I would argue a lot of the changes are not shaking out well at all. Weapon Mastery is generally pretty poorly received,
By whom?
I have no opinion on Weapon Mastery myself, but I suspect your infosphere is not representative. You're an OSR guy. You presumably hang out in OSR fora, watch OSR YouTubes, etc. Not exclusively, but you're seeing a fairly reactionary (at least where D&D is concerned) view of things.
Every poll taken about this community shows objectively that the vast majority of players all come from pre-5e era games.
This particular forum seems to have a greater-than-usual supply of old farts, but 5e is more successful than any D&D before it. Those players have to come from somewhere.
I would argue a lot of the changes are not shaking out well at all. Weapon Mastery is generally pretty poorly received,
By whom?
I have no opinion on Weapon Mastery myself, but I suspect your infosphere is not representative. You're an OSR guy. You presumably hang out in OSR fora, watch OSR YouTubes, etc. Not exclusively, but you're seeing a fairly reactionary (at least where D&D is concerned) view of things.
Well actually the OSR loves Weapon Masteries, most OSR games have them, they were born in old-school gaming so you won't hear old-school OSR guys like me complain about it. The complaints are coming from this forum and 5e players exclusively.
The reality is that the things people are complaining about for 2024 were already in 2014; the 'retro' style people want is more "let's go back to AD&D". And there's no real comparison for popularity there.
The reality is that the things people are complaining about for 2024 were already in 2014; the 'retro' style people want is more "let's go back to AD&D". And there's no real comparison for popularity there.
Not entirely. A much more robust skill system is not something that has ever been a strong suit of the franchise, regardless of version. That is an aspect of the game arguably simplified to the level of absurdity, even beyond 3.5 or earlier standards (which, again, were never particularly deep
Sadly, this is what happens when the primary objective was incorporating real life ideology into what should be an immersive fantasy setting.
This is not what happened whatsoever?
Orcs are Wizards. Halflings are Barbarians. Everyone can be or can do anything. Distinct flavor become bland because every spice can taste like whatever it wants to. We wouldn't want to offend ghost peppers who think they taste sweet. I've purchased both of these books, and had high hopes. It's obvious however that more attention and energy was put into incorporating real life ideology vs. enhancing existing lore and improving mechanics.
What on Oerth are you even talking about? Giving players the options and ability to create characters as they want and not limit them to the tired old tropes that everyone else has already done is just plain good for a TTRPG. In a game about using your imagination it's a good thing to allow players to .. you know .. use their imagination.
I kinda feel like you're projecting something onto this that's not there. How would you have Dark Sun or Eberron without Halfling Barbarians? I mean, seriously.
Sadly, this is what happens when the primary objective was incorporating real life ideology into what should be an immersive fantasy setting. Orcs are Wizards. Halflings are Barbarians. Everyone can be or can do anything. Distinct flavor become bland because every spice can taste like whatever it wants to. We wouldn't want to offend ghost peppers who think they taste sweet. I've purchased both of these books, and had high hopes. It's obvious however that more attention and energy was put into incorporating real life ideology vs. enhancing existing lore and improving mechanics.
When will Companies learn that the vast majority of their Customers are tired and bored of this...
Of all the possible reasons for sales not to be spectacular, you figure that is a higher factor than simply the majority of players already owning the 2014 rules?
We are talking about things that changed from 2014 to 2024, so it's not even a generational jump. Its the same audience and I would argue the changes right now in terms of preference are not tested. This isn't a question of old school vs. new school... its new school vs. newer school.
I would argue a lot of the changes are not shaking out well at all. Weapon Mastery is generally pretty poorly received, Backgrounds have been complained about since the game drop. These changes to skill execution are also new to 2024 and really most of the "washing out" of D&D staples in this latest version really aren't part of what 5e core was in 2014.
These two editions might be compatible, but they are running on very different philosophies and I would not argue that the changes are being well received by modern gamers, mainly because modern gamers aren't really modern gamers. Every poll taken about this community shows objectively that the vast majority of players all come from pre-5e era games.
We'll see how it shakes out but really the only saving grace of 2024 5e is that really, most of the things that they have changed, are easy to house rule in/out. Like, if you don't like Weapon Masteries, don't use them, if you don't like backgrounds, customize them or use 2014 backgrounds.. same with skills. Because the game is compatible, its not really a problem per say, but its not exactly the same either.
You can argue it all you like.
