D&D (2024) What Should D&D 2024 Have Been +

[ECMO3]

DMs certainly get upset/ miffed/ disturbed/ disappointed/ whatever when an encounter goes "badly" because a spell wipes out the encounter.

Some do. I don't generally think they are good DMs. But like I said they get miffed when clever play wipes out the encounter too.

Players get frustrated when their PC is overshadowed by anothers due to MCing.

I don't think this actually happens in play. I mean the option is available to everyone if it is available to someone.

Or one player see his PC downed by a huge attack, and another is missed because of an overpowered 1st-level spell, then the first player is annoyed, yeah... it happens.

This has happened to me (many times actually) and when it has I am happy that the other PC is still in the fight to possibly .... usually .... keep my PC from dying.

This actually happened in my game Friday. The fighter hit for poor damage despite having +5 to the roll, missed on his Action Surge, and then had the Warlock's fireball wipe out most of the enemies, including the one the fighter was trying to take out. The player was annoyed, and really felt the "why bother" thing.

Ok I guess you found the one in a million.

And while I am at it, I don't know why is he playing a Fighter and not a Warlock? I mean he purposely and knowingly picked a class that is weaker and will not carry as much load in game, right? But he gets upset when players who picked a class able to outshine the others outshine him. Let him respec into a caster.

I have no idea why you are bringing up the fear spell.

It is what I used in my example - Fighter does 8 damage, Sorcerer casts Fear and ends the encounter.

It is an example of things that could (and similar ones do). Again, the monk vs. bladesinger shield thing was your example...

It is not just an example it is something that happened in play (I was the Monk).

LOL everything you just mentioned is everything we don't ignore:

I don't ignore them either, and generally don't do any of that in games I DM. But they are the most common homebrew you will find in online games and are the things I have had players ask me about or ask me to do (usually I don't).

As a player, I do play in games that have this sort of homebrew though even if I don't allow it myself.

Another one I missed - Inspiration rules .... sometimes every session, sometimes every long rest, sometimes every level up sometimes a combination of those. Again not something I do when I am DM but something that is common.

Nerfing spells are NOT a minority IME. Come on, how many threads have been just here about nerfing this spell or that spell because it is OP and unbalanced!?

Very few people post on ENWorld. Nerfing spells are a small minority. I play a lot of D&D and it is rare you find that.

The only thing I commonly see nerfed at all is summoning spells that allow you to summon hordes of monsters. I have seen a substantial number of DMs eliminate the low level mass numbers from those spells because of how long it takes to do all their turns in combat. But the worst spells mechanically - Shield, Fear, Forcecage, Counterspell, Simulacrum etc ..... very rarely nerfed.

I have also seen Silvery Barbs banned, but that is not a balance thing as that spell is not OP and is not nearly as powerful as the best 1st level spells. It is just annoying.

Please, honestly, really, you think that?

I know it. I regularly join online games and host online games and it takes longer, sometimes much longer, to fill a table if you are playing a game that does not allow multiclassing. This is true even though most players do not multiclass.

As an aside it also takes longer if you play an adventure that is not a WOTC adventure or if you say you are using homebrew.

Half the games out there don't allow MCing at all!

I don't think this is true. Most players don't multiclass, I do know that. But most games do allow it.

cough cough Ok, look at the "improvements" in the 2024 Monk... I know of at least one poster on EnWorld who would never go back to the 2014 Monk now.

But why is he playing a Monk at all when a more powerful option is available? The fact that players choose Monks or Barbarians or Fighters at all means unequivocally they do not choose the most powerful options.

Or how rare is it for someone to play the original pre-Tasha's Ranger once Tasha's came out?

I don't play the pre-Tasha's Ranger because they are too woodsy for me, but I did not play them before Tasha's either. Tashas was a huge improvement on the class and not just mechanically.

Note I have played Monks (not the ONE version) and Fighters both before and after the Tasha's Ranger, so it is not like I have an aversion to pre-tasha's Ranger because it was weak.

No one really takes Prodigy if Skill Expert is available.

