D&D 5E (2014) For those playing 2014 5e, how are you reacting to the 2024 update?

[grimmgoose]

It's basically what I thought it would be. It's 5E+; it's errata that you pay for. I mean, it's good errata, but it's the same dish we've been eating for the past 10 years.

And for that reason, it's just not interesting to me.

 

[orangefruitbat]

We running 5.5E game right now, and I'm finding I dislike more of the changes than not. So I'm hoping we go back to 5.0E for our next campaign. There are a few things I do like (like the wild-shape rules) that I would want to incorporate. To be honest, I feel like I've spent a lot of money for basically a side-grade.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I'm finding I dislike more of the changes than not.

Care to share any examples of the things you dislike?

 

[Corinnguard]

My group is sticking with the 2014 rules. We're into our second year with the Tyranny of Dragons adventure.

I wouldn't mind borrowing some 2024 material though.

 

[Black Dougal]

I'm playing in two groups and DMing another. One group I play in is doing 2024 only, another is doing a hybrid. The game I DM we are keeping 2014 for the foreseeable future. We'll see what happens but truth be told I'm not excited enough to start reworking my campaign world and with limited time I'd rather spend my energy on being creative than making sure everything is updated.

 

[wedgeski]

We will switch at the culmination of our current campaign.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

I've decided to try other games and give D&D a break. Playing Mythras, Dragonbane, Pathfinder 2E, Tales of the Valiant.....lots of other choices that are better experiences than what 5.5 has to offer.

 

[orangefruitbat]

Care to share any examples of the things you dislike?

Sure.

One thing I dislike is is weapon masteries. The assigned masteries feel really arbitrary/silly/gamey. They introduce too much advantage/disadvantage into the game (I like A/D, but this is too much of a good thing). As a DM, keeping track of sapped opponents is a PITA.

There are lots of small changes which can seem like a good idea, but lead to undesirable gameplay. For example, the fact that you can extend a barbarian's rage simply by spending a bonus action. This logically leads to a barbarian raging for a full ten minutes (when the combat that started it only lasts 2-3 rounds). Now, take something like the World Tree barbarian who can generate temporary HP for the other close-by party members every round. This is a really powerful ability in combat (2d6 temp HP/round at first level!), but now it extends beyond combat. So if the first level barbarian gave the wizard 7 temporary HP in combat and wizard still has them, the barbarian can keep trying to improve that result for the wizard and every other party member every round out of combat (and there could be 97-99 rounds left of rage). This is a huge amount of temp HP for the party if encouters are packed close together (such as in a dungeon).

Almost all the changes to the PHB rules INCREASE character's power level (the notable exceptions being wild shape nerfing and making smites a bonus action - both changes I do like) - WOTC just gives players more goodies with no downsides. Even in 5.0, D&D felt like it was in Easy mode beyond level 2. Now it's even harder to challenge PCs without either massive encounters or silly high CRs. They even took away the optional rules from the 5.0 DMG (though I still use some of them). And the MM, while making some monsters a bit easier to run (a good thing), they didn't make them feel more dangerous or scary.

I do think some of the changes in 5.5 are good, such as making a beast master ranger or elemental monk that doesn't suck. But for the most part, they did little to make the game more fun/fast/tense/unexpected/exciting in play.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I now have all three of the new books but I am not changing in my active 5e campaign and I am playing another system (Cyberpunk Red) in the other weekly game I run. I don't think I am likely to run much 5e in general once the currect Phandelver and Beyond game I am running ends.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm hopeful that 2024 D&D stewards a lot of new players into the game as a communal/shared activity and encourages/supports a lot of new GMs. Their approach with shorter adventures, more public play, and more teacher/club support is great. Hats off to the folks pushing that front (I know Shawn Merwin penned an intro adventure for educators)

For my purposes and the folks I game with (hardcore multi-system gamers with many GMs among us), the 2024 juice isn't worth the squeeze. There are good fixes, there are strange steps backwards, and there are big issues (that I personally have) which go unaddressed. Monsters, exploration, chases, and structured roleplay / "skill challenges" are pain points for me carried from 2014 into 2024.

I'm not the target audience (which is good). Even so, I do have concerns about the impact their design changes will have during play for new GMs - whether my concerns are founded or not time will tell.

Edit: Oh, I voted "stick with 2014", but truth is more like "heavily house ruled 2014, may allow bits of 2024 PCs (same as with Kobold Press & A5E, etc), and also very happy with other games besides D&D."