D&D (2024) Wrapping up first 2-20 2024 campaign this week, some of my thoughts

[ECMO3]

I'm guessing indomitable is great. I've noticed I. The rare high level games DCs creep up around 20.
Even spellcasters with less than great saves are going to flunk that a lot.

Had a few "look at the pretty lights" scenario. Translation save at 15% chance or whatever to have your turn.

We are above 20 for most monsters that matter, but with Indomitable and Heroic Warrior the Fighter can make a 30 DC easily.

He also has Mage Slayer and has not failed a save that matters in a long time.

 

[ECMO3]

Isn't there only 1 lvl 20 campaign?

There are 2 from WOTC I know of (DOMM and VEOR), but there are a lot from independant publishers, I have played at least 4 independent campaigns that went to level 20 myself.

 

[ECMO3]

Wow. If this has taught me anything as a DM, it is to show restraint with magic items (and follow the attunement rules to the letter), but also ban “dip” style multi-classing.

I don't think dip style multiclassing is a big problem. My PC and the Valor Bard both have Divine Smite out of a dip and the Valor Bard also has Pact of Blade from a dip. Those have not been overwhelming though and neither of us are the powerhouse the single class Fighter is.

My Bard dip is actually a spacer level. I was level 17 with 9 levels of Rogue and 7 levels of Warlock. I get a feat at 10 and 8 and by sticking a level of Bard in there I can get epic boons as feats for my last two levels (and push Charisma to 22). I could have taken a 2nd level of Paladin as well, but Bard 1 is a caster level while Paladin 2 is not.

I have some pretty neat tricks and synergies that my Warlock multiclass gives to the base Arcane Trickster, but I also have 7 levels in Warlock, so it is not what I would call a dip.

Personally I really like to multiclass. I have played single class PCs in one-shots, but as far as campaigns, I only played one single class PC past level 3 in all of 5E (a Kender Conquest Paladin in SODQ) . I have had a few single class characters die before I got into my 2nd class, but they would have multiclassed if they survived longer. Multiclassing is undoubtedly more powerful at some levels but it is also generally weaker at some as well. When everyone else at the table is getting either extra attack or 3rd level spells for example and you aren't. I really like it though as a player.

Curious that bosses were defeated in one turn without being able to fight back. Don’t most of them have legendary resistances and actions?

They do/did fight back, or at least some of them did. All of them have Legendary resistance at this level and most of them have Legendary actions and Lair actions.

 

[ECMO3]

5E multiclassing legit damages the game more then it helps.

I really like multiclassing and my character ideas feel restrained if I can't do it.

I think multiclassing is official now and no longer "optional" so to speak.

I also think the mechanics in the 2024 rules encourage a 1-level dip in Paladin or Ranger or Monk for a lot of builds.

Letting half casters round up for spell level took away the biggest negative for a caster grabbing a Ranger or Paladin level.

 

[ECMO3]

Precisely! It comes down to communication with the player. Find out what they're looking for, what "theme" that they want.

Nearly all of the classes (if not all) have a sub-class with an emphasis on magic (for those who want to have some spells) or "psionics", and as you mentioned, there are Feats that allow borrowing of the abilities of another class.

I'd rather people focus on one class at a time, but work out with them what they feel is lacking.

Nothing wrong with the playstyle focused on builds and optmization. Not for me and my campaigns though. To each their own.

This might work for players who don't have a lot of experience, but as someone who has played a lot I feel like I can figure out what I want for my character better than the DM.

It is not always about optimization though. I play Rangers more than anything else, and the only Ranger subclass I play is a Fey Wanderer. It would be pretty darn hard to build the kind of Fey Wanderer I typically want without the ability to dip into an Arcane Class (typically Warlock, Bard or Sorcerer) or Rogue.

 

[Zardnaar]

This might work for players who don't have a lot of experience, but as someone who has played a lot I feel like I can figure out what I want for my character better than the DM.

It is not always about optimization though. I play Rangers more than anything else, and the only Ranger subclass I play is a Fey Wanderer. It would be pretty darn hard to build the kind of Fey Wanderer I typically want without the ability to dip into an Arcane Class (typically Warlock, Bard or Sorcerer) or Rogue.

Fey Wanderer is good and I think you might be onto something with it.

 

[mearls]

2. Combat balance is worse at high level than in 5E. By the end of the campaign most fights were lasting only 1 round. Bosses went down without a turn at all about half the time. This is an MCDM adventure with a bunch of buffed monsters too, it would be worse using 5E or 2024 standard monsters.

For what it's worth, I crunched the numbers on character output in 5.5. A party that leads with their most powerful abilities does more than double damage compared to their base abilities.

That means fights should end in about a round or a round and a half.

 

[Zardnaar]

For what it's worth, I crunched the numbers on character output in 5.5. A party that leads with their most powerful abilities does more than double damage compared to their base abilities.

That means fights should end in about a round or a round and a half.

You're about right. Round 3 if it happens is probably mop up. Maybe 4 if range prevents you killing something eg moping up that last archer or whatever.

In typical adventure anyway. DM custom encounter can be different

 

[Swarmkeeper]

For what it's worth, I crunched the numbers on character output in 5.5. A party that leads with their most powerful abilities does more than double damage compared to their base abilities.

That means fights should end in about a round or a round and a half.

Which fights? First combats after a rest? All fights? Published combat encounters? Something else? To really evaluate your point, I think we need to know what’s on the other side of the equation.

 

[Oofta]

Which fights? First combats after a rest? All fights? Published combat encounters? Something else? To really evaluate your point, I think we need to know what’s on the other side of the equation.

That's always going to be the question for me as well. In my games I never use easy encounters, most are high end of moderate or are hard. I'll typically have at least 3-4 encounters per long rest. It's not at all uncommon to have 1 or more PCs drop to 0 during a combat.

I've always found ways to make the game challenging, at least most of the time.