V.A.L.U.E. Season 4 - PREPLANNING

General/Looking For Group
,
61

Sounds great :grinning:

D&D Beyond just published an article about how they are going to adapt the new rules:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/changelog#UpdatingtheDDBeyondToolsetforthe2024CoreRulebooks

Summary:

  • 2014 versions of classes, subclasses, races and statblocks also found in the 2024 PHB are treated as legacy content, just like how they did it with races and monsters when Monsters of the Multiverse released
  • spells, magic items and mundane gear will be updated to the new rules without keeping the old versions
  • Characters created using 2024 classes can also use not-updated old content, e.g. a cleric created using the 2024 cleric class can still pick the Twilight (Tasha), Forge (Xanathar) or Knowledge (2014 PHB) domain.
  • When you pick an old background, you can choose an origin feat and stat increases as you want - so you essentially create a custom background in this way.
2 Likes
62

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1806-2024-d-d-beyond-ruleset-changelog-update

Seems like WOTC is backpedaling on the D&D Beyond update, they are not removing 2014 magic items and spells from character sheets.

63

Hello everybody! Mind if I chip into this discussion?

I have DMed for more than 2 years now and have run at least 14 adventures at V.A.L.U.E. tables. Thus my experience here tells me to say the following:

I notice a lot of “what rules shall we put in place or how should we word them?” items floating around. I wonder what the point is, other than of course be comprehensive to a first-time reader.

The heart of this game, of any TTRPG in fact, is the immersion & roleplay aspects. It’s right there in the title: “ttRPg”. The dice and other tools we commonly use to adjudicate are only there to help the game along. In a tablesetting full of trust dice & other tools aren’t even needed. You could view them as unnecessary niceties. The game is actually about the humans who want to play a communal game together and hallucinate in the best ways possible. This is why success or failure don’t mean jack-squat and the journey through whatever story or happenstances is the actual gameplay.

You see this best at T1 tables. Characters are by design meek and frightful, and logically so! People tend to not go overconfident or gung-ho because it would be inadvisable to do so. And guess what? Most T1 tables I have ever been a part of experience the most magic moments of D&D. T2 also has this, but to a lesser degree - because people there are starting to get distracted by the FEATURES and ABILITIES and whatnot…and they start to miss the point of the game. I imagine this worsens massively when nearing endgame.

Advice? -->> Forget that you are playing as a “class” for a while and simply be the imaginary person you claim to be. It is you after all. Try to be the best you in the current context. And then you will always win, no matter what happens in the game session c: because you did your job correctly and dedicated your all in service to the game. Nobody can be mad at you for doing that much of a good job.

So loud inhalation what about the pedantics? → Ruleswise I say, the current A.L. D&D experience is a system wherein players can 1) make a character 2) play that character 3) choose to continue with said character or set that one aside in favor of another. 4) repeat.

This is a good closed system. Doesn’t need to change. Which is where the “forced leveling” would interfere.

I get it. It would introduce a degree of certainty, because it does away with choice. “You picked this path, now walk it” is fun and can surely shake it up for veterans. But you can already do this now^^. Simply act like you “have” to level up each time and make it harder on yourself. It is your personal journey through the Tiers of Play. Make it what you will, this is what it’s there for. No need to add this to the rules in my opinion, because functionally it’s already present.

And by the way: Thank the Lord, that D&D is already one thing and one thing only. If multiple changes are made within the game then it ceases to be what it is.

That’s trouble. Also, that’s what other game systems are there for. What is being played at VALUE? → Dungeons and Dragons.

Easy. Good, short and succinct answer. Quick to explain.

If we all start going: “well, first off it’s not EXACTLY D&D as you might have heard of it or seen on the internet…it’s actually a collection of homemade fixes, that aim to…”

Nope.

Terrible design. Because it obfuscates and makes it harder to understand for everybody involved.

More complex is not better. Simple is best more often than not.

So keep banning the annoying stuff like Silvery Barbs and leave it at that.

Hey, can we make it a requirement to “Employ common sense”? That would be neat!

