D&D 5E (2024) Rate D&D 2024

[Scribe]

MTOF, VGM, and Xanathar's Guide were where the game really came into its own IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Forgot them.
ACKs 1 about the same as B/X. Better in some ways worse in others.

Pathfinder ahead of 3.5 not by much.

Most clones similarity edition based on. Ahead if they improved it (OD&D ones generally ).

Agree on ACKS 1 and Pathfinder 1. ACKS II is better IMO.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm no opinion since I haven't had a good look through the books and only have the online srd stuff available. From the playtests it was clearly heading in a direction I didn't like so I've no intention of buying it. I might play it in the future because I like gaming with friends and that's likely to be what they want to run.

 

[Chaltab]

I would but 2024 at a 7.5, but rounded down, 2014 at a 7. Older editions have now lower ratings then they would have had in the past. D&D4e would rate a 0 for D&D purposes, higher then that as a WoW pnp RPG... D&D3.5e I would now rate as a 6.5 and AD&D2e as a 6.

Oh my god is it 2008 again?

 

[payn]

I gave it an 8. I would give the 2014 version an 8 too. The 2024 version is better some ways, worse in others.

Either of these are much better than any of the earlier editions IMO.

Everybodys second favorite edition keeps on truckin.

 

[Reynard]

I decided to join you on your island. Especially considering the original question doesn't state what exactly the scale is representing. Is it how 5E24 rates as a ruleset against all previous D&D rulesets and/or editions? Is it rated compared just to its mirror of 5E14? Is it meant to be rated as an RPG against all other roleplaying games published? Is it rated as a complete book (including art, layout, description, graphics, editing) or is it just as a mechanical game ruleset?

Too many what ifs for me to give it a number grade at this point in time.

I was sort of trusting (general) you to be able to figure it out yourselves....

 

[pukunui]

If I were rating it on art and presentation it'd get a 9 or 10 but as I must consider the rules, I gave it a 7.

For comparison, I'd give 5E 2014 a 6 if the core books were all we had. MTOF, VGM, and Xanathar's Guide were where the game really came into its own IMO.

Questionable content aside, I really liked the Mordenkainen's and Volo's format. Xanathar's, however, was such a mixed bag for me. It just felt like a miscellaneous mishmash of good, bad, and meh. I really wouldn't call it a high point. For me, I think 5e's high point has actually been more recent: Bigby's, Fizban's, and The Book of Many Things.

 

[Scribe]

For me, I think 5e's high point has actually been more recent: Bigby's, Fizban's, and The Book of Many Things.

Impossible, while Bigby's and Fizban's I liked, Xanathar's had the Oath of Conquest, and pre-Tasha's is better than post-Tasha's anyway.

THEREFORE.

The peak was earlier.

 

[pukunui]

Impossible, while Bigby's and Fizban's I liked, Xanathar's had the Oath of Conquest, and pre-Tasha's is better than post-Tasha's anyway.

THEREFORE.

The peak was earlier.

You know how I feel about the Oath of Conquest! I won't deny it's a strong subclass mechanically. I will point out, however, that Xanathar's also gave us the Oath of Redemption, which is absolute pants.

 

[Scribe]

I will point out, however, that Xanathar's also gave us the Oath of Redemption, which is absolute pants.

See, beside the glory that is Oath of Conquest, all other things pale in comparison!

(Besides, just teasing.)