Not sure I like the idea of Rogue going back to its old sub class progression and it was always a really big gap for new tricks. But if the base class gets loaded enough with cool tricks 4-8 it might be okay. I couldn't give it my full attention as i am working but it seemed to me they were implying that 2024 D&D is compatible with the adventures but not much else. Which is what i suspected so I may be having a confirmation bias issue.
For anyone who doesn't want to watch 12 minutes of someone speaking very slowly about the capitalization of the Poisoned condition, here's a recap of what I found noteworthy:
Next Unearthed Arcana will be a revision of Experts and Priests. Monk wasn't mentioned, so I guess that's not included.
They might go back on their decision to normalise subclass progression for all classes. It seems like something that's still being tested, so if it receives negative feedback they'll do it again. He says feedback on this matter was neither particularly positive nor negative, and they prefer not to make changes that make people go "meh".
When they speak about backward compatibility, they specifically mean the adventures that have been published so far. Not a word on compatibility with older feats/races/classes/subclasses.
They will capitalize more words so when you see the word Poisoned with a capital P you'll know it's a condition and not just an English word.
Personally, I'm rather disappointed the Monk is yet again not going to appear in the next UA. Other than that, I have no strong opinions about anything that was mentioned. Class progression diversity is something I rather like, but there are benefits to uniform progression too. Honestly, it's just not what really interests me in a revision of this scale of this game.
On the capitalization for a term thing it seems like a ineffective way to do it. It will blend in too much imo and there are reasons to capitalize words other than term usage. Bold would be a better choice.
On the capitalization for a term thing it seems like a ineffective way to do it. It will blend in too much imo and there are reasons to capitalize words other than term usage. Bold would be a better choice.
I wonder how they’ll highlight game terms in the German edition: all nouns are capitalised in German.
On the capitalization for a term thing it seems like a ineffective way to do it. It will blend in too much imo and there are reasons to capitalize words other than term usage. Bold would be a better choice.
The capitalization thing made me instantly think about how the rules forum is going to absolutely explode with people pointing to capital letters, or lack of capital letters, to prove their point.
On the capitalization for a term thing it seems like a ineffective way to do it. It will blend in too much imo and there are reasons to capitalize words other than term usage. Bold would be a better choice.
The more common standard for identifying a term of art is via italics. See for example the Wikipedia style guide.
On the capitalization for a term thing it seems like a ineffective way to do it. It will blend in too much imo and there are reasons to capitalize words other than term usage. Bold would be a better choice.
The more common standard for identifying a term of art is via italics. See for example the Wikipedia style guide.
That would work fine for me. If they are saying like all caps that would stand out as well. But having coded terms is something I think the game has been lacking. While the method does have issues it is a area I think 4e did well. There are areas it did confuse people but overall I think it creates a less confusing rule set. They just need to make sure when the coded term is also just a word they have a clear way to differentiate from just the word and the term.
On the capitalization for a term thing it seems like a ineffective way to do it. It will blend in too much imo and there are reasons to capitalize words other than term usage. Bold would be a better choice.
The more common standard for identifying a term of art is via italics. See for example the Wikipedia style guide.
That would work fine for me. If they are saying like all caps that would stand out as well. But having coded terms is something I think the game has been lacking. While the method does have issues it is a area I think 4e did well. There are areas it did confuse people but overall I think it creates a less confusing rule set. They just need to make sure when the coded term is also just a word they have a clear way to differentiate from just the word and the term.
Yeah, I think there’s a balance they’re going for. PF2 has a ton of status effect terms, and it gets really unwieldy. Over time, it can get easier to remember what’s what, but it can be the kind of thing that really turns off new players.
For anyone who doesn't want to watch 12 minutes of someone speaking very slowly about the capitalization of the Poisoned condition, here's a recap of what I found noteworthy:
Next Unearthed Arcana will be a revision of Experts and Priests. Monk wasn't mentioned, so I guess that's not included.
They might go back on their decision to normalise subclass progression for all classes. It seems like something that's still being tested, so if it receives negative feedback they'll do it again. He says feedback on this matter was neither particularly positive nor negative, and they prefer not to make changes that make people go "meh".
When they speak about backward compatibility, they specifically mean the adventures that have been published so far. Not a word on compatibility with older feats/races/classes/subclasses.
They will capitalize more words so when you see the word Poisoned with a capital P you'll know it's a condition and not just an English word.
