D&D (2024) Is anyone going to use the new 2024 backgrounds?

[Yaarel]

I almost wonder why they didn't bother to go ahead and give everybody a "half" feat every 2 levels instead of one "full" feat every 4. Just change ASI's to +1 from +2.

Each level is worth about a full feat. Also a half-feat works well for many concepts, but some features require the larger design space of a full feat. That said, it seems doable to grant half-feats more frequently. Pathfinder somewhat went this direction, with more frequent smaller benefits while advancing. Maybe swap out an earlier half-feat when getting a full feat. All in all, the full-feat seems the right amount of design space for a decision point for a significant character build.

 

[Zuranthium]

almost nobody perceives this 2024 edition as a "questionable product" that is "twisting the narrative".

Plenty of people do, as seen in various threads and reaction videos across the net.

Funny how you asked for examples regarding WotC's false advertising and then ignored all of them. Doesn't seem you're interested in listening to opinions about how 5E could be improved and why 5.5E is a failure to move the needle far enough, while at the same time making some things worse and acting like they've created a perfect edition. Maybe you're happy to throw your money at it, but that doesn't mean everyone is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The disagreement here is that you are making "Origin" Feats equal to a +2 ASI, when they are very close to "half-feats" WITHOUT the +1 ASI, or essentially "worth" ONE +1 ASI. So the ASIs might be 1.5 Full Feats, but they're equal to THREE "Origin" feats. As Skilled and the other Origin Feat are also Origin Feats, that's FIVE Origin Feats, or 2.5 "Full Feats" (roughly).

I disagree with origin feats generally only worth half a feat.

Tough, lucky, magic initiate have always been balanced with the best half and full feats.

But I agree, skilled is not the best one...

so lets agree on 3 feats?

 

[Mistwell]

Plenty of people do, as seen in various threads and reaction videos across the net.

Yes, reaction videos are there for clicks. Negativity gets clicks. That's why they exist. If praising D&D 2024 got more clicks for them, they'd be praising it. I find it strange you understand the capitalism motivating WOTC but don't understand the capitalism motivating YouTube posters.

Funny how you asked for examples regarding WotC's false advertising and then ignored all of them.

I didn't think anything you posted was false advertising. You don't find it as interesting as they do, so you call it a lie. That's not informative or persuasive, it was just you re-packaging your opinion once again. Did you really want me to point by point those details? I can if it would move the conversatin forward.

Doesn't seem you're interested in listening to opinions about how 5E could be improved and why 5.5E is a failure to move the needle far enough, while at the same time making some things worse and acting like they've created a perfect edition. Maybe you're happy to throw your money at it, but that doesn't mean everyone is.

If you're proposing houserules I am happy to listen. You seem to be just generally bitching, over and over, about how you don't like the 2024 version of the rules. You're about a year or 18 months late to enact change in what's coming out so I am not sure what the point is of "how 5e can be improved" unless you have a list of proposed houserules?

I keep asking why you keep repeating your general complaint about the 2024 rules, and you have yet to answer. What is your goal in this complaining? Misery loves company? Drag others down to where you are? Riot at the WOTC offices to burn books about to be released? It's coming out. People either want to buy it or do not. What is the point of repeatedly telling people you are not interested in something others are interested in?

 

[Clint_L]

Plenty of people do, as seen in various threads and reaction videos across the net.

Funny how you asked for examples regarding WotC's false advertising and then ignored all of them. Doesn't seem you're interested in listening to opinions about how 5E could be improved and why 5.5E is a failure to move the needle far enough, while at the same time making some things worse and acting like they've created a perfect edition. Maybe you're happy to throw your money at it, but that doesn't mean everyone is.

Maybe they just don't agree with you and don't think they are throwing their money away.

I don't agree with you. I don't feel misled about the 2024 rules update, and I look forward to it quite a lot. For me, it seems like it'll be money well spent. And none of your examples are actually false advertising. They're just you having a different opinion. You seem confused about what constitutes false advertising. To constitute false advertising, at least in Canada where I live, a claim has to be "materially false or misleading made knowingly or recklessly."

Examples of things that are not false advertising:

"This version of the game is better/more interesting/more balanced/more beautiful/more flexible." Not a material claim.
"The game will be released on September 2, 2024." Game is actually released in December 2024 due to a strike at the printers. Not knowingly false or misleading.

I have noted that some folks have continually insisted that the 2024 update needed to be something that was never in the cards. To me, this just seems like another demonstration of the fact that you can't please everyone, and you're foolish to try.

If it's not for you, it's not for you. That's fine; there's no shortage of other options.

 

[Zuranthium]

Yes, reaction videos are there for clicks.

Acting like any video or written opinion only exists for clicks is ridiculous.

