On the whole I prefer 2024 for the reasons others have stated, especially that the classes and subclasses all feel more in line with each other and there's no longer a "right" choice when building a character. Also as Aurora says the books themselves are just much easier to use and more reader friendly. There's a few things I'm not keen on (like the Twin Spell metamagic no longer actually twinning a spell) so for those I still use 2014 rules but I'm running about 95% 2024 in my games
I dunno I never felt there was a "right" choice when creating a character in 5e (2014) either so I am not sure what you mean by this? 5e always had a pretty flexible class system where you could build multiple different character concepts in multiple different ways, the classes were always open enough to interpretation to be able to create multiple different character types and also had those subclasses that add that extra little bit of flavour, not sure how 5.5 does this any better?
On the whole I prefer 2024 for the reasons others have stated, especially that the classes and subclasses all feel more in line with each other and there's no longer a "right" choice when building a character. Also as Aurora says the books themselves are just much easier to use and more reader friendly. There's a few things I'm not keen on (like the Twin Spell metamagic no longer actually twinning a spell) so for those I still use 2014 rules but I'm running about 95% 2024 in my games
I dunno I never felt there was a "right" choice when creating a character in 5e (2014) either so I am not sure what you mean by this? 5e always had a pretty flexible class system where you could build multiple different character concepts in multiple different ways, the classes were always open enough to interpretation to be able to create multiple different character types and also had those subclasses that add that extra little bit of flavour, not sure how 5.5 does this any better?
Certainly when I first took up D&D and was learning almost everywhere you turned were people saying variations on "Don't play a monk/ranger/whatever, they're rubbish" and definitely a lot of "don't play that subclass, it's broken you'd be better playing X" once you had chosen a class. I think the 2024 rules have smoothed out a lot of those inequalities and certainly within a class the new subclasses are far more equal, it's telling that a lot of the YouTube channels that previously thrived on tier ranking lists are now producing 2024 videos where everything seems to fall in the A and B tiers rather than the much wider variety that there was
On the whole I prefer 2024 for the reasons others have stated, especially that the classes and subclasses all feel more in line with each other and there's no longer a "right" choice when building a character. Also as Aurora says the books themselves are just much easier to use and more reader friendly. There's a few things I'm not keen on (like the Twin Spell metamagic no longer actually twinning a spell) so for those I still use 2014 rules but I'm running about 95% 2024 in my games
I dunno I never felt there was a "right" choice when creating a character in 5e (2014) either so I am not sure what you mean by this? 5e always had a pretty flexible class system where you could build multiple different character concepts in multiple different ways, the classes were always open enough to interpretation to be able to create multiple different character types and also had those subclasses that add that extra little bit of flavour, not sure how 5.5 does this any better?
Certainly when I first took up D&D and was learning almost everywhere you turned were people saying variations on "Don't play a monk/ranger/whatever, they're rubbish" and definitely a lot of "don't play that subclass, it's broken you'd be better playing X" once you had chosen a class. I think the 2024 rules have smoothed out a lot of those inequalities and certainly within a class the new subclasses are far more equal, it's telling that a lot of the YouTube channels that previously thrived on tier ranking lists are now producing 2024 videos where everything seems to fall in the A and B tiers rather than the much wider variety that there was
Ah yeah I never pay much attention to those people, I don't worry too much about class balance I just play whatever looks fun and fits the character I am trying to create, D&D isn't really a game about winning or losing and trying to find the most overpowered combo to min max every encounter, it's about the shared storytelling experience and weaving an interesting tale.
And to that end I never really felt the classes were too out of balance that certain options couldn't be fun to play, obviously there are some classes and subclasses that a more powerful than others and it could have been more fairly balanced but this was never really an issue I cared much about.
(since you asked in the thread) I think 5.24 is a much more clear nickname for 2024 D&D.
5.24 has much tighter writing (they added a proper glossary!) and cleans up a bunch of little things in the core rules. The balance between classes and between subclasses is much improved. And they've made a big dent in shrinking the martial/caster divide. The DMG is way better, and there's much more clarity around magic items.
I'm also happier with moving ASIs to backgrounds and adding a feat. Generally, feats being made less "optional" and things being tweaked so it's very likely you'll pick up a second (or third, if you're human) one at level 4 are nice touches.
The only real complaint I've had is that they moved the custom background rules to the DMG, but they are at least in the DMG.
Certainly when I first took up D&D and was learning almost everywhere you turned were people saying variations on "Don't play a monk/ranger/whatever, they're rubbish" and definitely a lot of "don't play that subclass, it's broken you'd be better playing X" once you had chosen a class. I think the 2024 rules have smoothed out a lot of those inequalities and certainly within a class the new subclasses are far more equal, it's telling that a lot of the YouTube channels that previously thrived on tier ranking lists are now producing 2024 videos where everything seems to fall in the A and B tiers rather than the much wider variety that there was
Instead of going online and being told what to play, perhaps people should have been creating characters that were interesting to them that they wanted to play. I have long said that I can make anything work, but there are a growing number of people that won't play something unless it is the current meta for most OP build. And the funny thing is, they are usually the same characters that die first. The vast majority of those reviews online create one-trick ponies that when exposed to a well-balanced campaign, get slaughtered or underperform as soon as they find themselves in a situation they weren't built for. As for the sites that rank classes/subclasses by best to worst - those are just click-bait to pad their viewer count because they know people will click on it if they publish it. Their advice is almost always horribly wrong for how people actually play the game.
