D&D General How much do you care about rule change specifics?

[Reynard]

I keep seeing people post about how they are so very unhappy with the 2024 rule changes, or with Tasha's rule changes, or whatever. I just can't really summon up enough GAS to be particularly upset. And I realized that has pretty much always been true for me. I didn't and don't care about changes to the thief table between B/X and BECMI, or about most of the rules differences between 3.0 and 3.5. I just play the game that is presented in the books, with the caveat that sometimes I change a rule because that rule is dumb (not because it is different than it used to be).

So I am just curious how much other folks actually care about rule changes between supplements and revisions and half editions. Does it actually bother you?

 

[Scribe]

Does it actually bother you?

Yeah, same way a sliver, or a hang nail may bother me.

An annoyance, that if the change is not for the better, continues to fester until the next revision.

 

[ezo]

Does it actually bother you?

Well, first, I don't see much of this as "rule changes" so much as "content changes" (often in the way of power creep), but the two are certainly not mutually exclusive!

I've stopped looking at 2024 material for the most part, so I don't know if I remember correctly, but something like multiclassing being RAW in 2024 but a option in 2014. Is it a big deal to me? No (even if I would play 2024...) because I can always tell players no multiclassing this time. But why change it? What benefit was there? It was already in the game, so "making it RAW" just causes frustration with certain players with no real benefit to others.

Power creep keeps me from allowing things. Rune Knight is crazy OP compared to other figher subclasses. It could be curtailed into something reasonable with a little effort, and my players know if someone wants to play another Rune Knight I'll allow it but only after nerfing it. However, I find it is often far easier simply to prohibit something than jump through hoops to keep it balanced.

Anyway, 90% of the time it is power creep. I also don't care for more, more, and more options player-side. The game has moved completely away from any kind of simplicity and I see it often when players either forget a feature, don't know how it works, or can't decide what to do. Combat takes longer and longer.

Now, as to being "upset"...

The frustration is simply because I know WotC is moving the game in a direction I don't care for personally. Instead of making something I could use for my own game, their products are completely "not for me". I won't go into particulars simply because I know for others, they love the new material and it is what they want, and I don't care to offend anyone or get into yet another discussion on the topic.

 

[James Gasik]

Only if I'm forced to deal with it. If I'm the DM, it comes down to how easy or hard it is to houserule it away. As a player, it comes down to how easily I can avoid interacting with it.

Like, if a DM introduces "crit fails" in his game, not really a fan, so I might elect to play a spellcaster who rarely, if ever, makes attack rolls. Or play a character who can easily generate Advantage (and maybe play a Halfling).

If spellcasting became odious, I'd avoid playing a spellcaster, easy enough to do.

If alignment mechanics are tedious, I'll play a Neutral who professes not to care about extremes of morality (but I'll probably mostly do good things anyways, just be snarky about it) and avoid any class the DM deems has to follow a particular code of ethics.

It would take a lot of changes piling up to make me just flee the table (or game system), lol. Now if the people are questionable, I'll leave way faster than any rules changes would make me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I keep seeing people post about how they are so very unhappy with the 2024 rule changes, or with Tasha's rule changes, or whatever. I just can't really summon up enough GAS to be particularly upset. And I realized that has pretty much always been true for me. I didn't and don't care about changes to the thief table between B/X and BECMI, or about most of the rules differences between 3.0 and 3.5. I just play the game that is presented in the books, with the caveat that sometimes I change a rule because that rule is dumb (not because it is different than it used to be).

So I am just curious how much other folks actually care about rule changes between supplements and revisions and half editions. Does it actually bother you?

I certainly care, but that's why I change the rules as I desire to get the experience I want. I use the rules base I like to make that process easier.

 

[payn]

3E/PF1 era taught me that I can pick and choose these supplements and half edition change rules as I see fit. They dont bother me that much. My old books still work, and they even work with a few items taken from the revision/half/supplement too.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Well, first, I don't see much of this as "rule changes" so much as "content changes" (often in the way of power creep), but the two are certainly not mutually exclusive!

