Are you talking about monk not getting weapon mastery? Because everyone I've talked to mentions how much better monk feels. So I'm not sure that's an actual problem?
Monk is definitely his personal complaint. (All of it. I don't think I've seen him acknowledge anything about the new monk as an improvement.)
And yeah, it's so much better now. I was able to have fun with monk before, but it's so much easier to do so now. I have options. My abilities are worth using. I do not, in fact, feel worse off than all the other martials.
[Redacted]
2024 monk is better at using its action for anything besides attacking, because their bonus action is not dependent on taking the attack action. hide, skill checks,searches, utilizing items, magic actions.
2024 monk is better at grappling because it now uses dexterity instead of strength
2024 monk is better at defense because it now has deflect attacks
2024 monk is better at disengaging because it doesnt require ki
2024 monk is better at helping teamates positioning, because step of the wind at 10 allows you to move take creatures with you, while dashing and disengaging.
So objectively, the 2024 monk is better at many things than running up to enemies and brainlessly attacking than they were in 2014.
So anyway, moving on. While I did overall like the changes I did have a few complaints.
I really think the full custom Background should have been available in the PHB rather than being in the DMG. They talk like they brought more flexibility in origin but because they limited the ASI to pick-three it just makes it into cookie cutter builds, lacking even the flexibility and customization they had in 2014 character creation.
I also think they missed an opportunity in Origins to have the "Parents of different humanoid types" sidebar from the UA. The way it panned out with no Half Elves and Half Orcs, but also no official way to have different parentage just kind of made everyone mad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
I find it funny how those who prefer 5e seem almost pissed off that a lot of people like 5.5.
This.
[Redacted]
It's strange to me that folks can't just coexist. What is it to you whether some other player / DM / table prefers a rules version that's different from yours? The more options, the merrier.
Because a huge amount of 2024 5e, and the defense of it, is taking away options from players because the designers care more about other people who believe the entire game should cater to their tastes.
You're completely missing my point: if you prefer 2014, you can still play 2014. Lots of tables do. Lots of tables still play AD&D, 2e, 3e, 4e, also. More editions means more options to choose from.
[Redacted] I am playing 2024 edition at a table with 7 other players (A ranger, a monk, 2 fighters, a sorcerer, a cleric, an artificer, and a bard/rogue). Nobody's fun has been diminished. None of us are mechanical optimizers. All of us are quite happy with the new options, as is our DM.
If your table doesn't like 2024 edition, don't play 2024 edition. [Redacted]
Now that the conversation has shifted toward individual classes, I would also like to add that the classes I never had any interest in from the 2014 rules are now classes I am very interested in playing: Druid, Monk, Ranger, and Sorcerer all seemed to get some interesting changes. Ranger is all about what it can DO now, rather than things it can prevent the DM from doing. I really love that and can't wait to play a 2024 Ranger.
Take a breath y'all, this is getting unproductive.
The conduct of the company and the motives behind switching and not switching are not within the scope of the original question and the aspersions and insults are getting beyond the pale for something as minor as "Which ruleset do you prefer to play with?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
I have my gripes about some of the monster changes in 5e24 (werewolves just... have no damage resistance now. Do not like. And I'm still not liking some of the changes to dragons). But as with everything, I still haven't played it much. I have several campaigns all set to change over at some point this year. That, and lore in general: I don't like the barebones descriptions of species and most monsters. It leaves it wide open and unbiased, but I particularly enjoyed playing against type. And now all of that lore is going to have to come from the DM (and we're all old now and don't have that kind of time). But, ultimately, that's an annoyance at best (it's not like an endless amount of lore isn't at our fingertips online elsewhere).
But I'd like to echo what many have pointed out here: I anticipate liking it based on the changes I've seen and read about, I wish the custom background was in the PHB, glad to see some of the nerfs and rebalancing in monk, ranger, and paladin. And from the little i've played so far in a new campaign, it's great.
