D&D (2024) Playtest: Is the Human Terrible?

[Chaosmancer]

Went to respond to Galandris's last post and find out they blocked me. But, I do have an answer for why the bar about mixing the ASI's exist.

Because the majority of racial options aren't in the PHB. If you want to play a Goliath or a Fairy then it is helpful to have that spelled out. This REALLY isn't that hard to understand.

 

[Parmandur]

Where I different from Mistwell is that he seems to think that in order to be backwards compatible WotC will need to update all the feats, classes, subclasses, etc. from the 2014 rules. What I think is that if WotC updates everything that isn't compatible with 5.5, you aren't making the 2014 rules compatible with 5.5, you're converting those rules INTO 5.5. That's not backwards compatibility. To be backwards compatible, something has to be usable without special adaption or modification.

So far, we have seen that they are willing to put sidebars providing a simple process to facilitate compatibility. Dollars to donuts that not only do thodemlittle buts make it in, but they make it into D&D Beyond to be used programmatically. So someone who owns Rising from the Last War on Beyond can still use their material, with the backwards compatibility accounted for by thr computer. The analog version might require a little more effort, but I would still call it backwards compatible if the method to update is baked into the rulebooks.

 

[Parmandur]

However, multiple people on the team said the phrase “every adventure and supplement”, and at least one emphasized it to make it clear that they do mean both adventures and supplements.

Did they say all of every supplement? Because we know that's not true just from what little we have seen.

They did not say all of every Supplement, and frankly even if they go wholehog on redoing Classes...most of every Supplement would still work fine. Even Xanathar's and Tasha's would be mostly usable, and no Setting book would be unusable by any means since the player crunch is minimal.

Though I think they will change Classes, but in a fashion where older material is still usable.

 

[Maxperson]

So far, we have seen that they are willing to put sidebars providing a simple process to facilitate compatibility. Dollars to donuts that not only do thodemlittle buts make it in, but they make it into D&D Beyond to be used programmatically. So someone who owns Rising from the Last War on Beyond can still use their material, with the backwards compatibility accounted for by thr computer. The analog version might require a little more effort, but I would still call it backwards compatible if the method to update is baked into the rulebooks.

Okay, but that's not backwards compatible. On D&D Beyond the computer is making the special modifications for you, and most play is not online, so there's no computer to do the work for those of us who play with pencil and paper.

Backwards compatibility comes from computer programs. The new version of Word is backwards compatible with the old one. It can open up the old documents and you can use them without you having to do even one little modification to allow it. The reverse is not true. The old version can't open and use the new Word version's documents.

That's backwards compatibility and if you have to make any effort at all with the old 5e rules, it's not backwards compatible. For 5.5 to be backwards compatible with 5e, I need to be able to go grab a 2014 cleric and subclass and background and use it as is when playing in 5.5 with no modifications and being roughly equal to the new versions of cleric and subclass and background.

 

[Mistwell]

I dunno, we haven't even passed the first playtest. I don't mean to single you out—I think everyone is jumping the gun at this point and that the discussion over whether this is a non-edition, 5.5e, 6e, New Coke, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, Gundam ZZ, or Shin Godzilla is unproductive, divisive, and utterly annoying. We're just not a point where that discussion is relevant or meaningful yet.

I don't mean to be annoying certainly. I'll try and keep that in mind though as I post about the topic.

I think a lot of us are just drawing on experience.

Having watched the change from 1e to 2e, which was initially sold as just enacting the common house rules of 1e tables (and I think it genuinely was that at first) to seeing it turn into a new edition.

Then seeing the "conversion documents" to alter 2e characters into 3e characters only to realize rapidly that was really not something which could work nearly as easily as suggested.

Then the 3e to 3.5e change, which was again sold as backwards compatible when it really wasn't, devastating hundreds of third party publishers whose content was no longer really compatible with the new half-edition of the game.

Then the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder for many, which was sold as 3.75 by many at the time and which rapidly became it's own game where Pathfinder players, who had intended to keep using many 3.5 books, almost always ended up just ditching those 3.5 books after a while and just using Pathfinder books. PF2e was similarly initially sold as backwards compatible, but those claims I think were dropped pretty soon. And of course Pathfinder isn't WOTC, but the basis of the game is the basis of WOTC's original game, and the designers mostly came from WOTC, and I think it's fair to look at their transitions and language used for those transitions for this topic as somewhat informative for how these things go as well.

While 4e was not sold as just an update to 3.5e, it also had a soft half-edition with Essentials. I personally didn't see that change as drastic as a half-edition, but it sure looked like either a loud minority or a majority (depending on your perspective) did view it as a very drastic change and clearly in the realm of a half-edition. For sure, many PCs did have to change to keep up with those rules.

5e was again not sold as just an update to 4e (or 4.5e), but the language they're using for this playtest is nearly identical to the language they used for pretty much every single other prior "update" transition.

