2024 vs 2014 character creation, which is better?

He is a pretty good only thing he does not allow UA and only allows us to us sources from certain books unless you have a valid reason why your character  should be allowed that. He did that with my character since i was playing a paladin Eladrin and was using a dm version. 

Well, 2024 edition is backwards compatible according to what wotc states before all the books were out. Just mix rules from either. In our group, we use healing rules from 2024 and bastions. Adding 2024 equipment, like adamantium weapons, or the masteries, would be a huge power leap. It seems like (and I know its not a popular opinion) wotc is trying to do with 5e what they did with 3e, just not very well. This is why committees can be so bad when trying to make a game. You can't please everyone even a part of the time but individually you can please a few a good deal.  

36 year player here. Over 10 years as dm. Everyone has their own opinions. I do prefer 2014 to the latest version. I am biased probably because I own nearly all modules and books and frustrated with the new digital age not just granting book purchasers the information that they already paid for. I don't want to change everything either. Its already been a huge investment and it has been worth it.

I'm not all that big on multiclassing, personally. As far as actual character creation goes, 2024 is substantially worse in regards to making some feats origin feats only and races no longer determining what ASIs you get (yes, I know TCoE made a variant rule already, but Tasha's is a mixed bag). 2014 5e has a lot of issues that needed fixing or reworking, but I'm overall not a fan of how a lot of it was handled.

Monks largely got fixed, but Rangers were made worse in some areas, slightly fixed in others, and had much of their bad bits left untouched. The martial/caster split widened, but Warlock still is getting the short end of the stick with their few spell slots and limited opportunities to change around spells and invocations, not to mention not knowing who their patron is until level 3. On that note, while I appreciate there being an effort to diminish the benefits of multiclassing to give more of a reason to stick with the class you chose at level 1, it feels very much like a stick but no carrot approach to the problem; a lot of middle to high levels give few or no benefits beyond an HP increase. It'd make a lot more sense design-wise for a character to get more features going from level 9 to 10 then from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 3. The reason multiclassing is so abundant is that there are not enough benefits to sticking to just one class.

Beyond the often lackluster tier 2 and tier 3 level up rewards, the capstone of some classes like the ranger and warlock are the sort of thing they should have gotten before tier 2, not near the end of their class's growth; it's like ordering a salad with dinner as an appetizer, getting nothing while everyone has their appetizers, having the main course with everyone else at the dinner table, ordering desert, then finally getting your salad appetizer instead of the ice cream and pie the other diners are enjoying.

Not all of these issues started in 2024, but it's really really disappointing when there was an issue in 2014 that goes unfixed in the new edition.

Thanks 

Generally think 2024 is better with a few caveats. 2 Major, one Minor:

1).2024 Ranger

aka 'Hunter's Mark, the Class'

2). ASI's from your Background.

I can understand WotC wanting to move towards ASI's coming from Nature < Nurture to combat the issues making ASI increases originate from Species. However, I think it would've made more sense to have ASI's come from your Class. I don't think it's 'PwER GAMNG' to have Characters that are baseline-competent in what they do, and it puts a pin in the Nature vs Nurture debates that can get very heated. Additionally, it opens up different character concepts (Barbarian with the Acolyte Background) that won't nerf a character because of the ASI's gained; we may also slightly reduce the amount of Monks that trained on ships 😜

Alternatively the Tasha Origin features could be ported over so that everyone can do what they want at their tables and everyone is happy to do what works for them 😊

3). Missing Stout Halflings

Generally speaking, every Species got a glow-up with the exception of Halflings; in the move to 5.5e, Halflings lost the Subspecies Stout Halfling for.... reasons?? Because we now only have the 5e Lightfoot Halfling's Naturally Stealthy feature, Halflings are now shoehorned into the Rogue Class - the only Class that will be frequently taking the Hide action. At least with the 5e Stout Halfling, there was a useful resistance gained (against Poison) and you didn't feel like you were losing anything by taking this option. Compare Halflings say to Goliaths - there Subspecies can work for pretty much any Class, or at least have a wider Class application to be useful.

Side note - restricting Dwarves Tremorsense to only be used on stone surfaces makes thematic sense, but I would've changed it to Tremorsense that can be used once per day for 1 minute on ANY surface.

