Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lazybones" data-source="post: 9816609" data-attributes="member: 143">I haven't seen a barbarian or bard yet in my current 2024 game, so I don't have any in-game experience with those classes other than solo playtesting. However, my experience overall (~50 sessions in) has been that the 2024 classes and subclasses are better balanced with each other, especially when one takes into account the additions from Xanathar's and Tasha's, which I think everyone agrees introduced some quite unbalanced options for some of the classes. The power creep overall with this edition of the rules is real, but isn't a problem as long as the challenges keep place, which I have found to be the case. I have even started using 2024 MM monsters in one of my 2014 campaigns, as I think the higher-level options are better.The original poster seems to take the worst possible interpretation of all of the changes in 2024. For example, they say it's "bizarre" and "doesn't really make sense" that a cleric becoming incapacitated or dying ends a turning, but to me that makes more sense, and it's consistent with almost every depiction of priests in fantasy media. Similarly, they find the revisions to Divine Intervention to reflect "DM-antagonism," but as a forever DM, I actually find it helpful to provide more specific expectations for this ability rather than having the outcomes of big encounters or major plot points relying on a low-chance d% roll. There are other instances of this, but I disagree so fundamentally with the OP's initial assumption about "blind power creep" that I don't really want to go through all of their points in detail.I do appreciate the suggestions for "fixes" as things to consider for house rules; I've adopted a few of those to correct some of the 2024-ruleset exploits others have raised in this forum.</blockquote>

Verification