# Playtest: Is the Human Terrible?



## Reynard

I am running a 5E conversion of Iron Gods and we have decided we will use that campaign to playtest changes presented for 5E. The characters just leveled and I let the players rebuild their chartacters to conform to the Origins playtest doc, and one player absolutely refuses to use the playtest human because he says it is terrible.

Is it?


----------



## TwoSix

Reynard said:


> I am running a 5E conversion of Iron Gods and we have decided we will use that campaign to playtest changes presented for 5E. The characters just leveled and I let the players rebuild their chartacters to conform to the Origins playtest doc, and one player absolutely refuses to use the playtest human because he says it is terrible.
> 
> Is it?



It's not terrible, but it's certainly nerfed compared to 2014 VHuman.  Only having access to a small subset of starting feats moves Human from "absolute top tier" to "above average", I'd say.  It's still really good for a few concepts that rely on Magic Initiate.  And Lucky is always a great feat, but it's not something you really build a whole character around.


----------



## tetrasodium

Reynard said:


> I am running a 5E conversion of Iron Gods and we have decided we will use that campaign to playtest changes presented for 5E. The characters just leveled and I let the players rebuild their chartacters to conform to the Origins playtest doc, and one player absolutely refuses to use the playtest human because he says it is terrible.
> 
> Is it?



No it's not. The 5e rules enshrined the munchkin on too many levels & the minimal playtest rules we have _start_ correcting those mistakes.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

What feat did they take as a Variant human? 

Because the 1D&D human, with now actual features, is way better than the variant human when not factoring the extra feat, which they both get. I guess their problem is the restricted nature of some feats, yeah?


----------



## Reynard

tetrasodium said:


> No it's not. The 5e rules enshrined the munchkin on too many levels & the minimal playtest rules we have _start_ correcting those mistakes.



I don't understand this post. Was the 2014 human broken? How so?


----------



## Parmandur

The new human is notnterrible st all: free bobus Inspiration to start the day, a 1st Level Feat on top of a first Level Feat...it's rock solid.


----------



## Reynard

Tales and Chronicles said:


> What feat did they take as a Variant human?
> 
> Because the 1D&D human, with now actual features, is way better than the variant human when not factoring the extra feat, which they both get. I guess their problem is the restricted nature of some feats, yeah?



Reading through our campaign discord discussion it appears that is the case. He's real salty about it, too...


----------



## Galandris

Reynard said:


> I am running a 5E conversion of Iron Gods and we have decided we will use that campaign to playtest changes presented for 5E. The characters just leveled and I let the players rebuild their chartacters to conform to the Origins playtest doc, and one player absolutely refuses to use the playtest human because he says it is terrible.
> 
> Is it?




It is weaker. He's objectively better off playing an original variant human than a compatible human.

Vuman :


Stat increase made irrelevant by the background ASIs
Size M
Speed 30 ft
2 languages
1 skill
1 feat of your choice

Cuman :


Size M or S
Speed 30 ft
Inspiration after a long rest
1 skill
1 feat from the reduced/lower powered "1st level feat" list.

Unless you want to be S, you're basically trading 2 languages and the restricting the choice on your initial feat for advantage on a roll once a day.

I wouldn't say it's "awful" or "terrible" but it's clearly inferior. I'd also expect this inferiority to be compounded by the fact that an unrestricted feat on top of a 1st level feat coming from background opens up combos that aren't possible with two 1st level feat.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Reynard said:


> Reading through our campaign discord discussion it appears that is the case. He's real salty about it, too...



Yeah, I guess losing their GWM or another ''build'' feat may have that effect. But I think that is quite telling of the problematic nature of some feats at level 1: they are so good that anything else will look like a huge nerf to some players.


----------



## Reynard

Galandris said:


> It is weaker. He's objectively better off playing an original variant human than a compatible human.
> 
> Vuman :
> 
> 
> Stat increase made irrelevant by the background ASIs
> Size M
> Speed 30 ft
> 2 languages
> 1 skill
> 1 feat of your choice
> 
> Cuman :
> 
> 
> Size M or S
> Speed 30 ft
> Inspiration after a long rest
> 1 skill
> 1 feat from the reduced/lower powered "1st level feat" list.
> 
> Unless you want to be S, you're basically trading 2 languages and the restricting the choice on your initial feat for advantage on a roll once a day.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's "awful" or "terrible" but it's clearly inferior.



But what about compared to the other playtest races, because that seems to be an issue for him too (that the human is weaker, specifically).


----------



## Reynard

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Yeah, I guess losing their GWM or another ''build'' feat may have that effect. But I think that is quite telling of the problematic nature of some feats at level 1: they are so good that anything else will look like a huge nerf to some players.



He chose eldritch adept. I don't even know what that is.


----------



## Parmandur

The 1st Level Feats are not underpowered or toned down, though.

@Reynard  on the other hand, the spirit of the playtest seems to be to mux 5E with OneD&D options, so it's not necessarily an incomplete playtest to mix and match 5E and OneD&D Races.


----------



## TwoSix

Reynard said:


> Reading through our campaign discord discussion it appears that is the case. He's real salty about it, too...



Not gonna lie, it's definitely an impactful change.  There are several concepts I've played that I would probably not have played if this rule had been in effect.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> He chose eldritch adept. I don't even know what that is.



Warlock Invocation dip, from Tasha's.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> The 1st Level Feats are not underpowered or toned down, though.
> 
> @Reynard  on the other hand, the spirit of the playtest seems to be to mux 5E with OneD&D options, so it's not necessarily an incomplete playtest to mix and match 5E and OneD&D Races.



Yeah, I am not requiring folks change, I just gave the option.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Reynard said:


> He chose eldritch adept. I don't even know what that is.



It gives you the choice of a Warlock's Invocation. Pretty sure they took the classic ++Darkvision one.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Warlock Invocation dip, from Tasha's.



Ah. that makes sense. He's playing a spore druid which I hate almost as much as I hate the gloom stalker ranger.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> But what about compared to the other playtest races, because that seems to be an issue for him too (that the human is weaker, specifically).



That's obviously not true. All of these Raves basically have a Darkvisuon or Proficiency, a Feat equivalent (like half are secretly Magic Initiate with some Ribbons), and some kicker like Inspiration. Thst is, these are all built along the lines of Tasha's. The Human stands up very well.


----------



## TwoSix

Reynard said:


> But what about compared to the other playtest races, because that seems to be an issue for him too (that the human is weaker, specifically).



I'm not seeing that.  I don't see a playtest race that's obviously "better" than a human.


----------



## tetrasodium

Reynard said:


> I don't understand this post. Was the 2014 human broken? How so?



_Yes_.   It came with a feat and a bonus array that was designed to maximize the underpriced odd valued attributes.  Then wotc made feats more powerfu by collapsing feat chainsl & removed anything resembling prerequisites to make it even more broken.


----------



## Galandris

Reynard said:


> But what about compared to the other playtest races, because that seems to be an issue for him too (that the human is weaker, specifically).




It's... a toss really. My tentative ranking based on how powers can be used in a campaign is this: (this is highly debatable of course):
Human being under Ardling, Dwarves if the campaign will ever venture underground for a significant part of it, elves, halflings and tieflings; on par with Dragonborn, gnomes, orcs. They'd be in the lower tier, but not far below.

This depends on how your campaign value darkvision, really. Humans are darkness-impaired. The big thing of getting feat compensated that... for some, overly, for other, justly (if their DM peppered the lightbearer with arrows long before they could retaliate, by playing enemies smartly).


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> I'm not seeing that.  I don't see a playtest race that's obviously "better" than a human.



The balance is actually pretty close all around.


----------



## Reynard

Galandris said:


> Dragonborn



Relatedly, the db paladin player is nonplussed about the breath nerf.


----------



## James Gasik

At this moment, it's not so much that it's all that less powerful that it's less "cool".  It seems pretty obvious that there is an intent to do more with Inspiration in the future- if this proves to be the case, Human might start to look a lot better.


----------



## MoonSong

TwoSix said:


> Not gonna lie, it's definitely an impactful change.  There are several concepts I've played that I would probably not have played if this rule had been in effect.



It is the only way to start playing a sorcerer with metamagic from first level... for example.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

MoonSong said:


> It is the only way to start playing a sorcerer with metamagic from first level... for example.



I dont think X initiate will have a level prerequisite, nor the X touched. My guess is that they only went with the PHB's feats that would make logical 1st level feat.


----------



## Horwath

Parmandur said:


> The new human is notnterrible st all: free bobus Inspiration to start the day, a 1st Level Feat on top of a first Level Feat...it's rock solid.



I would rather have my choice of a feat.

you can keep your inspiration.


----------



## Galandris

Reynard said:


> Relatedly, the db paladin player is nonplussed about the breath nerf.




I can see that. I felt that the Fizban's dragonborn were "right". The cragonborns paladin will probably never get to use his breath after level 4. Even assuming a high CON paladin, an action that deals 1d10+level damage (12 average at level 5), DEX save for half, instead of two attacks dealing weapon damage (with a chance to crit) (14 if using a greatsword, 10 if using a longsword) is roughly equivalent (DEX is easily resisted). At higher level, the breath damage increase, sure, but at level 11 you'd do 16 breath damage while your weapons attack would do 2x(2d8 or 2d6+1d8) [18 or 22] thanks to the added radiant damage). And at even higher level, paladins tend to have enough slots that they can start throwing smites around... Sure, breath is an area of effect attack, but cone in close combat there is chance to have comrades in the area. So it becomes useful only in the edge case of breathing just before contact...

It's no longer "good" it's just a circumstancial ability. IMO not enough to be put on "higher tier".


----------



## Reynard

Horwath said:


> I would rather have my choice of a feat.
> 
> you can keep your inspiration.



You do. You get a bonus 1st level feat, plus a skill, plus inspiration when you wake up -- on top of the feat everyone gets.


----------



## MoonSong

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I dont think X initiate will have a level prerequisite, nor the X touched. My guess is that they only went with the PHB's feats that would make logical 1st level feat.



It also hurts weapon and armor proficiency aren't an option. That is kind of the most basic customization.


----------



## Reynard

MoonSong said:


> It also hurts weapon and armor proficiency aren't an option. That is kind of the most basic customization.



They aren't really worth a feat though. I assume they will be part of backgrounds?


----------



## Horwath

MoonSong said:


> It also hurts weapon and armor proficiency aren't an option. That is kind of the most basic customization.



it should be;

tool=language=1 weapon proficiency,

then interchange is as you will.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

MoonSong said:


> It also hurts weapon and armor proficiency aren't an option. That is kind of the most basic customization.



Agree. IIRC some dragonlance background feats gave armor proficiency and such. So I expect to see the X armor feats in the list of 1st level feats also and let the X armor master feats be at higher level. 

I also hope some of the racial feats are left at 1st level.


----------



## Charlaquin

The 1D&D Human itself is actually better than the 2014 V-Human. Both get a bonus skill and a Feat at 1st level. In addition to that, 2014 V-Human gets a bonus language and 1D&D human gets Inspiration whenever they finish a long rest (and can give it to someone else if they already have it). That’s a much more significant benefit.

The reason the 1D&D human might feel weaker is that 1D&D Feats are restricted by level. So, it’s not the human that was nerfed, it’s the Feat selection. And, that was probably a needed change, since some Feats were so much more powerful than others you’d be a fool not to take them at 1st level if you could.


----------



## Vael

Agreed, it's less that the human has been nerfed, it's that feats have been restructured. Also, now that everyone gets a first level feat, it's a little less special to be a human with 2 starting feats.


----------



## Stalker0

Sounds like you all should give that feedback in the survey and let the player just try out one of the other races then, see what they think. And if they are going to be like "no my guy is a human and I'm going to keep playing a vhuman"....well apparantely they all agreed to try the playtest, so he's either playtesting or he's not.


----------



## Parmandur

Horwath said:


> I would rather have my choice of a feat.
> 
> you can keep your inspiration.



Still gets an extra Feat.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> It's not terrible, but it's certainly nerfed compared to 2014 VHuman.  Only having access to a small subset of starting feats moves Human from "absolute top tier" to "above average", I'd say.  It's still really good for a few concepts that rely on Magic Initiate.  And Lucky is always a great feat, but it's not something you really build a whole character around.



First, I agree with your assessment of the 2014 Vhuman.  I think it's fantastic. What I wonder at, though, is why D&D Beyond's pie chart shows humans at 11.8% and Vhuman at 11%.  You'd think that people would select the top tier version more often than the normal one.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> First, I agree with your assessment of the 2014 Vhuman.  I think it's fantastic. What I wonder at, though, is why D&D Beyond's pie chart shows humans at 11.8% and Vhuman at 11%.  You'd think that people would select the top tier version more often than the normal one.



20% and 4%, IIRC. The reason is that in 5E most tables don't use Feats, per WotC and Beyond's interprof their data. The big change here is making the variant rule the rule.


----------



## Charlaquin

Maxperson said:


> First, I agree with your assessment of the 2014 Vhuman.  I think it's fantastic. What I wonder at, though, is why D&D Beyond's pie chart shows humans at 11.8% and Vhuman at 11%.  You'd think that people would select the top tier version more often than the normal one.



2014 non-variant human is the only race you can take that doesn’t require you to make a single decision (other than to play the race). Never underestimate casual players’ aversion to making build decisions.


----------



## Galandris

Maxperson said:


> First, I agree with your assessment of the 2014 Vhuman.  I think it's fantastic. What I wonder at, though, is why D&D Beyond's pie chart shows humans at 11.8% and Vhuman at 11%.  You'd think that people would select the top tier version more often than the normal one.




+1 to all stats sounds attractive. It's +6 when the others get +3. Of course, with your system mastery, you know this to be false, but it's a very common "first read impression". Plus, it can be true if one rolls a lot of odd scores. Add, on top of that, the players who don't feel like roleplaying a non-human because credibly playing an alien mind is very hard and taxing, so they need some human, and their DM might ban vuman altogether.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> 2014 non-variant human is the only race you can take that doesn’t require you to make a single decision (other than to play the race). Never underestimate casual players’ aversion to making build decisions.



Notably, this proposed Human has a Feat pre-selected.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Notably, this proposed Human has a Feat pre-selected.



Yep. Though you do have to choose the bonus skill, and the three skills granted by the Feat if you take the default one.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> 20% and 4%, IIRC. The reason is that in 5E most tables don't use Feats, per WotC and Beyond's interprof their data. The big change here is making the variant rule the rule.



Maybe the numbers have changed.  This is the one I saw from 2019.


----------



## Mistwell

Getting both Alert and Magic Initiate at level one can be a pretty great start for a PC.


----------



## Blue

Reynard said:


> I don't understand this post. Was the 2014 human broken? How so?



Before Tasha's, vHuman was S Tier with a few others - they had better features but vHuman was the _only_ way to start with a feat.  After Tasha's, when everyone had variable modifiers so the +1/+1 became weaker comparatively, and Custom Lineage could give a feat _and_ Darkvision it moved down to Tier 1.  Which is still at the top of the power curve.

Now, when everyone gets a feat so this is a second feat, human is a good, solid race.  Basically, it was nerfed both directly and by giving everyone a feat so it wasn't special.  But only down to being a good race.  It only feels like a bad race because it gave so much before.


----------



## Gradine

Humorously enough 5e was the one edition where I _stopped _almost exclusively playing humans.


----------



## HammerMan

Reynard said:


> one player absolutely refuses to use the playtest human because he says it is terrible.
> 
> Is it?



We have a human bard with 2 feats.  She jumped at getting tough +2hp per level and the music feat that grants inspiration. 

She just took the valor bard subclass and is as good in combat as our fighter


----------



## Stalker0

Mistwell said:


> Getting both Alert and Magic Initiate at level one can be a pretty great start for a PC.



Or hell just throw on toughness and your tougher than a dwarf.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Generally it gets a better ASI than the old Variant and free inspiration in exchange for being limited to a still fairly strong list of feats. How that's remotely "terrible" by comparison for a typical player I don't know.

However the new Human is terrible compared to the variant human if you absolutely had your heart set on starting with some specific feat. There are definitely powergamer reasons to do this, but they might also just have a specific concept around a specific feat. Personally as someone who has yet to get around to rolling up a post-Tasha's level 1 Sorcerer I would be real disappointed if I couldn't start with the metamagic feat, because I think the first tier of the class probably plays a lot better with that. I suppose that's a powergaming desire on some level, but it's also a matter of finding the design of a class that never really worked for me improved by the feat.

Personally I dislike the new human for the same reason I dislike the Variant human. Compared to the standard human they are paying extra ability score points for a feat versus what they would if they just waited for an ASI. Yes I understand why that results in a more powerful character, it still rankles me to do in principle.


----------



## Leatherhead

One thing that people are overlooking: The Old Vhuman is going to be nerfed because all of the PHB feats are likely going to be reworked into level restricted feats or otherwise brought in line.


----------



## Stalker0

Leatherhead said:


> One thing that people are overlooking: The Old Vhuman is going to be nerfed because all of the PHB feats are likely going to be reworked into level restricted feats or otherwise brought in line.



Oh its getting nerfed into the ground....because its going to be gone  There will likely only be one human going forward.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Human did lose a lot of appeal, because now you no longer *need* their starting feat like you did before. While still remaining one of the few races with the negative racial trait of not having darkvision.

That in no way makes them bad - they are still fine. It's not like they're Dragonborn or something. It's not bad to pick up two of Alert/Lucky/Magic Initiate/Tough/Musician + extra skill + start a day with inspiration.


----------



## Blue

Stalker0 said:


> Oh its getting nerfed into the ground....because its going to be gone  There will likely only be one human going forward.



Everyone insists that this is the same edition and that it's not a half-edition shift, so the old human and vHuman are still in play as well as part of the edition.

Though I'm with you, that it's really a half edition shift and the PHB2014 options should no longer be available.


----------



## Stalker0

Blue said:


> Everyone insists that this is the same edition and that it's not a half-edition shift, so the old human and vHuman are still in play as well as part of the edition.



Yes but in theory if you are using the old stuff....you should be using the old stuff. If you want to cherry pick X race from the original with Y feat from the new you might get into some problems.


----------



## Shiroiken

Reynard said:


> I don't understand this post. Was the 2014 human broken? How so?



It wasn't "broken" (a horribly overused word), but it was very much top tier. A large number of char-op builds utilized it to get the best feat without sacrificing an ASI. The most common feats I've seen taken are Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, and Sharpshooter.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Shiroiken said:


> It wasn't "broken" (a horribly overused word), but it was very much top tier. A large number of char-op builds utilized it to get the best feat without sacrificing an ASI. The most common feats I've seen taken are Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, and Sharpshooter.



I was never a power house but love taking moderately armored with non-dwarf blade locks.

Yeah.  Strength based!  Or heavily armored for clerics.  I have a heavily armored arcana cleric in a group now.

I will regret losing the ability to armor up if all of this sticks


----------



## Blue

Stalker0 said:


> Yes but in theory if you are using the old stuff....you should be using the old stuff. If you want to cherry pick X race from the original with Y feat from the new you might get into some problems.



If it's one edition, it's one edition.  That's like saying "well if you use new stuff like the Centaur from MotM you can't use old sub classes like from Xanathar's or the PHB".

If you want things that are not compatible with another - that's a different edition.  Which I think it is.


----------



## Parmandur

Blue said:


> If it's one edition, it's one edition.  That's like saying "well if you use new stuff like the Centaur from MotM you can't use old sub classes like from Xanathar's or the PHB".
> 
> If you want things that are not compatible with another - that's a different edition.  Which I think it is.



The playtest so fat is focused on playing new bits with older material in the same character, let alone table. 

Using old options likw Race or Class is fine. Old Feats might be a bridge too far...but those are a neglected variant rule in 2014 as it is.


----------



## James Gasik

It's compatible, but in the same way I can run an old MS/DOS game on my laptop as long as I have another program to get around the fact that DOS is no longer a thing.


----------



## Blue

Parmandur said:


> The playtest so fat is focused on playing new bits with older material in the same character, let alone table.
> 
> Using old options likw Race or Class is fine. Old Feats might be a bridge too far...but those are a neglected variant rule in 2014 as it is.



We're talking about the 2024 Anniversary Edition, the full thing.   Stalker0's quote was "Oh its getting nerfed into the ground....because its going to be gone  There will likely only be one human going forward.", and I continued to talk about the same scope they were.


----------



## Parmandur

Blue said:


> We're talking about the 2024 Anniversary Edition, the full thing.   Stalker0's quote was "Oh its getting nerfed into the ground....because its going to be gone  There will likely only be one human going forward.", and I continued to talk about the same scope they were.



Yeah, I don't think WotC expects any option to go anywhere: they are interested in selling e-tools, after all.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Yeah, I guess losing their GWM or another ''build'' feat may have that effect. But I think that is quite telling of the problematic nature of some feats at level 1: they are so good that anything else will look like a huge nerf to some players.



Yeah the only reason I allow all feats at level 1 is that my group doesn’t have anyone that would take sharpshooter over something more interesting. 


Reynard said:


> But what about compared to the other playtest races, because that seems to be an issue for him too (that the human is weaker, specifically).



Definitely not. 


Reynard said:


> He chose eldritch adept. I don't even know what that is.



Not a super strong feat, but def wouldn’t break anything to allow as a level 1 feat. 


Reynard said:


> They aren't really worth a feat though. I assume they will be part of backgrounds?



Either that or they’ll combine proficiency and a specialization benefit, or a weapon master feat that gives 3 weapons and a bonus benefit.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Blue said:


> If it's one edition, it's one edition.  That's like saying "well if you use new stuff like the Centaur from MotM you can't use old sub classes like from Xanathar's or the PHB".
> 
> If you want things that are not compatible with another - that's a different edition.  Which I think it is.



Which is why it will all be fine to play together. 

Because it’s one edition.


----------



## Mistwell

Blue said:


> Everyone insists that this is the same edition and that it's not a half-edition shift, so the old human and vHuman are still in play as well as part of the edition.
> 
> Though I'm with you, that it's really a half edition shift and the PHB2014 options should no longer be available.



It's a half-edition shift. The dispute seems to be more about whether it's 6e or 5.5e. I say 5.5e.

I mean, already with this playtest we have a ton of stuff which is simply not compatible. If you have a class which turns crits against you into non-crits, that's not compatible with foes no longer critting you. If you have a class which grants advantage of strength checks to initiate or escape a grapple, that's not compatible with grapple being moved to attacks and saves. If you have a feat from Xanathar's which doesn't have a level indicator, will they even update Xanathar's feats with level tags? And that's just half of the incompatibilities in just the first playtest package.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> It's a half-edition shift. The dispute seems to be more about whether it's 6e or 5.5e. I say 5.5e.
> 
> I mean, already with this playtest we have a ton of stuff which is simply not compatible. If you have a class which turns crits against you into non-crits, that's not compatible with foes no longer critting you.



Arguable, since we don’t know if those will be updated, or if the full new crit rules will make it fit. 


Mistwell said:


> If you have a class which grants advantage of strength checks to initiate or escape a grapple, that's not compatible with grapple being moved to attacks and saves.



You still make a check to escape a grapple, and to initiate it. At most they may need to errata some features to take out the “strength (athletics) check” before “to initiate a grapple”. 


Mistwell said:


> If you have a feat from Xanathar's which doesn't have a level indicator, will they even update Xanathar's feats with level tags? And that's just half of the incompatibilities in just the first playtest package.



So a hypothetical incompatibility, maybe? 

Please list the rest. I’m pretty sure these minor erratas (at worst) are far more than half of the full list of supposed incompatibilities between the playtest and the existing rules.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> Arguable, since we don’t know if those will be updated, or if the full new crit rules will make it fit.
> 
> You still make a check to escape a grapple, and to initiate it. At most they may need to errata some features to take out the “strength (athletics) check” before “to initiate a grapple”.
> 
> So a hypothetical incompatibility, maybe?
> 
> Please list the rest. I’m pretty sure these minor erratas (at worst) are far more than half of the full list of supposed incompatibilities between the playtest and the existing rules.



I am saying if you right now attempt to play the playtest rules along with your existing PCs, they will immediately need a house rule to make some of them work.

Here's some more.

You have a Variant Human or Custom Lineage feat that is a half-feat with a bonus to an ability score so you could start with an 18 in that stat at first level. Not compatible with these playtest rules.

Adamantine Armor - Does nothing now.

Spore Druid Fungal Body class feature (14th lev) - Most important part of it now does nothing, and there is no easy house rule to address that. And as it's from a supplement, and we have no indication they will be updating every subclass in every supplement, it may just end up staying that way.

Grave Cleric Sentinel at Death’s Door class feature (6th level) - does nothing now, there is no easy house rule to address that, and as it's a supplement may never seen an update.

The grapple issue impacts raging barbarians, rune knights using giants might, heck even the plasmoid from Spelljammer release literally the same week as these playtest rules has an ability that is no longer compatible with these rules. 

We have a TON of issues with short rests being phased to be only for hit dice recovery and not for restoring certain powers on a short rest. All those things in books outside the core 3, we have no reason to believe they're all going to get updated. So they're directly in contradiction to the new core philosophy of not encouraging short rests for regeneration of powers. 
Clockwork sorcerer chooses from certain spell lists which may no longer exist once they shift to arcane, divine and primal spell lists.

And this is just the first playtest package of 11-17 more monthly packages. My greatest concern is for all those supplements that are not the core 3. We know they will replace the core 3, but will they offer an update or errata for all the other books or just leave them behind like they did for 3e when 3.5e came out? I think it's reasonable to assume the later.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> I am saying if you right now attempt to play the playtest rules along with your existing PCs, they will immediately need a house rule to make some of them work.



Folks are doing it, right now. I’m seeing very little rules conflicts, all easily handled, all easy to see how it will likely be sorted out when playtest becomes published book. 


Mistwell said:


> Treantmonk will soon be coming out with a video which lists a lot more incompatibilities (already available to his Patreon subscribers.)



Good for treatmonk, I guess. I’ve never been impressed by his 5e insights. 

He seems to be having fun, though, so that’s good.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> Folks are doing it, right now. I’m seeing very little rules conflicts, all easily handled, all easy to see how it will likely be sorted out when playtest becomes published book.
> 
> Good for treatmonk, I guess. I’ve never been impressed by his 5e insights.
> 
> He seems to be having fun, though, so that’s good.



Sorry I was editing my response while you responded to it. I listed them now.
No idea what you think is easy to do about an ability that negates crits, for example. Ask 5 DMs I bet you get 5 different ideas.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> Sorry I was editing my response while you responded to it. I listed them now.
> No idea what you think is easy to do about an ability that negates crits, for example. Ask 5 DMs I bet you get 5 different ideas.



Sure. So what?

That’s true of a lot of 5e now.

Edit: sorry, that was flippant. 

There are very few such abilities in the game, there are many ways to make it work for a single PC, and it’s the first pages of a playtest. 