Quote from ArcturusMaple >>

I'm not all that big on multiclassing, personally. As far as actual character creation goes, 2024 is substantially worse in regards to making some feats origin feats only and races no longer determining what ASIs you get (yes, I know TCoE made a variant rule already, but Tasha's is a mixed bag). 2014 5e has a lot of issues that needed fixing or reworking, but I'm overall not a fan of how a lot of it was handled.

Monks largely got fixed, but Rangers were made worse in some areas, slightly fixed in others, and had much of their bad bits left untouched. The martial/caster split widened, but Warlock still is getting the short end of the stick with their few spell slots and limited opportunities to change around spells and invocations, not to mention not knowing who their patron is until level 3. On that note, while I appreciate there being an effort to diminish the benefits of multiclassing to give more of a reason to stick with the class you chose at level 1, it feels very much like a stick but no carrot approach to the problem; a lot of middle to high levels give few or no benefits beyond an HP increase. It'd make a lot more sense design-wise for a character to get more features going from level 9 to 10 then from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 3. The reason multiclassing is so abundant is that there are not enough benefits to sticking to just one class.

Beyond the often lackluster tier 2 and tier 3 level up rewards, the capstone of some classes like the ranger and warlock are the sort of thing they should have gotten before tier 2, not near the end of their class's growth; it's like ordering a salad with dinner as an appetizer, getting nothing while everyone has their appetizers, having the main course with everyone else at the dinner table, ordering desert, then finally getting your salad appetizer instead of the ice cream and pie the other diners are enjoying.

Not all of these issues started in 2024, but it's really really disappointing when there was an issue in 2014 that goes unfixed in the new edition.

 But it did! Classes get much more powerful as they level up, to the point where I am reluctant to multiclass.

You are right about warlocks though. Eldritch invocation help by giving free casting, but not enough, and warlocks are limited with spells over level5 to. they only get one of each and cannot upcast.

Also does not make sense the you cast without a patron until level three.

Quote from Benz74M >>

My main issues with 2024 so far :

1) tying specific ability scores improvements and specific origin feat to a background. Limits choices a bit too much. I wouldn't mind if you had to choose the +1 among the 3 ability scores, but you could put a +2 to any other score. And the option to choose a feat appropriate to your backstory as well as your background. In fact, this was my first 2024 house rule for character creation.

2) Weapon masteries can be confusing to new players. They are confusing even for some of my players that have been playing for over 20 years! Especially the Nick mastery and its interaction with TWF / Dual Wielder... Some of them will likely bog the game down, and others create balance issues in higher tiers of play. If it's not the mastery itself that is confusing, it's the weird narrative: why can you change your mastery after a Long Rest and somehow forget the previous one, but then remembering it again the next day?

3) They removed a lot of the flavor stuff from spells, magic items, and some of the feats when attempting to reduce the word count of these effects and features. Like minor secondary effects (e.g. Shocking Grasp against metal armor)... or sometimes fun varieties, like the Enhance Ability spell (compare 2014 vs 2024)... Been playing since first edition and I've always enjoyed some of that flavor and granularity in game mechanics. Because weapon masteries might bog the game down somewhat, they removed the saving throws of a lot of effects on a "hit" for monsters. Good for pacing, I guess, but makes saving throw proficiencies much less important. 

I don't really mind getting the subclasses at 3rd level. Even for a Cleric or Warlock, there are ways to explain in the narrative that they know they are already following X god or X Patron, even if they don't have their subclass features yet. A cleric is an acolyte and initiate of X deity and its domain before it gets "ordained" at 3rd level. I know the flavor text for Warlock says the entity is "mysterious" for the warlock level 1-2, but we don't have to follow that narrative path if that doesn't suit the player's idea for his character. If the player knows they want to play a Warlock of the Fiend at the start, they can still enter into that pact before the subclass features kick in later. 

I know I'm not exactly answering the multiclassing question, but I see the 2024 "improvements" as a mixed bag overall. I'm happy they improved a lot of the weaker spells, and nerfed some of the problematic ones, but I think they could've done even more in that regards.

 Agree with 1#. Trying to make an acolyte rouge/barbarian who dissented from pelor to flirt with vampires and become a bounty hunter(notamandoloriancopycatatall). It does not make sense he would still have Pelor's magic. I just chose a different feat.