Personally, I'm rather disappointed the Monk is yet again not going to appear in the next UA. Other than that, I have no strong opinions about anything that was mentioned. Class progression diversity is something I rather like, but there are benefits to uniform progression too. Honestly, it's just not what really interests me in a revision of this scale of this game.
I rather like standardizing the subclass levels. I think it works across many facets. And I hope they DO include the Monk in with the next document. I'm really curious about what they plan to do with that class
Also, thank you for the recap. I loathe having to watch long meandering fluff filled videos.
Yeah, I think there’s a balance they’re going for. PF2 has a ton of status effect terms, and it gets really unwieldy. Over time, it can get easier to remember what’s what, but it can be the kind of thing that really turns off new players.
It's a somewhat tricky problem. Technical vocabularies are a necessity for clear and concise rules, but they're also offputting to new players.
For anyone who doesn't want to watch 12 minutes of someone speaking very slowly about the capitalization of the Poisoned condition, here's a recap of what I found noteworthy:
Thank you very much for the summary, it is very useful and necessary to me since English is a bit difficult for me, even more so without reading it, and there are no subtitles in other languages so it takes me a while to find out what they say there, and I lose details.
I rather like standardizing the subclass levels. I think it works across many facets.
And I hope they DO include the Monk in with the next document. I'm really curious about what they plan to do with that class
I agree, I prefer that all subclasses be achieved at the same level (and not be level 1) for everyone.
They should put the monk (And I would also like the artificer, but I know that this last will never happen :( ) yes or yes in the next one because otherwise it will be behind with respect to the other classes for testing, even more so if it has big changes.
I don't understand that insistence that it's not a new edition, that it's just a new version.
It doesn't matter what they call it. Will it be compatible with Tasha and Xanathar? With adventures yes, no one doubts that. But people who say they're averse to change don't usually talk about adventures. They talk about books that expand the rules of 2014.
And another thing that I thought yesterday while watching the video is whether it is a good business strategy to insist so much that it is the same edition. I mean, that might lead someone to wonder: Why buy the new books if they're almost the same?
It doesn't matter what they call it. Will it be compatible with Tasha and Xanathar?
No, it definitely will not be.
And another thing that I thought yesterday while watching the video is whether it is a good business strategy
It is very obviously based on their business research. For all of the 2nd half of 5e's life cycle it has been evident that adventure modules are far less profitable than player options. To get more people to buy adventure modules they include some power-creep player options in each adventure book so there is a mechanical reason for players to buy adventure books that 90% of which they won't use. So the goal of this new edition is to resell player all the player options (highly profitable), while supporting more sales of existing adventure books which are far less profitable.
The main inhibitor to people adopting a new edition is a lack of adventures at the start of that edition. DMs are generally the limiting factor to the number of people playing D&D, for a DM to shift to a new edition they have to learn a new set of rules, and new balance system which means it is harder for them to make a HB world and there are no (or very limited) pre-written adventures for them to run. Hence slow adoption. By making it backwards compatible with adventures it make is easier for DMs to shift to the new system and thus help their players shift as well.
Though if this is really the strategy they want to take they need to do a much better job fixing game balance (i.e. not letting everyone and their grandmother have access to Shield and Healing Word) as the only reason I as a DM would shift to the new edition is if it makes is easier for me to DM, by having fewer OP / game-breaking characters brought to my table. Normally this aspect is taken care of via a new system : with a completely new system it means the old ways of optimization don't work any more so it takes a while for people to learn how to make the OP / game-breaking characters - long enough for the DMs to keep up.
So far the attempt to rein in spellcasting have been pretty modest, while accessibility to diverse spell options has significantly increased. Which is the main reason I'm not really interested in this new edition. Sure the Weapon Mastery system has some neat potential, but since almost everyone will play a fullcaster or half-caster because they are so powerful with the new feats I'm not sure it really matters.
I don't understand that insistence that it's not a new edition, that it's just a new version.
It doesn't matter what they call it. Will it be compatible with Tasha and Xanathar? With adventures yes, no one doubts that. But people who say they're averse to change don't usually talk about adventures. They talk about books that expand the rules of 2014.
