First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I agree. If I have to fix it, though, it's not backwards compatible. ;)

Edit: It's also not a great fix as it now makes the old backgrounds strictly better than the new ones. They now have the feat + the feature. To really fix it I have to remove the feature too, which makes it the new background. So also not compatible on that front.

Sure. Other than feats being significantly superior with the new background, they are the same. I agree with that. :)

The feature literally doesn't do anything other than remind the DM to have NPCs treat the PCs like they are... who they are.

"NPCs who respect the military... will respect you... because you were in the military".

EDIT: I see that this has been further discussed. Still, I feel that while the core books will only be "backwards compatible" with a bit of conversion (or at least being careful what you mix-and-match), the Adventures still being in print and useful is a lot more backwards compatible than we usually get.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The feature literally doesn't do anything other than remind the DM to have NPCs treat the PCs like they are... who they are.

"NPCs who respect the military... will respect you... because you were in the military".

EDIT: I see that this has been further discussed. Still, I feel that while the core books will only be "backwards compatible" with a bit of conversion (or at least being careful what you mix-and-match), the Adventures still being in print and useful is a lot more backwards compatible than we usually get.
Yeah, the compatibility level here so far is very high. Very little needs to be done to make any 5E Race play nice here, and the new Backgroujd Feat approach is even something already in print.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
Yeah, the compatibility level here so far is very high. Very little needs to be done to make any 5E Race play nice here, and the new Backgroujd Feat approach is even something already in print.
Yeah, I'm not sure "Careful how you mix-and-match elements from both versions, here's a paragraph or two on how you do it." is not pretty solidly backward-compatible.
 

For folks upset with the notion of removing racial ability bonuses...

What if they kept the old ones, but the official rule is something like this:
"You can take either your racial bonuses or background bonuses. If you take background bonuses, work with your DM to consider how the differences between your character and a typical member of your character's race have affected their personal life. For example, if you play a dwarf with high Charisma and Intelligence, instead of the more common Strength and Constitution, how does that affect the way others treat your character? Has your character dealt with disappointment from family members or relatives who expected your character to be what they consider 'normal,' or did your character draw strength from their unfailing support? Questions like these can significantly enrich the roleplay experience, so it is always worth asking them, even if your character perfectly matches what outsiders would expect."

This recognizes the "central tendencies" being asked for, while still leaving open the option of divergence if handled with reason and sense. It structures the situation as a dialogue, a cooperation between player and DM, rather than one side or the other unilaterally declaring something. The existing UA does this too, but the above makes it that much more explicit.

Would a compromise like this actually have merit?

Yeah, I'm not sure "Careful how you mix-and-match elements from both versions, here's a paragraph or two on how you do it." is not pretty solidly backward-compatible.
But, as I've said several times now, it is not "absolutely perfect 100% match no changes required," which IS what several people on this very forum claimed we were going to get. They reasoned from that claim to derive stuff like "they won't change subclasses," for example, which most people now consider to be a dubious conclusion (not impossible, but nowhere near as likely as once thought.)
 


Chaosmancer

Legend
We won't actually know if that's true until the playtest is finished. The designers have talked about doing new things with HD, for example.

Sorry, just started catching up.

You are partially correct. They may alter hit dice, but we know hit dice exist and can be spent to heal, as per the Healer feat. And, frankly, instead of assuming that Hit Dice will now be a base 1d100 or be based off your spellcasting stats, it is safer to assume that they will still be 1d6, d18, 1d10 and 1d12 and be involved with constitution.

Maybe they will change short rests, but we can infer from this document that they are still an hour (long rest rules) and that you will still be able to use them to buff or heal your party (musician feat gives inspiration on a short or long rest).

There are changes, no one is denying that the changes exist, but there seems to be this undercurrent of people who are saying, for example, "The Alert feat changed, One D&D cannot be Backwards Compatible, it must be 6E!" But... is it? When Tasha's gave Clerics the Channel Divinity option to restore spells, we didn't get a new edition of the game, there wasn't mass confusion over what to do if someone wanted to use a Tasha's cleric or a PHB cleric.

