D&D (2024) Why no new packs since late September?

[Maxperson]

I don't think that is what he meant by "it works" though do you?

I don't know. I stopped trying to read minds here a long time ago, because I'm wrong just as often or more often than I'm right. Now I take people at what they say and if what they say isn't what they meant or if it needs more clarification, they can say so in their response to me.

 

[Maxperson]

We also seem to always forget this caveat from the playtests:

View attachment 268081

I haven't forgotten that. I just can't be sure that they will get it right. The company is hit and miss when it comes to that sort of thing.

 

[dave2008]

I haven't forgotten that. I just can't be sure that they will get it right. The company is hit and miss when it comes to that sort of thing.

Very true, and of course what is "right" is a bit subjective too.

 

[mellored]

I haven't forgotten that. I just can't be sure that they will get it right. The company is hit and miss when it comes to that sort of thing.

Generally speaking, they get better at balancing things each time they do it.

Not a guarantee of course, there may be some combo that slips though the cracks. But on a whole, they improve.

 

[SkidAce]

Combining PHBs’ content might require some adjustment, because it’s an update and revision of that book, but they haven’t promised compatibility with the old PHB, they’ve promised that the new PHB will be fully compatible with existing supplements and adventures. Which so far, is the case.

I am not fond of the debates in this thread, but I have to ask....

Isn't it a new edition if my old PHB isn't compatible with a new PHB?

I mean sure, errata doesnt make an edition change, but the way its phrased above sounds like one to me. (no disrespect intended)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And honestly a single level 1 feat just doesn't change much. It is nice, but not such a big difference that it is really noticeable at the table and if it does bother people, just give them a lvl 1 feat too!

Heck, it makes less difference than, say, a Warlock player who picked an Invocation that they never use, vs a Warlock player who picked an Invocation that they ALWAYS use. This is, of course, assuming that the player in question actually remembers to use the feat (or has one that's "always on", or picks one that's any good in the first place.

Honestly, I can't imagine how this can be a "balance" question - the game isn't balanced at the best of times. This is certainly no worse than that!

 

[Maxperson]

Heck, it makes less difference than, say, a Warlock player who picked an Invocation that they never use, vs a Warlock player who picked an Invocation that they ALWAYS use. This is, of course, assuming that the player in question actually remembers to use the feat (or has one that's "always on", or picks one that's any good in the first place.

Honestly, I can't imagine how this can be a "balance" question - the game isn't balanced at the best of times. This is certainly no worse than that!

It's a balance issue because all else being equal, the the PC with a feat is stronger than one without. Sure PCs can be unequal anyway, but if the stronger one is the one that also has the feat, the imbalance is worse. If they are about the same, the feat makes one better. It's pretty much only if the weaker one has the feat and the stronger one does not that it's not a balance issue and you can't rely on that happening.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's a balance issue because all else being equal, the the PC with a feat is stronger than one without. Sure PCs can be unequal anyway, but if the stronger one is the one that also has the feat, the imbalance is worse. If they are about the same, the feat makes one better. It's pretty much only if the weaker one has the feat and the stronger one does not that it's not a balance issue and you can't rely on that happening.

Sure, but I mean, even comparing a 5e beastmaster ranger to a 5e evoker wizard you'd find a bigger balance difference than a 5e lore bard to a 1D&D lore bard.

Even if we don't go for extreme examples, it's what I would call "within the expected range" (and therefore not worth worrying about).

I've certainly had players here in my PBP games show up with characters that are far, FAR more powerful, using pure 5e rules, than anything my IRL players would make (casual gamers, all of them). While it's possible that there will be some "power creep" between 5e and 1D&D, I don't see it ATM.

1D&D Playtest power levels seem to be toward the "middle" (in that, the most egregious extant 5e power problems were nerfed in the latest package). Unless you allow people to mix-n-match 5e & 1D&D willy-nilly, I don't think you'll see any game-altering imbalance. Certainly not more than you can see already, if you wind up with power gamers (and 5e isn't too bad for that sort of thing, all things considered).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I am not fond of the debates in this thread, but I have to ask....

Isn't it a new edition if my old PHB isn't compatible with a new PHB?

I mean sure, errata doesnt make an edition change, but the way its phrased above sounds like one to me. (no disrespect intended)

No one actually knows yet, no matter what they might say.

(Even WotC doesn't know what's actually in the new version yet, until it's sent off to the printers, which is still a ways off.)

So is it a new edition? Is it not?

REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN LATER

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No one actually knows yet, no matter what they might say.

I don't think we'll know exactly how "backwards compatible" it really winds up being until 2025 or later, after everyone has had a good chance to kick its tires.