I have taken both of these feats since skill expert became available, although neither is a feat I take often.

When a more powerful option is available to replace a less-powerful one, few "regress" to the "weaker" option.

Again why do we have people playing Fighters and Monks and Barbarians when more powerful options like Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric are available. Even more powerful martial options are available than those classes (Monk at high level excepted).

Yet people, including experienced players, continue to line up to play those classes. I "regress" to those "weaker" options all the time and statistics show many, many players do as well.

Sorry, I assumed your first pre-Cleric class already had medium armor.

LOL, you just proved my point: a wizard (no armor proficiency AT ALL) takes a SINGLE level of cleric and gains:

1. (potentially) all armor and shield proficiencies
2. 3 cantrips and likely several prepared cleric spells
3. another subclass with whatever features it has
4. a better Hit Die
5. and loses NO spell slots in the process!

The worst part is without enforcement, IME groups just let a player grab that level dip with no in-story or in-game reason why or time to learn/gain everything they do.

You forgot they usually get all weapon proficiencies out of it too. It is a minimum of 4 prepared Cleric spells since you need a 13 Wisdom to multiclass and you get 2 spells with your subclass.

If you ask them for a story and you will get one, every time. It might be weak but not all players are JK Rowling.

Ranger doesn't grant expertise, though, does it??? In Tasha's maybe?? I don't recall...

The ability is not called expertise it is called "Canny" and it doubles your proficiency bonus in one skill, so mechanically it is the same, although one instead of two skills.

Expertise is a sad reason to need to dip into Rogue. Why does the player feel the need expertise, anyway? It is a "rogue and bard" thing, after all... (unless houseruled or Tasha'd as I mentioned...).

Because they want it to be a thing for their PC.

Great backstory! Thanks for sharing, I really like it.

When did you take the level of warlock? IMO if that was your first class, and then you transitioned to bard for the rest of the game, that would make a bit more sense in-story than if you began as a bard and just "dipped" into warlock.

She started as a Warlock. The pact happened before the campaign.

Anyway, you now have a 1st-level spell slot rechargable on a short rest, which can be great--especially since you aren't limited to using it only on warlock spells. Hex is great, as is Eldritch Blast.

Hex is ok as a combat spell. I only have 1 attack unless I use EB and I don't have Agonizing Blast so it is not great damage and Hex is gobbling up my concentration that I could use on Mantle of Majesty or Fear or Nathair's Mischief.

I really like Hex out of combat though, especially if it is already cast and you just have to move it. I love the idea of being able to curse someone as I walk up to them to talk to them and it fits so well with the Winter Court.

The slot rechargable on a short rest is good, but not as good as a 4th level slot. But when you add in the other abilities - extra spells, extra cantrips, Fey Presence .... at 7th level overall I think I am a more powerful character than a 7th level Bard.

You haven't given anything up really, just delayed it by a level, for a subclass power, 2 cantrips, 2 spells (which you can also cast with your bard spell slots), and a short rest spell slot --- all for the low, low price of a single level. For another level dip, you'll also gain another 1st-level spell, another short rest spell slot, and two invocations, which can be supremely useful!

Yes but you play those levels, so when you delay something you give it up for part of the game. So when I was 3rd level I did give up the opportunity to have Mantle of Inspiration during thast part of the campaign and that is a killer subclass ability. I also did not get Mantle of Majesty until 7th level,. I gave it up at 6th level, again another killer subclass ability.

Now if I was starting at 7th level I would agree with you, I did not really give that stuff up.

All classes also take a big jump in power at 5th level and you lose that. Take the extreme example above of a Wizard who takes a Cleric dip for Armor, weapons, spells, subclass ability etc. That is a huge pile of stuff she gets on that dip and it translates into a more powerful character generally. But even in this case at 5th level she can't cast Fear or Hypnotic Pattern or Counterspell or Dispel Magic. The Paladin who takes a dip to get the shield spell can't make 2 attacks a round at 5th level.

