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

[doctorbadwolf]

Where I different from Mistwell is that he seems to think that in order to be backwards compatible WotC will need to update all the feats, classes, subclasses, etc. from the 2014 rules. What I think is that if WotC updates everything that isn't compatible with 5.5, you aren't making the 2014 rules compatible with 5.5, you're converting those rules INTO 5.5. That's not backwards compatibility. To be backwards compatible, something has to be usable without special adaption or modification.

In that case, the game hasn’t been compatible with itself since the release of Xanathar’s.

I think it is pretty safe to say that "compatibility" means that you can grab one of the adventures and run it with little or no modification with the One D&D books, not that everything from 2014 will work seamlessly with One.

However, multiple people on the team said the phrase “every adventure and supplement”, and at least one emphasized it to make it clear that they do mean both adventures and supplements.

I mean sure, they could just be lying.

 

[Maxperson]

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).

The problem is that with two rulesets to pick from, I can get around all those limitations. Why would I pick the Great Weapon Master feat limited to say 8th+ level in the 2024 rules, when my 2024 character can pick it out of the 2014 book at 4th level because those feats have no level limitations? Why would I take the 2024 human and be limited to level 1 feats when I can make a Vhuman and get any feat I want, regardless of level?

These aren't just "snowflake" distinctions. There are substantial power differences in these choices. Enough difference that backwards compatibility goes away. You HAVE to make alterations and adjustments to keep things balanced.

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.

Compatibility is already doomed. As I pointed out in another thread, you can't play a 5.5 background PC with a 2014 background PC. The feats that they put into the 5.5 backgrounds already make them significantly stronger than the old ones. You'd have to correct that disparity in the old backgrounds, which violates what backwards compatibility is.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I mean sure, they could just be lying.

*Speaking Corporate.

 

[Maxperson]

No, sorry. This isn't on the racial ability list, and I've checked twice. We get morning inspiration, a 1st level feat and a skill.




Yes, not in the sense where they can say "it is one edition", which would mean taking books from the same edition and playing with them as is, irrespective of their printing date. I feel however we are not to that point so far, in the current playtest (which admittedly doesn't bode well).





I understand your point of view, however I am more lax on incompatibilty. Being nerfed to suckiness doesn't mean incompatible. If, for example, the compatible rogue gets an ability called Precise Attack that gives him bonus damages that are doubled in case of criticals [or have another effect that improves their critical, sudden death for example], they will outpower the original rogue who lost his ability to get a "crit sneak attack". But that wouldn't make them incompatible in my book, in the same sense that you can play a sidekick class alongside a hero class, or you can play a 17th level character alongside a bunch of 1st level. Unfun doesn't equate incompatible in my book.



Yup. If they modify existing things, they will not be "compatible". They'll be "errata-ed away".

Well, being more lax on what compatibility means would make it easier for them to have the two rule sets be compatible.

I go with what backwards compatibility is generally understood to mean. That you can use the old and the new together without any kind of special modification.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I'm stopping right here and not reading any further for the moment, because this is just immediately going against the spirit of the playtest. Crawford stated, directly (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have time to scroll through the interview) "Some options might appear to be gone, but they were actually just moved somewhere else"

He is obviously referencing languages. And frankly, with your proposed interpretation EVERY SINGLE RACE is losing languages. I mean, Elves used to get Elvish and Common. Meaning that your common elf player used to have three languages. But now if you take the old elf and combine it with the new rules, Elves would get FOUR languages, but the new elf only allows for THREE, so elves have been nerfed by losing a language?

No. The redesign is specifically moving languages. And when you play out the new races with the new backgrounds and compare them with the old races with the old backgrounds, you usually get the same number of races and the same number of tools. All you are loosing is the ability to swap tools and languages. Which I'm fine with.

You cannot judge the playtest materials including new races and new backgrounds by saying "but if we take the old races and use the new backgrounds, every single new race has been nerfed". Classes we should assume remain unchanged, because we haven't seen them, but they specifically gave us races and background at the same time to show how they work in concert

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.

Yeah, this is all just a willful nitpicking of their phrasing. The intent is abundantly clear that you should judge the CHARACTER'S ORIGIN by looking at new race and new background, not saying that the new races are nerfed because if you take them with the old backgrounds they don't get ASIs at all and if you take the old races with the new backgrounds that option is clearly more powerful.