I keep asking why you keep repeating your general complaint about the 2024 rules

Why does anyone keep fighting for something they believe in? Why you do you keep posting? Silly question.

In order to make change happen, something needs to be spoken out against. By discussing what is wrong with a product, people start to have more reason to explore other options, instead of lining up like lemmings to buy and use the 5.5E books as if that's the only option. If a product starts trending downwards, and other similar products upward, then a company is incentivized to do something about it. Like what happened with trash 4th edition.

It's desirable to have the best base system possible, so everyone can start on the same page and then a few house rules can be added.

Examples of things that are not false advertising:

"This version of the game is better/more interesting/more balanced/more beautiful/more flexible." Not a material claim.

It's absurd to try and bring in a legal definition, and act like breaking the law in that regard is the only way deception, manipulation, and inaccurate promotion exists.

Thousands of companies sell unhealthy food products and use advertising to make their products seem cool and perfectly fine, making society a worse place as a result. They make sure to not break the advertisement law, but that doesn't mean what they are doing is good.

It's not just a difference of opinion either about the things WotC have said. "Any player will find more ways to imagine their character with the new rules"? No, I won't, nor will plenty of others, many of whom have posted in this thread about how the background system adds nothing. Even if something is a difference of opinion, so what, that doesn't remove the issue. The affect of this on the masses is what's important. They think they're getting something great, but I think they could have something better, and that something better won't happen if the status quo is clinged to.

 

[ECMO3]

I disagree with origin feats generally only worth half a feat.

Tough, lucky, magic initiate have always been balanced with the best half and full feats.

I kind of agree on Magic Initiate it is a good upper tier feat (not one of the best but darn good). Tough is kind of underpowered IMO.

The new Lucky is not the same as the old Lucky and appears far weaker. From the text you choose to give a roll advantage or disadvantage and this means you would decide before the roll. This is fundamentally different and WAY less powerful than forcing a reroll on something that is already a failure or a success .... or a critical.

The old Lucky was one of the more powerful feats in the game, the new Lucky will be one of the weaker Origin feats if I understand the mechanics.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes, Magic Initiate is OP for an origin feat, but it's not a big deal. The other two are good, but not over the top. Either way most full "half feats" would work fine as origin feats if you ditch the ASI.

 

[tetrasodium]

Unfortunately cantrips have what should be class or subclass based scaling baked into the cantrip itself instead of the (sub)classes themselves last we saw. Sadly it's the equivalent of giving extra attack at 5 11 & so on combined with weapon adept or whatever it was that grants weapon proficiency

 

[Mistwell]

Acting like any video or written opinion only exists for clicks is ridiculous.

Show me a single negative reaction video on YouTube about D&D 2024 that isn't there for Clicks. I will wait.

Why does anyone keep fighting for something they believe in? Why you do you keep posting? Silly question.

In order to make change happen, something needs to be spoken out against.

It's not silly at all. Who do you think you're communicating to here? Do you imagine for a moment if you persuade me to dislike something I currently like, that I have the ability to make it different for you? My man, there was an entire playtest and survey series for 18 months straight. There was an email address to communicate with WOTC directly about this topic. If you think you're fighting the good fight, that was the place to do that activity.

Here? It's utterly useless to do it here. The company you're angry at gave you the tools you need to complain. Use them, not your peers!

By discussing what is wrong with a product, people start to have more reason to explore other options, instead of lining up like lemmings to buy and use the 5.5E books as if that's the only option.

Now you're just insulting your peers who dissent from your view. We're not lemmings for liking something you dislike any more than you are a lemming for liking those other options that you like. Please don't do that.

I play 5e BECAUSE I LIKE 5E. And I also like 5e because it's what my group likes and plays, and we're all adults with families and kids and careers and spouses and we have zero interest in spending the time to switch, beyond the relatively minor changeover to the 2024 version supported by our existing subscriptions to DNDBeyond. That doesn't make us a lemming, just a normal human being who likes what they like.

When we were younger and had less responsibilities and more time and energy we were more willing to try many different games.

If a product starts trending downwards, and other similar products upward, then a company is incentivized to do something about it. Like what happened with trash 4th edition.

Your choice in coming into this D&D message board relatively recently (and full of fans who sometimes, like myself, have been here for nearly 25 years), jumping into the section devoted to fans of 5e in a deeply dismissive, repetitive and often snarky manner to bash that game, was probably a bad strategic choice to accomplish your goal.

It has, as far as I can tell, persuaded zero people so far. All you're accomplishing is irritating some fans by coming into their fan forum to call them lemmings for liking what you don't like.

Maybe try advocating more for the games you do like. I bet that would get more people to consider your views than your current strategy. In fact, what are some games you like? I am genuinely curious and promise to listen and not judge whatever those other games are that you like.