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

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

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]

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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.)

 

[cbwjm]

Would a compromise like this actually have merit?

It might have merit, but honestly, I don't think it is really needed. Honestly, if racial ability scores is the hill that people are willing to die on, then let them die on that hill. Sometimes, it's not worth finding a compromise.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

Say, I just realized that the 1st Level Feats in recent UA were actually designed with these rules in mind...interesting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Say, I just realized that the 1st Level Feats in recent UA were actually designed with these rules in mind...interesting.

Sorry, which rules in mind? Or which UA do you mean? I'm missing context for this post.