D&D 5E (2024) Playtest: Is the Human Terrible?

[Maxperson]

To be fair, the 2014 PHB says you donned to use the Feats section at all.

That's true!

 

[Parmandur]

That's true!

And being cheeky aside...that Feats are a sort of orphan variant rule in the 2p1r Core probably changes how WotC considers "backwards compatibility" with those elements. Because the Variant Human and Feats are explicitly optional rules, but they want to make standardized and expected Feat rules now...they can chuck the older options out the window without a lot.of remorse, frankly.

 

[Reynard]

If they do not assign levels to every feat in 5e, the systems are incompatible. 5.5e wants you to take feats that are level appropriate and 5e doesn't have levels.

Unless they only identify 1st level feats, which is a possibility and makes some sense design wise. Depending on how often you get feats, that gates everything else off at 3rd or 4th level or whatever, without having to go through the tedious process of leveling every feat.

 

[Azzy]

It's a half-edition shift. The dispute seems to be more about whether it's 6e or 5.5e. I say 5.5e.

I say 5.1

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yes, they will need to be. ANY feat in any book right now is not compatible without an update or errata, for example. And that's from ONE playtest.

I beg to differ, but my reading is different. I read the options given at chargen with regards to feat as allowing "1st-level feats". Those are in my reading a subcategory of the overall "Feats" category, where you have "1st-level feats" "5th level feats" (to be published, or which may not exist if being "1st level" is just a designation used to identify feats that are selectable in the new chargen rules) "Feats where the requirement is to have STR 13" "Feats which requires you to be able to cast a 1st level spell"... A "1st level feat" is just a feat, who happens to match the quality of being "selectable at first level for rules that require a 1st level feat" which identify them as being selectable during chargen as the cuman bonus or with any of the new background. It doesn't make the other feat, that one might get from any other source, incompatible, just unwieldy.

Unwieldy, in that at the same table Bob could be using the original Lucky feat (3 points, giving "superadvantage") while Molly will have the compatible Lucky feat (PB points, retroactively grant advantage or disadvantage). I don't think it's incompatible as in "you can't play without houserules", it is unwiedly in that each and every character can have a slightly differing ability. Which, some would say, is great to make your char a special snowflake. It is also unwieldy in that both feats bear the same name (so groups will evolve name like vuman and the new Lucky feat will be called Cucky) and that we don't know (which isn't incompatible, just... unclear) if one can be both Lucky and Cucky at the same time. I don't see incompatibilities, it's just... cluncky as a hell. But it's still ONE edition, without incompatibilies so far.

Same, the "no critical from NPCs" isn't incompatible with adamantine armor. It just means that adamantine armor does absolutely nothing more than regular armor. Adamantine was just nerfed (and I except it either to disappear or we might see armies of enemies wearing adamantine since it's totally useless to loot it).

If you disagree, what feat level is Elven Accuracy for example? It's not a PHB feat so not currently slated for a playtest revamp.

It is outside of the "leveling" restriction that only appears with new backgrounds, like the number pi is outside of the "even" or "odd" designation. Sure, you can't take it with the new rules as we see them so far, because you an only take "a 1st level feat". But you can take it with each and every other possibilities to acquire feat you can come across, such as replacing an ASI. It's only when we get the playtest packet on the feats acqiusition that we may see incompatibilies. Which will have to reported as bugs in the playtest, since they break the initial promise of being "one edition".

I have low hope of them being able to achieve compatibility in the final product, but so far, I am not yet saying they failed. They just turned something simple to play into something that looks very unwieldy.

This is similar to the shift from 3e to 3.5e. They never did get back to giving out the errata or update on some of the books which came before 3.5e was released. They even at one point said by name some they planned to offer errata on, and never did. People joked when 4e came out "Well I guess we're never going to get that errata for book X."

They changed the edition number. You were either playing 3.0 or 3.5. You could try to mix and match, but you had to do it knowingly, with distinct numbers. Here this isn't an option, since it's all "D&D" from 2014 to 2024 and to the end of time. So basically they must maintain compatibility if only to avoid silly situations.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This is incredibly misleading.

The Cuman as you called it gets three languages. They get common, a language of their choice, and a language of their choice tied to their background. They also get a tool proficiency.

Nothing precludes the Vuman to get a new background. The question was about races, so to compare one should consider everything else will be identical and, except of race choice, everything will be chosen identically.

There is no tie between backgrounds and class, and no interdiction to stack languages from race and backgrounds, only stacking ASIs is forbidden. The Vuman would have Common and an additional language from his race, then proceed to select a new background that will give him an additional language, ASIs, two skills a feat and 50 gp. The Cuman will get no language from his race, one from background, his ASIs and so on exactly like the Vuman.

Then all will apply the starting language step (that isn't restricted to new character races) stating that every character begins play knowing at least three languages, Common, a language provided by background and a language you choose from the Standard Languages table. At his this point the Vuman will know Common, a language (potentially a rare one) from his race, a language (potentially a Rare one) from his background, and a Standard Language from the Starting Language (Common, 2 rare, a standard) wille the Cuman will know one from background (potentially a rare one), Common (since he has no other way to learn it he gets it from the Starting Language section) and the free Standard Language in the same section. That's a "one rare language" advantage on the vuman side.

The vuman would also take a new background (and will, since the new backgrounds are often better than the original, except for a few that require GM buy-in, like the military rank one), therefore gaining the exact same additional 1st level feat as the cuman from his background. Or both of them could take an original background and get no feat from it, both of them, leading to comparing only their choice of racial feat.


It would have been less cluncky if they had said "here are alternative character creation rules that you can choose as block instead of the 2014 character creation rules", but this isn't their design choice. The bar about not stacking ASIs makes it clear. It leads to very suboptimal choices (such as creating a character using a new race, and an original background, resulting in getting ASIs from no source) being possible, but it is allowed.

 

[Blue]

Which is why it will all be fine to play together.

Because it’s one edition.

This particular reply chain started with Stalker0 saying vHuman would be gone, and me pointing out that if it really is "one edition" then that wouldn't be true. It wasn't about being okay to play together or not, it was would the old vHuman still be in the game.

 

[Mistwell]

I say 5.1

I mean, they are going to have to issue some sort of errata or update for literally every single supplement that isn't an adventure if they want it backwards compatible. That is a half edition. It's looking very much like the shift from 3e to 3.5e.

 

[Azzy]

I mean, they are going to have to issue some sort of errata or update for literally every single supplement that isn't an adventure if they want it backwards compatible. That is a half edition. It's looking very much like the shift from 3e to 3.5e.

Maybe I should have said "five point ONE" to make it more obvious.

 

[Azzy]

I mean, they are going to have to issue some sort of errata or update for literally every single supplement that isn't an adventure if they want it backwards compatible. That is a half edition. It's looking very much like the shift from 3e to 3.5e.

Considering we're nowhere close to the final form and nothing is yet set in stone... I'd say you're greatly jumping the gun in your estimate of things.