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

[mamba]

Ended up giving it a 6. A 7 would be justified too (I would give 2014 that), but 2024 is just treading water and that costs it a point. Add to this that the game is (slightly) moving in a direction I do not like, and 6 is the more accurate number.

Still makes 5e the high point for D&D. 1e would get a 3 for being incoherent, 2e improves on that to a 4 or 5 and 3e and 4e stay around 5 (I assume, haven’t really taken a closer look at them), mostly for being mechanically more solid than 1e or 2e

 

[Chaltab]

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.

In terms of highest proportion of good sub classes I would say it's actually Tasha's Cauldron. Sure it has the bonkers Cleric subclasses but it's not an accident that so many of the others ended up in the 2024 PHB.

 

[ECMO3]

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

Conquest and Fey Wanderer are respectively the only Paladin and Ranger worth playing. I could tell you why, but it might Frighten you.

 

[pukunui]

In terms of highest proportion of good sub classes I would say it's actually Tasha's Cauldron. Sure it has the bonkers Cleric subclasses but it's not an accident that so many of the others ended up in the 2024 PHB.

Agreed. While a lot of people point to Tasha's as the start of the power creep, I maintain it is a more coherent "everything" book than Xanathar's was.

 

[Lazybones]

I gave it a 7. I am running two campaigns right now that are still using the 2014 rules and one that's 40 sessions into the 2024 ruleset.

I really like the books; the highlights for me are the covers (alt versions) and the interior art, and the overall organization. I like the way they put the basic rules up front in the Player's Handbook with plenty of examples, and really like the rules glossary in the back. I think that the core classes are better balanced with each other, with some necessary boosts (e.g., monks, berserker barbarian, beastmaster ranger, and some of the other good things taken from Tasha's), and some necessary nerfs (e.g., paladin smites). I like the changes to the feats, including the origin feats, changing all general feats to half-feats, and the removal of the -5/+10 options. My 5.5 group has just started setting up their Bastions so the jury's still out on that subsystem, but overall I really like the new DMG. The way they organized the monsters in the MM took me aback at first (i.e., eliminating the general entries for demons, devils, dragons, etc.), but I'm getting use to it.

Weaknesses for me are the reduced options such as the "missing" core subclasses (which I know will be fixed over time with additional releases), and the lack of clarity with some rules such as Stealth/hiding. When my one group made the switch I was quick to offer some house rules on that and some other things like grappling. I've also had to make some adjustments since overall, the player characters are significantly powered up in this edition. The campaign I referred to above is using an adventure that I originally created for the 2014 rules, and just substituting the new monsters hasn't been enough to bump up the challenge to their current power level. But overall, I like the new edition and so far prefer it to the 2014 rules.