The questions did not focus on character classes. I highly recommend this video by the awesome Treantmonk covering rules and class changes: th-cam.com/video/rWcv38e6zHk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3e1SfC_JzkbBTQ2k
Chris is doing a great coverage of spells and general rules while d4 @DnDDeepDive is the one going over all of the class and subclass changes in a 4-hour video.
@@SortKaffe Both great sources, and I'm tickled pink they've become friends. I always love when they collaborate on stuff and seeing them both absolutely gleeful over the new Monk is a joy and makes me want to play a Monk.
@@LaneyPlattNot what I'm getting from Mike's reviews of WotC products. If anything, I find him more fair and balanced towards WotC and their products than some other D&D pundits out there. I love D&D and mostly enjoy what WoTC puts out, but it's not perfect. To point out other 5e-inspired rpgs sometimes do certain things or rules better isn't being unfair.
Watching different youtubers review the PHB2024 makes me realize how challenging of a place WoTC is when they have the biggest TTRPG. Teos is worried about weapon masteries being too much and slowing down the game, then I watch the Dungeon Dudes after and they say "Weapon Masteries are awesome, I only wish they'd go further and give a full spell-list style ability options for Martials". Hard to be everything to everyone!
Absolutely! Each of us can only share our perspective. I analyze as a designer, thinking about the overall gameplay. As a player? I love weapon masteries! I was a big fan of 2E’s weapon proficiencies and I couldn’t have cared less how broken some were or how my DMs struggled with them… or why the game wasn’t smooth. It was fun to be awesome, and it still is!
I say the have the base. Then they add the spell list in an “advanced dnd” book for new and addtl options for people who want a more complex game vs simple stream lined version. Personally I think having more choices is always superior. It’s not a requirement. It’s an option.
Dude, thank you for this review! I'm kinda excited to get this book in front of me and it was super cool to get your take on parts of it. Thank you. PS I really dig you and Shawn on Mastering Dungeons- loving the Greyhawk stuff recently.
Thank you for doing this review! I am personally excited for Core Rules 2024. I appreciate hearing a different perspective on things I hadn't even thought about. My personal playstyle doesn't seem to rub against much of the changes, but since I haven't played them yet its nice to get this heads up preview! Keep up the good work! Liked and Subscribed!
I am pleased with the clarified, condensed, and re-imagined core rules for D&D 2024. They removed unused rules and tweaked those we'd changed for better play. I'd have preferred more playtesting, but most of this is good to great! Now brace yourselves for an explosion of 5.5 Homebrew!
I laughed out loud at the term "Happy Edition"! I'd be curious to see the response to a "2024 D&D 5e Grim Edition!" in which the only change is that all the art is replaced with high-quality black & white edgy art. It'd be niche but quite possibly popular?
I would argue that Tremorsense is primarily an Exploration tool, not just a combat tool. It's more applicable to use it to find monsters in unseen chambers or that are preparing to ambush you than using it in combat against an invisible enemy, which is rarer.
@@AlphastreamRPG I think it’s uniquely beyond that since it’s a sense tool that guarantees sensing creatures (unless they are flying) without requiring a check for a dungeon turn; I’d compare it to Detect Magic or Detect Good and Evil, and it’s a very thematic way for a dwarf to do it.
several people i've spoken to have said they're going to just sort of loosely follow the background template but make up their own. every 5.5 background is +3 ASI, an origin feat, two proficiencies, and 50 gold. there's a something lost without having the old background features and traits/ideals/bonds/flaws, but i can also appreciate that there's now a pretty clear freedom to just make up your own background without worrying about what fits you mechanically. all of this existed in 5e, as you've always had the option to make a custom background, but the formula is so much more simple and modular now. i won't say it's a *good* change but i also don't hate it.
I don't think that backgrounds will be a big issue, however I do wish they put something about custom backgrounds in the PHB instead of keeping it fully squirreled away in the DMG. On the other hand, it firmly gives the DM veto power over custom backgrounds and at some tables the DM sometimes needs that made explicitly apparent to the players. I also saw it pointed out that the background is not a character's entire backstory. It's merely the part of their life that shaped them into what they currently are. In other words you aren't forced to take the Farmer background just because you were raised on a farm, nor do you have to take the Nobel background just because you were high born. So maybe you are a smart Farmer or a beefy Nobel and your background can represent the part of your life that actually shaped you, not merely your overall backstory. At a bare minimum I will allow my players to pick any background for the feat and stats they want and just rewrite the flavor text. Flavor is free. I do wish WotC actually put this version in the UA so we could have given feedback in advance, but I don't actually see it being a problem. Just something to talk about in session zero to help my players get their heads around it and realize it doesn't have to be as restrictive as it sounds at first glance.
That session zero is key, for sure! I will likely customize similarly to what you are mentioning. I may also make my own approach and see how Patreon folks like it.
@@AlphastreamRPG That reminds me there is also a box in there about how to use backgrounds from other sources and it pretty much just tells you to pick an origin feat and your stat bonuses to go with it. You can probably just apply that to the backgrounds in the book as well.
i AGREE, the new arrtwork is VEYR superhigh fantasy, its smart marketing as it attracts new players, but like many othersi love a lower fantasy, grounded and grim fantays play, but i cant expect the ARt to reflect MY vision. As for low magic, grim fantays game play? that requires a DM and player buy in, eliminating races, classe, subclasses that dont fit.. just becuz D&D is a kitchen sink game ruleset but thatdoesnt mean we have to use all of the options. PICK A FLAVOR :D
@@badmojo0777 the thing is, there is just so much of all the high-magic stuff right out of the gate....species is one thing, but classes and subclasses make it hard to prune down to get a certain feel, and the level range where you can keep some semblance of grounded fantasy going keeps growing narrower...
Great video. I've been Dming for over 35 years and agree with all your points. Downtime, however, has largely been elaborated in XgTE and/or Tasha, and since they consider all 5e books backward compatible, they probably didn't see a need to reinvent that wheel yet, unless the rules are in the new DMG.
They have said they planned to reprint Tasha/Xanathar's because they are pulling a lot from them into 2024. Maybe they will make Downtime an option in the DMG or in those reprints?
@@Benz74M I remember back when the 2014 edition released and immediately there was major community flack about how poor the downtime rules were (also that the warlock spell list in the PHB was horrible). XGE contain boosts to address community concern. Also everyone knew the ranger chassis was substandard, and the gloomstalker was an attempt to release an OP subclass on an underpowered class to correct that. That has ended up leading to issues because Tasha's corrected the core class chassis, then when you added the gloomstalker on top of it it was really op. Two steps forward one step back. 🤦
If you like innovation, embrace the updates to martial classes that actually look fun and versatile now! When introducing new players to the hobby, I would already start with Shadowdark og Mörk Borg, and only switch to 5e if they asked for more tactical combat options.
I’ve enjoyed those games, for sure. I’m currently playing CoC and just finished GMing Blade Runner, but I’ll DM 2024 this year for sure at conventions.
19:39 for me, inspiration is such an interesting space for game design that they could have pushed the game in a new direction. Using an already existing mechanic that needed development. They could have attempted to do something like the Luke Crane games where players know what role play they can do to get the metacurrency.
