D&D (2024) D&D playtest feed back report, UA8

[Mistwell]

I understand you can't or won't see any other alternatives. Just be assured that just because you are convinced I am accusing them of lying does not mean I am. And just because you feel I must think they are lying does not mean I am accusing them of lying, and it certainly does not make it alright to claim so on this public forum.

There is absolutely zero reason to treat corporations as persons, and ascribe them human qualities.
And in fact, I wasn't talking about Crawford at all, I was talking about WotC and Hasbro as companies.

Life will hopefully teach you to separate conviction and belief from verifiable truth. Doubling down on accusations you cannot prove will lead you down a bad path, my friend. Now quit accusing me of lying (or that I claim Crawford is) or I'll report you, m'kay? Let's get back to discussing WotC and D&D!

Who at Hasbro or WOTC other than Jeremy Crawford and, before him, Mike Mearls authorized or ordered or organized the playtests and surveys? Who is it you're claiming has this bad motive. Name them, and show anything, anywhere, showing that's their motive.

You're absolutely right - corporations are not people. They don't exist. They're a fictional entity which society created for legal purposes. It's all people. So, who is this person you're claiming has this bad motive? There is no real "WOTC and Hasbro as companies" in terms of motives. Those are not real things with emotions and thoughts, it's just people organized under a name for legal fictions to help our society function in some ways. It's only people who have motives - so WHO at Hasbro or WOTC are you accusing of having that motive?

You claim it's "verifiable truth" OK then VERIFY IT. You claim I am "doubling down on accusations I cannot prove" but it's you who made an accusation, you who I am asking for proof from concerning your accusation, and you're deflecting. Name the name of the person or persons you are referring to that ordered the playtests with the motive you are ascribing to them.

 

[Parmandur]

Meh. Backwards compatibility is probably the least of my concerns to be honest. Why would I give the slightest fig that my ten year old PHB won't be completely compatible? I really don't understand this incessant need for the game to be identical to what came before. We saw changes in the game with Tasha's, we've seen it with Xanathar's and we'll see it again with 2024. I simply find myself not caring about the small stuff. Saving throws? Does anyone actually care about saving throws? Why?

WotC doesn't want to create an off-ramp for players, which any incompatible change would cause. Backwards compatibility is going to ne central to D&D as long as ot exists, at this point. Far more consumer friendly than planned obsolescence any way.

 

[Clint_L]

I care about backwards compatibility because I use DnDBeyond and I need everything to work together. Thus far, it has not been a problem, and I haven't seen anything in the playtest that won't work.

Also, "backwards compatible" =/= "completely identical." Like, by definition, it means the opposite: not identical, but able to work together. Thus the 2024 monk =/= 2014 monk, but you could use either one in Rise of Tiamat.

Case in point, I will be letting my players choose between the 2014 moon druid and the 2024 version.

 

[Laurefindel]

I care about backwards compatibility because I use DnDBeyond and I need everything to work together. Thus far, it has not been a problem, and I haven't seen anything in the playtest that won't work.

Also, "backwards compatible" =/= "completely identical." Like, by definition, it means the opposite: not identical, but able to work together. Thus the 2024 monk =/= 2014 monk, but you could use either one in Rise of Tiamat.

Case in point, I will be letting my players choose between the 2014 moon druid and the 2024 version.

As I understood things, it mostly means that you can still use the Rise of Tiamat with ‘24 characters with no changes to the adventure whatsoever. Character creation and spells might have changed a bit, but their context is virtually unchanged. Monster presentation will be slightly different but will essentially feature the same numbers, so using them as-is from Rise of Tiamat (for example) works seamlessly. Ditto for spells. NPC blocks list the spells but adventures don’t describe them. As such, they are automatically updated as you adopt the new sources.

you could always update prior edition adventures with a bit (or a lot!) of work but in this transition there is no work at all. Not even the few adjustments that were needed between 3.0 and 3.5 adventures and supplements.

 

[CapnZapp]

it's you who made an accusation

No.

You claimed I did.

Remember?

I say you are alleging Jeremy Crawford is lying

your allegation is, in essence, saying all these people are lying

 

[Mistwell]

No.

You claimed I did.

Remember?

This is what you said to start this:

"The main reason for doing this public playtest is to provide cover against any criticism."

So, who has that main reason. "WOTC/HASBRO" is not a who, because you and I both agree corporations are fictional entities and it's people who make decisions. So who is it you are accusing of having as their main reason for this public playtest the concept of providing cover against any criticism? Name the person or persons you're accusing of doing that.

You won't. You can't. Because, as I said in my first response to you, "or are you just speculating about their motives because you don't like some choices [they] made?"

Jeremy Crawford is the one with "main reasons for doing this public playtest." There is nobody above him that's ordering a playtest, for good or bad or indifferent reasons. If you disagree, name that person and why you think their motives are "to provide cover against any criticism" as opposed to "to improve the game based on feedback" which is what Jeremy Crawford (and Mike Mearls before him) have repeatedly said is the "main reason for doing this public playtest."

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, yes. Anything on top of full casting should be just a ribbon...

I do wish the Druid class wasn't forced to pull double-duty like that, just because of tradition. Or we at least got bolder subclasses that turn you into a half-caster but make the shapeshift go wild. Or that the Wild Shape entry at least covered such basic questions as 'is turning into a mouse just an auto-win at stealth rolls?' without forcing every GM to separately decide whether their world's guards routinely chase mice.

Feature not a bug!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Feature not a bug!

That's what the man said when I learned my heated seats couldn't be turned on without a subscription.

A feature for whom is the real question.

 

[Hussar]

That's what the man said when I learned my heated seats couldn't be turned on without a subscription.

A feature for whom is the real question.

See, you have to understand. Lack of guidance and lack of mechanics is support for playstyle. The fact that it's a major PITA for everyone else doesn't seem to matter. Nor anyone's ability to actually just ignore supplied guidance. No. We must absolutely force every single DM out there to make these determinations in order to support DM's.

 

[CapnZapp]

You are digging your own grave, Mistwell. You seem hellbent on finding out just how much personal accusations you can make against other forumists without getting moderated.

As you likely have found out I see zero point in discussing the actual subject with you, mostly because you seem to find zero point discussing the actual subject. Instead your replies are 100% focused on personal attacks against me. Good luck with that.

This time you claim:

you and I both agree corporations are fictional entities

Just like before, you appear entirely unable to differentiate between what you have talked yourself into believing is objective truth, and what's actually going on in the world, and more importantly: what actually motivates other people.

You said

You're absolutely right - corporations are not people. They don't exist. They're a fictional entity which society created for legal purposes. It's all people.

I never agreed.

In fact, I find your take bafflingly detached from reality, but as I stated at the top of this post, I find it entirely unproductive to go into details why. I just don't think there's any point - I don't think you want to understand.