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

[Adamant]

I've been playing with the 2024 rules in Adventurer's League, which just started requiring rather than encouraging them a few days ago. So far there are more things I like than dislike, but some of the background rulings annoy me (more of an AL thing than a 2024 thing though, like feats from old backgrounds not being origin but being uncategorized instead). I would say my biggest complaint about the 2024 rules themselves is Ranger being so focused around Hunter's Mark that several subclasses no longer work smoothly (including Beast Master, which is actually in the 2024 Player's Handbook). I used to have a few rangers, but now I can't think of any that still work except maybe my Swarmkeeper (who doesn't use their bonus action as part of their subclass).

A bigger problem is lack of support on DNDBeyond, which is essential for me since I play exclusively online via the Beyond20 browser extension and (usually) Roll20. There are so many things broken with DNDBeyond's implementation of the 2024 rules that it's really annoying, and many of them can't be homebrewed around because of site limitations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it? I wouldn't be surprised if immunity to nonmagical weapon damage is gone, which IMHO is a good thing. It was always kind of annoying that I didn't feel like I could use wererats at a lower level unless I gave PCs silver or magic weapons. Gargoyles? Like them and they're an interesting monster. Rarely use them as written at levels that match their CR because most PCs won't be able to do anything against them.

Do you have a reason for believing it's entirely gone from new monsters? I don't have an issue if it is, it's always been a bit of a weird property because their CR really changes based on whether or not the group has magic weapons available.

Don't most PCs cast spells? Seems like nonmagical immunity wouldn't be that big a hurdle in modern D&D. And silver isn't exactly rare.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Possibly, but as a general trend, people with negative comments are MUCH more likely to air their thoughts than those who are ok with or happy with something.

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

If you have a negative feeling about a game, you're likely to either not play it or stop playing it quickly. Either way, not much that can legitimately respond to the OP's question.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

If it's no closer to your preferences, why bother throwing another $150 at it? Is the small benefit over 5.0 (which still doesn't match your needs) really worth it to you?

 

[Azzy]

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 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.


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

Are you done threadcrapping now? And does one need to make every post a "+" post just to avoid threadcrappers? Because, if that's the case, that really says a lot about this fandom and community.

 

[OB1]

Running Infinite Staircase with a mix of 14/24 PCs and using the 24 rules plus my usual house rules. 4 sessions in and all is running smoothly. 24 Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian are very happy with the revised classes so far (currently at level 3) and love the weapon masteries.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

New rules work well im actual play.

None of my players try weapon switching wierdness or invisibility by hiding exploits.

My groups consist of all kinds of players. Young (age 12 to 16), old (age 35 to 47), new (first time players) , experts (playing since 2e), light optimizers and very casual players.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If it's no closer to your preferences, why bother throwing another $150 at it? Is the small benefit over 5.0 (which still doesn't match your needs) really worth it to you?

Because it's still a very fun game to play. Call me crazy, but I don't need to get everything I personally want at all times. Life comes with a lot of compromise. Sometimes, that means that I tweak a thing or two to get it to be closer to what I want (like you do when you use A5e rules), and sometimes that means putting up with the way things are. Also - A LOT of liberal "refluffing" - because story/lore is a big thing that I don't like much in D&D (though I put up with a lot of its assumptions as well). You do what you can.

But I don't feel a need to blame the game or WotC for any of that - it is what it is, and it always has been. It's not perfect. Not even close. But it IS a fun game. And 2024 is a slightly better version of 5e (IMO) which is a slightly better version of D&D (IMO). And D&D is fun to play. I like fun.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because it's still a very fun game to play. Call me crazy, but I don't need to get everything I personally want at all times. Life comes with a lot of compromise. Sometimes, that means that I tweak a thing or two to get it to be closer to what I want (like you do when you use A5e rules), and sometimes that means putting up with the way things are. Also - A LOT of liberal "refluffing" - because story/lore is a big thing that I don't like much in D&D (though I put up with a lot of its assumptions as well). You do what you can.

But I don't feel a need to blame the game or WotC for any of that - it is what it is, and it always has been. It's not perfect. Not even close. But it IS a fun game. And 2024 is a slightly better version of 5e (IMO) which is a slightly better version of D&D (IMO). And D&D is fun to play. I like fun.

Sure, I get why you would play. I just don't personally understand the value of paying another $150 for a slightly better version of the game I'm already playing (and for the record, I see Level Up as quite a bit more than a slight improvement over WotC 5e).

 

[Mort]

New rules work well im actual play.

None of my players try weapon switching wierdness or invisibility by hiding exploits.

My groups consist of all kinds of players. Young (age 12 to 16), old (age 35 to 47), new (first time players) , experts (playing since 2e), light optimizers and very casual players.

One of my players HATES tracking stuff and was initially complaining about weapon masteries. He's playing a Berserker Barbarian with a Battle Axe (and has the mastery so has the Topple feature).

By the end of the first session, he was grinning ear to ear - you'd have to pry weapon masteries from his cold dead hands, he's not going back. BIG hit there!