# Why no new packs since late September?



## Henadic Theologian (Nov 26, 2022)

I was expecting these would be monthly, but we got no packet dor October and its looking like no packet for November unless one comes next week.

 So why do you think we're not getting more packets?

 Also wasn't the origins packet supposed to he updated?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 26, 2022)

Because they need to adress the feedback and might have to work it in... Unless it is a marketing ploy... then they just want to make us suffer...


----------



## R_J_K75 (Nov 26, 2022)

I think its probably because at some point they're probably making decisions behind the scenes to finalize certain aspects based on feedback. At some point with so many more aspects that need to be worked on I'd imagine that at some point they have to start completing some things while moving onto Others. Sure some packets or portions of them will be revised and resubmitted for feedback but on a smaller scale.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 26, 2022)

No no... they had it all planned out. Now they are just drinking tea and having parties, to make us think they are actually working in the feedback. As I have seen on youtube and heard by trustworthy sources, the rules are already finalized and done.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Nov 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No no... they had it all planned out. Now they are just drinking tea and having parties, to make us think they are actually woring in the feedback. As I have seen on youtube and heard by trustworthy sources, the rules are already finalized and done.




 care to share your sources?


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Nov 26, 2022)

R_J_K75 said:


> I think its probably because at some point they're probably making decisions behind the scenes to finalize certain aspects based on feedback. At some point with so many more aspects that need to be worked on I'd imagine that at some point they have to start completing some things while moving onto Others. Sure some packets or portions of them will be revised and resubmitted for feedback but on a smaller scale.




 One D&D is releasing in 2024 for D&D's 50th, they can't afford to drag their feet.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Nov 26, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> One D&D is releasing in 2024 for D&D's 50th, they can't afford to drag their feet.



I agree. Thats why I think that as time goes their requests for our feedback will become less in frequency and less in length. We are probably only gonna get 2, maybe 3 shots to give our feedback on any particular topic/option before they lock the playtest and move on to finalizing the design and start editing/layout then to printing. My belief is that the playtest will end in late 2023.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

I wonder if they're not getting the feedback they hoped for.  At least on this site, even most of the folks who generally liked what we've seen so far for 6e have sent in negative feedback.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

They *just* finished gathering feedback for this last round a few days ago.  And then there was a holiday.

And unlike origins, which seems universally liked, there is going to be a lot more nuances for the classes.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 26, 2022)

At a guess, they’re getting more negative feedback than they expected. If they were getting mostly positive feedback, it would be full steam ahead. More than anything else they don’t want to split the fanbase again, so they want 80-90% onboard with their changes. Less than that and they risk killing the golden goose. Maybe people took their claims of backward compatibility seriously and when they saw the playtest and realized that’s not really going to happen, they freaked.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> They *just* finished gathering feedback for this last round a few days ago.  And then there was a holiday.



Yeah. After extending the feedback window 2-3 times. Experts had what, 2-3 times the window origins did. Likely hoping to get more positive feedback. Probably didn’t work out as they hoped.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> At a guess, they’re getting more negative feedback than they expected. If they were getting mostly positive feedback, it would be full steam ahead. More than anything else they don’t want to split the fanbase again, so they want 80-90% onboard with their changes. Less than that and they risk killing the golden goose. Maybe people took their claims of backward compatibility seriously and when they saw the playtest and realized that’s not really going to happen, they freaked.



There is no possible way they're going to get 80-90% on board with anything, and trying to do so would be, IMO, a fool's errand and a waste of time.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> There is no possible way they're going to get 80-90% on board with anything, and trying to do so would be, IMO, a fool's errand and a waste of time.



Crawford said something like this number is their threshold for regular UA feedback. I don’t remember the source. I’d imagine they want similar for this. Not that they’re going to get it.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Maybe people took their claims of backward compatibility seriously and when they saw the playtest and realized that’s not really going to happen, they freaked.



Without some significant changes to core mechanics of how the game plays then to me its probably gonna seem to samey to 5E. I'd just prefer 6E to a half edition. Besides buying the 1D&D core books to see the final product but I probably wont invest more than that, but who knows we'll see.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Crawford said something like this number is their threshold for regular UA feedback. I don’t remember the source. I’d imagine they want similar for this. Not that they’re going to get it.



I think it was 70% actually, which was also ridiculous and contributed directly to many good ideas (like the concept of psionics) being left on the cutting room floor.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

R_J_K75 said:


> Without some significant changes to core mechanics of how the game plays then to me its probably gonna seem to samey to 5E. I'd just prefer 6E to a half edition. Besides buying the 1D&D core books to see the final product but I probably wont invest more than that, but who knows we'll see.



I've been advocating for a more significant edition change all along, to clearly separate whatever this is going to be from 5e.  But as you say, they really want to pursue this half-measure, I suspect purely for $$ reasons.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 26, 2022)

R_J_K75 said:


> Without some significant changes to core mechanics of how the game plays then to me its probably gonna seem to samey to 5E. I'd just prefer 6E to a half edition. Besides buying the 1D&D core books to see the final product but I probably wont invest more than that, but who knows we'll see.



Sure, but feeling samey ≠ backwards compatibility.

Changing the levels where classes get features, feats, ASI, etc, changing all feats to 1/2 feats, normalizing subclasses, and more means this will not be backwards compatible as most people would use the phrase.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Sure, but feeling samey ≠ backwards compatibility.
> 
> Changing the levels where classes get features, feats, ASI, etc, changing all feats to 1/2 feats, normalizing subclasses, and more means this will not be backwards compatible as most people would use the phrase.



Yeah, 6e proponents really seem to feel that changes to the fundamental math of the game are the only thing that affects backward compatibility. We'll have to see if the fanbase agrees, but I really doubt it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 26, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> care to share your sources?




Just look around this very forum.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I wonder if they're not getting the feedback they hoped for.  At least on this site, even most of the folks who generally liked what we've seen so far for 6e have sent in negative feedback.




Cool. When will 6e be out?


----------



## R_J_K75 (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Changing the levels where classes get features, feats, ASI, etc, changing all feats to 1/2 feats, normalizing subclasses, and more means this will not be backwards compatible as most people would use the phrase.





Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, 6e proponents really seem to feel that changes to the fundamental math of the game are the only thing that affects backward compatibility. We'll have to see if the fanbase agrees, but I really doubt it.



I really doubt that backwards compatibility is possible and prefer they just give it up; they tried it originally for 5E and we know that didnt work.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

If the math doesn't change, then it's backwards compatible with the campaigns, and characters from 5e and 5.5 could play along side each other.q


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 26, 2022)

R_J_K75 said:


> I really doubt that backwards compatibility is possible and prefer they just give it up; they tried it originally for 5E and we know that didnt work.



It's theoretically possible, it's just not actually possible with even the changes they've presented so far. That's why I think it's a marketing gimmick to ease edition-change panic. For some reason people seem to thing that changing what level you get abilities, how feats function, whether feats are optional or not, etc somehow doesn't "change the math." Which is silly. It explicitly does change the math. Add in all the explicit power creep and then stand the 2014 ranger that was an underperforming joke already next to the 2024 ranger...yeah, no one's going to want the even weaker 2014 ranger in their party.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 26, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> care to share your sources?



They were being ironic.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It's theoretically possible, it's just not actually possible with even the changes they've presented so far. That's why I think it's a marketing gimmick to ease edition-change panic. For some reason people seem to thing that changing what level you get abilities, how feats function, whether feats are optional or not, etc somehow doesn't "change the math." Which is silly. It explicitly does change the math. Add in all the explicit power creep and then stand the 2014 ranger that was an underperforming joke already next to the 2024 ranger...yeah, no one's going to want the even weaker 2014 ranger in their party.



No, it's actually possible. In fact, it's happened. I am currently playing a Way of Mercy monk, which is FAR better than any monk sub-class in 2014. Yet all of the old books still work fine. We're still playing 5e. All that changed is monks got better.

So if you are still playing through, say, Lost Mines of Phandelver but now your Ranger is better, I don't think most of us would see that as fundamentally a new experience. But you try and run 2014 PHB rules with a 4e adventure and see how that goes.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Cool. When will 6e be out?



2024 I hear, in time for the 50th Anniversary.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It's theoretically possible, it's just not actually possible with even the changes they've presented so far. That's why I think it's a marketing gimmick to ease edition-change panic. For some reason people seem to thing that changing what level you get abilities, how feats function, whether feats are optional or not, etc somehow doesn't "change the math." Which is silly. It explicitly does change the math. Add in all the explicit power creep and then stand the 2014 ranger that was an underperforming joke already next to the 2024 ranger...yeah, no one's going to want the even weaker 2014 ranger in their party.



I know I'm no longer their target demographic, so I don't think my opinion really matters. I'd just prefer 6E, one that has something new and innovative to add to the game. For example, 3E introduced skills and feats, reduced the amount of saving throws. 5E introduced advantage/disadvantage, all made the game feel new. So, unless they shake things up and add some new game features, I don't think 1D&D is for me. Hopefully I'm wrong and it comes out great.


----------



## Velderan (Nov 26, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> No, it's actually possible. In fact, it's happened. I am currently playing a Way of Mercy monk, which is FAR better than any monk sub-class in 2014. Yet all of the old books still work fine. We're still playing 5e. All that changed is monks got better.
> 
> So if you are still playing through, say, Lost Mines of Phandelver but now your Ranger is better, I don't think most of us would see that as fundamentally a new experience. But you try and run 2014 PHB rules with a 4e adventure and see how that goes.



That would require some reworking on encounters to make them the same challenge level though. In theory they're compatible, but in practice the 5e stuff published to date might feel too easy if everything gets buffed a little in 5.5e. For many encounters, maybe adding an additional monster to the group is enough but boss encounters run the risk of not having the impact they were intended imo.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 2024 I hear, in time for the 50th Anniversary.




They are releasing two D&D Editions?

OneDnD and 6e?

I even heard about a third one. 5.5. But I am not sure about that.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 26, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> No, it's actually possible. In fact, it's happened. I am currently playing a Way of Mercy monk, which is FAR better than any monk sub-class in 2014. Yet all of the old books still work fine. We're still playing 5e. All that changed is monks got better.



The inevitable power creep of subclasses as the edition progresses is not the same as fundamentally reworking which levels classes and subclasses gain features.


Clint_L said:


> So if you are still playing through, say, Lost Mines of Phandelver but now your Ranger is better, I don't think most of us would see that as fundamentally a new experience.



If you're doing it right, every time you play through Phandelver should be a new experience. Not just based on the classes and subclasses present.


Clint_L said:


> But you try and run 2014 PHB rules with a 4e adventure and see how that goes.



I have, it's dead simple to do. Once you know the math it's nowhere near as hard as people claim to use older stuff.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That's why I think it's a marketing gimmick to ease edition-change panic.



no.
it's so they can sell new players handbooks, and old campaigns and monsters manuals.
A new edition would need to rewrite everything at once.


overgeeked said:


> For some reason people seem to thing that changing what level you get abilities, how feats function, whether feats are optional or not, etc somehow doesn't "change the math." Which is silly. It explicitly does change the math.



Switching from 4d6 damage to 2d6+7 is not charging the math.

Or taking the +10 damage from sharpshooter and adding 1d6 from hunters mark.  (Feel free to check the math).


overgeeked said:


> Add in all the explicit power creep and then stand the 2014 ranger that was an underperforming joke already next to the 2024 ranger...yeah, no one's going to want the even weaker 2014 ranger in their party.



To be fair, no one ever wanted a 2014 ranger in their party.  Or a 2014 monk.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> They are releasing two D&D Editions?
> 
> OneDnD and 6e?
> 
> I even heard about a third one. 5.5. But I am not sure about that.



It's called OneD&D.

But people are debating on how much will/should change from 5e.  And if it's just a revision (5.5) or a new one (6e)


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> no.
> it's so they can sell new players handbooks, and old campaigns and monsters manuals.



So it's something they say that's not true and they're saying it to keep selling books. That's the definition of a marketing gimmick.


mellored said:


> Switching from 4d6 damage to 2d6+7 is not charging the math.
> 
> Or taking the +10 damage from sharpshooter and adding 1d6 from hunters mark.  (Feel free to check the math).



You can't tell the difference between +10 and 1d6? Then no amount of going over the math will help.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> So it's something they say that's not true and they're saying it to keep selling books. That's the definition of a marketing gimmick.



What part is not true?
They want to keep it backwards compatible with previous campaigns, so they can sell previous campaigns.


overgeeked said:


> You can't tell the difference between +10 and 1d6? Then no amount of going over the math will help.



You missed the -5 to hit.

Or are you implying the 2014 ranger was more powerful?


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 26, 2022)

I think that the "think of da' noobs" elements like the crit changes in origins got way more negative & thought out reasoned criticism than expected & that similar but reversed probably happened with the baby steps towards depth & nuance/modularity over simplicity in expert packet.  When that happened the loud voices in the room/corporate chain responsible for simplicity at all costs in 5e found their position quickly becoming untenable in ways that made room for things that were kneecapped to get more attention.

So far I've been (mostly) happy or thrilled about the packets we have had with most of my concerns over easily corrected wording & word choices so I'm not too broken up about the office move + Thanksgiving delay... Yet.  The contents of the next packet will still be judged on its merits with judgment for or against the merits as deserved.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Nov 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> They are releasing two D&D Editions?
> 
> OneDnD and 6e?
> 
> I even heard about a third one. 5.5. But I am not sure about that.




I'm pretty sure that they will be releasing "Dungeons & Dragons 50th Anniversary" in 2024, so perhaps there's four!


----------



## Amrûnril (Nov 26, 2022)

I'm skeptical of the argument that the playtest delays are a reflection of the type of feedback the developers are getting. Given the short turnaround time between closing the first survey and posting the second playtest, I'd assume that the feedback on one playtest isn't directly informing the next one, but that the developers are instead working on a staggered schedule, so the next playtest (which I expect we'll see next week) may reflect feedback from Origins (if there are topics that overlap), but we shouldn't expect to see any changes in response to the Expert Classes feedback until the fourth playtest packet.



Micah Sweet said:


> There is no possible way they're going to get 80-90% on board with anything, and trying to do so would be, IMO, a fool's errand and a waste of time.



I agree that this sort of binary approval threshold is a terrible way to evaluate feedback. If 20% of players are excited to play a new subclass, while the remaining 80% don't have strong feelings about it, that seems like a great subclass to publish. Conversely, if 80% approve of a subclass, but a minority have specific, strongly felt feedback about how it undermines existing class design (cough Hexblade), it might be a good idea to look for alternate ways to incorporate the parts that people like.

Of course, if the new materials are a replacement for core materials, rather than a supplement, the key question shouldn't be whether people approve of the new materials in the abstract, but rather whether they approve of them more or less than the old versions. Unfortunately, the developers aren't using a survey format that can give them that sort of feedback. They have approval vs. disapproval for a lot more things than they actually need to ask about (8th level feat slot for Rogue, 12th level feat slot for Ranger...), open ended written feedback, and nothing in between.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> What part is not true?





mellored said:


> They want to keep it _*backwards compatible*_ with previous campaigns, so they can sell previous campaigns.



That part. It won't be backwards compatible in any real sense. 2024 PCs will be decidedly more powerful than their 2014 counterparts. The 5E modules are already laughably easy mode with the exception of one or two nasty fights.

I guess if you think being able to run through the modules means it's backwards compatible, then the exact same can be said of most earlier editions. All the monsters have AC and hit points and damage. All you have to do is flip the descending armor class to ascending armor class and presto, backwards compatible. Just ignore that modern PCs will easily slaughter most old-school D&D monsters. But hey, backwards compatible!


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 26, 2022)

Most of these arguments are just pedantic. Tasha's came out and the sky didn't fall. Monsters of the Multiverse, which very much is a revision of earlier 5e books, didn't fundamentally change anything. I suspect the same will happen here. Every time WotC announces _anything,_ it's the end of the world according to a tiny but vocal segment. But the reality is that most of us barely notice.

I look at the stuff being proposed for OneD&D and...it's minor. It's all small potatoes. A tempest in a teapot. There's nothing there that is going to fundamentally change my tabletop. The one thing that _might_ have done so, the changes to critical hits, were almost immediately withdrawn.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 26, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> I'm skeptical of the argument that the playtest delays are a reflection of the type of feedback the developers are getting. Given the short turnaround time between closing the first survey and posting the second playtest, I'd assume that the feedback on one playtest isn't directly informing the next one, but that the developers are instead working on a staggered schedule, so the next playtest (which I expect we'll see next week) may reflect feedback from Origins (if there are topics that overlap), but we shouldn't expect to see any changes in response to the Expert Classes feedback until the fourth playtest packet.
> 
> 
> I agree that this sort of binary approval threshold is a terrible way to evaluate feedback. If 20% of players are excited to play a new subclass, while the remaining 80% don't have strong feelings about it, that seems like a great subclass to publish. Conversely, if 80% approve of a subclass, but a minority have specific, strongly felt feedback about how it undermines existing class design (cough Hexblade), it might be a good idea to look for alternate ways to incorporate the parts that people like.
> ...



There might be some difference between the initial knee-jerk hot takes given ten minutes after its up but I'd be surprised if the survey comments change dramatically over the run.  There are likely a lot of common points raised throughout that can get consideration into swing well before the survey closes


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> 2024 PCs will be decidedly more powerful than their 2014 counterparts.



