I don't like or dislike the 2024 ruleset. I am just not interested. It offers me nothing that i did not already have in my toolbox so i have no overwhelming desire to update to the new ruleset.
I like nearly everything about 5.5 except disconnecting the racial bonuses and setting all subclasses to lv3. I liked having races feel unique but this was already changed when Tasha's came out and I like having things like a Clerics god be determined from the beginning but I can work around it. The rest has been great. The monster updates were amazing and make me excited for future books, the improvemements to the classes and subclasses were great and the new books added or fixed a lot of my issues with 5e. Of course, there are things I'd still like but those are mostly new features while 5.5 was supposed to be focused on updating what was already there. I'm using 3rd party books to add other things like improving travel, hunting monsters for crafting and other things like that. I find it funny how those who prefer 5e seem almost pissed off that a lot of people like 5.5. Maybe its their option of WotC or D&D isn't the right system for them in general, but I think 5.5 was a great step forward. Now I just need the rest of the 5e subclasses to be updated as its hard to mix 2014 and 2024 and my players prefer 5.5 enough they all voted to move to it mid campaign.
There are certain aspects of each that I prefer. Taken as a whole, I think that 5.5 looks better than 5.0.
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 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.
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.
At this point, hating the new edition and refusing to move to the new edition is much a tradition as Hit Points and Armor Class. It's standard operating procedure.
This phenomenon is easy to explain, though, and it boils down to people simply not liking change and being very tribal about resisting it. It's about as normal and human as it can be. Progress is never unimpeded; no matter how positive a change is, someone will always resist it and try to get others to follow suit.
I do think there are some sensible replies and I do think the resistance to change does matter, but I see it more as a preservation thing than a resistance to change thing. I love 1st edition AD&D for example, I want to preserve the game, the playstyle behind that edition, the uniqueness and heritage. The presumption is of course that because I love old school D&D that I must hate everything new and everyone who plays new edition and/or that I "stand for every word printed in the book" so I must be sexist and racist to boot. That to is a tribal response, so the resistance to preservation is equally a primitive-human response, as tribal and pointless as resisting change.
What I'm saying is that most people are hypocrites, as it's done in both directions with an equal amount of ignorance.
As you point out, few are capable of simply coexisting and letting it be and its very easy to be drawn into the fight and put on the defensive. This poll is a pointless effort of creating the next tribal fight in the unending debate of trying to prove which edition of the game is better.
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.
^^ this.
To an extent, I can see dying on the hill of 2e is my jam, or 3 is is my jam or even 4e (which was better than folks give it credit for) is my jam. 5.0 though is strawberry, and 5.5 is blackberry. It's a different flavor of the same jam. There's not enough of a difference between 5.0 and 5.5 to get seriously worked up over. Yes, there are some things that I think 5.0 did better than 5.5. There's a lot of things that I think 5.5 could and should have done better. I also think that 5.5 does enough things, better than 5.0, that it's an improvement.
My biggest complaints with 5.5 when taken as a system are all business decisions made by WotC/Hasbro. Those have nothing to do with the ruleset. If I were to stop playing, it would be because of those decisions rather than the fact that they removed my beloved half races, or shoved orcs to the foreground as characters rather than the monsters I see them as, or even my dis-satisfaction on how they did my beloved warlock.
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.
To an extent, I can see dying on the hill of 2e is my jam, or 3 is is my jam or even 4e (which was better than folks give it credit for) is my jam. 5.0 though is strawberry, and 5.5 is blackberry. It's a different flavor of the same jam. There's not enough of a difference between 5.0 and 5.5 to get seriously worked up over. Yes, there are some things that I think 5.0 did better than 5.5. There's a lot of things that I think 5.5 could and should have done better. I also think that 5.5 does enough things, better than 5.0, that it's an improvement.
My biggest complaints with 5.5 when taken as a system are all business decisions made by WotC/Hasbro. Those have nothing to do with the ruleset. If I were to stop playing, it would be because of those decisions rather than the fact that they removed my beloved half races, or shoved orcs to the foreground as characters rather than the monsters I see them as, or even my dis-satisfaction on how they did my beloved warlock.
