D&D General Did 5e 2024 Not meet the economic goals set, and if not, why not?

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of the rules is out there for free, and people ar happy to teach you. If you are interested, I run one-shots from time to time. Could be fun!

Schedule permitting I am down with that. IM me if you please.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The main complaint I've heard is the new grapple rules (because it's always the grapple rules) make PC grapplers non-viable

Well alright, I don't care about grappling. Let me introduce you to some of my main complaints:

1. I think the whole edition was premised on a wrongheaded view of simplicity. It is now a simpler game in a top down sense of using the same keywords whatever, but it is now a harder game to get started with because everything plugs you straight into whole mini-systems of things (ie: feats). It is easier to get system mastery now, but there are larger barriers to entry to just play a low level character.

2. In the pursuit of "balance", "simplicity" or whatever player options, spells, etc. have lost a lot of uniqueness in favor of copy-paste mechanics. Everything feels samey.

3. Using the same established name for most spells, abilities, feats, etc, and having them mostly be mostly the same but then having a few things be completely different is really just creating an obnoxious minefield for 5e veterans.

4. Insisting on 2024 D&D also being "5e" has now made googling a spell or monster for either harder, slowing down game tables around the world.

5. I despise the culling of half-elves and half-orcs. It's certainly ironic that an effort to avoid sensitivities around concepts of "race" has ultimately ended with an enforcement of racial purity.

6. Doubling the output of the basic healing spells makes healing less precious and players less likely to venture forth not a full health. It also means that if a table is mixing and matching spells between editions they have to have a conversation about which healing spells they are using.

7. Free heroic inspiration abilities undermine what inspiration was supposed to be.

8. I think weapon mastery properties add complication without adding much real value and are just a thing martial characters get. If they were unlocked by feats such that players who actually wanted to commit to them had them I'd consider them pretty cool (though I think some weapons clearly have the wrong properties), but as is it's just one more fiddly bit I have to master to DM a game.

9. People seem to fawn over the new style of conjuring and summoning spell where you summon a spirit with a stat-block next to the spell instead of pulling something out of the monster manual. I hate it. I don't like the level of abstraction between the fake thing that only exists in the spell and the fake thing that is supposed to actually exist in the fantasy world that all this "spirit" nonsense evokes. I didn't really like the 5e summonses because I felt they usually (with a few exceptions like your Summon Greater Demon demon going on the loose) brought in a mindless, personality-less sack of hitpoints when summoning should involve bringing in a being from the fictional universe with personality and consequences, but 5.5 has just gone further from what I want.

10. Generally many of the objective improvements there are aren't really innovations for those already using the Tasha's optional class features, and common, basic homebrew rules. In other words I'm not giving them credit for making drinking a potion a bonus action; most people were already playing that way.

Now I'm not going to not play 2024 D&D or anything. If that's what the table wants that's what I'll play. None of it ruins the game for me. But basically from my perspective they made my favorite game about 5% worse and made me buy a bunch of books and spend dozens of hours carefully digesting them in order to parse out how it works if I want to keep being able to freely play and DM at any "5e" table. Even if I considered it five percent better that would be deeply obnoxious to me.

 

[TheSword]

Well alright, I don't care about grappling. Let me introduce you to some of my main complaints:

1. I think the whole edition was premised on a wrongheaded view of simplicity. It is now a simpler game in a top down sense of using the same keywords whatever, but it is now a harder game to get started with because everything plugs you straight into whole mini-systems of things (ie: feats). It is easier to get system mastery now, but there are larger barriers to entry to just play a low level character.

2. In the pursuit of "balance", "simplicity" or whatever player options, spells, etc. have lost a lot of uniqueness in favor of copy-paste mechanics. Everything feels samey.

3. Using the same established name for most spells, abilities, feats, etc, and having them mostly be mostly the same but then having a few things be completely different is really just creating an obnoxious minefield for 5e veterans.

4. Insisting on 2024 D&D also being "5e" has now made googling a spell or monster for either harder, slowing down game tables around the world.

5. I despise the culling of half-elves and half-orcs. It's certainly ironic that an effort to avoid sensitivities around concepts of "race" has ultimately ended with an enforcement of racial purity.

6. Doubling the output of the basic healing spells makes healing less precious and players less likely to venture forth not a full health. It also means that if a table is mixing and matching spells between editions they have to have a conversation about which healing spells they are using.

7. Free heroic inspiration abilities undermine what inspiration was supposed to be.

8. I think weapon mastery properties add complication without adding much real value and are just a thing martial characters get. If they were unlocked by feats such that players who actually wanted to commit to them had them I'd consider them pretty cool (though I think some weapons clearly have the wrong properties), but as is it's just one more fiddly bit I have to master to DM a game.

9. People seem to fawn over the new style of conjuring and summoning spell where you summon a spirit with a stat-block next to the spell instead of pulling something out of the monster manual. I hate it. I don't like the level of abstraction between the fake thing that only exists in the spell and the fake thing that is supposed to actually exist in the fantasy world that all this "spirit" nonsense evokes. I didn't really like the 5e summonses because I felt they usually (with a few exceptions like your Summon Greater Demon demon going on the loose) brought in a mindless, personality-less sack of hitpoints when summoning should involve bringing in a being from the fictional universe with personality and consequences, but 5.5 has just gone further from what I want.

