D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Rules Oddities (Kibbles’ Collected Complaints)

[ECMO3]

Disagree

This is not a matter of opinion, you are factually wrong

If you have up to 4 attacks a round using light dex weapons you can only use nick on one of them. The other three if they are nick weapons have no mastery bonus at all. If the other weapons are not nick weapons they are Vex weapons and Vex does nothing on a Ranger using Hunter's Mark at level 17+

Never heard of set-up I see.

No I've heard of it, and even used it myself and MOST of the time as I said it will be a waste because you won't hit with a single attack on the enemy you cast it on.

MOST of the time if you cast Hunter's Mark and do not attack on that turn you won't be able to damage the target with it next turn. The target can die, you can be either better off targeting someone else or it can be necessary to target someone else, you use an action other than attacking (most commonly a spell), you miss, you lose concentration. The combination of those add up to more than 50% of the time (i.e. MOST of the time like I said).

Most of the time in play if you use Hunter's Mark on a target with the intent to wait until the next round to attack that target you will get nothing out of it on that target. If you disbelieve this I wonder if you even have ever played a Ranger.

Also the main risk as far as the spell is concerned in "set up" is losing concentration and therefore wasting the slot/casting. However that is not the main issue. The main issue is the action economy and opportunity cost. If you "set up" you will often be using a bonus action you could be using for something else, and something with an immediate payoff.

Misunderstanding what I meant. I didn't mean they have few as in not many options, I meant they have a few options for how to accomplish that.

They have as many options as any other character using a light-vex weapon.

And now you are altering your own terms on me. Wonderful.

No I am stating a fact. Hunter's Mark is a spell? You didn't know this?

No "terms" involved there.

Not modifying them, just changing them... right.

I am using the 2024 rules like you asked for.

I am not changing them at all. The rules changed and with that the mechanics and their abilities changed.

AND YOU claimed nobody played Rangers like that.

Why is that bad design?

I really thought you were starting to get this. I've told you many times now and it seemed like on the last post you were actually starting to understand.

It is a bad design to have 4 class abilities based around 1 spell.

Oh and also it is a bad design to limit the 2nd level expertise to the two skills they get from the Ranger class.

Yeah, a system like that is never going to happen. You would end up with five pages of ranger abilities, where each level is offering ten different spell options. No thanks. Homebrew that if you like, but as a design it is horrible.

Ok. They are never going to make a well designed Ranger class for 2024.

I can (and in the games I DM I will) homebrew it into a well designed class, but the 2024 version will still be poorly designed.

It doesn't need to upcast. Also, I took out every single spell you listed that was not on the ranger's spell list. So, what you are really trying to say it seems, is that ranger's don't have good 1st level spells.

I don't care if it is from the Ranger spell list. A single-classed Ranger can get access to all of those spells (assuming you allow the 2014 version of Cause Fear in your game).

Hunter's Mark is a weak 1st level spell. It is weak on a Ranger, it is weak on a Paladin, it is weak on a fighter, it is weak on a Bard. It is a weak spell.

Hunter's Mark is not weak as a free cast, but using a slot for it - yes that is weak. There are many better Ranger spells (although those generally are not good either).

Not upcasting well means also means that in addition to being weak when you cast it using your 1st level slots, you get no benefit from upcasting it.

I also notice that of the very few spells you mentioned that deal damage, they all also create disadvantage on enemy attacks, or force movement. Hunter's Mark is far more comparable to a pure damage spell, which if you don't think those are good spells, would explain your position.

Three out of ten deal damage, and they are all better spells than Hunter's Mark.

Then why, in the above quote, did you do that twice more? Is it not bad class design if you have to concentrate on fog cloud or entangle?

No if they gave options for other spells it would not be a bad class design .... well except for the 2nd level expertise, which in addition to being poor design is also for some reason not consistent with the 9th level expertise.

But yes if they offered 5 or 6 different Ranger spells I could use that ability on then it would be a good class design other than the expertise thing.

Would it not be bad class design to do it for any of those other spells you listed as actually good 1st level spells that have concentration?

They are not on the Ranger spell list. I think some of them would be good for that kind of buff - Dissonant Whispers, Healing Word, Cause Fear and Wrathful Smite specifically and having an option for any Ranger to cast those with free castings along with higher level power boosts would be good. I have difficulty connecting the others to the Ranger thematically.

Having different options for these things would improve the class design tremendously.

Another option would be to have generic buffs instead of spell specific. Like the 18th level Wizard:

At 1st level pick any 1st level spell (or if you prefer any 1st level Ranger spell) and you get 2 free castings

At 15th level pick a 1st level spell with concentration, your concentration on this spell can not be broken by damage.

