[D&D-5e-2024] In the Shadow of the Dragon

[Admin Bhelogan]

Originally Posted by penbeast0

Are you going to switch Western Marches over to 2024 rules or keep the old 2014 games going or a combination of both?

I don't DM there, but FWIW, the games I am running and in are not switching. Mostly because the majority of the changes impact character creation. But, a lot of things could be adjusted.

For those who have looked over the 2024 rules:
1) What is your favorite change?
2) What is your least favorite change?

[purplerook]

Originally Posted by Admin Bhelogan

I don't DM there, but FWIW, the games I am running and in are not switching. Mostly because the majority of the changes impact character creation. But, a lot of things could be adjusted.

For those who have looked over the 2024 rules:
1) What is your favorite change?
2) What is your least favorite change?

In The West Marches, we have no plans to change to the 2024 rules. This game is kind of an experiment for me to see how the rules work in active use. The other two GMs have no interest in using the 2024 rules right now.

Dislike: I like to run characters that melee with spells (e.g., Hexblade, Bladesinger, Fighter/Wizard multi-class). The new rules nerf many of those builds by removing the sub-classes and spells like Green Flame Blade.

Like: Moving the attribute bonuses into the Background (out of the races). As well, they've gotten rid of the separate half-breed classes by pushing people to specific races.

[BurrowingOwl]

Originally Posted by Admin Bhelogan

I don't DM there, but FWIW, the games I am running and in are not switching. Mostly because the majority of the changes impact character creation. But, a lot of things could be adjusted.

For those who have looked over the 2024 rules:
1) What is your favorite change?
2) What is your least favorite change?

I like some of the big, fundamental overhauls, like the change to having ability scores key off background instead of species... but the things I'm really excited about are all the little tweaks to make garbage character options viable. D&D 2014 is riddled with class abilities, feats, spells, etc. that are just bad, and while none of them wreck the game, and we all just kind of got used to ignoring them, it still sucks to have all of these character options in the game that could have been fun but aren't. So I like the fact that they've gone through and rethought things like the Four Elements monk, the true strike and witch bolt spells, etc.

If I had to pick a single favorite, it'd probably be the reworked Evasive Footwork maneuver for Battle Master fighters. The old version was this weird, obscurely-worded thing that required you to go online and look up what the devs had said about it to even figure out what the hell it was supposed to do - and, upon looking it up, you discovered that it was kind of crap and not really worth taking. The new version is powerful, versatile, and, best of all, written in a way that makes it clear exactly how it works and what it does. There's a whole bunch of clean-ups like that throughout the book - that one's just near and dear to my heart because I've played a lot of Battle Masters and been irritated by Evasive Footwork's uselessness every single time.

For a dislike... I'm irritated by the Divine Orders for clerics/Primal Orders for Druids. (There might be an equivalent structure for other classes; I haven't fully read every class yet, but this new structure is present in those two, at least). This is the thing where you choose at level 1 to either specialize in a more martial direction or to focus more on being a caster. That's a great idea so far as it goes. I always find myself wanting to play a cleric who isn't armored up and wielding a big weapon and a shield - if I wanted to play someone with a "holy knight" vibe, I'd be a paladin - and it's always bugged me that to get that "holy miracle worker" feel, you kind of have to go with a celestial warlock or a divine soul sorcerer, rather than, you know, a cleric.

The problem is that the two options are really imbalanced - the martial option for each class gives you better weapon and armor proficiencies, but the caster option gives you, like, an extra cantrip and boost to some Int-based skill checks. That's disappointing to me, not just because it's weak but because it's the kind of weak that shows up in a lot of the more poorly-designed character options in 2014 D&D. Extra cantrip picks or little boosts to not-terribly-vital skill checks are basically "packing peanuts" - the stuff they throw into bad subclasses to try to pad them out a bit and make them measure up to the better options. Better weapon and armor proficiencies are going to be a substantial help to a character throughout their entire career; the alternative option for casting-focused characters should be something similarly substantial. I don't know how I'd houserule that exactly yet, but it's definitely something I'd houserule to make the caster-focused option feel like you were getting something that was worth giving up the better armor and weapons for.

