D&D (2024) Is Combat Tedious on Purpose?

[DragonLancer]

Are you finding any significant difference/improvement in the 2024 version of 5e vs the 2014 version? If so, how so?

I cant answer that because I only ever played 2014 once and that was a short online campaign during Covid, so I wasn't familiar enough and I don't really remember. My experience largely has been Pathfinder 1st which we played since it's launch until recently when I decided to pick up the new 2024 rules and get back to D&D.

What I can say is this... using the encounter/CR matrix in the new DMG has made encounters more appropriate. Better than PF or D&D3.x ever did. I find that the HP to damage off monsters in 2024 has reduced the time spent rolling away to hit but that the opponents deal enough damage so as not to be a walkover. We're still getting to grips with the system but with the exception of one Legendary monster, combat encounters never go past 5 minutes and are usually done sooner. In a couple one shot games at my FLGS that I have run (converted PFS scenarios over), when there are newer players the fights can last a little longer.

One thing I have noticed is that unlike PF/D&D3.x, 2024 doesn't seem to use opponent's with class levels which must speed things up a little. The one PFS scenario I converted where I did create a NPC boss as a 3rd level Fighter, the encounter did last a lot longer.

Legendary actions did slow things slightly but that was down to not being something I am familiar with from previous experience and I did pause briefly to decide if I wanted to use and which ability. That will change with more experience.

 

[Minigiant]

They could be inclusionary. You just have to provide multiple options in the books. Or WotC could just pick a side and run it all the way through with full transparency. 4e more or less did that, and even though I didn't and don't like the side upon which they came down, I respected it and still do. This is why I still feel doing a proper 6e would have resulted in better games and, in the long run, happier fans.

5e is a victim of its own success.

It brought in so many new fans and 3PP that it lacked the consumer mentality to allow for major update stronger than sunken cost.

 

[Micah Sweet]

5e is a victim of its own success.

It brought in so many new fans and 3PP that it lacked the consumer mentality to allow for major update stronger than sunken cost.

I agree that's it's a decision they made, but I'm not sure what you mean by, "consumer mentality".

 

[Minigiant]

I agree that's it's a decision they made, but I'm not sure what you mean by, "consumer mentality".

A lot of 5e's base in 202X are not used to a REAL edition change. The majority of them only played 5e. The minority went through the 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e, and/or 4e to 5e.

So as much as people say "Blah I hate (fundamental 5e aspect), they aren't used to a game change that makes all the books they bought before incompatible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of 5e's base in 202X are not used to a REAL edition change. The majority of them only played 5e. The minority went through the 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e, and/or 4e to 5e.

So as much as people say "Blah I hate (fundamental 5e aspect), they aren't used to a game change that makes all the books they bought before incompatible.

That makes sense, but I maintain the hobby would have been better off if WotC had moved on to a new, perhaps more focused game that does what they want it to do and left 5e to the 3pp producers.

 

[James Gasik]

It's been part of the 5e strategy this whole time to try and avoid making older books obsoleted if at all possible (off the top of my head, I think the only 2014-era books that have been obsoleted are the SCAG and Volo's?). An entirely new edition runs counter to that strategy- YMMV as to how obsoleted or not 2014-era books are in the new paradigm.

Not saying this is a good or bad strategy- there's pros and cons to it. 3.5 meaning you had to buy the core rulebooks all over again. Paizo aggressively issuing errata so that books quickly become obsoleted (with one, the Advanced Class Guide, being obsoleted practically the instant it hit shelves!).

Not sure what the happy medium would be there.

 

[tetrasodium]

A lot of 5e's base in 202X are not used to a REAL edition change. The majority of them only played 5e. The minority went through the 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e, and/or 4e to 5e.

So as much as people say "Blah I hate (fundamental 5e aspect), they aren't used to a game change that makes all the books they bought before incompatible.

A significant chunk of what you call a "majority"∆ will enthusiastically support anything wotc publishes. Bad polling and the sort of questionable testing that allowed so many millions to b involved in sigil thinking a vtts was a video game

∆ we've all heard the phrase "lies damned lies and statistics", the results of self selected polling is notoriously unlikely to reflect reality to the point that statistics courses often warn against it while teaching how to conduct and accurately weight polling.

 

[AlViking]

5e is a victim of its own success.

It brought in so many new fans and 3PP that it lacked the consumer mentality to allow for major update stronger than sunken cost.

It's funny. Because you don't care much for 5e it's a "victim". Meanwhile I and the people I play with are glad that they kept core systems with improvements. It's not sunken cost, it's a popular approach that works for a lot of people that just needed a few upgrades.

The system isn't perfect and there are things I wish they had made different choices but if it ain't broke don't fix it.or at least don't completely reinvent it.

Doesn't matter to me if you like something I happen to like I just disagree with your opinion of what they did and why.

 

[Minigiant]

That makes sense, but I maintain the hobby would have been better off if WotC had moved on to a new, perhaps more focused game that does what they want it to do and left 5e to the 3pp producers.

Sure better for the hobby.
But significantly worse for the IP holder which is WOTC.

That's why I often sigh as some fans suggest companies perform actions that would make them less money or lose them money.

"X should give them us Y for free"
Why would they do that? Or what are you agreeing to in order for them to go that line?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure better for the hobby.
But significantly worse for the IP holder which is WOTC.

That's why I often sigh as some fans suggest companies perform actions that would make them less money or lose them money.

"X should give them us Y for free"
Why would they do that? Or what are you agreeing to in order for them to go that line?

My suggestion is healthier in the long-term IMO, and definitely better for the hobby. Your hyperbolic example is obviously ridiculous.