Claims of backwards compatibility just have never once held up under scrutiny for these things. And with this first playtest doing exactly what prior such changes did - already causing issues with backwards compatibility with prior supplements to the game, it really takes an awful lot of optimism to believe it will end as truly backwards compatible. And I am a very optimistic person.

In a lot of ways I am looking forward to OneD&D. I like a lot of these changes. I just don't expect to be able to use a lot of my supplement books after the transition. I think they will be kept in mind with hope initially, and we will start with just the new books "to test them out" with the intent of adding back in the old stuff after 3-6 months, and we will end up never picking up those 5e supplements again as they collect dust on our shelves. Because that's how it's gone with all these prior transitions for us. And I think for a lot of groups.

 

[Parmandur]

Okay, but that's not backwards compatible. On D&D Beyond the computer is making the special modifications for you, and most play is not online, so there's no computer to do the work for those of us who play with pencil and paper.

Backwards compatibility comes from computer programs. The new version of Word is backwards compatible with the old one. It can open up the old documents and you can use them without you having to do even one little modification to allow it. The reverse is not true. The old version can't open and use the new Word version's documents.

That's backwards compatibility and if you have to make any effort at all with the old 5e rules, it's not backwards compatible. For 5.5 to be backwards compatible with 5e, I need to be able to go grab a 2014 cleric and subclass and background and use it as is when playing in 5.5 with no modifications and being roughly equal to the new versions of cleric and subclass and background.

The program opening the old documents is, in fact, doing work. Without using computer aid, it will require a little work, sure, butbthat doesn't mean it isn't compatible. The 2014 books made no attempt to provide a procedure for getting a 4E PC Ina 5E game. Different animal. And if sidebars like thet are in the final printing, so thar SCAG options are still usable following a simple process...that's backwards compatible in my book.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

*Speaking Corporate.

Why? Everything in Xanathar's is additional(new subclasses, things to do with downtime, new feats, etc.) and/or optional. You can choose to make a change and use it. What's not compatible?

They errata’d older works when they updated reprinted material. By your previous statements, that means it is not backward compatible.

Sure, but that's just backtracking because they realized that they couldn't fulfil their promise of backwards compatibility. There was no such limitation when they first put it out there. Now that they understand that they can't make the two rulesets compatible in any way, they're just saying that you can play the old adventures with the new rules.

They made those statements in the video wherein they announced the playtest document.

Of course, they're wrong there as well. To do that you would need to convert monsters into the new ones at the very least, and any special modification negates backwards compatibility.

That is an exhausting definition of backward compatibility that I think goes far more strict than most people understand the term.

Did they say all of every supplement? Because we know that's not true just from what little we have seen.

We know no such thing. We know they have some ideas that may need refinement upon feedback. That’s it.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

To expand on the word processor analogy, an old version was only doing plain text. A new version is backward compatible, but offer the possibility to bold and underline document on top of that. It would be backward compatible (it can read the plain text version created by the old version) but the reverse isn't true (the old word processor would choke on the new bold and underlined text. THey would be backward compatible... despite a text made with the new word processor would be much better with it's bold and underlined titles than the old one. Plain text being nerfed by nice text doesn't make it "not backward compatible".

While I guess we can agree to disagree, the wording of compatibiliy they use is visibly creating different expectation that they should clarify if they don't want to disappoint (though my guess is that they will disappoint for anything short of saying it's a different ruleset altogether).

 

[Parmandur]

They errata’d older works when they updated reprinted material. By your previous statements, that means it is not backward compatible.

They made those statements in the video wherein they announced the playtest document.

That is an exhausting definition of backward compatibility that I think goes far more strict than most people understand the term.

We know no such thing. We know they have some ideas that may need refinement upon feedback. That’s it.

If they put a new Artificer in the PHB, that completely replaces the Artificer material in Rising from the Last War...RftLW is still 98% usable, and you could probably still tick a RftLW Srtificer in a game without blowing it up. But they didn’t say every part of every book would be equally viable.

 

[Mistwell]

Meaningful? Sure.

However, "Every race gets zero and I get one" is the exact same mathematically as "Every race gets one and I get two"

I understand that in actuality, you have diminishing returns, but again, they aren't losing any languages, just like they aren't losing any tools. The only difference is that the Cuman is getting a curated feat list, and gets two feats while everyone else gets one feat.

Is it the same mathematically? 1 is not twice zero, though 2 is twice 1. I do think "Only type able to do X" is way more meaningful to the game than "Only type able to do 2X while everyone else can only do X," with, as you mentioned, diminishing returns.

"Losing any languages or tools" is a ribbon issue. I know a lot of people ignore the Downtime rules in the DMG, but I believe you can pick up both a tool use and language using Downtime activities with no expenditure of class or race or background resources, unless they eliminate those things in the new DMG. Realistically the VHuman was about a feat.

So far, I am fine with this change personally and I think my group will be fine with it as well. But I definitely understand people viewing this as a reduction in power for the race.