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

[doctorbadwolf]

it's EXACTLY how the term is commonly used. It's from computer programs like Word. Backwards compatible meant the older stuff was usable with no effort on the part of the user.

And we have no reason to think that won’t be the case.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They did.

Ray Winninger, "I can assure you these new versions of the books will be completely compatible with all those 5th edition products you already own and love and all the products released between now [Oct 2021] and then, so don't panic there."

So, unless you think he is blatantly lying, why are you insisting that they won’t be compatible?

 

[Aldarc]

They did.

Ray Winninger, "I can assure you these new versions of the books will be completely compatible with all those 5th edition products you already own and love and all the products released between now [Oct 2021] and then, so don't panic there."

There is an additional series of interviews with other WOTC creators, and one (whose name I do not know but I will see if I can find out) says in the video, "When we say building on top of 5th edition what we mean is that all of the adventures and supplements that have been released over the last 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D.

I feel like WotC said the same about 3.0 to 3.5, much as Paizo said about 3.5 to PF1, but the backwards compatibility of all this is debatable.

 

[Maxperson]

And we have no reason to think that won’t be the case.

It's already a fact that it IS the case. Feats with background already means that you either can't run 2014 backgrounds without significant disparity or you modify those backgrounds to be on par with 5.5. Either of those means that there is no backwards compatibility.

If you choose to go with their recent statement about it being adventures only, well, you cannot run any 2014 adventures without modification as things stand, because the monsters will be necessarily be significantly different in 5.5 with the removal of crits. WotC will have to compensate for that. So no backwards compatibility there, either.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Every class will almost certainly (based directly on what Crawford said) only get feats with levels based on class abilities which grant feats of a specific level.

We don’t know that, we don’t even know for sure that leveled feats will survive playtest, much less that they view any existing feats as problematic for 4th+ level.

What would be the point of putting levels on all feats they publish after this to adjust for power of that feat, if you could still choose an old version of that same feat at a lower level because it has no level attached to it? What, you think Great Weapon Master will either be (for example) a 12th level feat or a 4th level feat, depending on whether you choose to pull from the new book or old one, claiming the old one is still backwards compatible so the feat remains eligible?

GWM is a PHB feat. It will be updated by a new PHB. Just like the Bladesinger was updated in SCAG when they printed Tasha’s.

Now if we look at a different example, maybe like Stryxhaven, a book I don’t expect to see any real updating, we can dig into what’s up.

Again, the new book will most likely just specify how choosing a feat with no level works. My bet is that it will literally just be that you can take any non leveled feat from level 4 on, but they could go a few other ways, including just a reprint of a bunch of feats from various sources, though that is less efficient.

All feats from prior books will either need a level (and likely updating) or else they will not be compatible.

Unlikely.

That's pretty darn obvious I think, baring a big change in the direction they're going. Crawford's language was flexible with much of this playtest, but it looked rather not flexible on that particular topic.

Again, I disagree wrt to Crawford’s statements, and indeed I don’t know what statements you could be interpreting that way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's already a fact that it IS the case.

No, but even if it were it would only be the case in a playtest document.

Feats with background already means that you either can't run 2014 backgrounds without significant disparity or you modify those backgrounds to be on par with 5.5. Either of those means that there is no backwards compatibility.

“the new version is better” is not an incompatibility. Full stop. You are objectively using the term incorrectly here.

 

[Blue]

I disagree, because the Vhuman is in the Player's Handbook, and is obviously being rewritten. This is like saying that the 2024 Alert feat is broken, because you could take it and the 2014 Alert feat and have a total of +11 to initiative, be unable to be surprised, swap initiative, and not grant advantage to unseen attackers.

No one designing this is seriously imagining people will use the old feats in tandem with the re-written ones on the same character. So no one would assume that they are going to try and take the Vhuman and play it straight, or that they are going to take the 2024 Dwarf and then choose the Hill Dwarf subrace from 2014 and get +2 to all hp.

You are taking the stance of "but they said..." and trying to deride the playtest for something that is clearly against the intent and spirit of the playtest.

That's not been my stance, please don't try to state my motives. In multiple posts in this chain I have been very clear my stance is "it's actually a half edition shift, because if it really is one edition then all of this old stuff is still active".

I'm in a campaign with PCs with races that were rewritten with MotM and not updated. These are still a single edition, and the minor rewrites don't make the other ones unplayable. I've used foes both MotM versions of some and pre-MotM versions of others based on what fit what I wanted better, especially with casters. In a single edition, this is fine.

But if, as you say, "I disagree, because the Vhuman is in the Player's Handbook, and is obviously being rewritten.", you are in fact agreeing with my entiure premise - that this is not the same edition where they will be all in play, but a half edition (or more) shift where the old ones are not in play.

Basically, once you say "all of this has been superseded and is no longer available", the practical upshot is that it is a separate edition regardless if they number it as so or not.

 

[Maxperson]

No, but even if it were it would only be the case in a playtest document.

Yes and no. Is the playtest document all we have right now? Yes. Is it clear that backgrounds will have feats attached to them in 5.5e? Also yes. The last few books put out have this design, it has been stated to be the future of 5e since before 5.5 was announced, and the playtest document shows all of that to be true. The only unknown is just HOW it will be implemented in its final form, not whether it will be.

“the new version is better” is not an incompatibility. Full stop. You are objectively using the term incorrectly here.

The old version having to be updated to work with the new version equally IS an incompatibility. That serious disparity is equivalent to a computer program not working with an older version.

 

[Parmandur]

That’s no different from existing 5e supplements, though.

Could be a major issue of degree, though not kind.

 

[Parmandur]

Do you think they will go to 12th level? They've listed data that says that only a very small percentage of games makes it that far, and if you look at the monster books the number of monsters to pick from drops off precipitously after CR 8 or so. They might just stop feat power at 8th and at that point you can just pick anything you want at 12, 16 and 19.

They haven't in the Krynn or 2023 playtests, just 4th and 8th Level Feats.