Quote from: Kahoona on September 12, 2024, 01:40:49 AMSo. Races, Classes, Spells, Equipment and backgrounds being different doesn't mean anything for a balance or gameplay point? Are you for real?

At least for 3e to 3.5 things where similar and the balance was mostly the same save for certain classes being objectively better then other classes. But with the differents between 5e and NuD&D the balance is tossed out the window. The only thing that's the same is the core mechanics (much like the core mechanics between 3e, 3.5 and pf), but due to the sweeping balance changes and new interactions, I wouldn't want to have a "mixxed" 5e and nud&d party as much as I wouldn't want a 3e and Pf party.

If wizards only changed some aspects of classes (rather then total re writes in most cases) and tweaked certain stats. I would call nud&d 5.5 and figure out which things are "better" so my players didn't fall for edition traps. But with what it is, I couldn't justify using 5e alongside nud&d.

As for modules, less combat focused 5e adventure's could easily be run for nud&d, but anything else would take alot of leg work for the GM to balance things out. It'd be likely more work then converting 3e modules to pf for balance.

Honestly? No it doesn't take ANY work. Have you even read the new PHB? I have (though I do not own it, a fellow tablemate picked it up and I was stuck out of action for most of the session so I did a deep dive while I waited). The idea that its a total re-write mechanically is absolute nonsense and you have been very misinformed if that's what you believe (it was re-organized to make things easier to find... ex. your spell list comes at the end of your class instead of in a separate chapter, but that's not a change to mechanics).

The changes to the Wizard class are that it gets fixed preparation slots at each level instead of Int mod + level slots (its basically the same number as if you'd started with a 16-17 Int and improved it at each opportunity until you hit 20) and it gets expertise in a lore-related skill and can swap out a prepared spell for a different one during a short rest at level 5 (the swapping cantrips feature was added to all wizards in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything in 2020).

The math on the checks, defenses and saves is largely indistinguishable. Damage might be a point higher per attack for some of the previously underperforming classes, but relative to the still present hit point bloat is a rounding error; at high levels it might make one round of difference in how long a combat lasts.

You could literally grab ANY 5e module from 2014-2023 and run it with no modifications at all for a party made using the 2024 books. You could use a 2014 character for a module made next year. You can mix and match races, classes and subclasses from the 2014 and 2024 and almost nothing will need adjusting except for, as previously noted, the reminder that you only get attribute bonuses from your race OR background, not both (they also have a sidebar expressly stating this and the classes include rules for using older subclasses if there would potentially be any issue; ex. if the 2014 class picked its subclass at level 1 or 2, it would have a note that those features are not unlocked until level 3 if you're using the 2024 class).

The related fact of the matter is that 5e's math is so loosey-goosey and lacking in a real spine that the point or so of extra damage the underperforming classes can now deal doesn't affect the balance meaningfully enough to matter as far as the modules or monsters are concerned. All the changes are far less than the noise that a 1d20 check and XdX damage produces. Most of them are barely more than clarifications (ex. that you can choose to fail a saving throw) of existing rules or tweaks far less extreme than most house rule fixes (have you SEEN some of the alternate monk classes on GMBinder?).

I'm NOT saying the 2024 PHB is good (if anything I'd say its wholly unnecessary if you already have the 2014 books), but there is plenty that is REAL to damn about it without needing to make up easily disprovable things about it that will just poison the well in getting people to listen to the legit complaints about it.

There are 60 total pieces of art that really come into play for this discussion, the 12 classes and the 48 subclasses. There is a noticeable lack of black men (0), and a high inclusion of black women (5), out of those 60 pictures. There are (0) male halflings, but (3) female. Most, but not all of the dwarves, elves, and halflings are demi-humans of color. Humanity is represented by (5) males and (9) females.

Here is a full breakdown, since most people are just repeating shit they heard on the internet. I'm putting them in bunches of 5 by class in order for ease of reading. It's obvious that the DEI consultants where heavily involved in this section. It's the opposite of the Redgar problem.