Do you have math to back that up?
Or is it just what you are afraid of?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That part. It won't be backwards compatible in any real sense. 2024 PCs will be decidedly more powerful than their 2014 counterparts. The 5E modules are already laughably easy mode with the exception of one or two nasty fights.
> 
> I guess if you think being able to run through the modules means it's backwards compatible, then the exact same can be said of most earlier editions. All the monsters have AC and hit points and damage. All you have to do is flip the descending armor class to ascending armor class and presto, backwards compatible. Just ignore that modern PCs will easily slaughter most old-school D&D monsters. But hey, backwards compatible!




This is an incredible interesting statement. First, 5e is easy mode is just a made up story. No, there are no save or dies... which were prevalent in earlier editions. Which was not hard mode, but either gambling or needed gaming the system...
Second, I just don't know how you cam onow that characters are way more powerful. All I see is one more feat. That's it. There are already videos on how they nerfed the rogue... murdered they said.

No, most probably characters will be more powerful for normal people and less powerful for optimizers... They will probably cut out the most annoying rules holes and help less liked classes and subclasses.
Look at grappling and the rogue. Both are nerfed for optimizers and buffed for non optimizers. I hope that will be a trend.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> Do you have math to back that up?
> Or is it just what you are afraid of?



The books haven't been released. But a few playtest packets have. So I can go off those. 

Let's see. Where's the power creep in the playtest? Oh, right. Everywhere. Feats will no longer be optional and everyone gets them at 1st level. All feats will be upgraded to 1/2 feats, so even already OP feats will be even more OP. Class features will be normalized and moved to slightly lower levels and new features will be added, most obviously capstones moved to a lower level and epic boons added as the new captstones. Exhaustion will go from a 6-point scale with real drastic drawbacks, to a sliding 10-point scale with only -1 to d20 tests. 

Those are the ones I remember off-the-top-of-my head. I checked out after the Expert packet dropped and didn't bother giving feedback. I'm sure there's more I just don't remember them. And I'm sure there will be more.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Where's the power creep in the playtest? Oh, right. Everywhere.



that is not math


overgeeked said:


> Feats will no longer be optional and everyone gets them at 1st level.



A 2014 ranger could have crossbow expert and sharpshooter by level 4.

In the playtest, you need to be ranger 8.

How is that a buff?


overgeeked said:


> All feats will be upgraded to 1/2 feats, so even already OP feats will be even more OP.



*None* of the level 1 feats are half feats.

You miss the part where they _*removed*_ the +10 damage from sharpshooter.
And tavern brawler *lost* the ability to use all improvised weapons.
Lucky now only gives advantage, so *no longer stacks* with it.
Dual wielder *lost* it's +1 AC.

Was there some particular feat you are worried about.


overgeeked said:


> Class features will be normalized and moved to slightly lower levels and new features will be added,



and other features will be *removed*.


overgeeked said:


> most obviously capstones moved to a lower level and epic boons added as the new captstones.



The only thing that really does is let people play past 20.


overgeeked said:


> Exhaustion will go from a 6-point scale with real drastic drawbacks, to a sliding 10-point scale with only -1 to d20 tests.



So the berserkers goes from terrible to bad.  Still don't see how that makes the game a easy.


overgeeked said:


> Those are the ones I remember off-the-top-of-my head. I checked out after the Expert packet dropped and didn't bother giving feedback. I'm sure there's more I just don't remember them. And I'm sure there will be more.



There's a lot more you missed, yes.

It's like you only saw the buffs, and completely ignored the nerfs.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> that is not math
> 
> A 2014 ranger could have crossbow expert and sharpshooter by level 4.
> 
> ...




And then, this is not finalized content in any way... or is it?


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> And then, this is not finalized content in any way... or is it?



Nope.  This is a playtest.
Released is in 2024.

But so far, they have reduced the most powerful stuff, and buffed the less powerful stuff.  As well as simplified a few confusing things.

So it should just be more balanced and refined.  But still the same base level math.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> Nope.  This is a playtest.
> Released is in 2024.
> 
> But so far, they have reduced the most powerful stuff, and buffed the less powerful stuff.  As well as simplified a few confusing things.
> ...



The math isn't the only thing that matters.  If you change the basic components of characters and rewrite the core books (including what I assume is a massive-rewrite of the Monster Manual), it's hard for anyone looking at it, especially newer players, to not see that as a new edition.


----------



## Corinnguard (Nov 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I wonder if they're not getting the feedback they hoped for.  At least on this site, even most of the folks who generally liked what we've seen so far for 6e have sent in negative feedback.



Maybe the Feedback failed it's Constitution saving throw and suffered some necrotic damage?


----------



## Corinnguard (Nov 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> They are releasing two D&D Editions?
> 
> OneDnD and 6e?
> 
> I even heard about a third one. 5.5. But I am not sure about that.



The third one is Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition.   What else could it be?


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> The math isn't the only thing that matters.  If you change the basic components of characters and rewrite the core books (including what I assume is a massive-rewrite of the Monster Manual), it's hard for anyone looking at it, especially newer players, to not see that as a new edition.



There is a fair amount of shuffling, like putting the + stat from the race into the background, but so far all the basics components are still there.
Rogues still have sneak attack, cunning action, and uncanny dodge.
Bards still have spells and inspiration.
Rangers still have multi-attack and half the spells.

You could play a 2014 rogue and a playtest rogue side by side in the same campaign and a new player would be able to tell what the difference is.

So I see no need for a new monster manual.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> There is a fair amount of shuffling, but so far all the basics components are still there.
> Rogues still have sneak attack, cunning action, and uncanny dodge.
> Bards still have spells and inspiration.
> Rangers still have multi-attack and half the spells.
> ...



The issue with the MM is all the humanoids. They're going to want to re-write a lot of entries.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> The issue with the MM is all the humanoids. They're going to want to re-write a lot of entries.



Why?
It doesn't matter if monsters get +2 dex +1 con from their race or +2 dex +1 con from their background.  The total is the same.

So their damage, defenses, and hit points they have will all be the same.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> Why?
> It doesn't matter if monsters get +2 dex +1 con from their race or +2 dex +1 con from their background.  The total is the same.
> 
> So their damage, defenses, and hit points they have will all be the same.



I'm talking about how they're portrayed in the lore write-ups, not the mechanics.  We can't have humanoids portrayed as evil anymore, remember?  Beyond that, culture is being drastically cut except in setting books, so what are they going to write about?  Ohysical characteristics only?  We may end up with a lore dearth similar to 4e's original MM.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> Do you have math to back that up?
> Or is it just what you are afraid of?



I agree that 6e PCs will probably be stronger based on an assumption & a flaw in 5e. It's going to be a few days before I'm back home from holiday stuff so this is pulling from memory & some speculation.

5e PCs aren't so much strong as utterly insulated from risking ways that make them godlike.
The vaguely unspecified  1-10 exhaustion is too similar to death at negative ten for there not to be a replacement to death saves or sidebar option at the very least. 

Take the bard reaction heal with bardic inspiration & barkskin (THP) HoT.. Without the death  save shift stripping away one of the most obnoxious layers of risk insulation these kinds of shifts would just make the already excessive durability into something comically fitting loony tunes better than d&d.

Assuming that holds true PCs need the ability to make strategic decisions with more depth than "nova now?.. Yes or no?" & "save scum rest now yes/no.". With that strategic depth players are suddenly able to work together leveraging reciprocity for force multiplication or to fail as a team when main characters engaging in whatever the heck "protagonist play" near each other in a team game.


There are still a few missing pieces in the gm's toolkit and a lot of blank slates but the potential is there.


----------



## Corinnguard (Nov 26, 2022)

Unless they take a page from Pathfinder 1st edition, and relegate the cultural lore to accessory books such as the _Elves of Golarion, Blood of Angels _or _Inner Sea Races. _The first two are unlikely given the number of races in 5e. But a remake of _Races of Faerun_ for One D&D is still a possibility.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm talking about how they're portrayed in the lore write-ups, not the mechanics.  We can't have humanoids portrayed as evil anymore, remember?  Beyond that, culture is being drastically cut except in setting books, so what are they going to write about?  Ohysical characteristics only?  We may end up with a lore dearth similar to 4e's original MM.



Can't say I pay much attention to the lore.  But culture (background) and race are kind of 2 different things now.   That allows for more combinations, which is a good thing IMO.  I can more easily make goblins wizards and tiefling barbarians.

Still don't see why the monster manual needs to change.  The stereotypical sneaky evil goblin works just fine.

But I was more commenting on power creep.  Which I just don't see.  It looks more balanced, not less.


----------



## Blue (Nov 26, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> They are releasing two D&D Editions?
> 
> OneDnD and 6e?
> 
> I even heard about a third one. 5.5. But I am not sure about that.



They're releasing zero D&D editions, since it's all "Just D&D" according to their video.  It's just the 50th Anniversay books being published in 2024 that is still the same game.  As they say.  Again and again.  There is no new edition.  Really.  They promise.  Buy books in 2023, it's all one happy edition.

OneD&D is a playtest name, just like D&D Next.  It's not an edition.


----------



## JEB (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> Still don't see why the monster manual needs to change. The stereotypical sneaky evil goblin works just fine.



Enough people disagreed that we got Monsters of the Multiverse, so it's practically a certainty that the Monster Manual will get the same kind of treatment in 1D&D.


----------



## Blue (Nov 26, 2022)

JEB said:


> Enough people disagreed that we got Monsters of the Multiverse, so it's practically a certainty that the Monster Manual will get the same kind of treatment in 1D&D.



Heh, before 5e came out we got 13th Age, a d20 from lead designers of D&D 3.0 and 4e.  It's in playtest for a new edition currently.  One of the things that they are saying is that individual monster math and design will stay the same, so the their monster books will completely rremain untouched.

On the other hand, the encounter building rules got an overhaul and are being playtested.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> The vaguely unspecified  1-10 exhaustion is too similar to death at negative ten for there not to be a replacement to death saves or sidebar option at the very least.



I have never seen exhaustion show up in any of my games.  But this new version seems much more usable.


tetrasodium said:


> Take the bard reaction heal with bardic inspiration



It is harder to waste (or forget), but you get less uses.


tetrasodium said:


> & barkskin (THP) HoT..



The old Barkskin was nearly useless.  So replacing it didn't change anything.

The new one is effectively Heroism, which any cleric could of cast since 2014.  No one thought it was overpowered before.


tetrasodium said:


> Without the death save shift stripping away one of the most obnoxious layers of risk insulation these kinds of shifts would just make the already excessive durability into something comically fitting loony tunes better than d&d.



Not sure how that is a new problem.  Healing word and Aura of vitality yo-yo has existed.

Though my personal house rule for this play test was going unconscious gave you a level of (new) exhaustion.

Worked really nicely IMO.  It provided a slow ramp to more and more dangerous territory and some tense decisions.  Do you push on to the final fight with -2, let the rogue the front line for a bit, or is discretion the better part of valor.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> I have never seen exhaustion show up in any of my games.  But this new version seems much more usable.
> 
> It is harder to waste (or forget), but you get less uses.
> 
> ...



_ More_ powerful <---->_over_ powered is a spectrum not the same thing.  When excessive & unreasonable levels of risk insulation that might be called a moral hazard  elsewhere gets stripped away it becomes justified in replacing the insulation with power. Without stripping the risk insulation some changes become.... _Bewildering_


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Nov 26, 2022)

It is a terrible idea to put out any sort of survey (where you actually care about the results) around the holidays.  Even more so if you want groups to make the assessments.   Too many distractions and too much travel.   Most likely, we will get the next one as a "12th day of Christmas" present in January.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Nov 26, 2022)

Blue said:


> They're releasing zero D&D editions, since it's all "Just D&D" according to their video.



Because they say it doesn't make it true. They are incentivized to minimize the difference, because, as has been said, they are rightly concerned about splitting the fanbase.

The changes we have seen proposed in the playtest documents so far are greater than the changes from 3.0 and 3.5. And their claims of "backwards compatibility" have not been specific enough to say anything with confidence. We have, however, seen a fundamental re-imagining of how races work, and how feats and ASIs are to be implemented. What, then does this mean?

Here is what I think will be the case:
* adventures from 5e can still be run with 1D&D characters. (= "backwards compatibility")

* 5e characters will be able to be played in new 1D&D adventures (new stat blocks for monsters will still be able to be fought with old characters). Players technically will not need to buy new PHBs (= "backwards compatibility")

* It will be possible for players to have 5e characters alongside 1D&D characters in a party, and for most players, it will run smoothly. They will not be at the same power level, and 5e players will sometimes wish they had the extra toys that 1D&D will have, but they can coexist (= "backwards compatibility").

* Rule expansions for 5e (esp. Tasha, Xanathar, MotM) will not be 100% compatible with the new PHB. Once they release 1D&D, there will be a market for ever more rules expansions, to fill the gaps for players (esp. for race and subclass options). It will not be possible to mix-and-match player options from 5e and 1D&D, without at-the-table adjustments and house rules.

For each of the first three of these, I think it is possible with a straight face to say that 1D&D is "the same game", and they are backwards compatible. It is the fourth point, however, where I feel they cannot succeed in making it backwards compatible, nor do they want to. They have a fiscal obligation to shareholders to continue to release new books, and the changes we have seen in the playtest appear to be premissed on changes that will leave a window for new subclass, feat, and race options for players. They also have a fiscal obligation to maintain this imprecision, so they can sell books in 2023.

It is also the fourth point that many players, particularly on these boards (based on what people discuss) care most about. If we hold out for backwards compatibility for all player options (something they have not said, again and again), we will be disappointed.

Do I know this? No -- no one does. But I have seen nothing that makes me think otherwise, and the result will still let them say they've fulfilled their promise. I will be happy if I am eventually shown to be mistaken.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 26, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> care to share your sources?



I'm pretty sure @UngeheuerLich was being sarcastic.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> The math isn't the only thing that matters.  If you change the basic components of characters and rewrite the core books (including what I assume is a massive-rewrite of the Monster Manual), it's hard for anyone looking at it, especially newer players, to not see that as a new edition.



If MotM is a precedent (which it is supposed to be) then there will not be a massive rewrite of the Monster Manual. In fact, it could use a much bigger rewrite than it is likely to get, and that would still be 100% compatible.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm talking about how they're portrayed in the lore write-ups, not the mechanics.  We can't have humanoids portrayed as evil anymore, remember?  Beyond that, culture is being drastically cut except in setting books, so what are they going to write about?  Ohysical characteristics only?  We may end up with a lore dearth similar to 4e's original MM.



Actually 4e had a good amount of lore.  It often compared will to older editions. It just tended to be spread out more.


----------



## mellored (Nov 26, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> _ More_ powerful <---->_over_ powered is a spectrum not the same thing.



Yes, there is a spectrum.  But it goes from _under_ powered <---->_over_ powered.
And all the changes so far have pushed things towards the middle.


tetrasodium said:


> When excessive & unreasonable levels of risk insulation that might be called a moral hazard elsewhere gets stripped away it becomes justified in replacing the insulation with power. Without stripping the risk insulation some changes become.... _Bewildering_



I'm not entirely sure what your trying to say here.

But the death save rules hasn't changed.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 26, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Actually 4e had a good amount of lore.  It often compared will to older editions. It just tended to be spread out more.



In general over the course of the edition,, yes..  but the 4e MM sure didn't.


----------



## Corinnguard (Nov 26, 2022)

mellored said:


> Can't say I pay much attention to the lore.  But culture (background) and race are kind of 2 different things now.   That allows for more combinations, which is a good thing IMO.  I can more easily make goblins wizards and tiefling barbarians.
> 
> Still don't see why the monster manual needs to change.  The stereotypical sneaky evil goblin works just fine.
> 
> But I was more commenting on power creep.  Which I just don't see.  It looks more balanced, not less.



Culture and background aren't the same thing. Culture is the society you grew up in (ex. Mountain Dwarf, Hill Dwarf, Deep Dwarf, etc.). Background is the job you worked in prior to becoming an adventurer. Now some cultures and backgrounds can compliment one another. You could have grown up as part of a caravan culture, traveling from city to city while never really settling down and learned the ways of the merchant background. You could also be a member of a culture and choose a background that don't really compliment one another. 

It all depends on which race/background/class combo you pick.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 27, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Culture and background aren't the same thing. Culture is the society you grew up in (ex. Mountain Dwarf, Hill Dwarf, Deep Dwarf, etc.). Background is the job you worked in prior to becoming an adventurer. Now some cultures and backgrounds can compliment one another. You could have grown up as part of a caravan culture, traveling from city to city while never really settling down and learned the ways of the merchant background. You could also be a member of a culture and choose a background that don't really compliment one another.
> 
> It all depends on which race/background/class combo you pick.



Welcome to Level Up.


----------



## Corinnguard (Nov 27, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Welcome to Level Up.



Exactly. Combos in Level Up involve heritage (who your parents are), culture (the society you grew up in), background (the job you had before you became an adventurer), destiny (your goal as an adventurer), class and subclass. 


Micah Sweet said:


> In general over the course of the edition,, yes..  but the 4e MM sure didn't.



The 4e MM was a little too crunchy. Monster entries need to be a cross of crunch and fluff for the DM to set up a challenging encounter for the players. The 5e MM and Level Up's Monstrous Menagerie do this.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 27, 2022)

mellored said:


> Yes, there is a spectrum.  But it goes from _under_ powered <---->_over_ powered.
> And all the changes so far have pushed things towards the middle.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what your trying to say here.
> ...



If you think that 5e characters are _under_ powered, I don't know how to bridge a disagreement that many light-years across.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Crawford said something like this number is their threshold for regular UA feedback. I don’t remember the source. I’d imagine they want similar for this. Not that they’re going to get it.