Yes! So many RPGs manage to make this idea of bennies or spending tokens or something similar fun. I would argue that 5E would be better off with Action Points from 4E vs this version of rerolling a miss and very little RP support.
@@SeldonnHari that was originally the intent for Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws; they were pretty much Fate Aspects that you could compel for inspiration. It was player facing as a rule during the DnDNext playtest but then became DM facing and locked in the DMG in the full release, thus having most DM’s ignore it since very few people read the DMG. Currently the method of gaining Heroic Inspiration is doing anything “Particularly Heroic or Entertaining”, which leads to DM Fiat and forgetting. I propose that if you want to use Inspiration with the new 2024 character sheets, use the personality tables for alignment and ability scores and allow players to compel those in a player facing way as well as their Alignment and Background.
This was a very great video, being objective instead of just throwing hate or make it look amazing. I have a feeling they wanted to go a bit more like PF2e with their added mechanics, but they didn't quite hit the nail, but I'll have to see more of it to judge
18:18 I understand your point exactly! This backgrounds are just 16 to choose from for newer players and I feel, that’s a good thing, especially when you are new to the RPG and need some guidance to slip into your character and take choices as a fictional creature. Ultimately no one prevents you from building a custom background or just homebrew your fantasy. The PHB/DMG/MM and others just present guidance on how to run the game, so that it will not fall apart over time… The more experience you gain as a player and DM, the more you can use these guidelines to homebrew exactly your fantasy without breaking your own game and fun at the table. So less options at first might benefit your understanding of the intended game mechanics behind DnD 5e?
@@FixDnD Many approaches can work. If I were doing the design, I would pursue the goal of the player asking themselves who this PC was and creating a name for that vision. I was a blacksmith, or I was a baker, or I was a stowaway who traveled the coast. With that concept, choose either a set of skills (grouped by concept) or individual skills that reflect that. I was a stowaway, so I have water vehicles and stealth and survival. Then maybe a unified way to establish a feature - something that can come up often in play and players will really want to bring that up. Many RPGs just let you ask the GM if your background applies. "Can I get a bonus to knowing about that pirate captain due to my background?" But, something else might be possible too, some way to encourage DMs and players to have backgrounds come up in play. Perhaps DMs can roll for a chance in a scene to see if something relevant to a background is present, and if so, grant that PC inspiration for getting involved. You enter the tavern and the DM rolls and it's you... and they have you spot that the crew of a ship is in that tavern... and you barely escaped them when you stowed away on their ship. But they tend to know a lot about the thing your party needs help with... And I would not generally go with feats. I would rather disassociate that so feats stand on their own and not every soldier has the same feat.
Great review. More and more I'm happy I did the jump to EnWorld Advanced 5e, even when I plan to raid D&D, ToV and other variants for cool design pieces, like ToV Luck and Doom.
@@LUZ_TAK i seriously believe (and hope) those innovations will come in time as they release supplements. I think this is sort of a "refoundation" of 5e since the original 5e, while a great game, was a bit unfocused as a product line. The team was small, WotC/Hasbro didn't really believe in the product. They started with this idea that the game would be expanded through supplementary material for adventures, etc.
@@mariodosantos I don't. They have every incentive to play safe instead of pushing the hobby forward. They show they can put new things here and there, like with Weapon Masteries or Bastions, but true innovation in this market lies elsewhere. D&D is just too big for its own good.
@@LUZ_TAK They've been playing it safe since they decided to develop D&D 5e all the way to this day, 10 years later, when they just did a light revision of the game. I would argue 5.14 brought us bounded accuracy and cemented "advantage" as a mechanic, but other than that they went backwards on many 4e innovations that, ironically, PF2e knew how to capitalize, refine and expand. They'll keep "playing it safe", for sure, but I think that with the new "baseline" of 5.24 they will push 5e forward in bigger better ways. Maybe not as big as some would hope for but certainly more than what we got in the last 10 years.
@1:00 I have often wondered if "Book" is exactly the wrong format to present RPG material in. What we're discussing is really 3 separate things: Rules reference and process, setting, and advice. I continue to come back to the format of SRD/API type system documentation for rules and reference in combination with a Wiki (Setting) and a blog or something for the advice and sidebars. I say this as I crack open Moria for The One Ring 2e and am astounded by the presentation.
Being on fire and ignoring it is a thing in genre fiction. I like the imagery of a powerful character with flames rising from their armor and still attacking.
i like how you took a look at it from a new player's perspective. i do think it's weird the order you make a character in and agree that they should of just either removed the bonus stat that use to be on species or put into the standard array/point buy options. i do think it must have been hard to prioritize what things to change and how much. like ive wanted them to change ranger for years and feel like what they did in tashas fixed it for the most part and 2024 added a bit more. then there's things that are a problem in one part of the community that arent in another. like heroes feast seems like a much bigger problem in organized play than home games. ill really curious about the dmg now, will it fix problems that people have been complaining about and have things like downtime that werent in the phb
I can't wait to see the DMG! I agree with you. Really must be so hard to know what to change. Big editions often have trouble retaining all players. Half editions don't boost sales for long. Hard to strike that balance.
The odd thing about moving the ability boosts to backgrounds is that they have scrubbed the racial issue of "Orcs aren't smart" and traded it for the issue "Farmers aren't smart". +2/+1 should have just been made a generic part of character creation not associated with a particular niche. 🤷
I play in a Starfinder campaign and there is a player that has a character, and he has so many special abilities that it takes him at least 10 minutes to calculate the damage this character does. I dread when it is his turn. This version of D&D feels like it is catering to the power players.
Having playtested it, we only had a small delay was the better use of bonus action, which my players loved. It felt good, ran smoothly, and the players loved the extra options. The improved rules made a difference - the gap between bad and good options has really closed for the better.
A lot of us felt this way during 3E. I played a ranger where I had 8 attacks, and I boosted them all with spells. I had a color-coordinated set of dice that matched a color spreadsheet and I offered my DMs to use average damage to speed up the math!
@@AlphastreamRPG High level 3e got NUTS and it took forever!! Before a big fight, we'd spend half an hour just figuring out layers of spell boosters! Some martial characters would be using four coloured sets of dice at once for attacks!
I’d like to see someone do a video on how everything finally officially landed for Two Weapon Fighting and how that interacts with the new Light weapon property + the Knick weapon mastery property + the dual wielder fighting style feat. ⚔️
With regards to switching, this brings me to another topic. Mike Shea states that whatever changes they make, if you have a physical book, you and your buddies can stick with what you have. Essentially they can't take the game away from you. My problem is, I dont have my own group and tend to have to start a new group, which usually means having to go with the latest edition due to accessibility. This means that the game keeps changing in ways I don't actually like, but am forced to play as that is what the group wants/needs for accessibility. To be honest I started going off D&D when species became pretty much just a skin and every class has magic.
I'm much more excited and positive about this version than Teos is! The game will be better, more fun to play & more easily accessible now then it has ever been!
I also build the character first, with the stats for it coming after. Who is this character? I think I want to play a Gnome! The last character I made turned out to be a Bard, but I knew he was a tailor from the first moment I thought of them. I don't think it matter much to me (as an experienced player) that the chapters aren't in that order, but it may matter to how new players think about the characters they build. Thinking of Class first may lead to thinking more about mechanics than story. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, or a bad thing, but we'll have to consider it as we move forward.