Female Goliath
Male Human (Nordic)
Female Halfling
Female Drow
Male White Dragonborn

Male Tiefling
Male Human (Persian?)
Female High Elf
Female Human (African American)
Female Red Dragonborn

Female Dwarf
Male Human (Mediterranean?)
Female High Elf
Female Halfling
Female Tiefling

Male Human (Celtic)
Female Forest Gnome
Male Goliath
Male Aasimar?
Female Human (Greek?)

Male Dwarf
Male Green Dragonborn
Female Human (West/Central Africa)
Male High Elf
Female Human? (Goliath?) (Haitian?)

White Dragonborn gender unknown
Male Drow
Male Rock Gnome
Female Orc
Female Human (Chinese)

Female Orc
Female Human (Zulu)
Male Tiefling
Male Wood Elf
Male Blue Dragonborn

Male Wood Elf
Female Aasimar
Male Orc
Female Dwarf
Female Human (East African)

Female Halfling
Male Rock Gnome
Male Green Dragonborn
Human Male - generic Caucasian
Human Female - generic Caucasian

Female Tiefling
Male Blue Dragonborn
Male Dwarf
Male Aasimar
Female Halfling

Male Rock Gnome
Female High Elf
Male Dwarf
Male Tiefling
Female Drow

Female Human (Upper Nile/Sudan)
Male Dwarf
Female Tiefling
Male High Elf
Female Rock Gnome

Quote from: M2A0 on September 12, 2024, 09:57:28 PMThere are 60 total pieces of art that really come into play for this discussion, the 12 classes and the 48 subclasses. There is a noticeable lack of black men (0), and a high inclusion of black women (5), out of those 60 pictures. There are (0) male halflings, but (3) female. Most, but not all of the dwarves, elves, and halflings are demi-humans of color. Humanity is represented by (5) males and (9) females.

Here is a full breakdown, since most people are just repeating shit they heard on the internet. I'm putting them in bunches of 5 by class in order for ease of reading. It's obvious that the DEI consultants where heavily involved in this section. It's the opposite of the Redgar problem.

Female Goliath
Male Human (Nordic)
Female Halfling
Female Drow
Male White Dragonborn

Male Tiefling
Male Human (Persian?)
Female High Elf
Female Human (African American)
Female Red Dragonborn

Female Dwarf
Male Human (Mediterranean?)
Female High Elf
Female Halfling
Female Tiefling

Male Human (Celtic)
Female Forest Gnome
Male Goliath
Male Aasimar?
Female Human (Greek?)

Male Dwarf
Male Green Dragonborn
Female Human (West/Central Africa)
Male High Elf
Female Human? (Goliath?) (Haitian?)

White Dragonborn gender unknown
Male Drow
Male Rock Gnome
Female Orc
Female Human (Chinese)

Female Orc
Female Human (Zulu)
Male Tiefling
Male Wood Elf
Male Blue Dragonborn

Male Wood Elf
Female Aasimar
Male Orc
Female Dwarf
Female Human (East African)

Female Halfling
Male Rock Gnome
Male Green Dragonborn
Human Male - generic Caucasian
Human Female - generic Caucasian

Female Tiefling
Male Blue Dragonborn
Male Dwarf
Male Aasimar
Female Halfling

Male Rock Gnome
Female High Elf
Male Dwarf
Male Tiefling
Female Drow

Female Human (Upper Nile/Sudan)
Male Dwarf
Female Tiefling
Male High Elf
Female Rock Gnome

Important question (because I've looked at the book, but don't have regular access and was more focused on mechanics at the time)... how many of the women are conventionally attractive vs. "land whales"?

I include more hot women than men in my own book art because a hot red-head in tight clothing is going to get a lot more attention than a white guy in armor and certainly than a tubby blue-haired nose-ringed land whale in a muumuu.

Basically more women than men only really indicates woke if they're largely ugly women... more hot women than men means they're still at least partially marketing to normal men.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 12, 2024, 11:24:46 PMImportant question (because I've looked at the book, but don't have regular access and was more focused on mechanics at the time)... how many of the women are conventionally attractive vs. "land whales"?