Like, if they invalidate the Grave Cleric, rather than either the playtest crit rule changing or the Grave Cleric mitigating hits in a slightly different way, etc, I will Venmo you $10.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure. So what?
> 
> That’s true of a lot of 5e now.



That's not a fair answer. It's an incompatibility between the playtest and the old rules. They're telling us we can use all the old rules with the new ones. No, we can't. Not without house ruling a bunch of stuff. You won't agree. So let's just wait and see how compatible it is in 6 months.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> That's not a fair answer. It's an incompatibility between the playtest and the old rules. They're telling us we can use all the old rules with the new ones. No, we can't. Not without house ruling a bunch of stuff. You won't agree. So let's just wait and see how compatible it is in 6 months.



Yes, we can. 

You don’t have to play a grave cleric to use the older rules with the playtest. In fact, I’d recommend sticking mostly to the 2014 PHB, because like they’ve always done in 5e, they probably focused mostly on the PHB when checking these ideas against existing rules. 

There are not dozens of incompatibilities. There are a few, that we have no reason to think will stay incompatible even if everything in the origins playtest is approved by the community.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yes, we can.
> 
> You don’t have to play a grave cleric to use the older rules with the playtest. In fact, I’d recommend sticking mostly to the 2014 PHB, because like they’ve always done in 5e, they probably focused mostly on the PHB when checking these ideas against existing rules.
> 
> There are not dozens of incompatibilities. There are a few, that we have no reason to think will stay incompatible even if everything in the origins playtest is approved by the community.



Why do you think they will update or errata every single supplement book outside the Core 3? They didn't in prior shifts like this. They've given no indication they plan to this time. So what makes you think existing PCs built using older supplement books will still be compatible with the new version of the game?

You think every one of these supplements will be updated or errated to be compatible with the new version? I don't:

Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of everything, Guikdmaster's Guide to Ravnica, Eberron Rising from the Last War, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron, Mythic Odysseys of Theros, Strixhaven, Spelljammer, etc..


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> Why do you think they will update or errata every single supplement book outside the Core 3? They didn't in prior shifts like this.



Which shifts do you mean? As far as I can tell the closest one is essentials, and even it isn’t the same thing. 


Mistwell said:


> They've given no indication they plan to this time.



They’ve gone out of their way to say, multiple times, that every adventure _and supplement_ will be fully compatible with One D&D. 


Mistwell said:


> So what makes you think existing PCs built using older supplement books will still be compatible with the new version of the game?



Because it’s an update to this edition, not a new edition. 


Mistwell said:


> You think every one of these supplements will be updated or errated to be compatible with the new version? I don't:
> 
> Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of everything, Guikdmaster's Guide to Ravnica, Eberron Rising from the Last War, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron, Mythic Odysseys of Theros, Strixhaven, Spelljammer, etc..



They won’t need to be. So far you’ve identified one actual incompatibility, and it’s from one of two books that will almost certainly be updated _if needed._ 

More likely, the (not at all final) playtest rules will be adjusted, or added to.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Which shifts do you mean? As far as I can tell the closest one is essentials, and even it isn’t the same thing.
> 
> They’ve gone out of their way to say, multiple times, that every adventure _and supplement_ will be fully compatible with One D&D.
> 
> Because it’s an update to this edition, not a new edition.



So was 3.5 and it wasn't backwards compatible with 3e.  @Mistwell is right. If we have to avoid playing with certain rules, classes, races, etc. or house rule a bunch of stuff to make 5e work with 5.5, it's not compatible.


doctorbadwolf said:


> They won’t need to be. So far you’ve identified one actual incompatibility, and it’s from one of two books that will almost certainly be updated _if needed._



He identified a lot more than one.


doctorbadwolf said:


> More likely, the (not at all final) playtest rules will be adjusted, or added to.



Yes, but with the very first playtest packet having so many incompatibility issues, it really doesn't bode well for the end product to be compatible.  They've been saying that 5.5 will be backwards compatible and they are presumably competent game designers so you'd think that there would be fewer issues with the first stuff they put out.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> They won’t need to be. So far you’ve identified one actual incompatibility, and it’s from one of two books that will almost certainly be updated _if needed._
> 
> More likely, the (not at all final) playtest rules will be adjusted, or added to.



Yes, they will need to be. ANY feat in any book right now is not compatible without an update or errata, for example. And that's from ONE playtest.

If you disagree, what feat level is Elven Accuracy for example? It's not a PHB feat so not currently slated for a playtest revamp. 

This is similar to the shift from 3e to 3.5e. They never did get back to giving out the errata or update on some of the books which came before 3.5e was released. They even at one point said by name some they planned to offer errata on, and never did. People joked when 4e came out "Well I guess we're never going to get that errata for book X."


----------



## James Gasik

It's typical corporate speak.  They promise backwards compatibility but rarely actually give it to you.  The correct term, in this case is "it's close enough that you can jerry rig it", like how you could still run OD&D adventures in AD&D without a lot of effort.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Galandris said:


> It is weaker. He's objectively better off playing an original variant human than a compatible human.
> 
> Vuman :
> 
> 
> Stat increase made irrelevant by the background ASIs
> Size M
> Speed 30 ft
> 2 languages
> 1 skill
> 1 feat of your choice
> 
> Cuman :
> 
> 
> Size M or S
> Speed 30 ft
> Inspiration after a long rest
> 1 skill
> 1 feat from the reduced/lower powered "1st level feat" list.
> 
> Unless you want to be S, you're basically trading 2 languages and the restricting the choice on your initial feat for advantage on a roll once a day.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's "awful" or "terrible" but it's clearly inferior. I'd also expect this inferiority to be compounded by the fact that an unrestricted feat on top of a 1st level feat coming from background opens up combos that aren't possible with two 1st level feat.




This is incredibly misleading.

The Cuman as you called it gets three languages. They get common, a language of their choice, and a language of their choice tied to their background. They also get a tool proficiency.

The Vuman could have between 2 and 4 languages (depend on background) and 0 to 2 tools (depending on background and inverse of languages.


Therefore, the average Vuman had 3 languages and 1 tool, the exact same as the Cuman. The only difference is a slightly weaker choice of 1st level feat, for which they get compensated by getting auto-inspired every morning.

Edit: Right, and they get a second feat. So, you've traded 1 feat and the chance for 4 languages OR 2 tools for two feats and auto-inspiration.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mistwell said:


> You think every one of these supplements will be updated or errated to be compatible with the new version? I don't:
> 
> Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of everything, Guikdmaster's Guide to Ravnica, Eberron Rising from the Last War, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron, Mythic Odysseys of Theros, Strixhaven, Spelljammer, etc..




You identified four "problems" 

1) Humans can't get feats to start with an 18. Not a rules issue that needs updating, this is the change for 1st level feats. 

2) Critical hits. Explicitly part of the playtest they may not keep. They've said that. I think pointing out these issues is important for showing why this rule may need to not be kept in the final version

3) Grapple issue. This is a fundamental change, but one that is pretty easy to fix. I literally just did this for plasmoids earlier today. They have advantage on rolls to escape and grant disadvantage against people they are grappling. Fairly easy fix. 

4) Changes to short rests. This has been something changing over the last few books, so it isn't even an OD&D problem, as much as it is a pre- and post-Tasha's problem. 

So, with these as our examples.... 

Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide -> Nothing you listed applies. No rules changes needed.
Xanathar's Guide to Everything -> #2 for one ability of one class, for a rule they may not keep
Tasha's Cauldron of everything -> #2 for one ability of one class, for a rule they may not keep, maybe a handful of #3's
Guikdmaster's Guide to Ravnica -> Nothing not already covered by the above
Eberron Rising from the Last War -> Nothing applies
 Explorer's Guide to Wildemount -> Don't think anything applies, haven't read it in a while
Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron -> Nothing that isn't covered by the above
Mythic Odysseys of Theros -> Don't think anything applies, haven't read it in a while
Strixhaven -> Don't think anything applies, haven't read it in a while
Spelljammer -> #3 for a single race

So... most of these books don't even need a rewrite. Most of the actualy things that need changed is grappling. Which can be trivially accomplished by a single line of text in the PHB

"If you have advantage on strength saves and strength ability checks, you have advantage on rolls to escape grapples and grant disadvantage against people to escape your grapples" 

And BOOM. Everything except plasmoid is fixed.


----------



## Mistwell

Chaosmancer said:


> This is incredibly misleading.
> 
> The Cuman as you called it gets three languages. They get common, a language of their choice, and a language of their choice tied to their background. They also get a tool proficiency.
> 
> The Vuman could have between 2 and 4 languages (depend on background) and 0 to 2 tools (depending on background and inverse of languages.
> 
> 
> Therefore, the average Vuman had 3 languages and 1 tool, the exact same as the Cuman. The only difference is a slightly weaker choice of 1st level feat, for which they get compensated by getting auto-inspired every morning.
> 
> Edit: Right, and they get a second feat. So, you've traded 1 feat and the chance for 4 languages OR 2 tools for two feats and auto-inspiration.



They've traded, "Only race that can get a feat at first level" for "every race gets a feat at first level" which is meaningful.


----------



## Mistwell

Chaosmancer said:


> You identified four "problems"
> 
> 1) Humans can't get feats to start with an 18. Not a rules issue that needs updating, this is the change for 1st level feats.



So...you need to remake your character and it's no longer compatible with these rules, right?


Chaosmancer said:


> 2) Critical hits. Explicitly part of the playtest they may not keep. They've said that. I think pointing out these issues is important for showing why this rule may need to not be kept in the final version



Granted. I can only analyze what they put out. 


Chaosmancer said:


> 3) Grapple issue. This is a fundamental change, but one that is pretty easy to fix. I literally just did this for plasmoids earlier today. They have advantage on rolls to escape and grant disadvantage against people they are grappling. Fairly easy fix.



Yes, not too hard a fix. Will they issue errata?


Chaosmancer said:


> 4) Changes to short rests. This has been something changing over the last few books, so it isn't even an OD&D problem, as much as it is a pre- and post-Tasha's problem.



It's going to require a lot of updates, and it's unclear they will update non-core books.


Chaosmancer said:


> So, with these as our examples....
> 
> Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide -> Nothing you listed applies. No rules changes needed.
> Xanathar's Guide to Everything -> #2 for one ability of one class, for a rule they may not keep



Every feat needs an update, in the very least giving it a feat level.


Chaosmancer said:


> Tasha's Cauldron of everything -> #2 for one ability of one class, for a rule they may not keep, maybe a handful of #3's



All the feats. All of them. 


Chaosmancer said:


> Guikdmaster's Guide to Ravnica -> Nothing not already covered by the above
> Eberron Rising from the Last War -> Nothing applies
> Explorer's Guide to Wildemount -> Don't think anything applies, haven't read it in a while
> Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron -> Nothing that isn't covered by the above
> Mythic Odysseys of Theros -> Don't think anything applies, haven't read it in a while
> Strixhaven -> Don't think anything applies, haven't read it in a while
> Spelljammer -> #3 for a single race
> 
> So... most of these books don't even need a rewrite. Most of the actualy things that need changed is grappling. Which can be trivially accomplished by a single line of text in the PHB
> 
> "If you have advantage on strength saves and strength ability checks, you have advantage on rolls to escape grapples and grant disadvantage against people to escape your grapples"
> 
> And BOOM. Everything except plasmoid is fixed.



Every feat in all those books needs updating.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> Yes, they will need to be. ANY feat in any book right now is not compatible without an update or errata, for example. And that's from ONE playtest.
> 
> If you disagree, what feat level is Elven Accuracy for example? It's not a PHB feat so not currently slated for a playtest revamp.



It doesn’t have to have a level to be compatible, actually. As it is right now, level 1 backgrounds and Humans grant a level 1 feat. That has no effect on feats with no level, except that you can’t take them at level 1.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> It doesn’t have to have a level to be compatible, actually. As it is right now, level 1 backgrounds and Humans grant a level 1 feat. That has no effect on feats with no level, except that you can’t take them at level 1.



If they do not assign levels to every feat in 5e, the systems are incompatible.  5.5e wants you to take feats that are level appropriate and 5e doesn't have levels.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> I am saying if you right now attempt to play the playtest rules along with your existing PCs, they will immediately need a house rule to make some of them work.
> 
> Here's some more.
> 
> You have a Variant Human or Custom Lineage feat that is a half-feat with a bonus to an ability score so you could start with an 18 in that stat at first level. Not compatible with these playtest rules.



Designed with a somewhat different ethos =\= incompatible. The new feats don’t have +1’s on level 1 feats, and the new races require level 1 feats specifically. That’s it. 


Mistwell said:


> Adamantine Armor - Does nothing now.



Like I suggested upthread, crits are either gonna have more context or a new general rule that makes stuff that effects monster crits work still, or the new crit rules won’t stick. 

Why not just playtest in the spirit of the playtest and provide feedback about what you think of the crit rules? 


Mistwell said:


> Spore Druid Fungal Body class feature (14th lev) - Most important part of it now does nothing, and there is no easy house rule to address that. And as it's from a supplement, and we have no indication they will be updating every subclass in every supplement, it may just end up staying that way.



Except for the explicit statements that every 5e supplement with be compatible with the new core books. 


Mistwell said:


> Grave Cleric Sentinel at Death’s Door class feature (6th level) - does nothing now, there is no easy house rule to address that, and as it's a supplement may never seen an update.



The idea that Xanathar’s won’t get an update pass if any issues make it through the playtest to print is laughable. Theros? Maybe. Essentially no one cares if a given supernatural gift has a rules issue if used with a later product. But Xanathar’s and Tasha’s are going to be fully compatible. 


Mistwell said:


> The grapple issue impacts raging barbarians, rune knights using giants might, heck even the plasmoid from Spelljammer release literally the same week as these playtest rules has an ability that is no longer compatible with these rules.



The idea that the final wording of the new grapple rules won’t solve the “ability checks to grapple” issue is…laughable. 


Mistwell said:


> We have a TON of issues with short rests being phased to be only for hit dice recovery and not for restoring certain powers on a short rest.



This isn’t an incompatibility with anything they’ve shown us so far, and the fact short rests still exist tells us that they…aren’t looking to get rid of them. Hypotheticals aren’t incompatibilities. 


Mistwell said:


> All those things in books outside the core 3, we have no reason to believe they're all going to get updated. So they're directly in contradiction to the new core philosophy of not encouraging short rests for regeneration of powers.



That isn’t a rule. 

What your trying to prop up as incompatible is…already extant in 5e. 


Mistwell said:


> Clockwork sorcerer chooses from certain spell lists which may no longer exist once they shift to arcane, divine and primal spell lists.



They have explicitly said that the classes and subclasses with have their own ways of accessing spell lists. The only reason to read that as “class spell lists won’t exist anymore at all” is that one has assumed the conclusion that it will be incompatible. 


Mistwell said:


> And this is just the first playtest package of 11-17 more monthly packages. My greatest concern is for all those supplements that are not the core 3. We know they will replace the core 3, but will they offer an update or errata for all the other books or just leave them behind like they did for 3e when 3.5e came out? I think it's reasonable to assume the later.



I think it’s patently absurd to assume the latter. 

It requires ignoring the last decade, and the very significant shift in focus and design ethos between 5e and all previous wotc editions, at the publishing level. It’s even more nonsensical than the doomsaying in the VTT thread.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> If they do not assign levels to every feat in 5e, the systems are incompatible.  5.5e wants you to take feats that are level appropriate and 5e doesn't have levels.



If there is not a rule that requires that all feats chosen have a level, then there is no incompatibility. We have not seen the “choose a feat or an ASI” rules language for classes, yet. 

“5.5e”, if it ever exists, certainly doesn’t yet.  

If the post-level-one feat gain language requires a leveled feat, they’ll get feedback that this is a problem, and either be like “hey don’t worry we are gonna reprint updated feats” or otherwise deal with the issue. 

“You cannot gain a feat that you do not meet the prerequisites or level for” does not mean that a feat has to have a level in order to work in the system. It just means that the background rules don’t allow you to take anything but a level 1 feat. That’s it.


----------



## Branduil

This is really more about Feats in 5e than anything else. The two big truisms about Feats in this edition are

#1) There are several feats which are so powerful that they are essentially must-haves for certain character concepts
#2) There is a heavy, heavy cost to acquiring those feats for non-humans

Vumans bypass #2 entirely, and all they have to give up is weird situational stuff like a saving throw against being charmed or burping fire a couple times a day. 1D&D seems to equalizing the costs for #2, it remains to be seen if they do anything about #1.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Branduil said:


> This is really more about Feats in 5e than anything else. The two big truisms about Feats in this edition are
> 
> #1) There are several feats which are so powerful that they are essentially must-haves for certain character concepts
> #2) There is a heavy, heavy cost to acquiring those feats for non-humans
> 
> Vumans bypass #2 entirely, and all they have to give up is weird situational stuff like a saving throw against being charmed or burping fire a couple times a day. 1D&D seems to equalizing the costs for #2, it remains to be seen if they do anything about #1.



Well the issue @Mistwell and @Maxperson are presumably referencing is that the rules text for the playtest feat section says “Level. Each Feat has a level. To take a Feat, your level must equal or exceed the Feat’s level.”

But the document is explicitly not a test of the complete game, and _is explicitly meant to be used with the 2014 PHB._ This means that when you hit level 4 fighter, you can choose any feat that you could if not using the playtest, because the *specific* class feature which grants a feat is what governs your options. 

All the actual books have to do in 2024, assuming no meaningful changes to the ideas presented in the current UA, is word the feat-granting class features of the updated classes to say soemthing like, “you can only gain a feat for which you qualify”. 

But right now? There is no conflict. If you want to play a 2014 phb variant human monk with the feat from Tasha’s to get Unarmed Fighting Style and the updated  Tavern Brawler feat from playtest background, that is 100% legal while playtest these UA rules.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> It doesn’t have to have a level to be compatible, actually. As it is right now, level 1 backgrounds and Humans grant a level 1 feat. That has no effect on feats with no level, except that you can’t take them at level 1.



You make a new character using the new rules. You will never be able to choose a feat from any book prior to the new PHB, because they won't have a level and all your abilities to gain a new feat will specify a level. That will happen the moment they release the playtest classes. We both know that already - Crawford already said that. 

They will have to update or errata all old feats if they intend to make this revision backwards compatible. There is no getting around that.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Well the issue @Mistwell and @Maxperson are presumably referencing is that the rules text for the playtest feat section says “Level. Each Feat has a level. To take a Feat, your level must equal or exceed the Feat’s level.”
> 
> But the document is explicitly not a test of the complete game, and _is explicitly meant to be used with the 2014 PHB._ This means that when you hit level 4 fighter, you can choose any feat that you could if not using the playtest, because the *specific* class feature which grants a feat is what governs your options.



That's our entire point.  The UA rules require level to be considered. Every feat in the 2014 game has no level attached and either they will update every feat in every book, which they've never done in the past despite saying they would make all the books backwards compatible, or they don't and there is no compatibility.  

Their track record on this is bad and I have no reason to think it will change with this new half edition.

Also, the 2014 feats are not supposed to be used with this UA's playtesting.  The UA says the following, "The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted."  Then it goes on to note Character Races, Character Backgrounds, Starting Languages, Feats and the Rules Glossary.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> That's our entire point.  The UA rules require level to be considered. Every feat in the 2014 game has no level attached and either they will update every feat in every book, which they've never done in the past despite saying they would make all the books backwards compatible, or they don't and there is no compatibility.
> 
> Their track record on this is bad and I have no reason to think it will change with this new half edition.
> 
> Also, the 2014 feats are not supposed to be used with this UA's playtesting.  The UA says the following, "The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted."  Then it goes on to note Character Races, Character Backgrounds, Starting Languages, Feats and the Rules Glossary.



To be fair, the 2014 PHB says you donned to use the Feats section at all.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> To be fair, the 2014 PHB says you donned to use the Feats section at all.



That's true!


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> That's true!



And being cheeky aside...that Feats are a sort of orphan variant rule in the 2p1r Core probably changes how WotC considers "backwards compatibility" with those elements. Because the Variant Human and Feats are explicitly optional rules, but they want to make standardized and expected Feat rules now...they can chuck the older options out the window without a lot.of remorse, frankly.


----------



## Reynard

Maxperson said:


> If they do not assign levels to every feat in 5e, the systems are incompatible.  5.5e wants you to take feats that are level appropriate and 5e doesn't have levels.



Unless they only identify 1st level feats, which is a possibility and makes some sense design wise. Depending on how often you get feats, that gates everything else off at 3rd or 4th level or whatever,  without having to go through the tedious process of leveling every feat.


----------



## Azzy

Mistwell said:


> It's a half-edition shift. The dispute seems to be more about whether it's 6e or 5.5e. I say 5.5e.



I say 5.1


----------



## Galandris

Mistwell said:


> Yes, they will need to be. ANY feat in any book right now is not compatible without an update or errata, for example. And that's from ONE playtest.




I beg to differ, but my reading is different. I read the options given at chargen with regards to feat as allowing "1st-level feats". Those are in my reading a subcategory of the overall "Feats" category, where you have "1st-level feats" "5th level feats" (to be published, or which may not exist if being "1st level" is just a designation used to identify feats that are selectable in the new chargen rules) "Feats where the requirement is to have STR 13" "Feats which requires you to be able to cast a 1st level spell"... A "1st level feat" is just a feat, who happens to match the quality of being "selectable at first level for rules that require a 1st level feat" which identify them as being selectable during chargen as the cuman bonus or with any of the new background. It doesn't make the other feat, that one might get from any other source, incompatible, just unwieldy.

Unwieldy, in that at the same table Bob could be using the original Lucky feat (3 points, giving "superadvantage") while Molly will have the compatible Lucky feat (PB points, retroactively grant advantage or disadvantage). I don't think it's incompatible as in "you can't play without houserules", it is unwiedly in that each and every character can have a slightly differing ability. Which, some would say, is great to make your char a special snowflake. It is also unwieldy in that both feats bear the same name (so groups will evolve name like vuman and the new Lucky feat will be called Cucky) and that we don't know (which isn't incompatible, just... unclear) if one can be both Lucky and Cucky at the same time. I don't see incompatibilities, it's just... cluncky as a hell. But it's still ONE edition, without incompatibilies so far.

Same, the "no critical from NPCs" isn't incompatible with adamantine armor. It just means that adamantine armor does absolutely nothing more than regular armor. Adamantine was just nerfed (and I except it either to disappear or we might see armies of enemies wearing adamantine since it's totally useless to loot it).





Mistwell said:


> If you disagree, what feat level is Elven Accuracy for example? It's not a PHB feat so not currently slated for a playtest revamp.




It is outside of the "leveling" restriction that only appears with new backgrounds, like the number pi is outside of the "even" or "odd" designation. Sure, you can't take it with the new rules as we see them so far, because you an only take "a 1st level feat". But you can take it with each and every other possibilities to acquire feat you can come across, such as replacing an ASI. It's only when we get the playtest packet on the feats acqiusition that we may see incompatibilies. Which will have to reported as bugs in the playtest, since they break the initial promise of being "one edition".

I have low hope of them being able to achieve compatibility in the final product, but so far, I am not yet saying they failed. They just turned something simple to play into something that looks very unwieldy.



Mistwell said:


> This is similar to the shift from 3e to 3.5e. They never did get back to giving out the errata or update on some of the books which came before 3.5e was released. They even at one point said by name some they planned to offer errata on, and never did. People joked when 4e came out "Well I guess we're never going to get that errata for book X."




They changed the edition number. You were either playing 3.0 or 3.5. You could try to mix and match, but you had to do it knowingly, with distinct numbers. Here this isn't an option, since it's all "D&D" from 2014 to 2024 and to the end of time. So basically they must maintain compatibility if only to avoid silly situations.


----------



## Galandris

Chaosmancer said:


> This is incredibly misleading.
> 
> The Cuman as you called it gets three languages. They get common, a language of their choice, and a language of their choice tied to their background. They also get a tool proficiency.




Nothing precludes the Vuman to get a new background. The question was about races, so to compare one should consider everything else will be identical and, except of race choice, everything will be chosen identically.

There is no tie between backgrounds and class, and no interdiction to stack languages from race and backgrounds, only stacking ASIs is forbidden. The Vuman would have Common and an additional language from his race, then proceed to select a new background that will give him an additional language, ASIs, two skills a feat and 50 gp. The Cuman will get no language from his race, one from background, his ASIs and so on exactly like the Vuman.

Then all will apply the starting language step (that isn't restricted to new character races) stating that every character begins play knowing at least three languages, Common, a language provided by background and a language you choose from the Standard Languages table. At his this point the Vuman will know Common, a language (potentially a rare one) from his race, a language (potentially a Rare one) from his background, and a Standard Language from the Starting Language (Common, 2 rare, a standard) wille the Cuman will know one from background (potentially a rare one), Common (since he has no other way to learn it he gets it from the Starting Language section) and the free Standard Language in the same section. That's a "one rare language" advantage on the vuman side.

The vuman would also take a new background (and will, since the new backgrounds are often better than the original, except for a few that require GM buy-in, like the military rank one), therefore gaining the exact same additional 1st level feat as the cuman from his background. Or both of them could take an original background and get no feat from it, both of them, leading to comparing only their choice of racial feat.


It would have been less cluncky if they had said "here are alternative character creation rules that you can choose as block instead of the 2014 character creation rules", but this isn't their design choice. The bar about not stacking ASIs makes it clear. It leads to very suboptimal choices (such as creating a character using a new race, and an original background, resulting in getting ASIs from no source) being possible, but it is allowed.


----------



## Blue

doctorbadwolf said:


> Which is why it will all be fine to play together.
> 
> Because it’s one edition.



This particular reply chain started with Stalker0 saying vHuman would be gone, and me pointing out that if it really is "one edition" then that wouldn't be true.  It wasn't about being okay to play together or not, it was would the old vHuman still be in the game.


----------



## Mistwell

Azzy said:


> I say 5.1



I mean, they are going to have to issue some sort of errata or update for literally every single supplement that isn't an adventure if they want it backwards compatible. That is a half edition. It's looking very much like the shift from 3e to 3.5e.


----------



## Azzy

Mistwell said:


> I mean, they are going to have to issue some sort of errata or update for literally every single supplement that isn't an adventure if they want it backwards compatible. That is a half edition. It's looking very much like the shift from 3e to 3.5e.



Maybe I should have said "five point ONE" to make it more obvious.


----------



## Azzy

Mistwell said:


> I mean, they are going to have to issue some sort of errata or update for literally every single supplement that isn't an adventure if they want it backwards compatible. That is a half edition. It's looking very much like the shift from 3e to 3.5e.



Considering we're nowhere close to the final form and nothing is yet set in stone... I'd say you're greatly jumping the gun in your estimate of things.


----------



## Mistwell

Azzy said:


> Considering we're nowhere close to the final form and nothing is yet set in stone... I'd say you're greatly jumping the gun in your estimate of things.



