It also illustrate why "natural language" is difficult. We can't even agree on whether feats with undefined levels in the rules are "1st level feats" for the purpose of applying a rule, based on natural reading, with one side saying that any feat that is obtainable at level 1 must be a first-level feat, while others, considering that a spell obtainable at level 3 isn't a "3rd-level spell" but a "2nd level spell", don't do such a bold step of ascribing an unknown quality to an existing optional mechanics and consider the original feat to be "non-levelled feats" due to their explicit lack of level. Natural language requires much more skill to impart an exact definition than a specific language. The reason technical language or legal language arose isn't to puzzle people, contrary to popular belief.
D&D (2024) Playtest: Is the Human Terrible?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
It also illustrate why "natural language" is difficult. We can't even agree on whether feats with undefined levels in the rules are "1st level feats" for the purpose of applying a rule, based on natural reading, with one side saying that any feat that is obtainable at level 1 must be a first-level feat, while others, considering that a spell obtainable at level 3 isn't a "3rd-level spell" but a "2nd level spell", don't do such a bold step of ascribing an unknown quality to an existing optional mechanics and consider the original feat to be "non-levelled feats" due to their explicit lack of level. Natural language requires much more skill to impart an exact definition than a specific language. The reason technical language or legal language arose isn't to puzzle people, contrary to popular belief.
Chaosmancer
Legend
If you use the pre-2018 errata of Contagion and Slimy Doom you have problems too.
Yes, they are rewriting rules. No, they don't expect you to mix and match the rules they are rewriting with the old rules (Imagine a world where Slimy Doom activates on the hit, and they are poisoned by combing the old rules and errata). No, that doesn't mean it isn't backwards compatible, it means that they changed the rules for those things they are rewriting.
I don't understand how this is so hard for people to accept.
Chaosmancer
Legend
You can. I've built a fighter, a wizard and rogue with these new rules. Works perfectly fine. Nothing in the MM is changed. Nothing in the DMG is changed.
What doesn't work perfectly fine is using the 2014 backgrounds alongside the RE-WRITTEN rules for backgrounds, with no changes. Or using the 2014 human with the RE-WRITTEN human. Turns out mixing rules changes causes problems.
Aldarc
Legend
It really only needs to keep to the proficiency bonuses for the bounded accuracy math and it should remain backwards compatible while nearly everything else changes.
There is a difference between a player using the new system and a player using the old, versus a player trying a Frankenstein of both in the same character.
These new races are intentionally balanced with their new 1st level feat counterparts. If your choosing to use one, you really should use the other. Same with new classes and subclasses, if your going to use the new classes but keep the old subclasses, you may hit a few rough patches.
I don't consider that an incompatibility, that's just not using the system correctly. If your going new, you should commit....at least to the point with two parts of the system intentionally balanced with each other.
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
Exactly, it's not a tight, highly tuned system...by design!
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
There is no balance change in the new Races, they are fully Tasha's compliant.
Except for that whole “use this entire new list of feats” thing