I include more hot women than men in my own book art because a hot red-head in tight clothing is going to get a lot more attention than a white guy in armor and certainly than a tubby blue-haired nose-ringed land whale in a muumuu.

Basically more women than men only really indicates woke if they're largely ugly women... more hot women than men means they're still at least partially marketing to normal men.

D&D doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists within the tapestry of western culture. We live in the era of race swaps, gender swaps, and rainbow representation. We live in the era of diversity officers and ESG.

The artwork exists to push The Narrative. The artwork exists to promote the idea that the majority of players are women. The artists and the managers who hired them were all educated at The University where they learned that art and entertainment brainwashed previous generations to be patriarchal and racist, and it's their job to indoctrinate future generations to be antiracist. We know this, because they have said so.

We know this, because Kyle Brink stated outright that white men like him can't leave the hobby fast enough. We know this because WotC hires sensitivity readers and diversity consultants. We know this because mainline feminist thought for decades has been that Barbie dolls were an evil plot by the Patriarchy to steer little girls away from STEM. We know this because when asked to draw the founding fathers of America, Google's AI produced pictures of black women. We know this because British television had to cast a black woman as Anne Boleyn. This is all out in the open.

We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, why the artwork in present-day D&D looks the way it does. The suspension of disbelief is gone.

The reason the art looks that way is because it's marxist propaganda like every other company backed by blackrock/vanguard and ESG shit to ruin society.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 12, 2024, 01:52:04 PM

Quote from: Kahoona on September 12, 2024, 01:40:49 AMSo. Races, Classes, Spells, Equipment and backgrounds being different doesn't mean anything for a balance or gameplay point? Are you for real?

At least for 3e to 3.5 things where similar and the balance was mostly the same save for certain classes being objectively better then other classes. But with the differents between 5e and NuD&D the balance is tossed out the window. The only thing that's the same is the core mechanics (much like the core mechanics between 3e, 3.5 and pf), but due to the sweeping balance changes and new interactions, I wouldn't want to have a "mixxed" 5e and nud&d party as much as I wouldn't want a 3e and Pf party.

If wizards only changed some aspects of classes (rather then total re writes in most cases) and tweaked certain stats. I would call nud&d 5.5 and figure out which things are "better" so my players didn't fall for edition traps. But with what it is, I couldn't justify using 5e alongside nud&d.

As for modules, less combat focused 5e adventure's could easily be run for nud&d, but anything else would take alot of leg work for the GM to balance things out. It'd be likely more work then converting 3e modules to pf for balance.

Honestly? No it doesn't take ANY work. Have you even read the new PHB? I have (though I do not own it, a fellow tablemate picked it up and I was stuck out of action for most of the session so I did a deep dive while I waited). The idea that its a total re-write mechanically is absolute nonsense and you have been very misinformed if that's what you believe (it was re-organized to make things easier to find... ex. your spell list comes at the end of your class instead of in a separate chapter, but that's not a change to mechanics).

The changes to the Wizard class are that it gets fixed preparation slots at each level instead of Int mod + level slots (its basically the same number as if you'd started with a 16-17 Int and improved it at each opportunity until you hit 20) and it gets expertise in a lore-related skill and can swap out a prepared spell for a different one during a short rest at level 5 (the swapping cantrips feature was added to all wizards in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything in 2020).

The math on the checks, defenses and saves is largely indistinguishable. Damage might be a point higher per attack for some of the previously underperforming classes, but relative to the still present hit point bloat is a rounding error; at high levels it might make one round of difference in how long a combat lasts.

You could literally grab ANY 5e module from 2014-2023 and run it with no modifications at all for a party made using the 2024 books. You could use a 2014 character for a module made next year. You can mix and match races, classes and subclasses from the 2014 and 2024 and almost nothing will need adjusting except for, as previously noted, the reminder that you only get attribute bonuses from your race OR background, not both (they also have a sidebar expressly stating this and the classes include rules for using older subclasses if there would potentially be any issue; ex. if the 2014 class picked its subclass at level 1 or 2, it would have a note that those features are not unlocked until level 3 if you're using the 2024 class).