Great video! Could you let me know about using thieves tools to open locked doors etc. The vecna eve of ruin adventure kept on refereeing to ‘a character with thieves tools can use them to try to open the lock, doing so with a successful dexterity (sleight of hand) check. My reading of that means that a rogue no longer needs to be proficient in thieves tools, they merely need to have them and be proficient in the sleight of hand skill.
All tools now have an associated ability score (Thieves’ Tools is Dex) and suggested Utilize action DCs. Here it is Pick a lock DC 15 and Disarm a trap (DC 15). A Lock in the gear section then says it is a DC 15 Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check, with the tools. The general rule for tools says if you are proficient in the skill and proficient in the tool, you get advantage.
Yep. I force myself to think - "What is the setting/adventure pitch?" and I go to class to find a good match for that. My buddy just ran a Witcher-styled game and the two other players made gambler-rogues and I could see our DMs' enthusiasm drop. So I made a Ranger Monster Hunter with a Hunter background and an Arcana Specialization, that would nerd out about everything we ran across. It was a blast and he was so happy as it got us back on track!
I know some folks that do the same. And, truth be told, I often have a class concept in my brain along with the species. But I for sure don't start with class and then background and then abilities and then finally species. It works, but it isn't how my brain operates.
I really liked the questions. I had no idea how to set up the video, so it made it really easy! I think I only changed the order in which one question came up!
You want Low/Anchored fantasy you need to go to OSR, Shadowdark, DCC, or Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed of (2d20 Modephius) forget 5e. I think of it as this: playing D&D is LOTR, you're Legolas or Aragorn. If you want gritty low fantasy like The Hyborian Age or Lankhmar hit up DCC then you are Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.
There is for sure a lot of that, especially if the GM doesn't set up interesting scenarios that reward creative play, asking questions, and trying things.
18:52 "there were things the developers knew needed fixing that they left alone". Yeah, to me they blew the timeline on this massively, left play test way before it was complete in order to meet 50th anniversary deadlines. If I was to speculate, I think the OGL debacle and the angry mood of the community slowed things down. I think the UA reigned in the developers who thought they were going to do a lot of new "6e" sort of stuff and ended up having to tightly control compatibility to the existing 5e. And I think having a fully public UA turned the testing into a media and influencer circus instead of being a focused and efficient feedback mechanism. I like what we got, had they started on it a year earlier it would have been way better....
Gritty low magic is where it's at! But I don't think LOW magic works in 2014 and 2024, Dark Fantasy, however, is achievable. I'm playing a smash or Shadowdark, DCC Lankhmar and some homebrew. Working title is JUGSS! Juan's Ultimate Game of Sword and Sorcery!
I get that you wish for more emphasis on the Ex and So pillars, but in reality the game is dominated by the combat pillar (just as it always was from the earliest days). I don't agree with you on the drawback of emphasis on combat. It's just where the majority of play is handled.
I think one of the real reason this book potentially suffers is due to them moving certain things to the DMG which we will have to wait for. Honestly the PHB and DMG shoulda just dropped at the same time, maybe a week apart at most. Also yeah for how much of these changes are just ripped from Tasha's and Xanithars, it's weird that some small things like downtime activities didn't make the cut. They technically still exist because them not being in this book doesn't change things not-covered, but still it's just a headache to still need Tasha's or Xanithar's Guide after getting this big "update". Or we'll find this stuff is all in the DMG, which again the spaced-out releases is just dumb for.
My understanding from speaking to staff is that no one has figured out a way to do both with their staff. It was true for AD&D and I think for most if not all previous editions.
I never want to see a"6E" (these new books are somewhere between the 9th and 17th edition of the game), I am all for a pure evergreen game that is stable for the future. I hope the 5E rules last for decades.
I'll be fascinated where things are in another decade. Similar aged games, from what i've seen, don't normally try to reinvent themselves like dnd did with 3, 4, and 5.
@@Parmandur i think its healthy for revisions, and better to do as a lump than spread through 5 source books 🤷 And its funny to me how charged the word edition is in dnd, because of WotC's wild shifts vs TSR's. (TSR has it's own nonsense of course lol)
I totally understand folks that feel that way. But would you have wanted to stay on OD&D, or 1E, or 2E, or any previous edition? I'm really glad editions keep advancing and improving.
@AlphastreamRPG I started with 3E as a teen, actually. From my perspective, having gone back and learned about the game and it's, everything since B/X has basically been a mistake, and all AD&D was a mistake: keeping an evergreen B/X would have better served gamers and the hobby. But the past is past, and 5E is a good place to plant the evergreen flag.
Hola Teos, Gracias por la reseña del libro. Si no me encantan los backgrounds para nada y no me encanta que los feats sean forzados. Hay cosas nitidas del libro como el arte. Pero no me veo motivado a jugar esta version y mucho menos maestrearla.
Can’t say I agree with most of TAs points. We already have 5e, and Yes the new rules are more complex, but people are already complaining that it’s not different enough, and a cash grab. Can you imagine if they only did what this review suggests? People would be up in arms. Can’t please everyone I guess. And, you can always just play 5e.
Great video. But even in 2014, 5e combat is slow to very slow, depending on how strong the enemy or enemies are. And on a different note, D&D, 5e combat is deadlier than some make it out to be, and I've found that to be true at all levels, from my play experiences.
Combat speed is a really interesting aspect. I like long combats, with 5-8 rounds typical in my game… but I prefer fast turns so the PCs and monsters are all acting quickly and keeping an exciting pace. I’m also a fan of the mechanics doing what they need to do quickly so there is room for roleplaying and creativity.
I really dislike the new backgrounds, too, and will completely disregard them, which is easy enough once you realize they're bad. What is perhaps worse in my opinion is they've completely removed bonds, flaws and ideals. The book doesn't help inexperienced players anymore in creating an actual character with simple elements to guide and inspire your roleplaying. Apropos fiddly bits: have fun figuring out and explaining to a new player how the light weapon property, the two weapon fighting style, the nick weapon mastery etc. interact exactly. It's not like that is a popular fantasy that would benefit from simple rules... 😅
17:41 The 2014 backgrounds were actually really cool in giving mechanics to a pillar of play that wasn't combat. They effectively allowed players to create some narrative truths for their characters in specific situations.
I really liked a lot of the interesting niche background features, and will be sad to see them go. However, I'll probably be nabbing them and giving them as boons for backgrounds anyway. :)
So far, we are not agreeing on everything. Pf2 has no problem using their version of hero points. It is a dm problem, and heroic inspiration is very different and better than inspiration. I like the new backgrounds. I just want more, and when we get the dmg, we I'll get more ability to add backgrounds. I like the class changes and the other updates. It's been 10 years and 5e neededd the update.
I agree. They should have just made a 6e. At least I would at least take a look at how they overhauled the rule system. This 5e 2024 is hot garbage for me, an at home tabletop DM. Backwards compatibility lol, just the campaigns really. For that matter, I can use 2e campaigns with updated monster stats if I want. That's not the compatibility normal people wanted. They even say don't mix characters.
