D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[dave2008]

I fully agree with his take. I bounced off 2024 for this reason. Players are just too OP, there are no hard / permanent choices any more and the result does not feel like a real world but like a power fantasy in Disneyland.

I heard a lot of the same complaint with 4e and 5e14. So what is different with 5e24 IYO? Personally, I am not seeing any real difference in play. I let my players chose whichever book they want to use for their characters. It doesn't matter to me as a DM. I don't feel the 24 PCs are more difficult to challenge then 14 PCs (though my experience is obviously limited).

PS - I do want to clarify that we use a modified ruleset in that we have a lot of houserules. However, we apply these equally to both 5e14 and 5e24 characters so I am not sure it makes a difference (thought it may).

 

[TwoSix]

If the dude doesn't want to play 5E24 and wants to remain with 5E14, that's fine. No skin off of anyone else's nose. Same way no one cares if someone wants to keep playing 4E or 3.5 or PF, or switch over to TotV, A5E, Shadowdark, Draw Steel! or the like. Everyone can play what they want.

What the blog post quoted really sounded like to me was another "I've been left behind" woe-is-me post. Which happens a lot every time there is a change in game, edition or even just supplement. And that's more about personal ego than it is anything having to do with the viability of the games themselves. Their preferred game is not the game that most of the "audience" is going to be concerned about, which will limit the eyeballs on their blog (if that sort of thing matters to them.) But it is something every single person has to go through... when the powers-that-be create a new game that they themselves don't like, and thus they have to deal with the blow of no longer being a part of the "in-crowd" for the new game.

But you know... too bad. It has happened before and will happen again. You grow up and accept it.

Yep. It's pretty common among those who are newer to the hobby, and especially those who are focused on implementation and technique within one system rather than playing a broader swathe of games. They lack the familiarity with the concepts of how different systems work, so changes feel much more consequential then they actually are.

Like, a lot of people seem to view 5e24 as some kind of epochal change; to me, it barely registers as a different ruleset.

 

[Minigiant]

What the blog post quoted really sounded like to me was another "I've been left behind" woe-is-me post. Which happens a lot every time there is a change in game, edition or even just supplement. And that's more about personal ego than it is anything having to do with the viability of the games themselves. Their preferred game is not the game that most of the "audience" is going to be concerned about, which will limit the eyeballs on their blog (if that sort of thing matters to them.) But it is something every single person has to go through... when the powers-that-be create a new game that they themselves don't like, and thus they have to deal with the blow of no longer being a part of the "in-crowd" for the new game.

The issue is that people make this argument but never offer the solutions.

So the game always leaves these people behind because those who offer solutions eventually get part of the reins. Folk who say everything is fine and are shocked that they become no purchasing customers who aren't marketed to anymore

Closed Mouths don't get fed

(Full Disclosure. My occupation is in Sales)

 

[mamba]

I found that some of the monster design was to make monsters last only a few rounds of combat.

I see it the other way around, we already know the monsters will only last 2-3 rounds, so why bloat the stat block with skills they will / should never use during those few rounds

 

[mamba]

It’s funny when people think D&D should be one specific type of fantasy and then start lashing out at the other types of fantasy that it does resemble.

wasn’t it the other way around? It supported a wider variety in 2014 than it does in 2024, and that is what he is complaining about

 

[bedir than]

"knee jerk" isn't writing this post after playing and writing for the rule set for well over a year

"lack of familiarity with other games" for someone who has written and played other games for decades

People seem to be reading what they want to see rather than reading what was written by someone who has been active in D&D commentary for years

 

[TwoSix]

The issue is that people make this argument but never offer the solutions.

So the game always leaves these people behind because those who offer solutions eventually get part of the reins. Folk who say everything is fine and are shocked that they become no purchasing customers who aren't marketed to anymore

Closed Mouths don't get fed

(Full Disclosure. My occupation is in Sales)

Well, there's two different threads of arguments here. One is how should WotC market create and design material, especially "edition changes", to ensure a broad and growing player base with minimal losses.

The other is how should a singular player, when faced with rules changes that are unfamiliar and/or unpalatable, adapt and react to those changes.

I, personally, care little about what changes WotC make to 5e. But I do feel the commentary linked to in the OP is a little overwrought, precisely because the commentator doesn't seem familiar with broader historical trends in how games can be played, and how rules editions always change over time. And that overwroughtness is kinda funny, precisely because it's been so common to see over the last 25-30 years that it's become a cliche.

 

[Yaarel]

During e14, level 1 was too fragile. The increasingly frequent optional extra feat at level 1 became the standard for e24. Now these background feats are moderated to be less powerful than the level 4 feats. Level 1 is just right.

Now, if a setting wants to have fragile characters, it is easy to have level zero, by having species and background languages, skills, and feat, plus simple weapons and say base 5 hit points. But there are no levels in a class yet.

 

[mamba]

I heard a lot of the same complaint with 4e and 5e14. So what is different with 5e24 IYO? Personally, I am not seeing any real difference in play.

2014 was already borderline to me, 2024 just pushed a little farther, but that and the consequence free features of everything just pushed it outside the range I am interested in.

I might use the 2024 monsters, but the PHB, no thanks. While 2014 was ‘tolerable’, 2024 made me look for alternatives

 

[TwoSix]

I heard a lot of the same complaint with 4e and 5e14. So what is different with 5e24 IYO? Personally, I am not seeing any real difference in play. I let my players chose whichever book they want to use for their characters. It doesn't matter to me as a DM. I don't feel the 24 PCs are more difficult to challenge then 14 PCs (though my experience is obviously limited).

PS - I do want to clarify that we use a modified ruleset in that we have a lot of houserules. However, we apply these equally to both 5e14 and 5e24 characters so I am not sure it makes a difference (thought it may).

No idea. I would have to see a 5e14 and a 5e24 character of similar concepts side-by-side at low level to actually see if something is "OP", and I just don't have enough exposure to the 5e24 ruleset to make that determination.