That's my particular complaint about the half races, orcs, etc. It's a pretty minor nit imo. I've never felt that WotC does lore very well, so when they get that wrong, it's more of a shrug of the shoulders than anything else. WotC putting out bad lore? Must be a day that ends in Y. Lore/fluff is 100% ignoreable. Their crunch/math on the other hand is typically pretty good, and that's not usually the stuff that gets handwaved/reflavored anyways. The biggest pet peeve I have is with their daily encounter design to bleed party resources. They missed the mark on that, but without a full rewrite, I don't think that's fixable. I do worry about control features, I think they're not great for the game and slow it down and they've added more of that, but...with the good comes the bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I have my gripes about some of the monster changes in 5e24 (werewolves just... have no damage resistance now. Do not like. And I'm still not liking some of the changes to dragons). But as with everything, I still haven't played it much. I have several campaigns all set to change over at some point this year. That, and lore in general: I don't like the barebones descriptions of species and most monsters. It leaves it wide open and unbiased, but I particularly enjoyed playing against type. And now all of that lore is going to have to come from the DM (and we're all old now and don't have that kind of time). But, ultimately, that's an annoyance at best (it's not like an endless amount of lore isn't at our fingertips online elsewhere).
But I'd like to echo what many have pointed out here: I anticipate liking it based on the changes I've seen and read about, I wish the custom background was in the PHB, glad to see some of the nerfs and rebalancing in monk, ranger, and paladin. And from the little i've played so far in a new campaign, it's great.
i think the lore of a monsters was mostly sacrificed for space. But i can imagine that, the MM is probably less inspiring of story narratives and stories that it may have been before. I tink it is a loss, but i also like getting a lot more variation in CR an options. And i probably would not have loved it being two seperate books with half the monsters. Perhaps with all the lore cuts, they might make a primarily lore book?
5.24 greatly reduced the number of exploits in the game, and made many of the "flavor" options better. And it gives every player more choices.
Did you know that a Rod of the Pact Keeper in 2024 5e is significantly less powerful for a pure-classed Warlock than any other caster who takes a one-level dip in Warlock?
This is because 2024 5e drops the language specifying that the spell slot you can recover has to be a Warlock spell slot. This means a 20th-level Warlock gets only a 5th-level slot from it, while a Wizard 19/Warlock 1 build can recover a 9th-level slot with the Rod of the Pact Keeper.
There's tons of abusable nonsense in 2024 5e, and that's only scratching the surface of things like how pure-classed characters will always be significantly weaker than any multiclass build.
The very first sentence of the item says "Warlock spells." The intent is clear even if a barrister from RAW University is prepared to go to the grave arguing otherwise. At absolute worst they can just issue a Sage Advice, oh no, that never happened in 2014, whatever will we do.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think in this case, the barrister may actually have a point. The old rod of the pact keeper specifically said it restores a warlock spell slot. That text was removed.
NEW: In addition, you can regain one spell slot as a Magic action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a Long Rest.
OLD: In addition, you can regain 1 warlock spell slot as an action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a long rest.
The barrister's going to argue that the text must have been removed for a reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think in this case, the barrister may actually have a point. The old rod of the pact keeper specifically said it restores a warlock spell slot. That text was removed.
NEW: In addition, you can regain one spell slot as a Magic action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a Long Rest.
OLD: In addition, you can regain 1 warlock spell slot as an action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a long rest.
The barrister's going to argue that the text must have been removed for a reason.
Even still, it isn't enough to justify today's events or hatred for the 2024 rules.
Also, it still costs a Warlock dip and that is a lot just to get access to that one ability of a magic item you may or may not get.
I think in this case, the barrister may actually have a point. The old rod of the pact keeper specifically said it restores a warlock spell slot. That text was removed.
NEW: In addition, you can regain one spell slot as a Magic action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a Long Rest.
OLD: In addition, you can regain 1 warlock spell slot as an action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a long rest.
