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

[UngeheuerLich]

Since you still haven't done any..
Guess it is up to me to do the math and see if your right. Which ranger can kill the other one fastest.

Level 1 human ranger. 16 Dex, 16 Con
Old: Crossbow expert, 15 AC, 13 HP, favored foe
New: toughness, 16 AC (defensive), 15 HP, hunters mark

Old: 2*((1d6+3+1d4) * 50%+ (1d6+1d4 * 5%)
= 2*((9*.5)+(6*.05))
= 9.6 damage per round.
= 1.5625 turns to kill.

New: 1d8+3+1d6*55% + 1d8+1d6*5%
=11*.55+8*.05
=6.4 damage per round
= 2.1666 turns to kill.

So there you go. The old ranger is more powerful.

Those are facts.... isn't it better to go with gut feeling?

 

[dave2008]

Yeah. We have different definitions. I don't agree that LevelUp is compatible. Having looked at the playtest documents and some stuff since, I wouldn't allow playtest classes to play along side 5e classes. The LevelUp versions are better. To use an earlier term, they don't play well together. The differences are greater than those of 5.5e vs. 5e.

As a DM I don't really care to much what classes my players choose. They (O5e, A5e, N5e, 3PP are all, IMO, reasonably equivalent. If something becomes a problem we are all mature enough to discuss it and fix it.

 

[dave2008]

If5e displayed one thing is that the designers dont play their in house games how most groups do. They made alot of assumptions about the player base that just wasn't true.

Is that true though? I mean they don't play like people on these forums; however, poll after poll has shown that people on this forums are not representative of the larger play base.

I would think sales would tell the designers they got something correct in their assumptions, whether it is true or not is another question.

 

[dave2008]

..., I wouldn't allow playtest classes to play along side 5e classes.

May I ask why?

 

[Minigiant]

Is that true though? I mean they don't play like people on these forums; however, poll after poll has shown that people on this forums are not representative of the larger play base.

I would think sales would tell the designers they got something correct in their assumptions, whether it is true or not is another question.

I mean like the whole community.

The designers never really expected people to play races whose ASI don't match their Class primary.

The Tasha's ASI variants was due to people playing dwarf wizards and tiefling rogues often, something they didn't comprehend in house.
The Tasha's cultural variants were due to people not running every race with the standard FR stereotype for them.

 

[billd91]

The designers never really expected people to play races whose ASI don't match their Class primary.

The Tasha's ASI variants was due to people playing dwarf wizards and tiefling rogues often, something they didn't comprehend in house.
The Tasha's cultural variants were due to people not running every race with the standard FR stereotype for them.

Those are some pretty presumptuous claims for which I doubt you have a shred of evidence.

 

[dave2008]

I mean like the whole community.

The designers never really expected people to play races whose ASI don't match their Class primary.

The Tasha's ASI variants was due to people playing dwarf wizards and tiefling rogues often, something they didn't comprehend in house.
The Tasha's cultural variants were due to people not running every race with the standard FR stereotype for them.

Do we know that? It seems more likely to me, given BA, that WotC didn't think people would care if a class and races stat bonus didn't line up perfectly. The +2 or +1 to stat doesn't really matter for your class in 5e. A '14 dwarf could be a fine wizard or whatever. In 5e there is no need for initial stats to line up "optimally" with your class.

They changed it, IMO, because the issue of not wanting to predetermine what a "race" is and describe some as superior in specific ways (i.e. stat bonuses).

 

[mellored]

The designers never really expected people to play races whose ASI don't match their Class primary.

They specifically said it was just to reinforce the stereotypes of each race. Elf was a class is 1e, not for balance reasons.

Think it was mentioned here.

 

[Maxperson]

Since you still haven't done any..
Guess it is up to me to do the math and see if your right. Which ranger can kill the other one fastest.

Level 1 human ranger. 16 Dex, 16 Con
Old: Crossbow expert, 15 AC, 13 HP, favored foe
New: toughness, 16 AC (defensive), 15 HP, hunters mark

Old: 2*((1d6+3+1d4) * 50%+ (1d6+1d4 * 5%)
= 2*((9*.5)+(6*.05))
= 9.6 damage per round.
= 1.5625 turns to kill.

New: 1d8+3+1d6*55% + 1d8+1d6*5%
=11*.55+8*.05
=6.4 damage per round
= 2.1666 turns to kill.

So there you go. The old ranger is more powerful.

Why is that everyone turns to DPR to try and assess balance? The game is far more than combat.

 

[Minigiant]

Those are some pretty presumptuous claims for which I doubt you have a shred of evidence.

Listen to all the videos Crawford and Perkins made about TCOE optional rules.
They were all about allowing players and DM to make D&D their way.
Not the preprogrammed FR way.

Do we know that? It seems more likely to me, given BA, that WotC didn't think people would care if a class and races stat bonus didn't line up perfectly. The +2 or +1 to stat doesn't really matter for your class in 5e. A '14 dwarf could be a fine wizard or whatever. In 5e there is no need for initial stats to line up "optimally" with your class.

They changed it, IMO, because the issue of not wanting to predetermine what a "race" is and describe some as superior in specific ways (i.e. stat bonuses).

You racial ASI didn't have to be lined up with your class prime. But it was heavily... very heavy... suggested to be. Especially for weapon users as their primary ability bonses were used 2, 3or 4 times in a turn.

Having a 16 in you prime was heavily suggested by the books and heavily encouraged by the community. And this predetermine what most races could be.

---
The designers were okay with a 14 int goblin wizard and a 17 dex goblin rogue. The community was NOT. That's my point. There design did not match up with the community.

The designers where okay with rogue only SA on their turn and all bards being healbots, The community is NOT.