2024 selling faster than the 2014 version did is a fact, not a guess, assumption, or a feeling.
Weapon Masteries may not be popular with your table, but they are with mine. The only people that I find hating on them are the same people that were hating on the 2014 version of the game. Haters are going to hate.
I have found no difference in skills so I don't know what you are going on about there. It is the same skills and same mechanics as before.
I disliked backgrounds, but even then the 2024 DMG provided the solution. So the 2024 version of the game is better when you use the tools it provides.
As for the number of old vs new players, you will have to find a poll that proves that. The latest poll here showed that this site skews older, but that poll also linked to Reddit with a MUCH larger pool of participants and the number of people that started with 5e was more than all other previous editions combined.
Can I ask what you dislike about backgrounds in DnD 2014 that you prefer in 2024? That is one area that I am specifically unhappy with, not that the ASI's have moved to the background, ever since I started DMing 5th edition, before Tashas, I allowed floating ASI's for all characters. My issue is that the "backgrounds" are actually pretty irrelevant, you may as well just have a rule that says "pick which stat to put your 3 ASI scores into, either 2 and 1 or 1 1 1, Pick an origin feat Pick 2 skill proficiencies Pick 1 tool proficiency Pick your equipment.
Which in fact the DMG states in a couple of sentences (which would have been better put in the players handbook in my opinion)
We don't need to have 16 predefined Backgrounds because there is nothing that is different between them really. They are just variations on the same thing. I would much rather have then had 16-20 additional rules listed that you could pick one of that gave some added flavour and created inspiration for DM's an dplayers to make there own, these would be things like "member of a guild", "expert researcher", and would have more flavour and a minor mechanical RP based buff.
As it stands pages 178 tp 185 are just pointless padding out of what is a very simple basic concept making Backgrounds inherently worse.
The reality is that the things people are complaining about for 2024 were already in 2014; the 'retro' style people want is more "let's go back to AD&D". And there's no real comparison for popularity there.
My post was specifically about things being removed in 2024, or less emphasis put on them in the players hand book and DMG. That is why I don't like the game, I can't "hark back" to previous editions, I came into TTRPG's mid 90's and all the people I played with up until just 8 years ago specificially refused to play any version of DnD because we considered it the boring old stuffy game, I cut my teeth on White Wolf, Legend of the 5 rings, Warhammer fantasy roleplay (Still for me one of the best systems, especially given how you got everything all in the one book), I moved from there to Cyberpunk, Paranoia and Deadlands moving through Gurps and PbtA via Call of Cthulu. The 2 systems I pointedly kept away from was DnD and Pathfinder, and then I got my arm twisted to run a 5th edition campaign. 8 years on I have made 5th edition work for me with just some minor tweaks (I was doing floating ASI's long before Tashas suggested it). but I always felt the rules where lacking, not as bad as some systems, try reading the vampire masquarade rule book, that can be a nightmare to figure out from reading the rules despite the system itself to my mind being superior to the DnD D20 system.
I want DnD to be good, I want DnD to really lean into the story driven elements of the game and show how it can complete with those other systems, but, instead they seem to have withdrawn back to what they know, leaning heavier into the combat engine mechanics and neglecting the roleplay/flavour rules they used to have.
Sadly, this is what happens when the primary objective was incorporating real life ideology into what should be an immersive fantasy setting. Orcs are Wizards. Halflings are Barbarians. Everyone can be or can do anything. Distinct flavor become bland because every spice can taste like whatever it wants to. We wouldn't want to offend ghost peppers who think they taste sweet. I've purchased both of these books, and had high hopes. It's obvious however that more attention and energy was put into incorporating real life ideology vs. enhancing existing lore and improving mechanics.
When will Companies learn that the vast majority of their Customers are tired and bored of this...
I mean I got into DnD 8 years ago and instantly told my players racial traits where dumb and to just assign them where they wanted because it makes no sense, and then Tashas came out and made that RAW which I thought was great (people seem to forget that Tashas did this, wanting to just ignore it was there all this time).
This is not the reason DnD has missed the mark, that change is one I applaud (moving ASI's to backgrounds), my issue is taking away all the other background and class flavour. I also do wish they would come up with a way of making half species, in my own world there are not just half elves and half orcs, every species has mixed members, one of my NPC's is a Tabaxi Gnome, another is a dragonborn/dwarf. i would like to be able to have clear rules for making these available to players if they want them rather then me have to homebrew as and when Players decide they want to have a mixed species character.
