D&D (2024) DMs what do you think of the new PHB?

[Vael]

Cool.

That’s too bad. Advantage was the best part of 5E. Are they back to endless fiddly +1s?

I vastly prefer to have the spell lists in the spells chapter. It centralizes things and prevents having to flip to each class for their list. As a referee, it’s easier when info is centralized. But I can see how it’s easier for players who only have to look at one spell list.

Advantage/Disadvantage isn't gone, I just meant that is the only time you use two d20s to adjudicate most stuff.

Each spell has which list it belongs to in their entry (except for subclasses), so Fireball says it's a Sorcerer/Wizard spell in the description.

 

[overgeeked]

Advantage/Disadvantage isn't gone, I just meant that is the only time you use two d20s to adjudicate most stuff.

I guess I don't know what you originally meant at all then. In 2014 the only time you'd roll 2d20 was when you had advantage...so how is that different now?

Each spell has which list it belongs to in their entry (except for subclasses), so Fireball says it's a Sorcerer/Wizard spell in the description.

Yeah, that's nice. But it's much harder to use than centralized lists of classes and spells.

 

[OB1]

In what way are the new unarmed strike rules causing players to use them more? The grapple and shove options were always there, if tucked away. They seem weaker now that it’s a lower bonus to the attempt.

I didn't ask the players (I just noticed the result), but the bolded bit might be it, as it was the brand new players using it.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Are skills explained well in the new phb? That is something I would find value in.

Skills are described, yes. Are they described "well"? That's entirely subjective but the descriptions are merely one sentence each so I'd say they're described about as well as you possibly could in 10 words or less (which ain't that great)

 

[Charlaquin]

I guess I don't know what you originally meant at all then. In 2014 the only time you'd roll 2d20 was when you had advantage...so how is that different now?

They mean two separate d20 rolls, to resolve an attack and any secondary effects of attack that can be saved against. For example, 2014 wolves’ have a bite attack that, if it hits, forces the target to make a Strength save or fall Prone. So there are two d20 rolls required to fully resolve that attack - one for the attack roll and one for the Strength saving throw. In the 2024 PHB, the wolf’s bite attack just knocks the target prone on a hit, the Strength save to avoid that secondary effect has been removed. And, there haven’t been any monsters with attacks that also force a save on a hit for a while, so people are assuming the 2024 MM will remove the saves from all such monster attacks.

This change does only seem to apply to monsters though. Players still have access to stuff like Stunning Strike, Battlemaster maneuvers, and now also the Topple Mastery and Cunning Strike, all of which can potentially force a save as an effect of a hit with an attack roll.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I didn’t say there’s no pressure to allow the players to play a character of any of the available species. I definitely think that an option’s inclusion in the PHB is heavy pressure to allow players to freely choose that option. But the players being able to freely choose an option doesn’t have to mean that option is commonplace within the setting. Just because a PC can be an Aasimar doesn’t mean they should expect to meet other Aasimar in every tavern they visit. Accordingly, I don’t think we can draw any conclusions about the typical clientele of a typical tavern based on the 2024 PHB.

As usual, the frustrating thing is that there IS a way to do what Mr. Sweet and others ask for, without deprecating things or turning it into "Mother May I" where you as a player are constantly walking blind until you get every possible question answered by the DM.

That, of course, is to actually talk about how species and classes are used for worldbuilding.

Seriously, just two pages talking about how adding and removing different options can shape the feel and experience of a given setting would be WORLDS better than what we got. Instead, the (5.0) books explicitly declared that some species are universal and others belong in the so-called "true exotics" ghetto, which is straight-up the worst of both worlds. It gives players the idea that they will always be able to play humans or elves, but that they should otherwise have an attitude of "everything not permitted is forbidden," something fans of older styles of D&D allegedly don't like.*

People talk so much about DM "vision" and "curation" and such--but the books seem to go out of their way to either undercut or completely ignore that. Instead, we should be both telling and showing players this stuff. A world where the only spellcasters are Warlocks and where Fighters don't exist, will feel very different from one where every character must have a link to the divine (so being a divine spellcaster is a shoe-in, but Zealot Barbarian, Divine Soul Sorcerer, and Celestial Warlock are also valid). A world where the extant races are humans, dragonborn, gnomes, and satyrs will feel very different from one where it's elves, orcs, genasi, and kobolds.

Showing players how these things can be leveraged to produce flavor, and thus players clearly benefit from working with their DMs to come up with something cool, is FAR more productive and effective than the tripe they published in the 5.0 PHB, and nothing I've seen of the 5.5e PHB suggests that they meaningfully improved on this front.

*IME, it's much more accurate to say that both older-style and newer-style fans use both "everything not permitted is forbidden" and "everything not forbidden is permitted" but in different, frequently non-overlapping areas.

 

[guachi]

If it has such things, they certainly aren't integrated with the player options like Level Up is.

I know you really like Level Up. I was not following the creation of it in the slightest on the forums. I supported it blind to help support ENWorld. But, wow, it read my mind and solved most problems I had with D&D. The Exploration Challenges alone are something I strongly urge any 5e.24 game to implement and, I think, can be done with little difficulty.

 

[Distracted DM]

As a forever DM who never makes characters, and who doesn't have the new book but has read many previews and reviews and watched videos, I think it looks like it will be easier than ever to introduce new players to D&D. The book looks great, the layout is great, the glossary is great, etc. As for actual play, in my personal opinion, D&D breaks by 10th level and PCs become unkillable demigods. 2024 will be no different, and to be safe, I would probably end a campaign by 8th. I am curious about the Monster Manual in 2025, and if they compensated the monsters to match the bump PCs get. Something like "monster feats" you layer onto your baddies would be nice, but I doubt that will happen.

Do you mostly run one-shots introducing new players to DnD? 'Ive introduced a bunch of people over the years, but I can't say that the ease of getting new players into the game is the first thing that I'd consider when giving an impression/review of it. I'm curious why this seems to be one of the more common answers.

Btw I think monster feats are a pretty neat idea! I doubt we'll see that though.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do you mostly run one-shots introducing new players to DnD? 'Ive introduced a bunch of people over the years, but I can't say that the ease of getting new players into the game is the first thing that I'd consider when giving an impression/review of it. I'm curious why this seems to be one of the more common answers.

It’s not the first thing I would consider either, but the improvements in that department are quite dramatic and therefore noteworthy. Also, while it may not be a super important quality for me personally, I do think it’s a very important thing for a player’s handbook to be able to do. People who play more than they DM have more need of the player’s handbook than I do, and new players have more need of it still.

 

[sevenbastard]

2014 totem warrior barbarian could fly at level 14 too.

Yeah, but you had to pick your totem when you took the sub class (and everyone I ever played with picked Bear). So really only .33333 subclass options could fly. In 2024 rules you can change your totem when you rage so flying is a lot more likely to come up.

Side note: I'm not sure I like or dislike the ability to change your totem. I see the pros and cons of each system.

Is it really that big a deal that 2 out of 4 barbarian options gain flight at level 14?

and the 3rd option can teleport..... but It's more that every subclass added to fighter, rouge, and barbarian was a magic/fantastical leaning subclass. They had some good grounded subclasses I would have preferred.

I run a low magic sword and sorcery game and do that by limiting, species, classes and subclasses available. Everyone is more fantastical and less grounded in 2024. Take the Rangers that is now built around spell casting. I can still houserule to a system I want but have less option until they start releasing the rebuilt sub classes from Tasha's and Volos.