The barrister's going to argue that the text must have been removed for a reason.
I am going to argue that the reason the text was altered was to possibly open the item up to other classes but it was never properly followed up on.
That is the one complaint i have of 2024 that persists. It feels unfinished. Those ambiguities introduced by the language change might prove a problem at some tables but they are not insurmountable. Kinda think it need a few more polish passes but that does not take away the good stuff we got.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
I agree. 2024 is not what I wanted it to be, but it's still an improvement over 2014 in my eyes. They're never going to make everyone happy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think in this case, the barrister may actually have a point. The old rod of the pact keeper specifically said it restores a warlock spell slot. That text was removed.
NEW: In addition, you can regain one spell slot as a Magic action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a Long Rest.
OLD: In addition, you can regain 1 warlock spell slot as an action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a long rest.
The barrister's going to argue that the text must have been removed for a reason.
Even still, it isn't enough to justify today's events or hatred for the 2024 rules.
Also, it still costs a Warlock dip and that is a lot just to get access to that one ability of a magic item you may or may not get.
Agreeing with and reinforcing this point: Honestly, what DM would give a Rod of the Pact Keeper to a PC with a one-level dip in warlock? It's not like the PC can just walk into a shop and buy one...
The claims of rampant abusability of some 2024 features are hyperbole when put in the context of actual game play.
The claims of rampant abusability of some 2024 features are hyperbole when put in the context of actual game play.
I would only argue that it's as abusable as 2014 was. Meaning that they have not done anything to remove any of things/ways that you could break the 2014 system in the 2024 rules. All the old tricks pretty much still work.
Edit - Then again, many of the same tricks from 1st edition AD&D still work in 2024 edition D&D so... make that of what you will.
One thing people forget the rules are never hard and fast they are suggestions. If you don't like something change it everything can be adjusted just make sure everyone is on board with what's going on.
I understand a lot of people are upset about sub classes starting at level 3. Personally I like it because it is an excellent way to introduce new players to the game they have two levels of training wheels before they have to get into the heavy stuff.
Also as far as warlocks, clerics, paladins, etc experienced players already know what subclasses they are going to take. So you just tell your DM this is what I'm going to do this is my God or patron what subclass I'm going to take ext just let your damn know matter of fact any experienced player should already have that planned out they probably had the first 10 levels planned out, It would be silly if you didn't.
I have my only experienced player at the group playing a warlock we've already talked he's taking the great old one patron we picked out his backstory and everything just because he doesn't have the abilities yet doesn't mean like oh my God he hadn't already been in contact with the old one. I think that not having the subclass until level 3 is just a very easy and efficient way to make introducing the game to newbies not so overwhelming, but if you're experienced you should already have all that planned out before we even start
One thing people forget the rules are never hard and fast they are suggestions. If you don't like something change it everything can be adjusted just make sure everyone is on board with what's going on.
This is true on paper in a modern game, but not really true in practice. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, the rules for the game are in the Players Handbook, indicating that the ownership of the rules belongs to the players, not the DM. It is also not a game of arbitration; it's a game of execution, so while a DM might be able to convince a group to change a rule, that applies to that specific case, and it's a hard-coded change. That is not the same thing as arbitration and massaging the experience on the fly.
So what you're saying here really isn't true at all, the rules are the rules. They can be negotiated with the players and you can create a book of house rules that alter the game, but the DM is not free to simply change the rules as they see fit, they don't belong to them.
So what you're saying here really isn't true at all, the rules are the rules. They can be negotiated with the players and you can create a book of house rules that alter the game, but the DM is not free to simply change the rules as they see fit, they don't belong to them.
Well, it is a cooperative storytelling game. Games do have rules, but it is also sort of on the players to negotiate those rules up-front if needed so that those who are playing have fun. Once the ball gets rolling, it would fall on the social compact to keep the understood rules locked in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2024 monk is better at using its action for anything besides attacking, because their bonus action is not dependent on taking the attack action. hide, skill checks,searches, utilizing items, magic actions.
