D&D (2024) First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

[Parmandur]

Why not? We are explicitly told this is the new way things will be going forward (with some allowance for changes based on feedback.) The whole document is geared toward explaining how things will change, and the disclaimer I noted is specifically about telling people "no, you cannot just use old stuff as is, mixed up however you like. If you wish to use the outdated model, you must make these alterations." That's...what using a piece of deprecated software is like. You're not told you can't use it, but the strong implication is that you shouldn't, and if you do, you will be required to modify the formatting to match the updated version. How is that not applicable?

The miscommunication here may be jargon: I, for one, am not sure what "deprecated software" means for certain, though Inguess it means outdated...?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, edition as used in D&D history is nearly meaningless, but Essentials by most publishing industry standards would be a new Edition. From the fairly problematic title of "Third Edition" on, WoC has abused and obfuscated their updates.

But yeah, this is a compatible shift. So far, I like everything exthe name! name!

It...really really wasn't though. "5.5e" is already more of a change to 5e than Essentials ever thought of being because legitimately actually nothing was replaced by the new class or race options in Essentials.

Like I legit do not get why so many people are so insistent that Essentials was a new edition. It wasn't even a revision! The "original" options weren't even remotely deprecated! You could freely mix and match anything from any source, so long as (a) you didn't multiclass into a class you already had (an existing rule from 4e's foundation) and (b) you could only mix powers which had a defined level. That's it. Everything else worked exactly 100% the same. Everything used the same math. Humans got an alternative option instead of getting a bonus at-will power, but could still choose to get the bonus at-will power if they wished to.

Essentials was in every meaningful sense "the same game, but more options." 5.5e is not actually the same game. You have to adapt. It may not be a difficult or onerous adaptation, but it is emphatically not ZERO adaptation. Essentials characters and "original 4e" characters required legitimately actually zero adaptation to play together or even to be blended together via MC feats, hybrids, or other miscibility options.

 

[overgeeked]

I disagree with their handling of mixed race characters. We do not need them to officially tell us we can take a Drow and say its half Drow and half Dwarf. We can do that already.

What we need is rules to mix and match racial features so that mechanically our character will be half Drow and Dwarf.

They won't do that. It would require balancing the races. They can't do that. If they tried, the elves would implode.

 

[Malmuria]

Finally downloaded the playtest packet and the changes are...really minor? Mostly new long-rest abilities and tiered feats. I'm mostly concerned that the new character sheet has a box for these per-rest abilities because it looks like a PC is going to have several of them by level 5

 

[overgeeked]

I wouldn't really says it's a "can't handle" argument; it's more that a lot of people don't like reskinning as an aesthetic. The general argument is that concepts in the game don't feel as "real" if they don't carry a certain mechanical weight.

It also defeats the purpose for a lot of people. If they're told to simply reskin things, what are they paying for? If you can pick up any monster book and reskin everything, why would you ever buy a second monster book? A lot of people are incredibly heavily invested (figuratively and literally) in the idea that the mechanical differences between things are real, they matter, they have meaning, and they're important. Telling those people, "Nah, you can just cover the mechanics with a coat of paint," is like trying to convince a parent their child isn't amazing.

 

[Parmandur]

It...really really wasn't though. "5.5e" is already more of a change to 5e than Essentials ever thought of being because legitimately actually nothing was replaced by the new class or race options in Essentials.

Like I legit do not get why so many people are so insistent that Essentials was a new edition. It wasn't even a revision! The "original" options weren't even remotely deprecated! You could freely mix and match anything from any source, so long as (a) you didn't multiclass into a class you already had (an existing rule from 4e's foundation) and (b) you could only mix powers which had a defined level. That's it. Everything else worked exactly 100% the same. Everything used the same math. Humans got an alternative option instead of getting a bonus at-will power, but could still choose to get the bonus at-will power if they wished to.

Essentials was in every meaningful sense "the same game, but more options." 5.5e is not actually the same game. You have to adapt. It may not be a difficult or onerous adaptation, but it is emphatically not ZERO adaptation. Essentials characters and "original 4e" characters required legitimately actually zero adaptation to play together or even to be blended together via MC feats, hybrids, or other miscibility options.

Any version of game rules that uses a different type set is, really technically, a new Edition. Essentials is as much a new edition of D&D as Call of Cthulu 7E is a new Edition of that game.

 

[Parmandur]

I wouldn't really says it's a "can't handle" argument; it's more that a lot of people don't like reskinning as an aesthetic. The general argument is that concepts in the game don't feel as "real" if they don't carry a certain mechanical weight.

I mean, is that true, though...?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It...really really wasn't though. "5.5e" is already more of a change to 5e than Essentials ever thought of being because legitimately actually nothing was replaced by the new class or race options in Essentials.

Like I legit do not get why so many people are so insistent that Essentials was a new edition. It wasn't even a revision! The "original" options weren't even remotely deprecated! You could freely mix and match anything from any source, so long as (a) you didn't multiclass into a class you already had (an existing rule from 4e's foundation) and (b) you could only mix powers which had a defined level. That's it. Everything else worked exactly 100% the same. Everything used the same math. Humans got an alternative option instead of getting a bonus at-will power, but could still choose to get the bonus at-will power if they wished to.

Essentials was in every meaningful sense "the same game, but more options." 5.5e is not actually the same game. You have to adapt. It may not be a difficult or onerous adaptation, but it is emphatically not ZERO adaptation. Essentials characters and "original 4e" characters required legitimately actually zero adaptation to play together or even to be blended together via MC feats, hybrids, or other miscibility options.

As far as I remember, you are correct. However, Essentials was definitely a separate entry point to the game that could be used entirely independently of previous products to play 4e, and used a visibly different format from previous products, so I can see it being thought of as a new edition, even without any rule changes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, is that true, though...?

It is subjective, like almost everything else we talk about here. It's certainly true to me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, is that true, though...?

Might not be, but in general if one is going to espouse a theory ascribing something to the deficiencies of another group, I think the onus should be on that person to provide evidence, not ask those who disagree to prove they are wrong.