10. Generally many of the objective improvements there are aren't really innovations for those already using the Tasha's optional class features, and common, basic homebrew rules. In other words I'm not giving them credit for making drinking a potion a bonus action; most people were already playing that way.

Now I'm not going to not play 2024 D&D or anything. If that's what the table wants that's what I'll play. None of it ruins the game for me. But basically from my perspective they made my favorite game about 5% worse and made me buy a bunch of books and spend dozens of hours carefully digesting them in order to parse out how it works if I want to keep being able to freely play and DM at any "5e" table. Even if I considered it five percent better that would be deeply obnoxious to me.

It’s funny because those were a lot of the things I liked about the new edition. Along with the bastions, new monk, the new monsters and a lot of the new subclasses. Oh and the new grappling.

One man’s meat is another man’s poison. It must be really tough designing a game for a broad church.

 

[tetrasodium]

It’s funny because those were a lot of the things I liked about the new edition. Along with the bastions, new monk, the new monsters and a lot of the new subclasses. Oh and the new grappling.

One man’s meat is another man’s poison. It must be really tough designing a game for a broad church.

The new NOVA->LETSTAKEASHORTREST->REPEAT monk & warlock continuing the 2014 effort of forcing ADEU class design into an adventuring day attrition based game without correcting the rest rules to support the GM when players feel they are entitled to an ADEU based 5mwd loop is one of biggest reasons I'm not dropping 150$ on the new books.

In fact they are each individually more of a poison than the 150$ price tag on what could mostly have been an errata

 

[TheSword]

The new NOVA->LETSTAKEASHORTREST->REPEAT monk & warlock continuing the 2014 effort of forcing ADEU class design into an adventuring day attrition based game without correcting the rest rules to support the GM when players feel they are entitled to an ADEU based 5mwd loop is one of biggest reasons I'm not dropping 150$ on the new books.

In fact they are each individually more of a poison than the 150$ price tag on what could mostly have been an errata

it’s entirely a matter of taste. I think the new rules are much more than that, but I accept it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. I think it’s ok to have different classes operate differently and be better or worse in different circumstances. Players get to choose their class as they like. I don’t have the ideological objection to the rest and ability recovery mechanics in the way you do I think, despite me agreeing with most of the things you’ve said prior to this edition update (I don’t say that to curry favour just to point out that I’m not disagreeing with you to be contentious or argumentative)

 

[jasper]

......

I looked to try to see if this content creator was conservative or a little more to the right than I would normally ascribe to, but couldn't find much on that. They did make one point I may think contributed greatly, but isn't highlighted in their summary.

.......

D&D is inclusive of all people regardless of their politics. Do they put out interesting content? then what does it matter.

 

[tetrasodium]

it’s entirely a matter of taste. I think the new rules are much more than that, but I accept it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. I think it’s ok to have different classes operate differently and be better or worse in different circumstances. Players get to choose their class as they like. I don’t have the ideological objection to the rest and ability recovery mechanics in the way you do I think, despite me agreeing with most of the things you’ve said prior to this edition update (I don’t say that to curry favour just to point out that I’m not disagreeing with you to be contentious or argumentative)

You missed the point. Players get to FORCE 5mwd loop gameplay on an unsupported gm because some folks liked 4e's At will Daily Encounter Universal. It's practically malicious compliance with the attrition based model at the system level from a designer.

The new edition failed at both fitting those two classes to the system as well as supporting the GM with rest rules that shield the gm from needing to resort to adversarial fiat

 

[TheSword]

You missed the point. Players get to FORCE 5mwd loop gameplay on an unsupported gm because some folks liked 4e's At will Daily Encounter Universal. It's practically malicious compliance with the attrition based model at the system level from a designer.

The new edition failed at both fitting those two classes to the system as well as supporting the GM with rest rules that shield the gm from needing to resort to adversarial fiat

I don’t agree that 5MWD can be forced on anyone. This isn’t Baldurs gate 1 and resting doesn’t happen when players press the spacebar. It has to make sense in the fiction.

 

[Juxtapozbliss]

I'd remove the "only 1 inspiration at a time" limit

Thank you for the suggestion. I appreciate the idea. As far as a way to homebrew a workaround for a rule that I don't like, it's not a bad idea. But I really don't like how the rule make the special feeling of rewarding players for roleplaying...feel cheapened and less important. It was a rule that I really enjoyed the feeling of engagement it gave me with players. And the new rule makes it feel so much more mechanical. Plus it does throw off play balance a bit at least if players can get advantage twice like that, but that's a minor thing to me as opposed to the feeling of it.

 

[bedir than]

Thank you for the suggestion. I appreciate the idea. As far as a way to homebrew a workaround for a rule that I don't like, it's not a bad idea. But I really don't like how the rule make the special feeling of rewarding players for roleplaying...feel cheapened and less important. It was a rule that I really enjoyed the feeling of engagement it gave me with players. And the new rule makes it feel so much more mechanical. Plus it does throw off play balance a bit at least if players can get advantage twice like that, but that's a minor thing to me as opposed to the feeling of it.

I also still reward for roleplay