2024 monk is better at grappling because it now uses dexterity instead of strength
2024 monk is better at defense because it now has deflect attacks
2024 monk is better at disengaging because it doesnt require ki
2024 monk is better at helping teamates positioning, because step of the wind at 10 allows you to move take creatures with you, while dashing and disengaging.
So objectively, the 2024 monk is better at many things than running up to enemies and brainlessly attacking than they were in 2014.
So anyway, moving on. While I did overall like the changes I did have a few complaints.
I really think the full custom Background should have been available in the PHB rather than being in the DMG. They talk like they brought more flexibility in origin but because they limited the ASI to pick-three it just makes it into cookie cutter builds, lacking even the flexibility and customization they had in 2014 character creation.
I also think they missed an opportunity in Origins to have the "Parents of different humanoid types" sidebar from the UA. The way it panned out with no Half Elves and Half Orcs, but also no official way to have different parentage just kind of made everyone mad.
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!
You're completely missing my point: if you prefer 2014, you can still play 2014. Lots of tables do. Lots of tables still play AD&D, 2e, 3e, 4e, also. More editions means more options to choose from.
[Redacted]
I am playing 2024 edition at a table with 7 other players (A ranger, a monk, 2 fighters, a sorcerer, a cleric, an artificer, and a bard/rogue). Nobody's fun has been diminished. None of us are mechanical optimizers. All of us are quite happy with the new options, as is our DM.
If your table doesn't like 2024 edition, don't play 2024 edition. [Redacted]
Now that the conversation has shifted toward individual classes, I would also like to add that the classes I never had any interest in from the 2014 rules are now classes I am very interested in playing: Druid, Monk, Ranger, and Sorcerer all seemed to get some interesting changes. Ranger is all about what it can DO now, rather than things it can prevent the DM from doing. I really love that and can't wait to play a 2024 Ranger.
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
Take a breath y'all, this is getting unproductive.
The conduct of the company and the motives behind switching and not switching are not within the scope of the original question and the aspersions and insults are getting beyond the pale for something as minor as "Which ruleset do you prefer to play with?"
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
I have my gripes about some of the monster changes in 5e24 (werewolves just... have no damage resistance now. Do not like. And I'm still not liking some of the changes to dragons). But as with everything, I still haven't played it much. I have several campaigns all set to change over at some point this year. That, and lore in general: I don't like the barebones descriptions of species and most monsters. It leaves it wide open and unbiased, but I particularly enjoyed playing against type. And now all of that lore is going to have to come from the DM (and we're all old now and don't have that kind of time). But, ultimately, that's an annoyance at best (it's not like an endless amount of lore isn't at our fingertips online elsewhere).
But I'd like to echo what many have pointed out here: I anticipate liking it based on the changes I've seen and read about, I wish the custom background was in the PHB, glad to see some of the nerfs and rebalancing in monk, ranger, and paladin. And from the little i've played so far in a new campaign, it's great.
That's my particular complaint about the half races, orcs, etc. It's a pretty minor nit imo. I've never felt that WotC does lore very well, so when they get that wrong, it's more of a shrug of the shoulders than anything else. WotC putting out bad lore? Must be a day that ends in Y. Lore/fluff is 100% ignoreable. Their crunch/math on the other hand is typically pretty good, and that's not usually the stuff that gets handwaved/reflavored anyways. The biggest pet peeve I have is with their daily encounter design to bleed party resources. They missed the mark on that, but without a full rewrite, I don't think that's fixable. I do worry about control features, I think they're not great for the game and slow it down and they've added more of that, but...with the good comes the bad.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
i think the lore of a monsters was mostly sacrificed for space. But i can imagine that, the MM is probably less inspiring of story narratives and stories that it may have been before. I tink it is a loss, but i also like getting a lot more variation in CR an options. And i probably would not have loved it being two seperate books with half the monsters. Perhaps with all the lore cuts, they might make a primarily lore book?