And as for the subclasses being balanced, they are no-where near balanced (there's more to balance than just how many dice of damage you can do on each hit). The Devs have said that they didn't even try to balance the game for pvp. They made the same mistake with 5e2024 that they made with 4e, they tailored the game to the World of Warcraft/Final Fantasy crowd (everyone should get magic, everyone needs their own nuke ability, everyone can do 10,000 damage per hit (exageration intended)). It blew up in their face with 4e, and I am just hoping the same doesn't happen with 5e2024. A LOT of people left the game because of 4e (Pathfinder owes its popularity to DnD 4e driving players to it in droves), 5e brought many of them back, 5e2024 is driving people away again; made even worse by their attempt to force everyone to switch to 5e2024 just so they can sell everyone new books (instead of making books that people WANTED to buy).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Certainly when I first took up D&D and was learning almost everywhere you turned were people saying variations on "Don't play a monk/ranger/whatever, they're rubbish" and definitely a lot of "don't play that subclass, it's broken you'd be better playing X" once you had chosen a class. I think the 2024 rules have smoothed out a lot of those inequalities and certainly within a class the new subclasses are far more equal, it's telling that a lot of the YouTube channels that previously thrived on tier ranking lists are now producing 2024 videos where everything seems to fall in the A and B tiers rather than the much wider variety that there was
Instead of going online and being told what to play, perhaps people should have been creating characters that were interesting to them that they wanted to play. I have long said that I can make anything work, but there are a growing number of people that won't play something unless it is the current meta for most OP build. And the funny thing is, they are usually the same characters that die first. The vast majority of those reviews online create one-trick ponies that when exposed to a well-balanced campaign, get slaughtered or underperform as soon as they find themselves in a situation they weren't built for. As for the sites that rank classes/subclasses by best to worst - those are just click-bait to pad their viewer count because they know people will click on it if they publish it. Their advice is almost always horribly wrong for how people actually play the game.
And as for the subclasses being balanced, they are no-where near balanced (there's more to balance than just how many dice of damage you can do on each hit). The Devs have said that they didn't even try to balance the game for pvp. They made the same mistake with 5e2024 that they made with 4e, they tailored the game to the World of Warcraft/Final Fantasy crowd (everyone should get magic, everyone needs their own nuke ability, everyone can do 10,000 damage per hit (exageration intended)). It blew up in their face with 4e, and I am just hoping the same doesn't happen with 5e2024. A LOT of people left the game because of 4e (Pathfinder owes its popularity to DnD 4e driving players to it in droves), 5e brought many of them back, 5e2024 is driving people away again; made even worse by their attempt to force everyone to switch to 5e2024 just so they can sell everyone new books (instead of making books that people WANTED to buy).
It's funny that all the people on this thread that like 2024 (and yet you single me out) have all said one reason is it feels more balanced and yet everyone against 2024 is screaming it's not. I'm not going to try and convince you, if you don't think it's balanced and don't like it then it really makes no difference to me, but the difference in the opinions is interesting
Outside of a very certain type of person, everyone I know prefers the 2024 rules. There might be some things they prefer about 2014 - and since the base rule systems are effectively same, those things are easy to use as a house rule - but, on the whole, they thing 2024 comes out ahead. Their reasons are myriad, but these are the most common I have seen, in no particular order:
First, despite the claims by detractors that 2024 made players “too powerful” it would be more accurate to say the 2024 system rebalanced players. Certain overpowered abilities received nerfs, while other underperforming abilities received buffs.First level subclass dips - a far more damning power boost than anything the 2024 rules buffed - are gone.This results in more even distributions of power among players - a boon to non-optimizers, but a real boon to DMs.
Though some DMs like to pretend “powerful players” are a problem, the reality is that a DM can easily deal with player power.The much harder thing to deal with is disparate power between players. Balancing an encounter against powerful players is easy (just increase your power); balancing an encounter against a group where some are extremely powerful and some are not is much harder.2024’s flattening of the curve actually makes encounter design easier, not harder.
Second, the CR math and monster power is much better with 2024 than the completely unusable 2014 system. While still not perfect - no iteration of D&D ever was on this front - it far more accurately captures player power, and can produce more balanced, even deadly, encounters.This makes encounter design much easier than 2014, where you really needed to figure out the system on your own as you could not trust the tools given by Wizards.I know some folks who are hopeful this new CR math will be used in 2024 adventures, fixing the significant 2014 problem where the recommended adventure encounters are too easy as written.Combining the first and second points, I highly suspect most of the detractors saying “this is unbalanced” have never actually played a 2024 game that uses both 2024 players and 2024 encounter math.
Third, bastions.For the players who like base building, adding these systems back into the game is a major win. Even for the players who do not, there are passive buffs if they want to passively interact with the system, and if is not too big a penalty if they choose to avoid it all together.
Fourth, especially to groups Gygax intentionally discriminated against - minorities, women, the LGBT+ community - the acknowledgment that these communities exist and are welcome in the game is a pretty big boon.Sometimes the manifestation of those changes is not always seems as the best, but the fact Wizards is finally taking on the vile elements of this game’s history is comforting to a lot of folks I know - and comforting in a way folks used to privilege in this hobby cannot (or, sadly in too many cases, will not) understand.