The UA used to be 70% and they gave up on even that number.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> So if you are still playing through, say, Lost Mines of Phandelver but now your Ranger is better, I don't think most of us would see that as fundamentally a new experience. But you try and run 2014 PHB rules with a 4e adventure and see how that goes.



If the old adventures were made for weaker classes and you are playing stronger classes, then the adventures need to be tweaked or they will be too easy.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

mellored said:


> Switching from 4d6 damage to 2d6+7 is not charging the math.



Of course it is.  4 1's = 4, which is impossible to roll with 2d6+7.  4-24 =/= 9-19.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 27, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> The books haven't been released. But a few playtest packets have. So I can go off those.
> 
> Let's see. Where's the power creep in the playtest? Oh, right. Everywhere.



Everywhere _that isn't already overpowered._ The overpowered stuff took nerfs. To take

Great Weapon Master gained +1 to your Str and replaced the -5 to hit/+10 to damage with +Prof damage 1/round
For average characters this is obviously a significant buff
For power-characters with an accuracy boost this is a significant nerf as you no longer offset the damage buff with the Barbarian's Reckless Attack or the Battlemaster's Precision Attack, power attacking all the time and reliably hitting

Polearm Master gained +1 Str but became a 4th level feat and lost the ability to be used with spears or staffs. And the reaction attack stopped being an opportunity attack
For average polearm users this is obviously a significant buff
For power-using Vumans Polearm Master is at its most OP at level 1, so it's a non-trivial nerf in low level campaigns
For power using spear, shield, and duellist stance it's a significant nerf. Due to how bad Great Weapon Fighter is with 1d weapons Spear + Duelist does more damage after the butt-strike than Great Weapon with a glaive
For power using multi-featers this is a significant nerf as Polearm Master + Sentinel no longer lets you stop foes from moving ten feet away from you, leaving them flailing at thin air

I could go on. But in general the OP stuff is being hit with a nerf bat while the things no one took are being buffed.


----------



## Blue (Nov 27, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> Because they say it doesn't make it true. They are incentivized to minimize the difference, because, as has been said, they are rightly concerned about splitting the fanbase.



I was saying the same thing.  You grabbed only part of the paragraph and that fractional quote makes it sound like I beleived them, as opposed to the whole thing that was dripping with sarcasm.

"They're releasing zero D&D editions, since it's all "Just D&D" according to their video.  It's just the 50th Anniversay books being published in 2024 that is still the same game.  As they say.  Again and again.  There is no new edition.  Really.  They promise.  Buy books in 2023, it's all one happy edition."

Oh, and I also remember when they said on video both "compatible" and "fully compatible", not just "backwards compatible".  It's like marketing is putting out one word (which will preserve the book sales prior to 2024 and not inflame the fanbase) but the dev team playtests are doing a half edition (for some value of half) shift.


----------



## MockingBird (Nov 27, 2022)

All I care about is will I be able to run all the published 5e adventures I have with no problems. If it doesn't look like I can by 2024 then I'm staying with 5e. So far it looks like a non issue. Time will tell though.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 27, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Exactly. Combos in Level Up involve heritage (who your parents are), culture (the society you grew up in), background (the job you had before you became an adventurer), destiny (your goal as an adventurer), class and subclass.
> 
> The 4e MM was a little too crunchy. Monster entries need to be a cross of crunch and fluff for the DM to set up a challenging encounter for the players. The 5e MM and Level Up's Monstrous Menagerie do this.



That all depends on what you personally find inspiring. I've opened the 5e MM at random and turned up the page on Gargoyles (p140) and found the matching 4e MM page. 

What do I get from 5e? Five paragraphs an indent and a statblock:

The paragraphs:
A basic description
One saying that they are animate stone
One saying they have a deadly reputation
One saying they are cruel servants (on re-reading there are two just only a little is marked in bold)
One line and a half _that belongs in the statblock_ saying they don't need to eat drink, breathe, or sleep

A section on their link to Ogremoch
A statblock where there are only a couple of differences between it and an oversized bear
It can fly
You do half damage if you hit it with normal weapons and shouldn't try to petrify or poison it (but for some reason the stone doesn't e.g. resist fire any better than flesh)
It disguises itself as stone

Honestly it reads to me as if the authors were paid by the word. In particular you do not need two paragraphs to say that gargoyles are cruel servants when you also say that gargoyles delight in creating terror and causing pain.

Meanwhile I look at the 4e one and I see about as much and at least for me it's far more inspiring. Three general sections, not one but two statblocks, and two tactics sections.

An introductory paragraph
A section of Gargoyle Lore with an appropriate difficulty check
A section on encounter groups, giving you a suggestion as to who they are likely to work with that you can just drop into play
Two different statblocks - one for your standard gargoyle and one for a higher level one
A distinctive special ability with two signature abilities
The ability to turn to stone as a standard action giving it DR 25/All, regeneration, and tremorsense (and that it leaves as a minor action)
A flyby attack which recharges after it turns to stone
(Oh, and it can fly and is immune to petrification)

With that statblock the tactics section is _almost_ redundant. It is on its own a memorable encounter with the gargoyles turning into stone and even if you know which they are they are still almost indestructible while stone.  And the suggested encounters also help.

The next page I flicked through to in the 5e MM was Goblins - and even comparing the two is absolutely unfair as 5e is not in the same league as 4e  here.  I'll give 5e its due and say that when you compare it to any edition _except_ 4e it looks good, with the basic Goblin having Nimble Escape while the Goblin Boss can also pull people into its way.

But in terms of inspiration 4e leaves 5e in the dust for me. We've the encounter groups of which there are half a dozen (and they would be _so_ much better if instead of just saying "Encounter Group" they gave each one a name). But instead of two stat blocks - "Normal goblin" and "Boss Goblin" there are Goblin Cutter Minions, the Goblin Blackblade with a 1d6 Sneak Attack, the standard Goblin Warrior that likes to run around, the Goblin Sharpshooter (again with Sneak Attack), the Goblin Hexer (Goblins have their own type of mages with really cruel magics - and it's this that the 5e Underboss gets its signature ability from), the Goblin Skullcleaver who rages, and the Goblin Underboss who has a quasi-warlord ability and who has strong survival instincts.

Sure 5e spends an entire paragraph to say that goblins have Challenging Lairs while 4e spends about half a sentence saying "[goblin lairs are]... often easily defensible and often riddled with simple traps designed to snare or kill intruders".

But are you really telling me, hand on heart, that you can not see why I find the monster manual that gives goblins their own type of spellcasters (which is really useful and evocative fluff), gives most goblins extra damage for having combat advantage (again fluff made manifest), and gives me encounter groups I can use straight out of the book containing multiple types of monster (some using just goblins, some using goblins and other animals, and some where the goblins are getting bossed around by hobgoblins or bugbears - more fluff made manifest) is much better for setting up challenging encounters and inspiring than the one that just has blank prose, no tactical advice, and only "goblin" and "goblin boss" even if the 5e one spends literally eight lines saying "the strongest goblins are bosses but often ousted and some are replaced by hobgoblins and bugbears"?

I find that the 4e monster manual has more fluff than any other edition because it follows the rule "Show, don't tell". When you write the fluff as text boxes you are telling. When you write it into the encounter groups, and into the character's abilities you are showing. But telling is more basic and easier to understand.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 27, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Most of these arguments are just pedantic. Tasha's came out and the sky didn't fall. Monsters of the Multiverse, which very much is a revision of earlier 5e books, didn't fundamentally change anything. I suspect the same will happen here. Every time WotC announces _anything,_ it's the end of the world according to a tiny but vocal segment. But the reality is that most of us barely notice.
> 
> I look at the stuff being proposed for OneD&D and...it's minor. It's all small potatoes. A tempest in a teapot. There's nothing there that is going to fundamentally change my tabletop. The one thing that _might_ have done so, the changes to critical hits, were almost immediately withdrawn.



You don't think the potential changes to prepared casters is significant?


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 27, 2022)

I should note they are apparently not incorporating feedback into their design decisions yet.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Most of these arguments are just pedantic. Tasha's came out and the sky didn't fall. Monsters of the Multiverse, which very much is a revision of earlier 5e books, didn't fundamentally change anything.



Those books once 5.5 comes out will have fundamentally changed my PHB and MM.  The core books are literally THE fundamentals of the game.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

mellored said:


> But so far, they have reduced the most powerful stuff, and buffed the less powerful stuff.



There's a lot more of the less powerful stuff than there is of the most powerful stuff, so that would create a net power gain for the game.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Those books once 5.5 comes out will have fundamentally changed my PHB and MM.  The core books are literally THE fundamentals of the game.



There is no 5.5, and you don't know what will be in the updated PHB and MM. What we've seen in the materials released thus far is minor tweaks. I guess if you are of the opinion that any change at all is a fundamental change and intolerable then sure. You do you. I only care about whether it all still works without me having to buy a bunch of new stuff at once.


----------



## mellored (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> There's a lot more of the less powerful stuff than there is of the most powerful stuff, so that would create a net power gain for the game.



There are a lot more people using the more powerful stuff than there is using less powerful stuff, so nerfs create a net power loss for the game.

For instance, if 90% of archers took sharpshooter.  90% of archers are now weak.

You could double the damage of a blow gun, but 2x times 0 people using it is still 0.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

mellored said:


> There are a lot more people using the more powerful stuff than there is using less powerful stuff, so nerfs create a net power loss for the game.



There are only a couple of powerful feats and it's not common for more than one to fit any given PC.  In my experience players pick more feats than just one.  Plus, those were CHOSEN feats.  Now every single PC gets a free one, including all the PCs that didn't get any feats at all PLUS the ones who picked powerful feats.  That's a huge net increase in power over some PCs with a powerful feat.


mellored said:


> For instance, if 90% of archers took sharpshooter.  90% of archers are now weak.



And with 5.5e 100% of them get a free feat PLUS feats that they choose.  They are now stronger over all.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> There is no 5.5, and you don't know what will be in the updated PHB and MM.



There is a 5.5.  This "one D&D" name gimic doesn't stop it from being 5.5.


Clint_L said:


> What we've seen in the materials released thus far is minor tweaks.



I don't know what packets you looked at, but mine included a free feat for every PC and majorly overhauled PC classes.  None of those are "minor tweaks."  LOL


Clint_L said:


> I guess if you are of the opinion that any change at all is a fundamental change and intolerable then sure.



Don't put words in my mouth.  I never said anything about tolerability.  What I did say, and it's true, is that any change to the core books is in fact a fundamental change.  It changes the fundamentals.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 27, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That part. It won't be backwards compatible in any real sense. 2024 PCs will be decidedly more powerful than their 2014 counterparts. The 5E modules are already laughably easy mode with the exception of one or two nasty fights.



This is wholly unrelated to compatibility. You will be able to use player options from Xanathar’s and the setting books and Tasha’s, and from the new PHB, without any conversion required. 

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. 


overgeeked said:


> I guess if you think being able to run through the modules means it's backwards compatible, then the exact same can be said of most earlier editions. All the monsters have AC and hit points and damage. All you have to do is flip the descending armor class to ascending armor class and presto, backwards compatible. Just ignore that modern PCs will easily slaughter most old-school D&D monsters. But hey, backwards compatible!



You have to change the math to run it, it’s not compatible, you just can convert it. Those aren’t the same thing. 

The current UA content for OneDnD is compatible.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 27, 2022)

mellored said:


> If the math doesn't change, then it's backwards compatible with the campaigns, and characters from 5e and 5.5 could play along side each other.q






Kobold Stew said:


> Rule expansions for 5e (esp. Tasha, Xanathar, MotM) will not be 100% compatible with the new PHB.



“Fully compatible with existing supplements and adventures”. So far, I see nothing that isn’t compatible. The only thing that even needs any thought to combine is UA Bard with existing subclasses, and it’s blindingly easy and will require exactly one sentence in the new phb to give a rule for this situation.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Nov 27, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> “Fully compatible with existing supplements and adventures”. So far, I see nothing that isn’t compatible. The only thing that even needs any thought to combine is UA Bard with existing subclasses, and it’s blindingly easy and will require exactly one sentence in the new phb to give a rule for this situation.



 I will be happy if I am eventually shown to be mistaken.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 27, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> That all depends on what you personally find inspiring. I've opened the 5e MM at random and turned up the page on Gargoyles (p140) and found the matching 4e MM page.
> 
> What do I get from 5e? Five paragraphs an indent and a statblock:
> 
> ...



I personally prefer Level Up's Monstrous Menagerie to either.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> In general over the course of the edition,, yes..  but the 4e MM sure didn't.



It depends on what you are comparing it to and what monsters you are comparing. I still contend the MM had more lore than most give it credit for:

each creature had a intro paragraph, some got several paragraphs, of lore
each monster had a "Lore" section.
each monster had a "Tactics: section which often had lore in it
each monster had an "Encounter Groups" section which included some more lore.
Many monster entries had several types of the same monster and each of those types might have an additional paragraphs of lore (as in giants) or simple more tactics lore (as in orcs).
When you add all that up it was often very similar to previous editions (2e excluded). Now I will say it tended to be more generic, but there was a good deal there often.  Some examples (PS I realize differences in stat blocks don't make this a 1-1 comparison):


3e4eAboleth3/4 page2 pagesDoppelganger 1/2 page1 pageDragons9 (just chromatic + generic)12 pages (just chromatic + generic)Giants4 pages6 pagesOrcs1 page3 pagesTroll3/4 page2 pagesUnicorn3/4 page1 pageYuan-tialmost 2 pages5 pages


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> What I did say, and it's true, is that* any change* to the core books is in fact a fundamental change.  It changes the fundamentals.



Well that can't be true. One could make numerous changes to the core books and they would not necessarily be fundamental. For example:

What if I took chapter 4: Personality and Background, and moved it up to become Chapter 2? Is that a fundamental change? 
What if I gave the PHB a better index (many people complain about it), is that a fundamental change? That is not to mention errata, clarifying language, etc.

So I assume you didn't actually mean "any change," would that be correct? If that is correct, then we would first need to determine what is a fundamental change. That (what is fundamental) of course is were opinions will vary.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I will be happy if I am eventually shown to be mistaken.



Whether you are correct or incorrect may depend largely on what your definition of 100% compatible is. The '24 MM is likely to be different from the '14 MM but I fully expect to be able to use the monsters in that book with any version of 5e I'm playing. The same is true for MotM. Just as I can use monsters from that book with '14 D&D, I expect I can use them with '24 D&D.

 Also, WotC, to my knowledge, never promised 100%.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I never said anything about tolerability.  What I did say, and it's true, is that any change to the core books is in fact a fundamental change.  It changes the fundamentals.




So we are actually not speaking about 6e, but 50e?

4e alone had uncountable numbers of changes to the core books.
3e had a lot of changes to stealth and polymorph rules.
5e had updates to divine smite, darkness and quite a few more.

So if you want to go by that arbitrary definition, have fun.


----------



## mellored (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> There are only a couple of powerful feats and it's not common for more than one to fit any given PC.



So everyone gets 1, maybe 2 nerfs.


Maxperson said:


> And with 5.5e 100% of them get a free feat PLUS feats that they choose.  They are now stronger over all.



And everyone gets 1 buff.

-1 nerf +1 buff = balanced.

Sticking with the archers example...
They lose +10 damage (sharpshooter), gain +1AC (defensive style, bonus feat) and +1 to a stat (new sharpshooter).

Unless you got more detailed math (not fear) to show otherwise.  I just don't see any power increases.


----------



## mellored (Nov 27, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Whether you are correct or incorrect may depend largely on what your definition of 100% compatible is. The '24 MM is likely to be different from the '14 MM but I fully expect to be able to use the monsters in that book with any version of 5e I'm playing. The same is true for MotM. Just as I can use monsters from that book with '14 D&D, I expect I can use them with '24 D&D.
> 
> Also, WotC, to my knowledge, never promised 100%.



Thus far, the only thing I see as *not* compatible is trying to combine the 2 different character creations, mostly the sub-classes not lining up.

But even then, it doesn't take too much house ruling to make it work.


----------



## OB1 (Nov 27, 2022)

This is total speculation on my part, but I would guess that the data WotC got back prior to the original close of the survey contained results were far enough off from what they were hoping that it gave them pause (and likely very different that the feedback they got on packet 1).  

They extended the deadline both to take a deeper look at the initial results and to see if they could get more results in.  The other extensions may be a way to buy time to rework the next class group based on those results, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next packet is a revision of the Expert group instead.    

Packet 2 is a massive amount of change to the way the game is played by PCs, whereas packet 1 really only changed the edges of how you create a 1st level character.  While I agree that the P2 changes are still fully compatible with 5e in terms of the math, the style and feel of it is way different.  But to me at least, it didn't feel like those changes would result in a better or worse play experience, just a different one. 

With the core 3 books all hitting the top 15 in ALL BOOKs sold on Amazon this week 8 years after their release, there's got to be real debate at WotC over making any changes that could cause that number to drop long term.  Do we make a small set of changes with the goal of continuing the slow steady growth of D&D over the next decade, or go for a large set of changes which would create a massive 1 or 2 quarter spike in sales but with an unknown growth period after.  

If they want both, IMO, then they are going to need the class playtests to be hitting a 70-80% approval rating, and I just can't imagine that packet #2 got much higher than 50-60% overall.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Well that can't be true. One could make numerous changes to the core books and they would not necessarily be fundamental. For example:
> 
> What if I took chapter 4: Personality and Background, and moved it up to become Chapter 2? Is that a fundamental change?
> What if I gave the PHB a better index (many people complain about it), is that a fundamental change? That is not to mention errata, clarifying language, etc.