It's the same message with a different tone. No matter how you describe it, it's change, and some people will inevitably resist it while trying to preserve something that existed before. There will come a day when that opinion you have will earn you the distinguished title of Gronard! The club welcomes you!
A lot of people are trying to provide overarching motivations for why a mass of people believe a certain thing. That rarely works well, and usually ends up just being projection or inverse-projection. Some people resisting the change are doing so out of pure conservatism, sure. Some because they think that there are changes to the rules that make them worse. Some people support all the changes in the game because it's WotC and they can't go wrong. Some because they genuinely like the changes and thing they improve the game.
We're all individuals with our own motivations, values and thoughts.
Personally, I like some of the changes, like Bonus Action potions. Given how little they healed compared to an attack, it never really made sense to take them during combat...and between Hit Dice, healing spells, Long Rests and other non-scarce resource healing options, it often doesn't make sense to use them outside of combat either. Making them a Bonus Action made them a viable resource during combat to help you squeak through tough fights. Things like Surprise and fixed DCs on the other hand are worse. I get they want to simplify things, but they're taking away some of the dynamic nature of the game.
It's not that I hate or love the new rules, or that in resistant to them or gagging for them... it's just that I'm assessing them for what each rule change is, rather than having a fixed conclusion that I'm trying to work towards.
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.
A lot of people are trying to provide overarching motivations for why a mass of people believe a certain thing. That rarely works well, and usually ends up just being projection or inverse-projection. Some people resisting the change are doing so out of pure conservatism, sure. Some because they think that there are changes to the rules that make them worse. Some people support all the changes in the game because it's WotC and they can't go wrong. Some because they genuinely like the changes and thing they improve the game.
Maybe, but I think it's more of people trying to understand what is happening and, more importantly, recognizing/acknowledging that it is, rather than pretending like it's just an illusion. I don't think the denial of it (happening) is particularly healthy for the game. We saw a lot of that on a forum just like this in the 4e days, and all denial did was extend the failure from just a thing that happened to the catastrophic exodus that it became.
There is an exodus taking place from D&D 2024 right now. There are lots of questions... why is it happening? how big is it? Those are fair and legitimate questions to debate. I think the point here is that you're not going to get an accurate reading asking the question on a fan forum in a poll any more than you would get an accurate reading asking the guys over at Dragonfoot forums how they feel about 2024 D&D.
We aren't going to know what the damage is until maybe Q2-Q3 when we see some hard data on the subject. What we do know is that its a lot more than just preference affecting 2024 5e D&D. There are probably many factors impacting people's decision not to switch to or buy the new edition.
For me for example, not buying the 3 core D&D books for 2024 was never going to be an option. I always, regardless of anything, buy the core books....I think that is probably going to be true of most fans of 5e. The real impact is going to be what happens over the next 6 months to a year. People who bought, read and assessed the books will decide whether or not they are going to play this game.
Long-term adoption is the key here, but we are getting a sense of the potential discourse at the moment. When 5e came out in 2014, the debate was whether the game was awesome or super awesome. It's quite different this time around.
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.
It also literally allows you to use all the existing options from 5.14, while adding some new options on top of it. [Redacted] it actively went out of its way to preserve the near totality of your options and expand on it.
To an extent, I can see dying on the hill of 2e is my jam, or 3 is is my jam or even 4e (which was better than folks give it credit for) is my jam. 5.0 though is strawberry, and 5.5 is blackberry. It's a different flavor of the same jam. There's not enough of a difference between 5.0 and 5.5 to get seriously worked up over. Yes, there are some things that I think 5.0 did better than 5.5. There's a lot of things that I think 5.5 could and should have done better. I also think that 5.5 does enough things, better than 5.0, that it's an improvement.