[Aisede]

I don't know enough about the old or new version of D&D to have much to say, but I do like the idea of thaumaturge or guardian clerics.

[jr1v3]

Originally Posted by Admin Bhelogan

I don't DM there, but FWIW, the games I am running and in are not switching. Mostly because the majority of the changes impact character creation. But, a lot of things could be adjusted.

For those who have looked over the 2024 rules:
1) What is your favorite change?
2) What is your least favorite change?

I liked how they revamped the hybrid classes like ranger and paladin. They can use the spellcasting since first level. Also that all the subclass are at 3er level for every class.There's the prepared spells that are now fixed and non ability score dependent so you can somewhat play a character with low abilities score without being limited with your spell selections. There's the martial weapon mastery and the option in combats that offers. The changes in some cantrip (specifically cantrips for druid and bards) and spell to improve their usability and the extra dice in healing spells as well.

The true cherry in the pie in the new changes are definitly the backgrounds and origin feat. They are so great that I love it. The way the species are is so good too.

What I dislike until now is that divine smite is a spell so you can only use one per turn and as a spell it can be countered by a counterspell so not so great. I didn't like the Divine Orders for clerics/Primal Orders for Druids as well. Like he said, the lacked in benefits over the melee options. I think they should include at least advantage in the skill roll or expertise at least or offer two cantrips instead or one cantrip and one prepared extra spell that can be changed in a long rest would be more suitable in my eyes. Another thing I didn't like was the twinned spell metamagic, the literally took all fun of it. Now only works with spells that specifically targets creatures like Charm person.

I really am pretty enthusiastic to play this bard, the bard improved like a TON. Their magical secret just allow them to take spells from wizard, cleric, druid and bard. You can really be any kind of spellcaster you will want. Your party need a blaster? the bard says you got it. Need a healer? OH, yeah, you bet that I am the healer here!. You feel the need to have a move naturalist approach? I could bring the magical force of nature at our favour. And what can I say of bardic inspiration? The fact that you only have to roll it when you fail a d20 test it means less wasted opportunities and now the time you can hold it is 1 hour! And the cutting word from lore subclass in the 2024 allow you to use bardic inspiration as a reaction to reduce damage (or render it into no damage at all) in you allies or yourself so it is a great feature in a pinch for saving companions.

[Alemar]

Originally Posted by Admin Bhelogan

For those who have looked over the 2024 rules:
1) What is your favorite change?
2) What is your least favorite change?

I don't really have a favourite change... a lot of things look like they could be good. And on the other hand, at least "on paper" there are a lot of little things they did with 2024 I'm less than impressed with. I really want to get into a game and have a chance to play it for myself. To see how it feels firsthand, rather than just being negative about the perceived pitfalls that I haven't tested out on my own.

For example, something small but annoying is multiclassing. It was very straightforward in 5e with all requirements and bonuses listed in a small table on a single page. But in the 2024 version you have to bounce between 3 pages to find the primary attributes required for each class, and then go to a third page to find what bonuses you get for taking it as a multiclass, instead of it just being there for you to see easily.

Then they completely neutered the Sharpshooter feat, taking away the extra damage from it while keeping the extra damage for GWM (albeit nerfed from +10 to just your Proficiency Bonus) So now if you want to use bows it seems like you MUST take Piercer and hope for crits. Realistically most combats I've been in start off with a range of about 60 feet or less. And a Longbow that does 1d8+(dex)+(slow) Versus a Maul with 2d6+(str)+(prof bonus)+(knocks prone) means that almost nothing will ever come close to the damage potential of 2-Handers in this new system unless you have a golden horseshoe.

Looking over the Backgrounds while re-creating Clover (who is actually an old character I hope to give new life to), I am happy with The Farmer for her backstory. But although the layouts were streamline and very pretty to look at, I didn't really see that many backgrounds that would give her a worthwhile bonus. They claimed they reworked everything so there wasn't just one "best" build for any once class, but I only found 1 truly viable option for a melee character!?! Before I could just create a Customized Background (5e PHB pg. 125) by picking a mix of traits/ideals/bonds/flaws/ from whatever background I wanted and then slapping a few tool profs and a background feature on top of it to create a unique character with a unique story. But now that Origin Feats are included in the mix (and a big draw to one Origin over another), this new system doesn't feel quite so open to the uniqueness I was able to create before.

