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

[Not a Decepticon]

The OP is vocally anti-5.5e. This whole thread is designed to tell people how badwrongfun it is to play it.

My critical analysis of the OP is that he nitpicks about too many things that just don’t really matter. I’m fairly certain I could find a million things like that from 2014 as well, but literally no one focused on such things. We just kind of accepted them as gameplay contrivances and moved on.

Yeah, I have the same issue, the complaints about minor issues (like whole thing with Barbarians being able to stealth with rage) and changes give an impression of very bad-faith reading of the classes, not helped by a supposed issue with Monk being anecdotal at best. There is some merit to the complaints but the longer this goes, the more I have a "broken clock right twice a day" feeling about the things I agree with. That or the "if you keep throwing goo at the wall, some of it is going to stick eventually" or in other words "if you complain about everything, you will also complain about actual problems".

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, I have the same issue, the complaints about minor issues (like whole thing with Barbarians being able to stealth with rage) and changes give an impression of very bad-faith reading of the classes, not helped by a supposed issue with Monk being anecdotal at best. There is some merit to the complaints but the longer this goes, the more I have a "broken clock right twice a day" feeling about the things I agree with. That or the "if you keep throwing goo at the wall, some of it is going to stick eventually" or in other words "if you complain about everything, you will also complain about actual problems".

This. People cant seem to work out what they personally like isnt universal.

If you dont like an edition don't buy it. If enough people agree with you that edition does.

Cant appeal to everyone.

 

[Mistwell]

If you're not reviewing the subclasses, you're not reviewing the class. Subclass design is now integral to the class design itself. This reads like someone just reading the classes without having played much with them and seen how the subclasses mesh with the class, and how the classes mesh with each other.

Example: every Barbarian subclass gives you ways to resist effects which are not B/P/S. By leaving them out, you concluded the class was more vulnerable to these things. In play you rapidly find it's the opposite.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I personally like multiclassing. All fun builds I want to try include it, I do not think I would liek the game so much if it was removed.

Multiclassing (along with subclasses) is the cornerstone of the character build mini-game, and, as silly as it seems, the character build mini-game is a huge part of what keeps me forever excited to play more 5e (or even it's degenerate 2024 flavor). I can totally accept arguments for why it creates all sorts of design complications the game would be better without, but fundamentally without multiclassing I probably just wouldn't have stayed engaged with the game after I'd played like 5 or 6 characters and would probably just prefer a classless ttrpg.

 

[Clint_L]

I provided my two cents on several OneD&D surveys, and the final product ultimately shows that the designers didn't care what I thought or what I enjoyed about their game. And I think that, rather than pondering what might have been, it's not worth giving any more consideration to said final product.

You think that the fact that their choices didn't reflect exactly your tastes, out of the thousands upon thousands of respondents, means "the designers didn't care what I thought or what I enjoyed about their game"? Do you think that you are the perfectly representative sample, or something?

Guess what: their choices didn't reflect my feedback perfectly either. Or anyone else's. That's the nature of a game with millions of players.

You're not a victim because WotC didn't choose to cater their updated rules to your specifications. If you don't like the new rules, don't use them, but acting like you've been personally slighted is a bit much.

Or is it that you expected everyone to agree with you, and are discovering that there are as many opinions as there are people? Your criticisms are valid...for you. And that's fine. They've sparked some interesting discussion, with agreement and disagreement. What more do you want from a thread on a forum?

To paraphrase someone wiser than me: It's all just, like, our opinions, man.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you're not reviewing the subclasses, you're not reviewing the class. Subclass design is now integral to the class design itself. This reads like someone just reading the classes without having played much with them and seen how the subclasses mesh with the class, and how the classes mesh with each other.

Example: every Barbarian subclass gives you ways to resist effects which are not B/P/S. By leaving them out, you concluded the class was more vulnerable to these things. In play you rapidly find it's the opposite.

Sierra. I found a lit of force and radiant effects incoming

 

[Clint_L]

Here's one of my opinions that I can see from your initial comments you don't agree with: the 2014 monk was poorly designed and underpowered, and the 2024 monk is a vast improvement, though deflect attacks is OP. I love the change to stunning strike. Have at it - tell me why I'm wrong. I'm interested in your perspective.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I think, if the OP doesn't want to do it anymore, that is fine. We all need to figure out the best way to spend our own time. I enjoyed reading these, even when I didn't necessarily agree with them. I like seeing what people think does or does not work, and why. So, I'll be a bit disappointed that it's not happening, but again, gotta do what works for you OP.

I think there is merit to figuring out your problems with the system, even though WotC isn't going to change things at our beck and call. Unless you are playing in Adventure League, houserules are an option, and critical look at a system can help develop them. That includes having feedback that may disagree with you.

 

[Sulicius]

Gonna take a break from these, if not halt them altogether.

'Cause honestly, it's not like it matters. The revised rules have had a divided reception, and people who dislike the 2024 changes to stuff are already well aware of how changes to class features and game mechanics can negatively impact the characters they enjoy playing. Likewise, people who like the revised rules most likely don't mind the loss of features or capabilities that other players are disappointed by the lack of.

I don't see WotC going back and doing a Tasha's-style set of optional features to address 2024 critics' issues with the classes. They're not going to add back Magical Inspiration or Focused Aim or Land's Stride or any other omitted or nerfed feature when there really was no good reason to not retain most of those features—unless you genuinely believe that people who don't care about them justify taking away these features and options from people who do. And furthermore, I don't see the people who support the changes to the classes or disagree with others' issues with them being able to provide any good rationale as to why these features were dropped, why it's fine for several classes now to not do or not do as well things they previously could when others get their versatility significantly expanded, why certain classes get limitations others don't have or miss out on things others get.

I provided my two cents on several OneD&D surveys, and the final product ultimately shows that the designers didn't care what I thought or what I enjoyed about their game. And I think that, rather than pondering what might have been, it's not worth giving any more consideration to said final product.

Oh well! I would still recommend you trying it sometime. I think you might get lost in minutia of little features you like.

I am very confused why you keep bringing up that the classes are worse than they were before. The Tasha's optional features are still there, just like all spells, magic items and other features from the older books.

The only real nerfs are paladin smites and monk stuns, both of which warped the game's style.

I dunno, I appreciate the effort, but it just feels like the rationale comes after the verdict here.

 

[Horwath]

dumbest thing about 5.5e is moving all sub-classes to 3rd level.
sub classes, all of them should be at level 1!.

now, what power level of that 1st level feature it is can be debated and in most cases needs to be split between 1st and 3rd level, but what is mandatory for 1st level is:

extra skill proficiencies,
extra armor and weapon proficiencies,
bonus spells prepared.


rest can wait for 3rd level.

IE: dragon sorcerer can have AC bonus of +1 per sorcerer level, capped at Cha bonus, if +3 AC is too much for 1st level(it's not).

battlemaster can get two dice at d6 at 1st level and be upgraded to four dice at d8 at 3rd level as normal.