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

[TiQuinn]

Dash does not say "on your turn."

It says "for the current turn."

That current turn is outside of the initiative order, and for the individual gaining that singular Dash, which is both RAW and RAI

Do turns exist outside of initiative order?

 

[ECMO3]

That is just nonsense. Pretending the disparities in design in D&D don't matter because nobody cares about that in play is disingenuous, and we all have experiences to the contrary. Yes, people pick suboptimal choices. But that doesn't mean that ignoring balance creates better play experiences. It just means that people work through bad design in order to try and play their preferred class fantasy. It is still bad design -- and completely avoidable.

It is not a bad design. It is awesome and I have not liked more balanced designs better when I have played them. Neither have other players at the table.

I can say I have never had bad experiences due to balance differences in 5E. The vast majority of bad experiences are due to player personality, a few are due to DM, and there are some due to design, but it is not because of imbalance. The bad experiences that stand out the most because of design were when players took feats that were considered very good (2014 PAM and 2014 GWM) and then the game did not pan out like they expected wanted in terms of magic items.

Further you completely ignore that there are factually people that want their PCs to be better than other PCs. Not equal, but better, and being able to do that is an important part of the play experience for those people. To them it is important that their Character is better than Jim's character. It is not that important that they able to play a good martial artists, because they will pick something else if the martial artist doesn't have the mechanics. There needs to be in the rules to make those people happy or we will lose them as players. On the other hand, people that are willing to "work through" the weak options are by definition willing to play sub-optimal characters. The current design caters to both pretty darn well IMO.

If you look at the 2014 game I loved Undead Warlock, I loved Monks (actually liked 2014 Monk better than 2024 Monk) even though both were considered downright bad choices. I played more 2014 Rangers and Rogues than any other classes even though those two were considered below average (although I disagree about 2014 Ranger).

 

[mamba]

Further you completely ignore that there are factually people that want their PCs to be better than other PCs. Not equal, but better, and being able to do that is an important part of the play experience for those people.

are there people who want to be worse than others (rather than just willing to ‘work through’ as you said) ? Otherwise those people get their wish to the detriment of everyone else

What if they are not the only one in their group with that attitude?

 

[ECMO3]

are there people who want to be worse than others (rather than just willing to ‘work through’ as you said) ? Otherwise those people get their wish to the detriment of everyone else

YES. Not many though.

But this is why I liked in the 2014 Monk much better than the 2024 Monk. It starts out weak and catches up at the high levels. 2014 Monk is a VERY weak PC in teir 1 and tier 2, groing into a more effective class at high level with unique abilities. That is part of what I liked about it. It harkens back to the original design of the class some 45 years ago.

What if they are not the only one in their group with that attitude?

Usually that is not as big a problem, because they are still both better than the others at the table.

 

[eclair~]

But this is why I liked in the 2014 Monk much better than the 2024 Monk. It starts out weak and catches up at the high levels. 2014 Monk is a VERY weak PC in teir 1 and tier 2, groing into a more effective class at high level with unique abilities. That is part of what I liked about it. It harkens back to the original design of the class some 45 years ago.

At no table that I've played at, whether as player or DM, has any Monk felt weaker than the rest of the party.

I did play with one person whom, after one turn of a target succeeding against two Stunning Strikes, had a brief whine about the class. Something the 2024 revision mercifully addressed, by taking away the option of trying to use a non-DPR option more than once a turn.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe that's what this new ability is intended to do - give you the ability to 'dash' whenever you want within the round plus make whatever move you'd get normally on your turn.

Otherwise, what's the point?

It’s very obvious that it’s trying to allow you to move as a reaction when you roll initiative. The issue isn’t that you can’t tell what it’s supposed to do, the issue is that the way they wrote it doesn’t do that, and it’s not a good sign that they don’t seem to know their own rules well enough to have caught that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, this is an example of shoddy writing. They should have been more careful. On the other hand, I believe that the intent is clear: you can move your speed as a reaction when you roll initiative. Maybe they will update the text, but even if they do not, I do not envision actual difficulties at the table.

Agreed. It’s not confusing or hard to fix, it’s just a strange mistake for them to have made, and makes me concerned that the quality control has slipped.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Further you completely ignore that there are factually people that want their PCs to be better than other PCs. Not equal, but better, and being able to do that is an important part of the play experience for those people.

i do not believe it is a desirable goal to cater to those kinds of people.

 

[ECMO3]

i do not believe it is a desirable goal to cater to those kinds of people.

I think you should try to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table. Sometimes you can't do that, but when you can you should IMO.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It is not a bad design. It is awesome and I have not liked more balanced designs better when I have played them. Neither have other players at the table.

I can say I have never had bad experiences due to balance differences in 5E. The vast majority of bad experiences are due to player personality, a few are due to DM, and there are some due to design, but it is not because of imbalance. The bad experiences that stand out the most because of design were when players took feats that were considered very good (2014 PAM and 2014 GWM) and then the game did not pan out like they expected wanted in terms of magic items.

Further you completely ignore that there are factually people that want their PCs to be better than other PCs. Not equal, but better, and being able to do that is an important part of the play experience for those people. To them it is important that their Character is better than Jim's character. It is not that important that they able to play a good martial artists, because they will pick something else if the martial artist doesn't have the mechanics. There needs to be in the rules to make those people happy or we will lose them as players. On the other hand, people that are willing to "work through" the weak options are by definition willing to play sub-optimal characters. The current design caters to both pretty darn well IMO.

There are so many other character building choices and potential for optimisation in 5e, that sabotaging entire classes just so there is a "best" and "worst" option is not good design at all.

Wanting to play a "better character than anyone else" with no other preferences or thoughts as to concept or mechanics is an outlook so distasteful that I have to doubt that anyone that I would want to associate with would hold it. Wanting to play "the best xxx that I can" would be much more reasonable, but wanting to outdo the other players just for the sake of it is a social issue that should be stamped out as soon as it comes up.

Likewise if someone wants to play a weaker character than the others, they are able to do so via Ability score and feat choices. I think it is very unlikely as an actual motivation for many real people however. I have played sidekicks and characters who didn't shine in a particular area more than once, but they all had their own areas of competence.