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

[Scribe]

Laugh all you want. I will call it out when I see hypocrisy--and if I do or say something hypocritical, I endeavor to apologize and make up for that error, because that is both morally and intellectually the correct thing to do.

I mean you do you, but expecting consistency from others? No sir, not worth my energy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How is that better than or different than what we were doing with the 5e rules?
My point being 5.5e is not much more than a few house rules codified and the majority of the problems shifted to other places in the rules.

IE, what good are the new rules outside of organized play like AL, or open table games?

My groups(after much discussion and reading the books thanks to content sharing) just don't see value in the new rules. Yes it is anecdotal, but that doesn't make it any less real.

It depends on which things you focus on. Warlocks, Fighters, Barbarians, and Sorcerers got some relatively significant updates.

It also depends on how "big" you consider something to be as a "house rule" vs whatever you would call a bigger thing. Would you say 3.5e was just a collection of codified house-rules for 3e? Because it's quite comparable to what changed with 5.5e (hence why I call it that instead of the Wizards-endorsed name.)

 

[Yaarel]

How is that better than or different than what we were doing with the 5e rules?

In 5.0, the players picked the skills, and customized the background without needing to consult the DM.

However, the background means experiences that a character had where they were growing up, and what was going on there. It is something that requires the DM to be in the loop.

More positively, when a player picks the details of a background, the DM can see the stuff that the player cares about. And by grounding these choices within the setting, the DM can supply adventure hooks relating to the background, as well as events in the future that involve these ambitions. Keeping the DM in the loop, helps the DM create a more interesting, narratively consistent, and rewarding game for everyone.

My point being 5.5e is not much more than a few house rules codified and the majority of the problems shifted to other places in the rules.

I kinda agree with this. Many setting decisions that had "defaults" in 5.0, are now openended in 5.5. The DM and players need to actively choose a setting, such as Greyhawk in the DMs Guide, purchase an official setting, such as Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravnica, or so on, or be comfortable with homebrewing ones own setting.

IE, what good are the new rules outside of organized play like AL, or open table games?

My groups(after much discussion and reading the books thanks to content sharing) just don't see value in the new rules. Yes it is anecdotal, but that doesn't make it any less real.

I am curious what AL is doing. I am guessing they will go deep into the Forgotten Realms setting. But I could also see them switching to DMs Guide Greyhawk.

Heh, if they "dont see value", then it might be because they are actually playing in the Forgotten Realms setting and might not realize it.

Tho I assume you also mean new rules such as Weapon Mastery and so on.

When I DM, it is my job to care about the players. But for my own characters, I care about spellcasters and dont pay too much attention to Fighter rules (beyond keeping track of game balance issues). As far as I can tell, many Fighter players are happy with Weapons Mastery, and if they are happy, then I am happy.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

It depends on which things you focus on. Warlocks, Fighters, Barbarians, and Sorcerers got some relatively significant updates.

It also depends on how "big" you consider something to be as a "house rule" vs whatever you would call a bigger thing. Would you say 3.5e was just a collection of codified house-rules for 3e? Because it's quite comparable to what changed with 5.5e (hence why I call it that instead of the Wizards-endorsed name.)

I call it 5.5 also, though i see it less of a jump than 3e to 3.5e, but that is my subjective view.

Still 5.5, to me is little more than errata printed and bound into new books much like Monsters of the Multiverse just with more art and fanfare. It just seems so unnecessary in so many ways.

That is my take and doesn't have to be yours or anyone else's.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes.

I expect people to be consistent, and not hypocritical. If faulty survey design is a problem, it should be a problem whether it agrees with your position or disagrees. "Rules for thee but not for me" has never been an acceptable standard.

You can disagree with something and also not complain about it.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony.

 

[Yaarel]

@Scribe

I think the new way that 5.5 handles settings is good for D&D innovation.

The openendedness of setting assumptions in the core rules forces DMs and players to actively, consciously, pick a setting. Greyhawk in the DMs Guide is a convenient go-to, to jump in and start playing the game. But many players, especially experienced players, will be thoughtful about which setting to campaign in. This need for interesting settings encourages an economic market for setting options − and this includes more availability of niche experimental settings.

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC doesn't care about (specifically) you. Never has. (Specifically) your opinions about what is good or not good Dungeons & Dragons is worthless to them, and they will never print what (specifically) you want. This is why there are still 50 years worth of various types of Dungeons & Dragons out there that (specifically) you can use, to play the version of D&D that (specifically) you and your table enjoys.

And when WotC surveys people, they aren't surveying (specifically) you... they are surveying the you that is a part of a thousands-wide or tens-of-thousands-wide group. (Specifically) you within that group is absolutely meaningless. Only you as an amorphous segment of that group has meaning if/when all of your opinions are brought together to produce a single conclusion.

To think otherwise is simply because (general) your ego can't handle that truth.

 

[Horwath]

They overkilled it.

They "underkilled" it really.

changes were, more or less minute.

I bought the new PHB because old was falling apart from usage.
If I can pencil-in or write a few post it stickers in old PHB with new material, then it's not a really a big change except in very few things.

they listened to the "keep it compatible to 2014 crowd" little too much, it should have only be theoretical compatible, as in, it has the same math(proficiency, expertise, short, long rests, etc)

Monks are great in 2014 and IMO never needed an upgrade. Now they are considered OP by many players who even like more OP-style games.

monks were complete trash in 2014.
I played 2 of them, and yes Mercy from Tasha's was a hotfix for class, same as Gloomstalker ranger.
you can have fun with any character, but martials(except paladin and Gloomstalker and Runeknight) were bad, with low utility.
And Rune knight is not overpowered, but rest of the fighter subclasses are bad, except battlemaster.

Weapon masteries added another level of complexity which some people have been complaining slow things down from the beginning.

they should have been battlemsaster maneuvers light that are at-will riders on attacks.

It wasn't that they didn't make the attempt, which hey, yes, great, they did, but they went about it the wrong way for some people, and those are the one who'll complain about it.

that is always the case.

Exactly. A lot of people do like it, but a number of people don't. Fortunately, nothing is stopping them (including myself) from just sticking with 2014 material. It does, however, mean we aren't likely to get new material for our games from WotC--and that is a problem IMO.

that is why they needed to make more changes, so people can see clearly difference between 2014 and '24.

It sucks for myself and others like me, but such is life. Hey, I've been dealing with it for over two decades now.

same. heh.

 

[Guest 7037866]

They "underkilled" it really.

Yeah, we're just going to agree to disagree on this one.

monks were complete trash in 2014.

Agree to disagree again. Monks rock in 2014 already.

And Rune knight is not overpowered

And once again... agree to disagree. RK is totally OP. I've seen it in action. Broken.

they should have been battlemsaster maneuvers light that are at-will riders on attacks.

Maybe. I think they aren't necessary, personally.

that is always the case.

True. You'll have people like myself who felt it was too much, people like yourself who felt it was too little.

that is why they needed to make more changes, so people can see clearly difference between 2014 and '24.

For you, certainly. For myself they needed to make fewer changes and focus more on fixing what didn't work well in 2014, not creating a bunch of new stuff to not work in 2024.

 

[Remathilis]

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 care within limits.

1. I will not play B/X as long as the Rules Cyclopedia is available.

2. I will not play 1e as long a 2e is available.

3. I will not play 3.0 as long as 3.5 (or better, Pathfinder 1e) is available.

4. I will not play vanilla 4e as long as Essentials is available.

5. I will most likely not play 2014 5e if 2024 is available. (I am still finishing up my old campaign, but we're switching when it's done).

I don't see a reason to play the older of each pair because the update is superior to me (though not always perfect).