My biggest complaints with 5.5 when taken as a system are all business decisions made by WotC/Hasbro. Those have nothing to do with the ruleset. If I were to stop playing, it would be because of those decisions rather than the fact that they removed my beloved half races, or shoved orcs to the foreground as characters rather than the monsters I see them as, or even my dis-satisfaction on how they did my beloved warlock.
It's the same message with a different tone. No matter how you describe it, it's change, and some people will inevitably resist it while trying to preserve something that existed before. There will come a day when that opinion you have will earn you the distinguished title of Gronard! The club welcomes you!
oh, I'm already a grognard. I didn't want to go to 4e from 2e (never liked 3e). I didn't want to go to 5e from 4e (which was better than people will tell you) 5.0 to 5.5 though, is really nothing as far as rules changes. The business practices on the other hand...
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.
A lot of that is because the critics tend to focus on some small class changes they dislike rather than observing the whole. While I try to avoid being hostile about it, I've injured my eyes rolling them a few times at the hills the haters wish to die on.
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.
Game companies and/or corporations need to create rule changes so they can publish new books and continue to get revenue.
Anyone new to the game is going to buy the latest rule set/books.
No matter how much you like the previous version, it is now dead or at least on a tenuous life support once the new rulesets/books are published. The parent/owning company is going to stop answering questions concerning the previous rules, new people will not want anything to do with the old rules.
When rules change, you realize that this is an actual business that needs new revenue. Accept the new rules no matter how much you like the previous version.
PS Is it possible the old version is better because you are very familiar with it, and the new version is....well...new?
P.S.S. When 4e went to 5e or 3e went to 3.5e or etc. these exact conversations occurred, verbatim. But the lack of internet, kept people from talking to many. Previously, the old changes meant that voices were but a whisper among people literary in the same room.
No there are legitimate complaints to be made about 5.5. That doesn't mean it's worse than 5.0, because that's not true. The sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. I find the things I dislike about it matter far less than the things I do like about it.
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.
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?
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!
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?
This is why I say nitpicking. certain sacred cows for individual players don't work quite as well as they used to and the world has ENDED. Even though, things generally work better. I don't like the removal of half-races for example. I strongly dislike the general agenda being pushed there. But, at the end of the day, I can fluff my elf into a half-elf if I want to. I don't like some of the weapon masteries, particularly prone at will. I don't think it's good for the game. But, generally speaking, weapon masteries are a win. I've got to take the bad with the good.
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.
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.
A lot of that is because the critics tend to focus on some small class changes they dislike rather than observing the whole. While I try to avoid being hostile about it, I've injured my eyes rolling them a few times at the hills the haters wish to die on.
[Redacted]
When in reality, one of the most common criticisms of the 2024 5e rules is how disconnected everything feels, how everything feels as if it was revised in a vacuum independent of everything else, and as such balance is all over the place. Many weaker options became even worse, several strong options got buffs they didn't need, dominating subclasses and spells remain game-breaking alongside several new things revised to game-breaking level.
The best part is that having played some 2024 5e myself, it's incredibly easy to feel these issues in action, unless you're the type of player who only cares about how high they can get their own numbers. 2024 defenders will claim that every single martial class save for one getting a feature they can use every turn on every attack isn't a massive glaring deficiency for that one class, but anyone who plays the game will immediately feel worse off than every other martial in the party. 2024 defenders will claim Weapon Mastery adds so much depth to martials when in reality everyone will use the same two or three and ignore all the others (unless the entire party is built around abusing certain spells).
[Redacted]
Just because there are some rules you dont like or would change, doesnt mean that 2014 is better
case in point, i am primarily interested with the class you obliquely are referencing, Monk is the only martial who does not get weapon mastery.
and as a dude who likes monks, i would never play a 2014 monk ever again if i had a choice between 2024 and 2014 monk, because in spite of the fact that its boring nit to have mastery, monk is way more entertaining in 2024 version. Divorcing Bonus action from attack action gives tons of options, dodge and step of the wind having use when you have no ki is great. getting an origin feat is great, Level 10 improvements to focus ability makes the class relevent in t3 and t4. more feats that synergize with monk is great. Uncanny metabolism allows you to feel like a monk more than a few turns out of the day, and deflect attacks is thematic and interestingly solves the 2014 monk being made of glass, and lacking any cannons. Unarmed strikes being damage/grapple/shove and dex based grapple is huge.