Clearly in the context that I'm using it, I'm discussing changes to the actual rules.  I've cited the racial and monster changes in MoM, the character creation changes in Tasha's, the class changes in the playtest doc and 1st level feats from the playtest doc. 

A reordering or index change doesn't change any of the fundamental rules in the core books.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

mellored said:


> So everyone gets 1, maybe 2 nerfs.



No.  Not everyone was an archer or great weapon user.


mellored said:


> And everyone gets 1 buff.



At *least* two. More if they take more than one feat with their ASIs.  And more if their class has been made better.  And more if their race has been made better.


mellored said:


> Sticking with the archers example...
> They lose +10 damage (sharpshooter), gain +1AC (defensive style, bonus feat) and +1 to a stat (new sharpshooter).



And at least one more feat, plus likely a race and/or class increase.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> So we are actually not speaking about 6e, but 50e?



Yep.  It's going to be 5.5 unless it's completely incompatible with 5e.  6e will be incompatible.


UngeheuerLich said:


> 4e alone had uncountable numbers of changes to the core books.



4e had the absurd notion that every book was core.


UngeheuerLich said:


> 3e had a lot of changes to stealth and polymorph rules.
> 5e had updates to divine smite, darkness and quite a few more.



Are you talking about the erratas?  If so, and they changed the PHB, those were changes to the core of the game and altered the game, however small, from being what it was. Those were fundamental changes. 5.5 will be significantly greater.


UngeheuerLich said:


> So if you want to go by that arbitrary definition, have fun.



There's nothing arbitrary about a reasoned definition.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Clearly in the context that I'm using it, I'm discussing changes to the actual rules.  I've cited the racial and monster changes in MoM, the character creation changes in Tasha's, the class changes in the playtest doc and 1st level feats from the playtest doc.
> 
> A reordering or index change doesn't change any of the fundamental rules in the core books.



OK good. You are usually so precise with your language I was taken back by the previous statement. We all make mistakes!


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> OK good. You are usually so precise with your language I was taken back by the previous statement. We all make mistakes!



No worries!


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 4e had the absurd notion that every book was core.



Why is that absurd in your opinion?


Maxperson said:


> Are you talking about the erratas?  If so, and they changed the PHB, those were changes to the core of the game and altered the game, however small, from being what it was. Those were fundamental changes. 5.5 will be significantly greater.
> 
> There's nothing arbitrary about a reasoned definition.



It is hard to understand the reasoning if you don't explain what is "fundamental" in your opinion. I would hope you could understand what is fundamental to some, is not fundamental to others. So if you don't understand what is fundamental to you, your reason can seem odd. You use that word like everyone understands what you are talking about.  But I, and I imagine others, do not know what *you *mean by "fundamental."


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Why is that absurd in your opinion?



Core means center.  If every book was core, there could literally be no center and therefore no core. It was a nonsensical proposition. Something has to be at the center of the game in order for there to be core rules. In D&D these would be the PHB, MM and DMG. 


dave2008 said:


> It is hard to understand the reasoning if you don't explain what is "fundamental" in your opinion. I would hope you could understand what is fundamental to some, is not fundamental to others. So if you don't understand what is fundamental to you, your reason can seem odd. You use that word like everyone understands what you are talking about.  But I, and I imagine others, do not know what *you *mean by "fundamental."



The rules and guidelines in the core three books are the fundamental rules and guidelines for the game.  You need nothing more to play.  Anything else that is released is an optional extra and not fundamental to the game.

Technically you don't need the MM since the DMG explains how to make monsters, magic items, traps, etc., but it's still a core book since many people and probably the vast majority of people wouldn't play the game if they had to do that much work to play it.  Having a monster book makes the game playable right out of the gate.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Core means center.  If every book was core, there could literally be no center and therefore no core. It was a nonsensical proposition. Something has to be at the center of the game in order for there to be core rules. In D&D these would be the PHB, MM and DMG.
> 
> The rules and guidelines in the core three books are the fundamental rules and guidelines for the game.  You need nothing more to play.  Anything else that is released is an optional extra and not fundamental to the game.
> 
> Technically you don't need the MM since the DMG explains how to make monsters, magic items, traps, etc., but it's still a core book since many people and probably the vast majority of people wouldn't play the game if they had to do that much work to play it.  Having a monster book makes the game playable right out of the gate.



I’d argue that the core of the game is the play loop. If you do not need something to play the game, it’s extraneous. The only essential element of play is the three-part play loop. Everything else is extraneous.

1. The referee describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
3. The referee narrates the results of the characters’ actions.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Core means center.  If every book was core, there could literally be no center and therefore no core. It was a nonsensical proposition. Something has to be at the center of the game in order for there to be core rules. In D&D these would be the PHB, MM and DMG.



You are taking the term "core" too literally compared to the intent of the 4e D&D team.  The idea was that everything was "official."  There was a movement in prior editions (particularly 3e) to assume anything outside the the big 3 (what you are calling core) was more official: better balanced, more playtested, etc.  The "everything is core" idea of 4e was them trying to say that everything will be equally balanced, thought out, playtested as the big 3.  I don't think that was necessarily achieved, but I think the idea had merit. I think they could have chosen a better word for you, as you seem to take things very literally, but I think most people understood the intent.


Maxperson said:


> The rules and guidelines in the core three books are the fundamental rules and guidelines for the game.  You need nothing more to play.  Anything else that is released is an optional extra and not fundamental to the game.
> 
> Technically you don't need the MM since the DMG explains how to make monsters, magic items, traps, etc., but it's still a core book since many people and probably the vast majority of people wouldn't play the game if they had to do that much work to play it.  Having a monster book makes the game playable right out of the gate.



So you considered every rule and guideline in the PHB & DMG to be fundamental to the game?  That is an interesting take.  I mean, the variant & optional rules in the DMG alone would seem to imply otherwise. Regardless, is definitely not the subset of rules and guidelines that I see as fundamental to the game. 

Thank you for the response. I helps me understand where you are coming from.  Your responses make a lot more sense now!


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I’d argue that the core of the game is the play loop. If you do not need something to play the game, it’s extraneous. The only essential element of play is the three-part play loop. Everything else is extraneous.
> 
> 1. The referee describes the environment.
> 2. The players describe what they want their characters to do.
> 3. The referee narrates the results of the characters’ actions.



Yes, I feel like I can, and do, play 5e without a lot of what Max is considering "fundamental."


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I’d argue that the core of the game is the play loop. If you do not need something to play the game, it’s extraneous. The only essential element of play is the three-part play loop. Everything else is extraneous.



You can have the play loop without buying or even playing D&D, though.  If I sit down and freeform roleplay with a bunch of friends and have the loop, is that D&D?  I'd argue no.

D&D is the core rules in the first three books, plus extras that come later and any house rules/home brews that the group comes up with.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> You are taking the term "core" too literally compared to the intent of the 4e D&D team.  The idea was that everything was "official."  There was a movement in prior editions (particularly 3e) to assume anything outside the the big 3 (what you are calling core) was more official: better balanced, more playtested, etc.  The "everything is core" idea of 4e was them trying to say that everything will be equally balanced, thought out, playtested as the big 3.  I don't think that was necessarily achieved, but I think the idea had merit. I think they could have chosen a better word for you, as you seem to take things very literally, but I think most people understood the intent.



Fair enough. I didn't play 4e, so I'm not all that familiar with it.


dave2008 said:


> So you considered every rule and guideline in the PHB & DMG to be fundamental to the game?  That is an interesting take.  I mean, the variant & optional rules in the DMG alone would seem to imply otherwise. Regardless, is definitely not the subset of rules and guidelines that I see as fundamental to the game.



Those three books provide the foundation for the game.  You can tinker with it(house rules/optional or variant rules/home brew), but they are still the foundation that you work from.  Foundation = fundamental.


dave2008 said:


> Thank you for the response. I helps me understand where you are coming from.  Your responses make a lot more sense now!



Thanks! That's what discussion is for.


----------



## mellored (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No.  Not everyone was an archer or great weapon user.



Lots of the best feats have gotten nerfed.  Like lucky.

Also, they only did a few classes so far.  We haven't gotten to spells yet.


Maxperson said:


> And more if their class has been made better.



And less if their class has been made worse.  I wouldn't be surprised if Paladins aura taken down a notch.


Maxperson said:


> And more if their race has been made better.



And less if their race was made worse.  Like humans lost access to a lot of feats.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yep.  It's going to be 5.5 unless it's completely incompatible with 5e.  6e will be incompatible.
> 
> 4e had the absurd notion that every book was core.
> 
> ...




As lomg as you enumerate them with .x then I agree.
I think "fundamental" is too big of a word to describe minor changes... but yes, they are changing the core or fundament, as you call it.

I would not call it fundament, as I don't see every little rule of the core book as fundament, as I don't see every stone in a house as fundament. Only those below the surface that are necessary to keep the structure functional.

So I would make a difference between:

Core book changes,
structural changes,
and fundamental changes.

I would see core book changes in the form of little errata or update to a class or subclass as not warranting any change to the edition name. 
I would see a structural change as a reason to increase the .x.
I think a fundamental change will increase the number before the floating point. 

3.5 is barely below that mark, hence the jump to 3.5. There were massive changes in the structural layer. There were a few fundamental changes in the mentality, but only going from the rules, characters were quite compatible. 

4essentials was only barely a structural change. Every class of core 4e could still be used. 

OneDnD falls between those two, going from the playtests we have seen. 
A few core rule changes, but every character can easily be played with the new rules. 
If you want to grapple, just don't use athletics, use unarmed attack instead. Exhaustion? Just use this effect. 
Most character sheets donvt have to be altered, as grapple is not noted explicitely anywhere. Neither is exhaustion.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> As lomg as you enumerate them with .x then I agree.
> I think "fundamental" is too big of a word to describe minor changes... but yes, they are changing the core or fundament, as you call it.
> 
> I would not call it fundament, as I don't see every little rule of the core book as fundament, as I don't see every stone in a house as fundament. Only those below the surface that are necessary to keep the structure functional.



Okay.  I see what you're saying.  What I am saying is that the core rules are just the foundation.  To go with the house analogy, all the stones that make that up the rest of the house above the foundation are the game play.  The campaign that is built by the shared imagination of the DM and players that uses the foundation.


UngeheuerLich said:


> So I would make a difference between:
> 
> Core book changes,
> structural changes,
> ...



I'm not seeing that the game needs to be wholly incompatible(3e vs. 4e vs. 5e) to alter the foundation of the game.  Just look at the 1st level feat for PCs.  In 5e the foundation stone is that there are no feats in the game unless the DM engages that optional rule.  In 5.5e that foundation stone has been altered to make feats not only the default state, but to give all PCs a free one at 1st level.  

That's a significant change that will alter how the rest of the house above it is played.


UngeheuerLich said:


> 4essentials was only barely a structural change. Every class of core 4e could still be used.



I know very little about 4e, but I've seen people here say that there really weren't any foundational changes with essentials.  


UngeheuerLich said:


> A few core rule changes, but every character can easily be played with the new rules.
> If you want to grapple, just don't use athletics, use unarmed attack instead. Exhaustion? Just use this effect.
> *Most character sheets donvt have to be altered*, as grapple is not noted explicitely anywhere. Neither is exhaustion.



The bolded is already false.  All sheets have to be changed to reflect 1st level feats.  Most, perhaps all of them have to be further altered to reflect the new racial changes.  Then, and I'm assuming here based on what we've seen in the first two packets, most or all sheets will have to be altered yet further to reflect class and/or subclass changes.  And altered yet again to reflect the background ability score bonuses which very likely do not match the racial bonuses you originally received.  And yet more to reflect the new languages you get due to background.

And all those changes are just from the first two packets.  I expect more to come down the line.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 27, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> It depends on what you are comparing it to and what monsters you are comparing. I still contend the MM had more lore than most give it credit for:
> 
> each creature had a intro paragraph, some got several paragraphs, of lore
> each monster had a "Lore" section.
> ...



Fair enough. It's not really the kind of lore I care for, but honestly I compare all lore to the stuff we got in 2e, and very little measures up to that in my opinion.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Nov 27, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Whether you are correct or incorrect may depend largely on what your definition of 100% compatible is. The '24 MM is likely to be different from the '14 MM but I fully expect to be able to use the monsters in that book with any version of 5e I'm playing. The same is true for MotM. Just as I can use monsters from that book with '14 D&D, I expect I can use them with '24 D&D.
> 
> Also, WotC, to my knowledge, never promised 100%.



That's why I spelled out what I was expecting in my earlier post.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 27, 2022)

mellored said:


> Thus far, the only thing I see as *not* compatible is trying to combine the 2 different character creations, mostly the sub-classes not lining up.
> 
> But even then, it doesn't take too much house ruling to make it work.



Not even a houserule, if they include a simple rule in the new PHB that you pick a feat if your class says you gain a subclass feature, but the subclass you are using has already given you all your subclass features. Done. 

And that’s the biggest “issue” in the playtest ideas. 

I mean, does anyone think that the rules won’t say, “if you are using a background from a source that does not grant a level 1 feat alongside your background, you may choose to gain a level 1 feat in place of your Background feature”?

People keep acting like they just won’t address this stuff, as if the UA were a finished product.


----------



## mellored (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I know very little about 4e, but I've seen people here say that there really weren't any foundational changes with essentials.



Essentials effectively added a few simple to play classes.  Similar to the 5e champion fighter.

The base 4e game had everyone with higher complexity, closer to a 5e warlock.  Which was too much for some, especially newer players.

They played side by side just fine.  Usually with the original complex classes buffing and giving out extra attacks to the simple class, who could hit harder.

Really, the biggest change over 4e was adding "once per turn" to everything.  Otherwise you could still play a class from the first book with a class from the last one.

And many of the most powerful things in the game where from the first book.  They simply got better at balancing it over time.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

mellored said:


> Essentials effectively added a few simple to play classes.  Similar to the 5e champion fighter.



Adding new classes doesn't alter the core rules, so that's different.


mellored said:


> The base 4e game had everyone with higher complexity, closer to a 5e warlock.  Which was too much for some, especially newer players.
> 
> They played side by side just fine.  Usually with the original complex classes buffing and giving out extra attacks to the simple class, who could hit harder.



And that's a good thing and why I think the Champion in 5e should remain simple.  I've had players in 1e-5e(obviously not 4e) who refused to play spellcasters, sticking to fighters and rogues just to avoid complexity.  They were either afraid of the complexity, or just wanted to play simple because they got enough complexity in their daily life and were playing to relax and get away from that.  My 5e player who joined the group in 2007 just a few years back tried a caster for the first time and enjoyed it(he was of the type afraid of the complexity) and hasn't avoided a class since.


mellored said:


> Really, the biggest change over 4e was adding "once per turn" to everything.  Otherwise you could still play a class from the first book with a class from the last one.
> 
> And many of the most powerful things in the game where from the first book.  They simply got better at balancing it over time.



5.5e is going significantly beyond that point, though.  While we don't know the final form of things, the first two packets show their thoughts and it changes quite a lot.  Races, classes, feats, terms, rules, etc.  It's going to be a full .5 edition unless these first two packets were some sort of smoke screen, which I very much don't believe they were.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Those three books provide the foundation for the game.  You can tinker with it(house rules/optional or variant rules/home brew), but they are still the foundation that you work from.  Foundation = fundamental.



My argument would be that parts of those books are the foundation/fundamental to game, not the whole books.

IMO, if I can the run the game without it, it is not part of the foundation/base/fundamental part of the game.  And there is a lot in the PHB, DMG, and MM that I can run the game without.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> That's why I spelled out what I wasexpecting in my earlier post.



Sorry - I missed that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The bolded is already false.  All sheets have to be changed to reflect 1st level feats.




No, it is not. The characters can be played as they are. They are not completely correct, but still work. 

For a bard, it makes no difference if they use their ability as a bonus action or a reaction. Both work within the same rule system.

You could just interpret the new classes as PHB 2 classes: it is not the bard, but the troubardor and it happens to have similar abilities that work a little different and all the classes of PHB 2 happen to have an extra feat at level 1 (not unlike the fighter level 6 feat).


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, it is not. The characters can be played as they are. They are not completely correct, but still work.



I could say the same about my 3e characters.  His skills roll d20 to beat DCs.  His bonuses to hit beat AC. The spells do damage or have DCs to be beaten. The mechanics for him still function in a 5e game.  The abilities are different from base 5e sure, but then so are the 5.5 changes.  3e abilities are more extreme than the 5.5 changes, but they would still function.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I could say the same about my 3e characters.  His skills roll d20 to beat DCs.  His bonuses to hit beat AC. The spells do damage or have DCs to be beaten. The mechanics for him still function in a 5e game.  The abilities are different from base 5e sure, but then so are the 5.5 changes.  3e abilities are more extreme than the 5.5 changes, but they would still function.




A bit of a stretch, isn't it?

You don't honestly want to tell me, that you don't notice a difference between +20 bab and +6 prof bonus at level 20?


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> A bit of a stretch, isn't it?
> 
> You don't honestly want to tell me, that yoi don't notice a difference between +20 bab and +6 prof bonus at level 20?



Not to mention completely different defenses! I didn't play 3e but I assume they had Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves in the classes?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Nov 27, 2022)

The closest equivalent we have seen in D&D before to playing with a mix of 5e and 1D&D characters is 4e and Essentials. While there were a number of 4e fans that cried foul (similar to what we're seeing here) that Essentials characters were too different to play alongside base 4e characters, they really weren't. It worked fine.