Can I ask what you dislike about backgrounds in DnD 2014 that you prefer in 2024? That is one area that I am specifically unhappy with, not that the ASI's have moved to the background, ever since I started DMing 5th edition, before Tashas, I allowed floating ASI's for all characters. My issue is that the "backgrounds" are actually pretty irrelevant, you may as well just have a rule that says "pick which stat to put your 3 ASI scores into, either 2 and 1 or 1 1 1, Pick an origin feat Pick 2 skill proficiencies Pick 1 tool proficiency Pick your equipment.
Which in fact the DMG states in a couple of sentences (which would have been better put in the players handbook in my opinion)
We don't need to have 16 predefined Backgrounds because there is nothing that is different between them really. They are just variations on the same thing. I would much rather have then had 16-20 additional rules listed that you could pick one of that gave some added flavour and created inspiration for DM's an dplayers to make there own, these would be things like "member of a guild", "expert researcher", and would have more flavour and a minor mechanical RP based buff.
As it stands pages 178 tp 185 are just pointless padding out of what is a very simple basic concept making Backgrounds inherently worse.
We have always used custom backgrounds. That is primarily because we really prefer our characters to have a backstory that is unique to them and that fits with the campaign world instead of the cookie cutter versions provided by both the 2014 and 2024 systems.
The 2014 system really didn't have any mechanics beyond skill and tool proficiencies. We didn't use the traits, ideals and bonds because each character's personality was formed by their backstory. We started using "background feats" years ago and since we moved to using Tasha's for stats we just got used to doing that. Attaching it to backgrounds was logical, but completely unnecessary.
Basically the system provided in the DMG is almost exactly what we have already been doing for most of the time I have played. We don't want or need the standardized fluff getting in the way of the character's development.
Personally, they should have taken their time and done a better job, and maybe people would have jumped at switching over, yet the general feeling is one of people just not happy about the changes that barely did anything to really improve the game.
The main reaction I've seen isn't being unhappy about the 2024 changes -- rather, it's being indifferent to them. To me, the 2024 edition seems like a net improvement... but not a sufficiently large improvement to be worth the effort of switching.
An appeal to tradition is the very opposite of what would convince me about the goodness of anything. I think the concept of what D&D is has changed and evolved, not only with every edition, but with every table's take on it, and that's the way it should be. I care not for traditions if they don't work for the people who are currently playing the game, they are not more important than the present moment's fun and creativity. Kill your sacred cows and evolve.
The thing I dislike about the 5ER is that they don't far enough in becoming modular and flexible to meet the needs of the player. Overall I like 5ER, but I have my personal nitpicks with some aspects of it.
Personally, they should have taken their time and done a better job, and maybe people would have jumped at switching over, yet the general feeling is one of people just not happy about the changes that barely did anything to really improve the game.
The main reaction I've seen isn't being unhappy about the 2024 changes -- rather, it's being indifferent to them. To me, the 2024 edition seems like a net improvement... but not a sufficiently large improvement to be worth the effort of switching.
This is actually my reaction too. Forward some places, backwards others and meanwhile, but equally importantly, disruptive to what I am currently running.
Personally I'm fine with that, but you will end up with inconsistency where "sometimes" you do something and "sometimes" you don't. That inconsistency can lead to issues at the table.
5e is a game that embraces the possibility of table variation. Yes, some tables may gate rolls based on proficiency, while some may be fine with the idea of someone with a much lower modifier getting a higher result on a check because of the d20. As long as both the players and the DM are having fun, that's what matters at the end of the day, and nobody can predict what your group will find fun better than you can. Demanding this kind of rigidity from the rules does not fit with the kind of game 5e is trying to be.
If there is a given check where you feel proficiency should be a prerequisite for rolling, the game gave you the tools to adjudicate that, and set the expectation with your players to not roll before you call for one. Those are all you really need.
It's okay for you personally to not like that particular design direction. But it's deliberate, and to say that it's a universal problem for the game without any kind of data supporting that judgement lacks credibility.
What do I not like about this new release? Exactly what I predicted would happen. I set up a new group, at the local gaming cafe. I explicitly stated I was using the 5e PHB and XGTE, nothing else, for PC builds. I despise anything from tasha's and anything after it, because of the enormous power leap. And that goes double for the OP new stuff.
