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

[Micah Sweet]

It's a half-edition shift. The dispute seems to be more about whether it's 6e or 5.5e. I say 5.5e.

I mean, already with this playtest we have a ton of stuff which is simply not compatible. If you have a class which turns crits against you into non-crits, that's not compatible with foes no longer critting you. If you have a class which grants advantage of strength checks to initiate or escape a grapple, that's not compatible with grapple being moved to attacks and saves. If you have a feat from Xanathar's which doesn't have a level indicator, will they even update Xanathar's feats with level tags? And that's just half of the incompatibilities in just the first playtest package.

Some people seem to think that compatibility only refers to the core math of the game.

 

[Parmandur]

Feats aren't a neglected variant rule in any game I've ever participated in or heard of outside this forum.

And if they were, why would WotC suddenly decide to make feats non-optional? This is why I question the received "wisdom" that most people didn't use feats.

WotC data and D&D Beyond data show it: most tables never used Feats. Quite a few do, but it is the minority. O see.no reason to seriously question thst, particularly when my anecdote is the opposite "nobody ever uses Feats." Logicslly, I assume that some people.use use Feats, in theory. The only evidence I have is random Internet posts, and the official data from WotC and Beyond. I see nonreason to believe thar WotC is trying to miniseries the numbers, given that theybare trying to make Feats core to the game.

For most people, this rule change is an increase in customizability and options.

 

[Parmandur]

Some people seem to think that compatibility only refers to the core math of the game.

The core math if the game is literally everything. As long as that remains the same, the rest will work. The game is literally a mathematical construct for make believe, as long as the math works and we continue to make believe...well, there you go.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Those were substances games. OneD&D is not really a different game than 5E, not like PF2E. They want people to use the 5E books because, largely, the rules aren't changing. This 21 page document, per Crawford, was rhe big one, with subsequent packets being targeted smaller bits of rules. This was already the big changes.

Honestly, I feel that highlighted point is up for debate right now, at-least until the playtest is done. They have already done changes I didn't think they would do like moving ASIs to backgrounds, granting Feats to start with and adding levels to them, changing crit rules while implying monsters will get various replaces, etc. I feel it's moving into an area where I think it could be considered a different game. But I don't think your point of view is wrong either.

What I do find strange is that if this is the big document of rule changes, then why not release it with the other smaller packets together? I guess of course that depends oon what the 'big one' means, which I find somewhat vague.

I don't know. I feel that the fact that, if you are correct that this is just 5.2+, then not releasing all the rule-changes and allowing people a guide on simple conversions for content etc. feels even less justified than my understanding of what they're trying to do.

 

[Maxperson]

The core math if the game is literally everything. As long as that remains the same, the rest will work. The game is literally a mathematical construct for make believe, as long as the math works and we continue to make believe...well, there you go.

The core math needs to work with the other math, too, though. Core math + Great Weapon Master =/= Core Math + Crossbow Expert. Both combat feats and both full feats. One much better in combat than the other.

 

[Parmandur]

Honestly, I feel that highlighted point is up for debate right now, at-least until the playtest is done. They have already done changes I didn't think they would do like moving ASIs to backgrounds, granting Feats to start with and adding levels to them, changing crit rules while implying monsters will get various replaces, etc. I feel it's moving into an area where I think it could be considered a different game. But I don't think your point of view is wrong either.

What I do find strange is that if this is the big document of rule changes, then why not release it with the other smaller packets together? I guess of course that depends oon what the 'big one' means, which I find somewhat vague.

I don't know. I feel that the fact that, if you are correct that this is just 5.2+, then not releasing all the rule-changes and allowing people a guide on simple conversions for content etc. feels even less justified than my understanding of what they're trying to do.

They just want feedback on how people feel about certain changes, sane as YA had been doing fir 7 years. These aren't rigorous playtests, those happen in their private playtest network once they've determined how people at large emotional reacted to a new rule.

 

[Rushbolt]

I guess I'm a little late on the original question but I definitely find the human to be sincerely lacking at this point with what has been discussed. According to Jeremy Crawford, level 1 feats will not give stat bonuses and will in general not be as powerful as their earlier counterparts. Each background starts with a feat so other races will still have a level 1 feat. I think when people create human characters and get their two feats but other races still get a feat it won't feel nearly as special as when those other races had no access to feats at first level. The choice of a single skill is definitely a minor trait and gaining inspiration once in a long rest is a welcome addition but they just are not still not stacking up to what the dwarf and elf receive at this point in my opinion.

I'm not a person who just complains and doesn't offer a suggestion so I have considered what the human needs to make sure it does not sit on the sidelines. It has to be a base ability in the game so that it still has somewhat of a vanilla flavor instead of a specialized one such as a dwarf's resistance to poison and should offer the flexibility of making a choice. I suggest something very strong that will make a player who is looking to optimize their character sit up and take notice.

Human Resilience: You may select an additional saving throw proficiency.

 

[tetrasodium]

I guess I'm a little late on the original question but I definitely find the human to be sincerely lacking at this point with what has been discussed. According to Jeremy Crawford, level 1 feats will not give stat bonuses and will in general not be as powerful as their earlier counterparts. Each background starts with a feat so other races will still have a level 1 feat. I think when people create human characters and get their two feats but other races still get a feat it won't feel nearly as special as when those other races had no access to feats at first level. The choice of a single skill is definitely a minor trait and gaining inspiration once in a long rest is a welcome addition but they just are not still not stacking up to what the dwarf and elf receive at this point in my opinion.

I'm not a person who just complains and doesn't offer a suggestion so I have considered what the human needs to make sure it does not sit on the sidelines. It has to be a base ability in the game so that it still has somewhat of a vanilla flavor instead of a specialized one such as a dwarf's resistance to poison and should offer the flexibility of making a choice. I suggest something very strong that will make a player who is looking to optimize their character sit up and take notice.

Human Resilience: You may select an additional saving throw proficiency.

editops...
I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few later feats depend on a level1 feat. Having two could allow more choice in more powerful later feats

 

[Micah Sweet]

If only we could with what WotC says backwards compatibility means, specifically. Unfortunately, they didn't really provide a concise answer.

Well, being more lax on what compatibility means would make it easier for them to have the two rule sets be compatible.

I go with what backwards compatibility is generally understood to mean. That you can use the old and the new together without any kind of special modification.

 

[Maxperson]

If only we could with what WotC says backwards compatibility means, specifically. Unfortunately, they didn't really provide a concise answer.

Well, backwards compatibility has specific meaning, especially with 5e which the designers have told us uses the commonly understood meanings of things.