There was then, and there is here, a far, far bigger difference between a poorly optimized character and a fully optimized one. Between some classes and others. Between some player's grasp of maximized turn tactics and others. Between PHB-only versions and mixed-splatbook characters. 

The fact is, not all characters are created equal, nor are all players. While a base 5e character and a 1D&D character don't line-up _exactly the same_ they line up as well as any mix of PCs do. 

And certainly far better than mixing a character from a different numbered "edition". While it's always been possible to _do that_, it has always taken a bit of work, and is almost always better to just rebuild the character using whatever rules the current game is using. This last will probably STILL be true (that it will be easiest if all PCs are using the newest rules, rather than a mix) - it doesn't currently look like it will be at all difficult to drop a "pure" 5e character into a 1D&D game, or vice-versa.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> The fact is, not all characters are created equal, nor are all players. While a base 5e character and a 1D&D character don't line-up _exactly the same_ they line up as well as any mix of PCs do.



This.  I agree that at this time there appears to be as much, or less, difference between a 1D&D playtest class and a '14 PHB class than there is between different '14 PHB classes. If the '14 PHB works at your table, the 1D&D playtest classes (that we have seen so far) do to.


----------



## aco175 (Nov 27, 2022)

I was just on the DnD site earlier and there are no articles posted since September and some areas since April.  Not sure what is going on, not even a Black Friday posting or anything.  It seems like even less reason to visit their site.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 27, 2022)

mellored said:


> no.
> it's so they can sell new players handbooks, and old campaigns and monsters manuals.
> A new edition would need to rewrite everything at once.
> 
> Switching from 4d6 damage to 2d6+7 is not charging the math.



It might maintain the same average result, but it definitely changes the math.


mellored said:


> Or taking the +10 damage from sharpshooter and adding 1d6 from hunters mark.  (Feel free to check the math).



It really does.


mellored said:


> To be fair, no one ever wanted a 2014 ranger in their party.  Or a 2014 monk.



Perhaps not in your group. I've seen a lot of love for both.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 27, 2022)

aco175 said:


> I was just on the DnD site earlier and there are no articles posted since September and some areas since April.  Not sure what is going on, not even a Black Friday posting or anything.  It seems like even less reason to visit their site.



I think they are trying to make DnD Beyond the main source for D&D news.  There are regular articles on that platform.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Nov 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, it is not. The characters can be played as they are. They are not completely correct, but still work.
> 
> For a bard, it makes no difference if they use their ability as a bonus action or a reaction. Both work within the same rule system.
> 
> You could just interpret the new classes as PHB 2 classes: it is not the bard, but the troubardor and it happens to have similar abilities that work a little different and all the classes of PHB 2 happen to have an extra feat at level 1 (not unlike the fighter level 6 feat).



While this may be true, it's going to be pretty awkward to have two different "bard" classes at the same table, or having to constantly re-interpret how your class abilities work under the latest rules. Even if you rename one class on the character sheet, the rulebook will still say "bard". _Can _you play like that? Sure! Do you _want _to? Probably not, at least I don't 

So I expect that regardless of how true the claims of backwards compatibility turn out to be, once the dust has settled most groups will use either 5e or 1D&D characters exclusively. If WotC wants to avoid splitting the community, they should focus on making 1D&D so awesome that almost everyone will want to switch, rather than pursuing a futile quest for backwards compatibility.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> A bit of a stretch, isn't it?
> 
> You don't honestly want to tell me, that you don't notice a difference between +20 bab and +6 prof bonus at level 20?



Not a stretch at all if your criteria is "it works."  Would I notice the difference?  Yep!  Just like I would notice the difference between getting a 1st level feat and not getting one, and my ranger having wildly different abilities than your ranger.

You don't honestly want to tell me that I couldn't roll 1d20+20 and compare it to the 5e monster's AC and then deal damage, do you?  Because if I can do that, it works.  That it's not balance isn't relevant, since having a 1st level feat vs. not having one, and having wildly different powers as a ranger is also not balanced. The 3e example is just a more extreme example of "it works."


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Not to mention completely different defenses! I didn't play 3e but I assume they had Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves in the classes?



Those are just con, wisdom and dex saves.  I can also roll cha, int and str saves with the 3e PC in a 5e game with no change to the character sheet.  I have those stat bonuses on the sheet and they are just the same as 5e.  An 18 strength on my 3e PC is a +4 strength save just the same as the 5e PC with an 18 strength.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> You don't honestly want to tell me that I couldn't roll 1d20+20 and compare it to the 5e monster's AC and then deal damage, do you?



Your just being silly Max. That is not you.  1d20+20 vs 1d20+6 is not the same kind difference as adding a 1st lvl feat vs not having one would be.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

the Jester said:


> Perhaps not in your group. I've seen a lot of love for both.



Yep.  I've DM'd for both a 2014 monk and a 2014 ranger.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Those are just con, wisdom and dex saves.



Or they could be Strength, Charisma, & Intelligence saves. 


Maxperson said:


> I can also roll cha, int and str saves with the 3e PC in a 5e game with no change to the character sheet.  I have those stat bonuses on the sheet and they are just the same as 5e.  An 18 strength on my 3e PC is a +4 strength save just the same as the 5e PC with an 18 strength.



Not sure what you are comparing now. If you are suggesting you could take a level 1 PC from 3e and play it with 5e rules.  Yes you could, with minimal conversion.

However, you cannot advance a 3e PC with 3e progression and expect it to play nice at 10th level with 5e PCs. You can do that with the playtest PCs and the '14 PCs.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Your just being silly Max. That is not you.  1d20+20 vs 1d20+6 is not the same kind difference as adding a 1st lvl feat vs not having one would be.



No.  It's much more extreme.  What I'm saying is that the 3e process works just fine in 5e. Nothing about the process breaks down because the edition is different. And "it works" was his criteria.  

Personally, I need more than "it works."


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> However, you cannot advance a 3e PC with 3e progression and expect it to play nice at 10th level with 5e PCs. You can do that with the playtest PCs and the '14 PCs.



Can you?  Suppose I'm not allowing feats because they are optional in 5e.  How do the new PCs that have default feats built in play nicely? How is it fair to the 2014 ranger to allow the much better expert ranger into the same game?  How is it fair to the 2014 bard to allow the expert bard with his better abilities into the same game?

The disparity is far less than it is with the 3e PC because of bounded accuracy, but it still doesn't play nicely.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No.  It's much more extreme.  What I'm saying is that the 3e process works just fine in 5e. Nothing about the process breaks down because the edition is different. And "it works" was his criteria.
> 
> Personally, I need more than "it works."



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


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Can you?  Suppose I'm not allowing feats because they are optional in 5e.  How do the new PCs that have default feats built in play nicely? How is it fair to the 2014 ranger to allow the much better expert ranger into the same game?  How is it fair to the 2014 bard to allow the expert bard with his better abilities into the same game?
> 
> The disparity is far less than it is with the 3e PC because of bounded accuracy, but it still doesn't play nicely.



It plays at least as nicely as a 5e wizard next to a 5e fighter. 

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!

FYI, I ran an adventure with group and they played 4 rogues (playtest, '14, playtest without lvl 1 feat, & '14+lvl 1 feat) plus a '14 fighter and as the DM I couldn't tell who was who.  They players didn't have any complaints either. To me, that is playing nice together.  Now, we obviously didn't hit have potential scenario which could have brought issues to light, but in general it worked great.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

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


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

SkidAce said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> 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.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Not a stretch at all if your criteria is "it works."  Would I notice the difference?  Yep!  Just like I would notice the difference between getting a 1st level feat and not getting one, and my ranger having wildly different abilities than your ranger.
> 
> You don't honestly want to tell me that I couldn't roll 1d20+20 and compare it to the 5e monster's AC and then deal damage, do you?  Because if I can do that, it works.  That it's not balance isn't relevant, since having a 1st level feat vs. not having one, and having wildly different powers as a ranger is also not balanced. The 3e example is just a more extreme example of "it works."




I think we are done here. If you can't see the difference between my example and yours, there is no point in arguing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 28, 2022)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> While this may be true, it's going to be pretty awkward to have two different "bard" classes at the same table, or having to constantly re-interpret how your class abilities work under the latest rules. Even if you rename one class on the character sheet, the rulebook will still say "bard". _Can _you play like that? Sure! Do you _want _to? Probably not, at least I don't
> 
> So I expect that regardless of how true the claims of backwards compatibility turn out to be, once the dust has settled most groups will use either 5e or 1D&D characters exclusively. If WotC wants to avoid splitting the community, they should focus on making 1D&D so awesome that almost everyone will want to switch, rather than pursuing a futile quest for backwards compatibility.




No disagreement here, except for the last sentence. I think it is a bonus that you could still play the old adventures more or less by the book if you don't have time to upgrade them.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

SkidAce said:


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



The issue is people use different definitions of compatible.

Look at LevelUp (A5e), it claims compatibility with O5e* (and I agree), yet it completely rewrote every class, changed some mechanics (like exhaustion) and added others (like expertise dice and universal maneuvers) to make an "advanced" 5e (A5e). EnPublishing considers A5e as part of O5e. You can use any O5e adventure or monster with A5e PCs and vice versa.  However, A5e is much, much more of a change than anything WotC has proposed so far in the 1D&D playtest yet many people are screaming that this it is incompatible. So, what is incompatible to some is the same damn system to others.

*O5e = original 5e

PS - There is also the question whether or not compatibility = new edition. If it is compatible, but changes things, is it a new edition or an extension of the current edition.  That is clearly a disagreement on these forums as well. 

I think everyone agrees if it is incompatible it is a new edition. So whether or not it is a new edition often comes down to ones interpretation on the level of compatibility required.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> The issue is people use different definitions of compatible.
> 
> Look at LevelUp (A5e), it claims compatibility with O5e* (and I agree), yet it completely rewrote every class, changed some mechanics (like exhaustion) and added others (like expertise dice and universal maneuvers) to make an "advanced" 5e (A5e). EnPublishing considers A5e as part of O5e. You can use any O5e adventure or monster with A5e PCs and vice versa.  However, A5e is much, much more of a change than anything WotC has proposed so far in the 1D&D playtest yet many people are screaming that this it is incompatible. So, what is incompatible to some is the same damn system to others.
> 
> ...



Exactly.

And, just closer to home: some of us have house-ruled and modified the 5e core nearly beyond recognition. I'm still playing 5e, and many of my changes are bigger than anything WotC has released so far for 1D&D. Yet, nobody would ever pretend my game is not ''compatible'' with 5e. I play the published adventures and create fight against the MM monsters just fine. Adding a free feat at level 1 has to be the most common house rule I've seen, and nobody bat an eye! We dont really use Feats at my table, but I dont ban them, so quite often only one player has some while the rest of the group does not. Still compatible, there's no one confused by that!

What a strange debate.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 28, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And, just closer to home: some of us have house-ruled and modified the 5e core nearly beyond recognition. I'm still playing 5e, and many of my changes are bigger than anything WotC has released so far for 1D&D. Yet, nobody would ever pretend my game is not ''compatible'' with 5e. I play the published adventures and create fight against the MM monsters just fine. Adding a free feat at level 1 has to be the most common house rule I've seen, and nobody bat an eye! We dont really use Feats at my table, but I dont ban them, so quite often only one player has some while the rest of the group does not. Still compatible, there's no one confused by that!
> 
> What a strange debate.




Also: we roll our characters.
So after level 4, a character who rolled well and took a feat is indistinguishable from a character who rolled bad and got a free feat.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2022)

SkidAce said:


> 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?



Depending on the usage of “edition”. 

But what we have seen represents more of anew ed of the 5e core books, than D&D in general, if that makes sense. 

A D&D edition, in the wotc era, means a new game, essentially, and a whole new line of books. That isn’t happening. 5e is continuing. 

The key thing is, the new core books will be compatible with the supplementary books, and thus are the same game. 



SkidAce said:


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



That’s fine, it’s a nitpicky argument anyway. It doesn’t matter whether it is or isn’t, what matters is that we won’t have a system that we can’t easily use previous supplements and adventures with.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And, just closer to home: some of us have house-ruled and modified the 5e core nearly beyond recognition. I'm still playing 5e, and many of my changes are bigger than anything WotC has released so far for 1D&D. Yet, nobody would ever pretend my game is not ''compatible'' with 5e. I play the published adventures and create fight against the MM monsters just fine. Adding a free feat at level 1 has to be the most common house rule I've seen, and nobody bat an eye! We dont really use Feats at my table, but I dont ban them, so quite often only one player has some while the rest of the group does not. Still compatible, there's no one confused by that!
> 
> What a strange debate.



I'm in the same boat as well. My house rules change quite a bit from 5e, but it is still 5e to us and I'm 99% confident that we will be able to continue with '24 D&D too.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> The issue is people use different definitions of compatible. Look at LevelUp (A5e), it claims compatibility with O5e* (and I agree), yet it completely rewrote every class, changed some mechanics (like exhaustion) and added others (like expertise dice and universal maneuvers) to make an "advanced" 5e (A5e). EnPublishing considers A5e as part of O5e. You can use any O5e adventure or monster with A5e PCs and vice versa.  However, A5e is much, much more of a change than anything WotC has proposed so far in the 1D&D playtest yet many people are screaming that this it is incompatible. So, what is incompatible to some is the same damn system to others.



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.

I would and do use monsters from my monstrous menagerie book in my 5e game, though.  They're simply updated, better versions of monsters, similar to ones that are homebrewed by DMs.

Someday I hope to convince my group to make the switch to LevelUp, but until then monsters will remain the only thing that makes it into the game.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 28, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think that the "think of da' noobs" elements like the crit changes in origins got way more negative & thought out reasoned criticism than expected & that similar but reversed probably happened with the baby steps towards depth & nuance/modularity over simplicity in expert packet. When that happened the loud voices in the room/corporate chain responsible for simplicity at all costs in 5e found their position quickly becoming untenable in ways that made room for things that were kneecapped to get more attention.




I think this too.

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. 

So it is very likely the feedback doesn't match what they planned so much that they had to change a lot.


----------



## mellored (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Having looked at the playtest documents and some stuff since, I wouldn't allow playtest classes to play along side 5e classes.



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.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 28, 2022)

mellored said:


> 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
> ...




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


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


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



May I ask why?


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I mean like the whole community.
> 
> The designers never really expected people to play races whose ASI don't match their Class primary.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2022)

mellored said:


> 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
> ...



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


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 28, 2022)

billd91 said:


> 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.



dave2008 said:


> 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*.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> May I ask why?



I think you and @mellored weren't looking at the context of that post.  The context was LevelUp and the playtest was referring directly to(since the sentence followed the first talking about levelUp) the LevelUp playtest.

That said, I wouldn't allow the same 5.5 class to run next to the 2014 version, either.  It wouldn't be fair since the 5.5 versions that we've seen are better.  I don't necessarily have an issue with say the 5.5 ranger running next to a 5e wizard right now, since we don't have a 5.5 wizard to compare it to.  In no case would I allow a 2014 character to play along side a 5.5 character without modifying the 2014 PC. It would be very unfair to give a free feat to one PC and not another.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> 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.



I'm good with 3rd party stuff that I approve, which includes UAs even though those are not technically 3rd party.  It would have to be 5e stuff, though.  

LevelUp classes are much different mechanically and are superior to the 5e classes, so the differences are drastic enough for me to disallow them side by side.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



How do you know what the community wants? I will remind you that the forum going portion of the community is thought to be pretty small compared to the larger fan base. So what makes you so sure of anything the "community" wants?  

Personally, I can only be sure of what my table wants. And since we limit max score to 18, I know 5e doesn't need that +2 racial bonus for any class. But I will not presume to know what the broader fan base thought was necessary.


----------



## mellored (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


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



Because you kept talking about the extra feat making characters be more powerful, and how the game was too easy.  So I compared combat.

Otherwise,
Old ranger: expertise in 2 terrains and 2 monster types.
New ranger: gets expertise in 2 skills.

So that's a nerf in some campaigns, but a buff in others.

Also, the old human bard could take Actor at level 1.  The new one has to wait until level 4.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That said, I wouldn't allow the same 5.5 class to run next to the 2014 version, either.  It wouldn't be fair since the 5.5 versions that we've seen are better.  I don't necessarily have an issue with say the 5.5 ranger running next to a 5e wizard right now, since we don't have a 5.5 wizard to compare it to.  In no case would I allow a 2014 character to play along side a 5.5 character without modifying the 2014 PC. It would be very unfair to give a free feat to one PC and not another.



I guess as a DM that minor difference doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother the player. I don't see a need to restrict them.  

PS someone on this thread just "proved" the '14 ranger was stronger than the playtest ranger and I have heard others say the same of the rogue.  So I assume it is not really an issue that playtests ones are stronger, but that they are of different strength?  If so, do you limit subclasses too? Some 5e subclasses are stronger than others. Do you go through every class and subclass and make determination on which ones you allow players to use based on some standard of equality? if you don't restrict subclasses, why not?


----------



## mellored (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I think you and @mellored weren't looking at the context of that post.  The context was LevelUp and the playtest was referring directly to(since the sentence followed the first talking about levelUp) the LevelUp playtest.



I don't have access to level up. But feel free to do some math on that too.


Maxperson said:


> It wouldn't be fair since the 5.5 versions that we've seen are better.



In what way is the new ranger better than the old one?
The old is better in combat.  And maybe even in skills (depending on the campaign).


Maxperson said:


> It would be very unfair to give a free feat to one PC and not another.



It would be unfair to give a free *old* feat to one but not another.  But the new feats are different.