Anyway, that’s my take on the overall forum post. Sorry if I missed arguments. You mostly dealt with that stuff already before I posted.

Cheers

5 Likes
64

I’ve been thinking about these same questions lately.

To quote the guy who kind of invented the whole thing, “It is important to remember that ‘role-playing’ is a modifier of the noun ‘game.’ We are dealing with a game which is based on role playing, but it is first and foremost a game.”

RPGs aren’t simply creating fiction together. Success and failure are important parts of what makes them actual games.

1 Like
65

totally. I did say that “success and failure do not mean jack-squat” with such confidence that I neglected to elaborate xD. As long as the game is played well, fun is had. What actually ends up happening in the events within the game session doesn’t matter as much as long as the roleplay, immersion and core of the game is intact and well-fed by the participants.

That’s what I meant.

Games have success and failure states and removing that would break the game. Then it would no longer be a game, but a windowshopping of options that do not incur any consequences. …but as a consequence-free player you also do not gain anything from having played. Nothing risked = nothing gained. That’s the downside, the entire reason for playing evaporates.

Choices must have consequences for it to be a game. What I described was essentially that, let’s be honest, the DM could just as well state what the outcomes are and still perform the same duties as the mathrocks.

It’s still a better solution to have random chance dictate how the fictitious events shake out because then nobody takes the fall for disagreements. The dice can always be as guilty as they need to be, it doesn’t do anything to them^^

But yeah, roleplay is the heart of this genre of game, I should maybe put it. Thank you, @H Choice and consequence is what makes it a game. Roleplaying to the best of your abilities and even finding out that you improved in that is what makes it all work. The universal glue that lets people get into the game and stick with it.

1 Like
68
69

just found out that pistols and muskets are in the new PHB24
(don’t look broken on a first glance; maybe could be if we allow the old Firearm feat? :man_shrugging: )

  • Pistol: 1d10 piercing - Ammunition (30/90 ft.), Loading; WM: Vex
  • Musket: 1d12 piercing - Ammunition (40/120 ft.), Loading, Two‑Handed; WM: Slow

both are martial weapons

1 Like
70

i just realized that the 2024 dual wielder feat only allows the bonus action attack to be made with a non light weapon, the main attack still has to be done with a weapon that has the light property … pretty stupid imho :smiley:

2 Likes
71

Yeah, unless they change/errata dual wielding, we need to houserule or at least clarify how it works - especially when it comes to the interactions with the Nick mastery and Dual Wielder feat.

72

@Arthilas according to GenCon the idea (RAI if you will) of the feat is, that the Dual Wielder feat allows you an extra off-hand attack as a Bonus Action, even though you made already one, thanks to the Nick Weapon Mastery

and the melee Nick weapons (Dagger, Light Hammer, Sickle, Scimitar) are all light

1 Like
73

then they really fucked up the dual wielder feat description :smiley: and still dual wielding non-light one handed weapons was what the feat used to be about and that is gone, which kind of sucks

74

yes :100: the wording (in that case) is a mess :+1:

(also the fact, that the '14 feat with the same name was about something else, adds to the confusion)

75

That is exactly how I interpret it as well and how I played it when I tried the new rules for the first time on Halloween, with a dual-wielding bladesinger wizard at level 10 :wink:

76

Some suggestions:

