D&D General D&D 2024 does not deserve to succeed

[Retreater]

Monster design has worked* ever since the DMG 2014 was in print. Just because people don't follow the instructions doesn't mean they don't work.

*By "work" I mean for the purpose of determining CR as developed by 5e.

Are we talking about CR as a function of 8+ encounters per day?
The monster design in the Monster Manual itself doesn't even work.

 

[dave2008]

Are we talking about CR as a function of 8+ encounters per day?

No, that is encounter design, not monster design

The monster design in the Monster Manual itself doesn't even work.

Yes they do. Of course "work," is actually a very vague term in this context and not particularly clear or helpful. As designed they can both work and not work depending on how they are used. So it provides very little real information to say they work or don't work

 

[Chaltab]

No, that is encounter design, not monster design

Yes they do. Of course "work," is actually a very vague term in this context and not particularly clear or helpful. As designed they can both work and not work depending on how they are used. So it provides very little real information to say they work or don't work

i think the biggest problem was going back to level/CR as the only measure of a monsters power without reading it. I wish Monster roles were a thing in the core 5e design. A table that tells you what CR counts a minion, standard, elite and solo at each APL would be a start.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And monster design is all over the place. You can have them very overpowered (Kobold Press) or amazingly weak (Odyssey of the Dragonlords).

And the DM can select them based on the skill of the players, power of their characters, and the desired difficulty of the encounter. I see no problem.

Largely because in 10 years designers and DMs never got guidelines for monster creation.

It's an art, not a science, and different people are going to be trying to achieve different things.

(Or a functional magic item economy,

The base assumption is there is no economy, magic items are too rare.

ideas of how to award items

Its easy: as the DM sees fit.

, a decent encounter building system.)

The DM decides what monsters they want the players to encounter, simples.

I'm still waiting for them to finish the 2014 books.

And I'm still waiting for them to finish 1st edition. Because the truth is, D&D is never "finished", there is always more you can do, and a good job too for all those people trying to earn a crust from it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

the only measure of a monsters power without reading it.

If the DM doesn't read (and evaluate) the stat block they aren't doing their job.

 

[Oofta]

Monster design has worked* ever since the DMG 2014 was in print. Just because people don't follow the instructions doesn't mean they don't work.

*By "work" I mean for the purpose of determining CR as developed by 5e.

As with many things, whether CR works or not just depends on the situation. For example it seems to me that the CR for lycanthropes is underpowered if the group's martial have silver or magic weapons. Many caster NPCs are likewise underpowered if they can be easily targeted. On the other hand, flying monsters are overpowered if the group doesn't have good ranged attacks.

There is no such thing as a perfect CR system because it just varies depending on the capability of the group and specific strengths and weaknesses of the party. It will only ever be a general estimation and you need to take into consideration the party, the situation, the environmental factors.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not intending to be snarky at all, but writing completely in earnest... Is 2024 improved at all? I've heard of completely broken spells, combinations that don't work, all discovered within hours of getting the book.
I've heard "worse than 2014" from reviewers ... several of them. I've heard it called a rush job.
I get the impression that this is just a product for a product's sake - no real improvement or refinement to the game.

The PHB is mostly a player side supplement - although there are numerous QoL changes. Balance is better than ever before while the new feats lead to greater build diversity (+2 ASI is boring). In general:

For players or DMs of the following classes it's an almost complete win other than maybe one niggle:

• Barbarian
• Druid (moon druids: you were broken from 2-4 and you know it. You now scale better)
• Fighter (melee)
• Monk
• Sorcerer (other than non-tentacle "psion" Aberrant minds)
• Warlock

High end melee DPR is now better than ranged (as it should be) - mostly through getting rid of power attack on sharpshooter. And martial melee is a lot more satisfying.

The following classes have had meta-shifts

• Clerics are slightly improved but the biggest change is decoupling the armour and the weapon Vs cantrip from the subclass for more flexibility
• Ranger archers got nerfed hard - but two weapon fighting is making monster cuisine art (two attacks with each weapon at L5 is possible). But the ranger is otherwise little changed from Tasha's
• Paladins are no longer the same smite-bots; smite takes a bonus action but other things like basic weapon combat were improved (and lay on hands is also a bonus action). Also "pure charisma paladins" are no longer so dominant
• Rogues are significantly improved (and much closer to archer rangers) but monks and even fighters got improved way more leaving rogues trailing the pack

Wizards got very little; they were at the front of the pack before and only get the same four PHB subclasses as everyone else. So everyone caught up a lot.

I haven't forgotten bards - I'm just not sure where they have landed

 

[Retreater]

And the DM can select them based on the skill of the players, power of their characters, and the desired difficulty of the encounter. I see no problem.

It's an art, not a science, and different people are going to be trying to achieve different things.

The base assumption is there is no economy, magic items are too rare.

Its easy: as the DM sees fit.

The DM decides what monsters they want the players to encounter, simples.

And I'm still waiting for them to finish 1st edition. Because the truth is, D&D is never "finished", there is always more you can do, and a good job too for all those people trying to earn a crust from it.

So what you're saying, game design is basically on the DM because the team couldn't be bothered to figure out a workable solution? In which case, why are we even playing this game? Why don't I just pull anything out of the Monster Manual and say "well, there's your fight?" Why don't I just tell my players their characters get no treasure because "it's rare and there are no guidelines?"
That might've worked in 1977. Doesn't work today. Players want better than that. DMs want better than that.
Do you know how many of my 5e campaigns have ended in TPKs? Practically all of them. The others end because it gets boring because there's no challenge. Two extremes. Because there is no guidance.

 

[Senior_WotC_Janitor]

Yeah, sure. Uh huh.. Ok…

But I like D&D so…

View attachment 378363

And your opinion is pretty naughty word so...

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

And your opinion is pretty naughty word so...

You know what they say opinions are like.