Now that I've spent a significant amount of time building characters and theory crafting with the 2024 rules, I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the 2014 options more. It really feels like they tried to remove synergy between classes and limit creativity in 2024. Don't get me wrong there are a handful of really good multi-class combinations, but outside of that most just don't work very well. Yes is way more content for 2014, but the way they changed the wording to things and the base classes, I don't see 2024 being as interesting down the road as 2014 is. I presume people like Colby from d4: deep dive are going to run out of content pretty quickly because of how restrictive class combinations are now. Anyways, I'm sure I'm in the minority as usual, but that's how I feel. What do you all think?
I'm OK with some of the 2024 and there's some improvements, like a starting feat. But all subclasses being 3rd level is just awkward for certain classes that heavily rely on subclass for individuality and important character choices (cleric, warlock and sorcerer). The floating ASI was the best thing D&D introduced and the step backwards to restrict ASI selections is just batshit crazy to me - especially since some of the choices for certain backgrounds don't make sense. The new options reduce creativity. I'm not a fan of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This is the test account of Cyb3rM1nd. Posting through this because my main account is locked out of forums due to a glitch.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
2014 without a doubt, the new rules aren't bad, but they aren't better than the 14 rules. Especially with the way they have chosen to "integrate" the new rules.
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.
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.
This has been one of my biggest gripes since 5E came out in 2014, especially when it comes to the monster manual. If you have ever looked at the 2nd ed monster manual and compared the entries to the 5E ones then you know what I'm talking about. Most of the flavor, appearance, history, ecology, sociology, and tactics were removed in 5E. I can't tell you about 4th ed because I skipped that one for many reasons. But you could build whole campaign ideas around some of those monster entries because they were so packed with details about them.
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)...
To be fair, this one in particular actually made zero sense. Someone in full metal armor (chain or plate) is actually PROTECTED from electricity, as you are effectively wearing a Faraday cage. Friendly PSA: stay in your car if you encounter a downed power line.
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)...
To be fair, this one in particular actually made zero sense. Someone in full metal armor (chain or plate) is actually PROTECTED from electricity, as you are effectively wearing a Faraday cage. Friendly PSA: stay in your car if you encounter a downed power line.
To be fair, someone in a full metal suit should be more likely struck by electricity but have resistance to the damage. The metal attracts it, but disperses it better.
This has been one of my biggest gripes since 5E came out in 2014, especially when it comes to the monster manual. If you have ever looked at the 2nd ed monster manual and compared the entries to the 5E ones then you know what I'm talking about. Most of the flavor, appearance, history, ecology, sociology, and tactics were removed in 5E. I can't tell you about 4th ed because I skipped that one for many reasons. But you could build whole campaign ideas around some of those monster entries because they were so packed with details about them.
That's not 5e being exceptional -- that's 2e being so. The ring-binder format gave them a huge amount of space to fill for every monster.
Every set of monster listings before and since has been more like 5e. If anything, 5e devotes considerably more space to the monsters, particularly the ones where there are multiple types, than 1e ever dreamed of doing.
I'm loving all the options for 2024 but DND Beyond is still bugged for a lot of feats and other small details so using 2014 on the app is currently a better user experience.
This has been one of my biggest gripes since 5E came out in 2014, especially when it comes to the monster manual. If you have ever looked at the 2nd ed monster manual and compared the entries to the 5E ones then you know what I'm talking about. Most of the flavor, appearance, history, ecology, sociology, and tactics were removed in 5E. I can't tell you about 4th ed because I skipped that one for many reasons. But you could build whole campaign ideas around some of those monster entries because they were so packed with details about them.
That's not 5e being exceptional -- that's 2e being so. The ring-binder format gave them a huge amount of space to fill for every monster.
Every set of monster listings before and since has been more like 5e. If anything, 5e devotes considerably more space to the monsters, particularly the ones where there are multiple types, than 1e ever dreamed of doing.
Maybe for 1st ed but not for 2nd ed. I still have those binders and all the compendiums. Just look at the Monstrous Arcana books they put out on the Sea devils, Illithid, and beholders. Go back and look at the section on dragons that leads up to all the 20+ dragon types and lore about them. Let's not get started about the Tannar'i and Baetzu or entries on various evil races in the book.
I believe the 2014 rules ar emuch better and have better options and ar emore diversify, specially on the "Species" setting... Now it's just boring plain full races, without the hybrids
This has been one of my biggest gripes since 5E came out in 2014, especially when it comes to the monster manual. If you have ever looked at the 2nd ed monster manual and compared the entries to the 5E ones then you know what I'm talking about. Most of the flavor, appearance, history, ecology, sociology, and tactics were removed in 5E. I can't tell you about 4th ed because I skipped that one for many reasons. But you could build whole campaign ideas around some of those monster entries because they were so packed with details about them.
That's not 5e being exceptional -- that's 2e being so. The ring-binder format gave them a huge amount of space to fill for every monster.