The change to feats appears to be planned out as "not going away" and is big enough to require a meaningful edit of all prior supplements.  And we have 12 to 18 months of changes to go, on a monthly basis. I don't feel like I am jumping the gun. Indeed, the debate that is raging in all quarters right now seems to be "Is it just 5.5 or is it 6e". I am leaning conservatively on 5.5. It's rare that someone would think I am not being conservative enough on this.


----------



## Azzy

Mistwell said:


> The change to feats appears to be planned out as "not going away" and is big enough to require a meaningful edit of all prior supplements.  And we have 12 to 18 months of changes to go, on a monthly basis. I don't feel like I am jumping the gun. Indeed, the debate that is raging in all quarters right now seems to be "Is it just 5.5 or is it 6e". I am leaning conservatively on 5.5. It's rare that someone would think I am not being conservative enough on this.



I dunno, we haven't even passed the first playtest. I don't mean to single you out—I think _*everyone*_ is jumping the gun at this point and that the discussion over whether this is a non-edition, 5.5e, 6e, New Coke, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, Gundam ZZ, or Shin Godzilla is unproductive, divisive, and utterly annoying. We're just not a point where that discussion is relevant or meaningful yet.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> Unless they only identify 1st level feats, which is a possibility and makes some sense design wise. Depending on how often you get feats, that gates everything else off at 3rd or 4th level or whatever,  without having to go through the tedious process of leveling every feat.



That is possible.  However, if they do go farther than that, it opens up feats that get stronger and more fun at 4th, 8th and maybe even 12th level.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mistwell said:


> They've traded, "Only race that can get a feat at first level" for "every race gets a feat at first level" which is meaningful.




Meaningful? Sure. 

However, "Every race gets zero and I get one" is the exact same mathematically as "Every race gets one and I get two"

I understand that in actuality, you have diminishing returns, but again, they aren't losing any languages, just like they aren't losing any tools. The only difference is that the Cuman is getting a curated feat list, and gets two feats while everyone else gets one feat.


----------



## Maxperson

Azzy said:


> I dunno, we haven't even passed the first playtest. I don't mean to single you out—I think _*everyone*_ is jumping the gun at this point and that the discussion over whether this is a non-edition, 5.5e, 6e, New Coke, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, Gundam ZZ, or Shin Godzilla is unproductive, divisive, and utterly annoying. We're just not a point where that discussion is relevant or meaningful yet.



Hey! It's our God given right as humans to scream the sky is falling at every acorn!

That said, I think @Mistwell is correct and that 5.5 will not be compatible.  We can see from the design intent of the last few books(backgrounds coming with feats) and the UA, what direction they will go on some things.  We may see it change a bit, but it's pretty certain that backgrounds will have feats and that some 2014 classes/subclasses will be affected in such a way that abilities are rendered useless in 5.5.

Where I different from Mistwell is that he seems to think that in order to be backwards compatible WotC will need to update all the feats, classes, subclasses, etc. from the 2014 rules.  What I think is that if WotC updates everything that isn't compatible with 5.5, you aren't making the 2014 rules compatible with 5.5, you're converting those rules INTO 5.5.  That's not backwards compatibility. To be backwards compatible, something has to be usable without special adaption or modification.


----------



## Galandris

Maxperson said:


> Hey! It's our God given right as humans to scream the sky is falling at every acorn!




No, sorry. This isn't on the racial ability list, and I've checked twice. We get morning inspiration, a 1st level feat and a skill.




Maxperson said:


> That said, I think @Mistwell is correct and that 5.5 will not be compatible.




Yes, not in the sense where they can say "it is one edition", which would mean taking books from the same edition and playing with them as is, irrespective of their printing date. I feel however we are not to that point so far, in the current playtest (which admittedly doesn't bode well).





Maxperson said:


> We may see it change a bit, but it's pretty certain that backgrounds will have feats and that some 2014 classes/subclasses will be affected in such a way that abilities are rendered useless in 5.5.




I understand your point of view, however I am more lax on incompatibilty. Being nerfed to suckiness doesn't mean incompatible. If, for example, the compatible rogue gets an ability called Precise Attack that gives him bonus damages that are doubled in case of criticals [or have another effect that improves their critical, sudden death for example], they will outpower the original rogue who lost his ability to get a "crit sneak attack". But that wouldn't make them incompatible in my book, in the same sense that you can play a sidekick class alongside a hero class, or you can play a 17th level character alongside a bunch of 1st level. Unfun doesn't equate incompatible in my book.



Maxperson said:


> Where I different from Mistwell is that he seems to think that in order to be backwards compatible WotC will need to update all the feats, classes, subclasses, etc. from the 2014 rules.  What I think is that if WotC updates everything that isn't compatible with 5.5, you aren't making the 2014 rules compatible with 5.5, you're converting those rules INTO 5.5.  That's not backwards compatibility. To be backwards compatible, something has to be usable without special adaption or modification.




Yup. If they modify existing things, they will not be "compatible". They'll be "errata-ed away".


----------



## Chaosmancer

Ah, sorry, I'd have combined these posts but it was on the next page



Mistwell said:


> So...you need to remake your character and it's no longer compatible with these rules, right?




Why are you remaking your character? Generally you would make a new character, not remake an old. 

But, by this definition, any character with alert if no longer compatible, because alert USED to be a +5 and now it is +prof. But that isn't incompatibility, that's the rules changing. And if you want to complain that any rule changing makes it incompatible... you are going to have a bad time in the future. 

This isn't a "rules problem" this is a "rules change" just like Dwarves getting tremorsense and high elves getting misty step.  



Mistwell said:


> Granted. I can only analyze what they put out.




Sure, but you seem to want to go from "if they keep this rule, they will need to change more things or have abilities that no longer work" to "These abilities are going to be worthless when they publish these rules they are guaranteed to publish!" 

They don't even know if they are going to go with this rule, and pointing out the things that it doesn't work with is helpful. Declaring they have lied and the game is broken and many books need reprinted because of this rule is not helpful.



Mistwell said:


> Yes, not too hard a fix. Will they issue errata?




Probably. Don't see why they wouldn't.



Mistwell said:


> It's going to require a lot of updates, and it's unclear they will update non-core books.




No it won't. 

Again, you seem to be confused about this. In Tasha's they released the Beast Barbarian which has Infectious Fury which recharges on PB times per day. They also released the Order domain which had Embodiment of Law which refreshes on Wis Mod per day.  And both of these are compatible with playing a 2014 Dragonborn whose breath weapon is once per short rest. 

They CAN update things to make similar abilities recharge at similar rates. It would consolidate design to be sure. But it isn't required, it hasn't been required for any of the PB per Long rest abilities released over the past two years. There is no reason to assume it is suddenly required now.



Mistwell said:


> Every feat needs an update, in the very least giving it a feat level.
> 
> 
> All the feats. All of them.
> 
> 
> Every feat in all those books needs updating.




Not worth an errata (are there even any feats in the SCAG? Oh, the Deep Gnome feat. Already worthless since the Monsters of the Multiverse release) 

Just assume any feat that doesn't have a level is a level 4 feat. I mean, if you need official word from Wizards, they can literally just add that sentence into the PHB. There is no reason to reprint entire books just to list levels by feats.

Also, I want to note. None of your previous objections (the four I listed) included "they are giving levels to feats so they need to reprint every feat in the game". So, we are up to five objections and only two of them have any real merit it seems, one of which is a simple fix and the other which is a legitimate concern.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> You make a new character using the new rules. You will never be able to choose a feat from any book prior to the new PHB, because they won't have a level and all your abilities to gain a new feat will specify a level. That will happen the moment they release the playtest classes. We both know that already - Crawford already said that.



This is an assumption. Feel free to provide a source on Crawford saying that. 


Mistwell said:


> They will have to update or errata all old feats if they intend to make this revision backwards compatible. There is no getting around that.



No, they won’t. It will be quite easy to word the new books to avoid needing such an errata. 

Like, it’s a playtest document designed to be used with 2014 classes, did you forget that?


Reynard said:


> Unless they only identify 1st level feats, which is a possibility and makes some sense design wise. Depending on how often you get feats, that gates everything else off at 3rd or 4th level or whatever,  without having to go through the tedious process of leveling every feat.



Even if there are level 20 feats and every feat level in between, all it takes for that to be fully compatible with no adjustment needed is for the feat-granting class features to say that you must meet all requirements for a feat. That’s it. Like…talk about jumping the gun!


Azzy said:


> Considering we're nowhere close to the final form and nothing is yet set in stone... I'd say you're greatly jumping the gun in your estimate of things.



Exactly.


----------



## Reynard

Galandris said:


> Yes, not in the sense where they can say "it is one edition", which would mean taking books from the same edition and playing with them as is, irrespective of their printing date. I feel however we are not to that point so far, in the current playtest (which admittedly doesn't bode well).



I think it is pretty safe to say that "compatibility" means that you can grab one of the adventures and run it with little or no modification with the One D&D books, not that everything from 2014 will work seamlessly with One.


----------



## Galandris

Reynard said:


> I think it is pretty safe to say that "compatibility" means that you can grab one of the adventures and run it with little or no modification with the One D&D books, not that everything from 2014 will work seamlessly with One.




I agree with you on the (probable) end result: incompatibility, except you can reuse old material without much work (note that you can run PF AP with 5e or Mythras without much work, and any rule-light game with even less work, depending on your take on "much work").

Except that for that to work, they need to differentiate the editions (irrespective of the name they choose for it, One, 50th anniversary edition 6e...) . What would happen when you start an adventure with 2026-printed new adventure and one of your player characters dies, then takes his 2014-printed book of the PHB and his Tasha ? "No, sorry, you can't use this D&D, we're not playing with this book" "Why, it is the current edition, it's 5e and there have been no new edition since!"

Edit: they will have to provide an answer to this situation, if only for AL play...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Where I different from Mistwell is that he seems to think that in order to be backwards compatible WotC will need to update all the feats, classes, subclasses, etc. from the 2014 rules. What I think is that if WotC updates everything that isn't compatible with 5.5, you aren't making the 2014 rules compatible with 5.5, you're converting those rules INTO 5.5. That's not backwards compatibility. To be backwards compatible, something has to be usable without special adaption or modification.



In that case, the game hasn’t been compatible with itself since the release of Xanathar’s. 


Reynard said:


> I think it is pretty safe to say that "compatibility" means that you can grab one of the adventures and run it with little or no modification with the One D&D books, not that everything from 2014 will work seamlessly with One.



However, multiple people on the team said the phrase “every adventure and supplement”, and at least one emphasized it to make it clear that they do mean both adventures and supplements. 

I mean sure, they could just be lying.


----------



## Maxperson

Galandris said:


> I beg to differ, but my reading is different. I read the options given at chargen with regards to feat as allowing "1st-level feats". Those are in my reading a subcategory of the overall "Feats" category, where you have "1st-level feats" "5th level feats" (to be published, or which may not exist if being "1st level" is just a designation used to identify feats that are selectable in the new chargen rules) "Feats where the requirement is to have STR 13" "Feats which requires you to be able to cast a 1st level spell"... A "1st level feat" is just a feat, who happens to match the quality of being "selectable at first level for rules that require a 1st level feat" which identify them as being selectable during chargen as the cuman bonus or with any of the new background. It doesn't make the other feat, that one might get from any other source, incompatible, just unwieldy.
> 
> Unwieldy, in that at the same table Bob could be using the original Lucky feat (3 points, giving "superadvantage") while Molly will have the compatible Lucky feat (PB points, retroactively grant advantage or disadvantage). I don't think it's incompatible as in "you can't play without houserules", it is unwiedly in that each and every character can have a slightly differing ability. Which, some would say, is great to make your char a special snowflake. It is also unwieldy in that both feats bear the same name (so groups will evolve name like vuman and the new Lucky feat will be called Cucky) and that we don't know (which isn't incompatible, just... unclear) if one can be both Lucky and Cucky at the same time. I don't see incompatibilities, it's just... cluncky as a hell. But it's still ONE edition, without incompatibilies so far.
> 
> Same, the "no critical from NPCs" isn't incompatible with adamantine armor. It just means that adamantine armor does absolutely nothing more than regular armor. Adamantine was just nerfed (and I except it either to disappear or we might see armies of enemies wearing adamantine since it's totally useless to loot it).



The problem is that with two rulesets to pick from, I can get around all those limitations.  Why would I pick the Great Weapon Master feat limited to say 8th+ level in the 2024 rules, when my 2024 character can pick it out of the 2014 book at 4th level because those feats have no level limitations?  Why would I take the 2024 human and be limited to level 1 feats when I can make a Vhuman and get any feat I want, regardless of level?

These aren't just "snowflake" distinctions.  There are substantial power differences in these choices.  Enough difference that backwards compatibility goes away.  You HAVE to make alterations and adjustments to keep things balanced.


Galandris said:


> It is outside of the "leveling" restriction that only appears with new backgrounds, like the number pi is outside of the "even" or "odd" designation. Sure, you can't take it with the new rules as we see them so far, because you an only take "a 1st level feat". But you can take it with each and every other possibilities to acquire feat you can come across, such as replacing an ASI. It's only when we get the playtest packet on the feats acqiusition that we may see incompatibilies. Which will have to reported as bugs in the playtest, since they break the initial promise of being "one edition".
> 
> I have low hope of them being able to achieve compatibility in the final product, but so far, I am not yet saying they failed. They just turned something simple to play into something that looks very unwieldy.



Compatibility is already doomed.  As I pointed out in another thread, you can't play a 5.5 background PC with a 2014 background PC.  The feats that they put into the 5.5 backgrounds already make them significantly stronger than the old ones.  You'd have to correct that disparity in the old backgrounds, which violates what backwards compatibility is.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean sure, they could just be lying.



*Speaking Corporate.


----------



## Maxperson

Galandris said:


> No, sorry. This isn't on the racial ability list, and I've checked twice. We get morning inspiration, a 1st level feat and a skill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, not in the sense where they can say "it is one edition", which would mean taking books from the same edition and playing with them as is, irrespective of their printing date. I feel however we are not to that point so far, in the current playtest (which admittedly doesn't bode well).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point of view, however I am more lax on incompatibilty. Being nerfed to suckiness doesn't mean incompatible. If, for example, the compatible rogue gets an ability called Precise Attack that gives him bonus damages that are doubled in case of criticals [or have another effect that improves their critical, sudden death for example], they will outpower the original rogue who lost his ability to get a "crit sneak attack". But that wouldn't make them incompatible in my book, in the same sense that you can play a sidekick class alongside a hero class, or you can play a 17th level character alongside a bunch of 1st level. Unfun doesn't equate incompatible in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. If they modify existing things, they will not be "compatible". They'll be "errata-ed away".



Well, being more lax on what compatibility means would make it easier for them to have the two rule sets be compatible. 

I go with what backwards compatibility is generally understood to mean.  That you can use the old and the new together without any kind of special modification.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Galandris said:


> Nothing precludes the Vuman to get a new background. The question was about races, so to compare one should consider everything else will be identical and, except of race choice, everything will be chosen identically.




I'm stopping right here and not reading any further for the moment, because this is just immediately going against the spirit of the playtest. Crawford stated, directly (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have time to scroll through the interview) "Some options might appear to be gone, but they were actually just moved somewhere else" 

He is obviously referencing languages. And frankly, with your proposed interpretation EVERY SINGLE RACE is losing languages. I mean, Elves used to get Elvish and Common. Meaning that your common elf player used to have three languages. But now if you take the old elf and combine it with the new rules, Elves would get FOUR languages, but the new elf only allows for THREE, so elves have been nerfed by losing a language? 

No. The redesign is specifically moving languages. And when you play out the new races with the new backgrounds and compare them with the old races with the old backgrounds, you usually get the same number of races and the same number of tools. All you are loosing is the ability to swap tools and languages. Which I'm fine with. 

You cannot judge the playtest materials including new races and new backgrounds by saying "but if we take the old races and use the new backgrounds, every single new race has been nerfed". Classes we should assume remain unchanged, because we haven't seen them, but they specifically gave us races and background at the same time to show how they work in concert



Galandris said:


> There is no tie between backgrounds and class, and no interdiction to stack languages from race and backgrounds, only stacking ASIs is forbidden. The Vuman would have Common and an additional language from his race, then proceed to select a new background that will give him an additional language, ASIs, two skills a feat and 50 gp. The Cuman will get no language from his race, one from background, his ASIs and so on exactly like the Vuman.
> 
> Then all will apply the starting language step (that isn't restricted to new character races) stating that every character begins play knowing at least three languages, Common, a language provided by background and a language you choose from the Standard Languages table. At his this point the Vuman will know Common, a language (potentially a rare one) from his race, a language (potentially a Rare one) from his background, and a Standard Language from the Starting Language (Common, 2 rare, a standard) wille the Cuman will know one from background (potentially a rare one), Common (since he has no other way to learn it he gets it from the Starting Language section) and the free Standard Language in the same section. That's a "one rare language" advantage on the vuman side.
> 
> The vuman would also take a new background (and will, since the new backgrounds are often better than the original, except for a few that require GM buy-in, like the military rank one), therefore gaining the exact same additional 1st level feat as the cuman from his background. Or both of them could take an original background and get no feat from it, both of them, leading to comparing only their choice of racial feat.
> 
> 
> It would have been less cluncky if they had said "here are alternative character creation rules that you can choose as block instead of the 2014 character creation rules", but this isn't their design choice. The bar about not stacking ASIs makes it clear. It leads to very suboptimal choices (such as creating a character using a new race, and an original background, resulting in getting ASIs from no source) being possible, but it is allowed.




Yeah, this is all just a willful nitpicking of their phrasing. The intent is abundantly clear that you should judge the CHARACTER'S ORIGIN by looking at new race and new background, not saying that the new races are nerfed because if you take them with the old backgrounds they don't get ASIs at all and if you take the old races with the new backgrounds that option is clearly more powerful. 

This is just useless noise, not actual critique of the playtest.


----------



## Galandris

Maxperson said:


> The problem is that with two rulesets to pick from, I can get around all those limitations.  Why would I pick the Great Weapon Master feat limited to say 8th+ level in the 2024 rules, when my 2024 character can pick it out of the 2014 book at 4th level because those feats have no level limitations?  Why would I take the 2024 human and be limited to level 1 feats when I can make a Vhuman and get any feat I want, regardless of level?




It gives you more options. I regret that some options will be trap options, like playing a low-STR, low CON barbarian, but with two ruleset that you can mix and match, they are not taking anything away. They are unduly complicating things and, by having pitfall options, they reward a kind of "system expertise" that IMHO is no longer very fun (we had that fun with 3.5 and its horde of prestige class. "My character concept is Brb2/SoW1/KotHM4/Wiz4/Arch6, why ?") If the 8th-level feat GWM is much better, like -4/+2xPB, there will be an incentive to take it.



Maxperson said:


> These aren't just "snowflake" distinctions.  There are substantial power differences in these choices.  Enough difference that backwards compatibility goes away.  You HAVE to make alterations and adjustments to keep things balanced.




I undestand your point, I am just saying that strictly speaking, they promise "compatible" not "balanced".


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> In that case, the game hasn’t been compatible with itself since the release of Xanathar’s.



Why?  Everything in Xanathar's is additional(new subclasses, things to do with downtime, new feats, etc.) and/or optional.  You can choose to make a change and use it.  What's not compatible?



doctorbadwolf said:


> However, multiple people on the team said the phrase “every adventure and supplement”, and at least one emphasized it to make it clear that they do mean both adventures and supplements.



Sure, but that's just backtracking because they realized that they couldn't fulfil their promise of backwards compatibility.  There was no such limitation when they first put it out there.  Now that they understand that they can't make the two rulesets compatible in any way, they're just saying that you can play the old adventures with the new rules. 

Of course, they're wrong there as well. To do that you would need to convert monsters into the new ones at the very least, and any special modification negates backwards compatibility.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Blue said:


> This particular reply chain started with Stalker0 saying vHuman would be gone, and me pointing out that if it really is "one edition" then that wouldn't be true.  It wasn't about being okay to play together or not, it was would the old vHuman still be in the game.




I disagree, because the Vhuman is in the Player's Handbook, and is obviously being rewritten. This is like saying that the 2024 Alert feat is broken, because you could take it and the 2014 Alert feat and have a total of +11 to initiative, be unable to be surprised, swap initiative, and not grant advantage to unseen attackers. 

No one designing this is seriously imagining people will use the old feats in tandem with the re-written ones on the same character. So no one would assume that they are going to try and take the Vhuman and play it straight, or that they are going to take the 2024 Dwarf and then choose the Hill Dwarf subrace from 2014 and get +2 to all hp. 

You are taking the stance of "but they said..." and trying to deride the playtest for something that is clearly against the intent and spirit of the playtest.


----------



## Galandris

Chaosmancer said:


> Yeah, this is all just a willful nitpicking of their phrasing. The intent is abundantly clear that you should judge the CHARACTER'S ORIGIN by looking at new race and new background, not saying that the new races are nerfed because if you take them with the old backgrounds they don't get ASIs at all and if you take the old races with the new backgrounds that option is clearly more powerful.




If this was the case, then the bar about not double-dipping in ASIs by using an old ASI-giving race and a new, ASI-granting background would be useless since it would never happen, as new background would go with new races and old background with old races.  If it is absolutely clear that you can't mix and match, why say that you can do that, but can't double dip ASIs? They should remove that part of the document as it's only misleading.

While I agree your proposed design (the new character origin being an alternative, self-contained, character creation method) would be better, especially when it comes to compatibility, it isn't supported by the playtest document as written. We are supposed to mix and match at this point. And if we aren't, then the playtest document is going clearly contrary to their intent, which is worth reporting as a result of the playtest.

I also am unconvinced by the explanation about other races not currently in the playtest document as justifying this sidebar. If the intent was to have a self-contained new system, those other races would be created in the old system, not mix-and-matched. A reasonable wording of the side bar would be to try to playtest only the options presented in the playtest, while waiting for other races to be published.



Chaosmancer said:


> This is just useless noise, not actual critique of the playtest.




Thanks.


----------



## Reynard

doctorbadwolf said:


> However, multiple people on the team said the phrase “every adventure and supplement”, and at least one emphasized it to make it clear that they do mean both adventures and supplements.
> 
> I mean sure, they could just be lying.



Did they say all of every supplement? Because we know that's not true just from what little we have seen.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Went to respond to Galandris's last post and find out they blocked me. But, I do have an answer for why the bar about mixing the ASI's exist. 

Because the majority of racial options aren't in the PHB. If you want to play a Goliath or a Fairy then it is helpful to have that spelled out. This REALLY isn't that hard to understand.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Where I different from Mistwell is that he seems to think that in order to be backwards compatible WotC will need to update all the feats, classes, subclasses, etc. from the 2014 rules. What I think is that if WotC updates everything that isn't compatible with 5.5, you aren't making the 2014 rules compatible with 5.5, you're converting those rules INTO 5.5. That's not backwards compatibility. To be backwards compatible, something has to be usable without special adaption or modification.



So far, we have seen that they are willing to put sidebars providing a simple process to facilitate compatibility. Dollars to donuts that not only do thodemlittle buts make it in, but they make it into D&D Beyond to be used programmatically. So someone who owns Rising from the Last War on Beyond can still use their material, with the backwards compatibility accounted for by thr computer. The analog version might require a little more effort, but I would still call it backwards compatible if the method to update is baked into the rulebooks.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> However, multiple people on the team said the phrase “every adventure and supplement”, and at least one emphasized it to make it clear that they do mean both adventures and supplements.





Reynard said:


> Did they say all of every supplement? Because we know that's not true just from what little we have seen.



They did not say all of every Supplement, and frankly even if they go wholehog on redoing Classes...most of every Supplement would still work fine. Even Xanathar's and Tasha's would be mostly usable, and no Setting book would be unusable by any means since the player crunch is minimal.

Though I think they will change Classes, but in a fashion where older material is still usable.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> So far, we have seen that they are willing to put sidebars providing a simple process to facilitate compatibility. Dollars to donuts that not only do thodemlittle buts make it in, but they make it into D&D Beyond to be used programmatically. So someone who owns Rising from the Last War on Beyond can still use their material, with the backwards compatibility accounted for by thr computer. The analog version might require a little more effort, but I would still call it backwards compatible if the method to update is baked into the rulebooks.



Okay, but that's not backwards compatible.  On D&D Beyond the computer is making the special modifications for you, and most play is not online, so there's no computer to do the work for those of us who play with pencil and paper.

Backwards compatibility comes from computer programs.  The new version of Word is backwards compatible with the old one.  It can open up the old documents and you can use them without you having to do even one little modification to allow it.  The reverse is not true.  The old version can't open and use the new Word version's documents.

That's backwards compatibility and if you have to make any effort at all with the old 5e rules, it's not backwards compatible. For 5.5 to be backwards compatible with 5e, I need to be able to go grab a 2014 cleric and subclass and background and use it as is when playing in 5.5 with no modifications and being roughly equal to the new versions of cleric and subclass and background.


----------



## Mistwell

Azzy said:


> I dunno, we haven't even passed the first playtest. I don't mean to single you out—I think _*everyone*_ is jumping the gun at this point and that the discussion over whether this is a non-edition, 5.5e, 6e, New Coke, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, Gundam ZZ, or Shin Godzilla is unproductive, divisive, and utterly annoying. We're just not a point where that discussion is relevant or meaningful yet.



I don't mean to be annoying certainly. I'll try and keep that in mind though as I post about the topic. 

I think a lot of us are just drawing on experience. 

Having watched the change from 1e to 2e, which was initially sold as just enacting the common house rules of 1e tables (and I think it genuinely was that at first) to seeing it turn into a new edition. 

Then seeing the "conversion documents" to alter 2e characters into 3e characters only to realize rapidly that was really not something which could work nearly as easily as suggested. 

Then the 3e to 3.5e change, which was again sold as backwards compatible when it really wasn't, devastating hundreds of third party publishers whose content was no longer really compatible with the new half-edition of the game. 

Then the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder for many, which was sold as 3.75 by many at the time and which rapidly became it's own game where Pathfinder players, who had intended to keep using many 3.5 books, almost always ended up just ditching those 3.5 books after a while and just using Pathfinder books. PF2e was similarly initially sold as backwards compatible, but those claims I think were dropped pretty soon. And of course Pathfinder isn't WOTC, but the basis of the game is the basis of WOTC's original game, and the designers mostly came from WOTC, and I think it's fair to look at their transitions and language used for those transitions for this topic as somewhat informative for how these things go as well.

While 4e was not sold as just an update to 3.5e, it also had a soft half-edition with Essentials. I personally didn't see that change as drastic as a half-edition, but it sure looked like either a loud minority or a majority (depending on your perspective) did view it as a very drastic change and clearly in the realm of a half-edition. For sure, many PCs did have to change to keep up with those rules.

5e was again not sold as just an update to 4e (or 4.5e), but the language they're using for this playtest is nearly identical to the language they used for pretty much every single other prior "update" transition. 

