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

[Parmandur]

Sorry, which rules in mind? Or which UA do you mean? I'm missing context for this post.

The Bixby/Book of Many things/Planescape test from last month.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And caught up! Woot!

Going back to the question @darjr asked, I did find it interesting that they specified choosing the class first. But frankly that fits with how people I've seen have almost always approached character creation. Classes (and subclasses) are so fundamental to how your character works, beyond every other choice, that people pick that then work in their other details.

Also, I find it interesting that not only are all characters trilingual, but Dragonborn are Quad-lingual. They are the only race that gets a language baked in, meaning they will have four instead of three.

 

[Maxperson]

So give them a first level feat. Just like you are going to do when using the 2014 PHB to play DragonLance, or when you use the 2014 PHB to play Strixhaven. We have already had and solved this "problem".

So that's not the issue. The issue is the claim of backwards compatibility. If I have to "fix" the issue by making the 2014 rules into the new rules, that's not backwards compatibility. The "fix" is obvious and easy.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So that's not the issue. The issue is the claim of backwards compatibility. If I have to "fix" the issue by making the 2014 rules into the new rules, that's not backwards compatibility. The "fix" is obvious and easy.

If a 2014 Monk can be played at the same table as a 2024 Monk, the games are compatible. Otherwise the only way to have the two versions be compatible would be to not change anything.

 

[Maxperson]

If a 2014 Monk can be played at the same table as a 2024 Monk, the games are compatible. Otherwise the only way to have the two versions be compatible would be to not change anything.

Sure. If they can be played at the same table and both are roughly equivalent, the games are compatible. I don't hold high hopes for that, though. Already the the new backgrounds are strictly and significantly more powerful than the old ones.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

and both are roughly equivalent

Eh, I object to that. Powercreep isn't a sign of incompatibility, especially for a class that most people agree needs some heavy revisions. If the biggest differences between playing a 2014 Monk and 2024 Monk are a) 2024 Monks get one more feat at level 1 and b) the class is slightly revised to be better balanced, I'd say the games are still compatible. It just means one version is objectively more effective than the other (not a bad thing in my eyes).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure. If they can be played at the same table and both are roughly equivalent

They don't even need to be roughly equivalent.

They just need to be in the same ballpark as all the other classes. Hell, if the 1D&D Monk played more like a 5E Warlock or something, it'd still be fine, because a 5E Warlock is in the same ballpark as a 5E Monk.

 

[SakanaSensei]

If a 2014 Monk can be played at the same table as a 2024 Monk, the games are compatible. Otherwise the only way to have the two versions be compatible would be to not change anything.

There are very definitely some competing definitions I’ve seen ever since 1DnD was floated as the “next evolution,” and I don’t think anyones going to change any minds, which means threads will just keep spiraling into arguments unfortunately.

On one hand you have people who will be fine with “you still roll a d20, add PB, and mod, succeed by meeting a target number within bounded accuracy? HMU with them new takes on class balance!” To be clear, I’m in this camp.

You then have a camp that already HAS been arguing that Tasha’s isn’t 5E anymore because of the changes it brought. This group, in my experience browsing here at least, is also incredibly negative on 5E. 5E art is soulless, 5E rules lack verisimilitude. ASIs must be determined by ancestry or it ain’t DnD. Confusingly, some of these people stan hard for A5E, which looks in some ways a lot like what we’re seeing in new 5E, but it’s tied to this site people use daily so it gets a pass?

Like, there was an argument 10 pages back that the way “edition” gets used in TTrPG parlance is wrong because in publishing it means changing typeset or font size or something. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone said changing the typical period after class features to a colon was just another sign of how far WotC is willing to go to kill DnD.

 

[Maxperson]

Eh, I object to that. Powercreep isn't a sign of incompatibility, especially for a class that most people agree needs some heavy revisions. If the biggest differences between playing a 2014 Monk and 2024 Monk are a) 2024 Monks get one more feat at level 1 and b) the class is slightly revised to be better balanced, I'd say the games are still compatible. It just means one version is objectively more effective than the other (not a bad thing in my eyes).

Power creep applies books released within the same edition or half edition. So if they put out a book of good feats before 2024 which raises the power level for the current classes. A new edition or half-edition is NOT power creep, it's a new rules set. After 2024 power creep will come in new 5.5e books.

 

[Maxperson]

They don't even need to be roughly equivalent.

They just need to be in the same ballpark as all the other classes. Hell, if the 1D&D Monk played more like a 5E Warlock or something, it'd still be fine, because a 5E Warlock is in the same ballpark as a 5E Monk.

Sure, but right now it's not looking like they will be. Granted it's very, VERY early in the playtest and a lot will change, so we certainly can't make anything close to a final call, but feats being part of the new backgrounds is a significant power boost over the 2014 versions. Any more and things leave that ballpark.