Fifth, folks are pleased with the new layout, which is much easier on new players (particularly pen and paper players).Telling people how to play first, walking through all the steps of character creation.A massive lore dump that still keeps things simple enough to digest, while providing enough so you know where to look for additional information.This is an iteration of the game that does not presume a player or DM has existing knowledge, making it far more accessible to new and old players alike.
Sixth, the art.This is the first iteration of D&D where the art team was involved from the onset, rather than as after the rules were finalized, and it shows.There is some great art, and some fun art designed to showcase multiple planes, multiple player types, different ways of thinking of monsters.I know a host of people who are super excited to use the art in their games, and who have even been inspired to think of things in different lights based on the art direction of 5.24.
Seventh, various common sense and quality of life improvements.Streamlining emanations. Potions as a bonus action (one of the most common existing home rules).Increasing healing to make it actually viable when compared to monster damage output (instead of the “wait for 0, pick them up” of 2014). Fixing some oddities in spells (spiritual weapon not requiring concentration, chill touch not being a touch spell, completely unusable cantrips).Numerous small quality of life changes designed to fix weird quirks of 2014.
Eighth, the fact that it is not a true edition change, and more a natural evolution of rules dating back to Tasha’s, Strixhaven, Dragonlance, and others.This means folks do not have to truly learn a new system, nor suddenly find hundreds of dollars of content suddenly obsolete.2024 manages to update D&D without superseding 2014, resulting in players who are pleased with getting an update, without suffering the growing pains of an edition change.
Ninth, players are glad they have some ownership of this iteration of the game. With tens of thousands engaged in play testing, and many elements getting 80%+ approval, more than any other iteration of the game, this feels like it belongs to the players.
Tenth, this iteration of the game helped reestablish trust among the community - at least, the members of the community who are acting in good faith and not always bash Wizards.The rule system explicitly is designed for pen and paper users, putting to rest the conspiracy theories that Wizards is trying to kill pen and paper.Many of the changes are things players have been raising as issues for years, showing Wizards does listen to feedback.
That is hardly an exhaustive list of reasons I have seen - but it does show the pretty wide range of reasons folks enjoy 2024.With all that it has going for it, it is not hard to see why 2024 is selling like hotcakes - even despite the best efforts of the naysayers. Nor is it surprising that a supermajority of voters on this poll say they prefer 5.24.
Outside of a very certain type of person, everyone I know prefers the 2024 rules. There might be some things they prefer about 2014 - and since the base rule systems are effectively same, those things are easy to use as a house rule - but, on the whole, they thing 2024 comes out ahead. Their reasons are myriad, but these are the most common I have seen, in no particular order:
First, despite the claims by detractors that 2024 made players “too powerful” it would be more accurate to say the 2024 system rebalanced players. Certain overpowered abilities received nerfs, while other underperforming abilities received buffs.First level subclass dips - a far more damning power boost than anything the 2024 rules buffed - are gone.This results in more even distributions of power among players - a boon to non-optimizers, but a real boon to DMs.
Though some DMs like to pretend “powerful players” are a problem, the reality is that a DM can easily deal with player power.The much harder thing to deal with is disparate power between players. Balancing an encounter against powerful players is easy (just increase your power); balancing an encounter against a group where some are extremely powerful and some are not is much harder.2024’s flattening of the curve actually makes encounter design easier, not harder.
Second, the CR math and monster power is much better with 2024 than the completely unusable 2014 system. While still not perfect - no iteration of D&D ever was on this front - it far more accurately captures player power, and can produce more balanced, even deadly, encounters.This makes encounter design much easier than 2014, where you really needed to figure out the system on your own as you could not trust the tools given by Wizards.I know some folks who are hopeful this new CR math will be used in 2024 adventures, fixing the significant 2014 problem where the recommended adventure encounters are too easy as written.Combining the first and second points, I highly suspect most of the detractors saying “this is unbalanced” have never actually played a 2024 game that uses both 2024 players and 2024 encounter math.
Third, bastions.For the players who like base building, adding these systems back into the game is a major win. Even for the players who do not, there are passive buffs if they want to passively interact with the system, and if is not too big a penalty if they choose to avoid it all together.
Fourth, especially to groups Gygax intentionally discriminated against - minorities, women, the LGBT+ community - the acknowledgment that these communities exist and are welcome in the game is a pretty big boon.Sometimes the manifestation of those changes is not always seems as the best, but the fact Wizards is finally taking on the vile elements of this game’s history is comforting to a lot of folks I know - and comforting in a way folks used to privilege in this hobby cannot (or, sadly in too many cases, will not) understand.
Fifth, folks are pleased with the new layout, which is much easier on new players (particularly pen and paper players).Telling people how to play first, walking through all the steps of character creation.A massive lore dump that still keeps things simple enough to digest, while providing enough so you know where to look for additional information.This is an iteration of the game that does not presume a player or DM has existing knowledge, making it far more accessible to new and old players alike.
Sixth, the art.This is the first iteration of D&D where the art team was involved from the onset, rather than as after the rules were finalized, and it shows.There is some great art, and some fun art designed to showcase multiple planes, multiple player types, different ways of thinking of monsters.I know a host of people who are super excited to use the art in their games, and who have even been inspired to think of things in different lights based on the art direction of 5.24.