Claims of backwards compatibility just have never once held up under scrutiny for these things. And with this first playtest doing exactly what prior such changes did - already causing issues with backwards compatibility with prior supplements to the game, it really takes an awful lot of optimism to believe it will end as truly backwards compatible.  And I am a very optimistic person.

In a lot of ways I am looking forward to OneD&D. I like a lot of these changes. I just don't expect to be able to use a lot of my supplement books after the transition. I think they will be kept in mind with hope initially, and we will start with just the new books "to test them out" with the intent of adding back in the old stuff after 3-6 months, and we will end up never picking up those 5e supplements again as they collect dust on our shelves. Because that's how it's gone with all these prior transitions for us. And I think for a lot of groups.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Okay, but that's not backwards compatible.  On D&D Beyond the computer is making the special modifications for you, and most play is not online, so there's no computer to do the work for those of us who play with pencil and paper.
> 
> Backwards compatibility comes from computer programs.  The new version of Word is backwards compatible with the old one.  It can open up the old documents and you can use them without you having to do even one little modification to allow it.  The reverse is not true.  The old version can't open and use the new Word version's documents.
> 
> That's backwards compatibility and if you have to make any effort at all with the old 5e rules, it's not backwards compatible. For 5.5 to be backwards compatible with 5e, I need to be able to go grab a 2014 cleric and subclass and background and use it as is when playing in 5.5 with no modifications and being roughly equal to the new versions of cleric and subclass and background.



The program opening the old documents is, in fact, doing work. Without using computer aid, it will require a little work, sure, butbthat doesn't mean it isn't compatible. The 2014 books made no attempt to provide a procedure for getting a 4E PC Ina 5E game. Different animal. And if sidebars like thet are in the final printing, so thar SCAG options are still usable following a simple process...that's backwards compatible in my book.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> *Speaking Corporate.






Maxperson said:


> Why?  Everything in Xanathar's is additional(new subclasses, things to do with downtime, new feats, etc.) and/or optional.  You can choose to make a change and use it.  What's not compatible?



They errata’d older works when they updated reprinted material. By your previous statements, that means it is not backward compatible. 


Maxperson said:


> Sure, but that's just backtracking because they realized that they couldn't fulfil their promise of backwards compatibility.  There was no such limitation when they first put it out there.  Now that they understand that they can't make the two rulesets compatible in any way, they're just saying that you can play the old adventures with the new rules.



They made those statements in the video wherein they announced the playtest document. 


Maxperson said:


> Of course, they're wrong there as well. To do that you would need to convert monsters into the new ones at the very least, and any special modification negates backwards compatibility.



That is an exhausting definition of backward compatibility that I think goes far more strict than most people understand the term. 


Reynard said:


> Did they say all of every supplement? Because we know that's not true just from what little we have seen.



We know no such thing. We know they have some ideas that may need refinement upon feedback. That’s it.


----------



## Galandris

To expand on the word processor analogy, an old version was only doing plain text. A new version is backward compatible, but offer the possibility to bold and underline document on top of that. It would be backward compatible (it can read the plain text version created by the old version) but the reverse isn't true (the old word processor would choke on the new bold and underlined text. THey would be backward compatible... despite a text made with the new word processor would be much better with it's bold and underlined titles than the old one. Plain text being nerfed by nice text doesn't make it "not backward compatible".

While I guess we can agree to disagree, the wording of compatibiliy they use is visibly creating different expectation that they should clarify if they don't want to disappoint (though my guess is that they will disappoint for anything short of saying it's a different ruleset altogether).


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> They errata’d older works when they updated reprinted material. By your previous statements, that means it is not backward compatible.
> 
> They made those statements in the video wherein they announced the playtest document.
> 
> That is an exhausting definition of backward compatibility that I think goes far more strict than most people understand the term.
> 
> We know no such thing. We know they have some ideas that may need refinement upon feedback. That’s it.



If they put a new Artificer in the PHB, that completely replaces the Artificer material in Rising from the Last War...RftLW is still 98% usable, and you could probably still tick a RftLW Srtificer in a game without blowing it up. But they didn’t say every part of every book would be equally viable.


----------



## Mistwell

Chaosmancer said:


> Meaningful? Sure.
> 
> However, "Every race gets zero and I get one" is the exact same mathematically as "Every race gets one and I get two"
> 
> I understand that in actuality, you have diminishing returns, but again, they aren't losing any languages, just like they aren't losing any tools. The only difference is that the Cuman is getting a curated feat list, and gets two feats while everyone else gets one feat.



Is it the same mathematically? 1 is not twice zero, though 2 is twice 1. I do think "Only type able to do X" is way more meaningful to the game than "Only type able to do 2X while everyone else can only do X," with, as you mentioned, diminishing returns.

"Losing any languages or tools" is a ribbon issue. I know a lot of people ignore the Downtime rules in the DMG, but I believe you can pick up both a tool use and language using Downtime activities with no expenditure of class or race or background resources, unless they eliminate those things in the new DMG. Realistically the VHuman was about a feat.

So far, I am fine with this change personally and I think my group will be fine with it as well. But I definitely understand people viewing this as a reduction in power for the race.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> The program opening the old documents is, in fact, doing work.



Because it was designed to be backwards compatible. The key to backwards compatibility is that the USER doesn't have to do anything at all, which will be grossly untrue with 5.5.


Parmandur said:


> The 2014 books made no attempt to provide a procedure for getting a 4E PC Ina 5E game. Different animal.



No it isn't.  Half editions are basically editions that WotC doesn't want to call a new edition.  The changes are significant enough to not be backwards compatible.  But that's not even relevant.  If they say 5.5 is backwards compatible with 5e, then 5e has to be usable by me with zero modification for that to be true.  Nobody bent WotC's arm behind its back and made it say that 5.5 would be backwards compatible.  They did that on their own.


Parmandur said:


> And if sidebars like thet are in the final printing, so thar SCAG options are still usable following a simple process...that's backwards compatible in my book.



That's fine, but it won't be backwards compatible in reality.  You can consider it to be backwards compatible if you want, but backwards compatible means "Able to be used with *no *special modification."  No amount of sidebars will make 2014 adventures usable without some(even if easy) modification.  And the rest of the rules will require significant modification.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> The program opening the old documents is, in fact, doing work. Without using computer aid, it will require a little work, sure, butbthat doesn't mean it isn't compatible. The 2014 books made no attempt to provide a procedure for getting a 4E PC Ina 5E game. Different animal. And if sidebars like thet are in the final printing, so thar SCAG options are still usable following a simple process...that's backwards compatible in my book.



Right, if the work is done in the 2024 core books, to allow you to not need houserules to use the Bladesinger or Inquisitive or Grave Cleric or whatever, then it’s backward compatible. 

The idea that the most ambitious idea in the first playtest document, from a series (UA) that often is altered from the final version to better fit _playtest specific usage_, and is the first hint of such a potential change, means that it’s a whole new game and your previous 5e purchases will be invalidated, is just silly.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> If they put a new Artificer in the PHB, that completely replaces the Artificer material in Rising from the Last War...RftLW is still 98% usable, and you could probably still tick a RftLW Srtificer in a game without blowing it up. But they didn’t say every part of every book would be equally viable.



That’s no different from existing 5e supplements, though.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> They errata’d older works when they updated reprinted material. By your previous statements, that means it is not backward compatible.



"The* options* here build on the official rules contained within the Player's Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master's Guide. Think of this book as the companion to those volumes. It builds on their foundation, exploring pathways first laid in those publications. *Nothing here in is required for a D&D campaign*-t*his is not a fourth core rulebook*- but we hope it will provide you new ways to enjoy the game."

Xanathar's is entirely options that the DM can pick and choose, or ignore completely. 

If they errata'd stuff to match Xanathar's, that has nothing to do with Xanathar's since I didn't ever have to buy it or use it.  Those were simply rules changes to the base edition.



doctorbadwolf said:


> That is an exhausting definition of backward compatibility that I think goes far more strict than most people understand the term.



it's EXACTLY how the term is commonly used.  It's from computer programs like Word.  Backwards compatible meant the older stuff was usable with no effort on the part of the user.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think it’s patently absurd to assume the latter.
> 
> It requires ignoring the last decade, and the very significant shift in focus and design ethos between 5e and all previous wotc editions, at the publishing level. It’s even more nonsensical than the doomsaying in the VTT thread.



I think this is where we disagree the most in terms of opinion. Which is why I tried to end this part of the debate earlier by saying I guess we will just have to wait and see. NOTHING in the history of WOTC, and TSR before them, and the branch-off Paizo from the WOTC game, has ever shown me that statements about backwards compatibility has ever in the history of D&D games turned out to be accurate. And I am not saying they lied - I am saying they often wishfully believe it will work out that way but simply never once has ever worked out that way. We've never seen a single transition result in an update to *all *prior material, unless it involved buying an updated book of that material. 

But again, we shall see. Maybe they will issue updates and errata to all their prior supplements to make them compatible with OneD&D. I think it's absolutely reasonable, based on the history of the very people in charge of WOTC right now, for some people to expect they will only update a smaller subset focused mostly on the core 3. I don't think it's "absurd" to think that Sword Coast Adventurers Guide for instance will receive an update, though it will need one to remain compatible.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> If there is not a rule that requires that all feats chosen have a level, then there is no incompatibility.



Every class will almost certainly (based directly on what Crawford said) only get feats with levels based on class abilities which grant feats of a specific level. What would be the point of putting levels on all feats they publish after this to adjust for power of that feat, if you could still choose an old version of that same feat at a lower level because it has no level attached to it? What, you think Great Weapon Master will either be (for example) a 12th level feat or a 4th level feat, depending on whether you choose to pull from the new book or old one, claiming the old one is still backwards compatible so the feat remains eligible?

All feats from prior books will either need a level (and likely updating) or else they will not be compatible. That's pretty darn obvious I think, baring a big change in the direction they're going. Crawford's language was flexible with much of this playtest, but it looked rather not flexible on that particular topic.


----------



## Mistwell

Reynard said:


> Unless they only identify 1st level feats, which is a possibility and makes some sense design wise. Depending on how often you get feats, that gates everything else off at 3rd or 4th level or whatever,  without having to go through the tedious process of leveling every feat.



Crawford was very specific and spoke at some length on that topic. That is not the direction they're going. They are putting a class level on ALL feats, and a 12th level feat will be more powerful than an 8th level feat, which will be more powerful than a 4th level feat, etc..


----------



## Maxperson

Mistwell said:


> Crawford was very specific and spoke at some length on that topic. That is not the direction they're going. They are putting a class level on ALL feats, and a 12th level feat will be more powerful than an 8th level feat, which will be more powerful than a 4th level feat, etc..



Do you think they will go to 12th level? They've listed data that says that only a very small percentage of games makes it that far, and if you look at the monster books the number of monsters to pick from drops off precipitously after CR 8 or so.  They might just stop feat power at 8th and at that point you can just pick anything you want at 12, 16 and 19.


----------



## Mistwell

Chaosmancer said:


> Not worth an errata (are there even any feats in the SCAG? Oh, the Deep Gnome feat. Already worthless since the Monsters of the Multiverse release)
> 
> Just assume any feat that doesn't have a level is a level 4 feat. I mean, if you need official word from Wizards, they can literally just add that sentence into the PHB. There is no reason to reprint entire books just to list levels by feats.
> 
> Also, I want to note. None of your previous objections (the four I listed) included "they are giving levels to feats so they need to reprint every feat in the game". So, we are up to five objections and only two of them have any real merit it seems, one of which is a simple fix and the other which is a legitimate concern.



They don't need to reprint the book, just issue errata. And yes it's worth errata or else the claim of backwards compatibility will be blatantly false. Who chooses the 8th level Elven Accuracy when they can grab it at 4th level by default? The entire feat-level system will be wonky if they don't update prior feats to match that system and proclaim they're all open at any level other than 4th. 

As for claiming my arguments have no merit because...I don't know you just hand waived them? That's a dismissive response. I didn't say they have to reprint anything, and we seem to differ on what is a "legitimate concern." I've seen entire characters based on what you appear to be dismissing as minor.


----------



## Mistwell

Parmandur said:


> They did not say all of every Supplement,



They did.

Ray Winninger, "I can assure you these new versions of the books will be *completely compatible with all those 5th edition products you already own* and love and all the products released between now [Oct 2021] and then, so don't panic there."

There is an additional series of interviews with other WOTC creators, and one (whose name I do not know but I will see if I can find out) says in the video, "When we say building on top of 5th edition what we mean is that* all of the adventures and supplements* that have been released over the last 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> it's EXACTLY how the term is commonly used. It's from computer programs like Word. Backwards compatible meant the older stuff was usable with no effort on the part of the user.



And we have no reason to think that won’t be the case.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> They did.
> 
> Ray Winninger, "I can assure you these new versions of the books will be *completely compatible with all those 5th edition products you already own* and love and all the products released between now [Oct 2021] and then, so don't panic there."



So, unless you think he is blatantly lying, why are you insisting that they won’t be compatible?


----------



## Aldarc

Mistwell said:


> They did.
> 
> Ray Winninger, "I can assure you these new versions of the books will be *completely compatible with all those 5th edition products you already own* and love and all the products released between now [Oct 2021] and then, so don't panic there."
> 
> There is an additional series of interviews with other WOTC creators, and one (whose name I do not know but I will see if I can find out) says in the video, "When we say building on top of 5th edition what we mean is that* all of the adventures and supplements* that have been released over the last 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D.



I feel like WotC said the same about 3.0 to 3.5, much as Paizo said about 3.5 to PF1, but the backwards compatibility of all this is debatable.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> And we have no reason to think that won’t be the case.



It's already a fact that it IS the case.  Feats with background already means that you either can't run 2014 backgrounds without significant disparity or you modify those backgrounds to be on par with 5.5.  Either of those means that there is no backwards compatibility.

If you choose to go with their recent statement about it being adventures only, well, you cannot run any 2014 adventures without modification as things stand, because the monsters will be necessarily be significantly different in 5.5 with the removal of crits.  WotC will have to compensate for that.  So no backwards compatibility there, either.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> Every class will almost certainly (based directly on what Crawford said) only get feats with levels based on class abilities which grant feats of a specific level.



We don’t know that, we don’t even know for sure that leveled feats will survive playtest, much less that they view any existing feats as problematic for 4th+ level. 


Mistwell said:


> What would be the point of putting levels on all feats they publish after this to adjust for power of that feat, if you could still choose an old version of that same feat at a lower level because it has no level attached to it? What, you think Great Weapon Master will either be (for example) a 12th level feat or a 4th level feat, depending on whether you choose to pull from the new book or old one, claiming the old one is still backwards compatible so the feat remains eligible?



GWM is a PHB feat. It will be updated by a new PHB. Just like the Bladesinger was updated in SCAG when they printed Tasha’s. 

Now if we look at a different example, maybe like Stryxhaven, a book I don’t expect to see any real updating, we can dig into what’s up. 

Again, the new book will most likely just specify how choosing a feat with no level works. My bet is that it will literally just be that you can take any non leveled feat from level 4 on, but they could go a few other ways, including just a reprint of a bunch of feats from various sources, though that is less efficient. 


Mistwell said:


> All feats from prior books will either need a level (and likely updating) or else they will not be compatible.



Unlikely. 


Mistwell said:


> That's pretty darn obvious I think, baring a big change in the direction they're going. Crawford's language was flexible with much of this playtest, but it looked rather not flexible on that particular topic.



Again, I disagree wrt to Crawford’s statements, and indeed I don’t know what statements you could be interpreting that way.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> It's already a fact that it IS the case.



No, but even if it were it would only be the case in a playtest document. 


Maxperson said:


> Feats with background already means that you either can't run 2014 backgrounds without significant disparity or you modify those backgrounds to be on par with 5.5. Either of those means that there is no backwards compatibility.



“the new version is better” is not an incompatibility. Full stop. You are objectively using the term incorrectly here.


----------



## Blue

Chaosmancer said:


> I disagree, because the Vhuman is in the Player's Handbook, and is obviously being rewritten. This is like saying that the 2024 Alert feat is broken, because you could take it and the 2014 Alert feat and have a total of +11 to initiative, be unable to be surprised, swap initiative, and not grant advantage to unseen attackers.
> 
> No one designing this is seriously imagining people will use the old feats in tandem with the re-written ones on the same character. So no one would assume that they are going to try and take the Vhuman and play it straight, or that they are going to take the 2024 Dwarf and then choose the Hill Dwarf subrace from 2014 and get +2 to all hp.
> 
> You are taking the stance of "but they said..." and trying to deride the playtest for something that is clearly against the intent and spirit of the playtest.



That's not been my stance, please don't try to state my motives.  In multiple posts in this chain I have been very clear my stance is "it's actually a half edition shift, because if it really is one edition then all of this old stuff is still active".

I'm in a campaign with PCs with races that were rewritten with MotM and not updated.  These are still a single edition, and the minor rewrites don't make the other ones unplayable.  I've used foes both MotM versions of some and pre-MotM versions of others based on what fit what I wanted better, especially with casters.  In a single edition, this is fine.

But if, as you say, "I disagree, because the Vhuman is in the Player's Handbook, and is obviously being rewritten.", you are in fact agreeing with my entiure premise - that this is not the same edition where they will be all in play, but a half edition (or more) shift where the old ones are not in play.

Basically, once you say "all of this has been superseded and is no longer available", the practical upshot is that it is a separate edition regardless if they number it as so or not.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, but even if it were it would only be the case in a playtest document.



Yes and no.  Is the playtest document all we have right now?  Yes.  Is it clear that backgrounds will have feats attached to them in 5.5e?  Also yes.  The last few books put out have this design, it has been stated to be the future of 5e since before 5.5 was announced, and the playtest document shows all of that to be true.  The only unknown is just HOW it will be implemented in its final form, not whether it will be.


doctorbadwolf said:


> “the new version is better” is not an incompatibility. Full stop. You are objectively using the term incorrectly here.



The old version having to be updated to work with the new version equally IS an incompatibility.  That serious disparity is equivalent to a computer program not working with an older version.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> That’s no different from existing 5e supplements, though.



Could be a major issue of degree, though not kind.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Do you think they will go to 12th level? They've listed data that says that only a very small percentage of games makes it that far, and if you look at the monster books the number of monsters to pick from drops off precipitously after CR 8 or so.  They might just stop feat power at 8th and at that point you can just pick anything you want at 12, 16 and 19.



They haven't in the Krynn or 2023 playtests, just 4th and 8th Level Feats.


----------



## Parmandur

Mistwell said:


> They did.
> 
> Ray Winninger, "I can assure you these new versions of the books will be *completely compatible with all those 5th edition products you already own* and love and all the products released between now [Oct 2021] and then, so don't panic there."
> 
> There is an additional series of interviews with other WOTC creators, and one (whose name I do not know but I will see if I can find out) says in the video, "When we say building on top of 5th edition what we mean is that* all of the adventures and supplements* that have been released over the last 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D.



"Completely playable" with the new evolution of D&D doesn't necessarily mean every element of those supplements has to be usable, frankly.


----------



## Reynard

Mistwell said:


> They did.
> 
> Ray Winninger, "I can assure you these new versions of the books will be *completely compatible with all those 5th edition products you already own* and love and all the products released between now [Oct 2021] and then, so don't panic there."
> 
> There is an additional series of interviews with other WOTC creators, and one (whose name I do not know but I will see if I can find out) says in the video, "When we say building on top of 5th edition what we mean is that* all of the adventures and supplements* that have been released over the last 10 years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D.



Presumably anything that exists in a previous supplement and the 2024 core will be superceded by the latter.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mistwell said:


> Is it the same mathematically? 1 is not twice zero, though 2 is twice 1. I do think "Only type able to do X" is way more meaningful to the game than "Only type able to do 2X while everyone else can only do X," with, as you mentioned, diminishing returns.




+1 is the same whether you are doing 1+1 or 100+1. It is +1. Sure, if you want to look at it multiplicatively, 1+1 is the same as 1*2, whereas 100*2 =/= 100+1. But that gets into a level of pendantry I'm really not sure is useful. 

Humans get +1 feat more than everyone else. They got that in 2014 with Vhuman, they get it now.



Mistwell said:


> "Losing any languages or tools" is a ribbon issue. I know a lot of people ignore the Downtime rules in the DMG, but I believe you can pick up both a tool use and language using Downtime activities with no expenditure of class or race or background resources, unless they eliminate those things in the new DMG. Realistically the VHuman was about a feat.
> 
> So far, I am fine with this change personally and I think my group will be fine with it as well. But I definitely understand people viewing this as a reduction in power for the race.




The Xanathar's rules cost an obscene amount of time and significant money, so they weren't really usable for most tables. 

And again, sure, due to diminishing returns, getting two feats is less impressive than getting one feat. That still doesn't make it accurate to say that the human is terribly underpowered compared to its previous version. If I built a Soldier with both systems you are going to get much the same result.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Presumably anything that exists in a previous supplement and the 2024 core will be superceded by the latter.



I suppose that a design goal of the new Monster Manual is to ensure that any 5E Adventure will still be compatible, by having an equivalent entry for any Monster or NPC in bold. Seems doable, even if they change all the Mosntera, given the fuzziness of 5E/OneD&D encounter design.

Here's one possible thing they could do: based on what they have written in this playtest, and comparing to the final formatting with art for similar entries in Monsters of the Multiverse, the Race chapter here is set to be literally less than half the length of the 2014 PHB (which was 27 pages long). And the Backgroudn schaoter isnpoiwed to be significantlyshorter, as well. So they are trying to be efficient with space it seems, which means they want the space for something.

What if...they print a full revision or every Subclass from 5E? Just straight up, 100 Subclasses in the PHB.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mistwell said:


> They don't need to reprint the book, just issue errata. And yes it's worth errata or else the claim of backwards compatibility will be blatantly false. Who chooses the 8th level Elven Accuracy when they can grab it at 4th level by default? The entire feat-level system will be wonky if they don't update prior feats to match that system and proclaim they're all open at any level other than 4th.




Who says an 8th level Elven Accuracy even exists? This is where you seem to consistently jumping to conclusions. You keep assuming old feats that will be taken from those supplments will be 8th or 12th level, but if they aren't... then there is no need to change anything. 

All of the feats which people consider "broken" and might be moved to 8th level are found in the PHB. The feats in Xanathars and Tasha's (the only two books with a significant number of feats) all look like they'd be fine as 4th level feats. So, instead of assuming we will be breaking the game by taking a 12th level "Flames of Phlegethos" feat at 4th level, why not just look at the 1st level feats, and withhold judgement on 4th level and higher feats until we get that playtest document? 

And, to cover this as well, saying that the game cannot be backwards compatible if the 2014 PHB lets you take the 8th level GWM feat at 4th level is missing the mark. Things that are rewritten in the 2024 PHB are clearly going to be meant to be rewritten rules, not interchangeable rules pieces, because if that was allowed, then there are a million broken combos, but it is clearly not allowed.  



Mistwell said:


> As for claiming my arguments have no merit because...I don't know you just hand waived them? That's a dismissive response. I didn't say they have to reprint anything, and we seem to differ on what is a "legitimate concern." I've seen entire characters based on what you appear to be dismissing as minor.




I imagined that by "updated or errata'd" you were talking about reprints. If you just mean they will need to release like a single page digital PDF explaining how to integrate things, that is far different and far easier than you've been making this sound. 

But as for dismissing your concerns? 

1) "I can't make an 18 stat human anymore." -> Yeah, I'm dismissing this. Rules changed. We knew that and it doesn't seem to be worth declaring the playtest broken and impossible just because some of the rules changed. At that point, you can't have a playtest. You don't need to playtest rules that never change. 

2) Critical hits -> I've agreed with you. If nothing changes between this document and 2024, then this is a legitimate concern. A minor concern, since there are only three or four ways to cancel crits anyways, but a real concern I plan on bringing up alongside my other comments on the critical hit rules. Not dismissing

3) Grappling -> Another real concern, though one we have agreed is a rather easy fix. A single line in the new PHB on grappling and interactions with advantage on strength checks, and we are good to go. 

4) Changes to abilities no longer recharging on a short rest -> Dismissed, because it isn't a real concern. This has been the case for Tasha's, for Fizban's, for Monsters of the Multiverse. This has been a shift for a long time. If your concern is actually that, say, 2024 Warlocks are going to work differently than 2014 warlocks, we return to #1. Rules changes are not problems that need errata'd. 

5) All feats need to be given levels -> Dismissed because they really don't. If people are allowed to take feats that they have the pre-requisites for by level 4, then you can still take those feats. The only concern would come *IF* they *DID* update or errata the old feats to give them levels. Once they do that, you have rewritten the rules for those feats, and you will need to account for that. But if you don't, then they can just get them at level 4 like normal. 

So, I am dismissing some of your concerns, but not out of hand. I'm dismissing them because you seem to equate the rules being altered to being some sort of problem, but all of the knock-on effects for other feats and short rest recharges and human limits are all not actually rules problems, they are rules changes. Meanwhile, Grappling and Criticals are actual rules problems that need addressed.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Blue said:


> That's not been my stance, please don't try to state my motives.  In multiple posts in this chain I have been very clear my stance is "it's actually a half edition shift, because if it really is one edition then all of this old stuff is still active".
> 
> I'm in a campaign with PCs with races that were rewritten with MotM and not updated.  These are still a single edition, and the minor rewrites don't make the other ones unplayable.  I've used foes both MotM versions of some and pre-MotM versions of others based on what fit what I wanted better, especially with casters.  In a single edition, this is fine.
> 
> But if, as you say, "I disagree, because the Vhuman is in the Player's Handbook, and is obviously being rewritten.", you are in fact agreeing with my entiure premise - that this is not the same edition where they will be all in play, but a half edition (or more) shift where the old ones are not in play.
> 
> Basically, once you say "all of this has been superseded and is no longer available", the practical upshot is that it is a separate edition regardless if they number it as so or not.




You know, honestly, I'm trying to find an example you won't twist, and I'm just going to jump to the end. 

Let us say you win, Wizards in their next announcement says "We lied. This is actually 6E and we will be releasing a conversion document that explains how to integrate the majority of your 5E supplements into the game. We will say which races can be ported easily, which feats need levels, which spells go in which lists" 

What changes? What fundamental shift has occurred? 

You keep taking the claim that the 2024 book is going to be backwards compatible with 5e adventures and supplements to mean that no rules in the Player's Handbook will be changed. But they've already changed Volo's Guide and Mordenkainen's tome by releasing Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse. Was that an edition shift? No one seemed to think so, you are claiming it wasn't, but if a Player's Handbook is released to change a Player's Handbook it must be at least a half edition shift and that's.... bad? 

Why? It isn't exactly difficult to realize that a rewritten human is supposed to be rewritten, just like we don't use the Kobold or Orc that have -2 Intelligence, we won't use the old, out-of-date human. Because why would we?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> What if...they print a full revision or every Subclass from 5E? Just straight up, 100 Subclasses in the PHB.



I don’t think they will, but only because I think they want the main rules expansion books to keep selling. 



