Wizards has consistently said that you can use 2014 content with the 2024 rules; you can’t use 2024 content with the 2014 rules. Given how little is actually changing, even if there are hiccups with using 2014 content in the 2024 rules, it should be easy enough to resolve those using some incredibly minor common sense homebrew patches.
Now, something worth noting - edition changes have always been scary. New rules mean a new learning curve and the fear that your purchases will become obsolete. There is a certain part of this community that wants Wizards to fail and is weaponizing the long-standing fear of edition changes to turn people who might otherwise be excited for the update against the changes. They do this by constantly calling it 6e, even though it decidedly is not; they do this by making up wild speculation about how it will not be backwards compatible - while ignoring everything that we actually have in evidence. In my experience, the near-totality of these people are the same people upset about how Wizards is trying to remove five decades of racism from the game - so I will let you draw your own conclusion about their motives.
Wizards has been putting out a bunch of actual videos about the new system and what the game will bring, including talk both about backwards compatibility and talk about the mechanics (so you can see how easy it probably will be to patch old content into new). I would suggest watching those and making your own judgments - that is the only real information we have, after all - rather than listen to folks online who may very well have ulterior motives.
You cannot use 2014 content with all of the 2024 rules. You cannot use all of the 2014 content with the 2024 rules. But there are no rules police going to insure you are using all of the 2024 rules (rather than just the parts you like) or to ensure you are using all of the 2014 rules (rather than just the parts you like) just as there has always been homebrewing and house rules (other than Adventurer's League, but they are a special case and even there, presumably those who have not yet purchased the 2024 rules are not going to be told they are not allowed to play).
The real question is what are they going to do with DDB and how will WotC implement the 2024 rules with DDB.
This is, in many ways, like 3.5e's implementation, except that then, the controversy was that 3.5 was seen by many as what should have been errata rather than a new edition. 2024e just seems like "Well it's been 10 years, time to reinvent the wheel." Near as I can tell, it isn't actually fixing and improving anything substantial. It's like movie studios who keep insisting they can do remakes better than the original. They almost never succeed in doing so, no matter how popular the remake is at the box office.
This is, in many ways, like 3.5e's implementation, except that then, the controversy was that 3.5 was seen by many as what should have been errata rather than a new edition. 2024e just seems like "Well it's been 10 years, time to reinvent the wheel." Near as I can tell, it isn't actually fixing and improving anything substantial. It's like movie studios who keep insisting they can do remakes better than the original. They almost never succeed in doing so, no matter how popular the remake is at the box office.
People have been complaining for a decade that martial classes are too linear to play. So they are giving them more dynamic ways to interact with both in and out of combat. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
People have complained for a decade that character choices are too linear and do not develop very much as the game progresses. So they are producing a more dynamic feat system that includes things like branching feat trees and leveled feats. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
People have complained for a decade that basic systems like crafting are absent from the game. So they are making a revamped crafting system and new systems like the bastion system. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
Players have complained for a decade that the challenge rating is fundamentally broken and completely falls apart at higher levels. So they are rebalancing hundreds of monsters in an attempt to ensure monster CRs accurately represent difficulty. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
People have complained for five decades that the core books are poorly organized and do not actually teach you how to play the game or lay out information in an easy-to-use manner. So they are reconsidering everything about the organization and trying to produce something that conveys the information players actually want in the places players want it. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
Now, could all those attempted fixes make things worse? Perhaps - though most of them consistently polled at over 80% during the extensive playtesting, so there is more reason for optimism than pessimism. But saying that nothing substantial is being addressed is, fairly objectively, poppycock. Every single change they have talked about had been a substantive mechanism to address elements of the game players have been complaining about for years.
This is, in many ways, like 3.5e's implementation, except that then, the controversy was that 3.5 was seen by many as what should have been errata rather than a new edition. 2024e just seems like "Well it's been 10 years, time to reinvent the wheel." Near as I can tell, it isn't actually fixing and improving anything substantial. It's like movie studios who keep insisting they can do remakes better than the original. They almost never succeed in doing so, no matter how popular the remake is at the box office.
People have been complaining for a decade that martial classes are too linear to play. So they are giving them more dynamic ways to interact with both in and out of combat. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
People have complained for a decade that character choices are too linear and do not develop very much as the game progresses. So they are producing a more dynamic feat system that includes things like branching feat trees and leveled feats. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
People have complained for a decade that basic systems like crafting are absent from the game. So they are making a revamped crafting system and new systems like the bastion system. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
Players have complained for a decade that the challenge rating is fundamentally broken and completely falls apart at higher levels. So they are rebalancing hundreds of monsters in an attempt to ensure monster CRs accurately represent difficulty. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
People have complained for five decades that the core books are poorly organized and do not actually teach you how to play the game or lay out information in an easy-to-use manner. So they are reconsidering everything about the organization and trying to produce something that conveys the information players actually want in the places players want it. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
Now, could all those attempted fixes make things worse? Perhaps - though most of them consistently polled at over 80% during the extensive playtesting, so there is more reason for optimism than pessimism. But saying that nothing substantial is being addressed is, fairly objectively, poppycock. Every single change they have talked about had been a substantive mechanism to address elements of the game players have been complaining about for years.