I just think it is far safer to assume that we won't be seeing fundamental changes that would prevent compatibility until we actually see that happening. Which we haven't yet.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
But, as I've said several times now, it is not "absolutely perfect 100% match no changes required," which IS what several people on this very forum claimed we were going to get. They reasoned from that claim to derive stuff like "they won't change subclasses," for example, which most people now consider to be a dubious conclusion (not impossible, but nowhere near as likely as once thought.)
Sure, some people may have made that claim, but I mean, why would you listen to them, seeing as it was all speculation?

Besides, what 100% looks like is entirely subjective. Plenty of people would consider THIS to be close enough. (Though I think anyone with sense would say that this is more changes than that end of the spectrum would have expected, and less than the other end did).

There's no sense now (IMO) of keeping that argument going. It is what it is. (Though we still don't know what it ultimately will look like.) It does seem likely ATM that you will be able to play 2014 characters next to 2024 characters as long as you don't mind them not being exactly matched, but you'll have to do more work if you want to play a blended character.
 


Chaosmancer

Legend
But only for new backgrounds. The old backgrounds in the 2014 PHB cannot be played as they are without a significant difference. A feat isn't minor.

New Soldier
Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +1 Constitution
Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
Tool Proficiency: Gaming Set* (one of your
choice)
Language: Goblin
Feat: Savage Attacker

Old Soldier
Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
Tool Proficiencies: One type of gaming set, vehicles (land)
Equipment: An insignia of rank, a trophy taken from
a fallen enemy (a dagger, broken blade, or piece of a
banner), a set of bone dice or deck of cards, a set of
common clothes, and a pouch containing 10 gp

FEATURE: MILITARY RANK
You have a military rank from your career a s a soldier.
Soldiers loyal to your former military organization
still recognize your authority and influence, and they
defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke
your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and
requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary
use. You can also usually gain access to friendly
military encampments and fortresses where your
rank is recognized.

Is that rank feature equivalent to rolling twice once per round and taking the higher damage number? Not even close. It's got highly narrow usage and what you get during that narrow usage isn't going to be anywhere close to as useful as Savage Attacker.

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".

The Military rank is something that should just be banked into the backstory anyways, if you even ever used it.
 



Chaosmancer

Legend
And caught up! Woot!

Going back to the question @darjr asked, I did find it interesting that they specified choosing the class first. But frankly that fits with how people I've seen have almost always approached character creation. Classes (and subclasses) are so fundamental to how your character works, beyond every other choice, that people pick that then work in their other details.

Also, I find it interesting that not only are all characters trilingual, but Dragonborn are Quad-lingual. They are the only race that gets a language baked in, meaning they will have four instead of three.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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".
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.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
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.
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.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
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.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
and both are roughly equivalent
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).
 


SakanaSensei

Adventurer
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.
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.

On one hand you have people who will be fine with “you still roll a d20, add PB, and mod, succeed by meeting a target number within bounded accuracy? HMU with them new takes on class balance!” To be clear, I’m in this camp.

You then have a camp that already HAS been arguing that Tasha’s isn’t 5E anymore because of the changes it brought. This group, in my experience browsing here at least, is also incredibly negative on 5E. 5E art is soulless, 5E rules lack verisimilitude. ASIs must be determined by ancestry or it ain’t DnD. Confusingly, some of these people stan hard for A5E, which looks in some ways a lot like what we’re seeing in new 5E, but it’s tied to this site people use daily so it gets a pass?

Like, there was an argument 10 pages back that the way “edition” gets used in TTrPG parlance is wrong because in publishing it means changing typeset or font size or something. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone said changing the typical period after class features to a colon was just another sign of how far WotC is willing to go to kill DnD.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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).
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.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
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.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top