Seventh, various common sense and quality of life improvements.Streamlining emanations. Potions as a bonus action (one of the most common existing home rules).Increasing healing to make it actually viable when compared to monster damage output (instead of the “wait for 0, pick them up” of 2014). Fixing some oddities in spells (spiritual weapon not requiring concentration, chill touch not being a touch spell, completely unusable cantrips).Numerous small quality of life changes designed to fix weird quirks of 2014.
Eighth, the fact that it is not a true edition change, and more a natural evolution of rules dating back to Tasha’s, Strixhaven, Dragonlance, and others.This means folks do not have to truly learn a new system, nor suddenly find hundreds of dollars of content suddenly obsolete.2024 manages to update D&D without superseding 2014, resulting in players who are pleased with getting an update, without suffering the growing pains of an edition change.
Ninth, players are glad they have some ownership of this iteration of the game. With tens of thousands engaged in play testing, and many elements getting 80%+ approval, more than any other iteration of the game, this feels like it belongs to the players.
Tenth, this iteration of the game helped reestablish trust among the community - at least, the members of the community who are acting in good faith and not always bash Wizards.The rule system explicitly is designed for pen and paper users, putting to rest the conspiracy theories that Wizards is trying to kill pen and paper.Many of the changes are things players have been raising as issues for years, showing Wizards does listen to feedback.
That is hardly an exhaustive list of reasons I have seen - but it does show the pretty wide range of reasons folks enjoy 2024.With all that it has going for it, it is not hard to see why 2024 is selling like hotcakes - even despite the best efforts of the naysayers.
Shrug...defend it all you like, but 30% per this survey is a VERY significant portion of the consumer base that prefer the older edition. That was the purpose of the OP's original question. And no matter what you post, those people will, and have, voted with their wallets. And I am guessing that percentage is even higher, as many many D&D consumers don't even bother posting on this site, and have moved on to other gaming systems.
I do a bit of an amalgamation of the two. Lots of things in the 2014 that i liked better or didn't brought forward, but some of the things in 5.5/2024 are pretty good.
So what are some of the improvements in 5.5e that you like?
I like that they reworked some of the spells that were not so great at higher levels to make them more viable, such as witchbolt and buffed healing so when i play support i am healing every other turn instead of being a heal bot.
I like some of the additions they made to powers and mechanics, giving classes other things to do with class resources. I like some of the more modular thought that went into backgrounds, but i wish they were alongside and not instead of the 2014 background features that provide roleplay elements. Some of the additional spells are nice, like sorcererous burst. Adds some more tactics use like weakness fishing for someone to do instead of just trying to pump big numbers. The Bastion system is nice, though it does some a little bare bones in some places it is a good starting point to managing a home base, especially since i am part of a series of ongoing community one shots that are based out of community bastion. I love some of the invocations that were added ( While lamenting the loss of others, that is why i like an amalgamation approach ) and i like that Martials got buffed a lot with weapon masteries. Gives Martials some talents and functions that they were sorely lacking, and adds more tactical options like Toppling an opponet to set them up for someone else, or slowing them with a conk from a club. I do like the changes made to Smite, that stopped the paladin nuke from ending things too quickly, or being viewed as the only viable strategy for a fight. I do like the inclusion of simple firearms, even if i don't see the need to use them all the time. It is good to have more official and accessible rules that everyone can look at instead of 4 billion different homebrew or 3PP rulesets that have to be argued over if someone wants to make their own version of " Percival Fredrickstein von Musel Klossowski de Rolo the 3rd " and it makes running things like pirates a little easier because a flintlock is a known quantity in the world.
Sure there are things i really don't Gel with like only getting Patron benefits at 3, and taking a cleric domain at 3, but i can see the value of them, even when i am baffled by them. I am sorely annoyed Artificer didn't become a core class.
5.5 isn't perfect, not by a long shot, and in fact adds ambiguities that were not present in 5E, but i have always been of the mind that you use the rules as a starting point and take from or add to what you think is missing. I can live with having to patch things, I have been doing it since AD&D 2nd edition.
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
Shrug...defend it all you like, but 30% per this survey is a VERY significant portion of the consumer base that prefer the older edition.
This little forum poll is a few dozen people at best.
Yeah, funny thing....from my stats courses, well, ANY stats courses, a sample size over 30 is relevant. As I type this, the sample size is 50. And further, who are more likely going to be reading this forum? Those that actually still play D&D, and the newest edition, or those that have walked away from this gaming system for any number of reasons. Seems to me that would introduce a POSITIVE bias towards wotc's offerings.
Shrug...defend it all you like, but 30% per this survey is a VERY significant portion of the consumer base that prefer the older edition.
This little forum poll is a few dozen people at best.
Yeah, funny thing....from my stats courses, well, ANY stats courses, a sample size over 30 is relevant. As I type this, the sample size is 50. And further, who are more likely going to be reading this forum? Those that actually still play D&D, and the newest edition, or those that have walked away from this gaming system for any number of reasons. Seems to me that would introduce a POSITIVE bias towards wotc's offerings.
As anyone who has taken a statistics course knows, when dealing with populations numbered in the millions - as D&D is - you really need samples in the hundreds before you get any meaningful data. In 2019, there were an 13.7 million active D&D players - this number grew by several million during Covid and the years that followed. At a 95% confidence interval, a sample size of 30 produces an untenable 17.89% margin of error on the 2019 population - and likely much higher for the present population. A sample of 50 creates a still unacceptable 13.86 margin against the much smaller 2019 population.
Your statistics teachers almost certainly would not agree with your assessment this poll has a significant sample size.
Shrug...defend it all you like, but 30% per this survey is a VERY significant portion of the consumer base that prefer the older edition. That was the purpose of the OP's original question. And no matter what you post, those people will, and have, voted with their wallets. And I am guessing that percentage is even higher, as many many D&D consumers don't even bother posting on this site, and have moved on to other gaming systems.
Just to be clear, 30% of this forum poll is, as of this post, 15 people out of 50 (assuming that all 50 people are different people and not just different accounts). This is the least statistically significant portion of anything. It is a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set. It would not pass muster on any level for data science or business statistics.
Shrug...defend it all you like, but 30% per this survey is a VERY significant portion of the consumer base that prefer the older edition. That was the purpose of the OP's original question. And no matter what you post, those people will, and have, voted with their wallets. And I am guessing that percentage is even higher, as many many D&D consumers don't even bother posting on this site, and have moved on to other gaming systems.
Just to be clear, 30% of this forum poll is, as of this post, 15 people out of 50 (assuming that all 50 people are different people and not just different accounts). This is the least statistically significant portion of anything. It is a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set. It would not pass muster on any level for data science or business statistics.
Well, it is indeed a subset. The subset is that of the most pro-D&D fans out there. By definition, anyone who posts here is heavily invested in D&D. So that should skew these numbers even more towards a positive feeling about the new edition. But we now have 32% of 53 saying no.
Shrug...defend it all you like, but 30% per this survey is a VERY significant portion of the consumer base that prefer the older edition.
This little forum poll is a few dozen people at best.
Yeah, funny thing....from my stats courses, well, ANY stats courses, a sample size over 30 is relevant. As I type this, the sample size is 50. And further, who are more likely going to be reading this forum? Those that actually still play D&D, and the newest edition, or those that have walked away from this gaming system for any number of reasons. Seems to me that would introduce a POSITIVE bias towards wotc's offerings.
Part of the thing about polling is understanding what question you're asking. If people tell you they prefer Coke to Pepsi, you don't actually know what they think of Pepsi, except that they like Coke better.
"Prefers 2014 5e" could mean any of:
Is currently playing 2014, and hasn't really tried 2024 seriously yet
Has played 2024, and prefers 2014
Likes both, but given the choice would play 2014
Hasn't actually played 2024, but is mad at WotC for any one of a variety of reasons
(And several other things, too.)
There are a number of RPGs I'd prefer to play over D&D (5e14, 5e24, or 4e), but I'm currently only playing D&D, and I own a number of the books. But if you polled "do you prefer FATE or D&D?", I'd be on the FATE side.
Shrug...defend it all you like, but 30% per this survey is a VERY significant portion of the consumer base that prefer the older edition.
This little forum poll is a few dozen people at best.
Yeah, funny thing....from my stats courses, well, ANY stats courses, a sample size over 30 is relevant. As I type this, the sample size is 50. And further, who are more likely going to be reading this forum? Those that actually still play D&D, and the newest edition, or those that have walked away from this gaming system for any number of reasons. Seems to me that would introduce a POSITIVE bias towards wotc's offerings.
1) your understanding of statistics is off (but others have covered that more thoroughly 2) the vast majority of the people who have dndbeyond accounts (free or otherwise) do not post in the forums, nor do they even read the forums. The forums are mostly people who like to argue. 3) as has been noted, this thread shows the OP's bias quite clearly in the thread title and the first several posts; many people who like the game won't bother with it. 4) people who like a thing tend to not occupy themselves with posting on the internet about that thing, especially in the context of arguments, flamewars, or edition wars.
Shrug...defend it all you like, but 30% per this survey is a VERY significant portion of the consumer base that prefer the older edition. That was the purpose of the OP's original question. And no matter what you post, those people will, and have, voted with their wallets. And I am guessing that percentage is even higher, as many many D&D consumers don't even bother posting on this site, and have moved on to other gaming systems.
Just to be clear, 30% of this forum poll is, as of this post, 15 people out of 50 (assuming that all 50 people are different people and not just different accounts). This is the least statistically significant portion of anything. It is a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set. It would not pass muster on any level for data science or business statistics.
Well, it is indeed a subset. The subset is that of the most pro-D&D fans out there. By definition, anyone who posts here is heavily invested in D&D. So that should skew these numbers even more towards a positive feeling about the new edition. But we now have 32% of 53 saying no.
You have a subset of invested players, a subset of invested players who use DDB as opposed to other social media and/or VTT tools, a subset of that group who then actually reads the forums here, and a subset within that of people who actually care enough to open and fill a poll. As I said, a subset cubed (and there are likely more subset divisions that could be cross-tabbed that I'm glossing over for brevity. Of the.......20-ish million members here, 15-ish people with negative feelings isn't even a rounding error. To be fair, the 30ish positive votes are equally insignificant.
You can certainly compare anecdotal thoughts, but trying to ascribe the feelings of less than even a 100 folks to any group as large as the D&D or RPG consumer-base......seems silly. Especially in a world where market data exists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
As anyone who has taken a statistics course knows, when dealing with populations numbered in the millions - as D&D is - you really need samples in the hundreds before you get any meaningful data.
Urr... the size of the population being sampled is generally irrelevant to the accuracy of a poll with a given number of respondents, unless the poll is so large it covers a large percentage of the total population; a random sampling of only fifty is going to give you error bars of around 14% whether you're looking at a thousand people or a million people. The real problem with all polls of this type is that they aren't a random sampling.
The rules themselves, IE not comparing Subclasses etc?
I would say the whole package since classes and "species" have been reworked so I would say discussing the differences between subclasses and races and backgrounds are all valid to discuss.
The Subclasses have generally been improved. Mostly my grumbling is about missed opportunities rather than because they're worse per se. I guess Paladins are my biggest gripe due to the new rules.
Spells...I haven't got an opinion on per se. I haven't really come across anything in play that is obviously different from 2014e yet. Except the Paladin thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Outside of a very certain type of person, everyone I know prefers the 2024 rules.
Can you elaborate on that? ( This isn't a snide gotcha or anything, i THINK i know what you are getting at but am not sure. )
My experience is that there a multitude of reasons for not switching and that the people are as different as their reasons.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I dunno I never felt there was a "right" choice when creating a character in 5e (2014) either so I am not sure what you mean by this? 5e always had a pretty flexible class system where you could build multiple different character concepts in multiple different ways, the classes were always open enough to interpretation to be able to create multiple different character types and also had those subclasses that add that extra little bit of flavour, not sure how 5.5 does this any better?
Certainly when I first took up D&D and was learning almost everywhere you turned were people saying variations on "Don't play a monk/ranger/whatever, they're rubbish" and definitely a lot of "don't play that subclass, it's broken you'd be better playing X" once you had chosen a class. I think the 2024 rules have smoothed out a lot of those inequalities and certainly within a class the new subclasses are far more equal, it's telling that a lot of the YouTube channels that previously thrived on tier ranking lists are now producing 2024 videos where everything seems to fall in the A and B tiers rather than the much wider variety that there was
Ah yeah I never pay much attention to those people, I don't worry too much about class balance I just play whatever looks fun and fits the character I am trying to create, D&D isn't really a game about winning or losing and trying to find the most overpowered combo to min max every encounter, it's about the shared storytelling experience and weaving an interesting tale.
And to that end I never really felt the classes were too out of balance that certain options couldn't be fun to play, obviously there are some classes and subclasses that a more powerful than others and it could have been more fairly balanced but this was never really an issue I cared much about.
(since you asked in the thread) I think 5.24 is a much more clear nickname for 2024 D&D.
5.24 has much tighter writing (they added a proper glossary!) and cleans up a bunch of little things in the core rules. The balance between classes and between subclasses is much improved. And they've made a big dent in shrinking the martial/caster divide. The DMG is way better, and there's much more clarity around magic items.
I'm also happier with moving ASIs to backgrounds and adding a feat. Generally, feats being made less "optional" and things being tweaked so it's very likely you'll pick up a second (or third, if you're human) one at level 4 are nice touches.
The only real complaint I've had is that they moved the custom background rules to the DMG, but they are at least in the DMG.
Instead of going online and being told what to play, perhaps people should have been creating characters that were interesting to them that they wanted to play. I have long said that I can make anything work, but there are a growing number of people that won't play something unless it is the current meta for most OP build. And the funny thing is, they are usually the same characters that die first. The vast majority of those reviews online create one-trick ponies that when exposed to a well-balanced campaign, get slaughtered or underperform as soon as they find themselves in a situation they weren't built for. As for the sites that rank classes/subclasses by best to worst - those are just click-bait to pad their viewer count because they know people will click on it if they publish it. Their advice is almost always horribly wrong for how people actually play the game.
And as for the subclasses being balanced, they are no-where near balanced (there's more to balance than just how many dice of damage you can do on each hit). The Devs have said that they didn't even try to balance the game for pvp. They made the same mistake with 5e2024 that they made with 4e, they tailored the game to the World of Warcraft/Final Fantasy crowd (everyone should get magic, everyone needs their own nuke ability, everyone can do 10,000 damage per hit (exageration intended)). It blew up in their face with 4e, and I am just hoping the same doesn't happen with 5e2024. A LOT of people left the game because of 4e (Pathfinder owes its popularity to DnD 4e driving players to it in droves), 5e brought many of them back, 5e2024 is driving people away again; made even worse by their attempt to force everyone to switch to 5e2024 just so they can sell everyone new books (instead of making books that people WANTED to buy).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
It's funny that all the people on this thread that like 2024 (and yet you single me out) have all said one reason is it feels more balanced and yet everyone against 2024 is screaming it's not. I'm not going to try and convince you, if you don't think it's balanced and don't like it then it really makes no difference to me, but the difference in the opinions is interesting
Outside of a very certain type of person, everyone I know prefers the 2024 rules. There might be some things they prefer about 2014 - and since the base rule systems are effectively same, those things are easy to use as a house rule - but, on the whole, they thing 2024 comes out ahead. Their reasons are myriad, but these are the most common I have seen, in no particular order:
First, despite the claims by detractors that 2024 made players “too powerful” it would be more accurate to say the 2024 system rebalanced players. Certain overpowered abilities received nerfs, while other underperforming abilities received buffs. First level subclass dips - a far more damning power boost than anything the 2024 rules buffed - are gone. This results in more even distributions of power among players - a boon to non-optimizers, but a real boon to DMs.
Though some DMs like to pretend “powerful players” are a problem, the reality is that a DM can easily deal with player power. The much harder thing to deal with is disparate power between players. Balancing an encounter against powerful players is easy (just increase your power); balancing an encounter against a group where some are extremely powerful and some are not is much harder. 2024’s flattening of the curve actually makes encounter design easier, not harder.
Second, the CR math and monster power is much better with 2024 than the completely unusable 2014 system. While still not perfect - no iteration of D&D ever was on this front - it far more accurately captures player power, and can produce more balanced, even deadly, encounters. This makes encounter design much easier than 2014, where you really needed to figure out the system on your own as you could not trust the tools given by Wizards. I know some folks who are hopeful this new CR math will be used in 2024 adventures, fixing the significant 2014 problem where the recommended adventure encounters are too easy as written. Combining the first and second points, I highly suspect most of the detractors saying “this is unbalanced” have never actually played a 2024 game that uses both 2024 players and 2024 encounter math.
Third, bastions. For the players who like base building, adding these systems back into the game is a major win. Even for the players who do not, there are passive buffs if they want to passively interact with the system, and if is not too big a penalty if they choose to avoid it all together.
Fourth, especially to groups Gygax intentionally discriminated against - minorities, women, the LGBT+ community - the acknowledgment that these communities exist and are welcome in the game is a pretty big boon. Sometimes the manifestation of those changes is not always seems as the best, but the fact Wizards is finally taking on the vile elements of this game’s history is comforting to a lot of folks I know - and comforting in a way folks used to privilege in this hobby cannot (or, sadly in too many cases, will not) understand.
Fifth, folks are pleased with the new layout, which is much easier on new players (particularly pen and paper players). Telling people how to play first, walking through all the steps of character creation. A massive lore dump that still keeps things simple enough to digest, while providing enough so you know where to look for additional information. This is an iteration of the game that does not presume a player or DM has existing knowledge, making it far more accessible to new and old players alike.
Sixth, the art. This is the first iteration of D&D where the art team was involved from the onset, rather than as after the rules were finalized, and it shows. There is some great art, and some fun art designed to showcase multiple planes, multiple player types, different ways of thinking of monsters. I know a host of people who are super excited to use the art in their games, and who have even been inspired to think of things in different lights based on the art direction of 5.24.
Seventh, various common sense and quality of life improvements. Streamlining emanations. Potions as a bonus action (one of the most common existing home rules). Increasing healing to make it actually viable when compared to monster damage output (instead of the “wait for 0, pick them up” of 2014). Fixing some oddities in spells (spiritual weapon not requiring concentration, chill touch not being a touch spell, completely unusable cantrips). Numerous small quality of life changes designed to fix weird quirks of 2014.
Eighth, the fact that it is not a true edition change, and more a natural evolution of rules dating back to Tasha’s, Strixhaven, Dragonlance, and others. This means folks do not have to truly learn a new system, nor suddenly find hundreds of dollars of content suddenly obsolete. 2024 manages to update D&D without superseding 2014, resulting in players who are pleased with getting an update, without suffering the growing pains of an edition change.
Ninth, players are glad they have some ownership of this iteration of the game. With tens of thousands engaged in play testing, and many elements getting 80%+ approval, more than any other iteration of the game, this feels like it belongs to the players.
Tenth, this iteration of the game helped reestablish trust among the community - at least, the members of the community who are acting in good faith and not always bash Wizards. The rule system explicitly is designed for pen and paper users, putting to rest the conspiracy theories that Wizards is trying to kill pen and paper. Many of the changes are things players have been raising as issues for years, showing Wizards does listen to feedback.
That is hardly an exhaustive list of reasons I have seen - but it does show the pretty wide range of reasons folks enjoy 2024. With all that it has going for it, it is not hard to see why 2024 is selling like hotcakes - even despite the best efforts of the naysayers. Nor is it surprising that a supermajority of voters on this poll say they prefer 5.24.
Shrug...defend it all you like, but 30% per this survey is a VERY significant portion of the consumer base that prefer the older edition. That was the purpose of the OP's original question. And no matter what you post, those people will, and have, voted with their wallets. And I am guessing that percentage is even higher, as many many D&D consumers don't even bother posting on this site, and have moved on to other gaming systems.
I like that they reworked some of the spells that were not so great at higher levels to make them more viable, such as witchbolt and buffed healing so when i play support i am healing every other turn instead of being a heal bot.
I like some of the additions they made to powers and mechanics, giving classes other things to do with class resources. I like some of the more modular thought that went into backgrounds, but i wish they were alongside and not instead of the 2014 background features that provide roleplay elements.
Some of the additional spells are nice, like sorcererous burst. Adds some more tactics use like weakness fishing for someone to do instead of just trying to pump big numbers.
The Bastion system is nice, though it does some a little bare bones in some places it is a good starting point to managing a home base, especially since i am part of a series of ongoing community one shots that are based out of community bastion.
I love some of the invocations that were added ( While lamenting the loss of others, that is why i like an amalgamation approach ) and i like that Martials got buffed a lot with weapon masteries. Gives Martials some talents and functions that they were sorely lacking, and adds more tactical options like Toppling an opponet to set them up for someone else, or slowing them with a conk from a club.
I do like the changes made to Smite, that stopped the paladin nuke from ending things too quickly, or being viewed as the only viable strategy for a fight.
I do like the inclusion of simple firearms, even if i don't see the need to use them all the time. It is good to have more official and accessible rules that everyone can look at instead of 4 billion different homebrew or 3PP rulesets that have to be argued over if someone wants to make their own version of " Percival Fredrickstein von Musel Klossowski de Rolo the 3rd " and it makes running things like pirates a little easier because a flintlock is a known quantity in the world.
Sure there are things i really don't Gel with like only getting Patron benefits at 3, and taking a cleric domain at 3, but i can see the value of them, even when i am baffled by them.
I am sorely annoyed Artificer didn't become a core class.
5.5 isn't perfect, not by a long shot, and in fact adds ambiguities that were not present in 5E, but i have always been of the mind that you use the rules as a starting point and take from or add to what you think is missing. I can live with having to patch things, I have been doing it since AD&D 2nd edition.
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
This little forum poll is a few dozen people at best.
Yeah, funny thing....from my stats courses, well, ANY stats courses, a sample size over 30 is relevant. As I type this, the sample size is 50. And further, who are more likely going to be reading this forum? Those that actually still play D&D, and the newest edition, or those that have walked away from this gaming system for any number of reasons. Seems to me that would introduce a POSITIVE bias towards wotc's offerings.
As anyone who has taken a statistics course knows, when dealing with populations numbered in the millions - as D&D is - you really need samples in the hundreds before you get any meaningful data. In 2019, there were an 13.7 million active D&D players - this number grew by several million during Covid and the years that followed. At a 95% confidence interval, a sample size of 30 produces an untenable 17.89% margin of error on the 2019 population - and likely much higher for the present population. A sample of 50 creates a still unacceptable 13.86 margin against the much smaller 2019 population.
Your statistics teachers almost certainly would not agree with your assessment this poll has a significant sample size.
Just to be clear, 30% of this forum poll is, as of this post, 15 people out of 50 (assuming that all 50 people are different people and not just different accounts). This is the least statistically significant portion of anything. It is a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set. It would not pass muster on any level for data science or business statistics.
Well, it is indeed a subset. The subset is that of the most pro-D&D fans out there. By definition, anyone who posts here is heavily invested in D&D. So that should skew these numbers even more towards a positive feeling about the new edition. But we now have 32% of 53 saying no.
Part of the thing about polling is understanding what question you're asking. If people tell you they prefer Coke to Pepsi, you don't actually know what they think of Pepsi, except that they like Coke better.
"Prefers 2014 5e" could mean any of:
(And several other things, too.)
There are a number of RPGs I'd prefer to play over D&D (5e14, 5e24, or 4e), but I'm currently only playing D&D, and I own a number of the books. But if you polled "do you prefer FATE or D&D?", I'd be on the FATE side.
1) your understanding of statistics is off (but others have covered that more thoroughly
2) the vast majority of the people who have dndbeyond accounts (free or otherwise) do not post in the forums, nor do they even read the forums. The forums are mostly people who like to argue.
3) as has been noted, this thread shows the OP's bias quite clearly in the thread title and the first several posts; many people who like the game won't bother with it.
4) people who like a thing tend to not occupy themselves with posting on the internet about that thing, especially in the context of arguments, flamewars, or edition wars.
So yeah, it is a funny thing.
You have a subset of invested players, a subset of invested players who use DDB as opposed to other social media and/or VTT tools, a subset of that group who then actually reads the forums here, and a subset within that of people who actually care enough to open and fill a poll. As I said, a subset cubed (and there are likely more subset divisions that could be cross-tabbed that I'm glossing over for brevity. Of the.......20-ish million members here, 15-ish people with negative feelings isn't even a rounding error. To be fair, the 30ish positive votes are equally insignificant.
You can certainly compare anecdotal thoughts, but trying to ascribe the feelings of less than even a 100 folks to any group as large as the D&D or RPG consumer-base......seems silly. Especially in a world where market data exists.
Urr... the size of the population being sampled is generally irrelevant to the accuracy of a poll with a given number of respondents, unless the poll is so large it covers a large percentage of the total population; a random sampling of only fifty is going to give you error bars of around 14% whether you're looking at a thousand people or a million people. The real problem with all polls of this type is that they aren't a random sampling.
The Subclasses have generally been improved. Mostly my grumbling is about missed opportunities rather than because they're worse per se. I guess Paladins are my biggest gripe due to the new rules.
Spells...I haven't got an opinion on per se. I haven't really come across anything in play that is obviously different from 2014e yet. Except the Paladin thing.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Can you elaborate on that? ( This isn't a snide gotcha or anything, i THINK i know what you are getting at but am not sure. )
My experience is that there a multitude of reasons for not switching and that the people are as different as their reasons.
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