At 17th level, when you target a single creature with a spell that uses concentration, you have advantage attacking that creature as long as you are concentrating.

At 20th level, when you target a single creature with a spell that uses concentration you do additional 1d10 damage to that creature until you lose concentration. This damage replaces any damage done by the spell you are concentrating on.

Guess what - If these were the 4 features, you could pick Hunter's Mark as your spell and it would work exactly the same if that is what you wanted to do.

It doesn't seem to be inherently bad design, you just hate that it is a design focused on Hunter's Mark.

No it is a bad class design because it is focused on Hunter's Mark.

 

[Maxperson]

WotC supposedly did when they emphasized compatibility that much, those who want to mix and match do, which according to polls is about half of the players using 2024

Apparently D&D Beyond isn't going to be backwards compatible. They're going to render the character sheets and default rules you play with 2024 only, requiring the DMs to homebrew virtually all of 2014 in order to use those rules, which ensures that it will never happen. WotC is trying to sleaze their way around not making the platform backwards compatible by saying that the 2014 rules will be in the archive for people to reference, which of course makes them nearly useless during gameplay.

 

[Lanefan]

But this is going under the assumption that you ARE going to mix the versions of the rules without converting anything.

That's exactly what "backward compatibility" means: you can - or certainly should be able to - mix and match the two versions freely and without undue negative consequence.

Just like people did in the BX-1e-2e days.

 

[mamba]

Apparently D&D Beyond isn't going to be backwards compatible.

two wrongs don’t make a right, and if more players indeed wanted to mix and match than switch over, their approach might become a whole lot of trouble for DDB

 

[mellored]

two wrongs don’t make a right, and if more players indeed wanted to mix and match than switch over, their approach might become a whole lot of trouble for DDB

Depends on what you want to mix and match.

All the races, subclasses*, feats, and spells have no issues.

If your trying to build an old expetise grappler, then you will have some problems.

*Shepard druids probably need some tweaks.

 

[mamba]

All the races, subclasses*, feats, and spells have no issues.

apart from the 2014 versions no longer being available outside the compendium, which is not what I would consider ‘no issues’

Your mix & match is basically to follow the WotC guidelines and use 2024 whenever available. Not sure that is everyone’s idea of it

 

[FitzTheRuke]

apart from the 2014 versions no longer being available outside the compendium, which is not what I would consider ‘no issues’

I think that's true for Spells (and maybe Feats), but it's not true for Races, Classes, and Subclasses. Those will just be marked Legacy and still available to pick for your character.

Your mix & match is basically to follow the WotC guidelines and use 2024 whenever available. Not sure that is everyone’s idea of it

Yeah, if you want to mix-n-match Basic Rules, you'll have to look 'em up in a book if you don't remember them, as opposed to whaddayacall hyperlink quick-ref, but you can still use those rules if you remember how they work. You can certainly do it at the table if you're not using Beyond, too.

It's really likely that it's a logistics issue when it comes to beyond, one that they don't want to bother paying to fix, rather than an intended break to backwards compatibility.

I use Beyond to look up rules, and half the time it's easier to look them up in a specific book (rather than search for them) - but that's only because Beyond is getting worse at searching. It's not a great user interface overall, but it's better than anything we've ever had for D&D before. This is (probably) just a reflection of DDB not being better.

 

[mamba]

Yeah, if you want to mix-n-match Basic Rules, you'll have to look 'em up in a book if you don't remember them, as opposed to whaddayacall hyperlink quick-ref, but you can still use those rules if you remember how they work. You can certainly do it at the table if you're not using Beyond, too.

sure, you can do it at the table, you never had any support there that you would now be losing. That is not true for DDB however, there you are losing support

It's really likely that it's a logistics issue when it comes to beyond, one that they don't want to bother paying to fix, rather than an intended break to backwards compatibility.

I assume it is, if they could do it they would, since they are supposedly doing it for the parts where they can. That they never bothered doing anything about this issue is on them however

I use Beyond to look up rules, and half the time it's easier to look them up in a specific book (rather than search for them) - but that's only because Beyond is getting worse at searching. It's not a great user interface overall, but it's better than anything we've ever had for D&D before. This is (probably) just a reflection of DDB not being better.

being better than what we had 10+ years ago is not much of a hurdle to clear. They are resting a bit much on their purchased laurels imo

 

[mellored]

apart from the 2014 versions no longer being available outside the compendium, which is not what I would consider ‘no issues’

They will be available, just with a "legacy" tag.

Or litterally any old physical book.

 

[mamba]

They will be available, just with a "legacy" tag.

so I can select an old race / class in the char builder?

Or litterally any old physical book.

not that helpful when it comes to using the content in DDB…