so while i think that monks should have got mastery, and open hand monk is relatively a weak subclass early on, I dont think 2014 was better for monk, or a better rule system. 2014 monk was poorly developed and deeply flawed.
and its weird to me to prefer 2014 because no martial has interesting choices like mastery, rather than 1/5 martial not having these interesting choices unless they take a feat or multiclass.
regardless you are entitled to your opinion on 2014, the only thing i object to, is the idea that no one likes 2024, and all/most of the people who prefer it are fabrications of a plot by hasbro. I have seen similar results and reviews from people who arent in wotc circles, and dont particularly even like Hasbro.
The monk was a highly mobile striker and utility martial. It still is, but it's just better at it. I can maneuver, manage board positioning, do mild crowd control, stand up on the front line, get at the back-row target, etc. And, while I could do most or all of those before, I was straining at the limits of the class to do it. I don't have to spend a third of my points just to shift one opponent. I don't have to spend any of it just to disengage. I can be where I'm needed, and do the thing that needs doing.
Yes, at its core, the monk is running up to enemies and attacking. It's D&D. It's a big part of the game. You either run up and fight or stand back and fight. And the new monk makes it much easier to do smart and fun tactical play.
As it happens. I do spend most of my time running up to the front line and meleeing. This is because I'm the party's primary melee character. If I'm not there, they don't have a front line. But it still ain't "brainlessly attacking". There's a lot of push and pull, some grappling, etc.
I don't like or dislike the 2024 ruleset. I am just not interested. It offers me nothing that i did not already have in my toolbox so i have no overwhelming desire to update to the new ruleset.
I like nearly everything about 5.5 except disconnecting the racial bonuses and setting all subclasses to lv3. I liked having races feel unique but this was already changed when Tasha's came out and I like having things like a Clerics god be determined from the beginning but I can work around it. The rest has been great. The monster updates were amazing and make me excited for future books, the improvemements to the classes and subclasses were great and the new books added or fixed a lot of my issues with 5e. Of course, there are things I'd still like but those are mostly new features while 5.5 was supposed to be focused on updating what was already there. I'm using 3rd party books to add other things like improving travel, hunting monsters for crafting and other things like that. I find it funny how those who prefer 5e seem almost pissed off that a lot of people like 5.5. Maybe its their option of WotC or D&D isn't the right system for them in general, but I think 5.5 was a great step forward. Now I just need the rest of the 5e subclasses to be updated as its hard to mix 2014 and 2024 and my players prefer 5.5 enough they all voted to move to it mid campaign.
There are certain aspects of each that I prefer. Taken as a whole, I think that 5.5 looks better than 5.0.
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
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.
At this point, hating the new edition and refusing to move to the new edition is much a tradition as Hit Points and Armor Class. It's standard operating procedure.
This phenomenon is easy to explain, though, and it boils down to people simply not liking change and being very tribal about resisting it. It's about as normal and human as it can be. Progress is never unimpeded; no matter how positive a change is, someone will always resist it and try to get others to follow suit.
I do think there are some sensible replies and I do think the resistance to change does matter, but I see it more as a preservation thing than a resistance to change thing. I love 1st edition AD&D for example, I want to preserve the game, the playstyle behind that edition, the uniqueness and heritage. The presumption is of course that because I love old school D&D that I must hate everything new and everyone who plays new edition and/or that I "stand for every word printed in the book" so I must be sexist and racist to boot. That to is a tribal response, so the resistance to preservation is equally a primitive-human response, as tribal and pointless as resisting change.
What I'm saying is that most people are hypocrites, as it's done in both directions with an equal amount of ignorance.
As you point out, few are capable of simply coexisting and letting it be and its very easy to be drawn into the fight and put on the defensive. This poll is a pointless effort of creating the next tribal fight in the unending debate of trying to prove which edition of the game is better.
^^ this.
To an extent, I can see dying on the hill of 2e is my jam, or 3 is is my jam or even 4e (which was better than folks give it credit for) is my jam. 5.0 though is strawberry, and 5.5 is blackberry. It's a different flavor of the same jam. There's not enough of a difference between 5.0 and 5.5 to get seriously worked up over. Yes, there are some things that I think 5.0 did better than 5.5. There's a lot of things that I think 5.5 could and should have done better. I also think that 5.5 does enough things, better than 5.0, that it's an improvement.
My biggest complaints with 5.5 when taken as a system are all business decisions made by WotC/Hasbro. Those have nothing to do with the ruleset. If I were to stop playing, it would be because of those decisions rather than the fact that they removed my beloved half races, or shoved orcs to the foreground as characters rather than the monsters I see them as, or even my dis-satisfaction on how they did my beloved warlock.
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
It's the same message with a different tone. No matter how you describe it, it's change, and some people will inevitably resist it while trying to preserve something that existed before. There will come a day when that opinion you have will earn you the distinguished title of Gronard! The club welcomes you!
A lot of people are trying to provide overarching motivations for why a mass of people believe a certain thing. That rarely works well, and usually ends up just being projection or inverse-projection. Some people resisting the change are doing so out of pure conservatism, sure. Some because they think that there are changes to the rules that make them worse. Some people support all the changes in the game because it's WotC and they can't go wrong. Some because they genuinely like the changes and thing they improve the game.
We're all individuals with our own motivations, values and thoughts.
Personally, I like some of the changes, like Bonus Action potions. Given how little they healed compared to an attack, it never really made sense to take them during combat...and between Hit Dice, healing spells, Long Rests and other non-scarce resource healing options, it often doesn't make sense to use them outside of combat either. Making them a Bonus Action made them a viable resource during combat to help you squeak through tough fights. Things like Surprise and fixed DCs on the other hand are worse. I get they want to simplify things, but they're taking away some of the dynamic nature of the game.
It's not that I hate or love the new rules, or that in resistant to them or gagging for them... it's just that I'm assessing them for what each rule change is, rather than having a fixed conclusion that I'm trying to work towards.
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.
What?
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.
Maybe, but I think it's more of people trying to understand what is happening and, more importantly, recognizing/acknowledging that it is, rather than pretending like it's just an illusion. I don't think the denial of it (happening) is particularly healthy for the game. We saw a lot of that on a forum just like this in the 4e days, and all denial did was extend the failure from just a thing that happened to the catastrophic exodus that it became.
There is an exodus taking place from D&D 2024 right now. There are lots of questions... why is it happening? how big is it? Those are fair and legitimate questions to debate. I think the point here is that you're not going to get an accurate reading asking the question on a fan forum in a poll any more than you would get an accurate reading asking the guys over at Dragonfoot forums how they feel about 2024 D&D.
We aren't going to know what the damage is until maybe Q2-Q3 when we see some hard data on the subject. What we do know is that its a lot more than just preference affecting 2024 5e D&D. There are probably many factors impacting people's decision not to switch to or buy the new edition.
For me for example, not buying the 3 core D&D books for 2024 was never going to be an option. I always, regardless of anything, buy the core books....I think that is probably going to be true of most fans of 5e. The real impact is going to be what happens over the next 6 months to a year. People who bought, read and assessed the books will decide whether or not they are going to play this game.
Long-term adoption is the key here, but we are getting a sense of the potential discourse at the moment. When 5e came out in 2014, the debate was whether the game was awesome or super awesome. It's quite different this time around.
It also literally allows you to use all the existing options from 5.14, while adding some new options on top of it. [Redacted] it actively went out of its way to preserve the near totality of your options and expand on it.
oh, I'm already a grognard. I didn't want to go to 4e from 2e (never liked 3e). I didn't want to go to 5e from 4e (which was better than people will tell you) 5.0 to 5.5 though, is really nothing as far as rules changes. The business practices on the other hand...
