D&D (2024) Just realized Sentinel is heavily nerfed! No longer works with PAM, no longer works on most enemies who Disengage.

[ECMO3]

I agree, but I've been told for years by the company in the know that it's the same edition, so it shouldn't have traps in it.

We were told repeatedly by WOTC that if something is reprinted/changed you should only use the new reprinted version. I realize that level of detail is lost to many (most?) and it also is not written in the 2024 rulebooks like it should be.

If you follow this though it is highly compatible for example:

2014 Wizard - don't use has been reprinted
2014 Illusion subclass - don't use has been reprinted
2014 Enchantment subclass - Can use with 2024 Wizard class and works well

This is a pretty simple and elegant solution, it is easy to implement and if you follow this guideline it works very well IME. It is far easier than making a list of 100 things you are going to use from 2014 and 100 things you aren't going to use.

 

[ECMO3]

I'd consider a house rule for sentinel and change the "within 5 feet" to "within reach of a melee weapon or unarmed attack" but I'd do that in session 0. Seems more RAI to me.

That still would not fix it to like it was. It is not about disengaging next to or within reach of the guy with Sentinel, and whether that is 5 feet or reach is little difference. It is about disengaging somewhere else on the battlefield, far away from the guy with Sentinel and then walking right past him without provoking.

 

[AlViking]

That still would not fix it to like it was. It is not about disengaging next to or within reach of the guy with Sentinel, and whether that is 5 feet or reach is little difference. It is about disengaging somewhere else on the battlefield, far away from the guy with Sentinel and then walking right past him without provoking.

I understand that it's still not as powerful as the 2014 rule. I just think it would be silly to back up 5 feet but still not provoke so they could then disengage without being attacked.

 

[Morrus]

We were told repeatedly by WOTC that if something is reprinted/changed you should only use the new reprinted version. I realize that level of detail is lost to many (most?)

Were we? I recall the opposite--being repeatedly being told that it's the same edition, everything is fully compatible, you can use your old books, over and over again, don't call it a new edition whatever you do.

So now the message is it's not compatible, and that WotC has been saying that all along? As somebody who make sa living reporting on What WotC says, I beg to differ.

and it also is not written in the 2024 rulebooks like it should be.

The average D&D player just does what the books say. They don't look up who the designers are and check to see if there are any secret rules not in the book that they've told us about elsewhere.

 

[Morrus]

No you haven't. You have been told that the stuff that ISN'T yet updated should work with the new material. So you have to RTFM to know which things those are.

This is not my recollection.

 

[ECMO3]

Were we? I recall the opposite--being repeatedly being told that it's the same edition, everything is fully compatible, you can use your old books, over and over again, don't call it a new edition whatever you do.

Yes we were told that, at least twice in interviews with JC and one of their other guys and to be clear the message was they are compatible and this is how to use the new rules with the old.

So now the message is it's not compatible, and that WotC has been saying that all along? As somebody who make sa living reporting on What WotC says, I beg to differ.

Back in August-September 2024 when it was being rolled out this is what they said and that is what I listened to. I don't know what they said at other times before or since.

The average D&D player just does what the books say. They don't look up who the designers are and check to see if there are any secret rules not in the book that they've told us about elsewhere.

On this I would agree. They did not put it in the book and should have (or if they did I can't find it). By the same token though the new PHB doesn't say the two versions are compatible either. It gives a few examples of how to use old material, but to my knowledge makes no claim about broad compatibility. We are going by WOTC statements on that I think.

Edit: Here is Crawford's statement on this:

“So the classes, subclasses, feats, species backgrounds, and all the rest that you have in the new Player’s Handbook, you can use with any similar elements that appear in other books as long as it’s not the same thing,” Crawford said. “If a subclass appears in the 2024 rules and you’re making a 2024 character, you can’t use the 2014 version of that subclass. Same with feats, same with species, and any other element that basically as soon as it appears in its new form, that new form replaces the old form.”

Dungeons & Dragons: How Backwards Compatibility Works in 2024 Player's Handbook

Dungeons & Dragons lead rules designer Jeremy Crawford has explained exactly how backwards compatibility will work with their new Player’s Handbook. Later this year, Wizards of the Coast will publish a new Player’s Handbook for Dungeons & Dragons, featuring updated rules for character building...

comicbook.com

 

[Morrus]

Crawford said. “If a subclass appears in the 2024 rules and you’re making a 2024 character, you can’t use the 2014 version of that subclass.

Well if he said that he’s wrong, because I can.

 

[Morrus]

Yes we were told that, at least twice

Twice!

I don't know what they said at other times before or since.

Well, OK…

Maybe, just maybe, somewhere in that enormous gap in your knowledge outside somebody saying something twice somewhere, they spent 2 years repeatedly saying the opposite?

Because that’s what I heard.

 

[ECMO3]

Twice!


Well, OK…

Maybe, just maybe, somewhere in that enormous gap in your knowledge outside somebody saying something twice somewhere, they spent 2 years repeatedly saying the opposite?

Because that’s what I heard.

All I am doing is telling people how WOTC said backwards compatibility is supposed to work, I've used that method in my games and it works well.

I don't know that they actually said the opposite, if you read the article I linked, JC says it is backwards compatible, that is what the whole article is about - how to execute the backwards compatibility. So IMO there is not a contradiction between telling people how to do backwards compatibility and putting boundaries on it and at the same time saying it is backwards compatible.

If they in fact said that every single thing from 2014 would work 100% and that no accommodations would be necessary to play a hybrid game, then yes this is a contradiction, but I didn't hear them say that (perhaps because of my enormous gap). Playing by what I did hear them say works well.

 

[Tonguez]

I can’t say I’m sad that the polearm+sentinel combo was nerfed. Did they also pick bugbear as their species?

PAM+Sentinel was one of the few combos that allowed Fighters to actually be Masters of Combat, creating a tactical threat zone that others could respond to creatively.

Irl Halberds, glaives, and spears were designed for control: stopping a charging enemy, keeping foes at bay, punishing reckless movement.

it let the fighter be the Guardian sentinel or Phalanx soldier

DnD gives battlefield control to magic users with Hold Person, Wall of force and Banishment etc. GIving a Martial PC a bit of control on one opponent via one reaction is a good thing imho.