I've stopped looking at 2024 material for the most part, so I don't know if I remember correctly, but something like multiclassing being RAW in 2024 but a option in 2014. Is it a big deal to me? No (even if I would play 2024...) because I can always tell players no multiclassing this time. But why change it? What benefit was there? It was already in the game, so "making it RAW" just causes frustration with certain players with no real benefit to others.

Power creep keeps me from allowing things. Rune Knight is crazy OP compared to other figher subclasses. It could be curtailed into something reasonable with a little effort, and my players know if someone wants to play another Rune Knight I'll allow it but only after nerfing it. However, I find it is often far easier simply to prohibit something than jump through hoops to keep it balanced.

Anyway, 90% of the time it is power creep. I also don't care for more, more, and more options player-side. The game has moved completely away from any kind of simplicity and I see it often when players either forget a feature, don't know how it works, or can't decide what to do. Combat takes longer and longer.

Now, as to being "upset"...

The frustration is simply because I know WotC is moving the game in a direction I don't care for personally. Instead of making something I could use for my own game, their products are completely "not for me". I won't go into particulars simply because I know for others, they love the new material and it is what they want, and I don't care to offend anyone or get into yet another discussion on the topic.

I am not sure what you mean by RAW for multiclassing. Like 2014 multiclassing was also RAW cause that just means rules as written.
Like there is no fundamental change in the nature of multiclassing between 2014 and 2024.

Also Rune Knight is not even a 2024 option it’s a 2014 one. The number of options is also seriously not much different than it was in 2014.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not sure what you mean by RAW for multiclassing. Like 2014 multiclassing was also RAW cause that just means rules as written.
Like there is no fundamental change in the nature of multiclassing between 2014 and 2024.

Also Rune Knight is not even a 2024 option it’s a 2014 one. The number of options is also seriously not much different than it was in 2014.

I thought we were supposed to use 2014 options that hadn't been replaced by 5.5 ones?

 

[billd91]

I care. And the extent to which I care depends on how extreme or extensive the changes are. Most of the 2024 rule changes - fairly minor. But I do notice the potion miscibility table is back and I and my players don't like it - so out it goes. But that's just one piece of 2024, so that's fine.
The 3.0 to 3.5 switch, a bit more and there were parts we didn't like (weapon sizes for example) but we saw the ranger and bard changes as fairly important. Didn't like the nerfing of some of the stat boost spells and invisibility, though. But the change to harm was necessary. So, mixed bag and we went with 3.5. But we weren't so keen on Book of Nine Swords, so that supplement never made it into our game.

 

[Burnside]

If I was just running one or two home campaigns for friends, we'd treat it like a salad bar and just pick and choose what rules were right for our small personal groups. And so rules changes wouldn't bother me at all, because I wouldn't be obliged to use any of them.

But.

As a pro GM, I run for hundreds of players per year and can't necessarily impose my house rules or customizations in every game. I generally need to adhere to a more-or-less standard set of rules to get lots of games up and running relatively quickly. For long-term campaigns, there is room to negotiate and customize, but to do that for every one-shot or short (2-4 session) campaign is impractical. Because of this, rules changes that I don't like are absolutely an issue. For players and DMs participating in public/organized/convention/in-store, etc. games, you can't change rules if you think they're dumb; you're kind stuck using them, because in settings like that, people need to be playing the same game and there are set expectations.

I don't know that I am "upset" about the changes, but it is a fact that vanishingly few people out of my large group of (often quite casual) players ever expressed to me that they wished 5E was more complicated. 5.5 is more complicated than 5E, by virtue of weapon masteries, feats being core instead of optional, and other changes. It's still early days, but my initial impression is that 5.5 is overall a worse game for most of my players than 5E, because most of them are not - and never will be - interested in builds, system mastery, or optimization. Those that ARE interested in those things, which is probably 15%-20% of my players, generally love 5.5.