Yes, get a new DM!

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from CunningSmile >>

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from EshrielGexsoth >>

Our Dm will only use 2014 rules at our table and not the "2024 revision" or "5.5e," rules he hates them and does not want us learning new rules and such. 

 I mean, that's a legitimate personal preference, though, frankly, they're so similar that I don't understand why somebody would feel that way. Almost any particular quirk one loved of the first round could be easily house-ruled back in.

 That’s exactly what I’ve done, I and my players use the 2024 rules because I think they’re better on the whole but we still use the old rules for a Druid’s Wild Shape because I like the switch the the animals HP rather than temp HP and we still use the old Sorcerer Twin Spell because I want it to actually twin a spell rather than just upcast it. As you say the two are so similar that it’s been easy to pick and choose bits 

 
I think where the DM in the above post crosses the line is in trying to dictate to players that he does not want them to even “learn” the new rules.  A DM can decide what rules they want - but when they are trying to impose limitations on what players learn in their free time?  That’s clear DM overreach, and makes me suspect their "hate” is about more than just the rules.

 I agree

Quote from ULTIMEEP1000 >>

Quote from Benz74M >>

My main issues with 2024 so far :

1) tying specific ability scores improvements and specific origin feat to a background. Limits choices a bit too much. I wouldn't mind if you had to choose the +1 among the 3 ability scores, but you could put a +2 to any other score. And the option to choose a feat appropriate to your backstory as well as your background. In fact, this was my first 2024 house rule for character creation.

2) Weapon masteries can be confusing to new players. They are confusing even for some of my players that have been playing for over 20 years! Especially the Nick mastery and its interaction with TWF / Dual Wielder... Some of them will likely bog the game down, and others create balance issues in higher tiers of play. If it's not the mastery itself that is confusing, it's the weird narrative: why can you change your mastery after a Long Rest and somehow forget the previous one, but then remembering it again the next day?

3) They removed a lot of the flavor stuff from spells, magic items, and some of the feats when attempting to reduce the word count of these effects and features. Like minor secondary effects (e.g. Shocking Grasp against metal armor)... or sometimes fun varieties, like the Enhance Ability spell (compare 2014 vs 2024)... Been playing since first edition and I've always enjoyed some of that flavor and granularity in game mechanics. Because weapon masteries might bog the game down somewhat, they removed the saving throws of a lot of effects on a "hit" for monsters. Good for pacing, I guess, but makes saving throw proficiencies much less important. 

I don't really mind getting the subclasses at 3rd level. Even for a Cleric or Warlock, there are ways to explain in the narrative that they know they are already following X god or X Patron, even if they don't have their subclass features yet. A cleric is an acolyte and initiate of X deity and its domain before it gets "ordained" at 3rd level. I know the flavor text for Warlock says the entity is "mysterious" for the warlock level 1-2, but we don't have to follow that narrative path if that doesn't suit the player's idea for his character. If the player knows they want to play a Warlock of the Fiend at the start, they can still enter into that pact before the subclass features kick in later. 

I know I'm not exactly answering the multiclassing question, but I see the 2024 "improvements" as a mixed bag overall. I'm happy they improved a lot of the weaker spells, and nerfed some of the problematic ones, but I think they could've done even more in that regards.

 Agree with 1#. Trying to make an acolyte rouge/barbarian who dissented from pelor to flirt with vampires and become a bounty hunter(notamandoloriancopycatatall). It does not make sense he would still have Pelor's magic. I just chose a different feat.

 
Keep in mind your background selection is descriptive, not proscriptive. A character can be a believer, participant, etc in a faith without being required to take the acolyte background. Really, it doesn’t fit Mando type characters anyways- while the tenets of his beliefs strongly shape him, it’s not like he proselytizes or has any regular involvement in the practices beyond personal upkeep and teaching Grogu. Regardless, if your character dissented from the faith, it would seem that being an acolyte wasn’t an especially formative or defining element of their background in any case.

True, but he was going to take care of a baby dhampir, and have a fibercord whip. Of course, his moral out look does not remotly match the mandolorian's lawful one. Thanks for the help!

I've never thought about backgrounds like that.

His moral outlook and goals were entirely shaped by the dissent though: https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/170179387/OrRSnW