Parmandur said:


> Could be a major issue of degree, though not kind.



Sure. I think the playtest is showing their most radical ideas going in, and since the only issue right now is specific rules language needing adjustment, I’m not too worried, but it’s possible.


----------



## Blue

Chaosmancer said:


> Let us say you win, Wizards in their next announcement says "We lied. This is actually 6E and we will be releasing a conversion document that explains how to integrate the majority of your 5E supplements into the game. We will say which races can be ported easily, which feats need levels, which spells go in which lists"
> 
> What changes? What fundamental shift has occurred?



What changed:  they now are telling the truth.  That's all.  Is more needed?  Do I need a mechanical reason to hold them to the truth?  That maybe if they came out that it's not the same edition it could impact the sales of the books they have planned between now and then?  I'm pretty confused why finding the truth isn't a sufficient goal by itself, but even if it's trying to find out if they are telling the truth or lying as it will impact book sales is a major money issue - and one that incentivizes them to say it's all the same edition.

We have a precedent for what looks like it's happening.  This happened already with 3.0 to 3.5.



Chaosmancer said:


> You keep taking the claim that the 2024 book is going to be backwards compatible with 5e adventures and supplements to mean that no rules in the Player's Handbook will be changed.



No, I keep taking the claim that it will all be compatible as bull.  I use holding them to their statement that it's going to be compatible - inherent in the declaration that it is the same edition - to highlight where they are misinforming us.



Chaosmancer said:


> But they've already changed Volo's Guide and Mordenkainen's tome by releasing Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse. Was that an edition shift? No one seemed to think so, you are claiming it wasn't, but if a Player's Handbook is released to change a Player's Handbook it must be at least a half edition shift and that's.... bad?



It hasn't come up in this thread, but in another I stated that I like the changes.  I'm not saying this is bad.  I am just fighting for the truth, using their own statement to highlight the absurdity of the untruth.

MotM I did complain about, because unlike every other change books introduced it wasn't accompanied by errata.  For example, when an earlier book changed the already-published Triton to add darkvision, the earlier books received errata about it.  So they were all in agreement and therefore the same edition.  Not so with MotM.



Chaosmancer said:


> Why? It isn't exactly difficult to realize that a rewritten human is supposed to be rewritten, just like we don't use the Kobold or Orc that have -2 Intelligence, we won't use the old, out-of-date human. Because why would we?



I know you've accused me of twisting it, but go read back - several times I've said that I do expect it to be gone.  And that it being gone is part of _why this is a new edition_ as opposed to the same edition.

If everything change that comes out in the 2024 edition gets errata (unlike MotM) so that the 2014 books (with errata) and the 2024 print are the same, that's actually the same edition.  If they *don't get errata*, but *claim it's still the current edition*, then *by their statement all of the un-errata'd is still in play* - it hasn't been changed (errata) and it's in the current edition.

It's like 4e Essentials.  You can play Essentials and original characters, picking from all the classes, races, feats, etc.  It really was a single edition even if it was a dramatic change in design philosophy.   Making a claim that it is the same edition can't support less than this, where everything from the same edition can be mixed and matched with the same edition.

Again, I think it will all be gone.  And that's because it really will be an edition shift regardless what they claim.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Blue said:


> What changed:  they now are telling the truth.  That's all.  Is more needed?  Do I need a mechanical reason to hold them to the truth?  That maybe if they came out that it's not the same edition it could impact the sales of the books they have planned between now and then?  I'm pretty confused why finding the truth isn't a sufficient goal by itself, but even if it's trying to find out if they are telling the truth or lying as it will impact book sales is a major money issue - and one that incentivizes them to say it's all the same edition.
> 
> We have a precedent for what looks like it's happening.  This happened already with 3.0 to 3.5.




Because as a youtuber said (don't remember which one) DnD has a bizarre relationship with the word "edition".

I own the Savage Worlds "Explorer's Edition" rulebook. I also own the Savage Worlds "Deluxe Edition". I don't own Savage Worlds "Adventurers Edition" but I suspect the same thing is going to remain true. The rules are 95% the exact same. Deluxe has MORE rules, but I can use both books nearly interchangeably. And this is how it is for a LOT of games. First, Second and Ninth edition are all largely the same.

DnD is one of the few games where "New Edition" means "all your books are worthless, none of these rules are interchangeable". For most people though? Whether or not you want to "expose" WotC as lying and this being truly a new edition doesn't matter. In terms of DnD editions? This isn't a new edition. Might not even be a half edition. Note that the last few books have been explicitly written using some of these new rules. Backgrounds give 1st level feats isn't something new, it is something we have BEEN discussing with the most recent releases.



Blue said:


> No, I keep taking the claim that it will all be compatible as bull.  I use holding them to their statement that it's going to be compatible - inherent in the declaration that it is the same edition - to highlight where they are misinforming us.




That word "all" is doing a whole lot of obfuscating.

Of course not ALL of the 2014 PHB is going to be compatible. The 2014 grappling rules aren't compatible with the 2024 Grappling rules. They can't be. The rules are being rewritten. They aren't lying to us, because most of us don't expect them to need to playtest if they aren't going to be changing rules. So, we expect to see rules changed, and if a rule is changed it is not compatible with its pre-change version.

This is no different than Tasha's, which wasn't an edition shift.



Blue said:


> It hasn't come up in this thread, but in another I stated that I like the changes.  I'm not saying this is bad.  I am just fighting for the truth, using their own statement to highlight the absurdity of the untruth.
> 
> MotM I did complain about, because unlike every other change books introduced it wasn't accompanied by errata.  For example, when an earlier book changed the already-published Triton to add darkvision, the earlier books received errata about it.  So they were all in agreement and therefore the same edition.  Not so with MotM.




Okay? What would you like the errata to say? "We reprinted this in a new book, check this book?"

Deep Gnomes were printed in SCAG, Tome of Foes, and Monsters of the Multiverse. I don't think they are really selling SCAG or Tome of Foes anymore, so what do you expect an errata to even accomplish?



Blue said:


> I know you've accused me of twisting it, but go read back - several times I've said that I do expect it to be gone.  And that it being gone is part of _why this is a new edition_ as opposed to the same edition.
> 
> If everything change that comes out in the 2024 edition gets errata (unlike MotM) so that the 2014 books (with errata) and the 2024 print are the same, that's actually the same edition.  If they *don't get errata*, but *claim it's still the current edition*, then *by their statement all of the un-errata'd is still in play* - it hasn't been changed (errata) and it's in the current edition.
> 
> It's like 4e Essentials.  You can play Essentials and original characters, picking from all the classes, races, feats, etc.  It really was a single edition even if it was a dramatic change in design philosophy.   Making a claim that it is the same edition can't support less than this, where everything from the same edition can be mixed and matched with the same edition.
> 
> Again, I think it will all be gone.  And that's because it really will be an edition shift regardless what they claim.




Would you really want an errata document that lays out, by page number, every single possible change in language, phrasing, rules, ect from the 2014 PHB to the 2024 PHB? That seems beyond tedious

Let's be honest here, there is no reason for them to sell the 2014 PHB after the 2024 PHB comes out. It would lead to market confusion and just a huge mess. And so an errata document would be largely pointless in my mind, because they aren't selling the old book any more.

I mean, more power to you to call out wizards and berate them for their innacurate use of terminology, but this seems like making a huge deal out of nothing. No one actually expects the books to be identical. No one actually expects them to provide a document notating every single change they made to every line and statblock of three books. This was announced with a year and a half lead time, people will have plenty of chances to hold off buying an old PHB and waiting for the new one.


----------



## Parmandur

Chaosmancer said:


> Deep Gnomes were printed in SCAG, Tome of Foes, and Monsters of the Multiverse. I don't think they are really selling SCAG or Tome of Foes anymore, so what do you expect an errata to even accomplish?



Small point of order, SCAG is still available in print (currently #4,831 in all books on Amazon!), and from Beyond.


----------



## Parmandur

Though interestingly, you can get Deep Gnomes from SCAG a la carte. Duergar, Aquatic Half-Elf, Ghostwise Halfling, Drow Half Eld, High Half-Elf, Wood Half-Elf,  Variant Tiefling. And Feral Tiefling are all still rorschach individual sale, though.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Blue said:


> We have a precedent for what looks like it's happening. This happened already with 3.0 to 3.5.



There being precedent doesn’t mean the exact same thing will happen again. 

In fact, it’s at least as likely to mean that whatever mistakes they make in 2024, they probably won’t be the same ones they made with 3/.5.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Can someone explain what they think the reasoning is for wizards to put out a playtest document that can’t be played wholly on it own, and explicitly tell playtesters to use the existing rules and options to test the UA ideas, if they don’t intend on the new ideas being backward compatible?


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Can someone explain what they think the reasoning is for wizards to put out a playtest document that can’t be played wholly on it own, and explicitly tell playtesters to use the existing rules and options to test the UA ideas, if they don’t intend on the new ideas being backward compatible?



So that they can test the pieces in time to make sure they are right, before going on to systems that rely on them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> So that they can test the pieces in time to make sure they are right, before going on to systems that rely on them.



But if they aren’t going to keep the same system beyond some updates, that wouldn’t get them useful or reliable data.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> But if they aren’t going to keep the same system beyond some updates, that wouldn’t get them useful or reliable data.



It would, because they are just testing the UA.  That's why people shouldn't be mixing 2014 PCs and UA PCs for playtesting.  They should be using only the UA rules and then 2014 rules for the rest of it.  So no races, backgrounds, feats, etc. from 2014 should be used by playtesters.  

They aren't going to be looking at the difficulties or ease of combat due to the new crit rules yet.  They're going to be focused on "Did you like the backgrounds?", "What did you like most about them?", "What did you like least about them?" and so on.   Once they have the feedback on those, we will get a revised version and test that.  When that's finalized, they can move on to classes, monsters, etc.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Parmandur said:


> Small point of order, SCAG is still available in print (currently #4,831 in all books on Amazon!), and from Beyond.




Good to know, I rarely hear anyone ever talk about it, and I figured it had fallen out of print by this point


----------



## Parmandur

Chaosmancer said:


> Good to know, I rarely hear anyone ever talk about it, and I figured it had fallen out of print by this point



Nope, it is still going...7 years in print.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> It would, because they are just testing the UA.  That's why people shouldn't be mixing 2014 PCs and UA PCs for playtesting.  They should be using only the UA rules and then 2014 rules for the rest of it.  So no races, backgrounds, feats, etc. from 2014 should be used by playtesters.



If that were the case they’d have said so. 


Maxperson said:


> They aren't going to be looking at the difficulties or ease of combat due to the new crit rules yet.  They're going to be focused on "Did you like the backgrounds?", "What did you like most about them?", "What did you like least about them?" and so on.   Once they have the feedback on those, we will get a revised version and test that.  When that's finalized, they can move on to classes, monsters, etc.



That doesn’t track with what JC said in the video announcing the playtest.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> If that were the case they’d have said so.



They did.

"The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, *except where noted*."

Followed immediately by noting Character Races, Character Backgrounds, Starting Languages, Feats and the Rules Glossery.

When they get to classes they will say the same thing, because they want you to test what they are putting out.


doctorbadwolf said:


> That doesn’t track with what JC said in the video announcing the playtest.



Putting out everything to test at once would be dumb.  First it would be overwhelming for a lot of people to track what they like and where.  Second it would create problems like people really liking the monsters, but not how classes work.  Then when classes are changed, the changes now make it unfun to fight the monsters.  So they change monsters and now they don't like how the classes interact again. They need to playtest piecemeal and nail down classes, then they can put out monster stuff until people like both.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> They did.
> 
> "The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, *except where noted*."
> 
> Followed immediately by noting Character Races, Character Backgrounds, Starting Languages, Feats and the Rules Glossery.
> 
> When they get to classes they will say the same thing, because they want you to test what they are putting out.
> 
> Putting out everything to test at once would be dumb.  First it would be overwhelming for a lot of people to track what they like and where.  Second it would create problems like people really liking the monsters, but not how classes work.  Then when classes are changed, the changes now make it unfun to fight the monsters.  So they change monsters and now they don't like how the classes interact again. They need to playtest piecemeal and nail down classes, then they can put out monster stuff until people like both.



Crawford was quite adamant that they want people to mix and match material in practice...since they want to encourage people to buy the new books and keep or even continue buying older ones, that makes sense.

I doubt they will test Monsters: they never have I'm the past for UA, amd they already have the new design paradigm in action in every book since Candlekeep


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Crawford was quite adamant that they want people to mix and match material in practice...since they want to encourage people to buy the new books and keep or even continue buying older ones, that makes sense.



Once the playtest is complete, sure.  During the playtest mixing and matching will work against it.


Parmandur said:


> I doubt they will test Monsters: they never have I'm the past for UA, amd they already have the new design paradigm in action in every book since Candlekeep



Not in a normal UA, no, but this is a playtest for 5.5 and monsters will have to be changed or they just got a lot easier.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Once the playtest is complete, sure.  During the playtest mixing and matching will work against it.
> 
> Not in a normal UA, no, but this is a playtest for 5.5 and monsters will have to be changed or they just got a lot easier.



Sure, they'll change them...but I doubt they will test them at all. That's for private playtesting, to get the math right.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Once the playtest is complete, sure. During the playtest mixing and matching will work against it.



And as for this aspect: the design intent is for mixing and rules transparency between the two rule sets, and they said they wanted them to be tested as a mixture. I reckon the packets are going to be one Class at a time, so mixing will be inevitable early on.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Aldarc said:


> I feel like WotC said the same about 3.0 to 3.5, much as Paizo said about 3.5 to PF1, but the backwards compatibility of all this is debatable.



it's almost like they are selling us on it... like they want to make money from us...


----------



## Blue

You really seem like your arguing that I can't care about something because you don't care about it.  Just in this response you set up several strawmen by twisting points about what I said so you can knock them down.  Why are you putting this much effort into trying to convince me not to care about something?  You ask me why I cared, I ask you the same - why are you putting this amount of effort into defending that it absolutely is the same edition even if the same amount of changes have precendet as a half edition change.  Where is your payoff that makes your care it's the same edition?



Chaosmancer said:


> DnD is one of the few games where "New Edition" means "all your books are worthless, none of these rules are interchangeable".



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



Chaosmancer said:


> That word "all" is doing a whole lot of obfuscating.



That word "all" is vastly important for it being the same edition.  It's not obfuscating anything.

Pre-MotM, any changes getting published about character creation/advancement rules was made combatible via errata.  "All" is pretty clear in this context.



Chaosmancer said:


> Of course not ALL of the 2014 PHB is going to be compatible. The 2014 grappling rules aren't compatible with the 2024 Grappling rules. They can't be. The rules are being rewritten.



EXACTLY.  And that's what makes it a new edition.  It IS NOT compatible.  It IS NOT the same edition.

I don't know how you post things supporting my point yet act as if it refutes it.

Okay, new rule going forward, in future responses, I'll just post "CHANGES SUPPORT IT BEING A DIFFERENT EDITION" in caps every time you repeat this mistake.  I won't bother to refute it more than that, that's already been done.



Chaosmancer said:


> They aren't lying to us, because most of us don't expect them to need to playtest if they aren't going to be changing rules. So, we expect to see rules changed, and if a rule is changed it is not compatible with its pre-change version.



If they started playtesting 4e right now and in 2024 they published the 4e PHB and said it's the same edition, according to you it would not be lying saying it's the same edition because we expect them to make changes?

*No, changes are what makes it another edition.*

You can not have it both that it's the same edition and that it's not compatible.  You also can not have that they aren't lying to us because we expect them to be lying about it being the same edition.

Your examples support my point, again.  The fact that people expect changes has nothing to do with if it is or is not truly a new edition.  It being incompatible has to do with if it is a new edition.  I expect changes -- I think it's a new edition.



Chaosmancer said:


> This is no different than Tasha's, which wasn't an edition shift.



Tasha's added options for a DM to introduce.  Are these being introduced as modular options to pick and choose, with the 2014PHB still in play as the base?  No.  Strawman #1.



Chaosmancer said:


> Okay? What would you like the errata to say? "We reprinted this in a new book, check this book?"



I don't want the errata to say anything.  I said that I think the changes are good and I just want them to be truthful it's a new edition.  I would only need errata if it really was the same edition and really remained compatible, and I really don't because the changes look massive.  You you go on and on like I want massive errata, which I don't so I'm not going to quote your individual points that ascripe a motive to me I don't support.  Strawman #2.



Chaosmancer said:


> Let's be honest here, there is no reason for them to sell the 2014 PHB after the 2024 PHB comes out. It would lead to market confusion and just a huge mess. And so an errata document would be largely pointless in my mind, because they aren't selling the old book any more.



I'll address this one point -- an errata document is what kept the game in sync as a single edition as earlier books did introduce changes.  It was _*never*_ for the people buying new books, since a new printing would always have all the errata included.  It was for the people who already owned the book.  Pretending that there are no people who own the 2014 PHB to make your point is Strawman #3.  It's very easy to say "It's the same edition, as long as no one has ever played or is playing this edition", and that's just not true.



Chaosmancer said:


> No one actually expects the books to be identical.



I know.  Which is why it's an edition shift.  Just like the precedent already when the same scope of changes was in 3.0 to 3.5.

You seem to be confusing what the masses think about something and a fact.  I live in the US, they can be vastly different animals.


----------



## Blue

doctorbadwolf said:


> There being precedent doesn’t mean the exact same thing will happen again.
> 
> In fact, it’s at least as likely to mean that whatever mistakes they make in 2024, they probably won’t be the same ones they made with 3/.5.



Not sure where this is coming from - I like the changes.  The precedent I was talking about was that when you ovehaul a good chunk of character creation/advancement (e.g. the player facing rules) it's at a half edition change, as opposed to being called the same edition.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> And as for this aspect: the design intent is for mixing and rules transparency between the two rule sets, and they said they wanted them to be tested as a mixture. I reckon the packets are going to be one Class at a time, so mixing will be inevitable early on.



Exactly. I am frustrated enough with the mindset being expressed that I struggled to articulate my reply, but this did it for me.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, unless you think he is blatantly lying, why are you insisting that they won’t be compatible?



Because there is an option between "blatantly lying" and "will happen exactly that way." And that is the same option we've experienced at pretty much every single edition transition. Good intentions are expressed early on. They hope for things to turn out a certain way and are optimistic it will turn out that way. And it never turns out that way. They've said it would be backwards compatible so many times in so many transitions, and I think they believe it when they say it. It just doesn't work out that way. Because it's way harder to do, and have it work well, than they remember from the last time it happened


----------



## Mistwell

Aldarc said:


> I feel like WotC said the same about 3.0 to 3.5, much as Paizo said about 3.5 to PF1, but the backwards compatibility of all this is debatable.



They absolutely did. And it's not even debatable - both ended up not being backwards compatible.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> We don’t know that, we don’t even know for sure that leveled feats will survive playtest, much less that they view any existing feats as problematic for 4th+ level.




OK now YOU are the one calling Crawford a liar. He says that's what they're doing. That part of the video wasn't "this won't survive the playtest" type language, like the crits were. But we shall see. Which is the third time I've tried to tell you this is the kind of topic where we cannot in any way come to any kind of agreement until it actually happens and we see for ourselves. So let's just wait and see. Feel free to remember this thread and quote me later if it turns out my guesses are wrong.


----------



## Mistwell

Parmandur said:


> "Completely playable" with the new evolution of D&D doesn't necessarily mean every element of those supplements has to be usable, frankly.



Completely compatible sure sounds *complete *and *compatible*. What would "complete" mean in this context other than "every element?" Is this one of those "I am changing the meaning of literally to mean figuratively?"


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mistwell said:


> They absolutely did. And it's not even debatable - both ended up not being backwards compatible.



the part that bugs me the most is not only do we KNOW they have this history, but THEY KNOW we know it. So you would think that the best answer would be more straight forward... yet here we are.


----------



## Mistwell

Chaosmancer said:


> 1) "I can't make an 18 stat human anymore." -> Yeah, I'm dismissing this. Rules changed. We knew that and it doesn't seem to be worth declaring the playtest broken and impossible just because some of the rules changed. At that point, you can't have a playtest. You don't need to playtest rules that never change.




Stop. Neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, has said or implied anything like "the playtest is broken and impossible." 

Do I even read the rest of your reply if you're going to resort to that extreme a strawman? Or did you honestly think that's what I've been arguing?

If you cannot play your existing character with the new version of the rules, that means the new rules are not "fully compatible with all prior products." I think that's a fair position. 



Chaosmancer said:


> 5) All feats need to be given levels -> Dismissed because they really don't. If people are allowed to take feats that they have the pre-requisites for by level 4, then you can still take those feats. The only concern would come *IF* they *DID* update or errata the old feats to give them levels. Once they do that, you have rewritten the rules for those feats, and you will need to account for that. But if you don't, then they can just get them at level 4 like normal.



Crawford's already repeatedly said all feats will have levels and gaining feats will use a descriptor of the required level you can get with them. Unless they give those feats levels, you won't be able to take them. Which makes it not "completely compatible with all prior products."


----------



## Mistwell

GMforPowergamers said:


> the part that bugs me the most is not only do we KNOW they have this history, but THEY KNOW we know it. So you would think that the best answer would be more straight forward... yet here we are.



Yeah, they've said the same words multiple times in the past about this same kind of transition, and I am told I am being absurd for having any doubts it might play out the same way it has always played out in the past literally since the transition from 1e to 2e.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> There being precedent doesn’t mean the exact same thing will happen again.
> 
> In fact, it’s at least as likely to mean that whatever mistakes they make in 2024, they probably won’t be the same ones they made with 3/.5.



You're right it doesn't mean it must happen the same way.

It does however mean people are not "absurd" for thinking it's likely to happen that way. Which was the description you used. 

Also they made this mistake with 4e to Essentials, and 2e to 3e PR. Heck they even tried the "D&D Next" concept to avoid using "edition" with 5e itself. They've literally NEVER in the history of the company pulled off the "backwards compatible" claims made. They've never once learned from the very many lessons of the past. So why is it so irrational to expect they will, once again, behave like they've always behaved?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mistwell said:


> If you cannot play your existing character with the new version of the rules, that means the new rules are not "fully compatible with all prior products." I think that's a fair position.



there are already mini issues, but there is a chance such things may get rolled back if the playtest doesn't go well.

I personally would rather they throw out every bit of backwards compatibility if it meant a better game


----------



## Galandris

GMforPowergamers said:


> the part that bugs me the most is not only do we KNOW they have this history, but THEY KNOW we know it. So you would think that the best answer would be more straight forward... yet here we are.




They know we now it. They also postulates that the D&D market is doubling each year, so the 3.5 incompatibility fiasco ocurring 19 years ago has seen the market multiplied by 524,288 since then, drowning us the old witness of this long past time among their target audience.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> OK now YOU are the one calling Crawford a liar.



Not in the least. 


Mistwell said:


> He says that's what they're doing. That part of the video wasn't "this won't survive the playtest" type language, like the crits were.



The entire playtest is subject to feedback.


----------



## Parmandur

Galandris said:


> They know we now it. They also postulates that the D&D market is doubling each year, so the 3.5 incompatibility fiasco ocurring 19 years ago has seen the market multiplied by 524,288 since then, drowning us the old witness of this long past time among their target audience.



I mean, a significant part of the player base hadn't been born in 2003.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> You're right it doesn't mean it must happen the same way.
> 
> It does however mean people are not "absurd" for thinking it's likely to happen that way. Which was the description you used.
> 
> Also they made this mistake with 4e to Essentials, and 2e to 3e PR. Heck they even tried the "D&D Next" concept to avoid using "edition" with 5e itself. They've literally NEVER in the history of the company pulled off the "backwards compatible" claims made. They've never once learned from the very many lessons of the past. So why is it so irrational to expect they will, once again, behave like they've always behaved?



Good lord. 

I can only shake my head and walk away, in response to this.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Galandris said:


> They know we now it. They also postulates that the D&D market is doubling each year, so the 3.5 incompatibility fiasco ocurring 19 years ago has seen the market multiplied by 524,288 since then, drowning us the old witness of this long past time among their target audience.





Parmandur said:


> I mean, a significant part of the player base hadn't been born in 2003.



1) thank you I feel old enough
and
2) that is what annoys me the most... they can lie to new people and just trust that enough of them will believe the company line over the players that have been around for the last 350 years... "Back in my day we sat on rocks, and had to only play during daylight since we didn't have fire yet"


----------



## Mistwell

GMforPowergamers said:


> 1) thank you I feel old enough
> and
> 2) that is what annoys me the most... they can lie to new people and just trust that enough of them will believe the company line over the players that have been around for the last 350 years... "Back in my day we sat on rocks, and had to only play during daylight since we didn't have fire yet"



I really don't think they lie about this. I think they all go in thinking it will be completely compatible. That plan never survives contact with the enemy which is the actual new edition, but they always go in believing this time it will work.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mistwell said:


> hat plan never survives contact with the enemy which is the actual new edition, but they always go in believing this time it will work.



maybe not a lie, but they are not being honest (maybe even with themselves) if they think they are going to do what none of the previous editions did... even the 2 times we were told (and later told they had a .5 in the wings and it was a bold faced lie...if you believe cook) they were going to be the final edition.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> I really don't think they lie about this. I think they all go in thinking it will be completely compatible. That plan never survives contact with the enemy which is the actual new edition, but they always go in believing this time it will work.



So, you think they’re idiots.


----------



## James Gasik

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


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, you think they’re idiots.



No, I think they're human. People overestimate all the time. I do, and I am sure you do sometimes as well.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> No, I think they're human. People overestimate all the time. I do, and I am sure you do sometimes as well.



Sure. And then I learn from it. 

Just like they learned from 3.5 and didn’t try to say that a new game wasn’t a new game for 4e. Or all the various lessons from all three previous editions they’d made that they applied to 5e.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure. And then I learn from it.
> 
> Just like they learned from 3.5 and didn’t try to say that a new game wasn’t a new game for 4e. Or all the various lessons from all three previous editions they’d made that they applied to 5e.




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


----------



## Chaosmancer

Parmandur said:


> Crawford was quite adamant that they want people to mix and match material in practice...since they want to encourage people to buy the new books and keep or even continue buying older ones, that makes sense.




I want to step in and say I don't think Crawford wanted us to mix and match *everything*. I don't think they are expecting to get useful feedback from "2024 Human with 2014 Sentinel and Polearm master at level 1 is broken" or "2014 Variant Human with 2024 Backgrounds is too powerful" 

They clearly expect some things to be mixed and matched, but other things are kind of obviously not part of the playtest


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


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



Okay


----------



## Chaosmancer

Blue said:


> You really seem like your arguing that I can't care about something because you don't care about it.  Just in this response you set up several strawmen by twisting points about what I said so you can knock them down.  Why are you putting this much effort into trying to convince me not to care about something?  You ask me why I cared, I ask you the same - why are you putting this amount of effort into defending that it absolutely is the same edition even if the same amount of changes have precendet as a half edition change.  Where is your payoff that makes your care it's the same edition?




