D&D 5E (2024) Rate D&D 2024

Rathe D&D 2024

  • 1

    Votes: 5 2.7%
  • 2

    Votes: 5 2.7%
  • 3

    Votes: 13 7.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 13 7.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 19 10.2%
  • 6

    Votes: 15 8.1%
  • 7

    Votes: 28 15.1%
  • 8

    Votes: 40 21.5%
  • 9

    Votes: 23 12.4%
  • 10

    Votes: 10 5.4%
  • No opinion, but I wanted to be counted anyway.

    Votes: 15 8.1%

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
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
 


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.
 

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.
 

Oh my god is it 2008 again?
No... Probably more like 2014-2015, as in 2008 I was still enthusiastic about a D&D4e, as mechanically I found it very strong. I even bought everyone in my group 4e PHBs to start playing it, and bought most of the 4e products during it's lifetime. It's just that none of us ever felt motivated to DM it for our group. I could identify parts of why I didn't like it, it was only after 5e came out that we identified why we didn't like it: It didn't feel like D&D to us. Don't assume that just because I see it as WoW means I think it's bad, I still have the D20 WoW books. ;) But just like 4e, we never played that... (just like so many other RPGs I own)
 

Going to give it 7, maybe it was a 6, but in general I love 5E and how easy is to modify it for house rules.

why not higher or even 10?

1. Too much backtrack on good ideas for UA playtest.
everything was sacrificed on altar of muh-compatibilitah, and all that compatibility will be thrown out of the window with every new book for 2024.

2. Mastery as much as good idea was badly implemented, would work better as light-maneuvers that are available at-will for martials.

3. moving away from more customability that was in Tasha's. Might be better with future books and more ACF(alternate class features)

4. Artwork.
Yes, art is very subjectable, but personally, it's very bad.
I would rather have 20$ cheaper book without any artwork. Or better, artificer class, 5 subclasses per class and reworked every feat that was published for 2014, even those not working out in past UAs.
 

Voted No Opinion
Bought the 3 books, GM screen and deluxe character sheets AND haven't touched them since.
May wait till the box set thingy comes out as my first steps to playing
 



Remove ads

Top