We'll see.
Branching feat trees and leveled feats sound more like slowing melees down, to me, than making them more interesting, especially since there is no such system for spells.
Crafting did not need a new version for at all. They could easily simply have done a separate book just on that. They were half way to that anyway with the revamps in Xanathar's.
I am exceedingly skeptical on their ability to improve anything with respect to CR's. It would mean not just them doing actual math but moreover, understanding that foe difficulty is based on group capabilities, which vary quite a bit between campaigns.
Ditto with respect to better organization, especially since, digitally, they could just cross reference more. Better guidance for DMs? Yes, that would be something, but see my concerns regarding CR's.
Branching feat trees and leveled feats sound more like slowing melees down, to me, than making them more interesting, especially since there is no such system for spells.
Crafting did not need a new version for at all. They could easily simply have done a separate book just on that. They were half way to that anyway with the revamps in Xanathar's.
I am exceedingly skeptical on their ability to improve anything with respect to CR's. It would mean not just them doing actual math but moreover, understanding that foe difficulty is based on group capabilities, which vary quite a bit between campaigns.
Ditto with respect to better organization, especially since, digitally, they could just cross reference more. Better guidance for DMs? Yes, that would be something, but see my concerns regarding CR's.
So, as I said, we'll see.
Your first point about feats is nonsensical and seems to be conflating plans to fix marshal classes through fundamental reworks of their class abilities and plans to revamp the completely separate feat system (which, presumably, will have both martial and caster feats). Had you actually been paying attention to the development, you would have known this.
Players have been asking for crafting rules since the game came out and even the supplemental crafting rules have only received mixed reception. They are clearly something people want - and want in the base game.
I think everyone is skeptical about attempts to fix CR - but it would be rather silly to suggest that the difficulty of fixing something so fundamental to the game and so incredibly broken is a reason to not even try to fix it. Yet that rather silly position seems to be the one you are advocating for.
Digital cross referencing does not fix the fundamental organizational problems of the books - like the shocking absence in the DMG of certain things which actually teach DMs the skills they need… and the fact the present (and past) DMG spends so much time focusing on things that DMs probably do not actually know in as great of detail as presented. You would know more about that if you actually were following along. And, of course, digital tools do nothing for paper players.
I think you have made it abundantly clear that you have not followed the playtest - or, if you think you did, that you did not actually internalize any of the information presented. Your posts clearly betray a lack of knowledge of the systemic changes being made, of the conversations surrounding the updates, of the long-standing conversations about 5e’s systemic problems, and the wide arrange of data that has been presented about how players have been responding to the changes.
Imo crafting is to a certain degree something people do need to accept they can either play an Artificer or do without as a feature that's within the player's scope to initiate. The mundane consumables are niche at best and most of the damaging ones aren't worth it after 5th level if ever, magic item consumables are generally sufficiently powerful that the DM needs to be able to directly regulate them to keep things balanced, permanent magic items are the same issue but more so, and unless they want to rebuild the combat system's math from the ground up there's not really room for enhancing weapons and armor outside of what's cover by +X magic items. And trying to codify rules for magic item component "drops" as a standard expectation rather than the DM integrating them into the narrative of how they award magic items would create a lot of extra bookkeeping on both sides of the table, on top of the balance dynamic issues if players can cash in "magic item coupons" at their discretion rather than the DM's. Tools are largely soft/roleplay skills, not hard ones, and that is not a bad thing. The suggestions from XGtE on how they can be integrated with skill checks and a few simple options is what we need more than people trying to play Minecraft or Skyrim with them.
I wonder if anyone has any idea what percentage of players involve themselves with play testing?
It stands to reason those happy with the game would not need or want to play test, and then there are those that are unaware of the option to play test.
So what is the real value of numbers like "consistently polled at over 80% during the extensive playtesting" they could and are likely a rather insignificant percentage of the total amount of players, and also artificially skewed to show "most" want changes. The counter parts are only going to voice their opinion after the changes are made, which is the phase we are in now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Branching feat trees and leveled feats sound more like slowing melees down, to me, than making them more interesting, especially since there is no such system for spells.
Crafting did not need a new version for at all. They could easily simply have done a separate book just on that. They were half way to that anyway with the revamps in Xanathar's.
I am exceedingly skeptical on their ability to improve anything with respect to CR's. It would mean not just them doing actual math but moreover, understanding that foe difficulty is based on group capabilities, which vary quite a bit between campaigns.
Ditto with respect to better organization, especially since, digitally, they could just cross reference more. Better guidance for DMs? Yes, that would be something, but see my concerns regarding CR's.
So, as I said, we'll see.
Your first point about feats is nonsensical and seems to be conflating plans to fix marshal classes through fundamental reworks of their class abilities and plans to revamp the completely separate feat system (which, presumably, will have both martial and caster feats). Had you actually been paying attention to the development, you would have known this.
Players have been asking for crafting rules since the game came out and even the supplemental crafting rules have only received mixed reception. They are clearly something people want - and want in the base game.
