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

[Micah Sweet]

I often say 'I want you to roll something for that' and let them try to justify whatever.

I like the idea, but IME it too often leads to people looking for ways to use their best skill, not the one that makes the most sense. Pretty much the opposite of what I want.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I like the idea, but IME it too often leads to people looking for ways to use their best skill

I've never found this to be a problem. If they're not going to suggest something sensible, they're going to just auto-fail.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've never found this to be a problem. If they're not going to suggest something sensible, they're going to just auto-fail.

It's not either/or. What I see is a lot of wheedling and trying to convince me there's a way to look at it where the right skill just happens to be the one in which they have the highest bonus. It's human nature. I saw the same thing in 4e skill challenges.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

It's not either/or. What I see is a lot of wheedling and trying to convince me there's a way to look at it

I can see people trying this, but I'm there to move things along, not care about their +5% chance at something. You tell them no once, then it's auto-fail and move on.

Sounds harsh written like that, but I just... if you're not getting paid for it, you're presumably playing with friends, and they should know better than to waste everyone's time.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Sounds harsh written like that, but I just... if you're not getting paid for it, you're presumably playing with friends, and they should know better than to waste everyone's time.

It's not wasting time. It's negotiating the fiction in the name of skilled play.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

It's not wasting time. It's negotiating the fiction in the name of skilled play.

The skill of looking for the highest number on your sheet, and then hammering it against a wall?

I think I'd rather play with unskilled people, but who understand what NO means.

 

[teitan]

But the book is for all players, old and new, so it can't realistically be considered a general success if we only talk about how great it is for part of the player base it.

You have a non-argument here that amounts to little. The book is just as good for veterans as newbs, in fact it makes it easier even for veterans to find the information they need with the index and glossary. You're making an issue out of a non-issue. It does in fact serve both. I have been playing D&D for almost 40 years and this is hands down the easiest to utilize PHB to date that isn't B/X. Are you saying the books should continue to be difficult to find information in even for veterans?

 

[Zardnaar]

You have a non-argument here that amounts to little. The book is just as good for veterans as newbs, in fact it makes it easier even for veterans to find the information they need with the index and glossary. You're making an issue out of a non-issue. It does in fact serve both. I have been playing D&D for almost 40 years and this is hands down the easiest to utilize PHB to date that isn't B/X. Are you saying the books should continue to be difficult to find information in even for veterans?

2024 or 2014?

 

[Greg Benage]

I haven't run it yet, so my feelings are preliminary. As a DM who has a 12th-level twilight cleric in his current party of six PCs, I chuckle a little at the idea that character buffs might be a problem.

My strongest impressions are that they had a much stronger grasp of the action economy and resting mechanics this time around, and I think that's a fairly big deal. I'm seeing many fewer instances of "no one will spend an action to do that" abilities, as well as bonus action issues, which plagued PHB 2014, SCAG, and even Xanathar's before they started to figure it out. And I like that they seem to have given most classes a reason to care about short rests, apart from hit point recovery. Going ahead and doing this for all classes would have been a nice touch... Still, I think these changes will make the game run more smoothly at the table. Nova damage seems to have taken a nerf and most classes get some tools to extend the adventuring day.

Other than that, feats and spells overall seem better designed. I think I'll really like the effect the new Great Weapon Master has on the game (along with the corresponding Sharpshooter nerf). I love that it applies to longbows and heavy crossbows. It looks too strong, but at least it's the right sort of thing to be strong (for my tastes), as opposed to hand crossbow cheese.

I'm not sure how I feel about the healing buff (this is actually related to the action economy impression). On one hand, it should definitely make in-combat healing more tempting. On the other hand, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Whack-a-mole was a dumb artifact of 5e design that made combat far more cartoonish than I want in my games, but I was able to house rule that away. The fact that the game didn't need "healers" to be using their actions in combat to heal was a plus, to me. I think it will probably still be fine, whack-a-mole will still be a thing, and I'll still use my house rule for 0 hit points. But we'll see.

Preliminary opinion: It's a better designed 5e. I'm not sure the design is as tight as it should be given ten years with the system, but it's still better.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Browsing my hardcopy of the new 2024 book, it feels like this time they went back to 4E and pulled in some of the better ideas. Bloodied condition, tactical combat (but without requiring a grid), keywords, and strong visual presentation. I like it.