That would be like letting someone use the new background (with +Stats) and the old race (with + Stats).  And yes, that would be a problem.

Best to think of character creation to not be compatible.  (Monsters and campaigns are).


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

mellored said:


> Because you kept talking about the extra feat making characters be more powerful, and how the game was too easy.  So I compared combat.



Powerful =/= combat.  You can in fact be powerful in both exploration and social as well.  I didn't say more powerful in combat, because I wasn't limiting it to combat.


mellored said:


> Otherwise,
> Old ranger: expertise in 2 terrains and 2 monster types.
> New ranger: gets expertise in 2 skills.



So new ranger much, MUCH better since skill in nature includes ALL terrains, all plants, all weather, all natural cycles, and animals(a monster type). And then they get expertise in another skill that can include a monster type or two as well as other stuff.


mellored said:


> So that's a nerf in some campaigns, but a buff in others.



It's not a nerf in any campaign.  If I take nature I get expertise in every terrain out there while you are limited to two.  All of nature > two terrains.

Oh, and I could take a social skill and have expertise in the social pillar as well.

New ranger far exceeds old ranger here.


mellored said:


> Also, the old human bard could take Actor at level 1.  The new one has to wait until level 4.



Okay.  So what.

New bard gets to wait until after an ally FAILS a test before using bardic inspiration as a reaction to help.  Old bard has to use it in advance and pray that it's useful within the next 10 minutes.

New bard can use his bardic inspiration to heal.  Old bard......................can't.

New bard "prays" for any bardic spell on the list.  Old bard has a limited selection to pick from.

But okay, new bard has to wait until 4th level to get actor, so I guess it's even steven.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> I guess as a DM that minor difference doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother the player. I don't see a need to restrict them.
> 
> PS someone on this thread just "proved" the '14 ranger was stronger than the playtest ranger and I have heard others say the same of the rogue.  So I assume it is not really an issue that playtests ones are stronger, but that they are of different strength?  If so, do you limit subclasses too? Some 5e subclasses are stronger than others. Do you go through every class and subclass and make determination on which ones you allow players to use based on some standard of equality? if you don't restrict subclasses, why not?



No such "proof" was given since a PC is more than just combat.  I'm not going to allow myself get railroaded into only comparing combat stats when I've been talking about the whole character.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> How do you know what the community wants?



Because WOTC changed it and said this is what the community wants.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> So new ranger much, MUCH better since skill in nature includes ALL terrains, all plants, all weather, all natural cycles, and animals(a monster type). And then they get expertise in another skill that can include a monster type or two as well as other stuff.



This really depends on how the DM runs skills and languages.

The change of the 2014 ranger to the current playtest ranger is a nerf and a buff


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> This really depends on how the DM runs skills and languages.



Not really.  If the DM runs skills that involve nature, the 5.5e ranger is going to be far superior to the highly limited 2 terrain 2014 ranger since he has all terrains PLUS all the rest of nature.  If the DM doesn't run nature challenges, the 5.5e ranger is going to be even farther ahead, because he has the option to get expertise in any skill, so can pick social or other exploration skills like investigation or perception, where the 2014 ranger is limited to the 2 terrains that are not being used.


Minigiant said:


> The change of the 2014 ranger to the current playtest ranger is a nerf and a buff



He loses a small bit in combat, but so what.  He's gaining huge amounts out of combat which far more than mitigate the minor downturn in combat damage. And really, he's getting the ability to learn ANY primal spell from ANY school except for evocation, which has the potential to far outweigh that loss of a piddly amount of DPR.  He might not be nerfed in combat, either.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


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



Because DPR can be defined and valued by math.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 28, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I wonder if they're not getting the feedback they hoped for.  At least on this site, even most of the folks who generally liked what we've seen so far for 6e have sent in negative feedback.



I would hope they would start with admitting it is 6e


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No such "proof" was given since a PC is more than just combat.  I'm not going to allow myself get railroaded into only comparing combat stats when I've been talking about the whole character.



Well there is a reason I put it in quotation marks. Are you willing to breakdown your comparison for us then? It is not something I think is an issue so I haven't done it, but since you do I assume you have done a comparison? I would be interested if I need to change my opinion.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Because WOTC changed it and said this is what the community wants.



That doesn't explain the why, which is what we are really discussing.


----------



## mellored (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> So new ranger much, MUCH better since skill in nature includes ALL terrains, all plants, all weather, all natural cycles, and animals(a monster type). And then they get expertise in another skill that can include a monster type or two as well as other stuff.



Old ranger gets the bonus on both Intelligence or Wisdom checks.


Maxperson said:


> It's not a nerf in any campaign.  If I take nature I get expertise in every terrain out there while you are limited to two.  All of nature > two terrains.



I guess I didn't list the rest of the benefits old ranger gets.

While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:

Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.



Maxperson said:


> Oh, and I could take a social skill and have expertise in the social pillar as well.



You could have expertise in the social pillar *instead.  *If you take persuasion, you lose nature.

Different =/= more powerful


Maxperson said:


> New bard gets to wait until after an ally FAILS a test before using bardic inspiration as a reaction to help.  Old bard has to use it in advance and pray that it's useful within the next 10 minutes.



Old bard has more uses.  And more range, since you can use it before the monk runs after the archers.

Easier =/= more powerful.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Not really. If the DM runs skills that involve nature, the 5.5e ranger is going to be far superior to the highly limited 2 terrain 2014 ranger since he has all terrains PLUS all the rest of nature. If the DM doesn't run nature challenges, the 5.5e ranger is going to be even farther ahead, because he has the option to get expertise in any skill, so can pick social or other exploration skills like investigation or perception, where the 2014 ranger is limited to the 2 terrains that are not being used.



If the DM doesn't call for many Nature check but focuses on language and knowledge, the 2014 ranger is stronger.
And the playtest *burns* through spells like a madman.
And at actual dungeon delving,the 2014 ranger is far better.



Maxperson said:


> He loses a small bit in combat, but so what. He's gaining huge amounts out of combat which far more than mitigate the minor downturn in combat damage. And really, he's getting the ability to learn ANY primal spell from ANY school except for evocation, which has the potential to far outweigh that loss of a piddly amount of DPR. He might not be nerfed in combat, either.



Again depends on DM and campaign.

When I actually playtested the ranger in a dungeon, *it ran out of spells so fast.*

You know what concentrationless Hunter's Mark does. Encourages players to cast it all the time and cast other spells on top of it.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> That doesn't explain the why, which is what we are really discussing.



They said why. They wanted players to make PC combinations they desired. 

The designers though a 14 int halfling wizard was fine. The community didn't . So they made the +2/+1 float.

The designers though that cultural weapons doing nothing for warrior type classes was fine. The community didn't. So they let you trade out racial weapons and armor for tools.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 28, 2022)

mellored said:


> I don't have access to level up.



_Actually_... you do


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

mellored said:


> Old ranger gets the bonus on both Intelligence or Wisdom checks.
> 
> I guess I didn't list the rest of the benefits old ranger gets.
> 
> ...



I'll still take all of nature for the win.  You go ahead and limit yourself to two terrains out of eight.  I get all 8.  And then I get expertise in something else.


mellored said:


> You could have expertise in the social pillar *instead.  *If you take persuasion, you lose nature.



No I don't.

"You gain Expertise in* two* of your Skill Proficiencies of your choice."


mellored said:


> Different =/= more powerful



Greater = more powerful.  

Speed isn't generally in issue.  Getting lost is even less of an issue.  The engaging in other activities is more fluff than anything else.  You are rarely going to be engaged in one of those when an attack happens and will generally have alert comrades when you do engage in them.  Traveling alone is going to be rare unless the party sends you ahead to scout(and you better pray nothing perceptive eats you).  Foraging for food is highly limited since clerics can just make it and otherwise parties almost always carry rations with them.  Tracking is useful, but a survival check can tell you all of that stuff and the 5.5e ranger can have expertise there as well and get far more out of survival than just tracking.

All in all, having nature expertise is going to be much better than two terrains with 5 corner case abilities and tracking which the 5.5 ranger can do better by selecting survival as his second skill.


mellored said:


> Old bard has more uses.  And more range, since you can use it before the monk runs after the archers.



Big deal.  He has a marginal number of extra uses which is far more than mitigated by the sheer versatility the new bard has over the old bard.  The corner case scenario of a monk running after archers doesn't change that.


mellored said:


> Easier =/= more powerful.



MUCH better = more powerful.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Because DPR can be defined and valued by math.



Okay, but it only tells a fraction of the story.  It just plain is not all that there is to which class is more powerful and I won't allow people to reduce a class to DPR in an effort to try and win.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> If the DM doesn't call for many Nature check but focuses on language and knowledge, the 2014 ranger is stronger.



Why is he stronger? The 2014 ranger gets no bonus on knowledge checks when in his favored terrains.  He gets bonuses to knowledge checks ABOUT his favored terrains.

"When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check *related to your favored terrain*, your proficiency bonus is doubled."  Every knowledge check related to favored terrains is also a Nature check as that skill is for terrains, so the 5.5 ranger has expertise there as well.

And I'm not sure why you are bringing up languages.  The 5.5e ranger gets languages as well. Maybe you mean the one bonus language for favored enemy, which really isn't a big deal when there are a lot of ways to communicate these days.


Minigiant said:


> And the playtest *burns* through spells like a madman.



Is there something in the playtest that forces 5.5 rangers to use spells? Otherwise the rate of spell usage is entirely up to the player as it always has been.


Minigiant said:


> And at actual dungeon delving,the 2014 ranger is far better.



Better than a 5.5 ranger with expertise in investigation and perception?


Minigiant said:


> When I actually playtested the ranger in a dungeon, *it ran out of spells so fast.*



It gets the same amount of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. spell slots as the 2014 ranger, so if it ran out quickly that was on you not the class.  It does get two fewer cantrips, but those have unlimited uses still, so you still wouldn't run out of spells faster.


Minigiant said:


> You know what concentrationless Hunter's Mark does. Encourages players to cast it all the time and cast other spells on top of it.



Until you quickly realize that you run out of spells that way and stop, sure.  Self-control is something you might need when playing the 5.5 ranger.  A player's lack of self-control isn't a weakness of the class, though.


----------



## mellored (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> All in all, having nature expertise is going to be much better than two terrains with 5 corner case abilities and tracking which the 5.5 ranger can do better by selecting survival as his second skill.



So you took experience in nature and survival?
Then you don't get persuasion.

And the old ranger still gets perception, animal handling, medicine, insight against their favorite foe.

Old ranger gets 4 more expertise, in the right campaign.  Plus all the other stuff you dismissed.


Maxperson said:


> Big deal.  He has a marginal number of extra uses



50% more uses at level 1.  That's not marginal.


Maxperson said:


> which is far more than mitigated by the sheer versatility the new bard has over the old bard.



Have you actually tried it?
Have you played the old and new bard side by side?


Maxperson said:


> The corner case scenario of a monk running after archers doesn't change that.



I used it all the time on scouts and assassins.  I'm _*losing*_ versatility.

I get the feeling you would be complaining about how much more powerful the old classes where if these came out if a different order.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> They said why. They wanted players to make PC combinations they desired.
> 
> The designers though a 14 int halfling wizard was fine. The community didn't . So they made the +2/+1 float.
> 
> The designers though that cultural weapons doing nothing for warrior type classes was fine. The community didn't. So they let you trade out racial weapons and armor for tools.



I will agree to disagree as, IMO, we are talking about different things, but I don't care enough to waste more time on this discussion.  Not saying you are not worth the time, but I don't want to spend my time on this subject.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Why is he stronger? The 2014 ranger gets no bonus on knowledge checks when in his favored terrains. He gets bonuses to knowledge checks ABOUT his favored terrains.
> 
> "When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check *related to your favored terrain*, your proficiency bonus is doubled." Every knowledge check related to favored terrains is also a Nature check as that skill is for terrains, so the 5.5 ranger has expertise there as well.
> 
> And I'm not sure why you are bringing up languages. The 5.5e ranger gets languages as well. Maybe you mean the one bonus language for favored enemy, which really isn't a big deal when there are a lot of ways to communicate these days.



How many Intelligence or Wisdom skills are there?

A 2014 ranger gets Expertise of Arcane checks to identity local magical phenomenon or Medicine checks to use local herbs or Religion check to identity the Divine symbols of typical humanoids from your favored Terrain.




Maxperson said:


> Is there something in the playtest that forces 5.5 rangers to use spells? Otherwise the rate of spell usage is entirely up to the player as it always has been



Playtest Favored Enemy doesn't do much if you don't cast Hunter Mark. And less if to don't cast another spell stop it to make use of the lack of concentration on HM.




Maxperson said:


> t gets the same amount of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. spell slots as the 2014 ranger, so if it ran out quickly that was on you not the class. It does get two fewer cantrips, but those have unlimited uses still, so you still wouldn't run out of spells faster.



It lets you cast 2 concentration spells at once. 




Maxperson said:


> Until you quickly realize that you run out of spells that way and stop, sure. Self-control is something you might need when playing the 5.5 ranger. A player's lack of self-control isn't a weakness of the class, though



The point is the class features don't do anything unless you burn through all your spells fast.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

mellored said:


> So you took experience in nature and survival?
> Then you don't get persuasion.



Sure.  My point is that unlike the 2014 ranger, the 5.5 ranger has choices and can go well outside the traditional if the DM's game is going to be more social than outside in two limited terrain types.


mellored said:


> And the old ranger still gets perception, animal handling, medicine, insight against their favorite foe.



Oh! Wow! Against one type of enemy you may never encounter or encounter only rarely! Here come some orcs! I'd better get right on the animal handling and medicine.

Look, favored terrain and favored enemy are kinda crappy since almost everything about them is corner case.  That's why they are changing it to make it better for the 5.5 version.


mellored said:


> Old ranger gets 4 more expertise, in the right campaign.  Plus all the other stuff you dismissed.



Sure. I'll concede that in a very, very highly corner case campaign, the 2014 could be better if the 5.5 ranger doesn't take the skills to be just as good or better than the 2014 ranger.


mellored said:


> 50% more uses at level 1.  That's not marginal.



It really is, since there's a good chance they will be wasted as the 10 minute mark passes, and since you don't have the option to be reactive like the 5.5 ranger is. 

I'm not sure how you think 4 uses covering 40 minutes(max) of a 24 hour day is better than 2 reactive uses covering 24 hours.  And eventually the 5.5 ranger has more uses of said superior reactive bardic inspiration.


mellored said:


> Have you actually tried it?
> Have you played the old and new bard side by side?



It's crystal clear that reactive uses covering 24 hours is superior to uses covering 40-50 minutes tops and that have to be used in advance during that time period. 

You use it so that the monk can go charging some archers.  20 minutes later when you aren't aware of it you hit a deadly trap and the wizard dies because you couldn't use your inspiration as a reaction to help him make the save. 


mellored said:


> I used it all the time on scouts and assassins.  I'm _*losing*_ versatility.



Versatility is king. That's the main reason that wizards have historically been so broken.


mellored said:


> I get the feeling you would be complaining about how much more powerful the old classes where if these came out if a different order.



You would likely be wrong.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Why is he stronger? The 2014 ranger gets no bonus on knowledge checks when in his favored terrains.  He gets bonuses to knowledge checks ABOUT his favored terrains.
> 
> "When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check *related to your favored terrain*, your proficiency bonus is doubled."  Every knowledge check related to favored terrains is also a Nature check as that skill is for terrains, so the 5.5 ranger has expertise there as well.
> 
> ...




What you do is called cherry picking. Dismissing every disadvantage while overstating the advantages.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> What you do is called cherry picking. Dismissing every disadvantage while overstating the advantages.



No.  It's called experience. In close to 40 years of game play, most of the advantages of Favored Enemy and Terrain are pretty corner case.  Nature on the other hand is broad and generally useful so long as you are in nature, which happens a lot.


----------



## mellored (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  My point is that unlike the 2014 ranger, the 5.5 ranger has choices and can go well outside the traditional if the DM's game is going to be more social than outside in two limited terrain types.



Yes.
But again, different =/= more powerful.


Maxperson said:


> Oh! Wow! Against one type of enemy you may never encounter or encounter only rarely! Here come some orcs! I'd better get right on the animal handling and medicine.



One of those orcs might be hurt.  Roll your insight to see.


Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure how you think 4 uses covering 40 minutes(max) of a 24 hour day is better than 2 reactive uses covering 24 hours.  And eventually the 5.5 ranger has more uses of said superior reactive bardic inspiration.



You don't see how handing out 4 buffs to each party member before kicking down the door to the big bads is better than using 2 reactions in combat?


Maxperson said:


> It's crystal clear that reactive uses covering 24 hours is superior to uses covering 40-50 minutes tops and that have to be used in advance during that time period.



It's crystal clear that 4 uses is superior to 2 uses.


Maxperson said:


> You use it so that the monk can go charging some archers.  20 minutes later when you aren't aware of it you hit a deadly trap and the wizard dies because you couldn't use your inspiration as a reaction to help him make the save.



You didn't use it on the monk, so the wizard is dead from the archers before you got to the trap.

Also, If I hit the trap, I die.  Doesn't matter what version I have.  Can't use it on myself.


Maxperson said:


> Versatility is king. That's the main reason that wizards have historically been so broken.



Removing the ability to use it on scouts reduces my versatility.

Wizards historically had to be prepared, not reactive.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

mellored said:


> Yes.
> But again, different =/= more powerful.



That Strawman fails on its face. I'm not claiming different = powerful.


mellored said:


> One of those orcs might be hurt.  Roll your insight to see.