I think everyone is skeptical about attempts to fix CR - but it would be rather silly to suggest that the difficulty of fixing something so fundamental to the game and so incredibly broken is a reason to not even try to fix it. Yet that rather silly position seems to be the one you are advocating for.
Digital cross referencing does not fix the fundamental organizational problems of the books - like the shocking absence in the DMG of certain things which actually teach DMs the skills they need… and the fact the present (and past) DMG spends so much time focusing on things that DMs probably do not actually know in as great of detail as presented. You would know more about that if you actually were following along. And, of course, digital tools do nothing for paper players.
I think you have made it abundantly clear that you have not followed the playtest - or, if you think you did, that you did not actually internalize any of the information presented. Your posts clearly betray a lack of knowledge of the systemic changes being made, of the conversations surrounding the updates, of the long-standing conversations about 5e’s systemic problems, and the wide arrange of data that has been presented about how players have been responding to the changes.
For feat trees to be completely independent pf plans to fix martial classes makes no sense. You say 'presumably' martial and caster feat trees, but unless the caster trees effectively reign in caster power, then they could well be making matters worse rather than better. Either way, the risk of trees is there just being even more expected class specific choices.
I did not say that better crafting guidance wasn't a good idea, just that what it really needed most was a couple good examples, far more than any formal structure. And keep in mind "Want in the base game" does not mean our existing books get edits for free. It means we are buying new books with a lot more than just new crafting rules in them.
The issue regarding CR is not so much whether such an effort could be useful but a complete lack in trust in them coming up with anything better.
A lack of information is not an organizational issue. An organizational issue is the information being there but hard to find and/or annoying to look up or cross reference.
As for how 'informed' my opinion is, I said 'We'll see' rather than any outright condemnation. I have expressed my concerns.
I wonder if anyone has any idea what percentage of players involve themselves with play testing?
It stands to reason those happy with the game would not need or want to play test, and then there are those that are unaware of the option to play test.
So what is the real value of numbers like "consistently polled at over 80% during the extensive playtesting" they could and are likely a rather insignificant percentage of the total amount of players, and also artificially skewed to show "most" want changes. The counter parts are only going to voice their opinion after the changes are made, which is the phase we are in now.
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
In addition to the survey data Wizards also collects sales data and semi-annual polling data of players. They also have a network of Local Game Stores they use for information. Then they also have forum and message boards they monitor to get information their polls might not collect. The UA polls asked for specific feedback on why folks liked or disliked changes, allowing Wizards some redundancy and specificity in their data collection that also mitigates bias in the data by giving multiple types of information which can be cross-referenced against one another (they talked extensively about this in their various videos)
Finally, there is no reason to suspect the majority of polled individuals skewed in one way or another - I expect that there were “yes change it all!” folks… but those were offset by the concentrated efforts of the anti-Wizards crowds to review bomb things. This is another reason Wizards’ polls are so long - they help weed out all but the most dedicated of “yes men” and review bombers. At a certain length, folks with biases tend to be weeded out, and only those who really care about the future of the game are willing to wade through the process to ensure their feedback is heard.
Discounting the polls by throwing around accusations of bias is certainly easy, but you have to suspend belief and pretend a company who has been collecting player data for decades through polls suddenly forgot how to do a job it has historically been quite good at.
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
"If it helps," it's probably best to describe the playtests as actual market surveys, not really "playtesting" for the most part. The real playtesting, by more traditional definitions, was/is almost certainly done in-house.
I wonder if anyone has any idea what percentage of players involve themselves with play testing?
It stands to reason those happy with the game would not need or want to play test, and then there are those that are unaware of the option to play test.
So what is the real value of numbers like "consistently polled at over 80% during the extensive playtesting" they could and are likely a rather insignificant percentage of the total amount of players, and also artificially skewed to show "most" want changes. The counter parts are only going to voice their opinion after the changes are made, which is the phase we are in now.
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
In addition to the survey data Wizards also collects sales data and semi-annual polling data of players. They also have a network of Local Game Stores they use for information. Then they also have forum and message boards they monitor to get information their polls might not collect. The UA polls asked for specific feedback on why folks liked or disliked changes, allowing Wizards some redundancy and specificity in their data collection that also mitigates bias in the data by giving multiple types of information which can be cross-referenced against one another (they talked extensively about this in their various videos)
Finally, there is no reason to suspect the majority of polled individuals skewed in one way or another - I expect that there were “yes change it all!” folks… but those were offset by the concentrated efforts of the anti-Wizards crowds to review bomb things. This is another reason Wizards’ polls are so long - they help weed out all but the most dedicated of “yes men” and review bombers. At a certain length, folks with biases tend to be weeded out, and only those who really care about the future of the game are willing to wade through the process to ensure their feedback is heard.
Discounting the polls by throwing around accusations of bias is certainly easy, but you have to suspend belief and pretend a company who has been collecting player data for decades through polls suddenly forgot how to do a job it has historically been quite good at.
Given that the 2014 PHB has sold well over 1.5 million physical copies, 50k is rather insignificant % and I know lots of players that haven't bought any physical or digital books.