The related fact of the matter is that 5e's math is so loosey-goosey and lacking in a real spine that the point or so of extra damage the underperforming classes can now deal doesn't affect the balance meaningfully enough to matter as far as the modules or monsters are concerned. All the changes are far less than the noise that a 1d20 check and XdX damage produces. Most of them are barely more than clarifications (ex. that you can choose to fail a saving throw) of existing rules or tweaks far less extreme than most house rule fixes (have you SEEN some of the alternate monk classes on GMBinder?).

I'm NOT saying the 2024 PHB is good (if anything I'd say its wholly unnecessary if you already have the 2014 books), but there is plenty that is REAL to damn about it without needing to make up easily disprovable things about it that will just poison the well in getting people to listen to the legit complaints about it.

I'm going to assume I miss communicated something rather then you missing my point.

One, I had the pleasure of reading the book at my FLGS and I have a friend who owns the book who holds many of the opinions I share.

Two. I never said it was a total rewrite, I said

QuoteIf wizards only changed some aspects of classes (rather then total re writes in most cases) and tweaked certain stats

Also, while some of the formating and layout improved, it's terrible in other areas. But yes, alot of formatting did change to make things easier on players.

Three. I'm truly curious how you can say that the classes are basically the same and that the math checka out. Various new or changed class features rework how classes operate. Some for good, some not so much. Most classes (even the Monk) have more power overall and as a result are terribly balanced. It's as stark as the difference between Pathfinder Classes and 3e D&D classes.

Four. How do you mix and match 5e Races with Nu-D&D when Nu-D&D has different rules for races? Aka, no stats and instead just abilities. Running a 5e Race + Nu-D&D Class and Background results in stronger characters then a full 5e or Nu-D&D. Like, this is kinda a big point.

Five, various 5e Modules are built around a "standard party" with "standard abilities" they started falling apart with Tasha's book being added and will not do well raw against Nu-D&D. The abilities the reworked classes get toss alot of balance out of the window, especially with spell changes and those interactions. I reckon low level Modules would still work fine with a little tweaking, but mid to high level moudles would be trounced by the stuff classes can do now. As an example, one of the cleric subclasses (or maybe the base class forget), lets you cast a spell without any prep. This includes rituals. That's some wild stuff.

Six, I agree. 5e is loose with it's math and mechanics and I agree that Nu-D&D uses the same engine ad 5e. But, like how I know you "could" play 3e characters with PF characters and 3e Modules with PF. I wouldn't want players choosing 3e classes and I would need to put in a decent amount of legwork to change the modules to reflect pathfinders changes. 5e and Nu-D&D are in the same boat, where "technically" backwards compatible, but in practice it isn't. Mixxed parties would suck to run and updating modules can take a decent chunk of time depending on how much you want to respect the module.

Quote from: Kahoona on September 13, 2024, 12:09:41 PMThree. I'm truly curious how you can say that the classes are basically the same and that the math checka out. Various new or changed class features rework how classes operate. Some for good, some not so much. Most classes (even the Monk) have more power overall and as a result are terribly balanced. It's as stark as the difference between Pathfinder Classes and 3e D&D classes.

Because the math was never tight enough to consider the classes all that balanced to begin with and the changes are REALLY trivial. A monk now uses a 1d6 for their unarmed strike instead of a 1d4... that's an average of 1 extra point of damage when a typical orc (CR 1/2) has 15 hp and an ogre (CR 2) has 59 hp. At 20th level its still just an average of 1 point of damage higher per hit. Compared to the noise generated by the d20 and the damage die in general (at level 10 you have about a 75% chance of rolling equal or less than the old damage die) its not enough to throw off math where a CR 9 monster might have 150-200 hit points. Not when combats last only 3-5 rounds and the overall average of 'half+0.5' only truly emerges with hundreds to thousands of rolls using the platonic ideal of the die (versus ones with all the imperfections of being cast en-mass for pennies each).