Seeing as they are charging my party with swords and axes drawn, I really don't care if one is closer to death than the others.


mellored said:


> You don't see how handing out *4 buffs to each party member* before kicking down the door to the big bads is better than using 2 reactions in combat?



So now it's 12 uses(assuming a 4 PC group)?  You only get to pick one PC per use and you don't encounter a big bad every day or even every week or even every month. You do roll both in AND *out* of combat, so those reactions will come in handy pretty much every day and in important situations that you can't anticipate.  The 5.5 ability is not combat only.


mellored said:


> It's crystal clear that 4 uses is superior to 2 uses.



Sure.  You use your 4 uses of a BB gun and I will use 2 howitzers.


mellored said:


> You didn't use it on the monk, so the wizard is dead from the archers before you got to the trap.



How? The wizard is at long range and has shield.  We're outside so that the 2014 ranger can get some limited use from his abilities. 


mellored said:


> Also, If I hit the trap, I die.  Doesn't matter what version I have.  Can't use it on myself.



You didn't hit the trap.


mellored said:


> Removing the ability to use it on scouts reduces my versatility.



-1 versatility + a bazillion versatility = a lot more versatility.


mellored said:


> Wizards historically had to be prepared, not reactive.



Which doesn't change that versatility is king. 

PS  Don't think I haven't noticed that you completely ignored the 5.5 bard's healing ability with his inspiration, which is yet MORE versatility.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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.
> 
> I would and do use monsters from my monstrous menagerie book in my 5e game, though.  They're simply updated, better versions of monsters, similar to ones that are homebrewed by DMs.
> 
> Someday I hope to convince my group to make the switch to LevelUp, but until then monsters will remain the only thing that makes it into the game.



Them being balanced or better than each other has nothing to do with compatibility.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Them being balanced or better than each other has nothing to do with compatibility.



If the game doesn't work right when they are together(major balance issue), then it's not compatible.  Compatible means I can use it without having to change anything, so broken due to balance = not compatible.  That only applies to imbalance that breaks things, not lesser amounts of imbalance.


----------



## mellored (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That Strawman fails on its face. I'm not claiming different = powerful.



Then why is the ranger who has persuasion not allowed in the same campaign as a ranger who has survival?


Maxperson said:


> Seeing as they are charging my party with swords and axes drawn, I really don't care if one is closer to death than the others.



So you want to deal more damage then?   Best take the old ranger.


Maxperson said:


> So now it's 12 uses(assuming a 4 PC group)?



Never claimed it was 12 uses.
Just that you can have a better nova round with old bard.


Maxperson said:


> The 5.5 ability is not combat only.



Neither is the 5.0.


Maxperson said:


> How? The wizard is at long range and has shield.



Then he's out of range of the bard.
Also, if he has shield, then he can block the trap.


Maxperson said:


> We're outside so that the 2014 ranger can get some limited use from his abilities.



Then the range spots the trap, since it's in his favorite terrain.   


Maxperson said:


> -1 versatility + a bazillion versatility = a lot more versatility.



Can you give it to child and have them lie to pursuers while you run off in a different direction?


Maxperson said:


> PS  Don't think I haven't noticed that you completely ignored the 5.5 bard's healing.



They have to make up for all the loss of versatility and uses somehow.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 28, 2022)

mellored said:


> Then why is the ranger who has persuasion not allowed in the same campaign as a ranger who has survival?



I don't know. That's not something I ever said.


mellored said:


> So you want to deal more damage then?   Best take the old ranger.



Nah.  Why gimp myself just to do slightly better in a fight against some orcs?


mellored said:


> Neither is the 5.0.



Correct.  I didn't claim otherwise. You said combat only for the 5.5 ability so I corrected you.


mellored said:


> Then he's out of range of the bard.



And?  This isn't really a response to that part of the discussion.  Maybe you were confusing it with the other part where the wizard is hit by the trap.  There weren't any archers there.


mellored said:


> Also, if he has shield, then he can block the trap.



Is there some secret to shield that I don't know about that stops every kind of deadly trap?


mellored said:


> Then the range spots the trap, since it's in his favorite terrain.



LOL Okay. That was a good one. 


mellored said:


> Can you give it to child and have them lie to pursuers while you run off in a different direction?



No need.  I'll give it to the ranger if he fails to hide our tracks, so that the pursuers can't catch us.


mellored said:


> They have to make up for all the loss of versatility and uses somehow.



Increase =/= loss no matter how many times you repeat it.


----------



## mellored (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Correct.  I didn't claim otherwise. You said combat only for the 5.5 ability so I corrected you.



That's not something I ever said.


Maxperson said:


> No need.  I'll give it to the ranger if he fails to hide our tracks, so that the pursuers can't catch us.



I'll give it to both the ranger and the kid.

Because old bard has more to give and can buff 2 places at once.  It's more versatile like that.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> If the game doesn't work right when they are together(major balance issue), then it's not compatible.  Compatible means I can use it without having to change anything, so broken due to balance = not compatible.  That only applies to imbalance that breaks things, not lesser amounts of imbalance.



No it doesn't



> able to exist together without conflict.



That does not mean one option can't be better, or that little modifications can't happen. It's also been shown in the first playtest pdf for example, that characters get an extra feat no matter what.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

mellored said:


> That's not something I ever said.



This is what you said.

"You don't see how handing out 4 buffs to each party member before kicking down the door to the big bads *is better than using 2 reactions in combat*?"

By deliberately only using combat, you are saying it's only used in combat.  If you weren't saying that, you would have either said in or out of combat, or just left it at 2 reactions.

Perhaps you didn't mean to say it that way, but you did say it that way.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 29, 2022)

mellored said:


> Best to think of character creation to not be compatible.  (Monsters and campaigns are).



I think character creation is pretty compatible, once you factor in stuff like having to choose a source of ASIs at level 1, and probably not use feats or spells that have been replaced.


----------



## mellored (Nov 29, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think character creation is pretty compatible, once you factor in stuff like having to choose a source of ASIs at level 1, and probably not use feats or spells that have been replaced.



Or subclasses that have different levels...

I agree it's not too hard to house rule it together.  But that falls short of what I would consider "compatible".


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No.  It's called experience. In close to 40 years of game play, most of the advantages of Favored Enemy and Terrain are pretty corner case.  Nature on the other hand is broad and generally useful so long as you are in nature, which happens a lot.




So back to gut feeling.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> So back to gut feeling.



Sure.  There's no such thing as learning. All experience is "gut feeling."


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  There's no such thing as learning. All experience is "gut feeling."




I have 30 years of experience and I see it totally different than you.

So who is right?

You, because of 10 extra years or I, because I have grown up with newer D&D.

So experience is nice and such, but you should back it up with some data. And when evaluating data, you should evaluate them equally.

You can say: for our group, it is a buff, because X and Y are more valuable than Z. But this is no objective truth. It is your subjective truth, which results from your experience. Other's can have different experience.

See, I see where you are coming from and I agree, that the newer ranger is more versatile (not more powerful). I do however think it lines up with the tasha alternate features very well. I think it might be a debuff in some regards (the 3rd level feature from tasha is all around great...).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  There's no such thing as learning. All experience is "gut feeling."




Oh, and yes. It is.

It is unconscious competence. The highest level of proficiency. 

If you took the time to overcome unconscious incompetence with the inbetween states of conscious incompetence and competence.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Oh, and yes. It is.



All experience = gut feeling = no such thing as anything other than gut feeling.  Congrats. You've made all knowledge useless!

So why is your gut feeling better than mine?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> All experience = gut feeling = no such thing as anything other than gut feeling.  Congrats. You've made all knowledge useless!
> 
> So why is your gut feeling better than mine?




Didn't say so. But I also did not claim that my experience reflects universal truth.

No. I did not claim that knowledge = gut feeling. I do claim however, that what you call experience is only a gut feeling if you don't back it up with evidence. With your experience, you can make an educated guess about the power level regarding your group.

You are easily dismissing half of the facts, because by your experience they don't matter.

Also, don't confuse knowledge about things you can objectively know (3 +3=6) with "knowledge" about history, where depending on your point of view, it might look different.

But since you claim +6 = +20, i am not so sure about the extend of your confusion.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 29, 2022)

My experience is that mostly DMs who are ranger and druid fans who call for Animal Handling, Survival and Nature checks and make them meaningful. 

The strength of ranger Expertise is taking the more commonly rolled skills: Stealth, Athletics, Acrobatics and the social skills.

It is possible that the early feedback before actual play is "this is awesome" then when people actually ran them the feedback drastically went down to "You know this isn't as good as it looks"


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> My experience is that mostly DMs who are ranger and druid fans who call for Animal Handling, Survival and Nature checks and make them meaningful.
> 
> The strength of ranger Expertise is taking the more commonly rolled skills: Stealth, Athletics, Acrobatics and the social skills.
> 
> It is possible that the early feedback before actual play is "this is awesome" then when people actually ran them the feedback drastically went down to "You know this isn't as good as it looks"




Yes, probably expertise in nature and survival is quite rare. Although athletics might not be that important for a ranger, because they don't need it for grapple anymore and later they also don't need ot for swimming and climbing.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 29, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes, probably expertise in nature and survival is quite rare. Although athletics might not be that important for a ranger, because they don't need it for grapple anymore and later they also don't need ot for swimming and climbing.



Yeah but DMs are a lot more likely to call for Athletics checks as jumping is one in both 5e and 5.5e.

Natural Explorer was rare. However since it was a list, it kept players and DMs aware of what Nature and Survival checks could do. IE "When you arent in you favored terrain, you have to roll for these".

I have no proof of this but the overall nerfing and adjustment of skills in the playtest may have caused a slow slideof dissatisfaction in surveys as people actual tested them and realize the *most skills don't do anything concrete* and are extremely dependent of the DM, their calls, and their DCs.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Didn't say so. But I also did not claim that my experience reflects universal truth.
> 
> No. I did not claim that knowledge = gut feeling. I do claim however, that what you call experience is only a gut feeling if you don't back it up with evidence. With your experience, you can make an educated guess about the power level regarding your group.
> 
> You are easily dismissing half of the facts, because by your experience they don't matter.



I didn't dismiss anything as not mattering.  5 of the 6 abilities granted by Favored Terrain are highly situational and the last might still be highly situational if the campaign doesn't spend most of its time in two terrain types.  Highly situation means that they aren't all that useful.

Compare that to nature skill which encompasses every single terrain type. So unless the campaign is almost exclusively or exclusively taking place in cities and dungeons, nature skill will be very useful.

Nature skill wins out because in the vast majority of campaigns it is going to be much more useful than being good at two terrains with some highly situational bells and whistles.


UngeheuerLich said:


> But since you claim +6 = +20, i am not so sure about the extend of your confusion.



My claim is that +6(Favored Terrain) < +20(expertise in Nature skill).


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> My experience is that mostly DMs who are ranger and druid fans who call for Animal Handling, Survival and Nature checks and make them meaningful.
> 
> The strength of ranger Expertise is taking the more commonly rolled skills: Stealth, Athletics, Acrobatics and the social skills.
> 
> It is possible that the early feedback before actual play is "this is awesome" then when people actually ran them the feedback drastically went down to "You know this isn't as good as it looks"



I don't think they're finding out that it's not as good as it looked.  More likely they are finding out that simple expertise by itself is kind of bland and doesn't really have a ranger feel to it, especially if every expert class has it.

Edit: What they should have done was instead of giving them two expertise skills of choice, it should have been a choice of two from nature, survival, animal handling, athletics, perception and stealth.  Then two more later on.  At least you are giving a list of nature type skills which does give it a bit of a ranger feel.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I don't think they're finding out that it's not as good as it looked.  More likely they are finding out that simple expertise by itself is kind of bland and doesn't really have a ranger feel to it, especially if every expert class has it.



That's what I meant.

Not that it's bad. But that in actual play it doesn't actually do anywhere as much as the hype. So you are left with just blandness.

Much how Hunter's Mark without concentration sounds good. But the ranger class isn't built to really utilize nonconcentration buff because they lack both the spell slots and spells (in the PHB). So you quickly drop down to something bland.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I mean like the whole community.
> 
> The designers never really expected people to play races whose ASI don't match their Class primary.



Yes, they very clearly did. That is part of why they opened up the ASI, though the biggest factor was inclusivity, not a mechanical issue.


Minigiant said:


> The Tasha's ASI variants was due to people playing dwarf wizards and tiefling rogues often, something they didn't comprehend in house.



 this is the absolute opposite of the case.


Minigiant said:


> The Tasha's cultural variants were due to people not running every race with the standard FR stereotype for them.



No. It was due to complaints relating to inclusivity.


mellored said:


> Or subclasses that have different levels...
> 
> I agree it's not too hard to house rule it together.  But that falls short of what I would consider "compatible".



While the rule offered in the UA (just gain subclass features at the level the subclass says, even if it’s totally different) is terrible, as long as they include an actual rational rule*, there won’t be a compatibility issue.

*You gain subclass feature levels when your class tells you that you do, if that is different from when your subclass lists those feature levels. If your class lists a subclass feature on the table for the level you have just gained, and your subclass has already given all of its features, you gain a bonus feat appropriate to your level, instead.”


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Much how Hunter's Mark without concentration sounds good. But the ranger class isn't built to really utilize nonconcentration buff because they lack both the spell slots and spells (in the PHB). So you quickly drop down to something bland.



The ranger has a ton of concentration spells. Hunters mark without concentration is a massive QoL improvement.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 29, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yes, they very clearly did. That is part of why they opened up the ASI, though the biggest factor was inclusivity, not a mechanical issue.



Actually, no.
In it was just inclusivity, they would have just removed the -2s like they were already doing.

They added floating +2/+1 to allow for goblin paladins. The change was to allow DMs and Players to create the race/class/culture combos they wants without feeling like the combos were weak or underpowered.



doctorbadwolf said:


> The ranger has a ton of concentration spells. Hunters mark without concentration is a massive QoL improvement.



It isn't that massive.

Like I said, rangers do not have the spell slots to put up 2 spells often in a 6-8 encounter day until hid-high levels. They'll burn though all their spells fast. And the primal spell list doesn't have that many spells you would stack within the short time. So it really doesn't do anything until level 9 when you get 3rd level spell slots and at that point most campaigns are over.

ALL concentrationless HM does is keep rangers from making checks to lose concentration on HM. Decent buff for melee rangers. Almost ignorable to ranged rangers.

So like what I said to Maxperson, It's looks cool on paper. Until actual play then its a big fat meh.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> So like what I said to Maxperson, It's looks cool on paper. Until actual play then its a big fat meh.




Maybe prof bonus free uses or just 1 free use per day goes a long way.
Maybe add: against your favourite enemy it does not cost a spell slot.

Maybe changing hunter's mark to increase the number of targets, not duration when using a higher level slot.

There are quite some Ideas to make it work and a bit more interesting.

Right now I prefer the tasha ranger, just forgoing hunter's mark and use more interesting spells.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 29, 2022)

It's a quality of life improvement - it's not like it was billed as revolutionary or anything. That's mostly what OneD&D is going to be, tweaks and QoL improvements.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 29, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> It's a quality of life improvement - it's not like it was billed as revolutionary or anything. That's mostly what OneD&D is going to be, tweaks and QoL improvements.



My point is it is either a bad and useless QOLI.

If you can swap spells every day, it doesn't matter if you learn for free.
It still uses your slots.
If you are a half caster, you barely have the slots to run HM and some other spell.

Playtest FE looks cool but plays meh. Same with Expertise as you can swap skill-skipping spells like Goodberry or Speak with Animal in any day. And these are not the only things from my own home playtest that was like that. I filled out my survey late. I'm sue anyone who actually playtested the rules didn't fill out their surveys early either. Especially since the time was extended.

So there is a good chance the early surveys look very different from the later ones.


----------



## mellored (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Not that it's bad. But that in actual play it doesn't actually do anywhere as much as the hype. So you are left with just blandness.



I kind of agree.

What they really should do (IMO) is still have the flavor, but make the power level small.  Then you can have the bland power be bigger.

I.e.
favorite terrain:  add 1d4 to checks on your favorite terrain.  If you spend a month of downtime in an area, you can add it to your favorite terrain.
Expertise in 1 skill.

Now the ranger still has a swing in power based on terrain, but it's not drastic that everyone dips ranger to get desert in a darksun campaign.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> My claim is that +6(Favored Terrain) < +20(expertise in Nature skill).




As I remember, your claim was that if you can use a 5e with a onednd character, so you can use a 3.5 character. So that they work on a totally different scale (BAB) seems to be negligible...


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> My point is it is either a bad and useless QOLI.
> 
> If you can swap spells every day, it doesn't matter if you learn for free.
> It still uses your slots.
> ...



I found that mark was very effective in our test at level 6-7 for two very important reasons.  The first is that it's easier to get more attacks now with the light weapon property or PAM making that extra d6 add up.  HM lasts 1 hour & a level 6/7 ranger has 4  level 1 slots 2 level 2 slots/4 level1 3 level 2 slots respectively. That's up to 6 hours & you start hitting forced march after 8 hours...   Step up the pace a bit & let those marks spread across multiple combats if you want to cast spells on top of them by saying things like "no bob I have mark running, maybe instead of pushing for us to take a short rest every fight or so  you should start learning to psace yourself better & dialing back on the warlock nova/monk stunning strike/etc".


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> As I remember, your claim was that if you can use a 5e with a onednd character, so you can use a 3.5 character. So that they work on a totally different scale (BAB) seems to be negligible...