So one of the players sets up a Dwarven Forge Cleric. No problem with that at all. But we get into the game, and he announces he is casting Cure Wounds, using a 2nd level spell slot, and says that is 29 HP healed. Ummm....no. One of the other players sees the same problem I do. We explain that no, it is d8, not 2d8, per level. He of course, had built his PC using this platform. Later, he tells me his PC will use Tremorsense to figure out movement on the other side of a wall. Once again, nope. That is the new book.
I don't believe this fellow was cheating. He simply fell into the same trap I have seen others do. With regard to spells, it is very easy to miss the "Legacy" tag, ESPECIALLY when someone uses the tiny screen on a phone. And with actual char design, there is no Legacy tag at all. There is no way for a new player to know that the PC being built does not fit in a "Legacy" game. This means I that no matter how much I trust players, I now have to check each and every sheet, for PC features, class features, feats, spells etc. It is chaos. Now, we are playing in person, so I can hand the players my hard copies of 5e PHB and XGTE so this kind of thing can be double-checked. But it of course becomes highly problematic when a player only has an electronic copy that is NOT conducive to editing.
What do I not like about this new release? Exactly what I predicted would happen. I set up a new group, at the local gaming cafe. I explicitly stated I was using the 5e PHB and XGTE, nothing else, for PC builds. I despise anything from tasha's and anything after it, because of the enormous power leap. And that goes double for the OP new stuff.
So one of the players sets up a Dwarven Forge Cleric. No problem with that at all. But we get into the game, and he announces he is casting Cure Wounds, using a 2nd level spell slot, and says that is 29 HP healed. Ummm....no. One of the other players sees the same problem I do. We explain that no, it is d8, not 2d8, per level. He of course, had built his PC using this platform. Later, he tells me his PC will use Tremorsense to figure out movement on the other side of a wall. Once again, nope. That is the new book.
I don't believe this fellow was cheating. He simply fell into the same trap I have seen others do. With regard to spells, it is very easy to miss the "Legacy" tag, ESPECIALLY when someone uses the tiny screen on a phone. And with actual char design, there is no Legacy tag at all. There is no way for a new player to know that the PC being built does not fit in a "Legacy" game. This means I that no matter how much I trust players, I now have to check each and every sheet, for PC features, class features, feats, spells etc. It is chaos. Now, we are playing in person, so I can hand the players my hard copies of 5e PHB and XGTE so this kind of thing can be double-checked. But it of course becomes highly problematic when a player only has an electronic copy that is NOT conducive to editing.
This is an issue with DnDBeyond and not 5.24e. I can see why that would be frustrating though. Maybe it would be best to require physical character sheets instead of using DnDBeyond? Seems like that would be easy enough with just the 2 books for players to use. It is also pretty easy to find those books at FLGS still.
What do I not like about this new release? Exactly what I predicted would happen. I set up a new group, at the local gaming cafe. I explicitly stated I was using the 5e PHB and XGTE, nothing else, for PC builds. I despise anything from tasha's and anything after it, because of the enormous power leap. And that goes double for the OP new stuff.
So one of the players sets up a Dwarven Forge Cleric. No problem with that at all. But we get into the game, and he announces he is casting Cure Wounds, using a 2nd level spell slot, and says that is 29 HP healed. Ummm....no. One of the other players sees the same problem I do. We explain that no, it is d8, not 2d8, per level. He of course, had built his PC using this platform. Later, he tells me his PC will use Tremorsense to figure out movement on the other side of a wall. Once again, nope. That is the new book.
I don't believe this fellow was cheating. He simply fell into the same trap I have seen others do. With regard to spells, it is very easy to miss the "Legacy" tag, ESPECIALLY when someone uses the tiny screen on a phone. And with actual char design, there is no Legacy tag at all. There is no way for a new player to know that the PC being built does not fit in a "Legacy" game. This means I that no matter how much I trust players, I now have to check each and every sheet, for PC features, class features, feats, spells etc. It is chaos. Now, we are playing in person, so I can hand the players my hard copies of 5e PHB and XGTE so this kind of thing can be double-checked. But it of course becomes highly problematic when a player only has an electronic copy that is NOT conducive to editing.
It really isn’t that difficult to determine which spells are legacy and which spells are not. Not even on a phone screen. I would believe the first is a genuine mistake, but twice? It is easier to post the image below from my phone than it is to believe the story.
I dig it. Cover arts out of left field. Something from childhood. Hasbro digs it most, making nine figures a quarter of it.
By whom?