And for the record, while the 3.5e warlock was a bit thin compared to the PF classes, it functioned just fine going through a PF adventure path... because, while they're there, the differences aren't nearly as great as char-oppers fighting for every last fraction of a platonic white room build make it out to be.

Honestly? Using random rolls instead of point buy/arrays produces more difference in PC performance than any of the 2014-2024 changes do and the modules handle those variances just fine.

QuoteFour. How do you mix and match 5e Races with Nu-D&D when Nu-D&D has different rules for races? Aka, no stats and instead just abilities. Running a 5e Race + Nu-D&D Class and Background results in stronger characters then a full 5e or Nu-D&D. Like, this is kinda a big point.

Clearly you missed the sidebar on page 38 (I think... like you I don't actually own it, I got to read a friend's copy at a game last Friday) which explained that you can either use the old racial bonuses (and not take them from the background) or use the background bonuses (and not take the modifiers from the race). The sidebar is clear, you get one or the other, not both, and that actually is sufficient to completely resolve the issue.

Frankly, if your table has been using Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020) then this change isn't even new. Tasha's decoupled ability bonuses from race (albeit as an optional rule) allowing +2 to one and +1 to another -or- +1 to three... they just didn't tie it to background and made it just 'you can do this.'

QuoteFive, various 5e Modules are built around a "standard party" with "standard abilities" they started falling apart with Tasha's book being added and will not do well raw against Nu-D&D. The abilities the reworked classes get toss alot of balance out of the window, especially with spell changes and those interactions. I reckon low level Modules would still work fine with a little tweaking, but mid to high level moudles would be trounced by the stuff classes can do now. As an example, one of the cleric subclasses (or maybe the base class forget), lets you cast a spell without any prep. This includes rituals. That's some wild stuff.

The "standard party" presumes there's enough balance between the classes to even pretend there's a standard. A 2014 barbarian/cleric/ranger/wizard party and a 2014 bard/monk/rogue/warlock party have completely different performance profiles. The CR system is so utterly borked that a GM can't judge a cakewalk from a TPK with it and neither could the module writers.

Unless you're running precisely at those "standard" specs (hint - virtually no one actually does) the GM is going to have to tweak the module for their party if they want a personalized experience and the differences between a typical 2024 party and a typical 2014 one are not so great as to matter given where the target numbers and damage dealt sit. None are going to cause a greater variance than the result of rolling a 16-18 for your primary stat (so starting with an 18-20... free 1-2 ASI's for feats or other stats) over using a point-buy or array that caps pre-ability bonus numbers at 15 (so starting at a 16-17)... and that's if you just get ONE above average rolled score.

QuoteSix, I agree. 5e is loose with it's math and mechanics and I agree that Nu-D&D uses the same engine ad 5e. But, like how I know you "could" play 3e characters with PF characters and 3e Modules with PF. I wouldn't want players choosing 3e classes and I would need to put in a decent amount of legwork to change the modules to reflect pathfinders changes. 5e and Nu-D&D are in the same boat, where "technically" backwards compatible, but in practice it isn't. Mixxed parties would suck to run and updating modules can take a decent chunk of time depending on how much you want to respect the module.

And yet the non-math obsessed ran 3.5 material in PF interchangeably without any problems because all that "technically" stuff is white room theorycraft that pales next to the noise in the maybe 20 or so d20 checks over the course of each combat (i.e. if you roll 20 times you are not guaranteed to get a 20 as one of the results and you could have half-a-dozen 7's in a particular batch of rolls) when the target number for the die (after bonuses) floats around an 8-13.

Having a 20 for your primary stat instead of the expected 16-17 from point buy matters as much as your starting proficiency bonus does to an outcome (about a 10% difference compared to someone untrained). It also adds more damage than the bumping of a monk's damage die by a type ever can (guaranteed 2 points instead of an average of 1 point and at-most 2 points). The modules handle people who rolled their stats and got high ones just fine because there is almost no mechanical spine to it... the entirety of 5e is "feel" and "rulings not rules" and the writers guessing at what looks good. The 2024 iteration doesn't change that and still within the range of what a typical party could bring into a module.