No.  YOUR claim was that "it works" was the criteria for using something in 5.5.  I simply pointed out that 3e characters use the same basics for d20+bonuses to beat AC or DC, etc, so those technically "work" as well.  So if the criteria is "it works," then 3e characters are in the same boat.  Personally "it works" doesn't cut it for me.  I never claimed that they were equal and in *FACT* said the opposite and that the 3e disparity was far more extreme.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No.  YOUR claim was that "it works" was the criteria for using something in 5.5.  I simply pointed out that 3e characters use the same basics for d20+bonuses to beat AC or DC, etc, so those technically "work" as well.  So if the criteria is "it works," then 3e characters are in the same boat.  Personally "it works" doesn't cut it for me.  I never claimed that they were equal and in *FACT* said the opposite and that the 3e disparity was far more extreme.




If by far you mean comparing apples to oranges, then I agree...

And yes, a 5e and a onednd character will work together. THE POWER DIFFERENCE IS NEGLEGIBLE.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If by far you mean comparing apples to oranges, then I agree...



How is 1d20+bonuses > or = AC being a hit(5.5), apples and 1d20+bonuses > or = AC being a hit(3e), oranges?  Seems like both formulas are the same to me.  They would work together, even if the numbers plugged in are different.  They're just two different types of apples.


UngeheuerLich said:


> THE POWER DIFFERENCE IS NEGLEGIBLE.



To you.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> How is 1d20+bonuses > or = AC being a hit(5.5), apples and 1d20+bonuses > or = AC being a hit(3e), oranges?  Seems like both formulas are the same to me.




To you...

Scale seems to have no meaning...


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 29, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I found that mark was very effective in our test at level 6-7 for two very important reasons.  The first is that it's easier to get more attacks now with the light weapon property or PAM making that extra d6 add up.  HM lasts 1 hour & a level 6/7 ranger has 4  level 1 slots 2 level 2 slots/4 level1 3 level 2 slots respectively. That's up to 6 hours & you start hitting forced march after 8 hours...   Step up the pace a bit & let those marks spread across multiple combats if you want to cast spells on top of them by saying things like "no bob I have mark running, maybe instead of pushing for us to take a short rest every fight or so  you should start learning to psace yourself better & dialing back on the warlock nova/monk stunning strike/etc".



You don't get 3rd level spells until level 9.

You are dedicating 3 of your first level slots to Hunter's mark if you are doing too short rest per long rest. Until level nine, that leaves you only 0-4 more spell slots for the day. 

Most campaigns do not last past level 9 or 10. That means for the most part you won't be able to fully utilize this ability for most of the campaign.

As a whole it is a lot weaker than the Tasha's substitute Primal awareness.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> *You don't get 3rd level spells until level 9.*
> 
> You are dedicating 3 of your first level slots to Hunter's mark if you are doing too short rest per long rest. Until level nine, that leaves you only 0-4 more spell slots for the day.
> 
> ...





Spoiler: you do however get level 2 slots starting at 5th







and my ranger player had three second level slots at level seven (as I seem to have said).  The 2014phb & expert playtest packet both list hunters mark as a level 1 spell.



Why is that bold bit relevant?

My campaigns tend to run into low to mid teens & a level 6-7 playtest with a couple 3.x modules made for a good test since it was far enough past the intro levels for players to have their characters starting to come into their own but not so far into classes that players might have enough trouble jumping into a fresh pc with so many fresh but not yet settled toys to cause a distortion if Alice lucked into the swing better than Bob.

So again make those HM casts last by keeping up the pace & pushing short rest spamming players to pace themselves rather than going nova then pushing for a short rest at your expense.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 29, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Spoiler: you do however get level 2 slots starting at 5th
> 
> 
> 
> ...



5e was designed around taking 2-3 short rests. Short rests are still 1 hour.. So a ranger would be expected to use 3-4 first level Hunter's Marks a day.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> To you...
> 
> Scale seems to have no meaning...



That's very obviously to anyone following this conversation, false.  My bringing up the scale multiple times as having meaning does not equal "seems to have no meaning."  I mean, seriously dude.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That's very obviously to anyone following this conversation, false.  My bringing up the scale multiple times as having meaning does not equal "seems to have no meaning."  I mean, seriously dude.




I was not reading every post of yours, just responses to me.
So when I said, it was working, you said 3.5 characters work too. Then you said, the power difference between onednd and 5e characters is big.
So no, I don't think your scale in any way reflects the actual facts.
So we just need to agree to disagree here.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Actually, no.
> In it was just inclusivity, they would have just removed the -2s like they were already doing.



The hell are you talking about? There were two races with -2s, and the complaints were about quite a lot more than orcs and kobolds. 

If I were wrong, Tasha's wouldn't have also allowed you to pick whatever proficiencies you want, use custom lineage to represent your character however you want, they wouldn't have removed a bunch of "culture as inborn trait" language from the game, and they wouldn't have made videos talking about how in dnd the race writeup doesn't actually reflect racial norms, but rather the classic adventurer of that race, which is clearly nonsensical and designed  to distance their depiction of the races from concepts of genetic essentialism.


Minigiant said:


> They added floating +2/+1 to allow for goblin paladins. The change was to allow DMs and Players to create the race/class/culture combos they wants without feeling like the combos were weak or underpowered.



This is such a silly argument to make. They changed how races worked because one of the biggest inclusivity complaints was that the cultural traits and static ASIs represented racial/genetic essentialism, which is a racist concept used in the real world to justify atrocities. 

Do you not remember the online discourse directed at wizards at the time leading up to Tasha's? d

it happened in response to inclusivity based complaints.


Minigiant said:


> It isn't that massive.
> 
> Like I said, rangers do not have the spell slots to put up 2 spells often in a 6-8 encounter day until hid-high levels. They'll burn though all their spells fast. And the primal spell list doesn't have that many spells you would stack within the short time. So it really doesn't do anything until level 9 when you get 3rd level spell slots and at that point most campaigns are over.



You're thinking level 11 or 12, first of all, but no. They have just as many slots as Paladins, and the primal spell list has plenty of very good concentration spells. But even if we only look at damage dealing, the Ranger can now go nova, and stack weapon attack spells (which all require concentration) on top of hunter's mark. 

If an hour duration is short in your experience, I doubt that is a common experience. 

Also, there is no assumption of a 6-8 encounter day, that isn't the norm, it's literally just the number of encounters that is suggested to deplete the group's resources when using only fairly mild encounters. 

3-4 encounters is almost certainly at least twice as common, and 1-2 at least as common as that.


Minigiant said:


> ALL concentrationless HM does is keep rangers from making checks to lose concentration on HM. Decent buff for melee rangers. Almost ignorable to ranged rangers.



Any ranged ranger that never has to make concentration checks is either prone to ignoring concentration spells, or has an easy mode DM. 

Beyond that, again, it allows a DPR focused ranger, especially the twf rangers which aren't even all melee with this UA, to throw up HM and any of ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, barkskin, summon beast (they clearly state that the list is only PHB spells, and there's nowhere else summon beast would go), spike growth, pass without trace (usually kept up until the first blows land, and HM can now be put up ahead of time as well, for a deadlier ambush. whether it can be used in combat past that point to any benefit depends on how stealth is run), enlarge/reduce (I once had a party go all in on the two-rapier ranger/monk with haste, enlarge/reduce, heroism, aid, from the party and HM from the ranger herself, and let her hold a chokepoint while the team performed a ritual. I threw 6 deadly fights at the ranger by herself aside from the occassional heal between fights. She held. It was rad as hell. I gave her a bonus level as a reward for extreme bravery under fire), and of course all those level 3 spells you want to pretend don't exist in order to make your wrong point.


Minigiant said:


> So like what I said to Maxperson, It's looks cool on paper. Until actual play then its a big fat meh.



In _your game_, you certainly seem to have not used it well enough to see it's value, or perhaps your DM just runs things in a way that you've somehow got 6-8 encounters per day, and they never happen 2+ in a single hour. 


I don't think that is especially representative.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 5e was designed around taking 2-3 short rests. Short rests are still 1 hour.. So a ranger would be expected to use 3-4 first level Hunter's Marks a day.



Dude...no. Not only does the ranger not need to use it every time they can in order for it to be a really good feature, but the game is designed around getting at least 1 SR, and most adventuring days getting 2, _maybe_ 3. I see no evidence at all that any part of the game assumes that 3 short rests ever actually happen. 

Also, a 5th level ranger has 3 level 1 slots and 2 level 2 slots. Using 2-3 (much more reasonable expectation) hunter's mark casts per day is...not a big deal. They're a per day resource, they're meant to be used.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 29, 2022)

Now, if you wanted to argue that they should get a free casting of hunter's mark per day, perhaps with additional free uses at higher levels, I'd be open to that. But the idea they don't have enough spell slots to get good use out of the feature is just ridiculous.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 5e was designed around taking 2-3 short rests. Short rests are still 1 hour.. So a ranger would be expected to use 3-4 first level Hunter's Marks a day.



Nevermind.  Distracted doing my son's homework.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 5e was designed around taking 2-3 short rests. Short rests are still 1 hour.. So a ranger would be expected to use 3-4 first level Hunter's Marks a day.



What they should do, is keep it like it is with one change.  Give 2 free uses of hunters mark that don't take spell slots.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> *5e* was designed around taking 2-3 short rests. Short rests are still 1 hour.. So a ranger would be expected to use 3-4 first level Hunter's Marks a day.



Thankfully oned&d _seems_ to be avoiding that poor choice 5e made to burden the GM with managing class balance.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 29, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> What they should do, is keep it like it is with one change.  Give 2 free uses of hunters mark that don't take spell slots.




Or concentration free an 2 free uses. Giving the ranger more spell versatility is good.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 29, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Or concentration free an 2 free uses. Giving the ranger more spell versatility is good.



Well, that's what I said. 

Keep it the same(concentration free), but add two free spell slots.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 30, 2022)

So, ignoring the thread drift...

There is still no update. This is starting to get interesting. 

Maybe they are just going to bigger when it finally comes out. Maybe its that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 30, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> As a whole it is a lot weaker than the Tasha's substitute Primal awareness.



I mean, Primal Awareness fills a totally different place in the Ranger's toolkit, so...odd comparison.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 30, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> There is still no update. This is starting to get interesting.
> 
> Maybe they are just going to bigger when it finally comes out. Maybe its that.



Or since they still have to also do all their regular work for the upcoming 2023 books in addition to working on the playtest... maybe they only get to prep UA packets when they aren't under other time crunches and they have a deadline or two on the horizon?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Nov 30, 2022)

December 1 and apparently _smaller_ than the last few, though it looks like it'll be the Warrior group.


----------



## mellored (Nov 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> December 1 and apparently _smaller_ than the last few, though it looks like it'll be the Warrior group.



It's sounded like it would just be the cleric.
Warriors are after that.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> December 1 and apparently _smaller_ than the last few, though it looks like it'll be the Warrior group.



I think Crawford mentioned that it would be cleric/priest group in the great video earlier today.  He also hints at some warrior group stuff to expect down the line


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Nov 30, 2022)

Huh. My mistake. I was busy for a bit of the video (watching it at work) and heard him speak of the warrior stuff (and weapons) and made a foolish assumption. 

As you were, people! Don't listen to me!


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 30, 2022)

It looks like you'll be the cleric ardling and dragonborn in December.

Then the rest of the priests or the Warrior classes in January.

Then whatever wasn't chosen in January or the warriors or Warlock for February. My money is on warlocks in February because who else are you going to talk to but a shady magical patron granting magical gifts when Valentine's Day comes.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 30, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> It looks like you'll be the cleric ardling and dragonborn in December.
> 
> Then the rest of the priests or the Warrior classes in January.
> 
> Then whatever wasn't chosen in January or the warriors or Warlock for February. My money is on warlocks in February because who else are you going to talk to but a shady magical patron granting magical gifts when Valentine's Day comes.



Doing just the cleric might also be a way of shrinking the size of surveys & giving the team crunching them smaller chunks to report on more frequently if they do something like release the druid & paladin a week or two after the prior release (ie something like 12/1 12/8 12/15 or 12/1/22 12/15/22 12/29/22).  

If it takes a week or two to crunch a survey of $X size there's benefit in keeping releases to something that would generate $X size surveys as opposed to one 3($X) survey that runs for three times as long.  That's probably especially true if they get the bulk of their feedback in the first chunk of that time period even if the individual surveys run the same length as the monolithic ones have.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 30, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Doing just the cleric might also be a way of shrinking the size of surveys & giving the team crunching them smaller chunks to report on more frequently if they do something like release the druid & paladin a week or two after the prior release (ie something like 12/1 12/8 12/15 or 12/1/22 12/15/22 12/29/22).
> 
> If it takes a week or two to crunch a survey of $X size there's benefit in keeping releases to something that would generate $X size surveys as opposed to one 3($X) survey that runs for three times as long.  That's probably especially true if they get the bulk of their feedback in the first chunk of that time period even if the individual surveys run the same length as the monolithic ones have.




Well in the postmortem of the D&D next playtest they said that a big mistake they had was having playtest packages being too big so players could not fully dive in an aspects that they thoroughly wanted to get tested.

With a one class play test, the focus will be just on that one class. Information you get from it will be on just that one class. Everybody will be share their likes and dislikes on that one class.


----------



## mellored (Nov 30, 2022)

Doing cleric means doing the biggest sub-class at 3 change, as well as the whole divine list.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 30, 2022)

I guess going thru 40,000 responses to the survey is time-consuming.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 30, 2022)

mellored said:


> Doing cleric means doing the biggest sub-class at 3 change, as well as the whole divine list.



That is a good point.

I hope every class chooses its subclass at level 1.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 30, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> That is a good point.
> 
> I hope every class chooses its subclass at level 1.




Why should that be?

I think we will see how the cleric does it.

I can see many impelentations that work well with cleric subclasses relegated to level 3.

Level 1: chose domain/deity.
Level 2: get appropriate channel divinity.
Level 3: get a proper subclass that makes your cleric really differentiate between each other.

Same for wizards.

Level 1: chose specialization
Level 2: get appropriate power
Level 3: get peoper subclass like arcanist, war wizard etc.

Or something like that.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Why should that be?
> 
> I think we will see how the cleric does it.
> 
> ...



Cleric:
Level 1: Spellcasting, Templar Bonus (Bonus Cantrip, Healing, Skills, or Weapons)
Level 2: Channel Divinity. Turn Undead
Level 3: Divine Domain
Level 4: Feat


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 1, 2022)

I really doubt they’re going to radically change what cleric and wizard subclasses _are_. The post PHB subclasses for both classes are very popular/well received. Changing domains into a level 1 minor choice and completely reworking what concept a cleric subclass hinges upon would mean you just can’t use the Grave Domain with the new Cleric. That’s…just not going to happen. 

Now maybe they will thread that needle and we will be able to play a grave cleric with the nature domain, and just…hope that isn’t super confusing for new players, or maybe they’ll include a rule that if you lr subclass gains it’s first feature at level 1, you simply swap the proposed new feature to level 3, or soemthing, but all of those seem less likely than just saying that you choose your domain at 3 and get soemthing that isn’t a domain at level 1, _or_ the subclass structure is common within a class group, rather than all classes, and priests all get their first level at level 1.


----------



## Gorck (Dec 1, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I really doubt they’re going to radically change what cleric and wizard subclasses _are_. The post PHB subclasses for both classes are very popular/well received. Changing domains into a level 1 minor choice and completely reworking what concept a cleric subclass hinges upon would mean you just can’t use the Grave Domain with the new Cleric. That’s…just not going to happen.
> 
> Now maybe they will thread that needle and we will be able to play a grave cleric with the nature domain, and just…hope that isn’t super confusing for new players, or maybe they’ll include a rule that if you lr subclass gains it’s first feature at level 1, you simply swap the proposed new feature to level 3, or soemthing, but all of those seem less likely than just saying that you choose your domain at 3 and get soemthing that isn’t a domain at level 1, _or_ the subclass structure is common within a class group, rather than all classes, and priests all get their first level at level 1.



I've been thinking it would be this way for a while now.  For the Warriors and Experts, there is no change since all 6 of those classes already got their subclass at level 3 in 5e.  

For the Divine group, getting their subclass at level 1 means the Druid gets it 1 level sooner and the Paladin get it 2 levels sooner.  That wouldn't be much of a change for the Druid and I think it would make sense for the Paladin to make their Oath when they first become a member of the class rather than 3 levels into it.  Their tenets seem more like vows they would make as soon as they devote themselves to becoming Paladins (except the Fallen Paladin of course).

For the Mage group, the Sorcerer and Warlock already get their subclasses at level 1.  The Wizard gets it at level 2, but I could easily see them choosing their specialization when they graduate from apprentice to full-on Wizard. 

So my prediction is that the Warrior and Expert groups will get their subclasses at level 3, while the Divine and Mage groups will get theirs at level 1.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 1, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I've been thinking it would be this way for a while now.  For the Warriors and Experts, there is no change since all 6 of those classes already got their subclass at level 3 in 5e.
> 
> For the Divine group, getting their subclass at level 1 means the Druid gets it 1 level sooner and the Paladin get it 2 levels sooner.  That wouldn't be much of a change for the Druid and I think it would make sense for the Paladin to make their Oath when they first become a member of the class rather than 3 levels into it.  Their tenets seem more like vows they would make as soon as they devote themselves to becoming Paladins (except the Fallen Paladin of course).
> 
> ...



Looks like we were wrong! 

Still, I don’t mind the idea of a smaller choice at level 2 and subclass at 3.


----------

