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

[Maxperson]

The program opening the old documents is, in fact, doing work.

Because it was designed to be backwards compatible. The key to backwards compatibility is that the USER doesn't have to do anything at all, which will be grossly untrue with 5.5.

The 2014 books made no attempt to provide a procedure for getting a 4E PC Ina 5E game. Different animal.

No it isn't. Half editions are basically editions that WotC doesn't want to call a new edition. The changes are significant enough to not be backwards compatible. But that's not even relevant. If they say 5.5 is backwards compatible with 5e, then 5e has to be usable by me with zero modification for that to be true. Nobody bent WotC's arm behind its back and made it say that 5.5 would be backwards compatible. They did that on their own.

And if sidebars like thet are in the final printing, so thar SCAG options are still usable following a simple process...that's backwards compatible in my book.

That's fine, but it won't be backwards compatible in reality. You can consider it to be backwards compatible if you want, but backwards compatible means "Able to be used with no special modification." No amount of sidebars will make 2014 adventures usable without some(even if easy) modification. And the rest of the rules will require significant modification.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The program opening the old documents is, in fact, doing work. Without using computer aid, it will require a little work, sure, butbthat doesn't mean it isn't compatible. The 2014 books made no attempt to provide a procedure for getting a 4E PC Ina 5E game. Different animal. And if sidebars like thet are in the final printing, so thar SCAG options are still usable following a simple process...that's backwards compatible in my book.

Right, if the work is done in the 2024 core books, to allow you to not need houserules to use the Bladesinger or Inquisitive or Grave Cleric or whatever, then it’s backward compatible.

The idea that the most ambitious idea in the first playtest document, from a series (UA) that often is altered from the final version to better fit playtest specific usage, and is the first hint of such a potential change, means that it’s a whole new game and your previous 5e purchases will be invalidated, is just silly.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If they put a new Artificer in the PHB, that completely replaces the Artificer material in Rising from the Last War...RftLW is still 98% usable, and you could probably still tick a RftLW Srtificer in a game without blowing it up. But they didn’t say every part of every book would be equally viable.

That’s no different from existing 5e supplements, though.

 

[Maxperson]

They errata’d older works when they updated reprinted material. By your previous statements, that means it is not backward compatible.

"The options here build on the official rules contained within the Player's Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master's Guide. Think of this book as the companion to those volumes. It builds on their foundation, exploring pathways first laid in those publications. Nothing here in is required for a D&D campaign-this is not a fourth core rulebook- but we hope it will provide you new ways to enjoy the game."

Xanathar's is entirely options that the DM can pick and choose, or ignore completely.

If they errata'd stuff to match Xanathar's, that has nothing to do with Xanathar's since I didn't ever have to buy it or use it. Those were simply rules changes to the base edition.

That is an exhausting definition of backward compatibility that I think goes far more strict than most people understand the term.

it's EXACTLY how the term is commonly used. It's from computer programs like Word. Backwards compatible meant the older stuff was usable with no effort on the part of the user.

 

[Mistwell]

I think it’s patently absurd to assume the latter.

It requires ignoring the last decade, and the very significant shift in focus and design ethos between 5e and all previous wotc editions, at the publishing level. It’s even more nonsensical than the doomsaying in the VTT thread.

I think this is where we disagree the most in terms of opinion. Which is why I tried to end this part of the debate earlier by saying I guess we will just have to wait and see. NOTHING in the history of WOTC, and TSR before them, and the branch-off Paizo from the WOTC game, has ever shown me that statements about backwards compatibility has ever in the history of D&D games turned out to be accurate. And I am not saying they lied - I am saying they often wishfully believe it will work out that way but simply never once has ever worked out that way. We've never seen a single transition result in an update to all prior material, unless it involved buying an updated book of that material.

But again, we shall see. Maybe they will issue updates and errata to all their prior supplements to make them compatible with OneD&D. I think it's absolutely reasonable, based on the history of the very people in charge of WOTC right now, for some people to expect they will only update a smaller subset focused mostly on the core 3. I don't think it's "absurd" to think that Sword Coast Adventurers Guide for instance will receive an update, though it will need one to remain compatible.

 

[Mistwell]

If there is not a rule that requires that all feats chosen have a level, then there is no incompatibility.

Every class will almost certainly (based directly on what Crawford said) only get feats with levels based on class abilities which grant feats of a specific level. What would be the point of putting levels on all feats they publish after this to adjust for power of that feat, if you could still choose an old version of that same feat at a lower level because it has no level attached to it? What, you think Great Weapon Master will either be (for example) a 12th level feat or a 4th level feat, depending on whether you choose to pull from the new book or old one, claiming the old one is still backwards compatible so the feat remains eligible?

All feats from prior books will either need a level (and likely updating) or else they will not be compatible. That's pretty darn obvious I think, baring a big change in the direction they're going. Crawford's language was flexible with much of this playtest, but it looked rather not flexible on that particular topic.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Crawford was very specific and spoke at some length on that topic. That is not the direction they're going. They are putting a class level on ALL feats, and a 12th level feat will be more powerful than an 8th level feat, which will be more powerful than a 4th level feat, etc..

 

[Maxperson]

Crawford was very specific and spoke at some length on that topic. That is not the direction they're going. They are putting a class level on ALL feats, and a 12th level feat will be more powerful than an 8th level feat, which will be more powerful than a 4th level feat, etc..

Do you think they will go to 12th level? They've listed data that says that only a very small percentage of games makes it that far, and if you look at the monster books the number of monsters to pick from drops off precipitously after CR 8 or so. They might just stop feat power at 8th and at that point you can just pick anything you want at 12, 16 and 19.

 

[Mistwell]

Not worth an errata (are there even any feats in the SCAG? Oh, the Deep Gnome feat. Already worthless since the Monsters of the Multiverse release)

Just assume any feat that doesn't have a level is a level 4 feat. I mean, if you need official word from Wizards, they can literally just add that sentence into the PHB. There is no reason to reprint entire books just to list levels by feats.

Also, I want to note. None of your previous objections (the four I listed) included "they are giving levels to feats so they need to reprint every feat in the game". So, we are up to five objections and only two of them have any real merit it seems, one of which is a simple fix and the other which is a legitimate concern.

They don't need to reprint the book, just issue errata. And yes it's worth errata or else the claim of backwards compatibility will be blatantly false. Who chooses the 8th level Elven Accuracy when they can grab it at 4th level by default? The entire feat-level system will be wonky if they don't update prior feats to match that system and proclaim they're all open at any level other than 4th.

As for claiming my arguments have no merit because...I don't know you just hand waived them? That's a dismissive response. I didn't say they have to reprint anything, and we seem to differ on what is a "legitimate concern." I've seen entire characters based on what you appear to be dismissing as minor.

 

[Mistwell]

They did not say all of every Supplement,

They did.

Ray Winninger, "I can assure you these new versions of the books will be completely compatible with all those 5th edition products you already own and love and all the products released between now [Oct 2021] and then, so don't panic there."

There is an additional series of interviews with other WOTC creators, and one (whose name I do not know but I will see if I can find out) says in the video, "When we say building on top of 5th edition what we mean is that all of the adventures and supplements that have been released over the last 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D.