not bother continuing with this was, to be frank, there's a very real tendency for 2024 fans to be dismissive towards people who criticize the revised rules. There was one post earlier in this thread, when raising a particular point toward one class that made little sense (the Barbarian having restrictions on their Weapon Mastery options when no other class with the feature does) and one response to this was "I don't mind".

It wasn't an argument to justify the design choice or disagree with the criticism, it was simply..."this isn't a problem because I don't care". And that's pretty much a big problem when you go to critiquing 2024 design choices, because there's very many that negatively impact other players' characters, builds, and thus game experience...and that many people simply go "I don't mind, it doesn't bother me".

And why am I bringing this up in response to your post? The tendency for 2024 fans to be dismissive, belligerent, degrading of dissenting opinions on the revision?

Between the three class critiques I did, I used the word "lazy" to describe all of two features. (To note: giving the Barbarian a 17th-level feature that gives "use the options you already had but two of them" for Brutal Strikes, and giving the Cleric Wish as their 20th-level feature.)

So in large part, there is no real reason to take the time to analyze and critique the 2024 classes when many responses will already be coming in with a refusal to seriously consider any of the points made...and then get their pats on the back, affirmation, encouragement from like-minded people from such a (dare I say it?) lazy take on the thread.

Have you played 2024 D&D yet?

 

[eclair~]

Have you played 2024 D&D yet?

The fifth post in this thread.

I'll note too that "obviously you haven't even played it!" is another perfect example of lazy dismissal of others' opinions.

 

[Sulicius]

The fifth post in this thread.

I'll note too that "obviously you haven't even played it!" is another perfect example of lazy dismissal of others' opinions.

No, asking for someone’s experience is a very normal thing to do.

I looked at all of your points, reflected on them and ask questions. Why call that lazy? Just because I don’t agree with you?

 

[FrogReaver]

No, asking for someone’s experience is a very normal thing to do.

I looked at all of your points, reflected on them and ask questions. Why call that lazy? Just because I don’t agree with you?

I don’t think it’s logical to dismiss criticism simply because of lack of experience. To me that comes across as a lazy dismissal.

 

[Sulicius]

I don’t think it’s logical to dismiss criticism simply because of lack of experience. To me that comes across as a lazy dismissal.

I didn’t dismiss the criticism. OP just doesn’t like that his criticism can be criticized.

Like, I can’t even be honest and say “I don’t mind” something. If barbarians would or would not have mastery for ranged weapons, I would have no strong feelings about it.

I had never considered it before OP remarked about it. That is all.

Look, there is a lot not to like about the 2024 classes for 5e, but hardly everyone agrees on the same things. Was anyone expecting that we would all nod and agree with OP?

 

[FrogReaver]

So I'm going to point out that seven people thumbs-up'd this post before I reply to it. Seven people.

Part of the reason I decided to not bother continuing with this was, to be frank, there's a very real tendency for 2024 fans to be dismissive towards people who criticize the revised rules. There was one post earlier in this thread, when raising a particular point toward one class that made little sense (the Barbarian having restrictions on their Weapon Mastery options when no other class with the feature does) and one response to this was "I don't mind".

IMO if your critique is going to be filled with points about stuff as weak as Barbarian Weapon Mastery restrictions then it’s probably in your interest not to post those critiques as a bunch of weak sauce critiques usually undermines your credibility on the more important ones.

It wasn't an argument to justify the design choice or disagree with the criticism, it was simply..."this isn't a problem because I don't care". And that's pretty much a big problem when you go to critiquing 2024 design choices, because there's very many that negatively impact other players' characters, builds, and thus game experience...and that many people simply go "I don't mind, it doesn't bother me".

To be fair, your criticism of it amounted to ‘barbarians are the only ones that have a restriction on weapon mastery to melee weapons and you personally find that bizarre since they have proficiency with ranged weapons’. Someone saying I don’t find that bizarre seems like a perfectly valid response. IMO.

And why am I bringing this up in response to your post? The tendency for 2024 fans to be dismissive, belligerent, degrading of dissenting opinions on the revision?

I criticized 2024 in this very thread. I didn’t get any pushback. I’ve seen others do the same. Maybe it’s not criticism is general but your specific criticisms that are being pushed back on?

I’ll give another 2024 critique. Classes in 2024 feel a lot stronger even at low levels. Many would consider them feeling too strong which can detract from commonly desired roleplaying experiences.

So in large part, there is no real reason to take the time to analyze and critique the 2024 classes when many responses will already be coming in with a refusal to seriously consider any of the points made...and then get their pats on the back, affirmation, encouragement from like-minded people from such a (dare I say it?) lazy take on the thread.

I think the problem was that your format incintivized you to try to find a criticism about every individual feature no matter how minor.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn’t dismiss the criticism. OP just doesn’t like that his criticism can be criticized.

Framing it as your opinion is invalid without experience isn’t criticizing the criticism though…

Like, I can’t even be honest and say “I don’t mind” something. If barbarians would or would not have mastery for ranged weapons, I would have no strong feelings about it.

I agree.

Look, there is a lot not to like about the 2024 classes for 5e, but hardly everyone agrees on the same things. Was anyone expecting that we would all nod and agree with OP?

My only point toward you was that requiring experience to criticize something doesn’t make sense. The points rise or fall independent of one’s experience.

 

[eclair~]

I think the problem was that your format incintivized you to try to find a criticism about every individual feature no matter how minor.

Except that's not true at all, and drives home again that the entire idea of the thread is pointless: the sort of person who doesn't even read any of the posts before instinctively dismissing and belittling differing opinions, because they don't actually care what other people think.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except that's not true at all, and drives home again that the entire idea of the thread is pointless: the sort of person who doesn't even read any of the posts before instinctively dismissing and belittling differing opinions, because they don't actually care what other people think.

how exactly isn’t it true? Did you not go feature by feature down the Barbarian and say something negative about each unless there was no change?

 

[Eric V]

I didn’t dismiss the criticism. OP just doesn’t like that his criticism can be criticized.

Like, I can’t even be honest and say “I don’t mind” something.

Ok, but to be fair, the italicized part is not proof of the bolded part.

As well, I went back and checked, and it's seems it's true that he used the word lazy twice, and not "for any and all design choices he didn't like."