Every set of monster listings before and since has been more like 5e. If anything, 5e devotes considerably more space to the monsters, particularly the ones where there are multiple types, than 1e ever dreamed of doing.
Maybe for 1st ed but not for 2nd ed. I still have those binders and all the compendiums. Just look at the Monstrous Arcana books they put out on the Sea devils, Illithid, and beholders. Go back and look at the section on dragons that leads up to all the 20+ dragon types and lore about them. Let's not get started about the Tannar'i and Baetzu or entries on various evil races in the book.
That was my point. The 2e format not only allowed for, but required them to go into a lot of detail.
But they went back to books the very next edition, so using it as a specific criticism of 5e is inaccurate.
I suspect that the combination of fewer monsters for your money and much lower sales for all the secondary collections was why it didn't stick. Or maybe it was too bulky. We don't know why they didn't stick with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Now that I've spent a significant amount of time building characters and theory crafting with the 2024 rules, I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the 2014 options more. It really feels like they tried to remove synergy between classes and limit creativity in 2024. Don't get me wrong there are a handful of really good multi-class combinations, but outside of that most just don't work very well. Yes is way more content for 2014, but the way they changed the wording to things and the base classes, I don't see 2024 being as interesting down the road as 2014 is. I presume people like Colby from d4: deep dive are going to run out of content pretty quickly because of how restrictive class combinations are now. Anyways, I'm sure I'm in the minority as usual, but that's how I feel. What do you all think?
2014.
I'm OK with some of the 2024 and there's some improvements, like a starting feat. But all subclasses being 3rd level is just awkward for certain classes that heavily rely on subclass for individuality and important character choices (cleric, warlock and sorcerer). The floating ASI was the best thing D&D introduced and the step backwards to restrict ASI selections is just batshit crazy to me - especially since some of the choices for certain backgrounds don't make sense. The new options reduce creativity. I'm not a fan of that.
This is the test account of Cyb3rM1nd. Posting through this because my main account is locked out of forums due to a glitch.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
2014 without a doubt, the new rules aren't bad, but they aren't better than the 14 rules. Especially with the way they have chosen to "integrate" the new rules.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Having the thread title and the poll ask two different questions is confusing.
2014.
I tried my hand at making some 5.5e characters and the new rules just feel too restrictive.
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].I thought exactly the same, clicked on the thread expecting one thing and got something completely different
Sorry, I thought I laid it out in the actual text of the post. I was presuming people would read the post before doing the poll.
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.
My Homebrew: Magic Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | My house rules
Currently playing: Fai'zal - CN Githyanki Rogue (Candlekeep Mysteries, Forgotten Realms) ; Zeena - LN Elf Sorcerer (Dragonlance)
Playing D&D since 1st edition. DMs Guild Author: B.A. Morrier (4-5⭐products! Please check them out.) Twitter: @benmorrier he/him
This has been one of my biggest gripes since 5E came out in 2014, especially when it comes to the monster manual. If you have ever looked at the 2nd ed monster manual and compared the entries to the 5E ones then you know what I'm talking about. Most of the flavor, appearance, history, ecology, sociology, and tactics were removed in 5E. I can't tell you about 4th ed because I skipped that one for many reasons. But you could build whole campaign ideas around some of those monster entries because they were so packed with details about them.
To be fair, this one in particular actually made zero sense. Someone in full metal armor (chain or plate) is actually PROTECTED from electricity, as you are effectively wearing a Faraday cage. Friendly PSA: stay in your car if you encounter a downed power line.
To be fair, someone in a full metal suit should be more likely struck by electricity but have resistance to the damage. The metal attracts it, but disperses it better.
That's not 5e being exceptional -- that's 2e being so. The ring-binder format gave them a huge amount of space to fill for every monster.
Every set of monster listings before and since has been more like 5e. If anything, 5e devotes considerably more space to the monsters, particularly the ones where there are multiple types, than 1e ever dreamed of doing.
I'm loving all the options for 2024 but DND Beyond is still bugged for a lot of feats and other small details so using 2014 on the app is currently a better user experience.
Maybe for 1st ed but not for 2nd ed. I still have those binders and all the compendiums. Just look at the Monstrous Arcana books they put out on the Sea devils, Illithid, and beholders. Go back and look at the section on dragons that leads up to all the 20+ dragon types and lore about them. Let's not get started about the Tannar'i and Baetzu or entries on various evil races in the book.
I believe the 2014 rules ar emuch better and have better options and ar emore diversify, specially on the "Species" setting... Now it's just boring plain full races, without the hybrids
That was my point. The 2e format not only allowed for, but required them to go into a lot of detail.
But they went back to books the very next edition, so using it as a specific criticism of 5e is inaccurate.
I suspect that the combination of fewer monsters for your money and much lower sales for all the secondary collections was why it didn't stick. Or maybe it was too bulky. We don't know why they didn't stick with it.