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

[pukunui]

I don't know I am a pretty experienced DM and so are many of the DMs I play with and those who switched to 2024 are using that guideline.

Based on my experience, I think as a starting point it is solid advice period, certainly any table can play with any variations they want. Just like a table can decide to ban shield or that Fireball should be 6d6 instead of 8d6 or change any of the actual written rules.

You say there is not a problem with mixing and matching for experienced DMs, but we have plenty of people on this board complaining about the backwards compatibility not working well in their games. Also some of the old rules that were replaced just flat won't work with the new 2024 design. If you run a chaotic "rule in the moment" style game I think mixing and matching works better. When I DM though I like to set a baseline on expectations and rules in session 0 and if you are mixing and matching that is a heck of a lot of rules to cover. It is a lot easier, simpler and more elegant to just say 2024 rules trump anything also in 2014 .... then let's make these specific exceptions for this particular campaign.

Here are some examples:

In a game I play in one of the players really liked the old 2014 version of Inflict Wounds. Mostly because he liked to play a Gish Deatg Cleric and use Hold Person and follow it with a 5th level or so Inflict Wounds rolled with advantage for 14d10+25 on a hit. He did not like the new Inflict Wounds and said so in session 0. So we house ruled it, both the old and new version exist but they are separate spells and you prepare one or the other (or use 2 preparation slots and prepare both). It is a lot easier to set a baseline and then make adjustments IME.

In another game based on my first 2024 game, I did not like the way the new Mage Slayer Feat or Indomitable worked, so as DM in session 0 for a 2024 game I started recently I said those two things used 2014 rules. In the first campaign we played them all the way to the end as written in 2024, but when I DMed after that experience I changed it up. This was session 0 so players knew that was the deal.

Look, I get not wanting to change the rules willy nilly in the middle of a campaign. However, I do think you're being too rigid about this one particular guideline. "I can't do this because it would go against the designers' unofficial advice" is a weak argument. It makes it sound like you're looking for justification to tell your player to suck eggs.

My advice: have a conversation with the whole group. Tell them all that one player isn't happy because they didn't notice that the new Sentinel feat doesn't work the way the old one did, which has a major impact on their PC concept. If everyone's in favor of letting that player swap out the 2024 Sentinel feat for the 2014 version, then you're all good. You've got explicit permission from your group to amend the rules mid-campaign. If they're not keen on it, or if they give you indication that they want you to make exceptions for them as well - then you can either tell your player to suck it up or give everyone this one opportunity to rejig something mid-campaign. (Like how AL campaigns generally allow one mid-campaign character respec before level 5.)

The point is - if you're worried about changing stuff post-session 0, all you have to do is get your group's buy-in. It really is that simple!

Now, if you are looking for justification to tell your player no, just remind them that they agreed to go with "2024 rules unless there's no 2024 equivalent" during session 0. You can then add that you'll make sure to bring it up during the next campaign's session 0.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

That's a mighty leap of putting words in my mouth. I explicitly called out just rules traps, and you are saying that I would only be satisfied with no changes at all between 2014 and 2024. That's a fairly huge difference, and I ask you not to twist what I said.

We have some spells that Wizards renamed. Like Befuddlement instead of Feeblemind. It doesn't reduce Int or Charisma to 1, still allows communication, etc. It's clear from the renaming that there are large differences between what Feeblemind did and what Befuddlement does.

Here we have the most common use (PAM+Sentinel) completely nerfed, without a name change. Yes, players should read but there's some expectations that something will act somewhat the same. Maybe something grants uses per long rest instead of short rest, or Proficiency modifier instead of an ability score. Changes, but keeping expected functionality intact. If they want it to act differently, do like they have already done with the 2024 rules and rename.

They probably used the same name precisely because they nerfed those abilities. That is, they don't want people using the 2014 versions.

 

[Blue]

They probably used the same name precisely because they nerfed those abilities. That is, they don't want people using the 2014 versions.

If that was true, they wouldn't have renamed Feeblemind.

We have examples where they've changed functionality enough, and the direction they took was to rename, which does leave the old spell still in play unchanged. It seems a leap to assert that they intentionally took the exact opposite solution in a different place. At the very least it needs some support that's the case just like I provided for them picking the other way.

 

[Zardnaar]

O gave my players tge choice to switch to 2024 or not.

BUT we are using the new feats and spells if you do switch.