I have no opinion on Weapon Mastery myself, but I suspect your infosphere is not representative. You're an OSR guy. You presumably hang out in OSR fora, watch OSR YouTubes, etc. Not exclusively, but you're seeing a fairly reactionary (at least where D&D is concerned) view of things.
This particular forum seems to have a greater-than-usual supply of old farts, but 5e is more successful than any D&D before it. Those players have to come from somewhere.
Well actually the OSR loves Weapon Masteries, most OSR games have them, they were born in old-school gaming so you won't hear old-school OSR guys like me complain about it. The complaints are coming from this forum and 5e players exclusively.
The reality is that the things people are complaining about for 2024 were already in 2014; the 'retro' style people want is more "let's go back to AD&D". And there's no real comparison for popularity there.
Not entirely. A much more robust skill system is not something that has ever been a strong suit of the franchise, regardless of version. That is an aspect of the game arguably simplified to the level of absurdity, even beyond 3.5 or earlier standards (which, again, were never particularly deep
This is not what happened whatsoever?
What on Oerth are you even talking about? Giving players the options and ability to create characters as they want and not limit them to the tired old tropes that everyone else has already done is just plain good for a TTRPG. In a game about using your imagination it's a good thing to allow players to .. you know .. use their imagination.
I kinda feel like you're projecting something onto this that's not there. How would you have Dark Sun or Eberron without Halfling Barbarians? I mean, seriously.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Of all the possible reasons for sales not to be spectacular, you figure that is a higher factor than simply the majority of players already owning the 2014 rules?
Can I ask what you dislike about backgrounds in DnD 2014 that you prefer in 2024? That is one area that I am specifically unhappy with, not that the ASI's have moved to the background, ever since I started DMing 5th edition, before Tashas, I allowed floating ASI's for all characters. My issue is that the "backgrounds" are actually pretty irrelevant, you may as well just have a rule that says
"pick which stat to put your 3 ASI scores into, either 2 and 1 or 1 1 1,
Pick an origin feat
Pick 2 skill proficiencies
Pick 1 tool proficiency
Pick your equipment.
Which in fact the DMG states in a couple of sentences (which would have been better put in the players handbook in my opinion)
We don't need to have 16 predefined Backgrounds because there is nothing that is different between them really. They are just variations on the same thing. I would much rather have then had 16-20 additional rules listed that you could pick one of that gave some added flavour and created inspiration for DM's an dplayers to make there own, these would be things like "member of a guild", "expert researcher", and would have more flavour and a minor mechanical RP based buff.
As it stands pages 178 tp 185 are just pointless padding out of what is a very simple basic concept making Backgrounds inherently worse.
My post was specifically about things being removed in 2024, or less emphasis put on them in the players hand book and DMG. That is why I don't like the game, I can't "hark back" to previous editions, I came into TTRPG's mid 90's and all the people I played with up until just 8 years ago specificially refused to play any version of DnD because we considered it the boring old stuffy game, I cut my teeth on White Wolf, Legend of the 5 rings, Warhammer fantasy roleplay (Still for me one of the best systems, especially given how you got everything all in the one book), I moved from there to Cyberpunk, Paranoia and Deadlands moving through Gurps and PbtA via Call of Cthulu. The 2 systems I pointedly kept away from was DnD and Pathfinder, and then I got my arm twisted to run a 5th edition campaign. 8 years on I have made 5th edition work for me with just some minor tweaks (I was doing floating ASI's long before Tashas suggested it). but I always felt the rules where lacking, not as bad as some systems, try reading the vampire masquarade rule book, that can be a nightmare to figure out from reading the rules despite the system itself to my mind being superior to the DnD D20 system.
I want DnD to be good, I want DnD to really lean into the story driven elements of the game and show how it can complete with those other systems, but, instead they seem to have withdrawn back to what they know, leaning heavier into the combat engine mechanics and neglecting the roleplay/flavour rules they used to have.
I mean I got into DnD 8 years ago and instantly told my players racial traits where dumb and to just assign them where they wanted because it makes no sense, and then Tashas came out and made that RAW which I thought was great (people seem to forget that Tashas did this, wanting to just ignore it was there all this time).
This is not the reason DnD has missed the mark, that change is one I applaud (moving ASI's to backgrounds), my issue is taking away all the other background and class flavour. I also do wish they would come up with a way of making half species, in my own world there are not just half elves and half orcs, every species has mixed members, one of my NPC's is a Tabaxi Gnome, another is a dragonborn/dwarf. i would like to be able to have clear rules for making these available to players if they want them rather then me have to homebrew as and when Players decide they want to have a mixed species character.
