D&D (2024) What is your oppinion of 5.24 so far?

[mamba]

This is baseless.
They could as well ignore your voting if you voted all 5 or all 1 as it might have shown that you did not differentiate your answers.

what is baseless is claiming they might ignore it, and at no point did I say to vote all 5. It will be a mix of 5, 1, and blank

And you base your conclusion on the presumption that you know better than WotC how to best poll their audience. Probably out of lack of understanding of how surveys/statistics work.

no, it is the logical conclusion of seeing what happens with the poll results

For once I would want to see someone counter with a ‘and this is why you are wrong’ instead of just dismissing it outright or saying ‘you think you know better than WotC’, as if they are infallible

Instead of blaming it on a lack of understanding, how about you try to understand my point first

 

[Gradine]

Just curious, but has there been any word about putting out a new/revised Starter Set with the 5.24 rules?

 

[Sulicius]

Just curious, but has there been any word about putting out a new/revised Starter Set with the 5.24 rules?

Not that I am aware. Dragons of Stormwreck Isle was released kinda recently, and I think it was intended to be the kit for this revision.

Now I don't think that really works, but from what I've heard it's a great starter adventure.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

what is baseless is claiming they might ignore it, and at no point did I say to vote all 5. It will be a mix if 5, 1, and blank

I did not state it as fact.

no, it is the logical conclusion of seeing what happens with the poll results

Nope. You really mix up logic with wild guessing.

For once I would want to see someone counter with a ‘and this is why you are wrong’ instead of just dismissing it outright or saying ‘you think you know better than WotC’, as if they are infallible

Impossible, because we don't have WotC's data and methods.* I also don't say they are infalliable.

Instead of blaming it on a lack of understanding, how about you try to understand my point first

I tried. But there is really nothing in it that makes sense. You make claims that are probably untrue (you might be right, but we don't know, but it is unlilely).
So please stop making accusations you cannot prove. This is how conspiracy theories work: stating things without fact, making "logical" conclusions about things that are not easy to prove without insight in certain things.
They also reverse the bruden of proof. We really have enough of that already.

*what we know is that polling is more complex than many people think. Especially in a poll where mostly those interested in a certain outcome take part. So there are a lot of biases in play. You might look up at least a summary of them. There you might find one possible reason why the treshold of satisfactory rating is 70%, not 50%.

 

[Aldarc]

I worry they added too much, making the game more complex with longer turns and more decisions. Non-optional feats at 1st level, weapon masteries, sneak attack options, and so on. This was clearest to me when they described the rogue who now gets a free off-hand attack when using a dagger, more options on their bonus action, and choices about how to spend sneak attack dice. It’s a lot of extra stuff and I see no way it won’t make combat take longer. Having seen what long combat can do to the rest of the game in 4e, I’m not excited for that.

It’s not clear to me if weapon masteries are limited to once per turn – I don’t think they are – and that seems like a problem after they said that it was a problem with stunning strike and divine smite. The idea of a fighter trying to knock a boss prone four to six times in a turn doesn’t excite me as a DM, that’s for sure.

Twice now WOTC made remarks on D&D Beyond and on their YouTube videos like “frustrating for DMs” and “monsters will hate this” and avoiding “mother may I” (or, as I see it, GM agency over the situation) which makes me think they steered it towards a game where the DM is the adversary. I have no desire for a game like that. Again, they tried to do this in the 4e days and many DM, myself included, felt like we could go down stairs and play PlayStation while the players ran the monsters themselves. I’m not eager to return to that.

So we’ll see but, for me, it feels like a big bag of candy handed to players with no consideration to how DMs have to deal with it when all this new stuff hits the table and we have to build a fun game for everyone out of it.

None of these changes matter if DMs don’t want to run it.

I’m happy to have a lot of options though. I’m enjoying my Level Up Advanced 5e game right now and Tales of the Valiant looks great with many similar changes to D&D 2024 but more restraint (they have weapon masteries but they can only be used once per attack action). When WOtC puts out the 2024 rules into the 5.2 SRD other creators can build more new versions as well so we can fix it if we need. Houseruling is also an option but it feels like a failure if we have to house rule it right away.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

After all your criticism of WotC and these changes, you have also indicated that you will buy all the books and you will likely still play it so why should WotC care? IMHO, this sends mixed messages.

