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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

This is a really weird semantics argument. I view the updated ruleset as the same edition. It's much smaller of a change that any edition change from the past 20 years, so I really don't think it's a new edition. It would be "powercreep" compared to the 2014 content, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.

If they use the same basic ruleset with a few changes, its the same edition. If different versions of the same class can play at the same table without any major issues, the different rulesets are compatible, regardless of changes in the class's mechanics.

 

[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).

Mere power creep wouldn't be enough to be a half edition. If it were just power creep, we wouldn't be seeing it introduced as 5.5e(I refuse to use the 1 D&D gimmick). The changes have to be more sweeping than a book with some power creep in it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

By that logic all Theros and Ravenloft characters are already "outside the ballpark", because the level 1 stuff they get is either:

A) ANY Feat including much more powerful ones than the L1 feats here.

or

B) An ability that's significantly more powerful than any of these L1 Feats and in some cases any Feat per se!

So you're saying Theros and Ravenloft characters are outside the ballpark, right?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Mere power creep wouldn't be enough to be a half edition. If it were just power creep, we wouldn't be seeing it introduced as 5.5e(I refuse to use the 1 D&D gimmick). The changes have to be more sweeping than a book with some power creep in it.

They're not calling it a half-edition. They're updating the core rulebooks for the double-anniversary of the game (both 5e and D&D as a whole).

There will be some power creep (feats at level 1, probably increased power of underwhelming classes) and slight revisions to rules. So long as the rules still work together, the games are compatible.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So you're saying Theros and Ravenloft characters are outside the ballpark, right?

In general I suspect any question of the form, “So you are saying [insert extrapolation that attempts to make the other argument look bad], right?” is not going to be productive.

 

[cbwjm]

One thing with getting a feat at 1st level, is that if they don't adjust class to all start at 1st level, I can at least get magic initiate to feel like an eldritch knight from the start.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

One thing with getting a feat at 1st level, is that if they don't adjust class to all start at 1st level, I can at least get magic initiate to feel like an eldritch knight from the start.

Good take. I have taken magic initiate for this reason along with arcana skill. However, I usually lean into variant humans.

I really like that this makes a Gish more organic and natural from the get go.

I love nonhumans getting feats for this reason

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

IDK, I've played with a "normal" 5e character and an "optimized" 5e character in the same party and the parity was a lot worse than I can foresee a "normal" 5e character and a "normal" 1D&D character being, whether you add a simple feat to the former or not. (The 5e character would be more OP, I expect, if you let the player add any O5e feat and they pick one of the "good" ones!)

Or more to the point - Balance is simultaneously not that big an issue, and more of an issue than a partial edition-shift.

OTOH if a jacked-out "optimized" 1D&D character stomps on a jacked-out "optimized" O5e character... well, then I think we might have a problem with balance.

But just missing a feat on its own is probably not worth worrying about. (In particular when you can give them one if it seems a problem).

 

[MarkB]

Mere power creep wouldn't be enough to be a half edition. If it were just power creep, we wouldn't be seeing it introduced as 5.5e(I refuse to use the 1 D&D gimmick).

Where have you seen it introduced as 5.5e?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In general I suspect any question of the form, “So you are saying [insert extrapolation that attempts to make the other argument look bad], right?” is not going to be productive.

My point is semi-rhetorical. I'm illustrating that his argument that the L1 feats are almost "out of the ballpark" by themselves is obviously highly questionable, because my point is completely logical and on-beam. It's practically a 1:1 comparison - free L1 Feat to free L1 Feat, isn't it? It's not like I'm weaving in something wild.

If he doesn't respond, fine, anyone following the discussion can still see his point was not valid.