@@AlphastreamRPG it’s not as compatible as you’d think. The new classes are more powerful. Compatibility means you can play with older content with no problems. The 2014 players would feel pretty bad. They should’ve just fixed the few classes that needed help. But it’s not just the compatibility it’s also the super hero classes and happy Disney style art. The elimination of races. And the removal of negative stats. I encourage negative stats at my table. I even give incentives like a +2 in any stat if they take a -2 in their worst stat. They take it every time. Can’t resist the +2.
You sound like you were always hostile to this edition. And, for the record, they have literally told you that you CAN and how to mix the characters. You should be accurate, even if you are determined to be negative.
@hawkname1234 I'm not determined to be negative. Only the people that have to love the new thing just because it's new. I'm not blind, I see the art and the pumping up of all the classes the elimination of races. The let's make every race and class seem the same. Heck, dnd has been doing this in every edition, and this just pushes me too far. I wish they went the other direction. My opinion is just that. My opinion. If I don't like it I don't like it. It's not about being negative. There's a ton of people that don't like 5e. I understand and continue to play despite their negative comments. I don't like dnd 2024. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
You will never go wrong sticking with the game you love! I really thought they would have simplified, but the OneD&D playtests made it clear that was not the case. I do still think this will be overall successful and very popular. There are players who love that extra tactical play.
Shadowdark and Dolmenwood both offer more streamlined elements of play, but without the broader cultural cache and market presence of D&D. I’ll be interested to see if a true 6E increment will lean in that direction. If the team had been able to offer a polished, but largely unchanged , 5E alongside a new product offering for the 50th anniversary that mirrored the intent of the original Basic format as a starter set, that would have widened the D&D pipeline for new players. However, I’ve heard the 4E Essentials didn’t perform as expected, despite similar intentions.
Still feel that it is NOT a 5e book, it is a 5.5 book that will become a niche for itself. You kinda say it, that they changed too much but not enough and thus occupy a weird middleground, but I still say that most people will NOT be mixing the things (and I talk mostly about rulebooks not adventures).
It's a revision. I don't think that makes it not 5e. In fact I think some people's homebrew 5e games have more significant variances from RAW than this. You can think of it as 5.5 if you want, that's mostly semantics. I think a big reason why WotC isn't calling it 5.5 is because you have a very limited number of decimal places between 5 and 6 and I honestly don't think they intend to do a full 6e. I think the intention is about every 10 years or so to do another revision like this where they just periodically update the game, but keep it mostly backwards compatible. It might eventually resemble a 6e, but they want to make changes iteratively with lots of feedback rather than scrapping everything and starting over. I was initially disappointed to see how much they paired back the changes, but ultimately it makes more sense. Granted this still will divide the community, but it will divide the community less, and I think keeping the game more or less backwards compatible is a very big deal. As for mixing things I definitely will still be using lots of older stuff along with the 2024 core ruleset, particularly classes and subclasses. I'll probably do it the way the new PHB recommends where you use the new version of anything published in the 2024 books.
I find it valid to say that this is not as far as what 3E and 3.5E did, where every stat block had to be changed and horses changed to 2x2 squares vs 2x1 and so on. This feels closer to a revision than a .5 to me. But it's somewhere in between.
@@AlphastreamRPG I guess it depends on what you find important in the game 🙂 When I compare it is also because I worked in a gamestore back when 3.5 came and after that people would just keep asking "but is this 3.5 updated?" - the did not want anything that wasnt. I predict the same for 2024
I have listened to Mastering Dungeons for at least 3 years but I think I have to give up. I just find Teos and Shawn to be relentlessly negative about D&D for NO GOOD REASON. I mean, you're going to act condescending because they moved downtime to the DMG in a 386 page book? That's just *obnoxious* man. I just find Teos' whiny style to be literally repelling me even when I am trying to listen to his opinions. There are plenty of valid criticisms. (The thing about tying mechanics to backgrounds is completely valid.) But everything about Teos just oozes "I don't like D&D!" (He literally couldn't think of a 3rd good thing about it, so he said his son grabbed the book because it's new.) But he's a TTRPG industry guy which means he has to talk about it. But you can tell he and Shawn simply do not like, or are very tired/fed up with this game. But they have to keep talking about it because all the the basic normies play this stupid game instead of something more new and interesting.
I’m really sorry I can across that way. I do love love love playing, DMing, and creating D&D. I’m often accused of being a “WotC apologist,” believe it or not. We try to bring a critical analysis, but I don’t mean for my comments to in any way lessen your enjoyment of the game. All my best to you and your gaming.
The questions did not focus on character classes. I highly recommend this video by the awesome Treantmonk covering rules and class changes: th-cam.com/video/rWcv38e6zHk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3e1SfC_JzkbBTQ2k
Chris at Treantmonk is getting into the spells now. Many important changes!
Chris is doing a great coverage of spells and general rules while d4 @DnDDeepDive is the one going over all of the class and subclass changes in a 4-hour video.
@@SortKaffe Both great sources, and I'm tickled pink they've become friends. I always love when they collaborate on stuff and seeing them both absolutely gleeful over the new Monk is a joy and makes me want to play a Monk.
Really fantastic video. Teos and I are right on the same page with this.
With all due respect, it feels like your disdain for WotC has gradually biased your opinions of their products.
@@LaneyPlattNot what I'm getting from Mike's reviews of WotC products. If anything, I find him more fair and balanced towards WotC and their products than some other D&D pundits out there. I love D&D and mostly enjoy what WoTC puts out, but it's not perfect. To point out other 5e-inspired rpgs sometimes do certain things or rules better isn't being unfair.
Watching different youtubers review the PHB2024 makes me realize how challenging of a place WoTC is when they have the biggest TTRPG. Teos is worried about weapon masteries being too much and slowing down the game, then I watch the Dungeon Dudes after and they say "Weapon Masteries are awesome, I only wish they'd go further and give a full spell-list style ability options for Martials". Hard to be everything to everyone!
Absolutely! Each of us can only share our perspective. I analyze as a designer, thinking about the overall gameplay. As a player? I love weapon masteries! I was a big fan of 2E’s weapon proficiencies and I couldn’t have cared less how broken some were or how my DMs struggled with them… or why the game wasn’t smooth. It was fun to be awesome, and it still is!
I say the have the base. Then they add the spell list in an “advanced dnd” book for new and addtl options for people who want a more complex game vs simple stream lined version. Personally I think having more choices is always superior. It’s not a requirement.
It’s an option.
Thanks for doing the Q&A, Teos!
Thanks, Graham!
Dude, thank you for this review! I'm kinda excited to get this book in front of me and it was super cool to get your take on parts of it. Thank you. PS I really dig you and Shawn on Mastering Dungeons- loving the Greyhawk stuff recently.
Awesome to hear. Thanks so much!!
I love how they have moved the spells to the class.
Yes! Really great move!
I’m confident downtime rules will be in the DMG.
I really hope so!
Fun! glad to hear your thoughts here. :)
Thank you! Truly appreciated!
Thank you for doing this review! I am personally excited for Core Rules 2024. I appreciate hearing a different perspective on things I hadn't even thought about. My personal playstyle doesn't seem to rub against much of the changes, but since I haven't played them yet its nice to get this heads up preview! Keep up the good work! Liked and Subscribed!
Thanks so much! All RPGs have something I don't super love. It seldom impacts my ability to have a blast playing or GMing.
