Quote from: finarvyn on February 05, 2025, 08:19:17 PMI have played 5E-2014 since before 2014, as I was in some playtest sessions with a guy who has WotC connections. I recently picked up all three core books for 5E-2024 (Monster Manual came out yesterday). In my opinion, all three of the 2024 rulebooks are superior to their 2014 equivalents.
(1) The PH is better organized, with spell lists moved to be along with the rest of the class data.
(2) The DMG spends more time explaining how to be a DM, how to build a campaign, and so on.
(3) The MM organizes monster data better, with important combat info easier to find.

Having said all of that, here are some thoughts:
(1) 2024 changes how we get the numbers, but the final numbers are similar to 2014 so old modules still work.
(2) 2024 is a lot better for newer players, but the advantage to veteran players is far less.
(3) It is unclear to me why most groups would want to change to the new edition.

In other words, 2024 is a better system for folks who don't know better but for anyone who has been playing for a while the changes are minimal. Again, details on how to get the numbers are different but the final results aren't that different at all, with the exception of some of the feats (when you can get them) and healing spells (another die thrown in, e.g. 1d8+mod "cure wounds" is now 2d8+mod). Every edition includes mandatory "power creep" and it's clear that 2024 characters get more feats and thus tend to be slightly more powerful than their 2014 equivalent.

The 2024 rules makes the background choice a lot more important, which is sort of a good thing except that some backgrounds are clearly designed to go with certain classes. The trade-off, naturally, is that race becomes a lot less important. My complaint there is the fact that race stereotypes tend to go away, so that dwarves aren't that sturdy or elves that dexterous. For some that doesn't matter, for me I miss the Tolkienized flavor of older editions. The rules are still pretty solid, however.

However, if you hated 5E there isn't anything to make you not hate 2024 5E. I've heard a lot of the complaints about the 5E rules and the new ones are similar enough that they won't address the issues you dislike the most. For example, the "we hate classes" folks will still see classes. The "back to the old days" folks will still see powerful cantrips that never run out, hit point bloat, level charts that go to 20, and so on. The game is still fundamentally 5E, so the folks who didn't like it before certainly won't be pulled in to play it now.

My players used to play old-school D&D before 5E came out. In 2014 they switched over, liking skills and feats and bigger hit point totals and multiple actions per turn and other things I'd rather eliminate from my rules set. They like the new magic system, complete with cantrips and upcasting and other rules that make magic better. (I agree with them on most of the magic rules, by the way.) So they have embraced 2014 5E to the point where they aren't that interested in playing other rules sets. Our intent is to update to 2024 5E, but real life issues have gotten in the way so we haven't had much play time since the new PH came out. It will be interesting to see what they think of the new rules once we get a bunch of sessions under our belts.

Thank you for adding a well-reasoned perspective to the thread.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 05, 2025, 02:47:26 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 05, 2025, 10:05:27 AMIf they are smart they'll come up with a new Basic Set that goes from 1-10 levels and has art from older editions to give the retro feel. Make it cheap and they'll sell a lot and have something to crow about while they figure out their VTT.

All they would have to do is get Mike Mearls to polish the streamlined version of 5e that he is working on, re-use the absolute pile of Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley art that they have = Instant winner.

But they hate money.

Elmore and Easley were declared sexist and are probably non-persons now...

Some very interesting comments in here.

Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on February 05, 2025, 05:57:14 PMHonestly, my whole view on this is:

your game can contain far-left politics, ideology, social nonsense, whatever, as long as the system and setting are good (one can always replace the nonsense provided the system and setting are good)

the problem with 5e, is that it has all that stuff AND the system is trash: it is a convoluted mess, complicated, and bloated. WOTC's biggest crime isn't all the woke nonsense. Their biggest crime is turning D&D into a bad table-top video game that tries to be all things to all people and fails everywhere.

it is like the crazy car Homer Simpson designed

This. I decided to give 5e a chance even after seeing (not playing) the dog's breakfast that was 4e. I thought they'd fixed it, people claimed it was better, et cetera et cetera.

I absolutely hated it after just a couple hours. I'll admit I'm not a fan of level-based games to begin with, but 5e felt like it took the cookie-cutter quality of PCs and cranked it up to 15.

I tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.

None of those I've played with in the last decade would have liked that.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 13, 2025, 03:14:45 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.

None of those I've played with in the last decade would have liked that.

I wouldn't have either and I'm not particularly fond of 5e; I just prefer crafting my own character since I'm the one stuck with it!  I'm not a fan of the OSR style random ability/talent/power rolls on leveling up in general since I make characters for specific backstories/playstyles initially and then tweak as necessary based on the campaign roleplay/experiences.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 13, 2025, 03:14:45 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.

None of those I've played with in the last decade would have liked that.

Same. The only thing close to that that I've seen that's anywhere close to fixed level benefits in popularity is what I'd call "menu benefits" where leveling up lets you pick one of, say, four benefits.

The main reason for it though seemed to be those systems had few actual classes (fighter, expert, mage) so the menu options allowed for the sort of customization a larger pool of classes (with multiclassing) could offer.

These days randomness in chargen, much less in leveling up, is just not a thing most players are interested in; at as far as I've experienced with players in my circles. Even the 5e crowd prefers point buy or arrays over rolling stats (to be fair, it's more that GMs prefer point buy/arrays... largely because it shuts out any twinks claiming they of course rolled three 18s and their lowest stat is a 14).

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 13, 2025, 10:15:05 AMThese days randomness in chargen, much less in leveling up, is just not a thing most players are interested in; at as far as I've experienced with players in my circles. Even the 5e crowd prefers point buy or arrays over rolling stats (to be fair, it's more that GMs prefer point buy/arrays... largely because it shuts out any twinks claiming they of course rolled three 18s and their lowest stat is a 14).