This is just useless noise, not actual critique of the playtest.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

The problem is that with two rulesets to pick from, I can get around all those limitations. Why would I pick the Great Weapon Master feat limited to say 8th+ level in the 2024 rules, when my 2024 character can pick it out of the 2014 book at 4th level because those feats have no level limitations? Why would I take the 2024 human and be limited to level 1 feats when I can make a Vhuman and get any feat I want, regardless of level?

It gives you more options. I regret that some options will be trap options, like playing a low-STR, low CON barbarian, but with two ruleset that you can mix and match, they are not taking anything away. They are unduly complicating things and, by having pitfall options, they reward a kind of "system expertise" that IMHO is no longer very fun (we had that fun with 3.5 and its horde of prestige class. "My character concept is Brb2/SoW1/KotHM4/Wiz4/Arch6, why ?") If the 8th-level feat GWM is much better, like -4/+2xPB, there will be an incentive to take it.

These aren't just "snowflake" distinctions. There are substantial power differences in these choices. Enough difference that backwards compatibility goes away. You HAVE to make alterations and adjustments to keep things balanced.

I undestand your point, I am just saying that strictly speaking, they promise "compatible" not "balanced".

 

[Maxperson]

In that case, the game hasn’t been compatible with itself since the release of Xanathar’s.

Why? Everything in Xanathar's is additional(new subclasses, things to do with downtime, new feats, etc.) and/or optional. You can choose to make a change and use it. What's not compatible?

However, multiple people on the team said the phrase “every adventure and supplement”, and at least one emphasized it to make it clear that they do mean both adventures and supplements.

Sure, but that's just backtracking because they realized that they couldn't fulfil their promise of backwards compatibility. There was no such limitation when they first put it out there. Now that they understand that they can't make the two rulesets compatible in any way, they're just saying that you can play the old adventures with the new rules.

Of course, they're wrong there as well. To do that you would need to convert monsters into the new ones at the very least, and any special modification negates backwards compatibility.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I disagree, because the Vhuman is in the Player's Handbook, and is obviously being rewritten. This is like saying that the 2024 Alert feat is broken, because you could take it and the 2014 Alert feat and have a total of +11 to initiative, be unable to be surprised, swap initiative, and not grant advantage to unseen attackers.

No one designing this is seriously imagining people will use the old feats in tandem with the re-written ones on the same character. So no one would assume that they are going to try and take the Vhuman and play it straight, or that they are going to take the 2024 Dwarf and then choose the Hill Dwarf subrace from 2014 and get +2 to all hp.

You are taking the stance of "but they said..." and trying to deride the playtest for something that is clearly against the intent and spirit of the playtest.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yeah, this is all just a willful nitpicking of their phrasing. The intent is abundantly clear that you should judge the CHARACTER'S ORIGIN by looking at new race and new background, not saying that the new races are nerfed because if you take them with the old backgrounds they don't get ASIs at all and if you take the old races with the new backgrounds that option is clearly more powerful.

If this was the case, then the bar about not double-dipping in ASIs by using an old ASI-giving race and a new, ASI-granting background would be useless since it would never happen, as new background would go with new races and old background with old races. If it is absolutely clear that you can't mix and match, why say that you can do that, but can't double dip ASIs? They should remove that part of the document as it's only misleading.

While I agree your proposed design (the new character origin being an alternative, self-contained, character creation method) would be better, especially when it comes to compatibility, it isn't supported by the playtest document as written. We are supposed to mix and match at this point. And if we aren't, then the playtest document is going clearly contrary to their intent, which is worth reporting as a result of the playtest.

I also am unconvinced by the explanation about other races not currently in the playtest document as justifying this sidebar. If the intent was to have a self-contained new system, those other races would be created in the old system, not mix-and-matched. A reasonable wording of the side bar would be to try to playtest only the options presented in the playtest, while waiting for other races to be published.

This is just useless noise, not actual critique of the playtest.

Thanks.

 

[Reynard]

However, multiple people on the team said the phrase “every adventure and supplement”, and at least one emphasized it to make it clear that they do mean both adventures and supplements.

I mean sure, they could just be lying.

Did they say all of every supplement? Because we know that's not true just from what little we have seen.