D&D 5E (2024) Is 5E better because of Crawford and Perkins leaving?

[ECMO3]

D&D 2024 is the result of the work that the designers Crawford, Perkins, and others did. Similarly, D&D 2014 is the result of the work that Mearls and others did.

D&D 2024 is a great game engine.

2024 is a great game, but so was 2014 and I don't know that 2024 is any better.

2024 has not been enthusiastically embraced by most of the community, reviews are mixed.

Personally for me it is new, it is different, but I don't know that it is any better than 2014. Some things are better, some things aren't better. Some 2014 problems were fixed, some 2014 problems weren't fixed, some new problems were created.

 

[ECMO3]

Does "better" include "more profitable?"

Not what I was saying.

 

[ECMO3]

nm

 

[ECMO3]

You have Lorwyn: First Light, where one of the new species gets a feature that doesn't actually work because the designers seem to have forgotten how features of the intended nature are worded and why.

What does this refer to?

 

[Yaarel]

Crawford/Perkins clearly embraced the "power creep is good design!" philosophy, to the point that UAs released after the PHB were already more power-creeped than the already-power-creeped PHB content.

Meanwhile, after the new folks took the helm, UAs took a distinct shift into bland, mediocre power-wise. As if the new folks are reluctant to push the power envelope in the way Crawford/Perkins embraced it, or perhaps had higher-ups tell them that the power-creep was a turn-off for many players.

I characterize the process as follows.

5e 2014 is a new kind of game engine. It sought the breakthru in understanding a game engine balance that 4e achieved, while also striving to recover the narrative immersion and diverse mechanics of earlier editions.

The new 2014 system is solid but needs to survive in the wild. It turns out to be a great system, but the designers are still getting a feel for it. Imbalances among species and so on are tolerable, but noticeable. By the time of Xanathars, the designers have a handle on finetuning the mechanics. By the time of Tashas, they nail it. They understand the mechanics precisely, inside and out. From this point on, they begin the process of systematically ensuring all species and all classes are equal to each other in mechanical balance.

There is no "power creep". It is bringing the weaker options to be more comparable to the stronger options. But also the popular extra feat at level 1 that some settings employed became standard. These new "origin" feats were less powerful than the level 4 feats, but made level 1 characters fe more substantial and tougher.

Hence, D&D 2024. An awesome system.

 

[AlViking]

Does "better" include "more profitable?"

It can if the books sell well. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the OP's question.

 

[eclair~]

What does this refer to?

One of the new species in the Lorwyn book can take the Dash action as a reaction when rolling initiative. This makes no sense because there is no current turn for the Dash action's benefits to apply to when everyone is rolling initiative, and it doesn't perform any function because the Dash action doesn't let you move when it's not your turn. (Features that confer movement outside of normal rules explicitly say that the target "can move" to allow such.)

I characterize the process as follows.

5e 2014 is a new kind of game engine. It sought the breakthru in understanding a game engine balance that 4e achieved, while also striving to recover the narrative immersion and diverse mechanics of earlier editions.

The new 2014 system is solid but needs to survive in the wild. It turns out to be a great system, but the designers are still getting a feel for it. Imbalances among species and so on are tolerable, but noticeable. By the time of Xanathars, the designers have a handle on finetuning the mechanics. By the time of Tashas, they nail it. They understand the mechanics precisely, inside and out. From this point on, they begin the process of systematically ensuring all species and all classes are equal to each other in mechanical balance.

There is no "power creep". It is bringing the weaker options to be more comparable to the stronger options. But also the popular extra feat at level 1 that some settings employed became standard. These new "origin" feats were less powerful than the level 4 feats, but made level 1 characters fe more substantial and tougher.

Hence, D&D 2024. An awesome system.

Barbarians are effectively neutered by changes to their class mechanics and enemy design. Druids' unique features are nerfed in favour of imitating Cleric features. Rangers are derailed into "Hunter's Mark, the class". Monks can't do anything meaningful except punch people and aren't even any better at dealing damage than more versatile classes.

The Lucky feat is nerfed, but a new origin feat confers the exact same benefit to multiple characters, multiple times a day. Healer is nerfed, while Magic Initiate is made significantly stronger. Crafter and Savage Attacker are completely useless in comparison to most options.

Imbalance is baked into every aspect of 2024 5e. Spellcasting rules are changed to benefit some subclasses and builds over others. Numerous options that weren't even considered that strong were made even worse for no reason. Even with a new mechanic, Weapon Mastery, the designers were fully aware that certain masteries were far better than others and would be the primary picks of the majority of players—hence the Fighter's Tactical Master feature treating it as a default that players wouldn't be using Push/Sap/Slow weapons.

But yeah, awesome system.

 

[Chaltab]

The end result is that Heroes of Faerun is wildly unbalanced. You have extremely strong faction feat lines (the Spellfire and Zhentarium lines, for instance), ones that are overly situational or needlessly restrictive (the Harper or Dragon Cult lines), and ones that are complete garbage (the Flaming Fist or Emerald Enclave lines). You have circle casting, which is a mechanic that lets casters completely break the game while martials sit by and get scorned by their allies for not having spell slots. You have the Banneret and the Oath of Nobly Not Caring About Thematic Conventions in the same sourcebook.

I mean I agree that Heroes of Faerun has a lot of wild swing in terms of how powerful or overly specialized its content is... but I sincerely don't think that's a massive change from previous 5E books. It's just a step down from the 2024 PHB, which was made with 10 years of data on what needed buffing.

Then you have Astarion's Book of Homophobic Tropes Hungers...

This is not the thread to have a discussion, but could you link to some context for this claim?

 

[ECMO3]

—hence the Fighter's Tactical Master feature treating it as a default that players wouldn't be using Push/Sap/Slow weapons.

Sap is one of the best weapon masteries. It is the best on a sword and board heavy armor player IMO.

 

[Reynard]

Sap is one of the best weapon masteries. It is the best on a sword and board heavy armor player IMO.

Whenever there is a "best" you know the design is flawed.