I realize that it could just be me though, that's why I want to test it out and hopefully be proven wrong.

[penbeast0]

I'm with Alemar here. Some things look very interesting and like they improved balance, some look a bit confusing. I'm just hoping to get into it here in PBP and figure out what works and what needs work.

[The Rat Queen]

Originally Posted by Admin Bhelogan

For those who have looked over the 2024 rules:
1) What is your favorite change?
2) What is your least favorite change?

For me, with the limited amount I've played around with 2024, it's the same answer: the customizations.

Pro: Customization really lets you tweak characters and fine-tune the mechanics to really optimize what you're trying to do. Once I figured out how they worked, I liked that no choice was 'ruined' by one useless or repetitive skill; I could put together the combos I wanted to create the character concept I was envisioning.

Con: I'm a bit of a sucker for the 'feel' of a class/background/race, and higher customization seems to remove a bit of that - for me, at least. Instead of "elves are quicker, but frail" and "half-orcs are strong, but not so bright", it's a bit of a mish-mosh. Which I recognize is also a plus, as it avoids pigeonholing and stereotypes, but does kind of wash everything out a bit for me.

[Lentil Sponge]

Originally Posted by The Rat Queen

For me, with the limited amount I've played around with 2024, it's the same answer: the customizations.

Pro: Customization really lets you tweak characters and fine-tune the mechanics to really optimize what you're trying to do. Once I figured out how they worked, I liked that no choice was 'ruined' by one useless or repetitive skill; I could put together the combos I wanted to create the character concept I was envisioning.

Con: I'm a bit of a sucker for the 'feel' of a class/background/race, and higher customization seems to remove a bit of that - for me, at least. Instead of "elves are quicker, but frail" and "half-orcs are strong, but not so bright", it's a bit of a mish-mosh. Which I recognize is also a plus, as it avoids pigeonholing and stereotypes, but does kind of wash everything out a bit for me.

See, I almost feel a little bit of the opposite. I love the concept of the Backgrounds giving attribute bonuses in theory, but effectively, I feel like you're only allowed to be as creative as the backgrounds themselves. By that, I mean that Charlatan, Criminal, Merchant etc, they all have flavour text that points your character in a particular way and a particular sort. Example, Artisan...

"You began mopping floors and scrubbing counters in an artisan's workshop for a few coppers per day as soon as you were strong enough to carry a bucket. When you were old enough to apprentice, you learned to create basic crafts of your own, as well a show to sweet-talk the occasional demanding customer. Your trade has also given you a keen eye for detail."

So, what if I want to play an Edward De Vere type, a rich fancy boy who has to be a poet in secret and avoid disappointing his family? Nope, can't do that - Artisan says I'm mopping floors for coppers. And I know it can be adjusted and played with, but I feel like it's still too restricting, especially depending on your DM.

I would have preferred either the backgrounds just giving smaller bonuses and still have racial bonuses, OR have a lot more background stuff that is a lot less specific, but you have to choose more than one to build up your character. "From a poor background, +2 to Dexterity. Became a farmer, Proficiency in Animal Handling. Your father used to be a noble, Proficiency in Persuasion" etc. Admittedly, I like my options in character building, and perhaps that would intimidate newer players (I'd prefer all of the subclasses available at level 1, but also I know a newer player's head would explode if you said "Ok, you're a Level 1 Sorcerer, now choose WHICH out of these eighteen types of sorcerer you are!)

[Admin Bhelogan]

Some Great discussion here! Of course, I should also answer the question:

Favorite: I like how Surprise has changed. No extra surprise round up front, just disadvantage on initiative for surprised creatures. Given how short some combat encounters were, an extra round to a character with high Dex and a good initiative roll could end combat before it ever began. Now, surprise is still great, but you could potentially surprise a creature and STILL go last in combat (especially if you are using my D20 to roll intitaive).

Least Favorite: They nerved my favorite class Druid's wildshape ability! They no longer get the absurd extra HP pool of whatever creature they turn into. Instead, they get temp HP equal to their druid level (3x for Moon druids). Bah! Don't nerf my favorite OP thing!