Ask first for anything else. I allow races (except the banned ones basically flyers).

No mixing and matching feats and spells though if it's been reworked.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If that was true, they wouldn't have renamed Feeblemind.

They probably renamed feeblemind for sensitive issues.

I think people should just use tge version they like. 2024, 2014, LUp, ToV.

All compatible but slightly different versions. And if you don'r find any version you like there, just make up a house rule.

2024 is by far not perfect. And for every issue removed from 2014, they added another one.

The reach property changing your reach for OA by default is terrible anyway in my opinion. 5.24 has a good workaround though. Just decide not to use your reach weapon and use an unarmed attack or use the reach waeapon as an improvised weapon.
Yes, you use damage and possibly your weapon mastery, but unarmed strikes for opportunity attacks are great anyway.

I am also not sure thar disengage works as advertised. Right now it is also engage. Maybe disengage should only spare you from attacks from people within 5ft when you use it. So no disengage and running around freely.

 

[Morrus]

I don't know that they actually said the opposite,

I know you don't; you said as much. Somehow you only heard them say two things over the 2-3 hype cycle. I'm impressed, I'll give you that!

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

If this is such a simple and elegant solution, then why did you bother coming here to make a thread just to tell us that your player was bummed about it? Cause that doesn't sound like the solution worked. Which means it wasn't simple and elegant at all.

I mean if the point of the thread was just to let folks know about this particular rules quirk you found... you could have done that without the additional commentary about your player's feelings on the matter. But the fact you mentioned it has made most of us believe that you no longer have a simple and elegant solution, but rather an actual problem in your game you're looking for assistance to solve. And a lot of people are responding in regards to trying to help your player be less unhappy, not to bolster your decision on campaign rules.

So I guess the big question is... what are you looking for here? Do you want people to give you the thumbs-up to you continuing to use this policy of yours even if the player is unhappy? Or do you want all of us to just forget about that part of your post where you talk about your player, and only talk about this particular Sentinel feat rules quirk? What do you want from the rest of us?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If that was true, they wouldn't have renamed Feeblemind.

That's a special case, purging all "offensive" language was a higher priority than explicitly overwriting all legacy content.

 

[Blue]

That's a special case, purging all "offensive" language was a higher priority than explicitly overwriting all legacy content.

(And @UngeheuerLich said similar)

Huh, I just searched on it and saw "Feebleminded" is considered offensive. Okay, I'll go with that explanation, that's in-line with other changes they've made which was the basis of my point before so it would be hypocritical of me not to recognize it even if it doesn't support my point.

With the supporting pillar of my argument legitimately called into question I looked for other mechanics name updates to find them few. With this new information I need to update my answer and agree with those I was arguing against. Renaming was done as a special case for sensitivity, not for significant changes in functionality.

 

[ECMO3]

Look, I get not wanting to change the rules willy nilly in the middle of a campaign. However, I do think you're being too rigid about this one particular guideline. "I can't do this because it would go against the designers' unofficial advice" is a weak argument. It makes it sound like you're looking for justification to tell your player to suck eggs.

That is not it, it is more like I am not going to do this because I said I wasn't going to do it in session 0, we will change it in the next game.

My advice: have a conversation with the whole group.

I do this, in session 0.

Tell them all that one player isn't happy because they didn't notice that the new Sentinel feat doesn't work the way the old one did, which has a major impact on their PC concept. If everyone's in favor of letting that player swap out the 2024 Sentinel feat for the 2014 version, then you're all good.

I find that discussions like this in the middle of the campaign sometimes cause problems. You presume everyone in the party will be ok with it, and in that case sure there is no problem. Often though one guy isn't ok with it and either he stays quiet about it so as not to go against others and then he feels cheated or he is honest says he doesn't want to change and then the guy who wanted the change feels slighted by others in the party.

I think it is easier and better just to let him get a different feat if he wants and we can change the rules when we play the next campaign campainn, which is only a few months away.

You've got explicit permission from your group to amend the rules mid-campaign.

Quite the opposite. We all agree in session 0 to the rules and what homebrew we are going to use and we also only deviate if it causes very serious game play problems.

The point is - if you're worried about changing stuff post-session 0, all you have to do is get your group's buy-in. It really is that simple!

Sure if they buy in. Not so simple if they don't and we ALL already bought in to which feats we were using and which one we weren't.