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

[Mistwell]

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.

OK now YOU are the one calling Crawford a liar. He says that's what they're doing. That part of the video wasn't "this won't survive the playtest" type language, like the crits were. But we shall see. Which is the third time I've tried to tell you this is the kind of topic where we cannot in any way come to any kind of agreement until it actually happens and we see for ourselves. So let's just wait and see. Feel free to remember this thread and quote me later if it turns out my guesses are wrong.

 

[Mistwell]

"Completely playable" with the new evolution of D&D doesn't necessarily mean every element of those supplements has to be usable, frankly.

Completely compatible sure sounds complete and compatible. What would "complete" mean in this context other than "every element?" Is this one of those "I am changing the meaning of literally to mean figuratively?"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

the part that bugs me the most is not only do we KNOW they have this history, but THEY KNOW we know it. So you would think that the best answer would be more straight forward... yet here we are.

 

[Mistwell]

1) "I can't make an 18 stat human anymore." -> Yeah, I'm dismissing this. Rules changed. We knew that and it doesn't seem to be worth declaring the playtest broken and impossible just because some of the rules changed. At that point, you can't have a playtest. You don't need to playtest rules that never change.

Stop. Neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, has said or implied anything like "the playtest is broken and impossible."

Do I even read the rest of your reply if you're going to resort to that extreme a strawman? Or did you honestly think that's what I've been arguing?

If you cannot play your existing character with the new version of the rules, that means the new rules are not "fully compatible with all prior products." I think that's a fair position.

5) All feats need to be given levels -> Dismissed because they really don't. If people are allowed to take feats that they have the pre-requisites for by level 4, then you can still take those feats. The only concern would come IF they DID update or errata the old feats to give them levels. Once they do that, you have rewritten the rules for those feats, and you will need to account for that. But if you don't, then they can just get them at level 4 like normal.

Crawford's already repeatedly said all feats will have levels and gaining feats will use a descriptor of the required level you can get with them. Unless they give those feats levels, you won't be able to take them. Which makes it not "completely compatible with all prior products."

 

[Mistwell]

the part that bugs me the most is not only do we KNOW they have this history, but THEY KNOW we know it. So you would think that the best answer would be more straight forward... yet here we are.

Yeah, they've said the same words multiple times in the past about this same kind of transition, and I am told I am being absurd for having any doubts it might play out the same way it has always played out in the past literally since the transition from 1e to 2e.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

You're right it doesn't mean it must happen the same way.

It does however mean people are not "absurd" for thinking it's likely to happen that way. Which was the description you used.

Also they made this mistake with 4e to Essentials, and 2e to 3e PR. Heck they even tried the "D&D Next" concept to avoid using "edition" with 5e itself. They've literally NEVER in the history of the company pulled off the "backwards compatible" claims made. They've never once learned from the very many lessons of the past. So why is it so irrational to expect they will, once again, behave like they've always behaved?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you cannot play your existing character with the new version of the rules, that means the new rules are not "fully compatible with all prior products." I think that's a fair position.

there are already mini issues, but there is a chance such things may get rolled back if the playtest doesn't go well.

I personally would rather they throw out every bit of backwards compatibility if it meant a better game

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

the part that bugs me the most is not only do we KNOW they have this history, but THEY KNOW we know it. So you would think that the best answer would be more straight forward... yet here we are.

They know we now it. They also postulates that the D&D market is doubling each year, so the 3.5 incompatibility fiasco ocurring 19 years ago has seen the market multiplied by 524,288 since then, drowning us the old witness of this long past time among their target audience.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OK now YOU are the one calling Crawford a liar.

Not in the least.

He says that's what they're doing. That part of the video wasn't "this won't survive the playtest" type language, like the crits were.

The entire playtest is subject to feedback.

 

[Parmandur]

They know we now it. They also postulates that the D&D market is doubling each year, so the 3.5 incompatibility fiasco ocurring 19 years ago has seen the market multiplied by 524,288 since then, drowning us the old witness of this long past time among their target audience.

I mean, a significant part of the player base hadn't been born in 2003.