It’s going to depend on how you define compatible. How much work are you willing to put in to adjust a xanathar’s subclass to fit the new class? It may be relatively easy (same number of subclass abilities but get them at different levels, for example, is an easy problem to solve), and some people will just roll with it, but for others, even a little adjustment will be too much. We won’t know how much we’ll actually have to do until the books are out. I’m not trying to say which one is right, just that I bet some people will say it’s just fine, while others don’t.
The real way it’s compatible, and the same edition, is the math. They’re not changing bounded accuracy, proficiency bonus, ability bonuses. So a level 1 character will still be +5 to hit (more or less), so they’ll know they can hit certain ACs, or pick locks of certain DCs, etc., at about the same rate in 2014 as in 2024. So the adventures will work fine, since they’re already calibrated to characters of that power level.
I don't understand that insistence that it's not a new edition, that it's just a new version.
It doesn't matter what they call it. Will it be compatible with Tasha and Xanathar? With adventures yes, no one doubts that. But people who say they're averse to change don't usually talk about adventures. They talk about books that expand the rules of 2014.
And another thing that I thought yesterday while watching the video is whether it is a good business strategy to insist so much that it is the same edition. I mean, that might lead someone to wonder: Why buy the new books if they're almost the same?
I surely will use them. Fully compatible?, maybe not, but playable with some care. I'll apply:
- Feats: those not revised will be 4th level if increase ability score, else 1st.
- Sub/classes: move the features to the new class levels.
- In the case of features applying damage multiple times, revise it, as usually should be applied only once per turn to fit the new method.
Nice video. Hopefully this addresses some of the gnashing of teeth I see online. I feel like they have been saying much of this since the announcement of 1DD though.
Hopefully they'll unnerf spiritual weapon to not requiring concentration or at the very least make a class feature in one of the orders to make it not require concentration.
I’m fully in favor of them using a standardized keyword system, I just think they should make them bold instead of capitalizing them. It’s done wonders for WH40k.
I’m also glad they’re reconsidering their move towards 100% standardized subclass levels. For some classes, notably clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks it just makes more sense that they get their subclass at 1st level, while 3rd makes more sense for the other classes. However I do think the subsequent subclass levels should be standardized at 6th, 10th, and 14th levels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcvhggoCNcE
Not sure I like the idea of Rogue going back to its old sub class progression and it was always a really big gap for new tricks. But if the base class gets loaded enough with cool tricks 4-8 it might be okay. I couldn't give it my full attention as i am working but it seemed to me they were implying that 2024 D&D is compatible with the adventures but not much else. Which is what i suspected so I may be having a confirmation bias issue.
For anyone who doesn't want to watch 12 minutes of someone speaking very slowly about the capitalization of the Poisoned condition, here's a recap of what I found noteworthy:
Personally, I'm rather disappointed the Monk is yet again not going to appear in the next UA. Other than that, I have no strong opinions about anything that was mentioned. Class progression diversity is something I rather like, but there are benefits to uniform progression too. Honestly, it's just not what really interests me in a revision of this scale of this game.
Varielky
On the capitalization for a term thing it seems like a ineffective way to do it. It will blend in too much imo and there are reasons to capitalize words other than term usage. Bold would be a better choice.
I wonder how they’ll highlight game terms in the German edition: all nouns are capitalised in German.
He says the monk will be coming very soon, so I believe it will come with the revised priest and experts.
The capitalization thing made me instantly think about how the rules forum is going to absolutely explode with people pointing to capital letters, or lack of capital letters, to prove their point.
The more common standard for identifying a term of art is via italics. See for example the Wikipedia style guide.
That would work fine for me. If they are saying like all caps that would stand out as well. But having coded terms is something I think the game has been lacking. While the method does have issues it is a area I think 4e did well. There are areas it did confuse people but overall I think it creates a less confusing rule set. They just need to make sure when the coded term is also just a word they have a clear way to differentiate from just the word and the term.
Yeah, I think there’s a balance they’re going for. PF2 has a ton of status effect terms, and it gets really unwieldy. Over time, it can get easier to remember what’s what, but it can be the kind of thing that really turns off new players.
I rather like standardizing the subclass levels. I think it works across many facets.
And I hope they DO include the Monk in with the next document. I'm really curious about what they plan to do with that class
Also, thank you for the recap. I loathe having to watch long meandering fluff filled videos.
It's a somewhat tricky problem. Technical vocabularies are a necessity for clear and concise rules, but they're also offputting to new players.