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
A lot of that is because the critics tend to focus on some small class changes they dislike rather than observing the whole. While I try to avoid being hostile about it, I've injured my eyes rolling them a few times at the hills the haters wish to die on.
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
Game companies and/or corporations need to create rule changes so they can publish new books and continue to get revenue.
Anyone new to the game is going to buy the latest rule set/books.
No matter how much you like the previous version, it is now dead or at least on a tenuous life support once the new rulesets/books are published. The parent/owning company is going to stop answering questions concerning the previous rules, new people will not want anything to do with the old rules.
When rules change, you realize that this is an actual business that needs new revenue. Accept the new rules no matter how much you like the previous version.
PS Is it possible the old version is better because you are very familiar with it, and the new version is....well...new?
P.S.S. When 4e went to 5e or 3e went to 3.5e or etc. these exact conversations occurred, verbatim. But the lack of internet, kept people from talking to many. Previously, the old changes meant that voices were but a whisper among people literary in the same room.
No there are legitimate complaints to be made about 5.5. That doesn't mean it's worse than 5.0, because that's not true. The sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. I find the things I dislike about it matter far less than the things I do like about 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
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?
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 why I say nitpicking. certain sacred cows for individual players don't work quite as well as they used to and the world has ENDED. Even though, things generally work better. I don't like the removal of half-races for example. I strongly dislike the general agenda being pushed there. But, at the end of the day, I can fluff my elf into a half-elf if I want to. I don't like some of the weapon masteries, particularly prone at will. I don't think it's good for the game. But, generally speaking, weapon masteries are a win. I've got to take the bad with the good.
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
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.
Just because there are some rules you dont like or would change, doesnt mean that 2014 is better
case in point, i am primarily interested with the class you obliquely are referencing, Monk is the only martial who does not get weapon mastery.
and as a dude who likes monks, i would never play a 2014 monk ever again if i had a choice between 2024 and 2014 monk, because in spite of the fact that its boring nit to have mastery, monk is way more entertaining in 2024 version. Divorcing Bonus action from attack action gives tons of options, dodge and step of the wind having use when you have no ki is great. getting an origin feat is great, Level 10 improvements to focus ability makes the class relevent in t3 and t4. more feats that synergize with monk is great. Uncanny metabolism allows you to feel like a monk more than a few turns out of the day, and deflect attacks is thematic and interestingly solves the 2014 monk being made of glass, and lacking any cannons. Unarmed strikes being damage/grapple/shove and dex based grapple is huge.
so while i think that monks should have got mastery, and open hand monk is relatively a weak subclass early on, I dont think 2014 was better for monk, or a better rule system. 2014 monk was poorly developed and deeply flawed.
and its weird to me to prefer 2014 because no martial has interesting choices like mastery, rather than 1/5 martial not having these interesting choices unless they take a feat or multiclass.
regardless you are entitled to your opinion on 2014, the only thing i object to, is the idea that no one likes 2024, and all/most of the people who prefer it are fabrications of a plot by hasbro. I have seen similar results and reviews from people who arent in wotc circles, and dont particularly even like Hasbro.
The monk was a highly mobile striker and utility martial. It still is, but it's just better at it. I can maneuver, manage board positioning, do mild crowd control, stand up on the front line, get at the back-row target, etc. And, while I could do most or all of those before, I was straining at the limits of the class to do it. I don't have to spend a third of my points just to shift one opponent. I don't have to spend any of it just to disengage. I can be where I'm needed, and do the thing that needs doing.
Yes, at its core, the monk is running up to enemies and attacking. It's D&D. It's a big part of the game. You either run up and fight or stand back and fight. And the new monk makes it much easier to do smart and fun tactical play.
As it happens. I do spend most of my time running up to the front line and meleeing. This is because I'm the party's primary melee character. If I'm not there, they don't have a front line. But it still ain't "brainlessly attacking". There's a lot of push and pull, some grappling, etc.