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

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

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



Blue said:


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




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



Blue said:


> That word "all" is vastly important for it being the same edition.  It's not obfuscating anything.
> 
> Pre-MotM, any changes getting published about character creation/advancement rules was made combatible via errata.  "All" is pretty clear in this context.
> 
> EXACTLY.  And that's what makes it a new edition.  It IS NOT compatible.  It IS NOT the same edition.
> 
> I don't know how you post things supporting my point yet act as if it refutes it.
> 
> Okay, new rule going forward, in future responses, I'll just post "CHANGES SUPPORT IT BEING A DIFFERENT EDITION" in caps every time you repeat this mistake.  I won't bother to refute it more than that, that's already been done.




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

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

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



Blue said:


> If they started playtesting 4e right now and in 2024 they published the 4e PHB and said it's the same edition, according to you it would not be lying saying it's the same edition because we expect them to make changes?
> 
> *No, changes are what makes it another edition.*
> 
> You can not have it both that it's the same edition and that it's not compatible.  You also can not have that they aren't lying to us because we expect them to be lying about it being the same edition.
> 
> Your examples support my point, again.  The fact that people expect changes has nothing to do with if it is or is not truly a new edition.  It being incompatible has to do with if it is a new edition.  I expect changes -- I think it's a new edition.




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

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



Blue said:


> Tasha's added options for a DM to introduce.  Are these being introduced as modular options to pick and choose, with the 2014PHB still in play as the base?  No.  Strawman #1.




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

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



Blue said:


> I'll address this one point -- an errata document is what kept the game in sync as a single edition as earlier books did introduce changes.  It was _*never*_ for the people buying new books, since a new printing would always have all the errata included.  It was for the people who already owned the book.  Pretending that there are no people who own the 2014 PHB to make your point is Strawman #3.  It's very easy to say "It's the same edition, as long as no one has ever played or is playing this edition", and that's just not true.




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

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

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

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



Blue said:


> I know.  Which is why it's an edition shift.  Just like the precedent already when the same scope of changes was in 3.0 to 3.5.
> 
> You seem to be confusing what the masses think about something and a fact.  I live in the US, they can be vastly different animals.




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

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

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


----------



## Chaosmancer

Mistwell said:


> Stop. Neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, has said or implied anything like "the playtest is broken and impossible."
> 
> Do I even read the rest of your reply if you're going to resort to that extreme a strawman? Or did you honestly think that's what I've been arguing?
> 
> If you cannot play your existing character with the new version of the rules, that means the new rules are not "fully compatible with all prior products." I think that's a fair position.




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

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



Mistwell said:


> Crawford's already repeatedly said all feats will have levels and gaining feats will use a descriptor of the required level you can get with them. Unless they give those feats levels, you won't be able to take them. Which makes it not "completely compatible with all prior products."




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

Fixed. Now it is completely compatible with prior products.


----------



## Parmandur

James Gasik said:


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



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


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, you think they’re idiots.



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


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure. And then I learn from it.
> 
> Just like they learned from 3.5 and didn’t try to say that a new game wasn’t a new game for 4e.



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


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


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



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


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


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



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

“Streak of realist” ffs. 


Maxperson said:


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



Eh, medium, at most.


Maxperson said:


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



Definitely minor. Nearly trivial.


Maxperson said:


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



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


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


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




Yes it is



Maxperson said:


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




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



Maxperson said:


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




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


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


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



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


doctorbadwolf said:


> Eh, medium, at most.



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


doctorbadwolf said:


> Definitely minor. Nearly trivial.



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


doctorbadwolf said:


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



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

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


----------



## Yaarel

The One D&D playtest human (ouman) is strictly better than the Players Handbook variant human (vuman)!



Here are the mechanics that *dont *matter:

• vuman: humanoid creature type
• ouman: humanoid creature type

• vuman: medium size
• ouman: medium or small size

• vuman: lifespan less than a century
• ouman: lifespan 80 years average

• vuman: Common and one chosen language
• ouman: (background gives chosen language)



Here are the mechanics that *do* matter:

• vuman: speed 30
• ouman: speed 30 − SAME!

• vuman: one chosen skill
• ouman: one chosen skill − SAME!

• vuman: one chosen feat
• ouman: one chosen feat − SAME!

• vuman: ...
• ouman: Resourceful (free Inspiration advantage per day) − BETTER!



The playtest ouman is better than the vuman.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> • vuman: one chosen feat
> • ouman: one chosen feat − SAME!



This is both right and wrong.  It's right in that they each get one feat and 1=1.  It's wrong in thinking that those feats are equal.  The 5.5 human gets one feat from a very limited selection of weak(ish) feats.  The Vhuman can pick any feat it wants and usually goes for one of the major strong feats.  That makes the Vhuman superior in this category.


Yaarel said:


> • vuman: ...
> • ouman: Resourceful (free Inspiration advantage per day) − BETTER!



Advantage is almost trivially easy to get if you really try.  Advantage on one roll a day isn't all that strong, and in my opinion doesn't overcome the very much more powerful feat that the Vhuman gets.  Even when you combine it with the weak feat that 5.5 humans get.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> This is both right and wrong.  It's right in that they each get one feat and 1=1.  It's wrong in thinking that those feats are equal.  The 5.5 human gets one feat from a very limited selection of weak(ish) feats.  The Vhuman can pick any feat it wants and usually goes for one of the major strong feats.  That makes the Vhuman superior in this category.
> 
> Advantage is almost trivially easy to get if you really try.  Advantage on one roll a day isn't all that strong, and in my opinion doesn't overcome the very much more powerful feat that the Vhuman gets.  Even when you combine it with the weak feat that 5.5 humans get.



The PH feats themselves are a separate category.

I feel the worthwhile feats that players feel are worth trading an ability score improvement for, are the correct amount of design space. The other feats that arent worth giving up improvement are subpar.

So, most PH feats need a boost to be worth an improvement. Only a few feats are decent as-is.

In any case, if the designers add, remove, or rewrite feats, that affects both the vuman and ouman equally. A game where both the 5.0 feats and the 5.5 feats are available, will allow both the vuman and the ouman to take any feat.

The vuman and ouman are comparable. The ouman is strictly better.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> The PH feats themselves are a separate category.
> 
> I feel the worthwhile feats that players feel are worth trading an ability score improvement for, are the correct amount of design space. The other feats that arent worth giving up improvement are subpar.
> 
> So, most PH feats need a boost to be worth an improvement. Only a few feats are decent as-is.
> 
> In any case, if the designers add, remove, or rewrite feats, that affects both the vuman and ouman equally. A game where both the 5.0 feats and the 5.5 feats are available, will allow both the vuman and the ouman to take any feat.
> 
> The vuman and ouman are comparable. The ouman is strictly better.



A number of the 2014 PHB feats are not  merely decent, outright powerful or even broken in some cases.

Compare that to 2014 PHB feats that are changed in this UA to be even weaker than the PHB versions.

PHB

ALERT
Always on the lookout for danger, you gain the
following benefits:
• You gain a +5 bonus to initiative.
• You can't be surprised while you are conscious.
• Other creatures don't gain advantage on attack rolls against you as a result of being unseen by you.

UA
ALERT
1st-Level Feat
Prerequisite: None
Repeatable: No
Always on the lookout for danger, you gain the following benefits:
Initiative Proficiency. When you roll Initiative, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to the roll.
Initiative Swap. Immediately after you roll Initiative, you can swap your Initiative with the Initiative of one willing ally in the same combat. You can’t make this swap if you or the ally is Incapacitated.*

I mean, you lose a static +5 on initiative to gain advantage which is roughly equal, but I view the +5 as slightly better.  You lose the ability to never be surprised while conscious, as well as invisible creatures not getting advantage to attack you, and in it's place you get the :::: ability to swap initiative with an ally once per combat at the very beginning when you don't know if it will be a good thing later on.

The PHB version is much better.

Edit: I missed the inititiative proficiency in the new feat, which makes it better, but still not as good as the PHB version.  Most people will see +2 or +3 from it, but will still be able to be surprised and wrecked by invisible opponents.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> A number of the 2014 PHB feats are not  merely decent, outright powerful or even broken in some cases.
> 
> Compare that to 2014 PHB feats that are changed in this UA to be even weaker than the PHB versions.
> 
> PHB
> 
> ALERT
> Always on the lookout for danger, you gain the
> following benefits:
> • You gain a +5 bonus to initiative.
> • You can't be surprised while you are conscious.
> • Other creatures don't gain advantage on attack rolls against you as a result of being unseen by you.
> 
> UA
> ALERT
> 1st-Level Feat
> Prerequisite: None
> Repeatable: No
> Always on the lookout for danger, you gain the following benefits:
> Initiative Proficiency. When you roll Initiative, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to the roll.
> Initiative Swap. Immediately after you roll Initiative, you can swap your Initiative with the Initiative of one willing ally in the same combat. You can’t make this swap if you or the ally is Incapacitated.*
> 
> I mean, you lose a static +5 on initiative to gain advantage which is roughly equal, but I view the +5 as slightly better.  You lose the ability to never be surprised while conscious, as well as invisible creatures not getting advantage to attack you, and in it's place you get the ability to swap initiative with an ally once per combat at the very beginning when you don't know if it will be a good thing later on.
> 
> The PHB version is much better.
> 
> Edit: I missed the inititiative proficiency in the new feat, which makes it better, but still not as good as the PHB version.  Most people will see +2 or +3 from it, but will still be able to be surprised and wrecked by invisible opponents.



Here the point is, feats are feats. Feats are a separate design space, with its own metric. The goal of the feat design space is to be roughly comparable in value to a +2 ability score improvement.

So, whatever feats exist, both the PH vuman and the ODD ouman can choose it.

The choice of feat for vuman and ouman is exactly the same!

(By the way, in this case, I agree with updating the flat +5 bonus to Alert initiative, to be +pro bonus instead. But since both the vuman and ouman can take it, the vuman and ouman feat choice is identical.)


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> The choice of feat for vuman and ouman is exactly the same!



That is explicitly not true. The ouman can pick a first level feat, not any feat as the vuman can.


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> That is explicitly not true. The ouman can pick a first level feat, not any feat as the vuman can.



Every feat in the Players Handbook is a "first level feat"!

The feat choice of vuman and ouman is the same thing.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> Every feat in the Players Handbook is a "first level feat"!
> 
> The feat choice of vuman and ouman is the same thing.



No. The first level feats are listed in the UA document.

"Feats. Every 1st-level Feat mentioned herein
appears in the “Feats” section, which contains
both new and revised Feats."


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> No. The first level feats are listed in the UA document.
> 
> "Feats. Every 1st-level Feat mentioned herein
> appears in the “Feats” section, which contains
> both new and revised Feats."



So what?

The 5.5 ouman can still pick any feat from the 5.0 Players Handbook if the table is using both 5.5 and 5.0 together at the same time.

The choice of feat for both vuman and ouman is the same.

Whatever feats are available at the table, either one can choose.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> So what?
> 
> The 5.5 ouman can still pick any feat from the 5.0 Players Handbook if the table is using both 5.5 and 5.0 together at the same time.
> 
> The choice of feat for both vuman and ouman is the same.
> 
> Whatever feats are available at the table, either one can choose.



No, they can't. The ouman very specifically gets to pick from the feats listed in the UA document if you are testing the ouman. That's how playtesting works.


----------



## Galandris

Reynard said:


> No, they can't. The ouman very specifically gets to pick from the feats listed in the UA document if you are testing the ouman. That's how playtesting works.




Plus, it's explicitely written than the ouman (I prefer cuman myself) can take "1st-level feat" while the vuman can take "any feat he qualifies for". The 2014 feats don't have level restriction, so they are selectable by the vuman but no the ouman.


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> No, they can't. The ouman very specifically gets to pick from the feats listed in the UA document if you are testing the ouman. That's how playtesting works.



This is what the UA ouman says:

"
*HUMAN TRAITS
Versatile.* You gain the Skilled Feat or an other first level feat of your choice.

"

This is what the Players Handbook vuman says:

"
*VARIANT HUMAN TRAITS
Feat.* You gain one feat of your choice.

"


Therefore. According to the Rules-As-Written.

The Players Handbook feats are available at 1st level. They are all 1st level feats.

The ouman can pick any 1st level feat from the UA document or from the Players Handbook. At 4th level, the ouman can choose a 4th level feat.

Likewise, the vuman can pick any 1st level feat from the UA document or from the Players Handbook. At 4th level, the vuman can choose a 4th level feat.

The feat choice of both the vuman and the ouman are exactly the same.


----------



## Galandris

Yaarel said:


> This is what the UA ouman says:
> 
> "
> *HUMAN TRAITS
> Versatile.* You gain the Skilled Feat or an other first level feat of your choice.
> 
> "
> 
> This is what the Players Handbook vuman says:
> 
> "
> *VARIANT HUMAN TRAITS
> Feat.* You gain one feat of your choice.
> 
> "
> 
> 
> Therefore. According to the Rules-As-Written.
> 
> The Players Handbook feats are available at 1st level. They are all 1st level feats.




This is were I don't follow you. The UA feats are explicitely "first level feats". The original PHB feats don't bear this mention of being "first level feats". They are just feats, neither first-level, nor X-level, just "feats".

The fact that the vuman can take any feat, in or outside of the levelled-feats list, doesn't mean that they are first-level feats. You're assuming that any feat that can be taken at first-level is a first-level feat. Nothing explicitely supports this reading, especially since the level referred to here may be the level of the feat, like the level of spells, not the character level. Plus, there is nothing to support that any feat that one can take at first level is a 1st-level feat  in the new definition. They can be outside of the "levelled feat" system altogether, this group of feat has his own restriction system (like have DEX 13 to take Stealthy).

I am pretty sure that "1st level feats" is a specific 5.5 conceit that isn't supposed to encompass all the published feats so far. On the other hand, it would be fun to have oumans taking squat nimbleness to become a 35 ft race (the requisite being dwarf or a S race, which humans are now) and complain about their advantage on opposed rolls for grappling being nerfed...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Yes, seriously.  If someone tries and fails to do something multiple times, failing because it's incredibly difficult and unlikely to succeed, it's me being a realist to say, "I doubt they will succeed this time."  It's also not a reflection on the intelligence of those who disagree with me.  I think that it's just optimism on their part and being an optimist is not a bad thing.
> 
> I can agree with that.  It's medium, but not minor.
> 
> This I strongly disagree with.  It's trivial to change, but is not a trivial change.  It significantly raises the power level of PCs by giving them all a free feat or two, and there's no way that a significant power increase is a minor change.  This isn't even a medium change.  It's a major one.



It’s 1 feat. Only the human gets a second one, and it’s from a more limited list than one of the existing humans already in the game. 

Additionally, level 1 feats have been optionally in the game since Theros, and have shown up as well in Strixhaven and the UAs for Dragonlance. 

And 1 feat just doesn’t change things that much, especially from a curated list like in the UA. 


Maxperson said:


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



What you are quoting from them does not imply that, though. It implies that spell organization is being restructured, and that we will see how exactly it will work for each class as we get tests for them. 


Maxperson said:


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



1e is irrelevant to the discussion. I disagree that it’s necessarily more than minor. 

And I won’t be taking hypotheticals seriously in this context. We don’t know.


----------



## Yaarel

Galandris said:


> This is were I don't follow you.
> 
> The UA feats are explicitely "first level feats".
> 
> The original PHB feats don't bear this mention of being "first level feats". They are just feats, neither first-level, nor X-level, just "feats".



The fact that the Rules-As-Written makes the 2014 feats available at 1st-level, by definition, makes them "1st-level feats".


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> The fact that the Rules-As-Written makes the 2014 feats available at 1st-level, by definition, makes them "1st-level feats".



You are just interpreting it that way. The only first level feats in all of D&D as it relates to the playtest are the ones listed under first level feats in the playtest document. Arguing otherwise is a bad faith attempt to bolster an obviously and demonstrably false position. For what I can't imagine since no one here is your DM and so can't allow you to play an OP playtest character. Internet points? Who knows.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> Here the point is, feats are feats. Feats are a separate design space, with its own metric. The goal of the feat design space is to be roughly comparable in value to a +2 ability score improvement.



That is their stated intent, but much like backwards compatibility, it's a pipedream for them.  They have consistently failed to make feats that were all close to the same level of power for 3 editions.  So while they might want them all to equal a +2 ability score improvement, they don't.


Yaarel said:


> The choice of feat for vuman and ouman is exactly the same!



It would be in the dream land where all feats are equal to +2 stat bonus. 


Yaarel said:


> (By the way, in this case, I agree with updating the flat +5 bonus to Alert initiative, to be +pro bonus instead. But since both the vuman and ouman can take it, the vuman and ouman feat choice is identical.)



The two feats are anything but identical.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> You are just interpreting it that way. The only first level feats in all of D&D as it relates to the playtest are the ones listed under first level feats in the playtest document. Arguing otherwise is a bad faith attempt to bolster an obviously and demonstrably false position. For what I can't imagine since no one here is your DM and so can't allow you to play an OP playtest character. Internet points? Who knows.



Actually, the Strixhaven Feats, and likely the Dragonlance Feats based on the UA, were delineated by Level as well.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> The two feats are anything but identical.



But the two versions where the human can pick either feat are identical.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Actually, the Strixhaven Feats, and likely the Dragonlance Feats based on the UA, were delineated by Level as well.



I did not know that because I don't own Strixhaven, which should come as no surprise to anyone.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> But the two versions where the human can pick either feat are identical.



I'm being told by people that we are supposed to mix and match freely between 2014 and the UA.  If that's the case, I can pick the 2014 human and 2014 feat, and you can't with your UA human.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> I'm being told by people that we are supposed to mix and match freely between 2014 and the UA.  If that's the case, I can pick the 2014 human and 2014 feat, and you can't with your UA human.



The UA human can pick a 2014 feat.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I did not know that because I don't own Strixhaven, which should come as no surprise to anyone.



Fair: just an interesting point that assigning Level gating to Feats is already a published rule in 5E: Strixhaven has 1st and 4th Level Feats


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> The UA human can pick a 2014 feat.



No, they can't: it is worth remembering that Feats in the 2014 lies,  including the Variant Human, are an optional rule entirely (hence "Variant Human"). New Feats for the optional system barely ever even reached publication: there was literally one single Feat, for Deep Gnomes in Sword Coast Adventurer'sGuide, between 2014 and the publication of Xanathar's, and Eberron was the only book between Xanatand Tasha's to include Feats (except for Theros, but not really strictly speaking).

This UA is not compatible with the 2014 Feats Variant, but...that's OK, and doesn't break "compatibility." The Variant Human doesn't quite work, but...it's a variant, not the standard rule. Someone alert the TVA.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> No, they can't: it is worth remembering that Feats in the 2014 lies,  including the Variant Human, are an optional rule entirely (hence "Variant Human"). New Feats for the optional system barely ever even reached publication: there was literally one single Feat, for Deep Gnomes in Sword Coast Adventurer'sGuide, between 2014 and the publication of Xanathar's, and Eberron was the only book between Xanatand Tasha's to include Feats (except for Theros, but not really strictly speaking).
> 
> This UA is not compatible with the 2014 Feats Variant, but...that's OK, and doesn't break "compatibility." The Variant Human doesn't quite work, but...it's a variant, not the standard rule. Someone alert the TVA.



Feats is an "optional" 2014 rule.

The UA makes use of this option.


The UA human can choose them.

UA: "Each feat has a level. To take a feat, your level must equal or exceed the feats level."

The 2014 Players Handbook feats are available at level 1. It "has a level". Its level is level 1.

The UA human equals or exceeds this level.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> Feats is an "optional" 2014 rule.
> 
> The UA makes use of this option.
> 
> 
> The UA human can choose them.
> 
> UA: "Each feat has a level. To take a feat, your level must equal or exceed the feats level."
> 
> The 2014 Players Handbook feats are available at level 1.
> 
> The UA human does equal or exceed this level.



Fundamentally, the UA version is a new system that replaces the option presented in 2024 _in toto_. 2014 Feats don't have a stated Level, and don't function for the ouman or new Backgrounds.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> The UA human can pick a 2014 feat.



No it can't.  It can only get Skilled or a 1st level feat, and none of the 2014 feats have levels.  None of the 2014 feats are open to UA humans.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> Feats is an "optional" 2014 rule.
> 
> The UA makes use of this option.
> 
> 
> The UA human can choose them.
> 
> UA: "Each feat has a level. To take a feat, your level must equal or exceed the feats level."
> 
> The 2014 Players Handbook feats are available at level 1. It "has a level". Its level is level 1.
> 
> The UA human equals or exceeds this level.



No.  The 2014 feats are available AT level 1.  They are NOT level 1.  No level has been assigned to them, so the UA human cannot get them. Further, specific beats general, which means the UA limitations override the general feat option in the 2014 PHB.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> Fundamentally, the UA version is a new system that replaces the option presented in 2024 _in toto_.



I disagree.

Especially, when "backwards compatible" means using the 2014 Players Handbook.



Parmandur said:


> 2014 Feats don't have a stated Level, and don't function for the ouman or new Backgrounds.



2014 rules state the feats are available at level 1.

They are available to the UA ouman.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> No.  The 2014 feats are available AT level 1.  They are NOT level 1.







Maxperson said:


> No level has been assigned to them, so the UA human cannot get them. Further, specific beats general, which means the UA limitations override the general feat option in the 2014 PHB.



The specific is: "Each feat has a level."

Including the feats in the 2014 Players Handbook.


----------



## tetrasodium

All of this wheedling to convince a bunch of internet strangers that someone_ must_ be allowed to take the old 2014 feats with the new human in playtest shows why the largesse granted to PCs in the form of risk insulation & removal of needs must change in one d&d rather than wotc once again shoving  the handcuffed GM under a speeding bus to claw back balance into the game.  In the past low level characters were dangerous & PCs needed a semi-regular  influx of magic items & such  so there was an expectation that the GM set the rules for character creation & those rules may or may not include things that mitigated that risk with little long term risk if the GM slightly overshot.  In 2014 low/mid/high levels are not even _slightly_ dangerous & PCs don't need anything so the attitude wotc encourages is one of entitled demands with outrage should the gm dare make an effort to change either of those.

One d&d needs to do better than 2014 d&d did in giving the GM solid footing out of the gate.

*edit:*  That's not to say thatoptional & variant rules to crank PC power up a bit shouldn't exist, just that they shouldn't all be the default.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> I did not know that because I don't own Strixhaven, which should come as no surprise to anyone.



Which doesn't really matter since those backgrounds are setting dependent and PCs are encouraged to take them.  They were made with 2024 in mind, but they are not yet general backgrounds to mix with the old backgrounds.  Well, you allow it, but you are gimping anyone with an old background pretty hard if you do.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Especially, when "backwards compatible" means using the 2014 Players Handbook.



Right.  It's not actually going to be backwards compatible.  That's a pipedream that WotC hasn't figured out yet.


Yaarel said:


> 2014 rules state the feats are available at level 1.
> 
> Thus they do function for the UA ouman.



They function.  They just can't be chosen since the UA human gets no feat that can choose it. The UA human bonus feats are specifically limited to feats that say, "CRAFTER* 1st-Level Feat.*"


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> The specific is: "Each feat has a level."
> 
> Including the feats in the 2014 Players Handbook.



No.  Go read the 2014 PHB.  If you can quote it saying, "1st-Level Feat" then I will concede this.  If none of them say it(and none do), then you are wrong about this.  Those feats have no level.  Not 1st. Not 4th.  Not even 0.


----------



## Galandris

Parmandur said:


> Fair: just an interesting point that assigning Level gating to Feats is already a published rule in 5E: Strixhaven has 1st and 4th Level Feats




While it may seem to be just a nitpick, they have a regular feat, with no mention of level whatsoever, and a feat with two prerequisite: having another feat and being 4th level. It doesn't change what you said about level gating, but it illustrate that they didn't speak of 1st level feat. They wrote them within the 2014 wording of feats having restrictions, that can be varied (race, stat, and so on) and, in this case, include a level restriction.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> No.  Go read the 2014 PHB.  If you can quote it saying, "1st-Level Feat" then I will concede this.  If none of them say it(and none do), then you are wrong about this.  Those feats have no level.  Not 1st. Not 4th.  Not even 0.



Every feat has a level.

Typically 1st-level.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> Every feat has a level.



This is objectively false. Not one feat in the PHB has a level.  


Yaarel said:


> Typically 1st-level.



In the UA, sure. All of them in fact!


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> This is objectively false. Not one feat in the PHB has a level.
> 
> In the UA, sure. All of them in fact!



The specific says: "Each feat has a level."

Specific beats general.

When using the UA, every 2014 feat counts as level 1.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> The specific says: "Each feat has a level."



Show me in the PHB where it says that.


Yaarel said:


> When using the UA, every 2014 feat counts as level 1.



Even if it were true that 2014 feats are some how assigned a level, that level would be 0, not 1.  I can give any feat in the 2014P PHB to NPCs with no levels.  So since your UA human can only pick 1st level feats or skilled, he would still be prevented from picking the level 0 PHB feats.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> Show me in the PHB where it says that.



When using the UA, its specific overrides the PH.

Every feat has a level, including the ones in the PH.




Maxperson said:


> Even if it were true that 2014 feats are some how assigned a level, that level would be 0, not 1.  I can give any feat in the 2014P PHB to NPCs with no levels.  So since your UA human can only pick 1st level feats or skilled, he would still be prevented from picking the level 0 PHB feats.



Where is there a level 0 in the Players Handbook?


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> When using the UA, its specific overrides the PH.



Okay.  Quote me in the UA where it says every feat has a level, because I just read it and it doesn't say it at all.   All it says is here is a list of 1st level feats.


----------



## Yaarel

@Maxperson

"
FEATS
This section offers a collection of 1st-level Feats, which are special features not tied to a single Class. At 1st level, your character gains a Feat from the character’s Background.

PARTS OF A FEAT
The description of a Feat contains the following parts, which are presented after the Feat’s name:

Level. *Each Feat has a level.* To take a Feat, your level must equal or exceed the Feat’s level.

"


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> Where is there a level 0 in the Players Handbook?



Then they have no level at all, since I can give them to NPCs with no level.  You still have the problem that the UA does not specifically give all feats level 1 or reference any feats other than those in the UA, though, so it doesn't matter.  Since the UA does not specifically assign all feats a level, the 2014 feats do not have one.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Galandris said:


> It is weaker. He's objectively better off playing an original variant human than a compatible human.
> 
> Vuman :
> 
> 
> Stat increase made irrelevant by the background ASIs
> Size M
> Speed 30 ft
> 2 languages
> 1 skill
> 1 feat of your choice
> 
> Cuman :
> 
> 
> Size M or S
> Speed 30 ft
> Inspiration after a long rest
> 1 skill
> 1 feat from the reduced/lower powered "1st level feat" list.
> 
> Unless you want to be S, you're basically trading 2 languages and the restricting the choice on your initial feat for advantage on a roll once a day.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's "awful" or "terrible" but it's clearly inferior. I'd also expect this inferiority to be compounded by the fact that an unrestricted feat on top of a 1st level feat coming from background opens up combos that aren't possible with two 1st level feat.