Thank you very much for the summary, it is very useful and necessary to me since English is a bit difficult for me, even more so without reading it, and there are no subtitles in other languages so it takes me a while to find out what they say there, and I lose details.
I agree, I prefer that all subclasses be achieved at the same level (and not be level 1) for everyone.
They should put the monk (And I would also like the artificer, but I know that this last will never happen :( ) yes or yes in the next one because otherwise it will be behind with respect to the other classes for testing, even more so if it has big changes.
I don't understand that insistence that it's not a new edition, that it's just a new version.
It doesn't matter what they call it. Will it be compatible with Tasha and Xanathar? With adventures yes, no one doubts that. But people who say they're averse to change don't usually talk about adventures. They talk about books that expand the rules of 2014.
And another thing that I thought yesterday while watching the video is whether it is a good business strategy to insist so much that it is the same edition. I mean, that might lead someone to wonder: Why buy the new books if they're almost the same?
No, it definitely will not be.
It is very obviously based on their business research. For all of the 2nd half of 5e's life cycle it has been evident that adventure modules are far less profitable than player options. To get more people to buy adventure modules they include some power-creep player options in each adventure book so there is a mechanical reason for players to buy adventure books that 90% of which they won't use. So the goal of this new edition is to resell player all the player options (highly profitable), while supporting more sales of existing adventure books which are far less profitable.
The main inhibitor to people adopting a new edition is a lack of adventures at the start of that edition. DMs are generally the limiting factor to the number of people playing D&D, for a DM to shift to a new edition they have to learn a new set of rules, and new balance system which means it is harder for them to make a HB world and there are no (or very limited) pre-written adventures for them to run. Hence slow adoption. By making it backwards compatible with adventures it make is easier for DMs to shift to the new system and thus help their players shift as well.
Though if this is really the strategy they want to take they need to do a much better job fixing game balance (i.e. not letting everyone and their grandmother have access to Shield and Healing Word) as the only reason I as a DM would shift to the new edition is if it makes is easier for me to DM, by having fewer OP / game-breaking characters brought to my table. Normally this aspect is taken care of via a new system : with a completely new system it means the old ways of optimization don't work any more so it takes a while for people to learn how to make the OP / game-breaking characters - long enough for the DMs to keep up.
So far the attempt to rein in spellcasting have been pretty modest, while accessibility to diverse spell options has significantly increased. Which is the main reason I'm not really interested in this new edition. Sure the Weapon Mastery system has some neat potential, but since almost everyone will play a fullcaster or half-caster because they are so powerful with the new feats I'm not sure it really matters.
It’s going to depend on how you define compatible. How much work are you willing to put in to adjust a xanathar’s subclass to fit the new class? It may be relatively easy (same number of subclass abilities but get them at different levels, for example, is an easy problem to solve), and some people will just roll with it, but for others, even a little adjustment will be too much. We won’t know how much we’ll actually have to do until the books are out. I’m not trying to say which one is right, just that I bet some people will say it’s just fine, while others don’t.
The real way it’s compatible, and the same edition, is the math. They’re not changing bounded accuracy, proficiency bonus, ability bonuses. So a level 1 character will still be +5 to hit (more or less), so they’ll know they can hit certain ACs, or pick locks of certain DCs, etc., at about the same rate in 2014 as in 2024. So the adventures will work fine, since they’re already calibrated to characters of that power level.
I surely will use them. Fully compatible?, maybe not, but playable with some care. I'll apply:
- Feats: those not revised will be 4th level if increase ability score, else 1st.
- Sub/classes: move the features to the new class levels.
- In the case of features applying damage multiple times, revise it, as usually should be applied only once per turn to fit the new method.
Nice video. Hopefully this addresses some of the gnashing of teeth I see online. I feel like they have been saying much of this since the announcement of 1DD though.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Hopefully they'll unnerf spiritual weapon to not requiring concentration or at the very least make a class feature in one of the orders to make it not require concentration.
I’m fully in favor of them using a standardized keyword system, I just think they should make them bold instead of capitalizing them. It’s done wonders for WH40k.
I’m also glad they’re reconsidering their move towards 100% standardized subclass levels. For some classes, notably clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks it just makes more sense that they get their subclass at 1st level, while 3rd makes more sense for the other classes. However I do think the subsequent subclass levels should be standardized at 6th, 10th, and 14th levels.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting