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

[Parmandur]

They did.

"The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted."

Followed immediately by noting Character Races, Character Backgrounds, Starting Languages, Feats and the Rules Glossery.

When they get to classes they will say the same thing, because they want you to test what they are putting out.

Putting out everything to test at once would be dumb. First it would be overwhelming for a lot of people to track what they like and where. Second it would create problems like people really liking the monsters, but not how classes work. Then when classes are changed, the changes now make it unfun to fight the monsters. So they change monsters and now they don't like how the classes interact again. They need to playtest piecemeal and nail down classes, then they can put out monster stuff until people like both.

Crawford was quite adamant that they want people to mix and match material in practice...since they want to encourage people to buy the new books and keep or even continue buying older ones, that makes sense.

I doubt they will test Monsters: they never have I'm the past for UA, amd they already have the new design paradigm in action in every book since Candlekeep

 

[Maxperson]

Crawford was quite adamant that they want people to mix and match material in practice...since they want to encourage people to buy the new books and keep or even continue buying older ones, that makes sense.

Once the playtest is complete, sure. During the playtest mixing and matching will work against it.

I doubt they will test Monsters: they never have I'm the past for UA, amd they already have the new design paradigm in action in every book since Candlekeep

Not in a normal UA, no, but this is a playtest for 5.5 and monsters will have to be changed or they just got a lot easier.

 

[Parmandur]

Once the playtest is complete, sure. During the playtest mixing and matching will work against it.

Not in a normal UA, no, but this is a playtest for 5.5 and monsters will have to be changed or they just got a lot easier.

Sure, they'll change them...but I doubt they will test them at all. That's for private playtesting, to get the math right.

 

[Parmandur]

Once the playtest is complete, sure. During the playtest mixing and matching will work against it.

And as for this aspect: the design intent is for mixing and rules transparency between the two rule sets, and they said they wanted them to be tested as a mixture. I reckon the packets are going to be one Class at a time, so mixing will be inevitable early on.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

it's almost like they are selling us on it... like they want to make money from us...

 

[Blue]

You really seem like your arguing that I can't care about something because you don't care about it. Just in this response you set up several strawmen by twisting points about what I said so you can knock them down. Why are you putting this much effort into trying to convince me not to care about something? You ask me why I cared, I ask you the same - why are you putting this amount of effort into defending that it absolutely is the same edition even if the same amount of changes have precendet as a half edition change. Where is your payoff that makes your care it's the same edition?

DnD is one of the few games where "New Edition" means "all your books are worthless, none of these rules are interchangeable".

Except for the change I was talking about this being close to, D&D 3.0 to 3.5.

That word "all" is doing a whole lot of obfuscating.

That word "all" is vastly important for it being the same edition. It's not obfuscating anything.

Pre-MotM, any changes getting published about character creation/advancement rules was made combatible via errata. "All" is pretty clear in this context.

Of course not ALL of the 2014 PHB is going to be compatible. The 2014 grappling rules aren't compatible with the 2024 Grappling rules. They can't be. The rules are being rewritten.

EXACTLY. And that's what makes it a new edition. It IS NOT compatible. It IS NOT the same edition.

I don't know how you post things supporting my point yet act as if it refutes it.

Okay, new rule going forward, in future responses, I'll just post "CHANGES SUPPORT IT BEING A DIFFERENT EDITION" in caps every time you repeat this mistake. I won't bother to refute it more than that, that's already been done.

They aren't lying to us, because most of us don't expect them to need to playtest if they aren't going to be changing rules. So, we expect to see rules changed, and if a rule is changed it is not compatible with its pre-change version.

If they started playtesting 4e right now and in 2024 they published the 4e PHB and said it's the same edition, according to you it would not be lying saying it's the same edition because we expect them to make changes?

No, changes are what makes it another edition.

You can not have it both that it's the same edition and that it's not compatible. You also can not have that they aren't lying to us because we expect them to be lying about it being the same edition.

Your examples support my point, again. The fact that people expect changes has nothing to do with if it is or is not truly a new edition. It being incompatible has to do with if it is a new edition. I expect changes -- I think it's a new edition.

This is no different than Tasha's, which wasn't an edition shift.

Tasha's added options for a DM to introduce. Are these being introduced as modular options to pick and choose, with the 2014PHB still in play as the base? No. Strawman #1.

Okay? What would you like the errata to say? "We reprinted this in a new book, check this book?"

I don't want the errata to say anything. I said that I think the changes are good and I just want them to be truthful it's a new edition. I would only need errata if it really was the same edition and really remained compatible, and I really don't because the changes look massive. You you go on and on like I want massive errata, which I don't so I'm not going to quote your individual points that ascripe a motive to me I don't support. Strawman #2.

Let's be honest here, there is no reason for them to sell the 2014 PHB after the 2024 PHB comes out. It would lead to market confusion and just a huge mess. And so an errata document would be largely pointless in my mind, because they aren't selling the old book any more.

I'll address this one point -- an errata document is what kept the game in sync as a single edition as earlier books did introduce changes. It was never for the people buying new books, since a new printing would always have all the errata included. It was for the people who already owned the book. Pretending that there are no people who own the 2014 PHB to make your point is Strawman #3. It's very easy to say "It's the same edition, as long as no one has ever played or is playing this edition", and that's just not true.

No one actually expects the books to be identical.

I know. Which is why it's an edition shift. Just like the precedent already when the same scope of changes was in 3.0 to 3.5.

You seem to be confusing what the masses think about something and a fact. I live in the US, they can be vastly different animals.

 

[Blue]

There being precedent doesn’t mean the exact same thing will happen again.

In fact, it’s at least as likely to mean that whatever mistakes they make in 2024, they probably won’t be the same ones they made with 3/.5.

Not sure where this is coming from - I like the changes. The precedent I was talking about was that when you ovehaul a good chunk of character creation/advancement (e.g. the player facing rules) it's at a half edition change, as opposed to being called the same edition.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And as for this aspect: the design intent is for mixing and rules transparency between the two rule sets, and they said they wanted them to be tested as a mixture. I reckon the packets are going to be one Class at a time, so mixing will be inevitable early on.

Exactly. I am frustrated enough with the mindset being expressed that I struggled to articulate my reply, but this did it for me.

 

[Mistwell]

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

Because there is an option between "blatantly lying" and "will happen exactly that way." And that is the same option we've experienced at pretty much every single edition transition. Good intentions are expressed early on. They hope for things to turn out a certain way and are optimistic it will turn out that way. And it never turns out that way. They've said it would be backwards compatible so many times in so many transitions, and I think they believe it when they say it. It just doesn't work out that way. Because it's way harder to do, and have it work well, than they remember from the last time it happened

 

[Mistwell]

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.

They absolutely did. And it's not even debatable - both ended up not being backwards compatible.