  • Shillelagh: Change duration to 24h/ until you cast it again/ until you finish a long rest. Simply one of my fav spells and the one thing that gripes me about it is its short duration. Usually irrelevant for the duration of the battle, but it pretty much means that if you are playing a character that relies on this spell to go into melee, it is the first thing you do every combat encounter since you can’t pre-cast it due to its short duration unless you know that a battle is coming up. From my experience it is just very boring and anticlimactic when the DM asks you, it is your turn, what are you going to do?, and the response is always, I cast Shillelagh. Not a biggie of course, just wanted to mention it once.
  • Conjure Minor Elementals: Homebrew the damage scaling of the spell. I’ve heard many ppl say already, that this spell is overtuned and probably requires some homebrew. One suggestion I’ve heard from D&D Deep Dive was to only make the damage increase by a 1D8 for every 2 levels you upcast it. So that’s a first suggestion.
  • Hallow: Homebrew the interaction between the new divine intervention and the hallow spell. Has already been mentioned, that the interaction between hallow and the new divine intervention is potentially problematic.
1 Like
77
  • Shillelagh: agree. The one alternative you did not mention is to always cast it at any time, with the effect of it being active when combat starts, but the DM and maybe other players being annoyed. Maybe this is somthing more for a list of “suggested rulings” rather than a fixed houserule?
  • Conjure Minor Elementals yes, that spell’s scaling is too much. However, reducing it to +1d8 for every two levels might make it too weak compared to Spirit Shroud (a 3rd level spell, generally favorable damage types, blocks healing) or Shadow Blade (a 2nd level spell, conjures a light weapon that deals psychic damage). So maybe 1d8 per level instead? Or starting at 2d6 and then adding a d6 per level?
  • Hallow I agree, not much I can add.

One thing I would like to add:

  • Emanations. As of now they are probably the most broken thing in the new rules. Two scenarios are particulary noteworthy: First, using held actions and mounts and getting carried by other characters on their turns to deal damage over and over again, as the new rules cause the Emanation to apply a damage tick whenever it enters another creature’s space, limited to once per turn. And second, a high-mobility character like a druid wildshaped into an owl can just fly around a dungeon and apply Emanation damage to all creatures in their flight path without them being able to fight back.
    We could say Emanations deal damage only once per round, but that 1) does not solve the second issue, and 2) removes any tactical play/team combos to “double dip” the damage. I think I’d prefer simply using the 2014 rules instead, at least until WoTC erratas Emanations in some way. That removes both exploits, while still allowing teamwork to achieve “double-dips”, such as by pushing or grappling and carrying an enemy into the area.

Maybe we should have regular DMs run some 2024 rules games before we start the new season, to test them out and work out what really proves to be problematic in practice?

1 Like
78

@Istariel @Arthilas thanks :+1:

just to keep in mind:
(imo) for VALUE, I would argue to keep it simple, since I think a TL;DR Homebrew-list not gonna help anyone

(e.g. just to ban stuff is easier, than to re-write individual spells)

79

Agree as said for Shillelagh, more of a personal wish for which I’m lacking a 9th level spell slot :smile:

For CME and Hallow a ban could be considered for sure :+1:

Optionally only allow spells with a casting time of an action for new divine intervention. Of course as an avid cleric enjoyer, I would stauntly oppose this change :heart:

80

(they designed the Divine Intervention cleric feature, with the idea that one would us it for raise dead)

for Homegames I would phrase it like this:

  • The Cleric feature ‘Divine Intervention’ cannot be used for spells that take longer than 1 Hr. to cast.

for V.A.L.U.E. it would be prolly easier to put hallow on a ban list

1 Like
81

I would be against a ban of CME though, as it is an increidbly thematic spell for many gish buillds. All it needs is a reduction of its damage scaling.

While I agree we should keep things simple, we should not ban things if we can make easy adjustments to keep them around.

Banning Hallow would be easier and less problematic than Conjure Minor Elementals, because Hallow is extremely niche and likely would see no use outside of the Divine Intervention interaction - thus banning it would not hurt.
CME on the other hand is a spell that, even with nerfed damage, will be very useful and popular for gish builds as it allows them to deal “their” element as damage with their weapon attacks - something that previously only was possible for cold-themed gishes with Spirit Shroud. Therefore banning it would be a poor choice - it would have a big impact on character builds and heavily restrict gish builds theme-wise. .

82

I just read this post and did not follow the whole discussion, but I want to point out the following:

If a character can be created at the levels 1,5,11,17 (which I wholeheartedly support) and downleveling is allowed (which is also good in and of itself) a character of any level 1-17 can be created.

Is that a bug or is it a feature?

Proposed fix: Do not allow downleveling to a lower tier

And on the topic of downleveling - would you need to give back magic items?

1 Like