The very first sentence of the item says "Warlock spells." The intent is clear even if a barrister from RAW University is prepared to go to the grave arguing otherwise. At absolute worst they can just issue a Sage Advice, oh no, that never happened in 2014, whatever will we do.
barrister from RAW university...I like it
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I think in this case, the barrister may actually have a point. The old rod of the pact keeper specifically said it restores a warlock spell slot. That text was removed.
NEW: In addition, you can regain one spell slot as a Magic action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a Long Rest.
OLD: In addition, you can regain 1 warlock spell slot as an action while holding the rod. You can’t use this property again until you finish a long rest.
The barrister's going to argue that the text must have been removed for a reason.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Even still, it isn't enough to justify today's events or hatred for the 2024 rules.
Also, it still costs a Warlock dip and that is a lot just to get access to that one ability of a magic item you may or may not get.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I am going to argue that the reason the text was altered was to possibly open the item up to other classes but it was never properly followed up on.
That is the one complaint i have of 2024 that persists. It feels unfinished. Those ambiguities introduced by the language change might prove a problem at some tables but they are not insurmountable.
Kinda think it need a few more polish passes but that does not take away the good stuff we got.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
I agree. 2024 is not what I wanted it to be, but it's still an improvement over 2014 in my eyes. They're never going to make everyone happy.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Agreeing with and reinforcing this point: Honestly, what DM would give a Rod of the Pact Keeper to a PC with a one-level dip in warlock? It's not like the PC can just walk into a shop and buy one...
The claims of rampant abusability of some 2024 features are hyperbole when put in the context of actual game play.
I would only argue that it's as abusable as 2014 was. Meaning that they have not done anything to remove any of things/ways that you could break the 2014 system in the 2024 rules. All the old tricks pretty much still work.
Edit - Then again, many of the same tricks from 1st edition AD&D still work in 2024 edition D&D so... make that of what you will.
RACSD (Rules As Common Sense Dictates) will tell anyone that an Uncommon item recovering a 9th-level spell slot cannot possibly be an intended result.
One thing people forget the rules are never hard and fast they are suggestions. If you don't like something change it everything can be adjusted just make sure everyone is on board with what's going on.
I understand a lot of people are upset about sub classes starting at level 3. Personally I like it because it is an excellent way to introduce new players to the game they have two levels of training wheels before they have to get into the heavy stuff.
Also as far as warlocks, clerics, paladins, etc experienced players already know what subclasses they are going to take. So you just tell your DM this is what I'm going to do this is my God or patron what subclass I'm going to take ext just let your damn know matter of fact any experienced player should already have that planned out they probably had the first 10 levels planned out, It would be silly if you didn't.
I have my only experienced player at the group playing a warlock we've already talked he's taking the great old one patron we picked out his backstory and everything just because he doesn't have the abilities yet doesn't mean like oh my God he hadn't already been in contact with the old one. I think that not having the subclass until level 3 is just a very easy and efficient way to make introducing the game to newbies not so overwhelming, but if you're experienced you should already have all that planned out before we even start
Joseph Woolshleger
This is true on paper in a modern game, but not really true in practice. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, the rules for the game are in the Players Handbook, indicating that the ownership of the rules belongs to the players, not the DM. It is also not a game of arbitration; it's a game of execution, so while a DM might be able to convince a group to change a rule, that applies to that specific case, and it's a hard-coded change. That is not the same thing as arbitration and massaging the experience on the fly.
So what you're saying here really isn't true at all, the rules are the rules. They can be negotiated with the players and you can create a book of house rules that alter the game, but the DM is not free to simply change the rules as they see fit, they don't belong to them.
Well, it is a cooperative storytelling game. Games do have rules, but it is also sort of on the players to negotiate those rules up-front if needed so that those who are playing have fun. Once the ball gets rolling, it would fall on the social compact to keep the understood rules locked in.