[Kshnik]

Favorite: weapon mastery. Sorcery points short rest.

Cons: no clue. Haven’t played yet.

[A7ice]

I haven’t been playing enough DnD to fully grasp all the changes. However, based on the character creation process and some general information highlighted by a channel I occasionally watch, Dungeon Dudes, I am intrigued by the concept of origins. This seems like a bold move that could go either way. Overall, I sense that the main idea is to make things more balanced and modular, ensuring there are no overly powerful builds, which is a pro for me.

On the downside, while I’m not deeply familiar with DnD, it seems these changes are quite significant and might not sit well with everyone.

[Alemar]

Originally Posted by Lentil Sponge

See, I almost feel a little bit of the opposite. I love the concept of the Backgrounds giving attribute bonuses in theory, but effectively, I feel like you're only allowed to be as creative as the backgrounds themselves.

It looks like (from my brief checking) that every combination of scores happens twice. So lets say I want to be a Wizard with a high Intelligence for casting, a high Dex for initiative/Mage Armor, and decent Con for not being one-shot. I can either be an Artisan or Scribe for the Int and Dex bonus or a Sage or Merchant for the Int and Con bonus. I can also decide I don't care so much about my Intelligence getting a bonus, and choose something like Charlatan for Dex and Con. But actively not picking Intelligence which is referred to as the 'Primary Stat' for a new player seems counter-intuitive... So really, if I want to be anything else, my Attributes will suffer.

If I do pick one of the first four with intelligence listed, the Lucky feat seems to be better than Crafter, or Skilled. And Magic Initiate (Wizard) seems redundant (all my personal opinions) as the Origin Feat... So just like Clover was guided to be a Farmer, my Wizard is now guided to being a Merchant.

Sure there are great hooks for a magical shopkeeper... But if that's all I can be unless I want to limit my character? That feels like options were taken away from me, because before I didn't have to choose between being a specific background, or being suboptimal.

[penbeast0]

I will say that skilled, for anyone but rogues and bards who are skill monkeys anyway, seems like it will give a lot of options. I'd lean to it over Lucky as there are a lot of high INT skills that can be exploited or high Dex if you go that way (Con, of course, is not a skill stat). I do understand your point though. I used custom origin in 2014 rule books occasionally just because I didn't see one of the few origins with Perception fitting and felt that Perception, the most common skill used, fit the character idea. No custom origin option anymore.

[jr1v3]

Originally Posted by penbeast0

I will say that skilled, for anyone but rogues and bards who are skill monkeys anyway, seems like it will give a lot of options. I'd lean to it over Lucky as there are a lot of high INT skills that can be exploited or high Dex if you go that way (Con, of course, is not a skill stat). I do understand your point though. I used custom origin in 2014 rule books occasionally just because I didn't see one of the few origins with Perception fitting and felt that Perception, the most common skill used, fit the character idea. No custom origin option anymore.

I wish custom origin would be a thing again or WoTC proceed to make more backgrounds, because the new ones can be too limiting in their own way. Specially the ability bonus part. It seems that some classes would be bind to some peculiar origin over other and although it is true that sometimes it does happens, I think that there are some cases that it doesn't.

Let's take an example creating a farmer that became a wizard. I understand the feat cannot be changed but the ability score should be viable to be changed at least. Like the one that are related to physical be changed by physical one and mental with another mental and so on. In the case of the farmer we have Strength, Constitution and wisdom so we can change Strength or Constitution for Dexterity and Wisdom for Intelligence or Charisma depending in main abilities the class have, in this case Dex, con and int are primordial to most Wizard. Because you can have a wizard that was a farmer and because he was smart, he invented tools to improve the farming so he didn't developed his strength but his dexterity or ability to use a tool in a dexterous way and wisdom could be replaced intelligence. So you could have a wizard that used to be a farmer that have a huge stamina for the amount of time working on the field but a cunning and dexterous one.

The skills I think should be left that way because are pretty related to the origin though you can put a choose to offer more option like in farmer case, you could say "Choose two from nature, animal handling, athletics, Perception(Because you have to be aware of the seasons and plagues)."