You are not accounting for the inspiration that get after a long rest. That is worth quite a lot IME.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> @Maxperson
> 
> "
> FEATS
> This section offers a collection of 1st-level Feats, which are special features not tied to a single Class. At 1st level, your character gains a Feat from the character’s Background.
> 
> PARTS OF A FEAT
> The description of a Feat contains the following parts, which are presented after the Feat’s name:
> 
> Level. *Each Feat has a level.* To take a Feat, your level must equal or exceed the Feat’s level.
> 
> "



Context my friend.  Your quote just defeated your own argument handily.

"This section offers a collection of 1st-level Feats"

Next section talking about the parts of the feats *in that section.

"*Each Feat has a level" directly in the context of the feats in that section. 

Additionally the specific rule is "The description of a Feat contains the following parts, *which are presented after the Feat’s nam*e:", so any feat that fails to have that written after its name is a feat without a level. At no point are those words directed outside of the UA section.

Your argument falls apart on multiple fronts.  The UA human cannot take 2014 feats, with the exception of Skilled.


----------



## Maxperson

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> You are not accounting for the inspiration that get after a long rest. That is worth quite a lot IME.



If the myriad of ways to get advantage cease to exist, sure.  Otherwise it's just a drop in the bucket of advantage. Helpful yes, but not very strong.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> Context my friend.  Your quote just defeated your own argument handily.
> 
> "This section offers a collection of 1st-level Feats"
> 
> Next section talking about the parts of the feats *in that section.
> 
> "*Each Feat has a level" directly in the context of the feats in that section.
> 
> Additionally the specific rule is "The description of a Feat contains the following parts, *which are presented after the Feat’s nam*e:", so any feat that fails to have that written after its name is a feat without a level.
> 
> Your argument falls apart on multiple fronts.  The UA human cannot take 2014 feats, with the exception of Skilled.



To the contrary. It mentions 1st level feats.

Then explains what any feat is: Name, Level, Prerequisite, Repeatable, and Description.

The Players Handbook feats also have a level, and some specify a prereq and if it is repeatable.

The feat taxonomy is for any feat.

The section then goes on to list the ones that are part of backgrounds.

Obviously, this description of a feat taxonomy applies to any feat, even ones that are not part of a background.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Maxperson said:


> If the myriad of ways to get advantage cease to exist, sure.  Otherwise it's just a drop in the bucket of advantage. Helpful yes, but not very strong.



Obviously it depends on your group. Advantage doesn’t come up all that often for our group and having reliably is i nice thing I’m trying to convince our DM to allow as most us play humans 

And of course you are comparing that to 2 languages, which never really is a thing for our group


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> Obviously, this description of a feat applies to any feat, even ones that are not part of a background.



No. You don't get to assume stuff and then claim it specifically says it.  For specific to beat general, you need "1st level applies to the feats in the 2014 PHB."  Specific beats general requires specific language.  This is why Crawford ruled that See Invisibility doesn't stop the formerly invisible creature from getting advantage on attacks. The spell doesn't specifically say they don't.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> No. You don't get to assume stuff and then claim it specifically says it.  For specific to beat general, you need "1st level applies to the feats in the 2014 PHB."  Specific beats general requires specific language.  This is why Crawford ruled that See Invisibility doesn't stop the formerly invisible creature from getting advantage on attacks. The spell doesn't specifically say they don't.



The taxonomy describes any "feat". Any feat. Not just background feats.


----------



## Maxperson

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Obviously it depends on your group. Advantage doesn’t come up all that often for our group and having reliably is i nice thing I’m trying to convince our DM to allow as most us play humans
> 
> And of course you are comparing that to 2 languages, which never really is a thing for our group



I'm not sure how reliable it is.  You get one re-roll per long rest and the adventuring day is 6-8 encounters during that period, each encounter probably lasting 2-5 rounds.  One advantage roll isn't what I would call reliably having advantage.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure how reliable it is.  You get one re-roll per long rest and the adventuring day is 6-8 encounters during that period, each encounter probably lasting 2-5 rounds.  One advantage roll isn't what I would call reliably having advantage.



Well we usually have 1-3 encounters per day. And again, it is a hell of a lot more useful than an extra language IME, which is what it replaces.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> The taxonomy describes any "feat". Any feat. Not just background feats.



It still does not specifically say that 2014 feats get it, so they don't.  You can't assume specificity.  If you do, you are automatically wrong about it since specificity means that no assumption is necessary.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> The Players Handbook feats also have a level,



They don't.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> It still does not specifically say that 2014 feats get it, so they don't.  You can't assume specificity.  If you do, you are automatically wrong about it since specificity means that no assumption is necessary.



The UA says, "Each feat has a level."

If a table uses both the Players Handbook and the UA, then each feat in the Players Handbook also has a level.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> The UA says, "Each feat has a level."



But not that it specifically applies to the PHB feats.  According to the game designers, you need specific language which you do not have.  You are ASSUMING that it applies to the PHB, which makes you wrong.

In any case, it seems you are hell bent on playing it incorrectly, but if you are having fun it doesn't matter. No point in discussing this further, though.


----------



## Galandris

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> You are not accounting for the inspiration that get after a long rest. That is worth quite a lot IME.




That was the "advantage on a roll each day". The value of it is extremely table-dependant. In many tables, Inspiration is forgotten, and maybe giving it to the character each morning will make the players more sensitive about this resource. On the other hand, table who are used to giving bonus for good roleplaying would be more forthcoming with inspiration... so it "dilutes" the value of the bonus. I guess the rule was made with tables who didn't really use inspiration before, for them the value would be better, but still the feat discrepancy isn't worth an average of +5 on a daily roll.

Edit: Well, I was ninja'ed long before, so I'll add something: when it cames to sneak attack, Crawford said that he expected the rogue to be generally able to get advantage so he could sneak attack each round. It makes advantage "less special" at tables that did that. Same with language. If your campaign takes place in a single region where everyone speaks Common, they are mostly useless. In other contexts (and willingness of tables to engage with fictional languages) it can change the way problems are approached. In my current campaign, my players are rally considering making use of the 200 days rules to learn a language since none of them had heeded my warning on the usefulness of speaking the local tongue, not exclusively the invader's one...


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> But not that it specifically applies to the PHB feats.  According to the game designers, you need specific language which you do not have.  You are ASSUMING that it applies to the PHB, which makes you wrong.



The UA applies to any "feat". Players Handbook, Xanathars, Tashas, Strixhaven, Theros, Eberron, etcetera.

Whatever feats are used alongside the UA have a level.


----------



## Parmandur

Yeah, "specific beats general" does not mean that "specific becomes general." The specificity of 2014 Feats nitnahving Level menas that they do not work with features that require leveled Feats.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, "specific beats general" does not mean that "specific becomes general." The specificity of 2014 Feats nitnahving Level menas that they do not work with features that require leveled Feats.



The specificity is: "Each feat has a level."

Anyone using the UA, applies this rule to any other feat. But only if they are using the UA.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, "specific beats general" does not mean that "specific becomes general." The specificity of 2014 Feats nitnahving Level menas that they do not work with features that require leveled Feats.



The UA is not even specific. It's a general statement that is clearly talking only about the 1st level feats in the UA.  Without specific language applying it to the 2014 handbook, it simply isn't a case of Specific Beats General at all.


----------



## Maxperson

Edit: Never mind.  I said I was done


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> The UA applies to any "feat". Players Handbook, Xanathars, Tashas, Strixhaven, Theros, Eberron, etcetera.
> 
> Whatever feats are used alongside the UA have a level.



That isn't what is written, but you can certainly do that as a houserule. As a further example of how this is houseruling, the Supernaturla Gifts in Theros aren't technically  Feats, though the text does admit theybare basically just Feats by saying that any PHB Feat can be taken instead. I'd say the Supermatural Gifts make great cornerstones of a UA style custom Background, but they aren't really even Feats, let alone 1st Level Feats.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> The specificity is: "Each feat has a level."
> 
> Anyone using the UA, applies this rule to any other feat. But only if they are using the UA.



That's general, not specific, and in general terms it only applies to OneD&D Feats, not the variant rule from 2014.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> That isn't what is written, but you can certainly do that as a houserule. As a further example of how this is houseruling, the Supernaturla Gifts in Theros aren't technically  Feats, though the text does admit theybare basically just Feats by saying that any PHB Feat can be taken instead. I'd say the Supermatural Gifts make great cornerstones of a UA style custom Background, but they aren't really even Feats, let alone 1st Level Feats.



For the rule to apply, it must be a "feat". So the "gifts" of Theros wouldnt apply.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> For the rule to apply, it must be a "feat". So the "gifts" of Theros wouldnt apply.



For the rule to apply, the Feat would need to be explicitly Leveled.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> and in *general* terms it *only* applies



You mean it is specific.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> You mean it is specific.



 No, it not a specific rule, it's a general rule. A 2024 Feat not having a Level is a specific rule that trumps the general rule for OneD&D that "all feats have a level." Well, Sharpshooter on the PHB doesn't, so thst general rule doesn't apply to it.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Galandris said:


> That was the "advantage on a roll each day". The value of it is extremely table-dependant. In many tables, Inspiration is forgotten, and maybe giving it to the character each morning will make the players more sensitive about this resource. On the other hand, table who are used to giving bonus for good roleplaying would be more forthcoming with inspiration... so it "dilutes" the value of the bonus. I guess the rule was made with tables who didn't really use inspiration before, for them the value would be better, but still the feat discrepancy isn't worth an average of +5 on a daily roll.



Well it is replacing an Extra language, which we find no use for at our table, so it is a good trade


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Yaarel said:


> @Maxperson
> 
> "
> FEATS
> This section offers a collection of 1st-level Feats, which are special features not tied to a single Class. At 1st level, your character gains a Feat from the character’s Background.
> 
> PARTS OF A FEAT
> The description of a Feat contains the following parts, which are presented after the Feat’s name:
> 
> Level. *Each Feat has a level.* To take a Feat, your level must equal or exceed the Feat’s level.
> 
> "



This proves that the "feats" listed in the 5E PHB and other products aren't "feats" as per the 1D&D rules, since they don't have levels, and feats have levels. So they're really two different character features that happen to share the same name.


----------



## Parmandur

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> This proves that the "feats" listed in the 5E PHB and other products aren't "feats" as per the 1D&D rules, since they don't have levels, and feats have levels. So they're really two different character features that happen to share the same name.



Yup, this new proposed core system entirely ignores the old optional system.


----------



## Yaarel

The common sense interpretation in context is: 2014 made "feats" available at level 1. These are "level 1 feats".

ODD introduces feats for other levels, and is distinguishing between the earlier feats that are level 1 and the new feats that are at higher levels.

In any case, the technical reading is, the use of UA treats any feat as having a level.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> The common sense interpretation in context is: 2014 made "feats" available at level 1. These are "level 1 feats".
> 
> ODD introduces feats for other levels, and is distinguishing between the earlier feats that are level 1 and the new feats that are at higher levels.
> 
> In any case, the technical reading is, the use of UA treats any feat as having a level.



No, that's not how reading D&D rules works. You cannot generalize unstated interpretations based on silence. These are seperate rule modules entirely..


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> No, that's not how reading D&D rules works. You cannot generalize unstated interpretations based on silence. These are seperate rule modules entirely..



"Each feat has a level."

There is voice. There is no silence. There is an explicit clarification.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> "Each feat has a level."
> 
> There is voice. There is no silence. There is an explicit clarification.



But specifically, none of the Feats in the 2014 PHB have a Level. Specific (not leveled)  trumps general ("Each Feat has a Level"). They don't qualify for osman or Background generation.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Yaarel said:


> The common sense interpretation in context is: 2014 made "feats" available at level 1. These are "level 1 feats".



No, that's the rules lawyer interpretation. The common sense interpretation is that we'll learn more about how the 2014 rules and the 2024 rules interact in the future.


----------



## Parmandur

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> No, that's the rules lawyer interpretation. The common sense interpretation is that we'll learn more about how the 2014 rules and the 2024 rules interact in the future.



But it falls apart on rules lawyer grounds, too, which is what is bonkers.


----------



## Yaarel

@Sorcerers Apprentice, @Maxperson, @Parmandur

LOL! I think you guys are being rules lawyers!

To insist that a level 1 feat isnt a "level 1 feat", requires a rules lawyer in order to keep a straight face.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> @Sorcerers Apprentice, @Maxperson, @Parmandur
> 
> LOL! I think you guys are being rules lawyers!
> 
> To insist that a level 1 feat isnt a "level 1 feat", requires a rules lawyer in order to keep a straight face.



Where do any of the 2014 Feats have a delineated Level...? Since they not, they do not fall under the rubric.


----------



## tetrasodium

Yaarel said:


> @Sorcerers Apprentice, @Maxperson, @Parmandur
> 
> LOL! I think you guys are being rules lawyers!
> 
> To insist that a level 1 feat isnt a "level 1 feat", requires a rules lawyer in order to keep a straight face.



the 2014 phb feats are null level feats that were available at level  1 not "Level 1 feats" not "First level feats".  We can say that with confidence because: 



Spoiler: we know the RAI for once since 2014



"Your not only getting a benefit, it's a benefit your character didn't have before. This is a pure addition that we're providing now for everybody. _a*nd*_* we have that in mind as we decide what qualifies as a first level feat & what doesn't. Basically anything that's going to dramatically increase character power in some way, people are not going to see as a first level feat. That is the domain of higher level feats where the game's math can handle adjustments to raw power.* Most first level feats are about increasing a character's versatility & speaking to different key backstories. You'll see that these feats .. are all featured in at least one of the sample backgrounds in this document. You can also see looking at the sample backgrounds how to match first level feats with a background if you decide to build your own background"


.
With any luck this entire tangent has nicely proven to wotc why OneD&D needs to put more effort into imparting RaI alongside more careful wording for RaW like some of the changes already present in the playtest


----------



## TwoSix

This is semantic posturing.  Within the next few packets, they're going to clarify that feats published without a stated level are level 4 by default.  Come on, it's obvious that level 1 feats are intended to be a small subset of feats used to describe backgrounds.  And it's also obvious that they're not going to leave 8 years of published feats in limbo by not specifying how you can use them in 2024 material.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> This is semantic posturing.  Within the next few packets, they're going to clarify that feats published without a stated level are level 4 by default.  Come on, it's obvious that level 1 feats are intended to be a small subset of feats used to describe backgrounds.  And it's also obvious that they're not going to leave 8 years of published feats in limbo by not specifying how you can use them in 2024 material.



Yeah, I think they will address it to some extent...but they didn't really publish "8 years" worth of Feats, since most years of 5E have seen no published Frats whatsoever, and they were only ever in 4 supplements thst Ii  can recall (SCAG, Xanathar's, Eberron, and Tasha's). It really is a neglected optional rule in 5E as it is. The new appaloosa them much more room for interesting Feats...as seen already for the Dragonlance and 2023 UA.


----------



## Yaarel

tetrasodium said:


> the 2014 phb feats are null level feats that were available at level  1 not "Level 1 feats" not "First level feats".  We can say that with confidence because:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: we know the RAI for once since 2014
> 
> 
> 
> "Your not only getting a benefit, it's a benefit your character didn't have before. This is a pure addition that we're providing now for everybody. _a*nd*_* we have that in mind as we decide what qualifies as a first level feat & what doesn't. Basically anything that's going to dramatically increase character power in some way, people are not going to see as a first level feat. That is the domain of higher level feats where the game's math can handle adjustments to raw power.* Most first level feats are about increasing a character's versatility & speaking to different key backstories. You'll see that these feats .. are all featured in at least one of the sample backgrounds in this document. You can also see looking at the sample backgrounds how to match first level feats with a background if you decide to build your own background"
> 
> 
> .
> With any luck this entire tangent has nicely proven to wotc why OneD&D needs to put more effort into imparting RaI alongside more careful wording for RaW like some of the changes already present in the playtest



Exactly. The specific rule is: "We are providing a benefit that your character didnt have before".

This benefit is: "Each feat has a level."

Any one using the UA applies this specific rule.

When using the Players Handbook with the UA, all Players Handbook feats have a level.

Any UA character can select feats from the Players Handbook.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> @Sorcerers Apprentice, @Maxperson, @Parmandur
> 
> LOL! I think you guys are being rules lawyers!
> 
> To insist that a level 1 feat isnt a "level 1 feat", requires a rules lawyer in order to keep a straight face.



No.  We're just reading what is written. There are no level 1 feats in the 2014 PHB. They don't exists.  You find yourself the only one arguing that the UA applies to the PHB. The odds are pretty high that it's you, not everyone else who is misreading things.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> Exactly. The specific rule is: "We are providing a benefit that your character didnt have before".
> 
> This benefit is: "Each feat has a level."
> 
> Any one using the UA applies this specific rule.
> 
> When using the Players Handbook with the UA, all Players Handbook feats have a level.
> 
> Any UA character can select feats from the Players Handbook.



Again, the "Each Feat has a Level" is a general rule thst applies to Feats in the playtest. It doesn’t supercede the lack of Levels in the optional tule in the 2014 PHB.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> This is semantic posturing.  Within the next few packets, they're going to clarify that feats published without a stated level are level 4 by default.  Come on, it's obvious that level 1 feats are intended to be a small subset of feats used to describe backgrounds.  And it's also obvious that they're not going to leave 8 years of published feats in limbo by not specifying how you can use them in 2024 material.



Probably not quite that blanket.  They'll likely divide up the feats into level 1, level 4 and level 8.  I don't see feats like Athlete and Great Weapon Master both being given level 4.  That would be really lazy design.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> Again, the "Each Feat has a Level" is a general rule thst applies to Feats in the playtest. It doesn’t supercede the lack of Levels in the optional tule in the 2014 PHB.



The UA supercedes the Players Handbook if using both the UA and the Players Handbook at the same time, together.


----------



## tetrasodium

Yaarel said:


> Exactly. The specific rule is: "We are providing a benefit that your character didnt have before".
> 
> This benefit is: "Each feat has a level."
> 
> Any one using the UA applies this specific rule.
> 
> When using the Players Handbook with the UA, all Players Handbook feats have a level.
> 
> Any UA character can select feats from the Players Handbook.



I have a player who tries to rules lawyer like this., it never gets hum anywhere either  You have already been told that no such grouping of words exists to support your desired reading.


----------



## Yaarel

Again. You guys are the ones who are rules lawyering.

The context and the natural language are obvious.

A level 1 feat is a "level 1 feat".


----------



## ReshiIRE

Somewhat off-topic and I have said this before, but this is exactly why releasing the playtest material in such a piece-meal manner and without at-least some guidance how past content is supposed to be converted in specific cases has been a bad idea.

We're arguing about the intent of whether past feats are supposed to have a level, what that level is, and what the designer's intent is. That will end up in playtest feedback. That could affect how level 1 feats are designed and supposed to work... without us having seen how feats that aren't level 1 are supposed to work, and whether past feats are being outright replaced or getting a patch to give them a level. Hence, now we have people accusing each other of rules lawyering and all sorts of things - which is not going to be helpful for getting stuff in for the playtest and getting feedback on how we feel about feats in this new verison of the game.

<.>


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> Again. You guys are the ones who are rules lawyering.
> 
> The context and the natural language are obvious.
> 
> A level 1 feat is a "level 1 feat".



It's actually the other way around.  You're trying to rules lawyer in language that doesn't exist based on a general rule in a UA packet.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> Probably not quite that blanket.  They'll likely divide up the feats into level 1, level 4 and level 8.  I don't see feats like Athlete and Great Weapon Master both being given level 4.  That would be really lazy design.



Personally, I doubt we'll see poor feats like Athlete and arguably too strong feats like GWM stay in the current format; I expect to see them reprinted.

I can't think of any of the Xanathar or Tasha feats that would be need to be moved to either level 1 or level 8+, not even Fey Touched.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> Personally, I doubt we'll see poor feats like Athlete and arguably too strong feats like GWM stay in the current format; I expect to see them reprinted.
> 
> I can't think of any of the Xanathar or Tasha feats that would be need to be moved to either level 1 or level 8+, not even Fey Touched.



Level 1 Feats are partly about power, but largely seems to be on being able to base a character's identity on that Feat. Fey Touched is a solid basis for a character's narrative identity.


----------



## TwoSix

ReshiIRE said:


> Somewhat off-topic and I have said this before, but this is exactly why releasing the playtest material in such a piece-meal manner and without at-least some guidance how past content is supposed to be converted in specific cases has been a bad idea.
> 
> We're arguing about the intent of whether past feats are supposed to have a level, what that level is, and what the designer's intent is. That will end up in playtest feedback. That could affect how level 1 feats are designed and supposed to work... without us having seen how feats that aren't level 1 are supposed to work, and whether past feats are being outright replaced or getting a patch to give them a level. Hence, now we have people accusing each other of rules lawyering and all sorts of things - which is not going to be helpful for getting stuff in for the playtest and getting feedback on how we feel about feats in this new verison of the game.



Yea, but it isn't a problem for _playtesting_, we have no need to know exactly how old feats will be labeled to playtest new races or the new crit rules or anything like that.  The packet gave everyone more than enough 1st level feats to pick a new background or use the new human; the other questions people are asking are merely about trying to extrapolate some sort of "design intent" from our extremely limited data set.

Basically, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.  We're going to see other information real soon.  If there are questions or concerns once we see the full suite of info related to feats, that's the time to raise a ruckus online or send back pointed results on the surveys.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Level 1 Feats are partly about power, but largely seems to be on being able to base a character's identity on that Feat. Fey Touched is a solid basis for a character's narrative identity.



So is Athlete. Low in power and has a competitor narrative attached.  I could see a background for that one.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> So is Athlete. Low in power and has a competitor narrative attached.  I could see a background for that one.



I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Athlete as a level 1 feat.  Heck, probably more than half of the PHB feats make sense for level 1.

What'll be interesting is to see which, if any, of the Xanathar/Tasha feats they choose to move forward into the 2024 core.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Athlete as a level 1 feat.  Heck, probably more than half of the PHB feats make sense for level 1.
> 
> What'll be interesting is to see which, if any, of the Xanathar/Tasha feats they choose to move forward into the 2024 core.



Yeah. I'd love to see many more feats make it into the PHB.


----------



## Yaarel

The funny thing is, I dont even care about the 2014 Players Handbook feats.

I want every feat in the Players Handbook to be rewritten to more accurately approximate the value of a +2 ability score improvement.

Nevertheless, for the sake of groups who want to use 5.0 and 5.5 at the same time, this needs to be doable in a friendly way.

Tortured technicalities are a nondesirable method to achieve backward compatibility.

A better method is to instruct the DM that there will often be new versions of old feats, and the DM might want to prefer the newer feats for the sake of better game engine balance.


----------



## Haplo781

Gain inspiration on completing a *short or* long rest *up to PB times a day*

Fixed?


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> The funny thing is, I dont even care about the 2014 Players Handbook feats.
> 
> I want every feat in the Players Handbook to be rewritten to more accurately approximate the value of a +2 ability score improvement.



This doesn't look like the design goal any longer.  If all of them were the same approximate value, there would be no levels attached to them.  It looks like we are going to see feats that are ASI equivalent to +0(1st level), +1(4th level) and +2(8th level).  I expect that with the level changes and feats no longer being optional, there will be another avenue to receive them than having to choose between ASIs and Feats.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I would be interested in a game where the only stat-raising method is through feats...

I just really liked that feeling of realizing you're at an odd score and going looking through applicable +1 to stat feats.

(not that we _need_ to be able to raise stats, but we're going to have it anyway)


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> This doesn't look like the design goal any longer.  If all of them were the same approximate value, there would be no levels attached to them.  It looks like we are going to see feats that are ASI equivalent to +0(1st level), +1(4th level) and +2(8th level).  I expect that with the level changes and feats no longer being optional, there will be another avenue to receive them than having to choose between ASIs and Feats.



My hope is.

Every level 1 feat is worth a +2 ability score improvement. Then each feat at each tier higher, at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19, are incrementally even better.

Tho that said. I would be fine if, the level 4 feats are the ones that are the +2 asi standard, while the level 1 background feats are incrementally less, and levels 8 and higher are incrementally more.

It seems, the designers dont want feats to improve the abilities at level 1. That is fine with me.



The Players Handbook feats are generally terrible. Xanathars starts to get the feat design space right, but its race-gating prereqs are bad. Tashas generally nails it.


----------



## Yaarel

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I would be interested in a game where the only stat-raising method is through feats...
> 
> I just really liked that feeling of realizing you're at an odd score and going looking through applicable +1 to stat feats.
> 
> (not that we _need_ to be able to raise stats, but we're going to have it anyway)



In my games, that pretty much is how it is.

You gain a feat at each four-level "tier". If you want to use your feat to boost your abilities, that is fine.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> My hope is.
> 
> Every level 1 feat is worth a +2 ability score improvement. Then each feat at each tier higher, at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19, are incrementally even better.
> 
> Tho that said. I would be fine if, the level 4 feats are the ones that are the +2 asi standard, while the level 1 background feats are incrementally less, and levels 8 and higher are incrementally more.
> 
> It seems, the designers dont want feats to improve the abilities at level 1. That is fine with me.



I'm not sure you completely understood what I was saying.  I think that the design they seem to be going for will necessitate a separation of feats and ASIs.  Perhaps to a similar system as 3e had where you get them separately within your class as you level.  Or maybe ASIs will just go away. 

Either way, the feats will not have to be balanced around stat increase equivalents.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure you completely understood what I was saying.  I think that the design they seem to be going for will necessitate a separation of feats and ASIs.  Perhaps to a similar system as 3e had where you get them separately within your class as you level.  Or maybe ASIs will just go away.
> 
> Either way, the feats will not have to be balanced around stat increase equivalents.



My impression is, the designers dont want an asi to be possible at level 1, so that the background is the only way to improve the ability scores.

But at higher levels, one can use a feat for an asi.

Regarding game balance, Tashas makes a successful effort to balance a feat with the value of an asi. I expect more of this.

Initially, the level prereqs didnt relate to the amount of design space, and were mainly for pointless gatekeeping. But I suspect, future level prereqs will correspond to increasingly powerful amounts of design space. So a level 12 feat will be obviously better than a level 4 feat.

A way to measure this is, the Toughness feat increases its value via its number of hit points while leveling. Thus supplying a metric by which to compare other feats.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure you completely understood what I was saying.  I think that the design they seem to be going for will necessitate a separation of feats and ASIs.  Perhaps to a similar system as 3e had where you get them separately within your class as you level.  Or maybe ASIs will just go away.
> 
> Either way, the feats will not have to be balanced around stat increase equivalents.



