D&D (2024) Why no new packs since late September?

[Maxperson]

May I ask why?

I think you and @mellored weren't looking at the context of that post. The context was LevelUp and the playtest was referring directly to(since the sentence followed the first talking about levelUp) the LevelUp playtest.

That said, I wouldn't allow the same 5.5 class to run next to the 2014 version, either. It wouldn't be fair since the 5.5 versions that we've seen are better. I don't necessarily have an issue with say the 5.5 ranger running next to a 5e wizard right now, since we don't have a 5.5 wizard to compare it to. In no case would I allow a 2014 character to play along side a 5.5 character without modifying the 2014 PC. It would be very unfair to give a free feat to one PC and not another.

 

[Maxperson]

As a DM I don't really care to much what classes my players choose. They (O5e, A5e, N5e, 3PP are all, IMO, reasonably equivalent. If something becomes a problem we are all mature enough to discuss it and fix it.

I'm good with 3rd party stuff that I approve, which includes UAs even though those are not technically 3rd party. It would have to be 5e stuff, though.

LevelUp classes are much different mechanically and are superior to the 5e classes, so the differences are drastic enough for me to disallow them side by side.

 

[dave2008]

You racial ASI didn't have to be lined up with your class prime. But it was heavily... very heavy... suggested to be. Especially for weapon users as their primary ability bonses were used 2, 3or 4 times in a turn.

Having a 16 in you prime was heavily suggested by the books and heavily encouraged by the community. And this predetermine what most races could be.

---
The designers were okay with a 14 int goblin wizard and a 17 dex goblin rogue. The community was NOT. That's my point. There design did not match up with the community.

The designers where okay with rogue only SA on their turn and all bards being healbots, The community is NOT.

How do you know what the community wants? I will remind you that the forum going portion of the community is thought to be pretty small compared to the larger fan base. So what makes you so sure of anything the "community" wants?

Personally, I can only be sure of what my table wants. And since we limit max score to 18, I know 5e doesn't need that +2 racial bonus for any class. But I will not presume to know what the broader fan base thought was necessary.

 

[mellored]

Why is that everyone turns to DPR to try and assess balance? The game is far more than combat.

Because you kept talking about the extra feat making characters be more powerful, and how the game was too easy. So I compared combat.

Otherwise,
Old ranger: expertise in 2 terrains and 2 monster types.
New ranger: gets expertise in 2 skills.

So that's a nerf in some campaigns, but a buff in others.

Also, the old human bard could take Actor at level 1. The new one has to wait until level 4.

 

[dave2008]

That said, I wouldn't allow the same 5.5 class to run next to the 2014 version, either. It wouldn't be fair since the 5.5 versions that we've seen are better. I don't necessarily have an issue with say the 5.5 ranger running next to a 5e wizard right now, since we don't have a 5.5 wizard to compare it to. In no case would I allow a 2014 character to play along side a 5.5 character without modifying the 2014 PC. It would be very unfair to give a free feat to one PC and not another.

I guess as a DM that minor difference doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother the player. I don't see a need to restrict them.

PS someone on this thread just "proved" the '14 ranger was stronger than the playtest ranger and I have heard others say the same of the rogue. So I assume it is not really an issue that playtests ones are stronger, but that they are of different strength? If so, do you limit subclasses too? Some 5e subclasses are stronger than others. Do you go through every class and subclass and make determination on which ones you allow players to use based on some standard of equality? if you don't restrict subclasses, why not?

 

[mellored]

I think you and @mellored weren't looking at the context of that post. The context was LevelUp and the playtest was referring directly to(since the sentence followed the first talking about levelUp) the LevelUp playtest.

I don't have access to level up. But feel free to do some math on that too.

It wouldn't be fair since the 5.5 versions that we've seen are better.

In what way is the new ranger better than the old one?
The old is better in combat. And maybe even in skills (depending on the campaign).

It would be very unfair to give a free feat to one PC and not another.

It would be unfair to give a free old feat to one but not another. But the new feats are different.

That would be like letting someone use the new background (with +Stats) and the old race (with + Stats). And yes, that would be a problem.

Best to think of character creation to not be compatible. (Monsters and campaigns are).

 

[Maxperson]

Because you kept talking about the extra feat making characters be more powerful, and how the game was too easy. So I compared combat.

Powerful =/= combat. You can in fact be powerful in both exploration and social as well. I didn't say more powerful in combat, because I wasn't limiting it to combat.

Otherwise,
Old ranger: expertise in 2 terrains and 2 monster types.
New ranger: gets expertise in 2 skills.

So new ranger much, MUCH better since skill in nature includes ALL terrains, all plants, all weather, all natural cycles, and animals(a monster type). And then they get expertise in another skill that can include a monster type or two as well as other stuff.

So that's a nerf in some campaigns, but a buff in others.

It's not a nerf in any campaign. If I take nature I get expertise in every terrain out there while you are limited to two. All of nature > two terrains.

Oh, and I could take a social skill and have expertise in the social pillar as well.

New ranger far exceeds old ranger here.

Also, the old human bard could take Actor at level 1. The new one has to wait until level 4.

Okay. So what.

New bard gets to wait until after an ally FAILS a test before using bardic inspiration as a reaction to help. Old bard has to use it in advance and pray that it's useful within the next 10 minutes.

New bard can use his bardic inspiration to heal. Old bard......................can't.

New bard "prays" for any bardic spell on the list. Old bard has a limited selection to pick from.

But okay, new bard has to wait until 4th level to get actor, so I guess it's even steven.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess as a DM that minor difference doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother the player. I don't see a need to restrict them.

PS someone on this thread just "proved" the '14 ranger was stronger than the playtest ranger and I have heard others say the same of the rogue. So I assume it is not really an issue that playtests ones are stronger, but that they are of different strength? If so, do you limit subclasses too? Some 5e subclasses are stronger than others. Do you go through every class and subclass and make determination on which ones you allow players to use based on some standard of equality? if you don't restrict subclasses, why not?

No such "proof" was given since a PC is more than just combat. I'm not going to allow myself get railroaded into only comparing combat stats when I've been talking about the whole character.

 

[Minigiant]

How do you know what the community wants?

Because WOTC changed it and said this is what the community wants.

 

[Minigiant]

So new ranger much, MUCH better since skill in nature includes ALL terrains, all plants, all weather, all natural cycles, and animals(a monster type). And then they get expertise in another skill that can include a monster type or two as well as other stuff.

This really depends on how the DM runs skills and languages.

The change of the 2014 ranger to the current playtest ranger is a nerf and a buff