Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
The Bixby/Book of Many things/Planescape test from last month.Sorry, which rules in mind? Or which UA do you mean? I'm missing context for this post.
The Bixby/Book of Many things/Planescape test from last month.Sorry, which rules in mind? Or which UA do you mean? I'm missing context for this post.
So that's not the issue. The issue is the claim of backwards compatibility. If I have to "fix" the issue by making the 2014 rules into the new rules, that's not backwards compatibility. The "fix" is obvious and easy.So give them a first level feat. Just like you are going to do when using the 2014 PHB to play DragonLance, or when you use the 2014 PHB to play Strixhaven. We have already had and solved this "problem".
If a 2014 Monk can be played at the same table as a 2024 Monk, the games are compatible. Otherwise the only way to have the two versions be compatible would be to not change anything.So that's not the issue. The issue is the claim of backwards compatibility. If I have to "fix" the issue by making the 2014 rules into the new rules, that's not backwards compatibility. The "fix" is obvious and easy.
Sure. If they can be played at the same table and both are roughly equivalent, the games are compatible. I don't hold high hopes for that, though. Already the the new backgrounds are strictly and significantly more powerful than the old ones.If a 2014 Monk can be played at the same table as a 2024 Monk, the games are compatible. Otherwise the only way to have the two versions be compatible would be to not change anything.
Eh, I object to that. Powercreep isn't a sign of incompatibility, especially for a class that most people agree needs some heavy revisions. If the biggest differences between playing a 2014 Monk and 2024 Monk are a) 2024 Monks get one more feat at level 1 and b) the class is slightly revised to be better balanced, I'd say the games are still compatible. It just means one version is objectively more effective than the other (not a bad thing in my eyes).and both are roughly equivalent
They don't even need to be roughly equivalent.Sure. If they can be played at the same table and both are roughly equivalent
There are very definitely some competing definitions I’ve seen ever since 1DnD was floated as the “next evolution,” and I don’t think anyones going to change any minds, which means threads will just keep spiraling into arguments unfortunately.If a 2014 Monk can be played at the same table as a 2024 Monk, the games are compatible. Otherwise the only way to have the two versions be compatible would be to not change anything.
Power creep applies books released within the same edition or half edition. So if they put out a book of good feats before 2024 which raises the power level for the current classes. A new edition or half-edition is NOT power creep, it's a new rules set. After 2024 power creep will come in new 5.5e books.Eh, I object to that. Powercreep isn't a sign of incompatibility, especially for a class that most people agree needs some heavy revisions. If the biggest differences between playing a 2014 Monk and 2024 Monk are a) 2024 Monks get one more feat at level 1 and b) the class is slightly revised to be better balanced, I'd say the games are still compatible. It just means one version is objectively more effective than the other (not a bad thing in my eyes).
Sure, but right now it's not looking like they will be. Granted it's very, VERY early in the playtest and a lot will change, so we certainly can't make anything close to a final call, but feats being part of the new backgrounds is a significant power boost over the 2014 versions. Any more and things leave that ballpark.They don't even need to be roughly equivalent.
They just need to be in the same ballpark as all the other classes. Hell, if the 1D&D Monk played more like a 5E Warlock or something, it'd still be fine, because a 5E Warlock is in the same ballpark as a 5E Monk.