I am pleased with the clarified, condensed, and re-imagined core rules for D&D 2024. They removed unused rules and tweaked those we'd changed for better play. I'd have preferred more playtesting, but most of this is good to great!
Now brace yourselves for an explosion of 5.5 Homebrew!
Honestly, I think homebrew had a significant impact on the popularity of 5e, at least early on.
I am sure we will see a lot of that!
As always very insightful. Love videos like these from your channel!
Truly appreciated. Thank you so much! Work is on fire, but when I come up for air I will make a follow-up.
@@AlphastreamRPG Looking forward to it! : )
I laughed out loud at the term "Happy Edition"! I'd be curious to see the response to a "2024 D&D 5e Grim Edition!" in which the only change is that all the art is replaced with high-quality black & white edgy art. It'd be niche but quite possibly popular?
I bet it would! I am not too humble to say I made up that term after seeing some of the early art.
New viewer here. I love your demeanor and thoughtful analysis. Subscribed!
Greatly appreciated, thank you! Welcome aboard!
I’m looking forward to hearing your perspective on the new players handbook.
Thank you, my friend!
I would argue that Tremorsense is primarily an Exploration tool, not just a combat tool. It's more applicable to use it to find monsters in unseen chambers or that are preparing to ambush you than using it in combat against an invisible enemy, which is rarer.
That's fair. It's also a step away from just being about skill checks.
@@AlphastreamRPG I think it’s uniquely beyond that since it’s a sense tool that guarantees sensing creatures (unless they are flying) without requiring a check for a dungeon turn; I’d compare it to Detect Magic or Detect Good and Evil, and it’s a very thematic way for a dwarf to do it.
Really appreciate this honest commentary from Teos. I'm honestly still excited for these changes, but definitely not a perfect book.
Thanks! I’m excited to play this as well.
several people i've spoken to have said they're going to just sort of loosely follow the background template but make up their own. every 5.5 background is +3 ASI, an origin feat, two proficiencies, and 50 gold. there's a something lost without having the old background features and traits/ideals/bonds/flaws, but i can also appreciate that there's now a pretty clear freedom to just make up your own background without worrying about what fits you mechanically. all of this existed in 5e, as you've always had the option to make a custom background, but the formula is so much more simple and modular now. i won't say it's a *good* change but i also don't hate it.
Agreed. There is nothing here I despise and lots to be excited about.
I don't think that backgrounds will be a big issue, however I do wish they put something about custom backgrounds in the PHB instead of keeping it fully squirreled away in the DMG. On the other hand, it firmly gives the DM veto power over custom backgrounds and at some tables the DM sometimes needs that made explicitly apparent to the players.
I also saw it pointed out that the background is not a character's entire backstory. It's merely the part of their life that shaped them into what they currently are. In other words you aren't forced to take the Farmer background just because you were raised on a farm, nor do you have to take the Nobel background just because you were high born. So maybe you are a smart Farmer or a beefy Nobel and your background can represent the part of your life that actually shaped you, not merely your overall backstory.
At a bare minimum I will allow my players to pick any background for the feat and stats they want and just rewrite the flavor text. Flavor is free. I do wish WotC actually put this version in the UA so we could have given feedback in advance, but I don't actually see it being a problem. Just something to talk about in session zero to help my players get their heads around it and realize it doesn't have to be as restrictive as it sounds at first glance.
I strongly agree with everything MannonMartin is saying here! I do hope that customization options will appear in the DMG as well.
That session zero is key, for sure! I will likely customize similarly to what you are mentioning. I may also make my own approach and see how Patreon folks like it.
@@AlphastreamRPG That reminds me there is also a box in there about how to use backgrounds from other sources and it pretty much just tells you to pick an origin feat and your stat bonuses to go with it. You can probably just apply that to the backgrounds in the book as well.
i AGREE, the new arrtwork is VEYR superhigh fantasy, its smart marketing as it attracts new players, but like many othersi love a lower fantasy, grounded and grim fantays play, but i cant expect the ARt to reflect MY vision. As for low magic, grim fantays game play? that requires a DM and player buy in, eliminating races, classe, subclasses that dont fit.. just becuz D&D is a kitchen sink game ruleset but thatdoesnt mean we have to use all of the options. PICK A FLAVOR :D
I agree. Reducing the options to fit the campaign is so rewarding down the road.
@@badmojo0777 the thing is, there is just so much of all the high-magic stuff right out of the gate....species is one thing, but classes and subclasses make it hard to prune down to get a certain feel, and the level range where you can keep some semblance of grounded fantasy going keeps growing narrower...
Great video. I've been Dming for over 35 years and agree with all your points. Downtime, however, has largely been elaborated in XgTE and/or Tasha, and since they consider all 5e books backward compatible, they probably didn't see a need to reinvent that wheel yet, unless the rules are in the new DMG.
They have said they planned to reprint Tasha/Xanathar's because they are pulling a lot from them into 2024. Maybe they will make Downtime an option in the DMG or in those reprints?
@@Benz74M I remember back when the 2014 edition released and immediately there was major community flack about how poor the downtime rules were (also that the warlock spell list in the PHB was horrible). XGE contain boosts to address community concern. Also everyone knew the ranger chassis was substandard, and the gloomstalker was an attempt to release an OP subclass on an underpowered class to correct that. That has ended up leading to issues because Tasha's corrected the core class chassis, then when you added the gloomstalker on top of it it was really op. Two steps forward one step back. 🤦
If you like innovation, embrace the updates to martial classes that actually look fun and versatile now! When introducing new players to the hobby, I would already start with Shadowdark og Mörk Borg, and only switch to 5e if they asked for more tactical combat options.
I’ve enjoyed those games, for sure. I’m currently playing CoC and just finished GMing Blade Runner, but I’ll DM 2024 this year for sure at conventions.
19:39 for me, inspiration is such an interesting space for game design that they could have pushed the game in a new direction. Using an already existing mechanic that needed development. They could have attempted to do something like the Luke Crane games where players know what role play they can do to get the metacurrency.
Yes! So many RPGs manage to make this idea of bennies or spending tokens or something similar fun. I would argue that 5E would be better off with Action Points from 4E vs this version of rerolling a miss and very little RP support.
@@SeldonnHari that was originally the intent for Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws; they were pretty much Fate Aspects that you could compel for inspiration. It was player facing as a rule during the DnDNext playtest but then became DM facing and locked in the DMG in the full release, thus having most DM’s ignore it since very few people read the DMG. Currently the method of gaining Heroic Inspiration is doing anything “Particularly Heroic or Entertaining”, which leads to DM Fiat and forgetting. I propose that if you want to use Inspiration with the new 2024 character sheets, use the personality tables for alignment and ability scores and allow players to compel those in a player facing way as well as their Alignment and Background.
Thanks for the break down. I don't want to wait another 10 years for D&D 6E or D&D 2035, so will just make it myself.
Always an option!
This was a very great video, being objective instead of just throwing hate or make it look amazing. I have a feeling they wanted to go a bit more like PF2e with their added mechanics, but they didn't quite hit the nail, but I'll have to see more of it to judge
Thanks, Tomas! Really appreciate that from you. It will be so interesting to see if the extra engaging mechanics pay off.
