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

[Parmandur]

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.

"Completely playable" with the new evolution of D&D doesn't necessarily mean every element of those supplements has to be usable, frankly.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Presumably anything that exists in a previous supplement and the 2024 core will be superceded by the latter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Is it the same mathematically? 1 is not twice zero, though 2 is twice 1. I do think "Only type able to do X" is way more meaningful to the game than "Only type able to do 2X while everyone else can only do X," with, as you mentioned, diminishing returns.

+1 is the same whether you are doing 1+1 or 100+1. It is +1. Sure, if you want to look at it multiplicatively, 1+1 is the same as 1*2, whereas 100*2 =/= 100+1. But that gets into a level of pendantry I'm really not sure is useful.

Humans get +1 feat more than everyone else. They got that in 2014 with Vhuman, they get it now.

"Losing any languages or tools" is a ribbon issue. I know a lot of people ignore the Downtime rules in the DMG, but I believe you can pick up both a tool use and language using Downtime activities with no expenditure of class or race or background resources, unless they eliminate those things in the new DMG. Realistically the VHuman was about a feat.

So far, I am fine with this change personally and I think my group will be fine with it as well. But I definitely understand people viewing this as a reduction in power for the race.

The Xanathar's rules cost an obscene amount of time and significant money, so they weren't really usable for most tables.

And again, sure, due to diminishing returns, getting two feats is less impressive than getting one feat. That still doesn't make it accurate to say that the human is terribly underpowered compared to its previous version. If I built a Soldier with both systems you are going to get much the same result.

 

[Parmandur]

Presumably anything that exists in a previous supplement and the 2024 core will be superceded by the latter.

I suppose that a design goal of the new Monster Manual is to ensure that any 5E Adventure will still be compatible, by having an equivalent entry for any Monster or NPC in bold. Seems doable, even if they change all the Mosntera, given the fuzziness of 5E/OneD&D encounter design.

Here's one possible thing they could do: based on what they have written in this playtest, and comparing to the final formatting with art for similar entries in Monsters of the Multiverse, the Race chapter here is set to be literally less than half the length of the 2014 PHB (which was 27 pages long). And the Backgroudn schaoter isnpoiwed to be significantlyshorter, as well. So they are trying to be efficient with space it seems, which means they want the space for something.

What if...they print a full revision or every Subclass from 5E? Just straight up, 100 Subclasses in the PHB.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Who says an 8th level Elven Accuracy even exists? This is where you seem to consistently jumping to conclusions. You keep assuming old feats that will be taken from those supplments will be 8th or 12th level, but if they aren't... then there is no need to change anything.

All of the feats which people consider "broken" and might be moved to 8th level are found in the PHB. The feats in Xanathars and Tasha's (the only two books with a significant number of feats) all look like they'd be fine as 4th level feats. So, instead of assuming we will be breaking the game by taking a 12th level "Flames of Phlegethos" feat at 4th level, why not just look at the 1st level feats, and withhold judgement on 4th level and higher feats until we get that playtest document?

And, to cover this as well, saying that the game cannot be backwards compatible if the 2014 PHB lets you take the 8th level GWM feat at 4th level is missing the mark. Things that are rewritten in the 2024 PHB are clearly going to be meant to be rewritten rules, not interchangeable rules pieces, because if that was allowed, then there are a million broken combos, but it is clearly not allowed.

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.

I imagined that by "updated or errata'd" you were talking about reprints. If you just mean they will need to release like a single page digital PDF explaining how to integrate things, that is far different and far easier than you've been making this sound.

But as for dismissing your concerns?

1) "I can't make an 18 stat human anymore." -> Yeah, I'm dismissing this. Rules changed. We knew that and it doesn't seem to be worth declaring the playtest broken and impossible just because some of the rules changed. At that point, you can't have a playtest. You don't need to playtest rules that never change.

2) Critical hits -> I've agreed with you. If nothing changes between this document and 2024, then this is a legitimate concern. A minor concern, since there are only three or four ways to cancel crits anyways, but a real concern I plan on bringing up alongside my other comments on the critical hit rules. Not dismissing

3) Grappling -> Another real concern, though one we have agreed is a rather easy fix. A single line in the new PHB on grappling and interactions with advantage on strength checks, and we are good to go.

4) Changes to abilities no longer recharging on a short rest -> Dismissed, because it isn't a real concern. This has been the case for Tasha's, for Fizban's, for Monsters of the Multiverse. This has been a shift for a long time. If your concern is actually that, say, 2024 Warlocks are going to work differently than 2014 warlocks, we return to #1. Rules changes are not problems that need errata'd.

5) All feats need to be given levels -> Dismissed because they really don't. If people are allowed to take feats that they have the pre-requisites for by level 4, then you can still take those feats. The only concern would come IF they DID update or errata the old feats to give them levels. Once they do that, you have rewritten the rules for those feats, and you will need to account for that. But if you don't, then they can just get them at level 4 like normal.