We should probably start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
ETA: there are 18,158,474 members on this site alone.
I wonder if anyone has any idea what percentage of players involve themselves with play testing?
It stands to reason those happy with the game would not need or want to play test, and then there are those that are unaware of the option to play test.
So what is the real value of numbers like "consistently polled at over 80% during the extensive playtesting" they could and are likely a rather insignificant percentage of the total amount of players, and also artificially skewed to show "most" want changes. The counter parts are only going to voice their opinion after the changes are made, which is the phase we are in now.
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
In addition to the survey data Wizards also collects sales data and semi-annual polling data of players. They also have a network of Local Game Stores they use for information. Then they also have forum and message boards they monitor to get information their polls might not collect. The UA polls asked for specific feedback on why folks liked or disliked changes, allowing Wizards some redundancy and specificity in their data collection that also mitigates bias in the data by giving multiple types of information which can be cross-referenced against one another (they talked extensively about this in their various videos)
Finally, there is no reason to suspect the majority of polled individuals skewed in one way or another - I expect that there were “yes change it all!” folks… but those were offset by the concentrated efforts of the anti-Wizards crowds to review bomb things. This is another reason Wizards’ polls are so long - they help weed out all but the most dedicated of “yes men” and review bombers. At a certain length, folks with biases tend to be weeded out, and only those who really care about the future of the game are willing to wade through the process to ensure their feedback is heard.
Discounting the polls by throwing around accusations of bias is certainly easy, but you have to suspend belief and pretend a company who has been collecting player data for decades through polls suddenly forgot how to do a job it has historically been quite good at.
Given that the 2014 PHB has sold well over 1.5 million physical copies, 50k is rather insignificant % and I know lots of players that haven't bought any physical or digital books.
We should probably start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
ETA: there are 18,158,474 members on this site alone.
[Redacted] For a more apt comparison, Gallop, the biggest name in polling, uses a sample size of 1,000 to predict trends related to hundreds of millions. A sample size of 50,000 against tens of millions is absurdly huge.
People seem to think these numbers prove the sample is not sufficient to form an opinion. To the contrary, [Redacted]people should be incredibly impressed by how large their sample size was for how small the population examined is.
I wonder if anyone has any idea what percentage of players involve themselves with play testing?
It stands to reason those happy with the game would not need or want to play test, and then there are those that are unaware of the option to play test.
So what is the real value of numbers like "consistently polled at over 80% during the extensive playtesting" they could and are likely a rather insignificant percentage of the total amount of players, and also artificially skewed to show "most" want changes. The counter parts are only going to voice their opinion after the changes are made, which is the phase we are in now.
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
In addition to the survey data Wizards also collects sales data and semi-annual polling data of players. They also have a network of Local Game Stores they use for information. Then they also have forum and message boards they monitor to get information their polls might not collect. The UA polls asked for specific feedback on why folks liked or disliked changes, allowing Wizards some redundancy and specificity in their data collection that also mitigates bias in the data by giving multiple types of information which can be cross-referenced against one another (they talked extensively about this in their various videos)
Finally, there is no reason to suspect the majority of polled individuals skewed in one way or another - I expect that there were “yes change it all!” folks… but those were offset by the concentrated efforts of the anti-Wizards crowds to review bomb things. This is another reason Wizards’ polls are so long - they help weed out all but the most dedicated of “yes men” and review bombers. At a certain length, folks with biases tend to be weeded out, and only those who really care about the future of the game are willing to wade through the process to ensure their feedback is heard.
Discounting the polls by throwing around accusations of bias is certainly easy, but you have to suspend belief and pretend a company who has been collecting player data for decades through polls suddenly forgot how to do a job it has historically been quite good at.
Given that the 2014 PHB has sold well over 1.5 million physical copies, 50k is rather insignificant % and I know lots of players that haven't bought any physical or digital books.
We should probably start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
ETA: there are 18,158,474 members on this site alone.
Not sure how fruitful a new thread would be - considering your entire post shows a complete lack of understanding of how sampling and statistics works. For a more apt comparison, Gallop, the biggest name in polling, uses a sample size of 1,000 to predict trends related to hundreds of millions. A sample size of 50,000 against tens of millions is absurdly huge.
You seem to think these numbers prove the sample is not sufficient to form an opinion. To the contrary, if you actually understood what you were talking about, you would be incredibly impressed by how large their sample size was for how small the population examined is.
It may be huge statistically speaking, but it is not representative of the community as a whole. What is the old adage ~there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
Again new thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Not sure how fruitful a new thread would be - considering your entire post shows a complete lack of understanding of how sampling and statistics works. For a more apt comparison, Gallop, the biggest name in polling, uses a sample size of 1,000 to predict trends related to hundreds of millions. A sample size of 50,000 against tens of millions is absurdly huge.
You seem to think these numbers prove the sample is not sufficient to form an opinion. To the contrary, if you actually understood what you were talking about, you would be incredibly impressed by how large their sample size was for how small the population examined is.
There is a lot more to proper sampling than sample size. You want a representative sample and that is unlikely with volunteers. Gallop certainly does not rely on the first 1,000 to call in. A 50,000 sample on a population of 18 million has a very low margin of error (0.43%) but only if the sample is representative and not skewed.
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
"If it helps," it's probably best to describe the playtests as actual market surveys, not really "playtesting" for the most part. The real playtesting, by more traditional definitions, was/is almost certainly done in-house.
Caerwyn's point is that the feedback was statistically significant. Quibbling over calling it a playtest vs market survey vs opinion poll etc is irrelevant.
Given that the 2014 PHB has sold well over 1.5 million physical copies, 50k is rather insignificant % and I know lots of players that haven't bought any physical or digital books.
We should probably start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
ETA: there are 18,158,474 members on this site alone.
This is not at all how statistical significance works. If you're going to attack the feedback sample, you need to prove they were somehow unrepresentative of the whole, not merely gesture at the D&D playerbase population size and declare all attempts at gathering feedback to be null and void because they were "merely" in the tens of thousands.
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
"If it helps," it's probably best to describe the playtests as actual market surveys, not really "playtesting" for the most part. The real playtesting, by more traditional definitions, was/is almost certainly done in-house.
Caerwyn's point is that the feedback was statistically significant. Quibbling over calling it a playtest vs market survey vs opinion poll etc is irrelevant.
Given that the 2014 PHB has sold well over 1.5 million physical copies, 50k is rather insignificant % and I know lots of players that haven't bought any physical or digital books.
We should probably start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
ETA: there are 18,158,474 members on this site alone.
This is not at all how statistical significance works. If you're going to attack the feedback sample, you need to prove they were somehow unrepresentative of the whole, not merely gesture at the D&D playerbase population size and declare all attempts at gathering feedback to be null and void because they were "merely" in the tens of thousands.
I all ready conceded it was statistically significant just not representative of the community as a whole. It was Caerwynn that brought this stat to the discussion and his burden to defend it. I merely pointed out a possible, and likely, flaw in using it to insinuate it is representative of the community as a whole. I have no doubt it is an accurate statement when looked at in the vacuum it is actually relevant, ie playtesters, but using it as a representation of the community as a whole is folly at best.
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
"If it helps," it's probably best to describe the playtests as actual market surveys, not really "playtesting" for the most part. The real playtesting, by more traditional definitions, was/is almost certainly done in-house.
Caerwyn's point is that the feedback was statistically significant. Quibbling over calling it a playtest vs market survey vs opinion poll etc is irrelevant.
Given that the 2014 PHB has sold well over 1.5 million physical copies, 50k is rather insignificant % and I know lots of players that haven't bought any physical or digital books.
We should probably start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
ETA: there are 18,158,474 members on this site alone.
This is not at all how statistical significance works. If you're going to attack the feedback sample, you need to prove they were somehow unrepresentative of the whole, not merely gesture at the D&D playerbase population size and declare all attempts at gathering feedback to be null and void because they were "merely" in the tens of thousands.
It was Caerwynn that brought this stat to the discussion and his burden to defend it. I merely pointed out a possible, and likely, flaw in using it to insinuate it is representative of the community as a whole. I have no doubt it is an accurate statement when looked at in the vacuum it is actually relevant, ie playtesters, but using it as a representation of the community as a whole is folly at best.
There's nothing likely about it; your claim is basically that samples are only good for giving us information about the sample, and not the population. Which.... is a very bad way to approach statistics, even statistics you personally don't like.
And the burden of proof is on you as you're the one making the positive claim. You think WotC's survey data is flawed, but your arguments supporting that stance boil down to '"trust me, bro."
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
"If it helps," it's probably best to describe the playtests as actual market surveys, not really "playtesting" for the most part. The real playtesting, by more traditional definitions, was/is almost certainly done in-house.
Caerwyn's point is that the feedback was statistically significant. Quibbling over calling it a playtest vs market survey vs opinion poll etc is irrelevant.
Given that the 2014 PHB has sold well over 1.5 million physical copies, 50k is rather insignificant % and I know lots of players that haven't bought any physical or digital books.
We should probably start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
ETA: there are 18,158,474 members on this site alone.
This is not at all how statistical significance works. If you're going to attack the feedback sample, you need to prove they were somehow unrepresentative of the whole, not merely gesture at the D&D playerbase population size and declare all attempts at gathering feedback to be null and void because they were "merely" in the tens of thousands.
It was Caerwynn that brought this stat to the discussion and his burden to defend it. I merely pointed out a possible, and likely, flaw in using it to insinuate it is representative of the community as a whole. I have no doubt it is an accurate statement when looked at in the vacuum it is actually relevant, ie playtesters, but using it as a representation of the community as a whole is folly at best.
There's nothing likely about it; your claim is basically that samples are only good for giving us information about the sample, and not the population. Which.... is a very bad way to approach statistics, even statistics you personally don't like.
And the burden of proof is on you as you're the one making the positive claim. You think WotC's survey data is flawed, but your arguments supporting that stance boil down to '"trust me, bro."
Again this is a topic for another thread, the statistic used is out of context here, and as such has no useful application in this discussion. It is being used to misrepresent how many people wanted these changes. The "trust me bro" is in the misrepresentation of the stat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Yo! iv been hearing alot of people say that the new 2024PHB only works on the 2024PHB and isnt backwards compatible anymore. theres also been alot of people saying it is backwards compatible. so can anyone give me a real answer? was it officaly made backwards compatible or is it trying to override old rules and "erase" the older subclasses?
anyone from the DnDbeyond team id love an answer please when you get the time
As to the question of are the two editions backwards compatible with each other, in a nutshell only if the DM takes the time to adjust the character to whichever edition of the game they are running.
As to the survey results for everything that’s occurred since WotC took over the DDBeyond site and tried to overthrow the OGL, well they have been biased ever since. ( Anyone who noticed many people who actually filled out all the play-test surveys had said the survey was limited in choice selection, and had to use what little chance they had to comment on what they thought was the direction they [ WotC ] should take. )
The difference between the numbers between the OGL fumble and the biased play-test surveys is like comparing apples to bananas, in that it didn’t take WotC long to come back with the results of the OGL poll ( took them what, a week or two for them to come back and report their results ), compared to how long before the community had been told the results of the first play-test poll? ( if memory is fuzzy, it took two months?, [ wanna say the results came out after the meh movie did?, doesn’t matter they practically had already decided that they were going to make the game however they wanted, all WotC did was use the supporting survey results to represent the community wishes, and long said to hell with the 5e edition.] ).
Go back and actually listen, or with CC enabled, read what was said during the 2024 PHB Everything to know video, they practically said that if you play a strictly 2014 game, you would have to accept and adapt the XGTE and TCOE to include 2024 generated characters, and if you are playing a strictly 2024 game, the 2024 PHB rules has a sidebar on how to adapt 2014 generated characters into the 2024 game and changed rules. ( Revision my ass, that technically qualifies the 2024 rules as a new edition, simply because of how drastically different the rules were designed. And again, I do think with the new rules about to go full public release in less in three months, Wizbro can start letting the community know what the hell will happen here on DDBeyond as to how the differences in character generation will handled, and really start opening their mouths on what will happen on the site. [ Best to rip that scab off now, and address the wound and settle the matter ASAP, but I highly doubt it will happen, given the history of WotC and the fact they barely have a PR response team. ]
It’s backwards compatible in that you can use 2014 classes, races, magic items, monsters, etc alongside the 2024 ones in an adventure and it’s all going to be approximately on the same page, as opposed to trying to run a 3.5 monster stat block or magic item in a 5e campaign. Obviously you’ll need to pick one iteration of the core rules to use as the foundation of the campaign, but the changes to those rules are pretty minor so a class from the other version will still run fine most of the time as-is with maybe an occasional ruling for- say- using a class with weapon mastery when most of the table is using 2014 rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You cannot use 2014 content with all of the 2024 rules. You cannot use all of the 2014 content with the 2024 rules. But there are no rules police going to insure you are using all of the 2024 rules (rather than just the parts you like) or to ensure you are using all of the 2014 rules (rather than just the parts you like) just as there has always been homebrewing and house rules (other than Adventurer's League, but they are a special case and even there, presumably those who have not yet purchased the 2024 rules are not going to be told they are not allowed to play).
The real question is what are they going to do with DDB and how will WotC implement the 2024 rules with DDB.
This is, in many ways, like 3.5e's implementation, except that then, the controversy was that 3.5 was seen by many as what should have been errata rather than a new edition. 2024e just seems like "Well it's been 10 years, time to reinvent the wheel." Near as I can tell, it isn't actually fixing and improving anything substantial. It's like movie studios who keep insisting they can do remakes better than the original. They almost never succeed in doing so, no matter how popular the remake is at the box office.
People have been complaining for a decade that martial classes are too linear to play. So they are giving them more dynamic ways to interact with both in and out of combat. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
People have complained for a decade that character choices are too linear and do not develop very much as the game progresses. So they are producing a more dynamic feat system that includes things like branching feat trees and leveled feats. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
People have complained for a decade that basic systems like crafting are absent from the game. So they are making a revamped crafting system and new systems like the bastion system. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
Players have complained for a decade that the challenge rating is fundamentally broken and completely falls apart at higher levels. So they are rebalancing hundreds of monsters in an attempt to ensure monster CRs accurately represent difficulty. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
People have complained for five decades that the core books are poorly organized and do not actually teach you how to play the game or lay out information in an easy-to-use manner. So they are reconsidering everything about the organization and trying to produce something that conveys the information players actually want in the places players want it. That is “fixing and improving something substantial.”
Now, could all those attempted fixes make things worse? Perhaps - though most of them consistently polled at over 80% during the extensive playtesting, so there is more reason for optimism than pessimism. But saying that nothing substantial is being addressed is, fairly objectively, poppycock. Every single change they have talked about had been a substantive mechanism to address elements of the game players have been complaining about for years.
We'll see.
Branching feat trees and leveled feats sound more like slowing melees down, to me, than making them more interesting, especially since there is no such system for spells.
Crafting did not need a new version for at all. They could easily simply have done a separate book just on that. They were half way to that anyway with the revamps in Xanathar's.
I am exceedingly skeptical on their ability to improve anything with respect to CR's. It would mean not just them doing actual math but moreover, understanding that foe difficulty is based on group capabilities, which vary quite a bit between campaigns.
Ditto with respect to better organization, especially since, digitally, they could just cross reference more. Better guidance for DMs? Yes, that would be something, but see my concerns regarding CR's.
So, as I said, we'll see.
Your first point about feats is nonsensical and seems to be conflating plans to fix marshal classes through fundamental reworks of their class abilities and plans to revamp the completely separate feat system (which, presumably, will have both martial and caster feats). Had you actually been paying attention to the development, you would have known this.
Players have been asking for crafting rules since the game came out and even the supplemental crafting rules have only received mixed reception. They are clearly something people want - and want in the base game.
I think everyone is skeptical about attempts to fix CR - but it would be rather silly to suggest that the difficulty of fixing something so fundamental to the game and so incredibly broken is a reason to not even try to fix it. Yet that rather silly position seems to be the one you are advocating for.
Digital cross referencing does not fix the fundamental organizational problems of the books - like the shocking absence in the DMG of certain things which actually teach DMs the skills they need… and the fact the present (and past) DMG spends so much time focusing on things that DMs probably do not actually know in as great of detail as presented. You would know more about that if you actually were following along. And, of course, digital tools do nothing for paper players.
I think you have made it abundantly clear that you have not followed the playtest - or, if you think you did, that you did not actually internalize any of the information presented. Your posts clearly betray a lack of knowledge of the systemic changes being made, of the conversations surrounding the updates, of the long-standing conversations about 5e’s systemic problems, and the wide arrange of data that has been presented about how players have been responding to the changes.
Imo crafting is to a certain degree something people do need to accept they can either play an Artificer or do without as a feature that's within the player's scope to initiate. The mundane consumables are niche at best and most of the damaging ones aren't worth it after 5th level if ever, magic item consumables are generally sufficiently powerful that the DM needs to be able to directly regulate them to keep things balanced, permanent magic items are the same issue but more so, and unless they want to rebuild the combat system's math from the ground up there's not really room for enhancing weapons and armor outside of what's cover by +X magic items. And trying to codify rules for magic item component "drops" as a standard expectation rather than the DM integrating them into the narrative of how they award magic items would create a lot of extra bookkeeping on both sides of the table, on top of the balance dynamic issues if players can cash in "magic item coupons" at their discretion rather than the DM's. Tools are largely soft/roleplay skills, not hard ones, and that is not a bad thing. The suggestions from XGtE on how they can be integrated with skill checks and a few simple options is what we need more than people trying to play Minecraft or Skyrim with them.
I wonder if anyone has any idea what percentage of players involve themselves with play testing?
It stands to reason those happy with the game would not need or want to play test, and then there are those that are unaware of the option to play test.
So what is the real value of numbers like "consistently polled at over 80% during the extensive playtesting" they could and are likely a rather insignificant percentage of the total amount of players, and also artificially skewed to show "most" want changes. The counter parts are only going to voice their opinion after the changes are made, which is the phase we are in now.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
For feat trees to be completely independent pf plans to fix martial classes makes no sense. You say 'presumably' martial and caster feat trees, but unless the caster trees effectively reign in caster power, then they could well be making matters worse rather than better. Either way, the risk of trees is there just being even more expected class specific choices.
I did not say that better crafting guidance wasn't a good idea, just that what it really needed most was a couple good examples, far more than any formal structure. And keep in mind "Want in the base game" does not mean our existing books get edits for free. It means we are buying new books with a lot more than just new crafting rules in them.
The issue regarding CR is not so much whether such an effort could be useful but a complete lack in trust in them coming up with anything better.
A lack of information is not an organizational issue. An organizational issue is the information being there but hard to find and/or annoying to look up or cross reference.
As for how 'informed' my opinion is, I said 'We'll see' rather than any outright condemnation. I have expressed my concerns.
Over 50,000 people partook in the first playtest - that number certainly dropped as the playtest went on, but it shows a significant number of players were interested - enough to help mitigate response bias. For comparison, the OGL survey saw about 10,000 people vote in it - so that gives you an idea of relative interest.
In addition to the survey data Wizards also collects sales data and semi-annual polling data of players. They also have a network of Local Game Stores they use for information. Then they also have forum and message boards they monitor to get information their polls might not collect. The UA polls asked for specific feedback on why folks liked or disliked changes, allowing Wizards some redundancy and specificity in their data collection that also mitigates bias in the data by giving multiple types of information which can be cross-referenced against one another (they talked extensively about this in their various videos)
Finally, there is no reason to suspect the majority of polled individuals skewed in one way or another - I expect that there were “yes change it all!” folks… but those were offset by the concentrated efforts of the anti-Wizards crowds to review bomb things. This is another reason Wizards’ polls are so long - they help weed out all but the most dedicated of “yes men” and review bombers. At a certain length, folks with biases tend to be weeded out, and only those who really care about the future of the game are willing to wade through the process to ensure their feedback is heard.
Discounting the polls by throwing around accusations of bias is certainly easy, but you have to suspend belief and pretend a company who has been collecting player data for decades through polls suddenly forgot how to do a job it has historically been quite good at.
"If it helps," it's probably best to describe the playtests as actual market surveys, not really "playtesting" for the most part. The real playtesting, by more traditional definitions, was/is almost certainly done in-house.
Given that the 2014 PHB has sold well over 1.5 million physical copies, 50k is rather insignificant % and I know lots of players that haven't bought any physical or digital books.
We should probably start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.
ETA: there are 18,158,474 members on this site alone.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
[Redacted] For a more apt comparison, Gallop, the biggest name in polling, uses a sample size of 1,000 to predict trends related to hundreds of millions. A sample size of 50,000 against tens of millions is absurdly huge.
People seem to think these numbers prove the sample is not sufficient to form an opinion. To the contrary, [Redacted] people should be incredibly impressed by how large their sample size was for how small the population examined is.
It may be huge statistically speaking, but it is not representative of the community as a whole. What is the old adage ~there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
Again new thread.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
There is a lot more to proper sampling than sample size. You want a representative sample and that is unlikely with volunteers. Gallop certainly does not rely on the first 1,000 to call in. A 50,000 sample on a population of 18 million has a very low margin of error (0.43%) but only if the sample is representative and not skewed.
Caerwyn's point is that the feedback was statistically significant. Quibbling over calling it a playtest vs market survey vs opinion poll etc is irrelevant.
This is not at all how statistical significance works. If you're going to attack the feedback sample, you need to prove they were somehow unrepresentative of the whole, not merely gesture at the D&D playerbase population size and declare all attempts at gathering feedback to be null and void because they were "merely" in the tens of thousands.
I all ready conceded it was statistically significant just not representative of the community as a whole. It was Caerwynn that brought this stat to the discussion and his burden to defend it. I merely pointed out a possible, and likely, flaw in using it to insinuate it is representative of the community as a whole. I have no doubt it is an accurate statement when looked at in the vacuum it is actually relevant, ie playtesters, but using it as a representation of the community as a whole is folly at best.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
There's nothing likely about it; your claim is basically that samples are only good for giving us information about the sample, and not the population. Which.... is a very bad way to approach statistics, even statistics you personally don't like.
And the burden of proof is on you as you're the one making the positive claim. You think WotC's survey data is flawed, but your arguments supporting that stance boil down to '"trust me, bro."
Again this is a topic for another thread, the statistic used is out of context here, and as such has no useful application in this discussion. It is being used to misrepresent how many people wanted these changes. The "trust me bro" is in the misrepresentation of the stat.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
As to the question of are the two editions backwards compatible with each other, in a nutshell only if the DM takes the time to adjust the character to whichever edition of the game they are running.
As to the survey results for everything that’s occurred since WotC took over the DDBeyond site and tried to overthrow the OGL, well they have been biased ever since. ( Anyone who noticed many people who actually filled out all the play-test surveys had said the survey was limited in choice selection, and had to use what little chance they had to comment on what they thought was the direction they [ WotC ] should take. )
The difference between the numbers between the OGL fumble and the biased play-test surveys is like comparing apples to bananas, in that it didn’t take WotC long to come back with the results of the OGL poll ( took them what, a week or two for them to come back and report their results ), compared to how long before the community had been told the results of the first play-test poll? ( if memory is fuzzy, it took two months?, [ wanna say the results came out after the meh movie did?, doesn’t matter they practically had already decided that they were going to make the game however they wanted, all WotC did was use the supporting survey results to represent the community wishes, and long said to hell with the 5e edition.] ).
Go back and actually listen, or with CC enabled, read what was said during the 2024 PHB Everything to know video, they practically said that if you play a strictly 2014 game, you would have to accept and adapt the XGTE and TCOE to include 2024 generated characters, and if you are playing a strictly 2024 game, the 2024 PHB rules has a sidebar on how to adapt 2014 generated characters into the 2024 game and changed rules. ( Revision my ass, that technically qualifies the 2024 rules as a new edition, simply because of how drastically different the rules were designed. And again, I do think with the new rules about to go full public release in less in three months, Wizbro can start letting the community know what the hell will happen here on DDBeyond as to how the differences in character generation will handled, and really start opening their mouths on what will happen on the site. [ Best to rip that scab off now, and address the wound and settle the matter ASAP, but I highly doubt it will happen, given the history of WotC and the fact they barely have a PR response team. ]
It’s backwards compatible in that you can use 2014 classes, races, magic items, monsters, etc alongside the 2024 ones in an adventure and it’s all going to be approximately on the same page, as opposed to trying to run a 3.5 monster stat block or magic item in a 5e campaign. Obviously you’ll need to pick one iteration of the core rules to use as the foundation of the campaign, but the changes to those rules are pretty minor so a class from the other version will still run fine most of the time as-is with maybe an occasional ruling for- say- using a class with weapon mastery when most of the table is using 2014 rules.