18:18
I understand your point exactly!
This backgrounds are just 16 to choose from for newer players and I feel, that’s a good thing, especially when you are new to the RPG and need some guidance to slip into your character and take choices as a fictional creature.
Ultimately no one prevents you from building a custom background or just homebrew your fantasy.
The PHB/DMG/MM and others just present guidance on how to run the game, so that it will not fall apart over time…
The more experience you gain as a player and DM, the more you can use these guidelines to homebrew exactly your fantasy without breaking your own game and fun at the table.
So less options at first might benefit your understanding of the intended game mechanics behind DnD 5e?
I am absolutely a fan of fewer options up front, and then at a level beyond that, adding more to the game and experience.
@@AlphastreamRPG so 16 options for your background are decent? Or too much?
Or would you prefer something similar to Tasha’s…
@@FixDnD Many approaches can work. If I were doing the design, I would pursue the goal of the player asking themselves who this PC was and creating a name for that vision. I was a blacksmith, or I was a baker, or I was a stowaway who traveled the coast. With that concept, choose either a set of skills (grouped by concept) or individual skills that reflect that. I was a stowaway, so I have water vehicles and stealth and survival. Then maybe a unified way to establish a feature - something that can come up often in play and players will really want to bring that up. Many RPGs just let you ask the GM if your background applies. "Can I get a bonus to knowing about that pirate captain due to my background?" But, something else might be possible too, some way to encourage DMs and players to have backgrounds come up in play. Perhaps DMs can roll for a chance in a scene to see if something relevant to a background is present, and if so, grant that PC inspiration for getting involved. You enter the tavern and the DM rolls and it's you... and they have you spot that the crew of a ship is in that tavern... and you barely escaped them when you stowed away on their ship. But they tend to know a lot about the thing your party needs help with... And I would not generally go with feats. I would rather disassociate that so feats stand on their own and not every soldier has the same feat.
Great review. More and more I'm happy I did the jump to EnWorld Advanced 5e, even when I plan to raid D&D, ToV and other variants for cool design pieces, like ToV Luck and Doom.
Luck and Doom are truly very cool!
@@AlphastreamRPG Right! That's the kind of innovation WOTC should push forward.
@@LUZ_TAK i seriously believe (and hope) those innovations will come in time as they release supplements.
I think this is sort of a "refoundation" of 5e since the original 5e, while a great game, was a bit unfocused as a product line. The team was small, WotC/Hasbro didn't really believe in the product. They started with this idea that the game would be expanded through supplementary material for adventures, etc.
@@mariodosantos I don't. They have every incentive to play safe instead of pushing the hobby forward. They show they can put new things here and there, like with Weapon Masteries or Bastions, but true innovation in this market lies elsewhere. D&D is just too big for its own good.
@@LUZ_TAK They've been playing it safe since they decided to develop D&D 5e all the way to this day, 10 years later, when they just did a light revision of the game.
I would argue 5.14 brought us bounded accuracy and cemented "advantage" as a mechanic, but other than that they went backwards on many 4e innovations that, ironically, PF2e knew how to capitalize, refine and expand.
They'll keep "playing it safe", for sure, but I think that with the new "baseline" of 5.24 they will push 5e forward in bigger better ways. Maybe not as big as some would hope for but certainly more than what we got in the last 10 years.
@1:00 I have often wondered if "Book" is exactly the wrong format to present RPG material in. What we're discussing is really 3 separate things: Rules reference and process, setting, and advice. I continue to come back to the format of SRD/API type system documentation for rules and reference in combination with a Wiki (Setting) and a blog or something for the advice and sidebars. I say this as I crack open Moria for The One Ring 2e and am astounded by the presentation.
The One Ring is so beautiful. I want to play it, but I really could just stare at those gorgeous pages.
I just got my physical copy of the one ring rule book and the moria book and they're just so beautiful
Being on fire and ignoring it is a thing in genre fiction. I like the imagery of a powerful character with flames rising from their armor and still attacking.
They must have been recreating the This is Fine meme!
i like how you took a look at it from a new player's perspective. i do think it's weird the order you make a character in and agree that they should of just either removed the bonus stat that use to be on species or put into the standard array/point buy options.
i do think it must have been hard to prioritize what things to change and how much. like ive wanted them to change ranger for years and feel like what they did in tashas fixed it for the most part and 2024 added a bit more. then there's things that are a problem in one part of the community that arent in another. like heroes feast seems like a much bigger problem in organized play than home games. ill really curious about the dmg now, will it fix problems that people have been complaining about and have things like downtime that werent in the phb
I can't wait to see the DMG! I agree with you. Really must be so hard to know what to change. Big editions often have trouble retaining all players. Half editions don't boost sales for long. Hard to strike that balance.
The odd thing about moving the ability boosts to backgrounds is that they have scrubbed the racial issue of "Orcs aren't smart" and traded it for the issue "Farmers aren't smart". +2/+1 should have just been made a generic part of character creation not associated with a particular niche. 🤷
@@falconnm Absolutely!
I play in a Starfinder campaign and there is a player that has a character, and he has so many special abilities that it takes him at least 10 minutes to calculate the damage this character does. I dread when it is his turn. This version of D&D feels like it is catering to the power players.
Having playtested it, we only had a small delay was the better use of bonus action, which my players loved. It felt good, ran smoothly, and the players loved the extra options. The improved rules made a difference - the gap between bad and good options has really closed for the better.
A lot of us felt this way during 3E. I played a ranger where I had 8 attacks, and I boosted them all with spells. I had a color-coordinated set of dice that matched a color spreadsheet and I offered my DMs to use average damage to speed up the math!
@@AlphastreamRPG High level 3e got NUTS and it took forever!! Before a big fight, we'd spend half an hour just figuring out layers of spell boosters! Some martial characters would be using four coloured sets of dice at once for attacks!
@@kurtoogle4576 Right? That whole buffing phase was a game within the game.
I’d like to see someone do a video on how everything finally officially landed for Two Weapon Fighting and how that interacts with the new Light weapon property + the Knick weapon mastery property + the dual wielder fighting style feat. ⚔️
I bet Treantmonk has already recorded that video! And I’m excited to watch it.
@@AlphastreamRPG I made a similar quote on a few people’s videos because I value the different perspective. Only you and GameMastersGuild responded 🤣
@@ElocNodnarb If it's important to you, it's important to me!
With regards to switching, this brings me to another topic. Mike Shea states that whatever changes they make, if you have a physical book, you and your buddies can stick with what you have. Essentially they can't take the game away from you. My problem is, I dont have my own group and tend to have to start a new group, which usually means having to go with the latest edition due to accessibility. This means that the game keeps changing in ways I don't actually like, but am forced to play as that is what the group wants/needs for accessibility. To be honest I started going off D&D when species became pretty much just a skin and every class has magic.
Finding groups is absolutely a big impediment to playing less-popular games. I struggle with that as well.
I'm much more excited and positive about this version than Teos is! The game will be better, more fun to play & more easily accessible now then it has ever been!
Very glad to hear it! I want folks to be excited by this, for sure!
I don't want to be a hero at first level. I want to build to hero status
Level one with 2024 doesn't feel heroic yet - and it now feels less frustrating. :)
Agreed!
