D&D 5E (2024) Playtest: Is the Human Terrible?

[doctorbadwolf]

I again say we're long past the "OK let's see what happens" phase of this conversation.

Okay

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent, but it seems that you and a few others are fully devoted to this idea of trying to catch WoTC "in a lie" and the "prove" that this isn't One D&D but 5.5 DnD or 6E.

And the problem I have with that is that it constantly seems to suck all of the oxygen out of the room to discuss the actual rules changes. How many posts have been had arguing over what exactly backwards compatible means? How many posts devoted solely to the idea that we must accept this is a new edition... with no actual posts about the rules, how they may work, and how they are being implemented.

I think it will be a very poor playtest of the material if so much effort is put towards the sole goal of calling WoTC out and getting the "truth" instead of testing the rules and discussing them.

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

An acknowledged difference, the quote was speaking about general trends. 2e -> 3.X -> 4e -> 5e

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.

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.

If you want a playtest over the 2014 Player's Handbook, that was called "Next" and it finished over seven years ago. We aren't doing that playtest.

And see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Your entire point is "See, they changed rules, therefore new edition, therefore they lied! Caught them!" But... if they weren't going to change any rules, then a playtest would be a waste of time and energy. This entire document is useless if they don't change rules.

But, again, changing rules doesn't mean a new edition. Tasha's changed rules. Tome of Foes changed rules. Frickin' Xanathar's changed rules. So are we on Edition 5.5.7? You are drawing an arbitrary line.

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.

Then you had a new edition as soon as Xanathar's was released. Another new edition with Tome of Foes. A new edition with Tasha's. Another new edition with Stixhaven.

Sure, if they released something as fundamentally and radically different as 4e, then it would be obviously a new edition. They aren't doing that. Frankly, the most drastic change is to the unarmed strike and grappling rules, and that being the high water mark doesn't make this a fundamentally different edition.

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.

I'm sorry, those weren't rules changes? Rewriting spell lists, adding new abilities, adding the ability to swap class features, fundamentally changing how races worked.

Sure, the DM had fiat to ignore those changes, but.... they always have fiat to ignore changes. You can totally decide to ignore the new grappling rules and play with the old ones. But notice, whenever we talk about RAW options... Tasha's is brought up without complaint. No one says that you CAN'T use these options. And most people assume them as the default.

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.

Who buys a new 2024 PHB and then doesn't understand that they have purchased a new book?

Or is your point that somehow players who don't buy the new 2024 PHB are going to somehow be wrong if they just continue playing as they were?

Maybe, MAYBE, you could have people who bought the 2014 PHB, skipped the DnD anniversary, but then a few years later buy a class supplement and are confused why things don't work the same way, but those people likely had the same expeirence if the first non-PHB book they bought from 5e was Spelljammer.

And frankly, someone who skips 2024 PHB and then buys a later supplement can easily be brought up to speed with good writing, and if they feel they need to the get the new rules, then they can make that call.

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.

I live in the US too. Congrats on surviving the last few years. But that doesn't mean that you are making some kind of point here.

No one who participates in this playtest or buys a new PHB is expecting that they will have no rule changes from their old PHB. You are basically arguing that people who don't follow DnD news, but buy new DnD books, but don't buy the anniversary edition are going to be confused.

And frankly, fans THAT casual, probably won't notice. Because the majority of these rules changes are minor.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Why have a playtest for rules that will not change? Seriously. When they announced the playtest, did everyone just go "You know, I was really wondering if this seven year old book was up to snuff, time to test these rules and see how they work"

Yes. A Rule changed, and because that rule changed something that was possible now isn't. Lucky doesn't give Super advantage when you have disadvantage anymore. That doesn't mean that the game isn't compatible, it means they changed a rule.

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."

"If a feat is from an earlier product, it is a level four feat, unless stated otherwise"

Fixed. Now it is completely compatible with prior products.

 

[Parmandur]

See here's how it's going to go down. They open with their "intent" to not have a major edition change and everything is the "same edition", and "fully compatible". Then the playtest will "reveal" that what people really want is a new edition, so when it comes out completely different, they'll say it was what the fans wanted, not their intent.

Extraordinarily doubtful: they're more likely to walk back most of the proposed changes than to go any further.

 

[Maxperson]

So, you think they’re idiots.

Not idiots. Let's say optimistically irrational. They are optimistically promising and then engaging in the same thing over and over again, hoping for different results. It's perfectly reasonable for those of us with a streak of realist in them to doubt that they will pull it off this time.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. And then I learn from it.

Just like they learned from 3.5 and didn’t try to say that a new game wasn’t a new game for 4e.

And are now proceeding to make D&D 5.5 instead of 6e.

 

[Maxperson]

And frankly, fans THAT casual, probably won't notice. Because the majority of these rules changes are minor.

We're one UA in and they are already not minor. Removing crits from the DM side of things is not minor. Granting free feats with backgrounds at level 1 is not minor. If as the Spell Lists section implies, class spell lists are going away, that's not minor.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not idiots. Let's say optimistically irrational. They are optimistically promising and then engaging in the same thing over and over again, hoping for different results. It's perfectly reasonable for those of us with a streak of realist in them to doubt that they will pull it off this time.

Oof. Do you not see how this come across as insulting their intelligence and the intelligence and ability to be rational of everyone who disagrees with you? Seriously?

“Streak of realist” ffs.

We're one UA in and they are already not minor. Removing crits from the DM side of things is not minor.

Eh, medium, at most.

Granting free feats with backgrounds at level 1 is not minor.

Definitely minor. Nearly trivial.

If as the Spell Lists section implies, class spell lists are going away, that's not minor.

It implies no such thing, and JC has said that classes will have their own ways of interacting with the power source lists, and implied that what the classes do with the spell list isn’t the most obvious to those of us who haven’t seen the classes yet.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Removing crits from the DM side of things is not minor.

Yes it is

Granting free feats with backgrounds at level 1 is not minor.

Has been done in multiple products already out and in multiple products to come even before 2024. This isn't even really a new change, just a continuation of their new design ethos.

If as the Spell Lists section implies, class spell lists are going away, that's not minor.

Factually wrong, both based on what the document says, and the interview with Crawford.

 

[Maxperson]

Oof. Do you not see how this come across as insulting their intelligence and the intelligence and ability to be rational of everyone who disagrees with you? Seriously?

“Streak of realist” ffs.

Yes, seriously. If someone tries and fails to do something multiple times, failing because it's incredibly difficult and unlikely to succeed, it's me being a realist to say, "I doubt they will succeed this time." It's also not a reflection on the intelligence of those who disagree with me. I think that it's just optimism on their part and being an optimist is not a bad thing.

Eh, medium, at most.

I can agree with that. It's medium, but not minor.

Definitely minor. Nearly trivial.

This I strongly disagree with. It's trivial to change, but is not a trivial change. It significantly raises the power level of PCs by giving them all a free feat or two, and there's no way that a significant power increase is a minor change. This isn't even a medium change. It's a major one.

It implies no such thing, and JC has said that classes will have their own ways of interacting with the power source lists, and implied that what the classes do with the spell list isn’t the most obvious to those of us who haven’t seen the classes yet.

But class spell lists would be obvious, since that's what we have now. If they are changing it to something else, which is what, "In future Unearthed Arcana articles, we’ll show how Classes use these lists and how a Class or Subclass might gain Spells from another list." implies, then they are implying that class lists are going away.

Yes, they will give classes another way of interacting with the three big spell lists(categories of magic), but that will be a medium, not minor change from the individual class spell lists that have been present since 1e.