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

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't mean to be salty, but have neither of you never looked at a metacritic score and had that impact your decision?

Frankly, no. But that's not the point.

If folks want to explain why they rated it a 7, fine. Great, even. But the idea that you don't know what a numerical rating is makes me suspect of your motives here.

MY motives? It's not my fault that I had to go back and forth with you when I simply asked for a point of reference!

Not every 1:10 scale means the same thing. It's also increasingly pointless to have as many gradients as TEN if there's no information as to what a six even means compared to a seven.

But, fine whatever. I'm done here if you want to question my "motives" for asking, what seems to me, like a basic follow-up so that I can be informed when I give my answer.

 

[Nikosandros]

When did Beyond launch? Was it in 2014? I dont recall it much talked about back then. Though, I do hear about it often now, and think EN World folks often underrate its use.

Wikipedia says that it launched in August 2017 and I've been a member of the forums since March 2017. So, probably, in early '17 the site was up and in August they started selling products.

 

[Reynard]

Wikipedia says that it launched in August 2017 and I've been a member of the forums since March 2017. So, probably, in early '17 the site was up and in August they started selling products.

Probably worth noting that WotC bought Beyond in 2022.

 

[Plaguescarred]

5E24 is not perfect but rank high for me 8-9

 

[Jacob Lewis]

So my understanding is that there’s no prescribed context for this rating system—it’s left to each voter to define their own standards. That works fine for me. I don’t look for truth or validation through public consensus, nor do I feel the need to align with a selective audience whose opinions are shaped by factors that don’t matter to me personally. My rating is mine alone.

I gave it a 2. I’ve been playing D&D since B/X and have bought into every edition since. 5e was the first one that didn’t hold my interest. The system itself was well made and even enjoyable at times, and I might have rated it a 6 or 7. But it wasn’t enough to keep me invested.

This revision, however, is the first version of D&D that failed to persuade me to even try. Nothing here suggests I’d get more than what the original 5e already gave me—except the chance to spend more money rebuying the same game. Whether the changes are good or not doesn’t matter; they simply aren’t compelling enough to draw me back for the sixth (or eighth, or tenth) time.

So my rating isn’t about the system itself, the company, or the online discourse. It’s about the fact that, for the first time since the early ’80s, a new edition of D&D didn’t even attract my interest, and likely never will.

Cheers!

 

[VHawkwinter]

Love of (and time investment in mastering) 2014 5e is the fundamental reason I despise 2024 5e. While I generally like exploring new game systems, learning 2024 was just a miserable slog because it really does almost nothing new while making enough (often seemingly arbitrary) changes to force a lot of relearning and confusion. And it's just all a little off from the version that won my heart.

Remember that there are two types of diehard Coca-Cola fans, the ones for whom the very similar Pepsi is their second favorite drink, and the ones for whom the nearly the same but wrong Pepsi is their absolute least favorite drink.

But I guess it's nice that me and the people who really hated my favorite game now have something to bond over.

I just saw this on Facebook and it made me think of your post.

 

[VHawkwinter]

This revision, however, is the first version of D&D that failed to persuade me to even try. Nothing here suggests I’d get more than what the original 5e already gave me—except the chance to spend more money rebuying the same game. Whether the changes are good or not doesn’t matter; they simply aren’t compelling enough to draw me back for the sixth (or eighth, or tenth) time.

So my rating isn’t about the system itself, the company, or the online discourse. It’s about the fact that, for the first time since the early ’80s, a new edition of D&D didn’t even attract my interest, and likely never will.

Cheers!

I get this.

For the record I also skipped 3.5 for like 4 years, and just kept using the 3.0 corebooks. The compatibility was high enough that I didn't bother, and my players were not optimised enough for the broken spells that got nerfed to break our games. Some of THEM bought the new PHB, and they photocopied the feats they wanted or the classes they wanted to use, and I would let them use them, but that was about it. Eventually I bought the 3.5 corebooks because I saw them for really cheap. In hindsight I wish I had kept my 3.0 corebooks when I moved and downsized. Some day soon I will have to hunt down ebay replacements. 3.5 was a very mixed bag and I'm not sure I would consider it a net improvement - I would imagine 5ev2024 is in a similar space for some of the people who already liked 5e.

(Note: That's not to say 3e has no problems I disliked and I'm opposed to change. I just think regarding the design choices of 4e and 5e "the cure is worse than the disease", and would have preferred a fix to 3e go in a very different direction. More GURPSy mechanics, while retaining a more sound D&Dlike marketing strategy and book layout - which is not the games we got).

But anyways, you can always keep playing the game you already have.

 

[Zardnaar]

So my understanding is that there’s no prescribed context for this rating system—it’s left to each voter to define their own standards. That works fine for me. I don’t look for truth or validation through public consensus, nor do I feel the need to align with a selective audience whose opinions are shaped by factors that don’t matter to me personally. My rating is mine alone.

I gave it a 2. I’ve been playing D&D since B/X and have bought into every edition since. 5e was the first one that didn’t hold my interest. The system itself was well made and even enjoyable at times, and I might have rated it a 6 or 7. But it wasn’t enough to keep me invested.

This revision, however, is the first version of D&D that failed to persuade me to even try. Nothing here suggests I’d get more than what the original 5e already gave me—except the chance to spend more money rebuying the same game. Whether the changes are good or not doesn’t matter; they simply aren’t compelling enough to draw me back for the sixth (or eighth, or tenth) time.

So my rating isn’t about the system itself, the company, or the online discourse. It’s about the fact that, for the first time since the early ’80s, a new edition of D&D didn’t even attract my interest, and likely never will.

Cheers!

If you didn't like 5E I don't think 5.5 will change your mind.

 

[Zardnaar]

I get this.

For the record I also skipped 3.5 for like 4 years, and just kept using the 3.0 corebooks. The compatibility was high enough that I didn't bother, and my players were not optimised enough for the broken spells that got nerfed to break our games. Some of THEM bought the new PHB, and they photocopied the feats they wanted or the classes they wanted to use, and I would let them use them, but that was about it. Eventually I bought the 3.5 corebooks because I saw them for really cheap. In hindsight I wish I had kept my 3.0 corebooks when I moved and downsized. Some day soon I will have to hunt down ebay replacements. 3.5 was a very mixed bag and I'm not sure I would consider it a net improvement - I would imagine 5ev2024 is in a similar space for some of the people who already liked 5e.

(Note: That's not to say 3e has no problems I disliked and I'm opposed to change. I just think regarding the design choices of 4e and 5e "the cure is worse than the disease", and would have preferred a fix to 3e go in a very different direction. More GURPSy mechanics, while retaining a more sound D&Dlike marketing strategy and book layout - which is not the games we got).

But anyways, you can always keep playing the game you already have.View attachment 416410

Yeah 3.0 had some advantages over 3.5 (I prefer 3.5 BTW its not perfect).

A modern 3.X I would probably use 3.0 as a base, 3.5 HP (3.0 monsters were weak) and add some sort of engine to power it reigning in numbers bloat. Every subsystem after that can be tweaked.

 

[Belen]

I am playing 5.5 now while running 5.0. I rate 5.5 around a 4. It really did not address the few issues I had with 5e while adding power bloat and minor rules changes that just confuse people who had mastered 5e.

There were a few minor improvements crowded by annoying changes and power creep.

If anything, 5.5 will make me look at older editions or other systems for my next game.