First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
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.
This is a really weird semantics argument. I view the updated ruleset as the same edition. It's much smaller of a change that any edition change from the past 20 years, so I really don't think it's a new edition. It would be "powercreep" compared to the 2014 content, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.

If they use the same basic ruleset with a few changes, its the same edition. If different versions of the same class can play at the same table without any major issues, the different rulesets are compatible, regardless of changes in the class's mechanics.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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).
Mere power creep wouldn't be enough to be a half edition. If it were just power creep, we wouldn't be seeing it introduced as 5.5e(I refuse to use the 1 D&D gimmick). The changes have to be more sweeping than a book with some power creep in it.
 

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.
By that logic all Theros and Ravenloft characters are already "outside the ballpark", because the level 1 stuff they get is either:

A) ANY Feat including much more powerful ones than the L1 feats here.

or

B) An ability that's significantly more powerful than any of these L1 Feats and in some cases any Feat per se!

So you're saying Theros and Ravenloft characters are outside the ballpark, right?
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Mere power creep wouldn't be enough to be a half edition. If it were just power creep, we wouldn't be seeing it introduced as 5.5e(I refuse to use the 1 D&D gimmick). The changes have to be more sweeping than a book with some power creep in it.
They're not calling it a half-edition. They're updating the core rulebooks for the double-anniversary of the game (both 5e and D&D as a whole).

There will be some power creep (feats at level 1, probably increased power of underwhelming classes) and slight revisions to rules. So long as the rules still work together, the games are compatible.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
So you're saying Theros and Ravenloft characters are outside the ballpark, right?

In general I suspect any question of the form, “So you are saying [insert extrapolation that attempts to make the other argument look bad], right?” is not going to be productive.
 


One thing with getting a feat at 1st level, is that if they don't adjust class to all start at 1st level, I can at least get magic initiate to feel like an eldritch knight from the start.
Good take. I have taken magic initiate for this reason along with arcana skill. However, I usually lean into variant humans.

I really like that this makes a Gish more organic and natural from the get go.

I love nonhumans getting feats for this reason
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
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.
IDK, I've played with a "normal" 5e character and an "optimized" 5e character in the same party and the parity was a lot worse than I can foresee a "normal" 5e character and a "normal" 1D&D character being, whether you add a simple feat to the former or not. (The 5e character would be more OP, I expect, if you let the player add any O5e feat and they pick one of the "good" ones!)

Or more to the point - Balance is simultaneously not that big an issue, and more of an issue than a partial edition-shift.

OTOH if a jacked-out "optimized" 1D&D character stomps on a jacked-out "optimized" O5e character... well, then I think we might have a problem with balance.

But just missing a feat on its own is probably not worth worrying about. (In particular when you can give them one if it seems a problem).
 


In general I suspect any question of the form, “So you are saying [insert extrapolation that attempts to make the other argument look bad], right?” is not going to be productive.
My point is semi-rhetorical. I'm illustrating that his argument that the L1 feats are almost "out of the ballpark" by themselves is obviously highly questionable, because my point is completely logical and on-beam. It's practically a 1:1 comparison - free L1 Feat to free L1 Feat, isn't it? It's not like I'm weaving in something wild.

If he doesn't respond, fine, anyone following the discussion can still see his point was not valid.
 



Chaosmancer

Legend
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.

That simply reads like not understanding what Backwards Compatibility is.

3.5 is backwards compatible with 3.0

4E is not backwards compatible with 3.X

5E is not backwards compatible with 4E
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Aren't you playing with semantics in trying to declare a rules revision as being distinct from power creep?
It's apples and oranges. Power creep comes in books written for the edition(3e, 3.5, 4e, etc.). A rules revision is a re-writing of an edition that is major enough to warrant a new half edition(3.5, 5.5) or name change(1 D&D). Books written for the new rules will have power creep or not.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
That simply reads like not understanding what Backwards Compatibility is.

3.5 is backwards compatible with 3.0
Seriously? You think that my 3.0 wizard with his 1 hour per level enhancement spells and other overpowered durations and effects can run around with your 3.5 wizard and his much more limited spells and have them both be on par with one another? I forget the other major changes, but they were serious and there's no way to mix and match the two rules sets without drastically altering things, which means it's not backwards compatible at all.

