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

[Will Brandiman]

The longbow needs Dex of 13 to avoid disadvantage on attack rolls due to the Heavy property:

Heavy​

You have Disadvantage on attack rolls with a Heavy weapon if it’s a Melee weapon and your Strength score isn’t at least 13 or if it’s a Ranged weapon and your Dexterity score isn’t at least 13.

 

[Retros_x]

The longbow needs Dex of 13 to avoid disadvantage on attack rolls due to the Heavy property:

Heavy​

You have Disadvantage on attack rolls with a Heavy weapon if it’s a Melee weapon and your Strength score isn’t at least 13 or if it’s a Ranged weapon and your Dexterity score isn’t at least 13.

Ah thanks, I didn't double check (bless of not being the DM). Although that makes wonder what the design intention is of this property.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Some moments of "this is a dumb change and we are going to ignore it." A handful of "oh, that's better, yes."

One of those things that I think is a BIG feature is that "backwards compatibility" - whether you agree that they achieved it or not - allows one to truly pick which version of 5e they prefer, in bits and pieces.

"This is a dumb change"? Then keep playing that bit the way that you have since 2014. The wheels are not gonna fall off. Just ignore it, keep what you like, and move on. It's not a big deal.

But the "oh, that's better, yes" parts? They're absolutely worth adopting, IMO.

And it doesn't even matter if we agree as to what those bits are. A good example would be weapon masteries. I think they're okay, (though maybe not quite what I would have liked out of new martial options). But if you find they slow your game down or are too fussy or just don't like them? Don't use them. I'd still play at your table.

 

[I'm A Banana]

One of those things that I think is a BIG feature is that "backwards compatibility" - whether you agree that they achieved it or not - allows one to truly pick which version of 5e they prefer, in bits and pieces.

"This is a dumb change"? Then keep playing that bit the way that you have since 2014. The wheels are not gonna fall off. Just ignore it, keep what you like, and move on. It's not a big deal.

But the "oh, that's better, yes" parts? They're absolutely worth adopting, IMO.

And it doesn't even matter if we agree as to what those bits are. A good example would be weapon masteries. I think they're okay, (though maybe not quite what I would have liked out of new martial options). But if you find they slow your game down or are too fussy or just don't like them? Don't use them. I'd still play at your table.

Yeah, agreed. Close enough to backwards compatible if you squint. Not significantly worth worrying about where it's not. And I like the flexibility.

My groups generally like the weapon masteries (even though they do slow things down a bit). The dumb bits are pretty isolated, thankfully - specific spell effects, for instance. IMXP, no one who casts a spell called Conjure Animals wants an AoE damage. They want a friend or three to help them (usually to help them attack). Utterly fails at the fantasy.

 

[Parmandur]

IMXP, no one who casts a spell called Conjure Animals wants an AoE damage. They want a friend or three to help them (usually to help them attack). Utterly fails at the fantasy.

The Summon Spells serve thst function now: the 2014 Conjure Spells were a major breaking point in the system that caused Issues. They tested the AoE version in UA and apparently they flew well in general.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The Summon Spells serve thst function now: the 2014 Conjure Spells were a major breaking point in the system that caused Issues. They tested the AoE version in UA and apparently they flew well in general.

Listen, I am sure there is the seed of a good reason behind every decision someone thinks is bad. Like, I'm sure that sleep was considered OP by some metric and so they had to hit it hard with the nerf bat and now make it kind of a bad idea to cast if there's more than one monster in the encounter.

It's still valid to think it's bad. To decide that the new version is worse. To actually want to conjure some animals when you cast conjure animals. To criticize the 2024 edition for catering to the online balance commentariat rather than centering the experiences of someone who wants to conjure animals and put their foes into an endless slumber.

WotC can be doing what it thinks is right and still wind up doing something a lot of people think is bad. Folks can disagree. Especially because it's still possible to use the older versions of those things and remain delighted by them.

 

[Wolfram stout]

My group switched to . . . Lord of the Rings 5E for our next campaign, and that's going well!

However . . . when initially discussing the upcoming new 2024 rules, most of my group was all, "Bah humbug, new rules? I don't think so!"

But now, in the middle of our LotR 5E games . . . they all bought the new PHB and are asking questions about using the new rules! Hah!

The mood is positive so far, and we've implemented minor things here and there but haven't gone full 2024 yet.

Very interested in this. I sped read through the thread and didn't see any follow-ups. What were your players wanting to bring into LOTR 5ed ? I assume not classes or races (As that is the point of useing LOTR 5e).

What, if anything, are you bringing into your LOTR game?

Thanks

 

[Parmandur]

Listen, I am sure there is the seed of a good reason behind every decision someone thinks is bad. Like, I'm sure that sleep was considered OP by some metric and so they had to hit it hard with the nerf bat and now make it kind of a bad idea to cast if there's more than one monster in the encounter.

It's still valid to think it's bad. To decide that the new version is worse. To actually want to conjure some animals when you cast conjure animals. To criticize the 2024 edition for catering to the online balance commentariat rather than centering the experiences of someone who wants to conjure animals and put their foes into an endless slumber.

WotC can be doing what it thinks is right and still wind up doing something a lot of people think is bad. Folks can disagree. Especially because it's still possible to use the older versions of those things and remain delighted by them.

Sure. Probably the other option would have been to just replace ghe old Cpnjusre text with the Tasha's Summon text, which may have played better for thst fantasy. The older options were DOA, however.

 

[Zaukrie]

For me, Level-Up has areas where it's drastically better than WotC 5e, and areas where it's not (that is, better for me). Primarily that area would be the "Advanced" part of A5e. I would actually personally prefer slightly-less-advanced 5e. Something more akin to Shadow of the Weird Wizard, maybe, but slightly more-like D&D than that, if you get what I mean. Something a bit toward Shadowdark, but again, still a little closer to 5e than all the way to Shadowdark. I think I've said before, that 5e is pretty close to the maximum complexity that I'd like, but I'd like the complexity to be in very different places than it is. Certainly, I'd prefer Spellcasting to be utterly simplified. I'm barely even interested in anything over level 12 in D&D, for example.

But, you know - no one cares about what I want. And that's fine.

Check out Nimble.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

No proper campaign switch just yet but I have run a couple of session based on the Uni the Unicorn adventure on D&DBeyond using Beyond Maps.

The first session was with a group organised by my nephews as a one off when a player could not make it. Did not complete the adventure but got most of the way there.
all 4th level a rogue, 2 life clerics and a rog/ranger
One of the life clerics was not well build in terms of ability score assignment and they realized it halfway through.

They enjoyed it, not sure how accurate I was on the rules, I had barely read the PHB and before the DMG came out.
I was very impressed on the healing capabilities of the clerics under the new rules.

The second group, we have been playing together since the eighties, one of the players is not really into D&D plays with us to be social and I prebuilt his character a rogue, I also ended building the wizard players character because they are really bad with technology and could not complete or import their character into the campaign. I used Presto pregen as the basis for the pc. We also had a shadow monk and a celestial warlock.
2 sessions with that groups as we have far less time per session. The interesting thing here was the rogue player really liked the game play, loved vex on their shortsword and Steady Aim features.
I was (and the wizard player also) impressed by potent cantrip even though the player really prefers the 2014 evoker with the early sculpt spell feature.
The monk player liked the monk even though I thought they were overly cautious with their focus points.

Overall, at this level I do not think it ran any slower than the 2014 version. The feedback was positive.