So, I am dismissing some of your concerns, but not out of hand. I'm dismissing them because you seem to equate the rules being altered to being some sort of problem, but all of the knock-on effects for other feats and short rest recharges and human limits are all not actually rules problems, they are rules changes. Meanwhile, Grappling and Criticals are actual rules problems that need addressed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's not been my stance, please don't try to state my motives. In multiple posts in this chain I have been very clear my stance is "it's actually a half edition shift, because if it really is one edition then all of this old stuff is still active".

I'm in a campaign with PCs with races that were rewritten with MotM and not updated. These are still a single edition, and the minor rewrites don't make the other ones unplayable. I've used foes both MotM versions of some and pre-MotM versions of others based on what fit what I wanted better, especially with casters. In a single edition, this is fine.

But if, as you say, "I disagree, because the Vhuman is in the Player's Handbook, and is obviously being rewritten.", you are in fact agreeing with my entiure premise - that this is not the same edition where they will be all in play, but a half edition (or more) shift where the old ones are not in play.

Basically, once you say "all of this has been superseded and is no longer available", the practical upshot is that it is a separate edition regardless if they number it as so or not.

You know, honestly, I'm trying to find an example you won't twist, and I'm just going to jump to the end.

Let us say you win, Wizards in their next announcement says "We lied. This is actually 6E and we will be releasing a conversion document that explains how to integrate the majority of your 5E supplements into the game. We will say which races can be ported easily, which feats need levels, which spells go in which lists"

What changes? What fundamental shift has occurred?

You keep taking the claim that the 2024 book is going to be backwards compatible with 5e adventures and supplements to mean that no rules in the Player's Handbook will be changed. But they've already changed Volo's Guide and Mordenkainen's tome by releasing Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse. Was that an edition shift? No one seemed to think so, you are claiming it wasn't, but if a Player's Handbook is released to change a Player's Handbook it must be at least a half edition shift and that's.... bad?

Why? It isn't exactly difficult to realize that a rewritten human is supposed to be rewritten, just like we don't use the Kobold or Orc that have -2 Intelligence, we won't use the old, out-of-date human. Because why would we?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What if...they print a full revision or every Subclass from 5E? Just straight up, 100 Subclasses in the PHB.

I don’t think they will, but only because I think they want the main rules expansion books to keep selling.

Could be a major issue of degree, though not kind.

Sure. I think the playtest is showing their most radical ideas going in, and since the only issue right now is specific rules language needing adjustment, I’m not too worried, but it’s possible.

 

[Blue]

Let us say you win, Wizards in their next announcement says "We lied. This is actually 6E and we will be releasing a conversion document that explains how to integrate the majority of your 5E supplements into the game. We will say which races can be ported easily, which feats need levels, which spells go in which lists"

What changes? What fundamental shift has occurred?

What changed: they now are telling the truth. That's all. Is more needed? Do I need a mechanical reason to hold them to the truth? That maybe if they came out that it's not the same edition it could impact the sales of the books they have planned between now and then? I'm pretty confused why finding the truth isn't a sufficient goal by itself, but even if it's trying to find out if they are telling the truth or lying as it will impact book sales is a major money issue - and one that incentivizes them to say it's all the same edition.

We have a precedent for what looks like it's happening. This happened already with 3.0 to 3.5.

You keep taking the claim that the 2024 book is going to be backwards compatible with 5e adventures and supplements to mean that no rules in the Player's Handbook will be changed.

No, I keep taking the claim that it will all be compatible as bull. I use holding them to their statement that it's going to be compatible - inherent in the declaration that it is the same edition - to highlight where they are misinforming us.

But they've already changed Volo's Guide and Mordenkainen's tome by releasing Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse. Was that an edition shift? No one seemed to think so, you are claiming it wasn't, but if a Player's Handbook is released to change a Player's Handbook it must be at least a half edition shift and that's.... bad?

It hasn't come up in this thread, but in another I stated that I like the changes. I'm not saying this is bad. I am just fighting for the truth, using their own statement to highlight the absurdity of the untruth.

MotM I did complain about, because unlike every other change books introduced it wasn't accompanied by errata. For example, when an earlier book changed the already-published Triton to add darkvision, the earlier books received errata about it. So they were all in agreement and therefore the same edition. Not so with MotM.

Why? It isn't exactly difficult to realize that a rewritten human is supposed to be rewritten, just like we don't use the Kobold or Orc that have -2 Intelligence, we won't use the old, out-of-date human. Because why would we?

I know you've accused me of twisting it, but go read back - several times I've said that I do expect it to be gone. And that it being gone is part of why this is a new edition as opposed to the same edition.

If everything change that comes out in the 2024 edition gets errata (unlike MotM) so that the 2014 books (with errata) and the 2024 print are the same, that's actually the same edition. If they don't get errata, but claim it's still the current edition, then by their statement all of the un-errata'd is still in play - it hasn't been changed (errata) and it's in the current edition.