Lol, that last part exactly describes a friend of mine who always claimed he legimatedly rolled up his characters that had dex-equivalents (PP in the old Robotech RPG) of 19-22.   My response to him showing me his three or four characters all with insanely high stat blocks (none of which even for "dump" stats were less than the teens) was to ask how many dozens of times for each character he had to roll dice to get those blocks.     

FWIW, as someone who isn't personally interested in any randomness for a starting campaign character, I have no issue with games/settings including it as an option for those who choose to use it.  I'm also personally ok with randomness for one shots/convention games as well.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 13, 2025, 10:15:05 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 13, 2025, 03:14:45 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.

None of those I've played with in the last decade would have liked that.

Same. The only thing close to that that I've seen that's anywhere close to fixed level benefits in popularity is what I'd call "menu benefits" where leveling up lets you pick one of, say, four benefits.

The main reason for it though seemed to be those systems had few actual classes (fighter, expert, mage) so the menu options allowed for the sort of customization a larger pool of classes (with multiclassing) could offer.

These days randomness in chargen, much less in leveling up, is just not a thing most players are interested in; at as far as I've experienced with players in my circles. Even the 5e crowd prefers point buy or arrays over rolling stats (to be fair, it's more that GMs prefer point buy/arrays... largely because it shuts out any twinks claiming they of course rolled three 18s and their lowest stat is a 14).

Ive expirenced the opposite in regards to character creation at least. Most people ive played with like to roll. Ive never played a game with randomized level up advancements other than hit dice so no anecdotes there.

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.

Depends on how random?

I think as an optional system it might have worked. Especially after the near absolute rigidity of 4e. But as a core mechanic probably not.

It worked for AD&D Magic Users as you had a small say in things via your 1 or 2 research spells every level. Fighters though were totally at the mercy of the DM, Module or RNG drops.

Too much random and you might as well rename it Gamma World or...Red Steel! aheh.

And honestly I think Mearls is right in the end. Players have been complaining about the random in RPGs since at least AD&D and various other RPGs have been trying to "Fix" that for nearly as long.

But I do not think we really hit full resistance till the rise of the more stringent storygamer and eurogamer factions. Especially the infestations of eurogamers who despise random anything and alot of storygamers are just as nasty about it.

The system in my games is that each class has a level benefits table. When you level, you can either roll on the table twice, or pick any single item on the table once. So you can choose to select your benefit, but then you miss out on the second benefit.

A lot of my players will always roll twice, but there's some that engage in a variety between rolling and choosing, particularly once they've gone up a few levels and there's specific things they want to get.

I built my character randomness so that it was still there for 80% of the good effects but somewhat mitigated by the math of the system.  Specifically, most things that are random happen often enough that it evens out, which means anyone stuck with something they don't exactly like right now have a good prospect of seeing it improve over time.

- There's the venerable idea of rerolling the "hit dice" in total, taking the new number if higher, which I put on overdrive by having it occur more frequently (roughly 3 shorter levels to get 2 levels of power compared to most D&D progressions). Also, only some of the health component is random, with the fixed part providing most of the difference. Has the ancillary side effect that everyone uses d6s for the rolls, important when you need to roll a lot of them at higher levels.  For example, my warrior gets +1d6 every odd level and +3 every even level.

- There's an element of gambling.  Ability scores start usually pretty puny (3d6, in order, swap any 2).  However, any starting character gets at least 2 attempts to improve a score, and based on options taking later, will get around 6-8 more as they level.  Each improvement can move a score up 1 to 4 points, with 2 the most likely. The math is set for diminishing returns, meaning that the lower the score, the more likely you are to get more points. And the math of the score/modifier chart is not even, instead making it take more and more score to get another +1.  You can gamble and put all your efforts into maxing out 1 score, or you can go after weaknesses and likely get a lot more improvement.

- There's a fair amount of semi-optional randomness.  Places where you can roll if you want with a main PC or simply choose. However, when making a "companion" PC (think henchmen and backup character) you must roll.  This teaches the players slowly that sometimes what they get random is pretty enjoyable and not something they would do themselves. Plus, since it is multiple different things, if they want that in a main, they can pick and choose where they use it.

- Hardly any penalties, very low baseline:  Character's start almost incompetent but with lots of ways to improve quickly.  Where you focus your efforts, you do get notably better.  The "background" system is almost entirely random, but all it does is give you your childhood goodies.  Might not be exactly what you wanted, but it hasn't locked your character into anything, and it is useful.

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 14, 2025, 06:42:24 AMThe system in my games is that each class has a level benefits table. When you level, you can either roll on the table twice, or pick any single item on the table once. So you can choose to select your benefit, but then you miss out on the second benefit.

A lot of my players will always roll twice, but there's some that engage in a variety between rolling and choosing, particularly once they've gone up a few levels and there's specific things they want to get.

I actually do like the unique idea of leveling up having a random factor to it, but given that Adventurer's League banned rolling for stats, I can see why they wouldn't embrace this. I'm actually shocked that many of the console games I'm familiar with actually have very straightforward, non-randomized leveling systems, to the point of upgrade trees you select from. I suppose the random factor could lead to a gatcha feeling at extreme levels, but sometimes after beating a boss you just want a reward and frankly aren't in the best mindset to choose from an upgrade tree right at that moment. It's an interesting topic.

I confess, I -hate- randomized character advancement and creation.  I feel it results in me playing -a- character rather than -my- idea for -my- character.

But, I'm grown up enough to acknowledge that other people hate fixed advances and creation.  I can see how such things can result in characters seeming very samey unless there's a multitude of equally valid options to choose from.  And it's that exact reason why I'm pretty burned out on 5ed (I feel I've seen it all) while still appreciating HERO, M&M, and other effects based points-buy systems.