They want you to have to buy the Dungeon Master Guide to make a custom background
I also build the character first, with the stats for it coming after. Who is this character? I think I want to play a Gnome! The last character I made turned out to be a Bard, but I knew he was a tailor from the first moment I thought of them.
I don't think it matter much to me (as an experienced player) that the chapters aren't in that order, but it may matter to how new players think about the characters they build. Thinking of Class first may lead to thinking more about mechanics than story. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, or a bad thing, but we'll have to consider it as we move forward.
Yeah, I think for me the order feels dictated by when the background provides bonuses, which seems unnecessarily linked. But that’s ok! Still fun.
Great video! Could you let me know about using thieves tools to open locked doors etc. The vecna eve of ruin adventure kept on refereeing to ‘a character with thieves tools can use them to try to open the lock, doing so with a successful dexterity (sleight of hand) check. My reading of that means that a rogue no longer needs to be proficient in thieves tools, they merely need to have them and be proficient in the sleight of hand skill.
All tools now have an associated ability score (Thieves’ Tools is Dex) and suggested Utilize action DCs. Here it is Pick a lock DC 15 and Disarm a trap (DC 15). A Lock in the gear section then says it is a DC 15 Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check, with the tools. The general rule for tools says if you are proficient in the skill and proficient in the tool, you get advantage.
I've always started with class then what race
Yep. I force myself to think - "What is the setting/adventure pitch?" and I go to class to find a good match for that.
My buddy just ran a Witcher-styled game and the two other players made gambler-rogues and I could see our DMs' enthusiasm drop. So I made a Ranger Monster Hunter with a Hunter background and an Arcana Specialization, that would nerd out about everything we ran across. It was a blast and he was so happy as it got us back on track!
I know some folks that do the same. And, truth be told, I often have a class concept in my brain along with the species. But I for sure don't start with class and then background and then abilities and then finally species. It works, but it isn't how my brain operates.
So many answers
I really liked the questions. I had no idea how to set up the video, so it made it really easy! I think I only changed the order in which one question came up!
It's amazing how many of complaints in this video boil down to "the content of the DMG wasn't provided in the PHB".
Sorry I let you down!
What does "line of sight" mean in Hiding? I thought there was no facing. Is LOS also in the glossary?
LoS isn’t in the glossary, but I believe the second part of the sentence is telling us what it means: can you see them and they see you.
Does the back cover still have a sandpaper-like texture on it?
You want Low/Anchored fantasy you need to go to OSR, Shadowdark, DCC, or Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed of (2d20 Modephius) forget 5e. I think of it as this: playing D&D is LOTR, you're Legolas or Aragorn. If you want gritty low fantasy like The Hyborian Age or Lankhmar hit up DCC then you are Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.
All great options. I love lots of RPGs. But, also, there are folks who want D&D to be as flexible as possible so it works for a variety of genres.
Osr tells players they can try anything but I don't find players trying anything just what they've done for decades of play
There is for sure a lot of that, especially if the GM doesn't set up interesting scenarios that reward creative play, asking questions, and trying things.
I believe "downtime" will be moved to the DMG
That would be great!
18:52 "there were things the developers knew needed fixing that they left alone". Yeah, to me they blew the timeline on this massively, left play test way before it was complete in order to meet 50th anniversary deadlines. If I was to speculate, I think the OGL debacle and the angry mood of the community slowed things down. I think the UA reigned in the developers who thought they were going to do a lot of new "6e" sort of stuff and ended up having to tightly control compatibility to the existing 5e. And I think having a fully public UA turned the testing into a media and influencer circus instead of being a focused and efficient feedback mechanism. I like what we got, had they started on it a year earlier it would have been way better....
It could very well be that the OGL derailed things. Even before that, pretty much every UA was behind schedule.
Gritty low magic is where it's at! But I don't think LOW magic works in 2014 and 2024, Dark Fantasy, however, is achievable. I'm playing a smash or Shadowdark, DCC Lankhmar and some homebrew. Working title is JUGSS! Juan's Ultimate Game of Sword and Sorcery!
More player options vs combat speed classic opportunity cost
Absolutely.
I get that you wish for more emphasis on the Ex and So pillars, but in reality the game is dominated by the combat pillar (just as it always was from the earliest days). I don't agree with you on the drawback of emphasis on combat. It's just where the majority of play is handled.
Thanks for the comment. No worries on not agreeing. In my games combat is just one part of the game, and even during combat the other pillars shine.
I think one of the real reason this book potentially suffers is due to them moving certain things to the DMG which we will have to wait for. Honestly the PHB and DMG shoulda just dropped at the same time, maybe a week apart at most.
Also yeah for how much of these changes are just ripped from Tasha's and Xanithars, it's weird that some small things like downtime activities didn't make the cut. They technically still exist because them not being in this book doesn't change things not-covered, but still it's just a headache to still need Tasha's or Xanithar's Guide after getting this big "update".
Or we'll find this stuff is all in the DMG, which again the spaced-out releases is just dumb for.
My understanding from speaking to staff is that no one has figured out a way to do both with their staff. It was true for AD&D and I think for most if not all previous editions.
I never want to see a"6E" (these new books are somewhere between the 9th and 17th edition of the game), I am all for a pure evergreen game that is stable for the future. I hope the 5E rules last for decades.
I'll be fascinated where things are in another decade.
Similar aged games, from what i've seen, don't normally try to reinvent themselves like dnd did with 3, 4, and 5.
@delax000 yeah, it's true. I think in a decade WotC will do a similar revision to the 5E base again.
@@Parmandur i think its healthy for revisions, and better to do as a lump than spread through 5 source books 🤷
And its funny to me how charged the word edition is in dnd, because of WotC's wild shifts vs TSR's.
(TSR has it's own nonsense of course lol)
I totally understand folks that feel that way. But would you have wanted to stay on OD&D, or 1E, or 2E, or any previous edition? I'm really glad editions keep advancing and improving.
@AlphastreamRPG I started with 3E as a teen, actually. From my perspective, having gone back and learned about the game and it's, everything since B/X has basically been a mistake, and all AD&D was a mistake: keeping an evergreen B/X would have better served gamers and the hobby. But the past is past, and 5E is a good place to plant the evergreen flag.
What fast combat play Shadowdark but my players and I want more player options this slower combat
There are games that I think try specifically to offer that.
When I create a character, it ends up being very iterative, so no fixed order is ever going to replicate that for me.
Good point! It would be nice if the book spoke to that.
Hola Teos, Gracias por la reseña del libro. Si no me encantan los backgrounds para nada y no me encanta que los feats sean forzados. Hay cosas nitidas del libro como el arte. Pero no me veo motivado a jugar esta version y mucho menos maestrearla.
Gracias! Lo siento mucho. La mejor situación seria que 2024 pudiera atraer a más jugadores nuevos a nuestro hobby.
Can’t say I agree with most of TAs points. We already have 5e, and Yes the new rules are more complex, but people are already complaining that it’s not different enough, and a cash grab. Can you imagine if they only did what this review suggests? People would be up in arms. Can’t please everyone I guess. And, you can always just play 5e.
Thanks for watching and sharing your comments!
@@AlphastreamRPG thanks for commenting on my comment!
@@AlphastreamRPGsavage!
Great video. But even in 2014, 5e combat is slow to very slow, depending on how strong the enemy or enemies are. And on a different note, D&D, 5e combat is deadlier than some make it out to be, and I've found that to be true at all levels, from my play experiences.
Combat speed is a really interesting aspect. I like long combats, with 5-8 rounds typical in my game… but I prefer fast turns so the PCs and monsters are all acting quickly and keeping an exciting pace. I’m also a fan of the mechanics doing what they need to do quickly so there is room for roleplaying and creativity.
I really dislike the new backgrounds, too, and will completely disregard them, which is easy enough once you realize they're bad. What is perhaps worse in my opinion is they've completely removed bonds, flaws and ideals. The book doesn't help inexperienced players anymore in creating an actual character with simple elements to guide and inspire your roleplaying.
Apropos fiddly bits: have fun figuring out and explaining to a new player how the light weapon property, the two weapon fighting style, the nick weapon mastery etc. interact exactly. It's not like that is a popular fantasy that would benefit from simple rules... 😅
I wasn’t surprised to see bonds/ideals/flaws gone, but I was surprised that nothing replaces them!
17:41 The 2014 backgrounds were actually really cool in giving mechanics to a pillar of play that wasn't combat. They effectively allowed players to create some narrative truths for their characters in specific situations.
Agreed! It had clear influences from other indie RPGs, and now backed away from that somewhat.
I really liked a lot of the interesting niche background features, and will be sad to see them go. However, I'll probably be nabbing them and giving them as boons for backgrounds anyway. :)
You sure you want to discuss that book after the recent round of WotC copyright strikes against people who did after the embargo was over?
So far, we are not agreeing on everything. Pf2 has no problem using their version of hero points. It is a dm problem, and heroic inspiration is very different and better than inspiration. I like the new backgrounds. I just want more, and when we get the dmg, we I'll get more ability to add backgrounds. I like the class changes and the other updates. It's been 10 years and 5e neededd the update.
Totally cool to disagree! It’s a wide variety of gamers out there and I want to emphasize that I’m sure I’ll have playing this.
I agree. They should have just made a 6e. At least I would at least take a look at how they overhauled the rule system. This 5e 2024 is hot garbage for me, an at home tabletop DM. Backwards compatibility lol, just the campaigns really. For that matter, I can use 2e campaigns with updated monster stats if I want. That's not the compatibility normal people wanted. They even say don't mix characters.
I personally find this to be absolutely compatible. Like you say, it isn't hard to use older materials as well.
@@AlphastreamRPG it’s not as compatible as you’d think. The new classes are more powerful. Compatibility means you can play with older content with no problems. The 2014 players would feel pretty bad. They should’ve just fixed the few classes that needed help. But it’s not just the compatibility it’s also the super hero classes and happy Disney style art. The elimination of races. And the removal of negative stats. I encourage negative stats at my table. I even give incentives like a +2 in any stat if they take a -2 in their worst stat. They take it every time. Can’t resist the +2.
You sound like you were always hostile to this edition. And, for the record, they have literally told you that you CAN and how to mix the characters. You should be accurate, even if you are determined to be negative.
@hawkname1234 I'm not determined to be negative. Only the people that have to love the new thing just because it's new. I'm not blind, I see the art and the pumping up of all the classes the elimination of races. The let's make every race and class seem the same. Heck, dnd has been doing this in every edition, and this just pushes me too far. I wish they went the other direction. My opinion is just that. My opinion. If I don't like it I don't like it. It's not about being negative. There's a ton of people that don't like 5e. I understand and continue to play despite their negative comments. I don't like dnd 2024. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
I'd hoped WotC would've taken a cue from OSR & scaled back a bit on 5e's excesses, but it sounds like they doubled down. Pity. I'll stick with OSR.
You will never go wrong sticking with the game you love! I really thought they would have simplified, but the OneD&D playtests made it clear that was not the case. I do still think this will be overall successful and very popular. There are players who love that extra tactical play.
Shadowdark and Dolmenwood both offer more streamlined elements of play, but without the broader cultural cache and market presence of D&D. I’ll be interested to see if a true 6E increment will lean in that direction. If the team had been able to offer a polished, but largely unchanged , 5E alongside a new product offering for the 50th anniversary that mirrored the intent of the original Basic format as a starter set, that would have widened the D&D pipeline for new players. However, I’ve heard the 4E Essentials didn’t perform as expected, despite similar intentions.
Thompson Scott Young William Wilson Frank
Still feel that it is NOT a 5e book, it is a 5.5 book that will become a niche for itself.
You kinda say it, that they changed too much but not enough and thus occupy a weird middleground, but I still say that most people will NOT be mixing the things (and I talk mostly about rulebooks not adventures).
It's a revision. I don't think that makes it not 5e. In fact I think some people's homebrew 5e games have more significant variances from RAW than this. You can think of it as 5.5 if you want, that's mostly semantics. I think a big reason why WotC isn't calling it 5.5 is because you have a very limited number of decimal places between 5 and 6 and I honestly don't think they intend to do a full 6e. I think the intention is about every 10 years or so to do another revision like this where they just periodically update the game, but keep it mostly backwards compatible. It might eventually resemble a 6e, but they want to make changes iteratively with lots of feedback rather than scrapping everything and starting over. I was initially disappointed to see how much they paired back the changes, but ultimately it makes more sense. Granted this still will divide the community, but it will divide the community less, and I think keeping the game more or less backwards compatible is a very big deal.
As for mixing things I definitely will still be using lots of older stuff along with the 2024 core ruleset, particularly classes and subclasses. I'll probably do it the way the new PHB recommends where you use the new version of anything published in the 2024 books.
I find it valid to say that this is not as far as what 3E and 3.5E did, where every stat block had to be changed and horses changed to 2x2 squares vs 2x1 and so on. This feels closer to a revision than a .5 to me. But it's somewhere in between.
@@AlphastreamRPG I guess it depends on what you find important in the game 🙂
When I compare it is also because I worked in a gamestore back when 3.5 came and after that people would just keep asking "but is this 3.5 updated?" - the did not want anything that wasnt. I predict the same for 2024
@@SneakyNinjaDog Very true. I remember that!
I have listened to Mastering Dungeons for at least 3 years but I think I have to give up. I just find Teos and Shawn to be relentlessly negative about D&D for NO GOOD REASON. I mean, you're going to act condescending because they moved downtime to the DMG in a 386 page book? That's just *obnoxious* man. I just find Teos' whiny style to be literally repelling me even when I am trying to listen to his opinions.
There are plenty of valid criticisms. (The thing about tying mechanics to backgrounds is completely valid.)
But everything about Teos just oozes "I don't like D&D!" (He literally couldn't think of a 3rd good thing about it, so he said his son grabbed the book because it's new.) But he's a TTRPG industry guy which means he has to talk about it. But you can tell he and Shawn simply do not like, or are very tired/fed up with this game. But they have to keep talking about it because all the the basic normies play this stupid game instead of something more new and interesting.
I’m really sorry I can across that way. I do love love love playing, DMing, and creating D&D. I’m often accused of being a “WotC apologist,” believe it or not. We try to bring a critical analysis, but I don’t mean for my comments to in any way lessen your enjoyment of the game. All my best to you and your gaming.