If there is something I have seen players get upset at with multiclassing it is this - when your 5th level PC can't do the kinds of things expected from a 5th level PC and it is the opposite of what you are talking about elsewhere. It is players getting annoyed at another player for being too weak and not doing their part. The 5th level Wizard-Cleric in heavy armor is NOT stealing the show with Fireball or Fear and that is what players are annoyed at. She went andd got heavy armor instead of getting the game-changing spells (that will overshadow them). This is still a minority though.

Overall, I would see this as a sideways move more than anything. It might be a bit less powerful than straight bard, but not much IMO and you get some very nice things for it.

It depends on level. At a few levels (like 7th and 11th) it is more powerful than a single class Bard. At some levels (3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 14th, 18th, 20th) it is quite a bit weaker. Overall I would agree, pretty comparable though.

 

[mamba]

Then I think you'd be wrong.

obviously you’d think that, that is where you started

Do you have any data that would settle this? Would the leaked sales numbers do?

How many PHBs per DMG would need to sell for the players to buy more products (and that is a generous criteria, but I believe even at that simple point you would be shown wrong…)?

 

[tetrasodium]

obviously you’d think that, that is where you started

Do you have any data that would settle this? Would the leaked sales numbers do?

How many PHBs per DMG would need to sell for the players to buy more products (and that is a generous criteria, but I believe even at that simple point you would be shown wrong…)?

I'm coming in late & not sure if it's been linked but maybe the legally backed☆ "DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases" statement will add some weight too

☆ It was made as part of a shareholder reporting thing, thosee are covered by some pretty strict laws about honesty & accuracy.

 

[Lanefan]

Precedent for rulings is typically for things that are not covered or are unclear in the rules. If you say your game is RAW on spells or multiclassing and change that just to spite something a player put in their PC build because you don't like it, that is not setting a precedent.

Then do the right thing and live with it, and remember it for the next session 0.

Given as my session 0s are usually many years apart, the odds of my remembering every little thing are close to zero.

That's what the houserules document is for.

No it doesn't. If a player comes up with a combination that automatically one-shots every enemy in the game you play the campaign to the end and implement a rule in the next one.

It is just flat wrong to lead players to believe they can do something and then take it away because you did not understand how it works ahead of time.

If the choice is between shutting something down once before it's done in-game or allowing it and then having to live with it for maybe ten years (my campaigns tend to go that long or more), I'll shut it down once and take the flak.

Now this is completely different. TBH when a player researches a new spell I ask them what they want it to do and level they think it should be and more often than not they make it underpowered for the level.

Most cases player created spells are pretty weak and I would not let them be even above average for their spell level.

For example I had a PC that wanted to use a lightsaber and she made a spell called Sunbird's Lightsaber. It was similar to shadowblade but used a spell casting ability, was not finesse, could not be thrown, dealt Radiant damage and did not give advantage in darkness. So overall weaker than Shadowblade. She said she thought it should be 3rd level and I thought it was underpowered at that level but I let her go with it.

Our experiences are roughly similar here.

 

[TwoSix]

I know it. I regularly join online games and host online games and it takes longer, sometimes much longer, to fill a table if you are playing a game that does not allow multiclassing. This is true even though most players do not multiclass.

I would definitely be wary of a game advertising "no multiclass" as a feature. It's a pretty strong sign that the DM and I aren't going to agree about what's important in a game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would definitely be wary of a game advertising "no multiclass" as a feature. It's a pretty strong sign that the DM and I aren't going to agree about what's important in a game.

Is what's important in a game the ability to multiclass?

 

[TwoSix]

Is what's important in a game the ability to multiclass?

Yes, obviously. Without multiclassing, what are we even doing here?

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Maybe it's in there, maybe not, I haven't been tracking the changes so much.

Two things I wish there were:

• Reaction rolls or equivalent
• Morale checks or equivalent

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think it should have been a clean break from 5e, a new edition named 6e... I think the half measure of "its new with all new rules, but it's the same" is a mistake

 

[Argyle King]

I wish the 2024 would switch from 5ft-Squares to the 1yard/1meter-square.

I'm aware that 1 yard ≠ 1 meter, but it's close enough that I would be okay with either being used.