My personal expectation is that ASI in the class description will be replaced with "Feat", and a getting a +1 to 2 stats will be a feat.  I think getting a +2 to one stat at an ASI level will go away, to discourage tunnel visioning to get a 20.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> My personal expectation is that ASI in the class description will be replaced with "Feat", and a getting a +1 to 2 stats will be a feat.  I think getting a +2 to one stat at an ASI level will go away, to discourage tunnel visioning to get a 20.



That's a possibility that I hadn't considered.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> My impression is, the designers dont want an asi to be possible at level 1, so that the background is the only way to improve the ability scores.



How can you get an ASI at level 1 in the 2014 rules?  The only stat bonuses I know of at level 1 are those from race, which might be moving to background in 2024, so it will still be there.  The Vhuman can get a feat that gives an additional +1, but that's not really an ASI.


----------



## Yaarel

TwoSix said:


> My personal expectation is that ASI in the class description will be replaced with "Feat", and a getting a +1 to 2 stats will be a feat.  I think getting a +2 to one stat at an ASI level will go away, to discourage tunnel visioning to get a 20.



I can live with that.


----------



## TwoSix

Yaarel said:


> I can live with that.



I've always preferred feats to tunneling to 20, so I'm a fan.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> How can you get an ASI at level 1 in the 2014 rules?  The only stat bonuses I know of at level 1 are those from race, which might be moving to background in 2024, so it will still be there.  The Vhuman can get a feat that gives an additional +1, but that's not really an ASI.



Yeah. In a future context where a feat at level 1 becomes the default, it wont be usable for an asi.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Maxperson said:


> How can you get an ASI at level 1 in the 2014 rules?  The only stat bonuses I know of at level 1 are those from race, which might be moving to background in 2024, so it will still be there.  The Vhuman can get a feat that gives an additional +1, but that's not really an ASI.



I think just the VHuman. It's an "ASI" in that it's an increase to an ability score. (if you take a feat that offers a +1 I mean)

It's generally unnecessary at L1, as you just finished placing your ability scores. I mean, sure, it's always nice to have MOAR, but we're getting slightly more with the +2/+1 Background anyhow.


----------



## tetrasodium

TwoSix said:


> My personal expectation is that ASI in the class description will be replaced with "Feat", and a getting a +1 to 2 stats will be a feat.  I think getting a +2 to one stat at an ASI level will go away, to discourage tunnel visioning to get a 20.



I think max is probably closer to the end point than your suggesting here I'd not be surprised feat gains were regularly pegged to character level with feat prerequisites tied to whatever makes sense case by case per feat & attribute bonuses on their own schedule.   We might see bottom shelf feats like actor & underwater basket weaving master that add to an attrib but most attribute gains I expect to come from reaching level x & y or magic items.


----------



## Chaosmancer

ReshiIRE said:


> Somewhat off-topic and I have said this before, but this is exactly why releasing the playtest material in such a piece-meal manner and without at-least some guidance how past content is supposed to be converted in specific cases has been a bad idea.
> 
> We're arguing about the intent of whether past feats are supposed to have a level, what that level is, and what the designer's intent is. That will end up in playtest feedback. That could affect how level 1 feats are designed and supposed to work... without us having seen how feats that aren't level 1 are supposed to work, and whether past feats are being outright replaced or getting a patch to give them a level. Hence, now we have people accusing each other of rules lawyering and all sorts of things - which is not going to be helpful for getting stuff in for the playtest and getting feedback on how we feel about feats in this new verison of the game.
> 
> <.>




Sure, but 90% of people don't have a problem understanding the intent of the rules. 

And releasing an entire PHB for us to test would be too much. You'd lose the vast majority of playtesters simply because no one can read and implement that many new rules in a reasonable amount of time.


----------



## ReshiIRE

Pathfinder 2e's playtest _did_ effectively release an entire Player's Handbook, along with several adventures, to properly test out the system. Granted, those were _paid_ which is a different model, but it's not impossible for a test.

My understanding of the D&D Next playtest was that it was a gradual releasing of vertical slices of the rules, enabling more through testing.

Cyberpunk Red's playtest version was released as a small handbook containing a subsection of the rules allowing them to be tested and games ran.

It is not impossible for WoTC to adopt a vertical slice approach, and split combat rules and changes to monster rules, character creation including a subjection of classes, exploration, and changes to spells into different playtest packets (along with other categories I have forgotten) that would be more modular and easier to test in a closed system way without requiring an entirely new PHB to be produced. Right now, we have a big mixture of different rules affecting different parts of the game mixed in together with unclear results on each other - a horizontal slice. I feel that's going to have a negative impact on the feedback received and the game design.


----------



## Parmandur

ReshiIRE said:


> Pathfinder 2e's playtest _did_ effectively release an entire Player's Handbook, along with several adventures, to properly test out the system. Granted, those were _paid_ which is a different model, but it's not impossible for a test.
> 
> My understanding of the D&D Next playtest was that it was a gradual releasing of vertical slices of the rules, enabling more through testing.
> 
> Cyberpunk Red's playtest version was released as a small handbook containing a subsection of the rules allowing them to be tested and games ran.
> 
> It is not impossible for WoTC to adopt a vertical slice approach, and split combat rules and changes to monster rules, character creation including a subjection of classes, exploration, and changes to spells into different playtest packets (along with other categories I have forgotten) that would be more modular and easier to test in a closed system way without requiring an entirely new PHB to be produced. Right now, we have a big mixture of different rules affecting different parts of the game mixed in together with unclear results on each other - a horizontal slice. I feel that's going to have a negative impact on the feedback received and the game design.



Those were substances games. OneD&D is not really a different game than 5E, not like PF2E. They want people to use the 5E books because, largely, the rules aren't changing. This 21 page document, per Crawford, was rhe big one, with subsequent packets being targeted smaller bits of rules. This was already  the big changes.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> They aren't really worth a feat though. I assume they will be part of backgrounds?



I'm not sure there's a place for them at all in 6e outside of class.  Level Up uses the Culture axis for that stuff, and it works great!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> Still gets an extra Feat.



A level 1 feat.  Seems like a significant difference so far.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Stalker0 said:


> Yes but in theory if you are using the old stuff....you should be using the old stuff. If you want to cherry pick X race from the original with Y feat from the new you might get into some problems.



Its not compatible if you can't use parts from both ends.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> The playtest so fat is focused on playing new bits with older material in the same character, let alone table.
> 
> Using old options likw Race or Class is fine. Old Feats might be a bridge too far...but those are a neglected variant rule in 2014 as it is.



Feats aren't a neglected variant rule in any game I've ever participated in or heard of outside this forum.

And if they were, why would WotC suddenly decide to make feats non-optional?  This is why I question the received "wisdom" that most people didn't use feats.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mistwell said:


> It's a half-edition shift. The dispute seems to be more about whether it's 6e or 5.5e. I say 5.5e.
> 
> I mean, already with this playtest we have a ton of stuff which is simply not compatible. If you have a class which turns crits against you into non-crits, that's not compatible with foes no longer critting you. If you have a class which grants advantage of strength checks to initiate or escape a grapple, that's not compatible with grapple being moved to attacks and saves. If you have a feat from Xanathar's which doesn't have a level indicator, will they even update Xanathar's feats with level tags? And that's just half of the incompatibilities in just the first playtest package.



Some people seem to think that compatibility only refers to the core math of the game.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Feats aren't a neglected variant rule in any game I've ever participated in or heard of outside this forum.
> 
> And if they were, why would WotC suddenly decide to make feats non-optional?  This is why I question the received "wisdom" that most people didn't use feats.



WotC data and D&D Beyond data show it: most tables never used Feats. Quite a few do, but it is the minority. O see.no reason to seriously question thst, particularly when my anecdote is the opposite "nobody ever uses Feats." Logicslly, I assume that some people.use use Feats, in theory. The only evidence I have is random Internet posts, and the official data from WotC and Beyond. I see nonreason to believe thar WotC is trying to miniseries the numbers, given that theybare trying to make Feats core to the game.

For most people, this rule change is an increase in customizability and options.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Some people seem to think that compatibility only refers to the core math of the game.



The core math if the game is literally everything. As long as that remains the same, the rest will work. The game is literally a mathematical construct for make believe, as long as the math works and we continue to make believe...well, there you go.


----------



## ReshiIRE

Parmandur said:


> Those were substances games. *OneD&D is not really a different game than 5E*, not like PF2E. They want people to use the 5E books because, largely, the rules aren't changing. This 21 page document, per Crawford, was rhe big one, with subsequent packets being targeted smaller bits of rules. This was already  the big changes.




Honestly, I feel that highlighted point is up for debate right now, at-least until the playtest is done. They have already done changes I didn't think they would do like moving ASIs to backgrounds, granting Feats to start with and adding levels to them, changing crit rules while implying monsters will get various replaces, etc. I feel it's moving into an area where I think it could be considered a different game. But I don't think your point of view is wrong either.

What I do find strange is that if this is the big document of rule changes, then why not release it with the other smaller packets together? I guess of course that depends oon what the 'big one' means, which I find somewhat vague.

I don't know. I feel that the fact that, if you are correct that this is just 5.2+, then not releasing all the rule-changes and allowing people a guide on simple conversions for content etc. feels even less justified than my understanding of what they're trying to do.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> The core math if the game is literally everything. As long as that remains the same, the rest will work. The game is literally a mathematical construct for make believe, as long as the math works and we continue to make believe...well, there you go.



The core math needs to work with the other math, too, though.  Core math + Great Weapon Master =/= Core Math + Crossbow Expert.  Both combat feats and both full feats.  One much better in combat than the other.


----------



## Parmandur

ReshiIRE said:


> Honestly, I feel that highlighted point is up for debate right now, at-least until the playtest is done. They have already done changes I didn't think they would do like moving ASIs to backgrounds, granting Feats to start with and adding levels to them, changing crit rules while implying monsters will get various replaces, etc. I feel it's moving into an area where I think it could be considered a different game. But I don't think your point of view is wrong either.
> 
> What I do find strange is that if this is the big document of rule changes, then why not release it with the other smaller packets together? I guess of course that depends oon what the 'big one' means, which I find somewhat vague.
> 
> I don't know. I feel that the fact that, if you are correct that this is just 5.2+, then not releasing all the rule-changes and allowing people a guide on simple conversions for content etc. feels even less justified than my understanding of what they're trying to do.



They just want feedback on how people feel about certain changes, sane as YA had been doing fir 7 years. These aren't rigorous playtests, those happen in their private playtest network once they've determined how people at large emotional reacted to a new rule.


----------



## Rushbolt

I guess I'm a little late on the original question but I definitely find the human to be sincerely lacking at this point with what has been discussed.  According to Jeremy Crawford, level 1 feats will not give stat bonuses and will in general not be as powerful as their earlier counterparts.  Each background starts with a feat so other races will still have a level 1 feat.  I think when people create human characters and get their two feats but other races still get a feat it won't feel nearly as special as when those other races had no access to feats at first level.  The choice of a single skill is definitely a minor trait and gaining inspiration once in a long rest is a welcome addition but they just are not still not stacking up to what the dwarf and elf receive at this point in my opinion.

I'm not a person who just complains and doesn't offer a suggestion so I have considered what the human needs to make sure it does not sit on the sidelines.  It has to be a base ability in the game so that it still has somewhat of a vanilla flavor instead of a specialized one such as a dwarf's resistance to poison and should offer the flexibility of making a choice.  I suggest something very strong that will make a player who is looking to optimize their character sit up and take notice.

*Human Resilience:  *You may select an additional saving throw proficiency.


----------



## tetrasodium

Rushbolt said:


> I guess I'm a little late on the original question but I definitely find the human to be sincerely lacking at this point with what has been discussed.  According to Jeremy Crawford, level 1 feats will not give stat bonuses and will in general not be as powerful as their earlier counterparts.  Each background starts with a feat so other races will still have a level 1 feat.  I think when people create human characters and get their two feats but other races still get a feat it won't feel nearly as special as when those other races had no access to feats at first level.  The choice of a single skill is definitely a minor trait and gaining inspiration once in a long rest is a welcome addition but they just are not still not stacking up to what the dwarf and elf receive at this point in my opinion.
> 
> I'm not a person who just complains and doesn't offer a suggestion so I have considered what the human needs to make sure it does not sit on the sidelines.  It has to be a base ability in the game so that it still has somewhat of a vanilla flavor instead of a specialized one such as a dwarf's resistance to poison and should offer the flexibility of making a choice.  I suggest something very strong that will make a player who is looking to optimize their character sit up and take notice.
> 
> *Human Resilience:  *You may select an additional saving throw proficiency.



*editops...*
I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few later feats depend on a level1 feat.  Having two could allow more choice in more powerful later feats


----------



## Micah Sweet

If only we could with what WotC says backwards compatibility means, specifically. Unfortunately, they didn't really provide a concise answer.


Maxperson said:


> Well, being more lax on what compatibility means would make it easier for them to have the two rule sets be compatible.
> 
> I go with what backwards compatibility is generally understood to mean.  That you can use the old and the new together without any kind of special modification.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> If only we could with what WotC says backwards compatibility means, specifically. Unfortunately, they didn't really provide a concise answer.



Well, backwards compatibility has specific meaning, especially with 5e which the designers have told us uses the commonly understood meanings of things.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> If only we could with what WotC says backwards compatibility means, specifically. Unfortunately, they didn't really provide a concise answer.



The playtest FAQ is quite clear, really:

What does backward compatible mean?

It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> The playtest FAQ is quite clear, really:
> 
> What does backward compatible mean?
> 
> It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.



Supplements, not just adventures.  AND nothing there about us having to do any work, which meshes with the definition of backwards compatible. It's just a pipe dream on their part.  It can't be done.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Supplements, not just adventures.  AND nothing there about us having to do any work, which meshes with the definition of backwards compatible. It's just a pipe dream on their part.  It can't be done.



They saybthe books will work, not that no conversion is required. The first playtest makes every Race ever published for 5E compatible, and the "work" required on anyone's part is basically nonexistent.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> They saybthe books will work, not that no conversion is required.



They also do not say conversion is required, so it defaults to the definition of backwards compatible.


Parmandur said:


> The first playtest makes every Race ever published for 5E compatible, and the "work" required on anyone's part is basically nonexistent.



So I can use 2014 races without having to give them a feat to make up the deficit created by the new rules? 

Edit: Never mind.  I'm mixing up races and backgrounds   The point still stands, though, just with backgrounds.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> They also do not say conversion is required, so it defaults to the definition of backwards compatible.
> 
> So I can use 2014 races without having to give them a feat to make up the deficit created by the new rules?
> 
> Edit: Never mind.  I'm mixing up races and backgrounds   The point still stands, though, just with backgrounds.



The Background section has the sidebar about jowntonhandle ASI: that sidebar makes every Race option in the prior 8 years compatible (even beyond all the Race options since Tasha's being identical in design logic to the playtest iterations here).

I will be giving feedback praising that, and saying that some clarity about how to make older Backgrounds play nicely would be nice. Seems an easy fix, honestly.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Chaosmancer said:


> You know, honestly, I'm trying to find an example you won't twist, and I'm just going to jump to the end.
> 
> Let us say you win, Wizards in their next announcement says "We lied. This is actually 6E and we will be releasing a conversion document that explains how to integrate the majority of your 5E supplements into the game. We will say which races can be ported easily, which feats need levels, which spells go in which lists"
> 
> What changes? What fundamental shift has occurred?
> 
> You keep taking the claim that the 2024 book is going to be backwards compatible with 5e adventures and supplements to mean that no rules in the Player's Handbook will be changed. But they've already changed Volo's Guide and Mordenkainen's tome by releasing Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse. Was that an edition shift? No one seemed to think so, you are claiming it wasn't, but if a Player's Handbook is released to change a Player's Handbook it must be at least a half edition shift and that's.... bad?
> 
> Why? It isn't exactly difficult to realize that a rewritten human is supposed to be rewritten, just like we don't use the Kobold or Orc that have -2 Intelligence, we won't use the old, out-of-date human. Because why would we?



Tasha's forward did feel a bit like an edition shift to me.

I do have a question.  If this is meant to be the same edition, then shouldn't you be able to use the corebook rules you already have?


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Tasha's forward did feel a bit like an edition shift to me.
> 
> I do have a question.  If this is meant to be the same edition, then shouldn't you be able to use the corebook rules you already have?



I mean, yeah. The playtest assumes using the 2014 books, and they are endeavoring for sig ificant rules transparency here, so placing a 2014 Monster here or there or bringing an old character sheet shouldn't be a huge problem based on what we have seen. That everything since Tasha's is basically OneD&D but still works with the old core books Is sufficient testament to the plausibility that they can pull that off.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> But if they aren’t going to keep the same system beyond some updates, that wouldn’t get them useful or reliable data.



They want people to test the "no DM-side crit" rule without providing the monster compensations they expressly said would balance it.  How does THAT provide useful or reliable data?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mistwell said:


> Yeah, they've said the same words multiple times in the past about this same kind of transition, and I am told I am being absurd for having any doubts it might play out the same way it has always played out in the past literally since the transition from 1e to 2e.



Lucy and the football.  No one ever seems to believe it can happen again.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> I mean, a significant part of the player base hadn't been born in 2003.



That sounds like they're using the fact that the bulk of their audience is young and unfamiliar with edition changes to try and get away with something.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> I mean, yeah. The playtest assumes using the 2014 books, and they are endeavoring for sig ificant rules transparency here, so placing a 2014 Monster here or there or bringing an old character sheet shouldn't be a huge problem based on what we have seen. That everything since Tasha's is basically OneD&D but still works with the old core books Is sufficient testament to the plausibility that they can pull that off.



The game sort of has to assume using the 2014 books at this point. As I pointed out in another thread, you literally cannot play the game with just the UA.  Later on when there are more rules, they may scale that back and ask us to test packets in combination.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> The Background section has the sidebar about jowntonhandle ASI: that sidebar makes every Race option in the prior 8 years compatible (even beyond all the Race options since Tasha's being identical in design logic to the playtest iterations here).
> 
> I will be giving feedback praising that, and saying that some clarity about how to make older Backgrounds play nicely would be nice. Seems an easy fix, honestly.



Yeah.  The races play nicely.  It's the backgrounds and possibly feats that don't.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> The playtest FAQ is quite clear, really:
> 
> What does backward compatible mean?
> 
> It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.



Did they provide an example of a compatible supplement, or just a reference to their best-selling adventure?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> I mean, yeah. The playtest assumes using the 2014 books, and they are endeavoring for sig ificant rules transparency here, so placing a 2014 Monster here or there or bringing an old character sheet shouldn't be a huge problem based on what we have seen. That everything since Tasha's is basically OneD&D but still works with the old core books Is sufficient testament to the plausibility that they can pull that off.



Wouldn't using the 2014 corebooks bring up the problem discussed above regarding multiple versions of the same rules element, like the Lucky feat, or the v human?


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> They want people to test the "no DM-side crit" rule without providing the monster compensations they expressly said would balance it.  How does THAT provide useful or reliable data?



The data that WotC is looking for right now is feelings, not monster math. They have internal testing to work on that.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  The races play nicely.  It's the backgrounds and possibly feats that don't.



Seems easy enough to address in the final product. It is safe to assume that they will have systemic procedures for any element, so thst Beyond and the digital tabletop behave.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> The data that WotC is looking for right now is feelings, not monster math. They have internal testing to work on that.



So they want our "feelings" about no DM-side crits with a promise that it'll be compensated for somehow?  Seriously?


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Did they provide an example of a compatible supplement, or just a reference to their best-selling adventure?



Not yet, but honestly from what we've seen so far it seems easy enough: all the Races are already compatible.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> So they want our "feelings" about no DM-side crits with a promise that it'll be compensated for somehow?  Seriously?



Yes, that's the playtest. For DMs to try out the no crits in combat and see of they miss them.

If you look at the reports on this forum, people who've tried it seem quite comfortable with it. That's what WotC is looking for here. Unearthed Arcana is always testing feelings not rules balance. For 7 years, that's been consistent: how does thisnoptuin make you feel?


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Wouldn't using the 2014 corebooks bring up the problem discussed above regarding multiple versions of the same rules element, like the Lucky feat, or the v human?



Fears in 2p24 Core are a variant option: it's in the name of the Variant Human. That's one particular set of rules they can jettison entirely, honestly, without much effect in 5E as published.


----------



## Galandris

tetrasodium said:


> With any luck this entire tangent has nicely proven to wotc why OneD&D needs to put more effort into imparting RaI alongside more careful wording for RaW like some of the changes already present in the playtest




It also illustrate why "natural language" is difficult. We can't even agree on whether feats with undefined levels in the rules are "1st level feats" for the purpose of applying a rule, based on natural reading, with one side saying that any feat that is obtainable at level 1 must be a first-level feat, while others, considering that a spell obtainable at level 3 isn't a "3rd-level spell" but a "2nd level spell", don't do such a bold step of ascribing an unknown quality to an existing optional mechanics and consider the original feat to be "non-levelled feats" due to their explicit lack of level. Natural language requires much more skill to impart an exact definition than a specific language. The reason technical language or legal language arose isn't to puzzle people, contrary to popular belief.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> Its not compatible if you can't use parts from both ends.




If you use the pre-2018 errata of Contagion and Slimy Doom you have problems too. 

Yes, they are rewriting rules. No, they don't expect you to mix and match the rules they are rewriting with the old rules (Imagine a world where Slimy Doom activates on the hit, and they are poisoned by combing the old rules and errata). No, that doesn't mean it isn't backwards compatible, it means that they changed the rules for those things they are rewriting.  

I don't understand how this is so hard for people to accept.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> Tasha's forward did feel a bit like an edition shift to me.
> 
> I do have a question.  If this is meant to be the same edition, then shouldn't you be able to use the corebook rules you already have?




You can. I've built a fighter, a wizard and rogue with these new rules. Works perfectly fine. Nothing in the MM is changed. Nothing in the DMG is changed.

What doesn't work perfectly fine is using the 2014 backgrounds alongside the RE-WRITTEN rules for backgrounds, with no changes. Or using the 2014 human with the RE-WRITTEN human. Turns out mixing rules changes causes problems.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> The playtest FAQ is quite clear, really:
> 
> What does backward compatible mean?
> 
> It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. *For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks*. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.



It really only needs to keep to the proficiency bonuses for the bounded accuracy math and it should remain backwards compatible while nearly everything else changes.


----------



## TheSword

The corollary to this is… are 1st level feats terrible.

The answer to which is no they aren’t. Inspiration per day for free and two feats at first level, plus a skill… I’d take that any day of the week.


----------



## Reynard

Supplements and adventures. People trying to argue "backwards compatibility" is a lie because you can't keep using the 2014 core books are being disingenuous.


----------



## Stalker0

Micah Sweet said:


> Its not compatible if you can't use parts from both ends.



There is a difference between a player using the new system and a player using the old, versus a player trying a Frankenstein of both in the same character.

These new races are intentionally balanced with their new 1st level feat counterparts. If your choosing to use one, you really should use the other. Same with new classes and subclasses, if your going to use the new classes but keep the old subclasses, you may hit a few rough patches.

I don't consider that an incompatibility, that's just not using the system correctly. If your going new, you should commit....at least to the point with two parts of the system intentionally balanced with each other.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> It really only needs to keep to the proficiency bonuses for the bounded accuracy math and it should remain backwards compatible while nearly everything else changes.



Exactly, it's not a tight, highly tuned system...by design!


----------



## Parmandur

Stalker0 said:


> There is a difference between a player using the new system and a player using the old, versus a player trying a Frankenstein of both in the same character.
> 
> These new races are intentionally balanced with their new 1st level feat counterparts. If your choosing to use one, you really should use the other. Same with new classes and subclasses, if your going to use the new classes but keep the old subclasses, you may hit a few rough patches.
> 
> I don't consider that an incompatibility, that's just not using the system correctly. If your going new, you should commit....at least to the point with two parts of the system intentionally balanced with each other.



There is no balance change in the new Races, they are fully Tasha's compliant.


----------



## Stalker0

Parmandur said:


> There is no balance change in the new Races, they are fully Tasha's compliant.



Except for that whole “use this entire new list of feats” thing


----------



## Parmandur

Stalker0 said:


> Except for that whole “use this entire new list of feats” thing



That's in the Backgrounds, not the Races: the Races are all on the same footing, heck, the new Human is very close to being the Custom Lineage from Tasha's. And the Feat design math doesn't seem to be changed, either, other than the level gating.


----------



## glass

doctorbadwolf said:


> Which shifts do you mean? As far as I can tell the closest one is essentials, and even it isn’t the same thing.



The closest shift, _based on the what we know at the moment_, is 3.0 => 3.5 (or maybe 1e => 2e or B/X => BECMI but I am not sure of all the details of those changes).

4e Essentials is no more a shift from 4e than 5e Essentials is from 5e.



Azzy said:


> Considering we're nowhere close to the final form and nothing is yet set in stone... I'd say you're greatly jumping the gun in your estimate of things.



Nobody knows what the final form of the game will look like, so all we can judge is what they have presented so far. And based on that, it is looking to be 5.5.



Micah Sweet said:


> So they want our "feelings" about no DM-side crits with a promise that it'll be compensated for somehow? Seriously?



It is like the DDN playtest all over again. Feel first and than maths later, as if maths does not effect feel.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

glass said:


> The closest shift, _based on the what we know at the moment_, is 3.0 => 3.5 (or maybe 1e => 2e or B/X => BECMI but I am not sure of all the details of those changes).



I disagree, obviously. 


glass said:


> 4e Essentials is no more a shift from 4e than 5e Essentials is from 5e.



Do you mean the essentials kit? That is just a starter kit?

4e updated the rules, dramatically changed formatting and mechanical norms, and reimagined the classes. 

And yet, it wasn’t an edition change. Just like this won’t be, judging by what we have seen this far. 


glass said:


> Nobody knows what the final form of the game will look like, so all we can judge is what they have presented so far. And based on that, it is looking to be 5.5.



Well, based on how you’ve interpreted what we have seen so far. 


glass said:


> It is like the DDN playtest all over again. Feel first and than maths later, as if maths does not effect feel.



They already know what the math is doing.


----------



## CrashFiend82

What are the real question a here? Based on the Playtest so far... Can you play a 2014 and 2024 built character at the same table? Very likely with less "power" difference than a champion fighter and a min-max sorcadin at the same table. Can you mix and match 2014 and 2024 rules? Only by applying the sidebar. If you choose a race from 2014 you gain no ASI from Background. Can you use either in a previous adventure? Sure, and the monster encounter rules will be just as loose as they were with 2014 characters. Let's be real it's not like it was hard to build a group of characters that would run rough-shod over those adventures. They weren't built for power gamers but meant for more casual DMs (like me), that didn't give two hoots about "balance". Lastly is it hard to use Prof Bonus per Day along with Short Rest subclasses, well maybe annoying but totally doable. Will this change invalidate the core 2014, only if you choose to let it.


----------