It's like 4e Essentials. You can play Essentials and original characters, picking from all the classes, races, feats, etc. It really was a single edition even if it was a dramatic change in design philosophy. Making a claim that it is the same edition can't support less than this, where everything from the same edition can be mixed and matched with the same edition.

Again, I think it will all be gone. And that's because it really will be an edition shift regardless what they claim.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What changed: they now are telling the truth. That's all. Is more needed? Do I need a mechanical reason to hold them to the truth? That maybe if they came out that it's not the same edition it could impact the sales of the books they have planned between now and then? I'm pretty confused why finding the truth isn't a sufficient goal by itself, but even if it's trying to find out if they are telling the truth or lying as it will impact book sales is a major money issue - and one that incentivizes them to say it's all the same edition.

We have a precedent for what looks like it's happening. This happened already with 3.0 to 3.5.

Because as a youtuber said (don't remember which one) DnD has a bizarre relationship with the word "edition".

I own the Savage Worlds "Explorer's Edition" rulebook. I also own the Savage Worlds "Deluxe Edition". I don't own Savage Worlds "Adventurers Edition" but I suspect the same thing is going to remain true. The rules are 95% the exact same. Deluxe has MORE rules, but I can use both books nearly interchangeably. And this is how it is for a LOT of games. First, Second and Ninth edition are all largely the same.

DnD is one of the few games where "New Edition" means "all your books are worthless, none of these rules are interchangeable". For most people though? Whether or not you want to "expose" WotC as lying and this being truly a new edition doesn't matter. In terms of DnD editions? This isn't a new edition. Might not even be a half edition. Note that the last few books have been explicitly written using some of these new rules. Backgrounds give 1st level feats isn't something new, it is something we have BEEN discussing with the most recent releases.

No, I keep taking the claim that it will all be compatible as bull. I use holding them to their statement that it's going to be compatible - inherent in the declaration that it is the same edition - to highlight where they are misinforming us.

That word "all" is doing a whole lot of obfuscating.

Of course not ALL of the 2014 PHB is going to be compatible. The 2014 grappling rules aren't compatible with the 2024 Grappling rules. They can't be. The rules are being rewritten. They aren't lying to us, because most of us don't expect them to need to playtest if they aren't going to be changing rules. So, we expect to see rules changed, and if a rule is changed it is not compatible with its pre-change version.

This is no different than Tasha's, which wasn't an edition shift.

It hasn't come up in this thread, but in another I stated that I like the changes. I'm not saying this is bad. I am just fighting for the truth, using their own statement to highlight the absurdity of the untruth.

MotM I did complain about, because unlike every other change books introduced it wasn't accompanied by errata. For example, when an earlier book changed the already-published Triton to add darkvision, the earlier books received errata about it. So they were all in agreement and therefore the same edition. Not so with MotM.

Okay? What would you like the errata to say? "We reprinted this in a new book, check this book?"

Deep Gnomes were printed in SCAG, Tome of Foes, and Monsters of the Multiverse. I don't think they are really selling SCAG or Tome of Foes anymore, so what do you expect an errata to even accomplish?

I know you've accused me of twisting it, but go read back - several times I've said that I do expect it to be gone. And that it being gone is part of why this is a new edition as opposed to the same edition.

If everything change that comes out in the 2024 edition gets errata (unlike MotM) so that the 2014 books (with errata) and the 2024 print are the same, that's actually the same edition. If they don't get errata, but claim it's still the current edition, then by their statement all of the un-errata'd is still in play - it hasn't been changed (errata) and it's in the current edition.

It's like 4e Essentials. You can play Essentials and original characters, picking from all the classes, races, feats, etc. It really was a single edition even if it was a dramatic change in design philosophy. Making a claim that it is the same edition can't support less than this, where everything from the same edition can be mixed and matched with the same edition.

Again, I think it will all be gone. And that's because it really will be an edition shift regardless what they claim.

Would you really want an errata document that lays out, by page number, every single possible change in language, phrasing, rules, ect from the 2014 PHB to the 2024 PHB? That seems beyond tedious

Let's be honest here, there is no reason for them to sell the 2014 PHB after the 2024 PHB comes out. It would lead to market confusion and just a huge mess. And so an errata document would be largely pointless in my mind, because they aren't selling the old book any more.

I mean, more power to you to call out wizards and berate them for their innacurate use of terminology, but this seems like making a huge deal out of nothing. No one actually expects the books to be identical. No one actually expects them to provide a document notating every single change they made to every line and statblock of three books. This was announced with a year and a half lead time, people will have plenty of chances to hold off buying an old PHB and waiting for the new one.

 

[Parmandur]

Deep Gnomes were printed in SCAG, Tome of Foes, and Monsters of the Multiverse. I don't think they are really selling SCAG or Tome of Foes anymore, so what do you expect an errata to even accomplish?

Small point of order, SCAG is still available in print (currently #4,831 in all books on Amazon!), and from Beyond.