D&D (2024) First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, you would. You’d just choose them, using the rules for floating ASIs.

I’m not sure about how you’re using deprecated, here, but I would guess you mean that it loses comparative value? In which case, you literally just give each PC with a pre-2024 background a level 1 feat.

I'm using deprecated to mean "you generally shouldn't do this, but it's not forbidden." Isn't that what deprecated means...?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, it is a hefty revision, but mixing with base 5E material, like if someone wants to play a Half-Drow from SCAG say, is easy-peasy lemon squeeze. WotC really is bending over backwards to have their cake and ear it, too...and they may just pull it off

Yeah it’s a new edition if you consider essentials a new edition in relation to 4e, but not if you don’t, basically.

Regardless, they aren’t changing systems, they’re just changing some parts of the current system.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Racial ASIs then represent a shift in the mean, so the smartest gnome is always smarter than the smartest halfling.

That doesn’t follow. In two normal distributions with the same standard deviation, the one with the higher mean doesn’t necessarily contain the single highest value.

In practice, given the very small range of possible values of 3d6, it’s probably true. But you might easily generate 10 random characters of both races and find that the smartest one is a halfling.

And, of course, PCs are atypical.

 

[Haplo781]

Yeah it’s a new edition if you consider essentials a new edition in relation to 4e, but not if you don’t, basically.

Regardless, they aren’t changing systems, they’re just changing some parts of the current system.

I'd say it's somewhere between Essentials and 3.5, but we really haven't seen enough yet to determine one way or another.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm using deprecated to mean "you generally shouldn't do this, but it's not forbidden." Isn't that what deprecated means...?

My lack of surety is sourced in the applicability.

I don’t think the word fits.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd say it's somewhere between Essentials and 3.5, but we really haven't seen enough yet to determine one way or another.

Judging from what we have seen, I think it’s less than essentials, but yeah we will see.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah it’s a new edition if you consider essentials a new edition in relation to 4e, but not if you don’t, basically.

Regardless, they aren’t changing systems, they’re just changing some parts of the current system.

Yeah, edition as used in D&D history is nearly meaningless, but Essentials by most publishing industry standards would be a new Edition. From the fairly problematic title of "Third Edition" on, WoC has abused and obfuscated their updates.

But yeah, this is a compatible shift. So far, I like everything exthe name! name!

 

[Bill Zebub]

"Making a poorly designed mechanic better is an agenda to force the mechanic down my throat" WotC really can't win these days, can they?

An equally viable, and far more amusing, theory is that just get a kick out of torturing certain segments of the old guard.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My lack of surety is sourced in the applicability.

I don’t think the word fits.

Why not? We are explicitly told this is the new way things will be going forward (with some allowance for changes based on feedback.) The whole document is geared toward explaining how things will change, and the disclaimer I noted is specifically about telling people "no, you cannot just use old stuff as is, mixed up however you like. If you wish to use the outdated model, you must make these alterations." That's...what using a piece of deprecated software is like. You're not told you can't use it, but the strong implication is that you shouldn't, and if you do, you will be required to modify the formatting to match the updated version. How is that not applicable?

 

[Haplo781]

Judging from what we have seen, I think it’s less than essentials, but yeah we will see.

Essentials made zero rules changes, so I'm gonna have to say that's an incorrect guess.