D&D (2024) What's Your Experience Like with '24?

[ezo]

So the fact that commentary has been overall positive is encouraging.

It is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy IMO.

Again, people who know of the changes but don't think they will like them, aren't going to even try playing, and so have nothing to report.

Whether or not it is "encouraging" is, of course, subjective. IMO it is not encouraging because it means the game will continue to shift away from my own preferences. You'd think I'd be used to that by now, huh?

 

[DragonLancer]

Only one session so far. I'm running Ghosts of Saltmarsh under 2024 edition. So far everyone enjoyed it. Nice simple system with just enough complexity to keep everyone happy. We're more used to Pathfinder 1st these days so getting our heads around somethings, like skills, has caused some pause as we've had to look up what you can and can't do with them. Overall the reaction has been very positive.

 

[Parmandur]

Subclasses at level 3 for Cleric is fine but feels weird for Warlocks. Generic cleric initiates work ok in a polythesitic religion where priests end up focusing on a patron god at a later point in their training. We don't have a Sorcerer but I guess it's ok to let the charatcer guess where they got that power from until they know themselves better, but Warlocks making a pact with an undefined entity until the players decides who it was at a later point in the game, is awkward from a character background and RP perspective.

The new PHB pretty plainly suggests starting at higher Levels for experienced players and groups: getting to Level 3 even going by XP is, like, two sessions. Basically, Level 3 is the ground zero for when the PCs come online, and they don't seem to imagine most groups starting from 1 each time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm still working on balancing things out a bit and it will be interesting to see how the new MM changes things but so far so good.

Yeah we've been holding off actually running 5E 2024 until the MM comes out - one of the DMs has the PHB and the DMG, and there's nothing that seems particularly "worse" than 2014 (the only classes with problems had problems before, just slightly different ones), and a few things that seem better (nothing that was a major issue though), but the really big changes to how D&D actually plays seem like they'd be in the MM. Really hoping it's pretty significantly better.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy IMO.

Again, people who know of the changes but don't think they will like them, aren't going to even try playing, and so have nothing to report.

Whether or not it is "encouraging" is, of course, subjective. IMO it is not encouraging because it means the game will continue to shift away from my own preferences. You'd think I'd be used to that by now, huh?

I think that you're being overly negative. D&D has never matched my "preferences".

But I think the new rules are a better version of the game, by a degree, than we had before. They aren't any closer to my preferences, other than that I feel that more of the options are worth taking (and therefore, actual "options") - which I think is a Good Thing. And I like good things.

I don't think that the game plays (effectively) slower than it did before, either.

 

[Azzy]

Well, I doubt you're going to get much like:

"We've played it for a few months now but it sucks, it takes too long, PCs are OP compared to 2014, it sucks not having a MM to go along with new PC power bumps. So, yeah, we're dropping it. Wished we hadn't wasted money on this garbage. We're going back to 2014 and have 2024 books to sell if anyone is interested?"

Because the only people who are really going to play it already know what they are getting into and accept they will over all like it. Sure, some might find this little thing or that little thing annoying, but if you're trying it you're probably expecting to like it and you're just going to get mostly positive reports.

So, you're basically asking for "What is the new, great glory for the 2024 version that you really like and what annoys you?" and that's fine, but since you didn't make this a (+) thread can you expect people who aren't keen on the changes to at least chime in?

I'm absolutely fine with people—who've actually played it—not being keen to it and saying so. Memes aren't constructive and don't further conversations. Hopefully you can see the difference.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm absolutely fine with people—who've actually played it—not being keen to it and saying so. Memes aren't constructive and don't further conversations. Hopefully you can see the difference.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist, I am actually interested in the OP question)

 

[Mort]

Yeah we've been holding off actually running 5E 2024 until the MM comes out - one of the DMs has the PHB and the DMG, and there's nothing that seems particularly "worse" than 2014 (the only classes with problems had problems before, just slightly different ones), and a few things that seem better (nothing that was a major issue though), but the really big changes to how D&D actually plays seem like they'd be in the MM. Really hoping it's pretty significantly better.

IMO the 2024 rules fix any issues I've had with the Barbarian, especially the Frenzy barbarian.

The Monk also seems like a new class and much better, really looking forward to seeing it past level 4.

 

[GrailNite]

I was in the camp of, I've switched to Pathfinder 2nd edition Remasterd, and had previously posted in another thread about it, that I probably would never go back to D&D. All that out of the way, I've recently found myself at a decision to move out of state. After contacting a FLGS in the town I'm moving to and learning of a TTRPG group; the most popular game being run is 5th edition and many of the groups have adopted the new 2024 rules. I ended up picking up the PHB and DMG and had the opportunity to play in a one-shot game online. So far I think the rules updates are good IMO, no big issues seen during our session aside from referencing the new rules just to be clear on things. Overall, I'm happy with the changes as a player. Typically I'm the DM, so I look forward to trying a campaign or two with the updated rules.

 

[ezo]

I'm absolutely fine with people—who've actually played it—not being keen to it and saying so.

But you realize you aren't going to get much, if any, of this, right? You might get an occasional "the new monk is too good" or something, but that's it. Just glowing reviews all in all because the people playing it are getting what they want or hope for to one degree or another and will report back just that.

I mean, no big deal, we've had plenty of threads about why people won't like it, but instead of responding to "unhelpful" posts which offer no real discussion points, ignoring them might be better?

Or challenge them by asking why it was posted if you want to go that way?

But, when you want only people who've actually played it offering "comment", a (+) thread keeps things more in line IME. Since you didn't make it a (+) thread, you can expect naysayers IME.

I think that you're being overly negative. D&D has never matched my "preferences".

I think I am being more realistic of the expectations of the sorts of responses you'll get to the OP when people reply.

The only real issue I've seen come up is the issue of slower play due to more options, but like yourself many others have said they haven't noticed a reasonable difference, if any.

But I think the new rules are a better version of the game, by a degree, than we had before. They aren't any closer to my preferences, other than that I feel that more of the options are worth taking (and therefore, actual "options") - which I think is a Good Thing. And I like good things.

Then the new rules, are, in fact, closer to your preferences?