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

[Stormonu]

I don't see how half the options are even possible. It feels to me the questions should be:

Would you call the new rules:
2024
5.5
6.75
or a completely new edition.

I can't imagine anyone using bits and pieces of either.

If people can mix and match B/X and AD&D the above is a no-brainer.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I don't see how half the options are even possible. It feels to me the questions should be:

Would you call the new rules:
2024
5.5
6.75
or a completely new edition.

I can't imagine anyone using bits and pieces of either.

Let us know when you have it all straightened out.

 

[greymist]

I expect to stick with 5E exclusively. There hasn't been anything I've heard from the new rules that is worth adding; although that could change.

 

[humble minion]

The current game i play in is staying with 2014. The DM really hates all the lore retcons, the removals of half-elves and the like from the PHB. He wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. We're near the end now (just about to have the big fight at the end of Storm King's Thunder, though there's some additional plot threads we still need to clean up as well as the canonical one), but our recently started back up game (for when players are missing) uses 2014, and I expect the next game once SKT finishes will too.

The current game I run is staying with 2014. Aside from anything else, we have one artificer PC and one warlord PC (kibblestasty's version), which haven;t been converted yet. I've allowed a couple of spells from 2024 (the new True Strike, for example) and I'll consider doing the same on a case by case basis if players want to bring anything else into the game. I haven't read through anything properly yet, but there's ideas I'd like to steal. Bloodied was a really good 4e innovation and I'd LIKE to use it, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to do much in isolation, without creatures/class features designed for it. I wish it was an actual condition that had consequences attached to it in its own right.

As for the next campaign I run - it's a long way off. Time will tell , and we'll have that discussion among the group when the time comes (plus, I'm considering pitching an Iron Kingdoms game, which has a very different set of PC creation rules which were largely written with 2014 5e in mind)

 

[Horwath]

I only bought new PHB because old one was near disintegration.

2024 had some really good ideas in UAs, but they coward out of them and gave us glorified errata, really good errata, I like the most of additions, but too afraid to make something better because of "muh compatibilitah", that will be thrown out of the window with the next splat book or two.

it's a good standalone product, it's better than 2014, but not really that good of an upgrade when comparing to 2014.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Initially I thought we'd switch over completely. But with some missing rules and some missing updates to monsters and subclasses, there is still need of older books. Especially xanathar's guide and MMotM will see use. In some cases I might still use an optional rule of the 2014 DMG and if there is a question if some ability is magical or nit I need to look up in the new 2014 MM. And I will use suggestion from the 2014 PHB.

While I still think the new rule set is better in many ways, it is not stictly better. The really fumbled a few things.

 

[Nebulous]

Still using 2014 for Spelljammer that I already mixed with Level Up some. I'm just not that excited about 2024. We keep the games no higher than 8th or 9th anyway. I use other monster manuals on Roll20 too so I already have access to thousands of monsters, more than I could ever possibly need, so newly tweaked monsters don't even interest me. I am more likely to try out another game system than actually dive into 2024. If Wizards had that fully robust VTT running and it was actually great, that would push me to use it.

 

[Scott Christian]

Then you need to broaden your mind That is what we will be doing (mixing both rulesets together), it is very natural to any one who uses house rules. No different really.

I agree, it is no different than house rules. However, have you played exclusively with the new rules? (The MM just came out last week?) The other part I was implying is: When comparing the old classes and new classes, what choice is there? Is anyone purposefully going to choose the old Champion versus the new one? Especially when playing at the same table where someone is also playing a new Champion? The obvious answer is no.
Lastly, who is deciding on these mixes and matches? I mean, if a player comes to your table and says: I like this one old rule for the Warlock, so I'll take it. Then, I'm going to use all the new rules combined with the one old rule. Is that Kosher with the DM? With everyone at the table? And what happens when they multi-class and decide to use one old rule from a class, that just by coincidence, maximizes all the new rules.
That is what I am talking about. It becomes very convoluted. If you want to say: Are players good with having all new classes, but we are still going to use the surprise rules from 2014? Great. So what. That is not what anyone is really discussing, nor was it the implied in my response. I believe most people have an understanding of "bits and pieces," and how it differs from sections and chapters.

 

[Scott Christian]

Let us know when you have it all straightened out.

I don't. I know that when our table switches over, we will use the new rules. I also am curious to what people actually make of the new rules. Are they a mere subset? A branch? a stump? New roots?

 

[dave2008]

I agree, it is no different than house rules. However, have you played exclusively with the new rules?

No, I will never again (since about 2015) play with only RAW rules. We will always use house rules. There has never been an edition of D&D that has been everything we want and we no longer need to tryout the rules RAW to know that. We start with house rules ASAP!