We have always used custom backgrounds. That is primarily because we really prefer our characters to have a backstory that is unique to them and that fits with the campaign world instead of the cookie cutter versions provided by both the 2014 and 2024 systems.
The 2014 system really didn't have any mechanics beyond skill and tool proficiencies. We didn't use the traits, ideals and bonds because each character's personality was formed by their backstory. We started using "background feats" years ago and since we moved to using Tasha's for stats we just got used to doing that. Attaching it to backgrounds was logical, but completely unnecessary.
Basically the system provided in the DMG is almost exactly what we have already been doing for most of the time I have played. We don't want or need the standardized fluff getting in the way of the character's development.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
The main reaction I've seen isn't being unhappy about the 2024 changes -- rather, it's being indifferent to them. To me, the 2024 edition seems like a net improvement... but not a sufficiently large improvement to be worth the effort of switching.
An appeal to tradition is the very opposite of what would convince me about the goodness of anything. I think the concept of what D&D is has changed and evolved, not only with every edition, but with every table's take on it, and that's the way it should be. I care not for traditions if they don't work for the people who are currently playing the game, they are not more important than the present moment's fun and creativity. Kill your sacred cows and evolve.
The thing I dislike about the 5ER is that they don't far enough in becoming modular and flexible to meet the needs of the player. Overall I like 5ER, but I have my personal nitpicks with some aspects of it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This is actually my reaction too. Forward some places, backwards others and meanwhile, but equally importantly, disruptive to what I am currently running.
5e is a game that embraces the possibility of table variation. Yes, some tables may gate rolls based on proficiency, while some may be fine with the idea of someone with a much lower modifier getting a higher result on a check because of the d20. As long as both the players and the DM are having fun, that's what matters at the end of the day, and nobody can predict what your group will find fun better than you can. Demanding this kind of rigidity from the rules does not fit with the kind of game 5e is trying to be.
If there is a given check where you feel proficiency should be a prerequisite for rolling, the game gave you the tools to adjudicate that, and set the expectation with your players to not roll before you call for one. Those are all you really need.
It's okay for you personally to not like that particular design direction. But it's deliberate, and to say that it's a universal problem for the game without any kind of data supporting that judgement lacks credibility.
What do I not like about this new release? Exactly what I predicted would happen. I set up a new group, at the local gaming cafe. I explicitly stated I was using the 5e PHB and XGTE, nothing else, for PC builds. I despise anything from tasha's and anything after it, because of the enormous power leap. And that goes double for the OP new stuff.
So one of the players sets up a Dwarven Forge Cleric. No problem with that at all. But we get into the game, and he announces he is casting Cure Wounds, using a 2nd level spell slot, and says that is 29 HP healed. Ummm....no. One of the other players sees the same problem I do. We explain that no, it is d8, not 2d8, per level. He of course, had built his PC using this platform. Later, he tells me his PC will use Tremorsense to figure out movement on the other side of a wall. Once again, nope. That is the new book.
I don't believe this fellow was cheating. He simply fell into the same trap I have seen others do. With regard to spells, it is very easy to miss the "Legacy" tag, ESPECIALLY when someone uses the tiny screen on a phone. And with actual char design, there is no Legacy tag at all. There is no way for a new player to know that the PC being built does not fit in a "Legacy" game. This means I that no matter how much I trust players, I now have to check each and every sheet, for PC features, class features, feats, spells etc. It is chaos. Now, we are playing in person, so I can hand the players my hard copies of 5e PHB and XGTE so this kind of thing can be double-checked. But it of course becomes highly problematic when a player only has an electronic copy that is NOT conducive to editing.
This is an issue with DnDBeyond and not 5.24e. I can see why that would be frustrating though. Maybe it would be best to require physical character sheets instead of using DnDBeyond? Seems like that would be easy enough with just the 2 books for players to use. It is also pretty easy to find those books at FLGS still.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
It really isn’t that difficult to determine which spells are legacy and which spells are not. Not even on a phone screen. I would believe the first is a genuine mistake, but twice? It is easier to post the image below from my phone than it is to believe the story.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorGetting this thread back on track. It is not about sales or finance. If you wish to have a separate discussion, have it in a separate thread.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
There's a section dedicated to how to handle this exact scenario in the new DMG.