Hell, entirety of the difference between a level 1 proficiency bonus and a level 20 one is 4 points (about +20%). The noise (standard deviation to be more specific) on a single roll of a d20 is +/-5.77 so advantage actually matters more than 19 levels of combat training on the outcome and almost matter more than proficiency in general except on the far edges (outside of things like ancient dragons and the tarrasque most AC's are 19 or less).

The numbers are all over the place, barely correspond to actual level, and outside of edge cases result in target numbers that even starting PCs can manage 30-60% of the time. If you think the new rules will ever actually matter more than a couple of borked dice rolls at a critical time will to the "math" in the modules then I believe you are mistaken.

5E is the "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" of RPGs... "The game where everything's made up and the points don't matter" to quote Drew Carey. 2024 is just more of the same.

Quote from: Kahoona on September 13, 2024, 12:09:41 PMFour. How do you mix and match 5e Races with Nu-D&D when Nu-D&D has different rules for races

There is a box of text in the book that tells you exactly how to handle this.

Also a note, my prior post where I easily rip apart 5e's practically nonexistent math and poor balance is why I so dislike the false "it's not backwards compatible" argument... because it shuts out the legitimate arguments you can make to dissuade people from the system.

Once the impression given is that "haters are liars" why would they listen to any further arguments (particularly when the legitimate complaints require looking past the surface details and first couple of levels a bit)?

My question is a bit different.  If the new version is so close to the current one mechanically that stuff is interchangeable between them without conversion, why do I even need the new version?

Quote from: yosemitemike on September 15, 2024, 09:21:51 AMMy question is a bit different.  If the new version is so close to the current one mechanically that stuff is interchangeable between them without conversion, why do I even need the new version?

Gaming products are always a luxury; while nothing new is ever "needed," that doesn't mean it can't improve your experience with the game. Much like upgrading to a new cell phone, you don't necessarily need the new & improve features. You can stick with the old, but if you go for the new, you might just find you enjoy what it offers while appreciating that it still clings closely enough with the familiar to not require too much adjustment.

Quote from: yosemitemike on September 15, 2024, 09:21:51 AMMy question is a bit different.  If the new version is so close to the current one mechanically that stuff is interchangeable between them without conversion, why do I even need the new version?

As my previous comments have stated; you don't.

The actual market for the 2024 releases are basically those who don't yet have any books or need a replacement for whatever reason and those with the same neophile mindset that sees people buy the latest iPhone every other year whether they really need it or not just because "it's the new thing."

This is also why, given the general economic malaise, I expect the new release will NOT be the gangbusters hit the 2014 version was. In very short order, if not available already, someone will consolidate all the changes from 2014 to 2024 into what amounts to an errata document and everyone who actually wants to use the changes and already has the 2014 books will then be able to do so without shelling out $150 for new books... and many will take advantage of that.

Others won't even make a decision on the 2024 rules until their current campaign has run its course and may end up with the sort of hybrids we saw in the early 3.5e era when large chunks of 3e material didn't yet have a 3.5e version.

My hunch is there will be an eventual shift to the 2024 material as various campaigns end and books get lost/wear out (I dunno how it is in your area, but around here people like having the physical books at the table) and the 2024 ones are easier to obtain than 2014 ones... but that likely will NOT actually happen at the rate Hasbro would prefer.

As an example, our table currently has 7 players (8 with GM) and only one (who is moderately autistic and thinks the picture of the Mexican orcs is hilarious because it's so incongruous) has actually bought the 2024 book (because the special edition cover really appealed to him). Everyone else won't be until there's call to and we only dinged level 2 in our new 2014-based campaign so sometime in early 2026 at the earliest... maybe (because I'll be pushing to run a completely different system for the next campaign).

3-4 potential sales in 2026 is NOT what Hasbro is hoping for in response to their new books.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 15, 2024, 10:44:17 AMYou can stick with the old, but if you go for the new, you might just find you enjoy what it offers while appreciating that it still clings closely enough with the familiar to not require too much adjustment.

From what a lot of people are saying, it sticks so close to the original that no conversion is needed which means that it is, functionally, the same thing.