Moreover, I think that your concerns here are a little overblown. There is no need scaremonger by throwing shade at 4e D&D. Regardless of our respective feelings towards 4e D&D, there is undoubtedly a lot of excluded middle between the changes in D&D 5.24 and 4e D&D. The changes seem to move 5e's complexity by a molehill's worth of verticality towards a 4e-sized mountain.

If you are playing and enjoying your Level Up Advanced 5e game, which is more advanced and rules-heavy than 5e D&D, then why is it an issue that D&D 5.24 also has more complicated rules? Doesn't combat last longer in 5e Advanced? Why is one okay but the other isn't? That to me is unclear when reading your post.

Anyway those are also my thoughts when reading your post.

 

[Zardnaar]

I counter that Most d&d players are very casual. Definitely not like here on enworld, but also not really the kind that’s going to spend an hour each survey responding and also not the kind that’s going to go out of their way to playtest.

In some sense the long surveys and playtests really tell us what the most diehard d&d fans want.

I noticed this 20+ years ago.

How the 3E boards worked was different to the way others played.

 

[vagabundo]

I'm not too impressed yet. But for me anything less than a full roll back to 4e era is a disappointment.

I swore off 5e and 5.5e has yet to prove itself. One of my regulars is pushing for me to use 5.5e for my Temple of Elemental Evil game in 2025, but I'm resistant. I might just reskin 4e for him with 5e terms and some natural language and call it a hack.

 

[Aldarc]

The problem here is the knock-on effects from raising the overall difficulty of encounters this way. And with how variable damage is in D&D, that means you're very likely to have adventuring days where attrition is uneven from hard encounters. In effect, higher difficulty days mean you're going to do too much damage to some PCs and they will simply choose to long rest.

So, IMO, that was their logic during the 2014 playtest:

1. The 5 minute adventuring day is a problem
2. If PCs rested during the day, it wouldn't be a 5 minute problem
3. We need the PCs to short rest to recover
4. We can strongly encourage the PCs to short rest by giving classes abilities that recover on short rests

The first problem that they found:

1. Long rests are really good because they fix everything.
2. We keep having PCs take too much damage to justify only short resting
3. If combats were easier, then the damage variance in the game would be reduced in severity
4. Let's lowball encounter difficulty. Instead of 3-4, we'll double it to 6-8. Then we rename the encounter difficulty categories. Trivial is now called "easy." Easy is now called "medium." Medium is now called "hard." And hard is now called "Deadly." And the old deadly category is removed entirely.

Then, of course, they decided to nerf short rests by limiting how many hit dice you get back. This has the disastrous side effect that the one thing that long rests don't fix... is that you took a short rest. Thus, it's often still better to long rest because if you short rest then tomorrow you won't be at 100%. The only attrition built in to 5e is tied to short rests. Stupid.

The second problem was that they made 3 classes extremely reliant on short resting (Fighter, Monk, Warlock) and then made 8 classes (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, WIzard) extremely reliant on taking long rests. They needed 3-4 more classes to be more reliant on short rests and 3-4 fewer classes to be reliant on long rests. Oh, and Rogue, barring some subclasses, is an outlier. It's not reliant on rests at all.

The fix is that instead of incessantly punishing long resting -- time pressure, ambushes, gritty recovery -- that the game needs to reward not long resting.

I would have preferred if the game and classes were built around short rest instead of long rest, and I think that it would have been more conducive for streams like Critical Role or Dimension 20.

 

[Morrus]

Pretty sure this thread is all about opinions and speculation.

There's a difference between 'opinion' and 'actual misinformation'. Please stay on the right side of that line.

 

[Parmandur]

Just curious, but has there been any word about putting out a new/revised Starter Set with the 5.24 rules?

Nope, not yet, but they have said previously that the recent Stormwreck Isle set was expected to continue past rhe new Core books release.