I know it is early to ask this question, but now that we know something about the new rules, i want to ask you what do you think about them, and if you like them
So far, I would say that the videos have the same problem as the playtest: releasing info piecemeal means you have no idea of the overall shape of the game. For example, the video/article on fighter made no mention of action surge, even possibly removing it. The spells chapter didn't mention addressing the biggest problem children of that chapter or any general changes, etc.
So more questions are raised than answered. Just like the Playtests.
That's particularly relevant to this subforum because in the 2014 rules there are a lot of niche rules questions that come up a lot or are discussed ad nauseam or aren't easy to understand or can't be answered. For the most part, we have no idea if any of those things are fixed from the playtests or from these marketing videos.
The druid takes are pretty funny. I'm sure there are some in the UA forum but there are also some in the druid subforum. You can tell when someone though that druid only had the moon circle.
The class is better, wild shape is easier to use, and each of the old subclasses is better. This includes moon which was pretty terrible at every level except 2, 20 and maybe 3&4 where a CR 1 creature still packed a punch. And those levels where it wasn't terribly bad, it was still terribly broken for the game.
The utility shapes are amazingly better, no more 1hp transform back stuff. But to change polymorph, true polymorph, shapechange, eliminate the elemental wild shape and the capstone is just brutal.
Maybe, i don’t entirely disagree about elemental form, though i think the elemental wildshape functioned mostly as a bandaid for the fact that 1/3 level scaling for CR of beasts was so poor.
There’s going to have to be some etiquette developed around rules discussions in this forum once the new books are released, as there will be some people still having questions about the 2014 rules and some about the 2024. Could get messy otherwise.
New rules feels like sets for video game and trying to contain everything and give everybody same options.
But DnD isnt video game and it even isnt traditional tabletop game where there has to be option and rule for everything and by my opinion it supresses players creativity.and it got more complicate for new players.
As DM i cant see the appeal of new edition and i cant see some actuall improvement, mayabe the opposite as it got more complicated in some aspect.
As video-games player i would be thrilled because it actuall looks like "ready-to-eat" mechanics and i would like to see to be standard for various RPG games (i guess im getting older and i dont like to learn new mechanics in every game...)-
But mayabe its just me because i see D&D as something what is supposed to grow itself and blank spaces to be filled by playing
So to sum it up - i dont see myself to transit or buy something from new edition in near future and i will rather stick with 5E and just adjust some its shortcomings by myself (sentinel feat for ranger companion and so on...)
New rules feels like sets for video game and trying to contain everything and give everybody same options.
But DnD isnt video game and it even isnt traditional tabletop game where there has to be option and rule for everything and by my opinion it supresses players creativity.and it got more complicate for new players.
This isn't because of video games, it's necessary for the game to be accessible to people that are new to the game.
While some might find vague areas of the rules as opportunities for creativity, others might just be completely puzzled as to what to do. Players might insist that it works X way because that's how it worked in their last game, when the DM wants it to work Y way.
Veteran groups can still override rules and houserule things if they want it to work differently. This way means that the most people can play. Some people still have an issue with this because they want D&D to remain an exclusive club without "normies" flooding it and diluting its specialness, but that position is pretty hard to defend and still sound like a reasonable person.
Well, i thought they git carried away because BG3 ans video games potentional, but mayabe i was indeed wrong...
Because as i now looking on VTT i would say new rules are made to optimize this platform.
Probably it would be combination of all above...
Anyway i dont believe new edition will be more accesible. That may be just my point of view based on my players and my DM style - i just dont see in what it should be simplier. So far i noticed only 'more things to explain to new players'
To by clear - i dont say its bad thing, just it feels like video game and im not exactly thrilled
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know it is early to ask this question, but now that we know something about the new rules, i want to ask you what do you think about them, and if you like them
I’d suggest looking at the general discussion thread. There’s discussions about each of the recent reveal videos.
So far, I would say that the videos have the same problem as the playtest: releasing info piecemeal means you have no idea of the overall shape of the game. For example, the video/article on fighter made no mention of action surge, even possibly removing it. The spells chapter didn't mention addressing the biggest problem children of that chapter or any general changes, etc.
So more questions are raised than answered. Just like the Playtests.
That's particularly relevant to this subforum because in the 2014 rules there are a lot of niche rules questions that come up a lot or are discussed ad nauseam or aren't easy to understand or can't be answered. For the most part, we have no idea if any of those things are fixed from the playtests or from these marketing videos.
Ranger = Yay
Warlock = Maybe Yay
Paladin = downgraded
Druid = dead class
The druid takes are pretty funny. I'm sure there are some in the UA forum but there are also some in the druid subforum. You can tell when someone though that druid only had the moon circle.
The class is better, wild shape is easier to use, and each of the old subclasses is better. This includes moon which was pretty terrible at every level except 2, 20 and maybe 3&4 where a CR 1 creature still packed a punch. And those levels where it wasn't terribly bad, it was still terribly broken for the game.
The utility shapes are amazingly better, no more 1hp transform back stuff. But to change polymorph, true polymorph, shapechange, eliminate the elemental wild shape and the capstone is just brutal.
Maybe, i don’t entirely disagree about elemental form, though i think the elemental wildshape functioned mostly as a bandaid for the fact that 1/3 level scaling for CR of beasts was so poor.
There’s going to have to be some etiquette developed around rules discussions in this forum once the new books are released, as there will be some people still having questions about the 2014 rules and some about the 2024. Could get messy otherwise.
I think devs got carried away by BG3...
New rules feels like sets for video game and trying to contain everything and give everybody same options.
But DnD isnt video game and it even isnt traditional tabletop game where there has to be option and rule for everything and by my opinion it supresses players creativity.and it got more complicate for new players.
As DM i cant see the appeal of new edition and i cant see some actuall improvement, mayabe the opposite as it got more complicated in some aspect.
As video-games player i would be thrilled because it actuall looks like "ready-to-eat" mechanics and i would like to see to be standard for various RPG games (i guess im getting older and i dont like to learn new mechanics in every game...)-
But mayabe its just me because i see D&D as something what is supposed to grow itself and blank spaces to be filled by playing
So to sum it up - i dont see myself to transit or buy something from new edition in near future and i will rather stick with 5E and just adjust some its shortcomings by myself (sentinel feat for ranger companion and so on...)
This isn't because of video games, it's necessary for the game to be accessible to people that are new to the game.
While some might find vague areas of the rules as opportunities for creativity, others might just be completely puzzled as to what to do. Players might insist that it works X way because that's how it worked in their last game, when the DM wants it to work Y way.
Veteran groups can still override rules and houserule things if they want it to work differently. This way means that the most people can play. Some people still have an issue with this because they want D&D to remain an exclusive club without "normies" flooding it and diluting its specialness, but that position is pretty hard to defend and still sound like a reasonable person.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Well, i thought they git carried away because BG3 ans video games potentional, but mayabe i was indeed wrong...
Because as i now looking on VTT i would say new rules are made to optimize this platform.
Probably it would be combination of all above...
Anyway i dont believe new edition will be more accesible. That may be just my point of view based on my players and my DM style - i just dont see in what it should be simplier. So far i noticed only 'more things to explain to new players'
To by clear - i dont say its bad thing, just it feels like video game and im not exactly thrilled