Calling 3e and 3.5 backwards compatible is like saying that square wheels are backwards compatible with cars, because if you try hard enough, the car will move with square wheels.
 

Stalker0

Legend
On the notion of "racial ability scores", I don't mind that those are removed from the race, as long as the racial mechanics still reinforce the sterotype.

Looking at Dwaves, they have poison resistance and gain an extra hp per level. Yep they are tough....checkbox.

Now elves do have the sharp eyes...but their elven agility is gone. Mechanically there is no reason elves are known as the "lithe, graceful race". Now we can flavor it to simply say (elves more often than not have their highest stat in dexterity). And for some people that is fine. For others that want the mechanics and the flavor to mesh....this could be a problem.
 

Stalker0

Legend
Seriously? You think that my 3.0 wizard with his 1 hour per level enhancement spells and other overpowered durations and effects can run around with your 3.5 wizard and his much more limited spells and have them both be on par with one another? I forget the other major changes, but they were serious and there's no way to mix and match the two rules sets without drastically altering things, which means it's not backwards compatible at all.

Calling 3e and 3.5 backwards compatible is like saying that square wheels are backwards compatible with cars, because if you try hard enough, the car will move with square wheels.
I had a friend that would take old 3.0 adventurers and convert them to 3.5. Yeah it was no cakewalk, it took work. I would not consider them backwards compatible.
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
Seriously? You think that my 3.0 wizard with his 1 hour per level enhancement spells and other overpowered durations and effects can run around with your 3.5 wizard and his much more limited spells and have them both be on par with one another? I forget the other major changes, but they were serious and there's no way to mix and match the two rules sets without drastically altering things, which means it's not backwards compatible at all.

Calling 3e and 3.5 backwards compatible is like saying that square wheels are backwards compatible with cars, because if you try hard enough, the car will move with square wheels.

To be honest, compatibility means that they can still be played within the newer rules. If we learn for example that the new wizard can only cast 1 spell per day (because they heard about the users complaining about martials being underpowered compared to wizards [they seem to listen to strange feedback]), both can play in the same adventures, yet the 2014 wizard will be far more powerful and there will be no reason not to play a 2014 wizard and you'll be able to keep doing so. On the other hand, the removal of critical for add-on damage like sneak attack, if it's compensated by a feature of the 2024 Rogue, then the 2014 Rogue will be shafted and you won't be able to play it effectively. I'd call the crit rule change a non-backward-compatible change.

Now elves do have the sharp eyes...but their elven agility is gone. Mechanically there is no reason elves are known as the "lithe, graceful race". Now we can flavor it to simply say (elves more often than not have their highest stat in dexterity). And for some people that is fine. For others that want the mechanics and the flavor to mesh....this could be a problem.

They took the easy way out by saying that the racial ability aren't really racial, they are specific to PCs from that races. NPCs can have other, or no, racial ability. So the elves are seen as the lithe, graceful races because most of them (=the NPCs) are dexterous (12 DEX instead of 10 DEX for humans NPCs) and, say, can reroll Dex saves thanks to their natural agility, but you PC can't (he got the ability to get advantage on Charmed saving throws, which other, less adventurous elves, don't get). They didn't think through the implication (why are most elf heroes an oaf among their peers?) but I think they tried to address this specific point.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Seriously? You think that my 3.0 wizard with his 1 hour per level enhancement spells and other overpowered durations and effects can run around with your 3.5 wizard and his much more limited spells and have them both be on par with one another? I forget the other major changes, but they were serious and there's no way to mix and match the two rules sets without drastically altering things, which means it's not backwards compatible at all.

Calling 3e and 3.5 backwards compatible is like saying that square wheels are backwards compatible with cars, because if you try hard enough, the car will move with square wheels.

Counter point. How would you convert a 3.5 wizard to 4E?

You literally can't. None of the rules work the same, none of the math works the same. Compare that (a true edition change) to "this version has more powerful spells" which is just a matter of changing which spells you are using. "Oh, this spell doesn't have 1 hour per level anymore, it is 1 minute per level" is a far easier change than figuring out if something should be an encounter or daily power and at what level it should exist.

Again, you seem to equate "I have to do work" to "It isn't possible". Those aren't the same level of changes.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top